Nostr Web Client

Replying to

Thursday 5∞

Ok, I see your point.

I have 2 questions:

1. Do the settlers need bitcoin in your story or just the chief of the village?

2. How does one acquire property in your scenario?

inventor 1y ago

1. This is already practiced in some villages and islands where money is not used at all, and what they do is whoever receives money gives it directly to someone in charge of doing commerce with "the rest of the world". This person is merely offering (for free) his services as a layer of compatibility with the monetized world, and whatever he buys is distributed among all the people in the community that need that stuff.

2. I assume you mean real estate. There is no real estate, because land isn't considered property in the first place. The land is considered one more member of this "big family" and, of course, no one owns anyone.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Thursday 5∞ 1y ago

Imo without bitcoin there is no structure for value. I'm using a #value4value system. What you are describing is communism and I'm not a fan of the idea. I know about the examples you've mentioned. If I'm wrong about it, I'll reconsider tho. The property right is fundamental for me.

inventor 1y ago

Ask yourself why you are not fan of the idea in the first place.

Who hijacked the word?

What excuses did he make to turn the goal into an imperative?

What human vulnerabilities he exploited?

What methods he proposed to achieve the goal?

What was the role of centralization in his plan?

I am not talking utopia (as the hijackers do), I'm talking a way of living that many already practice today in real life, and they couldn't imagine living their lives in any other way.

Without "conflicts", without "classes", without envy, without centralization, without violence, and based on the purest form of solidarity.

The hijacking served for the purpose of inoculation.

That is why your philosophical immune system rejects -at sight- the idea in its pure form and without the "additives".

Thursday 5∞ 1y ago

- not a fan of the idea because people are different. Some provide more value than others.

- by my calculations, the word was hijacked by a few German fellows of more than 2 centuries ago.

- if you're talking about Marx, his famous work is atrocious, hands-down the worst piece of literature I've read. I understand why it's appealing to the masses. Ironically, very few have read it.

- lack of knowledge would be a vulnerability

- method used was confiscation

- as for centralization I assume a big AI would continue said work of the 1800s.

- sorry, at scale it's not only utopian but a threat for the soul.

Sorry if I ever let anyone believe a world can exist without classes. Hierarchy is natural in all reigns. One last question if I may. What's bitcoin role in the society describe above by you? Thank you for the civilized conversation.

inventor 1y ago

Natural hierarchies are one thing, and "hierarchies" derived from titulary "authority" are another thing.

Natural hierarchies are based on free will and leadership, they are voluntary.

"Hierarchies" derived from titulary "authority" are imposed through coercion or outright violence.

The word "natural" here must be understood in the context of "nurture" and "what gives origin to life" - its ancient original meaning.

Someone could argue that some groups of people have a "right" to predate on others because, just like animals, that behavior "gives them life". And to some extent, in a wicked way, that would be correct.

But the whole point of being human is about learning to defend oneself from such predators. Otherwise explain to me why you are not sleeping in the open in the savannah letting the lion eat you because "nature".

Therefore natural authority/hierarchy must have to do, in a more civilized sense, with voluntary leadership.

In a world of voluntary leadership there is no place for coercion of any kind, including that associated to trade.

True leadership implies teaching by example, and no true leader would ever teach coercion, on the contrary, he/she would give his/her life for those he/she loves. And that includes doing free labor for them, yes, giving away free value for them, yes. Giving one's life means giving one's entire life, out of true love.

If you tell me that this kind of love represents "a threat for the soul", I will respectfully disagree.

Value for value does not necessarily imply money, that is the beauty of it. Also value for value is defined as the opposite of trade.

In such a value-for-value world Bitcoin -or any form of money, for that matter- gradually becomes obsolete, unnecessary.

This scenario can not be achieved through violence, centralized planning, or "struggles". This can only be achieved through voluntary personal growth and a culture of true leadership.

Thursday 5∞ 1y ago

Again, I'm not interested in debating communism. It's been tried, it doesn't work. When bitcoin clicked for me I cried tears of joy. I've spent many hours debating ideologies, politics and religion in the past. It's been educational. Now bitcoin makes all of them obsolete. I'm not planning to change anyone's mind. Now I'm happy I have the tools to build whatever I desire. Millions more have it too.

As for the small communities of hippies living together without money, I say let them try. I don't think it will amount to anything good but I believe in freedom. Even the freedom to do stupid shit Osho style as long as it doesn't interfere with my business. The planet is big enough to host 100bn and many ways will be tried. I'm curious tho how does one such community secure its land from outsiders. Some fear lions, others fear immigrants. May the best win.

I believe there's a place for pro bono too. I have nothing against voluntary contributions. I say free men handle their own business, money included. There's no reason to giveaway all your belongings to the chief of the village. This is just replacing government with a smaller daddy. Not to mention it's naive to think big gov will let any small communities develop. Only bitcoin citadels will stand a chance because they have resources to do so. If citadels become sanctuaries 300y from now, that I don't know yet.

inventor 1y ago

This is not communism (at least not by its current meaning).

You didn't care to read anything that I wrote, nor have you made a minimum effort to understand any of my words.

> "There's no reason to giveaway all your belongings to the chief of the village"

You misunderstood everything I wrote. You just don't care, you didn't even try.

Thursday 5∞ 1y ago

Everything that is not proof-of-work is communism to me. Democracy was hacked long ago and 1 vote = 1 vote is not my cup of tea. The opinion of 10,000 uninformed has no value to me, nor in nature. Separating the money from the state is #1 priority. I have no interest in living in a community where I can't handle my own money and barter was never a thing at scale. I've read what you wrote, I just can't agree with it. It's ok if you think I can't comprehend. I've held ethereum at one point so I can assure you I've been called worse.

inventor 1y ago

You do realize that proof of work comes from Bitcoin, right?

And it's not given "in exchange" for anything.

One may mine for years and never get a reward.

This attitude of the first miners (including Satoshi) is closer to what I propose - v4v, give without expecting anything in exchange (which would entail trade).

The only reason why people get rewards frequently nowadays is because mining pools (communism).

Quite paradoxical that you brought that up, don't you think?

Thursday 5∞ 1y ago

POW comes from Hashcash of Adam Back.

Miners pool together to reduce variance. Each are compensated proportionally to their hash power. I've studied variance in the field of sports betting and trading for over 20y. I understand why a solo miner would want to reduce the waiting time to pay the electricity bills. Bitcoin is different things to different people. It's the least communistic thing I can think of. Money is not the root of evil. The Bible verse is poorly understood. Used correctly, money does also good (it's a tool!). Unfortunately for more than 5,000y humanity got accustomed to unfortunate types of money. Since 2009 there is hope thanks to Satoshi and the gang. I don't care if he turns out to be Hitler or similar. Math is math.

inventor 1y ago

Cooperatives work this way too, it's a form of collectivism - they reduce variance.

Consumers' cooperatives, for example, can be a good way of avoiding excessive taxation and speculation from middle men.

Mining pools, cooperatives, are positive forms of collectivism and centralization.

Still not what I'm looking for, I want total autonomy of the individual, so that "giving for free" does not comes with suffering for the one giving for free. I think that we can achieve this with technology in the near future.

Thursday 5∞ 1y ago

You've hit the 🎯 with the second paragraph. I have nothing more to add for the moment.