Bitcoin vs. War: Can Bitcoin Reduce Wars?

[commandrix]

I seriously doubt that Bitcoin by itself can end war. Humans are good at finding reasons to fight and war isn't even entirely about resources anymore. I saw a political cartoon recently where two aliens were leaving Earth and one of them tells the other, "As far as I can tell, they're fighting over which religion is the most peaceful." Cryptocurrencies are a good thing in the sense that people who actually produce useful goods and services can keep more of the money they earn without the bean counters at big banks getting in the way, but cryptocurrencies won't stop human weaknesses like greed.

[soccosocco]

I think yes because BTC is Money
and money can control everything, and I believe it
but depends also human, if human beings do not have a sense of humanity would be difficult to reconcile invited
it's just my opinion 

[Kluge]

There really aren't many currency wars these days (Ukraine, arguably, if you're around NWO theorists), but maybe Bitcoin can reduce the number of countries the USG sanctions and otherwise "discretely" punishes. Though, countries allegedly trying to undermine the USD (and/or USG) would probably just put that effort in other programs attempting to achieve the same outcome (assuming those countries aren't placated by a dethroned USD, assuming global BTC dominance), so they'd probably just be sanctioned for that.

Assuming Bitcoin increases productivity and efficiency, I guess it'd indirectly lead to bigger and bloodier wars in a sense -- more resources we can use to destroy. OTOH, a war could become MAD even without nukes if all a country has to do to grind an economy to a stop is to destroy Internet infrastructure (at least as international connections exists, where it's not very decentralized). That'd assume Bitcoin naturally leads to greatly expanded international and online trade which virtually every country is reliant on, which seems fairly reasonable to me.

[Mobius]

Apart from the funding and inflation aspect anything that promotes internationalisation may help prevent war. It would be silly for America to have a civil war these days for example, with increasing internationalisation war between countries might also become inconceivable. Bitcoin is an international currency so it may promote internationalisation and reduce war. Maybe

I think you guys have it slightly backwards IMO.  You are sort of claiming fiat funds wars which directly causes them.  I would claim wars are caused mostly by religion and fiat is pumped out in efforts to get a leg up and produce more weapons/soldiers etc. 

So if BTC were to replace everything, they would just pump BTC into the war to fund it.

Most modern wars are fought over, in part some kind of resource that is not fiat based (but the resource can be converted to fiat). Oil and other kinds of energy is a "popular" resource to fight over. In these cases it is not only about the resource, but also the ability to control energy which allows the country to further use it's war machine (as the military uses a lot of energy).

[Shen yingying]

Bitcoin Reduce Wars? I think it is impossible.

[sandykho47]

I think it's impossible

but i think BTC price might went up, because some fiat money are unstable went war
so, i think wars might help BTC price

[zimmah]

the only thing that will end war forever is the kingdom of god ruling over the earth.

[inBitweTrust]

the only thing that will end war forever is the kingdom of god ruling over the earth.

Most gods I have read about tend to be petty warmongers...but who knows maybe they have grown up and don't need continuous groveling and worship to boost their easily offended egos.

[inBitweTrust]

New Video: How Bitcoin Can Stop War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyU3TgQqtV8

[Ruthful]

New Video: How Bitcoin Can Stop War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyU3TgQqtV8

Most definitely shows how naive and out of touch with reality some bitcoin supporters are. Bitcoin will do nothing to stop "popular" wars.There are quite so many cases where war were actually "demanded" the the majority of the populace.

[inBitweTrust]

Most definitely shows how naive and out of touch with reality some bitcoin supporters are. Bitcoin will do nothing to stop "popular" wars.There are quite so many cases where war were actually "demanded" the the majority of the populace.

I don't think anyone is insinuating that Bitcoin will stop all violence and skirmishes. The argument being made is that state actors cannot use deflationary currencies as a tool to socialize/amortize the costs of large scale wars.

Demanding war and socializing the costs is one thing, but what would happen if everyone used Bitcoin instead of Government fiat, and thus governments would need to propose legislation to fund a war through bonds or taxes instead of simply inflating the monetary supply? From what I understand about human nature we tend to be selfish and hypocrites who prefer other people to pay for our wishes and often have higher priorities than war to spend our bitcoins on.

