> Money has no value without violence because it's only utility is to pay taxes so you do not go to jail

Before crypto took off I would have agreed, but your theory has to account for that glaring counterexample. No one violently enforced the value of bitcoin or monero or any of the other crypto and yet many of them are soaring in value.

As for the rest, yes, if you can convince a majority of the mechanism of violence within a state to abandon it then the state will collapse. At that point monetary collapse is just a detail though since they won't be able to enforce anything.

The government protects the possession of the server through property law. Without violence, your "reliability" requirement goes out the window. The very infrastructure on which bitcoin relies goes bye bye.

You introducing unreliability as "evidence" of decentralisation doesn't make reliability my requirement.

Anyhow you're still wrong since one or two miners being taken out by civil unrest largely leaves the network unaffected. It's still reliable.

I didn't. You're literally arguing like a jew. Knock it off.

Don't make me pull receipts to establish that your using pilpul like a kike.

You used lawyer's tricks to try to "prove" that cheques are a decentralised system because cheque fraud is possible. It's a retarded argument and far jewier than anything I've ever said.

Receipt 1:

You introduced the term "unreliability"

Need I go on, rabbi?

No. You introduced unreliability and tried to pass it off as "decentralisation". I called it out for what it was.

You know what. Fuck your bullshit.

Seeya

have to disagree Hump. the 'servers' are far to disperse. It isn't amazon.

He raised the issue of reliability. He asserts, but also jewishly denies, that reliability is a necessarily element to decentralization. I'm just adopting the position he both did and didn't adopt. Being disperse doesn't establish reliability.

Nope. I never once made that assertion. Please provide the "receipts" if you can.

You attempted to claim that cheques are decentralised because anyone can write one. I pointed out that that's a flaw in the system, not an example of decentralisation.

I never once claimed that decentralisation requires reliability.

well it's not reliable. That is one of the big problems. Especially with how it's price fluctuates against other currencies. But more importantly they've not solved how to make payments in the instant moment. It can't be used for real time purchases. But these arguments always tend to the introduction or 'oversight and regulation' which defeats the idea of blockchain.

IMO there was, and still is a hope that WE can control the currency. To me that is very exciting intellectually. The promise is as tenuous as our current 'freedom'.

"when boyhood's fire was in my blood I read of ancient freemen".

I'm not saying I agree with him.

My position is that checks are at base a dectralized currency.

His response was that they're unreliable, not decentralized.

Ergo, being reliable must be an element of dectralization. If it's not, then an unreliable currency can be decentralized.

Eiregoat has also stated that reliability is not an element of dectralization, which is a contradiction to his previous position. I tend to agree with this latter position.

If this is the case, checks are the ultimate decentralized currency.

Check my logic. It's sound.

> Ergo, being reliable must be an element of dectralization.

No. That was your logical leap, not mine. I pointed out that you'd given an example of a system with low reliability, not decentralisation.

"You gave an example of X not Y"

Is not equivalent to

"Y implies X"

you mean checks from the central bank are an example of decentralization? I'm not following. How can a central bank, or it's subsidiaries, be decentralized. This is what I meant about paradigm shift. do you have an animosity to bitcoin?

He believes that bitcoin is an experiment by central banks to convince people to adopt a digital currency.

IK my Libertarian fren (well call him that, he's a essentially a Natsoc worried about succession and the jews and reds taking power lol) hates it as it's just stocks and not a currency at all and not decentralized either.

mostly irrelevant.

I wonder what his argument for that. The criteria for a currency is very simple, it just has to be something (relatively) fungible that people use as a medium of exchange.

yeah. That is the best argument against bitcoin. It's fungibility.

Agreed. I'm generally willing to forgive that though since (so far) it hasn't been a problem.

My gripe with bitcoin is that they deliberately made it inefficient. And as far as I can tell the solution to that problem (lightning network) is quasi-centralised.

Litecoin is the most practical currency I've used so far. Transactions cost pennies and clear in under a minute. You could actually use it to run a coffee shop.

A minute is too long. I mean 'I don't have all minute" when I'm trying to get a cup of coffee. It has been the single biggest problem. I'd rather use USD cash, honestly. There's an ATM on every corner.

I think about 30 seconds is reasonable, since that's about how long it takes a credit card to clear (actual verification, not contactless "we'll do it later). A cash transaction takes around 15-20 seconds assuming they didn't give exact change.

Litecoin can be under a minute, depending how many confirmations you want.

> Sorry. You're gonna have to wait twenty minutes for your coffee. We only accept bitcoin.

