Topic: Where do we place an open source Bitcoin on the political spectrum ? (Read 518 times)

So in essence, BTC is found in the libertarian fold of sounder money that doesn't allow a fascist central bank to inflate the currency and steal value away from savers over time. Fiat also hurts the poorest as their little money buys less and less and also adversely affects those on the govt ponzi schemes known as social security and welfare.

Definitely. Just look at the composition of early adapters.

There is nothing special in Litecoin, it's a result of git clone && sed && git push. And actually, if we continue the analogy, alternative currencies are separate republics rather than part of Bitcoin.

"Single-party" doesn't mean "non democratic". It's democratic because anyone is able to become a member of the party or even a member of executive comettee (i.e. bitcoin core team).

Free market capitalistic system.

But you're forgetting altcoins, especially ones like Litecoin. It'd be more democratic when people realize that Bitcoin isn't the only one out there.

"Not capitalist?" Fsshhh, Bitcoin is a wonderful example of the supply-and-demand facet of economics in a free market. If you bought Bitcoin when it was only five cents per BTC, you made a very good bet when more people found out about it and shoved the demand sky-high. And of course, there is only so much Bitcoin.

Left of course. The whole bitcoin project is a typical single-party socialist republic.

I am a layman, but it seems to me that the open source movement is definitely not a product of capitalism. I say this after having read a lot of threads recently about how capitalism has created more wealth/led to more development than any other system - and that we should be thankful for it.

   Open source seems to me to be people innovating and creating around a common point of interest (eg. Bitcoin) , not for monetary gain, but because of that basic and essential element of humanity that sees a way forward/imagines a better way of being - and strives toward it. It seems to me a disparate movement that could better be described as being based on, for eg., Communitarianism - maybe even old school socialist (the means of production being in the hands of the people, and being utilised in the interests of the people)  

    I mean, the record companies tell us that artists need paying etc etc, and that filesharing stifles creativity. This seems to me self serving BS - if anything, taking big business out of culture (and its creation) might actually promote real culture and take us back to something like this, where within the creative process we are "prosumers" (to use a buzzword) rather than passive consumers getting fleeced. Flamenco was traditionally a community "happening" - a participatory creative event. Until "capitalists" realised they could make a few quid off the back of it - and getting people to pay to watch "stars" on a stage. The Star System etc.

   I suppose my question is - is capitalism really the source of all things good ? And where does the Open Source movement, and so by implication Bitcoin, fit into the theory that it is ?