What we are also proposing is that the adoption of any crypto-currency which makes it more difficult for states to tax and regulate also makes funding such wars more difficult as well.

One argument that would be valid against my position is if state governments consistently become proficient at stealing the private keys as they have done a few times in the past than Bitcoin could be used to fund their adventures. Hopefully, hardware wallets and multi-sig will assist in deterring these unethical actions committed by states.

[El Emperador]

Very difficult to foresee.
As many of you already said, I think  Bitcoin alone can't stop wars.

Anyway, I also think wars happen more frequently in presence of powerful vested interests of, as it were, "centralized organizations" that can control and influence many people. With decentralization it's harder to set up an army and persuade people to the necessity of war.
Moreover, Bitcoin can reduce the power of governments and banks, which are both - as we know - the main architects of war, along with religious organizations.
So, I'm pretty confident Bitcoin can contribute to set up a more peaceful world 

[crazy-pilot]

Most definitely shows how naive and out of touch with reality some bitcoin supporters are. Bitcoin will do nothing to stop "popular" wars.There are quite so many cases where war were actually "demanded" the the majority of the populace.

I don't think anyone is insinuating that Bitcoin will stop all violence and skirmishes. The argument being made is that state actors cannot use deflationary currencies as a tool to socialize/amortize the costs of large scale wars.

Demanding war and socializing the costs is one thing, but what would happen if everyone used Bitcoin instead of Government fiat, and thus governments would need to propose legislation to fund a war through bonds or taxes instead of simply inflating the monetary supply? From what I understand about human nature we tend to be selfish and hypocrites who prefer other people to pay for our wishes and often have higher priorities than war to spend our bitcoins on.

What we are also proposing is that the adoption of any crypto-currency which makes it more difficult for states to tax and regulate also makes funding such wars more difficult as well.

One argument that would be valid against my position is if state governments consistently become proficient at stealing the private keys as they have done a few times in the past than Bitcoin could be used to fund their adventures. Hopefully, hardware wallets and multi-sig will assist in deterring these unethical actions committed by states.

The vast majority of the major wars (all of them?) since the revolutionary war have been financed primarily through debt and somewhat through increased tax revenues. You can find posters that were created around the times many more recent wars broke out advocating for people to buy "war bonds"

[inBitweTrust]

The vast majority of the major wars (all of them?) since the revolutionary war have been financed primarily through debt and somewhat through increased tax revenues. You can find posters that were created around the times many more recent wars broke out advocating for people to buy "war bonds"

The vast majority of wars have been financed by dilution(loans diluting public assets or the debasement of currency). This can be done directly like the Romans did debasing their currency by adding non-precious metals into their coins or through fiat currency inflation.

Even with your example you are wrong:

The financing of war expenditures by the means of currency issues (printing money) was by far the major avenue resorted to by the Confederate government. Between 1862 and 1865, more than 60% of total revenue was created in this way.[4] While the North doubled its money supply during the war, the money supply in the South increased twenty times over.[5]

The confederate army primarily relied upon dilution , while the union army relied on a a mix of dilution, loans, bonds, and new taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_war_finance


The alternative methods that states finance wars(taxes and bonds) prior to going off the gold standard strengthens my argument . When currency is tied to a commodity or crypto-currency with a fixed inflation rate or that is deflationary the state no longer has the tool to fund wars with dilution which makes fundraising much more difficult.

[2112]

What we are also proposing is that the adoption of any crypto-currency which makes it more difficult for states to tax and regulate also makes funding such wars more difficult as well.

From the game-theoretic point of view this is dubious. Assume the existence of two alliances: B & F. Alliance B uses Bitcoin-based financial system without fractional reserve. Alliance F uses the conventional debt-based financial system.

F issues war bonds to finance war of aggression against B. Because B is not capable of financing its own defense it gets easily conquered by F. F then subjugates the people of B and robs their natural resources to pay off the war bonds issued. By demolishing all B's massive mining farms it also significantly increases the availability of cheap electricity. 

It would appear that the adopters of Bitcoin necessarily put themselves at disadvantage in a military conflict or that your model needs further refinement.

