Topic: the social Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 3087 times)

yea, and the enslavors where the victoms in slavory. SInce i know Bitcoin and got to know the libertarian sect (for me it is a sect because of confirmation bias, profetizing satoshi, citing half a frase of him as a commandment, etc.) my forehead allready got flat like a board. never facepalmed so much.





would be nice, let them take all their wealth and go to Mars. would give the humanity another chance. and this time we install an antivirus

The question is who is who? Are the workers the oppressed, and the businesses and corporations the oppressors, in which case the workers will rise up, take control, and relieve the wealthy business owners of their wealth, as happened in communist revolutions during the last century?
Or are the business people and entrepreneurs the oppressed, and the workers the oppressors, feeling that it is unfair that some people have much and they have little, and using the power of government to regulate and take from those business people and entrepreneurs, in which case it's the wealthy business types that will rise up, take their wealth, and move elsewhere? This wasn't really possible with wealth being stored in banks, since that wealth could just be frozen and confiscated by governments, but it's possible now...

There are two types of people..The Oppressors and the Oppressed..When the Oppressed wake up and say they have had enough then many different types of economic systems will come to the Fore so then nothing will really matter. Foe now let's enJoy the ride and the revolution BTC is bringing and the Hope to the Average Joe and then later down the line we can address if the BITCOIN PROTCOL Experiment needs a good tweak.

If you test your normal cell, it will be ok, but if you take your cancer cell and test it, it will have DNA that will not be like yours. It may pass heredity test, but it will not pass test as your DNA. You did not mean that anyone who is related will not get DNA money, and only one person in family will get money, did you?
I can not make vial of your blood in lab, but I can make your DNA in lab. I can then inject that DNA in blood cell. It takes very long time to make DNA, and I would need to inject it into blood cell one by one, because blood does not divide. To make vial of your blood in lab, I would need to make your DNA in lab and use it to clone and grow bone marrow, which can then grow your blood. It is still very new and very difficult to pull off technology, which will take years with technology we have now, but it will become much easier and faster to do, even to create blood cells themselves in vials, very soon.


This is what I mean by people who are not rich do not know how to use and take care of money. When you buy something, you are not investing. You are using up money on something that itself will get used up. There is difference between earning or spending money, and between making money. Wealthy people and corporations actually make money, by putting cheap things together to make more expensive things. As saying goes, sum is greater than its parts. When people earn money, they just trade one thing they do not need, like their time and labor, for another thing they do need, like money. When people spend money on products, they also trade something they do not need, like money, on things they do need, like products. And those products wear out, which means that they need to trade more labor for more money, and more money for more products. Wealthy people invest by spending money on things that will make them more money, like property, stocks, building businesses and companies, or even buying labor that they can combine with other things to make products that are worth more than labor and those other things.

So if poor people get money, who only know how to convert it to products that will wear out, then all they will have is less and less money as their products wear out. If they did know how to take care of and use money, they would use it to invest in things that would make them money, and if they knew how to do that, they would not have been poor to begin with. Does this make sense?


Millions of dollars, and billions for some corporations. It is cash that is transitioning through their corporation, which they just received for selling their products, and they will be using in a few days to pay their employees and suppliers. If you take most of their cash, they will not be able to pay their employees, who will go hungry and quit, and they will not be able to pay their suppliers, who will not sell them more supplies to make products out of. So company will go out of business. Many businesses had to close when Cyprus took money from banks, because many businesses kept their money there for reasons I mentioned.


Corporations made lots of money because they made things that people wanted to buy. They are rich because people traded money that they did not want for corporation products. So corporations already served poor people by giving them what they want. Why must corporations give even more?


People in Saudi Arabia are like this too. They have much natural resource, so people get paid $1,000 for doing nothing. Everyone is rich, and does not need to work. Because of that, everyone does what they want, not what is needed. Because religion is very respected, most people there go to school to learn and get degrees in religion.  So natural resource of Saudi Arabia is poisoning everyone's minds. What is worse is that natural resources are not unlimited. When it runs out in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, you will have entire country full of people who do not know how to do anything, and do not know anything other than religion. They will be very poor, very desperate, and very religious and very angry. It is going to be big problem. Much worse than terrorism is today.


If that is true, explain Israel, Dubai, and Japan? They have no resources at all, but are riches countries in middle east and Asia. Not wanting to use your mind and not wanting to be productive is what makes people poor. In fact, if you look around at different countries, you will see that those with many natural resources are most poor and corrupt, and those without are much more wealthy. Reason is because those without resources must rely on their own intelligence to make money.


