Is Bitcoin socialist dream come true ?

[r34tr783tr78]

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..

You shouldnt get personal. I wasnt writing about myself. I have no personal complaints against inequality. I was writing about equality and justice as general goals.

[popcorn1]

Bitcoin is a socialist nightmare ..

Bitcoin is only good for rich or people with spare cash that are not afraid to loose it ..No good for governments to run monies off  NO CHANCE..

[bluefirecorp_]

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.

Spank me daddy

I've actually been around nearly as long as your account by the looks of it. A matter of weeks difference on registration dates.

I've never contributed to a shitcoin. A buddy did create a shitcoin before and I mined a few thousand of them for lawlz. It doesn't take much technical knowledge to compile the tens of dozens of shitcoin sources out there today.

I've minted several block myself historically

I remember at one point in time, I was 0.3% of the whole mining network.

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?

Nope. There are multiple problems that remain unsolved. Even by me.

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.

You have no technical merit and you don't back up your logic with reasoning or technical details. Your obvious misunderstandings of the implementation of bitcoin have become pretty apparent. Perhaps you should give the whitepaper one more read over before commenting further in the relationship to socialism.

It's rather short; https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Particularly this section:

The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the
fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to
redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the
work of the honest nodes. We will show later that the probability of a slower attacker catching up
diminishes exponentially as subsequent blocks are added.

[TECSHARE]

Spank me daddy

I've actually been around nearly as long as your account by the looks of it. A matter of weeks difference on registration dates.

I've never contributed to a shitcoin. A buddy did create a shitcoin before and I mined a few thousand of them for lawlz. It doesn't take much technical knowledge to compile the tens of dozens of shitcoin sources out there today.

I've minted several block myself historically

Wow. You were a miner. Impressive. Too bad you didn't learn anything that whole time. Oh what happened to your old account? I am sure you didn't lose it as a result of anything unsavory right? Sure making coins is easy, but managing them is not. Neither is taking a low cap coin and bringing its market cap up to 10 million dollars. Also the coin protocol I managed, Infinitecoin, was literally cloned and re-branded as Doge, later they added inflation. So just maybe I know a tad about how blockchain works, the protocols, and how mining works considering I was responsible for balancing the network. It was also the #3 most popular coin in China for a while BTW, but that's easy right?

However please do tell me more about how mining made you an expert in blockchain technology.

I remember at one point in time, I was 0.3% of the whole mining network.

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?

Nope. There are multiple problems that remain unsolved. Even by me.

I never mentioned anything about flaws in the PoW system, I was pointing out the gaps in your understanding if you think capital is the only reason to use PoS over PoW. This also shows a fundamental ignorance of basic economic principals such as inflation.

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.

You have no technical merit and you don't back up your logic with reasoning or technical details. Your obvious misunderstandings of the implementation of bitcoin have become pretty apparent. Perhaps you should give the whitepaper one more read over before commenting further in the relationship to socialism.

It's rather short; https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Particularly this section:

The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the
fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to
redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the
work of the honest nodes. We will show later that the probability of a slower attacker catching up
diminishes exponentially as subsequent blocks are added.

Uh huh. So far you have demonstrated you don't really understand PoW or PoS systems, or even basic economics, but I have no merit. Ya. Ok.

BTW reading that excerpt over and over... not seeing even the slightest hint of Socialism in there. As I explained before the capital does the work in the blockchain (the miners), and the more capital you have the more votes you have. Bitcoin is a system of mutually beneficial greed, AKA Capitalism. Satoshi goes over this in great detail. The only way you get Socialism out of that is if you live in a delusional fantasy land where everything just is what you say it is because you believe it, facts be damned.

[bluefirecorp_]

x

Wow. You were a miner. Impressive. Too bad you didn't learn anything that whole time. Oh what happened to your old account? I am sure you didn't lose it as a result of anything unsavory right? Sure making coins is easy, but managing them is not. Neither is taking a low cap coin and bringing its market cap up to 10 million dollars. Also the coin protocol I managed, Infinitecoin, was literally cloned and re-branded as Doge, later they added inflation. So just maybe I know a tad about how blockchain works, the protocols, and how mining works considering I was responsible for balancing the network. It was also the #3 most popular coin in China for a while BTW, but that's easy right?

However please do tell me more about how mining made you an expert in blockchain technology.

