Be careful what you wish for, it might happen

[sbrys]

There are always ways and means to avoid paying taxes, especially if we are talking about cash transactions and P2P deals. We all decide if we want to pay those taxes or not. If you leave digital fingerprints for monetary transactions, you could get caught and questioned. If you don't, the chances are significantly smaller.

many countries have many tax loopholes. the main one is loans.
so allow your forum pseudonym to loan(personal loan) your real life name a 0% interest with a 100 year repayment plan of £0.01 with no penalty for non-payment.

as for

Something that always strikes me is that people underestimate the impact of a decentralized world. Especially more vulnerable people that depend on society for ‘survival’.
....
Basically stronger people will become stronger and people suffering will suffer more.

very much sounds like you want the rich to get rich and he poor to just die off

So a description of a theoretical case becomes an opinion ?

[sbrys]

Something that always strikes me is that people underestimate the impact of a decentralized world. Especially more vulnerable people that depend on society for ‘survival’.

I don’t think decentralization will spread over to any aspect of society, you will still need government services for most things:

• Healthcare.
• Police.
• Jurisdiction.
• Education.
• Military(no military only works, if no other countries has it, but if one country starts building militaries again, the others have to do it too, or they can be conquered easily).
• Social services.
• Basically everything the government is now doing too.

Except if they loose their monopoly over money, it could actually make societies more strong again and where decentralization really brings in huge benefits.

- my connection with an employer will be direct and I will pay no taxes —> I have a choice

It’s the same now in most countries, your employer will probably deduct taxes beforehand and you will only get the taxed amount payed out. Just like now, because otherwise the state would start closing their business. The difference with decentralized money will be: No one can confiscate your already taxed money, or make it worthless over time. This is huge, if people had this in the past, the whole course of history would probably have been different.

- No support for unemployment. Maybe this will stimulate more people to work but will also create some issues

They will tax people, there’s a saying: only two things are certain, taxes and death. Even if the state looses their power temporarily and a vacuum forms, after some time a new state will probably form again. We can’t escape this.

But isn’t that the essence of the issue ? In the theoretical case where Bitcoin would take over there would be an issue as the middleman (government) would be out and therefore not able to deduct taxes.

Services depending on these taxes (list you mention) would be under pressure.

I agree with you we continue to need these services but a decentralized world could create issues in this field

[tadamichi]

Something that always strikes me is that people underestimate the impact of a decentralized world. Especially more vulnerable people that depend on society for ‘survival’.

I don’t think decentralization will spread over to any aspect of society, you will still need government services for most things:

• Healthcare.
• Police.
• Jurisdiction.
• Education.
• Military(no military only works, if no other countries has it, but if one country starts building militaries again, the others have to do it too, or they can be conquered easily).
• Social services.
• Basically everything the government is now doing too.

Except if they loose their monopoly over money, it could actually make societies more strong again and where decentralization really brings in huge benefits.

- my connection with an employer will be direct and I will pay no taxes —> I have a choice

It’s the same now in most countries, your employer will probably deduct taxes beforehand and you will only get the taxed amount payed out. Just like now, because otherwise the state would start closing their business. The difference with decentralized money will be: No one can confiscate your already taxed money, or make it worthless over time. This is huge, if people had this in the past, the whole course of history would probably have been different.

- No support for unemployment. Maybe this will stimulate more people to work but will also create some issues

They will tax people, there’s a saying: only two things are certain, taxes and death. Even if the state looses their power temporarily and a vacuum forms, after some time a new state will probably form again. We can’t escape this.

But isn’t that the essence of the issue ? In the theoretical case where Bitcoin would take over there would be an issue as the middleman (government) would be out and therefore not able to deduct taxes.

Services depending on these taxes (list you mention) would be under pressure.

I agree with you we continue to need these services but a decentralized world could create issues in this field

The government won’t be out, they still have a monopoly on force and laws, but they lost their monopoly over money. Maybe they would even start to shift course and appreciate the properties Bitcoin offers to the people, and use it as a superior tool of finance and maybe even start contributing to it’s security etc. Fiat creates them problems themselves don’t forget that, a mess that they have to try to fix, but they don’t have a fix they can create themselves.

[franky1]

washing aside your "lets those suffering, suffer more' remarks of your tax burden

if there ever was a society without politicians. where all criminal law was voted in via people using blockchain votes that validated a law by them having one vote per person.

where people could  donate towards the road repair of their street by forming a neighbourhood multisig where a neighbourhood volunteers to put funds in if they get peed off with the road disrepair. where by they all club together to pay for fire/police service should they live in an area that has serious need for security.

then in that dream utopia. it can be done by the technology.
but what you then see happen is instead of 'neighbourhood voluntary tax' it soon pools/syndicates into town tax, then county, then state then national tax. where by it tries to make things cheaper per person by adopting a wider population into paying into the pool of funds.. and many decades later.. oh look government again..

yep taxes used to be village/castle level centuries ago. then it evolved. to national level. due to citizens opting for that kind of thing over time

[tadamichi]

then in that dream utopia. it can be done by the technology.
but what you then see happen is instead of 'neighbourhood voluntary tax' it soon pools/syndicates into town tax, then country tax. where by it tries to make things cheaper per person by adopting a wider population into paying into the pool of funds.. and many decades later.. oh look government again..

yep taxes used to be village/castle level centuries ago. then it evolved. to national level. due to citizens opting for that kind of thing over time

Exactly, it will happen again and again.

[sbrys]

The government won’t be out, they still have a monopoly on force and laws, but they lost their monopoly over money. Maybe they would even start to shift course and appreciate the properties Bitcoin offers to the people, and use it as a superior tool of finance and maybe even start contributing to it’s security etc.

Nice one  

But they will also need money for that 😊


But if we are all convinced we will always need a centralized authority collecting taxes and therefore deciding for us (partially) why do we need Bitcoin ?

It would be weird to only need the decentralization for payments

washing aside your "lets those suffering, suffer more' remarks of your tax burden

Last time I will try   I never indicated we should do that and also didn’t say that. I was describing a case and never said let us evil minds do this because Im such a bad person and enjoy people suffering (what you apparently read)

[tadamichi]

The government won’t be out, they still have a monopoly on force and laws, but they lost their monopoly over money. Maybe they would even start to shift course and appreciate the properties Bitcoin offers to the people, and use it as a superior tool of finance and maybe even start contributing to it’s security etc.

Nice one  

But they will also need money for that 😊

So? They own many assets like gold, land, real estate, pension funds, some stocks, some companies etc. And can always give out their own currency with forced value attached to it. And will probably start owning Bitcoin or other assets themselves. Taking down a state isn’t possible that easily.

But if we are all convinced we will always need a centralized authority collecting taxes and therefore deciding for us (partially) why do we need Bitcoin ?

It would be weird to only need the decentralization for payments

Not just for payments, Bitcoin is money. If you don’t ask yourself why do we need better money, then maybe you don’t understand how the current monetary system is putting you at a disadvantage and making you poorer than you would have otherwise been. And is making entire financial systems fragile. That is what Bitcoin is here to fix, the only money that doesn’t require trust to work as the trust based money model always failed and will always fail.

And one addition, in the hypothetical case that so many people are pro Bitcoin that they would try to defund the state, if the state is against it. All it takes for the state is to appreciate Bitcoin and make it legalized to keep their power, it doesn’t even take force. So a scenario where a state would fall is highly unlikely.

[sbrys]

The government won’t be out, they still have a monopoly on force and laws, but they lost their monopoly over money. Maybe they would even start to shift course and appreciate the properties Bitcoin offers to the people, and use it as a superior tool of finance and maybe even start contributing to it’s security etc.

Nice one  

But they will also need money for that 😊

So? They own many assets like gold, land, real estate, pension funds, some stocks, some companies etc. And can always give out their own currency with forced value attached to it. And will probably start owning Bitcoin or other assets themselves. Taking down a state isn’t possible that easily.

But if we are all convinced we will always need a centralized authority collecting taxes and therefore deciding for us (partially) why do we need Bitcoin ?

It would be weird to only need the decentralization for payments

Not just for payments, Bitcoin is money. If you don’t ask yourself why do we need better money, then maybe you don’t understand how the current monetary system is putting you at a disadvantage and making you poorer than you would have otherwise been. And is making entire financial systems fragile. That is what Bitcoin is here to fix, the only money that doesn’t require trust to work as the trust based money model always failed and will always fail.

