So it boils down to, "these people say it works" and "these people say it won't" ok man I am convinced. BTW, With gold/fiat, this requires the creation of debt instruments, which then, after being generally accepted in exchange, become money substitutes and a part of the money supply. This shows an extreme bias or a lack of knowledge in the history of money. Not to mention the fact that debt-free money wasn't even considered a possibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note |
|
|
|
The wealthy WILL always have more power over the unwealthy, PERIOD. But my point, as I have stated several times, is that the wealth/power graph is exponential, not linear. Yeah, and when the politicians get paid, that original money is spent. You are not somehow magically generating money just because you got in early. Ok, but you aren't getting the meta-game here. Politicians are only getting that money because it will invariably lead to more wealth for those who gave them it. I AM a regular citizen of this world, and there is no "shit". If we are talking about most developed countries right now and don't consider failed states and such, the only thing that is causing poverty and crime is that people think it is easier to rob than to actually work. Riiiiight. You know, it sounds crazy, but at some point we are going to have to accept that not everybody can work. There is only so much production that can be achieved, and the amount that humans contribute to that production is only likely to dwindle as more processes become automated. If more people were able to live off of earlier work or off of their parents' work, they could focus on other pursuits such as art, or volunteerism, or many other things. This is the kind of revolution that could bring about unheard of changes in society. But while we are slaves to money, it will never happen. And it's really funny how you bring up the argument of "give your children the wealth of your many years of hard work", because that's exactly what the Rothschild family members have been doing for all these years, and you somehow think that is unjust because they have more money than you. Yeah and I think the point was you shouldn't have to be a trillionaire to be able to do it. Money devalues so quickly; interest rates expect a certain portion of every loan to default; property is amassed by the wealthy and re-sold to the middle and poor in a never-ending cycle by design. |
|
|
|
While I may share some of the OP's concerns, I fail to see how these relate to Bitcoin. To asnwer the OP's question directly:
1. There is no "Bitcoin elite". It's a p2p system, open source, and open for anyone to jump on and off board as they please. Moreover, the majority of coins have not even been mined yet. I don't see the problem. You are free to mine, buy, sell and use coins as you please. You don't depend on any central authority to do so. The majority of the coins will be mined in a few months, with all of what, 100k people having tried out bitcoin? Out of 7 billion? I don't just rage against the pyramid because of how unfair it is, I rage against it because this silly popularity you think that would be impossible without it will EVENTUALLY BE ITS DOWNFALL. Smart minds and great thinkers will start reviewing the history of bitcoin and will start speaking out against it. The bitcoin name will get trashed repeatedly and be called a pyramid. If there is one thing the general public understands, it is the words "pyramid scheme" regardless if bitcoin is one straight up or not. This early adopter super bonus is going to be a reason for it to fail at being a world currency. 2. Even if there were "Bitcoin elite," they could never become the next Rothschild family, simply because they are not a family. My view is that, while generations of Rothschilds were born into wealth and therefore inevitably understand how wealth functions (better than an average Joe anyway), some fraction of this presumed "Bitcoin elite" are dysfunctional, paranoid trash who will - if by some coincidence their amassed coins become significantly valued - quickly slide into a spiral of personal disasters related to addiction, lawyers, vanity, abuse, and stupidity. All I hope is that they spent their coins on their way, instead of losing them irreversibly to a black hole. The other fraction may just be fine folks, who will do with their coins as they please, without causing much harm to themselves or others. Many members of this forum come to mind, and I am glad if they got wealthy. Good for them. The original Rothschild family was not born into wealth. Education and manipulation are things that are taught. Do you really think someone with 10% of all the currency to ever exist will be so frivolous as to waste it on the things you list? It is likely that satoshi holds more than anyone else and it is likely that he/them is very smart as evidenced by the bitcoin code. So again, you resort to hopes and wishes rather than the possibility that perhaps the Rothschild design was inherent and intentional. You could be playing right into their hands just as world governments did by borrowing from the Rothschilds to pay for wars. Probably this point has already been made many times, but Bitcoin has two distinct advantages over fiat money in the context that you are asking (debt slavery etc).
1. No central bank has the authority to print money wiping out everybody's savings and setting interest rates to 0%.
2. Even when gold was money, very few controlled the mining of gold or even had the ability to safely store and protect large amount. So inevitably a majority of gold would end up with the few.
With bitcoin, it is very easy to store and protect large amounts, to transfer it anywhere you want, and nobody can take it from you by printing more. So of course some people are going to be much richer than others, but the ability to earn more bitcoins will hopefully be proportionate to how well you serve other people, in the long run, and not how clever you are in hijacking the financial system and its loopholes. I really think/hope that will be the key difference.
So we should judge bitcoin by how successful the current history of money is? Do you not believe the current monetary system to be flawed? Then why mitigate bitcoin's faults by saying "well this is how money already works"? The history of gold is the history of kings. Do you really want more kings? With the sigmoid curve, why would anyone go in first? They would all be fighting over scraps of coins, and all the electricity they burned would be much more efficiently utilized past -2 on the horizontal line, when the coins start coming in abundance. Waiting would encouraged. The coins would start coming into abundance as bitcoin increased in popularity. Posting a message on a crypto board that had all of 10 posts in an entire year is not exactly a big way to get the word out. You say there is no incentive, but if the early adopters could prove its use as a currency such as selling a pizza for 50 BTC instead of 10,000, how would that make any difference? If it had still not taken off by the time the distribution reached maximum (probably 50 btc/10 min) then it was unlikely to take off anyway. But, if it did start working, then as the curve approached 50 btc, you'd have thousands upon thousands of people mining as you do now, and the early adopters would still have a very large sum of bitcoins worth a significant amount of money, but they would not have a complete stranglehold over the supply. I admit, it sounds good, but I don't think it fixes the real "problem": the coins flowing into the hands of a few right up until they have a significant number of them. Excellent, I addressed this in one of my posts where I said it may just be the first big business that starts accepting BTC that becomes the real elite. I'd really like to hear a method that directly addresses the number of participants, and then their subsequent share of coins. encoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49683.0 (again, it's overly complex but I set out to fix 51% attacks, pools, and other issues) Early adopter shit is easy to promote. Give away 2x the coins, whatever. A deflationary currency is going to promote hoarding, and it is going to mean that the wealthy will always have more power over the unwealthy as they do not need to spend 90% or more of their income per year on food and rent. They can always hoard until the value goes too high and causes recession, then buy up property and other things of real value to "spur" the economy or LEND it too. IMO, currency should strive for a stable value so that it cannot be manipulated by the wealthy. The early adopters can get all kinds of bonuses, I don't care about that, as long as they can't use those bonuses to manipulate. Also, I am assuming most people understand this, but if there is a person that owns "375k BTC", and current price on mtgox is 5USD/BTC, that does not actually mean that the person owns 375'000*5=1'875'000 dollars. Would he try to sell all of them, the price would drop during that time, and even if he would try buy stuff/services for those bitcoins, that would also make the price drop because many retailers will sell off those bitcoins pretty fast. So while it maybe difficult to actually determine how much that is worth, it is definetely worth a lot less than just the amount times current price.
The point of avoiding a Rothschild family is looking to the far future and saying "what could happen if this becomes the world currency?" If all the non-material wealth is stored in bitcoin, 375k BTC is worth trillions. When you have trillions, you don't spend it, you manipulate. Look at politicians, ever bending to the will of corporations because they will get piddly sums for their campaigns. Don't you, as a regular citizen of the world, get sick of this shit? Isn't the root of most crime simply due to the fact that many people cannot sustain a life above poverty? When you die, don't you want to be able to give your children the wealth of your many years of hard work? I don't see how bitcoin fixes any of these meta-problems. I don't think bitcoin ever intended to. And I think that is really sad. It isn't the governments manipulating the wealth as so many of you want to believe. It is a very small group of individuals/businesses that are doing so. And bitcoin has this very same capability built in, no central bank required. So you're right, knightmb would never be able to sell his 375k for 2 mil because the market would crash. But is this not the same thing as printing money? |
|
|
|
|
when in doubt, resort to strawman
|
|
|
|
Oh, and you know, the definition of early adopter is relative. Ok yeah, Satoshi had the chance to get a load of Bitcoins 2 years ago, but you know, in 10 years from now, there will be no more new Bitcoins. Those people in 10 years, when they'll enter the Bitcoin market, for them, WE'll be early adopters.
Because if I buy in right now I get to be more powerful than those that follow? Then I would be contributing to the system that I loathe.
..
Is your personal comfort more important than the oppression of the world? You may be able to pander to many with this carrot, but this does not pander to me. The promise of wealth for nothing is not something I desire, because I know it comes at a cost to someone else. Convince ME. |
|
|
|
|
Pardon me, but you sir are a moron that doesn't understand debt-based money. I will not be feeding the trolls.
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't that mean that whatever direction the value of money is moving, a part of "the rich" will always be winning, and a part will always be loosing? Doesn't that kind of undermine your whole "the rich always win" thing?
Perhaps it would undermine my point if you care to explain what you mean. But, as I stated in a previous post, the linear graph of money equals an exponential graph of power. The richest of the rich stand to benefit no matter which way the value of money moves. Those on the cusp could be easily delegated back to the middle class--something that those in power would have no issue with. |
|
|
|
The early adopters of bitcoin have the potential to become very wealthy. That is true. However, they do not have the power to continually create more money. Creating money or restricting money, the end result is the same: the poor lose, the rich win. This has nothing to do with inflation, it has to do with he who controls the money has more power than that money should be worth. Creating money for inflation, withholding money for deflation. They are two sides of the same coin of control. Inflationists profit off of keeping you mortgaging your life away in debt and interest, deflationists profit off of paying you less and less to do what you did before. Want to pretend that investment, loans, and banking won't exist in a deflationary currency? All right then, let's go back to the feudal system, because you will have precisely zero opportunity to improve your standing in life if you grow up in a poor or middle class family. |
|
|
|
- Perhaps this is where the disagreement is rooted. The banks don't exsist because money supply somehow "becomes constricted". Money supply is constricted *by* the banks acting in cencert by calling in old loans and not giving out new loans. This is exactly why the housing boomhas been turned on its head, and all things economic are going 'bad'. That is a core problem with fractional reserve banking - that money supply can be (and is) manipulated up and then down in the so-called "busness cycles" (should be called "property confiscation cycles"). I understand and I agree with where your coming from. What I'm saying is that the bitcoin elite have the same power as those banks but in a different form. They ALREADY control the wealth, it just isn't worth that much yet. To cause a business cycle, the elite need only work in concert to remove money from the supply. Cash out investments, hoard, and voila you have the exact same situation. Want to buy my car for 1 BTC? Please, please do so because I need to buy food. This is the same system under a different guise. Answering this with platitudes such as "well they'll probably spend it" and such does not solve the inherent problem and is based on hopes and wishes, not reality. Give them the opportunity, and they will seize it. This is true, but there has never before existed any form of money which was convenient for commerce and at the same time fixed (predictable) in supply. THIS is the key. This kind of money has never been tried before. This is incorrect. The gold supply was (relatively) fixed. Currencies (gold certificates) used to be pegged to their countries' gold supply. Yes, fractional reserve is part of the problem. But really, it isn't fractional reserve, it is interest that is the problem. Calling for an end to fractional reserve is a whole other debate that I don't really want to get into. Gold could be manipulated - and thus failed - because people lent it to banks/custodians. They did this because gold certificates (not fixed in supply) were vastly more useful for commerce than physical gold. But why on earth would I lend out my bitcoin to anyone?? Everyone can and should be their own bank with bitcoin. In a highly deflationary currency such as bitcoin, spending would essentially be the same as lending at negative interest. I can buy X now, but I will surely lose value over holding on to that money. It's not exactly a great system for trade. Not only were gold certificates useful for commerce, they were also useful for fractional reserve. And fractional reserve does have beneficial consequences. I would never dream of storing any ammount of bitcoin with an ewallet or exchange which won't give me a unique bitcoin address so that I can verify my holdings on the blockchain and check that aren't practising fractional reserve with my money by lending out *my* bitcoin. And, in effect, you will use your wealth to keep the poor under your foot. By not trading or investing, you contribute to the constriction of the money supply and allow yourself to purchase goods and services at a deflated rate. By the time you have spent, then and only then is the money less constricted. You benefit, everyone else loses. |
