Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 28891.

aminorex

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1030

Sine secretum non libertas

Quote from: Threebits on March 11, 2014, 09:08:06 PM

My question is, why the Chinese government banned Cryptocurrency but allows everything going?

For the same reason most of the laws in the U.S. exist: To keep everyone in a constant state of fear and submission. If you step out of line, there are probably a dozen felony charges that can be laid against you at any time.

seleme

legendary

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1028

Duelbits.com

Bitstamp withdrawals bit slow

Threebits

member

Activity: 75

Merit: 10

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on March 11, 2014, 08:24:58 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2014, 08:06:19 PM

China may have realized that it cannot stifle bitcoin.. and china has a mixed set of motives including a desire to have some kind of investment vehicle separate from the dollar... .. so China is likely torn about bitcoin and about whether they like it or hate it... maybe they are frienemies with bitcoin?

From what Iknow, Chinese residents cannot pay for goods or services using bitcoin; banks and other financial institutions cannot deal with bitcoin; bitcoins cannot be sold by e-commerce sites; and e-payment services cannot be used to pay for bitcoin. So what is left?

I believe there are other cointries which have taken similar measures; Russia and India, perhaps? (A thread was started in this forum to build a list the legal status of bitcoin in each coutry, but it never got beyond the first draft.) Some countries (like the US) have not banned crypto-coins explicitly, but their existing regulations alerady prevent some of those uses.

If crypto currencies will only be used for clandestine commerce between peers, under risk of legal penalties, they will have failed in their goal.

I don't see anything left. Things left are all self contradictory.

For example, Cryptocurrency is claimed by China as commodity, not currency. But how can one get that commodity besides mining? By regulation, All banks or payment processors are forbidden to link with exchanges. This means one just can not buy bitcoin on an exchange, as he can't credit his fiat into an exchange in an allowed way.

This results in a funny situation. Exchanges, banks and traders are all doing openly, but not allowed by government. Do I understand correctly.

My question is, why the Chinese government banned Cryptocurrency but allows everything going?

aminorex

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1030

Sine secretum non libertas

Quote from: Richy_T on March 11, 2014, 09:01:07 PM

The dollar was banned in the USSR (and a few other states) but was still quite popular (there) by my understanding.

Trading FX in China is generally illegal still. I would expect in DPRK, Laos as well, but have no direct knowledge. You know, those great bastions of human dignity.

bassclef

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2014, 08:49:05 PM

Quote from: theonewhowaskazu on March 11, 2014, 08:35:19 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2014, 08:28:53 PM

John steward mill said something like that, and that was in the 1800s.

Whats this supposed to imply? That morality is supposed to change with time or something?

We may still cite John Steward Mill and others even though the ideas have been around a while, and maybe there was NO reference to John Steward Mill in the original post.

I do believe that some things that were said in the 1800s may NOT apply very well in the modern world due to population growth and technological applications that may NOT fit very well into some of the current paradigms. I was quite a fan of JS Mill during some parts of my life, but in recent times, I have been giving more weight to concerns and needs of community b/c I am of the opinion that some of the JS Mill thinking may NOT apply very well to some social responsibility concepts... there needs to be some balance.. ... yet I am NOT in any position to assert exactly where that balance line should be drawn.. that would be a product of the community, ultimately.. and surely I would think that any society would like to have balances that allow for personal liberty within a community framework, if possible.

JayJuan, check out this video. It pretty much sums things up.

http://youtu.be/muHg86Mys7I

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on March 11, 2014, 08:24:58 PM

From what Iknow, Chinese residents cannot pay for goods or services using bitcoin; banks and other financial institutions cannot deal with bitcoin; bitcoins cannot be sold by e-commerce sites; and e-payment services cannot be used to pay for bitcoin. So what is left?

I believe there are other cointries which have taken similar measures; Russia and India, perhaps? (A thread was started in this forum to build a list the legal status of bitcoin in each coutry, but it never got beyond the first draft.) Some countries (like the US) have not banned crypto-coins explicitly, but their existing regulations alerady prevent some of those uses.

If crypto currencies will only be used for clandestine commerce between peers, under risk of legal penalties, they will have failed in their goal.

The dollar was banned in the USSR (and a few other states) but was still quite popular (there) by my understanding.

aminorex

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1030

Sine secretum non libertas

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on March 11, 2014, 08:24:58 PM

If crypto currencies will only be used for clandestine commerce between peers, under risk of legal penalties, they will have failed in their goal.

I use them at the newsstand by my office building in midtown Manhattan, to buy chewing gum and newspapers. I use them to make charitable donations to a school in Chad and another in Kyrgyzstan. I use them to pay rent on my apartment on the UES. Eventually I should be able to replace most of my uses of fiat with uses of BTC. I will generally shop at Overstock or TigerDirect when possible, avoiding Amazon until they take bitcoin. For now, I still spend a lot on airlines, and generally use AmEx in restaurants, and still pay utilities with checks. The experiment is working about as well as could reasonably be expected, for me. Continued success seems probable. A Bitcoin debit card would be huge for me.

PoolMinor

legendary

Activity: 1844

Merit: 1338

XXXVII Fnord is toast without bread

Hypnoise

full member

Activity: 152

Merit: 100

Quote from: meanig on March 11, 2014, 08:35:42 PM

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on March 11, 2014, 08:24:58 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2014, 08:06:19 PM

China may have realized that it cannot stifle bitcoin.. and china has a mixed set of motives including a desire to have some kind of investment vehicle separate from the dollar... .. so China is likely torn about bitcoin and about whether they like it or hate it... maybe they are frienemies with bitcoin?

From what Iknow, Chinese residents cannot pay for goods or services using bitcoin; banks and other financial institutions cannot deal with bitcoin; bitcoins cannot be sold by e-commerce sites; and e-payment services cannot be used to pay for bitcoin. So what is left?

I believe there are other cointries which have taken similar measures; Russia and India, perhaps? (A thread was started in this forum to build a list the legal status of bitcoin in each coutry, but it never got beyond the first draft.) Some countries (like the US) have not banned crypto-coins explicitly, but their existing regulations alerady prevent some of those uses.

If crypto currencies will only be used for ~~clandestine~~ private commerce between peers, ~~under risk of legal penalties~~ who don't care about regulation, they will have ~~failed~~ succeeded in their goal.

FTFY

Chinese corrupted officers will push Bitcoin price up 1000 times

http://www.bit-sky.com/index.php/english/370-chinese-corrupted-officers-will-push-bitcoin-price-up-1000-times

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2014, 08:14:50 PM

I am NOT sure how my comments attribute me to subscribing to embracing gang violence. I do admit, however, at at least one point, I suggested that to me it seems that some people are going to need to be forced to contribute to the community b/c if they were left on their own, they would NOT contribute. I am NOT locked into this thinking, but it seems that some posters in this discussion have suggested that they do NOT want to pay anything,.

There is a world of difference between not wanting to pay and not wanting to be forced to pay.

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2014, 08:14:50 PM

I have some difficulties imagining a community in which either all or some people do NOT pay anything into the community.

Really? I must vacation on your planet sometime. It sounds fascinating.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: theonewhowaskazu on March 11, 2014, 08:35:19 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2014, 08:28:53 PM

John steward mill said something like that, and that was in the 1800s.

Whats this supposed to imply? That morality is supposed to change with time or something?

We may still cite John Steward Mill and others even though the ideas have been around a while, and maybe there was NO reference to John Steward Mill in the original post.

I do believe that some things that were said in the 1800s may NOT apply very well in the modern world due to population growth and technological applications that may NOT fit very well into some of the current paradigms. I was quite a fan of JS Mill during some parts of my life, but in recent times, I have been giving more weight to concerns and needs of community b/c I am of the opinion that some of the JS Mill thinking may NOT apply very well to some social responsibility concepts... there needs to be some balance.. ... yet I am NOT in any position to assert exactly where that balance line should be drawn.. that would be a product of the community, ultimately.. and surely I would think that any society would like to have balances that allow for personal liberty within a community framework, if possible.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: octaft on March 11, 2014, 07:56:02 PM

I'm looking for better definition on where you stand.

Alright, let's take this further: the argument is that we would support the poor through voluntary charity, yes? Now let's say after 10 years, charity turns out to be woefully inadequate. Let's assume that -- while the world has not devolved into chaos and anarchy as a result of a lack of government -- that some are suffering because not everything went as planned. There's slums with no police protection because everyone that lives in the neighborhood can't afford it. How do we approach that? Are some things up for socialization, or is it all strictly no go, no budge?

Sure, the poor ain't doing so hot right now, but in order for the change to be worth it, it's not enough to be different. It's got to be better, and noticeably so. The problem is better is subjective, and not everyone will agree on, let alone know, what better really is.

Oh, I'm fairly happy to take things piecemeal. If things don't appear to be working, back off and adjust approach. Obviously, I believe things would not tend to end up that way (though government action has created a huge underclass that would have to be accounted for) but I'm not one for big schemes that have to be implemented in one fell swoop (just look at Obamacare for how that kind of thing goes).

Basically I see it like a big game of Jenga. There are some pieces which can be taken easily and others which require the removal of other pieces before they can be taken without collapsing the whole tower. Fortunately, almost every step that is taken to improve freedom should make the next one easier.

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on March 11, 2014, 08:24:58 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2014, 08:06:19 PM

China may have realized that it cannot stifle bitcoin.. and china has a mixed set of motives including a desire to have some kind of investment vehicle separate from the dollar... .. so China is likely torn about bitcoin and about whether they like it or hate it... maybe they are frienemies with bitcoin?

From what Iknow, Chinese residents cannot pay for goods or services using bitcoin; banks and other financial institutions cannot deal with bitcoin; bitcoins cannot be sold by e-commerce sites; and e-payment services cannot be used to pay for bitcoin. So what is left?

Lots of things are left - including: Storage of value, exportation of capital from country and speculation. Surely, those other aspects would be helpful for bitcoin in china, but they are NOT going to kill bitcoin in china. Also, do you really believe that chinese people are good at following rules? Surely, they can be good at following some rules, but they are also good at finding work arounds. I put my money on the work arounds.

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on March 11, 2014, 08:24:58 PM

I believe there are other cointries which have taken similar measures; Russia and India, perhaps? (A thread was started in this forum to build a list the legal status of bitcoin in each coutry, but it never got beyond the first draft.) Some countries (like the US) have not banned crypto-coins explicitly, but their existing regulations alerady prevent some of those uses.

If crypto currencies will only be used for clandestine commerce between peers, under risk of legal penalties, they will have failed in their goal.

bitcoin is likely to be used whether with the cooperation of governments or NOT.

I agree with you that bitcoin could become very marginalized if there were outright and extensive attacks - however, there may also be backlash and wider scoff law type issues.. such as drug trafficking and porn that are illegal but happen despite laws.

Yes, if there was extensive attack then maybe bitcoin could return to $10 or less per BTC.... the reduction of value does NOT automatically imply that BTC has been stifled to death... but just more underground in its uses.

meanig

hero member

Activity: 531

Merit: 501

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on March 11, 2014, 08:24:58 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2014, 08:06:19 PM

China may have realized that it cannot stifle bitcoin.. and china has a mixed set of motives including a desire to have some kind of investment vehicle separate from the dollar... .. so China is likely torn about bitcoin and about whether they like it or hate it... maybe they are frienemies with bitcoin?

From what Iknow, Chinese residents cannot pay for goods or services using bitcoin; banks and other financial institutions cannot deal with bitcoin; bitcoins cannot be sold by e-commerce sites; and e-payment services cannot be used to pay for bitcoin. So what is left?

I believe there are other cointries which have taken similar measures; Russia and India, perhaps? (A thread was started in this forum to build a list the legal status of bitcoin in each coutry, but it never got beyond the first draft.) Some countries (like the US) have not banned crypto-coins explicitly, but their existing regulations alerady prevent some of those uses.

If crypto currencies will only be used for ~~clandestine~~ private commerce between peers, ~~under risk of legal penalties~~ who don't care about regulation, they will have ~~failed~~ succeeded in their goal.

FTFY

theonewhowaskazu

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2014, 08:28:53 PM

John steward mill said something like that, and that was in the 1800s.

Whats this supposed to imply? That morality is supposed to change with time or something?

Threebits

member

Activity: 75

Merit: 10

Ownership, I'm not 100% about it. The secrecy nature of bitcoin challenges ownership. This is a fundamental problem, methinks.

P2P, freedom, privacy etc are good, but slippery ownership is not good, not at all.

The community will self organize a better ownership? But how, can we guess? This would be very interesting.

tailor

member

Activity: 66

Merit: 10

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2014, 08:28:53 PM

I have been thinking that meaning is more clear - or less ambiguous.

I imagine that you are viewing this matter differently, otherwise you would NOT have commented on such a stylistic matter.

It doesn't help with non-existent ambiguity (not and NOT mean the same thing), but it certainly breaks up the flow when reading.

My 0.00001BTC

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Walsoraj on March 11, 2014, 07:11:41 PM

Quote from: Yololintian on March 11, 2014, 07:04:46 PM

Overstock CEO bought in the 800s and now is getting desperate Grin

Is that a guess or did he admit to it somewhere?

Look for the news articles / interviews when he basically said "I wasn't going to buy the bitcoins but I changed my mind and bought all the bitcoins this week". The price really was in the mid 800s at that point in time. We can't be sure exactly what his average was but we can say for sure that a) he bought a boatload and b) his average was somewhere in the 800s.

Whether true or NOT, those kinds of stories make me feel good b/c smarter people than me seem to have higher buy-in prices than me. My current average buy-in price is in the upper $600s.

Quote from: josiahgarber on March 11, 2014, 08:16:31 PM

Quote from: octaft on March 11, 2014, 07:56:02 PM

The problem is better is subjective, and not everyone will agree on, let alone know, what better really is.

And that is why non-aggression is so important. You can do what you want as long as you don't interfere with others.

John steward mill said something like that, and that was in the 1800s.

We also have social responsibilities, too, so likely we cannot leave the matter at just do whatever you want so long as you do NOT hurt anyone.

Quote from: tailor on March 11, 2014, 08:17:56 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 11, 2014, 08:14:50 PM

I am NOT sure how my comments attribute me to subscribing to embracing gang violence. I do admit, however, at at least one point, I suggested that to me it seems that some people are going to need to be forced to contribute to the community b/c if they were left on their own, they would NOT contribute. I am NOT locked into this thinking, but it seems that some posters in this discussion have suggested that they do NOT want to pay anything, and I have some difficulties imagining a community in which either all or some people do NOT pay anything into the community. I admit, this lack of vision may be a result of my NOT understanding the new system that may NOT require contributions from either all or some community members.

DO YOU HAVE A MACRO TO CAPITALIZE 'not' EVERY TIME YOU TYPE IT?

I have been thinking that meaning is more clear - or less ambiguous.

I imagine that you are viewing this matter differently, otherwise you would NOT have commented on such a stylistic matter.

mzp

newbie

Activity: 10

Merit: 0

to make that cute little tarantula drawing complete and symmetrical look for about 18 hrs of sideways in the mid 640's, then a 1700 coin red candle to the lower 620's in the early afternoon tomorrow

octaft

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Quote from: josiahgarber on March 11, 2014, 08:16:31 PM

Quote from: octaft on March 11, 2014, 07:56:02 PM

The problem is better is subjective, and not everyone will agree on, let alone know, what better really is.

And that is why non-aggression is so important. You can do what you want as long as you don't interfere with others.

Two points:

1) You completely ignored the first part of my post, which is in my opinion far more important.

2) What if I want to interfere with others? What if I want to do it violently and aggressively, and rob all their stuff? What if I find a crew of like-minded individuals, and together we try to rob their stuff with force and overrun their paid protection? They could call us the "Tax Men," but I guarantee you our rates are far higher than the governments. Have all the faith in humanity you want, but this is a possibility that must be accounted for.

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 28891. (Read 26609780 times)