+420 on the Dow. wow, somebody's happy about something!
i'm staying clear of that thing.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 614. (Read 2032266 times)
Now imagine if that capital flight one day starts to direct itself into bitcoin (or gold) instead of to another fiat currency as is the norm today.
Yesterday's sell off in bitcoin occurred right when the Russian ruble started to tank. Coincidence? I don't think so. If I were a "Power that Be", and I wanted to discourage a mass flight from the ruble to bitcoin, I would accumulate BTC and then time my dump precisely with the plummeting ruble. This would be easy while the bitcoin market is still miniscule.
i believe it's only for accts over $10M.
That is how it starts. It is essentially a wealth tax, which is unconstitutional in the US but I'm sure SCOTUS will somehow find a way around that by saying this mechanism is not a wealth "tax" per-say but a bank fee (after all individuals don't HAVE to keep $10M in a bank, you could keep that as cash under your mattress. Ignore that fact that every police department in the country would use asset seizure to confiscate that amount of money held outside of the banking system)
but yeah, nowhere good to flee. except...
Reminds me of this meme. Walking away is the power of withdrawing consent.
looks good:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pp4fk/key_points_of_bitlicense_announcement_by_ben/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pp4fk/key_points_of_bitlicense_announcement_by_ben/
convenient place for a double bottom.
Very convenient
(quote from the Wall Observer) 12/29/2014
looks good:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pp4fk/key_points_of_bitlicense_announcement_by_ben/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pp4fk/key_points_of_bitlicense_announcement_by_ben/
convenient place for a double bottom.
The Swiss National Bank (SNB) is imposing an interest rate of –0.25% on sight deposit account balances at the SNB, with the aim of taking the three-month Libor into negative territory. It is thus expanding the target range for the three-month Libor to –0.75% to 0.25% and extending it to its usual width of 1 percentage point. Negative interest will be levied on balances exceeding a given exemption threshold.
http://www.snb.ch/en/mmr/reference/pre_20141218/source/pre_20141218.en.pdf
This is in response to capital flight from Russia with the collapsing currency.
Now imagine if that capital flight one day starts to direct itself into bitcoin (or gold) instead of to another fiat currency as is the norm today.
http://www.snb.ch/en/mmr/reference/pre_20141218/source/pre_20141218.en.pdf
This is in response to capital flight from Russia with the collapsing currency.
Now imagine if that capital flight one day starts to direct itself into bitcoin (or gold) instead of to another fiat currency as is the norm today.
i believe it's only for accts over $10M.
but yeah, nowhere good to flee. except...
The Swiss National Bank (SNB) is imposing an interest rate of –0.25% on sight deposit account balances at the SNB, with the aim of taking the three-month Libor into negative territory. It is thus expanding the target range for the three-month Libor to –0.75% to 0.25% and extending it to its usual width of 1 percentage point. Negative interest will be levied on balances exceeding a given exemption threshold.
http://www.snb.ch/en/mmr/reference/pre_20141218/source/pre_20141218.en.pdf
This is in response to capital flight from Russia with the collapsing currency.
Now imagine if that capital flight one day starts to direct itself into bitcoin (or gold) instead of to another fiat currency as is the norm today.
http://www.snb.ch/en/mmr/reference/pre_20141218/source/pre_20141218.en.pdf
This is in response to capital flight from Russia with the collapsing currency.
Now imagine if that capital flight one day starts to direct itself into bitcoin (or gold) instead of to another fiat currency as is the norm today.
We believe that the weakness in U.S. equity and debt markets stems from a more fundamental problem than concerns about future growth, namely that investors are once again starting to seriously question the disclosure from the largest banks and investment houses regarding their credit exposure to highly leveraged borrowers. This concern is evidenced by weakness in the equity market valuations of lenders with exposure to the oil sector as well as the recent changes in the relative position of spreads in the U.S.bond markets.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-18/outlook-2015-deflation-remains-dominant-theme
Deflation. yep.
all good for Bitcoin.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-18/outlook-2015-deflation-remains-dominant-theme
Deflation. yep.
all good for Bitcoin.
The problem that a free society is so effective that it grows government and in steps the saviors who now promise to solve all your problems.
5% turns into 10%. More problems arise and so it needs to grow even more to help you solve your new problems. 5% is soon 50% and the choke hold is now so strong it grows itself into death.
My guess is that the only sustainable amount of government is 0%
5% turns into 10%. More problems arise and so it needs to grow even more to help you solve your new problems. 5% is soon 50% and the choke hold is now so strong it grows itself into death.
My guess is that the only sustainable amount of government is 0%
The government gaining access to a free guaranteed funding mechanism 100 years ago is what enabled 2-3% to become 50%.
Take away that free guaranteed funding mechanism and it's quite likely that 50% will approach near zero again. It is no coincidence that the modern massive government & social services model of western governments came into being after they broke gold and established fiat money. It is important to remember that the modern era is a historic anomaly, most of history has existed under much smaller governments than we have today.
looks good:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pp4fk/key_points_of_bitlicense_announcement_by_ben/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pp4fk/key_points_of_bitlicense_announcement_by_ben/
Qualitatively just about what I predicted. Imagine that.
I like #7's 'slash' record keeping down to 7 years. That kind of boxes the timeframe within which the next shoe will drop I'd say, though I'd expected it within half that time. Depends on how fast native Bitcoin can be brought to the street, and whether Gavin can get his exponential growth stuff in place.
My prediction: NY will go surprisingly easy and their policies will foster more mainstream use of native Bitcoin.
The underlying reason for such a policy will be that the more mainstream use there is, the more effective black-listing/white-listing and forced declarations will be when (not if) they chose to mandate it as an element of licensing and probably eventually for general use.
The underlying reason for such a policy will be that the more mainstream use there is, the more effective black-listing/white-listing and forced declarations will be when (not if) they chose to mandate it as an element of licensing and probably eventually for general use.
Please forgive me, but is this not just a bit naive in that it discounts the influence of the corporations for whom Bitcoin presents a challenge to their profit model? Bitcoin is (at least) a disruptive technology that drives away the cost and friction of financial transactions. NY is heavy with corporations that make all their wealth from creating and managing that friction. Some of these even build skyscrapers.
Do we imagine that these companies are not the driving influence for the anti-innovation pro-centralization regulation efforts there and that instead it is government doing this "on its own"? The heads of government institutions in charge of dealing with Bitcoin, when asked by the US Senate "What new laws do you need?" answered "None, Sir. We are doing quite well with the existing laws."
The regulations are not for the benefit of government. The origin is anti-competitive.
Connect the dots, draw the timelines. Here are a few of them:
Nov '13:
http://www.coindesk.com/senate-bitcoin-hearing-legitimacy-challenges-virtual-currencies/
April '14
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/204733-mastercard-lobbying-on-bitcoin
July '14
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/07/17/ny-financial-regulator-releases-draft-of-bitlicense-for-bitcoin-businesses/
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” - Sun Tsu
I think rocks suggestion is more reasonable.
The first proposition was a slap to the face with such over-reaching regulations that whatever would be put in effect in the revised draft would seem "softer". It is much easier to reign in firms with a softer stance and then slowly but surely tighten the reins.
If they go along with the outrageous models suggested in the first draft then most Bitcoin companies will simply forbid NY users from accessing their service and ignore the regulations. If that happens then Lawsky & his team will find themselves in all sort of legal shitstorm for infringing all kind of NY state customer protection laws. This will simply result in encouraging use of "dark" markets and unregulated exchanges which is certainly not "desirable" from the point of view of the regulators.
My prediction: NY will go surprisingly easy and their policies will foster more mainstream use of native Bitcoin.
The underlying reason for such a policy will be that the more mainstream use there is, the more effective black-listing/white-listing and forced declarations will be when (not if) they chose to mandate it as an element of licensing and probably eventually for general use.
The underlying reason for such a policy will be that the more mainstream use there is, the more effective black-listing/white-listing and forced declarations will be when (not if) they chose to mandate it as an element of licensing and probably eventually for general use.
Please forgive me, but is this not just a bit naive in that it discounts the influence of the corporations for whom Bitcoin presents a challenge to their profit model? Bitcoin is (at least) a disruptive technology that drives away the cost and friction of financial transactions. NY is heavy with corporations that make all their wealth from creating and managing that friction. Some of these even build skyscrapers.
Do we imagine that these companies are not the driving influence for the anti-innovation pro-centralization regulation efforts there and that instead it is government doing this "on its own"? The heads of government institutions in charge of dealing with Bitcoin, when asked by the US Senate "What new laws do you need?" answered "None, Sir. We are doing quite well with the existing laws."
The regulations are not for the benefit of government. The origin is anti-competitive.
Connect the dots, draw the timelines. Here are a few of them:
Nov '13:
http://www.coindesk.com/senate-bitcoin-hearing-legitimacy-challenges-virtual-currencies/
April '14
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/204733-mastercard-lobbying-on-bitcoin
July '14
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/07/17/ny-financial-regulator-releases-draft-of-bitlicense-for-bitcoin-businesses/
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” - Sun Tsu
The question I suppose is how much communism is too much? 15%, 30%, clearly 100% is fatal, and anything more than 50% is probably also terminally toxic.
How much cancer is terminal?Are just a few couple metastatic cells ok?
Yes, this is the right question. Government/state (organised violence) is per se growing rampant. This is the difference between the society (collectivism) vs. the community (anarchy/autarchy).
Quote
There is a growing body of evidence that bigger government means slower growth of real GDP. Once the level of total government spending as a percentage of GDP reaches a tipping point, estimated to be from 15 percent to 25 percent of GDP, additional expansion crowds out private productive investment and slows economic growth. When government overreaches, economic freedom is diminished and private exchange opportunities are lost — that is, the range of choices open to individuals is restricted.
This is hardly a revelation, most of the communist economic experiements of the last century have demonstrated this is abundance (well total lack of abundance). The question I suppose is how much communism is too much? 15%, 30%, clearly 100% is fatal, and anything more than 50% is probably also terminally toxic. Optimally operating economies seem to have around 5-10% govt. share of GDP but it also depends on strong justice and legal systems for protection of individual freedoms.
The problem that a free society is so effective that it grows government and in steps the saviors who now promise to solve all your problems.
5% turns into 10%. More problems arise and so it needs to grow even more to help you solve your new problems. 5% is soon 50% and the choke hold is now so strong it grows itself into death.
My guess is that the only sustainable amount of government is 0%
My prediction: NY will go surprisingly easy and their policies will foster more mainstream use of native Bitcoin.
The underlying reason for such a policy will be that the more mainstream use there is, the more effective black-listing/white-listing and forced declarations will be when (not if) they chose to mandate it as an element of licensing and probably eventually for general use.
The underlying reason for such a policy will be that the more mainstream use there is, the more effective black-listing/white-listing and forced declarations will be when (not if) they chose to mandate it as an element of licensing and probably eventually for general use.
...blockchain.info not affected but certainly Circle and CB affected.
I think that'll be a really interesting question. I agree that blockchain.info *shouldn't* be affected, since all they do is deliver client-side tools, and offer a hosting service for user-encrypted files, but I'm very skeptical that a regulator (or a judge) will understand that.their ignorance in these matters is almost guaranteed, people are betting on it in effect.
The more they draw the lines the easier it will be to see how to straddle, side-step or tunnel under them.
Time-locked, multi-sig with an untrusted 3rd party and 2FA? Huh?
...blockchain.info not affected but certainly Circle and CB affected.
I think that'll be a really interesting question. I agree that blockchain.info *shouldn't* be affected, since all they do is deliver client-side tools, and offer a hosting service for user-encrypted files, but I'm very skeptical that a regulator (or a judge) will understand that.
i agree with the above and is what i meant. blockchain.info not affected but certainly Circle and CB affected.
NY will go right down the middle.
users, merchants, software devs, online wallets, and miners not affected. exchanges and money transmitters heavily regulated as originally outlined.
users, merchants, software devs, online wallets, and miners not affected. exchanges and money transmitters heavily regulated as originally outlined.
I think online wallets *will* be affected, at least from a consumer-protection regs standpoint (which is a lot of it).
Where it's gonna get difficult is defining things like multisig custody, or crypto-software delivery services like blockchain.info.
Jump to: