Is Bitcoin Always Disruptive?

[serenitys]

I've learned a lot about the disruption potential of bitcoin on the entire financial industry once mass adoption goes down and I'm in the camp that wouldn't shed nary a tear if bitcoin wiped out the USD and bled every individual involved in government and banking cartel (global even) into abject poverty and despair, losing everything in the blink of an eye...and then shrugged them off and carried on.

However, I am not hearing anything about the restorative potential for bitcoin ON failing outdated financial models.

Is there a positive productive way the US (or any govt) can take advantage of bitcoin to strengthen its currency and pay down debt and adjust, adapt and be prosperous (assuming the greed and corruption are curbed, which likely won't be but pretend it can be for the sake of argument)...or is bitcoin/cryptocurrency inevitably going to take down the old system and replace it?

[serenitys]

Bump - it's a relevant question...worth a bit of discussion?

[hello_good_sir]

Bitcoin is a calming influence in the world, not disruptive.  Central banking is disruptive.

Could a government benefit from bitcoin?  Easily.  A government could buy a bunch of bitcoins and then announce that it will buy bitcoins until it has enough to back its currency with bitcoins.  The price would shoot up and the government wouldn't need to buy anymore, and in fact would be able to issue more money without devaluing its currency.

[miragecash]

Not disruptive at all. Think about it. If the US government wanted to, it could ban bitcoin but it only tried to weaken it but not destroy it. Why?

Bitcoin is plan B. If the dollar collapses, I guarantee you that China, Russia, and Iran will declare that their currencies are backed by gold and oil. Overnight, those 3 countries will be superpowers and the West will be third world countries UNLESS...

People accept an alternate currency that's also backed by nothing just like the dollar, Bitcoin.

Why do you think that China banned Bitcoin for a couple of days, then allow it, but with severe restrictions and there's an outright ban in Russia? Why?

Bitcoin is not disruptive at all, but it just may save the west.

I've learned a lot about the disruption potential of bitcoin on the entire financial industry once mass adoption goes down and I'm in the camp that wouldn't shed nary a tear if bitcoin wiped out the USD and bled every individual involved in government and banking cartel (global even) into abject poverty and despair, losing everything in the blink of an eye...and then shrugged them off and carried on.

However, I am not hearing anything about the restorative potential for bitcoin ON failing outdated financial models.

Is there a positive productive way the US (or any govt) can take advantage of bitcoin to strengthen its currency and pay down debt and adjust, adapt and be prosperous (assuming the greed and corruption are curbed, which likely won't be but pretend it can be for the sake of argument)...or is bitcoin/cryptocurrency inevitably going to take down the old system and replace it?

[annoyingorange]

bitcoin is poorly developed to take down all the old system and replace it

[franky1]

bitcoin is poorly developed to take down all the old system and replace it

bitcoin is not poorly developed, nor is it disruptive.

if is just a tool.
its the people that use this tool who can use it poorly and inefficiently, or they can use it wisely and in a well planned method that can change the FIAT landscape.

[dddbtc]

However, I am not hearing anything about the restorative potential for bitcoin ON failing outdated financial models.

Is there a positive productive way the US (or any govt) can take advantage of bitcoin to strengthen its currency and pay down debt and adjust, adapt and be prosperous (assuming the greed and corruption are curbed, which likely won't be but pretend it can be for the sake of argument)...or is bitcoin/cryptocurrency inevitably going to take down the old system and replace it?

Yes, there definitely is!

Awhile ago, I wrote up a comprehensive model demonstrating how, even in the context of more radical post-Keynesian monetary theory, digital currencies can be beneficial both to the sovereign and economic growth.  It didn't get much attention (I imagine it was a little above the education level of most forum members), but if you can make it through the somewhat more dense (but still very intersting!) theoretic part, it really is a very detailed model describing what you're talking about.

To quote the OP of that thread:

Greetings all,

To begin, I'll state something that is probably rather obvious to any of you who talk with anyone who is not a bitcoin enthusiast:  

There is a disconnect between those who are well-educated in digital currency technology and those who are well-educated in economics.

For the past several months, I've been trying to reconcile this concept of digital currency with a few economists.  In general, the prevailing view I am met with initially is that bitcoin is a fundamentally disruptive technology (I don't disagree) and that it fundamentally runs contrary to the government and central bank (I do disagree).

Now, most of you are probably, at least somewhat, anti-government, anti-banksters, or at least anti-oppression and anti-corruption.  This is all well and good, I don't intend for what I present here to run against the community tendency towards Libertarianism, or to be political in any respect.  This is purely an academic model to demonstrate the case, not to necessarily advocate for any political agenda, policy decisions, or community action.

I assert that the innovation bitcoin brings to the table can help to promote economic activity and growth on a widespread scale without diminishing the central bank's capacity to maintain policy goals.

Now, this may seem contradictory, and I fully understand that.  Hopefully, after reading this, whether or not you agree with the veracity of the details, I'll have made the case well enough that the general assertions seem at least possible, if not plausible.  

To flesh out the case, we will first have to clarify initial premises:

1)  This model holds that the descriptive portion of Modern Money Theory (or neochartalism as it is often called) is the best representation of how existing Fiat economies function.  An introduction to MMT can be found here.

2)  There are some situations in which a free market can produce inefficient and socially undesirable outcomes when left to its own devices.

3)  Effective economic policy decisions from a central authority aim to correct inefficiencies and promote economic growth through the most non-intrusive method possible that still achieves these goals.  Functional Finance style approaches to policy action tend to accomplish this most readily.


Now on to the meat.  

To begin, I'd like to introduce you to a way of thinking about money I'll colloquially term "Numismatic Economics."  

I assert that the type of token circulated as a money in an economy can have an impact on economic activity and growth.  This tends to seem much more intuitive to bitcoiners than economists, for whatever reason.  It seems rather obvious to say that people will prefer to use the most convenient, cheap, and safe token available to conduct their transactions, and that the number of transactions they conduct may be influenced by the type of token they use.

Given that this is the case, and given that governments are able to enforce the mandatory acceptance of a token by vendors (legal tender laws) and create some sort of demand for their token via imposed tax obligations, we can say that the type of token a government 'forces' on the economy can have ramifications on the effectiveness of their policy decisions.

So I set out to create a framework that describe how this interaction might take place comparatively between single token systems as well as in multi-token systems.  The preliminary model I arrived at for the general case is available here.


In the context of this framework, it is easy to see how the addition of a bitcoin-like token circulating with the standard centralized electronic representation of the US dollar (the predominant current token at present) may push further the potential for economic growth, as it will tend to be cheaper to produce and transact, as well as having a significantly lower storage cost to users and anti-counterfeiting cost to the sovereign.  

All other things being equal, if a central bank accepted taxes in a digital currency whose blockchain that they could fork at will to effect policy decisions (likely through the coercive use of legal force), and if they correctly managed the rate of token production and the tax acceptance rate, economic activity could be effectively increased without diminishing the sovereign's regulatory capacity.

Be this desirable or undesirable in the context of our personal political viewpoints, the implication that a centrally-managed, decentrally-secured digital currency could viably interact with existing political entities in economically beneficial ways is significant.

If this sort of dynamic is accurate, perhaps mainstream economics can be convinced that digital currencies have real potential for use even within existing theoretical frameworks.

[Beliathon]

Related video: Bitcoin vs. Political Power. This is truly a must watch.

To begin, I'll state something that is probably rather obvious to any of you who talk with anyone who is not a bitcoin enthusiast:  

There is a disconnect between those who are well-educated in digital currency technology and those who are well-educated in economics.

Of course there's a disconnect! Cryptocurrency/cryptography is a science, while economics is a pseudo-science designed to support the cult of capitalism.

Fiat is the organized religion of money. Crypto is the atheism of money.

[jbreher]

Bitcoin is plan B. If the dollar collapses, I guarantee you that China, Russia, and Iran will declare that their currencies are backed by gold and oil. Overnight, those 3 countries will be superpowers and the West will be third world countries UNLESS...

People accept an alternate currency that's also backed by nothing just like the dollar, Bitcoin.

Nonsense. Yes, the dollar is subject to a crash. However, that will not in and of itself invert the 'superpower' relationship. Even if currencies backed by gold and oil prevail*, this will not happen.

* First, I note that there is currently absolutely _no_ governmental currency backed by either gold or oil. Second, I note that -- at least on paper -- the US possesses a huge share of the world's gold (whether or not we've physically euphemistically 'leased' it out is another matter). Lastly, in case it escaped your notice, the US is now the world's largest producer of oil.

http://www.worldoil.com/World-Oil-Production-Table-April-2014.html

Bitcoin is indeed disruptive - of payment systems, of remittance networks, of fiat, and likely of many things yet to be revealed.

[shadowphoenix]

today maybe. in a few years? not so sure.

[practicaldreamer]

People accept an alternate currency that's also backed by nothing just like the dollar, Bitcoin.

I see where you are coming from - but how could Bitcoin save a country that has for years lived beyond its means, and tommorrow will be called to account ?

And, of course, there are many differences between BTC and the $, that we all here understand.

[Beliathon]

And, of course, there are many differences between BTC and the $, that we all here understand.

Yeah, mainly this:

[serenitys]

K, that's way more like it! Thanks for the great info...

People accept an alternate currency that's also backed by nothing just like the dollar, Bitcoin.

I see where you are coming from - but how could Bitcoin save a country that has for years lived beyond its means, and tommorrow will be called to account ?

And, of course, there are many differences between BTC and the $, that we all here understand.

Because the country didn't create the problem, it just facilitated it being totally naive and gullible. The government/bankers (along with wall st and military industrial complex) created the problem FOR the country.

For the US in particular the meltdown in 2008 changed things in mind blowing ways...the people had finally come face to face with the truth they could not ignore...kind of like the tween who idolizes his parents and then walks in one day to accidentally catch his parents cannibalizing an abduction victim in the basement.

Some people are government/banker apologists but the majority of the people woke up and started looking for actual change...which is enormously why Obama's Change campaign got the traction it did. (And I think someone should go beat Karl Rove's ass for unleashing the psycho party on the nation...)

Bitcoin is the alternative. Until that moment in 2009, we did not have a choice. We had a lot of virtual options but they were piggy backing the dollar and because they were centralized, they were easily snuffed out. Bitcoin solved that problem with the distributed network and public ledger, so the government might shut down some specific person or entity's computers but they don't shut down bitcoin itself.

It's already out there and people are adopting it because of all its benefits and advantages. That's how bitcoin is helping because it all boils down to the easiest thing in the world to do: just choose to.

For all those who protest that the public won't adopt it in time or not enough people will be using it so it's still vulnerable, they are incorrect. The public has already adopted it, in many countries across the world, and enough people have already adopted it that businesses are finally adjusting their options to incorporate it as a payment processor and a unit of value. The value of that utility is the thing that is keeping bitcoin market price steadily rising even if it drops for awhile...it gets right back up and starts heading up again...because the people are not abandoning it...no matter how much bs seems to be going on, China, Gox, that one dude on Silk Road, the drugs, the assassination politics, the fear mongering the trolls, all that stuff might make a few people bail...but the total amount of them are NOT bailing.

The government can come out tomorrow with an official ban and it won't kill bitcoin anymore than outlawing murder and drugs has stopped either.

Bitcoin lives by virtue of the will of the people - and because it's still there, still having people stepping up to develop various other uses for it, still rising up the charts, the reality here is bitcoin is insanely resilient and doesn't seem to be affected by anything the government thinks it's going to do...which needs to always be read as: the people are not choosing to be affected by anything the government thinks it's going to do because the people are choosing a stable, secure alternative and banding together to solve all these issues.

Personally, I don't think a government can co exist with bitcoin and I doubt at the end it would want to. I can see big conflicts coming but bitcoin isn't a "thing" the government can kill unless it kills all the people, and if it did that it'd be fucking itself at the end of the day.

Bitcoin can't save the country.

The country is saving the country by adopting bitcoin

Bitcoin is freedom.

Bitcoin is People choosing freedom.

[LostDutchman]

I've learned a lot about the disruption potential of bitcoin on the entire financial industry once mass adoption goes down and I'm in the camp that wouldn't shed nary a tear if bitcoin wiped out the USD and bled every individual involved in government and banking cartel (global even) into abject poverty and despair, losing everything in the blink of an eye...and then shrugged them off and carried on.

However, I am not hearing anything about the restorative potential for bitcoin ON failing outdated financial models.

Is there a positive productive way the US (or any govt) can take advantage of bitcoin to strengthen its currency and pay down debt and adjust, adapt and be prosperous (assuming the greed and corruption are curbed, which likely won't be but pretend it can be for the sake of argument)...or is bitcoin/cryptocurrency inevitably going to take down the old system and replace it?

A non-issue.

Mass adoption in the sense that most around here think of it is not going to happen.

[Ron~Popeil]

In order to coexist with bit coin the US government would have to give up a lot of power. It will not do so without a fight. A ground up movement is about the only way to do it and that appears to be exactly what we are doing with BTC. A smaller government that is forced into transparency by the block chain is something I really hope to see in my lifetime.

[LostDutchman]

In order to coexist with bit coin the US government would have to give up a lot of power. It will not do so without a fight. A ground up movement is about the only way to do it and that appears to be exactly what we are doing with BTC. A smaller government that is forced into transparency by the block chain is something I really hope to see in my lifetime.

Dream on.

[Beliathon]

In order to coexist with bit coin the US government would have to give up a lot of power. It will not do so without a fight. A ground up movement is about the only way to do it and that appears to be exactly what we are doing with BTC. A smaller government that is forced into transparency by the block chain is something I really hope to see in my lifetime.

This is going to happen.

The governments that try to continue using deception and coercion to get what they want will go the way of Blockbuster Video over the course of the next two to three decades.

The light of the information age washes over all things; it leaves no room for the shadows of deception. Information finds a way to be free.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

Bitcoin is disruptive because it changes the status quo.

Previously it took a long time and a lot of effort to send money from person to person, this was exaggerated when sending money overseas.