Why are economists so afraid of Bitcoin?

[thaaanos]

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

This may be true, and if it is it highlights the source of the problem.  
 
If “he” is unemployed, and is capable of contributing to society but is prohibited because he can’t find a Job, (people with capital are reluctant to put it to work for “valid” economic reasons) or “he” can’t get hold of the means of production because people who own the means – the land and tools are reluctant to share.  

The Neoclassical economic model is to create debt with interest (treasury bonds) to encourage and benefit those with capital to lend to those who manage the economy so they can create money to lend, to be paid back with interest and taxes so those who have the means, can partake in the economy.  

The simplified problem above and its proposed solution is what led Marx to ridicule capitalism. Although Marx had insights as worthy as Keynes as and Hayek, he undermined entrepreneurship and innovation to the determent of his ideas.


The problem is a meme of Human rights,  sustainable rights do not infringe on each others rights. except for the right of property provided by god. A claim to have a right to god given property, denies all otter human that right, and thus should come with some responsibility.
 
And as long as we construct economic systems to preserve that meme, they will fail, Marx, Keynes as and Hayek, all saw the benefits and perils of right to god given property, Mark sort to eradicate it, Hayek sort to strengthen it, and Keynes sort to manage it with tax and a welfare state.

Untested to date is Hayek’s approach your comment above suggests we will all wind up unemployed, I bet we won’t all wind up unemployed but we will test the limits of the meme of private property and what responsibilities are fair and emerge with a sustainable system.

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

[Lloydie]

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

This may be true, and if it is it highlights the source of the problem.  
 
If “he” is unemployed, and is capable of contributing to society but is prohibited because he can’t find a Job, (people with capital are reluctant to put it to work for “valid” economic reasons) or “he” can’t get hold of the means of production because people who own the means – the land and tools are reluctant to share.  

The Neoclassical economic model is to create debt with interest (treasury bonds) to encourage and benefit those with capital to lend to those who manage the economy so they can create money to lend, to be paid back with interest and taxes so those who have the means, can partake in the economy.  

The simplified problem above and its proposed solution is what led Marx to ridicule capitalism. Although Marx had insights as worthy as Keynes as and Hayek, he undermined entrepreneurship and innovation to the determent of his ideas.


The problem is a meme of Human rights,  sustainable rights do not infringe on each others rights. except for the right of property provided by god. A claim to have a right to god given property, denies all otter human that right, and thus should come with some responsibility.
 
And as long as we construct economic systems to preserve that meme, they will fail, Marx, Keynes as and Hayek, all saw the benefits and perils of right to god given property, Mark sort to eradicate it, Hayek sort to strengthen it, and Keynes sort to manage it with tax and a welfare state.

Untested to date is Hayek’s approach your comment above suggests we will all wind up unemployed, I bet we won’t all wind up unemployed but we will test the limits of the meme of private property and what responsibilities are fair and emerge with a sustainable system.

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

Then what are you doing here? Do you even own bitcoins? Who pays you to troll these boards? Don't like bitcoin? Why don't you create your own alt coin!

The rest of us like bitcoin. We like deflation after having given inflationary fiat currency a go for the last fifty years. We like alternatives. We're not going to give it up easily. There is nothing you can do stop people voting with their feet and their wallets.

[Lloydie]

Yes my friend thaaanos. Get used to real democracy in action.  

[Kungfucheez]

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

This may be true, and if it is it highlights the source of the problem.  
 
If “he” is unemployed, and is capable of contributing to society but is prohibited because he can’t find a Job, (people with capital are reluctant to put it to work for “valid” economic reasons) or “he” can’t get hold of the means of production because people who own the means – the land and tools are reluctant to share.  

The Neoclassical economic model is to create debt with interest (treasury bonds) to encourage and benefit those with capital to lend to those who manage the economy so they can create money to lend, to be paid back with interest and taxes so those who have the means, can partake in the economy.  

