Are we delusional?

[JimboToronto]

...money has to go into the system to give bitcoin a value...

"The system"?

It seems you're missing the point of Bitcoin.

It's not about USD, EUR. CNY or any other currency. It's also not about the existing banking system.

It's about a decentralized wealth transfer system immune to outside control and/or meddling by governments or other entities.

When someone paid 10k bitcoins for 2 pizzas he gave Bitcoin value beyond fiat currencies or the existing monetary system.

He made a point of saying that he didn't mind if the pizzas were homemade and listed ingredients he liked and didn't like.

The fact that the person acquiring the bitcoins used a credit card to pay for delivery of the pizzas is beside the point.

Barter is barter. Instead of pizzas and bitcoins it could have been alpaca socks or liters of maple syrup.

What caught my attention in the video was the shill-like anti-Bitcoin stance displayed by the commentator. It seemed typical of many in the financial community.

Of course bankers and others in financial service industries (including their media) are uncomfortable with Bitcoin.

Some governments are as well, obviously, because of taxation issues. Smarter governments realize that the open nature of the blockchain is actually a boon to tracing the movement of wealth. Here in Canada, income paid in barter is taxable, and Bitcoin is treated like any other commodity, be it chickens or barrels of crude.

[TheRealistMassiah1]

...money has to go into the system to give bitcoin a value...

"The system"?

It seems you're missing the point of Bitcoin.

It's not about USD, EUR. CNY or any other currency. It's also not about the existing banking system.

It's about a decentralized wealth transfer system immune to outside control and/or meddling by governments or other entities.

When someone paid 10k bitcoins for 2 pizzas he gave Bitcoin value beyond fiat currencies or the existing monetary system.

He made a point of saying that he didn't mind if the pizzas were homemade and listed ingredients he liked and didn't like.

The fact that the person acquiring the bitcoins used a credit card to pay for delivery of the pizzas is beside the point.

Barter is barter. Instead of pizzas and bitcoins it could have been alpaca socks or liters of maple syrup.

What caught my attention in the video was the shill-like anti-Bitcoin stance displayed by the commentator. It seemed typical of many in the financial community.

Of course bankers and others in financial service industries (including their media) are uncomfortable with Bitcoin.

Some governments are as well, obviously, because of taxation issues. Smarter governments realize that the open nature of the blockchain is actually a boon to tracing the movement of wealth. Here in Canada, income paid in barter is taxable, and Bitcoin is treated like any other commodity, be it chickens or barrels of crude.

You do realize he marked crypto-currency as non existent in future value right, due to many factors etc etc etc (do your research)
but he did in fact agree that future is for "Digital currency and payments are the future" Like Denmark is doing now. but that currency is backed by the government etc etc... Bitcoin can not be marked as a currency because its an "account" just like a commodity. when you put your money in bitcoin it fluctuated you hope that 1 bitcoin is still of the same value or greater than when you put it in just like when you bought a pig or a barrel of crude or even a gallon or barrel of maple syrup you hope your $100 investment into the "commodity/account" stays at $100 or greater value when you use it and (not $47,50,90) ...

[Cconvert2G36]

Just like the house you bought in 1970 for $45k is still worth 45k. Fiat currency stability 4EVA.

[TheRealistMassiah1]

Just like the house you bought in 1970 for $45k is still worth 45k. Fiat currency stability 4EVA.

Oh god, you definitely need a lesson in economics, land is a non depreciated asset, land was here before you and will be here after you die for many millenia's to come. The population will increase and demand stays for that land and increases as well. While currency comes and goes with the tides of business cycles and governmental growth and reclines... Also you can not equate land to currency and you cannot equate that to a commodity etc etc...


side note: Standard of living and minimum wage and other variables also increase as years go on ...

additional tangent : also in fact in some parts of the USA you can still buy a home for 45,000 or even less , granted they might not be in great shape or other things but it still is a hosue...

[JimboToronto]

but he did in fact agree that future is for "Digital currency and payments are the future" Like Denmark is doing now. but that currency is backed by the government etc etc...

You still just don't seem to understand.

It's not about "digital currency and payments".

It's about decentralization and immunity to outside meddling or control.

[nuff]

Just think of it rationally and logically ... Bitcoin uses a base standard currency = USD / EUR / CNY .... now think of it, those currencies alone account for 80% or more of the worlds GDP with established economies and backing of those currencies with the IMF and in net imports and exports to account for their value. How ever Bitcoin is based on backless speculation of a realized "Value" ... How is this value determined?? a ledger? value in property? value in its source code? backed by debt? ... There is only one way to increase "bitcoins value" currently its low volume and an influx of increase of buyer side = short term DELTA of a sellers market instead of a "buyers" market... just think of it as wanting to buy candy and the candy maker was not expecting for an increase in 100% of volume so he has to increase the price to decrease the volume. This is easy to manipulate when there are very small key players in the market. So to the question of delusional... it is up to you to understand the economics and viability of bitcoin. It is only valued as people pump real currency into it and this money is held by your Exchanges... Remember what happened when MT Gox? that is just a reminder.

Edit and addition to my post.
Jeffrey Robinson is quite correct about virtual and digital currency as the future path for currency as its more efficient and is the only measurable answer for the future. Example is Denmark, how ever it is not a "Crypto" system of money its more of a standardized system like using your debit card. This way they can deter fraud and account for various aspects of the system.

Bitcoin is backed by its own protocol, based on mathematics (to be specific, cryptography). You need to solve equations in order to produce new coins, and solving those equations require computation in the form of miners, and miners require power and operational costs to run. The true value of the btc will be based on the costs to mine those coins. Without miners, you won't get bitcoins. And in within the mining world is another free market at play: operation costs, how fast miners can hash, electricity rates etc. All these would give btc its true value. Bitcoin as a protocol is a lot of things, being a currency is just one of its utility. It's fully independent of any control until a time one has more power than the rest combined, be it in the form of hashing power or having a huge bankroll to influence its natural progression.

All currencies in the world are currently backed by debt, controlled by the government, with full authority to print as much as needed and as when feel like it. This debt-based money system is illusionary and is not sustainable, as shown by the latest, biggest example of it all: A country, Greece, going bankrupt, and simply just walk away. And they should, it's money created out of thin air anyway.

[TheRealistMassiah1]

but he did in fact agree that future is for "Digital currency and payments are the future" Like Denmark is doing now. but that currency is backed by the government etc etc...

You still just don't seem to understand.

It's not about "digital and payments".

It's about decentralization and immunity to outside meddling or control.

At that point how would you quantify exchanges for imports and exports? "decentralization and immunity" is such a joke point of benefit for bitcoin in the modern ages of the IMF ... You can't have a decentralized currency ....we don't live in a utopian society that allows for such as business runs its course with society. It would be the wild west and dark aged era of life if it were decentralized with THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of different currencies ... just like with alt coins there is a crap ton like litecoin doge coin ripple etc etc... What is your point for decentralization and immunity?  What is the benefit that humanity will have? Will people abuse their status to create more of that currency and invest it to failure? what is the benefit you see and explanation for "decentralization and immunity".

[Cconvert2G36]

Just like the house you bought in 1970 for $45k is still worth 45k. Fiat currency stability 4EVA.

Oh god, you definitely need a lesson in economics, land is a non depreciated asset, land was here before you and will be here after you die for many millenia's to come. The population will increase and demand stays for that land and increases as well. While currency comes and goes with the tides of business cycles and governmental growth and reclines... Also you can not equate land to currency and you cannot equate that to a commodity etc etc...


side note: Standard of living and minimum wage and other variables also increase as years go on ...

additional tangent : also in fact in some parts of the USA you can still buy a home for 45,000 or even less , granted they might not be in great shape or other things but it still is a hosue...

Gold as a unit of official US currency value was only completely forgotten in 1971. We have another 6000 years of history you need to answer for.

[TheRealistMassiah1]

Just think of it rationally and logically ... Bitcoin uses a base standard currency = USD / EUR / CNY .... now think of it, those currencies alone account for 80% or more of the worlds GDP with established economies and backing of those currencies with the IMF and in net imports and exports to account for their value. How ever Bitcoin is based on backless speculation of a realized "Value" ... How is this value determined?? a ledger? value in property? value in its source code? backed by debt? ... There is only one way to increase "bitcoins value" currently its low volume and an influx of increase of buyer side = short term DELTA of a sellers market instead of a "buyers" market... just think of it as wanting to buy candy and the candy maker was not expecting for an increase in 100% of volume so he has to increase the price to decrease the volume. This is easy to manipulate when there are very small key players in the market. So to the question of delusional... it is up to you to understand the economics and viability of bitcoin. It is only valued as people pump real currency into it and this money is held by your Exchanges... Remember what happened when MT Gox? that is just a reminder.

