2014 Silver Bitcoin Specie - CoinFIRM

For Sale: 1 Oz .999 Fine Silver Bitcoin Specie 2013 on cryptothrift

For Sale: 1 Oz .999 Fine Silver Bitcoin Specie 2013 on cryptothrift for cryptocoins
Tags: 999, BITCOIN, ounce, oz, round, silver, Specie
cryptothrift is a Bitcoin, Litecoin and altcoin marketplace and auction site with automated escrow.
submitted by cryptothrift to cryptothrift [link] [comments]

Some of my Silver Bitcoins for my First Reddit Thread

http://imgur.com/a/Oj31j
Since BitcoinTalk is down, and I've been checking out /Silverbugs more lately, I figured I'd take a picture of some of my Silver Physical BTC as my first post on here. Also, I saw some Casascius pictures flipping through here and /PMsForSale and felt inspired. Plus I could always use another reason to bust out my coins and nerd out :)
I have loads more physical Bitcoins and other cryptos, and some gold plated and silver plated, but these are the only solid .999 Silver Bitcoins I have at the moment (sadly). There are many, many more solid fine Silver (and Gold) physical BTC out there, and if anybody's interested in hunting/collecting them I could probably post a pretty damn comprehensive list to help you out. Some very common, some extremely rare with mintages as low as 25.
Anyways, here's what's in my quick pictures, starting on the top row from left to right:
Bottom Row, L-R:
I could have gotten better pics if I had set-up lighting or taken them out of their Airtites, but most have never left their capsules in my possession. Any scratches seen are on the capsules themselves. The last pic is just a nice close up of the security hologram on the Lealana BTC; the Lealana holo's are all amazing and have multiple depths depending on what angle they're looked at. Also for clarification, only the 2 Silver Wallets and the Lealana are truly capable of containing digital Bitcoin value, I just have not placed Private Keys and security holograms on the SW. The other 3 shown are just nice physical Bitcoin rounds. Anyways, many of you may already have seen these coins/rounds, I'm not sure, but I figured for those that hadn't it is always interesting to see unique Silver rounds as a fellow Silverbug.
P.S.- I hope I don't F#ck up the formatting of this post as my first
submitted by snarlpill to Silverbugs [link] [comments]

New Bitcoin Specie, (1 oz, .999 silver)

New Bitcoin Specie, (1 oz, .999 silver) submitted by sgornick to BitBulls [link] [comments]

A silver specie piece for bitcoin, interview with the designer.

submitted by ColdHard to numismatics [link] [comments]

This could save Planet Earth!

My grandpa once told me: "Listen dipsh*t, if you rely on someone else for your food... then they own you AND your lovely wife."
Well... my crazy grandpa wasn't totally wrong. There is simply too many people on this planet and not enough resources to go around. All the family's generational wealth has been either divided into dust or soaked up by the rich 1%. The division of wealth and power in this world is so unbalanced, it's sick and saddening. Because of this, there are many people struggling who are so tormented and defeated... homeless, unemployed, or working as wage slaves (because overpopulation makes for cheap labor); that they feel like there is no place for them in the future and that suicide is the only option. In our current world, the right to eat, shelter, and drink fresh water are not guaranteed rights to ALL individuals! That fact is absolutely just mind blowing. Who's to blame? Humanity's greed, overpopulation, and poor distribution of efforts and resources, perhaps. (Rant over)
THE ETHICAL SOLUTION of a RADICAL NEW WORLD: In my opinion, The Great Pyramids of Egypt are a simple reminder of Maslow's 6-tier hierarchy of needs. When you take Maslow's pyramid and combined it with a hybrid of Homesteading and Universal Basic Income, something heavenly is born! Regardless of birth race, place, or poverty...I believe all people of earth and all governances should adjoin to fulfill the common goal that each living person has the right to have their Physiological needs met. We NEED to get people gardening and reconnected with their roots! (If we don't, people's nutritionless crappy diets will continue resulting in cancer and disease.) In my opinion, it's what we ALL NEED. I call it Maslow's Ark.
Maslow's Ark - Life on Earth should be modeled after Heaven; with a place and purpose prepared for you when you're born. When born to the Earth, you deserve the right to your basic physiological needs such as food, water, and shelter. (Not to struggle because your dirt poor parents selfishly birthed you to 'duck-tape' their failed marriage together... or because they get a child tax credit! \sarcasm**) We, The United People of Earth in order to transcend Maslow's Physiological needs as a birthright. Achieved by way of hybrid mix of self-sufficient homesteading and Universal Basic Income (UBI) payments. To transform and upgrade shitty land and broken homes into self-sufficient sustainable functional quality 2 or 4 Acre personalized ('green new deal'/ permaculture) homesteads and housing, thereby creating an economy of guaranteed paid jobs with the support of resources from local and world governances centrally focused on preparing places (aka Heavens on earth) for others and future generations. When working for Maslow's Ark, you are essentially doing the work of an Angel. (Biblically speaking, Naoh's Ark was a literal ship, but what is Planet Earth, but one giant Space Ship?) This way of life is my little brain-child and I would like to name it "Maslow's Ark."
We all have Physiological needs to live a fulfilled life. Nobody wants war. Nobody wants death or famine. I want to focus specifically on the 'end-cap' Tiers 1 & 6 of Maslow's pyramid as how they would look if applied to our current world. I think that all countries and individuals with a net wealth over $10m must contribute generously of resources by a majority vote (perhaps) via coordination of the United Nations leverage to kick-start this.
A quick refresher of Maslow's 6-tier pyramid:
Tier 1. Physiological needs - these are biological requirements for human survival, e.g. air, food, water, shelter, clothing, warmth, sex, sleep.
Tier 2. Safety needs - Once an individual’s physiological needs are satisfied, the needs for security and safety become salient. Protection from greed and corruption.
Tier 3. Love and belongingness needs - after physiological and safety needs have been fulfilled, the third level of human needs is social and involves feelings of belongingness. The need for interpersonal relationships motivates behavior
Tier 4. Esteem needs are the fourth level in Maslow’s hierarchy - which Maslow classified into two categories: (i) esteem for oneself (dignity, achievement, mastery, independence) and (ii) the desire for reputation or respect from others (e.g., status, prestige).
Tier 5. Self-actualization needs are the highest level in Maslow's hierarchy, and refer to the realization of a person's potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences. Maslow (1943) describes this level as the desire to accomplish everything that one can, to become the most that one can be.
Tier 6. Transcendence - the very highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of human consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather than means, to oneself, to significant others, to human beings in general, to other species, to nature, and to the cosmos. AKA - To Help other's Self-Actualize, beginning with Physiological Needs.
**How it works, in a nut shell:**If you don't have kids, you're a hero and don't need to work much. If you have 1 child, you must work Part-Time for Maslow's Ark. If you have 2 children, you must work Full-Time for Maslow's Ark.
How it will work in detail (Beta v1.3):
No Children Pledge:
  1. At the age of 15, you graduate from a life skills school and may inherit the choice of either: Option A - Inherit a paid-for 2 acre prepared homestead and receive 70% ($840usd per month) UBI Payments. Option B - Assigned a non-arable rent-free apartment with 80% UBI payments ($960us per month). Option C - You live life freestyle, like in an RV, conversion van, or you're homeless, or a homestead/apartment isn't available or prepared for you yet; you shall receive 100% ($1200) UBI payments. *For either option A,B, or C; the child-free individual must perform volunteer work for Maslow's Ark 1 day per week (4 flexible days per month) for 20 years. *Your choice depends on if you preference for living in-town or out-of-town. (The individual may have the opportunity to switch between these, once every 4 years.) *In addition, those who pledge not to have children are awarded a 1oz 24k Gold world medal of honor for serving the duty of your planet for their selfless child-free commitment. AKA If you don't have kids, you don't need to work much. (Through population de-escalation, these people are the real heroes and saviors of planet Earth.) *A married child-free couple may choose to consolidate in one of three ways: A. Consolidate to upgrade into a single 4-acre prepared homestead and each receive 65% ($780usd) UBI payments. C. Consolidate to a single 2-acre prepared homestead and each receive 80% UBI payments ($960us per month). B. Consolidate to upgrade into a non-arable single family home and each receive 85% ($1020usd) UBI payments. D. Consolidate to a single apartment, but each receive 90% ($1,080us) UBI Payments. (It's these individuals that will have the most financial momentum to start a business, be teachers, or become BacheloMaster Degree Students if they choose to pursue higher education with their free time, or for those that love to travel and see the world, and generally be the local economy stimulators.)
