Bitcoin Forum
August 20, 2017, 02:22:32 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Convince me that the bitcoin elite cannot become the next Rothschild family  (Read 11260 times)
Kettenmonster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


bool eval(bool b){return b ? b==true : b==false;}


View Profile
January 29, 2012, 04:16:30 PM
 #81

... Why would they if they are guaranteed to die.

It starts with if. Are they? If yes? Who will provide that guarantee?

The paining (sic!) is done with the QPainter class inside the paintEvent() method.
(source: my internet)
1503195752
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503195752

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503195752
Reply with quote  #2

1503195752
Report to moderator
1503195752
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503195752

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503195752
Reply with quote  #2

1503195752
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
hazek
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
January 29, 2012, 04:31:34 PM
 #82

... Why would they if they are guaranteed to die.

It starts with if. Are they? If yes? Who will provide that guarantee?

LOL, what are you 5 years old? THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE.

All you can do is minimize the risks. Right now every fking thug in a blue costume with a gun rapes and plunders people on a daily basis. EVERY person is subjected to the crime of theft via taxes and many are subjected to the crime of more theft or even kidnapping because they happen to break one of the arbitrary rules the government mafia decided it will enforce. Not to mention the petty criminals stealing and raping only because they know the worst they could face is some jail time..

Do you really believe this would be possible if every person on the planet carried a weapon and valued their self-ownership of their body and their life more than being alive?

I'm much rather bare the risk we shoot and kill each other once in a while and live truly free the majority of my time alive than being a debt/monetary slave for life.

My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)

If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
kangasbros
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812



View Profile
January 29, 2012, 04:45:09 PM
 #83

Sorry, if you knew the code in SolidCoin you would know how ridiculous this sounds. As more miners join, more coins are created.  This is the exact opposite of a pyramid. In Bitcoin as more miners join the blocks get harder to make but they are still worth the same number of Bitcoins. It means that Satoshi generating them on his CPU (and who made about a million or so) did so at a cost of only a cent a coin vs about 50c a coin now. You think this is fair?

And unlike Bitcoin we use real metrics like electricity to determine how much a block is worth.

Why should anybody waste their time at all researching your project? I wasted several hours inspecting it, and anything at all didn't convince me.

And it really pisses me off that you are here promoting your scammy project here. You already have your own section in this forum, and your own forum, why don't you use it.

Kettenmonster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


bool eval(bool b){return b ? b==true : b==false;}


View Profile
January 29, 2012, 06:22:48 PM
 #84

LOL, what are you 5 years old? THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE.

Oh wasn´t it you lately saying: The history is irrelevant.
How comes you suddenly bother about mine?

Keep in mind, wrong assumptions allow you to deduce anything. That is how an indirect proof works.
So be aware, by rejecting some of my assumptions you might support my point.

The paining (sic!) is done with the QPainter class inside the paintEvent() method.
(source: my internet)
Brunic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 633



View Profile
January 29, 2012, 08:46:37 PM
 #85

Convince ME.

I'm not there to convince you, I can't do that. Only you can change your own perspective, and it's not by using force, or thoughtful argument with sources and proof that I'm going to change that. Religious people prove it everyday. How many died for their belief? And a tons of good arguments made by atheists against religion never convinced them to change their beliefs. It even strengthened their belief because they feel "attacked".

All I can offer you is, my humble perspective on the situation. Me, as a human and a citizen of this world, I see things that way. I'll always be wrong for you, because I don't share the same point of view. The only thing I can hope is that you try to understand my point of view.
foggyb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316


View Profile
January 29, 2012, 09:49:09 PM
 #86

I stopped reading after you said that the people of Libya were "wealthy & happy" under Gadaffi. You been smoking to much of that shit from Silk Road  Cheesy!

he said the truth so keep reading or research yourself

Exactly. Why censor yourself? A clear sign of a conflicted point of view.

zveda2000
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 60


View Profile
January 30, 2012, 02:26:22 AM
 #87

Probably this point has already been made many times, but Bitcoin has two distinct advantages over fiat money in the context that you are asking (debt slavery etc).

