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

[jago25_98]

There's a few people looking at Bitcoin as a survivalists currency, well a small hedge in disaster scenarios along with more normal stuff. Of course it depends on the scenario.

 How useful is a Bitcoin to an Iranian really? Now bear in mind how Gaddafi got on and he had a ton of Gold and Oil, both considered currencies. The difference with Bitcoin is just that the tech to track it is difference. Gold and Oil are just tracked in different ways... I'm not sure which is better or worse for different situations. Offline transactions are however, only offline...

If cash goes out the window in states of war what replaces it?

I read a story of a guy entrenched in a city in Czechoslovakia for a year. He recounted that gold was used but it was worth much much less than all the goldbugs might expect. Lighters and cigarettes were worth much much more. Gold simply wasn't really currency as the situation was so desperate. The key thing you need for gold and Bitcoin to work are some international trade. If you're completely cut off like you get in war (i.e. Iran now), then you can't get the other side of the transaction so that's the key.

[1715237165]

1715237165

[niko]

@ChupacabraHunter: does your friend spend time in war zones?  I suspect no. Does he use Bitcoin? I suspect no. Sounds to me like he's a typical modern pundit, a loud-talking know-it-all. I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly how he made his money - by talking with authority about things he knows shit about. So 21st century...

[kokojie]

There's a few people looking at Bitcoin as a survivalists currency, well a small hedge in disaster scenarios along with more normal stuff. Of course it depends on the scenario.

 How useful is a Bitcoin to an Iranian really? Now bear in mind how Gaddafi got on and he had a ton of Gold and Oil, both considered currencies. The difference with Bitcoin is just that the tech to track it is difference. Gold and Oil are just tracked in different ways... I'm not sure which is better or worse for different situations. Offline transactions are however, only offline...

If cash goes out the window in states of war what replaces it?

I read a story of a guy entrenched in a city in Czechoslovakia for a year. He recounted that gold was used but it was worth much much less than all the goldbugs might expect. Lighters and cigarettes were worth much much more. Gold simply wasn't really currency as the situation was so desperate. The key thing you need for gold and Bitcoin to work are some international trade. If you're completely cut off like you get in war (i.e. Iran now), then you can't get the other side of the transaction so that's the key.

Yep, gold is useful for inflation hedge, not useful if you are trapped in warzone, in a warzone food and any useful products are more valuable than gold.

[optimator]

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:

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

BTC doesn't have to "topple, beat, replace", etc. It just needs to compete. The freemarket suggests competition is good because it brings about innovation spurred by economic reward. Why should there be a private corporation controlling the currency of the US? (Isn't that a.... monopoly???) Why shouldn't currencies compete?

[niko]

@ChupacabraHunter: 25 replies, and no word from you. That's not nice. I was hoping for a discussion, or at least an update.

[rynmln]

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:

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

BTC doesn't have to "topple, beat, replace", etc. It just needs to compete. The freemarket suggests competition is good because it brings about innovation spurred by economic reward. Why should there be a private corporation controlling the currency of the US? (Isn't that a.... monopoly???) Why shouldn't currencies compete?

Currencies should compete in a free market just like everything else should compete. Even if there is a limit on total number of BTC, it can still be used to finance and buy things just as easily as anything else. Heck, Iran accepted gold for oil once the sanctions set in. Who says they couldn't use BTC for that?

[ChupacabraHunter]

@ChupacabraHunter: 25 replies, and no word from you. That's not nice. I was hoping for a discussion, or at least an update.

Yes, you are right... I finally (after about 30  minutes of trying got my internet connection going!)  I am on the road... kinda "Simon Black"-like

Most times I check things on a small device, but responding from there is a pain.  I have GREAT discussions with people all over the world, and wish to get those ideas here to have them go "deeper" with you guys, the "hero" members et al. but I guess this is just not working since I don't have constant, reliable internet connection. I wish there was a cool Android App for messaging and discussing things on this forum... any suggestions?

anyhow, I am responding as best I can, it is just too sporadic, I am really on the move now, but soon I will settled somewhere!

Thanks for the great input and call for a nice discussion, that is also what I want.

[fivemileshigh]

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?

Your friend isn't putting forward any rational arguments. The better question I would ask myself if I were you is, what drives me to continue engaging with an irrational person? Curiosity toward yourself if pretty important.

[mobodick]

...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 think it will have to come to war.
Bitcoin is fully dependent on the current system and cannot function without it.

[ChupacabraHunter]

@ChupacabraHunter: does your friend spend time in war zones?  I suspect no. Does he use Bitcoin? I suspect no. Sounds to me like he's a typical modern pundit, a loud-talking know-it-all. I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly how he made his money - by talking with authority about things he knows shit about. So 21st century...

Right about the first few: No wars.  No bitcoins.  Very modern.
Wrong about: Pundit. Loud-talking. Know-it-all.

Actually, the whole point of my post is to have the community here help me have a nice intelligent conversation with someone who's intelligence I value, and who lives in the normal "economy" with his family etc.

He sees the current system for what it is, and he sees it from the inside as he is a very skilled mathematician and statistician.  He uses these skills to work and make money for a huge company, and he is taking the time to talk to me and to help me understand why he thinks Bitcoin is not a good idea. 

