How Bitcoin can stop war

[rogerver]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyU3TgQqtV8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joITmEr4SjY

[btc]

i actually had a conversation with someone about this at a Satoshi Square in LA and they said "ohhhh, think of how much war Bitcoin can stop"

so I 'd and proceeded to say "no, i think you mean, how much war Bitcoin will start."

money has never stopped war. money has only fueled it and been fueled by it.

it is up to YOU to stop war. yes, you.

[keonne]

money has never stopped war. money has only fueled it and been fueled by it.

Sure it has. Because wars are fiercely expensive (both materially and in blood) when they cannot be paid for they tend to end relatively quickly. There are many examples in history of Kings avoiding war or ending wars based purely on financial constraints.

Before the 1900s it was quite expensive to wage wars because money was literally gold, and gold is scarce. Sure Governments have some gold, but the people collectively have a lot more, so what ends up happening is the Governments need to acquire the peoples gold by asking or by force. Most people resent having their wealth removed from them so Kings that had a habit of doing this didn't end up living very long. Additionally, Kings desired leaving a functioning economy to their heirs, fighting expensive wars really didn't help with this objective generally. With the introduction of fiat money not backed by anything but force, governments have been able to pay for expensive long wars by just creating new money. They no longer have to tax the populace or acquire vast amounts of gold.

Bitcoin, once adopted widely, would put an immediate pressure on governments who wish to wage war because opting into their system of taxation would pivot from an obligation to a voluntary action. You may be okay with paying taxes for roads and hospitals but maybe not so cool with blowing up countries in the middle east, with bitcoin you would be able to make that very clear by refusing to fund the offending government.

It is an ideal a lot of early bitcoiners share, myself included, but it is by no means a given, we need to work very hard for this outcome, states and governments do not have a habit of giving up power, and that is ultimately what bitcoin is, it is a shift in the power structure from a top down centralised model to a decentralised one.

[Ledge]

First of all I just want to say that I find this very interesting and I really enjoy ideas of how Bitcoin could change the world!

money has never stopped war. money has only fueled it and been fueled by it.

Sure it has. Because wars are fiercely expensive (both materially and in blood) when they cannot be paid for they tend to end relatively quickly. There are many examples in history of Kings avoiding war or ending wars based purely on financial constraints.

Before the 1900s it was quite expensive to wage wars because money was literally gold, and gold is scarce. Sure Governments have some gold, but the people collectively have a lot more, so what ends up happening is the Governments need to acquire the peoples gold by asking or by force. Most people resent having their wealth removed from them so Kings that had a habit of doing this didn't end up living very long. Additionally, Kings desired leaving a functioning economy to their heirs, fighting expensive wars really didn't help with this objective generally. With the introduction of fiat money not backed by anything but force, governments have been able to pay for expensive long wars by just creating new money. They no longer have to tax the populace or acquire vast amounts of gold.

Bitcoin, once adopted widely, would put an immediate pressure on governments who wish to wage war because opting into their system of taxation would pivot from an obligation to a voluntary action. You may be okay with paying taxes for roads and hospitals but maybe not so cool with blowing up countries in the middle east, with bitcoin you would be able to make that very clear by refusing to fund the offending government.

It is an ideal a lot of early bitcoiners share, myself included, but it is by no means a given, we need to work very hard for this outcome, states and governments do not have a habit of giving up power, and that is ultimately what bitcoin is, it is a shift in the power structure from a top down centralised model to a decentralised one.

Wouldn't this only work if the entire world used Bitcoin and refused to accept fiat? What would happen if the country using Bitcoin was attacked by another country using fiat? The fiat-country would be able to print loads of fiat currency to fund the war while the Bitcoin-country would have to get the inhabitants money to help fund the war. Since the fiat-country theoretically would have "infinite" money while the Bitcoin-country would have a finite amount, wouldn't this mean that the fiat-country would "win" in the long-run?

[btc]

First of all I just want to say that I find this very interesting and I really enjoy ideas of how Bitcoin could change the world!

...


Wouldn't this only work if the entire world used Bitcoin and refused to accept fiat? What would happen if the country using Bitcoin was attacked by another country using fiat? The fiat-country would be able to print loads of fiat currency to fund the war while the Bitcoin-country would have to get the inhabitants money to help fund the war. Since the fiat-country theoretically would have "infinite" money while the Bitcoin-country would have a finite amount, wouldn't this mean that the fiat-country would "win" in the long-run?

yes, because, war.

EDIT: or no, because Bitcoin-country went inflationary too...or Doge-country allies helped asshole, Bitcoin-country, even though they all have their heads up their butts

[Demotruk]

First of all I just want to say that I find this very interesting and I really enjoy ideas of how Bitcoin could change the world!

Sure it has. Because wars are fiercely expensive (both materially and in blood) when they cannot be paid for they tend to end relatively quickly. There are many examples in history of Kings avoiding war or ending wars based purely on financial constraints.

