But when a rich white libertarian nerd has a hella dumb idea, he doesn't force it upon you with guns and imprisonment.
Correct; that only happens with fiat currencies. Oh look, we've come full circle.
Topic: The Legitimization and Inevitability of Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 4985 times)
Correct; that only happens with fiat currencies. Oh look, we've come full circle.
I remain unconvinced that BTC offers a significant improvement to our current systems... I don't think a rise in FREEDOM will necessarily occur with bitcoin. The rich will still be able to play the system to their advantage.
"Distributed" sounds awfully nice and egalitarian until you look at how wealth would really be concentrated: Disproportionately in the hands of the early adopters (aka the current bitcoin community). Great for you guys. Again, this project seems now to be motivated mainly by greed rather than any desire to change society.
"Distributed" sounds awfully nice and egalitarian until you look at how wealth would really be concentrated: Disproportionately in the hands of the early adopters (aka the current bitcoin community). Great for you guys. Again, this project seems now to be motivated mainly by greed rather than any desire to change society.
Alright Surawit now there is a genuine and worthwhile critique of Bitcoin. I disagree with you for a number of reasons, but you bring up good points. I will say that greed and the desire to change society are not mutually exclusive, and typically the former is the cause of the latter.
Frankly I think I'd rather be ruled by my current [$]rich white corporate masters than a bunch of BTCrich white libertarian nerds, you people have some hella dumb ideas
But when a rich white libertarian nerd has a hella dumb idea, he doesn't force it upon you with guns and imprisonment.
Then why is this your signature block?:
Joined to troll, stayed to argueQuote
PROUD TO BE A SUPPORTER OF CAPITALISM
15rBQe46XjCzSYbQN9dWYwaSLRqiXckSDb
15rBQe46XjCzSYbQN9dWYwaSLRqiXckSDb
I am a marxist irl
perhaps I focused a little heavily on the semantics of a particular word which it looks like most of you have some inflexible opinions on 
. We can agree to disagree on that.
I remain unconvinced that BTC offers a significant improvement to our current systems... I don't think a rise in FREEDOM will necessarily occur with bitcoin. The rich will still be able to play the system to their advantage.
"Distributed" sounds awfully nice and egalitarian until you look at how wealth would really be concentrated: Disproportionately in the hands of the early adopters (aka the current bitcoin community). Great for you guys. Again, this project seems now to be motivated mainly by greed rather than any desire to change society.
Frankly I think I'd rather be ruled by my current [$]rich white corporate masters than a bunch of BTCrich white libertarian nerds, you people have some hella dumb ideas
. We can agree to disagree on that.I remain unconvinced that BTC offers a significant improvement to our current systems... I don't think a rise in FREEDOM will necessarily occur with bitcoin. The rich will still be able to play the system to their advantage.
"Distributed" sounds awfully nice and egalitarian until you look at how wealth would really be concentrated: Disproportionately in the hands of the early adopters (aka the current bitcoin community). Great for you guys. Again, this project seems now to be motivated mainly by greed rather than any desire to change society.
Frankly I think I'd rather be ruled by my current [$]rich white corporate masters than a bunch of BTCrich white libertarian nerds, you people have some hella dumb ideas
Then why is this your signature block?:
Quote
PROUD TO BE A SUPPORTER OF CAPITALISM
15rBQe46XjCzSYbQN9dWYwaSLRqiXckSDb
15rBQe46XjCzSYbQN9dWYwaSLRqiXckSDb
Now, what was the OP about? Oh yes, an article about the legality of bitcoins. Well, the author defends the assertion that bitcoin is a liability that requires regulation to counter illegal acts. That will probably be the motive, but I'm not sure that is a good offense. Because that would impose more restrictions on the present commons. When I tip the waiter, give money to charity, a homeless individual, or give money in a congratulatory card, I would prefer not to have that transaction recorded. Studies have shown that even with the convenience of credit cards and the like, cash will never die because people demand it, and when it is not available they will make transactions by other means, whether by bananas or bitcoins.
From the (well-written, I must say) article:
Quote
...which is why it’s essential that a legal framework be put in place to govern businesses that facilitate Bitcoin transactions, like the exchanges.
