#Bitcoin runs on green energy, they said ;)
#Bitcoin is decentralised and globally distributed, they said.
@jwildeboer huh, that raises another interesting point. China has the power to carry out a 51% attack. If those are government owned servers then China controls the block chain.
How do people still think this is valuable again?
@Hyolobrika @jwildeboer eth uses a proof of work that can only be done with generalized hardware, so that's better. But the whole concept of proof of work just means that whoever can buy or build the most hardware or find the cheapest power wins... So they're all bad.
Currency is actually just a bad idea all together. Cryptocurrency is just a different way to implement a bad idea.
@Hex @jwildeboer Not all crypto uses proof of work. You might want to look into G1 and CirclesUBI. They are both currency obviously, but I think you might consider them to be a significant improvement on currency as it exists today. They have a Universal Basic Income built in to the currency.
There is also the Safe Network, which is a crypto without a blockchain.
@Hex @jwildeboer Actually, come to think of it, Circles is built on the xDAI blockchain which is secured by proof of stake, which has the same problems that you pointed out PoW has.
Stellar or Ripple might be a better bet. https://stellar.stackexchange.com/questions/35/how-are-the-stellar-xlm-and-ripple-xrp-protocols-different
@stevenroose @Hyolobrika @jwildeboer no, I'm not. I'm trying to understand your perspective. Currency is part of a narrative we construct that builds the world, and why you believe in a narrative is an important part of why the narrative should or shouldn't be propagated.
So I would probably say that currency exists to facilitate mutually beneficial interactions between humans who don't trust each other...
@stevenroose @Hyolobrika @jwildeboer but there's a side effect to currency. It creates a point system that gamifies exchange.This incentives people to cheat, and distracts people from the actual function. In turn, that drives anti-social/non-zero interactions which is the exact opposite of the intended function. It does the opposite of what it's supposed to do.
That's one reason it's a bad idea.
Markets that use actual modern currency, usually bullion, have historically only showed up as an effect of a large militarization by governing powers.
Societies would usually go by without money at all, just by keeping credit with each other. Even without real markets, in the sense that there was competition.
@stevenroose @mprymek @Hyolobrika @jwildeboer yup. I would also point to the book "Non-zero: the logic of human destiny." Both markets and currency are mechanisms for addressing problems of trust. There are alternative mechanisms for doing the same thing.
I think currency has been useful in facilitating trust, but we can probably move past it now.
@Hex @mprymek @jwildeboer @Hyolobrika On your currency opinion, I'm not sure I can see how your alternatives would be. Even in societies where currency was not used, people had ways (usually gold) to store value for longer periods of time. So sure, I can imagine a modern world where currency isn't used in everyday txs but in a sense it already no longer is. Our "currency" is mostly a way of passing on credit anyway.
We'll always want something to store wealth. And to transfer it when needed.
@Hyolobrika The probem is that our current version of money (fiat money) is fundamentally different from "old" money based on e.g. gold or other valuable metal. And that crypto again is something completely different. Just because all these things are called money or currency doesn't mean it is comparable, IMHO. @Yop @anonymoose @Hex @stevenroose
@Hyolobrika Just a little anecdote. When Nixon nixed (pun intended) the last remnants of the gold standard back in the 1970s, thousands of US tourists couldn't use/exchange dollars or traveller cheques abroad as everyone was struggling to define a new exchange rate. It took a few weeks to get solved. @Yop @anonymoose @Hex @stevenroose
your very link disproves your claim, siting examples of barter when currency is unavailable, such as in Europe after the fall of rome.
Indeed, far from being made-up, it seems to be thriving in a world where technology creates an alternate means to solve the double coincidence of wants:
>According to the International Reciprocal Trade Association, the industry trade body, more than 450,000 businesses transacted $10 billion globally in 2008 – and officials expect trade volume to grow by 15% in 2009.
Mastodon instance for people with Wildeboer as their last name