No misconceptions here. 3% of the money in the economy is physical notes and coins. the other 97% is 1s and 0s on the computers of commercial banks. Some of that 97% will be where people have deposited savings into a bank account, but the majority is printed out of thin air as per fractional reserve.
It's almost too painful to type this out, but do you actually realize what sort of currency you advocate in this thread? It took me a day to overcome the shame of having to spell this out.
And here's the second punchline: Bitcoin is "covered" by investments into electricity already burned away with nothing to show for it. It's not 1s and 0s, it's 0s and -1s! *pada psh*
It didn't exist until the banks loaned it into existence and it will be destroyed when it's paid back. Hence, it's not possible to pay off all the debt in the economy, without removing most of the money from the economy. This is true whether the state can pay it's obligations or not.
No. It won't be destroyed when it's paid back, how would that even work? The banks get their money back... and they "delete" it, because bankers are: a) the most braindead people on Earth, b) caring philantropists who only want to do right by humanity at their own expense? The freshly "imagined up" money is here with us to stay and the creditors get to keep it, that's why there's inflation and our money devaluates. It's not fucking quantum fluctuation.
The real misconception is how most people think the banking system works, but the Bank of England themselves have admitted that the traditionally held views are actually completely wrong. Fiat money is broken. Anyone who recognises that is understandably going to think taking a punt on a new monetary experiment like crypto is worth a small investment. So it's not as batshit crazy as most of the naysayers in the thread would like to claim.
That article doesn't say anything new we wouldn't know. Of course the money is IOUs, it's covered by obligations! But obligations work fairly well, they're one of the safest and most conservative types of investment. Only massive shitstorms like Greece or Argentine almost defaulting threaten their particular obligations. Meanwhile, the biggest players like the US and UK can easily spawn any amount they wish. Hell, Germany has managed to sell obligations at negative interest rate during the recent EU crisis and EU as a whole is constantly fighting off deflation for the past few years. How's them apples? Fiat is safe, euro is hard, FED controls dollar with ease and don't get me started on yuan.
I should also note that the British pound is becoming a bit player, so anything coming from the official Brit sources must be taken with a pinch of "look for agenda and butthurt".
Doom Marine said:
The waste of time is a rather harsh and superficial judgement don't you think? It's certainly doing one thing: securing the network in a distributed manner where your identity is firewalled from transaction itself, forgoing the traditional third-party trust.
fraggle already pointed out the flaws in this statement, but I have to pitch in with my more colourful and dystopian wording. As mining operations become centralized, larger and more powerful, they can basically profile all bitcoin users with analytical tools and attach identities to transactions. Then it's only a matter of time before governments pressure them into the same deals they have with banks. In the end, you become even less powerful in your struggle against the machine, because no one can hear you scream (you're anonymous) and no one gives a damn (there's no regulatory body).
Unless someone does comprehensive analysis on the energy + manpower of centralized banking vs energy + manpower of cryptocurrency, I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that the hashing power is a waste as things stand.
Thank you for bringing this up. I still find it amazing that so much energy and resources gets wasted on setting up rigs and grinding a pointless mathematical riddle in order to attach an arbitrary value to the results. At least the sun did most of the work for tulips, heh. Bitcoin mustn't fail, otherwise the costs will be inexcusable. All that money wasted... especially by the unqualified little folk who got sucked in by the gold craze (mining) and the get-rich-quick scheme (btc as stock commodity). If all that computation power went into SETI or cracking gene code, we might have been better off.
One thing creeps into my mind... how long before you need to add bullet points for "Sells licenses for BTC operations" on the left and "Buys synchronization with the mother blockchain" on the right? It smells of corporatization, outsourcing and selling service.
It's a logarithmic chart. It shows exponential growth that is otherwise obscured by scaling.
The point of that chart is to show the bigger picture, the year-to-year trend, not the daily ups-and-down from speculative trading.
Yet it conveniently hides the fact that you can't use btc for day-to-day operations, rendering it next to useless as a currency. It even highlights correlation over data with a different scale, that's totally and inexcusably cheating and misleading, so phml is right to attack the graph.
How is it manipulative? BTC's value is known for its legendary volatility, as with any immature technology and a natural part of growth (see Twitter or Facebook years before they went IPO).
It is known to people who give a damn about it. Most people don't and this thing presents data in a skewed way that requires a lot of context and further reading. Would expect better from open source futurists.
The bubble and correction that follows always are related by real life event. April 2013's rally was Cyprus bank run, corrected by Silk Road Hack. November 2013's rally was Chinese exchange opening, corrected by Chinese gov ban. I showed everyone a chart, with hard data, there is a ton of independent information out there if you want to prove me wrong.
I think you are making conjectures with your opinion before doing research on what I put out there, and that isn't fair.
How is ANY of that a correction? Don't use a buzzword that fakes a sense of a self-correcting system. The Cyprus crisis and the Silk Road bust have absolutely nothing in common, so labeling them as a bubble-correction pair is highly manipulative. The Chinese ban didn't correct anything, it pimp-slapped the hopes&dreams of btc enthusiasts. Btc didn't solve the great geopolitical game and it's not impervious to its twists and folds, it keeps on trucking because the neckbeards cling to it with the power of a mother bear.
So you're asking me to answer a technical topic without research reference and hard numbers? Why on earth would that even make sense?
Phml was talking about young males going head first into risky ventures out of sense of adventure and gain, and here you go, admitting you don't have the answers to naysayers, but you believe in the outcome.