Bitcoin discussion and news

[littlebabyjesus]

There is some amazing magical thinking over this stuff. Read one analyst claiming that a ban on mining in China (where most mining currently happens, in regions with cheap lecky, produced mostly by burning coal) will produce an upward pressure on the price of btc because it will make mining more expensive. Really, someone who makes a living out of saying stuff about btc said that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Capitalism can work with a cryptocoin as its means of exchange if it wants. Your labour can be exploited just fine when you're paid less than its value in bitcoins.

This literally makes no sense. The energy cost per transaction with bitcoin is orders of magnitude higher than bank transfers or Visa. By any reasonable measure it is less efficient than its competitors.
The solar power argument is ludicrous. If you are installing loads of solar panels just to mine bitcoin, it has zero effect on all the existing power stations which continue to take up the rest of the load. It's like bailing out a ship with a colander and being proud of how hard you're working.

Not quite zero effect. Making solar panels requires energy. So a negative effect.

 

[Teaboy]

Oh yeah and

I'm gonna need to see the receipts

Isn't Venezuela giving it a whirl at the moment? With mixed outcomes I believe.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Isn't Venezuela giving it a whirl at the moment? With mixed outcomes I believe.

With resultant power cuts for people wanting to do useful stuff like turning lights on. Replace Chinese coal with Venezuelan oil. Yay!

 

[Crispy]

Besides, it's not even Capitalism per se that's threatening the planet. The workers could own every business, but all the wheels of industry would continue to turn. The overthrow of capitalism is neccesary, but not sufficient, for the creation of a truly sustainable mode of living.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

The energy cost per transaction with bitcoin is orders of magnitude higher than bank transfers or Visa. By any reasonable measure it is less efficient than its competitors.
The solar power argument is ludicrous. If you are installing loads of solar panels just to mine bitcoin, it has zero effect on all the existing power stations which continue to take up the rest of the load. It's like bailing out a ship with a colander and being proud of how hard you're working.

You are thinking far too narrowly. Its the systemic energy cost. The current financial system needs physical infrastructure, like banks, it needs co-ordination from central banks, debt needs funded and that means that resources need secured. Bitcoin has no physical insfrastructure beyond mining rigs, no co-ordination, no debt and the only resources used are those running the rigs. Bitcoin turns energy directly into money, that means that there is immense value in investing in efficient energy.

There is literally nothing about a cryptocurrency that encourages post-capitalism. Post-capitalism will not be the same thing but with somebody other than the state providing the medium of exchange.

But its fundamentally not the same thing. Crypto powered smart contracts can essentially cut out human intervention. No need for a warehouseman to check an incoming order and sign that its received so that payment can be released, instead a scanner can check the order and trigger a payment to the supplier, which then triggers a payment to the safe delivery of the goods to the selfdriving van firm, which hits a threshold which sends the van to an automated garage for a service. Capitalism is based on the extraction of the surplus value of human labour, but human labour is becoming obsolete, there are very few physical tasks that we can do better than machines, and AI is reaching the stage where there will soon be few intellectual tasks that we are better at as well.

We have 11 years to fundamentally change how the world operates, and crypto is a massive economic change. Maybe crypto will lead us into a dystopian hellscape, its possible, and its risk I'm going to take, because I look at the current system and I see nazis, religious fundamentalism and nationalism all over the place and it isnt pretty.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't want to sound rude , qwerty, but I don't think you understand the mechanics of btc. Transactions happen in blocks every 10 minutes or so and those transactions are narrowly limited in number. The kind of payment system you describe is impossible with btc working directly on the blockchain.

It's one of the many layers of idiocy - energy use can be scaled up even when use value necessarily cannot grow. It's quite mad to think of that as anything other than evil tbh.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Also reading that again, the automated system you describe can work perfectly well using regular money.

Crypto just isn't a massive economic change. It isn't even a currency. It is a commodity. Nobody is paid in btc. It has no 'fundamentals'. You've been had.

 

[BigTom]

But its fundamentally not the same thing. Crypto powered smart contracts can essentially cut out human intervention. No need for a warehouseman to check an incoming order and sign that its received so that payment can be released, instead a scanner can check the order and trigger a payment to the supplier, which then triggers a payment to the safe delivery of the goods to the selfdriving van firm, which hits a threshold which sends the van to an automated garage for a service. Capitalism is based on the extraction of the surplus value of human labour, but human labour is becoming obsolete, there are very few physical tasks that we can do better than machines, and AI is reaching the stage where there will soon be few intellectual tasks that we are better at as well.

