Timothy C. May: Libertaria in Cyberspace Op-Ed Bitcoin News
Timothy C. May: Libertaria in Cyberspace Op-Ed Bitcoin News
Bitcoin, the Regression Theorem, and the Emergence of a ...
Ponzi Logic: Debunking Gary North - The Libertarian Standard
Bitcoin is basically a Ponzi scheme The Seattle Times
Bitcoins, Banking and the Blockchain - Actuaries Digital
11-10 01:33 - '[quote] There's no difference between the two - most Ancaps become fascists when they realize their ideology is a complete waste of time with no practical use or existing examples. / [quote] I don't know who the fuck t...' by /u/Colonel_Endemonia removed from /r/Bitcoin within 6-16min
Oh now I'm a fascist too? Looool. I'm actually also an anarcho-capitalist.
There's no difference between the two - most Ancaps become fascists when they realize their ideology is a complete waste of time with no practical use or existing examples.
So you support Ross's double-lifetime sentence for being an anti-state libertarian?
I don't know who the fuck this is, but if you like him, I'm deeply saddened they didn't receive the death penalty.
You mean the resources it has violently stolen from unwilling people.
I don't care.
Do you support violently stealing from your neighbours?
If it was necessary to survive - sure.
You mean the humanity that benefits from the stolen blood-soaked loot.
I don't care, and I'm okay with that. Its just how the world works.
Ancaps, most of the og bitcoiners
Ancaps, people that use government electrification to run their fictitious capital? Try running your shitty Ponzi scheme without government assistance, and then I'll be impressed.
Just like a thief benefits from his theft. The person being stolen does not benefit.
Cry about it
Like, people should become more civil and not use brutal violence to steal from others and to not violently force their way on others, right?
No, it should use even more violence to deal with desperately important issues such as climate change and poverty. China, for example, has the right idea on how to use state resources to accomplish these goals. It is the more efficient form of capitalism, and such a state will be very useful in the future for dealing with inevitable widespread discontent we're on course for very soon.
story of Hitler right
Hitler was interested in liquidating people for their race. Communists are interested in liquidating classes, people that hoard wealth that they'll never be able to spend in a life time, but wealth that could be used to greatly benefit humanity. One famous communist who supported such position was a man called Adam Smith. You probably don't know him though.
What is "value-form"?
Exchange-value - the value you pay for selling commodities on a market.
How do you "do away" with wages? What if me and my employer agree to some contract where we trade my labor for bitcoins -- are you going to imprison or kill us?
We're going to centralize all production by the state, and introduce rationing, quotas for goods according to a central plan. Distribution without private markets.
So I can take your laptop? Or move in to your house?
You can try.
You have no problem with violently forcing everyone to pay for shitty government-monopoly services, like mail delivery, schools, hospitals and welfare? And I thought you were against money (wage labor), why not just force teachers and doctors to work for free at gunpoint? That's much more direct and efficient.
I don't think you know what transition means. But again, you're an ancap, you don't even know what capitalism is, and I doubt you even own capital. You're a leech defending an ideology you don't benefit from because you're a wage slave at the bottom of the ladder like the most of us.
Killing people is just how the world works. Before there were capitalists - there feudal lords that had to be hanged to bring about this system. The difference is that we don't have to hang people anymore - bullets and killer drones suffice.
Why do you use the euphemism "being taxed" instead of the more accurate "violently forced at gunpoint to pay for things I don't want or need"?
If you don't need these things - feel free to leave this society. Again, you don't have to be here
You're aware the current governments collude in a planet-wide cartel, where every inch of land is illegitimately claimed by them, right? Liberlanders are learning this the hard way -- even with so-called abandoned land that no country officially claims, they were not allowed to create their own community.
Thought I would share this chat I had with James Lovejoy last night. Super generous of him to provide this much access and time answering questions. I was already a HODL'er, but this solidified it. beerfinger [1:28 AM] Just read through the entire rebranding thread in the Vertcoin subreddit. Earlier today I also watched some of Crypto Hedge's interview of James Lovejoy from last August on YouTube. I understand both sides of the rebranding argument and have tried to play devil's advocate. Right now I do believe that the argument against rebranding is stronger. Full disclosure: I've worked in marketing/advertising my whole career and just recently got into cryptos. With that said, there are two questions that keeps nagging on me: [1:28] 1. this coin has been around since 2014, so nearly 4 years. James seems like an incredibly smart and capable chap, but I'm just going to go ahead and assume the he hasn't always been the Lead Dev while he was in high school. Presumably there was someone before him and, after he graduates and moves on to whatever it is he's going to do with his life, there will be someone after him. Yes? So, with all due respect to James, as an investor in VTC, what assurances are there that this isn't merely an interesting side-project for a brilliant MIT student with little interest/incentive in its value as an investment portfolio? If the value of this coin to James is that of a college project, that is something I as an investor would like to know. jamesl22 [1:32 AM] Hey! [1:33] I've been the lead dev since Nov 2014 [1:33] (while I was in high school) [1:33] And I've kept at it through college, I certainly don't intend to go anywhere [1:33] Plus, there are more who work on this project that just me beerfinger [1:33 AM] 2. I've read complaints about Vertcoin from people who poopoo its usefulness. Decrying it as "just another coin trying to be Bitcoin with not much differentiating it." People don't seem to view the ASIC thing as a big enough differentiator to make VTC stand out. There seems to be a kernel of truth to that as part of the argument against rebranding seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that it should not occur until a major change in the development is launched. So my question again stems back to James' motivations and incentives here. Is this a convenient use case for some college thesis? Or is the team really working on coming up with a major change in development? [1:34] hey James! wow, thanks so much for your quick response [1:34] great to actually communicate with you. and I stand corrected. very impressive that you started on this so young. I can see why MIT accepted you :slightly_smiling_face: [1:36] my questions still stand though: I'm not trying to insult you so I hope you don't take it that way, but as someone who considers VTC part of my investment portfolio, I am very curious to hear about your incentives. You clearly have noble intentions. But what is your ultimate goal? What's the end game? Is it the same as Satoshi's was? (assuming he was really one person who existed) [1:37] Or is there something else? jamesl22 [1:37 AM] I think it's the same as Satoshi's [1:37] To recreate the financial system in a fairer, more distributed way [1:37] My research at MIT is totally separate to my work on VTC, though the two are complimentary (both are in cryptocurrency) [1:38] In my ideal world everyone runs a VTC miner and full node in their home, banks become narrow banks and clearing houses/stock exchanges are a thing of the past [1:39] The rewards of the financial system (in the form of transaction fees) will be distributed to the people, rather than siphoned off by banks or ASIC manufacturers as happens now (edited) goodminer [1:40 AM] :thumbsup: beerfinger [1:40 AM] I see. That is compelling. So, being that's the case, that sounds to me like something worthy of a brand, no? [1:41] Unless you think there are other coins on the market with the same goals. In which case, what will differentiate VTC? jamesl22 [1:42 AM] I don't think there are any on the market with as strong of an ideology as us [1:42] Or any that can demonstrate that it follows through on its commitments [1:42] The way I see it, VTC went from being worth $0.01 last year to 100x that now [1:43] I don't see how a rebrand can possible accelerate already parabolic growth [1:43] Bear in mind, that until a few months ago we had 0 marketing, that is where our focus should be now beerfinger [1:44 AM] Fair. I'm curious, what do you think it SHOULD be worth? [1:44] I mean right now, at this moment. jamesl22 [1:44 AM] I don't think I should say, the SEC might be watching us beerfinger [1:44 AM] Not in the future. [1:44] haha [1:44] ok [1:44] Can you say if you feel it is undervalued? [1:44] or overvalued jamesl22 [1:45 AM] I will say with confidence that 95% of the top 100 is severely overvalued beerfinger [1:45 AM] coins you mean jamesl22 [1:45 AM] Yes [1:45] On coinmarketcap [1:45] If you visit most of their websites, there is no code at all [1:45] Yet it's worth many times what VTC is worth [1:46] Where VTC has been established for nearly 4 years, bug free and features well demonstrated [1:46] VTC also had LN and SegWit on main net before LTC or BTC (edited) beerfinger [1:46 AM] Yes I mean your statement doesn't surprise me. It's a nacent market. Lots of snake oil, clearly. [1:47] I guess to steer this back towards the branding/marketing of your coin though, you clearly feel strongly about it and have a clear vision. Do you feel that as it stands the branding conveys that sentiment? jamesl22 [1:47 AM] When you say branding, I assume you mean "vertcoin" and the logo? beerfinger [1:48 AM] yes. logo, color scheme, etc... [1:48] name even [1:49] also to clarify one point, when I say that you clearly feel strongly about it, the "it" refers to your coin (not the marketing of it) jamesl22 [1:49 AM] I think it's largely arbitrary beerfinger [1:49 AM] why is that jamesl22 [1:49 AM] Most coin names have no meaning whatsoever [1:49] Google, the largest tech company in the world has a silly name [1:50] Litecoin (whose name ought to imply it has fewer features) is #4 beerfinger [1:51 AM] I wouldn't underestimate the amount of strategy that went into branding Google (and continues to this day) jamesl22 [1:51 AM] What's most important is the pitch, how can you convince someone who knows nothing about the technicals behind cryptocurrency, that ASIC resistance and decentralisation is important? [1:51] Yes, but the original branding was arbitrary and haphazard [1:52] Yet the technology spoke for itself [1:52] Now it's in the dictionary [1:53] Spending lots of time and money on a new name/logo, trying to get community consensus on that and then redesigning the website/subreddit/wallets/other services to reflect the changes is not where I think we should focus our small resources [1:54] My goal over the next year or two is to take VTC from speculative value to real-world value [1:54] So point of sale, ease of use, that's the focus now [1:55] I aim to over time provide complete solutions for merchants to implement VTC at point of sale, for laymen to set up nodes and miners in their homes [1:55] As well as potentially enterprise support if we get big enough beerfinger [1:55 AM] It sounds like this is your intended career path then, yes? jamesl22 [1:55 AM] In some shape or form, yes beerfinger [1:55 AM] Wonderful [1:55] When do you graduate, James? [1:55] If you don't mind me asking slackbot Custom Response [1:55 AM] I AM talking to you aren't I ! jamesl22 [1:56 AM] Charlie Lee worked at Coinbase for several years before returning to LTC a month or two ago [1:56] 2019 beerfinger [1:56 AM] So you're a Sophomore? Or are you in graduate school? jamesl22 [1:57 AM] Junior chuymgzz [1:58 AM] @beerfinger can you imagine when people first heard the word "dollar" like WTF is a dollar where did it actually came from. It actually comes from Czech joachimsthaler, which became shortened in common usage to thaler or taler. Don't pay much attention to the name Vertcoin, just take a look at the tech. If you buy into this coin's ideology, you will actually start to like the name. jin [1:58 AM] Hey guys :slightly_smiling_face: [1:59] @chuymgzz but not everyone looks purely at the tech, if we look at the top 100 coins, you would know whats going on :stuck_out_tongue: beerfinger [1:59 AM] Cool well thanks for indulging me, James. I really appreciate it. Hopefully this conversation continues in the future. While your probably right that right now is probably not the right time, that doesn't mean at some point in the future it won't be. In the meantime, I'll take comfort in the knowledge that I've invested in a worthy cause. chuymgzz [1:59 AM] Longer term only the functional ones and the ones that deliver will survive and a whole ecosystem will be built around it jin [1:59 AM] buzz and hype is unfortunately a large part of it beerfinger [2:00 AM] *you're jin [2:00 AM] that is true, but without marketing to draw in attention (which leads to usage and so on etc) it will be difficult for a functional one to survive even beerfinger [2:07 AM] @james122 One more thing: how do you feel about regulation? Pro or con? Do you feel that the idea of nation states like the US and China (ergo the ICO ban) taking it upon themselves to place restrictions on the market to try and make them safer is anathema to the idea of decentralization? Are you a full on libertarian in that respect? Or do you welcome regulation because it'll separate the wheat from the chaff? jamesl22 [2:07 AM] I think we need a sane amount of regulation [2:08] ICOs are clearly illegal imo [2:08] Unless they are performed under the same rules as an IPO [2:09] Plus I don't want to create a safe harbour for child pornographers, people traffickers and terrorists to store their money [2:09] However I do think the state has no right to spy on you without a warrant (edited) beerfinger [2:09 AM] You mean you don't want to be Monero? :slightly_smiling_face: jamesl22 [2:09 AM] No [2:10] I will pursue privacy features that make the pseudoanonymity provided by the blockchain easier for people to use effectively [2:11] That way, it is not obvious to anyone your holdings or transactions publicly (edited) [2:11] But things like sting operations would still be theoretically possible beerfinger [2:13 AM] Love it. I still feel the branding thing will need to be revisited at some point. I don't know what that means, exactly. Whether its as small as a font change to something bigger like a new color scheme, logo or even name, I'm not sure of. The ideology is strong, but as it stands Vertcoin doesn't have a clear differentiator in the market. I'm not sure that matters so much yet at this time, but it will. [2:15] You clearly have a strong vision, I'm just not sure it's being communicated effectively yet. Hence, haters who say Vertcoin is just trying to be another Bitcoin. workstation [2:15 AM] beerfinger might be a huge whale sniffing out Vertcoin before a huge loadup. Not that, that's a bad thing :stuck_out_tongue: beerfinger [2:15 AM] haha... I wish jamesl22 [2:16 AM] Vertcoin is trying to be another Bitcoin lol [2:16] It's picking up where Bitcoin left off [2:16] If people want a decentralised cryptocurrency, they should use Vertcoin [2:17] Bitcoin just isn't one anymore [2:17] Neither is Litecoin (edited) beerfinger [2:20 AM] Semantics really, but if that's the case then that means Vertcoin isn't trying to be another Bitcoin. Bitcoin is already Bitcoin, which is a coin that did not fulfill it's promises. Vertcoin, on the other hand, like you said picks up where Bitcoin left off. I'm not sure that's being communicated by the brand (yet). Doing so may have nothing to do with rebranding (unless rebranding generates a bigger social following who then helps you communicate that). workstation [2:20 AM] You've continued on a great coin James and no doubt Vertcoin has great features vs other coins, however without widespread use and adoption, Vertcoin might just become another coin without much use. The marketing side is sometimes even more important than the development side. Just need to look at history for that. E.g. Early version of Windows was buggy, bluescreen of death plagued it. But with heaps of $$ and marketing, Windows is pretty rock solid these days. atetnowski [2:21 AM] joined #marketing. jamesl22 [2:22 AM] Yes, agreed to both statements [2:22] We're working on it, but it takes time and money [2:23] But really, adoption is pointless until point of sale works properly [2:23] When you can get it into people's physical wallets, or phone and they can spend it in a store, that's when it takes off (edited) [2:23] Walmart, Target, all the big retailers hate Visa and Mastercard workstation [2:24 AM] Thats a long way off... Even Apple and Samsung are struggling in that area jamesl22 [2:24 AM] They would love a solution that opted them out of having to pay their fees beerfinger [2:25 AM] @workstation To play devil's advocate for one sec, most successful people in the world don't achieve success because they tried to achieve success. Success is merely a byproduct of their passion. I do believe that James' commitment to the ideology can be sufficient. But it is true that the branding should communicate his vision. That is a constant conversation, too. workstation [2:25 AM] yes, true jamesl22 [2:26 AM] What we really need is talented content creators to make compelling media that explains the vision in a layman friendly way [2:26] Thus far the message has been far too technical [2:26] But in the past, the space was mostly populated by technical people so that is understandable [2:26] It is only in the last 6 months that the general public has started to get involved [2:27] Sadly "ASIC resistance" doesn't speak to them beerfinger [2:27 AM] @james122 While it's true that universal adoption is key, you can say that about ANY coin. Even dogecoin would suddenly become a real coin if everyone up and decided to start using it one day. What's your strategy for making VTC that coin? jamesl22 [2:27 AM] Whereas I think taking power from banks, chinese miners and giving it back to the people can be far more compelling workstation [2:27 AM] We take Visa and Mastercard at our stores. We only do it because it boosts sales. People these days are all borrowing on credit because they don't have enough.... Paying on their CC# lets them buy things now (instant gratification) and slowly pay later. They managed to get banks on board because they make so much money on the interest. There is a clear reason why those cards satisfy a demand. We get charged about 1.5% by VISA/MC. To be honest, it's not a real deal breaker. beerfinger [2:27 AM] haha, well, james you're talking to the right guy :slightly_smiling_face: [2:28] My career is content creation [2:28] I have nearly 20 years producing commercials and (lately) social content for global brands mikevert [2:29 AM] joined #marketing. beerfinger [2:29 AM] I would be happy to consult and provide any assistance I can [2:29] "taking power from banks, chinese miners and giving it back to the people can be far more compelling" - that's your modus operandi [2:29] you can definitely tell that story in a compelling way [2:30] Question: have any crypto's ever created any sort of ad before? Even just for social content? (sorry, I'm new to this space) jamesl22 [2:30 AM] Well we'd obviously be grateful for your assistance [2:31] I'd imagine so, though I don't follow many other coins' social media very much goodminer [2:31 AM] @beerfinger lets chat :smile: We've been working on a lot of initiatives over the last few weeks jamesl22 [2:31 AM] @workstation 1.5% to a huge retailer is a large sum of money though workstation [2:35 AM] I don't see any coin being widely used to be honest. They fluctuate way too much. Say a typical consumer whose after tax salary is $1000/week.. He buys groceries at the store for $1/Liter. This is simple maths for him, he knows it's going to cost $1 each week, inflation may make it rise to $1.10 next year, but he understands that. With coins, the price of his milk is too hard to calculate. [2:37] Why would Bob switch to using coins, when Visa/MC give him so much more? He doesnt pay the processing fee (1.5%), he gets free credit (these days, banks will easily approve 10k credits). Why would he switch to Vertcoin? jamesl22 [2:37 AM] @workstation, volatility is high because market volume is low [2:38] I think it will take another financial crisis or two though before people start to abandon fractional reserve banking (edited) workstation [2:42 AM] As long as bob gets his paycheck, he's not going to care what happens at the fed jamesl22 [2:43 AM] Bob ain't gunna get his paycheck one day though [2:44] Because the credit ponzi scheme economy will have collapsed workstation [2:48 AM] yes, the fed can print whatever it wants out of thin air... But its backed by US tax payers to the tune of 2+ trillion/year with most banks adhering to loan capital requirements. E.g. they need a certain amount of money deposited before they can loan more money out. What is Bitcoin/alt coins backed by? Seems like its somewhat of a ponzi scheme now, with everyone piling in thinking it will go up forever. I get that BTC is backed by real energy usage/capital requirements to mine it (asic equipment, datacenters, etc), so its more "real" than $1 USD, but they both service a purpose. axelfoley75 [2:49 AM] joined #marketing. workstation [2:51 AM] but whats the end goal because it seems they all become ponzi schemes. The only true coin will be one that will not allow any fiats be converted to to coin. [2:51] the only way to earn a coin, would be to mine it, wouldn't you think that that would be the truest coin? [2:52] right now people are just moving wads of fiat money into coins/alt coins, thereby skewing everything. beerfinger [2:54 AM] just jumping in here with one last comment before I go to sleep: money, whether we're talking salt, precious metals, fiat currency, or cryptos, is just something that we all agree to prescribe a value to. That being the case, how are you going to stop someone from trading that value for something they want? If someone wants to trade their cryptos for chickens, a latte, USD or anything else, they're going to do it. No point in trying to regulate what people spend their money on or how they do it. Seems the antithesis of the whole decentralization thing anyway workstation [2:57 AM] true aegisker [3:02 AM] I belive when crypto matures, has fast and easy payments solutions, volume will rise and price will be more stable. Current price is speculation due to news and new development. I dont belive that after 10 years we will be seeing such swings. beerfinger [3:04 AM] sorry keep thinking of new stuff... @jamesl22 your point about POS is salient. What's your perspective on coins like TenX that try to address that with payment platforms and cards? [3:05] is that what you mean? nuts & bolts, how would Vertcoin become a POS option? aegisker [3:06 AM] How is usdt keeping its price around usd? beerfinger [3:07 AM] don't they just keep up with USD inflation by making sure there's an equal amount of tokens to USD in the market at any given point? jamesl22 [3:07 AM] Integration of LN and AS is key [3:07] Then providing some hardware or software solution to integrate with payment processors [3:07] I haven't looked at tenx beerfinger [3:07 AM] so Vertcoin IS actively pursuing this then [3:08] interesting [3:09] perhaps there's some way to leverage things like ApplePay jamesl22 [3:09 AM] I doubt it [3:09] ApplePay's design is fundamentally different beerfinger [3:09 AM] I mean it doesn't have to be ApplePay itself. Can be a separate app lucky [3:09 AM] Having bitcoin or altcoins tied to your debit card isn't unbelievable jamesl22 [3:10 AM] Of course not [3:10] But it is suboptimal beerfinger [3:10 AM] yeah sort of kills the whole decentralization thing lucky [3:10 AM] in fact if we are going the whole hog and saying fiat collapsed. You'd be silly to think the banks would standby and let crypto take over without them beerfinger [3:10 AM] now we're relying on banks again lucky [3:11 AM] At the first sign of crypto succeeding fiat. Banks will take over [3:11] Because they can trade their fiat to coin [3:11] Government too aegisker [3:12 AM] Well, banks issues debt, whole market is built around debt. Crypto would take that away [3:12] This will be hardest transition jamesl22 [3:12 AM] If the crypto market ever gets to say $1tril, the banks will use their lobbyist army to squash it as best they can lucky [3:13 AM] Is it not possible crypto gets immediately regulated into the banking system as soon as it passed fiat in some way jamesl22 [3:13 AM] They don't care right now because the space is tiny compared to their own equity lucky [3:13 AM] Yes exactly James beerfinger [3:13 AM] i like the idea of leveraging NFC tech as a way to introduce crypto to POS purchases... everyone already has a smart phone so no need to reinvent the wheel... it's basically just an app lucky [3:13 AM] If finance is going to change politics needs to too [3:14] Nfc seems like the way. Yeag [3:14] Lots of the android wallets leverage it aegisker [3:14 AM] No need for nfc, nfc was kinda overhyped. Qr codes can work equally good jamesl22 [3:14 AM] @beerfinger I think LN will allow us to achieve that lucky [3:14 AM] Lol qr [3:14] Who has ever scanned a qr.... jamesl22 [3:14 AM] We just need a hardware implementation for the reader beerfinger [3:14 AM] sorry james, what's LN? lucky [3:14 AM] Apple made sure qr never worked jamesl22 [3:14 AM] Lightning Network beerfinger [3:14 AM] ah aegisker [3:15 AM] If u use your phone, why complicate with nfc, is there a security benefit? beerfinger [3:15 AM] the infrastructure is there... most readers i come across these days are already NFC compliant jamesl22 [3:15 AM] QR can work, but requires a high res display in the POS device [3:15] Which would increase costs [3:15] NFC is cheap af lucky [3:16 AM] Yep. Qr is extremely requirement heavy aegisker [3:16 AM] For example, pub: you get check with qr. U pay with your phone. Waiter sees on his computer that its payed. lucky [3:16 AM] Look at Asia and south America [3:16] Nobody can read qr aegisker [3:17 AM] I europe all checks already have qrs for tax checking lucky [3:17 AM] I work in global marketing. Qr is completely unadopted in the real world [3:17] Yes in no public scenario qr is used aegisker [3:17 AM] Where you from? lucky [3:17 AM] Uk [3:19] A decade in marketing I can tell you for sure Joe public doesn't scan qr codes [3:19] James is right. We need an alternative hardware solution [3:19] And I think I unique piece of tech in public would drive massive interest aegisker [3:20 AM] In slovenia, croatia, austria(i tjink) there is law that all transactions in coffeeshops or shops(everything with fiat transaction) is sent to tax authority as soon as check is printed. U get qr code on your check, so you can check if tax s paid for your service. This is to prevent black markets and unauthorized sellers. Works pretty well. If you frequently scan qrs you can get some bonuses.. [3:21] Public got used to this pretty fast. lucky [3:21 AM] So there's an incentive aegisker [3:21 AM] So also you could print qr shop wallet addr. lucky [3:21 AM] Kind of skews the ease of adoption stat we are looking for aegisker [3:22 AM] Costz nothing lucky [3:22 AM] Costs a smartphone with a quick camera [3:22] How about in a dark club beerfinger [3:23 AM] I came tonight with many questions about Vertcoin. Namely the incentives of the Devs and how it differentiated itself in the marketplace. All of those questions have been answered as best as I could have hoped. The only thing left is figuring out a way to tell that story. @jamesl22, all of the things you've said tonight are reassuring and exciting. They provide great promise for the future of this coin and even more - your goals, if realized, are truly category shifting. This is such a compelling story. TELL IT! lucky [3:23 AM] Asking every transaction to require an in focus photo capability is insane, imo aegisker [3:23 AM] uploaded and commented on this image: IMG_20170908_092307.jpg 1 Comment Thats how it looks lucky [3:23 AM] We need something similar to a contactless debit card [3:24] Good luck scanning that in the dark with a £100 smartphone. Though. aegisker [3:24 AM] For starters this is easiest solution for early adoption (edited) workstation [3:25 AM] why not something short like vCoin. Then u could make it go off V=Vendetta, sort of has a nice mystery, anti establishment aegisker [3:25 AM] You just need plugin for your pos software that checks your crypto wallet for received funds [3:26] Imo this is easiest way to implement first public purchases of beer or coffee beerfinger [3:26 AM] by the way, less is more when it comes to branding [3:26] look at apple [3:26] i love this example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k YouTube Brant Walsh Microsoft Re-Designs the iPod Packaging [3:31] and there's always something to be said for ad wars... apple's david vs goliath attack ads vs microsoft is what put them back on the map [3:31] that could be a great angle for Vertcoin... go after Bitcoin [3:31] make fun of it the way Jobs poked at Gates [3:32] that's just my 2 Vertcoins
There's been some fantastic work done in this subreddit spreading disinformation researching, criticising, and debunking bitcoin and its sacred cows over the past year, which I would like to celebrate. So here's some posts I saved on bitcoin-related topics. But I started saving things too late... So if you have and/or remember any great posts from the past year, dig them up and post them here. Also, unironically, maybe someone should start a buttcoin wiki First, three pieces of investigative journalism from Buttcoin's top minds. Here Charlie_Shrem examines the environmental impact of bitcoin mining. Key finding: For every Bitcoin transaction, 47 kilograms of CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the miners alone.
Current hash rate: 261,900,382 GH/s Number of transactions per day: 71,331 If we assume rather conservatively that 1GH/s = 1 watt on average, then this would mean 261,900,382W is being used to power the network. We can simplify this to 261,900 kW. Some miners can do better than 1W per 1GH/s, but many if not most do worse (i.e. 2W per 1GH/s to 10W per 1GH/s). Going by the figure of 0.527kg CO2 / kWh found on this page, 0.527kg CO2 x 261,900 kW x 24 hours = 3,312,511.2 kg CO2 per day Now, 3,312,511.2 kg CO2 / 71,331 transactions = 46.44 kg CO2 per transaction For comparison, even going by this Coindesk Article, an ATM produces daily 3.162kg in CO2 emissions. 0.25kwH x 0.527kg CO2 x 24 hours = 3.162kg/day. That means that the carbon emission for one Bitcoin transaction is equivalent to about 15 ATMs processing perhaps hundreds or thousands of transactions in a day combined.
Earlier this month Frankeh abruptly interrupted remittance-focused annular onanism by issuing a challenge: to find a single instance where bitcoin works out cheaper than a fiat alternative. In case you need to ask... Nope.
Right, there's a bunch of circlejerking happening in /Bitcoin right now so I think it's time to cut through the bullshit one way or another. Country to send money to. The biggest remittance markets are China, Indian and the Philippines. I believe that since /Bitcoin often gives the Philippines as an example of successful Bitcoin remittance then it is the perfect country to use in our challenge. Country to send money from. According to this wikipedia article Malaysia and Canada have the biggest expat Filipino communities. 900,000 and 500,000. So I think we should do the calculations based on both countries. The methodology Most people are not paid in Bitcoin. This is a fact. So for our calculation you must start with fiat, and end in fiat. We're not doing these calculations based on future utility of Bitcoin (No, neo. I'm saying...), we're doing them on the current utility. We will also be doing a bank to bank remittance, because that is nice an constant. We don't need to take into account pick up locations Bitcoin remittance allows and pick up locations normal remittance allows. They'll vary too much. Time will also not be taken into account, as time doesn't actually matter when it comes to remittance. Now, Bitcoiners might shout about this particular rule but let me explain my logic behind this. A foreign worker gets paid every Friday. They start the remittance process on the Friday and regardless of if it takes 0, 3, or 5 days their family back in their home country just needs to base their life around money coming in on remitters pay day + 0, 3, or 5 days. Time taken is of no real value when it comes to remittance. All that matters is that it consistently arrives on day x. As such, any remittance services that take over 5 working days are to be ignored for the sake of this challenge. The amount The amount is going to be 25% of the average wage in each of the countries. This isn't extremely scientific because it doesn't particularly need to be, and the figures are hard to come by. So 1826.75 MYR for Malaysia and 1,398 CAD for Canada. Don't bother complaining about these, they're just examples. Few more ground rules
We're going to be going from bank/bank card to bank regardless, so we're not interested in banking fees on either side. They will be the same regardless of Bitcoin or WU (for example)
It must be from local fiat to foreign fiat.. You can't palm off the conversion fee to the receivers bank to keep fees down.
Any remittance service can be used, as long as Bitcoin is involved for people fighting the Bitcoin corner and Bitcoin isn't used for people fighting the WU (or similar) corner.
You must go through the process and document all the fees for each. Fees to look out for are currency spreads, transaction fees on exchanges, etc
Finally a recent thread, but commendable all the same. Hodldown presents some research leading to facts overturning years of knowledge in the bitcoin wiki. Even us shills have been laughing at bitcoin's pathetic capability of 7 transactions per second. It turns out, we were out by at least a factor of 2:
The average number of transactions per block right now is: 665 transactions The average block size is 0.372731752748842mb. That means the average transaction is 0.00056049887mb. Which means 1mb of transactions (the limit) is 1784 transactions Assuming a 10 minute block (a whole other can of worms) that means there is 10*60 seconds. 1784/600 isn't 7. It's a 2.97. Bitcoin at a technical level can not handle even 3 transactions per second.
On the transaction side: the Bitcoin community seems convinced that banks are ripping them off (which imo they are not), and that it can be fixed by applying some magicsauce over a transaction that is facilitated by banks regardless. So far in practice I haven't seen any evidence of the 'fast' 'cheap' and 'easy' transactions, like most recently with Mollie. They usually compare the fees of BTC>BTC transactions to the fees of Chase Mastercard > a fucking nomad in the Sahara (with consumer protection) to prove their point. The community also seems convinced that the entire world banks the way America does, not realizing that in Europe banking has been dirt cheap for years. And the security... oh boy the security. Half the population can't manage to go without a virus for one year (not an actual statistic), and now you expect them to secure their coins? People are dumb as shit, and software is always one step behind the exploits. We could of course create Bitcoin banks, but then there isn't much left of the original idea. On the 'intrinsic value' side: what the hell is wrong with people. If the underlying product is no good in any aspect, why is it worth much? Right now (that's like 5 years after introduction mind you) BTC is used in 3 types of transactions: Silk Road, SatoshiDice & extremely questionable transactions. It does its job well in that aspect, and that's all it will ever be. The community just turned the technology into a giant ponzi, and they don't care as long as they get paid. The people actually doing business in Bitcoin probably don't care about the price that much.
Someone who deleted their account, on the argument that merchant adoption is a cause of the price drop:
That's just an excuse butters use for the price going down. There's no real difference between selling bitcoin for fiat and exchanging bitcoin for goods and services. Both are a form of sale of bitcoin, an expression of preference for something other than bitcoin. If on balance, there's more flow of bitcoin into fiat, goods or services than there is a corresponding opposing flow, then it is simply the market expressing the view that bitcoin is overvalued. Therefore, the reduction in the value of bitcoin (as valued in fiat) is a sincere expression of the market's view of what the correct price for bitcoin is. Think of an example: A true believer has 20 BTC. He exchanges 10 BTC with Dell for a whizzy server. Dell (or another intermediary) sell the 10 BTC at an exchange in return for fiat. The market price of BTC goes down. The price goes down, simply because a true believer cut his bitcoin holding, he got out. He thought having a server now was worth more to him than 10 tickets to the moon. Which is an expression of a negative view of the future value of bitcoin. A simple "aggressive" sale in trading parlance.
My understanding is that "Satoshi" had been trying to solve the technical problem of convincing a bunch of anonymous, volunteers to maintain and protect a distributed ledger, with no central authority. He thought that he had a solution, in the form of a protocol that included PoW, miner rewards, longest chain, etc. The solution seemed to work on paper; but, as a good scientist, he started an experiment in order to check whether it would also work in practice. For that experiment to be meaningful, it would have been enough if the coin was mined for several years only by a few hundred computer nerds, with the cooperation of some friendly pizza places and bars. The US$ price of the coin was not important to the experiment, and it was never meant to be a weapon for libertarians, a way to buy drugs or evade taxes, a competitor to credit cards or Western Union, a sound investment or item for day-trading. All those "goals" were tacked onto it afterwards.
bob237 comments on the the absurdity of coinbase and it's touted 'rebuy' scheme,
It gets even better than that, actually. A lot of bitcoiners don't like 'losing' bitcoin, and so coinbase added a popular 'repurchase bitcoin' feature that automatically debits your bank account to replenish the BTC in your coinbase account after a purchase. The ultimate result then is that you pay coinbase fiat, they take their cut, and then send that fiat on to the merchant. All 'bitcoins' used in the middle of the transaction are not really bitcoins, but just abstractions in coinbase's internal [off-chain] accounting system. It's a crap version of paypal, no consumer protection and a ton of fees hidden in the spread when you buy your chuck-e-cheese tokens from them.
saigonsquareexplains why ubiquitous tipping isn't the the killer app that it has been touted as, and why bitcoiners may fail to grasp this
Most people understand that there are different sorts of interaction. There are purely social interactions, there are quid-pro-quo interactions, and there are market interactions. Mixing those up causes embarrassment and insult. I wouldn't try to pay my mother-in-law ten bucks for cooking Christmas dinner, and I certainly wouldn't try to pay her ten cents. If a waiter suggests I try the raspberry tart, I won't get away with offering to bake him some cookies next week in compensation; if an office mate suggests I have a slice of her birthday cake, I'll be insulted if she brings me a bill for it. If I spend an hour helping my friend move apartments and he thanks me, I'm fine; we're friends helping each other out. If he pays me two bucks, I'm insulted; he's canceled the social nature of the interaction and instead simply bought my labor for a fraction of its going rate. I'm up two bucks but down a friend. Ancapspergers, not particularly understanding any sort of interaction more complicated than buying a cheeseburger at Wendy's, assume that all interactions are a form of market transaction, and set pricing accordingly. Normal humans get offended by a penny shaving, because it cancels the social nature of the interaction and turns it into a market transaction--and then informs the recipient that his contribution to the transaction was of negligible value.
