Bitcoin Forum

Interesting thought experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDk62HApDa8

Never.   For those at the top, life is life a game of Monopoly where they are trying to control as much as possible.  War is very profitable for a lot of companies as well...

The elimination of organized religion would have a better shot at eliminating war than BTC.

The thought experiment is talking about reducing war or preventing war in many cases (Not ending ALL war). Watch the video, it is very interesting.

It is akin to the fact that while outright slavery is largely illegal and universally viewed as morally reprehensible, yet it still occurs in certain parts of Africa for chocolate or diamonds. Wars might become rare and difficult to fund with less Fiat control.

War has been going on for centuries on end.  Whether it be through religion, politics, gold, oil, slavery, etc...

Bitcoin, a fledgling cryptocurrency in it's 5 year of existence...no way in hell!

bitcoin is not physical to slap someone across the face, to pull a trigger, to place handcuffs on someone, or atleast tell someone to stop.

so even if bitcoin sorts out money. people will still fight over land, food, many other things. so although bitcoin is good, it cannot solve everything.

in short
you cant wedge a bitcoin down the barrel of a tank to prevent it firing

Some historians suggest that nuclear armament has been beneficial in dissuading large wars from occurring at least between the nation states who are armed because the costs to fund them and consequences make it suicide for everyone involved. so nuclear armed countries mainly only indirectly fund small battles by proxy or conduct economic war against each other instead.

Just like with the invention of nukes, bitcoin could make the political and practical costs of raising money for large wars difficult.
The thought experiment is if Bitcoin becomes much more pervasive than nation states will have to raise funding for war directly through property tax, sales tax , and VAT rather than indirectly though War bonds and inflation. Few people would be willing to directly pay for these wars and may revolt when they see that they are paying 50 cents more for a loaf of bread in order to bring freedom to another country by dropping bombs on children.

Not with that kind of thinking...

I know it is discouraging to know we have been fighting for so long over so little, because of this trend it may seem like it's just the natural way for men but that really isn't the case. There have been several civilizations who were peaceful enough to sort out their differences without anyone getting hurt; we've had war, but we have also had peace.

Will Bitcoin end war? Bitcoin on its own can never end war, but we can.

"Peace can only come as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment" ~Nikola Tesla

i prefer this version (with many subtitles) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joITmEr4SjY

Yes, its idealistic. Yes, war will probably persist to a certain degree for a long time in the future.... but its this idealism and moral standard we have to pursue to get 90-98% to our goal. The persistence and idealism of the abolitionists when they only constituted 2% of the US population is the reason why slavery is almost completely eliminated.(and slavery had existed in almost every culture and time period before then.)

Most people don't understand the economics of war, so instead they assume large hordes of people just start slaughtering each other for any reason and for free.

But the truth is that war is far less sustainable under honest money. This "problem" dates all the way back to the ancient Greeks, who could only keep the wars going as long as they debased their gold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdSq5H7awi8

You can't mix copper with a bitcoin. If the future runs on crypto, warmongering statists are going to have a much tougher time duping their would-be pawns into fighting each other.

Satoshi is Captain Kirk in "A Taste of Armageddon."

We need to sacrifice, conserve, ration, and hear about the wars on a daily basis. That is the price we must pay to wage war. It doesn't taste as good as a cafe mochachino at the mall food court bought with money borrowed from our great grandchildren.

Funny how I criticized this Molyneux guy few months ago and everyone was offended.    Now skepticism towards this bitcoin stops war theory? LOL  ;D

No it does not. Being violent, greed and the lust for power to rule over others is embeeded in our genes. Leaders will always find a way to start a war. Bitcoin can be even a cause of  war in the future. Anything that has value can cause a war and bitcoin is one of them.

I missed these discussions.

As long as any form of money exist there will always be wars.

“The coming of the wireless era will make war impossible. There will be no wars anymore.”(Guglielmo Marconi, 1912)

Why do everyone want to use Bitcoin as a remedy for everything? People make war, not bitcoin. Fiat control elimination, will only stop one of the reasons, why people make war with each other.

Bitcoin will solve one thing, and that is the decentralized control of people money, but governments will still control the way it is used. {Regulation & Laws}

So solve the other 1000's of reasons why people make war, and the world would be a better place for all. 