Why is crypto necessary for any of this? Barcoded/QR coded products get scanned into warehouses, put on shelves by robots, taken off those shelves when needed and sent out, barcode scanned to show they've been sent. Computer systems send out invoices which are automatically paid using direct debit systems. The self-driving van will just go on time/mileage to require a service, that has nothing to do with crypto.
Pretty sure all this can or already is achieved without crypto, if my utility bills can be charged automatically at varying rates through the direct debit system, surely anything can be?

 

[Crispy]

Bitcoin turns energy directly into money, that means that there is immense value in investing in efficient energy.

Among the many bonkers things you've posted I think this is most bonkers. Remember that by design, bitcoin's mining competition requires ever more energy to run. Rather than limiting the amount of renewable energy to that which satisfies our current material needs, it commits us to an endless race. It literally advocates running to stay still.

 

[kabbes]

It honestly reads as a zealot desperately looking for use cases. Yes, those use cases can exist but 99% of the time there’s no reason not to do the same thing more simply (and cheaply) without the blockchain and in 100% of cases it isn’t bringing down capitalism, just finding it new ways to exploit resources for profit.

 

[BigTom]

There is literally nothing about a cryptocurrency that encourages post-capitalism. Post-capitalism will not be the same thing but with somebody other than the state providing the medium of exchange.

Politically, bitcoin is explicitly pro-capitalist afaik, it was created by libertarian capitalists as a way to replace fiat currency and have a working currency system in capitalism without a state. I know butchersapron has posted up some stuff on this in the past on this thread about the ideology of the creators and earliest adopters, and it's definitely not a "let's build something for a post-capitalist world" outlook.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why is crypto necessary for any of this? Barcoded/QR coded products get scanned into warehouses, put on shelves by robots, taken off those shelves when needed and sent out, barcode scanned to show they've been sent. Computer systems send out invoices which are automatically paid using direct debit systems. The self-driving van will just go on time/mileage to require a service, that has nothing to do with crypto.
Pretty sure all this can or already is achieved without crypto, if my utility bills can be charged automatically at varying rates through the direct debit system, surely anything can be?

Of course. Every time you pay for something with visa that few-second delay isn't for a human somewhere to check out all the details.

The only thing btc has going for it is the exclusion of a third party from the transaction but that only happens if you're working directly on the block. And it's of dubious worth anyway - yet another means for the rich to keep their wealth to themselves even if it could be scaled up, which it can't .

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

I don't want to sound rude , qwerty, but I don't think you understand the mechanics of btc. Transactions happen in blocks every 10 minutes or so and those transactions are narrowly limited in number. The kind of payment system you describe is impossible with btc working directly on the blockchain.

The lightening network means that btc transactions dont have to happen on chain, and I guess I see btc as more of a settlement layer, an arbitrar of ultimate value, while other crypto deal with the minutiae of transactions. VEchain for example tracks the movement of goods in a supply chain but it is the fact that VET can be measured in a bitcoin value that makes it a desirable thing for a supplier to engage with.

Why is crypto necessary for any of this? Barcoded/QR coded products get scanned into warehouses, put on shelves by robots, taken off those shelves when needed and sent out, barcode scanned to show they've been sent. Computer systems send out invoices which are automatically paid using direct debit systems. The self-driving van will just go on time/mileage to require a service, that has nothing to do with crypto.
Pretty sure all this can or already is achieved without crypto, if my utility bills can be charged automatically at varying rates through the direct debit system, surely anything can be?

Smart contracts make all of that smoother, and crypto makes micro transactions possible in a way that could never be done with government issued currency. It is a fundamental rupture to the assumed fundamentals of economics, because it is finite, deflationary and not-centrally controlled, this is a game changer in so many ways that we are yet to see.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you're not on the block directly then you have third party involvement, no? Visa's a lot simpler.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

If you're not on the block directly then you have third party involvement, no? Visa's a lot simpler.

Not necessarily. With lightening network you can have a channel with a supplier, like a mini-ledger just between the two of you, then settle at the end of a defined period. This involves a level of trust with the other party who is running the channel tho.

With alt-chains, you can transact through different levels of security, zilla for example employs "sharding" so divvying up the transactions to increase the hash rate without increasing the number of miners, its less secure but it still works. Bitcoin is the most secure chain so it is a measure of the others, the others have use value (in what they actually do - do they trigger a supply movement, instigate a legal process, certify a document) and exchange value (measured in bitcoin).

Crypto is so much bigger than just money.

 

[BigTom]

Smart contracts make all of that smoother, and crypto makes micro transactions possible in a way that could never be done with government issued currency. It is a fundamental rupture to the assumed fundamentals of economics, because it is finite, deflationary and not-centrally controlled, this is a game changer in so many ways that we are yet to see.

Smart contracts are blockchain, not bitcoin right? Not sure how microtransactions are relevant to a corporate logistics environment tbh.

