[Eran]

It's got quite a lot to do with governments, otherwise people could just break into your house and torture you until you give them the correct key for your bitcoin wallet.

If property rights aren't protected, no property is of any value.

However, as all anarchists tend to believe, government isn't the only (or even best) way of protecting property rights.

Upon breakdown of civilisation, you could group with a few other people to provide yourselves with immediate physical protection.

As many have pointed out; sometimes it is easier to break an administrator's knees than to break the password file.

Indeed. That's why the Die Hard movie is so silly. For a tiny fraction of the cost and complexity of such criminal enterprise, you could threaten the 3-4 people who, in aggregate, can authorise a wire transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars from the account of a hedge fund.

Incidentally, gold is also worthless if society collapses. No one will trade you useful items for useless hunks of metal if there's a general breakdown of society.

That's a valid point. It depends on the extent and duration of such breakdown.

When people starve, gold is useless. Preppers often stock on those items they believe would be of particular value upon such breakdown.

But once society stabilizes, gold will quickly reacquire its value.

[Someone5]

However, as all anarchists tend to believe, government isn't the only (or even best) way of protecting property rights.

I'm not aware of very many anarchists who think property rights ought to be protected at all; indeed, abolishing property is generally a goal of anarchists.

But once society stabilizes, gold will quickly reacquire its value.

No one wants gold except when the government tells them to trade in gold.

[Eran]

I'm not aware of very many anarchists who think property rights ought to be protected at all; indeed, abolishing property is generally a goal of anarchists.

Abolishing private property (understood to be ownership of the means of production), maybe.

But most anarchists (I believe - correct me if I am wrong) still believe in personal property, i.e. ownership of goods used for private consumption.

That is the property that requires protection from common criminals. After all, robbers don't typically rob a factory of its machinery, right?

No one wants gold except when the government tells them to trade in gold.

Sure. Except virtually every society in history.

No government "invented" the gold standard. The gold standard emerged in the market, and was only subsequently taken over by governments.

[SolarCross]

I think bitcoin will survive a fall in government whether it is rapid or gradual because bitcoin, like the internet in general, is global and quite decentralised. If a particular government falls in a blaze of glory just before sending all its goons around to smash up all the ISPs and take down the electricity grid, then yeah the internet in that country will basically cease to exist (for a short time) but the rest of the world will carry on with the internet and bitcoin as if nothing happened.

[Someone5]

Abolishing private property (understood to be ownership of the means of production), maybe.

But most anarchists (I believe - correct me if I am wrong) still believe in personal property, i.e. ownership of goods used for private consumption.

We've had this discussion before; property is different from possession.

That is the property that requires protection from common criminals. After all, robbers don't typically rob a factory of its machinery, right?

I can't see why robbers would be interested in taking your stuff in a socialist society. Why steal when there's no money?

Sure. Except virtually every society in history.

Name a single example of a widely used gold-backed currency that didn't have government mandates attached to it. Name a single example of a gold-backed currency which did not end up having governments mandate its use. A single example of a society that voluntarily chose to use a gold standard would do--and by "chose" I mean a single currency being used by a majority of the population. Just one example.

No government "invented" the gold standard.

Hardly anyone used gold before governments started minting coins made in it because hardly anyone had any gold.

The gold standard emerged in the market, and was only subsequently taken over by governments.

Because no one was interested in continuing to use it. That's why the governments started to protect it. Because as soon as people started having options, they stopped using gold. Why? Because it sucks as a currency.

[Someone5]

I think bitcoin will survive a fall in government whether it is rapid or gradual because bitcoin, like the internet in general, is global and quite decentralised. If a particular government falls in a blaze of glory just before sending all its goons around to smash up all the ISPs and take down the electricity grid, then yeah the internet in that country will basically cease to exist (for a short time) but the rest of the world will carry on with the internet and bitcoin as if nothing happened.

If the US government collapsed, bitcoin would fall in a week. Same with the Chinese government, or the EU. Or the Russian government.

Pick a major economy. If it collapsed in that way, bitcoin would be crushed.

[SolarCross]

It is easy to wildy assert things but you can't even begin to justify those assertions.
You do come across as an ardent statist but even you must acknowledge that government is not the economy even under the most totalitarian of regimes.
It is clear to me that a fall in any government would be a huge boost for stateless hard currency like bitcoin, silver and gold because in that case government fiat money has no credible value and people will have a powerful incentive to use something else. That something else may be all sorts of things like boxes of detergent, surplus chickens, handjobs or other particular goods/services but gold, silver and bitcoins will top the list of preferred money because of their functional usefulness as money and because they do not rely on government dictat for value.

[Someone5]

It is easy to wildy assert things but you can't even begin to justify those assertions.

Go ahead, put all your money in bitcoins. I encourage you. Absolutely. It's absolutely your choice. But encouraging others to do the same is unethical.

You do come across as an ardent statist but even you must acknowledge that government is not the economy even under the most totalitarian of regimes.

Capitalism can't exist without governments; without those governments the system that is supported by those governments will collapse. Quite quickly in all likelihood.

It is clear to me that a fall in any government would be a huge boost for stateless hard currency like bitcoin, silver and gold because in that case government fiat money has no credible value and people will have a powerful incentive to use something else.

If the US government collapsed;

A) The bitcoin network would take a fairly massive hit. For all that people like to imagine the internet is equally global, that simply isn't the case.
B) The primary use of bitcoins is to buy and sell illegal goods; priced in dollars. If the US government fell, not only would the dollar collapse (rendering bitcoins fairly useless), but the goods would no longer be illegal, meaning that you wouldn't need to hide your transactions through bitcoins anymore. The value of bitcoins would plummet.

No one is going to go rush to bitcoins when governments start collapsing around them. The psychology just isn't there. When people panic economically, they'll flock to precious metals but certainly not something as new and risky as bitcoins.

Moreover, if the government DID collapse, no one in the country where the government fell apart would be able to reliably conduct transactions with bitcoins because they would have--at best--sporadic access to the bitcoin network. At least in the case of developed nations, there are no telecommunications companies that could survive the collapse of their supporting governments. Countries would become internet dead zones, meaning that something like bitcoin would be just about the last thing that anyone would want.

Digital currency is absolutely not the sort of thing you want to be invested in when economies and governments start to fail. It's something you use when you want to conduct transactions on the sly in stable economies.

That something else may be all sorts of things like boxes of detergent, surplus chickens, handjobs or other particular goods/services but gold, silver and bitcoins will top the list of preferred money because of their functional usefulness as money and because they do not rely on government dictat for value.

If governments start to collapse around us, the only currency we'll want to have is the stuff the people around us are using. Which would probably mean the currency being issued by the successor government, or the currency being used by the state we have the strongest trading relationship with. The chances of people going back to gold are almost nothing, but the chances they'll use something like bitcoin is even lower.

There is absolutely no reason to even use bitcoins if you don't care about the government knowing what you're doing--and if the government has collapsed, then obviously you don't need to worry about them finding about that load of cocaine you sold to all your desperate "friends." Seriously, this is the function of bitcoin. Illegal transactions are practically the only reason to use bitcoins.

[SolarCross]

Go ahead, put all your money in bitcoins. I encourage you. Absolutely. It's absolutely your choice. But encouraging others to do the same is unethical.

so you are encouraging me to put all my money into bitcoins and then you say encouraging people to put their money into bitcoins is unethical. I look forward to your posts they always full of the craziest shit.

Capitalism can't exist without governments; without those governments the system that is supported by those governments will collapse. Quite quickly in all likelihood.

More crazy jokes! Love it. Internet service providers are still going to want to do business even if the government auto-destructs and their customers are still going to want their services. The only problem will be how measure value and exchange value without government money. Luckily there is an app for that called bitcoin. ISPs will just want bitcoins for their services instead of government funny money.

If the US government collapsed;

A) The bitcoin network would take a fairly massive hit. For all that people like to imagine the internet is equally global, that simply isn't the case.
B) The primary use of bitcoins is to buy and sell illegal goods; priced in dollars. If the US government fell, not only would the dollar collapse (rendering bitcoins fairly useless), but the goods would no longer be illegal, meaning that you wouldn't need to hide your transactions through bitcoins anymore. The value of bitcoins would plummet.

No one is going to go rush to bitcoins when governments start collapsing around them. The psychology just isn't there. When people panic economically, they'll flock to precious metals but certainly not something as new and risky as bitcoins.

I am sure most ISPs are private businesses not government ones even in the US. Likely the internet in the US will be barely affected by the collapse. The primary use of bitcoins is money. Yes you can buy illegal stuff with money but you can also buy stuff that isn't illegal with money (whodathunkit?). If US gov collapses bitcoins as well as silver and gold are going to fucking rocket in value, precisely because the US dollars will become even more worthless.

