If you wanna fight socialists, or they wanna fight you, the best outcome is if you both kill each other IMO. Forget the ideological divisions, and simply leave each other be.
100% agree, it is better if we maintain our respective ideologies. with various ideologies spread around us, we cannot say that our understanding is the most correct.. "respect each other for a more peaceful life" 
Topic: Bitcoin as a Form of Anarchy - page 2. (Read 875 times)
Those ideas are inherently contentious, anarcho-communism can't stand private property and they wouldn't stop until it's abolished worldwide
People who invite conflict in that sort of way would be likely to meet their demise rather quickly in a more anarchic world. But I don't really believe there are too many of them anyway, they'd soon catch onto that.
And as long as these people respect other's ways of handling resources, then they can do what they like with their own. You can't say "there's no rigid way of doing things", then say "except you've all got to do it this way". I wouldn't do that in my personal life, but if I was running or working for a company, it's inherently a collective as you're working as a team with pooled resources. Are we gonna start targeting businesses as communist cults because the ownership rights of company property is "too blurry"?
If you wanna fight socialists, or they wanna fight you, the best outcome is if you both kill each other IMO. Forget the ideological divisions, and simply leave each other be.
Governments do not trust the blockchain platform. The most fundamental reason is that they cannot control it, I know that it is transparent but cannot control information from transaction addresses. In addition, concerns about money laundering and crime increase, resulting in regional security.
My take is that it wouldn't be healthy for any one of these ideas to dominate, because any of them could have a role to play given the right circumstances. Real life is too complicated to assume that a single idea for organizing will work in every situation. How about using just one word describing the ideology of letting ideas prove themselves in real situations according to their observable efficacy: anarchy
Those ideas are inherently contentious, anarcho-communism can't stand private property and they wouldn't stop until it's abolished worldwide - meanwhile private property is a cornerstone of many forms of individualist anarchism. Anarcho-primitivism seeks to destroy civilization which puts them in opposition to almost any other political movement. It's very hard for such radical ideas to peacefully coexist, they view each others way of life as injustice.
And using one word to describe them all will only create more confusion, it's literally like saying that there should be a state, without specifying what kind of state - it could be a monarchy, a democracy, a fascist dictatorship. Which is where we get back to OP's question - Bitcoin has similarities to some forms of anarchism, but not all.
Bitcoin is a form of anarchy in the economic system. The Bitcoin system is designed to do self-rule and be supported by the application of technological advancements so that it looks amazing for mathematicians and technologists. However, according to the anarchism that has been successfully implemented in Spain, everyone must do the task according to their respective roles so that this concept can succeed.
Expecting Bitcoin to be successful is the same as expecting an anarchist social order to be realized. It seems impossible, but in fact, the social order of anarchy can be done with satisfactory results. The anarchic social order that occurred in the Spanish Revolution which lasted for more than two years before General Franco's invasion succeeded in conquering an area controlled by anarchists.
social anarchy which was also supported by economic anarchy in Spain was carried out extremely. One of them, the community supporting anarchism in Spain at that time burned government money. As a result, coupons (and even just trust) can be used to get fruit and vegetables. If you support Bitcoin to succeed only so that you can then get a lot of Dollars, you only pollute the brilliant concept of Bitcoin anarchy.
Bitcoin is not an anarchy. You cannot say it because bitcoin is newly existing currency. And there is no kind of economic model nor social order can classify the cryptocurrency. We can`t say that it is only governed by same and few people because bitcoin can be governed or still under the control of the government. Why? Exchanges that run bitcoin and crypto trading are still regulated. And there are countries that still banning bitcoin. So, I don`t think that it is the best suit social order for bitcoin. Just sayin. Expecting Bitcoin to be successful is the same as expecting an anarchist social order to be realized. It seems impossible, but in fact, the social order of anarchy can be done with satisfactory results. The anarchic social order that occurred in the Spanish Revolution which lasted for more than two years before General Franco's invasion succeeded in conquering an area controlled by anarchists.
social anarchy which was also supported by economic anarchy in Spain was carried out extremely. One of them, the community supporting anarchism in Spain at that time burned government money. As a result, coupons (and even just trust) can be used to get fruit and vegetables. If you support Bitcoin to succeed only so that you can then get a lot of Dollars, you only pollute the brilliant concept of Bitcoin anarchy.
I agree totally. Using bitcoin to gain $$ just annoys me. It is a payment method and a way to use and own your own currency without government or banks intervention. Putting the power back in the people's hands and out of the authorities. We building something that has value based on how much we willing to trade on bitcoin. The idea is the same as when we use to use gold coins but now we minting our own coins. It really is not very hard to understand, I mean it is called bitcoin after all. You do mint physical coins and making a crypto is like minting your own coin and works in the same way. The only difference is we not forging out gold coins we are slowly releasing them on a lotto style distribution method where you gain a % of the released bitcoin based on your mining power / total mining power.
Cypherpunks are all anarchists, directly or not. Satoshi comes from this type of person.
No, Bitcoin doesn't need to be overloaded with regulations, basically, it doesn't need any. Look yourself, over the past decade, Bitcoin has been doing pretty well with almost no regulation.
Bitcoin was created to avoid these same regulations (and more), why accepting again to be controlled when a new currency supposed to be decentralized appears. Better to go back to fiats if we're still controlled by someone.
100%
I would give you a merit but you already legendary.
Anarchy is an anti-government social order and rejects the state system. My question is, do you think Bitcoin doesn't need regulation from the government or the state? and also does Bitcoin not require government support?
Cypherpunks are all anarchists, directly or not. Satoshi comes from this type of person.
No, Bitcoin doesn't need to be overloaded with regulations, basically, it doesn't need any. Look yourself, over the past decade, Bitcoin has been doing pretty well with almost no regulation.
Bitcoin was created to avoid these same regulations (and more), why accepting again to be controlled when a new currency supposed to be decentralized appears. Better to go back to fiats if we're still controlled by someone.
100%
I would give you a merit but you already legendary.
I'm curious to know why/how do you think today's technologies give the possibility to citizens to be part of an anarchist movement on 'a large scale'? Anarchism, Libertarian, whatever people call it, history showed we don't need technologies for this. Since this is a rather broad term, we could also consider the Amish as anarchists (they're great people btw). Don't need to have the same anarchist movement worldwide, different needs for different populations/histories/cultures...
Ok, how do you poll 100million people on an issue, or since they are the lawmakers, all the discussion involved? Now this can be done online in days.
Yes, it would have been technically possible to do it with snail mail in the span of months or years, but also prone to sabotage and fraud. Blockchain technology also happens to help secure it too...
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say: current technology helps facilitate a form of State-less government, where every citizen is the law maker and the decision maker, and provides justice. Unless you want to go down the slippery road of representatives, and rebuild a system with rulers and ruled again.
Of course, i'm also aware of some ideas involving AI, but i won't get in to that here. Just technology that facilitates (and secures) communication and decision making.
anarchy is always presented to us in the media or in movies/tv as chaos. But it does not mean chaos; "self-rule" or "emergent order" are less politicized descriptions.
To me Anarchy is a State-less form of government, ie. direct. In the past it was considered impossible on a large scale (beyond a small community or town) but with current technologies it could be doable...
While unrelated to Anarchy, there is an order within chaos, see Chaos theory. Which is why i don't like the misuse of both words
I'm curious to know why/how do you think today's technologies give the possibility to citizens to be part of an anarchist movement on 'a large scale'? Anarchism, Libertarian, whatever people call it, history showed we don't need technologies for this. Since this is a rather broad term, we could also consider the Amish as anarchists (they're great people btw). Don't need to have the same anarchist movement worldwide, different needs for different populations/histories/cultures...
anarchy is always presented to us in the media or in movies/tv as chaos. But it does not mean chaos; "self-rule" or "emergent order" are less politicized descriptions.
To me Anarchy is a State-less form of government, ie. direct. In the past it was considered impossible on a large scale (beyond a small community or town) but with current technologies it could be doable...
While unrelated to Anarchy, there is an order within chaos, see Chaos theory. Which is why i don't like the misuse of both words
Anarchy means that everyone does what ever he wants without following rules.
No it doesn't
Anarchy means that people agree rules between each other
Perhaps someone adheres to saying that anarchy is the mother of order, but for a cryptocurrency market, this wording is not appropriate at all. In addition, I am sure that the cryptocurrency will not be the only currency in the world.
Bitcoin is a form of anarchy in the economic system. The Bitcoin system is designed to do self-rule and be supported by the application of technological advancements so that it looks amazing for mathematicians and technologists. However, according to the anarchism that has been successfully implemented in Spain, everyone must do the task according to their respective roles so that this concept can succeed.
Your position (I don't have any issue with this though) on this looks like what those in government would side with and this further distracts from the aim for which Bitcoin was made. Now, let's look at this: What really is money? Isn't it just any document by mutual understanding to be used as legal tender for the exchange of goods and services? Is Bitcoin achieving that? Of course, yes! So, why would anyone call it an anarchy? Expecting Bitcoin to be successful is the same as expecting an anarchist social order to be realized. It seems impossible, but in fact, the social order of anarchy can be done with satisfactory results. The anarchic social order that occurred in the Spanish Revolution which lasted for more than two years before General Franco's invasion succeeded in conquering an area controlled by anarchists.
This seems to be highly improbable wherein people are interested more in government papers other than being free from the burdens that fiat currency and banks are placing upon their shoulders. Everyone do what the government and the banks say, and the society nowadays are trusting these entities highly on most occasions, with the exception, of course of graft and corruption wherein they 'feel' that 'their money' is being taken away from them. Had they known that in most simulations made by scientist, anarchy always remain supreme and always end up to be the form of societal structure when the governments fail to do their duty.
social anarchy which was also supported by economic anarchy in Spain was carried out extremely. One of them, the community supporting anarchism in Spain at that time burned government money. As a result, coupons (and even just trust) can be used to get fruit and vegetables. If you support Bitcoin to succeed only so that you can then get a lot of Dollars, you only pollute the brilliant concept of Bitcoin anarchy.
That was also a spectacle on how long it took before Franco realized his dream of ruling Spain and pushing the anarchist away. If it worked in (not-so) contemporary times, it could also work in our time as well, but the problem is that there would be massive bloodshed taking place before it happens. Bitcoin might be the start, although we are for the most part drifting away from the primary ethos of it every single day and let greed consume that belief.
Bitcoin is a form of anarchy in the economic system. The Bitcoin system is designed to do self-rule and be supported by the application of technological advancements so that it looks amazing for mathematicians and technologists. However, according to the anarchism that has been successfully implemented in Spain, everyone must do the task according to their respective roles so that this concept can succeed.
Expecting Bitcoin to be successful is the same as expecting an anarchist social order to be realized. It seems impossible, but in fact, the social order of anarchy can be done with satisfactory results. The anarchic social order that occurred in the Spanish Revolution which lasted for more than two years before General Franco's invasion succeeded in conquering an area controlled by anarchists.
social anarchy which was also supported by economic anarchy in Spain was carried out extremely. One of them, the community supporting anarchism in Spain at that time burned government money. As a result, coupons (and even just trust) can be used to get fruit and vegetables. If you support Bitcoin to succeed only so that you can then get a lot of Dollars, you only pollute the brilliant concept of Bitcoin anarchy.
Expecting Bitcoin to be successful is the same as expecting an anarchist social order to be realized. It seems impossible, but in fact, the social order of anarchy can be done with satisfactory results. The anarchic social order that occurred in the Spanish Revolution which lasted for more than two years before General Franco's invasion succeeded in conquering an area controlled by anarchists.
social anarchy which was also supported by economic anarchy in Spain was carried out extremely. One of them, the community supporting anarchism in Spain at that time burned government money. As a result, coupons (and even just trust) can be used to get fruit and vegetables. If you support Bitcoin to succeed only so that you can then get a lot of Dollars, you only pollute the brilliant concept of Bitcoin anarchy.
I wouldn't describe it as a form of anarchy.
There are certain rules that need to be followed if you are into the cryptocurrency industry.
Anarchy means that everyone does what ever he wants without following rules. Bitcoin is an innovation that it better fits to be called as revolutionizing the economic system, meaning that it improves it, not creating chaos in it.
I hope you read the article about crypto-anarchist and you think for yourself that bitcoin is an idea of crypto-anarchist
https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
I don't think that it's 'anarchy' per se.
There are still rules
There are still rules
"anarchy" does not mean "no rules"
Bitcoin is a form of anarchy in the economic system. The Bitcoin system is designed to do self-rule and be supported by the application of technological advancements so that it looks amazing for mathematicians and technologists. However, according to the anarchism that has been successfully implemented in Spain, everyone must do the task according to their respective roles so that this concept can succeed.
Expecting Bitcoin to be successful is the same as expecting an anarchist social order to be realized. It seems impossible, but in fact, the social order of anarchy can be done with satisfactory results. The anarchic social order that occurred in the Spanish Revolution which lasted for more than two years before General Franco's invasion succeeded in conquering an area controlled by anarchists.
social anarchy which was also supported by economic anarchy in Spain was carried out extremely. One of them, the community supporting anarchism in Spain at that time burned government money. As a result, coupons (and even just trust) can be used to get fruit and vegetables. If you support Bitcoin to succeed only so that you can then get a lot of Dollars, you only pollute the brilliant concept of Bitcoin anarchy.
Expecting Bitcoin to be successful is the same as expecting an anarchist social order to be realized. It seems impossible, but in fact, the social order of anarchy can be done with satisfactory results. The anarchic social order that occurred in the Spanish Revolution which lasted for more than two years before General Franco's invasion succeeded in conquering an area controlled by anarchists.
social anarchy which was also supported by economic anarchy in Spain was carried out extremely. One of them, the community supporting anarchism in Spain at that time burned government money. As a result, coupons (and even just trust) can be used to get fruit and vegetables. If you support Bitcoin to succeed only so that you can then get a lot of Dollars, you only pollute the brilliant concept of Bitcoin anarchy.
I don't think that it's 'anarchy' per se.
There are still rules within the bitcoin network that people abide by in order to facilitate transactions, as well as a hard coded emission mechanism with a hard cap on the amount of coins that can ever be mined and thus be in circulation.
These rules and regulations still exist, and essentially are where the intrinsic value of bitcoin is derived from.
In contrast to fiat currencies however, these decisions on the 'monetary policy' is not set and maintained by a central entity, but done so through consensus on a decentralized network, and enforced as such to eliminate the possibility of a rogue central entity. That's the major difference, I think.
Bitcoin is a form of anarchy in the economic system. The Bitcoin system is designed to do self-rule and be supported by the application of technological advancements so that it looks amazing for mathematicians and technologists. However, according to the anarchism that has been successfully implemented in Spain, everyone must do the task according to their respective roles so that this concept can succeed.
Expecting Bitcoin to be successful is the same as expecting an anarchist social order to be realized. It seems impossible, but in fact, the social order of anarchy can be done with satisfactory results. The anarchic social order that occurred in the Spanish Revolution which lasted for more than two years before General Franco's invasion succeeded in conquering an area controlled by anarchists.
social anarchy which was also supported by economic anarchy in Spain was carried out extremely. One of them, the community supporting anarchism in Spain at that time burned government money. As a result, coupons (and even just trust) can be used to get fruit and vegetables. If you support Bitcoin to succeed only so that you can then get a lot of Dollars, you only pollute the brilliant concept of Bitcoin anarchy.
Expecting Bitcoin to be successful is the same as expecting an anarchist social order to be realized. It seems impossible, but in fact, the social order of anarchy can be done with satisfactory results. The anarchic social order that occurred in the Spanish Revolution which lasted for more than two years before General Franco's invasion succeeded in conquering an area controlled by anarchists.
social anarchy which was also supported by economic anarchy in Spain was carried out extremely. One of them, the community supporting anarchism in Spain at that time burned government money. As a result, coupons (and even just trust) can be used to get fruit and vegetables. If you support Bitcoin to succeed only so that you can then get a lot of Dollars, you only pollute the brilliant concept of Bitcoin anarchy.
There's a little similarity as the way we use bitcoin but it's have no capabilities of invading a government and replace the whole system though there's a possibility happen an assimilation of people , and what we can do is just to continue support bitcoin then wait for other people coming up here .
rules, more like automated rules
in the definition for anarchy you presented, nowhere did it mention "no rules". It stipulated "no rulers", which is different
If human body doesn't qualify as Anarchy as defined by online dictionaries then blockchain is definitely not Anarchy.
not much of a qualification then?
Blockchain is self-regulating like Human body.
"self regulating" is a more accurate description of what anarchy actually means
By the definitions they have given, I think it is. It denies government regulations. No more explanation for that. That's why Bitcoin is not adopted worldwide because it's against government regulations. I always expect hostility from government because they think they are losing control over their people. I admire those states that embraced it even though it threatens their power to regulate.
Jump to: