Bitcoin might create a prisoners dilema problem among the most powerful elites?

[Anon136]

Did anyone ever consider the possibility that bitcoin would create a prisoners dilemma problem among the worlds most powerful elites?

Basically the logic works something like this. They run the worlds financial system which is incredibly beneficial to the group as a whole. But if any one individual actor decided to quietly buy up huge amounts of bitcoin than give the go ahead to pump it on his media networks than this would offer more advantage to him personally than he could ever gain from sharing his usually scheduled portion of the fiat pie with all other elites.

Some economics buffs might recognize this as the same mechanic that prevents cartels from being able to price fix in a free market.

[Luno]

Every national government will have to decide if Bitcoin is going to remain legal. If you are the issuer of a weak or threatened currency, how cool is it that your citizens buy Bitcoins to hedge against inflation?

FinCen and now CyFin are oiling the machine for global easy legal Bitcoin use. However governments have a choice to make if Bitcoin is not going to be the reserve currency of choice, for a lot of nationalities. I can't imagine China allowing Bitcoin for international trade and a lot of other countries too would feel the same.

So OP, you are right we might already have passed the point of solely national attitude towards Bitcoin as important.

If Bitcoin can exist, it will by itself be king of all other fiats.

[VincentX]

Yep, that's exactly what it does. It's awesome and exciting. 

[Anon136]

Yep, that's exactly what it does. It's awesome and exciting.  

Btc might just dunk them head first in the icy waters of a free market whether they like it or not. If they are forced to adapt and learn how to operate like their great grandfathers (elites who were actually beneficial to society on net) or parish, than these will be exciting times indeed.

[Vandroiy]

The problem with the world is not some Illuminati elite cartel. The governmental restrictions on the trade and transfer of funds cause the desire for something like Bitcoin. Store of wealth does not though, gold has very good properties in that respect (a non-arbitary, ancient standard).

Bitcoin speculation is nothing more than speculation. Just because you're wealthy you can't make some huge armed mob cede control over trade.

What is proposed in the OP is pump and dump and illegal in most jurisdictions. A player abusing media power to make something spike faces the risk of getting arrested. Also, he'd rather start with something that is currently cheap with respect to its underlying market.

[Anon136]

The problem with the world is not some Illuminati elite cartel. The governmental restrictions on the trade and transfer of funds cause the desire for something like Bitcoin. Store of wealth does not though, gold has very good properties in that respect (a non-arbitary, ancient standard).

Bitcoin speculation is nothing more than speculation. Just because you're wealthy you can't make some huge armed mob cede control over trade.

What is proposed in the OP is pump and dump and illegal in most jurisdictions. A player abusing media power to make something spike faces the risk of getting arrested. Also, he'd rather start with something that is currently cheap with respect to its underlying market.

who ever said anything about dumping. I only talked about pumping. As far as i know pump schemes are not illegal. Persides if you become wealthy enough in the process of the "scheme" than you become wealthy enough to buy your way around any law. Rupert murdock for example might have the ability to dominate the power of the Rothschild or who is more powerful than he is by going rogue with is media network.

also i never said anything about the illuminati. All im talking about are the incredibly influential power brokers, military officials and capitalists that we all know exist and benefit from fiat money.

[Merralea]

I can certainly see the possibility of single actors buying up btc on the side as a speculative endeavor. However, the idea that said actor will use their media strings to promote it is extremely unlikely to me, as their risk (attack from other influentials, possible social/financial ostracism, assassination if one wants to don that cap) far outweighs the potential benefit (a nebulous amount of one-time profit that may or may not be greater than what they make off of the current system).

Your theory is correct qualitatively, I just disagree on a quantitative basis. I don't think that anyone with enough power to do what you describe would make more from doing so than from continuing on as they are.

[Anon136]

I can certainly see the possibility of single actors buying up btc on the side as a speculative endeavor. However, the idea that said actor will use their media strings to promote it is extremely unlikely to me, as their risk (attack from other influentials, possible social/financial ostracism, assassination if one wants to don that cap) far outweighs the potential benefit (a nebulous amount of one-time profit that may or may not be greater than what they make off of the current system).

Your theory is correct qualitatively, I just disagree on a quantitative basis. I don't think that anyone with enough power to do what you describe would make more from doing so than from continuing on as they are.

