So is Bitcoin how to flee fiat money?

[Jeeta]

Why do I have to pay taxes when I use gold? The whole point of using free market money is to get out of the government monopoly. I can't get out of the government monopoly by using gold when I am still being taxed on it.

Something isn't legal if I am penalized for not paying taxes on it. We are talking about 2 different things. You are talking about playing the phony I play by the IRS rules and pay my taxes game. I am talking about not playing that game at all. I am not allowed to not play the silly IRS game without going to jail. If it is legal why does the IRS come after me for not paying taxes on my gold?

So you wouldn't mind every single road becoming the private property of someone and every time you want to drive along their road, you pay a toll? Basically privatizing everything, and having a pay as you use system? And for things like health care and unemployment, you pay insurance to cover yourself?

 

[charlesmartel]

The only reason bitcoins have any value is because people exchange their dollars, etc for them so they can buy drugs and whatnot anonymously. When this ends, so will the value of the bitcoin.

As for me, I will stick to gold. Silver is for peasants.

 

[slayerment]

So you wouldn't mind every single road becoming the private property of someone and every time you want to drive along their road, you pay a toll? Basically privatizing everything, and having a pay as you use system? And for things like health care and unemployment, you pay insurance to cover yourself?

This is a totally different subject now.

I'm not sure if you're aware but you have to pay for your roads now, they're not free. They would be cheaper in a private system and they would be more efficient: less traffic, less speeding tickets, better drivers and so on. So of course I would be for a private road system. Private railroads used to outperform public railroads. We wouldn't have to pay a toll. Funds could be rendered the same way they are now similar to insurance or it could be done digitally on a per mile basis or whatever else the free market would come up with. The free market is 100 times ahead of the D-student government. There are a lot of smart people out there, unfortunately none of them are in the government.

Health care should of course be private. What does unemployment even mean? Define unemployment. It's entirely nebulous.

I am okay with insurance in certain cases, although I don't have insurance for myself at this time.

 

[guerilla]

There's no difference and that's not a problem.

I hope you're not referring to your denominating gold in dollars instead of dollars in gold, because it is a huge difference.

The market will decide which currencies can be trusted and which can't.

I understand that, however we can derive that money without backing is inherently unstable.

There doesn't need to be backing as long as everyone knows exactly how much money is in the system.

Yeah, and we wouldn't need trade if we all had perfect information.

Too bad that's not actually a real condition.

If we had free currencies, you could have your gold and silver money compete with Bitcoin. The market would decide which would win in the end. Of course, violence backed money like all tax-based fiat money would have to be abolished.

You do realize you're talking to a market anarchist and possibly one of 5 people on this forum who actually understands monetary theory?

Allow people to trade in whatever currency they please is what we should be aiming for, not only gold money.

That's not going to happen for generations. People believe in government, and as long as they do, the state will control money.

The problem is much bigger than inventing or testing new and different currencies. These conversations, while occasionally interesting, are basically jerking off in the big scheme of things.

 

[rusvik]

The problem is much bigger than inventing or testing new and different currencies. These conversations, while occasionally interesting, are basically jerking off in the big scheme of things.

Gold money isn't coming back either. By far the most gold traded is ETF's and leveraged paper gold. Huge bubble if people were to actually claim their gold.

So therefore, I think open source currency has a greater chance of succeeding than a return to the gold standard.

Bitcoin could easily become the online currency of choice and that's a pretty big market. It could work just like Paypal but without the anti-laundering measures and fees.

 

[Jeeta]

I'm not sure if you're aware but you have to pay for your roads now, they're not free.

Wouldn't know, not in the US. Where I am only a very small number of roads are private, and require a toll fee.

They would be cheaper in a private system and they would be more efficient: less traffic, less speeding tickets, better drivers and so on.

I agree, plus under private ownership I think it should be up to those who own the roads to impose speed limits.

So of course I would be for a private road system. Private railroads used to outperform public railroads. We wouldn't have to pay a toll. Funds could be rendered the same way they are now similar to insurance or it could be done digitally on a per mile basis or whatever else the free market would come up with. The free market is 100 times ahead of the D-student government. There are a lot of smart people out there, unfortunately none of them are in the government.

