Convince me that the bitcoin elite cannot become the next Rothschild family

[Killdozer]

The reason is BTC does not exist in reality. As long as it stays there, random strings of character's in cyberspace

In whichever sane way you can define "reality", this is wrong. "Real's gonna change" so to speak.
And if you think they are random strings in cyberspace, why don't you just write up some new random characters and try to convince somebody they are worth something, like exchange them for USD for example.

[1714104378]

1714104378

[1714104378]

1714104378

[1714104378]

1714104378

[1714104378]

1714104378

[1714104378]

1714104378

[1714104378]

1714104378

[foggyb]

The reason is BTC does not exist in reality. As long as it stays there, random strings of character's in cyberspace

Of course bitcoin exists in reality. Anyone with the right tools can test for the existence and validity of the bitcoin blockchain.

Do you also propose that for example, prime numbers do not exist in reality? After all, they are only numbers. No, you're wrong. Our whole world system depends on the same mathematics and cryptography that bitcoin is based on.

You know what's ironic about your statement? The USD is less real than bitcoin! No one can look up an individual US dollar and test its validity. The Federal Reserve simply declares it into existence, as if they were God.

[John Kirk]

It isn't about wealth, it is about control. It is about debt-based economies that keep the middle and poor classes under its boot and stifle humanity.

Exactly right.  Except, oddly, you seem to be missing the point.

The problem with the central bank is not that it has a lot of money.  The problem, fundamentally, is that it can create as much money as it wants ad-infinitim.  It uses this power to continually maintain and increase its influence over society.  It is now to the point that virtually all people in the U.S. are essentially indentured servants to the banks.  The system is set up so that the indentured servants collectively owe more than they can possibly pay back.  In theory, the amount of money equals the total amount of debt.  But, due to interest the servants contractually owe the bank on the money they borrow, the entire money supply does not equal the amount of money the servants must pay back.  So, on a continual basis, the central bank issues more money, gets the servants to borrow that at interest to pay back the previous debts, and the servitude continues.

The early adopters of bitcoin have the potential to become very wealthy.  That is true.  However, they do not have the power to continually create more money.  The bitcoins they mined early on are the bulk of the bitcoins they will ever have.  Thus, they do not have the ability to continually keep the rest of us as their servants.  Once they spend their bitcoins, however much they are worth, then they will have exhausted whatever power they have.

[FlipPro]

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  !

[rebuilder]

Of course they can. You think with sufficient funds one can't hire thugs to rob and kidnap someone?

However, without the state

• they need to pay for this attack themselves and can't externalise the costs
• they also need to pay for the defense themselves and can't externalise the costs

Sure, theoretically, it's possible. It's just much less likely to turn out profitable.

I fully agree. People in that position by any name use the state to there advatage simply because the state structure is there and is the most readily available resource. Without the state they would execute their will with whatever other means are available.

Without the state, everyone can use whatever other means are available, not just the rich. With P2P communication, you can have assassination markets, for example.

I fully expect, if somehow "the state" as it is referred to here were to be done away with, anyone with sufficient resources would simply set up their own. What kind, I can't say, probably something closer to a dictatorship, maybe a feodal system. It's pretty theoretical, of course. The point is, the state is simply a mechanism for portioning out power. There's nothing magical about it. Power will always be distributed one way or the other, and will, in my opinion, tend to concentrate until the system reaches a breaking point of some kind. Power is profitable, therefore people will try to gain it, and the more power you have, the better your chances of getting more.

Personally, I've found reading ancient history quite enlightening in this regard. The single theme that seems to arise from my reading of human history is that people will do just about anything for power. Strip away the morals and rhetoric, and you're left with ruthless economics. The powerful will make subjects of others as best they can, and those subjects become resources to be used for further conquest. There's definitely a profit to be made there, not to mention some major ego massaging.

[Etlase2]

The early adopters of bitcoin have the potential to become very wealthy.  That is true.  However, they do not have the power to continually create more money.

Creating money or restricting money, the end result is the same: the poor lose, the rich win. This has nothing to do with inflation, it has to do with he who controls the money has more power than that money should be worth. Creating money for inflation, withholding money for deflation. They are two sides of the same coin of control. Inflationists profit off of keeping you mortgaging your life away in debt and interest, deflationists profit off of paying you less and less to do what you did before.

Want to pretend that investment, loans, and banking won't exist in a deflationary currency? All right then, let's go back to the feudal system, because you will have precisely zero opportunity to improve your standing in life if you grow up in a poor or middle class family.

[reg]

In whichever sane way you can define "reality", this is wrong. "Real's gonna change" so to speak.
And if you think they are random strings in cyberspace, why don't you just write up some new random characters and try to convince somebody they are worth something, like exchange them for USD for example.

reply: and yet that is exactly what bitcoin is doing- if there were no internet (like say 2000BC ) there would be no cyberspace and therefore no way to construct an argument for a blockchain. Most sane people define reality as physically existing , which is why fiat currencies are given historically more credence than crypto currencies. " Real,s gonna change" was disproved by Lewis Carrol when he asserted "if it could be it would be but as it isn't it ain't"  In my opinion this means what is real does not change only peoples perception of reality can change.   Perhaps I could try another approach to explain what I mean. Whatever can be in the mind of man cannot exist in reality or without that mind to contain it.  this is not a weakness, it is a strength in the bitcoin debate. Consider- what does not exist cannot be taken away or controlled! If I wish to retain or disperse at my discretion my interlectual rights over a string of charachters of which only I have the key that gives me a freedom never before enjoyed. The value placed on that is between two people only and that is a strength. sorry for being longwinded we are nearly at a book or film length. reg

[Hawker]

The early adopters of bitcoin have the potential to become very wealthy.  That is true.  However, they do not have the power to continually create more money.

Creating money or restricting money, the end result is the same: the poor lose, the rich win. This has nothing to do with inflation, it has to do with he who controls the money has more power than that money should be worth. Creating money for inflation, withholding money for deflation. They are two sides of the same coin of control. Inflationists profit off of keeping you mortgaging your life away in debt and interest, deflationists profit off of paying you less and less to do what you did before.

Want to pretend that investment, loans, and banking won't exist in a deflationary currency? All right then, let's go back to the feudal system, because you will have precisely zero opportunity to improve your standing in life if you grow up in a poor or middle class family.

You are correct.  Both under the gold standard and under fiat money, thats exactly how society evolves unless people vote to change it.  Thats why countries that care about this kind of thing have progressive taxation systems.

I'm not sure if Bitcoin will ever be right for you if that is what you are hoping for.

[Gabi]

Gheddafi wasn't a terrorist?

First link i found

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051507/Gaddafi-dead-Families-Lockerbie-bombing-victims-celebrate-dictators-death.html

Theodora Cohen, 20, was a passenger on Pan Am Flight 103 that exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, on December 21, 1988.

The blast claimed the lives of all 259 people aboard the plane and 11 other people on the ground.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051507/Gaddafi-dead-Families-Lockerbie-bombing-victims-celebrate-dictators-death.html#ixzz1kn3r4Xui

Then we have Gheddafi shooting missiles against Italy.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacco_missilistico_libico_contro_Lampedusa

Two SS-1 Scud

And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

The 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing was a terrorist attack on the La Belle discothèque in West Berlin, Germany, an entertainment venue that was commonly frequented by United States soldiers. A bomb placed under a table near the disk jockey's booth exploded at 1:45 am CET on April 5, 1986, killing three people and injuring around 230 people, including 79 American servicemen.

Nermin Hannay, a Turkish woman, and U.S. sergeant Kenneth T. Ford were killed instantly; a second American sergeant, James E. Goins, died from his injuries two months later. Some of the victims were left permanently disabled.[1]

Etc etc etc...

Add the tens of thousands of civilians he killed in Lybia. You protest peacefully->he orders military to shoot on you.

[Killdozer]

Most sane people define reality as physically existing

The physical magnetic formations on people's hard drives which form the block chain do indeed exist. This is not some "perception" woodoo, there are physical particles that represent the block chain. Not to mention things like casascius bitcoin coins.
What is most important is of course the math, rock solid principles that ensure some of the bitcoin properties, that govern those magnetic particles on people's hard drives, and those also exist by all means, there is nothing "perceptional" about them. Whoever is going to check those principles, in whatever situation, in whatever language, they will always be the same. Nobody "came up" with them, they were discovered.

if there were no internet (like say 2000BC ) there would be no cyberspace and therefore no way to construct an argument for a blockchain.

Yeah, and if there were no paper processing technology (like say 500 BC according to wikipedia), there would be no paper and therefore no way to construct an argument for money bills. So what? How does that make it less real?

Creating money or restricting money, the end result is the same: the poor lose, the rich win. This has nothing to do with inflation, it has to do with he who controls the money has more power than that money should be worth. Creating money for inflation, withholding money for deflation. They are two sides of the same coin of control. Inflationists profit off of keeping you mortgaging your life away in debt and interest, deflationists profit off of paying you less and less to do what you did before.

Wouldn't that mean that whatever direction the value of money is moving, a part of "the rich" will always be winning, and a part will always be loosing? Doesn't that kind of undermine your whole "the rich always win" thing?

[foggyb]

Gheddafi wasn't a terrorist?

First link i found

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051507/Gaddafi-dead-Families-Lockerbie-bombing-victims-celebrate-dictators-death.html

Then we have Gheddafi shooting missiles against Italy.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacco_missilistico_libico_contro_Lampedusa

Two SS-1 Scud

And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

Add the tens of thousands of civilians he killed in Lybia. You protest peacefully->he orders military to shoot on you.

How did you place Gaddafi at the scene of these crimes? How is the USA allowed to shoot missiles destroy entire countries  without George Bush or Obama being declared a terrorist?

The frigate Bersagliere was about 19 kilometers (12 miles) off the Libyan city of Zlitan when the missile fell harmlessly into the sea about 2 km away, the Italian defense ministry and NATO reported.

"The ship was not harmed and continued on its mission," NATO said in a statement.

source: http://www.acus.org/natosource/gaddafi-forces-fire-missile-italian-warship

Sounds like a bullshit setup to me.

Score: Ghaddaffi:  -1, USA: 1,000,000

[Etlase2]

Wouldn't that mean that whatever direction the value of money is moving, a part of "the rich" will always be winning, and a part will always be loosing? Doesn't that kind of undermine your whole "the rich always win" thing?

Perhaps it would undermine my point if you care to explain what you mean. But, as I stated in a previous post, the linear graph of money equals an exponential graph of power. The richest of the rich stand to benefit no matter which way the value of money moves. Those on the cusp could be easily delegated back to the middle class--something that those in power would have no issue with.

[Bimmerhead]

I am sick and fucking tired of the world being manipulated by the powers that be. It isn't about wealth, it is about control. It is about debt-based economies that keep the middle and poor classes under its boot and stifle humanity.

I am sick and tired of the OWS crowd bandying about this old canard.

Read this and tell me who is really getting screwed by whom:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak

The so-called 'poor' in America have more 'currency' (ie. votes) than the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Waltons or whoever your favorite whipping-boy is this week will ever have.  The problem isn't the wealthy, it's politicians.

And if you don't like a debt-based economy, DON'T participate in it.  Stop borrowing.  Save your money before you buy stuff.  You know, like your grandparents did.

TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR LIFE MAN!  YOU'RE ONLY HERE FOR 80 or so YEARS, STOP BLAMING EVERYONE ELSE AND GET A GRIP.

[Etlase2]

Pardon me, but you sir are a moron that doesn't understand debt-based money. I will not be feeding the trolls.

[Bimmerhead]

Well you edited your response pretty quick.  You must have read the article after initially just looking at the pictures.

Pardon me, but you sir are a moron that doesn't understand debt-based money. I will not be feeding the trolls.

How else do you expect The Man to pay for all your welfare programs if not inflating the wealth out of the hands of the middle-class?

[asdf]

As Hazek has already pointed out, the power of the Rothschilds etc. DEPENDS heavily on the centrally controlled monetary system. This is why they are so intent on setting up central banks across the world. You really have to understand this point.

Bitcoin is decentralized, can't be printed arbitrarily, market controls interest rates. The fact that early adopters may have huge hordes of bitcoins doesn't really matter. They can only manipulate the supply (in circulation) until their horde runs out. Where as banks can print forever.

Also, bitcoin forces the state to tax in a more honest way (no inflation). This puts a democratically enforced limit on the amount they can plunder for wars etc. Both the voters and the market will reject %300 sales tax on all goods, but no one sees the inflation tax.

There is a big difference between holding a bunch of currency and controlling central banks.

[Kettenmonster]

So no. I don't believe that if there was no state rich people could force their will on the rest of us in another manner because people would see straight through it and resist.

Sorry for objection, but I can´t grasp your reasoning at this point.

- First of all they would not force their will in any other manner as they do now.
I say even if they could, as you say, they would not.
Why should they? It worked for the last few thousand years in the past and it pretty sure will in the next few thousand years.
To be specific: They always paid for service! Let me give an example here.
Harald Hardrada the most famous varangian leader was a viking that never cared for such thing called a state or for that political concept. He and his men simply did a well paid job to protect Basil 2nd. Take a closer look and see some similarities to a company formerly known as Blackwater.
Btw while giving Mafia a bad name the Normans -ancestors of the vikings- invented the concept of what we call Mafia roughly thousand years ago in Sicily. Ok not really true they brought it with them from home, while home was were the French King has placed them to hold their brothers off. In those days the now called Mafia was meant to take care. Take care nobody starves and no single Jarl gets too strong. Balance of power was the idea driving at those days. Jarl? The British call them Earl nowadays. Sorry for drifting of.
Anyhow google the rest of it.
My Point is: History prooves you wrong, wherever you take a closer look.
BUT! That is not an argument for surrender!

- Next objection: People can only see straight through things which they can see.
The state (I live in) allows me to see much more than ever before. (Ok its trying to rework this. But not very successful yet.)

- Do people resist?
Some care, very few of them take up the sword and fight. Most of them do not achieve much.
(Keep in mind me mentioning Gandhi above.)

[Kettenmonster]

As Hazek has already pointed out, the power of the Rothschilds etc. DEPENDS heavily on the centrally controlled monetary system. ...

No they don´t! Especially the Rothschilds do not! They have sperad their wealth very widely. Let all money get worthless, but they are still pretty well off. Let gold or diamonds get worthless, they care less than you do.
Like them or not, its a winning strategy.

p.s.
I don´t think they got Bitcoins. Probably maybe be they better should have.

[Brunic]

The presence of somebody at one location means his absence at another location.

If you all go play king of the hill, and somebody better than you, or somebody who was there before you is on the top of the hill, you can either:
-Fight your way to the top. Winning means you're at the top, losing means you're stuck at the bottom.
-Find another hill.

Bitcoin is another hill where there's no king yet. You have a chance to progress on this hill without having someone at the top trying to push you back. Eventually, somebody will make it at the top, and will try to protect the top. At that moment, you'll have two choices:

-Fight your way to the top.
-Find another hill.

Oh, and you know, the definition of early adopter is relative. Ok yeah, Satoshi had the chance to get a load of Bitcoins 2 years ago, but you know, in 10 years from now, there will be no more new Bitcoins. Those people in 10 years, when they'll enter the Bitcoin market, for them, WE'll be early adopters.

[asdf]

As Hazek has already pointed out, the power of the Rothschilds etc. DEPENDS heavily on the centrally controlled monetary system. ...

No they don´t! Especially the Rothschilds do not! They have sperad their wealth very widely. Let all money get worthless, but they are still pretty well off. Let gold or diamonds get worthless, they care less than you do.
Like them or not, its a winning strategy.

p.s.
I don´t think they got Bitcoins. Probably maybe be they better should have.

And they got that wealth by controlling the money supply.

Basically, you're just bothered by the fact that some people are insanely rich? Should the title of the OP then be: "convince me that the bitcoin early adopters won't become really rich". personally, I don't really care as long as they can't rob me by printing money.