Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[justusranvier]

Except that there is a very serious attempt to get rid of traditional bearer money (cash) and replace it with traceable electronic money that supposedly solves these problems. The technology was getting to the point where that would be entirely feasible (and is close to fact in a few countries) except for this little cryptocurrency wrinkle.

The US will never dump cash.

How would congressmen collect their bribes?

[1713907379]

1713907379

[1713907379]

1713907379

[cypherdoc]

-

so are avatars back to being enabled?

[smooth]

Except that there is a very serious attempt to get rid of traditional bearer money (cash) and replace it with traceable electronic money that supposedly solves these problems. The technology was getting to the point where that would be entirely feasible (and is close to fact in a few countries) except for this little cryptocurrency wrinkle.

The US will never dump cash.

How would congressmen collect their bribes?

Overpaid consulting gigs etc. for their friends, family and future. The heavy hitters don't get their bribes in cash.

[cbeast]

I am so tired of all the "asset contracts" using stakechains coming out. Just had to vent that.

[tabnloz]

And the 'blockchain not bitcoin' narrative continues unabated, fuelled by the banking sector and advisors to non-decentralized players.

"Banks will remain wary of Bitcoin because its "permissionless ledger" relies on anonymous participants to validate transactions, cryptocurrency researcher Tim Swanson writes in "Consensus as a Service: A brief report on the emergence of permission, distributed ledger systems." This setup means that there is no one to hold accountable in legal disputes over the ownership of assets, should someone tamper with a transaction."

http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/banks-can-cherry-pick-the-best-bits-from-bitcoin-report-1073642-1.html

[justusranvier]

And the 'blockchain not bitcoin' narrative continues unabated, fuelled by the banking sector and advisors to non-decentralized players.

"Banks will remain wary of Bitcoin because its "permissionless ledger" relies on anonymous participants to validate transactions, cryptocurrency researcher Tim Swanson writes in "Consensus as a Service: A brief report on the emergence of permission, distributed ledger systems." This setup means that there is no one to hold accountable in legal disputes over the ownership of assets, should someone tamper with a transaction."

http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/banks-can-cherry-pick-the-best-bits-from-bitcoin-report-1073642-1.html

I'd rather respond to that article with Tim Swanson's face photoshopped on to this image: http://www.quickmeme.com/img/73/73f07f805a0ac0165ab2bd0f09bc1375cd0812da578a97bae454cde2c1ddff30.jpg , but instead I'll point out that he's making an implicit assumptions that it matters what banks do and that their assets will remain valuable in the future.

Mostly what banks own is debt and the long term value of that debt depends on the willingness and ability of borrowers to repay, and the willingness and ability of governments to assist the banks in recovering collateral after defaults.

None of those things should be taken inevitable.

[cypherdoc]

And the 'blockchain not bitcoin' narrative continues unabated, fuelled by the banking sector and advisors to non-decentralized players.

"Banks will remain wary of Bitcoin because its "permissionless ledger" relies on anonymous participants to validate transactions, cryptocurrency researcher Tim Swanson writes in "Consensus as a Service: A brief report on the emergence of permission, distributed ledger systems." This setup means that there is no one to hold accountable in legal disputes over the ownership of assets, should someone tamper with a transaction."

http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/banks-can-cherry-pick-the-best-bits-from-bitcoin-report-1073642-1.html

I'd rather respond to that article with Tim Swanson's face photoshopped on to this image: http://www.quickmeme.com/img/73/73f07f805a0ac0165ab2bd0f09bc1375cd0812da578a97bae454cde2c1ddff30.jpg , but instead I'll point out that he's making an implicit assumptions that it matters what banks do and that their assets will remain valuable in the future.

Mostly what banks own is debt and the long term value of that debt depends on the willingness and ability of borrowers to repay, and the willingness and ability of governments to assist the banks in recovering collateral after defaults.

None of those things should be taken inevitable.

you beat me to it.  Timmay is an idiot.  how are they going to "tamper" with tx's on the blockchain? 

[cypherdoc]

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/585649422689837056

[cbeast]

Gold cannot be traded on a decentralized and globally distributed electronic transaction. Yet they seem to keep trying to create a fractional reserve system with no accountability. IBM, dang you to heck! You enabled Vitalik's megalomania.Taaki has a devil put aside for you!

[NotHatinJustTrollin]

Tim Swanson nails it.  


Of course people in this thread are butthurt  



Technology allows us to separate a "blockchain" from "bitcoin" and all they do is shout their (very personal) ideologies.

Even if enough people agree with your "i just watched "money as debt" on youtube this morning" ideology, no, they are not going to dump everything for a 7 transaction per second irreversible "a hacker stole my private keys now I'm poor" volatile still in beta experimental currency  
Usually there's gold for that. If you are really into that shit.



The only pragmatic argument against "blockchains without bitcoin" is usually stuff like "but you need an incentive to mine!", "but decentralization is always preferable!". Those arguments are slowly being stripped away from you (an the reasons for bitcoin to exist are quickly vanishing).

[justusranvier]

Technology allows us to separate a "blockchain" from "bitcoin" and all they do is shout their (very personal) ideologies.

Technology makes banks irrelevant.

Banks will try to use politics to force people to use their services, but technology allows us to bypass politics too.

To the extent that the banks are able to compel companies and individuals to use their permission-based systems, those companies and individuals will lose in competition to companies and individuals who use permissionless technology.

Those companies and individuals will scream for more politics to protect themselves from that competition, but then we right back to developing technology to protect people from politics.

[kehtolo]

Ignore means ignore lads.. just in case you are tempted to answer him.

Don't rise to the bait. He knows he's full of shit, or maybe he doesn't. It's irrelevant really.
I know he is and so do most of you here. You also know why he is here and what not to do.

Thanks.

PS: Anyone quoting him or any of his SP's will go on ignore too.

[justusranvier]

pointless lecture and threats

[cypherdoc]

Another thing, Satoshi Nakamoto never talked about "Sound Money" or "New Age Gold Buggery", never.
The only time he did mention why the 21 M supply limit was when he said it would create a "positive feedback loop" as an addition in his first posts.

He always intended bitcoin to be a payment system for e-commerce. The whitepaper has this written all over it and anything else too.
That clearly failed. Because today nobody spends bitcoin (aside from drug dealers, pretty much).

You are just putting your ideologies where they don't even belong.

So much BS from you.  Aren't you ashamed of being so obvious?  I'm just finishing up Satoshi's writings, the book by Paul Champagne. Of  course you've never read it but it mentions Bitcoins similarity to gold and gold  mining many times. It's a pervasive theme. He also mentions bitcoins fixed supply  and how you ought to pick some up as he predicted they might one day become quite valuable as a result.

Don't you realize how hypocritical you sound spending all your valuable time hanging out on a Bitcoin forum trolling? Do you not have any self respect?

[justusranvier]

The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments impossible.

A generation ago, multi-user time-sharing computer systems had a similar problem. Before strong encryption, users had to rely on password protection to secure their files, placing trust in the system administrator to keep their information private. Privacy could always be overridden by the admin based on his judgment call weighing the principle of privacy against other concerns, or at the behest of his superiors. Then strong encryption became available to the masses, and trust was no longer required. Data could be secured in a way that was physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what.

It's time we had the same thing for money. With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless.

[Torque]

Hmm, I wonder if Russia is still pissed about that whole "pulling-the-oil-market-support-rug" thing that the US did as retaliation for Ukraine? Lol

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-russia-hacked-white-house-213155901.html

[sporket]

Another thing, Satoshi Nakamoto never talked about "Sound Money" or "New Age Gold Buggery", never.
The only time he did mention why the 21 M supply limit was when he said it would create a "positive feedback loop" as an addition in his first posts.

He always intended bitcoin to be a payment system for e-commerce. The whitepaper has this written all over it and anything else too.
That clearly failed. Because today nobody spends bitcoin (aside from drug dealers, pretty much).

You are just putting your ideologies where they don't even belong.

So much BS from you.  Aren't you ashamed of being so obvious?  I'm just finishing up Satoshi's writings, the book by Paul Champagne. Of  course you've never read it but it mentions Bitcoins similarity to gold and gold  mining many times. It's a pervasive theme. He also mentions bitcoins fixed supply  and how you ought to pick some up as he predicted they might one day become quite valuable as a result.

Don't you realize how hypocritical you sound spending all your valuable time hanging out on a Bitcoin forum trolling? Do you not have any self respect?

Yeah, whatever.  You know nothing of Satoshi's work, he has prophesied and spake thus:
"He [inventor of LEOCoin, Dan Anderson] it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose."

It's right there, in The White Paper!  Do you even read, bro?

[cypherdoc]

Hmm, I wonder if Russia is still pissed about that whole "pulling-the-oil-market-support-rug" thing that the US did as retaliation for Ukraine? Lol

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-russia-hacked-white-house-213155901.html

How certain can  they be that it's indeed "the Ruskies"?

[Torque]

Hmm, I wonder if Russia is still pissed about that whole "pulling-the-oil-market-support-rug" thing that the US did as retaliation for Ukraine? Lol

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-russia-hacked-white-house-213155901.html

How certain can  they be that it's indeed "the Ruskies"?

Pretty sure.  ICE started the oil scam going in 2009, artificially jacking up oil for years.  Then recently pulled the rug (I'm sure the US goberment had a hand in it) and now Russia is butthurt.  Lol.

[cypherdoc]

Hmm, I wonder if Russia is still pissed about that whole "pulling-the-oil-market-support-rug" thing that the US did as retaliation for Ukraine? Lol

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report-russia-hacked-white-house-213155901.html

How certain can  they be that it's indeed "the Ruskies"?

Pretty sure.  ICE started the oil scam going in 2009, artificially jacking up oil for years.  Then recently pulled the rug (I'm sure the US goberment had a hand in it) and now Russia is butthurt.  Lol.

No. I mean technically its pretty hard to tell the origin of these kinds of attacks. What makes this so easy?