I have been thinking about creating a rather serious bond at GLBSE.

I have been reading their terms, but I didn't find anything about the fees.

What are ALL costs of using GLBSE for investors and bond operators both?

If there are none how do they make their money?

Ron Paul has a hate boner against the FED, it's like half his thing - Bitcoin is very anti-FED.

You can do anything you want with my material.

• Military gameplay

Single world
Client-server
[/list]

Sounds to me like you already made a decision, maybe share your idea, no one will steal it.

You could probably use mine quite effectively in a persistent metagame with lots of economics though.

Nothing is wrong with btc community, just the damn scammers.

I have been playing a self developed hex strategy game with the family for years. I could license it cheap to you if you want.

I have some java code, icons and graphics you might be able to use too (free).

Its pretty simple, but you have terrain, area effects and different unit abilities... like pokemon on a hex board perhaps. I developed it from stratego, but made all units more unique and interactive.

My idea was to make people bet a little btc on winning or others winning.

Such actions would lead to massive popular unrest, not even China dares turn off the internet completely and Bitcoin can use TOR and other stuff to pass as anything.

As for the grid; a nation without electricity will be raped economically and militarily within a year.


Bitcoin could survive even EMP on a few shielded hard drives and be rebooted later.

As has been said here: Bitcoin will jump onto governments.

Daytrading is just gambling imo.

I'm long Bitcoin because logically it makes sense to me as a monetary system in a world with a very broken monetary system.

Short term people can be irrational, but over 10-20 years logic always wins. Consumerism, inflating fiat and bailouts never made any sense.

Well security is pretty hard when you are the hacker

(looking at you Bitcoinica)

Well if we assume a Bitcoin using country under attack, they would actually have some "good" routes for funding a massive war machine:


1. Pay your "war tax/tribute" or get conscripted = hard money plus soldiers of low productivity to get rid off. (yes evil; that's war)

2. We are all here because we believe Bitcoin to be superior money to fiat, as in leading to a more efficient market/society. In a BTC
    country this would also mean more productivity and a more efficient war machine.

3. Agents/spies behind enemy lines can be funded on-demand with BTC despite everything going on which A keeps them funded doing
    their sabotage thing and B keeps them loyal as they are dependent on your nations money drip feed. (many Nazi agents sent to
    America defected very quickly and spent their large cash suitcases on their girlfriends before any missions got done)

4. Recruit enemy populations to do sabotage paying them in BTC. The opponent would have a hard time finding out who was cutting all
   their wires and harder time yet dealing with it during war.

5. Bitcoin does not easily fund wasteful governments, this means that a BTC country might well be unlikely to be the instigator of
   war - hence our hypothetical country would not be the aggressor and thus have more international sympathy.

6. During occupation the government could go underground, while still ruling the country's BTC economy and citizens would be
    harder to exploit without causing a rebellion.
    During WWII France this could have meant a continued and highly organized resistance against the Nazis that really only controlled
    Paris early on. With BTC control of the parliament (or whatever) in Paris would have had little significance.

7. Technologies that work well in peace usually also work well during war-time. Examples: Wheels=speed, phones/radio=comm., mass
    production technology, medicine=better/living soldiers, sensor equipment, satellites, high strength construction/armor materials and
    infrastructure. There is no reason to believe Bitcoin should be different.

8. With the opponent printing lots of fiat to fund their wars, their currency would be tanking while the Bitcoin country would be getting
    "free money" from the resulting BTC deflation.


It is a fallacy that smaller things cannot beat larger things. Large things generally take a lot of energy to even operate. If they are more efficient per unit, then that is fine, but that can hardly be said for our current EU/US status quo.

Or in short: Come at me bro!

NWO is already in power, just watch how Britain and Sweden are oh-so hellbent on extraditing a guy that didn't use a condom during consensual sex, where the women only complained after they found out he two-timed them.

If only "our" politicians were held to the standard of Assange!

BTC will be the New New World Order, along with TYT, wikileaks, wiki, opensource, TOR, torrents, anonymous and all the other powerful good movements out there.

Paper wallets, hear hear!

Maybe put the addresses on 1 dollar bills so that the day your house is robbed the thieves will buy bubblegum whilst unknowingly paying a thousand dollars or so... you know for the lulz.


In all seriousness do you have a dedicated offline computer and printer to print the paper wallets? I hear printers are surprisingly hackable.. though of course the risk of such attacks are quite a bit smaller than unencrypted wallets on online PCs.

(Wasp looks cool)

+1

What about BTC over email, the Android wallet and the multiple card systems in development?

Those are some pretty big new services after just 3-4 years of Bitcoins lifetime. If we say Bitcoin has only been really known 2-3 years,
I'm not even sure Google added that many new features in their first 2 years!


Also BTC does not inherently increase in value over time - BTC ONLY become worth more if the economy is growing. So if a large number of people do nothing with their BTC and there are no new adopters the value would start to drop.

Maybe 10% of the people holding BTC can enjoy the free ride to some extent, but they still need to eat at some point which will chisel away at their fortune.

If any more than that in a stable BTC economy try to live from BTC deflation, the BTC economy would likely shrink as a result of their lack of productivity and hence the BTC value would drop.

Kjj, that is a beautiful point. I hadn't even thought of this!

Every "deflationist"/"austrian economist"/what-ever should memorize that one.

In both scenarios, inflation/deflation, what pays best is simply the highest possible interest rate at the lowest risk/investment possible.

Only in deflationary economies no government gets to manipulate the market.


As for Etlase2 I think he is an economist student or something, I just argued with him in another thread which derailed in similar fashion as this one.
Pity him and the other economists.

Good point. Still overall you hear a lot more stories about people taking multiple loans on the same house than you do stories about bad companies selling stock.

Also its not just honor; there is a contract saying some of your earnings/savings must be paid as dividends.

Ahh so you are talking about a system of forced dividend spending.

I guess your rationale is increasing consumption/economy kinda like inflation does, but without the government interference?

That is actually pretty good, but what if:

1. Some tech will become viable in 2 years.
2. The world is in trouble.
3. The market wants to save its real resources until the new tech has been developed.

With forced spending you would be fueling some wasteful bubble even though the market knows it should save for a few years until the next really good idea appears.

Dunno guess my example is a bit convoluted.

Not false; if the BTC crypto algorithms fail then the value of BTC is zero.

If they do not BTC is perfect money and could go very high.

So okay 50/50 I guess: "High or nothing".

Bitcoin could crash tomorrow and I wouldn't really be touched by it at all - it's not even my biggest investment.

I don't believe BTC will rise or fall depending on what I say either lol. Guess some are more full of themselves than others.

As for "nothing to loose" that should go to the millions that will starve and riot this year because of the failed US harvest. But of course since money is wealth they could just eat Rwandan franc right? Maybe invest some money flows in some food that just simply isn't there?

lolololol

Yes.

In conclusion don't store everything on one address. (Also minimizes risk of a given generator being malignant.)

Yes.

If fake money flows from inflation simply do not occur this will happen:
1. Governments have to argue for their taxes, they can't just steal with inflation while claiming the taxes are "low"-> leading to a more educated people/nation.
2. Banks investing in bubbles will default instead of being bailed out -> Leading to fewer stupid banks and fewer wasteful bubbles on average.
3. Governments going to war for little to no reason will be bankrupt and will be forced to stop -> ending death and violence in MANY cases.

All of this will be given to us by Bitcoin and Satoshi in time.

Since I realized the potential of Bitcoin I have been blessing my stars, not because I got to get in early and maybe will become wealthy, but because of what it will do to the world.

Bitcoin will make even the last adopter rich.

Maybe I will after calling all the astrologers in the world first, unfortunately I think, I will be unable to get reception with the economists; since they have their heads stuck so far up their own asses that evidence doesn't count in their field.


Anyway I have shown counter examples that you have then denied, but not explained and you have attacked me instead of providing counter examples to my theory in return.

We are basically just arguing to see who is "right"/more bored now, so I will just stop.

As for rudimentary logic; I am also amazed its so fucking hard for you and the politicians to understand common sense that I need to write it down and spell it out for you.

Bye, go buy some "cheap" pirate bonds.

Dude how can you NOT know that more goods means lower prices? So if there are more goods AND more money prices will stay stable... that is like the MOST basic economics theorem/common sense of all time - you didn't quote a cleverly found contradiction, what I said there makes perfect sense...

Money is not oil for engine, its a point system for resource allocation.

Making more money/debt/flow (= points) could easily give priority to NON-productive activities. Again like today in the US with governments giving priority to themselves through inflation/flow resulting in drops in productivity.

Flow=inflation=debt=money.


I am not trying to make strawman arguments I just can follow your train of thought since you keep changing your definitions and when your theory applies.

How is more money not the same as flow? What if two people pass bills back and forth, that's a lot of flow?

I'm sure the Romans had different things going for them.

But the pattern of their fall fits my theory: First they became decadent and wasteful. Then they collapsed and people were forced into slavery to pay their taxes - presumably after some merchants going bankrupt. A contraction of money supply.

I have never once read in history books that: "The Roman bank started to issue fewer coins, markets froze and they crashed". No it's always "decadence -> collapse" with lubrication being irrelevant.

It does not fit yours because they had lots of coins at hand, money "lubrication" was not absent.

Yeah but to a large degree they are NOT fucking up in every other country and there is STILL financial problems.

And that enslavement happens because of a fresh flow of money. Which completely clashes with your theory of flow = good.

Quite clearly evidence shows that some flows are BAD, not good. That more money flow in the wrong direction can lead to drops in productivity due to market manipulation.
Which again suggests that we would be better off without any such flow.


I didn't ask you to agree with me, just the statements in bold. Who is making strawman arguments NOW?

I can't argue with a man that thinks the sky is green and the world flat.

Hah you used my own words better than I could. Nicely done.

Yes. If banks had been smarter it could have been a good control shift.

Well we tried that and it did not work - I suggest we give power back to investors and governments that are usually at some point held accountable for their actions.
Bitcoin is perfect for that.


I am assuming you mean "stocks" with dividend investments?

I agree there; it is a fundamentally better arrangement where no one gets thrown into jail if the venture fails.

Basically co-ownership and sharing dividends would make for a better economic model I think.

What do you mean by this?

If people invest in stocks, start-ups and the like where interest is paid, but not by guarantee. Why does that make us more frivolous?
Wouldn't that prompt banks to better evaluate the soundness of a "loan" before giving it?

Imagine I want a house closer to work:
Today I borrow money on the house. If the house value drops I go to jail and the bank may tank.

With a dividend investment model I promise by contract to pay dividends on what I save by moving closer to work.
Now if the house value drops nothing happens to any of us!
If I loose my job that is bad, but I don't go to jail on top of it and I get to keep the house. THEN if I find a job again I start to pay dividends again.

How vast a difference is that? In this world the bank would have to estimate rationally whether me moving closer to a town is rational or frivolous.
If that town desperately needs workforce they say yes, otherwise they suggest a different town.

I think this would lead to a more efficient market.