Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 12:56:21 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 [1200] 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2009247 times)
Fabrizio89
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
May 13, 2015, 04:40:53 PM
 #23981

Gold up, Bitcoin... well. Cheesy
Went long on Gold on 1broker anyway, good shit for now.

https://1broker.com/m/r.php?i=2479
Trade stocks, commodities, currencies with bitcoins! Up to 200x Leverage.
1511096181
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511096181

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511096181
Reply with quote  #2

1511096181
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511096181
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511096181

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511096181
Reply with quote  #2

1511096181
Report to moderator
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 05:32:21 PM
 #23982

Agreed with all.

I think it's obvious of the implications of debt based economy if mismanaged.. Although long term it's impossible to manage due to greed and fear. The reason It was done was because economy simply would stagnate and not grow from the 70s on who knows if Internet would have been invented.. Although the system was the best at the time it's not one to look back on and say we totally failed.
Perhaps it was the global roll-out of the telegraph from the 1870s which was the beginning of the end of the gold-standard. Long-distance commerce needed a monetary system which could play out at the same speed, and this transition was complete by 1971. So the debt-money system that resulted was the best that could be done.

It's really interest rate targetting that is the foundation of the system and it's pretty sound according to John Nash although not ideal. Gold standard is less ideal howver Bitcoin seems to be better than both on paper.. In practice who knows. I personally believe nash purposely doesn't acknowldge it because he had a hand in designing it and it may be definition of what he calls ideal money. It would probably result in a big credit crunch lasting years before we prosper so it really depends on if enough people can be convinced of the long term solution giving up some short term pain.
And this is what is failing because it has all but hit the zero-bound and staying there year after year: in the US, Eurosystem, Japan, UK and Switzerland - simultaneously. CBs are tinkering with ideas like negative rates, and want to restrict the use of physical cash to just small transactions, forcing people to stay in electronic money where negative rates might get traction. Desperate stuff. No wonder there are seismic cracks in the credit markets.

And that is why gold as money worked for so long. Yes there were cycles, but since money never extended too far beyond the base money (M0 gold), the busts were relatively small.

With debt money, as you said 95% of money in use isn't even printed yet, and on top of that is further leverage. This means that the bust would be massive and crushing in a manner that could never happen under a gold standard.

What the US traded was a series of small but easily recoverable busts that continuously cleansed out the system, for a system that appears stable but in reality is not, the series of small busts are simply being allowed to build into one massive bust.
Absolutely. However, governments are now such control freaks (unlike in 1907 when the crash then was considered more like a force of nature, and allowed to work itself out), that the one massive bust to come may well be met with one massive bout of money printing!

They exchange function for confidence, the real for the prettier illusion.

I suppose it is a risk...  If you are running such a really long con, even your successors might fall for it.
100 years is such a long time that anyone working at a CB has to believe that they are following tried and tested principles.


All good stuff thanks all involved so concise.

Reading this I couldn't help but relate the idea of demurrage to negative interest rates in practice they are a way to apply demurrage to fiat.

Funny thing is the idea was/ is being tested in one of the first Alts, Peercoin is still doing well in the top 10 Alts.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 05:34:24 PM
 #23983

Here is nice piece from Brian Forde, director of the MIT Cryptocurrency Initiative.  His article draws our attention to the following four problems with Lawsky's proposed BitLicense regulation:

1. Updates to "apps" would need approval before they could be rolled out.

2. Start-ups would require approval from the NYDFS before they could raise new funds (if a new investor provides an investment for more than 10% of the company).

3.  Companies engaged in money transmission would still need a Money Transmitter License in addition to a BitLicense.

4.  Open-source wallet developers would apparently fall under the regulation as well (even though a wallet like Electrum does not have access to the user's funds). 

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 05:36:44 PM
 #23984

Here is nice piece from Brian Forde, director of the MIT Cryptocurrency Initiative.  His article draws our attention to the following four problems with Lawsky's proposed BitLicense regulation:

1. Updates to "apps" would need approval before they could be rolled out.

2. Start-ups would require approval from the NYDFS before they could raise new funds (if a new investor provides an investment for more than 10% of the company).

3.  Companies engaged in money transmission would still need a Money Transmitter License in addition to a BitLicense.

4.  Open-source wallet developers would apparently fall under the regulation as well (even though a wallet like Electrum does not have access to the user's funds). 


Thanks for the summary I was a little to distracted to read it.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 13, 2015, 05:44:25 PM
 #23985

Agreed with all.
And that is why gold as money worked for so long. Yes there were cycles, but since money never extended too far beyond the base money (M0 gold), the busts were relatively small.

With debt money, as you said 95% of money in use isn't even printed yet, and on top of that is further leverage. This means that the bust would be massive and crushing in a manner that could never happen under a gold standard.

What the US traded was a series of small but easily recoverable busts that continuously cleansed out the system, for a system that appears stable but in reality is not, the series of small busts are simply being allowed to build into one massive bust.
Absolutely. However, governments are now such control freaks (unlike in 1907 when the crash then was considered more like a force of nature, and allowed to work itself out), that the one massive bust to come may well be met with one massive bout of money printing!

And this already started in 2008 after which we have seen the largest globally coordinated money printing spree in human history.

The thing to remember though, is you can't print money. You can only add units to the ledger, which has the effect of devaluing (I'd call it stealing) current units and replacing them with new units, however the total monetary value of all the units remains the same.

What can happen is people simply lose confidence in the existing monetary system and stop subscribing value to it. When this happens the total value of all the units actually decreases. This is why for example during Germany's hyperinflation no one had money to buy anything despite the fact the government was putting wagons full of money in people's hands. Sure Germany was printing units, but the total value of all units (old and newly printed) crashed.

So governments can be control freaks to whatever extent they want. But once people stop subscribing value to their units of money, their ability to control crashes.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 13, 2015, 05:48:26 PM
 #23986

Here is nice piece from Brian Forde, director of the MIT Cryptocurrency Initiative.  His article draws our attention to the following four problems with Lawsky's proposed BitLicense regulation:

1. Updates to "apps" would need approval before they could be rolled out.

2. Start-ups would require approval from the NYDFS before they could raise new funds (if a new investor provides an investment for more than 10% of the company).

3.  Companies engaged in money transmission would still need a Money Transmitter License in addition to a BitLicense.

4.  Open-source wallet developers would apparently fall under the regulation as well (even though a wallet like Electrum does not have access to the user's funds). 

Just the fact that an unelected bureaucrat can propose such sweeping control and power over individuals, without being laughed at and run out of the country, demonstrates that "The People" on which the US was based have failed.
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 06:17:32 PM
 #23987

Armstrong opened my eyes to reality.

[...] he has been selling his conferences on world collapse [...]

I like his ramblings about history but don' t like his simplifications of opponents or people with a different view. It really went south for me when he avoided a factual debate with Denninger on his 'one dollar of capital' suggestion in relation to fractional reserve banking.

