Bitcoin Forum

First of all, the need to create Bitcoins. But even more than that-bitcoins are tied to the USD. And do you know HOW MANY people are buying silver/gold instead of taking their "paper". Cause thats what it is-paper. Even change will be soon. Mr GreenJew (no offense) just stays posted all day making as much money as he wants. The reason things 99% of the time are raised in  price is because of inflation-GreenJew got excited and printed a bunch more.
Basically, the USD is backed by...not even the US (its not Federal)paper?
Now, we've stepped back in time to when the Silver Standard existed.
We are almost literally repeating historical economics that did not work out so well.
God help us.

I'm sorry but I haven't the faintest what you are on about, your post isn't coherent enough to really convey anything. Better luck next time.

Inflation based theft.  It doth suck.

Well, it'll be up to the market to decide how much a dollar is worth in bitcoins then. Just a matter of time pending economic meltdown/awareness of why the economy we have doesn't work .

But he gets inflation-theft... what is the mental state of all the millions that accept it gladly?  :o

The peasants would likely revolt if they even had a clue that inflation tax theft existed. A candidate for POTUS standing there holding up a 1964 dime on every major network and exclaiming that it still buys pretty much the same amount of gasoline it did when it was minted didn't even phase the fluoridated masses.

....... Peasants?.... Really?.....

Yes peasants...you know, pitchfork carrying farm boys. Like yours truly.

Huh??  ???

Do you mean creating the concept of Bitcoins, or actually generating the Bitcoins themselves?

If you mean generating Bitcoins, How else do you think we fairly distribute them? You think Satoshi should have just started off with 21 million BTC in his wallet?


Where did you hear this nonsense? This is completely untrue.

How so? Say what you will about silver certificates, they still meant that US banknotes were claim tickets for a commodity, instead of deriving their whole value from tax-coupon status and historical confidence.

If you mean no offense, then stop using "jew" like a dirty word.

Also, if you're referring to Greenspan, he hasn't been Fed Chairman since 2006.

Yeah, it's Helicopter Ben, now.

Alright, apparently I have to simplify it for you.
Before Eisenhower eliminated the Silver Standard, every $note represented a certain bit of silver. If you had $5 you could go to the bank and get $5 in silver (as in silver certificates).
Now, our (USA) currency is tied to NOTHING. Literally it is a piece of paper. What gives things value? Utility and scarceness. Obviously dollar bills don't have much utility. But they have a certain degree of rarity. However, the Fed Rsrv can print as much money as it wants, causing inflation and making $1 worth less.
Bottomline: only FINITE forms of currensy work (gold, silver, etc). Our money system is INFINITE and therefore gives way to inflation.
make more sense?

I understand your view of fiat. Others have this view as well.  You may be right, you may be wrong (regarding your assertion that "only FINITE forms of currency work"), only time will tell.

What I don't understand is what you meant when you said: "First of all, the need to create Bitcoins. But even more than that-bitcoins are tied to the USD."

Didn't you know anything you can buy with money gets part of that money's money-ness infused in it?

It's a problem I often have with chairs. This chair I am in is so comfortable, but I'm dismayed that it is tied to the money I bought it with which greatly reduces it's chairy-ness.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

lol... not your most coherent post, man. Want to re-arrange those words into a sentence?

I mean, did the DMT just kick in, or what?

:-) http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/has-anyone-really-been-far-even-as-decided-to-use-even-go-want-to-do-look-more-like

in reply to OP -- been sitting on the idea of making this post for a few days.

Ahh. I lol'd.

LOL thanks for the definition.

lol. i love it. many references but no facts or arguments :D

I think it's sad that I can't get decent thai food in norther california.

If enough people also think this is sad, and you can cook (or at least, can hire a good cook), maybe you should scratch that itch yourself. Start a restaurant. Call it Thai Mai Shu or some such.

I was referring to the need to create a P2P form of currency. And by "tied to the dollar" I meant we assess btc at their USD value that day. Its not like we think of them in units of gold or something.

So, are you likewise depressed that the Big Mac is "tied to the dollar"? Or your flatscreen TV?

You can express anything of value in terms of anything else of value. You could say that the Big Mac buys 3.14 dollars, instead of the other way around. That doesn't make it "tied to" the currency, just expressed in terms of that currency.

At the current value of Bitcoins, they're worth about 2/5ths of an ounce of silver each. Happy?

It's funny you say that because I've been training myself to break my programming(brainwashing) as it relates to valuing everything in consistently devalued FRNs for some while now. I'm nearly there, though sometimes I still regress. Instead of fiat toilet paper I try to think of the value of everything in terms of Ozt of silver. Try it some time, it can be very enlightening. When you think of purchases in terms of exchanging something of intrinsic value like AU, AG, or BTC, you're generally less likely to give them up for something of marginal value, unlike valuing things in USDs or other fiat trash.

There is no difference between valuing something in "fiat trash" and in gold/bitcoins, because gold can be converted to "fiat trash".

Say $10 = 1 bitcoin.

Laptop: $300 fiat
30 bitcoins

???

No difference.

Actually there's a huge difference. Gold was $39.31 the year I was born. How many rolls of fiat TP does it take to purchase an Ozt of gold today?

1712

http://www.nma.org/pdf/gold/his_gold_prices.pdf

Inflation is a hidden tax. It moves slowly, but it's painfully obvious over time that it's eating your purchasing power.

To me, this is the biggest utility of Bitcoin and gold -- they protect me against inflation, and they do so very well.

In choosing one or the other, I personally put these risks in the balance:

- Gold may be a bit overpriced right now
- Governments will want to steal people's gold in the future (they already did once)
- Bitcoin is more volatile than gold

Therefore, I'm pursuing a balanced strategy with both.

I find this unlikely.  When this happened last in the US, gold was how most people saved for old age.  These days, that is done via 401k's and IRA retirement accounts.  There is much more value for a failing government to steal in those accounts than all of the privately owned gold in our modern world.  And since those accounts were created as tax-defered savings vehicles by acts of Congress, it's hard to argue that Congress can't just change it's mind on that issue, for the "greater good" and all that.  For that matter, there has been talk of 'nationalizing' private retirement accounts by certain persons on the far left of the political spectrum in Congress since the big health care law was passed.  It's simply the next box to get a checkmark in their social agenda.

To any economic experts, please feel free to correct this simplified version...

For the most part currency is not tied to a specific physical item as it once was with the Gold standard.  It is actually tied to the "confidence" one has in the economy of the government backing that currency.  For instance, at one time the de facto currency used to trade in oil was the USD.  There has been a push to change that to the Euro, but that's a different topic.    Since the confidence was high in the USD many were comfortable  exchanging oil for USD and thus this gave the it more stability and therefore it gained more confidence for trading with other commodities.  

So to say Bitcoins are "tied" to the USD is actually incorrect.  It's tied to the confidence that those trading in it have in Bitcoins.  Most have more confidence in the USD than Bitcoins so they mitigate risk by using USD.  At one time many of the exchanges did offer Bitcoins to be traded with other fiat currencies, but those currencies weren't used enough for the exchanges to keep the option available.  

I'm definitely not an economist, but everything you say is how I would have said it. It all comes back to the basic principles of economics: unlimited demand w/limited resources. We value the dollar because of its scarcity. We value $50 more than $1 because accumulating $50 is harder to do than acquiring $1 is. We value the dollar because it is our country's (USA) system of currency, as imposed by the government.
The thing is, though, that with currency mandated by a non-federal agency and backed by absolutely nothing, there is an inevitable crash that will take place in the future, as inflation has made it as such that a $100 bill will literally be worth only its utility; maybe one asswipe or something. No one can argue that our system of money, the dollar, has been in a constant state of inflation. Unless something is done, this inflation will continue until dollar bills are worth only their utility; not much seeing as they are a small piece of paper.
Like I said, I'm not an economist. PLEASE point out any flaws in my argument. This is something that perplexes me, and its so simple. I can't believe people aren't running around rioting!
On the other hand, what is a BTC? A series of digits. BUT, once all of the BTC out there are mined, they are mined. There will be no more bitcoins created. Thus, inflation is impossible in a BTC market.
Like I said, please point out any flaws in what I have said, but it seems so simple to me that a fiat type of currency is the only one that will work over an indefinite period of time.

Anti-semitism a sign of low self confidense, truly pathetic. Get the fuck out of these forums racists are nothing more then scum.

johnniewalker, I watched your videos. You seem to be good with your hands. You should stick to that. Your logic ability and communication skills are lacking. None of your posts in this thread make any sense and the "greenjew" comment is despicable. I suggest you work on those skills before posting any more of these kinds of threads. And I think you should stop taking steroids. The roid rage is going to get you in trouble.

LOL. The OP had groundbreaking discoveries to share with us!!

After reading the 1st reply to this thread I knew it was forum gold!

To all the people speaking of "GreenJew"-sorry about that, not tasteful.
And I can't believe almost everyone missed that this was a discussion of fiat currency vs. solid currency (gold, silver, etc), and the BTC's role in that. BTW, I'm pleasured to share a thread with geniuses.

