Three Widely Believed Economic Fallacies Libertarianism.org
Three Widely Believed Economic Fallacies Libertarianism.org
Bitcoin passes $1,000 but only number that matters is zero ...
What Is a Zero Sum Game and Why Is It Important in 2019 ...
Putting an End to the Bitcoin Store of Value Fallacy Op ...
bitcoin: Why we might need to burst the Bitcoin bubble by ...
Maximalism and the Future of Money
From my point of view, there will eventually be one or, at the very most, a handful of cryptocurrencies that will be accepted as de facto currencies. This belief relies on a couple of assumptions:
Cryptocurrencies have the potential to be more secure, faster and cheaper to move than fiat, reducing the inefficiencies of middlemen and empowering users;
Crypto allows average individuals to be their own bank and actually own their wealth, instead of just holding an IOU for that same wealth;
With a truly decentralized network, no governing body or institution can control that currency and, thus, the wealth it represents, making the ledger tamper-proof;
By being open source and public, they remove (or drastically reduce) the possibility of malicious code and enable anyone to work on it.
In my opinion, these benefits are so great that we will eventually witness a Cambrian explosion with entirely new industries that could not even have existed without crypto. There are, however, a few problems. The first problem is the value asymmetry principle. For people to stop what they're doing (ex.: using fiat currency) in favor of doing something new (ex.: holding and using crypto to pay for anything), they need to see tremendous value in the new solution, because the switch itself requires effort. They also need guarantees, because the large majority of adults are risk averse. In other words, even if the benefits outweigh the risks slightly, the overwhelming majority of people will do nothing, because it's easier. As such, I believe there can't be mass adoption until crypto is either required or so advantageous for a certain use case that it would be unthinkable to use anything else. The second problem is the sunk cost fallacy. Anyone who didn't invest early enough will tend to feel like they have 'missed the boat' and won't be inclined to buy or use cryptocurrencies. This would be devastating to the late majority, which is just a nice way of calling the "second half" of people switching to crypto. The third problem is the difficulty of fair distribution. This depends on everyone's definition of 'fairness' but, by my standards, wealth distribution can't be fair unless it happens over a long period of time. This prevents early adopters from purchasing enormous chunks of the total supply, which they can then gradually sell off as the amount of users increases for monumental profits and a switch to using cryptocurrencies is essentially just updating our bookkeeping. It's a zero-sum game, and there is no reason it should signify the birth of the world's first trillionaires. With this in mind, I see the following two scenarios as viable options: A) The problems above are solved by government initiatives forcing people to convert existing currencies (ex.: Euros) into a cryptocurrency equivalent with the same value. The end result would probably not be decentralized or anonymous and would likely be used as a tool to track everyone's finances. I personally rate scenario A as unlikely, although I have no doubt it will happen somewhere eventually. B) Only the first problem is solved by a project that goes beyond the scope of a traditional currency and creates use cases in which using their specific token is so beneficial that not using it would be illogical. In this case, I could see it originally being used within a specific niche that expands over a very long time, eventually gaining a critical mass of users. This would eliminate the significance of supply held by early adopters (problem 3) and would reduce the effect of the sunk cost fallacy (problem 2) by shifting the mentality of new users who would be interested by the benefits of using the currency instead of holding an asset that is expected to appreciate. I personally rate scenario B as very likely, because it aligns with the original benefits of crypto and there are multiple public projects going this route right now. Without something more than fast and secure peer-to-peer transfers, however, I do not see this happening. Finally, here's a scenario that will definitely not happen: C) Bitcoin goes on a bull run for no particular reason and, instead of forming a bubble like the last few times, the price of keeps climbing uncontrollably until fiat loses its meaning and it becomes the New World Money.
Or, the glass is half empty, that white powder in your nose will lose its effect soon after writing this article, and we actually accelerate global warming to win a prize in a zero-sum game created by a speculative bubble that hasn't fallen apart yet because it's very easy to use for scams. Anyway, I'm an optimist so I'm planning on going out tomorrow and rolling coal with my SUV, to incentivize cleaner fuels. I predict that by rolling coal, I will help bring about the singularity. WHAT YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT HUH, LIBCUCK STATIST SCUM? Oh wait, how stupid of me. Bitcoin doesn't use enough electricity to bring us forward as a species. The banking industry uses far more electricity than bitcoin and actually accomplishes more than 3 transactions per second with it! This can mean only one thing: The banks are bringing us closer to a Kardeshev Type I energy civilization!
If we're comparing the entire banking industry to Bitcoin, are you including the tulip bulb container err hardware wallet I need to "be my own bank"? Are you including the full nodes we need to run 24/7 to serve as hubs on the lightning network? Are you including the servers of the big trading exchanges? Are you including the hundreds of people who work as customer support for the average big exchange? Are you including the Bitcoin ATM's where people can launder their cash? Are you including the data centers that run behind online wallets?
Calculating branch consumption is more tricky since there are lots of things to take into account like size of the branch or number of employees as well as several things consuming electricity like lights, cooling, computers, monitors, etc. And they are not open 24 x 365 so after looking at a couple of articles, I have decided to settle for a conservative number 10 kwh per branch assuming an average branch has 10 light bulbs, two air conditioning units that are only use 20% of the time and 12 desktop computers running an average of 12 hours a day, 20 days a month through the year.
My point is that understanding the nature of proof-of-work and the incentives of mining valid blocks, as well as the security properties and thus the value of proof-of-work, might help to shift the perspective from “energy wasted” to “energy used for creating something valuable”. Most people value beautiful marble statues. A rising number of people value a chain of valid blocks.
I'm personally guessing people like staring at a blockchain because they imagine they're sitting on a pile of money without contributing to society, but what do I know.
One speculative bubble fueled by the greed of antisocial libertarians consumes more energy than another bubble fueled by the greed of antisocial libertarians. Perhaps we should consider investing money in projects that actually accomplish something, rather than buying tokens to hoard. I heard the exotic uncontacted tribe of almost anyone who's not an antisocial libertarian invests in this manner. I also heard you have more money today if you bought 1000 dollar worth of an index fund fifty years ago than 1000 dollar worth of gold, but perhaps society will collapse soon because of bitcoin mining induced global warming and your pile of gold/bitcoin will make you the village chief of a post-apocalyptic nightmare when everyone else's stock portfolio goes to zero.
The intelligent investors guide to cryptocurrency: Part 5 - *Growth, Tribalism, Utility and Cryptocurrency:*
Introductions: I'm joskye. A cryptocurrency investor and particl holder. ...
Growth, Tribalism, Utility and Cryptocurrency: ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
You know the biggest benefit of decentralization is the introduction of automated, verifiable trustlessness into processes where a trusted 3rd party was previously required.
The whole point is that in removing the administrative need for a third party, you save time (via automated verification) and expense (to compensate the third party for their time). Perhaps a bigger idea, an expansion of this is that governance can be decentralized and the layers that exist between decision makers from decisions being made is narrowed. Yet it is funny that we are so tribalistic when it comes to the promotion of our and strategies and platforms that can achieve these aims.
One great irony of the cryptocurrency universe is that because the value of our speculative investments (our cryptocurrency tokens) is in so many ways dependent on adoption, we often think and conclude that this must come at the expense of success or growth in other projects including seemingly direct competitors in our space.
We often intrinsically feel or act or behave in a manner to suggest that cryptocurrency is a closed loop system; a narrow universe, a small box where there is no growth only shuffling of money from one asset to another. And yet a quick glance at the marketcap for all cryptocurrencies combined shows that this is not the case. That cryptocurrency market cap has grown considerably; I'd argue at an exponential rate.
For example, the price of Bitcoin and it's associated market cap has grown massively through 2016 and 2017 even though it's total share of crypto-market cap has fallen considerably.
The market cap of Bitcoin in January 2016 was $6.5 billion. As of July 2017 the market cap is $45 billion!
Meanwhile in this time the total market cap of all cryptocurrency has grown from $7 billion to $90 billion And to make this important the share of market cap of Bitcoin has fallen from 90% to 47%! ...
So what's the point of this?
It means there is money flowing into cryptocurrencies driving their speculative growth.
It means that crypto is not a closed box with a set number of participants changing hands.
It means that this is not a zero-sum game over a longer view stretching over months and years, so our strategies both trading and investing wise don't have to pretend to be in these time frames either.
It means that just because one cryptocurrency has grown massively in value over a short space of time, that the growth in surrounding cryptocurrencies does not have to eat into it's market cap or long term growth either.
It means that given Gold with a market cap of $7.6 trillion is worth 84 times more than the total market cap of all cryptocurrencies we know that cryptocurrency is both economically and technologically still a very young market!
It means that even if the dominance of one product or technology in a given field may come to an end, it does not mean that product cannot continue to enjoy considerable growth moving forward. Bitcoin rose 750% in 1.5 years even though it's overall market cap dominance almost halved!
Given that accessibility to cryptocurrencies is constantly improving and is the major bottleneck to new waves of investors and traders coming on board I would argue that we have a lot of growth still to come. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
And yet when I browse the dailies on ethtrader, bitcoinmarkets, btc, why do I see so many posters slagging off other crypto projects, even one's that may contribute or benefit the ecosystem of technologies they have holdings in?
Granted a lot of the times I see genuine criticism of projects or technologies that are highlighted, often genuine scams are brought to my attention and legitimate causes for concern in some tokens are raised with eloquently delivered and balanced arguments to defend the posters point of view.
Often though I simply see down vote brigades or nasty comments for posters who mention their tokens (likewise I often see people post their predictions of which tokens will pump without explaining why).
The worst instance though is when I see the board and development teams of other projects actively spread misinformation and promote and actively perpetuate a climate of mistrust or harbor an openly derogatory attitude towards other projects.
For example very recently I received an unsolicited direct message into my reddit account from a user I've had no previous communications with asking me to donate my Ether to a particular ICO whose project I won't name. Suffice to say I found it very insulting that this message and the articles it had linked to were saying derogatory and deliberately mis-informative things about projects that represent potential competitors in their field of product services.
Similarly I've read accusations that the teams actively devote resources to paying people to troll and discredit promoters of potential rival projects (that's just sad people) and top level representatives of large established cryptocurrencies openly speak lies or attempt to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about projects they may see as rivals.
Unfortunately all these actions are in bad faith and speak to the poor integrity of these individuals and depending on their level of involvement may reflect poorly on their preferred project as well.
When I consider the amount of growth that has occurred in and been the dominant theme of cryptocurrency these last 4 years, I realize that this level of tribalism speaks to the small mindedness of others, to the intellectual laziness of others and to the total ignorance of the macro-economic factors and historic contexts that have taught us that with any paradigm shifting idea (in this case distributed ledger technology and it's role in furthering the decentralization of services) that there will be many winners and that it is the projects that bring utility and adoption to these ideas that will be the biggest winners.
Adopting a holistic, synergistic, utilitarian approach to cryptocurrencies in the end is what will lead to mass adoption, mass growth and genuine non-speculative use of distributed ledger technology which will benefit the majority of early adopters maximally.
Taking a maximalist approach or the idea that there can be only one distributed ledger technology or blockchain to rule them all is a fallacy. Believing that a given niche of applications (currency, smart contracts, marketplaces, DSN's etc) can only be occupied appropriately and adequately by only one product is the fallacy of maximalism. As we have seen historically for any given field of governance or technology, where money is to be made there is always at least 2 or 3 distinct competitors each occupying their own sub-niche and serving their own dedicated audience.
Tribalism is fine if it doesn't stop you thinking about the bigger picture or assessing it broadly. Tribalism can give you a sense of worth, a sense of belonging, community, accomplishment and standing the more respected and representative you are of the tribe you associate to. It should not however get in the way of an objective assessment or commentary of other tribes and the technologies, cultures and ideas they represent.
In the worst instance tribalism represents the self interested and preservative behavior of an individual to protect their own assets and tribe to the detriment of the ecosystem as a whole. I see that all too often in cryptocurrency and even though it is an understandable part of human nature, in investments I see it as a red flag when such attitudes and behaviors are directed by top level executives or marketing managers for specific products, industries or technologies.
To me such behavior reeks of insecurity when the criticisms relayed are done emotionally not rationally, when the critique lacks substance and is delivered in a manner designed to intentionally divide and denigrate. For such a young ecosystem as cryptocurrency, such behavior is short sighted. It demonstrates a complete lack of macroeconomic insight from these sorts of preachers. In reality cryptocurrencies can grow synergistically (i.e. together in a manner that is helpful towards each other) and they can grow both independently and interdependently of each other.
A look back at growth in detail confirms this. Now lets look at how encouraging utility can be both harmonious with tribalism and diversity whilst encouraging growth. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
We want the technologies we are invested in to be successful because we know if they are, their value will grow as will the value of our proportionate stake in this. To this end I encourage you to talk about your holdings. There is nothing wrong with being tribalistic about your own holdings as long as you are respectful, inquisitive, objective and appropriately critical of alternatives. I discuss various things to look for in my ongoing intelligent investors guide to cryptocurrency series but among them I value non-speculative utility highly.
I believe if your holdings bring non-speculative utility to this field and ideally encourages non-speculative fiat spending (i.e. people spending their dollars, pounds etc for services provided by blockchain technologies) then they will have the road map to long term success potentially laid out for them. Furthermore sometimes having several iterations of a technology type is actually beneficial to the technology itself and the ecosystem as a whole.
For example open fund asset management platforms such Melonport, Iconomi and TaaS should not be thought of as competing with each other. They should be thought of as three different projects with three different resource pools, three separate marketing budgets with three separate ways of promoting their product to the same global audience. If anything even though they provide the same end-point of service (index funds and managed portfolios for cryptocurrencies and tokenized assets) they are effectively acting as fail safes for each other; should one not succeed the competitors will have an opportunity to study why and adapt accordingly and hopefully for future success.
Conversely the success of one fund management platform will bring more fiat into the cryptocurrency ecosystem which will should then cause an average rise of the price of individual cryptocurrency tokens which means the value of other fund management platforms should also rise in value. Thus several iterations of the service can be beneficial to the ecosystem both in failure and success.
Another example is decentralized marketplaces. There are 3 major projects can come to mind; Particl (PART), Syscoin (Sys) and OpenBazaar. They all aim to bring utility to cryptocurrency by providing a means through which real world physical goods and services can be purchased and distributed solely through the use of cryptocurrency tokens. OpenBazaar currently accepts Bitcoin, Syscoin conducts it's transactions via it's native SYS token but also accepts Bitcoin (BTC) and Zcash (ZEC), whilst Particl will use integrated shapeshift to automatically convert all shapeshift compatible tokens (currently 67 as of writing) into the native PART token for transacting on the network.
As a speculator I have a preference towards Particl because I believe their use of integrated shapeshift to convert all cryptocurrencies via the shapeshift coin exchange network into PART prior to use will create organic buy pressure, absolute necessity and and intrinsic value for the Particl token whose value can logically be expected to increase provided organic demand for the use of it's proposed marketplace grows.
I also believe the inbuilt anonymity features of the PART token (CT, Ring CT enabling optional anonymisation of public transactions) and it's marketplace (availability of private listings which can only be accessed through knowledge of the private key, a trustless 3rd party free escrow system referred to as "MAD escrow") will provide additional incentives to transact specifically through the Particl network. I also believe that since PARTICL is verified through proof of stake with a percentage of transaction fee's going towards those verifying the Particl via staking will provide community driven incentives to promote the network which do not exist in OpenBazaar or exist as strongly in Syscoin (whose token appreciation correlation to increasing use effect I feel is diluted through the option to avoid transacting via the SYS token altogether).