  2. For married parents caring for 1 child, When that child turns 2 years of age: Option A - If the parents have consolidated to a single 4-acre prepared homestead, they will each receive a 40% UBI ($480). Option B - If the parents have consolidated to a single 2-acre prepared homestead, they will each receive a 50% UBI ($600). Option C - If the parents have consolidated to a non-arable single-family home they will each receive a 55% UBI ($660). Option D - If the parents have consolidated to a single apartment they will each receive 60% UBI ($720). \In either option A,B,C, or D; the married couple must also commit to paid work for Maslow's Ark a minimum net of 5 days per week for 20 years. The parents may divide the work days between each other as a 0/5 or 2/3 split for example.* **If the couple's net 20 years of work service concludes prior to retirement, then their UBI payment will be 65% each until retirement.
  3. For married parents caring for 2 children, When that child turns 2 years of age: Option A - If the parents have consolidated to a single 4-acre prepared homestead, they will each receive 25% UBI ($300). Option B - If the parents have consolidated to a single 2-acre prepared homestead, they will each receive 30% UBI ($360). Option C - If the parents have consolidated to a non-arable single-family home they will each receive 40% UBI ($480). Option D - If the parents have consolidated to a single apartment they will each receive 45% UBI ($540). \In either option A,B,C, or D; the married couple must also commit to paid work for Maslow's Ark a minimum net of 7 days per week for 20 years. The parents may divide the work days between each other as a 0/7, 2/5, or 3/4 split for example. (The 3/4 split allows someone to always be home for the kids, animals, and vegetable gardens.)* **If the couple's net 20 years of work service concludes prior to retirement, then their UBI payment will be 55% each until retirement.
  4. Adoption: If a married couple with no children elect to adopt an orphan child they are awarded a 1oz 24k Gold world medal of honor for serving the duty of their planet. In addition to each keeping their 100% UBI payments, they also qualify for an additional 30% UBI payment until that child turns 16 (when they will have Maslow's Physiological needs fulfilled as a birthright).
Experimental Extra Options:
  1. An optional 6 acre prepared homestead capped at 20% UBI Payments.
  2. An optional 10 acre prepared homestead capped at 10% UBI Payments.
Universal conditions: -Individuals cannot sell or sub-lease their single family homes, homesteads, or apartments for profit, since they were prepared by The People of Earth, they inherently belong to The People of Earth. -World adoption of a 2-child limit. -Universal Healthcare -Free Education for All -Retirement age is 65, when you receive 90% UBI (instead of Social Security).
How Maslow's Ark Schooling Would Work: Schools would serve the communities multi-functionally; as food banks, seed banks, internship & job connection centers, and teaching children basic life skills. At the heart of every town city and community, there must be an large agricultural center (not just a vampire w-mart), with all the tools and resources needed to grow fruits, vegetables, care for farm animals, and other things like making compost. I propose combining the agricultural center and school as one system. If hungry people in the community desperately need food or seeds, (since the kids are growing food) they can return to their school for food and cheap supplies, functioning as the backbone and heart of every town. All current schools will be converted into large-scale self sufficient homesteads. The governances of the world will fund the solar and wind-powered system upgrades (making them off-grid which give the students a means to learn these systems). Ages 4-10 would be your standard basic Math, Language, Health, Cooking, and History. In addition, 50% of each school day would be learning how to grow food, raise chickens, milk cows, and maintain all aspects of a homestead. (Children will actually care for 2 reasons: A. Everyone loves baby chickens and B. The kids are promised a homestead at 15, and that's SO MUCH BRIGHT & POSITIVE ENERGY! (Unless they choose the apartment...)) (Every human should know how to be self-sufficient!) It's much better for children to during fresh organic milk and vitamin-rich tomatoes anyways, in those early development years. Ages 11-13 would be training in a more specific life-skill trade. Ages 14-15 would be internships where students go to job-sites to learn and assist the parents in Maslow's Ark homestead preparation. Additionally, the schools may also function as a free wholesome dating and room-mate pairing service as well as free marriages. World Governances would fund schools to build homes, (rather than the traditional mortgage) further making schools central work hubs for internships and parents.
Maslow's jobs may include (and be educationally centered around): -Housing & Apartment Rehabilitation (Carpentry, Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC) -Boosting soil Fertility & Compost Creation -Regional Food Gardening, Nurseries, & Research -Planting Permaculture Trees, Arborist, Lumber Mills -Building Greenhouses & Barns -Wood & Gas eventually replaced by fusion energy electricity plants -Solar, Wind, and Battery Technology/Service -Helping care for thy Elderly & Disabled neighbors -Farm Animal Care & breeding -Property, Homes, and Jobs bank coordinator -Small scale Electric Farm Equipment & Electric vehicle production & service. -Clean Water Production such as wells, ponds, rainwater and desalination. -100% Trash Reuse, Repurpose, & Recycling -Teaching all the aforementioned.
The Economy: Self sufficiency means less tax revenue for the government, but at the same time, (the US government is doing a terrible job at creating jobs and unemployment rates are skyrocketing. Capitalist governments don't care if businesses like w-mart or h-depot bleed towns dry of money and killed all the mom n' pop shops, or let robots take over factories. Between the green new deal, and working for Maslow's Ark homesteads, there would be millions of jobs created for regular every-day people. Every house with a big lawn could be retrofit as a homestead. Parents of kids must work, therefore they get charged taxes on their paychecks. Parents without children have a greater allowance to spend money on taxable goods and services. With The People of Earth circumventing the need to spend the bulk of their lives paying for a mortgage and having money tied into their mortgages, you will see a huge shift in people investing in other assets such as stocks, silver, gold, and bitcoin as a means of generational wealth, as it should be. (Disclaimer* I'm not an economist.) I would love to hear feedback if you agree or disagree that this would work and suggest improvements to make it work better.
In conclusion, my number and % ratios may need some fine tuning, but I believe this is the only functioning groundwork for the way that a simple and fulfilled life should be. I would love to hear feedback and I hope this concept of hybrid homesteading & % Ratio UBI becomes widely known and built upon.
submitted by MindfulMowgli to antinatalism [link] [comments]

