Topic: United we stand, divided we fall - the coming rise of cryptofiat - page 4. (Read 16459 times)

I am American, though I do not consider myself a citizen. Subject is a more accurate word, and I'm not good with that either.

However, while I can't disagree with your assessment, I tend to look to where they might go if pushed. Bitcoin and associated blockchain based coins are not likely to go away. The very existence of a disruptive technology, especially one as potentially devastating to them as this, requires a response. Since it is in the best interests of the powers to APPEAR benevolent, and since the cracks in the foundation of the Federal Reserve Act and it's egregious succesors are becoming obvious even to the sheeple, it behooves them to try to co-opt it. Destroying it is impossible, and I think they learned that lesson with the Internet.

Think, then, what advantage such a thing would give them. The disadvantages are somewhat obvious and are discussed on this forum on an hourly basis, but few have bothered to look what the powers might GAIN from this technology.

First, let's dispense with the idea that they care a great deal about money. They don't. The currency they deal in is power. Money is merely an aspect or symbol of that power. Losing control of it it is catastrophic to the way they currently do business, but if you look at the history of rulership, they're incredibly adaptable. In America, they have turned a nation of renegades and individualists into a sociofascist empire that maintains and appearance of liberty. So, looking to that, how might blockchains be incorporated?

One that I find obvious is that they can hide their legerdemain in plain sight. Instead of fractional reserves, they have an adjustable rate of proof of stake, based on some metric they control. It appears that all money creation is above board and clean... but they control the metric.

I could go on for a while on the ways they might subvert the technology while APPEARING to "fix" the economic system. If they can come off as heroes, then they elevate themselves and again appear to be the benevolent overlords.

EDIT. Just saw your flavor text. Lose and loose I hate that shit. Bravo!

While agreeing with your above-quoted statement, I still disagree with your disagreement.

You seem to have the impression that easy tracking of the entire money supply is something of value to those whom have been granted a charter to zap money into existence at their leisure. I assert that this would actually be counter to their interests, as it would wake the masses to the chicanery of the entire system.

Just look at how hard the entrenched interests have been fighting -- year after year -- the intent to conduct an audit of the FED. (be you American - otherwise, the example may admittedly be rather obtuse)

The vast majority of fiat is database transactions. The tangible, physical notes we sometimes take out of our back pocket and employ is a vanishing minority of fiat.

So unless I continue to misunderstand you after your clarification, you were indeed referring to fiat.

I disagree.
Right now the actual calculation of how many dollars exist is... Well, convoluted would be a compliment. With blockchain technology, the creation and distribution of the currency is reduced to a common protocol that all the banks can use for the price of a few servers. By comparison to just the regulatory compliance softwares in banks, that's a pittance. Whether they'll have the brains and balls to actually do it is another story, but the public ledger/blockchain idea for transmission of data and tracking the money supply would simplify really a lot of modern finance.

I was not comparing to database. I was comparing to fiat (minting, transporting, securing, coins and banknotes; protection of databases via redundancy, physical protection, use of expensive closed-source software and devices...)

Exactly!

Thanks Biomech for your reply.

Look at this, from las Thursday: National Bank of Serbia states Bitcoin is not legal tender in country. First forbid, second propose an "authorized version" (cryptofiat - probably by then, Serbia will be in Eurozone - if not, then we'll see cryprodinar).

To be fair, I don't think much politicians are considering cryptofiat - they are just afraid of what they can't control. But surely later on the idea of cryptofiat will be a convincing argument for them.

There is absolutely no scenario under which a centralized blockchain implementation can be a cost reduction over a database.

David, that was a great read. In principle, I actually fully agree with you there.

As a man dedicated to bringing down the current system of governments (I am an anarchist), I think that the best way to do it is twofold: Use their services to bankrupt them, and incrementally render their currency worthless and irrelevant WHILE replacing it with something.

Governments are organisms, and organisms adapt or perish. The goal then, is to make them adapt to liberty over time. On front number one, we should use each and every "service" they monopolize to the maximum of our ability WITHOUT being dependent on it.

Front number two, well, the first part of it requires no action from the activist. They couldn't shoot themselves in the foot any better than they do. All full fiat currencies fail. It's as inevitable as the sun rise.

I think Cryptos are a big part of the second part. I work for a company that will integrate fiat and crypto to a greater level than it has ever seen. That interconvertability will not harm crypto, and probably not harm fiat in the short run. It will strengthen both.

But cryptos are not very open to manipulation and obfuscation of the money supply. They increase at a predictable rate, and attempts to alter it require a large consensus. This makes them a superior form of fiat. (I've long said that cryptcurrency IS a fiat currency, but it is not a CENTRALIZED fiat currency. It's still backed solely by intangibles, as opposed to commodity monies. I think this will merge to some extent in the future, as I think that I'm not the only one interested in creating crypto purchased "backups" of precious metals and other durable goods.

We're at the early stage of a highly revolutionary change in monetary operability, but in many ways it's more of an evolutionary change.

As much as I would personally like to see all governments fall today, the truth is that this would be catastrophic for the vast majority of people. at the moment. Crypts can help that, as they are a difficult to trace means of storing value. There is of course a great deal more that has to be done to get people at large to learn what self reliant MEANS, let alone how to do it.

