Topic: Do most bitcoin users actually think.. (Read 3557 times)

It's not my interest to formulate a treatise on my political and economic philosophies for this thread at this time.

The OP seems to indicate that his/her goal was to do something of a survey of attitudes and postures within the 'Bitcoin community'.  My hope in responding was mostly to illustrate that as a community we are not without some diversity.

I did actually mean elaborate, not summarize. I know that wealth leads to power and power leads to wealth, but how can that lead to pressure and corruption that results in Bitcoin (or bitcoin holders) being the victim? Isn't the whole point of Bitcoin that you are in control, and are not at the mercy or whims of someone corrupt and powerful?

It's usually not desirable to have revolutions unless they are necessary.  Usually they involve bloodshed which is unpredictable distributed.  But ya, that's what I alluding to by 'never ends well.'

One of my long-standing hopes for distributed crypto-currencies are that they can make the process of separating the wealthy from their wealth a bit less unpleasant for everyone involved.

Since that same cycle is usually only disrupted by revolutionary events, whether or not it ends "well" or not very much depends upon who's back is up against the wall at that time.

I think bitcoin is going to replace most currencies on the internet, at least (because it's far simpler and cheaper)

I also think the internet is going to eventually replace or disrupt a lot of older, offline technology and businesses (fair bet; already happening)

So when you put the two together, it's not really that much of a stretch to say that bitcoin will displace or disrupt a large amount of existing financial infrastructure. Talking in absolutes is naive.

Uggg.  In a nutshell:


   Wealth -->  Power --
      ^                |
      |                |
       ---------------


It's a vicious cycle with never ends well.

Someone mentioned printing money as the main cause of inflation.  Banks create most inflation, creating new money through their 10x multiplier on loans giving interest....  I don't think this could happen with bitcoin.

That's exactly right. Unless Bitcoin fails national currencies can not survive.

Holding government-issued currencies means a guaranteed loss of purchasing power. The only reason people hold on to it is because the alternatives are riskier or have other downsides.

If Bitcoin continues to develop and grow, at time point it will represent a safer alternative to legacy currencies and then the era of government-issued money will be over.

Think of it as an opposition party to the fiats, it may never get elected to the office, but it must exist and get funded.

You are comparing currencies to technologies. Sure, Maestro Cards didn't replace paper Euro notes, but paper Euro notes replaced Italian paper Lira notes, for example. Bitcoin may not replace credit cards, either, but that doesn't mean we can't end up with a Bitcoin denominated credit card that replaced dollar and euro credit cards.


Can you elaborate please? Government and private issued currencies fall due to the issuer falling. Bitcoin has no issuer. Gold and other "hard" currencies fall because they are difficult to store and transact with, and the places trusted to store them end up either succumbing to fractional reserve or to the currency being diluted (like with tungsten found in gold bars). Bitcoin is easy to store and transact on people's personal walkers. So what kinds of pressures and corruption do you have in mind?

Regarding the OP, and the couple of replies after mine, ignoring my point, it's not "Can it replace...?" it's "Can it outlast...?" Do you guys believe Bitcoin can outlast government fiat currencies? If yes, why can't it supplant and replace them?

I suspect that any particular crypto-currency is more likely than not to succumb the the same sorts of pressures and corruption that most forms of wealth fall victim to.  This is likely especially true for Bitcoin as it was not really designed with defenses against most of these things in mind.  It will happen at an accelerated rate relative to other vehicles due to it's outstanding mobility characteristics.

On the bright side, the corrosive effects could still could take many years to fully metastasize depending on various struggles which are currently underway.  I am much more optimistic about the 'general solution' of distributed crypto-currencies which I feel has the potential to be a lasting game-changer for human civilizations.  The world may never look quite the same!

The main difference between Bitcoin and things like gold, property, etc is that I personally happened to have been in the right place at the right time to get my foot in the door.  And a big chunk of my lower leg for that matter.  Long live Bitcoin!

I completely agree with this statement.  Although I think it's a bit of a reach (okay more than a bit of a reach) to think Bitcoin would replace the dollar or any other national currency, I do think it has opened a Pandora's box of sorts that will never be closed again.  I think that possibility of it replacing high-fee electronic transfer systems is more likely, as is those systems trying to implement Bitcoin in a way that is more beneficial to them than working with the traditional banks.  I think this could be the case for Paypal, Western Union, and other similar companies who have already expressed at least some interest.

... what is this "bitcoin concept" you speak of? Seems like lots of people are ascribing all kinds of wishes, whims and political wonders to a networking protocol.

We are going all the way baby ... govt. fiat is dead because that is how money works, the market will decide.

Just ask yourself keeping in mind that money is fundamentally a value information technology, would you rather hold the money issued and managed by politicians, bureaucrats and banksters or the money managed by a collective consensus of programmers, cryptographers, mathematicians and IT (information technology) technicians?

Absolutely commonsensical response. Why more people don't realize this is beyond me. Stop preaching about the bitcoin of the future and starting using the bitcoin of today.

Bitcoin won't replace fiat just like credit cards haven't replaced cash and PayPal hasn't replaced credit cards. Bitcoin will eventually supplement existing currencies.

Bitcoin will probably replace Western Union and the like, however.

BTW, if Bitcoin becomes more prevalent, more users will be earning their wages or selling goods for BTC so I think there will be even LESS need for Bitcoin ATMs, etc.

If we have swarm clients then yes. And we will at some point. So yes.

I don't see why not. It's really a question of what can outlast what. If you think Bitcoin, the cryptocurrency technology that doesn't depend on any one entity, which can be adjusted, fixed, and changed as it evolves, can outlast fiat that depends on a country's economy and politicians, and is the main thing that allows governments to borrow unlimited amounts of money, then what will happen is that as each government fiat crashes, that country will switch to something else. It could be another government's currency, or it could be Bitcoin. Eventually, as all other government currencies crash and get screwed up, more and more people will move to Bitcoin instead. We're talking very very long term here (even centuries maybe), and likely by then Bitcoin will look completely different from what it is now.

In short, though:
Bitcoin is an idea that is backed by the interest of it's users, who's incentives for it are that it can't be screwed with or destroyed (that's what gives it value).
Government fiat is an idea that is backed by the interest of it's users, who's incentives are to continue to vote for government programs that government can't afford, and continue to print more and more of the currency to reduce the debts of the borrowed money.

Bitcoin simply has a more stable foundation and incentive structure, and thus is more likely to keep swallowing other money up.

EDIT: And if you say something like, "Bitcoin can never be real money, because it fluctuates too much, and you have to wait 10 minutes for transactions," you're an idiot. Currency fluctuation is directly related to how large the currency base is, and technology changes. It's like saying e-mail can never succeed because dialup modems take too long to connect to AOL, and it can only ever be checked at home on PCs.

How badly do those 12 million want 1 bitcoin?  Who wants it more, and what are they willing to trade for it?  If they want it more than they want $.01, but not more than they want $1, then the price of btc will be less than $1.

Then the scam becomes evident.

In for an inch, in for a mile. The future has no room for inefficient media of exchange and unreliable stores of value.