Topic: THE TRILLION DOLLAR QUESTION (Read 2654 times)
Most of the problems you list aren't really issues. I think the bigger issues will have to do with lack of clear ownership in bitcoin which is one of its main features. If bitcoin gets big enough I think government will eventually get tired of all the problems bitcoins present to them regarding enforcement and either try to fully outlaw it or try to co-opt the majority of miners and make it a government controlled currency. But bitcoin would have to get to trillions of total valuation before government will care.
to the person who created this thread, your bonkers m8 . i got bored of reading when i realized it was just someone rambling about something they dont really understand . just because you wrote that dosnt mean you fully understand everything . im not dodgy and i mine bitcoins. maybe you should look into FIAT currency a little more and the millions even billions of people who are enslaved to it and the corrupt debt banking system. your question is pointless
A trillion bucks?
Thats a bit over the top aint it?
That brings up a question: How many people on the world have more than a trillion, sure not more than 2. Prove me wrong.
Thats a bit over the top aint it?
That brings up a question: How many people on the world have more than a trillion, sure not more than 2. Prove me wrong.
This is it: "Is the fact that you are using bitcoins INHERENTLY suspicious?"
I inherently suspect bitcoin users of being somewhat smarter and more attractive than average, if that is what you mean.
Nice one
I fail to see any special connection between Bitcoin and the ability or inability of law enforcement to identify criminal activity. Sounds to me like you imagine Bitcoin to be anonymous or suitable for money laundering, and thus a potential target. That is not so.
Governments don't need to "come up with a way to check if an illegal activity is happening" - it is trivial, and even more so with Bitcoin and its public ledger. All major fiat exchanges already follow KYC and related rules, and respond to legal requests from the governments, just as they should. I can easily document where my fiat goes, where it comes from, and whether there are any capital gains or losses to be considered. I can document where my income comes from. It all adds up. Bitcoin does not pose a problem any more than gold, stocks, real estate, forex, world income, etc.
In fact, the only problem are statements like yours, which imply that there is a problem, thus leading to an occasional hysterical, misguided reaction from the lawmakers who fall for the fallacy that Bitcoin is anonymous.
Governments don't need to "come up with a way to check if an illegal activity is happening" - it is trivial, and even more so with Bitcoin and its public ledger. All major fiat exchanges already follow KYC and related rules, and respond to legal requests from the governments, just as they should. I can easily document where my fiat goes, where it comes from, and whether there are any capital gains or losses to be considered. I can document where my income comes from. It all adds up. Bitcoin does not pose a problem any more than gold, stocks, real estate, forex, world income, etc.
In fact, the only problem are statements like yours, which imply that there is a problem, thus leading to an occasional hysterical, misguided reaction from the lawmakers who fall for the fallacy that Bitcoin is anonymous.
Failure? Perhaps we have not found the suitable methods to for the time being. The bitcoin design is not anonymous as a strong system must be monitored by everyone, which is a concept of open source software, for fair view ,for fair trade, crime preventions, for restoring the economic rule.
Everything else is meaningless. As long as countries know they are getting their "fair" share of tax money, and Bitcoin doesn't become a haven for it, Bitcoin should be OK.
Bitcoin absolutely should be a haven for it - because in a world full of products offering misfeatures at the behest of governments, giving users what they actually want is how you stand out from the competition. 
This is it: "Is the fact that you are using bitcoins INHERENTLY suspicious?"
I inherently suspect bitcoin users of being somewhat smarter and more attractive than average, if that is what you mean.
All transactions being recorded they are only recorded against a wallet address.
Though one should not forget that governments regularly closed down regional currencies. They dont like private money. Bitcoins might be different because they can see what happens openly.
The ONLY factor in consideration of every country, government, and nation on the planet in relation to Bitcoin, is, can it be taxed?
Everything else is meaningless. As long as countries know they are getting their "fair" share of tax money, and Bitcoin doesn't become a haven for it, Bitcoin should be OK.
In practical terms, there is nothing special about bitcoin when it comes to taxation. Transactions are as easy to tax as USD or Dinar transactions. Sales receipts, invoices, bookkeeping - all the usual business. Just like with in-person cash transactions, parties to the transaction may choose not to report it. Note that the public bitcoin ledger, and ISP records, in fact make Bitcoin less attractive for tax evasion than banknotes. Everything else is meaningless. As long as countries know they are getting their "fair" share of tax money, and Bitcoin doesn't become a haven for it, Bitcoin should be OK.
The ONLY factor in consideration of every country, government, and nation on the planet in relation to Bitcoin, is, can it be taxed?
Everything else is meaningless. As long as countries know they are getting their "fair" share of tax money, and Bitcoin doesn't become a haven for it, Bitcoin should be OK.
Everything else is meaningless. As long as countries know they are getting their "fair" share of tax money, and Bitcoin doesn't become a haven for it, Bitcoin should be OK.
No. Anonymity is not the issue "they" pretend that it is.
Why?
1) Gold is more anonymous than Bitcoin.
2) Bitcoin has uniquely identifiable serial numbers, just like paper currency.
3) In fact Bitcoin is less anonymous than paper currency because every transaction is publicly recorded, forever.
Why?
1) Gold is more anonymous than Bitcoin.
2) Bitcoin has uniquely identifiable serial numbers, just like paper currency.
3) In fact Bitcoin is less anonymous than paper currency because every transaction is publicly recorded, forever.
4) every transaction involves Internet communication, subject to monitoring, even if delegated to a proxy entity. Obfuscation has limits.
No. Anonymity is not the issue "they" pretend that it is.
Why?
1) Gold is more anonymous than Bitcoin.
2) Bitcoin has uniquely identifiable serial numbers, just like paper currency.
3) In fact Bitcoin is less anonymous than paper currency because every transaction is publicly recorded, forever.
Why?
1) Gold is more anonymous than Bitcoin.
2) Bitcoin has uniquely identifiable serial numbers, just like paper currency.
3) In fact Bitcoin is less anonymous than paper currency because every transaction is publicly recorded, forever.
This is almost like the firearms issue: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
When bitcoin is outlawed, I will become an outlaw.
Until then, I have freedom of speech. I am free to speak my own numbers.
When bitcoin is outlawed, I will become an outlaw.
Until then, I have freedom of speech. I am free to speak my own numbers.
In fact, the only problem are statements like yours, which imply that there is a problem, thus leading to an occasional hysterical, misguided reaction from the lawmakers who fall for the fallacy that Bitcoin is anonymous.
This.
We already commit 3 felonies a day, what difference is another one, when the peaceful exercise of economic liberty (bitcoin) is made a felony too? https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tacitus said Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges. See wiki for translation.
If everybody's a felon, the entire country has to become a prison.
If everybody's a felon, the entire country has to become a prison.
In fact, the only problem are statements like yours, which imply that there is a problem, thus leading to an occasional hysterical, misguided reaction from the lawmakers who fall for the fallacy that Bitcoin is anonymous.
This. 
This is it: "Is the fact that you are using bitcoins INHERENTLY suspicious?"
No. Is the fact that you are using cash inherently suspicious? As long as you're open about it in your tax declaration, why would it be?Bitcoin (or crypto-currency) is the greatest economic revolution in the history of economics.
No. Money is. Credit is second. Fiat is third. Cryptocurrency might be fourth.SM deserves a nobel prize in economics (if he actually exists) and few in this community would doubt that
SN might possibly be into SM (scnr), but he just doesn't seem to fit into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Economics.But we have to face something hard very soon. Governments will have to either find ways of successfully coupling national currencies to the system in order to verify that illegal activity is not occurring, or alternatively begin to enact laws which marginalize or even outlaw the use of these instruments!
I don't think so. There are literally hundreds of places in the world where some kind of currency is in everyday use that is not controlled by the respective government. Think of USD or EUR in foreign countries with weak local currencies. Few countries successfully outlaw foreign currency transactions.I don't see where that would be different regarding bitcoins.
At some point, fiat attached to bitcoin (I know, I'm a heretic) will be the answer.
That is already happening. It's sometimes referred to as MTGox, bitstamp, etc.There's no need to somehow artificially bind a cryptocurrency to the USD.
It makes just as little sense as fixing a country's currency to the Dollar.
When the United States government attached fiat (US dollar) to commodities (gold/silver), the result was the greatest economic boom in the history of the world! When they stopped doing it, the power of the system has diminished. You have to admit that it has been "down hill" ever since.
That's a non-sequitur. Currencies have been tied to commodities on several occasions. Economists usually don't appreciate that. There are really a lot of good reasons against it, but also, admittedly some in favor. Historically, economies with a tied currency have been less successful than those without in the long run.Eventually people will be screaming for it anyway as the challenges of irreversible transactions hit the open market place.
And that will be a great business opportunity for companies like Paypal etc. They may offer a reversible payment on top of bitcoin. One of the beauties of bitcoin is the opportunity to offer value added services based on its underlying infrastructure.We will, at least, have to surrender our ownership identities for public scrutiny.
Yes. Not everyone of "us", but professional business people usually don't really have a choice. Bitcoin changes nothing in this regard.We need to be looking at ways to come together as a community to create a body of controllers that could guide a new fiat policy into the future in a fair manner. If we don't come together on this, some organization will seize that power somehow and we will be left with what we had prior to the bitcoin revolution.
I don't see it, sorry.Am I crazy?
Possibly. 
Am I alone?
Probably not.Okay, I'll be going to add something for understanding:
I am pretty confident that sooner or later, banks will adopt bitcoin.
No, they really don't hate it, and why would they?
There's nothing from stopping a bank to offer bitcoin-accounts and do fractional reserve on them.
The whole credit business works equally well with bitcoin as with USD or the Euro.
I don't see any problems with taxation or money control either, so why would governments hate bitcoin?
Given the chance of being either at the spearhead of a financial revolution or being left behind with the "Silicon Valley of Money" rising in a foreign country, I believe it's in the best interest of a country like the US to embrace bitcoin rather than to oppose it.
If bitcoin gets prohibited, it will stay dark and underground. But all the geeks will still use it. And SR will still use it.
It will have the same status as an illegal number. It will still spread everywhere even if it has no real value anymore.
It will have the same status as an illegal number. It will still spread everywhere even if it has no real value anymore.
The point is that many of us that have invested in bitcoins want to see that value preserved somehow.
We need to start treating it as a commodity rather than a currency. It will function better that way in my opinion. Government will truly not be able to stop it either and nobody disagrees with that, but what we would like to see happen is a mainstream acceptance. Government sovereignty will be a huge challenge to this effort. At some point the United States government will officially classify it as a threat. I know many of you have your heads stuck in some cloud of anti-establishment ideology, but we need a plan for when we begun to be attacked by very powerful forces. The big fights haven't even started yet.
If it is declared illegal, regrettably, I will not use it. I won't want to break the law. That is a problem because this community needs more people just like me endorsing it and using it as I do now. We will have to find some middle ground eventually.
If bitcoin gets prohibited, it will stay dark and underground. But all the geeks will still use it. And SR will still use it.
It will have the same status as an illegal number. It will still spread everywhere even if it has no real value anymore.
It will have the same status as an illegal number. It will still spread everywhere even if it has no real value anymore.
Jump to: