Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics • Hacker News Board

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#351

Post by baddox » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 2:45 AM UTC

NickSharp wrote: post #249

benihana wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You can still use coercion to discourage certain groups from voting, which has happened plenty of times throughout history.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#352

Post by baddox » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 2:48 AM UTC

ReidZB wrote: post #251

jellicle wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The typical US voting system allows coercion? When I voted, I went into a publicly visible booth, recorded my vote, pressed submit, and went about my business. I suppose I could have been forced to take a picture with a cellphone, but I could have just selected the option they wanted, taken the picture, and then swapped back to the candidate I wanted. Is there something I'm missing here? Any way you slice it, even if…

> Is there something I'm missing here?

You're missing the fact that it's very possible to use coercion to discourage certain groups from voting at all. Just target the groups that are likely to vote for your opponent, and you've essentially used coercion to manipulate the election.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#353

Post by baddox » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 2:49 AM UTC

DrJokepu wrote: post #265

greyman wrote: post #181

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…

Voting is a solved problem. I’m not saying that the idea of using bitcoin technology to solve problems beside monetary systems is a bad idea (in fact, I think it’s a very interesting concept), but really, democracies around the world already have established and efficient voting systems that work well enough.

It's extremely easy to debate whether voting is a solved problem or whether it works well enough.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#354

Post by teddyh » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 2:49 AM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #305

thaumasiotes wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But for the case of jewelry, its usefulness as such depends on it being valuable. So the buck can't stop there: what other use propped up its value?

The usefulness of gold as jewelry is not only its value; it also does not tarnish or rust, which is a very useful property for jewelry.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#355

Post by XorNot » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 2:49 AM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #276

notahacker wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is inevitably more complicated than stylised examples: most obviously because wages tend to be directly or indirectly linked to inflation. In general, a person tending to spend virtually all their income within a month of earning it will lose out less than someone who hoards their wealth; if they're due a 2% annual pay rise and the Central Bank is pretty good at keeping inflation within a 2% range they're…

one, you're crazy thinking that wealthy people hoard their wealth in dollars. two, if you think people won't consume if the money is deflationary, you're crazy. The US had net deflation for most of its history (except during wars) from 1600-1910, and certainly there was plenty of growth. Also, analogous to the "why do you ever bother buying computers knowing that they depreciate rapidly". three. If you think laborers…

> one, you're crazy thinking that wealthy people hoard their wealth in dollars.

You might want to consider what they do hoard their wealth in. It's not currency, and they also don't buy gold - they buy companies, stocks, and bonds.

What do all those things have in common?

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#356

Post by SectioAurea » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 2:52 AM UTC

greyman wrote: post #181

paul wrote: post #159

I'm most bullish on bitcoin when I read articles such as this one, and most skeptical when I read the thoughts of the bitcoin believers. It's truly the most interesting technological development in years, if only because it reveals how little anyone really understands money or economics. Here's another interesting (though imperfect) way of thinking about bitcoin: it's a decentralized corporation, where bitcoins are o…

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…

I explore some of the possibilities of achieving transparency and trust in government through blockchain records here: http://www.wallstreetcrypto.com/2013/12/distributed-anonymou...

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#357

Post by novalis78 » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 2:53 AM UTC

bdcravens wrote: post #6

1) Bitcoin mining has a pretty horrible carbon footprint. ("but so does ..." doesn't eradicate this argument) 2) similar to the author's point that advocates can't tell the difference between "store" and "medium" of value, I can't tell you the number of arguments I've gotten in with people who equate a "store of value" to be the same thing as the "increase in value" 3) It's a 1% wet dream. Make money, potentially hid…

please make sure you read: http://www.ofnumbers.com/2013/12/18/charles-stross-takes-on-...

It will hopefully make clear that your argument is flawed.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#358

Post by baddox » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 2:56 AM UTC

natrius wrote: post #184

paul wrote: post #159

I'm most bullish on bitcoin when I read articles such as this one, and most skeptical when I read the thoughts of the bitcoin believers. It's truly the most interesting technological development in years, if only because it reveals how little anyone really understands money or economics. Here's another interesting (though imperfect) way of thinking about bitcoin: it's a decentralized corporation, where bitcoins are o…

My current answer to that question is that any industry that relies on trust could be structured in this way. If DNS were implemented on a blockchain, purchasing that chain's currency would be betting on increasing demand for that chain's transactions, domain names. What other industries are fundamentally about trust?

Virtually any service that can feasibly be arranged and delivered online is fundamentally about trust, and you don't even need Bitcoin to solve many of those.

I'm reminded of an example which I believe was given by some libertarian writer, perhaps David Friedman. One big role of governments and private institutions is the regulation of service industries through testing and licensing. In many places it is illegal to provide legal advice without an official license, often from the government. But all you need is email and public key cryptography to solve that issue. A certain legal expert, known only by his public key, could develop a good reputation for providing good service in some jurisdiction, let's say California. He need not be legally licensed in California or even live in California. You can just email him your question, arrange some electronic payment (okay, Bitcoin could work here), and he can respond with legal advice signed with his private key. Bingo. You know for a fact that you received legal advice from someone with a good reputation for providing legal advice, which is precisely the point of government licensing for lawyers.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#359

Post by saosebastiao » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 2:59 AM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #222

saosebastiao wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The traditional keynesian definition of rationality (wrt inflation/deflation) is so far removed from reality that it should be a joke by now. Nobody actually behaves the way their mental model says they should.

Except that's not what Keynseian's say, and people do behave the way Keynseian's say, deflation does curb spending and inflation does encourage it; Keynseian's don't claim people will stop spending, they claim they'll spend less.

None of them seemed to act like that was their view when we were looking at 0% inflation. The general attitude of mainstream Keynesians was that we were on the verge of an unstopable downward spiral if we didn't act in that very moment...which I remind you was driven by housing prices crashing back down after their biggest bubble ever. In reality, people don't sense inflation or deflation as it is reported by the CPI, PPI, or any other price index. They sense it locally on a product by product basis. And it is still entirely uncertain as to the relative attribution of reduced income vs deflation as a cause of reduced spending.

Re: Bitcoin and positive vs. normative economics

#360

Post by nickbauman » Sun, Dec 29, 2013, 3:07 AM UTC

rokhayakebe wrote: post #272

paul wrote: post #159

I'm most bullish on bitcoin when I read articles such as this one, and most skeptical when I read the thoughts of the bitcoin believers. It's truly the most interesting technological development in years, if only because it reveals how little anyone really understands money or economics. Here's another interesting (though imperfect) way of thinking about bitcoin: it's a decentralized corporation, where bitcoins are o…

It is amazing how one word "COIN" added to this word has shaped everyone's thinking. Would we treat it the same if the guys behind it named it "Bitcard" or "Bitpoint?" That one word is what set apparently most people to speak of it, and treat it as money. BC is nothing like Money. BC is a card trading game where the players make the cards, the difficulty to make cards increases , and the value of the cards is decided…

Exactly this! Bitcoin is much more interesting as way of representing CREDIT, not MONEY. Credit is much older and much better way of representing of how humans make contracts with each other. Money is a sideline invention we did to make it possible to pay soldiers for fighting. (Soldiers are inherently bad credit risks because they kill and die for a living).