New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Something does not have to be an established currency (issued by a government) to have a monetary value to trade things with. All it needs is a group of people who see value in them to trade goods and services for it.
Your argument is invalid.
Bitcoin isn't listed as currency because it's relatively new and not controlled by a single entity like a government.
Please define bank though. If you define bank as place to store money then your argument is 100% invalid because everybody is its own bank with wallets being bank account + payment cards.
Yes, but we're talking on a global scale here, since bitcoin is obviously created with a goal to be a global currency.
And since it's not a global currency - it's monetary worthless.
No, that wasn't the goal, the goal was decentralized auto-adjusting-against-inflation and the fact that it works like cash but then virtual.
@BronzeByte I am not banker or economist, but i think that currencies are more about measurement and comparison of power, on spatial and on a time period term which creates trust i believe, and since bitcoin has no global trust it is pretty much globally worthless. Due to it's nature i doubt that it's going to achieve global trust at some point.
There is going to be a global currency (more or less there already is), most likely that's going to be the currency of the most successful globalization economy system.
There is going to be a global currency (more or less there already is), most likely that's going to be the currency of the most successful globalization economy system.
You talk about trust, but you can't trust anything that is government controlled - your point is invalid
You say it's pretty much wortless but that's not up to you to declare, it will always be people's own opinion. Bitcoin wasn't made to make money or whatever, it was made by the community and for the community as better currency.
And how can we trust for example USD <-> EUR wich bounces up and down vs BTC <-> USD only goes up and not down?
Your points are all invalid, plain fucking bullshit, if you want to hate, think or some real arguments to back you up instead of writing fairy tales saying the government currencies are stabler and more "trustworthy"
I can trust something that is government controlled.
And government is controlled by people - society.
Yes it's up to me to declare something, it's up to me to express my opinion, and my opinion matters too, every opinion matter.
You have not heard about the term economy bubble perhaps.
From Your expression You obviously cannot keep a conversation on a level.
As i said i am not hating, i have clearly expressed my opinion backed up by empirical evidence simply explained regarding the bitcoin, that's it.
You must leave in an ideal dream world, government is controlled by greedy lobbyists, don't start about voting as we vote for the least horrible party.
Bitcoin is ran and used by the community, nobody owns it, a single entity can't cause (much) impact.
So here's a golden advice: if you don't trust it because you lack the knowledge of what the goals are and how the network works then just don't use it, don't come hatin' here with some personal mistrust because you don't know how it works.
I have expressed and backed up my opinion, there is no need to go back and say the same words again, You have expressed Yours, now, it is possible that someone has different opinion than You and perceives the world different than You, get over it.
Yeah I think so, and I haven't kept much track since the whole ASIC section of bitcointalk went crazy after the ASICs were announced lol
At least in my last post I only stated facts
Note how you are saying this in a thread about a major registrar starting to accept Bitcoin. Your argument appears to basically come down to "those approving of Bitcoin are making a bad choice because most people do not approve of Bitcoin", thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. It makes no sense.
There are two mistakes you are making here. The first mistake is looking at the "currency lists in the bank". Banks only list the currencies that they are responsible for, they are not a global manager of financies. Saying that Bitcoin isn't a real currency because banks don't list it, is like saying that something isn't a real book because Barnes & Nobles doesn't sell it. You're imposing a non-sensical and unreasonable restriction on what you consider a 'currency'.
The second mistake, closely related, is that you somehow, for whatever reason, assume that something has "no real monetary value to the world" when it's not approved of by banks. Last time I checked, "bank" was not a synonym for "world".
That very much depends on what you mean with that. If you meant "Bitcoin is created with the goal to replace all other currencies", then you're dead wrong and should probably read up on the topic. If you meant "Bitcoin is created with the goal to work all across the globe", then that would be correct, and guess what? It already does that. Mission accomplished.
You are confusing "currency" with "fiat currency". The latter indeed relies on trust in a currency, but that does not require 'power' of an 'issuer'.
All that said, Bitcoin can be considered a fiat currency, and it in fact already has that trust. It works for many people already, who trust the currency enough to use it. There's the trust you were looking for - it's already there. And it's expanding more and more, as can be seen from organizations like Wordpress, Reddit, and Namecheap starting to take Bitcoins as payment.
Where are you getting this idea that a currency somehow has to be "approved by every single person on earth" to work? If it works for a subset of people, and they trust it sufficiently to use it, then it is functional as a currency, even if only for a subset of those people. Trying to define the 'worth' of a currency by what the entire world thinks of it, is using the wrong metric.
No. Just no. Regardless of whether you trust your government or not, which I really don't have a particular interest in discussing, saying that "government is controlled by the people" is a flat out lie. This can be objectively proven quite easily, for pretty much any country. The only country that I can think of that can be considered to be "controlled by the people" would be Iceland, and even then I might not have the full story.
If it's an opinion, then state it as an opinion, not as a fact. And yes, this matters - wrongly implying that an opinion is a fact is very likely to spread misinformation or misunderstanding, especially when read by people that do not have the full context, and especially on the internet.
Wrong: X is Y.
Wrong: X is Y on a global scale.
Right: I think X is Y.
Right: I believe X is Y.
Right: X is Y to me.
Closing words: I get the impression that you are missing some vital information and knowledge about Bitcoin, that you would need to formulate a solid opinion or expectation of it. A good start would be the Bitcoin wiki.
It's pretty clear that you and @joepie91 are butt hurt since you won't even let people have an opinion without attacking them. I'm not even sure why you guys are spewing paragraph after paragraph trying to establish some sort of pointless argument. Some weird agendas you seems seem to have to push..
