Is Bitcoin for “Fake Rich”?

[as.exchange]

I would have loved to continue the discussion on Tesla if you weren't comparing apples with oranges. You gave a list of ICE cars comparing them with Tesla. "Green" is not a trend but a necessity for a sustainable future and for the future generations to not face climate disasters. We are just doing our part.

The time when Bitcoin was revolutionary on an individual basis has long gone. Now is the time for slow and steady adoption and establishment of products on top of Bitcoin. Unfortunately, most of the work and focus is on financial derivative products on top of Bitcoin. Bitcoin itself has become a trader's darling for those who wish to day-trade crypto. This doesn't really feel anything like the revolution it was supposed to be. Yet, hope is alive that it will still make a difference.

I do know about the difference between ICEs vs EVs cars, but still from consumer side as an end-user, people will compare features, prices and ultimately ROI for their purchase, and Tesla by no mean had superior ROI from consumer perspective.

As for "Green", and Bitcoin, I think that's the issue with both of them. They both started for the good purpose (I hope, as I cannot be speaking for real motivation of those who did ), but both ended up being abused. So now both the "Green" is not that "Green" anymore, and Bitcoin is not what is was supposed to be.

Defending derivatives (since we are in that space ), they actually same with hammer - can be used for good, or for bad. Derivatives are commonly lead to greater market efficiency, to greater asset sensitivity to all changes, allow for different types of trades which were not possible before, and ultimately can be leading the underlying asset price formation (as opposed to inefficient markets where asset leads the price of derivatives). But it's another topic, so I think we shouldn't continue on that here

[1714259425]

1714259425

[Sithara007]

May I know please when was the last time you went to buy groceries or new phone with Bitcoin? Or maybe to repay mortgage or student debt with Bitcoin? Or to purchase or do some M&A deals using Bitcoin? Or even see US GAAP or IFRS to issue standards to keep accounting in BTC? Until this and many many other things happen, BTC is hard to be called a measure of "real rich" unless those with fiat or real assets and means of "old" capital.

What a load of BS? So you are saying that if you can't use an asset for purchasing groceries, or to pay student loan, you will not consider it as a real asset? Let me ask you when was the last time you used gold for these purposes. According to your definition, all those who are holding considerable amounts of gold are not "real rich" and their wealth is all fake. I can't agree with that definition.

[as.exchange]

What a load of BS? So you are saying that if you can't use an asset for purchasing groceries, or to pay student loan, you will not consider it as a real asset? Let me ask you when was the last time you used gold for these purposes. According to your definition, all those who are holding considerable amounts of gold are not "real rich" and their wealth is all fake. I can't agree with that definition.

You really think you can't use gold for that? you can definitely try, and then you can come back here to post video as a proof of what happened (if you survive after you show you got real gold )

[AicecreaME]

In my opinion, impulsive buying your wants is different in being a FOMO when it comes to investments. Being a social climber is different from being a crypto guy who wants his life to be change rather than staying poor (not totally poor). Buying an iPhone won't give you any profits after you buy them, even in the long run, hence it will just gonna be depreciated, while buying Bitcoin is the exact opposite of it.

Bitcoin is not for "Fake Rich" display so you could ride in the same boat with the Elites. Bitcoin is for being a legitimate rich man because of profits you could have in the long run.

Generally I do agree with your opinion, but as you noted also - "Bitcoin is for being a legitimate rich man because of profits you could have in the long run", thus it's an "accessible version" of investment which people hope will make them rich, while Bill Gates, Rothschild family, etc. would be buying out land, gold, corporations, diamond mines, real estate, which would make them even richer, while we as regular people can't do same, but are "wanna be" those cool guys, right?

I think you misunderstood what I've said.

People who are not rich like the people you mentioned is not trying to be cool or call themselves rich in an instant, but just took a step closer to make their own fortune like what everyone of us wants. Now, those crazy rich people that are buying stock and real estate properties is just normal, I mean it is their way to be rich, some or them don't like Bitcoin and cryptocurrency that's why they stick to their own plan.

Furthermore, Bitcoin has more potential to give anyone profits in the long run, remember, buying Bitcoin is not just to look cool, but to be something more better than a guy who's not doing anything with his life.

[ven7net]

What can you say? The fact is that the situation in the world has developed in such a way that values ​​have really changed and many who would like to make a profit are now forced to change their vision and do things that previously seemed absurd. But what's next for us? As for finance, I believe that sooner or later the dollar will lose value and because of this, many may suffer. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have given us the opportunity to improve our financial position and BTC may well be a new asset in the market on a par with gold. Here I want to note that BTC in this case represents both blockchain technology and digital assets themselves, which is value. In any case, changes await us and I hope that for the better.

[angrynerd88]

I discover it not so clear in case you're abhorring the btc clients or as it were the fake wealthy individuals since you said that btc will gotten to be futile once the time will come that there will be no web and electricity but didn’t you knew that not all that who utilize btc are bragging that they wealthy . There are destitute clients that are humble and will be humble no matter how much they pick up from the btc they have and there are moreover wealthy individuals that are contributing in btc and on the off chance that these individuals brag will you still discover that hostile.

[oventu]

You depict the current system pretty well, but I personally really don't see it changing. Even Bitcoin was created for good of people, but it ended up where we are now. And as the time goes - it will get only worse. I wish and really hope you to be correct that we do have all the tools and what is needed to change the system and achieve human prosperity, but I don't think it is the case now...

It could be a simple solution for example - arrange a day X around the globe and raise and awaken to fight the old slave-owners, but this is what is likely to happen. Imagine we crate a simple sign-up and watch time website. People will sign-up for sure. There will be people thinking it's fake and will forget about this. There will be people thinking that "oh, my pizza delivery on that day is more important", "oh, I didn't finish my work assignment, so f*ck the Day X", "I have a date with a pretty girl, - definitely more important than some freaks doing some day x". In the end, for sure there will be some people who will try to raise and fight, but they all will get arrested, and some of them will try to cooperate with the police to get some materialistic benefits by turning in their friends whom they know actually went to "fight". And all this will end pretty quickly... It's an poisoned cycle - to change a system, you need resources, to get resources, you need to become part of system, and by the time you become part of it, you enjoy those resources so much that you don't wanna change anything, because you know well that if you do anything - your resources and nice lifestyle and safety will be taken away from you...

All you explained here are true, except the solution itself. No one can change the system by revolution or overnight, neither we shouldn’t wish for it at all. The humankind examined all kind of revolution and reforms in last two centuries and almost all were failed.
Your simple solution is practiced many times and as you predicted truly, it will fail. Because the participators in this movement have to “scarify something” in order to “support some believes”.
The change must be gradual and must have benefit for participants and not punishment (something like early Bitcoin adapters). That’s why I told before: we need a “game theory” in which even evils prefer to chose good option. We must put these mechanisms in practice.
We, the “possess-less” people, must create our alternate “realm” and our alternate “value system”. We do not need to be a part of this system in order to get system resources, because “WE ARE the system”. We can form our system and impact on real world.
Of course in early days no one take us serious, and actually it is a very good chance for us to survive (like Bitcoin in its first 2-3 years), because they do not try to destroy us. Meanwhile we grow and educate our population and fed and bold our “core values”.
The system in which no one can cheat and everyone prefer to act like a good actor – something like Bitcoin hash puzzle solving which everyone prefer to follow rules and find new blocks, instead of wasting energy for cheating old blocks-.

Bitcoin could make these changes in world but it failed because it based on a flawed game theory. The point of power of Bitcoin was/is Proof of Work, and simultaneously the weakest part of Bitcoin – in sense of fairness - is PoW as well, since it couldn't achieve the motto “One CPU, one vote”. Because of its design it ended up in “Who has money, can make more money”. Who has money to buy mining machine and pay for electricity can mine new coins. Who has money can buy many Bitcoins, can manipulate market, create fake waves and endless pump/dump cycles and still riches getting richer and poor getting poorer.