Before the 1900s it was quite expensive to wage wars because money was literally gold, and gold is scarce. Sure Governments have some gold, but the people collectively have a lot more, so what ends up happening is the Governments need to acquire the peoples gold by asking or by force. Most people resent having their wealth removed from them so Kings that had a habit of doing this didn't end up living very long. Additionally, Kings desired leaving a functioning economy to their heirs, fighting expensive wars really didn't help with this objective generally. With the introduction of fiat money not backed by anything but force, governments have been able to pay for expensive long wars by just creating new money. They no longer have to tax the populace or acquire vast amounts of gold.

Bitcoin, once adopted widely, would put an immediate pressure on governments who wish to wage war because opting into their system of taxation would pivot from an obligation to a voluntary action. You may be okay with paying taxes for roads and hospitals but maybe not so cool with blowing up countries in the middle east, with bitcoin you would be able to make that very clear by refusing to fund the offending government.

It is an ideal a lot of early bitcoiners share, myself included, but it is by no means a given, we need to work very hard for this outcome, states and governments do not have a habit of giving up power, and that is ultimately what bitcoin is, it is a shift in the power structure from a top down centralised model to a decentralised one.

Wouldn't this only work if the entire world used Bitcoin and refused to accept fiat? What would happen if the country using Bitcoin was attacked by another country using fiat? The fiat-country would be able to print loads of fiat currency to fund the war while the Bitcoin-country would have to get the inhabitants money to help fund the war. Since the fiat-country theoretically would have "infinite" money while the Bitcoin-country would have a finite amount, wouldn't this mean that the fiat-country would "win" in the long-run?

The country where only fiat is used (country A) would certainly have a medium-term advantage over the country with an intrinsically limited currency (country B) in paying for military costs. If country A can decisively win in that time, then yes, they would win in the long run.

There's a couple of possibilities that undermine it, however. In the longer term country A is undermining it's own productive capacity, so if they fail to win decisively in the medium term, it doesn't work, and country B will gain the upper hand. Additionally, what is to stop people within country A from accepting the intrinsically limited currency? Country A's currency depends on the success of the war, but the limited currency is expected to gain value over time, and can potentially survive the failure of the state. The network effect may thus overwhelm countries that try to resist the new currency, once it gets to a certain point at least.

[haq4good]

Yes, it was quite possibly me that btc discussed this with at an LA Satoshi Square. So some details on why I make such a claim:

Wars of violence where soldiers will accept non-monetary payments to sacrifice their life for their rulers there is advantage.
This isn't new. Some will fight for medals, religions, "honor", forced conscription, or fiat money.

The origin of fiat paper money comes from this truth. It was first used by the Huns and made the law that only it would be used for exchange. This was the first Legal Tender law, and the first real fiat system, and "financed" the Mongol Empire.

Where Bitcoin has the potential to end violent wars forever, is in the change of mind that may occur within the human population. Once people will no longer place the value of their lives in terms of how much fiat money it is worth, it removes one of the methods of acquiring soldiers and machines of war.

Gold did not have this capacity, simply because it could be taken and captured as a spoil of war. Bitcoin CANNOT be taken by force, however the bitcoins of conquered peoples may be unrecoverable, and thus destroyed. This enriches the conqueror only as much as it also enriches all other nations not engaging in the war, and puts the aggressor at a disadvantage to all non-combatant nations. (This is one major point that Roger's excellent video in the OP misses).
In this way, only a planetary 51% attack of all nations wealth would it be advantageous to begin a war of aggression.

The other common methods of conscription will all also require a philosophical development in the human population...but it is a start, a big one.

[TravisPatron]

War is not a product of money, it is a product of human condition.

Bitcoin will not stop war by altering our source of money, but it may help to change the human condition, and therefore indirectly bring an end to war.

[Ledge]

The country where only fiat is used (country A) would certainly have a medium-term advantage over the country with an intrinsically limited currency (country B) in paying for military costs. If country A can decisively win in that time, then yes, they would win in the long run.

There's a couple of possibilities that undermine it, however. In the longer term country A is undermining it's own productive capacity, so if they fail to win decisively in the medium term, it doesn't work, and country B will gain the upper hand. Additionally, what is to stop people within country A from accepting the intrinsically limited currency? Country A's currency depends on the success of the war, but the limited currency is expected to gain value over time, and can potentially survive the failure of the state. The network effect may thus overwhelm countries that try to resist the new currency, once it gets to a certain point at least.

Very good point! Still it feels like the advantage that country A would have in the beginning of the war is massive compared to country B. Would be interesting to know how long a country could keep a war going by simply printing money. Does anyone know of any historic events where this has happened?

Gold did not have this capacity, simply because it could be taken and captured as a spoil of war. Bitcoin CANNOT be taken by force, however the bitcoins of conquered peoples may be unrecoverable, and thus destroyed. This enriches the conqueror only as much as it also enriches all other nations not engaging in the war, and puts the aggressor at a disadvantage to all non-combatant nations. (This is one major point that Roger's excellent video in the OP misses).
In this way, only a planetary 51% attack of all nations wealth would it be advantageous to begin a war of aggression.

This is an excellent point, I've never thought about this. You usually only hear that "bitcoin is like gold" but this point is not mentioned. Very interesting stuff!

[btc]

Yes, it was quite possibly me that btc discussed this with at an LA Satoshi Square. So some details on why I make such a claim:

Wars of violence where soldiers will accept non-monetary payments to sacrifice their life for their rulers there is advantage.
This isn't new. Some will fight for medals, religions, "honor", forced conscription, or fiat money.

The origin of fiat paper money comes from this truth. It was first used by the Huns and made the law that only it would be used for exchange. This was the first Legal Tender law, and the first real fiat system, and "financed" the Mongol Empire.

Where Bitcoin has the potential to end violent wars forever, is in the change of mind that may occur within the human population. Once people will no longer place the value of their lives in terms of how much fiat money it is worth, it removes one of the methods of acquiring soldiers and machines of war.

Gold did not have this capacity, simply because it could be taken and captured as a spoil of war. Bitcoin CANNOT be taken by force, however the bitcoins of conquered peoples may be unrecoverable, and thus destroyed. This enriches the conqueror only as much as it also enriches all other nations not engaging in the war, and puts the aggressor at a disadvantage to all non-combatant nations. (This is one major point that Roger's excellent video in the OP misses).
In this way, only a planetary 51% attack of all nations wealth would it be advantageous to begin a war of aggression.

The other common methods of conscription will all also require a philosophical development in the human population...but it is a start, a big one.

hey nice to see you here buddy, but no it was with this armenian guy that showed up. something dukemenjian maybe. I don't remember.

but dude if one day people place the value of lives in terms of how much bitcoin they are worth, then we are in the same conundrum as before, only now it is all funded by a public ledger, we already won, and money will still be a tool for control of the masses, etc.

private keys are hackable (wait until we go quantum computing bye bye btc) and torture is still an option to recover keys (think, war) or the fiat peoples could just kill off the btc and then users go make a new one and the cycle continues.

one thing is for sure is history repeats itself, even though it may look a little different.

[Demotruk]

The country where only fiat is used (country A) would certainly have a medium-term advantage over the country with an intrinsically limited currency (country B) in paying for military costs. If country A can decisively win in that time, then yes, they would win in the long run.

There's a couple of possibilities that undermine it, however. In the longer term country A is undermining it's own productive capacity, so if they fail to win decisively in the medium term, it doesn't work, and country B will gain the upper hand. Additionally, what is to stop people within country A from accepting the intrinsically limited currency? Country A's currency depends on the success of the war, but the limited currency is expected to gain value over time, and can potentially survive the failure of the state. The network effect may thus overwhelm countries that try to resist the new currency, once it gets to a certain point at least.

Very good point! Still it feels like the advantage that country A would have in the beginning of the war is massive compared to country B. Would be interesting to know how long a country could keep a war going by simply printing money. Does anyone know of any historic events where this has happened?

Not exactly a battle of nations, but the campaign of Mark Anthony vs. Octavian is a famous one. Mark Anthony massively debased the currency units he was paying his soldiers in order to keep his campaign going. It was commonly used to fund war in the Roman Empire, and was very arguably a large part of their eventual downfall.

Our hypothetical scenario imagines 'all else equal', but all else is never equal in the real world.

[haq4good]

I agree that valuing a life in money can be a problem, but this is more normal than war. It is done for simple business reasons by insurance and risk management people to determine how much to spend on reducing risks.

War is another thing entirely.
The big and important difference with bitcoin funding war vs dollars or any national fiat is that a country can not create more.

Take for example the first world war.

The federal reserve was newly created so that this war could exist. No one thought the war would last as long as it did, because long distance wars were expensive. When the US was on the gold standard, it would have been impossible to get involved in it for more than a few months, or only minor involvement.

With fiat currency, there isn't a limit.
The cost to the US of its involvement was about 17 times the amount of gold that the US had in fort knox. It simply could not have fought the war without the central bank printing money.

The other big difference, is one I mentioned in the post. When gold and silver were the plunder of war, you could take over a city and steal its wealth. Bitcoin can't be taken.

There was an article made into a short film that takes this a bit further and may be interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4

[rogerver]

I embedded the youtube video for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4

[haq4good]

How kind, thank you. Still finding my way around here...

[btc]

paper money has always funded large territorial and influential expansions through military campaigns. as long as the soldiers can exchange food, drink, shelter, clothing, and fun for whatever they are paid in, then they are good right? this is why gold and silver are great monies in person

bitcoin may try to be everywhere at once but it is going to have to try very damned hard to be "the one currency." that and stay at 21 million and never inflate and never add more zeros after the decimal or move the decimal point a few places over.

lets try to stop war.

[Demotruk]

There was an article made into a short film that takes this a bit further and may be interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4

Wow, great video. I checked most of the quotes, especially the early ones. Most are real, the Benjamin Franklin one is misattributed, but he did say something to the same effect in Congress so it doesn't really matter.

His solution at the end is fucking nuts though. For those who didn't watch, it's basically "round up the central bankers and arrest/kill them". That's absurd and doesn't get at the underlying problem. You'll probably only end up getting proxies anyway.