Printable View
The problem is that arbitrage with fiat is a near impossibility. The forex would be the same thing without brokerage accounts and people arbitraging the different currencies. The exchanges would level out pretty damn quickly if say I or you could buy 10k worth of bitcoins at one exchange, send them to another sell them take the profit and repeat 2-3 times a day and the difference would be almost gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
A recent MIT report discounts that as people do not spend collectable items. Do you spend collectables? This report says that Bitcoins are most likely to be spent than hoarded. Dismissing crypto-currencies because 1.) you don't agree with it our see value, 2.) prefer a commodity backed currency is a little short sighted and does a complete disservice not only to you, but as a society as whole. There's only been one gold backed currency that wasn't debased and it lasted for 700 years. I am tired of governments and banks thinking the realm of money belongs to them, and them alone. It's time we used whatever we wish as the medium of exchange and sidelined them completely. Having multiple currencies to exchange in has been a dream of Dr. Paul for years. He's even said that he doesn't completely understand Bitcoins, but says if it competes government fiat than it's a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
http://www.coindesk.com/mit-report-b...spent-hoarded/
Bitcoins could be the currency that is regulated, so people spend those on the open market, while alternative currencies will remain in the wild west sort of speak of being unregulated. Others will come along that obfuscate the sender and receiver making identifying someone completely impossible. (Zerocoin) I like to think of it as whack a mole, or a 100 headed hydra. There's no way they can stop, regulate or remove them all.
What you should be trying, is what this Jew is doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ares
http://47mb5740sj2k1xsfst40mqbb16bh....oins-IHB20.png
I don't think a currency can be backed, although I do like the idea of the Aurum gold infused note.
The sales pitch for bitcoins started out as: it's decentralized, anonymous and can transfer money over borders.
I don't know how it's decentralized when the government controls the exchanges and banks.
It is not anonymous. Yes, there's a record of all your transactions too.
How many times have you transfered more then $10,000 over borders...or anyone you know has? Not a very large maket there.
The uber-rich that need to secretly move their money around the world, do it with assets, diamonds/gemstones, fine art, rare coins, etc.
I'm fine with paper currency as a medium of exchange. If people would just get the simple solution to debasement, to store your wealth in precious metals and only convert them to dollars as needed...the government/Fed thieves would not be able to hide their unlimited printing of dollars
Ares, this is not an indictment on trying something different. It's more an assessment of the current attempt. The positive characteristic of these digital currencies are that they are not controlled by governments, who tend toward corruption. But there are many negatives to overcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ares
1) Fundamentally, it's too ethereal; there's no conversion to a tangible asset, even a paper one. As such, it's too dependent upon electronics and electronics. One could say that this is 95% true of sovereign currencies, but that 5% capability makes all the difference in the world. That's why we get anxious about a "paperless" currency. If we needed to, we could convert far more than 5% to tangible FRNs as a fallback to an electronic/digital failure.
2) This is compounded by no "insurance" in the event of failure. If a bank messes up digitally, they have redundant backups, and are obligated to compensate a deposit, with insurance from the government. Now, we all agree that a collapse would be problematic in that the government does not have enough assets set aside to insure a massive collapse. But they could create those assets in an emergency. It would lead to a massive dilution of the paper value, but better to lose 25-50% then 100%. And that scenario requires a complete collapse, and not regional or local collapse. These digital currency local failures are causing 100% loss.
3) Currencies work because everyone participating in the fiat process has agreed to them. When they lose faith, the currency implodes. With no limit on creation of digital currencies, it's will be hard for a global rally around a single one. Multiple currencies work now because they serve individual regions. To tell you the truth, I think there are two paths toward a global digital currency, and one of them is very scary. The scary one is a digital currency established by the banking system or government. The less scary one is a currency established by a globally accepted innovator like Google. Of course, this would then put everyone at the mercy of Google. However, if they were to organize an "open source" mechanism for it (like bitcoin), it might work. The difference from bitcoin and all it's variants is that they are originating from unfamiliar sources, which make it difficult for widespread acceptance.
So, it's not as though bitcoin critics can think outside the box. It's more that this particular attempt (and its variants) still have too many weaknesses.
LOL Maxcoin. I place that in the category of Dogecoin, a complete novelty, and internet meme..Quote:
Originally Posted by EE_
Given history of currency debasement by almost every country that had a gold backed currency I agree. I love gold and silver, and by right it should be a currency. It has a 5,000+ year history of being used as a currency. But there are those *cough* Zionist Jew *Cough* who can't let those of us be without their greedy hands in our economic dealings and advancement.Quote:
I don't think a currency can be backed, although I do like the idea of the Aurum gold infused note.
