BitShares Forum

Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: erockskop on July 22, 2014, 01:33:44 am

Title: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: erockskop on July 22, 2014, 01:33:44 am
I love the idea of bitshares. That said, people dipping there toes into this new world of bitcoin have their guard up to level 99.
The homepage video say "bitcoin is the first digital company that calls its shares coin". If people think bitcoin is a company they think it is some kind of 'for profit' entity that's trying to sell them something or doesn't have their best interests in mind.
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: toast on July 22, 2014, 02:25:36 am
Yeah the video doesn't make it clear that "DAC" is a *metaphor* and that it can be useful to analyze bitcoin as a company rather than a currency. But if we start with this approach it will make our own crypto more appealing so I'm ok with it ;)
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: jae208 on July 22, 2014, 06:31:58 am
Yeah the video doesn't make it clear that "DAC" is a *metaphor* and that it can be useful to analyze bitcoin as a company rather than a currency. But if we start with this approach it will make our own crypto more appealing so I'm ok with it ;)

 +5%
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: MktDirector on July 22, 2014, 07:05:51 pm
DAC stands for decentralized autonomous company.  It's a company because it IS for profit. Profit is the incentive that makes us different from all other 2.0 technologies out there.  If something doesn't produce a profit (ie: value) then it can't thrive and grow.  The only thing that can grow without prodcing added value is government.  So are we a technical "company"? No, but that's the closest metaphor we have to describe a DAC, and thus BitShares.
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: merockstar on July 22, 2014, 07:08:18 pm
DAC stands for decentralized autonomous company.  It's a company because it IS for profit. Profit is the incentive that makes us different from all other 2.0 technologies out there.  If something doesn't produce a profit (ie: value) then it can't thrive and grow.  The only thing that can grow without prodcing added value is government.  So are we a technical "company"? No, but that's the closest metaphor we have to describe a DAC, and thus BitShares.

I'm being pedantic, but I would argue that governments do produce added value in the form of conflict resolution.
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: toast on July 22, 2014, 07:16:25 pm
DAC stands for decentralized autonomous company.  It's a company because it IS for profit. Profit is the incentive that makes us different from all other 2.0 technologies out there.  If something doesn't produce a profit (ie: value) then it can't thrive and grow.  The only thing that can grow without prodcing added value is government.  So are we a technical "company"? No, but that's the closest metaphor we have to describe a DAC, and thus BitShares.

I think he meant that "The video calls bitcoin a company" - Bitcoin is not traditionally viewed as a DAC and so it can turn off newcomers who 'know we are wrong' if we don't take the time to emphasize that it is a metaphor they should consider
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: bitbro on July 22, 2014, 07:18:02 pm
The more I think about the metaphor, the more I think distributed is sometimes better than decentralized... I still like decentralized tho


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: bytemaster on July 22, 2014, 08:25:16 pm
Quote
governments do produce added consume value in the form of conflict resolution initiation.
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: myhometalk on July 22, 2014, 08:31:11 pm
The first time i heard someone called bitcoin as company was from bm's papers and his online video.
Besides as a company, to be a delagate of bts,you will get pay by doing the transaction and can donate your delegate income to charity
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: merockstar on July 22, 2014, 08:38:38 pm
Quote
governments do produce added consume value in the form of conflict resolution initiation.

I respectfully disagree. The conflicts would have been there with or without the government, their role is to attempt to mitigate the negative consequences of those conflicts.
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: bytemaster on July 22, 2014, 08:42:22 pm
Quote
governments do produce added consume value in the form of conflict resolution initiation.

I respectfully disagree. The conflicts would have been there with or without the government, their role is to attempt to mitigate the negative consequences of those conflicts.

I am saying that the government is the source of more conflicts and violations of property rights than any private conflicts the government pretends to intermediate.

ie:  in the case of a single conflict where person A steals something from person B... government will attempt to resolve that conflict by introducing a conflict between itself and every other member of society to collect taxes at gun point to pay for the legal system and jails.   Governments kill more people than private criminals by several orders of magnitude.   

So on a net: governments create more conflict than they resolve.
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: merockstar on July 22, 2014, 08:50:37 pm
Quote
governments do produce added consume value in the form of conflict resolution initiation.

I respectfully disagree. The conflicts would have been there with or without the government, their role is to attempt to mitigate the negative consequences of those conflicts.

Governments kill more people than private criminals by several orders of magnitude.   

If we lived in anarchy would private individuals still kill less people than governments currently do?

I want to clarify. I'm not saying that I approve of the way current governments handle their responsibility. But it's a responsibility that needs to be shouldered by somebody.
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: fuzzy on July 22, 2014, 11:10:04 pm
DAC stands for decentralized autonomous company.  It's a company because it IS for profit. Profit is the incentive that makes us different from all other 2.0 technologies out there.  If something doesn't produce a profit (ie: value) then it can't thrive and grow.  The only thing that can grow without prodcing added value is government.  So are we a technical "company"? No, but that's the closest metaphor we have to describe a DAC, and thus BitShares.

I'm being pedantic, but I would argue that governments do produce added value in the form of conflict resolution.

but they also destroy value through the process of conflict creation...and the value they create through conflict resolution is not value that is based in competition in a market of ideas.  governments are pure force and monopoly of control for whatever place they touch.  that is my opinion...
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: bytemaster on July 24, 2014, 02:55:09 am
Quote
governments do produce added consume value in the form of conflict resolution initiation.

I respectfully disagree. The conflicts would have been there with or without the government, their role is to attempt to mitigate the negative consequences of those conflicts.

Governments kill more people than private criminals by several orders of magnitude.   

If we lived in anarchy would private individuals still kill less people than governments currently do?

I want to clarify. I'm not saying that I approve of the way current governments handle their responsibility. But it's a responsibility that needs to be shouldered by somebody.

I agree, it is a responsibility that needs to be shouldered by everyone in a voluntary, free market manner.
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: merockstar on July 24, 2014, 03:02:54 am
I agree, it is a responsibility that needs to be shouldered by everyone in a voluntary, free market manner.

normally I'd respond to this by asking rhetorically what you're proposing.

but shit dude, you might actually be able to solve this problem.

edit: rereading that, it was way too asskissish for my tastes. but goddamn, the respect I have for this guy. kinda feel uncomfortable even engaging in friendly debate.

I'm going to bow out of this thread.
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: bytemaster on July 24, 2014, 03:05:57 am
I agree, it is a responsibility that needs to be shouldered by everyone in a voluntary, free market manner.

normally I'd respond to this by asking rhetorically what you're proposing.

but shit dude, you might actually be able to solve this problem.

I actually have it all worked up, thought through, and designed.   BTS X is just the first step on my path toward implementing it.
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: bytemaster on July 24, 2014, 03:06:20 am
I agree, it is a responsibility that needs to be shouldered by everyone in a voluntary, free market manner.

normally I'd respond to this by asking rhetorically what you're proposing.

but shit dude, you might actually be able to solve this problem.

I actually have it all worked up, thought through, and designed.   BTS X is just the first step on my path toward implementing it.

Early thoughts on the subject:  https://the-iland.net
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: merockstar on July 24, 2014, 03:11:34 am
I agree, it is a responsibility that needs to be shouldered by everyone in a voluntary, free market manner.

normally I'd respond to this by asking rhetorically what you're proposing.

but shit dude, you might actually be able to solve this problem.

I actually have it all worked up, thought through, and designed.   BTS X is just the first step on my path toward implementing it.

no shit? haven't read the link yet. going now

maybe you should be doing this anonymously... (i've thoroughly derailed this thread. that's my special talent, derailing threads)
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: luckybit on July 26, 2014, 06:59:50 am
Quote
governments do produce added consume value in the form of conflict resolution initiation.

I respectfully disagree. The conflicts would have been there with or without the government, their role is to attempt to mitigate the negative consequences of those conflicts.

I am saying that the government is the source of more conflicts and violations of property rights than any private conflicts the government pretends to intermediate.

ie:  in the case of a single conflict where person A steals something from person B... government will attempt to resolve that conflict by introducing a conflict between itself and every other member of society to collect taxes at gun point to pay for the legal system and jails.   Governments kill more people than private criminals by several orders of magnitude.   

So on a net: governments create more conflict than they resolve.

That is how it is now but there really never has been a time in history when there wasn't governments. Families were governments back before we had states and there were conflicts within and between families too.

It's just that today governments in the form we are accustomed to tend to have the best weapons. If we are talking about Mexico or of places in Africa then a lot of people in those countries would prefer a stronger centralized government to the cartels and warlords. It really depends on what the alternative is at the time and in our case because our government has wiped out most of the gangs, organized criminals, terrorists and those who would create "scary" alternative forms of government that we can make the statement that for everything else our government is inefficient.

I'll agree with you that for a lot of things our government is inefficient. War and law enforcement are two areas where our government is among the most efficient in the world though. For a majority of Americans the paternal authoritarian mindset is war and law enforcement are services which protect their commercial interests or physical security. Most people don't want to learn to shoot a gun, go to war themselves, protect the borders, or fight crime, so they pay the government to handle "nuisances" on their behalf. 

I'm not saying I agree with that mindset but that is the mindset that most people seem to have.
Title: Re: The video calls bitcoin a company
Post by: merockstar on July 26, 2014, 02:05:07 pm
I agree, it is a responsibility that needs to be shouldered by everyone in a voluntary, free market manner.

normally I'd respond to this by asking rhetorically what you're proposing.

but shit dude, you might actually be able to solve this problem.

I actually have it all worked up, thought through, and designed.   BTS X is just the first step on my path toward implementing it.

Early thoughts on the subject:  https://the-iland.net

checking my understanding:

let's say somebody wanted to be a cocaine dealer. that's something that not everybody would consider immoral, but most people would. that means they would join a minority group of people whose arbiters are okay with that, and if the cocaine dealer tried to sell to somebody whose group disallows cocaine use and that buyer wasn't willing to cross over and switch to cocaine-group's arbiters, then a crime has been committed and each group's arbiters would have to work together to figure out an appropriate punishment, if they get caught?