Is bitcoin democratic?

[Rockford99]

Sorry, but only an idiot would ask such a thing.  Instead why not ask, "Is it voluntary?" or "Does it abide by predetermined rules or is it arbitrary and rigged (like the dollar and the banking system)?"

Many components of democracy end up being coercive or rigged.  My leftwing pap meter always rises when some clown invokes "democracy."  How about focusing of FREEDOM and VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENTS rather than being concerned with DEMOCRACY! AND LEARN THE DISTINCTION, SHERLOCK!

[1713509515]

1713509515

[1713509515]

1713509515

[1713509515]

1713509515

[1713509515]

1713509515

[1713509515]

1713509515

[hazek]

In case anyone wants to see what an actual democratic cryptocurrency really looks like, you can read about it here: http://wiki.solidcoin.info/wiki/Main_Page

[Explodicle]

In case anyone wants to see what an actual democratic cryptocurrency really looks like, you can read about it here: http://wiki.solidcoin.info/wiki/Main_Page

How is a system where one guy repeatedly changes the inflation rate any more democratic? If anything, Occcu is more democratic, and that's a stretch.

[Portnoy]

Sorry, but only an idiot would ask such a thing.  Instead why not ask, "Is it voluntary?" or "Does it abide by predetermined rules or is it arbitrary and rigged (like the dollar and the banking system)?"

Many components of democracy end up being coercive or rigged.  My leftwing pap meter always rises when some clown invokes "democracy."  How about focusing of FREEDOM and VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENTS rather than being concerned with DEMOCRACY! AND LEARN THE DISTINCTION, SHERLOCK!

Ya, and then if we decided to use a word like "voluntary" we would have some idiot shouting, "VOLUNTARY? I WAS ONCE TOLD BY A POLITICIAN THAT X WOULD BE VOLUNTARY AND IT ENDED UP BEING COERCIVE AND RIGGED! I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH VOLUNTARY!"   

LOL

How about learning the actual meaning of words and then if someone misuses it blame them and not the word?   

[mrvision]

Bitcoin is FOSS -- free and open source software.

Bitcoin seems to be a new example of Feudalism. There's an elite class of people who are the only ones capable of making meaningful changes or additions to the system, courtesy of their programming skills, education and intelligence. Everyone else is limited to merely using Bitcoin. As usual, class-hopping is allowed.

Democracy is feudalism. Bitcoin is antidemocratic, ergo antifeudalist, ergo profreedom.

Democracy sucks.

IF killing you would save 20 inocent children, should we vote your fate? Is your body and your life yours? If so... you are antidemocratic too.

[Lethn]

I like to think of Bitcoin as a constitution for a currency enforced by computers, the only difference is that it's a pre-written program that can't be changed easily, you also don't have adaptive A.I suddenly deciding that we're incapable of handling the responsibility of freedom ourselves and enslaving us all.

[Rudd-O]

hazek, I’m not even going to argue with you since you are completely detached from the public and display no empathy. All you want to do is nitpick because you perceive democracy as BAD BAD BAD. Is this some new kind of libertarian political correctness?

Well, too bad most people approve of democracy. They will feel alienated if you describe Bitcoin as NOT democratic. If you want to just stagnate with this current circlejerk, I guess that’s okay though.

What I and many other people think democratic describes is fairness, openness/transparency, equal rights, equal vote etc.

I can guarantee you that advertising Bitcoin as non-democratic is one of the worst marketing strategies ever.

You are the one in this thread who started insulting people and behaving with lack of empathy. I agree you should not discuss this topic with hazek here -- you are not qualified to lecture anyone on empathy, especially not hazek.

[Rudd-O]

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?

He makes zero sense. He thinks bitcoin is good, he thinks democracy is good, he sees that bitcoin does not conform to the definition of democracy as it is currently or historically understood, this produces anxiety in him... so his obvious coping strategy to deal with his anxiety is to dissociate from reality and pretend against all logic that the definition of democracy accommodates bitcoin. Oh, and insult and belittle and condescend you, because -- of course -- anyone speaking the uncomfortable truth obviously must be defamed and discredited to suppress that truth.

It is a standard Staazi tactic to eschew reality and logical sense if these features of humanity threaten their mythology.

