Topic: Bitcoin Will It Have The Same Fate As E-gold? - page 2. (Read 4521 times)

Oops.  Fixed.

What was c) ?

They are but it's not because they are spending money. The future they are spending is our planet and its ecosystem. That's the only thing of true value in our society, yet it's constantly at the bottom of the governments' priorities. Making sure our planet is healthy rarely leads to more money right away. The upside down priorities our society holds so true to its heart will be its demise. You cannot put money above people and planet. You cannot eat and breathe money if you want to stay alive. In itself mondh doesn't offer you true happiness, it only pretends it does and everyone has been falling in the trap of trying to acquire more of it in the hopes that they feel better. Money does not care for social well-being, it only cares about perpetuating itself for the sake of more and it will never stop doing so. Once you get it, you want more.

Money means nothing, so they can spend all of it for all I care. Debts, GDP, inflation, money printing are all part of the giant circus that humans have been perpetuating for the last 150 years. There is no economy without including everything in our world in the equations. So no, they are not spending our future, they're just spending illusions.

I don't think so.

Bitcoin and E Gold are very different technologies and though they potentially could be subject to similar laws, my impression tells me that Bitcoin and E-Gold are different in one big way: one is decentralized, one generally is not.

Bitcoin can NEVER become large enough to make a non-economic 51% attack by a nation state an impossibility.  However the attack would be futile in the long run. 

The first thing to consider is that it will be the largest sign of legitimacy ever.  "Bitcoin so revolutionary the United States is afraid of it".  It will wake up the masses that there IS something better and IT can work.  Nobody spends billions to attack a ponzi scheme of "tulip mania".  You only spend real money to attack credible threats.  If you think there is interest in Cryptocurrency now, this is nothing, it is like the first steam engine prototype vs the industrial revolution that followed.

As for Bitcoin it will either adapt to rely on more than computing power to reach a consensus (longest chain = always wins is definitive but simplistic) or Bitcoin will die.  If Bitcoin dies it doesn't mean Crypto currency is dead.  Bitcoin may just be the Napster of virtual currencies.  In time it will spawn a multitude of superior offspring that will adapt to the threat of nation states directly attacking the network.  The RIAA killed Napster in a few months.  What did that do in the long run?  I mean it was so easy to take down Napster that obviously Bittorrent is not much of a challenge either.  Oh it has proven much harder to control.  The evolution of software. 

I love living in the new Roman Empire. Now shut up, stoke the sacred fire and bring me a Vestal Virgin.

I do not think you are looking at it correctly.  like it was mentioned earlier, "printing" is just a metaphor.  It is a way of describing how the deficit continues to increase because we keep writing phony checks to cover US obligations. (Like Jace said....Numbers adjusted on FED Reserve Computers)

When you pointed out the US government prints $541 million daily in notes, they also remove a sizable amount of worn bills from circulation.  The NET is not an increase of $541 million daily because of the printed new notes.

What is a NET (negative) is the amount spent causing massive deficit (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)   The US government writes $85 billion dollars per month that they do not have.   Essentially borrowing credit today and hoping to repay in the future.  



LOL...Definitely a racket.  They can't continue this forever however because the interest payments will eventually swallow them.  Right now, they are spending everyone's future.

I found some better numbers: http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0774850.html


That equates to $16.23B printed per month. The $85B is the amount of Bonds sold backed by the $16.23B printed. Not a bad racket! Any ideas on how to improve upon the idea?

Obviously, "printing" is a metaphor and does not refer to actual physical paper notes. They're just increasing numbers in the bank's servers.

Funny that some people insist on calling Bitcoin a "digital currency" while almost every single Euro and Dollar in existence (that is, more than 99%) exists only digital as well.

At $85B a month, that equates to $32,793 per second. Sheets of $100 bills consist of 32 bills, thus 10 sheets per second just for the $100 bills. Doesn't leave much time to print the $1, $5, $10, $20, or the $50, let alone the set up time between runs, for the lines are not dedicated as I've just learned off YouTube via some plant manager.

Something doesn't add up!

One to two billion in not significant to the US.  They are currently printing $85 billion per month in effort to stimulate the economy.  They could easily fund a 51% attack.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/federal-reserve-bond-buying_n_3467097.html

ftfy

Tenatively I conjecture that the only way that the USG could eliminate bitcoin would be to make its use illegal and then to use that as the legal basis for a State-funded 51% attack. For an entity with the financial resources of the USG, that would be a relatively trivial task at present. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests it could be done for probably less than US$ 20 million capital investment (~ capital cost US$ 20 per GHash/sec, network hash rate ~ 0.5Thash/sec).  However, it would require a change in the law to make the use of bitcoin unlawful. This would be highly controversial if not unconstitutional. Furthermore, the cost will increase as the value of bitcoin increases. If the bitcoin economy were to grow 100X then, assuming the cost of a 51% attack scales linearly, the USG would need to spend USD 1-2 billion which is becoming significant even for the USG. There might also be technical ways to defend against such an attack, thought that's beyond my skill-set....

Ok, now in case of Bitcoin, who is "they"? What does "proper licenses" mean? (proper according to whose laws, anyway? North Korea? Bitcoin is not related to North Korea, you know!)

And who are "the founders"? Even if we'd know their identities, what crimes can they be charged with? Releasing some free open source software out in the open? It's not like they're actually running any finance-related business or providing financial services themselves.

NO! Bitcoin is TOTALLY different. E-Gold is much like Facebook credits, World of Warcraft gold, Euros, Dollars, and other "money" that is issued and controlled by one central authority or organization. Bitcoin on the other hand, is exactly the opposite of this. It's like digital gold.

Do you think gold (not E-Gold, but actual gold, i.e. the physical stuff) is at risk because "they" don't have the proper licenses? Would the founders of gold become convicted felons? Well there you go

No.

Bitcoin is to bittorrent as e-gold was to napster.

This. /thread.

Individual actors may be shut down, forced to relocate, modify their operating procedures, or obtain licenses, but that is very different than when e-gold was seized and all the e-gold instantly became worthless.

There's no Bitcoin Inc. to shut down.

That is the difference.

take a look at this: http://www.bloomberg.com/video/bitcoin-s-bid-for-legitimacy-3b47o9o2R1C7qjfk0H8TKA.html