Bitcoin attitude test

[Adam Strange]

A lot of anarchists have become extreme Bitcoin enthusiasts (and of Crypto. in general) and have incorporated it into their ideology. But I wouldn't call it 'religious', either. It's just run-of-the-mill ideological conviction.

Those guys would invest in burnt twigs and dead bugs if they thought it would subvert the government.

I got Anti-Bitcoin -14.3%.


I'm not Anti-Bitcoin. I'm not Anti-Super-Yachts, either, but please don't expect me to invest in one. Or to pretend that they are investments.

All fiat currencies are backed up by the future productive capacities of the issuers, and your obligation to accept them "for all debts, public and private" is enforced by real, military armies. Wake me when Bitcoin has a standing army that can defeat the US military.

When Saddam tried to displace the US dollar as the default petroleum currency by instead accepting a basket of currencies, the US and its trading partners destroyed his country.
The same thing happened to Libya's Gaddafi, for the same reason.

If Bitcoin ever threatened the value of the dollar, it would be eliminated. The US depends on printing dollars freely to maintain its position, and it really isn't going to let something like a cryptocurrency challenge that.


So, the US government can be counted on to oppose it. Why hasn't it done anything yet?

My guess is that the powers that be have seen that Bitcoin is an entertainment for nerds, and not a threat at all.

[ouronis]

Those guys would invest in burnt twigs and dead bugs if they thought it would subvert the government.

I got Anti-Bitcoin -14.3%.


I'm not Anti-Bitcoin. I'm not Anti-Super-Yachts, either, but please don't expect me to invest in one. Or to pretend that they are investments.

All fiat currencies are backed up by the future productive capacities of the issuers, and are enforced by real, military armies. Wake me when Bitcoin has a standing army that can defeat the US military.

Bitcoin isn't really a safe investment in the long run, but if it does end up succeeding, boy howdy are those early adopters going to be rich fucks.

[Adam Strange]

Bitcoin isn't really a safe investment in the long run, but if it does end up succeeding, boy howdy are those early adopters going to be rich fucks.

Same as in a Ponzi scheme.

[ouronis]

Same as in a Ponzi scheme.

Same as in every system of wealth generation thus far

[Adam Strange]

Same as in every system of wealth generation thus far

If you are talking about currencies, then yes. They all tend to inflate away. Even silver has inflated away from gold since ancient Egyptian times, but that is because gold has the unique property that its supply is expanding at about the same rate as real human wealth.

The good thing about printing money and deficit spending is that we are able to build real stuff that has real value and not have to wait a lifetime to accumulate real capital.

I'm not a fan of huge wealth inequality, but I'm a big fan of money.

[ouronis]

If you are talking about currencies, then yes. They all tend to inflate away. Even silver has inflated away from gold since ancient Egyptian times, but that is because gold has the unique property that its supply is expanding at about the same rate as real human wealth.

The good thing about printing money and deficit spending is that we are able to build real stuff that has real value. Like medicine and iPhones.

No, I just mean as with every opportunity, if you recognize it first, you have the ability to grow faster earlier, whether that's an investment, or a small business. or whatever. I don't think that makes it a ponzi scheme.

I have been toying with the idea of crypto as a side economy, or hedge economy, for when things are not going so well in the real economy. The stated end goal for crypto is as a currency used to coordinate human activity, so it would have to be beyond this initial speculative stage to get there. This could lead to problems if the activity around it stays unregulated, but if we continue to have needs unmet and downward economic shocks, crypto could be a way to bridge the gap between good times. I don't think it makes sense to talk like it'll replace fiat, I just don't think there's a need for that, which is why I believe that in the long long run it'll need to find a niche like the side economy I've stated.

[Adam Strange]

No, I just mean as with every opportunity, if you recognize it first, you have the ability to grow faster earlier, whether that's an investment, or a small business. or whatever. I don't think that makes it a ponzi scheme.

I have been toying with the idea of crypto as a side economy, or hedge economy, for when things are not going so well in the real economy. The stated end goal for crypto is as a currency used to coordinate human activity, so it would have to be beyond this initial speculative stage to get there. This could lead to problems if the activity around it stays unregulated, but if we continue to have needs unmet and downward economic shocks, crypto could be a way to bridge the gap between good times.

What would a world look like in which things weren't going so well?

No jobs? No electricity? No food?

If that happens, then a computer-based currency is not going to save you.

My IEI brother-in-law has been preparing for the end of the world since he was ten. He now lives in an adobe house on a mountaintop outside of Durango. He can't grow food outside because the animals there are really fucking hungry. His water comes from a well which is a few thousand feet deep, and the pump needs electricity to run. For an Ni guy, he seems to have overlooked some very real Te problems.

I think that society (the world as a whole, that is) is seeing a decline in resources on a per-person basis, but this decline is likely to be slow, especially in the US, where we have a decent climate, lots of food and fuel, and not that many people. For China, things don't look so great. But I think that the decline here will be slow and gradual.

[Ave]

If Bitcoin ever threatened the value of the dollar, it would be eliminated. The US depends on printing dollars freely to maintain its position, and it really isn't going to let something like a cryptocurrency challenge that.


So, the US government can be counted on to oppose it. Why hasn't it done anything yet?

My guess is that the powers that be have seen that Bitcoin is an entertainment for nerds, and not a threat at all.

They can't do anything to stop outside of outlawing its use/purchase/exchange - but how do you control that? Same as in trying to control illegal downloads, not much could be done except arrest a few people "to set an example", which are basically politcal prisoners.

I like crypto because it does pose a threat to the gridlock that the finance industry has. I watched a documentary on Arte about HSBC. After watching it, I concluded that investment banks are basically untouchable, and if you're concerned about vast wealth concentrations, that should alarm you. I wish I remembered the actual reference to the documentary though, I'll send it to you if ever I find it.

I don't think anything can stop governments from investing in Bitcoin. In fact, at some point they will have to deal with it somehow. The Chicago stock exchange allows transactions in Bitcoin since a few years now. I see crypto as a threat to the finance sector, as well as to government, but not an existential threat. It will simply force them to remodel their priorities, and that's something alot of people want nowadays.

Same as in a Ponzi scheme

No, lol. A Ponzi scheme is centralized, and planned out, and crypto is neither of these things.