Bitcoin’s Love Affair with the Free Society


Bitcoin’s Love Affair with the Free Society

Let’s talk about the future. The state is so dead among the religions of today’s advanced societies. The Organization Resolution Dispute (ORD, a concept coined by philosopher Stefan Molyneux) arise organically and responds to the needs of different regions of the planet. As per the concept, your goal is to perform administrative functions, insurance and justice in a world that understands that conflicts are resolved through the use of reason, not guns – which is itself the greatest conflict – and to make sure that fraudsters are ostracized from the majority.


But to erase Bitcoin map. Suppose that this technology did not contribute to the moral development of the people because, while they rot evidence and reality of the state, was not enough for them to realize the conceptual nonsense that enslaved them in the past. Suppose this is a purely rational, philosophical without Bitcoin development, it would then be conceivable that the currency issue (also electronics, probably) be another function of the ORD, as a proactive controls inherent in society are also sufficient to guarantee monetary health – if not simply the existence of several competing currencies together.

Would it make sense for these people to invent the future of Bitcoin? Where would the incentive? Much debate has been about the intrinsic value of bitcoins or not; and for me the problem is solved by the distributed system construction; but, more fundamentally: the bitcoins have value now because decentralization has value.

However, decentralization has value only because today is centralized state rule. Centralization immediately called the attention of the State, or is vitiated by it, and that’s why we need Internet – pirouettes and mathematics of cryptography – to circumvent controls and add a hitherto unobtainable value. Consequently, we can say that in this free society of the future – without government – there would be no great incentive to develop such a thing.

For starters, the confirmation of transactions take less resources, since each node’s trust would be guaranteed by physical cabling or certificates. There would need to be iterating functions hasheo, heating microprocessors, or to encourage decentralization of mining … The Internet would function nodes adherence to the rules of dispute resolution organizations. Internet itself, as electronic games, would cease to be a jungle where you can escape the moral hypocrisy of the state and the elderly to become more a market place. And markets work best because they are centralized.

So, Bitcoin is not really value in absolute terms rather than as a medium of exchange. Bitcoin are simple numbers, such as electronic fiat money today, and this is how an objective economic framework understands.

The problem is not centralized; centralization is good and obviously more efficient. The problem is centralized around false ideals and its imposition necessarily violent. Bitcoin like it because there in response to the initiation of the use of force in society, its immorality and its monetary expression; gossip is like the students, elusive and report, it records the truth about their teachers. But this requires too risky gossip conversations and costly maintenance of the underground. The cryptocurrency develop their role and help our liberation, but the actual release will not come for the money, but moral development. Once you reach that point, we may continue to use leftover resources for bitcoins, or maybe stay in the cabinet as a relic release our brutal past.

To contact the writer of this article: Yashu Gola at

Subscribe to our daily free forex newsletter by visiting