Bitcoin Forum

Some powerful economic and historical arguments here, and what governments could do to defeat Bitcoin...

http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/ (http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/)

"Money is the product of society, just as Bitcoin is the product of a society of computers. Money needs the greatest human network to succeed, just as the Bitcoin blockchain needs the greatest computer consensus. This network and consensus, however imperfect, is ultimately provided by the state in modern societies, just as it was the case in the many cases of recoinage and remonetization throughout history. For as long as we have states that strong and accepted by people, for better or worse, Bitcoin will remain a substitute currency."

"For any currency to succeed ultimately, it needs to be accepted by government as good for payment of debt and taxes. Bitcoin is anathema to the bankers, and these financial terrorists will cause pain and death in any country that attempts to adopt it, and blame it on the currency extremists. They don't need governments to kiss and make up."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f6947/why_bitcoin_cannot_win_when_states_across_the/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f6947/why_bitcoin_cannot_win_when_states_across_the/)

I think people need to stop focusing on getting BTC accepted as a national currency. The government will not gain anything from doing this and in fact they will lose the power to control the economy. Why would they allow this to happen?

I feel like people should concentrate more on getting BTC accepted by the people as a "alternate currency". There is a much better chance of this happening.

the article is saying governments can outcompete Bitcoin by creating their own cryptocurrencies.  However, unless they are scarce like Bitcoin, I don't see why they would be likely to beat Bitcoin in the long run.  In other words, if a government creates a crypto coin but can still print money whenever it wants, why would people be interested in that? and if they do create a scarce coin like Bitcoin, then it will accomplish the same goal of Bitcoin, which is sound money.

That's what I got from it also. But why would I want controlled money that works in one place when I could have math based money that works everywhere? This is the same as businesses thinking they could create a digital money. Actually, what they are creating is just a frequent flier mile. A store of value for one purpose that someone else controls. Do I want that?

Please, lol.

What is it with these newbies & their first posts always being negative FUD?
Every single day I log in here to see wumming & FUD, what purpose does it serve?
If people think bitcoin has no future & aren't interested in investing in it then why are they here?

This is what happens when you remove the newbie jail that we have in place. These threads are very common in this section and in economics.

I thought that one of the fundamental reasons for Bitcoin was the separation of money and state (i.e. people becoming their own banks). The essay is a waste of time and people should not read it.

Any crypto created by a government is dependent on that government. When that government fail, so does the crypto. Bitcoin is created so it's not tied to any government and it will survive governmental failures. PayPal and Visa are not backed by any government. They are global payment systems. Bitcoin is like that and better.

The essay is very clear and careful to value Bitcoin as sound money. It's obviously a lot easier to get a badge on here than do some comprehensive reading.

“Guys this technology has the potential of including all the poor people in the favelas of Brazil into the banking system. When we regulate this with the Central Bank, we should not restrict it but promote it. Let’s not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.”

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115056/how-3-central-banks-the-financial-elite-embraced-bitcoin-for-one-day?ref=2604&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twit&utm_campaign=alx (http://cointelegraph.com/news/115056/how-3-central-banks-the-financial-elite-embraced-bitcoin-for-one-day?ref=2604&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twit&utm_campaign=alx)

Nothing wrong with seeking re assurance. Asking probing questions will ultimately help if they are properly answered. This is how science progresses. Some of the pro Bitcoiners borderline on religious fanaticism, which isn't particularly convincing.

Bitcoin technology is a very unique and unsettling invention, with endless possibilities. It is free from any centralization, authority or a regulatory system. It doesn’t need any help from other currencies to make it look good. It can create its own existence and save the world economy from the downside of the traditional fiat currency system. In recent times, the Bitcoin network has faced many ups and downs, while raising questions among the community about its resilience. Still, everyone needs to keep in mind that this is a currency that has been operating worlwide only for half a decade. It is still adopting and struggling to make its mark. But with proper time and management, we can help Bitcoin to become “the future of money.”

https://99bitcoins.com/the-future-of-money-bitcoinized/

This argument seems to miss the fact that there is no such thing as someone's "own" cryptocurrency.

The whole idea behind cryptocurrency is that you take away the issuer, controller, administrator, or authority, and replace that with cryptography.

Sure, they could still create their own money (not crypto), but they've already done that: fiat.

In the end, it doesn't matter what governments or banks do or say or want. With the technological advancement that came with Bitcoin, we don't need the government or bank anymore, or their consent (at least not where it concerns our money or financial system).

Basically this would be like issuing fiat on a blockchain. We understand this is stupid, but most don't. The essence of government is control, so for them it probably sounds like a sensible idea. It allows them to retain their power, while also making them look progressive and fiscally responsible because it would save the economy money.

I think there is a really good chance we'll see this happen and it could even be a good thing Just imagine all the socialist sheep out there getting a practical schooling in economics because their favorite currency is being devalued meanwhile everyone else can freely choose to hold any of hundreds of decentralized currencies. So what I'm saying is that it might raise awareness and understanding of sound vs unsound money, etc.

"Money is the product of society, just as Bitcoin is the product of a society of computers. Money needs the greatest human network to succeed, just as the Bitcoin blockchain needs the greatest computer consensus. This network and consensus, however imperfect, is ultimately provided by the state in modern societies, just as it was the case in the many cases of recoinage and remonetization throughout history. For as long as we have states that strong and accepted by people, for better or worse, Bitcoin will remain a substitute currency."

translation
"Money is the product of banks, just as Bitcoin is the product of social demand for change. Money needs legislation and minimum wage laws forcing the banks paper to remain and to succeed, Bitcoin blockchain needs just a non centralized consensus to succeed. For as long as we have states laws forcing fiat acceptance by people, for better or worse, Bitcoin will remain a substitute currency."

---

"For any currency to succeed ultimately, it needs to be accepted by government as good for payment of debt and taxes. Bitcoin is anathema to the bankers, and these financial terrorists will cause pain and death in any country that attempts to adopt it, and blame it on the currency extremists. They don't need governments to kiss and make up."

translation
"For any currency to succeed ultimately, it needs to be accepted by a majority of the population who refuse to barter with anything else. then governments would be forced to accept it too, else they would be out of a job. Bitcoin is anathema to the bankers, and these financial terrorists are just businesses. and a government can easily just let them dry up and not get bailed out. They need governments to survive."

As what I have understand in the article the banks can defeat Bitcoin by making a currency big enough to compete with bitcoin. And this will need a big innovation since the inflation rate was one of the big disadvantage of investing in the bank. They will need to increase the earnings of their investors to earn people's trust which in turn can result for them to suffer in a great financial lost. And since they can not manipulate the bitcoin because it's decentralized it will be really hard for them to outrun the bitcoin.

No they don't.
They buy governments anyday of the year.
If the government in discussion doesn't co-operate, some sort of fatal accident or incident will take place.

http://www.examiner.com/article/executive-order-11110-and-the-jfk-assassination-question (http://www.examiner.com/article/executive-order-11110-and-the-jfk-assassination-question)

What's wrong with it being a substitute currency? In the past states are the only people that have issued currency because it's in the power-hungry interests to do so, but whether bitcoin will succeed or even overtake a national currency is down to the people who use it. I certainly think it could become some sort of defacto world currency and one that I think we need just as a long as it's not controlled by a state.

they buy the government because they need the government,, without the laws allowing banks to run.. they wont survive. if governments were not needd to survive they wouldnt even bother to buy them..

Well, but even having it as an alternate currency they lose a bit.
Like being able to buy things online without a international CC. Avoiding taxes and fees is nice but what the banks and the governments think about it?

it can not be done because of the decentralization nature of bitcoin, the best thing that governments can do is making an altcoin which is centralized, this is far worse than any altcoin you have out there
but i could see the blockchain technology working with this and may drive some unaware users to embrace it, instead of going with bitcoin

they are trying so hard to replicate a centralized bitcoin, but everyone know that they will fail at it, i think it's better for them to stop printing money and find a better way to rise the value of their currency

"The primary requirement for anything to function as money is that of being accepted by people. Bitcoin is designed to avoid relying on central authorities, which increases its function as a store of value. However, the acceptance of money (adoption) is ultimately determined by central authorities in any foreseeable socio-economic context, as has always been the case throughout history. All the desirable features of cryptocurrencies can be easily implemented by governments in their competition with Bitcoin to the extent that will preserve their monetary dominance.  The belief in Bitcoin becoming a world currency in an increasingly interconnected world is therefore based on a mistaken worldview."

OP's article is total nonsense.And he knows that. He is trolling as hell that's it.

i doubt bitcoin will ever replace currency but if it can just be accepted as a " yet another way to pay " would be good enough for it

I'm goin' get a fresh cup of coffee now, then read the kindly linked article.

