Topic: Convince me that the bitcoin elite cannot become the next Rothschild family - page 6. (Read 11718 times)

The most effective way to mobilize a society is to give them motivation.  Humans are primarily self-interested and mammal-like when measured as a group.  Likewise, the best way to create any change in a society is to find a way to exploit those mammalian urges - greed, envy, or essentially the desire for power.  There are many other ways, sure, but by and large that's what "moves" human beings as a collective.

But here's the important part.  Just because something needs to be moved with a particular method doesn't mean that's the whole story.  Any such movement is a "repositioning" of the collective consciousness, at which point better and more prosperous methodologies can grow and prosper.  In order to grow a garden you have to find the right earth, till it, and prep it.  You can't expect to grow a great harvest right away in the location you want.

The ends aren't the same as the means, and large social changes require repositioning of societal norms.

hi, thanks for your reply and interest. I am a philosopher (really, BA phil UWCC) and I just seem to be thinking completely differently to everyone else? If you agree, can I engage you in a brief discussion to constructively look at the bigger picture? Firstly you are completely correct in all your statements as set out in your reply. My interest in BTC was aroused precisely because it seems  the first practical way to function as a free individual but within a group (we are gregarious) without being subject to any of the regulatory systems employed to centralise power. almost everyone sees  BTC as money!. I do not and hope it will not be categorised as such. The reason is BTC does not exist in reality. As long as it stays there, random strings of character's in cyberspace it is untouchable by any regulatory method known to man. So I am using BTC myself now as a system completely outside the current commonly used fiat currencies where I retain my intellectual right over an address assigned to me by proof of work and accessible to me alone via a private key.  Yes you are correct! the problem we all have is the intersection of the two systems as currently set up.I have to use e-mail (traceable) to contact exchanges but refuse to verify myself with MtGox for example. I have to use my credit card (traceable)  to fund MtGox to purchase BTC
However I transfer anonymously BTC to GLBSE to purchase shares providing dividends(a future stream of value assigned to myself). Current banks are not in my opinion business's. They are institutions designed to operate on a win win scenario. To every ones disadvantage (including shareholders) except the government and/or owner. A BTC bank would be I envisage a virtual philanthropic entity. Envisage if you could to be able to purchase anything in BTC. A BTC bank  could issue a debit card to be funded from your wallet by yourself. A BTC bank a/c could be a means of transfer of proof of work to your wallet and it already exists! free of central control and anonymous- its called the block chain. Itself a BTC bank would not need to know or verify the origin of proof of work- similarly it would not need to know the identity or verify the recipient.Neither would there be any fees, charges re numeration to owners or shareholders-as there are none! It would not be a for profit entity and there would be no central "authority"  What is missing at the present is a philanthropic entrepreneur to issue a BTC debit card whereby temporarily fiat currencies can be obtained. Enigmail can be used to contact such an entity and otc can be used to convert to fiat. It all seems there and feasible so my question was why are we not doing this? 
Kind regards reg.      (seems an appropriate thread and I hope aliainvilian won't mind)

This is a great thread and I wish I had time to read it more thoroughly but I just would like to say a few things.

First of all, bitcoin is not "the same all over again", at least because nobody forces you to use or accept it. In a world where bitcoin has become mainstream, if you are a merchand, you still can refuse bitcoins and accept only US dollars or whatever.

Second, about the "Rotshield" metaphor. Well, as you said yourself, people are free to fork the chain anytime if they think the currency doesn't reach some kind social consensus and is used for so called oppression.

Then, about the early adopters. Well, how should it have been done exactly? Once Satoshi started the chain, he immediately told everyone about his creation, so they can enter and help mining. Well, he told it to the maximum number of people he could, given his reputation at this time. Sure, had Satoshi been Steve Jobs, then the whole world would have known about this invention at the same time, and there would be no "early adopters" issue. But Satoshi had no big reputation so people had to slowly come into bitcoins, and there is nothing wrong with that. You can't force people to understand how great is an idea. If at some point in the future, when everbody on Earth knows about the bitcoin technology, some people decide to start it again from a fresh start (ie a new genesis), it would be perfectly fine (though I'd stick with the orginal chain but I'll gladly accept competition).