But I guess we are all Marxists...  Cool

         ▄███████████████▄
       ▄██▀             ▀██▄
    ▄▄██▀                 ▀██▄▄
█████▀▀       ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄    ▀▀█████
██          ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▀█▄▄      ██
▐█▌       ▄▀ ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▄▀▀▀███   ▐█▌
 ██      ▄▀▄▀▄▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀█ ▄█▀   ██
 ▐█▌    █▄▀▄▀▄█▀▀▀ ▀█▀ ▄▀▄▀█   ▐█▌
  ██    █▄▀▄▀▄▄█▀ ▄▀ ▄▀▄▀▄▀█   ██
  ▐█▌ ▀▄█████▀▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀█  ▐█▌
   ██▌▀████▀██▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄█▀ ▐██
    ██▌▀█▀▀█▄▀▀▄▀▀▄▄▀▄█▄▄█▀ ▐██
     ██▌ ▀  ▀███▄▄▄█████▀  ▐██
      ██▄      ▀▀▀▀▀      ▄██
       ▀██▄             ▄██▀
         ▀██▄         ▄██▀
           ▀██▄     ▄██▀
             ▀███▄███▀
               ▀███▀
.DeepOnion.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★  .❱❱❱ JOIN AIRDROP NOW!.
TOR INTEGRATED & SECURED
★  Your Anonymity Guaranteed
★  Your Assets Secured by TOR
★  Guard Your Privacy!
|Bitcointalk
Reddit
Telegram
|                        ▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▀▀
                    ▄▄██▀█▀▄▀▀▀
                  ▄██▄█▄██▀
                ▄██████▀
              ▄██████▀
  ▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
██████▀▀▀▀▀██████▀
 ▀█████  ▄███████
  ████████████▀██
  ██▀███████▀  ██
  ██ ▀████▀    ██
  ██   ▀▀      ██
  ▀█████████████▀
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2015, 06:18:08 PM
 #23988

To me they seem less depressing and more simply incomprehensible.

Could you be more specific please? Because my posts were very specific. You have not stated what specifically I enumerated which you think is incomprehensible?

And you post the following which supports my thesis:


Incomprehensible likely because I've not yet discovered your thesis.  
Thus, I'm not arguing for or against you.

The war on cash has been long and ongoing.  Bitcoin is as of now the most stalwart defense, but it is in its infancy.

From what I've gleened so far, I would offer this observation:

It fundamentally does NOT require any conspiracy when incentives are naturally aligned, (as they are with the many governments beholden to central banks).  These entities do not even need to collude.  Basic economics and game theory teaches us this, if nothing else.

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
May 13, 2015, 06:26:44 PM
 #23989

see last line of slide:



apropo to whether or not our 1MB core devs will allow Bitcoin to develop as mobile money which is necessary for it to develop as digital gold.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 06:52:12 PM
 #23990

real trouble in bond land:

investment grade:



junk:



muni:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 06:54:21 PM
 #23991

everything US turning down:

TLT:



$DXY:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 06:58:38 PM
 #23992

the only thing left is the stock mkt. 

the Transports look like they will crack support.  once that happens, the flood gates should open.  if the $DJI cracks it's secondary low point, we will have confirmation of the long standing multi-month non confirmation which will really open the gates of hell.

sell in May and go away.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
May 13, 2015, 07:08:34 PM
 #23993

They exchange function for confidence, the real for the prettier illusion.

I suppose it is a risk...  If you are running such a really long con, even your successors might fall for it.
100 years is such a long time that anyone working at a CB has to believe that they are following tried and tested principles.
What saved the long con for so long was the 20th century population boom and technological revolutions.

Those two factors created wealth at a faster rate than the central banks could destroy it. So much so, that it wasn't apparent to anyone that the central banks were destroying wealth at all.

That no longer appears to be the case.

I like this view.

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2015, 07:19:42 PM
 #23994

They exchange function for confidence, the real for the prettier illusion.

I suppose it is a risk...  If you are running such a really long con, even your successors might fall for it.
100 years is such a long time that anyone working at a CB has to believe that they are following tried and tested principles.
What saved the long con for so long was the 20th century population boom and technological revolutions.

Those two factors created wealth at a faster rate than the central banks could destroy it. So much so, that it wasn't apparent to anyone that the central banks were destroying wealth at all.

That no longer appears to be the case.

I like this view.

Its pretty accurate.  In the last decade though, they have been getting pretty greedy.  The TARP bailout sort of broke the model harshly in their favor.  

The age old model is that when the banks get out of control, a few fail (or a few hundred) and it resets as the survivors scoop up the remains.  Now with the use of state power, they have taxpayer funded bailouts, bail-ins and all sorts of new ways to destroy wealth.

