3 ms·

A serious question in return: What's wrong with speculation and evading government interference?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
atmosx 12y ago
Depends, do you believe in 'democracy'? If not, then nothing is wrong with that. If you do, then there's a whole lot of things that can go wrong. ps. The argument that we don't have democracy today in the western world, holds true to an extend but it is as close to democracy as we can get.
- innguest 12y ago
  But "crony capitalism" is a much more accurate way to describe the US right now than "Democracy", so why do you choose this over that? I think it's a very weak argument to say "this is the closest we can currently get to X, therefore it can be said we have X". What we have now, as I said above, can be said to be closer to other things than it is closer to democracy. We should then pick the thing we're closest to, out of all the things we're close to. And that is not democracy.
  - atmosx 12y ago
    Bitcoin != Democracy. BTC could allow an anonymous party to control a currency, given enough % of that currency in circulation. Compare that to the current system. You may not like it, but currently the central banker (who creates policies for the good of his country) is appointed by the governments (ECB/FED). The later sounds extremely more democratic to me. Now BTC is owned mostly by techies and small, adventurous investors. Once countries and investment bankers step in, hell will break loose. You don't want to seriously depend on something that you don't have a clue who controls.
    - innguest 12y ago
      > BTC could allow an anonymous party to control a currency, How, exactly? They can't control the minting so I'm not sure what you mean by "control". The Fed is already an anonymous (because no one is personally responsible) party controlling the US dollar. > currently the central banker ... creates policies for the good of his country This is highly debatable. You can't just say that and pretend it is indisputable. I reject that premise; in my eyes the way the Fed handles money only shows their misunderstanding of what is value, how it is created, and so on. So no. > The later sounds extremely more democratic to me. So let me rephrase it. You barely vote for the US president (since it's indirect) and he/she and their team then appoint some other people to manage the only currency they will let you use in their country. This is what you are saying is "extremely more democratic" than some other thing? I'm not even arguing that Bitcoin is democratic, it only needs to be more fair by allowing choice in order to be better than the Fed's USD. If you like democracy so much you should be fostering competing currencies so we can vote by (literally) putting our money where our mouth is. The old saying applies here, if the Fed's USD is so awesome then why do they need to force us to use it? > Once countries and investment bankers step in, hell will break loose. How so? > You don't want to seriously depend on something that you don't have a clue who controls. Which is why people are desperate to move away from the US dollar.
      - atmosx 12y ago
        >> BTC could allow an anonymous party to control a currency, > How, exactly? They can't control the minting so I'm not sure what you mean by "control". The Fed is already an anonymous (because no one is personally responsible) party controlling the US dollar. By buying the largest chunk of bitcoins. Simple as that if you don't understand you clearly don't have a clue about what you're talking about. You're making rounds without saying anything: The FED is there to ensure stability. You don't agree with their policies for a variety of reasons, I'm all with you. But what you're promoting here has nothing to do with democracy or fairness. It's more of a jungle where the big guy eats the small guy for lunch. The old saying is stupid because everyone who studied monetary policies knows that currencies are enforced upon population (taxes). I already explained what a player with big % of BTC can do to manipulate a free-from-regulation market, as BTC is. But it's really elementary, if you know how stock markets work. Who is desperate and moving away from the USD? You seem to switch from micro-view to macro-view in no time and back. You're talking about average Joe again or Iran/China/Russia for example? Because average Joe and China are not on the same level currency-wise.
- jerguismi 12y ago
  I believe most democratic country will vote in favour of bitcoin, eg. letting people speculate with it freely and use it somewhat freely (you still have to pay tax).
  - atmosx 12y ago
    I think that you're fond of bitcoin (the protocol) but you clearly don't understand the social ramifications of what you're talking about: Democracy and anonymous, decentralized currencies do not play well together :-)
    - jnbiche 12y ago
      > Democracy and anonymous, decentralized currencies do not play well together So now the true colors come out, cute little emoticons notwithstanding. Do you want to ban Bitcoin?
      - atmosx 12y ago
        My true colors were there from the beginning, if you cared to look[1]. No, ban bitcoin is a huge mistake IMHO. BTC is a great innovation and has extremely interesting features. I already mentioned transaction speed elsewhere. I believe that we need to wait and see if volatility stabilizes at some point. Then I'd like to see an easier way of conversion from currency-to-btc and back. That said I'd never put the faith of a country to BTC, but sure as hell I'd like to have it around and use it as I see fit (either as an asset or an investment). But relying grandma's pension on BTC? That's unethical to me (and stupid). [1] http://www.convalesco.org/blog/2014/02/11/on-the-matter-of-bitcoin/ http://www.convalesco.org/blog/2014/02/11/on-the-matter-of-b...
        jnbiche 12y ago
        >But relying grandma's pension on BTC? That's unethical to me (and stupid). Who has suggested investing pensions in Bitcoin? I've never heard anyone make a bona fide argument for this.
- fredbrown 12y ago
  > do you believe in democracy? I can get ~$500 for a bitcoin. Idealistic political concepts are worth nothing on the market.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Depends, do you believe in 'democracy'? If not, then nothing is wrong with that. If you do, then there's a whole lot of things that can go wrong. ps. The argument that we don't have democracy today in the western world, holds true to an extend but it is as close to democracy as we can get.

innguest 12y ago
But "crony capitalism" is a much more accurate way to describe the US right now than "Democracy", so why do you choose this over that? I think it's a very weak argument to say "this is the closest we can currently get to X, therefore it can be said we have X". What we have now, as I said above, can be said to be closer to other things than it is closer to democracy. We should then pick the thing we're closest to, out of all the things we're close to. And that is not democracy.
- atmosx 12y ago
  Bitcoin != Democracy. BTC could allow an anonymous party to control a currency, given enough % of that currency in circulation. Compare that to the current system. You may not like it, but currently the central banker (who creates policies for the good of his country) is appointed by the governments (ECB/FED). The later sounds extremely more democratic to me. Now BTC is owned mostly by techies and small, adventurous investors. Once countries and investment bankers step in, hell will break loose. You don't want to seriously depend on something that you don't have a clue who controls.
  - innguest 12y ago
    > BTC could allow an anonymous party to control a currency, How, exactly? They can't control the minting so I'm not sure what you mean by "control". The Fed is already an anonymous (because no one is personally responsible) party controlling the US dollar. > currently the central banker ... creates policies for the good of his country This is highly debatable. You can't just say that and pretend it is indisputable. I reject that premise; in my eyes the way the Fed handles money only shows their misunderstanding of what is value, how it is created, and so on. So no. > The later sounds extremely more democratic to me. So let me rephrase it. You barely vote for the US president (since it's indirect) and he/she and their team then appoint some other people to manage the only currency they will let you use in their country. This is what you are saying is "extremely more democratic" than some other thing? I'm not even arguing that Bitcoin is democratic, it only needs to be more fair by allowing choice in order to be better than the Fed's USD. If you like democracy so much you should be fostering competing currencies so we can vote by (literally) putting our money where our mouth is. The old saying applies here, if the Fed's USD is so awesome then why do they need to force us to use it? > Once countries and investment bankers step in, hell will break loose. How so? > You don't want to seriously depend on something that you don't have a clue who controls. Which is why people are desperate to move away from the US dollar.
    - atmosx 12y ago
      >> BTC could allow an anonymous party to control a currency, > How, exactly? They can't control the minting so I'm not sure what you mean by "control". The Fed is already an anonymous (because no one is personally responsible) party controlling the US dollar. By buying the largest chunk of bitcoins. Simple as that if you don't understand you clearly don't have a clue about what you're talking about. You're making rounds without saying anything: The FED is there to ensure stability. You don't agree with their policies for a variety of reasons, I'm all with you. But what you're promoting here has nothing to do with democracy or fairness. It's more of a jungle where the big guy eats the small guy for lunch. The old saying is stupid because everyone who studied monetary policies knows that currencies are enforced upon population (taxes). I already explained what a player with big % of BTC can do to manipulate a free-from-regulation market, as BTC is. But it's really elementary, if you know how stock markets work. Who is desperate and moving away from the USD? You seem to switch from micro-view to macro-view in no time and back. You're talking about average Joe again or Iran/China/Russia for example? Because average Joe and China are not on the same level currency-wise.
jerguismi 12y ago
I believe most democratic country will vote in favour of bitcoin, eg. letting people speculate with it freely and use it somewhat freely (you still have to pay tax).
- atmosx 12y ago
  I think that you're fond of bitcoin (the protocol) but you clearly don't understand the social ramifications of what you're talking about: Democracy and anonymous, decentralized currencies do not play well together :-)
  - jnbiche 12y ago
    > Democracy and anonymous, decentralized currencies do not play well together So now the true colors come out, cute little emoticons notwithstanding. Do you want to ban Bitcoin?
    - atmosx 12y ago
      My true colors were there from the beginning, if you cared to look[1]. No, ban bitcoin is a huge mistake IMHO. BTC is a great innovation and has extremely interesting features. I already mentioned transaction speed elsewhere. I believe that we need to wait and see if volatility stabilizes at some point. Then I'd like to see an easier way of conversion from currency-to-btc and back. That said I'd never put the faith of a country to BTC, but sure as hell I'd like to have it around and use it as I see fit (either as an asset or an investment). But relying grandma's pension on BTC? That's unethical to me (and stupid). [1] http://www.convalesco.org/blog/2014/02/11/on-the-matter-of-bitcoin/ http://www.convalesco.org/blog/2014/02/11/on-the-matter-of-b...
      - jnbiche 12y ago
        >But relying grandma's pension on BTC? That's unethical to me (and stupid). Who has suggested investing pensions in Bitcoin? I've never heard anyone make a bona fide argument for this.
fredbrown 12y ago
> do you believe in democracy? I can get ~$500 for a bitcoin. Idealistic political concepts are worth nothing on the market.