 

Well I gave the example of Executive Order 6102, criminalizing the possession of monetary gold in amounts above $100. It further degraded the ability of the people to own wealth in anything other than green paper. Green paper that has famously decreased 2,500% in value since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Thousands upon thousands of laws since then that are designed to protect corporate interests to the detriment of society as a whole.


I proposed a stable value currency. I plan on proposing another, simpler one. After tons of input I realized I couldn't base it on energy, so I based it on economy. The growing pains of a gold-based currency (strict supply) were evidenced throughout recent history. The wealthy stood to benefit immensely each time, while the poor starved in some cases. All because of money. The ultimate threat the people can have against a wealthy regime intent on grabbing power is the ability to create new currency. If the government controls the creation of new currency, then the wealthy will surely have a disproportionately large say in how that currency is created. If the wealthy control the creation of new currency, well we're just right fucked then now aren't we? And that is the scenario in which we are currently living.

So, let the people dig for gold in their backyard, so to speak. Again I don't want to rehash everything I talked about with encoin here, I came here looking for what you guys had to say. Or to see if you could convince me that bitcoin wasn't the s.o.s. Not that you have any obligation to, but I believe the problems with bitcoin will become much more apparent down the road and will eventually lead to its collapse. Or, against all odds, it bears into yet another system of serfdom and lords.

Very interesting, could you please elaborate, what policy is that?


Once again, do you have any actual suggestions? Everything can be manipulated, what are we supposed to do about it?

Yes, using the Rothschild name is probably an exaggeration nowadays, but the tone has been set for future policy. The US government has made it a policy to keep wealth out of the hands of the people because that would make the people powerful, and that is not a good thing for the existing upper class. E.O. 6102 lol. Is it written somewhere that the state is infallible and does what is in the best interest of its people or the people of the world? What does it matter who signs the order when the order is designed to oppress? How much might does public opinion really have in any sort of 1st-world republic?

Bitcoin had a chance to be the next gold, but I just don't see how it can accomplish that with a stranglehold on the supply. Whether it's satoshi or some other forward-thinker, it doesn't matter. The bitcoin currency, were it to become very popular, would eventually begin to work its way into an upper echelon of people and those people would have control over the economy. That is why I think a fixed supply of coins is a horrible idea. Hopefully, the cycle would break and a new system of money would have to be designed again. Since the current system is still entrenched even after several hundred years, it seems the people aren't too well aware of what is going on. I have to believe eventually the people will be fed the fuck up with this shit, and OWS is the beginning of that movement, so why not capitalize on it with a real solution, not one that is more of the same?

Or can someone convince me that bitcoin is not more of the same. Because I would FUCKING LOVE to take power away from the powerful, I would FUCKING LOVE to shirk them and their oppression. I am begging for the opportunity. I would love to see a society where a linear graph in money does not equal an exponential graph in power. I started talking excitedly with my friends about bitcoin when I first discovered it. I haven't mentioned it in many months. Give me back that excitement; let me see the revolution.

Alternatively, perhaps we should discuss what it would take in a currency to actually revolutionize money. Yeah crypto-doodads are great and all, but it doesn't fix money on its own. And it would be impossible to convince me that bitcoin can't be manipulated, and that is the core problem behind the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Does anyone disagree? Does anyone care?

While the central banking may or may not be what you've written, it is also the catalyst for the industrial revolution and have driven the progress tremendously in the past, at least the "banking" part, central banking solved a couple of other issues.

I am not saying there are no problems, I am saying that people usually complaining about that don't really provide any better ways of doing things except the "everybody grow their food themselves, no money, everyone is happy"-zeitgeist-nonsense.

