Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

krugman.blogs.nytimes.com

241–250 of 520 posts

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#241
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a scheme has a huge flaw: it allows extortion/coercion. Suppose I am a mob boss and I wish to become (insert position here). I send my goons to inform you that voting for me is a wise decision because I can offer you protection from the vicious thugs in the area. It would be a shame if the vicious thugs burned your house down, wouldn't it? So, you'd be forced to reveal your bitvote address to me under threat of…

It's not a huge flaw, since our current voting system (in any country you care to name) allows exactly that, and your scenario is not observed in the wild, since it is illegal.

It's such a blessing that nothing illegal is ever observed in the wild.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#242
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a libertarian and do not have a political agenda, but it is imaginable that certain parts of the government could be replaced with the structure like this one. I don't know how the transition could happen, but at the end, the mining in the network will be done by citizens, bitcoins will be named "bitvotes", and every citizen will mine those bitvotes, or they could be distributed fairy (one bitvote to each ci…

Such a scheme has a huge flaw: it allows extortion/coercion. Suppose I am a mob boss and I wish to become (insert position here). I send my goons to inform you that voting for me is a wise decision because I can offer you protection from the vicious thugs in the area. It would be a shame if the vicious thugs burned your house down, wouldn't it? So, you'd be forced to reveal your bitvote address to me under threat of…

>it allows extortion/coercion. Suppose I am a mob boss and I wish to become (insert position here). I send my goons to inform you that voting for me is a wise decision because I can offer you protection from the vicious thugs in the area. It would be a shame if the vicious thugs burned your house down, wouldn't it?

How is this different than what currently happens?

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#243
post #99
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Krugman is more like Chomsky -- he did some academic work (including a good textbook in microecon), but then left that to do politics, almost entirely disconnected from his academic record. The Econ "Nobel" is a little more rationally awarded than the Nobel Peace Prize, but neither is the same as Physics/Chem/Medicine. I think it's fine to judge Krugman's political arguments on political merits; there isn't "nobel-ca…

Chomsky certainly never left academic work for politics. He has divided his time evenly between the two for many decades.

>Chomsky certainly never left academic work for politics.

Neither did Krugman.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#244

Krugman is to Bitcoin as Ebert was to video games. The central failure of Krugman's understanding of cryptocurrencies is in the value of mining. It's not simply throwing energy away into solving useless math problems; it's spending energy to create infrastructure. That infrastructure is the part that does have intrinsic value, that can be used for something else in the same way gold can be made into useful things. Lo…

It's not simply throwing energy away into solving useless math problems; it's spending energy to create infrastructure. I don't see how it is not the case that mining Bitcoins is throwing away energy. If someone had made a crypto currency based on, say, protein folding [1], I could get behind that. We could just create a crypto currency where we just hand out 100 units to every person. That certainly wouldn't require…

Nearly 100% of the attractiveness of bitcoin is the promise of infinite rewards to the early investors in the Ponzi scheme.

Bitcoin couldn't and wouldn't exist at all without that promise. So a simple system based on allocating 100 coins to everyone just wouldn't do at all.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#245
It boggles my mind that Krugman continues to fail to see the point. I am not the only one who has noticed his blindness [4]. Or is he deliberately avoiding discussing certain aspects of Bitcoin (notably as a payment processing platform)?

"Underpinning the value of gold is that if all else fails you can use it to make pretty things."

This is a very weak and in fact invalid argument. I can't believe Krugman is quoting this! "If all else fail" then gold would lose 90%+ of its value overnight. Look: roughly 45% of the world's gold production is used for financial speculation, 45% for jewelry, and 10% for industrial purposes [1]. In other words, 90% of gold buyers are buying mostly because they believe gold will preserve its value. And "if all else fail" (if speculators exit the gold market), prices will drop, and jewelry buyers will redirect their desire to other precious metals [2], leaving only industrial demand as buyers. Suddenly the world would be producing 10 times more gold than the demand, leaving the prices depressed.

