Bitcoin Forum

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/04/no_author/totalitararian-dream/

The banks and the IMF should have no say whatsoever how any of us decide to hold our money.

Banks want full control over the transaction of money.

That's what a "cashless" world would give them.

A monopoly over currency exchange.

Monopolies restrict progress and innovation. They're centralized hierarchies which enable exploitation and abuse of power.

Monopolies have been bad for civilization and society from a historical perspective.

They're one of the primary reasons healthcare is unaffordable and expensive for many.

I know IMF and bank will do everything to keep you bringing your hard earned to them. That is the major way the elites and politicians can control the world and humanity and that is the reason they are fighting bitcoin and crypto currencies. In every country few enjoy the benefits of banking and those are elites and they children.

From my view there is no benefit of large banks, just about everything they earn is at the expense of someone else, most likely in a far off country that nobody thinks about.
Large banks have been the cause of the last financial crisis and not much has changed since then.
It's hard when it's the owners of the banks (the fed) bailing them out each time at the government and citizens expense.

The current financial system is nothing but a debt based joke, bitcoin is more than a currency.

The reason why they will only return a maximum amount of 100,000 euros per individual since the rest of the amount were already spent on bitcoins. The banks were controlling the flow of cash in the society but today they have seen the threats to their business and since it is hard to combat they have join the flow and hoard a huge amount of bitcoin at their disposal. Later on they will still have the monopoly of almost all digital currencies and even if we have turned digital they are still at the top.

If you have more than 100,000 euros, why the heck would you even keep them in bank when you'll on get less when they go underwater, which eventually they would?

Money is power and so they further make us powerless by taking money out of our control. Just imagine going against the government against such a scenario. They can simply declare you a danger to the state and freeze your bank account. With no cash at hand, how would you even survive? They probably don't have to go that far though, the consequence would be clear and will cause a chilling effect on dissent.

This is why bitcoin need to get its act together. I don't know what solution would be best but we better get microtransactions back. The way things are currently we still need to cash to go through our day-to-day activities. I only got into bitcoins for profits (hence the lack of knowledge about the tech stuff) but whenever I read news like this, I feel more afraid and hope that bitcoin (or maybe some other crypto) can save us from the bankers and the state.

The irony is that this periodically becomes a topic on a forum dedicated to the most UN-physical form of money you can imagine.   So if it's a problem for any of you, there's always precious metals and other hard assets in which to store value.  Who here still pays with bills and change,  anyway?

If they ever make a move  about this so called cashless wold to make it real, they will be ruined so bad. I mean so bad that the whole country might collapse because of the decision. People will dump their papers like there is no tomorrow and gonna buy every piece of gold/land/house they can get. Every real asset's price will reach to the moon. Maybe that's what they want, to give some life to the economy, i don't know.

But still i can't help but hate the idea and i don't know why. I feel like a trapped animal when i hear the "cashless world", i know there is a danger but i can't tell what exactly it is.


Btw; I don't keep my money in banks. Maybe that's why  i am being hated.  8) Fuck banks.

There's a bunch of people that are on this forum that stills pays with regular cash. Bitcoin might not be the one to get promoted into the IMF decision of Currency circulation though the technology is definitely going to help the Digital Currency revolution.

The people will just shrug off the efforts of governments and agencies like IMF to control their finances.
Younger people will move to Bitcoin. Older people will shift to gold.

Cashless world means controlling all the money by central banks and each every transaction going through them. This will fill up their already fat wallets to bigger one. They have fear of loosing their money when currency like bitcoins comes into effect. If we are saving all of our money in bitcoin and gets international recognition then one day bitcoin might create monopoly by itself. However  bitcoin was just an example but it can really go over the head of banks. Moreover, banks does not go bankrupt they just steal our hard earn money and provide cheap services for us. At least local banks do stuff like this.

So why are you even reading their stupid news? who cares?
People at the end are the ones deciding what to do.
I'm sure if bitcoin scales to be worthy of holding a value equal to $500B then many green continent residents will notice it and see the benefits of using and turning their wealth into bitcoin.