What IS hilariously sad is that there are one BILLION people in for example africa, and more in brazil, india and the rest who are living in what even US's "poor" people would consider hell.

I believe the banking system (and especially american banking system) has some issues, not that it is inherently corrupt. But then again, so does democracy, religion, and a lot of other things.


That's like, your opinion, man!
I personally don't see that is how you are describing it, but you are free to kick off your own cryptocurrency and not remain anonymous, just convince more people of your point of view. It IS opensource after all.

This is silly. This is like saying gold certificates will never work. Just because bitcoin is already convenient doesn't make a whit of difference if one bank will give you a loan but the other won't because it cannot cover its reserve.


I don't want to derail into evidence-supported conspiracy theories, but the Rothschilds can and likely do just that. Sure I'm a US citizen so it's pretty unlikely that it will happen to me, but were I a citizen of Libya I might feel much differently. And Libya is just the most recent and obvious; throughout recent history there is evidence of war manipulation to serve the Bank of England's purposes.

Only a particular type of inflation: expansion of credit for investment purposes. As I elaborated already several times in the past, I would not worry about credit expansion with Bitcoin.

I proposed encoin: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/encoin-proposal-v40-scads-of-technical-details-now-with-a-wiki-49683 but it is overly complex for a first run. I'm working on a much simpler idea that would be hackable into the bitcoin codebase. The "early adopters" would benefit by getting extra money in times when the value of the currency is higher than its cost to produce and thus bring the value back in line more quickly. In times where the value is too low, transaction fees would increase and destroy existing currency. It's a bit more complex on that, and I am struggling a bit with some of the formulas, but I will post something eventually. Unfortunately it still suffers from the major problems of the 51% attack and the constant waste of energy, whereas the proposal for encoin has solutions for those. But I don't want to sidetrack too much on that here.


Part of the Austrian philosophy is that inflation causes over-investment and the business cycle. I believe this to be true. Fractional reserve causes inflation and it will do so in a deflationary currency in the same, if not a more pronounced, manner. One of the phenominal benefits that bitcoin has going for it is that if a bank goes bankrupt, you lose your money, so consumers would have to be extremely wary of 10% reserve ratios. However, this means that credit crunches will have no viable answer except to turn to the extremely wealthy, such as what JP Morgan did in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Again making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

I demolished the argument about "Bitcoin FRB" several times over. Check out prior threads as well as wiki. Since in general, Bitcoin-based debt instruments do not decrease transaction costs compared to real Bitcoin, they can't compete with it on a free market. If, say, banks issued clay tablets with engravings, instead of bank notes and cheques, these clay tablets would never become substitutes of gold. They would not circulate. The situation is analogous to debt instruments based on Bitcoin. They are clumsy to use and incompatible with the Bitcoin network.

Technology is neither bad nor good. It is a tool. What is bad is violence and the promotion thereof. The chief perpetrator of violence is the state. As long as people desire the state, there will be lots of violence, regardless of the tools used.

Why are you so worried about Rothschilds? Rothschilds can't expropriate your property or put you into prison. Nakamoto can't do that either. Only the state can do that.

From the perspective of state, Bitcoin is a refutation of the claims that states should conduct a monetary policy because it benefits the public. Evidently, it doesn't benefit the public. Even if we reject the assumption that the purpose of monetary policy is to be evil and/or benefit some particular group, we are still stuck with the conclusion that it's incompetent.

Bitcoin is not a debt-based currency, yet. I am looking to the far future. In a system where the production of currency is strictly limited, you can bet your bottom bitcoin that fractional reserve will run rampant. And it will have to, lest JP Satoshi step in to save the economy during recessions and profit immensely on the misery of others.

