Digital currency itself is not an inherently bad thing, even a one world currency is not necessarily bad. The problem with the digital currencies being pushed by central banks is that they are, well, centralized. In the same way that the Fed can pull new paper out of its ass at a whim, the centralized nature of CBDCs allow peoples' money to be fucked with in an infinite number of ways by the central banks, at their whim, with no recourse on the part of the holder but to obey.
Bitcoin is different in that it has no central issuer and no governing body, aside from the protocol, which is open source and run by thousands of nodes in every corner of the world. It is a learning curve, but once you understand the basics of how bitcoin's consensus mechanism works you realize how revolutionary it is. It is monetary policy that cannot be changed.
Instantly transmissible, impossible to hack (and therefore impossible to steal), permissionless and immune to censorship, and perhaps most importantly, immune to debasement and hard capped in its supply (there will only be 21 million bitcoin, not a single decimal more).
And none of the above can be changed unless every node on the planet (over 15000 across almost every country in the world, last I checked) agrees to run an altered version of the protocol. And any jackoff with a computer and an internet connection can run a node.
We are already living under a one world government, and its currency is the petrodollar. The final piece that they need for total world domination is to fully digitize the petrodollar. Bitcoin is a one world currency too, yes, and it is going to be the world reserve asset after the dollar falls, but it is a world currency that no one controls. In this way, it actually makes world government impossible.
immune to debasement and hard capped in its supply
It is not immune to debasement for two reasons.
First, a hard cap on supply, while it sounds so wonderful, doesn't in any way actually solve the problem it intends. In fact, I suggest the problem that it intends to solve is unsolvable by any attempt to use a unique intermediary of exchange for barter.
Supply and Demand curves look at both supply AND demand. If the supply is constant, the value (how much of one good you can get for another) depends strictly on demand. The demand for bitcoin would then be subject to how much is available at any one moment in time v. the number of people who want it.
Because it is intended to be relied upon as an intermediary of exchange for barter, that makes it subject to hording, which, according to history, was the primary means of economic manipulation prior to fractional reserve lending. It was the hording of silver (through basically a short sale on land) that is thought to have led to the ultimate demise of the Western Roman Empire. Any system that lends itself to hording as easily as Bitcoin does, is destined to fail. It can't not fail eventually. It will, as less and less is available to the general public, become so valuable that a strict stratification of society will inevitably emerge, even worse than that which exists now.
Its value is also highly dependent on the population of the planet. If population goes down (which is what is currently happening), its demand goes down, and thus its purchasing power (AKA inflation). I think this is a minor concern really, because the deflation of hording can far outstrip any inflation due to reduced demand of the population unless that depopulation occurs hugely and suddenly (zombie apocalypse, nuclear war, meteor from space, etc.).
On the other side of that, if the population goes up, it adds to the natural deflation by hording, as demand pushes up its purchasing power. This makes the hoarders more powerful, increasing general poverty, leading to a debasement of life in general.
Because the hoarders have more power, they have more power to increase or decrease population to increase or decrease their own purchasing power. If you think that's "impossible," on the contrary, that is exactly what has happened over the past 200 years, first an increase in population (to build The Machine), then a decrease as we transition to a New World "Utopia." Intentional or not (though I can make a convincing case for intentional) this is what has happened, and, if not for the increase in money supply, deflation would have occurred, and the hoarders would have had more power. They already had a monopoly on gold though, so that's really moot.
By transitioning to an infinite "resource" as barter intermediary (the Federal Reserve Note) they were able to "borrow against the future," increasing their ability to build The Machine. By removing gold from "money", it also enabled them to gather in all the gold, increasing their total supply. Moving back to a strictly gold based economy allows those who own pretty much all of it to control pretty much everything. (Not that that is in any way a "change," it just doesn't solve the problem as people think it will.)
The "infinite resource problem" is the problem that Bitcoin wants to solve by taking the opposite stance. It can't solve it, because it leads right back to the problems that existed before there was a fluid money supply.
The problem with both systems is the centralization of authority, in this case, the use of a single currency which has no value except through belief. Thus, the hoarders will do everything they can to ensure the belief remains the belief. This is generally done by the creation of taxation, and the demand that that currency be used to pay taxes (AKA "fiat currency").
If it weren't for taxation (which coincidentally came out at the exact same time as the Fed), no one would use Federal Reserve Notes at all.
The second reason it is not immune to "debasement" is because you can't "debase" something that has no base. Bitcoin has zero intrinsic value. It can't be used for anything except as an intermediary of exchange for barter. It can only do that for as long as people believe it does. The instant people realize that they can exchange real goods for real goods it fails completely.
I don't see how Bitcoin, if adopted ubiquitously, can possibly lead to anything except a dystopian nightmare worse than what exists now, or, if rejected (which I suggest is inevitable in a free market), a real solution that could be adopted instead of attempting the Bitcoin travesty as stepping stone.
The solution to the problem that Bitcoin attempts to solve through it's "decentralization" will fail because it is insufficiently decentralized. Anything that attempts to use a single intermediary (or anything other than a complete free market of intermediaries) is itself insufficiently decentralized, and will fail to accomplish it's goal. Any free market of exchanges will naturally gravitate to intermediaries with intrinsic value. Thus, the obvious solution is to start there. A system that embraces value, AND is decentralized gives the power to the People, gives meaning to exchange (because each side exchanges something with intrinsic value), and reduces the capacity for hording to cause financial manipulation.
A consideration is not just the energy to mine or create a currency, but the continuing costs to use the currency. Inherent to Bitcoin is energy consumption to verify every on-chain transaction. A dollar bill, silver coin, or gold coin can be used to transact without expending any appreciable amount of energy relative to their initial production costs. The free market should ultimately decide, but ongoing costs, ease of use, store of value, etc will all factor into mass adoption.
You realize that the vast majority of people barely see paper money anymore, right? It's been almost entirely cards and trust in banks for 15 years. No ones even going to consider miniscule energy use as a show stopper.
Because "free energy" doesn't mean anything. You cant grow bananas with it. You can't use it to make anything - you can power the prodution, but that needs intelligence.
Free energy is a pointless addition to the mix u til that free energy means post scarcity.
Digital currency itself is not an inherently bad thing, even a one world currency is not necessarily bad. The problem with the digital currencies being pushed by central banks is that they are, well, centralized. In the same way that the Fed can pull new paper out of its ass at a whim, the centralized nature of CBDCs allow peoples' money to be fucked with in an infinite number of ways by the central banks, at their whim, with no recourse on the part of the holder but to obey.
Bitcoin is different in that it has no central issuer and no governing body, aside from the protocol, which is open source and run by thousands of nodes in every corner of the world. It is a learning curve, but once you understand the basics of how bitcoin's consensus mechanism works you realize how revolutionary it is. It is monetary policy that cannot be changed.
Instantly transmissible, impossible to hack (and therefore impossible to steal), permissionless and immune to censorship, and perhaps most importantly, immune to debasement and hard capped in its supply (there will only be 21 million bitcoin, not a single decimal more).
And none of the above can be changed unless every node on the planet (over 15000 across almost every country in the world, last I checked) agrees to run an altered version of the protocol. And any jackoff with a computer and an internet connection can run a node.
We are already living under a one world government, and its currency is the petrodollar. The final piece that they need for total world domination is to fully digitize the petrodollar. Bitcoin is a one world currency too, yes, and it is going to be the world reserve asset after the dollar falls, but it is a world currency that no one controls. In this way, it actually makes world government impossible.
It is not immune to debasement for two reasons.
First, a hard cap on supply, while it sounds so wonderful, doesn't in any way actually solve the problem it intends. In fact, I suggest the problem that it intends to solve is unsolvable by any attempt to use a unique intermediary of exchange for barter.
Supply and Demand curves look at both supply AND demand. If the supply is constant, the value (how much of one good you can get for another) depends strictly on demand. The demand for bitcoin would then be subject to how much is available at any one moment in time v. the number of people who want it.
Because it is intended to be relied upon as an intermediary of exchange for barter, that makes it subject to hording, which, according to history, was the primary means of economic manipulation prior to fractional reserve lending. It was the hording of silver (through basically a short sale on land) that is thought to have led to the ultimate demise of the Western Roman Empire. Any system that lends itself to hording as easily as Bitcoin does, is destined to fail. It can't not fail eventually. It will, as less and less is available to the general public, become so valuable that a strict stratification of society will inevitably emerge, even worse than that which exists now.
Its value is also highly dependent on the population of the planet. If population goes down (which is what is currently happening), its demand goes down, and thus its purchasing power (AKA inflation). I think this is a minor concern really, because the deflation of hording can far outstrip any inflation due to reduced demand of the population unless that depopulation occurs hugely and suddenly (zombie apocalypse, nuclear war, meteor from space, etc.).
On the other side of that, if the population goes up, it adds to the natural deflation by hording, as demand pushes up its purchasing power. This makes the hoarders more powerful, increasing general poverty, leading to a debasement of life in general.
Because the hoarders have more power, they have more power to increase or decrease population to increase or decrease their own purchasing power. If you think that's "impossible," on the contrary, that is exactly what has happened over the past 200 years, first an increase in population (to build The Machine), then a decrease as we transition to a New World "Utopia." Intentional or not (though I can make a convincing case for intentional) this is what has happened, and, if not for the increase in money supply, deflation would have occurred, and the hoarders would have had more power. They already had a monopoly on gold though, so that's really moot.
By transitioning to an infinite "resource" as barter intermediary (the Federal Reserve Note) they were able to "borrow against the future," increasing their ability to build The Machine. By removing gold from "money", it also enabled them to gather in all the gold, increasing their total supply. Moving back to a strictly gold based economy allows those who own pretty much all of it to control pretty much everything. (Not that that is in any way a "change," it just doesn't solve the problem as people think it will.)
The "infinite resource problem" is the problem that Bitcoin wants to solve by taking the opposite stance. It can't solve it, because it leads right back to the problems that existed before there was a fluid money supply.
The problem with both systems is the centralization of authority, in this case, the use of a single currency which has no value except through belief. Thus, the hoarders will do everything they can to ensure the belief remains the belief. This is generally done by the creation of taxation, and the demand that that currency be used to pay taxes (AKA "fiat currency").
If it weren't for taxation (which coincidentally came out at the exact same time as the Fed), no one would use Federal Reserve Notes at all.
The second reason it is not immune to "debasement" is because you can't "debase" something that has no base. Bitcoin has zero intrinsic value. It can't be used for anything except as an intermediary of exchange for barter. It can only do that for as long as people believe it does. The instant people realize that they can exchange real goods for real goods it fails completely.
I don't see how Bitcoin, if adopted ubiquitously, can possibly lead to anything except a dystopian nightmare worse than what exists now, or, if rejected (which I suggest is inevitable in a free market), a real solution that could be adopted instead of attempting the Bitcoin travesty as stepping stone.
The solution to the problem that Bitcoin attempts to solve through it's "decentralization" will fail because it is insufficiently decentralized. Anything that attempts to use a single intermediary (or anything other than a complete free market of intermediaries) is itself insufficiently decentralized, and will fail to accomplish it's goal. Any free market of exchanges will naturally gravitate to intermediaries with intrinsic value. Thus, the obvious solution is to start there. A system that embraces value, AND is decentralized gives the power to the People, gives meaning to exchange (because each side exchanges something with intrinsic value), and reduces the capacity for hording to cause financial manipulation.
If there is no mechanism to cease Bitcoin, it cannot be used for a one world government.
Energy use is a fallacious argument. You have the same problem with every single currency.
How much oil did we have to burn to smelt gold coins? Print semi-paper cash? The chickens you traded for the pork?
All of them have an energy cost.
A consideration is not just the energy to mine or create a currency, but the continuing costs to use the currency. Inherent to Bitcoin is energy consumption to verify every on-chain transaction. A dollar bill, silver coin, or gold coin can be used to transact without expending any appreciable amount of energy relative to their initial production costs. The free market should ultimately decide, but ongoing costs, ease of use, store of value, etc will all factor into mass adoption.
You realize that the vast majority of people barely see paper money anymore, right? It's been almost entirely cards and trust in banks for 15 years. No ones even going to consider miniscule energy use as a show stopper.
A lack of money equals a lack of motivation. Get out of here with that commie BS.
Because "free energy" doesn't mean anything. You cant grow bananas with it. You can't use it to make anything - you can power the prodution, but that needs intelligence.
Free energy is a pointless addition to the mix u til that free energy means post scarcity.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