Topic: If Bitcoin is an experiment,... (Read 5353 times)

And you failed.

I was trying to demonstrate that it's very easy to focus on a subset of Bitcoin's results, whether intended or accidental, and then liken them to one's preferred ideology.

So how much hashing power you have, or access to what processing power, electricity cost, internet cost you have is equal for everyone? Btw a vital part of marxism is that people have NO CHOICE whether or not they want to be even part of the system..


So those who merely running the client do not help keeping their copy of the public ledger honest? Btw a vital part of fascism is that people have NO CHOICE whether or not they want to be even part of the system..



Please. Those anologies make no sense what so ever, unless your goal was to troll me..  

I bet a communist would say: "it's the perfect implementation of Marxism! A collectivist system under which everyone is treated equally. No exceptions!"

And a fascist would say: "it's the perfect Fascist monetary system! Only those who are truly worthy and capable of mining are allowed to do it. Primitives in faraway lands with no technological merit, cannot subvert the course of natural selection!"

That's right! Bitcoin is not a government therefor not a democracy. Bitcoin is actually an anarcho capitalist system in it's purest form. It's anarchy. Anarchy in practice does not mean anything goes. Anarchy in practice means spontaneous order and a society with some mandatory and consistent but voluntarily agreed to rules.

This idea that because people are working together and enforce certain voluntarily agreed to mandatory and consistent rules somehow this constitutes to the concept of a democracy is just plain wrong. FFS check your dictionaries.


Bitcoin is a system. It has mandatory and consistent rules (they apply to everyone without exception). But participation is voluntary. HUGE DIFFERENCE from a democracy. Democracy is a form of government participation in which is not voluntary. You have no choice but to follow their rules. Being forced to run from your home or fight against violence is not what constitutes to a voluntary choice.

 

This doesn't affect the analogy. Bitcoin shares the weaknesses of a democracy. But it's not an enormous concern because it is not a government, it's a totally different thing. It would be better if it didn't have these weaknesses, but there is no other proven way that could make such a system work.

Does this also reflect the claim about democracy; that it's the best one that works despite its weaknesses? Yes. Does it mean anything at all? No, analogies don't work that way. So don't worry.

No, no, of course not. The current minimum difficulty and the algorithm for it is really just a "guideline".


Clearly the world revolves around America so quickly that it created a wormhole and some of its people fell into a parallel dimension... While there, they found that America was discovered by "random dudes", not British subjects or missionaries. It was "Terra Nullius" with no sign of American Indian life. And the American Revolutionary War was this really epic cheer-leading routine.

It would seem many, many orders of magnitude more likely that Bitcoin should rival Paypal, than that Bitcoin could rival the Dollar.

Bitcoin displacing Paypal makes a good yardstick for whether Bitcoin succeeds or fails in the mainstream .

The world needs to change very little for Bitcoin to die. The world needs to change profoundly for Bitcoin to replace the dollar.

Well your options aren't just run or fight.  They are acceptance, changing the view of the voters, fighting, or running.


Your opinions on democracy being slavery are irrelevant to the point at hand.  Slavery or not you rant only reinforces the fact that Bitcoin is very much like a Democracy.

If the majority of voters (1 citizen = 1 vote) in a democracy disagree with you then your choices are limited to:
1) accept the will of the majority
2) change the opinion of the majority (voting)
3) fight (doesn't have to be violence, you can encourage revolution/change by nonviolent means)
4) run (move to somewhere outside the realm of control by the majority)

In Bitcoin (1 hash = 1 vote) if majority of hashing power disagrees with you then you choices are very similar:
1) accept the will of the majority
2) change the opinion of the majority (voting)
3) fight (destroy the network from within to make room for a new network, or force a change)
4) run (yes making a fork would be running, you risk losing anything and everything you have created & invested in this fork)

The same thing applies in a corporation (1 share = 1 vote).  Your choices are limited to:
1) accept the will of the majority
2) change the opinion of the majority (voting)
3) fight (damage the company valuation to encourage aquisition by another company)
4) run (sell your stake potentially at a loss)

Let me repeat myself before I stop replying to you:

The idea that a democracy owns the people on a piece of land abhors me. It's slavery and you're oblivious to it if you think I have a choice when my only options are to run or to fight.

Do I have to fight Bitcoin if I don't want to use it? No.
Do I have to run from Bitcoin if I don't want to use it? No.    -> freedom, not slavery.

That is a false correction.

IT IS A VOTE.  I can't enforce ANYTHING.  I can only vote toward one of many possible blockchains.  The block chain with the most votes (via hashing power) BECOMES the consensus.  A block only remains in the primary chain because it has been deemed the best block by a majority of the hashing power.  

