The purpose of the thread was that people should put their money in bitcoin because they might get debanked. We've all agreed that high profile racists and people who spread lies about COVID fit into this category. Terrorists and criminals are supposed to be debanked by the bank charters. So.... there's really nothing to left to debate here.
This is why you need bitcoin...
- Thread starter NoahA
- Start date
The purpose of the thread was that people should put their money in bitcoin because they might get debanked. We've all agreed that high profile racists and people who spread lies about COVID fit into this category. Terrorists and criminals are supposed to be debanked by the bank charters. So.... there's really nothing to left to debate here.
Dr. Krugger, I agree with you that Bitcoin is for those people... but this might be a bit much for you as your mental capacity has been used up by all the complex math stuff of financial engineering stuff like that...
Bitcoin can be used for so much more
Ok, take it in slowly, Dr. Krugger, your mind is blown right now, I know... but
Bitcoin can also be used by Senators, drug addicts, drug dealers, that Lebanese dude who saved his entire family from destitution and would not have to rob the bank to get back their savings, Asian businesses who transact with it, that person who uses it for money transmission to send to their families overseas, that person, that Russian nazi or that Ukranian nazi or even that whole Swiss town of Lugano, also terrorists, North Korean hackers, and US businesses such as miners and merchants
Yea, let's slow down, the concept is called neutrality... a bit much for you, I know Dr. Krugger
Best to leave Bitcoin topics alone and stick to your options and other complex math stuff. This simply is not for you, Dr. K
mr scarecrow, (strawman)
This thread isn’t about all those scenarios - which are interesting and can be legitimate. It’s about people who are at risk of being debanked because of their abhorable behavior of intentionally spreading false information and hate.
NB: dr Krueger identified this behavior you are accusing me of. By calling me him, are you saying that I am good at identifying that behavior in others?
This thread isn’t about all those scenarios - which are interesting and can be legitimate. It’s about people who are at risk of being debanked because of their abhorable behavior of intentionally spreading false information and hate.
NB: dr Krueger identified this behavior you are accusing me of. By calling me him, are you saying that I am good at identifying that behavior in others?
I like Scarecrow, but would prefer Joker, anyway dunning-krugger effect seems to have triggered you the first time I mentioned, and this thread seems to have triggered you as well, you have been very active
Listen, when the Roman empire was crumbling, gladiator games were to distract
I thought you knew that all these things are distraction created by the powers that be? We really shouldn't taking all this stuff , seriously we just like to banter about it, don't we?
Sometimes, there might be a signal, but hardly any news about it, like when Yellen kept bowing repeatedly upon meeting a Chinese official, and what does 100yo Kissinger doing in China right after Yellen
Is there some kind of collapse brewing? economic indicators crazy
oh, that movie Sound of Freedom, you saw it yet? Did you catch the game last night?
All distractions... like when the clown shows up
Last edited:
Sorry I don't have time for a proper reply, but just one point real quick. You mention the ponzi scheme aspect, and I was worried about this as well. Not exactly ponzi scheme, but a tulip bubble. Once I saw people able to sell coins back for fiat, or use those coins to buy actual things, and saw this explode, it was clear that bitcoin had lots of utility and hence you could always so call "withdraw". Unlike in a ponzi scheme where the withdrawls end up crashing the whole thing.
But with regards to the bubble aspect, it has gone through 3 or 4 price crashes already, but always comes back stronger. There isn't another example that I can think of where this is the case. After the initial pump, those things that were said to be a bubble, and were, just vanish. So there must really be something to why it keeps coming back.
Also, if I assume I'm not that smart, but at least I know to look at the hash rate, I have to wonder why it keeps climbing, into bubble territory you could say. Why are people expending a shit load of resources to acquire equipment and spending money on electricity if this is a bubble or a ponzi scheme? The numbers for how big the network is, how much computer power there is, is truly astonishing. So if all of these people are willing to put so much into this, there must be something to it, even if my pre-concieved bias was telling me that its a bubble or ponzi scheme.
"NatWest Group is a British banking and insurance holding company, based in Edinburgh. It is 62% taxpayer-owned and subsidised. The group operates a wide variety of banking brands offering personal and business banking, private banking, insurance and corporate finance through its offices located in Europe, North America and Asia. Its main UK subsidiaries are:
Royal Bank of Scotland
- Ulster Bank Ltd
- Coutts & Company
"
https://www.wikicorporates.org/wiki/NatWest_Group_plc
Tell me another lie about how they're a "private company".
The government literally owns the controlling interest in the bank.
it looks like heads are rolling. Setting a precedence that banks can't just debank you for your politics.
We are all just (naturally) talking past each other here ... I think some of the problem is words and definitions...
Let's take one ... "store of value"
What does that actually mean? Does it mean something that increases in value through time and outstrips inflation? Or does it mean something that has low vol, is stable, etc...
Your thought about that word makes all the difference in the question of whether Bitcoin is a store of value or not. Objectively, if you think the former, then Bitcoin is an obvious store of value as it has been the best performing asset over the last 3,5,7,10,13, years...
If you are looking for something that has price stability, then obviously you would say the opposite.
I'll just leave it with this ... IF (big IF) Bitcoin is going to become what proponents think it will become, then it CANT become low vol at this point. It HAS to remain high vol to have the kind of growth that is necessary for it to become what it could become.
Most of this shit is definitions, and everybody just twists the definitions to fit their biases. Good times...
Let's take one ... "store of value"
What does that actually mean? Does it mean something that increases in value through time and outstrips inflation? Or does it mean something that has low vol, is stable, etc...
Your thought about that word makes all the difference in the question of whether Bitcoin is a store of value or not. Objectively, if you think the former, then Bitcoin is an obvious store of value as it has been the best performing asset over the last 3,5,7,10,13, years...
If you are looking for something that has price stability, then obviously you would say the opposite.
I'll just leave it with this ... IF (big IF) Bitcoin is going to become what proponents think it will become, then it CANT become low vol at this point. It HAS to remain high vol to have the kind of growth that is necessary for it to become what it could become.
Most of this shit is definitions, and everybody just twists the definitions to fit their biases. Good times...
#1 You didn't even post data on the correct company. I was referring to Coutts which is owned by Natwest group, of which the taxpayers own the controlling interest. RBS is a different entity under Natwest group.
#2 You're deliberately trying to mislead people with terminology out of context. The "private" you refer to is simply that the shares in the bank are not publicly listed for trading.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/public-company-vs-private-company-what-s-the-difference-398422
The important factor for this discussion is obviously who owns the controlling interest.
This would be like claiming that a city is "private company" because it is
A) incorporated
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation
And
B) you cannot buy shares on a public exchange
And therefore it can discrimate against whoever it wants because it's "private".
#3 Given the above, it would seem that you support banning yourself from your bank for misinformation because you're willing to pretend that taking public funds and creating a corporation controlled by a government results in a "private" company.
You're the kind of person who would try to tell us the BBC is "private" because it has "corporation" in its name rather than admitting what it is: state controlled media.