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
Topic: One-world reserve currency inevitable and will enslave all nations? - page 5. (Read 19822 times)
May 07, 2015, 11:57:27 AM
May 07, 2015, 11:33:42 AM
They will try to use a blockchain to keep the fiat scam perpetually going amongst the next generations, our only hope is that the next generations dont fall for the official, closed source fiatcoin of the government and use the people's coin (bitcoin).
May 07, 2015, 07:09:50 AM
Why does Jane give fiat to John if she gets nothing in return? How does Stewart get fiat? Does John give it to him?
1. Jane recieves John's services.
2-3. John recieves new coins from Stewart (because Jane utilizes dollars, not coins).
I have no fucking idea what you are describing (and probably you don't know clearly what you are describing either). When you are ready to explain something in a clear manner then I will read.
May 02, 2015, 07:20:49 PM
Why does Jane give fiat to John if she gets nothing in return? How does Stewart get fiat? Does John give it to him?
1. Jane recieves John's services.
2-3. John recieves new coins from Stewart (because Jane utilizes dollars, not coins).
May 02, 2015, 11:10:30 AM
The problem is that Jane can no longer spend the coins. So what can she do with them?
In the hypothetical, Jane does not handle GEC: Stewart does so in her stead (and without her knowledge) through an input-less transaction (to account, in GEC, for her fiat transaction with John, a GEC holder).
I have no idea what you describing then. Try again to explain what is going on and this time please use the English language clearly.
Why does Jane give fiat to John if she gets nothing in return? How does Stewart get fiat? Does John give it to him?
May 02, 2015, 01:43:28 AM
The problem is that Jane can no longer spend the coins. So what can she do with them?
In the hypothetical, Jane does not handle GEC: Stewart does so in her stead (and without her knowledge) through an input-less transaction (to account, in GEC, for her fiat transaction with John, a GEC holder).
May 01, 2015, 10:30:35 PM
How does anonymity help scaling of distribution?
Imagine Jane pays John for walking her dogs in fiat currency. Stewart could pay John, a GEC holder, new GEC to translate the fiat exchange into a GEC one. 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 write in a way that is cryptic and virtually no one will understand. I happen to understand what you mean because I invented this concept last year way before GEC did. Refer to AnonyMint's post about physical Bitcoins.
So what I assume you are proposing is that some coins become unspendable on the blockchain, thus they can instead be traded as cash physically. Stewart takes fiat in exchange for coins that John can prove he owns by signing but which can't be spent on the blockchain after he signs them to Jane.
The problem is that Jane can no longer spend the coins. So what can she do with them? She could mint a physical representation and trade that, but there is no authority to warrant against counterfeiting and debasing the physical money supply.
Sorry that doesn't work. I abandoned the concept.
May 01, 2015, 10:21:35 PM
Thats what the guy on xapo said on the ted talk, BTC may challenge gold as a store of wealth, that is way more realistic than challenging fiat national currencies. I tend to agree with this view.
If BTC replaces gold as a store of wealth, it would automatically be a strong candidate for world reserve currency. If gold could be sent over the internet and used to settle trades, do you think countries would bother with using USD?
The more salient term you wanted to use is de facto.
You've got a scaling problem. $10 billion market cap versus $200 trillion in global wealth.
The price of bitcoin is the variable in that equation. Problem solved.
Simpleton nonsense. Peter R showed the market cap is following Metcalf's law so the only way you can get to that valuation is for it to be widely adopted.
If you are talking about Bitcoin being the reserve currency of the world, then you are obviously talking about large scale adoption, Then the market cap (or rather money supply equivalent) of Bitcoin is going to increase.
How does talking about large scale adoption fix the underlying scaling problem?
(Logic is something that most humans seem to totally lack)
April 30, 2015, 10:35:16 AM
Thats what the guy on xapo said on the ted talk, BTC may challenge gold as a store of wealth, that is way more realistic than challenging fiat national currencies. I tend to agree with this view.
If BTC replaces gold as a store of wealth, it would automatically be a strong candidate for world reserve currency. If gold could be sent over the internet and used to settle trades, do you think countries would bother with using USD?
The more salient term you wanted to use is de facto.
You've got a scaling problem. $10 billion market cap versus $200 trillion in global wealth.
The price of bitcoin is the variable in that equation. Problem solved.
Simpleton nonsense. Peter R showed the market cap is following Metcalf's law so the only way you can get to that valuation is for it to be widely adopted.
If you are talking about Bitcoin being the reserve currency of the world, then you are obviously talking about large scale adoption, Then the market cap (or rather money supply equivalent) of Bitcoin is going to increase.
April 28, 2015, 09:08:40 PM
How does anonymity help scaling of distribution?
