Quote note (#161)

Make of this what you will:

Men make up an estimated 96% of the Bitcoin community, which means that if Bitcoin does end up succeeding, as its adherents think it will, and if the people who own Bitcoin see their holdings soar in value, then all of the profits will end up going to what Brett Scott calls the “crypto-patriarchy.” Not many men, to be sure: as Charlie Stross says, the degree of inequality in the Bitcoin economy “is ghastly, and getting worse, to an extent that makes a sub-Saharan African kleptocracy look like a socialist utopia.” But it’s not many men, and effectively zero women.

ADDED: Andrea Castillo responds to Salmon (I’m attaching a ‘massive scowling bitterness deficiency’ warning).

April 24, 2015admin 27 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , ,

27 Responses to this entry

  • Quote note (#161) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on April 24th, 2015 at 3:30 am Reply | Quote
  • ReactionaryFerret Says:

    I wish bitcoin the best for this reason, but it looks like just another fiat currency to me and seems likely to be just as volatile. Granted, I’m not a finance guy and haven’t done much research, so grain of salt and all that.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Your intuition is justified. Why should the early holders of a CURRENCY make out like bandits if it “soars in value?” No currency should soar in value. That defeats the purpose of a currency, which is supposed to be stable in value.

    No wonder the bitcoin price is plunging. Now $233.

    http://www.coindesk.com/price/

    Bitcoin can’t be the answer. By definition. Back to the drawing board.

    [Reply]

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    It can still get relatively more expensive considering the fundamentals. I mean every country can use it and the inherent political neutrality of it goes a long way I think. I’m not sure if the currency designation is that relevant considering all the extra features.

    [Reply]

    Postnietzschean Reply:

    “Your intuition is justified. Why should the early holders of a CURRENCY make out like bandits if it “soars in value?” No currency should soar in value. That defeats the purpose of a currency, which is supposed to be stable in value.”

    It soars in price, which is set by the market; as “the market” is an abstractions, the price of bitcoin is always negotiated by the two individuals who want to exchange BTC for USD. In 2009 BTC was highly speculative, and therefore cheap. Now it’s somewhat less speculative and less cheap. There is no Bitcoin God to enforce a particular stable price.

    As for the volatility – Bitcoin’s price is volatile because there’s a plausible scenario where it takes over the world, but the odds of this happening are extremely hard to forecast. In the event Bitcoin replaces USD, 1BTC could easily be worth $1M+ USD (though in that scenario the USD price will become somewhat meaningless, equivalent to the price of USDs in Zimbabwean dollars today). A more conservative scenario where Bitcoin takes over, say, 25% of Gold’s usage as the safest store of value, gives a price target of $95k/BTC ($8 trillion value of all gold * 0.25 / 21 million total bitcoins). Bubbles and crashes are caused by short-term speculators who pay too much attention to immediate market movements.

    Another factor contributing to Bitcoin volatility is that it is actually highly inflationary right now. Because most miners run on narrow margins, they dump their coins on the market as soon as they are mined, which depresses the price. In 2016 the mining rate halves again and Bitcoin will be less inflationary than most fiat currencies. In 2020 it halves again and Bitcoin becomes less inflationary than *gold*. (The gold supply grows about 2%/year). Somewhere around here the smart money realises hoarding Bitcoins is an increasingly rational move. Hoarders take Bitcoin off the markets and further raise the price.

    (I bailed out of NRx as the Bitcoin world was far more interesting. trilema.com is the gentleman’s source for the best thinking on bitcoin, ignore 90% of what everyone else is derping about. Enterprising young minds can dig from there for more).

    [Reply]

    Blogospheroid Reply:

    The more bitcoin’s price rises, the more difficult it becomes for an anonymous person to acquire it as buying it via current forms of money becomes pretty much the only option for a newbie (to acquire it). Generating it via mining becomes near impossible and selling services to acquire it is difficult for a newbie due to zero reputation in the web of trust.

    Coupled with the fact that in the current bitcoin system, there is no coded incentive for running a full node, bitcoin will tend to become increasingly centralized and it will become easier for the powers that be to wring its neck.

    The most optimistic thing that I saw about bitcoin was the corruption of the policemen trying to persecute that bitcoin case. If the persecutors themselves are continuously tempted, bitcoin will become effectively immortal. This leads to an interesting sci-fi scenario. Bitcoin maybe effectively killed only when cathedral -AI pursues it without the distortions of any human agents between its motive and its execution..

