The real threat to Bitcoin

[Element115]

The real Threat to Bitcoin

Many of you see some difficulty ahead for the digital currency Bitcoin. These problems, sometimes euphemistically called growing pains, have of course real implications. Even if that just means an effect on the exchange rate for some period of time. The biggest threat though, imho, has yet not been addressed. Many see the government as the potentially most powerful force to act against Bitcoin, if it would get motivated to do so. This is true in the sense that if somebody chooses to act against Bitcoin it would of course use the legal lever an official government can provide by passing laws. The group with the most interest to act against Bitcoin are of course the Banks. The Banks will push the government to act against Bitcoin and the government will help gladly because it is in its interest as well. Here is why.

The need for creating money
An economy is the combination of existing value (like goods) and services (like workforce). This value is represented by the amount of money available. If an economy grows that means that either A: the goods have more value (e.g. new-goods-value exceeds old-goods-devaluation from its use) or B: the value of services is higher than previously (e.g. greater workforce) or a combination of A and B (and smaller influences I won't get into). This growth in value has to be represented by an increase of money available otherwise there will be a deflation of the currency used by that economy (Why deflation is not wanted is not something I will not go into her either).

The creators of money
We live in an economy where money is governed by the rules something called the "fractional-reserve banking system." There are two types of money in a fractional-reserve banking system operating with a central bank: The one you can hold in your hand, the notes and coins, i.e. "central bank money". The second is the kind you have in your bank account, the demand deposit, i.e. "commercial bank money." To act against deflation of its currency the government has set up the central bank in such a way that it regulates the currency in an economy by mincing and destroying notes and coins. The government is usually very interested in an increasing economy because when it hast to mince money to cover the increase in economical value it "sells" the money to the economy. So any minced money is a profit that goes into the budget of the administration i.e. seigniorage. But the "central bank money" is just a small part of the money in circulation. The most of it is of the "commercial bank money". (This is easily understood by thinking about the money oneself owns. Some is as hard cash in one's own wallet. But most of it is as credit in a bank account.) And therefore a much bigger part of the money, when the economy grows, is created by private banks. For example the in the EU the governments and the banks had 2010 real tangible extra income of about 36 Billion for the governments and an estimated 400 Billion EUR for EU Banks. Extrapolated for the U.S. this equals to about 53 Billion USD for the U.S. government and 725 Billion USD for U.S. banks. These are not peanuts!

The resulting issue
Bitcoin of course does away with the need for banks to create money (and maybe for banks in general) and probably in some small part for hard cash (hard cash will probably never go away, that’s why governments could chose to care not that much). I don't have to tell anybody that money is something banks (I'm excluding governments of my argument now because their decrease in profit is greatly smaller than that of banks) cherish or that having a lot of money equals power. But apparently I do. Bitcoin and their miners are cutting in on the profits of the banks. This has been the sole right of the banks for centuries now. They started wars with countries and discredited loyal government officials who tried to take that right away from them. This is not something they will let happen. They are already fighting it by letting their bought lackeys Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia discredit Bitcoin and push for a legal solution. Appreciate the real threat: Banks!

Further insight
I encourage everybody to inform themselves more about this. The easiest way to get to know more about why creating money is such a huge issue and the fractional-reserve banking system, is the great and truly exciting documentary "The secret of Oz", winner of Best Documentary of 2010 at the Benoit International Film Festival, available on youtube, free to watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI


Also support your local initiative to take this power away from banks and give it back to the people.
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/
http://www.monetative.de/
http://www.monetative.ch/


I am just a layman but I think i covered it mostly correct. If somebody sees same grave error please contact me.

[Element115]

Oh and by the way. Don't think that Senators or anybody else that rallies against Bitcoin really acts against it because of reasons they tell you. Discrediting and and using semi true problems like the ability to launder money is just a pretense.

So writing a congressman about how swell Bitcoin is won't really do anything. They don't care!

[kiba]

Oh and by the way. Don't think that Senators or anybody else that rallies against Bitcoin really acts against it because of reasons they tell you. Discrediting and and using semi true problems like the ability to launder money is just a pretense.

So writing a congressman about how swell Bitcoin is won't really do anything. They don't care!

They are probably just a thoughless memebot rather than a rational human beings.

[tymothy]

Oh and by the way. Don't think that Senators or anybody else that rallies against Bitcoin really acts against it because of reasons they tell you. Discrediting and and using semi true problems like the ability to launder money is just a pretense.

So writing a congressman about how swell Bitcoin is won't really do anything. They don't care!

Start making some donations to them in Bitcoins and you can bet they'll start caring.

[jashan]

Start making some donations to them in Bitcoins and you can bet they'll start caring.

The question is: How can you send Bitcoins to someone who doesn't have a Bitcoin address?

I guess that's something that's still missing for Bitcoin and that could really increase its popularity big time: A service that lets people send money to a Bitcoin address that they can later pick up. Seems like an extremely tricky thing to properly implement, though. YouTipIt has something like that for Facebook users: Escrow Tipits – Tip any Facebook user using Youtipit ... sound like a good way to get your Facebook friends to know and appreciate Bitcoin ;-)

[cloud9]

It's simple:

let i_n = interest rate on your m (medium of exchange) before impact of inflation (nominal interest rate)

and f = inflation

and x = your tax rate

and m% = percentage of m (medium of exchange) left of your taxed usury investment after 12 months (m - medium of exchange invested) after inflation taken into account

then m% = (100% + ( i_n x ( 100% - x ) ) ) / ( 100% + f ) x 100%

So as an example, substitute :

i_n = 0.7225 %  ( see 12 month interbank interest rate http://www.homefinance.nl/english/international-interest-rates/libor/libor-interest-rates-usd.asp )

say x = 25 % ( on income from usury protection measures against erodation of medium of exchange due to inflation )

take f = 11 % ( SGS Alternate annual consumer inflation based on methodologies in place in 1980, see http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts )

for this example m% (what is left of your medium of exchange after one year when investment protection measures in the form of usury was obtained and taxed to protect against the eroding effect of inflation )

m% = (100% + ( 0.7225% x ( 100% - 25% ) ) / ( 100% + 11% ) - 100% = 90.5783%

That's right yes - for this example after just 12 months your percentage of m (medium of exchange) left of your investment yield in taxed usury was worth 90.5783% of what it was worth 12 months ago.

For a period of 30 years (if you went this route and not bought an asset like gold or a house or intellectual property for example Bitcoin) based on the same values above (if they remain unchanged) this will become 90.5783% ^ 30 = 5.1371%  That's right - that is what will be left.  Now where did that other 94.8629% go again   and that was just in my generation?

[Dobrodav]

   I am think that roots of Shumer  concerns about bitcoins, are lying deeper than in bank system. Do not overestimate banks, because they are just part of the picture. I am think that main roots of that concern incoming from federal reserve itself.  Other bank`s  just have stable habit of relying on instructions from there. They are completely lost their independence long ago.  Look at Shumer lobbyist list - there is no banks, but lots of organisation that assure safety of banks (and so, safety of FR itself) assets.
In that view , candidature of Shumer looking logical. Man, that bravely fights for safety of US citizens, courageously taking handouts from organizations, that fights  with something, but certainly not with  terrorism. At least not with terrorism, as we understand it,  - but in some strange, "Patriotic act"  way.
 And he is a clown, - well, maybe i am mistaken, and therefore, asking to correct me. I am decide this reading some post`s about him, that describe him as figure, that are useful, when some probe stone is needed.
 So, main purpose of that attack was just about seeing our, and other electors reactions. Other electors just maintain silence, they don`t interested. Our community promised to throw his face with rotten tomatoes (literally). Community showed willingness to go underground, - not all of course, but big part of our community. Community showed clearly, that it is not mainly US, but global.
 Now, there will be some pause in further actions. Some investigations against SR will be committed. Some body will arrested (or not, as example they can try to get somebody from Canada, to longer process).  In that time reaction of community, and further bitcoin development will be analysed. They will look for any weak places, - they will not danger anybody, they will just appear in some threads of forum, in someones private mail. Sometimes they will overtook personality of known forum member and post some garbage from his name. Just to let know, that they are here.  We will be under slow, but depressing influence.
 Recommended action - humor.

Because all i am wrote above is a joke

[Steve]

You apparently have not bothered to search the forums much, because if you had, you'd realize that it's all been discussed and considered at great length.  Banks may be threatened by bitcoin at first, until a few of them realize the enormous potential bitcoin has to offer even them (and they also realize the folly in trying to resist what is truly a great innovation).  Such banks will prosper mightily and show the others a path forward.  Many of your points about the perils of deflation (also discussed ad nauseum) are invalid and only relevant in the context a debt backed fiat currency.  Bitcoin likely won't replace national currencies or even central banks, but instead be an important alternative vehicle for savings and commerce.  Much like gold and silver offer an important alternative (and one which at the end of the day, keeps governments in check from a fiscal perspective).  Bitcoin is a digital commodity currency and that is a great innovation that is hard to under estimate.  It makes it possible to have private, cash like transactions on the internet and will ultimately solve a lot of the problems we have with fraud and identity theft (which cost everyone an enormous amount of money every year).

People are right to despise the banks...their relationship with governments has not exactly been for the benefit of the people, but bitcoin or no bitcoin, people are awakening to that situation and it will get resolved one way or another.  If bitcoin were to cease existence tomorrow that eventuality would not change.  I believe bitcoin will survive an attack by the banks (if it happens), the question is whether banks can adapt for the future, because those that cannot, will surely perish.

[evoorhees]

This growth in value has to be represented by an increase of money available otherwise there will be a deflation of the currency used by that economy

False.

Deflation of currency occurs when the money supply shrinks. Economy growing =/= money supply shrinking. In relative terms, there is less money per good, but that just means prices adjust accordingly. It is a vast myth that a growing economy needs a growing money supply. It does not.

[AnonymousBat]

This growth in value has to be represented by an increase of money available otherwise there will be a deflation of the currency used by that economy

False.

Deflation of currency occurs when the money supply shrinks. Economy growing =/= money supply shrinking. In relative terms, there is less money per good, but that just means prices adjust accordingly. It is a vast myth that a growing economy needs a growing money supply. It does not.

The trouble is it's possible for a central entity to gain most of the bitcoins over several generations, with a large chunk of the coins they could manipulate the markets and cause the same kinds of problems we see today with gold and silver price manipulation.

Yes we could use smaller portions of the coins when a large chunk of the money supply is not in play, but those with the most money just then loan out a lot of their money at interest, then eventually recall the loans once they have enough people tangled in debt, and create the boom bust cycle we all know and love.

Bitcoins do solve one of the biggest problems, fractional reserve banking. While banks can rise up and engage in 10:1 fractional reserve banking with bitcoins, they can never hope to be bailed out in the event of a default, because if a bank had 2.1 million bitcoins and engaged in 10:1 reserve banking, the money supply would be 21 million bitcoins.

When they fail, wheres the FDIC or any government agency going to get the coins to bail them out? They aren't, and they sure as hell can't charge enough of a insurance premium to back it up either.

I personally believe that the currency should inflate around 3% a year (Milton Friedman suggested something along these lines), mainly to counter lost coins and to prevent the concentration of coins into the hands of a few over generations.

Since fractional reserve banking would be kept in check, the interest rates on loans would probably far exceed the inflation rate which protects peoples purchasing power. Unless of course you bury your coins under the mattress.

If bitcoins takes off, over generations the banksters will eventually have control over a majority of the money supply. A little inflation will make that harder.

[kjj]

This growth in value has to be represented by an increase of money available otherwise there will be a deflation of the currency used by that economy

False.

Deflation of currency occurs when the money supply shrinks. Economy growing =/= money supply shrinking. In relative terms, there is less money per good, but that just means prices adjust accordingly. It is a vast myth that a growing economy needs a growing money supply. It does not.

