A thought experiment on Bitcoin signaling and conflict

This is not a prediction, just a thought experiment.

In democracies, elections mainly exist to prevent civil war. They do this by revealing majority preferences in advance, so outcomes don’t need to be tested through violence.

If Bitcoin’s distribution were ever to converge with real-world power, similar to how land and gold historically did, then Bitcoin signature-based signaling might reveal global power preferences in a comparable way.

Early on, such signals would likely be challenged. When challenges fail, the cost is paid economically, through capital loss and redistribution, which gradually reduces the incentive to challenge the signal again.

Over time, conflict itself could become irrational, because its outcome has already been revealed.

For example, if option A has overwhelming Bitcoin support compared to option B, acting against A would imply acting against the combined economic preferences behind it.