And one addition, in the hypothetical case that so many people are pro Bitcoin that they would try to defund the state, if the state is against it. All it takes for the state is to appreciate Bitcoin and make it legalized to keep their power, it doesn’t even take force. So a scenario where a state would fall is highly unlikely.

I have a master in Economics but indeed I sometlmes wonder why we need Bitcoin. I literally have zero day to day issues with payments and Im a frequent ebayer/investor all over the world. Fast payment options virtually at no cost. Inflation is an issue of all times and you need to longterm invest to hedge against this.

It could be its different in other areas of the world but for me I dont have any issues. I see the argument a lot so it must be the case in other regions

Do you have any practical examples of current issues for you as a buyer/seller ?

[kryptqnick]

I think that progressive taxation and universal basic income are great ideas. If someone is just getting by, taxes should be low for this person because the money they give to the state can make a difference for them. If people are quite well-off, they should pay more because they already live a comfortable life, and it's not like they don't use public services (they use roads, they probably used public education, medicine or something like that, they rely on the safety and judicial system provided by the state etc.). If  a person is very rich, then giving more to society makes even more sense. This person won't really benefit from this money, but there are those who will. And there are services that will benefit as well. Also, chances are, this person is either wealthy because of some family legacy stuff (which also leads to better opportunities because of people you meet through family that can help you get rich) or because of paving their own way in a certain community (which means that this community had people who recognized their talent, potential or appreciated their product or whatever, and that also justifies giving back). Not to mention the moral commitment to help those in need, those who were less fortunate. And unemployment is usually NOT because of a good social support system; it's when people WANT to work, but the job market doesn't have enough demand for them to work.

[sbrys]

I think that progressive taxation and universal basic income are great ideas. If someone is just getting by, taxes should be low for this person because the money they give to the state can make a difference for them. If people are quite well-off, they should pay more because they already live a comfortable life, and it's not like they don't use public services (they use roads, they probably used public education, medicine or something like that, they rely on the safety and judicial system provided by the state etc.). If  a person is very rich, then giving more to society makes even more sense. This person won't really benefit from this money, but there are those who will. And there are services that will benefit as well. Also, chances are, this person is either wealthy because of some family legacy stuff (which also leads to better opportunities because of people you meet through family that can help you get rich) or because of paving their own way in a certain community (which means that this community had people who recognized their talent, potential or appreciated their product or whatever, and that also justifies giving back). Not to mention the moral commitment to help those in need, those who were less fortunate. And unemployment is usually NOT because of a good social support system; it's when people WANT to work, but the job market doesn't have enough demand for them to work.

You have a point on the taxation per earnings but it should be like a fixed percentage for everybody. If you would overdo it the highest class would look for alternatives.

The unemployment is a bit more difficult. Over here unemployment support is 1500-1600€ while minimum wage is like 1800€. The difference is just not worth it. Lots of people are doing some cash jobs on top to end up much higher. According to me working should be much more rewarded. We have enough jobs they dont get filled. Disclaimer : im not targetting people not able to work…

[tadamichi]

I have a master in Economics but indeed I sometlmes wonder why we need Bitcoin.

Now you’re starting to ask the right questions.

I literally have zero day to day issues with payments and Im a frequent ebayer/investor all over the world. Fast payment options virtually at no cost. Inflation is an issue of all times and you need to longterm invest to hedge against this.

It could be its different in other areas of the world but for me I dont have any issues. I see the argument a lot so it must be the case in other regions

Do you have any practical examples of current issues for you as a buyer/seller ?

We have to look further than just buyer/ seller related issues, this is about monetary system design. Current payment methods are less relevant, as we have two competing currencies in circulation, Fiat(soft money) and Bitcoin(hard money), the payment stuff comes later. If we follow Greshams law, soft money drives out hard money from circulation, as people would rather keep hold onto something more valuable, than to use it daily. In the initial phase Fiat will still be the primary payment method, this doesn’t matter for Bitcoin now.

The first practical issue is Store of Value related. The money supply from last the financial crisis(2008) since now already increased by 182%, sure this isn’t direct inflation, but debasement still has long term impacts. Now you have already correctly analysed that it is necessary to hedge against this with long term investments. But we also gotta ask ourselves is this option open to everyone and can this economical model work forever? If the answer is no, we might consider, if it would make sense to invest something that could be a fix to the current issues. They are:

• Loss of purchasing power.
• Fragility of the banking sector.
• Fraudulent activities by central authorities.
• Failing fiat system that needs more and more authoritarianism to keep alive.
• Risk of censorship and confiscation.
• Lowered trust in financial institutions.

Also hedging against inflation doesn’t solve the problem of inflation in the first place. The whole approach has ever been let’s debase our currency to fix all problems, yet there’s no evidence of any betterment being the result of this approach. It’s the opposite actually.

To make it even more clear, let’s just compare different forms of money with the common criteria:

Most saleable good(easiness of tradebility with a good) - this changes over time.

• 1. Fiat
• 2. Bitcoin
• 3. Gold

Store of value - Scarcity(Supply relative to other goods), Durability(No loss in functionality with repeated use)

• 1. Bitcoin (limited; durable)
• 2. Gold (unlimited, but scarce; durable)
• 3. Fiat (unlimited, increasing rapidly; not durable, as debt-based money creation makes it a weaker form of money over time, with repeated use)

Medium of Exchange -

Acceptability(Used and accepted by others)

• 1. Fiat(most accepted and used)
• 2. Bitcoin(gaining more and more popularity and usage, but less accepted)
• 3. Gold(accepted in special locations, probably only usable by overpaying in daily commerce currently)

Portability(Easily moveable across distances)

• 1.Bitcoin(extremly easy and fast, can move faster than the person itself, least costly solution for high amounts today, most secure option)
• 2. Fiat(Banking system is slow + costly, and even slower + costlier over long distances; No guaranteed security, because there’s always a counterparty risk(No matter if you use Credit Cards, Paypal or wire) or transportation risk/ cost when transporting physical bills; Also makes currency conversion necessary over longer distances)
• 3. Gold(terribly hard, expensive and dangerous to transport)

Unit of Account -

Divisibility(Easily dividable into smaller units)

• 1. Bitcoin(Easy, 8 decimal places)
• 2. Fiat(Good, 2 decimal places)
• 3. Gold(terrible, needs a lot of work)

Fungibility(1 unit is the same as the other)

• 1. Bitcoin(All units are the same, altough some people argue that the history of coins can affect its desirability for others, cant be counterfeited, can easily be verified)
• 2. Fiat(Bills are the same, but higher ones arent accepted everywhere, can be counterfeited, less relevant for digital fiat, but harder to verify overall)
• 3. Gold(theres different coins/ bars with different degrees of desirability, also its not easy to verify real gold for everyone)

The only outlook we got from central banks to repair fiat would be to introduce digital currencies, but we all know this whole construct needs more and more complexity and control to keep functioning.

This is contradicting the basic task of money: enabling a system of indirect trade. Which of these 3 currencies can potentially do it the best, where would free trade flourish the most? And thus benefit society, because we can all agree that the well-being of society is in decline everywhere, it’s just obvious. We’re discussing social reforms, without trying to get to the root of problem. Fiat robbed money it’s beneficial function for most people, otherwise the opposite trend would be true, and we would see financial well-being in societies rise, the technological progress is there. But it’s just not the case.

Bitcoin is a money that is superior in all aspects listed above, except acceptability, but this is already on an upwards trend. We have the first money that works without a middleman. Where you can’t actually change the properties listed above easily. Where transactions can’t be censored, where wealth can’t be confiscated. Which money would benefit society the most, if we put our political biases aside and look at this from a neutral economical perspective.

To me the answer is obvious.

There is no current solution by fiat economists to protect an average individual from inflation, bank failures, confiscation risks, loosing your money with absolute certainty. Bitcoin is a unique solution to whole problem, so people simply choose this, instead of going the more inefficient route to hedge into other assets that don’t have the potential to fix the system.

[franky1]

the problem with society is this

when it comes to helping those in need. the government take the most basic low number they can find as the survival line. and give that as social security payments/unemployment allowance.

then they set another slightly higher number as the minimum wage..
but both of these are way below the 'cost of living' true number

so even having a job at min wage isnt going to cut it. and instead of fighting for an increase of minimum wage some people argue that the social security is too high..


the problem is not the poor. its that min wage is not at living cost!!!. so blame the low min wage. not the social security
..
what could be done because technology allows it...
is an actual measure.
EG they say 5 fruit-veg a day, X amount of protein,fat sugar... actually cost out a real healthy diet, instead of the meanial rice and instant mash with beans budget diet. the actual average electricity bill. not the cheapest ineffective energy supplier.
the actual housing costs not the government supplemented/discounted housing cost.
actually work out a true living cost and make that the minimum wage.
 where by the social security is ofcourse below that. but there is no crying about minimum wage being like unemployment. but instead a fair minimum wage. that people want to work to get(for those that can)

the technology is there to codify all of this and automate it. like taking values from all retailers and auditing them to certify prices and then calculate fair min incomes for different 'laws'(min wage/social security) to be put into code and voted in by citizens. (no politicians required)

where for instance how to get social security funded, it can be less of a "tax regime". but more of a system of voluntary contributions. where some people can 'stake' the coin(already earned savings) and where by a certain amount of PROFIT of the stake  then funds the basic social securities and thats where 'money creation(via staking)' goes towards instead of current system where money creation is debt/loans.
so where the staking system (money creation) funds social security. and people earn savings interest by staking too.

completely separate from their real life employment earnings of coins..


all without a politician decision maker. and without blaming the poor

[lionheart78]

I have been into supporting the government with taxes because it is the bread and butter of the government in funding its social responsibilities.  Having decentralization is a good thing because it gives more options to the people.

Basically stronger people will become stronger and people suffering will suffer more.

This has been an issue ever since.  People with lots of monetary power can purchase more than anyone who has less monetary power, that is the standard in financial system whether it is centralized or decentralized.

Won’t Bitcoin create more disbalance while a lot of people are claiming the opposite.

How could it create more when the disbalance is already existing and the effect of financial power is almost the same.  The good thing with bitcoin is that with its growth brings more income-generating opportunities to people.  And those who used to be unable to transact online due to having no bank account can now have an opportunity to process online transactions because of the availability of cryptocurrency.

I have a master in Economics but indeed I sometlmes wonder why we need Bitcoin.

I can have a simple answer to this.  There are people who are declined by banks in having an account due to some personal validation and source of income reason. So these people can't do online transactions since they don't have any bank accounts to process their transactions.  With Bitcoin, these people are able to do online transactions without the need for banks.  So basically, Bitcoin brings convenience to people.  Bitcoin is able to bridge the gap created by banks between unbanked people and online purchases, and online remittances.

[2stout]

No good deed goes unpunished and all things have unintended consequences both good and bad but at some point you either make the move or you don't.  Therefore it is wise to properly examine things and do due diligence.  Decentralization can be positive and improve some things but unfettered decentralization would be anarchy and disastrous.  

[sbrys]

I have a master in Economics but indeed I sometlmes wonder why we need Bitcoin.

Now you’re starting to ask the right questions.

I literally have zero day to day issues with payments and Im a frequent ebayer/investor all over the world. Fast payment options virtually at no cost. Inflation is an issue of all times and you need to longterm invest to hedge against this.

It could be its different in other areas of the world but for me I dont have any issues. I see the argument a lot so it must be the case in other regions

Do you have any practical examples of current issues for you as a buyer/seller ?

We have to look further than just buyer/ seller related issues, this is about monetary system design. Current payment methods are less relevant, as we have two competing currencies in circulation, Fiat(soft money) and Bitcoin(hard money), the payment stuff comes later. If we follow Greshams law, soft money drives out hard money from circulation, as people would rather keep hold onto something more valuable, than to use it daily. In the initial phase Fiat will still be the primary payment method, this doesn’t matter for Bitcoin now.

The first practical issue is Store of Value related. The money supply from last the financial crisis(2008) since now already increased by 182%, sure this isn’t direct inflation, but debasement still has long term impacts. Now you have already correctly analysed that it is necessary to hedge against this with long term investments. But we also gotta ask ourselves is this option open to everyone and can this economical model work forever? If the answer is no, we might consider, if it would make sense to invest something that could be a fix to the current issues. They are:

• Loss of purchasing power.
• Fragility of the banking sector.
• Fraudulent activities by central authorities.
• Failing fiat system that needs more and more authoritarianism to keep alive.
• Risk of censorship and confiscation.
• Lowered trust in financial institutions.

