4 ms·

In a hard money/cryptocurrency environment, the BTC plutocrats would decide when to go to war, and with whom, since no lending or spending would be possible wit

In a hard money/cryptocurrency environment, the BTC plutocrats would decide when to go to war, and with whom, since no lending or spending would be possible without their assent. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on the character of the small number of people "hodling" the majority of the BTC. I expect it would be a catastrophe after a generation or two of inherited BTC wealth, with BTC "nobles" raising private armies attack each other and lord it over the population.

quantumBerry 5y ago
>In a hard money/cryptocurrency environment, the BTC plutocrats would decide when to go to war, and with whom, since no lending or spending would be possible without their assent. Yes I recall the great Swiss Civil War of the 1990s, when the holders of the gold backed Francs fought for spoils of each canton. Perhaps our Polish friend can chime in on the horrors of the refugees he saw. >no lending or spending would be possible without their assent Lending and spending shouldn't be possible without the assent from those which the money comes. Involuntarily spending someone else's money is also known as theft. You are indicting the greater system you think Bitcoin represents (which resembles sort of monarchy or feudalism). You ignore that this system has been overcome even with those transacting in hard currencies. This reads of fear mongering or some desire to emulate Nostradamus.
- throwdecro 5y ago
  The greater system Bitcoin would represent, assuming wide future adoption, would be a plutocracy, which I stated in the earlier post. If early adopters maintain the anything close proportion of BTC they currently hold, they'd form a small wealthy overclass; and if the lending and spending necessary for society to function is controlled by them, they'd effectively control society. It wouldn't resemble Switzerland at all. I wouldn't expect those plutocrats to get along in perpetuity, and if there's no way to expropriate their inheritances, they'd form a permanent class of (potential) warlords.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    That's quite an interesting tale Mr. Nostradamus!
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

quantumBerry 5y ago

>In a hard money/cryptocurrency environment, the BTC plutocrats would decide when to go to war, and with whom, since no lending or spending would be possible without their assent. Yes I recall the great Swiss Civil War of the 1990s, when the holders of the gold backed Francs fought for spoils of each canton. Perhaps our Polish friend can chime in on the horrors of the refugees he saw. >no lending or spending would be possible without their assent Lending and spending shouldn't be possible without the assent from those which the money comes. Involuntarily spending someone else's money is also known as theft. You are indicting the greater system you think Bitcoin represents (which resembles sort of monarchy or feudalism). You ignore that this system has been overcome even with those transacting in hard currencies. This reads of fear mongering or some desire to emulate Nostradamus.

throwdecro 5y ago
The greater system Bitcoin would represent, assuming wide future adoption, would be a plutocracy, which I stated in the earlier post. If early adopters maintain the anything close proportion of BTC they currently hold, they'd form a small wealthy overclass; and if the lending and spending necessary for society to function is controlled by them, they'd effectively control society. It wouldn't resemble Switzerland at all. I wouldn't expect those plutocrats to get along in perpetuity, and if there's no way to expropriate their inheritances, they'd form a permanent class of (potential) warlords.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  That's quite an interesting tale Mr. Nostradamus!
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]