I'm just calling out the lack of intellectual content in your drivel. If volume is a measure of legitimacy, then tulips were a legit investment vehicle too, no? Finally, those 55MM transaction volume were mostly speculative trades. How much of it is economic transactions? A currency whose value is primarily a speculative vehicle is not a useful currency. Please, go read a book on monetary history.
Please STFU already. You have no concept of whats going on here. Likening an episode of OZ to 55 million a day changing hands proves you were dropped on your head as a child. Go read a book on tulip bulbs and get back to us
No, I'm likening it to the tulip bubble. The tuna can thing is to show you that 'bankless currency' is not in itself novel. How about you (1) address the fact that most of the volume is speculative trades rather than economic transactions, and (2) how this is not like the tulip bubble. I'm sorry - how old are you? You don't seem able focus very well.
First I would like to acknowledge that you are one of the most intelligent individuals here and I suspect a successful person as well. Apparently I am off topic then. I was referring to bubbles which is what I believe Bit coin is/will become especially based on the rabid responses on the subject. No one knows better than me the desire to get something for nothing or without working for it. Btw I was told to keep the particulars of his bond trading to myself. Woody
You don't understand the gravity of the situation. Keynesian monetary principles dominate the world, via Central Banking and fiat fractional reserve credit issuance. With this, comes an entire swath of political, industrial and financial corruption, and currency debasement (read: theft), all because it's easy for centralized cartels (private and Central banks) to print money and control the rate of interest. YOU may like this system and ignore the destructive role it's had on the world. But I (and many others), do not. This whole debate centers on the philosophical principles of individual liberty - who can issue the peoples money, who receives the chief benefit of issuing the peoples money, and who gets to tell the people who, what, where, why, when and how they can spend their own money. Financial liberty is one the bedrocks to the entire sphere of individual liberty, and with it, the economic health of the State and political freedom. Our situation today, is quickly approaching financial and political tyranny (they go hand in hand). If you can't understand, then I feel very sorry for you.
Tulip bubble is not a bad analogy and for a while I felt the same way. After doing more research I changed my mind. I think bitcoin's appeal is that it is the first truly global currency with no particular owner or "backer". It can't be manipulated to fit someone's economic position and thus isn't subject to regional inflationary/deflationary pressures. It can be traded and it can certainly fluctuate (and do so drastically) because of that, but as the demand expands, the liquidity will increase (the bitcoin is infinitely fractional so even though there is a capped supply, you can own 0.0001 of a coin) and stabilize the price. Now, the coin is readily convertible into any common currency and as such it is believed to contain real value. It is not unlike gold, but is better as it is far more manageable and readily available for trading for real goods (either via conversion or outright payments) I have to say, maybe bitcoin, being one implementation of a global digital currency isn't here to stay, but the concept is truly groundbreaking and will have traction. I think the Fed should heed this new development. As far as trading vs transactional volume is concerned as far as being a defining characteristic of a currency, I'd argue that the USD is traded far more than actually used to buy goods. Think about all the money shoveled among the Fed and the banks on things like repos, etc. on a nightly basis. /Wulfrede
Well said. After trade and capital flows are deducted, some 95%+ of FX volumes are speculative (and hedging). Boohoo. Maybe fiat currencies are the next bubble (relative to Bitcoin)? I'd like to see the next generation of crypto-currencies mimic our current elastic system of credit issuance, except with loan interest primarily accruing to holders of that currency (the people), instead of the lenders ("Banks"). There's no doubt the advent of fiat fueled incredible commercial growth during colonization and the industrial revolution. If that concept could somehow be transmitted over to a crypto currency where the people receive the primary benefit from the use of their own money via debasement (loans) instead of lenders, then I think we'd have something very special. As it stands now, it appears Bitcoin and Litecoin are designed to be the "precious metals" of digital currencies, because their supply is capped (sorry Pekeo). I think that was done on purpose, perhaps because Nakamoto envisioned future competition, and wanted the first generation to stand the test of time (digitally speaking). That said, the concept is wonderful and it's time to overthrow these shithead money masters that have ruled America for the past 100 years. Europe for way longer. People don't get our debt-based money system is like a gigantic albatross around the neck of the economy. Lugging it around sucks a tremendous amount of energy from the people that accrues to guess who. Time to throw these mofos out in the dark. The beauty about Bitcoin, is it sidesteps the political route to monetary revolution (the people are largely too dumb, ignorant and apathetic to learn about the evils of debt-based money), and instead, gives them an alternative currency to the US Dollar, which in many respects, is better. When the market uses that, as opposed to fiat, it kills the bankers. It's genius.
Same for tulips right? No government 'owned' the tulips. You can grow it in your yard. It seems to me that the bitcoin is backed by emotions (and hatred for the current state of the world) - much like achilles' outburst there. I suspect people like achilles (and maybe you) do understand that there's little substance to bitcoin. But it offers them some feeling over control over what they see as a hopelessly world: sort of joining a cult. So they get very emotional invested in it. And when they can't defend the economics of it, they fall back to the political arguments, which are even more hollow. I mean, if the world's govt falls apart because of monetary policy lunacy, do you really really think bitcoins will have ANY value whatsoever? In that case, we are back to guns, ammos, and cans of tuna fish (now there's a great currency).
You are a very stupid, short-sighted person. Well done. The value of cryptocurrency is all relative. Just like every other product on the face of the earth.