The war on cash includes most of the AML powers along with it.  When the reporting requirement of US$10K was enacted in the 70's it was quite a chunk of cash.  Now with a bit of inflation mixed in, it is not an uncommon monthly pay for folks in large US cities.  But that isn't happening fast enough, so banks must keep a record of transactions as small as US$1K cash and report on as small as US$2K transactions.

http://www.fincen.gov/financial_institutions/msb/materials/en/bank_reference.html
Quote
Currency Exchanges of More Than $1,000
Currency exchangers must keep a record of each exchange totaling more than $1,000 in either domestic or foreign currency.

How to record a currency exchange:

1. Record customer information.
2. Record transaction information.
3. Keep the record for 5 years from the date of transaction.

Suspicious Activity Reporting Requirements
Certain money services businesses – businesses that provide money transfers or currency dealing or exchange; or businesses that issue, sell, or redeem money orders or traveler’s checks – must report suspicious activity involving any transaction or pattern of transactions at or above a certain amount:

$2,000 or more;
$5,000 or more for issuers reviewing clearance records.
You have 30 calendar days to file a SAR after becoming aware of any suspicious transaction that is required to be reported.

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
May 13, 2015, 07:29:39 PM
 #23995

the bond managers are getting desperate.  anything to make their bond portfolio prices go up.  

note that this guy doesn't ever truly think that gvt manipulation of interest rates will ever be to the upside; he knows they're a one trick pony.  it would just be a matter of how negative they want to take them to screw the savers to his benefit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/comment/11602399/Ban-cash-end-boom-and-bust.html
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2015, 07:32:45 PM
 #23996

the bond managers are getting desperate.  anything to make their bond portfolio prices go up.  

note that this guy doesn't ever truly think that gvt manipulation of interest rates will ever be to the upside; he knows they're a one trick pony.  it would just be a matter of how negative they want to take them to screw the savers to his benefit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/comment/11602399/Ban-cash-end-boom-and-bust.html

LOL!  End boom and bust by sticking only to bust?

The more they squeeze though, the more that making a compelling case for Bitcoin to everyone who learns of it becomes easy.

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
May 13, 2015, 07:33:31 PM
 #23997

accelerating to the downside now. 

sidhujag, heads up.
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 08:03:28 PM
 #23998

real trouble in bond land:

investment grade:



if this was bitcoin I would be shitting my pants now.

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

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 13, 2015, 08:03:50 PM
 #23999

The age old model is that when the banks get out of control, a few fail (or a few hundred) and it resets as the survivors scoop up the remains.  Now with the use of state power, they have taxpayer funded bailouts, bail-ins and all sorts of new ways to destroy wealth.

It was the emergence of the "Too Big To Fail" policy which created this and was effectively codified into law with the LTCM bailout in the late 1990s.

To Big To Fail = disabling the clearing mechanism which is necessary for a functioning capitalist society. If you are too big to fail, then you can do anything and be as inefficient as possible, but that inefficiency will never be cleared out of the market.

The creation of the FED in 1913 was essentially to formation of a too big to fail policy at the government level (before the US gov would have to go for bailouts itself). But as you pointed out banks and other industry were still allowed to fail. This stopped in the 1990s and TBTF was extended to corporations, which is why every corporate entity from banks to auto manufactures (i.e. GM/Chrysler) have tried to position themselves as too big to fail.

This will continue until the dollar fails, effectively destroying the too big to fail enabler.
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2015, 08:12:42 PM
 #24000

the bond managers are getting desperate.  anything to make their bond portfolio prices go up.  

note that this guy doesn't ever truly think that gvt manipulation of interest rates will ever be to the upside; he knows they're a one trick pony.  it would just be a matter of how negative they want to take them to screw the savers to his benefit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/comment/11602399/Ban-cash-end-boom-and-bust.html

LOL!  End boom and bust by sticking only to bust?

The more they squeeze though, the more that making a compelling case for Bitcoin to everyone who learns of it becomes easy.

why don't they just tell us what to buy how much of it and when.

like if my friend saved up to  much money he should be forced by law to take an expensive trip.

Pages: « 1 ... 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 [1200] 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 ... 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!