Topic: The Future of Money? (Read 8114 times)

If the block confirmation time is long long, many people will not use bitcoin.

The aspect I like most about bitcoin is that it is not controlled by any government or one specific political philosophy....It is an all inclusive platform and doesn't exclude people from participating in the network....I'm not worried about the elites manipulating bitcoin because Pandora's box has already been opened here and it can't be stopped now....It puts the control back into the hands of the people who actually own the money....banks must hate bitcoin!

It was like one of those AH-HA moments of dectective novels, where everything comes together and it all makes sense, all of a sudden.

I've always imagined that gold, silver and/or Bitcoin will go up astronomically if and when bad enough news forces the major countries to devalue national currencies against these non-state monies in one way or another.

From the global elites' point of view, it seems there is a more desirable way to stabilize national currencies, if it comes to that.  Why not use Bitcoin's blockchain technology to create a new cryptocurrency, say, 'ImfCoin,' where most coins have already been secretly mined by the IMF, and make that the global reserve currency?

Imfcoins would be issued to each country to use as reserves for backing its national currency.  The whole system would be similar to the gold and dollar based systems over the last century and a half.  Using a new blockchain (rather than gold, silver or Bitcoin) would avoid the embarrasment of having to set a very high price of one or more of these non-state monies to achieve stability.

I will discuss detailed 'justifications' in a later post, but everything from economics to politics seems to check out on this plan.  There is also a precedent.  John Maynard Keynes proposed his Bretton Woods alternative as an IMF-issued reserve currency called Bancor.  The Americans who were in favor of a dollar-based system won the debate.  (As I've discussed, there is a problem of faith in a fiat currency issued by an entity with no national economy and army behind it.  But the limited issuance imposed by the blockchain should solve this problem.)

Maybe this is why Bitcoin was legitimized by the global elites, and why it has been holding very steady or going up slowly or fast since it reached the $250 level a couple of years ago.  The elites need to build trust in this totally new money in order to spread faith in the blockchain as money.

If this happens, gold, silver and Bitcoin will lose a lot of value, in the same way that silver lost out when all major countries went exclusively on gold in the 1870s.  But until then, Bitcoin should basically be a one-way bet.

Bitcoin is not just the new gold.  Its technology allows creating *a* new gold by the authorities.  Assuming a new gold will be trusted by the markets (being armed by a combination of state power and unified elite propaganda,) the question remains, if the elites can create a new gold today, why can't they take on another gold later, and abandon this gold, when they have created too much currency and debt for this gold to support?  Unfortunately, the public may not wise up to this issue until at least one or two new IMF altcoins have been created, and each phase of international money seems to last many decades.

The reason this story reads like a detective novel, rather than a scientific study, is that the system is inherently based on deception.  Savers must operate on a fundamentally uncertain terrain because the elites are able to use a combination of state power and lack of public awareness to benefit from manipulating the market in money.  I wish I had come to this idea earlier, but we're only human.

[Added 12/13/2016]
There IS one major obstacle to this plan, from the elites' point of view.  Countries would have to be united behind the IMF's general agenda for this to work.  For the foreseeable future, this will be difficult, not only because big countries Russia and China are rebelling against the Western alliance, but most countries also (correctly) perceive that the US and the West have too much power in the IMF.  (I made this point in one of the replies, some days after the initial post.)

I personally think that the future of money will electronic, we are today going toward a world where everything is made by internet,we shop we watch we talk we work all through the internet so there is no doubt that one day we will switch to total electronic payment, and in my opinion bitcoin is the best option.

... In other words, increased production of oranges doesn't always lead to their mechanistic price decline in terms of other goods. And this is exactly the reason why dynamic money base is overall better than constant...

Since we can't say in advance whether an increased production of some good will cause overproduction or growth in total wealth


Fiat money does just that (if not abused). It is the closest approximation to the concept of money in existence today

well said for alternative paying but for this it will take time to happen
we can hope for it sooner but i think it will take 10 year at least for this to be reality in any point
but btc popularity will increase in 10 year and this may be key factor for payment and it will come to maybe 50-50 where individuals will choose what kind of payment method will he use

It seems like we are making the same point here, so I'm not sure the source of disagreement.  You describe above how increased quantity of a good will lead to decrease in it's price as valued in a constant-supply monetary token.  Isn't this how markets are supposed to work?  Supply goes up, demand constant, as we have both been saying..  lower price

As BobK71 points out, allowing individuals to add tokens to the system can never work because of practical considerations (massive losses).  Perhaps I am wrong but it seemed that you were claiming that an adjustment to monetary tokens in accordance with production of certain goods could make sense if somehow those practical considerations were solved.  As we are in general agreement on other issues I thought I'd pursue the inquiry and see if I could understand this viewpoint.  If the viewpoint is that prices vs. a monetary unit changing is bad and prices should remain the same no matter how much of a good are present..  well, I still don't see it

how you can say that digital currency are a needs now while there is more than 60% people around the world are out of network and blind technology? it is required at least another 500 years for people to accept it.

from now to 500 years ahead i guess fiat / paper money will remain used as primary currency.

Yes, digital currency is the need of the day, and we cannot deny that fact, but I think not a single currency replace bitcoin, even if it is created by the government, as it will be a regional and centralized currency while bitcoin is decentralize crypto currency, therefore the status of bitcoin will remain the same and is not going to decrease.

You are kidding, aren't you?

>
If you don't, I'll try to explain. I will talk about goods only but everything is equally applicable to services as well. Let's assume that the amount of money is constant. If the amount of goods increases that would necessarily lead to price deflation, i.e. you will be able to buy more goods with the same amount of money (or a unit of money will buy more goods). If the amount of goods decreases, that would necessarily lead to price inflation, i.e. you will be able to buy less goods with the same amount of money (or a unit of money will buy less goods). Both of these cases will cause imbalances in the economy simply because the changes in the value of money (i.e. how much a unit of money can buy) in real life don't propagate instantaneously through the economy

The "should" implicitly argues, even if you don't say so, that some central power should manage money so that the happy condition occurs.  (Otherwise what would be the point of saying how prices "should" go?)  Implicit in this argument, in turn, is that the central powers can be trusted

Digital currency would surely exist, but we cannot know if that will be bitcoin or something else, because we all know that governments wont accept bitcoin or any other crypto currency that are anonymous or not controllable so they might make their own and then use them in place of fiat in future.

What I meant was that your trust in the elites was implicit in your arguments about how prices "should" behave, as opposed to allowing a totally free market to determine prices

No, this discussion cannot be resolved by answering this question

Just in case, I don't consider the elites to be honest and benevolent (and it seems that I have already expressed this view before). They had severely abused in the past and most likely will continue to abuse the monetary tools in the future, but this is not relevant to the issue being discussed. In fact, it doesn't even involve these types (whoever you might mean by them). In a sense, it is purely mathematical as well as logical question, and should be treated as such, without bringing in irrelevant actors

it will never happened even though the technology would be more sophisticated, the Government will not ever dare to take the risk due would be easy occurrence of theft, money laundering, etc. that make them on problems even though can be traced, but it will take more time and much different with paper money although there is counterfeit Money but easy for us to know that's counterfeit money.