1. No central bank has the authority to print money wiping out everybody's savings and setting interest rates to 0%.

2. Even when gold was money, very few controlled the mining of gold or even had the ability to safely store and protect large amount. So inevitably a majority of gold would end up with the few.

With bitcoin, it is very easy to store and protect large amounts, to transfer it anywhere you want, and nobody can take it from you by printing more. So of course some people are going to be much richer than others, but the ability to earn more bitcoins will hopefully be proportionate to how well you serve other people, in the long run, and not how clever you are in hijacking the financial system and its loopholes. I really think/hope that will be the key difference.
westkybitcoins
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!


View Profile
January 30, 2012, 04:17:28 AM
 #88

I'm still waiting to hear of a better method of initial cryptocurrency distribution. OP?

Bitcoin is the ultimate freedom test. It tells you who is giving lip service and who genuinely believes in it.
...
...
In the future, books that summarize the history of money will have a line that says, “and then came bitcoin.” It is the economic singularity. And we are living in it now. - Ryan Dickherber
...
...
ATTENTION BFL MINING NEWBS: Just got your Jalapenos in? Wondering how to get the most value for the least hassle? Give BitMinter a try! It's a smaller pool with a fair & low-fee payment method, lots of statistical feedback, and it's easier than EasyMiner! (Yes, we want your hashing power, but seriously, it IS the easiest pool to use! Sign up in seconds to try it!)
...
...
The idea that deflation causes hoarding (to any problematic degree) is a lie used to justify theft of value from your savings.
coblee
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Creator of Litecoin. Director of Eng at Coinbase.


View Profile
January 30, 2012, 07:20:18 AM
 #89

Quote
If a bank can spend 5 million dollars and shut down Bitcoin do you think Bitcoin is that secure? You may argue that it's 10 million or 20 million, but 3 years ago banks were given over 5 trillion dollars just to keep running. 20 million is nothing if it means shutting down a true competitor to their system. Zimbabwe could should shut down Bitcoin if they wanted. It isn't hard and it's entirely legal. Put as much faith into such a system as you want but we offer people a safer solution at SolidCoin.

What exactly makes solidcoin more secure for any governmental or other agency with enough resources to shutdown? Faster retargets? Anyone with enough resources to disturb bitcoin could make solidcoin and everyone using it dissapear from the face of the earth if there was every any point for that.

Seriously CoinHunter, it takes a lot less than 10 million for a government to find your true identity. They will then force you (maybe even torture you) to give up the identity of the trusted nodes and shut Solidcoin down. And I'm sure there are technical ways to take Solidcoin down by isolating the IPs of the trusted nodes and taking them down that way. I can't believe you are so naive as to think that your solution (centralizing the creation of every other block to trusted nodes and hiding the trusted nodes) is safer than bitcoin's decentralized solution. For your sake, I hope that Solidcoin never takes off. At least Satoshi would not need to fear for his safety when Bitcoin becomes a threat to the current monetary system.

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
January 30, 2012, 09:09:16 AM
 #90

I cant see Satoshi sending men with guns to my house but I can damn well see my local gov doing so.

hashman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 915



View Profile
January 30, 2012, 10:40:18 AM
 #91

I think I can convince you.  Do you own research and try to answer these two questions. 

1) How many bitcoins are in circulation? 

2) How many US dollars are in circulation? 

To answer the first question is pretty easy and can be done with 100% accuracy.  To answer the second one with 100% accuracy is impossible.  People study economics for decades at fancy schools and try to make good guesses.  Even the super-secret shadow bank kings can't really know.   

