Topic: Bitcoin Vs the Banks debate - your ideas please (Read 4756 times)

You should get a respected economist like L Randall Wray to speak about Modern Money Theory and bitcoin

I think theres great debate about the currency aspect of bitcoin.   Largely due to the 21M limitation.   Because of this design it behaves more like a commodity rather than a monetary instrument

And for the same reason bitcoin became popularized as a "digital gold" attracting a gold rush of specualtors.  Ironically I think its because of this quality that makes it not money

I think there need to be a form of balance kept so the individual has power and not the same old system taking over as usual.  Kind of like the bankers getting a crypto face lift and a full on psychological makeover at the same time?

Target corporation got hacked and millions of users' data got stolen, leading to stolen identities, and lots of credit card fraud. But people still shop at Target, both online and in person. And people still use their credit cards. So why would a few hiccups with bitcoin kill the coin? I'm certain bitcoin will make a comeback. It just needs a few pieces of positive news (like the IRS decided to allow bitcion transactions ... good news), to help bring the users out of their FUD mindset.

UPDATE: We now have speakers confirmed. In fact we have a waiting list now as too many people want to do it.

110 people already coming join US there's plenty of room and it's free: http://www.meetup.com/London-bitcoin-meetup/events/172326872/

Satoshi published the rules for Bitcoin in his whitepaper. Subsequent altcoin creators sometimes create their own set of rules. It's your choice which rules you feel are best.

It's nice that this is a philosophical debate ane there is nothing political about it

I don't intend for it to be a way, disagreeing and debating doesn't mean falling out. In fact one of the reasons I love wisdom (philosophy) so much is that you can learn from an adversary and still be friends afterwards.

That article was great by the way, thanks for sharing, I loved this quote:


This is what I meant by throwing technology at a problem without so much attention on the social aspects of it.

Should Bitcoin regulate the Banks?

I got this tweet the other day from @pierebel

@MrChrisEllis Bitcoin can regulate Government and Banks, we should really be spinning it around on them.  There's no need to regulate code

Thank-you for taking the time to deal with each point. I just want to focus on this one for now, I don't mean the law  literally, I am talking about human enforceable rules.

I take as my assumption that there are two kinds of laws in our world, human laws which can be broken and natural laws which cannot. There is also an assumption that human laws rely on enforcement in order to be effective. When you code you are baking rules in to an experience in such a way that it makes it very difficult to break without hacking the system itself.

Andreas and other commentators have said that the regulation of Bitcoin lies in the code itself. So on this basis is it not relevant to ask who decides on who makes those laws or rules if you prefer?

I look forward to hearing your suggestions.

I am not sure we need to start a war with the banksters just yet.

If your looking for subject matter I found this an interesting read earlier today from Techcrunch.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/22/enter-the-blockchain-how-bitcoin-can-turn-the-cloud-inside-out/

Just a snippet

I completely agree. One of the central criticisms of Bitcoin is that most of its price is mostly backed by a speculative sentiment, people are just waiting to get rich off of circumstance and relying on the effort of others (developers and entrepreneurs). So raising the topic this way may help us explore what really lies beneath the price because we can talk about the core values behind the protocol and the community and trust it takes to sustain it over time to gain trust.


This point is very well made, I am definitely putting that one in. Imagine if Lehman Bros had a blockchain.


Yes we can bring up issues like fees and cheque kiting and ask them to justify themselves.

Bitcoin is here to stay.

A "heavily loaded phrase" is by definition, a fallacious argument, not a political one. Your claim is that there is some implied meaning in the term that is associated with a political position. What is that specific position you are implying?

Using the term "the Banks" makes it political as it is a heavily loaded phrase.  Want to be philosophical (really, economics at best) about it, put it in suitable terms, as you have with emphasis on the technological difference.

There is nothing political about it. It is a philosophical debate between two competing financial theories. It's not about what anyone "likes." Technological advancements demand updated systems that don't hinder progress.

How about promoting it on its own terms.  Sell its advantages.  vs "the banks" makes it political and you are saying what doesn't do, which you don't like.  The audience may either not care, not agree or outright not like what you are saying. You're selling a negative story, sell the positives instead.

No, it's not. Exchanges do not equal Bitcoin.

Localbitcoins.com, for example, does just fine and the transactions take place manually, in person (or manually online).

MtGox had horrible business practices and imploded. Bitcoin is still here. So the above statement is clearly false.


Who suggested it would?


No.


No, law is the law, and no law means anything anyway unless followed and enforced.


What?


Yes.


Ask them.


Thank goodness we cleared that up. What are we talking about then?


What a waste of time and venue to explore questions I just addressed IMO quite satisfactorily in less than 2 minutes with a forum reply.

EDIT: sorry for not actually contributing alternative ideas. I'll try and think on it.

Hi Chris, I've DM'd you separately but thought I'd contribute here to get other people involved in the dialogue. I've got a few main points that I personally would like to see debated in an adversarial way, just to get the ball rolling:

1. Bitcoin as a force for good I think so much of the MSM on Bitcoin so far has been around the 'get rich quick' and potentially criminal uses for Bitcoin (eg all the headlines about Silk Road, etc) while there has been little discussion of the properly democratic benefits that can come when currencies are decentralised and handed to the people who use them. This week's interview with Elizabeth from BitPesa on The Keiser Report was a good example - until I listened to this, I had no idea of the sheer scale of charges that Western Union impose on some of the poorest people in the world, and which they will no longer have to bear once BitPesa is up and running. How can the banks possibly defend this?

2. Does it matter whether Bitcoin succeeds? This sounds like a contentious question but surely it is the protocol that is the interesting and revolutionary thing, not whether one particular coin succeeds. This should be a wider debate about cryptos in general, not just the obvious one.

3. Decentralisation The transparency of the blockchain makes it awesome. Creditors have an unprecedented degree of access to records of transactions, which is helping people get to the bottom of the Gox debacle quickly. Try making a crooked bank's books available after the event. What can the banks offer in comparison in terms of access to their information?

4. Are the banks running scared? If the banks - as they say repeatedly - are not bothered by virtual currencies, why are Goldman Sachs etc bothering to write lengthy reports? They are saying and doing two different things.

I think what you are trying to do at the O2 is amazing and I hope you can involve enough people to give this event the publicity it deserves.

Okay so if you were given £10k worth of prime space what would you do with it?

here's an idea:

stop all the bitcoin vs. x bullshit.