|
|
|
Ask yoursef: How many BTC are concentrated in the hands of, say, the top 100 holders? And how many of these have the same (evil?) agenda?? I said I don't want to discuss that. We just have to agree that it is a sizable portion, and unless the community demands transparency with the threat of withdrawal, it will never happen. And the agenda is not necessarily evil, but power does corrupt. If you hand the opportunity for an average joe to dominate, how many will refuse? Compared to today's world where, after having legal title to an estimated 50% of all the wealth in the world, Rothshild and their friends went into stealth mode operating via control of institutions like the Bank of England, the FED, the World Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, IMF and probably also the ECB (plus lately direct control over the governments of Italy and Greece).
These guys (probably *very* few individuals) effectively control 50-80 of all the assets of the World. And why do institutions like the Bank of England, the Fed, et al exist? Because at some point there was a constriction in the money supply. Do you expect the Satoshi Group to simply give money away during these times? Or would you expect them to, I dunno, start a bank so they could loan it out? Or perhaps buy investment assets at highly reduced, deflated rates? It doesn't have to be the early adopters per se, it can be the first hugely successful business to accept bitcoins like cash. They could quickly amass a large percentage of the coins in existence and wait for the proper time. As long as people say *no* to promise-to-pay bitcoin (like mtGox vouchers, ect.) But historically people haven't said no, so why would bitcoin be any different? The right now benefits are obvious, the future implications are not. I already explained this many times, go read about it. Furthermore, your argument makes no sense either standalone nor as a reaction to mine. This is the internet, provide a link. This is the internet, bear with me for not necessarily agreeing with you and being aware that facts and opinions are often intertwined. |
|
|
|
Satoshi and/or a dozen others could bring the market to its knees tomorrow.
Under what incentive? Ask yourself this, also, because we are all early adopters. Who are you to say that those with the power would not use it to threaten or coerce? |
|
|
|
Point 2: The design of a decentralized system to stabilize price via coin supply manipulation is going to be complex. You would need to lay out the incentives of all the agents involved in mathematical detail. Do you have the skill-set necessary for this? Have you made any progress in this direction? I believe I have the skillset to lay a foundation for this. My intent would always be to get the input of as many minds as possible rather than forging ahead without. I'm smart, but I have no qualms about (eventually) admitting that someone has a better idea than me.  As far as progress, I came up with some more ideas and never fully fleshed out the wiki, but that was due to a relative lack of interest, Red's disappearance, and point 3. Point 3: You are not sufficiently qualified to make a contribution here. This is a bit harsh, but yes I admitted from the start that this project was over my head to bring to fruition. However, I do excel at designing programmatical structures, if mostly in principle and less so in practice (but not that much less so). I was willing to pay someone to help. The design isn't over my head though some of the programming may be. But I wanted input and got very little. Mostly the same claims of "it can't be done" just as many would have and did say about p2p digital currency before the existence of bitcoin. If I can't do it on my own and no one will help, the project has little chance of succeeding. There it lies. |
|
|
|
add Bitcoin as a payment method
Bitcoin is a fiat cryptocurrency that is quickly gaining wider acceptance. I would like to see it enabled as an automated payment option. Is this FUD your doing? Curious as to what part of the statement is FUD. I don't see anything inaccurate about the bolded part. |
|
|
|
No. You first need understand how those banking moguls came about and what enabled their plundering. And if you ask the right questions you'll learn that the fact is that without government regulations, a centrally planed monetary system by the central bank and without legislated fractional reserve lending and FDIC insured baking they would have never ever gotten what they have.
With bitcoin it can't be centrally planed, no one controls it and the rules under which it was born virtually can't be changed. No doubt government legislation made things worse, but the reality is it started under fractional reserve and the state of the people always owing more money to the wealthy than does exist. Saying things like "can't be centrally planned" and "no one controls it" sounds like rhetoric to me. Satoshi and/or a dozen others could bring the market to its knees tomorrow. That is a heavy form of control. Satoshi and/or a dozen others chose not to release any coins on the run up to USD $30. Who are you to say that this process could not repeat itself many years down the road if bitcoin were to become the primary currency of the world? Who are you to say that those with the power would not use it to threaten or coerce? Are you really willing to put that much faith into this system? Because it sounds to me like you are ripe to be duped again. I could be wrong, but why take the risk? Everyone seems to want to believe that if bitcoin were to become more popular, it would be less manipulable. I fail to see how. I see the opposite. I get the impression that some people think Bitcoin is supposed to usher in a Utopian era where there is no more war and hunger and abusive government power. This is not going to happen, nor was it intended to be. Bitcoin cannot and was not intended to end concentrations of wealth and power. An honest post. So since you believe that it wasn't intended to do any of these things, why do you support it (assuming you do)? Do you take any issue with the history of money and how it has been used to deprive people of wealth? Do you just accept this as a fact of life and move on? Would you be quick to jump to a different system that actually tried to break away from this? Or is bitcoin just a novelty? I stopped reading here
Gheddafi was a dictator and a terrorist.
Oh and i am NOT american.
Not trying to insinuate that anyone is an American who isn't, just portraying my point of view. Do you think Nelson Mandela is a terrorist? Because they supported each other. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaddafiLibya enjoys large natural resources,[49] which Gaddafi utilized to help develop the country. Under Gaddafi's Jamahiriya "direct democracy" state,[47] the country's literacy rate rose from 10% to 90%, life expectancy rose from 57 to 77 years, equal rights were established for women and black people, employment opportunities were established for migrant workers, and welfare systems were introduced that allowed access to free education, free healthcare, and financial assistance for housing.[50] In addition, financial support was provided for university scholarships and employment programs.[51] Gaddafi also initiated development of the Great Manmade River,[50] in order to allow free access to fresh water across large parts of the country.[50] The country was developed without taking any foreign loans, and, as a result, Libya was debt-free.[14]
..
A national vote on Gaddafi's plan to disband the government and give oil money directly to the people was held in 2009, where Libya's people's congresses, the country's highest authority, voted to delay implementation. The General People's Congress announced that, out of 468 Basic People's Congresses, 64 chose immediate implementation while 251 endorsed implementation "but asked for (it) to be delayed until appropriate measures were put in place." This plan led to dissent from top government officials, who claimed it would "wreak havoc" in the economy by "fanning inflation and spurring capital flight." Gaddafi acknowledged that the scheme, which promised up to 30,000 Libyan dinars ($23,000) annually to about a million of Libya's poorest, may "cause chaos before it brought about prosperity," but claimed that "Do not be afraid to experiment with a new form of government" and that "This plan is to offer a better future for Libya's children."[48][67]
In December 2009, Gaddafi personally told government officials that Libya would soon experience a "new political period" and would have elections for important positions such as minister-level roles and the National Security Advisor position (a Prime Minister equivalent). He also promised to include international monitors to ensure fair elections. His speech was said to have caused quite a stir. These elections were planned to coincide with the Jamahiriya's usual periodic elections for members of the Popular Committees, Basic People's Committees, Basic People's Congresses, and General People's Congress, in 2011[68] 2012 I know it's wikipedia and all that, but these don't seem to be the actions of a terrorist and a dictator. You have to agree that most of Africa is a bit behind the curve when it comes to democracy, but it looks to me as if Gaddafi was heading the country in the right direction. Pre-parliamentary kings of England were certainly dictators, but that is history. Why must the world impose its will on a people that seemed to be doing just fine, in the grand scheme of things? Did Libya attack any other sovereign nation? Was Libya committing genocide? Where was the US and NATO during 1998 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? As long as wealth is a meaningful concept, you will have people with more power and, correspondigly, people with less of it. Wealth enables you to get people to do things for you, or to other people. Bitcoin won't do away with that. I don't begrudge that. I'm not asking for a world where everybody has the same slice of the pie. That would stifle humanity just as quickly. What I'm asking for is something that can keep that power in check by the will of the people. I don't see how bitcoin is any alternative in that respect. |
|
|
|
Very interesting, could you please elaborate, what policy is that? Well I gave the example of Executive Order 6102, criminalizing the possession of monetary gold in amounts above $100. It further degraded the ability of the people to own wealth in anything other than green paper. Green paper that has famously decreased 2,500% in value since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Thousands upon thousands of laws since then that are designed to protect corporate interests to the detriment of society as a whole. Once again, do you have any actual suggestions? Everything can be manipulated, what are we supposed to do about it?
I proposed a stable value currency. I plan on proposing another, simpler one. After tons of input I realized I couldn't base it on energy, so I based it on economy. The growing pains of a gold-based currency (strict supply) were evidenced throughout recent history. The wealthy stood to benefit immensely each time, while the poor starved in some cases. All because of money. The ultimate threat the people can have against a wealthy regime intent on grabbing power is the ability to create new currency. If the government controls the creation of new currency, then the wealthy will surely have a disproportionately large say in how that currency is created. If the wealthy control the creation of new currency, well we're just right fucked then now aren't we? And that is the scenario in which we are currently living. So, let the people dig for gold in their backyard, so to speak. Again I don't want to rehash everything I talked about with encoin here, I came here looking for what you guys had to say. Or to see if you could convince me that bitcoin wasn't the s.o.s. Not that you have any obligation to, but I believe the problems with bitcoin will become much more apparent down the road and will eventually lead to its collapse. Or, against all odds, it bears into yet another system of serfdom and lords. |
|
|
|
But don't they do it through the power of the state?
Yes, using the Rothschild name is probably an exaggeration nowadays, but the tone has been set for future policy. The US government has made it a policy to keep wealth out of the hands of the people because that would make the people powerful, and that is not a good thing for the existing upper class. E.O. 6102 lol. Is it written somewhere that the state is infallible and does what is in the best interest of its people or the people of the world? What does it matter who signs the order when the order is designed to oppress? How much might does public opinion really have in any sort of 1st-world republic? Bitcoin had a chance to be the next gold, but I just don't see how it can accomplish that with a stranglehold on the supply. Whether it's satoshi or some other forward-thinker, it doesn't matter. The bitcoin currency, were it to become very popular, would eventually begin to work its way into an upper echelon of people and those people would have control over the economy. That is why I think a fixed supply of coins is a horrible idea. Hopefully, the cycle would break and a new system of money would have to be designed again. Since the current system is still entrenched even after several hundred years, it seems the people aren't too well aware of what is going on. I have to believe eventually the people will be fed the fuck up with this shit, and OWS is the beginning of that movement, so why not capitalize on it with a real solution, not one that is more of the same? Or can someone convince me that bitcoin is not more of the same. Because I would FUCKING LOVE to take power away from the powerful, I would FUCKING LOVE to shirk them and their oppression. I am begging for the opportunity. I would love to see a society where a linear graph in money does not equal an exponential graph in power. I started talking excitedly with my friends about bitcoin when I first discovered it. I haven't mentioned it in many months. Give me back that excitement; let me see the revolution. Alternatively, perhaps we should discuss what it would take in a currency to actually revolutionize money. Yeah crypto-doodads are great and all, but it doesn't fix money on its own. And it would be impossible to convince me that bitcoin can't be manipulated, and that is the core problem behind the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Does anyone disagree? Does anyone care? |
|
|
|
I demolished the argument about "Bitcoin FRB" several times over. Check out prior threads as well as wiki. Since in general, Bitcoin-based debt instruments do not decrease transaction costs compared to real Bitcoin, they can't compete with it on a free market. If, say, banks issued clay tablets with engravings, instead of bank notes and cheques, these clay tablets would never become substitutes of gold. They would not circulate. The situation is analogous to debt instruments based on Bitcoin. They are clumsy to use and incompatible with the Bitcoin network. This is silly. This is like saying gold certificates will never work. Just because bitcoin is already convenient doesn't make a whit of difference if one bank will give you a loan but the other won't because it cannot cover its reserve. Why are you so worried about Rothschilds? Rothschilds can't expropriate your property or put you into prison. Nakamoto can't do that either. Only the state can do that. I don't want to derail into evidence-supported conspiracy theories, but the Rothschilds can and likely do just that. Sure I'm a US citizen so it's pretty unlikely that it will happen to me, but were I a citizen of Libya I might feel much differently. And Libya is just the most recent and obvious; throughout recent history there is evidence of war manipulation to serve the Bank of England's purposes. |
|
|
|
We don't live in an ideal world. Practical solutions need to be post-"status quo". I think this is a good one. What alternative do you propose instead?
