Bitcoin, human rights, authoritarianism and war

[btcfilmmaker]

I've been immersed in a wealth of information on human rights and Bitcoin through extensive reading, watching, and listening. I'm eager to initiate a discussion and gather insights on the intersection of Bitcoin with human rights, encompassing themes of general freedom, authoritarianism, and the impact on conflicts like war.

I'm particularly interested in delving into nuanced comparisons, such as Bitcoin versus historical monetary colonialism, and the potential role of Bitcoin as a currency for liberation in contexts like Palestine, providing an escape from both corrupt governance and external influences.

I'm keen to hear diverse perspectives and continue learning. What are your thoughts on Bitcoin in relation to these complex issues?

Personally, I envision a future (although I may not be around to witness it) where Bitcoin takes centre stage as the dominant currency or serves as a foundational layer for all transactions. Such a scenario could drastically alter the economic dynamics of conflict and war. Given that all wars have underlying economic motives, and with governments unable to print fiat currency, they would be compelled to rely on either increased taxes or coercive measures to sustain their endeavours. This, in turn, could reshape the calculus of conflict by making it economically less viable.

Perhaps this is too utopian, are there any arguments against this hypothetical?

[Die_empty]

I've been immersed in a wealth of information on human rights and Bitcoin through extensive reading, watching, and listening. I'm eager to initiate a discussion and gather insights on the intersection of Bitcoin with human rights, encompassing themes of general freedom, authoritarianism, and the impact on conflicts like war.

Welcome to the forum and I am hoping to learn all you have learned from your indepth and comprehensive studies.

Personally, I envision a future (although I may not be around to witness it) where Bitcoin takes centre stage as the dominant currency or serves as a foundational layer for all transactions. Such a scenario could drastically alter the economic dynamics of conflict and war. Given that all wars have underlying economic motives, and with governments unable to print fiat currency, they would be compelled to rely on either increased taxes or coercive measures to sustain their endeavours. This, in turn, could reshape the calculus of conflict by making it economically less viable.

Perhaps this is too utopian, are there any arguments against this hypothetical?

Bitcoin becoming a dominant currency in the world is possible because it has all it takes to be one of the world's leading mediums of exchange. However, it will not replace traditional currency, fiat will always be available as an alternative so the government will always find ways to sponsor wars. The government can fund wars with weapons, natural resources, and even investments. Another point is that Bitcoin was created to be decentralized so that Bitcoin users will be anonymous or at least enjoy privacy. So how will you track funds used to sponsor wars, except you are pointing at government regulations

[blckhawk]

I don't think that bitcoin is going to be the cure all for the problems of the country and I think that in terms of how it's going to be used, it can liberate or restrict human rights or the people itself. For example, freedom fighters that have a problem in funding might use bitcoin to purchase their weapons without the worry that the government will intercept it and it can also work the other way too, the authoritarian might use bitcoin as a means to subtly purchase or sell stuff that they probably have a sanction against acquiring.

[lombok]

Bitcoin becoming a dominant currency in the world is possible because it has all it takes to be one of the world's leading mediums of exchange. However, it will not replace traditional currency, fiat will always be available as an alternative so the government will always find ways to sponsor wars. The government can fund wars with weapons, natural resources, and even investments. Another point is that Bitcoin was created to be decentralized so that Bitcoin users will be anonymous or at least enjoy privacy. So how will you track funds used to sponsor wars, except you are pointing at government regulations

As a digital currency, yes. However, it still takes time to become dominant because Bitcoin is still the main safe haven investment asset to date, which is equivalent to gold.

As my war sponsor we are only a few Bitcoins involved. because Bitcoin can actually be traced and is not completely anonymous but pseudonymous. I think it would also be very ineffective if used as war funding because making it into large amounts of cash also takes time and is a complicated process. Most exchanges now require KYC. So to do that would be very blatant.

The dominance of digital currencies as well as investment instruments is still possible for Bitcoin's future.

[pooya87]

I think it is still too soon for Bitcoin to play a significant role in the world.

On one hand we have this decentralized payment system that can not be censored which makes it an excellent choice for many free people around the world.
On another hand this currency has a very volatile price and it also hasn't reached mass adoption yet which makes getting paid or making payments in it complicated.

In other words it has both pros and cons and depending on the situation one could overshadow the other.

Case in point:

the potential role of Bitcoin as a currency for liberation in contexts like Palestine, providing an escape from both corrupt governance and external influences.

The cons in the case of the Palestinians and the Palestinian freedom fighters is their lack of access to technologies and even the internet. Specially the Palestinians that are kept in concentration camps or in Gaza which is known as the biggest prison in the world.
So for example even if you have all the money in the world but there is no food to purchase, it won't help. Obviously having bitcoin in this case won't help either specially since you'd have to convert it to fiat first then try to buy food that doesn't exist!

[tranthidung]

the potential role of Bitcoin as a currency for liberation in contexts like Palestine, providing an escape from both corrupt governance and external influences.

With each abnormal event, people who loves Bitcoin will try to say Bitcoin saves locals, Bitcoin makes different.

Neutrally said, Bitcoin has all ability to make differences but big or small, it depends on each area and situation. However if someone says it like exaggerating the importance and capability of Bitcoin, I will be more cautious and suspicious about what they are saying.

The Israel - Palestine (Hamas on behalf) war is like Russia - Ukraine war months ago. When that invasion of Ukraine started, a few weeks later, massive donations to Ukraine through Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, mainly in Bitcoin. People said similar things like OP said right now.

Ukraine has raised more than $54 million as bitcoin donations pour in to support the war against Russia. It was in March 2022 and it is more than $225M recently.

[Die_empty]

Bitcoin becoming a dominant currency in the world is possible because it has all it takes to be one of the world's leading mediums of exchange. However, it will not replace traditional currency, fiat will always be available as an alternative so the government will always find ways to sponsor wars. The government can fund wars with weapons, natural resources, and even investments. Another point is that Bitcoin was created to be decentralized so that Bitcoin users will be anonymous or at least enjoy privacy. So how will you track funds used to sponsor wars, except you are pointing at government regulations

As a digital currency, yes. However, it still takes time to become dominant because Bitcoin is still the main safe haven investment asset to date, which is equivalent to gold.

As my war sponsor we are only a few Bitcoins involved. because Bitcoin can actually be traced and is not completely anonymous but pseudonymous. I think it would also be very ineffective if used as war funding because making it into large amounts of cash also takes time and is a complicated process. Most exchanges now require KYC. So to do that would be very blatant.

The dominance of digital currencies as well as investment instruments is still possible for Bitcoin's future.

Bitcoin is indeed pseudonymous but with the assistance of some privacy services and using only decentralized platforms, you can be anonymous to a large extent. The use of a mixer and other privacy tools will promote the anonymous nature of Bitcoin. That is why the US government wants to criminalize the use of mixing and conjoining services. You also need to know that decentralized exchanges don't need KYC and using  centralized exchange for criminal activities is unwise

[freedomgo]

I believe that Bitcoin will only bring about a real change if it remains free from government control. Many of the conspiracy theories are fueled by the fact that everything is currently centralized. While we do have a government and need to adhere to the law, most of us aren't fully aware of the extent of surveillance they conduct. Bitcoin with its complete anonymity, has the potential to grant us true freedom by allowing us to control our own wealth and providing greater security from prying eyes.

I want to emphasize that the three factors, namely "human rights, authoritarianism, and war," have no direct correlation with Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't inherently linked to these issues; rather, it's a matter of government laws and their proper implementation. Mismanagement of these laws can indeed lead to divisions among the people which could potentially cause war at its worse.

[348Judah]

I've been immersed in a wealth of information on human rights and Bitcoin through extensive reading, watching, and listening. I'm eager to initiate a discussion and gather insights on the intersection of Bitcoin with human rights, encompassing themes of general freedom, authoritarianism, and the impact on conflicts like war.

Honestly this your grammars can be confusing to an extent, maybe you try to make it simple by beating it at the head by going straight to what you have to say about bitcoin, we all understand we have our fundamental human rights, yet we are all subjects under the law of the government because they are ruling over us, bitcoin is a decentralized digital network that talks more about this freedom but in the financial aspect of every human life, we can choose the be in control of our finances without having to fight against the government when we gave the alternative like bitcoin, with this, there's no need for complex economic or financial crisis that may lead to war or any for of disunity.

[bluebit25]

I'm a Bitcoin lover, but I don't want to confuse too many issues that people take as the logic of life. First of all, the OP has brought up quite a wide range of issues ranging from the impact of bitcoin, and life story. Honestly, I express that similar to money, it can be seen as having many abilities to serve humans depending on our purposes, but the story of freedom or a block of management I think is not the case. We need to separate and harmonize. Historical lessons from different periods show us that many things are intertwined in life and whether its ability to be maintained for a long time depends largely on people's sense of use.

