Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[semaforo]

National currencies are as strong as the country that issues them. The US military and territory and populations under its control back the value of the dollar.

The problem is that having a national currency as the world reserve currency gives tremendous power and potential for abuse to the issuer. The US broke with the gold standard in order to finance the Viet Nam war- this was could also be described as tapping into the line of credit represented by the overall use of the dollar. As long as dollars are being used in trade, demand remains high for them, securing their value.


The most traded commodity in the world right now is oil, and if you want to buy it, you probably need dollars because none of the persian gulf states will accept other currencies. Anyway, this is probably really old news for most forum members, but its just background for the consideration that at this point the dollar is very much overextended, and that there is a historical precedent for the currency of every major empire to be debased to the point where it was eventually worthless.

        The liquidity issued by the fed by their bond buying program (QE) is sitting in reserves right now to cover the adjusted capital requirements in post housing bubble financial regulation, but some of these adjustments have been revoked thanks to a very well financed financial lobby. Those dollars, which if released into the market in their entirety would probably be enough to trigger hyperinflation, are, very wisely on the part of the banks, slowly filtering into the economy. This stealth approach reminds me of the same technique of a whale who slowly sells off a security before dumping a larger amount to crash prices and buy back at the bottom of the market.

      The massive reserves being held by the major banks really give them the power to manipulate the global currency market for profit. It can also be used as a political power mechanism in the US\Russian rivalry. This is all well and good as long as their greed doesn't get out of hand. What I mean to say, is the huge cash reserves of the banks allow them to drive economic growth, profits, and thereby tax revenues, but it also gives them the power to unwittingly cause hyperinflation. So far they have shown a lot of restraint, but I highly doubt that this can be maintained indefinitely.

     Makes me wonder if the recent move to weaken Iran\Russia\Venezuela\Syria by the US in collaboration with Saudi Arabia in dropping the oil price has anything to do with the strengthening dollar? Also, what does the deflationary pressure in the EU have to do with any of this?

      With any event its important to ask "Who benefits?" I see China as the big winner in this series of events, as a big holder of dollar denominated debts, dollar reserves, and the US's biggest trade partner, also one of the countries most dependent on oil imports who has been shoring up massive reserves with the present low prices...

     Also important to note is the yet unrealized theft represented by QE, which is being covered right now by simultaneous tapering of dollar QE and increasing QE in the Yen and Euro. In other words, the major banks with the help of the Fed are quietly siphoning value out of the dollar holdings of everyone in the world to their benefit, and the Central banks of the EU and Japan are helping them to cover it up. Honestly, I know all the Central bank leaders meet once a month at the BIS in Switzerland to coordinate global economic policy, but Occum's Razor would really point to them all having a single boss. Now we just have to figure out what he\they want, and position ourselves to profit... this does not necessarily mean doing what they want us to, in fact, it may mean figuring out what they want us to do, and doing the opposite.

     As for the dollar- is it a safe investment? Sorry, the US trade deficit is not going anywhere fast, the Yuan is getting set to float- its an existential gamble for China, but US dependence on China is such that they could afford to make the US buy Yuan in order to trade with them... I think this would be a massive coup, because the skyrocketing demand for yuan could allow them to expand their power in trade deals by massively expanding the money supply to keep prices down for the sake of exports, while simultaneously securing trade deals all over the planet with the newly highly sought after currency. Right now they can get poised by shoring up massive reserves of oil in exchange for their soon-to-be-much-less-valuable dollars, and in order to cope with shortages that might come about due to disturbances originating from the Saudi-US complex, when they finally decide to make their move.

     This is, of course, all speculation, hence the name of the board...
    

[1714217240]

1714217240

[1714217240]

1714217240

[1714217240]

1714217240

[1714217240]

1714217240

[1714217240]

1714217240

[1714217240]

1714217240

[traderCJ]

Well I can't fault you on your pick and choose time frame.

And therein lies the con, it's all about carefully picking your time frame.  It's the oldest salesman tactic in the book.

[Trader Steve]

Yes, I think the likely scenario is that, as the global slow-down continues, money will flow to the dollar first since it is perceived by many as the safest asset.

Then precious metals and housing secondly, as they will always maintain 'some' intrinsic value.  

Trust me, in a true SHTF scenario, NOBODY is going to want or care for bitcoin.  They're going to want food, shelter, clothing, and nationally recognized currency that will be accepted anywhere with historical usage that extends back thousands of years: silver and gold.

Besides the fact that I feel there is no such thing as "intrinsic" value (all values are subjective) I see the capital flowing this way:

weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin

I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).

[traderCJ]

weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin

I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).

You're complicating what should be a simple issue.  Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties.  You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever.  Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances.  Not so in others.  Same applies to credit cards, and so on.

Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"?

[Trader Steve]

weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin

I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).

You're complicating what should be a simple issue.  Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties.  You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever.  Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances.  Not so in others.  Same applies to credit cards, and so on.

Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"?

Bitcoin will likely be the final (or only) medium of exchange left that will enable people to trade for the food, shelter, etc. It will enable the global trade across distance to continue because it will be the only trusted currency that is not subject to the risk of being "backed" by the "full faith and credit" of bankrupt governments. It will allow the market economy to continue while preventing the total collapse into a barter economy. In short, it will save many from a lot of pain and suffering.

[flipstyle]

weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin

I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).

You're complicating what should be a simple issue.  Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties.  You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever.  Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances.  Not so in others.  Same applies to credit cards, and so on.

Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"?

Bitcoin will likely be the final (or only) medium of exchange left that will enable people to trade for the food, shelter, etc. It will enable the global trade across distance to continue because it will be the only trusted currency that is not subject to the risk of being "backed" by the "full faith and credit" of bankrupt governments. It will allow the market economy to continue while preventing the total collapse into a barter economy. In short, it will save many from a lot of pain and suffering.

And what exactly is bitcoin 'backed' by? Coins and fiat are backed by physical governments and militia.    People can protest and throw rocks at politicians when shtf. You can't throw rocks online at miners maintaining the blockchains, or rogue exchange owners known only by internet screennames.

Are you assuming the masses will just put all their 'faith' into a non-reversible, non transparent system backed by anonymous neckbeards should the world crumble?

Sounds legit.

[brg444]

weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin

I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).

You're complicating what should be a simple issue.  Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties.  You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever.  Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances.  Not so in others.  Same applies to credit cards, and so on.

Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"?

Bitcoin will likely be the final (or only) medium of exchange left that will enable people to trade for the food, shelter, etc. It will enable the global trade across distance to continue because it will be the only trusted currency that is not subject to the risk of being "backed" by the "full faith and credit" of bankrupt governments. It will allow the market economy to continue while preventing the total collapse into a barter economy. In short, it will save many from a lot of pain and suffering.

And what exactly is bitcoin 'backed' by? Coins and fiat are backed by physical governments and militia.  

Are you assuming the masses will just put all their 'faith' into a non-reversible, non transparent system backed by anonymous neckbeards should the world crumble?

Sounds legit.

Bitcoin, like any sound money, needs no backing but the trust of its users. The "masses" will not be given a choice.

Governments should've never had control over the monetary system in the first place. You argument reeks of the charlatan state theory of money.  Here's some reading for you : http://www.coindesk.com/volatility-deflation-manipulation-response-bitcoins-critics/

How exactly is Bitcoin non transparent?

[flipstyle]

weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin

I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).

You're complicating what should be a simple issue.  Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties.  You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever.  Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances.  Not so in others.  Same applies to credit cards, and so on.

Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"?

Bitcoin will likely be the final (or only) medium of exchange left that will enable people to trade for the food, shelter, etc. It will enable the global trade across distance to continue because it will be the only trusted currency that is not subject to the risk of being "backed" by the "full faith and credit" of bankrupt governments. It will allow the market economy to continue while preventing the total collapse into a barter economy. In short, it will save many from a lot of pain and suffering.

And what exactly is bitcoin 'backed' by? Coins and fiat are backed by physical governments and militia.  

Are you assuming the masses will just put all their 'faith' into a non-reversible, non transparent system backed by anonymous neckbeards should the world crumble?

Sounds legit.

Bitcoin, like any sound money, needs no backing but the trust of its users. The "masses" will not be given a choice.

How exactly is Bitcoin non transparent?

How has the 'trust' factor worked out for bitcoin so far?.........

I'll wait for the anticipated 'but but millions of new vc investments have been pouring in...'

The companies don't care a tad bit about bitcoin at its premise.  They simply use it as an immediate medium to convert btc to fiat, so they can continue running their company.  As long as they're immediately able to convert it to fiat the instant they receive payment, then they could care less whether's its bitcoin, buttcoin, governmentcoin, or e-coinv4.5.


Non transparent is exactly what it states.  There's no guarantee that 'joe shmoe' on the other end of a transaction is who he says he is.  You do not need a valid drivers license/passport/id to have/acqire/transfer btc.  

Now try sending/receiving a moneygram or opening up a credit card account without ID and tell me how far that gets you.

[Trader Steve]

weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin

I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).

You're complicating what should be a simple issue.  Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties.  You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever.  Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances.  Not so in others.  Same applies to credit cards, and so on.

Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"?

Bitcoin will likely be the final (or only) medium of exchange left that will enable people to trade for the food, shelter, etc. It will enable the global trade across distance to continue because it will be the only trusted currency that is not subject to the risk of being "backed" by the "full faith and credit" of bankrupt governments. It will allow the market economy to continue while preventing the total collapse into a barter economy. In short, it will save many from a lot of pain and suffering.

And what exactly is bitcoin 'backed' by? Coins and fiat are backed by physical governments and militia.    People can protest and throw rocks at politicians when shtf. You can't throw rocks online at miners maintaining the blockchains, or rogue exchange owners known only by internet screennames.

Are you assuming the masses will just put all their 'faith' into a non-reversible, non transparent system backed by anonymous neckbeards should the world crumble?

Sounds legit.

You make the same mistake I did before I learned economics. Bitcoin is not backed by anything - just like gold isn't. They are each valued for their individual characteristics and utility. Humans impute value - there is no such thing as "intrinsic" or "inherent" value.

[flipstyle]

weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin

I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).

You're complicating what should be a simple issue.  Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties.  You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever.  Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances.  Not so in others.  Same applies to credit cards, and so on.

Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"?

Bitcoin will likely be the final (or only) medium of exchange left that will enable people to trade for the food, shelter, etc. It will enable the global trade across distance to continue because it will be the only trusted currency that is not subject to the risk of being "backed" by the "full faith and credit" of bankrupt governments. It will allow the market economy to continue while preventing the total collapse into a barter economy. In short, it will save many from a lot of pain and suffering.

And what exactly is bitcoin 'backed' by? Coins and fiat are backed by physical governments and militia.    People can protest and throw rocks at politicians when shtf. You can't throw rocks online at miners maintaining the blockchains, or rogue exchange owners known only by internet screennames.

Are you assuming the masses will just put all their 'faith' into a non-reversible, non transparent system backed by anonymous neckbeards should the world crumble?

Sounds legit.

You make the same mistake I did before I learned economics. Bitcoin is not backed by anything - just like gold isn't. They are each valued for their individual characteristics and utility. Humans impute value - there is no such thing as "intrinsic" or "inherent" value.

Perhaps bad wording on my part, as 'intrinsic value' has such a broad range of interpretation. 

I'll say 'utilitarian value.'  Even if gold's market value crashes to 0, it still won't be completely useless, as it can still be utilized in industrial/economic/decorative situations.

Now what usefulness would bitcoin present if its market value goes to nil?

[brg444]

How has the 'trust' factor worked out for bitcoin so far?.........

Very well I must say. In little over 5 years Bitcoin has managed to grow a market cap of over 1B$. Not so bad for a concept that is quite unlike anything this world has seen.

You "transparency" assertion is quite subjective and mostly disingenuous. I will not entertain an argument where one would propose the current financial system is more transparent than the world's biggest open source ledger.

Now please spare us the rest of your depressingly unoriginal idiocy and go back to the troll corner where you came from.  

[brg444]

weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin

I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).

You're complicating what should be a simple issue.  Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties.  You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever.  Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances.  Not so in others.  Same applies to credit cards, and so on.

Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"?

Bitcoin will likely be the final (or only) medium of exchange left that will enable people to trade for the food, shelter, etc. It will enable the global trade across distance to continue because it will be the only trusted currency that is not subject to the risk of being "backed" by the "full faith and credit" of bankrupt governments. It will allow the market economy to continue while preventing the total collapse into a barter economy. In short, it will save many from a lot of pain and suffering.

And what exactly is bitcoin 'backed' by? Coins and fiat are backed by physical governments and militia.    People can protest and throw rocks at politicians when shtf. You can't throw rocks online at miners maintaining the blockchains, or rogue exchange owners known only by internet screennames.

Are you assuming the masses will just put all their 'faith' into a non-reversible, non transparent system backed by anonymous neckbeards should the world crumble?

Sounds legit.

You make the same mistake I did before I learned economics. Bitcoin is not backed by anything - just like gold isn't. They are each valued for their individual characteristics and utility. Humans impute value - there is no such thing as "intrinsic" or "inherent" value.

Perhaps bad wording on my part, as 'intrinsic value' has such a broad range of interpretation.  

I'll say 'utilitarian value.'  Even if gold's market value crashes to 0, it still won't be completely useless, as it can still be utilized in industrial/economic/decorative situations.

Now what usefulness would bitcoin present if its market value goes to nil?

But that is not the argument you brought forth. Your original proposition is that money must be backed by something when in fact money is valued only for its characteristics and properties as store-of-value, currency and unit of account.

Gold's "industrial" value is irrelevant to this discussion.

[flipstyle]

weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin

I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).

You're complicating what should be a simple issue.  Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties.  You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever.  Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances.  Not so in others.  Same applies to credit cards, and so on.

Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"?

Bitcoin will likely be the final (or only) medium of exchange left that will enable people to trade for the food, shelter, etc. It will enable the global trade across distance to continue because it will be the only trusted currency that is not subject to the risk of being "backed" by the "full faith and credit" of bankrupt governments. It will allow the market economy to continue while preventing the total collapse into a barter economy. In short, it will save many from a lot of pain and suffering.

And what exactly is bitcoin 'backed' by? Coins and fiat are backed by physical governments and militia.    People can protest and throw rocks at politicians when shtf. You can't throw rocks online at miners maintaining the blockchains, or rogue exchange owners known only by internet screennames.

Are you assuming the masses will just put all their 'faith' into a non-reversible, non transparent system backed by anonymous neckbeards should the world crumble?

Sounds legit.

You make the same mistake I did before I learned economics. Bitcoin is not backed by anything - just like gold isn't. They are each valued for their individual characteristics and utility. Humans impute value - there is no such thing as "intrinsic" or "inherent" value.

Perhaps bad wording on my part, as 'intrinsic value' has such a broad range of interpretation.  

I'll say 'utilitarian value.'  Even if gold's market value crashes to 0, it still won't be completely useless, as it can still be utilized in industrial/economic/decorative situations.

Now what usefulness would bitcoin present if its market value goes to nil?

But that is not the argument you brought forth. Your original proposition is that money must be backed by something when in fact money valued for its characteristics and properties as store-of-value, currency and unit of account.

Gold's "industrial" value is irrelevant to this discussion.

We shall have to agree to disagree.  If you think people will put their blind faith into a system that presents just as much chaos and corruption/if not more than the current fiat system (and thus a sesspool for hackers and scammers galore)...then I hope it pans out for you.  It is pretty much the furthest thing from a safe haven in my eyes.  Matter of fact it's basically antonymous.

[flipstyle]

How has the 'trust' factor worked out for bitcoin so far?.........

Very well I must say. In little over 5 years Bitcoin has managed to grow a market cap of over 1B$. Not so bad for a concept that is quite unlike anything this world has seen.

You "transparency" assertion is quite subjective and mostly disingenuous. I will not entertain an argument where one would propose the current financial system is more transparent than the world's biggest open source ledger.

Now please spare us the rest of your depressingly unoriginal idiocy and go back to the troll corner where you came from.  

Thanks for playing.  I'll just take that as a 'I have no valid counterpoints or factual statements' white flag post. 

inb4 zomg u trollbear zomg fud zomg 2damooooooonnnnnnnnnnn

[cbeast]

weaker currencies --> perceived stronger currencies (U.S. Dollar) --> bitcoin

I don't see metals as useful a currency as bitcoin but they will, of course, appreciate against a collapsing dollar - just not as much as bitcoin in my opinion. Bitcoin could be the safety valve that preserves some semblance of a global economy and a somewhat civilized society since it will allow the continued trade across distance (metals not so much).

You're complicating what should be a simple issue.  Resources are exchanged to benefit both transacting parties.  You're assuming people find Bitcoin valuable as opposed to food, shelter, visa cards, beanie babies, whatever.  Metals are more useful than Bitcoins in some circumstances.  Not so in others.  Same applies to credit cards, and so on.

Under what realistic circumstances would Bitcoin "preserve some semblance of a global economy"?

Bitcoin will likely be the final (or only) medium of exchange left that will enable people to trade for the food, shelter, etc. It will enable the global trade across distance to continue because it will be the only trusted currency that is not subject to the risk of being "backed" by the "full faith and credit" of bankrupt governments. It will allow the market economy to continue while preventing the total collapse into a barter economy. In short, it will save many from a lot of pain and suffering.

And what exactly is bitcoin 'backed' by? Coins and fiat are backed by physical governments and militia.    People can protest and throw rocks at politicians when shtf. You can't throw rocks online at miners maintaining the blockchains, or rogue exchange owners known only by internet screennames.

Are you assuming the masses will just put all their 'faith' into a non-reversible, non transparent system backed by anonymous neckbeards should the world crumble?

Sounds legit.

You make the same mistake I did before I learned economics. Bitcoin is not backed by anything - just like gold isn't. They are each valued for their individual characteristics and utility. Humans impute value - there is no such thing as "intrinsic" or "inherent" value.

Perhaps bad wording on my part, as 'intrinsic value' has such a broad range of interpretation.  

I'll say 'utilitarian value.'  Even if gold's market value crashes to 0, it still won't be completely useless, as it can still be utilized in industrial/economic/decorative situations.

Now what usefulness would bitcoin present if its market value goes to nil?

But that is not the argument you brought forth. Your original proposition is that money must be backed by something when in fact money valued for its characteristics and properties as store-of-value, currency and unit of account.

Gold's "industrial" value is irrelevant to this discussion.

We shall have to agree to disagree.  If you think people will put their blind faith into a system that presents just as much chaos and corruption/if not more than the current fiat system (and thus a sesspool for hackers and scammers galore)...then I hope it pans out for you.  It is pretty much the furthest thing from a safe haven in my eyes.  Matter of fact it's pretty much antonymous.

You are looking for a safe haven? Try Jesus.

[brg444]

We shall have to agree to disagree.  If you think people will put their blind faith into a system that presents just as much chaos and corruption/if not more than the current fiat system (and thus a haven for hackers and scammers galore)...then I hope it pans out for you.  It is pretty much the furthest thing from a safe haven in my eyes.  Matter of fact it's pretty much antonymous.

 

I do hope someone pays you to post here and you do not actually believe the things you write

[flipstyle]

We shall have to agree to disagree.  If you think people will put their blind faith into a system that presents just as much chaos and corruption/if not more than the current fiat system (and thus a haven for hackers and scammers galore)...then I hope it pans out for you.  It is pretty much the furthest thing from a safe haven in my eyes.  Matter of fact it's pretty much antonymous.

 

I do hope someone pays you to post here and you do not actually believe the things you write

I'm a trollbear single handedly responsible for creating a bear market and spreading FUD/also the 3rd cousin of Ben Bernanke...why on earth WOULDN'T I be paid to write things?

Now how much are they paying you to wear that foil cap?

[cypherdoc]

Well I can't fault you on your pick and choose time frame.

And therein lies the con, it's all about carefully picking your time frame.  It's the oldest salesman tactic in the book.

Dude, I'm not the one who picked that time frame. 

[Wekkel]

I find it easier to think of trust backing a currency. Trust of the receiver that the next person will accept the currency for the same value.

If that trust is gone, so is the currency.

Other elements (government, armies) are just derivatives of this main principle.

For 5 years existence, I think 'trust' in Bitcoin is remarkable. No government, no army but it still goes. Time to re-evaluate old dogmas, I would say.

[flipstyle]

I find it easier to think of trust backing a currency. Trust of the receiver that the next person will accept the currency for the same value.

If that trust is gone, so is the currency.

Other elements (government, armies) are just derivatives of this main principle.

For 5 years existence, I think 'trust' in Bitcoin is remarkable. No government, no army but it still goes. Time to re-evaluate old dogmas, I would say.

Wise words.

However, if we're dealing in a situation where the dollar collapses, it is a completely different ballgame and unchartered territory.  Bitcoin having its value directly tied to the dollar right now presents a faster medium for companies to convert over to fiat.  They are not holding. 

Now eliminate fiat from the equation completely.  How much 'faith' would these companies have in actually holding/having to deal with other companies to buy/sell/trade goods using this technology themselves? My guess is nowhere close to the same amount. 

Unless some kind of insurance system is implemented, it's basically the wild wild west for traders and everyday transactions outside of friends and family.