Let's say we have two similar countries. One is named Fiat and uses a money printer. The other country is named Bitcoin and uses a bitcoin standard.
Now let's say that Fiat goes to war against Bitcoin, and it spans 1-2 years.
Both countries can raise taxes and/or offer war bonds. Let's say they do that and each country gets something like $1 trillion dollars-worth of spending. However, Fiat can print a bunch more money - let's say another $1 trillion worth.
Fiat now has $2 trillion to spend on their war efforts. And, Bitcoin has $1 trillion to spend on defenses.
Doesn't it mean that Fiat would win the war?
Sure, after a few years Fiat's citizens might be pissed because their purchasing power has decreased significantly. But, the war has been won and now Fiat takes over Bitcoin and gains all its resources and passes laws that people can't own bitcoin.
Am I missing something? How does a country with a bitcoin standard defend itself against countries with money printers?
Bitcoin countries will tend to be neutral like Switzerland and avoid conflict. Mutually beneficial trade will be the primary interaction with foreign powers and whatever few belligerent states try to cause trouble will feel pressured to behave by the international community.
reply
What was the mechanism that Switzerland was able to navigate neutrality during WW2 etc and avoid invasion and confiscation of its gold. Just Geography? Or was there some stronger political forces at play?
reply
  • geography (it's difficult to use tanks/aviation in mountains)
  • lack of useful at-war resources
  • a high percentage of the population possesses firearms
reply
So far this is one of the more compelling replies.
reply
Just because the Fiat country printed an extra trillion does not mean that that trillion is in fact worth a trillion.
reply
True, but it takes time for this devaluation to be priced by markets. This is why we have cantillionaires who spend the new money while the market thinks its still worth something.
reply
Devaluation can happen overnight. Market is smarter now. Unless you are the world reserve currency. Then you have a bit more time. But the ultimate result is the same.
reply
Ok, but "overnight" is still enough time to finalize a contract for munitions and supplies.
Lets say the money supply doubled just now. The market doesn't even have a chance to price that until that new money is spent at least once.
reply
not with an international market that would have already devalued the fiat countries economy. the war would be over before it even started.
reply
No, of course not. That's a given. The issue at hand is how long does it take for the devaluation to take place? Presumably it takes a fair amount of time. Look at the money printing during COVID. Inflation didn't happen overnight.
reply
You're not missing anything. Bitcoiners like to talk about how fiat is unilaterally awful and only used by imbeciles. The truth is that fiat has conferred certain 'advantages' to its users, at least for a time. One of them has been the ability to mobilize the nation in different ways, including the one you've described. (It goes without saying that the ability to mobilize for endless war is not great for the actual people in those countries.)
Literally nobody knows how the scenario you've described would shake out, because it's never happened, and beyond that it's hard to reason about. In a world where btc had achieved enough success for your scenario to be plausible, what else would be true? What would the larger state of the world be like? Who are these countries trading with? What kind of economic interdependence do they have? Those things would probably have a lot to do with the ultimate fate of these countries.
But yeah, I've thought of this too. It is a massive advantage to the existing power structures to be able to control money, which is why they do it. Historically, it turns to tragedy in the end, as we know. In the meantime, though, total warmaking capacity would seem to be a giant advantage.
reply
Please watch this amazing talk about Bitcoin vs wars... with Stefan Molyneux. https://www.bitchute.com/video/AWGB6rfMmYKt/
TLDR: it is NOT possible. End of story. No debate.
reply
I agree with Stefan. War is not recognized as the great evil it is. Those that have lived through it know how evil it is but many in the US have no experience with it. Its something they see on TV. I can't take anyone serious that says they are anti war that votes for either party's reps. I don't vote at all and this is one of the biggest reasons. The US war machine is one of the greatest evils this world has ever seen.
reply
When I hear people that complain about bitcoin's "energy usage" and claim to care about humanity its hard to take them seriously at all. The main reason is the US dollar dominance is largely due to the war machine. I really think bitcoin fixes this and for this reason alone it is worth the cost of energy usage even if you think energy usage is bad. I don't by the way.
reply
Here is an amazing short video comparing mining BTC with armies wars... (source from Simply Bitcoin channel) https://www.bitchute.com/video/UOFzMF3EWcLs/
reply
The US war machine is one of the greatest evils this world has ever seen.
very well said...
All wars are banksters wars - another great docu that many people must watch.
reply
And lest people think this is a new thing, read War is a Racket from 1935.
reply
Is he still a cult leader?
reply
Thanks, I'll watch that video as soon as I get the chance.
I also agree that war is bad news (as per replies below).
My concern is a world that's not yet 100% bitcoin where fiat printing governments use their make-believe money to go to war against the good guys. Perhaps the video address this. Excited to watch it.
reply
This is a very interesting article!! And now you're my favorite to subscribe to posts.
To answer this. I somewhat disagree. Fiat may have 2 trillion to use to spend on war efforts, but wars could still be won with fewer means. To translate that as an example, the Korean War was won by using half the force that the North had. Terrible and stupid war regardless. Imagine fighting a war with 2-3 more solders per solder on the opposing side. It is possible. And I know this is well over a year later, but I saw a post somewhere I forgot the site, darn me. That $500 Russian drones are bombing and wrecking havoc on 10million dollar armored tanks. I cannot say if this is source is true, but it was disturbing. Because it also said the Ukrainian solder that tried to flee the burning tank were shot while running out.
reply
Thanks!
You make a good point. There have been wars throughout time where the underdogs won for various reasons. As in, one side is fighting for something - often religion, freedom, or some cause the soldiers believe was noble. And, I could see the money printer weakening citizen's resolve (causing a weakened army).
It'd be interesting to see if there have been any books or studies that tracked wars and how often the side with the least money won. Maybe money has much less to do with it then one would think.
reply
You know, what. I think you're on to something. I think this study should be conducted regardless because if we look at Afghanistan/IRAQ war, the Taliban are the CLEAR winners while the USA pumped trillions in. Obviously, it would be considered anti-American, but I see this as something to be studied as something neutral to see its impact of how money(used in war for tools, planes, tanks guns etc) isn't the tool that should be used to resolve conflicts. Or even argue that money won't buy it even.
reply
Countries with bitcoin standards don't just happen overnight. They all start with their own fiat currencies (or at least dollars in reserve) that they have more control over and start stacking corn on the down-low. Even gung-ho El Salvador didn't stack a bunch of BTC at once, they're buying 1 BTC a day or something for their reserves. Most countries will do so far slower.
Luckily for Bitcoiners, fiat isn't dying 1 country at a time... ALL fiat currencies are growing more weak simultaneously. That means that the world is giving up on fiat all at once and although some smaller fiats may bow out first, most will go into hyperinflation at the same time the dollar does. At that time ALL countries will be competing to get their hands on whatever bitcoins they can.
Therefore, a scenario where a healthy fiat currency is at war with a bitcoinized country has the exact same problem as a scenario where Dinosaurs fight a war against mankind... They simply won't exist at the same time.
reply
I think there will be war for gold and silver and maybe bitcoiners will just be sitting back and watching the show. Sad?
reply
In a Bitcoin world, gold and silver will be used ONLY for electronic devices. That means... meaningless in terms of "conflicts".
reply
I agree with this. It will take time but eventually this will be true.
reply
It's a too simplistic view about a complex situation.
Strictly about economic terms...
A simple answer: These circumstances certainly gives the edge to the country using FIAT currency.
Close to reality answer: Both countries will end up using FIAT and Bitcoin in order to take advantage of both currencies.
IMO, as soon we reach a moment where most of the countries starts adopting bitcoin, Governments as we know will fall. Most of people will simply skip taxes. That would mean large scale/long term wars will not exist anymore, it's simply too expansive.
reply
Right, this is my point. It's too expensive for a country that's on a bitcoin standard. The countries that delay and use their money printer would be able to pay for wars for longer. Of course, I'd assume that eventually all countries would be forced to using a bitcoin standard, but until then, things could get messy.
reply
Soldiers on the fiat side will fight by compulsion... soldiers on Bitcoin's side will fight by their own volition. Who's going to win? Might I suggest you have a peek at Afghanistan.... hmmmm?
reply
That may not be completely true. If a government has strong propaganda and censorship then their citizens might believe that it's those "bitcoiners" that have made them poor, it's the "bitcoiners" that are murdering mother Gia and causing all the climate change. I imagine there's a lot a corrupt government could do to convince its people to believe the wrong things.
reply
Valid point. Especially in today's day-and-age. However, ultimately I have faith the truth will prevail. It will become increasingly difficult to prevent the flow of information from either side, and those disaffected will either become neutral or switch sides. If true, this advantages the Bitcoin Soldiers, and not the Fiat Fappers.
Maybe it's a hard cope... ? I don't know...
reply
No, it's a good point. Hopefully truth does prevail - seems more likely now than ages past. Sadly, though, China makes me nervous that info can be controlled. Thankfully we have stuff like Nostr - that gives me some hope.
reply
Yeah, you are missing a couple things.
  • Not all wars are won based on the amount of money that is spent. If you think about it for a while you can come up with some examples yourself.
  • Printing money is in essence a hidden tax. It creates no new value. So in your example Fiat land is spending more on the war than bitcoin land. They are just using two methods. Taxes and printing. Your example is flawed.
When I think about the impact of a hard currency on war I think of the change in incentive structure. It takes away a tool the state uses to hide its war spending. It forces the state to tax which gets more attention of the citizens.
There's another aspect to this. In bitcoin land I suspect it might not be a democracy. Or at least not as centrally controlled. I also suspect it would be so much more prosperous that it would have better defenses than fiat land. I suspect there would not be a war. If there was it would be shorter than fiat vs. fiat.
reply
You're totally right about money not being the only factor. I had that added as a reality, but didn't want my post to get too long. I'm talking about generalities in that often countries that spend the most on war have better odds of winning.
I'm not sure I follow your second bullet point. Fiat land is spending more on the war than bitcoin land - that's my point. They are spending nearly twice as much. It's the cantillion effect that allows them to do so. It's only after enough time that the folks took the government's money realized that what they were paid is worth less.
Or perhaps I have misunderstood you.
reply
No you understand me. I'm saying it would be a better example if you compaired spending x from taxes vs x from printing.
Anyway, good discussion.
reply
It's true that fiat is much more convenient (actually it was built) for controlling a population and using it in military operations.
reply
What are they fighting over BTW?
reply
If pressed, I believe any government will resort to theft (debasement) to ensure their continued survival.
Just because a country uses a Bitcoin accounting standard, does not make it impossible for them to fractionally reserve or print paper bitcoins, or to loot the banks and exchanges that custody bitcoins.
reply
In a full Bitcoin world there's no such thing as "government". Is already obsolete. It doesn't make sense.
And then come the question: WHO will start the wars if there's no government? NOBODY. Because starting a war is fucking expensive for an individual, no matter how many BTC will have. Remember, are limited.
Wars ALWAYS were started by govs with YOUR money. Stop paying their war bills.
reply
Sure, let's assume government is obsolete. But there are still groups of people united by a common creed that will choose to employ aggression and violence as a strategy to compete for resources.
Humans do wars. Its what they do. Even when they had to mine for gold to fund them. Heck, many soldiers fought for no wage at all, just on the promise of a glorious afterlife. I don't think adding a new scarce resource for people to compete over (i.e. BTC) is going to fundamentally change that.
reply
It'll take a while before we have a "full Bitcoin world" and it's the in-between time that I'm wondering about.
reply
At some stage people who are soldiers decide it's not worth risking their lives for fake money
reply
stop using fiat, every day, and see what happen. Soldiers will not be paid anymore. That means true peace. Govs are feeding wars...
reply
deleted by author
reply