Open Source Revolution

[Xmac]

This article is epic.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ercent-cia-spy

[Gregg]

Excellent. I truly hope we are moving the the direction of open source. In the end there doesn't seem to be a way to get the genie back in the bottle.

[Xmac]

Excellent. I truly hope we are moving the the direction of open source. In the end there doesn't seem to be a way to get the genie back in the bottle.

I know what you mean. I've learned a lot about open source and distributed networks lately. Bitcoin, is the most salient example, not just the currency but the block chain technology that underlies it. After much consideration and contemplation, I'm convinced that it will prove to be the greatest invention of all time. Additionally, it will make gold as a store of value become completely obsolete.

As outrageous as all that sounds, I can only say that I've done my research.

[Gregg]

I don't think it sounds outrageous at all. At least no more so than basing a global economic system on a commodity that a king somewhere 5,000 years ago thought was pretty. Bitcoin is something I'm a bit enamored with simply because its origin remains 'anonymous' (as far as I know), because the world banking elites can't figure out how to profit from it and that because of the automatic triggers that dilute the value its not a way to store wealth. Not sure where it will rank on the all time list, but it certainly has the potential to be a game changer.

[Xmac]

I suppose it may share second place with the printing press after the first place wheel. I know the internet is in there somewhere too because it, and Bitcoin are inextricably linked, so it's hard to rank it fairly.

Anyway, the potential makes my head spin.

[LDAHL]

Paul Krugman, who despite his ridiculous politics strikes me as an excellent economist, has pointed out that money must accomplish two objectives: it must be an efficient medium of exchange and a reasonably stable store of value. I can see how Bitcoin accomplishes the first but not the second.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Paul Krugman, who despite his ridiculous politics strikes me as an excellent economist, has pointed out that money must accomplish two objectives: it must be an efficient medium of exchange and a reasonably stable store of value. I can see how Bitcoin accomplishes the first but not the second.

What's that based on anyway? Historical uses of money? Were most of them really stable stores of value?

Not the first time I've been told the block chain technology was revolutionary. But it was over my head why (and skeptical of course), but I tired to understand (which did not seem a popular position versus jumping to surface level narrow confusions like: "bitcoin yuck" even though that discussion was probably not just about bitcoin).

[LDAHL]

What's that based on anyway? Historical uses of money? Were most of them really stable stores of value?

Not the first time I've been told the block chain technology was revolutionary. But it was over my head why (and skeptical of course), but I tired to understand (which did not seem a popular position versus jumping to surface level narrow confusions like: "bitcoin yuck" even though that discussion was probably not just about bitcoin).

I'm not so much in the "bitcoin yuck" camp as I am curious how successfully it will function in the long run. And while its certainly true that some currencies serve their dual purpose better than others (i.e. the U.S. vs. Zimbabwe dollar), I wouldn't put complete faith in any arrangement. Whether or not that's jumping to a "surface level narrow confusion" I will leave to the deep thinkers such as yourself.

[jp1]

The most basic way to understand why the blockchain technology is revolutionary is because it's the first time that something transferred online can only be transferred once. As opposed to a file that can be copied a million (or billion or trillion) times, each bitcoin is unique. Without this capability there's nothing to prevent someone from giving the same piece of electronic currency to multiple people. (A non-internet example would be if one could make a photocopy of a dollar bill that was perfectly identical to the original. The blockchain technology, by creating a permanent transaction log for each bitcoin that travels with the bitcoin (or fraction of the bitcoin) forever prevents that possibility from happening with a bitcoin.)

Over time I expect that bitcoin or some other digital currency will become both an effective and cheap transactional medium and also an effective store of value. Bitcoin certainly isn't there yet, but digital currency is still very much in its infancy. WIth the pace of advancement in technology I'd be willing to predict that in the next 10-15 years one, or several, stable, easy to use, electronic currencies will exist. Much the same way 20 years ago people didn't think that online commerce would become a major thing. But even a casual observer today can look at the explosive growth of companies like Amazon, Netflix, and Expedia and all the online travel companies, and see how quickly current reality can change drastically.

[jp1]

What's that based on anyway? Historical uses of money? Were most of them really stable stores of value?

The main historically stable stores of value were gold and silver. There are several examples through history of coins made from them holding value for hundreds of years, (and for over 5,000 years the metal itself has retained significant value regardless of what form it is in). Inevitably, though, an emperor or other ruler wanted a free way to create money out of thin air and would destroy the value of their gold and silver coins, typically by "clipping" them (ie making them smaller so that they contained less of the precious metal.)