Bitcoin Forum

Mr. Jgarzik holds that "Bitcoin is an ideology-neutral currency..." and that "...we're not here to convert the world to libertarianism or crypto-anarchism."  

Is that so? Then he mentions this.

"We're here to make the first global, decentralized currency successful."

Is not decentralized wealth by its very definition the rebuking of the authority's power over our wealth, property and lives?  Does this world not run on money? Has it not been said that "Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws.”!?

Is a free society based on sound money directly controlled by the people and for the people not what libertarians strive for?

Can you really say a free society is a politically-neutral goal when many make claims against it?

Bitcoin is freedom. Freedom is not a common nor neutral goal for most people.

Feel free to say we wish to hide it's freedom-bearing qualities in the name of political-correctness but do not say that Bitcoin is not intended to accomplish liberating goals: the sames ones the Bitcoin founder, Satoshi, had in mind.

Bitcoin is a currency of liberty.

Thank you.

Also mods, I will disapprove if you move this to the politics board, despite this being clearly and mainly about Bitcoin!

Bitcoin is a tool. It is politically-neutral since it is incapable of holding political views. People on the other hand are not politically-neutral.

It is a tool and tools are designed with a purpose. Tools with a specific purpose will serve these purposes along with their shared sentiments. The purpose is obviously freedom.

If a tool were truly neutral, it would be incapable of anything. To say a screw-driver is neutral is to say it's not for screwing screws when obviously that's its intended purpose.

There is no such thing as a apathetic tool unless it is used inanely with a handicapped view of reality.

Your wording makes it sound a bit like you think decentralized means distributed wealth? There are still going to be obscenely rich bitcoin holders and very poor bitcoin holders.

Actually, I'm fairly sure tools are incapable of emotion. I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue here.

That's implying that the amount of wealth you have means anything. All I am an advocate of is enabling able to create wealth for themselves and others freely while that is limited with the current banking model that lends with corrupt discretion. I never said anybody was entitled to money but being able to sell and sustain upon their inherent value.

You take it too literally. When a tool is made to accomplish an objective, it is tied to that objective.

No, what you said was that bitcoin was decentralized. His point was that early adopters of bitcoin hold the vast majority of bitcoin wealth because they got in when it was still possible to mine bitcoins with a CPU. You can't possibly say with the straight face that bitcoin is decentralized

In addition, those with enough wealth to buy bitcoin at any price will always control a disproportionate amount of the currency.

If someone spend a ton of money just to destroy Bitcoin, would Bitcoin's political ideology change?
It's all how it's used, not the tool itself.

It can only be used towards its goals.

Also, I would love to see somebody try to destroy Bitcoin by throwing more money at it.

It's irrelevant. The early adopters continue to sell-out. All they can do is lower the price a little bit once. They aren't that powerful.

In addition, if the majority of the world is in the system, somebody rich purchasing Bitcoins is only going to get 1 or 2, not a majority of the block chain.

Okay, we're not talking about hypothetical scenarios, though. We're talking about right now. The majority of the world isn't using bitcoin.

Well, it's working well right now. Early adopters continue to cash-in.

Politics is the art of convincing enough people to agree with you so that you can forcibly impose your will on those who don't.  With this in mind, it should be clear that Bitcoin is not political. It is not apolitical. It is antipolitical.

Bitcoin allows us to defy those who seek to rule us. It makes it easier to prevent theft. It facilitates a wider range of commercial and financial activities. It makes us less able to rule or to be ruled. It makes us more free.

I'm gonna cross-post this here, because you didn't answer me before and I really want to know why you can't leave this alone:

I never asked nor wanted validation. It's just discussion. I do not believe any negative reactions will affect things in the long-term.

This topic is so dumb. This is just an argument of semantics.

It is all about interpretation. How do you define the threshold for what isn't and is "a currency of liberty". One might say that freedom is free trade and private business practice; someone else might say that the inevitable hierarchy established by the early adopter theory with no central authority to balance wealth creates a hierarchy that undermines "liberty/freedom".

If anything I learned from my education and 8+ years of policy debate, Framer's Intent is a dumb argument. Whether or not a gun is made to kill is irrelevant to what it is used for. Someone could just as well use it as a hammer, it's only interpretation and dissemination of that interpretation over the majority that determines whether we come to some obviously wrong conclusion that a tool to be inherently used for X purpose.

When a tool is in the hands of an end user it is up to them, to make the choice to decide how it is used. They might have some subconscious bias based on circumstance but that is a inevitable. Someone just as likely can decide in spite to use something to the exact opposite purpose.

