Topic: Can We Consider Bitcoin To be An Anti-Government? (Read 537 times)
The government have fear they fear if every one is using cryptosystem they can't earn tax and provide a project cause of tax less source of income and the economic of a country Will fall but when they learn how to collided with bitcoin cryptosystem they will see how big the benefits they can gain
I think Bitcoin is not anti Government. Bitcoin community is also helping those in government on how to regulate Bitcoin. 
Blockchain connects in a way that could serve as an alternative to current known forms of governing.
Maybe in some countries where their rules are not so friendly with bitcoin and other cryptos. Being decentralized, autonomous and government can not disrupt its transactions makes these government believe that it can use against them. Consider France which declares war against crypto which they believe that crypto can be used to pay illegal activities, or to fund terrorism.
It is true that bitcoins are coming back to power as the market value has already improved after its decline in its value and as you can see the price of the bitcoins has already crossed 10K USD which is a positive sign and the corrections are coming to an end .As you said i don't think that bitcoins are providing an alternative to what the government is giving what do you mean by that if possible please make it clear as btc is not a currency as i consider it only as an investment even though it is accepted for some trade does not mean it is accepted everywhere and some government do not trust btc as they think that it is been used for some illegal activities as the users of the btc are not known some even fear that it will make the economy crash so is the reason some governments say that they don't see it as a legal currency even though it does not have any legal approval it does not does not deal with anything which is illegal in fact the government should understand that it is helping its investors to improve their wealth.
Bitcoin was likely built by crypto-anarchists to undermine and destabilize governments. The exact creator of bitcoin is unknown.
I don't think so. But lack of regulations is what the gov't along with bank is trying to kill bitcoin for their own selfish gain.
Bitcoin challenges government in many ways, especially with rules and regulations. But, I think it's not anti-government. Only governments whose motives are not quite transparent are afraid of bitcoin. Meanwhile, well-intentioned governments are finding ways to get the most out of it.
I don't think that's an anti government.
Because even the government itself makes their reserved on bitcoin. Some country already bought bitcoin.
Because even the government itself makes their reserved on bitcoin. Some country already bought bitcoin.
Government is certainly not against the interest of its people. It thinks for the larger good of the people. When most people are interested in Bitcoin, the government opposing it does not seem quite a good thought. Bitcoin is part of a free market and certainly government should look into it, take interest and if required regularize it the way best suited for its people.
Bitcoin is not anti-government. Its a way to stabilize the economy and that to remove the risk of one bank or body controlling the economy. In general just before Bitcoin took birth, there was a kind of banking collapse and all through the world nations to some extent or the other have experienced it. This direct impact on the world economy because of the dependency on banks is reduced through cryptocurrency.
However, we must remember that the value of Bitcoin is always in terms of fiat currency and fiat currency is issued by banks that are many times interwoven with government and its policies. So government directly or indirectly becomes essential for the welfare of crypto ecosystem. To call Bitcoin or blockchain as anti-government is not right according to me. In the long run it may as well ease the functioning of government.
Bitcoin is not anti-government. Its a way to stabilize the economy and that to remove the risk of one bank or body controlling the economy. In general just before Bitcoin took birth, there was a kind of banking collapse and all through the world nations to some extent or the other have experienced it. This direct impact on the world economy because of the dependency on banks is reduced through cryptocurrency.
However, we must remember that the value of Bitcoin is always in terms of fiat currency and fiat currency is issued by banks that are many times interwoven with government and its policies. So government directly or indirectly becomes essential for the welfare of crypto ecosystem. To call Bitcoin or blockchain as anti-government is not right according to me. In the long run it may as well ease the functioning of government.
Bitcoin is returning back the power to the people to determine their own financial fate and to make decisions away from the controlling power of the government. It is proposing a decentralized world where power can be distributed and not concentrated on the few or the elites as some would say.
In my own view, Bitcoin is offering an alternative to what the government is providing. And on this ground, many government people are viewing Bitcoin to be an expression of an anti-government movement. This can be the reason why they do not trust Bitcoin and some are out to stifle its growth.
The fact the many governments are afraid of Bitcoin is a manifestation that Bitcoin is successful in getting the attention of the government and many institutional establishments as to the many ills affecting a centralized system which we have known since we were born into this world.
Not an anti-government, because bitcoin is a new currency worldwide. If this is anti government then why there not ban the bitcoin..
Bitcoin is an anti government because it is digital and not produce by a government. bitcoin dont have an authority and no one holds or regulate it not even governments and banks. Although there were more countries that are now legalizing and accepting bitcoin in order to be used on their services , there were also countries that bans bitcoin Without an exact or valid reason , maybe they still think that bitcoin is a scam and can cause major problems such as illegal activities if it is implemented on their country.
Not an anti-government, because bitcoin is a new currency worldwide. If this is anti government then why there not ban the bitcoin..
Bitcoin was likely built by crypto-anarchists to undermine and destabilize governments. The exact creator of bitcoin is unknown. So Bitcoin is made by the government.
I consider Bitcoin to be anti-banking, not anti-government.
Government itself was not always as intertwined with the banking system as it is today. In some ways, Bitcoin could be seen as their way out of the private central banking trap.
In many ways, the bankers are really more powerful than the governments that they lend trillions of dollars to. It's, of course, very much a symbiotic relationship. However, the shackles will one day be broken. That which cannot go on forever will not. Bitcoin and crypto assets are a huge part of breaking that paradigm. The banks know it, and there is no way around it for them. Technology does not go "back in the bottle". Their only hope is to have it regulated in such a way that it makes it hard for the small to compete with the large. You see some of that going on in crypto bans in various countries. It's not going to last though. Once crypto reaches a certain market penetration, market forces will cause these bans to be lifted.
However, in the larger scheme, other applications of consensus-based distributed ledger technology could be threatening to the current notion of democratic governments. For example, consider liquid democracy. Or even a more limited form of liquid democracy that I've been thinking about lately. There is nothing today that is stopping a candidate for public office from declaring, "I will vote on every issue based on how my constituents tell me to vote through a smartphone app I will make available to voters". This smartphone app could allow you to choose, for each issue, "yea" or "nay". Further, the app could allow you to delegate your vote to someone else with the app, for specific topics/bills to different people. You could let your grandmother cast your vote on issues relating to Medicare and your college kid vote on issues about student loans, for example. This is the future of democracy. And while it's not enshrined in the Constitution that is must be done this way today, there is nothing that forbids it, either.
If a candidate was running for Congress and made such a pledge, I'd probably vote for them. I think it would be better to try this out on a state/local level first, but it's an interesting way to think about the future of society. All made possible because of Satoshi and the people on this forum that believed in Bitcoin when it was worth pennies.
In summary, we are living through a unique opportunity in history. Not only that, but by being here, on this forum, we are truly a part of making history.
Best regards,
Ben
Government itself was not always as intertwined with the banking system as it is today. In some ways, Bitcoin could be seen as their way out of the private central banking trap.
In many ways, the bankers are really more powerful than the governments that they lend trillions of dollars to. It's, of course, very much a symbiotic relationship. However, the shackles will one day be broken. That which cannot go on forever will not. Bitcoin and crypto assets are a huge part of breaking that paradigm. The banks know it, and there is no way around it for them. Technology does not go "back in the bottle". Their only hope is to have it regulated in such a way that it makes it hard for the small to compete with the large. You see some of that going on in crypto bans in various countries. It's not going to last though. Once crypto reaches a certain market penetration, market forces will cause these bans to be lifted.