We don't live in an ideal world. Practical solutions need to be post-"status quo". I think this is a good one. What alternative do you propose instead?

bitcoin is not a debt-based currency.

the transaction fees are trivial in size and don't go right back to the issuers -- so revenue from the currency turnover will go to a wider swath of people, not a centralized handler of the funds.

and just to make sure it is clear -- more than 60% of all bitcoins that will exist have not yet been issued.

And my question remains, what does bitcoin accomplish that is any different from the status quo? Are we to naively believe that it is not a system ripe for fractional reserve and debt-based slavery? Do we really just boil bitcoin down to "an easy way to send money over the internet"?


Hilarious point taken. But even if satoshi were assassinated, Bitcoin would surely live on, making the assassination quite futile. After Kennedy was assassinated, his debt-free money was quickly removed from circulation.


I can't change the fact that I was born into oppression.

People are selfish, greedy, and tend to fend for themselves.  You cannot compel an entire group of people to ignore these rationales in their decision making, because if even just one of them follows that natural instinct, everyone who does not is taken advantage of.

You can never fight against the man, because there is always another man to replace him.  It's the way the world works, unless you live in a bush tribe.  But Bitcoin is much larger than a bush tribe...

I don't care to argue how many bitcoins satoshi may or may not have. I don't care to argue the pros or cons of inflationary vs. deflationary.

I am sick and fucking tired of the world being manipulated by the powers that be. It isn't about wealth, it is about control. It is about debt-based economies that keep the middle and poor classes under its boot and stifle humanity.

I want the world to be a better place, and I truly believe that central banking is at the core of war and famine. It is hilariously sad that the "richest nation in the world" has 47 million people in poverty.

I find it strikingly odd that 3 US presidents who were vehemently opposed to central banking were assassinated. A 4th, Jackson, had an attempt on his life.
I find it disheartening that my fellow citizens and I are manipulated into believing that leaders like Muammar Gaddafi are evil and worthy of assassination; when reality shows that the people of Libya were wealthy and happy. Digging an inch below the surface reveals that he was bucking the central bank system, and the powers that be simply could not allow that--not in a country that produces oil.

I want an explanation for why the creator of this brave new economy chooses to remain anonymous. I want an explanation for why so many of you believe that his intentions were libertarian. I want an explanation for why the currency was designed to give so much power to a bourgeois "first come" rather than striving for neutrality of value. Encouraging nouveau-riche adoption is an answer, but it's a terrible one far removed from any notion of liberty.

Yes, this is another "you're jealous and envious" thread; words oft-bandied lately in America over taxation. Except I am jealous and envious of the fact that I believe a cryptocurrency with real libertarian ideals would have moved away from the status quo I see everyday. I am jealous and envious of the fact that I see the spark of revolution in Bitcoin, yet it is clouded by the same unscruples that power the world economy. I am jealous and envious of what Bitcoin could have been, but isn't. I see a system that is easily manipulated by those with wealth; I see more of the same.

Sure it's great to fight against the man, but if we are only exchanging one man for another, what have we really accomplished? The only real value I see in Bitcoin is that it can be forked by the will of the people in the face of oppression. However, overthrowing oppression is foundation of the United States, yet I see very few people willing to rise against the establishment today; why would Bitcoin fare any differently in the future? Would those in power allow this to happen? They will surely fight tooth and nail against it. People don't choose to be oppressed. Why would I choose to use a new currency that is more of the same? Because right now it seems like a better option? That isn't good enough for me. Because if I buy in right now I get to be more powerful than those that follow? Then I would be contributing to the system that I loathe.

Do we just accept that Bitcoin is merely a stepping stone on the way to a real revolution? A beneficial hiccup on the road to bringing the power back to the people? Then why don't we discuss the endgame rather than moving decimal places? Why is half of the mental energy devoted to Bitcoin based on profit? Why can't 100% of that mental energy be devoted to truly overthrowing the control that little pieces of paper have over us? Is your personal comfort more important than the oppression of the world? Are you just another hypocrite?

Are you just another hypocrite?