Barring immeasurable conditions tools are neutral.

Nothing makes someone more or less free. We are all subject to the laws of nature and are unable to escape from it. The fantasy world of currency, philosophy, politics etc. are irrelevant to physical reality.

The key to a cage makes the caged free. If you feel the currency in your possession is irrelevant to your physical reality, then I will happily relieve you of it ;-)

No matter where I might find myself aligned politically (which may in fact be with many of the members of this board, though I choose to keep the specifics private), the fact remains that as long as Bitcoins are seen as a political tool by a vocal group they will alienate many users. Atlas, I've read your posting. You seem to be unable to grasp that if they are a political tool, then there are warring factions with completely different ideologies at play and in the long run it's not clear that your ideology will have any more bearing on the future of Bitcoin than anyone else here. Because you, in your adolescences, believe you have discovered the secret key to how the world should work, does not mean that an entire community shares your dream.

I see terms like "freedom" being thrown around here a lot, but very little is discussed beyond Wikipedia-semantics. There are never any true discussions on the nature of freedom, oppression, and equality. The Freedom of one ideology is enslavement to another, and to close your eyes to all but your own worldview leads to zealotry and stupidity.

The Freedom of one ideology is enslavement to another

Yes because preventing another from committing harm, theft and murder against another is slavery.

So your saying the argument is circular. Therefore there is no answer and therefore there is no point in asking this question in the first point.

If it doesn't meet your idealistic view point. You can always be like Bobby Fischer and move to Iceland complain and go crazy.

That's an incredibly childish response to what ought to be a thought-provoking point.

Before you continue, can you define harm, theft and murder?

That is moronically simplistic. If you want to talk in soundbites, it may work. If you want to look at a real political ideology valid in a society filled with real people, many of whom are non-rational, then you need to be willing to expand your horizons.

You continually state you view taxation as harm and charity as a means of support. My question for you is what would you do if your worldview came to pass, and charity failed meaning people were dying in the streets, what then would you do? Do you allow the deaths of innocents in the name of economic freedom?

Which freedom is more valuable? Life or economic? I promise you that every example in human history has shown the two to be mutually exclusive.

Again, I respect your ideological purity. We all hold the world to an impossible ideological standard, but most people know that once you leave the realm of theory and enter the realm of humanity, where rationality goes out the window and emotions come into play, that things must change at some level, even if you still hold your intellectually pure values to be the highest standard.

Tools are, in fact, neutral.

Bullets were created to kill people, no one can argue that point, but there are also a number of tools invented after the fact that fire with black powder, including nailguns that use 22-caliber rimfire rounds to build and create instead of destroy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder-actuated_tool)

This is just one example - history is full of technologies that were created with one purpose and used for another, and it goes both ways; much of what we appreciate in times of peace is the result of war and much of what we use to kill each other in wars was created in peacetime. A hammer can kill as easily as build and even that all-too-common scapegoat the firearm has a completely different effect when wielded in offense than in defense. Knives can cut rope or throats, a ski mask can warm your face or hide it from a camera and a crowbar can open a crate or open the door for a thief - tools are neutral, it is we thinking moral beings who wield the tools that decide the morality and ethical nature of the actions - the tools are just along for the ride.

Your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose. Am I enslaving you by preventing you from punching me in the face?  Atlas is making a perfectly valid point.   

Denying a man the right to his own life in terms of physical restriction, harm whether it be a threat or actual action. I do not compromise when it comes to this.

The only freedom that is to be respected is a sentient organism's ability to sustain. Life shall sustain without hindrance nor according to the whims of another. Neither misfortune nor ill shall entitle a man to another.

You didn't define any of those three terms. It was supposed to be a little wordplay exercise for you.

Atlas, what is the ultimate responsibility of a government with regards to it's citizens?

Nothing. No government, no entity nor any individual has the wisdom nor the virtues to govern me or any other man.

So you beleve your life and liberty would be guaranteed by... What, exactly? You're talking bout a state of nature, which while interesting as a thought experiment in political theory has no basis in realty.

So again, accepting that we live in this universe, what should the role of a government be with regards to it's citizens?

I believe life and liberty should be guaranteed by the desires of the people. If we desire protection, we can achieve it by our own virtues through exchange or protect ourselves directly. We do not need to be stolen from to be protected. That's an odious debt. Do not denounce this as mere thought. Do not call things impossible with no ground to rule it as such.

If we must be enslaved, our slavers should only guarantee individual protection from aggression at absolute minimum.

