social.outsourcedmath.com

Today I stumbled upon a very intersting (but also lengthy) blog post discussing currencies (crypto and fiat).

Thought provoking.
I definitely recommend reading it.
If anyone has any opinions on what is being said I'd be interested to hear them.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of the article, but points out a lot of interesting things which might be very relevant now that trump was elected.

https://dergigi.com/2022/11/19/dear-crypto-fiat-bros/
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> I'm not entirely sure what to make of the article

It's neither a technical nor a political-economic analysis. It's a religious one.

I skimmed a couple of pages, which were so full of motivated reasoning, and so smugly and unambiguously wrong on the basics, that I stopped reading.
@strypey interesting.

yes - i do notice that he is obviously very excited, but it also seems the arguments as such are valid.

could you point out a few things that were wrong? i might have missed them.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/2)

@serapath
> could you point out a few things that were wrong?

I'm not sure this is a good use of your time or mine at this point. Because I consider the whole thing obviously wrong, based on a huge memeplex of premises and assumptions that are also obviously wrong.

The fact that you consider it mostly right means we have a *huge* amount of ground to cover. Given how long we were able to debate Nostr vs. the fediverse alone, we'd need to strap in for months to get anywhere with it.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

But just an example, the author assumes that money is valuable because it's scarce. This is the sort of myth that needs to be corrected in high school classes on economic history.

As Graeber pointed out in Debt, money began as coins that warlords issued to their soldiers, and demanded back (in "taxes") from the peasants in the territories they held. This is still what gives money it's value; whoever holds the monopoly of violence in a territory (the "state") guarantees that it is.
@strypey

Money is not valuable because it is scarce.

You could have a giant chalk board where you write down for everyone who did what for whom so you can notice if some people only receive benefits without doing anything for anyone in return

The problem is with those who control the chalk board. They can write down extra benefits for themselves and they do. That is the capitalist class

What many people want as money is an "honest chalk board", where nobody controls it to benefit themselves
@strypey hahaha ๐Ÿ™‚

i mean the gist imho is:

no young person can afford houses or anything apart from food and rent and even that is difficult.

the money printing worldwide is through the roof since 2008 and inflation too. stuff is insanely expensive and it apways gets worse.

if you dont have a job that pays you high salaries you are disadvantaged.

bitcoin does not solve all problems, but it ends the capitalist class. we (the ppl) never had momey printers, but bitcoin has no more than 21 mio
Strypey mastodon (AP)
Me
> The fact that you consider it mostly right means we have a *huge* amount of ground to cover

Are you starting to get why I said this @serapath? ; )

I need to break for the holidays. So after today, I'm going to take a break from responding on these threads, or anything that isn't fun shitposting. Feel free to give me a prod around late April/ early March, and we can get back into it.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/?)

@serapath
> soo yeah, what do you think?

I agree with Jason Hickel;

https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/113647624222641778

It's well worth listening to the full podcast. But the rash of quotes I posted in that thread will give you a taste of just how differently we think about political economy.

I wasn't joking when I said a decent discussion would take months, I was being optimistic. It would probably require us to write blog length replies to each other and paste links here.

I'm up for this, after summer ; )

"People think, oh, you just want to slow down the entire economy and this is obviously going to leave us in poverty. But degrowth actually calls for, let's identity very energy intensive and materially intensive forms of production that are also socially unnecessary. Like mostly are organised around capital accumulation and elite consumption, etc, etc."

#JasonHickel, 2024

https://techwontsave.us/episode/226_how_degrowth_will_reshape_technology_w_jason_hickel

(1/2)

#podcasts #TechWontSaveUs #DeGrowth

Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/?)

I think we're tacking towards the same destination. But one of us is going east to get there, and one to the west. So figuring out where we are in relation to each other right now, is going to take some careful descriptions, and poring over of maps.

This would be a complete waste of your time if I was a statist (whether marxist or liberal). But I'm not. Although as an environmentalist I do see a limited role for territorial governance, including making tactical use of existing ones.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(3/?)

Having given all that context, since you're asking what I think of BitCoin, I'll be blunt. I think the same thing I've thought about it since about a decade ago. It's not tulips, it's clearly more than a passing speculation fad, but It's not money either. It's value is a pure derivative of the value of fiat currencies, particularly the USD.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(4/?)

The main reason BTC holds value, more consistently than other crypto-tokens, is that the USAmerican elite are using it to stash stolen wealth and evade taxes. When the petrodollar scam finally ends, and the US financial system goes into freefall, BTC will tank along with the USD.

But by then those US elites will have turned their holdings back into land, and gold, and other things that hold their value in an economic crash. Most of it outside the US, which will probably deepen the crash.
This entry was edited (1 month ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(5/?)

Having said all that I'm less bearish on 2 strips of bandage on the "crypto" mummy.

Blockchains are a genuinely clever data structure. When the crypto wars are over and the dust settles, I'm confident they'll turn out to work really well for a particular set of use cases. Few if any of them to do with finance.
This entry was edited (1 month ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(6/6)

In the shorter term, I am interested in blockchain tokens as payment systems, for the same reason I'm interested in *every* kind of digital payment system.

Efficient digital payments are an unsolved problem. As I learned in some depth when I had a contract helping Permaculture in NZ improve their website, including a payment gateway for accepting membership dues and event registration fees.

InterLedger protocol interests me more than BitCoin though.

https://interledger.org/developers/get-started/
@strypey interesting.

i dont see what this is backed by.
it seems BRICS and other countries are mining BTC woth government resources and see it to some degree as an option to get rid of USD dependency?

Given that the west froze lots of savings from russia when the russian invasion of ukraine started (i think it was billions), wpuldnt countries in general be happier to save in something that is more independent and reliably protects from that?
@strypey

i wonder what use cases those could be.
to me anything that doesnt benefit from global consensus (and there are extremely few things that need that) ... seems to be better solved wothout blockchains.

I do see many altcoins running interesting experiments and was involved in some of them for some time, but at the moment i dont wanna get near any of them and apart from bitcoin they all feel like scams to me right now
@strypey
i follow interledger for some time now, longer than blockchains actually, but my impression was its mostly a system to allow payments on the internet ...including bitcoin.

I did not think interledger by itself works, but havent checked it for some time now.

maybe i'm missing some essentials about how it works. i found it difficult to wrap my head around it
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/2)

@serapath
> i follow interledger for some time now, longer than blockchains actually, but my impression was its mostly a system to allow payments on the internet ...including bitcoin

Yes. I've seen it described as a kind of Internet Protocol of payments, a neutral way of connecting 2 payment systems across a network. One of the founders describes it quote well in this interview;

https://www.w3.org/blog/2019/w3c-interview-coil-on-interledger-protocol-and-web-monetization/

I'm interested in BTC payments in the short term because they're one way to use it.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

I recently joined a thread discussing where Interledger is at, and asked how it relates to GNU Taler, which has broadly similar goals;

https://indieweb.social/@johnallsopp/113619430595140949

My intuition is that the two could work together somehow. But I'd need to learn more about the nuts and bolts of both to figure out what that could look like in practice.

interledger protocol and web monetization are still a thing. Coil is gone now but the technologies are still there and being developed.

@strypey

i dont think bitcion needs or is supposed to use a lot of energy - because your tech wont save us link was kinda about that too

Once block rewards go to zero and all figure it is pointless to attack and block rewards go to zero, it makes more sense to stop mining unless to again correct and protrct the chain, thus it should get less energy intensive. right now its crypto war time and block rewards exist so it continues, but apart from that, i feel its main proposal is 21mio limit
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/?)

@serapath
> Once block rewards go to zero ... it makes more sense to stop mining unless to again correct and protrct the chain, thus it should get less energy intensive

I'll admit it's been a *long* time since I read the BitCoin white paper. However ...

My understanding is that mining blocks in a Proof of Work system isn't pointless make-work, designed merely to slow the release of new coins. But rather it's the computation work that confirms transactions, preventing double-spending.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/?)

Which is why new tokens get harder and harder to mine as time goes on. The algorithm is trying to make sure the number of new tokens to be issued approaches but *never reaches* zero. Because if mining ever stops, the whole shamozzle comes to a shuddering halt.

So not only is mining baked in, so is its exponentially increasing computational cost, and ergo, it's energy usage. All to create a form of purely artificial scarcity that we don't really need.

It's techno-solutionist insanity.
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(3/?)

From what I understand, this is why Ethereum and a bunch of other blockchains have used or pivoted to Proof of Stake (Ethereum, Cardano et al).

I don't know how this affects energy use but it comes with new problems. It basically simulates capitalism (in the original Marxist sense of the term) on top of the blockchain. Whoever starts with the most tokens has a baked in advantage. Much more so than in PoW systems, where pools of holding power can be checked by pools of computation power.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(4/?)

The holy war between card-carrying BitCoiners, and the crypto protestants interested in wider use of blockchains, is IMHO explained by my conspiracy theory of BTC as a vector for elites hiding stolen wealth.

Their strategy doesn't work if people accept that BitCoin was a Proof of Concept, never intended to be used as day-to-day infrastructure. If usage bleeds off and spreads across a range of tokens, BTC loses its effective monopoly as a jurisdiction-agnostic store of value.
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(5/?)