I proposed encoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49683.0 but it is overly complex for a first run. I'm working on a much simpler idea that would be hackable into the bitcoin codebase. The "early adopters" would benefit by getting extra money in times when the value of the currency is higher than its cost to produce and thus bring the value back in line more quickly. In times where the value is too low, transaction fees would increase and destroy existing currency. It's a bit more complex on that, and I am struggling a bit with some of the formulas, but I will post something eventually. Unfortunately it still suffers from the major problems of the 51% attack and the constant waste of energy, whereas the proposal for encoin has solutions for those. But I don't want to sidetrack too much on that here. Fractional reserve banking isn't a problem without a central bank and the FDIC.
Edit: And to be honest, this comes back to responsibility. If you want to put your money in a bank that practices fractional reserve, well you have to deal with the consequences. Bitcoin makes it so easy to store your own wealth, it's fairly ridiculous to use a bank at all! As long as people keep creating new ways to use Bitcoins, technology will render normal banking practices obsolete.
Part of the Austrian philosophy is that inflation causes over-investment and the business cycle. I believe this to be true. Fractional reserve causes inflation and it will do so in a deflationary currency in the same, if not a more pronounced, manner. One of the phenominal benefits that bitcoin has going for it is that if a bank goes bankrupt, you lose your money, so consumers would have to be extremely wary of 10% reserve ratios. However, this means that credit crunches will have no viable answer except to turn to the extremely wealthy, such as what JP Morgan did in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Again making the rich richer and the poor poorer. |
|
|
|
bitcoin is not a debt-based currency. Bitcoin is not a debt-based currency, yet. I am looking to the far future. In a system where the production of currency is strictly limited, you can bet your bottom bitcoin that fractional reserve will run rampant. And it will have to, lest JP Satoshi step in to save the economy during recessions and profit immensely on the misery of others. |
|
|
|
The rich aren't the problem. It's the barrier to entry into their "club" that is the problem. Barrier to entry coming from laws, regulations, and rules that favor those already in control. Of course they sell these to the public as safety measures, protecting the innocent from the evil forces of the world. And my question remains, what does bitcoin accomplish that is any different from the status quo? Are we to naively believe that it is not a system ripe for fractional reserve and debt-based slavery? Do we really just boil bitcoin down to "an easy way to send money over the internet"? I want an explanation for why the creator of this brave new economy chooses to remain anonymous.
I find it strikingly odd that 3 US presidents who were vehemently opposed to central banking were assassinated.
 Hilarious point taken. But even if satoshi were assassinated, Bitcoin would surely live on, making the assassination quite futile. After Kennedy was assassinated, his debt-free money was quickly removed from circulation. This might be too personal of a question, but after reading your post that finishes with this question, I had to ask.
Do you pay taxes? Do you use the central banks money?
I can't change the fact that I was born into oppression. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
