Cryptocurrency as the next significant stage for computing technology, not just an investment

[dingformung]

48 minutes ago, dcom said:

One could also argue that the standard definition of currency doesn't apply to them either, making cryptocurrency a misnomer twice over.

I'd say it's a currency so long as it is used as one. Cigarettes can be a currency, too, if they are used as that.

Edited February 1, 2021 by dingformung

[auxien]

56 minutes ago, dcom said:

If you think about it, cryptocurrency is a misnomer, too: as you wrote, the crypto- prefix means secret, hidden; e.g. cryptography, secret writing - cryptocurrencies by default are not secret, as the ledger is designed to be very public indeed, touted as one of the selling points. One could also argue that the standard definition of currency doesn't apply to them either, making cryptocurrency a misnomer twice over. Colloquially referring to them as "crypto" is also misleading. Sure, they use cryptographical technologies, but it's still a misnomer to me.

(from the article you posted earlier)

On 1/30/2021 at 7:49 AM, auxien said:

Quote

And yet here we are talking about cryptocurrencies. Why?

Partly it’s just hard money crankery and libertarianism, which have a outsized voice in economics discussions. And partly it’s testimony to the success of their marketing machine. One might say that the only thing that stands behind that $200 billion value, is the existence of conversations like this one.

 

 

[chenGOD]

16 minutes ago, dingformung said:

I'd say it's a currency so long as it is used as one. Cigarettes can be a currency, too, if they are used as that.

Cigarettes can be used as a medium of exchange, but in the US and Canada at least, it is illegal for private citizens or corporations to make currencies that compete with the official currency of the country (I imagine it is the same for most countries). Pedantic maybe, but an important distinction I think.

[zlemflolia]

2 hours ago, dingformung said:

Weird usage of the prefix "crypto-", imo. Usually when in combination with a political ideology it means that this ideology is hidden, e.g. crypto-facism, crypto-stalinism, etc, not that it has to do with cryptocurrency (or is it meant as a play on words?). The description of the book reads pretty biased and it seems like they quoted Marx and Engels only for the sake of quoting Marx and Engels, not because it helps making a point. Did you read it? What strategy to use Bitcoin as a means to install communism is laid out in the book, in short words?

In summary the book's main claims were that Marx claimed the state must be abolished to achieve communism as it's an outcropping of capitalist violence which allows the contradictions of capitalism to be forcibly rectified by exploitation and suppression of the proletariat.  Crytocurrency allows the state to be made obsolete to the proletariat by allowing democracy itself to be implemented on the blockchain in a way that allows the people to control the printing if money, as well as the flow of money, and to not just vote through the blockchain as a method of vote submissions which are collected, interpreted, and carried out by people, but in a way where the votes are carried out by smart contracts on the blockchain themselves, carried out by the people who collectively agreed, and by the literal objects, parts of the Internet Of Things, which are controlled by the blockchain.  It brings about serious issues involving liberation of humans from the machine nanny we've created, but this greater voluntary servitude, just as democracy itself in its present form is voluntarily served, allows greater freedom in other ways as a tradeoff.  It also relates to the removal of the dichotomy between technology in nature, claiming that the blockchain is the next iteration of life, silicon life in this case, for various thermodynamic reasons.  Some of it seemed wishy washy, but the overall ideas seemed like a good linkage to other peoples' thoughts on cybersocialism

As for word etymology, language is made up and it's the term people know, it's too late to change it.  It's currency using cryptography, the name is fine.  The currency is primarily defined by the private keys which are private

Edited February 1, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[dingformung]

32 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

Cigarettes can be used as a medium of exchange, but in the US and Canada at least, it is illegal for private citizens or corporations to make currencies that compete with the official currency of the country (I imagine it is the same for most countries). Pedantic maybe, but an important distinction I think.

Is legality really a criterium for a medium of exchange to be considered a currency, though? As you said, it is illegal to make parallel currencies but that doesn't automatically make them non-currencies. You wouldn't call them illegal currencies if they weren't currencies. But maybe there are other criteria that I'm not aware of that distinguish the thing that cryptocurrencies are from what we traditionally refer to when saying "currency", the same goes for cigarettes. I guess we shouldn't call them cigocurrency only because they can be used as a currency.

27 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

In summary the book's main claims were that Marx claimed the state must be abolished to achieve communism as it's an outcropping of capitalist violence which allows the contradictions of capitalism to be forcibly rectified by exploitation and suppression of the proletariat.  Crytocurrency allows the state to be made obsolete to the proletariat by allowing democracy itself to be implemented on the blockchain in a way that allows the people to control the printing if money, as well as the flow of money, and to not just vote through the blockchain as a method of vote submissions which are collected, interpreted, and carried out by people, but in a way where the votes are carried out by smart contracts on the blockchain themselves, carried out by the people who collectively agreed, and by the literal objects, parts of the Internet Of Things, which are controlled by the blockchain.  It brings about serious issues involving liberation of humans from the machine nanny we've created, but this greater voluntary servitude, just as democracy itself in its present form is voluntarily served, allows greater freedom in other ways as a tradeoff.  It also relates to the removal of the dichotomy between technology in nature, claiming that the blockchain is the next iteration of life, silicon life in this case, for various thermodynamic reasons.  Some of it seemed wishy washy, but the overall ideas seemed like a good linkage to other peoples' thoughts on cybersocialism

As for word etymology, language is made up and it's the term people know, it's too late to change it.  It's currency using cryptography, the name is fine.  The currency is primarily defined by the private keys which are private

Hmmm, not really sure if I understand. I'm generally sceptical of using complex automated technology for decision making in political processes, but I'm not sure in how far that relates to what you were saying.

[chenGOD]

9 minutes ago, dingformung said:

Is legality really a criterium for a medium of exchange to be considered a currency, though?

Stores are required to take legal currency in exchange for goods and services, they are not required to take cigarettes. So I'd say that legality definitely has an impact when considering whether or not something is a currency (if you are seeking to enforce contacts). Cigarettes may be a medium of exchange, but I think it only fulfills the necessary conditions (including a unit of account) to be called a currency in special circumstances (prison for example). Apparently, instant ramen is now the preferred prison currency. lol

[dingformung]

1 minute ago, chenGOD said:

Cigarettes may be a medium of exchange, but I think it only fulfills the necessary conditions (including a unit of account) to be called a currency in special circumstances (prison for example). Apparently, instant ramen is now the preferred prison currency. lol

Yeah, that's what I meant by 

1 hour ago, dingformung said:

Cigarettes can be a currency, too, if they are used as that.

And I'd argue that the only criterium for an exchange medium to be considered a currency is its usage as a currency (old currencies that aren't used anymore may be an exception). In case of cryptocurrencies, some people use them as an investment/gamble/virtual asset, some actually use them as a currency to buy and sell things (black market).

[dcom]

1 hour ago, dingformung said:

I'd say it's a currency so long as it is used as one. Cigarettes can be a currency, too, if they are used as that.

1. The value of a currency has to be stable - the value should not change from minute to minute or even month to month: e.g. you should know how much you have to pay for bread. The extreme volatility of e.g. BTC means that it's not stable.
2. Currency is something that is accepted everywhere at face value: 10 USD is 10 USD and thus it's accepted wherever USD is used. You can't say the same about BTC (or cigarettes). There's also the problem of transaction volume, where e.g. BTC is not even a blip on the radar when compared to actual currencies.
3. A currency is backed by the central bank of a country. Here, the cryptocurrency acolyte will yell OH NO YOU DIDN'T and start expounding about the distributed, non-centralized paradise that awaits, let the central banks, countries and the world crumble -

Quote

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.

-- Percy Bysshe Shelley, Ozymandias

...and here I am again, pulled back into this quagmire of a thread, and there will be yet another reply telling me that oh-you're-so-wrong-and-here's-why-can't-you-see-how-shiny-this-thing-is and I'm just going to facepalm quietly and whisper "FFS" to myself.

[chenGOD]

@dingformung So all well and good, as long as one doesn't expect any recourse to the legal system if using them as currency. Although that may depend on the terms of service the vendor has described (i.e. they will only accept legal tender). An interesting puzzle, especially if one considers barter for property (crypto is considered property in the US).

[chenGOD]

6 minutes ago, dcom said:

• The value of a currency has to be stable - the value should not change from minute to minute or even month to month: e.g. you should know how much you have to pay for bread. The extreme volatility of e.g. BTC means that it's not stable.
• Currency is something that is accepted everywhere at face value: 10 USD is 10 USD and thus it's accepted wherever USD is used. You can't say the same about BTC (or cigarettes). There's also the problem of transaction volume, where e.g. BTC is not even a blip on the radar when compared to actual currencies.
• A currency is backed by the central bank of a country. Here, the cryptocurrency acolyte will yell OH NO YOU DIDN'T and start expounding about the distributed, non-centralized paradise that awaits, let the central banks, countries and the world crumble -

I actually don't think any of those need to be true to be considered a currency (ignoring the legal argument I make above), but I think they are ideal conditions for widespread use.

[dingformung]

Also, there had been currencies before there were nation states and central banks.

Edited February 1, 2021 by dingformung

[zlemflolia]

1 hour ago, dingformung said:

Hmmm, not really sure if I understand. I'm generally sceptical of using complex automated technology for decision making in political processes, but I'm not sure in how far that relates to what you were saying.

I am too, there are tons of prerequisites, like even distribution of the means of producing CPUs across the world, and all software and hardware being Free and Open Source, but luckily this is an inherent characteristic of global communism

--

these semantic arguments over currency are meaningless to me.  there are MMORPGs with currency more stably valuable than the state-issued fiat currencies of some countries like Venezuela

Edited February 1, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[zlemflolia]

33 minutes ago, dcom said:

1. The value of a currency has to be stable - the value should not change from minute to minute or even month to month: e.g. you should know how much you have to pay for bread. The extreme volatility of e.g. BTC means that it's not stable.
2. Currency is something that is accepted everywhere at face value: 10 USD is 10 USD and thus it's accepted wherever USD is used. You can't say the same about BTC (or cigarettes). There's also the problem of transaction volume, where e.g. BTC is not even a blip on the radar when compared to actual currencies.
3. A currency is backed by the central bank of a country. Here, the cryptocurrency acolyte will yell OH NO YOU DIDN'T and start expounding about the distributed, non-centralized paradise that awaits, let the central banks, countries and the world crumble -

-- Percy Bysshe Shelley, Ozymandias

...and here I am again, pulled back into this quagmire of a thread, and there will be yet another reply telling me that oh-you're-so-wrong-and-here's-why-can't-you-see-how-shiny-this-thing-is and I'm just going to facepalm quietly and whisper "FFS" to myself.

