RUT failing to make a new high:
$DJT failing?:
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 636. (Read 2032266 times)
definitely some charts to watch:
RUT failing to make a new high:
$DJT failing?:
RUT failing to make a new high:
$DJT failing?:
no wonder they're scared. i'd be too:
Quite amazing that the price remains so stagnant.
This thing will blow up the moment we get any momentum
no wonder they're scared. i'd be too:
Our task to fight them, we are doing well.
I propose not to fight (just makes them stronger), but to transcend them.
i wonder if the two Voorhees are related?
"Whatever happens, the logic now is for the issues raised in the von NotHaus case to be pursued in the political arena. We are coming up on the 50th anniversary of the Coinage Act of 1965, which stripped silver from our common coinage. President Lyndon Johnson, who signed the bill into law, called it ‘the first fundamental change in our coinage in 173 years.’ He noted that during that nearly two-century span our coinage of dimes, quarters, half dollars, and dollars have contained 90 percent silver.’
“‘The new dimes and the new quarters will contain no silver,’ the president confessed. ‘They will be composites, with faces of the same alloy used in our 5-cent piece that is bonded to a core of pure copper.’ That is how the debasement began, though LBJ did issue a warning. ‘If anybody has any idea of hoarding our silver coins, let me say this. Treasury has a lot of silver on hand, and it can be, and it will be used to keep the price of silver in line with its value in our present silver coin.’
“It was a vain boast. At the time, the value of the dollar was more than two-thirds of an ounce of silver, as it was in 1792. By January 1980, the value of a dollar plunged to less than a 49th of an ounce of silver and even today has regained nowhere near its historic value. It is a shocking abdication by the United States Congress, a point that von NotHaus has thrown into sharper relief than any monetary gadfly has managed to do in years. That is no small achievement.”
http://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/nothaus-liberty-dollar-sentencing-013/
"Whatever happens, the logic now is for the issues raised in the von NotHaus case to be pursued in the political arena. We are coming up on the 50th anniversary of the Coinage Act of 1965, which stripped silver from our common coinage. President Lyndon Johnson, who signed the bill into law, called it ‘the first fundamental change in our coinage in 173 years.’ He noted that during that nearly two-century span our coinage of dimes, quarters, half dollars, and dollars have contained 90 percent silver.’
“‘The new dimes and the new quarters will contain no silver,’ the president confessed. ‘They will be composites, with faces of the same alloy used in our 5-cent piece that is bonded to a core of pure copper.’ That is how the debasement began, though LBJ did issue a warning. ‘If anybody has any idea of hoarding our silver coins, let me say this. Treasury has a lot of silver on hand, and it can be, and it will be used to keep the price of silver in line with its value in our present silver coin.’
“It was a vain boast. At the time, the value of the dollar was more than two-thirds of an ounce of silver, as it was in 1792. By January 1980, the value of a dollar plunged to less than a 49th of an ounce of silver and even today has regained nowhere near its historic value. It is a shocking abdication by the United States Congress, a point that von NotHaus has thrown into sharper relief than any monetary gadfly has managed to do in years. That is no small achievement.”
http://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/nothaus-liberty-dollar-sentencing-013/
Then spake the judge, sentencing von NotHaus to but six months of home detention, to run concurrently with three years of probation.
AND he got all $7M of silver back.
The judge has to slap his wrist because the coin unfortunately DOES look quite official. But its hard to find criminal intent when the "counterfeit" coin's melt value was greater than its denominated face value (assuming you make the mistake of thinking the "dollars" on the coin refer to USD).
The prosecution was asking for 14+ years and 16000 lbs of silver, which exemplifies one of the key problems with the US justice system. The govt prosecutors are incapable of saying "ok we made our point. We've brought clarity to exactly what counterfeiting is, but clearly this situation is nothing like printing $100 bills on spare paper." Instead they go after this guy with everything they've got like he's public enemy #1.
Our task to fight them, we are doing well.
it's not just ridiculous, it's dangerous.
yeah. it just goes to show you how far down the totalitarian rabbit hole these guys have gone. really scary shit.
Rickards still not getting it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpYlc5oftM0
the arguments against his 2 main concerns are that Bitcoin may not forever be considered "property" subject to capital gains. see Stockman's bill. also Jim, dump the FUD about Bitcoiner's being tax evaders. i paid mine.
yes, Bitcoin hasn't been tested in a major economic wide downturn. but it is holding in there in its own economic downturn over the last year since gox. and we're still seeing worldwide growth, investment, and adoption. these are all positives. in fact, i think there's a good chance in the next economic downturn, we'll see a Cyprus-like RunToBitcoin as the only remaining form of Sound Money on the planet. mark my words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpYlc5oftM0
the arguments against his 2 main concerns are that Bitcoin may not forever be considered "property" subject to capital gains. see Stockman's bill. also Jim, dump the FUD about Bitcoiner's being tax evaders. i paid mine.
yes, Bitcoin hasn't been tested in a major economic wide downturn. but it is holding in there in its own economic downturn over the last year since gox. and we're still seeing worldwide growth, investment, and adoption. these are all positives. in fact, i think there's a good chance in the next economic downturn, we'll see a Cyprus-like RunToBitcoin as the only remaining form of Sound Money on the planet. mark my words.
I second both points (bolded).
It might also be 'the awakening' for some gold/silver bugs
. But that has a lower probability.Mastercard head of SE Asia goes all out with every myth, stereotype and piece of FUD he could possibly fit into 4.30 of attacking bitcoin.
This is scripted propaganda and it is excellent to watch. It really shows how worried they are that they have to make such an anti bitcoin informerci that can easily be taken apart. The part about what their core business is shows just how stupid they think their customers are
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=bO4jHXjCXw8
This is scripted propaganda and it is excellent to watch. It really shows how worried they are that they have to make such an anti bitcoin informerci that can easily be taken apart. The part about what their core business is shows just how stupid they think their customers are
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=bO4jHXjCXw8
This is sickening!
I see this as primarily a message to government officials: we'll help you collect taxes, apply capital controls and 'financial transparency' to your population so you can keep control. In turn you better start regulatorily strangling those goddamn cryptocurrencies!
A direct attack on human rights (imo) like financial privacy and freedom of economic interaction. Those things should be valued much higher than the governments ability to collect taxes or spy on their constituencies.
yep, totally ridiculous. the good thing is he twisted himself all up in knots and hypocrisies which to any intelligent person was laughable.
it's not just ridiculous, it's dangerous. The sad thing is: a lot of people around me are so fucking mind-controlled that they buy into this kind of rethoric and turn a blind eye to the consequences going down such a path could have. Next thing they call me a potential criminal with something to hide for wanting privacy. The sad thing is that I'm seeing tendencies in myself to self-censor because I'm growing sick of having those discussions with people.
The problem is that many people are not intelligent (at least not by your standard), but they (as anyone else) have fears and are prone to propaganda.
I feel we're coming to a crossroads. We go down one path and there's freedom and prosperity for most, we go down the other one and there's oppression and suffering for almost everyone (well, maybe not, maybe it'll be kind of enjoyable because we're going to be so damn brainwashed that we don't even realize what's being done to us and how our lives could be different)
Rickards still not getting it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpYlc5oftM0
the arguments against his 2 main concerns are that Bitcoin may not forever be considered "property" subject to capital gains. see Stockman's bill. also Jim, dump the FUD about Bitcoiner's being tax evaders. i paid mine.
yes, Bitcoin hasn't been tested in a major economic wide downturn. but it is holding in there in its own economic downturn over the last year since gox. and we're still seeing worldwide growth, investment, and adoption. these are all positives. in fact, i think there's a good chance in the next economic downturn, we'll see a Cyprus-like RunToBitcoin as the only remaining form of Sound Money on the planet. mark my words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpYlc5oftM0
the arguments against his 2 main concerns are that Bitcoin may not forever be considered "property" subject to capital gains. see Stockman's bill. also Jim, dump the FUD about Bitcoiner's being tax evaders. i paid mine.
yes, Bitcoin hasn't been tested in a major economic wide downturn. but it is holding in there in its own economic downturn over the last year since gox. and we're still seeing worldwide growth, investment, and adoption. these are all positives. in fact, i think there's a good chance in the next economic downturn, we'll see a Cyprus-like RunToBitcoin as the only remaining form of Sound Money on the planet. mark my words.
Mastercard head of SE Asia goes all out with every myth, stereotype and piece of FUD he could possibly fit into 4.30 of attacking bitcoin.
This is scripted propaganda and it is excellent to watch. It really shows how worried they are that they have to make such an anti bitcoin informerci that can easily be taken apart. The part about what their core business is shows just how stupid they think their customers are
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=bO4jHXjCXw8
This is scripted propaganda and it is excellent to watch. It really shows how worried they are that they have to make such an anti bitcoin informerci that can easily be taken apart. The part about what their core business is shows just how stupid they think their customers are
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=bO4jHXjCXw8
This is sickening!
I see this as primarily a message to government officials: we'll help you collect taxes, apply capital controls and 'financial transparency' to your population so you can keep control. In turn you better start regulatorily strangling those goddamn cryptocurrencies!
A direct attack on human rights (imo) like financial privacy and freedom of economic interaction. Those things should be valued much higher than the governments ability to collect taxes or spy on their constituencies.
yep, totally ridiculous. the good thing is he twisted himself all up in knots and hypocrisies which to any intelligent person was laughable.
Mastercard head of SE Asia goes all out with every myth, stereotype and piece of FUD he could possibly fit into 4.30 of attacking bitcoin.
This is scripted propaganda and it is excellent to watch. It really shows how worried they are that they have to make such an anti bitcoin informerci that can easily be taken apart. The part about what their core business is shows just how stupid they think their customers are
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=bO4jHXjCXw8
This is scripted propaganda and it is excellent to watch. It really shows how worried they are that they have to make such an anti bitcoin informerci that can easily be taken apart. The part about what their core business is shows just how stupid they think their customers are
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=bO4jHXjCXw8
This is sickening!
I see this as primarily a message to government officials: we'll help you collect taxes, apply capital controls and 'financial transparency' to your population so you can keep control. In turn you better start regulatorily strangling those goddamn cryptocurrencies!
A direct attack on human rights (imo) like financial privacy and freedom of economic interaction. Those things should be valued much higher than the governments ability to collect taxes or spy on their constituencies.
This I can agree with but that's not exactly what your previous statement said
Does the payment system make BTC potentially more valuable than other comparable store of value (gold)?
Sure, but gold itself is a great example of a SOV with a very limited payment function that is still relatively successful because of its sound money functions.
If you argue that the payment system is what will make BTC mainstream, beyond the sound money property, then yes I would tend to agree.
Quote
That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable.
Does the payment system make BTC potentially more valuable than other comparable store of value (gold)?
Sure, but gold itself is a great example of a SOV with a very limited payment function that is still relatively successful because of its sound money functions.
If you argue that the payment system is what will make BTC mainstream, beyond the sound money property, then yes I would tend to agree.
Yes that is what I was trying to say.
BTW although gold has a very limited payment function, that payment function was the best function available at the time it was used, and it did work pretty well. With gold and silver coins someone could simultaneously carry enough to live for a year and also have small enough denominations to pay for dinner. That is pretty functional and was good enough for a time, but not as functional as dollars, and definitely not as functional as Bitcoin.
how do you explain gold's SOV function while not having any real payment usage?
Gold most definitely has a payment function, it was physical transfer of coins and bars. A payment system that lasted off and on for millennium. Even in the 1800s in many areas of the US people would only accept gold or silver coins/bars as payment, and it took some time for the population to become comfortable with paper dollars. That is a payment function for gold.
Where do you think the English phrase "In cold hard cash" comes from. It is from people demanding the real payment function of physical coins/bars, not from people demanding paper notes.
The "technology" innovation of dollars vs gold was that initially dollars were tokens exchangeable for gold (actually silver, the thaler). Gradually over time this link has been progressively severed through force of law by the primary beneficiary of the dollar issuance.
The frogs have been thoroughly boiled, all that is left is to see how many meals can be made of our meat.
The frogs have been thoroughly boiled, all that is left is to see how many meals can be made of our meat.
instead of innovation, maybe we should call it "bait and switch"?
What NL stated was the false promise given to people to make them comfortable with using paper dollars (the bait and switch). Otherwise many people would not have trusted dollars and continued to demand physical coins (in cold hard cash). Even with the government's false promise many still continued to use coins, which made FDR's executive order necessary.
That said, the payment function for dollars IS better than the payment function for gold, which I believe is why dollars won.
With gold you are limited to in-person physical transfers. This is very limited so we did have bank notes that people could transfer, but people understood bank notes were not the real thing and they could and did break promises all the time.
Comparatively the FED dollar ledger is a superior payment function over gold. With the dollar ledger physical transfer is no longer necessary, banks can move the ledger across oceans as fast as they can move information, this is much more useful than gold coins. And a big plus for most people were dollars were guaranteed by the FED and there was little risk of dollars defaulting (since after FDR's default dollars were only backed by themselves).
The point is gold has a superior SOV function, but I believe dollars "won" because they DO have a superior payment function. SOV alone is not enough, again Rai stones are superior to gold in SOV, but that does them no good since the payment function is very poor.
Bitcoin has a superior payment function over dollars PLUS a superior SOV function over dollars (and gold). It is the ability to easily transfer value that makes a SOV system valuable.
The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.
We are in agreement, this is also why most of bitcoin's earliest adopters are those who were already looking for a sound money alternative with independent control of the money supply.
That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.
This is the fiat money as a technology invention argument on why dollars beat gold, better payment functionality makes a given money system more used, which in turn makes it more valuable. The fact that bitcoin's payment functions are superior to fiat is what makes the project have a fighting chance.
The "technology" innovation of dollars vs gold was that initially dollars were tokens exchangeable for gold (actually silver, the thaler). Gradually over time this link has been progressively severed through force of law by the primary beneficiary of the dollar issuance.
The frogs have been thoroughly boiled, all that is left is to see how many meals can be made of our meat.
instead of innovation, maybe we should call it "bait and switch"?
The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.
We are in agreement, this is also why most of bitcoin's earliest adopters are those who were already looking for a sound money alternative with independent control of the money supply.
That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.
This is the fiat money as a technology invention argument on why dollars beat gold, better payment functionality makes a given money system more used, which in turn makes it more valuable. The fact that bitcoin's payment functions are superior to fiat is what makes the project have a fighting chance.
The "technology" innovation of dollars vs gold was that initially dollars were tokens exchangeable for gold (actually silver, the thaler). Gradually over time this link has been progressively severed through force of law by the primary beneficiary of the dollar issuance.
The frogs have been thoroughly boiled, all that is left is to see how many meals can be made of our meat.
the US should be feeling the pressure not only for the exchange business but in mining:
Huobi CMO Du Jun: “Bitcoin use…in China will continue to increase in the foreseeable future”
http://thecoinfront.com/huobi-cmo-du-jun-bitcoin-use-in-china-will-continue-to-increase-in-the-foreseeable-future/
Huobi CMO Du Jun: “Bitcoin use…in China will continue to increase in the foreseeable future”
http://thecoinfront.com/huobi-cmo-du-jun-bitcoin-use-in-china-will-continue-to-increase-in-the-foreseeable-future/
The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.
We are in agreement, this is also why most of bitcoin's earliest adopters are those who were already looking for a sound money alternative with independent control of the money supply.
That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.
This is the fiat money as a technology invention argument on why dollars beat gold, better payment functionality makes a given money system more used, which in turn makes it more valuable. The fact that bitcoin's payment functions are superior to fiat is what makes the project have a fighting chance.
I'm not sure I agree here, this seems backward to me. The payment or remittance function is only useful if people value the SOV aspect.
Bitcoin has a fighting chance because of its unique monetary policies and its "sound money" function, not because of its payment system.
What if Bitcoin's payment system was significantly more limited (for example let's say a payment took weeks because of the crypto or both parties had to be physically present). Bitcoin would still have the fixed 21M supply, but do you think it would be widely used if that were the case? Probably not. And without being widely used those 21M wouldn't have much value.
What about Rai stones? They perfectly achieve the store of value function, but since payments are a tad difficult that system did not exactly take off, which in turn limits the total stored value.
My point was simply that the more useful the payment function is found to be, the more people use it, which in turn increases the total value of the system.So I thank payment functionality goes hand in hand with store of value functionality, not necessarily one driving the other.