It's called a 'discussion'.
discussion n 1: an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic; "the book contains an excellent discussion of modal logic"; "his treatment of the race question is badly biased" [syn: {discussion}, {treatment}, {discourse}] 2: an exchange of views on some topic; "we had a good discussion"; "we had a word or two about it" [syn: {discussion}, {give-and-take}, {word}]Want to know why I'm trying to "establish a pointless argument"? Because I see pretty much everything going to shit, and I'd prefer for people to have a safer fallback - including in the monetary system - rather than falling into the trap of the next selfish asshole that sets up some monetary scheme that only benefits himself.
Paranoid much? I suggest you look into my posting history here and elsewhere.
But nooooo, it's impossible that the joepie might have a valid point or reason! If he disagrees with you, then he must be pushing an agenda for his own good! After all, you couldn't possibly be at fault!
How ironic.
You do realise 'if everything went to shit' BTC would be worth nothing right? It only has a 'value' because people can exchange it for real money.
I don't even have the words to describe the stupidity in this statement.
Please, just shut the hell up and go read up on Bitcoin, its workings and its internal economy before trying to make any claim about it. You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about, and your "I understand all of it perfectly no matter what anyone says" attitude makes it impossible to discuss it with you or even attempt to help you understand it better.
Very cool. My domains are at Internet.bs, but this almost makes me want to transfer my domains to namecheap, except they don't have free whois privacy.
please define 'real money'
What happens when some flaw with bitcoins is found and it makes them all worthless?
Can you give an example? The Bitcoin protocol is built upon tested cryptographical algorithms and concepts, that are in use in the banking industry (!) as well... so I can't really think of something where it could break... at least in a technical sense.
Well, first, I admit that I don't know the specifics of how bitcoins work, so this is purely hypothetical... what if someone discovered a way to fake transactions? Or what if they figured out a way to steal bitcoins easily? What if someone starts hoarding all of the bitcoins (since, as I understand it, there will only ever be 21 million bitcoins or something like that?)
These two are essentially the same thing, and the only real way for this to happen, is for someone to find a flaw in the cryptography. While of course not 100% impossible, it's incredibly unlikely, and if such a flaw were to be found, that would affect much more than only Bitcoin - even traditional e-banking would be affected, for example. To my understanding, the cryptography in Bitcoin is also replaceable... so if the cryptographical algorithms used ever turn out to be broken, they could be replaced with different algorithms.
An alternative hypothetical method is gaining over 50% control of the network in terms of hashing power, and modifying the blockchain. This is however a matter of chance, and at exactly 50% mining power it's near impossible to actually sustain a modified blockchain, as it would only take one disagreement from another (mining) node to mess up the modified blockchain. You would need a much larger part of the network under your control to do this sustainably, and even then eventually people will notice that something is up. As the Bitcoin network grows, this becomes harder and harder to pull off. For all practical purposes, this approach can be considered 'infeasible' (hence discountable).
There are two common problems that people often point out with regards to hoarding.
The first problem is the idea that there would not be enough Bitcoins left for others to use once one person starts hoarding. This, however, ignores that Bitcoins do not have a fixed value, and their value is entirely decided by market workings. If one person were to amass half the Bitcoins in existence and refuse to send them anywhere, the other half of the Bitcoins would effectively just become worth twice as much.
If said one person tried to sell off all their Bitcoins at that point, the exchange rate (to whatever he's selling them for, regardless of whether it's a currency or a commodity) would drop back to its original position. Basically, by hoarding or even discarding a large amount of Bitcoins, you'd just help others by making the BTC they hold more valuable, and creating a profit for them. It's not impossible to hoard Bitcoins maliciously, there's just no incentive to do so.
The second problem that's often raised by people, is that the hard cap on the amount of Bitcoins that can be in existence, would likely cause deflation as adoption grows, and lead to people hoarding (saving up!) Bitcoins, as opposed to spending them. This is a correct expectation, and it is not a bad thing for a very simple reason: an inflationary monetary system is not sustainable.
The idea that something has to promote spending as much as possible, is not an inherent requirement for a monetary system - it's just what people are used to because that's how most, if not all, government currencies work. It's a side effect of a government controlling the money supply, that has become so common that people now assume it's an absolute necessity (without really being able to provide reasoning for it).
An inflationary system promotes spending as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, and as often as possible. This creates an unsustainable economy where 'production' is constantly increased, with the associated cost in resources - and the amount of resources does not increase. It promotes the 'consumption society' that you can see around you now, and the greed that results from it. As a society, you're basically trying to burn through all available resources as fast as possible, in the hopes you can buy everything before it becomes more expensive. This is a Very Bad Thing.
While Bitcoins are not designed to be either inflationary or deflationary per se (it all depends on the adoption rate vs. the growth rate of the amount of Bitcoins), it is likely to be deflationary over a longer period of time, as adoption grows, and generation of new Bitcoins slows down. While not 100% compatible with the economic system as we know it, it is usable in that economic system in the short term, and has the potential of positively improving the economic system in the long term due to its deflationary nature.
Meh isn't Bitcoin the currency mainly used by pedophiles to buy CP?
Ducks and runs
No, I heard they use the United States dollar for that.
First there was wordpress.com and now namecheap. Bit coin is becoming popular among merchants but it's not so easy for consumers to buy bit coins. You need to send a wire transfer and that is only worth doing for $1000 or more and you can easily loose $30-70 in bank fees.
It makes the puzzle harder depending on how many bitcoins are in the network, right?
In the bitcoin macroeconomics, fluctuations are derived from demand for the currency. Deflation is caused by the demand for bitcoins growing faster than the total available amount of bitcoins.
Huh? There are quite a few ways to exchange other currencies for Bitcoins....
Who robbed you? It was $40+ all day on the 7th