From memory (again, it's been a while), the BitCoin white paper anticipated some of the limitations that are now confirmed. As well as offering idea for possible workarounds, some of which have been adopted by other blockchains, and some by adjacent projects like Lightening.

Yet whenever I dip my toes into Nostr, I see this blind loyalty to the one true BitCoin, just as I see it in the link you posted, that kicked off this branch of our hellthread.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(6/6)

In summary, IMHO the BTC maximalism we see today is based not only on a bunch of fundamental misunderstandings of how political economy works, but also on a profound ignorance of the underlying technology of BitCoin itself.

How many BitCoiners do you think have actually read the white paper? Of those, how many do you think understood it?
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/2)

@serapath
> i wonder what use cases those could be

My go-to example is the JamiNS blockchain;
https://docs.jami.net/en_US/user/jami-distributed-network.html

Interested in your thoughts on GNU Jami, not just JamiNS, but in general.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

@serapath
> to me anything that doesnt benefit from global consensus ... seems to be better solved wothout blockchains ... they all feel like scams to me right now

Exactly. Most blockchain projects so far have been people in love with hammers trying to treat every problem as a nail.

That was the tulip mania aspect of blockchain fandom. But that's pretty much moved on to #MOLE Training now.
#mole
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/?)

@serapath
> BRICS and other countries are mining BTC with government resources and see it to some degree as an option to get rid of USD dependency?

Got any links on the first bit? Even accepting it for the sake of argument, the second bit doesn't necessarily follow.

The Euro was an attempt to escape USD dependency. The Libyans were trying to set up an African EU equivalent with it's own currency, but Secretary Clinton made short work of that (only one reason she's contemptible scum).
@strypey

i wasnt super impressed by taler.
they dont seem to improve anything unless they jave a secret plan hidden in plain sight that should maybe occur in a future when gnu taler was adopted by everyone as a mainstream thing...

...but apart from that, it seems messy and custodial to some degree and maybe i am doing it wrong, but interledger or not still requires the decision ofusing SOME payment network among the many to use interledger with i guess?

...for now after my experience its BTC
@strypey
i think it mainly serves to decide how to reach consensus. in this case get one peer to produce the next block with transactions then broadcast to everyone else ... every 10 minutes.

if the block is cheating, double spends or anything, it will be corrected by the next miner.

having little mining going on makes it easy to cheat, but everypne will see and can correct it, so the cheating will be undone.

if ppl know all cheating will always be corrected, then why spending resource on it
@strypey hmmm... not entirely.

the mining reward will go to literally zero around the year 2100, but already before it will be miniscule.

the mining difficulty goes up ...or down, with the amount of miners... based on how fast blocks get mined. target is every 10 minutes.

if its faster, difficulty goes up, if its lower, difficulty goes down
@strypey agree.
that is why i am not up for any blockchain without fixed number of tokens... e.g 21mio.

because whether proof of work as in Doge coin or proof of stake as in ethereum... the rich always get the new printed moneu. the poor get dilluted.

that is the same shit we already have.

and i saw ethereum, polkadot and some more of web3 from the inside.

to me it feels like microsoft joined forces with silicon valley and wallstreet and its a hoard of employees building out the web3 based
@strypey

bitcoin is extremely transparent, tokens can be tracked forever, thus especially if somebody is very rich - its not a good way of hiding transactions imho. its worse than the current monetary system with obviously allows for plenty of criminality already
@strypey

yeah. it could be something else than bitcoin, but if the elites should lose their capitalist class money printer privilege i can only see how that cnan happen with a finite amount of tokens.

imho litecoin also has a finite amount, but bitcoin seems to be a better "schelling point"
@strypey i dont know.

there are a lot of youtube videos and books explaining the white paper or all the parts of it.

the white paper does not include important things like representing a keypair as 12 english words. and many more things.

they are technically not essential, but in prqctice a lot of stuff build in the ecosystem makes it actually usable
@strypey

maybe this CNBC show?

https://youtu.be/QUJNIMh3sMA?si=qN7-gNDJT7FV0Gcv

el salvador uses it as legal tender

swiss canton zug allows to pay taxes in BTC

i think argentina is mining with goverment resources? ...but heard a bunch of others as well.

china did in the past, but i am unsure about the current status
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/?)

The only way a country can really be independent of the USD - short of replacing all fossil fuel use - is by finding countries willing to sell oil in currencies other than USD. Are there any selling oil for BTC?

If not, then like as not, BTC mining has nothing to do with USD independence, one way or the other. It's more likely to be a strategy of converting underused computation or capital into a money printing machine. Which is what crypto-mining looks like from the outside.
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(3/?)

As for the banks seizing Russian savings, you've got to ask why is a country the size of Russia storing so much wealth outside its own borders in the first place?

Some possible reasons for this are explored in this podcast, notably where he talks about repatriating the savings of trade surplus countries;

https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/pb183/episodes/Can-Trumps-Tariffs-Work-e2s4ab3

But my money is on Russian oligarchs storing their ill-gotten gains where their government and the population they stole it from can't easily access it.
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(4/?)

Circling back to your opening question;

@serapath
> i dont see what this is backed by

I presume you're asking precisely how the US elite stashing their ill-gotten gains in BTC drives up the price? The logic of this seems pretty obvious to me.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(5/?)

* the price of BTC - like any unsecured derivative - goes up when there's more willing buyers than sellers

* If people are using it to launder hoards of stolen wealth, that massively drives up demand

* With demand going up, it's reasonable to assume that price will go up, which reduces willingness to sell

* Given a) relatively static number of tokens, b) rising demand, and c) static or falling supply, this must drive up the price

* the rising price drives up b) and c), rinse, repeat.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(6/?)

People see number go up, and erroneously assume that high price = high value. But most of the real world value is in the wealth that is being laundered through it.

Yes, if you manage to buy low, and sell high, you can realise real value. But that's true of any speculation activity, whether on stocks and bonds, fiat currencies, or financial derivatives, including blockchain tokens.
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(7/7)

A good friend of mine who studied International Relations at postgraduate level likes to ask; how many armoured divisions does BitCoin have?

This pithy question sums up the overlap between IR Realist, anarchist *and* MMT theories about money;

The value of a currency is guaranteed by a monopoly of violence in a territory, and backed by the assets and productive capacity of that territory.

BitCoin has no territory, nor any way of defending it if it did. So it's not a currency.
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/?)

@serapath
> i am not up for any blockchain without fixed number of tokens

Two things;

1) When the tokens have no fixed value, this is ultimately an illusion. The number of tokens can be increased by breaking BTC into Satoshis, and then by breaking Satoshis onto micro-Satoshis.

But this is details. The more important reason the fixed number of tokens doesn't matter is ...
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

2) Goldbugs are wrong. The value of a currency does not come from scarcity, and never has. Much wrongthink in tokenomics comes from this variant of the 'all trout are fish therefore all fish are trout' fallacy.

Overabundance of a currency reduces the value of a currency, ergo, reducing the number of units increases the value.

The problem is inflation is caused by increasing *not* the absolute number of currency units, but the number
*relative* to the value of the economy backing it.
@strypey based of microsofts HR capabilitirs.

all the rich ones are early investors who own the majority of tokens and hence get all the new tokens and decide everything.

totally rigges, but they are telling a marketing story of true decentralization.

imho its all fake apart from bitcoin
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> totally rigges, but they are telling a marketing story of true decentralization ... imho its all fake apart from bitcoin

As I've explained, I think this BitCoin exceptionalism is self-deluding. But let's revisit this conversation in a decade or so and see if either of us were right, or if we're both wrong ; )
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/?)

@serapath
> bitcoin is extremely transparent, tokens can be tracked forever

True. Good to see people are moving on from the 'BitCoin is anonymous' nonsense ; )

> its not a good way of hiding transactions imho. its worse than the current monetary system

It's very much not. If you've ever tried to move money between countries without using crypto, you'll know that fiat currencies have a huge number of checks and balances (AML, KYC, etc), which make it hard to move large volumes offshore
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/?)

When I lived in China, I quickly noticed that the financial system was organised such that it was very easy to move money *into* the country. I could just go to any ATM and withdraw cash from my NZ bank account.

But getting money *out* of China was a whole different story. To do that, I had to go to a specialist teller, only at the central branch of the bank where I had my Chinese account, with a whole folder of paperwork. There are laws limiting outward cross-border cash movements too.
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(3/3)

This isn't unique to China either. Aside from fraud mitigation, every country that cares about its sovereignty has a whole range of regulations on capital movements, offshore ownership, etc. Which hedge against the risk of ending up with the bulk of its economy owned by another country, which can use that as geopolitical leverage.

