The real problem here is a non-governmental organization posing as a government organization controlling the money supply and murdering presidents such as Lincoln and JFK who try to stop them.
Unless you have some tangible proof of that, I suggest you start taking your meds again.
If you're deep enough into economics-talk to be discussing the virtues and vices of a currency, you're deep enough in that you probably want to be careful about your meanings when talking about the source of a currency's value.
Ever consider what the word "consume" actually means and how that's been twisted by the marketing types to imply that your experience of something implies that you've somehow, magickally used it up?
Ah ha... so if I'm out at a bar, and somebody has their smartphone out and is say, checking their email, then I can object and have reasonable expectation that they put the smartphone away in their pocket or leave the bar?
You're being deliberately stupid in order to make a very dumb point. People using their smartphones rarely hold it at an angle that would put people's faces in frame unless they're taking a picture (or video).
Knock off the false equivalence. Nobody is buying.
Who said LED? There is a light, as you stated. When you use glass the light on the display will go off if you dont use it for a brief period of time. In addition I have to stare at what I want to record, both of those things would be very telling. Now I can do the exact same recording with my cell phone and you would have absolutely ZERO idea I am doing it.
But what you are missing is that to the masses out there that BitCoin needs to keep buying into the base of the pyramid to make current Bitcoins worth anything in the real world
You're starting with the assumption that Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme. That makes the rest of your comment rather questionable, but I'll soldier on anyway.
MtGox is the onky exchange they have ever heard of, and first impressions may not be everything but they sure count for a lot.
Most of the mainstream population is barely even cognizant of Bitcoin. They're certainly not cognizant of MtGox. Or at least, they weren't until Monday, when reports of their insolvency started appearing in the mainstream media. Regardless, MtGox has not been the go-to exchange for over a year. That position has been taken over by a variety of other entities, some of which are true exchanges and some of which are just portals to buy Bitcoin. Even if "first impressions" were important here -- and I don't really think they are -- then we've been sounding the alarm within the BTC community for over a year that MtGox is NOT the place to go.
You guys who buy into this are missing the overall point - BitCoin has had more mainstream press over this than every before and it's all negative, terrible news.
Yes. And after every crisis, after every sudden dip in the USD/BTC exchange rate, Bitcoin has rebounded. It has continued to thrive. That's the really remarkable thing about Bitcoin, and why "us guys who buy into this thing" continue to believe that Bitcoin -- or something very much like it -- will be the future. We can see the potential, even if everyone else can't. And we're willing to risk money on it, even though we could very well lose it all. We are betting, in essence, that Bitcoin will be a success. And we're putting our proverbial money where our mouth is.
And that's a point that you all who don't buy into this are missing.
Most folks aren't going to get involved enough to see if your statements are correct - the bad kid in school has misbehaved, and that's the one that will be remembered.
You're arguing that Bitcoin is bad because it has an image problem. Firstly, so what? Secondly, what's to be done about it? Nothing, that's what. A bad actor did something stupid and some people lost some money. We've all learned from this experience, and Bitcoin is stronger for the loss of MtGox.
Without folks continually pumping real legal tender into the BitCoin system it's worthless.
Kind of like gold.
Actually, exactly like gold.
The only reason it didn't drop totally yet is that the believers are buying up what people are selling who are getting out. Thinking they are going to pick them up now before they rise again. The truth is, it's not going to rise again because the only folks who are going to get involved now are the ones who are already in the thick of it - and without new blood bringing real legal tender to the table, it can only last so long with the already-in folks trading amongst themselves.
It has already largely recovered to it's pre-MtGox-meltdown level. So you're wrong. Just like it has always recovered before. If the (brief) history of Bitcoin has taught us anything, it's that underestimating the resilience of Bitcoin is a losing bet.
with the USD PetroDollar being a world standard reserve that means the same thing except instead of gold it is petroleum oil
Your statement would be meaningful, if only it were true. Or meaningful. It is neither. It would be necessary for the cost of a barrel of oil to be fixed to a static USD rate for your statement to be true. Since the price of oil clearly fluctuates on a regular basis, you're basically spouting a bunch of shit.
From a fiscal standpoint, they're the same thing. In fact, Bitcoin is worse as it's backed by absolutely nothing.
Sure, although I would argue that the US dollar is backed by little more -- a promise, basically. And for that matter, gold is backed by... [drumroll] nothing at all. It is valuable solely because people value it. And Bitcoin is essentially the same, just with less people.
