Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

Bears weakening:

[1714159444]

1714159444

[1714159444]

1714159444

[1714159444]

1714159444

[1714159444]

1714159444

[iCEBREAKER]

and the other side...



Draw it for yourself 

Nice, I haven't seen that one before. 

lol annunaki

zomg evil lizards from planet x

quick ma, hide the gold!   

[NewLiberty]

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.

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.
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.

[dompsairs]

I wish I could sell aall my gold for BTC, but its so little that its not worth it

[HeliKopterBen]

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.

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.

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.

[molecular]

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.

[cypherdoc]

"In other words, were we to return to panic mode, the value of the implied taxpayer backing would rocket. The threat of high-cost taxpayer bailouts remains very much with us."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/business/big-banks-still-a-risk.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&referrer=

[cypherdoc]

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.

[Trader Steve]

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.

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.

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]

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.

[Trader Steve]

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]

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.

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.

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.

[justusranvier]

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]

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.

[cypherdoc]

[NewLiberty]

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

[cypherdoc]

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]

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/495983233780449281

[bitrider]

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]

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!