Topic: Convince me that the bitcoin elite cannot become the next Rothschild family - page 4. (Read 11718 times)

Sorry for objection, but I can´t grasp your reasoning at this point.

- First of all they would not force their will in any other manner as they do now.
I say even if they could, as you say, they would not.
Why should they? It worked for the last few thousand years in the past and it pretty sure will in the next few thousand years.
To be specific: They always paid for service! Let me give an example here.
Harald Hardrada the most famous varangian leader was a viking that never cared for such thing called a state or for that political concept. He and his men simply did a well paid job to protect Basil 2nd. Take a closer look and see some similarities to a company formerly known as Blackwater.
Btw while giving Mafia a bad name the Normans -ancestors of the vikings- invented the concept of what we call Mafia roughly thousand years ago in Sicily. Ok not really true they brought it with them from home, while home was were the French King has placed them to hold their brothers off. In those days the now called Mafia was meant to take care. Take care nobody starves and no single Jarl gets too strong. Balance of power was the idea driving at those days. Jarl? The British call them Earl nowadays. Sorry for drifting of.
Anyhow google the rest of it.
My Point is: History prooves you wrong, wherever you take a closer look.
BUT! That is not an argument for surrender!

- Next objection: People can only see straight through things which they can see.
The state (I live in) allows me to see much more than ever before. (Ok its trying to rework this. But not very successful yet.)

- Do people resist?
Some care, very few of them take up the sword and fight. Most of them do not achieve much.
(Keep in mind me mentioning Gandhi above.)

As Hazek has already pointed out, the power of the Rothschilds etc. DEPENDS heavily on the centrally controlled monetary system. This is why they are so intent on setting up central banks across the world. You really have to understand this point.

Bitcoin is decentralized, can't be printed arbitrarily, market controls interest rates. The fact that early adopters may have huge hordes of bitcoins doesn't really matter. They can only manipulate the supply (in circulation) until their horde runs out. Where as banks can print forever.

Also, bitcoin forces the state to tax in a more honest way (no inflation). This puts a democratically enforced limit on the amount they can plunder for wars etc. Both the voters and the market will reject %300 sales tax on all goods, but no one sees the inflation tax.

There is a big difference between holding a bunch of currency and controlling central banks.

Well you edited your response pretty quick.  You must have read the article after initially just looking at the pictures.


How else do you expect The Man to pay for all your welfare programs if not inflating the wealth out of the hands of the middle-class?

Pardon me, but you sir are a moron that doesn't understand debt-based money. I will not be feeding the trolls.

I am sick and tired of the OWS crowd bandying about this old canard.

Read this and tell me who is really getting screwed by whom:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak

The so-called 'poor' in America have more 'currency' (ie. votes) than the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Waltons or whoever your favorite whipping-boy is this week will ever have.  The problem isn't the wealthy, it's politicians.

And if you don't like a debt-based economy, DON'T participate in it.  Stop borrowing.  Save your money before you buy stuff.  You know, like your grandparents did.

TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR LIFE MAN!  YOU'RE ONLY HERE FOR 80 or so YEARS, STOP BLAMING EVERYONE ELSE AND GET A GRIP.

Perhaps it would undermine my point if you care to explain what you mean. But, as I stated in a previous post, the linear graph of money equals an exponential graph of power. The richest of the rich stand to benefit no matter which way the value of money moves. Those on the cusp could be easily delegated back to the middle class--something that those in power would have no issue with.

How did you place Gaddafi at the scene of these crimes? How is the USA allowed to shoot missiles destroy entire countries  without George Bush or Obama being declared a terrorist?


source: http://www.acus.org/natosource/gaddafi-forces-fire-missile-italian-warship

Sounds like a bullshit setup to me.

Score: Ghaddaffi:  -1, USA: 1,000,000

The physical magnetic formations on people's hard drives which form the block chain do indeed exist. This is not some "perception" woodoo, there are physical particles that represent the block chain. Not to mention things like casascius bitcoin coins.
What is most important is of course the math, rock solid principles that ensure some of the bitcoin properties, that govern those magnetic particles on people's hard drives, and those also exist by all means, there is nothing "perceptional" about them. Whoever is going to check those principles, in whatever situation, in whatever language, they will always be the same. Nobody "came up" with them, they were discovered.

Yeah, and if there were no paper processing technology (like say 500 BC according to wikipedia), there would be no paper and therefore no way to construct an argument for money bills. So what? How does that make it less real?



Wouldn't that mean that whatever direction the value of money is moving, a part of "the rich" will always be winning, and a part will always be loosing? Doesn't that kind of undermine your whole "the rich always win" thing?

Gheddafi wasn't a terrorist?

First link i found

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051507/Gaddafi-dead-Families-Lockerbie-bombing-victims-celebrate-dictators-death.html


Then we have Gheddafi shooting missiles against Italy.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacco_missilistico_libico_contro_Lampedusa

Two SS-1 Scud

And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing


Etc etc etc...

Add the tens of thousands of civilians he killed in Lybia. You protest peacefully->he orders military to shoot on you.

You are correct.  Both under the gold standard and under fiat money, thats exactly how society evolves unless people vote to change it.  Thats why countries that care about this kind of thing have progressive taxation systems.

I'm not sure if Bitcoin will ever be right for you if that is what you are hoping for.

