Search content
Sort by
Showing 13 of 13 results by mrmacintosh
Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency and it can only be a hedge against inflation for anybody or entity that holds it, it can not on it's own beat the hyperinflation of any centralized local currency or economy. Bitcoin is a store of value and unless a government holds it as a reserve or adopts it as a legal tender that is when it can make any impact for them. Bitcoin is primarily an alternative to fiat currencies, it is a hedge against inflation because of it's limited supply and scarcity, also it is due to it's potentials that it became a valuable asset, so if you are not holding it there is no way that it can be profitable to you or solve the problems of hyperinflation. Any economy that is faced with hyperinflation, the government should look for the root cause of the problem and fix it.
Screw legal tender. Doing business exclusively in crypto makes you immune to any legal tender obligations. I never understood that argument that being able to use stuff like a federal note for legal tender for debt is the reason for its value. You don't care about that at all if you're doing business outside the currency.With fears of US hegemony collapsing soon, many are wondering which will become the world's biggest superpower. Currently, China is the second-largest economy in the world. It has been advancing rapidly, especially in the areas of AI, and EVs (Electric Vehicles). Companies like Deepseek and BYD are becoming a "force to reckon with".
This makes me wonder if soon China will surpass the US as the world's largest economy? If not, why? What do you think will happen if China reigns supreme in the future? Will it become the leading force of the New World Order?
Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
This makes me wonder if soon China will surpass the US as the world's largest economy? If not, why? What do you think will happen if China reigns supreme in the future? Will it become the leading force of the New World Order?
Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Communism is their achilles' heel. China will never become the strongest as long as they have that structure in their country.
Have you ever wondered what the future of credit/debit cards will be once CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies) go public? People will no longer need to use a plastic card to pay for goods and/or services, as everything will be done through a mobile (or desktop) app. This means people will directly interact with the central bank for deposits and/or withdrawals. No need for middlemen like Visa or Mastercard. At least, that's what I think it will happen.
Do you think credit/debit cards will still be a thing after the launch of CBDCs? If not, why? Will payment processors like PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard survive? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Do you think credit/debit cards will still be a thing after the launch of CBDCs? If not, why? Will payment processors like PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard survive? Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
It's a bit weird to jump to the conclusion that things like credit cards will become obsolete, but then I guess at a certain point - probably around the same time the CBDC's are mainstream - then we might have transitioned to only storing debit/credit card apps on our phones anyway. A digital currency does not somehow replace these payment processors, these payment processors can use any digital currency and would likely transform themselves into a trusted exchange. It's likely that hackers would be much more aggressive at targeting home computers in a society that had transitioned to a "digital wallet at home" type setup and most people would feel more comfortable storing their money with well positioned and skilled experts.
This OP is a bit confusing the way you’ve worded it but if you’re asking if money in your bank acocunt is “safe”, the it would depend on a number of factors. Let’s take the United States. FDC insured bank accounts (most banks, especially most well known banks are FDIC insured) are insured up “$100,000”. For a while in the US, the dollar was backed by gold, that ended somewhere in like the 1970s yet many citizens still believe it to be the case.
As with FDIC isurance, this classic scene in Tommy Boy comes to mind ( https://youtu.be/dAkSziqGk00?si=fPXV09r2hFYAD_o9 ). Essentially it’s smoke and mirrors. If a large bank actually ever went under, I say good luck on getting your payout anytime remotely soon, if ever.
Now this is the US I’m referring to. Within other parts of the world your bank money is either not even remotely secure or maybe even a bit more so than within the U.S.
Never heard of insured crypto accounts. Even if they are out there, I wouldn’t put much faith in them like I don’t with the FDIC.
It's $250K in the US. As with FDIC isurance, this classic scene in Tommy Boy comes to mind ( https://youtu.be/dAkSziqGk00?si=fPXV09r2hFYAD_o9 ). Essentially it’s smoke and mirrors. If a large bank actually ever went under, I say good luck on getting your payout anytime remotely soon, if ever.
Now this is the US I’m referring to. Within other parts of the world your bank money is either not even remotely secure or maybe even a bit more so than within the U.S.
Never heard of insured crypto accounts. Even if they are out there, I wouldn’t put much faith in them like I don’t with the FDIC.
Another thing is that the average person has no idea how money works unfortunately. To them, it just happens to have value and they sometimes don't get why prices go up and down. It's a sad reality. Prior to this, people knew the value of their dollar and the gold/ silver behind it. But education has been purposefully depressed to keep this knowledge from ever being taught against unless you go look for it.
Once upon a time, the only reason I wanted a bank was to store my deposits and buy things online. Now I don't really need a bank for that anymore. I can either hold stuff in BTC or in a credit union even. Or Paypal or any other online bank account. I've been thinking for a long time about withdrawing from banks entirely. I honestly see them as the poorman's cash holder.
Re: I don't like the idea of governments holding millions of Bitcoins.
Some Bitcoiners seem to be enthusiastic about plans by politicians to buy or hold big amounts of Bitcoin as part of a "strategic reserve". In particular, Kennedy's announcement that in the (extremely unlikely) case he wins the US election he could buy up to four million Bitcoins as a strategic reserve.
I don't like this idea for the following reason:
States holding such a big amount could interfere too much into Bitcoin's power equilibrium.
Let's see the following hypothetical scenario:
- The US buys 1-2 million BTC, other states/central banks like the ECB, China and India follow, and together they hold let's say 5-7 million (about 25%-35% of all existing Bitcoins).
- Now the FATF sets up a new "recommendation" that a blacklist for "sanctioned" Bitcoin addresses (like those already implemented in Tether and other stablecoins) would be desirable.
- As almost all states obey the FATF's guidelines, together they pressure Bitcoin Core team to implement a blacklist for "sanctioned" Bitcoin addresses which miners have to obey, or alternatively build an own Bitcoin client with a modified protocol.
- This would of course need a hard fork. But they have a lot of coins, so they can increase pressure by threatening to sell all Bitcoins on the chain which does not follow the hard fork. This has a precedent: it's what Ethereum did when they pressured for the hard fork rewinding the TheDAO hack in 2016.
A similar scenario was already discussed for ETFs. But ETFs would never hold so many coins as some are desiring for states/governments to hold, and also their customers could react, so for ETFs I don't see this danger. Up to 1 million, even 2 millions of BTC hold be states/governments/central banks would still not be something to be worried about. But if all bigger states try to buy millions, then it could become really dangerous.
I don't think Bitcoin would "die" in such a scenario, but I think it could lose a lot of value and confidence. And the scenario is not that unlikely to be ignored.
What do you think? I added a poll also with an intermediate scenario like the one announced by Trump, which would lead to a couple of hundred thousands of BTC hold by states, but not millions.
Well, you are seeing this from one angle and failing to see it from another angle, the dangers you talked about are there just as you have described it, but did you even bother a bit to ask yourself, what it will take to buy up to 2 million or more bitcoin from the open market? Even buying 50,000 bitcoin can drive the price of bitcoin up high to the roof, not to talk of buying up to 1 or 2 million bitcoins, buying up to this mentioned about of bitcoin, I can tell you will drive the price of bitcoin to nothing less than a million Dollar, now think about what will happen when one have to spend up to a million dollars just to own 1 bitcoin, and you need like 1 million bitcoins, and remember the more you buying, the more expensive it gets.I don't like this idea for the following reason:
States holding such a big amount could interfere too much into Bitcoin's power equilibrium.
Let's see the following hypothetical scenario:
- The US buys 1-2 million BTC, other states/central banks like the ECB, China and India follow, and together they hold let's say 5-7 million (about 25%-35% of all existing Bitcoins).
- Now the FATF sets up a new "recommendation" that a blacklist for "sanctioned" Bitcoin addresses (like those already implemented in Tether and other stablecoins) would be desirable.
- As almost all states obey the FATF's guidelines, together they pressure Bitcoin Core team to implement a blacklist for "sanctioned" Bitcoin addresses which miners have to obey, or alternatively build an own Bitcoin client with a modified protocol.
- This would of course need a hard fork. But they have a lot of coins, so they can increase pressure by threatening to sell all Bitcoins on the chain which does not follow the hard fork. This has a precedent: it's what Ethereum did when they pressured for the hard fork rewinding the TheDAO hack in 2016.
A similar scenario was already discussed for ETFs. But ETFs would never hold so many coins as some are desiring for states/governments to hold, and also their customers could react, so for ETFs I don't see this danger. Up to 1 million, even 2 millions of BTC hold be states/governments/central banks would still not be something to be worried about. But if all bigger states try to buy millions, then it could become really dangerous.
I don't think Bitcoin would "die" in such a scenario, but I think it could lose a lot of value and confidence. And the scenario is not that unlikely to be ignored.
What do you think? I added a poll also with an intermediate scenario like the one announced by Trump, which would lead to a couple of hundred thousands of BTC hold by states, but not millions.
This is why I think it's not really all that easy for any individual or governments to own up to 2 million bitcoins without them emptying their reserve or treasury.
So for sure no matter what be the political candidates interest and motivation towards bitcoin when it comes to state own reserved in bitcoin, it will go through alot of regulations and debate before such huge amount of bitcoin buying can be approved and executed by the president, so the president does not have the unilateral right to make decisions as he seem fit not in volitile topics like bitcoin investment.
However I am also like OP where I do not 100% trust governments touching this tech. They have access to many ways to control our use of it (such as limited or cutting off the internet). We already saw goverments try to control things like gold with gold buybacks and clipping. But at least it was harder back then for them to confiscate. BTC is even harder, but it's not very difficult to obstruct its use or leverage.
Re: Are you still excited about Bitcoin or has it reached its pinnacle?
Bitcoin uses tech that the bank should have been using a hundred years ago. But due to being tied to fiat, the bank's technology is very much behind the internet in general. I remember a time when I could not even access anything online or had to wait for transactions to go through even though I knew it was simply to check a box digitally. I'm excited for it because it will allow me and everyone else to be truly free. I want us to not only return to the time when we were on gold-standard-like living conditions, but financial independence. FDR and Nixon was a mistake on this country, including their handlers both domestic and internationally (the real villains such as the British Empire).
Try to convince them that fiat is the biggest scam of them all. I still remember a video I saw where the author explained how fiat money has stolen more of people's time and value than even the building of the pyramids. By at least a hundred or thousand times, I cannot remember the ratio. But it was enough to show how much of a monetary slavery we are currently in. At least with BTC, you are now responsible for your own life and it will enrich everyone and everything around you. I still dream of the day that the dollar is defeated and everyone, neighbor and otherwise, become truly free. Imagine having sound money. Everyone will become happier. You'll have more time to yourself, you have to work less at jobs, and everything becomes not only more productive, but cheaper. It will be a massive renaissance. If that dream can be sold to people of what awaits, it will bring them more to our side.
Re: Suggest Practical Ways Someone Could Have Prevented This
⭐ Merited by NotFuzzyWarm (2)
In my opinion, people who cannot be silent about how much they have cannot “be their own bank”.
This guy may have made sense, though I suspect he's a Democrat. Apart from early holders making a killing off Bitcoin, how has it benefitted the world economy? Your opinion though...
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said that Tech-bro's support for Trump and Vance seems to be related to cryptocurrency/ He said that in reality. Bitcoin is still economically useless and useful just for money laundering and extortion. He described Trump's call for the creation of some kind of national Bitcoin reserve as equivalent to the government rescuing a scandal-ridden, value- and environment-destroying industry.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/opinion/vance-trump-cryptocurrency.html
First time on this forum, but this economist only exists to support the current scam that is known as fiat. That's basically any mainstream economist. I haven't trusted an economist since Milton. Milton had some sound arguments, but he never thought of dissolving the dependency on the government money supply.Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said that Tech-bro's support for Trump and Vance seems to be related to cryptocurrency/ He said that in reality. Bitcoin is still economically useless and useful just for money laundering and extortion. He described Trump's call for the creation of some kind of national Bitcoin reserve as equivalent to the government rescuing a scandal-ridden, value- and environment-destroying industry.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/opinion/vance-trump-cryptocurrency.html