I'd cheat by giving up sterling only to load the bicoin onto my coinbase debit card and then just carry on as normal.
Bitcoin discussion and news
- Thread starter camouflage
- Start date
I'd cheat by giving up sterling only to load the bicoin onto my coinbase debit card and then just carry on as normal.
Doesn’t sound like you have much faith in this supposed alternative to money
stdP
One Swiss dinosaur in Polly Gosling's anorak hood
Like most gish-galloping twatweevils, this is StakerOne's whole MO (with a side order of deep-fried tedium). They're just here to drop their crypto truth-bombs and skeletor the fuck out as we gawp amazed at their dizzying intellect.
What is it about their current behaviour that makes you think this experiment isn't already underway?
I don't view bitcoin as an alternative to money anymore than I view a gold soverign is.
It's more to do with getting enjoyment out of watching opponents doing mental gymnastics tbh.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That's the spirit. You're doing really well. Battering us.
I thought you were insisting earlier that it’s money
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Given the endless self aggrandising droning on even though everyone thinks they're a tedious cunt I'm thinking child porn and coke is more likely.
stdP
One Swiss dinosaur in Polly Gosling's anorak hood
An interesting and astute observation based on preliminary evidence garnered from the early stages of the experiment. Please accept my smart contract for a free* BonerTulipTitGIFs NFT with a dollar worth** of $500,000!
Crikey, you really are bitter considering it's a Friday night.
Someone neds to setup a victim fund for you.
Details to follow at some point tomorrow when I sober up.
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
Projection, much?
This is just example StakerOne arguing opposites as I have noted up so won't repeat up thread,
'The blockchain itself doesn't need regulating, Companies and some people do need who interact with it do'
This seems a good point.
Then stating how DAOs, and organisations that check Smart Contracts don't need to be regulated.
Also it's interesting that the complete denial of CBDC will in all likelihood become the Crypto of choice as most people are totally uninterested in Crypto and will want something they can trust and as simple to use as cash. Big business will follow that as there is backing.
What is "it" ? I defend bitcoin from time to time, but I don't think it's going to have anywhere near the same impact as Ethereum, which I think is more useful. In a global sense, I think Ethereum is more money than money and will become a global reserve currency of sorts. But I'm not interested in it replacing sterling at the supermarket checkout.
No I never said that. I actually went out of my way to clarify that the DAO doesn't need regulating, BUT organisations and people that interact with them do depending on what the DAO does.
I gave two specific examples:
A trade union DAO - Trade union laws would need to be updated.
A poltiical party DAO - Laws relating to political parties would need to be updated.
I couldn't have been clearer.
I am not 100% against a CBDC.
If cryptocurrencies fail, we get a bad CBDC, which the government runs on it's own system nowhere else and it's likely that one will come with all sorts of nasty tricks.
However, if cryptocurrencies are highly successful, then we will get a good CBDC that will run also be tokenised and run on most blockchains.
What I call a "good" CBDC, the WEF & BIS calls a "hybrid solution".
You keep trying to re-frame my opinion like I'm pro crypto but anti pound sterling.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The last thing anyone British would want is for pound sterling to fail.
What I think is best, is the backend infrastructure to conventional finance being swithed over to blockchain - that is happening and it can't really be stopped. That's what will bring in a new era of financial innovation, protecting people's freedoms.
Otherwise we'll wind up with a bad CBDC with a government and BoE drunk on power playing God with our lives, dictating what we can and can't do with our money down to what food we can and can't buy.
As for mental gymnastics, yep there is.
Being pro CBDC to the point where you don't care how much control the government has over it, to critisizing crypto because "it facilitates tax evasion", to then saying that it's "dracionian" when I point out that crypto makes it harder to hide money from the government and makes it easier to pay taxes - is mental gymnastics.
My position has been clear. I've always said there's not much inbetween on this one.
If crypto wins, then we keep our freedoms, but we will have to learn to deal with an internet in which people can say or do what the fuck they want.
If crypto loses, then we will eventually wind up with a dracionain CBDC that has social credits Chinese Communist Party style.
Where you lot are really doing mental gymnastics, is saying that you hate the former, (It's really don't to you being shit scared that it will somehow bring in an era of hyper-capitalism with communism and extreme socialism being taken off the menu forever), but then denying that it's OK, we can trust the government not to bring in a draconian CBDC.
The fact of the matter, is that you trust an elected body to run the country, rather than the people.
I trust the people, they do all the work, they have the wisdom, they are much better at organising things, not the pack of cunts that have too much centralised power.
So one of the first goals over the next 10-20 years should be for local communities to embrace the tech and run their own affairs with local authorites getting smaller and smaller to the point that a local authority is just another DAO interacting with community DAOs.
Last edited:
You know, there isn't much that is more insignificant in all of this than our views as to what "money" actually is. Playing silly word games by trying to drag this back to what money is or isn't in order to make things tedious when crypto is praised for many things, including some functions that overlaps with some of the roles of money, forces me to go full circle a few times. Well done. But you're just exposing yourself as trying to win an argument than have an honest debate in the persuit of the truth.
Humanity has been using money for thousands of years, we know what it is. It's just frees us from having to barter. People aren't stupid, they can work out for themselves which cryptos are useful for what. They'll use it for whatever they want to use it for, within reason.
Last edited:
So, gun to your head, are you giving up Sterling or Etherium?
As per a similar question re bitcoin, I would would "give up sterling" to load up my debit card with Ether, allowing me to sell the Ether for sterling, when I pay for anything on that visa card down the supermarket.
So you can play all the word games you want about the definition of money (Which historically is anything that allows us to be free from having to barter).
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
You said companies and some people should be regulated. Then went on to exclude DAOs
OK apart from the two examples above.
Why should a Trade Union DAO be regulated and a Christmas Club (To use your example) not be regulated?
As per your previous answer, that means you’re sticking with Sterling. The thing that is actually money, in other words. Only you’re sticking with it in a way that means you never know how much anything will cost you from one day to the next.
Why is that some kind of revalation or expose? It doesn't conflict with my earlier posts at all. I'm quite dissapointed that after all of my comments, you appear to confused as to what my views are.
There are overlaps between the properties of money and cryptocurrencies.
The two, clearly aren't the same. Yet I suspect, you are pretending that my views are that somehow cryptocurrencies should replace fiat money, such as pounds sterling.
That's right. DAOs should not be regulated directly. There is no need to.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
I've worked in plenty of databases with a full audit trail, which is what a blockchain does in reality. Except you can roll back a blockchain without an audit trail being recorded, and then rerun all the transactions you liked and not the ones you decided you didn't want to have ever existed. You can't do that with eg: Sage Accounts, which is... A database (although I've no idea what the underlying tech is).
Money wasn't created because of bartering, there's no strong evidence that bartering was a large part of the societies we had at the time money way invented. What we had was informal debt, where people simply remembered who owes who what, or a gift economy. Bartering was only with traders who passed through the small communities of the time. Then as communities grew, it was no longer possible to keep track of debts informally so we created a formal way of doing so which developed from a specific debt (2 pigs or 8 bushels of wheat or whatever) to an abstracted intermediatery (?) form that is money (i know I've got that word wrong but I'm hoping it's close enough for you all to know what I mean).
I think David Graeber's "debt: the first five thousand years" is meant to be the best single text to read on this subject.
Money wasn't created because of bartering, there's no strong evidence that bartering was a large part of the societies we had at the time money way invented. What we had was informal debt, where people simply remembered who owes who what, or a gift economy. Bartering was only with traders who passed through the small communities of the time. Then as communities grew, it was no longer possible to keep track of debts informally so we created a formal way of doing so which developed from a specific debt (2 pigs or 8 bushels of wheat or whatever) to an abstracted intermediatery (?) form that is money (i know I've got that word wrong but I'm hoping it's close enough for you all to know what I mean).
I think David Graeber's "debt: the first five thousand years" is meant to be the best single text to read on this subject.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Government plans new laws to protect Britons who use savings clubs | Business | The Guardian
Move comes 16 years after collapse of Christmas savings club Farepak, which left thousands unable to access cash
Does anyone know what stage this legislation is at?
Because as it turned out when Farepack collapsed, Christmas clubs did need regulation and legislation was coming to do this
last April according to this article.
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
But Christmas club are and so are many other organisations that DAOs but to replace
So why should Trade Unions be an exception?
Well on to the next point, then, which is what money actually is. And, like Tom says, there is zero evidence that humans ever used bartering on a wide scale or that money ever stood in for bartering. Money is not a bartering token, in other words. Money is the continuation of what humans always have done in reality, which is reflect social obligation. You can’t abstract it from the social system that the obligations are part of. There’s no such thing as “fiat” money, in other words. Without the social systems that transactions are embedded in, you don’t have money at all.
Impossible with a public blockchain like Ethereum unless there is consensus from the community - and today, that's going to be an awful lot of people to the point where it's practically impossible.
A private blockchain can only be rolled back if one party has complete control of it and besides, anyone else who has access to a blockchain, can, if they do so wish, back it up, so if it were rolled back, everyone else who isn't in control of it, would smell a rat.
Besides, it's no use there being an audit trail, if other parties involved have no access to the database.
Export the transactions you like, import it into a fresh databse. Oh but the transaction dates would give the game away on your database? Same is true of blockchain.
That's all very well, I don't disagree with any of it. But it doesn't add weight to anyone's arguments.
Christmas savings clubs aren't regulated ... yet.
And if and when they are, we have to ask ourselves why would they need to be.
For example, there might be a case for Christmas (or any other) savings club that advertise themselves in the public domain, but not so much for friends and family setting their own private Christmas club, where it's not advertised, where all the parties involved know each other.
At that point whether a bank account or a DAO is used, is irrelevant.
But if legilsation were brought in to cover all scenarios regardless, legislators would need to take into account that it's perfectly valid to run a Christmas Club using a DAO and avoid bringing in bad legislation that frustrates people who do that.
For example, if the legislation says " ... and the funds must be stored in a bank account or any other mechanisam that is regulated by the FCA..." even if it's a private club, then it's obvious the legislation is only there to protect the interests of the banks and the FCA, not the general public.
My point is that one example of bad leglislation, is legislation that bans mechanisms that protects people, while forcing people to put their trust in others to protect them.
With DAOs. No one can run off with the money. Yes the fucking money, pounds sterling.
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes it does. It means that some of the people arguing here understand something about what money is, how it is created and the role it plays in a society, while others don't.
Similar threads
