/liberty/ - Liberty

sorry for my bad engrish, aint using it much

Cryptocurrencies are a Jewish invention and are worse than fiat currency

>>79967

>American flag

Might as well attach a star of david to your post

>>79965

I'd say such a system is perfectly reasonable and attainable in a free market. Isn't that, in broad strokes, how Ethereum works?

>>79994

Nah, it cannot be converted back and wikipedia says "The total supply of ether was Ξ98 million as of January 2018. In 2017, mining generated 9.2 million new ether, corresponding to a 10% increase in its total supply. Casper FFG and CBC are expected to reduce the inflation rate to between 0.5% to 2%. There is no currently implemented hard cap on the total supply of ETH, but it is expected to end at a certain point, and become deflationary." ETH is still remaining fiat currecy, and does not seem to differ from others in that aspect.

There already is a cryptocurrency called gridcoin, though i couldn't find much technical info that i could understand(not a /tech/nician). What i was trying to say, that decentralized currency would benefit more from commodity based approach, rather than fiat, which heavily depends on its amount in the system and so causes problems.

>>79965

Cryptomoney, like any other money, only relies on one thing in the end. You need enough people willing to take it in lieu of goods or services. Gold is a long time commodity money because everyone likes a shiny metal that doesn't take a lot of shit from the elements. American dollars are accepted as money throughout the world because America bribes the Saudis to only trade their oil for dollars. These bribes are in the form of free credits for military equipment. Bitcoin is no different: its main use is to be traded for drugs, guns, illicit services, and slaves on well-hidden parts of the internet.

This keeps happening: right now, some people are pushing Ripple to replace SWIFT and wire transfers because blockchains are much faster than international wires.

>>80096

Well, yeah, i just mean that making it dependent on its overall amount is a huge disadvantage for virtual currency, its lost, forgotten, simply kept, and all this weakens the whole system. To mine cryptocurrency, you need to do certain computing operations, which now go nowhere, aside from managing these connections, which are a fraction of the resources spent. It seems to me, that using the resource in itself as a currency would fit better than spending it to create currency, which has problems, that the resource based one does not. Also, commodity currency seems a lot more fitted to ancap society, as it determines its value on some physical object, therefore its value can be a lot easier recognised and managed. I've heard, for example, that in SW(if i remember correctly, not a fan) some kind of fiat was used inside their equivalent of countries, while resources themselves were used for trade outside those.

Maybe it comes down to my misunderstanding of that little bit i know about economics, or that i do not understand fiat currency very well, but i really feel weird about it.

Also, fiat currency seems more dependent on cooperation, so commodity one seems more fit from game theory perspective.

>>80098

Crypto has the advantage of not being discrete, which helps deal with some Bitcoin being frozen thanks to some retarded hacker (for example).

On the topic of trading the commodities directly, criminals can't feasibly do that. They would open themselves up to top much exposure to rivals and law enforcement. Along with that they would have to settle on what's an equitable exchange of ilicit goods, which closes digital markets from end-users and complicates trade. This is why the concept of money exists in the first place. Bitcoin lubricates these exchanges and someone walks away with a digital currency that can be exchanged again for other moneys, goods, or commodity money like gold.

And take miners out of the equation. They're pointless beyond record keeping and have almost zero effect on the value of an established cryptomoney.

>>80104

sorry, by commodity i meant a commodity currency, not just trading goods themselves. I just thought that in technology based society virtual currencies are very suitable and easy to use, and the only virtual world related commodities that everyone uses are electricity, which is more of a physical one, and calculating power, which is used to do literally any operation in the virtual field of our pretty highly technological world, and, therefore some commodity that is used in absolutely every operation, where it could exist would be suitable as a currency.

also, would be electricity a reasonable alternative to modern money, if there were some more efficient and comfortable ways to store it?

>>80108

Not really. Some of the major attributes of commodity-backed currencies is that the good on which their based is durable, relatively easy to split up and transport, and comparatively stable in market value. Electricity isn't any of these, and as a result would in strange market scenarios were it to be used to back a currency. For instance, because batteries run down over time there would be an incentive to spend quickly and in large quantities, reducing the rate of investment in the economy. Because you lose electricity to resistance whenever you transfer it over a wire, it's also not easy to split it up. Instead of granular transactions people would refuse to trade unless the price was in whole batteries. The cost of producing electricity is also highly variable, and demand for it is clustered in specific "peak usage times" in the day.

Any bank attempting to enforce electricity as a standard for its bank notes wouldn't be very successful, and other entities wouldn't accept these volatile notes as currency. If a government were to impose this standard on an economy, you would likely see it replaced in secondary markets by a de facto standard in the factors used to produce electricity, such as coal, oil, or uranium. These goods aren't ideal for currency backing, but they're much closer than electricity itself.

>>80112

well, improved storage comes under the point of "efficient and comfortable ways to store", and quick and less costly transportation would also be less of a problem in the future, i think. I was more interested if using a commodity used almost everywhere in any action would be suitable as a currency.

The thing that feels wrong with fiat is that there needs to be either someone behind it, regulating its amount, with all the consequences of modern govt games with finances, which seem even in ancapistan would have been just dumped down, or it would needs a lottery of wasted resources the bitcoin and other modern cryptocurrencies are today. Neither of these ways seems reliable and effective.

>>80112

In the bigger scheme of things, money is just a form of energy, and since electricity is the standard by which all forms of energy are measured, money should be measured in electrical units too. People might finally understand that you can't just "create" wealth out of thin air, because they will know you can't just create energy out of thin air, nor will the leftists try to fuck up civilization with their retarded ideas because they will also be thinking in terms of energy, a real scientific concept, instead of in terms of "money" which to them is some abstract magical thing. "Economics" might finally become a real science that will see objectively and take seriously like physics, chemistry, and mathematics and not just something people argue about because everyone has their own agenda and insecurities regarding wealth distribution.

When people start thinking in terms of energy, it will also give them the incentive to save it and produce some of their own for profit, this will effectively make us less reliant on fossil fuels as well prevent more damage to the environment.

>>80113

>well, improved storage comes under the point of "efficient and comfortable ways to store", and quick and less costly transportation would also be less of a problem in the future, i think.

Well, sure, but those still aren't intrinsic properties of electricity. You still need to expend resources to create these containers for making electricity viable currency, which still have the potential of failing in transit or in storage. And you still have the issue of electricity having highly variable value and demand. Unlike gold, for instance, which is useful as a currency backing pretty much out of the box. So yes, you could in theory use electricity as a currency with a bit of fiddling, but I'm not sure what benefit that gives you over all the possible alternatives. To me, it looks more like a solution looking for a problem than anything else.

>I was more interested if using a commodity used almost everywhere in any action would be suitable as a currency.

It's possible, but it's also superfluous. Currency backings don't have to be omnipresent in order to be good currencies (in fact some would argue that having a currency be too easy to generate would be bad because of inflation concerns), because the omnipresence doesn't help nor hinder a good's utility as a standard of exchange. It just needs to be valued everywhere. People like gold all over the world, because it's shiny and doesn't rust. Even though gold isn't seen being used in everyday life, it still has that value, so it still works as currency. If you want to use an energy-based currency, try a petroleum standard instead. It's far from perfect to be sure, but it doesn't have any of the disadvantages of electricity.

>>80121

then, will things always come to fiat? it really seems too much complicated and some sort of strange conjuration, as it happens with some software, like, web 2.0, for example(the best i can think of), which complicates things that much, that it is really something in itself, like dialectic materialism for lefties, to be used to explain everything and abuse it other ways.

>>80123

and it really upsets me the same way the most of the modern internet does

>>80123

>then, will things always come to fiat?

As opposed to what? Not quite sure what you're asking. Either way, fiat is shit. It's prone to inflation, doesn't represent any kind of real value, and is easily manipulated by the issuing government. And it's only even achievable with a large government in place to enforce their coercive monopoly on currency.

>>80169

As opposed to direct trade or using commodity currency, or any other ways are available? Are modern cryptocurrencies fiat? Because they look like it for, with the partial exception of some, which not just need proof-of-work(mining), but use it to power some services, still chosen by organisators, like gridcoin.

>>80199

I'd say that the free market tends towards commodity money of some sort, with noted exceptions here or there for unusual circumstances. It's the best form in my opinion, because it's based on real wealth. This keeps its value relatively stable, and correspondent to the overall state of the economy. Bitcoin and most of its alternatives are pseudo-fiat. They're better than conventional fiat currencies for a couple reasons: control of the crypto money supply doesn't lie with a centralized government body, and supply is restricted through necessitating work to be done to get more currency, although that work isn't useful or valuable to anyone. Because of these factors crypto isn't subject to rapid inflation, nor can its value be manipulated by pegging it above or below market value. These are the two biggest problems with fiat, so crypto is a good substitute in cases where true commodity money isn't practical. However, it still has the issue of not representing anything of value, and has no utility besides its ability to be traded. As a result, its value is based entirely on the confidence, hopes, and dreams of its users. Which is fine as long as people continue to like it, but speculation of that sort can fluctuate wildly. And fluctuating value isn't isn't something you want in a currency. If gridcoin and similar currencies, where the "mining" being done is you renting out your computer for someone to do their own processes (essentially a for-profit version of SETI@home), this issue could be alleviated.

>>80202

It is not the way, what you described is the concept i pointed in 1st post, gridcoin differs in that its devs(university of sort afaik) just let the resources from mining flow into some other projects, and i doubt that you can take part of it on regular basis, and not during some king of deal between its devs. So, it is better in terms of wasting of resources, but it remains fiat-like nonetheless.

>>80202

It is more like govt giving you money for doing work for something specific, instead of just wasting your energy. Thank you for the theory though.

s