Say the USG calls an "emergency" meeting with the UNSC and they all agree that Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are now the "largest threat to the world economy"... They adopt as a UN Resolution the American proposal "Anti-Counterfeiting Measures Emergency Act of 2014". So each member nation-state has to legally "force" ISPs to "log and discard" all packets that match certain strings. What happens then? Would it be the end of Bitcoin? The end of cryptocurrencies? What's the response of the Bitcoin dev team? edit: Got this idea from monsterer: That's the whole POINT of bitcoin. Once the network gets big enough, they won't have the *ability* to decide to "allow" it or not. They don't "allow" pirating or The Pirate Bay, and of course nobody pirates any more and the Pirate Bay website has been shut down for good.
This is a fundamental fallacy shared by many bitcoiners. Governments can easily 'not allow' bitcoin (for all intents and purposes) by simply passing a new law saying any ISP relaying bitcoin related traffic will be shut down. That move alone vastly reduces the number of miners and nodes probably to the point where a 51% attack becomes easy, and the currency crumbles. Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely positive about bitcoin but you have to understand how vunerable it is. Cheers, Paul. |
|
|
|
Quiet approval, hah, do you take anything that lizard says at face value. Either he didn't realize the threat before or he lied. I think they're overconfident as they truly believe there could not possibly be a threat to their monopoly. when someone deposits dollars into an exchange. it sits in an american bank .. meaning america has not lost a dime. when someone wishes to withdraw their dollar. the dollar travels from one america account to another.
again the banks have not lost a dime its still circulating in their banking system.
the old age sticking banknotes into an envelop to send to foreign countries, that was where banks lost out. as the money was not in local circulation anymore, thus bitcoin is better for banks.. not worse.
now to the point. bitcoin is not harmful to bankers. but exchanges run by basement dwelling teenagers that don't wish to follow the FIAT regulations, are the ones that will find their banks not so helpful, especially those exchanges that claim their business plan is 'selling advert space' which later is revealed as a fraudulent claim, when its looked into as being bitcoin related. Short-term, you're right. But thinking long-term, don't you think this technology (decentralized cryptocurrencies) is the greatest threat to the central bankers' monopoly they will ever have faced? Cryptocurrencies render obsolete their source of power (centralized control of a nation-state's currency), giving the power to the people who actually use the currency and no one else. No enforced compliance (under threat of violence), no fractional reserve banking, no debt-based issuance necessitating exponential growth, no ridiculously flawed financial instruments, minimal service fees, etc. |
|
|
|
Yes, absolutely, you got it, except for that small correction I made. That cryptocurrency software is complex at its core is necessary for technical reasons; it's becoming simpler to use as new software/technologies are built on top of it. Just like with the Internet (e.g. TCP/IP -> HTTP -> HTML -> CSS -> JS). You are arguing that as it more technologies are build on top of the already complex utilization of the Bitcoin software, more simple it becomes to use the software. This is an argument based on a self contradictory premise. As more layers of technologies are added on top of the Bitcoin software, more complex it will become to use. Moreover, as more software are involved in the process, less secure it becomes for the end-user. More complex for developers (who love the challenge), but not end-users. I thought that would be an obvious inference. JavaScript adds a much more complex sub-system to HTML/CSS webpages (developers' side), but adds functionality to make things easier and better for end-users. You also don't understand that fiat currencies are mathematically programmed to fail, hence they will fail at some point, whether the end result is deflation or inflation. It all ends in a conspiracy theory. I should had predicted that! I heard few years ago that 2012 would be the end of the world as well... So you believe that labeling something as a "conspiracy theory" makes it untrue? That's really funny, given that Chris Martenson (author of the crash course linked above) has done everything he possibly can to avoid that label at all costs, by staying within mainstream parameters as much as possible! By your lax definition, everything you've ever been told by an "authority" is a "conspiracy theory". People who throw about the term "conspiracy theory" are generally the most brainwashed, least informed, and of course most