He is open to discussion.  He is listening at the moment.  I am trying to see if I can "convert" him, or if he can convince me that I am infact wrong.

Some people's posts here miss the point. I am only trying to see how a patient, and open discussion can lead to informing someone who is VERY INTIMATELY connected to the current system and how he can be converted to see the light of Bitcoin as we all do!

One idea at a time.

That's all. 

Thanks for you help, and input.

[ChupacabraHunter]

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.

I think it could facilitate it as some other's have mentioned that gold has been used for that in the past... the question is:

Would Bitcoin be a better (winning) facilitator when compared to Fiat or Gold for that matter (?)

[ChupacabraHunter]

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 do love a challenge!

No. Sorry, not so easy to dismiss, he is not mentally retarded, quite to opposite.

[ChupacabraHunter]

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!

I think his point is that it is "useless" in comparison with the current DOMINANT system which is exactly that: DOMINANT!

The current system is creating, financing, keeping a state of war the world over. 

btw. I am still waiting for more clarification on my friend's view, but it does seem to make some sense that bitcoin would have to (in theory anyway) be able to finance an army of "defenders" if push came to shove and the bitcoin system came face-to-face with the current financial, warmongering system.

[Jermainé]

You wont have to wait long. War is coming from the North 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWHLE3DBs38

[niko]

First of all, glad to see this discussion going. Next, I stand corrected on calling your friend a loud know-it-all pundit. I say this because from your posts I judge that I can trust your judgement. Finally, this community (myself included) usually doesn't take criticism well, even when well founded.

Now, with all this in mind - your friend's main point is valid for as long as "warriors" (or dogs and idiots, depending on your perspective) are willing to accept their own debt as a payment. The current system quite successfully relies on the inability of most people to see that far - it is really a neurological issue, and political aspects only build upon it. The war profiteering of the few at the expense of an infinite, exponentially growing debt of the public is still not recognized as a problem by the public.

On the other hand, Bitcoin does not necessarily endanger the current system. In fact, it is much more likely that it will co-exist as an alternative store-of-value and a system for international transfers. Most people would still happily and short-sightedly accept debt-backed fiat payments. Perhaps even the "elite" cannot think that far as to recognize Bitcoin as an actual danger? To help the inevitable but slow adoption of Bitcoin, perhaps we should slow down with all the "revolutionary" anti-government yelling, and simply focus on using Bitcoin and pointing out its practical advantages where they exist? I certainly think so, and I dislike btc businesses that are vocal about their political views. Offer the service, explain the technology, and let people decide for themselves about the implications.

Does your friend think the current elite would actually recognize Bitcoin as something that endangers them?

[goodlord666]

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

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

Once you have a state of war there'll be a shitload of people not supportive of a war who will flock towards Bitcoin because it offers an unprecedented alternative.

It'll be hard to convince people of the necessity for war when they see a new form of economy blossoming right in front of them that offers them extraordinary progress without the risk of physical violence.

[cloudswrest]

I think bitcoin could be useful in preventing war.  Hard commodity money such as gold and silver can be seen by the enemy as booty to be looted.  Bitcoin cannot be looted.

CW

[hazek]

I am only trying to see how a patient, and open discussion can lead to informing someone who is VERY INTIMATELY connected to the current system and how he can be converted to see the light of Bitcoin as we all do!

Maybe it can't. Your friend doesn't need to change, he can go extinct.

As for the Bitcoin is useless during a state of war premise I'd say there was a time around 10-15 years ago when I'd maybe agree with that but today I just can see major economies allowing the destruction of something like 15-20% of their GDP by gangs of people known as governments through nationalizing all ISPs in the area they rule through violence and cutting off all the other areas so I don't think I'd accept the premise that Bitcoin automatically becomes useless in the state war. For example the land area knows as the US is at war right now in several countries and yet Bitcoin is perfectly useful to almost everyone.

[hazek]

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!

I think his point is that it is "useless" in comparison with the current DOMINANT system which is exactly that: DOMINANT!

The current system is creating, financing, keeping a state of war the world over. 

btw. I am still waiting for more clarification on my friend's view, but it does seem to make some sense that bitcoin would have to (in theory anyway) be able to finance an army of "defenders" if push came to shove and the bitcoin system came face-to-face with the current financial, warmongering system.

Wait what? Your friend believes we need war? What push?! Please, your friend is fear mongering. I don't need no stinking war.

[Adrian-x]

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!

I think his point is that it is "useless" in comparison with the current DOMINANT system which is exactly that: DOMINANT!

The current system is creating, financing, keeping a state of war the world over.  

btw. I am still waiting for more clarification on my friend's view, but it does seem to make some sense that bitcoin would have to (in theory anyway) be able to finance an army of "defenders" if push came to shove and the bitcoin system came face-to-face with the current financial, warmongering system.

 

Wait what? Your friend believes we need war? What push?! Please, your friend is fear mongering. I don't need no stinking war.

Trade promotes interdependence a byproduct is peace and prosperity.
Fighting on the other hand consumes wealth, destroys prosperity and suffering is the byproduct.
Read The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, to find out how to create an army for defense without a central bank.

The economy is a result not a means. You don't need war to make it happy unless you are insane. *edit* if you still want a war to help teh economy make sure you are fighting on the front line.