2557 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 10 Oct 2023 \ on: Imagine a Bitcoin society, but how will it function? bitcoin
This is a very annoying question and I apologize to you by starting out with complaining about it lmao. Back in the day (sometime before 1913) the government couldn't track every transaction on everything. Go ahead and read the stories of the moonshiners and take a trip into learning how people used to be taxed
Crony capitalism is companies lobbying politicians to make laws (typically to print money to bail them out or subsidize them which you can't do if you don't have FIAT) or to make laws that make it incredibly difficult for smaller business owners to compete.
This second problem is sometimes solved with (and I'm having trouble thinking of the word) unofficial market. Some might call it a black market but its basically people who know people who don't register as a business.
You may also consider the merit of "worker cooperatives" where everyone working in a company has some ownership of that company. Things to consider
We have seen what solutions have come as a result of this. Things like "Manchakura" (https://8333.mobi/)
In addition to this, I would point out that people on the bottom often survive on charity such as food banks (which are often stocked with food that is past its best before date, but that doesn't mean the food is bad its just it doesn't look at good on the shelf) So I would imagine a used phone market or charity that gives away phones people don't want anymore. I know that may not sound super idealistic, but that also means it isn't too hard to believe.
This takes a very long time to explain. For starters, there is no "fair" way to distribute the initial supply in the way you would describe (everyone starts with an equal amount). The system has no method for ID verification (nor could it in a way that didn't involve ceding power) Bitcoin is distributed in the most fair way possible, which is by miner subsidy's during its bootstrapping phase.
Second, the amount of money you have is not as meaningful as its made out to be. Its your income that matters much more and killing the money printing means getting rid of the income people who are living better than they would be without it. (They will have to find a new income based on merit)
The reason income matters more than how much you have now, is 1. because if you spend what you have now, you extract goods or services now which may temporarily mean a lot of people would not be able to get those resources, but now that you've spent it, that disruption can adjust itself. 2. Even if you don't spend it, that doesn't matter because of something called the "velocity" of money.
This also plays into the theory behind the gold standard which was that countries would spend more than they earn for a while but then when they ran out of money began to serve the countries they purchased from in order to earn more than they spend in a nice self-balancing cycle.
Very well said. I like your approach to structurally looking at these factors instead of just writing wishlists
reply
I appreciate you hitting many of the points I wanted to make. Now I can just add in some extra comments.
What will be the role of government then; since there would be no taxes, because all transactions will be encrypted and anonymous.
This subservient attitude has no place in a free society. It is not our responsibility to make it easy for the state to expropriate us. That's their problem, so let them worry about it.
Would it not lead to more corporate crony capitalistic bullshit, since the idea of welfare state would fall apart.
I don't see the connection between these two things. Crony activity is primarily related to Cantillon Effects and restricting the entry of competitors. Bitcoin immediately ends Cantillon Effects from money printing (technically, miners get the benefits from Cantillon Effects, I guess). Restricting entry has nothing to do with Bitcoin and I assume it would continue as long as there is a political system to lobby.
The existence of a welfare state, in nations with representative governments, implies that people in those societies value helping the poor. Absent the state welfare system, we would have private charity.
reply