TV-watching people. Logically cornered, almost all of your arguments are now fallacies. This one is an appeal to ridicule. How so? The fact that crypto/crypto volatility is much lower would suggest that volatility is not a cryptocurrency problem, but a speculation-driven crypto/fiat exchange problem, which is transitory during the cryptocurrency adoption phase. Nope, it would only suggest that volatility between LTC and BTC is lower than any fiat currency and BTC. What you wrote is just gibberish... Funny gibberish. Another appeal to ridicule and unfounded dismissal. Any crypto/crypto pair has similar volatility as BTC/LTC; that pair was used only as an example (which I think you understood). Elaborating further, crypto/crypto volatility is closer to fiat/fiat volatility, which shows that the unacceptable volatility of crypto/fiat is not an intrinsic or inherent aspect of cryptocurrencies. If you're looking at them in terms of their value in fiat, then you're right, but cryptocurrencies are (or will become) much more than that. In jails, cigarettes can sometimes be used as a currency. There's also no reason why they couldn't be used as currency anywhere else. As an example, read about cacao beans. The longest lasting currency? Wooden sticks (used for over 700 years in England!). People used "cacao beans" at some point as currency, so therefore BTC is a currency. What a nice line of argumentation! Your comparison of "cacao beans" with BTC is the product of a genius! A bit of a straw man argument along with a sarcarstic appeal to ridicule. I was trying to show you that indeed anything can be used as currency (e.g. cacao beans, tally sticks, cigarettes, gold, pieces of paper, digital tokens of pieces of paper, digital cryptocurrencies). You even agreed that Bitcoin inescapably fits definition #1 for "currency". Like others pointed out, BTC is being used as a currency, therefore it is a currency. Old definitions of currency that do not take into account the fact of the Internet are obsolete. "The fact of the Internet are obsolete"? Really? If English isn't your first language, don't assume that others are writing nonsense. Rephrased: Old definitions of currency which do not take into account the fact of the Internet, are obsolete. (I.e. the definitions are obsolete, not the Internet.) English is not my mother language, so I must consider nonsense an useful information. Nice! A pretty silly straw man argument. I even rephrased it for you so you couldn't possibly continue to misunderstand what I wrote, but you chose to pretend that you continue to have the false understanding that I said that "the fact of the Internet are obsolete". The documentaries were offered for your education, not as references to support my "pointless arguments". There are no contradictions or hypocrisy, otherwise you'd be pointing them out, which you try to do next...
First, I am not right because a documentary says so, I'm right because(/if) it is so. I can think for myself. I haven't watched TV in 6 years. It's a very bad idea to assume that you already know all you need to know. There is nothing more dangerous than a closed mind. Oh, thank you very much. Yeah, you are right because you say so! LOL? So you're just going to ignore the "(/if)" part, just like you ignored half of my sentence about definitions of currency being obsolete? Quoting out of context that blatantly suggests a twisted approach to this discussion. Nobody is against money per se. It doesn't make sense to oppose a concept. It's a good idea to get an understanding of how the current monetary system works (which we are not taught in schools/academia/media), and how it evolved, before one embarks onto more advanced ideas, such as cryptocurrencies or the idea of a resource-based economy (RBE). See, that's the problem, that many of us are still willfully ignorant and even instinctively mock people who point you towards the truth. Sorry, but you are not really telling truths here, hence the mocking. However, I agree that is a good idea to learn how the current monetary system works. You can say that as much as you want, but I suggest you might find more joy and satisfaction in seeking truth rather than short-term ego gratification (such as by pretending you know all that you need to know and mocking me). If you think it's a good idea to learn how the current monetary system works, then why would you dismiss Chris Martenson's extremely accurate Crash Course as something that "could not possibly be true" (what you really mean when you say/think "conspiracy theory")? |
|
|
|
Well Zavtra I may confidently say yes indeed Central Banks want to destroy crypto currencies including bitcoin which had earned wide popularity worldwide. Thailand has already banned it while China is continuously beating it while other powerful countries central banks are fully prepared to defeat crypto currencies forever. Just wait to see the fierce battle.
How exactly are they "fully prepared to defeat crypto currencies forever"? Again the question is, what CAN they do? I mean, yes, MAYBE they are "fully prepared", but I see no indication of this. It seems to me that they have been caught with their pants down, and the idea/technology can no longer be stopped, if it ever could. Satoshi's solution to the DSP might end up being the most important breakthrough of the 21st century. I don't see how it could be stopped. |
|
|
|
It's time for a real revolution in cryptocurrency. It's time for the ultimate test of cryptos. We need to abandon its fiat value all together. We need to come to a point where the value of cryptos can only be measured in other cryptos. And we need decentralized exchanges to come into order to make this a reality. The tables have turned, and if we want these things to succeed, we need to adjust to the clearly mounting conditions against us.
These very recent developments from banks and governments are NO coincidence. There is now a concentrated effort to destroy the currencies, and this is only possible if we play by their rules. So it is time to abandon their rules altogether. Yes, yes, yes! The real question is what CAN the central banksters actually do? Get governments to pass legislation and start overtly or covertly threatening exchanges around the world? Place the banhammer on any mention of Bitcoin in the dying/decrepit mainstream media? Buy up/corner/squeeze the market (like silver in 1980)? Pull multiple super pump-and-dumps? Divert some of the USG black budget for a Currency Collapse Prevention team made up of the best NSA hackers to look for some an attack vector/vulnerability? A 51% type of attack involving sabotage of the underseas Internet lines (recall the 2010 incidents that isolated Iran off the Internet) to split the blockchain? Regardless of what they try, one cannot kill an idea. Cryptocurrencies are an idea whose time has come. It's Game Over for the largest criminal empire the planet has ever seen. |
|
|
|
Centrally-controlled (fractional-reserve debt-based) currency is "one of the oldest concepts in human history"? If you are thinking of a few thousand years out of the 7000 years of recorded history, I think you'd still be more wrong than right. And of course, we are at least 200,000 (arguably 2 million) years old. But more importantly, this is an irrelevant point. Slavery is also "one of the oldest concepts in human history" -- does that mean we should not even try to move beyond such primitive behavior? You are comparing the concept of [debt-based] currency with the concept of slavery and arguing that because both are a kind of "primitive behaviour", the whole humanity should just forgot about it and start to use a very complex software to facilitate trade and barter. Yes, absolutely, you got it, except for that small correction I made. That cryptocurrency software is complex at its core is necessary for technical reasons; it's becoming simpler to use as new software/technologies are built on top of it. Just like with the Internet (e.g. TCP/IP -> HTTP -> HTML -> CSS -> JS). Nope, the vast majority of people are certainly not going to abandon the utilization of fiat currency. It is far more simple to use fiat currency rather than use any complex software which requires a computer and Internet connection to work. You're thinking very short-term. Technologies built upon the backbone, such as physical bitcoins, will help make it easier to use. You also don't understand that fiat currencies are mathematically programmed to fail, hence they will fail at some point, whether the end result is deflation or inflation. You must've misread my sentence. I said that crypto/crypto volatility (BTC/LTC) is lower than crypto/fiat (BTC/USD) volatility. True, however my point remains and your comparison is out of context. How so? The fact that crypto/crypto volatility is much lower would suggest that volatility is not a cryptocurrency problem, but a speculation-driven crypto/fiat exchange problem, which is transitory during the cryptocurrency adoption phase. Like others pointed out, BTC is being used as a currency, therefore it is a currency. Old definitions of currency that do not take into account the fact of the Internet are obsolete. People use cigarettes in jail to trade and barter. So in accordance with your logic cigarettes must be a currency... In that context, yes. In jails, cigarettes can sometimes be used as a currency. There's also no reason why they couldn't be used as currency anywhere else. As an example, read about cacao beans. The longest lasting currency? Wooden sticks (used for over 700 years in England!). By the way, "the fact of the Internet are obsolete"? Really? If English isn't your first language, don't assume that others are writing nonsense. Rephrased: Old definitions of currency which do not take into account the fact of the Internet, are obsolete. (I.e. the definitions are obsolete, not the Internet.) You may not have discovered all there is to discover yet... The current system cannot survive much longer, nor should it. Killing people by the millions, consuming the planet's resources with no regard for sustainability, corruption at every level (not just politics but media, banking, medical, scientific, etc)... May I suggest watching a few documentaries? Money as Debt, Zeitgeist Addendum, The Money Masters are 3 good ones to help understand how money and banking (currently) works. Cryptocurrencies are their worst nightmare, though generally speaking they don't know it yet. I really like to observe people like you come here and throw this documentaries as reference to support your pointless arguments. It is really hilarious because people like never notice the contradiction and the hypocrisy of your actions. The documentaries were offered for your education, not as references to support my "pointless arguments". There are no contradictions or hypocrisy, otherwise you'd be pointing them out, which you try to do next... http://www.lazeitgeist.com/faqs?fid=15The Zeitgeist Movement's international website does, indeed, sell some DVDs and merchandise. The reason is because websites cost money to keep. We are still in a monetary system and advocating against money does not mean bill collectors forgive your debts. Any and all procedes coming from website sales go toward the movement's expenses. It is like to say: "I am right because a documentary from an organization which is against money (but sells merchandise for money) said that money is the source of all evil. Therefore Bitcoin (which is used to obtain money) will replace all forms of money". LOL. First, I am not right because a documentary says so, I'm right because(/if) it is so. I can think for myself. I haven't watched TV in 6 years. It's a very bad idea to assume that you already know all you need to know. There is nothing more dangerous than a closed mind. Somehow, the idea that "We are still in a monetary system and advocating against money does not mean bill collectors forgive your debts" seems hypocritical to you, yet it is obviously true. In the all-or-nothing/black-or-white way you are thinking, one would have to completely stop using the system's money if one is to oppose it. That's ridiculous. Nobody is against money per se. It doesn't make sense to oppose a concept. It's a good idea to get an understanding of how the current monetary system works (which we are not taught in schools/academia/media), and how it evolved, before one embarks onto more advanced ideas, such as cryptocurrencies or the idea of a resource-based economy (RBE). See, that's the problem, that many of us are still willfully ignorant and even instinctively mock people who point you towards the truth. Notice the second part of the sentence ("and no longer commonly priced as a ratio of a fiat currency"). The point I was making is that we will no longer see BTC's worth in terms of its exchange rate(s). 1 BTC will only be seen as 1 BTC, not as X USD or X EUR. You are funny. Thank you for the laugh. Well thank you for acknowledging my point. You are funny too, in a good way. I wouldn't be replying to you if it weren't fun!  |
|
|
|
Some definitions: com·mod·i·ty (noun): 1. a raw material or primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold, such as copper or coffee. (synonyms: item, material, product, article, object) 2. an article of trade or commerce, especially a product as distinguished from a service. 3. something of use, advantage, or value. Bitcoin fits #3, but it certainly also fits the definition of currency: cur·ren·cy (noun): 1. something that is used as a medium of exchange; money. 2. general acceptance; prevalence; vogue. 3. a time or period during which something is widely accepted and circulated. 4. the fact or quality of being widely accepted and circulated from person to person. 5. circulation, as of coin. So why can't Bitcoin be both a currency and a commodity, just like PMs? There's no contradiction. (Love your handle, btw, QuestionAuthority... have you heard of Larken Rose?) |
|
|
|
I don't disagree with that, but I think in the bigger picture, cryptocurrencies are intended/destined to replace the concept of centrally-controlled currencies. Nope, they are not destined to replace one of the oldest concept in human history. Centrally-controlled (fractional-reserve debt-based) currency is "one of the oldest concepts in human history"? If you are thinking of a few thousand years out of the 7000 years of recorded history, I think you'd still be more wrong than right. And of course, we are at least 200,000 (arguably 2 million) years old. But more importantly, this is an irrelevant point. Slavery is also "one of the oldest concepts in human history" -- does that mean we should not even try to move beyond such primitive behavior? Volatility is not an inherent quality, it's just a transitory thing. I don't think speculation/investment/hedging can be prevented during the transition, nor is it necessarily desirable. Nope, volatility in this case is the result of a financial instrument being traded in unregulated exchanges. Yes, that's what I said. The volatility will exist during the transition period. When we eventually ditch the obsolete type of medium of exchange that enables the central banking cartel to play their nasty game of black magic, then the volatility we see today no longer applies (because you're no longer trading BTC for fiat, you're using BTC just like you use USD today). The profit potential (not to mention the news this generates) is a very useful, arguably critical, motivator for adoption. Nope, the losses that volatility causes to the average consumer/business undermines the public confidence in the utilization of BTC as medium of exchange. Yes, you're right, it also has that effect. Both are true. The first effect is needed (or at least very useful) to facilitate adoption. The second effect is unavoidable (right?), and will be meaningless when centrally-controlled currencies are abandoned as the primitive system of debt-slavery that they represent. Notice the BTC/LTC volatility isn't nearly as bad as BTC/fiat volatility. Nope, the BTC / Fiat volatility in the exchange markets are far worse than "bad". GBP / USD chage: +0.01300% BTC / USD change: +15.36000% Ooops! You must've misread my sentence. I said that crypto/crypto volatility (BTC/LTC) is lower than crypto/fiat (BTC/USD) volatility. As BTC gains further market share as a currency, the old control system will fall under its own dead weight. Nope, the "old control system" will not "fall under its own dead weight" and BTC is not a currency. Like others pointed out, BTC is being used as a currency, therefore it is a currency. Old definitions of currency that do not take into account the fact of the Internet are obsolete. You may not have discovered all there is to discover yet... The current system cannot survive much longer, nor should it. Killing people by the millions, consuming the planet's resources with no regard for sustainability, corruption at every level (not just politics but media, banking, medical, scientific, etc)... May I suggest watching a few documentaries? Money as Debt, Zeitgeist Addendum, The Money Masters are 3 good ones to help understand how money and banking (currently) works. Cryptocurrencies are their worst nightmare, though generally speaking they don't know it yet. When 1 BTC is worth 1 BTC and no longer commonly priced as a ratio of a fiat currency, the controlled inflation mechanism (and hoarding and private key losses, etc) will be the factors that determine volatility. Wow, really? So 1 BTC do not worth 1 BTC? So how much worth? The quote above is literally nonsense. Notice the second part of the sentence ("and no longer commonly priced as a ratio of a fiat currency"). The point I was making is that we will no longer see BTC's worth in terms of its exchange rate(s). 1 BTC will only be seen as 1 BTC, not as X USD or X EUR. |
|
|
|
|
Is your main contention that Bitcoin "will never stabilize"? I think that's very short-sighted.
In your older thread you write: "There is no plan to create any stabilizing factor. Simply expanding the user base will not stop people from pumping and dumping and causing panics."
I don't disagree with that, but I think in the bigger picture, cryptocurrencies are intended/destined to replace the concept of centrally-controlled currencies. Volatility is not an inherent quality, it's just a transitory thing. I don't think speculation/investment/hedging can be prevented during the transition, nor is it necessarily desirable. The profit potential (not to mention the news this generates) is a very useful, arguably critical, motivator for adoption.
Notice the BTC/LTC volatility isn't nearly as bad as BTC/fiat volatility. As BTC gains further market share as a currency, the old control system will fall under its own dead weight. When 1 BTC is worth 1 BTC and no longer commonly priced as a ratio of a fiat currency, the controlled inflation mechanism (and hoarding and private key losses, etc) will be the factors that determine volatility.
|
|
|
|
Hopeful tacoman misinterpreted thing himself. Or was just being delusional.
China is severely curtailing bitcoin. FACT.
Maybe india will save it?
Or, just maybe, those EBIL Americans and American government and West in general might actually wind up being the only place where you can use cryptocurrency in a relatively free manner.
LOL @ all the ignorant, 'revolutionary' fucks who made US out to be the ultimate evil tyranny then getting assfucked by other governments like this.
How's that ignorant, childish anti-US thing working out now? Funny how people run back to US when they actually start getting into trouble.
Is this sarcasm? If not, why on Earth are you posting in a Bitcoin forum? Interesting choice for a handle, btw. May I suggest watching the documentary series Money as Debt? |
|
|
|
The Dollar is forced upon us by government. Before it was backed by gold. Read this (I have posted this in other threads), as I do not believe you have grasped my position: I think this is the problem, that you have a position. You're here to defend your position, not to arrive at the truth via logical argumentation. Remember: Intrinsic value is one of the essential properties of money, that allows it to fulfill its functions. Without intrinsic value, gold could not fulfill its monetary role. You want to seperate golds intrinsic value from its monetary value, however that is impossible, as without intrinsic value gold has NO monetary value. The reason you insist on seperating these two aspects of gold, is because you want to believe that bitcoin can function as money despite its lack of intrinsic value.