Authored by Dan Denning via Bonner & Partners, As Bill reported last week, central banks are toying with the idea of launching a bank-backed cryptocurrency. Dan believes that outcome is all but assured. Only one thing stands in the way... bitcoin. The collapse of bitcoin – down 68% year to date and 78% from its all-time high of $20,000, set in December 2017, when it traded at $4,200.22 earlier this week – may have a perfectly normal explanation. _It’s a bubble that popped. Or it’s happened before and is nothing to worry about._As my colleagues have shown their readers in the last week, bitcoin dropped 94% in 2010, 94% in 2011, 85% from 2013 to 2015, and 76% in a three-month period alone in 2013. Big price declines are great buying opportunities, according to the bull case. In bitcoin’s case, any time the issue of a “hard fork” comes up – where a blockchain has two paths forward and goes in both directions at once – you’ve seen big price declines. But bitcoin has regrouped and rallied after each previous decline. It may do so this time as well. It may even be doing it as we speak. Each of the previous rallies from a crash low came as the public became more aware of bitcoin. Awareness leads to liquidity and higher prices. This time around, for example, institutional interest in cryptocurrencies could be the catalyst for bitcoin to double from here (and then double again and again, if some of the crypto evangelists are right).
Crashes and Corrections are Normal for Cryptos, Right?
I’ll leave the technical discussions to some of my colleagues who are more qualified to talk about them. They’re important to understand if you’re a long-term holder (HOLDR) of cryptocurrencies. Today, I’d like to suggest another explanation for the crypto swoon: the assassination of bitcoin by global financial authorities. Why? Cryptocurrencies have proven that there is an appetite for both a cashless digital payment system _and_ digital assets. What central bankers and the world’s financial elite have figured out is that bitcoin stands in the way of this new world financial order. It’s an order where centrally controlled digital money promises complete political power over the lives and choices of billions of people. They’re making their move to establish that order now.
Crypto Is the Evil Spawn of the Global Financial Crisis
A coordinated assault on cryptos took place over three days last week. Over those three days, from November 13 to 15, bitcoin broke through resistance at $6,330, fell to $5,508, and then, just kept on falling. What happened? And in a moment, what happens next? The Seven Deadly Paradoxes of Cryptocurrency: The first broadside fired at bitcoin came from the Bank of England’s blog, Bank Underground. Bitcoin is plagued by no less than seven fatal flaws, according to John Lewis of the Bank of England’s research hub. Among these flaws is the fact that 97% of bitcoins are held by less than 4% of addresses, creating a hoarding mentality that limits the liquidity of bitcoin and its popularity as a payment option. Another: Bitcoin can only process seven transactions per second. Visa does 24,000 per second. Another: Innovators who build on the foundation laid by bitcoin will, by definition, improve and replace it. Its obsolescence and eventual destruction are the inevitable consequence of its conceptual success. The Case for a New Digital Currency: Central banks should create digital currencies and play a critical role in the global payments system, including the settlement of transactions, argued International Monetary Fund president Christine Lagarde in Singapore on November 14. It was a subtle argument in its focus on potential public/private partnerships between commercial banks and central banks. But the important point is that Lagarde publicly floated the idea that central banks – not the private sector – should create and manage digital currencies. Centralization allows for control. Decentralization does not. Evil Spawn: Bitcoin was a clever idea, but not a terribly good one. Worse, it was the “evil spawn” of the financial crisis of 2009, according to Benoȋt Cœuré from the European Central Bank (ECB). Cœuré quoted Agustín Carstens, general manager of the Bank for International Settlements, who called bitcoin “a combination of a bubble, a Ponzi scheme, and an environmental disaster.” Cœuré’s speech called for further research into a central bank digital currency, but concluded it could be at least a decade away. _Why the three-pronged full-frontal assault on bitcoin right now? Because it’s a threat? Because it’s vulnerable to a lack of public trust? Or because now is a perfect opportunity?_It’s a combination of all three. But the last more than the first two. True, bitcoin _was_ a response to the financial crash of 2009. It was a perfectly rational response to a system run by financial elites that holds your money captive, systematically destroys the purchasing power of your savings, and creates wealth-destroying booms and busts that are increasingly politically and socially destabilizing. What fool wouldn’t want to get their money out of a system like that? To the extent that cryptos could create a decentralized payment system/currency/asset class where trust is guaranteed by the blockchain, it’s a kind of sound-money, libertarian nirvana. But the flip side is that the moment that decentralized system becomes an actual threat to the money system controlled by central banks, the full might and power of sovereign states and central banks would come down on it. That’s what’s beginning to happen now. Is bitcoin vulnerable to a lack of public trust? Vast swathes of the public still don’t know about or understand bitcoin. The interest it has attracted in the last year is largely speculative. It’s not people betting on a new, disruptive technology or money system. It’s people trying to make a quick buck from higher prices. And by the way, you still have to sell back into a fiat currency to make that buck, yen, pound, or euro. That leaves the last possibility. Last week’s attack on decentralized cryptocurrencies comes when the price action is bearish anyway. It also comes as central banks are ready to advance all the benefits of a central bank digital currency. Central banks aim to capitalize on the budding popularity of cryptos and then harness it for their own ends. So what are their own ends?
The War for Control of Digital Money
The financial elite took its attack on cryptos to the front pages of the paper this week. Economist Nouriel Roubini argued in _The Guardian_ for a central bank digital currency that replaces the current payments system and the money creation function of commercial banking (although not the lending, which would be fully funded from 100% reserves). In Roubini’s version of a central bank digital currency (CBDC), there’s no blockchain technology at all (it’s not scalable, cheap, or secure, he argues). And in his version, decentralization is to be avoided. Centralization is a desired (and necessary) feature for monetary control. There’s just one problem: What role do the banks play? You know, the banks that run Wall Street and control the Federal Reserve System. According to Roubini (emphasis added is mine): The main problem with CBDCs is that they would disrupt the current fractional-reserve system through which commercial banks create money by lending out more than they hold in liquid deposits. Banks need deposits in order to make loans and investment decisions. If all private bank deposits were to be moved into CBDCs, then traditional banks would need to become “loanable funds intermediaries,” borrowing long-term funds to finance long-term loans such as mortgages. In other words, the fractional-reserve banking system would be replaced by a narrow-banking system administered mostly by the central bank. That would amount to a financial revolution – and one that would yield many benefits. Central banks would be in a much better position to control credit bubbles, stop bank runs, prevent maturity mismatches, and regulate risky credit/lending decisions by private banks. It’s all about control. Cryptos and bitcoin threaten that control. They have to go. Bitcoin gets knifed in the back by the IMF/SEC/NSA and we get a digital money system where cash disappears and the authorities have full transparency into our monetary affairs. Our worst nightmare, in other words.
A Forked Road
We’ve come to a fork in the road for the money system (since we were talking about forks). The traditional Wall Street money power controls the system because it’s the quickest means to vast wealth (as Bill has shown in the _Diary_ the last few weeks). Control over money is sought for the purpose of wealth. The power of banks to create money is important, but incidental to the goal, which is filthy lucre. But the centralizing, authoritarian, statist monsters, though, seek control of money because their real goal is political power. This is the War on Cash that Bill and others have written about for years. It is the systematic destruction of your ability to collect and hold wealth outside of the financial system. Killing the direct convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold was one step. The various laws and regulations, like civil asset forfeiture, which allow authorities to seize “suspiciously large” amounts of cash without due process, is another. The assassination of bitcoin will be the next. It just so happens that the money system, with the advent of technology and a cashless society, is now the fastest, cheapest, and most thorough route to complete political power over the lives and private choices of billions of people. Fractional-reserve banking is a time-tested strategy for controlling money for the purposes of the acquisition and growth of large personal fortunes. But the issuance of a central bank-backed coin is an emergent claim that the power over money should be centralized to nudge/control/coerce the population for its own moral betterment. The Wall Street crowd could get completely blindsided by the D.C. crowd in the digital money war. Either way, ordinary Americans may be caught in the crossfire. The time to protect yourself is now. * * *If history has shown us anything, it’s that centralized authorities will do anything to maintain control over money. Does bitcoin pose a threat to that control? I believe it does. But the assassination of bitcoin will be just the first step... I believe a new type of money could be coming to America. The ultimate goal? To bring the money in your wallet under the control of a central bank like the Federal Reserve. You may not want to believe that. But before you dismiss the possibility, get all the details right hereand decide for yourself.
