Why I want Bitcoin to die in a fire(antipope.org)
antipope.org
Why I want Bitcoin to die in a fire
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/12/why-i-want-bitcoin-to-die-in-a.html
402 comments
Charlie Stross writes in the article kindly submitted here: "Bitcoin violates Gresham's law: Stolen electricity will drive out honest mining. (So the greatest benefits accrue to the most ruthless criminals.)" I try to follow most of the Bitcoin threads here on HN, but I've missed that argument before. It makes sense that mining-by-theft will eventually displace mining-by-buying-hardware, and that is indeed not a behavior to encourage by the incentives of Bitcoin.
"Moreover, The Gini coefficient of the Bitcoin economy is ghastly, and getting worse, to an extent that makes a sub-Saharan African kleptocracy look like a socialist utopia" is an argument that tests people's commitment to neutral principles. If you don't like badly skewed differences in wealth, I suppose you wouldn't like badly skewed ownership of Bitcoin. Or do you like that anyway, as long as you have more Bitcoin than the other guy?
"Moreover, The Gini coefficient of the Bitcoin economy is ghastly, and getting worse, to an extent that makes a sub-Saharan African kleptocracy look like a socialist utopia" is an argument that tests people's commitment to neutral principles. If you don't like badly skewed differences in wealth, I suppose you wouldn't like badly skewed ownership of Bitcoin. Or do you like that anyway, as long as you have more Bitcoin than the other guy?
In my opinion, the whole principle of bit-coin is like a manifesto for financial sovereignty - i.e. it says that money should be above government, and above democracy. Personally, I do actually want the government to be able to levy taxes to pay for public services, to be able to trace corrupt payments, to be able to seize the assets of fraudsters who have convicted under a fair judicial process, to be able to nudge the value of a currency to pursue wider macro-economic aims, and so on. Ultimately, living in a society means being subject to its laws. To accept Bitcoin at face value is to accept a future where every country operates by default with a financial system like Switzerland, and I don't believe that the vast majority of the population want that to happen.
The author's complains are a sober reminder that society is not yet ready, and has not yet evolved all the infrastructure it will need to cope with rising global Bitcoin adoption.[1] Regardless, if the number of people using Bitcoin continues to grow, our institutions and infrastructure will have to evolve to address the problems mentioned by the author.
Among other things, society will need more secure (truly malware-resistant) personal computing systems, more secure (from snooping) communications systems, substantially better authentication mechanisms, more secure energy generation and transmission equipment and facilities, more secure financial institutions, and more technologically-savvy regulatory and policing institutions.
Those are all really good things.
--
[1] Compare, for example, how society works with paper cash and gold bars versus Bitcoin:
* Paper cash or gold in substantial amounts is always stored in private or bank safes, or in high-security underground vaults that most people have only seen in movies. In contrast, Bitcoin private keys are often stored in general-purpose personal computers running a wide variety of applications, managed by people who don't know how to secure a computer.
* Transporting any substantial amount of paper cash or gold is often done via armored trucks operated by highly-trained security personnel. In contrast, Bitcoin private keys are transported via all sorts of highly insecure methods by people who don't know better.
* No sane person holding a substantial amount of cash or gold at home would ever let complete strangers come and go into their house as they please, while giving them keys to all doors, cabinets, drawers, and safes. In contrast, people regularly give complete access to their computers to complete strangers by willingly or unwillingly installing software created by such strangers.
* Our regulatory and policing institutions know how to identify, prosecute, and even prevent illegal gold and cash transactions, successfully keeping them to a tiny percentage of overall economic activity in most advanced economies. In contrast, those same institutions do not yet know how to cope with the use of Bitcoin for illegal activities.
--
Edits: moved comparison of Bitcoin to gold and cash to footnote; also, made minor changes to several sentences so they more accurately reflect what I intended to write in the first place.
Among other things, society will need more secure (truly malware-resistant) personal computing systems, more secure (from snooping) communications systems, substantially better authentication mechanisms, more secure energy generation and transmission equipment and facilities, more secure financial institutions, and more technologically-savvy regulatory and policing institutions.
Those are all really good things.
--
[1] Compare, for example, how society works with paper cash and gold bars versus Bitcoin:
* Paper cash or gold in substantial amounts is always stored in private or bank safes, or in high-security underground vaults that most people have only seen in movies. In contrast, Bitcoin private keys are often stored in general-purpose personal computers running a wide variety of applications, managed by people who don't know how to secure a computer.
* Transporting any substantial amount of paper cash or gold is often done via armored trucks operated by highly-trained security personnel. In contrast, Bitcoin private keys are transported via all sorts of highly insecure methods by people who don't know better.
* No sane person holding a substantial amount of cash or gold at home would ever let complete strangers come and go into their house as they please, while giving them keys to all doors, cabinets, drawers, and safes. In contrast, people regularly give complete access to their computers to complete strangers by willingly or unwillingly installing software created by such strangers.
* Our regulatory and policing institutions know how to identify, prosecute, and even prevent illegal gold and cash transactions, successfully keeping them to a tiny percentage of overall economic activity in most advanced economies. In contrast, those same institutions do not yet know how to cope with the use of Bitcoin for illegal activities.
--
Edits: moved comparison of Bitcoin to gold and cash to footnote; also, made minor changes to several sentences so they more accurately reflect what I intended to write in the first place.
Bitcoin in traceable. Much more traceable than something like cash or gold.
It can be taxed. In fact, it lends itself very well to taxation since each transaction is indelibly recorded. Just because no one's implemented taxation doesn't mean it can't be done.
If it can be taxed it can be regulated.
It does cut out the banks. That is a strength. The serpentine bank transfer system that skims transaction fees on a huge number of transactions can be avoided. This has some obvious benefits (as most things that reduce transactional friction do -- I mean, most of us on HN are probably in the friction reducing business in one form or another).
Government does not have to issue it. The jury is still out on whether this is a net positive or not. I think it is a worthy experiment since government control of the money supply seems like more of an accident of history than anything. It /could/ be a fundamental strut in the framework of effective government but I think that might be overselling it. Bitcoin gives us a vehicle to test that theory.
In short, Charles Stross is confusing the way things are with the way things must be and that is a mistake. Most of these problems, if they are truly problems, are solvable. And, at the very least, their impact will not be catastrophic so it is worth the risk to see where this experiment leads.
It can be taxed. In fact, it lends itself very well to taxation since each transaction is indelibly recorded. Just because no one's implemented taxation doesn't mean it can't be done.
If it can be taxed it can be regulated.
It does cut out the banks. That is a strength. The serpentine bank transfer system that skims transaction fees on a huge number of transactions can be avoided. This has some obvious benefits (as most things that reduce transactional friction do -- I mean, most of us on HN are probably in the friction reducing business in one form or another).
Government does not have to issue it. The jury is still out on whether this is a net positive or not. I think it is a worthy experiment since government control of the money supply seems like more of an accident of history than anything. It /could/ be a fundamental strut in the framework of effective government but I think that might be overselling it. Bitcoin gives us a vehicle to test that theory.
In short, Charles Stross is confusing the way things are with the way things must be and that is a mistake. Most of these problems, if they are truly problems, are solvable. And, at the very least, their impact will not be catastrophic so it is worth the risk to see where this experiment leads.
I, too, am suffering Bitcoin-headline-fatigue, to the point where I was glad to see machined QR bitcoins b/c I could finally tell people to kindly shove them where the sun don't shine.
HOWEVER, just b/c I'm exhausted, I don't think Stross' points are valid or limited to Bitcoin in the least. He might want BC to die in a fire, but BC isn't doing anything special that cash/gold isn't/can't be doing. Here is an overview of his points:
> 1. Mining BtC has a carbon footprint from hell
> 2. Bitcoin mining software is now being distributed as malware
> 3. Stolen electricity will drive out honest mining. (So the greatest benefits accrue to the most ruthless criminals.)
> 4. Bitcoin's utter lack of regulation permits really hideous markets to emerge, in commodities like assassination (and drugs and child pornography).
>5. It's also inherently damaging to the fabric of civil society.
HOWEVER, just b/c I'm exhausted, I don't think Stross' points are valid or limited to Bitcoin in the least. He might want BC to die in a fire, but BC isn't doing anything special that cash/gold isn't/can't be doing. Here is an overview of his points:
> 1. Mining BtC has a carbon footprint from hell
> 2. Bitcoin mining software is now being distributed as malware
> 3. Stolen electricity will drive out honest mining. (So the greatest benefits accrue to the most ruthless criminals.)
