[Finance] The cryptocurrency (Bitcoin etc) thread

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊



Tyrone Biggums

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2006
13,498
Geelong, Australia
This is the balance sheet, simple code.
View attachment 166706
There is no underlying asset back it up.

There is no company or board, similarly no one owns the bitcoin company or brand etc. Arguably people who run nodes are responsible for the performance, requiring consensus for proposed changes. Anyone can run a node.

Also, bitcoin ≠ crypto more broadly, although there are obviously mainly similarities.


Added to that the Miners play a very important part in BTC.
 




chickens

Have you considered masterly inactivity?
NSC Patron
Oct 12, 2022
2,698
How is it tin foil hat when Governments are already speaking of CBDCs?

They want to control how you spend your money.


There's already businesses not accepting cash.



The thing about rules is they are made up by biased, corrupt, self serving politicians and policy makers.

It's understandable why many people do not trust or respect many of these rules.

In the real world Government's steal money from the people and call it "tax". Theft is perfectly fine by most of the people who cry about crypto.

So your answer to elected governments, established legal and tax systems, and defined roles and responsibilities are “trust us” tech bro’s. Ye gods.

Tax isn’t theft btw unless you’re one of those lunatic libertarians who don’t believe in human society.

I’m at risk of the MMT chap crawling out of his hole by repeating this, but tax is not theft. Taxes pay toward essential public services, services which are required by all, or at least the majority of society, and are therefore more efficiently administered centrally through population taxation.

You’re starting to come across as the Wolfie Smith of the Liz Truss set.
 


Half Time Pies

Well-known member
Sep 7, 2003
1,575
Brighton
Nobody "owns" Bitcoin.

That's the whole point of it.

Decentralised from Government interference.
Except the founder of bitcoin is believed to own over 5% of the total number of Bitcoins that can ever be generated - a destabilising amount. We don't even know who he (or organisation or state) is yet this seems to be absolutely of know concern at all?

Ultimately in a world where Bitcoin (or other crypto currency) dominated, the power would be held by the people or organisations who held most of that crypto currency. Therefore if Bitcoin was to become a reserve currency as many are predicting Satoshi Nakamoto would have more influence, wealth and power than can possibly imagined. So as I see it its take your pick between the power being concentrated in the hands of a load of faceless libertarians or a democratically elected government. I know which one I would choose.
 


Half Time Pies

Well-known member
Sep 7, 2003
1,575
Brighton
How is it tin foil hat when Governments are already speaking of CBDCs?

They want to control how you spend your money.


There's already businesses not accepting cash.



The thing about rules is they are made up by biased, corrupt, self serving politicians and policy makers.

It's understandable why many people do not trust or respect many of these rules.

In the real world Government's steal money from the people and call it "tax". Theft is perfectly fine by most of the people who cry about crypto.
Only the most extreme libertarian nuts jobs subscribe to the idea that taxation is theft. Most rational people understand the need to redistribute wealth in order to tackle inequality.
 


Tyrone Biggums

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2006
13,498
Geelong, Australia
So your answer to elected governments, established legal and tax systems, and defined roles and responsibilities are “trust us” tech bro’s. Ye gods.

Yes, because the systems you trust are actually trustworthy and not set up to keep the power and wealth among themselves. None of what you mentioned has anything to do with morals.

Which is why so many morally bankrupt people are involved in those systems.

So maybe I'd rather trust some of those tech bros over politicians.

Tax isn’t theft btw unless you’re one of those lunatic libertarians who don’t believe in human society.

I’m at risk of the MMT chap crawling out of his hole by repeating this, but tax is not theft. Taxes pay toward essential public services, services which are required by all, or at least the majority of society, and are therefore more efficiently administered centrally through population taxation.

You’re starting to come across as the Wolfie Smith of the Liz Truss set.

Anything owned by an individual that is taken without a person's permission is theft.

I wouldn't call anyone else a lunatic when you'd gladly support throwing someone in jail and taking away their freedom just because they wouldn't give up their hard earned money so some slimeball politicians can piss it away.
 




Tyrone Biggums

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2006
13,498
Geelong, Australia
Except the founder of bitcoin is believed to own over 5% of the total number of Bitcoins that can ever be generated - a destabilising amount. We don't even know who he (or organisation or state) is yet this seems to be absolutely of know concern at all?