Also, in smaller communities, you don't even need cash or a check. People who know me know my credit is good. Just run a tab. We'll settle up.

His argument is that basically most people use it as an investment, and pretty much no one uses it as a currency or accepts it as one, just exchanges it for fiat.

but that isn't true. does truth matter. And why are you answering for Hump? maybe you should shut the fcuk up and stop with your stupid cartoons?

The "friend" he's asking about is the friend I mentioned a minute ago that doesn't like it lmao.

you're an idiot. Just fcuking block me again you dipshit motherfucking faggot piece of shitle. Is that clear?

I didn't block you lmao, you blocked me lmao. Also how am I an idiot, I was mentioning my friend who cares about this sorta thing's take, and Eire asked me for more information so gave it to him lmao.

you've no intelligence. Fcuk you and your cartoons. You're worthless and I hope you die a horrible death. NIGGER.

NICE CREW FAGGGGGSSSSS DIEEEE

RAYCISTS WON KYS NIGGER

Hey. HEY. We don't use words like that. The fuck's wrong with you?

In fairness I did ask him for that explanation. He's talking about his friend's opinion, not Hump's.

And as soon as it ceases to be a casino, the bottom falls out.

In the interim, and going to my theory that it's created by glowniggers, the system gets tested against every nefarious hacker man in the world.

Well... any sound currency tends to result in people using it for savings. Even USD has that behaviour (although it's one of the worst forms of investment you can use).

As for exchanging it for fiat before transacting... I don't have a problem with that either. When I buy things from Poland my Euros get exchanged for Zlotys, but it's still considered a currency transaction.

it's better to let him express his arguments. I choose the possibilty of what blockchain offered as opposed to the jew system. It is hard to get your head around it. But freedom is better than jewbank slavery. .

Hump, does this sum up your argument? It doesn't seem sensical to me.

This was his comment that kicked off the chain:

I saw that, but it isn't exactly the most intuitive thing [blockchain] and people resort to all the 'authoritative' bullshit in their quivers.

A bank is not required. Anyone can make them. They can theoretically be drawn on anyone. We could use notes too. That's a two party transaction.

I understand what you are saying. But there's a new paradigm. What you are talking about is from the old paradigm. Which by the way has enslaved the world.

How have notes or checks enslaved the world?

If you argument is that having to keep a promise is slavery, then you're anti-contract, and ergo anti-private law, and ergo anti-germanic. The law of contract was a libertarian paradigm shift and of Germanic origins.

The idea that a man could choose his obligation rather than have the government demand duties is at base libertine.

that is a very different argument though.

banks man. there was a German once who had an issue with banks. Also, Germany was a collection of principalities until the mid-19th century. I've had libertarian views but I am straight third position now.

@Eiregoat @Humpleupagus @sun

You can not eat crypto coins or build physical objects out of crypto coins

Crypto Currency also has unlimited potential for inflation

Even if there are a finite number of a specific type of crypto coins that can be created, there are a unlimited number of types of crypto coins that can be created, resulting in a unlimited supply of crypto coins because people can just create new kinds of crypto coins

The value of crypto coins is mental & created by faith

> You can not eat crypto coins or build physical objects out of crypto coins

That hasn't affected it's success so far.

> Crypto Currency also has unlimited potential for inflation

> Even if there are a finite number of a specific type of crypto coins that can be created, there are a unlimited number of types of crypto coins that can be created, resulting in a unlimited supply of crypto coins because people can just create new kinds of crypto coins

That's not how inflation works. The US dollar didn't become weaker when the Zimbabwean government started printing trillions of Zimbabwean dollars.

Equally as more fly-by-night crypto projects took off it didn't make bitcoin less popular.

> The value of crypto coins is mental & created by faith

Yes. The same is true of any currency.

@Eiregoat @Humpleupagus @sun

So I just think the world would be a better place if they did things because they want to accomplish a goal and not to make money

I think the world would be a better place if people stopped doing things for money or currency and started doing things to get the physical objects or services they want

I suggest we would be better off with a distributist but not Marxist economy with gifting, voluntary trade but not money nor involuntary taxes

Money, markets and prices are a useful communications technology that helps people communicate value and efficiency over long distances and a very wide network without requiring close social ties.

It's not supposed to be the moral bedrock of society but it's power as a system shouldn't be discounted.

I've seen various ideas about how distributism could work over the years, but I think it's best chance of getting off would have to involve a strong market economy.

As for "gifting" I think our strongest solution to social problems was having small institutions funded and run locally. Basically bring back monestaries and convents.