Edit and addition to my post.
Jeffrey Robinson is quite correct about virtual and digital currency as the future path for currency as its more efficient and is the only measurable answer for the future. Example is Denmark, how ever it is not a "Crypto" system of money its more of a standardized system like using your debit card. This way they can deter fraud and account for various aspects of the system.

Bitcoin is backed by its own protocol, based on mathematics (to be specific, cryptography). You need to solve equations in order to produce new coins, and solving those equations require computation in the form of miners, and miners require power and operational costs to run. The true value of the btc will be based on the costs to mine those coins. Without miners, you won't get bitcoins. And in within the mining world is another free market at play: operation costs, how fast miners can hash, electricity rates etc. All these would give btc its true value. Bitcoin as a protocol is a lot of things, being a currency is just one of its utility. It's fully independent of any control until a time one has more power than the rest combined, be it in the form of hashing power or having a huge bankroll to influence its natural progression.

All currencies in the world are currently backed by debt, controlled by the government, with full authority to print as much as needed and as when feel like it. This debt-based money system is illusionary and is not sustainable, as shown by the latest, biggest example of it all: A country, Greece, going bankrupt, and simply just walk away. And they should, it's money created out of thin air anyway.

Holy cow,you need to also take a lesson in economics, O_O My brain is literally bleeding from your statement, ( not meaning to offend you) ... The fact that bitcoin has to be mined and depends on coin hashing is in itself flawed also a deflationary currency doesn't work as with the case scenario of lost coins etc etc... viable coins will be to limited to host enough trade, also bitcoin is not a currency its an "account/commodity" per definition of its act its more of an m3 account than anything. Also currency values aren't just magically printed to kingdom come. Just like with Germany and Zimbabwe and many other failed currency and governments, they only retain value by what they produce and other countries seek price value exchange in the fair market etc etc (research this topic on your spare time) ... Also Greece's debt has to do more with its reliance on Germany and what happened after ww2 .. (again research this on your time) ... and the money isn't just created out of thin air. It's a retained debt that has to be paid off through some sort of liquidation ex. IMF , Government resources etc etc....

side note: money isn't just created out of thin air ....


Also in answer to Cconvert,
past 6000 years you mean past 10,000 years well there was bartering then an evolution to kingdoms like an authoritarian where thousands of coined currency in silver and gold and bronze etc etc were used and if you have the spare time research of history of currency it'll brighten your day

[Cconvert2G36]

6,000 to 10,000, bartering or coin, all distinctions that dance beside the fact you just got owned, about monetary inflation for benefit of state = necessary/good

[TheRealistMassiah1]

6,000 to 10,000, bartering or coin, all distinctions that dance beside the fact you just got owned, about monetary inflation for benefit of state = necessary/good

Lols wait what how did I lose? I simply pointed out your scenario of  [1970's 45K Home is = money stability](obviously you stated it in sarcasm)  X_X ... I stated currency changes with business cycles  and governmental cycles in growth and recline etc etc .. anyways

[BTCtrader71]

... doesn't work as with the case scenario of lost coins etc etc... viable coins will be to(o) limited to host enough trade ...

Your objection is flawed. A single bitcoin is enough to host all the trade in the world. Let me expand just a little bit on that statement. If, hypothetically speaking, Satoshi had programmed an upper limit of 1 bitcoin instead of 21 million bitcoins, it would not have made any difference on how the whole thing functions. The total valuation of all circulating bitcoins in existence expands or contracts to whatever it needs to be. I suggest you ponder the basic idea of a unit of measurement and what it means to change units.

If you want to study the history of currency and banking, you should read about the history of economies that have run on privately-issued currencies without any government-issued currency at all. This is referred to as "free banking." Scotland had a pretty long run in the early 1800s (iirc) of free banking. My point is that currency does not necessarily imply formalized government-issue or government-backing.

[BTCtrader71]

My brain is literally bleeding from your statement, ( not meaning to offend you) ...

I think you mean "figuratively" bleeding. Not "literally." At least I hope so. 

[TheRealistMassiah1]

... doesn't work as with the case scenario of lost coins etc etc... viable coins will be to(o) limited to host enough trade ...