I'm pretty sure that all extinct currencies were once based upon their then modern society, e.g., the Romans weren't using nor accepting fish bones or seashells to or for trade. That said, what ever argument that's presented, US dollars, et al., could easily be added to the list of why-<insert>-cannot-win.

EDIT: Read it.

The author also wrote: Have you sold it to the NSA? At what price? (http://elbitcoin.org/te-vendiste-a-la-nsa-a-que-precio/)

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

EDIT: Joining you with the coffee.

Governments will only seek to defeat Bitcoin if they stand to lose control over the masses because of it. As long as Bitcoin doesn't aspire to become a tool for rebellion they will roll with it. It would be foolish for Bitcoin to go against the current anyways because it is borne of control the same as everything else in the human world.

The article attributes too much to the state.

While it is tempting to think of the state as an unbeatable almighty force with ultimate power, the reality is state power is finite, and indeed purely based the confidence individuals contribute to it. Ironically, the article personally contributes more power to that which it wishes were not so powerful.

As confidence weighns in the minds of the people a state loses it's power. Instilling fear in individuals predicated upon the state having infinite power effectively amounts to a donation at the alter of one's enemy.

Let us consider the scenario in which the state produces it's own crypto coin, do we imagine such a coin to be open source and decentralized? If so then so what if they create such a coin? They have no power over it.

If we imagine that such a coin would be centralized, and even if we further imagine that the state declares that all taxes must be paid in this coin only, then again this is not a nightmare scenario. No sane individual will hold his wealth in a centralized closed source currency any more than is necessary, so we will see that bitcoin is the superior store of wealth, and the inferior centralized coin will be used only for taxes and trial trade perhaps. Bitcoin will not be destroyed in such an scenario.

Perhaps we imagine a centralized closed source state coin that is declared the only acceptable payment for tax and also bitcoin is made illegal. Even so bitcoin will persist. In the underground places of that state it will stubbornly persist, and further it will bloom in other parts of the world that are more accepting to bitcoin. Such a state will have effectively cut itself off from the rest of the world and global trade, but it will not have succeeded in deleting bitcoin. Bitcoin cannot be deleted.  

Bitcoin is here to stay, that much is a certainty. How insane states can be, that is but an irrelevant variable.

Only because in history no form of money had been invented that could easily avoid being confiscated and was 'endorsed/created' by the ruling elite.

That's the point of Bitcoin (one of them) the fact that there is no central authority, the authority is with the people that own it (and miners), and there is little Johnny government can do about it at this stage.

Basically, if person A sells his bike for 1btc to person B, and B agrees his bike is worth 1btc and pays him, who's gonna stop him? And who can tell him he's wrong?

It's really quite simple. I find it strange how many people don't understand that a genius created Bitcoin, and that he essentially covered all the angles, economic and otherwise.

So now the shills try to take this stupid angle... Governments is the product of the people.... Have we not seen what citizens can do, when the governments no longer listen to

the needs of the people? Do not underestimate the power of the people... you might just be surprised. I would rather support a little life raft in the ocean, than staying on the

Titanic whilst it's sinking.  ::)

"The power of the people"? The "needs of the people"... "People want to be free"? "They're coming to take our freedoms"? ... Where have you heard these ones before?

Governments of course are made up of people. You are the state. And that's why Bitcoin isn't changing anything.

Market will always win. Right now central bank inflation control is/was the closest thing to ideal money until Bitcoin came... But in society it takes a generation or so for market to realize that a closer alternative to ideal money exists before it switches. It's an asymptotic process because there is really no ideal money.. I mean every system has a flaw but bitcoins is far better than the fed.. It's fed 2.0

Give it a few years and cryptocurrency will supplant the fiat money system

States are not necessarily nations. The Bticoin community could be a nationless state.

like Mintchip  :D ?

they can use a sidechain if they wish. please come back in 5 years.

Hmm. This is interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_nation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_nation)

'A stateless nation is an ethnic group, religious group, linguistic group or other cohesive group which is not the majority population in any nation state'

'Nations without state are classified as fourth world nations.'

Be interesting to be a fourth world nation that ends up richer than the first, wouldn't it?

'A nation can exist without a state but a state can not without a nation'

Here is a stateless nation check list from wiki:

* Has no own Sovereign State. (ticked)
* Does not form a majority in any Sovereign State. (ticked)
* Autonomist or secessionist movements is known to exist. (ticked)
* Not recognized by any UN members. (certainly ticked)

I think we match the criteria!

