What did you think Bitcoin winning meant? For Bitcoin to become the dominant form of money, everyone adopts it, including nation states, corporations, enemies, friends, everybody.
Discussion
I'm not happy about the U.S. securing more power and dominance in the future. I am however happy that they've signalled their approval of Bitcoin to the world openly and thereby sparked a further increase of global adoption by smart people and smart corporations that will look into it more.
The seperation of money and state doesn't mean an instant destruction of the state.
It means taking the power to manipulate money out of the hands of the government.
Certainly the state can enact laws that help or harm bitcoin, but they can't fundamentally change it's characteristics.
That's the separation.
Why is that the separation?
Why go half way when you could go all the way and destroy the state as it exists today and institute a new version of the state?
I contend you cannot retrofit hard money into a fiat system. It’s not possible. The incentives are misaligned and they’ll just try their fiat games on a system where it doesn’t work.
If I’m right (maybe I’m not right but no-one is arguing this point against me) then why are we just giving the same parasites our system so they can fuck that up too?
For a self-styled Alan Watts account - that’s an incredibly narrow-minded point of view.
Bitcoin winning and becoming the dominant money =/= status quo nation states and corporations adopting it.
Why do we want status quo nation states adopting our money and economy?
Why shouldn’t we be aiming to replace status quo nation states and their permissioned “body corporates” entirely along political and ideological lines which suit us?
Why would we want status quo politicians to be in charge, with our money?
Why shouldn’t we be in charge?
You’re accepting rulers so don’t give me the ancap “rules without rulers” line - if you want rulers, why not have Bitcoiners in charge?
Why the mob who got us into the shitshow in the first place? Why would you trust them to do anything other than fuck it up and not be seeking a paradigm shift from people who might avoid the pitfalls they entered?
It seems to point was to separate the standard of money from state. Not money itself right? Isn’t the idea that when you separate that standard, it solves much of the problems you now experience with states? I’m not sure it is better to have states adopt them later..
Spot on.
Here is my view - for what it is worth:
If we recognise that governments will always exist, the phrase "separate money and state" would imply the state becomes a user of the currency that everyone else uses, rather than be the issuer of the currency everyone else uses.
The distinction is important. I don't see the US ( as the dominant state ) doing this unless they have to. Others would do it first. IMO there will be an extended period where both exist, or even a scenario where they both always exist.
True.
yes!
note1kar9q43ylzdjckcpjlypqp2gw5rcgg7qgufsjjm0rfarxp456kfswg960l