Bitcoin becoming centrally planned: Communist

[DimensionZ]

But communism usually means the wealth is spread evenly among the population while capitalism usually involves a closed circle of people controlling the wealth of a nation.

[kanazawa]

But communism usually means the wealth is spread evenly among the population while capitalism usually involves a closed circle of people controlling the wealth of a nation.

...kid, please, take your books, your pen and pencil back, go study.... you don't even know 0.0000001% of what it is all about.

[franky1]

ok

communism
your leaders tell you the only way to expand the community is to take all the bitcoin, and then hand out more friendlier and faster "liquids", telling you its better for the community
(blockstream 2017-hopefully not)

socialist
you keep half your bitcoin or code knowledge/time and use the other half to help others
(bitcoinQT 2009-2014)

dictatorship
one leader tells you that bitcoins are not useful without their leadership and control. if you want to continue using them you need to follow their rules, which includes higher fee's and silent loyalty even if you do not like their agenda you have no voice or choice in the matter
(blockstream 2016 - hopefully not for long)

democracy
the leaders set up a platform of 100+ people who are schooled in one mindset. and then sent out with a goal for you to become loyal and trust atleast one of them. once earning your trust, they then go back to sit at a table and do their own agenda, telling the community that you have given them the trust to decide for you.
(bitcoin-core 2015-2016)

capitalism
you take other people bitcoins and put them into a company, you then move the funds away secretly and set up another company listing those funds as assets. you then raise more funds through IPO's on this asset rich second company. before declaring bankruptcy on the first company to not need to hand back funds to customers, blaming outside forces you cannot control (mtgox, mintpal, cryptsy)

bureaucracy
team of office workers employs some R&D specialists. they work out a way to become the consultants for bitcoin, they add rules and regulations and a monthly subscription charge for using the service. employing auditors and paper pushers to make it harder for people to apply to the service. years later no one uses it and they employee investigators to look into why it failed
(R3 - hopefully never)

enjoy

[achow101]

ok

communism
your leaders tell you the only way to expand the community is to take all the bitcoin, and then hand out more friendlier and faster "liquids", telling you its better for the community
(blockstream 2017-hopefully not)

socialist
you keep half your bitcoin or code knowledge/time and use the other half to help others
(bitcoinQT 2009-2014)

I think you got your socialism and communism backwards. Socialism is where you have a leader tell you what to do, communism is where you do the social policies on your own volition.

[franky1]

I think you got your socialism and communism backwards. Socialism is where you have a leader tell you what to do, communism is where you do the social policies on your own volition.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively,

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/communism

A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
b. The Marxist-Leninist doctrine advocating revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat that will eventually evolve into a perfectly egalitarian and communal society.

communism is more authoritarian EG "Mother Russia Owns You". where the government shares out the production/profits while holding all the real assets
socialism is where the community hold the real assets and everyone helps each other

EG if you had some cows..
Socialism everyone owns the cows and get to milk them and share the milk with those in need
communism, the government owns the cows, and only hands out the milk to those they decide needs them


EG a social club is where everyone turns up at a bar and talks freely. the organiser is basically the waitress handing out the drinks that the people ORDER(waitress has no power)

a commune is a gathering of people to talk freely, but the organiser (head of the group) sets rules to keep the people happy, they have power.. and everyone listens and respects what the organiser says
thats why communes which are too authoriatarian are classed as cults.

[RealBitcoin]

Maybe leftists and rightists need eachother , even though they are enemies, it's like the ying-yang.


Without rightists, you cannot advance the economy, and cannot create innovation.

Without leftists you cannot create social freedom, and a humane society.


It seems like 2 forces that even though are enemies, they desperately need eachother.

[franky1]

Maybe leftists and rightists need eachother , even though they are enemies, it's like the ying-yang.


Without rightists, you cannot advance the economy, and cannot create innovation.

Without leftists you cannot create social freedom, and a humane society.


It seems like 2 forces that even though are enemies, they desperately need eachother.

not quite..
the rightists believe in hierachy and power
the leftists believe in social equality.

they (politics) dont need each other.. but outside government benches, the general community(public) with differing minds want and need a balance of left and right representing them, to get a fair view and fair stance between control and social growth

in short the rightists would be happy with total control without competition or debate
in short the leftists would be happy to grow without control being challanged

but the public want a fair balance

[DimensionZ]

But communism usually means the wealth is spread evenly among the population while capitalism usually involves a closed circle of people controlling the wealth of a nation.

