Quote from: AnonyMint on November 13, 2013, 04:42:07 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on November 12, 2013, 09:26:58 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 12, 2013, 08:46:36 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on November 12, 2013, 08:31:35 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 12, 2013, 08:18:28 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on November 12, 2013, 08:13:05 PM

Your idea has been tried. You are describing MintChip, Canada's virtual money. Ever heard of it? ... exactly. Wink

How Bitcoin transitions to a government coin is entirely different.

That is different. However any change in the protocol would mean a fork. At that point it would no longer be bitcoin. It would also not likely be adopted. Are you willing to burn up your home wiring to generate money for the federal reserve?
Also what would keep China from then creating the lion share of the coins and charging Americans a premium. If it is not open source and beyond manipulation, then it has zero appeal.

You haven't really thought this through.

It would not be the first thing I said without thinking. But I'm not sure here what I am missing. If anyone changes the protocol, it will not be bitcoin. What was outlined earlier is the government creating an alt-coin. Which would have no value to me.

I need to be honest and point out that all the posts that I've read in this thread (up to this point) other than mine are batshit stupid nonsense. Sorry guys, but the elite are just laughing at you because you are such dumb cows and so easy to fool. Now let me try to explain to you, and hopefully you will slow down and try to grasp this. If not, you will have proven that the elite are correct about you and your deserved future.

If as you all hope (with gold rush fever preventing you from clearer logic) that Bitcoin will be the only viable crypto-currency, i.e. the theory that network efforts will amass to the first coin and thus it will dominate, then if Bitcoin mining (and thus the currency) is designed (as I have explained upthread) to be taken over by cartels due to the lack of funding when cartels (e.g. Amazon.com) withhold transactions from smaller miners as coin rewards become minuscule by 2033 (<1% and <0.2% by 2040), then it follows that you can't successfully fork Bitcoin because the inertia of the masses will already be invested (all those network effects and inertia) in that Bitcoin which is then controlled by the cartels. You won't have another option and you won't be able to create one if you believe the network effects dominance theory. You can't have it both ways, either you don't believe in altcoins and you get this dystopian outcome, or you do believe in altcoins.

Inertia is impossible to overcome by asking the broad population not to use the system that is most convenient (i.e. the most network effects), just try to go now and talk to every person in the world and convince them to stop using dollars. Hahaha. No chance. Only paradigm shifts can move inertia, as Bitcoin is doing now to dollars. When that paradigm shift has played out and everyone is in Bitcoin, then you can't fork any more (if the network effects dominance theory is correct).

The cartels can change the protocol and as long as the system still processes transactions for the masses, then the masses will not be complaining except for those 350,000 purists that are in Bitcoin now, and that is such a small percent of the world population. We complain now about the dollar, but the masses do not listen to us.

I hope I don't have to explain inertia and network effects.

I don't believe in the "there can only be one crypto-currency" network effects dominance theory. Thus I don't think we will reach the dystopian future outlined above and the other dystopian outcome due to Bitcoin's egregiously incorrect supply distribution curve, but this depends on better altcoins competing with Bitcoin. If I am wrong, then we are doomed.

P.S. And Bitcoin is going to put most of us 350,000 in jail, so we will all be silenced by then, although that is not necessary to my point above.

Quote from: deisik on November 13, 2013, 08:51:10 AM

Quote from: AnonyMint on November 12, 2013, 07:41:23 PM

Goldbugs never seem to learn economics. You must continue to debase the currency, else it can't ever work as a currency. It is simple mathematics.

The very thought is blasphemy for the most part of this forum Grin

Goldbugs destroy themselves by trying to impoverish the rest of the world with their egregiously incorrect supply distribution curve. The actual curve of wealth distribution in society is 3% power-law and 97% gas diffusion (because knowledge and initiative is not randomly distributed in the top 3%, as I am demonstrating to you now given I am in the top 3%). If you don't match your supply curve to reality, then you end up with dystopian outcomes or war as society resists what can not be.

The elite know very well they can feed the "gold rush fever" every time and fool the cows to take their money and cause society to have a big problem. Then they come in and fix it with a fiat every time after the goldbugs have destroyed society.

This is interesting - can you explain why the Gold Standard would impoverish the rest of the world? I'm interested because I do read that it doesn't work but I've never heard a compelling reason as to why this would be the case.

Please correct me as my understanding is this: There's not enough gold in the world. Can't pricing be flexible now that we have computers and the Internet? I suspect the solution will require technology of some sort.