The idea of “decentralization” is a crucial feature of any system wishes to work “fairly”. Bitcoin has a level of decentralization which is not enough to work fairly and just. So we need an alternate “crypto-value” and its proper system (game theory, monetary system, technical architecture, etc). Why I didn’t say we need alternate political regime or alternate ideology or system of thought? Because they are not what we -ordinary people- are facing every day in our day to day life. Instead Bitcoin could be what we face every day. It is about “money” and “personal wealth” -which gives us power to fulfill our needs, whether physical or mental-.
The “money” is our credit in the current society, whereas the real credit must be something else. The solution is to make, the money works in another context. That is, the way of earning money and its indication must be re-defined.
People (including you and me) always seeking for money, because we like the independence and power of having it. This strive for money had no beginning and will have no end and we will continue it forever.
So, what about defining a new kind of money (or better named “credit”), that you need to do some “good act” in order to have eligibility to earn that money?
Some can discuss and argue about “who” and “how” recognize “good act” vs “bad act” and this is another story which has proper answer as well. In short, I can address it, by referring to “justness” and “fairness” in a “real” decentralized system. But for now just imagine we have a perfect (or almost perfect) system that can evaluate your work (what ever work you do daily) and returns a number as usefulness index. The usefulness index represents the fact that how much useful was your job for society, or even better how much useful was your job for whole glob – since we have just one earth and we have to consider the fact that “someones benefit can be someone else lost”-. The system results your 8 hour day job in this new “value system” worth X amount of money, so you earn X coins today. In this system you prefer to follow rule as possible as in order to get higher rate. We have assumed system works enough good and evaluates your job fairly. You can not cheat system in order to earn more money, so you will decide to follow rules and act like a good actor. Not only you but all other investigate the trade-off and decide to act like a good actor.
It is what we were looking for, isn’t? In this system, we will have the rich guys who helped the world more than others. s/he is proud of her/his achievement, s/he is rich and explicitly helped to improve the life of others. It is a win, win, win game. The world is winner. The money supporter community is winner, and the individual person who earned the coins is winner.
One critical question is “Can we have this -almost perfect- evaluating system?”. Since I am a practical philosopher and a technical thinker, my answer is yes. Definitely we have all the technology and tools we need for establishing this realm.

[as.exchange]

I think you misunderstood what I've said.

People who are not rich like the people you mentioned is not trying to be cool or call themselves rich in an instant, but just took a step closer to make their own fortune like what everyone of us wants. Now, those crazy rich people that are buying stock and real estate properties is just normal, I mean it is their way to be rich, some or them don't like Bitcoin and cryptocurrency that's why they stick to their own plan.

Furthermore, Bitcoin has more potential to give anyone profits in the long run, remember, buying Bitcoin is not just to look cool, but to be something more better than a guy who's not doing anything with his life.

So you mean that Bitcoin is an investment asset of just another type of group of people then? Like someone prefers "white", and someone prefers "black"? - If that's the case (please correct me if I am wrong), it can be used as a supportive argument for my statement I guess. The "old rich" can be called "real rich" in the current moment, because measurement of their wealth existed for thousands of years. Bitcoin on the contrary emerged just recently and didn't obtain time-proven track record yet. Therefore, it is partially for "fake rich" as serves for another group of people to transit to the global elites (if they permit). And in the future, yes - maybe the Bitcoiners will be considered as "cool/advanced/real rech" and fiat-ones as outdated dinosaurs. But do we believe that the deeply rooted socio-financial-technological system that has established itself over thousands of years can be that easily overthrown before the Bitcoin dies with the emergence of quantum computing? Besides, there were other points I made in other comments regarding the pros vs. cons of BTC in the established system among the established elites.

Which code you're discussing?. Is it wallet id for sure ? or possibly you're thinking about the satoshi as the code.
When you purchase bitcoin, you gather some number called a satoshi, so it's not the code. It is genuine cash.
At any rate, you're rich as long as you hold your speculation.
Counterfeit rich can be considered for the individuals who put their all cash in bitcoin to begin dreaming of getting wealthy in nights.
Yet, things never happen that way. It relies upon us how we deal with our speculation to get rich.

What is Bitcoin itself then, or the Satoshis - aren't those numbers / digital codes?
And I guess those whom you describe who put all savings in BTC are the worst ones they aren't even that smart as the ones who pretend to be rich to join the "elites club".

What can you say? The fact is that the situation in the world has developed in such a way that values ​​have really changed and many who would like to make a profit are now forced to change their vision and do things that previously seemed absurd. But what's next for us? As for finance, I believe that sooner or later the dollar will lose value and because of this, many may suffer. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have given us the opportunity to improve our financial position and BTC may well be a new asset in the market on a par with gold. Here I want to note that BTC in this case represents both blockchain technology and digital assets themselves, which is value. In any case, changes await us and I hope that for the better.

Great words, but humanity had shown itself pretty well over the past decades and history... people never change, but tend to get worse. Therefore, as we say "hope for the best, prepare for the worst"

I discover it not so clear in case you're abhorring the btc clients or as it were the fake wealthy individuals since you said that btc will gotten to be futile once the time will come that there will be no web and electricity but didn’t you knew that not all that who utilize btc are bragging that they wealthy . There are destitute clients that are humble and will be humble no matter how much they pick up from the btc they have and there are moreover wealthy individuals that are contributing in btc and on the off chance that these individuals brag will you still discover that hostile.

You are correct, however, what is the percentage of those people you describe?.. There are few people around the world who know about Bitcoin. Even less people actually understand it. Even less people understand the technology and philosophy behind. And even less are "in" not for the sake of quick profits. From my experience, I would say you are mentioning exceptions, who do exist, but are very rare overall.

[as.exchange]

All you explained here are true, except the solution itself. No one can change the system by revolution or overnight, neither we shouldn’t wish for it at all. The humankind examined all kind of revolution and reforms in last two centuries and almost all were failed.
Your simple solution is practiced many times and as you predicted truly, it will fail. Because the participators in this movement have to “scarify something” in order to “support some believes”.
The change must be gradual and must have benefit for participants and not punishment (something like early Bitcoin adapters). That’s why I told before: we need a “game theory” in which even evils prefer to chose good option. We must put these mechanisms in practice.
We, the “possess-less” people, must create our alternate “realm” and our alternate “value system”. We do not need to be a part of this system in order to get system resources, because “WE ARE the system”. We can form our system and impact on real world.
Of course in early days no one take us serious, and actually it is a very good chance for us to survive (like Bitcoin in its first 2-3 years), because they do not try to destroy us. Meanwhile we grow and educate our population and fed and bold our “core values”.
The system in which no one can cheat and everyone prefer to act like a good actor – something like Bitcoin hash puzzle solving which everyone prefer to follow rules and find new blocks, instead of wasting energy for cheating old blocks-.

Bitcoin could make these changes in world but it failed because it based on a flawed game theory. The point of power of Bitcoin was/is Proof of Work, and simultaneously the weakest part of Bitcoin – in sense of fairness - is PoW as well, since it couldn't achieve the motto “One CPU, one vote”. Because of its design it ended up in “Who has money, can make more money”. Who has money to buy mining machine and pay for electricity can mine new coins. Who has money can buy many Bitcoins, can manipulate market, create fake waves and endless pump/dump cycles and still riches getting richer and poor getting poorer.

The idea of “decentralization” is a crucial feature of any system wishes to work “fairly”. Bitcoin has a level of decentralization which is not enough to work fairly and just. So we need an alternate “crypto-value” and its proper system (game theory, monetary system, technical architecture, etc). Why I didn’t say we need alternate political regime or alternate ideology or system of thought? Because they are not what we -ordinary people- are facing every day in our day to day life. Instead Bitcoin could be what we face every day. It is about “money” and “personal wealth” -which gives us power to fulfill our needs, whether physical or mental-.
The “money” is our credit in the current society, whereas the real credit must be something else. The solution is to make, the money works in another context. That is, the way of earning money and its indication must be re-defined.
People (including you and me) always seeking for money, because we like the independence and power of having it. This strive for money had no beginning and will have no end and we will continue it forever.
So, what about defining a new kind of money (or better named “credit”), that you need to do some “good act” in order to have eligibility to earn that money?
Some can discuss and argue about “who” and “how” recognize “good act” vs “bad act” and this is another story which has proper answer as well. In short, I can address it, by referring to “justness” and “fairness” in a “real” decentralized system. But for now just imagine we have a perfect (or almost perfect) system that can evaluate your work (what ever work you do daily) and returns a number as usefulness index. The usefulness index represents the fact that how much useful was your job for society, or even better how much useful was your job for whole glob – since we have just one earth and we have to consider the fact that “someones benefit can be someone else lost”-. The system results your 8 hour day job in this new “value system” worth X amount of money, so you earn X coins today. In this system you prefer to follow rule as possible as in order to get higher rate. We have assumed system works enough good and evaluates your job fairly. You can not cheat system in order to earn more money, so you will decide to follow rules and act like a good actor. Not only you but all other investigate the trade-off and decide to act like a good actor.
It is what we were looking for, isn’t? In this system, we will have the rich guys who helped the world more than others. s/he is proud of her/his achievement, s/he is rich and explicitly helped to improve the life of others. It is a win, win, win game. The world is winner. The money supporter community is winner, and the individual person who earned the coins is winner.
One critical question is “Can we have this -almost perfect- evaluating system?”. Since I am a practical philosopher and a technical thinker, my answer is yes. Definitely we have all the technology and tools we need for establishing this realm.

Well the gradual change is not possible I believe. It's like with cancer - you either put all forces to kill it quickly, or you wait and hope for gradual recovery while the cancer kills you slowly (by sucking up you into the system in our case). But under both conditions - with rapid change, people will fail as I described, and moreover, they will maintain old mentality, thus will just reconstruct the old system with new (hopefully at least this will change) elements. If the change is slow - it will suck people into the system, or the ones who can really resist will die over time (because single human's life is not enough to make such changes), or they will be noticed by the system-owners and be arrested or something else.

But yes, you have a great idea that "we need a “game theory” in which even evils prefer to chose good option. We must put these mechanisms in practice.". I would say that is not achievable, but I do believe that anything is achievable in this world. Thus, if you or someone could make that, I guess that person would be forever in the memory of humanity and be the greatest among the greatest among the ones who changed the world (as opposed to bshit spoken in public by billionaires).

Bitcoin could make these changes in world but it failed because it based on a flawed game theory. The point of power of Bitcoin was/is Proof of Work, and simultaneously the weakest part of Bitcoin – in sense of fairness - is PoW as well, since it couldn't achieve the motto “One CPU, one vote”. Because of its design it ended up in “Who has money, can make more money”. Who has money to buy mining machine and pay for electricity can mine new coins. Who has money can buy many Bitcoins, can manipulate market, create fake waves and endless pump/dump cycles and still riches getting richer and poor getting poorer.

Your point about Bitcoin is really great! That's the system that was started for the good purpose and ended up being another speculative asset played around by the "wanna be rich" and occasionally ripped off by the large BTC and/or fiat owners. Isn't that a reason to call it a tool for "fake rich" also, who use it with the hope to uplift their own social status, since we are all clear that its not used as it was designed to be used (at least among the majority)?

And I think the idea of decentralization is good, but, as long as there's a living system - be it human organized system, monetary system or something else - there's going to be decreasing entropy, thus increasing centralization over time. Only as system energy declines (i.e. system dies), entropy and decentralization will increase. This is partially the reason why I wouldn't agree with you that purely new monetary tool would solve the problem. With old brains (thoughts), but new tools, people will end up gaming any system and eventually even one single individual will either find benefit to cheat the system, or entirely out of craziness (as you said there are possible tools to motivate even bad actors to act good by benefiting them) will try to revenge against the new decentralized system and fill find supporters with enough brainwashing power, thus just again - increasing centralization.

And the new system with "credit" for good acts, instead of money, I believe was implemented once or twice in several places in the world (once was in some Russian village, and once elsewhere - I forgot where, but can find and share the link if you want). Though it was not entirely same with what you refer to, that was a test-society without money as we know it. However, based on conspiracy theories (I wasn't there so cannot confirm it's true or not ), but the experiment was forcibly stopped by local authorities, because it was too good and successful that it was threatening state sovereignty and pose a thread to the governors. So if that's the truth behind, I guess that tells a lot that such thing will find it very very hard to be implemented in real life, until we, as humans will abandon our common thinking, beliefs, history, norms, and systems, and by the time we do so - we probably stop to be humans as we used to be / created to be...

[oventu]

Well the gradual change is not possible I believe....

First of all I have to admit I am a pessimist practical person. So if I tell the idea is feasible you should accept it
The fact that you wrote me such a long answer denotes that even you hope for human prosperity. we all know how poisoned the system is and how hard will be changes, but we have to cope with it or just sit and wait for things getting worse until die.
I prefer to “act”.

lets try to solve issues one by one.
You may heard “code is law”. Once we transformed our “good” rules and mechanisms to code and run our servers, the law will govern forever. Our good and fair law will dominant and defeat old mentality, like all “old mentalities” we missed because of technology dominant. This is the place that gradual changes takes place.

The Bitcoin “started for the good purpose and ended up being another speculative asset”. That’s true because it was first experience and Satoshi missed some points about its game theory. It doesn’t mean Bitcoin is must be the last experience. We can create a new better one. In fact we have to create a new one, to appreciate the idea of having center-less monetary system. We have to enrich this idea and enhance it to center-less governing as well. And we have to foreseen challenges. After one decade we are far mature than early Cypherpunks. aren't we?

"As long as there's a living system - be it human organized system, monetary system or something else - there's going to be decreasing entropy, thus increasing centralization over time."
That is true. The better way to say it is, all systems can tolerate a degree of entropy. If the entropy exceeds the tolerated level the system will collapse. Additionally all systems (either an organic system or a human organized system) tend to decrease entropy in order to increase its live.
So we have to follow these strategies.
1. design a system that tolerate maximum level of entropy and decentralization.
2. design more than one system simultaneously.  The systems are working independent and in parallel.
3. make it easy for people to enter and exit different systems with “no cost”.
4. the entire ecosystem (all different systems with different level of entropy and decentralization tolerate) enjoys the power of fragility and hardened by this fragility.
5. the last but not the least, at least one of these systems must start from super centralized structure and moves toward super decentralized system. This particular system is the backbone of the whole ecosystem. Day by day this system is more decentralized while the other systems can move toward more centralization or more decentralization.

"people will end up gaming any system and eventually even one single individual will either find benefit to cheat the system, or entirely out of craziness (as you said there are possible tools to motivate even bad actors to act good by benefiting them) will try to revenge against the new decentralized system and fill find supporters with enough brainwashing power, thus just again - increasing centralization."
Thanks for your insight and predicting these scenarios. So we have to deal with. That’s why we have to design more than one system simultaneously, and that’s why people must be able to enter and leave systems with no cost and that’s why the entire ecosystem is hardened by this “fragility”.
People will be free to enter a system (accept a money) or leave a system (do not validate that money) with less cost. The insight is, the weak game theories or insecure protocols or corrupted societies, or cheating monies must be destroyed as soon as possible. Before their money obtains a fake price, before they scam average people and before they accomplish the fraud, their money and their community will be disgraced. It is “the power of fragility”. Meanwhile the honest communities and coins will grownup and increase their population (believers) and raise up the value of their coins.

The idea of “new system with credit" context isn’t new and as you mentioned, they examined it before in different places and different times. Some of them were too successful and some failed. We already have different kind of “mutual” systems, reciprocate, parecon, time banks as well. We have also many local currencies -whole the glob- that are in action actually.
BTW what they are all missed is they are bind to a limited Geo-location and have narrow market and they are all suffer from high centralized administration, since all are created before internet era. Some of our systems can pick the best part of them and armed them with decentralized protocol. In such a case the adversaries can't stop them.

If we put enough incentives in our systems, people will abandon their common thinking, beliefs, history, norms, and systems and simply adapt to the new paradigm.

[CarnagexD]

Bitcoin is not a status symbol. It is not meant to be something you'll be flaunting to people's faces everytime you got to a date. It is not something you'll be bragging your friends about in a bar. If anything, bitcoin is a means to earn more money for people who are wanting to get out of their tiresome 9-5 shifts and on to something that offers more potential to earn and be financially literate at the same time.

[SamTheRecordMan]

All assets that are in demand are inflated. Think about it. If everyone sold their stocks at the same time the price would crash. If everyone sold their bitcoin at the same time the price would crash. If everyone sold their gold at the same time the price would crash. If everyone sold their houses in a certain area the price would crash in that area.

This is why things like market cap are not an accurate measure of value. Value demands on the health of the larger economy.

This is one of the emotions / social factors well played by iPhone in the early days. While it was not the best option from functions, from what it could do, it was priced higher than the same Android-based models. Apple refused to compete in the same old “mobile phone” space, and made out of it a life-style or new generation, where you can be upper class, while not being from there actually (google the stories people selling kidneys or taking loans to buy the new iPhone). And they succeeded! Now if you don’t have the newest iPhone – you are not cool, and “even more poor than me“, while the real elites would be buying Vertu and those phones, “fake rich” happy showing they are rich, while not being one of them. And happy to overpay for it 

Interesting that you mention the first iPhones. Back in those days it truly was a revolutionary product with more utility than a Blackberry (another popular brand at the time) as evidenced by the fact that no smart phone nowadays has a physical keyboard.

Btw the original white design was meant to mimic the style of kitchen appliances, bathroom fixtures, and laundry machines. It was a way of communicating that the high price was justified because it was like buying something permanent that would last for years. Kind of a genius marketing decision that flew in the face of the cheap disposable electronics popular at the time.

[as.exchange]

First of all I have to admit I am a pessimist practical person. So if I tell the idea is feasible you should accept it
The fact that you wrote me such a long answer denotes that even you hope for human prosperity. we all know how poisoned the system is and how hard will be changes, but we have to cope with it or just sit and wait for things getting worse until die.
I prefer to “act”.

lets try to solve issues one by one.
You may heard “code is law”. Once we transformed our “good” rules and mechanisms to code and run our servers, the law will govern forever. Our good and fair law will dominant and defeat old mentality, like all “old mentalities” we missed because of technology dominant. This is the place that gradual changes takes place.

