Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 21 results by BunnyWunny
It's a bullshit argument based on false premises.
Looking on the internet I see that in the USA, 22% of the population has no savings and 44% could not pay an unexpected 1K.
So I don't even go into the rest. There are countries that are more thrifty than the USA, of course, but they are the exception rather than the norm.
You could have applied it to gold, which is much more widespread in the population, and has not led to shrink the economy (if gold becomes widespread enough that most people hold their savings in it, then it will greatly and permanently reduce liquidity in the financial system).
gold is not as easy to hold as bitcoinIf Bitcoin becomes widespread enough that most people hold their savings in it, then it will greatly and permanently reduce liquidity in the financial system, lead to a decrease in consumer spending and cause major ructions in the global economy.
Looking on the internet I see that in the USA, 22% of the population has no savings and 44% could not pay an unexpected 1K.
So I don't even go into the rest. There are countries that are more thrifty than the USA, of course, but they are the exception rather than the norm.
You could have applied it to gold, which is much more widespread in the population, and has not led to shrink the economy (if gold becomes widespread enough that most people hold their savings in it, then it will greatly and permanently reduce liquidity in the financial system).
you are a stooge for the state.
Oh absolutely, because rebelling against basic societal rules and contributing nothing has always been the key to dismantling the all-powerful state. They must be terrified of your... non-compliance?
are you seriously comparing native american society to modern "democratic" society? have you lost every marble in your head?
I don't. You brought them into the conversation, not me. The point is, many pre-colonial Native American tribes had functioning structures, even if different from our modern democracies. These structures involved complex leadership systems with councils, chiefs, and representatives - all chosen by the people. So, like I said before, next time you should really learn some history.
the other being, they did not have anywhere near the amount of regulations and laws that modern society does, the governance structures were extremely loose and basic.
democracy in small groups works, that is patently obvious.
democracy in large groups (try 330 million) does not work and cannot even be considered democracy
I live under actual tyranny. In my country we are one bad news cycle away from being sent to die in a NATO war. If that is not tyranny then I do not know what is.
That's right, you don't know.
Just read a book on the native americans my friend, and see how happy they were.
Sarcasm or ignorance? You do know that social structure was fundamental to traditional Native American societies? They may not have had written rules or bloated governments, but they had clear hierarchies and social norms everyone had to follow. It's embarrassing that someone from outside the US needs to school you on your own history.
are you seriously comparing native american society to modern "democratic" society? have you lost every marble in your head?
people who died for the right to vote were incredibly stupid. humans in our earliest forms have been around for 6 millions years. we only started voting 2500 years ago in ancient greece. it is a dumb cruel experiment and that is becoming more and more obvious everyday. I don't promote a government. The idea of a government for man is undignified to say the least. Why should man be governed? Can man not govern himself? Had we not being doing that for millions of years until these empires imposed these shams on us?
Interesting perspective, but perhaps a little short-sighted. The rights and ability to share views freely came from those who fought for equality. Calling efforts undignified dismisses real suffering under oppression. Try living under actual tyranny and then tell me how much you miss a system with flaws you can address. All systems have flaws, but they can also further justice and governments maintain order and stability. They can protect basic rights, build infrastructure, and ensure a semblance of order. To claim humans governed themselves perfectly for millions of years ignores countless conflicts and power struggles. Sure, you can romanticize the past as much as you want, but the reality is life expectancy a few thousand years ago was significantly lower. Even basic healthcare advancements modern society takes for granted would be life-saving back then. You think you'd be happier living then? Well, if you're past your thirties, chances are you wouldn't even be here to argue the point.
Just read a book on the native americans my friend, and see how happy they were.
And how to fight? Where to begin?
bitcoin 
and civil disobedience
If Bitcoin becomes widespread enough that most people hold their savings in it, then it will greatly and permanently reduce liquidity in the financial system, lead to a decrease consumer spending and cause major ructions in the global economy.
This is bullshit Keynesian Economics. It's like saying that people spend only because they're aware of the inevitability of inflation. With no inflation they'd have no reason to spend. How dumb you have to be to believe that? Are you trying to make us believe that people would never buy a new car if they weren't inclined to do so by inflation, or that they would never buy food if they had vehicles that permanently increase their purchasing power?