That said OpenBazaar is already established and has a working decentralized marketplace where you can actively trade. Similarly Syscoin has already released it's public beta in 2016 and includes anonymity via zcash payments. In contrast Particl has yet to release their proposed platform in Beta and this is where the main point of criticism lays; that it won't be done. Acknowledging that Syscoin has a polished presentation, a history of development and is forming corporate partnerships (e.g. Microsoft Azure for deployment of the Syscoin API) and representation are strengths that bring legitimacy to the cryptocurrency ecosystem which will ease the minds of potential consumers both corporate and private.
I believe that marketplaces that accept multiple cryptocurrencies will bring utility and important, non-speculative intrinsic value to the cryptocurrencies they utilize. This non-speculative instrinsic value is essential and vital to the long term growth and acceptance of those supported cryptocurrencies.
Decentralized marketplaces (particularly those with anonymity) can further democratize trade and make the exchange of goods more accessible to people regardless of regional restrictions due to local governance. This is an additional benefit of such projects in the (still largely unexplored) cryptocurrency ecosystem which will help drive growth of the entire cryptocurrency market cap as a whole.
Systems like those in Particl and Syscoin can provide significant value to BTC, ZEC and a host of other cryptocurrencies indirectly and as such if you have any interest in seeing cryptocurrency as a whole succeed in replacing or sitting aside traditional fiat mechanisms you should be supportive of them.
Each decentralised marketplace will cater to different demographics of the global community, have different promotional strategies, different partnerships and ultimately different areas of reach and adoption. Their very existence and development is good for the cryptocurrency ecosystem and helps us to remain tribalistic (which is really a way of preserving mental focus) and supportive of the cryptocurrencies and token technologies we are interested in whilst giving them grounds to indirectly grow.
The third example I want to look at today is smart switch/contract platforms: The rapid success of Ethereum (ETH) has inspired the development of multiple other distributed ledgers aiming improve or solve problems identified in current solutions (namely speed, scalability and governance). Some of these technologies provide a unique approach to smart switch/contract execution or network verification e.g. IOTA, LISK, ANS and EoS whilst some aim to fix existing problems from the ground up e.g. NEM and TEZOS. Although the cynic in me is inclined to say that some of these projects represent cash grabs rather than genuinely intentioned attempts to improve on an existing product or idea, they ultimately bring greater attention to this space.
I suspect that although there will be one large player the the smart contract field and that although presently it appears to be Ethereum, this does not mean that several other systems will not find their audience, niche or adoption. To this end their is room for organic growth and adoption in these technologies; even though rabid fans and corporate/technical representatives of their platform will be inclined to say their platform is the best or the only one that matters, on a global outlook that will simply not be true; solutions will continue to evolve and the demographic, adoption and consumption patterns will continue to change leading to periodic shifts in dominance.
Perhaps more importantly each product will have different teams composed of different individuals; each individual will have their own composite psyche and thus their own unique approach to the same underlying common problems concerning product growth, development, promotion and adoption. These individuals will also have their own limitations and depending on the overall team skill set and the interpersonal factors that favor success will hopefully override the limitations on an individual level that can err towards failure. What is important though is that each team attracts people and provided the organization is there to utilize their skills and experience properly, then the product they work on will gain traction, advocacy and adoption with resultant growth and success. Ultimately it is these interpersonal factors and ability to understand and attract an audience that determine the success of a project in the long term. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Conclusions: Different products providing the same type of service can reach different demographics in different parts of the world and even if only one succeeds, it still means that access to the entire cryptocurrency market has been improved which means more money flowing in which means the price of assets you hold is likely to go up. Why? Because the increased number of new entrants means someone is more likely to buy something you hold.
And remember if one fails, the others can still succeed. Selective, intelligent diversification within a product type is a useful strategy to hedge for maximal gains whilst minimizing risks. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1. Market capitalizations of all cryptocurrencies: https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/ 2. Market capitalization of gold: http://onlygold.com/Info/All-The-Gold-In-The-World.asp 3. Open Bazaar (website): https://www.openbazaar.org/ 4. Syscoin (website): http://syscoin.org/ 5. Syscoin whitepaper: http://whitepaper.syscoin.org/ 6. Particl (website): https://particl.io/ 7. Particl whitepaper: https://github.com/particl/whitepapeblob/mastedecentralized-private-marketplace-draft-0.1.pdf
Full disclosure/Disclaimer: At time of original writing I had long positions in Ethereum (ETH), Particl (PART), ICONOMI (ICN), Augur (REP), Factom (FCT), Swarm City (SWT), Renos (RNS), Wetrust (TRST). All the opinions expressed are my own. I cannot guarantee gains; losses are sustainable; do your own financial research and make your decisions responsibly. All prices and values given are as of time of first writing (4th-May-2017).
Second disclaimer: Please do not buy Shadowcash (SDC), the project has been abandoned by it's developers who have moved on to the Particl Project (PART) (www.particl.io). The PARTICL crowd fund and SDC 1:1 token swap completed April 15th. You can still exchange SDC for PART but only if it was acquired prior to 15th April 2017 see: https://particl.news/a-community-driven-initiative-e26724100c3a for more information.
Addendum: Article updated 23-11-2017 to edit references to SDC (changed to Particl where relevant to reflect updated status) and clean up formatting.
Q: Can just creating another really good book about freedom bring people over to our side and cause? A: We need to implement the Osmotic Strategy for Change
(Original post) You have on much of the left an economic and political ideology that preys upon popular economic misconceptions and human limitations and biases, things that seem intuitively true but are wrong, like the fact that people can't intuitively understand exponential functions, and that we tend to accept the zero-sum game fallacy in economics which becomes a propaganda tool of socialist economic thinking, etc. Thus they don't need to train anyone in their way of thinking, they've aligned themselves with natural human modes of bad thinking. They pick up recruits very quickly this way, preying upon the uneducated in economics and the like. We are not going to form or win a popular movement that takes advantage of that kind of human failing. We cannot educate enough people to change things here in this country. The truth takes more time, more effort, to explain than a lie. For every statist we convert, the public schools graduate a hundred new statists every year. This is a losing battle, and our current rate of recruitment is virtually zero threat to establishment powers. At the end of the day all our arguments are little more than words, words and they can dismiss it easily by focusing on this or that aspect that they think will inherently make ancap free soceity impossible or doomed to fail. Most people are apolitical and tend to simply absorb the political ideology of the society they find themselves raised in by osmosis. Call it status-quo bias. If you want the rhetorical strategies for change to have any effectiveness at all among the wider public, we're going to have to combine theory with praxis. We're going to have to actually build an ancap society. And when it fails to descend into chaos, when the non-political actually begin streaming there for jobs and opportunity, that's when it will be time to counterattack on the rhetorical front as you're suggesting. Then rhetoricians will be able to point at an ancap ZEDE/Seastead or whatever and say, here it is, it's working just as I said it would, and here is why... because (X theory)" and not get dismissed out of hand. Because this will serve as empirical evidence--the great thing we lack currently. Then and only then will you be able to make academics take these ideas seriously. It was the same way with bitcoin. We've been saying for decades that gold was a far better money than fiat. But all our arguments fell on deaf ears, because fiat was good enough, even if we professed our ideas better. Today people think democracy is good enough, and the state makes sure to warn them of the chaos of the past to convince them just how good the have it (meanwhile they're working 5-6 months out of the year for the state, a situation that would've caused immediate revolution in virtually any ancient society regardless). With anarchy, people focus on the fear of chaos rather than the potential for true freedom. Once we show them the fruits of true freedom in practice they will be willing to check their assumptions, take a second look, and be forced by reality to accept as true what we said was true: that freedom works, that you don't need a state monopolist on various services the government has thus far monopolized, that people can be responsible for themselves and their choices, etc. There is NO rhetorical strategy that can or will break the current