It's never going to happen. Humans, by nature, fight for stuff they want regardless of whether they deserve it or not. It's just going to stay like that. "War never changes."

not interesting that is a very serious issue

Nothing will change. Why will bitcoin reduce war?

Wars are fought at behest of banks.

There really aren't wars anymore. There are genocides, police actions, skirmishes, insurrections, bombardments, blockades, sanctions, occupations, terrorism acts, and central banks.

How are wars typically funded though?

Collective Greed and Selfishness is what can prevent (many) wars. Lets take a recent page from history as an example: Iraq. Do you really believe that most people who supported Bush's actions would be willing to voluntarily donate to liberate the people of Iraq or as a pre-emptive strike because of WMD? How easy would it be to raise sales tax, property tax, and VAT to pay for a war?

There are good reasons why wars are typically funded by inflation through fiat and never officially declared anymore: most people put their own selfish interests before a sense of nationalism unless they are tricked into believing that they aren't actually paying for the wars.

If anything Bitcoin may increase wars if countries are desperate to acquire hashing share, like they will do anything to acquire gold now

Wars are mainly started these days for geopolitcal control, enforcing treaties and tax obligations, propping up demand for fiat, and for leveraging whole industries and sectors.

While one resource, oil, was partly responsible for the Iraq invasion it was only a small component amongst many. Wars are very expensive to maintain and the payoffs have to be higher than attaining one commodity as you suggest. What you are suggesting is not war but a bank heist where a team of thieves covertly steal gold or ASICS and than leave. It would be irrational to invade and occupy a country for hashing power when the same money could be used to simply build or buy the machines for much cheaper social, political, and monetary prices.

Out of all the causes of war, I highly doubt money and bitcoin are the cause/solution to most of them. 

The main causes of war seem to be
Religion
Resources
Corruption
Oppression

I think the war has been started since time immemorial that has been centuries in any case it.

but can say yes since bitcoin come increasingly crowded battle lol: D

Could wars be funded in a country that mainly used Bitcoin? Can you name me some examples of wars that aren't primarily funded by inflation?

While I agree with some of your statements the true test to determine what someone really believes is if they are willing to invest their money to support it.
One thing that is consistent throughout human society is hypocrisy. People say they believe and support all sorts of causes but will they sacrifice their own wealth
directly to drop bombs on villages? I think its a very safe bet that wars will still exist but will be much smaller, shorter, and rarer if people had to directly fund them.

Can you please elaborate how wars are being funded by inflation?

Historically, an early example is the Peloponnesian War between the greeks and spartans from 431 to 404 BC where the greeks stared debasing their currency to fund the war by mixing in copper in the gold and silver causing massive inflation.

A recent example is the Iraq war which costs the US over 1.1trillion dollars but the true costs are much , much higher as there are hidden opportunity lost costs and amortized pension and health costs. A small portion of the price of war is raised with war bonds but most nation states simple fund wars by printing more currency which has longterm economic effects which reflect in inflation and recessions in years to come.

Blowing things up instead of investing in education, building infrastructure, and focusing on job growth isn't exactly good for an economy.

Why and how could bitcoin reduce or even stop war? I am sure that if bitcoin was able to stop or prevent war they would have at least tried it by now. There is so much unrest in the world right now and I don't believe for a second that a virtual currency will solve all the issues involving the unrest. As they say money can never solve problems.

Reduction can be seen if the costs of waging the war are higher than the profits realized by a group of people. Wars will continue if their is some perceived realized gain economically, geopolitical, or ideologically. Bitcoin makes enforcing taxes and inflation by violence and coercion more difficult. Do you think most humans would rather spend their money on themselves or to pay for their family members ammo in attacking a village?

The reason 99% of people constantly break copyright laws by using and downloading music, movies, and software isn't because the copyright owners are content to allow this to happen(The MPAA and RIAA are doing all they can to stop it legally and illegally) but because the costs to enforce such copyrights is higher than the potential money gained from new clients.

Bitcoin was invented primarily by crypto-anarchists in retaliation against corrupt governments and banks using your money to fund economic and physical wars. It allows individuals the option to opt out and  reduce these potential forms of corruption. Just like with copyrights, governments can enforce taxes on bitcoin through investigations and sting operations, but the costs to do this on everyone would be tremendous and unprofitable. The IRS in the US already only targets and audits certain people they believe can extract funding from, bitcoin adds a whole new layer of difficulty in enforcement.

I believe Bitcoin will have a positive effect despite what peoples political opinions are because of the innate reality that we are all selfish to a certain degree. Most people want to socialize the costs of war and have someone else pay for it while they secure their own investments, and bitcoin is a new tool which makes doing so easier. These selfish individual motivations in aggregate will make funding wars much more difficult. The problem for politicians is this tool is open source and free to use by anyone instead of a select group of leaders and thus a tool to empower individuals to make their own economic choices.

You don't think there will be bitcoin bank in the future?

Some exchanges right now are acting like bank and offering interest for bitcion.

Ok that makes sense. Thanks for the informative answer

Apart from the funding and inflation aspect anything that promotes internationalisation may help prevent war. It would be silly for America to have a civil war these days for example, with increasing internationalisation war between countries might also become inconceivable. Bitcoin is an international currency so it may promote internationalisation and reduce war. Maybe

I think you guys have it slightly backwards IMO.  You are sort of claiming fiat funds wars which directly causes them.  I would claim wars are caused mostly by religion and fiat is pumped out in efforts to get a leg up and produce more weapons/soldiers etc. 

So if BTC were to replace everything, they would just pump BTC into the war to fund it.

If we follow your reasoning -- Ideology being the greatest motivator for war; which I will grant for this thought experiment as there is some basis for it(Maslow's hierarchy of needs.), than you have to understand that everyone has unique Ideologies. Any conversation with a person at length will clearly indicates that while they may be herded like sheep for a cause by a demagogue they have their own unique philosophical beliefs as well and selfish motivations. Demagogue's are powerful with the tool of fiat because they can socialize and amortize the costs of war. If Bitcoin is pervasive, demagogue's will have a more difficult time extracting large pools of funds so easily to fund wars because convincing their followers to go along with their specific plan is more difficult when they have to directly fund it.

Sure their may be fractured conflicts of groups of people with different idealogies.. I.E... ALF vegan bitcoin group raising funds to firebomb a Animal research facility, but these will be more tactical and efficient attacks because of their inability to use Fiat to steal the wealth of a whole nation.

Not when we have a lot of people at the top owning tons of BTC while 99% of people don't even own 1 BTC. The struggle will go on for what seems forever.

Many of the early bag holders are Nouveau riche.

In this thread: People who don't know jack shit about human nature giving advice to the rest of us in the form of videogame quotes.

Try reading a book for once (http://www.sexatdawn.com/).

I seriously doubt that Bitcoin by itself can end war. Humans are good at finding reasons to fight and war isn't even entirely about resources anymore. I saw a political cartoon recently where two aliens were leaving Earth and one of them tells the other, "As far as I can tell, they're fighting over which religion is the most peaceful." Cryptocurrencies are a good thing in the sense that people who actually produce useful goods and services can keep more of the money they earn without the bean counters at big banks getting in the way, but cryptocurrencies won't stop human weaknesses like greed.

I think yes because BTC is Money
and money can control everything, and I believe it
but depends also human, if human beings do not have a sense of humanity would be difficult to reconcile invited
it's just my opinion  :)

There really aren't many currency wars these days (Ukraine, arguably, if you're around NWO theorists), but maybe Bitcoin can reduce the number of countries the USG sanctions and otherwise "discretely" punishes. Though, countries allegedly trying to undermine the USD (and/or USG) would probably just put that effort in other programs attempting to achieve the same outcome (assuming those countries aren't placated by a dethroned USD, assuming global BTC dominance), so they'd probably just be sanctioned for that.

Assuming Bitcoin increases productivity and efficiency, I guess it'd indirectly lead to bigger and bloodier wars in a sense -- more resources we can use to destroy. OTOH, a war could become MAD even without nukes if all a country has to do to grind an economy to a stop is to destroy Internet infrastructure (at least as international connections exists, where it's not very decentralized). That'd assume Bitcoin naturally leads to greatly expanded international and online trade which virtually every country is reliant on, which seems fairly reasonable to me.

Most modern wars are fought over, in part some kind of resource that is not fiat based (but the resource can be converted to fiat). Oil and other kinds of energy is a "popular" resource to fight over. In these cases it is not only about the resource, but also the ability to control energy which allows the country to further use it's war machine (as the military uses a lot of energy).

Bitcoin Reduce Wars? I think it is impossible.

I think it's impossible

but i think BTC price might went up, because some fiat money are unstable went war
so, i think wars might help BTC price

the only thing that will end war forever is the kingdom of god ruling over the earth.

Most gods I have read about tend to be petty warmongers...but who knows maybe they have grown up and don't need continuous groveling and worship to boost their easily offended egos.

New Video: How Bitcoin Can Stop War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyU3TgQqtV8

Most definitely shows how naive and out of touch with reality some bitcoin supporters are. Bitcoin will do nothing to stop "popular" wars.There are quite so many cases where war were actually "demanded" the the majority of the populace.

I don't think anyone is insinuating that Bitcoin will stop all violence and skirmishes. The argument being made is that state actors cannot use deflationary currencies as a tool to socialize/amortize the costs of large scale wars.

Demanding war and socializing the costs is one thing, but what would happen if everyone used Bitcoin instead of Government fiat, and thus governments would need to propose legislation to fund a war through bonds or taxes instead of simply inflating the monetary supply? From what I understand about human nature we tend to be selfish and hypocrites who prefer other people to pay for our wishes and often have higher priorities than war to spend our bitcoins on.

What we are also proposing is that the adoption of any crypto-currency which makes it more difficult for states to tax and regulate also makes funding such wars more difficult as well.

One argument that would be valid against my position is if state governments consistently become proficient at stealing the private keys as they have done a few times in the past than Bitcoin could be used to fund their adventures. Hopefully, hardware wallets and multi-sig will assist in deterring these unethical actions committed by states.

Very difficult to foresee.
As many of you already said, I think  Bitcoin alone can't stop wars.

Anyway, I also think wars happen more frequently in presence of powerful vested interests of, as it were, "centralized organizations" that can control and influence many people. With decentralization it's harder to set up an army and persuade people to the necessity of war.
Moreover, Bitcoin can reduce the power of governments and banks, which are both - as we know - the main architects of war, along with religious organizations.
So, I'm pretty confident Bitcoin can contribute to set up a more peaceful world  :)

The vast majority of the major wars (all of them?) since the revolutionary war have been financed primarily through debt and somewhat through increased tax revenues. You can find posters that were created around the times many more recent wars broke out advocating for people to buy "war bonds"

The vast majority of wars have been financed by dilution(loans diluting public assets or the debasement of currency). This can be done directly like the Romans did debasing their currency by adding non-precious metals into their coins or through fiat currency inflation.

Even with your example you are wrong:

The financing of war expenditures by the means of currency issues (printing money) was by far the major avenue resorted to by the Confederate government. Between 1862 and 1865, more than 60% of total revenue was created in this way.[4] While the North doubled its money supply during the war, the money supply in the South increased twenty times over.[5]

The confederate army primarily relied upon dilution , while the union army relied on a a mix of dilution, loans, bonds, and new taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_war_finance


The alternative methods that states finance wars(taxes and bonds) prior to going off the gold standard strengthens my argument . When currency is tied to a commodity or crypto-currency with a fixed inflation rate or that is deflationary the state no longer has the tool to fund wars with dilution which makes fundraising much more difficult.

From the game-theoretic point of view this is dubious. Assume the existence of two alliances: B & F. Alliance B uses Bitcoin-based financial system without fractional reserve. Alliance F uses the conventional debt-based financial system.

F issues war bonds to finance war of aggression against B. Because B is not capable of financing its own defense it gets easily conquered by F. F then subjugates the people of B and robs their natural resources to pay off the war bonds issued. By demolishing all B's massive mining farms it also significantly increases the availability of cheap electricity. 

It would appear that the adopters of Bitcoin necessarily put themselves at disadvantage in a military conflict or that your model needs further refinement.

Your actually arguing my point for me without realizing it.

Bitcoin empowers the individuals and dis-empowers the states. Thus, you are correct that any state that has a significant percentage of citizens adopting crypto-currencies are at a disadvantage in leveraging the tool of dilution to scale up defenses from an attacking state.  Bitcoin does have properties which are antagonistic to the ability of states to control their economy which is detrimental for funding either a defensive or offensive war.