You forked and ran a shitcoin! Nice! Much professional. You must understand everything about PoW, PoC, PoS, and pretty much every other work type out there, right?

I remember at one point in time, I was 0.3% of the whole mining network.

I never mentioned anything about flaws in the PoW sysetm, I was pointing out the gaps in your understanding if you think capital is the only reason to use PoS over PoW. This also shows a fundamental ignorance of basic economic principals such as inflation.

Proof of work seems a lot like socialism once you abstract the meanings. But nah, you just confuse proof-of-work with proof-of-stake.

x

Uh huh. So far you have demonstrated you don't really understand PoW or PoS systems, or even basic economics, but I have no merit. Ya. Ok.

BTW reading that excerpt over and over... not seeing even the slightest hint of Socialism in there. As I explained before the capital does the work in the blockchain (the miners), and the more capital you have the more votes you have. Bitcoin is a system of mutually beneficial greed, AKA Capitalism. Satoshi goes over this in great detail. The only way you get Socialism out of that is if you live in a delusional fantasy land where everything just is what you say it is because you believe it, facts be damned.

So far you've demonstrated the inability to understand the implementation of bitcoin (which is a pretty straight forward pow implementation). You try to conflate the argument with tedious unrelated societal points rather than arguing at the abstracted technical layer. I think your primary purpose is to gaslight other individuals rather than contribute to this conversation. The fact that you haven't been banned is quite a sentiment to the libertarian nature of this forum.

As I've explained before, proof-of-work is not proof-of-stake. Proof-of-stake is pretty pro-capitalist in which the individuals holding the most capital makes the rules. Proof of work is pretty socialist in which the workers choose the rules.

If you're too dense to make the connection between "proof-of-work" and workers, then that's on you buddy.

I'm pretty sure arguing with you is akin to arguing with a flat earther, no amount of evidence or proof would change your opinion on the subject. I'm pretty sure I could sign a message as if I were Satoshi, and you'd still deny that as evidence.

Also, I like how you say "Satoshi goes over this in great detail" in which you don't even provide proof. Later, you go onto say "out of that is if you live in a delusional fantasy land where everything just is what you say it is because you believe it, facts be damned" which is pretty ironic in that instance

[TECSHARE]

You forked and ran a shitcoin! Nice! Much professional. You must understand everything about PoW, PoC, PoS, and pretty much every other work type out there, right?

Actually I didn't fork anything. I spent several years fixing security and network issues for the protocol. It sucked so much Dogecoin decided to jack the protocol and re-brand it. We were also one of the first, if not THE first to demonstrate proof of concept of a transaction fee only run network with a hard cap. What did you do again? Run a handful of miners? Cool story bro. BTW, do you ever stop and listen to yourself and realize how much you sound like a parrot?

Proof of work seems a lot like socialism once you abstract the meanings. But nah, you just confuse proof-of-work with proof-of-stake.

"abstract the meanings" AKA redefine the words completely to fit within your confirmation bias.

So far you've demonstrated the inability to understand the implementation of bitcoin (which is a pretty straight forward pow implementation). You try to conflate the argument with tedious unrelated societal points rather than arguing at the abstracted technical layer. I think your primary purpose is to gaslight other individuals rather than contribute to this conversation. The fact that you haven't been banned is quite a sentiment to the libertarian nature of this forum.

As I've explained before, proof-of-work is not proof-of-stake. Proof-of-stake is pretty pro-capitalist in which the individuals holding the most capital makes the rules. Proof of work is pretty socialist in which the workers choose the rules.

If you're too dense to make the connection between "proof-of-work" and workers, then that's on you buddy.

I'm pretty sure arguing with you is akin to arguing with a flat earther, no amount of evidence or proof would change your opinion on the subject. I'm pretty sure I could sign a message as if I were Satoshi, and you'd still deny that as evidence.

Also, I like how you say "Satoshi goes over this in great detail" in which you don't even provide proof. Later, you go onto say "out of that is if you live in a delusional fantasy land where everything just is what you say it is because you believe it, facts be damned" which is pretty ironic in that instance

You have demonstrated the ability to rephrase my statements and repeat them back to me as a result of your inability to form original thoughts. Oh I am like a "flat Earther" now am I? Interesting. Quite a lot of projecting you do. It almost like you need to compare me to these fringe groups because you can't think of anything else within my argument to criticize. It only seems ironic because it serves your little echo chamber bubble of confirmation bias, and it is less work than re-evaluating your own belief systems and doing a little reading. Also, last I checked this forum doesn't ban for butthurt resulting from being exposed to information you would prefer did not exist.

