Topic: Bitcoin, human rights, authoritarianism and war - page 2. (Read 244 times)

Honestly this your grammars can be confusing to an extent, maybe you try to make it simple by beating it at the head by going straight to what you have to say about bitcoin, we all understand we have our fundamental human rights, yet we are all subjects under the law of the government because they are ruling over us, bitcoin is a decentralized digital network that talks more about this freedom but in the financial aspect of every human life, we can choose the be in control of our finances without having to fight against the government when we gave the alternative like bitcoin, with this, there's no need for complex economic or financial crisis that may lead to war or any for of disunity.

I believe that Bitcoin will only bring about a real change if it remains free from government control. Many of the conspiracy theories are fueled by the fact that everything is currently centralized. While we do have a government and need to adhere to the law, most of us aren't fully aware of the extent of surveillance they conduct. Bitcoin with its complete anonymity, has the potential to grant us true freedom by allowing us to control our own wealth and providing greater security from prying eyes.

I want to emphasize that the three factors, namely "human rights, authoritarianism, and war," have no direct correlation with Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't inherently linked to these issues; rather, it's a matter of government laws and their proper implementation. Mismanagement of these laws can indeed lead to divisions among the people which could potentially cause war at its worse.

Bitcoin is indeed pseudonymous but with the assistance of some privacy services and using only decentralized platforms, you can be anonymous to a large extent. The use of a mixer and other privacy tools will promote the anonymous nature of Bitcoin. That is why the US government wants to criminalize the use of mixing and conjoining services. You also need to know that decentralized exchanges don't need KYC and using  centralized exchange for criminal activities is unwise

With each abnormal event, people who loves Bitcoin will try to say Bitcoin saves locals, Bitcoin makes different.

Neutrally said, Bitcoin has all ability to make differences but big or small, it depends on each area and situation. However if someone says it like exaggerating the importance and capability of Bitcoin, I will be more cautious and suspicious about what they are saying.

The Israel - Palestine (Hamas on behalf) war is like Russia - Ukraine war months ago. When that invasion of Ukraine started, a few weeks later, massive donations to Ukraine through Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, mainly in Bitcoin. People said similar things like OP said right now.

Ukraine has raised more than $54 million as bitcoin donations pour in to support the war against Russia. It was in March 2022 and it is more than $225M recently.

I think it is still too soon for Bitcoin to play a significant role in the world.

On one hand we have this decentralized payment system that can not be censored which makes it an excellent choice for many free people around the world.
On another hand this currency has a very volatile price and it also hasn't reached mass adoption yet which makes getting paid or making payments in it complicated.

In other words it has both pros and cons and depending on the situation one could overshadow the other.

Case in point:
The cons in the case of the Palestinians and the Palestinian freedom fighters is their lack of access to technologies and even the internet. Specially the Palestinians that are kept in concentration camps or in Gaza which is known as the biggest prison in the world.
So for example even if you have all the money in the world but there is no food to purchase, it won't help. Obviously having bitcoin in this case won't help either specially since you'd have to convert it to fiat first then try to buy food that doesn't exist!

As a digital currency, yes. However, it still takes time to become dominant because Bitcoin is still the main safe haven investment asset to date, which is equivalent to gold.

As my war sponsor we are only a few Bitcoins involved. because Bitcoin can actually be traced and is not completely anonymous but pseudonymous. I think it would also be very ineffective if used as war funding because making it into large amounts of cash also takes time and is a complicated process. Most exchanges now require KYC. So to do that would be very blatant.

The dominance of digital currencies as well as investment instruments is still possible for Bitcoin's future.

I don't think that bitcoin is going to be the cure all for the problems of the country and I think that in terms of how it's going to be used, it can liberate or restrict human rights or the people itself. For example, freedom fighters that have a problem in funding might use bitcoin to purchase their weapons without the worry that the government will intercept it and it can also work the other way too, the authoritarian might use bitcoin as a means to subtly purchase or sell stuff that they probably have a sanction against acquiring.

Welcome to the forum and I am hoping to learn all you have learned from your indepth and comprehensive studies.

Bitcoin becoming a dominant currency in the world is possible because it has all it takes to be one of the world's leading mediums of exchange. However, it will not replace traditional currency, fiat will always be available as an alternative so the government will always find ways to sponsor wars. The government can fund wars with weapons, natural resources, and even investments. Another point is that Bitcoin was created to be decentralized so that Bitcoin users will be anonymous or at least enjoy privacy. So how will you track funds used to sponsor wars, except you are pointing at government regulations

I've been immersed in a wealth of information on human rights and Bitcoin through extensive reading, watching, and listening. I'm eager to initiate a discussion and gather insights on the intersection of Bitcoin with human rights, encompassing themes of general freedom, authoritarianism, and the impact on conflicts like war.

I'm particularly interested in delving into nuanced comparisons, such as Bitcoin versus historical monetary colonialism, and the potential role of Bitcoin as a currency for liberation in contexts like Palestine, providing an escape from both corrupt governance and external influences.

I'm keen to hear diverse perspectives and continue learning. What are your thoughts on Bitcoin in relation to these complex issues?

Personally, I envision a future (although I may not be around to witness it) where Bitcoin takes centre stage as the dominant currency or serves as a foundational layer for all transactions. Such a scenario could drastically alter the economic dynamics of conflict and war. Given that all wars have underlying economic motives, and with governments unable to print fiat currency, they would be compelled to rely on either increased taxes or coercive measures to sustain their endeavours. This, in turn, could reshape the calculus of conflict by making it economically less viable.

Perhaps this is too utopian, are there any arguments against this hypothetical?