Needs to be stickied... Many people on this site seem to think crypto is controlled by the government. It's not, but they are trying to make it that way right now.
I don't know anyone who thinks crypto is "controlled by the government." The crypto market (i.e. all the cryptocurrencies) is controlled by the PTB (AKA the cabal). They can destroy the crypto market on a whim, because they literally own all the money in the world and because the crypto market is based on faith, and they also own all the faith in the world. They currently use the crypto market as a pump and dump for their stock market shenanigans. The entire crypto market is their plaything. This whole pretend "government control" thing is nothing but controlled opposition.
That doesn't mean crypto is useless, it means crypto as a currencythat has no asset backing it is worthless. Crypto has a lot of important uses and I think it will be the technology that creates our future economy. But it's role won't be as a stand alone currency. It will help create a non-fucked up marketplace of real assets.
Youre somewhat misunderstanding that crypto "has nothing backing it." What backs it is an encryption model that is exponentially complicated.
I suggest it is not me that is misunderstanding it. What value does that "exponentially complicated encryption model" have? Is the work you can do with it equal to its rarity on a supply/demand curve?
For example, if you can spilt a crypto basically infinitely and use an infinitesimal piece of one to say, send an encrypted message, is that work that you can do with it worth the value of an entire one since you can use any size piece of it you want for that purpose?
Blockchain is fundamentally a networking protocol the misconception that it needs real assets to provide value is based on an incomplete perspective of it.
I never said anything about blockchain not having value. I am talking about its value being directly related to its productive capacity AND rarity. This is how value is assigned to all assets, and how it has been assigned since time began. It's the only piece of a normal economics degree that's worth a damn; the supply/demand curve sets the value. Currently cryptocurrencies have productive capacity but its not valued based on its productive capacity. It's valued based on its rarity and faith.
Obviously, this is almost unquantifiable
I agree, just as the value of a cryptocurreny is unquantifiable, which is why it has no value (or at least not enough to be worth a currency). A "piece of the internet" is worthless, even though the internet can be used to do work, because it is infinitely splittable to do that work.
It is the technological engine for an entire epoch of industrial and socio-economic revolution.
I agree with this completely.
Currency is only one use-case for the network.
It can't be used as a currency for the reasons I have stated. Its value is not tied to its productive capacity. It only has to exist to be used. The quantity is irrelevant.
But from a purely economic side of it, the inherent value of the coin is it represent computational access on the network
If there are cryptos for which this is true, then that suggests their value would not vary at all unless the demand for their productive value went up. In such a case then such a crypto could be used as a currency. But that still has some intrinsic problems.
One such problem is that if you use it as a currency then it becomes more scarce, which increases its value, and it can't be used to do work when its being used as a currency (same with any asset like this really, even silver). So it would need to be plentiful enough that its use as a currency doesn't substantially interfere with its use in production, both in the present and in the future.
This particular problem is not unique to such a crypto, that is inherent with any real asset. That is why I stated that any system that is not designed for true barter, with many mediums of exchange as I have suggested above, is ultimately doomed to fail (or cause a free market economy to no longer be free).
given that the entire modern financial system has functioned on fiat paper and 1&0s.
When I expose the full fraud in the system, you will see that the only reason it has worked is because of pure evil. It is a system that can not work without fraud. It is because I have spent the entire last year studying this fraud and making a report about it that I am saying what I am saying. Explaining that is part of several hundred pages of my report, so it's not like I can just "say it." Nevertheless, I am trying. It gets confusing because I am having an ongoing conversation with three different people in this thread and I am not sure exactly what I've said to whom.
The fed types numbers into a spreadsheet long before the actual paper is printed.
Paper is never really printed (in scope) almost all money stays as 1s&0s. The fraud in "a modern economy" is more than you can imagine. When I expose the full system of their fraud, I swear I will be very surprised if the world doesn't just blow up on the spot.
is a subjective societal construct we've invented as well.
No it isn't. Gold, silver, platinum, etc. have real value because they are unique elements with real properties that can't be duplicated. Anyone who doesn't understand that PMs are valuable because of their physical properties has never studied physics, chemistry, history... anything. This argument is absolutely false. PMs have been used for all sorts of things long before they were used as a currency because of their physical properties. Over time we have found more uses for them. It's like saying "water has no value, it's just wet." Water has value because of its physical properties, so do PMs.
and to the degree it represents your ownership/participation in DeFi or staking positions; has an intrinsic value representative of the network/protocol that issued the coin.
If its value is not directly tied to its ability to produce, then it is overvalued. As far as I know (which is really only the big ones) there are no cryptos whose value is tied to their productive capacity.
Currency is a medium of exchange used to conduct commerce.
Currency is most commonly issued by government or some trusted non-government source. Currency could actually be a commodity that is so commonly known and valued that it is accepted as the medium for commerce.
Governments generally declare a monopoly on the issuing of currency in their borders. This is reasonable. In a day of using physical gold, silver, whatever ... a risk was run of someone making coins that were not the purity/% content and the issuer of such devalued coin would be giving themselves purchasing value they did not have by defrauding others. This would frequently result in harsh consequences up to the death penalty.
When a government devalues its own currency, or people have no confidence in the long term viability of the government, they will find something else to use as currency. Governments try to stop this, usually for tax purposes.
The fact that government issued currencies (and the governments issuing them) are viewed as not reliable and not stable does not make crypto reliable and stable. It just means that people are looking for something that might be stable. Growth in crypto is not a function of crypto being reliable, it is the fact that the government has become so unreliable that people would think that crypto would be a viable option. Tired of living with the abuser, the spouse hopes to find better luck with the con who up to this point has not provided evidence they are lying.
Most of the planet has as much reason to trust the issuers of crypto-currency as they do to trust the federal reserve. I have as much means of redress of grievances from being ripped off by the fed as I would from being ripped off by a crypto-currency issuer/originator. The drive is a loss of confidence in government.
The cyrpto-currency issuer:
1. can increase the amount of currency any time they want. You can't stop that and neither can I.
2. can lie about the total amount of currency in existence any time they want. You can't know the truth, you are putting implicit confidence in them.
3. backs the currency with nothing. The fact that the US government issues fiat currency does not make crypto valuable, it just means that it is a digital fiat with no government backing it.
4. can get their crypto-currency labelled a commodity or security by a government and treated as such. There is nothing the crypto-currency issuer or you can do about that but get taxed.
Many people who were 'early' adopters of crypto are quick to promote it because from there standpoint it is a potential measure of wealth that has increased for them (in potential terms) since they put government currency into the crypto.
The potential is only made into reality when the crypto is converted into tangible goods and property.
I know people who talk about how much their crypto has increased in value for them (in potential terms). Good for them. Its like someone telling me that they bought Apple at $10 a share. I have no incentive to get involved because I don't have any reasonable basis for making money there if I were entering now. The argument that 'crypto will just go higher so you should get in now' has echoes of ponzi schemes and multi-level marketing.
I accept crypto-currency is intended by some to be a good faith solution to lack of confidence in governments. However, where you find an honest inventor with a good idea, you quickly find a bunch of hucksters who see a way to take real wealth from others. For them, crypto is a way to take something of worth (real world government accepted currency units, securities, physical possessions) from suckers in exchange for the promise of crypto-currencies future.
Government issued currency backed by tangible resources (gold, silver, whatever) which the currency can actually be exchanged for is a winner.
Crypto based upon the above government issued currency is a winner.
Physical currency of commonly accepted value, though not issued by a government is a winner.
Crypto based upon someone's supposedly secure blockchain technology alone, with nothing to back it, and not yet exposed to a future generation of technologies ability to compromise existing security systems is a fantasy island of value. Crypto issued by some party that can devalue that currency any time without any means of redress by those who 'own' the currency is a scam.
Crypto issued by a party that goes out of existence is a scam.
a risk was run of someone making coins that were not the purity/% content and the issuer of such devalued coin would be giving themselves purchasing value they did not have by defrauding others.
There is another risk that is even worse, at least historically. That is the hording of currency. Anyone can come in, and with enough resources horde a currency and destroy a nation. This was (at least according to history) the reason for the fall of (western) Rome.
There are many other examples of extreme fuckery in this vein as well though, including the impetus for the Coin act of 1873 which took silver off the dollar, and the hording of gold that led to the Great Depression (really it was the transferring of gold to Europe, but its the same effect). That led eventually to the EO that confiscated all the Gold in America under the tyranny of Eminent Domain (to our sovereign overlords), which final act of hording led to where we are today.
Governments generally declare a monopoly on the issuing of currency in their borders. This is reasonable.
Because of the above risk of hording, I suggest this is terrible, and will always lead to failure because of that intrinsic flaw. I suggest the only viable path to maintain a free market is one that has a market for, and encourages barter, with many possible exchange mediums, not set in value, but all as valuable as they naturally are.
I mean, you could set one as the standard (like silver), but it's only a placeholder number. As long as the act of setting a baseline doesn't give that medium any extra value itself just because it is set as a baseline, then hording becomes impossible (or at least highly improbable).
That is why I have suggested, and keep suggesting that the best path forward is one where all assets that can be reasonably put on blockchain, be put on blockchain (all stocks for instance. All PMs, etc.). This way the market is always open and free.
I can tell you right now, those fuckers don't own all the money in the world. I gotta couple silver bars behind me that they don't have. Also for the concept of money to work, people worldwide have to accept the medium in trade. Trading is a two-way street and the cabal isn't everyone. If the other side doesn't accept the cabal's idea of money and has a doable way to trade amongst themselves through another medium, then the cabal has no money anymore.
What I like about cryptocurrency is that there are literally thousands of coins and if for example Bitcoin was owned by the whole Cabal or Bitcoin somehow got hacked, another cryptocurrency could and would easily be made with improvements and the masses would buy into that pretty fast. Cryptocurrency becomes a cat-and-mouse game the Cabal can't control. Even if they outlaw it, if people trade amongst themselves without any central authority, there's nothing the elites and cabal can do about it. There are even cryptocurrencies like Cardano that are working on making transactions without the use of the internet. All you'd have to do is generate electricity.
I can tell you right now, those fuckers don't own all the money in the world.
As far as the world sees money, they quite literally own it all. My upcoming report will show that statement is made without error. It is all theirs.
Cryptocurrency becomes a cat-and-mouse game the Cabal can't control.
You just don't seem to get the scope of things.
They could quite literally buy up the entire crypto market on a whim. It doesn't matter how much it costs. As long as you can exchange Federal Reserve Notes (or Euro's, or any bank note) for crypto, they can completely destroy the market.
And that doesn't even address the real problem with cryptocurrencies as they are currently conceived. We have been led to believe that a faith backed asset has value; that it can work as a medium of exchange for barter. For over a century we have been led to believe it. But it doesn't, and it can't; not for long.
No market can stand on a faith backed asset. It is absolutely doomed to fail. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but it will fail, and it won't take long. As soon as people see and really understand what has happened with our economy (my upcoming report will make it perfectly clear), no one will ever want to touch a faith backed asset again.
They could quite literally buy up the entire crypto market on a whim. It doesn't matter how much it costs. As long as you can exchange Federal Reserve Notes (or Euro's, or any bank note) for crypto, they can completely destroy the market.
They can only buy what is being sold on the market (they can't buy crypto in peoples wallet or crypto just sitting on an exchange not on a market) and the price exponentially increases as the supply dries up. Yes, they can print US dollars from nothing to buy up more crypto but because of the nature of crypto, pretty soon have astronomical costs for buying a few crypto. Let's say they do this with Bitcoin. As they buy more Bitcoin and Bitcoins price rises the Millions of Dollars, the dollar starts to drop in value due to the inflation of printing up all the new dollars. So now people are selling their Bitcoin for $US and realizing their dollar doesn't have as much buying power.