This way of life could save the world!

My grandpa once told me: "Listen dipsh*t, if you rely on someone else for your food... then they own you AND your lovely wife."
Well... my crazy grandpa wasn't totally wrong. There is simply too many people on this planet and not enough resources to go around. All the family's generational wealth has been either divided into dust or soaked up by the rich 1%. The division of wealth and power in this world is so unbalanced, it's sick and saddening. Because of this, there are many people struggling who are so tormented and defeated... homeless, unemployed, or working as wage slaves (because overpopulation makes for cheap labor); that they feel like there is no place for them in the future and that suicide is the only option. In our current world, the right to eat, shelter, and drink fresh water are not guaranteed rights to ALL individuals! That fact is absolutely just mind blowing. Who's to blame? Humanity's greed, overpopulation, and poor distribution of efforts and resources, perhaps. (Rant over)
THE ETHICAL SOLUTION of a RADICAL NEW WORLD: In my opinion, The Great Pyramids of Egypt are a simple reminder of Maslow's 6-tier hierarchy of needs. When you take Maslow's pyramid and combined it with a hybrid of Homesteading and Universal Basic Income, something heavenly is born! Regardless of birth race, place, or poverty...I believe all people of earth and all governances should adjoin to fulfill the common goal that each living person has the right to have their Physiological needs met. We NEED to get people gardening and reconnected with their roots! (If we don't, people's nutritionless crappy diets will continue resulting in cancer and disease.) In my opinion, it's what we ALL NEED. I call it Maslow's Ark.
Maslow's Ark - Life on Earth should be modeled after Heaven; with a place and purpose prepared for you when you're born. When born to the Earth, you deserve the right to your basic physiological needs such as food, water, and shelter. (Not to struggle because your dirt poor parents selfishly birthed you to 'duck-tape' their failed marriage together... or because they get a child tax credit! \sarcasm**) We, The United People of Earth in order to transcend Maslow's Physiological needs as a birthright. Achieved by way of hybrid mix of self-sufficient homesteading and Universal Basic Income (UBI) payments. To transform and upgrade shitty land and broken homes into self-sufficient sustainable functional quality 2 or 4 Acre personalized ('green new deal'/ permaculture) homesteads and housing, thereby creating an economy of guaranteed paid jobs with the support of resources from local and world governances centrally focused on preparing places (aka Heavens on earth) for others and future generations. When working for Maslow's Ark, you are essentially doing the work of an Angel. (Biblically speaking, Naoh's Ark was a literal ship, but what is Planet Earth, but one giant Space Ship?) This way of life is my little brain-child and I would like to name it "Maslow's Ark."
We all have Physiological needs to live a fulfilled life. Nobody wants war. Nobody wants death or famine. I want to focus specifically on the 'end-cap' Tiers 1 & 6 of Maslow's pyramid as how they would look if applied to our current world. I think that all countries and individuals with a net wealth over $10m must contribute generously of resources by a majority vote (perhaps) via coordination of the United Nations leverage to kick-start this.
A quick refresher of Maslow's 6-tier pyramid:
Tier 1. Physiological needs - these are biological requirements for human survival, e.g. air, food, water, shelter, clothing, warmth, sex, sleep.
Tier 2. Safety needs - Once an individual’s physiological needs are satisfied, the needs for security and safety become salient. Protection from greed and corruption.
Tier 3. Love and belongingness needs - after physiological and safety needs have been fulfilled, the third level of human needs is social and involves feelings of belongingness. The need for interpersonal relationships motivates behavior
Tier 4. Esteem needs are the fourth level in Maslow’s hierarchy - which Maslow classified into two categories: (i) esteem for oneself (dignity, achievement, mastery, independence) and (ii) the desire for reputation or respect from others (e.g., status, prestige).
Tier 5. Self-actualization needs are the highest level in Maslow's hierarchy, and refer to the realization of a person's potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences. Maslow (1943) describes this level as the desire to accomplish everything that one can, to become the most that one can be.
Tier 6. Transcendence - the very highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of human consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather than means, to oneself, to significant others, to human beings in general, to other species, to nature, and to the cosmos. AKA - To Help other's Self-Actualize, beginning with Physiological Needs.
**How it works, in a nut shell:**If you don't have kids, you're a hero and don't need to work much. If you have 1 child, you must work Part-Time for Maslow's Ark. If you have 2 children, you must work Full-Time for Maslow's Ark.
How it will work in detail (Beta v1.3):
No Children Pledge:
  1. At the age of 15, you graduate from a life skills school and may inherit the choice of either: Option A - Inherit a paid-for 2 acre prepared homestead and receive 70% ($840usd per month) UBI Payments. Option B - Assigned a non-arable rent-free apartment with 80% UBI payments ($960us per month). Option C - You live life freestyle, like in an RV, conversion van, or you're homeless, or a homestead/apartment isn't available or prepared for you yet; you shall receive 100% ($1200) UBI payments. *For either option A,B, or C; the child-free individual must perform volunteer work for Maslow's Ark 1 day per week (4 flexible days per month) for 20 years. *Your choice depends on if you preference for living in-town or out-of-town. (The individual may have the opportunity to switch between these, once every 4 years.) *In addition, those who pledge not to have children are awarded a 1oz 24k Gold world medal of honor for serving the duty of your planet for their selfless child-free commitment. AKA If you don't have kids, you don't need to work much. (Through population de-escalation, these people are the real heroes and saviors of planet Earth.) *A married child-free couple may choose to consolidate in one of three ways: A. Consolidate to upgrade into a single 4-acre prepared homestead and each receive 65% ($780usd) UBI payments. C. Consolidate to a single 2-acre prepared homestead and each receive 80% UBI payments ($960us per month). B. Consolidate to upgrade into a non-arable single family home and each receive 85% ($1020usd) UBI payments. D. Consolidate to a single apartment, but each receive 90% ($1,080us) UBI Payments. (It's these individuals that will have the most financial momentum to start a business, be teachers, or become BacheloMaster Degree Students if they choose to pursue higher education with their free time, or for those that love to travel and see the world, and generally be the local economy stimulators.)