Agreed, if your definition of adopters means states(B the state gets easily conquered by F the state), but if you intend to define adopters as individual people and their families, I would disagree. The concern of the security of individuals in an anarchist society without a healthy state defending them is another conversation which we can discuss now if you are interested.

Ok F land takes B land, but then what?

1. They can't raise taxes because everyone hates them and are hiding their transactions using Bitcoin.

2. Oppressing peoples is historically insanely expensive, the ONLY "successful" examples I know are
the Romans, Arabs, Mongols and other such empires that brought new organization and tech with them
- not just oppression.

3. Funding a purely defensive military is also way cheaper than actual wars, any small fortifications,
armed militias or one or two deterring weapons like 1 nuke, 1 dirty bomb or 1 bio weapon would drive the
cost/risk of invasion through the roof.

4. They need the local work force of the nation to get the resources - no Americans are willingly gonna dig for coal
in Africas mines! Their ENTIRE modus operandi for achieving this has been putting the country deep in debt and corruption -
which becomes very difficult with a B land based on open voluntary P2P structures and no debt.
Russias method has been convincing them they're Russian.. a method which has its limits.

In any case a decentralized B nation is difficult to control through capturing 2 or 3 central authority buildings.

5. What about REAL war then? Exterminate a people, move your own in and straight up take it all? Very risky in todays world -
everyone and their grandmother has a nuke/bio weapon - and you just became the international bad guy that its okay to bomb/"liberate".
Why do you think Putin cares about the medias perception when he could just roll in? This is why.

A poignant response. Additionally, there are many other factors that make invading a anarchistic and decentralized culture difficult and undesirable by states.

1) Unwilling tax base
2) No centralized databases and communications to take over
3) Sometimes guerrilla warfare isn't even needed to resist occupiers -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Revolution
4) Propaganda wouldn't be very effective


"Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing.
Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions. " - The Art of War

Countries started printing money to fund wars so if they don't have a way to create huge amounts of money out of thin air to fund a campaign of destruction then that could put a stop to most of the foolish military adventurism going on. The best way to prevent wars is to vote in politicians who can actually negotiate with each other instead of causing wars but we never do that, instead we vote in falsely heroic populist frauds who don't even try to negotiate and just dictate terms to each other under threat of war.

Hmm, maybe if you check out the financial terrorism that occurs here and there. Not sure what, but there's an angle here, I'll be back!

Bitcoin can also be bad too as terrorists can move around funds with ease, anonymously.

Sure, Bitcoin and fiat can both be used for good and evil. Fiat can be spent just as anonymously as Bitcoin or more so.

The difference between the two though is with fiat citizens are forced to pay for murder, torture, and terrorism and with Bitcoin states, gangs, terrorists, and corrupt individuals cannot support their unethical actions by socializing those costs across the whole population.

This

As long as humans live, war will continue, because there will always be conflict. War never changes.

I don't think it can. For me I think it might be rather opposite due to its anonymity prospect.

War can be bloodless and cold.
"Every battle is won before it's ever fought." - Sun Tzu

Some are the biggest war happening right now are by the people consent and support(the war on terror eg).I'm pretty sure if the government ask for donation to invade another alleged terrorist harboring country, large swath of the public would gladly donate their bitcoin for it.

Sure, many support the "war of terror" but humans tend to be hypocrites.  The amount of donations people would choose to make would amount to the amount of donations people make to politicians for fundraising which would be a small fraction of the amount these wars actually cost.

Sure they can. People need to pay taxes with bitcoin related income the same say they need to pay taxes on fiat related income.

U put two types of ppl together and they will always fight.. Even if they are family. There are just a bunch of dooches out there that dont really think things thru properly before emotions get the best of them. So extrapolating there will be wars just because of the sheer number of douches and hogh chance of govt officials being them

I beg to differ,the amount raised could easily dwarf any standard political fundraiser by a large margin.The same sentiment that motivate people to willingly kill and die in  a foreign land for a cause they believed in would similarly drive people to sacrifice material wealth for it, especially if they couldn't be there themselves for some reason("your money keep these heroes alive.You are their armour." mantra) .

I'd imagine they could be something like crowdfounding event:"We need to meet this goal of donation to keep this much boot on the ground/this level of offensive".

"Can Bitcoin Reduce Wars?" Maybe, but causing cyber war, it certainly!

Taxes is only one method countries fund wars and one which will be increasingly difficult to collect if they don't control their currency.
Sure States will still find ways to pay for wars with VAT and sales taxes even if income taxes are more difficult to obtain, but funding wars
will be more difficult if they either have to raise taxes or sell bonds vs simply spending more.

Thus, certain wars won't be initiated, and others will be shorter and more targeted.

Here is an analogy:
Right now states have a salary they receive to accomplish an assortment of tasks. They also have a "credit card" that has no limit that they always use to help fund wars. They will continue to use and have this credit card no matter what , even if a large percentage of their population uses Bitcoin instead of their currency. Their interest rates and credit rating on their "credit card" are directly tied to the amount of insurance they have which is directly associated to the popularity of their currency over bitcoin. If they choose to run up their "credit card" without enough insurance backing them than they run a risk that their interests rates(inflation) increase to a point that less people support them and the spending power to pay for war decreases significantly.

In other words, inflation is merely another tax used to pay for wars that is imposed upon anyone who uses their currency and the more people using their currency the more taxes are brought in to pay for wars.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing.

I really don't see Bitcoin solving this problem, unfortunately.

This is not true. Just look at the EU. The individual countries do not control the currency (the Euro) however they do not have any issues collecting taxes when it is due.

Fair point, but have any of these countries launched a significant military attack since adopting the Euro? If they haven't, than isn't this supporting my statements?

As long as human beings are conditioned and controlled by the ego, there will always be war. No asset/money/technology can stop this, unless its a brain chip that would shut down the ego and make you realize we are all but one. Now that would be something to look forward to, though hopefully we wont need the chip :)

OR

You can start from the a new group of children and teach them the wrong ways of war and hope that the new generation seeks alternative methods. I mean the Chinese and the dutch peacefully traded with the american Indians LONG LONG before Columbus "founded" America, yet one resulted in mass genocide, rape, torture and war  and the other in a fair partnership. So perhaps the problem are not ALL people but rather what drives their mind.

I think Bitcoin can help lower wars. 

The truth is, we won't know for sure until it happens.

To answer you question:most definitive yes

You do realise that member of the EU are a part of the war on terror right?Most of them have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan not to mention other smaller engagement(commando/air strikes etc) .

If you want full blow invasion like Afghanistan and Iraq, give any of them  enough incentives like a terror attack by suspected foreign agents or something like "Falklands 2.0".Currently even the USA is trepidated  on starting a new war (mainly due to Iraq).

I highly doubt it'd happen.  It's a nice idea and a great HOPE for it, but honestly....prob won't come about in our generation at least :(

http://www.isaf.nato.int/troop-numbers-and-contributions/index.php

Doesn't look like EU countries who adopted the Euro are contributing many resources to Afghanistan.

Perhaps you are misreading my comments to suggest that Bitcoin can eliminate war and not simply reduce the propensity and scale of wars?

The EU members that are part of  the Nato force there were involved in combat operations.Germany and France for  instance sent armour and combat  aircraft and both have been used against Taliban forces.

There is already something that reduces the propensity and scale of wars,it's called a democratically elected government( even work on the USA).Any wars that are launched by such entities without  the consent of its citizen will not last long.The wars currently been waged are supported by their own people. 

I'm not misreading your comment, I'm disagreeing with them.At least with regards to current wars.

I agree on that..!! greed is a part of animals.. Its really hard to subdue it.!! as long as greed is there...Wars will happen..now or in the future.!

As long as root of evil - money - of any kind exists in our world Wars are meant to happen. Nothing will change it. If you can gain something there will be war.

The same thing was said about human slavery. It existed in almost every society and all of human history. Does it still exist today, yes, but is mostly eliminated for social and economic reasons.
Will humans always remain selfish and have violent tendencies... sure. Will battles always exist and wars, sure.

Can Bitcoin help reduce the prevalence of wars and/or make them shorter? I think so, and to not acknowledge as much ignores how much of war is funded.

Does bitcoin make it easier or harder for the state or a violent gangster to steal from you than fiat? If Bitcoin is easier to steal than fiat than it should encourage war, if it is more difficult to steal directly or indirectly than it should reduce wars.

Wars are profitable for a few people because they are allowed to socialize the costs through theft. Make their job more difficult and wars will have to be funded through other, less efficient means. Simply spending the money and letting debt and inflation pay a large expense of a war is the most efficient means of funding the war there is.

Let me put it in the context of cryptocurrencies to help you understand :
Fiat is akin to a POS alt where a few large stakeholders can increase the amount of coins at a moments whim and spend those coins thus passing on the costs of the war onto every stakeholder through dilution.
In order to raise funds with bitcoin miners have to spend almost as much on electricity and hardware to raise funds to pay for war which is much less efficient.

 

Most wars are actually caused by and revolve around religion. Even with the lack of money, or the lack of potentially gaining some additional resource many wars that the world has seen would have still taken place.

i think most of the war is causes by the oil and occupation of the region also that have oil inside its soil   

bitcoin will never make any war to any country at least untill now IMO

This is true. Religion has been at least one factor in every war in history and has been a major factor in most wars. Bitcoin potentially replacing fiat is not going to change this

Never... Bitcoin only e-currency... it is not affect to anything... i think that..

the way I see it, bitcoin will erase the bankers.

the bankers will declare war.

they will meet at the wall street.:P

Other ways Bitcoin is reducing wars:

http://www.coindesk.com/roger-ver-pledges-20k-bitcoin-antiwar-com-campaign/

Please donate now:

http://antiwar.com/bitcoin/

and

http://www.bitcoinnotbombs.com/

Very nice that anarchists like Roger Ver are supporting a good cause.. I donated.

Even the World Wars ?

Are you kidding about this? The axis (aka the German empire) were trying to exterminate anyone who followed the Jewish religion.

I don't see how anyone would not know that WW2 was about religion....unless they don't believe the holocaust actually happened

Whether people are motivated about religion, nationalism, land or resources to go to war they have to pay for it somehow. Fiat currencies allows for a small group of people to efficiently raise and spend capital for war. Without that tool, wars can still be waged but less efficiently, thus Bitcoin has potential to reduce wars.

Compared to fiat how could a country possibly manipulate Btcoin to spend money on war as efficiently?

Only post-scarcity solves war, so Bitcoin will not reduce wars.

no, bitcoin can't reduce wars.

Posted From bitcointalk.org Android App

Post-scarcity is an illusion which has no basis in reality. It is trivial to create scarcity within any "post scarcity" RBE.

Umm no.You really need to get your WW2 facts checked.

Firstly, the reason Germany and its allies(don't forget that the axis also consisted of other countries) went to war wasn't to exterminate the Jewish religion, that's true even if you focus with Germany sans her allies.

Secondly, The criteria for the Nazi's  extermination policies(racial/ethnic, political lines were  stronger influence) weren't limited to  the Jews,they're just the most "high profile" victims .There were also the Slavs , Romani and many other non Jewish victims.

And that's not even talking about the clusterfuck of mutual defence and alliance trigger that was World War One.

Religion  is rarely a major factor in most wars.Even  in  religious wars like the Crusades both sides were busy fighting and backstabbing their brothers in Faith as much as the enemy.

Ideology whether cultural, religious, philosophical, or nationalistic is a tremendous motivator for war. This is an off topic discussion however because the true metric of motivation is determined upon where people are willing to place their lives and money towards. Can wars be sufficiently maintained through voluntary fundraising(war bonds) and lack of conscription? If not than Bitcoin has a significant role in reducing wars.

Agree.That is a significant moot point.

drone is war.
you can't build drone with no budget.

if bitcoin replace ... well ... 1/3 of the all amount of currency, budget will be reduce (and war stop ...).

because, only the QE pay the bill of war.

All bitcoiners except the strongest one dies, and he gets all the coins. When he has all the coins, he can buy everything. What else could happen?

This is not true. The citizens of countries that have participated in various major wars in the past have been more then willing to help finance the way, both through higher taxes and citizens buying "war bonds".

It is only recently (since the late 1990's) that taxes have generally not been raised and citizens were not asked to buy government debt to finance wars

Satoshi reminds me of Spartacus and his plight.

"I am Satoshi"

"No, I am Satoshi!", "I am Satoshi!",

I've also made several Kubrick references. Stanley would have loved Bitcoin. I sometimes wonder how he would have made a film about Bitcoin.

If anything, bitcoin will only create more war (or better said riots)
The government wants to know what everyone are doing, the people want to be anonymous, eventually bitcoin will be the middle man of this big dispute.