Is Bitcoin socialist dream come true ?

[TECSHARE]

The one who has computational capabilities (i even may say significant capabilities).  They are not guaranteed to anyone. And bought on the market with a probability of more than 90%. Also luckers and architects. Besides, Satoshi had a stabilization fund (or i wrong?). Decentralized emission does not guarantee equality.

So the people who have the skills and do the work control the products of their work.  That sounds a lot like the socialism to me. 

Are you trying to stretch the word socialism to include non-governmental forms of economic sharing?

I don't think that is possible.

Of course its not possible, because voluntary sharing is called charity. Socialism requires the confiscation of private property by force, hence they require the government monopoly on violence to do so.

[1715419118]

1715419118

[1715419118]

1715419118

[BADecker]

Which part of the dictionary and encyclopedia words/terms socialism and capitalism are you asking about? After all, a family is socialistic just to be a family. But it has to be capitalistic in some of its nature as the kids become independent as they grow up. And the parents need to keep both of these things, socialism and capitalism, in mind to grow mentally healthy kids.

So, both are different, both overlap, and at times, both are the same.

[virendarnagpal]

Socialism is fail movement all over the world. So called socialist empires are burried under the earth.  Communists are the originator of the word socialism.  No country except China could save this ideology.
 
But Bitcoin is succeeding day by day.  It is liberty which socialists (communists) will never allow others to enjoy.  Liberty can be enjoyed  under democracy only not under any other school of thought.

[eddie13]

Damn it feels good to get merits from Theymos..

But anarchism = chaos.

That's what they want you to think

But socialism doesn't mean tracking everyone.

Then how is the central authority supposed to "give everyone their fair share" and take from those who have "too much" without tracking them and knowing what they have and don't have?

A tiny minority controls half of the bitcoins. Inequality at its best.

They WON, you lost, get over it.. You don't deserve it just because someone else has it.. They had the skill and the right timing..

There can be no socialist island in a capitalist world

Why? Because it can't compete? Does that mean you must destroy all capitalism in the world in order to achieve "true" communism?

Is that why you believe that...

I'm nearly certain communism is responsible for zero deaths as it has never been implemented

Please do continue telling us all about how dangerous the slippery slope of Leftism actually is..

[coins4commies]

When you see people define socialism and communism everything bad that has been done by "communist" parties throughout history, then it starts to make sense why people hate it and are afraid of it.  

If you actually use the real definitions and vast amounts of economic theory to properly define socialism and communism, you would end up with something most ethically operating humans agree with.  

This widespread misconception isn't an accident though.  In order to perpetuate an archaic system of capitalism, its necessary to muddy the water around the systems designed as an evolution of capitalism.  

Lets start to sort things out so people can see that they have the definitions all wrong.

Socialism-  a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Socialists are simply trying to put the means of production into the hands of the people and asserting that it should be democratically controlled.  "State socialists" such as the USSR perverted the ideology because they simply replaced capitalists with government officials instead of the actual workers. Soviet officials didn't bring workers to the table to make decisions.  It was top down and authoritarian.  State capitalism would be the best way to describe most of the societies you think were socialist. Worker cooperatives such as mondragon are the best examples of actual socialism.  

Communism: A term describing a stateless, classless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production
If the entire economy was socialist, over time, you would not need a state as all production is democratically controled by the workers, people live in complete liberty, and there is no class struggle.   Equality does not mean that everyone makes the same amount of money or gets the same amount of goods, it simply means equality in a democratic sense.  No one person has power over the masses.  In terms of company decisions, 1 person=1 vote.  


Kind of strange how anyone could associate an authoritarian state with communism when statelessness one of the key characteristics communism.


One of the driving factors is that political parties have identified themselves as communist and ran totalitarian regimes.  These authoritarian regimes of the past do not represent hundreds of years of economic theory in the same way that someone who calls themselves muslim or christian committing an act of terror does not mean their actions represent the ideology as a whole.  

Then how is the central authority supposed to "give everyone their fair share" and take from those who have "too much" without tracking them and knowing what they have and don't have?

A company agrees on what everyones fair share is by a democratic vote.  No one takes anything from anyone. There is no central authority as the elected board of directors is held accountable by the majority vote of the community (workers).

It is liberty which socialists (communists) will never allow others to enjoy.  Liberty can be enjoyed  under democracy only not under any other school of thought.

Perfect example of a socialist who doesn't know they are socialist because they don't know it literally means democratic control of the economy.

Socialism requires the confiscation of private property by force, hence they require the government monopoly on violence to do so.

Perfect example of someone who thinks stalinist authoritarianism is socialism (its not).  Socialism requires distribution of resources agreed upon democratically, with no outside interference or force.  It is capitalism that requires the threat of force to protect capital from the workers.  (IE if foxconn workers walk out with all of the iphones, the state has to ensure the capitalists take the goods and surplus from the workers by force and give them to the capitalists)  

Are you trying to stretch the word socialism to include non-governmental forms of economic sharing?

I don't think that is possible.

Of course its possible.  Look at any worker cooperative.  

Socialism doesn't produce anything. It is capable only via parasitic attachment to Capitalism. Socialism can not exist independent of Capitalism. Bitcoin is based on mutual self interest an is about as Capitalist as you can get. Please do tell me about how Bitcoin fits within the 10 planks of Communism, it should be entertaining.

No economic system produces anything.  It is always labor that produces goods and services.  The economic system just describes who makes the decisions and keeps the surplus.  Socialists believe democracy should be applied here while capitalists believe in a feudalistic approach.

"True Communism has never existed" HAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH
Thanks for exposing yourself so completely and so easily. Regarding your question, try opening any history book not printed in China.

Show me an example of a stateless, classless society. It probably has happened in some small commune of a few dozen people but I'm not sure.

[TECSHARE]

The same Communist rambling we have all heard 100 times.

It is never true Communism is it? I guess because your ideal of true Communism "never existed" then we can ignore the repeated failures that inevitably resulted in hell on Earth and the direct deaths of hundreds of millions of people. What is important is we keep trying!

[Spendulus]

The same Communist rambling we have all heard 100 times.

It is never true Communism is it? I guess because your ideal of true Communism "never existed" then we can ignore the repeated failures that inevitably resulted in hell on Earth and the direct deaths of hundreds of millions of people. What is important is we keep trying!

The "True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Fascinating that someone posting pro communism doesn't even know what it is.

[coins4commies]

Well it is pretty clear in the literature that a communist society is stateless and classless.  I could pretend to be a surgeon, botch a surgery and it wouldn't be a "not a true scotsman" fallacy for someone to deny a claim that "surgeons have no idea what they are doing".

[bluefirecorp_]

Socialism is based on equality and social ownership. What economic equality (the one Engels wrote about in Anti-Dühring) can we say when significant production powers are in one wealthy hand, when the creator has such power, and capitalist banks accumulate funds through unfair income redistribution and playing on volatilities. When we talk about social order, we must take into account the question of power. the usual average worker (who somehow accumulated funds for an entrance ticket) cant exerting economic influence on bitcoin, while super large players have such an opportunity.
All that Bitcoin takes from socialism that is Marx parfume for libertarian core.

So, I think you actually don't really understand how bitcoin operates as a technical level. While this is off-topic, it could be brought on-topic about actually using the implementation of Bitcoin as an example. However, I'm going to argue the merits because it's literally the thread, and you probably actually believe what you say is true from an socialist-economics standpoint rather than the actual technical implementation of bitcoin.

---

So, mining *bitcoin* is resource based, so economics can play a role into it, but at the technical core the concept was "proof-of-work".

Proof-of-work for Bitcoin is the sha256 hash. Which back when it came out, was pretty standard (and still good today).

In a large distributed system, the majority of the workers would control the the rules. This is done by all the workers sharing and collaborating, and distributing new rules.

From an ideological standpoint, that seems very socialist. However, in recent years, the sha256 hash really has been attacked. ASICs are literally purposely built devices to mine BTC. It's kinda crazy that people make chips to be the "best worker". The problem is because they're the overwhelming majority that has invested into this very specific purpose, they're going to continue this production.

In reality, the same could be said about socialism.

[TECSHARE]

Well it is pretty clear in the literature that a communist society is stateless and classless.  I could pretend to be a surgeon, botch a surgery and it wouldn't be a "not a true scotsman" fallacy for someone to deny a claim that "surgeons have no idea what they are doing".

It is also pretty clear in the Curious George literature that the man in the yellow hat is nice to Curious George. Tell me please what this has to do with real monkeys?

P.S. Nice job showing everyone you have no clue what "no true Scotsman fallacy" is. Maybe look it up instead of just pretending like you usually do, k?

Also comparing Communism to a surgeon.... bwAHAHAHA! More like a bookie with a sledge hammer to the knees than a surgeon.

So, mining *bitcoin* is resource based, so economics can play a role into it, but at the technical core the concept was "proof-of-work".

What does the work? Oh right the capital.

In a large distributed system, the majority of the workers would control the the rules. This is done by all the workers sharing and collaborating, and distributing new rules.

From an ideological standpoint, that seems very socialist. However, in recent years, the sha256 hash really has been attacked. ASICs are literally purposely built devices to mine BTC. It's kinda crazy that people make chips to be the "best worker". The problem is because they're the overwhelming majority that has invested into this very specific purpose, they're going to continue this production.

In reality, the same could be said about socialism.

I love how you just operate from the assumed premise that Bitcoin is Socialist then just arrange your arguments from that point, and of course the evil Capitalists are overwhelming the poor Socialist victims. I forgot what that's called... something about confirmation bias is it?

What you are describing is the fact that owning capital (miners) means you have more control, and make more profit, and yes, do more work. There is nothing Socialist about this, in fact I am fairly certain you know very little about Communism/Marxism/Socialism and its origins, because Marx himself heavily promoted central banking.

[KingScorpio]

I past this question to you guys because I and my friends have this debate yesterday over a beer.  I was for yes and no it is a healthy mixture of capitalism and socialism.

What are your thoughts? I would like to see what the bitcoin fams are thinking?

   

lol bitcoin is the absolute opposite of "socialism" it is a competition of installed computation power, i wonder why people still think bitcoin is valuable

[bluefirecorp_]

So, mining *bitcoin* is resource based, so economics can play a role into it, but at the technical core the concept was "proof-of-work".

What does the work? Oh right the capital.

In a large distributed system, the majority of the workers would control the the rules. This is done by all the workers sharing and collaborating, and distributing new rules.

From an ideological standpoint, that seems very socialist. However, in recent years, the sha256 hash really has been attacked. ASICs are literally purposely built devices to mine BTC. It's kinda crazy that people make chips to be the "best worker". The problem is because they're the overwhelming majority that has invested into this very specific purpose, they're going to continue this production.

In reality, the same could be said about socialism.

I love how you just operate from the assumed premise that Bitcoin is Socialist then just arrange your arguments from that point, and of course the evil Capitalists are overwhelming the poor Socialist victims. I forgot what that's called... something about confirmation bias is it?

What you are describing is the fact that owning capital (miners) means you have more control, and make more profit, and yes, do more work. There is nothing Socialist about this, in fact I am fairly certain you know very little about Communism/Marxism/Socialism and its origins, because Marx himself heavily promoted central banking.

I don't think you really understand bitcoin.

If it were just about capital, it'd be switched to proof-of-stake instead of proof-of-work.

Rather than being trolling in your comments, why not argue logically? I was playing as a victim, I was explaining what BTC actually is.

If you have arguments with proof-of-work or proof-of-capacity or have problems following the abstraction logic, be clear in the articulation of that instead of just posting trollish responses.

[xvdazza]

So, I think you actually don't really understand how bitcoin operates as a technical level. While this is off-topic, it could be brought on-topic about actually using the implementation of Bitcoin as an example. However, I'm going to argue the merits because it's literally the thread, and you probably actually believe what you say is true from an socialist-economics standpoint rather than the actual technical implementation of bitcoin.

Indeed, I am not a technical specialist, but I understand what you described to me now, regarding the technical part of Bitcoin. However, I also have some ideas about how the economy and social systems, sociotechnical systems work. So I will tell you that I have no surprise about how Bitcoin is developing, because as I wrote earlier, I am convinced that BC was thought right the way he is now. I do not believe in Nibiru, a conspiracy of reptiloids, but I believe in Occam’s razor and logic. Bitcoin does not have barriers against uneven income, so it was conceived as such or this question was not raised


You are right that blockchain technologies can be used in socialistic projects, but please do not be offended, your ideas about Bitcoin as it is are utopian, since the economic model of Bitcoin does not comply with the principles of socialism and is purely capitalist. Proof of work in such a system does not make Bitcoin socialist. When I talk about the influence of major players on Bitcoin, I mean not only workers, because I view Bitcoin as an open system that interacts with the external environment. And this is right because in the world there are other types of currencies and uneven distribution of capital. Please abstract from non-conflict administration models in social and related systems. They do not work or work poorly.

What does the work? Oh right the capital.

I love how you just operate from the assumed premise that Bitcoin is Socialist then just arrange your arguments from that point, and of course the evil Capitalists are overwhelming the poor Socialist victims. I forgot what that's called... something about confirmation bias is it?

What you are describing is the fact that owning capital (miners) means you have more control, and make more profit, and yes, do more work. There is nothing Socialist about this, in fact I am fairly certain you know very little about Communism/Marxism/Socialism and its origins, because Marx himself heavily promoted central banking.

Thank you sir, I was already scared to have to start over again.
So bad that propaganda makes people believe that fair pay for work is the merit and attribute of socialism exclusively but not the result of people free will.

[p3rk0]

Re: Is Bitcoin a capitalist dream come true? A libertarian dream come true? Yes.

[squatz1]

Bitcoin is an authoritarians nightmare!!!

Bitcoin is a POWERFUL tool of liberty against "socialists" and their like..
Bitcoin is about as free market as it gets.. Basically anarchism..

But with a sate run cryptocurrency, completely centralized, blockchain could be a socialists dream come true to track everyone.
But that is not bitcoin..

I wouldn't go this far in the least, and if the governments of countries wanted to kill cryptocurrencies, it wouldn't take them that much. And if you don't want to believe me, you'll probably believe the internet -- https://www.crypto51.app/

It isn't much money to a rich person, and a government OBVIOUSLY could 51 percent attack bitcoin with the right equipment stockpiled and ready to move on us.

Bitcoin has made a lot of capitalists a lot of money though, as it has opened up many new investment facilitation companies (exchange) companies such as Bitfinex, Coinbase, Kraken, Gemini, etc. Other companies in the mixing space, bitcoin ATM'S , etc.

People are making a lot of money here, and the banks aren't being hurt due to it -- we'rein a bit of an independent bubble which keeps the capitalist happy and the bankers happy.

[TECSHARE]

I don't think you really understand bitcoin.

Oh is that so? How long have you been around? What kind of coin development work have you participated in? PLEASE try me and let me spank you in public like the child you are.

If it were just about capital, it'd be switched to proof-of-stake instead of proof-of-work.

Well clearly you have all the solutions and we should just do what you say right? I am certain there are absolutely no dynamics in the PoW system that you don't understand now are there?

Rather than being trolling in your comments, why not argue logically? I was playing as a victim, I was explaining what BTC actually is.

If you have arguments with proof-of-work or proof-of-capacity or have problems following the abstraction logic, be clear in the articulation of that instead of just posting trollish responses.

I have been arguing logically, you just don't like the fact that I totally dismantled your premise, therefore your only option in the lack of any argument is to claim I am trolling and ignoring logic.

[Spendulus]

Well it is pretty clear in the literature that a communist society is stateless and classless.  I could pretend to be a surgeon, botch a surgery and it wouldn't be a "not a true scotsman" fallacy for someone to deny a claim that "surgeons have no idea what they are doing".

blah-blah-blah.

Here is the essence of your problem.

What makes YOU more capable of deciding how my money should be spent that ME?

[coins4commies]

Well it is pretty clear in the literature that a communist society is stateless and classless.  I could pretend to be a surgeon, botch a surgery and it wouldn't be a "not a true scotsman" fallacy for someone to deny a claim that "surgeons have no idea what they are doing".

blah-blah-blah.

Here is the essence of your problem.

What makes YOU more capable of deciding how my money should be spent that ME?

I'm not but if a community votes to spend the community's money a certain way that is counter to your views  then that is democracy.  You could leave the community if you felt so strongly against its decision and no one is suggesting any limit to the freedom you have with your personal money.


In cryptocurrency, an update may include lower fees and less block reward.  If a bunch of people don't like it, they are free to operate a fork.  If no one likes it except the person who came up with, then it is not adopted and the developer is left operating a 1-person network.  That is a democratic 51 percent community decision.

[TECSHARE]

Well it is pretty clear in the literature that a communist society is stateless and classless.  I could pretend to be a surgeon, botch a surgery and it wouldn't be a "not a true scotsman" fallacy for someone to deny a claim that "surgeons have no idea what they are doing".

blah-blah-blah.

Here is the essence of your problem.

What makes YOU more capable of deciding how my money should be spent that ME?

I'm not but if a community votes to spend the community's money a certain way that is counter to your views  then that is democracy.  You could leave the community if you felt so strongly against its decision and no one is suggesting any limit to the freedom you have with your personal money.


In cryptocurrency, an update may include lower fees and less block reward.  If a bunch of people don't like it, they are free to operate a fork.  If no one likes it except the person who came up with, then it is not adopted and the developer is left operating a 1-person network.  That is a democratic 51 percent community decision.

Bitcoin is not Democratic. It is meritocratic. The one who does the most work has the most control. In this case the one who has the most capital does the most work. Individuals don't really get to vote on shit. Sure they can sell, but that is not the same as having a vote, it is a reaction not pro-action.

[coins4commies]

Good point.  The one who holds the most capital is still not free to make decisions for everyone without doing a 51% attack and even then, whatever percentage of the people who hold 49%, can still fork away.