  2. For married parents caring for 1 child, When that child turns 2 years of age: Option A - If the parents have consolidated to a single 4-acre prepared homestead, they will each receive a 40% UBI ($480). Option B - If the parents have consolidated to a single 2-acre prepared homestead, they will each receive a 50% UBI ($600). Option C - If the parents have consolidated to a non-arable single-family home they will each receive a 55% UBI ($660). Option D - If the parents have consolidated to a single apartment they will each receive 60% UBI ($720). \In either option A,B,C, or D; the married couple must also commit to paid work for Maslow's Ark a minimum net of 5 days per week for 20 years. The parents may divide the work days between each other as a 0/5 or 2/3 split for example.* **If the couple's net 20 years of work service concludes prior to retirement, then their UBI payment will be 65% each until retirement.
  3. For married parents caring for 2 children, When that child turns 2 years of age: Option A - If the parents have consolidated to a single 4-acre prepared homestead, they will each receive 25% UBI ($300). Option B - If the parents have consolidated to a single 2-acre prepared homestead, they will each receive 30% UBI ($360). Option C - If the parents have consolidated to a non-arable single-family home they will each receive 40% UBI ($480). Option D - If the parents have consolidated to a single apartment they will each receive 45% UBI ($540). \In either option A,B,C, or D; the married couple must also commit to paid work for Maslow's Ark a minimum net of 7 days per week for 20 years. The parents may divide the work days between each other as a 0/7, 2/5, or 3/4 split for example. (The 3/4 split allows someone to always be home for the kids, animals, and vegetable gardens.)* **If the couple's net 20 years of work service concludes prior to retirement, then their UBI payment will be 55% each until retirement.
  4. Adoption: If a married couple with no children elect to adopt an orphan child they are awarded a 1oz 24k Gold world medal of honor for serving the duty of their planet. In addition to each keeping their 100% UBI payments, they also qualify for an additional 30% UBI payment until that child turns 16 (when they will have Maslow's Physiological needs fulfilled as a birthright).
Experimental Extra Options:
  1. An optional 6 acre prepared homestead capped at 20% UBI Payments.
  2. An optional 10 acre prepared homestead capped at 10% UBI Payments.
Universal conditions: -Individuals cannot sell or sub-lease their single family homes, homesteads, or apartments for profit, since they were prepared by The People of Earth, they inherently belong to The People of Earth. -World adoption of a 2-child limit. -Universal Healthcare (including birth control) -Free Education for All -Retirement age is 65, when you receive 90% UBI (instead of Social Security).
How Maslow's Ark Schooling Would Work: Schools would serve the communities multi-functionally; as food banks, seed banks, internship & job connection centers, and teaching children basic life skills. At the heart of every town city and community, there must be an large agricultural center (not just a vampire w-mart), with all the tools and resources needed to grow fruits, vegetables, care for farm animals, and other things like making compost. I propose combining the agricultural center and school as one system. If hungry people in the community desperately need food or seeds, (since the kids are growing food) they can return to their school for food and cheap supplies, functioning as the backbone and heart of every town. All current schools will be converted into large-scale self sufficient homesteads. The governances of the world will fund the solar and wind-powered system upgrades (making them off-grid which give the students a means to learn these systems). Ages 4-10 would be your standard basic Math, Language, Health, Cooking, and History. In addition, 50% of each school day would be learning how to grow food, raise chickens, milk cows, and maintain all aspects of a homestead. (Children will actually care for 2 reasons: A. Everyone loves baby chickens and B. The kids are promised a homestead at 15, and that's SO MUCH BRIGHT & POSITIVE ENERGY! (Unless they choose the apartment...)) (Every human should know how to be self-sufficient!) It's much better for children to during fresh organic milk and vitamin-rich tomatoes anyways, in those early development years. Ages 11-13 would be training in a more specific life-skill trade. Ages 14-15 would be internships where students go to job-sites to learn and assist the parents in Maslow's Ark homestead preparation. Additionally, the schools may also function as a free wholesome dating and room-mate pairing service as well as free marriages. World Governances would fund schools to build homes, (rather than the traditional mortgage) further making schools central work hubs for internships and parents.
Maslow's jobs may include (and be educationally centered around): -Housing & Apartment Rehabilitation (Carpentry, Electrical, Plumbing, HVAC) -Boosting soil Fertility & Compost Creation -Regional Food Gardening, Nurseries, & Research -Planting Permaculture Trees, Arborist, Lumber Mills -Building Greenhouses & Barns -Wood & Gas eventually replaced by fusion energy electricity plants -Solar, Wind, and Battery Technology/Service -Helping care for thy Elderly & Disabled neighbors -Farm Animal Care & breeding -Property, Homes, and Jobs bank coordinator -Small scale Electric Farm Equipment & Electric vehicle production & service. -Clean Water Production such as wells, ponds, rainwater and desalination. -100% Trash Reuse, Repurpose, & Recycling -Teaching all the aforementioned.
The Economy: Self sufficiency means less tax revenue for the government, but at the same time, (the US government is doing a terrible job at creating jobs and unemployment rates are skyrocketing. Capitalist governments don't care if businesses like w-mart or h-depot bleed towns dry of money and killed all the mom n' pop shops, or let robots take over factories. Between the green new deal, and working for Maslow's Ark homesteads, there would be millions of jobs created for regular every-day people. Every house with a big lawn could be retrofit as a homestead. Parents of kids must work, therefore they get charged taxes on their paychecks. Parents without children have a greater allowance to spend money on taxable goods and services. With The People of Earth circumventing the need to spend the bulk of their lives paying for a mortgage and having money tied into their mortgages, you will see a huge shift in people investing in other assets such as stocks, silver, gold, and bitcoin as a means of generational wealth, as it should be. What I also know is that when more people are incentivized to not have kids, the proceeding generations have more space and resources. Population de-escalation creates abundance. I theorize for example: 4 or 5generations from now, you might take 3 established fruiting 2 acre homesteads and combine them into a lavish 6 acre homestead for a single couple, where UBI payments become less and less necessary, until no longer needed. In this case, you'd have an abundance of food for sale, trade and barter, and plenty of gold medals inherited from child-free aunts and uncles. This is much more appealing than the choice of an apartment in a city. I think cities would dissipate and skyscrapers be used for vertical farming. (Like Thanos, without all the death.) (Disclaimer* I'm not an economist.) I would love to hear feedback if you agree or disagree that this would work and suggest improvements to make it work better.
In conclusion, my number and % ratios may need some fine tuning, but I believe this is the only functioning groundwork for the way that a simple and fulfilled life should be. I would love to hear feedback and I hope this concept of hybrid homesteading & % Ratio UBI becomes widely known and built upon.
submitted by MindfulMowgli to homestead [link] [comments]

