Das gilt auch dann, wenn es nicht mehr friedlich bleibt. Allerdings wird die Gewalt, wie üblich, nicht von der Masse ausgehen. Ich kann es nur immer wieder schreiben: Ein "Bürger"krieg wird praktisch immer von selbsternannten, selbstherrlichen und machtbessenen Autoritäten vom Zaun gebrochen - nicht von Bürgern. Die träge Masse folgt auch hier (allerdings wie üblich ohne mich)!
Ja, das ist gut möglich. Allerdings machen sich diese Autoritäten die Wut der Bürger zu nutze, um sie als Machtinstrument für ihre Zwecke einzuspannen. Wenn man sich die Geschichte anschaut, muss man leider erkennen, dass die Lernfähigkeit der breiten Masse gegen Null tendiert. Auch wenn ich die Umstände zum Teil überblicke und mich mental darauf vorbereite, freue ich mich dennoch kein bisschen auf das was uns wohl noch bevorsteht...  |
|
|
|
Whether Bitcoin's price matters or not both depends on your psychological reference point for 'value' and on the use case. If your psychological reference point for 'value' is the US-Dollar, you'll see Bitcoin as a more or less ordinary investment like stocks or bonds. A drop in price will hurt you, because you'll get less $$ if you sell your Bitcoin which equals to a negative return on investment. If your psychological reference point for 'value' is Bitcoin, you'll see the US-Dollar gaining value and maybe you'll ask yourself if buying US$ is a good investment. But you'll know for sure that the US$ is manipulated by a central bank and that such currencies will be a thing of the past. So it doesn't hurt you at all.  That's for the investment / store of value use case. The merchant / trade use case isn't affected by the price at all, because either Bitcoin is directly converted into US$ (for those merchants with a US$ value reference point) or it is kept and never converted, making US$-price meaningless. |
|
|
|
|
It's not clear, if Bitcoin is more popular in Germany than in other countries like the US. But if you assume it is, I'd think it's because of two major reasons:
1. History: Germans are much more fearful of inflation and distrust government more than other nations. Germans experienced a financial trauma during the late-Weimar hyperinflation which has been deeply engraved into their collective memory as a period of great hardship and social catastrophe. Germans also experienced two dictatorships in their more recent history which both being characterized by severe violations of human rights and also resulted in severe economic damage.
2. Preference for technology: Germans like technology. But German preference for technology differs a bit from other countries like the US. I think German preference is more on the hackish-pioneer side than on the shiny-business side of technological innovation.
I think both aspects are interrelated: Germans distrust government, so they are more likely to adopt a technology that comes from an independent source, even if usability is not perfect and requires some learning.
Of course that's not true for all Germans, but there is a larger part of the population that exhibits these preferences than in other countries.
|
|
|
|
Staatliche Rente, Riester, Rürup, Lebensversicherung, Bausparvertrag, Euro-Anleihen, Sparbuch, Tagesgeld.sicher nicht die beste anlage in den nächsten 10-20 jahren  Staatliche Rente = tatsächlich Zusatzsteuer wegen zukünftiger Wertlosigkeit Leider ist der Mehrheit der Bevölkerung nicht klar, mit was für einem Müll ihre staatliche Rente / Lebensversicherung "abgesichert" ist. Das gibt ein ganz böses Erwachen. Man kann nur hoffen, dass es halbwegs friedlich bleibt. Die Inflation (als Geldmengenausweitung) ist ja schon da, jetzt müssen nur noch die Preise etwas mehr steigen, dann wird's lustig... |
|
|
|
guck mal wie bös der schon guckt... jetzt willer uns rüschtüsch abgreife....weiß jemand, ob die Schavan auch so`n Buch geschrieben hat? ....oh Gott.... kommen jetzt etwa all diese Plagiatsterroristen wieder zurück?.... hat schon jemand unseren Innenminister informiert?.... und der Verfassungsschutz, ist der vorgewarnt?  Ich denke es ist angemessen, Frau Schavan gegenüber KTG etwas in Schutz zu nehmen. Wer sich damals die Liste der Verfehlungen angeschaut hat, konnte feststellen, dass zwischen dem KTG-Plagiat und dem Schavan-Plagiat Welten liegen. Das KTG-Plagiat ist unglaublich dreist (Komplettübernahme von Auftragsarbeiten des wiss. Dienstes des BT), während man bei Schavan eigentlich nur kleinere Verfehlungen feststellen kann, die die Eigenleistung im wesentlichen nicht schmälern. Hätte ich zu entscheiden gehabt, bin ich mir nicht sicher, ob ich Frau Schavan den Titel aberkannt hätte... |
|
|
|
USA (+ "partners") have attacked Syria
Israel has shot down a Syrian jet fighter, there could be a conflict between USA, Israel and Russia over Syria apparently Russia has superior air power
Does Putin do nothing?
This could seize up the international banking network, Bitcoin could relieve some of that banking network stress if there is any
Your logic is quite strange if discoverable at all. Basically it can be summed up like this: conflict between US and Russia -> war -> banking network overheating -> Bitcoin That's basically basing speculation on previous speculation, where even the outcome of the latter is totally uncertain but is nonetheless taken as a premise already proven to be true for the next speculation. Even the connection between banking network down = more use of Bitcoin is highly questionable. So I don't think that further discussion is of any merit. |
|
|
|
Cost of mining 1 Bitcoin hits market price... What will happen?
Well, either market price will rise again, hashrate / difficulty will drop, or both. But I think it will not happen directly, because miners do not always strictly follow economic logic. So they could continue to mine, even if it's not profitable at the moment and simply hoard BTC while waiting for higher prices. I don't expect another significant decline in price. |
|
|
|
Nein (danke für den Link), aber die Argumente kommen mir sehr bekannt vor. Ich zitiere mal: Compared with commodity money, which has an intrinsic value, such as gold, or official fiat money backed by a sovereign entity, the current market value of bitcoin to any given user hinges entirely on her expectation of others’ willingness to accept it later at a sufficiently greater value. Ist ja klar, im Grunde genommen ist nur "offiziell gesichertes" Fiat-Geld keine Spekulation. Wirklich lustig... willkürlich aus Luft erzeugtes Geld ist das Allerbeste...  In Wirklichkeit ist der intrinsischer Wert von Gold und Fiat-Geld nämlich auch exakt Null, wenn man hinterfragt, durch was Gold und Fiat gedeckt werden. Alles Geld beruht letztlich auf reinem Glauben an die zukünftige Werthaltigkeit. Bitcoin und Gold haben hier aber einen entscheidenden Vorteil gegenüber Fiat: Sie können nicht beliebig vermehrt werden. Ist nur ein Beispiel für die Tonalität des Artikels, die erwartungsgemäß das bestehende Zentralbanksystem stützt und pro-Regulierung ist (als Sahnehäubchen wird Ripple auch noch lobend erwähnt). |
|
|
|
What has this military drill to do with Bitcoin? Why should everything blow up because of the military drill? Seriously, please give us insight! |
|
|
|
Vermutlich schon. Aber die Frage bleibt, kann/will Trendon das wirklich zahlen und was passiert, wenn er nicht zahlt. Die ganzen zivilrechtlichen Forderungen dürften ebenfalls noch ausstehen.
Das frage ich mich auch. Wieviel Geld hat Trendon denn überhaupt noch? Soweit ich mich recht entsinne hatte er die bei ihm eingezahlten Bitcoins seinerseits in ein anderes Ponzi-System (außerhalb Bitcoins) "investiert", welches dann irgendwann kollabiert ist. Wenn dem so war, dürfte bei ihm kaum etwas zu holen sein. Man sollte annehmen, dass es reicht, die Gesetze zu machen. Die Praxis zeigt aber, dass sie von den Machern auch gar nicht beachtet werden, diese also über dem Gesetz stehen.
Das ist nicht immer so, aber es gibt viele Fälle. Deshalb sagt man ja auch: Alle sind gleich, nur manche eben gleicher. Für manche Personen sind die Gesetze nur rein formal gültig, ohne jedoch praktische Auswirkungen zu haben. |
|
|
|
I am not an expert in the housing market, so I wanted to ask your opinions. Is this price rise in London sustainable? I look at the price declines in the USA and Japan and ask why the UK is different?
Of course prices are not sustainable. The average salary in London is approximately £30,000. If you want to live in an area that doesn't have alcoholics and gypsies defecating in your front garden a house will cost half a million pounds. Loans to income levels are ridiculous. Exactly. House prices in London and many other major cities in central Europe are excessive and are likely to come down substantially (adjusted for inflation) in the foreseeable future. I think the magnitude will be between -60% to -80% for the most expensive locations. A good measure for real estate valuation levels is the ratio of cost to buy vs. cost to rent which determines the possible return you can get from an investment in real estate. That measure is at record highs for the top real estate locations in Germany like Munich for example. This means that an investment takes much longer to amortize and generate a positive return today than in the past. |
|
|
|
Could you give an example of "currency reform" when the peak amount of currency was not exceeded within 6 months? In other words, on January 2015 there is $100 in currency in the economy, then on January 5th, the central banks takes some amount of money out via "currency reform", then there would still be some amount less then $100 in currency through the end of June 2015.
Can you give any real world examples of when central banks wanted to engage in deflation in your terms at all?
Again: I never claimed that central banks *want* to engage in deflation! In fact I said that central banks' policy is almost exclusively inflationary - deflation (abruptly via currency reform) only occurs when the existing currency has been ruined by excessive inflation. So I don't even see a contradiction between our arguments... So I *don't* claim that central banks stop inflating after a currency reform. An example of a deflationary currency reform is the introduction of the Deutsche Mark after WWII in Germany, when large amounts of former Reichsmark (previous currency) balances were exchanged at a greatly reduced value ratio (10:1) for new currency. |
|
|
|
Ich fand das Interview klasse, er erkennt die Probleme von FIAT und erkennt die Vorteile der Blockchain. Auch wenn es mit Ripple so seine eigenen Probleme gibt, jedoch je mehr Publicity für Crypto umso besser.
Ich bin nicht der Ansicht, dass die Devise "je mehr Publicity umso besser" generell richtig ist. Im Gegenteil denke ich, dass Personen wie Guttenberg Bitcoin viel mehr schaden als nützen können. Und zwar zum einen durch das negative Ansehen eines Plagiators (der für seine "Arbeit" auch noch Dienste des Bundestags in Anspruch genommen hat) an sich, zum anderen durch das auch im Interview hervortretende ausgeprägte Sendungsbewusstsein solcher Personen, die meinen, dass ihr massives regulatorisches Eingreifen für das Gelingen des Projektes Bitcoin unabdingbar sei. Meiner Ansicht nach versucht der werte Herr Guttenberg hier möglicherweise durch gekonnt präsentiertes Halbwissen zu einem Thema, von dem der übrige Politikbetrieb überwiegend gar keine Ahnung hat, sein Image als innovativer Querdenker wiederauferstehen zu lassen und einen Grund zu konstruieren, warum man ihn als Politiker dringend braucht. Das Gegenteil ist natürlich der Fall: Kryptowährungen wie Bitcoin benötigen keinen Regulierungswahn, der lediglich darauf abzielt, die normalen Nutzer zu gängeln und den Status quo des bestehenden Finanzparasitismus gegen die Innovationen des freien Marktes abzuschirmen. Guttenberg vertritt hier autoritäre Positionen bestimmter US-Eliten und versucht vermutlich über die Paypal 2.0-Platform Ripple sein Stückchen vom Kuchen abzubekommen. Um einen Eindruck von seiner Person zu bekommen möge man sich in diesem Zusammenhang auch seine (wie ich finde unerträglichen) Äußerungen zu anderen politischen Themen der letzten Zeit zu Gemüte führen... |
|
|
|
I fully endorse signature campaigns, for the reasons already given: 1) Promotion of the bitcoin economy
2) Getting some bitcoins into the hands of semi-newbies
And I like to add: 3) Greed is an integral part of how Bitcoin works, so let's do not suppress it.  While I agree that "spam" has increased in the last months, I still like to point out that "quality" is a very subjective criterion. What some people consider crap others will find interesting or entertaining. I think one of the most significant aspects of Bitcoin is that it frees money and empowers people. Personally I have been drawn in this community by the spirit of freedom and the diversity of opinions that are voiced straightforwardly. In the spirit of Bitcoin, this forum should reflect that. Therefore I'm much more tolerant when it comes to "quality". Some users post lengthy on serious topics, others post very short and jokingly. Both kinds of posts make up the whole community feeling that I enjoy. Nonetheless to reduce the amount of "spam" tentatively attributable to some types of signature advertising I have the following suggestions: a) disallow advertising that pays solely per post b) disallow advertising that demands more than a reasonable number of posts for a given time period to pay out (I think 30-60 posts per month is not excessive) c) all users starting from junior member level should have the same formatting / content rights for signatures (which could be the level of a full member today), thereby discouraging posts to grow member level to attain advertising opportunities while at the same time opening up advertising opportunities for newer members d) reintroduce the newbie prison, to avoid spammers spilling over directly into the main forum e) opening of a "serious discussion" subsection, which everyone can read but only invited members can post to satisfy the needs of the "quality only"-fraction I'm confident that implementing these measures can have a significant positive effect on quality while at the same time preserving the community spirit. some people are just really complaining about everything...
