Bitcoin is Venice: Difference between revisions

Bitcoin is Venice (view source)

Revision as of 11:08, 11 May 2024

798 bytes added , 11 May

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,492

edits

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 Bitcoin maximalists might not trust their government, but in western economies, for the time being, the majority of tax-paying citizens do — at least with a government there is notionally someone to complain to.
-And trust in each other is a feature, not a big. This is the feature, in fact, on which the whole edifice of civilisation is based. Farrington would have done well to read Graeber here. Currency has its antecedents not in barter between strangers, as is commonly supposed, but in ''[[credit]]'' amongst friends. It would not work between strangers because of that very lack of trust in an abstract symbol. I will not hand over my rifles for your printed paper unless you and I share a mutual faith and consensus in the value of your paper.
+====Trust as feature not bug====
+{{Drop|A|nd trust in}} each other is a feature, not a big. ''The'' feature, in fact, on which the whole edifice of civilisation is based. Farrington would have done well to read a bit more Graeber here. Currency has its antecedents not in [[barter]] between strangers, as is commonly supposed, but in ''[[credit]]'' amongst friends. Currency would not work between hostile strangers because it is a promise to pay, and the very obstacle to trade is the lack of trust in the promisor and its abstract symbols. I hand over my muskets for your blankets but not your printed promise unless you and I share a mutual faith and consensus in the value of your paper.
-Bitcoin does ''not'' fix this. It is utterly axiomatic to bitcoin ’s viability that people believe in it as a token of value whilst knowing it has absolutely no intrinsic value. It is not even a lawful means of discharging debts to the government.
+===Bitcoin as metaphor===
+[[Bitcoin]] does ''not'' fix this. It is axiomatic that bitcoin’s viability depends on community consensus in something that is, literally, not true. This is called a ''[[metaphor]]'' — a ''token''. People must believe in Bitcoin as a ''token'' of value — in Farrington ’s view, [[capital]] whilst accepting it has absolutely no intrinsic value. This is also true of fiat currency, with the exception that within the power structure, fiat currency operates as a lawful means of discharging debts denominated in that currency. If it feels like there is so e circularity here that’s because there is: the power structure defines both question and answer. The leap of faith has been made and completed: the economy works on the strength of promises calibrated by reference to that metaphor. to the government. Bitcoin only discharges debts denominated in bitcoin.
 That an artefact with no intrinsic worth can nonetheless keep one is not an impossible scenario: that is, near enough, the trick that fiat currency has pulled off. Bitcoiners do not tire of reminding us of this. Currencies generate their own momentum and when enough systematically important institutions have enough vested interest in maintaining the currency as a viable thing — if they are making enough money out of it — the currency will generally carry on. Bitcoin seems now to have this: brokers, exchanges, exchange -traded funds and their authorized participants and clearers and market makers. This is another importance of intermediation: these intermediaries all take their skim and preserving that income compels them to support the narrative.