Let us assume that our "Utopia " from Bitcoin as the dominant currency becomes reality .

Most here say Bitcoin is liberal. Is it really liberal ? The majority decides (51%), so it is democratic. Would it be liberal, the richest would decide .

Now, if Bitcoin is predominant currency that will unfortunately have changed little in the world. The Rothschilds and the likes are out of the game , yet we would probably have a situation again where at the end 5% of the people own 95% of the Bitcoins .

Now only theoreticly , without considering the technical feasibility:
What if now the majority decides that every individual can have only one Bitcoinwallet ? Now what if the majority further decides that each wallet can only contain a certain number of Bitcoins , and all the wallets exceeding this maximum, automaticly distribute the surplus evenly to all wallets?

The majority would benefit , so why should the majority not decide for it?

This is just a hypothesis which ignores any technical consideration.

(i know this is probably a very unpopular post for liberals; try to be kind please)



Thoughts?