People will of course still buy the necessities such as food and a car but the psychological hurdle to clear before buying frivolous items will be raised. And of course, economic growth depends exclusively on the sale of increasingly frivolous items.
If Bitcoin becomes widespread enough that most people hold their savings in it, then it will greatly and permanently reduce liquidity in the financial system, lead to a decrease consumer spending and cause major ructions in the global economy.
People part with their money easily these days because in the back of their heads they know that what they have in their hand right now, will be worth far less in the future due to inflation. So they spend their money on gratifying goodies now rather than save it for later when, due to a negative real return, it will be worth less. In a Bitcoin world this behavior is reversed. People will understand the resilient and long lasting value of their Bitcoin and not want to part with it unless they are getting something very favourable in return. The psychological hurdle to spending money will be raised in each individual's mind.
This change in the mass consumer psychology that is so important and relevant in the world today will lead to a liquidity crunch. Central banks usually solve the problem of a liquidity crunch by printing money and lending it out cheaply but they won't be able to do this as faith in fiat currencies will already have been so severely degraded by Bitcoin's ascendancy. There will be no answer to people becoming more prudent with how they spend their hard earned bitcoin. It will simply shrink the economy.
In my opinion this will be a good thing as so much of the economic "growth" we see in the world today is a vacuous re-packaging of frivolous fancies to meet imaginary needs fueled by an incentive to spend currency that is always losing value. Things that satisfy a genuine pressing need will continue to be invented, bought and sold and this is all that is necessary for a vibrant healthy economy.
People part with their money easily these days because in the back of their heads they know that what they have in their hand right now, will be worth far less in the future due to inflation. So they spend their money on gratifying goodies now rather than save it for later when, due to a negative real return, it will be worth less. In a Bitcoin world this behavior is reversed. People will understand the resilient and long lasting value of their Bitcoin and not want to part with it unless they are getting something very favourable in return. The psychological hurdle to spending money will be raised in each individual's mind.
This change in the mass consumer psychology that is so important and relevant in the world today will lead to a liquidity crunch. Central banks usually solve the problem of a liquidity crunch by printing money and lending it out cheaply but they won't be able to do this as faith in fiat currencies will already have been so severely degraded by Bitcoin's ascendancy. There will be no answer to people becoming more prudent with how they spend their hard earned bitcoin. It will simply shrink the economy.
In my opinion this will be a good thing as so much of the economic "growth" we see in the world today is a vacuous re-packaging of frivolous fancies to meet imaginary needs fueled by an incentive to spend currency that is always losing value. Things that satisfy a genuine pressing need will continue to be invented, bought and sold and this is all that is necessary for a vibrant healthy economy.
We live in a globalised technocracy where people have been reduced to nothing more than economic units. Voting legitimises an illegitimate system. Don't go out to vote in their little charade. Have some dignity. Don't contribute to the tryanny of modern governance systems.
Voting is a fundamental right of the people of a country. Why are you suggesting that this right be denied? If the government of your country is corrupt or involved in illegal activities, why did you vote? The remedy is that if you don't vote, the country won't change. You must vote to change the country. If necessary, protest against the government should be done.We live in a globalised technocracy where people have been reduced to nothing more than economic units. Voting legitimises an illegitimate system. Don't go out to vote in their little charade. Have some dignity. Don't contribute to the tryanny of modern governance systems.
If you are a citizen of a likes of Russia or NK, then sure, i understand, but bringing technocrazy to this makes me think you are just trolling. You know that you never were obligated to vote? You sound bitter but no one made you do it. And stop blaming others if you feel like a tiny gog in the system.Using technocracy as an insult is hilarious. You really think that experts shouldn't be consulted about important decisions? And that common sense somehow beats expert's life work? I guess you don't need math to calculate national budget or a orbital trajectories either, or to be a doctor to do a brain surgery, because skills aren't that really that important?
Imagine building anything sustainable without knowing anything about the subject. How could a country that doesn't consult their experts ever compete with another developed country?
While i definitely defend your right to vote, it sounds like you would vote the opposite that i want so i definitely try to convice you to vote.
However i am definitely voting.
Will refusing to vote during elections make things better?Refusing to vote will only make the system even worse, it will help promote an illegitimate system where those who are there to rule the people will be accountable to no one because they were placed there by no one. This is the only chance the people have to correct their wrongs, so it's better they exercise their civic duty of voting during elections.
And does voting make things better? There isn't a worst or less worse alternative. All of them are the same bullshit... People keep voting every 2 years of their lives and only see things getting worse and worse. So why should anyone continue doing this? It's actually insanity...Between the legitimacy given to corrupt leaders by the majority of a dumb or equally corrupt population is the same as an illegitimate government placed there by no one.
I have always said it, the reason these political leaders maltreat their subjects and forget in a hurry all their campaign promises is because the masses gave them the room to act the way they do. What do you expect from a political leader who bribed his way into office and who did he bribe? Still the same masses who complain every day about bad leadership. Until the masses learn to do the right thing, the same people whom they voted into office won't stop neglecting them.
And the masses will continue acting exactly like that. It has been like this since the beginning of this world. Remember that between Jesus and Barabbas, the crowds chose the outlaw prisioner and delivered Jesus to the death.That is why each person has to take care their own lives and forget about fixing the problems of the world, which are out of our personal control.
We live in a globalised technocracy where people have been reduced to nothing more than economic units. Voting legitimises an illegitimate system. Don't go out to vote in their little charade. Have some dignity. Don't contribute to the tryanny of modern governance systems.
Will refusing to vote during elections make things better?Refusing to vote will only make the system even worse, it will help promote an illegitimate system where those who are there to rule the people will be accountable to no one because they were placed there by no one. This is the only chance the people have to correct their wrongs, so it's better they exercise their civic duty of voting during elections. I have always said it, the reason these political leaders maltreat their subjects and forget in a hurry all their campaign promises is because the masses gave them the room to act the way they do. What do you expect from a political leader who bribed his way into office and who did he bribe? Still the same masses who complain every day about bad leadership. Until the masses learn to do the right thing, the same people whom they voted into office won't stop neglecting them.
We live in a globalised technocracy where people have been reduced to nothing more than economic units. Voting legitimises an illegitimate system. Don't go out to vote in their little charade. Have some dignity. Don't contribute to the tryanny of modern governance systems.
People have died for their right to vote. Voting is our right and privilege to choose the people who we want to lead us. If you don't want to vote, it's your own choice, but if you believe in the future of your country and your vote will make a difference, then go out and vote.I don't know what kind of government you are promoting, but democracy is still the best form of government because the power comes from the people, by the people, and for the people.
If you have different ways of choosing a leader then why did you not include it.
Regardless of the accuracy of the claims... how much has Ruzzia paid for that gorgeous piece of real state? I mean, if you want to summarize, you would need to include how many refineries are out of service, how many radars have been destroyed, how many tons of fuel have burned, how many aircraft have been destroyed. Not to mention lives lost - my guess is that you are now getting NK soldiers for a reason. Putin may not be that confident in mobilising more people from Ruzzia properly said.
It is no longer news, but there are drone strikes in the most expensive Ruzzian infrastructure and weapons system daily. Belgorod has become a no-go place, from being a peaceful place even nice to live in. You can look at Km2, but it is a good idea to look at the dollars and people you pay for them.
Well, it seems you are finding it difficult to provide compelling evidence that this price is too expensive for Russia.It is no longer news, but there are drone strikes in the most expensive Ruzzian infrastructure and weapons system daily. Belgorod has become a no-go place, from being a peaceful place even nice to live in. You can look at Km2, but it is a good idea to look at the dollars and people you pay for them.
No, it is actually simple exercise. How much would a reasonable price for a km2 of agricultural land in Ukraine, full of unexploded ordinance BTW or for a town pretty much razed to the ground, again, full of unexploded ordinance and no population left?
Would you pay, let's say, 1 million? 2 million? 10 million? What would be your estimate? I am going to give you a clue: Farmland in the US is around 1000 usd for 1 km2 and it has no unexploded ordnance and there is rule of law and people around to work it.
Let's say you have lost 1 tank for each of those 1 km2 in Ukraine (the reality is far far worse). You have paid roughly between 5000 & 1000 times the value of that piece of land. Not an excellent business.
Not only that, you are using all your economy to go to war - that is you are into a terrible business running into it with all your possessions and all the income you can muster. do you think the US does not understand this?
A completely different thing is how much that land is worth for Putin's ego. History is full of bankruptcies driven by inflated egos.
