Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 11:34:27 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: The $1000 Bitcoin, yes it's worth at least that.  (Read 38336 times)
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 01:36:29 PM
 #61

Big deal, so 20 people get stinky wealthy for being 'early adopters', so what.

yeah, and another 9,980 are getting really bloody wealthy.

Whoever invests now, will be one of the 90,000 that become pretty damn wealthy people.

And then theres the 900,000 that... well you get my point.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
1481326467
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481326467

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481326467
Reply with quote  #2

1481326467
Report to moderator
1481326467
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481326467

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481326467
Reply with quote  #2

1481326467
Report to moderator
1481326467
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481326467

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481326467
Reply with quote  #2

1481326467
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481326467
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481326467

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481326467
Reply with quote  #2

1481326467
Report to moderator
Timo Y
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


bitcoin - the aerogel of money


View Profile
May 17, 2011, 01:39:30 PM
 #62

If you don't have inflation, you have deflation, which means people with "money" will never have to work.

PeterSchiff, are you an adherent of the Labour Theory of Value by any chance?

How much money we make has very little to do with how much we work.  Our ability to make money is almost entirely a result of the capital we have access to, and you are no exception to that.  Like it or not, that is simply how a modern free economy works.

I make 100 times more money per hour than an Indian rice farmer.  Is this because I work 100 times harder than him? Of course not, in fact he probably works a hell of a lot harder than me. Is it because I am more intelligent? I doubt it, human beings have roughly the same cognitive skills regardless of their culture and technological state.  

It is simply because I have access to:

* Financial capital - Assets that I inherited, assets my employer allows me to use, etc.
* Social capital - I know people who can help me accessing high paying jobs.
* Information capital - My education, my superior internet access, etc.
* Political capital - if the Indian rice farmer decided to move to Europe and compete with me, the friendly government I am living under would point a gun to his head and kindly ask him to return.
* Cultural capital - I was brought up to think innovatively and independently.

...and the rice farmer doesn't.

So if you think it's wrong to make money from capital and that we should all just be making money from work alone, we would probably all end up living like Indian rice farmers.  Are you prepared to do that? No? Who is the real hypocrite then? Smiley


PS. Bitcoin will give the Indian rice farmer access to capital that was so far withheld from him by the banking elites.

GPG ID: FA868D77   bitcoin-otc:forever-d
PeterSchiff
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15


View Profile
May 17, 2011, 01:39:42 PM
 #63



Currency backed by gold, not an illusion. Currency backed by oil, not an illusion. In the future, perhaps we can have currency backed by energy. Aka, energy options, and I don't mean backed by spent energy, like BitCoins.



Bitcoins are not spent energy. Their value comes from the amount of energy required to mine the next block.

First of all, the value of a BitCoin is rather more speculative than that. Secondly, when the last of block is mined, then what, the value of the energy used to verify transactions, that sounds like a cost, not a value.

How about this, Petrol coins. To create a petrol coin, you must burn one liter of petrol. Over time the cost of creation goes up, and you must burn more and more petrol to create a coin. Now you're saying the value of the current coin is based on how much petrol you need to create the next coin. I say, there must be a system that requires no burning of petrol, cause it's bad for the environment. But here's the killer, if I want to redeem my coin for petrol, I spent almost as much petrol making the coin as it's worth. So I get 1 litre of petrol instead of 2. Brilliant.
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 01:43:09 PM
 #64

If bitcoin must be used for groceries to be successful, I'm selling all of mine today.

You're hording groceries?

(Sorry, I just love pointing out ambiguities in language)

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

Activity: 15


View Profile
May 17, 2011, 01:57:16 PM
 #65

If you don't have inflation, you have deflation, which means people with "money" will never have to work.

PeterSchiff, are you an adherent of the Labour Theory of Value by any chance?

How much money we make has very little to do with how much we work.  Our ability to make money is almost entirely a result of the capital we have access to, and you are no exception to that.  Like it or not, that is simply how a modern free economy works.

I make 100 times more money per hour than an Indian rice farmer.  Is this because I work 100 times harder than him? Of course not, in fact he probably works a hell of a lot harder than me. Is it because I am more intelligent? I doubt it, human beings have roughly the same cognitive skills regardless of their culture and technological state. 

It is simply because I have access to:

* Financial capital - Assets that I inherited, assets my employer allows me to use, etc.
* Social capital - I know people who can help me accessing high paying jobs.
* Information capital - My education, my superior internet access, etc.
* Political capital - if the Indian rice farmer decided to move to Europe and compete with me, the friendly government I am living under would point a gun to his head and kindly ask him to return.
* Cultural capital - I was brought up to think innovatively and independently.

...and the rice farmer doesn't.

So if you think it's wrong to make money from capital and that we should all just be making money from work alone, we would probably all end up living like Indian rice farmers.  Are you prepared to do that? No? Who is the real hypocrite then? Smiley


PS. Bitcoin will give the Indian rice farmer access to capital that was so far withheld from him by the banking elites.



I also don't agree with inheritance or old money. In an ideal world we would all start equal, not benefit only because your parents or family are rich. You make your own luck... It goes against equality and worth.

Most of us have had an easier start to our life than your Indian Rice Farmer, and it's unrealistic to think that we in the western world are really interested in sharing our wealth.

But to answer your question, if this is the start of something new, then let's try and be better, not worse. If anyone thinks they deserve to be rich because they mined bit coins early on, then that person is seriously full of shit.

You're a hypocrite because you're justifying why you should be rich for contributing very little. You mined cause you're greedy, just a geek or both. Now you're saying you deserve to be rich, or that you're only into BitCoins because of the monetary revolution.

OMFG, can you hear yourselves. Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites!!!

I'd like to hear at least some of you admit that you're a greedy mofo in it only for it's speculative value and that you don't give a shit about the rest.
Amen
Blitz­
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596


"Cut Your Loose"


View Profile
May 17, 2011, 02:07:08 PM
 #66

I’m in it because a) this technology will change the world, regardless of your ideology, b) it will give us economic freedom and c) I could profit hugely from it.

Without profit incentive, Bitcoin wouldn’t rise this fast. Problem? Tongue

"Bitcoin had been transformed from an anarachistic challenge to the financial status quo, to the crypto spawn of Satan, fuelled by cut-throat greed and delusions of avarice." - MatTheCat
"these people don't seem to want to stop till Bitcoin is completely destroyed and left like an old cum rag in the corner of the room." - ShroomsKit
brocktice
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 292


Apparently I inspired this image.


View Profile WWW
May 17, 2011, 02:25:29 PM
 #67

... there must be a system that requires no burning of petrol, cause it's bad for the environment. But here's the killer, if I want to redeem my coin for petrol, I spent almost as much petrol making the coin as it's worth. So I get 1 litre of petrol instead of 2. Brilliant.
Well, conch shells it has to be then. I'm off to register conchcoin.bit

I'm going to invest in a saltwater aquarium right now. In fact, I'm going to set up a whole *farm* of saltwater aquariums.

This is going to be even better than carrots.

http://media.witcoin.com/p/1608/8----This-is-nuts

My #bitcoin-otc ratings: http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewratingdetail.php?nick=brocktice&sign=ANY&type=RECV

Like my post? Leave me a tip: 15Cgixqno9YzoKNEA2DRFyEAfMH5htssRg
proudhon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 02:31:59 PM
 #68

... there must be a system that requires no burning of petrol, cause it's bad for the environment. But here's the killer, if I want to redeem my coin for petrol, I spent almost as much petrol making the coin as it's worth. So I get 1 litre of petrol instead of 2. Brilliant.
Well, conch shells it has to be then. I'm off to register conchcoin.bit

I'm going to invest in a saltwater aquarium right now. In fact, I'm going to set up a whole *farm* of saltwater aquariums.

This is going to be even better than carrots.

Use the aquariums for this instead.

http://www.pugetsystems.com/submerged.php
berlin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
May 17, 2011, 03:18:34 PM
 #69

If you don't have inflation, you have deflation, which means people with "money" will never have to work.

PeterSchiff, are you an adherent of the Labour Theory of Value by any chance?

How much money we make has very little to do with how much we work.  Our ability to make money is almost entirely a result of the capital we have access to, and you are no exception to that.  Like it or not, that is simply how a modern free economy works.

I make 100 times more money per hour than an Indian rice farmer.  Is this because I work 100 times harder than him? Of course not, in fact he probably works a hell of a lot harder than me. Is it because I am more intelligent? I doubt it, human beings have roughly the same cognitive skills regardless of their culture and technological state.  

It is simply because I have access to:

* Financial capital - Assets that I inherited, assets my employer allows me to use, etc.
* Social capital - I know people who can help me accessing high paying jobs.
* Information capital - My education, my superior internet access, etc.
* Political capital - if the Indian rice farmer decided to move to Europe and compete with me, the friendly government I am living under would point a gun to his head and kindly ask him to return.
* Cultural capital - I was brought up to think innovatively and independently.

