Is it or isn't it?
I wish it could be settled one way or the other and it would be nice if both sides of the debate will finally settle the matter. Is Bitcon a Fonzi Scheme or not???
6 posts • joined 7 Jul 2014
If you have an infinitely divisible bitcoin and if I have an infinitely divisible bitcoin, then at least one of us got screwed. There never was any HONEST reason to create more than one bitcoin. If you guys ever did your math homework then you would know that you cannot define something as having the infinitely divisible property of mathematics and then also make it go anywhere by multiplying it 21 million times.
More Kool Aid, anyone?
When American Democrats and Republicans are singing in unison to convince voters that Bitcoin is an acceptable alternative to the United State Dollar, then what is there to stop those same voters from wanting an acceptable alternative to the political parties that screwed up the USD in the first place?
America already tried the Bitcoin. Money printed by the South during the Civil War has all the properties that the Bitcoin community holds on a pedestal above the United States Dollar. Confederate Dollars are limited issuance, no central authority control that can print more, and diminish over time as they decay or become lost. We can already predict the future for Bitcoin and see what confederate currencies are ultimately worth.
Don't be fooled by American politicians who support the Bitcoin. The true motivation is to hijack American taxpayers for the purpose of supporting Bitcoin prices. What you are seeing is movement to make taxpayers buy Bitcoins for the government to spend as it sees fit. As Bitcoin is nothing more than a container of the world reserve currency that it contains, the effect will be that United States Dollars will have flight out of the country in exchange for absolutely nothing. It will be free money for the rest of the world. It is a George Soros style attack on the dollar and America.
When you are talking about banks that are regulated by socialist governments, the risk would be that the individual bank has stepped out of bounds after all these thinly veiled threats from regulators. Right or wrong, the salivating socialist government now would have the reason it needs to come in and pick all the meat off the bones with fines, effectively confiscating the wealth to become property of the state.
Another risk is how would you carry a pint of water across a distance? Would you use a pail? Or would you use a sieve that needs a source constantly poured into it to prevent it from drying up? If you can move the sieve to it's destination faster than it runs out, you would never notice the difference. But a pail can preserve the contents for as slowly as you want to take your time. Bitcoin is a live grenade that can devastate your wealth at any time. And since vendors cannot afford to lose their merchandise, you will notice they only accept Bitcoin under condition that it can be immediately sold for the cash required to finance your purchase.
The value of Bitcoin lies not in the USD price of Bitcoin, but in the vendors who want to keep and hold them instead of throwing them back onto the next fool who is waiting with cash at the exchange. Therefore, Bitcoin has no value.
These banks are in socialist countries. Any lawyer that works for any bank is paid to make sure the organization does not step into activity that would give the socialist government a reason to send in the regulators and pick all the meat off the bones with fines. You can fight the fines in court and probably win the case. But after that fight against the socialist government is done, you will have no company left over.
Socialist governments are giving no encouragement to the individual banks that they can make financial service products built on Bitcoin. The only way to read the statements would be to see them as thinly veiled threats. If a bank moves to offer products based on Bitcoin, that would be high risk and out of bounds. Good reason or not, socialist governments now have the reason they would need to come in and confiscate all the wealth.
Everybody thinks Bitcoin is proof that the banks are threatened by it. Everybody thinks that banks are hypocritical because they complain about regulations on their industry at the same time they will not touch Bitcoin without regulation. But reality is that banks can't touch Bitcoin because of the regulations the banks have been complaining about.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019