Let's say the elites/cabal/government own a majority of Bitcoin now (and even have a majority of the computing hash power). Regular people know that Bitcoin is controlled by the elites and don't want to invest in it. Someone comes around and makes a copy of Bitcoin or a better improved version (there are literally thousands of cryptos that are copies or improvements of Bitcoin right now). This new crypto starts to gain notoriety, regular people hear by word of mouth and invest heavily into this new crypto, this new crypto becomes a great way to exchange goods. A free market now forms because the elite don't control this new cryptocurrency and regular people can create fortunes of wealth using this new cryptocurrency. The elite learn about this new crypto and realize they are being drained so they buying up a ton of this crypto.... and the cycle continues as a cat and mouse game.
The cabal must react with a single plan of owning the majority while regular people can come up with any ideas and angles to get a jump on the cabal. Eventually the cabal loses control of the majority and when they do, they won't get it back as regular people become more and more knowledgeable over time.
They can only buy what is being sold on the market
They don't need to buy it all to destroy faith. They could probably destroy faith with 10% of it, which they almost certainly already own. (its probably closer to half).
pretty soon have astronomical costs for buying a few crypto
I shouldn't have said they could buy it "all" because you are focused on that word. That is irrelevant. They don't need to buy it all to destroy faith. They only need to destroy faith. You are thinking ideally I am talking about what actually happens. They have spent thousands of years mastering manipulation of faith. They can destroy faith in crypto, which has no intrinsic value in a heartbeat.
All of your arguments, while sound within the scope you intend them, are missing the bigger picture. These things you are trading are not assets. They are worthless as a currency. Imagine having the choice between a faith backed crypto, and a silver backed crypto. Which one would you choose to own? You might gamble on owning some faith backed crypto, hoping the exchange rate changes when faith is on an upswing, but for real ownership, you'll choose the one that has real value. So will everyone else. Given the option between the two, everyone will choose the one that has the real value. The faith backed one will fail, because who wants it? Its junk. It has no value.
They don't need to buy it all to destroy faith. They only need to destroy faith. You are thinking ideally I am talking about what actually happens. They have spent thousands of years mastering manipulation of faith. They can destroy faith in crypto, which has no intrinsic value in a heartbeat.
Again as the general public becomes more and more knowledgeable, they won't be able to gain power. Faith in crypto's promise is not necessary when you have an understanding of how crypto works. It is a public blockchain and while the wallets are pseudonymous, idenities of wallets do get found over time and payments for the initial crypto can be traced from wallet to wallet.
Have you ever heard of the idea of sublimation in anthropology? If you look at human history and study civilizations, you will see that major advances in civilization have involved abstracting more literal concepts. Unlike other animals, humans have to make connection and meaning out of things. A cornerstone concept of human civilization is that you must give sacrifices in order to give meaning to something and have a better future. If you look at tribes discovered during the age of exploration, you'll discover the most primitive in technology and resources would engage in human sacrifice (usually children or a good harvest) and/or cannibalism (very rarely both but if so always done for religious reasons). As these tribe civilizations advanced, they began to abstract these literal terms of sacrifice such as sacrifice a goat instead of a human, burn goat organs instead of the whole goat, drinking the blood of Christ as wine and attending church on Sunday...
These abstractions only work if they can embed the same level of meaning in humans as previous more literal sacrifices. The benefit of these abstractions is that they use less resources while still giving humans the meaning to exist and create a better future.
If there is no meaning to anything, the civilization collapses much like you see with socialist and communist countries. Socialism and Communism is just a new flavor of a weak and spoiled people that want an easier life while sacrificing nothing. When you have something for nothing, you lose all meaning and worth of that something and it becomes useless and discarded.
Why am I going on this long winded response about heretical talks on human sacrifice in religion you ask? Because the value of goods follows the same concept of the evolution of civilization through abstraction. There are histories where people would trade as a currency oyster shells, salt, wood coins, cacao beans, and more! People put their faith in these currencies because they saw them as valuable, gold or precious metals didn't just magically become valuable (if I recall right, the Aztecs would hang gold ornaments throughout their home but they were just decoration and not something extremely valued as the Spanish Conquistadors saw gold).
But the same problem plagues human history of money in that people would try to get something for nothing. As people found more oyster shells, the currency devalued and people moved to something else. As people carved more wood coins, the currency devalued and people moved on to something else. There's no better example than Roman Emperor Nero of Rome who wasted too much of Rome's money and started trying to make counterfeit Roman silver and gold coins by adding cheaper metals in the coins to pay off the debt. As the currency became more and more devalued over the years, Roman civilization fell apart and the real nail in the coffin was having germanic tribes fight for Roman citizens because Romans didn't want to sacrifice themselves to maintain their empire anymore.
As advances were made in the mediums of trading goods, it took less and less resources to create and maintain that medium of goods. Gold was heavy, dense and took up less room respectively than previous trade goods. However, you can't shave pieces of gold for buying groceries, breaking up that gold coin into fractions of value is difficult. Paper IOU money that backed gold in a bank was even less cumbersome and you could fractionalize the value up to two decimal places but you had to trust a bank to keep your gold safe (just like you have to again if our money was backed by gold). With cryptocurrencies, the fractional value can be broken up into 8 or more decimal places back, you can transfer the money worldwide near instantly. Creating a new cryptocurrency takes almost no money at all. The only concern is if the currency can be transferred safely and securely which many already believe it can. It only takes people abstracting further in their concept of a medium trade of goods, using an asset that is digital and you don't physically pile up somewhere. It would've been a huge leap 2000 years ago but right now it's not that difficult. These cryptocurrencies still retain the meaning of a trading medium while sacrificing some kind of effort (in this case Proof of Work or Proof of Stake for coming to a consensus on transactions) and making trade easier overall.
I know you won't agree and I'll probably get downvoted for my wine comment but it just seems so obvious to me right now, I feel like I could almost write a book on it.
There are histories where people would trade as a currency oyster shells, salt, wood coins, cacao beans, and more!
Yes, I talk about these societies in my report. It's not exactly what you think it is. All of those things have actual value, as in, they can all be used in production for their respective societies (except the wood coins, and that only worked because it was mandated for taxes, and then the king died, and then it failed immediately).
People put their faith in these currencies because they saw them as valuable
Wrong, they were already valuable. Have you ever eaten food without salt? Like, ALL food without salt? Salt is very valuable. Same with all the rest. They were all used in production, that was their value. Look deeper and you will find that every single currency ever used was either used because it was useful in production, or it was mandated by law (because it was totally worthless).
gold or precious metals didn't just magically become valuable
They were valuable to the Aztecs too, that's why they hung them in their home, and made head dresses out of them, and other adornments, etc. They weren't as valuable as they were to the Spanish, but they still had productive value. They also weren't "as valuable" because the supply/demand curve was different for the different societies. That's not strange at all. They still had value though, just a different S/D curve.
PMs have that value because they are unique elements, that have properties that no other elements, or combination of elements, on the periodic table have. They are a unique resource that is otherwise irreplaceable for their intrinsic functionality.
As people found more oyster shells, the currency devalued and people moved to something else.
This is a supply demand curve problem, not a problem with them using shells as a currency (which they used for adornment, and building homes, etc.). The value was less because the demand decreased. This happens. It can't happen with gold and silver, but that is because it is a limited resource. Yes, you can find some in asteroids, but getting it up and down the gravity well is not all that easy, and there is still a limited amount in asteroids. That's irrelevant though. It doesn't matter how much there is, as long as there aren't so many of that resource that it is basically limitless for its production uses, i.e. as long as the S/D curve doesn't separate (blow up).
There's no better example than Roman Emperor Nero of Rome who wasted too much of Rome's money and started trying to make counterfeit Roman silver and gold coins by adding cheaper metals in the coins to pay off the debt.
That's not what happened, or at least that's not why the economy failed. The economy failed because the Cabal bought up all the land over time, and then sold all the land off at once, taking all of the money out of circulation and held on to it. This scarcity of currency (because there was no other reasonable path for barter) destroyed the ability for Rome to do business. It was the hording of money that caused Rome to fall. Again, a failure of the S/D curve.
The fall of Rome was intentional and planned by the Cabal.
This is why I have proposed, and will continue to propose that the only solution to a truly free market is one that has multiple asset backed cryptos.
However, you can't shave pieces of gold for buying groceries, breaking up that gold coin into fractions of value is difficult.
And this is also why I keep saying we need asset backed cryptos. I think we are mostly on the same page, but I insist that assets, real assets, that can be used to do work, are essential. The types of cryptos we have now are fine, if they are tied to real assets. Then we can go around and trade them to our hearts content. When we want the real thing, we go to the "Silver store" and trade in our crypto for the real silver it is tied to.
I have to admit this is a little confusing because I am having a conversation with multiple people in this thread. i don't know if you have seen my proposals for how to create a free market. The path is to put all stocks on crypto. Put all PMs on crypto and build the infrastructure for exchange between real and crypto. Any cryptos whos value is actually tied to the real work they can provide (as you have suggested) is also welcome. In fact I insist that ANYTHING that can be used for actual production, and reasonably be put on crypto, MUST be put on crypto for any free market to work. We must have real barter; that is the only way.
I know you won't agree and I'll probably get downvoted for my wine comment but it just seems so obvious to me right now, I feel like I could almost write a book on it.
Just because I am offering arguments that don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't appreciate the conversation. And I never downvote people, especially not just for disagreeing with me. I think I've actually upvoted all of your "disagreements." I could never downvote someone for offering a reasonable argument against what I am saying. Debate is the only path to the Truth.
Anons as usual need to use their wrinkled brains to process news such as this!
Firstly, note that the authority in this bill is against "financial institutions", including crypto exchanges.
Secondly, note that crypto exchanges are the very antithesis to the concept of crypto. Lets take a moment to explore why.
Ownership
Crypto allows everyone to own their own assets with no intermediary. You do not need permission from anyone to access your assets, all you need is the private key.
When you have an account on a crypto exchange such as coinbase, you do not own your crypto. The crypto is stored in a wallet (custodial wallet) whose private keys are held by the exchange. If that exchange were to shutdown tomorrow, you would lose all your holdings. This happens periodically when they claim they got hacked and lost hundreds of millions of crypto.
Privacy
One of the allure of crypto is that you can make sure your transactions are private. Everyone can see the transactions on the blockchain, but it's very hard for someone to know it's yours. If a bank, for example, wants to ban someone they cant just shut off your ability to transact in crypto
However with a crypto exchange and the KYC rules (know your customer), they know exactly who each person is and with a little algorithm they can get a good idea of who is doing what. They can freeze your account or stop your transactions. They can tell the feds how much money you are spending and to which wallets its flowing.
Manipulation
Cryptos are predicated on the notion that it is distributed and not easily manipulable by a central authority. This is technically not true. Bitcoin, for instance, can be manipulated if someone takes control of 51% of the computing power, or someone has access to quantum computers that can break the encryption algorithms. Thats a different issue.
Exchanges bring in a whole new level of manipulation. Since people deposit their crypto with the exchange, they dont even need to make sure that crypto really exists. Only when you withdraw it do they have to send you real crypto. This is a lot like Goldman Sachs creating fake share certificates for shorting OR Fed printing free money. This is the kind of control banks really love.
So what do I think is happening here? 5D chess as usual.
The [DS] is thinking that they can use this bill to shutdown all exchanges who dont play ball with them, and finally bring all crypto exchanges under their trusted Banks, so that they can control crypto exactly the same way they control the current monetary system.
However the Whitehats can use this to shutdown all financial institutes, and move to a truly de-fi platform where everything is distributed, and there are no exchanges. Everyone can use the crypto thats picked as the "people's currency" with no one ever being able to control them.
I haven't used Gemini, but as far as I can tell its just another exchange just like all others, and if you have your crypto held by them then you dont own it and you can lose it anytime.
You can create a software wallet OR a purchase hardware wallet to keep your crypto secure.
Software wallet like Exodus is free and supports most blockchains. You can run it on your desktop or your mobile. I suggest running it on a device thats dedicated to holding your crypto that is not used to download a lot of stuff and that you dont carry around. Make sure to create backup and write down the pass phrase and keep it somewhere safe.
