Topic: Convince me that the bitcoin elite cannot become the next Rothschild family - page 5. (Read 11718 times)

If that is in any shape directed to me. You've got me seriously confused with someone else....

Such a childish worldview..

If there wasn't any power to be auctioned off there would not be any auctions to be held.

You forget that without the state, a mafia run by thugs with guns is just that, a gang of thugs with guns. Now people like yourself are brainwashed into believing that the state somehow has a higher legitimacy, they are brainwashed into believing that laws are more than merely these mafia's says so as an excuse to plunder and kidnap people and they are brainwashed into believing they somehow need these thugs with guns for protection because of the possibility of facing the exact same type of crimes that they are guaranteed to face under their rule.

When it's clear to everyone that it's just a mafia run by thugs with guns, people would put an end to them rather quickly. So no. I don't believe that if there was no state rich people could force their will on the rest of us in another manner because people would see straight through it and resist.

I said I don't want to discuss that. We just have to agree that it is a sizable portion, and unless the community demands transparency with the threat of withdrawal, it will never happen.

And the agenda is not necessarily evil, but power does corrupt. If you hand the opportunity for an average joe to dominate, how many will refuse?


This is the internet, provide a link. This is the internet, bear with me for not necessarily agreeing with you and being aware that facts and opinions are often intertwined.

However, without the state

• they need to pay for this attack themselves and can't externalise the costs
• they also need to pay for the defense themselves and can't externalise the costs

Sure, theoretically, it's possible. It's just much less likely to turn out profitable.

Without the state, everyone can use whatever other means are available, not just the rich. With P2P communication, you can have assassination markets, for example.

I already explained this many times, go read about it. Furthermore, your argument makes no sense either standalone nor as a reaction to mine.

I see no coherent connection to what I said.

Very very true, plus they needed surely less money to spend on that effort.

It is pointless to blame the state for its lack of power. This is in certain situations rather a feature than a bug. That is were democracy can be told apart from dictatorship. It is even more pointless to blame politicians for being diplomatic. As that is the highest compliment an elder statesman can get. The number of "Mohandas Karamchand Gandhis" in this part of the multivers is rather small. Plus even him might have done something evil which just dropped beyond awareness.

Back to the original topic.
How could a proof for: "henceforth eventually any person owning bitcoins unequals Rothschild" look like.
What assumptions can we make for prooving: <>[] P(b) != R?
Plus this would just be one lemma helpful to answer the assertion in question.
My experience with temporal logic is too narrow to do a forecast on this. But I think such things are unprovable anyhow for much simpler reasons.

So for practical reasons my answer is:
No, I wont! Please Convince yourself or pay 1.000.000 Bitcoins to: 1CsLD4Do1o1fdUdGwWxrxgp73G6UfwGruB
Note that you can do both, as this or is not meant to be exclusive.  

Ask yoursef: How many BTC are concentrated in the hands of, say, the top 100 holders? And how many of these have the same (evil?) agenda??

My guess is that the top 100 holders (including Satoshi et al.) hold less than 2 million BTC - probably less than 1 million. So when Bitcoin is completely rolled out, these guys will be filthy rich and influential, sure, but their combined holdings are less than 10% of the money supply - and probably far, far less since they will probably partially cash out between now and then to get that Ferrari, trophy wife, big mansion, etc.
On top of that, only a fraction of this group would be able agree on their strategy for "world domination" so I doubt that more than 2-5% of the 21 million BTC will be able to act in any coordinated fashion in order to manipulate the bitcoin world.

Compared to today's world where, after having legal title to an estimated 50% of all the wealth in the world, Rothshild and their friends went into stealth mode operating via control of institutions like the Bank of England, the FED, the World Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, IMF and probably also the ECB (plus lately direct control over the governments of Italy and Greece).
These guys (probably *very* few individuals) effectively control 50-80 of all the assets of the World.

Compared to that, I'd call the 2-5% control of the early adopters/creators of Bitcoin positively trivial. Well deserved if bitcoin saves us all from the eternal serfdom that is fractional reserve banking.

Another point I'd like to stress is that the world now faces real constraints on natural resources (of which crude oil is just the first) which inevitably makes debt based money bankrupt by design. (Since the economy can't grow can't grow provide any real backing of the new debt which needs to be created to pay interest on the original money.)