And adding an idea about the future, all conflicts will end when awareness and solidarity increase, there is no longer jealousy and competition between individuals, groups, regions, planets, galaxies, ... and bitcoin will be as popular as you can easily use it to pay for very small services (for example: buying a battery,... )

[lombok]

Bitcoin is indeed pseudonymous but with the assistance of some privacy services and using only decentralized platforms, you can be anonymous to a large extent. The use of a mixer and other privacy tools will promote the anonymous nature of Bitcoin. That is why the US government wants to criminalize the use of mixing and conjoining services. You also need to know that decentralized exchanges don't need KYC and using  centralized exchange for criminal activities is unwise

Indeed, mixers can be used as an alternative to obscure transactions. However, I am sure that mixer services do not only have the intention of facilitating illegal activities and war funding, there are many other uses.

https://cryptopotato.com/illicit-crypto-transactions-in-2022-surpassed-20-billion-for-the-first-time-chainalysis/?amp
According to chainalysis data posted by the CRYPTOPOTATO news website, Bitcoin/crypto involvement in funding terrorist wars is very small.

The cons in the case of the Palestinians and the Palestinian freedom fighters is their lack of access to technologies and even the internet. Specially the Palestinians that are kept in concentration camps or in Gaza which is known as the biggest prison in the world.
So for example even if you have all the money in the world but there is no food to purchase, it won't help. Obviously having bitcoin in this case won't help either specially since you'd have to convert it to fiat first then try to buy food that doesn't exist!

Right. Plus internet access and damage to computer devices or wallet hardware also have the potential to be hit by bombs/missiles and catch fire. If we imagine the position of those affected by war, we will not even care about our Bitcoin savings, because life is more important.

[Die_empty]

Bitcoin is indeed pseudonymous but with the assistance of some privacy services and using only decentralized platforms, you can be anonymous to a large extent. The use of a mixer and other privacy tools will promote the anonymous nature of Bitcoin. That is why the US government wants to criminalize the use of mixing and conjoining services. You also need to know that decentralized exchanges don't need KYC and using  centralized exchange for criminal activities is unwise

Indeed, mixers can be used as an alternative to obscure transactions. However, I am sure that mixer services do not only have the intention of facilitating illegal activities and war funding, there are many other uses. .

I never said that the sole aim of creating mixers is to facilitate illegal activities. Mixers were made to promote privacy and of course, bad actors will use the service wrongly. Many people use mixers for purely legal transactions and the service have been very helpful. There is also no evidence that bitcoin was used to finance the current war in the Middle East.

[kryptqnick]

This is a topic that I find really interesting because it encompasses a lot of different important points.
From the very start, I think we need to distinguish between those who actually use Bitcoin (and their ideologies, mindsets, goals) and the values that sort of correlate with what Bitcoin is. The first matter is very simple: all sorts of people use Bitcoin for all sorts of good and awful purposes. As for the second one, I think Bitcoin aligns well with libertarianism, individualism, democracy, and doesn't align with authoritarianism or socialism. On its own, though, it's just a tool in the hands of people, so it's up to people to decide how to use it. Also, I honestly don't think that Bitcoin will become a dominant currency (as in, beat fiat currencies) because the world doesn't change that radically and that fast, and because Bitcoin itself can't really handle it (not on its own because there's a limit of transactions that can be processed per minute).

[Who is John Galt?]

Personally, I envision a future (although I may not be around to witness it) where Bitcoin takes centre stage as the dominant currency or serves as a foundational layer for all transactions. Such a scenario could drastically alter the economic dynamics of conflict and war. Given that all wars have underlying economic motives, and with governments unable to print fiat currency, they would be compelled to rely on either increased taxes or coercive measures to sustain their endeavours. This, in turn, could reshape the calculus of conflict by making it economically less viable.

Perhaps this is too utopian, are there any arguments against this hypothetical?

Not all military conflicts are of an economic nature. Yes, economics plays an important role in this, but not always the determining one. However, even if we assume that Bitcoin has become the key anchor currency in the world, the financial world is not only a currency, but also numerous other assets, including ownership of various objects, liabilities and other securities, and much more. Yes, the inability to simply print the required amount of money may complicate the situation of the aggressors a little, but it will not make aggression either impossible or even difficult enough for them to stop doing it.

[ancafe]

I've been immersed in a wealth of information on human rights and Bitcoin through extensive reading, watching, and listening. I'm eager to initiate a discussion and gather insights on the intersection of Bitcoin with human rights, encompassing themes of general freedom, authoritarianism, and the impact on conflicts like war.

