Paralel Bitcoin only for conscious living individuals

Economics
1

Description

The proposal is a new paralel Bitcoin, where only one wallet could be created for each physical conscious entity (“Bitcoin Px” maybe), probably using a proof like the national identity number “NIN” (e.g.: US+SSN, MX+CURP, etc.), and getting sure it’s a living conscious being (not yet registered as dead).

To be able to carry out transactions with institutions, this could be done, through decentralized exchanges (DEXs).

To perform the fork migration, after the snapshot of the blockchain, the replication of the original bitcoins should be requested from the original Bitcoin wallet addressing the personal wallet in the new fork (Bitcoin Px). Institutional Bitcoins could be replicated into a personal wallet, but this replication should have a maximum socially congruent limit (maybe 10 or 20 times the average wealth of a global citizen).

Bitcoins that aren’t reclaimed under the replication period (maybe 3 months), should be nonexistent in the new blockchain, so they are available to be mined as fresh new Bitcoins.

Problems that this solves

The problem this issue would deal with, is the current centralization of the available money under the control of a few institutions, giving them unmeasurable power over society. Leaving once again the power of the whole/conjunct (democracy of any level, even liquid) at the mercy of the power of a few (oligarchy). This is completely against the global democratization Internet should be promoting and empowering.

Now that the efficiency of Bitcoin has been accepted even by institutions, maybe it’s time to stop pandering those institutional whales, by creating an institution-proof Bitcoin replica, exclusively for physical conscious individuals. This could be a way to decentralize money in a second phase, and expand the democratization that the internet and it’s native tools are allowing.

Other issues this might solve

As long as only humans (or any living beings from the future that might be proven to be conscious enough) are able to step inside this money platform, and institutions can be kept away (even through false human agents), this could work also as a worldwide equity platform.

Alternatives considered for the use of oficial NIN’s

If the proof method chosen is NIN’s, for the citizens of countries without any trustful NIN system, Biometrics (Facial recognition, fingerprints, etc) could be used, or a different solution could be created in collaboration with other Bitcoin cycle agents (miners, nodes, etc), so that the system can be certain the entities are in fact conscious living beings.

Genome or blood could be alternatives or complimentary to NIN’s, but might add an extra layer of complexity. I would suggest those to be posterior implementations.

I would personally disagree with any solution that involves invasive technology.

Additional context

I understand this would drastically remove the “anonymity” from Bitcoin, but it could be also a good thing for addressing inequality and corruption (at least inside this blockchain), and allow everyone to use this universe-wide (thinking on the quantum age) community-driven tools in general for the common good.

(originally posted in here, but rejected as wrong place)

3 Likes
2

Study worldcoin and why we don’t want that.

1 Like
3

Is this an out of season April fools joke?

4

No, it’s serious. I even agree with a vision that states institutions are the root cause of many problems and need to be limited and taken out from certain areas.

5

I know about worldcoin, but I believe alt’s won’t survive many more years. Maybe just a few of them, but definitely not WDC. Where could I find the reasons “why we don’t want that”?

6

I would recommend looking into the term “fungible” in your exploration of why this idea makes no sense.

Additionally, why would you want to limit internet use to just “living individuals”. There is a robust and established use case for bitcoin it’s layers for the machine payable web.

7

The proposal is not to limit the internet to certain entities, not even to limit the new forms of money to them, the intention is to put things in the right place.

If machines and institutions are not clearly and profoundly serving living beings, their existence is a threat for living beings. Exactly that’s the problem with institutions, they are not being supervised to fulfill human needs and existential problems (hunger, quality of life, inequality), not since their conception (mission, vision, politics, objectives, values, etc) nor when they become “public” (NASDAQ, etc). Institutions have become distorted for fulfilling only egocentric goals (concentration of resources, power, etc), and in certain countries they have even more rights and protections than human beings.

I would personally agree on the existence of sub-wallets destined for machines and institutions that are owned by a living conscious being. But I believe that, if the existence of any non-conscious entity isn’t clearly destined to the expansion or betterment of life (common good, humanism, etc), it may easily fall to the opposite use (extinctionism vs humanism, etc), so they should not have the same level of independence and sovereignty as living conscious individuals.

This begins to feel as a philosophical issue. Maybe it should be moved under Philosophy.

8

Answering to the point of fungibility (i’ve just read again the net’s description).

Why would the proposed money of the living beings suffer the same inflation as the money of institutions, and the same inflation of the money for machines? You’ve got a point there, but not against the proposal, seems to be the opposite.

Scarcity establishes the value of things (through supply and demand in the market), even the value of money. But if the amount of living-conscious-physical-beings grows at a certain rate, and the other types of entities (institutions, machines, robots, AI’s, devices, etc) grow at a different rate… why should living entities suffer the inflation rates generated by the other ones?

This appears to lead again to the question of “who serves who?”. Seems difficult to find a reason for life to serve non-living entities.

I firmly believe the main reason of the existence of this Universe is the expansion of life. Under this precept, this is not the right Universe for living conscious entities to serve the others types.

9

One more thing I would suggest for this parallel Bitcoin, is that decentralization should be taken also to the matters of maximum amount a wallet should be able to poses. Again 10 to 20 times the average of the rest of the world, sounds good for me.

But clearly, hyper concentration (which is the opposite of descentralization) is a problem for dynamism. Our societies don’t need more money with the already big ones, we need the available money to flow much more between the most. Money shouldn’t stay, stop or concentrate in some few corners. Money is not a goal or symbol of success, it is just a tool, for our entire dynamism.

10

Don’t waste any more of your time on this

11

with all of you in this category? Thanks for the advice, so this is also the wrong place?

Then, should I post it in the Philosophy category? or should I build it by myself?

12

This forum is for bitcoin discussions. What you’re describing is not bitcoin and is philosophically opposed to bitcoin, so you are not going to get support from anyone in the community here.

1 Like
13

What I see is that if as a society we do not generate a Bitcoin Fork in which institutions cannot get on board, the Western oligarchy will have won in one way (if Bitcoin falls, because it was always in their way) or another (if Bitcoin rises, because now they will be the biggest beneficiaries, along with Satoshi Nakamoto, who could well be part of those institutions).

That is not decentralization from my very humble perspective.

Thanks anyway, it was nice to try.