Bitcoin Forum

 ???

It's certainly not democratic. People don't vote. People do consenus or start their own network.

IT's a difficult question to answer, because too many people have different ideas of what 'democratic' actually means.

What bitcoin is: honest, strict, free of coercion, voluntary, regulated by market consumers (a free market), sovereign, without entitlement of equality between users ect.

What bitcoin isn't: democratic, a government, being governed by people, promoting equality of any kind

Could not the very fact of  [voluntary] participation be seen as something like a vote in favor of that particular system over another system in which the person could also choose to support, through their participation, if they chose?

Really? Many people?  Has G.W. Bush and the neocons screwed up the English language that much that people don't know what is what?    :-\

hazek, this applies to Bitcoin:



As always, the libertards and aspergers in here are working hard to alienate the public from Bitcoin by making it a fringe movement. This IS what people think democratic is (and also what I think it is), and if you are too stubborn to deal with it, then leave it be.

That's anarchism or voluntarism or a society with some voluntary but mandatory and consistent rules, not a democracy. A democracy is 51% telling 49% what can or can't they do.

Show me evidence of socio economic or political equality promoted by Bitcoin?

Anarchism and those others things can very well be democratic. One of the best ideals of many forms of anarchism, imo, is the concept of voluntary association, which is very democratic.



That is just one specific form "a" democracy can take. Just one form that does not define all possible forms. 

hazek, I’m not even going to argue with you since you are completely detached from the public and display no empathy. All you want to do is nitpick because you perceive democracy as BAD BAD BAD. :'( Is this some new kind of libertarian political correctness?

Well, too bad most people approve of democracy. They will feel alienated if you describe Bitcoin as NOT democratic. If you want to just stagnate with this current circlejerk, I guess that’s okay though.

What I and many other people think democratic describes is fairness, openness/transparency, equal rights, equal vote etc.

I can guarantee you that advertising Bitcoin as non-democratic is one of the worst marketing strategies ever.

That is just one specific form "a" democracy can take. Just one form that does not define all possible forms.

You know they put those numbers in front of those definitions in dictionaries to show that a word can have multiple definitions.
Not all of them apply in all uses of the word.   ;)

+1

Actually, I forgot two important things commonly associated with "democratic": Free speech and human rights.

Opposing democracy implies Bitcoin is against all these things, that’s why I think it is a bad marketing strategy.

Listen to yourself. You're telling me that Bitcoin is democratic, it just isn't democratic as we know what being democratic means in the real world.

It's like saying my bike is blue, it just isn't blue as we all see the color blue.

Can you see how little sense you make?

First, yes I'm am extremely detached from herd mentality, read my signature. I want to nitpick because it is in my nature to combat propaganda BS anywhere I can because I know the damage and suffering it can and does cause.

Second most people are idiots. I don't care about what most people approve off, if I did, I wouldn't be supporting Bitcoin.

Third I think I'm doing quite well marketing Bitcoin because I focus on it's real properties instead of some delusions, if you don't believe me watch my video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClLbv1yisG4
I don't need any pretense of "fairness, equal rights, equal vote etc." to promote and display Bitcoin as extremely attractive, thank you very much. And if someone did approach me with asking whether or not Bitcoin is democratic I would answer: It's something much much better, it's honest, strict, free of coercion, voluntary, regulated by market consumers (a free market), sovereign, without an enforced entitlement of equality between users ect.

I don't always agree with Blitz but in this particular case I do agree. Same thing for hazek, I usually agree but not in this case.

Bitcoin in my mind is definitely democratic, in the sense of what democracy is supposed to be. What we have in governments is not what I think of as democracy. This applies to many that could be sympathetic to Bitcoin. Calling Bitcoin anti-democratic would be pretty much the stupidest thing one could POSSIBLY do. That will alienate 100 times more people than it invites.

I don't see what isn't democratic about the Bitcoin network, you acquire the support of majority hashing power and the minority has the choice to just follow or start their own network. That is well, democracy in such a clear way that I couldn't even think of a better example of real democracy.

So, not only is calling Bitcoin non-democratic idiotic, it is absolutely false as well. Calling it anti-government or non-political is much more accurate. Democracy is a term that has wider meanings than those that refer to governmental politics.

I have watched your videos and I like them.

If you do not intend to advertise it as "non-democratic", I don’t care. Everyone can describe it as he wants. I bet you the democratic label is going to stick with Bitcoin as time passes, though, whether we want it or not.

edit:

Just because I think the transaction count is a completely meaningless and manipulatable metric, Technomage? ;D

First of all, the project itself can be democratic in nature, while the job that the software does is not.

As far as the project goes-- we'll see how democratic the Bitcoin dev project is once a serious altcoin with new or different features (i.e., not a scamcoin) comes onto the scene (which from some messages on this board looks like it should be soon)-- that is, whether any of the devs take action with their hashing power to stop the altcoin from developing.  Although I guess an argument could be made that a serious altcoin would take precautions so that it couldn't be driven into the ground at the outset.

As far as the job that the software does-- for all Bitcoin's technical details it still boils down to one-dollar-one-vote, and that most certainly is not democratic.

The economy that was born from Bitcoin has certainly nothing to do with democracy, nor does the monetary model it uses. The technology itself, the network, that however is extremely democratic.

No, you don't know what it means.  The US, regardless of who is at fault or who is the POTUS, is not a democracy and never has been.  And don't blame your problems on the village idiot, it's unbecoming of an adult.  The POTUS can't do anything of importance against the will of Congress, so there were over 400 'adults' in the room that wanted to do what was done, and every one of them were thankful for the village idiot.

I'm baffled by this logic.

Suppose to be... why call it democratic then? Do you call stuff blue that isn't blue but you think is what blue is suppose to be?

If "democratic" isn't what it's suppose to be, then something else is. In this case that something else is a society with a few mandatory but consistent rules, i.e. a voluntary society, i.e. anarchy, i.e. freedom, i.e. honesty, ect.

I am referring to the use of terms like "spreading democracy and freedom" to represent America's imperialistic adventures around the world.


I won't argue with that... but does that change the real meaning of "democracy" and "democratic"?

do you think money is democratic ?

wake up!

