What are your thoughts on BitCoin?

[Cutlass]

Would you also classify those who operate mostly or entirely on cash as people who desperately believe that they are entitled to be criminals?

This really is reeking of You Have Nothing To Fear If You Have Nothing To Hide. Was that what you were going for?

Not at all. Some people are in the black market or the grey market simply because they have no choice. And many people touch it a bit here and there, particularly in used goods. But most of the people in the black and grey markets full time, or at least a lot of the time, are doing so because either their activities are illegal otherwise, or because they are making an effort to cheat others. At least so far as to cheat on their taxes. And cheating on taxes is not a victimless crime, because it causes others to pay what the cheater avoided paying.

Many of the advocates of bitcoin make the point that it makes transactions untraceable, and so untaxable. So a very large part of why people advocate bitcoin is because they want to get away with breaking the law, and harming other people.

 

[Farm Boy]

I do not believe there is an appendage to the US Mint that advocates using its services (i.e., dollars) to assassinate public figures, nor that there are any persons attached to this hypothetical branch who have recently sent deadly poisons to world leaders.

So no.

Now that was interesting. The bend came in your usage of the term "appendage." Enlightening. Thank you!

Not at all. Some people are in the black market or the grey market simply because they have no choice. And many people touch it a bit here and there, particularly in used goods. But most of the people in the black and grey markets full time, or at least a lot of the time, are doing so because either their activities are illegal otherwise, or because they are making an effort to cheat others. At least so far as to cheat on their taxes. And cheating on taxes is not a victimless crime, because it causes others to pay what the cheater avoided paying.

Many of the advocates of bitcoin make the point that it makes transactions untraceable, and so untaxable. So a very large part of why people advocate bitcoin is because they want to get away with breaking the law, and harming other people.

Alright, but cash is terribly fraught with problems then. Shouldn't we then require people maintain an online bank account of some sort in order to facilitate the tracing of their assets? If it's mandated, then we'll probably need to issue a government account of some sort to at least some people - but the currency itself is government issued, so I don't really see that as being a problem. What percentage of transactions are appropriate to be done in cash? What percentage of assets are appropriate to be held in cash?

 

[Symphony D.]

Now that was interesting. The bend came in your usage of the term "appendage." Enlightening. Thank you!

Considering Silk Road's importance to the functioning of BitCoin (both before and after its destruction by the FBI, as a means of facilitating it and then popularizing it via news coverage) I can only conceive of the similar equivalent in the case of the cash economy being a component of the Federal government—one which obviously doesn't exist. The analogy's not exact, because of the differences between mining and minting, but close enough to make the point.

 

[Cutlass]

Now that was interesting. The bend came in your usage of the term "appendage." Enlightening. Thank you!



Alright, but cash is terribly fraught with problems then. Shouldn't we then require people maintain an online bank account of some sort in order to facilitate the tracing of their assets? If it's mandated, then we'll probably need to issue a government account of some sort to at least some people - but the currency itself is government issued, so I don't really see that as being a problem. What percentage of transactions are appropriate to be done in cash? What percentage of assets are appropriate to be held in cash?

Cash does have many of the same problems. Which is in large part what allows the black/grey market to thrive. So the question becomes, where do you draw the line? Cash, at least keeps the transactions in person. Which goes a long ways to limiting the scope and scale of them. A non-cash economy has been proposed, by a number of different people, for a number of different reasons. Personally I don't want to go there.

The goal, as always, is to allow the most liberty to the individual, without allowing that 'liberty' to include the deliberate, or negligent, harming of others.

 

[Crezth]

Deflation is bad because of the importance of debt: Banks expect inflation, and if the economy hits a bout of deflation, it may cause a cascade of destruction because people and business suddenly have to default on their debts. Since BitCoin doesn't seem to be used for the purposes of emitting and repaying debt, I doubt BitCoin deflation really matters, just as long it won't be used for debt. In fact, since BitCoins aren't used in debt, deflation may actually be quite beneficial for BitCoins as it encourages people to switch to BitCoins, while avoiding the downsides of deflation. Whether that is good for the economy in general is another question.