> 4. Bitcoin's utter lack of regulation permits really hideous markets to emerge, in commodities like assassination (and drugs and child pornography).
>5. It's also inherently damaging to the fabric of civil society.
It's disappointing to see that cstross feels the way he does about certain things. He's one of my favourite authors, and I just hope that knowing how far apart we are on some issues doesn't diminish my ability to appreciate his fiction. At least it's nothing like Orson Scott Card, where my disagreements with some of his opinions mean that I basically have no longer have any interest in reading his works at all.
So, Charles Stross hates Bitcoin because he things a market for drugs is "hideous". sigh. I think that a market for drugs is, while not necessarily desirable, inevitable, and that free individuals should be able to choose what they do or don't put into their own bodies.
Assassination and child pornography are Bad Things to be sure, but Bitcoin doesn't cause either and both are going to exist with or without Bitcoin. I don't get arguing against a mechanism that supports basic free market exchanges, just because a few bad actors can use it to do bad things. You can't engineer your way to a perfect world, given human nature.
Tax evasion? Good. Taxation is theft. If I need to employ technological solutions to protect my money from the government, then so be it.
So, Charles Stross hates Bitcoin because he things a market for drugs is "hideous". sigh. I think that a market for drugs is, while not necessarily desirable, inevitable, and that free individuals should be able to choose what they do or don't put into their own bodies.
Assassination and child pornography are Bad Things to be sure, but Bitcoin doesn't cause either and both are going to exist with or without Bitcoin. I don't get arguing against a mechanism that supports basic free market exchanges, just because a few bad actors can use it to do bad things. You can't engineer your way to a perfect world, given human nature.
Tax evasion? Good. Taxation is theft. If I need to employ technological solutions to protect my money from the government, then so be it.
Usually I agree with Charlie Stross, but I think he's building his case on a few false assumptions.
To mine bitcoin and make a reasonable profit, you really need dedicated mining hardware. This means that stolen electricity is not really an issue, as even very large botnets wouldn't be able to keep up with a few $1000 of custom hardware.
Similarly, while Bitcoin's future carbon footprint is something to be concerned about, I think it's too early to draw a line of exponential growth and conclude the world is doomed. There are a large number of potential bottlenecks when it comes to computing hardware.
I'd also question how useful Bitcoin is for avoiding taxes, when the exchange rate is so volatile. There are far safer ways to avoid paying taxes, many of them legal.
In my view, the most interesting part of Bitcoin is not its value, or its potential anonymity, but that it's an open protocol for distributing wealth, in the same way that TCP/IP is an open protocol for distributing data. There has already been some interesting experiments around micro-payments with Bitcoin that would never have gotten off the ground without it.
To mine bitcoin and make a reasonable profit, you really need dedicated mining hardware. This means that stolen electricity is not really an issue, as even very large botnets wouldn't be able to keep up with a few $1000 of custom hardware.
Similarly, while Bitcoin's future carbon footprint is something to be concerned about, I think it's too early to draw a line of exponential growth and conclude the world is doomed. There are a large number of potential bottlenecks when it comes to computing hardware.
I'd also question how useful Bitcoin is for avoiding taxes, when the exchange rate is so volatile. There are far safer ways to avoid paying taxes, many of them legal.
In my view, the most interesting part of Bitcoin is not its value, or its potential anonymity, but that it's an open protocol for distributing wealth, in the same way that TCP/IP is an open protocol for distributing data. There has already been some interesting experiments around micro-payments with Bitcoin that would never have gotten off the ground without it.
TL:DR;
Big government socialist type doesn't like financial decentralization and a monetary system that can't be strictly controlled. Wants it to die quickly because ultimately free people might decide that it's worth keeping and using. News at 11.
Big government socialist type doesn't like financial decentralization and a monetary system that can't be strictly controlled. Wants it to die quickly because ultimately free people might decide that it's worth keeping and using. News at 11.
I agree with all of his points; I've been making them myself for the past few months. Bitcoin is bad specifically because it is unregulated.
Regulation of financial markets exists for a reason: the optimal strategy of individuals and institutions in unregulated financial markets is to lie, cheat and steal to accumulate as much wealth as possible.
Credit economies rely on a foundation of trust; and while it may seem hard to trust our financial system, you CAN trust that when you put your money in a bank, it will be there when you go to get it out (thanks, FDIC!) As much as we may not like credit, it provides market efficiency on an extraordinary scale.
Regulation of financial markets exists for a reason: the optimal strategy of individuals and institutions in unregulated financial markets is to lie, cheat and steal to accumulate as much wealth as possible.
Credit economies rely on a foundation of trust; and while it may seem hard to trust our financial system, you CAN trust that when you put your money in a bank, it will be there when you go to get it out (thanks, FDIC!) As much as we may not like credit, it provides market efficiency on an extraordinary scale.
BTC is inherently deflationary.
The idea that deflation is necessarily harmful to an economy is a fallacy. See the Fed itself:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr331.pdf
"Our main finding is that the only episode in which we find evidence of a link between deflation and depression is the Great Depression (1929—34). We find virtually no evidence of such a link in any other period."
From the post:
The current banking industry and late-period capitalism may suck, but replacing it with Bitcoin would be like swapping out a hangnail for gas gangrene.
Not proven.
A bitcoin economy would be worse than unlimited bailouts and money printing? Not even close to proven, or, at this point, particularly plausible.
The idea that deflation is necessarily harmful to an economy is a fallacy. See the Fed itself:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr331.pdf
"Our main finding is that the only episode in which we find evidence of a link between deflation and depression is the Great Depression (1929—34). We find virtually no evidence of such a link in any other period."
From the post:
The current banking industry and late-period capitalism may suck, but replacing it with Bitcoin would be like swapping out a hangnail for gas gangrene.
Not proven.
A bitcoin economy would be worse than unlimited bailouts and money printing? Not even close to proven, or, at this point, particularly plausible.
Wow, this is perhaps the single most ignorant article I have ever read about bitcoin, ever. There goes my respect for Charles Stross.
Not a single point is actually true.
1) Compare the carbon footprint of bitcoin mining to the carbon footprint of all the industries it displaces.
2) and 3) are actually the same item, and both wrong because ASIC miners are absolutely dominating in the mining stakes now and for the foreseeable future, hacked bitcoin miners are ridiculously minor by comparison with almost zero returns.
4) There are already markets in drugs, assassination and child pornography. The currency most frequently used in crime is the USD. Quick, someone stop the printing presses and we'll bring crime to a screeching halt overnight.
5) If Bitcoin actually does manage to destroy the state, and that's a very big if, that is by far the absolute best thing that could ever happen in the entire world without a doubt. And it would imply it happened without bloodshed and because people chose it as a simply superior option, which if the negative scaremongering aspects of the disintegration of the state actually started to manifest, would not happen by definition. So even if you don't take it for granted the state is a shambling monstrosity that deserves a quick and merciful death, the very fact that Bitcoin ever gets to the necessary fraction of the global markets to kill it implies that people accept that and don't worry about it.
Not a single point is actually true.
1) Compare the carbon footprint of bitcoin mining to the carbon footprint of all the industries it displaces.
2) and 3) are actually the same item, and both wrong because ASIC miners are absolutely dominating in the mining stakes now and for the foreseeable future, hacked bitcoin miners are ridiculously minor by comparison with almost zero returns.
4) There are already markets in drugs, assassination and child pornography. The currency most frequently used in crime is the USD. Quick, someone stop the printing presses and we'll bring crime to a screeching halt overnight.
5) If Bitcoin actually does manage to destroy the state, and that's a very big if, that is by far the absolute best thing that could ever happen in the entire world without a doubt. And it would imply it happened without bloodshed and because people chose it as a simply superior option, which if the negative scaremongering aspects of the disintegration of the state actually started to manifest, would not happen by definition. So even if you don't take it for granted the state is a shambling monstrosity that deserves a quick and merciful death, the very fact that Bitcoin ever gets to the necessary fraction of the global markets to kill it implies that people accept that and don't worry about it.
I find people who have a negative opinion on BTC funny. I honestly just do not care about it, it is an interesting experiment, and one that I'm not going to trust my money to. More power to ya if you're going to. If it crashes, alright. If it doesn't, then sweet. Seriously, I'll never understand articles like these...
Oh, and his point about BTC "creating" drug markets -- are you for real? Seriously? People have been buying and selling drugs on the internet since... well, I'd wager since it's inception, but at least for the past decade. BTC may make it easier, or "safer", but those markets have existed for a very long time, you just needed to know where to look...
Oh, and his point about BTC "creating" drug markets -- are you for real? Seriously? People have been buying and selling drugs on the internet since... well, I'd wager since it's inception, but at least for the past decade. BTC may make it easier, or "safer", but those markets have existed for a very long time, you just needed to know where to look...
> To editorialize briefly, BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions. Which is fine if you're a Libertarian, but I tend to take the stance that Libertarianism is like Leninism: a fascinating, internally consistent political theory with some good underlying points that, regrettably, makes prescriptions about how to run human society that can only work if we replace real messy human beings with frictionless spherical humanoids of uniform density (because it relies on simplifying assumptions about human behaviour which are unfortunately wrong).
Is Stross speaking specifically of a libertarian political party, like the U.S. Libertarian Party? His capitalization of the word would seem to indicate that, or that Stross is woefully ignorant of even the most basic fundamentals of the extremely broad category of political philosophy called "libertarianism." I tend to think it's the latter, based on his ludicrous summary of his perception of libertarianism. I am curious what assumptions about human behavior he thinks are at the heart of libertarianism.
Is Stross speaking specifically of a libertarian political party, like the U.S. Libertarian Party? His capitalization of the word would seem to indicate that, or that Stross is woefully ignorant of even the most basic fundamentals of the extremely broad category of political philosophy called "libertarianism." I tend to think it's the latter, based on his ludicrous summary of his perception of libertarianism. I am curious what assumptions about human behavior he thinks are at the heart of libertarianism.
This guy doesn't seem to get what bitcoin is or it's purpose. As far as I'm concerned, bitcoin will just be another alternative currency forever. It will likely never replace fiat, and that's fine. It's awesome for international trade, fast transfer, low-fee, and a safe way to store your money (if you're okay with the value of btc fluctuating wildly; if it ever settles then it will be "safe").
I disagree with all of his points. His carbon footprint/malware/Gresham's law points can all be countered with "incentive to mine leaves as the reward goes down, difficulty goes up, and total remaining coins decreases" which means less people will mine. For hideous markets and tax evasion, yeah, you can do both of those with fiat too. It's not a concept exclusive to bitcoins.
I disagree with all of his points. His carbon footprint/malware/Gresham's law points can all be countered with "incentive to mine leaves as the reward goes down, difficulty goes up, and total remaining coins decreases" which means less people will mine. For hideous markets and tax evasion, yeah, you can do both of those with fiat too. It's not a concept exclusive to bitcoins.
>a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions.
It's kind of silly when people twist words like this. Do you support the existence of the United States government? So you support Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and Contras killing nuns in Nicaragua? That's the basic form of this argument. It would of course be fair to call Bitcoin crypto-anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, or crypto-anarcho-capitalism, if you're a huge fan of hyphens. To tar all libertarians (it's never capitalized, unless you mean the party) with this brush is disingenuous; it's a way of arguing against the reasonable sorts (e.g. Milton Friedman and Gary Johnson) and the next complaint "but most libertarians I see are [...]" is equally bad: you choose to look at the crazy types, similar to how Hacker News posts way more about the NSA and DEA than about the NHTSA and the CDC. How can we possibly have a reasonable discourse if we devolve so quickly to calling each other anarchists and fascists and accusing everyone you don't like of supporting child pornography? Signed, "moderate" libertarian.
It's kind of silly when people twist words like this. Do you support the existence of the United States government? So you support Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and Contras killing nuns in Nicaragua? That's the basic form of this argument. It would of course be fair to call Bitcoin crypto-anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, or crypto-anarcho-capitalism, if you're a huge fan of hyphens. To tar all libertarians (it's never capitalized, unless you mean the party) with this brush is disingenuous; it's a way of arguing against the reasonable sorts (e.g. Milton Friedman and Gary Johnson) and the next complaint "but most libertarians I see are [...]" is equally bad: you choose to look at the crazy types, similar to how Hacker News posts way more about the NSA and DEA than about the NHTSA and the CDC. How can we possibly have a reasonable discourse if we devolve so quickly to calling each other anarchists and fascists and accusing everyone you don't like of supporting child pornography? Signed, "moderate" libertarian.
