Thanks for the interesting find.

Summers joins an interesting list of very bright and well connected individuals who are clearly aware of, and surprisingly circumspect about, Bitcoin.  I'm tempted to believe that they would not mind seeing an increase in the value of their own stashes, but I'm probably just projecting.

Convincing a fair fraction of BTC holder to switch to PMs would increase the of PMs by approximately $000.00.  OTOH, convincing people to switch from PMs to Bitcoin could explode the value of BTC.

Of course I have no idea if that is part of the OP's motivation, but if so I wish him the best of luck in the effort as it would serve me very well.

Martenson put out another interesting thing recently which I ran across on zerohedge.  When the trend line in his chart is seriously violated, I'll start to feel like there may be some change to the forces shaping the valuation of PMs.  Until then I'm not planning to 'jump off the bridge' with anyone, and certainly not with anyone I've run across on this forum.

  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/chris-martenson-explains-how-gold-manipulated-and-why-thats-okay

Martenson's thinking mirrors my own (or vice versa) to a higher degree than almost anyone else in the philosophical space and I only ran across his work relatively recently.

I find it quite relaxing to just have a decent BTC stash, sit tight, and enjoy the show.  As I said some months ago, eventually (if not already) the inflation rate half-ing is going to start to come into focus.  I could see arguments for this having a muted or an exaggerated impact on BTC/USD values and have no idea how it's going to go.  I would have to stretch to find an argument that BTC values could go down, but anything is possible I suppose.  I'm happy with the BTC I am sitting on so I'll just passively observe.

I like and hold both Bitcoin and PMs.  I expect that it is more likely than not that both will at least hold their own over the coming few years.

I think that if either 'takes off' to insane levels, the other probably will as well since such an event would likely be triggered and driven by an extreme loss of confidence and usefulness of more traditional (recent-ish-ly traditional) monetary instruments.

Mainly I want to elaborate on one of the things that drew me to Bitcoin in a big way earlier.  That is that PMs and Bitcoin can really complement one another.  They can address certain weaknesses in the other.  PMs are a real misery to move around.  Bitcoin is a joy in this respect.  Bitcoin is new, poorly understood, and not trusted by the masses where PMs have an ancient history in this respect.

What I would like to see evolve, and something which seems to me to have a fighting chance, is a situation where Bitcoin is used as a trusted transfer mechanism allowing parties to trade ownership of physical PMs on a global basis.

The level of animosity between PM bugs and Bitcoiners has always kind of surprised me.  Mainly the PM->Bitcoin animosity.  I guess it's mainly that each fears the other robs 'customers' and brings the price down.  Given the sizes of the economies I doubt that that is particularly true, but even if it is, I see it as a good thing.  Lower prices simply let more new interest obtain a larger share of the pie (Bitcoin or PMs) as I see it.

Looks like Gold outperformed today.  Bitcoin...well...not so much.

...
What a Bum Bum
   Bam Bam Dilla!
...

In recent historic times, that seems to have been the case.  I'm surprised and delighted.

As for the actual spot price, it effects me on two occasions.  When I buy and when I sell.  Between those points (which I anticipate to be decades apart) the spot price has not an iota of impact on me.  What's even nicer is that I don't have to think about or manage it at all, nor do I have to pay fees to someone else to do the thinking for me.

Here is what blows me away.  Everyone seems to believe the line that we were on the brink of a total financial calamity in 2008.  If that is true, and it seems fairly plausible, then everyone's paper assets would have gone poof (instead of simply being cut in half.)  If anything the conditions seem to be even more ripe for such an implosion now, and there is much less appetite for the peeps to put up with another TARP style robbery.  So, it seems to me that any paper assets are in great danger and PMs, even if they were not performing well, would be a pretty desirable thing to be sitting on (as would Bitcoin.)  But most people don't seem to see it that way I guess.  Oh well.  It's a free country...sorta...for now...

The fucking thing has been stuck in my head for days.  Thanks, asshole

Some of the keenest minds in the PM space say to expect significant volitility (and way higher prices.)  I've been waiting for $100 down days and they won't bother me.  I'll bail almost 100% when I see the signs of a bubble (see MathewLM), underlying structural changes influencing the value of PMs, or great difficulties associated with holding them (i.e., confiscation.)

To me PM mining stocks are just more pieces of paper and I've thus got close to zero interest in them.  I toyed with the idea of doing some short term gambling with them but then I became aware of Bitcoin (as a way to lose all my speculative investment.)  Bitcoin fits the speculation need nicely, and has the added benefit that my assets are completely within my control and the technology itself could change the world for the better in certain circumstances.

Elbow from the sky!

Unfortunately it seems that 'collapse' is a more appropriate description of Bitcoin's performance than that of PMs at the moment.  In a few more months, absent a pretty strong rally, we'll be looking at some pretty dismal yearly performance numbers for BTC.  If I'd have liquidated PMs to take a position in BTC, I'd be starting to become a pretty unhappy camper.

'Dead' is a somewhat strong term.  Without speculation Bitcoin would likely still be a minor project with only a handful of interested geeks participating.  Maybe it would have been better that way.  Who knows?  It kind of depends on how Bitcoin pops onto the stage and handles itself if/when there is a genuine need for the solution.

Indeed, a majority of 'nuclear energy' programs seem to be designed with the requirements of building a nuclear weapons capability as well.  I've heard it conjectured that we in the US have such a darn difficult time burying our spent nuclear waste for this reason.  Also that the graphite core reactors of the USSR were particularly good at generating plutonium.

I've also heard it said that Japan was burning MOX fuel in Diachi #3 primarily as an excuse to be extracting and generally dealing with plutonium.  Since they are, in theory, a non-nuclear weapons holding country, they needed an excuse to be extracting and refining Pu.  Even the US won't use MOX due to the hazards (so I understand.)  Diachi #3 is the one which had the impressively big bang and spread fuel rods all over the place, and now Japan has plutonium all over a fair fraction of their territory including some of the most productive farm land.  It is not clear to me yet whether those rods came from the reactor core of from the spent fuel pools (or both), but both had MOX fuel rods.

Japan even sent me on the West Coast USA a little gift of some plutonium fuel fleas.  Thanks a bunch!  See you in hell Tepco and the lying, corrupt Japanese government.

I'm not so sure.  Nuclear weapons have, by necessity of delivery, a relatively small amount of nuclear material.  Nuclear power plants have,  on the other hand, many many tons of the stuff.  In lots of cases, several loads of spent fuel sit outside of any hardened containment on the roof of the plants.  And these tend to be pretty close to industrial and populated areas since that is where the power is needed.

One thing that Fukushima opened my eyes to and which I did not know was that the GE Mark-I reactors, at least, are certain to melt down and explode if somehow they are without power for a certain number of hours.  So if a somewhat capable adversary can figure out how to sabotage a few diesel generators and can drop a few high-tension power lines, we can kiss bit parts of our Eastern US goodbye (or more likely, plan on high rates of poor health among the 99%ers who will remain in the area.)

Thorium reactors sound nice, but there is full court press to extend the life of our GE Mark-I's out an extra 20 years.  Another thing I learned thanks to Fukushima is that if a nuclear expert says that something is 'impossible', what that actually means that said thing is either inevitable or has already happened.  So, it will take some convincing to get me to believe in the miracle of thorium reactor safety.

Either could of course.  The phrasing seems somewhat none-sense to me.

I'll say the odds are on Bitcoin doubling (measured in USD) first mostly because it's much more volatile and a doubling is much more within it's recent range.  Of course Bitcoin could very easily be cut in half just as fast, and while possible, I don't see it happening for silver (but we can hope since I would be delighted at another buying opportunity.)

A more interesting question is: 'Which one has the potential to increase in constant dollar value by orders of magnitude?'  The answer here would be Bitcoin, and that's a fair part of the reason why I'm sticking around.

Now that I am home from work I can speak my mind

I tend to feel that Israel is mostly just our tool to get something going with Iran.  There are plenty of useful Likudnik idiots in that country who yearn for a 'Greater Israel' and all that jazz, and plenty here who can be used installed in government positions to help the military-industrial complex get more rich, but at the end of the day, they are just tools.  The handy thing about Israelies is that they seem to have no compunction about testing out our experimental weapons on civilians.

