if they say it is a severe threat, than they admit it is trustable.
Not really. If it's outlawed, it won't be labeled as a threat to the monetary system (which would be the truth), but as tool for "terrorists" and a threat to society.
Topic: central banks dilemma with cryptocurrency (Read 953 times)
Not really. If it's outlawed, it won't be labeled as a threat to the monetary system (which would be the truth), but as tool for "terrorists" and a threat to society.
the central banks say one can only trust their own system. to them bitcoin is not trustable. if it is not trustable than it cannot be a severe threat. if they say it is a severe threat, than they admit it is trustable. but they will not want to admit that it is trustable. so why/how outlaw it then?
what do you think?
what do you think?
they'll decide for one side and then settle on a consistent strategy.
Man that's all pie in the sky thinking.
Bitcoin isn't a threat to the central banks. Bitcoin being decentralised means it's really not a threat to anyone.
It's kind of like what open source software is to a big company like IBM. The fact is they ended up embracing it, capitalising on it, and developing it.
The other thing is bitcoin could be shut down any day of the week by government, if the banks really saw it as threat, they'd just nuke it off the radar.
Bitcoin isn't a threat to the central banks. Bitcoin being decentralised means it's really not a threat to anyone.
It's kind of like what open source software is to a big company like IBM. The fact is they ended up embracing it, capitalising on it, and developing it.
The other thing is bitcoin could be shut down any day of the week by government, if the banks really saw it as threat, they'd just nuke it off the radar.
It wasn't the Federal reserve it was the NSA he claimed was running him.
Why did he work in the private sector? Ultimately the Federal Reserve paid his salary.
Crackpot.
If all you have is namecalling instead of rationality, take it to reddit.
benjamindees is correct: The only reason that the security state exists is to protect the Money. You don't labor under the mistaken notion that its there to protect you, do you?
Covertly. The US security state is funded and guided by the Federal Reserve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
Crackpot. You should try to get your conspiracy theories right. It wasn't the Federal reserve it was the NSA he claimed was running him. He unsuccessfully interviewed for a job at NSA and thereafter they were covertly (i.e. without telling even him) using him as their "economic hit man"?
Covertly. The US security state is funded and guided by the Federal Reserve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
The sooner the banks co-op bitcoin the better off they will be. They can afford to build their own incredible ASIC miners and should work hard on mining the final 10 million coins- they could easily manage to mine at least half of that. Then they work on the satoshi level, with 1 bitcoin being worth hundredes of thousands of dollars, and they sit on a fortune of BTC. That's what I would do, as an armchair central banker of course.
a central bank says it is the sole provider of money. backed by law, backed by government, backed by a lot of economic, political and even military power. so other 'artificial' currencies are backed by ... nothing. well, ok, by the people who use it. 
the central banks say one can only trust their own system. to them bitcoin is not trustable. if it is not trustable than it cannot be a severe threat. if they say it is a severe threat, than they admit it is trustable. but they will not want to admit that it is trustable. so why/how outlaw it then?
what do you think?
the central banks say one can only trust their own system. to them bitcoin is not trustable. if it is not trustable than it cannot be a severe threat. if they say it is a severe threat, than they admit it is trustable. but they will not want to admit that it is trustable. so why/how outlaw it then?
what do you think?
Jump to: