pull down to refresh
861 sats \ 8 replies \ @Majere 1 Nov 2023 \ parent \ on: _Broken Money_ book club, part 3 bitcoin
To add some humor, both warring nations find a neutral 3rd party. Create a 2 of 3 multisig with the pot going to the winner of the conflict.
But looking at the wars fought between Italian city states under a hard money world is a good example. Granted the Medici family could finance a side.
I do not envy the people setting out the terms for that oracle to decide on :)
reply
Plus each warring nation would need to find a bitcoiner to help them sign the transaction.
reply
Talk about moral hazard. Ideally, the aggressor would lose something substantial.
reply
Ok, let's play that out. In an offensive war the aggressor puts up a pre determined amount. Ideally enough to weaken them so they can't try this again. The defending party being the one with the most to lose in a loss considering territory still has to put up a bit as well to lock up the transaction.
I can only imagine the debate at the UN, you've now made sanctions obsolete & going war adds more risk. Hmmm
reply
Sanctions made themselves obsolete by not working.
I didn't propose a specific form, so it's hard to "play out" my idea, but the point is to disincentivize invasions.
reply
True, I was just going with the idea it sparked in mind. Also I agree sanctions are the go to your room of geopolitics
reply
You hear a lot in btc circles about how sanctions are useless. Based on the little I know, there certainly does seem to be reason to be suspicious. I do wonder, though, if they're really as useless as bitcoiners like to maintain. Seems more likely that they have a narrow window of applicability, and, like most things, they get used outside of this window and consequently don't produce the desires results.
reply
I meant it less as an absolute and more as an empirical regularity of history. Sanctions have a really bad track record at accomplishing their stated goals.
reply