Bitcoin's are totally useless once you have a state of WAR!

[ChupacabraHunter]

...continued from my previous post from heated/fun debate about Bitcoin with a friend who is well and good in the current economic system...

The point my friend is making (and quite convincingly if I do say so myself) is that the current system cannot be taken/viewed from an extremist's point of view and simply written off as "evil".  Our current system is here, and it is working.  The main fault with it, in his view, is that it can be used to create wars to eliminate unwanted and unfriendly (non)participants of the current system.  Once that takes place, you have only participating players left, making the current system... well... "The current system!"

In order for Bitcoin to succeed, it has to topple, beat, replace, compete with the current system which is really good for WARS!  And, my friend suggests, Bitcoin will not succeed because:

Bitcoin's are totally useless once you have a state of WAR!

What do you think? Where is he right/wrong?

[eroxors]

Bitcoin is perhaps the most effective way to hire cyber-warriors.

Conventional war... probably not. Massive government spending is required to fund war and bitcoin couldn't facilitate that.

[Charlie Prime]

What do you think? Where is he right/wrong?

I think your friend is mentally retarded and you should get a new friend unless you just like working with 'challenged' kids.

[BobbyJo]

What do you think? Where is he right/wrong?

I think your friend is mentally retarded and you should get a new friend unless you just like working with 'challenged' kids.

I agree.  What exactly is his point!  Why is it useless?  Unless the internet/ networking ceases to exist!

[DublinBrian]

The bitcoin monetary system is more resilient to war than the current system, for the following reason.

The fiat banking system is a system of liabilities. Liabilities require you to trust that the counterparty will make good on the liability. In times of war, trust between countries is replaced by hostility and mistrust.

Bitcoin is not based on liabilities. You dont have to trust anyone to store value in bitcoins. In times of war when countries do not trust each other, payment must be made in something that doesnt require trusting your enemy. That is one reason why international trade was settled in gold, for so long.

[HDSolar]

What do you think? Where is he right/wrong?

I think your friend is mentally retarded and you should get a new friend unless you just like working with 'challenged' kids.

+1 and look at history, I would rather be in bitcoins then a countries currency during war.  Once a war kicks off the money goes in the old round filling cabinet.  Ask Saddam, Kadafi, Hitler (just to name a few experts) all of those folks went to war and their money turned to funny.  Now you look at Hitler and what did he do, he chased more stable funds to back his funds and he also stole obtained other items such as art, gold and transferable equity so he could keep the war machine going.  I don't have time to write a whole history about this (wait maybe I should, might make a nice coffee table book, anyways) but drop by your local library and have fun discovering our human history and how money and war have worked since the dawn of time. 

And remember kids, stay in school.

[WorldOfBitcoin]

Deutschmark had rapid inflation during WW2. If some one had savings it would be whipped out.

would rather have bitcoin if I were you. not to mention I could flee the country I wouldn't have lots of cash on hand to be confiscated.

Now; post EMP and nuclear war is a whole other topic

[proudhon]

...continued from my previous post from heated/fun debate about Bitcoin with a friend who is well and good in the current economic system...

The point my friend is making (and quite convincingly if I do say so myself) is that the current system cannot be taken/viewed from an extremist's point of view and simply written off as "evil".  Our current system is here, and it is working.  The main fault with it, in his view, is that it can be used to create wars to eliminate unwanted and unfriendly (non)participants of the current system.  Once that takes place, you have only participating players left, making the current system... well... "The current system!"

In order for Bitcoin to succeed, it has to topple, beat, replace, compete with the current system which is really good for WARS!  And, my friend suggests, Bitcoin will not succeed because:

Bitcoin's are totally useless once you have a state of WAR!

What do you think? Where is he right/wrong?

I don't even know what you mean by "a state of WAR!".  A state of war, where?  There are states of war all over the place right now in lots of different senses.  And that's been the case from bitcoin's birth to now.  So, clearly you can't mean any such state of war(s) as already exist, because bitcoin hasn't been rendered useless by them.  So, what then?  Like, a world-wide, in everyone's backyard, guns going off all around, state of war?  I mean, seriously, WTF are you talking about.

The main fault with the current system is that it can be used to create wars?  What?  So let's imagine a system where only bitcoin is used.  Would that mean no wars?  Why couldn't a bitcoin only system "create" wars in whatever ways you imagine this one does?  I don't even see the skeleton of a coherent argument here.

[Melbustus]

...Massive government spending is required to fund war and bitcoin couldn't facilitate that.

If bitcoin were to ever be a core currency, why wouldn't governments use it like they used Gold for centuries? Issue your own notes backed by bitcoin, offer a redemption option to generate confidence, but print up to 10 times more in notes than you have in bitcoin reserve, and hope there's no run. That *does* work for a while, and can certainly work to finance wars. Eventually it fails, but memories are short...each generation of politicians seems to have to learn the same lessons for themselves via first-hand experience.

