implications of bitcoin

[Leo Gura]

@Average Investor The government cannot seize bars of gold either. But so what? It's all still regulated in the end.

[Thewritersunion]

@Leo Gura lol, China controls over 50% of Bitcoin.

It is centralized. 

[Average Investor]

@Thewritersunion I would not be surprised if they had the most miners. But one entity would need 51% of hashing power to attempt something like a 51% attack. Costs a pretty insane amount of money per hour to even try to attack the network. Really all you could do is try to double spend for a short period. You actually profit more just helping the network. See the definition for decentralized.

[Average Investor]

@Leo Gura Yeah, I see your point. Air would be regulated if they could. It will be interesting to see how it all evolves from here. If you start having social media for example be decentralized ( there probably is some). For example your youtube videos would stay even if they were "banned" from society. It would get used by devils like you said. But I imagine what would start to happen is the user would be less and less manipulated like the current stuff. I imagine elections are heavily manipulated by facebook and others, but what if a higher conscious decentralized version became constructed? I realize there would be violence and some worse stuff may show up. But what if there was no more manipulation of what goes where and the audience really decides. Currency is really a small factory in all of this. But it can be used to create an economy in the platform. 

 

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Average Investor said:

Air would be regulated if they could.

Air IS regulated and should be regulated a lot more.

Make sure you appreciate the value of regulation. Otherwise you might end up raped.

It's fun to talk about no regulations until you realize that means someone will manipulate the whole thing against you. There are a lot of selfish devils around.

[Average Investor]

@Leo Gura I agree with you there. Laws and regulations are overall good. Collectively can't we move away from the "bad" though? I realize that most people would have bias views. But is that any better than having a select group that can cause harm? Are we collectively better than Trump for example? I'd like to hope we are at least able to do better than that as a whole. But I suppose he became president for a reason. 

Or does society really have to surpass most survival to even reach that stage? 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Average Investor said:

Collectively can't we move away from the "bad" though?

This would be easy if everyone agreed on what "bad" is. But bad is relative and there are many competing interests in this game. What's bad for you might be great for me, and vice versa.

So which way should we move? Who gets to say?

[Average Investor]

@Leo Gura If we follow it like a blockchain everyone would have a say. Possibly cutting out most of the directors. I notice even though people don't really have a reward for working on bitcoin, they still do it. However, it becomes less people. But it kind of leads me to believe that there is leaders and creators that are the most passionate are left if the fame and monetary incentive dissolve a bit. I know that sounds a lot more strange than what we do now. But it makes me wonder if the collective would evolve better with that. This is a much more far fetched idea. The whole system for bitcoin is much less complex, but it is designed to keep itself in check with all of the users. All of the miners want to be honest or they will not get their reward for processing the transactions honestly. Now to bring that on to a larger scale I imagine it becomes a whole lot more complex. But if it works with just this money it might be able to work with larger things. The problem is creating the incentive to collectively improve and deciding what is best to improve with because that is always changing. I think even most people do not care about their ballot because there is no upfront incentive to vote. So the system has to have incentive to keep all pieces being tended to. 

People need some sort of leader to look to for the most part though it seems like. I think a good chunk of things would go bad without dedicated teams and branches to cover them. Too much causes issues and too little does also. 

More practically let's say even if you just restructured the presidential campaign to an ERC20 token running off ethereum. Everyone could be issued one coin and it holds X amount of USD value that can be directly exchanged with some sort of authority.  ANYONE can create a wallet to receive one to make the spot for president.  Now something would need to be done to remove abuse to take money for example. A token can be issued one per SSN with a wallet, which can be done with a smart contract. All campaign funding directly comes from the ERC20 tokens, which is collected from some sort of tax for example. Only the money from the tokens can be used to fund the campaign.  I think even that would remove a lot of corruption in campaigns.   Then another coin would be issued at the time needed to vote. Each coin would cast the vote for the candidate. This dissolves the need for senate votes as well. Just a small piece that could be put together with this type of system that gives more power to the users. But it would need so much more thought and work to rework the whole thing. 

I guess what I am thinking of is less control to decide control. More incentives to maybe not improve directly, but to actually form a vote on topics. That and cutting out all of the bullshit of ballot machines and etc.  Maybe not a fully decentralized world can work, but possibly pieces of it can make it great. 

 

 

[montecristo]

It's so funny how this whole thing is playing out.

For example look at China, ironically now utilising blockchain to create a digital yuan. Bitcoin that was originally designed to evade government control, will now be used to enforce much more government control than ever before.  

It would effectively shut off access points to the only anonymous remittance tool in existence (cash)...  at some point all governments will adopt digital capital after which people will no longer have access to cash at all. Most of their economy is done in cash settlements and untraceable. THe government there is licking their chops about having this newfound level of control.

This is where privacy coins and cryptocurrencies come in, they will effectively replace cash and if you dont think there will be huge volumes of capital flowing into cryptocurrencies youre kidding yourself.

I think it would be nice to see some high consciousness people come into large sums of money. Conscious people having more influence in society would be a very good thing.