Bitcoin Forum

If there was a plan to use Bitcoin as a universal basic income when automation and robotics remove >50 of the work force and you were on the team to develop a strategy to make this happen, what kinds of things would you suggest?

A major issue would be funding and how to decide who gets how much.


This question does assume it would make more sense than using cash deposits, what are some reasons you would argue why this is the case?

I'd prefer if they removed taxes instead of adding universal income and then tax me on every step.

Funding is not only the issue in bitcoin universal income, but in the one based on fiat. You have a budget that is more or less balanced and suddenly you have to find the money to give out to 50 million people, so they can pay their bills? Why not just remove bills in the first place and save yourself the trouble?

Why the hell would Bitcoin be used for UBI? The fact is that there is still probably a century before everything (including >50%) of the workforce is automated and Bitcoin is not going to be the solution for it. Chances are in that time there is going to be another crypto that comes out which gets backed by governments (assuming that there is a shift from fiat to crypto) and that will be the system they use to implement it.

UBI is a dumb as shit system anyways.

A solution to the funding can come from taxing the income replacement the robots represent. If they are replacing real employees, they're replacing the income that would otherwise be taxed and used to pay for the services needed by the population. If robots will be used to replace people, the owner of those robots could be charged income tax on the income replaced which helps keep money in the budge to pay for welfare income.

My own opinion, universal income isn't the answer. It's not fair. What is most fair is that equal opportunity be made available for people to achieve education and have access to available jobs. Some people will perform better than others and get compensated more for that greater performance. Some people will have greater ambition and get compensated more for that greater ambition.

Finally, the people should be more wiling to NOT BUY products and services based on price increases or other activities that are not seen as benefits to those people.

Why do you think Universal Income is possible? realistic? feasible? just?

You're right, it isn't just. Universal income is a socialist idea, an attempt to equalize the society and people aren't equal! Some are smart and some are dumb, some are workaholics and some are lazy. Giving all of them an equal share of the pie is not only unjust, but stupid.
I also don't agree with taxing the robot owners. Ok, a machine replaces a person and it works for free, but this has been going on for years now. All car factories have automated production lines. Machines bottle your drinks, pack your snacks, can your veggies, why aren't they taxed yet?

UBI will make society hedonistic, myopic and rapidly accelerate degeneracy as everyone lines up to become part of the state's welfare line that they will have on every single street corner for every individual over 18. It destroys the family unit, will encourage laziness and is not something that encourages the natural state of human beings; working in some way.
It creates a level playing field for everyone, meaning that the true losers of society are now the equivalent of the best (outside of the 1%) and no-one will have to care about anything. Humanity will become apathetic to everything, technology advancements will slow, and it will all go to shit.
I have never seen UBI being pushed by someone who is not part of the dredges of society or has a worthwhile education.
Bad idea. Bitcoin will not be effectively used this way.

my belief is that every human should always have a BASIC roof over thier head and enough funds to keep a fridge and microwave functional to make food. enough funds to cover the most basic food to prepare the most basic healthy meals there are.

and then people work to improve their lifestyle.

no one should be homeless and starving. but no one should be living luxury lifestyles of 50" TV and caviar  lifestyle on social security.

as for funding this.. is simple. instead of banks making billions a year .. the 'money creation' covers the basic 'survival' public services/health.
if you take away the "my taxes are paying for laziness" debate. and make the social security funded not by the public but by money creation. then it can work

Well hypothetically you could set something like that up by simply taking areas of land, creating complexes that focus around giving everyone a bed, a kitchen and giving them roofs over their heads and sending government-sponsored produce to said places. Give them jobs related to work within the complexes or something else that fits their roles.
Now, of course, the world isn't perfect so you need a population that actually wants these things to live there for something like this to work.
The thing is though, EBT and all the other social services will actually subsidize people in a more lucrative manner than having these people actually work. That is something that has to be changed.
I suggest subsidize the working poor over the lazy poor, but of course that takes away gibs and votes.

There will never be full universal income. What will more likely happen is that so many people need money and will work for shitty jobs and slave labor levels. People will not just get paid to do nothing. That is a utopia that simply wont be, so get it out of your head.

