I'm not trying to build a case for anything, other than for folks to read the transcript and draw their own conclusions. I find that to be a better course of action than reading through a bunch of links to old news from outlets that thrive on sensationalism.
What is it YOU are making a case for? (rhetorical question; your motives are pretty obvious)
Certainly your conclusions are your own, but they apparently aren't very useful since they apparently aren't informed by an understanding of how countries and heads of state conduct foreign policy.
Apparently you have no knowledge whatsoever of what informs my conclusions. Apparently.
Of course I am willing to be persuaded.
Uh huh. Apparently you're persuaded by the "journalists" at The Moscow Times. I think that's just adorable.
.
NATO agreed to defend the Ukraine in agreement for the Ukraine disarming itself of nuclear weapons.
Nope. One, NATO was not a party to The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Two, the BMSA doesn't require any of the parties to "defend" Ukraine militarily. Three, you might want to stop referring to Ukraine as "the Ukraine".
When one of the world's superpowers is threatening to make use of their nuclear arsenal, it is, most certainly, "stuff that matters".
When you read the quote in its full context (posted below), you'll find that Putin made no threat. This submission is simply cold fjord attempting to rouse the rabble. Unfortunately,/. editors seem to be complicit in the act.
OK, I guess this "story" qualifies as "stuff that matters", but can we at least get something more than a smattering of links to stories that are yesterday's news? Putin made his comment 4 days ago, and damn near every think in the summary points to stories that are three days old (and contain more than their share of unsubstantiated speculation).
I'm not normally one to make "why is this on slashdot?" posts. But taking into account the predilections of the submitter, I gotta say this comes off as a troll submission.
Ukraine disarmed itself in 2006 at our urging, with the understanding that we would come to their aid if ever it were needed.
The only "aid" that the US is obligated to provide Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is to seek UN Security Council action in the event that Ukraine is attacked (or threatened) with nuclear weapons.
The agreement is a one page document written in plain language. It's hard to imagine anyone who's read it would interpret it as you do.
Seems to me they are providing a very specialized form of computing power - one that Google's current cloud services don't offer. I guess Google could have built this service themselves, but I'm sure it was more cost-effective to simply acquire an existing service and integrate it into their platform.
Put another way, Zync just got Borged. (much to the delight of Zync's owners I'm sure)
Yes, marketing is worse than government surveillance...
So a service provider gathering data on the way its customers use the service for marketing purposes (which the customer agreed to by contract) is worse than the government secretly surveilling its own citizens?
Look, if you've honestly put in the effort to research the issues and are satisfied with your conclusion that FRB is possible with bitcoin, than I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But as I stated earlier, I'm not interested in taking the time to spell out my position. Additionally, I'm certainly not interested in digging up the various threads/posts/papers I've read over the past years in order to spoon-feed them to "some guy on the internet". I pointed you in a direction where you might come across some good arguments challenging your position; if you went down that road and remain unconvinced, then so be it.
It...but certainly Mt. Gox could have done it well before its collapse. People were using it as a bank.
Lemme get this straight, you're claiming that:
1) because people had BTC on account with MtGox in order to facilitate trades, they were actually using MtGox as a bank
2) MtGox could have started writing loans using its customer's BTC balances
...have I got that right?
OK, then. I think I now have a much better idea of where you're coming from.
No, I used the on-site search, and missed that page. It says that FRB with Bitcoin is possible, which contradicts what you are saying.
Apparently you didn't bother to click through the links on that page (or read any of the threads on the forum) that express opposing viewpoints. Now, I don't really follow bitcoin that closely anymore, but the last I checked the matter was hardly settled.
But hey, if you can point to a real world example of an operational bitcoin bank practicing fractional reserve banking, I'd certainly be willing to reconsider my position. : )
Back to my example
Please, spare me. I can assure you that my professional credentials in the banking arena are...well, let's say they're above average.
They also used to have a role in safeguarding money, much less important with Bitcoin.
Off-topic, but you can't be serious. The total amount of stolen bitcoins compared to the total amount in circulation is staggering.
OK...did you find this page? Did you click the link on that page pointing to the debate on the topic here? Did you try searching Google using "fractional reserve" site:bitcointalk.org?
Derp. Welcome to America. As it's been this way since the days of Andrew Jackson.
How dare you try to lay our sorry state of affairs at the feet of President Jackson! Don't you realize what a fucked up country he inherited from John Quincy Adams?!? You've obviously been spending WAY to much time in your RWEC. (Right-Whig Echo Chamber)
This is fractional reserve banking. It works with any currency, as long as there's a way to lend it out.
Sorry, with bitcoin I'm afraid it's not that simple. At this point in the discussion, I'm not going to bother with writing out a treatise explaining my position. If you really want to understand the issues involved, I suggest you check the bitcoin wiki along with the many threads on the topic at bitcointalk.org.
Again, you seem to have a different definition than everyone else of what constitutes "lending". If individuals at MtGox were appropriating customer deposits, that's not a lending activity, that's a criminal activity. And it's still criminal even if they returned the BTC with interest.
Furthermore, at no time did MtGox sell or offer for sale any BTC loan products. If you're not making loans, you're not a bank by any generally accepted definition.
Sure sounds like it meets at least one public definition of fractional reserve banking.
...only if one subscribes to your ridiculous position that appropriating customer deposits is equivalent to lending. But please, continue making up new definitions for common words...it's quite entertaining. I'm sure you're a real hit at cocktail parties.
The original request said the system did not allow fractional reserve [banking], and you cannot believe that in light of the evidence that fractional reserve did exist.
You're right, I don't believe fractional reserve banking with bitcoin can exist, and you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.
MtGox was operating with a fractional reserve for some time. Either intentionally (criminal) or not (negligent).
So...in your mind, BTC exchanges are operating as fractional reserve banks. That's a rather...um, unique position to hold. I suspect the operators and customers of the exchanges would disagree with you, though.
There is at least one bitcoin "bank" currently offering to pay interest on bitcoin deposits.
Just because businesses are paying interest on bitcoin deposits and/or charging interest on BTC loans does not mean they qualify as fractional reserve banks. But since your definition of fractional reserve banking seems to differ from the generally accepted definition, I guess you can make any claim you want. In any case, it sure would help your argument(s) if you could back them up somehow.
Excellent points. I'd add another: it's tough to imagine why anyone would want to deposit BTC with a bitcoin "bank" in the first place. All of the usual reasons (other than earning interest) for storing money with another party simply don't apply when it comes to BTC.
And most definitely gold and bitcoin have both been used in fractional reserve situations.
I hope you won't mind if I ask you to cite a real-world example of a legitimate BTC business operating as a fractional reserve "bank". I'd be very interested to see exactly how that was done.
Read the rules closely and you can figure out it bans opening a BitCoin bank in NY. Basically, if you take deposits it needs to 100% back by BitCoins, so no fractional reserve banking.
You can't use bitcoin for fractional reserve banking; the system itself doesn't support it. Legislation banning fractional reserve banking in BTC is like legislation banning the sun from rising in the west.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not trying to build a case for anything, other than for folks to read the transcript and draw their own conclusions. I find that to be a better course of action than reading through a bunch of links to old news from outlets that thrive on sensationalism.
What is it YOU are making a case for? (rhetorical question; your motives are pretty obvious)
Certainly your conclusions are your own, but they apparently aren't very useful since they apparently aren't informed by an understanding of how countries and heads of state conduct foreign policy.
Apparently you have no knowledge whatsoever of what informs my conclusions. Apparently.
Of course I am willing to be persuaded.
Uh huh. Apparently you're persuaded by the "journalists" at The Moscow Times. I think that's just adorable. .
LOL. So have you always considered The Moscow Times to be a reputable source, or is your trust in them something new?
I read the transcript and I am perfectly capable of reaching my own conclusions without relying on The Moscow Times.
NATO agreed to defend the Ukraine in agreement for the Ukraine disarming itself of nuclear weapons.
Nope. One, NATO was not a party to The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Two, the BMSA doesn't require any of the parties to "defend" Ukraine militarily. Three, you might want to stop referring to Ukraine as "the Ukraine".
When one of the world's superpowers is threatening to make use of their nuclear arsenal, it is, most certainly, "stuff that matters".
When you read the quote in its full context (posted below), you'll find that Putin made no threat. This submission is simply cold fjord attempting to rouse the rabble. Unfortunately, /. editors seem to be complicit in the act.
OK, I guess this "story" qualifies as "stuff that matters", but can we at least get something more than a smattering of links to stories that are yesterday's news? Putin made his comment 4 days ago, and damn near every think in the summary points to stories that are three days old (and contain more than their share of unsubstantiated speculation).
I'm not normally one to make "why is this on slashdot?" posts. But taking into account the predilections of the submitter, I gotta say this comes off as a troll submission.
That Act will go down in American history as the single, most damaging, assault on liberty in this country.
In the end, a treaty is just words on paper. Russia clearly isn't honoring the treaty so it goes to line 6:
The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty. In any case, the US has met it's obligations under the agreement.
Ukraine disarmed itself in 2006 at our urging, with the understanding that we would come to their aid if ever it were needed.
The only "aid" that the US is obligated to provide Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is to seek UN Security Council action in the event that Ukraine is attacked (or threatened) with nuclear weapons.
The agreement is a one page document written in plain language. It's hard to imagine anyone who's read it would interpret it as you do.
Seems to me they are providing a very specialized form of computing power - one that Google's current cloud services don't offer. I guess Google could have built this service themselves, but I'm sure it was more cost-effective to simply acquire an existing service and integrate it into their platform. Put another way, Zync just got Borged. (much to the delight of Zync's owners I'm sure)
Ah, the turning point in my life. I remember it clearly. It all started on September 7, 2001.
