Topic: Governments and banks are using you - page 4. (Read 1862 times)

Realist, you sure do have a stark view of things. Very sobering thoughts. I do especially like your coined term of "cognitive dissonance" . It fits well within Maslows hierarchy of needs. The avg being can handle only so much part by design and part by evolution. I admit I do get a case of that, when discussions about dark matter, black holes and time warps occur. So I think many choose to dissociate from such topics when the fear of the unknown is that great.

Most people have no concept of the true meaning of freedom, let alone how it relates to their finances.  Not only that, if one tries to teach them they'll resort to cognitive dissonance and call you a "conspiracy theorist" or some other stupid slur.

I don't know this kind of things, nut the OP open up my mind to this possiblity if it truly exist or not. Too many altcoins and it is posible that every country will create a coin that will be owned by a government in the back of it they will only make some ordinary people to handle .so that the people won't knew its for government.

Central banks and the private banks that control their stock do all of the thinking and then lobbying to governments to follow suit.  It doesn't matter that governments are mindless drones in this case.  If you believe that these new cryptos need a large, "natural" market share, you give too much credit to the average person in their thinking.

i agree bank can issue a coin but it will not decentralized
they are not watching if they can make it they already made it
bitcoin is already more than 8 years and still a lot of room to grow
when i start in bitcoin i also think that it will never last but until now bitcoin price keep growing
and it leave permanent emotional scars in me because i didint buy a lot when the price is still low

New cryptos, like from Goldman Sachs, have a patent.  It may not mean anything to someone that truly understands cryptos, but it will be perceived as something important to someone that GS or equivalent is pushing on their clients, just like most are pushing the benefits of BTC on noobs on or off this forum.  It's a selling point.

BTC is "backed" by fiat meaning it is priced in fiat and exchanged in fiat.  It's not much different than all of the world currencies that exist as 1's and 0's on a bank ledger.  If there were precious metals or other commodity that guaranteed a base value of BTC then that would be one thing.  But let's say there is a black swan event that causes the FED to print $10 trillion or more to pump up markets in the case of a severe crash, BTC would be devalued by a proportionate amount relative to the Dollar.

Everyone that I read posting values their BTC on a fiat system.  To exchange it to precious metals would first involved a conversion to fiat for valuation.  There is no "direct to precious metals" system in place.  If you know of one I'd love to hear of it.

While I am not a hardcore coder, I understand the mechanics of how BTC works.  The whole 21 million coins is irrelevant.  It is dependent on those mining it to verify the block chain.  If there is no one to mine it, the whole chain collapses.

I'm not advocating that it be supported by a centralized system.  But if certain things are not done to improve BTC in the near term, centralized systems will emerge that cater to those who only care about lack of fees and their funds not being stolen because they don't know how to secure their smartphones.

Most governments don't even think of things, they rely on others outside of the public sector (although with grants from the government in some cases) to develop new technologies, and these government will repurpose the technology and make it so that they themselves are able to use it more effectively, with help from those on the interior. It's not like it could be any different with Bitcoin, and technology is just allowing for everything to be more efficient and for it all to be faster. Of course they have their own cryptos and the like on the way, but they won't be good because they will always want control. I say let them be introduced, but they likely will never have a large, natural market share.

So far, bitcoin gives its users the freedom to transact, as the bitcoin decentralization system is applied so that it may be an excess of bitcoin that can not be controlled by any party including the government and the bank.

Bitcoin was created to make people independent of banking sectors for sending money.People have found bitcoin as a great invention which has freed them from hands of governments and banks.I do agree that governments and banks are trying to create their own crypto currencies.But even if they do so,i don;t think that people would like to fall once again in to the traps of governments who would wish to control people once again.Its already said that Ripple has been created by banking sectors to compete with bitcoins.Thats why some banks support ripple even if they don't support other cryptos.I hope that people would love to enjoy financial freedom given by cryptos.

What do you mean by these two comments? You're listing mistakes cryptocurrencies have made and these two are on that list.

Bitcoin is backed by fiat currency? Since when?

Bitcoin lacks a patent? Why does it need to be registered as an invention with a company?

I think you may misunderstand a bit how Bitcoin works (and call me out if necessary).

Bitcoin isn't backed by fiat currency. The reason people refer to the value in terms of fiat is because that's the currency that people use to buy and sell it. Bitcoin isn't backed or pegged or hinged to the value of a fiat currency. It's performance or existence isn't dependent on fiat currency.

Bitcoin is a project, creation, invention that isn't bound by any government. A founding principle is that it fills a void in the money system that's been lacking free access, support, and market. For Bitcoin to be registered for a patent would completely and directly undermine what Bitcoin is meant to be. It's meant to operate independent from any central entity (especially government). Trying to gain approval and protection to exist from a government would be the single greatest irony Bitcoin could achieve (and not for the better.)

If I've misunderstood you, please let me know.

Anybody who has invested in crypto during the last couple of years will know that the market can move overnight. It is okay if banks and governments learn from the problems faced by Bitcoin. They will not be able to introduce a coin with Bitcoin's biggest advantage - decentralization.

I agree.

First to market is rarely best to market, however we have SO much collective knowledge that I don't think deeper pockets will be able to swallow it all or control too much of it. I do think corps/banks/gov will indeed make use of the blockchain/similar tech however when it comes to the whole eco-system that is crypto I don't think people will let it fall into controlling hands for a long time if ever (I can't think of how on the spot, but action/reaction, if we get cornered I'm sure we will see an interesting battle and response from the people).

Everyone that is currently "investing" in BTC and other cryptos are the "crash test dummies" of the future.

Most major banks and many large/wealthy governments are coming up with their own cryptocurrencies.

Why have these entities not released them yet?  Because they are watching, waiting, and learning from all of the mistakes that other cryptos are making.

High fees.

Slow transactions.

Volatility.

Insecurity of wallets and exchanges.

Public distrust.

Reactions to media attention.

Criminality/money laundering.

Backed by fiat currency.

Lack of patent.

And on and on.

I've been reading this forum for days and I don't see this big picture addressed except in rare cases.  Almost everyone making predictions truly believes that BTC will be around for 50-100 years let alone 2-3.  Every day that goes by is just one more day that forces and entities with far bigger market caps than $100 billion are learning from all of the mistakes and problems plaguing the existing paradigm.

If one is to make a wise investment, they need to be aware of how quickly these markets can change...and literally overnight.  I don't expect much from the fanatics other than irrational reasons why my train of thought is flawed, but I do hope I see some of those individuals that are usually silent come out of the woodwork to offer solutions.  In other words, BTC can only survive if its community takes a mostly pragmatic point of view.  Otherwise it is doomed to be raped and discarded in a way that will leave most reliving their failure to act like that will leave permanent emotional scars like that of PTSD.