After 21 mil BTCs are mined even loans are not the answer because there is no money created to cover the interest.
I'm just curious, why exactly do you think loans can ever only be made if interest can be charged? Do you not think loans could have a different kind of a price? |
|
|
|
jesus, these journalists! And as an added bonus, here is the part in which the ECB appears to be so worried about BitCoin taking over as legitimate "legal tender" from the EUR (which the ECB's Coeure said two days ago is as "solid and longlasting as a diamond") it dedicated an entire report to bash the recently conceived electronic currency:
- BitCoin instead of Bitcoin
- nowhere does the ECB paper say they're worried about Bitcoin taking over as legitimate "legal tender"
- the report isn't entirely dedicated to Bitcoin
- the report doesn't bash Bitcoin
Oh, and one might add: - Bitcoin wasn't recently conceived
It's seems just impossible to find an objective news outlet anymore. ZH is pretty good but I still see a lot of bias and reporting through a specific lens which is regrettable but I guess understandable if they want to keep a huge readership entertained. |
|
|
|
And with that I'm locking this thread. |
|
|
|
Searched for "me.ga" before I posted, and nothing came up. try "mega" And with that I'm locking this thread. |
|
|
|
so, indeed, further action from authorities can be reasonably expected
It would be really nice if you were a bit more precise in your use of language. Authorities? What or who gives them authority over what/whom? I certainly didn't give them any authority.. I also prefer to call them the factually correct: small gangs of thugs with guns. |
|
|
|
And with that I'm locking this thread. |
|
|
|
|
Short, slightly positive and fairly objective summary of the ECB report in which I didn't detect any opinions of the reporter and that I think pretty much nailed all the major points about Bitcoin from the ECB report.
|
|
|
|
|
One man's hoarding is another man's prudent saving for a rainy day.
OP you are lucky I highly value my integrity which didn't allow me to edit your title and replace "Hoard" with a provocative capital H to propaganda neutral "save".
|
|
|
|
very well written especially then making a point about separating the term electronic money from the term virtual currency.
if you did not already know electronic money is displayed as the FIAT amount using FIAT symbol so it remains regulated as it clearly represents a FIAT equivelent EG paypal balances. where as virtual currency can be points, credits or crypto that does not look anything like a FIAT balance.
as long as the AML/KYC stick to their electronic money and paper FIAT and leave virtual currencies to fend for themselves and adopt their own best practices it will all be good.
Oh wow that's a great point. I actually used their definitions against them trying to make the case that they admit that apart from electronic money's physical counterparts being legal tender there's no difference between fiat currencies and bitcoins. But now I actually think it's better for us if there is a difference and we adopt their distinction because it absolves us of the current laws regulating electronic money. |
|
|
|
IMO, not a good article (not a good writer).
It's a typical yellow pages propaganda hit piece. |
|
|
|
An interesting and mostly surprisingly objective paper. Almost unbelievable, this, coming from banksters.
Well they do get some of it wrong, naturally trying to insert themselves as good samaritans who would just like to look out for us  : In these schemes, the settlement asset is the virtual currency, and therefore the finality and
irrevocability of payments cannot be ensured. Only central bank money can do so, because central
banks present no default risk and act as lender of last resort to the member of the system in order to
stop any possible chain reaction resulting from payment incidents or unforeseeable liquidity
shortages.10 Virtual currencies cannot therefore be considered to be safe money, since the likelihood
of the asset retaining its value for the holder, and hence its acceptability to others as a means of
payment cannot be ensured. It simply relies on the creditworthiness of the issuer of the
settlement asset. The level of safety is clearly below that of commercial bank money, as commercial
banks are subject to prudential requirements and are supervised in order to reduce the likelihood of
default, thereby improving the safety of claims on these institutions. |
|
|
|
Virtual currency schemes differ from electronic money schemes insofar as the currency being used as the unit of account has no physical counterpart with legal tender status.
Dollars and Euro's have some physical counterpart with legal tenter status.
You are defining "Virtual"
I'm defining "Virtual Currency"
While 97% of fiat may be "virtual" ie is does not exist in the real world, it is not a "virtual currency" as is has legal tender status.
Bitcoin is a true virtual currency.
Well then I disagree with your definition of "virtual", I don't think having a physical counterpart that has a legal tender status vs having a physical counterpart that does not makes the later a virtual but not the former. |
|
|
|
It begins.
My exact thought when I saw the title of this thread. |
|
|
|
I think that is the salient point here.
It's not, it's that both, functionally, are a virtual currency. Ok. Define virtual currency then make your point again. I think you are clouding the issue. Hopefully your explanation will help clear that up. Thanks. How about you define it and I'll let you know if you got it right? |
|
|
|
Economic foundations of Bitcoin
The theoretical roots of Bitcoin can be found in the Austrian school of economics and its
criticism of the current fiat money system and interventions undertaken by governments and
other agencies, which, in their view, result in exacerbated business cycles and massive inflation.
wow! They even got the correct short version of the Austrian theory of the business cycle! I know, unbelievable right?  |
|
|
|
I think that is the salient point here.
It's not, it's that both, functionally, are a virtual currency. |
|
|
|
hazek
I still don't think you point, while an important one, is clear....
What isn't clear? My point is functionally their currency is virtual just like bitcoins. The only difference is the words they use to describe it and the legal tender status of it's physical counterparts. |
|
|
|
BTW I'm very surprised by the objectivity of this report: 3.1.4 Security inci dents an d ne gative press
From time to time, Bitcoin is surrounded by controversy. Sometimes it is linked to its potential for
becoming a suitable monetary alternative for drug dealing and money laundering, as a result of the
high degree of anonymity.9 On other occasions, users have claimed to have suffered a substantial
theft of Bitcoins through a Trojan that gained access to their computer.10 The Electronic Frontier
Foundation, which is an organisation that seeks to defend freedom in the digital world, decided not
to accept donations in Bitcoins anymore. Among the reasons given, they considered that “Bitcoin
raises untested legal concerns related to securities law, the Stamp Payment Act, tax evasion,
consumer protection and money laundering, among others”.
However, practically identical problems can also occur when using cash, thus Bitcoin can be
considered to be another variety of cash, i.e. digital cash. Cash can be used for drug dealing and
money laundering too; cash can also be stolen, not from a digital wallet, but from a physical one; and
cash can also be used for tax evasion purposes. The question is not so much related to the format of
money as such (physical or digital), but rather to the use people make of it. Nevertheless, if the use of
digital money in itself complicates investigations and law enforcement, special requirements may be
needed. Therefore, the real dimension of all these controversies still needs to be further analysed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
