Topic: One-world reserve currency inevitable and will enslave all nations? - page 4. (Read 19822 times)
May 09, 2015, 04:49:48 AM
All nations are slaves already, thanks to the fiat system.
May 09, 2015, 04:10:49 AM
Code:
sendfreetransactions=1
Code:
sendtoaddress [address] [balance + amount]
No trades involved. (Why do you keep referencing trading‽)
May 09, 2015, 04:07:52 AM
I will keep you around for entertainment value. I'll be the dog and you will be my chew toy.
“bite the hand that feeds”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gfntBEI3Aw
May 09, 2015, 03:53:10 AM
I will keep you around for entertainment value. I'll be the dog and you will be my chew toy.
“bite the hand that feeds”
May 09, 2015, 03:49:03 AM
Centralized shitcoin does not count. 1.5 billion coins and scrypt. Exchange non existent. Not listed on coinmarketcap.com. Much success for a coin that has been around since September 2014. No privacy and offers sweet fuck all in innovation. Go peddle your bullshit somewhere else. Homero Garza will think that you have the next PayCoin.
1. It has an “[e]xchange” (coinits): “sendfreetransactions=1” and “sendtoaddress [one’s address] [an amount exceeding one’s balance]”.
2. In which case, stop complaining about the problems it solves.
LOL - Comedy gold to start my day. I won't put you on ignore. I will keep you around for entertainment value. I'll be the dog and you will be my chew toy.
May 09, 2015, 03:35:35 AM
Centralized shitcoin does not count. 1.5 billion coins and scrypt. Exchange non existent. Not listed on coinmarketcap.com. Much success for a coin that has been around since September 2014. No privacy and offers sweet fuck all in innovation. Go peddle your bullshit somewhere else. Homero Garza will think that you have the next PayCoin.
1. It has an “[e]xchange” (coinits): “sendfreetransactions=1” and “sendtoaddress [one’s address] [an amount exceeding one’s balance]”.
2. In which case, stop complaining about the problems it solves.
May 09, 2015, 03:31:59 AM
While the smart investor secretly converts cash and bitcoin into Monero and no one notices.
However, “the smart[er] investor” (coinits) mints GEC to itself for purpose of (a more genuinely decentralized) integration of other economies into that of GEC (through the acquisition and subsequent destruction of alternative monetary units).
Centralized shitcoin does not count. 1.5 billion coins and scrypt. Exchange non existent. Not listed on coinmarketcap.com. Much success for a coin that has been around since September 2014. No privacy and offers sweet fuck all in innovation. Go peddle your bullshit somewhere else. Homero Garza will think that you have the next PayCoin.
FAIL!
May 09, 2015, 02:48:50 AM
While the smart investor secretly converts cash and bitcoin into Monero and no one notices.
However, “the smart[er] investor” (coinits) mints GEC to itself for purpose of (a more genuinely decentralized) integration of other economies into that of GEC (through the acquisition and subsequent destruction of alternative monetary units).
May 08, 2015, 08:36:21 PM
If you have the ontological or taxonomy error of mislabeling the concept of groupthink to individual cognition of correct group behavior, then I think that proves it is time to start ignoring you.
Quote from: Leo Tolstoy, _Path of Life_ (1909) link=http://izquotes.com/quote/273442
An arrogant person considers himself perfect. This is the chief harm of arrogance. It interferes with a person’s main task in life—becoming a better person.
GEC minters constitute an “in-group.” GEC non-minters constitute an “out-group.” Therefore, GEC minters could succumb to groupthink.
While the smart investor secretly converts cash and bitcoin into Monero and no one notices.
May 08, 2015, 01:41:20 AM
If you have the ontological or taxonomy error of mislabeling the concept of groupthink to individual cognition of correct group behavior, then I think that proves it is time to start ignoring you.
Quote from: Leo Tolstoy, _Path of Life_ (1909) link=http://izquotes.com/quote/273442
An arrogant person considers himself perfect. This is the chief harm of arrogance. It interferes with a person’s main task in life—becoming a better person.
GEC minters constitute an “in-group.” GEC non-minters constitute an “out-group.” Therefore, GEC minters could succumb to groupthink.
May 08, 2015, 01:35:36 AM
Sorry, individuals don't prioritize the effects of group action over their near-term individual gain.
Group think says otherwise.
If you have the ontological or taxonomy error of mislabeling the concept of groupthink to individual cognition of correct group behavior, then I think that proves it is time to start ignoring you.
Done.
May 08, 2015, 01:27:35 AM
Sorry, individuals don't prioritize the effects of group action over their near-term individual gain.
Groupthink says otherwise.
May 08, 2015, 01:25:35 AM
I thought about all these mechanisms before and I came to the conclusion there is no way to have decentralized physical backing for a crypto-coin.
Inside the GEC economy, anyone may spend entire exacoins to themselves at anytime; however, to do so would be to make everyone quintillion-aires, for others would soon follow suit. (In other words, it is the reality of others "following suit" that, ultimately, regulates the inflation of the GEC economy.)
Sorry, individuals don't prioritize the effects of group action over their near-term individual gain.
May 08, 2015, 01:21:50 AM
I thought about all these mechanisms before and I came to the conclusion there is no way to have decentralized physical backing for a crypto-coin.
Inside the GEC economy, anyone may spend entire exacoins to themselves at anytime; however, to do so would be to make everyone quintillion-aires, for others would soon follow suit. (In other words, it is the reality of others' "following suit" that, ultimately, regulates the inflation of the GEC economy.)
May 08, 2015, 01:14:00 AM
You still have not explained what Stewart's individual economic motivation is. And why is he involved. Nor have you explained why John has an individual economic motivation to burn GEC when he spends fiat. Nor have you adequately explained why they benefitted from involving GEC in the first place. Seems to me that GEC was never involved. Jane paid John in fiat. John spends the fiat. GEC has no involvement except for some fantasy conjured in your mind.
Both Stewart and John are interested in using GEC (Stewart more so than John); however, not many other people are. Accordingly, Stewart carries USD transactions over into the GEC economy so they (i.e., Stewart and John) can exchange GEC with each other and other GEC holders instead of exchanging USD with each other. However, in doing this, USD and GEC must be removed from their respective economies to maintain the one-to-one correspondence of the GEC they are exchanging inside the GEC economy with the USD they receive and pay outside of the GEC economy (inside the USD economy).
You've violated the fundamental tenet of crypto-currency which is decentralized trust, i.e. the abolition of requiring individual trust.
There is no way the parties can be sure that someone has retired fiat in order to use its value on GEC, then burning GEC again when it is desired to unretire the fiat.
I thought about all these mechanisms before and I came to the conclusion there is no way to have decentralized physical backing for a crypto-coin.
Sorry.
May 08, 2015, 12:30:55 AM
You still have not explained what Stewart's individual economic motivation is. And why is he involved. Nor have you explained why John has an individual economic motivation to burn GEC when he spends fiat. Nor have you adequately explained why they benefitted from involving GEC in the first place. Seems to me that GEC was never involved. Jane paid John in fiat. John spends the fiat. GEC has no involvement except for some fantasy conjured in your mind.
Both Stewart and John are interested in using GEC (Stewart more so than John); however, not many other people are. Accordingly, Stewart carries USD transactions over into the GEC economy so they (i.e., Stewart and John) can exchange GEC with each other and other GEC holders instead of exchanging USD with each other. However, in doing this, USD and GEC must be removed from their respective economies to maintain the one-to-one correspondence of the GEC they are exchanging inside the GEC economy with the USD they receive and pay outside of the GEC economy (inside the USD economy).
May 08, 2015, 12:21:27 AM
Why does it require so many exchanges with you to get you to explain it completely?
You still have not made it clear how this works. Why would Stewart do that if he gets nothing? Why is Stewart involved?
Why would John burn GEC in order to give someone his fiat?
You still have not made it clear how this works. Why would Stewart do that if he gets nothing? Why is Stewart involved?
Why would John burn GEC in order to give someone his fiat?
0. Apparently, I don't think like you do. (See the diagram above.)
Because you assume readers can read your mind. You have massive holes in your explanation which is information that you have already in your mind but you haven't explained to us.
1-2. To carry that USD transaction in the USD economy over to the GEC economy.
This my last attempt. If you fail again to make a long and detailed explanation, then your laziness will be rewarded with an ignore from me.
You still have not explained what Stewart's individual economic motivation is. And why is he involved. Nor have you explained why John has an individual economic motivation to burn GEC when he spends fiat. Nor have you adequately explained why they benefitted from involving GEC in the first place. Seems to me that GEC was never involved. Jane paid John in fiat. John spends the fiat. GEC has no involvement except for some fantasy conjured in your mind.
May 08, 2015, 12:09:52 AM
I have no idea what you are describing. All I can surmise is Jane pays fiat to John for walking her dogs. John gives the fiat to Stewart in exchange for GEC. If that is not the case, you will need to explain your gibberish in the English language. I have no idea what you meant by:
When John spends the fiat currency he acquired from Jane, he could then spend the GEC he acquired from Stewart in an unspendable transaction - removing it from his economy.
Within the context of the hypothetical, no one gives Stewart anything: Stewart addresses, to John, a transaction that has output but does not have input (i.e., he "mints"/credits GEC "to" John). Additionally, John pays the fiat to an undisclosed party at another, unrelated time; when he does so, he uses the GEC he received from Stewart to fund an unspendable transaction (i.e., he "burns" it).
Why does it require so many exchanges with you to get you to explain it completely?
You still have not made it clear how this works. Why would Stewart do that if he gets nothing? Why is Stewart involved?
Why would John burn GEC in order to give someone his fiat?
None of it makes any sense.
May 08, 2015, 12:02:44 AM
I have no idea what you are describing. All I can surmise is Jane pays fiat to John for walking her dogs. John gives the fiat to Stewart in exchange for GEC. If that is not the case, you will need to explain your gibberish in the English language. I have no idea what you meant by:
When John spends the fiat currency he acquired from Jane, he could then spend the GEC he acquired from Stewart in an unspendable transaction - removing it from his economy.
Within the context of the hypothetical, no one gives Stewart anything: Stewart addresses, to John, a transaction that has output but does not have input (i.e., he "mints"/credits GEC to one of the GEC addresses John controls). Additionally, John pays the fiat to an undisclosed party at another, unrelated time; when he does so, he uses the GEC he received from Stewart to fund an unspendable transaction (i.e., he "burns" it).
May 07, 2015, 07:38:52 PM
I have no [copulat]ing idea what you are describing (and probably you don't know clearly what you are describing either).
Code:
USD= JANE "debit to" JOHN "debit to" XXXX
GEC= STEWART "credit to" JOHN "debit to" NULLDATA
Since you can't even explain clearly, then you have no hope whatsoever with your coin. If I can't understand, you can be sure the majority of folks won't understand.
I have no idea what you are describing. All I can surmise is Jane pays fiat to John for walking her dogs. John gives the fiat to Stewart in exchange for GEC. If that is not the case, you will need to explain your gibberish in the English language. I have no idea what you meant by:
When John spends the fiat currency he acquired from Jane, he could then spend the GEC he acquired from Stewart in an unspendable transaction - removing it from his economy.
You are wasting my time. In every professional situation I have worked in my life, if someone couldn't explain something clearly the first time (or at least not exhibit an apathy towards trying to be clear), they were thereafter ignored (and fired!).
Jump to: