Convince me that the bitcoin elite cannot become the next Rothschild family

[barbarousrelic]

I get the impression that some people think Bitcoin is supposed to usher in a Utopian era where there is no more war and hunger and abusive government power. This is not going to happen, nor was it intended to be. Bitcoin cannot and was not intended to end concentrations of wealth and power.

And no money system can end fractional reserve banking, that can only be ended by better education of the populace.

[1713931432]

1713931432

[1713931432]

1713931432

[1713931432]

1713931432

[1713931432]

1713931432

[Gabi]

I find it disheartening that my fellow citizens and I are manipulated into believing that leaders like Muammar Gaddafi are evil and worthy of assassination; when reality shows that the people of Libya were wealthy and happy

I stopped reading here

Gheddafi was a dictator and a terrorist.

Oh and i am NOT american.

[rebuilder]

As long as wealth is a meaningful concept, you will have people with more power and, correspondigly, people with less of it. Wealth enables you to get people to do things for you, or to other people. Bitcoin won't do away with that.

Why are you so worried about Rothschilds? Rothschilds can't expropriate your property or put you into prison. Nakamoto can't do that either. Only the state can do that.

Of course they can. You think with sufficient funds one can't hire thugs to rob and kidnap someone?

[Etlase2]

No. You first need understand how those banking moguls came about and what enabled their plundering. And if you ask the right questions you'll learn that the fact is that without government regulations, a centrally planed monetary system by the central bank and without legislated fractional reserve lending and FDIC insured baking they would have never ever gotten what they have.

With bitcoin it can't be centrally planed, no one controls it and the rules under which it was born virtually can't be changed.

No doubt government legislation made things worse, but the reality is it started under fractional reserve and the state of the people always owing more money to the wealthy than does exist. Saying things like "can't be centrally planned" and "no one controls it" sounds like rhetoric to me. Satoshi and/or a dozen others could bring the market to its knees tomorrow. That is a heavy form of control. Satoshi and/or a dozen others chose not to release any coins on the run up to USD $30. Who are you to say that this process could not repeat itself many years down the road if bitcoin were to become the primary currency of the world? Who are you to say that those with the power would not use it to threaten or coerce? Are you really willing to put that much faith into this system? Because it sounds to me like you are ripe to be duped again. I could be wrong, but why take the risk? Everyone seems to want to believe that if bitcoin were to become more popular, it would be less manipulable. I fail to see how. I see the opposite.

I get the impression that some people think Bitcoin is supposed to usher in a Utopian era where there is no more war and hunger and abusive government power. This is not going to happen, nor was it intended to be. Bitcoin cannot and was not intended to end concentrations of wealth and power.

An honest post. So since you believe that it wasn't intended to do any of these things, why do you support it (assuming you do)? Do you take any issue with the history of money and how it has been used to deprive people of wealth? Do you just accept this as a fact of life and move on? Would you be quick to jump to a different system that actually tried to break away from this? Or is bitcoin just a novelty?

I stopped reading here

Gheddafi was a dictator and a terrorist.

Oh and i am NOT american.

Not trying to insinuate that anyone is an American who isn't, just portraying my point of view. Do you think Nelson Mandela is a terrorist? Because they supported each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaddafi

Libya enjoys large natural resources,[49] which Gaddafi utilized to help develop the country. Under Gaddafi's Jamahiriya "direct democracy" state,[47] the country's literacy rate rose from 10% to 90%, life expectancy rose from 57 to 77 years, equal rights were established for women and black people, employment opportunities were established for migrant workers, and welfare systems were introduced that allowed access to free education, free healthcare, and financial assistance for housing.[50] In addition, financial support was provided for university scholarships and employment programs.[51] Gaddafi also initiated development of the Great Manmade River,[50] in order to allow free access to fresh water across large parts of the country.[50] The country was developed without taking any foreign loans, and, as a result, Libya was debt-free.[14]

..

A national vote on Gaddafi's plan to disband the government and give oil money directly to the people was held in 2009, where Libya's people's congresses, the country's highest authority, voted to delay implementation. The General People's Congress announced that, out of 468 Basic People's Congresses, 64 chose immediate implementation while 251 endorsed implementation "but asked for (it) to be delayed until appropriate measures were put in place." This plan led to dissent from top government officials, who claimed it would "wreak havoc" in the economy by "fanning inflation and spurring capital flight." Gaddafi acknowledged that the scheme, which promised up to 30,000 Libyan dinars ($23,000) annually to about a million of Libya's poorest, may "cause chaos before it brought about prosperity," but claimed that "Do not be afraid to experiment with a new form of government" and that "This plan is to offer a better future for Libya's children."[48][67]