But honestly I for one am disappointed in bitcoin because of Wu and his gangsters, they have lowered the prestige of bitcoin to a thugs levels.
We need much higher prices for other people to start big mining farms in other countries than China to take the power of deception and manipulation from kinds of Wu which are sabotaging the process of bitcoin's growth.

I'm much more concerned about  the "Indian Experiment". In India, they:

Done: Removing 83% of the cash flow (banning big notes)
Pending 2020: Removal of all ATM machines and moving to cashless economy.

Because if it succeed, this mean  spreading it and a TOTAL control over us.

Yeah, well, the IMF is definitely a unique "contributor" and it might have a bit more say in what we can do with our money than what we want. Of course they all want to be able to manage what we have, and at that point it really ends up being the perfect regime to maintain complete control over the citizens, like the article implies.
The EU/ECB is a racket, I hope it breaks up completely. Maybe Britain got out just in time to avoid BS like this from infesting their country.
What else would the EU want? Complete control over its citizens, demographic replacement, it's perfect.

Hmm...
I might be wrong but that's not the case here...

That's just incitation. They try to convince you that banks are safe and solid (LOL). But they're not forbiding in any way to keep your money in cash in your pants if you wish to do so.

The state wants to control all the finances of a person and the system will not allow a person to control his own money. Soon begin to control bitcoin and gold.

I am not that worried. Most of my wealth is invested in the form of real estate, equities, and treasury bonds. So even if they do some sort of demonetization, it is not going to affect me much.

You are wrong. When you own real estate that brings you permanent loss. Only when you sell or rent the property for rent you will have the income. Where do you take clients if they don't have money? Or they'll pay you-cash money, and the government will take 50% in tax.

Yup, true. I can use credit cards when shopping in groceries or malls but for everything else here, I need fiat. Not even all shops here have those card terminals, would have been less of a hassle.

The issue is they don’t think that is your money they think it belongs to them because they are the ones to print it, also they want your money in a bank so it is easier to freeze or to steal to pay their debts, so this is another reason to buy bitcoin.

Well, this should lead to people finding another alternatives where to store their money aside from banks. That should bring Bitcoin more opportunity to be recognized. If the IMF did not regulate also the Bitcoin right?

Money is overrated ;D It should not be the main tool for privacy-relevant activity.

That doesn't mean that I'm supporting the anti-cash/pro-bank policy of these institutions. But sometimes I think people should be less paranoid. And the following is only a personal opinion, but I think the importance of money will tend to decrease in a highly automated knowledge society.

I don’t have a problem with a cashless society as long as there is privacy but we know that is not what they want, this is not about being paranoid, they want to know in what you use your money to completely monitor your activities and that is why I support bitcoin.

logic money is absolute, I've seen on youtube how the Federal Bank creates money and monopolizes government finances, I think fiat currency is very easy to be played by unscrupulous bankers, wealthy thieves.

IMF is debating/planning about cashless society since 2000, you can find it on their own website where they post reports of disscussions they have. The 100k limit is for all europeans and is limited to 1 person and per bank, so if you have 100k in bank A and 100k in bank B, you are covered for for both

The Indian experiment is a bit crazy ,we now have issues withdrawing our own money and is it true that they are planning to remove all ATM machines by 2020,i have never seen this crazy news,let the expirement work among politicians and political parties and then let them implement these sort of crazy things over the people.

Yes, I heard this cashless  shopping  since 2000 and at first it was referring to credit card in my opinion,debit card etc. But now, with the used of blockchain technology as in bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies I think it widen its reach.

This is not quite so

You evidently don't take into account that real estate can appreciate on its own. For example, due to the area where you have that real estate becoming more popular or just local currency heavily depreciating and people running into hard assets to save their wealth (and thus the appreciation of your property will be substantially above inflation rates, so it is real appreciation as opposed to nominal). In any case, you can mortgage your real estate and buy even more real estate or whatever. You don't even need to outright sell it

You are wrong the debate from the IMF in 2000 was about to use only one currency only, you can read everything here (https://www.imf.org/external/np/tr/2000/tr001108.htm) It is very long but very informative too. The plan for a cashless society has started, i don't know but maybe 50 years ago, or more if we consider the cheques, or even more as The ancient Romans have used an early form of cheque

The problem is when you look at India or Greece where withdrawals are limited, certain notes are no longer accepted etc, this creates a huge problem for the citizens of that country. What are you supposed to do if you have a lot of those bills? Deposit them and take out smaller bills? What about in the future when those bills are now gone? This is where cryptocurrency needs to be used so they never have to worry about what you're doing with your money ever again. It's yours, keep it where you want.