The most realistic thing that will happen is we go back to being serfs living on a rich persons land and we farm for them while being given a shitty shack to live in.

The few things we actually need are food clean water and safety. It is very inexpensive to pay your serfs in food and water, while giving them minimum shelter and safety.

if you stop watching fox news and other snobby news that the rich love. you will find out that the 'lazy' people only account for a very very small percent of the population.

im not talking about giving them a living lifestyle amount. but just a survival amount. so no one need to be homeless/starve.

It's simply impossible. To implement universal basic income, you need to have a total control over financial system - print money, tax heavily, monitor all operations to prevent laundering, etc. Bitcoin is against all of it.
If you want to give out money to everyone, you need to establish the source first, and with Bitcoin you can only buy and mine it. So unless you take over all mining power, or create a fork with new rules, you can't sucesfully use Bitcoin for universal basic income.

What would I suggest?

How about NOT stealing other people's money to redistribute? It's called Socialism. Every country in the world practices it to some degree through taxation and welfare. UBI is socialism/welfare repackaged and marketed through fear (robots gunna steal our jobs oh nooooo) to gullible idiots who haven't grown up yet or are too stupid to understand basic economics.

It's been tried and it always collapses eventually. You always run out of other peoples money!

Have you heard of the 80/20 rule or Pareto's principle? It's about 20% of your efforts that usually gets you 80% of your results. It can also be applied to the population as a whole. 20% of people are responsible for 80% of the world's productivity. Of course this is a rule of thumb. The point is that a small percentage of people are massive achievers, most are somewhere in the middle and do ok, and the rest are leeches.

You are not helping the people on the bottom by voting money away from the most successful. Rather, you are creating a growing dependence on a system. A system that is no better than theft I would add. What makes it moral for 3 men to vote and steal from the other 2? So you're hurting those in need and also destroying incentives on both ends. Why work if you get it for free? On the other hand, why work when it just get's taken from you?

You can feed me bullshit about how you can micromanage it and dole out the perfect percentages in order to still incentivize people into working, but that's delusional.

What does "jobs" even mean? Why are people, and specifically the government so hung up on the term? Jobs didn't even exist hundreds of years ago and people still survived. Jobs are simply your means of survival. Are people really so intellectually lazy that they can't possibly think of how to make money in the future? Surely robots need programming, maintenance, etc. And when it gets to the point that we don't have anything to do because EVERYTHING is automated then why do you need a fucking "job"? You'll be enjoying your life of abundance.

That default state of humankind is one of living in the wild, unprotected from the elements and forced to find food to survive.

I too want to see people cared for, but your "belief" doesn't mean anybody has the right to what you see as a basic lifestyle. Sorry.

You can say it all you want, but who's providing this right to an arbitrary amount of stuff to somebody stuck on an island for example? Nobody, because basic necessities are not rights. To say they are rights, places an obligation on somebody else to provide them.

It has nothing to do with banking corruption, government corruption or anything else you and I know is seriously corrupt in the world. Those things need to be reformed, but that's another matter.

The fact is that there is nothing magical about voting to redistribute property. If I come take your car, it's called theft. If myself and two others vote before we take your car does that change the morality of it? Theft is theft and political rituals called Democracy don't change that.

Come up with a consensual, voluntary way to support the less fortunate and operate under free market principles. Then I'm all for it.

Please learn the following... maths, economics, accountancy, taxation based on understanding accountancy, not what the politicians, media and fuckwits tells you.

Then you will be educated and not waste time writing utter loony lefty socialist Marxist claptrap again.

On the condition that they have a job in the first place before breeding. Otherwise the breeders will breed in greater numbers.

It would take years before we can eliminate the 50% workforce, i think bitcoin should stay the way it should and let fiat currencies handle those things.
If that scenario does occur in the future the income that the robot would make goes to the owner and also with the taxes there maybe also some  intances that the robots get hijack and income that was made it stolen what will happen to the user starve to death?

where have i even said once that the funds should come from taxing people. or theft.
my theory of new fiat. it would be the NEW money.. starts at the bottom and trickles up... not starts at the top and trickles down

imagine if all the public services and social services/care was funded via block rewards. thus 'tax' is not of concern

---

im not talking about a basic lifestyle. im talking about a survival amount.
not a 50"tv broadband,
not free electric to run a cinema 24/7 along with a houseparty..
not full english breakfast, a roast lunch and a takeaway evening meal

im saying a survival amount
just 5 hours of electric a day, to run 1 lightbulb at a time in the evening and enough to make toast in the morning and heat up an evening basic meal in a microwave
basic meals like toast for breakfast a chicken salad sandwich for lunch and something simple and basic in the evening

as for your "breeders will breed in greater numbers".. seems you have been reading the snobby media that exaggerates things to make the banking disaster of 2008 some how the poors fault for syphoning funds.

here in the UK the 'lazy people' account for under £2bill, not even 1% of the treasury(and even that is using exaggerated numbers) yet the government hands over £45bill to banks, £30 billion to corporations(atleast)

anyway my theory
take that snobby 'burden' away from tax payers by making the money creation cover all the public services with a trickle up not a trickle down monetary policy.

My approach would need a coloured coin (e.g. realized with OpenAssets or with the Rootstock platform) that has constant inflation (e.g. 1000 coins/day) and is distributed in another way than block rewards.

That coloured coin would be distributed in a random way according to geographical location. So every point in the world, measured by latitude and longitude, would have the same probability to get a "reward".

The idea behind it is that a "universal basic income" in an anonymous and trustless way in Bitcoin is not possible because of sybil attacks - you would need something like an "authority" or a "state" for it. But an decentralized income based on geographical location is roughly equivalent, because in regions with similar population density every person living there would have the same probability to "catch" a reward, e.g. with a client in their smartphone. Rewards that are not claimed (because nobody is near the location that got it) would be burnt.

A problem is location spoofing, but I think it can be managed if the amounts are small enough to make spoofing more expensive than the rewards you could get.

Crazy? Possibly ;)

Every tax dollar the state collects is spent.

This means new programs like universal basic income can only be funded through tax hikes.

Whenever politicians discuss "new programs" (that are unfunded), it means they must raise taxes to collect funding.

Universal basic income can only be funded through tax hikes on those with jobs.

your thinking too fiat-minded.

imagine every school hospital and emergency service was the 'mining pool' of a new fiat coin.
the rewards pay for the public services and the wages of public servants trickle out the funds to the wider economy.

no more 'banker' money creation. but 'public service' money creation.
basically a trickle UP economy. not a trickle down

What's required for a miners to exist? Transactions. Who would want to buy, hodl, and spend some coin for your local community outside of your local community? Would that small volume be enough to support the currency and therefore generate the rewards from mined blocks to fund the public services?

Most areas of the world already have welfare assistance...what does Universal Basic Income do that welfare programs are lacking? And please don't tell me that UBI would be more money for every person, because if that's what it is then it's just a fancy world for a tax hike. And that's fine, but let's call it what it is.

Your basic assumption is false

That's why your whole question is meaningless as such (no offense intended). There will never be such a day when humans will have nothing to do (which is what your point boils down to). And it is not so much about automation and robotics as about human nature as such. For example, primates (which are said to be our closest relatives) are already doing essentially nothing all day long even without automation of any kind. Therefore there is no reason to think that automation is going to change anything in this respect. We will always find some obstacles or hurdles to get ourselves busy with overcoming them

1. this whole topic is about hypotheticals. so feel free to expand your mind beyond the walls and rules of wall street.
2. its not about more money for everyone. its about ensuring everyone has a minimal SURVIVAL amount
3. my hypothetical is not about everyone gets a lifestyle income to go on non-stop vacation because money is meaningless.. its about everyone has a basic SURVIVAL amount to not starve/freeze to death.
4. my hypothetical is not about being funded via tax. its about taking the 'money creation' away from corporate banks. and making money creation occur in the public sector.(government treasury only funded by blockrewards) thus no tax is required to fund the vulnerable, which is actually a tax reduction, not hike


imagine it. no corporate banks. only public sector mining pools. no transaction fee's(tax) only block rewards

It could depend on how you contribute to the community. Some people won't need that much income because robots take care of them. Some people will need more income because they handle decisions that robots cannot (such us what robots to make next) and therefore could need additional income to fund the new plans.

Don`t even put bitcoin and universal basic income in one sentence.
We don`t need automation and robotics because we have cheap labor in China and the third world.

Economically, that would be six of one and half a dozen of the other

In fact, it would be even worse than inflation tax (via outright printing excessive amounts of money) since when government prints money, it just enters figures in their spreadsheet on a Central bank server without much ado and beating about the bush. Thus, it doesn't damage the environment by burning electricity to mine coins, while mining coins via block rewards is basically the same printing money out of thin air (with terrible waste of resources at that). In short, you obviously don't understand how money works and on which principles it is created. Strictly speaking, banks don't create money out of thin air, they create credit but they can't do it unless there are borrowers. No borrowers no money, no money no honey

Like they are giving to unemployed people in the UK and other countries, and then they stop looking for work... because it is just easier not to

work and suck other people's income from taxes? These systems are not working... just look at what happened when the Berlin Wall came down..

most people from the East side became lazy and when the wall came down, they were not used to the fast pace of the West. { or so the stories

are told }

i actually do understand

again this topic is about hypotheticals.
meaning you can stretch the imagination beyond the limited concepts of wall street.

imagine something new. something that actually solves problems.

if you just try to change crypto to fit wall street world you are failing the point of crypto.. but if you try to change the world to fit crypto then many beneficial things can happen

think deeper than just standard fiat world

here ill give you a magic wand.
(___(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((___()

here ill also give you a ladder so you can get out of the box
||           ||
||======||
||           ||
||======||
||           ||
||======||
now pretend you could do anything, and come up with hypotheticals of how things could change for the better.
remember its hypothetical. so dont limit yourself to the old archaic rules.. free your mind

What you fail to notice is that you don't need a lot of money to have electricity for your bulb and a heater and that toast in the morning. Anyone can afford it by spending just a few hours a day doing something productive. If they can't get those few cents to pay their bill, they won't get more to improve their lifestyle. They are alive, so they are eating something and living somewhere. What makes you think that supporting these needs will make homeless bums pursue a better life?

first of all
you have to learn why people cant get jobs. you will find that thse people who you call bums usually have a health issue or two which makes keeping a job difficult. then when having problems holding down a job, some find that the issues and stresses of signing on for 'job support' benefits is beyond their mental capabilities so they end up being left outside of social security.

if you take away the snobbery of fox news and media protrayal of homeless and start actually addressing the problem properly you will see that its not as simple as 'just get a job'

take for instance.. veterans.. good work history, shows they follow orders, organised even willing to risk their lives for an income.. yet there are reasons why veterans end up being homeless and starve to death.

its not just about "get a job"
now imagine. that without it being TAX.. the treasury(public funds) could pay for social securities and health and education without... (i am going to emphasis this for the Nth time) without TAX

---

second of all
the amount of "tax" that goes to pay for unemployment is such a small percentage of the treasury budget that just the interest rate alone covers it

---

thirdly
im not just talking about unemployment. im talking about pensions and public sector funded housing/elderly care homes/ health. so dont try to turn it into a snobby debate about the poor must be scum if they need help.

---

fourthly for emphasis
so dont try to turn it into a snobby debate about the poor must be scum if they need help. my hypothetical is about taking "tax" away from the debate. by making pblic sector issues self funded.. not tax funded. so snobby comments about tax burdens dont even come into the debate

The sleep of reason produces monsters

And sick imagination produces even more ugly ones. If you really understand what I mean, then you should see that your imagination is drawing only a perverted reflection of reality (that's what any imagination basically does). As I told you, mining is just another perverted and ugly method of creating money out of thin air (well, by wasting resources). Until you address this issue somehow (with or without imagination), your whole idea is meaningless and pointless. In fact, it is just stillborn

imagine that 'mining' was not 20 pools competing to win where the aim of the game is to outpower each other.
but imagine each school just had 1PoW miner and they work in unison to lock data in and the funds are distributed through the treasury.
yep each school/hospital just had 1PoW mining node. where there is no benefit in a school/hospital to run more than 1node

we wont be having 20 pools with ~ 20,000asics per pool(10k-50k range per pool) = 400k asics
it would be more like UK having 25000 asics spread over 25000 locations(1asic per location)

P.S i knew about promissory notes(credit agreements) over a decade ago(2007 events enlightened me) and how they are the archaic fiat money creation mechanism

And what does it change?