The trouble is it's possible for a central entity to gain most of the bitcoins over several generations, with a large chunk of the coins they could manipulate the markets and cause the same kinds of problems we see today with gold and silver price manipulation.

Yes we could use smaller portions of the coins when a large chunk of the money supply is not in play, but those with the most money just then loan out a lot of their money at interest, then eventually recall the loans once they have enough people tangled in debt, and create the boom bust cycle we all know and love.

This is true with any system of money, given enough time.  Bitcoins at least makes it much more difficult, since they can't just create money out of thin air, they must provide something of value for it.  And as they accumulate, they will have to provide much, much more value as the economy will no longer see the coins they are holding, and when they decide to dump, they will get much less for it.

[Steve]

The trouble is it's possible for a central entity to gain most of the bitcoins over several generations, with a large chunk of the coins they could manipulate the markets and cause the same kinds of problems we see today with gold and silver price manipulation.

This analysis is flawed.  The key to understanding why is in understanding that banks, when they lease gold or silver, they aren't actually leasing gold and silver.  They are leasing paper contracts for gold and silver.  Physical commodities are inconvenient and costly to deal with and that's precisely what makes them vulnerable to this sort of manipulation.  If banks actually delivered the physical gold and silver, this sort of manipulation would be near impossible to carry out successfully in a time frame of any consequence (indeed, even with paper substitutes, on a long enough time frame, it's impossible because people eventually come to recognize the fraud).  In fact, it's the inconvenience of holding physical commodities that led to fractional reserving banking in the first place.

Now, ask yourself this, if you were trading in bitcoins and you leased them from someone, is there any circumstance under which you would accept a paper contract for those bitcoins rather than the bitcoins themselves?  Maybe there is, in which case the market manipulation you describe might be enabled, but I rather suspect people would rather have actual bitcoins under their control.

[niemivh]

Oh and by the way. Don't think that Senators or anybody else that rallies against Bitcoin really acts against it because of reasons they tell you. Discrediting and and using semi true problems like the ability to launder money is just a pretense.

So writing a congressman about how swell Bitcoin is won't really do anything. They don't care!

Let's get pragmatic folks.  Time is on OUR side, not theirs.  If we can mobilize even a paltry opposition in congress to the banking lobby it can create something wonderful: gridlock.  Congressional pushback on this issue will create more press and therefore more people will hear about bitcoin.  More people hearing about it + time = eventually victory and acceptance of BTC.  If there is no opposition in congress then they can just slip something in some completely unrelated bill that criminalizes BTC.

Write congress not in the idea that it is going to be a complete victory but even that a delay in any legislation is a victory unto itself.

[AnonymousBat]

This analysis is flawed.  The key to understanding why is in understanding that banks, when they lease gold or silver, they aren't actually leasing gold and silver.  They are leasing paper contracts for gold and silver.  Physical commodities are inconvenient and costly to deal with and that's precisely what makes them vulnerable to this sort of manipulation.  If banks actually delivered the physical gold and silver, this sort of manipulation would be near impossible to carry out successfully in a time frame of any consequence (indeed, even with paper substitutes, on a long enough time frame, it's impossible because people eventually come to recognize the fraud).  In fact, it's the inconvenience of holding physical commodities that led to fractional reserving banking in the first place.

They still need a cache of physical to deal with any deliveries though. Bitcoin at least solves most of the fractional reserve problems but you can still have manipulation with no fractional reserve banking, you just need to hold a very big chunk of real coins.

And over generations that'll eventually happen.

[niemivh]

The real Threat to Bitcoin

Many of you see some difficulty ahead for the digital currency Bitcoin. These problems, sometimes euphemistically called growing pains, have of course real implications. Even if that just means an effect on the exchange rate for some period of time. The biggest threat though, imho, has yet not been addressed. Many see the government as the potentially most powerful force to act against Bitcoin, if it would get motivated to do so. This is true in the sense that if somebody chooses to act against Bitcoin it would of course use the legal lever an official government can provide by passing laws. The group with the most interest to act against Bitcoin are of course the Banks. The Banks will push the government to act against Bitcoin and the government will help gladly because it is in its interest as well. Here is why.