The simplified problem above and its proposed solution is what led Marx to ridicule capitalism. Although Marx had insights as worthy as Keynes as and Hayek, he undermined entrepreneurship and innovation to the determent of his ideas.


The problem is a meme of Human rights,  sustainable rights do not infringe on each others rights. except for the right of property provided by god. A claim to have a right to god given property, denies all otter human that right, and thus should come with some responsibility.
 
And as long as we construct economic systems to preserve that meme, they will fail, Marx, Keynes as and Hayek, all saw the benefits and perils of right to god given property, Mark sort to eradicate it, Hayek sort to strengthen it, and Keynes sort to manage it with tax and a welfare state.

Untested to date is Hayek’s approach your comment above suggests we will all wind up unemployed, I bet we won’t all wind up unemployed but we will test the limits of the meme of private property and what responsibilities are fair and emerge with a sustainable system.

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

Then what are you doing here? Do you even own bitcoins? Who pays you to troll these boards? Don't like bitcoin? Why don't you create your own alt coin!

The rest of us like bitcoin. We like deflation after having given inflationary fiat currency a go for the last fifty years. We like alternatives. We're not going to give it up easily. There is nothing you can do stop people voting with their feet and their wallets.

lol woah man, calm down. Just because someone lists some cons about bitcoins doesn't make them any less relevant than your pros. There are legitimate concerns with bitcoin that need to be addressed. Dismissing them outright just because you don't agree is not the way to go about it, sorry to say.

[Realpra]

Bitcoin is a real world experiment. They know deep down that their theories are wrong and are afraid bitcoin will prove it...

+1

It will disprove the one economist theory that everyone knows.

[Lloydie]

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

This may be true, and if it is it highlights the source of the problem.  
 
If “he” is unemployed, and is capable of contributing to society but is prohibited because he can’t find a Job, (people with capital are reluctant to put it to work for “valid” economic reasons) or “he” can’t get hold of the means of production because people who own the means – the land and tools are reluctant to share.  

The Neoclassical economic model is to create debt with interest (treasury bonds) to encourage and benefit those with capital to lend to those who manage the economy so they can create money to lend, to be paid back with interest and taxes so those who have the means, can partake in the economy.  

The simplified problem above and its proposed solution is what led Marx to ridicule capitalism. Although Marx had insights as worthy as Keynes as and Hayek, he undermined entrepreneurship and innovation to the determent of his ideas.


The problem is a meme of Human rights,  sustainable rights do not infringe on each others rights. except for the right of property provided by god. A claim to have a right to god given property, denies all otter human that right, and thus should come with some responsibility.
 
And as long as we construct economic systems to preserve that meme, they will fail, Marx, Keynes as and Hayek, all saw the benefits and perils of right to god given property, Mark sort to eradicate it, Hayek sort to strengthen it, and Keynes sort to manage it with tax and a welfare state.

Untested to date is Hayek’s approach your comment above suggests we will all wind up unemployed, I bet we won’t all wind up unemployed but we will test the limits of the meme of private property and what responsibilities are fair and emerge with a sustainable system.

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

Then what are you doing here? Do you even own bitcoins? Who pays you to troll these boards? Don't like bitcoin? Why don't you create your own alt coin!

The rest of us like bitcoin. We like deflation after having given inflationary fiat currency a go for the last fifty years. We like alternatives. We're not going to give it up easily. There is nothing you can do stop people voting with their feet and their wallets.

lol woah man, calm down. Just because someone lists some cons about bitcoins doesn't make them any less relevant than your pros. There are legitimate concerns with bitcoin that need to be addressed. Dismissing them outright just because you don't agree is not the way to go about it, sorry to say.

No dismissing them outright because they are not genuine attempts to understand bitcoin and deflationary monetary systems is okay with me. I have lived in the fiat inflationary system long enough to observe that it is a sick and oppressive machinery.

In any event, this is a debate no? There is no way to silence anyone here.

