Are we delusional?

[BTCtrader71]

An inflationary currency is (so the argument goes) a good thing because it promotes spending, and spending encourages economic growth, and economic growth is A Good Thing. Therefore, TPTB target some low level inflationary rate. Then they turn around and write IRAs into the tax law because they want to encourage savings, and savings is (so they say) A Good Thing. So they encourage spending with one hand, encourage the opposite [savings] with the other hand ... they can't even get their reasoning straight. My God, and people fall for this sh*t.

[TheRealistMassiah1]

An inflationary currency is (so the argument goes) a good thing because it promotes spending, and spending encourages economic growth, and economic growth is A Good Thing. Therefore, TPTB target some low level inflationary rate. Then they turn around and write IRAs into the tax law because they want to encourage savings, and savings is (so they say) A Good Thing. So they encourage spending with one hand, encourage the opposite [savings] with the other hand ... they can't even get their reasoning straight. My God, and people fall for this sh*t.

TPTB = The powers that be?? if thats correct??
IRA = Individual retirement account ?? (or irish republic army??) lols...

If those acronyms are correct then ... IRA's are not fully tax immune they are tax immune up to a very small precentage = approximately 8000 USD ... for any amount over you are taxed so it really isn't a saving as much as stimulating the markets etc etc =]

[BTCtrader71]

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.

I don't understand your objection. Why would only ultra net worths be able to liquidate my $100,000 bitcoins?

In reality, anyone who (today) owns (let's say) 100 bitcoins will probably convert many if not most of them into other assets (USD, stocks, commodities, etc), a little bit at a time, as the price goes from $308 to $100,000. If your portfolio was 99.99% in one asset [which will happen if your $30,000 in bitcoin becomes $10,000,000 in bitcoin in the coming months/years] it just makes sense to diversify.

And some of it would be "liquidated" by spending it, on things like bedsheets on Amazon and olive oil from Greece and whatever they export from Zimbabwe and whatnot.

[BTCtrader71]

An inflationary currency is (so the argument goes) a good thing because it promotes spending, and spending encourages economic growth, and economic growth is A Good Thing. Therefore, TPTB target some low level inflationary rate. Then they turn around and write IRAs into the tax law because they want to encourage savings, and savings is (so they say) A Good Thing. So they encourage spending with one hand, encourage the opposite [savings] with the other hand ... they can't even get their reasoning straight. My God, and people fall for this sh*t.

TPTB = The powers that be?? if thats correct??
IRA = Individual retirement account ?? (or irish republic army??) lols...

If those acronyms are correct then ... IRA's are not fully tax immune they are tax immune up to a very small precentage = approximately 8000 USD ... for any amount over you are taxed so it really isn't a saving as much as stimulating the markets etc etc =]

Yes, acronyms correct. (Not irish repub army, lol.)

So you're saying the right hand is only working against the left hand by a very small percentage? Still, their actions are opposite. SPEND MORE PLEASE! (( save more please! ))

SEP IRAs btw allow $53K contribution per year. Probably, net effect of this is to transfer wealth from poor to rich. Only rich [relatively speaking] people set up IRAs.

[TheRealistMassiah1]

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.

I don't understand your objection. Why would only ultra net worths be able to liquidate my $100,000 bitcoins?

In reality, anyone who (today) owns (let's say) 100 bitcoins will probably convert many if not most of them into other assets (USD, stocks, commodities, etc), a little bit at a time, as the price goes from $308 to $100,000. If your portfolio was 99.99% in one asset [which will happen if your $30,000 in bitcoin becomes $10,000,000 in bitcoin in the coming months/years] it just makes sense to diversify.

And some of it would be "liquidated" by spending it, on things like bedsheets on Amazon and olive oil from Greece and whatever they export from Zimbabwe and whatnot.

Do you realize theres not that many ultra high net worths and they are considered smart money , they run with the herd of money ... meaning they seek safe but rewarding investments like bonds , ventures , funds etc etc ... but yah lols I have no clue how they would liquidate 100 bitcoins at $100,000  or why they would want to liquidate 100 bitcoins at 100,000 (value = $10,000,000) ... i don't get where that scenario plays out ...

Also Sep iras ... arent those meant for the upper end of the employment scale aka self employed / corp and business owners ?!?! correct me if i'm wrong the value is capped at 50,000 because they want business owners to save their income for future fall back if their business / corps fail .... and those individuals generally make way more than that cap so they pay tremendously in taxes lols.


Friendly Side Note: current btc price as of posting 283 USD

[Chopperman]

. For every price increase, some of the early hoarders pull the ripcord, this distributes the coin in the fairest way possible.

 

Will we have to make impassioned pleas for these belevolent early hoarders to exchange some of their precious hoard with the common folk for "worthless" fiat currencies, or will they only take property such as real-estate?   Those early hoarders sure are nice people.  Without them, the Bitcoin economy couldn't function.

Or, is that the 1% in a fiat-based society?

[TheRealistMassiah1]

. For every price increase, some of the early hoarders pull the ripcord, this distributes the coin in the fairest way possible.

 

Will we have to make impassioned pleas for these belevolent early hoarders to exchange some of their precious hoard with the common folk for "worthless" fiat currencies, or will they only take property such as real-estate?   Those early hoarders sure are nice people.  Without them, the Bitcoin economy couldn't function.

Or, is that the 1% in a fiat-based society?

lmao ... unlike real currency (USD EUR CNY) ... when the top 1% of wallets controls more than 80% of the bitcoin supply that seems like such a dire situation when you look at it because bitcoin is  a deflationary + depreciating (lost wallets and coins year over year) intangible asset. While currency on the other hand the 1% may have 30-50% but they put it into investment accounts and that money is not just "locked" up nor confined or restricting other users from the money supply ... while bitcoin on the other hand has a fixed cap and is definitely restricting with inactive wallets.

side note: so don't confuse yourself and delusionally think that fiat is restricted and bitcoin is not =/

[BTCtrader71]

. For every price increase, some of the early hoarders pull the ripcord, this distributes the coin in the fairest way possible.

Will we have to make impassioned pleas for these belevolent early hoarders to exchange some of their precious hoard with the common folk for "worthless" fiat currencies, or will they only take property such as real-estate?   Those early hoarders sure are nice people.  Without them, the Bitcoin economy couldn't function.

Or, is that the 1% in a fiat-based society?

They will not do this out of benevolence but out of self-interest. It will make financial sense to maintain some degree of diversification even as the bitcoin price rises to (for the sake of discussion) $100K. That means converting bitcoin gradually, as the price rises, to a range of other assets: commodity, stocks, bonds, fiat, property, etc. They will not keep the vast majority of their wealth in one asset (bitcoin) because that would be too many eggs in one basket.

Everything about bitcoin is based on the realistic assumption that people tend to act in their economic self interest. Everything.

[RodeoX]

I know I'm not. I don't do delusions or illusions. The glass is not half empty or full, it's completely full. Half with water, half with air. 

Reality is my guide.

[btcxyzzz]

He gave not a single good argument against Bitcoin. He just made some irelevant comparations, and he is most probably a paid shill to talk against Bitcoin. Stupid motherfucker, that's what he is.

[Greendragon]

I know I'm not. I don't do delusions or illusions. The glass is not half empty or full, it's completely full. Half with water, half with air. 

Reality is my guide.

lol

[spiderbrain]

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.

You don't think the relative value of foreign exchange rates is based on speculation? If so then why is 90% of FX volume speculation related?

Global fiat currencies and the international banking system are backed by nothing except money printing and perceived value, most financial institutions are technically bankrupt since 2008 and the whole system is very vulnerable to intermediary insolvency. The only reason banks remained as the international value ledger system after the GFC is because everyone is running on their closed source cartel API and they will destroy the ledger if they go bankrupt. Central banks have printed (electronically) in excess of US$15 Trillion in the last 7 years just to keep the current system running. Their own trust in fiat currencies is actually so low that they also hold 10,000s of tonnes of a relatively useless yellow metal to barter with. This is very heavy and hard to move around.

In contrast, cryptocurrency is an open source public value ledger, trustless and almost instant in comparison. Bitcoin has it's own technical problems, yes, so it won't go on to replace the global financial system, but crypto is, in my opinion, very likely to, so this is the start of a very positive move by the global economy.

[BitChick]

This video made me smile.  He can't really find any fault with the brilliance of the blockchain.  The only reason for it not being "successful" is that there are only about 250,000 holders of BTC!?    For us holders that is music to my ears! 

We are still so early in this game.  People just have no idea.

[Amph]

This video made me smile.  He can't really find any fault with the brilliance of the blockchain.  The only reason for it not being "successful" is that there are only about 250,000 holders of BTC!?   For us holders that is music to my ears!  

We are still so early in this game.  People just have no idea.

essentially he is talking about adoption rate being very slow, and it's true nowaday you need to catch up fast or you will be forgotten quickly, we aren't in the 1800, where new tech were embraced and supported for decades

there is the risk that if bitcoin will not skyrocket let's say in 10 years at max, it will remain only a nice niche market and nothing else, even satoshi predicted such a thing but in a more catastrophic view

[BitChick]

This video made me smile.  He can't really find any fault with the brilliance of the blockchain.  The only reason for it not being "successful" is that there are only about 250,000 holders of BTC!?   For us holders that is music to my ears!  

We are still so early in this game.  People just have no idea.

essentially he is talking about adoption rate being very slow, and it's true nowaday you need to catch up fast or you will be forgotten quickly, we aren't in the 1800, where new tech were embraced and supported for decades

there is the risk that if bitcoin will not skyrocket let's say in 10 year at max, it will remain only a nice niche market and nothin else, even satoshi predicted such a thing but in a more catastrophic view

I was just having a little debate with my husband about this last night.  He thinks people are losing interest.  I think that we have just plateaued a bit but there are so many uses in the development stage right now that we cannot see the outcome of that from this side yet.  It will take a little time.  The "need" might be caused by more situations like what is happening in Greece, more people being informed about how much they can save with international transfers, ease of use, etc. . .  The next time we bubble and more people are interested in this "niche market" we will be in a much better position to keep the ball rolling than we were in 2013.

[TaurusBit]

You don't think the relative value of foreign exchange rates is based on speculation? If so then why is 90% of FX volume speculation related?

Global fiat currencies and the international banking system are backed by nothing except money printing and perceived value, most financial institutions are technically bankrupt since 2008 and the whole system is very vulnerable to intermediary insolvency. The only reason banks remained as the international value ledger system after the GFC is because everyone is running on their closed source cartel API and they will destroy the ledger if they go bankrupt. Central banks have printed (electronically) in excess of US$15 Trillion in the last 7 years just to keep the current system running. Their own trust in fiat currencies is actually so low that they also hold 10,000s of tonnes of a relatively useless yellow metal to barter with. This is very heavy and hard to move around.

In contrast, cryptocurrency is an open source public value ledger, trustless and almost instant in comparison. Bitcoin has it's own technical problems, yes, so it won't go on to replace the global financial system, but crypto is, in my opinion, very likely to, so this is the start of a very positive move by the global economy.

I was just having a little debate with my husband about this last night.  He thinks people are losing interest.  I think that we have just plateaued a bit but there are so many uses in the development stage right now that we cannot see the outcome of that from this side yet.  It will take a little time.  The "need" might be caused by more situations like what is happening in Greece, more people being informed about how much they can save with international transfers, ease of use, etc. . .  The next time we bubble and more people are interested in this "niche market" we will be in a much better position to keep the ball rolling than we were in 2013.