Non è necessario inventarsi nulla… la rete ha già prodotto valanghe di documenti che smantellano le…
criticità del bitcoin
Da http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bitcoin (credo che questo sito mi diventerà simpatico…)
The currency’s only practical use case is purchasing illicit goods (e.g., drugs) and services (e.g., murder-for-hire scams)[9][10] and extortion (e.g., “ransomware”).[11] It is becoming the preferred currency for internal use by online criminals.[12][13] There has so far been no other use case for which it is superior to existing channels. Other economists have criticized the idea (to the point of calling it a scam), citing inherent design problems.[33][34][35][36][37]
Cinque articoli da andare a leggere… intanto Bernanke:
He went on to suggest that government officials might look to boost oversight of digital currency activity, highlighting the perceived anonymity of bitcoin and pointing to its role as “a vehicle for illicit transactions, drug selling or terrorist financing or whatever”. "And you know, governments are not happy to let that activity happen, so I suspect that there will be oversight of transactions done in bitcoin or similar currencies and that will reduce the appeal," he said in the interview.
Infatti in Russia stanno discutendo la messa al bando. Ecco http://archive.is/jsJx5:
The guidelines proposed by the Russian Ministry of Finance includes a prison sentence of up to 7 years for individuals who partake in the circulation and usage of cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin. One of the Russian officials who has called for the criminalization of bitcoin is Russia’s Investigative Committee Chairman, Alexander Bastrykin. […] he has previously called cryptocurrencies, citing bitcoin specifically, as a “threat to the financial stability of the state.”
“Bitcoin takes the monetary system back essentially a hundred years. We know how to beat that system. In fact, we know how to nuke it for profit. Bitcoin is volatile, inherently deflationary and has no lender of last resort. Cornering and squeezing would work well - they use mass in a finite trading space.”
And we can now see this in practice: the $1200/BTC peak in late 2013 was caused by the market manipulation known as “painting the tape”;[45] Mt. Gox in particular appears to have suffered chronic tape-painting.[46] Note that the “free market” completely failed to deal with fraud in this environment: all other exchanges were tracking Mt. Gox’s blatantly skewed prices.
Traditional financial products have strong consumer protections. If someone makes a fraudulent transaction with your credit card or your bank goes belly-up, there are laws in place to limit consumer losses. Bitcoin has no such safety net. If your Bitcoins are lost or stolen, there’s no intermediary with the power to make you whole.
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/2010-11/DigitalCurrencies/disadvantages/ dice
When goods are bought using Bitcoins, and the seller doesn’t send the promised goods, nothing can be done to reverse the transaction. This problem can be solved using a third party escrow service like ClearCoin, but then, escrow services would assume the role of banks, which would cause Bitcoins to be similar to a more traditional currency.
About 25% of the European Central Bank’s report on “Virtual Currency Schemes” is about Bitcoin,[41] and both the European Banking Authority and US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have warned about major consumer protection issues.[42][43]
“the best part about bitcoins is that you get to watch libertarians slowly discover why financial regulations exist to begin with” —@porn_horse
One of the otherwise-saner advocates is Rick Falkvinge, founder of the Swedish Pirate Party, who has put all his savings into bitcoins.[75] Though, he also details its problems.[76] He is a big fan of Bitcoin not as a general currency, but as a pure medium of exchange, substituting for PayPal or credit cards and changing back into a more popular currency at each end—as the Visa/Mastercard/PayPal oligopoly’s willingness to block recipients they, the American government or fundamentalists don’t like, starts to become a practical problem.
Beh allora possiamo aggiornare Rick che con l’avvento del Taler non è più necessario affidarsi ad un medium di scambio libero da garanzie…
The cryptography is robust, so many highly vocal internet libertarians think this is all that is needed, because they don’t understand people, know very little about economics, and apparently nothing of how reliable financial computing infrastructures are built.
Bitcoin is also an environmental disaster, using on the order of 1 gigawatt (GW) (that’s a billion watts) according to a 2013 and 2014 apaper[59][60] […] Bitcoin runs on libertarians externalising their costs to others.[62]
La ragione per la quale in Cina stanno sfornando talmente tanti Bitcoin è palesemente idiota (da una prospettiva ecosostenibile/umanistica) e controproduttiva:
One incentive is off-the-books currency exchange: buy hardware and electricity in yuan, make it into bitcoins and sell the bitcoins for dollars.