The problem is this: fundamentally, Thaaanos repeatedly fails to recognise that you CANNOT change bitcoin. You can only create alternatives and hope that people gravitate to it because it is a fairer system.

This is how a real democratic system works. Not by some person shoving their ideas down on the rest of us.

Bitcoin is deflationary. Get used to it. If it is actually a worse economic system as you and Thaaanos say then people will naturally stop using bitcoins over time.

Please don't assume that ordinary people are ignorant of the consequences affecting their lives. I for one have really had enough of top down planning. It's broken. It's oppressive. And it's just fucking cruel.

[Kungfucheez]

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

This may be true, and if it is it highlights the source of the problem.  
 
If “he” is unemployed, and is capable of contributing to society but is prohibited because he can’t find a Job, (people with capital are reluctant to put it to work for “valid” economic reasons) or “he” can’t get hold of the means of production because people who own the means – the land and tools are reluctant to share.  

The Neoclassical economic model is to create debt with interest (treasury bonds) to encourage and benefit those with capital to lend to those who manage the economy so they can create money to lend, to be paid back with interest and taxes so those who have the means, can partake in the economy.  

The simplified problem above and its proposed solution is what led Marx to ridicule capitalism. Although Marx had insights as worthy as Keynes as and Hayek, he undermined entrepreneurship and innovation to the determent of his ideas.


The problem is a meme of Human rights,  sustainable rights do not infringe on each others rights. except for the right of property provided by god. A claim to have a right to god given property, denies all otter human that right, and thus should come with some responsibility.
 
And as long as we construct economic systems to preserve that meme, they will fail, Marx, Keynes as and Hayek, all saw the benefits and perils of right to god given property, Mark sort to eradicate it, Hayek sort to strengthen it, and Keynes sort to manage it with tax and a welfare state.

Untested to date is Hayek’s approach your comment above suggests we will all wind up unemployed, I bet we won’t all wind up unemployed but we will test the limits of the meme of private property and what responsibilities are fair and emerge with a sustainable system.

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

Then what are you doing here? Do you even own bitcoins? Who pays you to troll these boards? Don't like bitcoin? Why don't you create your own alt coin!

The rest of us like bitcoin. We like deflation after having given inflationary fiat currency a go for the last fifty years. We like alternatives. We're not going to give it up easily. There is nothing you can do stop people voting with their feet and their wallets.

lol woah man, calm down. Just because someone lists some cons about bitcoins doesn't make them any less relevant than your pros. There are legitimate concerns with bitcoin that need to be addressed. Dismissing them outright just because you don't agree is not the way to go about it, sorry to say.

No dismissing them outright because they are not genuine attempts to understand bitcoin and deflationary monetary systems is okay with me. I have lived in the fiat inflationary system long enough to observe that it is a sick and oppressive machinery.

In any event, this is a debate no? There is no way to silence anyone here.

The problem is this: fundamentally, Thaaanos repeatedly fails to recognise that you CANNOT change bitcoin. You can only create alternatives and hope that people gravitate to it because it is a fairer system.

This is how a real democratic system works. Not by some person shoving their ideas down on the rest of us.

Bitcoin is deflationary. Get used to it. If it is actually a worse economic system as you and Thaaanos say then people will naturally stop using bitcoins over time.

Please don't assume that ordinary people are ignorant of the consequences affecting their lives. I for one have really had enough of top down planning. It's broken. It's oppressive. And it's just fucking cruel.

So let me try and understand this. He's wrong because he wants to change bitcoin. Yet your not wrong because you want to change the current financial system. How is there a difference? Your doing the same thing you claim he is doing.

And it doesn't sound like he's shoving anything down your throat, it looks more like he's being reasonable and intelligent and willing to discuss the topic like an adult, and it sounds more like you are trying to push some agenda you have

[Lloydie]

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

Then what are you doing here? Do you even own bitcoins? Who pays you to troll these boards? Don't like bitcoin? Why don't you create your own alt coin!

The rest of us like bitcoin. We like deflation after having given inflationary fiat currency a go for the last fifty years. We like alternatives. We're not going to give it up easily. There is nothing you can do stop people voting with their feet and their wallets.

lol woah man, calm down. Just because someone lists some cons about bitcoins doesn't make them any less relevant than your pros. There are legitimate concerns with bitcoin that need to be addressed. Dismissing them outright just because you don't agree is not the way to go about it, sorry to say.

No dismissing them outright because they are not genuine attempts to understand bitcoin and deflationary monetary systems is okay with me. I have lived in the fiat inflationary system long enough to observe that it is a sick and oppressive machinery.

In any event, this is a debate no? There is no way to silence anyone here.

The problem is this: fundamentally, Thaaanos repeatedly fails to recognise that you CANNOT change bitcoin. You can only create alternatives and hope that people gravitate to it because it is a fairer system.

This is how a real democratic system works. Not by some person shoving their ideas down on the rest of us.

Bitcoin is deflationary. Get used to it. If it is actually a worse economic system as you and Thaaanos say then people will naturally stop using bitcoins over time.

Please don't assume that ordinary people are ignorant of the consequences affecting their lives. I for one have really had enough of top down planning. It's broken. It's oppressive. And it's just fucking cruel.

So let me try and understand this. He's wrong because he wants to change bitcoin. Yet your not wrong because you want to change the current financial system. How is there a difference? Your doing the same thing you claim he is doing.

And it doesn't sound like he's shoving anything down your throat, it looks more like he's being reasonable and intelligent and willing to discuss the topic like an adult, and it sounds more like you are trying to push some agenda you have

Sure, I might have some growing up to do, dad or big brother. Here it is: bitcoin is changing the financial system. I like that. We are not talking about it, whining about it, theorising about it. We are fucking doing it in real time with real fucking money.

Thaaanos and you are too fucking stupid to realise that bitcoin is a protocol. It cannot be changed.

Sure my agenda is simple: tell everyone that fiat sucks, which it does and that you have an alternative in bitcoin. And if you don't like bitcoin, you can even create a coin that you personally like.

All I know is that humans should not be trusted with central banking.

Justice this and trust that, all somehow ends up raping the 99%. It is clear satoshi realised that centralised third parties who people had to trust were the real fucking problem.

[Lloydie]

I suspect your inflationary alt coin argument will go something like this:

Please use my alt coin because you must trust us to manage the alt coin for the justice of all.It will be inflationary and your purchasing power will devalue over time. Thanks.

Or, you can choose bitcoin where your spending power is preserved and even increased as the bitcoin economy expands.

Lets see what people really want.

[Adrian-x]

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

This may be true, and if it is it highlights the source of the problem.  
 
If “he” is unemployed, and is capable of contributing to society but is prohibited because he can’t find a Job, (people with capital are reluctant to put it to work for “valid” economic reasons) or “he” can’t get hold of the means of production because people who own the means – the land and tools are reluctant to share.  

The Neoclassical economic model is to create debt with interest (treasury bonds) to encourage and benefit those with capital to lend to those who manage the economy so they can create money to lend, to be paid back with interest and taxes so those who have the means, can partake in the economy.  

The simplified problem above and its proposed solution is what led Marx to ridicule capitalism. Although Marx had insights as worthy as Keynes as and Hayek, he undermined entrepreneurship and innovation to the determent of his ideas.


The problem is a meme of Human rights,  sustainable rights do not infringe on each others rights. except for the right of property provided by god. A claim to have a right to god given property, denies all otter human that right, and thus should come with some responsibility.
 
And as long as we construct economic systems to preserve that meme, they will fail, Marx, Keynes as and Hayek, all saw the benefits and perils of right to god given property, Mark sort to eradicate it, Hayek sort to strengthen it, and Keynes sort to manage it with tax and a welfare state.

