Winklevoss Twins on Bitcoin

[FreeBirdTim]

Got this from Wikipedia:

Falafel or felafel is a deep-fried ball, doughnut or patty made from ground chickpeas, fava beans, or both.

Man, that sounds delicious! LOL!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[fistfulladirt]

Guess that cancels my plans to go to the Amsterdam Falafelshop today! LOL! And I was hankering for a nice big salad for lunch, but SweetGreen won't take my cash. Bummer...


P.S. The poster removed his comment stating that some stores won't take cash, including the two I mentioned above...

Ha-ha Freebird you are quick! While I did read an article on a doom-n-gloom site this morning about new US startups not accepting cash at their businesses, I realized the link I posted was for a business in Amsterdam, doh!

 

[Johnnybravo300]

Sweden is also moving to get rid of cash. That should be a sign to America to go the other way haha.
I think it seems easier there since the govt is the biggest employer and they have tons of immigrants to pay welfare to. Just push a button and everyone gets payed?

Europe has a history of horrible decisions but a digital currency would be a socialists wet dream! Complete control of the money system and the people will accept it. They didn't even need guns to force them! Haha sad.
Too much fllouride in the water there I guess.

 

[1320]

Just in case some us are not interested in the first house fly of the season...lol

Below are the stats of the crypto coins offered on Coinbase, from March 19 2017 to today:

Bitcoin: $952-$8,900
Bitcoin Cash: $233-$1,058
Ethereum: $41-$559
Litecoin: $3-$168

One year of tulips taste pretty good. Bubbles never looked so beautiful. Ponzi perfect!

 

[Dave Rishar]

I think it seems easier there since the govt is the biggest employer and they have tons of immigrants to pay welfare to. Just push a button and everyone gets payed?

The government is the largest employer in the US as well. Given that federal employees are only paid electronically - as are welfare recipients, at least around here - the situation that you've presented sounds remarkably similar to ours.

Complete control of the money system and the people will accept it. They didn't even need guns to force them! Haha sad.

You've just described every nation that utilizes fiat currency, which is most of them...including the USA. If you were to ask me to name a nation that does not use fiat currency, I'd have to Google it. I'm not entirely sure that there are any left.

When we're dealing with fiat currency, there is little functional difference between pieces of papers and ones and zeroes, other than that the latter is more convenient most of the time. Either way, we're trading assets with no inherent worth because we've all agreed to assign value to them and/or the government has proclaimed, "This is the currency that we use here."

Hell, when you think about it the same logic applies to gold, silver, gemstones, etc. They all have some applications in certain industries, but those aren't the sorts of things that most people do at home. You can't eat them. You can't build a house out of them...not a good one, anyway. They don't cure diseases. We've assigned value to them because they're difficult to acquire and they look nice, and when we tire of them, we exchange them for pieces of paper and/or ones and zeroes. The reason why we initially used them as currency is because they were more convenient than bartering. The reason why nearly the entire world shifted to fiat was because it was more convenient than gold or silver. The reason why large sectors of society today have changed to ones and zeroes is because it's more convenient than cash. The concept of storing labor to ease trade is a great one, but every implementation to date has been more or less ridiculous when you give it some thought.

Is one truly more ridiculous than the other?

 

[Johnnybravo300]

The whole world went to fiat currencies at the same time, over 50 years ago.
The convenience of fiat is that the govt can print trillions based on a promise and backed by nothing. Gold and silver money limits the govt running amok because they can't make gold from thin air but with a fiat currency, a government (which produces nothing) can be a nations largest employer. See the connection?
They print what they need and inflate the purchasing power away and prices rise. This is the problem when money has no value such as fiat dollars.
Holding fiat over time loses value while gold is a store of value over time. Inflation is basically a hidden tax. That's why prices go up, the fiat dollar loses value. It's the basic principle of fiat currencies.
That's why hoarding large amounts of cash is a bad idea. Every year it buys less and it's by design.
However you decide to spend it via cash or digital is easy either way. We already have that option so no real need for cashless besides a control grab. Any convenience they tout won't be something that benefits us in the long run.
Hope this helps answer your question.

 

[Johnnybravo300]

Double post

 

[Dave Rishar]

However you decide to spend it via cash or digital is easy either way. We already have that option so no real need for cashless besides a control grab. Any convenience they tout won't be something that benefits us in the long run.