No one's talking about documenting person-to-person Bitcoin transactions, which would be next-to-impossible, anyway.
perhaps I focused a little heavily on the semantics of a particular word which it looks like most of you have some inflexible opinions on . We can agree to disagree on that.
I remain unconvinced that BTC offers a significant improvement to our current systems... I don't think a rise in FREEDOM will necessarily occur with bitcoin. The rich will still be able to play the system to their advantage.
"Distributed" sounds awfully nice and egalitarian until you look at how wealth would really be concentrated: Disproportionately in the hands of the early adopters (aka the current bitcoin community). Great for you guys. Again, this project seems now to be motivated mainly by greed rather than any desire to change society.
Frankly I think I'd rather be ruled by my current [$]rich white corporate masters than a bunch of BTCrich white libertarian nerds, you people have some hella dumb ideas
. We can agree to disagree on that.I remain unconvinced that BTC offers a significant improvement to our current systems... I don't think a rise in FREEDOM will necessarily occur with bitcoin. The rich will still be able to play the system to their advantage.
"Distributed" sounds awfully nice and egalitarian until you look at how wealth would really be concentrated: Disproportionately in the hands of the early adopters (aka the current bitcoin community). Great for you guys. Again, this project seems now to be motivated mainly by greed rather than any desire to change society.
Frankly I think I'd rather be ruled by my current [$]rich white corporate masters than a bunch of BTCrich white libertarian nerds, you people have some hella dumb ideas
when you're paid to not understand something, you won't.
Let's not assume that just because someone disagrees with us that they're a paid shill of some nefarious scheming enemy. More likely, they just don't know what they're talking about. Ignorance is far greater in quantity than conspiracy.
Now, what was the OP about? Oh yes, an article about the legality of bitcoins. Well, the author defends the assertion that bitcoin is a liability that requires regulation to counter illegal acts. That will probably be the motive, but I'm not sure that is a good offense. Because that would impose more restrictions on the present commons. When I tip the waiter, give money to charity, a homeless individual, or give money in a congratulatory card, I would prefer not to have that transaction recorded. Studies have shown that even with the convenience of credit cards and the like, cash will never die because people demand it, and when it is not available they will make transactions by other means, whether by bananas or bitcoins.
when you're paid to not understand something, you won't.
*Checks to see how much transaction fees have gone up due to Bitcoin thefts, frauds, or scams* Hmm, they're still zero. Are YOU an idiot?
My mistake. You think that it's a good thing that thefts, frauds and scams can be carried out without consequences or recompense?I'm quite happy to pay a little on extra fees to my credit card to cover chargebacks and fraud. Because I know if something bad were to happen (eg my card was stolen), I'd not end up homeless
Non-sequitur much?
I'd disagree with that. What is a government? A group of people who hold the power. In what way is the way in which a government controls currency not functionally identical to the way in which the majority of miners control bitcoin? All you are doing is swapping the suits in a grandiose capital city building for cheetos-stained tshirts in basements spread around the world. You could argue that anyone can buy a supercomputer and sway the decisionmaking process... but in the same way anyone can get a job in government?
As for intrinsic value, you know what I mean. In the sense e.g. like the dollar used to be backed by gold. Do I have to spell everything out?
If you want to be pedantic about it, yes, it fails the dictionary test for fiat currency. But the dictionary was written long before anyone could concieve of such a thing as bitcoin. I think if bitcoin were to become ubitiquitous it would be functionally identical to fiat currency, and hence my statement that bitcoin is fiat by all useful definitions.
As for intrinsic value, you know what I mean. In the sense e.g. like the dollar used to be backed by gold. Do I have to spell everything out?
If you want to be pedantic about it, yes, it fails the dictionary test for fiat currency. But the dictionary was written long before anyone could concieve of such a thing as bitcoin. I think if bitcoin were to become ubitiquitous it would be functionally identical to fiat currency, and hence my statement that bitcoin is fiat by all useful definitions.
Wow... you are suggesting that the government mandating usage of USD by coercion (ie - throwing you in prison if you don't accept dollars or pay taxes with them) is equivalent to a distributed group of Bitcoin users who have absolutely no power to coerce anyone else to use the system? You are equating those things? You are calling those two things "functionally identical?"
And Dictionary.com, and Wikipedia, were not written "long before anyone could conceive of such a thing as Bitcoin." They are not ancient tomes of outdated terminology. You can go to Wikipedia right now and update it if you think it's outdated. But you won't.
"Fiat currency" has a very specific meaning. It means, a currency that is valuable due to the decree of a government, ie - by force. Bitcoin is the very opposite, getting its value from an open market of voluntary decision making. One has value purely by diktat, the other has value purely by choice. Your attempt to equate the two betrays either a gross negligence on the nature of monetary systems, or an intentional insult to Bitcoin, despite your knowledge of the invalidity of the basis of that insult.
Do you really want to persist in your wrongness here? Or will you graciously admit that perhaps you made a mistake?
Alright bud, listen. I picked that definition from dictionary.com (you call it "a place?") to provide the definition of that term. This definition is wholly relevant to its usage in monetary economics, as a "fiat currency" is a currency "by decree" of a ruler or government.
We could go to another "place" and get another definition, this time of "fiat money," specifically. The first line from Wikipedia: "Fiat money is money that has value only because of government regulation or law."
Given these two definitions provided, we can observe your statement, "bitcoin is a fiat currency by almost all useful definitions of the word fiat" and it becomes apparent that you don't quite know of what you speak. Bitcoin is in no way a fiat currency. It is not created by any government. Its value does not come from a mandate for usage.
And on "intrinsic value"... nothing has intrinsic value, for that would mean the thing has value without a human to value it. Things have value to the extent they are useful to humans and scarce. Bitcoin is both absurdly useful and limited in quantity, thus it commands a market price. You don't have to agree with the price, but at least try to make sure your statements regarding fiat money and value are valid.
I'd disagree with that. What is a government? A group of people who hold the power. In what way is the way in which a government controls currency not functionally identical to the way in which the majority of miners control bitcoin? All you are doing is swapping the suits in a grandiose capital city building for cheetos-stained tshirts in basements spread around the world. You could argue that anyone can buy a supercomputer and sway the decisionmaking process... but in the same way anyone can get a job in government?We could go to another "place" and get another definition, this time of "fiat money," specifically. The first line from Wikipedia: "Fiat money is money that has value only because of government regulation or law."
Given these two definitions provided, we can observe your statement, "bitcoin is a fiat currency by almost all useful definitions of the word fiat" and it becomes apparent that you don't quite know of what you speak. Bitcoin is in no way a fiat currency. It is not created by any government. Its value does not come from a mandate for usage.
And on "intrinsic value"... nothing has intrinsic value, for that would mean the thing has value without a human to value it. Things have value to the extent they are useful to humans and scarce. Bitcoin is both absurdly useful and limited in quantity, thus it commands a market price. You don't have to agree with the price, but at least try to make sure your statements regarding fiat money and value are valid.
As for intrinsic value, you know what I mean. In the sense e.g. like the dollar used to be backed by gold. Do I have to spell everything out?
If you want to be pedantic about it, yes, it fails the dictionary test for fiat currency. But the dictionary was written long before anyone could concieve of such a thing as bitcoin. I think if bitcoin were to become ubiquitous it would be functionally identical to fiat currency, and hence my statement that bitcoin is fiat by all useful definitions.
facepalm; i'm so tired...
Surawit, when you lose an argument, it is customary to say, "I was mistaken" and carry on with the discussion or gracefully withdrawl.
Dollars once were certificates or promissory notes for a particular weight of gold or silver. Today, their only intrinsic value include paper crafts, burning for fuel, wall paper, and toilet paper. Perhaps their are a few other intrinsic values.
in·trin·sic (adjective) belonging to a thing by its very nature: the intrinsic value of a gold ring.
My friend, by your definition, my toe nail clippings are fiat currency.
Please read how Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, defines fiat. Or anyone else who has studied finance.
Is gold a fiat currency?
As for intrinsic value, you know what I mean. In the sense e.g. like the dollar used to be backed by gold. Do I have to spell everything out?
Dollars once were certificates or promissory notes for a particular weight of gold or silver. Today, their only intrinsic value include paper crafts, burning for fuel, wall paper, and toilet paper. Perhaps their are a few other intrinsic values.
in·trin·sic (adjective) belonging to a thing by its very nature: the intrinsic value of a gold ring.
If you want to be pedantic about it, yes, it fails the dictionary test for fiat currency. But the dictionary was written long before anyone could concieve of such a thing as bitcoin.
My friend, by your definition, my toe nail clippings are fiat currency.
Please read how Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, defines fiat. Or anyone else who has studied finance.
I think if bitcoin were to become ubitiquitous it would be functionally identical to fiat currency, and hence my statement that bitcoin is fiat by all useful definitions.
Is gold a fiat currency?
*Checks to see how much transaction fees have gone up due to Bitcoin thefts, frauds, or scams* Hmm, they're still zero. Are YOU an idiot?
My mistake. You think that it's a good thing that thefts, frauds and scams can be carried out without consequences or recompense?I'm quite happy to pay a little on extra fees to my credit card to cover chargebacks and fraud. Because I know if something bad were to happen (eg my card was stolen), I'd not end up homeless
Alright, my friend. You ask, "why can't I do that with normal banking?" The answer is, because it's inefficient, and it costs money to pay hundreds of thousands of employees, to give them pensions and benefits, and to build and maintain physical infrastructure. Banks also have to absorb the costs of fraud, theft, and disputed transactions. Also, banks have to show a profit to their shareholders.
Bitcoin avoids all of these costs. Transaction fees only have to be enough to allow the people who are processing transactions to pay their bills and make a small profit. That, my friend, is why Bitcoin is more efficient that traditional banking, and why it will ALWAYS be cheaper to transact in Bitcoin.
Nope, no costly physical infrastructure necessary with bitcoin. And no thefts, frauds or scams either. Are you an idiot?Bitcoin avoids all of these costs. Transaction fees only have to be enough to allow the people who are processing transactions to pay their bills and make a small profit. That, my friend, is why Bitcoin is more efficient that traditional banking, and why it will ALWAYS be cheaper to transact in Bitcoin.
*Checks to see how much transaction fees have gone up due to Bitcoin thefts, frauds, or scams* Hmm, they're still zero. Are YOU an idiot?
Alright, my friend. You ask, "why can't I do that with normal banking?" The answer is, because it's inefficient, and it costs money to pay hundreds of thousands of employees, to give them pensions and benefits, and to build and maintain physical infrastructure. Banks also have to absorb the costs of fraud, theft, and disputed transactions. Also, banks have to show a profit to their shareholders.
Bitcoin avoids all of these costs. Transaction fees only have to be enough to allow the people who are processing transactions to pay their bills and make a small profit. That, my friend, is why Bitcoin is more efficient that traditional banking, and why it will ALWAYS be cheaper to transact in Bitcoin.
Nope, no costly physical infrastructure necessary with bitcoin. And no thefts, frauds or scams either. Are you an idiot?Bitcoin avoids all of these costs. Transaction fees only have to be enough to allow the people who are processing transactions to pay their bills and make a small profit. That, my friend, is why Bitcoin is more efficient that traditional banking, and why it will ALWAYS be cheaper to transact in Bitcoin.
Alright bud, listen. I picked that definition from dictionary.com (you call it "a place?") to provide the definition of that term. This definition is wholly relevant to its usage in monetary economics, as a "fiat currency" is a currency "by decree" of a ruler or government.
We could go to another "place" and get another definition, this time of "fiat money," specifically. The first line from Wikipedia: "Fiat money is money that has value only because of government regulation or law."
Given these two definitions provided, we can observe your statement, "bitcoin is a fiat currency by almost all useful definitions of the word fiat" and it becomes apparent that you don't quite know of what you speak. Bitcoin is in no way a fiat currency. It is not created by any government. Its value does not come from a mandate for usage.
And on "intrinsic value"... nothing has intrinsic value, for that would mean the thing has value without a human to value it. Things have value to the extent they are useful to humans and scarce. Bitcoin is both absurdly useful and limited in quantity, thus it commands a market price. You don't have to agree with the price, but at least try to make sure your statements regarding fiat money and value are valid.