E poi alla fine le cryptocurrencies hanno sempre la puzza di fare da Ponzi scheme… http://positivemoney.org/2014/04/bitcoins-fatal-design-flaws/ fa:
Design Flaw 2: Bitcoin rewards the adopters and speculators. As with the current monetary system, Bitcoin rewards the creators of the currency (the ‘miners’ who use their computers to do complex calculations to create the currency). The early adopters have become very wealthy, along with speculators who sit on their coins rather than spending them. Again, this means that those who benefit from the currency are not those who use it to trade in the real economy i.e. people who actually produce real value and make Bitcoin a viable and usable currency. Instead, the benefit goes to those who sit on the currency (which prevents it functioning as a currency and makes it a speculative asset).
E mi pare che molta di questa critica sia genericamente applicabile a qualsiasi applicazione finanziaria a base di blockchain…
criticità di ethereum
Ethereum is the trendy altcoin in 2016, which offers a platform for smart contracts. (Imagine Bitcoin as a spreadsheet, Ethereum as a spreadsheet with macros.) In practice it’s traded like any other cryptocurrency, with pumps[106] and dumps[107] and so forth, and the most prominent Ethereum smart contract is an “honest Ponzi”.[108] In addition, like many altcoins, Ethereum was substantially premined before a big launch sale[109] and its creator is cashing out now it’s been pumped; he thinks of this as “sound financial planning.”[110]
Cioè in pratica hanno preso per il culo la gente anche loro.
fallacie dell’anarco-capitalismo
Riguardo al link ideologico tra Bitcoin ed Anarco-capitalismo (da http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bitcoin):
Bitcoin therefore presents a rare sandbox/universe-in-a-jar scenario for observing market interactions in a free banking[wp] system, as Austrian schoolers have always wanted — this time in the context of post-industrial economies.
The decentralised nature attracts libertarian extremists (go read any Bitcoin forum for more wacko libertarianism than you ever thought possible).
Per “Austrian” si intende la scuola del liberismo di Mises, fonte ispiratoria dell’anarco-capitalismo. Riguardo alla parola “libertarian” Chomsky si esprime così: https://youtu.be/RxPUvQZ3rcQ
Da http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalist
“Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism.” —Murray Rothbard[1]
Ancaps are as much anarchists as Christian Scientists are scientists: Traditional anarchist movements, specially those associated with the left, do not consider anarchy and capitalism to be compatible, and thus consider anarcho-capitalism not to be an authentic form of anarchism.
The non-aggression axiom is prohibition against the initiation of force of any kind, against persons (assault, murder) or against property (burglary, taxation). Thus according to the non-aggression axiom, taxation is a kind of force or coercion equivalent to theft.
Ci sono tre aspetti fallaci in questa ideologia:
- Non si può implicare la non-violenza come assioma. Se la gente muore di fame, diventa violenta. Punto. Se la gente vuole dominare ed ottenere vantaggi, può diventare violenta. Punto. Negare questi aspetti della natura umana è idiota. Perciò, se non ti piace la violenza devi provvedere a misure per combatterla.
- La proprietà è un concetto non scalabile, il pianeta ha limiti fisici, perciò la proprietà degli uni può diventare l’assenza di libertà degli altri – e una predisposizione per una disuguaglianza fondamentale.
- Le tasse hanno uno scopo sociale. Negare le tasse equivale a derubare la società.
Da http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part11c
anarcho-capitalism was an expression of an irrational subjectivist epistemology which would allow each person to decide for himself or herself whether the use of physical force was justified.
Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him.
Ecco un altro assioma totalmente cretino. In un mondo finito non esiste oggetto che non sia già di appartenza di un individuo o una società.
Da http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/lba.html
Within Libertarianism, Murray Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard’s claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist venders.[30] Rothbard has no problem whatsoever with the amassing of wealth, therefore those with more capital will inevitably have greater coercive force at their disposal, just as they do now. […] In sum, the anarchy of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud.
Anarcho-capitalist books tend to read like Marxist books — dense and full of provocative ideas that sound good in theory, but are presented as “this is the way it would work” when it has never really been tried.
One question is whether anarcho-capitalism would work at all as envisioned by its proponents, or whether there would be so much chaos that private defense agencies, the owners of private highways, private courts with their own bodies of law, and private medical associations among others would soon coalesce into a new de facto state.
Ma ascoltiamo Noam:
Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn’t the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error." —Noam Chomsky[12]
Mettiamoci anche Jo Freeman con la sua Tyranny of Structurelessness, considerando l’assenza di strutture in una società anarcocapitalista.
Divertente ma prolungato il video nel quale un certo Peter Joseph fa a pezzi l’incapacità del popolare promotore anarco-capitalista, Stefan Molyneux, di fare un discorso razionale e fondato, e smantella varie fallacie anarcocapitaliste nel processo.
In quest’altro video invece si vede un giovanotto intervistato da un canale youtube anarcocapitalista riguardo ai suoi progressi a fare propaganda agli occupanti di Occupy Wall Street. Si notano gli accenni ad elementi dell’ideologia che, casualmente, fanno comodo a chiunque voglia mantenersi straricco e protetto:
- l’assioma della non-violenza, perchè nulla è scomodo agli straricchi che passeggiano per Wall Street che il pericolo che uno degli schiavi sudditi faccia uso dell’ultimo strumento di resistenza rimastogli prima di morire di fame, depressione od overdose;
- derivato dalla non-violenza, la necessità di legalità di comprare od affittare spazi e proprietà, cioè il rispetto della proprietà… difeso dalle milizie private così gli straricchi possono stare sicuri che solo loro avranno il potere di utilizzare la violenza. senza stato mai più una polizia ed un apparato di giustizia che potrebbero stare dalla parte della gente semplice, povera, misera, suddita;
- l’assioma del volontarismo, perché se donare ai poveri è volontario gli straricchi decidono quanto della propria ricchezza vogliono donare ed in quale modo (Zuckerberg per esempio ne fa di fatto un investment mentre quell’altro si mette a fare l’esplorazione dello spazio)… molto più vantaggioso delle tasse obbligatorie
Visto che mi era nuovo il termine “volunteerism” sono andato a cercarlo e ho trovato http://bonniekristian.com/post/12161606676/volunteerism-only-works-when-people-volunteer dove un fan della decostruzione dello stato si accorge della incongruenza della ideologia che gli viene proposta:
The problem with it is that people just don’t want to volunteer. Everyone loves the idea, but just assumes that the next guy will see to it. But when everyone takes that attitude than we just have a great idea for books and philosophy, but we remain in neutral as far as putting these ideas into action.
Ecco, il problema di molti assiomi ideologici è che suonano accattivanti in teoria ma non tengono conto della natura umana, delle esigenze collettive, delle scelte etiche o banalmente della finitezza delle risorse planetarie. Alla fine infrangono sempre uno di questi principi. Perciò il mondo è pieno di ideologie di merda che prendono per culo il 99% degli esseri umani.
Dissi su confero:
Follow the money: l’ideologia bitcoin è figlia dell’anarcocapitalismo, lui stesso fondato nell’ambito reazionario/di destra americano, dai perdenti del New Deal di Roosevelt. Chi erano i perdenti del New Deal? Gli straricchi come Rockefeller che avevano lasciato che la disuguaglianza economica arrivasse al punto da causare gli anni neri della Great Depression. Un secolo dopo sono riusciti a recuperare tutto. Viviamo una fase di disuguaglianza peggiore di allora. Ed ora, invece di imparare da Roosevelt e sviluppare un Pirate New Deal questi vorrebbero farci cascare ad una ideologia superficiale della libertà individuale, senza alcun rispetto per le esigenze degli individui meno fortunati (l’ideologia non lo prevede eccetto per il concetto di donazione volontaria che - si vede nel mondo - funziona a meraviglia), ed osannare le tecnologie che alimentano ulteriore disuguaglianza. Se il byzantine consensus è tanto utile per la votazione democratica distribuita, perché lo si sta usando prevalentemente per il traffico finanziario criminale?
Chiudiamo con un divertente podcast che spiega come l’anarco-capitalismo non è anarchico… https://youtu.be/ObTwbE9Dwm4