Financial topics

[aeden]

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/ ... 2020060606

Here is the real reason for the current patent and crypto currency.

You want to know who controls it. Read the purpose and who owns it.
Wake up....

The Eugenics project replacements are entering enmass.

Your in a game you cannot fathom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cCO7Wg-og0

[vincecate]

[You have not made a solid case for your "fundamental flaws that can't be rectified" claim.

Bitcoin isn't structured as a currency, but an asset. For a Bitcoin based system to have a currency, there has to be something on the other side of it.

There is nothing on the other side of the dollar, so by your logic the dollar is not a currency?

If you wire assets around and stop using currency, you have an agricultural age money system. It's not appropriate for an industrial age or information age economic system. It's not complex enough.

So that people wire dollars around makes that an "agricultural age money system" and "not appropriate for an industrial age or information age"?

If I click "send" on my Bitcoin app you count that as a "wire transfer"? A wire transfer is where I have to go to the bank, stand in line, fill out paperwork, pay the bank to do the wire, and hope that my paperwork gets past their "compliance people" and those of every bank along the route of the wire. This really is nothing like what goes on in Bitcoin.

What do you think a well constructed digital currency must be able to do that Bitcoin/Lightning can not do?

[vincecate]

Reading the rest of what you wrote, it never was a technical issue with Bitcoin in terms of its speed or ease of use. I never said that because it could easily be fixed. It's a structural issue in how Bitcoin was structured and introduced as part of an system that is solely asset based and is a mismatch for a complex economy.

What do you mean "solely asset based"? Can you give examples of several asset based and several non-asset based things?

Bitcoin was just some software released to the world that people started running. It is only a technical issue. There is nothing more to it really than technology.

But "fundamental flaw which can not be fixed" sounds like a "technical issue".

What do you mean when you say the problem is with how it is "structured and introduced"? What is wrong with the structure? What is wrong with how it was introduced?

What is the "mismatch"? What problem shows up because of this mismatch?

[Higgenbotham]

You have not made a solid case for your "fundamental flaws that can't be rectified" claim.

Bitcoin isn't structured as a currency, but an asset. For a Bitcoin based system to have a currency, there has to be something on the other side of it.

There is nothing on the other side of the dollar, so by your logic the dollar is not a currency?

If you wire assets around and stop using currency, you have an agricultural age money system. It's not appropriate for an industrial age or information age economic system. It's not complex enough.

So that people wire dollars around makes that an "agricultural age money system" and "not appropriate for an industrial age or information age"?

If I click "send" on my Bitcoin app you count that as a "wire transfer"? A wire transfer is where I have to go to the bank, stand in line, fill out paperwork, pay the bank to do the wire, and hope that my paperwork gets past their "compliance people" and those of every bank along the route of the wire. This really is nothing like what goes on in Bitcoin.

What do you think a well constructed digital currency must be able to do that Bitcoin/Lightning can not do?

What's on the other side of the dollar is central bank reserves. Those are their assets of the central bank and the dollar is their liability. The dollar is the currency.

Bitcoin is treated as an asset, so it is like central bank reserves. If Bitcoin had been properly structured, there would be an as yet nonexistent currency on the other side of it.

You don't have to go to the bank to do a wire anymore. The domestic wires are almost instantaneous but there are still fees for outgoing domestic wires (not incoming in most cases). But for outgoing international wires there are still fees, exorbitant exchange rate differentials, and time delays.

It's not a technical issue of what it can do in terms of the mechanics of sending Bitcoin. It's that the system will get out of control if any commodity based or asset based money is used on a worldwide basis that has no control mechanisms for trade and differences between local economies.

[Cool Breeze]

I'm not sure what your question is

[Higgenbotham]

Reading the rest of what you wrote, it never was a technical issue with Bitcoin in terms of its speed or ease of use. I never said that because it could easily be fixed. It's a structural issue in how Bitcoin was structured and introduced as part of an system that is solely asset based and is a mismatch for a complex economy.

What do you mean "solely asset based"? Can you give examples of several asset based and several non-asset based things?

Bitcoin was just some software released to the world that people started running. It is only a technical issue. There is nothing more to it really than technology.

But "fundamental flaw which can not be fixed" sounds like a "technical issue".

What do you mean when you say the problem is with how it is "structured and introduced"? What is wrong with the structure? What is wrong with how it was introduced?

What is the "mismatch"? What problem shows up because of this mismatch?

The structure is that it is solely an asset with no liability (currency) on the other side of it, or, as I've stated, many disparate currencies that link together. Moroever, it was introduced by treating it as a volatile speculative asset rather than a stable asset, then compounding that by listing it on the CME (after which it went from $20,000 to $3,000, then back up).

I think for people to get opinions other than mine on what all this means, they could read the opinions of various experts as to what would happen if the world went back on the gold standard and everyone used an electronic gold backed currency that paid no interest. That's the situation that would seem to apply if Bitcoin did become legal tender so, absent that issue, there's probably a recent history of discussion on that scenario that is more extensive than what it is for Bitcoin. I've found nothing similar for Bitcoin. The closest thing I've found that seemed right to me is what I posted from Armstrong, which seemed pretty good as far as it went.

These quotes are taken from articles Armstrong has written that are tagged with Bitcoin.

A currency has to be LEGAL TENDER as long as we have governments. That means it must be acceptable even by the government for taxes. This cryptocurrency is not really a currency at all. It is simply a speculative investment. To be a real currency it must be used within society to conduct commerce. We cannot accept it for by the time we would go to convert it, who knows what the value would be. It is far too volatile.
As long as cryptocurrencies are an asset class, then they will survive a monetary crisis along with all other assets. Assets are the ONLY thing that survives the collapse of a currency. So be careful of what you wish for.

The new currency issued after the German Hyperinflation, Rentenmark, was backed by real estate. Tangible assets are on the opposite side of whatever the currency is in use. When the stock market rises, the purchasing power of the currency declines. When the stock market crashes, then the purchasing power of the currency rises. They are on OPPOSITE sides. Do you really want a cryptocurrency to be a currency or asset? Most people pitching them are really explaining an alternative asset – not a currency.

Cryptocurrencies are a new asset class. Just look at them from that perspective. You are asking a lot if we are talking about replacing the monetary system with private money. That is just not likely in the cards. Nonetheless, we will probably end up with a new RESERVE currency used among nations. That is still unlikely going to be a world currency used by the people in every country. What we use for currency can be cryptocurrencies of some sort ONLY if we see the political powers crumble and fall.

None of the big IT companies are doing anything with Blockchain. That may change in the future and it may even be replaced by something even better. I draw the line between an asset class and a replacement currency for the dollar with a very thick marker. You would have to completely destroy the system as is for that to even come into play. Is that what people are praying for? All pensions gone, banks destroyed and you think this cryptocurrency will be the only thing to survive? You go that far the ONLY money becomes FOOD! We are still in mid-game and we are not yet close to the end-zone.

For now, cryptocurrencies are not a currency at all, they are a new asset class. Just because they are called “currency” does not make them an actual currency. If they are not widely accepted in payment as legal tender, then they are not yet ready for prime time. When you go online to buy anything, they display the standard payment methods – not BitCoin.

Calling BitCoin a “currency” does not make it one. It is still an asset class and for it to be a currency, it would have to respond OPPOSITE of assets, not trade with them.

Cryptocurrencies are an ASSET CLASS for trading. Do not marry the trade. Treat them as any stock and you will be fine.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/tag/bitcoin/

[aeden]

I'm not sure what your question is.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheig ... index.html

I will convey this primer to the query to sanction in a broader context.
Remember Xiden is a creature of habit well worn as another k street and j limousine liberals funtions and are
well known. You must gather some here know your position even before 1996 from the 1974 paper
to the root discussion from 1937. Every action is playbook 1993 Clinton to date on faction response
and credulity.

Today it appears Neanderthal Scholar won the blue anon trust button.
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status ... 13/photo/1

The stench of their evil hypocrisy will be the Lords timing which we pity them.
The telling was break no bread with them they are truly indeed cursed.

[vincecate]

What's on the other side of the dollar is central bank reserves. Those are their assets of the central bank and the dollar is their liability. The dollar is the currency.

Bitcoin is treated as an asset, so it is like central bank reserves. If Bitcoin had been properly structured, there would be an as yet nonexistent currency on the other side of it.

The central banks, including the Fed, have bonds denominated in dollars as assets. What this means is that if the value of the dollar goes down, the value of their future dated "assets" goes down more. There is nothing really backing the dollar. It is a mirage and deception. The law creating the Fed said they will always have assets so people could redeem $20 for 1 oz of gold. That failed long ago.

As long as they can print trillions out of thin air and give it to the government to spend (buy their bonds) you have to understand that they don't really get it back, ever. They just keep getting more and more bonds. The government is spending twice what they get in taxes and can not really pay off the bonds. They just sell more bonds to the central bank to pay off the older bonds. It is a trick that you must see through.

Imagine that the Fed and the Treasury were in the same building (with old Fed chair now the head of the Treasury we are sort of there). Just look at what goes into the building and what comes out. They are printing lots of new money and getting IOUs from the government that can't afford to pay. Their "assets" are not really assets.

For the Fed to be backing the dollar with dollars is so silly it is strange that people have fallen for it this long. But when people start selling their bonds faster and faster, and the value of the dollar starts crashing as they print more and more to buy the bonds, it will start to become clear that there is really nothing on the other side of the dollar.

If you think of the Fed as a stand alone bank you can think it has assets. But it is really just the printing press arm of the Federal government.

The Fed buying 30 year bonds at 2% in their own currency is a horrible violation of "The Real Bills Doctrine". We will see why this is an error soon enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_bills_doctrine

You don't have to go to the bank to do a wire anymore. The domestic wires are almost instantaneous but there are still fees for outgoing domestic wires (not incoming in most cases). But for outgoing international wires there are still fees, exorbitant exchange rate differentials, and time delays.

It's not a technical issue of what it can do in terms of the mechanics of sending Bitcoin. It's that the system will get out of control if any commodity based or asset based money is used on a worldwide basis that has no control mechanisms for trade and differences between local economies.

Well, in Anguilla we still have to go to the bank. All wires from Anguilla are international wires. But the wires are all checked by "compliance officers" and can be blocked. I have had wires get through to other countries and then get blocked. No Bitcoin transfer can be blocked. So to me it feels like I have total control over my Bitcoin while I have to get permission from all kinds of bankers to do things with my money in banks.

The thing that is out of control is the dollar printing presses. There is "no control mechanism" for this. Bitcoin has a control on the rate of new Bitcoin creation, this control is at a technical level.

[Higgenbotham]

The kinds of questions I asked myself were about how an economic and monetary system should be structured for the technologies that exist today that relate to currency:

Does there need to be a currency? If so, how should it be structured? In other words, where should a certain currency be used (national, local, etc.) and how should they link up.
Does the currency need to be backed by anything? If so, what?
Do there need to be loans? Why?
Does a currency need to pay an interest rate? Why? How should interest rates be determined?

And probably a few other things.

In my opinion, the answers to the above questions for our present economic system is yes. That's another way of restating what I've said previously. Certainly, there will be people or groups of people who, over time, will come up with more and better questions and better answers to those questions. My questions and answers are really basic and just for my own use in trying to figure out what to do. I'm remaining 100% in US dollars. The US dollar is a terribly flawed currency.

[vincecate]

I'm remaining 100% in US dollars. The US dollar is a terribly flawed currency.

I don't think it will be many years now till it is clear that having much of your wealth in US dollars was a huge mistake.