Many of Bitcoin's early adopters were drawn to the store of value function and sound money principles, but if we see wider adoption it will be due to the usefulness of the payment functionality of Bitcoin. It's likely a majority in the US today disagree with Bitcoin's fixed supply nature and believe the government needs to "adjust" supply to "grow with" the economy. This wrong, but probably 95% of the people I know believe it anyway. They will join Bitcoin for payment functionality first, then benefit from sound money principals as they adopt it.
This I can agree with but that's not exactly what your previous statement said
Quote
That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable.
Does the payment system make BTC potentially more valuable than other comparable store of value (gold)?
Sure, but gold itself is a great example of a SOV with a very limited payment function that is still relatively successful because of its sound money functions.
If you argue that the payment system is what will make BTC mainstream, beyond the sound money property, then yes I would tend to agree.
The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.
We are in agreement, this is also why most of bitcoin's earliest adopters are those who were already looking for a sound money alternative with independent control of the money supply.
That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.
This is the fiat money as a technology invention argument on why dollars beat gold, better payment functionality makes a given money system more used, which in turn makes it more valuable. The fact that bitcoin's payment functions are superior to fiat is what makes the project have a fighting chance.
I'm not sure I agree here, this seems backward to me. The payment or remittance function is only useful if people value the SOV aspect.
Bitcoin has a fighting chance because of its unique monetary policies and its "sound money" function, not because of its payment system.
What if Bitcoin's payment system was significantly more limited (for example let's say a payment took weeks because of the crypto or both parties had to be physically present). Bitcoin would still have the fixed 21M supply, but do you think it would be widely used if that were the case? Probably not. And without being widely used those 21M wouldn't have much value.
What about Rai stones? They perfectly achieve the store of value function, but since payments are a tad difficult that system did not exactly take off, which in turn limits the total stored value.
My point was simply that the more useful the payment function is found to be, the more people use it, which in turn increases the total value of the system. So I think payment functionality goes hand in hand with store of value functionality, not necessarily one driving the other.
Many of Bitcoin's early adopters were drawn to the store of value function and sound money principles, but if we see wider adoption it will be due to the usefulness of the payment functionality of Bitcoin. It's likely a majority in the US today disagree with Bitcoin's fixed supply nature and believe the government needs to "adjust" supply to "grow with" the economy. This wrong, but probably 95% of the people I know believe it anyway. They will join Bitcoin for payment functionality first, then benefit from sound money principals as they adopt it.
how do you explain gold's SOV function while not having any real payment usage?
The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.
We are in agreement, this is also why most of bitcoin's earliest adopters are those who were already looking for a sound money alternative with independent control of the money supply.
That said bitcoin's payment or remittance functions are what make the store of value function valuable. The more useful the payment functions are and are used the more valuable the store of value function becomes. Imagine bitcoin with no payment function but the same store of value function, yes the store of value function would work and remain fixed, but it wouldn't be valued very much.
This is the fiat money as a technology invention argument on why dollars beat gold, better payment functionality makes a given money system more used, which in turn makes it more valuable. The fact that bitcoin's payment functions are superior to fiat is what makes the project have a fighting chance.
I'm not sure I agree here, this seems backward to me. The payment or remittance function is only useful if people value the SOV aspect.
Bitcoin has a fighting chance because of its unique monetary policies and its "sound money" function, not because of its payment system.
What if Bitcoin's payment system was significantly more limited (for example let's say a payment took weeks because of the crypto or both parties had to be physically present). Bitcoin would still have the fixed 21M supply, but do you think it would be widely used if that were the case? Probably not. And without being widely used those 21M wouldn't have much value.
What about Rai stones? They perfectly achieve the store of value function, but since payments are a tad difficult that system did not exactly take off, which in turn limits the total stored value.
My point was simply that the more useful the payment function is found to be, the more people use it, which in turn increases the total value of the system. So I think payment functionality goes hand in hand with store of value functionality, not necessarily one driving the other.
Many of Bitcoin's early adopters were drawn to the store of value function and sound money principles, but if we see wider adoption it will be due to the usefulness of the payment functionality of Bitcoin. It's likely a majority in the US today disagree with Bitcoin's fixed supply nature and believe the government needs to "adjust" supply to "grow with" the economy. This wrong, but probably 95% of the people I know believe it anyway. They will join Bitcoin for payment functionality first, then benefit from sound money principals as they adopt it.
Jump to: