2013-09-16 LifeBoat Foundation Blog - Is Bitcoin the Beginning of the End?

[ganabb]

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2013/09/is-bitcoin-the-beginning-of-the-end

In this world, soon to be your world, most governments no longer exist, as Bitcoin transactions are done anonymously and thus most governments can enforce no taxation on their citizens. Most of the success of Bitcoin is due to the fact that Bitcoin turned out to be an effective method to hide your wealth from the government. Whereas people entering “rogue states” like Luxemberg, Monaco and Liechtenstein were followed by unmanned drones to ensure that governments know who is hiding wealth, no such option was available to stop people from hiding their money in Bitcoin.

[1714030763]

1714030763

[solex]

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2013/09/is-bitcoin-the-beginning-of-the-end

In this world, soon to be your world, most governments no longer exist, as Bitcoin transactions are done anonymously and thus most governments can enforce no taxation on their citizens.

This is a myth. Governments will always be able to levy asset taxes on land and buildings, also excise taxes on petroleum products, and sales taxes on utility services like electricity and water. $1,000 to renew your passport or drivers licence? Easy government revenue! Income tax may disappear but governments won't. Hopefully they will shrink to fit balanced budgets.

[oda.krell]

There's also the problem that bitcoin transactions are far from "anonymous", which is the premise from which the entire argument starts. In reality, I believe, governments' reactions to bitcoin saturation will be similar to their reactions to Internet saturation: accept (mostly) the overall increase in freedom and citizens' possibility to circumvent certain laws, but pour substantial resources into detecting (and prosecuting) violations that they (and perhaps their electorate as well) consider especially grave, example: child pornography.

Applied to bitcoin this could mean that low level tax evasion will become easier in a Bitcoin environment, and might become more prevalent, but those who try the same with much larger sums will probably be surprised by the creativity governments can develop when they feel threatened at the core. Personally, I don't even expect government size to shrink substantially as a result, just that the *possibility* will exist to more easily avoid taxes, of which only a minority will make use in most countries.

[herzmeister]

That's correct: Almost all arguments would also go for gold, which is also "decentralized" and "anonymous". But historically, governments have always found ways of taxation.

Personally, I'm against enforced taxation either, because it's the wrong way of thinking. It's rather that people should pay for such services because they want to. And I don't mean AynRandistan. Even if, the private/public dichotomy is largely a false one. A city today also is an economic actor with self-interest to keep things in order and the streets clean (with varying success). You could see the local town you live in also as a housing service. If you know people and have a say, you'll want to pay the "upkeep fees" ("taxes").

The issue is not about "markets" (trading) vs "socialism" (sharing); it is rather always about scale. Big "federal" governments are impersonal and thus have to use force. At small scale, you're maybe involved in the community yourself collecting funds for this or that improvement or project or voting on upkeep fees, and the feeling of enforcement would diminish.

Additionally, being anti-authoritarian doesn't mean market radicalism. In Europe, anarchism has always meant also anti-capitalism. This is because we seem to understand better than our US-American Libertarian fellows that ultimately it is the state who ensures property rights. Historically, when workers felt oppressed by "capitalist" exploitative bosses, they went on strike; had it not been for the police protecting the privileged classes practically for free, workers would have further gone to mutiny, and eventually to take over the means of production.

So without "official" property rights, the equilibrium is that people would (have to) self-organize in a more collaborative way. While total communism (i.e. global planned economy) doesn't scale either, the synthesis might be something resembling syndicalism and may look like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obHJfTaQvw -- no government required either really, while still very social, but keeping incentives, and totally compatible with crypto-currencies.

[BitChick]

With the growth of Bitcoin governments could adopt a flat tax, or they could force businesses to integrate tax into the price of items sold.  That would be better really.  Right now many people already evade taxes, especially here in California.  With a flat tax tourists and immigrants would help our economy by paying taxes if a flat tax was adopted, just as one example.

[superduh]

There's also the problem that bitcoin transactions are far from "anonymous", which is the premise from which the entire argument starts. In reality, I believe, governments' reactions to bitcoin saturation will be similar to their reactions to Internet saturation: accept (mostly) the overall increase in freedom and citizens' possibility to circumvent certain laws, but pour substantial resources into detecting (and prosecuting) violations that they (and perhaps their electorate as well) consider especially grave, example: child pornography.