It is very not efficient to seize resources with military. It is much cheaper to ask for and trade for those resources with people who have them. This is because people who have those resources know best how to get them, and if you take resources, you will have to deal with angry people trying to kill you. Only reason corporations monopolize natural resources is because no one else knows better than they do how to extract them. If you and your family and friends were given oil rigs over Norway, what would you do with them?
Also, if you take resources from corporations, or tax corporations, then you will just become the new monopoly that is controlling those resources. You will either be extracting resources yourself, or having corporation work for you. So who will later tax you for being new monopoly in charge of resources?

So if I had cancer and I did a heredity test with my kid that would screw up the results? Just because DNA is altered by something doesn't mean a computer definitely couldn't identify what person it was, a sophisticated enough machine could check for cancer, etc. You are saying you could make a vial of my blood in a lab? I don't think so.

What are you talking about when you say 'spend and waste it'? Spending isn't wasting money it's enjoying it at least. Spending is investing in the products you buy, it doesn't cause the money to disappear from the economy. This is just a transfer of wealth from the global rich to the global poor via corporations. How much cash does a corporation have at any one time? What proportion of their wealth is in physical money? Taking it would be unlikely to bankrupt a profitable company. Employees would have their allotment of coins, (less than their usual salary admittedly). If they want to make money they just have to sell more of their stock or services, in the developing world demand would be big. It's just a hit to large corporations, a tax that they'll pay to the poor. The richest country in the world by GDP per person is Qatar; they don't work or do anything productive with their labor, they get Pakistani servants to do everything for them. So why are they the richest? Because they a have valuable natural resource. People are poor because they are cut off from the wealth of natural resources, usually either land or energy. Being efficient and productive is valuable for ensuring that your military seizes the best resources but you're kidding yourself if you think wealth distribution is a result of these attributes alone. People behave in the way that's most appropriate for the environment they inhabit, that's a natural human law and if we can change that environment people can have any positive qualities you want. This is a tax that corporations will pay to the poor for monopolizing natural resources for decades; that is all.

Thanks.  Its nice to get some respect on these forums. 

Cancer people can use their cancer DNA, which is different from their own DNA, to claim more money. Viruses can also be used to change DNA, since that is how viruses reproduce - they change the DNA of cells to make those cells make more viruses. If you test for DNA by taking blood samples, people who had bone marrow transplant will have same DNA as people who donated the bone. Also, I can print custom DNA that is not like any other person's DNA. It takes long time, and can not be put into people yet, but soon technology will change that. DNA is not a scarce or unique resource, like time, energy, and work.

If people end up with lots of money, and corporations get obsolete currency, as you say, that will be very bad. People with little money will not know what to do with lots of money besides spend and waste it, and corporations will not have money to buy supples to make products, and money to pay their employees. Poor people with lots of money will not have jobs, and will not have products to spend money on, so their lots of money will become worthless too. Money is not measure of one's wealth. It is measure of one's production capability and ability to think. So corporations will still be rich, because they still have their buildings, factories, people, and knowledge of how to run their business.
There is reason that wealthy people and corporations have much money - they know how to use it and how to take care of it.

If everyone ditched Bitcoin and switched to another cryptocurrency the same unequal situation would emerge as early adopters of the new currency would be disproportionately wealthy. This means that there isn't much incentive to switch.

I've been writing about a similar hypothetical cryptocurrency, which would overcome some the the technological barriers to redistributing the money.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cryptocurrency-socialist-revolution-367080

Instead of the majority trying to force a redistribution of Bitcoin, a new cryptocurrency would be created which gives a universal allotment of coins to each new user. DNA would be used to identify a new user, once they have been identified their DNA signature is recorded on the Blockchain and they can't claim again. Trying to redistribute all the Bitcoins is impossible because many people have multiple wallets, would they receive multiple shares? This DNA system ensures that there is one unique payment for each person. My ultimate vision for this currency is for it to be used as a kind of corporation tax, people in rich countries go out and spend all their cash buying products from large corporations. The next day they switch to the DNA based cryptocurrency. The people have a pile of new stuff and an allotment of cash worth about $600 (all the cash in the world divided by 7 billion) and the corporations have a big pile of obsolete currency.

