Unintended consequences, Bitcoin chapter

Nov 2017
2,161
993
.
#11
What intrinsic value does bitcoin have that a paper dollar doesn't?
The intrinsic value of bitcoin, just like gold, comes from its scarcity; it's limited to 21 million bitcoins, so its scarcity is permanent.

Paper dollars, on the other hand, are not limited (more can be printed & put in circulation), so their scarcity is not limited.
 
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2013
33,811
19,359
Beware of watermelons
#12
The intrinsic value of bitcoin, just like gold, comes from its scarcity; it's limited to 21 million bitcoins, so its scarcity is permanent.

Paper dollars, on the other hand, are not limited (more can be printed & put in circulation), so their scarcity is not limited.
Bitcoin is going thru the roof now these naysayers are suddenly interested. I have been trying to talk to these same people about it for years.

I.say.let them do their own research;-)
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2017
2,161
993
.
#13
Bitcoin is going thru the roof now these naysayers are suddenly interested. I have been trying to talk to these same people about it for years.

I.say.let them do their own research;-)
LOL That's alright. I went through this with folks (naysayers, critics, skeptics, etc.) who were a bit more challenging than this on a forum named after Ron Paul a while back, and I think I was able to provide some pretty good responses & rebuttals.

Initially I was skeptical about it myself; I had originally learned about it on a forum for The Zeitgeist Movement, and as a post scarcity advocacy movement, I guess I didn't think of it much from the perspective of feasibility & probably because the post scarcity theme of the movement took my focus away from its potential in our existing world of capitalism of today. I regret not getting into it a bit earlier, but I did get into it before the exchange rate in terms of private central bank interest bearing debt currency (aka FRNs) skyrocketed. ;)

There was someone on that Zeitgeist Movement forum discussing it, answering questions, and being patient & polite with everyone throwing all kinds of questions, challenges, and critiques of it, including from me - I was one of the individuals posing challenging questions as a skeptic & critic myself. Over time it has become one of the rather rare situations where I sort of altered my position (basically I changed sides).

It was after keeping an eye out on how well it did on one of the few bitcoin exchanges that existed early on (the now defunct Mt. GOX, I think), checking it from time to time a few times, and after familiarizing myself with the essential fundamentals of what it was, how it worked (learning that it was decentralized, limited in supply, protected with encryption, etc.) that I started to gain interest in it.

After learning and understanding what task the mining process was actually performing, and seeing that many fellow libertarian-leaning folks liked the concept, that's when I became convinced that it can and will work (in other words, that's when I was sold on the concept).

I immediately got into mining them at a time when the difficulty was very low, and mainly got a several that way.

I don't mind trying to answer questions for those who are curious and interested in learning more about it. Imagine the first people who started using gold or silver as a medium of exchange, in the era of barter, and one person is asking someone else, "why should I trade my crops, or cattle, or fish, or whatever for shiny little rocks?" How would we answer that question today? That's where we probably are, again.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person
Sep 2015
14,287
5,082
Brown Township, Ohio
#15
Two things to consider:

1. As the semiconductor fabrication technology to produce integrated circuits (ICs) improves, mainly or essentially in the form of trace linewidth reduction, the GPUs, FPGAs, and ASICs (for the hash function) that are used for crypto-mining will use less energy for the same hash rate. The older GPUs/FPGAs/ASICs that take more energy will no longer be profitable, so they'll become obsolete & no longer be used for crypto-mining (meaning they'll no longer be consuming the larger amounts of energy they take to run).

2. Currently we have the computers used by banks, check clearing houses, the credit card industry, money wiring services, which are currently using up a certain amount of energy, and those systems could be replaced by Bitcoin. That's just what we have on the surface. Cash registers, for example, use energy. The armored trucks that are used to pick up and deliver cash between businesses and banks use energy. The manufacturing of coins and bills use energy and resources to produce. There's also the overhead for facilities & staff for these financial businesses or institutions, and Bitcoin can replace all of that too. There's probably much more than this which can be added to this list before we even get to irreducibles.

Keep in mind that Bitcoin is a world-wide network, so all of the bank or other financial activities throughout the world have to be taken into account.

Anyways, in order to analyze this accurately, we have to take into consideration all of the resources and energy that the entire conventional financial industry that pertains to what Bitcoin could replace consumes, and subtract that from what the crypto-miners with improved IC technology will consume. Suppose crypto-miners take 1 gigawatt (it's half of that according to this IEEE source: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/policy/the-ridiculous-amount-of-energy-it-takes-to-run-bitcoin ) and the conventional financial industry collectively takes 3 gigawatts (that's just a guess I pulled out of my fanny pack), that would be a net reduction of 2 gigawatts.
Baloney aka horsecock. "Suppose crypto-miners take 1 gigawatt". One gigawatt is chump change. Should crypto-miners take 1 terawatt then shut them down.
 
Dec 2013
33,811
19,359
Beware of watermelons
#16
LOL That's alright. I went through this with folks (naysayers, critics, skeptics, etc.) who were a bit more challenging than this on a forum named after Ron Paul a while back, and I think I was able to provide some pretty good responses & rebuttals.

