Peter Schiff on Bitcoin - page 9. | Bitcointalksearch.org

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: Spaceman_Spiff on November 21, 2013, 06:11:17 PM

Quote from: joae1975 on November 21, 2013, 06:05:12 PM

Peter made a Bitcoin vs. Gold Video today 11/21/13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L7SOPDOvvI

At least he wisened up on the divisibility argument.

Now he is just saying "volatility", "intrinsic value", "regression theorem". *yawn*

I give it 2-3 years before he is a full-on bitcoin bull.

In 2-3 years Chinese rice farmers will be pricing their harvest in bitcoins.

Spaceman_Spiff

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1001

₪``Campaign Manager´´₪

Quote from: joae1975 on November 21, 2013, 06:05:12 PM

Peter made a Bitcoin vs. Gold Video today 11/21/13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L7SOPDOvvI

At least he wisened up on the divisibility argument.

Now he is just saying "volatility", "intrinsic value", "regression theorem". *yawn*

I give it 2-3 years before he is a full-on bitcoin bull.

joae1975

hero member

Activity: 752

Merit: 500

Peter made a Bitcoin vs. Gold Video today 11/21/13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L7SOPDOvvI

Edit: I think he talked about it on 11/19's show too. Same old same old. I just can't keep up with it as of late. He's been talking about it so much! But it's the same message over and over. If something new is added to the conversation, I'll let you all know.

I think Peter knows bitcoin is hurting his metals business so that's why he's so anti bitcoin. I know I would have bought more gold/silver from him if it wasn't for bitcoin. I would have invested lots more with him. I still will in the future, but gotta get my ROI, lol!

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

Quote from: hamiltino on November 20, 2013, 02:28:30 PM

The problem i have with precious metals:
1. We have to be constantly wasting huge resources mining for gold, this is not an eco friendly commodity and has the potential to destroy natural environments
2. Scientists may well in the future be able to produce gold (we can now but not efficiently) and thus ruin the economy
3. What if one day we space travel and find an abundance of gold, that would create a huge imbalance in the allocation of resources
4. Heavy to transport
5. Difficult to divide

2 and 3 are very unlikely.

iam open to gold and silver and also to bitcoin and litecoin. its hard to compare gold and btc.

but to have a dogma in one thing is always bad.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 21, 2013, 05:11:19 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 21, 2013, 04:17:42 AM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 17, 2013, 04:21:34 PM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 17, 2013, 03:06:45 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 17, 2013, 02:43:28 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 17, 2013, 02:36:25 AM

The velocity is not relevant. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP.

Velocity is relevant when the trades are in exchange for goods and services, which applies to everything I wrote in the posts upthread.

A bitcoin is a goody. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP.

It depends on how you compute the GDP. As far as I know, currency exchanges are not counted as goods and services in the computation of GDP. However, purchases and sales of assets I believe are counted. When you buy and sell a house, this indeed does cause people in the economy to earn salaries and commissions, and thus does increase the GDP. Buy and selling BTC does also to some extent.

Sorry if you are arguing that velocity of money has no relationship to GDP, then I should just ignore you as being retarded. It is quite obvious that the rate at which money changes hands in the economy, effects the amount of salaries and commissions earned by humans and thus the level of the economic activity.

Additional Salaries and commissions can only be earned and payed, if somebody else creates additional debt/credit. No economy ever in history did bartering itself up. It's the (additional) debt, stupid.

Conflating increasing debt with increasing productivity is what you stupid socialists do. Sigh.

It's you, who is the collectivist. I am pro anarchism. Anarchist communities beyond the state do not have debt, and therefore no economy and no business. They are self-sufficient. No debt - no GDP. Monetarism and austrianism is mickey-mouse economics.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 21, 2013, 04:17:42 AM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 17, 2013, 04:21:34 PM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 17, 2013, 03:06:45 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 17, 2013, 02:43:28 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 17, 2013, 02:36:25 AM

The velocity is not relevant. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP.

Velocity is relevant when the trades are in exchange for goods and services, which applies to everything I wrote in the posts upthread.

A bitcoin is a goody. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP.

