comment in reddit:
======
I'm objecting to your the implication that "no one" is in control of
bitcoin. You actually said "anyone" which leaves open the possibility
that "everyone" or "consensus" is in control of it which is my position.
I've tried to show why bitcoin is not fundamentally different from the
status quo. The only way to fix it is to have a coin who's code is
simple enough to write once and it inherently disallows future changes
no matter what the consensus wants. I suspect the physics of evolution
seeks this so that machine technology can continue to replace biological
technology (5000x more extinctions right now than the historical rate).
That bitcoin needs to be changed is proof of its imperfect security
(where "security" includes it's value as determined by its usability).
Not defining what is meant by "best" for the coin is also always a
problem in these discussions. Increasing its value is in direct
opposition to increasing its use as a currency. It is an asset like gold
but not a currency (gold has always been the most horrific currency for
the masses and very much loved by the 1%). Its limited quantity blocks
its widespread adoption as a currency.
Distributed, secure, efficient, intelligent systems depend on a
currency that expands as the size of the system expands. This is not
bitcoin. Bitcoin is the digital asset that may soon represent percent
control of the total physical assets of society that are being guided by
it. It needs an expandable but not inflatable currency to go along with
it for use in the marketplace. By this I mean we need a currency that
expands as its use expands but no faster, so that wages, prices, and
contracts remain valid and accurate (a coin that is constant in value
but not in quantity). So the marketplace needs to set difficulty and
coin emission rate by feedback from total coins per day transacted (not
transactions per day), not by programmers arbitrarily deciding the coin
emission rate and total final coin quantity. A currency needs to be a
living beast, not controlled by anyone or even by everyone but only by
the marketplace needs. In this way the corporate machine can continue to
take biology out of the economic picture in its pursuit of
thermodynamic efficiency.
As an asset Bitcoin may be the one coin to rule them all. But it
desperately needs to get married to an efficient, expandable currency in
order to exert and extend its control of society. This is an error in
your post. You speak as if you are addressing global issues. The other
shoe has not dropped. It's going to be as simple as bitcoin and not
subject to bickering or change. It will adopt to marketplace change as I
just described.
I suspect the bickering is from the lack of understanding that there
is this other shoe that is missing. It can't be both the ideal currency
and the ideal asset. Each bitcoin can and should represent a percent
control (1/20M'th) of assets under its roof. A percent is not a unit of
account that can or should be used in the marketplace. The currency
should be expressed in "Available Joules" (aka Gibbs free energy).
No comments:
Post a Comment