Topic: The Big Fallacy and social incompatibility in Satoshi Nakamoto argument (Read 355 times)

There we go....upside down thinking again.  Digital currencies are a step forward into the future, not backward into the jungle. How does the way I spend my money anybody else's business but mine again?  Oh, it's a trust issue....the government has to trust that I will spend my money the way they want me to spend it?  Why? do they still think that it's theirs?  No....the government should be shaped by the governed and not the other way around.

I understand your point, but I don't agree.

If Satoshi were to start her white paper with a view of the ideal world it would accomplish two things:

(1) Would set the tone that Bitcoin should only be used as means to achieve the specific ends outlined in the ideal world view, and

(2) Risk having people dismiss Bitcoin simply because they did not agree with Satoshi's "ideal" world view

It's also pretty narcissistic to say "this is the way it should be done, my way, and that's it." Satoshi accomplishes putting the "next step" for people to take to reach that other or ideal or improved world view by creating a system where a currency is created without the need for government or organizational backing.

Bitcoin isn't about a lack of trust, it's about regaining control over your money, and wealth, and spending...for you. And for me. And every other individual. Trust is inherent. Trust is required. Bitcoin doesn't work with out trust.

There's no need for every transaction we make with our money to be taxed or fee'd by some third party. We pay too much for convenience we don't need. Bitcoin eliminates this requirement. It's fucking beautiful.

Satoshi should have defined the society, government, human life and what it means to live better. And then delve into crypto concepts. Satoshi's world view is different. It is not enough just to come up with mathematical solutions to social problems. You need to define the social context and consider it in your solution. This was not done properly by Satoshi.

The fallacy is, while bitcoin network assumes a total lack of trust among people, it either asks governments to trust people for their good intentions in using bitcoin anonymously or it rejects the need for having any visibility into payments. Let's take a deeper look into these two.

If it is asking governments to trust people and their good intentions in using bitcoin, it contradicts with the very foundations of bitcoin which assumes total lack of trust. So we can rule out this possibility.

Then it must be the other reason - rejects the need for having any visibility into payments. This is so wrong, for anyone who has a little understanding of how the human civilisations have arrived to this point in history. Satoshi, while excited by the great new solution offered by cryptography for moving value anonymously, didn't care to study the social implications and didn't see how this solution effectively asks the humanity to go back to jungle life.

Lack of visibility into money movement means lack of knowledge into services, activities and goods delivered against those payments. When there is no one to care about who is doing what with these large money payments, then effectively we are back to jungle life.

Satoshi didn't believe in his own social existence anyway. So, it could appear justified for him to ignore governments and traceability. But most of the humans believe in society and believe in their own existence, very unlike Satoshi.

It is easy to see why the bitcoin is only compatible with the primitive Satoshi world (jungle life) and incompatible with the current society and world as it exists today.