Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
Essentially, you could say that's true about gold as well, but gold has certain characteristics that has always made the preferred money since the beginning of time.JulesGP wrote:Doesn't that pretty much describe the USD though??jonesde wrote: The flip side is that it does not represent ANY real value other than what people give it
Bitcoin: Just Another Bogus Medium of Exchange
Posted by David Kramer on June 9, 2011 03:00 PM
I'm sure by now many of you have heard about Bitcoin. The fact that it's called "virtual currency" gives you an idea about its actual value as a real medium of exchange. While many people who are touting it on Facebook are enamored with the fact that it was voluntarily created by the marketplace (i.e., is not forced down our throats by a private central bank), I'm afraid that those people are losing sight of how a real medium of exchange arises in a free market. A medium of exchange arises from something that had a material use/value in the market prior to becoming a medium of exchange, i.e., it was also a good being bartered for other goods and services. Over the centuries, gold and silver won out as the two most preferred mediums of exchange—with gold holding the number one position due to it being more scarce than silver.
What was Bitcoin's prior material use/value? Zero. It is just bits in a computer. And what's with the "fixed" amount of Bitcoins? Who determined the "proper" amount? A computer programmer? Only the free market can voluntarily determine how much of a real medium of exchange is needed in the marketplace over time. While the idea of attempting to get rid of the Bankster monopoly on creating money out of thin air is commendable, Bitcoin is also money created out of thin air. Bitcoin is just substituting one bogus medium of exchange for another.
A Clear, Concise Look at Bitcoin
JUNE 15, 2011 by JUSTIN PTAK
BitCoin, the world’s “first decentralized digital currency”, was devised in 2009. Unlike other virtual monies it does not have a central clearing house run by a single organization. Nor is it pegged to any real-world currency yet it can be used to purchase real-world goods and services however it is also just as fiat as it is not pegged to any solid commodity.
Inflation is a central point for the next 20 years as 300 coins are mined every hour on average. “Every four years, though, the minting rate is set to fall by a half. It will drop to 25 coins per block in 2013, to 12.5 coins in 2017, and so on, until the total supply plateaus at 21m or so around 2030.” The very definition of inflation until the plan of their plateau becomes a reality perhaps 20 years hence. Ceteris paribus even though it never is.
The instability is also key at this moment as just this last Friday Bitcoin suffered a massive crash from falling from just over $32 to just over $10 for each Bitcoin. Congratulations to all those profit takers, I expect more of the same due to this small and fragile market.
Not to mention a Bitcoin developer admitting that with sophisticated software the system is not so anonymous anyway and the Silk Road folks signaling their willingness to work with “authorities” if necessary.
iamse7en wrote:Doug Casey on bitcoin.
Hey cool, :ymapplause: but flash code won't work for me. oh, well.iamse7en wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:38 amEssentially, you could say that's true about gold as well, but gold has certain characteristics that has always made the preferred money since the beginning of time.JulesGP wrote:Doesn't that pretty much describe the USD though??jonesde wrote: The flip side is that it does not represent ANY real value other than what people give it
Allow me to play Devil's Advocate!
Odd pairing of statements, Silver. First you say you're not doing anything illegal by owning them, then you go on to say how you can use them to transport funds internationally without having to declare them to Customs. To that point, here's how they define illicit trade in the Customs world:Silver wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:23 amI feel confident that I'm not doing anything illegal or unconstitutional by merely owning cryptocurrencies.
As you know, travel to a foreign country always provides an encounter with a nosy question from the government authorities at the border. You are required to supply an answer as to whether or not you are carrying on your person US$10,000 or its equivalent. With your cryptocurrency wallet and password, you can cross a border with nothing in your hands or pockets and still possess many multiples of that amount while truthfully answering the question with a "No." Like a debit card, I guess. Only you don't even need to have a card.
I think it's pretty much a given now that the primary uses of Bitcoin exist within the black market economy. Just look up "Silk Road" or try looking up "bitcoin black market". Almost since its inception, Bitcoin has been a black market tool. That makes it a target. Which brings me to my next point:National customs and border control agencies typically have a parallel mandate in which to facilitate the flows of licit and legal trade while concurrently deterring illicit and illegal trade. Illicit trade encompasses a diverse range of commodities and services that creates the formation of black markets around the world.
- Gautam Basu, Combating illicit trade and transnational smuggling: key challenges for customs and border control agencies, World Customs Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/new-us- ... al-assets/New US Legislation Would Force Travelers to Declare Bitcoin, Digital Assets
P. H. Madore on 19/06/2017
Since the problems of immigration and illegal immigration have been brought to the forefront of the national conversation, one thing that is frequently said by opponents of enhanced immigration enforcement and other additional measures by the government is that laws are already in place which effectively achieve the ends desired, and that more laws are not only unnecessary, but unlikely to be any more effective.
The same can be said of the United States’ money laundering laws. While they are not bulletproof, and while they do not prevent money laundering from happening (as laws do not inherently prevent anything at all from happening), they do punish those who get caught trying to cheat the system. A new bill (S. 1241) introduced by Senator Chuck Grassley specifically targets Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and ties them in with terrorist financing and money laundering, making demands on subordinate agencies to find methods of blocking certain cryptocurrencies and digital assets allegedly tied to so-called terrorism. Specifically, agencies involved (such as ICE and the TSA) have to find out a way to “interdict” digital currencies and compile a report within 18 months for:
[D]etailing a strategy to interdict and detect prepaid access devices, digital currencies, or other similar instruments, at border crossings and other ports of entry for the United States.
Additional provisions in the bill make it such that simply having a blank check, which is signed and can be drawn on an account that has more than $10,000, is considered carrying more than $10,000 and must be declared. This bit is Orwellian in natures, since someone may have no clue how much is in the account of the person who gave them the check.
While cutting off the financing of groups which are dedicated to senseless murder and the establishment of religious states is an admirable goal, the question of how these changes to existing law will actually achieve that has to be examined. For starters, existing regulations already make it illegal to fund or assist a terrorist organization in any way. Then, most such organizations have an all but impossible task if they want to use anything outside of cash. Cash is already highly detectable by border agencies in a number of ways, and in some ways as difficult to smuggle as are drugs. The second problem arises when you consider what they are doing here – regulating incoming money without providing any proof that it would or could do anything to prevent domestic terrorist activities.
Thus, it comes as no surprise that many libertarians and cryptoanarchists automatically view this move as a way to criminalize traveling with bitcoins. Luckily for the average bitcoiner, it’s trivial to hide bitcoins, and the agencies that have been directed to detect them will have a serious hurdle in so doing. Those who are more interested in following the law to the letter are more than welcome to declare the full amount and accounting of their bitcoins, but ultimately it is left up to the agent’s discretion as to whether or not your money is involved in a crime, and Bitcoin is generally treated the same as cash.
The cryptographic nature of cryptocurrencies, it seems, will become more important than ever in the coming days. What they don’t know is not there cannot be demanded from one, yet we would of course prefer a more just world where the government was not so interested in seizing every bit of wealth private citizens extract from the economy for themselves with no help from said government and, in the case of cryptocurrency operations, little or no protection not to mention yearly hassles of noticeable scale.
I have a question about the highlighted comment, addressed to anyone who knows the answer.nvr wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:22 pmI've shared my background with Bitcoin before, but here's a few thoughts I've had recently after listening to some of the debate given its recent price gains:
It's not really private - a record is kept of every transaction made. If an institution or government had the interest and resources, you and your purchases could be identified from the blockchain.
It's not tangible - the network that recognizes the value relies on power grid to operate and would be useless in aftermath of war / emp attack.
It's not really secure - I had all my bitcoins stolen by malware (or Microsoft engineer) which had somehow found the bitcoin wallet on my pc, grabbed my private key and sent all 24 bitcoins to themselves
This last point was probably more my fault since I didn't encrypt the folder. But compared to precious metals stored inside a building, a bitcoin wallet held by lay users is in general much more vulnerable to virtual theft attempts. The right way to have done it would have been for me to have written down or printed off the private key (paper wallet) or at least stored it on a usb drive disconnected to internet. But then that is not very convenient when desiring to spend it.