So if you're a Chinese oligarch wanting to move wealth out of China, BTC would be ideal, if the CCP hadn't caught on and regulated to prevent that.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> it could be something else than bitcoin, but if the elites should lose their capitalist class money printer privilege

What do you think "cryptocurrencies" are other than a new kind of capitalist money printer?! Adopted as a potential replacement for the last kind; trading banks issuing mortgages. Which were turned into money printers to replace the original kind, nation-states, which they lost control of to communist and social democratic revolutions in the early 20th century.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> there are a lot of youtube videos and books explaining the white paper or all the parts of it

How many of those were created by people who read it themselves and fully understood what they read? It's advanced computer science, even now. I knew enough basic computer science to know I didn't fully understand it, and would need to study it in depth and read some of the references before I did.

How many BitCoiners are that reflexive?
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/?)

@serapath
> maybe this CNBC show?

Web videos are not famous for being credible sources, and neither are CNBC. Especially on a topic that has so many people blowing smoke around it, for their own pecuniary purposes.

I'd be looking for academic or primary sources when evaluating claims about what states are and aren't doing with BTC and other crypto-tokens.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/?)

@serapath
> el salvador uses it as legal tender

AFAIK the countries doing this are vassal states of the US, where USD is already used as if it's legal tender, whether or not that's official. Mainly because of USD coming across the US border as remittances from workers.

Now the US highway cops are becoming highwaymen, stealing from anyone carrying cash interstate, let alone cross border. Recognising BTC as legal tender is mainly a way to mitigate this, and reduce internal need for USD.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(3/?)

@serapath
> swiss canton zug allows to pay taxes in BTC

"Due to Zug's status as a business center and tax haven, 5.74% of the tertiary sector is in management and business consultancy, 4.67% provide information technology services, 4% provide legal and tax consultancy and nearly 4% provide financial service"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton_of_Zug

Swiss banks are infamous for being one of the main vector for the laundering of stolen wealth internationally. Of course they're getting on board.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(4/4)

> china did in the past, but i am unsure about the current status

See the other branch of the thread where I talked about the challenges of moving money out of China. The CCP were bullish on crypto-mining when they saw it as a magic money printer. As soon as they realised it was a vector for unregulated cross-border/currency flows, they cracked down hard.

Argentina and others will have the same experience.
@strypey

JamiNS is 100% guaranteed an ethereum based project. ..so no. wouldnt touch it with a stick imho.

name registratiin is either not needed or plenty of solutions are already out there.

thr DHT bit sounds like dat, but dat is a 501c3 started in 2013 and has no blockchains involved at all, because not needed.

name registration is a feature you might or might not need. i am not convinced it is needed, but if, exisiting solutions exist
Strypey mastodon (AP)
This sounds like an insistence that all problems *are*, therefore anyone not using hammer is doing it wrong ; )
Strypey mastodon (AP)
The blockchain is used to solve Zooko's triangle. Jami has unique addresses on a decentralised network, but they're not human-readable. Pet names can be mapped to these long, cryptic addresses, but not uniquely. JamiNS allows a Jami app to resolve the username "Strypey" to a specific address.

@serapath
> name registration is either not needed or plenty of solutions are already out there

I'd love to see you open an issue on the Jami forge and propose one. Send me a link, I'll make popcorn ; )
@strypey
we can revisit in the future.

i am not cou ting on the bitcoin community or in general on anything that makes folks special, only on the rules
@strypey

Bitcoin has 8 digits after the comma.

0.00000001 BTC is called one Satoshi or SAT

It cant be divided smaller than that, because digital does not have infinite digits.

The point is also more in: no new tokens for capitalist class ppl. no more money printers.

with money printers, the printing class gets more, the rest loses. in bitcoin, everyone gets more when the value of BTC goes up. that is a big improvement and in absolute terms nobody gets more.

if you spend you spend
@strypey i personally dont have large amounts to move around, but i am pretty sure criminals know how to do it.

buy something... shares? cash? or a car or diamonds or gold or whatever? or set up multiple businesses and sell a business from Mafia A to Mafia B for under the price in Country 1 and sell another business from Mafia B to Mafia A in country 2 for a bigher price... and yay... you transferred the diference.

I mean criminals will be criminals with or without crypto.
@strypey

probably.
but then again, criminals and big criminal businesses have always existed and they always managed to move or hide theirnmoney, transport and sell drugs or do all sorts of things...and nothing could really stop them.

With bitcoin, if anything, i expect it to get better rather than worse. ...but even if things stay the same, i havent heard of any reports that said BTC creates more crimnals.

crypto in general is a different story though. i think altcoins are all scams
@strypey

really?
obviously that didnt prevent from some chinese getting filthy rich and buying loads ofnhouses overseas ..while the majority has little money.

I dont really see how it helps. maybe the government loyal capitalists get protected while non-government competitive mafia is kept in check? ...i dont know - sounds weird though ๐Ÿ™‚
@strypey

most crypto is that what you say, but crypto currencies with a max supply (minority of them) does not have the printer built in.

e.g. ethereum and all of web3 or musks preferred doge coin issue new tokens forever and they go to the rich with most tokens or compute or whatever, essentially giving them fresh money forever on the account of the peasants who get diluted.

in bitcoin everyone is in the same boat.
@strypey

i do think bitcoiners in general are very much about educating and providing information

not saying all content is great or every bitcoiner understood everything, but i have experienced web3, which is the opposite. from ethereum to the last tiny shitcoin, their goal is to hide the details from end users and ideally move them into crypto behind the scenes, so nothing changes for end users... e.g. all your services and products you use run on ceypto behind the scenes, but you wont know
@strypey i see. i heard it is Argentina, UAE and Ethiopia, but also Russia now. But dont k ow whether there are papers... probably, but yeah, cant provide any links to scientific papers - more just financial mainstream news sources, which to me still seems different from specifically "crypto news"
@strypey

you have alreqdy .ens domains im ethereum and you have the original namecoin and you have HNS and probably every major altcoin has some sort of solution... of course, they are all blockchain based domains.

But i think folks anyway type into search bars and autocomplete or click links sent or found on messengers/websites.

so ceyptolinks arent a problem and urlbar autocomplete can look up your or your peers/friends petnames for cryptolinks or if anyone you know knows the link.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> more just financial mainstream news sources, which to me still seems different from specifically "crypto news"

Heh. Large news media outlets don't know whether to report it as tech news, business news, financial news, or political news. Of course it's all four. Even the tech press reporting on it is about as reliable as their reporting on the fediverse, ie not very.

That's why I specified primary sources, or academic ones, where they're getting better at interdisciplinary work.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/2)

You seem to have missed the bit where I said;

> But this is details

But sure, let's split hairs ; )

@serapath
> 0.00000001 BTC is called one Satoshi or SAT

The point is that the original pitch had a fixed number of tokens (BTC), and that was considered to be a feature, not a bug. But that money supply limit didn't survive contact with real world use at scale. So now the number of tokens has been increased (conceptually but not technically), by defining a subtokens called a SAT.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

You'd think that this would have taught people that there are sound reasons that a finite supply of monetary units has been abandoned, in every economic system in which it's been tried. *Including* the BitCoin economy. But this dogmatic and completely mistaken belief in scarcity as the source of monetary value seems to be the only bit of OG BitCoin that *has* survived contact with real world economics ; )
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> started before silicon valley, big tech and wallstreet knew, so its not again the already rich who have the most. it has the most fair distribution possible compared to all cryptos

What evidence base do you have for these claims? For a start;

https://www.fool.com/money/buying-stocks/articles/how-the-winklevoss-twins-amassed-a-6-billion-bitcoin-fortune/

Also, in a PoW blockchain, whoever has the most computing power in the network can mine the most coins. You really think this has nothing to do with ...

> silicon valley, big tech and wallstreet

Really? Why?
Strypey mastodon (AP)
Honestly, if you really want to get to the root of our disagreement here, you need stop getting lost in the weeds of the tech and interfactional drama in the crypto world, and focus on the underlying *economics*;

https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/113665691857278151

Why exactly do you think ...

> bitcoin being limited supply

... is a good thing?

What exactly do you mean by ...

> capitalist money printer

... and why is it a bad thing?

What is a blockchain mining pool if not a money printer?

Etc, etc.

(2/2)

2) Goldbugs are wrong. The value of a currency does not come from scarcity, and never has. Much wrongthink in tokenomics comes from this variant of the 'all trout are fish therefore all fish are trout' fallacy.

Overabundance of a currency reduces the value of a currency, ergo, reducing the number of units increases the value.

The problem is inflation is caused by increasing *not* the absolute number of currency units, but the number
*relative* to the value of the economy backing it.

@strypey

so bitcoin being limited supply, so no capitalist money printer class, earliest and most adopted, mosy secured of the bunch, makes it a good candidate to adopt it.

once we have one global money, we dont need a second one. that just opens up attqck vectors to speculation again and complicatw sthings unnecessarily, so its not that bitcoin as such is so superior... but it is important that things are stable, because any change makes it unreliable or unpredictable
@strypey

Also - its not Bitcoins technical properties thwt make it special. Its more that it started before silicon valley, big tech and wallstreet knew, so its not again the alreadyvrich who have the most. it has the most fair distribution possible compared to all cryptos imho AND it has limited supply, a.k.a no money printer for the rich.

Also - money tends to go towards one that is universal is the one of the properties of money. the more monies we have, the more we are back to exchange
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/2)

@serapath
> i personally dont have large amounts to move around, but i am pretty sure criminals know how to do it

They find ways, financial regulators find ways to mitigate them. It's an arms race.