Also hedging against inflation doesn’t solve the problem of inflation in the first place. The whole approach has ever been let’s debase our currency to fix all problems, yet there’s no evidence of any betterment being the result of this approach. It’s the opposite actually.

To make it even more clear, let’s just compare different forms of money with the common criteria:

Most saleable good(easiness of tradebility with a good) - this changes over time.

• 1. Fiat
• 2. Bitcoin
• 3. Gold

Store of value - Scarcity(Supply relative to other goods), Durability(No loss in functionality with repeated use)

• 1. Bitcoin (limited; durable)
• 2. Gold (unlimited, but scarce; durable)
• 3. Fiat (unlimited, increasing rapidly; not durable, as debt-based money creation makes it a weaker form of money over time, with repeated use)

Medium of Exchange -

Acceptability(Used and accepted by others)

• 1. Fiat(most accepted and used)
• 2. Bitcoin(gaining more and more popularity and usage, but less accepted)
• 3. Gold(accepted in special locations, probably only usable by overpaying in daily commerce currently)

Portability(Easily moveable across distances)

• 1.Bitcoin(extremly easy and fast, can move faster than the person itself, least costly solution for high amounts today, most secure option)
• 2. Fiat(Banking system is slow + costly, and even slower + costlier over long distances; No guaranteed security, because there’s always a counterparty risk(No matter if you use Credit Cards, Paypal or wire) or transportation risk/ cost when transporting physical bills; Also makes currency conversion necessary over longer distances)
• 3. Gold(terribly hard, expensive and dangerous to transport)

Unit of Account -

Divisibility(Easily dividable into smaller units)

• 1. Bitcoin(Easy, 8 decimal places)
• 2. Fiat(Good, 2 decimal places)
• 3. Gold(terrible, needs a lot of work)

Fungibility(1 unit is the same as the other)

• 1. Bitcoin(All units are the same, altough some people argue that the history of coins can affect its desirability for others, cant be counterfeited, can easily be verified)
• 2. Fiat(Bills are the same, but higher ones arent accepted everywhere, can be counterfeited, less relevant for digital fiat, but harder to verify overall)
• 3. Gold(theres different coins/ bars with different degrees of desirability, also its not easy to verify real gold for everyone)

The only outlook we got from central banks to repair fiat would be to introduce digital currencies, but we all know this whole construct needs more and more complexity and control to keep functioning.

This is contradicting the basic task of money: enabling a system of indirect trade. Which of these 3 currencies can potentially do it the best, where would free trade flourish the most? And thus benefit society, because we can all agree that the well-being of society is in decline everywhere, it’s just obvious. We’re discussing social reforms, without trying to get to the root of problem. Fiat robbed money it’s beneficial function for most people, otherwise the opposite trend would be true, and we would see financial well-being in societies rise, the technological progress is there. But it’s just not the case.

Bitcoin is a money that is superior in all aspects listed above, except acceptability, but this is already on an upwards trend. We have the first money that works without a middleman. Where you can’t actually change the properties listed above easily. Where transactions can’t be censored, where wealth can’t be confiscated. Which money would benefit society the most, if we put our political biases aside and look at this from a neutral economical perspective.

To me the answer is obvious.

There is no current solution by fiat economists to protect an average individual from inflation, bank failures, confiscation risks, loosing your money with absolute certainty. Bitcoin is a unique solution to whole problem, so people simply choose this, instead of going the more inefficient route to hedge into other assets that don’t have the potential to fix the system.

It is all true what you are saying but current monetary policy sometimes requires money printing so de facto creating inflation. This to fund some social investments governments are required to do to keep society afloat.

A good example are all stimulus given out during Corona. Probably also a big driver of the Bitcoin bull run.

The point I want to make is you are right Bitcoin is superior but to me its hard to decouple it from full decentralization.

[darkangel11]

Something that always strikes me is that people underestimate the impact of a decentralized world. Especially more vulnerable people that depend on society for ‘survival’.

I don’t think decentralization will spread over to any aspect of society, you will still need government services for most things:

• Healthcare.
• Education.

These two things, in fact, work much better without the government. I agree that law and order can be kept by the state, but many people already choose private education. In fact education that is decentralized is much better for both teachers and students. Students get better teachers because they get to choose. Schools that are good get more students and more money, while worse shools get less money and cannot afford the best teachers. It creates a clear set of rules for everyone which says: you are the best teacher, you get the most money. For students, those who can afford the best teachers will get them, the rest will have to go with schools they can afford.

