Bitcoin is not politically-neutral.

[Anonymous]

Mr. Jgarzik holds that "Bitcoin is an ideology-neutral currency..." and that "...we're not here to convert the world to libertarianism or crypto-anarchism."  

Is that so? Then he mentions this.

"We're here to make the first global, decentralized currency successful."

Is not decentralized wealth by its very definition the rebuking of the authority's power over our wealth, property and lives?  Does this world not run on money? Has it not been said that "Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws.”!?

Is a free society based on sound money directly controlled by the people and for the people not what libertarians strive for?

Can you really say a free society is a politically-neutral goal when many make claims against it?

Bitcoin is freedom. Freedom is not a common nor neutral goal for most people.

Feel free to say we wish to hide it's freedom-bearing qualities in the name of political-correctness but do not say that Bitcoin is not intended to accomplish liberating goals: the sames ones the Bitcoin founder, Satoshi, had in mind.

Bitcoin is a currency of liberty.

Thank you.

Also mods, I will disapprove if you move this to the politics board, despite this being clearly and mainly about Bitcoin!

[bitlotto]

Bitcoin is a tool. It is politically-neutral since it is incapable of holding political views. People on the other hand are not politically-neutral.

[Anonymous]

Bitcoin is a tool. It is politically-neutral since it is incapable of holding political views. People on the other hand are not politically-neutral.

It is a tool and tools are designed with a purpose. Tools with a specific purpose will serve these purposes along with their shared sentiments. The purpose is obviously freedom.

If a tool were truly neutral, it would be incapable of anything. To say a screw-driver is neutral is to say it's not for screwing screws when obviously that's its intended purpose.

There is no such thing as a apathetic tool unless it is used inanely with a handicapped view of reality.

[Meatpile]

Your wording makes it sound a bit like you think decentralized means distributed wealth? There are still going to be obscenely rich bitcoin holders and very poor bitcoin holders.

[digigalt]

There is no such thing as a apathetic tool.

Actually, I'm fairly sure tools are incapable of emotion. I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue here.

[Anonymous]

Your wording makes it sound a bit like you think decentralized means distributed wealth? There are still going to be obscenely rich bitcoin holders and very poor bitcoin holders.

That's implying that the amount of wealth you have means anything. All I am an advocate of is enabling able to create wealth for themselves and others freely while that is limited with the current banking model that lends with corrupt discretion. I never said anybody was entitled to money but being able to sell and sustain upon their inherent value.

[Anonymous]

There is no such thing as a apathetic tool.

Actually, I'm fairly sure tools are incapable of emotion. I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue here.

You take it too literally. When a tool is made to accomplish an objective, it is tied to that objective.

[digigalt]

Your wording makes it sound a bit like you think decentralized means distributed wealth? There are still going to be obscenely rich bitcoin holders and very poor bitcoin holders.

That's implying that the amount of wealth you have means anything. All I am an advocate of is enabling able to create wealth for themselves and others freely while that is limited with the current banking model that lends with corrupt discretion. I never said anybody was entitled to money but being able to sell and sustain upon their inherent value.

No, what you said was that bitcoin was decentralized. His point was that early adopters of bitcoin hold the vast majority of bitcoin wealth because they got in when it was still possible to mine bitcoins with a CPU. You can't possibly say with the straight face that bitcoin is decentralized

In addition, those with enough wealth to buy bitcoin at any price will always control a disproportionate amount of the currency.

[bitlotto]

If someone spend a ton of money just to destroy Bitcoin, would Bitcoin's political ideology change?
It's all how it's used, not the tool itself.

[Anonymous]

If someone spend a ton of money just to destroy Bitcoin, would Bitcoin's political ideology change?
It's all how it's used, not the tool itself.

It can only be used towards its goals.

Also, I would love to see somebody try to destroy Bitcoin by throwing more money at it.

[Anonymous]

Your wording makes it sound a bit like you think decentralized means distributed wealth? There are still going to be obscenely rich bitcoin holders and very poor bitcoin holders.

That's implying that the amount of wealth you have means anything. All I am an advocate of is enabling able to create wealth for themselves and others freely while that is limited with the current banking model that lends with corrupt discretion. I never said anybody was entitled to money but being able to sell and sustain upon their inherent value.

No, what you said was that bitcoin was decentralized. His point was that early adopters of bitcoin hold the vast majority of bitcoin wealth because they got in when it was still possible to mine bitcoins with a CPU. You can't possibly say with the straight face that bitcoin is decentralized

In addition, those with enough wealth to buy bitcoin at any price will always control a disproportionate amount of the currency.

It's irrelevant. The early adopters continue to sell-out. All they can do is lower the price a little bit once. They aren't that powerful.

In addition, if the majority of the world is in the system, somebody rich purchasing Bitcoins is only going to get 1 or 2, not a majority of the block chain.

[digigalt]

Your wording makes it sound a bit like you think decentralized means distributed wealth? There are still going to be obscenely rich bitcoin holders and very poor bitcoin holders.

That's implying that the amount of wealth you have means anything. All I am an advocate of is enabling able to create wealth for themselves and others freely while that is limited with the current banking model that lends with corrupt discretion. I never said anybody was entitled to money but being able to sell and sustain upon their inherent value.

No, what you said was that bitcoin was decentralized. His point was that early adopters of bitcoin hold the vast majority of bitcoin wealth because they got in when it was still possible to mine bitcoins with a CPU. You can't possibly say with the straight face that bitcoin is decentralized

In addition, those with enough wealth to buy bitcoin at any price will always control a disproportionate amount of the currency.