I am talking exactly about the technical layers of Bitcoin.

MINERS = CAPITAL
BLOCKCHAIN = CONSENSUS OF MINERS
MORE MINERS = MORE INFLUENCE IN CONSENSUS
MINERS DO THE WORK
MINERS PRODUCE CAPITAL
MINERS DETERMINE CONSENSUS
CAPITAL = CONSENSUS

Sounds a lot like Capitalism to me, but again feel free to redefine any words that upset you.



Re: Satoshi-
 
"6. Incentive

By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them. The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.

The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.

The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth." -Satoshi

"It's based on open market competition, and there will probably always be nodes willing to process transactions for free." -Satoshi


More substantiation:

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/3/

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/65/

As you see Bitcoin was carefully and purposely designed as a mechanism of using mutual greed to run the network and thus produce capital. You see Satoshi very clearly uses the analogy of gold and miners, to represent hash power and electricity costs. The consensus is designed around CAPITAL and the fact that RESOURCES are limited. He also even explicitly states a system of simply voting by IP would be totally exploitable, as would any other form of voting by pure head count.


I don't need to gaslight you, you gaslight yourself. I know you aren't used to people taking the time to form a rational logic based debate to counter your flimsy pop-culture arguments, but that doesn't make anyone who challenges your opinions a troll. I am simply not satisfied to sit on the sidelines and let your ideologies go unchallenged.

[bluefirecorp_]

TECSHARE MADE UP BULLSHIT...

miners = capital?

You drew that conclusion, not satoshi.

You never made an argument here until now. You simply stated refuted opinion.

Your evidences of 'capitalism' are pretty weak support by satoshi. Let's actually start going through them.

Re: Satoshi-
 
"6. Incentive

By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them. The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.

The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.

Initial distribution. Woo! Proof of work is also consensus my friend... but let's ignore that fact.

The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth." -Satoshi

That's capitalist because honest people should stay honest? I don't really see the connection to capitalism.

"It's based on open market competition, and there will probably always be nodes willing to process transactions for free." -Satoshi

Attacking the network and making your worth valueless seems silly if you're invested in the network. Pretty standard stuff.

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/3/

Protections against the network and against a 51% attack, right right. Not really linked to capitalism, but just good nodes vs bad nodes.

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/65/

Huh, out of all the links you linked, this statement is about the only thing that backs up your claim;

In later years, when new coin generation is a small percentage of the existing supply, market price will dictate the cost of production more than the other way around.

which is still rather ambiguous in terms of capitalism vs socialism.

Rambling bullshit...

Fun counter-example:

The CPU proof-of-worker proof-of-work vote must have the final say. The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what.

Drawing the same pop-culture reference to worker's vote being final.

If a majority of CPU proof-of-worker is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains.

Worker's working together rather than against each other due to malicious competition being outpaced.

[TECSHARE]

miners = capital?

You drew that conclusion, not satoshi.

You never made an argument here until now. You simply stated refuted opinion.

Your evidences of 'capitalism' are pretty weak support by satoshi. Let's actually start going through them.

Frankly your arguments are degrading into word salad, but I will try to reply to them. Yes, lets. I don't have to draw any conclusions. Miners are property. Property is Capital. It is a simple fact, or do you claim to have your own reality now too? This isn't complicated stuff.

Initial distribution. Woo! Proof of work is also consensus my friend... but let's ignore that fact.

Once again, how is consensus reached? The longest chain. Who determines the longest chain? Those who control the most hash power. Who has the most hash power? The ones with the most capital (miners). I am not ignoring anything.

That's capitalist because honest people should stay honest? I don't really see the connection to capitalism.

It is Capitalist because it is a system that rewards mutual cooperation and creation of capital via a protocol of competition and mutual greed. This is how Capitalism works. I have item A, I want Item B, you want Item A, so we make a mutually beneficial EXCHANGE OF CAPITAL. In this case the risk is the investment in miners and electricity cost and the reward is the block rewards and transaction fees. The system expects selfishness and uses it in a productive way.

Attacking the network and making your worth valueless seems silly if you're invested in the network. Pretty standard stuff.

Yes, pretty standard stuff... under the rubric of Capitalism & a mutually beneficial protocol based upon it.

Protections against the network and against a 51% attack, right right. Not really linked to capitalism, but just good nodes vs bad nodes.

Once again, my premise was that Bitcoin uses mutual greed or selfishness to create rewards within the protocol. This is yet another example of why it is more profitable to cooperate than to fight the network, again demonstrating using mutual greed to drive this protocol.

Huh, out of all the links you linked, this statement is about the only thing that backs up your claim;

Actually, they all do. That is why I linked them.

In later years, when new coin generation is a small percentage of the existing supply, market price will dictate the cost of production more than the other way around.

which is still rather ambiguous in terms of capitalism vs socialism.

Yep, everyone knows Socialists are all about letting the market determine prices.

Fun counter-example:

The CPU proof-of-worker proof-of-work vote must have the final say. The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what.

Drawing the same pop-culture reference to worker's vote being final.

Consensus = proof of work = hash rate = miners = money = electricity = CAPITAL

There you go parroting again... really this is a bad look. Try to come up with your own thoughts instead of just repeating my own words back to me. I don't even know what the fuck that last sentence is even supposed to mean.

If a majority of CPU proof-of-worker is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains.

Worker's working together rather than against each other due to malicious competition being outpaced.

Yes, because those potential malicious actors are rewarded for their mutual greed rather than overthrowing the system, they are paid to support the protocol, once again supporting my premise.

[WalletPlus]

The main problem with socialism is the centralization, and I my opinion socialism can work on a decentralized system like (blockchain). Now the question is how?

Ok look at miners, let put in perspective and say they work like the gold miners, but still they are a lot different. Gold miners are mining gold a natural resource, where bitcoin miners are just there for security, that is why they get the rewards for every transaction and new btc. For mining Gold, you need human resources, machinery, transport, storage, on another side for bitcoin you need computers and electricity, no transport, and no storage ( 185 gigabytes for September 2018, this is still nothing).

Gold is used mainly for jewelry! The gold standard was once used by many nations, but it eventually became too cumbersome and is no longer used by any nation. Now gold is used for investment, people on the stock market guessing when the price goes up and down, that is it (same as Bitcoin ). Gold is used in manufacturing but not in huge masses.

Ok, now when people say

MINERS = CAPITAL

It is all the perspective how you look at it, what if a small city around (40.000) people, make they own mining farm, everybody invest and everybody gets the returns from the mining firm through their app, now you look at miners like a perspective of a socialist, the more trades happening, the more rewards are giving out. And you have some basic universal income, now it isn't much (it can be in 10 years) but with bitcoin, let not forget, you can access the global market (trading for other coins, tokens). There are cloud mining options but those are trying to make a profit from you, option above is less risky and when executed right can be better than the cloud mining options. Now everyone gets a cut of the global trade. You killed the need for banks, savings billions of dollars, and let us be honest, banks are doing nothing productive for the society. This is way ICO is great, you can access the global economy with few clicks, if you need a credit to start a business, buy a house, etc. Crowdfunding is the future (and crowdfunding in the core of socialism and a little bit of capitalism). Capitalism is not bad, but capitalism and globalism is a recipe for disaster. You can see it by looking at income inequality, lobbying, climate change, wars.

In the end, it is how you see the world, nothing more or less.

[TECSHARE]

MINERS = CAPITAL

It is all the perspective how you look at it...

No its not, and stop encouraging this maroon. Why is it that Soclialists love nothing better than just redefining Capitalism until it serves their ideas to justify Socialism?

MINERS = CAPITAL

THERE IS NO DEBATE. A miner is property. Property is capital. There is no "other way" of looking at it. It is a fact.

[Spendulus]

MINERS = CAPITAL

It is all the perspective how you look at it... no its not, and stop encouraging this maroon. Why is it that Soclialists love nothing better than just redefining Capitalism until it serves their ideas to justify Socialism?

MINERS = CAPITAL

THERE IS NO DEBATE. A miner is property. Property is capital. There is no "other way" of looking at it. It is a fact.

Clearly you are not with the Newspeak program.

[WalletPlus]

MINERS = CAPITAL

It is all the perspective how you look at it... no its not, and stop encouraging this maroon. Why is it that Soclialists love nothing better than just redefining Capitalism until it serves their ideas to justify Socialism?

