Sorry @Francis105d1, Bitcoin doesn't fix that.

4 30
Avatar for AnonSunamun
2 years ago

This article, is well written, original, and given much thought in creating and with the best of intent:

War with Ukraine has started. Bitcoin fixes that. (

@francis105d1 basically makes an argument that cryptocurrency can make starting a war, like Putin invading Ukraine, impossible without the people's permission and purposed funding.

That's wishful thinking, I'm sorry to say.

As happened to me before I was writing a reply to the article which turned out to be so large that it probably would have broken the reply function of the website. As before, I made an article about it. I've kept it clean and simple to emphasize that this peace is a mere spin-off from the original article!

So if you're reading this blathering rant of mine:

you're only allowed to do so if you have read the original article by @francis105d1 and given it a thumbs up!

And if you'd give some attention to my sponsors down the line, you'd be a truly awesome person and should feel proud of yourself for the awesome human being that you are.

Sponsors of AnonSunamun

So, with @francis105d1 view of things in our minds, here comes mine:

I'm sorry but this is a rather simplistic view.

Regardless of which currency, fiat or otherwise, a country people use there will always have to be a system in place where the government receives a minimum amount of funds to do its job of governing.

This means that every citizen is required, through whatever system doesn't matter, to contribute a certain amount of their wealth to the funds that the government needs to govern. This doesn't change with cryptocurrency.

In fact, if you really think about it.

If the government has to ask its population for everything it needs then the country would soon go to ruin, even without things like natural calamities, pandemics, and wars taking place.

You see...

For a country to work there are a lot of things a government has to do, and pay for, which ordinary citizens don't even realize and which, if asked, they wouldn't readily be willing to give money for.

Things like waste disposal, sewers, mental health care, regulating the economy to keep it stable, regulating construction and the list goes on.

If the government, for example, didn't regulate the construction, ie. who gets to build what where and to which minimum quality standards there would be no houses built, no public use facilities like hospitals or schools, just commercial office buildings, and high-end apartment buildings. Because building social housing for the lower-income classes and pre-schools doesn't bring as much profit as a 50 stories high apartment building next to the beach.

Again, this is regardless of the kind of government. Kings, Dictators, and elected presidents alike.

If the government didn't govern the public services then there would be a lot of places without sewage maintenance, water treatment, and electricity where the crime was rampant and houses built from cardboard and sticks haphazardly at any location that was convenient.

Now I know some readers think that would be their ideal situation or even some that look around their homes right now thinking I just described their living conditions right now. For the former of those, I'd want to ask how well they think that would work out in 2022 for a place like London or Singapore, or New York? For the latter, I would ask, how are you enjoying it?

Let's get down to the simplest, most elemental, governmental essence of existence.

So realistically if a large number of people are going to be living close to each other, Like eeeh... I don't know... let's say Earth or someplace... ;)

they will have to agree on a set of rules and on how to deal with the issues that come with having many people living closely together. To make sure those rules are followed and the issues are dealt with as agreed upon, you need the people to agree on who must stop those who don't follow the rules, and who is going to do the work to deal with the issues.

Those people who are then agreed upon to take on those tasks need to eat, need a place to live, need the stuff to do the things they're tasked with. Those things need to be paid for by the people who agreed and appointed them to those tasks.

That's a government. And a government needs money.

That is not going to change. The only thing that changes is how the details are filled out, how and by who the decisions are made, how the funds are collected, or how the collected funds are spent.

Now here comes a long sentence, I'm sorry, but I couldn't get it shorter...

It doesn't matter if there is one man who makes all the decisions, and then lets those decisions be carried out by other people that obey him for some reason, who use force and oppression to make sure that the decisions get implemented and the rules followed or if there is a group of people chosen by the population who then make the decisions based on what is best and what the population needs, which get carried out by a group of people that are selected to do so because they are the best suited to. (breathe, breathe... don't forget to breathe!)

Sadly the world has many governments that work out less than fantastic.

There are examples of oppressive and corrupt governments that take too much money and do little governing.

We see examples of honest willing elected governments who simply cannot get enough money to do the governing that needs to be done.

Sadly, my point about governments is also proven to this very day...

We see people that do not have a government almost purposely proving every time and all the time that that is the worst way to live, costs the most, and leads to the most suffering and misery.

And most people believe they are in among the next group, until they find they're not.

And there are the countries that to a greater or lesser extent found a balance and a way to organize the governing in a way that enables the population to live out their lives in relative peace, health, and stability.

