Bitcoin Cant Be Allowed

Discussion in 'Politics' started by NorseMythology, Nov 2, 2014.

  1. When the people threaten the system, its simple, they just change the law, and I'm sure 'they' will claim its to protect us from this boogieman. They should have to justify each law in logical form.

    Bitcoin threatens the system

    We are the system

    Therefore bitcoin threatens us

    Making bitcoin illegal quells the threat

    Therefore we make bitcoin illegal

    Well theirs might say something different, just saying.
  2. We are not the system. Many of "we" don't support the system. Bitcoin threatens greedy million/billionaires if anything, not us.
  3. I don't think anyone really cares, to be honest. It's basically considered to be an investment asset. It's not likely to ever be a "real" currency. 
    I'm sure as fuck not buying any, but it doesn't bother me (or anyone I know of) if others do.
    People are buying goods with bitcoin, it's a real currency I'd say.
    What I see people doing lately is jumping on a new crypto when it first hits the market (bitcoin and dogecoin alternatives), and then mining it for the first month or so (when it is easiest to mine) and then flipping those cryptos into silver or gold.
    I think this is a smart way to play it.
    Who knows, maybe in the next ten or fifteen years cryptos will merge with physical currency to an extent (portable wallet) and will be more common. However, I think OP is right, government and the banks that own those governments will probably seek to outlaw it - saying that it is used to fund terrorism, is too volatile, and can be manipulated too easily by hackers (which are actually all claims that apply to large banks, lol).
  6. #6 -Martyr, Nov 2, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2014
    The problem is people look at bitcoin as just a cryptocurrency, when it's a groundbreaking technology. The implications of Bitcoin at a political or sociological level is pretty evident. Bitcoin for many is a way out, and for others it's a way to reestablish their sovereignty and side-step the hard-pressed compromise of forfeiting privacy, control, and transparency with their financial dealings and income. The reason regulators are quick to go for the throat with cryptocurrencies and projects that act as layers upon Bitcoin and the blockchain, is because so much of the community (I mean let's face it anarchists, and nerds are the only sub-cultures that can even understand bitcoin, let alone how to effectively use, store, and trade it) fights for the perpetuation of a decentralized platform with no third party intermediaries, which comes down to America wanting to control anything potentially profitable or hazardous to Uncle Sam's Obamacare plan. Technologies like Bitcoin were created by Satoshi Nakamoto, either an individual person or group under the same name, in order to circumvent the already horrendously flawed and corrupt networks and methodologies of a system that we most certainly are not. The act of being and being a part of are completely different, if you wanted to attack that from a philosophical perspective. None of us got to choose where we were born, when, or the parameters of our frames and genetics. The fact that we are essentially born very complex livestock, does not mean we have to or should resonate with the system that made life before the slaughterhouse slightly more industrialized than other parts of the world. At least it's not a system that I personally resonate with. What is hazardous for some, is not hazardous for all. Generally speaking, it is the lamb that preaches ethics to the wolves, and the position of who the wolves and the lamb are often changes throughout history.

    On the issue of Bitcoin, it's one of the first times where the technology and the lambs are there before the wolves. And not only that, but they have fortified, banded together, and now essentially open source and do copious amounts of research to utilize stronger encryption and layers upon the blockchain that only further anonymize and strengthen bitcoin wallets, the technology at a core level, and the fundamental understanding when it comes to the politics and technological aspects by the right people who will utilize the knowledge in a way that isn't entirely self-serving or detrimental to the whole. These are selfless people who contribute and who share in order to better a cause they believe in. Though some definitely do have alternative motives with the cryptocurrencies we have- surprise, surprise... most of those individuals are members of parties within the Bitcoin community that are focused on attempting to make it more centralized. Mt. Gox was a tremendous failure that essentially moved in this direction, and there's an organization called The Foundation that is seeking to essentially attempt to make Bitcoin what credit cards already are in terms of both an easy-to-monitor log of your financial spending and tendencies, as well as an easy means to acquire debt.
    You're damn right it threatens the system. It whips its cock out and takes a piss on it, and we're still not even hitting the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we'll probably discover and create on top of the original Satoshi protocol. But the Jesus-freak Republicans and the technology-conservative (minus drones of course) Democrats are always going to be behind. They lack the imagination, purpose, incentive. Not only that, but it's a very grim situation for them- Bitcoin is essentially just an anarchist's wet dream, despite some pretty obvious flaws that many are attempting to fix, overcome, or essentially patch, so I can imagine obtaining research on their end from a community that is almost entirely for decentralization, can only result in an informational slow crawl. Then again, who would really know, except them?
    Fuck the system.
  7. When i used "we" i was talking from "their" point of view. I know a bit about bitcoin but i admit i am largely ignorant. Ill have to do some research. Having said that, i dont see how it could be worse than Federal Reserve paper. And i really dont like the idea of debt, currancy is supposed to represent actual value. For instance, I believe house prices are kept artificially by feds tinkering with interest rates and the peoples consent to mortgages (which is to say i have not created the value of this house but i promise i will over the next 30years). Every time someone takes out a mortgage they are participating in this scheme... banks would have to sell houses cheaper or let them deteriorate if people didnt buy a house until they have created the value. I dont know about bitcoin but i hope it represents value unlike the Feds printing money that represents nothing. By this method of devaluing our currency they are essentially stealing from us constantly without us realizing. Say we have 100trillion in actual value as represented by a nice pumpkin pie, and the feds print another 10trillion, we now have a 10% devaluation across the board. The pie didnt get bigger, but if you want to own a quarter of the pie it now costs 27.5trillion instead of 25trillion. It took more of your dollar to buy a slice. Now assume your loan to buy will end up being 30trillion, all the while they are investing the money as you pay it back, and the fed keeps devaluing your money by printing more as you work to pay off your pie. Its hard to figure out how much you got screwed in the end. This is why i hope bitcoin is actually representative.
  8. sounds more like a barter. Just because something has intrinsic value does not make it a currency.

    On another note:

    Bit coins are not some radically new idea, its not that much different than PayPal in the sense that you have a digitally recorded number, your funds, and you can buy whatever you want, so long as the seller recognizes that as a payment option. It probably cost more to convert bitcoin to cash than paypal funds to cash, but its the same idea.
  9. #9 -Martyr, Nov 2, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2014
    They're radically different on a fundamental and idealistic level, but present similar benefits and contrasting cons. Paypal, for all intents and purposes, is fine for the majority of people. It has fraud protection, it has privacy features that do add some security to the exchange- more than bitcoin would if you didn't know how to utilize security protocols at a commendable level of efficiency, and that's without even bringing scripts into the equation. Where bitcoin shines, is in pragmatic incentive. Farms use bitcoin to trade and to buy resources that allow them to make a living and have crops. Almost like a universal currency, as seed banks, online markets, etc, all allow bitcoin- increasingly more so. Organizations, parties, and politicians which use political and legal coercion of American-based companies, or even those outside of the US, in an effort to cut off the route access to groups or organizations that don't favor the state, is nothing new. Paypal denied Wikileaks and organizations like the Pirate Bay charitable donations that were rightfully there, as well as froze accounts that they had been knowingly servicing for years prior to being coaxed into compliance. Groups that wanted a decentralized means of enacting direct trade without third party intermediaries, now had the means to begin acting in solidarity and out of mutual necessity.These are answers that centralized companies like Paypal cannot answer, because the folly of companies like Paypal, is that they don't necessarily exist to make the world better for anyone, except Paypal.
    With Bitcoin, obviously the idea is similar. A technology designed to circumvent another technology, would inherently pose innate qualities of what it's adapted to combat. For most people Paypal is enough, but the fact that there are options that can extend to more groups and more people as a result of essentially skewing an already-present idea, shouldn't minimize the merit of the technology. That's how innovation has always worked. Every innovation is a copy of a copy that is made better through trial and error and the adaptation of newer technologies. Bitcoins very much the same. The difference is bitcoin is the industrial revolution within the industrial revolution. Bitcoin is a technology that will allow for the creation of additional technologies- some of which won't even have anything to do with cryptocurrencies. They'll be something like new privacy features that can be applied to literally every browser, as an implication of copious amounts of multi-browser compatibility testing with bitcoin wallets over the course of like 5 to 10 years. Bitcoin's technology will do for finance and various aspects of our sociological constructs, what 3D printing will do to just about every industry in the next 10 years.
  10. #10 SupaAPE, Nov 2, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 2, 2014
    Bitcoin is the future , if anybody is denying that , then they don't really understand world affairs and aren't paying attention, they are straight up sleeping
  11. #11 SupaAPE, Nov 2, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 2, 2014
    LoL dude , u need 2 get ur head out of ur A_$
    edit: DUDE OMG , ur so CONFUSED ROFL , WTF ?
    Anybody that's on the fence about bitcoin , will get utterly annihilated from the mindfuck they will incur reading THAT LOL
  12. #12 Runningw235, Nov 3, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2014
    In a sense you're correct, but it's not money in the sense of being the lowest common denominator of all trade.
    It's just some trade. A bunch of us who enjoy prime rib can trade amongst ourselves with it, but that doesn't mean it's feasible to purchase financial assets in the global economy. It's too limited in its application, at least for now.
    Again, I have no problem with it. I would just never buy it.
    Agreed. It's theoretically possible, but very unlikely. It's not something people want to hold onto for very long, and this is for good reason. 
    As soon as someone says they buy and hold bitcoin, they aren't really taken seriously as an investor. Because its so limited in trade applications, there isn't really a great way to project its value over time. First movers in anything like this can do well. After that, it's totally up in the air.
  14. If you believe that two people engaging in a voluntary transaction using Bitcoin threatens you in any way, you should seriously examine your life. 
    But if you're Janet Yellen, then I would have to agree that it does threaten you. And it should. Fuck your central bank. 
  15. bitcoin is just a popular subset of crypto coin technology. 
    there's no way they can "shut down" bitcoin... because underlying platform is completely transparent and fully decentralized. 
  16. I was speaking from their point of view. My point is; their lust for power and control could be upset simply by bitcoin and they are reacting to this 'threat' to their system. By 'they' i mean the banking powers at least, but could be considered a threat for the entire system. They are engaged in so many wars, so much spying, disinformation, spin, the healthcare fiasco, war on drugs, protests, manipulating countries with sanctions, and on and on the list could go, they are losing control and i sense panic. In addition they have isolated us from our allies like Brazil and Germany. It seems like as time goes on its bound to come crashing down, its just too big to manage and it seems like many people sense something is coming. If it collapses before we turn this ship around i hope the world doesnt equate the government with the people, there is a complete disconnect and i hope we are forgiven. I dont think any one person (including myself) can truly understand the extent of misery this 'government' has caused the world. Bitcoin, whistleblowers, marijuana legalization, the internet and cellphones in general all are challenging the status quo and this, to me, is a positive thing. They have attempted to uproot the republic we established, convinced us its a democracy, yet its operated like an aristocracy. Their system has little appeal to me, go bitcoin!
  17. #18 -Martyr, Nov 3, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2014
    You don't have to buy. You can mine and convert to other more profitable cryptocurrencies and hold, sell, or trade with it. Whether or not you perceive bitcoin as real money, is really irrelevant if it functions the same for those who want a way out of the system and a means to trade freely with one another. Obviously this is why bitcoin has become such an embraced aspect of the Libertarian arsenal. I'd say the prime rib thing is a bad example. Bitcoin's a lot more complex than that under the hood, but if you don't know how it works, how it ingrains itself in society, and the viability of it on a global scale, it's a pointless thing to really debate. There are people who make thousands of dollars to tens of thousands of dollars off of the mining process and utilizing cryptocurrencies. Hashing is a bit of an investment, but so is going into debt for four years of partying, taking out a bank loan to start a business, or just about anything in life that can be financially-profitable. Whether or not you can make money with it, essentially comes down to how much you embrace the technology, and general IQ on how it works from a lexical level to a political one. Someone who wants to be an accountant or work for a bank, needs to know everything about the way the centralized banking infrastructures works. If you want to get ahead with bitcoin, people are going to have to go a little deeper than "it's theoretical money derived through mathematics, so it's not real theoretical money like fiat currency that's printed on paper." Just a pointless argument that people seem to make when it comes to crytocurrencies.
    Once you have bitcoin or cryptocurrency in your possession, if you know how to use them securely as well as utilize privacy protocols, no one will ever be able to access, steal, or use your bitcoin to bail out bankers or cover the debts of madmen. You don't have to worry about the collapse of this currency or that currency, because the market extends to every existing currency. Transactions with bitcoin are also extremely fast and cheap by comparison to cash or traditional banking accounts. Someone made I think a wire transfer with bitcoin of a million dollars, and it cost him next to nothing, whereas just going through the traditional banks would warrant a moderate chunk out of that from fees alone. It's yours, forever, and that's extremely enticing for the nerd culture when 1 bitcoin is worth like $300 as it stands. I've seen it as low as like $90 per bitcoin, and as high as like $500-something per bitcoin. The fact that it fluctuates and is a deflationary currency also makes it extremely competitive and profitable for those who invest in it. The kind of novelty of technology in the digital age, essentially ensures that there will always be a significant buzz with bitcoin, so you never worry about people just "dropping" the tech. What flaws it does have like the blockchain essentially just being a ledger of your purchases and spending habits, are quickly being delt with through adaptations to the technology like trustless mixing, which literally randomizes the exchanges of a group of people at the same time so you'd never know who is doing what or who is who, integrations with Tor for anonymity, etc.
    It's impossible to say which cryptocurrencies will work or fail in the long run. This is all so new and so experimental. But bitcoin as a technology, existing as it does today, can never be undone. Now that we have bitcoin, all technology that is derived from it stands to create a better more efficient device for circumventing centralization. And that's why US regulators are so quick to either want to attempt to bury it or adopt it. They think that if they get rid of bitcoin, which essentially started the cryptocurrency wave of today (wasn't the first), that they'll be able to take the thorn out of their side for good. It's just not happening. In a Darwinian-like turnout, it would seem general consensus on which cryptocurrencies are strong and offer the most, are the only thing that determines whether or not a cryptocurrency lives or dies. If people are interested in the code, the work, and the future of bitcoin, it'll probably adapt to outgrow any adversity it faces. If people could give a shit, it'll die. Even cryptocurrencies like Dogecoin, which were started as like a joke, are extremely valuable to miners now.
  18. #19 Runningw235, Nov 4, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 4, 2014
    It still isn't really money. It could become one, but as of now it is not.
    -Mises Institute, Nikolay Gertchev
    Most of what you talked about has little to do with what money and currency are. The fact that something is used as a medium of exchange doesn't make it money, and it most certainly does not make it a viable alternative.
    You argue that bitcoin has "become part of the libertarian arsenal", while clearly not all libertarians and their respective institutions agree with you. The Mises Institute is about as libertarian as it gets. 
    This has nothing to do with whether bitcoins are "good" or "bad". They really are not suited to global trade as we know it. This could change, but as it stands it is not money. 
    The intricacies of how bitcoins are mined, how individuals can earn them, etc are largely irrelevant to monetary theory and practice. 

Share This Page