Bitcoin Forum
July 24, 2017, 06:57:12 PM *
News: BIP91 seems stable: there's probably only slightly increased risk of confirmations disappearing. You should still prepare for Aug 1.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 [506] 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1936241 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2014, 02:16:19 PM
 #10101

The problem I have with gold bugs who advocate a gold backed currency such as Rickards and Schiff is that gold backed currency has been tried and failed. It failed because of a central point of failure and in the US this central point of failure is the federal reserve and it failed to maintain a dollar peg to gold.  Einstein's definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."  By that definition, all gold bugs who want a gold backed currency are insane because it has been tried and failed miserably.  Don't try it again.  Bitcoiners are the sane ones for trying something different.

A gold backed digital currency would be great but these three conditions cannot exist simultaneously for money:
1.  Digital
2.  Backed by gold
3.  No third party risk (no central point of failure - decentralized)

The next best thing is to have 1 and 3 exist simultaneously, which leaves us with bitcoin.

With Bitcoin Specie, we get all three.

Bitccoin is not backed by gold so we don't get #2.

I hereby promise to give 1 oz of gold for 21,000,000 BTC or fractions of 1 oz of gold for respective fractions of Bitcoin to anyone who is willing to meet me in person. PM me if you want to redeem.

Here we go. Bitcoin is backed by gold.


Of course, you all know that backing is a concept that only applies at the institutional level of gubmint, the emitter of paper fiat. If they aren't willing to play ball by backing their worthless paper with Bitcoin, or even gold, your attempts to prove a point are pointless. That is what is required along with a free and open market in Bitcoin.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Trader Steve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 825


"How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time..."


View Profile
August 03, 2014, 03:47:41 PM
 #10102

The problem I have with gold bugs who advocate a gold backed currency such as Rickards and Schiff is that gold backed currency has been tried and failed. It failed because of a central point of failure and in the US this central point of failure is the federal reserve and it failed to maintain a dollar peg to gold.  Einstein's definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."  By that definition, all gold bugs who want a gold backed currency are insane because it has been tried and failed miserably.  Don't try it again.  Bitcoiners are the sane ones for trying something different.

A gold backed digital currency would be great but these three conditions cannot exist simultaneously for money:
1.  Digital
2.  Backed by gold
3.  No third party risk (no central point of failure - decentralized)

The next best thing is to have 1 and 3 exist simultaneously, which leaves us with bitcoin.

With Bitcoin Specie, we get all three.

Bitccoin is not backed by gold so we don't get #2.

Quote
The problem with #2-#3 is when it is all kept in some central vault.
A gold coin standard with a flexible free market valuation gives all three.
Bitcoin does this now.  You can buy gold or silver with bitcoin, and sell them for bitcoin.
This is not a true gold standard.  If it were, then a fixed amount of bitcoin would be directly redeemable for a fixed amount of gold.  This cannot exist in a trusless environment.  What you speak of are just market rates.  By your logic, the Argentinian peso is backed by gold.

Quote
Gold and silver provide pure anonymity in point of sale transactions.  They are not so good at being sent over the internet as Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is not quite as good at point of sale.  With both, you get Rickards dream coin.  Its already here.  Its called Bitcoin.

Gold and silver cannot be sent over the internet.  Period.  All you can do is send an IOU for gold or silver over the internet, which requires third party trust.  Bitcoin gives us 1 and 3 but not 2.  All 3 cannot exist simultaneously.  Unless someone can make all 3 happen at the same time, then bitcoin is our best option.

Bitcoin doesn't need backing any more than gold does. They are both scarce commodities that are valued in the marketplace for the utility that they provide.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
August 03, 2014, 03:51:08 PM
 #10103


Bitccoin is not backed by gold so we don't get #2.


It is backed by gold it's backed by the productive wealth of those who choose to be part of the ledger.

If my memory serves Cypher backed Bitcoin with gold by using the dollar as a proxy. Even the likes of Schiff are backing Bitcoin with gold, they're using BitPay as a proxy.

Backing with gold is an idea whose time had gone, Bitcoin is backed by much more ultimately it's faith in the maths that governs the ledger.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Trader Steve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 825


"How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time..."


View Profile
August 03, 2014, 04:01:11 PM
 #10104


Bitccoin is not backed by gold so we don't get #2.


It is backed by gold it's backed by the productive wealth of those who choose to be part of the ledger.

If my memory serves Cypher backed Bitcoin with gold by using the dollar as a proxy. Even the likes of Schiff are backing Bitcoin with gold, they're using BitPay as a proxy.

Backing with gold is an idea whose time had gone, Bitcoin is backed by much more ultimately it's faith in the maths that governs the ledger.

While the concept of a "necessary backing" is a fallacy in my book, I did like this definition I heard early in my bitcoin days:

"Bitcoin is backed by the lack of faith in central bankers and politicians."
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
August 03, 2014, 04:03:25 PM
 #10105

The problem I have with gold bugs who advocate a gold backed currency such as Rickards and Schiff is that gold backed currency has been tried and failed. It failed because of a central point of failure and in the US this central point of failure is the federal reserve and it failed to maintain a dollar peg to gold.  Einstein's definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."  By that definition, all gold bugs who want a gold backed currency are insane because it has been tried and failed miserably.  Don't try it again.  Bitcoiners are the sane ones for trying something different.

A gold backed digital currency would be great but these three conditions cannot exist simultaneously for money:
1.  Digital
2.  Backed by gold
3.  No third party risk (no central point of failure - decentralized)

The next best thing is to have 1 and 3 exist simultaneously, which leaves us with bitcoin.

With Bitcoin Specie, we get all three.

Bitccoin is not backed by gold so we don't get #2.

In fact, it is.
Bitcoin is backed by many things.
Everything for which you can redeem your bitcoin is what backs it.
The math and software and block chain hashing make bitcoin valuable, but that is different from backing.  Backing requires redeemability.

Quote
The problem with #2-#3 is when it is all kept in some central vault.
A gold coin standard with a flexible free market valuation gives all three.
Bitcoin does this now.  You can buy gold or silver with bitcoin, and sell them for bitcoin.
This is not a true gold standard.  If it were, then a fixed amount of bitcoin would be directly redeemable for a fixed amount of gold.  This cannot exist in a trusless environment.  What you speak of are just market rates.  By your logic, the Argentinian peso is backed by gold.

There is no true Scotsman.

If you define 'true gold standard' as one of the many gold standards that have existed in history and literature you can pick one that doesn't match the facts of today.

The gold standards elucidated by Richard Salsman's excellent work "Gold and Liberty" published by the AEIR list many including probably the one you are thinking of, and presents very strong evidence for what would be the best and ultimate gold standard, one based on the free market rather than a centralized authorities proclamation.  Very close to what you dismiss as 'just market rates' is a gold standard that can stand the test of time.


Quote
Gold and silver provide pure anonymity in point of sale transactions.  They are not so good at being sent over the internet as Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is not quite as good at point of sale.  With both, you get Rickards dream coin.  Its already here.  Its called Bitcoin.

Gold and silver cannot be sent over the internet.  Period.  All you can do is send an IOU for gold or silver over the internet, which requires third party trust.  Bitcoin gives us 1 and 3 but not 2.  All 3 cannot exist simultaneously.  Unless someone can make all 3 happen at the same time, then bitcoin is our best option.

I would suggest that all three can (and do) exist simultaneously, and that with all three, Bitcoin remains our best option.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 03, 2014, 04:07:29 PM
 #10106

While the concept of a "necessary backing" is a fallacy in my book
"Backing" is a kind of awkward hack that attempts to limit the production of currency.

It never really worked in the first place, and it's completely unnecessary now that we can just use math to limit the supply of the currency.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
August 03, 2014, 04:18:21 PM
 #10107

While the concept of a "necessary backing" is a fallacy in my book
"Backing" is a kind of awkward hack that attempts to limit the production of currency.

It never really worked in the first place, and it's completely unnecessary now that we can just use math to limit the supply of the currency.

Well put.

The 'backing' concept still remains a rhetorical argument against things like Bitcoin by people that imagine that their favorite currency is 'backed'.  There aren't any currencies other than gold itself that are backed by gold in that sense of backing, (with the possible exception of a negotiable warehouse receipt for gold).  What they mean by backing, bitcoin has, and has done better.

The necessity of it is in the minds of those that think their currency is better than ours.  The Bitcoin Specie project is to not only prove them wrong by example, but also to shame them for the fact that their currency has no Specie of its own with a value anywhere close to the value of the specie.

Come on, a $1 Silver Eagle oz?  A $5 Canadian Maple Leaf?  A $50 Gold Eagle oz?  These are laughably wrongly denominated.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2014, 04:19:50 PM
 #10108

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
August 03, 2014, 04:23:19 PM
 #10109

Yes!  The volume is the key.  Without it, a chart tells only half the story.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2014, 04:55:08 PM
 #10110

Yes!  The volume is the key.  Without it, a chart tells only half the story.

NL, the only thing i'd say about your arguments above is that i'd like to see gubmint play a "more" active role by loosening the choke points and regs that are restricting Bitcoin's free trade at the moment.  there is no doubt in my mind that Bitcoin would be much more widespread by now if they weren't interfering.

the other thing is that until the gubmint is willing to tie their fiat currency emission to Bitcoin, such as perhaps M1 to 21m BTC, they will continue to inflate the USD which is bad for everyone.  this has to stop.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2014, 05:23:57 PM
 #10111

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/495983233780449281
bitrider
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 233


View Profile
August 03, 2014, 06:15:44 PM
 #10112

While the concept of a "necessary backing" is a fallacy in my book
"Backing" is a kind of awkward hack that attempts to limit the production of currency.

