This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Bitcoin – The Tyranny Test
Via Paul Rosenberg of Free-Man's Perspective blog (via Jim Quinn's Burning Platform blog),
An increasing number of people have complained about governments and central banks in recent years, even using the word “tyranny” to describe them. They are, of course, called names in the establishment press: conspiracy theorists, mainly.
Calling someone a name, however, does not erase their argument (at least not among rational people) and both the governments and the big banks stand accused.
Up till now, however, these accusations were never accepted by the general public. The average guy really didn’t want to hear about the evils of government money. After all, that was the only thing he had ever used to buy food, clothes, gasoline, cars, and so on. He didn’t want to acknowledge the accusations because he feared what might happen to him without his usual money.
Now, however, we have a brand new currency (called Bitcoin) available to us: something radically different. This gives us a new way to directly address the subject of monetary tyranny, providing a clear test for the governments and money masters of the world:
If they are truly NOT tyrannical, they will leave this new currency alone.
If they ARE tyrannical, they will attack the new currency because it eats into their scam.
In other words, Bitcoin is a test for “the powers that be.” The way they deal with this new method of exchange will reveal their true nature.
If they ignore Bitcoin, they refute the charges of tyranny. If they attack it, they verify those charges.
After all, what honest reason could there be to attack an inherently peaceful tool for transferring value?
Prospective Reasons
Reasons to attack Bitcoin have recently appeared in the “public square.” Here are the three most popular ones, each followed with some analysis:
It can be used for money laundering.
Of course it can be used for money laundering — ANY currency can be used for money laundering. Currencies are neutral — that is their purpose! Currencies are valuable precisely because they can be exchanged for anything else — that’s why we use them!
Moreover, dollars and Euros and Pounds are used for money laundering every day. Consider the recent money laundering crimes of HSBC and Wachovia/Wells Fargo. These banks laundered hundreds of billions of dollars for violent drug cartels. And consider that this amount of laundered money is several hundred times the value of every Bitcoin in existence.
No one from either bank went to jail. Neither bank was shut down. Neither bank suffered more than a minor fine. So, how much of a concern can money laundering really be to governments and banks? Clearly not much.
But, since they accuse Bitcoin of being used for bad things, let’s be clear about the situation:
- Every mafioso uses government money.
- Every drug smuggler uses government money.
- Every terrorist uses government money.
- Every pornographer uses government money.
- Every criminal of every type uses government money.
They also use the telephone system and the mail and banks and a wide variety of government services. But government money is good and Bitcoin is bad?
The argument fails.
It could destabilize the current system.
A tiny, new currency is a threat to the long-established king of the hill? Comparing Bitcoin to dollars, Euros and Yen is like comparing an ant to a dinosaur. This is a threat?
Please understand also that no one is forcing anyone to use Bitcoin. If you don’t think it’s a great idea, you don’t have to use it. If its price movements (relative to dollars) bother you, you don’t have to use it. How is that destabilizing to the current system? It is entirely separate.
And what of the current system? It was falling apart on its own before the Bitcoin program was ever written. And I could go on at length on the insane levels of government debt, hundreds of trillions in derivatives, rehypothecation, and innocent people being forced to bail-out failed banks.
The current system has massive problems, but none of them can be blamed on Bitcoin.
This argument fails also.
Bitcoin provides no customer protection.
Well, no, it doesn’t. Bitcoin is a currency, not a legal system.
What is implied by this argument is that the government banking system does protect customers. That is an outright lie. People are ripped-off via the banking system every day. And more than that, consider what happened just a month ago in Cyprus: Thousands of innocent people were ripped-off BY the banking system — purposely — all at once and without recourse. This argument is, really, an insult to one’s intelligence.
And I should add something else: If Bitcoin is used properly, the crime of identity theft (a big problem with government money) vanishes – there is no identity available to be stolen.
So, again, the argument fails. Only those people who believe anything a government says will buy it.
In the End
In the end, it is said, we judge ourselves. Bitcoin has now put governments and banks in the position of judging themselves. They will write their own verdicts.
It should be interesting to watch.
»
- 19636 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
"Calling someone a name, however, does not erase their argument (at least not among rational people)"
Tell that to the comment section.
Commentist!
what did this article have to do with the "tranny test"???
Did you read the article or is that really you in your avatar?
Now that's funny!
Sooo... Suppose I follow a known BTC proponent into a dark alley, drop him then take off his index digit with a pair of cable cutters - then ask him for his BTC code. Using my web enabled cell phone to transfer his to mine without a trace works just fine for me, that and no ATM or other street cameras around, I've just made some easy bitcoin.
Just saying.
in that case this would be the logical sequel
http://youtu.be/v7gV5C5mB7A
it's easier to grab a rist watch or just a wallet
The article did not, in fact, contain any advice on safely testing whether a prostitute is, in fact, truly female.
my bad.
it says "tyranny", not "tranny"
thought it was just a new editorial direction for zh
When Boris is young and drinking, is have truth embarrassing ("bare ass" is pun not intended) experience in Bangkok (also not is pun to be intended) bar. Young lady is not so lady. Now if attractive lady is to approach, Boris is ready with foot kick to groin. Boris is not strike lucky in decade, but not is embarrass either.
"safely testing whether a prostitute is, in fact, truly female"
boy, are you old school,,
all the kids know that any warm moist oriface or lubricated surface is suitable for getting off (courtesy of the state).
Ooops;}
"the average guy really didn't want to hear about the evils of "goverment money". this moron doesn't know the difference between a "federal reserve note",which is money created by private banks for their benefit and profit, and the money once created by the u.s. goverment known as "United States Notes". good god, how stupid are they making them over at the mighty jim quinn's blog? are we to presume that this author is another professor from the univ. of penn.? why do i visualize a classroom full of students with a professor at the podium and think "morons teaching morons" equals morons squared.
I take it that's a rhetorical question.
Hey there Mr. Undiscriminating Pedant,
Considering the obvious fascist comorbidity of state and private/corporate power, in the current situation "Government Money" is directly equivalent to FRN. We don't care that you can make a semantic point about the Federal Reserve being privately owned. Everybody around here knows that.
Either way, the Fed is the de-facto central bank with tacit approval from the United States Corporation. Same owners as well.
Thus your whole argument is not applicable and only reveals that you are the one who's either stupid or full of himself for insisting arrogantly on such a pointless point.
you make my points for me....thank you. the average person doesn't care whether they use federal reserve notes or united states notes...hmmm. then why the hell would they give a rats ass about bitcoin? really, until the average joe does care, bitcoin will be a side show. since the author doesn't know the difference between private money and the money of the citizens of the u.s., why would anyone take this article serious?
paul rosenberg: professor at iowa state univ. for engineering...go figure. LOL
see below...
Prescient
Glass houses bro, but i agree.
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emDJTGTrEm0
"He say you under arrest..."
Exchange decentralization is ongoing - see the Buttonwood Project:
http://blog.btcshares.com/
Mockup for building order book at any given location to facilitate trade:
http://buttonwood.btcshares.com/ (Click on "location" - that will show some sample test orders.)
Using software advances, we'll take the trading pit anywhere - and make it possible in the future to link other distant trading locations via mobile technology. Think of it as one big virtual trading pit, where the latest trades are communicated to every other node.
Apparently they've had a lot of interest, and their first sessions went off in New York City without a problem.
Someone must have been reading what I've said here in the past on numerous occasions. Decentralize the exchanges and then you can go after all the paper markets then and basically kill the NYSE and other exchanges or at least break their monopoly on the rigging of the paper markets.
I used to think that Bitcoin was gay. However now I think that it is a HOT BITCH because it pisses off the gobment!
It really is a shame. All the drug cartels just started accepting bitcoins too...
Bitcoin needs to get Argentina or some other country to adopt it as their national currency and that will give them some leverage. Cuba might do it just to poke the US.
All of your Bitcoins are belong to us. For everyone else there's MasterCard..........
Cashless Society Arrives in Africa Biometric Natl Identity ... - Daily PaulThat's a long shot, but some jurisdiction is likely to step up and say bitcoin is LEGAL here, go ahead and use it, operate exchanges etc.
How's Canada, for starters? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/20/canada_welcomes_bitcoin_traders_...
BTC is legal in most places, including the US.
Pretty much the only variable is tax accounting and reporting requirements for transactions in jurisdictions where that is required.
If you want to make big, fuckoff, huge bucks and coins - find a way to set up an exchange in Venezuela (uncle sam will be pleased as that will help destabilize the Bolivar (not that it needs any help)), or perhaps Argentina. Somewhere with an ongoing mid-late stage currency crisis.
Cuba won't adopt bitcoin. If they are still fixing 50s cars, they won't have the computers and internet for widespread use. If they did it would make remittances to Cuba way easier from the US and you can't have one comrade with more wealth than another comrade.
Argentina: no. No opportunity for theft by Cristina and her cronies. Too hard to tax.
Other countries: no. For the same reason they won't use gold, it frees the people from the national currency and then: kaput!
There was a montary conference last year where the Fed and Euro types attended as well as bitcoin proponents, and it came out that 20% of Chile's internal transfer tranactions (think Western Union) were done in bitcoin. And that was more than six months ago, before the big boom.