    Postnietzschean Reply:

    “The more bitcoin’s price rises, the more difficult it becomes for an anonymous person to acquire it as buying it via current forms of money becomes pretty much the only option for a newbie (to acquire it). Generating it via mining becomes near impossible and selling services to acquire it is difficult for a newbie due to zero reputation in the web of trust.”

    Anonymity is not the killer feature of Bitcoin. And Bitcoin’s domination does not depend on the number of adopters, but the amount of *capital* that flows into it. Individuals mining or selling services aren’t what matters; what matters is when entities with large amounts of currency (eg, sovereign wealth funds) start holding bitcoin as a hedge.

    “Coupled with the fact that in the current bitcoin system, there is no coded incentive for running a full node, bitcoin will tend to become increasingly centralized and it will become easier for the powers that be to wring its neck.”

    True, but people are aware of this and voluntarily running full nodes to slow this problem. OMFG, even libertarians can do things without market incentives.

    John Reply:

    “Your intuition is justified. Why should the early holders of a CURRENCY make out like bandits if it “soars in value?” No currency should soar in value. That defeats the purpose of a currency, which is supposed to be stable in value.”

    Bitcoin isn’t a currency, it is a newly created asset species. The value will become stable once the world fully wraps it’s head around what Bitcoin is and capital flows into it (or out of it) in proportion to its merit.

    “No wonder the bitcoin price is plunging. Now $233.”

    The price isn’t plunging anymore. It’s been stable around $200 for a few months.

    “Bitcoin can’t be the answer. By definition. Back to the drawing board.”

    You argue like a SJW here. All that’s missing are drops of “problematic” and “disgusting.”

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Nah. The problem with bitcoin has nothing to do with social justice. The problem is that there is no arbiter to balance supply and demand for the currency. There is a supply that grows via a fixed algorythym. Supply growth cannot be adjusted to reflect changes in demand. Thus the value of the currency is wildly volatile. As I noted once before here, Bitcoin is neither a good store of value, unit of account or means of exchange. All it’s really good for is anonymity. Granted that is a useful virtue and thus perhaps there is a niche for it.

    But all this talk of bitcoin being some kind of end run around the fiat system … it’s just insane. Makes no sense. (The total bitcoin universe is way too small in dollar terms for one thing.)

    Posted on April 24th, 2015 at 3:52 am Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    http://fusion.net/author/felix-salmon/

    Fag.

    The good thing about identity politics is that it’s easy to decide who to ignore.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    Stross is just as bad. Maybe worse. Fortunately it’s very easy to ignore him, as the last time he wrote something worth reading was 2005. (And even that’s debatable.)

    [Reply]

    Frog Do Reply:

    What was that? I’ve tried to read some Stross and I have not been interested, and I usually like sci-fi.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    That would be Accelerando — in my opinion the only decent story Stross has ever put to paper. (Which, as per this account of its origins, seems to have been written well over 10 years ago, for the most part.) The book basically describes the life of an entrepreneur in a rapidly-advancing post-singularity society. Lots of space colonization, posthumans trying to turn the solar system into computronium… that sort of thing. It was interesting. I’ve never been able to read anything else by Stross; I find all of his other works incoherent, confused, and dull.

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    I liked “A Boy and his God”.

    http://www.antipope.org/charlie/fiction/boy3.html

    Posted on April 24th, 2015 at 5:12 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    bitcoin network for today possess computation power in 339,297,220 GH/s. it is enormous, there is nothing like that on earth. It cannot to attacked, to lunch an attack one have toown 51 % of network. Nobody can attack it, not NSA, not USA. Can we call it sovereign. Few years ago it was just a piece of computer code for a concept, now it has few billion usd market cap. Speed of proliferation and adoption – nothing to compare. 100000 merchants accepting bitcoins online. we have not seen in finance anything like that before.

    In physics, almost no woman, but every university department of physics putting few female photos on their web sites. In pro gaming absolutely no woman, they did no make a score. Does it make woman less lovable and sweet and ect…

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    The USA can easily attack it: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.hk/2013/01/how-bitcoin-dies.html

    …The system may not be open to attack by technological means, but it is open to attack by legal means. (Weakly evidenced by the fact that rumors of new Chinese regulations on Bitcoin have spurred precipitous drops in BTC value.) Of course, any form of legal attack by the USG is looking less and less likely.