It's irrelevant. The early adopters continue to sell-out. All they can do is lower the price a little bit once. They aren't that powerful.

In addition, if the majority of the world is in the system, somebody rich purchasing Bitcoins is only going to get 1 or 2, not a majority of the block chain.

Okay, we're not talking about hypothetical scenarios, though. We're talking about right now. The majority of the world isn't using bitcoin.

[Anonymous]

Your wording makes it sound a bit like you think decentralized means distributed wealth? There are still going to be obscenely rich bitcoin holders and very poor bitcoin holders.

That's implying that the amount of wealth you have means anything. All I am an advocate of is enabling able to create wealth for themselves and others freely while that is limited with the current banking model that lends with corrupt discretion. I never said anybody was entitled to money but being able to sell and sustain upon their inherent value.

No, what you said was that bitcoin was decentralized. His point was that early adopters of bitcoin hold the vast majority of bitcoin wealth because they got in when it was still possible to mine bitcoins with a CPU. You can't possibly say with the straight face that bitcoin is decentralized

In addition, those with enough wealth to buy bitcoin at any price will always control a disproportionate amount of the currency.

It's irrelevant. The early adopters continue to sell-out. All they can do is lower the price a little bit once. They aren't that powerful.

In addition, if the majority of the world is in the system, somebody rich purchasing Bitcoins is only going to get 1 or 2, not a majority of the block chain.

Okay, we're not talking about hypothetical scenarios, though. We're talking about right now. The majority of the world isn't using bitcoin.

Well, it's working well right now. Early adopters continue to cash-in.

[billyjoeallen]

Politics is the art of convincing enough people to agree with you so that you can forcibly impose your will on those who don't.  With this in mind, it should be clear that Bitcoin is not political. It is not apolitical. It is antipolitical.

Bitcoin allows us to defy those who seek to rule us. It makes it easier to prevent theft. It facilitates a wider range of commercial and financial activities. It makes us less able to rule or to be ruled. It makes us more free.

[Chris Acheson]

I'm gonna cross-post this here, because you didn't answer me before and I really want to know why you can't leave this alone:

If Bitcoin becomes successful, down goes the tyranny on money. If nobody can control the wealth, very little can be controlled.

Why not just be content with that?  Promote Bitcoin as Bitcoin, not as something that validates your ideology.  Even if you know that it does, you don't need to push that on people who are going to react negatively to it.  Know your audience and have some tact, otherwise you're doing both Bitcoin and your ideology a disservice.

[Anonymous]

I'm gonna cross-post this here, because you didn't answer me before and I really want to know why you can't leave this alone:

If Bitcoin becomes successful, down goes the tyranny on money. If nobody can control the wealth, very little can be controlled.

Why not just be content with that?  Promote Bitcoin as Bitcoin, not as something that validates your ideology.  Even if you know that it does, you don't need to push that on people who are going to react negatively to it.  Know your audience and have some tact, otherwise you're doing both Bitcoin and your ideology a disservice.

I never asked nor wanted validation. It's just discussion. I do not believe any negative reactions will affect things in the long-term.

[swusc2]

This topic is so dumb. This is just an argument of semantics.

It is all about interpretation. How do you define the threshold for what isn't and is "a currency of liberty". One might say that freedom is free trade and private business practice; someone else might say that the inevitable hierarchy established by the early adopter theory with no central authority to balance wealth creates a hierarchy that undermines "liberty/freedom".

If anything I learned from my education and 8+ years of policy debate, Framer's Intent is a dumb argument. Whether or not a gun is made to kill is irrelevant to what it is used for. Someone could just as well use it as a hammer, it's only interpretation and dissemination of that interpretation over the majority that determines whether we come to some obviously wrong conclusion that a tool to be inherently used for X purpose.

When a tool is in the hands of an end user it is up to them, to make the choice to decide how it is used. They might have some subconscious bias based on circumstance but that is a inevitable. Someone just as likely can decide in spite to use something to the exact opposite purpose.

Barring immeasurable conditions tools are neutral.

[LightRider]

It makes us more free.

Nothing makes someone more or less free. We are all subject to the laws of nature and are unable to escape from it. The fantasy world of currency, philosophy, politics etc. are irrelevant to physical reality.

[billyjoeallen]

It makes us more free.

Nothing makes someone more or less free. We are all subject to the laws of nature and are unable to escape from it. The fantasy world of currency, philosophy, politics etc. are irrelevant to physical reality.

The key to a cage makes the caged free. If you feel the currency in your possession is irrelevant to your physical reality, then I will happily relieve you of it ;-)

[Anonymous]

No matter where I might find myself aligned politically (which may in fact be with many of the members of this board, though I choose to keep the specifics private), the fact remains that as long as Bitcoins are seen as a political tool by a vocal group they will alienate many users. Atlas, I've read your posting. You seem to be unable to grasp that if they are a political tool, then there are warring factions with completely different ideologies at play and in the long run it's not clear that your ideology will have any more bearing on the future of Bitcoin than anyone else here. Because you, in your adolescences, believe you have discovered the secret key to how the world should work, does not mean that an entire community shares your dream.

I see terms like "freedom" being thrown around here a lot, but very little is discussed beyond Wikipedia-semantics. There are never any true discussions on the nature of freedom, oppression, and equality. The Freedom of one ideology is enslavement to another, and to close your eyes to all but your own worldview leads to zealotry and stupidity.