Bitcoin

[tw]

Originally Posted by John Sellers

I agree, but certain emotions, even negative ones, can lead to good decisions.

Exactly. One must make decisions based only in logic. At the end, one then examines his conclusion. If he does not like it, then one goes back to redo the logical analysis.

Again, emotions are what children use to make decisions. For an adult, emotion is a tool; must never be justification for a conclusion. But like fear (cited previously) it can provide additional knowledge or caution.

Another example of "emotion to make a judgement": racism - judging someone only upon first impressions. Any first impression must be tempered and constrained by what controls an adult - logical thought. Eventually, even Archie Bunker learned to stop being so emotional (so the series got canceled).

[Undertoad]

Anything that can be kept scarce can be trusted as a backing for a currency. Suggested backings include gold, increasingly difficult cryptographic keys, and the insolvency of the US Government. Out of those three, which is most likely to remain limited?

Trust in the currency itself is equal to the trust in its backing. The reason that dollars actually work is based on an entirely, 100% emotional faith, a misplaced belief that they will continue to be accepted as payment of tax revenues by future US Governments.

Keep in mind that most dollars, like most bitcoins, do not exist in ANY physical form. They're both just numbers on computerized ledgers. When the US Treasury pays dividends on its bills to the banks, they do not back trucks up with $100s. They press keys, and bits are exchanged over networks, and "money" goes into the banks.

It's 100% emotional. Logic and reason do not apply to the future. 1 does not equal 1 if 1 does not exist.

Good luck to us all

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It's 100% emotional. Logic and reason do not apply to the future.

Taxes do not define integrity of a currency. Dollar is controlled / defined by a Federal Reserve. World's most stable currencies all have equivalent to a Federal Reserve.

None of what backs a dollar is emotional. Dollar is stable due to facts - what the economy does, actions by the Central Bank, well defined numbers, AND due to previous and statistical history that so many all over the world have experienced and learned from. Emotion only exists if one trusts the dollar only because someone is told (like a child) to trust a dollar.

Some foolishly (emotionally) assume a currency must be backed by gold. We know from history and underlying economic facts that currencies (and therefore economies) work best when the currency is not backed by some irrelevant reference such as gold. Otherwise gold coins minted by the Islamic state would have great demand and trust. In reality, the Islamic gold dinar is a poor transaction media due to an economy that defines it and people that created it.

In 1931, Britain disconnected gold from their pound. Integrity of that currency increased. Even an economic boom resulted. No emotions were involved. It works due to hard and well proven facts.

Integrity of a currency is defined by its Central Bank and by the economy that underpins it. Those facts are even measured quantitatively. Those facts define what happens in currency exchanges all over the world.

However many do not understand those facts. Many trust a dollar only because others have told them to do so. They are emotional. They have little understanding of what underpins a currency. Some have so little grasp of those facts as to even believe gold must underpin a currency - because their emotions tell them to believe that myth.

Integrity of international currencies are based in (and can be destroyed by) fundamental facts. Emotion exists among the naive AFTER fundamental concepts break down. Trust in currencies exists due to fundamental and logical facts - such as stability of an economy that underpins that currency and actions of a Central Bank that defines / maintains that currency. No emotion exists in facts, actions and numbers. Emotion only exists among those who fail to comprehend those facts, actions, and numbers.

Bitcoin has an underlying flaw. Its integrity is backed by a vague group that answers to no one. In its short life, it has worked quite well. But statistical proof necessary to establish it integrity, a 'Central Bank' concept that defines it, its ability to expand with economic growth, and what keeps its management honest does not yet exist. Trust is defined by facts; not emotion.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

In 1931, Britain disconnected gold from their pound. Integrity of that currency increased. Even an economic boom resulted. No emotions were involved. It works due to hard and well proven facts.

A boom resulted from emotion, facts are results seen only in retrospect.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

A boom resulted from emotion, facts are results seen only in retrospect.

Those who are emotional do not see and may even refuse to recognize how they are so easily manipulated by the fewer who actually understand relevant facts and numbers.

Of course, the emotional must deny this. Without learning facts, the emotional only have their emotions to work with. Fortunately those are not the people who define currencies.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Those who are emotional do not see and may even refuse to recognize how they are so easily manipulated by the fewer who actually understand relevant facts and numbers.

Of course, the emotional must deny this. Without learning facts, the emotional only have their emotions to work with. Fortunately those are not the people who define currencies.

You Sir, are the King, the Emperor, the God, of circular logic.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

Taxes do not define integrity of a currency. Dollar is controlled / defined by a Federal Reserve. World's most stable currencies all have equivalent to a Federal Reserve.

Rrright, obviously; their role is to maintain the scarcity; but scarce things don't always have value. The dollar *actually* has value because its biggest user, by far, accepts it as a form of payment. That's what actually defines the dollar. If it stopped doing that, the currency would not hold as much value. Other people would have to broadly accept it as a form of payment, and why would they? Only if there was a valid form of exchange, dollars for some other thing, would it hold value. The Fed may choose to issue quatloons but that does not give quatloons any value!

What we've seen so far is that government guaranteeing its value is a stronger form of backing than the government offering to exchange bills for actual gold or silver. But what's weird is, that can change, and we have seen currencies devalue from weak government backing. We just have faith that it'll never happen to us, and it's that faith that ACTUALLY maintains the dollar's value.

If the US Gov instead accepted potatoes instead of dollars as a form of payment, potatoes would have great value... except that the scarcity can't be controlled, so the value would drop. Without scarcity, there is inflation, and the value of each individual potato drops. The Fed determines the scarcity of dollars but merely issuing dollars does not give them value.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We just have faith that it'll never happen to us, and it's that faith that ACTUALLY makes us believe in the dollar's value.

Well proven history that demonstrates why the dollar is so stable. TARP was a perfect example. American central bankers told big banks, "You have eight hours to save the economy." How many emotional types saw that coming? None. People who learn facts and numbers (we all now know) were correct. What they did is why the American dollar is so stable and respected. Backed by people and an economy that uses facts (not emotions) to make decisions.

That is also why a Central Bank must be independent of the emotionally naive such as George Jr.

This last recession (that was almost a great depression) was created by a scarcity of equity. A massive and dangerous problem was solved by pumping $700 billion into the economy. Scarcity (in this case) almost destroyed economic activity (as it did in 1929). Also critical was where $700 billion was injected. Done so responsibly that we undid massive economic damage that started mostly about 2000.

A great depression averted by those who are not emotional - who made decisions from facts, numbers, and logic. That is why the dollar is trusted.

Emotion may have created those problems when people foolishly 'felt' Social Security should be in a stock market, commercial banks get into investment banking, sub-prime loans to create SIVs and CDOs even without open markets, that derivatives can make everyone richer, stock brokers promoted as informed investors, golden parachutes and other massive payments to top executives, 'buy American', and spending almost $3 trillion on Mission Accomplished. Stupidity was created by the emotional who also believed an emotional myth called trickle down economics.

The emotional create problems. Stable currencies exist when the emotional are disempowered. Stability of the American dollar is found in so many companies that do not exist for profits - and therefore have profits. And by the educated and logical who control, protect, and define that transactional medium.

The emotional and naive created a gold Dinar. Using their emotions, that Dinar should be a world's most stable currency. It is not because facts and numbers, necessary to have a trusted Dinar, do not exist. These people are so emotional as to even claim that banks create evil. Emotion does not define a stable currency. Emotion can undermine a currency. Facts, numbers, logic, statistical history, and educated people make possible a stable currency.

[sexobon]

Bit coins were doomed from the start: they don't have green backs.

[John Sellers]

One more try to steer this thread back on topic: Craig Wright

[tw]

Originally Posted by John Sellers

One more try to steer this thread back on topic:

If I wanted money for a story, that is what I would write for a less credible publication. I guess Playboy did not offer to publish it. Make some empty accusations hoping the more easily brainwashed will believe. It is financially fruitful.