10-16 02:23 - 'Hurling Rocks at Caimans: A Cowboy's Tale' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/mine_myownbiz13 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 56-66min
''' In 1991, my mother had the foresight to leave Venezuela for the United States. She sacrificed a medical profession, her family, her friends, and the comforts of her own land and culture. It was before Chavez, before communism, before famine, before societal collapse. She didn’t know it at the time (perhaps she felt it), but she was saving our lives. Recently, I was asked by her brother, my uncle, to give some words of advice to his youngest son, whom he sent to live in upstate New York earlier this year in the hopes that he might find some opportunity there. He’s 17 and fascinated by cryptocurrencies, but knows next to nothing about them. I wrote this letter for him. Hello Cousin, I write you in the hopes that you will take away something useful from my own experience. There’s a saying in English that’s always stayed with me, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” In other words, nothing in life is easy, not money, not love, not anything. Nothing worth your time is ever going to be easy. There’s no free lunch! I first got into trading in 2008. Your dad had heard from a friend that Citigroup stock was going to pop soon and that he should buy it. The US Stock Market can only be traded by U.S. citizens and special types of corporations, so he asked me to act as a proxy for his investment, and I did. I did it because I thought it would be a get-rich quick rich scheme that I could learn to do on my own. At this time I was in graduate school and unsure of what to do with my life. I’ve always been good at school. It’s easy for me. I had professors telling me I’d make a great scholar or a great lawyer, but at the time I was teaching middle-school English in a poor neighborhood of Miami. I had a big decision to make. Naturally, I decided to get rich quick! I spent 2-3 months reading books on stock trading and executing simulated trades on practice accounts. I learned to work a variety of trading platforms so that I could trade several markets around the world, which I did. I quit my job in the fall of 2008 and took my entire life savings of $20,000 into the market. The broker gave me 3.5 times leverage on my money and I had $70,000 of available trading capital. When your dad made his deposit my account had a trading capacity of over $2,000,000. With that kind of margin, I was able to turn $20,000 into over $160,000 in less than 9 months! I was making over $15,000 a month. As a teacher, at the time, I think I made about $2,700 a month. So, as you can imagine, I thought I was a genius! I was getting rich quick, right? Wrong. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. When your dad sold his share of stock being held in my account I was also forced to liquidate my own positions. I had bought call options on the future price of Apple stock, and the way that kind of trading works is that your money is locked until the future event you are betting on occurs. If you liquidate before a certain date there may be a penalty to pay. In my case, it was $35,000. After this, I had the good sense to step away for a moment, to cash out my chips and think about what came next. Also, I didn’t have a $2,000,000 trading desk anymore, and without the added margin, there was no way I could continue to trade the way I wanted to. I wanted to make medium to long term trades, because one of the first things I learned along the way is that short term trading (day-trading, scalping) is, for the most part, a scam. There are technical reasons for this, but trust me, short-term trading any market, be it cryptos, stocks, or commodities is a bad idea. You will lose money with an almost 100% guarantee. I walked away from the stock market in 2009 with $150,000 cash but no market to trade it in. So, I did the next best thing: I bought a nice new car (in cash), took a crazy trip to Europe, and consumed over $25,000 worth of shit I didn’t need, and when it was all said and done, I went back to teaching. I taught at an even poorer neighborhood this time. I had gang members in my class. There were arrests on a monthly basis. Some of the kids had psychological problems, emotional problems, learning disabilities, and many of them were being abused at home in one way or another. This was a middle school. Twelve year-olds. I did that job and others like it because I believe in morality and in helping people. That’s the reason I’m writing you this letter, because I want to help you, and I think it's the moral thing to do. And you’ll see what I mean by that when I tell you about cryptocurrencies and the blockchain later on. Anyway, during that year of teaching I discovered a new market to trade. One that would give me 100 to 1 leverage on my money. One where I could manage a $5,000,000 trading desk with only $50,000! That market is called FOREX, and its the global “fiat” currency market. It’s the opposite of the crypto market, which is the global “digital” currency market. More on what all that means later, but for now just understand that FOREX is the most liquid and highly traded market in the world. After the school-year ended in May of 2011, I took that summer off to research the FOREX market. I read many new books on trading, which were specific to the currency markets. I watched hundreds of hours of video on technical analysis and even more hours of “financial news,” which is mostly economic propaganda, but I won’t digress here. The point is that by late August of 2011, I was once again ready to dive head-first into trading. This time, I thought, it would be even better, because I’d have even more money to “play” with! This time, I thought, I’m going to get rich! I’ll stop here and tell you that the journey up until this point had not been the smoothest. While trading stocks there were many days when I lost hundreds, thousands, and even tens of thousands of dollars in hours, sometimes in minutes! You may imagine the added level of stress I had to deal with because I was trading with my entire life’s savings and my wife had just given birth to our son, Sebastian. He was a toddler at the time. I’ll give you a brief example of trading’s unpredictable nature, and the unpredictability of financial markets in general: I had spent several months preparing for my first live trade. I’d read many books and practiced my ass off until I thought I was ready. I had a system, a strategy. I was going to get rich, quick! The first week I traded stocks I lost $10,000 in 3 days. I will never be able to fully articulate what it feels like lose 50% of all the money you’ve ever had in less than 72 hours. All the while knowing that if you fail, it will be your family who suffers the most. You might be wondering: “Shit, why’d you do it?” or “Why’d you keep doing it?” That’s understandable. After all, my academic background is in history and political science, not finance and economics, not statistics. Well, cousin, I did it because I’m a cowboy. A risk-taker. I’ve always been one. I remember being four or five, at our grandfather’s farm, and lassoing calves in the cattle pen by myself. Men were around, but they let me do it. Although, in retrospect, some of those calves were twice my size and could have easily trampled me, I don’t ever remember feeling scared---I loved that shit! I remember sneaking out and walking down to the pond, then going up to the water’s edge to see if I could spot the caiman that lived there. I would even hurl rocks at it sometimes, just to see it move! Another time, I found myself alone in the dark with a 15-foot anaconda not more than a yard away, and all I could do was stare at it, not out of fear, but wonder. Again, in hindsight, probably not the best of ideas, but I’ve never been scared to follow the path laid out by my own curiosity. I am a natural risk-taker. I tell my city-slicker friends that it's because I come from a land of cowboys, where men are born tough and always ready for a challenge. Cowboys are risk-takers by nature, they have to be, the land demands it of them. There’ll be more on risk-taking and the role it plays a little later, but for now, let’s focus on FOREX and what I learned from it. After the school-year ended in May of 2011, I took that summer off to research the FOREX market. I read many new books on trading, which were specific to the currency markets. I watched hundreds of hours of video on technical analysis and even more hours of “financial news,” which is mostly economic propaganda, but I won’t digress here. The point is that by late August of 2011, I was once again ready to dive head-first into trading. This time, I thought, it would be even better, because I’d have even more money to “play” with! This time, I thought, I’m going to get rich! Trading FOREX was not easy. The hardest part was that it had to be done between 3:00 am - 11:00 am, because these are peak trading hours in London and New York, where the majority of the market’s money resides. This means major price moves, the price swings that can be traded, for the most part, happen during this time window. For me, this meant I had to live a type of quasi-vampiric lifestyle, waking up at 8:00 pm and going to sleep at noon, every day. At first, it takes a toll on your social life, and eventually starts to affect you mentally and emotionally. There is a certain degree of isolation that comes with it, too. You are awake when your friends and family are asleep, and asleep when they are awake. It can get lonely. However, my first six months of trading FOREX were OK. I wasn’t making $15,000 a month anymore, but I was making more than I would have been, had I been teaching. However, I had a deep-rooted feeling of uncertainty. Although I’d had some initial success in trading stocks, and now currencies, I’d always felt, at the back of my mind, that I’d just been lucky, and nothing more. This fear materialized itself in June of 2012 when the strategy I’d been using for some time was no longer profitable. I panicked. I started experimenting with new strategies, which only made matters worse, and lead to even more panic. It is no exaggeration to say that trading is one-third mathematical, and two-thirds psychological. No amount of books, videos, or paid mentorships, which I also consumed, had prepared me for this eventual reality check: I didn’t know what the fuck I was doing. I had no clue. I left FOREX humbled, with barely enough money to buy a decent car, much less trade any time soon. The next two years, 2013-2015, were some of the hardest of my life. Harder even than 1991-1993, which, up to that point, had been the worst couple years I’d ever experienced. Those were my first years in the United States, and they were full of hardship. A type of hardship I’d never experienced before, and never have since. Remember the school I mentioned? The one with the gangs and the troubled kids and all the poverty? Well, I attended schools just like that as a kid, too, until I turned 15. I had many more encounters with caimans and anacondas there, except now they had first names, and for some reason, were always more prone to strike! Anyway, those were tough times, but not as tough as the post-FOREX experience. Failure at FOREX took a mental toll on me. After all, I had gambled everything, my entire future on the bet that I could earn a living as a professional trader. I realized I had failed because of my own intellectual laziness. I always knew I had been lucky, and instead of using the wonderful gift of leisure-time the universe had granted me through that initial success to fill the knowledge gaps I knew would keep me from true and long-lasting success, I let my ego convince me otherwise, and talked myself into making decisions I knew to be extremely dangerous and outside my expertise. I wanted to wrestle the caiman! Cowboy shit. Irrational, youthful folly. Needless to say, I lost 80% of my account, which was also my family’s savings, in less than four months. Now, I had a real problem. How was I going to pay the bills? What was I going to do with my life? I was 30 years old, had a five-year old son, very little real-world work experience and a college degree in history and political science. How was I going to make money? Serious money? Enough money to help my mom retire and give my son all the advantages I never had? Enough to deliver on the promises I had made to my wife during all those years she put up with my crazy hours and wild ideas about getting rich quick? What was I going to do now? I tell you, cousin, these are the kinds of questions you will find yourself asking if you do not heed my advice. I didn’t want to teach anymore. I didn’t want to do anything anymore. I was depressed. I had what we call here in the United States, “a quarter-life crisis.” I abused alcohol and drugs to cope with the pain of my failure. I was weak. I was unprepared for the realities of life. I did not yet understand, even at 30 years old, that there is no such thing as a free lunch. I won’t dwell on the specifics of the hardships I endured during these two years, except to say that I almost lost it all, including my life, but I’m grateful I didn't. However, it was also during this period, 2013-2015, that I began to fill gaps in my knowledge about markets, economics, and the nature of money itself. Gaps I knew would need to be filled one way or another, if I was ever going to trade or invest in anything again. Luckily, towards the end of my FOREX days, I had come to realize there was something wrong with all the information I had been given by the mainstream media, specifically on the topics of economics and finance. I noticed that nothing they ever said about the markets turned out to be accurate, that mainstream financial “news” could not be trusted for investment purposes. It took tens of thousands of dollars in losses and several years of headaches before I learned that lesson. I’m glad I finally did. I decided to use the last bit of money I had left to buy some gold and silver (by this time I had begun to understand the definition of sound money) and to open up a brick and mortar business. I did not want to work for anyone else, only for myself. I wanted to be an entrepreneur. The trouble was that the only business I had enough money for was a mobile car wash. So, a friend and I bought a van, some pressure cleaners, a whole bunch of soap and got to work! We were going to hustle hard, work warehouse and shopping center parking lots, save enough to reinvest into our business and go after the luxury car market. We were going to charge rich people $1000s to detail Ferraris and Lamborghinis, and it was only going to take six months, tops! Great plan, no? Easy money, right? Well, we washed cars for exactly one day before we realized what a terrible mistake we had made. It turns out car-washing is a backbreaking, low-paying, and degrading business. There’s no free lunch, remember that. My friend and I were lucky. We quickly transitioned our business from a mobile car wash to a painting/pressure cleaning company, and had immediate success. In less than two months we were hired as subcontractors by a much larger company and I was more or less making what I had made teaching, but working for myself. After a couple of months, my partner and I were already envisioning the hiring of our first employees. Cool, right? No. About a year after we started the business, my partner, a high-school friend of mine, a guy I’d known for more than ten years, decided he didn’t want to do it anymore. That he was too tired of the hardships that come with that kind of work. Tired of making the constant sacrifices required to be successful in business. So, he quit. I lost everything I had invested, because without him, I could not operate the business on my own, and our corporate partner dropped us. I begged him not to quit. I told him that business takes time, that there’s no free lunch, and that we would be rewarded at some point for our hustle and hard work; that we would be able to hire laborers to do the work in less than 6 months, and that we would then focus on sales, and start to make some real money. He did not care. He had his own demons, and chose to steal from me and end our friendship instead of facing the hardship head-on. By this time, however, I was already used to failure, and although I was still coping with the mental stress of having failed at something I once had thought would be my profession, it still did not stop me from following my curiosity, as I always have. It was during these years that I first learned about Bitcoin. About blockchain. About the nature of money, economic history, the effects of monetary policy on financial markets. I’d wake up at 6:00 am every day, paint houses, pressure clean dirty sidewalks and walls, spend over 2 hours commuting back home every night, and then stay up for as long as my body would allow learning about macroeconomics and the history of markets. I researched the nature of debt and gold a medium of exchange. I read about counter and Austrian economics. I became a libertarian, later, an anarchist, and, after almost two years study, I began to discover legitimate sources of financial news and information, intelligent voices that I could trust. I had acquired enough knowledge and experience to discern the truth from the propaganda, and it was during these same years, these terrible times of hardship, that I finally learned a most valuable lesson on money and markets: capital preservation is the key. Remember, when I said we’d come back to risk-taking? Well, the trick is not to take it, but to manage it. The secret is education, knowledge. Knowledge truly is, power. Traders are only as successful as the depth of their own knowledge, because it's the only way to keep in check that inherent, paralyzing fear which “playing” with money eventually engenders. As a trader, you must have complete confidence in your “playing” abilities, and this is something only achieved through much study and practice. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, ever. I want you to know that Bitcoin, the blockchain, and cryptocurrencies are NOT get-rich-quick schemes. They are NOT Ponzi schemes either. They are cutting-edge financial technology, and an emerging asset class. The blockchain has been compared to the agricultural revolution of the Neolithic age and the invention of writing by ancient Mesopotamians, in terms of its importance and potential impact on human civilization. It is a technology which will eventually affect and reshape almost every single industry in the global economy. In the next two decades, all types of industries will be impacted and disrupted by this technology--banking, real estate, healthcare, the legal industry, politics, education, venture capital, just to name a few! This technology allows for something called “decentralized store of value.” Basically, it allows for the creation of an alternative financial system, one where power resides in the hands of the people, instead of corrupt governments and corporations, so that currency crises like the one Venezuela has recently experienced, may one day be completely eradicated, like polio, or bubonic plague. I will tell you that, at 17 years old, you have an amazing opportunity to set yourself up for incredible success in this brand new industry called the blockchain. There are entire professions that will be birthed into existence in the next 5, 10, and 20 years, in the same way the internet made possible millions of people around the world to work from home, wearing their pajamas, doing a million different things--things which were unimaginable to those who knew the world before the advent of the internet. Of course, it will require a great deal of work and effort on your part, but I assure you, it will be totally worth it! Today, I am 35 years old. I run a successful ghostwriting business that I manage from the comfort of my own home. I invest exclusively in Bitcoin and precious metals, and hope to retire by the time I’m 40. Well, not really retire, but start on a much-anticipated new phase of my life, one in which I don’t have to worry about financial independence anymore. To that end, cousin, here is my advice:
Forget about getting rich quick. There’s no free lunch!
Learn the English language, it is one of the tools you'll need for success.
Work or go to school. Either way, dedicate yourself to learning about this new technology as much as you can, and begin to save, as much as you can, in Bitcoin.
I reviewed the website you told me about, [[link]3 , and while I respect, and to a certain extent admire what those gentlemen are doing, I can tell you, unequivocally, that taking those courses won’t turn you into a trader. It won’t make you rich quick. Far from it. In fact, there is nothing that these "warriors" will teach you, that you could not teach yourself for free at [[link]4 . I’ll end it here. Hopefully, you made it to the end and took away a nugget or two. Please feel free to ask me anything you want about any of it, cousin. I’m always here to help. ''' Hurling Rocks at Caimans: A Cowboy's Tale Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: mine_myownbiz13 1: ww*.cri*toguerre*os*c**/ 2: w*w***bypips.com/ 3: www.criptoguerreros.com]^^1 4: www.babypips.com]^^2 Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
Why are TruePundit, ZeroHedge suddenly changing to an establishment-justifying tone, pushing FakeNews (fact-free opinion pieces using weaponized omission, propaganda). Is it because it's a Holiday weekend and they are asleep at the wheel?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-25/elon-musk-lied-about-performance-targets-new-tesla-roadster-semi-truck <== Anti-Innovation article that smears Tesla/Elon Musk "because it defies current battery technology"--Musk's whole industry is about innovation and we know he has a new battery! ('powerwall', idiots). Just because he's invented a new battery that the battery industry doesn't understand (and the energy industry strongly opposes), doesn't mean he's a disinfo peddler! It means an industry is about to get butthurt, hemmorage money and fast. I could be wrong, don't think I am
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-22/saudi-system-and-why-its-change-may-fail ==> 3 ad hominems in the first sentece mean that the article is going to go really good. Here, I'll summarize using the articles own attack propa: (tyrant, impulsive, tie to iran, sclerotic, tie to failed arab spring, tie to nazis (night of long knives), tie to brutal torture Egyptian operatives, temporary gain, ruin, 'rolex' (oh, the elitism!), corruption, wrong, 'not free', fiefdoms, tie to Louis 14th, unsuccessful, unravelling). Fails to mention that the elites tried a coup on MbS and he countercoup'ed them, and the ones he's house arrested (in the nicest hotel btw) were responsible for ISIS, 9/11 and likely Vegas attack
Zero Hedge has been pushing Bitcoin very hard and continues to double down on those efforts with no criticism or skepticism that it's a bubble. That's a gaslighting imho, and we know now thanks to researcher Quinn Michaels because we now have evidence that Peter Thiel runs the exchanges--which means bitcoin is not a semi-anonymous technopopulist tech but a big data surveillance platform--pattern and practice of the same people bitcoin alleges to disintermediate. Given the pattern and practice of the international police--the masons at the top of shadowy councils like CFR and Atlantic Council, one thing they do is ponzi scheme, get people to opt-in and then open the trap door. That's exactly what will happen We also know that these outlets' tone is changing (or asleep at wheel) because they are pushing this idea that bin Salman's coup is a terrible thing that's going to create war in the ME and that we have to fight him. What it fails to mention is that the Saudi rich that were arrested were responsible for 911, ISIS and very likely the Vegas shooting. Correct me if I'm wrong but do it now before I go any further. If they (/you) want to say Salman was behind those things, we'd say OK we have a decade of proof for 'our thing', now show us your evidence of your claim its the opposite, and they'd have no choice but to turn their pockets inside out. That's why they won't do that. So far they've not even engaged a counterargument. Only George Webb has, possibly Jason Goodman but not so sure. I believe this tone is changing because these 'alt right' outlets are being taken over by millenial dipshits who may or may not be taking soros money. I am not sure why they'd promote their material if they don't get paid, but here I am spending my time whining about it so who knows? As it stands, we're STILL opposed, here on reddit, on YT and on the airwaves by a force of Soros operatives posing as journalists (really they are propagandists) and not real reporters. In contrast, I'm also a propagandist posing as a journalist, but here's the thing: I don't lie to you because I'm a citizen opinion journalist that is working on your behalf--that of the global everycitizen--in relative obscurity and with the only acclaim of a few upvotes, a spate of commentary, and occasional reddit gold. I'm not constricted by political ideology, belief. The only thing i care about is the truth and I believe we all deserve it. These people on blogs are being paid for their worldview. I'm not. Mine comes about as a counterforce to being bullshitted for so long and feeling infuriated that our money is being used against us through dark psychologists and covert operators. Also, I can say bullshitted because I'm writing to you on reddit and I just don't give a F. These are my true thoughts I'm sharing with you These operatives are now trying to oppose technopopulist forces by effectively labelling them 'Republican' and then attacking them. This is the definition of straw man. The latest TruePundit article is about the Tea Party being attacked by the IRS, which it absolutely was. They were singled out in the very same way that RT is being singled out now from the rest of the US media. I'm mad because both ZH and TruePundit are posting these nasty deepstate propaganda articles and it appears to be a huge mistake Here's where the line is moved by this newsbusters, the TEA party is not the republican party. It's a libertarian party. Libertarians are not republicans in the same way that socialist party and green party are not democrats. By shoehorning libertarians into the republican umbrella, you are again justifying the establishment, the status quo of ever-creating this false, anti-diverse, left-right dual paradigm of R and D. STOP FUCKING DOING THAT We as a culture have said it loud and clear: we're done with bot R&D (republican and democrat). It's time to produce different results because the experimental phase of R&D is now over. We want the blackmailed, blackmailable psychopathic, ancient, alzheimery, sex offending pedo lawyers to jump off a cliff and let a new group of ENGINEERS, scientists, philosophers, medical doctors, pharmacists, etc be hired to represent us. Because lawyers in congress only create more laws and we have enough of them already. It's time to produce quality not quantity; and it's time we have people who are honest enough to name laws what they actually do, as opposed to the opposite of what they do...to fool the people being represented.
Hi guys, Just wrote an article exploring Mises's Regression Theorem and Bitcoin. Text is below. Basically I hope to persuade people that Bitcoin does not need inherit value to become money. http://www.marcolapegna.com/2017/11/24/marco-on-money-misenean-regressionpart-ii/ It’s been almost a month since my first post exploring monetary theory and crypto-currencies. I’m still working on the research into the inner workings of Bitcoin and crypto-currencies in general and while it’s been quite fun, it’s also very time consuming. So in the meantime I thought it would be nice to explore a part of monetary theory I find relevant to Bitcoin—Mises’ Regression Theorem (MRT). I wrote about Bitcoin only one other time in a previous blog I discontinued sometime around 2013-2014. At the time there was some hype around Bitcoin and I was worried at how aggressively the libertarian community was pushing Bitcoin. My worry was that if Bitcoin turned out to be a scam, then the movement overall would take a big hit. To that effect I titled the blog post Bitcoin: Friend or Foe of Freedom? My first thought was that Bitcoin violated MRT and hence was most likely a scam, but as I kept doing my research I changed my mind drastically. But before we continue we should discuss what issues MRT helped to correct. How Prices are Developed The significant achievement of MRT is that it provides a credible theory on how prices develop in a monetary economy. In economics 101 we all learn that prices for goods are set at the intersection of demand and supply curves. Demand curves are downward slopping indicating that that as the price of a good drops, we are willing to consume more of the said good. This phenomenon is explained in economics by the concept of marginal utility. Marginal utility is the derived satisfaction a consumer gets from consuming an additional unit of a good. This utility diminishes as the consumer continues to consume more of the same good. It’s safe to say we can all relate to this, for instance, most of us love chocolate, but after eating a few squares most of us will get sick if we continue to consume. Hence, our satisfaction from continuing to eat more chocolate will drop to near zero. In economics, this is referred to as the law of diminishing marginal utility. The law of diminishing marginal utility is why the demand curve for goods is downward slopping and in turn helps explain how the market formulates prices. This is where we run into problems though. A demand schedule for a good is determined by the marginal utility of the good itself to the consumer, and the marginal utility of money, or simply the alternative uses of money to the consumer. However, to properly evaluate these alternative uses of money, the consumer needs existing prices of other goods in order to rank his choices. Therefore, in order for the market to formulate a price for good X, it needs the price of good Y, which in turn needs the price of good X. This circular argument represented a chasm in our collective understanding of monetary theory for a long time—until Mises came along. Circularity and Bitcoin But before we go on to explain how MRT addresses the problem of circularity, let us take a quick look at Bitcoin. Let us go back to 2008 when Bitcoin was first introduced into the market. Sure, you could easily argue that Bitcoin makes a better indirect means of exchange than paper money; it’s infinitely divisible, and as long as we have computers it’s more durable, it’s easily more portable than paper money, and one could easily make the argument the strength of the code has intrinsic value. This satisfies all the basic requirements for a particular good to become money in a society. Check, check, check, and check….With all that said though, how do you begin to formulate prices for goods in Bitcoin? Let’s assume I’m a particular merchant selling my goods, how do I determine how many Bitcoins I am going to charge for my goods? My instinct is going to be to look at other merchants and see what they are charging their goods for in Bitcoin, so I can construct my own personal demand schedule for Bitcoins. Only problem is that other merchants are looking at me to do their own calculations. Hence, at first look it seems like Bitcoin is going nowhere fast. Keep this issue in the back of your mind; we will get back to it. Mises’ Regression Theorem Ok so back to Mises. Mises addressed the issue of circularity by suggesting an individual constructs his demand schedule of a certain good not by simultaneously looking at the prices of other goods on the market, but by recollecting the prices of the goods in a prior event in time. This will give the consumer a general array of prices in the economy from which he can rank his preferences and from there we can construct his demand schedule. For example, if I am at the bread store holding $5, how do I decide how much bread to buy? First, I think of how much bread I already have at home, and rank my satisfaction of purchasing additional loaves, then I evaluate alternative uses of that $5 by recollecting previous prices of butter, fruit, and other goods. Based on these evaluations, I will rank the purchase of bread loaves either higher or lower than holding on to the $5. While this model certainly works, the obvious problem is that at this point, the issue of circularity has been replaced by one of infinite regression. If today’s prices are determined by recollecting prices in a previous period in time, how are those prices formulated? By obviously looking at a period further back in time and so on the regression goes on indefinitely. In MRT however, the regression is not indefinite. Eventually one would arrive at a period in time when the economy worked on a barter system. From the first instant that a merchant accepts a good from a trade not because of its end use, but because of its exchange value, the economy begins to formulate prices in terms of the accepted indirect means of exchange good. Once a particular good becomes the primary indirect means of exchange in an economy, and this good is accepted by the vast majority of participants, we term said good the “money” of that economy. The implication of MRT is that for a good to become money, it must start out as a good that has perceived value in of itself. Otherwise it would never begin to be traded in a barter economy. After that, the qualities of durability, divisibility, and portability are essential to determine what good will function as money in a society. Bitcoin and MRT in the Libertarian Community There has been, there is, and will likely continue to be an intense debate in the libertarian community about the future of Bitcoin. Many of the detractors of Bitcoin use the MRT as proof that Bitcoin will never become money and hence is nothing more than either a pyramid scheme, Ponzi scheme, or fraud. Peter Schiff is a prominent analyst and beloved figure in the libertarian community who has been a vocal detractor of Bitcoin. Although I have never seen him reference MRT directly, he employs a line of attack similar to the critics that charge Bitcoin with violating the MRT. The charge is that since Bitcoin has no end use in of itself, it has no chance to become money and hence all attempt to make it so are futile. To Schiff, money must be a commodity. Gold for instance has a far longer history of being treated as money than bank notes; many detractors of Bitcoin—like Schiff—are in fact strong supporters of gold. Detractors argue that gold instead of Bitcoin is perfectly compatible with MRT, since MRT explains gold’s emergence as an indirect means of exchange from the earliest barter economy to the last link between gold and the US dollar. To the gold bugs, it’s the use value of gold as jewellery that allowed gold to begin its emergence as money. Without this use, gold would never have developed as money. Since Bitcoin really has no use or “inherit value” outside of indirect exchange, then it is in violation of MRT and hence can never become money. And since the valuations of Bitcoin are based on the future assumption that Bitcoin will become money, the whole thing is a swindle. Why Mostly Everybody is Missing the Point The predominant response by supporters of Bitcoin and MRT has been to come up with arguments as to how Bitcoin does indeed have some use value in of itself. In my view, some of the cases are good, while some seem downright silly. Either way this is an unnecessary step. Bitcoin is perfectly compatible with MRT even if it has no use value. As Davidson and Block point out in this paper (here). MRT says nothing about introducing a new indirect means of exchange in an economy that already has money. All MRT seeks to do is to explain how prices form originally, from the starting point of a barter economy. Take central bank notes, nobody disputes that it is money in our society. Whether it’s Euros or US dollars none of these bank notes have direct uses other than possibly real expensive toilet paper. Despite this, prices for goods in terms of central bank notes developed. This is in large part because these bank notes could be converted to gold on demand, and since people had a history of the general array of gold prices in mind, this allowed them to evaluate alternative uses of these new bank notes. Now these participants in the economy could come up with new value scales that led to the creation of prices in bank notes instead of gold. Back to Bitcoin and Circularity Now that we have a solid understanding of MRT behind us, let’s get back to the issue of how to come up with prices of goods in terms of Bitcoin that I brought up earlier. Well thousands of merchants are already selling their goods in Bitcoin, so how do they do it? Easy, at the time of sale they look at how much a Bitcoin is being traded for in USD and use that number to determine the Bitcoin price. Exactly the same process that was used when central bank notes began to replace gold as money. My aim in writing this post is not to prove how Bitcoin will undoubtedly replace central bank notes as money. There are many more factors to explore and in the end such a claim would be nothing more than speculation—that could prove to be right or wrong in the future. My whole aim has been instead to show how Bitcoin does not need any “inherent value” to eventually succeed and become money. It is perfectly feasible for BTC to piggyback on central bank notes in order to establish prices as demonstrated by MRT.
Change My View: Bitcoin works in theory, but it will never work in practice
Disclaimer: I've held onto my Bitcoin since early 2013 and it seems I'm one of the few who hasn't stored his Bitcoin in some exchange for extended periods of time or lost them in some hyped up project. In earlier days, I used to speculate on sites like Bitfinex, 1broker and btc.sx, as well as some of the Bitcoin stockmarkets. I nearly lost some money on those sites, but somehow always managed to pull out just in time and always held onto the vast majority of coins inside my own wallet. The point however is that I'm not convinced that Bitcoin works. If anything, I've completely grown disillusioned with this project lately and I want to explain why. It might work in theory, a bunch of computer nerds can get together and test each other's signatures and mine blocks and do all sorts of other dorky stuff that proves that this technology functions, but that's not sufficient. If you want a technology to work, actual humans have to be able to use it. Because actual humans tend to make mistakes, mistakes should not have catastrophic impacts. The irreversible nature of Bitcoin means that any mistake ends up having a catastrophic impact. It's this irreversible nature, that leads to the potential for catastrophic failure, that makes Bitcoin a project that will always be popular among STEM nerds, but never catch on among the general public. In this way, it's kind of similar to nuclear energy. Nuclear energy was supposed to save civilization from climate change and energy shortages, but it never happened. Why not? Because even if it works in theory, it's too complicated for human systems to work with. Humans are prone to corruption and screwing things up. Take for example, the steel used to build nuclear reactors in France, that turned out to be of inadequate quality. The manufacturers of the steel decided to cut corners, so now nuclear power plants around France have substandard steel. As a result, the hurdles of burdensome legislation required before any new nuclear power plant will be built will have to be even larger. Libertarian nerds will blame the legislation and lengthy approval process for nuclear power's failure, but in reality, the legislation is needed because humans have such a long track record of screwing this up. The point is, that even if your project works in theory, you don't have control over the variety of sub-systems that feed into your project, which are controlled by fallible human beings. When I look at Bitcoin, I see a project that works in a bunch of white papers, but it doesn't work in practice, where it has to interact with a variety of variables that happen to affect the project in an unpredictable manner. Note for example, the centralization of the block mining process, which now makes it very easy to carry out a hypothetical 51% attack, although 33% turns out to be enough to control the network, because of other factors from game theory that no computer scientist specialized in one particular niche could reasonably have anticipated. By now, when I look at the Bitcoin project, it has already failed. It hasn't failed in the sense that the technology doesn't work. It has failed in the sense that the type of technology that was developed has proved utterly unsuitable for regular human beings to use. Importantly, the technology is so complex that the type of guys who are supposed to build the underlying infrastructure for people like me can't be trusted with doing their job correctly. As a result, regular people have no motive to get involved in Bitcoin. There will always be a particular niche group of people interested in irreversible crytocurrencies. People who want to blackmail others, people who want to make ransomware, people who are good at hacking, people who want to sell drugs, guns and credit card information on the darkweb. It works quite well for those niches and I don't see it disappearing anytime soon. If anything, that's half the problem. What reason could a normal person have to want to buy bitcoin? I bought Bitcoin before anyone knew what it was. If I bought Bitcoin today, I'd face a stigma. If I bought Bitcoin and had a wife who found out through my bank receipts, what would she think? In the best case scenario, I stepped into a speculative venture, in the worst case scenario, I'm trying to buy something illegal on the Internet or got blackmailed by someone who found my Ashley Madison account. What is the government going to think when it finds out that I bought Bitcoin? If I had a mass surveillance program and wanted to use my limited manpower effectively, I'd tell them to look at people involved in Bitcoin. I'm going to find people with undeclared assets, people engaged in drug deals, people with anti-government ideas and perhaps even people engaged in money laundering or financing terrorism. A regular person has no motive to get involved in Bitcoin, if anything, the suspicion placed on Bitcoin creates a motive to keep regular people out, which produces a self-sustaining feedback loop. Then finally, there's the point that societies tend to fail when inequality gets too large and a small group of people can stockpile all the wealth. There needs to be a continual process that directs wealth from a tiny elite to the general masses or society ceases to function. It could be inheritance taxes, it could be the need that elites have for laborers. If money doesn't keep circulating, but starts to get stockpiles by a small elite, economic activity grinds to a hold and society collapses. People tend to overthrow those elites, or create their own alternative system of exchange that renders whatever they might have stockpiled irrelevant. When we look at Bitcoin, the thing we see is that all wealth gets redistributed from a large group of gullible fools, to a tiny elite. We see Ponzi schemes, we see hacks that lead to hundreds of thousands of coins lost, we see betting sites that end up holding hundreds of thousands of coins. We also see a few wealthy millionaires who stockpile a lot of coins. All of this has led to a situation where a tiny elite now holds the vast majority of coins. It has also proved impossible to sustain economic activity, because the financial speculation that people tend to engage in depends on the kind of centralized institutions that have proved incapable of protecting their stockpile. All of this damages the credibility of the financial ecosystem and encourages would be entrants to create their own alternative. It thus seems to me that Bitcoin has saturated whatever niche it might serve. If anything, I expect the price to decline, because the current value assumes that Bitcoin will continue to grow and enter a variety of niches that I doubt it will ever come to play a role in.
[uncensored-r/CryptoCurrency] Bitcoin and Mises Regression Theorem
The following post by Vecissitude is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been openly removed. The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: np.reddit.com/ CryptoCurrency/comments/7f74jq The original post's content was as follows:
Hi guys, Just wrote an article exploring Mises's Regression Theorem and Bitcoin. Text is below. Basically I hope to persuade people that Bitcoin does not need inherit value to become money. http://www.marcolapegna.com/2017/11/24/marco-on-money-misenean-regressionpart-ii/ It’s been almost a month since my first post exploring monetary theory and crypto-currencies. I’m still working on the research into the inner workings of Bitcoin and crypto-currencies in general and while it’s been quite fun, it’s also very time consuming. So in the meantime I thought it would be nice to explore a part of monetary theory I find relevant to Bitcoin—Mises’ Regression Theorem (MRT). I wrote about Bitcoin only one other time in a previous blog I discontinued sometime around 2013-2014. At the time there was some hype around Bitcoin and I was worried at how aggressively the libertarian community was pushing Bitcoin. My worry was that if Bitcoin turned out to be a scam, then the movement overall would take a big hit. To that effect I titled the blog post Bitcoin: Friend or Foe of Freedom? My first thought was that Bitcoin violated MRT and hence was most likely a scam, but as I kept doing my research I changed my mind drastically. But before we continue we should discuss what issues MRT helped to correct. How Prices are Developed The significant achievement of MRT is that it provides a credible theory on how prices develop in a monetary economy. In economics 101 we all learn that prices for goods are set at the intersection of demand and supply curves. Demand curves are downward slopping indicating that that as the price of a good drops, we are willing to consume more of the said good. This phenomenon is explained in economics by the concept of marginal utility. Marginal utility is the derived satisfaction a consumer gets from consuming an additional unit of a good. This utility diminishes as the consumer continues to consume more of the same good. It’s safe to say we can all relate to this, for instance, most of us love chocolate, but after eating a few squares most of us will get sick if we continue to consume. Hence, our satisfaction from continuing to eat more chocolate will drop to near zero. In economics, this is referred to as the law of diminishing marginal utility. The law of diminishing marginal utility is why the demand curve for goods is downward slopping and in turn helps explain how the market formulates prices. This is where we run into problems though. A demand schedule for a good is determined by the marginal utility of the good itself to the consumer, and the marginal utility of money, or simply the alternative uses of money to the consumer. However, to properly evaluate these alternative uses of money, the consumer needs existing prices of other goods in order to rank his choices. Therefore, in order for the market to formulate a price for good X, it needs the price of good Y, which in turn needs the price of good X. This circular argument represented a chasm in our collective understanding of monetary theory for a long time—until Mises came along. Circularity and Bitcoin But before we go on to explain how MRT addresses the problem of circularity, let us take a quick look at Bitcoin. Let us go back to 2008 when Bitcoin was first introduced into the market. Sure, you could easily argue that Bitcoin makes a better indirect means of exchange than paper money; it’s infinitely divisible, and as long as we have computers it’s more durable, it’s easily more portable than paper money, and one could easily make the argument the strength of the code has intrinsic value. This satisfies all the basic requirements for a particular good to become money in a society. Check, check, check, and check….With all that said though, how do you begin to formulate prices for goods in Bitcoin? Let’s assume I’m a particular merchant selling my goods, how do I determine how many Bitcoins I am going to charge for my goods? My instinct is going to be to look at other merchants and see what they are charging their goods for in Bitcoin, so I can construct my own personal demand schedule for Bitcoins. Only problem is that other merchants are looking at me to do their own calculations. Hence, at first look it seems like Bitcoin is going nowhere fast. Keep this issue in the back of your mind; we will get back to it. Mises’ Regression Theorem Ok so back to Mises. Mises addressed the issue of circularity by suggesting an individual constructs his demand schedule of a certain good not by simultaneously looking at the prices of other goods on the market, but by recollecting the prices of the goods in a prior event in time. This will give the consumer a general array of prices in the economy from which he can rank his preferences and from there we can construct his demand schedule. For example, if I am at the bread store holding $5, how do I decide how much bread to buy? First, I think of how much bread I already have at home, and rank my satisfaction of purchasing additional loaves, then I evaluate alternative uses of that $5 by recollecting previous prices of butter, fruit, and other goods. Based on these evaluations, I will rank the purchase of bread loaves either higher or lower than holding on to the $5. While this model certainly works, the obvious problem is that at this point, the issue of circularity has been replaced by one of infinite regression. If today’s prices are determined by recollecting prices in a previous period in time, how are those prices formulated? By obviously looking at a period further back in time and so on the regression goes on indefinitely. In MRT however, the regression is not indefinite. Eventually one would arrive at a period in time when the economy worked on a barter system. From the first instant that a merchant accepts a good from a trade not because of its end use, but because of its exchange value, the economy begins to formulate prices in terms of the accepted indirect means of exchange good. Once a particular good becomes the primary indirect means of exchange in an economy, and this good is accepted by the vast majority of participants, we term said good the “money” of that economy. The implication of MRT is that for a good to become money, it must start out as a good that has perceived value in of itself. Otherwise it would never begin to be traded in a barter economy. After that, the qualities of durability, divisibility, and portability are essential to determine what good will function as money in a society. Bitcoin and MRT in the Libertarian Community There has been, there is, and will likely continue to be an intense debate in the libertarian community about the future of Bitcoin. Many of the detractors of Bitcoin use the MRT as proof that Bitcoin will never become money and hence is nothing more than either a pyramid scheme, Ponzi scheme, or fraud. Peter Schiff is a prominent analyst and beloved figure in the libertarian community who has been a vocal detractor of Bitcoin. Although I have never seen him reference MRT directly, he employs a line of attack similar to the critics that charge Bitcoin with violating the MRT. The charge is that since Bitcoin has no end use in of itself, it has no chance to become money and hence all attempt to make it so are futile. To Schiff, money must be a commodity. Gold for instance has a far longer history of being treated as money than bank notes; many detractors of Bitcoin—like Schiff—are in fact strong supporters of gold. Detractors argue that gold instead of Bitcoin is perfectly compatible with MRT, since MRT explains gold’s emergence as an indirect means of exchange from the earliest barter economy to the last link between gold and the US dollar. To the gold bugs, it’s the use value of gold as jewellery that allowed gold to begin its emergence as money. Without this use, gold would never have developed as money. Since Bitcoin really has no use or “inherit value” outside of indirect exchange, then it is in violation of MRT and hence can never become money. And since the valuations of Bitcoin are based on the future assumption that Bitcoin will become money, the whole thing is a swindle. Why Mostly Everybody is Missing the Point The predominant response by supporters of Bitcoin and MRT has been to come up with arguments as to how Bitcoin does indeed have some use value in of itself. In my view, some of the cases are good, while some seem downright silly. Either way this is an unnecessary step. Bitcoin is perfectly compatible with MRT even if it has no use value. As Davidson and Block point out in this paper (here). MRT says nothing about introducing a new indirect means of exchange in an economy that already has money. All MRT seeks to do is to explain how prices form originally, from the starting point of a barter economy. Take central bank notes, nobody disputes that it is money in our society. Whether it’s Euros or US dollars none of these bank notes have direct uses other than possibly real expensive toilet paper. Despite this, prices for goods in terms of central bank notes developed. This is in large part because these bank notes could be converted to gold on demand, and since people had a history of the general array of gold prices in mind, this allowed them to evaluate alternative uses of these new bank notes. Now these participants in the economy could come up with new value scales that led to t...
Help convince my CEO to accept bitcoins as payment.
My boss is fairly tech savvy and likes to jump on new things. Collectively we have over 20k+ subscribed customers in landscaping alone and a few other major businesses(high end diamond trade, private loans, real estate). I'm his "do it all" guy in charge of stuff like this(IT & marketing). He's looking into it since I mentioned it but all the recent articles make bitcoin look like a ponzi scheme or a libertarian wet dream. I was pretty surprised he had no idea about bitcoin so he's not biased....yet. Any dead simple articles I can link him to that give a fair perspective. Tech jargon is fine....I'm selling it to him on the publicity angle(no one accepts bitcoins in the areas we serve). I think it would be a great form of exposure and experiment since we're high end brick and mortar services/products. Most of the examples I read of brick and mortar stores on the wiki that accept bitcoins are internet based merchants.
I've been fascinated with buttcoins for quite a while now. They're hilarious and a glowing example of Failures of Libertarianism 101. Everyone should study them, in my opinion; there really is something for everyone to enjoy. Comically brazen corruption. Breathtaking ineptitude. Gullibility. Scams. Conspiracy theories. Market failures. Unwarranted self-importance. Internet meltdowns. Bizarre sexual deviancy. Trolling. Federal crimes. It's got it all. Today's tale began after I found a delightful young man going by the name Julian702 trying to argue that gold isn't deflationary. After pointing out that since the rate it's dug out of the ground compared to its value doesn't keep up with the rate at which the economy grows, he conceded with a single-word reply of "dumbass", which he then deleted, and elected to move to PMs. Here's the conversation in full, presented because I think it's pretty funny. He's in quotes, I'm not. Subject: OMFGWADA
Ahahahahaha, you're such a little bitch.
Ahahaha you're such a little dumbass! Ahahhahahahaha pwned.
You seem pretty mad bro. Go to silkroad and buy some weed or something.
Ahahhaha u mad! sucks to be u, but you gotta be use to it by now. ahahahhahahha!
I'll give you a bitcoin if you suck my cock.
AHAHAHAHAHA you fuckin fag!!! I knew it.
So is that a yes?
LOL @ u daym fagot! that's your dad and uncle's job you fuckin homo dumbass!
You got a real purdy mouth.
Silly faggot, dicks are for chicks. Dumbass.
Alright, have it your way. 2 BTC and I shoot a load in your hair.
Done. On your knees, son!
By the way, did you know ASICminer essentially have a working product in hand right now?
I can't tell you how delicious it is that you're so on top of the happenings in the bitcoin community! You must be so conflicted, loathing it so much, yet unable to stop its progress or even tear yourself away from the the exciting advancements. Fortunately, you enjoy that big fat bitcoin cock stuffing your mouth.
Oh, you misunderstand, son! I fucking love buttcoins. I can't get enough of them. You're a bottomless mine of comedy gold. A rollercoaster of laughs that never gets old! If you'd told me after the June 2011 crash that these preposterous things would still be funny a year and a half later, I simply wouldn't have believed you. Yet here we are! When I call buttcoins a joke, I'm not bitching because I didn't get in on the ground floor of your ponzi scheme currency. Hell, I've had enough opportunity! No, I mean you literally are the funniest thing I've seen in years. You'd fucking love if I were jealous of you in any way, but the truth is, I've gotten more value out of the bitcoin network than I ever dreamed... and I never put in a penny! Never stop, son. Never stop.
Don't you worry little man, I never will stop. Looking forward to hearing your cries of ignorant laughter turn into desolate cries of dispare. Here's the game plan whether you like or not... When bitcoin reaches $100, I'll be retired travelling the world in luxury on my own schedule. When Bitcoin reaches $0, you'll have won the rights to say "i told you so" while I'll be off exploring the next evolution of the protocol and helping grow that network. Every moment between those outcomes, I'll be exploring and engaging fascinating topics of technology, cryptography, politics, and finance, while all you've done with your time is ignorantly rant about ponzi buttcoins. Sucks to be you, dumbass.
Ahahahahaha. There is literally not one sentence of that message which isn't hilarious.
Laugh at this, dumbass. AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, I do! There are several levels on which this is funny. There's the drama surrounding the magazine itself. There's the sheer pointlessness of a bi-monthly magazine for a pseudo-commodity whose value fluctuates so wildly that acting a few hours late can ruin you. There's the lack of anything of substance to write about besides ongoing scams. And finally there's the way you think I give a shit that you have the potential to make a profit should you cash out now - which I know you're too dumb to do until it's far too late anyway.
Ahahahha... butthurt little man! Your only solace is your a homo and don't mine the fat cock of bitcoin in your mouth. Look at you though! You're not even gagging anymore! Taking it real good now fagboy. Face looks a little red though.
Did that weed you bought off silkroad not come yet? Because u still mad
yea, along with the zoo porn tape your mom was selling. dumbass.
Do they sell chill pills on silkroad? You should look into it.
Never checked, but I did see a couple videos listed of your sister feltching your dad.
That's pretty gross dude. What were you doing searching for that kind of thing?
It was right there on the landing page. Since your mom is getting out of the business due to a damaged throat, lung and vagina/tragic horse fucking accident, she paid for a front page ad to help hand off the family business to your sister's amateur horse porn career and get her off to a good start.
Hey, you know what's funny? You just typed all this weird shit out because I made jokes about your pretend money on the internet! The internets r srs bzns, dude. Srs. Fukn. Bzns.
You know whats more funny? You thought you were gaming me, but I'm the one thats been trolling you for weeks now, keeping you coming back for more /bitcoin, looking for shit to dis but watching all the success instead. Inception, bitch. Now keep suckin on that bitcoin cock you faggot.
It might be objected that these examples are not sufficient to demonstrate why bitcoin does not violate the regression theorem. It might be argued, for example, that bitcoin has not been established with the aid of legal tender laws or at a fixed rate with the prior currency. But it would be a mistake to think that because other currencies have been established through fiat, that the ... The following essay was written by Timothy C. May in 1988. “Libertaria in Cyberspace” is reprinted here for historical preservation. Ponzi Logic: Debunking Gary North’s “Bitcoins: The Second Biggest Ponzi Scheme in History” by John Mather . Gary North is no stranger to predictions. Perhaps his most famous one is his widely publicized prediction that Y2K would end civilization as we know it. In his Bitcoin article, North makes another technology related prediction: after Social Security, Bitcoin will go down as the ... The bitcoin scheme is based on the mathematics of public key cryptography, a pioneering invention from the 1970s, which allows two parties to communicate securely over an insecure channel, allowing for the fact that a malicious eavesdropper may intercept and deliberately alter messages to mislead either party. This technology is critical to the functioning of e-commerce and the secure ... Bitcoin has been described as ‘a bubble, a Ponzi scheme and an environmental disaster’. Photograph: Chesnot/Getty Images Photograph: Chesnot/Getty Images Bitcoin’s gyrations have attracted a ...
what is bitcoins digital currency how bit coin money works ...
02/15/18 A $115 Million Ponzi Scheme and a $50 Million Phishing Scam, Brought to You By Bitcoin ... 02/07/18 Peter Thiel: Bitcoin is Libertarian, AI is Communist - Duration: 31:35. Kyle Torpey's ... Bitcoin Ponzi and pyramid schemes do exist and if you fall prey to them you will suffer the consequences. In addition, bitcoins are a very new type of money. Because their value depends on how ... Subprime the Musical- Series of light-hearted podcasts designed to explain the Subprime Mortgage Crisis. To learn more visit: www.subprimethemusical.wordpres... Whatever you need a website for, create yours today with Wix: https://www.wix.com/go/infographics Bernie Madoff created the largest Ponzi scheme in the histo... This video looks at what a Ponzi Scheme is, some examples of Ponzi Schemes like Bitconnect, USI Tech and Coinexx.org as well as some general tips for how to spot a scam and stay safe.