the social Bitcoin

[capoeira]

Let us assume that our "Utopia " from Bitcoin as the dominant currency becomes reality .

Most here say Bitcoin is liberal. Is it really liberal ? The majority decides (51%), so it is democratic. Would it be liberal, the richest would decide .

Now, if Bitcoin is predominant currency that will unfortunately have changed little in the world. The Rothschilds and the likes are out of the game , yet we would probably have a situation again where at the end 5% of the people own 95% of the Bitcoins .

Now only theoreticly , without considering the technical feasibility:
What if now the majority decides that every individual can have only one Bitcoinwallet ? Now what if the majority further decides that each wallet can only contain a certain number of Bitcoins , and all the wallets exceeding this maximum, automaticly distribute the surplus evenly to all wallets?

The majority would benefit , so why should the majority not decide for it?

This is just a hypothesis which ignores any technical consideration.

(i know this is probably a very unpopular post for liberals; try to be kind please)



Thoughts?

[Mike Christ]

How do you enforce the will of the majority without breaking your justice system?

[capoeira]

How do you enforce the will of the majority without breaking your justice system?

I don't know if I understand your question. It's not about my justice system. If majority could decide they would decide against a distrubution of money where 5% have 95%. Why wouldn't they? The only one who would be against it are the 5%, which in a democratic financial system would be minority.

[Mike Christ]

How do you enforce the will of the majority without breaking your justice system?

I don't know if I understand your question. It's not about my justice system. If majority could decide they would decide against a distrubution of money where 5% have 95%. Why wouldn't they? The only one who would be against it are the 5%, which in a democratic financial system would be minority.

I agree; if they felt that was better, they'd do that.  However:

What if now the majority decides that every individual can have only one Bitcoinwallet ? Now what if the majority further decides that each wallet can only contain a certain number of Bitcoins , and all the wallets exceeding this maximum, automaticly distribute the surplus evenly to all wallets?

You've also pointed out that they will decide what's best for everyone else; how do enforce this scenario on the, for example, 35% minority who decides they do not what this scenario to come to fruition?

[capoeira]

You've also pointed out that they will decide what's best for everyone else; how do enforce this scenario on the, for example, 35% minority who decides they do not what this scenario to come to fruition?

nothing they can do since they are minority.

actualy if BTC is realy democratic (i actualy don't understand all tecnical aspects) than a "revolution" like the one I pointed out above will be unevitable once it will be spread though all classes.
perhaps in 10 years you remember this thread

[Mike Christ]

You've also pointed out that they will decide what's best for everyone else; how do enforce this scenario on the, for example, 35% minority who decides they do not what this scenario to come to fruition?

nothing they can do since they are minority.

actualy if BTC is realy democratic (i actualy don't understand all tecnical aspects) than a "revolution" like the one I pointed out above will be unevitable once it will be spread though all classes.
perhaps in 10 years you remember this thread

Why do you believe they can do nothing?  Understand that you must change the core function of bitcoin to make this system work; the minority can still use this version of bitcoin, and the majority can still use theirs.  You simply don't write in a holy book, "Using the old bitcoin is illegal so don't do it"; this is just fiction, it doesn't mean anything.  To actually make a difference, democracy or no, you would still need a way to control the minority, if that's the intention; otherwise there's no point in worrying about a democracy since the majority will do their thing and the minority will do theirs.

I'm not saying a revolution cannot happen; I'm asking you to specifically state what it will take to make the minority do as the majority says.

[Rassah]

Besides the fact that any changes in bitcoin must be approved by near 100% of its users (this includes both miners AND users), otherwise you just end up with a new altcoin and the old bitcoin running side by side, note the text in my signature, which was my thought, put much more eloquantly into words by our forum user NewLiberty

"Perhaps no where else in modern society is the threat of Democracy devolving into Ochlocracy given so dangerous an incentive as it is with Bitcoin. If there is any politics in Bitcoin, it would be this lesson: the necessity of mustering the individuals to prevent this Tyranny of the Majority against the rights of all to the freedom of transaction." - NewLiberty

The meaning is that in bitcoin, a 51% mining majority is seen as an attack, unimagitively called "The 51% attack." This is quite literally "democracy, where majority votes, is an attack." This idea may actually influence people's psychology to consider many other majority-rule democracy things as an "attack." Possibly in the same way that peer-to-peer music/movie file downloading has influenced people to believe that breaking copyright isn't actually stealing.

[PenAndPaper]

Now only theoreticly , without considering the technical feasibility:
What if now the majority decides that every individual can have only one Bitcoinwallet ? Now what if the majority further decides that each wallet can only contain a certain number of Bitcoins , and all the wallets exceeding this maximum, automaticly distribute the surplus evenly to all wallets?

Then you are talking about a different crypto not bitcoin. You may try and create that coin and see how it will end out.

[capoeira]

You've also pointed out that they will decide what's best for everyone else; how do enforce this scenario on the, for example, 35% minority who decides they do not what this scenario to come to fruition?

nothing they can do since they are minority.

actualy if BTC is realy democratic (i actualy don't understand all tecnical aspects) than a "revolution" like the one I pointed out above will be unevitable once it will be spread though all classes.
perhaps in 10 years you remember this thread

Why do you believe they can do nothing?  Understand that you must change the core function of bitcoin to make this system work; the minority can still use this version of bitcoin, and the majority can still use theirs.  You simply don't write in a holy book, "Using the old bitcoin is illegal so don't do it"; this is just fiction, it doesn't mean anything.  To actually make a difference, democracy or no, you would still need a way to control the minority, if that's the intention; otherwise there's no point in worrying about a democracy since the majority will do their thing and the minority will do theirs.

I'm not saying a revolution cannot happen; I'm asking you to specifically state what it will take to make the minority do as the majority says.

ok, if majority can't force minority to change the version than BTC is not democratic and my post becomes nonsense.

Besides the fact that any changes in bitcoin must be approved by near 100% of its users (this includes both miners AND users), otherwise you just end up with a new altcoin and the old bitcoin running side by side, note the text in my signature, which was my thought, put much more eloquantly into words by our forum user NewLiberty

"Perhaps no where else in modern society is the threat of Democracy devolving into Ochlocracy given so dangerous an incentive as it is with Bitcoin. If there is any politics in Bitcoin, it would be this lesson: the necessity of mustering the individuals to prevent this Tyranny of the Majority against the rights of all to the freedom of transaction." - NewLiberty

The meaning is that in bitcoin, a 51% mining majority is seen as an attack, unimagitively called "The 51% attack." This is quite literally "democracy, where majority votes, is an attack." This idea may actually influence people's psychology to consider many other majority-rule democracy things as an "attack." Possibly in the same way that peer-to-peer music/movie file downloading has influenced people to believe that breaking copyright isn't actually stealing.

where in the world the majority realy decides? western world is a Plutocracy.


"Tyranny of the Majority against the rights of all to the freedom of transaction."
this doen't make any sense. whenever majority doesn't decide it's a "dictatorship" of a small group.

[Mike Christ]

where in the world the majority realy decides? western world is a Plutocracy.


"Tyranny of the Majority against the rights of all to the freedom of transaction."
this doen't make any sense. whenever majority doesn't decide it's a "dictatorship" of a small group.

This is only true if you're disallowing individuals to make individual decisions; by allowing others the right to freedom, you don't have to worry about majority rule or minority rule.

[Rassah]

"Tyranny of the Majority against the rights of all to the freedom of transaction."
this doen't make any sense. whenever majority doesn't decide it's a "dictatorship" of a small group.

The options you list are

• Majority decides for minority: Democracy
• Minority decides for majority: Dictatorship

There is a third option, which is each minority decides only for itself (or even each person decides only for themselves), which is anarchy. Bitcoin is basically anarchy, since neither a majority nor a minority can force a small minority to continue to use Bitcoin as is. And that is what my sig essentially points out, that bitcoin (and the entire internet, really) is a state of anarchy, and may influence people to transition into that state of mind simply by the way it works and what it considers as incentives and threats.

[capoeira]

so back to a chimpz-like society? power to the most armed? anarchy isn't realy a state, someone takes the power by force

[Mike Christ]

so back to a chimpz-like society? power to the most armed? anarchy isn't realy a state, someone takes the power by force

It will be chimp-like, yes, if your society is full of chimps; but if that's true, why would the state, which would also be run by chimps, either by a chimp-king, or a democratically elected minority of chimps, or a majority collection of chimps, be any better?  If there's any quality I like the most about anarchism: it fails to lie about the true state of the world.  If you believe anarchism, considering the same people you're currently living with, would devolve into might-is-right shit-sling-fest of chimps, then why would this change by putting a crown on one, some, or many of these chimps and calling them divine?

[capoeira]

so back to a chimpz-like society? power to the most armed? anarchy isn't realy a state, someone takes the power by force

It will be chimp-like, yes, if your society is full of chimps; but if that's true, why would the state, which would also be run by chimps, either by a chimp-king, or a democratically elected minority of chimps, or a majority collection of chimps, be any better?  If there's any quality I like the most about anarchism: it fails to lie about the true state of the world.  If you believe anarchism, considering the same people you're currently living with, would devolve into might-is-right shit-sling-fest of chimps, then why would this change by putting a crown on one, some, or many of these chimps and calling them divine?

because democracy is what worked the best. If you want to live like an animal you are crazy. And i am saying that Anarcy can't exist, a day perhaps, or 2.....until one group killed or defeted all the otheres and makes the rest slaves.
I don't think that anarcist have any notion of socioligy. the chimpz are actualy a very good object to study.
on a side note: anarcy could work if we were like the bonobos, hahahaahah; but we are much more like the chimpz

[Mike Christ]

so back to a chimpz-like society? power to the most armed? anarchy isn't realy a state, someone takes the power by force

It will be chimp-like, yes, if your society is full of chimps; but if that's true, why would the state, which would also be run by chimps, either by a chimp-king, or a democratically elected minority of chimps, or a majority collection of chimps, be any better?  If there's any quality I like the most about anarchism: it fails to lie about the true state of the world.  If you believe anarchism, considering the same people you're currently living with, would devolve into might-is-right shit-sling-fest of chimps, then why would this change by putting a crown on one, some, or many of these chimps and calling them divine?

And i am saying that Anarcy can't exist, a day perhaps, or 2.....until one group killed or defeted all the otheres and makes the rest slaves.

Precisely; that's how we got the society we have now, by killing and enslaving, which we're still going through if you haven't noticed.  That's what the anarchist aims to reverse, permanently: when you have a rational society which can solve its problems without resorting to violence, then we can co-exist in peace.

[capoeira]

when you have a rational society which can solve its problems without resorting to violence, then we can co-exist in peace.

not at this state of human evolution, that's why anarcy is a stupid utopia

human mind didn't evolute since we lived in cages.

man, how I loved to live in a "hippie world", but it's just impossible. I actualy would love to be anarcist, but i can't, just as much as I can't belive in heaven (wich would I love to be able to believe in, too)

[Rassah]

so back to a chimpz-like society? power to the most armed? anarchy isn't realy a state, someone takes the power by force

Force costs a lot, and we just invented a way to make taking money by force a hell of a lot more difficult. So, hopefully, that power will simply be for sale, if only because they would have an incentive to provide customers with products they wish for, as opposed to products like the Iraq war.

Also, anarchy isn't and won't be a utopia. There will be plenty of people slipping through the cracks and whatnot. The biggest different between that and what we have now is that people would have to make choices for what they want and don't want (a benefit, actually), and be fully responsible for the consequences of their choices, instead of offloading them onto the rest of society (which scares a lot of people right now). And, actually, the internet itself is anarchy. So it will be sort of like that, with a few obnoxious trolls running around, but mostly people being cordial and civil, and making lots of awesome stuff for us to play with.

[capoeira]

still waiting BTC army to free China from dictatorship. hahahahahhaa

[Rassah]

still waiting BTC army to free China from dictatorship. hahahahahhaa

 

[herzmeister]

First, there is the technological aspect.

You could create a currency and put it into circulation by giving some amount to every human being, that would arguably be the most fair coin. Only, without an authority you can never prove who is one human being and that identities aren't being spoofed or faked. So, to find consensus in a distributed system, no better solutions have been found than A) Proof-of-Work ("mining"), B) Proof-of-Stake (some altcoins use that, but has other problems, long story), C) Web of Trust (also lots of other problems, but ripple.com essentially uses that method).

Bitcoin was just the first such crypto-currency, it has always been an experiment, no one knew if it would work out, the masses would not have understood the concept and the value behind it even if they had the knowledge and choice in time to invest early. So if you want more fair distribution, then you indeed have to set up competition, a new crypto-currency, now that the public is more familiar with the concept, so that a fairer distribution might be achieved. Or (and I'm sure that will happen), there will be "official" (less-) "crypto" currencies issued by governments that can verify identities, being advertised as "social" and "fair". Obviously, such a currency will come with much less privacy, and will probably make it impossible to donate to dissidents like Wikileaks or Snowden.

Second, there is the societal aspect.

If there are a few rich early adopters of Bitcoin, so what? You also don't know the people who got rich by buying Apple stocks in the 90ies. Insofar, Bitcoin was just another asset and good investment opportunity, which over time became something used by the masses, regardless of the early investment aspect.

The rich will sooner or later give their wealth into circulation. So will early Bitcoin adopters become new powerful dynasties over the next generations, only marrying among themselves in order to not dilute their wealth? I don't know, time will tell. But to have an oppressive relationship you need two parties you know. We live in the information age right now, and people won't be so superstitious anymore (I hope) to accept the rule of the mighty Andresen and Garzik dynasties as given "by the grace of God".