Untested to date is Hayek’s approach your comment above suggests we will all wind up unemployed, I bet we won’t all wind up unemployed but we will test the limits of the meme of private property and what responsibilities are fair and emerge with a sustainable system.

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

Money needs a definition, I see Money as historically an emergent market phenomenon established from commodity money, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money.
I can reconcile your 3 points only by attributing the purchasing potential money if we put our trust in its value.  In our centrally controlled fiat world we do that, we trust “the money” to have its value. Given its value has been diluted and abused and used to squander our natural capital by those who manage it, those institutions are now dysfunctional and beyond repair .

Some like I presume Lloydie and I have been irreversibly abused by the system and are now virulently opposed to it.  (Joe average in the West with a mortgage may be OK will a little inflation but it is causing the biggest wealth inequality in the history of the world and has to stop before all our natural capital has been plundered.)

To be honest Bitcoin 5 years ago was not worth anything, and 6 months later you could buy BTC1000 for $5 US, and today it’s purchasing potential is phenomenal .

In Bitcoin the purchasing potential is only backed up by what individuals are willing to exchange for it. i.e. Bitcoin is backed by a P2P network of users who are willing to give it value, while idiots buy and sell Bitcoin for stupid reasons, the purchasing potential is voluntarily given by the users, not taken by the hoarders.  So I don’t think having lots of Bitcoin = having lots of wealth, Having lots of Bitcoin and managing the distribution among the network of willing participants in an equitable and fair manner as is possible within the laws of supply and demand will result in benefits to all and naturaly reword those who have lots of Bitcoin. If not, trust will fade and value will diminish.  

There are other distribution models coming to the cryptocurrency space that will address your concerns directly they will emerge when the time is right, but for now I don’t believe they will supersede Bitcoin, they will just complement it.  

In shot I feel the same about those who own property as you feel about those who have money, sill I partake willingly and by the rules, just Bitcoins rules are voluntary equitable and irreversible, and I love that.  

[Ibian]

It's ok to reject the other guys premises in a debate. Money does not equal trust.

[marcus_of_augustus]

So let me try and understand this. He's wrong because he wants to change bitcoin. Yet your not wrong because you want to change the current financial system. How is there a difference? Your doing the same thing you claim he is doing.

And it doesn't sound like he's shoving anything down your throat, it looks more like he's being reasonable and intelligent and willing to discuss the topic like an adult, and it sounds more like you are trying to push some agenda you have

No, he's not trying to change the existing financial system at all ... we are trying to replace it entirely and give people an option to OPT OUT.

Something I notice no economists are offering or advocating for at present ... rather they spend a great deal of time trying to figure out how to keep everybody corralled into their sick facist financial system of control and monitoring, cash controls, border checks, sniffer dogs, criminalising cash ... the list is endless with examples of the restrictions of financial freedom to serve their fiat masters and their wrong, failed, sick economic theories.

[thaaanos]

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

Money needs a definition, I see Money as historically an emergent market phenomenon established from commodity money, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money.
I can reconcile your 3 points only by attributing the purchasing potential money if we put our trust in its value.  In our centrally controlled fiat world we do that, we trust “the money” to have its value. Given its value has been diluted and abused and used to squander our natural capital by those who manage it, those institutions are now dysfunctional and beyond repair .

No I don't mean Trust in the Value, it's more like a token of trust by the society you live in bestowed upon the holder of the coin, so money/wealth actually generates responsibility rather than freedom to do as one pleases . Moneys value derives from that trust in the form of power/authority/acceptance.
True these are my convictions I don't expect anyone to share them.

Some like I presume Lloydie and I have been irreversibly abused by the system and are now virulently opposed to it.  (Joe average in the West with a mortgage may be OK will a little inflation but it is causing the biggest wealth inequality in the history of the world and has to stop before all our natural capital has been plundered.)

The way I believe is to Refactor society, not to experiment on it.

To be honest Bitcoin 5 years ago was not worth anything, and 6 months later you could buy BTC1000 for $5 US, and today it’s purchasing potential is phenomenal .

