Is bitcoin democratic?

[evoorhees]

hazek, I’m not even going to argue with you since you are completely detached from the public and display no empathy.

I think the same sentiment is conveyed by certain characters in Atlas Shrugged   "I won't argue with you, you have no care for the public good and only care for yourself."

[N12]

hazek, I’m not even going to argue with you since you are completely detached from the public and display no empathy.

I think the same sentiment is conveyed by certain characters in Atlas Shrugged  "I won't argue with you, you have no care for the public good and only care for yourself."

Aaaah, Ayn Rand! Libertard and Asperger galore! What next, Bioshock? In the end, I did argue though.

You are in marketing Erik, you know exactly that describing Bitcoin as "non-democratic" is a shitty strategy and that democratic is a positive attribute. I’m sure you are also aware that people can smell it when you want to push some weird agenda on them, which I think is one of the main reasons Bitcoin is perceived as a scam.

edit: See, I knew you were reasonable.

[evoorhees]

This poll will inevitably cause divisions, because "democratic" is one of those words which has no solid meaning. It's a bit of a fluffy term... that's why politicians love using it.

But I'll say this:
-Bitcoin IS democratic in that anyone, anywhere, has access to it. It is not exclusively reserved to any person nor group. It is an open and available resource to all to all who care to take advantage of it.

-Bitcoin IS NOT democratic in that it enforces strict property ownership and transfer that is not up for vote. Nobody can tell me who I can send my coins to, how many coins I may have, or what I may do with them. I suppose a "majority" (or even a minority) can fork the chain, but then it's not really "bitcoin" anymore but something different. To the extent that Bitcoin's rules are maintained, my coins are not up for vote and that is very undemocratic, and very good.

[evoorhees]

hazek, I’m not even going to argue with you since you are completely detached from the public and display no empathy.

I think the same sentiment is conveyed by certain characters in Atlas Shrugged  "I won't argue with you, you have no care for the public good and only care for yourself."

Aaaah, Ayn Rand! Libertard and Asperger galore! In the end, I did argue though.

You are in marketing Erik, you know exactly that describing Bitcoin as "non-democratic" is a shitty strategy and that democratic is a positive attribute. I’m sure you are also aware that people can smell it when you want to push some weird agenda on them, which I think is one of the main reasons Bitcoin is perceived as a scam.

Yes, let's all be scared of the libertards! If you're not careful, they may leave you alone!!!

Regarding marketing, that's a different question. We might agree that Bitcoin is "not democratic" for example, but then choose to not use that in our marketing. What Bitcoin is, and how it's presented, are two different things. Our honesty is measured by how close those two things are to each other, but the rules of war and persuasion (and the moral opportunity cost of allowing a word to bury itself in chaos), may provide for some wiggle room in how Bitcoin is presented to those unaware of the root causes of problems in the world.

Put more simply, when I'm explaining Bitcoin to people, I never use the word democratic... I just avoid it. Primarily because, as mentioned in my above post, it's a weasel word used by politicians, and I care not to blemish Bitcoin's brand with such silly terminology. Bitcoin is about the fusion of liberty, technology, and property rights, and I see little need to drag notions of "democracy" into it.

[Technomage]

Regarding marketing, that's a different question. We might agree that Bitcoin is "not democratic" for example, but then choose to not use that in our marketing. What Bitcoin is, and how it's presented, are two different things. Our honesty is measured by how close those two things are to each other, but the rules of war and persuasion (and the moral opportunity cost of allowing a word to bury itself in chaos), may provide for some wiggle room in how Bitcoin is presented to those unaware of the root causes of problems in the world.

Put more simply, when I'm explaining Bitcoin to people, I never use the word democratic... I just avoid it. Primarily because, as mentioned in my above post, it's a weasel word used by politicians, and I care not to blemish Bitcoin's brand with such silly terminology. Bitcoin is about the fusion of liberty, technology, and property rights, and I see little need to drag notions of "democracy" into it.