The thing I find the strangest is the fact that people don't want to be in control of their own wealth. It's so strange to think that you'd trust someone else with all of your money and not yourself. How stupid of a society do we have to be to keep the majority of our possessions in a bank?! Oh they have insurance, great. SO if they go bankrupt you get up to 100,000 back. Ok but anyone with 100,000 should just have their own money safely in their own arms. Having to rely on some company is completely ridiculous.

Whether we like it or not, a cashless world is already here. What they are doing is trying to enforce it more by bringing more people into the banking net and nothing more because even those of us already using banks and have some level of expertise in the use of technology would prefer cashless to anything even up to the point of the payment for coffee or burger and the same thing goes bitcoin as I have seen people having quite an amount of btc without physical coin and that is also cashless.

To a common man, the probability of a bank going bust is lesser than robbers striking at your home. Especially if you choose a large, secure bank. On top of it, banks pay interest on your deposits. So the common man doesn't mind keeping his money in the bank.

Exactly. All fiat money are issued by and guaranteed by the issuing authorities or governments via the central banks or any financial institutions. Consequently, authorities can exercise state power in cases of emergencies over our money. This happened recently in some European countries where savings in the banks were confiscated to finance the state.

No wonder that more and more people are looking at cryptocurrencies to protect them in times of economic uncertainties, chaos and problems. However, it can also mean that some governments can be critical of Bitcoin because it can be beyond their own control.

Agreed.
It seems like people care much more for their money than for their private informations.
I prefer to see it public what I earn and where does it go than to have my phone number published with my living adress ^^

One word: "Sheeple"

The government has an insurance of 100k$/€ per person (per bank in some countries) but they won't pay you interest rates for your lost time. Your 100k may lose its buying power completely during that time.

Unless you don't have anywhere to hide your money safely, depositing in a bank makes absolutely no sense.

That's why they are giving negative (or zero) interest rates. They want you to spend your money, they don't want you to save them. They are ripping us off.

When you have no cash (or some other asset as liquid as cash-might be gold or bitcoin), you will stay vulnerable to a financial crisis. They don't want you to stay liquid. They want to bury you down with Real Estate investments, Iphones, Car loans... When the shit hits the fan, you won't be able to lift a finger and banks will you rip you off one more time.

But in my opinion it is investment in real estate is a very good source of income. It does not matter what kind of property is residential or commercial.

As to me, that's mostly bullshit

If they actually wanted to rip you off, they could do that with cash as easily as with any other money (digital or otherwise). You seem to have never heard of confiscatory monetary reforms when all cash is announced null and void overnight (yes, exactly that happened in the past with some currencies). In this manner, cash is no salvation either (let alone a safe haven). Bitcoin in this aspect looks more promising overall, but you should still never forget that money is not wealth itself

Remember when Donald Trump complained corporate taxes in the united states?

He said none of america's wealthy nor american corporations were able to bring their money into the united states to help its economy due to tax rates being too high?

I wonder sometimes, if those high tax rates aren't deliberately implemented to keep their billions in offshore bank accounts.

So that when the world economies begin to crash, banks can steal from the wealthy and big corporations whose money they're holding.

Donald Trump is a billionaire, but the majority of his money is probably held in accounts of foreign banks. The same can likely be said for google, apple, microsoft--many big corporations and wealthy elites.

If that corporate tax rate is reduced, as Trump has planned, things are going to get very interesting if big corporations and wealthy elites are able to extract their money out of the foreign banks where they're held, almost as a form of ransom.

I think it would be beneficial to have a cashless world for the following reasons:

(1) Safety;
(2) Authenticity/Reliability; and,
(3) Convenience.

Although there may be drawbacks in the implementation of a cashless world, there are undeniably more benefits having it that (latter) way to cope up with times.

Note: When I say convenience, I meant there is no need to carry a huge sum with you nor wait for a change in every transaction.

Real Estate investments only make sense when the economy functions normally. It doesn't make sense to build your portfolio upon Real Estate while the central banks are printing money out of thin air.

Real Estate are not liquid assets. In an economical crisis, you won't be able to sell them fast. Because nobody will want them. Think about it, everybody needs one house to live inside and maybe one holiday house to have fun. What you gonna do with the third one? Doesn't make any sense. Even the second house doesn't make any sense to most people. You can rent the third, but you will be just another parasite to your country's economy.

When the markets crash (they will crash eventually), your RE investments will be worthless. Everybody will be running for another country's FIAT, or most likely, it will be gold they would want to have. (Gold it is If its the USA who is having a crash)

Bitcoin also is keeping to take more air because FIAT bubble haven't burst yet. When it does, nobody will want bitcoin neither. (maybe they will, it depends on how bad the situation is)

I forgot to add: What is more dangerous than owning houses is that borrowing money from banks to own them. Owning RE itself may not harm you till everything goes fullshit but you'll get rekt easily if you owe money to the banks.

There is no any monopoly over currency exchange. You can go in a bank and exchange your money by bank's prices or can go in a street exchanger and exchange there. The world is too far from the bank's monopoly, baddy  :)

You make a few false assumptions in your post

First, banks and large international corporations are essentially the same. Some corporations even set up their own banks (though the connection may be not open, of course), so they can't possibly steal their own money. Further, you erroneously assume that the wealth of both big and small corporations consists in money they keep in banks. This is obviously not so. Even the largest corporations may have a very small amount of money in their bank accounts, just enough for current operational expenses. And if these expenses are small it doesn't make sense to keep plenty of money in the bank account

In the current pseudo fractional reserve banking system, a cashless world is completely impractical.  The global banking system has already suffered a couple of big wobbles - in 1929 and 2008 - and who knows what will have happened a couple of hundred years from now considering that the banking system is solely based on debt and represents no value.  Existing money is only based on previous fake money and it goes on and on until exponential growth stops, which it inevitably will.

More trust in banks is completely stupid since you'd have to trust a private company to have the money for you.

A person needs to control their own money, and a "cashless world" as they would want it doesn't give anyone control but governments and banks.

This is exactly when we, bitcoin holders, get wealthier than we could ever imagine. As the government removes cash, people has no way out but to be forced to learn what bitcoin is and get involved. The government will eventually demand that all gold gets deposited on their banks too just like it happened back in the day. Remember that a single law can rule gold out as a safe haven.

The last we would have is then bitcoin living in the outside of the system, with nodes spread all over the world (which is why the government funds big block agendas, so they can stop this from happening).

Stay strong, run your Core node and hold, the moon awaits. We will win.

Fits their agenda of completely ruling our lives. All our money in plain sight, the mere hint of dissent enough to cause our accounts frozen. Makes political harassment easier.


Yup. They'd probably just drop their metals and switch to bitcoin, further increasing demand and by extension, prices. They'd probably just have to shutdown mines if they really want to hurt it but hopefully at that point it is already "too large to fail" like the banking industry.

I guess that it won't work out these days

Gold is accepted universally across the borders and countries. It is even more universal than the US dollar. Even if the US bans gold and starts enforcing this ban, in today's world that will likely mean the end of the US government itself, surely not gold as a safe haven. These days are certainly not those days. Remember, the possession of gold is pretty well correlated with the possession of guns. In other words, come and take it

You'll see the limitations of gold once people trying to leave the country with their wealth in form of gold, get confiscated in the airports of all their gold, just like that, really easy.

Meanwhile, people that did their homework and admitted bitcoin's superiority, will have their wealth all in on bitcoin a long time ago, and they will be able to cross any borders seamlessly carrying unlimited amounts of money without being detected by anyone.

Your choice.

