Topic: Question by a newbie (Read 2402 times)

After reading all of this I'm actually pretty excited for the future. People who constantly claim to want to be apart from society now absolutely have that choice. While those who enjoy society and wish for more security can finally have it.

What is the legal question related to Bitcoin?

Bitcoin is a public ledger crypto-currency.
Blockchain as you describe it, is a private ledger governmental document systems to enforce laws and oppress the late payers.

What you "envisioned" is nothing special. All have been stated multiple times a month on this forum since its inception.

I did not say that there is no governmental/corporate function of a private ledger, but a public one.
I said that it would not be needed or functional since it can be done now in private systems, as they do now (ex Banking - DMV)
You do not need the blockchain system to perform what you are describing, just for systems to talk together.

As for the enforcement issues, which just arose in the most recent conversation, is a different issue.
This issue and your example is contingent that the cars will not function if your blockchain ID is invalidated.
Your example applies way in the future, probably after we are both dead.
Society is headed that way anyway without blockchain tech.


Your statements of how monumentally life changing this is, is comparable to when people created boats, planes, rockets, nuclear power, or whatever.
Yes it will create a paradigm shift in different areas of society. That is obvious. That is why people are so excited about it.
What you are saying is that it seems to be wrong in some way, since it has the possibility to lead to our enslavement.


I don't drink and drive and I don't live outside my means.

Don't tell me that this is a Bitcoin forum. There are conversations about many different crypto currencies on here. This is a very valid legal question that is directly related to Bitcoin. Look at how many people have read this conversation. I'll bet that not one of them has even considered what the future of blockchain is outside of the price of bitcoin.

"Yes and a equal amount of beneficial things."

I am officially bailing out of this conversation. You said multiple times that governments will find no function in blockchain. Now all of a sudden you say that they WILL find function. I proved multiple functional purposes, that will serve government and private business. That was your argument, I illustrated things that you never envisioned.  

Now you are trying to say that this is already occurring but at a much slower pace. No, I do not know what you do for a living, but I can tell you with certainty that taking a driver's license away now, does absolutely nothing to prevent a drunk driver from driving. The change is enormous. Nobody's home key will stop working if they don't pay their mortgage.

Some of these things are good, until they happen to you.

I don't really understand your point.
Are you saying that there can no longer be repeat offenders with blockchain, and that is unfair?
Blockchain will be used for enforcement of laws, in addition to ledger abilities, and that is wrong?

Nothing from the above seems unjust or illegal. It happens currently, just slower and done by human verification.


They would be against it and attempt to litigate it.


Yes and a equal amount of beneficial things.


Freedom is a separate issue from all prior conversations. This is a Bitcoin forum.
The blockchain was "created" to facilitate the ability to have a"trustless online currency".
If the blockchain will one day be used to enslave humanity, that is very possible.
But it is also possible certain laws will be created to protect peoples rights in the blockchain.
It could be like a "human blockchain civil rights".

It is very different. The drunk driver's car wont start. Now, we take away their license. Does that stop them from driving? Absolutely not. But when we verify a contract on the blockchain, and suspend the drivers license, the drunk driver cannot get a car to start, and their privilege to purchase alcohol is stopped. We are not relying on an 18 year old store clerk to check the license, the blockchain shuts it down. If you think that is anything like the consequences we have now, again, you are choosing to ignore the larger picture.

Yes. It is trivial since there is no difference between how they handle it now and how they will handle in your example.
Legally you have no recourse now, and when this new hypothetical system is implemented.
There is nothing that the company did that was incorrect, unless you did pay. There is no liability.

Anytime a government issues a license, whether it be a real estate agent, an attorney, a doctor, or a hair dresser, a third party has to verify that license. With blockchain technology, in theory, the hair dresser's clippers wouldn't function if the license is invalid. That is an extreme example to illustrate my point. Blockchain eliminates the third party. With currency, the third party is a bank. The public ledger validates the exchange just like the public ledger validates a license.

What would the NRA say about validating all gun purchases on a blockchain?

There are thousands of very functional reasons that blockchain will be used outside of Bitcoin. As you start to think about them, they get very scary.

Farmers need to be licensed if they want to use certain fertilizers or pesticides. The criminal justice possibilities are endless.

You wont have to show your drivers license to buy a six pack, just scan your code and go.  

When you think about the immediate response of the blockchain, does that enhance your idea of freedom, or restrict it?

You honestly believe that if a bank can prevent a car from starting when the loan payment is overdue, that this potential would be seen as trivial?
 That was the question.

You said that banks will find no function. I showed a profitable function, and you said...

"Well shouldn't they pay their bills anyway?"

You did not answer the question.

There is function for governments, and private business and you refuse to acknowledge that.

I'm not changing the subject. I directly answered your statements, except for the medical aspect.

In the event of medical example you describe, what do insurance companies do now?
I personally do not know. Do they cut you off from finishing the treatment or do they follow through?

I think normally your treatment would not be completed.

There may be certain human and medical rights, depending on the country, that override the insurance company,
but that is unknown to me.

And when your medical insurance isn't paid, should the chemo treatment be suspended as well? You are changing the subject and attempting to make this about personal responsibility.

No, I understand it.
I just think you think you are entitled to rights, that you actually do not have.

If a bank doesn't let your car start, when you did pay, and they hold you up for more illegally, then yes, that is a problem.

The question is this, is that natural evolution of civilization as it advances through time with technology?

In this future world, if you do not pay your bills, should you be allowed to continue to use that product?

My understanding is that when you do not pay your lease and other bills,
they do now take action such as repossession or turn off your utilities.

What is the difference? That it is now on the public ledger?

I explained it very clearly. You just don't want to see it.

You honestly believe that if a bank can prevent a car from starting when the loan payment is overdue, that this potential would be seen as trivial?

If you are not considering the potential, and who would benefit from the implementation and widespread use, then you are choosing to ignore it. Or, you don't truly understand it.

First of all, you do not explain your reasoning. Saying that "Because if they did, the endgame would be obvious.
I have read the Princeton textbook. I know the history.", doesn't actually mean anything.

Your argument is that since no one took credit for it, that in of itself is proof that the creator designed it for enslavement.
Yet, Bitcoin wasn't created for information storage and data mining, it was created for currency transmission. It doesn't contain such data.

The Bitcoin blockchain, can not hold any of that information. If it did, or could, the data would be too large to maintain.
The Bitcoin blockchain can only store a small hash of that information, so that you can prove ownership by a certain block height/date, if needed.
The Bitcoin blockchain is not a storage system, it is a trustless currency exchange system.

Using the blockchain for the purposes you describe would not be needed.
The US NSA already has most of that data and they store it privately.

There is no need and not actually functional to create a public ledger system to control people.
You just do it in private like now.

I am being hypothetical to illustrate how powerful this technology is. Here are some more examples:

Let your car insurance lapse, you car doesn't start.
Don't renew your annual bar membership dues, the kiosk at the county court doesn't let you in.
Your prescription for Ambien and your weekly donation to the church are all confirmed by the blockchain.

They have every reason to not claim ownership. Because if they did, the endgame would be obvious. I have read the Princeton textbook. I know the history.

With blockchain technology, it will be possible to carry all of the following things in your "blockchain" wallet:
birth certificate
high school diploma
college degree (and in theory, your degree could be suspended if you don't pay your student loans)
marriage certificate
social security
all personal property

If you don't think that governments, , banks, marketing companies, or insurance companies can find function with blockchain, then you need to go back and look.

This technology has the ability to suspend a college degree if the loans are not paid. I did not say that it will happen. I said that it can. Think about that. It isn't about establishing trust, and if you believe that, you are not seeing the larger picture.

The Bitcoin Whitepaper is actually a collection of separate systems designed by many other people over many decades,
and Satoshi Nakamoto was first to figure out how to fit all them together with other systems and worked out those problems,
to create the first true internet currency. The fact that you are here asking any questions proves it's own success.

Satoshi created the blockchain, but that is secondary to the fact that he managed to create an actual functional internet currency
that is not governed, regulated, maintained or controlled by any single entity. Many tried before him, but only he was successful.

Blockchains are only important to prove something that is needed when there is no trust.
Using blockchains within a "trusted system" (banking, government, corps) is not actually needed or functional.
The current fad of blockchains really exists to mitigate the importance of the currency, bitcoin, and are the corps/banks only feasible
attempt to gain control over this emerging tech. But, they are just spinning their wheels since there is no need outside "trustless systems".

No company in their right mind would create something like this and not claim rights or ownership over it.
The fact that it was released as open source and free and open to all who wish to participate shows that there was no financial interest.

If you are concerned that it all seems to good to be true, it might be.
Only time will tell how the tech will be used. Whether for good or for oppression.