> I mean criminals will be criminals with or without crypto

True. Blockchains are not, in themselves, better suited to financial shenanigans than fine art, or any other kind of unsecured asset, whose value is purely speculative.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

What makes crypto-tokens different is;

a) being relatively new and mostly unregulated.

b) having a network of partisans who are highly allergic to any attempt to regulate them, to make them harder to use for financial shenanigans

This network of partisans forms part of the speculative value of crypto-tokens as an asset class. It's a built-in hedge against the risk of new regulation exposing and stopping tax evasion, wealth misappropriation, etc, using cross-border crypto trade.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> that didnt prevent from some chinese getting filthy rich and buying loads of houses overseas ..while the majority has little money

I did say it was a hedge against, not a guaranteed solution in every case. See;

https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/@strypey/113671295066964258

Besides, this seems like a deflection, because it doesn't even try to refute the point I was making;

> if you're a Chinese oligarch wanting to move wealth out of China, BTC would be ideal, if the CCP hadn't caught on and regulated to prevent that.

(1/2)

@serapath
> i personally dont have large amounts to move around, but i am pretty sure criminals know how to do it

They find ways, financial regulators find ways to mitigate them. It's an arms race.

> I mean criminals will be criminals with or without crypto

True. Blockchains are not, in themselves, better suited to financial shenanigans than fine art, or any other kind of unsecured asset, whose value is purely speculative.

Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/2)

Me:
> Recognising BTC as legal tender is mainly a way to mitigate this, and reduce internal need for USD

It's worth specifying that in practice, this looks exactly like the only time I ever traded crypto-tokens for money. I bought tokens using RNB in a Chinese bank account, then immediately sold them to someone else doing the same thing, who deposited NZD in my NZ bank account.

Making BTC legal tender just simplifies regulation of these cross-border currency flows.

@serapath
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

If currency exchanges could use pork futures as the intermediary asset, it would work just as well. But futures, like most forms of established financial trading, are heavily regulated to hedge against them being used this way. So are fine art sale, for the same reason, and to hedge against trade in stolen antiquities.

If you have evidence of people in El Salvador or Argentina or anywhere else are using BTC as cash, to actually buy things for their everyday needs, I'm keen to see it.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/?)

@serapath
> you have already .ens domains im ethereum and you have the original namecoin

There's a large and growing literature on the abject failure of existing attempts, including the 2 you mention;

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-Empirical-Study-of-Namecoin-and-Lessons-for-Kalodner-Carlsten/5f2f9116d34f741b714b47c4d153566fa77ebe19

The @Jami team tried to learn from this when designing JamiNS. Which is *not* a DNS alternative BTW, but a solution specifically for use with Jami and compatible apps (if there are any).
@strypey so the human readable is unnecessary.

also, a standard could allow the address maker to store a human readable petname, thus that can be looked up tok, to get an initial name in case you know nobody.

other than that, identicons and other ways of translating crypto addresses into unique images or icons helps too.

to me thats enough. you avoid the entire madness that comes with creating a human readable namespace system and you can just avoid it entirely
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/?)

@serapath
> you have already .ens domains im ethereum and you have the original namecoin

There's a large and growing literature on the abject failure of existing attempts, including the 2 you mention;

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-Empirical-Study-of-Namecoin-and-Lessons-for-Kalodner-Carlsten/5f2f9116d34f741b714b47c4d153566fa77ebe19

The @Jami team tried to learn from this when designing JamiNS. Which is *not* a DNS alternative BTW, but a solution specifically for use with Jami and compatible apps (if there are any).
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/?)

> folks anyway type into search bars and autocomplete or click links sent or found on messengers/websites

Maybe. But I still think it's useful for someone to be able to;

1) install Jami
2) wonder who they can talk to as a test
3) think to themselves, Strypey must be using this, I'll find him
4) knowing that I'm "strypey" almost everywhere, search for that username
5) Find my Jami account (via JamiNS), instead of a bunch of namesquatters who are not me
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(3/?)

Obviously the Jami developers have had enough requests for this kind of UX that they thought it was worth hacking together a solution to Zooko's Triangle. It's equally obvious they thought a blockchain was the right tool for the job. Otherwise, given the rise of hard anti-blockchainism (even among BitCoiners it seems), they would have used something else.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(4/4)

FWIW your reactions suggest that GNU Jami is totally new to you. If so, I suggest worth learning a bit more a about the project and its history.
It began as a SIP client for GNU/Linux called SFLPhone, which pivoted into a P2P messenger app called Ring, before being adopted by the GNU Project. It was then renamed again to Jami;

https://linuxreviews.org/Jami

It's not blockchain-based, and can be used quite happily without JamiNS. I last tested it, about 5 years ago,

https://write.as/c7fda5x13qzve
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/2)

@serapath FYI I was want to flag that I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed. When I feel overwhelmed, I can tend to get defensive, and that can manifest as snarky. While any snark coming from me is unintentional, I acknowledge that I still hold responsibility for it. To that end;

Checking in with myself, what I'm feeling overwhelmed by is not the number of posts (I'm actually loving the detailed replies), but the complex branching structure of the thread.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

It would help me if we could keep the tangents to a minimum, and focus on one topic at a time. I write a string of replies to the last string you wrote, and vice-versa.

Linking back to previous posts as appropriate can be a way of folding tangents back into the mainline discussion for further elaboration, without turning the thread into a thorny tangle of crisscrossing branches. Does that make sense?

Remember also to @mention me only in the first post of a string, to avoid flooding : )
@strypey

hmmm.. but the original paper always defined 8 digits after the comma. That wasnt introduced later.

It has always been
21,000,000.000,000,00

So it did not get introduced later on is what i want to say. Bitcoin has been successfully ultrqconservative in sticking to the original vision and all kinds of changes and forks have been tried and were not successful.

The only thing that sometimes after endless discussions works is backward compatible additions a.k.a soft forks
@strypey

Those twins invested in 2012/2013
That is the time when big business took notic of bitcoin and the first couple of bull runs and were getting ready to launch their own web3 shitcoins, starting with ethereum in 2013 and a few other experikents before that, like mastercoin/colored coins, etc...

Yes rich folks can buy more compute to mine more, but eventually that stops. There is no more mining when 21 million is reached, no matter how rich you are
@strypey

some blockchains will always make new tokens. it doesnt matter if proof of work or proof of stake. if there will be new tokens, they go to the rich at the expense of the poor.

any blockchain with fixed supply wont have that at the expense of the poor, such as bitcoin.

money printing is deficits/loans/debt based money that **never gets paid back** and also in practice CAN NEVER be paid back.

https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/10/15/global-public-debt-is-probably-worse-than-it-looks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_debt
@strypey

yes. i will try.
mastodon makes it hard to keep track of branches, so link8ng to fold them back in is a bit difficult. but let see
@strypey yes, which means its a net neutral effecg... maybe bitcoin transparency makes it even harder for criminals...but in any case, i feel its kinda a niche (irrelecant?) side brqnch when discussing bitcoin. i do agree though, that non-bitcoin blockchains, a.k.a web3, are very dubious and scammy in my experience, but i wpupd anyway not advocate for those...
@strypey

fair enough, but interestingly, the CCP was able to and in part because bitcoin aplows the tracking, imho by design.

thata different from e.g. monero or other really dark and privacy focusee blockchains designed to be untraceable...
@strypey

i do think its still early. ppl there experiment with bitcoin payments, but its a new experience and ppl are stipl familiarizing

the reason why i think that bitcoin "lends itself" as a medium to transfer through is, that everyone can be re-assured, that there wont be a single party they need to trust to not "rug pull" or "freeze" or "inflate" the medoum while it is in use

bitcoin is 21mio. period.
this cannot be guaranteed for basicaply anything else, strictly speaking not even gold
@strypey what if i register strypy first in Jami and pretend to be you? now you cant even get it and ppl will always think i am you.

this problem isnt that easily solved

to me a global naming system is irrelevant in practice and the paper suggests namecoin was to cheap so squatting again happened. cool. try many others. In an extreme case Every app can run its own namespace blockchain or centralized database.

i happily opt out of all of them forever for autocomplete i control and shared links
@strypey

or they did it because they get funded.
offer somthing and make good friends with ppl who uave qccess to funding and you get paid ๐Ÿ™‚

David Graeber - Bullshit Jobs
@strypey

JamiNS is ethereum now

Ethereum marketing or more broadly web3 marketing is hunting for every opportunity to plug themselves into existing open source projects to gain adoption to make web3 more legitimate for scammers to scam more

Jami sounds interesting

JamiNT is probably what they got money for and they took it to continue the project and now need to built blockchain stuff as well

I dont know the details, but if web3 scammers are involved i am not really interested

p2p is dat
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/2)

@serapath
> the CCP was able to and in part because bitcoin aplows the tracking, imho by design

AFAIK it wasn't nearly as secret squirrel as all that. They just made it it illegal to operate any kind of exchange where people can use RMB to buy crypto-tokens. Without a trusted exchange, most people won't bother trying, and the few who do are easy to track down using standard banking/ financial regulation enforcement.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

It's probably still OK to mine crypto in China and sell it for RNB. Just like it's fine to use a foreign bank card to take money out of an ATM in China.

