Krawisz's article is fine, i guess. I'm not exactly sure what the thesis and/or goal is - it reads like one person's theory of Bitcoin; a theory which appears to be based on a few too many generous assertions of fact and history. In general, I think the article oversimplifies, under-defines, and over assumes too much.
---
As an example, here's a paragraph that I'm still grappling with:
The foundational fallacy about money is to explain in physical terms what is really a sociological phenomenon. Money is about macroeconomics even if we're talking about a small currency like Bitcoin. Gold is not valuable because it is durable, fungible, portable, and scarce; it is valuable because of a beneficial and self-sustaining tradition in which it has a special place. The physical properties of gold make such a tradition possible, but they do not determine that it will arise; other goods with similar properties may also become the traditionally established good. Bitcoin is the same way, of course. It could not run without the technology behind it, but its value is what makes it important. People who think "blockchain technology" is important are making the same kind of mistake as the people who think gold has intrinsic value.
1_I don't think money is about
macroeconomics. DK needs to develop this point otherwise, I think he's just asserting an important foundational premises without empirical support for the same (in fact, there were no citations to studies or other objective and reliable data in this article). Maybe he meant to say
microeconomics - that type of claim seems easier to prove based on the literature I've read (not including the hyperlinked material).
2_Similarly, I believe the first two sentences of this paragraph can be read as suggesting that macroeconomics is a type of sociological phenomenon. I'm not sure this is true. Regardless, these two sentences strike me a both puzzling and bold. Consequently, the statements absolutely need supporting citations along with some definitions, application, and analysis. From there, DK would be better positioned to argue x, y, z (hard to tell whether this paper is supposed to be a history or an advocacy of some point - a thesis statement would help).
3_I think DK may be confusing/overlooking the cause and effect here: "Gold is not valuable because it is durable, fungible, portable, and scarce; it is valuable because of a beneficial and self-sustaining tradition in which it has a special place. " Seems to me that those traditions exist only because gold is valued for a certain unique combination of qualities and properties.[1]
----
Here's a second example:
" And if money is a shared hallucination, then you can’t replicate Bitcoin’s value by replicating the technology. You would have to also replicate the hallucination, which you can’t. You’ll have two blockchains, but only one of them has a shared hallucination. This makes one of them valuable, the other worthless."
I don't get this syllogism. The argument seems to be: bitcoin is money --> money is a shared hallucination --> therefore, bitcoin's as money's shared hallucination can't be replicated by replicating the technology b/c two
valuable bitcoin blockchains is an impossibility.
What?
1_Argument needs a definition of "value." More on this in number 3 below.
2_I'm pretty sure multiple shared hallucinations can exist in this world now. Case and point: there are many monies in this world now.
3_Likewise, I think its theoretically possible to have two or more valuable Bitcoins in this world b/c its theoretically possible for there to be two or distinct and separate groups hallucinating about two or more different Bitcoins. There is not a person in this world that has the authority to declare that one such Bitcoin is Bitcoin and the other(s) is/are not. Seriously, who has the mandate to control Bitcoin hallucinations (shared or otherwise) world wide?
For example, Slap the name Bitcoin across the front of Dogecoin and there you go (this is actually doable, albeit not likely and not w/o difficulty). How could such a renaming be stopped short of sabotage? Who has standing to bring a case to stop a majority of dogecoiners from changing Dogecoin's name (keeping the dogecoin blockchain, just renaming) to Bitcoin? Nobody, probably - not if bitcoin is actually a distributed, open source protocol with no central authority. I'm pretty certain that both of these Bitcoins (o.g., bitcoin and doge-bitcoin) would have some value somewhere - various smatterings of people hallucinate about lots of different shit[coins] now, and in different combinations. The new bitcoin would have an instant market (and thus value) w/ all kinds of pockets of folks ranging from scammers to the chronically butthurt.
In short, I don't see why another Bitcoin - whether from a fork, shitcoin name change, or new coin launch - can't simultaneously exist with the original bitcoin. This possibility is not an auto impossibility just because its unlikely or because DK says so or wants it to be so. DK's point needs empirical support and a lot more analysis.
----
To be clear, the article is not bad, but I think it needs quite a bit of work if the goal is to be credibly authoritative on some point or perspective.
-----
[1] "
To be useful as a general-purpose store of wealth and means of wealth transfer, a collectible had to be embedded in at least one institution with a closed-loop cycle, so that the cost of discovering and/or manufacturing the object was amortized over multiple transactions. Furthermore, a collectible was not just any kind of beautiful decorative object. It had to have certain functional properties, such as the security of being wearable on the person, compactness for hiding or burial, and unforgeable costliness. That costliness must have been verifiable by the recipient of the transfer -- using many of the same skills that collectors use to appraise collectibles today.The theories presented in this paper can be tested by looking for these characteristics (or the lack of them) in the "valuables" often exchanged in these cultures, by examining the economic gains from the cycles through which these valuables move, and by observing preferences for objects with these characteristics in a wide variety of cultures (including modern ones)." Szabo.
