Cryptocurrency

[vuduchile 1,941]

Simply a digital way to pay without ever carrying cash or CC balances?

Ok just a digital dollar then?

 

But isnt decentralization a key attribute of cryptos?

[edjr 5,567]

BLOODBATH!

[vuduchile 1,941]

BLOODBATH!

Buy more

[KSB2424 3,083]

edjr,

 

don't even look at it, this stuff is going to be volatile as hell. Huge daily swings. I have zero idea how this ultimately pans out but its going to be a roller coaster.

 

I'm not buying anymore. I have my initial investment and I'm just gonna let it ride.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Rumors floating that the Fed will develop its own crypto currency.

Whats the point of that exactly? If its backed by the US govt, how would it be valued separately from the dollar?

That doesn't surprise me at all. If the FED devs their own, there will be many questions surrounding it. Thinking out loud:

 

First, it completely legitimizes CCs in general to a large portion of those who consider CCs BS. Second, it would have to be pegged to the dollar, and eventually replace the dollar completely - and if that's true, then Mark Cuban's attempt at a point crashes and burns with extreme prejudice. Obviously, the FED isn't getting into this to create 'collectibles'.

 

This is the FED at least begrudgingly recognizing why paper currency is passé, and hasn't sufficiently been replaced with plastic, or wire-transfer - and acknowledging the appeal to the public of the privacy that CCs provide. But they're getting in the game to ensure that the traceability of transactions remains in place; there is no other possible reason.

 

There - still - is unwanted (to them) anonymity with paper, and loads of controls have been put in place to keep tabs on transactions (notably, limiting how much cash can be deposited or withdrawn at one time without notifying the IRS, and printing increasingly sophisticated paper, with security strips, etc.

 

Going CC eliminates counterfeiting absolutely cold, and also - if the CC is built around this purpose - allows tracking. This eliminates the major concern that the PTB have regarding CCs. The trick will be forcing the public only to use the FED version.

 

Rather than what other CCs have had to do - develop market confidence and acceptance based upon the soundness of the technology itself, and the credibility of its dissemination - the FED would create an interesting dichotomy: they would validate the notion of the use of CCs, but they would also double down on exactly the reason that the private sector wants it to remain private: to stay OUT of Government control.

 

I could imagine a FED-inspired CC being built a couple of different ways in order to ensure control and compliance (read: taxation): force FEDCC transactions to take place only through their clearinghouse (where the third party 'clearinghouse/wallet/'bank' would provide encrypted validation of a transaction only at that site)...or build the algorithm itself to have embedded kernels which would make each existing 'coin' traceable, regardless where they come and go. It would literally be the equivalent of a 'GPS tracker' in every coin. I believe an "algorithm within each coin" - meant to broadcast changes of location - is possible.

 

The computing power necessary to track it all would be mind-boggling - but it would be "instant taxation"; not quarterly; not yearly. Instant deposits to the Treasury.

 

I would think that all this is doable, but I don't have the coding chops to know how.

 

This, though, is the issue. The dichotomy is that they'd acknowledge the legitimacy of blockchain CCs, while magnifying exactly the reason why the public doesn't want to use the Government's. It will still come down to exactly how Government could force transactions only through their CC.

 

I don't think they can, and that's a quadrillion dollar question. I think if the FED really is doing this, it is only to shunt migration off the dollar as quickly as it would otherwise take place. First Gold, backed by itself, then gold certificates, backed by gold, then dollars, backed by "good faith and credit", and - lastly - CCs: backed by the same thing.

 

Would they build it on the ETH platform, or would they start from scratch...now that, literally, may be the billion dollar question.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Like Quorum is being built by JPMC - to create transparency in transactions while simultaneously shielding the identity of the transactors - the FED could possibly be doing the same thing: acknowledging that the battle to identify the transactors is lost while also still getting their piece of every transaction via instant taxation on any transaction via the structure of the CC itself, as described above.

 

Literally a 'if it moves, it's taxed' kinda thing.

 

Interesting times.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

What's the best "wallet" if coinbase sucks?

 

Poloniex if you want to keep it online. But nothing beats offline storage.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Ok just a digital dollar then?

 

But isnt decentralization a key attribute of cryptos?

 

YES. Which is why you should NEVER EVER invest in Ripple.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

That doesn't surprise me at all. If the FED devs their own, there will be many questions surrounding it. Thinking out loud:

 

First, it completely legitimizes CCs in general to a large portion of those who consider CCs BS. Second, it would have to be pegged to the dollar, and eventually replace the dollar completely - and if that's true, then Mark Cuban's attempt at a point crashes and burns with extreme prejudice. Obviously, the FED isn't getting into this to create 'collectibles'.

 

This is the FED at least begrudgingly recognizing why paper currency is passé, and hasn't sufficiently been replaced with plastic, or wire-transfer - and acknowledging the appeal to the public of the privacy that CCs provide. But they're getting in the game to ensure that the traceability of transactions remains in place; there is no other possible reason.

 

There - still - is unwanted (to them) anonymity with paper, and loads of controls have been put in place to keep tabs on transactions (notably, limiting how much cash can be deposited or withdrawn at one time without notifying the IRS, and printing increasingly sophisticated paper, with security strips, etc.

 

Going CC eliminates counterfeiting absolutely cold, and also - if the CC is built around this purpose - allows tracking. This eliminates the major concern that the PTB have regarding CCs. The trick will be forcing the public only to use the FED version.

 

Rather than what other CCs have had to do - develop market confidence and acceptance based upon the soundness of the technology itself, and the credibility of its dissemination - the FED would create an interesting dichotomy: they would validate the notion of the use of CCs, but they would also double down on exactly the reason that the private sector wants it to remain private: to stay OUT of Government control.

 

I could imagine a FED-inspired CC being built a couple of different ways in order to ensure control and compliance (read: taxation): force FEDCC transactions to take place only through their clearinghouse (where the third party 'clearinghouse/wallet/'bank' would provide encrypted validation of a transaction only at that site)...or build the algorithm itself to have embedded kernels which would make each existing 'coin' traceable, regardless where they come and go. It would literally be the equivalent of a 'GPS tracker' in every coin. I believe an "algorithm within each coin" - meant to broadcast changes of location - is possible.

 

The computing power necessary to track it all would be mind-boggling - but it would be "instant taxation"; not quarterly; not yearly. Instant deposits to the Treasury.

 

I would think that all this is doable, but I don't have the coding chops to know how.

 

This, though, is the issue. The dichotomy is that they'd acknowledge the legitimacy of blockchain CCs, while magnifying exactly the reason why the public doesn't want to use the Government's. It will still come down to exactly how Government could force transactions only through their CC.

 

I don't think they can, and that's a quadrillion dollar question. I think if the FED really is doing this, it is only to shunt migration off the dollar as quickly as it would otherwise take place. First Gold, backed by itself, then gold certificates, backed by gold, then dollars, backed by "good faith and credit", and - lastly - CCs: backed by the same thing.

 

Would they build it on the ETH platform, or would they start from scratch...now that, literally, may be the billion dollar question.

 

Solid post.

 

I would hope that they would build it on the Ethereum network and I am banking that many companies/government will if they start adopting CC's. What is great about Ethereum is even if each government creates their own blockchain Ethereum could still be used as a medium for both of them. It is beyond versatile.

 

There is a crypto based on the USD already, it is called Tether (USDT). I use it a lot on Poloniex.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Spit-balling here; stream of consciousness style...

 

If I have an adequate handle on all of this, then JPMorgan-Chase is motivated to build Quorum for the exact same reason that the FED wants to get involved: to ensure that they're not cut out as middlemen.

 

If you think about it, both JPMorgan-Chase and the FED are the same kind of middleman. They broker assets. If fully private CCs go mainstream, how do either get paid?

 

Quorum is JPM-C's answer to that; the FED's answer will be their own CC. I would have to assume that the IMF is shortly going to announce their own.

 

This fits with the notion of globalism as well: they want a universal currency - but not at the expense of losing control of who uses it, and the ability to tax and print it.

[Gladiators 1,904]

Spit-balling here; stream of consciousness style...

 

If I have an adequate handle on all of this, then JPMorgan-Chase is motivated to build Quorum for the exact same reason that the FED wants to get involved: to ensure that they're not cut out as middlemen.

 

If you think about it, both JPMorgan-Chase and the FED are the same kind of middleman. They broker assets. If fully private CCs go mainstream, how do either get paid?

 

Quorum is JPM-C's answer to that; the FED's answer will be their own CC. I would have to assume that the IMF is shortly going to announce their own.

 

This fits with the notion of globalism as well: they want a universal currency - but not at the expense of losing control of who uses it, and the ability to tax and print it.

 

You can bet your a$$ that uncle sam is going to get his share, which is why I've been asking the questions. Also why I feel that the banking industry and government need to get on board for CC to truly take off.

[IMMensaMind 459]

You can bet your a$$ that uncle sam is going to get his share, which is why I've been asking the questions. Also why I feel that the banking industry and government need to get on board for CC to truly take off.

I think the most guaranteed thing about this is that CCs will take off. This is similar to the arguments that took place when horses and buggies were the mode of transportation, and Ford come out with the Model A.

 

I have the least doubt of the question of whether or not CCs will actually become the standard. My questions revolve far more around:

 

1. Which one(s)?

 

2. How does the development of Quorum and a FED version change the desire of the public to use CCs outside of banker's control? (To me, it doesn't, which then begs the last and most important question..)

 

3. How could the FED stop the use of private CCs?

 

To the last: I don't think they can, just as they cannot stop pot use. This is, essentially, 'liquid barter'. The occasional 'bust' doesn't change the profiling existence of it - and pot is a physical product.

 

CCs aren't. I don't see a feasible way for the FED or anyone else to control this - and that means that (at least for the foreseeable future), CCs are going to continue to increase in value.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Expanding on that 'liquid barter' point.

 

If someone bartered products or services that didn't require titling or licensing, there would be zero way for the Government to tax the transaction.

 

I think that the same will remain true of most transactions that would be good for CC utilization. It, essentially, is 'liquid barter'. There have been attempts - none of which ever went mainstream, that I'm aware - of online 'clubs' of bartering, where a large enough network of people get together in a central place (website) to announce what they have in products and services, and transactions netted 'barter credit' so that future exchanges could take place.

 

So: if let's say someone offered to cook, but needed electrical work done, and electrician who didn't want someone to cook, but could provide electrical services would still be compelled to provide the service: instead of immediately receiving chef services, they would receive 'barter credits', which were universally applicable to anyone offering products or services.

 

I think that CCs are what I describe above, but on steroids, where the 'barter' unit of measure is the CC, and the electrician and the chef are both utterly anonymous to outsiders.

 

CCs are liquid barter, and I cannot see the Government stopping it. They can only do so for things like real estate and vehicles, both of which require titles and licensing.

[Gladiators 1,904]

I think the most guaranteed thing about this is that CCs will take off. This is similar to the arguments that took place when horses and buggies were the mode of transportation, and Ford come out with the Model A.

 

I have the least doubt of the question of whether or not CCs will actually become the standard. My questions revolve far more around:

 

1. Which one(s)?

 

2. How does the development of Quorum and a FED version change the desire of the public to use CCs outside of banker's control? (To me, it doesn't, which then begs the last and most important question..)

 

3. How could the FED stop the use of private CCs?

 

To the last: I don't think they can, just as they cannot stop pot use. This is, essentially, 'liquid barter'. The occasional 'bust' doesn't change the profiling existence of it - and pot is a physical product.

 

CCs aren't. I don't see a feasible way for the FED or anyone else to control this - and that means that (at least for the foreseeable future), CCs are going to continue to increase in value.

 

But couldn't the banking industry and government prevent the deposit of USD to the websites that allow for the purchase of CC?

 

Even if they can't, but at least make it illegal, I don't see the use of CC exploding if businesses aren't accepting it as payment. Think about what most people spend their money on each month. If they can't buy groceries, gas, pay the mortgage, cellphone bill, cable/internet, car payments, and car insurance through CC, what are they going to use it for? Buying things from someone on Craigslist? In the Craigslist scenario, 90+% of the time it would be a non-taxable transaction anyway since people are selling their items below the original purchase price.

 

I could see CC being used to make illegal purchases. Not much more. Again, this is if the banking industry and government DON'T actually get on board with it and prevent future CC purchases or make it illegal to do so.

[vuduchile 1,941]

Expanding on that 'liquid barter' point.

 

If someone bartered products or services that didn't require titling or licensing, there would be zero way for the Government to tax the transaction.

 

I think that the same will remain true of most transactions that would be good for CC utilization. It, essentially, is 'liquid barter'. There have been attempts - none of which ever went mainstream, that I'm aware - of online 'clubs' of bartering, where a large enough network of people get together in a central place (website) to announce what they have in products and services, and transactions netted 'barter credit' so that future exchanges could take place.

 

So: if let's say someone offered to cook, but needed electrical work done, and electrician who didn't want someone to cook, but could provide electrical services would still be compelled to provide the service: instead of immediately receiving chef services, they would receive 'barter credits', which were universally applicable to anyone offering products or services.

 

I think that CCs are what I describe above, but on steroids, where the 'barter' unit of measure is the CC, and the electrician and the chef are both utterly anonymous to outsiders.

 

CCs are liquid barter, and I cannot see the Government stopping it. They can only do so for things like real estate and vehicles, both of which require titles and licensing.

Clothing, food, and gas purchase all require sales tax to be collected. Thats why I think the states could be a more significant short term stumbling block than the feds or the bankers.

 

As pen pointed out, Hawaii has effectively shut down coinbase there.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Clothing, food, and gas purchase all require sales tax to be collected. Thats why I think the states could be a more significant short term stumbling block than the feds or the bankers.

 

As pen pointed out, Hawaii has effectively shut down coinbase there.

 

Traditional Banks vs Crpyto Banks it is going to be a showdown. Coinbase is loaded. They were founded in 2012, BTC was only $10... lets say they made a modest $1,000,000 investment in 2012 that is worth over $1,000,000,000 today and I am sure they invested more. They also did the same thing with ETH and LTC. Fred Ehrsam is no idiot.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Clothing, food, and gas purchase all require sales tax to be collected.

I know - but 'require' and 'actually do it' are two different things. It's the crux of this issue.

 

Thats why I think the states could be a more significant short term stumbling block than the feds or the bankers.

As pen pointed out, Hawaii has effectively shut down coinbase there.

I never saw Hawaii mentioned. If you're a Hawaiian, how could you not incredibly easily get around that?

[penultimatestraw 473]

I never saw Hawaii mentioned. If you're a Hawaiian, how could you not incredibly easily get around that?

Coinbase won't sell cc to anyone with a Hawaiian address. I'm sure other sites have followed suit. Other than falsifying one's address, how does one circumvent that restriction?

 

More importantly, how do you realize any capital gains from cc transactions?

[IMMensaMind 459]

Coinbase won't sell cc to anyone with a Hawaiian address. I'm sure other sites have followed suit. Other than falsifying one's address, how does one circumvent that restriction?

By having more than one address, or by employing a third party.

 

More importantly, how do you realize any capital gains from cc transactions?

Well - for now - CC transactions can be rolled over into cash 'wallets' in USD. Should they be made completely illegal, the capital gain becomes the CC itself.

 

The point of CC is to make USD not the exclusive realization of liquid 'gains'.

 

Beyond that, there is another problem:

 

How does making transfer to and from USD illegal stop making CC conversion into another currency and then into USD illegal?

 

This is the Government attempting to herd cats. I can't see it.

[penultimatestraw 473]

By having more than one address, or by employing a third party.

 

Well - for now - CC transactions can be rolled over into cash 'wallets' in USD. Should they be made completely illegal, the capital gain becomes the CC itself.

 

The point of CC is to make USD not the exclusive realization of liquid 'gains'.

Great. So I'll just buy another property, or PO Box at the minimum, and conduct all my cc investing from there. I can have a dual property manager/financial advisor.

 

For most investors, I suspect making USD profits on their cc investment is the point.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Hawaii is going to regret this decision and any other state that bans Coinbase. Millionaires are made every single day investing in cryptos, I bet more millionaires are created daily in this industry than any other industry in the world. None will live in the state of Hawaii. This will definitely help bring down the homeless population, I'm sure of it.

 

Honestly, with the amount that I have invested, if I was a Hawaii resident I would be relocating this month.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Hawaii is going to regret this decision and any other state that bans Coinbase. Millionaires are made every single day investing in cryptos, I bet more millionaires are created daily in this industry than any other industry in the world. None will live in the state of Hawaii. This will definitely help bring down the homeless population, I'm sure of it.

 

Honestly, with the amount that I have invested, if I was a Hawaii resident I would be relocating this month.

NoKo is a much better reason to consider leaving HI.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Great. So I'll just buy another property, or PO Box at the minimum, and conduct all my cc investing from there. I can have a dual property manager/financial advisor.

If you don't want CC, you don't do those things. Weird to need a property manager for a PO Box though.

 

For most investors, I suspect making USD profits on their cc investment is the point.

It is. I'm not surprised that the leftist bastion of Hawaii did what it did.

 

But here's the question. How do they survive challenges to that, if CC continues to go more mainstream?

[Gladiators 1,904]

By having more than one address, or by employing a third party.

 

Well - for now - CC transactions can be rolled over into cash 'wallets' in USD. Should they be made completely illegal, the capital gain becomes the CC itself.

 

The point of CC is to make USD not the exclusive realization of liquid 'gains'.

 

Beyond that, there is another problem:

 

How does making transfer to and from USD illegal stop making CC conversion into another currency and then into USD illegal?

 

This is the Government attempting to herd cats. I can't see it.

 

Scary thought, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if CC leads to the government infiltrating our lives even more. Think about it this. No more cash. No pulling cash out of the bank. Employees get paid via CC and pay all bills through CC. All administered by the government. Hope we don't get there, but wouldn't be surprised in the least if 20 years from now that's where we are.

[IMMensaMind 459]

Scary thought, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if CC leads to the government infiltrating our lives even more. Think about it this. No more cash. No pulling cash out of the bank. Employees get paid via CC and pay all bills through CC. All administered by the government. Hope we don't get there, but wouldn't be surprised in the least if 20 years from now that's where we are.

Oh, I think that's the point of the FED building their own.

 

But that, if anything, will push more into use of private CCs.

 

I do not think that this is a battle that Government can win.

[penultimatestraw 473]

If you don't want CC, you don't do those things. Weird to need a property manager for a PO Box though.

 

It is. I'm not surprised that the leftist bastion of Hawaii did what it did.

 

But here's the question. How do they survive challenges to that, if CC continues to go more mainstream?

No, there are only so many hoops I'm willing to hop through. Moreover, it is deceptive (if not criminal) to circumvent the law.

 

The law says nothing about businesses accepting cc, it just imposes USD backing for any entity trying to sell the currency to investors. So if someone already owned cc, they could use it conceivably. And your question is most relevant in the (unlikely IMO) scenario where cc supplant the USD entirely. But I'm guessing there'll be a whole bunch of new laws by that time.

 

Or maybe someone creates cryptocurrency insurance?

[IMMensaMind 459]

No, there are only so many hoops I'm willing to hop through. Moreover, it is deceptive (if not criminal) to circumvent the law.

Face it. You're not doing it now when you have full access, so your comment is moot. As for 'circumventing the law': please. We know you've violated the law, and on multiple occasions.

 

The law says nothing about businesses accepting cc, it just imposes USD backing for any entity trying to sell the currency to investors. So if someone already owned cc, they could use it conceivably. And your question is most relevant in the (unlikely IMO) scenario where cc supplant the USD entirely.

What do you suppose is the purpose of the FED building a cryptocurrency?

 

But I'm guessing there'll be a whole bunch of new laws by that time.

Without a doubt. There are lots of laws about all sorts of things that violated daily.

 

Or maybe someone creates cryptocurrency insurance?

I suggested this a page ago.

[mmmmm...beer 691]

You two are seriously sounding jonestown purple koolaid batsh!t crazy.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

I suggested this a page ago.

 

How much do you suppose that would cost?

[IMMensaMind 459]

You two are seriously sounding jonestown purple koolaid batsh!t crazy.

 

By discussing possibilities?

 

Would it have sounded batsht crazy to say in 1970 that you are going to hold the sum of the world's knowledge in your hand in 40 years?

[IMMensaMind 459]

How much do you suppose that would cost?

I have no idea.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

I have no idea.

 

Bitpark: https://bitpark.net

Whitepaper: https://bitpark.net/BITPARK_whitepaper1.2.pdf

Bitpark Chart: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitpark-coin/

 

The good news is its only a penny. I am reading the whitepaper now, let you know what I think tonight.

 

Probably just another gimmicky coin, but you never know.

[penultimatestraw 473]

You two are seriously sounding jonestown purple koolaid batsh!t crazy.

I know. First, there was no way cc could be regulated. Until there was. Then, if you are unwilling to game the system, you never wanted to invest in the first place. No where is there any admission that some of the grandiose cc claims were inaccurate.

[IMMensaMind 459]

I know. First, there was no way cc could be regulated. Until there was.

No one ever said that. The only position I took was that it wasn't going to be stopped: no regulation was going to succeed in doing that.

 

Then, if you are unwilling to game the system, you never wanted to invest in the first place.

I didn't say that either; stop lying, you phoney. I said that your claim that you wouldn't invest "because it required gaming the system" was false - moot - because you could have invested now without gaming the system - and you haven't. Your decision to avoid investing, therefore, had nothing whatsoever to do with gaming anything, and everything to do with your lack of belief in CC.

 

No where is there any admission that some of the grandiose cc claims were inaccurate.

No one credible is interested in jousting with your windmills constructed of bullsht. You are forced to lie about the stated positions of your debate opponent in order to convince yourself you're correct, and that's pathetic and transparent.

[frank 2,145]

I just watched an informative video. It showed how some guys actually wrote their own code to mine bitcoin. They stored it offline like some have suggested here. I think the main point was don't put something that potentially valuable on a Batman flash drive.

[WhiteWonder 2,172]

 

By discussing possibilities?

 

 

discussing possibilities? you are mental man. All i've seen you do in this thread is have one sided yell matches or condescending responses to people. Those are not discussions of possibilities. In fact, you've come off as completely closed minded to any possibilities other than the ones you believe to be correct.

[WhiteWonder 2,172]

 

Poloniex if you want to keep it online. But nothing beats offline storage.

 

thanks. so i can buy any of the coins using poloniex? they dont randomly go down when convenient like coinbase?

 

also, sorry for the bit of sarcasm here but i find it funny that one would need to turn to offline storage of their precious coins, im assuming incase there is a hack of some sort, when this very thing has been mentioned by several posters as a downside to total decentralized currency and then some peple (not saying you) have completely dismissed that concern. so its like why would we need to worry about storing them on a usb drive?

 

(im in total agreeance with you but I just found that to be a funny thing)

[IMMensaMind 459]

discussing possibilities? you are mental man. All i've seen you do in this thread is have one sided yell matches or condescending responses to people. Those are not discussions of possibilities. In fact, you've come off as completely closed minded to any possibilities other than the ones you believe to be correct.

So...just like you have.

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

discussing possibilities? you are mental man. All i've seen you do in this thread is have one sided yell matches or condescending responses to people. Those are not discussions of possibilities. In fact, you've come off as completely closed minded to any possibilities other than the ones you believe to be correct.

Are you new here?

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

 

thanks. so i can buy any of the coins using poloniex? they dont randomly go down when convenient like coinbase?

 

also, sorry for the bit of sarcasm here but i find it funny that one would need to turn to offline storage of their precious coins, im assuming incase there is a hack of some sort, when this very thing has been mentioned by several posters as a downside to total decentralized currency and then some peple (not saying you) have completely dismissed that concern. so its like why would we need to worry about storing them on a usb drive?

 

(im in total agreeance with you but I just found that to be a funny thing)

Has never happened to me and Ive been using it a few years now. Its definitely a step ahead of the rest.

 

Well I dont keep all my offline I still play on Poloniex with the coins I have online, just the ones I have no intentions in selling for at least a few years I just keep offline. I dont really worry about getting hacked but I do know its a possibilities. I also know Polo would reimburse you if you were to get hacked, I just dont want to deal with the hassle.