EDIT: Effectively selling the currency you have in your foreign bank account and getting paid in RNB.
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> mastodon makes it hard to keep track of branches

If you scroll up to the OP that kicked off the whole thread and click on that, you can then scroll down through the whole thread, and find the orphaned post containing the unexplored tangent you want to fold back in : )
@strypey

I do think it is a big issue that web3/altcoin are unregulated. They are essentially all securities (unlike bitcoin) and they are all scams - if nothing else you can see how all their price histories clearly reflect presale, pump and dump after which the price never really recovers.

You also notice it if you ever try to engage in those ecosystems. They are a big fat lie. All of web3 is just new unregulated money printers for capitalists.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> the best deal possible imho is a world where we end the capitalist class privilege of money printing so we play on a level playing field

Right, which is why Jason Hickel is right. The power to issue new money belongs in the hands of elected governments, who can spend it into existence paying for public infrastructure, services, etc. Running surpluses when the economy is growing, and deficits when it's not, to keep the money supply in proportion, avoiding inflation.
@strypey

I think scarcity is the wrong idea anyway.

Money is human made and like a game of how we can structure our economy.

No economy without money ever worked as well.

Now once you have money, it is valuable, because in that game you can exchange it for goods and services.

But some prefer a ledger without a capitalist class controlling it, where they always add extra numbers for themselves to get more from others.

Bitcoin ends that capitalist class privilege, while i dont know others
@strypey again:

> 0.00000001 BTC is called one Satoshi or SAT

SAT is the smallest unit since the beginning. This did not change later on. It was always like that - nothing changed and i bet nothing ever will for as long as people use bitcoin. This is the hardest consensus among all bitcoin features imho.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

Politicians following the Washington Consensus ("neoliberalism", Reaganomics, call it what you will) handed over that power to trading banks. Who issue new money as loans, primarily to their mates, at a rate of up to 10 times their reserves. With the government trying to manage inflation indirectly by playing with the interest rate slider.

This is the reality of the capitalist money printer. The solutions to this problem are political-economic, not technological.
@strypey lets see.

I am pretty sure that the rich and wealthy. That old money and every capitalist sooner or later will fight bitcoin.

Bitcoin has the plebs, the people and some capitalists (usually not the biggest ones), who understand the game is rigged and they side with BTC ...giving up on any future capitalist privilege in return for saving as much of their capitalist wealth over into the new order imho.

That is how it seems to me.
@strypey

Everyone is can sell their stuff for whatever token they want. I will buy exactly as many tokens from them (e.g. USD) as i need to get their stuff

I will sell my stuff only for the currency i believe in - one that cannot be printed by a capitalist class

So far it seems to work for the last 15 years - not that i offer any services in or for Bitcoin, but i definitely see that option as more and more interesting

The more people opt for it, the harder for capitalists who cant print BTC
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/2)

@serapath
> but the original paper always defined 8 digits after the comma. That wasnt introduced later

I feel like you're working really hard to avoid acknowledging the point here, so I'm just going to restate it;

> the number of tokens has been increased (conceptually but *not technically*)

... because ...

> that money supply limit didn't survive contact with real world use at scale

A flexible money supply is a *feature* of all functional monetary systems, not a bug.
@strypey

Interesting - I would have assumed it is the gas that was sold.

Russia sells so much natural resources, e.g. gas ...and cant or doesnt need to buy equally much from the outside, essentially having an export surplus, just like Germany was a lot of times export world champion and just like china has an export surplus, which means, instead of importing goods and services they have a lot of foreign currency.

So, what else could they have done?

...isnt that natural that this happens?
@strypey

All capitalists have ill gotten gains, all the way back in colonialist times as well, during slavery, during the time of former empires ... old money and the organisations and families that inherited it - it's all tainted and whether it was wars or other atrocities ...its out history and it is what it is.

Now some of those might stash it into BTC, some into other things, but moving into and hence empowering BTC means opting to abandon the capitalist class.

...which isnt the worst
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

One way to get your head around this is to learn about mutual credit systems. The oldest forms of documented exchange. In which credit is issued into existence directly, by the payer, whenever a transaction happens.

The only limits on the growth of the credit supply are;

a) people's willingness to trade their goods and services for credit

b) how much credit people are willing to issue in exchange for them

c) the total goods and services produced by people willing to accept credit
@strypey

It is also possible that people and organistaion actually just drive up demand by buying with legitimate wealth as well.

The main value proposition of BTC, unlike anything else is: nobody can print it, hence no unfair advantage for anyone anymore.

it makes sense for billions to adopt it, because only a miniscule fraction of those billions of people can actually print money.

Those who oppose it usually are relatively close to the money printer and want to defend their privilege imho
@strypey

The wealth that "is being laundered" through it is just regular people doing regular activity, trading with each other without a capitalist class being able to steal the wealth away which makes them cantillionaires a la Elon Musk in the process.

Governments can still raise taxes and track people on the public bitcoin ledger and prosecute them, so governments should be fine, but capitalists are not.

Wich is what is so brilliant ๐Ÿ˜€
@strypey

After 15 years of price only up:

https://bitcoin.zorinaq.com/price/

Why?
The promise to end banksters and capitalists

It is a "Schelling Point" to end capitalism and the rules are open source and relatively simple compared to any other crypto coin and compared to the nebulous endless rules of any fiat legacy monetary system

We can just start consenting on bitcoin as a better game mechanism, because it cuts out capitalists. yay ๐Ÿ˜€ thats value

Just like ending slavery added value for slaves
@strypey

That is the thing.

The "armoured divisions" are not necesarry if there is no money printer to be captured.

Its so highly decentralized that it can also not be targeted by armored divisions.

That "question" predates bitcoin and is always true for all systems before bitcoin, because they are all centralized and can hence be captured so need armoured divisions...
@strypey

So you trust into elected governments and I dont.

I can only elect among the shitty options presented, e.g. Biden vs Trump in the USA, or the funny people we have here in the UK or in germany.

I have no influence over those options.

No matter who is elected, nothing changes. Under Obama, all main policies and geopolitics continued regardless of who was running the show.

You get different flavours and narratives, but the budgets still empower the cantillionaires.
@strypey

@strypey

Big Politics. Crony Politicians of all colors... and Old Money private sector. The Lobbyists. Elon Musk & Trump.
Sorros and Biden, they all play golf together. Trump was on Clintons Wedding.

Angela Merkles Husband is in the Board of Axel Springer owned by Friede Springer

...where you look, THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE.

THESE ARE THE CAPITALISTS!!! ๐Ÿ˜

What will you vote for?
For whom?
Who will change it?

I dont really understan what you are proposing.
@strypey

Flexible money supply is possible, just as inflexible money supply is possible.

The question is not whether it is flexible or inflexible, but rather WHO GETS THE NEW MONEY!!! ๐Ÿ™‚

In capitalism, it is the capitalists and always has been. They print hte money and they always have been.

That is how they steal from the people.

Try to buy a house today. Maybe you are a rich capitalists, but my money only works for food and rent and thats it.

Bitcoin only grows and no printing.
@strypey

Agree. Where does that exist?

This makes for essentially everyone issuing their own money.

strypey tokens and serapath tokens, and so on.

So you need to find people who are willing to take this and that until you find a circle where debt clears, like A -> B -> strypey -> serapath -> C -> D -> A

Which is tedious, so you end up with big third parties that trade with everyone to clear - it's banks all over again and now they have control over the money printer again... yay! ๐Ÿ˜€
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/2)

@serapath
> JamiNT is probably what they got money for and they took it to continue the project and now need to built blockchain stuff as well

If you have any evidence of the Jami team taking funding from blockchain bulls, I'd be keen to see it.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

You seem to be guessing, and I can't help but you notice you seem to do a *lot* of guessing from first principles.

That can be a useful lense, especially for designing thought experiments. But where possible, it's more rigorous to build theory from empirical observations, rather than looking for empirical evidence to fit your first principles theory.

Confirmation bias is a thing.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> what if i register strypy first in Jami and pretend to be you? now you cant even get it and ppl will always think i am you

Ironically, this is an argument for a federated system with admins ; ) Which solves the problems JamiNS is trying to solve, by tying ID to a centralised source of truth (DNS).

But there you go : )
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> They are essentially all securities (unlike bitcoin) and they are all scams

I agree with all of this, except "unlike BitCoin".
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> The question is not whether it is flexible or inflexible, but rather WHO GETS THE NEW MONEY!!!

Consensus unlocked!

> the capitalists ... print the money and they always have been

This is ahistorical dogma. It's hard to pin down exactly when feudalism was displaced by capitalism, and of course it varies from country to country. But even if we date it from the earliest recorded usage of the word (1872 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/capitalism), money has been issued lots of ways over that time.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/?)

@serapath
> The question is not whether it is flexible or inflexible, but rather WHO GETS THE NEW MONEY!!!

Consensus unlocked! Compare;

* Obama's GFC bailouts - new money issued by the state, directly to the banks, with no strings attached

* Biden's COVID recovery bailouts - new money issued by the state, directly to everyone's bank account

In both cases, this increased the reserves of the banks, and their capacity to give loans. But the outcome for everyone else was *very* different
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/?)

> the capitalists ... print the money and they always have been

It's hard to pin down exactly when feudalism was displaced by capitalism, and of course it varies from country to country. But even if we date it from the earliest recorded usage of the word (1872 - https://www.etymonline.com/word/capitalism), money has been issued lots of ways over that time, and not always by capitalists.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(3/3)

One example, Keynsian social democratic governments took direct control of money issue after the Great Depression (FDR in the US, Labour parties in the UK and most of the Commonwealth). They used it to build the social welfare societies we now live in the wreckage of.

Capitalists only got it back in the 1970s/80s (Reaganomics, etc), after decades of working on the Powell Meno master plan;

https://www.masterplanpodcast.com
@strypey

or in the hands of nobody.
in practice it alwaus enriches the capitalists and their politician amigos. they own the media. they control who is even avaipable to vote for and small alternatives are a thrown away vote, so you rather vote for the crappers who are less bad.

thus again, empowering crony capitalists.
politicians and banksters. one money printer is private, the other one public, but none of them ever save the homeless or needy. its shit

bitcoin puts us all in the same boat
@strypey

just to add. its not really changed conceptually.
it always had 21 mio. with 8 digits after the comma.

some ppl who didnt check the details thought its 21mio withput digits behind the comma or maybe jusy 2 digits, but it has always been 8 digits. nothing new.

the co ceptual change happened to those who werent aware because the media just talked about 21 mio.
@strypey

i know how web3 works.
i saw ethereum and others from the inside.
i see how their marketing and devrel works.
the Jami blockchain uses geth, which is ethereum

i saw many open source projects getting bought or hired... which is great, because devs get some money, but the bigger picture is getting scammy web3 more adopted and more ppl will lose money because of it
@strypey

maybe. for me its an argument to just build a good UX around crypto addresses with petnames where you query your web of trust for meta information and annotation to display in your address bar on autocomplete.

in chats i share links, so crypto addrrsses are not a problem, i just copy/paste, but even here, a meta info box based on querying my web of trust can be used and this should work totaly fine.
@strypey
a security means its controlled by single person or a small group who can significantly influence... or basically steal/rugpull ppl.

this is difficult with bitcoin.

nibody can print and nobody has such a significant control over it to change the value.

ethereum is controlled by the cabal of founders and early investors who control the code and established a culture of constant arbitrary changes.
@strypey

fair enough, but even covid meant lockdowns and killed ppls businesses and jobs.

second. i know many ppl and who got bailed out was everyone with a government job or job in a big corporation.

if you freelanced of self employed or were unemployed or funemployed or student or on job center or anyone else than a big company employee, you got nothing.

if you got something? it qas based on your income. so if you had low income you got little for doing nothing, but a lot when big income
@strypey

those who issued money were always the elites even if you didnt call them capitalists, they were the capitalists and the capitalists were their amigos

its what allowed the initial wealth accumulation. it allowed colonialism to print money to pay ppl to go out & conquer and from then on use that wealth accumulated based on money printing to put tourself closer and closer to eventually become the main money printer ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™€๏ธ

doesnt matter if elites are "left" or "right" ..its bever the ppl
@strypey

the right wing capitalists were taken over by the labour capitalists who built for themselves and had different stories, but the millions of ppl never got the money. they got nice stories and handouts from the "well meaning" elites... so the story goes. ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™€๏ธ
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/2)

@serapath
> Agree. Where does that exist?

LETS, timebanks and other forms of community currencies have been practicing mutual credit all round the world since the 1980s. Digital tech initiatives include;

* Community Exchange: https://www.community-exchange.org/home/ces-upgrade/

* Open Credit Network: https://opencredit.network/2019/03/22/introducing-mutual-credit/

* Credit Commons: https://creditcommonssociety.org/about-the-credit-commons/

* my friend @utunga's Together project: https://togetherproject.nz/

From whom I learned about ...

* Token Engineering Commons: https://tecommons.org/
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

One of our local groups researching and educating about this kind of stuff is Living Economies;

https://www.livingeconomies.nz/

But there's a huge community of people around the word interested in mutual credit. In fact, there has been since the early days of cooperatives. The original (pre-Marx) socialist movement grew out of the mutualism of Proudhon (the "property is theft" guy).
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> Bitcoin has the plebs, the people and some capitalists (usually not the biggest ones), who understand the game is rigged and they side with BTC ...giving up on any future capitalist privilege in return for saving as much of their capitalist wealth over into the new order imho

Every pyramid scheme has a heroic story it offers to new recruits, as motivation to recruit the next layer of suckers. This is BitCoin's.

As I've been explaining in this thread, this is not the whole story.
@mlncn @strypey

the rich buy a lot, so its not worse than what we already have, but they trade it in for their ability to print in the future. the class privilege goes away. they are still rich, but in the same class as others - which is a big win.

now its finally possible to compete and slowly chip away at their wealth by building apternative mutual aid and worker coop networks who offer better products and services.

if they spend their coins like they are used to, they will just waste it ๐Ÿ˜
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> its finally possible to compete and slowly chip away at their wealth by building apternative mutual aid and worker coop networks

This has always been possible, because all forms of money are backed by the goods and services available in the real economy. BTC adds nothing here except complicated wallet software and exponentially increasing energy usage.

> if they spend their coins like they are used to, they will just waste it

... so BTC is useless as a payment system.

@mlncn
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/?)

Again, you're hiding in the weeds, so I'll make the point again;

The money supply limit Satoshi built into BitCoin didn't survive contact with real world use at scale.

In the original design, BitCoin was a *payment* system, with 1 token conceptually equivalent to 1USD. Obviously a real world global economy needs more than $12 million; that's not even $1 per person. From memory, Satoshi's white paper said this was an arbitrary limit, chosen for the purposes of a PoC prototype.

@serapath
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/?)

Once BTC started to attract interest as a speculative investment (ie people started gambling on its price going up), the price per token rapidly headed up into the hundreds, then thousands of dollars. At which point 1BTC was no longer useful for its designed purpose; a means of everyday exchange.

So that's when the conceptual shift happened that reframed the Satoshi as the unit of transaction. Effectively growing the token supply by orders of magnitude, *without* changing the blockchain.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(3/3)

What this demonstrates is that the money supply needs to grow (and sometimes shrink) in line with the real economy of what it can buy. A fixed money supply is a bug, not a feature. Every experiment with fixed money supplies has confirmed this - *including* BitCoin - since the concept was invented (see @Rushkoff's book Life Inc).

So is it possible to have a system where new money is not issued, by a centralised state, or by capitalists (eg banks)? Yes, again, mutual credit.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> i know how web3 works.

I'm not interested in conspiracy theories, and quite frankly, I'm not impressed by the shade you're implicitly throwing on the Jami devs (and by extension the GNU Project), by hinting darkly at purely theoretical funding sources corrupting their dev goals.

Again, if you have any evidence of the Jami team taking funding from blockchain bulls, I'd be keen to see it. Piss or get off the pot, mate.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/2)

@serapath
> its an argument to just build a good UX around crypto addresses with petnames where you query your web of trust for meta information and annotation to display in your address bar on autocomplete

As with pure P2P, this makes sense in theory, and people have been talking about it for decades. Let me know when there's a PoC I can test. In the meantime, DNS-based IDs and JamiNS seem to be working just fine ; )
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

Every time I try to @mention a Nostr address here, I'm reminded how useful human-readable names are.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> a security means its controlled by single person or a small group who can significantly influence

Who told you that?

"A security is a tradable financial asset. The term commonly refers to any form of financial instrument, but its legal definition varies by jurisdiction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_%28finance%29

A security is basically anything people buy that isn't;

* consumable

* real estate, or some other real world asset

* a unit of currency

BTC is none of these, ergo it's a security.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/2)

@serapath
> even covid meant lockdowns and killed ppls businesses and jobs

Yes. Which is why some kind of bailout was necessary. Aren't you glad it didn't all get given straight to the banks again, as Obama did, and Orange Stalin would have done if he'd actually won in 2020?

In case it wasn't clear, my argument is *not* that the pandemic was good for the economy, so we should have more of them. It very much wasn't, and even it is was, I'm not a sociopath ... nor a utilitarian ; )
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/2)

@serapath
> who got bailed out was everyone with a government job or job in a big corporation

Again, where do you get this stuff? Have a look at the 'Key Elements' section here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Rescue_Plan_Act_of_2021

Money was sprinkled out via a wide range of mechanisms, to get as much of it as possible to the bottom of the stack. Decades of "trickle-down" and "deregulation" make it fiendishly difficult to avoid the money pumps that suck it up to the 1%. But the Biden administration did their best.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
I'm not even sure what you're talking about with this one. Maybe try fewer replies, with more time and thought put into each?

