I Predict The Financial Establishment Will Crash Bitcoin

My concern is tyranny. Cryptocurrency will nullify state tyranny.

 

Good luck to them in dealing with Monero

 

You would need to explain what this tyranny is that bitcoin is trying to nullify.

I know how bitcoin is being used to avoid detection and prosecution for money laundering, unregulated currency trading, money movement for terrorism, drug trafficking, illegal tax avoidance, etc.

I know why some group would want to have control of an unregulated investment vehicle.

But, I don't see this tyranny thing.

 

Or enable it.

 

Tyrannic control over one's peaceful activity.

 

Good luck to the government dealing with Monero.

 

*shrug* The government could get away with doing all kinds of black things with cryptocurrency far better than we can.

 

Good luck to them. They'll need luck... or a miracle.

 

God I hope not!

 

I'm going to have to ask for a better description of what peaceful activity you are referring to.

This is rather important, as the list of negative activities supported directly by bitcoin is significant - to my mind, quite difficult to offset to the point where it would be wrong to insist on regulation to mitigate those problems.

 

Any activity that isn't a violation of someone's body or property.

 

You have money invested in it doncah hahaha

 

No I sold all mine. Made about $40k from it.

 

Okay, I like freedom, too.

But, I thought the point was that bitcoin facilitated some legal activity that would be more difficult without bitcoin.

I'm interested in a good solid example of what that might be.

One such example is as an investment vehicle. However, it's certainly shown huge volatility and suffers from the fact that there is no protection against manipulation. Still, I have that on the list!

What might be some other example?

 

"But, I thought the point was that bitcoin facilitated some legal activity that would be more difficult without bitcoin."
I'm not sure that is the point of bitcoin.

 

OK.

I'm just trying to understand the various benefits of bitcoin in terms of what it provides customers something they would not otherwise have.

In a way, those benefits might out weigh the costs related to the massive criminal activity bitcoin appears to have been carefully designed to facilitate.

 

It allows payment without financial middlemen who extract fees on each transaction.

And then there are smart contracts which I don't understand well enough to describe but some people find very interesting.

You can read about them here:

https://www.fastcompany.com/3035723/smart-contracts-could-be-cryptocurrencys-killer-app

 

There are a couple of schools of thought in terms of how the constitution should be interpreted. Some feel that we should emphasis original intent. Some say that the constitution was meant to be a living document, and interpreted in such a way to facilitate the solutions of problems as circumstances may change due to the influence of time.

But to take a stab at commerce, I would say that it refers to the interchange of goods and services for the sake of generating profit.

 

Its more than an algorithm, its also a database.

 

I can buy stuff online by signing a contract online triggering an electronic funds transfer through my credit card or directly through ordering a bank funds transfer.

I don't see why bitcoin is required for that.

I agree that using my credit card isn't free. But, I do get benefits from that, such as being able to rescind a payment. Will bitcoin give me the protection of being able to rescind payment?

Also, it's great to work out ways for lawyers to be cut out of the contracts business, but I think these "smart contracts" will still benefit from legal attention just like contracts that aren't "smart". The specifications upon which the contract operates are the point where lawyers get involved. And, that's no different with a "smart contract".

And, on the back end I think lawyers will still be involved when there are disagreements about whether a particular clause has been satisfied or even if the entire contract must be voided due to conditions that are outside the contract itself. Again, that is where lawyers get involved. Lawyers don't have much involvement when both sides agree the contract clauses have been adequately executed.

In real estate, that's definitely the case. I just bought a bunch of acres that included a little complexity due to issues related to the city, sewer, a competing offer, etc. My lawyer didn't do anything that a "smart contract" could have helped with. The lawyer time was focused on resolving the actual issues that could be thought of as comprising the clauses in the "smart contract". Actually pulling the trigger once the clauses had been resolved required no lawyer at all. And, a "smart contract" couldn't have protected me if there were post-purchase issues of misrepresentation, etc.

I'll admit I'm not very susceptible to cool new ways to create and execute a contract. And, this one doesn't hit me as helping anyone.

 

Me, I'm a curmudgeon, too.

 

I think it was sort of telling that their very first example was about forcing your buddy to pay up on sports bets - a critical problem, I'm sure!

I find it hard to see that as some sort of critical technology that would justify the fact that these crypto currencies are being used to facilitate so many types of seriously illegal acts.

 

Dollars are being used to facilitate exponentially more illegal acts. Facts don't matter here, though, do they? Your position is emotionally driven, rooted in fear of what you don't understand. It's animalistic and a-rational as such.

 

Had to look that one up

 

I don't do "reporting". Ridiculing you is more satisfying.