Now lets look at the functions of money, in order to appreciate, why it HAS to have intrinsic value.
1) Store of value.
To act as a store of value, these forms must be able to be saved and retrieved at a later time, and be predictably useful when retrieved. WIKI
Now what would happen, if in future nobody would accept my gold as payment for goods and services. Well, I could make jewelry out of it and wear that jewelry or I could decorate my house with it.
What happens when nobody accepts my BTCs? Well, I could do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with my BTCs in this case. How exactly would that be useful? By that logic you should be stocking up on cacao beans. They're much more useful than jewelry or decoration. Jewelry and decoration is only slightly more than "absolutely nothing"... while cacao beans are a superfood. You can almost survive on cacao beans alone. You haven't made the case for why something must have intrinsic value to be valuable, or why Bitcoin must have intrinsic value to be valuable. You're operating on outdated assumptions, just like good old Greenspan ( Bitcoin and Intrinsic Value: a Layman’s Response to Alan Greenspan, 11 Dec 2013), former head honcho of the central banking cartel and arguably the guy most responsible for the "financial crisis" that the Genesis Block refers to. So already we see, that bitcoin actually has enormous counterparty risk, as it is only worth what somebody is willing to pay for it. If nobody wants my BTCs I am left with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (i.e. bitcoin).
Now obviously I want to have a high degree of certainty, that somebody will want to exchange my store of value with other valuable things, as otherwise I would have an excess of one resource, that I would be stuck with.
What is golds guarantee in this regard? Well, it says: I am beautiful, people have loved my look since dawn of man, and have thus always been willing to accept me as payment for other valuable goods and services. Thats REAL backing.
What is BTC guarantee in this regard? Well it says: I am worth nothing, but people have agreed to exchange me for something, because they want to save transaction costs, and because they like exchanging me peer to peer (no third party or bank). Now without reading futher how convincing/trustworthy does that sound to you (pretend like you have never heard of BTC, or that BTC has collapsed in price)? Lets continue: In future people might not accept nothing for something. In future they might switch to a different coin, that is technologically superior (thus my wealth is stored in myspace and suddenly facebook comes along; technology is not predictable). In future the transaction costs might explode due to prohibitive regulation, so that the artificial agreement to exchange something for nothing collapses. In future, government will enforce its capital gains tax laws (thus making bitcoin expensive to transact in and resulting in a collapse of the artificial agreement to exchange something for nothing). In future, maybe people will prefer real backing over backed by nothing, especially if real backing can be transferred electronically (digital gold). In future people might think that it was crazy to accept nothing as payment, just to safe on transaction costs. In future there might be reputable trustees, and people might regain trust with third parties. In future maybe people decide that instant payment is not that important to them, as money is fungible. In future people might realize that bitcoin is not anonymous and that it is not internet or gold 2.0. Bitcoin might stay highly volatile as the believe in an artificial agreement (THAT IS EXTREMELY VULNERABLE TO FADS AND OUTSIDE PRESSURES giving bitcoin huge counterpary risk) is extremly volatile.
Now from my perspective the situation is even worse: Right now people are ONLY accepting nothing for something, because they strongly believe that nothing will go up in price (after all it has been going up in price in the past, so it must be true for the future Wink). Eventually some early adopter will want to cash out, and if there is nobody there to take his position, the price will fall through the floor.
So I believe, that bitcoin because it does not have intrinsic value, cant be relied upon as a store of value. It is entirely dependent on the counterparty honoring an pseudo agreement. So bitcoin actually has enormous counterparty risk. Gold is a great store of value, as people will always accept it because it is beautiful. It is burnt into our brain. It has no counterparty risk, because the counterparty cant help but love and accept it (like with food and water).
Thus intrinsic value is ESSENTIAL for one of moneys core functions: store of value. Money value cant be seperated from intrinsic value, as it is DEPENDENT on it.
2) Medium of exchange
Same arguments apply. Right now people exchange something for nothing, due to an artificial pseudo agreement (transaction costs, peer to peer if you ask bitcoiners). I believe its even worse: Right now people ONLY accept it because it is going up in price. As soon as it crashes, people will stop accepting it, as it is irrational to agree to exchange something of utility for something of no utility in order to save transaction costs. It's not just to reduce transaction costs... I don't need to list the many other reasons why Bitcoin is superior to other digital payment systems; you should know. Practically perhaps not quite yet, but technically, privacy-wise, morally, ethically, evolutionarily, the emergence of decentralized cryptocurrencies represent the beginning of the end for the central banksters, the parasites who play a depraved game of musical chairs with the entire planet. You are looking at this from an outdated Austrian economics box, ignoring the actual technological advancements that make new systems possible. You're thinking only in narrow economic terms, rather than big-picture human terms. I can't claim to be an expert on the subject, but were von Mises et al alive today, I suspect they'd have to revise much of their writings in light of the Internet. Also, regarding the anonymity issue, that argument may hold true for Bitcoin, but not for cryptocurrencies in general, which is the real idea we're talking about (Bitcoin being only the first and most successful implementation of double-spending-proof decentralized cryptocurrencies). |
|
|
|
A. something is basically anything that has UTILITY on its own. (Food (hunger), water (thirst), house (shelter))
B. Nothing is something that does not have UTILITY on it own. BTC is a great example, as I cant do anything with it except dump it on the next guy.
1. Because it has UTILITY on its own. I can make jewelry out of it, humans love to look it at it and touch it. That not every human loves it, does not distract from that. The great majority loves it since dawn of man. Its burnt into the brain of most of us I guess.
2. BTC will not be accepted in exchange for goods by the great majority, because the great majority does not like to trade something for nothing or store value in nothing just to save some transaction costs.
3. Things either have utility or they dont.
porc, Your definitions of "something" and "nothing" are your own. (Notice you used the term "basically" in your definition.) Take several steps back and look at the big picture here. You clearly have a good understanding of money, but you're not seeing the whole picture. You can argue that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, but Bitcoin isn't "nothing"... It is a digital token in the same way that a dollar (or gold) is a physical token. I think it can be simply put this way: Intrinsic value of a dollar: the paper it's printed on Intrinsic value of a piece of gold: some industrial uses ("oh look, it shines, how cute!" is not intrinsic but an abstract subjective notion) Intrinsic value of a bitcoin: none Abstract value of a dollar: what people believe it is useful for Abstract value of a piece of gold: what people believe it is useful for Abstract value of a bitcoin: what people believe it is useful for Money/currency is an abstract idea, hence the token's intrinsic value is irrelevant. Gold has no true intrinsic value as currency, it just has a longer history than other forms of currency. It appears more likely that it will be exchangeable in the long-term, but that's not an intrinsic quality. The value we give it is just a token, an abstraction, a symbol. Golds value is REALITY, not an artificial AGREEMENT. It's an artificial (i.e. non-intrinsic) agreement based on shared beliefs about the past (history, tradition) and the understanding/belief of its scarcity (scarcity being an intrinsic quality). Your argument seems to be that gold has this magical appeal to it for some unknown reason. Your argument reduces to a reductio ad absurdum ("Gold is valuable because it is." ... "Bitcoin has no value because it has no value"). porc, ask yourself this: If Bitcoin had a history going back 10,000 years, while it would still be "nothing" (according to your definition), would you still say it's worthless/useless? And if gold had been used as a currency for only the last 5 years, would you say its value does not derive from an "artificial agreement"? When you see the full picture, the inescapable conclusion is that cryptocurrency is the greatest innovation in media of exchange. It is to money what the Internet is to communication. It renders the central banking cartel's scam obsolete and irrelevant. It's revolutionary. |
|
|
|
|
Has anyone compiled a list of cryptocoin exchanges whose owners are anonymous? If I understand correctly, the Russian folks behind BTC-E are still anonymous, yet they are about the 4th biggest exchange.
After so many scams and alleged hackings, how can anyone trust anonymous exchanges?
I can see the reason for remaining anonymous if you're running a site like Silk Road, but what possible reason is there for the operators of an exchange to not reveal their identities (thus building greater trust, hence increasing their market share & profit)?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