I dispute these definitions of currency as being not even related to currency

1. a currency can only be stable under global imperial capitalism if its issuing country has economic hegemony which is a quality of exploitation capabilities of that country, not the currency itself
2. indeed fungibility
3. this is a new phenomenon, currency did not exist before central banking?

Edited February 1, 2021 by cyanobacteria

[auxien]

22 minutes ago, dcom said:

1. The value of a currency has to be stable - the value should not change from minute to minute or even month to month: e.g. you should know how much you have to pay for bread. The extreme volatility of e.g. BTC means that it's not stable.
2. Currency is something that is accepted everywhere at face value: 10 USD is 10 USD and thus it's accepted wherever USD is used. You can't say the same about BTC (or cigarettes). There's also the problem of transaction volume, where e.g. BTC is not even a blip on the radar when compared to actual currencies.

1. legal government tender exchange rates are constantly changing slightly and sometimes drastically. the price of bread, and everything, changes damned near every time you look. interest rates (generally set by gov's in some amount of coordination with the banking industry) changes regularly. 'stability' of a currency within that system in order to pay for legally bound rates in exchange for a debt owed is backed by the power of the government, but that government does not exist in a vacuum. most major govs are not as volatile as BTC or Zimbabwe's big ordeal, but 'stability' is relative. 

2. currency is whatever is available and in some relative sense, reliable: https://www.finance-watch.org/the-perfect-draw-when-cigarettes-became-a-war-camp-currency/

Quote

This situation worsened when prisoners realised that rolled cigarettes were even cheaper. “Hand-rolled cigarettes were not homogeneous and prices could no longer be quoted in them with safety: each cigarette was examined before it was accepted and thin ones were rejected, or extra demanded as a make-weight. For a time we suffered all the inconveniences of a debased currency”

this whole currency argument is fucking stupid tho, it's just goddamned marketing semantics. we sound like a bunch of boring cunts.

[dcom]

4 minutes ago, cyanobacteria said:

I dispute these definitions of currency as being not even related to currency

You may dispute whatever you wish, I was very simply driving my point towards ridiculousness without any pretense to be correct and trying to write myself out of this idiotic rut that I'm in, responding to a topic I have no real interest in. Then you'll reply that I have a funny way of showing it because I'm actively participating, therefore proving that I'm wrong even when I'm talking about myself and I really don't care about this topic why am I still writing?

[dingformung]

4 minutes ago, auxien said:

we sound like a bunch of boring cunts.

What do you mean? Currencies are my passion. Fuck off if you have a problem with that

[dcom]

1 minute ago, dingformung said:

What do you mean? Currencies are my passion. Fuck off if you have a problem with that

Excellent, with your explicit permission this is me effin' off from this thread. Enjoy.

Edited February 1, 2021 by dcom

[chenGOD]

10 minutes ago, dingformung said:

What do you mean? Currencies are my passion. Fuck off if you have a problem with that

I thought your passion was trolling me. I'm a little hurt tbhbbq.

19 minutes ago, auxien said:

this whole currency argument is fucking stupid tho, it's just goddamned marketing semantics. we sound like a bunch of boring cunts

I mean, there are legal implications though, so it's not just marketing semantics.

[brian trageskin]

i was about to make a joke about what happens when you put 2 people on the autism spectrum in the same room but then i changed my mind, thought it might be misunderstood and generate unwanted arguments

[zlemflolia]

3 minutes ago, brian trageskin said:

i was about to make a joke about what happens when you put 2 people on the autism spectrum in the same room but then i changed my mind, thought it might be misunderstood and generate unwanted arguments

theres many possibilities depending on where they are on the spectrum.  the room might be silent, it might be loud, it might look like the average watmm thread, we may never know

[auxien]

12 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

I mean, there are legal implications though, so it's not just marketing semantics.

write me up a 5,000 word essay explaining why and the history of this please. i'll need it on my desk in the morning.

[chenGOD]

2 minutes ago, auxien said:

write me up a 5,000 word essay explaining why and the history of this please. i'll need it on my desk in the morning.

pay me. I do take BTC, but not cigarettes.

[brian trageskin]

33 minutes ago, dcom said:

and I really don't care about this topic why am I still writing?

because you care. it's ok now, we've all been there. take it easy

[hijexx]

Prison cigarettes sometimes have extra flavor from being crypto ASSets

[usagi]

the inevitable GME comedown. good job redditors, you fixed the world again.