I was just thinking about this, I think license plate recognition cameras would work. Maybe a GPS would be even better.

Exactly, most of them are out there enriching themselves.

Health care should of course be private. What does unemployment even mean? Define unemployment. It's entirely nebulous.

I am okay with insurance in certain cases, although I don't have insurance for myself at this time.

I agree health care should be private. By unemployment I mean anybody who's out of paid work for any extended period of time, and need fund to pay bills. Just like Payment Protection Insureance for credit cards and mortgages.

 

[Ar Scion]

There's no difference and that's not a problem. The market will decide which currencies can be trusted and which can't. There doesn't need to be backing as long as everyone knows exactly how much money is in the system. If we had free currencies, you could have your gold and silver money compete with Bitcoin. The market would decide which would win in the end. Of course, violence backed money like all tax-based fiat money would have to be abolished.

Also, I perfectly understand that gold hasn't increased in value as such, but that paper money has decreased.

Allow people to trade in whatever currency they please is what we should be aiming for, not only gold money.

Isn't this just setting up a bitcoin bubble though?

Some crisis comes along, people start dumping bitcoin and voila, instant bitcoin crisis?

 

[guerilla]

Gold money isn't coming back either. By far the most gold traded is ETF's and leveraged paper gold. Huge bubble if people were to actually claim their gold.

Gold is used as money. Central banks buy it to use as reserves. They are buying it a lot right now.

So therefore, I think open source currency has a greater chance of succeeding than a return to the gold standard.

I don't particularly care about gold or anything else, but open source currency is just more nonsense, without the state to make it legal tender.

You need to understand how money originates in a market, in order to make any sort of prediction about what is likely to be money.

I can tell you, Bitcoin has zero chance. You can't use Bitcoins for any other reason than money, which gives it zero advantage over any other kind of trade good, that should you find yourself without trade partners, could be put to different use.

There is a reason why money strives to be ubiquitous if it is good. The value is universally recognized, and it's utility as money rises.

 

[lukep]

Here we go again... Last thread we did this on: http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/136716-bitcoin-not-market-money.html

Guerilla and I agree on most things but this one divides us because I feel that BTC DOES have an inherent value that overcomes the lack of a commodity backing it. -I'll admit that there is a tiny chance that this is just an irrational feeling though, but I can't really imagine a future without something exactly like Bitcoin, a more specialized and anonymous form of online money, taking the place of our failed monetary system once the sheeple start waking up... And the r3VOLution shows me clearly that they are waking up at a much faster rate than before. (Except for Nickycackes, obviously.)

But I don't understand the concept.

The concept is beautiful, elegant, sophisticated, and could be called artwork. You can read about the fine details of it here, but the basics of BTC is that it's anonymous money that is literally impossible to counterfeit. By impossible I don't mean improbable, I really mean uncrackable by anyone but perhaps an alien civilization thousands of years ahead of us in technology. This is what makes BTC elegant and unique; it's always incentivized to stay uncrackable...

The underlying algorythim takes HUGE amounts of computing power to circulate and create bitcoin... That cannot be bypassed by the open-source nature of the distribution system. ...So even if you did get enough computers together to overpower the system (Like the entire population of China, for instance) the payoff for trying to counterfeit a BTC with this farm is literally the same as just doing some BTC farming of your own... And therefore would be.

It's simply beautiful.

So what's bitcoin backed by again?

Vast amounts of computing power.

it's decentralized. Nobody can control/manipulate it.(so far)

Nor ever, my friend. It's too Open Source to be controlled.

Holy shit. Yeah, there's no way I'm investing in bitcoin man, lose your access keys by whatever reason, your fucked with no recovery process.

That's why I keep mine stored on a RAID NAS with nightly offsite backups. You can hit this apartment with a missle and If I survive, I'll still have access to my Bitcoins.

Plus, you CAN write down on paper or something else your wallet codes... These numbers don't have to exclusively live online, they can come out into the real world for a wee bit. (Best way I know to do this is to just a photograph of your screen.)

So then this leads me to my final question, what's stopping someone or a group of people manipulating it's price just like they did in the gold bullion markets?

World majority computing power & open source-ness.

Personally I'm a fan of diversification so I hold USD/CAD/Silver and a few other useful things.

Me too. I'm in 4 different currencies right now. I don't hold much BTC ATM, but as it steadily climbs I wish I did! I could have put tons of money into it when it was ~ $3. At this moment it's $5.54 and has been slowly but steadily rising for months.

(Then again, that could just be the USD sinking so steadily. )

What is the difference between bitcoins and guerillabucksTM?

Vast amounts of computing power that you haven't put together yet in a way that makes guerillabucks completely un-counterfeitable.

That's not going to happen for generations. People believe in government, and as long as they do, the state will control money.

I agree with this point in general but I would like to point you to exhibit A on BTC's long-term performance:

Clearly, someone has yet to tell these people that there is no use for BTC until a government fails... They are finding lots of use for it, even for campaign contributions! (For instance, you can donate BTC to Paul here: 12btnYsoqadY9XHrnV74phF9rPFKLi41W4)

Plus, Paul has been making awesome headway in getting the Fed audited. 225 congressional co-signers for a FED Audit bill voted on very soon! It's not inconceivable that we could throw the federal reserve out one day, although I know it may come to bloodshed first to really accomplish that... Minor details.

You can't use Bitcoins for any other reason than money, which gives it zero advantage over any other kind of trade good, that should you find yourself without trade partners, could be put to different use.

Although I agree, I still say that its' unique qualities make this less of an issue than it was in the past.

Money is a DAMN important thing... SO WHAT if money can't be used as electronics parts and jewelry??? There seems to me to be enough interest in a better money just to be money and nothing but money.

This argument is analogous to a flathead screwdriver. It was made for screwing screws in and out of things... But some people use it very often to pry things open like paint can lids or stuck window seals too.

It seems unlikely that someone could have made a tool to JUST pry open things like paint can lids and stuck window seals without it being able to interface with screws. Why would a limited tool that can't do as much sell well?

Yet today we have both of these:

&

That's called specialization. Both of these do what a flathead screwdriver did for that purpose, BUT BETTER.

BTC could be a Better money for our more specialized needs... It just can't do one of the purposes anymore that money used to do.

 

[guerilla]

Did you just try to make the argument that screwdrivers would be a good form of money?

 

[lukep]

Did you just try to make the argument that screwdrivers would be a good form of money?

Um, no...?

Just saying that a flathead screwdriver has "evolved" into more specialized tools since and so can money, which is now under more and more pressure to diverge in the modern world.

 

[Konkorps]

Um, no...?

Just saying that a flathead screwdriver has "evolved" into more specialized tools since and so can money, which is now under more and more pressure to diverge in the modern world.

So should I sell my screwdrivers or wait until they go up in price?

/halp

 

[guerilla]

Um, no...?

Just saying that a flathead screwdriver has "evolved" into more specialized tools since and so can money, which is now under more and more pressure to diverge in the modern world.

If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle, and the same thing with bitcoin. If it was money, it could be money, but it isn't.

 

[lukep]

If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle, and the same thing with bitcoin. If it was money, it could be money, but it isn't.

Oh come on, thousands of people in hundreds of countries are using it as money every single day in places like the Silk Road, how is this even an argument?

Look I know where this is going: Ultimately money is preserved by authority. Well the authority around here is in trouble, and even with the authority under full control as they currently are, BTC is hanging on and growing in popularity.

 

[guerilla]

Oh come on, thousands of people in hundreds of countries are using it as money every single day in places like the Silk Road, how is this even an argument?

Argumentum ad populum?

Look I know where this is going: Ultimately money is preserved by authority. Well the authority around here is in trouble, and even with the authority under full control as they currently are, BTC is hanging on and growing in popularity.

No, money emerges from the market. That is how gold became money. It was market money for centuries before the states replaced it with fiat.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you don't do the homework on these topics.

Money is a specific thing, it gains it's role in a specific manner. Bitcoin by it's very design, cannot be money.

Sure, people may use Bitcoin as money. They can also use monopoly notes as money, or IOUs, or hugs and kisses. If that's the criteria, then everything is money.

 

[charlesmartel]

All money originates out of barter as a commodity. The regression theorem explains why money, e.g, the paper dollar, has value today.

The Origin of Money and Its Value - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily

 

[penguinbc]

 

[lukep]

Argumentum ad populum?

I didn't say that I am right because so many ppl are using it as money, I said that so many people are using it as money because so many people are using it as money... No Argumentum ad populum there, just a factual observance that is self-evident. :thumbsup:

No, money emerges from the market. That is how gold became money. It was market money for centuries before the states replaced it with fiat.

Agreed, on both points...

1. That it emerged from the market (Responded to a need by the masses)
2. That it changed to be backed by nothing. (Fiat)

So far, however, it sounds an awful lot like Bitcoin, just missing the GOV part.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you don't do the homework on these topics.

You've posted essays and vids on this particular topic and I've watched/read them and agree with mostly everything in them.

It's just that little problem that they don't address that I keep seeing a way around the commodity requirement for.

Money is a specific thing, it gains it's role in a specific manner. Bitcoin by it's very design, cannot be money.

Simply because it's not a commodity, right?

Sure, people may use Bitcoin as money. They can also use monopoly notes as money, or IOUs, or hugs and kisses. If that's the criteria, then everything is money.

Actually the criteria is much more strict than that... Good money needs to be:

1. In limited supply (Which BTC Does far better than any other money)
2. Easily traded, (which in the age of the computer is done by BTC far better than any other money)
3. Easily divisible, (Which BTC Does far better than any other money)
4. Carried around in large denominations (or Portablity, which BTC Does far better than any other money)
5. And is very difficult to counterfeit. (Which BTC Does far better than any other money)

Other than those five criteria, the only remaining argument I see is about 6. the consumability of BTC, or its' "Commodity-ness."

Although it would indeed be a Fiat money, I'd find it quite humorous if someone were to argue that fiat monies can't work... And then go buy some starbucks with a Federal Reserve Note, which is backed by nothing at all but debt.

What we have right now is shitty fiat money, with NEGATIVE worth behind them, that through threat of force and unfair government monopolies, happens to be accepted in most countries of the world... For this year, at least.

In every way imaginable Bitcoin would be a huge step up from FRNs. They aren't commodities either; no one is ever going to use a FRN for anything other than money and perhaps a bit of kindling.

Worse yet, a FRN actually represents negative money, or Debt to the government, due to our massive deficit. -Where a bitcoin doesn't have worth nor debt behind it... It is in limited supply but no body behind it is in debt to anyone.

Is there something other than those 6 criteria for money you'd like to point out? Because if that's it then your entire point is that "the money that requires a gun pointing at your head to accept it is better than the others." -And frankly that argument just makes me want to ditch my FRNs all the sooner.

 

[crackp0t]

Oh come on, thousands of people in hundreds of countries are using it as money every single day in places like the Silk Road, how is this even an argument?

Look I know where this is going: Ultimately money is preserved by authority. Well the authority around here is in trouble, and even with the authority under full control as they currently are, BTC is hanging on and growing in popularity.

Do you have a silk road invite? I've wanted to check it out for a while. That seems to be the only place I hear about that actively has sellers that accept bitcoins.

 

[hehejo]

lukep...

- How do I know that it can't/won't be manipulated. I haven't looked at it in detail (as in, source code) but most people won't. How is someone who does not even have the ability or desire to check it personally able to trust BC?

- Can you imagine buying a few eggs from your local farmer with BCs? No way. But I am sure they will take gold.

Without having looked at the setup, I don't trust BC. I don't trust things that are free with no commercial intent somewhere. I would not be surprised if there is a backdoor somewhere. How do you know they run the exact code they published?

(Please remember that I am fairly ignorant about BC, but even more so is the average person that will have to adopt it for it to become useful as currency)