The Bitcoin “started for the good purpose and ended up being another speculative asset”. That’s true because it was first experience and Satoshi missed some points about its game theory. It doesn’t mean Bitcoin is must be the last experience. We can create a new better one. In fact we have to create a new one, to appreciate the idea of having center-less monetary system. We have to enrich this idea and enhance it to center-less governing as well. And we have to foreseen challenges. After one decade we are far mature than early Cypherpunks. aren't we?

"As long as there's a living system - be it human organized system, monetary system or something else - there's going to be decreasing entropy, thus increasing centralization over time."
That is true. The better way to say it is, all systems can tolerate a degree of entropy. If the entropy exceeds the tolerated level the system will collapse. Additionally all systems (either an organic system or a human organized system) tend to decrease entropy in order to increase its live.
So we have to follow these strategies.
1. design a system that tolerate maximum level of entropy and decentralization.
2. design more than one system simultaneously.  The systems are working independent and in parallel.
3. make it easy for people to enter and exit different systems with “no cost”.
4. the entire ecosystem (all different systems with different level of entropy and decentralization tolerate) enjoys the power of fragility and hardened by this fragility.
5. the last but not the least, at least one of these systems must start from super centralized structure and moves toward super decentralized system. This particular system is the backbone of the whole ecosystem. Day by day this system is more decentralized while the other systems can move toward more centralization or more decentralization.

"people will end up gaming any system and eventually even one single individual will either find benefit to cheat the system, or entirely out of craziness (as you said there are possible tools to motivate even bad actors to act good by benefiting them) will try to revenge against the new decentralized system and fill find supporters with enough brainwashing power, thus just again - increasing centralization."
Thanks for your insight and predicting these scenarios. So we have to deal with. That’s why we have to design more than one system simultaneously, and that’s why people must be able to enter and leave systems with no cost and that’s why the entire ecosystem is hardened by this “fragility”.
People will be free to enter a system (accept a money) or leave a system (do not validate that money) with less cost. The insight is, the weak game theories or insecure protocols or corrupted societies, or cheating monies must be destroyed as soon as possible. Before their money obtains a fake price, before they scam average people and before they accomplish the fraud, their money and their community will be disgraced. It is “the power of fragility”. Meanwhile the honest communities and coins will grownup and increase their population (believers) and raise up the value of their coins.

The idea of “new system with credit" context isn’t new and as you mentioned, they examined it before in different places and different times. Some of them were too successful and some failed. We already have different kind of “mutual” systems, reciprocate, parecon, time banks as well. We have also many local currencies -whole the glob- that are in action actually.
BTW what they are all missed is they are bind to a limited Geo-location and have narrow market and they are all suffer from high centralized administration, since all are created before internet era. Some of our systems can pick the best part of them and armed them with decentralized protocol. In such a case the adversaries can't stop them.

If we put enough incentives in our systems, people will abandon their common thinking, beliefs, history, norms, and systems and simply adapt to the new paradigm.

I do believe that you are pessimistic and practical person, which can be observed from your tone and the level of details you provide to support your arguments, rather than simply "let's make the world a better place" So I really appreciate that. And yes, I do hope for human prosperity as you correctly noted. But I don't know, - unfortunately I don't believe that it is possible until we are all humans. That never happened in history, and I don't see it happening with us, until we are all humans in a common meaning. The things you describe are ally good and would benefit people overall, but "people are people".

Addressing your points one by one: "code is law" - correct, but someone needs to create the code, right? Same was with the laws. They were created by humans for humans to limit the ones who are not creators of the code/law. And as long as it's created by a real person - that person almost certainly will leave some "back door" for himself or for others to reset/cheat/game the code and laws. There can be reasons as to why s/he would do that, but the most simple one (among others) would be that this will give god-like feeling to the creator. On the contrary, if the code/laws are created by machine for humans - humans might accept that idea temporarily, but very soon there will raise those "activists" who will be screaming for their own minorities' rights that they are being discriminated for whatsoever reason by the code (like now people complain they cannot mine BTC with their CPU anymore), and that we as humans should not be ruled by artificially created system. Therefore, if that code (self-improving and intelligent I assume) sees such danger to the system overall, which will emerge due to manipulative human nature, or due to simple personal craziness of someone, will start to take down the ones who threaten the overall system (sounds like China's CCP partially because they do care for the social wellbeing of society and country overall, but ready to sacrifice individuals for the general good - and you know how much they are hated now because the ones who are taken down, are screaming the most loud).

And yes, Bitcoin is certainly not the best creation for now, but definitely was the #1 when it was the number one. It has issues with game theory, and with tech side as well, thus I think we both agree completely on this aspect.

The parallel co-existing systems with increasing/decreasing decentralisation partially remind me of the early societies in human history, and now partially some states. While if we look into the future we might see similar thing with corporatocracy, where the state=corporation. They all experienced similar features at some stage, but the result is where we are now. Trying to create a new system within a system. And if/when the proposed by you system will exist, don't you foresee it repeating the history of early societies, when we were hunter-gatherers? They also were pretty well decentralized, didn't have a central body in a sense to govern them, they also could enter/exit the system nearly at any will, and were rewarded and punished for good & bad actions. But overtime the systems, due to their nature (and maybe we can say due to the definition of "system", irrespective of its decentralization?) started either growing or collapsing due to their efficiencies, and overtime started to limit the entry/exit barriers. And now we all got citizenship, passports, local taxes, etc., etc. From the description (please correct me if I misunderstood you), what is proposed might seam like we just repeat the old history but on a new scale with the use of new technologies.

But as you correctly noted, all those societies and earlier experiments were mostly in pre-internet era, and were very tight to local geography. So with internet I believe yes, it can be overcome, yes - it can be done on a bigger scale, yes - people could join/leave it even more easily (until the gov sees the thread and shuts down the internet?), but in the result, wouldn't it be same as now but on a bigger scale? Like we won't have USA, China, Russia, UK, etc., but would have one global country / community where bad systems failed, the good one remained; where still will be left governors / (code developers in our case?), with the police authorities to monitor and watch and punish bad actors (irrespective if they are humans, robots or just some code), and local sub-systems of the global system, which will also function as the local countries do so now?

And last, but not the least, if the designed system is really that good and powerful and is able to change the world and status quo of the current elites, politicians, etc., they definitely wouldn't want to give up all what they got and start from 0 by earning credits for good actions... and with the resources they already have now, in materialistic world, I think they would have pretty good chance to stop it fairly quickly if they need to. While trying to take them and benefit them too in the new system, would gain create inequality as it is now, but in a different form, as for example if I am multi-billionaire now, you offer me to join a new system, I would reasonably want to preserve my status and my resources and my wealth, which means I again will be significantly superior to the other people?

[as.exchange]

Bitcoin is not a status symbol. It is not meant to be something you'll be flaunting to people's faces everytime you got to a date. It is not something you'll be bragging your friends about in a bar. If anything, bitcoin is a means to earn more money for people who are wanting to get out of their tiresome 9-5 shifts and on to something that offers more potential to earn and be financially literate at the same time.

I would say you are correct, but I think with current hype over BTC not really. Just check the Twitter among others how much people now are bragging showing off how smart they were to buy BTC @$20k or higher.

All assets that are in demand are inflated. Think about it. If everyone sold their stocks at the same time the price would crash. If everyone sold their bitcoin at the same time the price would crash. If everyone sold their gold at the same time the price would crash. If everyone sold their houses in a certain area the price would crash in that area.

This is why things like market cap are not an accurate measure of value. Value demands on the health of the larger economy.

Well true and not I think. What you said makes totally perfect sense, but with stocks - if everyone sold them and price crash to 0, you still own a company. The company can go bankrupt or go private via de-listing. With gold - you still own a metal that you can use for other means. With house - you can live in it or in the worst case make something from it (bar, club, restaurant, hotel, something). But what happens when BTC price goes to zero? Yes some people will want to buy all, but for what purpose if it stays permanently at $0 afterwards?

And yes, the health of economy does define the market on funamentals, but at the same time, the fundamentals are also defined by the market. That's why market is (said to be) including all available information in the world in its pricing. Yes can be manipulated and inflated, but overall that manipulation from philosophical perspective won't take place if manipulator won't believe that s/he cannot benefit from it in the future which does in turn some future growth potential due to illicit reasons.

Interesting that you mention the first iPhones. Back in those days it truly was a revolutionary product with more utility than a Blackberry (another popular brand at the time) as evidenced by the fact that no smart phone nowadays has a physical keyboard.

Btw the original white design was meant to mimic the style of kitchen appliances, bathroom fixtures, and laundry machines. It was a way of communicating that the high price was justified because it was like buying something permanent that would last for years. Kind of a genius marketing decision that flew in the face of the cheap disposable electronics popular at the time.

