Topic: Why does bitcoin hate fiat money so much? - page 2. (Read 4860 times)

You don't have book tokens in the US?
Or store gift cards?
They are 'currency', issued by a private organisation, and redeemable for value only at select subscribing places.

No.  He was shut down as a counterfeiter/scammer, not issuing currency.  If you're talking about 18 USC § 486 - Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal, it's *coining your own money*, *coins* claiming to be precious metals. 

If there is federal law forbidding alternative currencies, sauce plox.

That doesn't matter; the point is, there was a private currency, and the U.S. Government shut it down, ultimately for the reason explained: "making, possessing, and selling his own currency".  It is illegal under federal law to print your own currency.

According to the Associated Press, "Federal prosecutors successfully argued that von NotHaus was, in fact, trying to pass off the silver coins as U.S. currency. Coming in denominations of 5, 10, 20, and 50, the Liberty Dollars also featured a dollar sign, the word "dollar" and the motto "Trust in God," similar to the "In God We Trust" that appears on U.S. coins".[29] Von NotHaus's attorney is appealing the decision and the arguments made by the prosecution in the case. Dollar, for example, is a term used by many nations for their currency and has a German-language, not American, origin, the original form being "thaler", from Joachimstal in Bohemia (now the Czech Republic). --wikip

Bitcoin is currently legal in US, is treated as virtual currency, and subject to largely the same body of law as real, state-issued currency (a major exception: it is not legal tender).  Case in point.
Be fruitful and multiply.

I'm afraid this isn't true; the US has a vested interest in ensuring its currency has no competition, thereby forcing people to use that instead of an alternative:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar

You do not have to accept anything -- you are free to trade in bitcoins or bark -- as long as you pay your taxes in fiat (the government, just like you, can decide how it wants to be paid).  At least that's the way it works in US.

I only dislike Fiat because one instance of it is forced on people.

While I'm more Austrian than Keynesian, I do not acknowledge that debt-based, inflated money must be bad. Bad is forcing people to accept exactly one instance of it with no proof of its superiority whatsoever -- and bullying alternatives on a regular basis.

Remember those unique, one-of-a-kind artworks ur mom used to hang on the fridge?  What are those masterpieces going for now? (please cite auction records & documented gallery sales)

Also, looking at history, except for the stuff currently alive, everything is dead. Love a good truism.

In foreseeable future.

The inflation is not disadvantage because fiat is meant to be using for immediate spending. To retain fiat value, you can not just sit on it, you have work with it. Those who dont understand it are highly dissapointd with fiat

It really doesn't matter. So long as the inflation/deflation is predictable and the inflation isn't due to an increase in supply not associated with an increase in real value and the deflation isn't due to a destruction of value, it all cancels out. In fact, you can argue that deflation equal to the average rate of investment return is optimal, as that permits those who want to minimize their risk to just hold currency, minimizing the transaction costs associated with choosing investments.

Won't survive ?
Until when? 2015?
 

So all fiat currencies have failed, except the ones that haven't?
Deep.

Deflation of Bitcoin is the HUGE disadvantage. The best currency would be one with 0% inflation/deflation.

You forgot the HUGE advantage Bitcoin has that you can't print a never ending supply of it. Just watch...as more and more fiat money get perpetually printed all over the world. Think of Bitcoin as a piece of artwork....it is unique and one of a kind, the only difference is you can split up Bitcoins into very small units and easily transfer them between people.

Also, looking at history, except for the current batch, all fiat currencies have eventually gone to zero.

Mining is becoming less and less profitable each day. If Bitcoin doesn't go mainstream then its price in pieces of bread will be low and only little resources (hardware + electricity) will be spent on mining. Digital fiat is a tough competitor, while it's on the stage Bitcoin has very low chances to become popular. Hence the only real way to survive is to "kill" fiat. I don't see other ways coz Bitcoin offers only a few advantages (mainly anonymity pseudonymity and warm fuzzy feeling of "controlling" own money).

Some times a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Bitcoiners go as far as realizing that, all the money being created is lent to banks which in term lend it to society - with interest being charged all the way.
Eventually this on it's own has deteriorating effects on the economy since the interest keeps compounding, seemingly with no end in sight.
So far so bad...

What they fail to realize is that debt is sometimes not expected to be paid back. It is simply written off.
That occurs in regular intervals on all levels along the debt chain, with the result being that the system actually is sustainable if the creditors foresee their profits from time to time.

"Good" is subjective; we can argue, night and day, that killing the people of another nation with the missiles government purchased with your tax dollars is good or bad.  However, the one thing we can agree on is that saying taxes are good is completely dependent on the individual; since government cannot reasonably represent the people, then, people would be better to represent themselves, as they are a much better candidate to being represented than by a complete and total stranger who cannot possibly understand everyone's desires.

In the example of bombing other nations, if we, the people of country X, agree we should bomb the nation Y, then we would be throwing our money at whatever businesses are going to make those bombs and take care of shipping them off head-first to whatever other plot of land we don't like.  However, if that's not what we want, then the businesses taking care of that cannot go through with it, nor would people want to buy from those businesses again (in response to their own morals.)

Likewise--what you're likely only thinking about is the roads and the hospitals and the ambulances etc.--if we, the people of country X, would like those things, we would willingly pay for them.  To assume that people are so incredibly selfish that they--and I mean the majority of a nation's people--would live in complete filth and disarray to save a buck, unless someone pointed a gun to their heads and told them to live well, then what argument do we have for most people enjoying the very same services they're forced to pay for?  Obviously, we like these services, and we've purchased far more useless things than roads, and hospitals, and ambulances.

Is it selfish to not want to be robbed?  If so, why do we punish the mugger?  We actually like this; we like it when the people who rob us are punished.  Is this selfish?  It's possible to argue such a point; perhaps the mugger was very hungry, and if he didn't rob you at gunpoint, he would've starved the next day--how could you be so incredibly selfish to deny a man of money so he can buy himself a meal?  Of course he robbed you; you deserved to be robbed for having so much more money than him.  So, you see, this person mugged you for a noble cause, and you're being selfish by calling the police on him.

However, I don't believe it's possible to be selfish when you cannot also be charitable; the man with the gun did not ask you for money, he demanded it.  In this case, even if you wanted to give that man money, he would've taken it from you anyway; even if you planned on giving him money anyway, it isn't charity.  You aren't being charitable by giving the government money when it demands it with threats of violence.  You cannot be selfish by saying "no" when you have no other option.  Even now, though I don't agree with taxation, I pay taxes on my every purchase.  I would gladly pay for the roads, the hospitals, the ambulances, the firefighters, security, and it wouldn't even be charity, but an exchange of my money for their business; however, I would not pay for SS, unjustifiable and endless wars, or the salaries of every politician, and that's why you're told that taxation is, no matter the circumstance, good.

Don't see it.  Bitcoin and fiat can both exist at the same time.

Let's go back to the topic.

If fiat doesn't die, Bitcoin won't survive. IMO.