Isn't the point that bitcoin is meant to be better than the current fiat money?  Something more... god forbid... democratic?    :o

I understand your point but my original point was that many people consider democracy in general a good thing, and it doesn't mean they like our current political democracies. Spending a lot of time and effort talking about semantics is not very productive. It's easier to just concentrate on those points that signify what Bitcoin definitely is, and you listed some of those right there. Calling it non-something or anti-something is simpler if it's non-political or anti-government, for example. Those are easier concepts to understand and agree on.

Anyway, I do think that the Bitcoin network is democratic. The currency, or "bitcoins", are definitely not. The main negative aspect of democracy, coercion, does not apply here by the way. This is because in a free market you have a choice to use a different currency if the majority of the Bitcoin network decides to do something you disagree with. But the network is defined by majority hashing power nonetheless which makes it essentially democratic.

He means, perhaps, that some people misuse the term.


Some people call things blue which aren't really blue. Does that mean we should stop using that word for things which are actually blue?


"Democratic" is a fine enough word to describe what the bitcoin experiment is all about.  You can talk until you're blue in the face to try
and change the meaning of the word based on others misuse of it, but, I suggest, it will still represent those positive qualities, already mentioned,
to those with a reasonable education in the English language.  

That's your problem right there. You need a reasonable education in Latin, not English. Demos - people, kratos - to rule i.e. the rule of the people, majority rule! i.e. nothing like Bitcoin.

A majority of miners can't change the network rules. If every miner chose to increase the block reward from 50 BTC to 100 BTC, they would all just be ignored by everyone else. Your client applies the fixed rules of the network no matter what other people do.

And those are the undemocratic facts about Bitcoin. Ty theymos for chiming in.

It comes from the Greek. And that is the etymology and origin of the English term, not an exact definition. Demos means "common people" as opposed
to an elite, who's rule, I am sure you would agree, is less desirable... since it is what we have now and it is not very fair now is it?   


Yup, nothing at all like bitcoin.   ::)

And not all democracies operate on the 51% "first past the post" voting system.
Look up words and concepts like "proportional representation" and "quorum" for a few examples.
I don't mention these to typify bitcoin but just point out there is more to "democracy" than your limited understanding of the term. 

I thank you for educating me. I should know how Bitcoin works, been here for a while and so on, but it seems that I didn't quite think this through. So basically the minority would automatically form their own network if they used different client software from the rest, right?

Pretty much. I'd say that the people changing the rules would be the ones creating a new network, though.

It's not democratic:

1. It was created by ONE guy/group and imposed on the entire world.
2. You can't vote, only use or not use.

I believe it is technocratic:
1. It is a technology.
2. It was created by true experts.
3. It solves socio-eco-political issues - with no regard to left vs. right.

You could tax BTC income at 99% in a communist society (using force/tracing programs) or a 0% in a libertarian one.

It is simply a solution to a problem with corruption, of a human nature, of central banks/politicians, otherwise handling money.


Technocracy coincidentally will be the next great ideology - by the process of elimination; others will simply fail as they are now.


Mainstream propaganda has left people believing democracy = good/all else = evil. Where have we heard that before.

We should taboo the word "democratic" from this discussion.

Understood. The minority/majority concept doesn't really apply here at all, which does exclude it from being democratic. Any portion of the network can choose to start playing by their own rules but they can only play by themselves. I have to say that I like Bitcoin even more now that I understand this. :)

Far from being a disappointing example of its nondemocratic nature I would suggest this just affirms its alignment to the democratic spirit, in terms of transparency and fairness etc.; not giving advantage to any particular interest group or class ( e.g. miners ) even if they constitute a majority of participants.  And it is the real world context - the freedom to participate rather than being coerced into this or that - and the spirit behind the system we should keep in mind isn't it, rather than arguing over semantics just for the sake of argument?

Something that we can help the common people feel good about in supporting and participating in... rather than turning a lot of them off with the narrow and/or belligerent and/or agenda driven views of this or that group or class ( e.g. libertarians ). 

This will be my last word on this particular subject... perhaps....  I retain my assumed right of free speech and free association.   ;)

Can you now see why I'm so nitpicky about people using the adjective democratic for describing Bitcoin?

+1

Clearly more democratic than any other alternative that I know of.  That's enough for me.   :)

 

Bitcoin is Technocratic

I think the same sentiment is conveyed by certain characters in Atlas Shrugged :)  "I won't argue with you, you have no care for the public good and only care for yourself."

Aaaah, Ayn Rand! Libertard and Asperger galore! What next, Bioshock? ;D In the end, I did argue though.

You are in marketing Erik, you know exactly that describing Bitcoin as "non-democratic" is a shitty strategy and that democratic is a positive attribute. I’m sure you are also aware that people can smell it when you want to push some weird agenda on them, which I think is one of the main reasons Bitcoin is perceived as a scam.

edit: See, I knew you were reasonable. :)

This poll will inevitably cause divisions, because "democratic" is one of those words which has no solid meaning. It's a bit of a fluffy term... that's why politicians love using it.

But I'll say this:
-Bitcoin IS democratic in that anyone, anywhere, has access to it. It is not exclusively reserved to any person nor group. It is an open and available resource to all to all who care to take advantage of it.

-Bitcoin IS NOT democratic in that it enforces strict property ownership and transfer that is not up for vote. Nobody can tell me who I can send my coins to, how many coins I may have, or what I may do with them. I suppose a "majority" (or even a minority) can fork the chain, but then it's not really "bitcoin" anymore but something different. To the extent that Bitcoin's rules are maintained, my coins are not up for vote and that is very undemocratic, and very good.

Yes, let's all be scared of the libertards! If you're not careful, they may leave you alone!!!

Regarding marketing, that's a different question. We might agree that Bitcoin is "not democratic" for example, but then choose to not use that in our marketing. What Bitcoin is, and how it's presented, are two different things. Our honesty is measured by how close those two things are to each other, but the rules of war and persuasion (and the moral opportunity cost of allowing a word to bury itself in chaos), may provide for some wiggle room in how Bitcoin is presented to those unaware of the root causes of problems in the world.

Put more simply, when I'm explaining Bitcoin to people, I never use the word democratic... I just avoid it. Primarily because, as mentioned in my above post, it's a weasel word used by politicians, and I care not to blemish Bitcoin's brand with such silly terminology. Bitcoin is about the fusion of liberty, technology, and property rights, and I see little need to drag notions of "democracy" into it.

+1

This thread reminds me of that supposed translator in one "underdeveloped" country, who was working for a group of foreign medical doctors visiting local facilities.  After a strange discussion mediated by this translator, the visitors realized that the only meaning of "virus" he knew was that of a harmful computer code...

Back to basics: "demos" means "people," and "kratos" would be "power," or maybe "rule."  So there you go. Bitcoin is democratic in the sense that it places the power of issuing, storing, and controling the money in the hands of the people. I've been mining until recently. I'm free to exchange Bitcoins as I see fit. I'm free to burn my paper wallet. I don't depend on anyone or anything in particular when I do these things.  There is no need to overthink this and get confused.

 

Bitcoin is not democratic because the minority is not forced to do anything.

From latin the word democracy can be translated as "the people rule."   That does not necessarily mean "everything for majority vote" which is the typical definition taught in government run schools.  In fact, you can have democracy and no voting.  As long as all the rights and privileges one would expect are available to all, then you technically have democracy. 

How about democracy being a state of no ruling class, or individuals possessing special rights or status.

Since no one has special right, and every one participates in the operation of bitcoin voluntarily, this may be the closest thing to real democracy possible.

Just remember Democracy does *NOT* equal voting majority.   It is a system of people rule.  Some idiotic folk see this as "majority rule" and then, majority rule to elect the 'representatives' who then rule over all.  Somehow these folk think that will produce a good result (mostly democratic socialists).   But is you want to see democratic socialism taken to its natural conclusion...see Greece.

Overtime all the facets of government have become corrupted with patronage and special status granting.  Thats right, in a people rule system, somehow, we go back to the elite living off the fat of the land at the expense of the at large populous. There are different tax rates depending on what profession you work, special taxes for certain things, but not others.  Thats just the tip of the iceberg.  But it is definately a 'who you know' situation in Greece.

That's what's magical about bitcoin.  It matters not who you know or how big your wallet file is.

Thankfully it's not!

We'd be fucked otherwise.

Hazek, fix your brain.  Your logic is tortured.  Its pretty clear what Portnoy is saying: democracy means different things to different people/different usage.  That means your continued attempt to pigeonhole democracy as 51%, rule 51% rule, 51% rule, 51% rule, 51% rule....is just silly.

Go back to the Latin: demo=people   cracy= rule of

"Rule of People"  can take many forms, not all involve everything being up for 51% vote. 

Bitcoin isn't ruled by people, not 1% or 51% or 99% or 100%, hence not a democracy.

+1


You don't need to be so strict in your definitions. Instead of "rule" in its most nasty connotation it can be seen as, and takes the form as in certain real world applications, as
"supervised."

Bitcoin is supervised by computer systems, which are supervised by the common people.  That is a good thing.

And about the notion, brought up by a few here, that we should not use certain words because politicians misuse them all the time... What? We want those politicians to rule over us and push us around and keep us from using perfectly good words?  Instead of letting them get away with the misuse I would prefer to see people speak up and point these things out. This is the information age. We can use it to our advantage like with systems like bitcoin. We can speak to power. We can neutralize their propaganda with education and reasoned argument, without needing to be insecurely belligerent about it either. We don't need to bow down to them and let them redefine our world with their doublespeak and all the rest.  We can see the man behind the curtain... let us tell everyone instead running away... we can see how powerless and frightened he really is. We don't need to fight him but just recognize our own power... not a power over others but a power to be what we want to be, without the need of the hand-holding of a nanny state protecting us and powerful centralized masters keeping us in line.

Is that really your best attempt to weasel yourself into justifying calling Bitcoin democratic? It's being supervised by people?  ::)


The reason why I'm so strictly against calling Bitcoin democratic is because of all the bad things that actually come with that adjective. I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but there are no rights in Bitcoin, there are no entitlements in Bitcoin, there are no groups of people ruling over other groups of people in Bitcoin.

And I don't want Bitcoin, something so powerful, honest, strict, free of coercion, voluntary and with a high likelihood being a very beneficial technology to all people, help in any way shape or form elevate the connotation or the image of a word that represents ideas and real world institutions which are the sole culprit of so many problems and so much suffering that we have today.

I don't want for someone to be able to ever say: "Look at Bitcoin, see how well democracy can work?"

Because believe me, just like nowadays they say "Look at America or Europe, see how capitalism doesn't work?", which is a complete and utter lie since we haven't had capitalism for a long long time, someone using Bitcoin as propaganda for that evil ideology is just as bound to happen, and I will have none of it.  >:(

I agree with Blitz in that democracy can mean different things to different people. However, to ME it means that everyone at least has roughly equal power in the decision-making process, and that's not the case with Bitcoin. Your influence is dependent upon your contributions and ability. It would be silly to say a newbie has as much power as Gavin, MagicalTux, or Tycho. "Technocratic" is much more applicable.

Sure, we shouldn't market Bitcoin as undemocratic, but we shouldn't market it as democratic either. It's surely liberal and egalitarian, but its democracy is in a gray area at best. Boldly claiming how democratic we are will just spawn more semantic arguments like this and may even appear dishonest.

ftfy

And neither does there have to these things in a democracy as has been pointed out to you now many times. Just because you don't like something that someone inappropriately calls "democracy" and you let them change the meaning of the word for you doesn't mean it still doesn't have the original meaning for most people who use the language. I don't have to justify using it in its proper sense. It is people like you and certain politicians etc. who misuse it who have to justify yourselves.


If it is a lie then why let them get away with it? Why let them change the meaning of the word? Why give in and let them push you around like that? You say you will have none of it but it seems like it is me and others who you are arguing with are the ones who want to stand up for the proper use of our language.

If a politician told you 2+2=5 will you just shrug your shoulders and ask, "But how am I going to balance my checkbook now?"  :'(

And then there is the seeming contradiction of your complaining about democracy being only about people ruling over others while you seem to want to rule over others in how they describe bitcoin. i.e. your saying as much as "People must not use the word democratic to describe it!" ( note I said "your saying as much as..." That is not meant as a verbatim quote. ) 

I don't care if people use that term to describe it or not. I am just offering my opinion that people should be allowed to use that term if they want, since by the proper definition of the term "democratic", bitcoin is democratic in many ways ( if perhaps not in all ways ).

I also agree with others that to call it undemocratic is a misrepresentation, although they are free to do so, as much as I and others are free to state our opinion about that, while not going so far as to try and coerce them to stop.