You can also use hardware wallets like Ledger and Trezr. They are expensive, but for a tech novice it is the best way to keep crypto secure.
However if you are tech savvy (even if you dont know too much about crypto), I suggest investing a little time to learn how these wallets work, and you can install a software wallet thats as secure as the hardware wallets, but not worry about these hardware wallets having some bugs preinstalled (I wont rule that out!)
You're missing one very important aspect of the hardware wallet: transactions are signed on the device and not on the computer/endpoint like a software wallet.
Your private keys never get touched, written, displayed, put on RAM/disk, etc with a hardware device.
Also, Metamask which is a popular extension for use with DeFi has the ability to integrate with hardware wallets so you get the best of both worlds.
Hardware wallets are not for 'novices' as you suggest, they are for people who are truly serious about their security.
Your private keys never get touched, written, displayed, put on RAM/disk, etc with a hardware device.
Except, you are trusting these startup companies did not do any tampering with their hardware like a backdoor for instance. If I was building a company like that, I would be very very very tempted to "accidentally" leave a small debugging backdoor for someday in future.
Personally this is what I do, which I consider to be the most secure way to save your crypto. I wrote a small script on my macbook from early 2000s that I dont use for anything else. This script generated the addresses and the corresponding BIP passphrase, and displayed the address on screen. I transferred the crypto I am hodling to these addresses. This wallet exists only on a couple pieces of paper as BIP phrase and nowhere else. Far far more secure than a hardware wallet which you dont know what is really inside it.
I would have to argue with you on that. A software wallet is just not going to be as secure as a Trezor or Ledger (personally I like Trezor more because they require no identifying information for making a wallet on Trezor, Ledger asks for an email address). Even if you are tech savvy enough to program your own software wallet, you may leave vulnerabilities in your software and you you have to keep the software up to date with upgrades happening on your cryptocurrencies.
These hardware wallets have been audited several times by prominent tech companies. The only way to take someones funds on a hardware wallet is to physically take their hardware wallet and computer they use to make transactions (unless they know the hardware wallet seed words which would never be typed in on a computer in the first place).
People think of wallets as active entities. They are literally a public and private key pair and a mneumonic. Once you send your cryptos to that address, it does not have to exist anywhere digitally.
My friend uses Nano ledger and got an email that all their customer data was recently compromised. Of course it does not compromise the device itself, but does not give me the warm and fuzzy feeling such a company should be oozing.
Do I think you will lose your crypto you stored on Nano Ledger if you safeguarded the device? Highly unlikely. However, it's not a zero probability. I wont rule out the 0.1 % chance that there is a backdoor in the device.
As for Monero - I know that its one of the very few cryptos that guarantee complete anonymity. For me this raises the curiosity to understand how this works from a blockchain point of view. If the details of which address owns how much crypto is not stored in the blockchain for everyone to see, how does it work? Been too lazy to do the research.
I vaguely remember the origins of Monero connected to some Globalists - but I might be wrong. I know one of Dorsey's buddy boys (Alex Gladstein) was pushing Monero at one point, and that makes me wary as well.
Simple answer - I havent done the full research and I havent bought any Monero.
It's owned by the Winkelvoss twins (the ones Zuckerburg fucked over for making Facebook). It's been around for awhile and is very well established. However, you don't own your crypto if it's not in your own personal wallet. Get your crypto off of the exchange so you don't have to tell others down the line "yeah I lost all my crypto from an Exchange". The only time you should ever have your crypto on an exchange is if you want to make a trade right then and there. After you make the trade it should be moved off immediately.
Everyone can use the crypto thats picked as the "people's currency" with no one ever being able to control them.
Any currency that has no asset backing is not a currency, its a failed economy waiting to happen. The blockchain technology and cryptocurrency medium of exchange are only half of the fix. There must also be an infrastructure in place to exchange that currency with the real asset that backs it. Anything else causes an economy based on a currency that is based on faith.
Any currency based on faith fails when faith fails. Faith fails as soon as someone wants it to fail. It is trivial to make faith fail. If it isn't an asset, it isn't an asset.
Also, any economy that doesn't have in place market places for barter will also fail. A single standard medium of exchange (or even a few) can be horded. If the only means by which people make exchanges (perform normal economic actions) can be horded, then economies can be manipulated.
The only possible free market, as far as I can see, is one which has many assets linked to crypto. For example, all stocks can be put on crypto. Then if you need bread, and you have no "silver crypto" or "gold crypto" you can just trade 1/100th of your TMTG stock, or GME stock, or whatever, and buy some bread. Easypeasyjapanesey.
We have all the tech to create such a free market. No where in there can a non asset backed crypto fit and be a good thing.
Any currency that has no asset backing is not a currency, its a failed economy waiting to happen.
I agree for the most part, but technically you can issue currency based on productivity without causing inflation. They did this in 1930s Germany with MEFO (I might be getting the acronym wrong, but its the German name for national metal works) notes, where the metal works get an order placed and the bank issues a note covering the value of that order. This was the best proof that currency could be backed by real asset or real productivity.
The blockchain technology and cryptocurrency medium of exchange are only half of the fix.
yes, blockchain ensures the system is tamperproof and not centrally controlled. But the assets on the blockchain need to represent something of value.
Any currency based on faith fails when faith fails.
The other side of the coin is, too much faith gives too much power to those who dont deserve the faith. Like the current system. Too much faith is as bad (or worse) than too little faith.
Also, any economy that doesn't have in place market places for barter will also fail. A single standard medium of exchange (or even a few) can be horded.
I would go further and say in a perfect world you also need local crypto currencies. Every community needs to issue their own currency backed by the assets and productivity of their local community members. All these currencies must be tradable. The productivity of a community establishes the value of its currency by market pricing. This system is like what Titanic was supposed to be. Compartmentalisation of failure. Even if a bunch community currencies were taken over and manipulated, it wont bring down the whole system and market pricing will signal the currencies in distress.
I honestly think we need a lot more discussion of the post awakening currency system.
Then if you need bread, and you have no "silver crypto" or "gold crypto" you can just trade 1/100th of your TMTG stock, or GME stock, or whatever, and buy some bread
I would starve but I wont part with my TMTG or GME stock lol, but yeah this is an interesting concept. Once assets (stocks included) are featured on the crypto, sky is the limit. Everything is liquid, nothing can be tampered, life is beautiful.
as units redeemable for computation on the network
The cryptos represent an amount of computation that has been "burnt" to add the entry to the ledger, but it does not represent something of value, as in an amount of computation that I can actually use.
Theta is actually an exception. Theta guarantees the availability of computational power for you to use (something of value), and not just computation that was burnt in creating that coin.
A global supercomputer accessible to anyone; that charges you fairly for resources depending on the applications you run.
I am all for a supercomputer thats available for everyone to run what they want, but will this control the world's currency? Is so, its an entirely different question.
The suspicion people have about crypto being a trap I can understand but overall the idea the cabal needs to re-engineer the entire internet and network protocol to implement something they already have working is clearly illogical
Not sure what you mean by re-engineering internet and network protocol. Can you elaborate?
Dont get me wrong, Blockchains are great and we will definitely use it in future post-awakening. I cannot imagine a free system without a good blockchain based currency system. Just like Internet is great and can be used for freedom of information, but can also be subverted and hence it was allowed to enter the public realm.
Bitcoin as such is not viable as a currency for so many reasons (I have posted extensively about this, and I am happy to agree to disagree with anyone who really loves bitcoin). The Cabal knew it wont, and it was dangled in front of us as a bait because they knew they had to take us out of this fiat system into a central bank digital currency system - thats their end goal.
you can issue currency based on productivity without causing inflation.
Any currency based on the future labor of people is called indenture. I suggest we don't do that. That is what we currently have. The reason we have inflation is not because its backed by our future labor, but because without injections into the system it would fail because some of it is constantly being taken out in interest.
It's a fair bit more complicated than that, and has a lot to do with what happens when money is taken out of the system (see the Great Depression). The point is, our current system is exactly this, backed by our future labor, and inflation is not based on that aspect of it.
Too much faith is as bad (or worse) than too little faith.
I suggest we need a no faith system. Assets are not faith based. There is no faith in there. You either need (or want) silver or you don't. It doesn't matter if its a medium of exchange, it has value all by itself. It is used for all sorts of things, including as a primary form of adornment for god knows how many thousands of years because it is pretty, malleable, and has numerous other qualities that are unique. It has value, all by itself. Zero faith, tons of faith, it doesn't matter.
Every community needs to issue their own currency backed by the assets and productivity of their local community members.
Sweet JESUS. You are going to give me a heart attack. I can't wait to release my report so that people can see the real history of economies. I will repeat myself. Any system that uses as a medium of exchange for barter the future labor of people is called slavery.
It also is something that doesn't exist, i.e. it's just a worthless currency, not backed by an asset. Banking on the future fails when the future doesn't live up to expectations. For an example, see the Federal Reserve Note in a few months (hopefully).
I honestly think we need a lot more discussion of the post awakening currency system.
For sure. I have a ton written up as a starting point for debate.
Everything is liquid, nothing can be tampered, life is beautiful.
Exactly. Everything is liquid, everything is solid. Its the perfect cup of ice water!
but because without injections into the system it would fail because some of it is constantly being taken out in interest.
The fact someone else is issuing currency backed by your productivity and charging interest on that - this is what makes it slavery. That doesn't mean currency backed by productivity is slavery. We can explore this further.
If I asked you to give a loaf of bread and in return I would fix your computer - thats barter.
If I gave you a piece of paper that said "I will fix your computer" and you gave be the loaf of bread, and 2 days later you gave me back the piece of paper and asked me to fix the computer, which I did - thats still barter.
There is no slavery here. I am bartering the resource I control (my productivity) for my own gains.
Janet Yellen is not bartering my productivity to do female studies in Pakistan and forcing me to pay interest on that. That is the difference between the two systems.
There is a downfall you can argue about my proposal. What if I went and issued a million people and accumulated million loafs of bread, and obviously never fixed event he fraction of their computers? Well the answer is, as I start flooding the market with my currency, its value drops and I would be lucky to get a crumb of bread after issuing, say, a 1000 pieces of paper. So the market will make sure to keep you honest.
The real problem with this system is, whenever you accept someone's currency you have to be able to write it off just in case that person, say, dies, gets disabled, goes to prison etc. That is why, instead of individuals issuing currency it has to be at community level, but there is a lot to be discussed there and risks acknowledged.
No system is risk free.
Lets take the idea of "asset backed currency". Lets say we issue currency based on gold and silver. What happens if:
A deposit of 1000 times the entire gold int he world is discovered?
Population grows so fast and the gold and silver supplies cannot keep up?
I would actually argue that "asset backed" only works if you have faith that the whole world will value those assets the same way for a long time. Its not a zero faith system.
No matter how you cut it, you have to trust something. By issuing currencies at community level (or individual level if it can be managed) and making it asset + productivity backed, you are spreading the risk of this "trust" over a large area. The entire civilisation has to collapse for this system to fail.
The fact someone else is issuing currency backed by your productivity and charging interest on that - this is what makes it slavery.
I disagree. Value based on future labor is slavery. It forces you to do the work. You have no choice. If you want your currency to keep having value, you have to keep doing the work. If you stop doing the work, the currency loses all value. Thus, you have no choice, thus you are enslaved to the currency, and those who create it.
If I asked you to give a loaf of bread and in return I would fix your computer - thats barter.
This is not a currency. This is a barter exchange.
If I gave you a piece of paper that said "I will fix your computer" and you gave be the loaf of bread, and 2 days later you gave me back the piece of paper and asked me to fix the computer, which I did - thats still barter.
Still not a currency, but it is an indenture, by definition. I'm not saying its never a good idea to do this, but there is the possibility of fuckery there because this type of system creates leverage. A system based on leverage is guaranteed to lead to slavery. Indeed if you look at the history (which I will show) it is exactly these type of deals that have led to the downfall of our society. A "deal with the devil."