...kid, please, take your books, your pen and pencil back, go study.... you don't even know 0.0000001% of what it is all about.

I have no interest in politics or history but comparing centralized bitcoin system to communism is not the greatest example ever. Do you agree?

[Kakmakr]

We already got rid of the potential benevolent dictatorship, with the departure of Mike Hearn. The immediate threat have been dealt with. If the development team turns into a <Communist> system, like the OP defined it, we will deal with that too.

The developers work for the community and to improve the technology based on the needs of the community. If they do not address those needs, other developers are free to bring their proposals and the community will decide, if the proposal is good enough to replace the current developers.

[RealBitcoin]

We already got rid of the potential benevolent dictatorship, with the departure of Mike Hearn. The immediate threat have been dealt with. If the development team turns into a <Communist> system, like the OP defined it, we will deal with that too.

The developers work for the community and to improve the technology based on the needs of the community. If they do not address those needs, other developers are free to bring their proposals and the community will decide, if the proposal is good enough to replace the current developers.

There are more than 14,000 subscribers to the BitcoinXT subreddit which is quite significant.

There are still people in bitcoin who would like a totalitarian governance, which is exactly opposite to bitcoin's nature.

[RustyNoman]

We already got rid of the potential benevolent dictatorship, with the departure of Mike Hearn. The immediate threat have been dealt with. If the development team turns into a <Communist> system, like the OP defined it, we will deal with that too.

The developers work for the community and to improve the technology based on the needs of the community. If they do not address those needs, other developers are free to bring their proposals and the community will decide, if the proposal is good enough to replace the current developers.

When you said is just a general principle. If 75% of miners support the 2MB block size increase, and Core does not support, will you remove the core developers?

[MicroGuy]

We already got rid of the potential benevolent dictatorship, with the departure of Mike Hearn. The immediate threat have been dealt with. If the development team turns into a <Communist> system, like the OP defined it, we will deal with that too.

The developers work for the community and to improve the technology based on the needs of the community. If they do not address those needs, other developers are free to bring their proposals and the community will decide, if the proposal is good enough to replace the current developers.

In case you didn't get this morning's paper, Bitcoin is now 100% owned and controlled by big business: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344522.msg13712600#msg13712600

~~

The only hope for the survival of Satoshi's bitcoin is for the community to adopt Gavin's BIP102 variation. That's honestly, the last hope!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4342u3/bip_block_size_increase_to_2mb_gavinandresenbips/

[tommygunyeah]

So is this really the path we are going to take? Bitcoin is being constantly developed by the developers. They hold the development sceptre in their hands and push everything down the throat of a bitcoin user, with the consensus of the miners (who on most part look only for their own interests).

Yes bitcoin is unfortunately becoming centrally planned, communist, and identical to a central bank fiat currency system. Even if bitcoin is not a fiat money, because the develpment holds the power to steer bitcoin in the wrong way, we should be careful how much power we give to the developers. We have now 5 year plans and 10 year plans for bitcoin? That's like soviet central planning isnt it.


It's easy to abuse power, bitcoiners should know that more than anybody, yet we give full power to developers?

Consensus or not, I feel they hold too much power , and bitcoin could be steered towards a dark path.


How much more development does bitcoin really need? When it will be over? Or it will be forever developed and the developers will become the Gods of bitcoin?

If this hole isnt closed then it will have big blowbacks later because anybody can just manipulate and corrupt the developers.

Next step: Governments will take over or "regulate" the development process of bitcoin, and game over. Bitcoin is gone as an independent currency.

i've never read so much BS combined. U gotta study a little History first, buddy, before starting to use terms and concepts it's pretty clear you don't have any ideia what mean.

btw, if you know of any planning for the next 5 - 10 years, please share with us. If this planning is official then price can be predicted 

[RustyNoman]

We already got rid of the potential benevolent dictatorship, with the departure of Mike Hearn. The immediate threat have been dealt with. If the development team turns into a <Communist> system, like the OP defined it, we will deal with that too.