No, don't go looking for a line under this article, smartasses!

Bottom line is that if you have a government you will pay taxes, or your government gets to generate funds from natural resources like oil or gas or whatever. And when that government for whatever reason uses it to create a military with which to invade other countries, it doesn't matter what currency the population or that government uses.

What matters is that if the population does not want their government to do something, they should stop them from doing it. They are the only ones who can!

Problem is that in many places and situations they consider the cost of stopping their government from doing something is greater than their disapproval of what the government is doing. Or that the thing they don't want their government to do is outweighed by the things their government does well in their view.

Take the Russian people for example. Just randomly, by chance, not related to current events or anything...

I think that the Russian people agreed with the reorganization and strengthening of the Russian Armed forces after the Yeltsin years had allowed it to decay into a shadow of itself along with the rest of the country and Russia faced the reality that 10 of the 13 Wachau Pact members had become NATO members. NATO was a military organization created to stop Russia from invading Europe or to fight and defeat Russia (soviet union) if it did.

So they supported making their military strong and advanced and took pride in it. But I'm sure that only a small percentage of the Russian people want Russian armed forces to invade Ukraine, start a war that will cause death, misery, and destruction for many many people.

They will not do what it takes to stop Putin from doing this, however. Because with the power they gave Putin they also made the cost of stopping him or taking that power away far more costly than they want to pay.

They tried that before, kicking the CCCP (USSR) into history.

Because that would mean they would have to rise up against their government, and make them obey the people's will by force, which would almost certainly disrupt the country, do much damage and cost a lot of lives, to ultimately end without a government and the risk of being in the same situation they were in after the Soviet Government ended and Yeltsin looked reliable and wise and capable.

Putin is where he is because they let him.

They knew Putin when they allowed him to become president, and they elected him anyway (Yes his first election to office was an actual democratic (mostly) election).

In conclusion @francis105d1

So sorry. Cryptocurrency wouldn't have made a difference at all I'm afraid. What it can make a difference in is getting money to the Ukrain people and military regardless of what developments end up happening. They can donate Bitcoin Cash to support the Ukrainian defenders like @cryptotexy explains in this article: The Ukrain people can use crypto to deny Moscow the opportunity to use money as a tool for oppression in the case Russia turns out to be too strong to stop.

But prevent a government from going to war? No, only the people it governs can do that, and that usually turns out to cost too much, a cost that isn't measured in money.

I wish you were right @francis105d1,

And I commend you for your optimistic and positive approach to life. Don't change that, if you can!

Thank you for reading this!

Stay safe and stay happy!


$ 3.61
$ 3.56 from @TheRandomRewarder
$ 0.05 from @francis105d1
Sponsors of AnonSunamun
Avatar for AnonSunamun
2 years ago


But I would add your article is speaking a lot of truths that actually are a reality, what I was writing is down the line way into the future year into the future if ever at best. At worst is just a wishful theory like you mentioned. But nice arguments to present your ideas which is a reality everywhere today.

$ 0.03
2 years ago

Governments can't wage war if they don't exist because they have been starved to death; that is what peer-to-peer Bitcoin enables in the long run, and if people use it in a decentralized way, meaning without third parties for custody and exchange. So I guess my article omitted that point. And when it comes to taxes, you just don't pay them and move to a country where you don't have a surveillance system like in the USA. I am not telling you to do that, and I am just saying that if people start using Bitcoin as peer-to-peer taxes at some point will be a thing of the past.

Governments die the very next day. People use Bitcoin as a decentralized peer-to-peer currency without custodians or exchanges. I thought that part was clear from the beginning of the article, or I just thought people could figure that part out on their own so that I wouldn't sound so much anti-government.

That is just a theory and taxes will always be paid no matter what. I am saving my ass with that last part.

$ 0.01
2 years ago

Yeah, you could shut down a government pretty easy, I'm not denying that. My point is more.... would you want to? Modern society is impossible without governing. That's what I meant about examples of regions of the world without government. None of them has ever been, nor are, examples of paradise. They're the worst places on Earth to live. They're death, misery, suffering and oppression by the biggest gun or whatever weapon kills the most, fastest. Humanity would devolve into survival of the most powerful in no time and ultimately go extinct.

$ 0.00
2 years ago

Bitcoin as peer-to-peer currency fixes that if I am not wrong, I wrote that and other theories that so far are just that theories. Peer to peer is the key which; I don't know if BTC will be able to perform at that level to start with.

$ 0.00
2 years ago