The State of Cryptocurrency

[Papahyooie]

Are you a manager of a bank? If no, it didn't require anything of you. Clearly you didn't read it.

Sure am. I am the manager of my own bank of crypto. Which you want to fall under Federal regulation.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

That's a wallet, not a bank. 4th amendment applies to wallets, even the digital kind. That said, cryptocurrencies are securities and security exchanges (which are effectively crypto-banks) need to be regulated which SEC and other government security bodies are attempting to do.

 

[Papahyooie]

Let me preface this by saying I understand both of you and support neither.

Except in this case, you are indirectly consenting. You vote for elected officials who go out and do your bidding (in a perfect world). This is your implicit consent.

In the case you voted for someone that doesn't believe in the Federal Reserve, then, somewhat unfortunately, welcome to democracy/republic/whatever we really are. The majority has determined what we are going to do as a whole and by you continuing to stay in the country, are consenting.

If you didn't vote, you can't complain.

By living in this country, you are implicitly agreeing to live by the rules and laws of the country. You don't have to agree with them and you can work to change them (through peaceful protest and electing officials who share your view).

If you think such a thing as "indirectly consenting" is legitimate, then you do not understand consent. That is the same bullshit argument as "She shouldn't have dressed like that if she didn't want to get raped." Another person's actions (such as colonizing an arbitrary area of land and asserting control over all the people and property within it) can never create consent.

@FordGT90Concept you're sidestepping the issue again. The minutia of the Federal Reserve Act, or any other law for that matter, is completely irrelevant to what I am saying. I am literally saying that whatever law you want to paste a link to, is illegitimate. It is only good so long as the people who instated it have the guns and armies and police to enforce it by threat of violence. Argue against that instead of misdirecting.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The common law legal system (passed by Congress and upheld by courts) in the USA says it is legitimate so your premise is flawed.

As for changing, I think you'll find you have little support. The system works much better than the patch work system before it and no better system has been proposed. The USD is the most desirable currency in the world because of the Fed's even keel in terms of managing it.

Not even sure why we're discussing this.

 

[moproblems99]

If you think such a thing as "indirectly consenting" is legitimate, then you do not understand consent. That is the same bullshit argument as "She shouldn't have dressed like that if she didn't want to get raped." Another person's actions (such as colonizing an arbitrary area of land and asserting control over all the people and property within it) can never create consent.

So you feel like you should be able to rape women (or men) and murder people just because you don't agree with the laws in place? I think we could all agree you probably shouldn't do those things. Those are both also laws of human and can be changed by humans. Simply saying a law is invalid because you don't agree with it is not how humanity works. Most of the modern world works because people understand they elect people to make policy decisions for them and understand they are supposed to follow those policies until they are changed.

Everyday you live in the US, you are consenting to following the laws and regulations in place whether you like them or not. It is your job as a citizen to push for the laws and regulations you wish to live by. What are you are describing is impossible to achieve to within any modern form of society: to only live by the rules that you feel like. Modern humanity cannot sustain that.

Edit:

Keep in mind, I am not advocating that crypto should be banned or not banned. You are going above and beyond your view of financial regulation and walking into the realm of principles of modern human civilation.

 

[R-T-B]

Don't get out much do you? There's gapping holes of coverage in the USA.

In cities?

Ford, just stop.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

In cities?

Ford, just stop.

Have the full quote with emphasis added:

Fair point in countries with weak/poor central banking. At the same time, I don't know that internet service is even reliable enough in those very same countries to make cryptocurrencies viable.

 

[R-T-B]

Have the full quote with emphasis added:

And where is business done ford, particularly in impoverished nations?

Someday, maybe the train of thought will arrive and you'll comprehend why I keep dissmissing the countryside in impovershed nations as irrelevant from the moment you tried to go there. But I'm not waiting anymore.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

This was appended to the bottom of the last post but since you went there anyway, I cut and paste it here because appropriate:

...if that wasn't clear enough, let's shift focus to what you're insisting on making the goal post: a city. Why use a costly thing like Bitcoin over the legal tender in that very city which is the economic blood pumping through it keeping it alive? If the legal tender doesn't flow, the city begins to die and suddenly you'll find yourself in a ghost town. See Venezuela now: this is what happens to economies with mismanaged legal tender.