Also great point which I missed. From such perspective would you agree that first iPhones same with Bitcoin were created for the good reasons, however ended up being misused by the society for other reasons? Just like nuclear power wasn't invented for the purposes of mass destruction. (as for Tesla, sorry but I will not agree that it was a good product in the beginning )

[oventu]

I do believe that you are pessimistic and practical person, which can be observed from your tone and the level of details you provide to support your arguments, rather than simply "let's make the world a better place" So I really appreciate that. And yes, I do hope for human prosperity as you correctly noted. But I don't know, - unfortunately I don't believe that it is possible until we are all humans. That never happened in history, and I don't see it happening with us, until we are all humans in a common meaning. The things you describe are ally good and would benefit people overall, but "people are people".

Addressing your points one by one: "code is law" - correct, but someone needs to create the code, right? Same was with the laws. They were created by humans for humans to limit the ones who are not creators of the code/law. And as long as it's created by a real person - that person almost certainly will leave some "back door" for himself or for others to reset/cheat/game the code and laws. There can be reasons as to why s/he would do that, but the most simple one (among others) would be that this will give god-like feeling to the creator. On the contrary, if the code/laws are created by machine for humans - humans might accept that idea temporarily, but very soon there will raise those "activists" who will be screaming for their own minorities' rights that they are being discriminated for whatsoever reason by the code (like now people complain they cannot mine BTC with their CPU anymore), and that we as humans should not be ruled by artificially created system. Therefore, if that code (self-improving and intelligent I assume) sees such danger to the system overall, which will emerge due to manipulative human nature, or due to simple personal craziness of someone, will start to take down the ones who threaten the overall system (sounds like China's CCP partially because they do care for the social wellbeing of society and country overall, but ready to sacrifice individuals for the general good - and you know how much they are hated now because the ones who are taken down, are screaming the most loud).

And yes, Bitcoin is certainly not the best creation for now, but definitely was the #1 when it was the number one. It has issues with game theory, and with tech side as well, thus I think we both agree completely on this aspect.

The parallel co-existing systems with increasing/decreasing decentralisation partially remind me of the early societies in human history, and now partially some states. While if we look into the future we might see similar thing with corporatocracy, where the state=corporation. They all experienced similar features at some stage, but the result is where we are now. Trying to create a new system within a system. And if/when the proposed by you system will exist, don't you foresee it repeating the history of early societies, when we were hunter-gatherers? They also were pretty well decentralized, didn't have a central body in a sense to govern them, they also could enter/exit the system nearly at any will, and were rewarded and punished for good & bad actions. But overtime the systems, due to their nature (and maybe we can say due to the definition of "system", irrespective of its decentralization?) started either growing or collapsing due to their efficiencies, and overtime started to limit the entry/exit barriers. And now we all got citizenship, passports, local taxes, etc., etc. From the description (please correct me if I misunderstood you), what is proposed might seam like we just repeat the old history but on a new scale with the use of new technologies.

But as you correctly noted, all those societies and earlier experiments were mostly in pre-internet era, and were very tight to local geography. So with internet I believe yes, it can be overcome, yes - it can be done on a bigger scale, yes - people could join/leave it even more easily (until the gov sees the thread and shuts down the internet?), but in the result, wouldn't it be same as now but on a bigger scale? Like we won't have USA, China, Russia, UK, etc., but would have one global country / community where bad systems failed, the good one remained; where still will be left governors / (code developers in our case?), with the police authorities to monitor and watch and punish bad actors (irrespective if they are humans, robots or just some code), and local sub-systems of the global system, which will also function as the local countries do so now?

And last, but not the least, if the designed system is really that good and powerful and is able to change the world and status quo of the current elites, politicians, etc., they definitely wouldn't want to give up all what they got and start from 0 by earning credits for good actions... and with the resources they already have now, in materialistic world, I think they would have pretty good chance to stop it fairly quickly if they need to. While trying to take them and benefit them too in the new system, would gain create inequality as it is now, but in a different form, as for example if I am multi-billionaire now, you offer me to join a new system, I would reasonably want to preserve my status and my resources and my wealth, which means I again will be significantly superior to the other people?

Thanks for your serious questions about the idea, I try to answer all of them, hope to convince you and the others may read these posts and are interested in.

"people are people". That’s the point. People supposed to be people, with all their greed, passion, bias, good wills, morals and taboo, and if a solution supposed to work, has to work with the “people” literally.

someone needs to create the code, right? Same was with the laws. They were created by humans for humans to limit the ones who are not creators of the code/law.
This methodology follows old model of civilization where the elite (or who has power, or religious authority) makes the rules and the normal people had to obey. We have internet and useful tools (mainly cryptography and blockchain and many other handy tools).
What about if we change the social order and make a system in which middle class people makes the rule and put it in practice and follow their own rules. They do not need the elite decide for them. Let alone the fact that nowadays even an average Joe can analyze and decide as good as a president if he has the enough unbiased sources. I mentioned this off-topic average Joe discourses by purpose, and later we probably will come back to him!
Going back to our discussion about the “code  is law” and “who” and “how” decides about that “law”? The answer is the “system population”. The middle class people, the average Joe, the worker and the professors as well are decider about rules.
Lets re-explain the system. We prepare a “template” software. The software which is working and has too many parameters to configure it arbitrarily. Everyone (preferably non technical people) can download the software, tweak it, shape it, re-define some parts or cut the other parts or add new parts to it, and finally run it. Now s/he established a new realm which governs by her/his customized rules. s/he is the first population of this new territory. Obviously s/he starts to inviting others to her/his territory -As we know from our civilization history the more population means more powerful community-. Here are big differences between our new societies and the “early societies in human history”.
In early societies the “cost of disobedience” was too high, indeed it is still too high in our current real world. Meanwhile in our new territory it is almost zero cost.
Our hunter ancestors had to be a part of society to be survived. They had no choice. The alone man would die because of outside dangers or because of not having food to eat, or both. The necessity for being a part of a society was underlying on lowest level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, whereas in our new societies people will join to a society because of their “believes”. Please do not misunderstood the word “believer” for its religious common usage.
I will join to community in which they respect my opinions (whatever they are), and you will do the same. So everybody join to community or society which has much respect for her/his opinion. The people with same mindset forming a society in which there is no discrimination for sex, race, nationality or Geo-location – unless the community rules was being racist rules -.
And what is the outcome of these different systems (aka communities, societies, networks, friends cycles depends on the population number and the rules they set)?
I sent another short essay and explained more details about idea from another perspective. You can find it here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0

overtime the systems, due to their nature…
Absolutely true. That’s why we have to have many different systems (like many different version or distribution of Linux) with slightly difference in rules, monetary, etc. As long as we follow our principles we join some groups or leave the other ones. For example for me the maximum decentralization is important, so I support the community with high level of decentralization and as a member of a community, I strive for more and more decentralization. Each system supports (or tolerates) a level of decentralization due to its rules, and I always select the societies with better rules. Once our human natures be freed from old fears and refreshed by new mindset, we will not the slave of our old fears and stresses, that day we already established the best society on top of this software infrastructure. It takes time and too many systems will be born and be destroyed before that day (like too many civilization we have had before, but too accelerated in sense of time). Finally there will be systems which are good for human prosperity and will survive for ever. We may or may not see that days but we have to move on. What I am pretty sure is “we are making the world a little better place and it worth to fight”.

Until the gov sees the thread and shuts down the internet?
That day will be too late to shoutdown the internet. As I told before no one take us serious, and actually it is good. We will have time to prove our ideologies and governing models and…
IMHO the government is nothing but a group of frightened people. Some of them are corrupted person as well. But the main point is the “fear”. One of our mission -in different societies and by different strategies- is “wipe out the fear”. It is a long story and I’ll explain it in another post. But for now let imagine there is no fear. If governments do not afraid about these networks why they should stop them? Obviously in short term there are “conflict of interest” and our mission is “resist the networks against all kind of adversaries”. It is about technical issues rather than philosophical matter. Every step of development (either the software itself or the societies around the software) has proper threats and solutions too, and As a technical I guarantee we can resist against all potential threats. Until the day no adversary exist “And the world will live as one”.

wouldn't it be same as now but on a bigger scale? Like we won't have USA, China, Russia, UK, etc., but would have one global country / community where bad systems failed, the good one remained; where still will be left governors / (code developers in our case?)
I think I already answered these, at the end of the day there will be “just some rules”. No government and no governors. Only people and their rules. Maybe only one society remains or a few societies, but I predict ALL of them will have same rules slightly different. BTW the rule maker will not same as what we have now. They are literally all. There will no monopoly for “Ruling class”. The “police authorities” most probably will exist just for immediate intervention in emergency cases for defense citizen rights and not for people suppression.

