Topic: BitCoin vs CryptoCurrency by IMF (Read 3336 times)

Regarding the Cryptocurrency, figures are impressive, even this fact, beyond supporters or contestants, demonstrating that the future of our finances, transactions, commerce, and our lives that can not be separated from this field will show total different than today.

It is a way for major clients to invest in such projects, while increasing capital, but it can also become a trap for those who are eager to overnight and who fall into the net of those who are trying to take advantage of their naivety.

As Bitcoin hit a new record high less than two weeks ago, long-time “hodlers” (an inside joke in crypto based on a typo in a drunken Bitcoin Talk forum message in 2013) celebrated on Twitter and Reddit with jokes about buying Lambos, and a clip from Wayne’s World where the main characters frolic and chant, “We’ve got $5,000! We’ve got $5,000!”

This is only positive, I don’t understand why you guys think this is bad lol. Buy now and thank me later.These tips are so valuable, ive been doing this for a while, and all my losses come from all 5 of these things 😂

that's the real schism: IMF controlled money vs. free money, such as BTC.

BTC will win.

Its not easy to diversify your money when all world currencies might end up in 4-5 different currencies that are under the control of IMF. So the best way to be free is to buy gold coins, silver coins, bitcoin, real estate, shares or any asset that you prefer as long as most of your assets are not fiat.

The easiest way to avoid the OWC issue is to diversify.  Keep your assets in many different currencies; nobody can force you to do something you don't want to do.  All they can do is punish you for not doing it.  Imagine if one nation attempted to put every other nation in jail for not using the currency they feel is best; it just won't happen.  As long as any currency is free, open and voluntary, you'll never have to worry about one currency ruling.  If you see signs of a currency leaning toward fiat, refuse to use it.  The idea that people belong to the government needs to end, and it ends when the majority realizes it's the other way around.

The credit/debit only is the most likely to occur first; it's a matter of convenience to most people, but the average Joe isn't a walking credit machine, so unless you equip the whole nation with card-swipers, it'll be hard to implement.  What will likely happen is all money goes digital, and you trade balances via cell-phone or whatever devices are available.  However, unless it is mandatory that every person has a cell phone, the following will have to ensue:

RFID chips.  These can store any number of things.  This is another matter of convenience; they can be incredibly useful, but only when done properly.  I won't go into the details of what they can do to ease things (but a few examples: lock safes and gun-lockers only you can open, exchange money only you approve of, and the most common reason: if you get lost, which is controversial in its own right)  As I said above, it depends on who's doing what with it.  At first, it will be voluntary.  At the point it becomes a requirement upon birth, that's when it becomes a travesty.  I don't think RFID chips will ever catch on, or else they would have back when they were introduced shortly after 9/11.  As it is, I wouldn't want one in my body, mostly because they've been shown to develop cancer cells and other adverse effects.

Let's just keep advocating Bitcoin and its altcoins, and we'll be in good standing.

I totally agree - I just try to speculate what they might do if they feel threatened by BitCoin. People have talked for years about what the rulers might do to increase their power by monetary tools and this is their plan:

One World currency
Create a world currency in some form. It might be one single world currency, or a few currencies, one for each continent in a step towards a world currency later on. No central bank is allowed to be free and no state is allowed to use anything else than fiat. If you dare to use gold as money you might end up as Libya / Ghaddafi...
The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya EXPOSED http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O35_Ai6EsMU

Kill cash - Kill anonymity
Abandon cash and make it an obligation to use credit card or debit card. All transactions can thereby be traced to an individual - you cant even buy a chewing gum without Big Brother knowing about it and analyzing it.

One chip to rule them all
When all currencies are under control and all cash is gone the next step is to inplant the credit card as a chip under the skin. The technology is already here, its just a matter of time when we voluntarily agree to become chipped becuase of convenience. And later on it will be mandatory, if the government dont like you they can block your chip. In such a world bitcoin will be the last resort for free transactions.

Aaron Russo RFID Human Implant Chip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGcatieMvfk

fuck IMF and their coin

If you think of cryptocurrencies as a spectrum of M-of-N possibilities the limits are:

1) M=1 N=1 cryptocurrency where cryptography is just a form of error detection, but it otherwise has properties of the traditional database/ledger currency

2) M=1 N=infinity describes the exact Bitcoin design: any one miner (M=1) out of unlimited set of miners (N=inf) is all thats required to confirm the transaction

But in general many more combinations are possible. For example with
M=N/2+1 we have a traditional majority consensus organization. It is also possible to make N variable, require M=N for unanimous consensus to increase N by 1 and M=N-1 to decrease N by 1.

I would agree that the organization as big as IMF doesn't really need or have a motivation to switch to cryptocurrency model.

I think that the opposite side of the size spectrum is where the M-of-N model becomes useful: small trans-national and trans-jurisdictional partnerships that utilize the cryptocurrency as a means of shareholding transfers and voting. The crypto aspect gives such an organization some degree of invulnerability to a legal expropriation of one of the partners in one of the jurisdictions.

It is a very unlikely scenario.
Bitcoin was optimized to be decentralized so I don't see any reason why should anybody use a bitcoin like system for a centralized currency.
For a centralized and more traceable currency already exists better concepts and they are in use.

IMF already got their own currency: SDR (Special Drawing Rights) the next step is to make it a crypto coin and make it a world currency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_drawing_rights

One Coin to rule them all,
One Coin to find them,
One Coin to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them

Whenever ppl use the terms, ELITE / GOD / POWER you see how they time and time again
fail to understand the meaning of life.

So what if the IMF make their own cryptocurreny, you can't force ppl to use your money
let alone, that ppl have TRUST that it works. Bitcoin made a point, WHAT'S MONEY???

What you wrote is self-contradictory.

Trusted private key holders already exist in Bitcoin: only Gavin has the private key to issue the network alerts.

With M-of-N signatures the PoW-type currency can be both decentralized and limited, where M is the decentralization parameter and N is the limitation parameter. Such a schemes were already discussed here and elsewhere under the concept of "licensed mining".

Exactly.


It's not difficult, it's impossible. If there's going to be an asymmetric cryptographic aspect, then POW, and all of the cost that comes with it, can be abandoned altogether, and the PKI can be relied upon exclusively for authorizing transactions. The problem is that then there are trusted private key holders, that constitute a centralized structure.

Actually it is trivial to produce a private PoW currency: just include an asymmetric cryptographic operation in the hashing function.

It is somewhat more complex to make such a "private PoW" currency really decentralized. The scalar difficulty will have to be changed to a vector of difficulty values, one for each distributed shareholder.

The main advantage would be that it doesn't require billions invested for hashing hardware: each shareholder needs to maintain only a minimum hashing power required to sufficiently distribute the nodes working on his share.

It would be just a couple of weeks of work for a single software engineer. It would involve way more legal work to produce the required contractual agreement that are both legally and technically sound and where the legal side exactly mirrors the technical side.

Edit: Such an implementation already does exist, except that it isn't a full currency: it just serves as a sort of DRM for eldentyrell's implementation of FPGA hashing bitstreams.

Except nobody is going to keep their wealth in that system because, once again, it would be run by crooked banksters.  Plus what you are talking about is no different than what they have now.

interesting point  and bit coin avoids this fate because of its ultimate cap on the production of coins, right?
then it just becomes maintenance 

No one can guarantee control over a proof of work based currency. It'll be controlled by whoever has the most hashing power, which is not necessarily going to be any government institution.

An inflationary bitcoin-variant is also unlikely to be appealing to governments, as the generated currency will go toward any one that runs hashing devices, effectively wasting a significant percentage of the world's economic output on running hashing calculations.

The Bitcoin network of today (60 000 GHash/s) equals a total value of 2 million dollars invested in ASIC.
If the rulers finally accept that BitCoin is superior to old fashioned Fiat they might make their own crypto currency with the attributes they wish (built-in inflation for example). It would be more logical to create their own coin and create their own game to continue to rule the world instead of buying into our game (BitCoin) and making us the new elite. All paper currencies would be abolished and replaced by this single world currency. This currency would of course be built in a way to trace and block transactions made by certain individuals, organizations and countries.

They would invest billions of dollars in supercomputers to secure the decentralized network of their IMF Coin (decentralized but under the control of the banking cartel). Bitcoin would need millions of miners investing thousands of dollars each to compete with the same hashrate and be secure against possible attacks from IMF.

What kind of implications would such scenario have on bitcoin? Would it survive? Or would it be even more desirable since BitCoin would be the only truely free currency?