In December 2009, Gaddafi personally told government officials that Libya would soon experience a "new political period" and would have elections for important positions such as minister-level roles and the National Security Advisor position (a Prime Minister equivalent). He also promised to include international monitors to ensure fair elections. His speech was said to have caused quite a stir. These elections were planned to coincide with the Jamahiriya's usual periodic elections for members of the Popular Committees, Basic People's Committees, Basic People's Congresses, and General People's Congress, in 2011[68] 2012

I know it's wikipedia and all that, but these don't seem to be the actions of a terrorist and a dictator. You have to agree that most of Africa is a bit behind the curve when it comes to democracy, but it looks to me as if Gaddafi was heading the country in the right direction. Pre-parliamentary kings of England were certainly dictators, but that is history. Why must the world impose its will on a people that seemed to be doing just fine, in the grand scheme of things? Did Libya attack any other sovereign nation? Was Libya committing genocide? Where was the US and NATO during 1998 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

As long as wealth is a meaningful concept, you will have people with more power and, correspondigly, people with less of it. Wealth enables you to get people to do things for you, or to other people. Bitcoin won't do away with that.

I don't begrudge that. I'm not asking for a world where everybody has the same slice of the pie. That would stifle humanity just as quickly. What I'm asking for is something that can keep that power in check by the will of the people. I don't see how bitcoin is any alternative in that respect.

[cbeast]

This thread is Uncommonly Rich.

[sadpandatech]

As long as wealth is a meaningful concept, you will have people with more power and, correspondigly, people with less of it. Wealth enables you to get people to do things for you, or to other people. Bitcoin won't do away with that.

Why are you so worried about Rothschilds? Rothschilds can't expropriate your property or put you into prison. Nakamoto can't do that either. Only the state can do that.

Of course they can. You think with sufficient funds one can't hire thugs to rob and kidnap someone?

I apologize ahead of time for adding my small bit of anecdotal commentary to such a full hearted thread...

I fully agree. People in that position by any name use the state to there advatage simply because the state structure is there and is the most readily available resource. Without the state they would execute their will with whatever other means are available.

[foggyb]

I find it disheartening that my fellow citizens and I are manipulated into believing that leaders like Muammar Gaddafi are evil and worthy of assassination; when reality shows that the people of Libya were wealthy and happy

I stopped reading here

Gheddafi was a dictator and a terrorist.

Oh and i am NOT american.

Care to show some evidence besides hearsay?

[majamalu]

Satoshi and/or a dozen others could bring the market to its knees tomorrow.

Under what incentive? Ask yourself this, also, because we are all early adopters.

[Etlase2]

Satoshi and/or a dozen others could bring the market to its knees tomorrow.

Under what incentive? Ask yourself this, also, because we are all early adopters.

Who are you to say that those with the power would not use it to threaten or coerce?

[hazek]

What could they possibly gain?

[minorman]

Ask yoursef: How many BTC are concentrated in the hands of, say, the top 100 holders? And how many of these have the same (evil?) agenda??

My guess is that the top 100 holders (including Satoshi et al.) hold less than 2 million BTC - probably less than 1 million. So when Bitcoin is completely rolled out, these guys will be filthy rich and influential, sure, but their combined holdings are less than 10% of the money supply - and probably far, far less since they will probably partially cash out between now and then to get that Ferrari, trophy wife, big mansion, etc.
On top of that, only a fraction of this group would be able agree on their strategy for "world domination" so I doubt that more than 2-5% of the 21 million BTC will be able to act in any coordinated fashion in order to manipulate the bitcoin world.

Compared to today's world where, after having legal title to an estimated 50% of all the wealth in the world, Rothshild and their friends went into stealth mode operating via control of institutions like the Bank of England, the FED, the World Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, IMF and probably also the ECB (plus lately direct control over the governments of Italy and Greece).
These guys (probably *very* few individuals) effectively control 50-80 of all the assets of the World.

Compared to that, I'd call the 2-5% control of the early adopters/creators of Bitcoin positively trivial. Well deserved if bitcoin saves us all from the eternal serfdom that is fractional reserve banking.

Another point I'd like to stress is that the world now faces real constraints on natural resources (of which crude oil is just the first) which inevitably makes debt based money bankrupt by design. (Since the economy can't grow can't grow provide any real backing of the new debt which needs to be created to pay interest on the original money.)

This fact (the resource limit) is a whole new paradigm for the global economy. In the last 400 years the world economy has grown fast enough to make interest bearing (debt) money a practical possibility (although an immoral one). But this 400 year era is now coming to an end, fast.