[Rudd-O]

do you think money is democratic ?

wake up!

Isn't the point that bitcoin is meant to be better than the current fiat money?  Something more... god forbid... democratic?   

It is a common staazi mistake to equivocate "democratic" for "good". Of course this mistake is to be expected, since every child is repeatedly brainwashed for twelve years with this false association that serves staazi ideology. In this sense people use the word "democratic" like they use the word "American" -- as a false virtue, a word that is supposed to stand for "good".

Yes bitcoin is good -- that does not make bitcoin Democratic. None of the defining features of any democratic system are present in the bitcoin system, so hazek is right, bitcoin is by very definition undemocratic.

The homework for the reader is to figure out how that reality of bitcoin is precisely what makes it good.

[Rudd-O]

I don't see what isn't democratic about the Bitcoin network, you acquire the support of majority hashing power and the minority has the choice to just follow or start their own network. That is well, democracy in such a clear way that I couldn't even think of a better example of real democracy.

A majority of miners can't change the network rules. If every miner chose to increase the block reward from 50 BTC to 100 BTC, they would all just be ignored by everyone else. Your client applies the fixed rules of the network no matter what other people do.

Far from being a disappointing example of its nondemocratic nature I would suggest this just affirms its alignment to the democratic spirit, in terms of transparency and fairness etc.; not giving advantage to any particular interest group or class ( e.g. miners ) even if they constitute a majority of participants.  And it is the real world context - the freedom to participate rather than being coerced into this or that - and the spirit behind the system we should keep in mind isn't it, rather than arguing over semantics just for the sake of argument?

Something that we can help the common people feel good about in supporting and participating in... rather than turning a lot of them off with the narrow and/or belligerent and/or agenda driven views of this or that group or class ( e.g. libertarians ). 

This will be my last word on this particular subject... perhaps....  I retain my assumed right of free speech and free association.   

Ah, "democratic spirit". Like, "I accept that this coke bottle is obviously not blue, but it certainly conforms to the blue spirit".

Meaningless drivel designed to resist the truth and retain faith in an obsolete mythology.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Bitcoin is voluntaryist and the market it supports is agorism.

[mrvision]

In Democracy, it's your vote that counts.
In Feudalism, it's your Count that votes.
Get it right, sheesh.

And for once, I would like to hear a realistic example of a person's death actually saving 20 innocent children, and how the hell voting somehow came into the equation.

FAIL:
As in feudalism, in democracy, your vote is a suggestion.

If you don't like the example of a man being killed to save 20 innocent children, what about an arm being cut? What if there's no damage to his body.. we only wipe all his money? Or maybe only a little? Is it about how high is the aggression... the point is: is your body and your life yours?

[Rudd-O]

In Democracy, it's your vote that counts.
In Feudalism, it's your Count that votes.
Get it right, sheesh.

And for once, I would like to hear a realistic example of a person's death actually saving 20 innocent children, and how the hell voting somehow came into the equation.

FAIL:
As in feudalism, in democracy, your vote is a suggestion.

If you don't like the example of a man being killed to save 20 innocent children, what about an arm being cut? What if there's no damage to his body.. we only wipe all his money? Or maybe only a little? Is it about how high is the aggression... the point is: is your body and your life yours?

Well said. Unfortunately, I don't think you are going to convince your interlocutor that his slave suggestion boxes are slave suggestion boxes -- his brain is too putrefact with staazi propaganda that portraya the box as a direct line to his gods where he can grovel to the gods to please save him from evil people who just want to be left alone and not be violated.

[mrvision]

A) Bitcoin is so democratic that if the 51% of the world population voted to increase the bitcoin-money supply it would happen. OOOPS FAAAAAILLLL!!!!!

Indeed, bitcoin is not democratic, that's why you can CHOOSE NOT TO USE IT.

It might be more correct to say that your fiat money IS democratic, as you are FORCED to use it because of the will of the majority (in your collectivism).

As you can see, democratic is not synonym of free but of sacrifice. If your mental laziness allows you, google: John Galt Speech

[Portnoy]

do you think money is democratic ?

wake up!

Isn't the point that bitcoin is meant to be better than the current fiat money?  Something more... god forbid... democratic?   

It is a common staazi mistake to equivocate "democratic" for "good". Of course this mistake is to be expected, since every child is repeatedly brainwashed for twelve years with this false association that serves staazi ideology. In this sense people use the word "democratic" like they use the word "American" -- as a false virtue, a word that is supposed to stand for "good".

Yes bitcoin is good -- that does not make bitcoin Democratic. None of the defining features of any democratic system are present in the bitcoin system, so hazek is right, bitcoin is by very definition undemocratic.

The homework for the reader is to figure out how that reality of bitcoin is precisely what makes it good.

 

What is this talk about "good"?  Setting up a strawman? 

I like how many who are denouncing "democracy" point to things like the American political system. Just because they call it democratic doesn't make it so.
I am talking about the actual definition of the word not about institutions, etc., that are incorrectly given that label. 

Explain to me a better social system than one where everyone is given a voice and allowed equal participation? 

If your answer starts going on to complain that America, or this or that other system, does not allow equal participation or fair representation etc. etc. then you have failed to read the question and are tilting after windmills...

[Portnoy]

Ah, "democratic spirit". Like, "I accept that this coke bottle is obviously not blue, but it certainly conforms to the blue spirit".

Nope... failed analogy. 

Meaningless drivel designed to resist the truth and retain faith in an obsolete mythology.

Political and social equality are obsolete mythologies?  Unobtainable?  Not worth striving for? 

[Portnoy]

It is a common staazi mistake to equivocate "democratic" for "good". Of course this mistake is to be expected, since every child is repeatedly brainwashed for twelve years with this false association that serves staazi ideology. In this sense people use the word "democratic" like they use the word "American" -- as a false virtue, a word that is supposed to stand for "good".

Btw, how do you define "staazi"...  is that some derogatory term for a statist?  If you are implying that I am one of those I should point out that a better label, if you must have one, would be anarchist... not that I agree completely with the views of any one writer/thinker who is also given that label. 

I ask again... if these staazi, as you call them, like to call their crimes, etc., "democratic" and "good" why let them get away with it? Why not insist that they are using these terms incorrectly and point out why? Why accept their twisting of the language?  Why not call 'them' out, instead of people who try to use words in their proper sense? 

[Explodicle]

Explain to me a better social system than one where everyone is given a voice and allowed equal participation?

Who here has suggested a social system where everyone ISN'T given a voice and allowed equal participation? Both liberal democracy and ancap allow free speech. Democracy doesn't always mean equal participation, either - for example:
* Elected representatives and judges can participate in ways you can't.
* Some sub-jurisdictions (states/territories/cities) have more political power per capita than others.
* Some democracies ban felons, children, the mentally ill, and non-citizen residents from voting.
* Minority political groups might not be listed on the ballot, or be completely disqualified after the primaries.

I don't mean to imply you support any of those things - but democracy neither guarantees nor is the sole path to having a voice and equal participation in a society.

[Rudd-O]

I like how many who are denouncing "democracy" point to things like the American political system.

Democracy was shit already back in the Greek Republic days.  No need to refer to the current shitty system (which happens to fulfill dictionary definitions of democracy, No True Scotsmen notwithstanding) to know that democracy is shit.

[Rudd-O]

Explain to me a better social system than one where everyone is given a voice and allowed equal participation?

Who here has suggested a social system where everyone ISN'T given a voice and allowed equal participation? Both liberal democracy and ancap allow free speech. Democracy doesn't always mean equal participation, either - for example:
* Elected representatives and judges can participate in ways you can't.
* Some sub-jurisdictions (states/territories/cities) have more political power per capita than others.
* Some democracies ban felons, children, the mentally ill, and non-citizen residents from voting.
* Minority political groups might not be listed on the ballot, or be completely disqualified after the primaries.

I don't mean to imply you support any of those things - but democracy neither guarantees nor is the sole path to having a voice and equal participation in a society.

Indeed.  Democracy relies on inequality (giving an exclusive clique of people superpowers over everyone else) in order to (allegedly) "bring about equality".

That's like saying "In order for me to give you a rape-free life, I'mma gonna have to rape you now."

IOW, absurd.