Ruzzia will not collapse financially because the economy is biased towards commodities and raw materials exports, but saying it is growing is just funny. It is bleeding people, can only trade at a discount and is burning all the diplomatic relations for the future. I would not like to be there over the next 10 years.
Here is another interesting link from the World Bank with updated data for 2023 with GDP indicators at purchasing power parity. Russia is the fourth largest economy in the world. Isolated and twice torn to shreds by Biden. Your unfounded propaganda slogans are easily refuted by objective financial indicators.Russian Government’s Oil Revenue Was Up Almost 50% in June. Or here's the latest news from Bloomberg, there's something about an oil price ceiling.
Russia is certainly not the fourth economy in the world - more like the 8th, comparable to France.
As said, if you burn through your inherited assets and use it to produce bombs the gdp looks very good, but you are not creating wealth, you are using up your existing storages of value. It can keep going for a while, again, I think the US is perfectly ok with Ruzzia using up the thousands of soviet tanks left there.
Let me put it in a simple way:
1 - Ruzzia sells oil, to a discount over market price.
2 - Ruzzia produces war stuff. Some of the components have to loophole sanctions (to an expense of course).
3 - Ruzzia puts that together with people from poor regions, gets it all destroyed in exchange for dead Ukrainian people and ownership of some territory. This is done at a cost of 1000 times the value of the land (not to mention the soldiers killed).
gdp of course looks great - all the revenues that normally go to the accounts of the elite are now used in paying salaries. What is the problem with this? You are not only not building wealth or assets for the future, you are actually burning through the inventory you had. If you tell me if I want to buy in such "company" I would say no thanks.
But as said, who I am to put a price on Putin's ego? There are people out there that will decide if they are ok to pay it.
[...]
I cannot figure out why the native Slavs of Ukraine cannot see how they are being used/abused (and now genocided) in disproportionate degree by a (((particular tribe))) and resist a little bit. I have to entertain the suggestion from members of said tribe that the natives are simply pretty stupid and manipulable but I don't have to agree that God (or G-d or whatever) put them...and me...on this earth for the sole purpose of serving (((them))). I would have to agree with the Christians that 'the Lord works in strange ways' sometimes.
[...]
I cannot figure out why the native Slavs of Ukraine cannot see how they are being used/abused (and now genocided) in disproportionate degree by a (((particular tribe))) and resist a little bit. I have to entertain the suggestion from members of said tribe that the natives are simply pretty stupid and manipulable but I don't have to agree that God (or G-d or whatever) put them...and me...on this earth for the sole purpose of serving (((them))). I would have to agree with the Christians that 'the Lord works in strange ways' sometimes.
[...]
Perhaps they are very wary of their "brothers" from Moscow and have decided to create their own "tribe"... you know, bad experience during the "hunger games"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Or maybe they have been speaking with the neighbours, you know, comparing car sizes?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZA8mpe3ixSH0tAUtt6F60bLp0oPRzHXwAZQ&s
We live in a globalised technocracy where people have been reduced to nothing more than economic units. Voting legitimises an illegitimate system. Don't go out to vote in their little charade. Have some dignity. Don't contribute to the tryanny of modern governance systems.
But a world in which Bitcoin is the de facto currency is one in which governments will no longer have the option to print currency and attempt to distribute it to the less well off.
I don't think many governments have done anything like that lately. All the new money tends to flow straight to the top of the pyramid because governments are still pushing that abhorrent 'trickle down' lie.
Whether Bitcoin causes greater wealth inequality or not is immaterial. Governments have proven they can't be trusted to run economies and this is the direct response to that failure. It was never Bitcoin's goal to eradicate poverty. It's just there to negate the need for trust.
Wealth inequality rises by default as rich people are able to invest more of their income than the average working person who is forced to spend a greater percentage of their income on consumption just to survive and live. This is simple maths and unavoidable. One way governments have tried to cure this imbalance (and win elections) is through running fiscal deficits in order to fund massive social welfare programs, healthcare programs, education programs and infrastructure projects amongst other things. Due to the unavoidable nature of wealth inequality the money leaves the hands of the poor fairly quickly and ends up with the rich but at least the poor have been bought some time and the cycle can continue for quite a long time as we are seeing. The government debts that are racked up are, through necessity, paid off with freshly printed currency and here is where Bitcoin comes in as everyone knows. Nobody likes their money being debased, not poor people, not rich people.
But a world in which Bitcoin is the de facto currency is one in which governments will no longer have the option to print currency and attempt to distribute it to the less well off. It's a world in which governments will not be able to afford the maintenance of infrastructure and investment in hospitals, schools etc. Every major amenity and service will be privatised. Social programs will be a thing of the past as Governments will not be able to finance them. Governments will not be able to collect taxes in Bitcoin in the same way as they collect taxes in fiat currency as people will have their stashes sequestered away in offline wallets. In a very unequal society the last theoretical resort is to aggressively tax rich people or print money and give it exclusively to poor people but these options are taken away in a Bitcoin world. Besides that, in a globalised world rich people are exceptionally successful at dodging tax which is why governments prefer the much easier option of simply printing money.
As the world transitions to Bitcoin, demand for fiat currency will plummet and it will lose all of it's value much quicker than could realistically be caused by central bank printing. As regular people hold more of their net worth in cash compared to rich people, the collapse in the value of fiat currencies will hurt poor people the most, and will not hurt people with assets at all.
As for anyone who says working people will just work in exchange for Bitcoin and slowly build up their wealth over time the reality is that labour is less valuable than ever and rich corporations are expanding their profit margins. We will not be getting a bounty of Bitcoin from our employers every week or month. In fact rich people and businesses may decide to pay less on wages than ever and create less jobs than ever as the psychology of a scare resource takes hold of their psyche too.
As rich people continue to re-invest the greater share of their income and regular people continue to be compelled to spend the greater share of their income on necessities, it won't take long until the vast majority of the 21 million coins are in the wallets of the very rich and once that happens there is no possible way to redistribute the wealth. As corrupt and incompetent as governments around the world are, the current system protects the financial welfare of regular people more than a Bitcoin based free market will.
But a world in which Bitcoin is the de facto currency is one in which governments will no longer have the option to print currency and attempt to distribute it to the less well off. It's a world in which governments will not be able to afford the maintenance of infrastructure and investment in hospitals, schools etc. Every major amenity and service will be privatised. Social programs will be a thing of the past as Governments will not be able to finance them. Governments will not be able to collect taxes in Bitcoin in the same way as they collect taxes in fiat currency as people will have their stashes sequestered away in offline wallets. In a very unequal society the last theoretical resort is to aggressively tax rich people or print money and give it exclusively to poor people but these options are taken away in a Bitcoin world. Besides that, in a globalised world rich people are exceptionally successful at dodging tax which is why governments prefer the much easier option of simply printing money.
As the world transitions to Bitcoin, demand for fiat currency will plummet and it will lose all of it's value much quicker than could realistically be caused by central bank printing. As regular people hold more of their net worth in cash compared to rich people, the collapse in the value of fiat currencies will hurt poor people the most, and will not hurt people with assets at all.
As for anyone who says working people will just work in exchange for Bitcoin and slowly build up their wealth over time the reality is that labour is less valuable than ever and rich corporations are expanding their profit margins. We will not be getting a bounty of Bitcoin from our employers every week or month. In fact rich people and businesses may decide to pay less on wages than ever and create less jobs than ever as the psychology of a scare resource takes hold of their psyche too.
As rich people continue to re-invest the greater share of their income and regular people continue to be compelled to spend the greater share of their income on necessities, it won't take long until the vast majority of the 21 million coins are in the wallets of the very rich and once that happens there is no possible way to redistribute the wealth. As corrupt and incompetent as governments around the world are, the current system protects the financial welfare of regular people more than a Bitcoin based free market will.
[...]
These are ridiculous arguments to even have a slight certainty. But, besides that, you ignore a crucial part. Satoshi's and Nick Szabo's texts have been run as inputs in reverse textual analysis, and are strongly connected. For your theory to make sense, either Edward has to pretend to be Nick (which is another level of ridicule), or Edward's texts are more connected than Nick's (which is not the case as far as we're concerned). //EDIT: Case made here for the rule to be equitably enforced.
Fair. I hope I haven't violated it. I'll stop talking about it. It's entirely circumstantial but that doesn't make it ridiculous. What is ridiculous is trying to prove who Satoshi is through semantic analysis when there are so few forum posts to analyse and when he clearly guarded against this by deliberately writing blandly.
Nobody will ever scientifically prove who Satoshi is, hence why one needs to think more creatively. All the other strong candidates are most certainly not Satoshi as they have been pored over endlessly by the entire web for 13 years and there is nothing more than circumstantial evidence to suggest it is them. However there is more circumstantial evidence to suggest it is Snowden. He had the skills, the motives and means. He has an earth shatteringly large amount of Bitcoin. And he knows better than almost anyone how to remain digitally anonymous.
But the hipsters choice is that it can't be anyone who is already famous. It has to be some obscure cryptographer living in their mom's basement. Someone with the brilliance of Satoshi is most certainly not whittling away their lives inconspicuously, they are probably very prominent in some field or maybe many, in a way that would give them a large profile. How many people as brilliant as Satoshi do you know are living the life of a regular civilian, going completely unnoticed by society?
But if I'm completely wrong in saying that Snowden ought to be considered a serious candidate for Satoshi then tell me why? What are the reasons to exclude him?
I'm almost convinced Edward Snowden is Satoshi
I love it when people create accounts just to post this
Since we all speculate here, do you wanna elaborate? How have you come to this conclusion?
Thanks for asking.
1. Considering Satoshi has kept himself a secret for so long despite so much intrigue as to who he is, it probably makes sense that he was a spy. So that's matches Snowden.
2. Whoever created bitcoin was an expert in cryptography. Snowden worked for the NSA which does a lot of cryptography and he had access to the latest cryptographic research projects. He also used advanced cryptography to create multiple layers of encryption for the documents that he took from the NSA in order to stop them falling into the wrong hands. He used multiple 4096 and 8192 bit encryption keys for example. This is all detailed in his book the Permanent Record. To this day no one has managed to access the files that Snowden stole, apart from Snowden when he gave heavily redacted versions to the newspapers. This top secret info has been outside of the NSA for ten years now, and no foreign government have gotten their hands on it. Not one US service man had come a cropper due to Snowden's leaks. Snowden distributed the multiple encryption keys in a way not dissimilar to how blockchain works. Again, there is a paragraph about this in his book, i can quote if you like.
3. Timeline. Bitcoin started to be developed around 2008/2009, this is around the same time that Snowden started to suspect the Government were badly misbehaving around surveillance. He started to develop a radical libertarian philosophy. This obviously led to him becoming a whistleblower but might also have motivated Satoshi to hit overreaching governments where it hurts, their currencies.
4. Necessity. When Snowden was on run from the US Government he could only pay in two ways, cash or bitcoin. He used Bitcoin in his escape. Maybe this wasn't a lucky break for Snowden. Snowden leaked the documents in May 2013, only a few months after Bitcoin had gained some monetary value and became useable as an underground currency. Maybe he realised some years before that he would very much like a P2P e-cash when he eventually blew the whistle? Maybe he decided to create it.
5. Snowden has a ton of Bitcoin and i mean a ton. Snowden mentioned to a journalist in Hong Kong in 2013 that he had been sent enough Bitcoin and I quote "to live on until the fucking sun dies". At that time Bitcoin was trading at around $1,000 a bitcoin. If he already had enough Bitcoin then to live on for the rest of his life and then some, it means he had and has a lot of Bitcoin. And it also is unlikely people would have donated him that much bitcoin. Also note, this quote by Snowden was meant to be off the record but the journalist included it in the article. Satoshi also has enough bitcoin to live on until the fucking sun dies.
6. Snowden was aware of the risks of being exposed due to semantic analysis (recognising patterns of language). Satoshi's forum posts are notably bland and devoid of personality and style. This is clearly by design and Snowden used the same approach when communicating with journalists before he leaked the NSA documents. There is a reference to Snowden's awareness of this risk in a Washington Post article titled "Code name "Verax": Snowden in exchanges with Post reporter, made clear he knew risks." Google the article if you like.
7. Snowden keeps saying same things Satoshi said in his tweets. like the recent Snowden tweet on Feb 18th. "If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry". this obviously could just be Snowden playing homage to Satoshi, but still it's weird to just quote someone else without making it clear you're quoting someone else. Most people who are quoting someone will reference the person they are quoting. But you wouldn't if you were quoting yourself.