I'd also like to add that BTC are very similar to the NORFED Liberty Dollar. Look it up. It involves-when something costs $1-buying it with $1 worth of silver. And, this is the way our country used to be.
Bottomline: It is simply a mathematical equation; there will be a day that w/fiat currency and constant inflation, money will be worth only what its printed on.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

In fact it's not the paper that's the problem. It's electronic currency.
You may not realize it, but most of the currency we use today is not existent. For instance.

Lets say that you have 50000$ in your bank account. It does not mean that you have a box, containing 50000 in the bank's branch. It means that you have 50000 electronic units into the bank server, that you could convert to money if you like.

It's not a problem if you actually have the money. But if it is borrowed from a bank, then it is a big problem.

That is why it is easier to use a credit card. The payments are faster, because the money DO NOT EXIST until the moment you pay them back to the bank. Transactions are purely electronic between servers of financial institutions, that's why payments are swift. Physical money and precious metals are transferred at annual rate.

Debit cards, on the other hand, contain money, which have already been printed, which is the reason of the higher security measures, and actual money have to be transferred between banks every week.

And if you ask me - bitcoin will never be as secure as paper money or gold (being most secure), because you can never be sure if we will have internet forever.
Gold, however is eternal and it will not disappear from the universe long after we are all dead.

Paper money are legal-tender, but until there is society they will have some value.

And honestly - most of us here, although not a lot will say it, would prefer paper cash rather than bitcoins.

While Nuthouse's goal of creating a silver-backed currency may have seemed admirable, he really botched it when he devalued the Liberty Dollar from 10 LD per oz. of silver to 20 LD per oz. I think that wasn't really his goal at all and I don't think the two are similar.

As for the day when money is not worth what it is printed on, that day has already arrived:  in 1965, when the amount of silver was reduced in coins, and now with face values of pennies and nickels lower than the melt values.

edit: replaced the $ with LD. I didn't mean USD.

Sorry, but I've got to jump on this one....

In what possible way was the Liberty Dollar revaluation a devaluation?

For the holders of LDs? No, they actually increased their purchasing power in $$$ terms. And in objective terms, they still held the same amount of silver.

For the recipients of LDs? How, when what became devalued was the USD, and NORFED just reprinted an accurate number on the rounds? Are you suggesting people should have kept spending one-ounce rounds of silver for $10 each once the spot price of silver shot past that?

The Liberty Dollar had issues... but the revaluation wasn't one of them. It was actually a pretty reasonable way to keep the currency functional in light of a depreciating USD.

You have it backwards (or you misinterpreted my statement, or my understanding is incorrect).

Originally, each Liberty Dollar could be exchanged for 1/10th oz of silver. In 2005, the Liberty Dollar was devalued to 1/20th of an oz.

Wasn't the Liberty Dollar supposed to be a silver-backed currency? I thought it was. Maybe that's not true.

Your understanding is flawed. The liberty dollar wasn't a silver-backed currency, it was a silver currency. They were rounds, stamped with an approximate dollar price. The revaluation simply was a change of dies to stamp the same size rounds with a higher dollar value.

I guess I am one of the few that are on the contrary. Maybe most people trade BTC with USD too often. I trade it very rarely with other currencies, and when I buy things, I usually think about the exchange in various ways depending on the context.

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that Liberty Dollars were denominated in USD. That makes them a whole lot less interesting.

Not to the treasury agents, it didn't. ;) In fact, that's what they got him for.

Sorry to be a smart-ass but in a way NORFED and the Liberty Dollar was silver backed currency.You did have to redeem your Liberty notes for silver at the warehouse :) (BTW I'm not arguing that its a silver-backed currency, it isn't-or wasn't)

I was not aware there were notes circulated. I thought it was just the coins. Yes, the deposit receipts could have been considered a silver-backed currency. (Still not affected by the revaluation, since it still represented a fixed amount of silver.) It should be noted that if he hadn't put the word "Dollar" in there anywhere, most likely nobody would have cared.

His problem was that he made it look too much like the US's monopoly money.

His problem was that the PTB were able to convince a jury that he made it look too much like US currency, not that it actually did.  They were able to convince 12 ignorant people that the term "dollar" wasn't generic, and that alone would then imply that it was an attempt to 'counterfit'.  I just think it's sad that, in our modern world, it was so easy to randomly find 12 people that ignorant.  That wouldn't have been true even 100 years ago.  The average illiterate farmer from Kansas knew that the term "dollar" referred to a silver coin of particular weight.  For that matter, there was an ongoing public debate about the virtues (and vices) of the bi-metallic standard, and the book The Wizard of OZ was written as a farce to make fun of it. (Originally, Dorthy wore silver shoes to walk on a gold brick road)