I'd disagree with that. What is a government? A group of people who hold the power. In what way is the way in which a government controls currency not functionally identical to the way in which the majority of miners control bitcoin? All you are doing is swapping the suits in a grandiose capital city building for cheetos-stained tshirts in basements spread around the world. You could argue that anyone can buy a supercomputer and sway the decisionmaking process... but in the same way anyone can get a job in government?We could go to another "place" and get another definition, this time of "fiat money," specifically. The first line from Wikipedia: "Fiat money is money that has value only because of government regulation or law."
Given these two definitions provided, we can observe your statement, "bitcoin is a fiat currency by almost all useful definitions of the word fiat" and it becomes apparent that you don't quite know of what you speak. Bitcoin is in no way a fiat currency. It is not created by any government. Its value does not come from a mandate for usage.
And on "intrinsic value"... nothing has intrinsic value, for that would mean the thing has value without a human to value it. Things have value to the extent they are useful to humans and scarce. Bitcoin is both absurdly useful and limited in quantity, thus it commands a market price. You don't have to agree with the price, but at least try to make sure your statements regarding fiat money and value are valid.
As for intrinsic value, you know what I mean. In the sense e.g. like the dollar used to be backed by gold. Do I have to spell everything out?
If you want to be pedantic about it, yes, it fails the dictionary test for fiat currency. But the dictionary was written long before anyone could concieve of such a thing as bitcoin. I think if bitcoin were to become ubiquitous it would be functionally identical to fiat currency, and hence my statement that bitcoin is fiat by all useful definitions.
And I will add that all of the major banks in the western world would have gone under were it not for taxpayer bailouts. They are SO inefficient, that they are not even viable businesses. Don't even get me started on the pending financial apocalypse that was only avoided in 2008 by the expert use of the printing press.
Don't even bother trying to have an intelligent conversation on these forums. It's like the mental institution in 12-Monkeys.
Are you the guy who wrote the article? No wonder you won't/can't defend it."Bitcoin is so fantastic, its so efficient there are no fees! Wonderful! Of course to make it actually usable and as good as normal money we'll need exchange services, payment processors to absorb the volatility, a service to protect consumers by allowing chargebacks, etc...." lol.
You end up just invoking some magical future in which all these bitcoin services are super-efficient. Why can't I do that with normal banking? Why can't I invoke a magic future in which banks increase the efficiency of their wire services to the point that fees are negligible when transferring currency between countries? It's not like normal banking is static and unchanging. A few years ago someone in france would have to pay exchange fees when sending his francs to a german. Now, he can send that cash straight over at very little cost.
Alright, my friend. You ask, "why can't I do that with normal banking?" The answer is, because it's inefficient, and it costs money to pay hundreds of thousands of employees, to give them pensions and benefits, and to build and maintain physical infrastructure. Banks also have to absorb the costs of fraud, theft, and disputed transactions. Also, banks have to show a profit to their shareholders.
Bitcoin avoids all of these costs. Transaction fees only have to be enough to allow the people who are processing transactions to pay their bills and make a small profit. That, my friend, is why Bitcoin is more efficient that traditional banking, and why it will ALWAYS be cheaper to transact in Bitcoin.
Don't even bother trying to have an intelligent conversation on these forums. It's like the mental institution in 12-Monkeys.
Are you the guy who wrote the article? No wonder you won't/can't defend it."Bitcoin is so fantastic, its so efficient there are no fees! Wonderful! Of course to make it actually usable and as good as normal money we'll need exchange services, payment processors to absorb the volatility, a service to protect consumers by allowing chargebacks, etc...." lol.
You end up just invoking some magical future in which all these bitcoin services are super-efficient. Why can't I do that with normal banking? Why can't I invoke a magic future in which banks increase the efficiency of their wire services to the point that fees are negligible when transferring currency between countries? It's not like normal banking is static and unchanging. A few years ago someone in france would have to pay exchange fees when sending his francs to a german. Now, he can send that cash straight over at very little cost.
b/c the obscene banker bonuses must be maintained at a growing level as they were in 2009-10 after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
what they would supposedly take from one hand to give to the consumers they would take back with the other hand in the form of banker bailouts or leached taxpayer interest rates in the form of ZIRP. do you know anything about economics?
Jump to: