because they believe in some variant of a zero sum world. if bitcoiners make money someone, somewhere MUST be losing money in their mind.
or it may be as simple as envy. |
|
|
|
I think they would have to avoid a flat tax if they wanted to remain competitive against Bitcoin. The days of taxed transactions (over free-market transaction fees) are numbered.
I am very concerned about neglecting this threat just because of perceived government incompetence. I'm sure many of you will passionately disagree, but I think a government which produced Tor has the capability of waging a very competent war against Bitcoin. We are not invincible and this shit may get very real. The advantages of being able to demand taxes in Fedcoin and demand that people accept it for debts may help a great deal... Maybe enough to overcome the inflation disadvantage.
flat tax is not the issue. how long it takes the government to see that a VAT is their only solution, is. and a tax on consumption, rather than income, is the only possible way for the government to co-exist with a successful Bitcoin - or Bitcoin-like worldwide currency. i agree that they could wage "... a very competent war against Bitcoin." i'm just not so sure they can win. |
|
|
|
|
south african financial magazine of some repute.
subscription only.
|
|
|
|
The banks compete with nobody. They only generate wealth to supplement their own power on the backs of monopolies on force.
Also, your last statement is a oxymoron. Patents only thrive in a coercive government environment. They are the very opposite of private.
ah. we agree - patents are the payoff the wealthy get for supporting the government. you must be a linux user... |
|
|
|
They won't discuss it. They have no fear of bitcoin as of now.
i'm not so sure of that. you don't get to be in the position those men and women occupy without being very good at seeing over the horizon. we'll all be keeping an eye on the pronouncements of the members in the months after this meeting... |
|
|
|
Couldn't a private entity do this just as well, though, perhaps with the blessing and endorsement of the Fed? That would seem like the logical way to retain control over the monetary supply in the digital world.
Bitcoin would still be competitive against Fedcoin, but any hope of widespread acceptance would be shot.
But I think the cure for this is the same as it ever was: a fully functional bitcoin economy. Without a broad base of merchants, bitcoin is vulnerable in oh so many ways.
last i heard, the Fed is a private entity. opinions differ, but they are intended to. |
|
|
|
|
ripple... yes.
here's a truth to ponder: everyone who hears about Bitcoin - and to some degree understands it - may be divided into two categories.
...those who see the powerful driving influence of the early adopters - and understand that without their 'advantage' [i.e., their foresight, effort and risk] Bitcoin could never have succeeded.
...and those who think that the destruction of the wealth of the early adopters (by whatever scheme, however cleverly veiled) will somehow make more people want to participate. (because, of course, nobody will ever come along and take theirs away < /snark >)
personally, i understand, and even marginally approve of socialism applied in some areas of human endeavor: public roads, for example (marvelous creations, which are somehow always ignored by those who claim their riches are solely the result of their own, individual effort). or health care ( individual and collective longevity having considerable impact on the accumulation of wealth - both individually and collectively).
but not in the creation of wealth. and spare me:
"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." ~OW
in any case, it is clear where mr. goel fits into that dichotomy.
of course, we should also keep in mind that the world is divided into two other categories: people who divide the world into two categories, and those who do not. * sigh * this thinking stuff is hard...
|
|
|
|
Your scenario assumes a government that is more competent than a free-ranging pack of internet geeks and crypto experts. Given their track record, I don't agree. More likely is they will try their 'best' to fight the fledgling currency, leading to their loss of power to do anything about personal transactions and/or overall taxation.
In a desperate attempt to find relevance, they may actually have to start producing value and cut politician salaries to keep the capitol building and other government stuctures in good repair. Perhaps it may even force fiscal responsibility, restructuring the dollar to compete. However it turns out, their days are numbered and they better not waste them by attacking the very system that could save us all.
i agree with this: Your scenario assumes a government that is more competent than a free-ranging pack of internet geeks and crypto experts. ...except one must note that there are really a lot of extremely competent people in government. the problem is, they are competent at government - that is, at the system they're a part of. perhaps it would be more accurate to say "...more nimble than a free-ranging pack of internet geeks and crypto experts." as for what the government is likely to do... i think they'll try the steamroller approach. they always seem to. it will fail - mostly due to the internationalization of Bitcoin and the animosity the US government has earned over the past 50 years or so (i speak as a US citizen, incidentally). it will be an unsettled time. but then, i think there will be some form of rapprochement. there won't be much choice. let's keep in mind that there really are some very intelligent and competent people in the US government - the president comes to mind, like him or not - and if co-existence is the best option (in the mid-term) they will take it. |
|
|
|
I actually agree that drugs should be legal and one should be allowed to ingest anything they please. But what should and shouldn't be has little to do with what IS and ISN'T. Drug trafficking IS illegal in the united states. This rich and powerful man now sees drugs and bitcoins as indivisible and mining and trading bitcoins as a criminal offense. He is actively trying to convince his rich and powerful friends of the same directly because of silk road. Silk road is a thread to the bitcoin network and I personally want to see it exterminated.
How about focusing on exterminating these rich and powerful people? Which is more likely, we get rid of them or they get rid of us? If we self police we will have the time to become the new rich and powerful. If we condone illegal activity then we are the bugs, not the exterminators. but if we condone freedom, we are the anteaters... |
|
|
|
|
because the national sports of russia are politics, and chess.
|
|
|
|
wow, knew this would happen. This is exactly what we don't want for bitcoin.  i think i disagree. i think it's exactly what we do want. we now have a 62 petaflop network - and it's time to put it to a real-world test. as for schumer, he's a politician. some of them actually care a little bit about the people they represent, most don't (and i think schumer is one of the ones who does, no matter how misguided he may be). but they all care about money more than anything else - they're forced to, if they want to keep getting re-elected. so send some donations to our good mr. schumer. in Bitcoin. he'll figure it out... |
|
|
|
|
thailand, huh?
i read that thread, and my first impression was that it was 60% government trolls spouting a scripted party line. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
sweden isn't a big surprise really. I guess the news is spreading there quickly.
What I'm waiting for is for the giants in Asia to wake up and smell the bitcoins. Looking at China and India specifically.
there are some fairly draconian laws in china about the use of any kind of cryptography. it's hard to say how they'd react to the use of the essentially unbreakable crypto in Bitcoin - but poorly, i would think. china might be the first serious test of a Bitcoin v/s a major government scenario. the reg'lar folks in china... they sure do like their money... |
|
|
|
no insights here. After receiving depositing bitcoins the service will sign digital tokens for the depositor which can later be redeemed for bitcoins that would not be associated with the ones deposited. i have no idea why i would want to deposit Bitcoin into an account, and then receive these tokens in their place - so that i could later redeem the tokens for Bitcoin. it's a mixing service, near as i can tell. if i want to use one of those, i think i can find something instinctively simpler. |
|
|
|
I am riding this pig wherever it takes me. yup. but i ain't spending anything in my dreams. i'm a patient man - and i'll think about that later. |
|
|
|
"call an end to the rally" turned out to be premature... again...
Third time's a charm  you're killing me altoid, this thread is hard to read now  have you actually received any encouragement on these sells that I missed? *6 months later* value hits $100 per btc. altoid will be on the forums shouting, "ANY DAY NOW!11" "CMON PEOPLE, SELL FFS!!!"  unfortunately, altoid just doesn't understand that Bitcoin comes from a curiously strong mint. ...sorry. |
|
|
|
|
hmmm... who's going to test that one out? not i.
|
|
|
|
|
it's a fine group of pirates... i'm happy to be a part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
yes, good luck.
i notice that the place-holder for the site is currently, and obviously, pointed at the exercise/fitness market. it's a tolerably big market, i guess.
but have you considered beer?
i'd think a brewery would be interested in such a domain name - and have deeper pockets, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