In whichever sane way you can define "reality", this is wrong. "Real's gonna change" so to speak.
And if you think they are random strings in cyberspace, why don't you just write up some new random characters and try to convince somebody they are worth something, like exchange them for USD for example.

reply: and yet that is exactly what bitcoin is doing- if there were no internet (like say 2000BC ) there would be no cyberspace and therefore no way to construct an argument for a blockchain. Most sane people define reality as physically existing , which is why fiat currencies are given historically more credence than crypto currencies. " Real,s gonna change" was disproved by Lewis Carrol when he asserted "if it could be it would be but as it isn't it ain't"  In my opinion this means what is real does not change only peoples perception of reality can change.   Perhaps I could try another approach to explain what I mean. Whatever can be in the mind of man cannot exist in reality or without that mind to contain it.  this is not a weakness, it is a strength in the bitcoin debate. Consider- what does not exist cannot be taken away or controlled! If I wish to retain or disperse at my discretion my interlectual rights over a string of charachters of which only I have the key that gives me a freedom never before enjoyed. The value placed on that is between two people only and that is a strength. sorry for being longwinded we are nearly at a book or film length. reg

Creating money or restricting money, the end result is the same: the poor lose, the rich win. This has nothing to do with inflation, it has to do with he who controls the money has more power than that money should be worth. Creating money for inflation, withholding money for deflation. They are two sides of the same coin of control. Inflationists profit off of keeping you mortgaging your life away in debt and interest, deflationists profit off of paying you less and less to do what you did before.

Want to pretend that investment, loans, and banking won't exist in a deflationary currency? All right then, let's go back to the feudal system, because you will have precisely zero opportunity to improve your standing in life if you grow up in a poor or middle class family.

I fully expect, if somehow "the state" as it is referred to here were to be done away with, anyone with sufficient resources would simply set up their own. What kind, I can't say, probably something closer to a dictatorship, maybe a feodal system. It's pretty theoretical, of course. The point is, the state is simply a mechanism for portioning out power. There's nothing magical about it. Power will always be distributed one way or the other, and will, in my opinion, tend to concentrate until the system reaches a breaking point of some kind. Power is profitable, therefore people will try to gain it, and the more power you have, the better your chances of getting more.

Personally, I've found reading ancient history quite enlightening in this regard. The single theme that seems to arise from my reading of human history is that people will do just about anything for power. Strip away the morals and rhetoric, and you're left with ruthless economics. The powerful will make subjects of others as best they can, and those subjects become resources to be used for further conquest. There's definitely a profit to be made there, not to mention some major ego massaging.

I stopped reading after you said that the people of Libya were "wealthy & happy" under Gadaffi. You been smoking to much of that shit from Silk Road  !

Exactly right.  Except, oddly, you seem to be missing the point.

The problem with the central bank is not that it has a lot of money.  The problem, fundamentally, is that it can create as much money as it wants ad-infinitim.  It uses this power to continually maintain and increase its influence over society.  It is now to the point that virtually all people in the U.S. are essentially indentured servants to the banks.  The system is set up so that the indentured servants collectively owe more than they can possibly pay back.  In theory, the amount of money equals the total amount of debt.  But, due to interest the servants contractually owe the bank on the money they borrow, the entire money supply does not equal the amount of money the servants must pay back.  So, on a continual basis, the central bank issues more money, gets the servants to borrow that at interest to pay back the previous debts, and the servitude continues.

The early adopters of bitcoin have the potential to become very wealthy.  That is true.  However, they do not have the power to continually create more money.  The bitcoins they mined early on are the bulk of the bitcoins they will ever have.  Thus, they do not have the ability to continually keep the rest of us as their servants.  Once they spend their bitcoins, however much they are worth, then they will have exhausted whatever power they have.

Of course bitcoin exists in reality. Anyone with the right tools can test for the existence and validity of the bitcoin blockchain.

Do you also propose that for example, prime numbers do not exist in reality? After all, they are only numbers. No, you're wrong. Our whole world system depends on the same mathematics and cryptography that bitcoin is based on.

You know what's ironic about your statement? The USD is less real than bitcoin! No one can look up an individual US dollar and test its validity. The Federal Reserve simply declares it into existence, as if they were God.

In whichever sane way you can define "reality", this is wrong. "Real's gonna change" so to speak.
And if you think they are random strings in cyberspace, why don't you just write up some new random characters and try to convince somebody they are worth something, like exchange them for USD for example.

I understand and I agree with where your coming from. What I'm saying is that the bitcoin elite have the same power as those banks but in a different form. They ALREADY control the wealth, it just isn't worth that much yet. To cause a business cycle, the elite need only work in concert to remove money from the supply. Cash out investments, hoard, and voila you have the exact same situation. Want to buy my car for 1 BTC? Please, please do so because I need to buy food. This is the same system under a different guise.

Answering this with platitudes such as "well they'll probably spend it" and such does not solve the inherent problem and is based on hopes and wishes, not reality. Give them the opportunity, and they will seize it.


This is incorrect. The gold supply was (relatively) fixed. Currencies (gold certificates) used to be pegged to their countries' gold supply. Yes, fractional reserve is part of the problem. But really, it isn't fractional reserve, it is interest that is the problem. Calling for an end to fractional reserve is a whole other debate that I don't really want to get into.


In a highly deflationary currency such as bitcoin, spending would essentially be the same as lending at negative interest. I can buy X now, but I will surely lose value over holding on to that money. It's not exactly a great system for trade. Not only were gold certificates useful for commerce, they were also useful for fractional reserve. And fractional reserve does have beneficial consequences.


And, in effect, you will use your wealth to keep the poor under your foot. By not trading or investing, you contribute to the constriction of the money supply and allow yourself to purchase goods and services at a deflated rate. By the time you have spent, then and only then is the money less constricted. You benefit, everyone else loses.

I guess I misunderstood your post. I thought you were making excuses for why the state is powerless with regards to preventing corporatism.