The linked blog article is excellent except for the last part where it talks about how to get involved. Politics (the power vacuum that rewards the elite) are not beaten with more politics. The single most important action you must do is choose the correct design for your crypto-currency, as I explained at the following short post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=518453.msg5749208#msg5749208All the promotion and hoopla is meaningless if your design is broken in a way that will give it all back to the power vacuum. And Bitcoin is so broken. |
|
|
|
If the transactions will not be on the block chain, then you have unregulated fractional reserves Did you say something about a "brain stem" ? Yes I did. "Unregulated fractional reserves" will happen with any money system, any culture, any technology, any market.
The distinction is that when I choose to only transact on the block chain, I am assured that I am not receiving someone's else liability. If someone else wants to go trade counter-party risk funny money offchain, that is their prerogative but it has no relevance to my point upthread. There's nothing to stop me advertising my car and sending 5 people a "promise" to deliver it in exchange for something of value to me. Thats an "unregulated fractional reserve".
Yep. And those offers or transactions aren't on the block chain. That is why I don't trust any "statement of value" that is not on the block chain. (don't conflate "statement" with real assets offchain, which are fine ... I will accept gold for example) The criticisms you cite are straw men. They are not the real problems with the blockchain. In fact, blockchain transactions are about 300 times faster than present day bank transfers. 10 minutes vs 1-3 days. Furthermore, bank transfers are no more reversible than blockchain transfers and you DO NOT want reversibility in the blockchain.
The point of sale issues (speed, refunds, discounts, store cards, insurance, payment protection, monetary media) are not the domain of a money system. They are the domain of particular payment processors. (If they want to operate a fractional reserve system like MT Gox, so be it - that's one of the hazards of payment processors but again - it has nothing to do with Bitcoin the same way as Gox didn't have anything to do with Bitcoin).
Bitcoin is not a fractional reserve money system - it is a full reserve, unlevered form of base money. It's exactly the opposite of what all the anti-NWO'rs (of which I suppose I am one) are paranoid about when they talk about "electronic money". It's just that most of them are clueless about the mechanics of money anyway and so just stick with "anything electronic" as their definition.
You go with your fractional reserve money system. We smart folks will go build a decentralized block chain money system without counter-party risk. And let's compare who ends up where. I already told you that yours will end up owned by the government, i.e. back to fiat. Because counter-party risk is failure (and especially for the next 10 - 20 years given the $223 trillion debt bomb)  If the users are not using the base money, then the base money system will be controlled by those using it (and their government regulators!) which will be all your printed-from-thin-air money institutions you want offchain. You didn't learn from the horrific failure of our current fractional reserve system nor even Mt.Gox, so you want to go back for sloppy seconds, thirds, fourths. You really can't see that for example New York is preparing to regulate these offchain institutions so they have to have certain capital ratios, etc.. The government will take over and your 21 million coins base money will become irrelevant, because everyone will need to use the offchain money to do anything. We can indeed put all those functions on the block chain, decentralized, and no cheating. Edit: cripes the entire point of Satoshi's invention to solve the Byzantine General's problem was to eliminate the requirement to trust anyone. The breakthrough was eliminating the need to trust what can't be proven to be trustable. |
|
|
|
Suggestion or idea to help Bitcoin. Currently, retailers pay a percentage of purchase volume called the
merchant discount rate (MDR) in order to accept electronic forms
of payments. In the United States, the average MDR is about 2.5%
for offline retail payments and 3.0% for online retail payments
(though these fees vary widely by merchant size and type). Today,
the use of virtual currencies could theoretically eliminate these
fees as they do not rely on traditional banking/payment networks.
That said, Bitcoin gateway service providers such as BitPay and
Coinbase, which enable merchants to accept Bitcoin payments,
typically charge a fee of about 1%. I was a download software merchant in the past. I don't know if it has improved but in addition to the 3.5% MDR, I also paid 0.5% to the payment processor, and I had another couple of percent loses to chargebacks. So the actual cost to most small internet merchants is 5+%. That is significant. But again the consumers don't care. Now if you can offer a significant discount for using Bitcoin, i.e. if the lack of chargebacks significantly lowers your cost of doing business, then consumers would care! |
|
|
|
And you did not address the point that the masses don't like the properties of Bitcoin: - Mixes traceable illegal activity with their funds
- No protection against theft
- No refundable protection
- No consumer protection
- Very volatile price
- Must convert to and from fiat which is a hassle
- Very slow transactions, and confusing
- No government guaranteed deposit insurance
- Can't obtain a loan or credit card in bitcoins
- There is no cash version to use offline.
