Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 637. (Read 2032266 times)

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. 

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/

mostly agree but it's debatable to what degree the payment system needs to evolve.  i could argue it's great just where it's at. especially if Bitcoins destiny is to become the world's reserve currency or daily settlement currency btwn nations.  that's not really my position as i do see a need to increase block size for the masses to transact but perhaps that's all we need to do.

monkeying around with the source code to get tx times down to 1 min or gain absolute anonymity or to facilitate SC speculation might not be necessary for an all out success of Bitcoin.

The phrase "store of value" is almost completely useless because certain goldbugs have ruined it by treating it like some kind of intrinsic magical property.

It's best described as a behavior, or as an emergent property:

If the right conditions are met, a good medium of exchange can also behave as a store of value.

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.

so we have our first hint that we may have a failure in the $DJT which could result in a non-confirmation:

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.
 

Yes.  This may be very positive.
He's probably buying.
Otherwise why the hubbub.

It is perfectly true, the Venn diagram is correct.

But alas mainstream minds cannot grasp the notion of set intersection, they prefer simple discreet binary separation. Good/Bad etc.

Maybe it's the Flouride?

I think it's "funny":

https://i.imgur.com/PdfpxEV.jpg

courtesy of @ThrowAway1d52e8d

Do not use credit cards until you really have to people. I always try to use cash or btc when i do shopping. Still, Btc isn't accepted by most of the sellers then i always ask first and make them aware of bitcoin at least.

MC, Visa, AE... Using those equals killing Bitcoin, anonymousity.

Of course Mastercard wants "transparency".  Not for themselves of course!  No, the details of their internal business will be kept private.  But YOUR daily business will be monitored, data-mined, and controlled by banks and payment processors.

See, it's TRANSPARENT!  Transparent is such a nice word.

At least he barely makes the effort to conceal that mastercard wants to destroy financial privacy.

That's a good word. I've been using "apolitical".

which is btw  the problem I have with Blockstream.

What can I say? I concur with you.

They aim to eliminate cash entirely, be it electronic or not, and move toward a world based on their electronic
payment system. Wow. Every time I hear something like this I wonder how they can be so full of themselves.

".. ensuring greater transparency [...] in the way people live their life..."

"Why somebody need to be anonymous? I certainly don't want somebody mining technology or mining financial services away from my control."

Fuck you Mr. Matthew Driver, you are dangerous.

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

Good thought, and I like where that article is going.

There are many relics from the old way of thinking about things. From the days of gold to fiat, the idea of "backing" became important. Then Bitcoin, analogous to gold, came along with the 21M coin limit. That said loudly to those familiar with gold vs. fiat that "no politician can inflate this at their whim." However, ultimately what matters isn't that there's a hard limit, but that the limit is neutral, as you say, and (as a consequence of neutrality) quite predictable with low inflation.

I say "quite" predictable because if (if!!) there were ever an absolute need to change the issuance schedule, say due to sidechains disrupting mining, it could would only be done in a neutral way since people would freely decide which schedule to adopt so it wouldn't be political. The result would never be chaotic or result in high inflation or the enrichment of some politically connected people at the expense of others. That doesn't sell quite as well as the 21M coin limit (which is sort of false because of mining fees), but since ultimately people just need sound money (neutral money), and we have decades to go between now and then, the nuances should be more appreciated by then, especially when Bitcoin is mainstream and not fighting just to be noticed.

Yes we are in agreement to a large extent. But what "makes sense" is not always what happens, nor can we foresee all the possible issues that might arise and know with certainty, in the dark, that "reworking" will be feasible at all.

But yes, I agree it is more likely than not that bitcoin can be tweaked in some manner or another to fix most problems in a way that is not catastrophic.

There has never been a money supply that has grown at a constant predefined and unchangeable rate, without regard for monetary demand (another mathematical construction that doesn't correspond with gold). That is happening now, not 100 years from now.

But even things that happen 100 years from now can affect the present (or near future), by discounting of expectations.

As for why it is a concern, it is simply that it is structurally different in an unprecedented manner. Again, you may thing it is the greatest thing since sunlight and rainbows, and it may turn out that way, or it may not. Bitcoin is an experiment in progress, and multiple outcomes are possible. If you claim otherwise you are dishonest or deluded.

If you're talking about 100 years from now, sure, that's a new thing. But the idea that this new thing is of any relevance stems from the idea that money supply matters at all. Before that can be seen as any kind of concern, there needs to be a reason why that might be a concern. Otherwise it's no more remarkable than the fact that it's unprecedented that a money system is named "Bitcoin" or that it starts with a B.