This is wishful thinking on your part

In the first place, governments don't need to ban gold because they control its price. Yes, you may indeed claim that they may lose this control, but if it ever comes to that, you can safely forget about gold being confiscated at the airports when people will be trying to leave the country. The catch is that when the government can't control its gold, it will be less likely to be able to control its population. In other words, the days of this government will be numbered. Though this still won't prevent your gold from being "confiscated", now by street gangs

People don’t want to have responsibility of their actions, they want to be relieved from it, that is why they don’t want to hold their own money they want someone other than themselves to make their decisions, it seems dumb, and it is, but that is the way a lot of people think.

#1 No one said banks and corporations are the same.
#2 Corporations do not set up banks.
#3 Corporations do keep their money in banks. Specifically banks which function as tax havens.
#4 Many large corporations have $20-$50 billion usd stockpiled. That money has to be stored somewhere & banks is where they store it.

Governments control cash too, the only difference is that a completely cashless society will make them even more powerful since they could have the possibility of freezing all your money and you will be unable to buy anything, but if a cashless society happens thanks to bitcoin or something similar then that could be a good thing since no one will have the power to freeze your bitcoins.

1) I don't know about anyone else, but I said exactly that. I can repeat it again (in case it didn't get through somehow), big banks are international corporations on their own (but you may choose to disagree, of course)
2) You may want to learn more. For example, you may start right from here (http://www.gazprombank.ru/eng/group/)
3) Indeed, they keep their money in the banks. The question is about the amounts kept there
4) You may want to provide strong evidence

And as an aside, do a few checks first as well as who said what before submitting your posts (I don't mean just this post)

I think the main issue would be that if people in the near future can hold transactions without requiring a bank, then high chance there stock would drop because no one is really using banks to store money. Also is people knew how to manipulate btc, most of there investments would be in btc and again not in banks. Somehow this is also some effect of btc in the economy but as u guys stated, they can't tell us what and where our money goes.

Tht`s right,but i still don`t know is bitcoin more centralized than before?Are the core devs acting like
the financial elite?Just asking. ;D
We wan`t a world without banks,not a cashless world.

In the 21st century, cashless world is here whether we like it or not and the teeming population especially those who have the little ability of using the internet couple with affordable smart phones would continue to embrace it because it makes our life easier. Even the bitcoin we have today, majority of us don't have the physical coin rather the e-bitcoin so its not a bad thing but rather a development in the right direction for everyone to tap into.

A true cashless society would be one where people wouldn't even be allowed to use cash for anything, so it's still not here.
I really don't see how that could even work 100% of the time, cash is still needed for some people.

What do you mean by saying that people do not have 'the physical coin' (Bitcoin?)?

There's no official bitcoin physical but a forged coins made from silver, gold, and so on which contains an address filled with bitcoin inside it.
I'm actually not expecting a cashless world to be realised unless the internet has covered the whole planet, otherwise, the cashless world will seem to be a dream forever.  Maybe, in the future, there'll exist a technology that could allow the usage of digital currency everywhere without needing an internet connection but it's still uncertain, just hoping the best tho.

The thing is, if bank will force us to use no cash, then welcome, bitcoin.

I disagree with both of you

I don't think we should consider as a cashless world or society where there is absolutely no place for cash (in the sense of "where people wouldn't even be allowed to use cash for anything"). Personally, I lean toward thinking that we don't need total cash elimination to consider a society as cashless on the whole. If we proceed from the assumption of complete cash removal, we may never in fact get there, so this premise wouldn't be very sensible or sane. On the other hand, if just the supermajority of transactions are made with digital fiat (say, over 90%), that, as to me, would cut it pretty well as a cashless world already

That's cool. I don't want their alt-coin anyway.  ;)

Street exchangers work for banks or are owned by banks.

You don't exchange anything without banks being involved.

Cashless society is a banker monopoly, and a bad idea.


Almost anyone living in a capitalist country can start a corporation.

When it comes to banks, no one is allowed to start a bank. In many cases its illegal to start a bank, just like its illegal for someone to print their own currency. This idea you have that corporations set up their own banks has no basis that I have seen. Some corporations like facebook have their own digital currency that they allow people to use to exchange things. But they do not setup their own banking or financial entities.

As undoubtedly many have said before, banks have the best financial network for exploiting tax loopholes. All of those offshore accounts corporations and evil dictators use to hide money are run by the banking institution. This is a part of how banks wield so much political influence over politicans and leaders of the world.