    [Reply]

    Frog Do Reply:

    And nations used to think the same thing about lending at interest, and stock markets, and derivatives, and …

    The thing it, Capitalism is strong juju. It takes concerted, well-organized, brutal effort to resist it. The question is will the Cathedral do so? And this is where Bitcoin is genius, it is very easy to defect, due to the nature of the technology.

    And even if you do, you get out competed. My prediction is that the US is gonna be more like old France on this, rather than old Britain or the old Netherlands.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 24th, 2015 at 5:42 am Reply | Quote
  • SanguineEmpiricist Says:

    I’m interested if country instability is associated with bitcoin prices getting higher since it is at least decent for that a service that is designed for the smarter people to convert/manage their money so they don’t have to worry about it would be nice and it’s what I would do if there was country instability.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    biggest bitcoins price pump happens during Cyprus drama, it reach usd 1400. what we are having now is no trend completely manipulated marked. It was mistake for Cathedral to let Bitcoins entryism to happen. In that sense there is still some potential in bitcoins.

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    ‘if there were country instability’ – do you live in a haven somewhere? On planet Neoreaction, there is barely a country that is NOT experiencing instability. Instability is not the same as an overabundance of energy, and collapse is always going to be more boring than exciting, but don’t let that lull you into a moderates complacency.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 24th, 2015 at 6:10 am Reply | Quote
  • Quote note (#161) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on April 24th, 2015 at 7:09 am Reply | Quote
  • Dark Psy-Ops Says:

    Hopefully all the socialists will pull out of bitcoin when they realize it flies in the face of everything they profess to believe in. Imagine the rabid fury of feminists and the left when confronted by an ascendant crypto-patriarchy, and when they further realize that the new dark market is locked up tighter than the purest neoreactionary virgin. The political games between the state and bitcoin will not result in the easy destruction of one or the other , it’ll be a slow war of espionage and economic strategy and power, and there’ll be double agents and loads of rhetoric on either side. The incentive structure here allows for conversions. If we need a reset to fix our problems with social hierarchy, feminism, (centralized) capitalism, and democracy, bitcoin may be our best chance to get one. Hell I didn’t even think of how it might solve feminism, but a steep wealth inequality between the sexes will do the trick. Quality women will marry their crypto-patriarch and if they divorce him, there’ll be no settlement forthcoming. – I see this might be assuming too much legal independence of the blockchain, but there’s no reason it couldn’t happen, it’s in the interest of every blockchain participant to see that contracts are enforced. Blockchain marriage anyone?

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    The trouble is that bitcoin is just a name, it’s the crypto-currency technology that’s valuable. The Cathedral wraps it’s head around the concept of crypto-currency and decides it wants in but doesn’t like who already has the coins, instead of buying their coins all they have to do is make a new coin, then say it’s the only coin that isn’t sexist and racist. Coins in of themselves are only as powerful as what they can buy, they are not power in of themselves.

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Iif the Cathedral went and invented Welfare Coin for their black womyn base it would only become a competitor of other crypto-currencies, and there’s no reason the wealthy white males holding bitcoin will trade for a new corrupt crypto-statist PC Coin for a loss (and it would be a loss in many respects). The Cathedral owns a lot of real wealth, but is it enough to continue their firm grip on world finance even through the waves of techno-disruption that characterize the emergent crypto-economy? Can the state regulate a market that’s purposefully pursuing its own deregulation? If so, they deserve their sovereign position, but I have serious doubts.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 24th, 2015 at 7:29 am Reply | Quote
  • John Says:

    Has anyone thought to point out to these people that bitcoins are openly sold on exchanges for anyone to buy or sell?

    As far as I know, there is no penile requirement for a Coinbase account.

    But I guess we’ve reached the point where men doing something without proper supervision is de facto oppression.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    you can buy bitcoin with credit/debit card on cex.io or with cash from someone in your area via localbitcoins.com

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    But I guess we’ve reached the point where men doing something without proper supervision is de facto oppression.

    Yes — women are oppressed by Gnon, who hath selected for risk-aversion in the ancestral environment.

    [Reply]

    Posted on April 24th, 2015 at 2:23 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment