Quote from: Quick on April 08, 2013, 04:49:59 AM

A lot of responses about changes seem to use the logic of "the majority will do or will not do this because they are driven by motives x, y & z"

But there is a couple of issues with this argument.

1. Don't trust the majority, even if you think you understand their motivation. The majority can be wrong, and they can be manipulated. Take US politics for example: The majority vote for more and more deficit spending even though it is not good for the country in the long run. The majority have gotten the US into an unsurmountable amount of debt. Likewise, the majority of bitcoin users could be fooled into accepting a change that would hurt the currency in the long run. (Like eliminating the true scarcity by removing the 21 million cap)

2. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is not the majority of bitcoin users that need to except the changes. Rather, a majority of miners. If bitcoin grows to be a commonly used currency, the miners will make up a small fraction of the total users. So when we are talking about the majority, we really mean the majority of a small subset. The problem with this is that the miners may have a different perspective on certain proposed changes. For example, it is reasonable that many of the miners would support fixing the solution reward at some number of bitcoins instead of having it trail off to zero. This would be more profitable for the miners. Logically, the normal users would be against this, but reference point one above. The normal users could be convinced through misinformation that this is a good solution. Those that stand to benefit could argue that the supply of bitcoins needs to increase to help the economy move along, or to make transactions easier, or any other lie they can come up with to convince the majority. This is not unprecedented in history.

Take for example the countless countries that have moved their currencies off the gold standard. In this example, the politicians are the miners and the citizens are the normal bitcoin users. A majority of the politicians get to determine the outcome. And moving off the gold standard is analogous to eliminating the 21 million cap. The politicians stand to benefit because they get to delay dealing with a problem. The politicians convince a large subset of the citizens that this is the right move to make so that the citizens don't start and uprising. See how this is the same?

Interesting.

Here's an interesting selection, in my view anyways, if you haven't read the book it is: The Theory of Money and Credit, written by Ludwig von Mises.

A quote (in RE: the Gold Standard, or any 'standard')

" "The gold standard did not collapse. Governments abolished it in order to pave the way for inflation. The whole grim apparatus of oppression and coercion, policemen, customs guards, penal courts, prisons, in some countries even executioners, had to be put into action in order to destroy the gold standard. (The Theory of Money and Credit, p. 461)." "

To let the masses 'have wealth' would indeed be a disruption of what wealth 'is'; which would lead to renovating the constructs of power; it "this 'money/currency' must be 'hoarded' it must be 'controlled and dispersed'? Is this not the reign that steers the population? How can we imprison a thief, if first we do not create him/her? Must they not have something to steal? Yes, something worth something, something that has 'ascribed value' (we say it is valuable therefore it is) not 'intrinsic value'; for if this person were allowed to trade their time, trade the wheat they grew, trade the bead work they made, would this not be allowing them to 'have power' and 'trade freely amongst themselves or with whom they desired' without need of interference by 3rd parties, gov't, legal, regulatory, or otherwise? But then how to fill the government coffers? Make government more efficient? Nay. That would be much too practical and too many highfalutin bantering monkeys would fall from the tree and slip on the banana peels under their feet, instead of flinging monkey dung at the passers by whislt they eat their sweet bananas and scratch their A$$e$.

Is money not akin to a handcuff? Bitcoin is a great key to the handcuffs, and has provided temporary relief, but that does not mean there will not be a new handcuff. This is the illusion of freedom, no?

Just a passing thought.