Otherwise we might as well train a couple of Markov bots on our posting histories, and let them sling key messages at each other ; )
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Forbearance mastodon (AP)
@strypey nah bro they have like a Howie test and shit, real estate can be "a security", the naming rights to my butt can be "not a security" and "uncalled for".
sj_zero pleroma (AP)
This whole conversation is very strange... "Capitalist" this, "Capitalist" that, but then "Money printer"

The capitalist can't really print money. They can print disney dollars or tokens in your favorite monetized video game, but those things aren't really currency, just pre-purchased merchandise, an agreement between you and one other vendor. The only entity that can print money That's the state, which is not part of a capitalist system by definition.

Even when the state "participates in capitalism", it's like a planet or a sun -- it warps the space around it, becoming a gravity well. It becomes a new point of reference sucking in and modifying everything around it.

Now you might argue that banks print money because of fractional reserve banking.

Who do you think allows such a strange system to exist? Who made it the basis of the whole monetary system?

That isn't to say that totally hands off capitalism would be utopian or perfect, but very often I see people blaming capitalism for an omnipresent state which intervenes in markets constantly such that you can always feel the pull of its gravity well.

I realized recently that bitcoin's fundamental design is broken, and it will never become the universal money standard people think it will. its fixed volume is part of the problem. If you'll only ever have 21 million of a thing (split up into satoshis), then eventually all the bitcoin that have ever existed will exist, and every time more things can be bought with bitcoin (compared to the basically nothing you can buy now other than fiat currency) each satoshi becomes more and more valuable, so where the problem with the money printer is that it pulls value out of the currency that exists and puts it elsewhere (usually in the state's hands because gravity well), in the case of bitcoin it pulls the value out of the things being bought and put it in the existing currency, so as the economy grows the value of your satoshis grow, and you have ultimately the same problem except instead of the money printers having disproportionate buying power, it's the money havers having disproportionate buying power.

That said, I think crypto could nonetheless be the answer. The ideal would be to have some sort of intelligent daemon who would look at the things being bought and sold with the currency you have and exactly shrink or grow the money supply to keep the relative value of each unit the same. What better daemon than an algorithm everyone agrees upon by downloading a piece of open source software?

So how do you solve the second problem? I think it's by being careful about where the new money supply goes or is taken from. I'm imagining that during times of market cap growth the miners and the users (those who are buying and selling with the currency, not just holding it) would get a little bonus, not a huge amount per transaction but enough to grow the overall supply. When the market cap of the currency falls, you'd have fees go up a bit and the extra be destroyed -- not a huge amount per transaction, but enough to shrink the overall supply.

Unfortunately, such a design has a major problem is it doesn't give people a chance to get insanely wealthy through just grabbing a thousand bitcoin back in 2008 for a few pennies, and it doesn't give the state the chance to get insanely wealthy through just printing so much money everyone becomes poor except them. Its strength as a currency would ultimately be why nobody would feel like championing it.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/?)

@sj_zero
> The only entity that can print money That's the state, which is not part of a capitalist system by definition

Bwaaahahahaha, good one *slaps thigh and wipes tears from face*.
@serapath @mlncn
A series of photos of J. K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson from the Spiderman films. First laughing uproariously, then looking serious with the text "wait, are you serious", then laughing again.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/?)

@sj_zero
> very often I see people blaming capitalism for an omnipresent state which intervenes in markets constantly such that you can always feel the pull of its gravity well

You mean like enforcing property rights, without which no capitalist system could exist?

> I realized recently that bitcoin's fundamental design is broken, and it will never become the universal money standard people think it will. its fixed volume is part of the problem

We do agree on this.
@serapath @mlncn
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(3/?)

@sj_zero
> the problem with the money printer is that it pulls value out of the currency

This is an odd sentence. A currency is just a representation of the goods and services that can be produced in the economy that issues it. You can't pull value out of it, any more than you can pull length out of metres.

> that exists and puts it elsewhere ... usually in the state's hands

Where it can be used to fund common infrastructure and public services. Or weapons and other corporate welfare ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™‚๏ธ
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(4/?)

@sj_zero
> What better daemon than an algorithm everyone agrees upon by downloading a piece of open source software?

I don't know, a democratically elected body maybe? But if you hear of a PoC for an automated system that can extinguish excessive currency units and fund common goods (ie automate taxation and public spending), I'd be keen to learn about it.

As for the comment about the state getting wealthy at everyone else's expense, see post 1 ; ) Honestly, where do you get this shit?
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
sj_zero pleroma (AP)
Capitalism is the private ownership and control of capital, free trade, lacking barriers. Once the state starts micro-managing, that's not capitalism anymore. It's something else. Maybe overall the market is more or less capitalist overall, but the state micro-managing markets is definitionally not capitalist.

You can laugh all you want, but it's an important distinction to make. Our problem today is an omnipresent state that is overbearing into every nanometer of our lives. If people get rich off of that, it's just the state rewarding its pawns.

As for the state enforcing property rights, that's part of the problem of pure capitalism, that it can't actually exist because at some point you need to enforce property rights or contracts and the state needs to step in, and every step away from the ideal puts you onto that spectrum. When you get to half the economy being the state and the other half being pawns of the state like we've got, you're well past capitalism, and you can laugh and laugh, but I'll still be correct. I'd be like saying the thing you hate most about fencing is getting shot. If you're getting shot then you're not fencing anymore. "Oh, but I always get shot while fencing, you just don't know what fencing is!"
Strypey mastodon (AP)
@sj_zero
> Our problem today is an omnipresent state that is overbearing into every nanometer of our lives. If people get rich off of that, it's just the state rewarding its pawns

This is fantasy. Substitute "corporation" for "state" and you pretty much nail it.

State power has been in decline in anglophone countries since the 1970s, with the exception of military flailing. Which is a combo of military Keynsianism, resource grabs, and policing action, all on behalf of corprorations.
@serapath
Strypey mastodon (AP)
@sj_zero
You can redefine "capitalism" to exclude all the bad stuff observable in Actually Existing Capitalism, just as the tankies can redefine "communism" to exclude all the bad stuff observable in Actually Existing Communism. But some wise person once said something along the lines of;

Philosophers have described the world. The point is to change it.

@serapath
@strypey
Okay. fair enough.

I am german and i did explore the german landscape a lot. They have many so called "Regiogeld" initiatives and they also exist since forever, but they all have in common that they dont really work.

They are a nice gesture, a nice symbol, a nice experiment, something with a passiomate community, but most of them are less active now than in the past and the members are mostly old.

We can discuss their differences and why they did not get to the masses, but...
@strypey

Its not a pyramid scheme.

Bitcoin endgame is to stay in BTC and if critical adoption happens this is possible.

Bitcoin adoption is the largest of ALL the blockchains and all the mutual credit networks and everything in between.

A pyramid scheme is one that collapses when it gets too big, because the last joiners cant find anyone anymore who they can scam.

I dont see why that would fit bitcoin.

bitcoin payments work and the rules guarantee no inflation. the game value proposition
@strypey @mlncn

No, this is NOT true.
It is impossible if the capitalists have money printers.

if you earn loads of money with your new apternative system of producing goods and services, then the capitalists just print money and buy you dry.

They hire everyone available and pay them printed money to make what you make and offer it for free, so you cant compete.

You have to sell to earn, but they print.

you always lose
@strypey @Rushkoff

That is not true.

I follow bitcoin since 2011.
Back then, before any of web3 and the ceypto craze... before any vinklevoss ever bought any tokens, there wqs already 21 mio with 8ndigits after the comma.

ppl bought pizzas for 10k bitcion, clearly less than 1 USD and the story back then was already that hypothetically, if bitcoin ever became mainstream, its price would become enormous, so basically an economy based on deflation per design.
@strypey

i dont k ow anything about the jami devs.

i do see its connected to ethereum/web3 though.
i do know a lot about ethereum/web3, but yeah - i understand that this alone might not help.

Just mentiined my opinion, but i get your point
@strypey

what we need is a universal basic income for every person. All newly printed money should go into the economy through that.

That would be worth something.

This will never happen, so bitcoin and its deflationary economy is the second best. ...new value goes to every holder all the time because of deflation ... thats as close as we get i guess
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> what we need is a universal basic income for every person

Consensus unlocked, again! Twice in one day, we're on a roll, despite my occasional grumpiness : P

UBI is an essential part of a major shift where we complete the democratic revolution, by democratising economies. UBI gives every person a weekly share of votes in what society invests its resources in, and frees us up to make uncoerced choices about what to invest our labour in.

> This will never happen

Never say never ...
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> There is a twst called the "Howie" test to define what a security is

Ah, that's what the troll meant ; )

Go ahead and finish your point. Give me a sentence or two about what the Howie Test is and where it comes from, and tell me what you think it tells us about BitCoin.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> i do see its connected to ethereum/web3 though

What you *see* is that they've used tech derived from a version of the Ethereum blockchain. The rest is all your interpretation.

And this was my point. It's very important to be clear - in your own mind and in communicating a line of argument - when you're reporting facts and when your editorialising about how you interpret them.

*Especially* when you're commenting on other people's motives and ethics.
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/?)