Initially I was skeptical about it myself; I had originally learned about it on a forum for The Zeitgeist Movement, and as a post scarcity advocacy movement, I guess I didn't think of it much from the perspective of feasibility & probably because the post scarcity theme of the movement took my focus away from its potential in our existing world of capitalism of today. I regret not getting into it a bit earlier, but I did get into it before the exchange rate in terms of private central bank interest bearing debt currency (aka FRNs) skyrocketed. ;)

There was someone on that Zeitgeist Movement forum discussing it, answering questions, and being patient & polite with everyone throwing all kinds of questions, challenges, and critiques of it, including from me - I was one of the individuals posing challenging questions as a skeptic & critic myself. Over time it has become one of the rather rare situations where I sort of altered my position (basically I changed sides).

It was after keeping an eye out on how well it did on one of the few bitcoin exchanges that existed early on (the now defunct Mt. GOX, I think), checking it from time to time a few times, and after familiarizing myself with the essential fundamentals of what it was, how it worked (learning that it was decentralized, limited in supply, protected with encryption, etc.) that I started to gain interest in it.

After learning and understanding what task the mining process was actually performing, and seeing that many fellow libertarian-leaning folks liked the concept, that's when I became convinced that it can and will work (in other words, that's when I was sold on the concept).

I immediately got into mining them at a time when the difficulty was very low, and mainly got a several that way.

I don't mind trying to answer questions for those who are curious and interested in learning more about it. Imagine the first people who started using gold or silver as a medium of exchange, in the era of barter, and one person is asking someone else, "why should I trade my crops, or cattle, or fish, or whatever for shiny little rocks?" How would we answer that question today? That's where we probably are, again.

Except you will just encounter hard core statists who are only interested in reinforcing their beliefs in their reserve notes. But good luck.

Btw. Did The Zeitgeist Movement ever take off. I took interest in it years ago but after further investigation it seemed a bit to socialist for my taste.
 
Nov 2017
2,161
993
.
#17
Baloney aka horsecock. "Suppose crypto-miners take 1 gigawatt". One gigawatt is chump change.
Ok, if you say so. The IEEE says it's actually half a gigawatt, so what does that make it now?

Should crypto-miners take 1 terawatt then shut them down.
Why 1 terawatt? What's magical about that threshold? What if all financial institutions combined with the bank and other systems I mentioned, along with insurance companies, stock markets, etc. all take up 1 or more terawatts? Shut all of them down?

:blink:
 
Nov 2017
2,161
993
.
#18
Except you will just encounter hard core statists who are only interested in reinforcing their beliefs in their reserve notes. But good luck.
Thanks.

Btw. Did The Zeitgeist Movement ever take off. I took interest in it years ago but after further investigation it seemed a bit to socialist for my taste.
I don't think there's much left of it, anymore, but Peter Joseph is still involved in some activities with a few people. Yes, I noticed that too, there seem to be many involved in it who hold socialist positions & supported Bernie Sanders for POTUS. That makes no sense to me, since it was originally supposed to be the activist branch of Jacque Fresco's TVP, which advocated anarchism (as in solution to society's problems being technical, not political), specifically no state/government, no politicians (they're not trained to solve problems), and moving away from money/trade; socialism calls for the opposite direction, bigger government, politicians trying to solve all of society's problems, and mandating money/trade (ACA).

TVP & TZM split, because Fresco (who has since passed away) said TZM knows nothing about TVP (I wonder if it's because he noticed that they were advocating socialism), so TZM moved on to become its own separate, independent organization. I was mainly active on their forum, which was where people throughout the world who were fellow post scarcity advocates could come together to become acquainted with each other, share ideas on how to spread awareness, etc. They shut that forum down, and I thought that was the worst mistake TZM could make.

I'm still a post scarcity advocate and I'm sure I will always be one, but I'm not going to be a socialist. If people want to be Bernie Sanders supporters or socialists, they're free to do that; it's their right, but I don't think someone can be both a socialist and a post scarcity advocate.

I think the only way we're going to move away from war, crime, poverty, homelessness, abject hunger, pollution, corruption, and many other problems that society faces is to apply the scientific method for social concern. That means improve our knowledge and understanding of science and implement technological solutions. It's things like automatiom & robotics that's going to replace the need for manual labor to grow our crops for us, build our homes for us, provide us with more efficient transportation, and make us less dependent on the need for money and jobs.

I'm opposed to banning money or trade; that's a bigger government political notion of a solution, but it's not going to work. I think it has been tried and shown not to work, and I don't think it can work. Money and trade have to be made obsolete, and people have to willingly move away from it on their own.

The transition will take many small steps, and I like bitcoin because it may be some of those steps, or help us advance through many of those steps.