Imagine trying to live off of Bitcoin now. You're life is dependent on the ebbs and flows of big monied crypto interests on the other side of the planet. Take the jump of $600 a few days ago as an example: that jump effectively becomes a 20% tax on all of your expenses for no reason other than someone got greedy somewhere on the planet. That's *exactly* what happened in Venezula recently. That's *exactly* what happened in Zimbabwe years ago. That's *exactly* what happened in Japan decades ago. Bitcoin does it on a *very* frequent basis. Decentralized currency won't work as a cornerstone of economies because authority must be centralized in order to control supply which, in turn, controls inflation. Without good inflation control, you have a disaster like so many countries before demonstrated...

I was going to stipulate that cryptocurrencies look attractive to Venezuelans right now but then I remembered that they're suffering from widespread blackouts and there's still some foreign currencies (like US dollars) floating around that are highly sought after. If all of the foreign currencies leave the country and power/internet infrastructure is restored, Venezulans might consider...

...nope, they can't afford to change their economy over to cryptocurrencies. Merchants likely don't have the equipment to even charge a crypto-wallet, even if they did, they would have to find a way to convert it back into commodities to restock their store which is wishful thinking. Even in the worst case scenario, cryptocurrencies are self defeating. The economy would have to be crypto-based before the collapse...and then the cryptocurrency likely caused the collapse in the first place. It's hopeless. Circular logic that always ends in crap-tastic outcomes.


Remember, humans tried decentralized thousands of years ago where people traded sheep for the services of a doctor, for example. It was a shitty a thing (literally), which lead to currencies, which lead to collapses of currencies, which lead to centralization. We got where we are for a reason. It wasn't by accident.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." --George Santayana

 

[Papahyooie]

The common law legal system (passed by Congress and upheld by courts) in the USA says it is legitimate so your premise is flawed.

As for changing, I think you'll find you have little support. The system works much better than the patch work system before it and no better system has been proposed. The USD is the most desirable currency in the world because of the Fed's even keel in terms of managing it.

Not even sure why we're discussing this.

My premise is flawed, and yet yours depends on the idea that the common law legal system is the arbiter? Hi, Pot. As for why we're discussing this, we're discussing it because you specifically want to take over and control my method of commerce. If YOU and others left people alone to do as they pleased, we wouldn't be discussing this, now would we? You're the aggressor here. Don't ask me why.

So you feel like you should be able to rape women (or men) and murder people just because you don't agree with the laws in place? I think we could all agree you probably shouldn't do those things. Those are both also laws of human and can be changed by humans. Simply saying a law is invalid because you don't agree with it is not how humanity works. Most of the modern world works because people understand they elect people to make policy decisions for them and understand they are supposed to follow those policies until they are changed.

Everyday you live in the US, you are consenting to following the laws and regulations in place whether you like them or not. It is your job as a citizen to push for the laws and regulations you wish to live by. What are you are describing is impossible to achieve to within any modern form of society: to only live by the rules that you feel like. Modern humanity cannot sustain that.

Edit:

Keep in mind, I am not advocating that crypto should be banned or not banned. You are going above and beyond your view of financial regulation and walking into the realm of principles of modern human civilation.

No, I don't feel that at all. That's not how consent works. Look up the non-aggression principle. It's based on the idea of self-ownership. I own myself, you own yourself. If I infringe upon your self ownership, or the extensions thereof, I have committed a crime. Applied to the current discussion, if I rape someone, I have infringed upon someone else's right of consent, and therefore committed a crime. And if you and a large group of people decide that you have the ability to regulate my consensual commerce with other people through what means we contract to choose (such as crypto) then you have committed a crime by infringing upon both contracted parties right to self-ownership (and right to contract, which is an extension of self-ownership.) See, I took no action toward your group of people. I have not tried to prevent you from using whatever currency you wished. You and your group did that. That makes you and your group the aggressor, regardless of where I happened to have been born.

(and keep in mind, I'm talking to Ford in this conversation, who has specifically advocated for all of the above. Heaven forbid I apply principles to my beliefs and actions...)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

My premise is flawed, and yet yours depends on the idea that the common law legal system is the arbiter? Hi, Pot. As for why we're discussing this, we're discussing it because you specifically want to take over and control my method of commerce. If YOU and others left people alone to do as they pleased, we wouldn't be discussing this, now would we? You're the aggressor here. Don't ask me why.

Was I not clear enough? I don't care what you do as long as you aren't running an exchange. Even if you were, I'm only concerned if there's a trail of fraud leading to your exchange.

 

[moproblems99]

My premise is flawed, and yet yours depends on the idea that the common law legal system is the arbiter? Hi, Pot. As for why we're discussing this, we're discussing it because you specifically want to take over and control my method of commerce. If YOU and others left people alone to do as they pleased, we wouldn't be discussing this, now would we? You're the aggressor here. Don't ask me why.

No I am not the aggressor. In fact, I agree with you. I don't care what anyone else does until it starts to me affect me. You wanna trade crypto with someone, no problem. You wanna smoke some weed in your basement, no problem. You wanna come in my house and take my stuff so you can buy weed, we have a problem.

All I am trying to say is, the USA has a government, and laws. By you living here, you consent to follow them or not - we'll touch on that in a minute. US laws are not genders. They aren't defined by what you feel like that day.

Everyone on Earth has the right to pursue happiness. However, all land right now is controlled by some Country. And to quote a great movie: 'Borders are real and the plants you brought over them are illegal.'

This gives every human three choices and each one comes with their own conveniences and problems:

1. You live in a country and follow the rules while you peacefully try to make change.
2. You move to a country that has laws that favor your views and continue with #1.
3. You choose to ignore laws and do what you want, when you want, and where you want. The big drawback of this is that you will find yourself in trouble with whatever occupying force you decided to homestead with. You expect conflict and problems in all of your dealings.

This has now completely left the topic of Crypto.

 

[Papahyooie]

Was I not clear enough? I don't care what you do as long as you aren't running an exchange. Even if you were, I'm only concerned if there's a trail of fraud leading to your exchange.

Seeing as how you've never expressed such an opinion, but only the opinion that there should be regulation (above and beyond the "don't defraud people" which is a natural crime), I'd say no, you haven't been clear enough. If you only want to punish those who have defrauded people, then we agree. But that hasn't been your tune, ever, in any of these threads.

No I am not the aggressor. In fact, I agree with you. I don't care what anyone else does until it starts to me affect me. You wanna trade crypto with someone, no problem. You wanna smoke some weed in your basement, no problem. You wanna come in my house and take my stuff so you can buy weed, we have a problem.

All I am trying to say is, the USA has a government, and laws. By you living here, you consent to follow them or not - we'll touch on that in a minute. US laws are not genders. They aren't defined by what you feel like that day.

Everyone on Earth has the right to pursue happiness. However, all land right now is controlled by some Country. And to quote a great movie: 'Borders are real and the plants you brought over them are illegal.'

This gives every human three choices and each one comes with their own conveniences and problems:

1. You live in a country and follow the rules while you peacefully try to make change.
2. You move to a country that has laws that favor your views and continue with #1.
3. You choose to ignore laws and do what you want, when you want, and where you want. The big drawback of this is that you will find yourself in trouble with whatever occupying force you decided to homestead with. You expect conflict and problems in all of your dealings.

This has now completely left the topic of Crypto.

You're missing my point. "Borders are real and the plants you brought over them are illegal." Ok... let's go with that premise. It's a good analog for the crypto discussion. The point that you're missing is not whether it's illegal or not. Obviously that plant is, indeed, illegal. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that governments have no authority to make such a law unless I have harmed someone else with that plant. "That plant is illegal" is not an argument to that... it's an even more ridiculous version of circular reasoning, and it's failing to even comprehend the discussion. As you seem like a sufficiently smart person, I'm going to assume that's not the case, and I just haven't made myself clear enough.... So to put it shortly again, you have made no argument against what I've said, by asserting that it's illegal. We all know it's illegal. My point is that such a law is illegitimate from a standpoint of consent. There is no consent involved here. Sure, I can choose one of the three options you give me, but the point is that I have not consented to this list of options. We made no contract. We made no agreement. I never signed anything, verbally or with a pen. You are FORCING these options upon me. And if I don't agree with any of them, you'll give me imprisonment or death. You giving me choices does NOT equal me consenting. That's not how consent works.

Picture this... we work together. One day, Bill walk in the office and says
"Hey Mo, a bunch of us at the office got together, and we're all gonna pitch in every Friday for Sushi and Mustard sandwiches. A majority agreed, so be sure to have your cut ready."
You say
"I don't like sushi and mustard sandwiches, I'm out. I wasn't a part of this. I'm not going to stop you from getting them yourselves, but I don't want any part of it."
Bill says,
"Nah we all voted. Since you work here, you have to pay up."
You say
"I didn't vote"
Bill says
"Then you have no right to complain!"

Does that describe consent to you? If so, you don't understand consent, plain and simple.

The bottom line is, the only reason the US government's authority over plants, or crypto, is legitimate is because of the threat of violence. Not based on principle. Your choice #3 illustrates that perfectly. You're proving my point with that one. #3 is literally a threat of violence, veiled as it may be. And if the alternative is violence, then there is not consent, ever. I understand that this is reality, and those are the choices that must be made. But to continue to *advocate* for such a violence-based system is, as I said earlier, trash. Then again, apparently many here enjoy the taste of boot leather.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Seeing as how you've never expressed such an opinion, but only the opinion that there should be regulation (above and beyond the "don't defraud people" which is a natural crime), I'd say no, you haven't been clear enough. If you only want to punish those who have defrauded people, then we agree. But that hasn't been your tune, ever, in any of these threads.

Have I ever stated otherwise?

 

[Papahyooie]

Have I ever stated otherwise?

Yes, but I'm not about to scroll through the 3 or 4 different threads we've discussed this on and find quotes, so I guess you win. I'll just leave it at that. If your only aim is to punish those who have defrauded others, then we agree. (Punishing free exercise of trade before having actually committed any fraud notwithstanding.)

 

[moproblems99]

The bottom line is, the only reason the US government's authority over plants, or crypto, is legitimate is because of the threat of violence. Not based on principle.

I really don't understand what you're getting at. Are you expecting gifts of frankincense and myrrh when you break agreed upon rules?

Edit: In addition, does a fine count as violence? Not all conflicts end in death or imprisonment.

Edit 2: After rereading, I think I understand now. And we'll just have to agree to disagree that electing officials to create laws and regulations doesn't actually grant the elected officials the power to create laws and regulations.

 

[trog100]

when the coming social credit system arrives in the US i recon ford will score pretty high..

trog

 

[Papahyooie]

I really don't understand what you're getting at. Are you expecting gifts of frankincense and myrrh when you when you break agreed upon rules?

Edit: In addition, does a fine count as violence? Not all conflicts end in death or imprisonment.

Agreed upon by whom? Not me, apparently. But this is just going to circle back to "But you live here! That means you consent!" And then I'll have to type all that again. And again. And again, as I've done several times in these crypto threads. "Agreed upon" relies upon the agreement of all parties involved. If I had at any point agreed to be bound by the will of the majority even if I didn't like it (as many people perfectly legitimately do, in both public and private groups) then I would have consented. But I didn't. The only thing that I agree upon is that I don't want you and your "majority" to kill me. So yea, I'll acquiesce. But as a person who is advocating for such a system, you are directly responsible for the violation of my consent. So don't be surprised that I'm a bit miffed when someone tries to tell me about consent while actively violating my own.

Yes, a fine does count as violence. If I refuse to pay the fine based on the fact that the law is unjust and illegitimate in the first place, then you will attempt to imprison me. And if I resist that arrest, I will be killed. So yea. It is violence.

 

[moproblems99]

Agreed upon by whom? Not me, apparently. But this is just going to circle back to "But you live here! That means you consent!" And then I'll have to type all that again. And again. And again, as I've done several times in these crypto threads. "Agreed upon" relies upon the agreement of all parties involved. If I had at any point agreed to be bound by the will of the majority even if I didn't like it (as many people perfectly legitimately do, in both public and private groups) then I would have consented. But I didn't. The only thing that I agree upon is that I don't want you and your "majority" to kill me. So yea, I'll acquiesce. But as a person who is advocating for such a system, you are directly responsible for the violation of my consent. So don't be surprised that I'm a bit miffed when someone tries to tell me about consent while actively violating my own.

Yes, a fine does count as violence. If I refuse to pay the fine based on the fact that the law is unjust and illegitimate in the first place, then you will attempt to imprison me. And if I resist that arrest, I will be killed. So yea. It is violence.

I reread your previous post and in my edit I said:

After rereading, I think I understand now. And we'll just have to agree to disagree that electing officials to create laws and regulations doesn't actually grant the elected officials the power to create laws and regulations.

Clearly there are quite a few philosophical differences about humanity and government so instead of going around in endless circles we are going to have to agree on what we agree on and agree to disagree to what we don't.

Edit: On a side note, did you give your parents your consent to be born or did they bear you without your consent? Serious question.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

when the coming social credit system arrives in the US i recon ford will score pretty high..

trog

"Social credit system?"

 

[Papahyooie]

I reread your previous post and in my edit I said:

After rereading, I think I understand now. And we'll just have to agree to disagree that electing officials to create laws and regulations doesn't actually grant the elected officials the power to create laws and regulations.

Clearly there are quite a few philosophical differences about humanity and government so instead of going around in endless circles we are going to have to agree on what we agree on and agree to disagree to what we don't.

Edit: On a side note, did you give your parents your consent to be born or did they bear you without your consent? Serious question.

Great idea, let's agree to disagree. Except your way by its nature forces me into your system, so "agree to disagree" automatically means you get your way. Convenient. See that's the problem with aggression: You can't just say "let's agree to disagree" while forcing me into the way you want it to be. Except you can, because your side has more guns and people. Also convenient. Also disingenuous as hell. You see, ALL I want in this world is for us to be able to agree to disagree, go our separate ways, and as long as we don't harm each other, live happily ever after. YOUR philosophy, on the other hand wants me to bend to your will, whether I've harmed you in any way or not. So don't bring that agree to disagree crap. If by "agree to disagree" you mean "stop talking about it because I refuse to entertain another viewpoint" then ok. Sure. You can stop. But that's pretty much a dog whistle for you telling me to stop talking talking about it. And I won't. You're free to leave any time you like. See how that works?

If you want to have a serious conversation about philosophy and the implications of consent on being born sure, we can talk about that. But I'd probably make another thread about it, as it deserves its own. If you only ask the question as a means toward a "Ha! Gotcha!"... then I'm not interested.

 

[moproblems99]

wtf?

 

[Papahyooie]

wtf?

I think it's pretty clear.

 

[moproblems99]

Great idea, let's agree to disagree. Except your way by its nature forces me into your system, so "agree to disagree" automatically means you get your way. Convenient. See that's the problem with aggression: You can't just say "let's agree to disagree" while forcing me into the way you want it to be. Except you can, because your side has more guns and people. Also convenient. Also disingenuous as hell. You see, ALL I want in this world is for us to be able to agree to disagree, go our separate ways, and as long as we don't harm each other, live happily ever after. YOUR philosophy, on the other hand wants me to bend to your will, whether I've harmed you in any way or not. So don't bring that agree to disagree crap. If by "agree to disagree" you mean "stop talking about it because I refuse to entertain another viewpoint" then ok. Sure. You can stop. But that's pretty much a dog whistle for you telling me to stop talking talking about it. And I won't. You're free to leave any time you like. See how that works?

Please point out in my post where I told you to stop talking about it? Or any post in this thread for that matter.

I also don't have a side. I'm just here playing the game like everyone else. Also, this is not my philosophy. I am merely giving the reality and what you can do about it. Our philosophies are not that far off from each other.

Take a chill pill.

I think this conversation went somewhere it didn't need. You're free to respond but I wouldn't expect a response from me.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

China wants to ban bitcoin mining

The draft for a revised list added cryptocurrency mining, including that of bitcoin, to more than 450 activities the NDRC said should be phased out as they did not adhere to relevant laws and regulations, were unsafe, wasted resources or polluted the environment.

It did not stipulate a target date or plan for how to eliminate bitcoin mining, meaning that such activities should be phased out immediately, the document said. The public has until May 7 to comment on the draft.

“Half of the network is probably located in China,” said Alex de Vries, a consultant with PwC in Amsterdam who specializes on blockchain and researches cryptocurrency mining. He added that the number of mining facilities in the world is still limited to several hundred.

Countries with relatively cheap electricity have emerged as major hosts of cryptocurrency mining. Mati Greenspan, an analyst with eToro in Israel, said any ban by China would cut a key supply of cheap electricity for the industry and raise the average cost to mine bitcoin.