This is not a fundamental rupture to the assumed fundamentals of economics - not least because economics is a broad field with many different schools of thought with different fundamentals. It potentially challenges some schools of economic thought but since it hasn't yet established itself as a currency (see kabbes for more on this), it really hasn't actually challenged anything yet.
Local currencies and LETS are both currencies or currency like systems that are not centrally controlled, some have been finite and deflationary in the past - one feature of local currencies in the 1970s was use-by dates on the currency so it couldn't be used a store of value. There have been other forms of currency than government controlled and backed currency before.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Smart contracts are blockchain, not bitcoin right?

I dont think that bitcoin and blockchain can be seperated in that way. Bitcoin runs on a blockchain, and there are others, but what gives those other blockchains their value is their utility and how that utility is valued compared to bitcoin. Because bitcoin is the most secure blockchain.

Not sure how microtransactions are relevant to a corporate logistics environment tbh.

Because you have to look at it at the level of micro tasks, which go on all over the place, but are economically grouped into large service level contracts. Crypto makes it possible to radically deaggregate these contracts.

This is not a fundamental rupture to the assumed fundamentals of economics - not least because economics is a broad field with many different schools of thought with different fundamentals. It potentially challenges some schools of economic thought but since it hasn't yet established itself as a currency (see kabbes for more on this), it really hasn't actually challenged anything yet.
Local currencies and LETS are both currencies or currency like systems that are not centrally controlled, some have been finite and deflationary in the past - one feature of local currencies in the 1970s was use-by dates on the currency so it couldn't be used a store of value. There have been other forms of currency than government controlled and backed currency before.

I was involved in a LETS scheme in the early 90s, which I think is what kindof drew me towards bitcoin in the first place. The problem, that anyone who has ever been involved in a LETs will know is that there was an abundance of dogwalkers and teenage babysitters, yoga practitioners and even the occasional accountant, but they were all direct services. You could not live off LETS because you could not rent a house, obtain food and pay bills through LETS, it could only ever be a supplement, like a corporate points card scheme but for individuals. Crypto has the potential to expand that throughout the economy and ultimately take it over in a way that LETS or company scrip never could.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's not deflationary. It's a commodity whose price goes up or down. That's all. 'Deflation' or 'inflation' don't apply.

Nowt wrong with inflation in any case. Money circulates. The value represented is eroded over time if it doesn't circulate. That's not a bad thing.

 

[kabbes]

It feels like we’ve had these conversations quite a few times already with a different person peddling the nonsense each time. The moment I hear “Bitcoin is deflationary” my eyes roll back and I can’t be bothered any more. You can’t argue with somebody who wants to wear the trappings of economics without actually understanding the theory behind it.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

It's not deflationary. It's a commodity whose price goes up or down. That's all. 'Deflation' or 'inflation' don't apply.

Its money, and money is a special kind of commodity. Bitcoin "price" goes up and down relative to other types of money, but fiat is inflationary by design. Fiat money is created, loaned and interest charged, the money supply needs to expand to encompass that interest or there is default. Under bitcoin, money is created and paid for in energy (via mining rigs) with a supply where the increase exponentially declines to reach a final supply of 21 million.

Nowt wrong with inflation in any case. Money circulates. The value represented is eroded over time if it doesn't circulate. That's not a bad thing.

Consumption is intrinsic to our current use of money, people must consume more and more to keep the show on the road, but we need to cut consumption, that means demonitarising our society, and where the energy expended on growing a tomato is greater than the energy expended to mine a tomato;s worth of bitcoin, the focus of energy will shift.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

It feels like we’ve had these conversations quite a few times already with a different person peddling the nonsense each time. The moment I hear “Bitcoin is deflationary” my eyes roll back and I can’t be bothered any more. You can’t argue with somebody who wants to wear the trappings of economics without actually understanding the theory behind it.

Thats because its a whole new theory.

Its an entire paradigm shift and its really difficult to have a conversation when you are both looking at it through different lenses.
I did A level economics and I've studied economics at university, albeit many years ago, I understand the objections that people raise, but I feel like to really grok bitcoin, you need to get rid of a whole load of fundamental assumptions that just act as baggage when you look at bitcoin.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If I paint a wall, that wall won't need painting again for 10 years. My work painting that wall is worth ten years of good wall when I finish it. A year later my work is worth 9 years of good wall. In 10 years' time my work is worth nothing and the wall needs to be painted again.

Nearly everyone's useful work has this quality to it. It's an expression of entropy. Ongoing inflation, slowly eroding the value of money reflects this entropy. It also gives an incentive to keep the money circulating either by spending it or lending it. These are not in and of themselves bad things. And the things people do to keep the money circulating can be constructive or destructive, but that's a separate issue - to do with the things we ourselves attach value to.

