Be careful what you wish for, it might happen

[tadamichi]

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.

If they just printed money in emergencies like this, it would be fine and justified. The real problem is that entire nation states are dependent on close to 0 interest rates and would go bankrupt if some normality would come back and higher rates came back. The complete reliance on printed money is dangerous in my opinion and requires central planning, which we know cant work in the long term.

Also its questionable that private institutions like banks have been given to power to basically create money out of nowhere, with fractional reserving and just 1% in minimum reserve requirements. In the beginning this concept might generate more economic growth, but what were seeing now is that the purchasing power of the population is lowering trough constant devaluation of money, and that in times where production is low, inflation creeps in too, the effects are catastrophic, we are going into a living cost crisis.

This system cant be fixed in itself anymore, that is the problem. It always requires more planning and policies, instead of being sustainable in itself.

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

Bitcoin is just decentralized in itself, to ensure its properties will stay like it is and that it cant be controlled by a minority of people, for money this is huge.

I get your concern. I think full decentralization will fail in practice, it was here before centralization and got replaced for a reason. We need police, hospitals, firefighters, courts etc. Who will protect an average persons property? Who will build roads and infrastructure? Who will pick you up in an accident? Who will treat you when youre sick? Who will help you if youre out of a job? There is so many things Bitcoin cant solve, its just money. States formed for a reason, many people might be frustrated currently, but having no social security net is even more damaging. And lawlessness wont ever work or come back on a big scale. There just needs to be some checks on the state again and we need to push bad monetary policy and central planning a little back, only decentralized money can compete against states. The government will just have to compete against it, this is not a replacement question, this dynamic comes in handy more than ever now.

These two things, in fact, work much better without the government.

Maybe my view is different here, because in the country i live you can get the same doctors and universities any rich person can afford, at barely any cost. There is no difference in the quality/ access of the service no matter if youre rich or poor. This might differ from country to country, but my concern is that when theres no real rules here, then poorer people might get priced out of healthcare and education, this is catastrophic for society. Getting a degree or going to a hospital shouldnt mean high debts like in the U.S.

Rich people can always afford better teachers and doctors privately, the state should offer the best quality schools and hospitals they can for everyone, this is the best case scenario for a society in my opinion. Rich people just use private insurances here to get out of public insurances, as it can save them some money, but then when theyre actually sick it becomes expensive and was pointless.

[barbara44]

It did happen already because cryptos are finally there but I think cryptos are not invented for this (to dodge the tax system) but there might be other reasons. Many people especially those who want to avoid tax and as well as those criminals who want to launder money are now being involved in cryptos. Not to be selfish but sometimes it's good to not pay tax than the tax will just go on the wrong hands because in our modern world today, corruption are now very rampant.

There are those who are not corrupt but the other problem is the lazy people that only depend on the government to provide their basic needs. It's a kind of abusive.

[sbrys]

It did happen already because cryptos are finally there but I think cryptos are not invented for this (to dodge the tax system) but there might be other reasons. Many people especially those who want to avoid tax and as well as those criminals who want to launder money are now being involved in cryptos. Not to be selfish but sometimes it's good to not pay tax than the tax will just go on the wrong hands because in our modern world today, corruption are now very rampant.

There are those who are not corrupt but the other problem is the lazy people that only depend on the government to provide their basic needs. It's a kind of abusive.

Indeed I also don’t think it’s intention of Bitcoin to avoid taxes but it is created to remove central authority over the payment system. Removing authority implies a more direct contact between people interacting financially. Therefore an impact (applied by central organs) on tax collection seems logic.

[Cookdata]

Sadly many wouldn't want that to happen because they wouldn't be able to do their usual fouls like favouritism, the corruption they called networking and cheating. I see nothing wrong with being taxed from your income, the only problem I see is how these taxes are allocated, spent, and get stolen by some groups. However, I think decentralization will solve this because you can't manipulate a public ledger that is visible to everyone, you see why decentralization will be massively rejected.

[Hamphser]

Sadly many wouldn't want that to happen because they wouldn't be able to do their usual fouls like favouritism, the corruption they called networking and cheating. I see nothing wrong with being taxed from your income, the only problem I see is how these taxes are allocated, spent, and get stolen by some groups. However, I think decentralization will solve this because you can't manipulate a public ledger that is visible to everyone, you see why decentralization will be massively rejected.

And not surprising that most government doesnt really like its existence on the first place because as you do mention on where they cant really able to execute those things if ever that everything is really that having some transparency where those corruption and misused of funds would really be that known or obvious and also we do know that government doesnt really like on things that they cant able
to control thats why its not really surprising that they would really be going against it on the first place.

There might be some considerations on some places in the world but of course it would really be still following on regulated procedure or arrangement which speaking of total decentralization with a mix
of regulation on some particular areas which do really sucks but not really that bad.

[Rufsilf]

Sadly many wouldn't want that to happen because they wouldn't be able to do their usual fouls like favouritism, the corruption they called networking and cheating. I see nothing wrong with being taxed from your income, the only problem I see is how these taxes are allocated, spent, and get stolen by some groups. However, I think decentralization will solve this because you can't manipulate a public ledger that is visible to everyone, you see why decentralization will be massively rejected.

And not surprising that most government doesnt really like its existence on the first place because as you do mention on where they cant really able to execute those things if ever that everything is really that having some transparency where those corruption and misused of funds would really be that known or obvious and also we do know that government doesnt really like on things that they cant able
to control thats why its not really surprising that they would really be going against it on the first place.

There might be some considerations on some places in the world but of course it would really be still following on regulated procedure or arrangement which speaking of total decentralization with a mix
of regulation on some particular areas which do really sucks but not really that bad.

But despite all the counter-attacks that the government does like banning, we could still see that crypto is growing. I'd see that nobody can stop this. The only thing they can do is to give support and asking holders to pay their taxes can be easy if there is a good relationship between them. The problem with the government is just abruptly implementing rules that are not fair enough and not considerate to the community, they are just selfish to think about their own.

[taufik123]

-snip-
But despite all the counter-attacks that the government does like banning, we could still see that crypto is growing. I'd see that nobody can stop this. The only thing they can do is to give support and asking holders to pay their taxes can be easy if there is a good relationship between them. The problem with the government is just abruptly implementing rules that are not fair enough and not considerate to the community, they are just selfish to think about their own.

The government only thinks about their profit, because they can't fully regulate bitcoin. Bitcoin is decentralized, not centralized and not regulated by anyone. What the government can only do is provide regulations in the form of prohibitions or only allowed as commodity assets and many other regulations, depending on the government.
crypto does continue to grow and nothing will stop it, even in a state of inflation or in a state of war though.

The government is currently applying taxes to crypto users, because the government is aware that crypto users have started to multiply and the transactions in crypto are very large. Some major exchanges even get a lot of action in the form of tax actions that must be paid and if they don't pay they will be blocked.

[gunhell16]

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 get a lot of power to the people vibes while I’m not sure that a lot of people are ready for this.

How I’m experiencing things today (Simplified) :

- I pay more than 50% taxes —> I have no choice
- unemployment is supported by basic income

Basically I’m forced to share some wealth to keep society running

Imagine now a decentralized society :

- my connection with an employer will be direct and I will pay no taxes —> I have a choice
- No support for unemployment. Maybe this will stimulate more people to work but will also create some issues

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

Im sure Im cutting some corners here but the principle stays afloat. Won’t Bitcoin create more disbalance while a lot of people are claiming the opposite.

If we were to have a Decentralized society, I don't think that would be a good intention or system in every country to do this thing just to avoid paying taxes. Because if there is no tax to be levied by the government of each country, it is likely that such a country will fall further into poverty and its economy will also collapse. Then the saying is true that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

It did happen already because cryptos are finally there but I think cryptos are not invented for this (to dodge the tax system) but there might be other reasons. Many people especially those who want to avoid tax and as well as those criminals who want to launder money are now being involved in cryptos. Not to be selfish but sometimes it's good to not pay tax than the tax will just go on the wrong hands because in our modern world today, corruption are now very rampant.

That's correct, cryptocurrency is not design for that matter, isntead it was design to help the community and also the economy
of each government of the country that will adopt the system of the cryptocurrency, besides, not all crypto's also are unregulated,
instead, there are some regulated too that exist in this business industry.

[ethereumhunter]

I think the popularity of Bitcoin has increased due to the decentralized system. There is no problem if Govt accepts tax from here. But when an investor is officially deprived of various benefits despite the fact of paying tax, then the incentive to pay tax is greatly reduced because there are some opportunists who destroy it. It has to be said that the use of Bitcoin has brought about an unprecedented change in the payment system for which it has taken the top position.

But the problem is that many governments don't feel ready for the change from bitcoin so they still have a lot to learn about bitcoin and how they can tax every crypto user. In the future, maybe the government will be even stricter in implementing the tax because the tax from crypto can be very large, considering that many old players have joined in crypto and have a lot of assets. We will see what the government will do in the future and prepare ourselves for it.

[jrrsparkles]

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 get a lot of power to the people vibes while I’m not sure that a lot of people are ready for this.

How I’m experiencing things today (Simplified) :

- I pay more than 50% taxes —> I have no choice
- unemployment is supported by basic income

Basically I’m forced to share some wealth to keep society running

Imagine now a decentralized society :

- my connection with an employer will be direct and I will pay no taxes —> I have a choice
- No support for unemployment. Maybe this will stimulate more people to work but will also create some issues

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

Im sure Im cutting some corners here but the principle stays afloat. Won’t Bitcoin create more disbalance while a lot of people are claiming the opposite.

Why it has to be decentralized society just because we have decentralized system, even the extreme conspiracy is one world one currency but your imagination gone behind that since you are talking about world with no government, or am I missing something?

Only the mode of payment is decentralized with limited money supply so no more minting and no more inflation but the government should implement regulations to support this so they will keep generating the revenue aka taxes as always and keep running the society.

[franky1]

I get a lot of power to the people vibes while I’m not sure that a lot of people are ready for this.

How I’m experiencing things today (Simplified) :
- I pay more than 50% taxes —> I have no choice

Basically I’m forced to share some wealth to keep society running

Imagine now a decentralized society :
- my connection with an employer will be direct and I will pay no taxes —> I have a choice

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

taking away the idiotic views, and just concentrating on the concept.

lets run that scenario through.. again .. but using potholes as the public service instead of his biases of poor people.. just to be more fair to the concept he is probably trying to make

imagining the current system where a neighbourhood pays state taxes via employment income tax and hoping one day the state finally inspects the neighbourhood and see's the roads with potholes and finally does something to repair them via tax..(i know annoying right. you pay money in but feel you never get anything out of it personally)

sbrys, instead is probably envisioning a 'choice' where he and his neighbourhood can collectively or individually seek out a road repair service from YELP, and get a few quotes and decide on the best deal and then he himself funds the pothole infront of his yard/driveway. or collectively with his neighbourhood they all chip in a share of funds into a multisig to pay for numerous pot holes that even he bumps in and out of on his route out of his neighbourhood..

however he needs to think. not all residents will voluntarily want to pay the upkeep of their road. or even care about the pot hole infront of their driveway because they learned to drive around it.. or they cant afford it this year
..or if there is an annoying pothole 5 houses down the road that he bumps into. if he wants it sorted he would pay for more of it then the share of the neighbourhood because others might not have that same equal annoyance of said pothole or funds at hand to pay it..

thus it becomes a tale of spite and arrogance in the neighbourhood where sbrys thinks he is not responsible for the pot hole 5 houses down where it should be the home owner 5 houses down that repairs that hole. (which that home owner doesnt care about as they drive around the hole). and now the neighbours are fighting, each making excuses not to pay for the repair. or arguing about paying for other peoples responsibilities

what then happens is a neighbourhood committee is formed to set rules for the neighbourhood where everyone has to pay in a neighbourhood service charge where it appears as a small% each on a regular bases rather then singular lump sums at surprise times

see where this is going.. simply swap the word 'committee' for 'local government'. and then add in the concepts of how neighbourhoods then club together to get 'group discount/bulk purchase' discount. and let that concept expand..
and within years. guess where you end up.

..
now lets inject some of sbrys poverty bias
in a scenario of neighbourhood/local government committee (playing his views to the extremes(not using his words verbatim))
he would be first to tell the 'committee' to make someone homeless and steal their house and make sbrys profit, simply because they didnt pay their pothole service charge and is a rule break. and they dont deserve any special treatment.
because yea he sees their avoidance of paying the pothole service charge as a sign of weakness and he thinks the poor deserve to not survive in his neighbourhood, and he sees how he should profit(get stronger) out of their suffering by making sbrys profit from confiscating their home to pay for sbrys's costs of the neighbourhood charge.

now its all played out. here is the lightbulb moment
.. see the scenario from the other side..
by sbrys saying he doesnt want to pay taxes.. he is considered the weak neighbour that shouldnt survive

[Mpamaegbu]

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

I wish I had some merit to splash on your post for your effort at expressing your point of view. Though I disagree with you in more ways than one. For instance, this quoted part to start with. Remember that axiom – No condition is permanent? Exactly! You can't of a certainty say that the "stronger" will continue to get stronger while those suffering will perpetually suffer. That's not how life works. There's bound to be a change somehow.

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

Bitcoin is expected to disrupt world economics and redistribute wealth where it ordinarily wouldn't go to. It's succeeding in this, I must say. It's granting financial independence to a whole lot of people. If that's the "disbalance" you're talking about then I think it should do more of that.

[sbrys]

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

I wish I had some merit to splash on your post for your effort at expressing your point of view. Though I disagree with you in more ways than one. For instance, this quoted part to start with. Remember that axiom – No condition is permanent? Exactly! You can't of a certainty say that the "stronger" will continue to get stronger while those suffering will perpetually suffer. That's not how life works. There's bound to be a change somehow.

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

Bitcoin is expected to disrupt world economics and redistribute wealth where it ordinarily wouldn't go to. It's succeeding in this, I must say. It's granting financial independence to a whole lot of people. If that's the "disbalance" you're talking about then I think it should do more of that.

Thanks man appreciated ! Not agreeing is always better for the discussion 😊

I do agree that people can grow and become stronger. It’s not a given you cannot get out of a bad situation. That’s also one of the main tasks for society, support people (temporary) until they are back on their feet. The issue for me with decentralization is that there is a risk individuals remove middlemen in their operations and by that cut in the available social layer. The removal of that support was in fact the increasing disbalance I was describing.

The redistribution of Wealth by Bitcoin I have to disagree Apart from the people that got in really early😊. Rich people are also buying into Bitcoin and will have more units compared to ‘regular’ people. Also they will have more assets to build more Bitcoin using that balance. For me there is no really new dynamic in Bitcoin to change this.

[mindrust]

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’.

You shouldn't worry about it because 100% decentralization will never happen. Decentralized systems need to be perfect. But guess what, human beings ain't perfect. We are far from being perfect. We make mistakes and sometimes mistakes need to be "fixed"

Since it is not going to work with the decentralized systems, it is never going to get super big in the future.

Being perfect simply don't comply with HumanOS.

[hZti]

The redistribution of Wealth by Bitcoin I have to disagree Apart from the people that got in really early😊. Rich people are also buying into Bitcoin and will have more units compared to ‘regular’ people. Also they will have more assets to build more Bitcoin using that balance. For me there is no really new dynamic in Bitcoin to change this.

I think the exact opposite, since bitcoin so far has made many people rich that had nothing but interest in coding and cryptography. You could invest next to nothing at the beginning of bitcoin and would be incredibly rich today. It was not a point of how much you would invest, but that you had the nerdy interest to put some time and effort into the project. This is very different to most assets, since those will usually give a fixed return (like 10%) which will make rich people have a higher return than poor people.

[Mpamaegbu]

~snipped

The issue for me with decentralization is that there is a risk individuals remove middlemen in their operations and by that cut in the available social layer. The removal of that support was in fact the increasing disbalance I was describing.

Well, I don't see any special function middlemen proffer apart from offering services for rewards. They too can find another niche if what they're into snaps them out of it. No one remains in a company if it folds up or dies from the reality of it. They move on and eventually settle in on other engagements. You know, before some establishments started making use of robots for their services many people thought that would be the end of earning from certain jobs. That isn't the case now. Those seemingly affected by robot replacements have moved on to even better things. So, for me decentralization is a gift; not a curse.

Rich people are also buying into Bitcoin and will have more units compared to ‘regular’ people. Also they will have more assets to build more Bitcoin using that balance. For me there is no really new dynamic in Bitcoin to change this.

Again, just a few rich men actually. Most are still skeptical about Bitcoin, at least in public. Now, look at it this way – Anyone who isn't prudent in the little they've won't be in the much they will have. Early adopters got Bitcoin for almost nothing. So, if they sell off and the rich buy them at a higher price; it's expected that the early adopters should have enough to diversify their portfolios and get into other businesses or buy back their Bitcoin if they truly know how to trade and earn. That's also a way of creating more wealth for themselves, don't you think so?

[sbrys]

The redistribution of Wealth by Bitcoin I have to disagree Apart from the people that got in really early😊. Rich people are also buying into Bitcoin and will have more units compared to ‘regular’ people. Also they will have more assets to build more Bitcoin using that balance. For me there is no really new dynamic in Bitcoin to change this.

I think the exact opposite, since bitcoin so far has made many people rich that had nothing but interest in coding and cryptography. You could invest next to nothing at the beginning of bitcoin and would be incredibly rich today. It was not a point of how much you would invest, but that you had the nerdy interest to put some time and effort into the project. This is very different to most assets, since those will usually give a fixed return (like 10%) which will make rich people have a higher return than poor people.

As I mentioned there are indeed some individuals that became very rich but those or not really moving in the needle in the whole of society.

In my experience all my friends have some crypto, the richer they are the more they invested and they more risk they took.

Overall social positions will remain the same

[sbrys]

I get a lot of power to the people vibes while I’m not sure that a lot of people are ready for this.

How I’m experiencing things today (Simplified) :
- I pay more than 50% taxes —> I have no choice

Basically I’m forced to share some wealth to keep society running

Imagine now a decentralized society :
- my connection with an employer will be direct and I will pay no taxes —> I have a choice

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

taking away the idiotic views, and just concentrating on the concept.

I really wonder if there has even been a moment in your life where this way of talking to people was successful. Let’s start by telling somebody is an idiotic that will work 😄

[sbrys]

~snipped

The issue for me with decentralization is that there is a risk individuals remove middlemen in their operations and by that cut in the available social layer. The removal of that support was in fact the increasing disbalance I was describing.

Well, I don't see any special function middlemen proffer apart from offering services for rewards. They too can find another niche if what they're into snaps them out of it. No one remains in a company if it folds up or dies from the reality of it. They move on and eventually settle in on other engagements. You know, before some establishments started making use of robots for their services many people thought that would be the end of earning from certain jobs. That isn't the case now. Those seemingly affected by robot replacements have moved on to even better things. So, for me decentralization is a gift; not a curse.

Rich people are also buying into Bitcoin and will have more units compared to ‘regular’ people. Also they will have more assets to build more Bitcoin using that balance. For me there is no really new dynamic in Bitcoin to change this.

Again, just a few rich men actually. Most are still skeptical about Bitcoin, at least in public. Now, look at it this way – Anyone who isn't prudent in the little they've won't be in the much they will have. Early adopters got Bitcoin for almost nothing. So, if they sell off and the rich buy them at a higher price; it's expected that the early adopters should have enough to diversify their portfolios and get into other businesses or buy back their Bitcoin if they truly know how to trade and earn. That's also a way of creating more wealth for themselves, don't you think so?

The people that bought Bitcoin very early were already higher in the Pyramid than general since they owned a computer and had some (advanced) IT knowledge. From there on the distribution was probably more an average of society.

Also imagine there will still be a big boom ahead. New entrants will probably invest like 0,1btc while rich people will start with a full one. Same risk profile but bigger pockets

[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 get a lot of power to the people vibes while I’m not sure that a lot of people are ready for this.

How I’m experiencing things today (Simplified) :

- I pay more than 50% taxes —> I have no choice
- unemployment is supported by basic income

Basically I’m forced to share some wealth to keep society running

Imagine now a decentralized society :

- my connection with an employer will be direct and I will pay no taxes —> I have a choice
- No support for unemployment. Maybe this will stimulate more people to work but will also create some issues

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

Im sure Im cutting some corners here but the principle stays afloat. Won’t Bitcoin create more disbalance while a lot of people are claiming the opposite.

Why it has to be decentralized society just because we have decentralized system, even the extreme conspiracy is one world one currency but your imagination gone behind that since you are talking about world with no government, or am I missing something?

Only the mode of payment is decentralized with limited money supply so no more minting and no more inflation but the government should implement regulations to support this so they will keep generating the revenue aka taxes as always and keep running the society.

You would take away fiat that is controlled by Government and replace it with Bitcoin. Government would never actively allow this so in a Bitcoin world there would be some deconnection from central authority.

For me Bitcoin and reduction of government involvement would go hand in hand. Maybe not in extremes in the beginning but would be a logic consequence