John McAfee: Cryptocurrency is coming

[spartak_t]

MicroGuy posted a comment with a link to a video were John McAfee made some interesting (or not?) statements.
What do you guys think on what he said?



EDIT: I allowed myself to invite Mr. McAfee to this discussion.

[CIYAM]

Whilst I do believe that Bitcoin (and blockchain technology) is going to change the world (in many ways) I don't see that it is going to "replace" fiat any time soon (as that's almost like asking a military to give up its guns).

In the long term it may be that property is the only way governments will be able to get revenue (so I also wouldn't be too quick to sell all your BTC to buy a bunch of properties assuming you have that many).

[spartak_t]

Whilst I do believe that Bitcoin (and blockchain technology) is going to change the world (in many ways) I don't see that it is going to "replace" fiat any time soon (as that's almost like asking a military to give up its guns).

In the long term it may be that property is the only way governments will be able to get revenue (so I also wouldn't be too quick to sell all your BTC to buy a bunch of properties assuming you have that many).

Banks and governments are already exploring the technology and it could replace fiat money, but I don't believe that this would be done by Bitcoin or others.

[funkenstein]

Whilst I do believe that Bitcoin (and blockchain technology) is going to change the world (in many ways) I don't see that it is going to "replace" fiat any time soon (as that's almost like asking a military to give up its guns).

In the long term it may be that property is the only way governments will be able to get revenue (so I also wouldn't be too quick to sell all your BTC to buy a bunch of properties assuming you have that many).

The military gave up their single shot barrel loaded muskets. 

For many of us (me included) it already has replaced fiat.  The number is growing and the conclusion is foregone.  However due to the nature of scientific revolution (to quote Kuhn) this kind of improvement, no matter how obviously beneficial to all parties, takes at minimum one generation before it is "mainstream".

[From Above]

Whilst I do believe that Bitcoin (and blockchain technology) is going to change the world (in many ways) I don't see that it is going to "replace" fiat any time soon (as that's almost like asking a military to give up its guns).

In the long term it may be that property is the only way governments will be able to get revenue (so I also wouldn't be too quick to sell all your BTC to buy a bunch of properties assuming you have that many).

Could u further explain the *in many ways* part  CIYAM? Ur thinking is very interesting.


// You gotta "crawl before you talk" and CIYAM tried to "babble before crawling"  


~CfA~

[spartak_t]

For many of us (me included) it already has replaced fiat.

Not really. Most of the people still measure their profits/losses/holdings in fiat money.

[funkenstein]

For many of us (me included) it already has replaced fiat.

Not really. Most of the people still measure their profits/losses/holdings in fiat money.

How does that contradict what I wrote?  

There's a word I use for people that measure profits/losses/holdings/net worth in fiat:  "poor".  

How can something which is being created ad infinitum at zero cost be a measure of wealth?  
How can something with no definition be a measure of anything at all? 

[BitcoinNational]

replace fiat: no
replace 'traditional' bank credit: yes

*fiat notes might be backed in blockchain values, now the geeks will just use the blockchain directly, but the Luddites may opt for someone else to hold the coins and they in turn hold paper (aka pay the bearer on demand); but even then that would be a small subset of the greater population.  Most will go down with the fiat ship, but at least some banks (like in Panama or the Bermuda) will hedge and offer 'crypto' savings accounts.

[spartak_t]

For many of us (me included) it already has replaced fiat.

Not really. Most of the people still measure their profits/losses/holdings in fiat money.

How does that contradict what I wrote?  

There's a word I use for people that measure profits/losses/holdings/net worth in fiat:  "poor".  

How can something which is being created ad infinitum at zero cost be a measure of wealth?  
How can something with no definition be a measure of anything at all? 

You are probably a fan of cryptocurrencies like I am. Majority of the people do measure their profits/losses/holdings in fiat money and I found this sad. I'm not a dreamer, but I do support the "revolution" and I think that people must accept cryptocurrencies as a digital money (and not fiat) in order to become mainstream (which will take a lot of time like you implied).

Bitcoin (and others) are not created at zero costs, but the masses are the ones, which gives them a certain value.  

[americanpegasus]

For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.  
  
Monero is the actual true implementation of digital cash, and after decades of the smartest people in the world fantasizing about it - it finally exists.

[spartak_t]

For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.  
  

Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)).

[generalizethis]

For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.  
  

Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)).

How is privacy imaginary? And why shouldn't people do what they want?

[spartak_t]

For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.  
  

Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)).

How is privacy imaginary? And why shouldn't people do what they want?

Because they shouldn't. That's why we have laws. Do you actually think that the governments will allow us to move billions (in the future, maybe trillions) of $, without them to know? That would be disaster... Someone once said that the separate people are smart, but the masses are dumb. 

[generalizethis]

For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.  
  

Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)).

How is privacy imaginary? And why shouldn't people do what they want?

