Bitcoin Forum

Something that always strikes me is that people underestimate the impact of a decentralized world. Especially more vulnerable people that depend on society for ‘survival’.

I get a lot of power to the people vibes while I’m not sure that a lot of people are ready for this.

How I’m experiencing things today (Simplified) :

- I pay more than 50% taxes —> I have no choice
- unemployment is supported by basic income

Basically I’m forced to share some wealth to keep society running

Imagine now a decentralized society :

- my connection with an employer will be direct and I will pay no taxes —> I have a choice
- No support for unemployment. Maybe this will stimulate more people to work but will also create some issues

Basically stronger people will become stronger and people suffering will suffer more.

Im sure Im cutting some corners here but the principle stays afloat. Won’t Bitcoin create more disbalance while a lot of people are claiming the opposite.

No one want to become an unemployment if they have a choice to work, many of unemployments are because they're lack of something that needed for the company. I'm sorry to say this, but a disabilities doesn't have a same chance like normal people because normal people can do more than a disabilities.

I don't see any wrong if the government want to support unemployments considering anyone need food to live, otherwise they will scam or steal money.

Taking advantages of decentralized because you don't want to pay tax isn't cool, but I can't blame since it's your choice.

Actually Satoshi didn't want to make a decentralized world, but he just create a payment tool that can be accepted widely and can't be blocked because of decentralization.

To be honest, I myself defend a decentralized world, with little to no government intervention and etc, but in practice I can't imagine how things would run in such world. I know people say the Darwinism will prevail and will choose only the stronger, smarter, etc, I know maxis says that people's weaponization is the way to protect private property etc, and many more arguments from a couple of maxis out there, but there is so much more beyond that, that I'm not sure I can imagine how a world could run in such a libertarian or even anarchist models of society. Subjects like health, education, protection of the ones with "already" little to no resources, etc.
I mean, people has been being driven by socialists and capitalism and that developed a exploit mind set, a greedy mind set and a corruptible mind set that I don't know how could that ever be reverted.

It does not have to be this way. The problem with discussing all these things theoretically is that reality has many nuances that are not foreseen in theory. And there are theories that defend the opposite: that a world without state intervention would tend to equilibrium, instead of inequality, as you propose.

For me in principle I would like a more decentralized world, with less regulations and less taxes, although I think some are necessary. But the trend in the world is the opposite and if you look at Bitcoin the same, people buy Bitcoin on sites like Coinbase, there are more and more KYC etc. so the decentralization of Bitcoin is very tiny, not to mention that if I hire you to do a job for me, I pay you in Bitcoin and we do not pay taxes, we are committing an illegality.

So, leaving theory aside and thinking realistically, I believe that the decentralization brought by Bitcoin will be very limited.

I see wrong in governments supporting unemployment or at least supporting it almost blindly. I believe there are more people taking advantage of this than the ones really needing the support! And another argument is that if people don't have this support, then, they might really be forced (not in a sense that someone coerces him, but rather he doesn't have another choice) to look for a job, to work harder to find a way of income, and that, in theory, will make those people better human beings. I know this will always sounds esoteric and utopian, but I still believe it. For one reason, which is that when you support someone because he can't find a job, you're feeding his mind set as a lazy because he knows he will get support, so he won't feel motivated to work harder to find a job or a way of income!

I agree that in practice there will probably be some kind of support system however l’m not sure if it will be sufficient.

Also over here in Belgium tons of people chose for unemployment. Support is very close the minimum wage so it also makes sense to chose for it  :) But ok thats probably a regional issue.

But there are also more aspects to it. Unless you were very early Im sure most of crypto wealth is also already with the richest people on the planet.

Indeed I agree it will force some people to contribute more because it will pay off more. I just wonder if people actively realize that. They only see a world without interference of the government.

It would not be taking advantage of the system, it would be the system 😊 Plus it would be a Paretum optimum : total utility is maximized when everybody maximizes his own utility.

Ok Im joking with using extremes but it makes sense

first of all it seems you have fallen into the media trap of hating people that are not wealthy, lucky, skilled, fully abled.
seems you think people with disabilities, back luck, are nasty and undeserving.

also if you think your 50% tax goes to unemployed people then you have fallen for the media FUD yet again

here in the UK they generate 200billion in just income tax, (£500b-£700b all tax revenues combined)
do you know how much actually goes towards unemployment..

here is the math of basic unemployment allowance
~£75 a week = £3900 a year * 1.3m people =£5,070,000,000
ontop of that is housing allowance which is pretty much the same

so call it an average £10.14billion

yep £10billion out of £200billion of just income tax..
thats not even 6%.. no where near 50%

so if you are paying 50% tax(all different taxes from income to spending over a year including every tax like sales tax etc when you buy something)
that is not 50% going to the unemployed. that is just 2%

yep 2% of your wealth not 50%

what you have fallen into the trap of is called the cookie game
imagine there are 200 cookies and 100 people made them with their hard work

a tax man eats takes 100 cookies and gives 10 cookies to the military, many dozens to the private sector. a couple dozen to the public sector and then walks upto you and says.. you see them 2 poor people eating them 2 cookies.. they stole your cookie.
they try desperately to not tell you how many dozens went to the private sector.

He didn't say that. He said that he pays 50% of his income for taxes, not for unemployment! Then some of those 50% will in fact go for unemployment support. Maybe your numbers are correct, I don't doubt, but that's not what he said, about the 50% taxes.

Where I live, there were some stats a couple years ago (now, I'm sure it's worse), that we only start making money for ourselves after the 7th month of the year. Until there, everything we earn is for taxes, so, I believe that it might be even more than 50% of taxes that we end up paying, globally speaking! And I live in the EU.

Where did I say it all goes to unemployment support 😁 Our unemployment allowance is also a lot higher than the amount you mention : its about 1500€. Same story for pensions. When you know about only 40% of our population is active there will be a much bigger impact than 2%

But in the end it doesnt matter. I have to pay 50% to society. Doesnt really matter for what it is used, but I have no saying in it. Maybe marginally by elections 😊

Man you have issues 😊

Im just trying to have a conceptual discussion…

The new system should provide many options so that people are free to get out of "suffering".

I believe more that the world economic order will experience a new revolution that is faster in terms of flexibility and freedom.
And freedom here doesn't mean you have to choose between them, both centralized and non-centred will cover their failures with each other. So you won't really suffer if you combine the two systems in order to really get the "freedom".

I agree the new system will provide many options but I’m not sure if everybody will have enough to offer to this system

For example what will prevent lowering minimum wage for ‘unskilled’ labour. There will be tons of supply lowering the reward.

In essence freedom will not benefit everybody otherwise it wouldnt be full freedom

There are always ways and means to avoid paying taxes, especially if we are talking about cash transactions and P2P deals. We all decide if we want to pay those taxes or not. If you leave digital fingerprints for monetary transactions, you could get caught and questioned. If you don't, the chances are significantly smaller.

I think we should stop dreaming about a Bitcoin society that replaces all traditional institutions and instruments of power we have today. Let's just hope Bitcoin's development goes nicely and in the interest of its holders. It's an economy that works independently. A sidechain to traditional finance if you want. I am not dreaming of a world where the governments won't tax people at all because they are using Bitcoin only. All countries need those revenues and rely on it. Chaos would ensue otherwise. A world-wide mining ban is a more likely scenario (although highly unlikely itself) than the governments giving up on taxing their citizens.       

I also think it’s quite unlikely but I don’t think governments would have a choice if the theoretical case of a decentralized society would happen. They would need to accept the new reality and need to look for new models.

by the context of your topic. you are only talking about unemployment and using them as your target.
out of all the possible targets if you were to work out possible % of your tax amounts.. you seemed to have picked unemployment as the target, which is odd in of itself.

you also think that if you made special arrangements with your employer you can avoid paying into unemployment.

you never mentioned the military, or pensions or public services like police and fire. or road/bridge repair, or
national forest/conservation area, or reservoir/water/river maintenance.  you made it specifically a target of honing in on unemployment, mentioning it several times as your gripe of your 50%

yes i agree you never said exact words of unemployment is 50% of your income. but you insinuate it by associating unemployment as your main concern of tax burden

i see many people do this all the time thinking that its the unemployed that are sucking money out of the system
(i personally do not take nor ever have taken unemployment) but when there are bigger budgets being wasted through tax grants and R&D of private businesses, i just find it silly that someone wants to bring up the unemployed as their tax burden

here is a quick lesson for you.
there will always be a tax, even if everyone was employed. even if there was a job for all disabled people. even if citizens voted in a bunch of politicians and those politicians voted in to privatise fire and police and got rid of all public sector roles. a government will still find something to tax you
in fact they would probably tax you more heavier.

i personally would prefer the tax money to go to the poor and needy. like a social security/insurance for times where we have bad luck and become unemployed due to no fault of our own. rather then see our taxes being wasted on new cars and posh lunches for politicians and their private corporate buddies.. but thats just me..
my main frustration of a topic like this is that mindset that the poor should be left to fend for themselves while the rich get richer.
we recently had the treasurer himself allow his own wife to tax evade by a couple billion pounds. and then had the audacity to then tell everyone that there were not a couple billion in the treasury spare to uplift the poverty line by just £20.. yep his own wifes tax if she paid it would have covered the uplift of milions of people. just one woman tax avoidance  amount.

I also said I was simplifying things. The whole essence of my post was to indicate that some of the big supporters don’t fully understand what they are cheering for and what implications would be. It was never about looking down on people.

It really seems you are just assuming what I want to say while you are completely incorrect. A wise man I used to know once said to me : assume is a fools perfume 😁

Also thanks for the quick lesson, very impressive. I see that I was apparently also shooting at disabled people. Probably in a few posts I will be a Nazi…

Very unfortunate you can not have this type of theoretical discussions over here without being called names…

many countries have many tax loopholes. the main one is loans.
so allow your forum pseudonym to loan(personal loan) your real life name a 0% interest with a 100 year repayment plan of £0.01 with no penalty for non-payment.

as for
very much sounds like you want the rich to get rich and the poor to just die off

if you dont care for the poor. then yes expect some people to call you out on it.
there are alot of anti-capitalists in bitcoin. as that was the whole point. to get away from elitism

by the way capitalism is not where everyone gets rich.. thats the fantasy tail the rich tell poor people when rich ask the poor to hand over their money.
capitalism is the myth that if you work harder and scrub them toilets or flip those bugers better you too can be a king of a kingdom one day..
do you think clintons or trump ever scrubbed a toilet or flipped a burger or done manual labour ever in their life..
capitalsim is the fairy tale dream of hope without promise.

capitalism is actually in simple terms.. the bigger character comes first. literally. and the smallest character . comes last

I don’t think decentralization will spread over to any aspect of society, you will still need government services for most things:

• Healthcare.
• Police.
• Jurisdiction.
• Education.
• Military(no military only works, if no other countries has it, but if one country starts building militaries again, the others have to do it too, or they can be conquered easily).
• Social services.
• Basically everything the government is now doing too.

Except if they loose their monopoly over money, it could actually make societies more strong again and where decentralization really brings in huge benefits.

It’s the same now in most countries, your employer will probably deduct taxes beforehand and you will only get the taxed amount payed out. Just like now, because otherwise the state would start closing their business. The difference with decentralized money will be: No one can confiscate your already taxed money, or make it worthless over time. This is huge, if people had this in the past, the whole course of history would probably have been different.

They will tax people, there’s a saying: only two things are certain, taxes and death. Even if the state looses their power temporarily and a vacuum forms, after some time a new state will probably form again. We can’t escape this.

So a description of a theoretical case becomes an opinion ?

But isn’t that the essence of the issue ? In the theoretical case where Bitcoin would take over there would be an issue as the middleman (government) would be out and therefore not able to deduct taxes.

Services depending on these taxes (list you mention) would be under pressure.

I agree with you we continue to need these services but a decentralized world could create issues in this field

The government won’t be out, they still have a monopoly on force and laws, but they lost their monopoly over money. Maybe they would even start to shift course and appreciate the properties Bitcoin offers to the people, and use it as a superior tool of finance and maybe even start contributing to it’s security etc. Fiat creates them problems themselves don’t forget that, a mess that they have to try to fix, but they don’t have a fix they can create themselves.

washing aside your "lets those suffering, suffer more' remarks of your tax burden

if there ever was a society without politicians. where all criminal law was voted in via people using blockchain votes that validated a law by them having one vote per person.

where people could  donate towards the road repair of their street by forming a neighbourhood multisig where a neighbourhood volunteers to put funds in if they get peed off with the road disrepair. where by they all club together to pay for fire/police service should they live in an area that has serious need for security.

then in that dream utopia. it can be done by the technology.
but what you then see happen is instead of 'neighbourhood voluntary tax' it soon pools/syndicates into town tax, then county, then state then national tax. where by it tries to make things cheaper per person by adopting a wider population into paying into the pool of funds.. and many decades later.. oh look government again..

yep taxes used to be village/castle level centuries ago. then it evolved. to national level. due to citizens opting for that kind of thing over time

Exactly, it will happen again and again.

Nice one  :)

But they will also need money for that 😊

---

But if we are all convinced we will always need a centralized authority collecting taxes and therefore deciding for us (partially) why do we need Bitcoin ?

It would be weird to only need the decentralization for payments

---

Last time I will try  :-\ I never indicated we should do that and also didn’t say that. I was describing a case and never said let us evil minds do this because Im such a bad person and enjoy people suffering (what you apparently read)

So? They own many assets like gold, land, real estate, pension funds, some stocks, some companies etc. And can always give out their own currency with forced value attached to it. And will probably start owning Bitcoin or other assets themselves. Taking down a state isn’t possible that easily.

Not just for payments, Bitcoin is money. If you don’t ask yourself why do we need better money, then maybe you don’t understand how the current monetary system is putting you at a disadvantage and making you poorer than you would have otherwise been. And is making entire financial systems fragile. That is what Bitcoin is here to fix, the only money that doesn’t require trust to work as the trust based money model always failed and will always fail.

And one addition, in the hypothetical case that so many people are pro Bitcoin that they would try to defund the state, if the state is against it. All it takes for the state is to appreciate Bitcoin and make it legalized to keep their power, it doesn’t even take force. So a scenario where a state would fall is highly unlikely.

I have a master in Economics but indeed I sometlmes wonder why we need Bitcoin. I literally have zero day to day issues with payments and Im a frequent ebayer/investor all over the world. Fast payment options virtually at no cost. Inflation is an issue of all times and you need to longterm invest to hedge against this.

It could be its different in other areas of the world but for me I dont have any issues. I see the argument a lot so it must be the case in other regions

Do you have any practical examples of current issues for you as a buyer/seller ?

I think that progressive taxation and universal basic income are great ideas. If someone is just getting by, taxes should be low for this person because the money they give to the state can make a difference for them. If people are quite well-off, they should pay more because they already live a comfortable life, and it's not like they don't use public services (they use roads, they probably used public education, medicine or something like that, they rely on the safety and judicial system provided by the state etc.). If  a person is very rich, then giving more to society makes even more sense. This person won't really benefit from this money, but there are those who will. And there are services that will benefit as well. Also, chances are, this person is either wealthy because of some family legacy stuff (which also leads to better opportunities because of people you meet through family that can help you get rich) or because of paving their own way in a certain community (which means that this community had people who recognized their talent, potential or appreciated their product or whatever, and that also justifies giving back). Not to mention the moral commitment to help those in need, those who were less fortunate. And unemployment is usually NOT because of a good social support system; it's when people WANT to work, but the job market doesn't have enough demand for them to work.

You have a point on the taxation per earnings but it should be like a fixed percentage for everybody. If you would overdo it the highest class would look for alternatives.

The unemployment is a bit more difficult. Over here unemployment support is 1500-1600€ while minimum wage is like 1800€. The difference is just not worth it. Lots of people are doing some cash jobs on top to end up much higher. According to me working should be much more rewarded. We have enough jobs they dont get filled. Disclaimer : im not targetting people not able to work…

Now you’re starting to ask the right questions.

We have to look further than just buyer/ seller related issues, this is about monetary system design. Current payment methods are less relevant, as we have two competing currencies in circulation, Fiat(soft money) and Bitcoin(hard money), the payment stuff comes later. If we follow Greshams law, soft money drives out hard money from circulation, as people would rather keep hold onto something more valuable, than to use it daily. In the initial phase Fiat will still be the primary payment method, this doesn’t matter for Bitcoin now.

The first practical issue is Store of Value related. The money supply from last the financial crisis(2008) since now already increased by 182%, sure this isn’t direct inflation, but debasement still has long term impacts. Now you have already correctly analysed that it is necessary to hedge against this with long term investments. But we also gotta ask ourselves is this option open to everyone and can this economical model work forever? If the answer is no, we might consider, if it would make sense to invest something that could be a fix to the current issues. They are:

• Loss of purchasing power.
• Fragility of the banking sector.
• Fraudulent activities by central authorities.
• Failing fiat system that needs more and more authoritarianism to keep alive.
• Risk of censorship and confiscation.
• Lowered trust in financial institutions.

Also hedging against inflation doesn’t solve the problem of inflation in the first place. The whole approach has ever been let’s debase our currency to fix all problems, yet there’s no evidence of any betterment being the result of this approach. It’s the opposite actually.

To make it even more clear, let’s just compare different forms of money with the common criteria:

Most saleable good(easiness of tradebility with a good) - this changes over time.

• 1. Fiat
• 2. Bitcoin
• 3. Gold

Store of value - Scarcity(Supply relative to other goods), Durability(No loss in functionality with repeated use)

• 1. Bitcoin (limited; durable)
• 2. Gold (unlimited, but scarce; durable)
• 3. Fiat (unlimited, increasing rapidly; not durable, as debt-based money creation makes it a weaker form of money over time, with repeated use)

Medium of Exchange -

Acceptability(Used and accepted by others)

• 1. Fiat(most accepted and used)
• 2. Bitcoin(gaining more and more popularity and usage, but less accepted)
• 3. Gold(accepted in special locations, probably only usable by overpaying in daily commerce currently)

Portability(Easily moveable across distances)

• 1.Bitcoin(extremly easy and fast, can move faster than the person itself, least costly solution for high amounts today, most secure option)
• 2. Fiat(Banking system is slow + costly, and even slower + costlier over long distances; No guaranteed security, because there’s always a counterparty risk(No matter if you use Credit Cards, Paypal or wire) or transportation risk/ cost when transporting physical bills; Also makes currency conversion necessary over longer distances)
• 3. Gold(terribly hard, expensive and dangerous to transport)

Unit of Account -

Divisibility(Easily dividable into smaller units)

• 1. Bitcoin(Easy, 8 decimal places)
• 2. Fiat(Good, 2 decimal places)
• 3. Gold(terrible, needs a lot of work)

Fungibility(1 unit is the same as the other)

• 1. Bitcoin(All units are the same, altough some people argue that the history of coins can affect its desirability for others, cant be counterfeited, can easily be verified)
• 2. Fiat(Bills are the same, but higher ones arent accepted everywhere, can be counterfeited, less relevant for digital fiat, but harder to verify overall)
• 3. Gold(theres different coins/ bars with different degrees of desirability, also its not easy to verify real gold for everyone)

The only outlook we got from central banks to repair fiat would be to introduce digital currencies, but we all know this whole construct needs more and more complexity and control to keep functioning.

This is contradicting the basic task of money: enabling a system of indirect trade. Which of these 3 currencies can potentially do it the best, where would free trade flourish the most? And thus benefit society, because we can all agree that the well-being of society is in decline everywhere, it’s just obvious. We’re discussing social reforms, without trying to get to the root of problem. Fiat robbed money it’s beneficial function for most people, otherwise the opposite trend would be true, and we would see financial well-being in societies rise, the technological progress is there. But it’s just not the case.

Bitcoin is a money that is superior in all aspects listed above, except acceptability, but this is already on an upwards trend. We have the first money that works without a middleman. Where you can’t actually change the properties listed above easily. Where transactions can’t be censored, where wealth can’t be confiscated. Which money would benefit society the most, if we put our political biases aside and look at this from a neutral economical perspective.

To me the answer is obvious.

There is no current solution by fiat economists to protect an average individual from inflation, bank failures, confiscation risks, loosing your money with absolute certainty. Bitcoin is a unique solution to whole problem, so people simply choose this, instead of going the more inefficient route to hedge into other assets that don’t have the potential to fix the system.

the problem with society is this

when it comes to helping those in need. the government take the most basic low number they can find as the survival line. and give that as social security payments/unemployment allowance.

then they set another slightly higher number as the minimum wage..
but both of these are way below the 'cost of living' true number

so even having a job at min wage isnt going to cut it. and instead of fighting for an increase of minimum wage some people argue that the social security is too high..


the problem is not the poor. its that min wage is not at living cost!!!. so blame the low min wage. not the social security
..
what could be done because technology allows it...
is an actual measure.
EG they say 5 fruit-veg a day, X amount of protein,fat sugar... actually cost out a real healthy diet, instead of the meanial rice and instant mash with beans budget diet. the actual average electricity bill. not the cheapest ineffective energy supplier.
the actual housing costs not the government supplemented/discounted housing cost.
actually work out a true living cost and make that the minimum wage.
 where by the social security is ofcourse below that. but there is no crying about minimum wage being like unemployment. but instead a fair minimum wage. that people want to work to get(for those that can)

the technology is there to codify all of this and automate it. like taking values from all retailers and auditing them to certify prices and then calculate fair min incomes for different 'laws'(min wage/social security) to be put into code and voted in by citizens. (no politicians required)

where for instance how to get social security funded, it can be less of a "tax regime". but more of a system of voluntary contributions. where some people can 'stake' the coin(already earned savings) and where by a certain amount of PROFIT of the stake  then funds the basic social securities and thats where 'money creation(via staking)' goes towards instead of current system where money creation is debt/loans.
so where the staking system (money creation) funds social security. and people earn savings interest by staking too.

completely separate from their real life employment earnings of coins..


all without a politician decision maker. and without blaming the poor

I have been into supporting the government with taxes because it is the bread and butter of the government in funding its social responsibilities.  Having decentralization is a good thing because it gives more options to the people.


This has been an issue ever since.  People with lots of monetary power can purchase more than anyone who has less monetary power, that is the standard in financial system whether it is centralized or decentralized.

How could it create more when the disbalance is already existing and the effect of financial power is almost the same.  The good thing with bitcoin is that with its growth brings more income-generating opportunities to people.  And those who used to be unable to transact online due to having no bank account can now have an opportunity to process online transactions because of the availability of cryptocurrency.



I can have a simple answer to this.  There are people who are declined by banks in having an account due to some personal validation and source of income reason. So these people can't do online transactions since they don't have any bank accounts to process their transactions.  With Bitcoin, these people are able to do online transactions without the need for banks.  So basically, Bitcoin brings convenience to people.  Bitcoin is able to bridge the gap created by banks between unbanked people and online purchases, and online remittances.

No good deed goes unpunished and all things have unintended consequences both good and bad but at some point you either make the move or you don't.  Therefore it is wise to properly examine things and do due diligence.  Decentralization can be positive and improve some things but unfettered decentralization would be anarchy and disastrous.  

It is all true what you are saying but current monetary policy sometimes requires money printing so de facto creating inflation. This to fund some social investments governments are required to do to keep society afloat.

A good example are all stimulus given out during Corona. Probably also a big driver of the Bitcoin bull run.

The point I want to make is you are right Bitcoin is superior but to me its hard to decouple it from full decentralization.

These two things, in fact, work much better without the government. I agree that law and order can be kept by the state, but many people already choose private education. In fact education that is decentralized is much better for both teachers and students. Students get better teachers because they get to choose. Schools that are good get more students and more money, while worse shools get less money and cannot afford the best teachers. It creates a clear set of rules for everyone which says: you are the best teacher, you get the most money. For students, those who can afford the best teachers will get them, the rest will have to go with schools they can afford.

Nowadays in centralized school system you get mediocre schools with mediocre wages and the best teachers work in the private sector anyway.

It's very similar in healthcare. Public hospitals offer low wages, so they only allow young doctors to get more experience and once they're done they move to the private sector.

Inequality growth is indeed universal and will never change but I’m just afraid some of the inequalities will grow since blockchain is all about removing the middle man and this middle man (government) is currently protecting the weakest ones. Dont see them grasping opportunities now to be honest. Could be wrong its just a feeling.

Again I dont know anybody that ever had issues with a bank. Over here nobody is refused a bank and most transactions are free of charge. Instant payments in Europe : faster and cheaper compared to Bitcoin. Probably not similar in the whole world but thats my personal experience

Yes, and that's why only a very small percentage of people can actually live with bitcoin decentralization. Meanwhile, we are still dealing with centralization and strict government regulations. KYC and tax fee are some of the things that keep us from completely have financial freedom with bitcoin especially for countries that don't legalize it as legal tender. In the end it's true as you said, the decentralization that bitcoin brings will be limited because we can't completely keep it decentralized when it comes to government and its regulations.

Bitcoin was created for sending money p2p without a third party and faster. Our traditional banking system isn't instant and has to use a third party. Although fiat transactions become faster now but not for all countries. Bitcoin stands here, its borderless currency can transfer within minutes without involving a third party. Just decentralization won't solve everything here. Everything won't be decentralized in a centralized world. There are advantages and disadvantages in both sides.

It's great you have a great Government there in the UK but the thing is each country has its own leaders.  Often times the supposed to be weak-protecting government chooses to protect those who amassed great wealth.  One of example is the labor contractual system where employees are changed or have to renew every 5-6 months removing several benefits that a permanent employee has. Aside from that, my government is unable to solve the problem of telecom monopolization and electrical overcharge where the electric company charges their users for generation loss.  


It is rampant in a developing country, I am one of those who were declined by the banks due to not having a steady source of income (was a free agent before I found out about Bitcoin).

---

Not if the transaction is done through P2P.

The government is finding ways to limit Bitcoin decentralization through third-party services but I think Government will not able to limit Bitcoin if we are to talk about its network procedure or on-chain transactions.

If they just printed money in emergencies like this, it would be fine and justified. The real problem is that entire nation states are dependent on close to 0 interest rates and would go bankrupt if some normality would come back and higher rates came back. The complete reliance on printed money is dangerous in my opinion and requires central planning, which we know cant work in the long term.

Also its questionable that private institutions like banks have been given to power to basically create money out of nowhere, with fractional reserving and just 1% in minimum reserve requirements. In the beginning this concept might generate more economic growth, but what were seeing now is that the purchasing power of the population is lowering trough constant devaluation of money, and that in times where production is low, inflation creeps in too, the effects are catastrophic, we are going into a living cost crisis.

This system cant be fixed in itself anymore, that is the problem. It always requires more planning and policies, instead of being sustainable in itself.

Bitcoin is just decentralized in itself, to ensure its properties will stay like it is and that it cant be controlled by a minority of people, for money this is huge.

I get your concern. I think full decentralization will fail in practice, it was here before centralization and got replaced for a reason. We need police, hospitals, firefighters, courts etc. Who will protect an average persons property? Who will build roads and infrastructure? Who will pick you up in an accident? Who will treat you when youre sick? Who will help you if youre out of a job? There is so many things Bitcoin cant solve, its just money. States formed for a reason, many people might be frustrated currently, but having no social security net is even more damaging. And lawlessness wont ever work or come back on a big scale. There just needs to be some checks on the state again and we need to push bad monetary policy and central planning a little back, only decentralized money can compete against states. The government will just have to compete against it, this is not a replacement question, this dynamic comes in handy more than ever now.

Maybe my view is different here, because in the country i live you can get the same doctors and universities any rich person can afford, at barely any cost. There is no difference in the quality/ access of the service no matter if youre rich or poor. This might differ from country to country, but my concern is that when theres no real rules here, then poorer people might get priced out of healthcare and education, this is catastrophic for society. Getting a degree or going to a hospital shouldnt mean high debts like in the U.S.

Rich people can always afford better teachers and doctors privately, the state should offer the best quality schools and hospitals they can for everyone, this is the best case scenario for a society in my opinion. Rich people just use private insurances here to get out of public insurances, as it can save them some money, but then when theyre actually sick it becomes expensive and was pointless.

It did happen already because cryptos are finally there but I think cryptos are not invented for this (to dodge the tax system) but there might be other reasons. Many people especially those who want to avoid tax and as well as those criminals who want to launder money are now being involved in cryptos. Not to be selfish but sometimes it's good to not pay tax than the tax will just go on the wrong hands because in our modern world today, corruption are now very rampant.

There are those who are not corrupt but the other problem is the lazy people that only depend on the government to provide their basic needs. It's a kind of abusive.

Indeed I also don’t think it’s intention of Bitcoin to avoid taxes but it is created to remove central authority over the payment system. Removing authority implies a more direct contact between people interacting financially. Therefore an impact (applied by central organs) on tax collection seems logic.

Sadly many wouldn't want that to happen because they wouldn't be able to do their usual fouls like favouritism, the corruption they called networking and cheating. I see nothing wrong with being taxed from your income, the only problem I see is how these taxes are allocated, spent, and get stolen by some groups. However, I think decentralization will solve this because you can't manipulate a public ledger that is visible to everyone, you see why decentralization will be massively rejected.

And not surprising that most government doesnt really like its existence on the first place because as you do mention on where they cant really able to execute those things if ever that everything is really that having some transparency where those corruption and misused of funds would really be that known or obvious and also we do know that government doesnt really like on things that they cant able
to control thats why its not really surprising that they would really be going against it on the first place.

There might be some considerations on some places in the world but of course it would really be still following on regulated procedure or arrangement which speaking of total decentralization with a mix
of regulation on some particular areas which do really sucks but not really that bad.

But despite all the counter-attacks that the government does like banning, we could still see that crypto is growing. I'd see that nobody can stop this. The only thing they can do is to give support and asking holders to pay their taxes can be easy if there is a good relationship between them. The problem with the government is just abruptly implementing rules that are not fair enough and not considerate to the community, they are just selfish to think about their own.

The government only thinks about their profit, because they can't fully regulate bitcoin. Bitcoin is decentralized, not centralized and not regulated by anyone. What the government can only do is provide regulations in the form of prohibitions or only allowed as commodity assets and many other regulations, depending on the government.
crypto does continue to grow and nothing will stop it, even in a state of inflation or in a state of war though.

The government is currently applying taxes to crypto users, because the government is aware that crypto users have started to multiply and the transactions in crypto are very large. Some major exchanges even get a lot of action in the form of tax actions that must be paid and if they don't pay they will be blocked.

If we were to have a Decentralized society, I don't think that would be a good intention or system in every country to do this thing just to avoid paying taxes. Because if there is no tax to be levied by the government of each country, it is likely that such a country will fall further into poverty and its economy will also collapse. Then the saying is true that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.


That's correct, cryptocurrency is not design for that matter, isntead it was design to help the community and also the economy
of each government of the country that will adopt the system of the cryptocurrency, besides, not all crypto's also are unregulated,
instead, there are some regulated too that exist in this business industry.

But the problem is that many governments don't feel ready for the change from bitcoin so they still have a lot to learn about bitcoin and how they can tax every crypto user. In the future, maybe the government will be even stricter in implementing the tax because the tax from crypto can be very large, considering that many old players have joined in crypto and have a lot of assets. We will see what the government will do in the future and prepare ourselves for it.

Why it has to be decentralized society just because we have decentralized system, even the extreme conspiracy is one world one currency but your imagination gone behind that since you are talking about world with no government, or am I missing something?

Only the mode of payment is decentralized with limited money supply so no more minting and no more inflation but the government should implement regulations to support this so they will keep generating the revenue aka taxes as always and keep running the society.

taking away the idiotic views, and just concentrating on the concept.

lets run that scenario through.. again .. but using potholes as the public service instead of his biases of poor people.. just to be more fair to the concept he is probably trying to make

imagining the current system where a neighbourhood pays state taxes via employment income tax and hoping one day the state finally inspects the neighbourhood and see's the roads with potholes and finally does something to repair them via tax..(i know annoying right. you pay money in but feel you never get anything out of it personally)

sbrys, instead is probably envisioning a 'choice' where he and his neighbourhood can collectively or individually seek out a road repair service from YELP, and get a few quotes and decide on the best deal and then he himself funds the pothole infront of his yard/driveway. or collectively with his neighbourhood they all chip in a share of funds into a multisig to pay for numerous pot holes that even he bumps in and out of on his route out of his neighbourhood..

however he needs to think. not all residents will voluntarily want to pay the upkeep of their road. or even care about the pot hole infront of their driveway because they learned to drive around it.. or they cant afford it this year
..or if there is an annoying pothole 5 houses down the road that he bumps into. if he wants it sorted he would pay for more of it then the share of the neighbourhood because others might not have that same equal annoyance of said pothole or funds at hand to pay it..

thus it becomes a tale of spite and arrogance in the neighbourhood where sbrys thinks he is not responsible for the pot hole 5 houses down where it should be the home owner 5 houses down that repairs that hole. (which that home owner doesnt care about as they drive around the hole). and now the neighbours are fighting, each making excuses not to pay for the repair. or arguing about paying for other peoples responsibilities

what then happens is a neighbourhood committee is formed to set rules for the neighbourhood where everyone has to pay in a neighbourhood service charge where it appears as a small% each on a regular bases rather then singular lump sums at surprise times

see where this is going.. simply swap the word 'committee' for 'local government'. and then add in the concepts of how neighbourhoods then club together to get 'group discount/bulk purchase' discount. and let that concept expand..
and within years. guess where you end up.

..
now lets inject some of sbrys poverty bias
in a scenario of neighbourhood/local government committee (playing his views to the extremes(not using his words verbatim))
he would be first to tell the 'committee' to make someone homeless and steal their house and make sbrys profit, simply because they didnt pay their pothole service charge and is a rule break. and they dont deserve any special treatment.
because yea he sees their avoidance of paying the pothole service charge as a sign of weakness and he thinks the poor deserve to not survive in his neighbourhood, and he sees how he should profit(get stronger) out of their suffering by making sbrys profit from confiscating their home to pay for sbrys's costs of the neighbourhood charge.

now its all played out. here is the lightbulb moment
.. see the scenario from the other side..
by sbrys saying he doesnt want to pay taxes.. he is considered the weak neighbour that shouldnt survive

I wish I had some merit to splash on your post for your effort at expressing your point of view. Though I disagree with you in more ways than one. For instance, this quoted part to start with. Remember that axiom – No condition is permanent? Exactly! You can't of a certainty say that the "stronger" will continue to get stronger while those suffering will perpetually suffer. That's not how life works. There's bound to be a change somehow.

Bitcoin is expected to disrupt world economics and redistribute wealth where it ordinarily wouldn't go to. It's succeeding in this, I must say. It's granting financial independence to a whole lot of people. If that's the "disbalance" you're talking about then I think it should do more of that.

Thanks man appreciated ! Not agreeing is always better for the discussion 😊

I do agree that people can grow and become stronger. It’s not a given you cannot get out of a bad situation. That’s also one of the main tasks for society, support people (temporary) until they are back on their feet. The issue for me with decentralization is that there is a risk individuals remove middlemen in their operations and by that cut in the available social layer. The removal of that support was in fact the increasing disbalance I was describing.

The redistribution of Wealth by Bitcoin I have to disagree :) Apart from the people that got in really early😊. Rich people are also buying into Bitcoin and will have more units compared to ‘regular’ people. Also they will have more assets to build more Bitcoin using that balance. For me there is no really new dynamic in Bitcoin to change this.

You shouldn't worry about it because 100% decentralization will never happen. Decentralized systems need to be perfect. But guess what, human beings ain't perfect. We are far from being perfect. We make mistakes and sometimes mistakes need to be "fixed"

Since it is not going to work with the decentralized systems, it is never going to get super big in the future.

Being perfect simply don't comply with HumanOS.

I think the exact opposite, since bitcoin so far has made many people rich that had nothing but interest in coding and cryptography. You could invest next to nothing at the beginning of bitcoin and would be incredibly rich today. It was not a point of how much you would invest, but that you had the nerdy interest to put some time and effort into the project. This is very different to most assets, since those will usually give a fixed return (like 10%) which will make rich people have a higher return than poor people.

Well, I don't see any special function middlemen proffer apart from offering services for rewards. They too can find another niche if what they're into snaps them out of it. No one remains in a company if it folds up or dies from the reality of it. They move on and eventually settle in on other engagements. You know, before some establishments started making use of robots for their services many people thought that would be the end of earning from certain jobs. That isn't the case now. Those seemingly affected by robot replacements have moved on to even better things. So, for me decentralization is a gift; not a curse.

Again, just a few rich men actually. Most are still skeptical about Bitcoin, at least in public. Now, look at it this way – Anyone who isn't prudent in the little they've won't be in the much they will have. Early adopters got Bitcoin for almost nothing. So, if they sell off and the rich buy them at a higher price; it's expected that the early adopters should have enough to diversify their portfolios and get into other businesses or buy back their Bitcoin if they truly know how to trade and earn. That's also a way of creating more wealth for themselves, don't you think so?

As I mentioned there are indeed some individuals that became very rich but those or not really moving in the needle in the whole of society.

In my experience all my friends have some crypto, the richer they are the more they invested and they more risk they took.

Overall social positions will remain the same

I really wonder if there has even been a moment in your life where this way of talking to people was successful. Let’s start by telling somebody is an idiotic that will work 😄

The people that bought Bitcoin very early were already higher in the Pyramid than general since they owned a computer and had some (advanced) IT knowledge. From there on the distribution was probably more an average of society.

Also imagine there will still be a big boom ahead. New entrants will probably invest like 0,1btc while rich people will start with a full one. Same risk profile but bigger pockets

You would take away fiat that is controlled by Government and replace it with Bitcoin. Government would never actively allow this so in a Bitcoin world there would be some deconnection from central authority.

For me Bitcoin and reduction of government involvement would go hand in hand. Maybe not in extremes in the beginning but would be a logic consequence

But Bitcoin will still preserve a workers savings over time, something fiat can’t do. Anyone has the opportunity to go in right now at the same price, yet a lot of people are spending more time defending fiat or demanding crazy policies(not you), than to take some actions that can benefit their future. It’s a lost cause to reach even distribution in a free market, because people aren’t rational enough to go in early. These earlier risk takers made it possible in the first place and later on they pay the same price as everyone else. There needs to be some incentive to build something.

The people that are rich later on will also need to start using their coins in real economic activity/ spending if they want to benefit from it, as there is no mechanism to create new coins that can make them richer without work or risk like in fiat. Better distribution will occur naturally when thiers law starts coming into play and Bitcoin will be used as a medium of exchange.

Im the case many rich people don’t use their coins at all, they’re like lost coins and out of the circulation, which also benefits the average individual again, as their coins in circulation will become more valuable.

There is unique things about a Bitcoin economy that benefits the average person, they won’t get purely exploited like in fiat. This is about fixing money and not getting rich, not everyone can be rich in the first place, yet Bitcoin still smh protects the interests of the individual again.

A government that serves its people should have no fears of abandonment, maybe they should rethink who they really wanna serve.

Yes, bitcoin has given users the freedom to manage their finances independently. It is like a bank in our hands and every bitcoin user who has complete control over his wallet is the owner of that bank. Our Bitcoin is our rule, and it's the opposite of the fiat system.

We can't force the government to agree to everything we want about bitcoin, that's impossible because bitcoin is basically not a currency that governments really expect to be better than fiat. Decentralization and centralization will never be the same, they will continue to be opposites. But bitcoin has offered us a better option as a means of payment.

You are not exactly far from the truth with the whole decentralization talk. I agree with decentralization to some extent or should say to certain aspects of living and not all otherwise there will be a lot of oppression from the strong to the weak.
Well i guess what people mostly are looking for is decentralized financial system where people can have total control of their funds and not a decentralized world because that will be a different ball game if you take a sec to think about the disadvantages as against the advantages.

The sad thing is, that the government will continue to tax us no matter where we keep our assets or where we use Bitcoin as a currency. Taxing is everywhere and is present in every purchase that we do because we all know that businesses that sell our daily necessities don't accept Bitcoin is still regulated by the government. If there will be more establishments and businesses that will accept Bitcoin, I think we can quite feel the financial freedom that we want.

Government taxation is necessary to any country as it is where the government of any country gets it's fund to run it's nation. Unfortunately, crypto taxation is quite confusing especially for investors as you cannot tax something that is a potential profit. This is why crypto regulations has been set to better managed each and everyone's crypto assets.

Also, even if businesses and establishments with accept bitcoin as a payment method, it will still require to be taxed since it will be included on their tax filing. But still, having an option to pay thru bitcoin and other crypto, it will be a good thing as massive adoption will be much more achieved.

Indeed I fully agree people are looking for only a decentralized payment system but to me that’s hard to achieve without further decentralization. It can coexist but only when it’s in the ‘gimmick phase’ and not
Being the backbone of economy.

Hence also the title for this topic. People wish for a payment system but to me they have to sacrifice some other things in order to achieve what they are wishing for

There is nothing sad about paying taxes especially when this tax money is being used to provide all the required public services that enable you as a citizen of that state or country to enjoy peace and security.
Assuming you are living in a country full of insecurities as a result of government negligence, you will not be able to enjoy having your btc with you because you won't feel secure enough. Also if people don't pay tax and the government can not afford to provide the needed security, having financial freedom will be meaningless.
You can only be sad when you pay tax and the money is not utilized in the right way.

There is indeed nothing wrong with taxes used for public services in a smart way. It helps all individuals and society as a whole.

Problem is with a decentralized payment system governments will lose track of payment flows and it will be much more difficult to tax. Possibilities to dodge taxes will be endless.

Also it will be very hard to perform efficient monetary policies when there is nobody in charge of the macro economic movements. Money printing can be a bitch but it can also give air to your economy

you are thinking too deep, too early. Who says bitcoin income is not taxed. In many countries they are taxed. Decentralization will help to make systems more efficient and more robust. It has nothing to di with taxes. Infact in long run it will help to reduce corruption, which is primarily in fiat currency. Kenya is a poor country, but you see people over there are embracing crypto at a faster pace.Its helping them to come out of their poverty

I’m indeed biased from my side of the world. I can understand the upside in other parts of the world where it can bring more stability.

I just think it will be harder to tax as it will be harder to trace. Here in Belgium it’s almost a national sport to dodge taxes (not me 😊) so I can imagine it would be even worse.

But indeed it’s not a problem of today or tomorrow but I like to analyze future development and behaviours 😊

Wishing people gold is another alternative for someone to progress and these and other evidence to show that you really love the person that you are wishing good this is applicable or is the same thing that happen when you wish someone bad into cryptocurrency investment and if the person proceeds to win or profit in your wish automatically the person will be good with you so I have not seen anything wrong wishing somebody what is good because everybody is expecting good thing

You can have taxes in a decentralized financial society. The government would compel you to pay taxes regardless if they have control over your finances or not. They'd just show up to your front doorstep with a gun and threaten you with violence or jail until you comply.

I'm not one of those "taxation is theft" type of people. The government serves the reasonable purpose of collecting taxes. Crypto might increase the burden of the government to collect taxes, but that's not something I'm concerned about. They already have immense power. Forcing them to jump through a few hoops for folks that don't willingly comply isn't the end of the world.

Bitcoins ledger is public and any transaction is saved forever. There isn’t more transparency than this. Not good to evade taxes/ criminal activities as the proof will be there forever for law enforcement. It will be hard for criminals to hide evidences, when the police will check them in person. They already have all the tools in their disposal to spy on citizens. Even networks like lightning aren’t completely private and there can still be evidence found there, if they really check criminals. Pseudonymity of Bitcoin is good to protect regular citizens right to privacy, but it won’t hide real criminal activities. Police will have enough evidence to work with, that can’t easily be destroyed. Also most Bitcoin is linked to some real id on centralized exchanges, this completely removes any privacy and is a real problem.


Let me bring in the counter argument again. Let’s evaluate monetary policy first. The end result is always printing more money and delaying problems for generations, which makes them worse, than just having solved them earlier. It never really solved a problem in the first place. Japan has delayed it’s problems from the last century till now. Now they’re bigger than ever and broken beyond repair. Europe is in the same boat now.

Who is doing the policy?
Some people in backdoors that haven’t even been elected, there’s no way to hold them accountable for anything. You can’t vote them in or out, there’s also no realistic way to go to court against them.

Are they really that capable?
I doubt it, there’s no solved problem in their track record. Their criminal record is bigger than actual work being done. Let’s not look at, if they seem knowledgeable or professional, but just at their track record in office: there’s nothing to show, except broken rules, criminal activity that isn’t punished and having made issues worse.

What is the result?
Entire governments/ corporations became dependent on printed money to pay for their expenses/ to not go bankrupt. Bailout after bailout. They’re not able to survive in the free market anymore. It’s like someone being on drugs. We left economics and entered central planning. Which every economist knows is a sin that is dangerous. You can’t heal a drug addict by giving him more drugs for generations, problems have to actually be solved.

If we keep in mind now of who is actually running monetary policy, what is safer? Putting them into a train that they can’t control themselves, but is on a safe track - or giving them a sports cars that they can drive into any direction they want, but we know they won’t follow any traffic rules when they don’t want to. Which of these two options is less likely to crash? Which of these options will be safer to the population?

Addition: States still have the ability to issue their own currencies with forced value attached to it and their own monetary policies, regardless how successful Bitcoin is. But the difference is now that they have compete with a superior form of currency. If they mess up their policies and no one wants to use their currency, it’s their own fault, not Bitcoins. In the case they want to compete with Bitcoin, you will notice that they can’t do that much different from Bitcoin in the first place. So it might be better to just stick to Bitcoin directly. If they force value to a weaker form of currency they will just trigger greshams law again, and people will hoard Bitcoin and use the weaker currency in circulation. Until thiers law comes into play and no one wants to use this currency anymore and Bitcoin becomes the medium of exchange again. This cycle repeats as long as they will introduce bad currencies. Ultimately the best form of money needs to be resistant to bad policy, that’s why no centralized currency will ever be able to outperform a decentralized one. Just sticking to Bitcoin might be the most efficient approach.
 

The Ledger is indeed public but first they need to link a person to the transaction. This can be rather hard if a person is managing this well. And if you leave some room to people they will use it

Regarding Monetary Policy you are fully right. At best the people performing it are making the wrong decisions and politicians just want to optimize their elected period. This should be performed by people with a different time period and only in exceptional times

Image Corona without this policy. Lots of businesses would have gone bankrupt and you would again be in the suffering story…

They just need their xpubs and can see all their transaction history. It would be easy for the police to get this in some way. Bitcoin is used less for criminal activity than legacy finance, there was research about this. Also they’re catching criminals all the time and confiscating their Bitcoin. There’s too many traces for criminals to be safe from law enforcement, Bitcoin is built for people not criminals.

Agree, i just don’t believe in reform inside the system itself anymore.

This could be handled in a no money printing way, if the economy would still be healthy. They could get loans or taxes from not printed money. The government can still have programs to save the economy, they just can’t do it all the time when it’s not actually necessary, as they wouldn’t be able to pay back debts anymore when they do it all the time when it’s not actually necessary. Hard money brings back the necessity to make smart decisions.

Decentralization does not guarantee that people will not pay any taxes. You cannot profit with Crypto currency and then convert that to Fiat and then spend that and not expect the tax agencies not to pick up that there are money going through your account.  ::)

No business will allow big purchases with Crypto currencies, without some paper work that needs to be done. (Invoices / Transfer of ownership etc...) Also, if people do not pay taxes.... services cannot be rendered..... and hunger will increase... so poor people will turn to crime to survive. 

In a crypto world you would not go through a bank account you would just use your crypto 😁

It all depends of the model that will be dominant if businesses will accept crypto or not. Currently that would be the case but that could change quickly. Basically if most economic actors decide it will be crypto, it will be crypto.

Indeed very true services would not be guaranteed anymore with a lot of consequences.

No, this is not right. A completely decentralized society is an utopian dream. Going to the roots we as humans are social creatures. We need to leave in society. You can't just condemn the ones who were born with lower intelligence or who are handicaped in any way. That is why we need to pay taxes  --> to maintain somehow of an equilibrium in the society + fund public property and services like police, firemen, doctors, etc.

Polarization of society classes creates conflicts, very ugly ones I might add. I think the best way is to find a balance between centralization and decentralization. The financial system is especially broken creating big problems so Bitcoin might be the solution for it, indeed.

I fully agree !

My point is I think a lot of people don’t realize this. I see a lot of protests against governments for the sake of protest. Bitcoin is also used a lot as a ‘the people will take over’ argument. Biggest shouters are often the ones that depend the most on them.

True af, they might also be shouting for something they dont really understand. Just having no rules wont better their position. We need some kind of balance indeed, and im fully convinced that people are the strongest when they actually work together, not if we just abolish everything just for the sake of decentralization. This is the trap many people fall into, just because one thing is successful, theyre trying to apply its properties to everything, even tho it may not be fitting.

I think if we can improve the financial system and make it sane again, much of the political radicality will be reduced, as people will be more busy with their lifes again and building something nice, because it will actually be possible for many people again. Everything tends to get politicized when people are struggling with their well being, we saw this in the 30s in europe etc. Thats why im also deeply disappointed by the economists in charge, they know this and yet just ignore it for whatever reason. I would expect them to take some responsibility, as theyre the ones that can prevent a lot of suffering.

But i must also say the state isn’t really helping here, they just use every crisis for themselves and try to paint anyone who opens their mouth in a bad light. This is actually strengthening the points the people who want to abolish the government make. They’re just making it worse, instead of bringing people together again.

people who protest for cryptocurrency and especially Bitcoin is people who know the value of peso currency we know from The origin that government cannot do anything concerning cryptocurrency uses the only thing they can do is that they will stumble the name of cryptocurrency so that is the name will not have value any longer so who I believe that people is wise enough to notice why cryptocurrency value is regarded so crypto is life and the crypto is money

You have a point, but keep in mind even if bitcoin achieved the desired decentralization (what is almost sure to not happen), the main prejudiced ones would be the politicians and not the poor people of the country. The bigger portion of taxes and fees government charges you is going to maintain the public machine working, that is mainly composed by spots which exist and are created to employ friends and supporters of the political ruling party and by public career employees, which have a lot of benefits and stability when compared to the autonomous workers from the private sector, for an example.

Moreover, a larger portion of public funds are used to pay for politics' campaigns than it's used to pay for basic sanitation in some countries. With or without taxes people in need aren't being assisted anyway. It's not bitcoin and autonomous workers who should carry this burden on their back.

To be honest I too encourage the use of bitcoin but am not sure how to deal with certain people with the wrong mindset without any centralisation. Imo, both the centralised and decentralised world should move parallel.

At some point, Bitcoin will not only be a fundamental part of people's lives, but many will wonder how they were able to listen and pay attention to all those economists who were so wrong at all times, how they allowed themselves to be manipulated for those who claimed to know a lot about... And to avoid these things, I think the fundamental thing now is to buy so that those who have always dreamed can be fulfilled.

I just wonder what you mean by economists that were wrong ? You mean by saying Bitcoin is highly risk and volatile ? They are right no :) ?

Encouraging people is certainly not easy because it is certain that understanding is needed so that explanations can reach them.
but actually bitcoin is widely known and explanations can use existing media to make it more understandable and get to the point.

That's right, my friend, in time bitcoin will become a part of life that continues to advance with renewable technology. because all will not be able to avoid progress which includes the existence of bitcoin.
All analysis can do the same as economists but we can filter which ones are true or not, because all are clearly visible and real.

the question of buying is clear in a situation like this is indeed the best time to buy but it must be remembered that the funds you save will be embedded long because of a very deep correction, and must be prepared for this.

I think it is just the start of decentralization. Many new things are on the way.

Decentralization can give more to the world. See what is inside the store.