MINERS = CAPITAL

THERE IS NO DEBATE. A miner is property. Property is capital. There is no "other way" of looking at it. It is a fact.

Clearly you are not with the Newspeak program.

Hahaha... I am reading the 1984 book right now

[Spendulus]

MINERS = CAPITAL

It is all the perspective how you look at it... no its not, and stop encouraging this maroon. Why is it that Soclialists love nothing better than just redefining Capitalism until it serves their ideas to justify Socialism?

MINERS = CAPITAL

THERE IS NO DEBATE. A miner is property. Property is capital. There is no "other way" of looking at it. It is a fact.

Clearly you are not with the Newspeak program.

Hahaha... I am reading the 1984 book right now

It's not uncommon for wannabe Communist idiots to (A) call themselves socialists (B) say that "people own property." This really means that "people in the aggregate" own property, but if they said that, people would realize the state owned everything. That's not nice, right?

What's nice is to make everything LOOK COOL, then fool people into giving everything away and getting little or nothing back. The system does not work without the lying.

[coins4commies]

MINERS = CAPITAL

It is all the perspective how you look at it... no its not, and stop encouraging this maroon. Why is it that Soclialists love nothing better than just redefining Capitalism until it serves their ideas to justify Socialism?

MINERS = CAPITAL

THERE IS NO DEBATE. A miner is property. Property is capital. There is no "other way" of looking at it. It is a fact.

Clearly you are not with the Newspeak program.

Hahaha... I am reading the 1984 book right now

It's not uncommon for wannabe Communist idiots to (A) call themselves socialists (B) say that "people own property." This really means that "people in the aggregate" own property, but if they said that, people would realize the state owned everything. That's not nice, right?

What's nice is to make everything LOOK COOL, then fool people into giving everything away and getting little or nothing back. The system does not work without the lying.

This would've been clever if statelessness wasn't key characteristic of communism, which soclialism is a stride towards.  Poor logic to suggest a system of state ownership would transition to statelessness.

Or you could just look at the definition of socialism "Workers own the means of production".

Capitalism would be where I am mining through software owned by a capitalist and a huge developer fee goes to them.  I guess nicehash would be a lite example.  Socialism would mean allowing all miners a chance to set the developer fee to zero.

[Spendulus]

It's not uncommon for wannabe Communist idiots to (A) call themselves socialists (B) say that "people own property." This really means that "people in the aggregate" own property, but if they said that, people would realize the state owned everything. That's not nice, right?

What's nice is to make everything LOOK COOL, then fool people into giving everything away and getting little or nothing back. The system does not work without the lying.

This would've been clever if statelessness wasn't key characteristic of communism, which soclialism is a stride towards.  ...

Ah, the utopian ideal!

So you would lecture people about a fantasy. Your fantasy, not of how things were or are but how they would be in that ideal, perfect place.

You are wasting peoples' time.

[coins4commies]

Well that is why I currently advocate for socialism instead of communism.  I'm a realist.  Yes the end goal should be to someday reach a utopian goal, but socialism is the realistic alternative that allows for a slow transition towards communism.  I'm not even saying its possible today.  I think  sometime in the far future when everyone alive has only lived in a completely socialist society for their entire lives would communism even become feasible.  At that point, the state and money would no longer have a purpose.  

This is a difficult concept for people to wrap their heads around so I like to point to a real life example of post-scarcity.  Think about a public transportation system.  Most require, drivers, ticket people, and police to catch fare-theft.  Well, today, there are automated public transit systems that run for free.  In that system, there is no longer a need for money to ride the train, workers to collect that money, or a state to catch people stealing a ride.  There are plenty of trains for everyones needs so there is no scarcity involved.  If you can wrap your head around this, communism is simply a society where everything is like this.

If you believe in technology and innovation, you should believe there is a point in the future where essential work is obsolete, all managed by ai/automation, and that scarcity has been eliminated for basic goods.  Under capitalism, this moment represents certain death for most of humanity.  Under communism, it represents the feasibility of a utopian society where people are free to pursue their passion.

I'm obsessed with microtransactions and smart contracts because they represent a mental leap for people realizing money isn't real or necessary.  We used to have gold that people held dearly, the next logical leap was to cash which represented gold or some sort of value.  Now we have digital money which still can be exchanged for cash, and I think the next step is pure crypto.  Before long, transactions will all be running in the background like the code for the programs on your computer and people will live life without thinking about money.  Crypto represents a huge leap towards a society without money even if we are still 5 or 6 more leaps (very far) away from not having it all.

[WalletPlus]

I'm obsessed with microtransactions and smart contracts because they represent a mental leap for people realizing money isn't real or necessary.  We used to have gold that people held dearly, the next logical leap was to cash which represented gold or some sort of value.  Now we have digital money which still can be exchanged for cash, and I think the next step is pure crypto.  Before long, transactions will all be running in the background like the code for the programs on your computer and people will live life without thinking about money.  Crypto represents a huge leap towards a society without money even if we are still 5 or 6 more leaps (very far) away from not having it all.

I couldn't agree more and I share the same view, people new to wake up.

[Spendulus]

Well that is why I currently advocate for socialism instead of communism.  I'm a realist.  Yes the end goal should be to someday reach a utopian goal, but socialism is the realistic alternative that allows for a slow transition towards communism.  I'm not even saying its possible today. ...

Okay, just to be clear. I do agree that the shared work in building the Bitcoin software is very close to what you refer to as "communist ideal".

The actual outcome may be quite different, but there are similarities.

Now let's go to the "socialist now, communist sometime in the future..."

This is where I think it's exactly right to say something like...

It's not uncommon for wannabe Communist idiots to (A) call themselves socialists (B) say that "people own property." This really means that "people in the aggregate" own property, but if they said that, people would realize the state owned everything. That's not nice, right?

What's nice is to make everything LOOK COOL, then fool people into giving everything away and getting little or nothing back. The system does not work without the lying.

Further, where do things like Bitcoin arise? Not in Russia. Not in Venezuela, or North Korea, or Cuba, or China.

They arise in relatively free societies. What does that tell you?

[coins4commies]

Further, where do things like Bitcoin arise? Not in Russia. Not in Venezuela, or North Korea, or Cuba, or China.

They arise in relatively free societies. What does that tell you?

State socialism isn't socialism.  All of those places have simply replaced capitalists with government officials.  Its not worker ownership.  Socialism is government ownership and capitalists want you to think it means an authoritarian government controlling everything but its not.  No socialist advocates for the systems you would find in the countries listed.  Also, Russia is a capitalist oligarchy so I'm guessing you meant the former USSR instead of Russia.

A society with economic democracy would be much more free than what we have.  Imagine how many cool inventions we would have if we empowered more than 5% of the population with opportunity.

The problem is that you are thinking in one dimension politically and equating everything on the left.  The countries you mentioned are on the left but they are all authoritarian and can never be communist (stateless).

When I say "state socialism" its important to recognize the examples you mentioned are all in the top left (red) quadrant.

Classical marxism and socialism as defined in the dictionary and by any real socialist party today fall into the green quadrant (bottom left) and we believe in small government, local authority with workers having control over their own lives.  A transition towards actual communism cannot happen unless you are moving down on the spectrum.  That means less and less state authority until the state eventually disappears.  The countries you mentioned are literally the opposite of communism in that sense.    

Draw a line from neoconservatism to anarcho communism and that represents the true socilaist transition.

Key Points
1. Just because a party is named "communist" doesn't mean that their governance is consistent with their name.  

2. There are two political dimensions and not everything on the left can be conflated.  Just like fascists and libertarians cannot be conflated, communists and "maoists, leninists or whatever poor example you want to cite" cannot be conflated with us.

[Spendulus]

Further, where do things like Bitcoin arise? Not in Russia. Not in Venezuela, or North Korea, or Cuba, or China.

They arise in relatively free societies. What does that tell you?

State socialism isn't socialism.  All of those places have simply replaced capitalists with government officials.  Its not worker ownership. ....The countries you mentioned are literally the opposite of communism in that sense.    

Draw a line from neoconservatism to anarcho communism and that represents the true socilaist transition.

Key Points
1. Just because a party is named "communist" doesn't mean that their governance is consistent with their name.  

2. There are two political dimensions and not everything on the left can be conflated.  Just like fascists and libertarians cannot be conflated, communists and "maoists, leninists or whatever poor example you want to cite" cannot be conflated with us.

I covered this matter in my initial post as follows ....

Ah, the utopian ideal!

So you would lecture people about a fantasy. Your fantasy, not of how things were or are but how they would be in that ideal, perfect place.

You are wasting peoples' time.