Answer the question without resorting to insane hyperbole and overly verbose Randian musings, please. We get it, you like big words. Mimicking an author's style with every post you make gives a much different impression than you want it to.

Define aggression, define protection, and define slavery. Stop phrasing everything in broad sweeping terms in some ignoble effort to sound like you have received some form of education beyond grade 12.

Ok, so if you're anarcho-capitalist, then why are you espousing collectivism (e.g. "the people" and so forth.) That implies a level of collaboration and cooperation, and when that happens regularly, it's called "government."

People are stupid. People are evil. People need boundaries, or revert to "the strongest survive." I fail to see how you are supposed to account for that outside of the framework of some sort of government, whether it's violently imposed or thoughtfully and mutually agreed upon.

Hit the ball where it lies.

Anyways, aggression is utilizing force by threat or otherwise to mend people to your will. Protection under my definition should protect against that. Slavery is when you do not have the unilateral right to yourself, labor and property.

At some level - it really is a common goal. The difference is that many if not most people think they already have a decent measure of freedom as balanced against other concerns. They may be horribly wrong..  but pushing in-your-face ideals isn't always going to point them in the right direction - giving them the right tools (e.g encryption,smartphones,uncensored networks,bitcoin) will help lead them there.

They absolutely could. Self interested politicians (a tautology?) will pick up on and amplify any fear and distrust to their advantage.
If you want to rely on the fact that bitcoin *geeks* could no doubt keep bitcoin going for their own niche purposes even under sustained political attack - you're ignoring the larger userbase that will not participate if governments make it inconvenient.
If bitcoin had a certain critical mass and popular appeal, even this may be impossible for the politicians to stop, but until then, your approach endangers the long-term success of bitcoin.

^THIS... totally this.

Look at the famous bitcoin video which shows the two people throwing a coin to each other and bypassing the bank.
That is about as political as you need to get with bitcoin.
Even people who generally don't see too much wrong with how things are will have a bit of a smile at that.

They threw in the part about accounts not being able to be frozen - which might worry many people if they actually thought about it.
It's fine to reveal natural effects such as this that bitcoin has..  and these things will no doubt be discussed in the media
However, it's better discussed in a thoughtful balanced manner e.g "gaddaffi/wikipedia bypassing government account restrictions - 2 sides of the bitcoin"
vs.. "hahaha.. the government can't screw with us now!"

I believe people are weak and beaten but they are not stupid.

In addition, there's a difference between voluntary collaboration and slavery. I never advocated absolute individualism. People should have the right to associate freely; however, ironically government even limits that.

Strength and Might is usually correct when its not limited to the elite few. That's another premise of mine.

What is protection? Who is entitled to protection? How do they get it?

+1

Protection is what defends a persons claim to something. One is entitled to protection by having the correct amount of value to espouse it whether it be through your inherent value as a human being or direct payment.

People are stupid. History proves it. People do stupid, incredibly self-detructive things over and over and over again. You can't expect any individual to be rational over any given period of time, because we're not wired for rational. We're wired for emotional, psychological, intuitive, and inspired thinking. No matter how perfect your system is in theory, in practice it will fail because humans are fallible.

Anarcho-Capitalism is dependent on individuals behaving rationally.

Protection in a collective form by the weak exists. It's called government.

Please change your writing style, it is a horrendous mix of pseudointellectual and trying too hard.

No, it's not. For instance, the supreme court has ruled that an individual citizen is not entitled to protection. The protection is only according to the whims of the few that have a hold over the system and it's not the people.

Then it's over. We can't expect anything greater of our rulers then. Let's throw in the towel. Humanity is doomed.

Also, irrational people voting for a ruler? That's hopeless. Let's just hire a benevolent dictator! He'll know what's best!

Please don't anamorphize inanimate objects, they hate then you do that.   :)

I'm a big fan of both bitcoin and PM's, but...

...in practice I suspect that bitcoin and PM's would/will be an even more effective tool than is debt-based money for a small group of people to manipulate a larger group.  That is to say, to rob them of a good portion of their freedom and guide the wealth of civilizations into a few people's pockets.

So, I do not really see bitcoin or PM's as the ultimate final solution but rather as a tool to help us during the death throws of our current debt-based system (USD being the proxy by virtue of it's reserve status) which is reaching EOL and a moderating force to help steer a replacement debt-based monetary system on along a more healthy path.

fyp.

