Topic: Barriers to introducing people to bitcoin (Read 3260 times)

My reply has the following two versions: (a) "Interest constrains the pursuit of ends for the pursuit of means," and (b) "Because, though you are not, you are restrained as if you were." (See my emboldened text above.)

Obviously if I'm taking a loan, I know I have to pay it back with interest, which means I will have less money later. That means I've made the decision that having the money now is more important than having more money later. Again, why is that bad?

Monetary gain, within the context of “loaning,” is, traditionally, realized via positive interest—which is an artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity reserves, for itself, resources that, without its imposition, could be allocated to greater machinations.

What's wrong with loaning bitcoins? Loans have been around for as long as there was money. No reason to think the rise of bitcoin would end the demand for loans.

In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.

When bitcoins are loaned by their miners with interest to be paid in bitcoins, they will find their bottom—both ethically and monetarily.

I think new people will only come when a clear bottom has been found, too many price speculations are going on. The long term chart doesn't look particulalry attractive for people to jump in

Because they meddle with everything and meddling with everything uses money. Thats why.

The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.

Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.

You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.

These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.

The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.

If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.

I think new people will only come when a clear bottom has been found, too many price speculations are going on. The long term chart doesn't look particulalry attractive for people to jump in

I think new people will only come when a clear bottom has been found, too many price speculations are going on. The long term chart doesn't look particulalry attractive for people to jump in

It's not secure, its cryptographic algorithms rely upon multiplication of "large" primes (something quantum computers can reverse relatively trivially).

Not if there was no precedent ^^
There has never been a large-scale, decentralized, secure network before.

The cart would be a centralized bank where the money is issued from with a single central point of failure.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Physical money is also "good enough for most purposes."

Unless your a true one address at a time user with a proxy using a mixer then you just win lol.
Can't think of a trace for that.

Pseudo-anonymity doesn't withhold one's identity from sufficiently capable (and determined) adversaries.