It depends on how you compute the GDP. As far as I know, currency exchanges are not counted as goods and services in the computation of GDP. However, purchases and sales of assets I believe are counted. When you buy and sell a house, this indeed does cause people in the economy to earn salaries and commissions, and thus does increase the GDP. Buy and selling BTC does also to some extent.

Sorry if you are arguing that velocity of money has no relationship to GDP, then I should just ignore you as being retarded. It is quite obvious that the rate at which money changes hands in the economy, effects the amount of salaries and commissions earned by humans and thus the level of the economic activity.

Additional Salaries and commissions can only be earned and payed, if somebody else creates additional debt/credit. No economy ever in history did bartering itself up. It's the (additional) debt, stupid.

Conflating increasing debt with increasing productivity is what you stupid socialists do. Sigh.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 17, 2013, 04:21:34 PM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 17, 2013, 03:06:45 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 17, 2013, 02:43:28 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 17, 2013, 02:36:25 AM

The velocity is not relevant. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP.

Velocity is relevant when the trades are in exchange for goods and services, which applies to everything I wrote in the posts upthread.

A bitcoin is a goody. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP.

It depends on how you compute the GDP. As far as I know, currency exchanges are not counted as goods and services in the computation of GDP. However, purchases and sales of assets I believe are counted. When you buy and sell a house, this indeed does cause people in the economy to earn salaries and commissions, and thus does increase the GDP. Buy and selling BTC does also to some extent.

Sorry if you are arguing that velocity of money has no relationship to GDP, then I should just ignore you as being retarded. It is quite obvious that the rate at which money changes hands in the economy, effects the amount of salaries and commissions earned by humans and thus the level of the economic activity.

Additional Salaries and commissions can only be earned and payed, if somebody else creates additional debt/credit. No economy ever in history did bartering itself up. It's the (additional) debt, stupid.

hamiltino

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

P2P The Planet!

Quote from: 420 on November 20, 2013, 11:19:02 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on November 19, 2013, 04:21:19 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on November 19, 2013, 01:52:58 PM

Crypto-currencies could be used to give gold some of the modern day transmission advantages without even going through a medium with counter-party risk such as an ETF or whatever.

Care to explain how?

first make a machine that runs software that determines what physical gold chemical composition is; it will have to be a part of the blockchain; said machine destroys gold and reports to the blockchain and gives the person value that owns or is registered his address or whatknot in the machine blah blah

that's the best i could come up with. Theres just no way for counterparty risk in today's technology for an 'eGold' Theres bitcoin, or....bitcoin...or nothing

No there is emunie...

420

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

Quote from: MoonShadow on November 19, 2013, 04:21:19 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on November 19, 2013, 01:52:58 PM

Crypto-currencies could be used to give gold some of the modern day transmission advantages without even going through a medium with counter-party risk such as an ETF or whatever.

Care to explain how?

first make a machine that runs software that determines what physical gold chemical composition is; it will have to be a part of the blockchain; said machine destroys gold and reports to the blockchain and gives the person value that owns or is registered his address or whatknot in the machine blah blah

that's the best i could come up with. Theres just no way for counterparty risk in today's technology for an 'eGold' Theres bitcoin, or....bitcoin...or nothing

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

I envision microbots that can burrow autonomously and mine gold much more efficiently (very low stripping ratio can follow the high grade veins without drilling holes and mapping, thus a massive increase in the supply of gold coming.

hamiltino

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

P2P The Planet!

The problem i have with precious metals:
1. We have to be constantly wasting huge resources mining for gold, this is not an eco friendly commodity and has the potential to destroy natural environments
2. Scientists may well in the future be able to produce gold (we can now but not efficiently) and thus ruin the economy
3. What if one day we space travel and find an abundance of gold, that would create a huge imbalance in the allocation of resources
4. Heavy to transport
5. Difficult to divide

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

I appreciate MoonShadow latest posts in my Transactions Withholding Attack thread. He has presented some useful and helpful information.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 10:17:22 PM

Moonshadow is apparently the type of person who never realizes when he has been resoundingly refuted.