Nepotism and the value of freedom are always linked to human rights and authoritarianism is an idea to connect bitcoin to the truth of the facts they hide. What's the difference between the existing system which always has an impact on war because it is always influenced by greed and power? Conflicts were everywhere long before bitcoin was launched and why it is related is worth discussing further.

I'm particularly interested in delving into nuanced comparisons, such as Bitcoin versus historical monetary colonialism, and the potential role of Bitcoin as a currency for liberation in contexts like Palestine, providing an escape from both corrupt governance and external influences.

All of these things are understood correctly by any government, but they refuse to accept the reality because they think that bitcoin can kill corrupt power. Bitcoin is much better and can ward off corruption with recorded transactions because this system has no physics that can be manipulated. There is always a way out if used correctly and that is the reason certain countries reject bitcoin as a new, more transparent innovation.

I'm keen to hear diverse perspectives and continue learning. What are your thoughts on Bitcoin in relation to these complex issues?

I do not justify the statement above because I only speak on the basis of assumptions and I am not trying to make the statement as an attempt at justification. But we have freedom of opinion and that right is guaranteed to be expressed and I am happy when we talk outside reasonable limits that have debate value in the context of discussion.

[DapanasFruit]

Certainly, Bitcoin is empowering people most especially on their financial lives. In Turkey, many people are adopting Bitcoin all because they want to protect their wealth as the hyperinflation is eating away their purchasing power. Now, can Bitcoin be used in times of war? BTC can be utilized for transferring assets anywhere in the world but one must have internet connection to complete the transactions and in a specific area there must be establishments that will accept BTC as payment and must have platforms that can convert BTC to fiat money. You see, there are many factors that must be present in order for Bitcoin to effectively be useful. And I agree with the notion that Bitcoin is not the cure-all remedy of the many maladies affecting humanity since the start of history.

[crwth]

I believe that this type of cryptocurrency and utilization of this type of mode of payment has changed the whole thing about funding whether it's with the diverse application of research or any other type of funding. It is definitely a complex issue that would require more in depth analysis that there wouldn't any other be a concrete conclusion. It's hard to really quantify this complex.

[CarnagexD]

And adding an idea about the future, all conflicts will end when awareness and solidarity increase, there is no longer jealousy and competition between individuals, groups, regions, planets, galaxies, ... and bitcoin will be as popular as you can easily use it to pay for very small services (for example: buying a battery,... )

You're dreaming of a utopia and we're unlikely to see it anytime soon, so long as there's a difference in our religion, skin tone, culture and ideology, we will never be seeing each other eye to eye and bitcoin wouldn't be a glue that's going to bind that because the mess is just too big. Never in my wildest imagination would I think that Christians and Muslims will be holding hands in solidarity because of bitcoin, these two groups have done wars in the name of who's God is the real one and I don't a measly concept of currency would be bigger than their God.

[yhiaali3]

I'm particularly interested in delving into nuanced comparisons, such as Bitcoin versus historical monetary colonialism, and the potential role of Bitcoin as a currency for liberation in contexts like Palestine, providing an escape from both corrupt governance and external influences.

How can Bitcoin play a role as a “currency of liberation in contexts like Palestine”? Where is the liberation if the Binance exchange banned Palestinian accounts based on orders from the Israeli police!!

It is true that Bitcoin is decentralized, but in the end you are forced to use third-party services, which are mostly centralized and impose KYC. In practice, it can be said that governments have found a way to escape decentralization.

In terms of concept, Bitcoin is a wonderful thing that gives people financial freedom and promises them a better life, but unfortunately it is still immature to be a global currency due to extreme volatility and opposition from governments, in addition to other problems that will appear upon global adoption, such as delays and high fees due to congestion on the network.

[Pingrapole]

In fact if I have all the money but if I can't buy the things I need then there is no value from the shares like many states are facing during COVID-19 now In the case of Palestinian citizens, even if they have a lot of bitcoins or other currencies, they will not be able to buy large quantities of food development products because their country currently does not have internet access Bitcoin is a smart digital currency that requires internet access which the state does not currently have and the process is very long and complicated and very difficult Cannot play an effective role at present In fact the authority of Bitcoin varies by state while it is universal It will then be recognized that it will exercise great influence under all circumstances, and that it will make it possible to procure anything at any time and to carry on the expenses of the war, and will be a great deterrent The bottom line is that in the case of the State of Palestine, this currency is not currently considered a large market or usable because it requires long-term access and access.