Indeed, most people have no idea how fiat and banks work, which in return puts us in an scenareo where Bitcoin makes no sense for them. To understand Bitcoin, you need to understand fiat and banks, but they are perfectly ok using fiat and banks without knowing how it works. This is a problem.

Nice writeup especially the historal part. This is what I would agree the most. One more thing is that nobody can print more money and bring down the value if our holdings

Such a conservative man.
We're on a growing exponencial line in terms of technology advancements.
If people who are it their 30/40 sometimes have difficulties coping with novelty, imagine someone born before computers existed. Their minds simply cannot imagine many of the things that await us.

So many ignorant statists making the same boring arguments over and over and over and over and over and over..

I want to cry.

I am living in a cage full of slaves and I am surrounded by other slaves telling me how great the cage is. Sure I get to vote on what's for supper every now and then. But whenever I propose we work together to escape the cage I am met with hostility and labeled as dangerous, radical, naive, Utopian, and selfish.

Not in my lifetime.

you should read up some more about the 2008 housing bubble, i think it will clear up a lot of things for you!

I think this inevitably leads to more and more assets get defaulted and bought up by the banks, and they might rent those house to you later and become the land lord of the whole country

Treasury note is just another name of debt, banks only buy debts nowadays (with money out of thin air), and eventually the whole country will be the debt slave of banks

The reason that libertarian bitcoiners like to use the word fiat as a dirty word is that they feel that taking the dollar off the gold standard was an egregious act by government.    In my opinion, it was inevitable, because at a moment of crisis, a government would always choose to steal the gold rather than let the economy crash.  There was no way they would have let dollar holders run the bank and redeem their dollars for gold.   This is a flaw of centralized banking.

Representative commodity currencies also have a flaw in that the commodity must be guarded, and eventually, the commodity ends up in the hands of the guards or is stolen.   The gold backing Liberty Dollars was stolen by the government, thus it failed as a money system.

I think bitcoin can prove itself to be a superior form of money to either a government-issued fiat currency or a representative commodity currency, since it will be immune to direct government manipulation, and immune to theft from government or otherwise, if properly handled, because it is a better form of fiat currency.

I don't think it is necessary for money to have intrinsic value for it to work.  Obviously, US dollars currently dominate the global economy, and bitcoin is slowing gaining acceptance as a means of payment.

I just find it colloquial for libertarians to continue using the term "fiat" to differentiate bitcoin from government-issued fiat, when the original use was to differentiate gold-backed dollars from fiat dollars.

All this is *speculating* on the bread market.

As I said, it is a stable market with very low volatility, so the risk is very small.  But it is BETTING on other people's future economic behaviour nevertheless, and to me that's the core concept in "speculation": betting on other people's future economic behaviour.

Your "estimating the behaviour of bread buying people in a different part of town" is your version of technical analysis, based upon extrapolation from the past and certain hypotheses about the general model of the bread market.

It might for instance very well be that there's no good bakery in that part of town simply because everybody there eats noodles in the morning   Then your speculative action of setting up a bakery there was a wrong bet, and your analysis of the cash flow failed.

Commercial bank create large amount of checkbook numbers in their database, but they are not real money, when they run out of real money, they went down, together with your numbers in your accounts, which has never existed in reality until you do a full withdraw. Just like your bitcoin count on bitcoin exchanges, they are numbers in a database, not on blockchain

Speculation is for me, the bet on being able to sell an asset for something else you're interested in.
Anything which doesn't imply pleasure from its acquisition (= consumption) is probably speculation, that is, an indirect way of trying to get pleasure from acquisition later (which is the sole and ultimate goal of any economic interaction).
Production is a kind of speculation, capital investment is a kind of speculation, .... anything of which the economic interaction doesn't serve to be used to obtain pleasure, but which has a bet on the future economic interactions of others, is to me, speculation.

If you bake bread to eat it, that's consumption.  If you bake bread to sell it, that's speculation.  If you buy an oven to be able to bake bread to eat, that's (indirect) consumption.  If you buy an oven to be able to bake bread to sell it, that's speculation.

Why ?  Because in all the speculation examples, you are betting on a future economic interaction with others.  If you buy an oven to make your own bread next week, then you are not dependent on other people's desires to obtain your pleasure (eating your bread) next week.  It is a bet on the future (that you will succeed making bread, and that you will like that bread), but that bet doesn't involve other people's economic interactions.  However, if you will bake bread for others, you're betting on the idea that they will want your bread and pay for it (a certain amount).   That's what I call "speculation": betting on other people's economic will and ability to buy your stuff against stuff you want.

Speculation, to me, is the bet on the future of other people's needs and ability to offer you something you want.

Consumption is everything you do directly and indirectly to get pleasure.  Directly, that's evident, indirectly, that is, providing yourself with the means (independent of other people's desires in the future) to satisfy your needs in the future.

This is not a secret, John Law practiced this 300 years ago. Commercial bank do not have right to create money, only central banks can. Just look how FED and other central banks' balance sheet exploded while they acquire large amount of assets since 2008

U should try to read the whole thread again and also understand it.
all you posts display alot of non understanding of this topic

Meh. Em Tee Gox was an exchange that was missing a lot of BTC and it only caused a couple of sudden drops with a market that expected those btc to make it to the remaining exchanges to sell. The mycoin.hk thing will likely have little effect on the market because, as I understand it,  it's an obvious fiat ponzi scheme that merely used bitcoin as part of the ruse. Ponzis are already illegal so no further legislation needed.

This trick can even be practiced on gold and I believe that is how those banks accumulated huge amount of gold during a century. But since the amount of gold is limited, once they have bought most of the gold available on market, they could not create more fiat. So they eventually shifted the target to assets, then they could continue with their wealth accumulation at a much faster pace