Topic: Using Bitcoin in Space - Bitcoin and the Interplanetary Frontier (Read 362 times)

The article mentions that it will take a long time. It's speculating on how Bitcoin could be used once we're on the Moon & Mars.

Tough crowd 

to be used on this planet alone, it is still in a difficult stage of struggle, i think that to be used on the moon it is still not in the realm. moreover there are no residents yet, let alone transactions

I think we have to focus for using Bitcoin on the world.
Still to early to using it in the other places.

I think this is a good idea. But honestly how can we be able to get to live in the moon. What else would we be doing in their with our bitcoin. Some ideas are really that easy to put into practice through imagination but as to the reality it wouldn't be that easy. Maybe we should wait for so many years before we are able to live in the space and trade our bitcoins.

I think there is still a lot of way to go for going out to the space for now. The shortest timeline is still 10+
years away from building anything anywhere which means there is still a lot of time for crypto to get bigger in this world before we decide to branch out to any other world. First we have to deal with the problems at hand and than focus on space.

Right now even the SEC is not seeing bitcoin is acceptable but hopefully they are working towards a solution or a response and how to make ETF get accepted, the thing you need to know about that is if they reject it they tell you why and how you can fix it so you go back and do what they say and comeback with higher chance of acceptance. Lets deal with that type of small stuff first, we can move to space step by step from each obstacle we have.

Well, for crypto currency to be used on the moon then people should be on the moon to use it and resources to use it for. All these are way too early to be in the talks. Besides, we still haven't even begun to colonize the space frontier. I just hope we do better in the next planet than the planet we live on today.

With this price balance of bitcoin is already just a benefit to business in space. How much sense does it take to buy al-sat in space? nonsensical

If they're using Bitcoin natively, then by definition the only volatility will be in traded goods. The value of Bitcoin will be stable when local prices are denominated in Bitcoin.

I mean if there is no money or currency outside of the earth than why not use bitcoin when you go to mars and colonize it, that way you will make sure you are not using the currency that countries use and find something in between. Bitcoin does not belong to any country and it can be used by "martian" people who will go there and live, that way it can further the economy of those colonies in other planets.

However we need to make sure it is not this much volatile when that happens, we wouldn't want the first people who live outside of earth to face with insane volatility and inflation constantly when they also have other living troubles.

Interesting imagination and I don't think there is anything wrong with imagination but my question is are people already living in space, being comfortable like we are here on earth, trading online, physically too and doing all sorts of things and what is the medium of exchange, Dollar, Pounds,  Euro or what?

I mean, what year would this vision of using bitcoin in space come through when we are still battling with its outright use here 

Actually crypto currencies were better to use in the space if we have internet connection for the places but those days are unimagineable for now,maybe the space craft with people to mars will be going in 2040 as I have read so at that time people will accumulate more to the crypto currencies so they have some sort of money if they wanted to buy something at mars.

It definitely makes sense to go underground on the moon. Since there is almost no atmosphere, the amount of solar radiation any future inhabitants would get, would just be too much over the long term.
Those caverns would offer some natural protection from the harmful radiation. Same story on Mars, although Mars does have some atmosphere left, it does occasionally receive deadly blasts of radiation after strong solar flares.

Sources:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/08sep_radioactivemoon
https://www.universetoday.com/14979/mars-radiation1/


Okay, but that doesn't mean we can't start thinking about possible ways to use crypto in space. It's just a thought experiment...

absurd, why send it to the moon or interplanetary, when it is not yet even accepted and ambraced internationally here in our planet, it is not yet in thd mainstream market, and who would you trade it with in outerspace? aliens, lol. kidding aside, i think we must full utilized crypto across the world before we think of leaping outside earth.

It is very interesting that you bring the point that a space colony in space will probably prefer to have its own currency, because that is precisely what happened when countries established colonies around the world, they tried to force the local people to use their currency but eventually the local people found a way to establish their own currency and use it instead, I find this very interesting because even when the scenario changes so much things remain the same.

Thanks!

Getting to any level of self-sufficiency away from the Earth could take a long time, and standards of living may be much worse than settlers are used to.

The quickest way I can think of the Moon becoming permanently habitable is by digging out and pressurizing large underground caverns and piping in sunlight to grow food. We will need to send lots of organic material to mix with the exiting lunar soil.

I really thought the article was a pretty interesting read. Okay, it might not be something for the near future, but I can definitely appreciate the thinking behind this.

It would actually make a lot of sense to use some form of cryptocurrency on interplanetary settlements. I think your idea of using lightning network for quick transactions, while relaying the transactions to the mainnet afterwards (slow), really makes a lot of sense.

I do really wonder how long it would take us to build a fully functional settlement on the moon for example. I would think that's where we'll start, seems a bit more reachable than immediately going to Mars.

Maybe. But if history is any guide, the power to print money will always be abused to the benefit of those who print. I don't see human nature changing any time soon, so taking the power to print money out of the hands of people is the only logical course of action. That's what this "Bitcoin" thing is all about: verify that your money is legitimate without trusting a third party.

Have you read The Bitcoin Standard yet? It lays out the economic foundation for this whole endeavor, and I highly recommend it.


What's with all the negative trolls in this thread?

The Humanity will never leave this palnet,so such articles are just fantasies and science fiction dreams.
It would be safer and cheaper,if we send robots to populate other planets,but the robots won't create markets and trade,so it's pointless to talk about any form of currency.

The main reason that occurs is due to a lack of public awareness coupled with lack of safeguards and accountability. I'll contend: with a smaller and better informed population it becomes less feasible & less likely.

Printing money on demand doesn't have to be exclusively reserved for "connected parties" nor any single social class or demographic. With better education and accountability it could be used to fund scientific research, humanitarian causes and other ventures. In theory, this is what states do with their power. While this precedent might not be feasible or likely with large and uninformed populations, the likelihood of it occurring increases with smaller populations in offworld colonies who are better informed / educated.

It could also serve as an example for how inflationary theory should be applied in the real world which might be something currently lacking in our status quo.


I hate to say: macro economics vs micro economics but that is where this is leading me.  


In old black and white movies the APR for a home loan can sometimes be seen @ around 2%. In past eras they don't necessarily increase beyond 2% when more people apply for credit as in past eras the mentality of "usury" and "unfair business practices" may have been more ethically tied to our culture and society. Public awareness also may have been greater with less distractions.

The idea that there are hard constants associated with printing money or interest rates which must imperatively be observed isn't an idea which appeals to me. I think our standards are determined by our overall education and knowledge. Yes, systems can be more easily manipulated and influenced negatively when information and knowledge are near all time lows. Things might substantially change for the better however under conditions where knowledge is more widely distributed.

The only advantage to a money you can print on demand is that the printer can enrich politically connected parties with the new money. There is absolutely no problem keeping a money supply fixed, and increases lead to inflation. In the era of mercantilism, as gold flowed from the New World back to Western Europe, they experience long periods of inflation where before there was none. During the classical gold standard in the early-mid 19th Century, the United States experienced a prolonged deflation, with consumer goods prices falling modestly for decades. This is hugely beneficial to standards of living. A central bank would have printed its way out of the deflation, negating the benefits to the middle class.

Interest rates are determined on the market when demand for debt meets the supply of savings to lend. The acts of market participants set those rates. As more people save, interest rates go down. As more people demand to borrow, interest rates go up. Artificial interference in this process distorts the market and in fiat currency systems leads to the boom-and-bust business cycle.

I would love to see a more economically-literate general public But you don't need a PhD to know that when everything in life gets a little more expensive every year, you're losing money if you save, so you should spend. This leads to more consumerism and less savings and investment, which are the only sure way to raise standards of living in the long term.