intellectual stalemate in the US between libertarians and the wider world. ONLY praxis can undermine the statists' faith in the necessity of their tyrannical institutions. And here's the kicker, the fact that no libertarian state has existed in modern times is the prime reason why statists today believe the state necessary, because everywhere they look in the world the state is omnipresent. They believe the state is required. If we show them a working, prosperous, tax-free, desirable place to live that works without the state we effectively pull the lynch-pin on that belief in the necessity of statism. From that day forth, statism as an idea must begin to crumble. Statism relies on that belief in the necessity of state rule for its legitimacy. Once we deprive the state of legitimacy by showing a stateless society able to function not only equally as well but in fact better than state-run societies, the game is up. The state will from there face a crisis of legitimacy from which there will be no return. Belief in the state will crumble the world over, dominoes tackling dominoes, until ancap societies dot the globe, then cover it, as surely as democracies delegitimized and replaced monarchies. And what's more, the statists' belief that a stateless society is impossible works to our advantage, because they will believe that they do not need to oppose us with force, that our project will fail of its own accord. Just wait and see. In the same way that pro-fiat folks have continually predicted the imminent and inevitable failure of bitcoin, only to be continually disappointed. They will still be waiting 20 years from now. One can only shake their head for so long at the failure of their predictions to come to pass before one realizes that one's assumptions are flawed. That's the great thing about praxis, it argues for us. When statists are forced to re-examine their assumptions about anarchy, our victory is nigh. I'm not saying the ideas you've laid out here are not valuable, doable, and wouldn't help in some small measure. I only suggest that our theory is already very good, our rhetoriticians have written books by the scores, debated all day long. That strategy will be multiplied a thousand times by having an example of ancap society to point to and simply say, "See?" And that is why, as a radical anarcho-capitalist, my number one priority is seasteading, ZEDEs, and Charter Cities. Once we have a place of our own we can build ancap replacement services of governance and begin using them. We will be the first generation to live as ancaps, that's exciting! After some growing pains and figuring out how those services work, we can begin inviting in the non-political and see if they will adhere to and adopt these same voluntarist services. If they see the same benefit we do--in the same way that the nonpolitical have come to see the benefit in bitcoin--then they will adopt our way of life for themselves and come to believe in it and profess it, to live it as normal. When this happens, our victory is nigh, status quo bias begins to work in our favor, instead of the state's. When the nonpolitical begin looking at the statist societies of the world and shaking their heads, pointing out the obvious tyranny by contrast with our society, they will understand via their eyes and their experience what we understand now only by theory. The result will be mass immigration into ancap society, mass adoption of ancap institutional means. All the people of the third world that would love to move to a 1st world society but cannot because of restrictive immigration laws and official repression? They will move to our society, learn our way of life, and adopt it for themselves as their new normal, as the way we do things here. That's a quick explanation of the Osmotic strategy for mass change. I want to see a city of one billion people in ancap cities before I die / transhuman.
I think it's about time we collectively, look identify the zero-sum consequentialism of Bitcoins. ... The fallacy of Bitcoin as a currency is its transaction fee which is typically above $20. The transaction fee is paid to ensure convenience and security in the exchange. This is not only higher than the transaction fee paid for regulated currency but is also an indication of the security risk ... In this context, the sum of bitcoin transactions rounds to zero. Another measure might be the collective value of bitcoins, which stood at $16bn on Tuesday according to Bitcoin Info. Currencies ... Odds and Evens Example. The classic example of a zero sum game is odds and evens. In this game we have two players, Odd and Even. Each of them guesses a number either 1 or 2. Maybe someone who is more economically literate can answer this for me. I hear that economies are not zero sum games, which I take to mean there is no limit to the size of an economy. The Fallacy of the Zero‐ Sum Game. The first of these fallacies is the belief that market activities, especially exchange, are zero‐ sum games. Zero‐ sum games are those in which the total gained from playing the game is zero. So, for example, if each of five people playing poker buys into the game for $100, there is only $500 to be won. Collectively, that’s a zero‐ sum game. If I ...