BTW, right now I refer to it as a "post scarcity society" (rather than an "Resource Based Economy", because that doesn't really help identify the concept), but what the concept is about is reducing scarcity of existing types of goods & resources such as food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and many other things, so that everyone has access to the things they want and need. It's also about eliminating the need for things thare are really just a means to an end that could become obsolete, such as the need for a suit to wear for a job or job interview (when we won't need jobs or job interviews anymore), all kinds of tools & machines, including expensive ones, to make or fix things (automation/robotics can deal with that), or a car for going to work or shopping (again no need for jobs & drones or other methods of automated delivery can bring us the goods we want), etc. Not that people will be prevented from having any of those things, only that our dependency on them will be phased out. People also miss the point when they ask about a post scarcity system giving everyone their own rocket ship, not so much because currently nobody has one right now, but the idea behind having one might be to look for resources or new places to live. The people who want a rocket ship to explore space will probably have a better chance of having that in a "post scarcity society" than they do now. Anyways, I'd like to have a better name to use than RBE or "post scarcity society".
 
Dec 2013
33,811
19,359
Beware of watermelons
#19
Thanks.


I don't think there's much left of it, anymore, but Peter Joseph is still involved in some activities with a few people. Yes, I noticed that too, there seem to be many involved in it who hold socialist positions & supported Bernie Sanders for POTUS. That makes no sense to me, since it was originally supposed to be the activist branch of Jacque Fresco's TVP, which advocated anarchism (as in solution to society's problems being technical, not political), specifically no state/government, no politicians (they're not trained to solve problems), and moving away from money/trade; socialism calls for the opposite direction, bigger government, politicians trying to solve all of society's problems, and mandating money/trade (ACA).

TVP & TZM split, because Fresco (who has since passed away) said TZM knows nothing about TVP (I wonder if it's because he noticed that they were advocating socialism), so TZM moved on to become its own separate, independent organization. I was mainly active on their forum, which was where people throughout the world who were fellow post scarcity advocates could come together to become acquainted with each other, share ideas on how to spread awareness, etc. They shut that forum down, and I thought that was the worst mistake TZM could make.

I'm still a post scarcity advocate and I'm sure I will always be one, but I'm not going to be a socialist. If people want to be Bernie Sanders supporters or socialists, they're free to do that; it's their right, but I don't think someone can be both a socialist and a post scarcity advocate.

I think the only way we're going to move away from war, crime, poverty, homelessness, abject hunger, pollution, corruption, and many other problems that society faces is to apply the scientific method for social concern. That means improve our knowledge and understanding of science and implement technological solutions. It's things like automatiom & robotics that's going to replace the need for manual labor to grow our crops for us, build our homes for us, provide us with more efficient transportation, and make us less dependent on the need for money and jobs.

I'm opposed to banning money or trade; that's a bigger government political notion of a solution, but it's not going to work. I think it has been tried and shown not to work, and I don't think it can work. Money and trade have to be made obsolete, and people have to willingly move away from it on their own.

The transition will take many small steps, and I like bitcoin because it may be some of those steps, or help us advance through many of those steps.

BTW, right now I refer to it as a "post scarcity society" (rather than an "Resource Based Economy", because that doesn't really help identify the concept), but what the concept is about is reducing scarcity of existing types of goods & resources such as food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and many other things, so that everyone has access to the things they want and need. It's also about eliminating the need for things thare are really just a means to an end that could become obsolete, such as the need for a suit to wear for a job or job interview (when we won't need jobs or job interviews anymore), all kinds of tools & machines, including expensive ones, to make or fix things (automation/robotics can deal with that), or a car for going to work or shopping (again no need for jobs & drones or other methods of automated delivery can bring us the goods we want), etc. Not that people will be prevented from having any of those things, only that our dependency on them will be phased out. People also miss the point when they ask about a post scarcity system giving everyone their own rocket ship, not so much because currently nobody has one right now, but the idea behind having one might be to look for resources or new places to live. The people who want a rocket ship to explore space will probably have a better chance of having that in a "post scarcity society" than they do now. Anyways, I'd like to have a better name to use than RBE or "post scarcity society".


I agree 100%


I believe that it was the Venus project in Florida that i started looking into when i felt there was a schism in the ideals that made me think twice.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person
Aug 2014
1,318
902
Earth
#20
Pardon my ignorance, but people now use their phones to pay for transactions all the time now/ I know, I am the guy behind the person (usually a woman) fiddling around with her phone to get to the place (with a barcode) to buy something, and no one uses money anymore.

Why would Bitcoin be different? I am sort of ignorant on Bitcoin. To me it is an alternate currency from government money, and as such is disliked by the powers that be. I can use Bitcoin instead of Federal Reserve Notes, which decline in value over time. I think another reason the government hates it is simply it (seemingly) makes it easier to evade taxation. Or gambling online. The person is not gambling with legal tender, so it should not be illegal, right?

What is the value backing of Bitcoin? Gold, silver, what? Are Bitcoins "made" or is there a finite amount of them? As we see in history, and today in Venezuela, Zimbabwe and in a slower, more controlled sense of the United States, currency declines and becomes worthless over time. An American nickel in and of itself fifty years ago had value (could buy some candy or even a soda), now it has no value.

Do not steal, the government hates competition!
 

Similar Discussions