Ultimately in a world where Bitcoin (or other crypto currency) dominated, the power would be held by the people or organisations who held most of that crypto currency. Therefore if Bitcoin was to become a reserve currency as many are predicting Satoshi Nakamoto would have more influence, wealth and power than can possibly imagined. So as I see it its take your pick between the power being concentrated in the hands of a load of faceless libertarians or a democratically elected government. I know which one I would choose.

Just because you say "democratically elected" it means nothing.

The biggest corrupt organisations in the world count "democratically elected" Governments among their numbers.

It wasn't the Libertarians who brought FTX down as an example. It was an utterly corrupt Democrat voting party donor who had lots of cosy meetings with Democrat appointees who did that.
 


Berty23

Well-known member
Jun 26, 2012
3,652
People who think taxes are theft but are happy to drive on the roads, go to the shops to buy food, turn on the tap to get water, flick on the boiler to get gas, call a fire engine if their house is burning, walk the streets knowing that there are laws protecting them need to give their heads a wobble.

All of that is possible due to tax. How do you think our infrastructure is made? Where do workers come from? (The magic education tree). How do workers stay fit and healthy etc etc.

These people who think it should just be one big free for all scare me.
 


RandyWanger

Je suis rôti de boeuf
Mar 14, 2013
6,712
Done a Frexit, now in London
People who think taxes are theft but are happy to drive on the roads, go to the shops to buy food, turn on the tap to get water, flick on the boiler to get gas, call a fire engine if their house is burning, walk the streets knowing that there are laws protecting them need to give their heads a wobble.

All of that is possible due to tax. How do you think our infrastructure is made? Where do workers come from? (The magic education tree). How do workers stay fit and healthy etc etc.

These people who think it should just be one big free for all scare me.

Agree in principal, tax is needed. But the way we're taxed in the UK on income vs wealth means working people pay more tax than the 'elites' who pay for the politicians. We need a farer tax system in this country.
 




chickens

Have you considered masterly inactivity?
NSC Patron
Oct 12, 2022
2,698
People who think taxes are theft but are happy to drive on the roads, go to the shops to buy food, turn on the tap to get water, flick on the boiler to get gas, call a fire engine if their house is burning, walk the streets knowing that there are laws protecting them need to give their heads a wobble.

All of that is possible due to tax. How do you think our infrastructure is made? Where do workers come from? (The magic education tree). How do workers stay fit and healthy etc etc.

These people who think it should just be one big free for all scare me.

100% this.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,023
Only the most extreme libertarian nuts jobs subscribe to the idea that taxation is theft. Most rational people understand the need to redistribute wealth in order to tackle inequality.
:ffsparr: you're suppose to use the argument its to pay for services and core functions of the state. "redistribution" is quite different and politically biased argument.
 


Berty23

Well-known member
Jun 26, 2012
3,652
Agree in principal, tax is needed. But the way we're taxed in the UK on income vs wealth means working people pay more tax than the 'elites' who pay for the politicians. We need a farer tax system in this country.
I agree with this. The amount of wealth not just in the elite but in houses that people have lived in for 50 years is nuts. “I have worked hard to do this” - not necessarily. Some people could have dossed through life living in a run down house that through nothing they have done is suddenly worth three quarter of a million quid. Well done for living.
 




Tyrone Biggums

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2006
13,498
Geelong, Australia
People who think taxes are theft but are happy to drive on the roads, go to the shops to buy food, turn on the tap to get water, flick on the boiler to get gas, call a fire engine if their house is burning, walk the streets knowing that there are laws protecting them need to give their heads a wobble.

All of that is possible due to tax. How do you think our infrastructure is made? Where do workers come from? (The magic education tree). How do workers stay fit and healthy etc etc.

These people who think it should just be one big free for all scare me.

You describe the functions of a small Government that doesn't need anywhere near the amount of money that is taken and pissed away these days.

That's exactly what Governments are supposed to do. Except that's not all they do is it?

Imagine how much more money hard working regular people would have in their pockets if that's all that the taxes were needed for.

I trust that you would be better at looking after your money than a Politician.

I literally live in a state with a dipshit corrupt politician that just cost the tax payers $380 million after deciding that oh we can't hold the Commonweath Games now. And you wonder why people don't want their hard earned in the hands of those ****s.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,023
Except the founder of bitcoin is believed to own over 5% of the total number of Bitcoins that can ever be generated - a destabilising amount. We don't even know who he (or organisation or state) is yet this seems to be absolutely of know concern at all?

Ultimately in a world where Bitcoin (or other crypto currency) dominated, the power would be held by the people or organisations who held most of that crypto currency. Therefore if Bitcoin was to become a reserve currency as many are predicting Satoshi Nakamoto would have more influence, wealth and power than can possibly imagined. So as I see it its take your pick between the power being concentrated in the hands of a load of faceless libertarians or a democratically elected government. I know which one I would choose.
even if Satoshi is still alive and that stack became active, this 5% is less influence that you think. currently US and China dominate money supply, 5% would be something like Germany or Japan.
the democratically elected governments are in opinion of some not doing a great job of controlling money supply. the point about bitcoin is the money supply is outside the control of politcal whims and we have fixed monetry policy. in reality this lead to different, difficult problems, but we could at least hope to have better transparency. today its too easy for governments to manipulate and fudge money supply.

on the other hand, Bitcoin aside, crypto supply is created on a whim of a developer and market collusion. so really the experiment failed. we're in it for the tech. or just the speculation if more honest.
 
Last edited:


Marshy

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2003
19,955
FRUIT OF THE BLOOM
Anyone who thinks Bitcoin was created by some guy in his home as part of some libertarian movement is deluded.

Clearly Govt created and controlled imo. I don't own any bitcoin.

JP Morgan Blackrock etc, all the big banks are behind most of crypto. They will/do own it.

When crypto is legitamised/very soon it will be because all those Banks and Financial institutions have enough of it and want to sell it to the man on the street and make another ton of money.

Pleased i have what i have, if i lose it i lose it.

But im pretty confident i am going to do very well out of the amount i have managed to accumulate here and there
 




Marshy

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2003
19,955
FRUIT OF THE BLOOM
Nobody "owns" Bitcoin.

That's the whole point of it.

Decentralised from Government interference.


Im a believer it was Govt created. As soon as that Satoshi wallet is opened the pack of cards falls on it imo

I do not think that will happen and it will be allowed to continue, too much money too be made to shut it down

But your bitcoin is trackable like all the others.
 


Tyrone Biggums

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2006
13,498
Geelong, Australia
Im a believer it was Govt created. As soon as that Satoshi wallet is opened the pack of cards falls on it imo

I do not think that will happen and it will be allowed to continue, too much money too be made to shut it down

But your bitcoin is trackable like all the others.


Web3 if or when it arrives will make privacy very interesting.
 


pb21

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2010
6,689
Anyone who thinks Bitcoin was created by some guy in his home as part of some libertarian movement is deluded.

Clearly Govt created and controlled imo. I don't own any bitcoin.
The consensus is bitcoin was created out of a cypherpunk movement, not libertarian, although I do appreciate the crossover.

The State/Government creator is a possibility, but I don't see evidence for that.
 


dsr-burnley

Well-known member
Aug 15, 2014
2,632
This is the balance sheet, simple code.
View attachment 166706
There is no underlying asset back it up.

There is no company or board, similarly no one owns the bitcoin company or brand etc. Arguably people who run nodes are responsible for the performance, requiring consensus for proposed changes. Anyone can run a node.

Also, bitcoin ≠ crypto more broadly, although there are obviously mainly similarities.
So when we have done our research and discovered that bitcoin has no ownership, the assets are inherently worthless, and there is no-one in charge when things go wrong - is that when we invest?
 




pb21

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2010
6,689
So when we have done our research and discovered that bitcoin has no ownership, the assets are inherently worthless, and there is no-one in charge when things go wrong - is that when we invest?
Your framing those aspects as 'cons', whereas lots of other people see them as 'pros'. There is also more to it than that.

I also question the inherently worthless aspect. Whilst on the one hand a bitcoin is inherently worthless, on the other it isn't, although its not an easy argument to make (but that doesn't necessarily mean its wrong)!
 


basque seagull

Active member
Oct 21, 2012
378
Just because you say "democratically elected" it means nothing.

The biggest corrupt organisations in the world count "democratically elected" Governments among their numbers.

It wasn't the Libertarians who brought FTX down as an example. It was an utterly corrupt Democrat voting party donor who had lots of cosy meetings with Democrat appointees who did that.
SBF gave as much to the Republicans as he did to the Democrats....
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top