Just noticed your sig - no wonder you are posting this crap. I have reported you and your sponsor owes me 0.001 BTC now. CIYAM, I seriously doubt that all of your posts live up to the standard you try to forcefully impose on others. |
|
|
|
lol ... stupid article . How many investors dump their bitcoins for alibaba IPO ? I haven't heard any of my friends did that  Yes, not credible at all. Who invented the legend that all Chinese people with money desperately want to buy Alibaba? If it is so, wouldn't we see a marked difference in market movement between Chinese and other exchanges? It reality Bitcoin is a more favorable asset to own for Chinese people, because it is less subject to capital controls and can be moved easily without surveillance. |
|
|
|
What are you going to do?
It is almost not profitable to mine BTC anymore if your aim is to exchange to fiat day to day, because of the electricity cost. If you are into BTC long term then you don't have to do much except for holding on to it or to multiply it. If you are reliant to exchange to fiat, then the only thing you can do is to use the BTC to make more BTC before exchanging. One such method is to convert to alt-coin, play that market and then exchange back to BTC and then to fiat. Alt-coins are however very scammy currently but there are opportunities here and there. Trading altcoins is pure speculation. There is no guarantee of a positive return, so it's not a viable option for most miners. If mining gets unprofitable most miners will choose one of two possibilities: Either stop mining Bitcoin until mining is profitable again or delay the sale of Bitcoin (if a miner wants fiat). In the first case difficulty is likely to fall / rise more slowly, while in the second case no additional effect on difficulty is expected. Both cases should have a stabilizing effect on price. |
|
|
|
Aus meiner Sicht schade, dass es nix geworden ist. Immerhin gibt es scheinbar trotzdem ein bisschen mehr Selbstbestimmung für die Schotten. Eine andere Erklärung wäre, sie haben Angst vor den Folgen einer Abspaltung. Ob diese berechtigt ist, spielt dabei keine Rolle.
Das halte ich auch für gut möglich. Insbesondere wenn man sich nachfolgende Statistiken anschaut. Im Endeffekt haben die Pensionäre und die Personen kurz vor der Rente die Abstimmung gegen die Mehrheit der arbeitenden Bevölkerung und die ganz Jungen entschieden. Ich würde sagen (Achtung Stereotyp ) : Typische Altersängstlichkeit, die von den Gegnern der Unabhängigkeit genutzt wurde. Es war also ein Fehler Fahrdienste anzubieten...  |
|
|
|
I would say that deflation would generally be when prices are falling as a whole. It is nearly impossible for overall money supply to fall as a whole as the central bank could simply print more money to prevent this (thus preventing deflation even being an economic concept if it was measured by money supply).
In theory central banks could deflate money supply by reducing the monetary units in circulation. But they don't do it, because it's not their policy. These days, central banks only inflate, they never deflate. Deflation mostly occurs as a singular event when central banks have inflated a lot and currency use becomes impractical. Such events they use to call euphemistically a "currency reform". I guess, we'll all have the questionable honor to experience such an event in our lifetime. Anything is possible in theory, but I don't think this would happen in practice. Can you provide an example when a central bank engaged in this kind of deflation over a period of at least 6 months (a time period that I would consider to be short to medium term)? I do not know of one, nor do I think one exists. AFAIK even in times of hyperinflation central banks have not engaged in this kind of deflationary policies. EDIT: hyperinflation in terms of risking prices I already said in my second sentence, that central banks don't deflate continuously, because it doesn't fit their policy. When deflation occurs it's a singular event, a "currency reform". |
|
|
|
“Bitcoin is an extremely important innovation, but not in the way most people think. Bitcoin’s real innovation is a globally verifiable proof publishing at a certain time. The whole system is built on that concept and many other systems can also be built on it. The block chain nails down history, breaking Orwell’s dictum of ‘He who controls the present controls the past and he who controls the past controls the future’.”
So we enter a new age where nobody is able to manipulate the history, not unless they have more than 51% hashing power!
It's one part, but certainly not the only innovative aspect of Bitcoin. I think it's merely coincidence that the blockchain concept also allows for document timestamping. It's great to have that, but it does not make the monetary innovation of Bitcoin any less important. In fact using the blockchain as a secure document verification system relies on the value that the monetary innovation of Bitcoin has brought. Without the monetary use case, no one had incentive to mine Bitcoin, thereby securing the blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