This whole thread is a democratic thing, with the poll for people to vote in if they want and the opportunity for everyone to have their say if they so choose. 
But perhaps it isn't perfect. There are certain forum rules that must be followed, and not everyone might agree with all the various rules, and there is the centralized authority of moderators ( but they seem to be nice rulers pretty much. All hail our forum overlords! lol  ) and other things that not everyone agrees with, or has a free choice in... it is still largely democratic just the same.

You still seem willing to participate. Do you feel like you were forced to come here against your will and made to state your views in this evil exercise of democracy?    :D

tl;dr  I am not trying to attack the views of anyone but to defend* "democracy" and democracy.... the word and what it represents. ( *not too actively but just with a few words of support etc. )

This thread is a perfect example of exactly my original point.  This thread will never end due to the differing opinions on the semantics of the word "democracy".  In the end, Bitcoin is what it is, and it doesn't matter at all how it's described.

If you call ruling over people with my pointing out to people what the truth is, then yes, I guess I am.

"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it."


I won't argue with that but I think the marketers will beg to differ. In modern times they have made neuro-semantic manipulation an artform and taken it to levels that would shock even Goebbels.   :o

But anyway we can end now... hazek has given us truth!    ;D

or so it seems to me... but i am common... and a weasel... lol

Democracy is a Greek word, not Latin.  The Greeks invented Democracy.  And, to them, it was majority rule.

You can engage in all the revisionist history you'd like, but if we're going to "remember" anything, it should be that.

Sorry, but only an idiot would ask such a thing.  Instead why not ask, "Is it voluntary?" or "Does it abide by predetermined rules or is it arbitrary and rigged (like the dollar and the banking system)?"

Many components of democracy end up being coercive or rigged.  My leftwing pap meter always rises when some clown invokes "democracy."  How about focusing of FREEDOM and VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENTS rather than being concerned with DEMOCRACY! AND LEARN THE DISTINCTION, SHERLOCK!

In case anyone wants to see what an actual democratic cryptocurrency really looks like, you can read about it here: http://wiki.solidcoin.info/wiki/Main_Page

How is a system where one guy repeatedly changes the inflation rate any more democratic? If anything, Occcu is more democratic, and that's a stretch.

Ya, and then if we decided to use a word like "voluntary" we would have some idiot shouting, "VOLUNTARY? I WAS ONCE TOLD BY A POLITICIAN THAT X WOULD BE VOLUNTARY AND IT ENDED UP BEING COERCIVE AND RIGGED! I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH VOLUNTARY!"   >:(

LOL

How about learning the actual meaning of words and then if someone misuses it blame them and not the word?    ;)

Democracy is feudalism. Bitcoin is antidemocratic, ergo antifeudalist, ergo profreedom.

Democracy sucks.

IF killing you would save 20 inocent children, should we vote your fate? Is your body and your life yours? If so... you are antidemocratic too.

I like to think of Bitcoin as a constitution for a currency enforced by computers, the only difference is that it's a pre-written program that can't be changed easily, you also don't have adaptive A.I suddenly deciding that we're incapable of handling the responsibility of freedom ourselves and enslaving us all.

You are the one in this thread who started insulting people and behaving with lack of empathy. I agree you should not discuss this topic with hazek here -- you are not qualified to lecture anyone on empathy, especially not hazek.

He makes zero sense. He thinks bitcoin is good, he thinks democracy is good, he sees that bitcoin does not conform to the definition of democracy as it is currently or historically understood, this produces anxiety in him... so his obvious coping strategy to deal with his anxiety is to dissociate from reality and pretend against all logic that the definition of democracy accommodates bitcoin. Oh, and insult and belittle and condescend you, because -- of course -- anyone speaking the uncomfortable truth obviously must be defamed and discredited to suppress that truth.

It is a standard Staazi tactic to eschew reality and logical sense if these features of humanity threaten their mythology.

It is a common staazi mistake to equivocate "democratic" for "good". Of course this mistake is to be expected, since every child is repeatedly brainwashed for twelve years with this false association that serves staazi ideology. In this sense people use the word "democratic" like they use the word "American" -- as a false virtue, a word that is supposed to stand for "good".

Yes bitcoin is good -- that does not make bitcoin Democratic. None of the defining features of any democratic system are present in the bitcoin system, so hazek is right, bitcoin is by very definition undemocratic.

The homework for the reader is to figure out how that reality of bitcoin is precisely what makes it good.

Ah, "democratic spirit". Like, "I accept that this coke bottle is obviously not blue, but it certainly conforms to the blue spirit".

Meaningless drivel designed to resist the truth and retain faith in an obsolete mythology.

Bitcoin is voluntaryist and the market it supports is agorism.

FAIL:
As in feudalism, in democracy, your vote is a suggestion.

If you don't like the example of a man being killed to save 20 innocent children, what about an arm being cut? What if there's no damage to his body.. we only wipe all his money? Or maybe only a little? Is it about how high is the aggression... the point is: is your body and your life yours?

Well said. Unfortunately, I don't think you are going to convince your interlocutor that his slave suggestion boxes are slave suggestion boxes -- his brain is too putrefact with staazi propaganda that portraya the box as a direct line to his gods where he can grovel to the gods to please save him from evil people who just want to be left alone and not be violated.

A) Bitcoin is so democratic that if the 51% of the world population voted to increase the bitcoin-money supply it would happen. OOOPS FAAAAAILLLL!!!!!

Indeed, bitcoin is not democratic, that's why you can CHOOSE NOT TO USE IT.

It might be more correct to say that your fiat money IS democratic, as you are FORCED to use it because of the will of the majority (in your collectivism).

As you can see, democratic is not synonym of free but of sacrifice. If your mental laziness allows you, google: John Galt Speech

 ::)

What is this talk about "good"?  Setting up a strawman? 

I like how many who are denouncing "democracy" point to things like the American political system. Just because they call it democratic doesn't make it so.
I am talking about the actual definition of the word not about institutions, etc., that are incorrectly given that label. 

Explain to me a better social system than one where everyone is given a voice and allowed equal participation? 

If your answer starts going on to complain that America, or this or that other system, does not allow equal participation or fair representation etc. etc. then you have failed to read the question and are tilting after windmills...

Nope... failed analogy. 


Political and social equality are obsolete mythologies?  Unobtainable?  Not worth striving for? 

Btw, how do you define "staazi"...  is that some derogatory term for a statist?  If you are implying that I am one of those I should point out that a better label, if you must have one, would be anarchist... not that I agree completely with the views of any one writer/thinker who is also given that label. 

I ask again... if these staazi, as you call them, like to call their crimes, etc., "democratic" and "good" why let them get away with it? Why not insist that they are using these terms incorrectly and point out why? Why accept their twisting of the language?  Why not call 'them' out, instead of people who try to use words in their proper sense? 

Who here has suggested a social system where everyone ISN'T given a voice and allowed equal participation? Both liberal democracy and ancap allow free speech. Democracy doesn't always mean equal participation, either - for example:
* Elected representatives and judges can participate in ways you can't.
* Some sub-jurisdictions (states/territories/cities) have more political power per capita than others.
* Some democracies ban felons, children, the mentally ill, and non-citizen residents from voting.
* Minority political groups might not be listed on the ballot, or be completely disqualified after the primaries.

I don't mean to imply you support any of those things - but democracy neither guarantees nor is the sole path to having a voice and equal participation in a society.

Democracy was shit already back in the Greek Republic days.  No need to refer to the current shitty system (which happens to fulfill dictionary definitions of democracy, No True Scotsmen notwithstanding) to know that democracy is shit.

Indeed.  Democracy relies on inequality (giving an exclusive clique of people superpowers over everyone else) in order to (allegedly) "bring about equality".

That's like saying "In order for me to give you a rape-free life, I'mma gonna have to rape you now."

IOW, absurd.

So you disagree with the common definition of democracy?
In other words you want to impose your meaning on others instead of accepting the consensual majority view ( i.e. the definition found in such places as
dictionaries. )?  Is it more important to you to have a crusade against that word, based on your definition, or to try and understand what I, and others,
are actually trying to say.

After all I have said do you think, that when I use the word democracy, I am actually advocating an exclusive clique having special privileges and powers
over everyone else?  Seriously?   

Well lets forget about that word for the moment and tell me instead if you agree with this?

"The best social system is one where everyone is given a voice and allowed equal participation."

Yes such a system, which some of us might call a "democracy", does often involve something that might be called "sacrifice" but is perhaps better called "compromise".
Its also called "playing nice" and "getting along with others" ...  something most people learned in kindergarten.   ;)

I think of "democratic" as an adjective as "by the people, for the people." I think that fits Bitcoin.

I certainly don't agree with that. There are probably no situations where everone deserves an equal voice. If we're deciding what to do with my property, my voice is the only voice that matters; it's my property.

That's what observably happens in every democracy, is it not?  Unless you distort and pervert reality to deny what your eyes can see, I don't see how you could refute that.

It's cool that people want to have a voice and are allowed to speak.  It's not cool when they start to aggressively impose their criteria on others.  That principle rules out both rape and democracy.

And some, like Lincoln, would include, "of the people", and I feel that is a good description of democracy and yes, fits what Bitcoin is about.

We already have a word to describe "by the people, for the people, of the people".  The word is called populist.  No need to conflate democracy with populism.  Clear thinking starts with clear concepts.

Not in my bookclub; we get along just fine. And do we need any more example to prove the statement, that it happens in every democracy, false?  

Note I said "social system" which perhaps can be differentiated from private matters.  There is also nothing stopping us from including in a democracy things like constitutions and bills of rights and charters ensuring individual rights etc. etc.  Such things can help with the potential "tyranny of the majority" problem. 

But lets hear yours, and also Rudd-o, ideas on a better system. 

And we also have an excellent general term called "democracy."  Get yourself a dictionary. It will help you with that clear thinking problem you seem to be having.   ;)

You first imply that I'm wrong by saying "get a dictionary" and then you imply that I am somehow the victim of "befuddled thinking".

That's a clever manipulative non-argument composed entirely of attacks and discrediting, but it changes nothing: you're still wrong, and you prove it over and over by not being able or willing to advance arguments proving that you're right.

How exactly is your book club a "democracy"?  Define "democracy" (don't just make up a definition, of course) and then demonstrate that your book club fits this definition (not in a "well, X is kinda like Y" -- that's not an argument I will accept).  Of course, be prepared to be challenged by common dictionary definitions.

Let's see how clear your thinking is.

Private relationships are social systems too.

What a nice way to describe mob rule.  ::)

To answer your question, if one's goal is to live in a society that has the freedom to maximize it's potential the best social system is the one where each participant has the freedom to live, to own and be in absolute control over their body and their property, meaning no involuntary participation or taxation.

I didn't say you were wrong but that there can be more than one word for any particular concept. 

You said more than that, and you know it.

We're waiting for you to defend your ideas.

It is democratic. It is of the people in the bookclub by the people in the bookclub for the people of the bookclub. It adheres to the principle of equality of rights and privileges for all members of the bookclub.  

Fine... did you also read what I said about constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms? 

You did not answer any of my questions, thus we do not yet know whether your book club is "democratic" or not.

So, in the interest of actually having a rational conversation, can you respond to the questions I asked?  They are, to wit:

1. How exactly is your book club a "democracy"?  "It is democratic" is not a response.

2. Define "democracy".  You did not do that.

3. Demonstrate that your book club fits this definition

4. Be prepared to be challenged by common dictionary definitions.

If you're not going to address what is being asked of you to prove your hypotheses, at least do me (and everyone else) the favor of not contributing more noise to the conversation?  Thanks.

And what would you prefer? Every man for himself?  


And that doesn't go against the principles of democracy given the proper supports such as those constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms I mentioned.  

All of that is answered in my response if you know how to read normal forum conversation...

but here, more formal definitions:

* government of the people by the people for the people.

* a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

* political or social equality.
 

I am still waiting for you to answer my question, which I asked first.

"The best social system is one where ____ "

That answers question 1 partially (for example, you don't define "government", or "equality", or "rights", which leaves you an opening to weasel out of logical inconsistencies you might commit).

How about a complete answer to 1 and then answers to questions 2 and 3?  Thanks.

=================================================


That's offtopic because the answer is irrelevant to the question "Is Bitcoin democratic?".  I won't answer that in this thread, sorry.

It is not off topic or irrelevant and has come up naturally in the course of conversation and debate on this subject and I will not subject myself to any more of your unnecessarily strict and formal interrogation, where you only appear to being willfully difficult, until you show you are actually interested in conversation, rather than lecturing everyone on what words they should use etc., by answering my questions and allowing more give and take etc.   

