mvrk10256 posted this in the Newbies thread and said he couldn't post it here. FYI: I bought some, and emailed him according to his thread, and sent him my own mail tag. Can someone post for me on the thread?
mvrk10256, 6, 1.86, 1PdzhaW5qAHvNtLnDbkqPq33Zzy5s19cc2
|
|
|
|
The country that is larger than a shoebox only has to wait IF they are following the steps of having a central bank buy bitcoins and exchanging them for their currency. This is the centralized, non distributed approach. If you follow kjj's steps (listed above) - the step of allowing the right to contract and merely allowing bitcoin as equivalent to their local legal tender - you do not need to have a central authority buy up a lot of bitcoin, it will happen naturally and organically. And it would quite likely help the country quite a lot in the long term. The problem (for the country and central bank, not everyone else) with having a central bank do the "buy and exchange" process is that it would drive the price up quite quickly.  So, any country bigger than a shoebox will have to wait 'till bitcoin value climbs into the minimum of mid-five digits? You agree that bitcoin value would have to climb *first*, and then be adopted, rather than the other way around (i.e. currently=valued bitcoin gets adopted by a state & its value grows)?
Snapping up bitcoins (are you watching gox?!) at today's low prices might be a great investment, but certainly not a way for a state to adopt bitcoin.
Edit: I probably should make it clearer that if bitcoin value was high enough (let's say ~$100k/BTC), and stable enough (more than a few trader on Gox & BTC-e setting the price), a country could adopt it as currency. It would be no different from switching to a gold standard -- a step back imo, but nothing unheard of. Let's make bitcoin as reputable & solid as gold.
|
|
|
|
In None We Trust sounds better.
In NONCE We Trust sounds better. ftfy ? |
|
|
|
Don't forget preppers, precious metal aficionados, and people who pay with cash.
Don't forget the US Tea Party and those who quote the US Constitution |
|
|
|
As long as it isn't the "Duke Dukem Forever" version.  (which alas seems likely given the state of the world as of today...) |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is NOT in the "grip of the banks" so it does not need to be freed. However, this proposal would help put it in the grips of government and therefore the banks. Is this what you intend? Regardless, if you think this is a good idea, feel free to implement it or put out a bounty for someone to implement it, and encourage people to go along with it. Then you can see whether people value freedom or not. With the correct low understanding we can free the bitcoin from the grip of the banks and the governments without
becoming outlaws. This is a bigger revolution then to just be manor anarchist men solution.
|
|
|
|
+1 It depends on the acceptance and seriousity to your project at all... It could be good for bitcoin if a project that mainly is not related to bitcoin at all choose to accept only bitcoin as a payment imo
|
|
|
|
It certainly is not ideal, but the alternative is the chance of what happened to Zeroday that started this thread. ;-) An option is to perhaps use a single account that is based outside the EU or in one of the more stable EU countries that does not yet seem likely to do a bail-in any time soon. There are certainly countries that seem more likely to do one that others. Given that, one needs to remember then to keep your balance at all the banks well below the insured amounts. If you need to have multiple accounts and/or accounts outside the EU to do so, that would be prudent. The problem there is that as of now it doesn't appear that the EU (or US or ...) would aggregate accounts from different banks and only insure the amount of to the limit (e.g. 90,000 at 10 different banks combined would be over the limit), but I would not put it past the power-hungry politicians to do so at some point if needed.
Yeah, that's just great. So you have company with say 10 milion euro revenue annually. You need to buy equipment for 1 milion. So you are going to disperse that through 11 accounts? ORLY  |
|
|
|
They did their research so well they even got the name correct "BitCoin". </sarcasm> If you can't get something as basic as the name correct, what does that say about the more complex items? Snotty article on the Bloomberg listing. In other words, just like everything else in the New Normal world, where economies and markets are both half-alive and half-dead depending on how one looks at them (usually whether central bank XYZ is part of the wave-function collapse), and where financial Schrodingerism rules supreme, BitCoin is now also an official currency as well... if only when looked from the inside out. It is likely that only when everyone has access to the "XBT" data that only then will the beginning of the end for the world's electronic alternative currency commence. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-10/bitcoin-now-officially-schrodinger-currency |
|
|
|
Good point. If 1% of the citizens of the EU (and US etc) bought one bitcoin each, it would be a smart move to protect themselves. Given that, one needs to remember then to keep your balance at all the banks well below the insured amounts. If you need to have multiple accounts and/or accounts outside the EU to do so, that would be prudent. The problem there is that as of now it doesn't appear that the EU (or US or ...) would aggregate accounts from different banks and only insure the amount of to the limit (e.g. 90,000 at 10 different banks combined would be over the limit), but I would not put it past the power-hungry politicians to do so at some point if needed. So, definitely put some money into Bitcoin, gold, silver etc. The power-hungry, control freak politicians are not to be trusted. They will do whatever they can do line their own pockets. Additionally, I'd start a mattress-based savings account too, only a small one though  Always useful to have cash, even if it's just for a temporary crisis and not only "OMG it's the end" type scenarios |
|
|
|
Given that, one needs to remember then to keep your balance at all the banks well below the insured amounts. If you need to have multiple accounts and/or accounts outside the EU to do so, that would be prudent. The problem there is that as of now it doesn't appear that the EU (or US or ...) would aggregate accounts from different banks and only insure the amount of to the limit (e.g. 90,000 at 10 different banks combined would be over the limit), but I would not put it past the power-hungry politicians to do so at some point if needed. So, definitely put some money into Bitcoin, gold, silver etc. The power-hungry, control freak politicians are not to be trusted. They will do whatever they can do line their own pockets. edit: And by "well below" I mean REALLY, really far below given the controls put in place for even under the guarantee amounts in Cyprus. |
|
|
|
Bug a hotel room at the Watergate Hotel in DC, get impeached. Bug an entire nation and the entire World, get a Nobel Peace prize. Rob a bank and get a life sentence, rob a whole nation and get a nobel prize in economics or become a politician.
|
|
|
|
Part of the 200 million also includes TSMC. That is a bit into the article itself, so it is not all for Avalon. A few other points: 1. They specifically discuss getting "more parties are involved in the mining process" also. 2. "Mr. Lewis didn't respond to a request for comment." 3. "As part of the deal, Avalon will gain access to TSMC microchips based on 20-nanometer processes, which are much faster than other chips. " ... The Phoenix deal will also involve Taiwanese microchip maker Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., 2330.TW 0.00% which is set to supply the state-of-the-art microchips that will power the hardware.
The Phoenix Fund was set up this year to invest in bitcoin mining-hardware companies. It looked at several of Avalon's rivals in the sector, including Butterfly Labs and KnCMiner but decided against investing, according to a person familiar with the private-equity firm's strategy.
Investors in the Phoenix Fund, which includes a small number of individuals who made their fortunes in currency trading, believe that the currency will become more stable and popular if more parties are involved in the mining process, this person said.
...
The bitcoin deal was put together by Andrew Laurus, a former government-bonds salesman at Lehman Brothers who is also an investor in the fund. Avalon was set up by Yifu Guo, a pioneer in the bitcoin-mining industry.... Mr. Guo couldn't be reached for comment.
|
|
|
|
However, current crisis is not remotely like the one in 2001. BC trading has increased a lot over the past year but that's due to exchange restrictions and inflation. Yet, it is a good time to start experimenting.
YET. Give it time with the current policies and controls. Without changes in the policies, high inflation is all but assured. |
|
|
|
Or they are responsible and use them as a zero cost loan for30 days and pay off the balance each month while earning rewards. Mericans use credit cards because they live too far outside their means or they aren't paid enough to support their lifestyle. Foolish people exist on credit. Bitcoin isn't a replacement for credit it can be used to replace cash in some circumstances.
|
|
|
|
And a Michigan judge blocked it just a bit ago. Who knows what the appellate court will do: LANSING — An Ingham County judge says Thursday's historic Detroit bankruptcy filing violates the Michigan Constitution and state law and must be withdrawn.
But Attorney General Bill Schuette said he will appeal Circuit Judge Rosemarie Aquilina’s Friday rulings and seek emergency consideration by the Michigan Court of Appeals. He wants her orders stayed pending the appeals, he said in a news release.
...
http://www.freep.com/article/20130719/NEWS06/307190075/Michigan-AG-challenges-judge-s-ruling-Detroit-bankruptcy-unconstitutionalI have no neighbors. two houses on either side and both behind me are empty, and I live in the nicest area still inside Detroit! it is now common practice here if police catch you squatting, as long as your not scrapping copper, have no open fires or illegal electric hook-ups and not trashing the place, your allowed to stay with no hassles. they even started alowing squatters to get legal gas/electric hook-ups with a few inspections and a pre-paid account.
Can I move into one of the houses next to you and bring my Bitcoin miners? I just need electric and Internet. I mostly just keep to myself and own my own means of protection. I could probably find someone similar to me that could live in the house on the other side of you. |
|
|
|
Love the post - in 2015 there will be the same complaints except 2013 will be included in the early adopter range. The same thing happened in 1995-1999 with domain names. And the "early adopters" who bought land in <wherever> that is now worth much more. Intel and Apple in 1986. etc. 2 years later: People are still complaining about the early adopters. Oh, and the end of hypervolatility you say?  |
|
|
|
As I said above my instinct about her is she is in favor of the little guy, not the privileged/elite.
She IS the privileged/elite: In 2008, the earliest year for which Warren has released income tax returns, Warren and her husband Bruce Mann had a combined income of $831,208,[1] which increased in 2009 to $981,670. Warren was paid an average of $350,000 per year by Harvard Law School during 2009-2010.[2]
Warren’s net worth as of the end of 2011 was as high as $14.5 million. And: Warren and her husband, who have a combined net worth of approximately $15 million and a combined annual income (as of 2011) of almost $1 million, spent almost their entire careers at tax-exempt educational institutions which do not pay any taxes. - See more at: http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/factory-owner-speech/Do you really think that someone who has a net worth of about $14.5 million (USD), who works at only tax-exempt institutions, and plainly does not donate much to charity is going to favor bitcoin? It is about power, and whatever it takes to get there for her, and bitcoin is anti-power because it is decentralized by its nature. She makes "the rich" who make more than $150,000 per year look like mere pikers. If she really was in favor of the "redistribution" she claims to favor, she would do it voluntarily. Instead, she favors it for others, at the point of a gun and not herself. Look at Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. They are very much in favor of higher taxes on "everyone" -- except themselves when the set up foundations for tens of billions of dollars to protect it from taxes. Warren is a progressive ("Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform through government action.") and that means statist and the state will have a much harder time controlling bitcoin as bitcion grows and improves. I agree with the poster above, by all means, try to get her in favor of bitcoin. It would be great, but I seriously do not believe that there is any hope when you look at what she believes in. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
