Not mentioned here, but bitcoin is also a much better tool for tax evasion than banks are, with all their mandatory reporting to the tax authorities. That also makes it less of an ally for a socialist, since it helps the wealthy starve the state of tax revenue, further increasing inequality.
Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
81–90 of 95 posts
Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> philosophy texts from that era that did the same
This makes sense. This isn't intended to be hurtful, but for a general audience, I'd suggest avoiding it. My first association was with Flat Earther and other nutter forums, where I think it's used as a misplaced appeal to authority, to look like Enlightenment-era texts.
Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Secure it on a piece of paper in a locked box. Back it up on a second piece of paper in a second locked box, kept in a second location. Put both locked boxes in your will. In response to the tornado link you've been spamming: obviously there are limitations to any security system. None of your proposed security systems particularly secure you against government agents beating you with a rubber hose until you hand ove…
How much does it cost you to have a locked box in two secure locations? And I don't need to go to government agents, I'm just talking about simple robbers. Say for instance family members who figure out you have Bitcoin and want to take it from you.
> How much does it cost you to have a locked box in two secure locations?
Well, I live in a home, already have the boxes for all my papers (Social Security Card, Passports, Birth Cert, etc.) and I have at least one person I trust who lives in a separate home, so nothing.
> And I don't need to go to government agents, I'm just talking about simple robbers. Say for instance family members who figure out you have Bitcoin and want to take it from you.
...which my system protects against just fine.
Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much does it cost you to have a locked box in two secure locations? And I don't need to go to government agents, I'm just talking about simple robbers. Say for instance family members who figure out you have Bitcoin and want to take it from you.
> How much does it cost you to have a locked box in two secure locations? Well, I live in a home, already have the boxes for all my papers (Social Security Card, Passports, Birth Cert, etc.) and I have at least one person I trust who lives in a separate home, so nothing. > And I don't need to go to government agents, I'm just talking about simple robbers. Say for instance family members who figure out you have Bitcoi…
There is a greater than zero percent chance the person you trust will very you.
Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> s/tool/ponzi scheme/ This weakens the rest of your argument. Bitcoin obviously isn't a Ponzi scheme. If speaking to an uninformed audience, this could be a good-enough approximation, but when speaking to an informed audience, a cheap shot like this just makes you seem uninformed (which you clearly aren't, based on the rest of your post). > I am entirely unconvinced that bitcoin has a positive short-term effect. Mos…
1. Can you post a link to an overview of these positive local effects?
2. Are there enough of these local effects to counter-weigh the global negative effects?
AFAICT the answer to (2.) is negative, but I suppose I could be mistaken, since I don't follow BitCoin use closely.
Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 pla…
> 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.
Are you saying that the use of BitCoin significantly improves the situation of people without access to bank accounts? Or - that it has the theoretical potential to do so? If it's the former - then I disagree, if for no other reason than for the inability to exchange most things for BitCoin. As for the theoretical claim - you need to first prove that BitCoin is likely to become acceptable on a similar level as fiat currency, and moreover, that there are enough compelling usage scenarios for BitCoin over cash.
For undocumented immigrants, you will need to go to even more effort, because they can use their bank account at their country of origin.
About operation chokepoint - I understand there was an argument regarding the lack of due process in targeting certain companies, but - did it target individuals? In what way?
Now, indeed, governments do prefer capitalist interests to popular interests more often than not. But I don't see why this bolsters your argument. BitCoin is not useful not because the US government or other governments are great; and Mr. Varoufakis argued as much.
About "System D" - please post a link to what you mean, because I don't follow.
Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
#87Bitcoin 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.
Take a look at OpenDime [1] + ColdPower [2].
First is a one-time hardware private key, with physical protection of it (i.e. you need to break the device psychically to extract bitcoins), and ability to verify address by plugin-in into USB.
Second is a USB power from 9-volt battery. So you can check that the OpenDime is active.
The only hard part is verifying the balance you need an access to blockchain network. Not necessary to do that through internet, because you can receive it though satellite now [3], but you still need a computer, that's the fact.
1. https://opendime.com/ 2. https://usbcoldpower.com/ 3. https://blockstream.com/satellite/
Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> s/tool/ponzi scheme/ This weakens the rest of your argument. Bitcoin obviously isn't a Ponzi scheme. If speaking to an uninformed audience, this could be a good-enough approximation, but when speaking to an informed audience, a cheap shot like this just makes you seem uninformed (which you clearly aren't, based on the rest of your post). > I am entirely unconvinced that bitcoin has a positive short-term effect. Mos…
1. Can you post a link to an overview of these positive local effects? 2. Are there enough of these local effects to counter-weigh the global negative effects? AFAICT the answer to (2.) is negative, but I suppose I could be mistaken, since I don't follow BitCoin use closely.
> 1. Can you post a link to an overview of these positive local effects?
To be clear what I mean by "local" in this case, is "within a sub-economy" not necessarily local geographically.
There are a few examples already in this thread, but I'll add a few of my own:
1. Workers in the US often send money back to families in third-world countries. Doing this with BTC is less expensive and faster than with wire transfers.
2. Transacting in Bitcoin has made the illegal drug trade safer, which primarily benefits the poor. Less violence, higher quality products, less risk of being caught.
> 2. Are there enough of these local effects to counter-weigh the global negative effects?
> AFAICT the answer to (2.) is negative, but I suppose I could be mistaken, since I don't follow BitCoin use closely.
I tend to agree with you here.
Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How much does it cost you to have a locked box in two secure locations? Well, I live in a home, already have the boxes for all my papers (Social Security Card, Passports, Birth Cert, etc.) and I have at least one person I trust who lives in a separate home, so nothing. > And I don't need to go to government agents, I'm just talking about simple robbers. Say for instance family members who figure out you have Bitcoi…
There is a greater than zero percent chance the person you trust will very you.
We've already been over that. There is no security system which exists which has a zero percent chance of failure.
It's clear you're more interested in winning an argument here than in discussing real-world security, so I won't be responding further.
Re: Why Bitcoin is not a socialist’s ally
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only you could store things in multiple locations.
What's the cost of having multiple secure storage locations? Is it greater than zero? Then I win the point.
Well, you don't win the point. But the bigger question is, why would anyone want to talk to someone who just wants to win the conversation?