Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

#101

Post by tlrobinson » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 12:16 AM UTC

maratd wrote: post #100

tlrobinson wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You got so tripped up in the terms and concepts, you didn't even get it right." Where did I trip up? Sure, people will need to adjust their thinking, but I think you overestimate the obsession with rising salaries/costs. "In a deflationary economy, people always buy LESS of your stuff and you have no idea if that's happening" [citation needed]

> "In a deflationary economy, people always buy LESS of your stuff and you have no idea if that's happening" > [citation needed] > Where did I trip up? The fact that you need a citation to realize that in a deflationary system if prices stay stagnant people will consume less by definition. You don't seem to realize that. Deflation means prices are falling. If prices don't fall and the dollar is worth more, people buy…

You didn't answer my question, you're just attacking me.

Re: Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

#102

Post by snowwrestler » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 2:45 AM UTC

praxeologist wrote: post #89

snowwrestler wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really need to review U.S. history before you write stuff like this. The past 100 years is full of examples of citizen action overpowering moneyed interests, including huge movements like labor, environmentalism, and civil rights. Each of these movements grew public support until it was large enough to leverage government power to achieve their goals. You're right that each person's vote, by itself, is only a tin…

I know history bud, want to get into some detail? For every one big name movement like you are talking about I can name 10 (probably 100+ if I had to) examples of the US government beginning to encroach on new areas to interfere with. The fact that you mention labor as some sort of success shows that you buy into the common narrative and haven't really looked at the situation. The 2002 study by Vedder and Galloway pu…

I didn't say unions, I said labor, which encompasses laws that are still popular today like child labor laws, breaks to go to the bathroom and eat lunch, overtime pay, fire exits and sprinkler systems, workplace safety, minimum wage, etc.

The poll numbers you cite on Afghanistan are public opinion of the country itself. If you will look at the next chart down you will see that even in 2013 a majority of Americans do not believe it was a mistake to go to war there after the September 11 attacks.

Re: Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

#103

Post by bachback » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 10:36 AM UTC

andrewla wrote: post #96

bachback wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly believe you vastly underestimate the power that lies in this system. Scripts are in fact one of the most exciting features, although some things have to be figured out yet. How are transactions not "first-class citizens"? That statement makes no sense. In fact the opposite is true. Currently everything is about 1:1 transactions, because higher order protocols have not been build out.

That the system has power is without doubt. The extent to which the power detracts from the currency aspect of the system is what I question. When I say that a transaction is not a first-class citizen, I mean things like the fact that the question "I have this address, how many bitcoins do I have" is not really answerable; redeeming existing incoming transactions may rely on information outside of your key pair. You'…

Interesting, I don't understand how this should be worrisome - the receiver has to know what kind of transaction he is engaged in. Sending BTC which is not redeemable is the same as sending no money at all. It is exactly analogous to signing a contract. If you don't understand the terms you shouldn't sign it. So a sender might trick the receiver into believing that the contract does something he didn't know. But if you have a network of trust you hope that the sender gets punished for this behavior. Most of these issues haven't been solved yet, but it's a bit like saying the internet is worrisome because its peer to peer. I mean its exactly this part that is the most fascinating about the network. Sending from A to B we can already do with paypal.

Re: Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

#104

Post by jokoon » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 11:05 AM UTC

rthomas6 wrote: post #91

jokoon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could plan the rough change in value over time, and build it into the algorithm Are you sure of what you're saying ? Because bitcoin doesn't seem to work in a very simple fashion already, it's decentralized and it's already a miracle if it's working as the programmer intended.

Of course I'm not sure. I do not know if my idea is possible, but if it is and it works, I think it would be more stable than Bitcoin.

Practical ideas and plain ideas are not the same thing.

Re: Why Bitcoin is a significant breakthrough, but perhaps not as a currency

#105

Post by bachback » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 6:22 PM UTC

swalsh wrote: post #44

bachback wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is impossible. The network can never put a limit to its own value. The valuation must come from outside. How should a network possible describe what its worth? The money network should not predict demand. One could in theory have predictors of demand, but that would be an algorithm for pricing a set of cryptocoins.

pretty easily actually. The block chain gives us a pretty reasonable way to estimate the supply of currency, the velocity of it, and we can kind of estimate price. That's enough. I think if we modified the protocol a bit we could make it even more accurate too.

estimate price. you must be centi-millionaire then.