The Intellectual Foundation of Bitcoin比特幣的智識基礎. By Chapman Chen, HKBNews

The Intellectual Foundation of Bitcoin比特幣的智識基礎. By Chapman Chen, HKBNews

https://preview.redd.it/w6v3l8n3zxu41.jpg?width=2551&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb0338a36a1a321d3781f43ff5eb6929d8b92edc
Summary: Bitcoin was invented by the anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto as recently as 2008, but it is backed up by a rich intellectual foundation. For instance, The 1776 First Amendment separates church and state, and contemporary American liberation psychologist Nozomi Hayase (2020) argues that money and state should similarly be separated. Just as Isaac Newton’s study of alchemy gave rise to the international gold standard, so has the anonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto's desire for a “modernized gold standard” given rise to Bitcoin. Indeed, Bloomberg's 2020 report confirms Bitcoin to be gold 2.0. Montesquieu (1774) asserted that laws that secure inalienable rights can only be found in Nature, and the natural laws employed in Bitcoin include its consensus algorithm and the three natural laws of economics (self-interest, competition, and supply and demand). J.S. Mill (1859) preferred free markets to those controlled by governments. Ludwig von Mises (1951) argued against the hazards of fiat currency, urging for a return to the gold standard. Friedrich Hayek (1984) suggested people to invent a sly way to take money back from the hands of the government. Milton Friedman (1994) called for FED to be replaced by an automatic system and predicted the coming of a reliable e-cash. James Buchanan (1988) advocated a monetary constitution to constrain the governmental power of money creation. Tim May (1997) the cypherpunk proclaimed that restricting digital cash impinges on free speech, and envisioned a stateless digital form of money that is uncensorable. The Tofflers (2006) pictured a non-monetary economy. In 2016, UCLA Professor of Finance Bhagwan Chowdhry even nominated Satoshi for a Nobel Prize.
Full Text:
Separation between money and state
The 1791 First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrines free speech and separates church and state, but not money and state. "Under the First Amendment, individuals’ right to create, choose their own money and transact freely was not recognized as a part of freedom of expression that needs to be protected," Japanese-American liberation psychologist Nozomi Hayase (2020) points out (1).
The government, banks and corporations collude together to encroach upon people's liberties by metamorphosing their inalienable rights into a permissioned from of legal rights. Fiat currencies function as a medium of manipulation, indulging big business to generate market monopolies. "Freedom of expression has become further stifled through economic censorship and financial blockage enacted by payment processing companies like Visa and MasterCard," to borrow Hayase's (2020) words.
Satoshi is a Modern Newton
Although most famous for discovering the law of gravity, Isaac Newton was also a practising alchemist. He never managed to turn lead into gold, but he did find a way to transmute silver into gold. In 1717, Newton announced in a report that, based on his studies, one gold guinea coin weighed 21 shillings. Just as Isaac Newton’s study of alchemy gave rise to the international gold standard, so has the desire for a “modernized gold standard” given rise to Bitcoin. "In a way, Satoshi is a modern Newton. They both believed trust is best placed in the unchangeable facets of our economy. Beneath this belief is the assumption that each individual is their own best master," as put by Jon Creasy (2019) (2).
J.S. Mill: free markets preferable to those controlled by governments
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) the great English philosopher would be a Bitcoiner were he still around today. In On Liberty (1859), Mill concludes that free markets are preferable to those controlled by governments. He argues that economies function best when left to their own devices. Therefore, government intervention, though theoretically permissible, would be counterproductive. Bitcoin is precisely decentralized or uncontrolled by the government, unconfiscatable, permissonless, and disinflationary. Bitcoin regulates itself spontaneously via the ordinary operations of the system. "Rules are enforced without applying any external pressure," in Hayase's (2020) words.
Ludwig von Mises (1958): Liberty is always Freedom from the Government
In The Free Market and its Enemies, theoretical Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises (1951) argues against the hazards of fiat currency, urging for a return to the gold standard. “A fiat money system cannot go on forever and must one day come to an end,” Von Mises states. The solution is a return to the gold standard, "the only standard which makes the determination of the purchasing power of money independent of the changing ideas of political parties, governments, and pressure groups" under present conditions. Interestingly, this is also one of the key structural attributes of Bitcoin, the world’s first, global, peer-to-peer, decentralized value transfer network.
Actually, Bloomberg's 2020 report on Bitcoin confirms that it is gold 2.0. (3)
Von Mises prefers the price of gold to be determined according to the contemporaneous market conditions. The bitcoin price is, of course, determined across the various global online exchanges, in real-time. There is no central authority setting a spot price for gold after the which the market value is settled on among the traders during the day.
Hayek: Monopoly on Currency should End
Austrian-British Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek’s theory in his 1976 work, Denationalization of Money, was that not only would the currency monopoly be taken away from the government, but that the monopoly on currency itself should end with multiple alternative currencies competing for acceptance by consumers, in order "to prevent the bouts of acute inflation and deflation which have played the world for the past 60 years." He forcefully argues that if there is no free competition between different currencies within any nation, then there will be no free market. Bitcoin is, again, decentralized, and many other cryptocurrencies have tried to compete with it, though in vain.
In a recently rediscovered video clip from 1984, Hayek actually suggested people to invent a cunning way to take money out of the hands of the government:- “I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take them violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something they can’t stop” (4). Reviewing those words 36 years hence and it is difficult not to interpret them in the light of Bitcoin.
Milton Friedman Called for FED to be Replaced by an Automatic System
Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman (1994) was critical of the Federal Reserve due to its poor performance and felt it should be abolished (5). Friedman (1999) believed that the Federal Reserve System should ultimately be replaced with a computer program, which makes us think of the computer code governing Bitcoin (6).[\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve#cite_note-:2-12) He (1970) favored a system that would automatically buy and sell securities in response to changes in the money supply. This, he argued, would put a lid on inflation, setting spending and investment decisions on a surer footing (7). Bitcoin is exactly disflationary as its maximum possible supply is 21 million and its block reward or production rate is halved every four years.
Friedman passed away before the coming of bitcoin, but he lived long enough to see the Internet’s spectacular rise throughout the 1990s. “I think that the Internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing the role of government," said Friedman in a 1999 interview with NTU/F. On the same occasion, he sort of predicted the emergence of Bitcoin, "The one thing that’s missing, but that will soon be developed, is a reliable e-cash, a method whereby on the Internet you can transfer funds from A to B, without A knowing B or B knowing A." (8)
Of course, Friedman didnt predict the block chain, summed up American libertarian economist Jeffery Tucker (2014). “But he was hoping for a trustless system. He saw the need. (9).
Bitcoin Computer Code as Constitution in the Buchananian Sense
American economist cum Nobel laureate James Buchanan (1988) advocates constitutional constraints on the governmental power to create money (10). Buchanan distinguishes a managed monetary system—a system “that embodies the instrumental use of price-level predictability as a norm of policy”—from an automatic monetary system, “which does not, at any stage, involve the absolute price level” (Buchanan 1962, 164–65). Leaning toward the latter, Buchanan argues that automatic systems are characterized by an organization “of the institutions of private decision-making in such a way that the desired monetary predictability will emerge spontaneously from the ordinary operations of the system” (Buchanan 1962, 164). Again, "Bitcoin regulates itself through the spontaneous force of nature, flourishing healthy price discovery and competition in the best interest of everyone" (Hayase 2020).
Shruti Rajagopalan (2018) argues that the computer code governing how the sundry nodes/computers within the Bitcoin network interact with one another is a kind of monetary constitution in the Buchananian sense. One of Buchanan's greatest inputs is to differentiate the choice of rules from the choice within rule (Buchanan 1990). One may regard the Bitcoin code as a sort of constitution and "the Bitcoin network engaging in both the choice of rules and choice within rules" (Rajagopalan 2018) (11).
Tim May: Restricting Digital Cash may Impinge on Free Speech
Cypherpunks are activists who since the 1980s have advocated global use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a route to social and political liberation. Tim May (Timothy C. May [1951-2018]), one of the influential cypherpunks published The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto in September 1992, which foretold the coming of Bitcoin (12). Cypherpunks began envisioning a stateless digital form of money that cannot be censored and their collaborative pursuit created a movement akin to the 18th Enlightenment.
At The 7th Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, Burlingame, CA. in 1997, Tim May equated money with speech, and argued that restricting digital cash may impinge on free speech, for spending money is often a matter of communicating orders to others, to transfer funds, to release funds, etc. In fact, most financial instruments are contracts or orders, instead of physical specie or banknotes (13).