People have been influenced to keep their money in bank and nowadays we can't avoid to use bank service to do some daily transactions, not only just send-receive money. But, every country have their own policy about return amount if bank goes bankrupt, so never save your money exceed those numbers. Nothing can force you to keep all of your funds in bank, that's your choice.

I think a society where no cash is used at all is impossible but we could argue that a cashless society is one where most of the transactions are not done with cash and you will see that most first world countries societies already fit that description.

To start a bank you need sufficient capital

If you have that, you can start a bank, as plain and simple as it gets. This is certainly not about "no one is allowed to start a bank". Apart from that, I don't see what it has to do with your point. Further, it is not my idea that big corporations can and do establish their own "pet" banks (I have provided you a link). In fact, many international or just large enough companies which started as pure production (or whatever) firms are now part of large financial groups which include banks to serve the interests of these groups. The fact that Facebook doesn't have a bank means that it is not a corporation (which it is not) or it doesn't need a bank, just as simple. I don't understand why you continue this futile argument

The whole reason for a cashless society is to sieze your money.

Not many people know that you, by putting your money on a bank you agree that those money are not yours. The banks are only obliged to give you back your money because of the PR costs. If the PR is bad enough they would no incentive to give them back. And noone wil fore them to do that.

I would say. Go ahead and go after the cash. All of those that want to diversify their assets will come and buy cryptos.

Gazprombank was founded in 1990. Its not a new bank. Russia being one of the few countries not run by international bankers, it is probably one of the few countries which would allow someone to start a relatively new bank.

Can you name a bank that was recently founded by a large corporation as you claim?

It is illegal to start a bank in most countries that are run by central banks. There's a reason why no one goes into the banking business despite the technology being used by most banks being old, obsolete and outdated.

Russia is one of the oldest to be run by international bankers: The Central Bank of the Russian Federation also known as the Bank of Russia (Russian: Бaнк Poccии Bank Rossii) is the central bank of the Russian Federation, founded in 1860.

How else would profiteering from FINANCED wars involving Russia be so easy for international central banks to coordinate?

Can you name a large corporation founded recently?

Until you can your whole question is pointless. Just in case, Facebook is not a corporation. On the other hand, Samsung is such corporation (just the first name which came to my mind), simply and unpretentiously called Samsung Group (and it is from Korea). Unsurprisingly, this group also includes quite a few affiliated businesses or owned companies busy with financial and banking operations. As per (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung#Partially_owned_companies) Wikipedia, "Samsung Life Insurance currently holds a 7.4% stake in the South Korean banking company DGB Financial Group, making it the largest shareholder". And this is only what can be called public knowedge, something which you can read about in Internet

I think most can agree Hillary Clinton represents international banking cartels.

If russia is run by central banks, why would Hillary call for war between russia and the united states? NATO and the UN have consistently acted against russian interests in ukraine and europe. Conflict between russia and politicians who are funded by globalists, doesn't make much sense if you think about it. Russia waging war against the united states, with both countries trying very hard to undermine each other is like bankers going to war with bankers. It only makes sense if russia isn't run by central banks.

A country having a central bank isn't evidence they're on team globalism. Hungary has a central bank and managed to cut all ties with globalist parties. Russia having a central bank, doesn't mean anything.

Neither Putin nor russia's government are pushing gender fluidity, atheism, socialism, open borders & immigration nor any of the campaigns bankers push worldwide. Russia does not look like a country run by central bankers.


Initially, you said corporations "start" their own banks.

Now you're saying corporations do not start banks.

They buy stock in existing banks.

What you're saying seems to evolve and change everyday!

 :)

And I provided you a link which proves my point

Then you complained that it was a way too old. I don't know how it disproves my point. I didn't say that all corporations start their own banks but some certainly do. If you come to disagree, you may have to bring forth more substantial arguments and evidence rather than just claiming that it was 25 years ago. But if you are still going to insist (that 25 years is too long ago), you may have to come up with a corporation that was founded within this time frame. Nevertheless, you may really want to read this (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhenry/2012/10/31/most-car-companies-want-their-own-finance-company-so-they-have-a-place-to-go-home-to). Fill free to ask if you have any questions