No dog in this fight
But just for clarity since you're top comment, I assume he means the gross support costs of the dollar via the military / empire industrial complex ->
(1) https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/the-hidden-costs-of-the-...
But just for clarity since you're top comment, I assume he means the gross support costs of the dollar via the military / empire industrial complex ->
(1) https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/the-hidden-costs-of-the-...
- The credit card terminals
- The power for Visa's servers
- The power for Visa's customer support offices
- The power for the phones at Visa's offices
- The power at the credit agencies
- The fuel for the money trucks
- The power for the money printers
- The power for the servers at all of the banks
- The power for the atm's
I could continue.
Furthermore, it doesn't seem appropriate to include the "cost" of Visa's customer support - since it's a service that Bitcoin doesn't provide. Fuel for money trucks isn't likely to be different if the ATMs were not there - there is already money trucks moving around, and a few pounds of cash extra do virtually no 'damage'. etc.
Ironically, Bitcoin is the most fair form of money that's ever existed. Governments can't print more of it, they can't manipulate it, they can't tax it (directly), they literally have no control over it. That's why the propaganda machine against it is relentless ("look at what this evil thing is doing, but ignore our never-ending stream of atrocities that make your life objectively more difficult!").
While this may fly over the head of most privileged Westerners, this means the difference between hostile regimes being funded and terrorizing people vs. a family being able to build a business for themselves and live a peaceful life.
If you're against Bitcoin, you're against your fellow humans whether you realize it or not.
Isn't the root cause of war competition for resources (oil, food, land, etc.)? How has Bitcoin solved that problem?
What Bitcoin solves is removing the ability for that money to be manipulated. For example, in the U.S., if I'm at a bank or a large enough company, I can get 0% interest loans from the Federal Reserve. That would be fine if the money was backed by something, but it isn't. As the Federal Reserve, I can print more and more money ad infinitum and then give it away at 0% interest. This is literally money that is not backed by a commensurate amount of value (e.g., gold or some other precious asset like my time/labor). In this model, I can take resources of the table without replacing them rendering me, effectively, a parasite.
The U.S. dollar (or any fiat currency) is not _real_ in the sense that it functions within a set of fixed, well-defined laws.
Bitcoin on the other hand functions based on the laws of mathematics and its own, publicly exposed source code (which can only be changed via majority network consensus). It has a fixed supply that is doled out on a predictable schedule in exchange for creating value (a miner processing transactions). Because of this and its inherent decentralization—meaning it can't be controlled by one or a few small players—its value exists in it being incorruptible.
In laymen terms, it means that what you make is _yours_ and can only be taken by force (and that's _if_ they can get access to your private keys). You can actually build savings and invest in the future. You can predictably plan for your business without having to constantly adjust for inflation. You can live without the boot of government on your chest.
This, inherently, will make the world more peaceful in time. The more peace we have, the more our minds function properly (a mind in a state of fear is easily controlled and limited). The more our minds function properly, the more creative we are. The more creative we are, the more we can invent solutions to our problems, etc.
I'm not sure I see how that will "make the world more peaceful over time." Wouldn't the same issues still exist at the geopolitical scale (where the wars are)? The primary means of acquiring new or more resources for your nation have been the same for all of human history: trade and conquest. I can see a more stable economy being a benefit, but I don't really see how it changes that fundamental dynamic.
Not as easily. In order to finance those wars, assuming Bitcoin renders fiat currencies useless (not improbable), those governments would have to create value, which governments are terrible at. There's a "pipe dream" element to this, but it's not _impossible_. Adopting Bitcoin at scale would put a serious handicap on the ability for governments to pursue conquest or harass their citizens under the guise of "authority." Their only option would be to invest in entrepreneurs and citizens domestically, focusing on being the best place to be as opposed to the ape with the biggest or most rocks (nationalism without the "seig heil!").
That's why I'm so hyper about it. As a civilization, we've never been in this position before so there are a lot of unknowns. At the very least, it would be a grave mistake to dismiss Bitcoin as a "scam" or "bad invention" or fall under the all-too-common spell of "the important thing is the Blockchain technology" (false because you can implement highly-controlled blockchains which recreate the same problem).
The book The Sovereign Individual (interestingly written in the 90s) explains this idea in a more articulate/elaborate way.
And of course inflation can still happen if the world were to run on bitcoin. If cost or supply of many goods are directly impacted (e.g. because of problems with oil supply, which underlies production costs of much of the goods and even services in the economy), then inflation can occur even with a fixed monetary supply.
Also note, the problem is not that there are more of us than stuff to sustain us. The modern economy produces more than enough to fulfill at least the base needs of each and every person on Earth. The problem is that many people believe that they are owed much more than others, either personally, organizationally, or nationally. Most likely wars over resources wouldn't go away to any significant extent even if the world's poorest 5 billion people were to drop dead tomorrow (well, once new soldiers are manufactured).
Indeed, cryptocurrencies help war-mongering regimes bypass international anti-terrorist sanctions.
(And surely "money trucks" here can only be meant metaphorically? The vast majority of US dollars only ever exist as entries in electronic ledgers anyway.)
Bitcoin doesn't do loans; it doesn't do fraud protection (as in, you payed for this item, but the seller is not sending it to you); it doesn't address mistaken transactions; it doesn't address insurance; it doesn't address financial advice; it doesn't address day-to-day payments (the entire bitcoin network couldn't handle the day-to-day payments in a village). I could go on.
Not to mention, the US military-industrial complex wouldn't lose 1 satoshi if the entire world moved to Bitcoin. So it's absurd on the face of it to attribute US military energy to the dollar.
For example, loans already exist: https://unchained.com/loans/.
The internet didn't do lots of things back in the 90s and look at it today. This game is long-term and requires investment and attention _now_ to achieve its potential. Having a decentralized form of money is an incredible head start.
> Scalability. Capable of millions to billions of transactions per second across the network. Capacity blows away legacy payment rails by many orders of magnitude. Attaching payment per action/click is now possible without custodians.
If people realize "oh, this Bitcoin thing works just like those dollars and a government can't manipulate it," in time, yes, the military industrial complex will collapse. Not immediately and not without a fight, but eventually, yes.
If there is a ‘fight’ involved, how will bitcoin owners fight against the military industrial complex?
Black markets are hard to eliminate altogether but no real threat.
So, no. Perhaps for a certain class of user—someone who depends solely on an exchange—they can stop them but ultimately, no. They'd be limited to showing up with guns.
It's not nearly as futile as it seems unless people buy into the propaganda.
For example, states have been issuing various forms of bonds to raise money for war since at least the 1600s.
You may as well say that since the current financial system enabled the development of computers and the internet which were pre-requisites for the development of Bitcoin, then Bitcoin was paid in blood.
You can very clearly see that the current state of affairs is propped up with blood. That doesn't mean the future state of affairs won't also be supported by suffering and death, but that doesn't absolve the current state of things.
That's a pretty clear absolution.
Bitcoin might not solve this problem, but it (or I should say cryptocurrency) can resolve an existing problem with the financial system, that is, manipulating worldwide economics by manipulating money supply. Perhaps that level of economic control is used to prop up imperialism, colonialism and might makes right to some degree. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
> That's a pretty clear absolution.
Not even close. You seem to be interested in attributing blame. My comment is about causality.
If your assumption is that the financial system is the cause of imperialist oppression, then you will also be likely to believe that an alternative financial system can be the cure.
I think that’s naïvely utopian. If Bitcoin is money, then powerful people will use it the same way money has always been used. At best you might reshuffle who is in power, but ultimately it will just be a case of “it’s my turn with the gun now”.
I've clearly stated my point: that the current world economic system is to some degree reliant on continuing oppressive warfare. That's the only claim I'm making.
I've also very clearly stated that my point is not that bitcoin is the cure, only that it would assist in toppling the current largest incentive for oppressive warfare. I've clearly stated that I don't think k it is a cure. You're arguing with yourself at this point.
You have made no case for this.