Topic: Should Bitcoin be attempted to replace by something of National Origin? - page 3. (Read 7062 times)

If Indian payment card system Rupay replacing the International payments systems- VISA and MasterCard;
Source  http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/credit-cards/news/rupay-credit-cards-to-roll-out-next-year/articleshow/47692698.cms
why can't a National Cryptocurrency?

I agree with all the points.

1) Why go national, when you can go international - Bitcoin
2) A national cryptocurrency (I am assuming you are thinking of an INR backed, decentralized, crypto) would be subject to the same problems as fiat currencies - capital control and debasing of value
3) If you think of it, decentralizing a national currency might not offer any additional value. You already have e-money and NEFT/IMPS/RTGS which can transfer money quickly and cheaply. And the PM is doing a pretty good job in making sure that people have bank accounts.

I am utterly confused.

Dunno how those words came in that, but I was in Pope house - yellow and White :p

Sounds like Pope trying Buddhism.

From School

"No vici" alas! Oh, and it's 'non vici' in latin...

I like to listen when commons talks about concept of currency and decentralization. Commons with common concept of currency everywhere-here!
Thanks for patient listening!
I must leave now.

More like, pride of the elites / comedy of the senate.

Negative sir. The only Tragedy is you believing that the commons after having a decentralized currency will chose a government fiat based crypto over a truly decentralized one.

Tragedy of commons.

NationalAlts.

I like the ring of that.
Who's going to adopt them and foster a love though with big brother at the helm.
Not I great Sirs. Not I

This is supposedly either the fastest growing troll thread on this sub or a big communication gap; I can't tell which.

What OP writes: "Embrace yourself for National Cryptocurrency"
What people read: "Embrace yourself for 'a' national cryptocurrency."
I think what OP meant: "Embrace yourself for national cryptocurrencies in future"

It is evident that OP's is not very proficient in english through various of his replies.
For example, when he fails to understand the meaning of isolation, which was meant "separation from rest", but OP read it as "being alone". I would also doubt OP's intelligence as he brings his personal bias against religion into arguments out of context.

BUT, leaving the comprehensive prowess aside, if we assume that OP meant latter, then it leaves room for loads of debate. My view would be that the concept of 'nations' is just physical boundaries under control of a centralised power practicing jurisdiction with the virtue of that power (and providing governance in return in the modern age, because people no longer consent to the idea of a permanent king thus replacing the replacing the battle for exercising jurisdiction from battle among kings in the form of wars to battle among ideologies of a group in the form of elections). Since this battle is fought on many levels, such as mohalla/gram, village/block, vidhan, state, national etc., any logic that justifies national cryptocurrencies would also justify state cryptocurrencies or even a village/town specific cryptocurrency.

The only counter argument that would not, is that the jurisdiction and people would want a common national cryptocurrency to allow for trading valuations. But this stands against the very principal of design of cryptocurrencies wherein an individual could posses multiple national cryptocurrencies and be trading in them in this globalized world, being restricted only by exchange of physical goods (whereas digital goods incur no such restriction and thus renders the digital trader indistinguishable from the native of land).

HOWEVER, if OP meant that he/she/they are going to launch a national cryptocurrency then it is wrong by definition. It could be an Indian cryptocurrency and that too only by the virtue of invention (only as much as gravity is english or chinacoin is chinese) but not by the virtue of its discovery, which in cryptoworld is called mining (like you can't tell which gold is Indian) and thus would place no restriction on its national boundary of discovery and use (and thus cannot stop cross-border digital exchange, hawala, etc.). If such a restriction is placed, it becomes centralised by definition, and thus ceases to be a cryptocurrency but only a digital currency (like axis bank's 'ping pay'). Thus, this would be a huge troll thread.

tl;dr: A cryptocurrency can be Indian but never national, as per the definiton of cryptocurrency.

I'm sorry about my incapacity for question raised. And sincere apologies for speaking about atheism to christian! That was metaphor which in nutshell conveys my 'belief and ideology.'
Happy landscaping!

No. Because you seem to think that you can drive a population into isolation with a single currency/ philosophy. As per OP.
But this is not true.. India is a diverse country with many beliefs and many ideologies. You cannot regress to a point where the world has to fallback into a point of geographic/ geo-political redistribution.

Bitcoin happens to be the first and only scalable solution in this space of future, commerce and individuality.

Hope, I gave you satisfactory answer for question: what population have to do with isolation?

In a decade, pigs will fly. If that does not happen, I will apologize for a foolish assumption.

1.2 billion united can never be isolated knowing world population is approximately 6 billion. That is approximately 20 percent. Does it makes sense now?
Of course, 20 percent can be isolated when rest 80 percent are together. That would never happen, because there is something known as balance of power. I believe, 1.39 billion are getting ready and would be joined by other 143 million and so on. That makes only few hundred million left to isolate us.

Come back to this thread after decade and it would make complete sense.

What does population have to do with isolation?