Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Monday, 23 December 2013 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)11. Bitcoin, Magical Thinking, and Political Ideology Alex Payne
https://al3x.net/2013/12/18/bitcoin.html
Last week, investor Chris Dixon posed a provocative dichotomy when introducing his employers USD $25M investment in Bitcoin service Coinbase:
Now working at vogue venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Dixon is in a fine position to speak for Silicon Valley. But to the extent that the Valley is a placeholder for the technology industry at large, I beg to differ. Bitcoin is generally viewed quite differently. Most charitably, Bitcoin is regarded as a flawed but nonetheless worthwhile experiment, one that has unfortunately attracted outsized attention and investment before correcting any number of glaring security issues. To those less kind, Bitcoin has become synonymous with everything wrong with Silicon Valley: a marriage of dubious technology and questionable economics wrapped up in a crypto-libertarian political agenda that smacks of nerds-do-it-better paternalism. With its influx of finance mercenaries, the Bitcoin community is a grim illustration of greed running roughshod over meaningful progress. Far from a breakthrough, Bitcoin is viewed by many technologists as an intellectual sinkhole. A persons sincere interest in Bitcoin is evidence that they are disconnected from the financial problems most people face while lacking a fundamental understanding of the role and function of central banking. The only thing profound about Bitcoin is its communitys near-total obliviousness to reality.
Regulation and Other Minor Details
Bitcoin owes its present flexibility to a lack of regulation (or, more accurately, a lack of understanding around existing regulations and/or unwillingness to comply with them). If the broader Bitcoin experiment doesnt implode, the currency will be regulated just as any other. In this best-case scenario for Bitcoin, what of the benefits Dixon claims? Were told that Bitcoin fixes serious problems with existing payment systems that depend on centralized services to verify the validity of transactions. If by fixes you mean ignores, then yes: a Bitcoin transaction, like cash, comes with the certainty that a definite quantity of a store of value has changed hands, and little else. How this verifies any validity or cuts down on fraud Im not sure; stolen Bitcoins are spent as easily as stolen cash, which is why theft of Bitcoins has been rampant....
Silicon Valley has a seemingly endless capacity to mistake social and political problems for technological ones, and Bitcoin is just the latest example of this selective blindness. The underbanked will not be lifted out of poverty by conducting their meager daily business in a cryptocurrency rather than a fiat currency, even if Bitcoin or its ilk manages to reduce marginal transaction costs (at scale and in full regulatory compliance, that is). But then, we should note that Dixon wasnt talking about lifting anyone out of poverty, just offering them low-cost financial services. Also notable is that both Andreessen and Horowitz supported Mitt Romneys failed presidential bid, giving us some insight into the likely level of concern for economic inequality around Dixons office.
In Bitcoin, the Valley sees another PayPal and the associated fat exit, but ideally without the annoying costs of policing fraud and handling chargebacks this time around. Bankers in New York and London see opportunities for cryptocurrency market-making. International investors see the potential for arbitrage and are taking advantage of cheap electricity, bringing the environmental destruction of real-world mining to the brave new world of digital money. In other words: Bitcoin represents more of the same short-sighted hypercapitalism that got us into this mess, minus the accountability. No wonder that many of the same culprits are diving eagerly into the mining pool.
Last week, investor Chris Dixon posed a provocative dichotomy when introducing his employers USD $25M investment in Bitcoin service Coinbase:
The press tends to portray Bitcoin as either a speculative bubble or a scheme for supporting criminal activity. In Silicon Valley, by contrast, Bitcoin is generally viewed as a profound technological breakthrough.
Now working at vogue venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Dixon is in a fine position to speak for Silicon Valley. But to the extent that the Valley is a placeholder for the technology industry at large, I beg to differ. Bitcoin is generally viewed quite differently. Most charitably, Bitcoin is regarded as a flawed but nonetheless worthwhile experiment, one that has unfortunately attracted outsized attention and investment before correcting any number of glaring security issues. To those less kind, Bitcoin has become synonymous with everything wrong with Silicon Valley: a marriage of dubious technology and questionable economics wrapped up in a crypto-libertarian political agenda that smacks of nerds-do-it-better paternalism. With its influx of finance mercenaries, the Bitcoin community is a grim illustration of greed running roughshod over meaningful progress. Far from a breakthrough, Bitcoin is viewed by many technologists as an intellectual sinkhole. A persons sincere interest in Bitcoin is evidence that they are disconnected from the financial problems most people face while lacking a fundamental understanding of the role and function of central banking. The only thing profound about Bitcoin is its communitys near-total obliviousness to reality.
Regulation and Other Minor Details
Bitcoin owes its present flexibility to a lack of regulation (or, more accurately, a lack of understanding around existing regulations and/or unwillingness to comply with them). If the broader Bitcoin experiment doesnt implode, the currency will be regulated just as any other. In this best-case scenario for Bitcoin, what of the benefits Dixon claims? Were told that Bitcoin fixes serious problems with existing payment systems that depend on centralized services to verify the validity of transactions. If by fixes you mean ignores, then yes: a Bitcoin transaction, like cash, comes with the certainty that a definite quantity of a store of value has changed hands, and little else. How this verifies any validity or cuts down on fraud Im not sure; stolen Bitcoins are spent as easily as stolen cash, which is why theft of Bitcoins has been rampant....
Silicon Valley has a seemingly endless capacity to mistake social and political problems for technological ones, and Bitcoin is just the latest example of this selective blindness. The underbanked will not be lifted out of poverty by conducting their meager daily business in a cryptocurrency rather than a fiat currency, even if Bitcoin or its ilk manages to reduce marginal transaction costs (at scale and in full regulatory compliance, that is). But then, we should note that Dixon wasnt talking about lifting anyone out of poverty, just offering them low-cost financial services. Also notable is that both Andreessen and Horowitz supported Mitt Romneys failed presidential bid, giving us some insight into the likely level of concern for economic inequality around Dixons office.
In Bitcoin, the Valley sees another PayPal and the associated fat exit, but ideally without the annoying costs of policing fraud and handling chargebacks this time around. Bankers in New York and London see opportunities for cryptocurrency market-making. International investors see the potential for arbitrage and are taking advantage of cheap electricity, bringing the environmental destruction of real-world mining to the brave new world of digital money. In other words: Bitcoin represents more of the same short-sighted hypercapitalism that got us into this mess, minus the accountability. No wonder that many of the same culprits are diving eagerly into the mining pool.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
53 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Five Years After Lehman's: Did We Learn Anything? By L. Randall Wray - EconoMonitor
Demeter
Dec 2013
#4
Obama Exempts “If You Like It You Can Keep It” Cancelees from the Individual Mandate
Demeter
Dec 2013
#5
I never thought I'd be an outlaw, but the Affordable Care Act might make me one By Diane Snyder
Demeter
Dec 2013
#24