You're raving. Debt is another word for spending, so unless you're advocating an economy of non-spending........ no.

 

[Farm Boy]

Cash does have many of the same problems. Which is in large part what allows the black/grey market to thrive. So the question becomes, where do you draw the line? Cash, at least keeps the transactions in person. Which goes a long ways to limiting the scope and scale of them. A non-cash economy has been proposed, by a number of different people, for a number of different reasons. Personally I don't want to go there.

The goal, as always, is to allow the most liberty to the individual, without allowing that 'liberty' to include the deliberate, or negligent, harming of others.

Keeping the transactions in person seems to be massively ineffective for limiting the usefulness of its use in illegal activities or laundering wealth therefrom. So, if your condemnation of bitcoins is in their anonymity, is it because of who uses them being distasteful, or do you really think the difference in distance of transaction is enough to "keep you from going there?" It just seems sort of a shallow difference to me, if the difficulty in tracing them really is a key sticking point.

 

[Souron]

Everyone needs a copy of the blockchain in its entirety, which will be constantly updated. It's not centrally stored anywhere (because that would "defeat the point"), and so you do need a copy to make transactions.

You're committing to 11GB (currently) up front, that will grow with time. That growth depends on the number of users. Growth will naturally accelerate as more users are added; file size grows in linear proportion to users. The bandwidth required to transmit changes in the blockchain however, will grow exponentially or geometrically, as every single user will be informing every single other user. In the event that BitCoin were to go mainstream, this would begin to seriously limit, if not halt, its growth. I have referred to this as the scaling problem. No one has addressed it since I entered this thread.

There are clients that store the blockchain on a server, so no, you don't need to have 11GB on your machine.

So um, people profiting from buying and selling these... are they reporting the gains? I mean, that's a sort of capital gain, yes? So taxable? Surely the government needs to get involved at that point to ensure tax evasion is not taking place. I really cannot see how this thing can be legally bought and sold without government oversight and control.

Yes, Bitcoin transactions are taxable, however it is up to the individual to report transactions. This is sorta like reporting on-line purchases. How exactly they count under a given tax code may vary; for example there are several way bitcoins may be counted by the IRS.

 

[Crezth]

There are clients that store the blockchain on a server, so no, you don't need to have 11GB on your machine.

Because the BitCoin community has such an excellent track-record of providing fraud-free services to one another.

Also, to people who were like "prove BitCoin isn't liquid!"

Coinbase run out of coins

 

[Zelig]

Ergo there was no discernible intent at all! We don't know for sure, so it is simply impossible to draw conclusions from a historical narrative or inference or any such mechanism! Mystery solved!

Well it's silly to rail against inferences you've made when nobody is actually supporting those inferences.

Yes, because it remains relevant to my argument.

How?

"

" is not a "correction."

You're the only one summing up arguments with emoticons. I'd put the smug face as my avatar but that's reserved for floppa.

No, you were (and are) simply guilty of it, and I was calling you out on it.

So in other words, you were linking a previous post which was both factually incorrect and not relevant to the context.

It does not behoove me to go read the entirety of your contributions to this thread to justify your assertions that you have addressed my points. If you care so much, make them again. There are these wonderful features that computers have called "copy" and "paste" and if you click "edit" you could even do so with formatting, instead of simply using "quote," if it bothered you so much.

It doesn't behoove you to bother reading posts that address your points?

Is this an admission that you don't actually have a counterargument and are just wasting my time by being a troll?

Counterargument to what?

Surely if bitcoins can't scale in terms of the block chain there will come a time when using them for anything is prohibitively time/space expensive.

So presumably that will solve the deflation problem.

 

[danjuno]

This reminds me of that Enten scam in Japan.

 

[Crezth]

So presumably that will solve the deflation problem.

I'm guessing by the mischief emoticon that you really didn't mean anything by this sentence?

 

[timtofly]

Is this true?

 

[Zelig]

I'm guessing by the mischief emoticon that you really didn't mean anything by this sentence?

Well they're pretty obviously opposing forces - deflation is only going to be present if quantity demanded grows, and a massive block chain will decrease quantity demanded. If the size of the block chain makes demand stop increasing, deflation is cured - if deflation isn't cured, then clearly the size of the block chain isn't enough to stop the increase in quantity demanded.

 

[Symphony D.]

Well it's silly to rail against inferences you've made when nobody is actually supporting those inferences.

Yes, you're quite right, because no one in a given venue is arguing a particular thing, there is no reason to ever argue against a certain thing. Why would someone ever argue against racism to people who are not racists? An absurd notion! No point in it at all!

How?

Gee, a thing (e.g., BitCoin) which is promoted for use by a large body of people (e.g., the general economy) by a smaller but larger body of people (e.g., BitCoin supporters) and which is only maintained by the general consent of that body of people (e.g., BitCoin adopters and service providers) might involve the opinions of those people, whatever they might be and however valid they might be? Preposterous, I know, I mean you yourself set the entirety of BitCoin policy and so only your opinions matter, clearly.

You're the only one summing up arguments with emoticons. I'd put the smug face as my avatar but that's reserved for floppa.

Inference is obviously not your strong suit. Your "counterargument" to my initial statement was:

More great arguments.

That is you de facto going "

". It is not an intelligible argument. It is not an argument. It is a flippant, contentless statement that doesn't prove or disprove anything. If you think that your statement was a form of argumentation, especially one that "countered" what I said, I have something to tell you: you're terrible at arguing.

So in other words, you were linking a previous post which was both factually incorrect and not relevant to the context.

No, I was linking a direct response by you, to me, where you said nothing of value, and your dismissal was you being flippant, and then I called you a flippant, logical fallacy user for doing so; which is in fact what you were doing, rather than making a "counterargument." I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of argumentation, which is that two sides generally present cases and have an informed debate over them, but you clearly don't.

It doesn't behoove you to bother reading posts that address your points?

If you can't be bothered to say what you think again when it would take you literally the smallest amount of effort to do so, why should I be bothered to care what you think? Particularly when you've spent the entire conversation being unsociable, obstinate, and generally repugnant and irascible?

Counterargument to what?

My original point that BitCoin is stupid because it can't scale, to which you took great offense and said was a poor argument that you've countered, despite just admitting that you haven't, and correspondingly admitting that you're a horrible little troll. You know what? I'm done talking to you. You're not worth the time, and I don't have the patience to deal with this childish form of backtalk where literally everything you say could be replaced with "nuh uh" without content loss.

 

[Tahuti]

You're raving. Debt is another word for spending, so unless you're advocating an economy of non-spending........ no.

Except that the debt is already incurred with the normal currencies, then is converted into BitCoins to either cash in, avoid transaction fees or whatever. BitCoin's main use is not in its ability to replace national currencies (if so, then BitCoin would have to become inflationary, or we need to spend significantly less) but to negate their downsides.

 

[Crezth]

Well they're pretty obviously opposing forces - deflation is only going to be present if quantity demanded grows, and a massive block chain will decrease quantity demanded. If the size of the block chain makes demand stop increasing, deflation is cured - if deflation isn't cured, then clearly the size of the block chain isn't enough to stop the increase in quantity demanded.

I don't agree. Deflation will always be present from the constriction of the money supply. Bitcoins can be destroyed permanently with no recourse. And the block chain basically puts an insurmountable limit on all transactions beyond an uncertain point. It's not as simple as supply and demand.

So I think it's technically correct but ignores the basic shortcomings of both of the "features." You also ignore in your dichotomy the possibility that the dwindling supply and block chain cause you to get a constantly shrinking supply of bit coins that nobody can or wants to trade in. At any rate still unsuitable to replace fiat currency, and at that point possibly unsuitable even for exchanging.

 

[Zelig]

Yes, you're quite right, because no one in a given venue is arguing a particular thing, there is no reason to ever argue against a certain thing. Why would someone ever argue against racism to people who are not racists? An absurd notion! No point in it at all!

You seem to be putting a lot of effort into arguing about racists in a thread where there aren't any racists.

Gee, a thing (e.g., BitCoin) which is promoted for use by a large body of people (e.g., the general economy) by a smaller but larger body of people (e.g., BitCoin supporters) and which is only maintained by the general consent of that body of people (e.g., BitCoin adopters and service providers) might involve the opinions of those people, whatever they might be and however valid they might be? Preposterous, I know, I mean you yourself set the entirety of BitCoin policy and so only your opinions matter, clearly.

So I guess abandon everything that has stupid supporters. Have fun in your hermit hut.

Inference is obviously not your strong suit. Your "counterargument" to my initial statement was:

Oh, inference is my strong suite, I'm demonstrably better at inference than the vast majority of people.

That is you de facto going "

". It is not an intelligible argument. It is not an argument. It is a flippant, contentless statement that doesn't prove or disprove anything. If you think that your statement was a form of argumentation, especially one that "countered" what I said, I have something to tell you: you're terrible at arguing.

"Bitcoin is stupid" isn't an argument, it doesn't behoove me to put any more effort into my reply.

No, I was linking a direct response by you, to me, where you said nothing of value, and your dismissal was you being flippant, and then I called you a flippant, logical fallacy user for doing so; which is in fact what you were doing, rather than making a "counterargument." I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of argumentation, which is that two sides generally present cases and have an informed debate over them, but you clearly don't.

Sure I do, I've clearly responded to all your points, you've generally ignored any of mine instead preferring to pick at semantics (where you're wrong anyway).

If you can't be bothered to say what you think again when it would take you literally the smallest amount of effort to do so, why should I be bothered to care what you think? Particularly when you've spent the entire conversation being unsociable, obstinate, and generally repugnant and irascible?

Sorry, I have a max repetition rate of once every 3 CFC pages for the same points. If you try again in another page I'll be able to answer you again.

My original point that BitCoin is stupid because it can't scale, to which you took great offense and said was a poor argument that you've countered, despite just admitting that you haven't, and correspondingly admitting that you're a horrible little troll. You know what? I'm done talking to you. You're not worth the time, and I don't have the patience to deal with this childish form of backtalk where literally everything you say could be replaced with "nuh uh" without content loss.

Why in the world would I take offense to someone calling something I don't use stupid? I explained how none of my key points are contingent on Bitcoin's ability to scale. It could have no scaling ability, or infinite scaling ability, and my points would remain unchanged.

I don't agree. Deflation will always be present from the constriction of the money supply. Bitcoins can be destroyed permanently with no recourse. And the block chain basically puts an insurmountable limit on all transactions beyond an uncertain point. It's not as simple as supply and demand.

So I think it's technically correct but ignores the basic shortcomings of both of the "features." You also ignore in your dichotomy the possibility that the dwindling supply and block chain cause you to get a constantly shrinking supply of bit coins that nobody can or wants to trade in. At any rate still unsuitable to replace fiat currency, and at that point possibly unsuitable even for exchanging.

What? The only possible options are deflation or inflation (well, other than constant value, but that's basically impossible other than at a value of 0.)

If the value of bitcoins goes down, deflation is not occurring, by definition.

I don't know why you keep bringing up fiat currency, I've never made any claim of Bitcoins' suitability as a replacement currency or store of value, I'm going to simply start yelling strawman every time someone mentions replacing existing currency.

 

[Crezth]

What? The only possible options are deflation or inflation (well, other than constant value, but that's basically impossible other than at a value of 0.)

If the value of bitcoins goes down, deflation is not occurring, by definition.

I don't know why you keep bringing up fiat currency, I've never made any claim of Bitcoins' suitability as a replacement currency or store of value, I'm going to simply start yelling strawman every time someone mentions replacing existing currency.

Dude, pay attention. Smaller supply of bitcoins and always getting smaller. Block chain makes using bitcoins suck forever. That's my point. Doomed to always suck. Even just to transfer currency (thats the block chain).

 

[Zelig]

Dude, pay attention. Smaller supply of bitcoins and always getting smaller. Block chain makes using bitcoins suck forever. That's my point. Doomed to always suck. Even just to transfer currency (thats the block chain).

So is the value going to go up or down?

 

[Crezth]

Ah, I see what you mean. Very clever, but of course this is why I asked about your smilie because it has no bearing on the point at hand. To wit: that BitCoins will suck forever.