+1

[niko]

This thread reminds me of that supposed translator in one "underdeveloped" country, who was working for a group of foreign medical doctors visiting local facilities.  After a strange discussion mediated by this translator, the visitors realized that the only meaning of "virus" he knew was that of a harmful computer code...

Back to basics: "demos" means "people," and "kratos" would be "power," or maybe "rule."  So there you go. Bitcoin is democratic in the sense that it places the power of issuing, storing, and controling the money in the hands of the people. I've been mining until recently. I'm free to exchange Bitcoins as I see fit. I'm free to burn my paper wallet. I don't depend on anyone or anything in particular when I do these things.  There is no need to overthink this and get confused.

 

[Elwar]

Bitcoin is not democratic because the minority is not forced to do anything.

[doobadoo]

From latin the word democracy can be translated as "the people rule."   That does not necessarily mean "everything for majority vote" which is the typical definition taught in government run schools.  In fact, you can have democracy and no voting.  As long as all the rights and privileges one would expect are available to all, then you technically have democracy. 

How about democracy being a state of no ruling class, or individuals possessing special rights or status.

Since no one has special right, and every one participates in the operation of bitcoin voluntarily, this may be the closest thing to real democracy possible.

Just remember Democracy does *NOT* equal voting majority.   It is a system of people rule.  Some idiotic folk see this as "majority rule" and then, majority rule to elect the 'representatives' who then rule over all.  Somehow these folk think that will produce a good result (mostly democratic socialists).   But is you want to see democratic socialism taken to its natural conclusion...see Greece.

Overtime all the facets of government have become corrupted with patronage and special status granting.  Thats right, in a people rule system, somehow, we go back to the elite living off the fat of the land at the expense of the at large populous. There are different tax rates depending on what profession you work, special taxes for certain things, but not others.  Thats just the tip of the iceberg.  But it is definately a 'who you know' situation in Greece.

That's what's magical about bitcoin.  It matters not who you know or how big your wallet file is.

[muyuu]

Thankfully it's not!

We'd be fucked otherwise.

[doobadoo]

That is just one specific form "a" democracy can take. Just one form that does not define all possible forms.

You know they put those numbers in front of those definitions in dictionaries to show that a word can have multiple definitions.
Not all of them apply in all uses of the word.   

Listen to yourself. You're telling me that Bitcoin is democratic, it just isn't democratic as we know what being democratic means in the real world.

It's like saying my bike is blue, it just isn't blue as we all see the color blue.

Can you see how little sense you make?

Hazek, fix your brain.  Your logic is tortured.  Its pretty clear what Portnoy is saying: democracy means different things to different people/different usage.  That means your continued attempt to pigeonhole democracy as 51%, rule 51% rule, 51% rule, 51% rule, 51% rule....is just silly.

Go back to the Latin: demo=people   cracy= rule of

"Rule of People"  can take many forms, not all involve everything being up for 51% vote. 

[hazek]

That is just one specific form "a" democracy can take. Just one form that does not define all possible forms.

You know they put those numbers in front of those definitions in dictionaries to show that a word can have multiple definitions.
Not all of them apply in all uses of the word.  

Listen to yourself. You're telling me that Bitcoin is democratic, it just isn't democratic as we know what being democratic means in the real world.

It's like saying my bike is blue, it just isn't blue as we all see the color blue.

Can you see how little sense you make?

Hazek, fix your brain.  Your logic is tortured.  Its pretty clear what Portnoy is saying: democracy means different things to different people/different usage.  That means your continued attempt to pigeonhole democracy as 51%, rule 51% rule, 51% rule, 51% rule, 51% rule....is just silly.

Go back to the Latin: demo=people   cracy= rule of

"Rule of People"  can take many forms, not all involve everything being up for 51% vote.  

Bitcoin isn't ruled by people, not 1% or 51% or 99% or 100%, hence not a democracy.

[Portnoy]

From latin the word democracy can be translated as "the people rule."   That does not necessarily mean "everything for majority vote" which is the typical definition taught in government run schools.  In fact, you can have democracy and no voting.  As long as all the rights and privileges one would expect are available to all, then you technically have democracy. 

How about democracy being a state of no ruling class, or individuals possessing special rights or status.

Since no one has special right, and every one participates in the operation of bitcoin voluntarily, this may be the closest thing to real democracy possible.

Just remember Democracy does *NOT* equal voting majority.   It is a system of people rule.  Some idiotic folk see this as "majority rule" and then, majority rule to elect the 'representatives' who then rule over all.  Somehow these folk think that will produce a good result (mostly democratic socialists).   But is you want to see democratic socialism taken to its natural conclusion...see Greece.

Overtime all the facets of government have become corrupted with patronage and special status granting.  Thats right, in a people rule system, somehow, we go back to the elite living off the fat of the land at the expense of the at large populous. There are different tax rates depending on what profession you work, special taxes for certain things, but not others.  Thats just the tip of the iceberg.  But it is definately a 'who you know' situation in Greece.

That's what's magical about bitcoin.  It matters not who you know or how big your wallet file is.

+1

Bitcoin isn't ruled by people, not 1% or 51% or 99% or 100%, hence not a democracy.

You don't need to be so strict in your definitions. Instead of "rule" in its most nasty connotation it can be seen as, and takes the form as in certain real world applications, as
"supervised."

Bitcoin is supervised by computer systems, which are supervised by the common people.  That is a good thing.

And about the notion, brought up by a few here, that we should not use certain words because politicians misuse them all the time... What? We want those politicians to rule over us and push us around and keep us from using perfectly good words?  Instead of letting them get away with the misuse I would prefer to see people speak up and point these things out. This is the information age. We can use it to our advantage like with systems like bitcoin. We can speak to power. We can neutralize their propaganda with education and reasoned argument, without needing to be insecurely belligerent about it either. We don't need to bow down to them and let them redefine our world with their doublespeak and all the rest.  We can see the man behind the curtain... let us tell everyone instead running away... we can see how powerless and frightened he really is. We don't need to fight him but just recognize our own power... not a power over others but a power to be what we want to be, without the need of the hand-holding of a nanny state protecting us and powerful centralized masters keeping us in line.

[hazek]

Is that really your best attempt to weasel yourself into justifying calling Bitcoin democratic? It's being supervised by people?  


The reason why I'm so strictly against calling Bitcoin democratic is because of all the bad things that actually come with that adjective. I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but there are no rights in Bitcoin, there are no entitlements in Bitcoin, there are no groups of people ruling over other groups of people in Bitcoin.

And I don't want Bitcoin, something so powerful, honest, strict, free of coercion, voluntary and with a high likelihood being a very beneficial technology to all people, help in any way shape or form elevate the connotation or the image of a word that represents ideas and real world institutions which are the sole culprit of so many problems and so much suffering that we have today.

I don't want for someone to be able to ever say: "Look at Bitcoin, see how well democracy can work?"

Because believe me, just like nowadays they say "Look at America or Europe, see how capitalism doesn't work?", which is a complete and utter lie since we haven't had capitalism for a long long time, someone using Bitcoin as propaganda for that evil ideology is just as bound to happen, and I will have none of it.  

[Explodicle]

I agree with Blitz in that democracy can mean different things to different people. However, to ME it means that everyone at least has roughly equal power in the decision-making process, and that's not the case with Bitcoin. Your influence is dependent upon your contributions and ability. It would be silly to say a newbie has as much power as Gavin, MagicalTux, or Tycho. "Technocratic" is much more applicable.

Sure, we shouldn't market Bitcoin as undemocratic, but we shouldn't market it as democratic either. It's surely liberal and egalitarian, but its democracy is in a gray area at best. Boldly claiming how democratic we are will just spawn more semantic arguments like this and may even appear dishonest.

[Portnoy]

Is that really your best attempt to weasel yourself into justifying calling Bitcoin democratic? It's being supervised by people?  

The reason why I'm so strictly against calling Bitcoin democratic is because of all the bad things that come with that adjective. I'm sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but there are no [ special ] rights in Bitcoin, there are no entitlements in Bitcoin, there are no groups of people ruling over other groups of people in Bitcoin.

ftfy

And neither does there have to these things in a democracy as has been pointed out to you now many times. Just because you don't like something that someone inappropriately calls "democracy" and you let them change the meaning of the word for you doesn't mean it still doesn't have the original meaning for most people who use the language. I don't have to justify using it in its proper sense. It is people like you and certain politicians etc. who misuse it who have to justify yourselves.

Because believe me, just like nowadays they say "Look at America or Europe, see how capitalism doesn't work?", which is a complete and utter lie since we haven't had capitalism for a long long time

If it is a lie then why let them get away with it? Why let them change the meaning of the word? Why give in and let them push you around like that? You say you will have none of it but it seems like it is me and others who you are arguing with are the ones who want to stand up for the proper use of our language.

If a politician told you 2+2=5 will you just shrug your shoulders and ask, "But how am I going to balance my checkbook now?"  

[Portnoy]

...someone using Bitcoin as propaganda for that evil ideology is just as bound to happen, and I will have none of it.  

And then there is the seeming contradiction of your complaining about democracy being only about people ruling over others while you seem to want to rule over others in how they describe bitcoin. i.e. your saying as much as "People must not use the word democratic to describe it!" ( note I said "your saying as much as..." That is not meant as a verbatim quote. ) 

I don't care if people use that term to describe it or not. I am just offering my opinion that people should be allowed to use that term if they want, since by the proper definition of the term "democratic", bitcoin is democratic in many ways ( if perhaps not in all ways ).

I also agree with others that to call it undemocratic is a misrepresentation, although they are free to do so, as much as I and others are free to state our opinion about that, while not going so far as to try and coerce them to stop.

This whole thread is a democratic thing, with the poll for people to vote in if they want and the opportunity for everyone to have their say if they so choose. 
But perhaps it isn't perfect. There are certain forum rules that must be followed, and not everyone might agree with all the various rules, and there is the centralized authority of moderators ( but they seem to be nice rulers pretty much. All hail our forum overlords! lol  ) and other things that not everyone agrees with, or has a free choice in... it is still largely democratic just the same.

You still seem willing to participate. Do you feel like you were forced to come here against your will and made to state your views in this evil exercise of democracy?   

tl;dr  I am not trying to attack the views of anyone but to defend* "democracy" and democracy.... the word and what it represents. ( *not too actively but just with a few words of support etc. )

[MoonShadow]

This thread is a perfect example of exactly my original point.  This thread will never end due to the differing opinions on the semantics of the word "democracy".  In the end, Bitcoin is what it is, and it doesn't matter at all how it's described.

[hazek]

while you seem to want to rule over others in how they describe bitcoin

If you call ruling over people with my pointing out to people what the truth is, then yes, I guess I am.

[Portnoy]

This thread is a perfect example of exactly my original point.  This thread will never end due to the differing opinions on the semantics of the word "democracy".

"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it."

In the end, Bitcoin is what it is, and it doesn't matter at all how it's described.

I won't argue with that but I think the marketers will beg to differ. In modern times they have made neuro-semantic manipulation an artform and taken it to levels that would shock even Goebbels.   

But anyway we can end now... hazek has given us truth!   

or so it seems to me... but i am common... and a weasel... lol

[benjamindees]

From latin the word democracy can be translated as "the people rule."

Just remember Democracy does *NOT* equal voting majority.   It is a system of people rule.  Some idiotic folk see this as "majority rule" and then, majority rule to elect the 'representatives' who then rule over all.  Somehow these folk think that will produce a good result (mostly democratic socialists).   But is you want to see democratic socialism taken to its natural conclusion...see Greece.

Democracy is a Greek word, not Latin.  The Greeks invented Democracy.  And, to them, it was majority rule.

You can engage in all the revisionist history you'd like, but if we're going to "remember" anything, it should be that.