new food for thoughts:

once BTC is dominant currency, and 95% of BTCs are in the hand of 5% of world population. why would those 95% who got the rest stay with Bitcoin? they will abandon it and simply adopt another coin, wouldn't they? BTC will have only value between the richs, which would make them useless.
(just beginning to think about this, a guy on facebook gave me that "food" 10min ago; sharing this "food" with you guys)

related: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3953039

---

So, what currency, or stock, or pretty much anything invented, do you like that you would like me to quote instead? I'll still say "Did you know that ______ was 100% owned by one person, or a small group of people, when it first started out?"

so you quote the dollar to convince me that the problem will self solve itself? lol

Did you know that when it started, only 1 person owned all the bitcoins? And a whole month later, maybe 3 or 4 people owned all bitcoins? When the US Dollar was started, a group of proably less than a dozen people owned 100% of all US dollars. That's how new currencies start out.

http://www.ahametals.com/927-people-own-bitcoins/




I will respond your whole post another day;

just responding the quote:
what do you mean? I should give up on the world and surrender to the assholes? never, I'd rather die. I can't ignore millions of people suffering starvation, dieing for a few bucks

I think you are trapped in idealism - no offense. Using money and power, a small group is able to direct events,
even in a democratic environment; it happens with conventional money, it can happen with bitcoins/cryptocurrencies.

In case of Bitcoin, it is conceivable that earlier groups are connected, thereby enhancing their influencing capabilities.
This development is natural, but only as benign as the group members.

So your question becomes more frightening:

What if the minority decides that the majority is only allowed to possess a fixed and known amount of addresses?
(There exists a thread about a dystopian future here on BT, which I still have to read)

Now back to your original question. The idea, that in the future accumulation of wealth is no longer a supreme goal, but self-improvement is, spreads through science-fiction media.
Your thoughts probably match this scenario, as people would no longer care about maximizing/increasing balance on their wallets as generations before did.
Probably it is worth to study the feasibility of a resource based economy (RBE) as it could align with this idea. I have not done this yet.

However, it could be sufficient (or more just) to spread the idea and let everything else follow in line by advancing human behavior, instead of
enforcing it technologically.

Thank you very much for a thought-provoking post.
Benjamin

First, there is the technological aspect.

You could create a currency and put it into circulation by giving some amount to every human being, that would arguably be the most fair coin. Only, without an authority you can never prove who is one human being and that identities aren't being spoofed or faked. So, to find consensus in a distributed system, no better solutions have been found than A) Proof-of-Work ("mining"), B) Proof-of-Stake (some altcoins use that, but has other problems, long story), C) Web of Trust (also lots of other problems, but ripple.com essentially uses that method).

Bitcoin was just the first such crypto-currency, it has always been an experiment, no one knew if it would work out, the masses would not have understood the concept and the value behind it even if they had the knowledge and choice in time to invest early. So if you want more fair distribution, then you indeed have to set up competition, a new crypto-currency, now that the public is more familiar with the concept, so that a fairer distribution might be achieved. Or (and I'm sure that will happen), there will be "official" (less-) "crypto" currencies issued by governments that can verify identities, being advertised as "social" and "fair". Obviously, such a currency will come with much less privacy, and will probably make it impossible to donate to dissidents like Wikileaks or Snowden.

Second, there is the societal aspect.

If there are a few rich early adopters of Bitcoin, so what? You also don't know the people who got rich by buying Apple stocks in the 90ies. Insofar, Bitcoin was just another asset and good investment opportunity, which over time became something used by the masses, regardless of the early investment aspect.

The rich will sooner or later give their wealth into circulation. So will early Bitcoin adopters become new powerful dynasties over the next generations, only marrying among themselves in order to not dilute their wealth? I don't know, time will tell. But to have an oppressive relationship you need two parties you know. We live in the information age right now, and people won't be so superstitious anymore (I hope) to accept the rule of the mighty Andresen and Garzik dynasties as given "by the grace of God".

 

still waiting BTC army to free China from dictatorship. hahahahahhaa

Force costs a lot, and we just invented a way to make taking money by force a hell of a lot more difficult. So, hopefully, that power will simply be for sale, if only because they would have an incentive to provide customers with products they wish for, as opposed to products like the Iraq war.

Also, anarchy isn't and won't be a utopia. There will be plenty of people slipping through the cracks and whatnot. The biggest different between that and what we have now is that people would have to make choices for what they want and don't want (a benefit, actually), and be fully responsible for the consequences of their choices, instead of offloading them onto the rest of society (which scares a lot of people right now). And, actually, the internet itself is anarchy. So it will be sort of like that, with a few obnoxious trolls running around, but mostly people being cordial and civil, and making lots of awesome stuff for us to play with.