To me, the greatest revelation in this article was the Gini coefficient of bitcoin, which, according to the author, " makes a sub-Saharan African kleptocracy look like a socialist utopia".
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51011.0 EDIT: Plot of the wealth distribution in bitcoin: http://postimg.org/image/hzjmgepa3/
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51011.0 EDIT: Plot of the wealth distribution in bitcoin: http://postimg.org/image/hzjmgepa3/
Libertarians are annoying, anyone who thinks technology will solve complex social problems will be dissapointed by bitcoin eventually.
The deflationary nature of bitcoin is it's hardest aspect to defend because there really hasn't been anything like it in history before. A finite asset that is easy to transfer over long distances without central interferance really is unprecedented.
I think you have bought in to the bitcoin fantasy that it will be the only currency in use. I don't think that will ever happen for a variety of reasons. If gold and fiat can coexist why not bitcoin too?. Loaning bitcoins seems to be a crazy proposition, so I suspect inflationary currencies will stick around just for that reason. Not to mention bitcoin by itself is fairly terrible for in person transactions, if you add a service on top what is the difference for the customer between that and a credit card company?. Fiat is useful and solves problems that bitcoin doesn't.
Regarding mining, I have my own concerns, bitcoin proponents love to describe mining as “securing the network” and equate it with vaults and security guards used in banks. This comparison is at least partly flawed, mining prevents double spends and nothing else. It's certainly true that a centralized ledger could prevent double spends for tiny fraction of the cost of mining, but globally who can be trusted by all parties to adminster it?. The comparison isn't one sided however, it is much cheaper to securely store (and move) bitcoins than gold for example.
Energy use is tricky, preserving the environment should be a top a priority, but should we aspire to use less energy?. One question I have often asked but never got a good answer to, how much of the worlds energy needs to be devoted to mining to prevent a 51% attack?. If it is north of 30% of the worlds energy output then right now that would seem a huge waste. But if we had access to cheaper, cleaner renewable energy, would it still be a problem?.
Malware?, it's just a symptom of larger problem, computer security is terrible. No one is really sure who to plame, users, applications, operating systems and hardware makers all come into the firing line. If bitcoin pushes forward computer security surely that can only be a good thing?.
I'm unconvinced about whether greshams law applies to mining due to the performance disparity between ASICs and CPU/GPUs, but surely if computer security improves this problem diminishes?.
The deflationary nature of bitcoin is it's hardest aspect to defend because there really hasn't been anything like it in history before. A finite asset that is easy to transfer over long distances without central interferance really is unprecedented.
I think you have bought in to the bitcoin fantasy that it will be the only currency in use. I don't think that will ever happen for a variety of reasons. If gold and fiat can coexist why not bitcoin too?. Loaning bitcoins seems to be a crazy proposition, so I suspect inflationary currencies will stick around just for that reason. Not to mention bitcoin by itself is fairly terrible for in person transactions, if you add a service on top what is the difference for the customer between that and a credit card company?. Fiat is useful and solves problems that bitcoin doesn't.
Regarding mining, I have my own concerns, bitcoin proponents love to describe mining as “securing the network” and equate it with vaults and security guards used in banks. This comparison is at least partly flawed, mining prevents double spends and nothing else. It's certainly true that a centralized ledger could prevent double spends for tiny fraction of the cost of mining, but globally who can be trusted by all parties to adminster it?. The comparison isn't one sided however, it is much cheaper to securely store (and move) bitcoins than gold for example.
Energy use is tricky, preserving the environment should be a top a priority, but should we aspire to use less energy?. One question I have often asked but never got a good answer to, how much of the worlds energy needs to be devoted to mining to prevent a 51% attack?. If it is north of 30% of the worlds energy output then right now that would seem a huge waste. But if we had access to cheaper, cleaner renewable energy, would it still be a problem?.
Malware?, it's just a symptom of larger problem, computer security is terrible. No one is really sure who to plame, users, applications, operating systems and hardware makers all come into the firing line. If bitcoin pushes forward computer security surely that can only be a good thing?.
I'm unconvinced about whether greshams law applies to mining due to the performance disparity between ASICs and CPU/GPUs, but surely if computer security improves this problem diminishes?.
