Yes, but the total wealth of the Earth (by some sources) is over $200 trillion.
Notice the total absurdity of this statement by those some sources. For one there is no mention of M0 vs. M1 vs. higher For two there is no way any of these levels of money supply could be verified, as the unit is "$". For three, the unit of "$" is unbounded, issuers gonna issue, nobody can stop them. For four, the unit "$" is without physical definition - there is no way to verify one has a "$" other than to pass it off to another idiot. It's absurd to even think of it as a unit of wealth, let alone to assign a finite number to it or to claim you know some total number of "wealth of Earth". I was talking about the money in possesion of the people and banks, but I'm not going to argue about that. I just tried to point to the fact that cryptocurrencies are still a very tiny part of the "world's wealth". The only things that come to mind for me as possible measures of the world's wealth are: 1) Biodiversity (number of unique species) 2) Biomass (mass of living things, arable land) If you want to talk about the world's exchange commodities, it's easy to say how many BTC or LTC the world has. Don't you think that there are some people who knows (at least approximately) the total number of the printed money around the world (no mater if its dollars, euros or pounds)? I don't think we should discuss this more, because its unnecessary. I will repeat that I gave that number with the intention to show how insignificant digital money currently are, and it will take many years (if "some people" allow it, which I doubt) to be considered even a little threat to the banks/governments. |
|
|
|
Yes, but the total wealth of the Earth (by some sources) is over $200 trillion.
Notice the total absurdity of this statement by those some sources. For one there is no mention of M0 vs. M1 vs. higher For two there is no way any of these levels of money supply could be verified, as the unit is "$". For three, the unit of "$" is unbounded, issuers gonna issue, nobody can stop them. For four, the unit "$" is without physical definition - there is no way to verify one has a "$" other than to pass it off to another idiot. It's absurd to even think of it as a unit of wealth, let alone to assign a finite number to it or to claim you know some total number of "wealth of Earth". I was talking about the money in possesion of the people and banks, but I'm not going to argue about that. I just tried to point to the fact that cryptocurrencies are still a very tiny part of the "world's wealth". |
|
|
|
The more exchanges the better. they provide visibily and a wider community base.
Yeah, but for now alcurEX does not respond if it will keep FAIL and EmpoEX guys has not been around for like 2 weeks now. We are making final adjustments on the wallet and we will talk with few exchanges after the release. |
|
|
|
So what type of control are you talking about?
I'm just saying that the goverments will not allow us to move billions of $, without them to know some details. They won't let us? What if they can't stop us? ATM, the estimate is over a trillion dollars of untaxed wealth that is beyond their control, so what makes you think that they will do a better job as more options are made available? Do you think they will kill black markets? AFAIK, something that has never been done, and something that would need to happen in order to control a vast sum of wealth that isn't taxed or is undertaxed. But again, I was asking what you kind of control do you want governments to have? Not what control you think they have or will have. So, when you say that you think that people should, or must be, controlled, what type of control are you talking about? Edit: I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but the original comment that started this discussion was very vague and I'm curious as to what you think should be controlled and to what degree. We'll probably agree to disagree, but I'm always curious as to how people arrive at their opinions about privacy. Yes, but the total wealth of the Earth (by some sources) is over $200 trillion. We are getting closer to my point. McAfee made some bold statements regarding the digital money. I just think that most of them will be controlled by the banks. For example, if you now have a bank account, in the future you can have a Bitcoin address in a bank (something like exchanges are now). Of course, nobody can stop you to have your digital money kept in your pocket.  |
|
|
|
So what type of control are you talking about?
I'm just saying that the goverments will not allow us to move billions of $, without them to know some details. |
|
|
|
For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.
Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)). How is privacy imaginary? And why shouldn't people do what they want? Because they shouldn't. That's why we have laws. Do you actually think that the governments will allow us to move billions (in the future, maybe trillions) of $, without them to know? That would be disaster... Someone once said that the separate people are smart, but the masses are dumb. Can you please post images of your last three months of bank statements? This is the equivalent of Bitcoin - everyone having access to everyone else's financial records. As well, government is not some perfect benevolent daddy figure - it's an institution filled with corruptible and fallible humans. Are you also ok with the notion of government having live cameras in your home at all times and police coming to do 'body searches' of you and your family at unannounced hours? We must not accept tyranny, and thanks to technology we won't have to. Call me a spelunker, but I'm not holding funds in banks since like 5-6 years. I am generally poor and all I have is in my pockets (or in a jar under my mattress). I get what you mean, but it seems that you are not seeing my point here. People (at some point) must be controlled. That is what I think. People must be controlled? That sounds like an illuminati/globalistic statement. Perhaps I am reading it wrong? I meant it like if the masses are involved in a riot or something. We all know what people do then... all hell is breaking loose. I live in a country were everything is overpriced, banks are with high rates, politicians are corrupted, we are on 1st place (though its not official) by death rate and one of the last countries by birth rate. It's called Bulgaria. Recently they said that 80,000 people are leaving the country every year, which is significant, giving the fact that our population is little over 6 million now. I can't really support governments who allowed this to happen, can I? |
|
|
|
Whilst I do believe that Bitcoin (and blockchain technology) is going to change the world (in many ways) I don't see that it is going to "replace" fiat any time soon (as that's almost like asking a military to give up its guns).
In the long term it may be that property is the only way governments will be able to get revenue (so I also wouldn't be too quick to sell all your BTC to buy a bunch of properties assuming you have that many).
Banks and governments are already exploring the technology and it could replace fiat money, but I don't believe that this would be done by Bitcoin or others. They already have interac etransfer Paypal credit cards and other transfer methods ..that are faster and probably more secure than any coin crap. Ever used LocalBitcoins to sell BTC ? Why would they want to bother investing in a public ledger when they already do what ever they want in private ? Banks are not lining up to offer the public free transparency to what they do with the money.. On the contrary they are working harder at hiding what they do behind closed doors. And why does Crypto attract the sketchy criminal element ? Last i heard of this guy he was hunted for murder charges. Now he likes Bitcoin LOL I believe that his interest in cryptocurrencies is because he don't have (much) money and that his name will attract investors. There was one other guy who lost like over a billion $ and was running ICO like 4-5 months ago, but I can't remember the name. Read my sig and go to the infowars link--if that world is for you, then you'll be happy to know it's on its way for many parts of the world. I'll stick to not being controlled, nor wanting to have others controlled.
OK, can you please tell me (without advertising XMR) more about your freedom? You did said (or implied) that you are (want) not being controlled. Here, short, sweet and to the point: http://activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.htmlWhen you move $100 its not a problem. Nobody cares if you give me $100. But if the market becomes too big (like with a $100 billion market cap and billions of $ trade volume), then you can be sure that the privacy will be broken. |
|
|
|
oh man...McAffee
hopefully the super pervo powder is coming as well
5MeODipt FTW
It doesn't really matter what kind of a guy he is. What matters is that he will leave a trail in this world (as one of the "Internet pioneers"). There are 100s (if not thousands) of examples. |
|
|
|
Read my sig and go to the infowars link--if that world is for you, then you'll be happy to know it's on its way for many parts of the world. I'll stick to not being controlled, nor wanting to have others controlled.
OK, can you please tell me (without advertising XMR) more about your freedom? You did said (or implied) that you are (want) not being controlled. |
|
|
|
|
I have much to say, but I am silently watching the thread (and barryzand). All I have to say for now is that:
1. There was no proof of burning of the funds meant to be distributed among the early investors.
2. Nothing was done with the 20k for the early miners.
Period.
|
|
|
|
For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.
Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)). How is privacy imaginary? And why shouldn't people do what they want? Because they shouldn't. That's why we have laws. Do you actually think that the governments will allow us to move billions (in the future, maybe trillions) of $, without them to know? That would be disaster... Someone once said that the separate people are smart, but the masses are dumb. Can you please post images of your last three months of bank statements? This is the equivalent of Bitcoin - everyone having access to everyone else's financial records. As well, government is not some perfect benevolent daddy figure - it's an institution filled with corruptible and fallible humans. Are you also ok with the notion of government having live cameras in your home at all times and police coming to do 'body searches' of you and your family at unannounced hours? We must not accept tyranny, and thanks to technology we won't have to. Call me a spelunker, but I'm not holding funds in banks since like 5-6 years. I am generally poor and all I have is in my pockets (or in a jar under my mattress). I get what you mean, but it seems that you are not seeing my point here. People (at some point) must be controlled. That is what I think. |
|
|
|
For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.
Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)). How is privacy imaginary? And why shouldn't people do what they want? Because they shouldn't. That's why we have laws. Do you actually think that the governments will allow us to move billions (in the future, maybe trillions) of $, without them to know? That would be disaster... Someone once said that the separate people are smart, but the masses are dumb. Sigh... People doing what they want includes walking across the street and buying an icecream cone. Not sure from what left field you arguing from (communist, authoritarianism, AI overlord, other), but I'm not going to waste time finding out. If the technology exist, people will use it for both good and bad and there isn't much you can do about it if that technology is truly antifragile. I was born and raised in a country, which was once communist, but I'm far of that thinking. I am just trying to be realist and that's it and we are not talking about an icecream here. You are free to jump off a 10-store building and that would be a suicide. You are also free to go in a bank and ask them "kindly" to give you their money. That would be breaking the law... it's that simple. P.S. Believe me, I'm not arguing or attacking you. I can join you and we can both scream "POWER TO THE PEOPLE" on the streets, but the effect would be 0. |
|
|
|
For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.
Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)). How is privacy imaginary? And why shouldn't people do what they want? Because they shouldn't. That's why we have laws. Do you actually think that the governments will allow us to move billions (in the future, maybe trillions) of $, without them to know? That would be disaster... Someone once said that the separate people are smart, but the masses are dumb. |
|
|
|
|
I will repeat that I am not against the DAO, Ethereum, Bitcoin or whatever., but the DAO must change its abbreviation, because it failed (as of now) to be decentralized. And I'm still angry that few people gathered so much funds, but allowed this to happen.... ah....
|
|
|
|
For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.
Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)). |
|
|
|
For many of us (me included) it already has replaced fiat.
Not really. Most of the people still measure their profits/losses/holdings in fiat money. How does that contradict what I wrote? There's a word I use for people that measure profits/losses/holdings/net worth in fiat: "poor". How can something which is being created ad infinitum at zero cost be a measure of wealth? How can something with no definition be a measure of anything at all? You are probably a fan of cryptocurrencies like I am. Majority of the people do measure their profits/losses/holdings in fiat money and I found this sad. I'm not a dreamer, but I do support the "revolution" and I think that people must accept cryptocurrencies as a digital money (and not fiat) in order to become mainstream (which will take a lot of time like you implied). Bitcoin (and others) are not created at zero costs, but the masses are the ones, which gives them a certain value. |
|
|
|
Speaking from someone who has been around NEM since the beginning, I don't quite get the Chinese claim.
The chinese pumped many coins for no reason. TIPS and EAC are one of the examples. This is my only concern. |
|
|
|
For many of us (me included) it already has replaced fiat.
Not really. Most of the people still measure their profits/losses/holdings in fiat money. |
|
|
|
Decentralized smart contracts are probably the dumbest contracts in existence.
Contracts will never be flawless, they will always have bugs. Is Ethereum going to soft fork everytime something bad happens?
Centralized contracts are the way to go. NEM and its Mosaics are the best solution for centralized contracts.
NEM is controlled by the chinese as far as I know. You can say it for Bitcoin too, but it's kinda different story. |
|
|
|
Whilst I do believe that Bitcoin (and blockchain technology) is going to change the world (in many ways) I don't see that it is going to "replace" fiat any time soon (as that's almost like asking a military to give up its guns).
In the long term it may be that property is the only way governments will be able to get revenue (so I also wouldn't be too quick to sell all your BTC to buy a bunch of properties assuming you have that many).
Banks and governments are already exploring the technology and it could replace fiat money, but I don't believe that this would be done by Bitcoin or others. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
