Topic: bitcoin for everyone - page 4. (Read 865 times)

I think the important thing is to make sure that people who are capable of working are contributing to society. You could give them free tokens to buy the basic good things they need they can't afford due to lack of money. I'm not sure it's a good idea to give them money to spend most of them on things they don't need. I would probably give them tokens they can only spend on the basic things that's needed for their survival, under the conditions that they will be developing their talents by learning their desired skills from  established businesses through apprenticeship.  By the way, the established businesses would also be supported (if they are good at what they do) by the right government under the conditions they absorb the apprentices.

An apprentice could easily use his token to buy the basic things he/she needs esp from the businesses the government is supporting. The token can be converted by the businesses to the main society's currency.
I think this would be sustainable and would guarantee the needy their basic income.

remember, we derailed to sci-fi here and not so distant future. so technologies will be penetrate into all layer of societies. mobile phones and internet in 20-30 years most likely won't be an issue
what if processing of transactions will be equally distributed between all connected phones/laptops of those who use the coin. 8 billion people minus children under 8 year who do not need access to money and elderly. let's take away 3 billion. 5 billion connected devices.
centralized system inevitably will lead to inequality and corruption. so, it has to be decentralized. history showed that even the brightest and most noble minds tend to corruption as time goes by.

so what self-defence system need in order to be immunable to corruption and abuse of power, but stayed decentralized?

my bad 

limited supply, convenient and easy to use, trustful and transparent. if not. what it needs to preserve value?

let's fantasise) why lazy the lazy one. because they can be lazy and stay alive. if you do not have income to buy food you have to move your ass in order to put food in your mouse otherwise you starve to death. of course, it a bit extreme, but i hope you get the point.  (we talking about just pure lazy one, who can and able to generate some income)

it was Earth when i last check)

so, it has to be irreversible

it can be slowly spreading out among population. the way to do it? if it will be on the sale basis, who get the money? - it means another gready project to get rich quickly. if you have to work for it, it means only limited number of people get it.  if it go just for free people won't value it. so it has to be some honest way so it will be equally distributed and won't be a source of enrichment of a few but a benefit for all.

You need a smartphone or laptop, you need internet. Poor people may not have that. So it's not as convenient to use as you want to present it.
A crypto that has low/no fee and fast processing will not have miners, because nobody will work for free, nobody would pay for electricity for you and so on. What you ask for is a centralized garbage you'll call cryptocurrency. So it's a no.
As just said, that will be either insecure (no miners) either centralized.
If you want self-defence at these requirements, only the centralized option remains. Until now you have proven that you don't understand crypto. Now you continue by proving you also don't understand economics. You want things you cannot do. There's no way to preserve value for this... proposal on the free market.
Then you want to do something with money.. something that cannot be done with money. It's human nature. How on earth can "discouraging laziness" for everybody if they get for free what they need?! What planet are you from?!


Yes, but else you'll end up without coins because that you'll continuously waste them. But since it'll be a centralized system, maybe you'll handle with reversing transactions for unused money after a while and you won't need unlimited supply after all if you don't want to.
On a proper blockchain reversible transactions are the worse possible idea. But here reversible transactions will be just fine, since the system is centralized and only yours. And it will not be a blockchain either.


You never answered how people will get this "coin" without it being for free, but still not having to buy it or work for it, hence everybody, including me, still assumes you give it for free.
Also, I think that you fail to understand that you are heading towards a wrong direction, one that cannot be implemented and sustained.

I think he is just trolling, if you keep on going at him, he will just enjoy it more and more, there is really no reason to bother yourself with a troll when all they want is your attention and you are giving it to him. I would say ignore him, and that way he will be quite pissed about it for sure.

Not saying that it is a wrong thing that he said, bitcoin for everyone is obviously impossible but at least there is the fact that there is a set amount of bitcoin whereas there is no set amount of people in the world, even on a world pandemic we are growing in population and that should tell you what you need to know about the supply scarcity in the world and bitcoin being limited is one of them.

So, there will be less and less bitcoin available per person, not that all of us will have it, it is just a calculation method and that calculation shows bitcoin should worth more and more eventually.

I edited original post based on the reply in this topic.


I don't know where you get all these ideas, may be it was my fault as i failed to represent it properly or may be you see some thing between the lines that are not there. who knows)


that's good, that's what make us different and unique


yeah, it's normal. but it seems you disagree not only with me but with others posters. and it's ok. you have your own point of view. but it can be expressed in more friendly manner. not arrogant one, with explicate demonstrative superiority. as i said before, we are all friends here, although you disagreed with it. well, you have right to do that

good! different opinions lead to discussion and not to passive nodding in agreement. "truth is born in disputes"

Yeah, pretty simple, I'm using your own logic.
I'm denying that there are just two sides but then, pointing out the flaws in your logic I'm showing that even if there were only two sides you will not be on the one you think you are.
Again you're trying to view unity when there is none and you think you're sharing the same ideas as a majority that doesn't exist here.


And you're going to see more of it if you continue saying things I don't agree with! Isn't that normal?

Your whole idea started with taking people's money, when that failed you thought of a funnier one, of printing an endless amount of money to end poverty, a simple google search on Zimbabwe or Venezuela would have told you why this is a ridiculous idea.
So of course you will see only criticize from my side as you're simply pushing for the same ideas that have failed a hundred times in human history and they will fail again a thousand times. If you want to construct a solid plan start with not doing a thing, the fatal flaw in all those utopias, do not think about other's people money, start with yours!!!

As much as your theory of equal distribution sounds unrealistic and unachievable because it is far too late to even think of it let alone make it a reality, let's assume for a second that this theory is attainable! So who's btc will be brought for equal distribution! Elon Musk or MicroStrategy or rest of the rich list guys perhaps   am sure they wouldn't mind given up all their billion dollars worth of btc for equal distribution according to op,
I really like the idea, just make it happen.     
Equal distribution for All.

What are those most extreme case? If you have explained it earlier, kindly link me.

Your calculations are fine like if each and everyone on this planet if decide to own bitcoins then how much they may probably will get kind of thing is what I am getting on first reading. But, if you look for equal distribution then I am sure that you will never have any valid explanation on that and practically that will not be possible as already 11 years has been passed and bitcoin is distributed to around 40 million addys (which is approximate number of BTC addys with balances).

Sometimes back, I have come across a token which was airdropped to everyone and its name was something like mankind or similar to that. I mean that kind of thing alone here after possible if you are still concerned on "equal distribution".

i'm a bit confused, in one sentence you said that "there is no us and there is no them" and "makes you one of them not of us".
and also. no offence, but to me your posts (at least in this topic) seems a bit cooky and hostile in comparison to other posters. i don't know who you are in real life, maybe you a cool, nice guy, but here is just criticism, criticism, criticism...

Nobody is hostile here but you.
And there is no us and there is no them here, you're trying to pitch together people on an idea that actually makes you one of them not of us.

Besides that the simple thought of the whole bitcoin community being on board with your idea just because is bitcoin related is hilarious, we have hundreds of opinions here and hundreds of concepts, and each bitcoiners here has a different view of it from anarchist to commies, from the hard right-wing to socialist, and you're proposing an economical idea, of course, people will have different opinion, what did you respect, that suddenly they will open their pockets and start donating right and left?


One of the worse analogies I've seen around.
First people survive without legs, arms, one kidney, ears, eyes...nobody does without a brain or a heart, a lot of organs can be replaced, again, not the brain.
And if you like analogies, there is also a form of socialism in the human body, made out of cells who are no longer wishing to do their jobs, who seek better payment without doing anything, you can pretty much guess what cells those are.


The raping is a myth and they didn't execute him for that at all, they killed him after the death of Stalin because they were afraid of him, it was more a dance of hyenas each too scared of the other than a true trial. A long sequence of people scared shit of each other, Beria of Stalin, Khrushchev of Beria, and so on and on, like all leaders that know they are nothing special and can be replaced at whim by the party.

Reversible transactions cannot be possible in a decentralized system.

Who will take care of disputes and be in charge of reversing transaction? In P2P environment, transacting in low volume and then transacting through escrow are the solutions which eliminate the need of reversible transaction.

Do we have reversible with fiats?
Yeah, having but possible only through lawsuit. Same applies here on bitcoin transactions as well.

the point is to make such a cryptocurrency (let's go wild here in si-fi universe) that people would want and can afford. something that will be:
* easy/convenient to use, cheap (low/no fees) and fast (processing time);
* transparent, secure, decentralized;
* capable of self-defence (possess a mechanism against manipulation and abuse of the system) and governed by the users/holders (different level of voting and various electoral, autonomous bodies within the system that counterbalance and equilibrate each other to avoid corruption and abuse of power);
* suppressing/making unnecessary an urge for greed and unreasonable enrichment (fee if you hold more than you need and speculate);
* stimulating trust, help and support for those who are in temporal difficulties (unforeseen circumstances, illness, etc) but not the LAZY one;
* discouraging laziness and make no room for freeloaders;
* ...

will unlimited supply be a cause of inflation/decrease in value and other issues of current monetary systems?
will reversible transactions complicate the system, make it less secure and stable?

If you don't give them for free, it means that they have to either buy them, which is already possible almost everywhere over the world, or work for them, which need some skills and luck, but it's possible too. So I fail to understand what you mean. If you don't give for free, there's no way you can give to everybody, they won't afford it or don't want it.

The bridge you want is, on some extent, made by social-oriented political parties, which in theory give out some minimal money to the poor (and in reality, in most cases, encourage laziness and basically buy votes with public money), in many cases sacrificing a proper development of the country (at least that's what has happened in recent history of my country).

I've noticed that wherever political parties are involved, greed, corruption and laziness are present. We need something worldwide and new (none of the current or past political regimes). But that's "science fiction" again.

But the bridge you want is not necessarily related to bitcoin. Plus that I would give money to people in a currency that doesn't have limited supply and irreversible transactions, since there's always the chance people won't withdraw that money.

In regards to equality, one of the best way to understand it is to understand how human cells and body parts work together. The Head can't say it's  more important than the Hand that feed it, neither can the Eye say it's more important than the leg that carries it around. They need one another to survive and function properly.  They are all members of the body but with different functions...Same way human societies are members of the world but with different functions... Even the ignorants and self centered ones may not understand this.
You can't treat the rest of the members badly and expect the whole planet to be good. Same way the hand can't starve the leg and expect things to be ok.

The leg should quit trying to be like the eye. The eye should stop pretending like the leg doesn't matter.
They all have to focus on their roles and work for the good of the body rather than being selfish.

if i isulted you in some way, sorry about it mate. that was't my intention. just reflective response to the hi pitch tone in disscussion. i respect every point of view as long as it expressed in the equal, non offensive manner.


NICE! this what i'm talking about.

true) but to get there we need a bridge. we can't just wake up one day with robots around us, unlimited energy, food suplies and living space. crypto can be the bridge.
and why you keep saying "free bitcoins" ?)  i intentinally wrote few times that i'm not talking about free money. free money leads to greed and lazines. two of the worst burden of human nature. by distribution i mean the widening circle of bitcoin users to the whole Earth population, but defenetly not on the base of foreceble expropriation and equal redistribution. this is way to nowhere.
it has to be some other way: just, transparent, beneficial for everybody, stimulating trust and honesty, fighting greed, corruption and laziness.

This is epic:


The school children doesn't need to be embarrassed about getting fooled by the freebie propaganda. Because in the most powerful country in the world, the voters were fooled with the same propaganda in 2020. In an ideal socialist paradise, the Communist Party would provide you everything - food, housing, healthcare, education.etc. The party will decide whether you should become a farmer or a factory worker. The party will decide whether you should marry someone or not. The problem occurs when the leadership of the party ends up in the hands of people like Lavrentiy Beria. The syphilis infested monster treated the ordinary citizens as his slaves and destroyed the lives of thousands of women. Thankfully the Soviets executed him after he tried to rape Stalin's daughter. In most of the socialist countries, you will find such people. Kim Jong Un is a perfect example. 

I can set boundaries of the discussion with me, especially when you try to insult my intelligence.
It's interesting that you try to preach about something that more often than not ends up with denying the freedom of speech and on the other hand you request it.
But no problem, preach whatever you want, let's see how welcomed will that be.


Sure, no problem, just keep in mind that while in books or movies goods and services can rise from nowhere or magic, in real world those have to be performed by somebody.
If we go on science fiction, the route is simple:
1. Make nuclear fusion work for virtually unlimited and free energy
2. Make robots smart and almost independent, avoiding Terminator/SkyNet scenario
3. Since the robots will do all the work, humans can live in peace, harmony, without famine and diseases and with sufficient money and goods for everybody.
See? Free bitcoins are not even needed.

Exactly, each individual in the world has different ways on handling their money that's why even the money in the world will be distributed equally, the next day or the next few weeks there will be a difference between social status once again. There will be those people who would choose not to work to earn more or choose to work to assure the security of their future. There will be people who will put their greed first and take advantage of other people's stupidity and ignorance. The world is too vast and complex, no matter how hard we try to make everything appear equal, it's just too impossible.

Not really a good idea to to distribute a scarce currency in this manner. A fair distribution would need to be done in a way that benefits a community, and there is little to no bad side effects in the distribution.
Better to just get the coins to the most productive areas in the society and get people in need access the resultant products and services cheaply or free

so, you r the hostile one?
well, when it comes to non-bitcoiners even the worst enemies become friends 

smells a bit like censorship) what about freedom of speech? setting conversation boundaries no way to a healthy talk.
and to declare "most bitcoiners are middle class" is a bit risky. it's emply either lack of information or over-awareness.
but i understand your poit as of others.
nevertheless we need to look in the future and dream about and immagine even the most impossible things(as Jules Verne onece did). only this way we can make Earth a better place