We NEED a monetary system at least capable of working in a non-growth (or even negative growth) -world. As long as people say *no* to promise-to-pay bitcoin (like mtGox vouchers, ect.) Bitcoin offers exactly that and that is why I care about bitcoin.

I don't care at all about the advatages compared to paypal/CC and all that. It is the fact that bitcoin at least has a chance to be a value-based currency (not debt-based), that is the sole reason that I am excited about it.

I do hope you regain your excitement, OP. I think bitcoin warrents it.

[Kettenmonster]

... Without the state they would execute their will with whatever other means are available.

Very very true, plus they needed surely less money to spend on that effort.

It is pointless to blame the state for its lack of power. This is in certain situations rather a feature than a bug. That is were democracy can be told apart from dictatorship. It is even more pointless to blame politicians for being diplomatic. As that is the highest compliment an elder statesman can get. The number of "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhis" in this part of the multivers is rather small. Plus even him might have done something evil which just dropped beyond awareness.

Back to the original topic.
How could a proof for: "henceforth eventually any person owning bitcoins unequals Rothschild" look like.
What assumptions can we make for prooving: <>[] P(b) != R?
Plus this would just be one lemma helpful to answer the assertion in question.
My experience with temporal logic is too narrow to do a forecast on this. But I think such things are unprovable anyhow for much simpler reasons.

So for practical reasons my answer is:
No, I wont! Please Convince yourself or pay 1.000.000 Bitcoins to: 1CsLD4Do1o1fdUdGwWxrxgp73G6UfwGruB
Note that you can do both, as this or is not meant to be exclusive.  

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

This is silly. This is like saying gold certificates will never work. Just because bitcoin is already convenient doesn't make a whit of difference if one bank will give you a loan but the other won't because it cannot cover its reserve.

I already explained this many times, go read about it. Furthermore, your argument makes no sense either standalone nor as a reaction to mine.

I don't want to derail into evidence-supported conspiracy theories, but the Rothschilds can and likely do just that. Sure I'm a US citizen so it's pretty unlikely that it will happen to me, but were I a citizen of Libya I might feel much differently. And Libya is just the most recent and obvious; throughout recent history there is evidence of war manipulation to serve the Bank of England's purposes.

I see no coherent connection to what I said.

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

Of course they can. You think with sufficient funds one can't hire thugs to rob and kidnap someone?

However, without the state

• they need to pay for this attack themselves and can't externalise the costs
• they also need to pay for the defense themselves and can't externalise the costs

Sure, theoretically, it's possible. It's just much less likely to turn out profitable.

I fully agree. People in that position by any name use the state to there advatage simply because the state structure is there and is the most readily available resource. Without the state they would execute their will with whatever other means are available.

Without the state, everyone can use whatever other means are available, not just the rich. With P2P communication, you can have assassination markets, for example.

[Etlase2]

Ask yoursef: How many BTC are concentrated in the hands of, say, the top 100 holders? And how many of these have the same (evil?) agenda??

I said I don't want to discuss that. We just have to agree that it is a sizable portion, and unless the community demands transparency with the threat of withdrawal, it will never happen.

And the agenda is not necessarily evil, but power does corrupt. If you hand the opportunity for an average joe to dominate, how many will refuse?

Compared to today's world where, after having legal title to an estimated 50% of all the wealth in the world, Rothshild and their friends went into stealth mode operating via control of institutions like the Bank of England, the FED, the World Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, IMF and probably also the ECB (plus lately direct control over the governments of Italy and Greece).
These guys (probably *very* few individuals) effectively control 50-80 of all the assets of the World.

And why do institutions like the Bank of England, the Fed, et al exist? Because at some point there was a constriction in the money supply. Do you expect the Satoshi Group to simply give money away during these times? Or would you expect them to, I dunno, start a bank so they could loan it out? Or perhaps buy investment assets at highly reduced, deflated rates? It doesn't have to be the early adopters per se, it can be the first hugely successful business to accept bitcoins like cash. They could quickly amass a large percentage of the coins in existence and wait for the proper time.

As long as people say *no* to promise-to-pay bitcoin (like mtGox vouchers, ect.)

But historically people haven't said no, so why would bitcoin be any different? The right now benefits are obvious, the future implications are not.

I already explained this many times, go read about it. Furthermore, your argument makes no sense either standalone nor as a reaction to mine.

This is the internet, provide a link. This is the internet, bear with me for not necessarily agreeing with you and being aware that facts and opinions are often intertwined.

[hazek]

... Without the state they would execute their will with whatever other means are available.

Very very true, plus they needed surely less money to spend on that effort.

It is pointless to blame the state for its lack of power. This is in certain situations rather a feature than a bug. That is were democracy can be told apart from dictatorship. It is even more pointless to blame politicians for being diplomatic. As that is the highest compliment an elder statesman can get. The number of "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhis" in this part of the multivers is rather small. Plus even him might have done something evil which just dropped beyond awareness.

Such a childish worldview..

If there wasn't any power to be auctioned off there would not be any auctions to be held.

You forget that without the state, a mafia run by thugs with guns is just that, a gang of thugs with guns. Now people like yourself are brainwashed into believing that the state somehow has a higher legitimacy, they are brainwashed into believing that laws are more than merely these mafia's says so as an excuse to plunder and kidnap people and they are brainwashed into believing they somehow need these thugs with guns for protection because of the possibility of facing the exact same type of crimes that they are guaranteed to face under their rule.

When it's clear to everyone that it's just a mafia run by thugs with guns, people would put an end to them rather quickly. So no. I don't believe that if there was no state rich people could force their will on the rest of us in another manner because people would see straight through it and resist.

[sadpandatech]

... Without the state they would execute their will with whatever other means are available.

Very very true, plus they needed surely less money to spend on that effort.

It is pointless to blame the state for its lack of power. This is in certain situations rather a feature than a bug. That is were democracy can be told apart from dictatorship. It is even more pointless to blame politicians for being diplomatic. As that is the highest compliment an elder statesman can get. The number of "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhis" in this part of the multivers is rather small. Plus even him might have done something evil which just dropped beyond awareness.

Such a childish worldview..

If there wasn't any power to be auctioned off there would not be any auctions to be held.

You forget that without the state, a mafia run by thugs with guns is just that, a gang of thugs with guns. Now people like yourself are brainwashed into believing that the state somehow has a higher legitimacy, they are brainwashed into believing that laws are more than merely these mafia's says so as an excuse to plunder and kidnap people and they are brainwashed into believing they somehow need these thugs with guns for protection because of the possibility of facing the exact same type of crimes that they are guaranteed to face under their rule.

When it's clear to everyone that it's just a mafia run by thugs with guns, people would put an end to them rather quickly. So no. I don't believe that if there was no state rich people could force their will on the rest of us in another manner because people would see straight through it and resist.

If that is in any shape directed to me. You've got me seriously confused with someone else....

[hazek]

... Without the state they would execute their will with whatever other means are available.

Very very true, plus they needed surely less money to spend on that effort.

It is pointless to blame the state for its lack of power. This is in certain situations rather a feature than a bug. That is were democracy can be told apart from dictatorship. It is even more pointless to blame politicians for being diplomatic. As that is the highest compliment an elder statesman can get. The number of "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhis" in this part of the multivers is rather small. Plus even him might have done something evil which just dropped beyond awareness.

Such a childish worldview..

If there wasn't any power to be auctioned off there would not be any auctions to be held.

You forget that without the state, a mafia run by thugs with guns is just that, a gang of thugs with guns. Now people like yourself are brainwashed into believing that the state somehow has a higher legitimacy, they are brainwashed into believing that laws are more than merely these mafia's says so as an excuse to plunder and kidnap people and they are brainwashed into believing they somehow need these thugs with guns for protection because of the possibility of facing the exact same type of crimes that they are guaranteed to face under their rule.

When it's clear to everyone that it's just a mafia run by thugs with guns, people would put an end to them rather quickly. So no. I don't believe that if there was no state rich people could force their will on the rest of us in another manner because people would see straight through it and resist.

If that is in any shape directed to me. You've got me seriously confused with someone else....

I guess I misunderstood your post. I thought you were making excuses for why the state is powerless with regards to preventing corporatism.

[minorman]

Ask yoursef: How many BTC are concentrated in the hands of, say, the top 100 holders? And how many of these have the same (evil?) agenda??

And the agenda is not necessarily evil, but power does corrupt. If you hand the opportunity for an average joe to dominate, how many will refuse?

Compared to today's world where, after having legal title to an estimated 50% of all the wealth in the world, Rothshild and their friends went into stealth mode operating via control of institutions like the Bank of England, the FED, the World Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, IMF and probably also the ECB (plus lately direct control over the governments of Italy and Greece).
These guys (probably *very* few individuals) effectively control 50-80 of all the assets of the World.

"And why do institutions like the Bank of England, the Fed, et al exist? Because at some point there was a constriction in the money supply. Do you expect the Satoshi Group to simply give money away during these times? Or would you expect them to, I dunno, start a bank so they could loan it out? Or perhaps buy investment assets at highly reduced, deflated rates? It doesn't have to be the early adopters per se, it can be the first hugely successful business to accept bitcoins like cash. They could quickly amass a large percentage of the coins in existence and wait for the proper time."