Your objection is flawed. A single bitcoin is enough to host all the trade in the world. Let me expand just a little bit on that statement. If, hypothetically speaking, Satoshi had programmed an upper limit of 1 bitcoin instead of 21 million bitcoins, it would not have made any difference on how the whole thing functions. The total valuation of all circulating bitcoins in existence expands or contracts to whatever it needs to be. I suggest you ponder the basic idea of a unit of measurement and what it means to change units.

If you want to study the history of currency and banking, you should read about the history of economies that have run on privately-issued currencies without any government-issued currency at all. This is referred to as "free banking." Scotland had a pretty long run in the early 1800s (iirc) of free banking. My point is that currency does not necessarily imply formalized government-issue or government-backing.

Holy cow, from what I read, and inferring your thought process of like a hyperactive brain with many tangents like me. Uhmmm, I don't think 1 bitcoin would work ... 100,000,000 "satoshis" .... whats smaller than a satoshi??  Also money is taken into the government, destroyed , renewed, redistributed out ... Where as for bitcoin it is destroyed and destroyed and lost ... etc etc . Then you have the problem of facilitating trade... Please elaborate your idea of trade on 1 bitcoin or a currency without government-issue / backing .. lets use zimbabwe / Panama / somalia as a per se case value in this hypothetical ...


Side note: And in response yah my brain was figuratively melting to blood =[ ...

[Roger_Murdock]

Are we delusional?  Well, maybe. But this dude didn't do a particularly good job of making that case.  So he claims that the people who believe that Bitcoin is "going to take over the entire planet," i.e. become the dominant global currency, are "delusional."  He also says that "virtual currency is the future. There's no doubt about that. Digital payments are the future.  Bitcoin is not that. Bitcoin is a step along the way. It will eventually disintegrate and atrophy. But yes, digital currencies and digital payments are the future" and that "the original genius of Satoshi is the blockchain."  

Ok... so there's "no doubt" that "digital currencies are the future" and Satoshi is a "genius"... but Bitcoin is still destined to fail for ... reasons.  

So what actual arguments does he advance in support of his claim that Bitcoin will not succeed in becoming a major world currency?  Well, his primary argument for why Bitcoin won't become a major world currency in the future is that Bitcoin is currently relatively small with only a few hundred thousand users worldwide.  Do I really have to explain why that argument is not terribly persuasive?  

And then in response to the question "where did it [Bitcoin] go wrong?" he replies: "the get-rich-quick kids, they got into it and everybody saw a huge profit. You've got people like the Winklevoss twins who are pumping this thing because they're now holding 1% of all the bitcoins.  And they're pumping it and saying '40,000 dollars a coin.' Well, the theory of the greater fool comes in here. If you've been fortunate enough to buy that many, the only way you're going to get out is to find greater fools to buy it from you. That's where it went wrong."

Huh? So the problem with Bitcoin is that people are speculating on its future value? I guess every financial asset in the world (including every currency) is fatally flawed.  And this bit about the "greater fool" suggests that he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of money.  As I've written before:

In a sense, all money relies on there being a "roughly equal or greater fool." In other words, the only reason anyone ever trades real value for little green pieces of paper or electronic ledger entries is because they hope to, at some point in the future, exchange that money for something they really want, i.e. a good or service that can directly satisfy their wants or needs. But really, there's nothing "foolish" about money. It's a very useful accounting system for facilitating trade by keeping track of value given but not yet received. Where the "digital tulips" crowd gets hung up is on the fact that today's holders of Bitcoin expect it to significantly increase in value, observing that such a thing can't continue forever. And that's true, but it doesn't have to continue forever. Bitcoin isn't a scheme that will collapse without endless exponential growth. Again, it's just a commodity. Its price can go up, down, or sideways (as the past five years have proven in sometimes dramatic fashion). Also, if Bitcoin achieves success as a gold alternative or transactional currency, people will trade real value for Bitcoin with the simple expectation that Bitcoin will hold its value (or increase in value relatively slowly at a rate commensurate with the growth of the underlying economy).

So, to summarize, Bitcoin is doomed to fail because it hasn't yet succeeded in taking over the world and because some people are speculating on its future value.

[BTCtrader71]

whats smaller than a satoshi??

If the need were to arise, we could add one or more decimal places and work in fractions of satoshis. If we wanted we could even give it a name like 1 satoshi = 10 "finneys" (named after the late great Hal Finney). At some point in the past, people in the US used "mills" where 10 mills = one penny. Eventually people stopped using mills because 1/10 of a penny just wasn't worth the effort; but nothing fundamental changed when that happened. (The monetary base M_0 didn't suddenly change when we dropped the mill, for example.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_(currency)

EDIT: If someone were to suggest we change the 21 million bitcoin cap, basically everyone would oppose that. Once you pick a cap you have to stick with it. But if someone suggested adding an extra decimal place like in my 10 finneys = 1 satoshi example, that wouldn't be nearly such a big deal. Just like using versus not using the mill is not a major issue.

[TheRealistMassiah1]

Are we delusional?  Well, maybe. But this dude didn't do a particularly good job of making that case.  So he claims that the people who believe that Bitcoin is "going to take over the entire planet," i.e. become the dominant global currency, are "delusional."  He also says that "virtual currency is the future. There's no doubt about that. Digital payments are the future.  Bitcoin is not that. Bitcoin is a step along the way. It will eventually disintegrate and atrophy. But yes, digital currencies and digital payments are the future" and that "the original genius of Satoshi is the blockchain."  

Ok... so there's "no doubt" that "digital currencies are the future" and Satoshi is a "genius"... but Bitcoin is still destined to fail for ... reasons.  

So what actual arguments does he advance in support of his claim that Bitcoin will not succeed in becoming a major world currency?  Well, his primary argument for why Bitcoin won't become a major world currency in the future is that Bitcoin is currently relatively small with only a few hundred thousand users worldwide.  Do I really have to explain why that argument is not terribly persuasive?  

And then in response to the question "where did it [Bitcoin] go wrong?" he replies: "the get-rich-quick kids, they got into it and everybody saw a huge profit. You've got people like the Winklevoss twins who are pumping this thing because they're now holding 1% of all the bitcoins.  And they're pumping it and saying '40,000 dollars a coin.' Well, the theory of the greater fool comes in here. If you've been fortunate enough to buy that many, the only way you're going to get out is to find greater fools to buy it from you. That's where it went wrong."

Huh? So the problem with Bitcoin is that people are speculating on its future value? I guess every financial asset in the world (including every currency) is fatally flawed.  And this bit about the "greater fool" suggests that he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of money.  As I've written before:

In a sense, all money relies on there being a "roughly equal or greater fool." In other words, the only reason anyone ever trades real value for little green pieces of paper or electronic ledger entries is because they hope to, at some point in the future, exchange that money for something they really want, i.e. a good or service that can directly satisfy their wants or needs. But really, there's nothing "foolish" about money. It's a very useful accounting system for facilitating trade by keeping track of value given but not yet received. Where the "digital tulips" crowd gets hung up is on the fact that today's holders of Bitcoin expect it to significantly increase in value, observing that such a thing can't continue forever. And that's true, but it doesn't have to continue forever. Bitcoin isn't a scheme that will collapse without endless exponential growth. Again, it's just a commodity. Its price can go up, down, or sideways (as the past five years have proven in sometimes dramatic fashion). Also, if Bitcoin achieves success as a gold alternative or transactional currency, people will trade real value for Bitcoin with the simple expectation that Bitcoin will hold its value (or increase in value relatively slowly at a rate commensurate with the growth of the underlying economy).

So, to summarize, Bitcoin is doomed to fail because it hasn't yet succeeded in taking over the world and because some people are speculating on its future value.

LOL Solid solid summary conclusion AHAHAHAHAHAH, oh my god. you even transcript-ed a portion of the interview but the wrong portion as well =[ ... he said bitcoin will atrophy and disappear because of the fact of its disappearing and deflationary system .. etc etc =] just my 2 cents

additional note: technically you had transcript-ed the right portion but not all =[ ,
2nd note: after further analysis of your sentence long conclusion and settled my laughing ... I think you have to understand that bitcoin CAN't take over the world as a centralized currency because no country would recognize it , but USD is current reserve currency for many other aspects tho ...

and response to btctrader71 ... ehhh 1 usd = 330,000 satoshis ... so in the future if 1 dollar = .000001 of a satoshi then what happens ?

[nuff]

Holy cow,you need to also take a lesson in economics, O_O My brain is literally bleeding from your statement, ( not meaning to offend you) ... The fact that bitcoin has to be mined and depends on coin hashing is in itself flawed also a deflationary currency doesn't work as with the case scenario of lost coins etc etc... viable coins will be to limited to host enough trade, also bitcoin is not a currency its an "account/commodity" per definition of its act its more of an m3 account than anything. Also currency values aren't just magically printed to kingdom come. Just like with Germany and Zimbabwe and many other failed currency and governments, they only retain value by what they produce and other countries seek price value exchange in the fair market etc etc (research this topic on your spare time) ... Also Greece's debt has to do more with its reliance on Germany and what happened after ww2 .. (again research this on your time) ... and the money isn't just created out of thin air. It's a retained debt that has to be paid off through some sort of liquidation ex. IMF , Government resources etc etc....

side note: money isn't just created out of thin air ....

