One day, while I was learning about cipherspace, I discovered BitCoin. BitCoin is a completely decentralized, anonymous online monetary system that relies on a distributed database to facilitate transactions. The creator put a great deal of effort into ensuring that the system is secure and reliable. Unfortunately, there are no real assets backing he currency of BitCoin (and no coercive government backing it either). Thus ends BitCoin.
I can imagine, though, a system like BitCoin that allows people to write promissory notes and sign them with an RSA digital signature (to prevent couterfeiting). These promissory notes could be backed by gold, silver, fiat currencies, stocks and bonds, or pretty much anything. Then, these notes could be transfered from one person to another anonymously.
Couple this with an ebay-like service that allows people to swap these virtual currencies. Say, for example, that I have a gold note issued by a bank in South Africa. Since taking delivery of the gold could be a problem, I trade my notes for notes issued by a bank in U.S.A. Then, I can redeem those notes and have them FedEx me the gold (insured, of course).
This system would be Fed-proof, IRS-proof, FBI-proof and judgment-proof. This system would protect the users against monetary inflation, making it Fed-proof. Since nobody has a bossman ratting out their earnings, it is IRS-proof. It is FBI and NSA proof because all transactions are encrypted and anonymous. And, most importantly, it is judgment-proof because it is perfectly legal.
There are, at present, no laws that could be used to criminalize what I propose. Laws against money-laundering, for example, do not apply because there is no way to prove that the money came from an illegal source, such as drug dealing. Laws against tax-evasion do not apply either, because no taxes have ever been levied on imaginary currency. In addition, if you had your day in court, you could defend yourself on First Amendment grounds. Besides, international free trade agreements also have generous loopholes.
So what we are dealing with is anarcho-capitalism and wildcat banking on a global scale. If not for my non-existant programming skills, I'd be forking a new project off BitCoin right now.
Anybody here know C++?
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
@gabriel: Oh, man, you're begging for a flame-war.... ;-)
Of course, C++ and Perl are not even in the same solution-space... but I absolutely love Perl. Unfortunately, Perl has lost its roots with Perl6, which I think is going to be a fork, I don't think Perl5.x is ever going to be truly end-of-life'd, the code base is a large part of what makes Perl so powerful. Ruby and Python are Perl's closest relatives but they both lack the "down-and-dirty" quality of Perl5 that I fell in love with.
Clayton -
No worries, I'm just being inflammatory. I write C/C++ (C#, and some assembly) for a living, so I have a certain affection for them :). Now if there's any "God that Failed" book that should be written about a programming language, it's Ruby. Not a fan.
I just realised that The Real Plato has been using Bitcoin for economic calculation during his trip. So yet again, your argument that Bitcoin cannot be used for economic calculation is disproved. Yet again I'm pointing out how your argument is based on induction and normative assumptions, rather than deduction.
Peter Šurda: I just realised that The Real Plato has been using Bitcoin for economic calculation during his trip. So yet again, your argument that Bitcoin cannot be used for economic calculation is disproved. Yet again I'm pointing out how your argument is based on induction and normative assumptions, rather than deduction.
Ha, I don't even think you knwo what economic calculaton is to be able to make that argument.
Show me their accounting books.
Peter:Yet, you started arguing with me, and you object to almost everything I post.
It is correct that I have responded and critqued you once. The latter posts however have been response to comments you directed at me.
Peter:Both of the examples you link to are attempting to show that Bitcoin is not money, however I again repeat that that's irrelevant.
For you! For you it is irrelevant, but not irrelevant to me, my discussion with everyone, and the entire topic of this thread for the past 30 pages. THIS IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU. Unplug your mind. The truth is your argument has nothing to do with me. We're talking past one another because each others point has nothing to do with the other. How many times must I repeat this? I said more then once that it doesn't sound like you or I have a legitimate quarrel yet you persist.
Peter:Multiple times you have claimed to not see sentences which I posted just a couple of posts ago and that you yourself have reacted to already. This is a strong indication that you are not genuinly interested in a debate.
That is not what I claimed. I claimed that I ignore your posts as they have absolutely nothing to do with me or my argument. I have indeed said that multiple times. How many more times must I say it before it clicks with you?
Peter:I don't think anyone says that BTC are widely accepted. The debate is about the future, not the present. The future with government interference with money. Not the future with anarchocapitalism.
Correct but some people were trying to argue that BTC's were a currency. That begun a debate of semantics. Again this is the entire premise of the first 25 pages of this thread. Maybe it has nothing to do with you, maybe not but your posts are entirely off base.
Peter:Often when I showed you a problem with your argument, such as contradiction or a gap, you simply ignore it and start talking about something else.
You have offered no such evidence. Are you claiming that the regression theorem has gaps and contradictions? I hold no argument of my own, the argument I am putting forth is straight regression theoreem.
Peter:Let me remind you let again that it was you who started to debate with me, not vice versa. What happened then, short term memory loss?
I didn't start a debate with you, you confused man. I responded to you in criticism on a single post. You went off the deepend badgering about all sorts of things.
The funny thing here is that I don't think you ever actually addressed my criticism in that post.
Peter:They are if you use induction instead of deduction, and if the conclusions are not valid in all cases. And that is what regression argument does.
Thats incorrect but lets just get this on record. You think a priori and a posterori are mutually exclusive? Am I reading that correctly? Through this reasoning you've managed to eliminate the praxeological contributions made to regression theorem. Therebye ignoring Mises's own explanation when he uses Praxeology to arrive at the ultimate conclusion.
Peter:Short term memory loss again I see. I listed the assumptions here.
Thank god. See I did ignore you. For good reason though.
Peter:Money as defined by the regression theorem is an empirical phenomenon, not a praxeological one.
This is false. I don't want to debate with you over this. I don' want to spend the next 5 days explaining basic logic and philosophy to you only for you to disagree simply for the sake of disagreeing. I see no way of making a positive progression with you.
Praxeology and empiricism are not mutually exclusive, it's the opposite. They are necessarily and implied as mutually dependant. I won't explain it to you as I've long since lost any faith of being able to convince you. Even if I am right I think you'll just disagree out of spite.
Kind of. The regression theorem can still explain a number of things about currencies of decree. You are correct in that it won't explain how currencies of decree come into existence. This was stated several times over several pages now.
That is incorreect. Thats the equivilent of saying that if a new element was found in science, and this new element became a money that the regression theorem couldn't explain. The regression theorem can explain the migration to digital currencies. The type of currency and whether it's tangible or not has nothing to do with the fundamenntal mechanics of the theorem itself.
It sounds like you just WANT that to be the case. As stated 29384729387423 times over, it's all about exchange ratio's. You can't just hop from one currency to another without pre-established exchange ratio's. That IS STRAIGHT REGRESSION THEOREM.
Peter:Bitcoin is not money. I agree
Then leave me in peace. Your upset that you don't understand what I am posting. Well go read a book man! I'm not going to teach you every detail of AE here. Especially if your going to harrass me.
Peter:Bitcoin is not used for economic calculation. While I can't be 100% sure
NO you can be 100% sure as it would be radically in-effecient.
Peter:mainly by legal tender laws, regulations of financial banking institutions and hatred of gold (I did not even mention illegal trades)
ANd if you read all of my posts you would have learned that this was established 25 pages ago(Somewhere in that mess of posts). So this point is mute.
Peter:If money cannot fill that gap, non-money still might be able to and from the perspective of people living in that gap, become the dominant medium of exchange and unit of economic calculation.
Astronomically improbable. Bitcoin zealots like to think it's underlying features are more desired for then they really are. It won't happen for the reasons already explained. What does the gap do to existing exchange ratio's and economic(and accounting) calculations.
You won't be able to tell me because you don't know what economic calculation is, nor do you care about exchange ratio's and why they are relevant to the formation of a dominant money.
Peter:Let's try to make a more formal analogy.
No my friend, this is what we're going to do. I am through with you and our discussion. As I stated before, I have said everythign thats needed to be said. I have more the sufficiently covered the topic. I am ignoring you for the rest of the day so as not to ruin my sunday.
It's likely that I'll ignore most of your future posts as well. =p
filc:We're talking past one another because each others point has nothing to do with the other.
Correct. However, you present multiple statements which contain logical fallacies. I listed them, you ignored them. What's worse, you present this approach as somehow intellectually superiour. Keep mumbling your mantras if you want.
Today, June 20 2011, you can download Peter Schiff's interview with a too Bitcoin person free from schiffradio.com
Tomorrow by 10 AM or so it will be gone.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
"The EFF has stopped taking Bitcoin donations citing worries over the virtual currency's legal position and concerns that it was being seen as endorsing the digital money"
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/EFF-stops-taking-Bitcoin-donations-1264221.html