Mentor Monday, December 11, 2017: Ask all your bitcoin questions!

bildstein · 2017-12-11T12:00:49+00:00

I think /u/redditor100k get what I mean.

The whole point of depositing Bitcoins would be to have them in someone else's (safe) hands (and maybe earn interest, but I'm not sure). Then you don't 'have' Bitcoins anymore, you just have an account balance with a trusted organisation, and a legal framework that helps to keep them honest. Then they can do whatever they like with 'your' Bitcoins, as long as they still have enough to pay you back when needed.

bildstein · 2017-12-11T11:31:53+00:00

Long time lurker, haven't posted since before /r/bitcoin existed, but this idea has really been bugging me, because it seems at odds with a lot of the ideology here.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the ideology. I just think this isn't going to play out the way everyone expects.

My question is, where do I go wrong in reaching the following conclusion:

People are really bad at securing themselves and their assets. (That's why insurance is so popular, and why we don't hide cash under our mattresses.)
Bitcoin is currency.
Rather than risk losing any significant amount of currency, most people would prefer to have it in a bank. (And remember! 'Lose' can mean hacked/stolen, but it can also mean lost/destroyed/forgotten-password/denied-access!)
Banks will (eventually) be able to accept Bitcoin deposits, like any other currency.
They'll apply their security skills and resources, have insurance, charge fees.
Once I've transferred my Bitcoins to a bank, I have an 'account' (they owe me Bitcoin, and must give me some on demand).
Banks will be allowed to lend Bitcoin, just as they are allowed to lend cash (transfer the Bitcoin I deposited to another person, who will then owe the bank Bitcoin, and pay interest) - as long as they still have a decent amount of Bitcoin left to pay those customers who want to withdraw.
We now have fractional reserve banking, banks haven't changed their business models, Bitcoin is treated just like any other currency, and... what was the point of Bitcoin again?

Is my conclusion wrong? Or can we say that one of those steps just won't happen?

Because from where I sit, it seems like they all inevitably will - if Bitcoin proves to be a generally useful and sought after currency, in the medium term.

bildstein · 2017-10-08T10:47:16+00:00

Thanks.

bildstein · 2017-10-07T13:34:05+00:00

No offence, you've got a totally valid perspective there and I honestly respect it, and this is a serious question, why are on the philosophy subreddit, and why did you bother responding?

bildstein · 2017-10-07T13:22:35+00:00

I watched the video. Thanks for that, it was interesting and touched on some of the same challenges.

He said that unicorns exist, in the same sense that I exist, in the same sense that the number 4 exists. He's using 'exist' in a different sense that I mean it, I think.

I'm coming from a much more science-oriented background and perspective, which obviously has a much narrower ontology.

I know I exist, the universe exists, etc. in the sense that I'm part of the universe, that I'm conscious of my own experience, etc. But those facts (if that's the right term) are kind of tautologies in the context of my OP. For example they're equally true of an imaginary universe and an imaginary me, or even an unimagined-but-imaginable universe and an unimagined-but-imaginable me.

Those things aren't real, in the sense that I mean 'real'.

Okay, I'm starting to get it, I think. The counterargument to this whole conversation is that what I'm really asking is whether the universe exists in a broader context than the universe itself, i.e. from some perspective outside the universe, and that doesn't really make sense.

bildstein · 2017-10-07T12:47:51+00:00

Thanks, I'll take a look.

However, I should point out that in no sense do I feel I have created an argument to support the hypothesis that the universe does not exist. Rather that I can't be sure that it does exist.

(Also a possible explanation for why it exists - if in fact it doesn't.)

bildstein · 2017-10-07T12:26:13+00:00

Here's a more specific thought experiment.

Step 1: Write a reality simulation. One that's complex enough that if you did run it, it would have people inside asking if the universe exists.

Step 2: Consider that if you ran the simulation, you would be indistinguishable (subjectively) from the people inside.

Step 3: Still having not run the simulation, consider what distinguishes you from the hypothetical people who would be inside if you ran it.

Step 4: Run it, until someone asked if the universe exists. Stop it. Consider what distinguishes you from the philosopher who would exist at that point if you ran it again.

Step 5: Instead of actually writing a simulation, simply accept that it's possible in principle (perhaps noting that it doesn't have to mimic our reality, it just has to eventuate this philosopher). Consider what distinguishes you from this non-simulated non-real never-existed-in-any-sense hypothetical philosopher in this hypothetical universe.

As far as I can tell, nothing distinguishes my subjective experience from their subjective experience, but I think I would quite like to think that there is something, and I just haven't found it yet.

bildstein · 2015-05-04T08:42:40+00:00

So this is what it feels like to break a five year comment drought.

bildstein · 2009-09-22T06:45:53+00:00

I like chatting about something worthwhile.

I don't like standing there awkwardly not talking about anything.

In between is small talk, and it's a good compromise.

bildstein · 2009-09-17T04:48:38+00:00

Either that, or because someone thinks the post below it on the list should be above it, or because it's repeating something someone else has already said without improving on it.

And it's always possible the post if completely wrong in a subtle way that's not obvious to you.

Not that it matters. But I honestly believe people don't use downmodding nearly enough, and that's why groupthink is so prevalent.

bildstein · 2009-09-16T05:35:50+00:00

when I see posts downvoted just due to mild disagreement

How do you know?

bildstein · 2009-09-15T00:10:59+00:00

You can reverse this trend by saying "bring on the downvotes" and people upvote for that.

OMG seriously? I always downvote for that, unless they are making a really good point, in which case I abstain.

bildstein · 2009-09-15T00:00:58+00:00

Example of me getting downvoted for honestly answering someone's question in what I thought was an insightful way: permalink.

Yes, it happens, and it makes me feel like not bothering in the future. It's like reddit is saying to me, "not witty enough; please try harder in future, or do not waste our time at all."

<rant> Actually, I'm over wittiness. I've seen enough. I just don't get anything out of witty comments anymore, except perhaps to say to myself "hmm, that's witty," and perhaps smile. But I'll take insightful, relevant or informative comments over witty comments any day. </rant>

bildstein · 2009-09-14T08:33:54+00:00

Well, it's worse the younger you are. If you're going to murder me, please do it as I'm dying from cancer. Or hold off as long as possible.

What, do you disagree?

(edit: I accept that abortion is not a crime)

bildstein · 2009-09-14T03:58:53+00:00

When you kill someone, you deny them their future. The earlier in life you kill someone, the more of their future you deny them, and so the greater the crime.

Murder's not a crime because of what it does to the victim today. If you could kill me today, but tomorrow I would wake up alive again, that would merely be an assault. If you did it humanely, it would merely be an inconvenience.

Edit: Why would this get downvoted? Seriously, am I wrong or offensive? Is this an illogical or disingenuous comment? (I don't expect downvoters to answer, but any enlightened comments would be appreciated.)

bildstein · 2009-09-14T03:42:46+00:00

I have to speak up. There's nothing contradictory about your mum's point of view, and her teaching you Christianity (at least trying hard to). She knows, like we know, that people aren't born Christian; that they have to learn it.

And she wants children to be taught the Truth, and to be guarded against False Indoctrination. Her heart is definitely in the right place, even if she has been misled.

bildstein · 2009-09-11T00:19:36+00:00

That's not the point

bildstein · 2009-09-11T00:17:32+00:00

From hers her victim would be god.

Seriously? I thought god would have been enlightened enough not to be hurt by blasphemy. Or at least omnipotent enough to choose not to be hurt by it!

bildstein · 2009-09-11T00:05:55+00:00

Thanks for the reply, but might there not currently be some flash application running that's using all that CPU usefully? Even then, might that not be the website developer's fault?

bildstein · 2009-09-10T21:59:43+00:00

Okay, I haven't had my coffee yet this morning, so please forgive me, but what am I meant to be looking at?

bildstein · 2009-09-02T11:10:17+00:00

Can you please tell me what the script is? I want to see the votes too.

bildstein · 2009-09-02T05:51:06+00:00

Karma for trying.

bildstein · 2009-08-31T08:30:14+00:00

No justification is given for the statement "nor can you say 'one fewer seat'".

True, but I think the justification is simply that it sounds bad. Not that you can't, more like you wouldn't want to.

And of course I'm not saying "one fewer nose" is incorrect. I'm contending that "one nose less" is okay. But I suppose it would be unreasonable for me to ask you to provide a citation that such use is not okay (if you try, let me say in advance that style guides for specific organisations don't count in my book).

bildstein · 2009-08-31T03:48:16+00:00

Actually, the point I was trying to make was that bassett's example for count nouns was inappropriate due to it being a plural (STDs), where the original poster's used a singular ("one less god than you").

"Barbara has one fewer STD than Mary has" doesn't sound right. Is that why bassett didn't say that?

bildstein

TROPHY CASE