- Perhaps this is where the disagreement is rooted. The banks don't exsist because money supply somehow "becomes constricted". Money supply is constricted *by* the banks acting in cencert by calling in old loans and not giving out new loans. This is exactly why the housing boomhas been turned on its head, and all things economic are going 'bad'. That is a core problem with fractional reserve banking - that money supply can be (and is) manipulated up and then down in the so-called "busness cycles" (should be called "property confiscation cycles").

In short, the bankers come to own everything *because* they legally (!!) have the power to create money (=> prosparity and optimism) and then destroy the money (=> foreclosures and pessimism) and with each cycle they win ownership of real assets.

Bitcoin (non fractional money) is fundamentally different. No one can arbitrailly make more bitcoin or destroy bitcoin. This means that no-one can change the rules after the game has started as the banks do now. Anyone who has a bunch of bitcoin can only do damage once. When the bitcoins are spent/sold, they are gone and that person no longer has any power, unlike banks which can (and do) do damage over and over and over with each business cycle.

As long as people say *no* to promise-to-pay bitcoin (like mtGox vouchers, ect.)

"But historically people haven't said no, so why would bitcoin be any different? The right now benefits are obvious, the future implications are not."

This is true, but there has never before existed any form of money which was convenient for commerce and at the same time fixed (predictable) in supply. THIS is the key. This kind of money has never been tried before.

Gold could be manipulated - and thus failed - because people lent it to banks/custodians. They did this because gold certificates (not fixed in supply) were vastly more useful for commerce than physical gold. But why on earth would I lend out my bitcoin to anyone?? Everyone can and should be their own bank with bitcoin.

I would never dream of storing any ammount of bitcoin with an ewallet or exchange which won't give me a unique bitcoin address so that I can verify my holdings on the blockchain and check that aren't practising fractional reserve with my money by lending out *my* bitcoin.

With bitcoin you can be your own bank and THAT is what is truely new.

[Etlase2]

- Perhaps this is where the disagreement is rooted. The banks don't exsist because money supply somehow "becomes constricted". Money supply is constricted *by* the banks acting in cencert by calling in old loans and not giving out new loans. This is exactly why the housing boomhas been turned on its head, and all things economic are going 'bad'. That is a core problem with fractional reserve banking - that money supply can be (and is) manipulated up and then down in the so-called "busness cycles" (should be called "property confiscation cycles").

I understand and I agree with where your coming from. What I'm saying is that the bitcoin elite have the same power as those banks but in a different form. They ALREADY control the wealth, it just isn't worth that much yet. To cause a business cycle, the elite need only work in concert to remove money from the supply. Cash out investments, hoard, and voila you have the exact same situation. Want to buy my car for 1 BTC? Please, please do so because I need to buy food. This is the same system under a different guise.

Answering this with platitudes such as "well they'll probably spend it" and such does not solve the inherent problem and is based on hopes and wishes, not reality. Give them the opportunity, and they will seize it.

This is true, but there has never before existed any form of money which was convenient for commerce and at the same time fixed (predictable) in supply. THIS is the key. This kind of money has never been tried before.

This is incorrect. The gold supply was (relatively) fixed. Currencies (gold certificates) used to be pegged to their countries' gold supply. Yes, fractional reserve is part of the problem. But really, it isn't fractional reserve, it is interest that is the problem. Calling for an end to fractional reserve is a whole other debate that I don't really want to get into.

Gold could be manipulated - and thus failed - because people lent it to banks/custodians. They did this because gold certificates (not fixed in supply) were vastly more useful for commerce than physical gold. But why on earth would I lend out my bitcoin to anyone?? Everyone can and should be their own bank with bitcoin.

In a highly deflationary currency such as bitcoin, spending would essentially be the same as lending at negative interest. I can buy X now, but I will surely lose value over holding on to that money. It's not exactly a great system for trade. Not only were gold certificates useful for commerce, they were also useful for fractional reserve. And fractional reserve does have beneficial consequences.

I would never dream of storing any ammount of bitcoin with an ewallet or exchange which won't give me a unique bitcoin address so that I can verify my holdings on the blockchain and check that aren't practising fractional reserve with my money by lending out *my* bitcoin.

And, in effect, you will use your wealth to keep the poor under your foot. By not trading or investing, you contribute to the constriction of the money supply and allow yourself to purchase goods and services at a deflated rate. By the time you have spent, then and only then is the money less constricted. You benefit, everyone else loses.