The “ local sub-systems of the global system” and this kind of hierarchical structures will be substituted by a kind of flat distribution of power. It will be like different two dimensional shapes that have something in common or some are totally separated islands. BTW non of these communities has superiority on the others. Of course some of them are more excellence than the other one, and since it has no cost for people to join or leave one community in favor of the other community (unlike current national borders, political regimes, communities or even ideologies), people will immigrate to most excellent community ASAP.

If the designed system is really that good and powerful and is able to change the world and status quo of the current elites, politicians, etc., they definitely wouldn't want to give up all what they got and start from 0 by earning credits for good actions... and with the resources they already have now, in materialistic world, I think they would have pretty good chance to stop it fairly quickly if they need to.  While trying to take them and benefit them too in the new system, would gain create inequality as it is now, but in a different form.
True, so we need a thought-out schedule. They definitely wouldn't want to give up all unless they "have to" or "convinced to". We just need to keep alive the system till the point the adversaries be convince to join or give up (depends on their wisdom). We can maintain the system without compromising our ideals. We do not need billionaires at all. We are establishing communities that have their monies which worth absolutely nothing and represents only the owner will of making world better place. Over time -if the community survive – they can get some materialistic benefits of those coins too. We will run our nodes on cheap laptops. We do not need funds, super servers, advertisements, etc, etc. No, all we need is minded people and their will for making a better world.

Let me know if I missed some parts or some answers are insufficient. Meanwhile I'll prepare more stuff to share.

[as.exchange]

Thanks for your serious questions about the idea, I try to answer all of them, hope to convince you and the others may read these posts and are interested in.

"people are people". That’s the point. People supposed to be people, with all their greed, passion, bias, good wills, morals and taboo, and if a solution supposed to work, has to work with the “people” literally.

someone needs to create the code, right? Same was with the laws. They were created by humans for humans to limit the ones who are not creators of the code/law.
This methodology follows old model of civilization where the elite (or who has power, or religious authority) makes the rules and the normal people had to obey. We have internet and useful tools (mainly cryptography and blockchain and many other handy tools).
What about if we change the social order and make a system in which middle class people makes the rule and put it in practice and follow their own rules. They do not need the elite decide for them. Let alone the fact that nowadays even an average Joe can analyze and decide as good as a president if he has the enough unbiased sources. I mentioned this off-topic average Joe discourses by purpose, and later we probably will come back to him!
Going back to our discussion about the “code  is law” and “who” and “how” decides about that “law”? The answer is the “system population”. The middle class people, the average Joe, the worker and the professors as well are decider about rules.
Lets re-explain the system. We prepare a “template” software. The software which is working and has too many parameters to configure it arbitrarily. Everyone (preferably non technical people) can download the software, tweak it, shape it, re-define some parts or cut the other parts or add new parts to it, and finally run it. Now s/he established a new realm which governs by her/his customized rules. s/he is the first population of this new territory. Obviously s/he starts to inviting others to her/his territory -As we know from our civilization history the more population means more powerful community-. Here are big differences between our new societies and the “early societies in human history”.
In early societies the “cost of disobedience” was too high, indeed it is still too high in our current real world. Meanwhile in our new territory it is almost zero cost.
Our hunter ancestors had to be a part of society to be survived. They had no choice. The alone man would die because of outside dangers or because of not having food to eat, or both. The necessity for being a part of a society was underlying on lowest level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, whereas in our new societies people will join to a society because of their “believes”. Please do not misunderstood the word “believer” for its religious common usage.
I will join to community in which they respect my opinions (whatever they are), and you will do the same. So everybody join to community or society which has much respect for her/his opinion. The people with same mindset forming a society in which there is no discrimination for sex, race, nationality or Geo-location – unless the community rules was being racist rules -.
And what is the outcome of these different systems (aka communities, societies, networks, friends cycles depends on the population number and the rules they set)?
I sent another short essay and explained more details about idea from another perspective. You can find it here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0

overtime the systems, due to their nature…
Absolutely true. That’s why we have to have many different systems (like many different version or distribution of Linux) with slightly difference in rules, monetary, etc. As long as we follow our principles we join some groups or leave the other ones. For example for me the maximum decentralization is important, so I support the community with high level of decentralization and as a member of a community, I strive for more and more decentralization. Each system supports (or tolerates) a level of decentralization due to its rules, and I always select the societies with better rules. Once our human natures be freed from old fears and refreshed by new mindset, we will not the slave of our old fears and stresses, that day we already established the best society on top of this software infrastructure. It takes time and too many systems will be born and be destroyed before that day (like too many civilization we have had before, but too accelerated in sense of time). Finally there will be systems which are good for human prosperity and will survive for ever. We may or may not see that days but we have to move on. What I am pretty sure is “we are making the world a little better place and it worth to fight”.

Until the gov sees the thread and shuts down the internet?
That day will be too late to shoutdown the internet. As I told before no one take us serious, and actually it is good. We will have time to prove our ideologies and governing models and…
IMHO the government is nothing but a group of frightened people. Some of them are corrupted person as well. But the main point is the “fear”. One of our mission -in different societies and by different strategies- is “wipe out the fear”. It is a long story and I’ll explain it in another post. But for now let imagine there is no fear. If governments do not afraid about these networks why they should stop them? Obviously in short term there are “conflict of interest” and our mission is “resist the networks against all kind of adversaries”. It is about technical issues rather than philosophical matter. Every step of development (either the software itself or the societies around the software) has proper threats and solutions too, and As a technical I guarantee we can resist against all potential threats. Until the day no adversary exist “And the world will live as one”.

wouldn't it be same as now but on a bigger scale? Like we won't have USA, China, Russia, UK, etc., but would have one global country / community where bad systems failed, the good one remained; where still will be left governors / (code developers in our case?)
I think I already answered these, at the end of the day there will be “just some rules”. No government and no governors. Only people and their rules. Maybe only one society remains or a few societies, but I predict ALL of them will have same rules slightly different. BTW the rule maker will not same as what we have now. They are literally all. There will no monopoly for “Ruling class”. The “police authorities” most probably will exist just for immediate intervention in emergency cases for defense citizen rights and not for people suppression.

The “ local sub-systems of the global system” and this kind of hierarchical structures will be substituted by a kind of flat distribution of power. It will be like different two dimensional shapes that have something in common or some are totally separated islands. BTW non of these communities has superiority on the others. Of course some of them are more excellence than the other one, and since it has no cost for people to join or leave one community in favor of the other community (unlike current national borders, political regimes, communities or even ideologies), people will immigrate to most excellent community ASAP.

If the designed system is really that good and powerful and is able to change the world and status quo of the current elites, politicians, etc., they definitely wouldn't want to give up all what they got and start from 0 by earning credits for good actions... and with the resources they already have now, in materialistic world, I think they would have pretty good chance to stop it fairly quickly if they need to.  While trying to take them and benefit them too in the new system, would gain create inequality as it is now, but in a different form.
True, so we need a thought-out schedule. They definitely wouldn't want to give up all unless they "have to" or "convinced to". We just need to keep alive the system till the point the adversaries be convince to join or give up (depends on their wisdom). We can maintain the system without compromising our ideals. We do not need billionaires at all. We are establishing communities that have their monies which worth absolutely nothing and represents only the owner will of making world better place. Over time -if the community survive – they can get some materialistic benefits of those coins too. We will run our nodes on cheap laptops. We do not need funds, super servers, advertisements, etc, etc. No, all we need is minded people and their will for making a better world.

Let me know if I missed some parts or some answers are insufficient. Meanwhile I'll prepare more stuff to share.

I believe our long-essay replies might have scared rest of community members

Addressing your points:

As you correctly noted that people will forever be people with their fears, biases, etc. I think we can directly conclude that they will make any system, no matter how perfect it is, biased again, so again we will come to the point where we started.

Giving the right and ability to the "average Joe" to make important decisions might be not the most optimal solution, as myself forexample being non-expert in BioTech, I shouldn't be making any decisions there, but if given chance - I will (who knows?) then depending on "who scream louder" the rest of the crowd will follow the wrong source. Or, alternatively, if the society is smart enough, they will abandon the "average Joe's" proposition, and will naturally concentrate power around the ones with real knowledge and expertise (say in BioTech for example) and those, being humans by nature, will start to abuse the system again via the use of their new power.

I personally think that experts should make decisions on the area they are better than others, but if you let others make those decisions (including laws or codes) - it will be pretty. inefficient. Like if in simple terms - letting average person who knows nothing about tech and only cares about drinking beer in front of TV in the evening, decide about complex systems with consideration of advanced subjects from game theory,  might be not the most optimal decision for the system population overall. That's partially related to off-topic discussion USA vs. China. In the US nearly every opinion was respected, while in China - not at all. And as a consequence, because too many people got their own opinion and scream very loud in the US, we have what we have, while in China government just silence the ones who disturb public order, and now it's on the way to become #1 economy in the world. Isn't that illustrative, that every opinion around the world, should not be respected and tolerated. Of course freedom of speech and self-expression is a basic human right and must be available to anyone, but not in the cases where it represents threat to the public order and social wellbeing.

And based on the proposed software, it's will be same with current KOLs inviting their followers to other communities. Like IG KOL inviting all followers to follow them on YouTube, vs. "average Joe" inviting his FB friends to join his TG channel. The result with the new software will be same - effortless joining/leaving the community, and nearly same powers as they have in the current conditions.

I wrote another longer essay on your thread, and was going to reply there, but since you mentioned will continue here

About having many different systems / sub-systems where everyone can join/rejoin/leave any at any time, how would that be different from the current world? The strongest countries will make obstacles for you to leave them / join new ones (citizenship of USA vs. citizenship of Cyprus for example), while we have all these social networks and apps that are born and die nearly every year, where people make sub-communities and micro-communities based on interests and anyone can join or leave any at no cost? The only difference I see here is creation of token/coin/currency within those sub-communities (which is not that necessary after all), but the rest is pretty same.

And about the gov shutting everything down - it's well possible any moment when needed. In the world there are only few trans-national cables that host the entire WWW, and governments have control over flow and can cut it off if really needed, though it's pretty extreme measure, but we have seen countries doing so in the past few years.

As for the last point about running nodes from cheap computers, that again comes to the same issue with BTC. Yes, you can allow just anyone from anywhere to run a node. But if I have right now $1,000,000, and you have only $100 - I can buy 10,000 cheap PCs, and you can buy only 1, so I will be more powerful again - same as without the new system, but with old fiat / asset way. Yes, you can say that it's possible to limit somehow number of PCs or computing power per user, which might be possible to implement (I don't know how actually, but let's assume it's possible), I can ask all my friends and relatives to let me use their identity or computing power for my own needs (since they might be not so tech savvy they won't care about what they give to me), and then I could pay to other people to get their computing powers & IDs. So again - who got the deepest pockets will control the majority of network.

[oventu]

I believe our long-essay replies might have scared rest of community members

Addressing your points:

As you correctly noted that people will forever be people with their fears, biases, etc. I think we can directly conclude that they will make any system, no matter how perfect it is, biased again, so again we will come to the point where we started.

Giving the right and ability to the "average Joe" to make important decisions might be not the most optimal solution, as myself forexample being non-expert in BioTech, I shouldn't be making any decisions there, but if given chance - I will (who knows?) then depending on "who scream louder" the rest of the crowd will follow the wrong source. Or, alternatively, if the society is smart enough, they will abandon the "average Joe's" proposition, and will naturally concentrate power around the ones with real knowledge and expertise (say in BioTech for example) and those, being humans by nature, will start to abuse the system again via the use of their new power.

I personally think that experts should make decisions on the area they are better than others, but if you let others make those decisions (including laws or codes) - it will be pretty. inefficient. Like if in simple terms - letting average person who knows nothing about tech and only cares about drinking beer in front of TV in the evening, decide about complex systems with consideration of advanced subjects from game theory,  might be not the most optimal decision for the system population overall. That's partially related to off-topic discussion USA vs. China. In the US nearly every opinion was respected, while in China - not at all. And as a consequence, because too many people got their own opinion and scream very loud in the US, we have what we have, while in China government just silence the ones who disturb public order, and now it's on the way to become #1 economy in the world. Isn't that illustrative, that every opinion around the world, should not be respected and tolerated. Of course freedom of speech and self-expression is a basic human right and must be available to anyone, but not in the cases where it represents threat to the public order and social wellbeing.

And based on the proposed software, it's will be same with current KOLs inviting their followers to other communities. Like IG KOL inviting all followers to follow them on YouTube, vs. "average Joe" inviting his FB friends to join his TG channel. The result with the new software will be same - effortless joining/leaving the community, and nearly same powers as they have in the current conditions.

I wrote another longer essay on your thread, and was going to reply there, but since you mentioned will continue here

About having many different systems / sub-systems where everyone can join/rejoin/leave any at any time, how would that be different from the current world? The strongest countries will make obstacles for you to leave them / join new ones (citizenship of USA vs. citizenship of Cyprus for example), while we have all these social networks and apps that are born and die nearly every year, where people make sub-communities and micro-communities based on interests and anyone can join or leave any at no cost? The only difference I see here is creation of token/coin/currency within those sub-communities (which is not that necessary after all), but the rest is pretty same.

And about the gov shutting everything down - it's well possible any moment when needed. In the world there are only few trans-national cables that host the entire WWW, and governments have control over flow and can cut it off if really needed, though it's pretty extreme measure, but we have seen countries doing so in the past few years.

As for the last point about running nodes from cheap computers, that again comes to the same issue with BTC. Yes, you can allow just anyone from anywhere to run a node. But if I have right now $1,000,000, and you have only $100 - I can buy 10,000 cheap PCs, and you can buy only 1, so I will be more powerful again - same as without the new system, but with old fiat / asset way. Yes, you can say that it's possible to limit somehow number of PCs or computing power per user, which might be possible to implement (I don't know how actually, but let's assume it's possible), I can ask all my friends and relatives to let me use their identity or computing power for my own needs (since they might be not so tech savvy they won't care about what they give to me), and then I could pay to other people to get their computing powers & IDs. So again - who got the deepest pockets will control the majority of network.

I believe our long-essay replies might have scared rest of community members
I hope they enjoyed reading the long texts and the serious discussions. Since the rest of internet is full of spam posts, memes and funny cats and… if they like.
I hope more people participate in this thread in order to finally do something serious and accomplish real work, not just complaining the world and endless talks.
As I supposed you are misunderstood the point. I admit it is hard to form the big picture, and needs some days to shape it. So I start from another point of view.

As you correctly noted that people will forever be people with their fears, biases, etc...
As a normal person can you please answer these questions honestly?
A: say you are in a situation that you have to decide to do act X or not do. You -because of your morality or believes- believe the true reaction is doing act X.
A1. will you do act X  if you knew doing act X has no cost for you?
A2. will you do act X  if you knew doing act X (being good person) will cost you a little (may be you lost some dollars).
A3. will you do act X  if you knew doing act X (being good person) will cost highly (say loosing your house).

B: say you are in a situation that you have to decide about the act that person Y already did. You must declare your opinion about that act. was it a good act or bad act. And you already convinced that Y did the bad job.
B1. will you vote Y did bad job if you knew this declaration has no cost for you?
B2. will you vote Y did bad job if you knew this declaration has small cost for you?
B3. will you vote Y did bad job if you knew this declaration has too cost for you?

Your answer most probably in cases A1 and B1 will be yes. Like other 99 percent of human.
Your answer in cases A2 and B2 depends on your “core values”. The another important factor for your decision is the society in which you are make this decision. In other word, you alone have less than 6 percent chance to scarify your benefit in favor of truth. But you looking to the society you are living and considering other people and the morality norms, in most societies the likelihood of the yes answer will be higher than 50 percent.
And always there will be less than .005 percent of society which in cases A3 and b3 will say yes.
I over simplified the situation for the sake of time, but the points are
1. reduce the cost of being good actor.
2. increase the chance of resonate, amplitude and synergy the goodwill of society members.
By these 2 strategies we are using literally our human nature (and do not forget human nature isn’t only bad habits ) to improve our life condition.

Giving the right and ability to the "average Joe" to make important decisions…
I made a mistake about talking about Joe too soon, may I ask you to talk about it later, but just a hint for thinking, do you agree “right now, most of important decisions are not taken by experts or specialists, vice versa they are taken by greedy and corrupted politicians”? And most of time the decisions are contrary to experts. A simple example! Do you believe we have insufficient agriculture resources (globally) and because of that we cannot eliminate under-nutrition? In reality, we have more than enough, but “they” had decided to rule the world in this way. Now, where is the “intelligence” about this bad management done by “elite”, comparing the average Joe decision to “not wasting foods”?  

USA vs. China….
The first economy in the world, the GDP, Economic growth indicators, … all are wrong addressing.
I am not a money hater, I like it, but there is a big fail in our mentality and rationality, particularly in economic. We take the resources (land, oil, cereals, livestock, water,…) and transform it to something else, in order to use it or consume it for another kind of product. In these transformations we increase the value of materials. The grape transforms to wine. Its values from x dollar increases to 4X. We created 3X value that we compensate it by something we call it money. So if you need more money you have to transform more and more grape to wine. So you have to sell your wins in order to get 3X money. You encourage people to drink more and more and over consumption, even they were saturated. Meanwhile you will not sell wine to poor countries for 1X benefit, even if they are dieng because of thirst.  Because you want 3X benefit, because of economic reason! What is the consequence? You are the biggest wine company in the world. You created 2000000000000000X value of growth in one year and you are rich. This 2000000000000000X dollar represents nothing than you ruined  2000000000000000X unit of grape. The resource that we have no replacement for that and we could use it wisely in next 1000 years! Is it rational? At the end what can you do with your 2000000000000000X dollar? You will invest it in another business to do the same catastrophe? Or FED prints another trillion dollars and devaluate your 2000000000000000X dollar to 1000000000000000X dollar! In best case (in sense of humanity and our civilization) you can be Warren Buffett and donate 99 percent of your wealth for common goods and charities. But can you tell me how much cost -directly/indirectly- you (Buffet) imposed on human condition?
There must be some reasonable reason for economic growth. The growth because of the growth itself has no sense. Do you agree? The growth because of competition (caused by fear) is even worse. Isn’t it?


About having many different systems / sub-systems where everyone can join/rejoin/leave any at any time, how would that be different from the current world? The strongest countries will make obstacles for you to leave them / join new ones (citizenship of USA vs. citizenship of Cyprus for example), while we have all these social networks and apps that are born and die nearly every year, where people make sub-communities and micro-communities based on interests and anyone can join or leave any at no cost? The only difference I see here is creation of token/coin/currency within those sub-communities (which is not that necessary after all), but the rest is pretty same.

This is the part that I like to talk about the most. You probably didn’t read the other article in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0
you can find the answer of some of your point there. Here I’ll explain some major difference between my proposed software and the other social networks.
The main difference is “data sovereignty”. The “data” refers ALL your personal information and ALL content you create.  The “data sovereignty” refers to your data and the “treatment rules”. In my proposed social network, user own her/his data, s/he decides to how treat with her/his data. To whom show what, or what to be shown to user. Both are important and nowadays both are controlled by corporate s. They do not care users privacy and ownership of the data. They can ban or disable users account. They decide what feed to your personal page and your eyes and finally your mind. It is the way they control you, gaslight you and govern you. The majority do not feel that and indeed they do not care at all. Here the currency comes to the picture. Now people will care about their community. They hope the value of the money (tokens, shares or credit) of their community, which they have earned grow up over time and make benefit. So they start to constructive interact with community, cultivate their “common world”, learn and educate the principles, help to rise up community reputation and strengthen their money. These societies are not like a Facebook group or an online forum, because they make “their own rules” and not company rules. They set “their premier goals”, and finally they have an index to measure their excellence.
It will not like “IG KOL inviting all followers to follow them on YouTube”. It is inviting people to freedom and “data sovereignty”.
One of those hundreds or thousands communities will be the “imagine” community. One that starts in a super centralized governing and moves toward super decentralized system day by day. I already sat its rules and monetary system. There are complicated mechanisms and I have to explain them in other thread -which I’ll do it soon-. So I can guarantee at least one community will exist that its goals are:
1. developing and maintaining the software itself in a most democratic and flexible possible way. Either development style or software features. (Obviously an open source and free software license).
2. developing and re-developing the community in order to implement maximum level of decentralization (either in rules or principles).
3. establishing an alternate “value system” in which who helps more the globe, gains more and maintain this rule as the “core value” of society.
These plans never happened in history and it is the first time in history that people can benefit because of their altruism action. I am pretty sure the model will work.
Even if we fail, we have built a system (including software and culture) that gifts too many good things, and on which the next people can do the next experiences. Isn't it clear that we have to do it regardless of the outcome?

And about the gov shutting everything down…
At the moment, this does not threaten us. It is an extreme exaggerated scenario that never won’t happened. Are you talking about North Korea or United State that 99 percent of vital activities are highly dependent to Internet?
Although In my design there are complementary solutions for dictatorship countries with high level of censorship and oppression, IP banning, low speed internet, and all other barriers for commercial, high speed services we are using freely in Europe and US.
This is not our today problem, once our community gathered hundreds of hacktivists and “specialists” who really care about human prosperity we will implement new solutions - instead of dummy, ineffective, neutral, useless, hard to use and incomplete, elite like solutions that now we are doing just to “hide the fact that we are actually do nothing”-


As for the last point about running nodes from cheap computers,…
It is quite possible some community emerge based on hash power or another system resources – e.g. ram, memory space, or even printer resolution - so who has more money earn more. But it is not the case. There is possibility to emerge another societies with different “value system” as well.
As an example I can tell you about “imagine” society which I am aware of. In imagine there are three option to earn society “shares” and “coins”.
    A: A Skilled people can directly involve in software development, testing, documenting, design, translation, tutorial staffs, etc.  her/his contribution will be compensate by shares in proportion to the hours (and quality of work) she/he did for system.
    B: An entrepreneur can hire developers/translators,… and pay them fiat money as their salary and propose that accomplished task to community in exchange of the shares of community network.
    C: An investor or a normal person with small capital can buy the coins or shares from other early adapters who did A or B.
BTW in early days (first 3 or 4 years) the coins and shares worth nothing, so no one will pay fiat money for those. It is a big chance for encourage people to do “real job” to make a “real product” that impacts on “real world”. No meaningless trading, No greedy speculation, No abusing the words like Blockchain, decentralization, cryptocurrency, smart contract. Instead educating and experiencing real meaning of decentralization.
Surely people will try to use(misuse) our software to fool others, cheat, fraud, make money, etc, etc. But we have an strong feature. “power of fragility”. Most of them before accomplish first cents will be disgraced.
Again as an example, in “imagine” community who will take the majority of network which helped the software more. And the software is free. So the outcome will be a great software by which people can establish other communities (either for making a new community and running their rules and money or simply because of being frustrated because of abused by social network companies and selling them and their freedom to market).
I described “imagine” community partially, hopefully you establish another greater community with greater rules that works better than “imagine”. That day definitely I’ll join to your community and leave that primitive “imagine” community and I’ll help your community members to achieve more excellence.
It is how the things will happened in our software. Just to speak precisely, the software name is “Comen” stands for Community Maker Engine.

[Stedsm]

@OP, what exactly is your intention behind asking this? Is it that you expect us to tell you whether BTC is for the fake rich or not? Or are you trying hard to prove whether it's already in the possession of such people who are solely wanting nothing but a number which multiplies every single minute, hour, day, week, etc. I know that it's not good to see BTC so high because it feels like we missed the train, or lost an opportunity, and now crying. But it's also true that we had a chance earlier, so crying now makes no sense at all. Same will be the case in future.

[AndySt]

@OP, what exactly is your intention behind asking this? Is it that you expect us to tell you whether BTC is for the fake rich or not? Or are you trying hard to prove whether it's already in the possession of such people who are solely wanting nothing but a number which multiplies every single minute, hour, day, week, etc. I know that it's not good to see BTC so high because it feels like we missed the train, or lost an opportunity, and now crying. But it's also true that we had a chance earlier, so crying now makes no sense at all. Same will be the case in future.

There are always chances and multiple falls and also ups of the exchange rate price of bitcoin for someone a reason to cry, and for someone a chance for wealth. The current rise in the price of bitcoin may lead to a strong correction again, because previous history has already shown us similar examples. About the fake rich. Such characters will always find a way to show their status, but to say that bitcoin is designed for this is stupid. Bitcoin is above that. At the bitcoin is a much more popular target for the application and purpose.

[as.exchange]

@OP, what exactly is your intention behind asking this? Is it that you expect us to tell you whether BTC is for the fake rich or not? Or are you trying hard to prove whether it's already in the possession of such people who are solely wanting nothing but a number which multiplies every single minute, hour, day, week, etc. I know that it's not good to see BTC so high because it feels like we missed the train, or lost an opportunity, and now crying. But it's also true that we had a chance earlier, so crying now makes no sense at all. Same will be the case in future.

The intention was only to see people's opinion, nothing more than that. And I was happy to see and hear from all of you what you think about the analogy which I presented. But speaking of the "missed train" thing, I am sure after 5-10 years we will come here again, and many people will say that they also missed the train on BTC when it costed $30k, because by that time it might cost $100k or more.

There are always chances and multiple falls and also ups of the exchange rate price of bitcoin for someone a reason to cry, and for someone a chance for wealth. The current rise in the price of bitcoin may lead to a strong correction again, because previous history has already shown us similar examples. About the fake rich. Such characters will always find a way to show their status, but to say that bitcoin is designed for this is stupid. Bitcoin is above that. At the bitcoin is a much more popular target for the application and purpose.

Well we have no way to know the true motivation of the creator(s) of BTC. People frequently say/write one thing, but have an opposite or hidden intention which we all will never know. Apart from that, BTC could be or could not be designed for that, now is being misused based on what we commonly believe is true from what we read about Bitcoin - that's something many others agreed about here too.