Topic: George Selgin advocates Bitcoin AGAIN - page 2. (Read 6010 times)

Precisely.

P2SH tightened the rules of what would be accepted.  You are right that a majority can enforce this.  If a majority wanted to loosen the rules, the more restrictive ruleset could continue on as a separate fork since the new transactions would be rejected by those miners who decided not to upgrade.

I'm sorry to squash your delusions, but what I am telling you is HOW THE SYSTEM ALREADY WORKS. Remember P2SH? Remember how NOT implementing it caused blocks to be rejected? That is because a MAJORITY of the miners changed their code to make it happen, and those that didn't lost out.

Wrong. If majority starts enforcing a new rule, it's no longer bitcoin. It does not matter how few people use the original code, they can still use it in their own fork. There is no government, there's just a tool that has rules that you either use and follow or you don't, there are no buts.

+1. The "government" in this particular example is the set of rules and concepts that binds together the Bitcoin ecosystem. As you know, anyone that does not follow the rules gets kicked out, but if a majority of the network change a rule, that is what starts getting accepted.

what is referred to as a "frozen brick" fiat system - at least once the supply freezes in 2030.  George is a very passionate instructor and my friends and I feel we received excellent training at UGA. An honest money should either hold its purchasing power or (preferably) increase in value over time.

Do we need to get into definitions of "govern" as well.   

A few synonyms should suffice:
control, sway, influence, conduct, supervise, superintend.

Bitcoin is supervised by the common people.
Who are these "common people" allowed into that position?
Whoever wants to participate...
i.e. it is democratic. 

i asked you for an example of when miners have "abused" this supposed advantage?  don't have one?  then forget your argument.

in fact a great example of when they were forced to capitulate was when Deepbit eventually had to support Gavin's BIP 16 due to the majority opinion.

again, if miners abused their power, casual users would cease to use Bitcoin resulting in tanking of the entire system to the miners loss.

Miners have the ability to do so while casual users do not. Where in these facts do you see your eulogized democratic equality is my question..?

this whole definition is self referencing except for the part about social equality which i agree with.

what evidence to you have that miners have changed the rules to benefit themselves?  i don't see it.

and as long as Bitcoin doesn't get debased casual users won't be abused by others using Bitcoin such as miners.

Yeah? Bitcoin is/has a government? 

I'm trying really hard to restrain myself from using some nasty adjectives for your argument. 

Lets try a little etymology:
Democracy, from the Greek demokratia "popular government," from demos "common people," + kratos "rule, strength"

Bitcoin is very much democratic.    

Because what you describe is certainly not democratic. What Bitcoin actually is is: honest, free of coercion, voluntary, sovereign and regulated by market consumers, none of which is synonymous with democratic.

democratic [dem-uh-krat-ik]     Origin http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democratic
dem·o·crat·ic   [dem-uh-krat-ik]
adjective
1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.
2. pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment.
3. advocating or upholding democracy.
4. (initial capital letter) Politics.
a. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic party.
b. of, pertaining to, or belonging to the Democratic-Republican party.

dem·o·crat·ic  (dm-krtk) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/democratic
adj.
1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union.
2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms.
3. Believing in or practicing social equality: "a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords" (George du Maurier).
4. Democratic Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party.


And before you make a post saying Bitcoin is democratic because of socio-economic or political equality of all it's users I really hope you realize that actually is not the case. Bitcoin users much like people in general aren't equal, they aren't even equally bound by Bitcoin's rules since those mining hold the power to change their rule enforcement to favor one group over the other.

The only thing the people equally have is the freedom to start using Bitcoin, that's it and there's nothing democratic about that.

i'm using the term "democratic" in its purest sense in that Bitcoin does not allow any one group to steal from another thru the inflation tax.  how difficult is that to understand?

no one listens to you so why do you keep talking?

Non-sequitur.

Depends on what you mean by "change". If it's too crappy (e.g. hyperinflation or banking system collapses), it may stop being used irrespective of legislative changes. Does that count or not?

Actually, the "computer" fed is not an inelastic supply.
Actually, any change to government-sponsored money is going to require legislation.

Actually, in "Quasi commodity money", Selgin argues that inelastic supply can be achieved in different ways than legislating it. As a non-Bitcoin example he mentions printing money and then destroying the plates.

I think that "cypherdoc" is pretty dumb, but we already know that. Selgin on the other hand is actually educated and doesn't come off as a dipshit every time he speaks, so I'm pretty sure he is aware that the "computer" from Friedman's original idea is just a tongue-in-cheek metaphor for legislation with an algorithm to determine the money supply.

Damn straight. It's a false dichotomy of course, but if I had to choose I'd prefer the Arkansas inbred to be ruling over me than the political scientist.