We reside in a world controlled by a collection of political forces. Money is the primary lever by which pressure is exerted in order to execute political policy.
I am not an enormous Ayn Rand fan, however there were a few parts of Atlas Shrugged I really did find very eye opening. The effete playboy of the series had a good one that I'll briefly include here to outline the importance of the core issue as it relates to the subtle strings of force in our political existence;
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
I still find the use of terms like moochers and looters loaded, but the core point is extremely potent. Money is the primary friendly lever in modern society, it is the primary incentive for production. For this reason alone, the ways in which bitcoin can upset the apple cart should be thoroughly considered and not simply discarded offhand.
People objecting to bitcoin are making a cursory glance at it and it hits one of their suspicion triggers and they instantly discard it; Enriches early adopters? Aha, must be a ponzi scheme, no need to dig deeper here.
There are far more interesting objections that are actually bounded in the fabric of what is real rather than a cursory glance and misunderstanding of what is seen. What about an execution of the age old idea of assassination politics with bitcoin as the medium of exchange? If you really want to fearmonger, think hard about what might actually happen when the primary lever of society is completely immune to government. This is both frightening in some ways and exhilerating in others.
How about superfluid buying and selling agencies run by speculators that contract to traders exchanging local fiat currencies for bitcoins on the wire and instantly back to local fiat for the receiver at the end, reducing exposure for the merchant and buyer and abstraction from the messy cryptographic details of the implementation and enabling the speculators, as well as providing hefty profits for the administrators of such agents, in turn incentivising an enormous bazaar of such agents to exist in a huge snowball effect that makes regulation even more of a distant, ridiculous idea.
Think about it, really, really hard. This has already changed the world, the only question now is how will the chips fall. It is exactly appropriate that it should get a lot of attention here.
You're the first person I've seen who has mentioned assassination politics (which is one of the big reasons why states are likely to resist Bitcoin). It's impressive the degree to which so many don't get the radical potential of the world's first viable anonymous decentralized currency.
To tell you the truth I was a little apprehensive of actually writing that. Standard disclaimer applies and whatnot. And by standard disclaimer I mean I gave it as an example of something to actually be afraid of, not something that I find exhilerating.
Think you are overlooking the role of bankers here. Once upon a time the primary role of banks was to facilitate commerce in numerous ways, but now it appears that rather than support trade, finance is all too often a means to maximize returns to bankers regardless of the wider impact on depositors, clients and the economy.
I'm curious how you think I'm overlooking that? I agree completely, that's part of why I think that an idea like this is so disruptive. Because it's ground floor disruptive to one of the most inefficient and high return industries in the world; finance.
I like the gusto, but maybe I'm dense, or shallow or whatever, but is BTC not also a fiat currency? I realize there's a limited amount, but its value is completely speculative, and it's not backed by hard assets. It's not even backed by a government, which makes it less like a fiat note and more like something I printed on my inkjet when I was twelve. The BIG "if" is whether it gains critical mass and is accepted as a note of value. If or when it does, we'll all saunter over and trade in our euros or yen or dollars for some, I assume. But before it's traded on forex it's gonna be a tough sell for average folk, which means it's not tempered or tested by real markets; just hopeful folks who aren't huge Ayn Rand fans, but have quick recall of pertinent passages in Atlas "just in case".
All currency values ever are completely speculative, the value of a currency is a shared mass consensual hallucination, this even applies to gold. There is no innate reason that it should ever have been considered as a form of money except by the consent of those that offered and accepted it as such. Bitcoin is no exception to this, but that is largely irrelevant with regards to the realities on the ground of how people are currently trading with btc rather than trading in btc.
Those trading with btc just want a fast digital medium of exchange, they have taken to pricing their goods and services in a local fiat currency with more stability than btc (which is pretty much anything with the extreme market swings in btc right now) and a proviso that the conversion will be done at the time of the transaction. So, effectively they are simply treating BTC like cash. Due to the superfluidity of the exchange itself they can afford to ignore the actual exchange rate.
Those trading in btc are hoarding it with the expectation that the price will rise as scarcity increases due to other people speculating in it as well as the network hash rate of the mining effort spiralling upward.
These two points taken together was the core of my hypothetical idea about buying / selling agents that are effectively exchanges coupled with merchant service providers. It reflects the reality on the ground and plays well with both sectors of the market.
Just to answer the obvious points also, something you can print on your inkjet when you're twelve is also printable by any other inkjet holder. The BTC in your account are unique and the total supply of BTC is expanded by a well understood mathematical process at a predictable rate and distribution, not fiat declaration of a central bank. This is what is meant by bitcoin is not a fiat currency.
I also have enlightening perspective changing quotations from jesuits saved up just in case, and I am a militant atheist.
We reside in a world controlled by a collection of political forces. Money is the primary lever by which pressure is exerted in order to execute political policy.
I am not an enormous Ayn Rand fan, however there were a few parts of Atlas Shrugged I really did find very eye opening. The effete playboy of the series had a good one that I'll briefly include here to outline the importance of the core issue as it relates to the subtle strings of force in our political existence;
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
I still find the use of terms like moochers and looters loaded, but the core point is extremely potent. Money is the primary friendly lever in modern society, it is the primary incentive for production. For this reason alone, the ways in which bitcoin can upset the apple cart should be thoroughly considered and not simply discarded offhand.
People objecting to bitcoin are making a cursory glance at it and it hits one of their suspicion triggers and they instantly discard it; Enriches early adopters? Aha, must be a ponzi scheme, no need to dig deeper here.
There are far more interesting objections that are actually bounded in the fabric of what is real rather than a cursory glance and misunderstanding of what is seen. What about an execution of the age old idea of assassination politics with bitcoin as the medium of exchange? If you really want to fearmonger, think hard about what might actually happen when the primary lever of society is completely immune to government. This is both frightening in some ways and exhilerating in others.
How about superfluid buying and selling agencies run by speculators that contract to traders exchanging local fiat currencies for bitcoins on the wire and instantly back to local fiat for the receiver at the end, reducing exposure for the merchant and buyer and abstraction from the messy cryptographic details of the implementation and enabling the speculators, as well as providing hefty profits for the administrators of such agents, in turn incentivising an enormous bazaar of such agents to exist in a huge snowball effect that makes regulation even more of a distant, ridiculous idea.
Think about it, really, really hard. This has already changed the world, the only question now is how will the chips fall. It is exactly appropriate that it should get a lot of attention here.