GoldMoney [FB post]: James Turk in conversation with Félix Moreno de la Cova

[hazek]

UPDATE: Up now! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzHC7Pf2fk




James Turk in conversation with Félix Moreno de la Cova talking gold and bitcoin. Video to be released soon.
https://www.facebook.com/goldmoneyresearch




I wonder if James had his epiphany yet about Bitcoin or if he will repeat the same nonsense "it's digital ultimate fiat bla bla bla"

[1714168265]

1714168265

[1714168265]

1714168265

[1714168265]

1714168265

[1714168265]

1714168265

[Fizzgig]

Very much looking forward to that!

[cypherdoc]

looking forward to this.

[hazek]

Apparently:

GoldMoney: we have a lot of new content coming up, the video will be posted next week

I feel like a bait and switch has been pulled on me but let's see when it comes what it'll be.

[flix]

I wonder if James had his epiphany yet about Bitcoin or if he will repeat the same nonsense "it's digital ultimate fiat bla bla bla"

Well, by definition, it cannot be fiat money if it is voluntary. "Fiat" indicates a government mandate, decree or command... in short: force. As is the case with legal tender laws.

As in "fiat lux" = "Let there be light" (by divine will...). It implies that governments have the power to make something just by their almighty say-so. It's almost a flashback to the divine rights of kings.

fi·at   [fee-aht, -at; fahy-uht, -at]
noun
1. an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2.a fixed form of words containing the word fiat,  by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3.an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.

[evoorhees]

I wonder if James had his epiphany yet about Bitcoin or if he will repeat the same nonsense "it's digital ultimate fiat bla bla bla"

Well, by definition, it cannot be fiat money if it is voluntary. "Fiat" indicates a government mandate, decree or command... in short: force. As is the case with legal tender laws.

As in "fiat lux" = "Let there be light" (by divine will...). It implies that governments have the power to make something just by their almighty say-so. It's almost a flashback to the divine rights of kings.

fi·at   [fee-aht, -at; fahy-uht, -at]
noun
1. an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2.a fixed form of words containing the word fiat,  by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3.an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.

It always amazes me how many people who claim to "know money" have not yet learned the real meaning of fiat: value by decree.

It's fine if someone wants to say Bitcoin is "not backed by anything" (intelligent people can argue this both ways)... but it is inaccurate to say it is "fiat."

[Severian]

It always amazes me how many people who claim to "know money" have not yet learned the real meaning of fiat: value by decree.

I keep waiting for humanity to get sick of Sumerian economic theory and bitcoin is the first tool in my knowledge that actually gives us a shot at breaking free of it. 5000 years of this crap is long enough.

[cypherdoc]

I wonder if James had his epiphany yet about Bitcoin or if he will repeat the same nonsense "it's digital ultimate fiat bla bla bla"

Well, by definition, it cannot be fiat money if it is voluntary. "Fiat" indicates a government mandate, decree or command... in short: force. As is the case with legal tender laws.

As in "fiat lux" = "Let there be light" (by divine will...). It implies that governments have the power to make something just by their almighty say-so. It's almost a flashback to the divine rights of kings.

fi·at   [fee-aht, -at; fahy-uht, -at]
noun
1. an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2.a fixed form of words containing the word fiat,  by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3.an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.

It always amazes me how many people who claim to "know money" have not yet learned the real meaning of fiat: value by decree.

It's fine if someone wants to say Bitcoin is "not backed by anything" (intelligent people can argue this both ways)... but it is inaccurate to say it is "fiat."

when a supposed "expert" dismisses a new idea so carelessly you know they have a vested interest in doing so.

[hazek]

I wonder if James had his epiphany yet about Bitcoin or if he will repeat the same nonsense "it's digital ultimate fiat bla bla bla"

Well, by definition, it cannot be fiat money if it is voluntary. "Fiat" indicates a government mandate, decree or command... in short: force. As is the case with legal tender laws.

As in "fiat lux" = "Let there be light" (by divine will...). It implies that governments have the power to make something just by their almighty say-so. It's almost a flashback to the divine rights of kings.

fi·at   [fee-aht, -at; fahy-uht, -at]
noun
1. an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2.a fixed form of words containing the word fiat,  by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3.an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.

It always amazes me how many people who claim to "know money" have not yet learned the real meaning of fiat: value by decree.

It's fine if someone wants to say Bitcoin is "not backed by anything" (intelligent people can argue this both ways)... but it is inaccurate to say it is "fiat."

There is another interpretation of "fiat = let it be" where it doesn't mean a decree but rather just that it was created out of thin air, you know like how the fairly tale about god creating stuff goes where he supposedly said: "Let there be light." and there was light and it was good bla bla bla...

But yeah I too understand fiat to mean by a decree rather than being created out of nothing.

[flix]

Understanding Bitcoin Security - Trace Mayer interviewed by VisionVictory

http://youtu.be/OtN9YUvh_XM

[evoorhees]

I wonder if James had his epiphany yet about Bitcoin or if he will repeat the same nonsense "it's digital ultimate fiat bla bla bla"

Well, by definition, it cannot be fiat money if it is voluntary. "Fiat" indicates a government mandate, decree or command... in short: force. As is the case with legal tender laws.

As in "fiat lux" = "Let there be light" (by divine will...). It implies that governments have the power to make something just by their almighty say-so. It's almost a flashback to the divine rights of kings.

fi·at   [fee-aht, -at; fahy-uht, -at]
noun
1. an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2.a fixed form of words containing the word fiat,  by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3.an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.

It always amazes me how many people who claim to "know money" have not yet learned the real meaning of fiat: value by decree.

It's fine if someone wants to say Bitcoin is "not backed by anything" (intelligent people can argue this both ways)... but it is inaccurate to say it is "fiat."

There is another interpretation of "fiat = let it be" where it doesn't mean a decree but rather just that it was created out of thin air, you know like how the fairly tale about god creating stuff goes where he supposedly said: "Let there be light." and there was light and it was good bla bla bla...

But yeah I too understand fiat to mean by a decree rather than being created out of nothing.

I think it's important to emphasize the better definition - fiat meaning "by decree." It's a very important term in that sense, to understand a money having value by force. If we want to make a new term to describe money that is "backed by nothing" then we can do so (though I'll argue gold will fall in that category as well )

[Severian]

If we want to make a new term to describe money that is "backed by nothing" then we can do so

It's called "money".

[hazek]

I wonder if James had his epiphany yet about Bitcoin or if he will repeat the same nonsense "it's digital ultimate fiat bla bla bla"

Well, by definition, it cannot be fiat money if it is voluntary. "Fiat" indicates a government mandate, decree or command... in short: force. As is the case with legal tender laws.

As in "fiat lux" = "Let there be light" (by divine will...). It implies that governments have the power to make something just by their almighty say-so. It's almost a flashback to the divine rights of kings.

fi·at   [fee-aht, -at; fahy-uht, -at]
noun
1. an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat. Synonyms: authorization, directive, ruling, mandate, diktat, ukase.
2.a fixed form of words containing the word fiat,  by which a person in authority gives sanction, or authorization.
3.an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.

It always amazes me how many people who claim to "know money" have not yet learned the real meaning of fiat: value by decree.

It's fine if someone wants to say Bitcoin is "not backed by anything" (intelligent people can argue this both ways)... but it is inaccurate to say it is "fiat."

There is another interpretation of "fiat = let it be" where it doesn't mean a decree but rather just that it was created out of thin air, you know like how the fairly tale about god creating stuff goes where he supposedly said: "Let there be light." and there was light and it was good bla bla bla...

But yeah I too understand fiat to mean by a decree rather than being created out of nothing.

I think it's important to emphasize the better definition - fiat meaning "by decree." It's a very important term in that sense, to understand a money having value by force. If we want to make a new term to describe money that is "backed by nothing" then we can do so (though I'll argue gold will fall in that category as well )

I 100% agree with everything you said, the gold part too

[hazek]

Oh, here we go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzHC7Pf2fk

Watching right now..

EDIT: heh James still has problems with tangibility of biticoins, he thinks because he can touch a gold coin that's somehow the reason people all around the world will accept it

EDIT1: well at least he seems to be open to it and wont reject it outright but I'm slightly disappoint, can't be too surprised it's typical of someone a bit older (no offense to anyone, I understand there are many exceptions)

[flix]

Yes, James is not convinced...

[cypherdoc]

on the one hand James says he looks forward to the return of a tangible currency as his vision for Goldmoney but neglects the fact that he is trying to revive his internet based digital gold tx system which is key to its success and which has so far failed and been restricted to Jersey.  this fails b/c it is an abstraction system layered on top of physical gold which can be manipulated or fractionally reserved by James himself.  not that i believe he is dishonest but the threat is there. it is also subject to regulation b/c of its centralization which is why the digital tx system got relegated to Jersey only.

he also neglects the fact that his operation is no better than eGold which was a centralized entity which can be shut down at any moment or forced to abandon its digital tx system as has already happened.  James doesn't understand peer to peer or decentralization which is the antithesis of what he is as Goldmoney.

the Bitcoin network is tangible in my opinion.  it consists of the cables, computers, and ppl involved in backing it.  not to mention all the fiat that has been spent to make these things happen.

[cypherdoc]

i was a former Goldmoney holder and the reason i shut down my acct and liquidated my gold holdings was precisely b/c of the centralized fear of it being shut down by a gov't and my gold being seized.  James doesn't even consider this possibility.

[cypherdoc]

Yes, James is not convinced...

yes, but his tone was much more conciliatory and guardedly optimistic than prior.  Trace must be hammering on him.

[tvbcof]

...
the Bitcoin network is tangible in my opinion.  it consists of the cables, computers, and ppl involved in backing it.  not to mention all the fiat that has been spent to make these things happen.

Bah.  It's tangible (imo) because it's effectively irreproducible (just like gold, but simply leveraging different mechanics.)

Interesting thing is that one block chain is as good as another for actually doing accounting.  Similarly, a brick of gold is no better or worse than a brick of lead for knocking someone on the head if that is the goal.  But it's not.  If the very goal is to do reliable accounting, a block of substance with a specific number or protons in the specific number of nuclei, and a balance in the what I call 'blockchain zero' have a very strong similarity.  And both gold and Bitcoin(orig) have the 'mindshare' required to serve their purpose.  For now at least.

[cypherdoc]

...
the Bitcoin network is tangible in my opinion.  it consists of the cables, computers, and ppl involved in backing it.  not to mention all the fiat that has been spent to make these things happen.

Bah.  It's tangible (imo) because it's effectively irreproducible (just like gold, but simply leveraging different mechanics.)

certainly thats part of the equation for Bitcoin.  one really needs to consider the whole concept to effectively understand it.  its no wonder that sunnankar is spending so much time trying to explain why Bitcoin is "tangible" here on the forum.  its b/c of Turk.  i think its somewhat of a red herring anyways.  i'd much more prefer to argue that it has "backing" which is the most common complaint i hear.