I understand how the money system works well enough, but you have to explain why do you think a deflationary currency is a flawed one? Even money needs to be printed, so why is Bitcoin having had to be mined bad? and what has lost coins got to do with anything? And since you brought up Germany and Zimbabwe, you just provided 2 real world cases of why debt-based, inflationary currency will always adjusts its value according. It's a proven that creating more money to cover past debt incurs even more debt, not only not solving the problem at hand but decreasing the already depreciated value of current money even more.

Whatever fancy words you use to term it, it's still the same. Quantitative Easing is but a fancy word for "let's print more money and inject it into the economy". Those retained debts you speak about were still created from nothing ever since the money system went off the gold standard.  It's even worse, using debt to create new money is mathematically illogical and unsustainable. It should be very, very obvious by now.

[BTCtrader71]

and response toe btctrader71 ... ehhh 1 usd = 330,000 satoshis ... so in the future if 1 dollar = .000001 of a satoshi then what happens ?

I would not be surprised to see 1 dollar = 1000 or 10,000 satoshi [1 bitcoin = $10,000 or $100,000, hope I counted decimal points right ...] in 5-10 years or so, maybe sooner. 1 dollar = .000001 is unlikely to be anytime soon. (I'm talking 2015 dollars here, just to be clear.) But regardless ... what do you mean "what happens" ? If we do get to 1 bitcoin = $ 100,000 it will mean in all likelihood that bitcoin is fulfilling its promise as a payment system, currency, and commodity. (simultaneously).

I am quite familiar with the arguments that deflationary currency is a would-be plague upon all of humanity and I am quite unconvinced. I think it serves TPTB to promote these arguments, flawed though they be, because it justifies the state's control of money.

[TheRealistMassiah1]

Holy cow,you need to also take a lesson in economics, O_O My brain is literally bleeding from your statement, ( not meaning to offend you) ... The fact that bitcoin has to be mined and depends on coin hashing is in itself flawed also a deflationary currency doesn't work as with the case scenario of lost coins etc etc... viable coins will be to limited to host enough trade, also bitcoin is not a currency its an "account/commodity" per definition of its act its more of an m3 account than anything. Also currency values aren't just magically printed to kingdom come. Just like with Germany and Zimbabwe and many other failed currency and governments, they only retain value by what they produce and other countries seek price value exchange in the fair market etc etc (research this topic on your spare time) ... Also Greece's debt has to do more with its reliance on Germany and what happened after ww2 .. (again research this on your time) ... and the money isn't just created out of thin air. It's a retained debt that has to be paid off through some sort of liquidation ex. IMF , Government resources etc etc....

side note: money isn't just created out of thin air ....

I understand how the money system works well enough, but you have to explain why do you think a deflationary currency is a flawed one? Even money needs to be printed, so why is Bitcoin having had to be mined bad? and what has lost coins got to do with anything? And since you brought up Germany and Zimbabwe, you just provided 2 real world cases of why debt-based, inflationary currency will always adjusts its value according. It's a proven that creating more money to cover past debt incurs even more debt, not only not solving the problem at hand but decreasing the already depreciated value of current money even more.

Whatever fancy words you use to term it, it's still the same. Quantitative Easing is but a fancy word for "let's print more money and inject it into the economy". Those retained debts you speak about were still created from nothing ever since the money system went off the gold standard.  It's even worse, using debt to create new money is mathematically illogical and unsustainable. It should be very, very obvious by now.

Hey there nuff, I think you have solidly fried my brain today =] ... thank you so and thank you to Roger_murdock as well haha =] ... made my day in those comments, anyways have a read of this article http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/11731/debt/what-happens-when-the-government-runs-out-of-money/ it helps you out to understand what it means to "print money" ... printing money doesn't always has to involve debt ...

additional note: In Response to btctrader71 , at that point you are expecting millionaires and ultra high net worths and banks to only be able to exchange and liquidate your $100,000 bitcoins?? lols in reality I don't get how that would logically and realistically play out X_X and that is scary.