I think you misunderstand the nature of money tbh. Money is not a commodity. It is a representation of an obligation - Of sets of obligations between people. It doesn't cause harm in and of itself. It is the nature of the obligations, the real world things we do, that causes harm.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

I think you misunderstand the nature of money tbh. Money is not a commodity. It is a representation of an obligation - Of sets of obligations between people. It doesn't cause harm in and of itself. It is the nature of the obligations, the real world things we do, that causes harm.

 

[kabbes]

Bitcoin is not a new dawn. It’s a commodity that people speculate on, which gives it wildly volatile swings of value. It changes nothing about capitalism and it’ll only ever be a tiny niche of interest, thank goodness. Just because there is a tiny fraction of die-hard far-right lunatics out there that are obsessed by the idea of obviating state involvement in anything, doesn’t mean this speculative commodity suddenly becomes actual money, any more than the obsessions of philatelists turn stamps into money.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Soz not watching that without a summary. There is a mountain of bullshit on the internet about bitcoin. Most if them could do with reading a short Marx primer.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Bitcoin is not a new dawn. It’s a commodity that people speculate on, which gives it wildly volatile swings of value. It changes nothing about capitalism and it’ll only ever be a tiny niche of interest, thank goodness. Just because there is a tiny fraction of die-hard far-right lunatics out there that are obsessed by the idea of obviating state involvement in anything, doesn’t mean this speculative commodity suddenly becomes actual money, any more than the obsessions of philatelists turn stamps into money.

Stamps are at least pretty to look at. Hell even tulip bulbs grow into pretty tulips.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Bitcoin is not a new dawn. It’s a commodity that people speculate on, which gives it wildly volatile swings of value. It changes nothing about capitalism and it’ll only ever be a tiny niche of interest, thank goodness. Just because there is a tiny fraction of die-hard far-right lunatics out there that are obsessed by the idea of obviating state involvement in anything, doesn’t mean this speculative commodity suddenly becomes actual money, any more than the obsessions of philatelists turn stamps into money.

Yes, some people speculate on it as a commodity and thats frequently the first route in, which is why people say "bitcoin is a revolution disguised as a get rich quick scheme".

Soz not watching that without a summary. There is a mountain of bullshit on the internet about bitcoin. Most if them could do with reading a short Marx primer.

Skip to 1.37 and watch till 2.15. It talks about how blockchain confers value onto activity, obligations values satisfied. At some other point he talks of a token that can be given to a teenager helping a little old lady across the road, if we as a society value that action, through blockchain we can assign direct value to that action through crypto. That token represents a share of all the stored energy in the world.

Marx didnt pay enough attention to Poldolinski.

 

[kabbes]

“People” don’t say it. Some far-right conspiracy nuts say it.

 

[BigTom]

I dont think that bitcoin and blockchain can be seperated in that way. Bitcoin runs on a blockchain, and there are others, but what gives those other blockchains their value is their utility and how that utility is valued compared to bitcoin. Because bitcoin is the most secure blockchain.

You can't separate bitcoin from blockchain but you can separate blockchain from bitcoin. If bitcoin dies, will the other applications for blockchain also die? I highly doubt it. The other blockchains are all also cryptocurrencies right now but smart contracts / public p2p ledger supply chain tracking and whatever else is being looked at for applications of blockchain in particular industries has no dependency on bitcoin and no real reason to use it when those supply chains are going to be using the standard banking system already.

Because you have to look at it at the level of micro tasks, which go on all over the place, but are economically grouped into large service level contracts. Crypto makes it possible to radically deaggregate these contracts.

Please can you expand on this, sticking to the example you started about warehousing/logistics chains and payments.

I was involved in a LETS scheme in the early 90s, which I think is what kindof drew me towards bitcoin in the first place. The problem, that anyone who has ever been involved in a LETs will know is that there was an abundance of dogwalkers and teenage babysitters, yoga practitioners and even the occasional accountant, but they were all direct services. You could not live off LETS because you could not rent a house, obtain food and pay bills through LETS, it could only ever be a supplement, like a corporate points card scheme but for individuals. Crypto has the potential to expand that throughout the economy and ultimately take it over in a way that LETS or company scrip never could.

And there's an abundance of drug dealers and money launderers in the bitcoin scheme, but can I pay someone to walk my dog with it? Can I fuck!
I was also involved in a LETS, I totally know those limitations, crypto is different, like local currencies are different, but they all present a challenge to the standard government backed currency and banking system, my point was that the claims of crypto being some fundamentally new challenge to the existing nature of capitalism is a massively overblown position.