Topic: Is Bitcoin socialist dream come true ? - page 3. (Read 958 times)

Frankly your arguments are degrading into word salad, but I will try to reply to them. Yes, lets. I don't have to draw any conclusions. Miners are property. Property is Capital. It is a simple fact, or do you claim to have your own reality now too? This isn't complicated stuff.





Once again, how is consensus reached? The longest chain. Who determines the longest chain? Those who control the most hash power. Who has the most hash power? The ones with the most capital (miners). I am not ignoring anything.




It is Capitalist because it is a system that rewards mutual cooperation and creation of capital via a protocol of competition and mutual greed. This is how Capitalism works. I have item A, I want Item B, you want Item A, so we make a mutually beneficial EXCHANGE OF CAPITAL. In this case the risk is the investment in miners and electricity cost and the reward is the block rewards and transaction fees. The system expects selfishness and uses it in a productive way.




Yes, pretty standard stuff... under the rubric of Capitalism & a mutually beneficial protocol based upon it.




Once again, my premise was that Bitcoin uses mutual greed or selfishness to create rewards within the protocol. This is yet another example of why it is more profitable to cooperate than to fight the network, again demonstrating using mutual greed to drive this protocol.




Actually, they all do. That is why I linked them.




Yep, everyone knows Socialists are all about letting the market determine prices.




Consensus = proof of work = hash rate = miners = money = electricity = CAPITAL

There you go parroting again... really this is a bad look. Try to come up with your own thoughts instead of just repeating my own words back to me. I don't even know what the fuck that last sentence is even supposed to mean.




Yes, because those potential malicious actors are rewarded for their mutual greed rather than overthrowing the system, they are paid to support the protocol, once again supporting my premise.

miners = capital?

You drew that conclusion, not satoshi.

You never made an argument here until now. You simply stated refuted opinion.

Your evidences of 'capitalism' are pretty weak support by satoshi. Let's actually start going through them.


Initial distribution. Woo! Proof of work is also consensus my friend... but let's ignore that fact.


That's capitalist because honest people should stay honest? I don't really see the connection to capitalism.

Attacking the network and making your worth valueless seems silly if you're invested in the network. Pretty standard stuff.

Protections against the network and against a 51% attack, right right. Not really linked to capitalism, but just good nodes vs bad nodes.

Huh, out of all the links you linked, this statement is about the only thing that backs up your claim;


which is still rather ambiguous in terms of capitalism vs socialism.


Fun counter-example:
Drawing the same pop-culture reference to worker's vote being final.

Worker's working together rather than against each other due to malicious competition being outpaced.

Actually I didn't fork anything. I spent several years fixing security and network issues for the protocol. It sucked so much Dogecoin decided to jack the protocol and re-brand it. We were also one of the first, if not THE first to demonstrate proof of concept of a transaction fee only run network with a hard cap. What did you do again? Run a handful of miners? Cool story bro. BTW, do you ever stop and listen to yourself and realize how much you sound like a parrot?






"abstract the meanings" AKA redefine the words completely to fit within your confirmation bias.






You have demonstrated the ability to rephrase my statements and repeat them back to me as a result of your inability to form original thoughts. Oh I am like a "flat Earther" now am I? Interesting. Quite a lot of projecting you do. It almost like you need to compare me to these fringe groups because you can't think of anything else within my argument to criticize. It only seems ironic because it serves your little echo chamber bubble of confirmation bias, and it is less work than re-evaluating your own belief systems and doing a little reading. Also, last I checked this forum doesn't ban for butthurt resulting from being exposed to information you would prefer did not exist.

I am talking exactly about the technical layers of Bitcoin.

MINERS = CAPITAL
BLOCKCHAIN = CONSENSUS OF MINERS
MORE MINERS = MORE INFLUENCE IN CONSENSUS
MINERS DO THE WORK
MINERS PRODUCE CAPITAL
MINERS DETERMINE CONSENSUS
CAPITAL = CONSENSUS

Sounds a lot like Capitalism to me, but again feel free to redefine any words that upset you.



Re: Satoshi-
 
"6. Incentive

By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them. The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.

The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.

The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth." -Satoshi

"It's based on open market competition, and there will probably always be nodes willing to process transactions for free." -Satoshi


More substantiation:

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/3/

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/65/

As you see Bitcoin was carefully and purposely designed as a mechanism of using mutual greed to run the network and thus produce capital. You see Satoshi very clearly uses the analogy of gold and miners, to represent hash power and electricity costs. The consensus is designed around CAPITAL and the fact that RESOURCES are limited. He also even explicitly states a system of simply voting by IP would be totally exploitable, as would any other form of voting by pure head count.


I don't need to gaslight you, you gaslight yourself. I know you aren't used to people taking the time to form a rational logic based debate to counter your flimsy pop-culture arguments, but that doesn't make anyone who challenges your opinions a troll. I am simply not satisfied to sit on the sidelines and let your ideologies go unchallenged.

You forked and ran a shitcoin! Nice! Much professional. You must understand everything about PoW, PoC, PoS, and pretty much every other work type out there, right?

Proof of work seems a lot like socialism once you abstract the meanings. But nah, you just confuse proof-of-work with proof-of-stake.


So far you've demonstrated the inability to understand the implementation of bitcoin (which is a pretty straight forward pow implementation). You try to conflate the argument with tedious unrelated societal points rather than arguing at the abstracted technical layer. I think your primary purpose is to gaslight other individuals rather than contribute to this conversation. The fact that you haven't been banned is quite a sentiment to the libertarian nature of this forum.

As I've explained before, proof-of-work is not proof-of-stake. Proof-of-stake is pretty pro-capitalist in which the individuals holding the most capital makes the rules. Proof of work is pretty socialist in which the workers choose the rules.

If you're too dense to make the connection between "proof-of-work" and workers, then that's on you buddy.

I'm pretty sure arguing with you is akin to arguing with a flat earther, no amount of evidence or proof would change your opinion on the subject. I'm pretty sure I could sign a message as if I were Satoshi, and you'd still deny that as evidence.

Also, I like how you say "Satoshi goes over this in great detail" in which you don't even provide proof. Later, you go onto say "out of that is if you live in a delusional fantasy land where everything just is what you say it is because you believe it, facts be damned" which is pretty ironic in that instance

Wow. You were a miner. Impressive. Too bad you didn't learn anything that whole time. Oh what happened to your old account? I am sure you didn't lose it as a result of anything unsavory right? Sure making coins is easy, but managing them is not. Neither is taking a low cap coin and bringing its market cap up to 10 million dollars. Also the coin protocol I managed, Infinitecoin, was literally cloned and re-branded as Doge, later they added inflation. So just maybe I know a tad about how blockchain works, the protocols, and how mining works considering I was responsible for balancing the network. It was also the #3 most popular coin in China for a while BTW, but that's easy right?

However please do tell me more about how mining made you an expert in blockchain technology.



I never mentioned anything about flaws in the PoW system, I was pointing out the gaps in your understanding if you think capital is the only reason to use PoS over PoW. This also shows a fundamental ignorance of basic economic principals such as inflation.



Uh huh. So far you have demonstrated you don't really understand PoW or PoS systems, or even basic economics, but I have no merit. Ya. Ok.

BTW reading that excerpt over and over... not seeing even the slightest hint of Socialism in there. As I explained before the capital does the work in the blockchain (the miners), and the more capital you have the more votes you have. Bitcoin is a system of mutually beneficial greed, AKA Capitalism. Satoshi goes over this in great detail. The only way you get Socialism out of that is if you live in a delusional fantasy land where everything just is what you say it is because you believe it, facts be damned.

Spank me daddy

I've actually been around nearly as long as your account by the looks of it. A matter of weeks difference on registration dates.

I've never contributed to a shitcoin. A buddy did create a shitcoin before and I mined a few thousand of them for lawlz. It doesn't take much technical knowledge to compile the tens of dozens of shitcoin sources out there today.

I've minted several block myself historically

I remember at one point in time, I was 0.3% of the whole mining network.


Nope. There are multiple problems that remain unsolved. Even by me.


You have no technical merit and you don't back up your logic with reasoning or technical details. Your obvious misunderstandings of the implementation of bitcoin have become pretty apparent. Perhaps you should give the whitepaper one more read over before commenting further in the relationship to socialism.

It's rather short; https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Particularly this section:

Bitcoin is a socialist nightmare ..

Bitcoin is only good for rich or people with spare cash that are not afraid to loose it ..No good for governments to run monies off  NO CHANCE..

You shouldnt get personal. I wasnt writing about myself. I have no personal complaints against inequality. I was writing about equality and justice as general goals.

Good point.  The one who holds the most capital is still not free to make decisions for everyone without doing a 51% attack and even then, whatever percentage of the people who hold 49%, can still fork away.

Bitcoin is not Democratic. It is meritocratic. The one who does the most work has the most control. In this case the one who has the most capital does the most work. Individuals don't really get to vote on shit. Sure they can sell, but that is not the same as having a vote, it is a reaction not pro-action.

I'm not but if a community votes to spend the community's money a certain way that is counter to your views  then that is democracy.  You could leave the community if you felt so strongly against its decision and no one is suggesting any limit to the freedom you have with your personal money.


In cryptocurrency, an update may include lower fees and less block reward.  If a bunch of people don't like it, they are free to operate a fork.  If no one likes it except the person who came up with, then it is not adopted and the developer is left operating a 1-person network.  That is a democratic 51 percent community decision.

blah-blah-blah.

Here is the essence of your problem.

What makes YOU more capable of deciding how my money should be spent that ME?

Oh is that so? How long have you been around? What kind of coin development work have you participated in? PLEASE try me and let me spank you in public like the child you are.



Well clearly you have all the solutions and we should just do what you say right? I am certain there are absolutely no dynamics in the PoW system that you don't understand now are there?




I have been arguing logically, you just don't like the fact that I totally dismantled your premise, therefore your only option in the lack of any argument is to claim I am trolling and ignoring logic.

I wouldn't go this far in the least, and if the governments of countries wanted to kill cryptocurrencies, it wouldn't take them that much. And if you don't want to believe me, you'll probably believe the internet -- https://www.crypto51.app/

It isn't much money to a rich person, and a government OBVIOUSLY could 51 percent attack bitcoin with the right equipment stockpiled and ready to move on us.

Bitcoin has made a lot of capitalists a lot of money though, as it has opened up many new investment facilitation companies (exchange) companies such as Bitfinex, Coinbase, Kraken, Gemini, etc. Other companies in the mixing space, bitcoin ATM'S , etc.

People are making a lot of money here, and the banks aren't being hurt due to it -- we'rein a bit of an independent bubble which keeps the capitalist happy and the bankers happy.

Re: Is Bitcoin a capitalist dream come true? A libertarian dream come true? Yes.

The bitcoin network operates on a consensus.  In order for someone to make executive decisions, they need 51% of the mining power behind them.  That is a democratically controlled mean of production thus socialist by default.

Indeed, I am not a technical specialist, but I understand what you described to me now, regarding the technical part of Bitcoin. However, I also have some ideas about how the economy and social systems, sociotechnical systems work. So I will tell you that I have no surprise about how Bitcoin is developing, because as I wrote earlier, I am convinced that BC was thought right the way he is now. I do not believe in Nibiru, a conspiracy of reptiloids, but I believe in Occam’s razor and logic. Bitcoin does not have barriers against uneven income, so it was conceived as such or this question was not raised


You are right that blockchain technologies can be used in socialistic projects, but please do not be offended, your ideas about Bitcoin as it is are utopian, since the economic model of Bitcoin does not comply with the principles of socialism and is purely capitalist. Proof of work in such a system does not make Bitcoin socialist. When I talk about the influence of major players on Bitcoin, I mean not only workers, because I view Bitcoin as an open system that interacts with the external environment. And this is right because in the world there are other types of currencies and uneven distribution of capital. Please abstract from non-conflict administration models in social and related systems. They do not work or work poorly.


Thank you sir, I was already scared to have to start over again.
So bad that propaganda makes people believe that fair pay for work is the merit and attribute of socialism exclusively but not the result of people free will.

I don't think you really understand bitcoin.

If it were just about capital, it'd be switched to proof-of-stake instead of proof-of-work.

Rather than being trolling in your comments, why not argue logically? I was playing as a victim, I was explaining what BTC actually is.

If you have arguments with proof-of-work or proof-of-capacity or have problems following the abstraction logic, be clear in the articulation of that instead of just posting trollish responses.

lol bitcoin is the absolute opposite of "socialism" it is a competition of installed computation power, i wonder why people still think bitcoin is valuable

It is also pretty clear in the Curious George literature that the man in the yellow hat is nice to Curious George. Tell me please what this has to do with real monkeys?

P.S. Nice job showing everyone you have no clue what "no true Scotsman fallacy" is. Maybe look it up instead of just pretending like you usually do, k?

Also comparing Communism to a surgeon.... bwAHAHAHA! More like a bookie with a sledge hammer to the knees than a surgeon.



What does the work? Oh right the capital.



I love how you just operate from the assumed premise that Bitcoin is Socialist then just arrange your arguments from that point, and of course the evil Capitalists are overwhelming the poor Socialist victims. I forgot what that's called... something about confirmation bias is it?

What you are describing is the fact that owning capital (miners) means you have more control, and make more profit, and yes, do more work. There is nothing Socialist about this, in fact I am fairly certain you know very little about Communism/Marxism/Socialism and its origins, because Marx himself heavily promoted central banking.