And again, Krugman completely misses the point of Bitcoin having value not as a currency, but as a payment processing platform. Overstock CEO Byrne said it beautifully:

*"You’re getting rid of the interchange fees. We’re paying credit card companies around 2%. For a company whose margin is 1%, picking up 2% on that is quite attractive." [3]

[1] http://www.gold.org/investment/statistics/demand_and_supply_...

[2] For the same reason people prefer expensive diamond over cheap cubic zirconia, even though both are practically indistinguishable to the naked eye. Yes they CZ is less hard, but most jewelry buyers don't care about hardness. They buy diamonds because they are expensive, that is all.

[3] http://www.coindesk.com/overstock-unveils-more-details-bitco...

[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/23...

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#246

every article from PK: "you see this nobel prize? yeah bitch. I AM the muthafuckin' economy. Now worship this bitcoin opinion piece that highlights my lack of technological understanding. I am your God."

Every article, huh? Krugman has much insight to offer about the world of economics, although I know it's hip to rip on him nowadays. Oh well, stay ignorant.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#247

Krugman is to Bitcoin as Ebert was to video games. The central failure of Krugman's understanding of cryptocurrencies is in the value of mining. It's not simply throwing energy away into solving useless math problems; it's spending energy to create infrastructure. That infrastructure is the part that does have intrinsic value, that can be used for something else in the same way gold can be made into useful things. Lo…

It's not simply throwing energy away into solving useless math problems; it's spending energy to create infrastructure. I don't see how it is not the case that mining Bitcoins is throwing away energy. If someone had made a crypto currency based on, say, protein folding [1], I could get behind that. We could just create a crypto currency where we just hand out 100 units to every person. That certainly wouldn't require…

We could just create a crypto currency where we just hand out 100 units to every person.

Not without a trusted central party you couldn't. The work that goes into bitcoin mining is the 'distributed engine' that prevents double spending or forging of bitcoins. Bitcoin mining is not just a way of handing out new coins, its the very engine of the whole system. The only known way to break that engine is to control a bigger engine of the same spec (the >50% attack), and thats looking increasingly unachievable by anyone.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#248
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a scheme has a huge flaw: it allows extortion/coercion. Suppose I am a mob boss and I wish to become (insert position here). I send my goons to inform you that voting for me is a wise decision because I can offer you protection from the vicious thugs in the area. It would be a shame if the vicious thugs burned your house down, wouldn't it? So, you'd be forced to reveal your bitvote address to me under threat of…

It's not a huge flaw, since our current voting system (in any country you care to name) allows exactly that, and your scenario is not observed in the wild, since it is illegal.

i don't think you properly understand the objection. the mob boss may threaten but cannot legally know what you vote

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#249
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a scheme has a huge flaw: it allows extortion/coercion. Suppose I am a mob boss and I wish to become (insert position here). I send my goons to inform you that voting for me is a wise decision because I can offer you protection from the vicious thugs in the area. It would be a shame if the vicious thugs burned your house down, wouldn't it? So, you'd be forced to reveal your bitvote address to me under threat of…

> it allows extortion/coercion. Suppose I am a mob boss and I wish to become (insert position here). I send my goons to inform you that voting for me is a wise decision because I can offer you protection from the vicious thugs in the area. It would be a shame if the vicious thugs burned your house down, wouldn't it? How is this different than what currently happens?

Our current voting system has an emphasis on the secret ballot.

There are records of which polling place a person voted at, and whether they showed up to vote, but (in theory) there's no way to tell which of the thousands of ballots from that polling place match to which individual voter.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#250
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jewelry.

that's not in any way "intrinsic" value.

Yes it is. The intrinsic value of food is that you can eat it; the intrinsic value of art objects is that you like them. All "intrinsic" value refers to is the use you can make of something without exchanging it for something else. If you were the only person in the world, and you appreciated the appearance of gold, than gold would be intrinsically valuable to you.
Post reply on HN