I wonder if we had this conversation 5 years ago how it could go, certainly with less passion

There are other distribution models coming to the cryptocurrency space that will address your concerns directly they will emerge when the time is right, but for now I don’t believe they will supersede Bitcoin, they will just complement it.
  

Maybe I make one, I have some ideas, most importantly a name, but I wont make it complement but compete bitcoin

In shot I feel the same about those who own property as you feel about those who have money, sill I partake willingly and by the rules, just Bitcoins rules are voluntary equitable and irreversible, and I love that.  

So no real revolution then, just a regime change...
I would suggest to snap out of it, and go for true revolution.

[thaaanos]

I suspect your inflationary alt coin argument will go something like this:

Please use my alt coin because you must trust us to manage the alt coin for the justice of all.It will be inflationary and your purchasing power will devalue over time. Thanks.

Or, you can choose bitcoin where your spending power is preserved and even increased as the bitcoin economy expands.

Lets see what people really want.

Actually no its going to be right from the start, like

THIS IS NO BITCOIN, NOTHING WATSOEVER TO DO WITH IT
NO EARLY MINE WILL MAKE YOU FILTHY RICH, LATE MINERS GET THE BEST COINS
IF YOU HODL YOU WILL WATCH THEM RUST AWAY.

and then just wait for the bitcoin bubble to burst and steal its userbase

[Lloydie]

I suspect your inflationary alt coin argument will go something like this:

Please use my alt coin because you must trust us to manage the alt coin for the justice of all.It will be inflationary and your purchasing power will devalue over time. Thanks.

Or, you can choose bitcoin where your spending power is preserved and even increased as the bitcoin economy expands.

Lets see what people really want.

Actually no its going to be right from the start, like

THIS IS NO BITCOIN, NOTHING WATSOEVER TO DO WITH IT
NO EARLY MINE WILL MAKE YOU FILTHY RICH, LATE MINERS GET THE BEST COINS
IF YOU HODL YOU WILL WATCH THEM RUST AWAY.

and then just wait for the bitcoin bubble to burst and steal its userbase

LOL. That is so dumb. Let me see. If I buy your special coin I can watch my wealth disintegrate.  Or I can buy bitcoin and see my wealth increase. Gee, which would I choose?

You are some kind of special stupid to think that would work. Maybe you are an economist.

You are going to wait for the bitcoin bubble to burst and steal its user base? Come at us bro. We are ready.

[thaaanos]

I suspect your inflationary alt coin argument will go something like this:

Please use my alt coin because you must trust us to manage the alt coin for the justice of all.It will be inflationary and your purchasing power will devalue over time. Thanks.

Or, you can choose bitcoin where your spending power is preserved and even increased as the bitcoin economy expands.

Lets see what people really want.

Actually no its going to be right from the start, like

THIS IS NO BITCOIN, NOTHING WATSOEVER TO DO WITH IT
NO EARLY MINE WILL MAKE YOU FILTHY RICH, LATE MINERS GET THE BEST COINS
IF YOU HODL YOU WILL WATCH THEM RUST AWAY.

and then just wait for the bitcoin bubble to burst and steal its userbase

LOL. That is so dumb. Let me see. If I buy your special coin I can watch my wealth disintegrate.  Or I can buy bitcoin and see my wealth increase. Gee, which would I choose?

You are some kind of special stupid to think that would work. Maybe you are an economist.

You are going to wait for the bitcoin bubble to burst and steal its user base? Come at us bro. We are ready.

Ha we'll see who gets to laugh last.
No just a grade school teacher lol.
I will and when I come, I will have Central Banks to back me! yeah!
and Im gone make your bitcoins worth shit so Hodl.

[Kungfucheez]

So let me try and understand this. He's wrong because he wants to change bitcoin. Yet your not wrong because you want to change the current financial system. How is there a difference? Your doing the same thing you claim he is doing.

And it doesn't sound like he's shoving anything down your throat, it looks more like he's being reasonable and intelligent and willing to discuss the topic like an adult, and it sounds more like you are trying to push some agenda you have

No, he's not trying to change the existing financial system at all ... we are trying to replace it entirely and give people an option to OPT OUT.

Something I notice no economists are offering or advocating for at present ... rather they spend a great deal of time trying to figure out how to keep everybody corralled into their sick facist financial system of control and monitoring, cash controls, border checks, sniffer dogs, criminalising cash ... the list is endless with examples of the restrictions of financial freedom to serve their fiat masters and their wrong, failed, sick economic theories.

OPT out of what exactly? Life? If you think btc is going to magically change society for the better you have a serious problem.  The list is endless on the number of people who benefit from a fiat system as well. You sound more like a retarded tin-foil hat nut-job then a rational human.

[marcus_of_augustus]

OPT out of what exactly? Life? If you think btc is going to magically change society for the better you have a serious problem.  The list is endless on the number of people who benefit from a fiat system as well. You sound more like a retarded tin-foil hat nut-job then a rational human.

OPT OUT of fiat (not sure how you missed that glaring detail). Bitcoin is changing societies immensely already, people (even braindead economists) are thinking and talking about the central banksters fiat monetary RORT, it has already won regardless of what happens next.

Ad Hominem = Fail


... got any other pearls of wisdom or are we done here?

[Lloydie]

I suspect your inflationary alt coin argument will go something like this:

Please use my alt coin because you must trust us to manage the alt coin for the justice of all.It will be inflationary and your purchasing power will devalue over time. Thanks.

Or, you can choose bitcoin where your spending power is preserved and even increased as the bitcoin economy expands.

Lets see what people really want.

Actually no its going to be right from the start, like

THIS IS NO BITCOIN, NOTHING WATSOEVER TO DO WITH IT
NO EARLY MINE WILL MAKE YOU FILTHY RICH, LATE MINERS GET THE BEST COINS
IF YOU HODL YOU WILL WATCH THEM RUST AWAY.

and then just wait for the bitcoin bubble to burst and steal its userbase

LOL. That is so dumb. Let me see. If I buy your special coin I can watch my wealth disintegrate.  Or I can buy bitcoin and see my wealth increase. Gee, which would I choose?

You are some kind of special stupid to think that would work. Maybe you are an economist.

You are going to wait for the bitcoin bubble to burst and steal its user base? Come at us bro. We are ready.

Ha we'll see who gets to laugh last.
No just a grade school teacher lol.
I will and when I come, I will have Central Banks to back me! yeah!
and Im gone make your bitcoins worth shit so Hodl.

Lord, help those children that this person is teaching. May they always see through his bullshit.

At least now we know who you are Thaaanos: You are a lap dog of central banking. You are in the wrong forum. Go back to where you came from.

[Lloydie]

OPT out of what exactly? Life? If you think btc is going to magically change society for the better you have a serious problem.  The list is endless on the number of people who benefit from a fiat system as well. You sound more like a retarded tin-foil hat nut-job then a rational human.

Yes. In fact I do think that for the first time in history, bitcoin has the potential to change society for the better.

For the first time, bitcoin removes the parasitic third party banking system/central banking/surveillance machinery.

So, we are fighting the FUD that comes from people like you. We are telling people that Bitcoin allows people to opt out of centralised systems.

This is real democracy at work. If people feel the fiat system is better for them, they can stay. For others for whom the fiat system has failed them, they can and have already voted with their wallets.

Yes, people like you will try to regulate us, belittle us, influence us. But that's okay. You are part of the machinery that has just found a superior system that you cannot easily shutdown. It is natural for you to try and fight back.

But once people realise they can leave the oppressive machinery in exchange for something fairer, more transparent and less interfering - you will have lost the war.

The list of people that benefit from fiat are the 1%. The rest of us are tired of enriching the 1%. We want change.