Comments on: First generation crypto-currency (Bitcoin) vs. second-generation crypto-currrencies

By: Nickjemis

Nickjemis — Mon, 19 May 2014 08:56:54 +0000

“The question is not if, but when the first attacks will occur, who will be behind them, and how much damage will they cause.” – if it really happens, there’s always stays an opportunity to use real money, as we all used to read here.

By: Mike Riddell

Mike Riddell — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 08:09:15 +0000

I think Eileen is right.

I believe we need a currency that values the commons and which is earned into existence for contribution to the common good. And it should be distributed through a network of not-for-profits that are licenced by We The Community to issue such currency.

I believe we need a standard measurement of value that is universally understood and which, once created, can be traded on a social stock exchange. I suggest a credit system that is backed by time contributed to the common good, say one hour earns 50 credits.

The amount of currency that can be issued I don’t think should be restricted. It should only be restricted by the amount of time that people are willing to contribute to the conserving and protecting the common good. That will avoid inflation.

Such a credit system would provide liquidity to resources that are wasted – unemployed people, spare network capacity and so on and an e-marketplace would enable them to be traded for other things of value to the community.

This means that nothing needs to be wasted.

I also believe that such a credit system would value everyone’s contribution to the common good. It would be fair and operate on Edgar Cahn principles which are an hour for an hour. Timebanks in other words.

In my opinion we need an alternative currency that counterbalances the negative effects of money (greed, selfishness, loneliness) by producing outcomes that share and produce community in all of its forms.

We’re not that far away from a world where such an alternative currency will be worth something to everyone.

By: David Burress

David Burress — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 05:24:22 +0000

I do not think currency reform is a fruitful avenue for progressives. It depends on some of the same kind of magical notions about money that right-wing monetarists believe in. As an economist, I think you should focus on credit reform, not currency reform. (Some people seem to have the two confused.)
Bitcoins in particular are guaranteed to (and do) suffer from asset bubbles because they are pegged to nothing real. Second generation private money will almost certainly suffer from similar defects.

By: Trent Larson

Trent Larson — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 22:37:12 +0000

There are trade-offs with Bitcoin and there are alternative currencies (some which are even unlimited in number), but Eileen is off to say that it is a system that creates wealth for just a few people. She is correct that early adopters may become more rich just by holding them; however, that is the case for any system, including state-managed fiat currency where The State gets to use their notes first (besides printing them). The key is that it’s a unit that can be verifiably traded… and just like dollars, some people will benefit by holding them and trading at certain times, but their value will fluctuate based on their popularity. The price of access is not driven up over time; deflation is something else entirely. Some of her complaints are simply inherent in marketplaces. I love to see even more and better crypto-currencies catching on, but I’ll take Bitcoin over any other traditional monetary system.