Using Bitcoin in Space - Bitcoin and the Interplanetary Frontier

[Clark]

The Bitcoin rallying cry of “To the Moon!” anticipates massive price increases and never-ending bull markets. But have we considered what would happen if we sent Bitcoin literally to the Moon? This is the first of a series of articles discussing the future of economics, money, and Bitcoin as humanity pushes outward to the planets and to the stars.

Read the post: https://bitcoin.clarkmoody.com/posts/bitcoin-interplanetary-frontier

[1714035422]

1714035422

[1714035422]

1714035422

[1714035422]

1714035422

[1714035422]

1714035422

[dothebeats]

For what purpose? No one would want to send some form of machine to the moon just for bitcoin and no purpose at all. Besides, the amount of money and time it would take is too high, plus the fact that the technology needed to get an unmanned vessel on to the moon would require a lot of engineering feat. We've already sent a bitcoin satellite to beam the bitcoin blockchain all over the world. At the least, this one has its purpose, but sending a ship towards the moon with no definite reason? Good luck on getting a funding with that.

[Clark]

The article is about people using Bitcoin in space / on the Moon / on Mars.

[Hydrogen]

Good article.

I tend to think an offworld colony would prefer their own altcoin or native barter system. In the event of a solar flare from the sun or communications blackout all financial transactions and economic activity for a colony would grind to a halt. In designing an offworld economic system various redundancies could be built in to address the event of catastrophic communications failure, which could negate the possibility of an earth dependent system being utilized.

An offworld currency system may need to be flexible to adapt to unforeseen or shifting economic & financial conditions which could rule out bitcoin with its rigid algorithmically determined supply.

Anyways sorry if this seems negative or too serious. The main reason I throw things like this out there is in the hope of triggering better discussion. And also because I liked your article & wish I had something worthwhile to contribute. I know I'm not good at this but have to try.  :/

[Ctn]

Come on man, now that looks like too much pulled out topic. I mean I am talking about the article here, and I dont really think that its gonna happen so soon. It will take ages before man can even create a civilisation over the moon or the mars so that we can have interplanetary movement and have the Cypriot currencies used for it. Its just 50-60 years since when the technological advances are booming up but they are insufficient for us to take to the next level, like those of moon and even think about using the crypto currency for it. Its interesting idea but it can just fit into the Marvels Magazine and no where.

[Clark]

I tend to think an offworld colony would prefer their own altcoin or native barter system. In the event of a solar flare from the sun or communications blackout all financial transactions and economic activity for a colony would grind to a halt. In designing an offworld economic system various redundancies could be built in to address the event of catastrophic communications failure, which could negate the possibility of an earth dependent system being utilized.

My next article will attempt to address the pros and cons of each world having its own currency. I hadn't thought of the solar flare disruption angle yet, though my immediate thought is that established Lightning channels would continue to work locally until the comms cleared up. Sabotage or total failure of the comm system is also a possibility, but hopefully the demand for communication will have created multiple redundant channels ahead of this event.

An offworld currency system may need to be flexible to adapt to unforeseen or shifting economic & financial conditions which could rule out bitcoin with its rigid algorithmically determined supply.

I would argue the opposite: meddling with the money supply often causes more problems than the original crisis. As long as it's divisible, any quantity of money is enough for an economy. Long article here if you're curious.

[Parodium]

I don't really see the point of looking so far into the future when it comes to Bitcoin. There is no real reason to believe that Bitcoin will take over as the world currency, nor that it will even maintain its success so far into the future. The need for currency becomes pretty much nil when everybody has machines that can literally rearrange atoms into whatever they want. That is the truth of the distant future, nanoscale micro-assemblers, the end of patents, the end of currency, the end of trade entirely.

[Snaic]

The Bitcoin rallying cry of “To the Moon!” anticipates massive price increases and never-ending bull markets. But have we considered what would happen if we sent Bitcoin literally to the Moon? This is the first of a series of articles discussing the future of economics, money, and Bitcoin as humanity pushes outward to the planets and to the stars.

Read the post: https://bitcoin.clarkmoody.com/posts/bitcoin-interplanetary-frontier

Why do lunatics need our bitcoins? To use Bitcoins, we need the same technology. And in them, technology greatly exceeds our technology. In them, even spaceships in a few tens of kilometers fly around the moon in a couple of minutes. We do not even know what, there is a system of values. In any case, they will not be delighted with our bitcoin.

[Hydrogen]

An offworld currency system may need to be flexible to adapt to unforeseen or shifting economic & financial conditions which could rule out bitcoin with its rigid algorithmically determined supply.

I would argue the opposite: meddling with the money supply often causes more problems than the original crisis. As long as it's divisible, any quantity of money is enough for an economy. Long article here if you're curious.

I agree to a point. It depends upon public consciousness/awareness/education/information. In a society where people are educated enough to know when and why rates should be raised/lowered or the money supply should be increased/tightened there can be advantages to currencies which are flexible. The trouble with the current era is virtually no one knows enough to comprehend the implications of current monetary policy which makes it easy for scales to be tipped in favor of certain demographics. Under these circumstances algorithmic based supply can be far superior. The reason for their better performance is a substitute for the general public having a good working education and knowledge of topics like economics/business/finance.

For a small colony, flexibility could be a key advantage. There may not be the massive divide we find in nations of millions of people which complicate financial or economic policy. Its hard for me to think of a good example for this. Imagine if people on a mars colony are paid on fridays in bitcoin. Let's say that something happened. Their btc paychecks were stored on a crypto exchange that was hacked & all the funds were stolen. This delayed them being paid. Under a flexible system they could simply issue new coins to pay themselves on schedule.

Of course due to electronics needing to be hardened against radiation and EM interference they might not achieve a high enough CPU frequency necessary to do well processing electronic transactions. I seem to remember people making fun of the mars rovers electronics in terms of how inferior it was to phones they carried in their back pocket. Hardening against interference takes a high toll, etc.

Anyways sorry to bother you with pointlessness, this is like one of the few interesting threads I've seen recently so had to spam it.

The need for currency becomes pretty much nil when everybody has machines that can literally rearrange atoms into whatever they want. That is the truth of the distant future, nanoscale micro-assemblers, the end of patents, the end of currency, the end of trade entirely.

A machine like that could theoretically be built. There's nothing that says it wouldn't be the size of the large hadron collider and require terawatts of electricity to produce 0.0005 grams of material, making it too inefficient for use.

I think that is something people believe in to worry less about what happens to civilization when oil or other resources are depleted.

[Clark]

I agree to a point. It depends upon public consciousness/awareness/education/information. In a society where people are educated enough to know when and why rates should be raised/lowered or the money supply should be increased/tightened there can be advantages to currencies which are flexible. The trouble with the current era is virtually no one knows enough to comprehend the implications of current monetary policy which makes it easy for scales to be tipped in favor of certain demographics. Under these circumstances algorithmic based supply can be far superior. The reason for their better performance is a substitute for the general public having a good working education and knowledge of topics like economics/business/finance.

The only advantage to a money you can print on demand is that the printer can enrich politically connected parties with the new money. There is absolutely no problem keeping a money supply fixed, and increases lead to inflation. In the era of mercantilism, as gold flowed from the New World back to Western Europe, they experience long periods of inflation where before there was none. During the classical gold standard in the early-mid 19th Century, the United States experienced a prolonged deflation, with consumer goods prices falling modestly for decades. This is hugely beneficial to standards of living. A central bank would have printed its way out of the deflation, negating the benefits to the middle class.

Interest rates are determined on the market when demand for debt meets the supply of savings to lend. The acts of market participants set those rates. As more people save, interest rates go down. As more people demand to borrow, interest rates go up. Artificial interference in this process distorts the market and in fiat currency systems leads to the boom-and-bust business cycle.

I would love to see a more economically-literate general public But you don't need a PhD to know that when everything in life gets a little more expensive every year, you're losing money if you save, so you should spend. This leads to more consumerism and less savings and investment, which are the only sure way to raise standards of living in the long term.

[Hydrogen]

The only advantage to a money you can print on demand is that the printer can enrich politically connected parties with the new money.

The main reason that occurs is due to a lack of public awareness coupled with lack of safeguards and accountability. I'll contend: with a smaller and better informed population it becomes less feasible & less likely.

Printing money on demand doesn't have to be exclusively reserved for "connected parties" nor any single social class or demographic. With better education and accountability it could be used to fund scientific research, humanitarian causes and other ventures. In theory, this is what states do with their power. While this precedent might not be feasible or likely with large and uninformed populations, the likelihood of it occurring increases with smaller populations in offworld colonies who are better informed / educated.

It could also serve as an example for how inflationary theory should be applied in the real world which might be something currently lacking in our status quo.

There is absolutely no problem keeping a money supply fixed, and increases lead to inflation. In the era of mercantilism, as gold flowed from the New World back to Western Europe, they experience long periods of inflation where before there was none. During the classical gold standard in the early-mid 19th Century, the United States experienced a prolonged deflation, with consumer goods prices falling modestly for decades. This is hugely beneficial to standards of living. A central bank would have printed its way out of the deflation, negating the benefits to the middle class.

I hate to say: macro economics vs micro economics but that is where this is leading me.  

Interest rates are determined on the market when demand for debt meets the supply of savings to lend. The acts of market participants set those rates. As more people save, interest rates go down. As more people demand to borrow, interest rates go up. Artificial interference in this process distorts the market and in fiat currency systems leads to the boom-and-bust business cycle.

I would love to see a more economically-literate general public But you don't need a PhD to know that when everything in life gets a little more expensive every year, you're losing money if you save, so you should spend. This leads to more consumerism and less savings and investment, which are the only sure way to raise standards of living in the long term.

In old black and white movies the APR for a home loan can sometimes be seen @ around 2%. In past eras they don't necessarily increase beyond 2% when more people apply for credit as in past eras the mentality of "usury" and "unfair business practices" may have been more ethically tied to our culture and society. Public awareness also may have been greater with less distractions.

The idea that there are hard constants associated with printing money or interest rates which must imperatively be observed isn't an idea which appeals to me. I think our standards are determined by our overall education and knowledge. Yes, systems can be more easily manipulated and influenced negatively when information and knowledge are near all time lows. Things might substantially change for the better however under conditions where knowledge is more widely distributed.

[davis196]

The Bitcoin rallying cry of “To the Moon!” anticipates massive price increases and never-ending bull markets. But have we considered what would happen if we sent Bitcoin literally to the Moon? This is the first of a series of articles discussing the future of economics, money, and Bitcoin as humanity pushes outward to the planets and to the stars.

Read the post: https://bitcoin.clarkmoody.com/posts/bitcoin-interplanetary-frontier

The Humanity will never leave this palnet,so such articles are just fantasies and science fiction dreams.
It would be safer and cheaper,if we send robots to populate other planets,but the robots won't create markets and trade,so it's pointless to talk about any form of currency.

[Clark]

The main reason that occurs is due to a lack of public awareness coupled with lack of safeguards and accountability. I'll contend: with a smaller and better informed population it becomes less feasible & less likely.

Maybe. But if history is any guide, the power to print money will always be abused to the benefit of those who print. I don't see human nature changing any time soon, so taking the power to print money out of the hands of people is the only logical course of action. That's what this "Bitcoin" thing is all about: verify that your money is legitimate without trusting a third party.

Have you read The Bitcoin Standard yet? It lays out the economic foundation for this whole endeavor, and I highly recommend it.

The Humanity will never leave this palnet,so such articles are just fantasies and science fiction dreams.
It would be safer and cheaper,if we send robots to populate other planets,but the robots won't create markets and trade,so it's pointless to talk about any form of currency.

What's with all the negative trolls in this thread?

[eternalgloom]

I really thought the article was a pretty interesting read. Okay, it might not be something for the near future, but I can definitely appreciate the thinking behind this.

It would actually make a lot of sense to use some form of cryptocurrency on interplanetary settlements. I think your idea of using lightning network for quick transactions, while relaying the transactions to the mainnet afterwards (slow), really makes a lot of sense.

I do really wonder how long it would take us to build a fully functional settlement on the moon for example. I would think that's where we'll start, seems a bit more reachable than immediately going to Mars.

[Clark]

I really thought the article was a pretty interesting read. Okay, it might not be something for the near future, but I can definitely appreciate the thinking behind this.

It would actually make a lot of sense to use some form of cryptocurrency on interplanetary settlements. I think your idea of using lightning network for quick transactions, while relaying the transactions to the mainnet afterwards (slow), really makes a lot of sense.

I do really wonder how long it would take us to build a fully functional settlement on the moon for example. I would think that's where we'll start, seems a bit more reachable than immediately going to Mars.

Thanks!

Getting to any level of self-sufficiency away from the Earth could take a long time, and standards of living may be much worse than settlers are used to.

The quickest way I can think of the Moon becoming permanently habitable is by digging out and pressurizing large underground caverns and piping in sunlight to grow food. We will need to send lots of organic material to mix with the exiting lunar soil.

[aeternus]

Good article.

I tend to think an offworld colony would prefer their own altcoin or native barter system. In the event of a solar flare from the sun or communications blackout all financial transactions and economic activity for a colony would grind to a halt. In designing an offworld economic system various redundancies could be built in to address the event of catastrophic communications failure, which could negate the possibility of an earth dependent system being utilized.

An offworld currency system may need to be flexible to adapt to unforeseen or shifting economic & financial conditions which could rule out bitcoin with its rigid algorithmically determined supply.

Anyways sorry if this seems negative or too serious. The main reason I throw things like this out there is in the hope of triggering better discussion. And also because I liked your article & wish I had something worthwhile to contribute. I know I'm not good at this but have to try.  :/

It is very interesting that you bring the point that a space colony in space will probably prefer to have its own currency, because that is precisely what happened when countries established colonies around the world, they tried to force the local people to use their currency but eventually the local people found a way to establish their own currency and use it instead, I find this very interesting because even when the scenario changes so much things remain the same.

[gambitcoin53]

absurd, why send it to the moon or interplanetary, when it is not yet even accepted and ambraced internationally here in our planet, it is not yet in thd mainstream market, and who would you trade it with in outerspace? aliens, lol. kidding aside, i think we must full utilized crypto across the world before we think of leaping outside earth.

[eternalgloom]

The quickest way I can think of the Moon becoming permanently habitable is by digging out and pressurizing large underground caverns and piping in sunlight to grow food. We will need to send lots of organic material to mix with the exiting lunar soil.

It definitely makes sense to go underground on the moon. Since there is almost no atmosphere, the amount of solar radiation any future inhabitants would get, would just be too much over the long term.
Those caverns would offer some natural protection from the harmful radiation. Same story on Mars, although Mars does have some atmosphere left, it does occasionally receive deadly blasts of radiation after strong solar flares.

Sources:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/08sep_radioactivemoon
https://www.universetoday.com/14979/mars-radiation1/

absurd, why send it to the moon or interplanetary, when it is not yet even accepted and ambraced internationally here in our planet, it is not yet in thd mainstream market, and who would you trade it with in outerspace? aliens, lol. kidding aside, i think we must full utilized crypto across the world before we think of leaping outside earth.

Okay, but that doesn't mean we can't start thinking about possible ways to use crypto in space. It's just a thought experiment...

[zhekinsp]

Actually crypto currencies were better to use in the space if we have internet connection for the places but those days are unimagineable for now,maybe the space craft with people to mars will be going in 2040 as I have read so at that time people will accumulate more to the crypto currencies so they have some sort of money if they wanted to buy something at mars.

[gantez]

Interesting imagination and I don't think there is anything wrong with imagination but my question is are people already living in space, being comfortable like we are here on earth, trading online, physically too and doing all sorts of things and what is the medium of exchange, Dollar, Pounds,  Euro or what?

I mean, what year would this vision of using bitcoin in space come through when we are still battling with its outright use here