Fiat doesn't have those weaknesses. Fiat has other weaknesses which we are concerned about, but the masses don't care about those weaknesses that bother us. Later the masses will fall into the abyss, then some of them will learn to appreciate our ideals but most of them won't learn. Duh. I wonder if you guys even have a brain stem. Whether or not we "have a brain stem" you certainly don't understand much about how the mechanics of present money system, nor the difference between what banks do and what payment processors do. The Bitcoin blockchain is no substitute for a payment processor services (i.e. the handle supermarket transactions for example). But then it was never intended to be. The services you cite above such as refundability, payments insurance, consumer protections etc are not provided by the bank clearing system per-se. They are all 2nd third and fourth tier services, largely serviced by 3rd parties. Those services would be provided in a bitcoin economy just the same. The only difference would be that you'd "reacharge" your Visa account via the blockchain just as you do at any of the Cryptocurrency exchanges today. If the transactions will not be on the block chain, then you have unregulated fractional reserves, just like we did during the wild 1800s in the USA where the private banks were creating "receipts for gold on deposit" out of thin air. Just like the Mt.Gox and numerous other failures past and to come, you've essentially just recreated the mess that the public wanted to end and why we have central banking now to regulate that mess. The key innovation of Bitcoin is to regulate the mess with decentralized proof-of-work, so nobody can cheat. When I see my transaction on the block chain, I know there were no fractional reserves created. Once you enable the fractional reserves, you've enabled the government regulatory powers, and then you are essentially back to fiat again. And for what gain for the masses? None. Just woe and trouble for them. If you really want to crack this nut, you need to improve the technology more. You need strong anonymity. You need instant transactions. Etc. All of this can be done. But you all don't want it done.You'd rather fight for the status quo so you can keep your trap. |
|
|
|
Over the past three millenniums, society has learned which
commodities are the most cost efficient at meeting its wants and
needs. The replacement of an old commodity with a new
commodity typically occurred precisely because the new
commodity solved an economic problem that the old commodity
could not. For example, coal replaced wood when fuel was needed
for steam engines. So the question is: is there an economic
problem with gold as a store of value that bitcoin solves?
The short answer is no. Gold is not failing as a store of value as
wood failed as a source of energy in steam engines. Steam
locomotives could go farther and faster on coal. But Bitcoin does
not improve on gold Crypto-currency can improve on gold by being more hidden and easier to transport. But without very strong anonymity, crypto-currency is not better than gold.Ken Hess: Purchasing another currency
to buy things that you could buy with
regular currency just seems pointless
and silly to me. If you're going to buy a
cup of coffee or a camera or any item
why do you need a separate currency for
that? The masses will take that view, especially in light of all the negative qualities of Bitcoin which I bullet-listed (enumerated) in the other thread. But there is one reason to use Bitcoin that has nothing to do with the idealism of wanting to end central banking, and that is to hide capital from the government as the socialism goes bezerk and taxes+confiscates itself into the abyss. Anonymity is the killer feature of crypto-currency. And Bitcoin doesn't have it and won't ever have it (for deep technical reasons). For example, Bitcoin enthusiasts seem to suggest that its
anonymity is an advantage. But, first, it is really not anonymous.
Second, even if it were, so is cash. And third, if I am making a
legitimate purchase, why does it need to be anonymous anyway?
Something just feels underhanded about that. Correct Bitcoin is not anonymous. This has been shown in research papers. Cash is being phased out by the bankrupt socialism that is going to tax+confiscate itself into the abyss. I guess it is cute to be
able to accept bitcoin but that is just an odd and inefficient way of
doing things. I mean, why don’t they just accept dollars and call it a
day? Correct other than need for anonymity, it is all just geek idealism without any relevance to the masses. Now you add anonymity and we can say it has a serious use that fiat can't and will refuse to do. Allison Nathan: How do you explain the enthusiasm around
Bitcoin?
Ken Hess: The enthusiasm around Bitcoin basically comes from
the excitement of putting one over on the government by escaping
its clutches in your business and avoiding some of its taxes. There
is the whole libertarian anarchy feeling about it. It is a pie-in-the-sky
ideology - more something people want to believe in than
something that is actually real. Correct because we don't have strong anonymity (yet). Allison Nathan: Do you see any advantage to being a
distributive system?
Ken Hess: Being distributed means that no one entity or person
controls the system. I don’t really see any practical or logical
advantage to that. Incorrect. But this requires a deep discussion about macro-economics which I am not going to make now. Later. Allison Nathan: Are there any disadvantages of Bitcoin?
Ken Hess: Several. First, transactions are not reversible. While this
could be good for merchants who can rid themselves of charge-
back fraud, the consumer just has to trust that they are going to
receive what they paid for. But there is no guarantee and no way to
get your money back if that ends up not being the case.
Second, if you lose your wallet by accident, your bitcoins are gone
forever. You can read story after story on the Internet about people
losing their wallets and all of their bitcoin. It is not like losing your
physical wallet. If I lose my physical wallet that contains $20, my
driver’s license and credit cards, it is inconvenient. I will have to
replace everything. But I only lose $20, not my whole bank
account! Holding bitcoin should not be akin to gambling; if you own
bitcoin you should be able to recover those kinds of losses.
Third, it is just too volatile to be useful as a medium of exchange.
Fourth, it is nowhere near being adopted widely enough for it to be
useful; if my corporation paid me in bitcoin I would be at an
extreme disadvantage because very few places accept it so I
would have to exchange it for actual money at a cost so that I
could spend it.
He correctly enumerates some of the disadvantages, but I enumerate more. And my concern is that while
Bitcoin has been an interesting and, yes, even somewhat
successful experiment thus far, its ultimate, inevitable failure might
set back crypto-currencies several years. And so there has been a big question mark, not just about
how you characterize virtual currencies for tax purposes but also
about when you have a taxable event in different kinds of
transactions. But we may be getting answers soon. In May 2013,
the General Accounting Office asked the IRS to provide some
guidance on the tax treatment of virtual currencies. It was reported
about six weeks ago that an IRS ruling should be out soon.
Wow! If the IRS rules each transaction must be logged for capital gains and/or income tax, then that could send Bitcoin tumbling in price because legal tender doesn't have that requirement. This would cause many to note the masses won't want to do that bookkeeping just to buy a hamburger. Dax Hansen: Over the last few weeks, the international responses
have become more unfriendly to virtual currencies. But most
international jurisdictions have generally taken a very hands-off
approach to bitcoin. For instance, in the EU, bitcoin transactions are
generally not regulated. You do not have to have the equivalent of
a money transfer license and you do not even have to have an anti-
money--laundering policy. So my view is that US regulations are
more intense and complicated to navigate than those that exist
internationally, especially given the state patchwork governing
virtual currencies in the US. It is just too hard to set up a
technology company focused on bitcoin here in the United States,
and it is easier to do it someplace overseas. I believe European Bitcoiners are being fooled if they think that as the European economies collapse in the debt collapse, that the G20 is not going to cooperate to stop capital flight via Bitcoin. The G20 has already announced it will cooperate with the NSA to track down all capital flight. The EU is giving European Bitcoiners a long leash to hang themselves with. The regulation will come because it must, otherwise Europeans can escape the coming tax+confiscations by running to Bitcoin. See the reason anonymity will be so important? Currently, retailers pay a percentage of purchase volume called the
merchant discount rate (MDR) in order to accept electronic forms
of payments. In the United States, the average MDR is about 2.5%
for offline retail payments and 3.0% for online retail payments
(though these fees vary widely by merchant size and type). Today,
the use of virtual currencies could theoretically eliminate these
fees as they do not rely on traditional banking/payment networks.
That said, Bitcoin gateway service providers such as BitPay and
Coinbase, which enable merchants to accept Bitcoin payments,
typically charge a fee of about 1%. I was a download software merchant in the past. I don't know if it has improved but in addition to the 3.5% MDR, I also paid 0.5% to the payment processor, and I had another couple of percent loses to chargebacks. So the actual cost to most small internet merchants is 5+%. That is significant. But again the consumers don't care. Now if you can offer a significant discount for using Bitcoin, i.e. if the lack of chargebacks significantly lowers your cost of doing business, then consumers would care! |
|
|
|
Bitcoin can't become a unit-of-account for the reasons I just stated I don't agree with your reasoning here. By any measure, de-centralised currencies are a step away from "government control". Yes, government can issue a "cryptocurrency" but they can't control it other than by "hoping" then people will use theirs instead of another crypto. Lets say they "declared" it legal tender and allowed people to pay their taxes in "govoCoin". So what ? It's not a substitute for true control such as the central banks now have over fiat. My gosh you missed the main point. The masses like fiat! They don't require that the digital currency of the world needs to not be a fiat. And you did not address the point that the masses don't like the properties of Bitcoin: - Mixes traceable illegal activity with their funds
- No protection against theft
- No refundable protection
- No consumer protection
- Very volatile price
- Must convert to and from fiat which is a hassle
- Very slow transactions, and confusing
- No government guaranteed deposit insurance
- Can't obtain a loan or credit card in bitcoins
- There is no cash version to use offline.
Fiat doesn't have those weaknesses. Fiat has other weaknesses which we are concerned about, but the masses don't care about those weaknesses that bother us. Later the masses will fall into the abyss, then some of them will learn to appreciate our ideals but most of them won't learn. |
|
|
|
The people who designed Bitcoin obviously knew that all those who are against central banking would create a ponzi speculation bubble and ignore the facts that the masses don't share their enthusiasm for killing fiat, central banking, theft protection, consumer protections, etc..
So you are talking about a ponzi scheme conspiracy to attack people that "are against central banking"? Like, "make all these "anti-central-banking-bastards" poor by letting them invest into a ponzi and then let the bubble pop"? Who are these "pro-central-banking-conspirators? The Fourth branch of government. What was the reason for them to start fighting against the "anti-central-banking-anarchos"? Were they aware of an underground community that was about to fight against central banking, so they must react to kind of a revolution?
You are a threat to their continuance of crony capitalism power. When they created Bitcoin, they didnt think about, that the early miners and adaptors could most likely be the same people that they are fighting against?
They don't prosecute themselves. How many examples of bank court cases being dismissed do you need me to cite? Does this really make any sense to you?