Funny. I was just pointing out a flaw in Anarcho-Capitalism (actually, it's a flaw in humanity.) It's part of every human endeavour. When we overcome it, we do great things. The American system of government, when it works, is a great example of this. When we get a good ROI from our taxes, low regulation, and minimal disruption of our daily lives, while we pursue our dreams... education, invention, wealth-building, family ties, whatever.

There are more abuses and examples of corruption in the American system every day, and I'd be the last to say America is unique in allowing people great freedom. I just used it here as an example of government working.

Government, when it works, is a collective expression of the will of the majority, constrained by rational boundaries, respectful of the rights of all. In the US, the boundaries are the system of law, the Constitution, and all the derived codes and policies.

Bitcoin isn't political. It doesn't mean you can avoid taxes, or live outside the law, or anything like that. It's still a tool of commerce. You can still use it for political purposes, both as a currency and as a means of trying to live outside the system. It's your usage, not BitCoin itself, that gives it politics. I would hesitate to accept the wisdom of trying to do so, but again, you bring the politics to the table, not BitCoin.

That's what people are trying to say.

So, the creator's intentions are irrelevant?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto

My life and liberty would be guaranteed by my own efforts and the efforts of those who voluntarily contributed to that endeavor. There is nothing wrong with collective action and mutual aid as long as it is voluntary.

I don't expect Bitcoin to repeal Pareto's principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

If everyone tries to produce the best they can. I expect 80% to go to the top 20%.  This is actually fractal and so the top 4% get 64% of income.  This is natural and fair to me.
But Politicians and other Tax Parasites might have to find honest gainful employment instead of riding along with their feet up and not peddling.

I think that's thoroughly obvious. It's uncontrollable by its very nature... you can't attach any sort of ideology to the use of BitCoin, because all ideologies (except perhaps nihilism) are equally attachable... it's certainly more useful to some than others, but that's part of the politics, not the tool.

So is Atlas.

...but if Bitcoin is accepted by the majority, it will achieve a more free society.

This does not mean it is tied to an ideology in your eyes even though it meets its ends?

You're just jealous because he gets laid more than you.

"A more free society" isn't a political ideology. It's a result of using a tool. A political ideology simply provides a lens to view the results of using a tool... one ideology will say it's good, another will say it's bad. There's nothing inherently political about the usage, by itself.

Boy, all this attention from Atlas.  Amusing.

Yes

I think a better answer is:  collectively, most of "us" are here to stay faithful to the technical design parameters Satoshi set forth.  In particular, the important basic rules 21 million bitcoins, decaying block reward (50 -> 25 -> 12.5, ...), 10 minute average target, etc.  Hash algorithm may change; max number of bitcoins will not (not if I can help it, anyway).

Bitcoin is an experimental engineering tool.  Any such system will behave in the wild as the majority of users deem it so, regardless of the creator's intentions.

Anything more is outside the realm of engineering, into the mental and ideological space you project onto bitcoin.

So what happens to people who "don't [have] the correct amount of value to espouse it?"

Yes, it is you, Atlas, who have figured out humanity. You have revolutionized political life by determining that your personal income, earned at the behest of those around you, is worth more than a human life. You, who know the true value of a hard day's work. You who have read an Ayn Rand book and come to the conclusion that it is a personal bible.

There's a reason most people don't think the way. It's because it doesn't work. You can't protect yourself in a state of nature setting, you're not likely to be that top percent, and you still can't seem to separate political ideology from reality. Marxism doesn't work for the exact same reasons anarchy-communism doesn't work: people exist.

Also please mote that in an anarchic society those who are greediest and care nothing about other people will be first on the chopping block.

This, Atlas, is why you should never change your name. It shows very clearly the people who have a clue what they're critiquing, and the morons who assume that you're a rand-drone.

Perhaps to you.

I am politically neutral, but I am capable of things.

Think before you speak.

Tools are neutral by definition, bits and bytes don't practice politics. It's the people using them that can have political direction.

This is the same kind of argument that some countries are using to ban portscanners, exploit generators and such. "The tool is inherently dangerous and evil!". Oh no it isn't, it is simply a very effective tool and can thus be used to advance "good" and "bad" agendas in the same way.

So what do we want bitcoin to be? A "dangerous, political tool" or simply a neutral global decentralized currency. Think about it.

This post makes no sense. I'm critiquing an anarcho-capitalist who very clearly derives his worldviw from a Rand book as evidenced by his strong Objectivist slant and the fact that he tries to write every post as if he himself were Ayn Rand. But please, let's discuss how I don't know what I'm saying while dodging everything I say.

Tools are neutral. I am wrong.