However, in the larger scheme, other applications of consensus-based distributed ledger technology could be threatening to the current notion of democratic governments. For example, consider liquid democracy. Or even a more limited form of liquid democracy that I've been thinking about lately. There is nothing today that is stopping a candidate for public office from declaring, "I will vote on every issue based on how my constituents tell me to vote through a smartphone app I will make available to voters". This smartphone app could allow you to choose, for each issue, "yea" or "nay". Further, the app could allow you to delegate your vote to someone else with the app, for specific topics/bills to different people. You could let your grandmother cast your vote on issues relating to Medicare and your college kid vote on issues about student loans, for example. This is the future of democracy. And while it's not enshrined in the Constitution that is must be done this way today, there is nothing that forbids it, either.
If a candidate was running for Congress and made such a pledge, I'd probably vote for them. I think it would be better to try this out on a state/local level first, but it's an interesting way to think about the future of society. All made possible because of Satoshi and the people on this forum that believed in Bitcoin when it was worth pennies.
In summary, we are living through a unique opportunity in history. Not only that, but by being here, on this forum, we are truly a part of making history.
Best regards,
Ben
I think Not bitcoin is not an anti government concept of payment he just an indepindent currency that no one can control it nit even government itself cannot control bitcoin that ls the main reason why government dont like the concept of this currency its because they cant get tax.
something can be an alternative without being anti.
ultimately bitcoin is what people decide it will be. in the early days many people did see it as a way out of government, specifically bank, control. nowadays i'd guess most users don't really care either way. they just want to make money.
the powers that be know their stuff. they'll position bitcoin where it'll coexist with fiat. if people want to go full off grid then no doubt the options will be there for them but it won't be of interest to most users.
ultimately bitcoin is what people decide it will be. in the early days many people did see it as a way out of government, specifically bank, control. nowadays i'd guess most users don't really care either way. they just want to make money.
the powers that be know their stuff. they'll position bitcoin where it'll coexist with fiat. if people want to go full off grid then no doubt the options will be there for them but it won't be of interest to most users.
Bitcoin is returning back the power to the people to determine their own financial fate and to make decisions away from the controlling power of the government. It is proposing a decentralized world where power can be distributed and not concentrated on the few or the elites as some would say.
In my own view, Bitcoin is offering an alternative to what the government is providing. And on this ground, many government people are viewing Bitcoin to be an expression of an anti-government movement. This can be the reason why they do not trust Bitcoin and some are out to stifle its growth.
The fact the many governments are afraid of Bitcoin is a manifestation that Bitcoin is successful in getting the attention of the government and many institutional establishments as to the many ills affecting a centralized system which we have known since we were born into this world.
In my opinion,I think for other country yes,but we also know that there are some countries that legalized bitcoi and by their government as well.Though i'm not surprise if bitcoin could sound like an anti-government,it is because of its decentralized nature.Bitcoin also serves as a threat to other government and the revolution for their fiat regime.Besides,I don't care whatsoever they will say to bitcoin.I love bitcoin and i will always will.
Ok here some few points I wanted to let everyone knows and draw their own conclusions:
(1)
That for me sounded like anti-banks from the very sentence you will find in the Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, Satoshi's Bitcoin White Paper
(2) In the same paper, you will find that Satoshi's references to this website: http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt. To quote the first sentence,
Satoshi references to someone who is also anti government.
(3) Digging his old post, I find it amusing that he said this
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source?commentId=2003008%3AComment%3A9562
Sounds like a lot of hatred to the banks as well.
(4) Interesting to see that Satoshi put this message in the Genesis block
Why of all the message that he can easily put forward, why the genesis block references to banks?
With that said, I think Satoshi himself is anti-bank, but he didn't foresee that his creation will be so disruptive that governments around the world are getting their hands together to stop this revolution.
Its your call, I want you to decide for yourself. Because he might or might not be saying directly that he is anti banks or anti government but if you look closely and read between the lines, you can sense that he is against trusted parties like banks, that's why he introduce bitcoin to the world.
