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.
I really like the idea of asset backed cryptos the only problem I can think of is how you can do this in a way where you don't need to trust the people that are in charge of making sure the crypto is backed by an asset. Possibly some kind of open-sourced...bank? Storage Unit? Someone has to physically hold what is backing up this crypto asset and that leads to controlling the asset and corrupting the cryptocurrency.
I will look at your other posts and see if you've answered my question elsewhere.
I don't know if you've heard of algorithmic stablecoins? They are tied to the real time price data of assets like Gold, USD, global shrimp price, etc. Though this seems to fall in the same problem in that you could have more of this stablecoin than there is of the asset and can't back it up physically.
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.
I couldn't agree more. I've really enjoyed our conversation so far, thank you.
I really like the idea of asset backed cryptos the only problem I can think of is how you can do this in a way where you don't need to trust the people that are in charge of making sure the crypto is backed by an asset.
I agree that this is problematic. I haven't spent enough time on this to come up with a solid solution, but once I present my report I intend to spend my time working on this very issue.
Possibly some kind of open-sourced...bank?
This was kinda my idea, but I'm not sure. I'm thinking a free market might provide a solution, but it would require some infrastructure, which is problematic. My current plan is to present a solution scheme to the problem and encourage debate to come to a better solution. I have a fair following on reddit. Once I present my report I think I can get some good debate going.
Though this seems to fall in the same problem in that you could have more of this stablecoin than there is of the asset and can't back it up physically
This is something that must be avoided at all costs. There can be no good economy (no fuckery) if this is possible.
This was kinda my idea, but I'm not sure. I'm thinking a free market might provide a solution, but it would require some infrastructure, which is problematic. My current plan is to present a solution scheme to the problem and encourage debate to come to a better solution.
Possibly the infrastructure could by a DAO and the DAO would be owned by a different cryptocurrency. Profits would be the least concern of this cryptocurrency and it would be more about decentralization of the crypto. This way users of the open source bank could vote on what should/shouldn't be changed and people running the infrastructure would be constantly cycled through. People have to take responsibility if they want to have nice things.
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.
I really like the idea of asset backed cryptos the only problem I can think of is how you can do this in a way where you don't need to trust the people that are in charge of making sure the crypto is backed by an asset. Possibly some kind of open-sourced...bank? Storage Unit? Someone has to physically hold what is backing up this crypto asset and that leads to controlling the asset and corrupting the cryptocurrency.
I will look at your other posts and see if you've answered my question elsewhere.
I don't know if you've heard of algorithmic stablecoins? They are tied to the real time price data of assets like Gold, USD, global shrimp price, etc. Though this seems to fall in the same problem in that you could have more of this stablecoin than there is of the asset and can't back it up physically.
I couldn't agree more. I've really enjoyed our conversation so far, thank you.
I agree that this is problematic. I haven't spent enough time on this to come up with a solid solution, but once I present my report I intend to spend my time working on this very issue.
This was kinda my idea, but I'm not sure. I'm thinking a free market might provide a solution, but it would require some infrastructure, which is problematic. My current plan is to present a solution scheme to the problem and encourage debate to come to a better solution. I have a fair following on reddit. Once I present my report I think I can get some good debate going.
This is something that must be avoided at all costs. There can be no good economy (no fuckery) if this is possible.
Possibly the infrastructure could by a DAO and the DAO would be owned by a different cryptocurrency. Profits would be the least concern of this cryptocurrency and it would be more about decentralization of the crypto. This way users of the open source bank could vote on what should/shouldn't be changed and people running the infrastructure would be constantly cycled through. People have to take responsibility if they want to have nice things.