Topic: The 10 principles in Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 5062 times)

Covered under practicality and integrity.

I was thinking predictability as a principle for Bitcoins fixed supply. I somewhat agree that scarcity may be a poor choice of words since Bitcoins aren't really scarce per see, especially not right now.

What about:

(Trans)portability: You can easily transport it around the world without having to worry about capital controls.

This is one of the reasons I'm accumulating BTC instead of gold.

The problem with autarchy is that is can be confused with autarky. In fact, I do not pronounce them differently. It may also be confused with autocracy.

If people use the word agora for market (αγoρά), you could perhaps invent a word for "rule of the market": agorarchy? That would then be equivalent to anarcho-capitalism.

Finite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite

Good list of key Bitcoin properties.

If you don't like 'scarcity' (which is technically true but gives the impression you'll never actually see a bitcoin) how about fixed supply.   For simplicity you can skip that it it the total amount over time that is fixed.

It is both an economics term but also is meaningful to the lay person.

Capitalism.

I do not entirely agree on this point though I understand your description.

Capitalism - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

I do not see Bitcoin as an ecnomic system. Bitcoin is more accurately, capital itself. Also when considering mining pools where many individuals cooperatively produce wealth it goes against the definition. Bitcoins could just as easily be used by a communist country that forces people to pay Bitcoin in order to stay out of jail.

You could change it to just say "property: that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner".

Bitcoin could just as easily become public property as it is private property.

all this means is that we have different definitions for democracy.  if you had asked most Americans prior to 2008 what type of system we lived in, i'm confident most would've said a democracy.  since then, however, most will probably say socialism or republic.  that's b/c most Americans most likely think of democracy the way i described above.  as fair to the individual.  what we have now, not so much.

i also think Bitcoin is fair which is different from having integrity.  i know lots of ppl who have integrity but i would never do business with them b/c i think they would be unfair due to their particular outlook.

Yeah, I never liked the word "anarchy" which loosely means "without ruler". I much prefer the term "autarchy" which means "self rule".

For your list above I think "capitalism" works perfectly. I define "capitalism" as "the private ownership of capital" - not to be confused with "crony-capitalism" or "Fascism" which, to me, consist of the marriage between big business and government who collude to eliminate free market competition (competitors).

Indeed, anonymity is not implied in the use of bitcoin.  Many steps, way to do are needed to ensure a real anonymous use of bitcoin.  This "very relative anonymity" is much more a case than the "very unprobable, not proven yet" reversibility or double sepnd possibility..

And yes, this is a very nice list, that should come to something very usefull and true !  thanks to the OP !

People have trouble understanding very small probabilities. When you say "virtual" or "mathematically probable," people think about it in terms of a 1% chance, or the chance of winning the lottery. With Bitcoin, though, the chance is so small that it can be assumed to be zero. The word "certain" can apply.

IMO, its accurate unless prove otherwise !  I insist, in my readings, the world "virtual" include a lot of doubt, uncertanties and seems ladle !

Indeed, I would remove the word "virtual", because it still true unless proven otherwise..  The word "virtual" has a meaning like "not real", "not tangible", and by me reading, seems to induce "not really" !

+1

• Scam Thy Neighbor
  
• Troll bitcointalk.org
  

There would need to be a hell and it would need to freeze over before I'd do that. And Bitcoin is not fair. What it is however is built on integrity, which I included.

An excellent point. I see a lot of sites advertise BitCoin as "anonymous" either without notation or with notation that doesn't do justice to the truth. Very misleading, if you ask me. The community should make a bigger effort to clear up that misconception.

Funnily enough I was putting something together today and wondering about the word 'scarcity' in relation to Bitcoin.  I went with it in the end I think because scarcity is relative.  Thinking in terms of the number of Satoshis scarcity may be among the last word to come to mind yet fewer than 21 million maximum globally helps me feel it is justified.  Also, if you think most people reading such a list would be thinking in terms of comparing with other currencies scarcity works because there's no other currency people are prepared so pay so much (of any other currency) for for a single unit.

But nobody is obliged to follow any new standards.  Its heritage and the respect the devs have earned means it's not to most outrageous when they change something the new standard is largely followed.  Which also means it's not unreasonable for BF (officially not 'the' BF) to consider and talk of themselves accordingly.  However I agree with hazek when he says 'They are but a voice, just like everyone else.'  It is fact that they have zero power over the future of Bitcoin and in my book that means no authority too in terms of 'benevolent dictatorship'; they only have earned authority that remains as long as the vast majority of us continue to consent to it.

Also, I think 'no central authority' is very fair if we think of the power BF has over Bitcoin and its users compared with the issuing banks of entity-controlled currencies, whether fiat or private.  The fact of Bitcoin's rules being built into every client dictating how Bitcoins behave requiring the vast majority of its users to agree to any changes leads me to the conclusion that ' no central authority' is in no way an exaggeration.

The only one I'm slightly uncomfortable with is the 'anonymity' line.  I tend to prefer to say Bitcoin can be used anonymously (although I acknowledge this is not the format of the OP) - and to add a caveat it's a topic that needs to be studied for those for whom this matters.  I fear many more Bitcoin users than realise are leaving themselves exposed from having read about the anonymity in the headlines and jumped in without having done their homework first.

But nice list hazek, thanks

Ugh.  Linus is benevolent dictator for life of the project that bears his name.  However, if anyone doesn't like his decisions, they can fork.

In bitcoin, the situation is totally opposite.  If anyone wanted to make a big change, they would be the fork, and they'd have to convince all of us to switch.  Bitcoin is decentralized in the sense that no one has the capacity to make big decisions for the network.

i think you need to add a #10, and i know you're gonna love this one.  we've disagreed about it before but i still think Bitcoin is:

10.  democratic-as in fair to all who care to participate on an individual basis.  even if you disagree with the term, there is nothing in the other 9 principles that indicate fairness, which i think is a fundamental reason why ppl are willing to participate.

Yes? Well at least the kernel. It was actually my point. Linus does decide the direction of Linux.

http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/benevolentdictatorgovernancemodel