Yeah that's pretty bad but then it's not really the EUs fault but the banks fault and them buying junkbonds/shit investments.
Aim the blame in the right direction. Hadn't the EU regulated this you might have goten your money out and someone might have been left with nothing.
It should be illegal to do so with his money though since it is not an investment account.


He should check into the legal aspects of this. But who reads all those papers when they make a simple account, right? I don't...I better start.
Basically if what he says is true and he was paying to have a checking account with no interest on it then he should at least have some priority of getting the money back when shit hits the fan.

Brilliant. You basically answered all my concerns.
The problem is scaling it with demand and other things but the premise is great.


Oh yeah like someone mentioned this still leaves the problem with mining. Generally speaking mining always creates the probem of people doing unproductive work getting payed for it because it is the only way to do it. What we have no is digging a stupid hole, filling it an digging it again.

But it's still better than just digging an ever smaller hole and hoarding money as output diminishes.

Dude I'm sorry for your loss but first of all you will not lose your 720 000 unless that bank is a shady crap-bank (and in that case it's your fault) but you will just pay a small tax on it. On the topic you didn't invest your money but kept them in fiat currency which is just as bad as keeping them in bitcoins or gold or anything else.

Depending on what you do 820 000 isn't necessarily to much to have in currency so I can't blame you dude, I'm sorry for your loss

Obviously you had a reason for storing cash in a country like Cyprus instead of the country you do business in.
But let me ask you this. Is the bank insolvent or is this just part of the government taxation scheme?

If it's the later you shouldn't worry to much. You'll pay 5% on that deposit and get most of it back.

baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah i like cake

I told you it's a currency reserve.

Sure you're welcome to your opinion to just take it easy.
Gold has since its market exposure been a worse "investment"/reserve than USD fiat currency until it started rocketing at 2001+.
And I have no idea why it did rocket.

So yeah gold has an intrinsic value as a precious metal but its value is way over that by now.


Well if you don't want them to run the show stop voting for them, get involved and vote your dad up the party machine.
Heck start a democratic or republican club that pledges to support the candidate with least donations! Just for the fun of it

What do you know of my professors :p
There is something called self-regulation which is for example what supply and demand is and thus the basis of market economy. Who would dispute this?
The only dispute you can make is that it competely ignores artificial scarcity and labour wealth theory and thus is prone to manipulation but hey that's not disputing its inherit regulatory powahs.
The best way is to bash both sides, then they don't know who you're with!

Tru tru.

...or by the family, or by their investments, or by charity.
Not by hoarding currency


I have used some of those words in my text here but unregulated isn't really true. Bitcoins is the most tightly regulated currency in the world It is mathematically regulated which frankly is key to its success. Who the heck would use a currency which is completely unregulated?

In fact part of the failure of the US Fed and some other modern central banks is their de-regulation. They are no longer controlled by set standards or by the democratic process but by a pseudo-private, quasi-secluded council which is "independent" from government policy.

Hehe I do not have money in a bank account as an investment buddy. I have a bank account to be able to buy stuff such as investments.

Well put. Generally owning land is among the best counters so is owning direct production of basic goods. But if it all collapses you probably want ammo

Fiat currency is currency based on nothing of intrinsic value. Such as not being backed by a precious metal or a deed to something.
I don't care about what Wikipedia says in this regard and either way it is clearly a discussion of semantics.  
I love how you do not even read your own article...Seriously this forum is filled with quite many fools which is sad for such a complex and interesting new idea.

"money without intrinsic value.[9][10]"
I don't know, one of those links to Yale and the other to the guy running Harvards Economic department.

Maybe you don't consider those universities? Homeschooling is the best university!


I am really trying to hard to be polite here but this is absurd. DO not throw stones in a glass house.

I joined here because I was doing research for a possible university paper that now might go into an other direction than bitcoins.
I'm generally interested in bitcoins, why are you bothered by dissenting opinion?

Every post I've made on this issue highlights and is more or less supportive of the concept you mention above as an idea.
It is the concept of using the coins as an investment that I am negative to. How come you aren't if as you say the point of the coins was to be used as fluid currency?

@Kazu

Of course you can do as you wish. I am just trying to explain to you what effects I think "investing" in bitcoins is going to have as opposed to actively using it as a currency.

It makes very little sense to use a volitale currency as a form of investment currency for other investments. The only use of bitcoins in this regard is tax-evasion and even then there are better ways but fine; I do not object to the use of bitcoins as a way to invest in other things. On the contrary.
So if I missunderstood you there I beg your pardon.

Still it seems you refuse to abandon defending bitcoins as a sound investment in terms of macro-economic implications.

Generally speaking you do not want a currency like Bitcoins used as an intermediate currency for investment precisely because of drops like these which carry an additional risk to your investment strategy. You have absolutely nothing to lose on using USD and converting them into statepapers or investing into long-term interest funds while waiting for a new bull-investment as opposed to doing the same with bitcoins.

No they haven't. All non-fiat experiments have "failed" as they are not applied anymore.
Almost no fiat-experiments have failed unless those economies also failed. In fact I'll go out on a limp and say that fiat currency (which frankly includes bitcoins, even if its "deflationary" or "non-inflationary" is dominating the currency use by 99.8%).

First you say that you are the type of person who would want Bitcoins to stay the same and then that investing in them isn't a bad idea.
Who wants an investment to stay the same?

Make up your mind.
Either your are the visionary who wants a new, free currecy and service or you are the person who sees bitcoins as an investment.
You're not adding liquidity to the market, you are witholding it. As if you were to put your money under your madrass, except that would be stupid in addition to bad for the economy.

Corporations and nations have gold as a reserve currency and they spread the risk around with other currencies.
They want the opposite of any change; stability.
If anything they want their home/base currency to rise compared to others.

So in most  cases for example Switzerland would want the Suisse Franc to rise in comparison to the USD, Euro and even gold.
But they have the USD, Euro  and gold in reserve in case of their currency starts to fall.


Although this isn't completely true neither.
In fact on a macro-economic scale large corporations and nations sometimes want inflation.
For example (to my great dismay) Switzerland dumped its currency a few years ago because it was getting to strong.
I'm sure it was performing near gold levels.

And yes, we all try to boost our economic situation a little bit but I spread currency mostly for liquidity and security not for investment.

Of course.
As you always had, either your family or your business (but this time you're mostly a capitalist and you control a business indirectly).

What you're asking is highly immoral.
You're asking for your wealth to grow without contributing anything, even an investment in the economy.
Clealy this is not good/fair for those who are contributing to society  (i.e. woking).

Instead you should indeed depend on others (hopefully you have while working helped out your parents or you fellow citizens) or be active in the market and thus invest in those who still work (if you want a more individualistic approach)

Thus by storing money in gold or bitcoins for the purpose of an investment you are not only being immoral but hurting the economy since you are withdrawing liquidity from the market. Having gold as a reserve has some moddest value to the economy in case a fiat currency is horribly miss-managed but that's far from the point. Nations and corporations who have it as a reserve do not have it as a investment and they have alot of other currencies to.

You have state pension/private pension investments into the actual economy.
Or you have a social security system in setup in which a new generation takes care of the old.
It can even be into state papers that barely pay an interest above inflation but are thus extremely safe.

That's the problem you all have though. Although inflation isn't the natural state of fiat currency even if it has been corrupted to this your purpose should not be to accumulate wealth purely by having wealth. You're not supposed to keep 100 dollars under your bed for 50 years hoping it grows to 5000 or even remains the same.

What you used to produce when you were payed 50 dollars is now produced for 5 dollars in a more efficient economy.