Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin, The Economic Singularity: From Holland with Love

bitcoinmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 109 posts

Re: Bitcoin, The Economic Singularity: From Holland with Love

#61

Post by pjc50 »

Weltan wrote: post #53
oleganza wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some economists suggest a better measure: establish a coercive currency and print it as they like to pay for public goods. Just put a gun to people's face when they don't want fiat currency and then print all you want. Very practical solution.

What is a coercive currency and which economists suggest it?

This is the weird libertarian view of "coerciveness" where having to participate in a society with other people is a gross imposition but being fireable instantly at the whim of your employer is not coercive.

Re: Bitcoin, The Economic Singularity: From Holland with Love

#62

Post by maxerickson »

shazow wrote: post #58
maxerickson wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are insisting on your own definition of tainted here. Your parent comment is using a definition where coins that pass through a mixer with tainted coins themselves become tainted. An aggressive party might do much the same thing with a service like Zerocoin (that is, once it watched a tainted coin go it, it would assume that only tainted coins can come out). But anyway, the government accepting any bitcoins for t…

> You are insisting on your own definition of tainted here. How do you figure? > Your parent comment is using a definition where coins that pass through a mixer with tainted coins themselves become tainted. [...] 1. The aggressive party would have to stop accepting any coins that come from Zerocoin altogether. 2. Mr. Taint can go about his day sending Satoshi's to random addresses in the blockchain, effectively taint…

Because under a stronger definition of tainted, they cannot be trivially mixed, they pass on the contagion.

The US government can ostensibly stop accepting Zerocoins. In that event, so would any party that wanted to trade with them. There wouldn't be any need for a new blockchain, possessors of clean coins would simply have to decide how much extra value that part of ecosystem provided.

That last sentence mixes up with your point 3, tainting all the coins would be a collaboration between owners of clean coins and service providers, there is at least room for owners of clean coins to be careful with them.

Re: Bitcoin, The Economic Singularity: From Holland with Love

#63

Post by userulluipeste »

TomGullen wrote: post #7
innino wrote: post #4

What is Bitcoin's deeper significance? I don't know much, but here are some sketches. 1) Bitcoin has the potential to destroy the tools of monetary policy. 2) Bitcoin has the potential to hide taxable income from governments. 3) Governments with dwindling tax bases may react by printing traditional currency, hastening the flight to Bitcoin in a vicious cycle. 4) Traditional currencies may collapse as people rush to c…

If we're talking about deep significance, I also think Bitcoin could be a tool to help support world peace (hear me out!) My understanding of one facet of the UN is that by promoting trade between UN nations it makes war between these nations more costly and difficult thus reducing the chance that war would break out. If correct a globally accepted and popular currency which can be freely transferred across borders b…

In the WW2, USA was safest place in the reasonably-developed world. If you were wealthy and had the ability to move your assets from one country to another, USA was a safe bet for you. Obviously, the movement of wealth was also convenient for the host country's government. Nowadays USA may not appear as the only good place to be, but if you understood the underlying idea of the above reasoning, you may also understand that at any moment a conflict/war can induce a differentiating factor for perception of safety. If the environment becomes risky with a war to be unleashed, you won't risk keeping your wealth in a system whose very existence is endangered, you'll move to a greener pasture. A greener pasture, preferably in a powerful country, with no risk of having a war carried out on its territory and therefore with a minimal exposure to any conflict. Those greener pastures usually are in the very countries that seek war in the first place. The war itself is a profitable business in many ways.

Bitcoin makes no difference against this. Actually in the regard to world conflicts, Bitcoin carries an insulating effect. It makes you more mobile and more willing to get yourself to a safe and peaceful place to live (and spend your Bitcoins there).

Re: Bitcoin, The Economic Singularity: From Holland with Love

#64

Post by Weltan »

oleganza wrote: post #56
Weltan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a coercive currency and which economists suggest it?

USD is "legal tender" which is direct coercion (you must accept USD as payment for a debt). Indirect coercion is multitudes of currency controls, capital controls, taxation, banking licenses etc. All the laws and regulations backed by well-oiled guns of SWAT teams that prevent people from easily trading and saving in whatever currency they want. Starting with Keynes and finishing with Krugman, Bernanke and Appelbaum…

I see, so a coercive currency is just fiat currency (or just currency) with an appended modifier. This modifier itself is then qualified with 'indirect' because the regulations enabling the use of these currencies is backed by government force which, although rarely utilised in the context of the commercial transaction, is ever-present. In relation to this indirect coercion these economists are (directly? or indirectly?) forcing people to spend money through monetary policy.

Is that about right in standard parlance?