[Someone5]

so you are encouraging me to put all my money into bitcoins and then you say encouraging people to put their money into bitcoins is unethical. I look forward to your posts they always full of the craziest shit.

Hey, you've already insisted that you should get bitcoins, so it's kind of a different situation.

More crazy jokes! Love it. Internet service providers are still going to want to do business even if the government auto-destructs and their customers are still going to want their services.

In every developed country, the collapse of the government would mean that ISPs lose the ability to conduct business. No way they would be able to manage the infrastructure at the sort of prices people have been paying now. They might be able to continue to offer cell service (as is done in Africa), but it would cost way more than it does now and probably wouldn't work as well, and certainly most people (in a post-collapse world) would not be able to afford it.

I mean, if the government collapsed, people wouldn't be able to afford to buy internet service.

The only problem will be how measure value and exchange value without government money. Luckily there is an app for that called bitcoin. ISPs will just want bitcoins for their services instead of government funny money.

How would you earn a bitcoin without first having an internet connection?

I am sure most ISPs are private businesses not government ones even in the US.

Like most large and essential businesses in the United States, they are privately owned but government subsidized.

Likely the internet in the US will be barely affected by the collapse.

Yeah, because of course the internet will not be effected by massive shifts of ownership and integrity of the physical infrastructure backing it. Of COURSE it will work just as well when huge swaths go dark. If the government collapsed, most of the server farms would fail quickly because they are reliant on a lot of surrounding infrastructure... which is even more government-dependent than the telecommunications companies.

The primary use of bitcoins is money.

Yes, the currency of choice for buying illegal stuff without anyone finding out about it. That is indeed the purpose, and likely the only purpose bitcoin will ever serve.

Yes you can buy illegal stuff with money but you can also buy stuff that isn't illegal with money (whodathunkit?). If US gov collapses bitcoins as well as silver and gold are going to fucking rocket in value, precisely because the US dollars will become even more worthless.

Pretty much a scam.

[Rothbardian]

Rather than an even more restrictive government currency backed by violent monopoly? You bet. It's a question of priorities. You act like gold-backed currency is some bastion of freedom unrelated to government or corporate control, which people only avoid because of the government. It's nonsense, and it ignores the rather lengthy public fight to get rid of the gold standard.

Any currency is bad, but if we're going to have one, then it should at least be a currency that has a reasonable rate of inflation.

So you, a self proclaimed socialist, are against restricting a corporate-run currency. Got it.

Carry on.

[SolarCross]

Someone5 - Okay you love der fuhrer and think all good things come only from Big Brother but in the real world government is just bunch zombie bureaucrats and hired thugs, they do NOTHING productive that couldn't be better done by entrepreneurial and honest working people which is to say the private sector. ISPs like any other business are still going to continue trading and they will be able to do so at a lower cost (no taxes!). Some may struggle to adjust if they are used to big subsidies but others will bloom most especially because government is gone along with its permission rackets and self-licenced robbery.

Sorry but you do not know anything about bitcoin if you think its only use is buying contraband. It is hard currency, like gold and silver but with the added huge advantage of being transmittable electronically. Clever people realise that bitcoin is a kind of money that is functionally superior to all preceeding currencies and as such as many great advantages.
- Store of value (saving). Like gold and silver the supply is predictable, stable and limited.
- Efficient distance transactions with the added unprecedented benefit of eliminating 3rd party counter risk. Unmatched by preceeding currencies including fiat, bitcoin allows easy near-instantaneous distance transactions without any risk from intermediaries blocking or stealing the transaction.

Bitcoin is all by itself a paradigm shifting revolution in money and trade and it is just beginning, the best is yet to come.
I feel sorry for the stupid people you don't get it.

[Figlio di Moros]

I would imagine left anarchists would prefer mutual credit to commodity money, mainly because I recall them repeatedly saying as much. As Someone has pointed out, people prefer a flexible currency that can adjust to the demand for dollars; mutual credit seems as countercyclical as commodity-currency full-reserve banking, while better being able to meet the demand for currency.

Among all the issues you are debating with bitcoins, the fact it's self-limiting, and therefore supply-deflationary past 2140, seems quite absurd. Why not allow the supply to continue increasing linearly if economic growth is exponential? Let's say this actually works, and 500 years from now people exclusive use bitcoins for currency. Would 50 bitcoins per bloc not be neglible, and help stabilize the supply from lost coins?