The reason bitcoin is gathering all this attention is precisely because it's getting adopted.
Anything that's not USD based will have no leverage as long as the Fed exists.
"..and it came out that 20% of Chile's internal transfer tranactions (think Western Union) were done in bitcoin..."
source?
The best I can do is the google cache of the blog entry that discussed it -- the blog itself (and a ton of mirrors!) appears to be gone:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jHwCl-sSx2gJ:blog.b...
It does appear my memory may have failed me, however, as the blog seems to be saying that the one company's (bitinstant) volume was equal to 20% of Chile's internal transfers, not that Chile was.
Bitcoins have no mass.
I do, however, feel the weight of a British Sovereign.
You like mass?
You'll soon feel the mass of a government boot stomping on your face.
Call me incredulous, in believing something that cannot be held, is called a coin.
You are incredulous...........
lol...thank you.
Bah. It's just another innovative financial instrument. That can't be readily traced back to the House of Squid.
Could be.
I see some usefulness to it though, its private. But the marketing of it as a coin has always left me...tentative.
Because thats what the use of the word "coin" is in this instance...a marketing ploy.
Of course. A coin is money, bitcoin is obviously a coin it says so right in the name, therefor bitcoin is money. Perfectly ... logical.
Hand it to me so I can see for myself.
Not that I don't trust anyone when money is involved ;-)
Nice work, Spock.
And mail can be electronic? What the fuck McFly!
ROTFL!!!...well "Doc"...I've been pretty clear on what I think it is.
Have you figured out a way to give it to a wino yet? Or some vagabond at an interstate off ramp?
What are you gonna say...the checks in the mail ...lol?
It fails the very first test as money, by being not for everybody.
They would have called it: "A large scale, distributed, hybrid cryptographic system designed to eliminate double-spending, fix inflation, and provide a common ledger with anonymity features", but those assholes didn't take my suggestion. Pricks wanted a name that would be "catchy".
Every bankster is a terrorist.
Every bankster is a treasonous traitor.
Every bankster commits acts of FRAUD.
Every bankster is responsible for crimes against humanity.
and so on.
I'm getting the sense of a pattern...
Bitcoin *is* tyranny. As an academic exercise in software, it is somewhat interesting. But in reality, there are so many fundamental flaws with the concept that only those who have invested alot of money in it seem to be talking it up.
see Tesla.
I'd rather not...he's not much to look at these days.
Name all these "fundamental flaws" you seem to perceive in your reality. People who invested veritable pocket change on it four years ago just got rich over the last six months. Look at some of the people that have put big money into it over the last while, they are a hell of a lot "smarter" than you or I. The fact you label it tyranny speaks to the fact you have absolutely no idea what you're blathering about.
So your argument seems to be that since some people made a lot of money on it, it doesn't have a fundamental flaw? *cough*fiat*cough*
Not deriding you, just the form of your argument.
Here is what I believe is a flaw, not with bitcoin, but with GAAP & bitcoin: How does an auditor verify that I own the bitcoins I say I do? For example, in a bitcoin accepting society can I get a loan with bitcoins as collateral? What keeps my co-conspirators from also getting loans using the same bitcoin collateral? (Do the Winklevos twins reallly own a lot of bitcoins or are they BSing?)
Another: If someone can successfully isolate a portion of the internet, say Syria (by leader diktat) or Egypt (by cutting a submarine cable), then they spend the same bitcoins in both internets, when the internet reconnects, one of the blockchains will lose and someone gets screwed but it isn't the guy that spent the bitcoins.
No my argument is that it has outperformed every asset class on the planet by hundreds of percent to date, denominated in $ if one wishes, and it is by far not just people who've sunk a lot of money into it that are talking about it. Bitcoin is creating real wealth as we speak.
Why all the whining and snivelling on ZH over the last while due to the metals "prices"? *cough* Fiat *cough* Yeah, big tough metals bugs crying about how the Fiat "prices" of their metals have been getting tuned, hilarious really.
You realize people with Bitcoin can still be wealthy and not have their coin ever touch Fiat necessarily right? I never said it might not be flawed in some way, like virtually every other fucking thing on the planet one way or another.
Your second to last paragraph tells me you are apparently much more attached to the current structure of government oversight of assets and the availability of debt than any kind of free market capital with real price discovery. Your last paragraph is just ridiculous.
Obvious debt loving jackass is obvious.. Ignore these trolls, bitcoin doesn't have to be perfect to be superior
I took what you said. Pointed out it was not a valid argument. Yet you return with more of the same.
I have not complained about metals prices, if you care to look at my posts you'll find out I don't care.
You certainly implied bitcoin was without flaws and invited naming of the flaws. Then you refuse to discuss the flaws and go off on tangent about government and price discovery. Since you don't want to discuss the points you wanted brought up, it looks like you lose this time. Crawl back in your cave, troll.
As long as your rhetorical bullshit and comic book scenarios make sense to you that's all that counts really...
I realized ... you really don't know how bitcoin works. You know the talking points and that tech people have said that it is without flaws, but you don't know the technical details. If you did it would be easy to counter my proposed flaws. Instead, you ignore them.
"I never said it might not be flawed in some way, like virtually every other fucking thing on the planet one way or another." - Me
Nobody involved in Bitcoin at any level would ever claim that it is flawless, myself included, nor did I. Apparently your interpretation of English sucks or you're just an agitating ad hominem troll, or both.
Your "proposed flaws" (debt, GAAP, etc.) have little to do with Bitcoin at this point for the average person. The beauty and functional simplicity of Bitcoin in this regard is obviously lost on someone like yourself with their head comfortably stuck up the ass of a collectivist, government-controlled, debt-based paradigm. Under Canadian tax law Bitcoin transactions are considered barter which is a taxable event despite the fact they have no reliable way of monitoring it. Of course there's no debt extended on Bitcoin collateral (yet?), hence nobody can get caught double-lending either. Simple realized capital gains/losses are similar to unit stock transactions, otherwise ask BitInstant or BitPay or another commercial enterprise how their accounting works. All transactions and coins held under any given key pair are available for viewing on the blockchain, aside from that I don't know what you're getting at as far as "audit". Or ask an accountant that will probably not have a clue. I never claimed to know a lot about or be an authority on Bitcoin and I'm not posting on ZH to try and educate anyone, just countering the usual BS somewhat, so you're welcome.
Have I addressed your so-called "points" and "proposed flaws" sufficiently for you now, on both internets?
Now perhaps you can go out into both internets and learn something for yourself, or do you want me to go to the bathroom for you too?
Proving you "own" a Bitcoin in the eyes of the law will end up being problematic. What if someone else knows the private key of my Bitcoin? How can I be said to "own" something when someone else also "owns" it? Ha ha gotcha there all you fiat whores...
Bitcoin will slip like water between the grasping fingers of the fascists. They will be as successful as they were stopping BitTorrent, oh, look, only 47% of all web traffic now, compared to ALL web surfing (http) which is second at 11%, despite them spending billions trying to stop it.
The currency itself is like BitTorrent. Next the Bitcoin exchanges will go P2P. Nobody left to shut down. LOL. If they try and outlaw citizens from using it, what wil they try next, outlaw US citizens from holding any foreign currencies? Um yah that will work well
Red pill, folks, get a glass of water and swallow it down
If they try and outlaw citizens from using it, what wil they try next, outlaw US citizens from holding any foreign currencies? Um yah that will work well
Flase Flag = WW3 = Gulags = RFID Chip = GovCredits.
Anything else sends you back to the gulag.
Mao style. It's a New World Order after all.
Anyone can easily verify how many bitcoins are in an address. This is the address I used to distribute 0.40 bitcoins free to ZeroHedge readers: 17HjSoTUfMDDXygtq2TdzPyPLoG8FaVE5r Look it up for yourself using http://blockexplorer.com/address/17HjSoTUfMDDXygtq2TdzPyPLoG8FaVE5r It shows the current balance of 0 after distributing to 25 addresses. You can look up each receiving address to see if the person still has them, or spent them.
Using meshnets (local short - medium distance hops of routers using radios with parabolic antennas), or telephone dial up or a satellite connection, it's nearly always possible to remain connected to the internet no matter what an evil dictator does.
This can be verified with a digital signature, which demonstrates that you have the private key. A digital signature allows you to prove that you have the ability to spend some coins, without actually spending them.
It would be immediately obvious if your network had become isolated and cut off from the main blockchain. Syria would be unable to mine blocks at anywhere near the current blockchain difficulty level, and hence all bitcoin transactions would grind to a halt (it would take weeks or more for people to mine the blocks, depending on how many mining rigs there are in Syria). In this situation, anyone who understands bitcoin would know that you're forked and would not accept transactions in these forked blocks. BTW, all it would take is one person to get a copy of the blocks from overseas (eg. by dialup modem) and this would be enough to spread the blocks to all peers in Syria.
"Name all these "fundamental flaws" you seem to perceive in your reality."
I'll bite.
1. While not yet readily apparent, ANYTHING decentralized and software based in subject to manipulation. When enough BitCoinage is in use and messin with it is worth the time and risk, someone WILL figure out how to manipulate / crack / game the system.
2. There are numerous fault points.
A). It is dependant upon the existing currency systems as manifestation of true value.
B.) Share value is dependant on the already gamed stock market. The current equities market is a perfect example.
C.) It is dependant on the banking system. As has already been seen with BitCoin, this carpet can easily be pulled / manipulated / gamed.
D.) If the net goes down for an extended period, problems seen and unforseen emerge.
E.) You can't fondle it / stack it / count it out. In a SHTF or collapse scenario, I won't want your BitCoin for a ride across gangland. On the other hand, Au and Ag....
Don't get me wrong. I love the BitCoin concept, but there is not a single electronic form of value transferrance or representation currently in existence that is not manipulated / gamed.
Conveniet? Yes.
Covert? I am not convinced.
A novel concept? Absolutely.
As for me, I prefer something that has stood the test of a few thousand years. Something that once in your possession, can be transferred quietly, is easily hidden, leaves no trail digital or otherwise, can be used now or in 50 years, and when buffed with a good wax, looks darn nice under direct lighting.
Your tastes may differ.
Just my thoughts.
The notion that because someone is involved in Bitcoin, as a rule, they don't have any gold or silver never ceases to amaze me. Classic ZH echo-chamber-conditioned Bitcoin thread humor.
Haole,
You are waaaay to defensive about this topic. I never implied Bitcoin lovers are not involved in PMs. I was merely responding to one of your statements.
Chill, Manno. Take a Xanex or something.
Half of your points above already apply to gold and silver to one extent or another BTW. Thus far, not so much to Bitcoin.
While I am sympathetic with Bitcoin it is a currency, not money.
Gold and Silver are subject to short term manipulation, but Gold and Silver are tested in a way Bitcoin has never been. The value of money is not in how it survives the good time, but in how it survives the bad. Gold and Silver have value in war, and famine, but of far greater importance now is that it has held its value everywhere through the collapse of empires. Whether it is the Chinese, the Incas, the Romans, the French or the any other Empire, Gold and Silver have held their value.
I noticed your impuning of fiat, you would do well to remember that Bitcoin is the ultimate fiat. It depends solely on the faith of the users in it's value. There is nothing else supporting it's value.
#41
Yes, it's a currency and payment system, very good 41...
You need to review the definition of "Fiat" currency, while you're at it look-up the definition of "Ponzi Scheme" too as neither apply to Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is not "Fiat" and saying so is inaccurate and ignorant, plain and simple.
Gold is Fiat currency and a Ponzi Scheme.
There, that's how ridiculous people look attaching "Fiat" and "Ponzi" to Bitcoin.
Gold and silver are actually much more a "Fiat" money than Bitcoin is at this point given the control and manipulation it is subject to by governments and banks alike come to think of it.
1. Manipulation: a non-issue. Nothing prevents you to fork the source and create "Crapcoin" and start anew.
2. Fault points
a) It depends on existing currencies. I don't think it does. You could exchange it for grams of iron or pork bellies.
b) Bitcoin "share" (!) value depends on existing currency systems: a non-issue. It's got no inherent value. It's (just) a currency for Pete's sake.
c) It's dependent on the banking system: it's independent per se. You can buy Bitcoin for whatever the seller accepts in return (5oz of silver, for example) and you can use the Bitcoin to buy whatever people sell for Bitcoin. Where are the banks? Where is the US dollar? Where is Ben?
d) If the net goes down: this argument appeared under one of ZH Bitcoin arcticle published in April or March and I refuted it there and then. If the net goes down Bitcoin will be worth even more (because the banking system will be completely FUBAR-ed). But at that time you'd have much bigger problems (no fuel, medicine, food, nothing).
e) It's virtual: so what? You can have the value of thousands of ounces of silver encrypted in your wristwatch or USB key. How is that always a problem? It can be a life saver. Try to outrun thugs with 50oz of silver your pockets.
Sadly, many people - even here at ZH - don't understand the concept of money.
A problem? See my post at the beginning of this thread. If I can untraceably take it from you, I will.
I agree that it is sad. Bitcoin has really brought out a lot of ignorence amongst zerohedgers. It turns out most of them were just sheep after all. I can't begin to count the number of false understandings of bitcoin. Like the one above: "It is dependant upon the existing currency systems as manifestation of true value." The ignorance level is off the charts!
It is absolutely fucking ridiculous, isn't it.
The one thing I cannot understand is how when a functioning free market, decentralized, somewhat anonymous global form of currency and "capital" finally hits the scene and all ZH can do is call it a Ponzi or "Fiat".
All these tools are too busy curled-up in their basements around their gold, food and ammo waiting for Mad Max, a massive EMP and for the government to kick their door in, likely all at the same time, to even think rationally with an open mind anymore.
It's truly pathetic and representative of the levels to which this self-reinforcing, echo-chamber-conditioned mire of minds-snapped-shut ZH commenters have sunk.
there is not a single electronic form of value transferrance or representation currently in existence that is not manipulated / gamed.
Seroius question, how is that true of GoldMoney?
Tough to argue with "so many fundamental flaws". Give some examples of them so they can be refuted. Until then you're just spewing uninformed gibberish.
"Until then you're just spewing uninformed gibberish."
It's still somehow interpreted as "wisdom" by other ZH'ers in these Bitcoin threads, funny eh?
Give us a break, how can anyone be as wise as a bitcoin fundementalist? We all know they are now the smartest people on the planet, they remind us all the time.
I even heard the Rothschilds are sulking and walking around with their heads down knowing they've been outsmarted by anonymous Amazon gift certificate users.
Your comment is total bullshit.
I'd refute your claims but there are none.
There is just unsubstantiated (and apparently uneducated) opinion.
I'd much rather have 5.3 oz of silver then 1 bitcoin.
Yeah funny how bitcoins are worth all that real stuff huh. Crazy
I hope those are not your first 5.3 oz of silver?
The real question is: if you already got a thousand oz of silver...
would you want to add 5.3 oz to that silver, or diversify with 1 bitcoin?
I admit I can't get my head around bit coins. It took me 40 years to get my head around Gold. Perhaps when I'm 80 for Bitcoin.
It could destabilize the current system.
Uhhhh, how could we tell?
Love this article, saw it last week... Bitcoin, the idea itself, is the most important thing to happen to humanity since the internet itself.
One of our problems is a dearth of spatial thinking.
Oh stop it.
When I find a spatial bitcoin in the street and give it to a drunk who doesn't have an account to make use of it I'll let you know...lol.
Great idea! When able-bodied but lazy youth ask me for money I'll just ask them if the take bitcoin. No? Sorry, then.
That made no sense whatsoever -- and I did try.
We have issues that are above and beyond Bitcoin.
I've read your comments, and I suspect you know.
While nonsensical can be fun, it certainly serves no other purpose.
There is nothing spatial about an asset (money, for instance) until you start leveraging it.
Better? ;-)
You REALLY love the status quo dude. And you're a broken record.. What if I give a dolphin keys to a jeep? What if I give a netflix subscription to a 1 month old
And you just posted a comment with some bytes somewhere in some database ... Can you really trust anything in that ?
Now thats spatial...lol...start with a false premise (I love the status quo) and leverage it into giving something to someone who can't use it.
A dolphin with a jeep and an infant with a Netflix subscription?
Well done bitster, anymore pearls of wisdom? ;-)
You can't expect a free market ray of hope to be allowed to grow in a criminally controlled corrupt illusory market run by tyrants
It will be brought under their purview or crushed soon enough
On top of that you have with anything electronic you have the possibility of things like internet kill switch, hacking, market manipulation.
Physical possession of assets are far harder to control. And in the case of PM's they're value is not going to suddenly vanish or their possession be inaccessible if you've taken the proper precautions to secure them
*pardon my occasional grammatical errors I am still working on improving my english*
"You can't expect a free market ray of hope to be allowed to grow in a criminally controlled corrupt illusory market run by tyrants..."
Nor can one expect a free market ray of hope to be allowed to grow in the minds of ZH'ers either apparently judging by many of the comments sections of Bitcoin posts to present...
@Fuku Ben. You said: "Physical possession of assets are far harder to control. And in the case of PM's they're value is not going to suddenly vanish or their possession be inaccessible if you've taken the proper precautions to secure them." The virtue of physical assets like PM's is to a certain extent their achilles heel as well. If you're in a situation where you need to move assets or money (broadly defined), an electronic, private system is far better than one where you have to move physical assets or money due to the lack of portability and risk of theft. Not to mention the sheer cost of movement. Bitcoins or other electronic currencies have their place. PM's and physical assets have theirs.
I was thinking bitcoin is an analog for gold but more portable, and not a competing currency but a highly volatile escrow protocol.
Iran for fun should accept up to 10% bitcoin for any oil shipment.
What if they accepted 90% payment in bitcoins? It would drive up the price tremendously. If there is supposedly a maximum of 21 million bitcoins created, couldn't any countries central bank (with all their fiat) buy the majority of them and control their value? Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem like it takes a heck of a lot of fiat to control their value.
They're not all for sale. 122.29 is the price of ONE bitcoin, but as you buy more the price rises exponentially.
It tooks gov/banks thousands of years to round up most of the gold... by tricking people into holding notes. Alas, nobody is willing to hold a note for bitcoin.
I agree with the author's premise that what they are beginning to do to Bitcoin reveals their mendacity and criminality--tyranny.
However, they already went there and then some with what they did to the Liberty Dollar and the people behind it.
My other favorite is what these criminal pieces of shit in the government do to those with the audacity to salvage wrecks--"give us our share." LOL
Tyranny with outright theft as well.
hujel
i appreciated the "article". i've slandered Bitcoin a few times on here because i was just, well, Neanderthal & pissed. BUT, ANYTHING THAT TAKES THESE FUCKING BANKING CRIMINALS DOWN, AND SENDS THEM, AND ALL OF THEIR CRONIES TO BURN IN HELL, IS FINE WITH ME................
Can you buy bitcoins in an IRA account?
lol
Doesn't matter. Ultimately, your IRA will be "Cypress'd" anyway. Take it out before TPTB do.
" The money power denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes."
– William Jennings Bryan
"Please understand also that no one is forcing anyone to use Bitcoin. If you don’t think it’s a great idea, you don’t have to use it."
No one is forcing anyone to use Federal Reserve Notes either. No, seriously. The Federal Reserve is a private cartel of banks. No one can force you to contract with any private entity. Because you can't force someone into a contract they had to leave an out for people who didn't want to endorse the credit of the Federal Reserve.
12 USC 411 is your legal remedy to redeem your Federal Reserve Notes for lawful money.
Everytime you endorse the back of your paycheck and deposit it into a bank you are endorsing the credit of the Federal Reserve. People often restrict their endorsement by writing "For Deposit Only" on the back of the check. Well, you can also restrict your endorsement by writing "Redeemed for lawful money pursuant to 12 USC 411" and then signing it and depositing it.
What did you just do? Well, now the bank has the money you just deposited, but it has to be treated like coinage or as "United States Notes" which are non-elastic currency and cannot be fractionally reserved lent against.
So really, no one is forcing you to accept Federal Reserve Notes. Just redeem them.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3362
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/LegHistory/LegHistory...
http://books.google.com/books/about/Modification_in_Par_Value_of_the_Dol...
help- thanks for the help. been looking for someone tpo repost that for quite a while ,thnx.
(wonder who could have seen that fit for a lil' red downy?)
Okay. Where's Steve Crowder or James O'Keefe when you need them? I'd like to see what happens when one actually attempts the following:
"They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
I mean, color me stupid, but what the hell does it mean that my 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, and/or 100 bills (Federal Reserve Notes) can be "redeemed in lawful money?"
The language of the statute certainly seems to suggest that my 20-dollar bills are something other than *lawful money*.
One of the axoims of law is that the US Constitution and other laws have meaning. That is an interpretation of a law that reduces it to meaninglessness is deemed wrong. I have been waiting on the "redeemed in lawful money" clause for a long time.
I had a rubber stamp made for "Redeeming per USC Title 12, Section 411"
This is not really correct. If you are owed a debt, you are required to accept Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender in satisfaction of that debt. More importantly, if you try to "redeem" FRNs you can only get other FRNs of smaller denominations, or other "lawful money" (coins, including dollar coins, half dollar coins, quarters, dimes, nickles and pennies). See, e.g., Milam v. United States, 524 F.2d 629. 630 (9th Cir. 1974) ("Appellant is entitled to redeem his note, but not in precious metal."). It used to be the case that you could redeem dollar for gold or silver, but this is no longer the case.
If I contract a debt the courts will allow the person to pay it off in FRNs regardless of what the contract may say.
Sorry about repeating Thisson's point. It did not appear until after I hit post.
Is somebody mad because they bought $10k worth of Bitcoin at $250 expecting to find a greater fool to unload the crate of tulip bulbs?
Bitcoin would be great if the only way to get a Bitcoin was to mine it, or trade a product or service of real value for them.
Trading fiat for Bitcoin in the hopes of trading Bitcoin for more fiat later destroyed any value Bitcoin had. It became another part of the great global ponzi.
And any value you hand in contributing anything but proving your ignorance has been destroyed
"Is somebody mad because they bought $10k worth of Bitcoin at $250 expecting to find a greater fool to unload the crate of tulip bulbs?"
How many people bought silver at $45+ for the same reasons?
The rest of your post is too ignorant and retarded to address...
Or Apple on the way to 2k?
If TPTB want to crush Bitcoin, the fastest and simplest way would be to just buy them all. Just one month of the money they waste on QE should take care of it. That would only be around $8,000 per bitcoin, on average. (I'm delighted to front run them on that asset purchase.)
I mentioned that as argument in Bitcoin posts last month, but also that the easiest answer to that would be to fork the code, create Shitcoin and start over.
Hard virtual currencies are here to stay.