This fact (the resource limit) is a whole new paradigm for the global economy. In the last 400 years the world economy has grown fast enough to make interest bearing (debt) money a practical possibility (although an immoral one). But this 400 year era is now coming to an end, fast.

We NEED a monetary system at least capable of working in a non-growth (or even negative growth) -world. As long as people say *no* to promise-to-pay bitcoin (like mtGox vouchers, ect.) Bitcoin offers exactly that and that is why I care about bitcoin.

I don't care at all about the advatages compared to paypal/CC and all that. It is the fact that bitcoin at least has a chance to be a value-based currency (not debt-based), that is the sole reason that I am excited about it.

I do hope you regain your excitement, OP. I think bitcoin warrents it.

What could they possibly gain?

Under what incentive? Ask yourself this, also, because we are all early adopters.

Care to show some evidence besides hearsay?

I apologize ahead of time for adding my small bit of anecdotal commentary to such a full hearted thread...

I fully agree. People in that position by any name use the state to there advatage simply because the state structure is there and is the most readily available resource. Without the state they would execute their will with whatever other means are available.

This thread is Uncommonly Rich.

No doubt government legislation made things worse, but the reality is it started under fractional reserve and the state of the people always owing more money to the wealthy than does exist. Saying things like "can't be centrally planned" and "no one controls it" sounds like rhetoric to me. Satoshi and/or a dozen others could bring the market to its knees tomorrow. That is a heavy form of control. Satoshi and/or a dozen others chose not to release any coins on the run up to USD $30. Who are you to say that this process could not repeat itself many years down the road if bitcoin were to become the primary currency of the world? Who are you to say that those with the power would not use it to threaten or coerce? Are you really willing to put that much faith into this system? Because it sounds to me like you are ripe to be duped again. I could be wrong, but why take the risk? Everyone seems to want to believe that if bitcoin were to become more popular, it would be less manipulable. I fail to see how. I see the opposite.


An honest post. So since you believe that it wasn't intended to do any of these things, why do you support it (assuming you do)? Do you take any issue with the history of money and how it has been used to deprive people of wealth? Do you just accept this as a fact of life and move on? Would you be quick to jump to a different system that actually tried to break away from this? Or is bitcoin just a novelty?


Not trying to insinuate that anyone is an American who isn't, just portraying my point of view. Do you think Nelson Mandela is a terrorist? Because they supported each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaddafi


I don't begrudge that. I'm not asking for a world where everybody has the same slice of the pie. That would stifle humanity just as quickly. What I'm asking for is something that can keep that power in check by the will of the people. I don't see how bitcoin is any alternative in that respect.

As long as wealth is a meaningful concept, you will have people with more power and, correspondigly, people with less of it. Wealth enables you to get people to do things for you, or to other people. Bitcoin won't do away with that.


Of course they can. You think with sufficient funds one can't hire thugs to rob and kidnap someone?

I stopped reading here

Gheddafi was a dictator and a terrorist.

Oh and i am NOT american.

I get the impression that some people think Bitcoin is supposed to usher in a Utopian era where there is no more war and hunger and abusive government power. This is not going to happen, nor was it intended to be. Bitcoin cannot and was not intended to end concentrations of wealth and power.

And no money system can end fractional reserve banking, that can only be ended by better education of the populace.

No. You first need understand how those banking moguls came about and what enabled their plundering. And if you ask the right questions you'll learn that the fact is that without government regulations, a centrally planed monetary system by the central bank and without legislated fractional reserve lending and FDIC insured baking they would have never ever gotten what they have.

With bitcoin it can't be centrally planed, no one controls it and the rules under which it was born virtually can't be changed.

To answer your question, no, we're most definitely not just another hypocrite.

Could be related.

So what?
While the so called lord offers something interesting to the so called servant. Let them play the game.
If the lord gets something back from its servant the game might continue for another while.
Even if not, why bother? Let those people go their ways.

Nowadays oppression goes much more subtle into our lives than just with money.
Try googling a bit deeper into for instance "monsanto" or "nestle" and their business plans.

My point is: Don´t get dependant on someone or something much stronger than yourself.
Sounds good in theory, but is merely impossible in practice.