Come on. I'm all for blockchain-based technologies, but some defences of bitcoin is just too senseless and it's hurting cryptocurrencies as a whole.
"Canadian Dollar lost 63% of it's purchasing power during that time. This purchasing power have been taken away from those who hold Canadian Dollars and given away to those who created it out of nothing"
- No the purchasing power is taken from CD holders to asset holders. This is actually good for poorer people.
"Many countries don't have a national currency and use the national currency of another country or use a multi-national currency."
- Yes, and they incredibly regret it. Look at what happened with Greece, islands of Italy. Most Eurozone countries want to establish their national currencies back. Even in places where national currency is less favoured over USD, there are more problems than benefits. People get hurt a lot when the regional governments can't control the flow of currency.
"Holding national currencies when someone somewhere create them out of nothing is very foolish"
- Because you're approaching this as an investor. Not as a family who's barely putting food on the table
"cryptocurrencies are taking power away from governments and redistributing those power to the individuals"
- While this MAY be true for some coins (we'll see), it's 100% opposite for bitcoin. Bitcoin is inherently rewarding hoarding so there is NO WAY it'll ever benefit the poor. It will benefit probably by reducing consumerism and helping environment, I take it, but definitely not benefit the poor directly.
There's this lack of knowledge in crypto-community who's been only subject to American-style liberal economy bias (mostly Austrian school nutjob libertarianism). They've never picked up a book on sociology, statistics, human history, mathematics. They've read all these online articles praising how libertarianism is freedom, it's power to individuals! Oh, at best, they've read some chapters from Hayek or Friedman.
But back to the point, this lack of knowledge causes them to limit the government's definition to a corrupt evil entity, that just tries to take power from oh-so-poor-and-free individuals.
What government really is, is a contract between many individuals to increase collaboration, create synergy and result in overall improvement. 1+1=3. It's good old Game Theory. If you can establish trust, everyone wins. But there are some individualists who ruin this game for everyone of course.
Never underestimate the game theory. It exists for a reason. That's why libertarianism is just a nutjob distopia.
Sorry to disagree on so many levels but bitcoin community needs to wake up. Bitcoin itself is dangerous for humanity. I'm not saying the same for other cryptocurrencies, though there are plenty that are also dangerous and plenty that are beneficial.
Hi @algons - I have spent half a lifetime attempting to resolve the discrepancy dilemma - just proposed a method for obtaining a blockchain currency with a value stable relative to cost of production of necessities at a basic level, with the object of protecting the purchasing power / power of survival of the man in the street. Would love to hear your opinion. Regards
This is exactly what I think will eventually be the future of digital currencies! An automated blockchain-based currency where the value gets automatically updated to the cost of production of necessities! Thanks for explaining it so clearly! There would be a lot of discussions probably on those necessities (I guess). A question though: How do you think this would be maintained? On a global level or more regional? Regards.
Hi @algons - it is inspiring to find someone that cottons on - thank you for that! It could be regional and it could be universal. I think a coin with this attribute will find its own way in the market in terms of beneficial effects. If it can function better regionally, then derivatives of it can be created with parameters suited to specific environments added. Making like minded souls aware of its potential might help a lot getting the ball rolling. You may find my reply to @teamsteem interesting too. Regards
I never said this was a good thing. Obviously it's a bad thing.
People can't enter in a contract where one party does threaten the other party if they don't agree with the contract they proposed.
I'm not even going to comment. I'm inviting you to read the whole series.
Thanks for the response. I will try to read the series as well.
How is it threatening the other party? In essence, you're free to leave the government (contract) that you dislike. The threat happens when the abuse of the contract happens, but that doesn't change the definition and theory of the government. And there are many countries that have governments in practice close to the theory.