Applied to bitcoin this could mean that low level tax evasion will become easier in a Bitcoin environment, and might become more prevalent, but those who try the same with much larger sums will probably be surprised by the creativity governments can develop when they feel threatened at the core. Personally, I don't even expect government size to shrink substantially as a result, just that the *possibility* will exist to more easily avoid taxes, of which only a minority will make use in most countries.

good points! the biggest problem/asset with bitcoins though is that it's impossible to show who they were sent to. yourself, someone you meant to or were they stolen from you and you had no control over them being sent, or a very very small chance of a collision in ECDSA

[qwk]

People often underestimate the tax systems in place all over the world.
Take VAT, for example. Businesses are legally required to hand out a receipt, including VAT, and that VAT may be deductible from the buyer's taxes. So, the buyer will have a strong incentive to actually receive a VAT'ed receipt. Bitcoin won't change that.

Tax dodging is not really one of the strengths of bitcoin.

[marcus_of_augustus]

There's also the problem that bitcoin transactions are far from "anonymous", which is the premise from which the entire argument starts. In reality, I believe, governments' reactions to bitcoin saturation will be similar to their reactions to Internet saturation: accept (mostly) the overall increase in freedom and citizens' possibility to circumvent certain laws, but pour substantial resources into detecting (and prosecuting) violations that they (and perhaps their electorate as well) consider especially grave, example: child pornography.

Applied to bitcoin this could mean that low level tax evasion will become easier in a Bitcoin environment, and might become more prevalent, but those who try the same with much larger sums will probably be surprised by the creativity governments can develop when they feel threatened at the core. Personally, I don't even expect government size to shrink substantially as a result, just that the *possibility* will exist to more easily avoid taxes, of which only a minority will make use in most countries.

You should probably factor in that market forces will demand a strongly anonymous internet currency and the technology will arise to satisfy that demand (it is very near to that already) ... this genie is not going back into the bottle and will only advance and grow in strength and stature from here.

[oda.krell]

There's also the problem that bitcoin transactions are far from "anonymous", which is the premise from which the entire argument starts. In reality, I believe, governments' reactions to bitcoin saturation will be similar to their reactions to Internet saturation: accept (mostly) the overall increase in freedom and citizens' possibility to circumvent certain laws, but pour substantial resources into detecting (and prosecuting) violations that they (and perhaps their electorate as well) consider especially grave, example: child pornography.

Applied to bitcoin this could mean that low level tax evasion will become easier in a Bitcoin environment, and might become more prevalent, but those who try the same with much larger sums will probably be surprised by the creativity governments can develop when they feel threatened at the core. Personally, I don't even expect government size to shrink substantially as a result, just that the *possibility* will exist to more easily avoid taxes, of which only a minority will make use in most countries.

You should probably factor in that market forces will demand a strongly anonymous internet currency and the technology will arise to satisfy that demand (it is very near to that already) ... this genie is not going back into the bottle and will only advance and grow in strength and stature from here.

Don't confuse "market forces" with "Internet libertarians", i.e. us. The latter may drive early bitcoin adoption, but the former are probably more important in the long run. Don't lose all hope, though. There will be a niche usage opportunity for truly anonymous wealth transfer/storage, either in the form of another cryptocurrency, mixing services, etc. Think Tor network... available, used, but not mainstream.

[marcus_of_augustus]

yeah, sounds like you are confused about what money is ... and "market forces" too most likely.

Do you think gold coins have been popular for 2500 years by accident?

[oda.krell]

yeah, sounds like you are confused about what money is ... and "market forces" too most likely.

Do you think gold coins have been popular for 2500 years by accident?

Why yes, you're right of course. Just this morning I bought my usual cup of coffee with a gold doubloon.

If you like to think of current day usage of gold as non-niche, that's fine by me. That's just terminology. My prediction is that the current financial system might undergo subtle changes as the result of bitcoin saturation, but that I don't buy the idea that we're going to live in an inflation free, zero-taxation utopia of Randian proportions. In that sense bitcoin's current purpose will remain "niche", even if it will be widely adopted.

[marcus_of_augustus]

yeah, sounds like you are confused about what money is ... and "market forces" too most likely.

Do you think gold coins have been popular for 2500 years by accident?

Why yes, you're right of course. Just this morning I bought my usual cup of coffee with a gold doubloon.

If you like to think of current day usage of gold as non-niche, that's fine by me. That's just terminology. My prediction is that the current financial system might undergo subtle changes as the result of bitcoin saturation, but that I don't buy the idea that we're going to live in an inflation free, zero-taxation utopia of Randian proportions. In that sense bitcoin's current purpose will remain "niche", even if it will be widely adopted.

You actually most likely paid for your non-fat latte with cash, coins or notes  ...

You're blinded by your frothing rand-hate trip ... take a look at the coins and notes in your wallet, that's what fungible money looks like (they are the modern poor cousins of gold coins).

Fungibility as a desirable property for money driven by market demand is not going anywhere any time soon ... no matter how many digital databases the financial facists create to kill it.

Come back to the table with something substantial when you can see past your smart-ass?