"He didn’t want to acknowledge the accusations because he feared what might happen to him without his usual money."
Or maybe he found tyrannical government money perfectly adequate for buying food, clothes, other daily necessities and pleasures, and just couldn't care less about nutjob libertarian conspiracy theorists?
I like the way the article uses bitcoin as a litmus test for tyranny. But that only scratches the surface.
Anyone who complains about the status quo/governments/organizations may sometimes be called a "conspiracy theorist". In that case, all complainants and prosecutors in a court of law who present their evidence are "theorists" too and if it involves more than one being prosecuted, then that case basically defines a conspiracy theory. The words, 'conspiracy theory', have no negative connotations except in the empty minds of those who use it to sneer at and deride others. I find it completely puzzling how perfectly laudable descriptions like, "liberal", "pacifist", "intellectual", "boy scout", and of course "conspiracy theorist", ever became dirty words used by morons.
Going back to BTC, as long as fiat money and btc are exchangeable, the door is wide open to the same manipulation of infinite supply (the numerical value decreases with ubiquity, creating the appearance of goods becoming cheaper) because the Fed can simply buy it all up, with the dubious added bonus of enriching the founders and speculators beyond avarice. That's where it rubs me the wrong way, and seems fraudulent.
What the world needs is a safe, incorruptible form of money that is directly proportional to human effort. Sadly btc is not it. I like the concept of independence and freedom from the Fed, but if the distribution of bitcoins in private hands are in the ratio I think they are, with the majority held by the founders and speculators, then all we will be doing is transferring ourselves from government tyranny to private tyranny.
Interesting post.
> Going back to BTC, as long as fiat money and btc are exchangeable, the door is wide open to the same manipulation of infinite supply
What is not open to this form of manipulation?
Even if one refuses fiat money, this can't be prevented as long as it's possible to buy whatever is accepted.
They would never admit the actual reason why they would shut down bitcoin. Bitcoin makes it harder for the government and the financial sector to steal.
Bitcoins ad 3Drinting..
Now explain to me why governments are relative, and from where the derive their legitamacy just one more time- I might have missed something...
The recent posts on the itulip thread about Bitcoin early-adopter phase are very interesting, with videos from the bitcoin2013 San Jose conference and an analysis of the regulatory costs and risks faced by bitcoin business.
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/24798-Bitcoin-soon-to-enter-...
I am the bigget zh fn in the world and hugely into my metals although probly a very small player compared to most stackers. great to see zh giving the bitcoin a fair hearing. I have had bitcoins since they were a fiver each primarily as ive always been a great fan of open source honest development. In a nutshell having a small punt on planet bitcoin is being a real money advocate, its uptake could be the biggest accelerant to banker demise. It essentially takes the road and rail "infrastructure of money" away from the banks /government this our metals could never do. Especially when the exchanges are equally decentrallised it will be fun watching the bankers swatting at flies...However also remember the metals have 3000 yr + history of protecting wealth not 4 year history and keep your investment balance appropriate...good luck
ZH is not giving Bitcoin a fair hearing. ZH is a propagandist mouthpiece for Bitcoin. There is a difference and a reason to suspect ZH's motivation. (Keep in mind that the globalists want to keep people divided so that they are easily controlled and if they fight they destroy each other. By controlling both sides of and argument they get to move people in whatever direction they want... even to war against each other.)
The globalist bankers need a global currency. Would they mind if it was Bitcoin? Do you know who created Bitcoin? Yes, they say that Bitcoin is "currently" limited in number. It is however infintely divisible and why should we ever believe the promise of someone in power? If they see a need and have control over Bitcoin they will print as many as ensures they stay in power.
Don't be a sucker.
Do you still have your index digit?
That's how we will tell if you have any BTC worth stealing.
Bitcoin is a governmeny psy-op; at least that is what rational minds would conclude.
Alternative 3: "The central banking cabal started Bitcoin, maybe as an experiment, maybe as their go-to global currency when they kill the dollar". Bitcoins may be limited in number but they are infitely divisible, so can still be used to manipulate global money supply at will if they become the common global currency.
The problem that should make us think is that anything that gets so much free press, is very professionally done or spreads very rapidly must be suspect of being product of the globalist powers, funded and directed by the banking cabal. If we ONLY hear one side of a story in the press or alternative media (such as the side portrayed by this article ... "they hate us for our freedom"... sound familiar), then we need to be suspicious.
Success has the annoying habit of being rigged.
One huge flaw with the Bitcoin system - any malware that can obtain your private key on the PC you use to access your account allows your entire account to be stolen remotely and instantly with absolute zero chance of tracing who did it or where the money went. No thanks.
A good percentage humans want to be oppressed IMO