Oh, I know when I've been beaten. I also know when that is not the case. I've been bested by several of the older forum members, just search the archives and you will find many examples of people who know how to structure a premise and present an argument. You might learn something while your there that will serve you well when you're old enough for college.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Moonshadow is apparently the type of person who never realizes when he has been resoundingly refuted.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 09:20:18 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on November 19, 2013, 09:16:39 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 09:08:44 PM

I rebutted you again over at the other thread. And I don't appreciate the way you debate noisely by making provably false statements instead of presenting questions to be addressed. How is it sad to be correct?

If they are provablely false, then prove it. It's your theory.

Done.

Dude, you're publicly failing in two threads at the same time.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Quote from: MoonShadow on November 19, 2013, 09:16:39 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 09:08:44 PM

I rebutted you again over at the other thread. And I don't appreciate the way you debate noisely by making provably false statements instead of presenting questions to be addressed. How is it sad to be correct?

If they are provablely false, then prove it. It's your theory.

Done.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 09:08:44 PM

I rebutted you again over at the other thread. And I don't appreciate the way you debate noisely by making provably false statements instead of presenting questions to be addressed. How is it sad to be correct?

If they are provablely false, then prove it. It's your theory.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Quote from: MoonShadow on November 19, 2013, 08:44:29 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 08:28:25 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on November 19, 2013, 07:57:23 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 06:29:33 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on November 19, 2013, 05:56:31 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 05:44:16 PM

Quote from: Pumpkin on November 19, 2013, 05:40:23 PM

Bitcoin cuts out the middle man.

No because a cartel will own buttCON.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, AnonyMint. Just because you can say it, or even that you have a link to someone else saying it, doesn't make it so. You are welcome to your opinion, but I've read over the theory of that mining cartel attack, and I think it's just FUD. There is more to Bitcoin than either you or him understand. More than I understand, and I'm one of the people who actually understands how it works at the protocol level.

Read the linked thread on the Transactions Withholding Attack. I am the one who discovered the attack, and I have defended against everyone who has tried to refute it. No one can refute it. Read the thread and try to refute it (post over there in the thread). You can't.

I just did. And you're not the first, either.

No you didn't. Not even close. Read my rebuttal to what you wrote over there.

You are a sad, sad man.

I rebutted you again over at the other thread. And I don't appreciate the way you debate noisely by making provably false statements instead of presenting questions to be addressed. How is it sad to be correct?

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1010

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 08:28:25 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on November 19, 2013, 07:57:23 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 06:29:33 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on November 19, 2013, 05:56:31 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 05:44:16 PM

Quote from: Pumpkin on November 19, 2013, 05:40:23 PM

Bitcoin cuts out the middle man.

No because a cartel will own buttCON.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, AnonyMint. Just because you can say it, or even that you have a link to someone else saying it, doesn't make it so. You are welcome to your opinion, but I've read over the theory of that mining cartel attack, and I think it's just FUD. There is more to Bitcoin than either you or him understand. More than I understand, and I'm one of the people who actually understands how it works at the protocol level.

Read the linked thread on the Transactions Withholding Attack. I am the one who discovered the attack, and I have defended against everyone who has tried to refute it. No one can refute it. Read the thread and try to refute it (post over there in the thread). You can't.

I just did. And you're not the first, either.

No you didn't. Not even close. Read my rebuttal to what you wrote over there.

You are a sad, sad man.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Quote from: MoonShadow on November 19, 2013, 07:57:23 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 06:29:33 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on November 19, 2013, 05:56:31 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 19, 2013, 05:44:16 PM

Quote from: Pumpkin on November 19, 2013, 05:40:23 PM

Bitcoin cuts out the middle man.

No because a cartel will own buttCON.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, AnonyMint. Just because you can say it, or even that you have a link to someone else saying it, doesn't make it so. You are welcome to your opinion, but I've read over the theory of that mining cartel attack, and I think it's just FUD. There is more to Bitcoin than either you or him understand. More than I understand, and I'm one of the people who actually understands how it works at the protocol level.

Read the linked thread on the Transactions Withholding Attack. I am the one who discovered the attack, and I have defended against everyone who has tried to refute it. No one can refute it. Read the thread and try to refute it (post over there in the thread). You can't.

I just did. And you're not the first, either.

No you didn't. Not even close. Read my rebuttal to what you wrote over there.

Topic: Peter Schiff on Bitcoin - page 9. (Read 38869 times)