Bitcoin: Revolution Or Trap?

[CryptoCurrencyInc.com]

Bitcoin: Revolution Or Trap?

In the Internet’s early days there was general agreement that one of the first killer apps would be some form of cyber currency. Since money was already largely non-corporeal, existing as entries in bank accounts and ready to spend with plastic cards, the next logical step would be to move the whole thing online and dispense with paper and coins and their costly and burdensome infrastructure of banks, regulators and printing presses. The emergence of such currencies would, in this optimistic scenario, consign relics like the dollar and the Fed to history’s circular file and usher in an era of trust, stability, and growth similar to what occurred under the classical gold standard.

But the digital liberation of money turned out to be easier said than done, as the first wave of cyber-currencies came and went without much of an impact. eCash, for instance, was an encrypted, anonymous payment system that allowed anyone anywhere to send and receive instant payments. But it relied on the existing banking infrastructure, and because “anonymous” meant “money laundering” to the police, it faced extreme pushback from authorities who viewed such currencies as primarily empowering drug dealers – and from banks that saw no point in encouraging the competition. Only one small bank ever accepted eCash, and the currency died a quiet death a few years after its introduction.

http://www.investing.com/analysis/[url]bitcoin:-revolution-or-trap-201100[/url]

[dank]

The real revolution will come from disbanding all forms of money together.  Money facilitates greed and our actions should be measured not by the wealth they accumulate but by the impact they leave on humanity.

[DStrange]

Sorry, couldn't resist

[bryant.coleman]

The real revolution will come from disbanding all forms of money together.  Money facilitates greed and our actions should be measured not by the wealth they accumulate but by the impact they leave on humanity.

Be practical. Without money, the society cannot function. Barter is not fail-proof.

[act now]

The real revolution will come from disbanding all forms of money together.  Money facilitates greed and our actions should be measured not by the wealth they accumulate but by the impact they leave on humanity.

Be practical. Without money, the society cannot function. Barter is not fail-proof.

+1, current society for sure. Maybe in 100 or 200 years there will be some alternative but atm we can only dream.

[dank]

The real revolution will come from disbanding all forms of money together.  Money facilitates greed and our actions should be measured not by the wealth they accumulate but by the impact they leave on humanity.

Be practical. Without money, the society cannot function. Barter is not fail-proof.

This is a fallacy.  Money does not make the world go round, we do.  Why couldn't we live in the exact same manner as we do today without money?  Sure, we would have to abandon business models and systems that are obsolete, but this would only leave a larger workforce to contribute directly to man kind.

We would be multitudes more efficient if we did not think what can we do to make the most money but what can we do to help the most people.  Bartering isn't even necessary, everyone can contribute through volunteerism, we would be trading energy rather than material goods.  This is the only true path to complete freedom and world peace.

[Nik1ab]

The real revolution will come from disbanding all forms of money together.  Money facilitates greed and our actions should be measured not by the wealth they accumulate but by the impact they leave on humanity.

Be practical. Without money, the society cannot function. Barter is not fail-proof.

Money? Gold & silver?

[Mythul]

I think it is a great breakthrough, like the torrent technology.

[newflesh]

The real revolution will come from disbanding all forms of money together.  Money facilitates greed and our actions should be measured not by the wealth they accumulate but by the impact they leave on humanity.

Be practical. Without money, the society cannot function. Barter is not fail-proof.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

[sickhouse]

It could be both you know. It's a revolution because it's a currency that is indipendant - fuck banks. But it may also be worth nothing in a year or two (lets hope not tho eh).

[TheRandomGuy]

The real revolution will come from disbanding all forms of money together.  Money facilitates greed and our actions should be measured not by the wealth they accumulate but by the impact they leave on humanity.

Be practical. Without money, the society cannot function. Barter is not fail-proof.

This is a fallacy.  Money does not make the world go round, we do.  Why couldn't we live in the exact same manner as we do today without money?  Sure, we would have to abandon business models and systems that are obsolete, but this would only leave a larger workforce to contribute directly to man kind.

We would be multitudes more efficient if we did not think what can we do to make the most money but what can we do to help the most people.  Bartering isn't even necessary, everyone can contribute through volunteerism, we would be trading energy rather than material goods.  This is the only true path to complete freedom and world peace.

No thanks. I like my markets.

[dank]

Do you like the tyranny, war, poverty and enslavement that come with it?

[bryant.coleman]

The real revolution will come from disbanding all forms of money together.  Money facilitates greed and our actions should be measured not by the wealth they accumulate but by the impact they leave on humanity.

Be practical. Without money, the society cannot function. Barter is not fail-proof.

This is a fallacy.  Money does not make the world go round, we do.  Why couldn't we live in the exact same manner as we do today without money?  Sure, we would have to abandon business models and systems that are obsolete, but this would only leave a larger workforce to contribute directly to man kind.

We would be multitudes more efficient if we did not think what can we do to make the most money but what can we do to help the most people.  Bartering isn't even necessary, everyone can contribute through volunteerism, we would be trading energy rather than material goods.  This is the only true path to complete freedom and world peace.

If there is no money, then:

1. How will you store or stockpile your reserves (for hard times, such as drought or famine) ?
2. If barter is not available, then how you will purchase the things you need?
3. How will you pay your taxes?

[CoinChex]

Money should be used as a pricing mechanism for goods and services.  That's really the only purpose it should serve, it allows economies of scale to function by creating a single fungible unit of exchange that has value to anyone who receives of sends it.

The concepts of M1 money supply, quantitative easing, controlling interest rates, are all functions of big government and politics.  The adoption of BTC is a complete shift from these policies, I am surprised all the time that government has not intervened quicker.

[jcoin200]

It is revolutionary.  It is a way to break away from the stranglehold banks, credit cards, etc have on doily commerce.

[sehdal]

Well I think what's interesting about Bitcoin is that it raises big and important questions about what money is and whether we need it. I detect a certain anarcho communism in some of the replies which suggest we can live without money (not something I'm averse to, but very difficult to achieve).

I think David Graeber is interesting here and his book Debt: A 5000 Year History. He makes some interesting claims based on extensive anthropological research and some leftie anarchist sympathies. Here are some of the points he makes in the book that are relevant to the debate about money:

1. While we think that money came from barter there is no anthropological evidence for this, actually the way villages often operated before money existed is people would do each other favours, there would be a strong sense of obligation. For example somebody gives you some milk, so next time you pay them back with a piece of meat; and the anthropological evidence from ancient civilisations (like Mesepotania) suggests this is what happened rather than barter. His argument is that barter is a myth generated by the economists, which has become entrenched and seen as common sense.

2. The idea of debt or obligation pre-existed money, so we have this idea of doing each other favours. In villages somebody would give someone a favour and the other person would try and do a bigger favour in turn. These communities based around reciprocal responsibilities and returning favours have existed for a long time before money. Graeber argues that money came into existence because governments (or rather monarchies) needed to fund wars and money was an effective means of orchestrating this.

3. Finally, we do these things today don't we? Say you buy a group of friends a beer, and you expect them to get you a beer later but if you are a nice bloke (or lady) you don't worry about it if they don't. However, if they really are your friends another time you will be in a bar and they will get you a beer. In a sense this kind of transaction is not based on exchange because you do not buy the beer because they will buy you one, its more a sense of an obligation you have. Graeber is an anarchist so he thinks these aspects of human behaviour can become the basis for an alternative society.

Anyhow its an interesting book. So regarding the points that were made earlier about why we need money:

1. How will you store or stockpile your reserves (for hard times, such as drought or famine) ?
2. If barter is not available, then how you will purchase the things you need?
3. How will you pay your taxes?

Well none of these things are essential if you can imagine an alternative society in which is based on people helping one another and doing each other favours. People lived in societies without money a few thousands of years ago.

Finally going back to Bitcoin, I don't think its the answer to all our problems but it is important because it is a technological invention that allows us to question the money system and the problems it causes. Bitcoin also shows us that alternative systems are possible.

[mymenace]

Bitcoin: Revolution Or Trap?

In the Internet’s early days there was general agreement that one of the first killer apps would be some form of cyber currency. Since money was already largely non-corporeal, existing as entries in bank accounts and ready to spend with plastic cards, the next logical step would be to move the whole thing online and dispense with paper and coins and their costly and burdensome infrastructure of banks, regulators and printing presses. The emergence of such currencies would, in this optimistic scenario, consign relics like the dollar and the Fed to history’s circular file and usher in an era of trust, stability, and growth similar to what occurred under the classical gold standard.

atm over 4 billion people (the poor) do not have access to cyber currency, some form of currency or trade would still have to exist here

[dank]

The real revolution will come from disbanding all forms of money together.  Money facilitates greed and our actions should be measured not by the wealth they accumulate but by the impact they leave on humanity.

Be practical. Without money, the society cannot function. Barter is not fail-proof.

This is a fallacy.  Money does not make the world go round, we do.  Why couldn't we live in the exact same manner as we do today without money?  Sure, we would have to abandon business models and systems that are obsolete, but this would only leave a larger workforce to contribute directly to man kind.

We would be multitudes more efficient if we did not think what can we do to make the most money but what can we do to help the most people.  Bartering isn't even necessary, everyone can contribute through volunteerism, we would be trading energy rather than material goods.  This is the only true path to complete freedom and world peace.

If there is no money, then:

1. How will you store or stockpile your reserves (for hard times, such as drought or famine) ?
2. If barter is not available, then how you will purchase the things you need?
3. How will you pay your taxes?

1. Resources would be abundant without government regulations, sanctions or wealth disparities preventing populations from having stuff.
2. You can barter if you want, but if do, you're exchanging the positive energy you get from helping someone for a material thing.
3. Serious?  How would I let organized criminal cartels steal from me?  I wouldn't.

[KonstantinosM]

1. Resources would be abundant without government regulations, sanctions or wealth disparities preventing populations from having stuff.
2. You can barter if you want, but if do, you're exchanging the positive energy you get from helping someone for a material thing.
3. Serious?  How would I let organized criminal cartels steal from me?  I wouldn't.

1.Sometimes lack of government regulation makes resources extremely scarce.

A coca-cola factory opened in an area in India that was scarce in water. Farmers lost their revenues and livelyhood and currently have to work away from their community for ridiculously low wages.
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWSjWWsFy9g

Lack of government regulation would mean that pollution would be rampant affecting everyone's health. It's bad enough as it is.

2. I only smoke the dankest reefer. Whaaaa? I'm just kidding. I just run out of steam for this post.

[dank]

Corporations would not be a menace to society without a dollar to feed the cogs.