...and the rice farmer doesn't.

So if you think it's wrong to make money from capital and that we should all just be making money from work alone, we would probably all end up living like Indian rice farmers.  Are you prepared to do that? No? Who is the real hypocrite then? Smiley


PS. Bitcoin will give the Indian rice farmer access to capital that was so far withheld from him by the banking elites.



I also don't agree with inheritance or old money. In an ideal world we would all start equal, not benefit only because your parents or family are rich. You make your own luck... It goes against equality and worth.

Most of us have had an easier start to our life than your Indian Rice Farmer, and it's unrealistic to think that we in the western world are really interested in sharing our wealth.

But to answer your question, if this is the start of something new, then let's try and be better, not worse. If anyone thinks they deserve to be rich because they mined bit coins early on, then that person is seriously full of shit.

You're a hypocrite because you're justifying why you should be rich for contributing very little. You mined cause you're greedy, just a geek or both. Now you're saying you deserve to be rich, or that you're only into BitCoins because of the monetary revolution.

OMFG, can you hear yourselves. Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites!!!

I'd like to hear at least some of you admit that you're a greedy mofo in it only for it's speculative value and that you don't give a shit about the rest.
Amen

What's the problem exatly, the profit motive drives bootstrapping a bitcoin economy. So some people end up rich, so what? What they're going to do with the money is buy yachts and big houses and expensive shoes and so on. Who will build the yachts? Who will maintain the big houses and hand-crafted shoes? People who work for a living, this is who. Why should people that work for a living be pissed off to have more customers. everybody want more spending power, for themselves and for others. People that run or work for businesses do at least.

I would have thought the problem with bitcoin is about capital formation, but having a problem that some people got lots of spending power for being early to the system, this doesn't make sense. Sounds like just resentment to me.

Some people also own lots of gold, or land long before any of us were born, some owned shares in Google back when everyone used Lycos or something, does this mean anyone else is against owning gold or land or shares in Google?

Your thought on this is broken.
MacFall
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


Agorist


View Profile WWW
May 17, 2011, 05:11:48 PM
 #70

imagine if this was 1850 ...

I think that gold and silver horses will be the most widely used money form of transport, as they have been for the last 5,000 years of human history, and bitcoin railways will merely be measured in grams of gold instead of dollars used by the rich.

Careful with using history as a guide.  Longevity by itself does not guarantee stability.

There is nothing special about gold.  The only reason it has lasted as a money for 5,000 years is because there was no superior alternative for certain financial needs.  P2P cryptocurrencies may change that situation in a very short time.

IMO there is a real possiblility that gold will lose its status as a major exchange vehicle within less than a decade.  The result will be a crash in the price of gold that reflects its value in jewellery and electronics alone.



Gold has been used as a money for most of humanity's civilized history because it possesses all the necessary qualities for money: it is homogeneous, divisible, durable, and scarce. Bitcoin possesses all of those qualities, but it isn't as durable as gold. The fact is that bitcoin's usefulness as money is dependent on all the same things that gold is, and then it is also dependent on other factors as well. Gold carries no risks for technical failure. Gold will still be useful as money if the internet stops working. Bitcoin has advantages over gold, but they all depend on technology never failing to function as it is now. I don't trust that to be the case, and I suspect most other people won't, either. I value gold for its independence from technology.

No king but Christ; no law but Liberty!

Fledge Press: Pro-Liberty Fiction and Art
1JBmYmG2U5ETj8BXZUBCXDKWCQcFoERBNP
no to the gold cult
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


"Godshit"


View Profile
May 17, 2011, 05:42:16 PM
 #71

imagine if this was 1850 ...

I think that gold and silver horses will be the most widely used money form of transport, as they have been for the last 5,000 years of human history, and bitcoin railways will merely be measured in grams of gold instead of dollars used by the rich.

Careful with using history as a guide.  Longevity by itself does not guarantee stability.

There is nothing special about gold.  The only reason it has lasted as a money for 5,000 years is because there was no superior alternative for certain financial needs.  P2P cryptocurrencies may change that situation in a very short time.

IMO there is a real possiblility that gold will lose its status as a major exchange vehicle within less than a decade.  The result will be a crash in the price of gold that reflects its value in jewellery and electronics alone.



Gold has been used as a money for most of humanity's civilized history because it possesses all the necessary qualities for money: it is homogeneous, divisible, durable, and scarce. Bitcoin possesses all of those qualities, but it isn't as durable as gold. The fact is that bitcoin's usefulness as money is dependent on all the same things that gold is, and then it is also dependent on other factors as well. Gold carries no risks for technical failure. Gold will still be useful as money if the internet stops working. Bitcoin has advantages over gold, but they all depend on technology never failing to function as it is now. I don't trust that to be the case, and I suspect most other people won't, either. I value gold for its independence from technology.

As for me, if the internet stopped working, I suspect I'd have little use for lumps of shinny yellow metal. For me if the internet no longer functioned wealth would be in canned food, guns, ammo, shelter, medicines and basic tools. I guess wealth is a matter of circumstance.

1Q1yKUsSXr4KrxriJ4VRxhs6iS1WqBVL93

For your daily bitcoin updates, all you need are these...
http://thebitcoinsun.com/ and http://bitcoinweekly.com
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 05:43:44 PM
 #72

... there must be a system that requires no burning of petrol, cause it's bad for the environment. But here's the killer, if I want to redeem my coin for petrol, I spent almost as much petrol making the coin as it's worth. So I get 1 litre of petrol instead of 2. Brilliant.
Well, conch shells it has to be then. I'm off to register conchcoin.bit

I'm going to invest in a saltwater aquarium right now. In fact, I'm going to set up a whole *farm* of saltwater aquariums.

This is going to be even better than carrots.

Use the aquariums for this instead.

http://www.pugetsystems.com/submerged.php

Ha!  I thought about doing something along these lines with askrol oil, which is used as liquid insulation in large transformers. 

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MacFall
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


Agorist


View Profile WWW
May 17, 2011, 05:45:47 PM
 #73

Wealth is ALWAYS in those things. The little lumps of shiny metal are a medium of exchange. As is bitcoin. And bitcoin does it better, assuming the current level of technology remains functional. But I make no such assumption.

No king but Christ; no law but Liberty!

Fledge Press: Pro-Liberty Fiction and Art
1JBmYmG2U5ETj8BXZUBCXDKWCQcFoERBNP
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 06:07:41 PM
 #74

Wealth is ALWAYS in those things. The little lumps of shiny metal are a medium of exchange. As is bitcoin. And bitcoin does it better, assuming the current level of technology remains functional. But I make no such assumption.

Bitcoin required the Internet to get started, but it does not require it's continued existance to function.  If Bitcoin becomes as widely used as the British Pound, or even half as widely used worldwide, then Bitcoin would survive regardless of the Internet because there will be way too many people with a vested interest in it's ongoing success, and many of those people would endeavor to establish new forms of direct peer connections, radio nets, or re-establish existing network infrastructure as a priority.  Although we are not there yet, once Bitcoin is mainstream I can't imagine anything less than a nuclear war actually ending Bitcoin.  And even that wouldn't work once the first full blockchain node is in orbit.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Timo Y
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


bitcoin - the aerogel of money


View Profile
May 17, 2011, 10:19:06 PM
 #75

Gold has been used as a money for most of humanity's civilized history because it possesses all the necessary qualities for money: it is homogeneous, divisible, durable, and scarce.

You forgot three more: mobile, replicable, and hideable.

And gold is certainly lacking in all three of those.


1) Moving larger quantities of gold from A to B is risky, expensive, and labour intensive.  Moving BTC from A to B is trivial.

2) Since gold is physical, if you lose it, it's gone forever. You can't keep a backup anywhere.  BTC, encrypted and backed up in several places, is practically impossible to lose.

3) Finally, it's very difficult to protect your gold against confiscation/theft by despots and other thugs who are powerful enough and determined enough, as history has shown time and again.

In fact, gold's track record as a safe store of value is pretty lousy given how many times in history people have lost their gold through methods 1) 2) and 3). This happened on a massive scale as recently as WWII.

Really, people just used gold throughout history for lack of better options, not because gold is such good money.


Quote
Bitcoin possesses all of those qualities, but it isn't as durable as gold. The fact is that bitcoin's usefulness as money is dependent on all the same things that gold is, and then it is also dependent on other factors as well. Gold carries no risks for technical failure.  Gold will still be useful as money if the internet stops working. Bitcoin has advantages over gold, but they all depend on technology never failing to function as it is now. I don't trust that to be the case, and I suspect most other people won't, either. I value gold for its independence from technology.

As the saying goes ... technology is everything that was invented after you were born.  Grin

Gold depends on technology just like Bitcoin, although older technology.  Without safes and guns to protect it, scales and density meters to measure it, and ships to carry it across oceans, gold isn't awfully useful either.

Bitcoin only needs a very rudimentary low bandwidth internet to keep going. For the internet to stop working totally and  permanently, the world would have to be so fucked that it would be the end of "civilized history" as you put it.  In that kind of Madmax scenario, gold too would lose its usefulness for above reasons.

Bitcoin is perfectly capable of surviving a temporary breakdown of the internet as a result of war or natural disaster. The blockchain is duplicated on millions of machines around the world. It is sufficient for just of few of them to survive in order to reboot the Bitcoin network. A few people would lose their wallets of course but not those who backed them up diligently.  For instance, a QR code of an encrypted version of your private key, printed on a piece of paper, even engraved on a sheet of metal, could easily survive an EMP. Bitcoin is far more durable than you think.

GPG ID: FA868D77   bitcoin-otc:forever-d
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 11:01:38 PM
 #76


Bitcoin only needs a very rudimentary low bandwidth internet to keep going. For the internet to stop working totally and  permanently, the world would have to be so fucked that it would be the end of "civilized history" as you put it.  In that kind of Madmax scenario, gold too would lose its usefulness for above reasons.
That's a colorful way to put it.  And as I have already pointed out, once even one full node is on a satillite in orbit, even the Madmax scenario couldn't kill Bitcoin even if there were no living humans left to make use of it.
Quote
Bitcoin is perfectly capable of surviving a temporary breakdown of the internet as a result of war or natural disaster. The blockchain is duplicated on millions of machines around the world. It is sufficient for just of few of them to survive in order to reboot the Bitcoin network.
Actually, it only takes one full copy of the blockchain somewhere accessible.  It's the Many-Copies-Keeps-Data-Safe method, and might mean that the blockchain is, or soon will be, more safe than the text of the Bible.
Quote
A few people would lose their wallets of course but not those who backed them up diligently.  For instance, a QR code of an encrypted version of your private key, printed on a piece of paper, even engraved on a sheet of metal, could easily survive an EMP.

For that matter, a copy of your wallet file on a CD-R or a flash drive kept in a steel safety deposit box should be plenty safe from an EMP.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
ryukafalz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 12:04:42 AM
 #77


Actually, it only takes one full copy of the blockchain somewhere accessible.  It's the Many-Copies-Keeps-Data-Safe method, and might mean that the blockchain is, or soon will be, more safe than the text of the Bible.

Of course, the network (or what's left of it) would then be extremely vulnerable to tampering.  If there's only one copy, well, you'd better hope the person with that copy either doesn't know how to mess with it or doesn't want to.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 18, 2011, 12:15:11 AM
 #78


Actually, it only takes one full copy of the blockchain somewhere accessible.  It's the Many-Copies-Keeps-Data-Safe method, and might mean that the blockchain is, or soon will be, more safe than the text of the Bible.

Of course, the network (or what's left of it) would then be extremely vulnerable to tampering.  If there's only one copy, well, you'd better hope the person with that copy either doesn't know how to mess with it or doesn't want to.

You would also have to know that your's was the last copy.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
ryukafalz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10


View Profile
May 18, 2011, 12:39:13 AM
 #79


Actually, it only takes one full copy of the blockchain somewhere accessible.  It's the Many-Copies-Keeps-Data-Safe method, and might mean that the blockchain is, or soon will be, more safe than the text of the Bible.

Of course, the network (or what's left of it) would then be extremely vulnerable to tampering.  If there's only one copy, well, you'd better hope the person with that copy either doesn't know how to mess with it or doesn't want to.

You would also have to know that your's was the last copy.

Ah, yes, good point.  Mess with it, two more clients come back online, and there go your ill-gotten funds.
MacFall
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


Agorist


View Profile WWW
May 18, 2011, 02:11:09 AM
 #80

Good points all around, although I'm not entirely convinced that people will give up a 5000-year-old social technology so easily. I'm not attached to it, but I'm still going to keep some on hand just in case. But the good thing about a free market is it doesn't matter which one of us is right, because nobody's going to force anyone else to accept one way or the other.

No king but Christ; no law but Liberty!

Fledge Press: Pro-Liberty Fiction and Art
1JBmYmG2U5ETj8BXZUBCXDKWCQcFoERBNP
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 »  All
  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!