I was pretty sure that after this current "crash" (3rd already in Bitcoin history, depending on how you count them) articles like that ("Bitcoin is doomed", "I want Bitcoin to fail") will surface. And here it is. Nothing new to see here folks. Same ol' arguments, which were discussed hundreds of times already.
The incentive to create malware, also a significant problem with advertising and online banking/transactions.
Anyways I think the things the author dislikes about bitcoin is precisely what makes it so good. It's great that it can subvert government control on a small scale. It isn't going to stop taxation or anything because there is no way large corporations and rich individuals can hide that much in bitcoin transactions without getting caught. But for individuals who just want to buy something something minor it works perfectly.
Besides it really isn't any different than cash in terms of anonymity. It just can be done online.
And it isn't going to die anytime soon. Even if the price drops a lot, it can still be used to make transactions. The bitcoin protocol will keep on working 20 years from now, regardless what happens to the price.
The speculators might suffer, maybe it will make less news. Maybe mainstream adoption will suffer, so everyday people looking to use it to make transactions easily online won't be able to. But the people that are using it to do illegal things that the author fears so much will still be there and aren't going away.
Anyways I think the things the author dislikes about bitcoin is precisely what makes it so good. It's great that it can subvert government control on a small scale. It isn't going to stop taxation or anything because there is no way large corporations and rich individuals can hide that much in bitcoin transactions without getting caught. But for individuals who just want to buy something something minor it works perfectly.
Besides it really isn't any different than cash in terms of anonymity. It just can be done online.
And it isn't going to die anytime soon. Even if the price drops a lot, it can still be used to make transactions. The bitcoin protocol will keep on working 20 years from now, regardless what happens to the price.
The speculators might suffer, maybe it will make less news. Maybe mainstream adoption will suffer, so everyday people looking to use it to make transactions easily online won't be able to. But the people that are using it to do illegal things that the author fears so much will still be there and aren't going away.
> Like all currency systems, Bitcoin comes with an implicit political agenda attached. Decisions we take about how to manage money, taxation, and the economy have consequences: by its consequences you may judge a finance system.
The consequences of Bitcoin he lists are arguably bad, sure, but they don't touch the consequences of nation states that centrally control their financial and monetary systems.
The consequences of Bitcoin he lists are arguably bad, sure, but they don't touch the consequences of nation states that centrally control their financial and monetary systems.
Yes, popular one liners make for great headlines. Die in a fire! That doesn't sound juvinile at all.
These harsh words for something that you don't even HAVE to use or even be a part of.
There's a group of people with an idea, lots of people with great intentions, building a technology that you don't have to pay for. This is called Open source software, you want all of that to die in a fire?
These harsh words for something that you don't even HAVE to use or even be a part of.
There's a group of people with an idea, lots of people with great intentions, building a technology that you don't have to pay for. This is called Open source software, you want all of that to die in a fire?
So the article claims that more assassination, drugs and child pornography is being sold now than before?
Is there any facts supporting such claim? Sold assassination, drugs and child pornography should exist as crime statistics, proving or disproving the claim.
Is there any facts supporting such claim? Sold assassination, drugs and child pornography should exist as crime statistics, proving or disproving the claim.
The core argument that Bitcoin is deflationary is irrelevant to the fitness of Bitcoin, at least for online transactions. To me, the chief value of Bitcoin is that it enables super cheap micro (and macro) transactions online. Goodbye silly debit and credit card interchange fees! Used in this way, dollars are held in Bitcoin form for only the tiniest of moments before being converted back into dollars. Long term fluctuations in exchange rates don't matter.
I look forward to using micro payments for content online. Ad supported content and the inevitable vending of my personal data is distasteful to me.
I look forward to using micro payments for content online. Ad supported content and the inevitable vending of my personal data is distasteful to me.
I'd be curious to know if any of the altcoins have tried creating an inflationary currency? I guess you'd still need some kind of reward for early adaptors though?
Which is fine if you're a Libertarian, but I tend to take the stance that Libertarianism is like Leninism: a fascinating, internally consistent political theory with some good underlying points that, regrettably, makes prescriptions about how to run human society that can only work if we replace real messy human beings with frictionless spherical humanoids of uniform density
Brilliant prose! Pragmatism always has and always will rule.
Brilliant prose! Pragmatism always has and always will rule.
There are some really bad points in here. Like this:
Bitcoin's utter lack of regulation permits really hideous markets to emerge, in commodities like assassination (and drugs and child pornography).
So are you saying I can't pay for drugs with cash?
Bitcoin's utter lack of regulation permits really hideous markets to emerge, in commodities like assassination (and drugs and child pornography).
So are you saying I can't pay for drugs with cash?
Most of those arguments apply to the internet itself. The author sounds like a conservative in the 90's upon hearing about the web.
I don't think money, or specifically dollars are any better than bitcoins. Beside I would like to point out that it's not the currency in it self the problem, but what we do out of it. Depth grow of dollars is a huge speculation buble which will blast soon or later. Get ready for it.
Criticizing the carbon footprint of bitcoin is a joke compared to the carbon footprint of depth dollars.
Regarding the future of bitcoin, my feeling is that it has the value of tracability which is very attractive for the police states we are evolving to. So I expect states might continue to tolerate it as long as it doesn't accelerated the dollar buble blast and present a threat.
Another current problem of bitcoin is that it's value is so much rising by speculation that it prevents it to start being used as a commercial currency. Illegal business activity is indeed a problem, but its tracability leaves a track. I wouldn't assume that it's free play for all illegal business. Assume hunt dogs are silently following the tracks.
Regarding the future of bitcoin, my feeling is that it has the value of tracability which is very attractive for the police states we are evolving to. So I expect states might continue to tolerate it as long as it doesn't accelerated the dollar buble blast and present a threat.
Another current problem of bitcoin is that it's value is so much rising by speculation that it prevents it to start being used as a commercial currency. Illegal business activity is indeed a problem, but its tracability leaves a track. I wouldn't assume that it's free play for all illegal business. Assume hunt dogs are silently following the tracks.
I get a feeling there is some alternative motive behind the article. The arguments are some what valid:
Mining uses electricity so it leaves a "carbon footprint", but printing money and mining gold also leaves a footprint.
Unaware "zombies" are used for mining, which means criminals get them more reliably, but I don't think this is BtC's fault. People should be aware what they download to avoid infections.
I haven't heard of the stolen electricity thing, but in hind sight it's obvious, if you aren't paying for electricity you are minimizing your costs, but I'm not sure how wild spread this is, but again I don't think it's about BtC or BtC's fault.
Lack of regulations does NOT permit assassination, sales of illegal drugs or spreading of child porn anymore than our current currencies, because this shit has been happening for way longer than BtC has been a thing.
Mining uses electricity so it leaves a "carbon footprint", but printing money and mining gold also leaves a footprint.
Unaware "zombies" are used for mining, which means criminals get them more reliably, but I don't think this is BtC's fault. People should be aware what they download to avoid infections.
I haven't heard of the stolen electricity thing, but in hind sight it's obvious, if you aren't paying for electricity you are minimizing your costs, but I'm not sure how wild spread this is, but again I don't think it's about BtC or BtC's fault.
Lack of regulations does NOT permit assassination, sales of illegal drugs or spreading of child porn anymore than our current currencies, because this shit has been happening for way longer than BtC has been a thing.
> For starters, BTC is inherently deflationary.
For starters, tell us why this is inherently bad. This statement also assumes that the BTC economy will grow forever.
> Bitcoin is designed to be verifiable [...] but pretty much untraceable
What would be bad about this if it were true? Paper bills work just fine, even though they are pretty much untraceable. By the way, this opinion is pretty much wrong, bitcoin is very far from being untraceable (IPs, exchanging BTC, etc.)
> Libertarians love it because it pushes the same buttons as their gold fetish
Ok, article is clearly emotional. How did this end up on the front page?
> Mining BTC has a carbon footprint from hell
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Is_it_not_a_waste_of_energy.3...
> Bitcoin mining software is now being distributed as malware
Surprise. Thieves steal valuable things. This wouldn't happen without BTC, right?
> Bitcoin's utter lack of regulation permits really hideous markets to emerge, in commodities like assassination (and drugs and child pornography).
FINCEN would like a word with you. Also, how does it hurt the USD that it is used for assassination, drugs and child pornography?
It's ok that people hate bitcoin though, some people just let their emotions take control.