 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
|
|
Inflation starts when whomever controls the printing presses & mints of a given fiat currency decide to fire up those presses & mints to make a few billion/trillion more for themselves and their pals.
|
|
|
|
|
Ooh, a post by a Keynesian telling us all why Bitcoin isn't money. I'll make sure to pay lots of attention to this one.
|
|
|
|
|
What a shocker, a government says that a currency that is superior (BTC) to it's own fiat junk isn't to be used as 'money'.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for posting this, I always enjoy reading your threads.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm down with the plan in the OP. And I think that the days where we will never have to cash out to fiat are much closer than most people realize.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe in a well regulated market, one being a market that is regulated by consumer demand instead of the whims of some central planner(s).
|
|
|
|
Every day I read about some government warning about BTC (today it's the Indian one).
BTCs value is not guaranteed by the central planners! Absolutely no financial protection for you by your daddy, nation XYZ! If your bank goes bankrupt, we care about you, but just imagine something happens to BTC, there is NOWHERE TO TURN TO! Our absolutely safe fiat that we created just for you will protect you, and in case something happens, as you see, FED and ECB will keep you warm and sheltered because they care. Hey, they even print new money for you as much as they can. So don't come running if something happens to BTC, because we warned you!
This is ironic beyond anything imaginable: They tell us that they are protecting us from BTC - when in reality, BTC is an attempt to protect us from them..
Just hillarious. Of course, the masses buy it...
We scare you. We protect you. Please say "Thank you". And then bend over.  They say "please"? |
|
|
|
no fiat no tax, simple as that
+1000 |
|
|
|
|
Why do you think that the IRS has any claim on any part of your Bitcoins?
|
|
|
|
|
VT is becoming more & more socialist by the day it seems. The only way to solve the issues caused by government intervention in the health care industry is to remove the government entirely from the health care industry. But you know who'd never allow that? The largest & most influential ($$$) players in the health care industry who have, over the years, authored most of the legislation which has caused the cost of health care to skyrocket. For their own benefit.
Being a fucking cheerleader for those who are raping as many as they can of as much as they can for as long as they can is simply bad form.
|
|
|
|
It was amazing to see hardcore leftists defending everything he was doing simply because he wasn't bush.....
Not really. The smear campaign against Bush was well funded and started early. What you call hardcore leftists were just the useful idiots of the moment. They heard, they repeated, they hated like they were told. ANYONE who believes that they have a right to install some 'leader' or another over their neighbors is a useful idiot to TPTB. If YOU have no right to force your neighbor to do something, how do you gain a right to grant to some politician to do that for you, magical incantations? |
|
|
|
|
I agree with Obama. I mean really, look at all those innocent people that Snowden has killed and maimed with drones. Look at all the people who've lost significant value in their investments because of all those taxes that Snowden signed into law. Look at all the people who are going to have to pay far more for their health care while receiving a much lesser degree of care because of 'Snowden-care'.
Oh, wait... Obama did those things which have caused unnecessary damage to innocent people, not Edward Snowden. I guess we all know who the real dick is, don't we?
|
|
|
|
I don't agree on that point. Bitcoin is a store of value. It doesn't loose its value with time contrary to FIAT money.
You cannot get stolen if you use an offline paper wallet.
The variation on the short term doesn't matter as long as it get value on long term which is the case.
Yes, but it would loose the value IF the Bitcoin network would stop operating, right? We all know that there is an extremely small chance for this to happen, but if someone would want to make government to recognize this, shouldn't there be some formal proof? (I am just asking). Why would people who presumably have a vested interest in continuing to operate their nodes on the Bitcoin network stop doing so? As for governments 'recognizing' Bitcoin or any other crypto currency, why should that matter? I don't need the approval of some group of sociopaths for my choices in currencies that I might wish to use in commerce with others, do you? Especially given the obvious and demonstrable manner in which these sociopaths, governments, debase and devalue the currencies which they foist upon everyone. |
|
|
|
|
Since when do people need the approval of governments to decide what has value and what does not? If someone wants to accept Bitcoin, or anything else for that matter, as payment for services or products why and how can that possibly require the approval of some government? Face it people, governments are scared because they see their little monopoly on printing money going away. Soon. Very, very soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Fiat money is shit, decentralized currencies are the future. Learn to deal with not being able to steal from people silently via inflation.
|
|
|
|
This is why I'm a libertarian: these horror stories will only stop once people take responsibility for their actions. A part of this responsibility is not allowing other men to commit immoral atrocities in your name. We're all responsible for these deaths.
