> I don’t invest in bitcoin because I think it will bring about a happy utopian world. Quite the opposite. I invest in bitcoin because the rise of distributed currency is inevitable, and owning some bitcoins seems to be the best way to prepare for the chaos ahead.
When the ice caps are melting, walk uphill.
I also like the 'TorSlaver' scenario he paints, it's a good bit of scaremongering[1]. It is probably not unwarranted however, as the more people who respect the terrifying power bitcoin holds, the better.
> At some point, we collectively with our governments face a difficult choice between trying to survive this deadly storm or attempting to destroy all decentralized computer networks (including the internet). The former seems unthinkable, the latter, impossible.
I would say it's not impossible to shut down the existing internet, but you'd have to replace it with something else[2] in order to avoid complete socioeconomic collapse.
There are several things government could still tax. One is real estate. Another is carbon emissions, which you tax at major sources like coal mines, which pass on the cost to everyone else.
Both these options have been advocated by various people for reasons unrelated to bitcoin. The climate benefit is obvious (and may help make up for bitcoin's energy expenditure). Georgists and geolibertarians argue that converting to land taxes would have all sorts of benefits.
To me the most impressive thing about bitcoin is its ability to turn otherwise unassuming computer enthusiasts into genuine experts in macroeconomic forecasting without having to pick up a single book. Is there anything crypto currencies can't do?
Thank you! I checked out this guy's credentials... he's just a run of the mill programmer with no special skills or education. He thinks he can predict the future of the world based on his amateur hour speculation.
I'm only ankle deep in subjects like macroeconomics, political science, and sociology, and even I am groaning at the newbie mistakes he makes in his analysis. This guy just flat out doesn't know what he's talking about. He has an audience because his audience is other people who are equally as uninformed.
There is a place where experts discuss these kinds of questions and it's not on blogs. I don't have enough disrespect for my time to bother refuting him (the supply of worthless bloggers is infinite--impossible to make a dent in the endless ignorance) but if anyone wants to be informed on these questions they should start with macroecon 101 and should be learning from specialists, not hobbyists.
I assume that most hardcore bitcoin enthusiasts are morons but I guess there's a possibility that some legitimately evil early bitcoin adopters out there pushing bitcoin so that they can sell out of their positions at favorable prices.
That's actually what's making bitcoin successful. Never underestimate what large amounts of morons can do.
There's a name for what happens if someone finds a way to use large amounts of people to act in their interest but against the public interest. It's called a "Nash equilibrium", and it's unstoppable.
Why does this guy think that Bitcoin can't be taxed? It's not like the government has magical dollar taxing beams. My employer would be in a terrible legal situation if they did not withhold taxes from my income, and I would be in a similarly bad situation if I knowingly did not pay my taxes. Really, nothing should have to change if my income is in Bitcoins -- my employer will withold, and I will file taxes every year.
10 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 25.2 ms ] threadWhen the ice caps are melting, walk uphill.
I also like the 'TorSlaver' scenario he paints, it's a good bit of scaremongering[1]. It is probably not unwarranted however, as the more people who respect the terrifying power bitcoin holds, the better.
> At some point, we collectively with our governments face a difficult choice between trying to survive this deadly storm or attempting to destroy all decentralized computer networks (including the internet). The former seems unthinkable, the latter, impossible.
I would say it's not impossible to shut down the existing internet, but you'd have to replace it with something else[2] in order to avoid complete socioeconomic collapse.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo
[2] http://urbit.org/
Both these options have been advocated by various people for reasons unrelated to bitcoin. The climate benefit is obvious (and may help make up for bitcoin's energy expenditure). Georgists and geolibertarians argue that converting to land taxes would have all sorts of benefits.
I'm only ankle deep in subjects like macroeconomics, political science, and sociology, and even I am groaning at the newbie mistakes he makes in his analysis. This guy just flat out doesn't know what he's talking about. He has an audience because his audience is other people who are equally as uninformed.
There is a place where experts discuss these kinds of questions and it's not on blogs. I don't have enough disrespect for my time to bother refuting him (the supply of worthless bloggers is infinite--impossible to make a dent in the endless ignorance) but if anyone wants to be informed on these questions they should start with macroecon 101 and should be learning from specialists, not hobbyists.
There's a name for what happens if someone finds a way to use large amounts of people to act in their interest but against the public interest. It's called a "Nash equilibrium", and it's unstoppable.
This is the point the article seems to be making.