The framework of Bitcoin was deliberately designed to be a trust-less system where you don't need to have faith or trust in anyone.
The only trust you need in is that at least 51% of miners and users have the best interest of preserving the value of their assets.
Current estimated cost to sink BTC with a 51% attack:
http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/brix
1.9 billion as of this moment.
Additionally, companies who sell Asic Mining hardware have self interest in the long-term strength of Bitcoin so deliberately distribute the equipment to as many different individuals as possible in the order queue. If a state wanted to create a 51% attack they would more likely have to create a foundry and produce their chips themselves and doing so covertly would be difficult.
Bitcoin is at minimum a interesting test case for testing the differences in opinions between the Austrian school and Keynesian models. I won't lower myself to the level of using arguments from authority but am interested if you have heard of any test cases where states have followed Austrian school of economic policies for me to educate myself upon.
If there are none than rather than call your detractors whiners instead of scholars, we would more fairly posit that we do not know which models are best suited for the marketplace and Bitcoin is an interesting international test case.
Yes, the bitcoin code being open source and certain tools can be copied and forked. This has been done many times with 30+ Alt currencies already.
What does the Bitcoin Network have that other alt currencies fail to have?
1) First mover advantage via the networking effect
2) 1+ Billion dollars of hardware securing the network and more being created daily
3) a thriving and growing market place of merchants, tools, exchanges
4) A large developer and support infrastructure
These are things that cannot easily be duplicated simply with a fork. Even if a better cryptocurrency comes along those features can easily be integrated into the Bitcoin code. Expect many cryptocurrencies to persist but only a few to dominate in value , I.E. Bitcoin, namecoin....
If Bank of America creates an Alt with better features than Bitcoin and lower fees(good luck) than we all win in the end and our bitcoin investments were investments into motivating a whole new set of technologies which benefit humanity.
You are solely focused on bitcoin as an investment opportunity rather than its intrinsic utility. Bitcoin benefits everyone by allowing:
1) A secure frictionless transfer of wealth internationally for very little costs
2) Ability of foreign dissidents and whisteblowers to take donations
3) A whole new set of useful tools that eliminate counter party risk - en.bitcoin.it/wiki/contracts
4) An open public ledger with an open source protocol for anyone to develop
5) A deflationary currency that cannot be manipulated by any central authority
Everyone benefits from the aspects above whether they buy 0.00001 bitcoins when bitcoin sells for 1 million or 1 bitcoin for 1k now.
Bitcoins are divided 8 decimal places so even if many are lost this won't be a problem. Additionally, bitcoins can be divided by up to 13 decimal places with use of fractions of satoshi's without any fork in the code. If more and more coins are lost than their may be an agreed upon fork where additional decimals are added to provide sufficient volume.
Hellholes because they exist in geographical regions that have little use for the state to exploit at this current time or because they have recently been victimized by tyrannical governments?
A fair comparison would be better met if a group of modern, healthy, educated people were allowed to succeed with a plot of usable land versus using examples like Somalia which have long histories of being victimized by the corruption of government.
I must concede though that it is very likely that even my ideal conception would be a hellhole at this day of age, but not for the reasons you allude to. Governments tend to get violent when competing with voluntary, tax free, societies they cannot directly control.
It is possible to have order and rules in a society which lacks a central authority or monopoly on violence.
Slashdot Mirror
The framework of Bitcoin was deliberately designed to be a trust-less system where you don't need to have faith or trust in anyone. The only trust you need in is that at least 51% of miners and users have the best interest of preserving the value of their assets.
Current estimated cost to sink BTC with a 51% attack: http://www.coinometrics.com/bitcoin/brix 1.9 billion as of this moment. Additionally, companies who sell Asic Mining hardware have self interest in the long-term strength of Bitcoin so deliberately distribute the equipment to as many different individuals as possible in the order queue. If a state wanted to create a 51% attack they would more likely have to create a foundry and produce their chips themselves and doing so covertly would be difficult.
Bitcoin is at minimum a interesting test case for testing the differences in opinions between the Austrian school and Keynesian models. I won't lower myself to the level of using arguments from authority but am interested if you have heard of any test cases where states have followed Austrian school of economic policies for me to educate myself upon. If there are none than rather than call your detractors whiners instead of scholars, we would more fairly posit that we do not know which models are best suited for the marketplace and Bitcoin is an interesting international test case.
Yes, the bitcoin code being open source and certain tools can be copied and forked. This has been done many times with 30+ Alt currencies already. What does the Bitcoin Network have that other alt currencies fail to have? 1) First mover advantage via the networking effect 2) 1+ Billion dollars of hardware securing the network and more being created daily 3) a thriving and growing market place of merchants, tools, exchanges 4) A large developer and support infrastructure These are things that cannot easily be duplicated simply with a fork. Even if a better cryptocurrency comes along those features can easily be integrated into the Bitcoin code. Expect many cryptocurrencies to persist but only a few to dominate in value , I.E. Bitcoin, namecoin.... If Bank of America creates an Alt with better features than Bitcoin and lower fees(good luck) than we all win in the end and our bitcoin investments were investments into motivating a whole new set of technologies which benefit humanity.
You are solely focused on bitcoin as an investment opportunity rather than its intrinsic utility. Bitcoin benefits everyone by allowing: 1) A secure frictionless transfer of wealth internationally for very little costs 2) Ability of foreign dissidents and whisteblowers to take donations 3) A whole new set of useful tools that eliminate counter party risk - en.bitcoin.it/wiki/contracts 4) An open public ledger with an open source protocol for anyone to develop 5) A deflationary currency that cannot be manipulated by any central authority Everyone benefits from the aspects above whether they buy 0.00001 bitcoins when bitcoin sells for 1 million or 1 bitcoin for 1k now.
Bitcoins are divided 8 decimal places so even if many are lost this won't be a problem. Additionally, bitcoins can be divided by up to 13 decimal places with use of fractions of satoshi's without any fork in the code. If more and more coins are lost than their may be an agreed upon fork where additional decimals are added to provide sufficient volume.
Hellholes because they exist in geographical regions that have little use for the state to exploit at this current time or because they have recently been victimized by tyrannical governments? A fair comparison would be better met if a group of modern, healthy, educated people were allowed to succeed with a plot of usable land versus using examples like Somalia which have long histories of being victimized by the corruption of government. I must concede though that it is very likely that even my ideal conception would be a hellhole at this day of age, but not for the reasons you allude to. Governments tend to get violent when competing with voluntary, tax free, societies they cannot directly control. It is possible to have order and rules in a society which lacks a central authority or monopoly on violence.
The original research cites many studies of sample sizes of 1000, 200, 122, ect. Here is the cited research: http://www.childtrauma.org/images/stories/Articles/mindbrain.pdf without the obnoxious ads.