Janet Yellen is not bartering my productivity to do female studies in Pakistan and forcing me to pay interest on that. That is the difference between the two systems.
There are a Great deal more differences than that.
That is why, instead of individuals issuing currency it has to be at community level,
When I finish my report, and show you the history, what I am saying will be made perfectly clear. This is slavery, no if's, and's or but's about it. Fuckery is inherent in this type of system. Even if it can be done without fuckery, it is ripe for abuse.
No system is risk free.
Agreed, but some are inherently greater risk than others. The system you describe has always led to slavery. I honestly don't think it can possibly end in any other way. So for fucks sake, why would we try again?
To me this is like all those people that say Communism is great, and the only reason it sucked before is because they were just doing it wrong.
A deposit of 1000 times the entire gold int he world is discovered?
Inflation happens and the market adjusts. Savings are harmed, and that sucks, but the market stabilizes, and it doesn't even take all that long.
Population grows so fast and the gold and silver supplies cannot keep up?
I suggest we may have bigger problems then. However, assuming something ridiculous like this doesn't happen, the market adjusts. Deflation, inflation, are all perfectly fine things. They don't really matter. It's the speed at which they happen that can cause problems (and the reasons that they happen obviously). The market adjusts. In a system that I describe, the market isn't even harmed for a day, since there are a ridiculous number of barterable materials on hand.
No matter how you cut it, you have to trust something.
Not in a system set up for barter as I have described, where anything that can be backed by crypto in a reasonable way, is backed by crypto.
The entire civilisation has to collapse for this system to fail.
Still not a currency, but it is an indenture, by definition.
What I am getting from you regarding productivity is that if I want to eat the fruits of my labour then I have to work, and thats slavery. Hmm .. how is that any different in any crypto based system? I have to work to earn the crypto (backed by assets) to by the bread. If I want to eat bread I have to work - and thats still indenture by your definition.
When I finish my report, and show you the history, what I am saying will be made perfectly clear. This is slavery, no if's, and's or but's about it. Fuckery is inherent in this type of system. Even if it can be done without fuckery, it is ripe for abuse.
Absolutely interested in your report - please tag me when you are done.
The system you describe has always led to slavery.
The system I described has never been tried in practise because we did not have the ability for individuals to issue their own currency. Again, if you disagree and believe it has been implemented in the past, would be great if you can include in your history report. I have a strong feeling we are talking about different things.
Inflation happens and the market adjusts. Savings are harmed, and that sucks, but the market stabilizes, and it doesn't even take all that long.
Not true, the people who control the new deposit will essentially steal wealth from everyone else. Exactly like when Fed prints more money. The only way to stop this is if the gold is distributed to everyone at the same ratio as their holding. Easier said than done.
But my broader point is that what you think has "value" is just a perception, and so something being backed by an asset does not magically make it a "proper crypto"
I suggest we may have bigger problems then. However, assuming something ridiculous like this doesn't happen, the market adjusts. Deflation, inflation, are all perfectly fine things.
Actually this is not ridiculous at all. The population growth in last 100 years has been orders of magnitude increase. Newer generations will be vastly at a disadvantage compared to older generation as assets get scarce and get deflated. However, when you issue currency based on your own productivity this never happens.
Again, the point I am making is that gold/silver etc do not by themselves have any inherent value nor are they correlated with what the currency represents. Currency is a barter of items/services necessary. So currency should represent the ability to created these items or provide these services.
What I am getting from you regarding productivity is that if I want to eat the fruits of my labour then I have to work, and thats slavery.
That is not what I'm saying at all. First, there is a difference between labor, and future labor. Debt based economies are a fraud. We think that is the way, because that is the way it has always been. That is NOT the way it has always been, that is the design of the banker system. That is how we came to be where we are today. This debt, this future labor is called leverage. That's what it's actually called in banking accounting. It's called leverage for the exact same reason that it's called leverage in blackmail, because it can be used against a person.
The system I described has never been tried in practise because we did not have the ability for individuals to issue their own currency.
There is nothing special about your system. Sure, it's different because its "local," but it has been done many times before. This is the "deal with the devil" I was talking about. Any time you take out a loan, this is exactly what you are doing. You are issuing your own currency. You are indebting yourself to someone else (in this case the actual Devil, AKA the Cabal, but who it is is mostly irrelevant) and this debt is carried forward into your future. The entire time you are under leverage until the debt is gone. But its a currency, always based on your future labor, so you are never out from under the leverage.
And if you are somehow out from under the leverage, then the currency ceases to have value.
But my broader point is that what you think has "value" is just a perception, and so something being backed by an asset does not magically make it a "proper crypto"
What I think has value has nothing to do with my perception. On the contrary, what i think has value is only that which can be used to do work. That is not a perception, that is the law of the universe (if there is such a thing). That is not future work. It is not something that has to be fulfilled. It can be used to do work right now. If I have a bar of silver, I can use it to make an electric engine right now. Sure, I have to process it, but that's splitting hairs. It's value is in the present, not the future. I don't have to go into debt to give it value. It already has it.
Again, the point I am making is that gold/silver etc do not by themselves have any inherent value
I will never understand how anyone can say this.
value: worth in usefulness or utility
Both gold and silver have right now worth in usefulness and utility. They have it every moment of every day, and they always will (unless we become a super advanced society, then we will have to come up with something else, like energy as a medium of exchange).
Anyone who says that gold and silver don't have inherent value has never bought a wedding ring, or used an electronic device, or studied physics, or done chemistry, etc.
I dont know how much I trust that this is under whitehat control, boy I hope I'm wrong but we need diggers for this info definitely and the people that aren't concerned... didn't watch the video or dont understand what's happening
We're trying to improve the world with this stuff, it is not the time to be just thinking about myself.
Why do you think they get that repurcussion? Because of the government intervention, so I ask... do you want government intervention for crypto?
I am not understanding the statement of "thinking of myself" and with precious metals in your reply, if that is what you mean. Please clarify.
No, i do not want govt intervention for crypto.
I am all for less govt regulation.
I think JPM gets that repercussion because the govt could be in on the scam so the govt can make money as well. Seems like a never ending cycle since JPM has been busted tat least twice.
This is the thing that McAfee lectured about in Spain shortly before he died he said they would eventually ban all the major cryptos and everyone would move to privacy coins.... then they would ban those and people would just not give a shit because they're private and it would end up being like marijuana or prohibition. Too many people doing it and nobody knows who's doing it.
US Congress: Yet another Omnibus Bill has been introduced in Congress, that contains provisions that seeks to prohibit crypto transactions, damage privacy and constitutional rights. Once again, we have to fight these laws.
After the Infrastructure bill debacle where anti-crypto laws were introduced in a must pass bill, now a new America COMPETES act has just been filed in Congress. This Bill on the surface seeks to make US more competitive against China.
But hidden deep in its 2900 pages, this Bill contains provisions that give the Treasury unlimited powers to prohibit and block crypto exchanges.
Currently, the Treasury cannot take unilateral decisions to block crypto transactions without a formal notice and a public process, and give a 120 day period to challenge any decision. However, under the new Bill, the Treasury can take decisions without any formal process, based solely on its own apprehensions.
The new bill allows the Treasury headed by Yellen to block transmission of funds if the Treasury deems so. It can quickly order blocking any transaction or exchange without any review process or administrative controls. This gives the Treasury unchecked control over all crypto exchanges and transactions.
This language was already included in a bill from last year, however there was opposition and it was removed. However yet again this has been sneaked into a must pass bill. The very idea of sneaking in such clauses in 2900 pages of incomprehensible regulations stinks. How are even the legislators going to read any of this?
Just pointing out that banning crypto exchanges is NOT banning crypto.
Infact exchanges are what allows manipulation of crypto and exchanges are the antithesis to the crypto. When you have true defi, you wont need exchanges and this bill cant do anything.
I am not arguing that this bill is being passed for good reasons. However, I am arguing that the end effects of this bill is actually going to be a positive for crypto.
But won’t it be harder for ordinary folks to funnel their cash into bitcoin? How will you cash out bitcoin for dollars without an exchange? Do decentralized exchanges work the same as Coinbase — and if so, wouldn’t they be subject to the tyranny currently being discussed?
There are couple answers to this on-ramp question.
First answer already exists - Lets say you trust me. You can send me money via paypal and I can send you crypto directly from my wallet to yours. You can do this with anyone you trust. Your family, friends, local community etc. Problem really is finding people you can trust and scalability.
The second asnwer is that you can create a proper defi system with smart contracts where I send you crypto and you send me money via bank transfer and no one else is in the middle. Check out veritaseum. I think its poised to be able to do this, and its inventor finally got the patent awarded.
However the final answer is that in future we may not even need the regular currency anymore. The people's crypto will be backed by assets, and everyone will accept it as legal tender and hence there is no need to convert it to dollars. It is the dollar.
Well the current fight is Biblical, and defeating evil actually means reclaiming our financial freedom since its the root of all their power.
Thank God Satoshi is anon,
lol, I wouldn't put all my eggs in the bitcoin basket. You should dig a bit more into Bitcoin origins, but whether Satoshi is CIA or anon doesnt really matter because Bitcoin is not suitable to become people's currency. 90+% of the bitcoins are held by 4% of the wallets, so even without debating all other aspects, it can never cater to the whole world.
I do believe crypto is the future of freedom, just not bitcoin.
The problem with these reports is that they analyze the distribution of BTC across network addresses
In the present work, we analyze the distribution of Bitcoin across entities of different sizes, taking into consideration addresses that belong to exchanges and miners as well
Their basic premise is that BTC held at exchanges don't count as belonging to a single entity because it belongs to people who deposited their crypto at the exchange.
The validity of that view purely depends on your view on exchanges. If you are a crypto purist, you know that whoever has the private key controls the asset. That is the simple truth. Everything else depends on believing these exchanges are benign and would never abuse their power and would never manipulate the system. This is a very faulty way of thinking, especially during Great Awakening as we are being shown the corruption at the very heart of the financial systems.
Stick to the basic principles. Who controls the crypto? 2% control 95%. The rest is just an illusion. If tomorrow most people withdrew their bitcoin into their private wallets, I will gladly change my view. Until then Bitcoin is as rigged as banks and stock markets.
My current view is that almost all existing cryptos suffer from the same problem. So at this point investing crypto it like a blind casino game. Put in only what you are willing to lost. Buy the dips (now is a good time, but I like to stagger my purchases).
I invest in Bitcoin, Ethereum, and just a bit in Liecoin (I really hate Litecoin because Dorsey keeps pushing it).
I bought Ripple, simply because their SEC case is going to determine the future of Crypto, and if you believe in crypto you believe SEC will lose, and when that happens Ripple is bound to surge bigtime.
I also bought Stella Lumens because I like their tech and I think it will be suitable for a defi stock exchange.
I bought LoopRing because there seems to be something going on behind the scenes with Gamestop perhaps issuing some NFTs on LoopRing. I am very cautious about this.
I am buying Veritaseum (its harder than I expected) because Reggie Middleton got the patent for pretty much the technology that covers everything that came after Bitcoin (including anything built on top of Eth smart contracts, Ripple etc).
I bought Theta because I like their edge computing idea. Their actual implementation still has a lot to be desired, but I am sure they get there.
I have also sprinkled a bit on meme coins like Doge etc, and also on Algorand.
Keep your eyes peeled on new developments though. I believe the perfect crypto has not yet been invented (or publicised)
When all the people that I don't trust are shilling harder than ever for crypto that tells me what I need to know. I still will invest but carefully and move profits to physical metals.
This was always going to be the case. How many cryptos are out there now? You think the government is going to agree for Bitcoin to be the currency and have guys like Pomp being the richest cunts in the world? Lmao fuckin pathetic. If anything, they would just create their own crypto and tell Pomp to pound sand
Yes... and yellen can stop exchanges from exchanging any asset... i wonder who actually watched the video... but sure, don't do anything but that just shows what you know of the subject
I watched the video, although it almost put me to sleep.
This was always going to happen - government involvement in crypto. You want crypto as a currency but don’t want government involved?? LOL it’s never gonna happen.
Why are you worried if the US puts its foot down on crypto? Why would companies like Coinbase and Binance US exist? Crypto is on a decentralized blockchain. And if the govt tried to take action against people purchasing it, than mine it
Because the government has a special way of fucking everything up, and the banks have done what they have to lead us to where we are today... dont think they have what it would take to ruin it?
Thats the creator of cardano saying it... I think he would be the expert he and if he is concerned then we all should be
And this is the reason crypto-blockchains were invented. They can become tyrannous in their attempts to block it, but this only drives more people to blockchain technology thereby undermining state power. Decentralization.
I do like listening to this as well, but I'm positive cryptocurrencies can bring about a new Enlightenment and Renaissance age. It will enable freedom for billions around the world.
Needs to be stickied... Many people on this site seem to think crypto is controlled by the government. It's not, but they are trying to make it that way right now.
/u/catsfive
/u/bubble_bursts
/u/Qlueless
I don't know anyone who thinks crypto is "controlled by the government." The crypto market (i.e. all the cryptocurrencies) is controlled by the PTB (AKA the cabal). They can destroy the crypto market on a whim, because they literally own all the money in the world and because the crypto market is based on faith, and they also own all the faith in the world. They currently use the crypto market as a pump and dump for their stock market shenanigans. The entire crypto market is their plaything. This whole pretend "government control" thing is nothing but controlled opposition.
That doesn't mean crypto is useless, it means crypto as a currency that has no asset backing it is worthless. Crypto has a lot of important uses and I think it will be the technology that creates our future economy. But it's role won't be as a stand alone currency. It will help create a non-fucked up marketplace of real assets.
I suggest it is not me that is misunderstanding it. What value does that "exponentially complicated encryption model" have? Is the work you can do with it equal to its rarity on a supply/demand curve?
For example, if you can spilt a crypto basically infinitely and use an infinitesimal piece of one to say, send an encrypted message, is that work that you can do with it worth the value of an entire one since you can use any size piece of it you want for that purpose?
I never said anything about blockchain not having value. I am talking about its value being directly related to its productive capacity AND rarity. This is how value is assigned to all assets, and how it has been assigned since time began. It's the only piece of a normal economics degree that's worth a damn; the supply/demand curve sets the value. Currently cryptocurrencies have productive capacity but its not valued based on its productive capacity. It's valued based on its rarity and faith.
I agree, just as the value of a cryptocurreny is unquantifiable, which is why it has no value (or at least not enough to be worth a currency). A "piece of the internet" is worthless, even though the internet can be used to do work, because it is infinitely splittable to do that work.
I agree with this completely.
It can't be used as a currency for the reasons I have stated. Its value is not tied to its productive capacity. It only has to exist to be used. The quantity is irrelevant.
If there are cryptos for which this is true, then that suggests their value would not vary at all unless the demand for their productive value went up. In such a case then such a crypto could be used as a currency. But that still has some intrinsic problems.
One such problem is that if you use it as a currency then it becomes more scarce, which increases its value, and it can't be used to do work when its being used as a currency (same with any asset like this really, even silver). So it would need to be plentiful enough that its use as a currency doesn't substantially interfere with its use in production, both in the present and in the future.
This particular problem is not unique to such a crypto, that is inherent with any real asset. That is why I stated that any system that is not designed for true barter, with many mediums of exchange as I have suggested above, is ultimately doomed to fail (or cause a free market economy to no longer be free).
When I expose the full fraud in the system, you will see that the only reason it has worked is because of pure evil. It is a system that can not work without fraud. It is because I have spent the entire last year studying this fraud and making a report about it that I am saying what I am saying. Explaining that is part of several hundred pages of my report, so it's not like I can just "say it." Nevertheless, I am trying. It gets confusing because I am having an ongoing conversation with three different people in this thread and I am not sure exactly what I've said to whom.
Paper is never really printed (in scope) almost all money stays as 1s&0s. The fraud in "a modern economy" is more than you can imagine. When I expose the full system of their fraud, I swear I will be very surprised if the world doesn't just blow up on the spot.
No it isn't. Gold, silver, platinum, etc. have real value because they are unique elements with real properties that can't be duplicated. Anyone who doesn't understand that PMs are valuable because of their physical properties has never studied physics, chemistry, history... anything. This argument is absolutely false. PMs have been used for all sorts of things long before they were used as a currency because of their physical properties. Over time we have found more uses for them. It's like saying "water has no value, it's just wet." Water has value because of its physical properties, so do PMs.
If its value is not directly tied to its ability to produce, then it is overvalued. As far as I know (which is really only the big ones) there are no cryptos whose value is tied to their productive capacity.
Currency is a medium of exchange used to conduct commerce.
Currency is most commonly issued by government or some trusted non-government source. Currency could actually be a commodity that is so commonly known and valued that it is accepted as the medium for commerce.
Governments generally declare a monopoly on the issuing of currency in their borders. This is reasonable. In a day of using physical gold, silver, whatever ... a risk was run of someone making coins that were not the purity/% content and the issuer of such devalued coin would be giving themselves purchasing value they did not have by defrauding others. This would frequently result in harsh consequences up to the death penalty.
When a government devalues its own currency, or people have no confidence in the long term viability of the government, they will find something else to use as currency. Governments try to stop this, usually for tax purposes.
The fact that government issued currencies (and the governments issuing them) are viewed as not reliable and not stable does not make crypto reliable and stable. It just means that people are looking for something that might be stable. Growth in crypto is not a function of crypto being reliable, it is the fact that the government has become so unreliable that people would think that crypto would be a viable option. Tired of living with the abuser, the spouse hopes to find better luck with the con who up to this point has not provided evidence they are lying.
Most of the planet has as much reason to trust the issuers of crypto-currency as they do to trust the federal reserve. I have as much means of redress of grievances from being ripped off by the fed as I would from being ripped off by a crypto-currency issuer/originator. The drive is a loss of confidence in government.
The cyrpto-currency issuer: 1. can increase the amount of currency any time they want. You can't stop that and neither can I. 2. can lie about the total amount of currency in existence any time they want. You can't know the truth, you are putting implicit confidence in them. 3. backs the currency with nothing. The fact that the US government issues fiat currency does not make crypto valuable, it just means that it is a digital fiat with no government backing it. 4. can get their crypto-currency labelled a commodity or security by a government and treated as such. There is nothing the crypto-currency issuer or you can do about that but get taxed.
Many people who were 'early' adopters of crypto are quick to promote it because from there standpoint it is a potential measure of wealth that has increased for them (in potential terms) since they put government currency into the crypto.
The potential is only made into reality when the crypto is converted into tangible goods and property.
I know people who talk about how much their crypto has increased in value for them (in potential terms). Good for them. Its like someone telling me that they bought Apple at $10 a share. I have no incentive to get involved because I don't have any reasonable basis for making money there if I were entering now. The argument that 'crypto will just go higher so you should get in now' has echoes of ponzi schemes and multi-level marketing.
I accept crypto-currency is intended by some to be a good faith solution to lack of confidence in governments. However, where you find an honest inventor with a good idea, you quickly find a bunch of hucksters who see a way to take real wealth from others. For them, crypto is a way to take something of worth (real world government accepted currency units, securities, physical possessions) from suckers in exchange for the promise of crypto-currencies future.
Government issued currency backed by tangible resources (gold, silver, whatever) which the currency can actually be exchanged for is a winner. Crypto based upon the above government issued currency is a winner. Physical currency of commonly accepted value, though not issued by a government is a winner.
Crypto based upon someone's supposedly secure blockchain technology alone, with nothing to back it, and not yet exposed to a future generation of technologies ability to compromise existing security systems is a fantasy island of value. Crypto issued by some party that can devalue that currency any time without any means of redress by those who 'own' the currency is a scam. Crypto issued by a party that goes out of existence is a scam.
There is another risk that is even worse, at least historically. That is the hording of currency. Anyone can come in, and with enough resources horde a currency and destroy a nation. This was (at least according to history) the reason for the fall of (western) Rome.
There are many other examples of extreme fuckery in this vein as well though, including the impetus for the Coin act of 1873 which took silver off the dollar, and the hording of gold that led to the Great Depression (really it was the transferring of gold to Europe, but its the same effect). That led eventually to the EO that confiscated all the Gold in America under the tyranny of Eminent Domain (to our sovereign overlords), which final act of hording led to where we are today.
Because of the above risk of hording, I suggest this is terrible, and will always lead to failure because of that intrinsic flaw. I suggest the only viable path to maintain a free market is one that has a market for, and encourages barter, with many possible exchange mediums, not set in value, but all as valuable as they naturally are.
I mean, you could set one as the standard (like silver), but it's only a placeholder number. As long as the act of setting a baseline doesn't give that medium any extra value itself just because it is set as a baseline, then hording becomes impossible (or at least highly improbable).
That is why I have suggested, and keep suggesting that the best path forward is one where all assets that can be reasonably put on blockchain, be put on blockchain (all stocks for instance. All PMs, etc.). This way the market is always open and free.
I can tell you right now, those fuckers don't own all the money in the world. I gotta couple silver bars behind me that they don't have. Also for the concept of money to work, people worldwide have to accept the medium in trade. Trading is a two-way street and the cabal isn't everyone. If the other side doesn't accept the cabal's idea of money and has a doable way to trade amongst themselves through another medium, then the cabal has no money anymore.
What I like about cryptocurrency is that there are literally thousands of coins and if for example Bitcoin was owned by the whole Cabal or Bitcoin somehow got hacked, another cryptocurrency could and would easily be made with improvements and the masses would buy into that pretty fast. Cryptocurrency becomes a cat-and-mouse game the Cabal can't control. Even if they outlaw it, if people trade amongst themselves without any central authority, there's nothing the elites and cabal can do about it. There are even cryptocurrencies like Cardano that are working on making transactions without the use of the internet. All you'd have to do is generate electricity.
As far as the world sees money, they quite literally own it all. My upcoming report will show that statement is made without error. It is all theirs.
You just don't seem to get the scope of things.
They could quite literally buy up the entire crypto market on a whim. It doesn't matter how much it costs. As long as you can exchange Federal Reserve Notes (or Euro's, or any bank note) for crypto, they can completely destroy the market.
And that doesn't even address the real problem with cryptocurrencies as they are currently conceived. We have been led to believe that a faith backed asset has value; that it can work as a medium of exchange for barter. For over a century we have been led to believe it. But it doesn't, and it can't; not for long.
No market can stand on a faith backed asset. It is absolutely doomed to fail. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but it will fail, and it won't take long. As soon as people see and really understand what has happened with our economy (my upcoming report will make it perfectly clear), no one will ever want to touch a faith backed asset again.
They can only buy what is being sold on the market (they can't buy crypto in peoples wallet or crypto just sitting on an exchange not on a market) and the price exponentially increases as the supply dries up. Yes, they can print US dollars from nothing to buy up more crypto but because of the nature of crypto, pretty soon have astronomical costs for buying a few crypto. Let's say they do this with Bitcoin. As they buy more Bitcoin and Bitcoins price rises the Millions of Dollars, the dollar starts to drop in value due to the inflation of printing up all the new dollars. So now people are selling their Bitcoin for $US and realizing their dollar doesn't have as much buying power.
Let's say the elites/cabal/government own a majority of Bitcoin now (and even have a majority of the computing hash power). Regular people know that Bitcoin is controlled by the elites and don't want to invest in it. Someone comes around and makes a copy of Bitcoin or a better improved version (there are literally thousands of cryptos that are copies or improvements of Bitcoin right now). This new crypto starts to gain notoriety, regular people hear by word of mouth and invest heavily into this new crypto, this new crypto becomes a great way to exchange goods. A free market now forms because the elite don't control this new cryptocurrency and regular people can create fortunes of wealth using this new cryptocurrency. The elite learn about this new crypto and realize they are being drained so they buying up a ton of this crypto.... and the cycle continues as a cat and mouse game.
The cabal must react with a single plan of owning the majority while regular people can come up with any ideas and angles to get a jump on the cabal. Eventually the cabal loses control of the majority and when they do, they won't get it back as regular people become more and more knowledgeable over time.
They don't need to buy it all to destroy faith. They could probably destroy faith with 10% of it, which they almost certainly already own. (its probably closer to half).
I shouldn't have said they could buy it "all" because you are focused on that word. That is irrelevant. They don't need to buy it all to destroy faith. They only need to destroy faith. You are thinking ideally I am talking about what actually happens. They have spent thousands of years mastering manipulation of faith. They can destroy faith in crypto, which has no intrinsic value in a heartbeat.
All of your arguments, while sound within the scope you intend them, are missing the bigger picture. These things you are trading are not assets. They are worthless as a currency. Imagine having the choice between a faith backed crypto, and a silver backed crypto. Which one would you choose to own? You might gamble on owning some faith backed crypto, hoping the exchange rate changes when faith is on an upswing, but for real ownership, you'll choose the one that has real value. So will everyone else. Given the option between the two, everyone will choose the one that has the real value. The faith backed one will fail, because who wants it? Its junk. It has no value.
Again as the general public becomes more and more knowledgeable, they won't be able to gain power. Faith in crypto's promise is not necessary when you have an understanding of how crypto works. It is a public blockchain and while the wallets are pseudonymous, idenities of wallets do get found over time and payments for the initial crypto can be traced from wallet to wallet.
Have you ever heard of the idea of sublimation in anthropology? If you look at human history and study civilizations, you will see that major advances in civilization have involved abstracting more literal concepts. Unlike other animals, humans have to make connection and meaning out of things. A cornerstone concept of human civilization is that you must give sacrifices in order to give meaning to something and have a better future. If you look at tribes discovered during the age of exploration, you'll discover the most primitive in technology and resources would engage in human sacrifice (usually children or a good harvest) and/or cannibalism (very rarely both but if so always done for religious reasons). As these tribe civilizations advanced, they began to abstract these literal terms of sacrifice such as sacrifice a goat instead of a human, burn goat organs instead of the whole goat, drinking the blood of Christ as wine and attending church on Sunday...
These abstractions only work if they can embed the same level of meaning in humans as previous more literal sacrifices. The benefit of these abstractions is that they use less resources while still giving humans the meaning to exist and create a better future.
If there is no meaning to anything, the civilization collapses much like you see with socialist and communist countries. Socialism and Communism is just a new flavor of a weak and spoiled people that want an easier life while sacrificing nothing. When you have something for nothing, you lose all meaning and worth of that something and it becomes useless and discarded.
Why am I going on this long winded response about heretical talks on human sacrifice in religion you ask? Because the value of goods follows the same concept of the evolution of civilization through abstraction. There are histories where people would trade as a currency oyster shells, salt, wood coins, cacao beans, and more! People put their faith in these currencies because they saw them as valuable, gold or precious metals didn't just magically become valuable (if I recall right, the Aztecs would hang gold ornaments throughout their home but they were just decoration and not something extremely valued as the Spanish Conquistadors saw gold).
But the same problem plagues human history of money in that people would try to get something for nothing. As people found more oyster shells, the currency devalued and people moved to something else. As people carved more wood coins, the currency devalued and people moved on to something else. There's no better example than Roman Emperor Nero of Rome who wasted too much of Rome's money and started trying to make counterfeit Roman silver and gold coins by adding cheaper metals in the coins to pay off the debt. As the currency became more and more devalued over the years, Roman civilization fell apart and the real nail in the coffin was having germanic tribes fight for Roman citizens because Romans didn't want to sacrifice themselves to maintain their empire anymore.
As advances were made in the mediums of trading goods, it took less and less resources to create and maintain that medium of goods. Gold was heavy, dense and took up less room respectively than previous trade goods. However, you can't shave pieces of gold for buying groceries, breaking up that gold coin into fractions of value is difficult. Paper IOU money that backed gold in a bank was even less cumbersome and you could fractionalize the value up to two decimal places but you had to trust a bank to keep your gold safe (just like you have to again if our money was backed by gold). With cryptocurrencies, the fractional value can be broken up into 8 or more decimal places back, you can transfer the money worldwide near instantly. Creating a new cryptocurrency takes almost no money at all. The only concern is if the currency can be transferred safely and securely which many already believe it can. It only takes people abstracting further in their concept of a medium trade of goods, using an asset that is digital and you don't physically pile up somewhere. It would've been a huge leap 2000 years ago but right now it's not that difficult. These cryptocurrencies still retain the meaning of a trading medium while sacrificing some kind of effort (in this case Proof of Work or Proof of Stake for coming to a consensus on transactions) and making trade easier overall.
I know you won't agree and I'll probably get downvoted for my wine comment but it just seems so obvious to me right now, I feel like I could almost write a book on it.
Yes, I talk about these societies in my report. It's not exactly what you think it is. All of those things have actual value, as in, they can all be used in production for their respective societies (except the wood coins, and that only worked because it was mandated for taxes, and then the king died, and then it failed immediately).
Wrong, they were already valuable. Have you ever eaten food without salt? Like, ALL food without salt? Salt is very valuable. Same with all the rest. They were all used in production, that was their value. Look deeper and you will find that every single currency ever used was either used because it was useful in production, or it was mandated by law (because it was totally worthless).
They were valuable to the Aztecs too, that's why they hung them in their home, and made head dresses out of them, and other adornments, etc. They weren't as valuable as they were to the Spanish, but they still had productive value. They also weren't "as valuable" because the supply/demand curve was different for the different societies. That's not strange at all. They still had value though, just a different S/D curve.
PMs have that value because they are unique elements, that have properties that no other elements, or combination of elements, on the periodic table have. They are a unique resource that is otherwise irreplaceable for their intrinsic functionality.
This is a supply demand curve problem, not a problem with them using shells as a currency (which they used for adornment, and building homes, etc.). The value was less because the demand decreased. This happens. It can't happen with gold and silver, but that is because it is a limited resource. Yes, you can find some in asteroids, but getting it up and down the gravity well is not all that easy, and there is still a limited amount in asteroids. That's irrelevant though. It doesn't matter how much there is, as long as there aren't so many of that resource that it is basically limitless for its production uses, i.e. as long as the S/D curve doesn't separate (blow up).
That's not what happened, or at least that's not why the economy failed. The economy failed because the Cabal bought up all the land over time, and then sold all the land off at once, taking all of the money out of circulation and held on to it. This scarcity of currency (because there was no other reasonable path for barter) destroyed the ability for Rome to do business. It was the hording of money that caused Rome to fall. Again, a failure of the S/D curve.
The fall of Rome was intentional and planned by the Cabal.
This is why I have proposed, and will continue to propose that the only solution to a truly free market is one that has multiple asset backed cryptos.
And this is also why I keep saying we need asset backed cryptos. I think we are mostly on the same page, but I insist that assets, real assets, that can be used to do work, are essential. The types of cryptos we have now are fine, if they are tied to real assets. Then we can go around and trade them to our hearts content. When we want the real thing, we go to the "Silver store" and trade in our crypto for the real silver it is tied to.
I have to admit this is a little confusing because I am having a conversation with multiple people in this thread. i don't know if you have seen my proposals for how to create a free market. The path is to put all stocks on crypto. Put all PMs on crypto and build the infrastructure for exchange between real and crypto. Any cryptos whos value is actually tied to the real work they can provide (as you have suggested) is also welcome. In fact I insist that ANYTHING that can be used for actual production, and reasonably be put on crypto, MUST be put on crypto for any free market to work. We must have real barter; that is the only way.
Just because I am offering arguments that don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't appreciate the conversation. And I never downvote people, especially not just for disagreeing with me. I think I've actually upvoted all of your "disagreements." I could never downvote someone for offering a reasonable argument against what I am saying. Debate is the only path to the Truth.
Be sure to link the paper you're working on, ill be waiting
Based on what? How do you know it is run by the cabal?
The people that aren't concerned mustn't have watched the video or don't know what they are talking about
Not a crypto guy. But gov. Needs to get their hands off all this shit. My opinion, cold hard cash backed by gold again and all will be right for me.
Ditch the paper, back to metal. For transactions, use metal backed crypto like kinesis.
Anons as usual need to use their wrinkled brains to process news such as this!
Firstly, note that the authority in this bill is against "financial institutions", including crypto exchanges.
Secondly, note that crypto exchanges are the very antithesis to the concept of crypto. Lets take a moment to explore why.
Ownership
Crypto allows everyone to own their own assets with no intermediary. You do not need permission from anyone to access your assets, all you need is the private key.
When you have an account on a crypto exchange such as coinbase, you do not own your crypto. The crypto is stored in a wallet (custodial wallet) whose private keys are held by the exchange. If that exchange were to shutdown tomorrow, you would lose all your holdings. This happens periodically when they claim they got hacked and lost hundreds of millions of crypto.
Privacy
One of the allure of crypto is that you can make sure your transactions are private. Everyone can see the transactions on the blockchain, but it's very hard for someone to know it's yours. If a bank, for example, wants to ban someone they cant just shut off your ability to transact in crypto
However with a crypto exchange and the KYC rules (know your customer), they know exactly who each person is and with a little algorithm they can get a good idea of who is doing what. They can freeze your account or stop your transactions. They can tell the feds how much money you are spending and to which wallets its flowing.
Manipulation
Cryptos are predicated on the notion that it is distributed and not easily manipulable by a central authority. This is technically not true. Bitcoin, for instance, can be manipulated if someone takes control of 51% of the computing power, or someone has access to quantum computers that can break the encryption algorithms. Thats a different issue.
Exchanges bring in a whole new level of manipulation. Since people deposit their crypto with the exchange, they dont even need to make sure that crypto really exists. Only when you withdraw it do they have to send you real crypto. This is a lot like Goldman Sachs creating fake share certificates for shorting OR Fed printing free money. This is the kind of control banks really love.
So what do I think is happening here? 5D chess as usual.
The [DS] is thinking that they can use this bill to shutdown all exchanges who dont play ball with them, and finally bring all crypto exchanges under their trusted Banks, so that they can control crypto exactly the same way they control the current monetary system.
However the Whitehats can use this to shutdown all financial institutes, and move to a truly de-fi platform where everything is distributed, and there are no exchanges. Everyone can use the crypto thats picked as the "people's currency" with no one ever being able to control them.
Is Gemini safe? Or how do I get my crypto secure?
I haven't used Gemini, but as far as I can tell its just another exchange just like all others, and if you have your crypto held by them then you dont own it and you can lose it anytime.
You can create a software wallet OR a purchase hardware wallet to keep your crypto secure.
Software wallet like Exodus is free and supports most blockchains. You can run it on your desktop or your mobile. I suggest running it on a device thats dedicated to holding your crypto that is not used to download a lot of stuff and that you dont carry around. Make sure to create backup and write down the pass phrase and keep it somewhere safe.
You can also use hardware wallets like Ledger and Trezr. They are expensive, but for a tech novice it is the best way to keep crypto secure.
However if you are tech savvy (even if you dont know too much about crypto), I suggest investing a little time to learn how these wallets work, and you can install a software wallet thats as secure as the hardware wallets, but not worry about these hardware wallets having some bugs preinstalled (I wont rule that out!)
You're missing one very important aspect of the hardware wallet: transactions are signed on the device and not on the computer/endpoint like a software wallet.
Your private keys never get touched, written, displayed, put on RAM/disk, etc with a hardware device.
Also, Metamask which is a popular extension for use with DeFi has the ability to integrate with hardware wallets so you get the best of both worlds.
