Imagine a Bitcoin society, but how will it function? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

Imagine a Bitcoin society, but how will it function?

4431 sats \ 25 comments \ @NeuroNinja 10 Oct 2023 bitcoin

Imagine a world where we abolish all forms of money and banks as we know it now a days. People are earning and spending in BTC. But some fundamental things, I can't grasp -

What will be the role of government then; since there would be no taxes, because all transactions will be encrypted and anonymous.
Would it not lead to more corporate crony capitalistic bullshit, since the idea of welfare state would fall apart.
Everyone (i mean every single human) would need to have a digital device to store, spend and earn bitcoins on. How will people at the bottom-most layer survive, who can not afford education, electronic devices etc. Some people and even countries depend entirely on cash.
What about the unequal distribution of Bitcoins among humans? Those who joined Bitcoin early would always have unfair advantage over those who adapt it later.

I am not able to wrap my mind around these? I might add more points in comments too as it comes to my mind.

view all related items

2557 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 10 Oct 2023

What will be the role of government then; since there would be no taxes, because all transactions will be encrypted and anonymous.

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

Would it not lead to more corporate crony capitalistic bullshit, since the idea of welfare state would fall apart.

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

Everyone (I mean every single human) would need to have a digital device to store, spend and earn bitcoins on. How will people at the bottom-most layer survive, who can not afford education, electronic devices etc. Some people and even countries depend entirely on cash.

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.

What about the unequal distribution of Bitcoins among humans? Those who joined Bitcoin early would always have unfair advantage over those who adapt it later.

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.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @tomlaies 10 Oct 2023

Very well said. I like your approach to structurally looking at these factors instead of just writing wishlists

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 10 Oct 2023

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.

323 sats \ 0 replies \ @tip_nz 10 Oct 2023

I think the role of government will become more administrative, smaller and more localised, like a service provider for geographical regions. For example, apartment buildings have "body corporates" that take care of admin issues with the building and hire contractors to fix these issues. I think a government will do that stuff but for geographical regions.

Since people can custody their own wealth and the government cannot print money, there's less of an opportunity for crony capitalism because the money can't be created out of thin air and misallocated by governments or fund managers to these corporates. And without the power to print money and set interest rates, governments have less power to dictate policies so corporates are less likely to kiss government ass and buy favour with political donations.

Re education of technology - I wouldn't underestimate our ability to learn about new technology (eg many people can use and own a cellphone nowadays regardless of wealth or education status). Technology always gets cheaper and more accessible. Bitcoin's user experience will continue to get better and more accessible.

Re unfair distribution - those who own more Bitcoin don't have the ability to manipulate Bitcoin in their favour. But like every wealthy individual, they do have a higher ability to shape the world with their wealth. They could also lose their money, not spend it or spend it. If they lose it or not spend it, everyone's Bitcoin becomes more valuable because there's less supply circulating. If they spend it, the economy grows and everyone's Bitcoin becomes more valuable because there's more productivity (more goods and services being produced and consumed, but the same amount of Bitcoin in circulation). Good outcome for the rest of the economy either way.

444 sats \ 3 replies \ @DarthCoin 10 Oct 2023

What will be the role of government then

Are you fucking out of your mind?

What about the unequal distribution of Bitcoins among humans?

Are you a communist or what?

Read here:

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @NeuroNinja OP 10 Oct 2023

Yes, I read your article but individual sovereignty assumes that we all are rational beings and can cooperate without any structure - specially justice, social, economic etc. Currently, we depend on govt. for providing us structure, which they do badly, I agree, but at least it provide citizens with education, health and social well being, at least in some countries like Denmark or some european nations. Is there an example in history where individuals lived sovereignly. I guess Auroville started as an experimental self-sovereignty in India, but it soon turned into statelike activities like issuing identity card etc. I don't know much.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 10 Oct 2023

Let me know when you really understand what is sovereignty. Then we can talk about future societies.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 10 Oct 2023

People nowadays do not know the meaning of BEING RESPONSIBLE for their own actions.

https://darthcoin.substack.com/p/what-is-freedom

but at least it provide citizens with education, health and social well being

citizen = shitizen = slave Please watch the movie "The Jones plantation" (you can pay with sats) https://jonesplantationfilm.com

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @03699c4cc6 10 Oct 2023 freebie

Most of your points have been hit well already, but just thought I would comment on the welfare state bit. Throughout history prior to the rise of our fiat entitlement system, the poor and downtrodden among us were assisted by charities, religious or otherwise. These charities were funded voluntarily by the naturally capitalistic system. As opposed to the involuntary theft based tax system that we have now.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @NeuroNinja OP 10 Oct 2023

aha, interesting fact if true. I was unaware of this. Thanks for sharing.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @JustinGoldberg 13 Oct 2023

Who the heck cares? It will self organize into mycelium networks without govt.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 11 Oct 2023

Imagine a world where we abolish all forms of money and banks as we know it now a days. People are earning and spending in BTC

We can't abolish money. Bitcoin wasn't decreed and what's not decreed cannot be abolished. They could abolish fiat though, which some controversially argue is a form of money. (I said "they", not "we", because it's my impression that not many central bankers frequent SN, and I surely amn't one)

What will be the role of government then; since there would be no taxes, because all transactions will be encrypted and anonymous.

The role of government will be to apologize for centuries of fucking citizens over until it dies in a ditch and is karmically reborn as a blobfish with birth defects putting its mouth near its rectum.

Would it not lead to more corporate crony capitalistic bullshit, since the idea of welfare state would fall apart.

Cronyism and welfare state are two sides of the same coin (no pun intended): statism. The only relevant spectrum is that stretching between statism and freedom, everything else is a lie carefully designed to distract you and keep you enslaved.

Everyone (i mean every single human) would need to have a digital device to store, spend and earn bitcoins on. How will people at the bottom-most layer survive, who can not afford education, electronic devices etc. Some people and even countries depend entirely on cash.

They will come to SN using a borrowed smartphone, make a post explaining their situation, get 10 microsats from generous zappers and buy their own.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @om 11 Oct 2023

What will be the role of government then

Bandits and parasites, just like today. Even if you transact in Bitcoin, any extortionist including the government can still observe the movement of goods, point a gun at you and demand a cut.

Would it not lead to more corporate crony capitalistic bullshit, since the idea of welfare state would fall apart.

As others pointed out, it would mean less corporate crony bullshit since the government can no longer print money to give to the corporations.

How will people at the bottom-most layer survive, who can not afford education, electronic devices etc. Some people and even countries depend entirely on cash.

Some company would offer a device in exchange for a fee from every payment. See for example how ACINQ offers lightning channel setup and maintenance for a 1% fee. Also that's basically how banks issue cards.

Those who joined Bitcoin early would always have unfair advantage over those who adapt it later.

In other news, those who invested in Internet early got wealthy. If you guess the Next Big Thing and invest in it, you'll get wealthy too. So Bitcoin is par for the course.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Entrep 11 Oct 2023

Taxes can be found in the services and products we pay for with Bitcoin

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Ribbit 10 Oct 2023

Imagine a world where we abolish all forms of money and banks as we know it now a days.

The way the transition happens is important. They won't so much be abolished as out-competed. Bitcoin is too fast and hard compared to their traditional model.

It's not so much governments or people abolishing. It's that they slowly stop being used.

What will be the role of government then; since there would be no taxes, because all transactions will be encrypted and anonymous.

governments and taxes will still exist. As will other gangs in real space. But they will have to compete for bitcoin users, or at the least, base their fiscal and social policies on real money, bitcoin. Taxes and the language around it will change. Fees would be more appropriate terminology. Fee or price for services like security.

Would it not lead to more corporate crony capitalistic bullshit, since the idea of welfare state would fall apart.

abuse will see loss. Abusive corps ill push users elsewhere or become noncompetitive and also be replaced.

Everyone (i mean every single human) would need to have a digital device to store, spend and earn bitcoins on. How will people at the bottom-most layer survive, who can not afford education, electronic devices etc. Some people and even countries depend entirely on cash.

everyone has a device now though. Or someone in their family does. Those that do not can use barter. Bitcoin disciplines government spending. It does not replace it. Cash will still be around, as will gold and silver and snickers bars. There are also hard material versions of bitcoin being explores.

What about the unequal distribution of Bitcoins among humans? Those who joined Bitcoin early would always have unfair advantage over those who adapt it later.

So what ? This applies to gold and governments as it is. What matters is the free flow of this capital. It will eventually end up with those who use it best for the most people (Read Human Action)

You seem to have some blind spots in how markets work and some socialist assumptions holding over. That's ok , bitcoin is for everyone, including those who want to live in socialism. What bitcoin will do is prevent you from exporting the cost for your socialist lifestyle to others (through USD inflation)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @chungkingexpress 10 Oct 2023

Also re: access to digital devices for everyone. I reckon there would be a business chance emerge in the free market to distribute / sell extremely cheap mobile phones to people who don’t otherwise have one. Maybe $10 cost, but it can handle multiples of that in throughout.

Similar to other free services, the company selling the phones might be able to claw back value in other ways and give them away for free, instead bundling their micro loan service or other product on the phone etc.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @chungkingexpress 10 Oct 2023

But who will build the roads?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightwalker 10 Oct 2023

"What will be the role of government then; since there would be no taxes"

Who cares if the government gets no taxes? What would an average person lose?

"Some people and even countries depend entirely on cash."

Simply because they don't realize that Bitcoin is here, they think they have no option.

"What about the unequal distribution of Bitcoins among humans?"

It's the fiat, which has unequal distribution. Imagine the gap between the west and the global south. Bitcoin fixes this.

"Everyone (i mean every single human) would need to have a digital device to store, spend and earn bitcoins on."

That shouldn't be a concern. This is digital era. In fact, we already have Boltcards, Machankura USSD, etc. For instance, people in the poorest countries in Africa are using Bitcoin easily with Machankura.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @chris42 10 Oct 2023

I think taxes will be harder to get on income so they will move to taxing things which can't be hidden like land

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @lightwalker 10 Oct 2023

deleted by author

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @birdeye21 10 Oct 2023

What will be the role of government then; since there would be no taxes, because all transactions will be encrypted and anonymous.

See what happened to Blockbuster. Bitcoin is a BIG deal.

Would it not lead to more corporate crony capitalistic bullshit, since the idea of welfare state would fall apart.

The current monetary system is what props up crony capitalism. The free market has no ability to be "free" when money can still be manipulated. On the flip side, immutable money creates an even playground that everyone build off of.

Everyone (i mean every single human) would need to have a digital device to store, spend and earn bitcoins on. How will people at the bottom-most layer survive, who can not afford education, electronic devices etc. Some people and even countries depend entirely on cash.

Those at the bottom actually have the least amount of friction to incorporating bitcoin into their countries. Undoing the USA's legacy financial system requires much more work. Meanwhile, developing countries will skip the banks altogether and onboard new financial platforms built on bitcoin. To make this a reality we DO need more tech penetration throughout the world -- but zoom out a bit: today's tech is VERY, VERY young, and rapidly spreading throughout the world. We cant conceive of the solutions that's be available 5, 10, 20, 50 years from now, but the trend is clear.

What about the unequal distribution of Bitcoins among humans? Those who joined Bitcoin early would always have unfair advantage over those who adapt it later.

Bitcoin's distribution is perfectly fair. Those who got in early took on immense more risk than those onboarding today, hence they were more greatly rewarded. As nature intends. What's unnatural is assumed authorities with a malleable money supply that can avoid risk while still receiving the reward.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DiracDelta 10 Oct 2023

Oh little leftist lamb, these are more questions than I care to respond to

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @NeuroNinja OP 10 Oct 2023

Don't worry about responding, I've got enough resources to read for now. Just be a little more kind if you can :)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DiracDelta 10 Oct 2023

I cannot ;)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 10 Oct 2023

There is nothing unfair about bitcoin's distribution. The people who saw potential early on and took risks, and were able to hodl through all the volatility, or even who just got lucky, deserve more than those who didn't. Perfectly equal distribution, which would mean mostly to people who don't give a shit, is the most unfair situation.