• makeasnek@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Which is why Bitcoin in hyper-deflationary, which is a insane economic policy for any serious fiat currency

    Most modern economists would agree with you. There is no correct answer here, it’s mainly a matter of perspective and what you value. I would say it’s mildly deflationary, the supply is fixed, it’s not like 10% of the supply is burned every year or anything. We used to have the gold standard, that was essentially based on a fixed supply, the world didn’t collapse, it was fine. We moved away from it for good reasons although if you asked the other countries who participated in that system about how the US went about making that transition it was of course quite contentious at the time. They trusted their national currencies to be pegged to the dollar which was pegged to gold until one day the US just said “Hey jk not anymore good luck”. I’m not going to get into the weeds arguing inflationary/deflationary economics with you I was mainly just trying to correct what seems to be your misunderstanding about how Bitcoin and Eth actually work when it comes to forks etc.

    Are you starting to see how this is still political?

    I’m not making the argument that economic systems are divorced from politics or don’t have political or social implications. They obviously do.

    That policy can be changed in code by programmers just like lawmakers can change economic policy for national fiats.

    Sorry but you’re just wrong about the rollback and how that works. The only reason the rollback worked is because the majority of the ethereum network nodes and miners agreed it was needed. Releasing code in an of itself does nothing, you need network consensus for it to work. If legislators write a law, that changes the fiscal policy immediately. If the Eth programmers write a protocol change into the code nothing happens until there is widespread enough consensus for the network to upgrade to that new code and fork. They have to convince the entire network to download and run that new code. This would be equivalent to having to get the entire country to vote on a new fiscal policy every time congress or the federal reserve proposed changes to it. It is wildly more democratic.

    Whatever group controls the most wealth controls the chain

    A. Pretty much how our existing economy works. B. Nodes and miners control the chain (or in Eth’s case nodes, validators, and the people who stake their coins to those validators which is literally everyone who has Eth can do). They can directly vote on proposed rule changes unlike in a representative democracy where they elect people who can change those rules and in most cases the only recourse if they make bad rules is to elect somebody different next time. In Bitcoin or Ethereum you need widespread consensus among those who use the network to effect protocol changes. There have been many proposals to change Bitcoin’s core protocol over the years, most of them did not succeed as they required widespread consensus which is hard to get and takes significant time. So it produces a very stable protocol (and fiscal policy) which tends to be backwards compatible.

    • SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would say it’s mildly deflationary, the supply is fixed, it’s not like 10% of the supply is burned every year or anything.

      This is like saying tulip mania was mildly deflationary. At a certain point without changing the rules of the blockchain there will never be another Bitcoin made. That is somehow supposed to represent an ever growing economy forever?… And not be hyper-deflationary? Remember… they were still making more tulips.

      As long as Bitcoin remains this deflationary it will be a terrible store of value and a terrible facilitator of trade. In other words a terrible currency. And the people in charge of bitcoin — that is the people who own stakes in the network — will never want to end that because they make too much money with it being deflationary. It would be funny if some people didn’t loose a ton of money in the process.

      I’m not making the argument that economic systems are divorced from politics or don’t have political or social implications. They obviously do.

      If its not divorced from politics then what’s to stop the same or similar political situation that happened in 2008 from happening again?

      Remember the thing I disagreed with was…

      Satoshi saw this and knew there was a better way, so he created a new currency system in which no one person or organization could ever have the power to just turn on the money printer like that ever again. Because the temptation is just too strong.

      If the rules can be changed by someone then what’s to stop whoever that someone is from turning on the money printers on for the wealthy under the right political circumstances?

      Sorry but you’re just wrong about the rollback and how that works. The only reason the rollback worked is because the majority of the Ethereum network nodes and miners agreed it was needed.

      I understand how it works. I used to mine Ethereum and I’ve run both a Bitcoin and Ethereum nodes. I’ve been following Bitcoin since I saw it on slashdot in 2009.

      Of course they “agreed” to give themselves a bailout. That’s no more valid of an argument than saying the US agreed to the bailouts in 2008. Other’s disagreed that’s why we still have the fork.

      Randomly forking is terrible for a currency. I don’t want to wake up tomorrow and find out that my money is worth half as much because some rich assholes didn’t like some transactions. And because they own enough nodes/ASICs/GPUs/stake and are friends with the programmers on the project they can just fork me over.

      They can directly vote on proposed rule changes unlike in a representative democracy where they elect people who can change those rules and in most cases the only recourse if they make bad rules is to elect somebody different next time.

      Most representative democracies have direct ballot initiatives and they’re based on 1 person 1 vote. We should work to have more of that because a broad base of people generally have interests different than those with access to wealth.

      In the case of crypto none that I know of base their “democracy” on a system of 1 person 1 vote but instead on how much ownership you have on the network in terms of nodes/Mines(GPU, ASICs, etc.)/stake. This is not democracy, this is a system of political power based on ownership. In other words the same system of influence at the root of the 2008 bailouts.

      There have been many proposals to change Bitcoin’s core protocol over the years, most of them did not succeed as they required widespread consensus which is hard to get and takes significant time.

      Yes, the people who own stakes in the blockchain are going to make very conservative decisions that protect their own wealth. The US congress chose to turn the money printer on in 2008 because that was the best way to protect their wealth and the wealth of their donors. Again… its same system of influence based on wealth and ownership that lead to the 2008 bailouts.