Because they shouldn't. That's why we have laws. Do you actually think that the governments will allow us to move billions (in the future, maybe trillions) of $, without them to know? That would be disaster... Someone once said that the separate people are smart, but the masses are dumb.  

Sigh... People doing what they want includes walking across the street and buying an ice cream cone (you were very vague and didn't state illegal activities, if that's what you meant). Still--if the technology exist, people will use it for both good and bad and there isn't much you can do about it if that technology is truly antifragile.

[spartak_t]

For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.  
  

Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)).

How is privacy imaginary? And why shouldn't people do what they want?

Because they shouldn't. That's why we have laws. Do you actually think that the governments will allow us to move billions (in the future, maybe trillions) of $, without them to know? That would be disaster... Someone once said that the separate people are smart, but the masses are dumb. 

Sigh... People doing what they want includes walking across the street and buying an icecream cone. Not sure from what left field you arguing from (communist, authoritarianism, AI overlord, other), but I'm not going to waste time finding out. If the technology exist, people will use it for both good and bad and there isn't much you can do about it if that technology is truly antifragile.

I was born and raised in a country, which was once communist, but I'm far of that thinking. I am just trying to be realist and that's it and we are not talking about an icecream here. You are free to jump off a 10-store building and that would be a suicide. You are also free to go in a bank and ask them "kindly" to give you their money. That would be breaking the law... it's that simple.

P.S. Believe me, I'm not arguing or attacking you. I can join you and we can both scream "POWER TO THE PEOPLE" on the streets, but the effect would be 0.

[americanpegasus]

For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.  
  

Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)).

How is privacy imaginary? And why shouldn't people do what they want?

Because they shouldn't. That's why we have laws. Do you actually think that the governments will allow us to move billions (in the future, maybe trillions) of $, without them to know? That would be disaster... Someone once said that the separate people are smart, but the masses are dumb.  

Can you please post images of your last three months of bank statements?  This is the equivalent of Bitcoin - everyone having access to everyone else's financial records.  
  
As well, government is not some perfect benevolent daddy figure - it's an institution filled with corruptible and fallible humans.  Are you also ok with the notion of government having live cameras in your home at all times and police coming to do 'body searches' of you and your family at unannounced hours?  We must not accept tyranny, and thanks to technology we won't have to.

[spartak_t]

For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.  
  

Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)).

How is privacy imaginary? And why shouldn't people do what they want?

Because they shouldn't. That's why we have laws. Do you actually think that the governments will allow us to move billions (in the future, maybe trillions) of $, without them to know? That would be disaster... Someone once said that the separate people are smart, but the masses are dumb.  

Can you please post images of your last three months of bank statements?  This is the equivalent of Bitcoin - everyone having access to everyone else's financial records.  
  
As well, government is not some perfect benevolent daddy figure - it's an institution filled with corruptible and fallible humans.  Are you also ok with the notion of government having live cameras in your home at all times and police coming to do 'body searches' of you and your family at unannounced hours?  We must not accept tyranny, and thanks to technology we won't have to.

Call me a spelunker, but I'm not holding funds in banks since like 5-6 years. I am generally poor and all I have is in my pockets (or in a jar under my mattress). I get what you mean, but it seems that you are not seeing my point here. People (at some point) must be controlled. That is what I think.

[generalizethis]

For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.  
  

Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)).

How is privacy imaginary? And why shouldn't people do what they want?

Because they shouldn't. That's why we have laws. Do you actually think that the governments will allow us to move billions (in the future, maybe trillions) of $, without them to know? That would be disaster... Someone once said that the separate people are smart, but the masses are dumb.  

Can you please post images of your last three months of bank statements?  This is the equivalent of Bitcoin - everyone having access to everyone else's financial records.  
  
As well, government is not some perfect benevolent daddy figure - it's an institution filled with corruptible and fallible humans.  Are you also ok with the notion of government having live cameras in your home at all times and police coming to do 'body searches' of you and your family at unannounced hours?  We must not accept tyranny, and thanks to technology we won't have to.

Call me a spelunker, but I'm not holding funds in banks since like 5-6 years. I am generally poor and all I have is in my pockets (or in a jar under my mattress). I get what you mean, but it seems that you are not seeing my point here. People (at some point) must be controlled. That is what I think.

Read my sig and go to the infowars link--if that world is for you, then you'll be happy to know it's on its way for many parts of the world. I'll stick to not being controlled, nor wanting to have others controlled.

[spartak_t]

Read my sig and go to the infowars link--if that world is for you, then you'll be happy to know it's on its way for many parts of the world. I'll stick to not being controlled, nor wanting to have others controlled.

OK, can you please tell me (without advertising XMR) more about your freedom? You did said (or implied) that you are (want) not being controlled.

[jojo69]

oh man...McAffee

hopefully the super pervo powder is coming as well


5MeODipt   FTW