LOL...is this plagiarized from an Anarchist Hallmark card ?The tendency for cryptos to become easier and easier to use, making it increasingly wide spread(and more stabel) will make a ban on them just as effective as the drug ban. The difference is that people willing to use currency is effectively EVERYONE, unlike the number of people who want to use drugs, but despite that, anyone who wants access to drugs, has it. Given that, the failure in enforcing the ban on cryptos will be even more pathetic.
A ban would initially be actually in effect in large established business, but as the market is always reinventing itself, new, smaller, non-regulated business that deal with cryptos(despite the ban) would gradually and increasingly gain competitiveness. This is in fact another benefit of cryptos, they would serve as a way to get around stupid and protectionist regulations that only benefit the already established business. And again, an effect such as this will be so widepread, that enforcing regulations would be impossible.
In face of this, regulators will be forced to do what they did with uber: bend over and back off.
This is what in the end will force the bigger companies to join in: the need to stay competitive.
These changes won't happen overnight, but at least they will be the way it is supposed to be in a descentralized/free market: from the bottom to the upper part of the economy, because if it is the other way around, things would only get worse.
In a nutshell, once the control freaks lose their ability to control(which was guaranteed essentialy through the monopoly of money), their incompetence will be their death sentence.
Could bitcoin become the next Swiss bank account?
- Thread starter johnarb
- Start date
Sure, if suddenly miners and holders get on the same page. That ain't gonna happen, when starting a new and better coin is easier then reaching consensus.
Ok I explained what I meant in the first sentence. I am not going to bother again.
yes....and said something else in the next. Hence...contradiction.
Yes but if everybody works together, Monero can actually be anonymous and have possibly a stable storage of value and would make it as close to a swiss bank as a crypto can be and EVERYBODY benefits. BUT this entails everybody who has conflicting interest actually banding together and act as one instead of looking after their own self-interest. So now we have a typical Prisoner's Dilemma again: Do we band together and together we achieve a better overall outcome for all but become worse off individually OR do we each act on our own and achieve better outcome individually but become worse off as a whole overall?
This is why the government hasn't bothered to ban crypto, those who are secure about the strength in their own fiat currency yet, is because they KNOW that there are conflicting objectives that cryptos are trying to achieve and it is not possible to achieve them all with all players in the crypto market looking after their own interest as in a free market and as long as everybody is divided, crypto would never rise to replace fiat currency to be a contender for legal tender.
Last edited:
This is exactly what I said more than once, but it seems you're having difficulty in understanding it. You speak of democracy as something great. It isn't. It is just another way of tyranny: a tyranny of the majority.
All mumbo jumbo... "Giving up their life for it" This sounds like communist propaganda.
Well, it is this constitution that makes it possible for a president not to be elected for the simple reason that he or she got the biggest number of votes. That impeded Hillary from being elected which was something great, because it would be one more big step towards fucking up what made the U.S. a great country. Trump was indeed a shitty alternative, but still the lesser of two evils.
That same constitution makes the U.S. the only country on the planet that still allows it's citizens to be armed and put the government in check...
These are facts, and the only thing backing them are the constitution... It has indeed being violated and attacked, but it is still better than any other compared to every other country... And the examples I've given are just a sample of it's effect in the real world.
Perhaps the greatest effect is to have a great part of the population that has high distrust of government and sees that it's size is a problem. A concept that is completely strange to almost every other country I visited or lived in.
Well, that shouldn't have been given in the first place to them... If it wasn't given and these things were indeed so expensive, they would have never moved there in the first place. So, just because they have been ripping of other people and making them pay their bills, it doesn't make it right that this continues to happen.
As I pointed out more than once, inclunding specifically addressing this situation in my last post. Here is one situation where government should have a role, since this is fraud and murder. The people who did it, if this is true, should be heavily fined and sent to jail.
But to try to prevent this from happening through regulation is not only inneficient, but also harmful, for all the reasons I mentioned(it estimulates corruption and is in fact the biggest source of it).
Actually, I would suggest this to you... Everything you mentioned I've already studied. You on the other hand, who say you have much respect for Friedman, seem to not have understood a single word he wrote. He and the others I mentioned show with facts and logic everything I described and why your ideas are simply fantasy...(The Road to Serfdom, by Hayek, is a special one for your case)
You should try to get out of the fantasy world you appear to live in, get your head out of the sand and see how things really are. To do that, Adam Smith, Hayek, Friedman, Sowell and Mises are great starting points...
Everything you say is the reason why the nanny state keeps growing and growing, with the excuse to "help people", but in reality just leaving them worse off. And when this is reported, the solution is always to spend more, to tax more.... Always more of the same shit that fucked everything in the first place.
Good luck to you too! I hope some day you wake up!
Last edited:
I'll take that as compliment.
It wasn't meant as one....whatever you are putting out, it is not original. Some where between Econ 101, East Village and CC drop out.I'll take that as compliment.
No it's actually YOU, @NeoTrader who claim that you worship Friedman but you have NO IDEA what he wrote and just keep quoting him out of context. Anyway, I am done with you. It seems that you don't understand what I wrote and choose not to. Hopefully one day you will.