@serapath
You're really allergic to this point, and I get why. It's the single chain that holds the whole BitCoin story together. If you accept that a fixed money supply doesn't work, and can't work, you'll have to refactor a big chunk of your worldview from the ground up.

I fight like hell to avoid that, and obviously you will too. I expect to have to hammer this point home dozens of different ways before you're convinced.

This is why I said on day 1 this would take months ; )
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/?)

@serapath
> there wqs already 21 mio with 8ndigits after the comma

I'm not sure how to say this any more clearly. Yes, the *tech* has not changed.

> ppl bought pizzas for 10k bitcion, clearly less than 1 USD

True. What I said was not BTC was worth $1, but;

> BitCoin was a *payment* system, with 1 token conceptually equivalent to 1USD

Note the word "conceptually", it's doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Remember the context too. I'm talking about the design notes in the white paper.
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(3/?)

> the story back then was already that hypothetically, if bitcoin ever became mainstream, its price would become enormous

Well yes. Anyone who thinks about a desired commodity with a fixed supply, and hasn't been sniffing airplane glue for months, is going to come to that conclusion.

I don't remember anyone thinking about a Satoshi or giving it a name. There was just a vague notion of chopping token into smaller bits, or creating derivatives of them.
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(4/4)

Remember, this was post-GFC, anything seemed possible, and most people had gone quite mad. Me for example, in 2011/12 I was living in and visiting a series of public squares and parks, where people had set up camp for months, and spent all day debating politics over copious cups on tea and breaking bread ; )

Anyway, if you think I'm wrong about Satoshi's design goals, there a simple solution; go back to the primary source. Reread the white paper and quote the relevant bits.
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
Ughh ... what?

We live in an international system of interlocking institutions. Some of them with hundreds of years of history feeding into their structures and the relationships between them. All of it covering hundreds of countries with states and thousands of nations, each with its own internal class and caste systems.

You're reducing the entire thing down to 'capitalists have magic money tree'.

I'm really not sure how to engage with this. @mlncn? You got anything?
A series of photos of J. K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson from the Spiderman films. First laughing uproariously, then looking serious with the text "wait, are you serious", then laughing again.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/?)

> Its not a pyramid scheme

> I dont see why that would fit bitcoin

That's what everyone who tries to get me to buy into a pyramid scheme tells me. Theirs is always the one that's different, even though it has the two primary qualities;

* the investment has no actual product or service

* the value of the investment grows to the degree that people have confidence it will, and keep buying in

> bitcoin payments work

For what? Other than that 10,000BTC pizza and a few other such stunts?
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/?)

> the rules guarantee no inflation

Clearly you still don't understand what inflation is, why it happens, or the various theories about mitigating it. A fixed money supply only guarantees no inflation because it guarantees no functional monetary economy.

We've talked about this in a number of branches of the thread. For future reference, mostly linear threads are much more navigable when you want to refresh your memory of the discussion.

> the game value proposition

The what now?
Forbearance mastodon (AP)
@strypey @utunga when are we getting money where we issue it to do good stuff and not make rich people rich?
Strypey mastodon (AP)
@Forbearance
> when are we getting money where we issue it to do good stuff and not make rich people rich?

Since all money is ultimately backed by networks of social agreements, I guess when we agree to?

@serapath @utunga
@strypey

The togetherproject from @utunga seems to be in development status based on how the website sounds.

Token Engineering Commons is Blockchain/web3 ...more specifically Ethereum, hence we are back to blockchains.

cadCad is a project from the ethereum world and it is used for token bonding curves and it all circles back into web3.

web3 is backed by the typical investors which own it all and they cover every style, vibe and wording to get maximum adoption of web3 which they control๐Ÿคทโ€โ™€๏ธ
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(1/?)

@sj_zero
> Here's a graph of state spending as % of gdp for several countries

What this tells me is that state spending was very low in the 19th century. A famously awful time to be alive for everyone but the very wealthiest, and whose political-economic systems set up the conditions for 2 catastrophic world wars.

Also that spending spiked in the 1920s and 1950s, when government spending dug their countries out of the holes those wars had left them in. Particularly the UK.
@serapath
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(2/?)

Your graph also shows me that after those wars, people realised that the 1800s way of doing political economy was really shit, and we needed to do something different. So social democratic parties, formed by workers and the unions they were organized in, won elections in pretty much all these states, and set about doing different.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(3/?)

They increased taxes on wealth, particularly on corporations, and spent public money on common infrastructure and social services. What followed was about 50 years of rising living standards, increased literacy, technological innovation, *and* economic growth.

It's hard for us to comprehend just how much this changed life for the average Jo, because even after 50 years of aggressive dismantling, we're still getting some of the benefits.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
(4/4)

Which brings me to what your graph *doesn't* tell us, which is what proportion of the state spending in each trend line is spent on social welfare, and how much is corporate welfare. Because although the rise in spending relative to GDP tails off in the late 1970s/ early 1980s, corporate welfare massively increases. So social spending and public infrastructure spending tanks.

Which is why we're now surrounded by rotting infrastructure, and homeless people with untreated health problems.
This entry was edited (4 weeks ago)
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> They are a nice gesture, a nice symbol, a nice experiment, something with a passionate community, but most of them are less active now than in the past and the members are mostly old.

Sure, if you choose the right criteria you can frame anything as a failure. Whether they still exist, and regardless of how many people participated, they led to real world trades that wouldn't have otherwise happened. How many real world trades has BTC facilitated, not including the infamous pizza?
@strypey @sj_zero @mlncn

whilenso far i agree with @strypey on everything, seeing technology get cheaper year after year wirhout the world collapsing. deflation being a threat is a justifying myth by the capitalist money printing class.

imagine working and earning bitcoin, and then losijg a job. ...if one lives frugal, the money brings one way further, because bitcoin always gets more valuable. its like a savings account. perfect.

why would that be a problem apart from capitalist saying so?
@strypey

Its complicated, but my understanding in a nutshell is, that if something is controlled by a single person or small group so that their qctions can significantly influence the value, then it is a security.

If no small group or single person can influence the value significantly, then it is not a security.

so far, afaik, the SEC only gave the non-security status to bitcoin
@strypey

there are blockchain frameworks, such as "substrate" or the "cosmos sdk".

There are also very minimalist blockchains to fork and build off, for example "handshake", which is even doing something in the direction of jami.

So building off of "geth" is very surprising.

But yes, maybe they literally just forked it๐Ÿคทโ€โ™€๏ธ
@strypey

it wasnt like that for me and i dont know where that was written.

Anyway, i think i slowly understand what you are trying to say - basically:

If the supply of money was fixed, prices would come down (deflation) and at some point things would need to be priced in tinier and tinier fractions, thus 21 mio, even with 8 digits after the comma would not be enough.

Fair point. That is theoretically and eventually practically true, and i dont think anyone would disagree here, BUT ๐Ÿ™‚ ...
@strypey

yeah i did.
the 8 digits after the comma were always there.
in 2011 i was camping for weeks and months in front of the central bank participating in the occupy movement, but bitcoin was mostly unheard of by the vast majority of participants sadly. ...so it was hard to discuss bitcoin ...not that i was very familiar with it back then, but i noticed its existence ๐Ÿ™‚
@strypey @mlncn

institutions come and go.
they have in common to have ppl working for them getting paid.

money makes and breaks them.
its at the root of everything.

capitalists control the printer and can decide who gwts funded and who gwta defunded.

having ppl donating enough is tough
@strypey

I mean.
I never heard of what you linked even though it exists for a long time and i did look i to those regional and custom currencies.

BTC is known worldwide. Its in the mainstream news, over and over. Highest politicians talk about it. Black Rock and other large investment funds buy it. Heads of states talk about it. Niche, but Swiss/zug, El Salvador, several other countries are making use of it. It grows for 15 years straight to now again all time high.

On top of that...
Strypey mastodon (AP)
> so far, afaik, the SEC only gave the non-security status to bitcoin

I know I said I'd be pausing all replies on this topic after yesterday, until the end of summer, and I will be. But I thought this was worth sharing, as an example of concerns at least one SEC commissioner had about BTC trading in Jan this year;

https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/crenshaw-statement-spot-bitcoin-011023

I'll leave you with that for now.
Strypey mastodon (AP)
If anyone can look at the unaccountable power of BorgSoft;

https://m.economictimes.com/tech/technology/microsoft-faces-wide-ranging-us-antitrust-probe/articleshow/115750648.cms

... or Goggle;

https://www.theverge.com/23869483/us-v-google-search-antitrust-case-updates

... or grApple;

https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/commission-sends-preliminary-findings-apple-and-opens-additional-non-compliance-investigation-2024-06-24_en

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets

... or FarceBook;

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/08/ftc-alleges-facebook-resorted-illegal-buy-or-bury-scheme-crush-competition-after-string-failed

... or scAmazon;

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1191099421/amazon-ftc-lawsuit-antitrust-monopoly

... or the global power TenCent, ByteDance, Alibaba and Baidu give the CCP, and conclude that the institution that should be anarchist enemy #1 is still states and not corporations ... I don't know what to tell you.
#1

This website uses cookies to recognize revisiting and logged in users. You accept the usage of these cookies by continue browsing this website.