How To Use Bitcoin – The Most Important Creation In The History Of Man

[EGarrett]

Back up to $60.

As I've said before, it's not about speculation, Bitcoins are not meant to be an investment scheme. But it sure as hell is interesting.

I was fully aware that they would never disappear or fall to 0 due to the solid cryptography and incredible usefulness of it, but I didn't expect it to explode like this.

 

[psionl0]

Anybody want to buy a tulip bulb?

The price of bitcoin might well collapse for any number of reasons but not because of futures trading. This is a completely novel concept and nobody knows what the rules are.

 

[Puppycow]

$65 a day later.

 

[psionl0]

$65 a day later.

The news from Cypress suggests that your money is not safe in a bank. If that idea gains traction then the price of bitcoin (not to mention gold etc) could shoot through the roof.

What's the bet that governments try to ban bitcoin to protect the banks? (That would bring down the price of bitcoin a bit).

 

[The Don]

btw, it's Cyprus.

 

[psionl0]

btw, it's Cyprus.

Thanks.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

Eh, no that is funny - I was thinking of Cyprus today and then my thoughts turned to bitcoin and well, here we are. I wouldn't be surprised if bitcoin or something like it replaces bank-created fiat in this century. It just makes sense, in a way that banks do not. Looks like it is catching on.

 

[Belz...]

How, exactly, does it make sense in a way that banks do not ?

 

[ravdin]

The news from Cypress suggests that your money is not safe in a bank. If that idea gains traction then the price of bitcoin (not to mention gold etc) could shoot through the roof.

What's the bet that governments try to ban bitcoin to protect the banks? (That would bring down the price of bitcoin a bit).

Your bitcoins are subject to theft as well. At least your fiat money in the bank is subject to a 10% shave, rather than 100%!

 

[fitzgibbon]

Just came across this

"Man selling his Alberta $400,000 house for virtual money, rather than cash"

Fitz

 

[Puppycow]

It's interesting. Each morning I wake up and it's much higher than the day before. Yesterday morning it was $65, today $72. OMG IT REALLY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT CREATION IN THE HISTORY OF MAN!!!!11!!

 

[Democracy Simulator]

How, exactly, does it make sense in a way that banks do not ?

It decentralises monetary authority. No more deliberate inflation and debasement of the currency. In essence, power to the people.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

It's interesting. Each morning I wake up and it's much higher than the day before. Yesterday morning it was $65, today $72. OMG IT REALLY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT CREATION IN THE HISTORY OF MAN!!!!11!!

The ECB is concerned about it:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...l-central-bank-concerns-chart-of-the-day.html

I would say that we are at an interesting point of history where the reputation of the central banking model is being destroyed at the exact same time as an alternative virtual currency becomes a realistic possibility. I'm not saying that bitcoin will be the one to do it, but there is a possibility. Once this kind of thing takes off, it could be exponential.

An interesting question would be:

If bitcoin grows to start taking a significant share of transactions in the economy (say a few percent), will the powers that be work to shut it down?

I think the answer to that will almost certainly be yes. In which case, I expect a surge in the profile and popularity of bitcoin.

Anyway, enjoying this highly speculative thread.

 

[Belz...]

It decentralises monetary authority. No more deliberate inflation and debasement of the currency. In essence, power to the people.

Question-begging. Does "power to the people" make sense for everything ? Would you want laws to be voted by a majority ?

 

[Democracy Simulator]

Question-begging. Does "power to the people" make sense for everything ? Would you want laws to be voted by a majority ?

Well, this is an interesting question and one that I have been thinking about a lot recently. I find it hard to justify any other stance than backing the democratic will of the people and enabling that expression. I suppose I am loosely in favour of direct democracy. No political system is perfect, but I find that politicians are not as representative as they should be. Professional career politicians are too vulnerable to lobbyists and vested interests.

As for 'laws voted by a majority', I would be in favour of any proposed laws to ideally be published at least 3 months before they are voted on and for there to be an official (i.e. state sponsored) forum for citizen discussion of those laws. It would be good to engage citizens as much as possible in this process. As for who votes on the laws, I would probably rather the citizenry, than professional career politicians. As for who proposes the laws, that is a tricky question...

 

[Belz...]

Well, this is an interesting question and one that I have been thinking about a lot recently. I find it hard to justify any other stance than backing the democratic will of the people and enabling that expression. I suppose I am loosely in favour of direct democracy. No political system is perfect, but I find that politicians are not as representative as they should be. Professional career politicians are too vulnerable to lobbyists and vested interests.

As for 'laws voted by a majority', I would be in favour of any proposed laws to ideally be published at least 3 months before they are voted on and for there to be an official (i.e. state sponsored) forum for citizen discussion of those laws. It would be good to engage citizens as much as possible in this process. As for who votes on the laws, I would probably rather the citizenry, than professional career politicians. As for who proposes the laws, that is a tricky question...

I think that's wrong. Direct democracy is a pathway for the tyranny of the majority. If most people don't care for, say, blacks, then they can effectively remove their rights. There's a reason why representatives and various branches of governments are supposed to act as checks and balances for each other: laymen are not well-suited to make those kinds of decisions.

Similarily, I don't think money should necessarily fluctuate directly with offer and demand. There should be stabilizing factors, such as controled inflation, to prevent massive changes to the value of your money within hours.

 

[shuttlt]

I think that's wrong. Direct democracy is a pathway for the tyranny of the majority. If most people don't care for, say, blacks, then they can effectively remove their rights. There's a reason why representatives and various branches of governments are supposed to act as checks and balances for each other: laymen are not well-suited to make those kinds of decisions.

Similarily, I don't think money should necessarily fluctuate directly with offer and demand. There should be stabilizing factors, such as controled inflation, to prevent massive changes to the value of your money within hours.

Isn't another issue that most people have better things to do than answer questions on how to run the country over and over. You'd have the tyrany on the minority of people who, for what ever reason, turn out and vote.

 

[Belz...]

Isn't another issue that most people have better things to do than answer questions on how to run the country over and over. You'd have the tyrany on the minority of people who, for what ever reason, turn out and vote.

I'm not sure I follow your second sentence.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm not sure I follow your second sentence.

Few enough people vote normally when they have to do it only every few years. Unless that changed you wouldn't have the tyranny of the majority. You'd have the tyranny of the people who were sufficiently interested/motivated in what ever the issue was to turn out. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. I just don't think it would be the majority of people deciding. The majority would be too busy/disinterested.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

I think that's wrong. Direct democracy is a pathway for the tyranny of the majority. If most people don't care for, say, blacks, then they can effectively remove their rights. There's a reason why representatives and various branches of governments are supposed to act as checks and balances for each other: laymen are not well-suited to make those kinds of decisions.

Similarily, I don't think money should necessarily fluctuate directly with offer and demand. There should be stabilizing factors, such as controled inflation, to prevent massive changes to the value of your money within hours.

If most politicians don't care for a particular ethnic group they can remove their rights. At the moment we have the tyranny of career politicians. The tyranny of the very few, which is given some kind of shroud of legitimacy by the fact that 'everyone' is able to vote for these representatives every few years. And they they lie to you to get into power and don't do what they say they are going to do. As for the ill-suitedness of laymen to make decisions regarding laws and governance, that seems to be an elitist prejudice that is not borne out by any evidence. The only country that has a significant incorporation of direct democracy into lawmaking processes is Switzerland and their system seems to compare very favorably with the representative democracies elsewhere.

As for your second point, there are plenty of instances of central bank money significantly changing its value relative to other currencies within hours. I lived in The UK during the ERM debacle.