Every day I read about some government warning about BTC (today it's the Indian one).
BTCs value is not guaranteed by the central planners! Absolutely no financial protection for you by your daddy, nation XYZ! If your bank goes bankrupt, we care about you, but just imagine something happens to BTC, there is NOWHERE TO TURN TO! Our absolutely safe fiat that we created just for you will protect you, and in case something happens, as you see, FED and ECB will keep you warm and sheltered because they care. Hey, they even print new money for you as much as they can. So don't come running if something happens to BTC, because we warned you!
This is ironic beyond anything imaginable: They tell us that they are protecting us from BTC - when in reality, BTC is an attempt to protect us from them..
Just hillarious. Of course, the masses buy it...
We scare you. We protect you. Please say "Thank you". And then bend over.  |
|
|
|
Time to create subprimecoin  Already happened...it's called Ripple How long until it needs a bailout? |
|
|
|
Think outside of your 1st world problems. Bitcoin saves these 3rd world folks from corruption and gives a chance for them to grow wealth at insane rates despite most of their citizens not even having access to the stock market, let alone a bank account.
Few things piss me off more than first world self indulgent armchair academics spew mindless drivel about how deflation and early adopters make Bitcoin a bad deal for the poor. I want them to go somewhere in the world that experiences actual poverty and tell those people that monetary inflation is good for them to their faces. Go visit Greece and talk to the people living in towns where every house still has rebar sticking out the top, because the average person can't afford the property taxes on "completed" homes, so leave their houses unfinished for decades to qualify as "under construction". Talk to some Peruvians who are effectively forbidden by "progressive" labor laws from working at a single job for more than 90 days. Those laws require lavish benefits for permanent employees, you see, and since only governments and well-connected business can afford most of the population is relegated to temp work. In order to get in an extra "fuck you" to the regular Peruvian, the banks there won't give you an account unless you're rich or have a salaried position. Maybe when these people have some actual experiences in the real world, outside their ivory tower intellectual circle jerks, maybe when they've been a house guest in a home whose master bedroom had a dirt floor, maybe then they can say something meaningful about poverty then. Great post. Bitcoin is pro-freedom and those ivory tower types know their lives and positions depend on control. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a tool for freedom. The ones who oppose it have their motivations clearly displayed.
|
|
|
|
|
That is good news and a great find!
|
|
|
|
|
I like the analysis. I think it is only a matter of time before Taiwan wants to stick it to China after China's moves the last few weeks. :-)
Surprised Japan doesn't too after the sparing over the islands etc.
|
|
|
|
If I accept a transaction with zero confirmation and allow people to get what they are purchasing, then can they revert or bypass that spent in a later stage or the unconfrmed transactions will always be confirmed at some point of time ?
You may want to read these discussions here, plus a ton more: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359934.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=159994.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=208167.0The summary is that zero confirm transactions are perfectly fine for small value items because the cost to do a double spend is not worth it as long as you verify that the transaction has appeared on the network and you've paid a fee. The other relevant quotation is: "If credit cards take 180 days to be confirmed how will you buy coffee at Starbucks?" Don't believe the FUD about zero confirmation transactions for small value items, a double spend is less likely than someone just walking out on the bill for small items. Just like credit cards, if someone were to successfully scam you - or dispute the transaction a month later - you'd be out the money and it is a cost of business. For larger purchases, you want confirmations. E.g. buying something for 5000 BTC, I'd want a lot of confirmations. |
|
|
|
watching the price of bitcoin is like watching "how I met your mother", you get pissed because of not knowing the mother but at the same time you do not want to know who is the mother because simply the show will end  ... You need to catch up to the current episode! ;-) |
|
|
|
BTC value should be around 2-10 dollars.
My argument is the following: WorldCoin costs less than a dollar despite the fact that they will be minted roughly only 10 times as many as BTC so the long term BTC/WDC should be 0.10 BTC/WDC. This gives the BTC estimated value being less than 10 dollars...
Fortunately quantity of coins mined is not the only or even the major determining factor in price. Think about TCP/IP vs TLK/MD. They do essentially the same thing, why is everyone using TCP/IP? |
|
|
|
I was surprised to see this old post get dug up! I have no idea how I came to write this regrettably ultra-bearish dribble. But, I DID mention a few times that I am no psychic or statistician, or whatever. It just goes to show you that you can't just extrapolate on anything. Mea culpa. So sorry. I am just bad at predicting. You should never follow my advice or prediction or whatever. This IS a speculation forum, isn't it???
I think that just about the only thing one can predict is that the dollar, Euro, Yen, Yuan etc will lose value/purchasing power over time. If you predict that in 10 years they'll have lost value, I think you'd be pretty much guaranteed to have been accurate. :-) |
|
|
|
That is a good find! Clarity from DC is important. Once the rules are posted it will be even better.
The complete rules will be posted very soon! But the point is miners are safe. Yeah, that is what the article said, I'm just waiting for them to actually show up. I am glad you found this! |
|
|
|
Regarding why he thought it was evil, I think this part was what the title referred to: BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions.
Krugman is an authoritarian statist at heart who wants to "monitor" citizens financial transactions and thinks that is a good thing! When the state has the power to monitor, it means control and that is their goal. I find it very telling that the article quotes that part saying that Bitcoin is "intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks". If he and his masters were not worried about the potential, he would not be obsessing about Bitcoin (or BitCoin as he says - he probably calls the Federal Reserve the "FED" too) repeatedly over the last year. Krugman et al know that their games that they play with paper money are being exposed by technology and don't like it because it ruins their plans to monitor and control the rest of us. |
|
|
|
|
Doubt the NYT will show this comment:
Someone who can't even get "BitCoin" correct as "Bitcoin" or "bitcoin" (see the wiki) wants to be believed about all the other stuff? Paul, you don't just miss the little stuff, you are missing the big picture. The bitcoin blockchain answers a large theoretical question in Computer Science, provides nearly instant, nearly frictionless transfer around the world. Hint: Bitcoin could have much more impact on commerce than the fax machine (and internet, lol) did.
Since Krugman thinks the second to last paragraph in his column is a good way to encourage polite discussion, I suspect that Krugman likes Keynesian economics because it pushes his big government, central bank, inflation loving, control-freak fetish which pleases his masters in government.
|
|
|
|
|
That is a good find! Clarity from DC is important. Once the rules are posted it will be even better.
|
|
|
|
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business/131220/currency-the-year-bitcoin...
That's all changed. Bitcoin has emerged as functional currency and has spawned a speculative investment market.
There were lots of reasons to get excited about Bitcoin in 2013. For people concerned about the state of surveillance, it offered anonymity. For people who looked around the world and saw fragile nation-states and failing economies, it promised an alternative means of exchange unbound by borders, regulations, or monetary policies. And for people looking for to make investments in a time of massive technological change, it seemed like the currency of the future: Commercial transactions increasingly happen online. Physical cash and the currencies based in it were starting to seem like outmoded relics.
Forget central banks and ineffective governments. Forget the National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Let’s just meet online and use Bitcoin, right?
...
|
|
|
|
|
You are probably not getting many replies because the way you wrote the question makes it difficult to understand. You may want to rephrase it.
:-)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