[Wolke]

Why use currency?

[SolarCross]

I would imagine left anarchists would prefer mutual credit to commodity money, mainly because I recall them repeatedly saying as much. As Someone has pointed out, people prefer a flexible currency that can adjust to the demand for dollars; mutual credit seems as countercyclical as commodity-currency full-reserve banking, while better being able to meet the demand for currency.

Among all the issues you are debating with bitcoins, the fact it's self-limiting, and therefore supply-deflationary past 2140, seems quite absurd. Why not allow the supply to continue increasing linearly if economic growth is exponential? Let's say this actually works, and 500 years from now people exclusive use bitcoins for currency. Would 50 bitcoins per bloc not be neglible, and help stabilize the supply from lost coins?

They do indeed. Mutual credit is a very different kind of money to crypto-currency which is as you say something more akin to commodity money; mutual credit is different but not better. There are advantages and disadvantages with mutual credit. Mutual credit requires a centralised administration which does not scale well. Mutual credit requires more trust for value and is prone to accumulating dead balances over time. It does not travel well; you can not easily use it with someone not in the scheme. Savvy people should be prepared to use a diversity of currencies according to the circumstances. Competing currencies is the way to go.

[Someone5]

Someone5 - Okay you love der fuhrer and think all good things come only from Big Brother but in the real world government is just bunch zombie bureaucrats and hired thugs, they do NOTHING productive that couldn't be better done by entrepreneurial and honest working people which is to say the private sector.

Private sector? No honest people to be found there. You are living in a fantasy land if you think that the private sector can take over most of the work that the government is doing today and do a better job of it. The government ends up doing work only when it's evident that the private sector can't handle it. The subsidies that exist are subsidies that have been developed over time as it became obvious that a purely private market couldn't handle the situation to the satisfaction of everyone involved.

ISPs like any other business are still going to continue trading and they will be able to do so at a lower cost (no taxes!).

Their costs would go through the roof, because they wouldn't be getting any more subsidies. They would have to pay way, way more for their infrastructure than they do currently--and that alone would increase their costs substantially.

Some may struggle to adjust if they are used to big subsidies but others will bloom most especially because government is gone along with its permission rackets and self-licenced robbery.

Almost everyone would "struggle to adjust," meaning that they would collapse and cease to operate.

Sorry but you do not know anything about bitcoin if you think its only use is buying contraband.

That's for the most part the only thing you can actually do with bitcoins. There are a few crazy folks who'll take bitcoins for services or private-sale goods, but they're almost certainly either druggies or ideologically motivated. The only other use is speculative investment--the intent being to buy bitcoins while low, wait until the trading price is high, then sell them for a profit... in normal fiat currencies.

It is hard currency, like gold and silver but with the added huge advantage of being transmittable electronically.

It's backed by something even less valuable than gold. Proof of work problems have no inherent value whatsoever. All they represent is energy and computing time wasted computing a solution to a--literally--meaningless problem.

Clever people realise that bitcoin is a kind of money that is functionally superior to all preceeding currencies and as such as many great advantages.

... if you are wanting to buy illegal drugs, or a hitman. Otherwise, not so much.

- Store of value (saving). Like gold and silver the supply is predictable, stable and limited.

I.E. one of the worst "features" of hard currencies. Except in this case the value of the bitcoin is backed by a proof-of-work problem that has even less inherent value than the government's promises. Bitcoins literally have the same inherent value as unicorn farts.

- Efficient distance transactions with the added unprecedented benefit of eliminating 3rd party counter risk.

Bitcoin transactions are no more "efficient" than transactions in fiat currencies, and counter party risk has long been a solved problem for digital transactions through escrow services.

Unmatched by preceeding currencies including fiat, bitcoin allows easy near-instantaneous distance transactions without any risk from intermediaries blocking or stealing the transaction.

The only actual advantage of bitcoin for digital transactions is that it makes it (somewhat) more difficult for regulating bodies to figure out what you're using bitcoins to buy. That's about it.

Bitcoin is all by itself a paradigm shifting revolution in money and trade and it is just beginning, the best is yet to come.

Bitcoin will be a currency used primarily for trade in illegal goods, with some ideologically motivated people choosing to use it for private sales for other goods and services. That's probably all it will ever be, other than perhaps a periodic type of speculative investment for pump-and-dump scams.

I feel sorry for the stupid people you don't get it.

I don't particularly care.