So, what's our name?

Bitcoin Nation? The United Nations of Bitcoin? The People's Republic of Bitcoin?

We need a flag though, even the nationless states have a flag on that wiki page.

that a good idea..
i think Bitcoin Nation .. because we are a member of an international organization..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State)
the bitcoin logo is our flag  ;D  ;D  ;D

"Blockchain technology could be used to bypass today's centralised financial infrastructure entirely, according to a report by BBVA Research US."

www.coindesk.com/bbva-blockchain-tech-could-replace-centralised-finance-system/ (http://www.coindesk.com/bbva-blockchain-tech-could-replace-centralised-finance-system/)

And there's a reason they're not worried.

"New York Times technology and finance reporter Nathaniel Popper, author of  “Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money,” noted that a permissioned blockchain could be jointly run by the computers of the largest banks and serve as the backbone for a new, instant payment system without a single point of failure. The new blockchain, decentralized but closed, would offer the benefits of the current Bitcoin network without relying on end-users for its operations."

www.coindesk.com/bbva-blockchain-tech-could-replace-centralised-finance-system/ (http://www.coindesk.com/bbva-blockchain-tech-could-replace-centralised-finance-system/)

Note that a "permissioned blockchain" is just about what it means to have a Bitcoin protocol and client.

This is the usual FUD from a not well informed enough individual. If you have a clue on Bitcoin you will already know by now that we will scale up to as big as needed and take over the world. If you aren't on Bitcoin yet then I don't know what you are doing to be honest. Stop worrying about it and start stacking up Bitcoin before its too late.

"The primary requirement for anything to function as money is that of being accepted by people. Bitcoin is designed to avoid relying on central authorities, which increases its function as a store of value. "
That being said, it is perfectly possible for Bitcoin to win. It is the perfect store of value against corrupt Governments trying to snoop around their citizens finances.
I seriously believe this can make the difference...

The essay defines "winning" as being a dominant currency (highest price), while acknowledging Bitcoin's value and function as a substitute currency.

FTFY  :D

Appreciate your corrections, but the "goose that lays the gold eggs" central banks are referring to, which they will allow to live, is Bitcoin.

Once all these "revolutionary" geeks have done the work, put out the software for anyone to use (a la Linux), and got all the developing world dependent on cryptocurrencies, all they have to do is change over and release their proprietary, legal system.

Almost three quarters of financial pros think the blockchain can thrive without Bitcoin, because they are just applying their empirical knowledge and common sense in agreement with this essay.

http://www.coindesk.com/73-of-finance-pros-think-the-blockchain-can-thrive-without-bitcoin/ (http://www.coindesk.com/73-of-finance-pros-think-the-blockchain-can-thrive-without-bitcoin/) 

Banks cannot be Bitcoin, but they can get close enough for the majority of mortals...

http://www.coindesk.com/meet-the-25-banks-working-with-distributed-ledger-startup-r3/ (http://www.coindesk.com/meet-the-25-banks-working-with-distributed-ledger-startup-r3/)

Like his invention, Dr. Craig Wright cannot win (http://moraluniversal.com/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/):

"I believed that I could do this. I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot. "

It's entirely up to us whether we decide to use crypto currency or not. Maybe in the future, if the government thinks that crypto currency is becoming a threat to the regulated fiat, they'd come up rules to combat this. They could ban the use of other forms of currency altogether, but where is the progress in that?

They are not going to ban Bitcoin. Bitcoin will "ban itself" because governments reflect the people and the value of money depends on the majority, as this essay discusses. Thus whatever populist computer code that can compete with Bitcoin as a store of value will be favoured over Bitcoin, and its execution will be coordinated by governments. It is all too sad, but who cares; the freedom and the lesson heralded by Bitcoin is here to stay.

Wishful thinking. It is very (80%) centralized in China right now and the authority and regulation system is the voting power of an increasingly small group of increasingly large miners.

https://news.bitcoin.com/swiss-town-accepts-bitcoin/
It's gonna happen kids, bitcoin will rule! People always wanted to have more control over their money(transactions) and that will never happen without a system like bitcoin.

And bitcoin might die at some point because of the countless flaws and problems, but another crypto would just take the lead.
Banks will fight, goverment will try, but they just cant do nothing against internet.