Quote from: deisik on April 25, 2019, 04:27:29 PM

Quote from: BobK71 on April 25, 2019, 03:15:34 PM

Quote from: deisik on April 23, 2019, 09:19:11 PM

Quote from: BobK71 on April 23, 2019, 07:46:31 PM

The fruits of this unnatural growth is time poverty leading to all kinds of unhappiness, addiction and mental illness. And this is among the lucky. The unluckiest of the world get their family members and homes blown up by bombs because the system incentivizes the elites of the dominant imperial countries to use wars and 'regime change' to force other countries to support the system, directly or indirectly

Well, you can't actually expect people to be any different. As they say, charity begins at home (just in case, Bitcoin is no exception to this rule of thumb)

True, the only way for real change to happen is that we realize 'you can't expect people to be any different,' and take the power of money away from the elites. (What role Bitcoin plays in this is actually not very important.)

That's likely the only point that I agree with

However, that is not my point at all. If we take the power of (creating) money away from the elites, we should offer something else instead, right? And that's the crux of the matter (and point of discord). While credit money (I'm specifically using this term to avoid using fiat as in your eyes it is synonymous with centralization) is made bad by the powers that be ("the elites") by debasing it via excessive money printing (like QE's), Bitcoin is simply not suitable for the purpose credit money plays in the economy. I mean money as a currency, not as a store of value

I would agree this maybe the crux of the matter.

The trouble with your argument is, who are WE? As in 'WE should offer something else.' Of course, in the eyes of the elites, 'WE' means them -- ie what is in their best interest, in reality.

Precisely what form money/currency will take, and whether any scheme will be sufficiently useful for the economy, is not for you or me or anyone to decide. The free market should. History has shown that state-free money works very well, thank you very much, as under the Italian Renaissance and the Scottish Enlightenment (and indeed today in a simulated sense in small but advanced economies,) without the elites looking over our shoulders, nervously worrying about doing the very best for the public good.

If there's an economic need for it, the market will come up with credit money. The state-managed credit money has been a disaster of theft, deception, and murder, over the centuries.

Ultimately, money is religion. It is an objective social good (because it avoids bartering,) but its value is also faith based, no matter how you do it. What we need is a separation of church and state. Let people congregate around whatever they believe in, and leave them alone.