Bitcoin discussion and news

[Idaho]

The left's critique analysis of capitalism isn't based on voting/fair voting. I think idaho is talking about after all the structural stuff that it is about has been sorted out.

I think that the democratic tools may come first.

 

[sim667]

I've been using bitcoins for a while now, but I want to start buying some to squirrel away for a rainy day, maybe like £25 a month or something.

Does anyone know how you can automate a purchase like that? So I don't have to remember to do it monthly

 

[danny la rouge]

I've read many articles about bitcoins but I still don't understand who uses them, what for, or why. Mainly why. Why not PayPal?

 

[butchersapron]

I've read many articles about bitcoins but I still don't understand who uses them, what for, or why. Mainly why. Why not PayPal?

The above seems to be to make a profit through hoarding. Which is why it's not what it's supposed to be. There was a good basic piece in the lrb a few months back. Also a funny piece showing the flakiness. You've prob seen them though.

 

[butchersapron]

I've read many articles about bitcoins but I still don't understand who uses them, what for, or why. Mainly why. Why not PayPal?

Or money.

 

[og ogilby]

I've read many articles about bitcoins but I still don't understand who uses them, what for, or why. Mainly why. Why not PayPal?

For buying drugs on the dark web.

 

[danny la rouge]

The above seems to be to make a profit through hoarding. Which is why it's not what it's supposed to be. There was a good basic piece in the lrb a few months back. Also a funny piece showing the flakiness. You've prob seen them though.

Yes, I've read those. And others like them. But I still don't get the point.

Maybe it's not that I don't understand.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

I've read many articles about bitcoins but I still don't understand who uses them, what for, or why. Mainly why. Why not PayPal?

I am also at this stage.

 

[sim667]

Yes, I've read those. And others like them. But I still don't get the point.

Maybe it's not that I don't understand.

I am also at this stage.

There's a number of reasons, anonymity being one, however its a worldwide currency that isn't effected by exchange rates as much, but as a currency its volatile in its own right.

The main benefits of it are really more to do with blockchain technology, which is bitcoins foundation..... You're able to make trustworthy financial exchanges without an intermediary (i.e. you're not having to give anyone personal banking details), users control what financial information they're putting out there, there's no centralised weak point for the system (i.e. if a bank gets cyber attacked, then people can't make payments, that doesn't happen with blockchain), there's lower transaction costs, and transactions can be completed quickly and on a 24/7 basis (bank transfers still take days for some unexplainable reason).

The technology will undoubtedly be used for other stuff too eventually, I've seen a blockchain insurance company for example.

 

[ffsear]

I've read many articles about bitcoins but I still don't understand who uses them, what for, or why. Mainly why. Why not PayPal?

easy Money laundering.

 

[sim667]

easy Money laundering.

Enforcement agencies can track transactions now with the right info, so not so much for money laundering, unless you're tumbling your coins.

 

[BigTom]

Yes, I've read those. And others like them. But I still don't get the point.

Maybe it's not that I don't understand.

anonymity means you can buy drugs.
They also form a cheaper way of doing money transfers to abroad than western union/paypal/etc

 

[butchersapron]

Also, you don't know that you're actively giving money to a white nationalist (as in using paypal). You might be, but you don't know.

 

[og ogilby]

anonymity means you can buy drugs.

Probably more important to the person selling them. I'd quite happily buy drugs using my paypal account if I could as I'm only a small time user.

 

[mwgdrwg]

Also, you don't know that you're actively giving money to a white nationalist (as in using paypal). You might be, but you don't know.

 

[mwgdrwg]

I've been using bitcoins for a while now, but I want to start buying some to squirrel away for a rainy day, maybe like £25 a month or something.

Does anyone know how you can automate a purchase like that? So I don't have to remember to do it monthly

I fancy buying a small amount of bitcoin too. Can you recommend a seller?

 

[og ogilby]

I fancy buying a small amount of bitcoin too. Can you recommend a seller?

I buy from bittylicious.

I log into my account and state the value I want to buy. They then give me a persons name with their bank sort code and account number. I log into my bank account and send a payment to that persons bank account.

e2a. I also have a bitcoin wallet that receives the bitcoins I have purchased.

 

[mwgdrwg]

I buy from bittylicious.

I log into my account and state the value I want to buy. They then give me a persons name with their bank sort code and account number. I log into my bank account and send a payment to that persons bank account.

Thanks. Another noob question. How do I receive and store them? I honestly have no idea about this...but I want to pay for my vpn using bitcoin rather than my credit card.

 

[og ogilby]

Thanks. Another noob question. How do I receive and store them? I honestly have no idea about this...but I want to pay for my vpn using bitcoin rather than my credit card.

See my edit above.

 

[og ogilby]

Get a wallet from here.

Bitcoin Wallet from Blockchain

 

[sim667]

I fancy buying a small amount of bitcoin too. Can you recommend a seller?

I use a personal friend, but I'm not too sure what he's like about doing it for people he doesn't know..... I can ask?

If not bittylicious was always good for me, or localbitcoins if you want to pay someone in person

 

[butchersapron]

Peter Thiel is bang in the middle of the white nationalist alt-right.

 

[mwgdrwg]

Peter Thiel is bang in the middle of the white nationalist alt-right.

Oh dear.

 

[kabbes]

+4

OK, done. I'll read chapters 5-6 tonight too, I think, because chapters 1-4 are indeed very interesting.

You already gave a summary but for the benefit of those who missed it and need reminding: it's a very stark and well-evidenced piece showing that bitcoin is intrinsically linked with right-wing libertarian rhetoric. It's virtually impossible, according to the author, to find anything favourable written about bitcoin that does not take right-wing libertarian assumptions as its explicitly stated starting point, and this is true no matter what the claimed political leanings of the author.

In concrete terms, proponents take it as a given that governments form a tyranny, no matter the government's actual aims. Meanwhile, the very real tyranny created by allowing corporations to accumulate power without controls on that accumulation are either ignored or positively embraced.

 

[Santino]

Tuesday 18th October, the Year of Our Lord 2016

Dear Diary,

Today butchersapron Liked two posts. They were both by kabbes.

 

[mauvais]

It would take a lot more thought by cleverer people - saying that the whole concept lives or dies by my feeble offerings is a bit harsh.

Of course. There are projects underway, I know 'Follow My Vote' is one, but I'm not sure anyone anywhere has really proven it up to be a useful concept yet.

More generally IME there is little trust to be placed in people who (a) claim to offer real life security through technology alone, or (b) expound that technology alone is any kind of political action in itself, rather than a mere enabler for some existing initiative amongst people. In other words blockchain voting may or may not be a good answer, but it's irrelevant if noone is asking the question.

 

[fredfelt]

Regardless of any values ascribed to Bitcoin I'm finding it a pain in the arse in a practical sense. I just want to do a little shopping, but my wallet's out of sync, need to transfer balance to a new wallet, open port, not enough confirms - blah blah blah.

 

[kabbes]

I've read the rest now, and it's worth while. Chapter 5, actually, just reiterates exactly what I was saying right at the start of this thread. For instance, compare:

“In fact, there is an underlying general proposition that applies not just to Bitcoin but also to other tradeable commodities: “investment” and “currency” functions oppose each other.”

Excerpt From: Golumbia, David. “The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism.” University of Minnesota Press, 2016-08-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

And this I wrote in 2011:

I think the point is that it's just another reminder that this is a stock, not a currency. They're fundamentally different. Using bitcoins to pay with is no different to using any stock you like as your payment method, with all the advantages and disadvantages that a bartering system brings.

One thing I got wrong, however, is to appreciate the difference between "currency" and "money". As Golumbia notes, this is a currency, but that doesn't make it money. Effectively, that I what I was getting at.

Other things he says in the chapter, about how it doesn't fulfil the other functions of money as store of value or accounting value are right on line with an argument I was making in 2013, including this:

One criticism that is specifically of bitcoin that I have not seen defended yet is this: a wildly unstable currency is useless for anything other than speculation. You can't trade with it if you don't know what it is going to be worth by the time the trade is completed. The arguments in favour of it seem to be based on a use that it cannot realistically yet have.

It might stabilise at some point in the future, but it might not. Until it does, it's just gambling.

And his point that money is actually *by definition* a currency issued by nation states is very much consistent with this:

It strikes me that proper money is fundamentally kept valuable and stable by its adoption by governments. Sterling is the solely acceptable currency of the UK government -- it's what they pay people in and it's what they demand payment in (principally in the form of tax). That's half a trillion pounds' worth of value a year going each way guaranteed. The rest of the economy could choose to adopt something else, but when 20% of the GDP is already being traded by a single player in a single currency, it makes sense for everybody else to follow.

Until another currency has a similar heavyweight adopter, it is never going to have significant purchase (in either sense of the word).

 

[kabbes]

And in chapter 6, where he discusses the problematic concepts that are the foundation of the use of blockchains for things other than currency, he summarises as:

“many of the most serious economic and political problems today emerge just from the ability of concentrations of capital, usually under the name of “corporations,” to act in a remarkably decentralized and autonomous fashion. One might say without exaggeration that the last thing the world needs is the granting to capital of even more power, independent of democratic oversight, than it has already taken for itself”

Excerpt From: Golumbia, David. “The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism.” University of Minnesota Press, 2016-08-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Again, I couldn't agree more. I've also talked on this thread about the problems associated with the centralisation of power in corporations, for example:

... For example, there are also significant problems involved with giving an impersonal corporation rights as a legal entity, when many of our usual sanctions and disincentives that work on the personal level have no meaning at the corporate level. How do you put a business in jail?

 

[camouflage]

OK, done. I'll read chapters 5-6 tonight too, I think, because chapters 1-4 are indeed very interesting.

You already gave a summary but for the benefit of those who missed it and need reminding: it's a very stark and well-evidenced piece showing that bitcoin is intrinsically linked with right-wing libertarian rhetoric. It's virtually impossible, according to the author, to find anything favourable written about bitcoin that does not take right-wing libertarian assumptions as its explicitly stated starting point, and this is true no matter what the claimed political leanings of the author.

In concrete terms, proponents take it as a given that governments form a tyranny, no matter the government's actual aims. Meanwhile, the very real tyranny created by allowing corporations to accumulate power without controls on that accumulation are either ignored or positively embraced.

Used to spend a lot of time pointing this out on the bitcoin forum. Gave up.