It would be highly risky for a country in Israel's geographical and political position to start a war and as the most recent Lebanon adventure shows they don't have the military they once did, but they owe us and if (or when) we say 'go', they'll be saying 'yes sir!'.  Then, of course, we'll have to 'come to the rescue'.  Seems like some of the more clever folks in Israel (namely a string of former Mossad chiefs) are starting to catch on, but it's probably to late though.

On bitcointalk.org?  Pfffft.

I think that fossil fuel is of equal or lesser importance to the ability to transport energy, and both are largely secondary in importance to money.  India and China have populations which are to large to support with energy-poor agricultural methods at this point, and the situation shows now sign of letting up.  If they were deprived of fossil fuel energy sources, their populations would starve and revolt.  And as long as we in the US have the ability to provoke this outcome, we have tremendous leverage.  Our compliant bitches (Europe, Austrailia, Canada) can tag along if they cough up some resources and manpower when told to.

Controlling the fossil fuel resources of the Middle East creates a situation where we can run enormous trade deficits as long as the situation persists.  I personally can write as many checks as I like as long as I am sure that they will not be cashed, and so can the US.  So, unlike a lot of people, I am of the opinion that deficits do not matter and the logical strategy is to make hay while the sun shines.  Exactly as we are doing.

We are looking at population growth rates which makes starvation (and/or war) inevitable within the foreseeable future.  If we can maintain our position, we might be able to keep our people from starving and steer the high casualty producing conflicts to take place among starving peoples (who will be to weak to even dream of taking us on.)  Maybe we can perpetuate and control the conflicts with just drone strikes from within the safety of our own territory.


Makes me sad as well.  I just don't buy that there is 'no reason', and I think that most people take a much to simplistic view of geopolitics and of money.

And speaking of false flags, I would add that there seems to be decent evidence that Pearl Harbor, while obviously not a 'self-inflicted wound', was

 - a delight to much of our leadership as a way to get into WW-II
 - provoked to a large extent by cutting off Japan's energy and steel
 - got rid of a bunch of useless battleships which were only really good for sucking down fuel oil and manpower post WW-I
 - ended up not harming our carrier fleet which was key in the war which followed.

It is really difficult to get a very weak country to commit suicide by attacking a much stronger one Poland->Germany, Iraq->US, Spain->US, Vietnam->US.  Almost without exception in modern times, wars start either via a false flag or significant mis-calculation (Japan/US, German/USSR.)

Almost every 'normal' person (in America) thinks exactly like you.  It's just inconceivable and thus it just plain didn't happen.  Period.  Germans, for instance, have less difficulty with  the concept of elements within the US doing 9/11 to achieve certain goals, but I doubt that they could be convinced that an event like that in Germany could have anything to do with Germans.  This is human nature.  Your 'way to view the 9/11 event' is completely anticipated and normal.  Mine is abnormal.

There are a lot of whacked out theories about nukes taking down the towers, laser beams from space, Muslims in caves, God hating queers, etc, etc.  There is also a _lot_ of solid analysis and scientific investigation.  Almost without exception, the latter points me toward the conclusion that 9/11 was a false-flag.


We (the US) needed an event that would terrify the entire population for a long period of time.  Some boat snooping around in foreign waters and going boom was not sufficient for the purpose.  Even 9/11 was barely sufficient.  By the time we got around to marching into Iraq, public sentiment was already about 50/50 in terms of support (and our media had most people believing the Saddam ordered 9/11 himself!)

If presented with a choice of either having a few Kilopeople die in a quick 'new Pearl Harbor' type event, or having millions of people die over the next few decades as a result of not being able to consume 25% of the worlds production due to loss of control over certain geographical areas and geopolitical structures, it is by no means clear to me that 'doing' 9/11 was a poor decision.  At least in terms of situation management with the well being of the US as a priority.

The evidence that 9/11 was a false flag is, to me, completely overwhelming.  Setting aside moral and ethical consideration of the event and the events which followed (which are, to me, quite appalling), I am not really prepared to cast judgement on the appropriateness of the strategy and probably will not be for several decades.  It depends a bit on how the next step, obtaining control over Iran's oil, plays out.