CoinHunter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252



View Profile
January 30, 2012, 12:55:42 PM
 #92

Seriously CoinHunter, it takes a lot less than 10 million for a government to find your true identity. They will then force you (maybe even torture you) to give up the identity of the trusted nodes and shut Solidcoin down. And I'm sure there are technical ways to take Solidcoin down by isolating the IPs of the trusted nodes and taking them down that way. I can't believe you are so naive as to think that your solution (centralizing the creation of every other block to trusted nodes and hiding the trusted nodes) is safer than bitcoin's decentralized solution. For your sake, I hope that Solidcoin never takes off. At least Satoshi would not need to fear for his safety when Bitcoin becomes a threat to the current monetary system.

Naive? That is why the plan was for the NPO to take control of everything and be protected in appropriate ways. The government wouldn't see SolidCoin as a threat yet, it's a minnow compared to Bitcoin, and by the time Bitcoin dies and SolidCoin is very successful there will be a NPO and "proper precautions" taken. If you don't know how to do the latter it is probably why you don't understand the security inherent in the SolidCoin system. It is why there is a CPF, coin PROTECTION fund. It's going to protect the network and its users.

We will do our best to survive government and large corporation attacks, that is what we are charged with doing over here. No one can guarantee you security but the bitcoin system is wide open for an attack. Your assumptions they actually have to get their hands dirty in kidnapping, torturing and etc shows you it's one step beyond "buy FPGA, kill bitcoin" .

I never started SolidCoin thinking at one stage it wouldn't get violent, that's what will happen, at some point, if we are successful. And we need to be ready for it.

Try SolidCoin or talk with other SolidCoin supporters here SolidCoin Forums
Nekrobios
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


Bitcoin Maximalist


View Profile
January 30, 2012, 12:59:14 PM
 #93

I'm still waiting to hear of a better method of initial cryptocurrency distribution. OP?



Sigmoid curve. Natural resource depletion.

Difficulty was 1 for over a year. Yet the BTC output was as high as it is now. Distribution sucks because of that.
Boussac
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1174


e-ducat.fr


View Profile WWW
January 30, 2012, 01:35:56 PM
 #94

I'm still waiting to hear of a better method of initial cryptocurrency distribution. OP?

Difficulty was 1 for over a year. Yet the BTC output was as high as it is now. Distribution sucks because of that.
Why ? Why werent you mining then ?
Personnally I have no problem with the fact that the guys who started the whole thing may have profited from their invention a bit more than the followers.

I do have a problem with the banking system stuffing their pockets with everybody else's wealth because there is a single currency policy AND a monopoly of monetary creation: bankers never invented anything useful but more ways for themselves  to get richer and richer.

Nekrobios
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


Bitcoin Maximalist


View Profile
January 30, 2012, 01:38:45 PM
 #95

Never heard of Bitcoin back then, same as 99% of the population. Wink Bitcoin was announced on a cryptography mailing list.

The guys who started the whole thing? No, you didn’t get the mining rewards for starting it or programming anything, you got it for being there and leaving your computer on like many do for free for projects like folding@home.

Also, I just suggested what I think would have been a better distribution method/curve and therefore answered your question. Tongue

One more thing …


Personnally I have no problem with the fact that the guys who started the whole thing may have profited from their invention a bit more than the followers.
A bit more? knightmb is known to own (or have owned) 375k BTC. Satoshi himself likely has a multiple of that. I don’t think giving them such a large percentage of the whole supply is just "a bit more".
Boussac
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1174


e-ducat.fr


View Profile WWW
January 30, 2012, 01:57:32 PM
 #96

You are right about differentiating inventors and miners however early adopters (including miners) lifted it off the ground when it was needed.
I have heard of projects that never took off because they wanted to solve too many problems.
Bitcoin is a technology for decentralized transactions and storing value.
It enables breaking the monopoly of the banking system. Thats a huge achievement.

It does not solve the problem of temporal distortion (early adopters benefit more than future generations).
I consider it acceptable if future generations of users live with the freedom to choose if and when they need the service of a third party to manage their transactions.

hazek
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
January 30, 2012, 04:29:26 PM
 #97

I'm still waiting to hear of a better method of initial cryptocurrency distribution. OP?



Sigmoid curve. Natural resource depletion.

Difficulty was 1 for over a year. Yet the BTC output was as high as it is now. Distribution sucks because of that.

