@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?

@Hex @jwildeboer I think other coins are better. Still haven't found one that's perfect though.

@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 wait, G1 uses proof of work. I forgot sorry. Circles was the one I was thinking of.

@Hyolobrika @jwildeboer circles is interesting. It sounds like something I've been thinking of designing for a while.

@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. stellar.stackexchange.com/ques

@Hex @Hyolobrika @jwildeboer I'm curious why you think currency is a bad idea. Could you elaborate?

@stevenroose I *guess* he means currency as in fiat money. So a currency that is not backed by commodity. @Hex @Hyolobrika

@jwildeboer @Hex @Hyolobrika He also included cryptocurrencies though, which are not fiat moneys, but are currencies. I think he's just trying to provoke and annoy, to be honest.

@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.

@Hex @jwildeboer @Hyolobrika @stevenroose

> well, why do you believe currency does or should exist?

Isn't several thousand years of existence a sufficient proof?

@mprymek @Hex @Hyolobrika @jwildeboer Well actually the history of currency is interesting and I'd refer to David Graeber's book on Debt as amazingly interesting reading!

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.

@jwildeboer @stevenroose @mprymek @Hyolobrika @Hex No it is not. As humans we’ve killed each other over trifles for thousands of years and it still isn’t a good look.

You’ll have to do better than “this is how we’ve always done”.
@hypolite @jwildeboer @Hyolobrika @stevenroose @Hex Ok, strictly speaking you are right - if the question is "should we ...". We should not kill each other. Will we do it? Definitely yes. For another "trifles for thousands of years" 😀
@jwildeboer @stevenroose @mprymek @Hyolobrika @Hex You are most probably right, but it still isn't a sufficient proof we should do it. There are good arguments in favor of currency but "it's been there for thousands of years" isn't necessary nor sufficient.
@hypolite @jwildeboer @Hyolobrika @stevenroose @Hex You can't prove you "should" do something. It's a value proposition/statement, unprovable.

@mprymek @jwildeboer @Hyolobrika @stevenroose slavery was considered a good idea for thousands of years. No, thousands of years of people agreeing with an idea is not sufficient proof that it should continue to exist.

@mprymek @jwildeboer @Hyolobrika @stevenroose do you think people forced to use currency against their will think currency is a good idea?

@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.

@Hex @stevenroose @Hyolobrika @jwildeboer currency solves the 'double-coincidence of wants'. In a barter economy, if you make t-shirts and you need a pound of beef for dinner tonight, you just have to hope the butcher wants a new t-shirt or two. Both parties in an exchange have to happen to want exactly what the other happens to have.

@Yop @anonymoose @Hex @Hyolobrika @jwildeboer Yeah there doesn't seem to be any evidence that a barter economy ever existed. I'd suggest David Graeber's book Debt which is on that topic and an amazing read in general! Highest recommendation.

@Yop @anonymoose @Hex @jwildeboer @stevenroose That was an interesting read. Thank you!
In exchange I will give you this kitten picture.

@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

@Yop @Hex @Hyolobrika @jwildeboer @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.


@jwildeboer You you want to make the space better or do you just want to complain?

@Hyolobrika @jwildeboer

Yeah, sounds like everyone who has bitcoin should be running a hasher. I wish there was a way to donate processing without wasting time mining.

@jwildeboer The consensus algorithm is prepared for these contingencies. It should be back spitting blocks in few hours. Meanwhile new transactions are not lost, they are kept in mempool worldwide. Only confirmation are delayed for some hours.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Mastodon instance for people with Wildeboer as their last name