Re: Bitcoin, The Economic Singularity: From Holland with Love

#65

Post by TomGullen »

pjc50 wrote: post #60
TomGullen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being resistant to legal action is an advantage in many parts of the world with repressive government. There are more advantages when you look outside the narrow view of utility in modern western society. Now anyone in the world can explore entrepreneurship and all they need is a computer. Computers are becoming more and more accessible (Raspery Pi's, $100 laptops etc). Now people in poverty stricken countries can es…

I reccomend the work of Hernando de Soto on extralegality: http://www.amazon.com/Other-Path-Hernando-Soto/dp/0465016103... In a country (Peru) where formal legal systems functioned extremely badly, there was a huge extralegal economy: houses, businesses, transport, etc all of which didn't officially exist and had no legal protection. Providing a route into the legitimate system provided a huge economic benefit for a…

Thanks looks interesting, have ordered it.

Re: Bitcoin, The Economic Singularity: From Holland with Love

#66

Post by Weltan »

pjc50 wrote: post #61
Weltan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a coercive currency and which economists suggest it?

This is the weird libertarian view of "coerciveness" where having to participate in a society with other people is a gross imposition but being fireable instantly at the whim of your employer is not coercive.

I'm aware of the strange views of Libertarians, but I'd never heard a currency itself marked as coercive! I agree: It's a strange view of coercion where getting fired and ending up on the street provided you're fired by a private employer is less a coercive act than having to pay a percentage of your income for social benefit, or, worse yet it seems, having to use a 'coercive currency'.

Re: Bitcoin, The Economic Singularity: From Holland with Love

#67

Post by oleganza »

XorNot wrote: post #50
oleganza wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then, governments cannot longer be "socialistic" by promising something for nothing. To do new awesome "government service" they'd have to raise taxes and then the lie will become obvious. Since no one really wants governments if they don't get free stuff, governments will quickly lose any moral support and will be viewed as plain thugs.

I presume you've packed your bags for Somalia in that case. The south still has no government to be found. I hear it's working out great there.

So you are saying you have evidence that without government you necessarily end up with pirates running around with guns? Remember that Somalia is in this state due to utter failure of government in the first place.

Re: Bitcoin, The Economic Singularity: From Holland with Love

#68

Post by oleganza »

Weltan wrote: post #66
pjc50 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the weird libertarian view of "coerciveness" where having to participate in a society with other people is a gross imposition but being fireable instantly at the whim of your employer is not coercive.

I'm aware of the strange views of Libertarians, but I'd never heard a currency itself marked as coercive! I agree: It's a strange view of coercion where getting fired and ending up on the street provided you're fired by a private employer is less a coercive act than having to pay a percentage of your income for social benefit, or, worse yet it seems, having to use a 'coercive currency'.

Protection from being fired comes with a cost. Less people are willing to open companies and easily hire people to do job if they are afraid that they wouldn't be able to fire inefficient workers. All "unemployment" is government creation due to either "free" stuff like unemployment benefits or to regulations that prohibit some employers from hiring you.

Re: Bitcoin, The Economic Singularity: From Holland with Love

#69

Post by betterunix »

oleganza wrote: post #13
betterunix wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think Bitcoin is unregulatable?

1. Politicians can't change the rules of the protocol. 2. Politicians can't print more bitcoin as they like. Only according to the protocol and in competition with others. 3. It's virtually impossible to censor Bitcoin transactions (unless you shut down the whole internet in the country).

1. So what? Politicians also cannot change the laws of physics that govern paper money transactions, yet paper money is regulated.

2. That is not an issue of regulation.

3. The same applies to paper money, and again, paper money is regulated.

Re: Bitcoin, The Economic Singularity: From Holland with Love

#70

Post by oleganza »

Weltan wrote: post #64
oleganza wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USD is "legal tender" which is direct coercion (you must accept USD as payment for a debt). Indirect coercion is multitudes of currency controls, capital controls, taxation, banking licenses etc. All the laws and regulations backed by well-oiled guns of SWAT teams that prevent people from easily trading and saving in whatever currency they want. Starting with Keynes and finishing with Krugman, Bernanke and Appelbaum…

I see, so a coercive currency is just fiat currency (or just currency) with an appended modifier. This modifier itself is then qualified with 'indirect' because the regulations enabling the use of these currencies is backed by government force which, although rarely utilised in the context of the commercial transaction, is ever-present. In relation to this indirect coercion these economists are (directly? or indirect…

Ok, my bad. The currency itself can hardly be called "coercive". Coercion is done by people to people. When I was talking about economic policies, I meant this recipe:

1. Establish a government-issued currency that it can print when it wants.

2. Make people use this currency by creating barriers to other currencies and forcing people to accept it as payment for debts.

3. Print money according to some made up theory on what's better for society and give this money to whoever needs it it more (according to a theory at hand).

Post reply on HN