Perfect sense. What do you think will happen on the very day of its release, when a central bank creates its own open source bitcoin copy (SHA256)? I give you some keywords to inspire: DDOS, PREMINING, INSTAMINING
The bankster digital fiat will not be decentralized. It will be just more of the same of what we have now in terms of electronic banking. And remember they can offer everyone loans in their currency. |
|
|
|
Eric Posner: Governments would likely resist it. They have driven
out other types of currencies before, including gold, and they can
do it now with Bitcoin. The main tool that the government has to
effectively force people to use fiat currency is its ability to require
payment of taxes in fiat currency... While that would not eliminate
bitcoin completely, it would certainly prevent it from replacing a fiat
currency.
Beyond that, bitcoin could replace the fiat currency only if nearly
everybody preferred bitcoins to dollars. At this point, we do not
know how secure bitcoins are even if the system itself ...
is secure and transparent. That is because
people have to store their bitcoins somewhere and we all know
that ordinary people do not take security precautions that they
should. I think that people will feel less secure holding bitcoins
than they do with fiat currency. That may change one day, but I do
not think this change will happen quickly
I also
disagree with those who believe that bitcoin will prevail as the first
mover because of network effects. Network effects will not be
strong because exchanges can handle multiple currencies.
Allison Nathan: Why would “benign” governments resist
digital currencies?
Eric Posner: One reason would be to block criminal activity. It
turns out that Bitcoin is not purely anonymous, only
pseudonymous, so it is not really very good for criminals! Other
crypto currencies might be more purely anonymous. But should
these currencies make it harder for the government to stop
terrorist financing and drug dealing, etc. that would be a clear and
legitimate motivation for the government to shut them down. More
likely, the government would require those who use digital
currencies to maintain records and act through intermediaries How can the government require something on people it can't identify? Allison Nathan: Do digital currencies really provide an escape
from government?
Eric Posner: There is a real irony here in that history is repeating
itself. Back in the 1990s everybody was talking about the internet
as this great force for freedom. People thought that they would be
able to communicate with each other without government control,
that they would be able to criticize the government, and that they
would be able to engage in transactions that the government could
not stop. But as we have learned from Edward Snowden, the
government controls the internet. It is a big piece of hardware that
the government can tap into and use to learn things about people.
Even when you use sophisticated cryptography, the NSA always
seems to be one step ahead of you. So the internet empowered
the government rather than citizens. Now, 20 years later, people
are saying the same thing about Bitcoin that had been said about
the internet. I am therefore skeptical about the idea that Bitcoin is
liberating and allows people to evade government control. And that is why we need anonymity for the entire internet. And Tor + VPNs are not it. Allison Nathan: What do you think drove the meteoric rise in
the bitcoin price?
Eric Posner: My initial reaction was that it was a bubble driven by
people who saw Bitcoin as a way to avoid government and central
bank control over currencies and those institutions’ inflationary
temptations. I thus assumed that the price increase was driven by
a false ideology, perhaps along with greater-fool style thinking. I
have since changed my view. I now think that sophisticated
investors believe that either bitcoin or the technology that underlies
it could be valuable for improving payment systems or for other
applications. This would explain why there has been a boom in all
virtual currencies, not just bitcoin Well he is correct, but it won't be Bitcoin. And the reasons are very technical and I am not going to explain now. Allison Nathan: Are you a Bitcoin skeptic?
Eric Posner: I am skeptical about the idea that bitcoin or any digital
currency could replace fiat currencies. I am adopting a 'wait-and-see'
attitude about the value of the technology for payment
systems or other applications outside of currencies. There is clearly
an interesting technological innovation that probably has valuable
application, but my guess is that this technology will ultimately be
domesticated by firms and governments.
He doesn't see that the currency can't be decentralized by itself, but adding something else can make the combination work decentralized and have demand over fiat. And the fundamental obstacles to bitcoin being
used more broadly in the payments system are arguably not
insurmountable, though connections with the conventional banking
system are ultimately essential to its functioning In other words, the banks and government will be in control. I know a way to change this, but it won't be possible in Bitcoin. Stability more doubtful
The issue of whether bitcoin can be a stable store of value has
proved a much tougher hurdle, even leaving aside the security
concerns that have been in the spotlight. By limiting supply, bitcoin
users may hope to protect themselves against the risks of inflation
spikes that have damaged fiat currencies Wrong! Stability is a function of market size and being a unit-of-account (and nothing to do with a central bank unless you want the base money to be issued as a debt in which case the central bank can delay corrections until the global debt reaches $223 trillion as now). Since Bitcoin can't gain the adoption of the masses as a currency, then it won't gain stability. |
|
|
|
Some quotes from that Goldman Sachs research document. The severe
technological and security problems that have led to the outright
collapse of Mt. Gox – the largest bitcoin exchange globally - on top
of the stunning spike in bitcoin prices by more than five-fold late
last year and spectacular collapse (then some rebound!) since,
some high-profile arrests in the Bitcoin universe, and a swath of
regulators and government officials beginning to weigh in on the
subject have pushed Bitcoin and digital currencies to Top of Mind. To start, some of the fiercest believers seem to grab on to the
ideology of Bitcoin as providing an escape from centralized control,
in particular viewing bitcoin as a new currency free from the grips
of any government or central bank. On the other hand, some of the
deepest skepticism surrounds the viability of bitcoin as a currency.
Eric Posner, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago,
believes that bitcoin would be a poor substitute for fiat currency,
and would be unable to overcome likely government opposition as
well as public distrust even if it weren’t. And Jeff Currie,
Head of Goldman Sachs commodities research, finds that bitcoin’s
attributes make it a commodity rather than a currency, but he also
believes it is unlikely to replace gold as a commodity store of value Fred Ehrsam. Co-Founder of
one of the largest Bitcoin service providers globally, Coinbase,
believes that the technology is revolutionary and, in a payments
context (although there are many other potential applications –
think asset registries, physical locks or programmable money) has
several benefits. One of the largest benefits seems to be that it
obviates the need for middlemen, which lowers the cost of making
payments for merchants and people sending remittances abroad.
The flaw in Fred's logic is if the masses don't want Bitcoin as a currency, then they don't want to be paid in Bitcoin either! Duh. the conventional
players as they are forced to compete or co-opt. Whether Bitcoin is
really a practical solution for the unbanked population currently
reliant on money transfers is also a serious doubt.
I am in the Philippines now. No one is switching from "peso padala" (e.g. LBC, M'lhuiller, Palawan pawnshop, etc) to Bitcoin for sending cash around the country. Because #1 they are not that tech savvy and #2 they would still need to convert the Bitcoin to cash by having a bank account to receive the Bitcoin. Duh. Duh. Duh. I just can't fathom how stupid Bitards are. And security concerns, along with some association of Bitcoin –
which is not anonymous but is pseudonymous – with illicit activity,
have increasingly attracted the scrutiny of regulators. Dax Hansen
and Jacob Farber, Partner and Senior Counsel, respectively, at
law firm Perkins Coie, note that regulators around the world have
recently become less friendly to Bitcoin. While this has generally
not been the case in the US, more US regulation is likely on the
way, which will likely result in more costs. Finally, Ken Hess,
information technology specialist and author, goes one step
farther, questioning not only the ultimate cost of Bitcoin use, but
also the point of Bitcoin altogether. He raises many grave doubts
about the promised advantages of Bitcoin.
And for any one particularly astute, they would see something in the following statement that explains exactly how to make a crypto-currency that actually has demand as a currency, but I doubt any one will be able to think of what is in my mind as I read the following. So where does that leave us? With the conclusion that bitcoin
likely can’t work as a currency, but some sense that the ledger-based technology that underlies it could hold promise. |
|
|
|
Can you please explain why he is wrong Where he wrong is in his appraisal of the idea of "intrinsic value". No he is not wrong. Bitcoin can't become a unit-of-account for the reasons I just stated. And thus its intrinsic value is that of a money transmitting service, with heaps of irrational speculation on top (because Bitcoin can't do serious things that the masses want and it can't even do serious thing that we enthusiasts need, which is be anonymous so we don't end up in trouble). We could make him wrong by making it impossible to tax a crypto-currency, but you all don't want to hear that and I don't think you have the balls for that. It wouldn't be for the masses, it would be for us, as the masses tax themselves into the abyss over next several years as socialism collapses. |
|
|
|
And so now all of you have mixed your funds with drug dealers and all sorts of other illegal activity. There's a high probability that the $100 dollar bill in my wallet and maybe even some of the $20's have traces of cocaine on them (based on research that's been done). So I'm fairly sure that my fiat funds are mixed in with all kinds of illegal activity, so how does that make BTC any different? Because the government can decide who it wants to target (first) and who it does not (or will target much later). Remember how it works as socialism crashes. The masses are boiling frogs. This quote from the decline of Germany into the abyss is on point: First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me. Also the government can offer digital currency to the masses, so they will be protected from cash. Fits right in with the plans to eliminate cash, so they can tax and track everything in the new world order. See Bitcoin was the designed under the government model of, "problem, reaction, solution". Bitcoin will be seen as somewhat interesting idea but a huge problem in terms of fraud, lack of consumer protection, inconvenience, tax compliance, etc, and then the government and the big banks (of which Buffet owns a couple) will offer digital currency which solves the problems. To those people who think Satoshi wasn't a task force from the Fourth branch of government, you are not rational. Satoshi wrote that he expected Bitcoin to be taken over by ASICs, he expected mining would become centralized by large capital, he chose the 10 minute transaction window, etc.. This task force knew very well what they were designing and why. |
|
|
|
|
You all walked right into a trap.
The people who designed Bitcoin obviously knew that all those who are against central banking would create a ponzi speculation bubble and ignore the facts that the masses don't share their enthusiasm for killing fiat, central banking, theft protection, consumer protections, etc..