Maybe. Im not saying that this is necessarily the case. Only that it might be the case. John d rockerfeller was the kind of man who would have put everything on the line for even a shot at becoming the most powerful man in the world, and these men are the decendents of men like JD. How much they are really like him though i question, a lot of time has passed since then, many generations.

oh also you have to consider that being ultra wealthy in a free market society will buy you a lot more than being ultra influential in statist society. Look how much power kim il sung has compared to the average north korean but look how many luxuries he can afford compared to idk JayZ, a man whos influence over the average american is eclipsed by the influence kim il sung has over the average north korean, but still lives in greater luxury because the american society is so much more productive than the north korean society because we are that much freer.

[herzmeister]

Some economics buffs might recognize this as the same mechanic that prevents cartels from being able to price fix in a free market.

Cult leaders like Molyneux may preach such things all day, but this just fails at reality. The devil just always shits on the greatest heap, as we say in Germany.

Regulation is necessary, in a less hierarchical society it's just that it must happen in bottom-up initiatives through the people.

[Photonfrog]

its "kim jong un" now. and he can play with nuclear toys.

Everyone is mightily impressed!

http://25.media.tumblr.com/43fd4de8753b6f67f9c258653faaf85e/tumblr_mkfreha74x1r8asibo1_500.jpg

[Anon136]

Some economics buffs might recognize this as the same mechanic that prevents cartels from being able to price fix in a free market.

Cult leaders like Molyneux may preach such things all day, but this just fails at reality. The devil just always shits on the greatest heap, as we say in Germany.

Regulation is necessary, in a less hierarchical society it's just that it must happen in bottom-up initiatives through the people.

im sorry you cant think through the logic of the position yourself

[herzmeister]

Well unfortunately, reality is a bit more complex than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4 

[Anon136]

Well unfortunately, reality is a bit more complex than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4  

i wouldn't contest this statement.

[ruski]

Look how much power kim il sung has compared to the average north korean but look how many luxuries he can afford compared to idk JayZ, a man whos influence over the average american is eclipsed by the influence kim il sung has over the average north korean, but still lives in greater luxury because the american society is so much more productive than the north korean society because we are that much freer.

Kim Il Sung is dead.

[Anon136]

Look how much power kim il sung has compared to the average north korean but look how many luxuries he can afford compared to idk JayZ, a man whos influence over the average american is eclipsed by the influence kim il sung has over the average north korean, but still lives in greater luxury because the american society is so much more productive than the north korean society because we are that much freer.

Kim Il Sung is dead.

ya ur right he was the first one.. the new one is kim jong un right? sorry bout that

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Well unfortunately, reality is a bit more complex than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4 

And?

[NikolaTesla]

Some economics buffs might recognize this as the same mechanic that prevents cartels from being able to price fix in a free market.

But they still price fix. Just look at cable and phone bills. Data usage plans and text plans.

Sending texts actually costs wireless providers nothing. Every time your phone checks for a signal, it sends an echo request consisting of 160 gibberish characters, and does this around every second. When you send a text, instead of sending gibberish, it sends meaningful text. The "cost" to the provider is literally zero. You might ask yourself, then, why doesn't one service provider just offer free texting and gain a huge competitive advantage over all the other companies? Then they would all have to offer free texting to survive, but none of them want to. So... price fixing is alive and well, whether legal or not.

[ocbitcoin]

Some economics buffs might recognize this as the same mechanic that prevents cartels from being able to price fix in a free market.

But they still price fix. Just look at cable and phone bills. Data usage plans and text plans.

Sending texts actually costs wireless providers nothing. Every time your phone checks for a signal, it sends an echo request consisting of 160 gibberish characters, and does this around every second. When you send a text, instead of sending gibberish, it sends meaningful text. The "cost" to the provider is literally zero. You might ask yourself, then, why doesn't one service provider just offer free texting and gain a huge competitive advantage over all the other companies? Then they would all have to offer free texting to survive, but none of them want to. So... price fixing is alive and well, whether legal or not.

This assumes that the phones companies operate in a true free market. In a true free market (without government-imposed artificial barriers to entry) then YES, entrepreneurial small companies could easily start up and try their luck by competing with free texting. If it's feasible to be profitable doing that, then they would gain market share and thrive and other companies would have to compete with them, possibly offering free texting as well.

[Anon136]

Some economics buffs might recognize this as the same mechanic that prevents cartels from being able to price fix in a free market.

But they still price fix. Just look at cable and phone bills. Data usage plans and text plans.

Some economics buffs might recognize this as the same mechanic that prevents cartels from being able to price fix in a free market.

[bassguitarman]

This is interesting.  I could see it happening, but unlikely due to the reasons other commenters have brought up