Topic: A voluntary hanging? My tin foil hat. (Read 2090 times)

Coinffeine (coming soon) is one I know of. The UI has a nice look. However, I bet their biggest problem will be getting enough financing. Banks don't like decentralized anything.

http://www.coindesk.com/coinffeine-demonstrates-distributed-p2p-bitcoin-exchange-platform/

People suck. Evolutionarily, trust is not innate so your post rings a harsh reality. A tradeoff indeed, but an exciting one at that!

Good questions:
I've lost track of the status of usable P2P exchanges. Are they developed and not yet user-friendly, and/or are there some good ones which not enough people know about?

if the govt/bankers chips of even a 0.25% of every btc  transaction through regulation its only a matter of time before they control the majority share

its not like the elite are going to let bitcoin take over and bitcoin community has proven that when you give any anonymous person/entity  enough incentive ,they will steal it all so i reckon this is a fair compromise

the banks buy in ,we get mainstream adoption and insurance  ,ease of use and professionalism but we have to be regulated  in exchange for this ....its a fair trade imo

nobody rides for free .......

Nicely said. This is true. I'm arm chairing, I do not deny this. Also, I am not trying to peg the elite as bad people. Money begets money. Just trying to point out and facilitate a discussion regarding switching out the present meat grinder for one more community focused. Any thoughts regarding development in any specific direction? Things you'd like to see? Theories?

"We" had about 5 years to develop secure, user-friendly exchanges. If it takes the "financial elite" to deliver what is needed, then at least we will finally have that need filled.

Yeah, true. The West is definitely punishing Putin. No doubt. Also, low oil prices have been used as a last ditch effort to reinvigorate a stalled or failing economy. The price to produce a barrel of oil in the hasn't changed much. Sits around $50 for domestic crude, ~$20 in the middle east, but the prices sure do on the consumer level at the gas station!

Don't worry about the number of coins long-term, that is immaterial. Power/control will not come from 'owning a piece of the technology,' but will come from overseeing those that develop it and interact with the customer of it (i.e. the USG controls fiscal policy by regulating fiat generation through treasury bonds, not by holding onto huge quantities of fiat).

I would suggest that the main driver of the oil price crash has been the US softening up the ever obstinate and stubborn Mr Putin. Also, cheap oil is good for the whole economy (apart from the oil companies) and if you look throughout history an economic boom generally follows low oil prices.

Yeah, I hadn't thought about it in enough detail to see how useful Bitcoin is to the major players. I see it now.

One last thing to add though:

Should we be worried about a goernment (say the US) gradually stocking up on a vast number of BTC until they have enough in reserve to be able to crash the market? Would 1M BTC be enough?

They now have one legit exchange to use, others sure to follow (Winklevii etc.) and probably use agents to buy BTC across the country. Would this be an angle of control that they would be interested in?

I'm gonna leave this thread for now but it's been most interesting. Ta!

A sad reality isn't it? Here's another thought for you. King Abdullah just died. The US has been spoon-feeding him exorbitant amounts of USD for decades in return for "conservative" fiscal policies regarding oil; Salman is inheriting a rule filled with angry people. Oil prices down a coincidence? The petrodollar under threat? Digital currencies taking the MainStage? Grooming for BTC to become the next SDR by the IMF?

Edit: This is a lot of tin foiling I realize. Now I'm getting side tracked from the true discussion.

I read that the US funded the Ukrainian 'protestors' who overthrew Yanukovych with payments via Bitcoin. Indeed, I remember early March last year, when Bitcoin shot from $560 to $710 within 12 hours as a result of some buyer coming to Bitstamp and placing massive buy orders right at spot price, without giving a fuck what he was doing to the price (i.e. making the next 3000 BTC tranche that he wanted to buy increasingly more expensive).

Bitcoin is a great way of funding insurgents who may otherwise be cut off from financial services within their host economies. Certainly better than suitcases full of USD, half of which invariably goes missing before it gets to it's intended recipients.

Since guerrilla armies are actually supported by most large powerhouse countries (US included), it works to their favor. You now have a paperless trail for the buying and selling of arms masked as transparent system.

For instance: the guerrillas get arms or BTC (a non-fiat digital asset with arbitrary value, backed by nothing national but worth something; USD) in exchange for doing the dirty work of the US in global policy. When shit hits the fan, the USG can say "hey it's not our money, we didn't finance it. We didn't blow up those people. A great way to shirk responsibility and keep the world at our beckon call.

