You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Proof of Stake Coins as (almost) free way to multiply your holdings.
Yes you do, but not necessarily your labor. You could easily make enough from staking to pay for the electricity. The labor then comes from those paying for the coins, which more often then not comes from another type of investor. One that invests in capital. This profit from capital directly comes from the worker. If not it still comes from a worker who paid for the coin with his own labor, unlike you who paid for it in electricity bought through others labor.
If you do not make enough staking to pay for all of the electricity you are considered petit bourgeoisie. (I guess you are losing money but it still is capital, oh well)
Well I can't get anything from staking until I purchase some with my own labor as you said here:
"...it still comes from a worker who paid for the coin with his own labor..."
It's not that those workers give me free coins and then I stake on top of it.
Also how much staking do you think coins like Peercoin gives? its 1% yearly, so for example if you have 100 coins in your wallet and you have it open all the time you're getting 1 coin in one year which in usd amounts to $2. do you think that pays for my electricity in one year?
"Well I can't get anything from staking until I purchase some with my own labor as you said here:"
or the majority of your money could have come from capital investment, which is where the profit made on crypto comes from ultimately. So it doesn't matter if you originally bought it with your own money, its like saying you bought a slave with your own money so you deserve what it produces.
"Also how much staking do you think coins like Peercoin gives? its 1% yearly, so for example if you have 100 coins in your wallet and you have it open all the time you're getting 1 coin in one year which in usd amounts to $2. do you think that pays for my electricity in one year?"
Then that makes you a petit bourgeoisie, I already explained that.
The reason it isn't profitable is because you can't put enough of your own labor to reach that point. Try stealing somebody elses, any competitive business can't survive without it.
(The one in a million person able to scrap together enough to enter the territory of the free ride through life will be very lucky. Making it look like its possible gives everyone hope, which causes them to work harder, giving the rich a bigger profit and a lower likeliness of a revolt.)
"It's not that those workers give me free coins and then I stake on top of it."
Yes fine whatever you can believe that, but just because you have resources doesn't mean you deserve other peoples resources.
You didn't answer my questions! then you just want to argue for the sake of it.
And not everything is labor...the real money is earth resources
the only way to access resources is through labor. Labor is needed to do literally anything, it is the only thing tied to everything we do.
The real value of an object is how much socially necessary labor it takes to obtain it.
more on that here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
what happens when hypothetically everything is done by robots and the generations after generations over thousands years who made us to this point (that everything is done by robots) are all dead and there's no way to reward them?
that's called post scarcity. The thing is, their labor (if needed at all at that point) will create massive amounts of resources. Millions of times more than today. Unlike capitalism they will not be dependant on the owners of the robots for a job, and can live freely without needing to do any labor (instead of the starving which would happen under capitalism).
This is the ultimate goal of socialism. Capitalism puts it off because they know the starving workers will revolt.
"what happens when hypothetically everything is done by robots and the generations after generations over thousands years who made us to this point (that everything is done by robots) are all dead and there's no way to reward them?"
I think you are assuming the people who built the machines that automate stuff will be paid all that it produces. Nobody can consume that much and as shown in the soviet union and many other instances, people invent to invent not for money. The inventor may get extra resources of course, nobody is barred from giving.
That actually outlines my understanding of the difference between Proudhonian and more leftist economic thought. Although both mutualist-anarchists and marxists do agree on the destruction of private property.
what do you think about SolarCoin? you get coins if you create 1MW of electricity.
I don't care. This electricity is most likely created through solar panels that were manufactured by others' labor for profit for a member of the ruling class. Again, you are buying the means of production and claiming profits for yourself. This will then compound, giving you even more access to the labor of others allowing you to increase your power exponentially until you have a monopoly or are crushed.
So what are you proposing? Should we go back to farm and each of us produce our own foods? Or should I create my own solar panel because some people maybe are being taking advantage of in the society? Things are so complicated and intertwined in this world that no one can't easily say: "Yes that's the correct way to do this". We know at least one thing that the system of paper and fiat money that invented by bankers is a form of slavery. That's why crypto-currencies finally came into play. But things take times to get fairly distributed and that get reset to a new system.
Or we could just abolish private property, the thing that allows an owner to steal resources from the worker and allow people to freely labor on the means of production
"That's why crypto-currencies finally came into play. But things take times to get fairly distributed and that get reset to a new system."
There is no difference lmao. I don't care about who controls the money, the problem is who controls the means of production. You could use sticks as money, but as long as you must work for the ruling class and get most of what you get taken away, or starve. It is not a free or fair system.
On top of that capitalism always leads towards centralization and monoply. Read imperialism the highest stage of capitalism, it has many statistics and examples
This is so general "means of production", what means and what productions are you talking about?
If you're waiting for the hope that things get fair you probably never see it maybe never in the future, cause we live in a stochastic system, but you can define "fair" for yourself the way you like to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production
"If you're waiting for the hope that things get fair you probably never see it maybe never in the future, cause we live in a stochastic system."
ah yes I forgot, you people do love your kings and queens dont you? Well good thing not everybody worships them like you. They aren't gods, they are leeches.