4 ms·

This is what I kept trying to say on here but always get downvotes. Nation states will fight hard and dirty against digital currencies, as it completely underm

This is what I kept trying to say on here but always get downvotes. Nation states will fight hard and dirty against digital currencies, as it completely undermines their fiat currency inflationary economies.

betterunix 13y ago
You keep getting downvotes because you are wrong. Alternative currencies -- digital or not -- in no way threaten fiat currencies. The reason is well-understood by economists: law-abiding citizens and businesses have frequent interactions with the government, which demands payment in a fiat currency. The vast majority of businesses that accept Bitcoin payments, even on the black market, do so only because they ultimately convert Bitcoin into fiat currency (hence the popularity of Bitcoin payment processors that do this automatically).
- cpursley 13y ago
  I'm not wrong because of the above example. Nation states have begun coming down on digital currency and this trend will only increase.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    You are wrong about the reason. Nobody is worried that any digital currency is going to undermine fiat currencies. The concern is about enforcing the same regulations that apply to other financial services, which a lot of digital currencies have not bothered to abide by.
ars 13y ago
> Nation states will fight hard and dirty against digital currencies, as it completely undermines their fiat currency inflationary economies. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
- cpursley 13y ago
  No, inflationary fiat policy steals from the frugal, savers and fixed income people and rewards the people at the top of the pyramid (financial institutions) who get cheap money from the central banks. Having alternative currencies ensures accountability and honest money. Nation States don't want this, as it restricts their expansion.
  - ars 13y ago
    I hope you are not implying that bitcoin is better. Bitcoin creates a super-elite of early adopters who control (in percentage terms) an amount of currency unheard of in history. The curve of releasing bitcoins was done backwards - it should have released very few bitcoins at first (while there weren't a lot of people using it), and more (i.e. faster) later on as it got more popular. As is, fewer and fewer bitcoins are being released as time goes on (i.e as more people use it), and that's an utter disaster for a currency. I hope bitcoin never becomes a real currency since it would create a monetary inequality such as the world has never seen.
    - rikur 13y ago
      So money created by the people for the people will create monetary inequality, where as Fiat currencies where the monopoly of money creation is given to handful of super-rich central bankers is not? Not to mention that US Dollars for example are created by a private institution called "The Federal Reserve" and lended out with interest. Or that HSBC has the blood of tens of thousands of drug war victims on their hands for enabling the business in the first place, and get's away with a <10% fine of the profits. The curve is modeled to mimick that of Golds, because that's what Bitcoin in the end is: Virtual Gold, where tangibility is replaced with knowledgeability. And because all that Bitcoin "wallets" are in the end is information, it makes things possible that we could have never imagined before. Just because you missed the first Bitcoin opportunity doesn't mean that Bitcoin would be inherently bad. Please educate yourself.
      - ars 13y ago
PeterisP 13y ago
They will fight against e-currencies not because of protecting fiat currency but because of fighting anonymous payments. Providing anonymous payments currently is illegal in pretty much all of the world; No matter how you design an e-currency, it has to be either (1) non-anonymous, (2) insignificantly small so that noone cares, or (3) temporary, since any payment service providing businesses will be closed down. In essence, if you can send me money to be forwarded to person X; then that is heavily regulated, and unless I apply for special protection and licencing, I will (a) be completely liable for the transferred amount if the money "is criminal" - even if you/someone else stole it, and I "just" forwarded it; and (b) be fined for providing such services without the many mandatory consumer protections, such as having capital/bonds to guarantee full payment to everyone even if I go bankrupt.

betterunix 13y ago

You keep getting downvotes because you are wrong. Alternative currencies -- digital or not -- in no way threaten fiat currencies. The reason is well-understood by economists: law-abiding citizens and businesses have frequent interactions with the government, which demands payment in a fiat currency. The vast majority of businesses that accept Bitcoin payments, even on the black market, do so only because they ultimately convert Bitcoin into fiat currency (hence the popularity of Bitcoin payment processors that do this automatically).

cpursley 13y ago
I'm not wrong because of the above example. Nation states have begun coming down on digital currency and this trend will only increase.
- betterunix 13y ago
  You are wrong about the reason. Nobody is worried that any digital currency is going to undermine fiat currencies. The concern is about enforcing the same regulations that apply to other financial services, which a lot of digital currencies have not bothered to abide by.

ars 13y ago

> Nation states will fight hard and dirty against digital currencies, as it completely undermines their fiat currency inflationary economies. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

cpursley 13y ago
No, inflationary fiat policy steals from the frugal, savers and fixed income people and rewards the people at the top of the pyramid (financial institutions) who get cheap money from the central banks. Having alternative currencies ensures accountability and honest money. Nation States don't want this, as it restricts their expansion.
- ars 13y ago
  I hope you are not implying that bitcoin is better. Bitcoin creates a super-elite of early adopters who control (in percentage terms) an amount of currency unheard of in history. The curve of releasing bitcoins was done backwards - it should have released very few bitcoins at first (while there weren't a lot of people using it), and more (i.e. faster) later on as it got more popular. As is, fewer and fewer bitcoins are being released as time goes on (i.e as more people use it), and that's an utter disaster for a currency. I hope bitcoin never becomes a real currency since it would create a monetary inequality such as the world has never seen.
  - rikur 13y ago
    So money created by the people for the people will create monetary inequality, where as Fiat currencies where the monopoly of money creation is given to handful of super-rich central bankers is not? Not to mention that US Dollars for example are created by a private institution called "The Federal Reserve" and lended out with interest. Or that HSBC has the blood of tens of thousands of drug war victims on their hands for enabling the business in the first place, and get's away with a <10% fine of the profits. The curve is modeled to mimick that of Golds, because that's what Bitcoin in the end is: Virtual Gold, where tangibility is replaced with knowledgeability. And because all that Bitcoin "wallets" are in the end is information, it makes things possible that we could have never imagined before. Just because you missed the first Bitcoin opportunity doesn't mean that Bitcoin would be inherently bad. Please educate yourself.
    - ars 13y ago

PeterisP 13y ago

They will fight against e-currencies not because of protecting fiat currency but because of fighting anonymous payments. Providing anonymous payments currently is illegal in pretty much all of the world; No matter how you design an e-currency, it has to be either (1) non-anonymous, (2) insignificantly small so that noone cares, or (3) temporary, since any payment service providing businesses will be closed down. In essence, if you can send me money to be forwarded to person X; then that is heavily regulated, and unless I apply for special protection and licencing, I will (a) be completely liable for the transferred amount if the money "is criminal" - even if you/someone else stole it, and I "just" forwarded it; and (b) be fined for providing such services without the many mandatory consumer protections, such as having capital/bonds to guarantee full payment to everyone even if I go bankrupt.