|
7
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: 2nd biggest ponzi scheme in history
|
on: December 01, 2013, 05:48:01 PM
|
A ponzi is illegal in every situation.
Bitcoin is not illegal so it cannot qualify to be a ponzi.
Well, that's not true. The original shell game by Charles Ponzi is what made such a scheme "malum prohibitum." Legality isn't a necessary condition of a ponzi scheme. |
|
|
|
|
10
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: With FACTA going into affect in 2014, people will be fleeing to Bitcoin
|
on: December 01, 2013, 05:26:02 PM
|
I'm sorry but there isn't an alternative to TAXES. If you want public services to exist, roads to be paved, streets to be cleaned, downed trees to be picked up etc etc etc then there has to be funds that take care of it.
I love how you guys wanna be left alone and shit and when you get scammed or lose your bitcoins you wanna get the law involved. I mean talk about hypocrisy.
If you wanna be on your own, then pack your belongings and move to an island somewhere with your bitcoins. But you don't wanna do that do you? No of course, you want to be part of a functioning society. Then until you live here do as is required by a citizen and pay your taxes and stop depending on others to do if for you.
There actually is an alternative to theft, it's called voluntary action and the free market. Public services might very well be replaced entirely by charity if people had the 40-70% of wealth that's stolen from them at every turn. I've seen early colonial towns build their roads through cooperatives and as an exercise of free market capitalism because without it, their commerce suffers. Society's been pretty conditioned to feel like a central "authority" needs to be there for life to be decent. Well just wait until that authority grows beyond its welcome, as it inevitably does.  |
|
|
|
|
14
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: December 01, 2013, 10:31:02 AM
|
You can say the same about bitcoins. With a 12 billion dollar market cap it's not very easy anymore for one person to move the price.
And what if I own some Apple stocks trough a hedge fund or something? Should I not be allowed to say publically that I think iPhones are nice phones?
I don't know. Just thinking aloud. It'd probably be limited to anything considered financial advice, not necessarily just positive reporting. |
|
|
|
|
15
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: [BEARS ONLY] Predict the next big crash <600
|
on: December 01, 2013, 10:11:20 AM
|
|
Unless you can determine how the Chinese market will settle, there's no way you, me or anyone else can say what will happen. There's about 150 BTC between where we are and $1100 USD Gox, and 2800 BTC to $1000 (BTCChina depths). Both of which can disappear very rapidly. Current valuation is very fragile and volatile.
|
|
|
|
|
19
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: December 01, 2013, 09:51:32 AM
|
what about the ones that have bank accounts and promote banks and have money in tax havens. Oh and also most banks are in a tax have, it's the Square mile called the city of london corporation, that's not even london it's a completely different thing, has different laws and so that's why all the banks are HQ'd there.
I'm not really sure what you mean, but if you're saying what I think you're saying I don't think that's necessarily a fair analogy. Right now BTC is being traded as a brand new asset class. It's not like anyone in the public eye is actually promoting a generic "bank account" and if they were, how would they possibly gain from doing so? Yeah but come on you can make the same accusation for pretty much anything the reporters write about. Maybe they own an iPhone and give nice reviews for them, which basically strengthens the ecosystem and thus benefits the reporters. Or maybe they write a nasty story about democrats because they like republicans better. How about giving US economics positive articles because they live in US and don't want to have a depression? They could also throw dirt at bitcoin simply because their boss tells them to do so, because the boss has an interest to keep bitcoins from spreading. Drawing the lines becomes impossible. I think all those benefits would be quite marginal, if even recognizable. Consider that people on TV who speak positively of equities of which they have a stake but don't disclose their position can be fined or jailed for that (at least, I believe so). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