Imagine Jane pays John for walking her dogs in fiat currency. Stewart could pay John, a GEC holder, new GEC to translate the fiat exchange into a GEC one. 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.
April 28, 2015, 09:01:57 PM
Because this also has the Butterfly effect that the more demand, the more people spending, the more people who earn it to spend it, etc..
GEC could be “mint[ed]” (TPTB_need_war) to someone on another’s behalf (by that same someone or another one) in an out-of-block coinbase (here, input-less) transaction.
Minting a coin with an anonymous IP (even in Bitcoin) doesn't have any inputs thus there is no loss of anonymity on the blockchain (or at least not until it is spent and downchain linkability and traceability is factored).
How does anonymity help scaling of distribution?
Perhaps I don't understand what you are describing?
April 28, 2015, 08:53:03 PM
Because this also has the Butterfly effect that the more demand, the more people spending, the more people who earn it to spend it, etc..
GEC could be “mint[ed]” (TPTB_need_war) to someone on another’s behalf (by that same someone or another one) in an out-of-block coinbase (here, input-less) transaction.
April 28, 2015, 08:38:18 PM
The problem remains scaling.
G.E. coins are “spent” into existence in input-less transactions. Accordingly, civil society can (at least, in part) dictate monetary policy.
Money supply regulation is not a problem that needs a solution. Any reasonable choice for the debasement rate works equivalently well, because the overriding impact on supply and price is the velocity of money and the demand for the coin.
Distribution of minting is a scaling issue, because it is not easy for individuals to trade fiat for crypto-currencies. Paypal I think is planning to make it easier for mainstream to acquire BTC, but the overriding problem remains that most people don't have a reason to obtain it.
Transactional demand for usage of the coin is primarily what addresses scaling. Because this also has the Butterfly effect that the more demand, the more people spending, the more people who earn it to spend it, etc..
April 28, 2015, 05:27:56 PM
The problem remains scaling.
G.E. coins are “spent” into existence in input-less transactions. Accordingly, civil society can (at least, in part) dictate monetary policy.
April 27, 2015, 08:49:36 PM
Thats what the guy on xapo said on the ted talk, BTC may challenge gold as a store of wealth, that is way more realistic than challenging fiat national currencies. I tend to agree with this view.
If BTC replaces gold as a store of wealth, it would automatically be a strong candidate for world reserve currency. If gold could be sent over the internet and used to settle trades, do you think countries would bother with using USD?
The more salient term you wanted to use is de facto.
You've got a scaling problem. $10 billion market cap versus $200 trillion in global wealth.
The price of bitcoin is the variable in that equation. Problem solved.
Simpleton nonsense. Peter R showed the market cap is following Metcalf's law so the only way you can get to that valuation is for it to be widely adopted.
Another way of knowing your idea is nonsense, is if 1% held BTC, then the other 99% would need to be impoverished or the global wealth would have to double.
The problem remains scaling.
April 27, 2015, 08:36:57 PM
Thats what the guy on xapo said on the ted talk, BTC may challenge gold as a store of wealth, that is way more realistic than challenging fiat national currencies. I tend to agree with this view.
If BTC replaces gold as a store of wealth, it would automatically be a strong candidate for world reserve currency. If gold could be sent over the internet and used to settle trades, do you think countries would bother with using USD?
The more salient term you wanted to use is de facto.
You've got a scaling problem. $10 billion market cap versus $200 trillion in global wealth.
The price of bitcoin is the variable in that equation. Problem solved.
April 27, 2015, 08:32:43 PM
Thats what the guy on xapo said on the ted talk, BTC may challenge gold as a store of wealth, that is way more realistic than challenging fiat national currencies. I tend to agree with this view.
If BTC replaces gold as a store of wealth, it would automatically be a strong candidate for world reserve currency. If gold could be sent over the internet and used to settle trades, do you think countries would bother with using USD?
The more salient term you wanted to use is de facto.
You've got a scaling problem. $10 billion market cap versus $200 trillion in global wealth.
April 27, 2015, 07:20:50 PM
Thats what the guy on xapo said on the ted talk, BTC may challenge gold as a store of wealth, that is way more realistic than challenging fiat national currencies. I tend to agree with this view.
If BTC replaces gold as a store of wealth, it would automatically be a strong candidate for world reserve currency. If gold could be sent over the internet and used to settle trades, do you think countries would bother with using USD?
April 27, 2015, 05:05:10 PM
all nations have to be already enslaved for something like this to happen, and I think it's already the case
Flag worship is the biggest religious cult in history. It even catches the atheists in its snare.
That is soo true.
April 27, 2015, 04:10:42 PM
Thats what the guy on xapo said on the ted talk, BTC may challenge gold as a store of wealth, that is way more realistic than challenging fiat national currencies. I tend to agree with this view.
Jump to: