Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 639. (Read 2032266 times)

Like you pointed out, there's a fundamental difference between the transfer of a bitcoin, and the transfer of a token that represents a claim on some external-to-the-blockchain property.  In the later case (asset-backed tokens), all that is transferred is ownership (and ownership is really a social construct, valuable only to the extent that one's society is willing to enforce property rights [as control of the property in question remains a physical problem]).  In the former case (bitcoin), what's transferred is control itself.

Well I disagree, and I think this is just part of the process of recognizing that you can't separate the protocol from the ledger. Otherwise, you could simply argue that we already have a ledger (fiat) and we should import that into the protocol. Which of course is exactly what the "bitcoin the protocol not the currency" folks are saying.

You need a new currency because the currency and the protocol are inexorably linked. Change the protocol and the currency also must change. For example, one might imagine (non-bitcoin) protocols that can't work with a fixed money supply because it doesn't charge transaction fees at all.

You can't logically argue that "there is only one ledger" and still accept bitcoin because bitcoin is already creating a new ledger (as it must).

Change the protocol and the currency also must change.

Yes you could. Not to say the currency can run without a blockchain. Of course it can't.

But you did not address the essence of ZB's argument which is that monoculture in currency is absolutely desirable. We don't want multiple ledgers of ownership where different, conflicting stakes are attributed to the same persons.

This ledger cannot "economically" fail, only the protocol updating it. If that happens, we could still "transfer" a picture of the ledger (who owns what) to a new protocol that will update it. So yes, if the blockchain fail, we could, theoretically, seperate the currency (ledger) and "attach" it to a new chain.

We're back to this silly idea of separating the currency from from the blockchain. You can't, they are one in the same.

This "ledger" rhetoric is a paraphrase of the false idea they are separable.

The system is the blockchain is the currency is the protocol is the ledger.

This makes it clear that we must be careful to distinguish between the ledger (a conceptual spreadsheet keeping track of who owns what percentage of the economic community known as "the Bitcoin ecosystem" and later perhaps just "the global economy") and the protocol for updating that ledger.

Yes, they will fight tooth and nail. The question is what are their viable strategies?

Passing a law saying "you may not accept bitcoin as payment, under penalty of 10 year prison sentence", would pretty much destroy bitcoin in that country. There's no ecosystem when no law-abiding person can use it at all.

However that's not the end of the story, other countries' bitcoin economy would continue to flourish at the expense of the iron-fist country. It's possible that pressure might open things back up.  I think the equilibrium is where some fraction of the people use bitcoin, and the rest won't be bothered due to regulations and simple lack of demand. The drug war is similar - drug policy doesn't really stop anyone from smoking a joint, but you have to want it a little more, compared to it being freely available on every corner. The government just selectively enforces the law for their benefit (disproportionately on minorities). Same will happen with bitcoin.  They'll just create a multi-billion-dollar governmental department just for enforcing "bitcoin crime".

I think the "hyperbitcoinization" scenario is sheer fantasy. The vast majority of the population do as they are told, if the tv says bitcoin is for terrorists, they will not be interested.  Only when those people die off and are replaced by bitcoin-savvy youth, might there be a chance for a takeover.

Harder to do that now with 99% of Americans on Social Media

Could not disagree with this more.

Gold bugs have spent 100 years knowing  they are "right" and waiting for everyone else to education themselves understand history and see the light. Never happened.

In the meantime the state resorted to banning private possession of gold for almost 2 generations in order to break the public's view of gold as money. The state will fight Bitcoin just as hard.

Could not disagree with this more.

Gold bugs have spent 100 years knowing  they are "right" and waiting for everyone else to education themselves understand history and see the light. Never happened.

In the meantime the state resorted to banning private possession of gold for almost 2 generations in order to break the public's view of gold as money. The state will fight Bitcoin just as hard.

I think this significantly underestimates the threat of alt coins and why Bitcoin is not a given (I'm saying this as someone who believes/hopes in the project)

For example what if the US government created a USDollarCoin that:
1) has all of the benefits of programmable money, you can have your own wallet and spend it through computing devices
2) has the _perceived_ benefits of centralized control including the ability to "recover" lost coins and "reverse fraudulent" transactions (possibility a majority of people prefer this based on Bitcoin's detractors' views). This could be accomplished with forced use of multisig where the FED has co-control.
3) has significantly easier tax implications to deal with (meaning no tax implications) compared to bitcoin where EVERY transaction is a taxable event
4) launches with mass adoption through automatic bank account conversion
5) was legislated as the only legal currency

Maybe that doesn't scare you, but it scares me.

The first wave of alts were simple clones, it was almost a given that network effects would hold them back here. However the next wave of alts are going to
a) come with real innovations and then
b) come with government sanctioned force

Network effects & Bitcoin's programmable nature will probably keep a) at bay, however network effect might actually work against Bitcoin if b) ever came to pass.

I'm not saying this will happend, and it may seem far fetched today, but it is in the realm of possibilities. The US government lives off of the inflation tax and if Bitcoin ever becomes a real threat, the state will definitely try more and more attempts to maintain control of the money supply. It's possible the proposal above would be a last ditch attempt to save itself.

I don't understand the fear of alts. I'm into Bitcoin because it's better money, in our history it's the best yet.
Competition is what will make it better. Alts can out innovate Bitcoin on every metric except one, the Network Effect, and this is what makes it useful as a SoV.