If Bitcoin is an experiment,...

[cbeast]

American Democracy is an experiment created by an algorithm called the Constitution. It requires constant attention, participation, and minor tweaking along the way whenever someone discovers exploits. I could go on about the analogy between cryptocurrency and democracy, but the point is that I feel that Bitcoin is the key to spreading freedom and democracy everywhere. Maybe freedom based democracy is not the best form of government, but I've never heard of anything better. The same goes for Bitcoin.

Sir, please get your facts straight. Although I'm not a believer in minarchism (limited government), I actually despise democracy and think anarcho capitalism is the best way to structure a society, but I still have to correct you when you make a grave mistake like you just did.

The word democracy does not once appear in the U.S. Constitution. Not even once. That "algorithm" was suppose to create a republic, not a democracy but people didn't, as you correctly put it, give it enough constant attention, participation or guarding so through time it's interpretation by people in power changed where today they practically already scrapped the whole thing.

Another thing I have to correct you is thinking that freedom and democracy can possibly go hand in hand or be synonymous. Fact is democracy is majority rule, the direct opposite of freedom and actually actively working against it. (I cannot express how much I hate democracy.)

And finally Bitcoin has no similarity with a democracy. None. There is no majority rule. There is only the rule of the algorithm everyone voluntarily agreed upon using. Even if miners start using another algorithm, even if the majority of it's users start using a client with another algorithm, no one is forced to use it. Which is something that will get you imprisoned or killed in a democracy. (don't believe me? try calling your precious government and ask if you can renounce your citizenship without taking on another and see what happens)


I suggest you start learning the ugly truth about democracy and perhaps research the idea of a peaceful society living in spontaneous order and of which membership is voluntary but requires following a few mandatory but consistent rules if you really want freedom, peace and prosperity.

I stand corrected on my terminology, yes Republic is a better word. Democracy is often used to refer to the American style of politics by laymen such as myself. This does not change the facts presented. I choose to use Democracy because Republic reminds me of George W. and the current Republican Party.

Changing the Bitcoin protocol requires a majority agreement. Your argument about using a non agreed to algorithm is a strawman. Besides, democracies always have loopholes if you want to skirt the grey areas. In America there are many forms of alternate currency in legal use.

Democracy is not the same as majority rule, though majority gets more weight, at least in America.

Finally, minarchsm and anarcho capitalism are hypotheticals. I am talking facts. If you have an example of such a successful society, please enlighten me.

[1714010991]

1714010991

[1714010991]

1714010991

[1714010991]

1714010991

[1714010991]

1714010991

[blablahblah]

American Democracy is an experiment created by an algorithm called the Constitution. It requires constant attention, participation, and minor tweaking along the way whenever someone discovers exploits. I could go on about the analogy between cryptocurrency and democracy, but the point is that I feel that Bitcoin is the key to spreading freedom and democracy everywhere. Maybe freedom based democracy is not the best form of government, but I've never heard of anything better. The same goes for Bitcoin.

Sir, please get your facts straight. Although I'm not a believer in minarchism (limited government), I actually despise democracy and think anarcho capitalism is the best way to structure a society, but I still have to correct you when you make a grave mistake like you just did.

The word democracy does not once appear in the U.S. Constitution. Not even once. That "algorithm" was suppose to create a republic, not a democracy but people didn't, as you correctly put it, give it enough constant attention, participation or guarding so through time it's interpretation by people in power changed where today they practically already scrapped the whole thing.

Another thing I have to correct you is thinking that freedom and democracy can possibly go hand in hand or be synonymous. Fact is democracy is majority rule, the direct opposite of freedom and actually actively working against it. (I cannot express how much I hate democracy.)

And finally Bitcoin has no similarity with a democracy. None. There is no majority rule. There is only the rule of the algorithm everyone voluntarily agreed upon using. Even if miners start using another algorithm, even if the majority of it's users start using a client with another algorithm, no one is forced to use it. Which is something that will get you imprisoned or killed in a democracy. (don't believe me? try calling your precious government and ask if you can renounce your citizenship without taking on another and see what happens)


I suggest you start learning the ugly truth about democracy and perhaps research the idea of a peaceful society living in spontaneous order and of which membership is voluntary but requires following a few mandatory but consistent rules if you really want freedom, peace and prosperity.

I think it would be more accurate to describe a democracy as proportional representation of opinions. Bitcoin is like a democracy with a minority government. The miners are simply casting votes that say "I should get all the Bitcoins!" And by a convoluted process, a ballot is drawn so that someone indeed gets all the Bitcoins roughly every 10 minutes.

Also, are you forgetting that political systems are generally shaped by history? If a so-called democracy evolves out of a monarchy, it's likely to have many features of the previous system, such as a large bureaucracy and a police force. Or, more generally: structure. What would democracy be like if it started out with no structure? Or at least a certain bare minimum that is needed to enforce the system?

[hazek]

I think it would be more accurate to describe a democracy as proportional representation of opinions. Bitcoin is like a democracy with a minority government. The miners are simply casting votes that say "I should get all the Bitcoins!" And by a convoluted process, a ballot is drawn so that someone indeed gets all the Bitcoins roughly every 10 minutes.

How the reward is divided up has nothing to do with rules and forces no one to acknowledge someone's reward if they didn't follow the rules.

Also, are you forgetting that political systems are generally shaped by history? If a so-called democracy evolves out of a monarchy, it's likely to have many features of the previous system, such as a large bureaucracy and a police force. Or, more generally: structure. What would democracy be like if it started out with no structure? Or at least a certain bare minimum that is needed to enforce the system?

You are clueless about history and how the American republic looked like right after it's inception. It had 0, yes 0 "features" of a previous system, because there was no previous system. It's the last form of government, the last algorithm that was invented from almost a completely clean slate. People were actually nut just free, but sovereign and owned what they produced. Their privacy was sacred and they could do or own virtually anything that didn't hurt someone else. A far cry from today. What they have today is a gradually corrupted government into a fascist corporatism that evolved because while what little power that the original limited government had, there still was some power to be auctioned off, and guess what, special interest bought it all up and controls it today.

The only answer moving forward is not back to the same recipe for inevitable disaster but forward with something new and even more radical. No central government with no power to be auctioned off.

Btw I bet you don't even realize that you are a slave today and what it means to be a sovereign and truly free. I'm willing to bet money on it.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

And Bitcoin, if you didn't realize this, is a tool some slaves are trying to fight back against their masters.

[DeathAndTaxes]

And finally Bitcoin has no similarity with a democracy. None. There is no majority rule.

Of course there is it just happens to be 1 hash = 1 vote instead of the more common 1 person = 1 vote (or 1 white land owning citizen = 1 vote)

[muyuu]

I think that the assumption that BTC would collapse overnight if it was to be replaced has no grounds.

It's also a plausible scenario that future competitors would be exchanged with BTC and keep stable prices for some time.

[hazek]

And finally Bitcoin has no similarity with a democracy. None. There is no majority rule.

Of course there is it just happens to be 1 hash = 1 vote instead of the more common 1 person = 1 vote (or 1 white land owning citizen = 1 vote)

Really? And what does this "vote"(not really a vote) mean for me as a bitcoins owner? Nothing. If I don't like what you're doing with your hashing I can sell my bitcoins the very next minute and put my wealth into another currency. I really don't see how that is possible in a democracy. In a democracy if you don't like how the majority votes, there's nothing you can do. You have to live under their rules or not live at all. Not so with Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has ZERO similarity with a democracy other than the fact that both are run by people. ZERO, period.

[Tuxavant]

Really? And what does this "vote"(not really a vote) mean for me as a bitcoins owner? Nothing. If I don't like what you're doing with your hashing I can sell my bitcoins the very next minute and put my wealth into another currency. I really don't see how that is possible in a democracy. In a democracy if you don't like how the majority votes, there's nothing you can do. You have to live under their rules or not live at all. Not so with Bitcoin.

That's why we shouldn't have such a bit fucking federal government and states rights are so important. If you dont like what's going on in California, you can move to nevada (like I did).

[edd]

If space travel becomes possible, bitcoin will likely become obsolete. The protocol assumes that every node has a latency of less than 10 minutes (2 minutes if TCP is used). This can be violated on Earth as well if your Internet is cut off by the govenrment (or your ISP) and data must be smuggled out on foot. For the largest "island" of processing power, this is not a big problem. However, smaller islands of processing power face having their blockchain history re-written by malicous entites on the larger processing island.

Not at all.. There will just be realms of crypto-currencies: here on earth and there out there. And exchanges for entities to trade between, perhaps facilitated with Open Transactions and RipplePay technologies.

I did my own thought experiement on this a few weeks ago. I envision MarsCoin, VenusCoin, JupiterCoin, KuiperCoin, etc, all traded at varying rates on a solar system wide crypto-currency exchange.

[hazek]

Really? And what does this "vote"(not really a vote) mean for me as a bitcoins owner? Nothing. If I don't like what you're doing with your hashing I can sell my bitcoins the very next minute and put my wealth into another currency. I really don't see how that is possible in a democracy. In a democracy if you don't like how the majority votes, there's nothing you can do. You have to live under their rules or not live at all. Not so with Bitcoin.

That's why we shouldn't have such a bit fucking federal government and states rights are so important. If you dont like what's going on in California, you can move to nevada (like I did).

As if that gives you the freedom to keep the fruits of your labor, as if that solves the problem of not being able to own property or a house or a car, as if that solves the problem of legal tender laws, as if that solves the problem of not being free to travel, as if that solves the problem of being forced under threat of violence to get a license for virtually any activity you'd like to offer to the market.

Please, just stop before you embarrass yourself even more with your lack of knowledge about how the reality really looks like.

[DeathAndTaxes]

And finally Bitcoin has no similarity with a democracy. None. There is no majority rule.

Of course there is it just happens to be 1 hash = 1 vote instead of the more common 1 person = 1 vote (or 1 white land owning citizen = 1 vote)

Really? And what does this "vote"(not really a vote) mean for me as a bitcoins owner? Nothing.

Everything.  If majority of hashing power agree that block reward is 50,000 BTC per block then it is. 
If the majority of hashing power implements a demurage on your wealth then it happens.
If the majority of the hashing power forces a 0.1 BTC min fee for valid tx then it is unavoidable.

So yes the votes by hashing power are very important.  Now for a Democracy to work the voters must be INFORMED and EDUCATED.  Most of the problems with modern Democracies can be boiled down to ignorance of the issues.  Life is "good enough" for most Americans in America.  Most voters don't feel the need to be informed, or question authority. Even bad legislation isn't bad enough to stir them to action.  Our govt has rigged it so most Americans don't pay income tax thus have no direct stake is how the govt wastes money.

The nice thing about voting by hashing power is the miners do HAVE a direct stake.  Their hashing power has a cost, the future economic value of that hashing power is a direct tangible benefit.  Most (maybe not all but most) miners tend to be relatively informed.  They are more likely to make decisions that enhance Bitcoin because it enhances their future economic value.

If I don't like what you're doing with your hashing I can sell my bitcoins the very next minute and put my wealth into another currency. I really don't see how that is possible in a democracy. In a democracy if you don't like how the majority votes, there's nothing you can do. You have to live under their rules or not live at all. Not so with Bitcoin.

Um ever heard of moving, or convincing the majority to change their mind, or violent overthrow of the govt?

I can exchange my Bitcoins for a currency I feel is better aligned with my interests.
I can move from my existing country to one where I feel the govt is better aligned with my interests.

I can work to change the protocol rules and convince a majority of miners to support those changes.
I can work to change the laws of my govt and convince a majority of voters to support those changes.

I can attack the Bitcoin network and setup a competing network.
I can attack my govt in an attempt to overthrow it and setup a new govt.

[Tuxavant]

Please, just stop before you embarrass yourself even more with your lack of knowledge about how the reality really looks like.

The reality is, we will never not have a government. Your inability to comprehend that point is what should be embarrassing.

[hazek]

And finally Bitcoin has no similarity with a democracy. None. There is no majority rule.

Of course there is it just happens to be 1 hash = 1 vote instead of the more common 1 person = 1 vote (or 1 white land owning citizen = 1 vote)

Really? And what does this "vote"(not really a vote) mean for me as a bitcoins owner? Nothing.

Everything.  If majority of hashing power agree that block reward is 50,000 BTC per block then it is.  
If the majority of hashing power implements a demurage on your wealth then it happens.
If the majority of the hashing power forces a 0.1 BTC min fee for valid tx then it is unavoidable.

So yes the votes by hashing power are very important.  Now for a Democracy to work the voters must be INFORMED and EDUCATED.  Most of the problems with modern Democracies can be boiled down to ignorance of the issues.  Life is "good enough" for most Americans in America.  Most voters don't feel the need to be informed, or question authority. Even bad legislation isn't bad enough to stir them to action.  Our govt has rigged it so most Americans don't pay income tax thus have no direct stake is how the govt wastes money.

The nice thing about voting by hashing power is the miners do HAVE a direct stake.  Their hashing power has a cost, the future economic value of that hashing power is a direct tangible benefit.  Most (maybe not all but most) miners tend to be relatively informed.  They are more likely to make decisions that enhance Bitcoin because it enhances their future economic value.

If I don't like what you're doing with your hashing I can sell my bitcoins the very next minute and put my wealth into another currency. I really don't see how that is possible in a democracy. In a democracy if you don't like how the majority votes, there's nothing you can do. You have to live under their rules or not live at all. Not so with Bitcoin.

Um ever heard of moving, or convincing the majority to change their mind, or violent overthrow of the govt?

I can exchange my Bitcoins for a currency I feel is better aligned with my interests.
I can move from my existing country to one where I feel the govt is better aligned with my interests.

I can work to change the protocol rules and convince a majority of miners to support those changes.
I can work to change the laws of my govt and convince a majority of voters to support those changes.

I can attack the Bitcoin network and setup a competing network.
I can attack my govt in an attempt to overthrow it and setup a new govt.

Typical slave ignorance. I cannot express how infuriating it is for me to read your post. I despise people that think like this.

The nice thing about voting by hashing power is the miners do HAVE a direct stake.

Last I checked the dictionary that's not voting. They are running the show with everyone else running a client(mining or not), no question, but they don't vote. A vote carries necessary consequences for others, but what miners do with their hashing power does not necessarily have consequences on me. I can choose to not use it. I cannot choose not to live under a law passed by a government without being under threat of violence.

A more accurate description of what they're really doing with mining is enforcement of rules as a service not voting on rules.

Um ever heard of moving, or convincing the majority to change their mind, or violent overthrow of the govt?

And that's similar to Bitcoin how exactly? If I don't want to use Bitcoin I don't need to move or employ violence. I don't need to do anything, I'm left alone. The idea that a democracy owns the people on a piece of land abhors me. It's slavery and you're oblivious to it if you think I have a choice when my only options are to run or to fight.

[hazek]

Please, just stop before you embarrass yourself even more with your lack of knowledge about how the reality really looks like.

The reality is, we will never not have a government. Your inability to comprehend that point is what should be embarrassing.

I bet they said the same thing about your precious democracy back when kings ruled the people. 

[DeathAndTaxes]

Last I checked the dictionary that's not voting. They are running the show with everyone else running a client(mining or not), no question, but they don't vote. A vote carries necessary consequences for other, but what miners do with their hashing power does not necessarily have consequences on me.

Of course it is voting.

I can vote to support a double spender.  I can vote to support a 51% attack.  Now I likely never would but each miner (well each informed miner, pools = uninformed miners) is voting on which block is accurate representation of the current status of the network.   Conflicting views are resolved via hashing power with the majority enforcing the consensus on the minority.

There absolutely are consequences for those votes.

[hazek]

Last I checked the dictionary that's not voting. They are running the show with everyone else running a client(mining or not), no question, but they don't vote. A vote carries necessary consequences for other, but what miners do with their hashing power does not necessarily have consequences on me.

Of course it is voting.

I can vote to support a double spender.  I can vote to support a 51% attack.  Now I likely never would but each miner (well each informed miner, pools = uninformed miners) is voting on which block is accurate representation of the current status of the network.   Conflicting views are resolved via hashing power with the majority enforcing the consensus on the minority.

There absolutely are consequences for those votes.

I guess there's no point. You just aren't capable of looking at things like they really are.

It's funny too cause first you tell me it's voting and then you call it "the majority enforcing the consensus".

BTW I never said there were no consequences to what rules they enforced I only said that the crucial difference between Bitcoin and a democracy is that those consequences aren't necessarily applicable to me. I can choose to not use Bitcoin and avoid those consequences, something that I cannot do in a democracy without the threat of violence.

[hazek]

I can vote enforce rules to support a 51% attack.

Let me add one more thing. If you did this in a democracy others would have no choice but to be subjected to what you enforced. But with Bitcoin if people don't like the rules you support they can fork off and let you enforce what you will while they continue to use Bitcoin as they wished. Something not possible in a democracy without being under the threat of violence.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I guess there's no point. You just aren't capable of looking at things like they really are.
It's funny too cause first you tell me it's voting and then you call it "the majority enforcing the consensus".

They aren't mutually exclusive.  Hashing is voting 1 hash = 1 vote.  Majority of hashing power chooses the consensus.  Not sure why that is hard for you to understand.

BTW I never said there were no consequences to what rules they enforced I only said that the crucial difference between Bitcoin and a democracy is that those consequences aren't necessarily applicable to me. I can choose to not use Bitcoin and avoid those consequences, something that I cannot do in a democracy without the threat of violence.

False.  Move to a non-democratic state.   Tada the votes of a Democracy would have no more consequences than the votes of miners have on non-Bitcoin users.

The thing you seem to be missing is your claim is:
Bitcoin consequences don't affect me because I can choose to live outside of Bitcoin (i.e. don't use Bitcoin).

How is that any different than:
Consequences of voting in the US doesn't affect me because I can choose to live outside the United States (i.e. move to Somalia).

Now you may say "I don't want to move to Somolia" to which I would say that is no different than someone not wanting to stop using Bitcoin.  Also in both instances the effect or lack of effect on you doesn't change the fact that voting is occurring.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I can vote enforce rules to support a 51% attack.

That is a false correction.

IT IS A VOTE.  I can't enforce ANYTHING.  I can only vote toward one of many possible blockchains.  The block chain with the most votes (via hashing power) BECOMES the consensus.  A block only remains in the primary chain because it has been deemed the best block by a majority of the hashing power.  

Anytime two blocks are in conflict is can only be resolved via voting.

[hazek]

Let me repeat myself before I stop replying to you:

The idea that a democracy owns the people on a piece of land abhors me. It's slavery and you're oblivious to it if you think I have a choice when my only options are to run or to fight.

Do I have to fight Bitcoin if I don't want to use it? No.
Do I have to run from Bitcoin if I don't want to use it? No.    -> freedom, not slavery.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Let me repeat myself before I stop replying to you:

The idea that a democracy owns the people on a piece of land abhors me. It's slavery and you're oblivious to it if you think I have a choice when my only options are to run or to fight.

Well your options aren't just run or fight.  They are acceptance, changing the view of the voters, fighting, or running.


Your opinions on democracy being slavery are irrelevant to the point at hand.  Slavery or not you rant only reinforces the fact that Bitcoin is very much like a Democracy.

If the majority of voters (1 citizen = 1 vote) in a democracy disagree with you then your choices are limited to:
1) accept the will of the majority
2) change the opinion of the majority (voting)
3) fight (doesn't have to be violence, you can encourage revolution/change by nonviolent means)
4) run (move to somewhere outside the realm of control by the majority)

In Bitcoin (1 hash = 1 vote) if majority of hashing power disagrees with you then you choices are very similar:
1) accept the will of the majority
2) change the opinion of the majority (voting)
3) fight (destroy the network from within to make room for a new network, or force a change)
4) run (yes making a fork would be running, you risk losing anything and everything you have created & invested in this fork)

The same thing applies in a corporation (1 share = 1 vote).  Your choices are limited to:
1) accept the will of the majority
2) change the opinion of the majority (voting)
3) fight (damage the company valuation to encourage aquisition by another company)
4) run (sell your stake potentially at a loss)