Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1314. (Read 2032272 times)

His ranting was particularly unclear on the piece in question.  You are right about that.  I cannot be confident that I understand exactly where he was coming from.  But I am certain that Max in no way meant to indicate that a peg should be implemented in the 'classic' fiat money supply way because it is simply to absurd.  Similarly, any literal interpretation of the 'peg' or 'fix' in terms of on-the-street valuation has to be a joke, but most of you Libertarians went off on a tear without thinking about that.

With luck Keiser will follow up in an entertaining way in one of his outlets.

Hey tv

Looks like the majority don't think that Max was joking :

http://thegenesisblock.com/no-mr-keiser-bitcoin-should-not-peg-itself-to-the-dollar/

There was no "should" regarding simplification in my post. I am a proponent of Litecoin and Ripple in conjunction with Bitcoin, as well as gold - even fiat during transition; nor was mention made of holding gold exclusive of anything else. Additional improvements, such as the potential with proof-of-stake variants, are also constantly being sought. That's about as far from a "One True" anything in my view.

Further, risk cannot be eliminated, only masked or redirected - and reducing complexity does not necessarily affect risk in a direct manner, but it normally makes assessing risk more apparent. Gold in particular has a specialized monetary purpose, no longer as applicable to general use as other solutions are now. However, there are numerous other uses for the metal, similar to how Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies may be used to implement time-stamping, smart property, or identification even without the currency element. Risk may be distributed in differing proportions, but the identity does not change.

To sum: where Bitcoin's form can change, gold's uses can change; risk shifts relative to those forms and uses.

This appears to be a case of dogmatic projection and erroneous reading comprehension. We're in agreement; our differences are semantic.

Perhaps the point of having an "official price" is to let people get away with accounting shenanigans? Or use tax loopholes?

While I generally agree with the concept, I still don't see how it has much to do with using gold as an economic weapon.

No form of wealth is capable of risk management, because wealth has no capacity for thought. Whichever form of wealth is appropriate to counter financial risk at a given time is the one that will protect. All manner of financial instruments have had their day in the sun, and it is gold's turn once again. This is due to gold's broad acceptance and physical properties. Passive options, like gold, are usually the most effective.

Risk also has numerous forms. Gold does not apply to all of them, but it can assist depending on the circumstances - determining what's appropriate for which type of risk comes back to independent, rational thought.

It may help to define risk for the purposes of this discussion. I'm considering it to be any danger or negative outcome, financial or otherwise.

What's happening because of Bitcoin is indeed a shift in understanding, but I think it's more of a subtle realization by the masses that supply and demand of money are both malleable. The choice of crypto over all, including gold, is the simplification of that variability by making one element static (eventually). Historically, the closest analog societies have had to Bitcoin was gold. It's that simple.

On the point of redistributing risk, it seems that Wall Stret has done an expert job of it through manipulation of perceptions toward wealth. Maybe we should call bankers neo-communists?

ahh ok got it

what tv is saying is that he thinks Max was being facetious/sarcastic by proposing a price fix by TBF.  Max is mocking our banking institutions that do that daily in other markets.  

the problem is that the analogy is a poor one on Max's part and there is enough detail and rambling in the original article to make one think he is serious.  or drunk.

LOL you make no sense. So now an official number is useless? When earlier you were saying it was a good idea to implement with the foundation?

Pick a side of the fence and stay on it? lol

I was actually thinking more of LIBOR when I wrote my screed(s), but you are right that I believe PM spot prices to be artificially manipulated as well.

As usually, with enough effort you and I come to an understanding even if we continue to disagree.

well, now that i look at it more closely, he maybe was being sarcastic but he did a poor job of it by drawing the analogies of TBF to Comex/LBMA.  i quickly read all the comments from the actual OP and in Bitcoin Discussion and there were only 2 ppl who think he was being sarcastic.

the other problem here is that you and i look at the gold price totally differently.  i think this selloff is real and the spot price reflects reality.  you, otoh, think it's manipulated.  so right off the bat, you and i have a disconnect.

I think an influential "off-the-market" rate will only work if Bitcoin doesn't need to compete as a currency with fiats anymore(including what I said previously about Feds started to peg dollars to bitcoins), at that point, the rate would simply not matter.

Probably to the extent that he was mocking other institutions.  But just as the other institutions find utility in various types of shenanigans, Bitcoin could as well.  Why not ride along the path paved by the Goldman Sachs types?  They've already done the heavy lifting of buying the regulators and writing the regulations and such.  If it calls extra attention to what a farce our current financial systems are, that's fine by me.

tv,

do u think Max was speaking tongue in cheek?

Hurrah!  One person is starting to get it!

never said that.  those are simple principles that anyone can understand.  but he still thinks crytology=crytography.

An 'official' number is useless, speculators wield way much more power than some of those here would believe.

If a bunch of sheepish bitcoiners start to cautiously follow bitcoin foundation's recommendation on buying/selling, they will soon be overwhelmed by a sudden inlfow of fiats/bitcoins.

the Bitcoin Foundation is not the same as the Comex or LBMA.  there's actual trading going on at the latter.  no one can just "state" or "fix" a price.  and if they tried, the feds won't buy it.

the way i read his article, i think Max was serious.

So you are on the record as believing that Max Keiser does not understand that Bitcoin supply is limited and cannot be printed.  Is that correct?

Not really.  It gives me an 'official' number I can use when I feel compelled to do so and when it serves my interest.

In the same general vein, and as Max points out, it de-couples the exchanges as formal market makers and isolates them from certain hassles that they otherwise might have to deal with.

The 'fix' would likely have little to do with real-world market values, but that is not the goal.  If the Bitcoin Foundation found it of interest to try to mark to market, fine.  If not, that's fine too.  This is just a reflection of every other market in our modern financial system and they all work about the same.

look you raving idiot, do you even understand what you're talking about?  you've said you don't trade so i'll forgive your clear ignorance in forex matters so let me explain.

despite the Chinese pegging the yuan, both the USD and the yuan are still traded on foreign exchanges and succumb to market price pressures.  the Chinese have to follow those prices and print enough yuan to keep the peg.

and you think Keiser is something special just b/c he's a BTC millionaire?  alot of ppl around here fill that bill and "got it" much sooner than he.