If Craig Wright is an evil tax dodger, then so is Willy Nelson. Both have problems with the tax man. That says nothing about credibility.

If I was Nakamoto, the I would probably also use my favorite publication as one publication. His is probably GQ. So what? Well the author is trying to create suspicion and controversy by even citing that completely irrelevant fact - that he used GQ magazine.

For every point - most all are subjective and speculative - it exists by ignoring a counter point. We don't have an honest writer. We have the prosecutor spinning his story to a jury. And never hear from the defense. OJ is clearly innocent.

BBC was convinced he was Nakamoto. The Economist is mostly certain but did have some unanswered speculations. GQ - well I did not read it and do not know if they have technical abilities necessary to make a judgement.

Wright stopped participating in Bitcoin - as I would expect any founder to eventually do. Especially when controversy and other factors would only increase pressure on him for no benefit. He did what most in his position would do - drop out and and seek privacy.

That article does make one interesting speculation. That Craig Wright was simply a close friend of the actual Bitcoin creator - David Kliemen. But I also tire of accusations that the CIA killed Kennedy. Subjective accusations combined with second hand facts can prove most everything.

So why did Wright out himself? "Your so vain. You probably think this song is about you". Carly Simon eventually admitted who that was. Eventually someone will just fess up - to end wild speculation that is no longer fun and mentally fatiguing.

Change but a few letters and Carly Simon is really Carol King. Let's also create that urban legend.

Newsweek admitted they got it wrong. BBC believes Wright is Nakamoto. Economist also does, but is not as sure. Those are facts.

Curious is why Wright would out himself. Maybe to come back like Steve Jobs to save his baby? Why did the article also not discuss that? Because the author had enough accusations to get paid for his piece. His suspicions are mostly speculation based in statements, second hand, from others. Same reasoning also proved that Saddam had WMDs.

Eventually some of the questions raised by The Economist will be answered - either by fact or by time. This remains an ongoing story alongside Deep Throat.

A second parallel controversy is Bitcoin's future. It must change to grow. How?

BTW, did you know Nixon sent a letter informing me that I finally got on his 'enemies list'. That has been a lifelong ambition. But that is just me being emotional. That letter brought a tear to my eye.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

... A second parallel controversy is Bitcoin's future. It must change to grow. How? ...

New marketing strategy: Naughty Bits Coins

Sex sells.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

New marketing strategy: Naughty Bits Coins

What a tremendous idea. So many nations waste metals with headshots and memorials. A one dollar bit coin could feature conventional sex. A $10 coin features 69 oral sex. $20 (in the tradition of Andrew Jackson) could feature S&M. The $100 coin would feature bit tits so that the blind could identify it.

Then Bitcoin would create a massive following of numismatists creating more trade throughout the world. After all, isn't sex an international currency (even in the Islamist state where it is also called rape)?

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

What a tremendous idea. ...

Why thank you. I can tell you're a man of sophistication and good taste.

I must inform you that naughty bits coins are virtual; so, your bit tits for the blind won't work. The value of one naughty bitscoin [currency symbol "69"] is fixed at the price that Bill Clinton paid for the Grand Reserve Gurkha Cigar that he inserted into Monica Lewinsky's vagina.

This ensures stable valuation unlike precious metal coins (e.g. Islamic gold dinar) which fluctuate with metals market values. After all, who wants coins that are constantly changing in value? They're doomed from the start.

Thus, the value of the basic unit will be small enough for common use like real currency while versatile enough for larger transactions in the form of naughtykilobitscoins (K69), naughtymegabitscoins (M69), naughtygigabitscoins (G69) ... etc.

Of course, they won't be kept in virtual wallets, they'll be kept in virtual condoms for safety.

[John Sellers]

Originally Posted by tw

But that is just me being emotional.

I thought you didn't respect emotions.