Kinda sorta. We already have a digital option that's centrally controlled. What crypto represents is a more convenient digital option that's more secure and (in most cases) is not centrally controlled. Is this good?

For consumers, generally yes. As there is no central authority manipulating your currency because the amount is fixed, you can indeed horde your wealth and have it maintain its value - theoretically, anyway. For central governments that wish to maintain tight control over their currency, not really. For banks, yes, but only if it's centralized - thus their interest in Ripple. Mass adoption of a decentralized crypto is the opposite of a control grab; in fact, it negates the existing level of control over currencies that governments (and banks in our case) currently exert.

The point that I was trying to make with my rhetorical questions is that there's nothing unusual at all about digital currency or Monopoly money. Most of us have known nothing else. The ones that have known something else have forgotten how much of a pain in the rear it was, and why everyone got off the gold or silver standard in the first place.

No issues with the rest of your post.

 

[FreeBirdTim]

It's may be a good idea in theory, but it's backed by nothing. You can't just make up a currency and then state that it's worth 20 grand a bitcoin. Has to be backed by gold or a government that will honor the currency.

Venezuela is a perfect example of what will go wrong when a currency isn't backed by a government. They are devaluing their currency whenever they feel like it, which has destroyed their currency's value. You have to have someone or something that guarantees that a currency will hold it's value or it's just a scam...

 

[1320]

It's may be a good idea in theory, but it's backed by nothing. You can't just make up a currency and then state that it's worth 20 grand a bitcoin. Has to be backed by gold or a government that will honor the currency.

Venezuela is a perfect example of what will go wrong when a currency isn't backed by a government. They are devaluing their currency whenever they feel like it, which has destroyed their currency's value. You have to have someone or something that guarantees that a currency will hold it's value or it's just a scam...

Historically—that is, until the early 1970s—currency as we know it was backed by a commodity. Generally, that commodity was Gold or Silver. It was in 1971 that the United States switched to fiat currency, which means that our paper money is no longer backed by physical Gold. It has a free-floating value, independent of the value of Gold, Silver or any other commodity, and it is backed by the word of the Government of the United States alone. Theoretically, this makes USD and Bitcoin equal, since Bitcoin is not backed by any commodity.

"it is backed by the word of the Government of the United States alone"

Another feature of Bitcoin, related to its lack of backing by any commodity or government, is that it is a decentralized currency. Simply put, this means that there is no central governing body for Bitcoin. Many people contribute to the administration of Bitcoin and the keeping of its public ledger. Bitcoin’s power is distributed into the hands of many, with no one person theoretically holding too much. Centralized currency allows great power to rest in the hands of just a few—a government or a government agency, for example. The idea of dispersing power is alluring. That public ledger and block chain certainly keeps the proverbial fox out of the hen house.

"That public ledger and block chain certainly keeps the proverbial fox out of the hen house."

 

[1320]

Consider how much cash you personally handle. You get a paycheck that you take to the bank – or it’s auto deposited without you even seeing the paper that it’s not printed on. You then use a debit card (or a checkbook, if you’re old school) to access those funds. At best, you see 10% of it in a cash form in your pocket or in your pocketbook. So, it turns out that 90% of the funds that you manage are virtual – electrons in a spreadsheet or database.

But wait – those are U.S. funds (or those of whatever country you hail from), safe in the bank and guaranteed by the full faith of the FDIC up to about $250K per account, right? Well, not exactly. Your financial institution may only required to keep 10% of its deposits on deposit. In some cases, it’s less. It lends the rest of your money out to other people for up to 30 years. It charges them for the loan, and charges you for the privilege of letting them lend it out.

How does money get created?

Your bank gets to create money by lending it out.

Say you deposit $1,000 with your bank. They then lend out $900 of it. Suddenly you have $1000 and someone else has $900. Magically, there’s $1900 floating around where before there was only a grand.

Now say your bank instead lends 900 of your dollars to another bank. That bank in turn lends $810 to another bank, which then lends $720 to a customer. Poof! $3,430 in an instant – almost $2500 created out of nothing – as long as the bank follows your government’s central bank rules.

Creation of Bitcoin is as different from bank funds’ creation as cash is from electrons. It is not controlled by a government’s central bank, but rather by consensus of its users and nodes. It is not created by a limited mint in a building, but rather by distributed open source software and computing. And it requires a form of actual work for creation.

 

[1320]

This is what we should fear, this is a good reason to take a hard look at crypto currency: In the sentences below, I present you the worlds greatest Ponzi scheme, bar none!

Say you deposit $1,000 with your bank. They then lend out $900 of it. Suddenly you have $1000 and someone else has $900. Magically, there’s $1900 floating around where before there was only a grand.

Now say your bank instead lends 900 of your dollars to another bank. That bank in turn lends $810 to another bank, which then lends $720 to a customer. Poof! $3,430 in an instant – almost $2500 created out of nothing – as long as the bank follows your government’s central bank rules.

 

[FreeBirdTim]

Banks are totally corrupt and should never be trusted. But as long as the government bails them out whenever they screw up, your money is safe.

Who can you go to if Bitcoin suddenly decides to keep your money and not let you withdraw or sell it? Who's controlling it? Bob, the stoner from UCLA? Fred, the drug dealer in Mexico? Does anyone really know who's manning the ledgers? It is very easy to scam people when there's no transparency regarding the ledgers. Just my take on it...

 

[Paleo_joe]

That’s not a Ponzi scheme. That’s how loans and credit work. If you deposit $1000 and the bank sits on it, how do you get interest and how do businesses find money to borrow to grow?
Tying the supply of money to something someone mines, physically or virtually, is to tie economic growth of your nation to growth in mining.

 

[Paleo_joe]

Nor is inflation a hidden tax. If it is, increase the value of my house 5% per year or my wages 3% per year and see if I cry about it.

 

[Kansas_Jayhawk]

Banks are totally corrupt and should never be trusted. But as long as the government bails them out whenever they screw up, your money is safe.

Who can you go to if Bitcoin suddenly decides to keep your money and not let you withdraw or sell it? Who's controlling it? Bob, the stoner from UCLA? Fred, the drug dealer in Mexico? Does anyone really know who's manning the ledgers? It is very easy to scam people when there's no transparency regarding the ledgers. Just my take on it...

Banks are corrupt? Based on what?

Our government is totally corrupt that most would agree.

 

[1320]

Banks are totally corrupt and should never be trusted. But as long as the government bails them out whenever they screw up, your money is safe.

Who can you go to if Bitcoin suddenly decides to keep your money and not let you withdraw or sell it? Who's controlling it? Bob, the stoner from UCLA? Fred, the drug dealer in Mexico? Does anyone really know who's manning the ledgers? It is very easy to scam people when there's no transparency regarding the ledgers. Just my take on it...

You control your crypto. You buy crypto then put it in a "wallet" that you own, bam, it's no longer on the web. Spend when needed. Only way for you to lose control is if you lose your wallet or it's password. If someone steals you're wallet, they must have your password to access the funds.

 

[1320]

Banks are corrupt? Based on what?

Our government is totally corrupt that most would agree.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-big-banks-are-corrupt_b_7418508.html

Wells Fargo comes to mind most recent. Don't think that's mentioned in the link.

 

[1320]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_account_fraud_scandal

Employees were encouraged to order credit cards for pre-approved customers without their consent, and to use their own contact information when filling out requests to prevent customers from discovering the fraud. Employees also created fraudulent checking and savings accounts, a process that sometimes involved the movement of money out of legitimate accounts. The creation of these additional products was made possible in part through a process known as "pinning". By setting the client's pin to "0000", bankers were able to control client accounts and were able to enroll them in programs such as online banking.[9]

Measures taken by employees to satisfy quotas included the enrollment of the homeless in fee-accruing financial products.[10] Reports of unreachable goals and inappropriate conduct by employees to supervisors did not result in changes to expectations.[11]

After the Los Angeles Times article, the bank made nominal efforts to reform the company's sales culture.[12] Despite alleged reforms, the bank was fined $185 million in early September 2016 due to the creation of some 1,534,280 unauthorized deposit accounts and 565,433 credit-card accounts between 2011 and 2016.[13] Later estimates, released in May 2017, placed the number of fraudulent accounts at closer to a total of 3,500,000.[14]

In December 2016, it was revealed that employees of the bank also issued unwanted insurance policies.[15] These included life insurance policies by Prudential Financial and renters' insurance policies by Assurant.[16] Three whistle-blowers, Prudential employees, brought the fraud to light. Prudential later fired these employees,[17] and announced that it might seek damages from Wells Fargo

 

[Johnnybravo300]

It's either coming full circle or it's in a death spiral! Not sure yet! Hehe