Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally

#51

Post by ianmobbs » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 10:58 PM UTC

drexlspivey wrote: post #41

nknealk wrote: post #23

Bitcoin presumes (1) everyone owns a computer (or a smartphone/similar) and (2) everyone has network connectivity all the time. Without these two things, one cannot transact. There are huge swaths of the world where this isn't true. Short of making computing devices and internet connectivity human rights, these assumptions compound existing inequalities.

Performing an online transaction requires a credit card or a bank account which is a far stricter requirement than a smartphone which you can get for 20 bucks

There are also huge swathes of the world where nobody has credit cards or bank accounts. This isn't an argument for Bitcoin as much as it is for physical currency

Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally

#52

Post by shard » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 10:59 PM UTC

VikingCoder wrote: post #40

kyboren wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you secure it, back it up, and bequeath it to people on your passing? Keep the private key, mnemonic, seed phrase, etc. only in your brain and perhaps your will, potentially split into pieces that are kept in the physical control of independent trusted entities. > Don't those things cost time and actual money? Time: yes. Actual money: perhaps, but that is not fundamentally required. For example, oral traditi…

Grant Imahara just died of a brain aneurysm. You can't count on whispering a password on your deathbed. Do you think a carved rock is safe and secure? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Joplin_tornado

Not sure what your reference to the tornado was trying to point out. I could not find any references on the page to the tornado abrading away carved rock.

Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally

#53

Post by deadbunny » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 10:59 PM UTC

VikingCoder wrote: post #38

colecut wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is both secure and backed up by writing down your private key somewhere safe. It is passed on by passing on that private key. I don't see how that process could be made to be "less expensive"

If you choose to write it down on a sheet of paper, it's not safe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Joplin_tornado If you choose to write it down electronically, then you have to back up that system, and secure it. Neither of which is free.

If only you could store things in multiple locations.

Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally

#54

Post by wmf » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 11:00 PM UTC

colecut wrote: post #45

Dahoon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as it requires work by CPUs or GPUs it is for rich people.

Gold requires actual physical mining equipment and labor. You could make the argument that gold is also for rich people, but no one seems to have a problem with it.

Many people object to gold being used as money. Now that gold is mostly for jewelry and investment people can afford to not care about it.

Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally

#55

Post by shard » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 11:00 PM UTC

VikingCoder wrote: post #38

colecut wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is both secure and backed up by writing down your private key somewhere safe. It is passed on by passing on that private key. I don't see how that process could be made to be "less expensive"

If you choose to write it down on a sheet of paper, it's not safe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Joplin_tornado If you choose to write it down electronically, then you have to back up that system, and secure it. Neither of which is free.

For good data backup, one can follow the 3-2-1 rule: keep at least three (3) copies of your data, and store two (2) backup copies on different storage media, with one (1) of them located offsite.

Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally

#56

Post by Melting_Harps » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 11:00 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #43

Melting_Harps wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Private forms of money were created in order to help alleviate the extreme inelasticity of gold-backed currencies, which the US abandoned in 1971. So Bitcoin would have all the issues of the dollar from 1944 to 1971. Which is when it began it's World Reserve Status, and was the reason why Capital Markets functioned and helped rebuild the West, and Japan, as well as led to the highest increase in Social Mobility the…

> the whims from Human Corruption Aside: is there a term for this style of capitalisation? I see it in 19th century texts...does it have Latin roots?

Perhaps, I've always used it to Identity a certain trait or well known entity.

I often read philosophy texts from that era that did the same, never really understanding or knowing its convention but using it none-the-less.

For example, I would have capitalized 'century' in your response, as you did for Latin for the same reasons.

Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally

#57

Post by einpoklum » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 11:02 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #34

Of course Bitcoin is not a socialist's ally in the long run . It's fundamentally a way to get government out of money, which is exactly the opposite of socialism. Bitcoin is an anarcho- capitalist tool. The article rightly notes that the ability to print money is relevant here, but I think they could have expressed it in simpler terms. In short: printing money is always a redistribution of wealth. If you print a mill…

> Bitcoin is an anarcho-capitalist tool.

s/tool/ponzi scheme/... or in other words - I am entirely unconvinced that bitcoin has a positive short-term effect. Most of what happens with BitCoin is people buying it in exchange for fiat currency, a bunch of speculation, and mining (if that's not mostly over). I don't see it empowering workers' movements.

Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally

#58

Post by einpoklum » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 11:05 PM UTC

AcerbicZero wrote: post #12

Sooooo the issue with bitcoin+socialism would be the lack of easily centralized controls by which the party/state can manipulate the currency and that people are incapable of doing altruistic good, therefore the party/state must have those controls? Authoritarians are gross.

> The lack of easily centralized controls

No, BitCoin has basically _no_ control of the currency. The algorithm is what it is, and the initial "players" who have the most BitCoin are who they are.

Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally

#59

Post by kerkeslager » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 11:09 PM UTC

Melting_Harps wrote: post #24

kerkeslager wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lightning has nothing to do with holding and transporting Bitcoin. Holding Bitcoin is literally free. Transporting Bitcoin can also be free, depending on what you mean by transporting.

> Transporting Bitcoin can also be free, depending on what you mean by transporting. On-chain? No, that may have been true in the early days (pre 2013?) but a tx fee has to be included unless you want your money held in the mempool. You may get lucky if it has high days destroyed, but that's not really a risk you want to take unless you care about the funds and want to eventually have to resort to a CPFP tx. I did a…

> > Transporting Bitcoin can also be free, depending on what you mean by transporting.

> On-chain?

Nope.

> I'm not going to read his article

Which makes you willfully unqualified to hold an opinion on his article.

Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally

#60

Post by Melting_Harps » Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 11:10 PM UTC

einpoklum wrote: post #57

kerkeslager wrote: post #34

Of course Bitcoin is not a socialist's ally in the long run . It's fundamentally a way to get government out of money, which is exactly the opposite of socialism. Bitcoin is an anarcho- capitalist tool. The article rightly notes that the ability to print money is relevant here, but I think they could have expressed it in simpler terms. In short: printing money is always a redistribution of wealth. If you print a mill…

> Bitcoin is an anarcho-capitalist tool. s/tool/ponzi scheme/... or in other words - I am entirely unconvinced that bitcoin has a positive short-term effect. Most of what happens with BitCoin is people buying it in exchange for fiat currency, a bunch of speculation, and mining (if that's not mostly over). I don't see it empowering workers' movements.

Then your view(s) is solely fixed on those who benefit from this exclusionary Monetary System, go ask people who don't have access to bank accounts or are undocumented how horribly they are treated and marginalized then come back and see what is and isn't a ponzi scheme. See how many people are unfairly targeted by the State(s) with policies like Operation Chokepoint in the US, though similar laws exists in other places as well, while at the same those very same Governments bail out Banks and Corporations found guilty in money laundering for Drug Cartels or other illicit crimes and while telling the People they're not doing enough to keep up with the ever-increasing costs of living due to these policies and inflated asset bubbles.

Go look up what System D is, and see what worker movements it could help benefit, because just from that statement alone you show just horribly informed you are and how narrow and ignorant your view of the World really is.