Pretty interesting article on what the bankers have been attempting over the last 45 years. Apparently they've spent this entire time trying to demonetize gold and force SDR notes on people while forbidding other CBs from purchasing gold at all, yet China and Russian CBs are both buying it by the boatload now. They've been working on trying to force this completely top down controlled "cashless" monetary system devoid of real money longer than people imagine. If you attempt to buy or use gold as a CB, you become an enemy of the Zionist monetary regime run by the IMF and BIS, and they use their military arm (the Zionist occupied United States) to attack you:  |
|
|
|
However, when you appropriate a defined term, and claim a use for it exactly opposite of its accepted definition -- such as your misappropriation of anti-fragile -- you can expect to get called out on it.
The term ( anti-fragile) in the textbook definition provided does not apply to either bitcoin or gold, so like I said, everyone solely uses the term in colloquial manner on this forum. It wasn't me that popularized that term in the bitcoin ecosystem, so don't pretend like it's my fault. In an evolving language, the colloquial definition would likely take over that supposed real one since the real one is more hypothetical and meaningless than anything. Words tend to be superfluous and of no use if they have no application, so I expect such a word would just wither away and die otherwise. |
|
|
|
Pretty interesting article on what the bankers have been attempting over the last 45 years. Apparently they've spent this entire time trying to demonetize gold and force SDR notes on people while forbidding other CBs from purchasing gold at all, yet China and Russian CBs are both buying it by the boatload now. They've been working on trying to force this completely top down controlled "cashless" monetary system devoid of real money longer than people imagine. If you attempt to buy or use gold as a CB, you become an enemy of the Zionist monetary regime run by the IMF and BIS, and they use their military arm (the Zionist occupied United States) to attack you: |
|
|
|
|
This thread is fake news.
|
|
|
|
Lol, forum mod raging at me because I called bitcoin a currency and not money: If you think that Bitcoin is just a currency, you don't know what you're talking about. Cut the analysis bullshit and go back into your metal bagholding forums. You can't sell me such stories.
I guess you did not get the hint when they named it cryptocurrency instead of....cryptomoney. It is a currency; it's not money. Currencies are generally always a bad investment on a long timeline and there is no reason to own them unless you actually use them. Once the market cap tops out, whether that's at $1200 a coin, $200 a coin, or $10,000 a coin, everyone who was attempting to use it as a store of value is going to flee the ship to the base of Exter's pyramid (metals) since they are a superior store of value, while the only people that continue to hold coins will be the people who actually use it as a currency. The number of people using it as a currency will obviously be factored by it's throughput (TPS). To have a high market cap as a currency, TPS would probably have to be drastically higher than it is now with something like a functioning LN and 5000 TPS. At that level it could probably float a large market cap as a payment processor, but I do not see a currency functioning well at low TPS with 1 MB blocks and no segwit or LN since low TPS is counterintuitive to how a currency is supposed to function (high turnover, not based on being a store of value or generational investment). |
|
|
|
If you think that Bitcoin is just a currency, you don't know what you're talking about. Cut the analysis bullshit and go back into your metal bagholding forums. You can't sell me such stories.
I guess you did not get the hint when they named it cryptocurrency instead of....cryptomoney. It is a currency; it's not money. Currencies are generally always a bad investment on a long timeline and there is no reason to own them unless you actually use them. Once the market cap tops out, whether that's at $1200 a coin, $200 a coin, or $10,000 a coin, everyone who was attempting to use it as a store of value is going to flee the ship to the base of Exter's pyramid (metals) since they are a superior store of value, while the only people that continue to hold coins will be the people who actually use it as a currency. The number of people using it as a currency will obviously be factored by it's throughput (TPS). To have a high market cap as a currency, TPS would probably have to be drastically higher than it is now with something like a functioning LN and 5000 TPS. At that level it could probably float a large market cap as a payment processor, but I do not see a currency functioning well at low TPS with 1 MB blocks and no segwit or LN since low TPS is counterintuitive to how a currency is supposed to function (high turnover, not based on being a store of value or generational investment). |
|
|
|
I think we all aware of the ETF decision next week and we here mostly agree it won't happen and therefore....
Small dump? Large dump?
It depends. Every evil, zionist banker shill in govt from Ben Bernanke to David Cameron has approved of bitcoin and wants the goyim to utilize it so every transaction you make can be tracked, and they know they can easily co-opt it to sidetrack you into their digital only, cashless society as well. If they believe an ETF helps them accomplish this task in some manner, or it allows them to more easily manipulate the price up or down, then an ETF approval is not so far fetched. There's just been way too many government tyrants and zionist financiers who have given bitcoin the thumbs up for me to believe they have any interest in trying to stop it. Some of them want you to use it solely so you'll stay out of the already stretched thin gold and silver market. Other banker shills want you to use it because they think it accommodates people to a cashless only society or that they can co-opt it. I'd say it's 50/50 at this point. |
|
|
|
I'm disappointed. Jbreher is like the smartest of you apes and this was a pretty feeble attempt at trying to portray bitcoin as having traits of money equal or better than metals: The fact that bitcoin can be so called "upgraded", which really just means changed, means it's not anti-fragile by default.
On this point, you minsunderstand the definition of anti-fragile. By definition, in order to be anti-fragile, a thing must be able to evolve. No, it does not. Money is supposed to be boring - it's not supposed to "evolve" from a metal bar into a tarantula when you look away to the TV then back to it. If it evolves it's not fungible, and what the hell is the molding force causing this evolution? It's definitely not a nash equilibrium. There would always be holdouts or people who want to evolve differently, and then the entire thing is just complete arbitrary nonsense of what cutoff level you set for voting. That's mob rule, not anti-fragile. Voting doesn't belong in money. Voting is nothing but an attack vector. It's like that sig you sometimes see that says "democracy is the original 51% attack". A fork isn't an upgrade, it's an attack sanctioned by mob rule. You have mob rule of the proletariat (users) vs oligarchy of capital owners (mining cartel). The second these two factions have to come to the table against one another you probably just end up with a rough consensus attack and the whole thing blows up anyway because their interests are not aligned whatsoever. If miners believe it's required to add inflation to bitcoin to fix the security model (which it probably is), then they would probably do something like that, while a giant portion of users wouldn't want their coins inflated and would switch to something completely different like proof of stake. There is no fungibility, consistency, or anti-fragility in any of this. |
|
|
|
|
That definition is somewhat like a theoretical geometric structure or material that gains strength the more pressure you apply to it. Using that terminology for bitcoin is obviously wrong since Bitmain doubling their pools hash rate does not double the security of bitcoin lol. So really, that specific definition does not apply to bitcoin or metals, only the colloquial version does.
|
|
|
|
The fact that bitcoin can be so called "upgraded", which really just means changed, means it's not anti-fragile by default.
On this point, you minsunderstand the definition of anti-fragile. By definition, in order to be anti-fragile, a thing must be able to evolve. No, it does not. Money is supposed to be boring - it's not supposed to "evolve" from a metal bar into a tarantula when you look away to the TV then back to it. If it evolves it's not fungible, and what the hell is the molding force causing this evolution? It's definitely not a nash equilibrium. There would always be holdouts or people who want to evolve differently, and then the entire thing is just complete arbitrary nonsense of what cutoff level you set for voting. That's mob rule, not anti-fragile. Voting doesn't belong in money. Voting is nothing but an attack vector. It's like that sig you sometimes see that says "democracy is the original 51% attack". A fork isn't an upgrade, it's an attack sanctioned by mob rule. You have mob rule of the proletariat (users) vs oligarchy of capital owners (mining cartel). The second these two factions have to come to the table against one another you probably just end up with a rough consensus attack and the whole thing blows up anyway because their interests are not aligned whatsoever. If miners believe it's required to add inflation to bitcoin to fix the security model (which it probably is), then they would probably do something like that, while a giant portion of users wouldn't want their coins inflated and would switch to something completely different like proof of stake. There is no fungibility, consistency, or anti-fragility in any of this. |
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure gold will be almost worthless within 50 years, just wait untill the age of space mining starts.
Can you guys stop freebasing crack before you talk about economics? Earth is mostly a closed ecosystem and anything you're dragging in from the cosmos is going to have orders of magnitude higher cost of production. The original moon landing was 1969, so we're already 50 years after that date and the level of progress in moon mining is laughable. You also need to process around 10-100 tons of rock just to get an ounce of gold. You going to do all that out in space or do you plan to just crash giant asteroids into the surface of the earth and kill everyone? Feel free to go mine gold at the cost of production of $10 million an ounce and having to build nuclear power plants out in space to process all the rocks! Or do you plan to constantly drag Saudi oil tankers into space with you to raise cost of production even higher?  |
|
|
|
Aleppo is currently a war zone. Which do you think the refugees would currently be better off trying to smuggle out of the city, bitcoin or gold? Which would be easier? Hmmm?
I was looking into bitcoin in Venezuela after hearing people claim you could buy months of food for 1oz of silver. I looked into what bitcoin was going for there thinking it would also have a huge premium and it seems instead of a premium, bitcoin goes for less money than in normal, functioning countries lol. I guess it makes sense because complex systems don't jump to more complexity when they implode (bitcoin), they go back to a more simple state.  |
|
|
|
To what extent does your analysis rest on the assertion that bitcoin can ... arbitrarily be changed by some guy on a random whim when he wakes up in the morning...
Because that is really not a fair summary of the situation. Which I am sure you know without me telling you. But I wonder whether your analysis is fully settled (in your own mind) ... Even if you don't assume it centralizes through economy of scale, or that mining cartels or other special interest groups take over, another event occurred just recently that many people did not pick up on with legislation in Japan (that will obviously happen everywhere else too). Govt is a monopoly on force, and cryptocurrency does not supercede political interests or the only consensus system in the real world (force). Whoever controls the courts controls what bitcoin turns into. Here is the Japanese legislation: "Only approved virtual currencies by the authority are considered legitimate and can be traded, sold or promoted to public"
This means govt is the legal arbitrator of forks. The US, UK, and EU will hold a meeting and all collude saying only the fork with chain anchor or worse is the real bitcoin! Since they can easily control the exchanges and mining pools, people will be forced to use that fork or have their coins become worthless. The only reason bitcoin isn't illegal is because they know how easy it is to co-opt and morph it into their cashless society control grid.
|
|
|
|
I'll happily dump for silver at peak of ETF approval pump (if such a thing is approved).
Simply put: You're a delusional metal bagholder. It seems that you're on the wrong forum Delusional is when you are unable to identify fundamentals and are on an investment-centric forum. Comparing bitcoin vs metals fundamentals is also completely on-topic to price discussion. Like I said before, the market can be irrational longer than you can remain solvent, but on a long enough timeline, bitcoin should behave as a currency and not "money". Currencies are typically not stores of value. It has taken me a LONG TIME to really do a thorough analysis of bitcoin because there are just far too many variables, but there it is. For most of the time I was focused on complete red herrings like the consensus systems and nash equilibrium, but most of that is just smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the fact that nobody can really get rid of a centralizing power vacuum force. Instead of make believing that some new change is going to improve things, the proper analysis is that the ability to be so called "upgraded", which just means changed, is nothing but a negative in the first place. |
|
|
|
I will sell when:
1) rpeitila announces the renovation of his castle
2) Goat buys a new car
I'll happily dump for silver at peak of ETF approval pump (if such a thing is approved). And why - my long term macro view on the subect (not to be confused with short term view): The fact that bitcoin can be so called "upgraded", which really just means changed, means it's not anti-fragile by default. Being able to be changed is a actually a bad thing that makes it not anti-fragile, or fungible, or money in the first place. It's why crypto will always be cryptocurrency and never money. We are all just fascinated by complex Rube Goldberg machines. Obfuscate something to the nth degree until nobody knows what it's traits really are or what it's really doing.
Ok, time to pump this here coin. Oh, what's that? In order to believe it doesn't have value someone is required to have a computer science degree and then spend years dissecting it's traits in order to figure that out? And even then, multiple computer science majors will have completely differing opinions because it's almost impossible to be a master in all required subjects? Perfect, let's create an ETF before anyone discovers.
Money is something that can't arbitrarily be changed by some guy on a random whim when he wakes up in the morning...or change the security model to something else entirely. Money can't transform to something completely different at random. Why is bitcoin not banned? Because the govt loves people wasting their time with currency instead of having actual money. That and the fact that it's designed as a 1984 tracking system by default.
Bitcoin is also a CURRENCY, not money, just like any attempt to replace bitcoin will also be a currency. CURRENCY has never been a good investment on a long timeline ever. Currency never holds value. It doesn't matter if it's bitcoin or anonymint coin, they all implode to worthless. They are RECEIPTS for money.
|
|
|
|
Decentralized paradigms are antifragile.
The fact that bitcoin can be so called "upgraded", which really just means changed, means it's not anti-fragile by default. Being able to be changed is a actually a bad thing that makes it not anti-fragile, or fungible, or money in the first place. It's why crypto will always be cryptocurrency and never money. We are all just fascinated by complex Rube Goldberg machines. Obfuscate something to the nth degree until nobody knows what it's traits really are or what it's really doing. Ok, time to pump this here coin. Oh, what's that? In order to believe it doesn't have value someone is required to have a computer science degree and then spend years dissecting it's traits in order to figure that out? And even then, multiple computer science majors will have completely differing opinions because it's almost impossible to be a master in all required subjects? Perfect, let's create an ETF before anyone discovers. |
|
|
|
Whereas, the confidence of goldbugs in gold is actually a historic perspective which is probably overconfident. The future of gold as a reliable settlement vehicle is dismal. If it's so dismal, why can't you name a single counter-example to replace it? I already did. My perspective is future oriented. Gold's dismal future is baked in regardless of whether a replacement is developed. Your perspective, as I stated in the post earlier, is trying to convince people that a currency = money when it's not. Anonymintcoin, just like bitcoin, will be a currency and not money. Money is something that can't arbitrarily be changed by some guy on a random whim when he wakes up in the morning, like Luke Jr deciding he wants to alter the blocksize to some strange number, or change the security model to something else entirely. Money can't transform to something completely different at random. That's obviously not fungible or anti-fragile amongst millions of other issues (not that bitcoin is fungible in the first place). In the grand scheme of things, cryptocurrency is a complete waste of time and just people trying to fool themselves into thinking they can create money when all they're making is currencies. Why is bitcoin not banned? Because the govt loves people wasting their time with currency instead of having actual money. That and the fact that it's designed as a 1984 tracking system by default. |
|
|
|
Whereas, the confidence of goldbugs in gold is actually a historic perspective which is probably overconfident. The future of gold as a reliable settlement vehicle is dismal.
If it's so dismal, why can't you name a single counter-example to replace it? You will find nothing to replace the noble metals in this regard. Bitcoin is also a CURRENCY, not money, just like any attempt to replace bitcoin will also be a currency. CURRENCY has never been a good investment on a long timeline ever. Currency never holds value. It doesn't matter if it's bitcoin or anonymint coin, they all implode to worthless. They are RECEIPTS for money. An educated person can honestly state that bitcoin is almost like an attempt to scam people into redefining what the word "money" means when it can't even fulfill that role and can only be a currency in the first place. |
|
|
|
Now 1 arbitrary unit of account (a BTC), in a decentralized protocol thought up and developed from nothing more than an idea, is worth more than an oz of GOLD... In <10 years.
It's kind of a meaningless metric when the # of bitcoin units is completely arbitrary and could have just as easily been 42 million. I actually have the opposite view myself. When I see the bitcoin market cap starting to creep up rivaling that of silver, it makes me want to sell bitcoin for silver because I do not believe any rational universe would have the price of bitcoin over metal's market caps. But I am a trader and always looking for imbalances, bubbles, and inverse bubbles to shift wealth into something else for profit. I personally think bitcoin will hit a pretty big growth wall with 1 MB blocks and no segwit when cost to get into next block gets to around $1-2. So bitcoin in current state might be starting to get near limits of growth, while gold and silver are both in inverse bubbles where you're kinda guaranteed to score a home run on a long enough timeline (silver even more so than gold). |
|
|
|
Something I find funny about the economics of bitcoin: The real interesting question is what is actually happening when the price of bitcoin skyrockets: Let's use a wild example and say bitcoin went to $100,000. This would be inflating the general money supply assuming people were buying things directly with bitcoin. You are placing in a dollar substitute, kind of like counterfeiting (not the greatest term, but best example I could think of). The overall effect is more money in the system.
Since nobody is buying things with bitcoin directly, it remains a derivative of the USD like almost all other fiat currencies. This also makes bitcoin constrained by things like dollar liquidity shortages, etc, where federal reserve monetary policy is essentially bitcoin monetary policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
