> Classic capitalist view
I would consider myself center-left and I think you're confusing "capitalism" with "realism".
Any political system that requires altruism towards strangers is doomed. Altruism grows out of community - and requires consequences for "bad" behaviour to some degree. Tragedy of the Commons and all that.
Capitalism demands constant growth. His usage fits perfectly. Center-left means you are a capitalism supporter and makes no difference. Claiming the capitalist mode of production is "realism" is really you trying to say capitalism is natural.
Before I answer that, could you clarify your definition of "capitalism"?
(Genuine question)
Re:Miners Aren’t Friends
by robert_davidson on Sunday January 14, 2018 @10:25PM
(#16148276)
I phrase this as "incentive alignment". Every stable system aligns incentives with its continuation.
Classic capitalist view. It's not that miners are forced to reinvest, if all miners were satisfied with the status quo then it could continue and each miner would get the same returns - depending on the structure of the system, greater demand could even drive hash value up.
But miners aren't satisfied, they want more, and new miners want a go at picking from the money tree. So the available pickings get higher up (require more resource expenditure). In theory, and often practically, it drives optimisation. Ultimately the return should be so low as to match safe investment returns.
It seems it should be possibly to design a system such the the coin holders can effectively own the means of hash production, which would keep value in the system.