Anytime two blocks are in conflict is can only be resolved via voting.

They aren't mutually exclusive.  Hashing is voting 1 hash = 1 vote.  Majority of hashing power chooses the consensus.  Not sure why that is hard for you to understand.



False.  Move to a non-democratic state.   Tada the votes of a Democracy would have no more consequences than the votes of miners have on non-Bitcoin users.

The thing you seem to be missing is your claim is:
Bitcoin consequences don't affect me because I can choose to live outside of Bitcoin (i.e. don't use Bitcoin).

How is that any different than:
Consequences of voting in the US doesn't affect me because I can choose to live outside the United States (i.e. move to Somalia).

Now you may say "I don't want to move to Somolia" to which I would say that is no different than someone not wanting to stop using Bitcoin.  Also in both instances the effect or lack of effect on you doesn't change the fact that voting is occurring.

Let me add one more thing. If you did this in a democracy others would have no choice but to be subjected to what you enforced. But with Bitcoin if people don't like the rules you support they can fork off and let you enforce what you will while they continue to use Bitcoin as they wished. Something not possible in a democracy without being under the threat of violence.

I guess there's no point. You just aren't capable of looking at things like they really are.

It's funny too cause first you tell me it's voting and then you call it "the majority enforcing the consensus".

BTW I never said there were no consequences to what rules they enforced I only said that the crucial difference between Bitcoin and a democracy is that those consequences aren't necessarily applicable to me. I can choose to not use Bitcoin and avoid those consequences, something that I cannot do in a democracy without the threat of violence.

Of course it is voting.

I can vote to support a double spender.  I can vote to support a 51% attack.  Now I likely never would but each miner (well each informed miner, pools = uninformed miners) is voting on which block is accurate representation of the current status of the network.   Conflicting views are resolved via hashing power with the majority enforcing the consensus on the minority.

There absolutely are consequences for those votes.

I bet they said the same thing about your precious democracy back when kings ruled the people. 

Typical slave ignorance. I cannot express how infuriating it is for me to read your post. I despise people that think like this.


Last I checked the dictionary that's not voting. They are running the show with everyone else running a client(mining or not), no question, but they don't vote. A vote carries necessary consequences for others, but what miners do with their hashing power does not necessarily have consequences on me. I can choose to not use it. I cannot choose not to live under a law passed by a government without being under threat of violence.

A more accurate description of what they're really doing with mining is enforcement of rules as a service not voting on rules.



And that's similar to Bitcoin how exactly? If I don't want to use Bitcoin I don't need to move or employ violence. I don't need to do anything, I'm left alone. The idea that a democracy owns the people on a piece of land abhors me. It's slavery and you're oblivious to it if you think I have a choice when my only options are to run or to fight.

The reality is, we will never not have a government. Your inability to comprehend that point is what should be embarrassing.

Everything.  If majority of hashing power agree that block reward is 50,000 BTC per block then it is. 
If the majority of hashing power implements a demurage on your wealth then it happens.
If the majority of the hashing power forces a 0.1 BTC min fee for valid tx then it is unavoidable.

So yes the votes by hashing power are very important.  Now for a Democracy to work the voters must be INFORMED and EDUCATED.  Most of the problems with modern Democracies can be boiled down to ignorance of the issues.  Life is "good enough" for most Americans in America.  Most voters don't feel the need to be informed, or question authority. Even bad legislation isn't bad enough to stir them to action.  Our govt has rigged it so most Americans don't pay income tax thus have no direct stake is how the govt wastes money.

The nice thing about voting by hashing power is the miners do HAVE a direct stake.  Their hashing power has a cost, the future economic value of that hashing power is a direct tangible benefit.  Most (maybe not all but most) miners tend to be relatively informed.  They are more likely to make decisions that enhance Bitcoin because it enhances their future economic value.


Um ever heard of moving, or convincing the majority to change their mind, or violent overthrow of the govt?

I can exchange my Bitcoins for a currency I feel is better aligned with my interests.
I can move from my existing country to one where I feel the govt is better aligned with my interests.

I can work to change the protocol rules and convince a majority of miners to support those changes.
I can work to change the laws of my govt and convince a majority of voters to support those changes.

I can attack the Bitcoin network and setup a competing network.
I can attack my govt in an attempt to overthrow it and setup a new govt.

As if that gives you the freedom to keep the fruits of your labor, as if that solves the problem of not being able to own property or a house or a car, as if that solves the problem of legal tender laws, as if that solves the problem of not being free to travel, as if that solves the problem of being forced under threat of violence to get a license for virtually any activity you'd like to offer to the market.

Please, just stop before you embarrass yourself even more with your lack of knowledge about how the reality really looks like.