Topic: Bitcoin Is Not A Democracy. Then What It Is? - page 5. (Read 2739 times)

I voted for bitcoin is anarchy because of the quoted statement i really agree with that "It is absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal" Its the odd man out from existing mode of currency it changed the whole concept of currency being rebel.

Although I follow your reasoning and quite like the definition you gave, I have to argue this conclusion. In a censorship free market, you have no barrier to entry. You yourself can choose to be a Miner. This is much different than Oligarchy.

The fact is, Bitcoin only rewards those who do things efficiently. Not wasting resources in inefficient tasks. This is exactly what a Free Market system does. It directs resources to the most efficient use. Everything else, would just be a subsidy paid by all others.

Bitcoin is also blind, it does not discriminate, and it does not require anything, you can do anything you want. It just punishes inefficiency because it is unregulated. No excuses, no subsidies, no bailouts. This gives users a real choice, this is the democratization of money. Every user matters, and every user votes with their dollars. Also, it makes people actually think and not just wait to be bailed out or told what to do. Puts the responsibility on those who want it.

How many times do you lose value on trivial endeavors because some idiot just wants it done for him? And because of him, everyone has to pay to protect the single case that he might so something stupid on his own and complain about it? In Bitcoin you have a choice. In the real world, not so much. You are taxed in value lost every step of the way just because some of us want someone else to blame.

You don't need any node for that.

The path of Bitcoin as I say, will tell us a lot about ourselves as a species.

Its none of the above i voted for that because apart form anarchy remaining words i searched in google and get to know the meaning . There is no need for comparing its just payment mode with revolutionary changes.There is lots of people find job because of bitcoin instead of big banks is holding all the transaction . Now normal people can benefit from that . Its just a revolutionary thing.

Actually, I think Bitcoin really is destined to change our societal norms and political structures. I think Bitcoin is a real revolution of the commons.

Also, although I can agree that it's current value holds alot of speculation, the value of Bitcoin is backed by energy. So Bitcoin will always have value to someone as long as someone is wasting energy on it (mining).

I think Bitcoin is past that threshold where there is too much invested to go back. Bitcoin is now here to stay and can fundamentally tip the scales and release us from financial chains, which are the only chains that really matter.

But to understand this, we have to stop thinking of its value against USD, but of its intrinsic utility value.

And even if Bitcoin doesn't succeed, which I can't envision, it planted the idea that it is possible. Bitcoin is not only the technological invention of the Century, but the Social one too.

We now have the tools. We will understand how Sheep or not we are at the end of this.

bitcoin is about business and economy not democracy
so if have much money can dominated and control bitcoin price sample exchanger, but never only one people have over 10% from total suply bitcoin

Bitcoin is a game.  The original idea of bitcoin was that it was a game that would result in a payment system, according to certain rules.

Now, the whole discussion is: is bitcoin an *immutable* game, that is, the rules are set in stone for ever, or is bitcoin a game where the rules can change ?

The thing with a game is that it has to be played collectively.  That's entirely different for most other software, that doesn't have to be played.  Most open source software is used by users, and those users can change it to their likings, whether others agree with that or not.  Most software is not about collective games.

On top of that, a payment system is an antagonist game (like most games).  It is not something to have fun with.  It is a game that serves to "win over others", and where real material advantages or losses are coupled to how the game evolves.

This makes that bitcoin has nothing to do with "software development", or "open source" or any other community activity: bitcoin is an antagonist game with real world material advantages and disadvantages coupled to it.  As such, *being able to change the rules can have a huge impact on who the winners and the losers are* and changes to the rules are not neutral.  Those who can change the rules, if any, can put a lot of advantages on their side.

This is why *ideally*, bitcoin would have been an immutable game.  The rules are known and immutable, and hence, there's no power to be had to change them.  My idea was that bitcoin had something to it that made modifying the rules, if not impossible, at least very difficult.  Satoshi's biggest invention was a cryptographic game that could, to a certain extend, keep its rules immutable (at least those rules that impact anything on the side of winners and losers, that is, ECONOMICAL rules).

However, bitcoin was ill designed.  A fundamental problem in bitcoin was not only never solved, there was even an explicit barrier to it: scaling, and the block size limit.  So somehow, bitcoin's bad design was the result of an unsolved problem, and a to-be-modified barrier.  The troubles we are witnessing today are the direct consequence of that contradiction in bitcoins' design: a game that can only be honest if it is immutable, no provision for "changing the rules", and the necessity to change them or hit a wall.  Bitcoin was somehow designed to fail long term.

As no explicit provision is made in bitcoin to change the rules, and as immutability will lead to hitting a wall, the game-theoretical outcome of who can change the rules is open to inquiry.

Strictly technically, there are two "sources of power" in bitcoin: there are the mining pools that de facto decide upon bitcoin's rules by "consensus", that is, by building upon other pools' blocks that apply the rules they agree to ; and there is the economic power of the market players that are willing to give value to coins (the speculators and other users).

If consensus breaks down, we get a chain split, and we get different flavours of bitcoin, each with their own speculator valuation, giving a feedback to those miners "voting" for them.   The complex dynamics of short and long term risks, gains, and so on in this game-theoretical setting is complicated, and in fact, a possible outcome is immutability, that is, no miner can decide to "leave existing consensus" because the risks or the losses are too big.

As the first initiative to any change of rules has to come from miners, we can say that the miner pool owners are somehow an oligarchy over bitcoin, but as they are part of a game-theoretical dynamics themselves, I don't know how to call this.  It certainly is not a democracy.  The "speculator/user" part has something of a free market to it.  But only a few people can actually decide to do something, which turns it into an oligarchy, that is, a small set of aristocrats that can potentially change the rules ; however, with a market deciding over their acts.

Centralized Capitalism 

For lack of a better term, I guess I would agree with you on this description. Bitcoin is business and the people who can have power over it are of course people who heavily invested on it. That is for sure. Bitcoin, for all of its merits and innovations, is not really destined to change our societal norms and political structures. It can however affect the financial sector. Wishing that Bitcoin can change the world is already punching the moon.

Right now, Bitcoin is becoming like a speculative currency. We all want to make money...and honestly Bitcoin is also exposing the greed of many and which to me can just be fine because Bitcoin is for everybody whatever political spectrum you might belong.

In my view:

Bitcoin is Free Market Capitalism. Which encompasses Meritocracy I guess. And also true Democracy.

All ensured by incorruptible Cryptography. Which is what democracy has always been lacking.

Bitcoin is Bitcoin

If we say that Bitcoin's direction is achieved through "voting with your hashpower", then:

1. maybe it is an anarchy, and partial democracy at least.

2. It can't be meritocracy since that implies selection based on merit as you mention, (merit meaning talent rather than merit of hashpower). Novak's quote must seem trivial now because shitty code could very well win the day with enough economic resource.

3. sadly, plutocracy does seem to hold sway over Bitcoin the most. We can see the wealthy or the elite classes, battling over Bitcoin's direction, holding the most Bitcoins, the majority pouring scorn and ridicule over the rest, lording over the satoshi holders.

That heavily depends on how people use bitcoin, but i think bitcoin is Crypto-Anarchy since plutocracy meritocracy doesn't fit because miners/pools wield bigger power and Plutocracy doesn't fit either since they only have control over bitcoin market price while miners still wield bigger power for bitcoin scaling.
CMIIW.

According to Antony Antonopoulos, Bitcoin isn't a democracy, some people call it cypherpunk or crypto-anarchy, https://youtu.be/TC3Hq76UT5g


Is bitcoin a meritocracy?

It is holding of power by people selected according to merit. They wield the power.


Is bitcoin a plutocracy?

It is the holding of power by the wealthy, elites.

Is bitcoin anarchy?

It is absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.