Outside of the United States, governments don't really control the Bitcoin exchanges. They do however control the banks and the means of funding the exchanges. Which is where you're seeing the bottle neck and strangulation. They are attempting to choke off the funding to prevent people from piling into crypto currencies. Leaving the only avenue of either mining, or purchasing bitcoins locally at a risk to you due to in person transactions with large amounts of fiat.Quote:
The sales pitch for bitcoins started out as: it's decentralized, anonymous and can transfer money over borders.
I don't know how it's decentralized when the government controls the exchanges and banks.
No, but it CAN be anonymous. Especially when you involve mixing services in darknet. Also the creator of the 3D printed gun is working on a project called "dark wallet" where all transactions are mixed and it's impossible to tell who sent what to who. It's still in development.Quote:
It is not anonymous. Yes, there's a record of all your transactions too.
Honestly, I've done it twice. Once when I purchased a server from China. It took 2 weeks for me to just get the money to Hong Kong. The other was sending 12k to family in Germany as they were traveling. It took a week just to get it there, and I got a friendly notification from the government that I needed to inform them what the nature of that transaction was. It may not be a large market, but sending money internationally is a huge hindrance.. I could of sent bitcoins, or any other crypto in a matter of minutes. With no reporting, and no nosey government assholes asking why I'm sending it and to whom.Quote:
How many times have you transfered more then $10,000 over borders...or anyone you know has? Not a very large maket there.
Yep, that they do. I remember reading an article where there was a section of an airport completely fabricated for fine art, and wealth storage. Found it, they're called "Freeports"Quote:
The uber-rich that need to secretly move their money around the world, do it with assets, diamonds/gemstones, fine art, rare coins, etc.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...omers-they-are
I couldn't agree more. I see the root of the problem is trusting government and banks to manage the money in the first place. I guess that's why I'm drawn to the decentralized nature of crypto currencies. We've all seen the video's of Mark Dice trying to sell an American Gold Eagle at face value of 50 dollars, and as far as I know, no one has taken him up on the offer. You and I would purchase it in a heart beat. But most people won't. You can thank our government indoctrination centers called public schools. They actually teach that gold is just a commodity and hasn't been used as a currency because it's "cumbersome" for over 100 years. They don't even talk about Nixon severing the gold standard in 1971, or the gold confiscation of FDR in 1933. Completely ignored. So people place their trust in a government / central bank and are continually raped over and over again and don't even know why..Quote:
I'm fine with paper currency as a medium of exchange. If people would just get the simple solution to debasement, to store your wealth in precious metals and only convert them to dollars as needed...the government/Fed thieves would not be able to hide their unlimited printing of dollars
True, but you can also take Bitcoins / Litecoins and convert them to physical gold or silver. http://www.amagimetals.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
How is that different than the dollar which as you said is already 95% digital? I don't really view that as a weakness more as a strength. If electricity goes out, I don't think we'll get much with our FRN's either. Why having physical gold / silver is good for that type of SHTF commerce.
I'm going to have to disagree here. The insurance you mention isn't even insurance. It's just another rubber stamp to print. I can almost guarantee that in a collapse you'll get 100% of nothing. If you aren't part of the elite, you'll get absolutely nothing. Because they have no obligation to reimburse you for losses. I accept the risk of being in Bitcoin of no insurance because I know the risk and I accept that risk. Some might not, that's totally their call. But let's not kid ourselves here and rely on newly printed money that has next to nothing purchasing power.Quote:
2) This is compounded by no "insurance" in the event of failure. If a bank messes up digitally, they have redundant backups, and are obligated to compensate a deposit, with insurance from the government. Now, we all agree that a collapse would be problematic in that the government does not have enough assets set aside to insure a massive collapse. But they could create those assets in an emergency. It would lead to a massive dilution of the paper value, but better to lose 25-50% then 100%. And that scenario requires a complete collapse, and not regional or local collapse. These digital currency local failures are causing 100% loss.
Going to have to disagree with you here as well. Fiat currency's only work because of legal tender laws. Not because we agree to use them. We are FORCED to accept them at the barrel of a gun. We only start losing faith in their use when we start noticing that when we go to buy something it requires more than our ability to earn. That's when alternatives are sought after. I believe your scenario the banking system attempting to create their own digital currency, but it'll have to offer and do something that the multitude of others don't. Yet at the same time be limited so as to not be debased like past currencies. Central banks and governments don't really have a strong track record of keeping their word. There have been leaked emails from google that they might implement Bitcoin. So it doesn't sound like they're going to reinvent the wheel and create their own. There are some technical and fundamental issues with bitcoin that will prevent it from being adapted for mainstream point of sales. Time and confirmation being the main factor.Quote:
3) Currencies work because everyone participating in the fiat process has agreed to them. When they lose faith, the currency implodes. With no limit on creation of digital currencies, it's will be hard for a global rally around a single one. Multiple currencies work now because they serve individual regions. To tell you the truth, I think there are two paths toward a global digital currency, and one of them is very scary. The scary one is a digital currency established by the banking system or government. The less scary one is a currency established by a globally accepted innovator like Google. Of course, this would then put everyone at the mercy of Google. However, if they were to organize an "open source" mechanism for it (like bitcoin), it might work. The difference from bitcoin and all it's variants is that they are originating from unfamiliar sources, which make it difficult for widespread acceptance.
Bitcoin most likely will not win out in the end, due to some current technical limitations. But it definitely showed what is possible without government or central bank control.Quote:
So, it's not as though bitcoin critics can think outside the box. It's more that this particular attempt (and its variants) still have too many weaknesses.
Ares, thanks for the thoughtful response. I guess we just disagree.
But I do want to counter on one point: You say that if the electricity goes out, we won't get much for our FRN's. On the contrary, if the electricity goes out, FRNs will be king. Your local store or your neighbor will not suddenly be enlightened to the virtues of gold and silver as soon as the lights go out. They will be much more comfortable accepting the familiar currency, which will suddenly be in short supply and high demand. FRNs would actually carry a premium for a while.
Gold and silver have their highest potential value during increasing fear of collapse, when the system continues to run but is being exposed as increasingly tenuous. During this period, there will continue to be an expansion of fiat, and people will be turning to gold and silver to preserve their wealth as the exchange rate to fiat becomes volatile. But immediately after collapse, FRNs and tangible items would have the highest value. If the government response is a flood of paper, then FRNs would diminish in value. After that, gold and silver will resume their high value during the restoration phase to a new system, whatever that may be.
These kinds of debates tend to be circular in nature anyway. I don't prefer one (gold / silver) over the other (Bitcoin) I believe they don't need to be against each other. I prefer to use them in a fashion that compliment each other. That's my own personal choice, because I do love gold and silver, but I also love the ease of use and functionality of bitcoin which gold and silver lack. That's entirely due to being physical in an ever increasing digital world. If we are to have a digital currency, I prefer one that isn't under their control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
I agree because if the lights go out, physical paper notes will be limited. But you also might get yourself a better price with real gold and silver with some good old fashion bartering. :)Quote:
But I do want to counter on one point: You say that if the electricity goes out, we won't get much for our FRN's. On the contrary, if the electricity goes out, FRNs will be king. Your local store or your neighbor will not suddenly be enlightened to the virtues of gold and silver as soon as the lights go out. They will be much more comfortable accepting the familiar currency, which will suddenly be in short supply and high demand. FRNs would actually carry a premium for a while.
Also agree, why I believe gold and silver are rising in value again. The sand at the bottom of our financial foundation is beginning to shift again. It has yet to be seen if that shift will be cataclysmic. We all know it will eventually collapse, the timing is always the unknown factor.Quote:
Gold and silver have their highest potential value during increasing fear of collapse, when the system continues to run but is being exposed as increasingly tenuous. During this period, there will continue to be an expansion of fiat, and people will be turning to gold and silver to preserve their wealth as the exchange rate to fiat becomes volatile. But immediately after collapse, FRNs and tangible items would have the highest value. If the government response is a flood of paper, then FRNs would diminish in value. After that, gold and silver will resume their high value during the restoration phase to a new system, whatever that may be.
Price of Bitcoin has fallen significantly from about $1,200 to $400 now. Might be a good time to buy. I just loaded up myself.
I have been following BTC and I have been "nibbling" (i.e. making small purchases) on it via Coinbase each time that it went down by a certain amount. It looks like it will break $400 on the downside. The low so far is right at $400. I suspect that China is spooking Bitcoin at the moment with some sort of "announcement" about Bitcoin. We will see.