No. Some people bought it with fiat currencies. Others mined for it. Still others exchanged goods and services for it.
> Still others exchanged goods and services for it.
I'm not sure what your point is here. It's not difficult to imagine existing state currencies influence these processes. I've also pointed out it's not a very good argument for either side of the libertarian fence.
But hey, let's focus on minutiae as opposed to the larger ethical and social questions surrounding bitcoin and derivatives. That seems like a rad use of time.
The process had to be bootstrapped somehow. And given that the world's economy at the time bitcoin was invented ran on fiat currency, it's not surprising that fiat currency was used to help bootstrap the process.
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
My point is that your original claim:
> Buuuuut, they bought it with fiat currencies, in many cases USD. So... right there the entire idea breaks down.
is false. Just because the process was bootstrapped with fiat currency does not imply that "the entire idea breaks down."
> A valid criticism of this argument is that it's a variant of the the serf comic argument (or genetic fallacy) in which those embedded in a bad system may not question it because they benefit from it.
I'm just saying, the idea that there is in fact an equitable pre-distribution of agency and power to draw from is fallacious. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try and create better systems; just that we shouldn't pretend such a thing existed.
And it IS factually correct in that there was state-maintained fiat currency at the genesis of nearly every story, we just both agree it doesn't matter that much.
Consider how uninteresting this exchange is, and how much of our collective time you've wasted by not reading the entire post. You've spent MUCH more time talking with me (and I with you) than if you had JUST READ THE POST.
Whether I read it or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that you opened your argument with a demonstrably false claim.
> And it IS factually correct in that there was state-maintained fiat currency at the genesis of nearly every story
That may be, but that's not what you said, nor is it what I disputed.
> Consider how uninteresting this exchange is
I dunno, I think it's kind of fascinating the lengths some people will go to to avoid saying something as simple as, "You're right, I phrased that badly. What I meant to say was..."
Buuuuut, they bought it with fiat currencies, in many cases USD. So... right there the entire idea breaks down. Still, maybe that's unfair. A valid criticism of this argument is that it's a variant of the the serf comic argument (or genetic fallacy) in which those embedded in a bad system may not question it because they benefit from it.
The real problem from a libertarian perspective is that bitcoin (and really all PoW blockcahins) just encodes how a new State, a plutocratic one based around processing power and energy availability, is formed. This is in a very literal sense what bitcoin encodes, with the miners being the only folks with any real votes (in that if miners as a group refused to mine other currencies and actively discourage others from doing so, other currencies cannot scale and are locked out).
Not that bitcoin is scaling all that well. Or eth for that matter.
As we've seen from recent research, Bitcoin is slightly better than existing systems at discouraging monopolies (because even accidental misuse could crash the currency), but I seriously doubt a mining duopoly dictating most of the future of bitcoin is something that any libertarian actually calls a positive outcome, other than a snarky nod to damaging existing states.
The long term evolution of the system is pivotal on some new, non-PoW scheme. PoS is the major contender right now. There might be other methods as derivations (e.g., PoW coupled with physical location, PoS with term limits, PoS with accreditation, etc). Non-PoW systems will also scale much more effectively than PoW systems, as well.