[Realpra]

Well if we assume a Bitcoin using country under attack, they would actually have some "good" routes for funding a massive war machine:


1. Pay your "war tax/tribute" or get conscripted = hard money plus soldiers of low productivity to get rid off. (yes evil; that's war)

2. We are all here because we believe Bitcoin to be superior money to fiat, as in leading to a more efficient market/society. In a BTC
    country this would also mean more productivity and a more efficient war machine.

3. Agents/spies behind enemy lines can be funded on-demand with BTC despite everything going on which A keeps them funded doing
    their sabotage thing and B keeps them loyal as they are dependent on your nations money drip feed. (many Nazi agents sent to
    America defected very quickly and spent their large cash suitcases on their girlfriends before any missions got done)

4. Recruit enemy populations to do sabotage paying them in BTC. The opponent would have a hard time finding out who was cutting all
   their wires and harder time yet dealing with it during war.

5. Bitcoin does not easily fund wasteful governments, this means that a BTC country might well be unlikely to be the instigator of
   war - hence our hypothetical country would not be the aggressor and thus have more international sympathy.

6. During occupation the government could go underground, while still ruling the country's BTC economy and citizens would be
    harder to exploit without causing a rebellion.
    During WWII France this could have meant a continued and highly organized resistance against the Nazis that really only controlled
    Paris early on. With BTC control of the parliament (or whatever) in Paris would have had little significance.

7. Technologies that work well in peace usually also work well during war-time. Examples: Wheels=speed, phones/radio=comm., mass
    production technology, medicine=better/living soldiers, sensor equipment, satellites, high strength construction/armor materials and
    infrastructure. There is no reason to believe Bitcoin should be different.

8. With the opponent printing lots of fiat to fund their wars, their currency would be tanking while the Bitcoin country would be getting
    "free money" from the resulting BTC deflation.


It is a fallacy that smaller things cannot beat larger things. Large things generally take a lot of energy to even operate. If they are more efficient per unit, then that is fine, but that can hardly be said for our current EU/US status quo.

Or in short: Come at me bro!

[FreeMoney]

We are perpetually at war so this doesn't even make a little sense.

[adamstgBit]

I think the current system makes financing war a very easy, just print the fucking money. Then use that money to take over a country and its oil, only to make more money! Now since you cant simply print bitcoin, financing wars would be harder, the only way would be to convince the people its a good idea and ask them for the their money / lives to fight for this war. As a result their would be no BS wars, because no one will pay good money to get people to kill themselves just so some corporation can come in and start pumping. Yes your right bitcoin is totally useless when it comes to war, because the oil companies would have to finance their own wars.

[adamstgBit]

...Massive government spending is required to fund war and bitcoin couldn't facilitate that.

If bitcoin were to ever be a core currency, why wouldn't governments use it like they used Gold for centuries? Issue your own notes backed by bitcoin, offer a redemption option to generate confidence, but print up to 10 times more in notes than you have in bitcoin reserve, and hope there's no run. That *does* work for a while, and can certainly work to finance wars. Eventually it fails, but memories are short...each generation of politicians seems to have to learn the same lessons for themselves via first-hand experience.

If bitcoin were to ever be a core currency,
no one would accept anything other then bitcoin.

[Hunterbunter]

I think the current system makes financing war a very easy, just print the fucking money. Then use that money to take over a country and its oil, only to make more money! Now since you cant simply print bitcoin, financing wars would be harder, the only way would be to convince the people its a good idea and ask them for the their money / lives to fight for this war. As a result their would be no BS wars, because no one will pay good money to get people to kill themselves just so some corporation can come in and start pumping. Yes your right bitcoin is totally useless when it comes to war, because the oil companies would have to finance their own wars.

I think you're right here.

Although the oil companies have the world by it's balls quite nicely...I don't think they'd have a problem finding a new way to exploit economic systems for the purpose of control/power.

While they may not have the bitcoins, they have the stuff which makes bitcoins worth having.

[Melbustus]

...Massive government spending is required to fund war and bitcoin couldn't facilitate that.

If bitcoin were to ever be a core currency, why wouldn't governments use it like they used Gold for centuries? Issue your own notes backed by bitcoin, offer a redemption option to generate confidence, but print up to 10 times more in notes than you have in bitcoin reserve, and hope there's no run. That *does* work for a while, and can certainly work to finance wars. Eventually it fails, but memories are short...each generation of politicians seems to have to learn the same lessons for themselves via first-hand experience.

If bitcoin were to ever be a core currency,
no one would accept anything other then bitcoin.

False. Govs would still require tax payment in their own currency, there'd still be legal tender laws, etc. Bitcoin as the backing/reserve-currency absolutely makes the situation better than now, but as I noted, govs still printed too much money when gold backed everything...

[Etlase2]

I think the current system makes financing war a very easy, just print the fucking money. Then use that money to take over a country and its oil, only to make more money! Now since you cant simply print bitcoin, financing wars would be harder, the only way would be to convince the people its a good idea and ask them for the their money / lives to fight for this war. As a result their would be no BS wars, because no one will pay good money to get people to kill themselves just so some corporation can come in and start pumping. Yes your right bitcoin is totally useless when it comes to war, because the oil companies would have to finance their own wars.

If it weren't for bankers financing wars, the history of the world would be far different. If governments and banks have little control over the currency, then yes I believe that war would be much more difficult. While war does temporarily promote some industries and can temporarily relieve recession-like symptoms, the greater toll is a big fat negative. But it has to get to the point where people only want a nation's currency to pay its taxes and nothing more and have to be willing to be civilly disobedient in the case of military drafts. But bitcoin won't fix most of this because of the fact that bankers will eventually accrue a large portion of the wealth or bitcoin will just fail because it's silly to loan money in a deflationary economy unless...

What's to stop the bitcoin elite from financing a large state's war? The profit incentive would be tremendous. It's what the goldsmiths and lenders did several hundred years ago for british and american wars. It was possible then, it will be possible again.

[Hunterbunter]

What's to stop the bitcoin elite from financing a large state's war? The profit incentive would be tremendous. It's what the goldsmiths and lenders did several hundred years ago for british and american wars. It was possible then, it will be possible again.

It would hardly surprise me if the majority of coins were already held by those looking to gain from it in 100 years, even if just in case a situation like this were to arise.

"I care not what puppet is placed on
the throne of England to rule the Empire, ...
The man that controls Britain's money
supply controls the British Empire.
And I control the money supply."
- Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild

Then again, even if they didn't, they have the skill and experience to quickly turn things their way.

[FreeMoney]

We are perpetually at war so this doesn't even make a little sense.

I understand it to be a war between two well establish states or a world war, not just a preemptive invasion.

You'd call it a war if you were preemptively invaded.

[sunnankar]

What's to stop the bitcoin elite from financing a large state's war? The profit incentive would be tremendous. It's what the goldsmiths and lenders did several hundred years ago for british and american wars. It was possible then, it will be possible again.

In order for the elite to wage war the economy must first produce to enable war consumption. Without the production they cannot wage war.

The sounder a currency the more the elite would bleed savings until their resources are exhausted and they can no longer fund the mercenaries. The Golden Age of the soundest gold standard (there were multiple gold standards) was also the time of the least war because the State was more tightly constrained from being able to prey on the production of producers.

There is a huge difference in the economics of violence in the Information Age in contrast to the Industrial Age. The cost of protection and return on investment from extortion has changed dramatically in favor of both the producers and holders of capital. Both producers and holders of capital are in large part no longer held hostage by geography and consequently no longer need institutions capable of projecting tremendous amounts of violence to protect their assets.

And one of the reasons the elite did not bleed wealth was because of the fractional reserve lending system which allowed them to not bleed but consolidate wealth, particularly during times of war. Bitcoin being both the blood (gold) and the veins (storage & value transfer mechanism) constricts the predatory and agressive class far tighter than gold or anything else ever could.

[proudhon]

What's to stop the bitcoin elite from financing a large state's war? The profit incentive would be tremendous. It's what the goldsmiths and lenders did several hundred years ago for british and american wars. It was possible then, it will be possible again.

In order for the elite to wage war the economy must first produce to enable war consumption. Without the production they cannot wage war.

The sounder a currency the more the elite would bleed savings until their resources are exhausted and they can no longer fund the mercenaries. The Golden Age of the soundest gold standard (there were multiple gold standards) was also the time of the least war because the State was more tightly constrained from being able to prey on the production of producers.

There is a huge difference in the economics of violence in the Information Age in contrast to the Industrial Age. The cost of protection and return on investment from extortion has changed dramatically in favor of both the producers and holders of capital. Both producers and holders of capital are in large part no longer held hostage by geography and consequently no longer need institutions capable of projecting tremendous amounts of violence to protect their assets.

And one of the reasons the elite did not bleed wealth was because of the fractional reserve lending system which allowed them to not bleed but consolidate wealth, particularly during times of war. Bitcoin being both the blood (gold) and the veins (storage & value transfer mechanism) constricts the predatory and agressive class far tighter than gold or anything else ever could.

What evidence are you using to support these claims?  This well researched book suggest that we're currently living in the most peaceful time in earth's history in terms of violence generally and war violence in particular.  There's tons of data in that book that would seem to contradict your claim.