More later. As always, you make me think. I like that in a person.

Exactly my point. If everyone chooses a cryptofiat of their own, nobody will accept anyone else's as legal tender. They will have to exchange them at the border. Rather than pick one nation like USA to be the reserve currency so they can enjoy all the benefits of that status, why not a neutral gold-like cryptocurrency?

Blockchain advantages in cost reduction
Transparent blockchain advantages in surveillance
"To kill your enemy, become your enemy"
These are just the off the top of my head. Longer consideration would lead to even more usecases.

Yes and no.
No because it is blockchain-based
Yes because it government-issued and enforced

How would it be any different than now?

Or the de facto killed currency.
"Fast transaction? We have it, even faster than bitcoin, because we are PoS"
"Security? Our central bank and government hold most of the coin at any given moment, so 51% is not possible. Not only this, but it will never be possible - with Bitcoin, you are at the mercy of some terrorist groups having more miners than the honest taxpayers."
"Adoption? Nothing can beat a governement-issue money, the same as your grandparents used to use. Fully credit-card compatible - try to use your VISA with Bitcoin."
"You are in the Eurozone and you insist on being paid with something else than Euro? What is wrong with you? Maybe I should call the police."

Both . The non-prohibition of prostitution doesnt' cost (enough) money. The non-prohibition of Bitcoin could cost a lot of money to some persons

You got me on this one The title is a reference to Matrix Reloaded and is intended to prove a point, whilst the footnote is more about the actual psychology to have.

One cannot deny that most activity in altcoin is about infightings. Not all of course, but most.

Until the matter of money (or reelection) comes to dinner. All of a sudden, they are surprisingly reactive. The decentralized ledger is not an advantage for us. It as an advantage for all. Hence cryptofiat.

You read me wrong. I meant that France did not accept its colonies' request for independance and it ended up in bloodbath. Constrast UK, which negociated peaceful separation. Today, the Queen of UK still rules Australia and Canada (even if it is purely symbolical) and, more importantly, not much blood was spilt. So, this is neither a justification nor a denonciation of colonialism, just a reminder of two different ways to deal with a crisis: being inflexible and make it end badly for all (France), or be flexible and make it a win-win situation (UK).

A war in which soldiers compete is not a war, so why use pathological terminology? Thinking of the crypto revolution as a "war" plays into the hands of the warmongers whom the crypto revolution is putting out of business.


Seems like an absurd generalization that leaves out of the picture the coders/thinkers who are working on novel crypto projects... such as yourself, no?


I think resistance to change is overwhelmingly dominant in authoritarian control structures, in government and also in the dinosaur banking system. Even if not, the innovation brought about by the decentralized ledger means we are at a huge advantage. Have you seen this idea for "crypto-everything"? The Cryptoglobalist Coalition


Is that a justification of colonialism (i.e. violent subjugation and mass murder) as "Stubborness and Stupidity", or do I read you wrong?

There is only one traditional way of resolving international debt...

I really like your post +1

I would still perhaps consider the other side that when you compare the evolution of technologies (radio vs tv etc.) you are not considering the HUGE dept fiat has been tied into. If they were to replace this with a cryptofiat how would they overcome the large depts that are tied into it between almost all nations around the world?  This is just a small scope on what differences there could be between the two though your point remains valid in that, we need to stop infighting and start realizing we are all but the children of a single entity and that we all have but one goal. There are a lot of weak hands and opportunist (as there always is with things of value) who care not for the overall success of bitcoin but their short/med/long term gains and other law makers who look to disease bitcoin with their sick fiat regulations that has created a cancerous currency.

Just some thoughts. We will see and stand by the moral code of bitcoin as always as much as possible.

Did you mean prostitution or should that have been Prohibition?

No. Currently fiat is managed in banks' excelsheets. It can be moved to blockchain with increased security. When more and more of the premine is emitted to the market, it is visible. It has some advantages. I would likely take it over the current bank cash.

This is what I've been proposing for a long time. Basically it has the security, pseudonymity, and protection from counterfeiting of a cryptocurrency, but no speculative value because it is fiat and issued by a state. Basically it's a bitcoin premined coin backed by the treasury debt. It's also an ideal platform for a PoS coin.

Folks would trade bitcoins with other cryptofiat coin's. Governments would have the best of both worlds and bitcoin becomes the defacto reserve currency.

Another reason why the government would not want this is because with a publicly viewable blockchain everyone would know exactly what information is available and against them. With the current fiat system the government can not only monitor the flow of money but they do not necessarily need to tell a suspect of a crime the extent of the evidence against him (or what the government may be able to uncover in the future) which would give a suspect an incentive to confess if they have committed a financial crime.

Isn't "cryptofiat" by definition the same thing we call "fiat" nowadays?

I think I understand the _idea_. But I don't understand the characteristics of an actual _implementation_. Sounds like you are scared of your shadowboxing sparring partner.

Why would governments use a blockchain to enact fiat? Why would they just not print it at random as they have always done? It is easier, they know how that system works, and there is no advantage to them to put it on a blockchain.

I guess they can watch all the transactions, but they can already watch the vast majority with our current system. I don't think they'd constrian their abilities for this incremental (tyrannical) benefit.