Could cryptocurrencies eliminate the root cause of war?

[tightcoat490]

Wars are always started by governments who are fighting for leverage.

Citizens are stuck in the middle and end up having to fight for causes they don't care about.
If people can do business with people all over the world without the need for centralized approval, the governments will become the obsolete enemy of progress.

Decentralization is a war against the instigators of war.

Thoughts?

[MufasaR]

cryptocurrencies have nothing to do with peace keeping or things like that, war could arise because of greed or politicians trying to cling on to power!

But in one way or another crypto can help solve issues of transparency with could help people to not speculate on certain issues(mostly financial issues)  which is very much achievable with cryptocurrencies. Only problem is cryptos are not yet fully supported hence this is a fantasy.

[virendarnagpal]

I do not think that crypto currency can solve the problem war.  War or peace lies in the mind of people not in currency. 
I also of opinion that there must be some controlling authorities (governments) to regulate the society.  Otherwise there will be wild rule all over the world.  The powerful will be eating the weaker.

[Direwolve735]

Let's presume that cryptocurrencies can (not eliminate, but) reduce the economic causes of wars. But wars are also unfolding on the basis of political, cultural, and religious conflicts. I hardly believe that financial independence (even if it`s assumed that cryptocurrency can fully guarantee it) will ensure world peace. People always find different reasons for the start of the war, and if these are not economic factors, then there will be some others.

[Becksinsky]

If a war begins in the near future, it is definitely not because of crypto currency.
Now there are many other serious political reasons.
Fortunately, our politicians are not yet very well aware of what is crypto currency.

[UconBit]

This is just naive...

[yogg]

cryptocurrencies have nothing to do with peace keeping or things like that, war could arise because of greed or politicians trying to cling on to power!

On the contrary. Both sides of wars have been funded by the same people, at least for the last ones.
Do you know who was the NSDAP & Hitler's banker ? Prescott Bush. Georges Bush "senior" father, Georges "W" Bush grandfather.  

Research the "Union Bank Corporation". They were closed for breaking the "Trading with the Enemy Act". Yup. Bush.


I think that the less leverage these people have, the better the world will be.
With bitcoin, you can't make money out of thin air in order to fund both sides of conflicts and, ultimately, to serve your interest.

[custard7]

Yes, actually. There is a profound potential in cryptocurrencies: the ability to bind our hands to something that no one can change. Normally, when we talk of diplomacy and war between countries, political philosophy has always faced the same problem: who guards the guardians? As in, who is powerful enough to hold the major powers accountable? In the current system, the U.N. is the most global political body, but it doesn't have binding power against the security council.

But now, imagine every nation's bank account was held in cryptocurrency. Now, further, imagine all countries agreed that if another nation launched a war, their military accounts would automatically be frozen or drained. Sort of like how NATO created an umbrella defense system from "an attack against one is an attack against all." Similarly, an attack anywhere could be "an attack against all," and the punishment could be automatically enforced, even against major world powers.

Obviously, this doesn't eliminate the "root cause of war," nor is it especially plausible in the near future, nor does it show how it would be politically viable to transition to such a world (why would the U.S. or China or Russia relinquish their power?). But -- it at least presents a plausible, albeit simplified, logic behind how cryptocurrency and blockchain could be foundational in political institutions which could mitigate if not altogether eliminate the ability for nation's to wage war.

[Spendulus]

Yes, actually. There is a profound potential in cryptocurrencies...

it at least presents a plausible, albeit simplified, logic behind how cryptocurrency and blockchain could be foundational in political institutions which could mitigate if not altogether eliminate the ability for nation's to wage war.

No you have not presented a plausible logic as to how crypto could be ....

Blockchain is an ALGORITHM. You've presented a WISH. Call it by some other name as desired, but it is very, very different than an algorithm.

Moreover, may I suggest that if someone/some government tells you they have a crypto with such wonderful features, look deeper.

Look at what's really there, and how it can be abused for power.

[custard7]

Blockchain is an ALGORITHM. You've presented a WISH. Call it by some other name as desired, but it is very, very different than an algorithm.

Nothing in my original post posited that existing blockchain implementations are currently capable of the kind of political hand-binding that I was speculating on. Of course what I was talking about is a wish -- the original poster's question was 'could,' not 'can they currently.' The root of my idea is that blockchain, as an algorithm, creates the potential for transparent protocols for transferring value. Wars, coups, insurgencies -- all of these are made possible through creative financing, i.e. the ability to funnel money toward (or away from) violence specialists. Thus, cryptocurrencies -- programmable money -- could be programmed to freeze, siphon, or otherwise act as a barrier to war.

Of course, the last half of your post is true - that we should focus on the potential for abuse. Yes, everything I've said means that nefarious or well-intentioned actors could very well create a new tyrannical world order because the are able to protocolize coercion.

Which actually isn't a critique of my argument - it strikes at a more profound question: is war always bad? is it sometimes justified? As in, 'peace' might simply mean the oppressed continuing to be oppressed. War might be liberation. To me, one thing is clear: cryptocurrencies and blockchain do are algorithms that yes, can be wielded as a shield against oppression or, maybe more likely, as tool toward hyperefficient oppression. 

[judeafante]

I don't think so there are so many things and causes of war, some of these are religious beliefs and territorial disputes which a cryptocurrency is impossible to solve, the best way to stop these causes is to strengthen, our world organization like The United Nations to safeguard every country's right.

[Spendulus]

Blockchain is an ALGORITHM. You've presented a WISH. Call it by some other name as desired, but it is very, very different than an algorithm.

Nothing in my original post posited that existing blockchain implementations are currently capable of the kind of political hand-binding that I was speculating on. Of course what I was talking about is a wish -- the original poster's question was 'could,' not 'can they currently.' The root of my idea is that blockchain, as an algorithm, creates the potential for transparent protocols for transferring value. Wars, coups, insurgencies -- all of these are made possible through creative financing, i.e. the ability to funnel money toward (or away from) violence specialists. Thus, cryptocurrencies -- programmable money -- could be programmed to freeze, siphon, or otherwise act as a barrier to war.

Of course, the last half of your post is true - that we should focus on the potential for abuse. Yes, everything I've said means that nefarious or well-intentioned actors could very well create a new tyrannical world order because the are able to protocolize coercion. ...

You may, if I understand your drift correctly, have a fundamental error. But then I may not understand it, and we may be in agreement.

The issue is NOT can crypto be used as an instrument of control. Control would be when crypto had some rule set, and some Overlords assigned values to transactions using that rule set and modified it as they desired.

Rather the issue is can the free market, exercised through the likes of crypto, effect beneficial modifications of government actions?

In this context we are concerned with actions we tag as "bad."

If people are using both national currencies and crypto currencies, what is the effect on government and private actions? In particular, is there an effect on the likelihood of war?

[custard7]

You may, if I understand your drift correctly, have a fundamental error. But then I may not understand it, and we may be in agreement.

Yes, I think we are actually in agreement - your final line suggests that we are.

If people are using both national currencies and crypto currencies, what is the effect on government and private actions? In particular, is there an effect on the likelihood of war?

I had, for the sake of speculation, assumed away all competing/existing national currencies. But, I am very interested in the tradeoff you are asking about. It seems possible that both national currencies and cryptocurrencies can both be used to finance war and their dual existence might actually make it more possible for tge creative financing that could mobilize military resources.

[Spendulus]

You may, if I understand your drift correctly, have a fundamental error. But then I may not understand it, and we may be in agreement.

Yes, I think we are actually in agreement - your final line suggests that we are.

If people are using both national currencies and crypto currencies, what is the effect on government and private actions? In particular, is there an effect on the likelihood of war?

I had, for the sake of speculation, assumed away all competing/existing national currencies. But, I am very interested in the tradeoff you are asking about. It seems possible that both national currencies and cryptocurrencies can both be used to finance war and their dual existence might actually make it more possible for tge creative financing that could mobilize military resources.

You may want to review an article written by Milton Freedman, and a similar one by Hayek, on the effect of consumers having a choice of currencies. This applies to the case of a consumer having a choice of crypto currencies as well as his national currency.

If the national currency starts to be over inflated, money such as savings will naturally flow to the safe harbor. This seems like it will act as a stop gate on over-abuse of currency by nations.

To put it another way, suppose that both Bitcoin and Currency ABC are available to all citizens of Nation ABC. The nation starts to print money, in order to finance a foreign war. As the money loses value progressively, people see that Bitcoin does not lose value, and in fact gains value. They move assets into Bitcoin. This moderates the extent to which Nation can gain by printing money, which should suppress but not totally eliminate it's ability to do such things.

[cassidyyy]

Nope, because currencies are not the root cause of war.

[Green_Bulb]

If people can do business with people all over the world without the need for centralized approval, the governments will become the obsolete enemy of progress.

This idea sounds really utopic, but I somehow like it - Crypto may be the ideal financial system for anarchic global state - people make deals with people, the blockchain algorithm regulates the system and no one has control over it. This might be a nice premise for some sci-fi novel or a film, I doubt it has a single chance to happen in real life - Capitalism can`t be defeated at the current moment, I doubt if ever.

[alani123]

A global currency would likely eliminate the need of cross country war. War has to have a winner for it to have a financial motivation. There are many factors, but in a world where protectionism and Mercantilism would be reduced, nobody would want to create war with a valuable trade partner. It's actually a long-winded academic discussion of whether or not globalization will bring on more peace.

[custard7]

You may want to review an article written by Milton Freedman, and a similar one by Hayek, on the effect of consumers having a choice of currencies. This applies to the case of a consumer having a choice of crypto currencies as well as his national currency.

Yes, thank you! I will check that out. I just found "Choice in Currency" and "Denationalization of Currency" by Hayek.

I also found "The Rationale of Central Banking and the Free Banking Alternative" by Vera Smith, one of Hayek's students. It seems good - putting even more meat on the proposal.

[Spendulus]

You may want to review an article written by Milton Freedman, and a similar one by Hayek, on the effect of consumers having a choice of currencies. This applies to the case of a consumer having a choice of crypto currencies as well as his national currency.

Yes, thank you! I will check that out. I just found "Choice in Currency" and "Denationalization of Currency" by Hayek.

I also found "The Rationale of Central Banking and the Free Banking Alternative" by Vera Smith, one of Hayek's students. It seems good - putting even more meat on the proposal.

Yes. Although these deal with ... if I recall correctly .... consumer choice in fiat currency, I don't think there is any real difference. The point is a competitive market with consumer choice of currency can eliminate or minimize various ill effects of governmental printing of money.

[Coinifyx]

Despite what they say, if today we don't have a global war is because of nuclear weapons, I don't think bitcoin can do anything at all for this