The developers work for the community and to improve the technology based on the needs of the community. If they do not address those needs, other developers are free to bring their proposals and the community will decide, if the proposal is good enough to replace the current developers.

In case you didn't get this morning's paper, Bitcoin is now 100% owned and controlled by big business: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344522.msg13712600#msg13712600

~~

The only hope for the survival of Satoshi's bitcoin is for the community to adopt Gavin's BIP102 variation. That's honestly, the last hope!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4342u3/bip_block_size_increase_to_2mb_gavinandresenbips/

BIP 102 is the reasonable compromise. So the Core should adopt it. Otherwise, bitcoin will live on the Classic chain.

[watashi-kokoto]

BIP 102 is the reasonable compromise. So the Core should adopt it. Otherwise, bitcoin will live on the Classic chain.

[CuntChocula]

^^Way to villainize whistleblowers

[RustyNoman]

BIP 102 is the reasonable compromise. So the Core should adopt it. Otherwise, bitcoin will live on the Classic chain.

If the core does not adopt it,  the bitcoin will become less useful for large transactions, the price will be zero when litecoin replace bitcoin as the most useful coin.

[RealBitcoin]

Bitcoin has nothing to do with it. It's tremendously different. It's very, very, VERY DIFFERENT. Nothing compares to that.

Except when it becomes centralized and dark forces try to hijack it and control it.

Then it becomes centrally planned, which would be a nightmare.

[pogress]

If the core does not adopt it,  the bitcoin will become less useful for large transactions, the price will be zero when litecoin replace bitcoin as the most useful coin.

Core is planning doing 2-4-8 MB increases, but it seems all it takes to block this proposal is Greg Maxwell and luke-jr. Maybe there is another one who has dirty plans to veto the increase and let altcoins enjoing influx of new users. Where we come to when few can veto the rest of community and make money on altcoins at the Bitcoin expense. This compromise model is much worse than 51% democracy model. It remind me how Bitcoiners are treated as utopians from outsiders - the compromise model Bitcoin Core promote seems really as some unreachable utopia clearly out of reality...

[Betwrong]

Excuse me but, is there anyone here who has ever lived in a socialist/communist country?? I'm not joking and I don't want to be rude, but let me take your time...

First, some classic quotes:

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism". - Vladmir Lenin

"The goal of socialism is communism". - Vladmir Lenin

"Democracy is the road to socialism". - Karl Marx

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism". - Karl Marx


Communism is the ultimate step from a "social democrat" to a socialist political scenario.

When you make everyone "democratic" with social affairs, social benefits, social assistance, when you got tons of parties naming themselves "Social Labour Party", "Democratic Republic Party", "Social Democrat Party", "Christian Social Party", "People Social Party" you're just one step from "Socialist Party", "Republican Socialist Party", "Socialism and Freedom", then you get "United Working Class Party", "People Socialist Party", "National Liberation Movement", "Socialist and United Workers Party", and finally "Communist Party", etc.

In communism, first of all, you have a party and some figures (like Fidel, Maduro, Kim Jong Un, and "past" figures from countries like USSR, China, Cambodia, North Vietnam, Albania, Czechoslovakia, Romania, etc)... they had (have) a godlike representation. This is very visible when you look at religion; this countries don't have the religious freedom. This is why when USSR was dominated by communism, even Buddhism was prohibited. Christianism and Judaism is oposed because it brings the notion of family, to not worship the Emperor or The Leader. The right of private property, the right of inheritance and  all kinds of freedom.

The lack of freedom brings (of course) the extermination of the free market.

All of this brings violence, famine and death. It's a "government" of fear.

Lot of countries are following the steps to communism. They are in America, in Europe, Asia and all around the world.

So, once again, communism is the final path to socialim. It is the socialization of means of production. Communism is a stark form to forcing you to be equal to another people; even if you have money, the communists will take it from you and use in "a common way to share", but everything goes to the party and the heads besides them.

Now...

Bitcoin has nothing to do with it. It's tremendously different. It's very, very, VERY DIFFERENT. Nothing compares to that.

I agree with you. As one who spent more than 20 years in the USSR I'd that Communism even worse than you describe it in your text. For example if you become rich they will take all from you and will put you in jail only if you are not connected to the government. If you one way or another are connected to the government then it's okay to be rich.

And yes, Bitcoin has nothing to do with it.