I think this is an interesting proposal but most likely a flawed one. The flaw I see is that you have to bind the issuance curve to time and not difficulty in order to insure the top limit and scarcity, so it would take a very long time for any Bitcoins to exist. So there would be a big question of whether or not the early adopters would have had enough incentive to actually participate for such a long time and make what we have now possible if they knew that what they were getting in the first third or so of your suggested Sigmoid issuance curve was going to get wiped out down the road with significant increase in inflation(expansion of the supply). Would they really invest the time and costs to ultimately get nothing in return?

Besides I don't understand what people think Satoshi could possibly do with all his Bitcoins? Don't you understand that if he tried to cash out even a tenth of his million or how ever many he has, he'd completely crash the price and could never sell all of them at current spot. So I can't imagine why he'd ever do that aside from trying to destroy what he had created. I know that if I had that many I wouldn't try and crash their worth by flooding the market, I'd try to keep them and maybe only slowly sell a small amount to maintain their price and my net worth.

I think the biggest reason people have such a hard time with the way Bitcoin came into existence is because they live in this weird upside down false paradigm of the real world where conmen run the monetary system, the central banks, the government and the big banking corporations. You simply can't see the reality because of being immersed in the system you live in which is a total and complete fraud and that being the reason there's such high wealth distribution disparity. You just don't understand that it's the system we have in the real world is what made it possible and is the real con and that the Bitcoin system is nothing like it and therefor not a con but perfectly legitimate.

My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)

If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
westkybitcoins
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!


View Profile
January 30, 2012, 06:30:08 PM
 #98

I'm still waiting to hear of a better method of initial cryptocurrency distribution. OP?



Sigmoid curve. Natural resource depletion.

Difficulty was 1 for over a year. Yet the BTC output was as high as it is now. Distribution sucks because of that.

The problem wasn't the difficulty. The problem was the lack of people who knew about the system, which meant few people mining, which is what kept difficulty low in the first place (and which meant those coins were split among the few people.)

The problem was there wasn't a national ad campaign so that everyone could have jumped in, and the early coins could have been distributed among more people.

That said...

The problem I've come to see with the sigmoid curve is that there's no incentive for anyone to be an early adopter, even with a national ad campaign.

If tons of people had started flooding into mining bitcoin early, they would have done so when the inflation rate was the highest, and the most coins were coming into circulation. Early adoption was encouraged.

With the sigmoid curve, why would anyone go in first? They would all be fighting over scraps of coins, and all the electricity they burned would be much more efficiently utilized past -2 on the horizontal line, when the coins start coming in abundance. Waiting would encouraged.

That suggests to me that either sigmoid-coin would never get off the ground (so few people would be involved early on it would flounder) or that only a handful of people, out of sheer love of the project, would be mining right up until the -2 point.... and you'd still have millions of coins in the hands of a few.

I admit, it sounds good, but I don't think it fixes the real "problem": the coins flowing into the hands of a few right up until they have a significant number of them.

I'd really like to hear a method that directly addresses the number of participants, and then their subsequent share of coins.

Bitcoin is the ultimate freedom test. It tells you who is giving lip service and who genuinely believes in it.
...
...
In the future, books that summarize the history of money will have a line that says, “and then came bitcoin.” It is the economic singularity. And we are living in it now. - Ryan Dickherber
...
...
ATTENTION BFL MINING NEWBS: Just got your Jalapenos in? Wondering how to get the most value for the least hassle? Give BitMinter a try! It's a smaller pool with a fair & low-fee payment method, lots of statistical feedback, and it's easier than EasyMiner! (Yes, we want your hashing power, but seriously, it IS the easiest pool to use! Sign up in seconds to try it!)
...
...
The idea that deflation causes hoarding (to any problematic degree) is a lie used to justify theft of value from your savings.
Killdozer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 204



View Profile
January 30, 2012, 09:53:20 PM
 #99

Quote
A bit more? knightmb is known to own (or have owned) 375k BTC. Satoshi himself likely has a multiple of that. I don’t think giving them such a large percentage of the whole supply is just "a bit more".

Why can't you people understand that the true beauty and innovation of the bitcoin is that there are no external controls over who owns what. The whole point is to make a system where if you have the private key and coins on that in the block chain, and if the key itself does not get compromised, NOTHING CAN FUCKING HAPPEN TO IT. Nobody can come and take it or ban it or whatever, for whatever reasons. Nobody can come and call those coins "dirty", or unjust, on unfairly generated. There is no "fair" concept in the real money, or in the actual universe for that matter. Only the true open market, probably for the first time in human history.

And yes, the generation rate was the same, and that's also the part of it, making the generation rate completely predictable and known beforehand. It doesn't listen to any complaints, rants, beggings, just like pure math doesn't. And it does not matter who is originating those rants, a government, a wealthy person, or an angry group of poor people. And coins on an address are just as good as any other coins on any other address. No discrimination for whatever reason.


Also, I am assuming most people understand this, but if there is a person that owns "375k BTC", and current price on mtgox is 5USD/BTC, that does not actually mean that the person owns 375'000*5=1'875'000 dollars. Would he try to sell all of them, the price would drop during that time, and even if he would try buy stuff/services for those bitcoins, that would also make the price drop because many retailers will sell off those bitcoins pretty fast. So while it maybe difficult to actually determine how much that is worth, it is definetely worth a lot less than just the amount times current price.

Etlase2
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
January 31, 2012, 09:10:20 AM
 #100

While I may share some of the OP's concerns, I fail to see how these relate to Bitcoin. To asnwer the OP's question directly:

1. There is no "Bitcoin elite". It's a p2p system, open source, and open for anyone to jump on and off board as they please. Moreover, the majority of coins have not even been mined yet. I don't see the problem. You are free to mine, buy, sell and use coins as you please. You don't depend on any central authority to do so.

The majority of the coins will be mined in a few months, with all of what, 100k people having tried out bitcoin? Out of 7 billion?

I don't just rage against the pyramid because of how unfair it is, I rage against it because this silly popularity you think that would be impossible without it will EVENTUALLY BE ITS DOWNFALL.
Smart minds and great thinkers will start reviewing the history of bitcoin and will start speaking out against it. The bitcoin name will get trashed repeatedly and be called a pyramid. If there is one thing the general public understands, it is the words "pyramid scheme" regardless if bitcoin is one straight up or not. This early adopter super bonus is going to be a reason for it to fail at being a world currency.

Quote
2. Even if there were "Bitcoin elite," they could never become the next Rothschild family, simply because they are not a family. My view is that, while generations of Rothschilds were born into wealth and therefore inevitably understand how wealth functions (better than an average Joe anyway), some fraction of this presumed "Bitcoin elite" are dysfunctional, paranoid trash who will - if by some coincidence their amassed  coins become significantly valued - quickly slide into a spiral of personal disasters related to addiction, lawyers, vanity, abuse, and stupidity.  All I hope is that they spent their coins on their way, instead of losing them irreversibly to a black hole. The other fraction may just be fine folks, who will do with their coins as they please, without causing much harm to themselves or others. Many members of this forum come to mind, and I am glad if they got wealthy. Good for them.

The original Rothschild family was not born into wealth. Education and manipulation are things that are taught. Do you really think someone with 10% of all the currency to ever exist will be so frivolous as to waste it on the things you list? It is likely that satoshi holds more than anyone else and it is likely that he/them is very smart as evidenced by the bitcoin code. So again, you resort to hopes and wishes rather than the possibility that perhaps the Rothschild design was inherent and intentional. You could be playing right into their hands just as world governments did by borrowing from the Rothschilds to pay for wars.

Probably this point has already been made many times, but Bitcoin has two distinct advantages over fiat money in the context that you are asking (debt slavery etc).

1. No central bank has the authority to print money wiping out everybody's savings and setting interest rates to 0%.

2. Even when gold was money, very few controlled the mining of gold or even had the ability to safely store and protect large amount. So inevitably a majority of gold would end up with the few.

With bitcoin, it is very easy to store and protect large amounts, to transfer it anywhere you want, and nobody can take it from you by printing more. So of course some people are going to be much richer than others, but the ability to earn more bitcoins will hopefully be proportionate to how well you serve other people, in the long run, and not how clever you are in hijacking the financial system and its loopholes. I really think/hope that will be the key difference.

So we should judge bitcoin by how successful the current history of money is? Do you not believe the current monetary system to be flawed? Then why mitigate bitcoin's faults by saying "well this is how money already works"? The history of gold is the history of kings. Do you really want more kings?

With the sigmoid curve, why would anyone go in first? They would all be fighting over scraps of coins, and all the electricity they burned would be much more efficiently utilized past -2 on the horizontal line, when the coins start coming in abundance. Waiting would encouraged.

The coins would start coming into abundance as bitcoin increased in popularity. Posting a message on a crypto board that had all of 10 posts in an entire year is not exactly a big way to get the word out. You say there is no incentive, but if the early adopters could prove its use as a currency such as selling a pizza for 50 BTC instead of 10,000, how would that make any difference? If it had still not taken off by the time the distribution reached maximum (probably 50 btc/10 min) then it was unlikely to take off anyway. But, if it did start working, then as the curve approached 50 btc, you'd have thousands upon thousands of people mining as you do now, and the early adopters would still have a very large sum of bitcoins worth a significant amount of money, but they would not have a complete stranglehold over the supply.

Quote
I admit, it sounds good, but I don't think it fixes the real "problem": the coins flowing into the hands of a few right up until they have a significant number of them.

Excellent, I addressed this in one of my posts where I said it may just be the first big business that starts accepting BTC that becomes the real elite.

Quote
I'd really like to hear a method that directly addresses the number of participants, and then their subsequent share of coins.

encoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49683.0 (again, it's overly complex but I set out to fix 51% attacks, pools, and other issues)

Early adopter shit is easy to promote. Give away 2x the coins, whatever. A deflationary currency is going to promote hoarding, and it is going to mean that the wealthy will always have more power over the unwealthy as they do not need to spend 90% or more of their income per year on food and rent. They can always hoard until the value goes too high and causes recession, then buy up property and other things of real value to "spur" the economy or LEND it too.

IMO, currency should strive for a stable value so that it cannot be manipulated by the wealthy. The early adopters can get all kinds of bonuses, I don't care about that, as long as they can't use those bonuses to manipulate.

Also, I am assuming most people understand this, but if there is a person that owns "375k BTC", and current price on mtgox is 5USD/BTC, that does not actually mean that the person owns 375'000*5=1'875'000 dollars. Would he try to sell all of them, the price would drop during that time, and even if he would try buy stuff/services for those bitcoins, that would also make the price drop because many retailers will sell off those bitcoins pretty fast. So while it maybe difficult to actually determine how much that is worth, it is definetely worth a lot less than just the amount times current price.

The point of avoiding a Rothschild family is looking to the far future and saying "what could happen if this becomes the world currency?" If all the non-material wealth is stored in bitcoin, 375k BTC is worth trillions. When you have trillions, you don't spend it, you manipulate. Look at politicians, ever bending to the will of corporations because they will get piddly sums for their campaigns.

Don't you, as a regular citizen of the world, get sick of this shit? Isn't the root of most crime simply due to the fact that many people cannot sustain a life above poverty? When you die, don't you want to be able to give your children the wealth of your many years of hard work?

I don't see how bitcoin fixes any of these meta-problems. I don't think bitcoin ever intended to. And I think that is really sad. It isn't the governments manipulating the wealth as so many of you want to believe. It is a very small group of individuals/businesses that are doing so. And bitcoin has this very same capability built in, no central bank required.

So you're right, knightmb would never be able to sell his 375k for 2 mil because the market would crash. But is this not the same thing as printing money?

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!