The US wants its friends close and its enemies closer. I wouldn't say the US wants world domination (this is too much for one plate). The US controls the world's reserve status. It's what keeps other countries dependent on us in a time in history when the US doesn't produce much and all we do is export money.

Amusing aside: Guerilla army purchases weapons for unknown amounts with BitBit. World giggled.

Aww man, it's like you've read all my posts and my mind. Amen brother.

--Bitcoin is the brainchild of a think tank decades ago? Definitely.

--For undermining other nations? Absolutely.

--Defending a dying petro dollar? Bingo.

--A way for negating large swaths of foreign debt obligations in the future? Check.

Bitcoin is like the military. People will come into it with their own idealized beliefs, be leveled by the powers and exit an avid touter of its value (from the military's perspective) or end up PTSD'd in a system that never cared about them to begin with.

How would Bitcoin work against guerilla armies then? Surely it enables them to distribute arms money without borders or limits and actually works against the USA if they plan for world domination? Or are you arguing that the US wants its opponents to be well funded because they have the firepower to crush them anyway?

Edit: This post was in response to MatTheCat.

Yep. The writing is already on the wall; check out the verbiage they use:

1) Aimed at non-BTC tech wannabes AKA average mid-tier financial types with some financial prowess --

https://www.coinsetter.com (in the US).


2) Aimed at non-BTC techies disguised as your friendly send-grandma some money financier. "It shouldn't cost you money to use your money."

https://www.circle.com/en (in the US).


I posit the name BitBit as the future. Sounds baby-ish, people love things they can relate to. It has a nice ring. "Send money via your smartphone with BitBit, the world's most advanced payment network even a baby could use."

I think that Bitcoin is far more likely to have had military intelligence funding behind it other than being the brain child of some attic dwelling libertarian geek genius and I reckon that old guy who collects model trains and lives with his mother in California, (Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto) was most certainly part of the Bitcoin development team.

As the US makes its strategic manoeuvres to defend it's petro dollar system and crush awkward nations that stand in the path of 'Full Spectrum Dominance', would you not consider that an established and stable Bitcoin market be a great tool for undermining 'hostile' economies by allowing a means of capital flight which no totalitarian government will be able to control? As for the future of Bitcoin from here on out, I suspect a good bit more of a rally is yet to come but still favour a lower low than $150. I suspect Bitcoin will do the 'unthinkable' and go into double figures in due course. As you suggest in your previous posts, big money wins in the long term by actually running the price of Bitcoin down, forcing miners to sell at increasingly lower prices, possibly forcing them out of the frame allowing 'big money' to pick up the game. Ultimately, Big Money will of course ramp the shit out of Bitcoin, but not before they have a stranglehold over the whole market and gaining a stranglehold probably means yet lower prices and eventually a period of stability that facilitates its actual intended use as 'money'. Something that goes down $150 dollars one week and up $150 dollars the next (i.e. 100% of it's value), can never hope to be used as money or a store of wealth in any sense.  

I also see a big name getting involved as a way to smash the delusion in the mind of the public that Bitcoin is all about drugs/illegal porn. With the new exchange we can finally say "Look. It's being used legally on this website here". However, since the sheeple aren't generally interested in some stock exchange website it would be better to have a household name come out and accept it.

You hit the nail on the head my friend.

1) The USG isn't getting their hands dirty per say with Bitcoin (at least as of yet). They will let others pay for it, sort out the bugs, bring it live, etc. The USG just wants it's cut. If the USG gets involved monetarily, they will want control.

2) The problem (or solution?) is non-tech types. The sheeple need to get in to make this "work" along the lines most people on Bitcointalk recommend (massive price explosion, mainstream implementation). You can now see why companies like Coinbase are throwing the words FDIC-insured and other companies are saying "USD wallet-BTC transactions" or smartphone integration. Tech types (us) understand this is a bullshit marketing ploy to get the non-techies in and up to speed.

The goal of companies is not to educate the user base, but to just get them to trust them with having a user face similar to what they are used to. "Oh we're backed by the FDIC so we can assure you your coins are secure." The number of coins you hold only matters when the tech is fully implemented (from a get rich perspective). After that, it won't matter. BTC will be used as a transactional placeholder, not a coin collection mechanism.