Overall, I'm going to conclude these agencies are at least 40% incompetent.
That may be true generally, but unfortunately they appear to be 100% competent at at least one thing: cashing the blank check Congress has given them.
Yes, marketing is worse than government surveillance...
So a service provider gathering data on the way its customers use the service for marketing purposes (which the customer agreed to by contract) is worse than the government secretly surveilling its own citizens?
Nice!
It...but certainly Mt. Gox could have done it well before its collapse. People were using it as a bank.
Lemme get this straight, you're claiming that:
2) MtGox could have started writing loans using its customer's BTC balances
...have I got that right?
OK, then. I think I now have a much better idea of where you're coming from.
Cheers!
No, I used the on-site search, and missed that page. It says that FRB with Bitcoin is possible, which contradicts what you are saying.
Apparently you didn't bother to click through the links on that page (or read any of the threads on the forum) that express opposing viewpoints. Now, I don't really follow bitcoin that closely anymore, but the last I checked the matter was hardly settled.
But hey, if you can point to a real world example of an operational bitcoin bank practicing fractional reserve banking, I'd certainly be willing to reconsider my position. : )
Back to my example
Please, spare me. I can assure you that my professional credentials in the banking arena are...well, let's say they're above average.
They also used to have a role in safeguarding money, much less important with Bitcoin.
Off-topic, but you can't be serious. The total amount of stolen bitcoins compared to the total amount in circulation is staggering.
OK...did you find this page? Did you click the link on that page pointing to the debate on the topic here? Did you try searching Google using "fractional reserve" site:bitcointalk.org?
Derp. Welcome to America. As it's been this way since the days of Andrew Jackson.
How dare you try to lay our sorry state of affairs at the feet of President Jackson! Don't you realize what a fucked up country he inherited from John Quincy Adams?!? You've obviously been spending WAY to much time in your RWEC. (Right-Whig Echo Chamber)
Yeah, but does it do windows?
</ducks>
Nope. That's too much of a chore, boy.
This is fractional reserve banking. It works with any currency, as long as there's a way to lend it out.
Sorry, with bitcoin I'm afraid it's not that simple. At this point in the discussion, I'm not going to bother with writing out a treatise explaining my position. If you really want to understand the issues involved, I suggest you check the bitcoin wiki along with the many threads on the topic at bitcointalk.org.
Lending of those assets? Check.
[sigh]
Again, you seem to have a different definition than everyone else of what constitutes "lending". If individuals at MtGox were appropriating customer deposits, that's not a lending activity, that's a criminal activity. And it's still criminal even if they returned the BTC with interest.
Furthermore, at no time did MtGox sell or offer for sale any BTC loan products. If you're not making loans, you're not a bank by any generally accepted definition.
Sure sounds like it meets at least one public definition of fractional reserve banking.
...only if one subscribes to your ridiculous position that appropriating customer deposits is equivalent to lending. But please, continue making up new definitions for common words...it's quite entertaining. I'm sure you're a real hit at cocktail parties.
Cheers!
The original request said the system did not allow fractional reserve [banking], and you cannot believe that in light of the evidence that fractional reserve did exist.
You're right, I don't believe fractional reserve banking with bitcoin can exist, and you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary.
MtGox was operating with a fractional reserve for some time. Either intentionally (criminal) or not (negligent).
So...in your mind, BTC exchanges are operating as fractional reserve banks. That's a rather...um, unique position to hold. I suspect the operators and customers of the exchanges would disagree with you, though.
There is at least one bitcoin "bank" currently offering to pay interest on bitcoin deposits.
Just because businesses are paying interest on bitcoin deposits and/or charging interest on BTC loans does not mean they qualify as fractional reserve banks. But since your definition of fractional reserve banking seems to differ from the generally accepted definition, I guess you can make any claim you want. In any case, it sure would help your argument(s) if you could back them up somehow.
Excellent points. I'd add another: it's tough to imagine why anyone would want to deposit BTC with a bitcoin "bank" in the first place. All of the usual reasons (other than earning interest) for storing money with another party simply don't apply when it comes to BTC.
And most definitely gold and bitcoin have both been used in fractional reserve situations.
I hope you won't mind if I ask you to cite a real-world example of a legitimate BTC business operating as a fractional reserve "bank". I'd be very interested to see exactly how that was done.
I'm not sure what anything I wrote has to do with Blizzard, but it's pretty clear to me you've got a problem with the IRS. : )
Read the rules closely and you can figure out it bans opening a BitCoin bank in NY. Basically, if you take deposits it needs to 100% back by BitCoins, so no fractional reserve banking.
You can't use bitcoin for fractional reserve banking; the system itself doesn't support it. Legislation banning fractional reserve banking in BTC is like legislation banning the sun from rising in the west.