That is pure fantasy.  ::)

What I described doesn't allow for involuntary payment of subscription i.e. theft, it doesn't allow for through violence enforced arbitrary rules every single individual hasn't explicitly contractually consented to, it doesn't include the taking from some and giving to others through violence and robbery, it doesn't include the phrase "for the common good", and it doesn't allow for the delusion that a piece of paper is going to offer any kind of protection against violent psychopaths.

I gave you a reason why the topic you're trying to introduce is off topic and irrelevant.  You even quoted it right here.  You didn't even bother refuting that reason -- you just contradicted me.  Contradiction is not an argument.

The fact that you keep trying to change the subject and introduce a new argument means you have officially broke Rule #1 in the rational discussion flowchart on my signature.  You are being deliberately irrational.


That's a lie.  The topic doesn't "come up naturally".  Statists artificially change the subject to this unrelated topic -- exactly like you just did -- usually to avoid being having to admit that they are wrong.  Given the following text, it's no surprise that you're attempting to do the same.  You are being deliberately irrational most likely in order to sabotage the discussion, because you know that you can't prove that your beliefs are correct... therefore you do the dishonest thing and attempt to change the subject, hoping that your interlocutors will forget that you fucked up and bite your bait.

You know you're fucked, so you throw out a red herring.  But nobody fell for your trap.  You have failed.


TADAAAA!  Here is where Portnoy feigns indignation and storms out, running away to save face.  He failed to prove his claims, and he also failed to derail the conversation by introducing a different topic while his previous claims remained unproven.  What course of action remains in his Bat-belt of Intellectual Dishonesty?  Make like an octopus, eject a cloud of black ink, feign indignation and storm out cowardly.

Portnoy can't or won't prove to us that "Bitcoin is democratic".  Therefore, he strepitously exits the discussion with pretend indignation.

His deliberate irratinonality has earned Portnoy a speedy addition to my ignore list.

Neither does democracy as I, and many, if not most, understand the term.  Again you are talking about specific systems which are often incorrectly given the label "democracy".  

How would your preferred system work in practice.

Would it have rules? How would such rules be decided upon if not democratically?

Note how Portnoy attempts to change the subject anytime he fails to prove anything he claims is true.  This is a standard tactic to confuse and sabotage the conversation.  Hold him to his claims, make him prove that he is correct, and he will very shortly throw a tantrum.  Then you've won.

You didn't prove it was irrelevant... you didn't submit it to the board of inquisition in triplicate... you didn't define "offtopic", "because", "answer", "irrelevant" or "question"...
you didn't genuflect to your statue of Ayn Rand before beginning your attack... 

The answer to your questions are: I don't know.

But it's also irrelevant that I don't. What is relevant are the principles. As long as people follow those principles any type of rules coming about or agreed upon in any way are fine.

It is more like a dictatorship you can choose to participate in. The fundamentals of bitcoin, its unique properties, were dictated by one person (or group of persons) known as Satoshi Nakamoto.

Technology has no particular allegience to any one person or group of people, nor does it seek to rule over or subjugate them however, so ultimately the question is inappropriate.

A better question would be "What principles and values does bitcoin help to promote or enable?".

Given that its primary function is as a currency, it promotes the idea of a monetary system, which distorts life affirming and sustaining values and leads to negative outcomes.

That is probably the best answer I could have hoped for, and that is democracy as I and many use the term. People working together, finding common ground, finding good compromises and finding solutions that they can all agree to etc.,.  Whether there is any government in the world that is like that is irrelevant, as you say, it is the principles we hold dear as we move forward and strive to improve our lot that is most important.  

Thanks for that.  

I am done with Rudd-O who still thinks I am some statist, showing that he doesn't listen to what I am putting forth let alone taking the time to understand it.  

I am not trying to prove anything. "Is Bitcoin democratic?"  That is a question.  

I am, though, trying to show that there are many ways to define "democratic" and the most accepted definitions have to do with equality and government by the people and for the people... etc.     I am not only somewhat anarchistic but also agnostic, not just in terms of religion but everything.  No one person, group, or ideology, has all the answers to anything.  


Thank the gods!   :D

Actually you may have misunderstood. How we define a "government" today cannot exist following those principles, by definition it can't. So it is relevant, what isn't relevant is how we'd end up organized if we adhered to those principles but we never could end up with a government and follow those principles at the same time. Ever.

I call what we would end up with or not a proprietariat. My post on the subject from another forum:

It is my view that "democracy", as a general term, doesn't require a "state" or any kind of centralized control structure to work. If people come up with other terms for such organizations I feel that doesn't make the term "democracy" any less useful.  If the language evolves to the point where the majority of people come to define "democracy" as you and a few others do then I might agree that it may be best to use other words to communicate certain principles.  I still don't agree with letting those certain powers-that-be twist the language to their own purpose, to more easily get away with their crimes.   

Your's isn't shared by most people which makes it a lot harder if not impossible to spread the right ideas. Instead of clinging to a term insisting it means something most understand it not to mean, why not use a "clean" word to be able to better communicate? It is the sole reason why I vehemently insist that Bitcoin is not democratic.

Well I disagree...  I am not interested in conducting an extensive survey to prove that, and I doubt you have any interest in doing that ( I hope it isn't a dogmatic belief on your part, but its no big deal if it is ), so there we have it.

I gave voice ( so to speak ) to my thoughts on the subject and others shared their thoughts and feelings. 

Works for me.   ;)

Thanks, everyone, for the glimpse into other reality tunnels.   :)

Just a suggestion if you really care about reality.. pay attention to how many people demonstrate and protest in the streets demanding that the government raise taxes, i.e. steal more from those who worked hard and got rich (calling it the democratic process) which is completely incompatible with the principles I outlined. There really isn't any need to do surveys, all you have to do is walk outside and look around. ;)

Give up, man.  You can't reason with Portnoy.  Whenever he's asked to prove his beliefs, he changes the subject; if he is not indulged in this dishonest bait and switch, he throws a tantrum.  What more proof does a person need to know that he isn't rational and he isn't trying to have a legitimate conversation about the topic?

DEMOCRACY VS ANARCHOCAPITALISM:
Democracy does not mean 'respect to all views' but 'destroy minority views', it means the majority rules and destroys the minority. Just think how democracy works and you easily see this is just true.

A good example of democracy would be 10 friends sitting on a table at a restaurant deciding what are they going to eat. What democracy means is that they will rise their hands in votations and they will eat all the same. But what if two of them are vegetarians and the other eight want to eat meat? Well they will have to pay the meat even if they don't want it and give thanks for the freedom they have.

What anarchist (anarchocapitalists) say is that everybody should be free to choose and pay what they like and can afford.

Which system is less violent? Obviously the second, just because it doesn't coercively force anybody to do the other's will.

Moreover, if you analyze your believes you'll find out that you defend democracy because your very own superstitions (that were inducted by propaganda). The first and more dangerous of all of them is that you believe and assume as right that there should be a goverment, and you see democracy as the less harmfull system to rule the monster.

If we return to the restaurant, imagine those 10 people were born in that table and forced to eat that way since the begining of their lifes. It is probably that the ones that would fight to stop the system would be the vegetarians, or the ones that were more oppressed by the system, and the ones that will defend it would be the ones that weren't so much oppressed. That's why you can expect hostility from this conversation. Because you're dealing with very deep beliefs.


DEMOCRACY AND BITCOIN:
There is a problem with the rule of the majority and bitcoin, and the problem is that, in case you have not realize it, in real world you are minority.

Is bitcoin democratic? No. It isn't. It is as democratic as cocacola.

It doesn't mind how much people vote for it, the protocol will may remain the same until the end of the days. If the protocol is changed, then it wont be cocacola, it will be pepsi. People are free to chose cocacola or pepsi.

As we have all already discussed, bitcoin has not intrinsic value, and it didn't have value before being a currency. Then, were does this value come from? It comes from the VOLUNTARY aceptance of the system: demand. There isn't a coercitive force or the rule of the majority that said, voted, or forced us to use bitcoin.

Merchants voluntarily accept bitcoins, we have all voluntarily given resources to obtain some coins, and we are voluntarily starting the ecosystem.

There wasn't any votation and there wont be votations for this.

In democracy you don't have the freedom to choose. With bitcoin you can choose not to use it.

And by the way, i'm spanish and i live in a collapsing democracy, i wonder if you know what the fuck a democracy is. If you are north american, you might like to know that you DON'T live in a democracy, but a republic.

Well, just on paper really, in reality their PR pamphlet i.e. the constitution is being completely ignored.

But the rest of your post is spot on.

Oh really? that's what you do? How sad. Instead of that I try to analyze why is it that those people don't actually use bitcoins and try to develop systems to fill in the gap. I don't want to transform anybody, and of course i don't want to coercively force anybody to use bitcoins. If they are not using Bitcoin yet there must be a reason, so instead of 'selling' the product i like to build the ecosystem in order to make it more attractive.

Moreover, I assume that even if i think bitcoin is a 'good' thing, i may be wrong or there may be something better that i don't know yet. You don't have the knowledge of how things should be done.



Oh really?


Of course, if you are the owner of your own body and life, then nobody else is the owner of your own body and life. If this is true, then you are not the owner of anybodys body nor life. So in strict anarchocapitalist logic, nobody can deny you to buy whatever you like, but you cannot force anybody to pay it for you. So yes, anarchocapitalist are saying:everybody should be free to choose and pay what they like and can afford.

If you want to read the complete libertarian manifesto by Rothbard, here you are:
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

P.S. Bitcoin is build in a way to make sure nobody makes you pay what you don't choose to pay. Think about that too.

Mrvision, you knocked it out of.the ballpark. Fantastic explanation. Eloquent. Truthful. Thanks for your post.

LOL  What beliefs?  Why didn't you answer any of my questions?  Tantrum? Who rushed to put me on ignore?  And why are you still trying to shout me down with large cap denouncements while ignoring anything I might say in response?  

And about hazek's statement about what most understand the word democracy to mean lets have look at the dictionary:

democratic,

1. Of the nature of, or characterized by, democracy; advocating or upholding democracy.


We can perhaps ignore the definitions that pertain to the specific political parties that go by that name.

democracy,

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.


Isn't this what most people understand it to mean?  Where is the part about theft and oppression by an elite clique?
Remember we are talking about the word and its meaning here...

NOT about some government who calls itself democratic but really isn't.  How many times do I have to remind you of this? And yet you hazek, say things like:


I know about things like this. I take part in some of those protests myself about the abuse of power by the various governments of the world, like America.
I, and many others, protest not because America and Canada, where I live, are democratic but because they are NOT democratic.  You talk about their crimes
and say in brackets: (calling it the democratic process)...   And you let them say that... you let yourself believe, seemingly, that it is the democratic process.  
Well by definition it is NOT the democratic process.  I would suggest that most people do accept the dictionary definition and not the definition you and that
elite clique would like us to believe.   Or do you want to switch it around and say rather than an elite clique it is mob rule?  Those are kinda opposites things
aren't they?  

And about 'mob rule' and 'tyranny of the majority' I mentioned things like constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms.  Why not address that?
People are working together on solutions like that to improve democractic systems and to make the world a better place...  

It is interesting and perhaps very telling that you and the others who denounce democracy have not suggested a better solution.  

It's what they all tend to devolve toward, given enough time.  Look at what the looters and moochers pulled off three weeks ago if you want proof.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.

(Yes, I know that what we have is had was a republic, but with some democratic features.  The looters and moochers successfully pulled off a 51% attack.)

Like I say, things are working fine in my bookclub, and there are other democratic groups, systems, and institutions that appear to be operating
relatively smoothly ( including Bitcoin ).  There are also people who see the various problems and work to fix them. Did you see my mention of
things like constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms to protect individual rights etc.? Democracy isn't some automatic fix-it-once-and-for-all
solution that one puts in place and forgets about.  It needs constant maintenance and improvement.  
 
The Taoists have a saying, "Don't let the great be the enemy of the good."   Just because a certain system isn't perfect right off the bat doesn't
mean we should discard it completely... especially when it appears no better alternative exists. Or is there?

What would you suggest would is a better system than democracy, as the word is defined?  

Thank you :D

Anarchy doesn't mean chaos, it means no rulers. There are no rulers of Bitcoin, but plenty of community leaders who wield only social influence.

Let's assume for a moment that the Bitcoin dev team turns evil. They introduce some horrible new feature everyone else hates. No problem, normal people just run the old client until the nerd shitstorm settles and then switch to a new fork run by a new dev team. And we don't all have to agree - the original chain will still be there, AND the one with the horrible changes, AND the new competing chains. During the Great Coin War there could even be many competing dev teams, and your total assets remain unchanged until you're ready to pick one and sell the rest. All that really matters are your own private keys proving work+time, and they're ruled by no one but you.

But really I'm just arguing semantics here, it's a computer protocol, not a society. Motorcycles are just as anarchist, if not more so. :D

Still fuming in here?

Allow me to put it to you that the original question is nonsensical.

Horrible simplifications follow:

Government arises largely from the fact resources and space are limited. People have to share some things, at least the air they breathe, the water they drink and the land they tread. Conflicts of interest are inevitable and some process must exist to resolve them. At its most basic, that process is violence, but generally other solutions evolve.

All known solutions are flawed. Ideally, we wouldn't have conflicts, but we do, and must therefore deal with them. That understanding is deeply ingrained into us all. Most of us in the West tend to believe Democracy is better than all other forms of government we've tried, but few consider it perfect. Even so, for most people, the less they feel their lives are interefered with, the better.

Bitcoin isn't an attempt to make a better solution to the problem of government. It is an attempt to do away with the conflict of interest problem in a limited portion of our lives. The idea is not to need government to moderate Bitcoin, since the protocol is open, consensus-based, forkable and non-coercive.

It makes no sense to ask if a system is Democratic when that system has no actual government.

The majority.

 :D

The term "democratic" doesn't just refer to governments ( as in the governments of Nation States ). See the definition of that word I posted and then look at the definitions of the word "democracy" I posted, particularly the one repeated below.


And I ask, what better way to deal with conflicts than democratically?
( someone should point out to Rude-O that this too is a question and not the stating of a dogmatic belief that takes on a burden to prove anything one way or another. LOL )

See definition #5 from the dictionary:
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

The issue of how such principles are put into practice are foreign to the definition, but if such implementations do not adhere to those principles, despite this or that tyrant insisting that they do, then they can not be truly regarded as democratic.  

~~~

edit/ I am not making this stuff up...

see also the quote prominently displayed on the http://www.weusecoins.com/ site:  "We make money democratic."

or from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Public_relations: "Bitcoin is a chance to revolutionize the financial system, making it fairer and more democratic."

or from here: http://www.bitcoin2012.com/
"Denis Roio (jaromil), social activist and long time developer of multimedia applications for Linux. He is also been working with communities in developing alternative currencies and activists in order to bring power and democratic determination back to societies."

or use google... or better yet: http://duckduckgo.com/?q=bitcoin+democratic

to see many more examples for yourself.   ;)

Portnoy, you employ such a broad definition of "democratic" that you might as well ask if Bitcoin is righteous.

as for the question of dealing with conflict, my point was, Bitcoin is an attempt, of limited scope, at an end-run around conflict, making it unnecessary to consider how to resolve it.


Put it this way: people have headaches. Let's say we decide Ibuprofen is the best medicine for them. Everyone likes Ibuprofen now, no question about it. Let's then say someone has an idea on how to make sure no-one gets a headache in the first place - it makes no sense to ask if their solution is like Ibuprofen.

I second this.  That's what I've been trying to say all along.  Well said, rebuilder -- you have rebuilt this thread.

It is a question that you can answer anyway you like, or leave it alone and walk on.

E.G.
"Bitcoin is [perhaps] democratic in this way ___, but [perhaps] not democratic in this way ___. "

Democracy, as I have been saying, is a general concept and does not demand specific implementations.
  
For example there is nothing in the definition that demands there be a centralized leadership structure, even though many systems seem
to find that useful. It doesn't demand a formal system of voting, although that has been found useful to determine the thoughts and feelings
of the people, in certain arenas of life...

In my everyday life many groups I am a part of are anarchic to a large degree: no forum leader; no demand for participation or tribute...
but they are also very democratic: everyone gets a say and is treated with respect... a majority doesn't get to force the minority into
something they don't want ( compromise often takes place that all can agree to ).  

One great principle that I have seen some groups adopt is this: "Whatever is not mutual is released."  
Such things tend to work best among humans than among those who only live at an animal level of existence.   ;)

Despite the assumptions of some here I myself am not sure if Bitcoin is democratic... in what ways and to what degree...

It seems most of the "debate" is over definitions. As I pointed out I am using the standard dictionary definition that most people accept.
( it is only fair to be democratic about what definition is accepted I figure...  ;)  )
 
Some sure get hot under the collar over that and seem to want to consider me a statist and defender of the abuses of the evil governments
of the world, because those evil organizations have attempted to appropriate the word "democracy" for their own evil purposes.  

They also use the word "freedom" as much as "democracy" don't they?   Does that mean we should now let them force us into believing
that the true definition of "freedom" is slavery, just as we should believe that the right and proper definition of "democracy" is theft and murder?  

And speaking of thralldom it seems that many who hold to such rigid views are more slaves to those ideologies than they are to any external
agencies in their angry, humorless worlds...   :D


"Anyone who claims to know what the hell is going on is full of shit."  - Robert Anton Wilson

but what does he know?   ;)


later buds...  

It is capitalist. A group of people have entered into a complex contract involving fixed rules and cryptographic signatures. Currency is generated by proof of effort and is dispensed from there via the free market.

We all agreed to the same contract, but that is not the same as voting.

You are speaking to the wall because some falsely believe there's voting in Bitcoin..  ::)

These democ-rats hate themselves for supporting a capitalist invention. Therefore, they try to fool themselves and repeat again and again that bitcoin is not capitalist but democratic. They don't get it. In the kingdom of lies voluntarism has been called democracy, and democracy (and other ways of collectivism) has been called capitalism, so in their perverted minds this sentence is totally correct:

'The system sucks because it's capitalist, and Bitcoin is cool because is democratic'.

The problem is that their ignorance is what feeds the system, destroying capitalism, ergo voluntarism. This makes them fight in real world vs private earnings, private investment, private whatever... because they have also associated the word private with the word capitalism, so this turns them into red ants fighting vs evolution and vs their own interest. Making them work for the interest of the democracy leaders. As Rudd-O pointed:


Do this people understand that the investors this time are they (we)? Probably not.

Will this be a problem in the future? Probably yes.

Yup.  The contract is in software, and using the software (a voluntary, non-imposed, true choice) implies that one accepts how the software works.

No such thing can be said about the imaginary social contract that people seeking to impose on others peddle.

Agreed.  Self-hate is rampant.

Democracy is about deciding who decide what and how.
Bitcoin is about deciding who own what and how.

For me it s like comparing 2 different things...

This is a very good distinction.