I'm not responsible. The government has nothing to do with me. They are a racket that steals my money at gunpoint, nothing more. If a thug steals my money on the street and buys some bullets with it and shoots someone with them I am not responsible. If I cheered the thug on or made excuses for the murder that would make me pretty immoral which is why I don't defend the government at all. unless we're actively resisting. But I definitely would say it's an "argument," not some self-evident truth. You know - I think of it in a comparison between the actions of what happened on flight 95 vs flights 11, 175, and 77. On 95, passengers actively resisted and minimized casualties. This was not successfully done on any of the other flights. I don't think anyone would argue they shouldn't have resisted and crashed the plane into a field, and I think the question's really whether or not everyone has that moral obligation to resist (and resist how much?). If we're paying taxes and not actively opposing laws which allow these kinds of things to happen, then to some degree, whether it's at gunpoint or not, I think we are responsible. We know where our tax money's going. We know these kinds of tragedies happen fairly frequently. We contributed to these fifteen murders in Yemen. I don't think we can completely wash our hands of it. At best, we failed in resistance, and at worst, we didn't actively oppose it. In the same sentence you go from pinning responsibility for actions which the US government takes without my consent which are absolutely contrary to my moral beliefs ON ME by using the royal 'we', and then you say that you don't think anyone would equate a US citizen with the US government. News flash... the people doing those terrible things aren't doing them because you consent in any way. Want proof? Withdraw your consent. I'll go out on a limb here and tell you that they...the government...will keep on doing as they wish regardless of what you want. And as for being responsible unless one 'actively resists', whatever the hell that means, you're wrong on that count as well. Unless you are willing to accept some of the blame for every rape, every instance of child abuse, every occurrence of mistreated animals, etc, etc, etc worldwide. After all, you didn't 'actively resist' all of them, right? So that means you must be, at least in part, responsible for them... right? |
|
|
|
So yes - I am all for imposing morality.
Well that says it all. You're one of those people who feel entitled to impose your will upon and take what you'd wish from others by force. |
|
|
|
When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny. Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways. The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).
It is our moral judgment that we erroneously extend on state which is beyond morality. You just can't attach your idea of means not justifying ends to state, whether you like it or not. It would be equal to saying that it is immoral when one animal kills another. Such judgments are simply inapplicable here... My basic argument is that there is no way you can justify infringing on someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property. So yes, I can say that no ends justify those means. For example I am opposed to animal cruelty. Is it your argument that people who are cruel to animals that they own should not be prosecuted? What gives you the right to dictate that? Telling you to keep your hands off of that which isn't yours and not to harm others is an imposition of morality to you? |
|
|
|
To paraphrase Eric Voorhees,
Bitcoin is unfortunately the name of two things.
1) it is the name of the Bitcoin protocol, which describes how the block chain, mining, etc. works.
This protocol performs some useful functions that no other money system can currently match. (Fast cheap transfer to any where in the world, robust etc etc) The Bitcoin protocol clearly has a value, and the value comes from its utility.
2) The Bitcoin protocol has been implemented to allow transfer of a digital currency, this currency is also called Bitcoin. A Bitcoin has no intrinsic value and is commonly misuderstood to be what Bitcoin is all about.
The bitcoin protocol and bitcoins per se cannot be seperated when you talk about intrinsic value. Bitcoins cannot exist outside the protocol and the protocol has no meaning without bitcoins. Yes. And my question to bitcoiners is still unanswered: What can I do with bitcoin? What is its value? In before: I can dump it on the next guy. What can you do with Bitcoin? Conduct trade with others and/or hold onto them as a store of value. What is Bitcoin's value? The value is determined by market demand. There will only ever be 21,000,000 Bitcoins, so their value can never be diminished by inflation of the supply. Trade conducted exclusively in Bitcoin isn't subjected to taxes. What is it worth to have a medium of exchange that can't be devalued and that some 3rd party doesn't feel entitled to help themselves to whatever share of that they want? The day is coming when it's going to take a LOT of government fiat to convince anyone to part with their BTC. |
|
|
|
Oh noes! I can't possibly imagine living in a world with no government where certain bad people would no doubt try to steal from me and hurt me to help themselves! So therefore, it's necessary to submit to certain bad people who are the government who steal from me and hurt me to help themselves!
Statism = Logical failure
It's you who logically failed here. You pay some bad guys and they defend you from other bad guys out there. Because of the economy of scale, you actually end up paying much less than you would have to pay without a state behind you. So your imagination wasn't actually deceiving you... You clearly have no idea how much value is taken from you in the multitude of ways that the government takes value from you, and greatly overestimate the cost of defending yourself in a free society. |
|
|
|
|