So those people who the governments wanted to trap have walked right into the trap!
And so now all of you have mixed your funds with drug dealers and all sorts of other illegal activity.
The masses are not coming in. Those stupid enough to buy into this bubble are going to not only lose all their money, but you are also going to be in criminal trouble.
Bitcoin is a trap. Period.
Enjoy.
Mark my words. I am 100% sure I am correct.
P.S. Buffet knows the plan. And he knows what is going to happen to you. Don't you know these people have been quoted as saying, "they will burn the fingers of the gold bugs up to their armpits".
|
|
|
|
I quoted and commented on the Goldman Sachs analysis of Bitcoin here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=518456.msg5741592#msg5741592One last time, to hammer the points into their thick skulls... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=518453.msg5736229#msg5736229bananas is correct, he just doesn't know how to defend his point well.
Bitcoin isn't decentralized, it is controlled by a few pools which have more than 50% of the hashrate.
Bitcoin is taxed as a commodity, and normal people aren't going to want to keep tax records for every small transaction they make. This is why Bitcoin can never advance as currency.
Because of this Bitcoin is already controlled by the governments. When they are ready to bless their bankster fiat patented solution, they will simply increase the taxes to unbearable levels.
The masses will readily jump to the fiat solution which has theft protection, chargeback protection, don't have to jump through hoops to use it and get it. Instant transaction times, etc, etc.
Bitcoin is a joke. It is for speculators only, not for serious uses.
If you were really serious, you'd have an anonymous coin that can't be taxed, with cpu-only mining that can't be centralized in pools. But you aren't serious. You are just n00bs.
Get off my lawn kiddies. Bye.
(and fuck you too, all you fucking idiots who berated me)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=518453.msg5740803#msg5740803Let me guess..... Rambling about flaw of bitcoins mining.... lol
Did the salient point just fly over your damn head? The masses will never adopt Bitcoin because it will require them to keep records on every acquisition and disposal of Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is classified as a commodity by most all governments. Legal tender fiat does not have this requirement. When you buy goods and services with legal tender, such as a hamburger, you have no obligation to keep a log for tax purposes. And the other salient point which fly right over your head is that only merchants want the nonrefundable quality of Bitcoin. The consumers want protections such as the ability to dispute a charge, the insurance that their funds can't be stolen, etc.. Thus merchants can't exclusively accept Bitcoin, because the masses are NEVER going to use Bitcoin. Duh! Buffet's point is that Bitcoin can't become a unit-of-account where everyone transacts in it, thus no need to convert to and from fiat. And he is correct! However, there is a way we could make him incorrect, but you all don't want to hear it, so just go on your fucking merry-go-round way... I am done with you morons. I guess hes working hard to pump his altcoin. Too bad hes ignored by most members on here.
WTF are you hallucinating about? Did I announce any altcoin? No! You do realize that money is essentially paper (or coin) that represents the right to buy a product or service. But that all forms of fiat money are controlled by the fed or something similar, which is not part of the government (Altough it is above the law and it's protected by the government and influencing the government, even enslaving the government to a degree) and is only there to make profit for the shareholders by inflating the currency, stealing away value from your fiat, while also increasing national debt by the second?
If you realize that, holding bitcoin doesn't seem all that bad now does it?
The masses don't care about your complaints about central banking! They want debt, insurance, protection, convenience, and free handouts! Only you high tech merchants and gold bugs care. Bitcoin is essentially a modern moneygram....
Can moneygram quickly send money to people in over 180 countries who normally use only one of over 50 different currencies? The masses have no need for that feature. Duh. You morons either don't have a brain stem or you don't use it. You all walked right into a trap.
The people who designed Bitcoin obviously knew that all those who are against central banking would create a ponzi speculation bubble and ignore the facts that the masses don't share their enthusiasm for killing fiat, central banking, theft protection, consumer protections, etc..
So those people who the governments wanted to trap have walked right into the trap!
And so now all of you have mixed your funds with drug dealers and all sorts of other illegal activity.
The masses are not coming in. Those stupid enough to buy into this bubble are going to not only lose all their money, but you are also going to be in criminal trouble.
Bitcoin is a trap. Period.
Enjoy.
Mark my words. I am 100% sure I am correct.
P.S. Buffet knows the plan. And he knows what is going to happen to you. Don't you know these people have been quoted as saying, "they will burn the fingers of the gold bugs up to their armpits".
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=518453.msg5741003#msg5741003And so now all of you have mixed your funds with drug dealers and all sorts of other illegal activity. There's a high probability that the $100 dollar bill in my wallet and maybe even some of the $20's have traces of cocaine on them (based on research that's been done). So I'm fairly sure that my fiat funds are mixed in with all kinds of illegal activity, so how does that make BTC any different? Because the government can decide who it wants to target (first) and who it does not (or will target much later). Remember how it works as socialism crashes. The masses are boiling frogs. This quote from the decline of Germany into the abyss is on point: First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me. Also the government can offer digital currency to the masses, so they will be protected from cash. Fits right in with the plans to eliminate cash, so they can tax and track everything in the new world order. See Bitcoin was the designed under the government model of, "problem, reaction, solution". Bitcoin will be seen as somewhat interesting idea but a huge problem in terms of fraud, lack of consumer protection, inconvenience, tax compliance, etc, and then the government and the big banks (of which Buffet owns a couple) will offer digital currency which solves the problems. To those people who think Satoshi wasn't a task force from the Fourth branch of government, you are not rational. Satoshi wrote that he expected Bitcoin to be taken over by ASICs, he expected mining would become centralized by large capital, he chose the 10 minute transaction window, etc.. This task force knew very well what they were designing and why. Can you please explain why he is wrong Where he wrong is in his appraisal of the idea of "intrinsic value". No he is not wrong. Bitcoin can't become a unit-of-account for the reasons I just stated. And thus its intrinsic value is that of a money transmitting service, with heaps of irrational speculation on top (because Bitcoin can't do serious things that the masses want and it can't even do serious thing that we enthusiasts need, which is be anonymous so we don't end up in trouble). We could make him wrong by making it impossible to tax a crypto-currency, but you all don't want to hear that and I don't think you have the balls for that. It wouldn't be for the masses, it would be for us, as the masses tax themselves into the abyss over next several years as socialism collapses. The people who designed Bitcoin obviously knew that all those who are against central banking would create a ponzi speculation bubble and ignore the facts that the masses don't share their enthusiasm for killing fiat, central banking, theft protection, consumer protections, etc..
So you are talking about a ponzi scheme conspiracy to attack people that "are against central banking"? Like, "make all these "anti-central-banking-bastards" poor by letting them invest into a ponzi and then let the bubble pop"? Who are these "pro-central-banking-conspirators? The Fourth branch of government. What was the reason for them to start fighting against the "anti-central-banking-anarchos"? Were they aware of an underground community that was about to fight against central banking, so they must react to kind of a revolution?
You are a threat to their continuance of crony capitalism power. When they created Bitcoin, they didnt think about, that the early miners and adaptors could most likely be the same people that they are fighting against?
They don't prosecute themselves. How many examples of bank court cases being dismissed do you need me to cite? Does this really make any sense to you?
Perfect sense. What do you think will happen on the very day of its release, when a central bank creates its own open source bitcoin copy (SHA256)? I give you some keywords to inspire: DDOS, PREMINING, INSTAMINING
The bankster digital fiat will not be decentralized. It will be just more of the same of what we have now in terms of electronic banking. And remember they can offer everyone loans in their currency. Bitcoin can't become a unit-of-account for the reasons I just stated I don't agree with your reasoning here. By any measure, de-centralised currencies are a step away from "government control". Yes, government can issue a "cryptocurrency" but they can't control it other than by "hoping" then people will use theirs instead of another crypto. Lets say they "declared" it legal tender and allowed people to pay their taxes in "govoCoin". So what ? It's not a substitute for true control such as the central banks now have over fiat. My gosh you missed the main point. The masses like fiat! They don't require that the digital currency of the world needs to not be a fiat. And you did not address the point that the masses don't like the properties of Bitcoin: - Mixes traceable illegal activity with their funds
- No protection against theft
- No refundable protection
- No consumer protection
- Very volatile price
- Must convert to and from fiat which is a hassle
- Very slow transactions, and confusing
- No government guaranteed deposit insurance
- Can't obtain a loan or credit card in bitcoins
- There is no cash version to use offline.
Fiat doesn't have those weaknesses. Fiat has other weaknesses which we are concerned about, but the masses don't care about those weaknesses that bother us. Later the masses will fall into the abyss, then some of them will learn to appreciate our ideals but most of them won't learn. And you did not address the point that the masses don't like the properties of Bitcoin: - Mixes traceable illegal activity with their funds
- No protection against theft
- No refundable protection
- No consumer protection
- Very volatile price
- Must convert to and from fiat which is a hassle
- Very slow transactions, and confusing
- No government guaranteed deposit insurance
- Can't obtain a loan or credit card in bitcoins
- There is no cash version to use offline.
Fiat doesn't have those weaknesses. Fiat has other weaknesses which we are concerned about, but the masses don't care about those weaknesses that bother us. Later the masses will fall into the abyss, then some of them will learn to appreciate our ideals but most of them won't learn. Duh. I wonder if you guys even have a brain stem. Whether or not we "have a brain stem" you certainly don't understand much about how the mechanics of present money system, nor the difference between what banks do and what payment processors do. The Bitcoin blockchain is no substitute for a payment processor services (i.e. the handle supermarket transactions for example). But then it was never intended to be. The services you cite above such as refundability, payments insurance, consumer protections etc are not provided by the bank clearing system per-se. They are all 2nd third and fourth tier services, largely serviced by 3rd parties. Those services would be provided in a bitcoin economy just the same. The only difference would be that you'd "reacharge" your Visa account via the blockchain just as you do at any of the Cryptocurrency exchanges today. If the transactions will not be on the block chain, then you have unregulated fractional reserves, just like we did during the wild 1800s in the USA where the private banks were creating "receipts for gold on deposit" out of thin air. Just like the Mt.Gox and numerous other failures past and to come, you've essentially just recreated the mess that the public wanted to end and why we have central banking now to regulate that mess. The key innovation of Bitcoin is to regulate the mess with decentralized proof-of-work, so nobody can cheat. When I see my transaction on the block chain, I know there were no fractional reserves created. Once you enable the fractional reserves, you've enabled the government regulatory powers, and then you are essentially back to fiat again. And for what gain for the masses? None. Just woe and trouble for them. If you really want to crack this nut, you need to improve the technology more. You need strong anonymity. You need instant transactions. Etc. All of this can be done. But you all don't want it done.You'd rather fight for the status quo so you can keep your trap. Suggestion or idea to help Bitcoin. Currently, retailers pay a percentage of purchase volume called the
merchant discount rate (MDR) in order to accept electronic forms
of payments. In the United States, the average MDR is about 2.5%
for offline retail payments and 3.0% for online retail payments
(though these fees vary widely by merchant size and type). Today,
the use of virtual currencies could theoretically eliminate these
fees as they do not rely on traditional banking/payment networks.
That said, Bitcoin gateway service providers such as BitPay and
Coinbase, which enable merchants to accept Bitcoin payments,
typically charge a fee of about 1%. I was a download software merchant in the past. I don't know if it has improved but in addition to the 3.5% MDR, I also paid 0.5% to the payment processor, and I had another couple of percent loses to chargebacks. So the actual cost to most small internet merchants is 5+%. That is significant. But again the consumers don't care. Now if you can offer a significant discount for using Bitcoin, i.e. if the lack of chargebacks significantly lowers your cost of doing business, then consumers would care! |
|
|
|
Let me guess..... Rambling about flaw of bitcoins mining.... lol
Did the salient point just fly over your damn head? The masses will never adopt Bitcoin because it will require them to keep records on every acquisition and disposal of Bitcoin, because Bitcoin is classified as a commodity by most all governments. Legal tender fiat does not have this requirement. When you buy goods and services with legal tender, such as a hamburger, you have no obligation to keep a log for tax purposes. And the other salient point which flew right over your head is that only merchants want the nonrefundable quality of Bitcoin. The consumers want protections such as the ability to dispute a charge, the insurance that their funds can't be stolen, etc.. Thus merchants can't exclusively accept Bitcoin, because the masses are NEVER going to use Bitcoin. Duh! Buffet's point is that Bitcoin can't become a unit-of-account where everyone transacts in it, thus no need to convert to and from fiat. And he is correct! However, there is a way we could make him incorrect, but you all don't want to hear it, so just go on your fucking merry-go-round way... I am done with you morons. I guess hes working hard to pump his altcoin. Too bad hes ignored by most members on here.
WTF are you hallucinating about? Did I announce any altcoin? No! You do realize that money is essentially paper (or coin) that represents the right to buy a product or service. But that all forms of fiat money are controlled by the fed or something similar, which is not part of the government (Altough it is above the law and it's protected by the government and influencing the government, even enslaving the government to a degree) and is only there to make profit for the shareholders by inflating the currency, stealing away value from your fiat, while also increasing national debt by the second?
If you realize that, holding bitcoin doesn't seem all that bad now does it?
The masses don't care about your complaints about central banking! They want debt, insurance, protection, convenience, and free handouts! Only you high tech merchants and gold bugs care. Bitcoin is essentially a modern moneygram....
Can moneygram quickly send money to people in over 180 countries who normally use only one of over 50 different currencies? The masses have no need for that feature. Duh. You morons either don't have a brain stem or you don't use it. |
|
|
|
|
bananas is correct, he just doesn't know how to defend his point well.
Bitcoin isn't decentralized, it is controlled by a few pools which have more than 50% of the hashrate.
Bitcoin is taxed as a commodity, and normal people aren't going to want to keep tax records for every small transaction they make. This is why Bitcoin can never advance as currency.
Because of this Bitcoin is already controlled by the governments. When they are ready to bless their bankster fiat patented solution, they will simply increase the taxes to unbearable levels.
The masses will readily jump to the fiat solution which has theft protection, chargeback protection, don't have to jump through hoops to use it and get it. Instant transaction times, etc, etc.
Bitcoin is a joke. It is for speculators only, not for serious uses.
If you were really serious, you'd have an anonymous coin that can't be taxed, with cpu-only mining that can't be centralized in pools. But you aren't serious. You are just n00bs.
Get off my lawn kiddies. Bye.
(and fuck you too, all you fucking idiots who berated me)
|
|
|
|
|
Just let the climate freaks eat their poison. It is futile to convince of them of the facts.
Get yourself some anonymous crypto-currency, then sit back with your popcorn and watch them destroy themselves with taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