[inBitweTrust]

From the game-theoretic point of view this is dubious. Assume the existence of two alliances: B & F. Alliance B uses Bitcoin-based financial system without fractional reserve. Alliance F uses the conventional debt-based financial system.

F issues war bonds to finance war of aggression against B. Because B is not capable of financing its own defense it gets easily conquered by F. F then subjugates the people of B and robs their natural resources to pay off the war bonds issued. By demolishing all B's massive mining farms it also significantly increases the availability of cheap electricity.  

It would appear that the adopters of Bitcoin necessarily put themselves at disadvantage in a military conflict or that your model needs further refinement.

Your actually arguing my point for me without realizing it.

Bitcoin empowers the individuals and dis-empowers the states. Thus, you are correct that any state that has a significant percentage of citizens adopting crypto-currencies are at a disadvantage in leveraging the tool of dilution to scale up defenses from an attacking state.  Bitcoin does have properties which are antagonistic to the ability of states to control their economy which is detrimental for funding either a defensive or offensive war.

It would appear that the adopters of Bitcoin necessarily put themselves at disadvantage in a military conflict or that your model needs further refinement.

Agreed, if your definition of adopters means states(B the state gets easily conquered by F the state), but if you intend to define adopters as individual people and their families, I would disagree. The concern of the security of individuals in an anarchist society without a healthy state defending them is another conversation which we can discuss now if you are interested.

[Realpra]

From the game-theoretic point of view this is dubious. Assume the existence of two alliances: B & F. Alliance B uses Bitcoin-based financial system without fractional reserve. Alliance F uses the conventional debt-based financial system.

F issues war bonds to finance war of aggression against B. Because B is not capable of financing its own defense it gets easily conquered by F. F then subjugates the people of B and robs their natural resources to pay off the war bonds issued. By demolishing all B's massive mining farms it also significantly increases the availability of cheap electricity.  

It would appear that the adopters of Bitcoin necessarily put themselves at disadvantage in a military conflict or that your model needs further refinement.

Ok F land takes B land, but then what?

1. They can't raise taxes because everyone hates them and are hiding their transactions using Bitcoin.

2. Oppressing peoples is historically insanely expensive, the ONLY "successful" examples I know are
the Romans, Arabs, Mongols and other such empires that brought new organization and tech with them
- not just oppression.

3. Funding a purely defensive military is also way cheaper than actual wars, any small fortifications,
armed militias or one or two deterring weapons like 1 nuke, 1 dirty bomb or 1 bio weapon would drive the
cost/risk of invasion through the roof.

4. They need the local work force of the nation to get the resources - no Americans are willingly gonna dig for coal
in Africas mines! Their ENTIRE modus operandi for achieving this has been putting the country deep in debt and corruption -
which becomes very difficult with a B land based on open voluntary P2P structures and no debt.
Russias method has been convincing them they're Russian.. a method which has its limits.

In any case a decentralized B nation is difficult to control through capturing 2 or 3 central authority buildings.

5. What about REAL war then? Exterminate a people, move your own in and straight up take it all? Very risky in todays world -
everyone and their grandmother has a nuke/bio weapon - and you just became the international bad guy that its okay to bomb/"liberate".
Why do you think Putin cares about the medias perception when he could just roll in? This is why.

[inBitweTrust]

....

A poignant response. Additionally, there are many other factors that make invading a anarchistic and decentralized culture difficult and undesirable by states.

1) Unwilling tax base
2) No centralized databases and communications to take over
3) Sometimes guerrilla warfare isn't even needed to resist occupiers -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_Revolution
4) Propaganda wouldn't be very effective


"Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing.
Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions. " - The Art of War

[moni3z]

Countries started printing money to fund wars so if they don't have a way to create huge amounts of money out of thin air to fund a campaign of destruction then that could put a stop to most of the foolish military adventurism going on. The best way to prevent wars is to vote in politicians who can actually negotiate with each other instead of causing wars but we never do that, instead we vote in falsely heroic populist frauds who don't even try to negotiate and just dictate terms to each other under threat of war.

[5000Bitcoins]

Hmm, maybe if you check out the financial terrorism that occurs here and there. Not sure what, but there's an angle here, I'll be back!