iamnotback



Offline



Activity: 336

Merit: 258









Sr. MemberActivity: 336Merit: 258 Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? April 02, 2017, 01:13:03 PM #361 Quote from: dinofelis on April 02, 2017, 05:37:25 AM 1) bitcoin is maybe the dog as compared to alts, but it is the tail as compared to the FED. Bitcoin can be wagged by the FED from the moment that it gets a more official status and the FED can buy it and sell it as an asset. $20 billion is peanuts



No because Bitcoin whales are the most hard-core anti-debt fanatics on the planet. The fiat system is a house of cards propped up by $trillions of leverage.



One little pin prick from Bitcoin, and the FED's bubble goes Minsky Moment poof. In other words, the FED is not even a tail, it is more like a whisker trying to haul an elephant or a battalion of junkies with 10 grams of cocaine that they keep cutting with some super potent by toxic amplifier that eventually will kill all of them when the cutting ratio exceeds some theshold.



Will reply your other points after I sleep. No because Bitcoin whales are the most hard-core anti-debt fanatics on the planet. The fiat system is a house of cards propped up by $trillions of leverage.One little pin prick from Bitcoin, and the FED's bubble goes Minsky Moment poof. In other words, the FED is not even a tail, it is more like a whisker trying to haul an elephant or a battalion of junkies with 10 grams of cocaine that they keep cutting with some super potent by toxic amplifier that eventually will kill all of them when the cutting ratio exceeds some theshold.Will reply your other points after I sleep.

dinofelis



Offline



Activity: 770

Merit: 616







Hero MemberActivity: 770Merit: 616 Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? April 02, 2017, 07:09:59 PM #364 Quote from: iamnotback on April 02, 2017, 01:13:03 PM No because Bitcoin whales are the most hard-core anti-debt fanatics on the planet. The fiat system is a house of cards propped up by $trillions of leverage.



Well, I used to think that too. And there are serious problems in the fiat system, but it is *not* the fact that it is debt based. It is the fact that there are self-referential backings in the system (the derivative bubble).



But I used to think totally "Austrian school" about money too. However, there are two source texts that opened my mind on monetary systems.



These are: "Debt, the first 5000 years" by David Graeber. I don't fully agree with all of what he says, but it is a eye-opener on certain aspects.



But the most important piece of writing is a course that is called "Evil is the root of all money", where the relationship between debt and money is explained.



Essentially, money is nothing else but a fluidized promise, so that it becomes fungible and transmissible. If we all trusted one another, we wouldn't need money. Money didn't find its origin in gold or any other "near-perfect medium of exchange" like the Austrians saw it - although it CAN be such a system. Money is nothing else but a deal-maker between people that don't need to trust one another, and transfer the lack of trust in 2-2 relations in the mutual belief that they trust the money.



Money is NOT a market signalling instrument (although it can transmit market information). It is not a unit of account (although it can be used that way). It is simply a "trust vector" in deal making.



This is why "debt-backed money" is not as hollow as it seems, and as I used to think. After all, a debt is also a deal-maker. A debt is half of a deal (my part).



Quote One little pin prick from Bitcoin, and the FED's bubble goes Minsky Moment poof. In other words, the FED is not even a tail, it is more like a whisker trying to haul an elephant or a battalion of junkies with 10 grams of cocaine that they keep cutting with some super potent by toxic amplifier that eventually will kill all of them when the cutting ratio exceeds some theshold.



No. The derivatives bubble, maybe. But not a fiat system as a whole. Money is nothing else but the oil in the engine of the economy, and from the moment that it allows the engine to run, it is good enough. Fiat money does that quite well, and the central banking system isn't so bad as it seems. It seems a horror when looked upon from a "hard money" view, but when looked upon as a "deal maker tool", it works marvellously well.



The idea that "solid debt" can be fluidized into money is exactly what money was meant to be. As such, money can be created upon demand, by giving a backing of some solid debt, and destroyed, when the backing is removed (taken back). And the market price of money is simply related to how much solid debt people want to fluidize at a given point. The principle is quite sound. This is why I'm absolutely not convinced of any nearby world breakdown of the fiat system. The derivative stuff, on the other hand, is an extremely dangerous self-referential bubble. What goes wrong in the fiat system is the monopoly positions of some, which they abuse to get privileges of reaping in fractions of money flows where no value is produced of significance. Essentially, the unfairness of the different quality of "solid debt" that is needed to obtain money for it. In the first line: states.

Well, I used to think that too. And there are serious problems in the fiat system, but it is *not* the fact that it is debt based. It is the fact that there are self-referential backings in the system (the derivative bubble).But I used to think totally "Austrian school" about money too. However, there are two source texts that opened my mind on monetary systems.These are: "Debt, the first 5000 years" by David Graeber. I don't fully agree with all of what he says, but it is a eye-opener on certain aspects.But the most important piece of writing is a course that is called "Evil is the root of all money", where the relationship between debt and money is explained.Essentially, money is nothing else but a fluidized promise, so that it becomes fungible and transmissible. If we all trusted one another, we wouldn't need money. Money didn't find its origin in gold or any other "near-perfect medium of exchange" like the Austrians saw it - although it CAN be such a system. Money is nothing else but a deal-maker between people that don't need to trust one another, and transfer the lack of trust in 2-2 relations in the mutual belief that they trust the money.Money is NOT a market signalling instrument (although it can transmit market information). It is not a unit of account (although it can be used that way). It is simply a "trust vector" in deal making.This is why "debt-backed money" is not as hollow as it seems, and as I used to think. After all, a debt is also a deal-maker. A debt is half of a deal (my part).No. The derivatives bubble, maybe. But not a fiat system as a whole. Money is nothing else but the oil in the engine of the economy, and from the moment that it allows the engine to run, it is good enough. Fiat money does that quite well, and the central banking system isn't so bad as it seems. It seems a horror when looked upon from a "hard money" view, but when looked upon as a "deal maker tool", it works marvellously well.The idea that "solid debt" can be fluidized into money is exactly what money was meant to be. As such, money can be created upon demand, by giving a backing of some solid debt, and destroyed, when the backing is removed (taken back). And the market price of money is simply related to how much solid debt people want to fluidize at a given point. The principle is quite sound. This is why I'm absolutely not convinced of any nearby world breakdown of the fiat system. The derivative stuff, on the other hand, is an extremely dangerous self-referential bubble. What goes wrong in the fiat system is the monopoly positions of some, which they abuse to get privileges of reaping in fractions of money flows where no value is produced of significance. Essentially, the unfairness of the different quality of "solid debt" that is needed to obtain money for it. In the first line: states.

iamnotback



Offline



Activity: 336

Merit: 258









Sr. MemberActivity: 336Merit: 258 Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? April 03, 2017, 03:59:03 AM

Last edit: April 03, 2017, 05:00:13 AM by iamnotback #367



The generative essence is that politics is a clusterfuck of inaction when it requires agreement on a single action. The only way politics functions is via debt and giving everyone everything at the same time, with no actual consensus. This was Satoshi's clever insight on how to attain immutability. @dinofelis, I cited our upthread discussion in the Litecoin community. I also explained there that as a PoW coin matures it becomes much more intractable to gain consensus for significant protocol changes. Bitcoin being the dominant reserve could finance the change to the protocol of a lesser chain, if the quorum whales of Bitcoin who have any vested interest have a consensus to do such an attack. So I guess that is a clarification of my upthread claim that only the dominant PoW could be immutable. The lesser PoW chains are less immutable but the immutability game theory is still somewhat favorable.This was Satoshi's clever insight on how to attain immutability.

traincarswreck



Offline



Activity: 476

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 476Merit: 250 Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? April 03, 2017, 06:11:01 AM #370



Quote this standard, as a basis for the standardization of the value of the international money unit, would remove the political roles of the grand pardoners,

All of the examples Selgin cites are not failures in this sense. They are not examples of why such a system of the private (rather than monopolistic) issuance of money is a bad idea. They are example of how outside intervention destroys the efficiency and security of the system.



Nash's proposal starts with the realization and insight of an OBJECTIVE metric. He realizes one exists. Its hard to fathom, but it's useful for this purpose. From there he explains how awareness of it can come about. Once we are collectively aware, to some degree, then this metric, which is inherently not corruptible, will become the standard of valuation....



And such a standard would remove the possibility of intervention that corrupts our money supplies. You've missed something and or not extended and understood Nash's argument enough:All of the examples Selgin cites are not failures in this sense. They are not examples of why such a system of the private (rather than monopolistic) issuance of money is a bad idea. They are example of how outside intervention destroys the efficiency and security of the system.Nash's proposal starts with the realization and insight of an OBJECTIVE metric. He realizes one exists. Its hard to fathom, but it's useful for this purpose. From there he explains how awareness of it can come about. Once we are collectively aware, to some degree, then this metric, which is inherently not corruptible, will become the standard of valuation....And such a standard would remove the possibility of intervention that corrupts our money supplies.

iamnotback



Offline



Activity: 336

Merit: 258









Sr. MemberActivity: 336Merit: 258 Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? April 03, 2017, 06:43:21 AM #371 Quote from: traincarswreck on April 03, 2017, 06:11:01 AM



Quote this standard, as a basis for the standardization of the value of the international money unit, would remove the political roles of the grand pardoners,

All of the examples Selgin cites are not failures in this sense. They are not examples of why such a system of the private (rather than monopolistic) issuance of money is a bad idea. They are example of how outside intervention destroys the efficiency and security of the system.



Nash's proposal starts with the realization and insight of an OBJECTIVE metric. He realizes one exists. Its hard to fathom, but it's useful for this purpose. From there he explains how awareness of it can come about. Once we are collectively aware, to some degree, then this metric, which is inherently not corruptible, will become the standard of valuation....



And such a standard would remove the possibility of intervention that corrupts our money supplies.

You've missed something and or not extended and understood Nash's argument enough:All of the examples Selgin cites are not failures in this sense. They are not examples of why such a system of the private (rather than monopolistic) issuance of money is a bad idea. They are example of how outside intervention destroys the efficiency and security of the system.Nash's proposal starts with the realization and insight of an OBJECTIVE metric. He realizes one exists. Its hard to fathom, but it's useful for this purpose. From there he explains how awareness of it can come about. Once we are collectively aware, to some degree, then this metric, which is inherently not corruptible, will become the standard of valuation....And such a standard would remove the possibility of intervention that corrupts our money supplies.

Quote me. Where do you think I missed this?



I was explaining to @dinofelis that the FED is impotent against Bitcoin because Bitcoin is not mutable, i.e. not manipulable. And I explained his fantasy of a fiat system with debt which is free of manipulation, can't exist. Seign's examples show how government always fucks up those cases where private fractional banking was working when government was not involved.



Bitcoin can enable private fractional reserve banking if Bitcoin remains immutable and those fractional reserve banks can't be regulated by governments. The latter seems very unlikely near-term, given that the banksters want to retain their monopoly racket on banking. And the former seems not to be stable long-term. That is why I don't see Lightning Networks as important, but I am going along with the hype because I understand markets don't operate on perfect information, so I am riding the wave. (And preparing what I think will be a better on chain technology).



Then I explained that Bitcoin only fails when the finance of Bitcoin has been concentrated into one whale, who can then manipulate everything. Do you disagree with this prediction? If yes, then how do you refute my argument that finance always accrues disproportionately to the whale with the most reserves? Quote me. Where do you think I missed this?I was explaining to @dinofelis that the FED is impotent against Bitcoin because Bitcoin is not mutable, i.e. not manipulable. And I explained his fantasy of a fiat system with debt which is free of manipulation, can't exist. Seign's examples show how government always fucks up those cases where private fractional banking was working when government was not involved.Bitcoin can enable private fractional reserve banking if Bitcoin remains immutable and those fractional reserve banks can't be regulated by governments. The latter seems very unlikely near-term, given that the banksters want to retain their monopoly racket on banking. And the former seems not to be stable long-term. That is why I don't see Lightning Networks as important, but I am going along with the hype because I understand markets don't operate on perfect information, so I am riding the wave. (And preparing what I think will be a better on chain technology).Then I explained that Bitcoin only fails when the finance of Bitcoin has been concentrated into one whale, who can then manipulate everything. Do you disagree with this prediction? If yes, then how do you refute my argument that finance always accrues disproportionately to the whale with the most reserves?

traincarswreck



Offline



Activity: 476

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 476Merit: 250 Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? April 03, 2017, 06:48:56 AM #372 I don't disagree, but there is a higher level, that you are not describing specifically (meaning not to comment on whether or not u mean to allude to it).



What you describe, what you are suggesting, perhaps, is that a benevolent Satoshi has great power to do good, and that, conversely, a malevolent Satoshi has a nuclear bomb in regard to his private keys.

iamnotback



Offline



Activity: 336

Merit: 258









Sr. MemberActivity: 336Merit: 258 Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? April 03, 2017, 06:54:17 AM

Last edit: April 03, 2017, 07:15:54 AM by iamnotback #374 Quote from: traincarswreck on April 03, 2017, 06:48:56 AM What you describe, what you are suggesting, perhaps, is that a benevolent Satoshi has great power to do good, and that, conversely, a malevolent Satoshi has a nuclear bomb in regard to his private keys.







If you wanted to utilize Bitcoin reserves which could not be visibly spent until it was time to enslave the world, how would you do it?



What if you could print paper high powered SDRs implicitly backed by Bitcoin. And then create Basel rounds that progressively ratchet the old banking system to default by requiring Tier 1 reserves of this quality. If you wanted to utilize Bitcoin reserves which could not be visibly spent until it was time to enslave the world, how would you do it?What if you could print paper high powered SDRs implicitly backed by Bitcoin. And then create Basel rounds that progressively ratchet the old banking system to default by requiring Tier 1 reserves of this quality.

traincarswreck



Offline



Activity: 476

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 476Merit: 250 Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? April 03, 2017, 07:03:52 AM #375 Quote from: iamnotback on April 03, 2017, 06:54:17 AM



If you wanted to utilize Bitcoin reserves which could not be visibly spent until it was time to enslave the world, how would you do it?



What if you could print paper high powered SDRs implicitly backed by Bitcoin.

We get freer and freer as time goes by and there is no way the governments wants this. We are not about to be enslaved and I cannot have a proper dialogue with you if that is the basis for your thesis.



Quote The script or plan for my talk linking the ideal money with the choices and actions of thrift or savings by persons or by economic agents was influenced by concerns that it would be wise not to speak too incautionsly of the Keynesians when the times are such that massive public opinions maybe supporting actions by which a state administration can act without going through the parliamentary processes to write new legislation.



So in the rush of political campaigns and elections (for example in the USA) it is difficult to sell a national monetary policy which, if followed consistently on a long run level, would result in the specific nation state existing as if on a higher level of economic civilization.



(For example, Sweden and Argentina might be usable, over a long time comparison, to represent comparable economic civilizations.)



Therefore, I had arranged for 2012 to talk more cautiously in relation to whatever would impact with the Keynesians and with the political interest relating also to the scholarly factions allied with (or forming) the Keynesians.



And this caution carries over naturally to 2013 also.



~public note from John Forbes Nashs university homepage We get freer and freer as time goes by and there is no way the governments wants this. We are not about to be enslaved and I cannot have a proper dialogue with you if that is the basis for your thesis.

iamnotback



Offline



Activity: 336

Merit: 258









Sr. MemberActivity: 336Merit: 258 Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? April 03, 2017, 07:13:57 AM

Last edit: April 03, 2017, 07:30:49 AM by iamnotback #376 Quote from: traincarswreck on April 03, 2017, 06:49:50 AM Quote If yes, then how do you refute my argument that finance always accrues disproportionately to the whale with the most reserves?



I don't, but technology brings the conflict always to a higher order.

I don't, but technology brings the conflict always to a higher order.

In what way higher? Because the whales of this new financial weapon are more invested in the conflict?



Quote from: traincarswreck on April 03, 2017, 07:03:52 AM We get freer and freer as time goes by and there is no way the governments wants this. We are not about to be enslaved and I cannot have a proper dialogue with you if that is the basis for your thesis.



How can you prevent a power vacuum of constant marginal utility of power in finance from reaching its natural conclusion?



For a while it may seem like you are becoming freer as your power increases and the power of nation-states wanes, but the problem of centralization of the Bitcoin wealth will grow worse over time and then you will cry out for help, but no one can help you any more. Absolutism zealots always build their absolute destruction. You are just viewing money the way that the religious view the absolutism of morals. Same analogous error. Satoshi is your God. Fuck Satoshi. He and MP can lick my balls.



You don't have any choice in the matter. Not even if you control Satoshi's Bitcoins. Even the whale who ends up with all the monetary wealth, destroys himself. It is a broken paradigm. Correct if that is your basis, we cannot have a proper dialogue. Because I will do my best to find a design and paradigm of valuation, which subsumes that broken one. In what way higher? Because the whales of this new financial weapon are more invested in the conflict?How can you prevent a power vacuum of constant marginal utility of power in finance from reaching its natural conclusion?For a while it may seem like you are becoming freer as your power increases and the power of nation-states wanes, but the problem of centralization of the Bitcoin wealth will grow worse over time and then you will cry out for help, but no one can help you any more. Absolutism zealots always build their absolute destruction. You are just viewing money the way that the religious view the absolutism of morals. Same analogous error. Satoshi is your God. Fuck Satoshi. He and MP can lick my balls.You don't have any choice in the matter. Not even if you control Satoshi's Bitcoins. Even the whale who ends up with all the monetary wealth, destroys himself. It is a broken paradigm. Correct if that is your basis, we cannot have a proper dialogue. Because I will do my best to find a design and paradigm of valuation, which subsumes that broken one.

traincarswreck



Offline



Activity: 476

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 476Merit: 250 Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? April 03, 2017, 07:36:19 AM #377 In different paradigms through history of the uni pressure built and then one side won. In certain circumstances pressure built and there was such an equilibrium that a new order was born.



We can see this in regard to the recent world wars, which birthed our ability to harness atomic energy. Money too is such a higher order, in which we can see, especially recently, has represented its own conflict which is a higher order than slamming men into certain death.



The new war is on a higher order, higher than the fiat/gold standard, into an internet crypto-currency age.





traincarswreck



Offline



Activity: 476

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 476Merit: 250 Re: Miner cartel, Bankster cartel, or an altcoin? Your choice? April 03, 2017, 07:41:50 AM #378 Would you argue the internet is a malicious plan to enslave the people by the US intelligence that created it? I doubt it could be true! No such agency would purposefully break the monopoly on money and believe it would help them control the people.



Nash sent an encryption conjecture to the Nsa in 1955 and a description of a highly parallel computing solution that is still further advanced than the internet to rand. Ideal Money is an idea from that time.



So its observably evident that the idea of bitcoin floated around these agencies for many years prior to bitcoin.



There is no way to break the bubble, the monopoly, without losing the power.



Bitcoin whales cannot control the system, if they do it will fork. And a malevolent Satoshi cannot exist, the project requires incredible OBJECTIVELY to be birthed. Such objectively does not exist in malevolent persons.