What I'm wondering is if Coinbase used the world 'support' to be "availability of trading platform" in those States and not to say it was regulated/licensed.

First they deny it
Second they try to destroy it
Third they befriend it
Lastly they assimilate

Yeah, look into SDRs if you haven't already. They are potential claims on freely usable currencies available to IMF members. Not a currency per say, but an asset reserve. Value is determined by a few of the economic powerhouse currencies of nations with ties to the IMF: US, Japan, Euro, Great Britain.

100% agreement here, just the normative evil of the world. I urge you to check out the FDIC website regarding historical reserves since the 70s. They publish yearly values. If you look at their ratios, you will soon realize that even the FDIC hasn't remained solvent (they are public). They are below a ratio of 1:1 many years now. It's quite sad, but the system is backed by the Fed which is backed by the USG. Centralization allows this to occur unchecked.


They don't want you to know because it relinquishes their control on you as a customer. If you don't know, you are forced to believe in them and form a bond of trust. This makes the equation one-sided and it doesn't benefit the customer (us). This is what they want.

We can ask all we want, take our business elsewhere, etc., but if mainstream gets it, you can bet it will go this way. The sheeple do not care about transparency. It is not important to them; I'd dare to say most like not having to make any decisions of their own. It boggles my mind sometimes.

I agree from an idealistic stand point, but I don't think countries would like to inherit other nation's problems using a global currency.


IMO, this won't happen. I believe the best we can hope for is a globally-backed world reserve currency that allows each nation to exchange its fiat for shares of the world reserve according to set rates.

Especially in this forum, just want to point out your comment is very wise and something I subscribe to myself. In a lot of ways, the middle class is voluntarily hanging itself. We need to get re-energized about our place in the world once more. Prior to these inflated decades of entitlement, the middle class man was revered for his sense of duty, honor and commitment to family and friends. He worked hard and it stood for something. Getting rich was not his idea of life, though perhaps a by-product.

Maybe he meant the same wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people?

It all depends on what your goal of using the technology is.

Investing in Bitcoin:

- Has the potential to net you some nice tidy fiat sums if the tech becomes very popular. Once full implementation and all coins have been minted/dispersed your chances of returning a handsome profit decrease.

Investing in Bitcoin Stock market:

- Provided there was one, you would have public assurance and protection from a highly regulated industry. You could earn tidy profits given your financial market prowess and guessing skills.

Perhaps buying BTC short-term (5-10 years)
BTC stock market (if created) long-term (10+ years)

The problem will be if BTC goes the way of public or private. Currently the tech is public, but all business surrounding it is mostly private.

The mainstream at large is allowing demanding Bitcoin to go this way. Exchanges are the interface between the customer and the miners (BTC minter) just as banks are the interface between the customer and the Fed (money creator). It has been shown time and time again trust is difficult in practice. Not saying I agree with it, but it appears this is a necessary evil if the technology is to be implemented in the real world.

Another problem is that the technology may be public, however; all infrastructure is private. As nice as it sounds, demanding solvency audits and inner circle information doesn't have to happen with private industry.

I'd guess neither. It will be utilized on the national level of various countries. Unification of currencies to one of global use offers no true benefits to any country.

I think you mean most of America. The poor enjoy QE as well as banks. By the poor, I mean people obsessed with buying shit they don't need with money they don't have.

Banks enjoy it because they can now lend money at better rates to people who don't need that money in the first place. Lower interest rates allow the poor to stay poor (by buying extra shit) and the rich to get richer (taking enormous loans at low rates to facilitate greater business opportunities cheap credit allows). It hurts everyone depending on the way you look at it.

1) Fed. Reserve creates and credits its accounts with "new money"
2) Fed. buys US Treasury bonds with this new money
3) This injects new money into the system (interest rates are effected here)
4) Commercial banks lend the new money into existence based on their view of the economy at that moment
4.5) The US Government also brings new money into existence through government-sponsored programs

There will always be borrowers, whether then are individual people or other banks or other businesses.

Prior to the Fed. Reserve Act, banks and lenders were not required to be part of a centralized network or keep a set amount of non-interest bearing reserves around. The high interest rates and huge economic inflation caused the bank run. America was in dire straits before the 1930s. Lots of wars, Great Depression, famines, economic uncertainty, etc. No individual could get a loan for anything because banks refused to lend, so the people tried to get their money out. It most likely was a combo of the banks didn't have the money, people made a huge run on the bank en masse and banks refused to lend.

Prior to the FRA or the creation of the Fed, banks were not dependent on a centralized system. Without the Fed America would not be where it is today (both good and bad). Before, banks didn't create new money, it was made up of people who actually leant money they physically owned.  With the Fed, new money can be created out of thin air and used to allow the country to profit in an unlimited manner.

Now banks are required to purchase non-transferrable stock in their reserve bank forcing banks to abide by a centralized money making unit (the Fed). This ensures the system will only break if all the pieces crumble. Makes it very difficult if everyone (all banks and lenders) must abide by rules that keep them vested in the money maker (the Fed). This centralized system made banks of yesteryear less powerful (controlling the economy totally), more corruptible and more controllable.

Coinffeine (coming soon) is one I know of. The UI has a nice look. However, I bet their biggest problem will be getting enough financing. Banks don't like decentralized anything.

http://www.coindesk.com/coinffeine-demonstrates-distributed-p2p-bitcoin-exchange-platform/

People suck. Evolutionarily, trust is not innate so your post rings a harsh reality. A tradeoff indeed, but an exciting one at that!

Nicely said. This is true. I'm arm chairing, I do not deny this. Also, I am not trying to peg the elite as bad people. Money begets money. Just trying to point out and facilitate a discussion regarding switching out the present meat grinder for one more community focused. Any thoughts regarding development in any specific direction? Things you'd like to see? Theories?

Yeah, true. The West is definitely punishing Putin. No doubt. Also, low oil prices have been used as a last ditch effort to reinvigorate a stalled or failing economy. The price to produce a barrel of oil in the hasn't changed much. Sits around $50 for domestic crude, ~$20 in the middle east, but the prices sure do on the consumer level at the gas station!

Don't worry about the number of coins long-term, that is immaterial. Power/control will not come from 'owning a piece of the technology,' but will come from overseeing those that develop it and interact with the customer of it (i.e. the USG controls fiscal policy by regulating fiat generation through treasury bonds, not by holding onto huge quantities of fiat).

A sad reality isn't it? Here's another thought for you. King Abdullah just died. The US has been spoon-feeding him exorbitant amounts of USD for decades in return for "conservative" fiscal policies regarding oil; Salman is inheriting a rule filled with angry people. Oil prices down a coincidence? The petrodollar under threat? Digital currencies taking the MainStage? Grooming for BTC to become the next SDR by the IMF?

Edit: This is a lot of tin foiling I realize. Now I'm getting side tracked from the true discussion.

Since guerrilla armies are actually supported by most large powerhouse countries (US included), it works to their favor. You now have a paperless trail for the buying and selling of arms masked as transparent system.

For instance: the guerrillas get arms or BTC (a non-fiat digital asset with arbitrary value, backed by nothing national but worth something; USD) in exchange for doing the dirty work of the US in global policy. When shit hits the fan, the USG can say "hey it's not our money, we didn't finance it. We didn't blow up those people. A great way to shirk responsibility and keep the world at our beckon call.

The US wants its friends close and its enemies closer. I wouldn't say the US wants world domination (this is too much for one plate). The US controls the world's reserve status. It's what keeps other countries dependent on us in a time in history when the US doesn't produce much and all we do is export money.

Aww man, it's like you've read all my posts and my mind. Amen brother.

--Bitcoin is the brainchild of a think tank decades ago? Definitely.

--For undermining other nations? Absolutely.

--Defending a dying petro dollar? Bingo.

--A way for negating large swaths of foreign debt obligations in the future? Check.

Bitcoin is like the military. People will come into it with their own idealized beliefs, be leveled by the powers and exit an avid touter of its value (from the military's perspective) or end up PTSD'd in a system that never cared about them to begin with.