Post
Topic
Board Politics & Society
Re: Is a Madmax outcome coming before 2020? Thus do we need anonymity?
by
CoinCube
on 09/02/2014, 18:28:29 UTC
Rather the global elite attempt to capitalize on opportunities that arise from the order amongst the chaos of the universe. They also know the world runs in cycles. They would not destroy Armstrong (and probably pulled the strings to get him out of prison), because they desire to have as much information as possible and his work is important. I also ponder if my work is important enough that any such elite  might believe it is important to not destroy me.

Lets take a moment to walk into the rabbit hole.
Time for some speculating  Grin

Lets start with a few assumptions and lets see where they take us
Assumption #1 A global elite designed Bitcoin
Assumption #2 Bitcoin was deliberately designed to eventually fail
Assumption #3 This global elite is manipulating the world behind the scenes
Assumption #4 The goal of the global elite is to push us gradually into a single world government
Assumption #5 The economic analysis above regarding the rise of the knowledge age, the diminishing role of socialism, and the need for anonymity is correct.

If the above assumptions are all true then what logically follows?

If assumption #1 and #2 are correct then Bitcoin is perfectly designed to spark a huge interest in cryptocurrency without disrupting the underlying economy. Its spectacular marketing combined with the massive profits of the early adopters has brought the idea of cryptocurrency to the masses. Furthermore since it is designed to fail it will be self limiting with minimal long term economic disruption.  Bitcoin would thus be the equivalent of a hugely successful marketing campaign for cyptocurrency in general. It seems designed to spark and accelerate the development of improved successors.  

Releasing a perfect cryptocurrency with anonymity from the start would have been very disruptive as it would have grown much slower then bitcoin and thus resulted in extreme concentrations of wealth in the hands of a handful of early adopters. Instead, optimal efficiency requires the market to be primed to ensure early widespread distribution. No better way to do that then Bitcoin.

If assumption #3 and #4 are both true then the elite must be both incredibly intelligent and disciplined.  Furthermore as a group they are likely to believe both individually and collectively that their cause is for the good of humanity. It would take only a single defector to blow the whistle on the entire group and this is would but much more likely to occur if their designs were nefarious.  

If assumption #5 is correct then a single world government is not a bad thing provided such a government does not threaten individual liberty. Such a government (once the power vacuum is solved) will allow socialism to achieve greater economies of scale as gradually winds down in diminished relevance over time. Anonymity will solve the power vacuum.

Conclusion: If assumptions #1-5 are all correct then the power elite has essentially led us to a solution for the power vacuum (development of anonymous cryptocurrency was inevitable following the release of Bitcoin). They are simultaneously preparing the world for the gradual decline of socialism (via greater economies of scale through one world government). I would imagine that neither you or Armstrong are any any danger from them as they would be in complete support of your work.

First of all, let me be clear that I hope there is no global conspiracy because I would rather be competing against idiots in ad hoc chance than against an very powerful astute elite. Secondly, I have stated that it doesn't affect my plans much either way.

Personally I think we are dealing with idiots in ad hoc chance. I don't think humans are capable of maintaining such a conspiracy. Indeed for such a conspiracy to exist I believe you would need superhuman manipulation of human society by an external more sophisticated source. While the existence of such a culture or entity cannot be dis-proven, it seems more likely we are dealing with chance.