Hardware wallets are not for 'novices' as you suggest, they are for people who are truly serious about their security.
Except, you are trusting these startup companies did not do any tampering with their hardware like a backdoor for instance. If I was building a company like that, I would be very very very tempted to "accidentally" leave a small debugging backdoor for someday in future.
Personally this is what I do, which I consider to be the most secure way to save your crypto. I wrote a small script on my macbook from early 2000s that I dont use for anything else. This script generated the addresses and the corresponding BIP passphrase, and displayed the address on screen. I transferred the crypto I am hodling to these addresses. This wallet exists only on a couple pieces of paper as BIP phrase and nowhere else. Far far more secure than a hardware wallet which you dont know what is really inside it.
I would have to argue with you on that. A software wallet is just not going to be as secure as a Trezor or Ledger (personally I like Trezor more because they require no identifying information for making a wallet on Trezor, Ledger asks for an email address). Even if you are tech savvy enough to program your own software wallet, you may leave vulnerabilities in your software and you you have to keep the software up to date with upgrades happening on your cryptocurrencies.
These hardware wallets have been audited several times by prominent tech companies. The only way to take someones funds on a hardware wallet is to physically take their hardware wallet and computer they use to make transactions (unless they know the hardware wallet seed words which would never be typed in on a computer in the first place).
I hardware wallet for me
Haha I love your username!
People think of wallets as active entities. They are literally a public and private key pair and a mneumonic. Once you send your cryptos to that address, it does not have to exist anywhere digitally.
https://greatawakening.win/p/141FOYBPNp/x/c/4OTNVab3FfE
I know these kind of tech companies too well and the kind of people who run them, I will never trust my savings with them.
Do you have any good links/resources for introducing people to setting up a paper wallet?
I will try and put together something
Yes please, sounds useful
Thank you so much! 🙏 Many people including myself on here would greatly appreciate it!
Have you used a Nano Ledger before? and what is your opinion on XMR?
My friend uses Nano ledger and got an email that all their customer data was recently compromised. Of course it does not compromise the device itself, but does not give me the warm and fuzzy feeling such a company should be oozing.
Do I think you will lose your crypto you stored on Nano Ledger if you safeguarded the device? Highly unlikely. However, it's not a zero probability. I wont rule out the 0.1 % chance that there is a backdoor in the device.
As for Monero - I know that its one of the very few cryptos that guarantee complete anonymity. For me this raises the curiosity to understand how this works from a blockchain point of view. If the details of which address owns how much crypto is not stored in the blockchain for everyone to see, how does it work? Been too lazy to do the research.
I vaguely remember the origins of Monero connected to some Globalists - but I might be wrong. I know one of Dorsey's buddy boys (Alex Gladstein) was pushing Monero at one point, and that makes me wary as well.
Simple answer - I havent done the full research and I havent bought any Monero.
It's owned by the Winkelvoss twins (the ones Zuckerburg fucked over for making Facebook). It's been around for awhile and is very well established. However, you don't own your crypto if it's not in your own personal wallet. Get your crypto off of the exchange so you don't have to tell others down the line "yeah I lost all my crypto from an Exchange". The only time you should ever have your crypto on an exchange is if you want to make a trade right then and there. After you make the trade it should be moved off immediately.
Any currency that has no asset backing is not a currency, its a failed economy waiting to happen. The blockchain technology and cryptocurrency medium of exchange are only half of the fix. There must also be an infrastructure in place to exchange that currency with the real asset that backs it. Anything else causes an economy based on a currency that is based on faith.
Any currency based on faith fails when faith fails. Faith fails as soon as someone wants it to fail. It is trivial to make faith fail. If it isn't an asset, it isn't an asset.
Also, any economy that doesn't have in place market places for barter will also fail. A single standard medium of exchange (or even a few) can be horded. If the only means by which people make exchanges (perform normal economic actions) can be horded, then economies can be manipulated.
The only possible free market, as far as I can see, is one which has many assets linked to crypto. For example, all stocks can be put on crypto. Then if you need bread, and you have no "silver crypto" or "gold crypto" you can just trade 1/100th of your TMTG stock, or GME stock, or whatever, and buy some bread. Easypeasyjapanesey.
We have all the tech to create such a free market. No where in there can a non asset backed crypto fit and be a good thing.
I agree for the most part, but technically you can issue currency based on productivity without causing inflation. They did this in 1930s Germany with MEFO (I might be getting the acronym wrong, but its the German name for national metal works) notes, where the metal works get an order placed and the bank issues a note covering the value of that order. This was the best proof that currency could be backed by real asset or real productivity.
yes, blockchain ensures the system is tamperproof and not centrally controlled. But the assets on the blockchain need to represent something of value.
The other side of the coin is, too much faith gives too much power to those who dont deserve the faith. Like the current system. Too much faith is as bad (or worse) than too little faith.
I would go further and say in a perfect world you also need local crypto currencies. Every community needs to issue their own currency backed by the assets and productivity of their local community members. All these currencies must be tradable. The productivity of a community establishes the value of its currency by market pricing. This system is like what Titanic was supposed to be. Compartmentalisation of failure. Even if a bunch community currencies were taken over and manipulated, it wont bring down the whole system and market pricing will signal the currencies in distress.
I honestly think we need a lot more discussion of the post awakening currency system.
I would starve but I wont part with my TMTG or GME stock lol, but yeah this is an interesting concept. Once assets (stocks included) are featured on the crypto, sky is the limit. Everything is liquid, nothing can be tampered, life is beautiful.
The cryptos represent an amount of computation that has been "burnt" to add the entry to the ledger, but it does not represent something of value, as in an amount of computation that I can actually use.
Theta is actually an exception. Theta guarantees the availability of computational power for you to use (something of value), and not just computation that was burnt in creating that coin.
I am all for a supercomputer thats available for everyone to run what they want, but will this control the world's currency? Is so, its an entirely different question.
Not sure what you mean by re-engineering internet and network protocol. Can you elaborate?
Dont get me wrong, Blockchains are great and we will definitely use it in future post-awakening. I cannot imagine a free system without a good blockchain based currency system. Just like Internet is great and can be used for freedom of information, but can also be subverted and hence it was allowed to enter the public realm.
Bitcoin as such is not viable as a currency for so many reasons (I have posted extensively about this, and I am happy to agree to disagree with anyone who really loves bitcoin). The Cabal knew it wont, and it was dangled in front of us as a bait because they knew they had to take us out of this fiat system into a central bank digital currency system - thats their end goal.
Any currency based on the future labor of people is called indenture. I suggest we don't do that. That is what we currently have. The reason we have inflation is not because its backed by our future labor, but because without injections into the system it would fail because some of it is constantly being taken out in interest.
It's a fair bit more complicated than that, and has a lot to do with what happens when money is taken out of the system (see the Great Depression). The point is, our current system is exactly this, backed by our future labor, and inflation is not based on that aspect of it.
I suggest we need a no faith system. Assets are not faith based. There is no faith in there. You either need (or want) silver or you don't. It doesn't matter if its a medium of exchange, it has value all by itself. It is used for all sorts of things, including as a primary form of adornment for god knows how many thousands of years because it is pretty, malleable, and has numerous other qualities that are unique. It has value, all by itself. Zero faith, tons of faith, it doesn't matter.
Sweet JESUS. You are going to give me a heart attack. I can't wait to release my report so that people can see the real history of economies. I will repeat myself. Any system that uses as a medium of exchange for barter the future labor of people is called slavery.
It also is something that doesn't exist, i.e. it's just a worthless currency, not backed by an asset. Banking on the future fails when the future doesn't live up to expectations. For an example, see the Federal Reserve Note in a few months (hopefully).
For sure. I have a ton written up as a starting point for debate.
Exactly. Everything is liquid, everything is solid. Its the perfect cup of ice water!
The fact someone else is issuing currency backed by your productivity and charging interest on that - this is what makes it slavery. That doesn't mean currency backed by productivity is slavery. We can explore this further.
If I asked you to give a loaf of bread and in return I would fix your computer - thats barter.
If I gave you a piece of paper that said "I will fix your computer" and you gave be the loaf of bread, and 2 days later you gave me back the piece of paper and asked me to fix the computer, which I did - thats still barter.
There is no slavery here. I am bartering the resource I control (my productivity) for my own gains.
Janet Yellen is not bartering my productivity to do female studies in Pakistan and forcing me to pay interest on that. That is the difference between the two systems.
There is a downfall you can argue about my proposal. What if I went and issued a million people and accumulated million loafs of bread, and obviously never fixed event he fraction of their computers? Well the answer is, as I start flooding the market with my currency, its value drops and I would be lucky to get a crumb of bread after issuing, say, a 1000 pieces of paper. So the market will make sure to keep you honest.
The real problem with this system is, whenever you accept someone's currency you have to be able to write it off just in case that person, say, dies, gets disabled, goes to prison etc. That is why, instead of individuals issuing currency it has to be at community level, but there is a lot to be discussed there and risks acknowledged.
No system is risk free.
Lets take the idea of "asset backed currency". Lets say we issue currency based on gold and silver. What happens if:
A deposit of 1000 times the entire gold int he world is discovered?
Population grows so fast and the gold and silver supplies cannot keep up?
I would actually argue that "asset backed" only works if you have faith that the whole world will value those assets the same way for a long time. Its not a zero faith system.
No matter how you cut it, you have to trust something. By issuing currencies at community level (or individual level if it can be managed) and making it asset + productivity backed, you are spreading the risk of this "trust" over a large area. The entire civilisation has to collapse for this system to fail.
I disagree. Value based on future labor is slavery. It forces you to do the work. You have no choice. If you want your currency to keep having value, you have to keep doing the work. If you stop doing the work, the currency loses all value. Thus, you have no choice, thus you are enslaved to the currency, and those who create it.
This is not a currency. This is a barter exchange.
Still not a currency, but it is an indenture, by definition. I'm not saying its never a good idea to do this, but there is the possibility of fuckery there because this type of system creates leverage. A system based on leverage is guaranteed to lead to slavery. Indeed if you look at the history (which I will show) it is exactly these type of deals that have led to the downfall of our society. A "deal with the devil."
There are a Great deal more differences than that.
When I finish my report, and show you the history, what I am saying will be made perfectly clear. This is slavery, no if's, and's or but's about it. Fuckery is inherent in this type of system. Even if it can be done without fuckery, it is ripe for abuse.
Agreed, but some are inherently greater risk than others. The system you describe has always led to slavery. I honestly don't think it can possibly end in any other way. So for fucks sake, why would we try again?
To me this is like all those people that say Communism is great, and the only reason it sucked before is because they were just doing it wrong.
Inflation happens and the market adjusts. Savings are harmed, and that sucks, but the market stabilizes, and it doesn't even take all that long.
I suggest we may have bigger problems then. However, assuming something ridiculous like this doesn't happen, the market adjusts. Deflation, inflation, are all perfectly fine things. They don't really matter. It's the speed at which they happen that can cause problems (and the reasons that they happen obviously). The market adjusts. In a system that I describe, the market isn't even harmed for a day, since there are a ridiculous number of barterable materials on hand.
Not in a system set up for barter as I have described, where anything that can be backed by crypto in a reasonable way, is backed by crypto.
Same with my suggestion, no slavery necessary.
What I am getting from you regarding productivity is that if I want to eat the fruits of my labour then I have to work, and thats slavery. Hmm .. how is that any different in any crypto based system? I have to work to earn the crypto (backed by assets) to by the bread. If I want to eat bread I have to work - and thats still indenture by your definition.
Absolutely interested in your report - please tag me when you are done.
The system I described has never been tried in practise because we did not have the ability for individuals to issue their own currency. Again, if you disagree and believe it has been implemented in the past, would be great if you can include in your history report. I have a strong feeling we are talking about different things.
Not true, the people who control the new deposit will essentially steal wealth from everyone else. Exactly like when Fed prints more money. The only way to stop this is if the gold is distributed to everyone at the same ratio as their holding. Easier said than done.
But my broader point is that what you think has "value" is just a perception, and so something being backed by an asset does not magically make it a "proper crypto"
Actually this is not ridiculous at all. The population growth in last 100 years has been orders of magnitude increase. Newer generations will be vastly at a disadvantage compared to older generation as assets get scarce and get deflated. However, when you issue currency based on your own productivity this never happens.
Again, the point I am making is that gold/silver etc do not by themselves have any inherent value nor are they correlated with what the currency represents. Currency is a barter of items/services necessary. So currency should represent the ability to created these items or provide these services.
Yeah... payment before work sounds like communism
That is not what I'm saying at all. First, there is a difference between labor, and future labor. Debt based economies are a fraud. We think that is the way, because that is the way it has always been. That is NOT the way it has always been, that is the design of the banker system. That is how we came to be where we are today. This debt, this future labor is called leverage. That's what it's actually called in banking accounting. It's called leverage for the exact same reason that it's called leverage in blackmail, because it can be used against a person.
There is nothing special about your system. Sure, it's different because its "local," but it has been done many times before. This is the "deal with the devil" I was talking about. Any time you take out a loan, this is exactly what you are doing. You are issuing your own currency. You are indebting yourself to someone else (in this case the actual Devil, AKA the Cabal, but who it is is mostly irrelevant) and this debt is carried forward into your future. The entire time you are under leverage until the debt is gone. But its a currency, always based on your future labor, so you are never out from under the leverage.
And if you are somehow out from under the leverage, then the currency ceases to have value.
What I think has value has nothing to do with my perception. On the contrary, what i think has value is only that which can be used to do work. That is not a perception, that is the law of the universe (if there is such a thing). That is not future work. It is not something that has to be fulfilled. It can be used to do work right now. If I have a bar of silver, I can use it to make an electric engine right now. Sure, I have to process it, but that's splitting hairs. It's value is in the present, not the future. I don't have to go into debt to give it value. It already has it.
I will never understand how anyone can say this.
Both gold and silver have right now worth in usefulness and utility. They have it every moment of every day, and they always will (unless we become a super advanced society, then we will have to come up with something else, like energy as a medium of exchange).
Anyone who says that gold and silver don't have inherent value has never bought a wedding ring, or used an electronic device, or studied physics, or done chemistry, etc.
Cant be less faith based then taking trust out of an exchange altogether...
Thanks, it's hard sometimes.
I dont know how much I trust that this is under whitehat control, boy I hope I'm wrong but we need diggers for this info definitely and the people that aren't concerned... didn't watch the video or dont understand what's happening
Stack physical gold and silver instead. If a digital currency backed by gold and silver is created, you will be set.
Not to mention the metals price has been suppressed and manipulated for years.
JPM gets busted for manipulating prices and all they do is pay a small fine.
This ^
Silver also hasn't spiked like Gold has in the last downturn in March 2020, I expect silver to take off like crazy when the real crash happens.
We're trying to improve the world with this stuff, it is not the time to be just thinking about myself. Why do you think they get that repurcussion? Because of the government intervention, so I ask... do you want government intervention for crypto?
I am not understanding the statement of "thinking of myself" and with precious metals in your reply, if that is what you mean. Please clarify.
No, i do not want govt intervention for crypto. I am all for less govt regulation.
I think JPM gets that repercussion because the govt could be in on the scam so the govt can make money as well. Seems like a never ending cycle since JPM has been busted tat least twice.
Why did you flair this NSFW? It doesn't contain any inappropriate imagery.
You looked, didn't you?
I had a peek lol
They dont want their fake money being turned into digital fake money.
Biggest stake holders in crypto are China and middle east terrorists
I think it will end
This is the thing that McAfee lectured about in Spain shortly before he died he said they would eventually ban all the major cryptos and everyone would move to privacy coins.... then they would ban those and people would just not give a shit because they're private and it would end up being like marijuana or prohibition. Too many people doing it and nobody knows who's doing it.
Copied from Reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/sdam8b/us_congress_yet_another_omnibus_bill_has_been/
US Congress: Yet another Omnibus Bill has been introduced in Congress, that contains provisions that seeks to prohibit crypto transactions, damage privacy and constitutional rights. Once again, we have to fight these laws.
After the Infrastructure bill debacle where anti-crypto laws were introduced in a must pass bill, now a new America COMPETES act has just been filed in Congress. This Bill on the surface seeks to make US more competitive against China.
But hidden deep in its 2900 pages, this Bill contains provisions that give the Treasury unlimited powers to prohibit and block crypto exchanges.
Currently, the Treasury cannot take unilateral decisions to block crypto transactions without a formal notice and a public process, and give a 120 day period to challenge any decision. However, under the new Bill, the Treasury can take decisions without any formal process, based solely on its own apprehensions.
The new bill allows the Treasury headed by Yellen to block transmission of funds if the Treasury deems so. It can quickly order blocking any transaction or exchange without any review process or administrative controls. This gives the Treasury unchecked control over all crypto exchanges and transactions.
This language was already included in a bill from last year, however there was opposition and it was removed. However yet again this has been sneaked into a must pass bill. The very idea of sneaking in such clauses in 2900 pages of incomprehensible regulations stinks. How are even the legislators going to read any of this?
The new bill: https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR4521RH-RCP117-31.pdf
Coincenter's legal arguments: https://www.coincenter.org/new-bill-would-hand-treasury-blank-check-to-ban-crypto-at-exchanges/
Yellen should be thrown in a gulag for multiple reason but so should many exchanges.
Tether is likely to cause a crypto crash
https://youtu.be/-whuXHSL1Pg?t=110
Haha, you explained in one sentence what I did in 2 pages!
I agree with Tether crashing, algorithmic stablecoins will be the way to go.
Just pointing out that banning crypto exchanges is NOT banning crypto.
Infact exchanges are what allows manipulation of crypto and exchanges are the antithesis to the crypto. When you have true defi, you wont need exchanges and this bill cant do anything.
I am not arguing that this bill is being passed for good reasons. However, I am arguing that the end effects of this bill is actually going to be a positive for crypto.
But won’t it be harder for ordinary folks to funnel their cash into bitcoin? How will you cash out bitcoin for dollars without an exchange? Do decentralized exchanges work the same as Coinbase — and if so, wouldn’t they be subject to the tyranny currently being discussed?
There are couple answers to this on-ramp question.
First answer already exists - Lets say you trust me. You can send me money via paypal and I can send you crypto directly from my wallet to yours. You can do this with anyone you trust. Your family, friends, local community etc. Problem really is finding people you can trust and scalability.
The second asnwer is that you can create a proper defi system with smart contracts where I send you crypto and you send me money via bank transfer and no one else is in the middle. Check out veritaseum. I think its poised to be able to do this, and its inventor finally got the patent awarded.
However the final answer is that in future we may not even need the regular currency anymore. The people's crypto will be backed by assets, and everyone will accept it as legal tender and hence there is no need to convert it to dollars. It is the dollar.
I hope you’re right, but the reptilians in charge won’t give us “the people’s money” without a huge fight. Thank God Satoshi is anon,
Well the current fight is Biblical, and defeating evil actually means reclaiming our financial freedom since its the root of all their power.
lol, I wouldn't put all my eggs in the bitcoin basket. You should dig a bit more into Bitcoin origins, but whether Satoshi is CIA or anon doesnt really matter because Bitcoin is not suitable to become people's currency. 90+% of the bitcoins are held by 4% of the wallets, so even without debating all other aspects, it can never cater to the whole world.
I do believe crypto is the future of freedom, just not bitcoin.
I’m curious, what crypto do you advise?
This article seems to dispute your 90%-4% wallet figure... https://insights.glassnode.com/bitcoin-supply-distribution/
It seems pretty broadly distributed.
I believe in BTC, for what it’s worth, and have invested accordingly.
Their basic premise is that BTC held at exchanges don't count as belonging to a single entity because it belongs to people who deposited their crypto at the exchange.
The validity of that view purely depends on your view on exchanges. If you are a crypto purist, you know that whoever has the private key controls the asset. That is the simple truth. Everything else depends on believing these exchanges are benign and would never abuse their power and would never manipulate the system. This is a very faulty way of thinking, especially during Great Awakening as we are being shown the corruption at the very heart of the financial systems.
Stick to the basic principles. Who controls the crypto? 2% control 95%. The rest is just an illusion. If tomorrow most people withdrew their bitcoin into their private wallets, I will gladly change my view. Until then Bitcoin is as rigged as banks and stock markets.
My current view is that almost all existing cryptos suffer from the same problem. So at this point investing crypto it like a blind casino game. Put in only what you are willing to lost. Buy the dips (now is a good time, but I like to stagger my purchases).
I invest in Bitcoin, Ethereum, and just a bit in Liecoin (I really hate Litecoin because Dorsey keeps pushing it).
I bought Ripple, simply because their SEC case is going to determine the future of Crypto, and if you believe in crypto you believe SEC will lose, and when that happens Ripple is bound to surge bigtime.
I also bought Stella Lumens because I like their tech and I think it will be suitable for a defi stock exchange.
I bought LoopRing because there seems to be something going on behind the scenes with Gamestop perhaps issuing some NFTs on LoopRing. I am very cautious about this.
I am buying Veritaseum (its harder than I expected) because Reggie Middleton got the patent for pretty much the technology that covers everything that came after Bitcoin (including anything built on top of Eth smart contracts, Ripple etc).
I bought Theta because I like their edge computing idea. Their actual implementation still has a lot to be desired, but I am sure they get there.
I have also sprinkled a bit on meme coins like Doge etc, and also on Algorand.
Keep your eyes peeled on new developments though. I believe the perfect crypto has not yet been invented (or publicised)
Cardano has a very good wallet distribution.
https://datastudio.google.com/reporting/3136c55b-635e-4f46-8e4b-b8ab54f2d460/page/r2LQC
Top 1% of wallets own roughly 42% of the supply (19B / 45B)
https://datastudio.google.com/reporting/3136c55b-635e-4f46-8e4b-b8ab54f2d460/page/p_ogr3ndx6qc
There are approximately 1.037 Million wallets on Cardano according to these analytics.
When all the people that I don't trust are shilling harder than ever for crypto that tells me what I need to know. I still will invest but carefully and move profits to physical metals.
That sounds like a good idea 👍
This was always going to be the case. How many cryptos are out there now? You think the government is going to agree for Bitcoin to be the currency and have guys like Pomp being the richest cunts in the world? Lmao fuckin pathetic. If anything, they would just create their own crypto and tell Pomp to pound sand
Yes... and yellen can stop exchanges from exchanging any asset... i wonder who actually watched the video... but sure, don't do anything but that just shows what you know of the subject
I watched the video, although it almost put me to sleep.
This was always going to happen - government involvement in crypto. You want crypto as a currency but don’t want government involved?? LOL it’s never gonna happen.
Why are you worried if the US puts its foot down on crypto? Why would companies like Coinbase and Binance US exist? Crypto is on a decentralized blockchain. And if the govt tried to take action against people purchasing it, than mine it
Because the government has a special way of fucking everything up, and the banks have done what they have to lead us to where we are today... dont think they have what it would take to ruin it? Thats the creator of cardano saying it... I think he would be the expert he and if he is concerned then we all should be
And this is the reason crypto-blockchains were invented. They can become tyrannous in their attempts to block it, but this only drives more people to blockchain technology thereby undermining state power. Decentralization.
To whom if normal people can't access it?
Why can’t they? Hardware wallets make it so anyone can access it.
Because the assets won't be listed on exchanges
There are decentralized exchanges. And where we are going, US dollars are no longer needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yafHqOTlyao
I do like listening to this as well, but I'm positive cryptocurrencies can bring about a new Enlightenment and Renaissance age. It will enable freedom for billions around the world.
Has anyone used Nexo.IO? How do they make the interest?