But all that aside, the term "fiat" inside the cryptocurrency community means somethings specific. The fact that you insist on sticking to a definition that predates the rise of this particular community -- when said community has agreed among themselves exactly what "fiat" means to them -- is a pointless endeavor. You might as well insist that "decimate" means to destroy 10%, instead of the common-day usage of that word.
There's nothing backing it. Zero, zip, zilch. At least the US dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, and it's been that way for 40 years. Bitcoin hasn't lasted 10.
You're being pedantic. In discussion of cryptocurrencies, the term "fiat" is universally used to distinguish cryptocurrency from government-declared currency. Yes, any unbacked currency is technically also fiat, and that includes Bitcoin. But that point is, as I said, excessively pedantic.
This is an oft-heard sentiment that is extremely naive to the point of outright stupidity. The use of gold (and silver, and other precious metals) as currency is fraught with difficulty. It turns out that money is a *lot* more complex than most people really fathom. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
We in the US stopped using gold as currency -- and then removed the US dollar from the gold standard -- because having gold and the dollar be linked causes more problems than it really solves. And as of today, there are zero nations with a gold-based currency.
Holding gold as an investment is one thing. Using it as a currency is pretty much impossible today.
Funny, on the other end of this thread, I've got people telling me how MtGox hasn't been the "go-to" exchange for nearly six months now - an eternity in Bitcoin time.
I think FDIC came around in the 1930s - well before my parents were born in any case.
And that was after how many years of the banks not being FDIC insured? If you only go back to the founding of the US (since FDIC is a US thing) that's still about 150 years. And of course banking as a concept goes back quite a bit farther than that.
It was. It hasn't been for over a year, which is an eternity for Bitcoin. Everyone involved in Bitcoin has known for a very long time that putting money into MtGox is extremely high risk. And when someone involved in Bitcoin says "high risk", it means something.
Value doesn't come from you guys, value comes from the unwashed masses who see a story on CNN and say "how can I get in on this Bitcoin thing?" Where, until very recently, would they end up placing their first buy order?
Coinbase. It's a US company with a strong fiduciary angle.
Not an exchange in the many-to-many sense, but you can still buy Bitcoin there. And that's where a lot of new Bitcoin purchasers are getting them.
Keep in mind, you responded to a post that suggested Finnish authorities (Country B) can respond by ASKING ISP's to block the site in Finland.
If you'll read carefully, you'll see this tidbit in the post I was responding to:
"Forcing" may be a problem, but generally the principle is that a possibly illegal action "happens" where it takes effect, so if people in Finland read the donation requests, then the Finnish police has the right and duty to act on it.
Does that help? Are you ready to back down on your absolutist position?
A website OUTSIDE a sovereign state does not get to dictate the laws WITHIN said state. Wikipedia, not any other organization has the right to do business on their terms just because they can hide themselves behind a server.
Nope. You are badly mistaken. Wikipedia isn't "doing business" in Finland. They are running a website that happens to be viewable in Finland. If the Finnish government wants to censor that website (i.e. by blocking at the ISP level) that's their prerogative. But then they'd just be engaging in censorship for no good reason.
"Forcing" may be a problem, but generally the principle is that a possibly illegal action "happens" where it takes effect, so if people in Finland read the donation requests, then the Finnish police has the right and duty to act on it.
So worst case, the Finnish police could ask Finnish ISPs to prevent access to a website that breaks the law in Finland.
NO. This is not just wrong, it's also incredibly stupid. Think about what you're saying: If every website must comply with every law in every country where the website can be seen, then we end up with a web that is the lowest common denominator of all the tyrannical laws in the world. A website in Finland does not get to dictate the terms of a website anywhere outside of Finland. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
The real problem here is a non-governmental organization posing as a government organization
controlling the money supply and murdering presidents such as Lincoln and JFK who try to stop them.
Unless you have some tangible proof of that, I suggest you start taking your meds again.
If you're deep enough into economics-talk to be discussing the virtues and vices of a currency, you're deep enough in that you probably want to be careful about your meanings when talking about the source of a currency's value.
Keep tilting at that windmill, Don.
And there is nothing stopping the government from issuing gold dollars, or you from acquiring them.
I know this because I have a gold dollar. Interesting because the face value is currently ~1/1300th of the value of the metal.
I'm quite aware of that. And that gold dollar is legal tender. However, you'd be a fool to spend it for the face value.
And therein lies the rub: the value of that gold dollar is not fixed to the price of gold, at least not as legal tender.
Ever consider what the word "consume" actually means and how that's been twisted by the marketing types to imply that your experience of something implies that you've somehow, magickally used it up?
Ever consider not being a fucking pedant 24/7?
Ultimately, I don't really *care* if people like you believe in Bitcoin or not.
So really, you're waisting bandwidth trying to argue the point to me.
I think you are missing the difference so I'll try to explain.
thaylin knows exactly what the difference is, and is being deliberately obtuse in order to create a false equivalence.
Ah ha... so if I'm out at a bar, and somebody has their smartphone out and is say, checking their email, then I can object and have reasonable expectation that they put the smartphone away in their pocket or leave the bar?
You're being deliberately stupid in order to make a very dumb point. People using their smartphones rarely hold it at an angle that would put people's faces in frame unless they're taking a picture (or video).
Knock off the false equivalence. Nobody is buying.
Who said LED? There is a light, as you stated. When you use glass the light on the display will go off if you dont use it for a brief period of time. In addition I have to stare at what I want to record, both of those things would be very telling. Now I can do the exact same recording with my cell phone and you would have absolutely ZERO idea I am doing it.
And this is why we hate glassholes.
But what you are missing is that to the masses out there that BitCoin needs to keep buying into the base of the pyramid to make current Bitcoins worth anything in the real world
You're starting with the assumption that Bitcoin is a pyramid scheme. That makes the rest of your comment rather questionable, but I'll soldier on anyway.
MtGox is the onky exchange they have ever heard of, and first impressions may not be everything but they sure count for a lot.
Most of the mainstream population is barely even cognizant of Bitcoin. They're certainly not cognizant of MtGox. Or at least, they weren't until Monday, when reports of their insolvency started appearing in the mainstream media. Regardless, MtGox has not been the go-to exchange for over a year. That position has been taken over by a variety of other entities, some of which are true exchanges and some of which are just portals to buy Bitcoin. Even if "first impressions" were important here -- and I don't really think they are -- then we've been sounding the alarm within the BTC community for over a year that MtGox is NOT the place to go.
You guys who buy into this are missing the overall point - BitCoin has had more mainstream press over this than every before and it's all negative, terrible news.
Yes. And after every crisis, after every sudden dip in the USD/BTC exchange rate, Bitcoin has rebounded. It has continued to thrive. That's the really remarkable thing about Bitcoin, and why "us guys who buy into this thing" continue to believe that Bitcoin -- or something very much like it -- will be the future. We can see the potential, even if everyone else can't. And we're willing to risk money on it, even though we could very well lose it all. We are betting, in essence, that Bitcoin will be a success. And we're putting our proverbial money where our mouth is.
And that's a point that you all who don't buy into this are missing.
Most folks aren't going to get involved enough to see if your statements are correct - the bad kid in school has misbehaved, and that's the one that will be remembered.
You're arguing that Bitcoin is bad because it has an image problem. Firstly, so what? Secondly, what's to be done about it? Nothing, that's what. A bad actor did something stupid and some people lost some money. We've all learned from this experience, and Bitcoin is stronger for the loss of MtGox.
Without folks continually pumping real legal tender into the BitCoin system it's worthless.
Kind of like gold.
Actually, exactly like gold.
The only reason it didn't drop totally yet is that the believers are buying up what people are selling who are getting out. Thinking they are going to pick them up now before they rise again. The truth is, it's not going to rise again because the only folks who are going to get involved now are the ones who are already in the thick of it - and without new blood bringing real legal tender to the table, it can only last so long with the already-in folks trading amongst themselves.
It has already largely recovered to it's pre-MtGox-meltdown level. So you're wrong. Just like it has always recovered before. If the (brief) history of Bitcoin has taught us anything, it's that underestimating the resilience of Bitcoin is a losing bet.
HODL!
with the USD PetroDollar being a world standard reserve that means the same thing except instead of gold it is petroleum oil
Your statement would be meaningful, if only it were true. Or meaningful. It is neither. It would be necessary for the cost of a barrel of oil to be fixed to a static USD rate for your statement to be true. Since the price of oil clearly fluctuates on a regular basis, you're basically spouting a bunch of shit.
Ever watch a streamed movie?
From a fiscal standpoint, they're the same thing. In fact, Bitcoin is worse as it's backed by absolutely nothing.
Sure, although I would argue that the US dollar is backed by little more -- a promise, basically. And for that matter, gold is backed by... [drumroll] nothing at all. It is valuable solely because people value it. And Bitcoin is essentially the same, just with less people.
But all that aside, the term "fiat" inside the cryptocurrency community means somethings specific. The fact that you insist on sticking to a definition that predates the rise of this particular community -- when said community has agreed among themselves exactly what "fiat" means to them -- is a pointless endeavor. You might as well insist that "decimate" means to destroy 10%, instead of the common-day usage of that word.
When was the last time a bank did something squirrelly with your checking or savings account?
You want me to list all of them?
*headdesk*
I'm going to say this as simply as I can:
Bitcoin is also fiat currency
There's nothing backing it. Zero, zip, zilch. At least the US dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, and it's been that way for 40 years. Bitcoin hasn't lasted 10.
You're being pedantic. In discussion of cryptocurrencies, the term "fiat" is universally used to distinguish cryptocurrency from government-declared currency. Yes, any unbacked currency is technically also fiat, and that includes Bitcoin. But that point is, as I said, excessively pedantic.
There is far more stability in USD now than when it was tied to gold. How soon people forget.
More likely, geekmux wasn't even born yet, or cognizant of the issues surrounding the removal of USD from the gold standard.
And a poor student of history as well.
This is an oft-heard sentiment that is extremely naive to the point of outright stupidity. The use of gold (and silver, and other precious metals) as currency is fraught with difficulty. It turns out that money is a *lot* more complex than most people really fathom. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
We in the US stopped using gold as currency -- and then removed the US dollar from the gold standard -- because having gold and the dollar be linked causes more problems than it really solves. And as of today, there are zero nations with a gold-based currency.
Holding gold as an investment is one thing. Using it as a currency is pretty much impossible today.
The idea of wasting perfectly good electricity creating something of value out of nothing at all never head any of my interest
Most products you consume -- things of value that were created out of nothing -- use electricity to do so.
Funny, on the other end of this thread, I've got people telling me how MtGox hasn't been the "go-to" exchange for nearly six months now - an eternity in Bitcoin time.
I think FDIC came around in the 1930s - well before my parents were born in any case.
And that was after how many years of the banks not being FDIC insured? If you only go back to the founding of the US (since FDIC is a US thing) that's still about 150 years. And of course banking as a concept goes back quite a bit farther than that.
MtGox is a large part of the Bitcoin "brand."
It was. It hasn't been for over a year, which is an eternity for Bitcoin. Everyone involved in Bitcoin has known for a very long time that putting money into MtGox is extremely high risk. And when someone involved in Bitcoin says "high risk", it means something.
Spoken like a truly "hip" trader of 'coin.
Value doesn't come from you guys, value comes from the unwashed masses who see a story on CNN and say "how can I get in on this Bitcoin thing?" Where, until very recently, would they end up placing their first buy order?
Coinbase. It's a US company with a strong fiduciary angle.
Not an exchange in the many-to-many sense, but you can still buy Bitcoin there. And that's where a lot of new Bitcoin purchasers are getting them.
Keep in mind, you responded to a post that suggested Finnish authorities (Country B) can respond by ASKING ISP's to block the site in Finland.
If you'll read carefully, you'll see this tidbit in the post I was responding to:
"Forcing" may be a problem, but generally the principle is that a possibly illegal action "happens" where it takes effect, so if people in Finland read the donation requests, then the Finnish police has the right and duty to act on it.
Does that help? Are you ready to back down on your absolutist position?
Nope.
Or the websites don't care if tyrannical country x bans access and just ignores it, if you have not noticed China already does that en mass.
Indeed they can. And if Finland wants to follow China's example, then we will have learned something valuable about Finland's government.
A website OUTSIDE a sovereign state does not get to dictate the laws WITHIN said state. Wikipedia, not any other organization has the right to do business on their terms just because they can hide themselves behind a server.
Nope. You are badly mistaken. Wikipedia isn't "doing business" in Finland. They are running a website that happens to be viewable in Finland. If the Finnish government wants to censor that website (i.e. by blocking at the ISP level) that's their prerogative. But then they'd just be engaging in censorship for no good reason.
It's tyranny when petty bureaucrats in one country attempt to force their laws on the rest of the world.
"Forcing" may be a problem, but generally the principle is that a possibly illegal action "happens" where it takes effect, so if people in Finland read the donation requests, then the Finnish police has the right and duty to act on it.
So worst case, the Finnish police could ask Finnish ISPs to prevent access to a website that breaks the law in Finland.
NO. This is not just wrong, it's also incredibly stupid. Think about what you're saying: If every website must comply with every law in every country where the website can be seen, then we end up with a web that is the lowest common denominator of all the tyrannical laws in the world. A website in Finland does not get to dictate the terms of a website anywhere outside of Finland. Period.