Nowadays in centralized school system you get mediocre schools with mediocre wages and the best teachers work in the private sector anyway.

It's very similar in healthcare. Public hospitals offer low wages, so they only allow young doctors to get more experience and once they're done they move to the private sector.

[sbrys]

I have been into supporting the government with taxes because it is the bread and butter of the government in funding its social responsibilities.  Having decentralization is a good thing because it gives more options to the people.

Basically stronger people will become stronger and people suffering will suffer more.

This has been an issue ever since.  People with lots of monetary power can purchase more than anyone who has less monetary power, that is the standard in financial system whether it is centralized or decentralized.

Won’t Bitcoin create more disbalance while a lot of people are claiming the opposite.

How could it create more when the disbalance is already existing and the effect of financial power is almost the same.  The good thing with bitcoin is that with its growth brings more income-generating opportunities to people.  And those who used to be unable to transact online due to having no bank account can now have an opportunity to process online transactions because of the availability of cryptocurrency.

I have a master in Economics but indeed I sometlmes wonder why we need Bitcoin.

I can have a simple answer to this.  There are people who are declined by banks in having an account due to some personal validation and source of income reason. So these people can't do online transactions since they don't have any bank accounts to process their transactions.  With Bitcoin, these people are able to do online transactions without the need for banks.  So basically, Bitcoin brings convenience to people.  Bitcoin is able to bridge the gap created by banks between unbanked people and online purchases, and online remittances.

Inequality growth is indeed universal and will never change but I’m just afraid some of the inequalities will grow since blockchain is all about removing the middle man and this middle man (government) is currently protecting the weakest ones. Dont see them grasping opportunities now to be honest. Could be wrong its just a feeling.

Again I dont know anybody that ever had issues with a bank. Over here nobody is refused a bank and most transactions are free of charge. Instant payments in Europe : faster and cheaper compared to Bitcoin. Probably not similar in the whole world but thats my personal experience

[BITCOIN4X]

So, leaving theory aside and thinking realistically, I believe that the decentralization brought by Bitcoin will be very limited.

Yes, and that's why only a very small percentage of people can actually live with bitcoin decentralization. Meanwhile, we are still dealing with centralization and strict government regulations. KYC and tax fee are some of the things that keep us from completely have financial freedom with bitcoin especially for countries that don't legalize it as legal tender. In the end it's true as you said, the decentralization that bitcoin brings will be limited because we can't completely keep it decentralized when it comes to government and its regulations.

[The Cryptovator]

Bitcoin was created for sending money p2p without a third party and faster. Our traditional banking system isn't instant and has to use a third party. Although fiat transactions become faster now but not for all countries. Bitcoin stands here, its borderless currency can transfer within minutes without involving a third party. Just decentralization won't solve everything here. Everything won't be decentralized in a centralized world. There are advantages and disadvantages in both sides.

[lionheart78]

Inequality growth is indeed universal and will never change but I’m just afraid some of the inequalities will grow since blockchain is all about removing the middle man and this middle man (government) is currently protecting the weakest ones. Dont see them grasping opportunities now to be honest. Could be wrong its just a feeling.

It's great you have a great Government there in the UK but the thing is each country has its own leaders.  Often times the supposed to be weak-protecting government chooses to protect those who amassed great wealth.  One of example is the labor contractual system where employees are changed or have to renew every 5-6 months removing several benefits that a permanent employee has. Aside from that, my government is unable to solve the problem of telecom monopolization and electrical overcharge where the electric company charges their users for generation loss.  

Again I dont know anybody that ever had issues with a bank. Over here nobody is refused a bank and most transactions are free of charge. Instant payments in Europe : faster and cheaper compared to Bitcoin. Probably not similar in the whole world but thats my personal experience

It is rampant in a developing country, I am one of those who were declined by the banks due to not having a steady source of income (was a free agent before I found out about Bitcoin).

So, leaving theory aside and thinking realistically, I believe that the decentralization brought by Bitcoin will be very limited.

Not if the transaction is done through P2P.

The government is finding ways to limit Bitcoin decentralization through third-party services but I think Government will not able to limit Bitcoin if we are to talk about its network procedure or on-chain transactions.