You are still basically creating money out of thin air. I agree that you can hypothetically reduce mining costs to naught, but you won't be able to change the major, fundamental flaw of this setup. Namely, that the coins just created have no economic validation behind their coming into existence. With fiat, as long as government doesn't abuse the system, new money is created by the banks via credit, i.e. the whole process has at least some economic justification supporting the issuance of new money (validated by the demand from the economic entities)

lol
there can be many ways.(again hypotheticals which can be fun if you allow yourself to think outside of the box)
take for instance that each block reward per school is not based on just making a block. but based on school test result(data in a block) totals giving a block value.
EG imagine a school of 1000 pupils and if they all got an A on a weekly test (A represents lets say £20 'credits'/new money) the school can earn upto £20k block reward.
and if they all got an A- on a weekly test (A represents lets say £19.50 'credits'/new money) the school can earn upto £19.5k block reward.
and if they all got an B on a weekly test (A represents lets say £19 'credits'/new money) the school can earn upto £19k block reward.

so lets say on average the 1000 students average C grade. the school would get £18k

each school each week not only creates new money based on test results of students. but the 'value' AND test results can be verified publicly to ensure no test cheating occured. and it also incentivizes schools to try harder to teach kids to better themselves to get better grades thus more funding.

the value is then established because each students tests over their 10-15 years of school life could show they have earned the school upto £800 a year (£8k-£12k school life) which universities/employers could use the childs grades to value them as potential recruits for university/employment, and thus value changes hands

i can think of hundreds of hypotheticals of how to give a block reward transferable value.
but ultimately those school block rewards'student credits' would be fiat2.0 which by law would be legal tender.. and by law if you understand the archaic fiat system employers/retailers/debtors would need to transact in it, which is where 'fiat' has ultimately attained having value anyway

This is a very important topic. Thanks to OP.

We use bitcoin, We are the futurist geeks of society. It is our duty to think about the consequences of ‘fully automation’ to the society ( when I say ‘fully automation’ I meant “human out of loop” and the jobs that will disappear as consequence of that automation) 

I do believe that we should start with ethics. Since ethics are build blocks of social rules. (Etiquette, Law and Legislation, Politics, etc).

Thanks to franky1 for brought the general ethical guidance.
Btw anyone more interested about ethics I would suggest a free MOOC course from

University of Michigan
Data Science Ethics
https://www.edx.org/course/data-science-ethics-michiganx-ds101x-1   

I am following that course and I really enjoying it.

When talk about computers, AI, automation, etc I would like to do some analogies that maybe will remind Industrial Revolution and our beloved bitcoin economics  …. I will start my line of thought using Bitcoin Mining (Electricity Traders ?) as my entry point on the conversation and if the conversation involves I will post more comments ...

So my thoughts about automation (under Creative Commons (CC) license) ...

Bitcoin for Kids (a fairy tale book)

In the begin Satoshi had a job. Satoshi was a Bitcoin Miner … he used to mining bitcoin manually with a pencil and paper ..

http://static.righto.com/images/bitcoin/mine_pencil_1-s800.png
Ref:  Mining Bitcoin with pencil and paper: 0.67 hashes per day
http://www.righto.com/2014/09/mining-bitcoin-with-pencil-and-paper.html
 
Before Him, his father, his great father .. great great father also was a bitcoin miner but used to mining with differents tools and the hashes per day was less than 0.00000067
http://www.ptc.dcs.edu/moody/comphistory/cavemanwriting.gif
Ref: The History of Computers
http://www.ptc.dcs.edu/moody/comphistory/comphistory_print.html