The need for creating money
An economy is the combination of existing value (like goods) and services (like workforce). This value is represented by the amount of money available. If an economy grows that means that either A: the goods have more value (e.g. new-goods-value exceeds old-goods-devaluation from its use) or B: the value of services is higher than previously (e.g. greater workforce) or a combination of A and B (and smaller influences I won't get into). This growth in value has to be represented by an increase of money available otherwise there will be a deflation of the currency used by that economy (Why deflation is not wanted is not something I will not go into her either).

The creators of money
We live in an economy where money is governed by the rules something called the "fractional-reserve banking system." There are two types of money in a fractional-reserve banking system operating with a central bank: The one you can hold in your hand, the notes and coins, i.e. "central bank money". The second is the kind you have in your bank account, the demand deposit, i.e. "commercial bank money." To act against deflation of its currency the government has set up the central bank in such a way that it regulates the currency in an economy by mincing and destroying notes and coins. The government is usually very interested in an increasing economy because when it hast to mince money to cover the increase in economical value it "sells" the money to the economy. So any minced money is a profit that goes into the budget of the administration i.e. seigniorage. But the "central bank money" is just a small part of the money in circulation. The most of it is of the "commercial bank money". (This is easily understood by thinking about the money oneself owns. Some is as hard cash in one's own wallet. But most of it is as credit in a bank account.) And therefore a much bigger part of the money, when the economy grows, is created by private banks. For example the in the EU the governments and the banks had 2010 real tangible extra income of about 36 Billion for the governments and an estimated 400 Billion EUR for EU Banks. Extrapolated for the U.S. this equals to about 53 Billion USD for the U.S. government and 725 Billion USD for U.S. banks. These are not peanuts!

The resulting issue
Bitcoin of course does away with the need for banks to create money (and maybe for banks in general) and probably in some small part for hard cash (hard cash will probably never go away, that’s why governments could chose to care not that much). I don't have to tell anybody that money is something banks (I'm excluding governments of my argument now because their decrease in profit is greatly smaller than that of banks) cherish or that having a lot of money equals power. But apparently I do. Bitcoin and their miners are cutting in on the profits of the banks. This has been the sole right of the banks for centuries now. They started wars with countries and discredited loyal government officials who tried to take that right away from them. This is not something they will let happen. They are already fighting it by letting their bought lackeys Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia discredit Bitcoin and push for a legal solution. Appreciate the real threat: Banks!

Further insight
I encourage everybody to inform themselves more about this. The easiest way to get to know more about why creating money is such a huge issue and the fractional-reserve banking system, is the great and truly exciting documentary "The secret of Oz", winner of Best Documentary of 2010 at the Benoit International Film Festival, available on youtube, free to watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI


Also support your local initiative to take this power away from banks and give it back to the people.
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/
http://www.monetative.de/
http://www.monetative.ch/


I am just a layman but I think i covered it mostly correct. If somebody sees same grave error please contact me.

Congrats.  Someone who gets that the problem isn't the government per se, it's that it is controlled fully by the powerful interests that make sure their will is expressed through the government.  It isn't the government but the government at the behest of the rich and powerful (in this case the banks) that represents the greatest threat to free humanity everywhere.  Most debt-money issuance is through the private banks (excluding the Fed, lol) and they are the pressure group that will try to shut this down. 

[niemivh]

This growth in value has to be represented by an increase of money available otherwise there will be a deflation of the currency used by that economy

False.

Deflation of currency occurs when the money supply shrinks. Economy growing =/= money supply shrinking. In relative terms, there is less money per good, but that just means prices adjust accordingly. It is a vast myth that a growing economy needs a growing money supply. It does not.

I've always been fascinated by this discussion.  What sources or books would you suggest that most clearly lay out this position?  I've heard both arguments on this I'm withholding judgement until I can cite more historical examples that didn't occur around 1890 to 1920 (due to the huge explosion of invention that occurred).  Most arguments in favor of your position cite this time period ad nauseum - although I'm not saying the position is wrong, I just want other historical examples as I've leaned both ways on this yet remained unconvinced by either argument to accept it completely.

[niemivh]

This growth in value has to be represented by an increase of money available otherwise there will be a deflation of the currency used by that economy

False.

Deflation of currency occurs when the money supply shrinks. Economy growing =/= money supply shrinking. In relative terms, there is less money per good, but that just means prices adjust accordingly. It is a vast myth that a growing economy needs a growing money supply. It does not.

The trouble is it's possible for a central entity to gain most of the bitcoins over several generations, with a large chunk of the coins they could manipulate the markets and cause the same kinds of problems we see today with gold and silver price manipulation.

Yes we could use smaller portions of the coins when a large chunk of the money supply is not in play, but those with the most money just then loan out a lot of their money at interest, then eventually recall the loans once they have enough people tangled in debt, and create the boom bust cycle we all know and love.

Bitcoins do solve one of the biggest problems, fractional reserve banking. While banks can rise up and engage in 10:1 fractional reserve banking with bitcoins, they can never hope to be bailed out in the event of a default, because if a bank had 2.1 million bitcoins and engaged in 10:1 reserve banking, the money supply would be 21 million bitcoins.

When they fail, wheres the FDIC or any government agency going to get the coins to bail them out? They aren't, and they sure as hell can't charge enough of a insurance premium to back it up either.

I personally believe that the currency should inflate around 3% a year (Milton Friedman suggested something along these lines), mainly to counter lost coins and to prevent the concentration of coins into the hands of a few over generations.

Since fractional reserve banking would be kept in check, the interest rates on loans would probably far exceed the inflation rate which protects peoples purchasing power. Unless of course you bury your coins under the mattress.

If bitcoins takes off, over generations the banksters will eventually have control over a majority of the money supply. A little inflation will make that harder.

I just finished reading "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Freidman.  Man that book was a joke.  Didn't even have a bibliography!  Luckily the margins were wide enough to point out the never ending logical fallacies and disingenuous nature of 90% of his arguments.

[Steve]

Most debt-money issuance is through the private banks (excluding the Fed, lol) and they are the pressure group that will try to shut this down. 

You do realize that the FED is also a private bank, right?  (with a facade of public oversight)

[kjj]

"Federal" is one of thsoe weasel words that makes you think it is involved with the government.

Hint:  It mostly is not.

[royalecraig]

As Bitcoins become harder, mining will become more specialised, until perhaps only large Organisations can mine them, this gives them control, something which Bitcoin was designed to prevent.
Putting wealth generation into the hands of the masses should be a priority, mining pools though will again congregate into a few pools, and again as bitcoins become harder to mine, these pools will become specialised.
Why not adopt another approach.
BitcoinPlus has potential to take control away from the Big boys, I'm not arguing agains people setting up pools and rigs etc, good luck to you guys, free market, if you invest and take the risks, you deserve the rewards, but theoretically, from here on in, Bitcoin could end up being dominated by the few.
Payb people should go back to the Solo mining concept using bitcoin plus or something, very similar, people could embed the code in their websites and blogs, etc have them running in the background in a way that is unnobtrusive.
But it would be like winning the lottery,every so often, a blog or website would win the jackpot, which would of course encourage others to embed BitCoin solo miners in their website.
The Big boys would number in their hundreds, the masses in their hundreds of millions, so this would even things up, sure, bit coin mining pools would have better chance of coming accross 50 bitcoins and like I say, good luck to them, but hundreds of millions of others, searching at much slower rates admittedly would collectively have a far better chance, this approach might prevent Bitcoin generation from falling into the hands of  a few.
The masses could still join pools aswell if they wish to mine for lesser but more regulay payback, whilst still standing a chance of hitting the Jackpot on their own.