Topic: Who cares if Bitcoin goes mainstream? (Read 3644 times)

Broad stereotypes?  If I refer to a group of United States citizens whom own/control a large banking conglomerate as being 'American bankers,' could that really be construed as a stereotype?  Much less a racist comment?

I fail to see any derogatory remark in that statement, similarly, similarly, I fail to see any in the 'Zionist banker' remark either.

And why J. J. Phillips felt compelled to inject anything Nazism is beyond me... perhaps if the context included Germany ~70 years ago, but it didn't.  It merely and only delved into United States matters.

 

That's all it was ever supposed to be.  Bitcoin is a digital payment system that doesn't have a central point of failure and doesn't divert money into the hands of an owner. 

All this crap about bringing down banks and governments is just that -- crap -- and always has been.  We're not revolutionaries here, or if we are we're laughably ineffective ones.  We're just working out a more efficient way to transfer value. Even if we figure out a more efficient way to transfer value, banks and governments have legitimate jobs they are still needed for and can legitimately get paid for doing. 

And transferring value more efficiently does not make anyone an enemy of the state or crap like that; on the contrary it makes the commerce on which the state depends stronger.  If it works this is the sort of thing that earns gratitude and Nobel prizes, not the sort of thing that earns enmity and censure.  Sure, there'll be a few disgruntled money transfer businesses like Western Union.  Boo fuckin' hoo.  Nobody important gives a crap about them, any more than they gave a crap about the coal-oil companies that went out of business when cities electrified their street lighting.

Also?  Quit framing with broad racist stereotypes.  It makes you look like a goddamn hatemongering tool.

Your comment seems to mean, "I don't see what is Nazi about saying 'Zionist bankers are the puppeteers who are really in charge'." I'm not sure how to respond to this beyond saying we seem to have very different ideas about what the Nazis believed.

What do you mean by 'go mainstream'? I don't think Bitcoin will be used universally to buy groceries or pay for a cup of coffee. I believe it will be used as some sort of back bone or a store of value - much like gold, real estate, etc. It will find its niche no one can even predict these days!

Bitcoin won't mean paying less taxes. If anything it's just another thing for them to tax and they will. If people get caught avoiding paying it they'll also go to prison.


I don't really se  what is Nazi about it. Zionists exist but I don't buy into most conspiracy theories about them.

The problem with the totalitarian state, is that people generally give up their sovereignty and give their support and money to people who trample on others' rights. It has nothing to do with race, words, symbols or uniforms. You think that you watch out against the evil, while you in fact are a part of it.

You're sick. And I find it disgusting that such Nazi propaganda is regularly included as offhand remarks on this forum without being challenged. Your society/government/money is not controlled by evil Jewish puppeteers. This was also not true in Germany in the 30s. It's just an idea that appeals to many, many sick people in the world.

I don't care if bitcoin goes mainstream. One of the reasons I like bitcoin is it allows me to be independent of a support system for Nazis like Eric Jarvies. I suspect the mainstream likes participating in a system that supports Nazis like Eric Jarvies. If I'm right about that, then fuck the mainstream.

Improved and enhanced. not hostile bitcoin

Bitcoin is not about paying less taxes.
Read the white paper.

If Bitcoin going mainstream means that the average Joe pays less in taxes than that's great! Otherwise I think only the halves will benefit
from mainstream acceptance.

It is not a question of whether Bitcoin goes mainstream or not, it is instead a question of whether people wish to truly control their own money/value/worth.

Right now Bitcoin is being marginalized and contained by way of governments and their imposing laws, and will soon be nothing more then another digital payment system.

People are supposed to control their government, to direct and guide their government for the betterment of the majority population.  However, this simply is not the case, in that the government is entirely opposed to the people, and does what it must in order to maintain said control over the people.  It maintains this control by way of fiat currency and with all of the laws that are designed to protect it, and with all of the agencies employed to enforce said protection.

Cryptocurrencies at this point in time are only as good as are they valued against fiat currency, hence, they are nothing more then tokens in a digital payment processing system.  It does not matter that the ledger (blockchain) is not centralized, because the entry and exit points to fiat currency is centralized, and is highly controlled by government, which is why the government maintains such control over the people.

When people vote for a President, it is not their vote (or majority thereof) that elects a President, instead, a President is elected by the Electoral College vote, and so by design, it will NEVER matter who you vote for because you (the people) under design of government are not empowered with such privilege.  But even if you were, it still would not matter because you are giving your vote (proxy) to a President that will not be accountable to you (the people), but instead will be subservient to the puppeteers (the ones that are really in charge, the underlying powers, aka Zionist bankers, the ones that control fiat currency).

Every aspect of fiat currency is controlled by people that are beyond government, hence government law has no rule over them.  Yet, government law has absolute rule over the people.  So, until the people get control of their government, they will have no hope or chance to control value and worth and the exchange thereof, apart from trading and bartering possessions.  

Back when the United States government was formed, it was not possible for people to travel across the country on trains, or fly on airlines.  As such, it took considerable effort to travel from one state to the next, and was often met with accident, injury, and death.  So, to that end and at that time, it made sense for the people of each state to give their proxy to select individuals (congressmen, senators), whom themselves would travel to DC and be representative of their state.  But along came the train and with it the ability to travel from one coast to the other in a matter days.   Then came flight, and it was then possible for any senator or congressman to travel to DC in matter of hours.  And in-between these also came the wire and then the telephone, and so collectively it became possible for any given state to reclaim their individual rights to vote (both as a state, and as individuals within the state), which meant people no longer needed to give their proxy to a select few.  Finally, the computer came, and then the modem came, and then BBSes, and then the Internet, and by 2000 there was absolutely no good reason why the states and the federal government needed to be run by only a select few individuals.

Today, we have every technology to engage in direct democracy, wherein we need not elect officials for the purposes of giving them our proxy.  Instead, we the people can vote directly on any and every issue concerning them and their state, and concerning them and their federal government.  Elected officials should only SERVE the will of the people, where the people vote and make the decisions, and the elected officials do the actual job of making sure the decisions are implemented.  

The blockchain could today, at this very moment, be used in each state and by the United States for the purposes of direct democracy voting, wherein the people hold the ledger and account (thus having true accountability), wherein people may 'pay to play' as it relates to what they do and do not want, such as war, or having potholes repaired on their local street.  There is no good reason why the people's money should go into a blackhole government that itself decides what it should do, or rather, is told what to do by those who create and control the fiat currency.  Until people wake up to this fact, and until people actually do something about this, then advents like Bitcoin will come and go, becoming slaves to the fiat currency against which they are valued, of which the people has no control over such value.

All of you should care about getting BTC into the mainstream physique, its the only way to balance the price. High money flow = more stability.

That gain in value is an illusion brought about by measuring value in inflating currencies.  It will be worth larger numbers over time, not larger wealth.

Getting rich on other people's work only happens if you've loaned them money or otherwise ensnared them in a debt-based system, and the beauty of Bitcoin is that it's NOT debt-based.  People who actually produce wealth and don't owe loans they have to pay back, and aren't enmeshed in a gigantic loan made via the whole currency and banking system they use?  They get to keep the wealth they produce.   People who just sit there holding some coins and expect other people's work to make them rich, post adoption, are going to find that it just doesn't work.  At least, I devoutly hope so.  Insofar as I'm idealistic, that's the ideal. 

Bitcoin is second-order productive -- it doesn't directly produce value that can go into someone's pocket.  What it does, ideally, is to cut out middlemen, remove market friction and resistance, and thereby make all the first-order productive stuff that does put money into people's pockets  (people working their assets off) work better.

Bitcoin will continue to gain value so long as three things remain true:

-Supply is scarce (21 million btc)
-Energy (for mining) is scarce (no infinite free energy technology)
-Capitalism is the method by which we distribute goods and resources

Of these three, only the demise of capitalism is probable in our lifetime.

I want Bitcoin to go mainstream. 

Bitcoin solves a problem - frictionless, conversion-free transfer of value from person to person, world wide.

There are a thousand people standing there wanting to get their hands in your pocket whenever you want to transfer value from one place to another, for whatever reason -- western onion, visa, innumerable currency exchanges, bankers with foreign-exchange fees, money order companies, etc ad nauseam. 

Bitcoin.  Bam.  Go get a job, you goddamn parasites, and try to be productive for a change.

Bitcoin is one stroke that cuts out a whole bunch of commerce-impairing middlemen and toll-takers rent-seekers and obstructionists.  It's going to be regulated, monitored, and taxed.  Because it's money, and that shit happens to money.  But it's not going to be systematically stolen by powerful crooks without leaving any evidence, the way other kinds of money are, because blockchain == evidence.  The petty corrupt can't steal Bitcoin and then pretend that it hasn't been stolen.

That is the primary reason I want it to be adopted.

As an investment?  Short term, if/while it grows with increasing adoption, that's high risk but high potential gain.  Long term?  Not so great.  In the long run, it doesn't represent a group of people using assets to  be productive, and bluntly when nobody's working their assets off, nobody's getting paid.  So returns measured in constant units, in the long run, must tend to zero.  Whether that happens at value zero (meaning complete and utter failure) or at value N>0 (meaning stabilized prices after adoption) it's going to happen.

If it has value in the long run, then it will be useful in portfolios an inflation hedge and a counterbalance against overexposure to the financial-services sector, like gold.  But once it's been adopted, it won't be the primary basis of a portfolio that's actually profitable.

Almost no one cares. Almost everyone feels entitled to the benefits, but almost no one considers the (usually externalized) costs.

I am sure everyone cares if it goes mainstream . Almost everyone cares when technological advances happen.

I'd love this considering how much I've invested in the currency.
God knows how much I hate PayFraud!

It's irrational not to care if Bitcoin goes mainstream. Bitcoin is either better or worse than fiat. If it's worse, it's irrational to want it to go mainstream. On the other hand, if it's better, it's irrational not to want it to go mainstream.

...

BTC going mainstream would clearly give us (and soon-to-be adopters) more options and more ways to use Bitcoin.  IMO that is an unequivocal good thing.  It would likely make segments happy too (eg, merchants who avoid 3% credit card fees).

But, for now I am happy enough that PM dealer providentmetals.com takes BTC (there are about three other gold dealers who do as well).  THIS for me is important.

I would also like more options for spending BTC overseas when we travel (Peru, Europe).  Or even taking local FIAT$ form a foreign ATM in case I needed local money...