Topic: Scaling bitcoin to world economy is unrealistic. - page 4. (Read 10147 times)

You got me. I award you one internet point.


Now respond to that post or I will remove your internet point.

By that reasoning, buggy-whip factories should have gone out of business as soon as word of the internal combustion engine got out.

Business is conducted on what is, not what might be.

Yes, and with current progress of technology, how long do you think that will last?
One of the new cool things being done lately is taking high resolution real-time cat scans where you can see every neuron in your brain as it processes information.
There are also big steps being taken towards our complete uderstanding of how information is transfered  processed in the brain (which, for instance, alows for eye protheses and such) so if i'm honest it's just a matter of time before we have tools to read peoples minds.

edit: Two people can trade bitcoin all they want, but if no bitcoin is transfered through the chain (which requires lots of physical stuff) then the are effectively trading IOU's, not bitcoin.

I'm sorry, but reason and a calm answer are out of place on this thread.

There is no monetary deflation in Bitcoin - except of course if you lose your coins. But how can losing bitcoins be theft?

I'm sorry, but this only discusses the scalability of the technical process that makes up bitcoin.
It does not, however, discuss the scalability of bitcoin as a currency used in a social system like i set out to discuss in this thread.
It is completely off-topic.

I think Bitcoin is intended to replace currency online, but not offline currency.

Humans lived as hunter-gathers until less than 5,000 years ago.  There was no wars or power struggles other than those that exist in extended family life.  Just because you don't like the word "socialism" and you don't know what Anarcho-Socialism really means you can't argue with the basic human condition for most of its existence.

Edit:  Anyway this is off-topic and I did say "a form of Anarcho-Socialism".

Aah, ok, thanks for the heads-up.
 

Most of the "new value" you mention is actually "old value" to a "new currency". And you are right, no one can be robbed through monetary inflation (then again, this is totally untrue, $30 to $2 anyone???)--they will be robbed via monetary deflation.

If you mean that it's hard to pick someones brain i agree.
It is just hard.
But a memorized password it is still a physical expression of some information and can theoretically be picked.
Scientists can already, for instance, see the actual processed output of the visual cortex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLb9EIiSyG8).
Why do you think the information in a password cannot be extracted from your brain in the future?
As far as i understand it it won't be long before we can do such things.

Why on Earth would we want that?

I'm not denying it, i'm just saying that people were always in a social hierarchy and especially in the hunter-gatherer situation that hierarchy of power dictated anything of value.
There was no anarchy and struggles for power were common.
There is no freedom if you're the bitch of the group.
You see the past as way to rosy. Reality in that time was harsh and lawless.
It was completely driven by physical dominance.
Humans dominating nature.
Stronger humans dominating weaker ones.
No fucking socialism.
Social anarchism is an artefact of modern society. No part of it goes further than a few hundred years.
Hunter gatherers lived hundreds of thousands of year ago.
They had no concept of socio-economics.
Strongest takes all and a group is stronger than an individual.
That was the system.

You are right insofar that humans only became aware of this situation when they settled and started to accumulate possesion.

At first yes you are right, those of us right now holding a good chunk of coins would become quite a bit wealthier as new value is transferred into bitcoins but in the long run it would lessen this imbalance because there is no vehicle by which we can maintain this wealth other than saving or producing something of value. When we start spending and buying goods and services which are our real ends and not money.. Then our wallets will slowly start to shrink while other people, mainly those who produce something of value, will add to their wallets and since no one can be robbed through monetary inflation everyone would benefit.

It's a paradigm shift. There's going to be a huge transfer of value from those who hold a bad money to those who hold a good but that's a good thing because a good money encourages the best behaviors one can hope if ones goal is to live in a prosperous and free society.

No, i said that technically fiat also has technical stuff that make it function as currency.
So if current government screws fiat up i see no reason they could not screw up bitcoin. Just requies a different technique.
You spoke primarily about the (computer)technical qualities of bitcoin.
What i'm trying to say is that fiat does not suck because of its own technical flaws, it suck because some people have ammassed enourmous power within that system.
Nothing (technical or otherwise) about bitcoin will prevent people with masses of it from controling your world.
With bitcoin you can.
Last year my bitcoin was worth $2, now it is worth almost 12.
The value of my stored bitcoin increased 6-fold within one year.
It's almost as good as a ponzi...
If pensions are not inflation corrected then that means a stupid government, not stupid fiat.
You should primarily think about replacing the government instead of the currency system.
Look at me pointing to stupid governments and saying: "Well, thurs yer problem."
And your point 2 was, and i quote: "2. The elite cannot print bitcoin and so hoard less."
So you're right on the "The elite cannot print bitcoin" part but what makes this point having no sense is that you imply that it will lead to less hoarding.
And i still think that my point about that is still valid.
But when the incentive is to not spend too much, who is going to take the risk of creating work for poor old father to build up his pension?
Who will be willing to spend their coins to loan coins so that he can start his risky wood-cutting imperium when all they have to do is sit there and see their value grow?

Bitcoin is already not for 'the people' as there difference between many and few bitcoins will expand exponentially as value increases and coins will mostly move toward 'the strongest hands' (also known as 'not the people')

Add me to your list. That's good company.

The fact is, bitconomics makes far more sense than whatever is being peddled by Krugman and his ilk.

I am only going by what you said:


Just because you rationalize it doesn't mean you didn't say it.


Right, "facts" being "what I and people who agree with me post on a message board backed by nothing but our own opinions".

For the next several hundred years, the new generations will complain about how cheaply their parents got *their* bitcoins.

I have about 6.5K DKK in BTC (became worth 12K DKK), 14K DKK in a wind turbine and 5K DKK in a Singaporean fish farm.

You are lying about the heaviness of my investment. Further it would be in my self-interest to talk Bitcoin DOWN so that I could buy more cheaply.

Even if I stood to gain massively the facts and numbers don't lie; even the last adopter stands to gain here.

Say WHAT?! The Feds still can't read minds. Two people that trust each other can still trade bitcoins by word of mouth.