Is there room for a State Run Cryptocurrency?

[tee-rex]

Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?

If it comes down from it the FDIC would need to borrow money from the government via it's line of credit at the Treasury. Since the government is run "by the people and for the people" and since the public pays taxes to the government, the FDIC would essentially be borrowing from the public.

So, in this case, the losses incurred from the uncollectible debts (bank defaults) will be paid by ordinary people directly. Now try to explain this to that guy who is ready to admit that I can't understand his explanations, but who still tries to make me explain to him how socializing debts (losses) works.

Dude,  can you think logically for a second and stop being argumentative ?  If you run a business and you needed an extra $1M.  You borrowed $1M from your mom.   Does it mean the debt is passed to your mom?   You think this means your mom paid the debt?

The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face.

In this scenario you still are the debtor.  What you don't seem to grasp is that the money is loaned not given for free

There's no FED printing money either for FDIC.  That's something you made up

It is not relevant to the point discussed whether I would remain a debtor or not. What's important here is who will pay the debts and with what means. Regarding the FED not printing money directly for the FDIC, it is not relevant here either. If it ever comes to choosing between default and printing more money, the FDIC will get all the money they would need, whether through the Treasury or directly from the FED, but this wouldn't change anything. You're just trying to cling to insignificant details and obfuscate the issue (that debts will be socialized).

[twiifm]

Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?

If it comes down from it the FDIC would need to borrow money from the government via it's line of credit at the Treasury. Since the government is run "by the people and for the people" and since the public pays taxes to the government, the FDIC would essentially be borrowing from the public.

So, in this case, the losses incurred from the uncollectible debts (bank defaults) will be paid by ordinary people directly. Now try to explain this to that guy who is ready to admit that I can't understand his explanations, but who still tries to make me explain to him how socializing debts (losses) works.

Dude,  can you think logically for a second and stop being argumentative ?  If you run a business and you needed an extra $1M.  You borrowed $1M from your mom.   Does it mean the debt is passed to your mom?   You think this means your mom paid the debt?

The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face.

In this scenario you still are the debtor.  What you don't seem to grasp is that the money is loaned not given for free

There's no FED printing money either for FDIC.  That's something you made up

It is not relevant to the point discussed whether I would remain a debtor or not. What's important here is who will pay the debts and with what means. Regarding the FED not printing money directly for the FDIC, it is not relevant here either. If it ever comes to choosing between default and printing more money, the FDIC will get all the money they would need, whether through the Treasury or directly from the FED, but this wouldn't change anything. You're just trying to cling to insignificant details and obfuscate the issue (that debts will be socialized).

What do you mean its not relevant?  Thats the entire topic we are discussing.  "Default" means can't pay the loan.  Has FDIC borrowed any money?  NO.  The correct term you want is "insolvent"

I've said enough.  Its obvious you don't know about accounting.  You got everything wrong and you think you can make a blanket statement about the FED and inflation.  LOL Please continue in ignorance

[tee-rex]

The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face.

In this scenario you still are the debtor.  What you don't seem to grasp is that the money is loaned not given for free

There's no FED printing money either for FDIC.  That's something you made up

It is not relevant to the point discussed whether I would remain a debtor or not. What's important here is who will pay the debts and with what means. Regarding the FED not printing money directly for the FDIC, it is not relevant here either. If it ever comes to choosing between default and printing more money, the FDIC will get all the money they would need, whether through the Treasury or directly from the FED, but this wouldn't change anything. You're just trying to cling to insignificant details and obfuscate the issue (that debts will be socialized).

What do you mean its not relevant?  Thats the entire topic we are discussing.  "Default" means can't pay the loan.  Has FDIC borrowed any money?  NO.  The correct term you want is "insolvent"

Insolvency means the inability of a debtor to pay their debt. And now find the difference with your "default means can't pay the loan". And stop making value judgments, they speak more about you than me.

[twiifm]

The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face.

In this scenario you still are the debtor.  What you don't seem to grasp is that the money is loaned not given for free

There's no FED printing money either for FDIC.  That's something you made up

It is not relevant to the point discussed whether I would remain a debtor or not. What's important here is who will pay the debts and with what means. Regarding the FED not printing money directly for the FDIC, it is not relevant here either. If it ever comes to choosing between default and printing more money, the FDIC will get all the money they would need, whether through the Treasury or directly from the FED, but this wouldn't change anything. You're just trying to cling to insignificant details and obfuscate the issue (that debts will be socialized).

What do you mean its not relevant?  Thats the entire topic we are discussing.  "Default" means can't pay the loan.  Has FDIC borrowed any money?  NO.  The correct term you want is "insolvent"

Insolvency means the inability of a debtor to pay their debt. And now find the difference with your "default means can't pay the loan". And stop making value judgments, they speak more about you than me.

"Default" essentially means a debtor has not paid a debt which he or she is required to have paid.
"Insolvency" means that a debtor is unable to pay his or her debts. -->  In accounting terms it means liabilities exceed assets

If liabilities of FDIC exceed its assets then FDIC is "insolvent"  -->  This is what we are talking about.  Run on bank deposits that exceed the FDIC fund.  We are not talking about FDIC defaulting on a loan.  The correct term is "insolvent"

The issue here is you don't know what you are talking about.  Instead of researching by yourself and once and for all understand how it works you continue to argue w me.

Like I said, look it up for yourself or continue in ignorance.  I don't care either way

[tee-rex]

The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face.

In this scenario you still are the debtor.  What you don't seem to grasp is that the money is loaned not given for free

There's no FED printing money either for FDIC.  That's something you made up

It is not relevant to the point discussed whether I would remain a debtor or not. What's important here is who will pay the debts and with what means. Regarding the FED not printing money directly for the FDIC, it is not relevant here either. If it ever comes to choosing between default and printing more money, the FDIC will get all the money they would need, whether through the Treasury or directly from the FED, but this wouldn't change anything. You're just trying to cling to insignificant details and obfuscate the issue (that debts will be socialized).

What do you mean its not relevant?  Thats the entire topic we are discussing.  "Default" means can't pay the loan.  Has FDIC borrowed any money?  NO.  The correct term you want is "insolvent"

Insolvency means the inability of a debtor to pay their debt. And now find the difference with your "default means can't pay the loan". And stop making value judgments, they speak more about you than me.

"Default" essentially means a debtor has not paid a debt which he or she is required to have paid.
"Insolvency" means that a debtor is unable to pay his or her debts. -->  In accounting terms it means liabilities exceed assets

If liabilities of FDIC exceed its assets then FDIC is "insolvent"  -->  This is what we are talking about.  Run on bank deposits that exceed the FDIC fund.  We are not talking about FDIC defaulting on a loan.  The correct term is "insolvent"

Why are you intentionally continuing to misinterpret my words?

As you again didn't notice, I was talking about bank defaults, and once again you ascribe to me what I didn't say. Default is the end result of insolvency, but this won't help you, since we are talking about socializing debts and not about the semantic differences between default and insolvency. Because you won't get it right at once, I repeat again, we are talking about socializing debts.

Also, since you took to nitpicking, I should point out that what you said before about default ("default means can't pay the loan") is essentially the same what you now say about insolvency ("insolvency means that a debtor is unable to pay his or her debts").

[zhinkk]

Would a state run cryptocurrency imply that it is backed by something? Also, maybe, since more people would be up for adoption and integrate it in their shops/stores if the state created it rather than an anonymous individual.

[tee-rex]

Would a state run cryptocurrency imply that it is backed by something? Also, maybe, since more people would be up for adoption and integrate it in their shops/stores if the state created it rather than an anonymous individual.

Fiat is backed by its usefulness in extinguishing tax liabilities imposed by the state, so the same utility has to be expected from a state run cryptocurrency.   

[galbros]

This could work out well.  At least it would have a built in community and some legitimacy (as long as it wasn't North Korea).  Not sure they would make it open source though.

[madken7777]

The future currency will probably be replaced by crytocurrencies.

Only difference will be who is backing them, either government or free market.

[twiifm]

The future currency will probably be replaced by crytocurrencies.

Only difference will be who is backing them, either government or free market.

I agree.   I bet on govt because legal tender laws

[polynesia]

The future currency will probably be replaced by crytocurrencies.

Only difference will be who is backing them, either government or free market.

I agree.   I bet on govt because legal tender laws

I would bet on one or two free market backed altcoins surviving, along with the government currencies.

[Yakamoto]

The future currency will probably be replaced by crytocurrencies.

Only difference will be who is backing them, either government or free market.

I agree.   I bet on govt because legal tender laws

I would bet on one or two free market backed altcoins surviving, along with the government currencies.

Government cryptos or fiat?

I can see fiat surviving, maybe, for a while, but it's hard to see a government crypto surviving.

[twiifm]

The future currency will probably be replaced by crytocurrencies.

Only difference will be who is backing them, either government or free market.

I agree.   I bet on govt because legal tender laws

I would bet on one or two free market backed altcoins surviving, along with the government currencies.

Government cryptos or fiat?

I can see fiat surviving, maybe, for a while, but it's hard to see a government crypto surviving.

A govt crypto doesn't have to be decentralized like bitcoin.  It can use block chain technology to upgrade their ACH clearing system.  Fiat would still exist.  For example bit dollar is pegged to USD.  People can have wallets and its tied to their SS# or some other govt ID.  On the front end people use it like Paypal or Google Wallet.  On the back end Central Bank use block chain to track money flow. 

[polynesia]

Government cryptos or fiat?
I can see fiat surviving, maybe, for a while, but it's hard to see a government crypto surviving.

Could be a crypto which is backed by a fiat.
ie, the money supply would still be controlled by a central monetary authority.

[tee-rex]

The future currency will probably be replaced by crytocurrencies.

Only difference will be who is backing them, either government or free market.

It makes no sense to replace a state emitted fiat with a state emitted cryptocurrency since cryptocurrencies don't have any real advantage over digital fiat besides being decentralized (but apparently this would be impossible for a state run cryptocurrency).

[polynesia]

The future currency will probably be replaced by crytocurrencies.

Only difference will be who is backing them, either government or free market.

It makes no sense to replace a state emitted fiat with a state emitted cryptocurrency since cryptocurrencies don't have any real advantage over digital fiat besides being decentralized (but apparently this would be impossible for a state run cryptocurrency).

Cryptocurrencies do have advantages over digital fiat - eliminating banks, huge transaction fees.....

[tee-rex]

The future currency will probably be replaced by crytocurrencies.

Only difference will be who is backing them, either government or free market.

It makes no sense to replace a state emitted fiat with a state emitted cryptocurrency since cryptocurrencies don't have any real advantage over digital fiat besides being decentralized (but apparently this would be impossible for a state run cryptocurrency).

Cryptocurrencies do have advantages over digital fiat - eliminating banks, huge transaction fees.....

This all is mainly a result of decentralization which I specifically pointed out in my post. Regarding huge transaction fees, I primarily use services of those banks that either don't charge transaction fees at all or charge a tiny fixed sum (around $0.3 per transaction, as an example).

But your mileage may vary indeed!

[troisky]

Its suicidal imo, when you cant even withdraw btc easily from ATMs, but why not? argentina is already done for.

[tee-rex]

Its suicidal imo, when you cant even withdraw btc easily from ATMs, but why not? argentina is already done for.

Jersey (an autonomous island of the UK and a well established “tax haven”) is seriously considering Bitcoin adoption in the nearest future. 

The island has recently announced that it will become home to the first ever regulated Bitcoin fund, Global Advisors Bitcoin Investment Fund (GABI), as of August 1st. The fund has been certified by the Jersey Financial Services Commission and means that traditional investments types such as pensions can now be invested in Bitcoin and secured by the same security features in commonly used financial products

Senator Philip Ozouf, the Treasury Minister for Jersey, sees this opportunity very clearly and wants the island to pursue the innovation: “Our infrastructure of world-class financial services and digital expertise gives us the tools to be an early leader in the field. Innovation will be central to Jersey’s future prosperity. We are keen to support local businesses by helping to create a well-regulated and responsive environment for investment in the sector”.

http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/jersey-become-worlds-first-bitcoin-isle/2014/07/11

[polynesia]

Its suicidal imo, when you cant even withdraw btc easily from ATMs, but why not? argentina is already done for.

Jersey (an autonomous island of the UK and a well established “tax haven”) is seriously considering Bitcoin adoption in the nearest future. 

The island has recently announced that it will become home to the first ever regulated Bitcoin fund, Global Advisors Bitcoin Investment Fund (GABI), as of August 1st. The fund has been certified by the Jersey Financial Services Commission and means that traditional investments types such as pensions can now be invested in Bitcoin and secured by the same security features in commonly used financial products

Senator Philip Ozouf, the Treasury Minister for Jersey, sees this opportunity very clearly and wants the island to pursue the innovation: “Our infrastructure of world-class financial services and digital expertise gives us the tools to be an early leader in the field. Innovation will be central to Jersey’s future prosperity. We are keen to support local businesses by helping to create a well-regulated and responsive environment for investment in the sector”.

http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/jersey-become-worlds-first-bitcoin-isle/2014/07/11

Bali could already be getting there.
Jersey will have some catching up to do.

http://www.coindesk.com/bitislands-bali-bitcoin-paradise/