Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1226. (Read 2032266 times)

1) I thought I saw bankers influence in undertones (porno guy discussing Bitcoin with central bankers) and in general the presentations today seemed unfounded in fact.

2) on reflection Bernanke called Bitcoin an innovation in low cost payments (he knows it's a financial redistribution virus) and he went on to say he doesn't have the authority to regulate it - reading between the lines he stopped short of saying - he doesn't have the authority to regulate it yet. Implying law enforcement need to OK this for now.

3) yes that was very nice to see.

3) Schumer Shasky sounded like she was on the Bitcoin payroll today not nearly as confident and prepared as yesterday. All in all she was the highlight of the hearing.

I would be very interested to learn the particulars of eleuthria's political naivete.  He has been quite good on network decentralization issues I feel.

In fact re the USA Law Enforcement its well documented that agencies would not work together (they essentially compete for the big bust, that gets your agency the funding) and that individual agents would not share their case files with others for the same reason (big busts -> promotion).  This is one reason they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age.

seems to me that those banks would have taken the opportunity to really hammer home alot of negative implications during these very hearings.

also, why would Bernanke come out yesterday with the positive comment on Bitcoin?

not to mention, Schumer got on the band wagon today inexplicably and flat out said he doesn't want to ban Bitcoin. 

What pool you with Adrian-X ?

This accounts for much of the speculative value today, given the binary nature of Bitcoin. (And by no means is the writing on the wall.)

But after today's hearing the presentations didn't seem as well prepared. And I felt no definitive understand was reached.

My expectation is the powers that be saw no pillar of strength in Bitcoin and we'll see resistance from the tentacles of the existing power structure managed through the central banks.   

i haven't had a chance to rewatch today's hearings but i recall the very first words out of Senator Warren's mouth at the beginning was along the lines that Bitcoin has the potential to profoundly change the entire financial and monetary system with huge implications for taxes, the reserve currency status, and the like.  they're starting to put it together.

the one thing we're witnessing though is the parabolic move in the price which is a helpful indicator of what's going on at the hive mind level.  it's happening quicker than most of us thought.  we almost hit $1000 yesterday.  i think we will go back up and clear that level sometime soon.  after that it'll be gold parity and that fact alone will rock the world.  we're close.  then again, it's only 2013.  the 10 yr plan puts us out to 2020 if things move along at the Internet adoption speed but maybe we're moving even faster than we did back then b/c we're talking about a new form of money.

don't forget i got the "we've got to get moving" thing from you.   and i happen to wholeheartedly agree.  even when ppl "get it" it takes them time to act.  Bitcoin is so foreign and new that it will cause them to pause.  these things tend to come in waves.  i convinced 2 of my friends last Spring to buy as the ramp began.  we topped @ 266 and crashed.  did they buy more?  NO.  and what did i hear all this past week?  whining about how they wished they'd bought more.  that's just how ppl act even after they've made an initial commitment.

yes, the timing of all this is debatable but all you have to know is that it's going in the right direction.

I've raised this exact point myself. I call it the collectivist fallacy, and it's one most libertarians fall into. Once this misconception is cleared away it becomes apparent that Bitcoin won't necessarily encounter much resistance from petty bureaucrats as it doesn't directly affect them, or at least it won't seem to them that it will be able to affect them by the time they leave office.

Nevertheless, there are powerful people who do see sound money as a direct threat, and they would see Bitcoin as a threat if only they understood it AND believed there was a decent chance it could take over. The ECB report and others suggest at least some of them see the threat. But do they understand how clear and present it is? Maybe they are too slow to care, but if they did understand they only have two options that I can see: 1) Attempt to suppress it, or 2) Buy in massively.

As a miner I realised I gave my power to the pool and my pool owner is IMO a simpleton on these political issues.

P2pool seems a little more reliable so it isn't all doom and gloom.

What I concluded was you want old coins as it is the old coins that vote with there spending power. In effect they keep the stability of the network safe. A fork gives old coins serious double spending ability and provide a motive to maintain the Status quo would it not?

I distinctly remember a couple of them saying basically "as this becomes more prevalent"  not directly in the context of becoming the reserve currency.

I think she is neutral.  She just wants to do her job well.

She is pro Bitcoin it makes here job way easier, it puts the responsibility of identifying criminal public key holders on all levels of law enforcement.  Today I wish she would have held her toung and just corrected fud.

cypherdoc,

There are many levels to "getting it." The crypto part is fine to just understand as magic, and "can't print it" is nice given the recent anti-banker sentiment, but most of the US and the world still believe that deflation is disastrous, for example.

Now I've heard some theories that the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, etc. actually understand Austrian economics simply because they've been at the money printing game for so long and were bankrolling Keynes and the general mainstream corruption of economics as a science. But even so, why give up their power so easily? They obviously haven't bought in yet or else the price would be a lot higher...unless they're doing it right now. Buying in a major way would be the only way to preserve the level of power they now enjoy, so I can only conclude that very few of them understand the full implications.

And even if they grokked the implications, they'd probably be like most people and assume it will fail, due a lack of understanding of antifragility, emergent order, open source, etc. I just don't think that many people will get this so quickly due to the sheer number of subjects they have to master.

The main thing: if a sizable portion of the government and power elite were really privy to the full extent of what is happening and the likelihood that it really will happen, the price would be a lot higher now than it is. I can't see the world's most powerful people greenlighting or being comfortable with this thing until they've bought in. Maybe we're witnessing soe of the elites jumping in and pulling strings in an effort to outcompete the rest.

well now, that's interesting.

still so much confusion in the comments.

Wtf, only "can" and "if"?

Give me a call when he says: "will" and "when".

for a while there they were more like "as" not "if"

electrifying stuff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35r9VHUblVM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Wtf? Is Mike maloney coming around? I thought he'd be one of the last ones.

My "most-awesome" reward of today goes to Warner, for implying bitcoin could become the world reserve currency   .

yeah, as much as i've been hammering about how they understand it, man, it was painful watching Shassky take a dive on the "cryptology" and private key part.