(1)
Quote
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
That for me sounded like anti-banks from the very sentence you will find in the Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, Satoshi's Bitcoin White Paper
(2) In the same paper, you will find that Satoshi's references to this website: http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt. To quote the first sentence,
Quote
I am fascinated by Tim May's crypto-anarchy. Unlike the communities traditionally associated with the word "anarchy", in a crypto-anarchy the government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and permanently unnecessary. It's a community where the threat of violence is impotent because violence is impossible, and violence is impossible
because its participants cannot be linked to their true names or physical locations.
because its participants cannot be linked to their true names or physical locations.
Satoshi references to someone who is also anti government.
(3) Digging his old post, I find it amusing that he said this
Quote
The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments impossible.
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source?commentId=2003008%3AComment%3A9562
Sounds like a lot of hatred to the banks as well.
(4) Interesting to see that Satoshi put this message in the Genesis block
Quote
“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.”
Why of all the message that he can easily put forward, why the genesis block references to banks?
With that said, I think Satoshi himself is anti-bank, but he didn't foresee that his creation will be so disruptive that governments around the world are getting their hands together to stop this revolution.
Its your call, I want you to decide for yourself. Because he might or might not be saying directly that he is anti banks or anti government but if you look closely and read between the lines, you can sense that he is against trusted parties like banks, that's why he introduce bitcoin to the world.
I don’t think bitcoin is anti-government at all. Historically, most innovations that have had a profound disruptive effect on business and social interaction often tend to be stigmatized by the government, and the established order who had the most to lose, as anti-government, if that development was not being spearheaded by government.
I believe, like many of the top players in the game have been saying, that Bitcoin is simply the inevitable next step in evolution of money… and like all phases of evolution before it, it is distrusted by the government because it robs them of the kind of control they take for granted in the economic life of their people.
Yet, the fact remains that government had NEVER spearheaded any of the evolutionary leaps of money or means of exchange. Trade by barter was not started government. Neither was the next era of commodity means of exchange (cowrie shells, gold, salt, silver, etc). When means of exchange again evolved to paper money, it was not started by the government though they coopted it eventually.
After paper money, money evolved to Plastic money which was not started by any government either. Now we are moving from plastic money era to the age of digital money and government obviously didn’t start it too. So, naturally, Govt is suspicious and frankly, I believe most government people are afraid of losing all that power and control.
My personal take is that the posture that bitcoin is anti-Govt is only an empty posture. Governments will love bitcoin as long as they can control it, and I believe that would eventually happen in one form or the other. They may not be able to exercise total control over bitcoin or the crypto era like they did over paper money and most of the other evolutions of money, but when the dust settles, Bitcoin and Government would be joined at the hip……..and then the search for the new evolution of money would start all over again
I believe, like many of the top players in the game have been saying, that Bitcoin is simply the inevitable next step in evolution of money… and like all phases of evolution before it, it is distrusted by the government because it robs them of the kind of control they take for granted in the economic life of their people.
Yet, the fact remains that government had NEVER spearheaded any of the evolutionary leaps of money or means of exchange. Trade by barter was not started government. Neither was the next era of commodity means of exchange (cowrie shells, gold, salt, silver, etc). When means of exchange again evolved to paper money, it was not started by the government though they coopted it eventually.
After paper money, money evolved to Plastic money which was not started by any government either. Now we are moving from plastic money era to the age of digital money and government obviously didn’t start it too. So, naturally, Govt is suspicious and frankly, I believe most government people are afraid of losing all that power and control.
My personal take is that the posture that bitcoin is anti-Govt is only an empty posture. Governments will love bitcoin as long as they can control it, and I believe that would eventually happen in one form or the other. They may not be able to exercise total control over bitcoin or the crypto era like they did over paper money and most of the other evolutions of money, but when the dust settles, Bitcoin and Government would be joined at the hip……..and then the search for the new evolution of money would start all over again
Jump to: