Topic: Could a government supplant Bitcoin? (Read 5839 times)

You are gladly soliciting a ponzi scheme which has been clearly explained to you.

So you have no excuse when the prosecutions come, because you have even stated that you willfully did so.

Having run a silverbank, you will not be able to claim you did not understand the financial vehicle you were investing in.

You know very well the difference between a tangible asset and one that is fabricated out-of-thin-air. And you know very well that the intangible asset has no value if does not have utility as a currency. And it has been explained to you that unless the usership is sufficiently widespread that everyone can use it as an every day currency, then it can't be used as currency to divest without converting to a fiat, thus it is not a currency, but rather what the UK has correctly described it to be.

No where can I see you posting a disclaimer explaining that the asset has certain dubious qualities as described.

It is clearly explained to you that the price is rising too fast for it to be widely dispersed to the masses. And thus when the early adopters want to get out, they either need to start selling now to the masses (and forsake the final gains thus allowing the masses to gain back some of the ridiculous devaluation of their relative net worth), or they will selfishly try to get out at the top and only a few will. Which will be entirely what they deserve. I will try to find a scripture for you on this.

You even have charts in your threads show that it is rising if I am not mistaken at 12X per year. This is simply unheard of in any investment. This can only be a mania.

I have no problem with people destroying themselves investing in mania, but I do believe in telling the truth so that it can only be their fault and not mine.

And under the circumstances, I think it is very unwise to be investing in a ponzi scheme without complete anonymity.

But you are entirely free to take your chances of course.

I am happy that I told what I believe to be the truth. My conscience is clear on this one.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

AnonyMint I think we all get your point. I'd like to add though that there are other countries than the US. Even if capital controls do become harsher here in the EU I have a hard time seeing your doomsday scenario come true here, in the US or anywhere else. Sure we never know and having a crypto currency that could provide greater anonymity can't be a bad thing. So stop posting and get your programming game on.

Oh yeah and what's with calling them Bitcons one day and then now Bitcoins again?

PS. Seems like you put a lot of faith into what Armstrong says. I've been following him for years and although I have to say he has a pretty good track record I think he's pretty far from an all seeing eye and at times seems to be borderline mad. I'd advice you from putting all your eggs in his basket(case?)

PS2. I think your coming coin where normal cpu's can keep mining is a pretty damn good idea. I haven't spent anytime at all looking into other altcoins. Is there any coin that has this feature atm?

Isn't that what "they" do? What was the news here? Except your brainchild that 350,000 earliest adopters will be jailed and more than all the gains will be confiscated after the comsummative bubble... I think the probability of that occurring is so low that I will gladly continue holding my bitcoins and soliciting them to others as part of a balanced portfolio.

Surprised to see a comment on the Bitcoin AP thread from Edwin
Vieira PhD JD, constitutional scholar and author of a seminal book on the US
monetary system.  No doubt you remember him from Russo's documentary and countless
interviews and articles on the net.   
Here's Vieira's comment:
Edwin Vieira said..."They" do not have to regulate the BitCoin system itself. They
will regulate the users, by requiring reports on BitCoin accounts and transactions,
for the purpose of collecting various taxes, in the same manner as foreign bank
accounts must be reported, and as FDR required reports on private gold ownership as
the prelude to confiscation. "They" may not have control of the BitCoins themselves;
but they do have control over the people who use them.

Central bankers now pushing Bitcoin and electronic currencies:

http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-bernanke-on-bitcoin-2013-11

Summers (candidate for Fed, Treasury official, adviser to Presidents) wants to enslave us in negative interest rates on an electronic currency:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/rpietila-public-diary-episode-ii-323988

Seems the pre-frontal cortex on Bitcoiners has shut-down due to greed:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3632324

Just need to jump in here a sec to say, if you think you are sane, and everyone else seems batshit insane to you, how can you be sure you are not the batshit insane one?  

*Pssst*... Not everyone here has a lower IQ than you do. Just saying.

Don't really care about your opinion, you just think too much of yourself really...
Also, I didn't say anything new, and if you think that you did... then lol

Go work on the solution then!

Wow deisik, you surprised me. Your two most recent posts were astute. Indeed the First and Second Industrial Revolutions. And now we are in the First Computer Revolution which is maturing towards the coming Second.


Exactly. No one could print the bullion for free, thus no one could bailout the private banks. Thus corrections were frequent and thus the system was much more optimized and annealed (less Antifragile if using Taleb's math). Then the central banks were created to deal with the crisis caused from World War I when Europe's socialism imploded, so then the base money became fiat. But the problem with Bitcoin is that it is MUST become cartelized due to the transaction withholding attack and the loss of coin rewards, so therefor the base money (if Bitcoin) will be fiat again as I explained upthread on this page.

Note the bullion was not the dominant (most accepted) money. The receipts were (no need to assay). There can't exist widespread expansion of debt with bullion as money. If capital is absolute, e.g. bullion is the ONLY money, then society declines into the abyss of a Dark Age.

So yes there must be a meaningful (5% per annum at least) expansion of the money supply, not just a (roughly) static number of BTC. It can happen from writing receipts for fractional reserve BTC and using those as money, or it can happen with an altcoin that has an expanding money supply. Or both. Either one or both could help mitigate the dystopian outcome for Bitcoin concerning relative impoverishment of the masses, but neither deals with the dystopia that Bitcoin is designed to become cartelized and thus morph into the government's coin.

I prefer the non-fractional reserve, expanding altcoin money supply option, because it is more honest and transparent on the public decentralized ledger. Whereas, private entities (opaquely or via government oversight) printing fractional reserve receipts (IOUs) is inherently unscrupulous.

P.S. 5% per annum coin rewards are not a threat to the coin's appreciation. Bitcoin is at roughly 11% now and the price is rising astronomically fast. With CPU-only mining, you would be getting more people into the coin to match the 97% gas diffusion distribution of wealth in society, thus a large market penetration and better future for the coin.

Also, the time period you mention was marked by a train of successive economic crises at the end of each economic cycle, which had finally led to the war in Europe (known as WWI) and Great Depression in the USA. After that the gold standard was de facto dismantled

Actually, it all started in the early 19th centrury and primarily was due to technological advances (electricity, chemistry, railways, etc)

The most productive period per annum in the history of mankind was 1871-1913, the time of the gold standard. (Disagree?)

- Money supply was not only bullion, it was augmented with real bills. (Real bills can be implemented with bitcoin, if bitcoin is the quote currency.)
- Debt was kept in check by the natural mechanism as debt was not money, only bullion was (and real bills acted as money without strictly being that).

You told me?

I suggest he takes some lessons from the 50-something, minanarchist, 160 IQ creator of "open source" Eric S. Raymond as follows.

Ego is for little people

A natural contemplates game

Facing your inner alpha

So what are you doing here?

Sigh. (He never got the point about the utility of comparing penis length)

He as a beta-male is still following his notion that the alpha-male is the one who the group kneels down to, so he is testing whether I have that political power. He doesn't understand the real alpha-male controls without being seen, because he is more rational and understands the game theory better than the beta-males do.

Do you understand that with all that elitist alpha-male attitude you actually look ridiculous?
Should we necessarily know about your inferiority complexes? 

I don't have time to write carefully... this will be sloppy...

Start at the following linked post and then read forward in the thread. You may also want to read backwards in the thread for more context. And follow some of the links in the posts for more explanation and data.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3350891

The basic point is that capital sitting in a hole FOREVER is theft from production and new knowledge creation. Savings and delayed gratification are important, but they are not so important that capital should grow in value FOREVER for doing nothing but sit in a hole.

Debt plays into this as this is how society forces the capital to move, even it can't get its hands on it. Because the optimum increases in knowledge and production won't occur if capital has all the power.

Yet debt also causes misallocation of capital, so there is ying and yang. Goldbugs want only the yang and want capital to be absolute.

Absolute capital means Dark Ages, feudalism, dying production, dying intellectualism, etc..

Getting goldbugs to understand this is nearly impossible because they can't load the dynamic game theory in their head. They can only see the static notion of their capital is absolute and theirs. They don't understand that No Money Exists Without the Majority.

It will be quite satisfying if even one reader understands and tells me he does.

Debt is not so bad when the base money can't be turned into a fiat, e.g. in the 1800s there were frequent liquidating corrections (thus self-adjusting without getting too far misallocative and out-of-balance) because no central bank could print physical gold to bailout the private banks which were printing gold receipts which depositors were then spending as money. The problem is these frequent bank runs caused frequent depressions and recessions in the USA in the 1800s and eventually JP Morgan was asked to bailout the nation and thus he got the control to create a central bank in 1913. Now with central banks, the world has gone for decades without a correction and thus the imbalances are grotesque and going to cause a massive global implosion when they are finally liquidated.

It is my hope that if we replaced Bitcoin with an altcoin that is more immune to cartels such as JP Morgan, then we could return to the frequent private banks corrections of the 1800s and live in a minanarchist free market again. But realize society hates this, because they want insurance which they believe is guarantee against catastrophic failure by sharing risk, but mathematically it is guaranteed SYSTEMIC failure later. See Taleb's Antifragility math.

If you really want to understand the generative essence of the math, you must really understand why "smaller things grow faster". Degrees-of-freedom is potential energy (proof is some where in the above linked thread). Monolithic capital that is static or only knows how to buy a bond or insurance, reduces degrees-of-freedom, i.e. everything can only move monolithically such as the insurance fund manager's investment decisions.


49

How old are you?