Exactly. "an awkward hack" because we had no alternative.

molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324



View Profile
August 03, 2014, 08:29:44 PM
 #10113

While the concept of a "necessary backing" is a fallacy in my book
"Backing" is a kind of awkward hack that attempts to limit the production of currency.

It never really worked in the first place, and it's completely unnecessary now that we can just use math to limit the supply of the currency.

This is the gist. Thanks!

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2014, 08:37:05 PM
 #10114

While the concept of a "necessary backing" is a fallacy in my book
"Backing" is a kind of awkward hack that attempts to limit the production of currency.

It never really worked in the first place, and it's completely unnecessary now that we can just use math to limit the supply of the currency.

don't forget the concept of backing may continue forward as Bitcoin is Modular Gold - cypherdoc.

meaning we may end up plunking it into M1 in a 1 to 1 ratio with the USD monetary base forming a Bitcoin Standard serving as the foundation for the existing fiat debt system so as to prevent a severe debt implosion.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 03, 2014, 10:23:27 PM
 #10115

meaning we may end up plunking it into M1 in a 1 to 1 ratio with the USD monetary base forming a Bitcoin Standard serving as the foundation for the existing fiat debt system so as to prevent a severe debt implosion.
That's a thing that could be done, I suppose.

I consider it more likely that the USA goes the way of the USSR than the possibility that they could pull that kind of a rabbit out of their hat.
boumalo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
August 03, 2014, 10:46:08 PM
 #10116

We probably have 10%/year of real inflation in the US that should push Bitcoin and Gold higher

wachtwoord
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596


View Profile
August 03, 2014, 10:50:41 PM
 #10117

We probably have 10%/year of real inflation in the US that should push Bitcoin and Gold higher

Try >50%. Look it up.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 03, 2014, 11:23:02 PM
 #10118

We probably have 10%/year of real inflation in the US that should push Bitcoin and Gold higher

UST yields peaked in 1980 and have gone down ever since.  the real bull mkt in the US, and the greatest ever, has been in bonds

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/bonds-beat-stocks-1981-2011/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBigPicture+%28The+Big+Picture%29.
vuduchyld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


View Profile
August 03, 2014, 11:43:47 PM
 #10119

Yes!  The volume is the key.  Without it, a chart tells only half the story.

NL, the only thing i'd say about your arguments above is that i'd like to see gubmint play a "more" active role by loosening the choke points and regs that are restricting Bitcoin's free trade at the moment.  there is no doubt in my mind that Bitcoin would be much more widespread by now if they weren't interfering.

the other thing is that until the gubmint is willing to tie their fiat currency emission to Bitcoin, such as perhaps M1 to 21m BTC, they will continue to inflate the USD which is bad for everyone.  this has to stop.

Why M1 instead of M2? I've thought M2 was a better analog since it includes stored value, but I follow this thread religiously and value your thoughts on this.
STT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


¯\_(ツ)_/¯


View Profile WWW
August 04, 2014, 01:45:14 AM
 #10120


I hereby promise to give 1 oz of gold for 21,000,000 BTC or fractions of 1 oz of gold for respective fractions of Bitcoin to anyone who is willing to meet me in person. PM me if you want to redeem.

Here we go. Bitcoin is backed by gold.

There is a price already, 2.2293 btc per oz of gold

By trying to say you backed btc with gold, the scale is set to 21million per oz.    So instead of increasing the credibility of bitcoin, it now becomes like sand on a beach.    

     In a free market bitcoin must have a price/risk comparable to other assets, arbitrage makes this true of almost anything.    We cant just 'make it so' without resorting to the stupidity of communist party (or Nixon) price fixes and what that really means is less business is done.   In your case you are probably proposing that only you can give this exchange, because you undercut all other exchanges with your cheap price then business is restricted I think would be the effect.  
I think it would be so much more complicated and harder to do.   The immediate effect of every exchange offering this swap to gold would drop btc prices massively I think.  Exchange rates are not fixed without further problems

Peer to peer cryptography wont mix with gold, that value cannot be transmitted or codified

Yes!  The volume is the key.  Without it, a chart tells only half the story.
Volume of all major exchanges would be useful information to have.  Mt gox led to an inaccurate perspective so it would be best to have some average or weighting to trade done, that would help improve prediction most likely


Pages: « 1 ... 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 [506] 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 ... 1558 »
  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!