Montesquieu: Laws that secure inalienable rights can only be found in Nature
In his influential work The Spirit of Laws (1748), Montesquieu wrote, “Laws ... are derived from the nature of things … Law, like mathematics, has its objective structure, which no arbitrary whim can alter". Similarly, once a block is added to the end of the Bitcoin blockchain, it is almost impossible to go back and alter the contents of the block, unless every single block after it on the blockchain is altered, too.
Cypherpunks knew that whereas alienable rights that are bestowed by law can be deprived by legislation, inalienable rights are not to be created but can be discovered by reason. Thus, laws that secure inalienable rights cannot be created by humankind but can be found in nature.
The natural laws employed in Bitcoin to enshrine the inalienable monetary right of every human being include its consensus algorithm, and the three natural laws of economics (self-interest, competition, and supply and demand) as identified by Adam Smith, father of modern economics.
Regarding mathematics, bitcoin mining is performed by high-powered computers that solve complex computational math problems. When computers solve these complex math problems on the Bitcoin network, they produce new bitcoin. And by solving computational math problems, bitcoin miners make the Bitcoin payment network trustworthy and secure, by verifying its transaction information.
Regarding economic laws, in accordance with the principle of game theory to generate fairness, miners take part in an open competition. Lining up self-interests of all in a network, with a vigilant balance of risk and rewards, rules are put in force sans the application of any exterior pressure. "Bitcoin regulates itself through the spontaneous force of nature, flourishing healthy price discovery and competition in the best interest of everyone," to borrow the words of Hayase (2020).
A Non-monetary Economy as Visualized by the Tofflers
In their book, Revolutionary Wealth (2006), futurists Alvin Toffler and his wife Heidi Toffler toy with the concept of a world sans money, raising a third kind of economic transaction that is neither one-on-one barter nor monetary exchange. In the end, they settle on the idea that the newer non-monetary economy will exist shoulder-to-shoulder with the monetary sector in the short term, although the latter may eventually be eclipsed by the former in the long run. What both the Tofflers' The Third Wave (1980) and Revolutionary Wealth bring into question is the very premise of monetary exchange. The vacuum left over by cash in such a non-monetary economy may be filled up by Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency.
Satoshi Nakamoto Nominated for Nobel Prize by UCLA Finance Prof.
UCLA Anderson School Professor of Finance Bhagwan Chowdhry nominated Satoshi Nakamoto for the 2016 Nobel Prize in Economics on the following grounds:-
It is secure, relying on almost unbreakable cryptographic code, can be divided into millions of smaller sub-units, and can be transferred securely and nearly instantaneously from one person to any other person in the world with access to internet bypassing governments, central banks and financial intermediaries such as Visa, Mastercard, Paypal or commercial banks eliminating time delays and transactions costs.... Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin Protocol has spawned exciting innovations in the FinTech space by showing how many financial contracts — not just currencies — can be digitized, securely verified and stored, and transferred instantaneously from one party to another (14).
Fb link: https://www.facebook.com/hongkongbilingualnews/posts/947121432392288?__tn__=-R
Web link: https://www.hkbnews.net/post/the-intellectual-foundation-of-bitcoin%E6%AF%94%E7%89%B9%E5%B9%A3%E7%9A%84%E6%99%BA%E8%AD%98%E5%9F%BA%E7%A4%8E-by-chapman-chen-hkbnews
Disclaimer: This article is neither an advertisement nor professional financial advice.
End-notes
  1. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-is-the-technology-of-dissent-that-secures-individual-liberties
  2. https://medium.com/hackernoon/why-sir-isaac-newton-was-the-first-bitcoin-maximalist-195a17cb6c34
  3. https://data.bloomberglp.com/professional/sites/10/Bloomberg-Crypto-Outlook-April-2020.pdf
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYhEDxFwFRU&t=1161s
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6fkdagNrjI
  6. http://youtu.be/mlwxdyLnMXM
  7. https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collections/2016c21/IEA_1970.pdf
  8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MnQJFEVY7s
  9. https://www.coindesk.com/economist-milton-friedman-predicted-bitcoin
  10. https://www.aier.org/research/prospects-for-a-monetary-constitution/
  11. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3238472
  12. https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
  13. http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/tcmay.htm
  14. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/i-shall-happily-accept-th_b_8462028
Pic credit: Framingbitcoin
#bitcoin #bitcoinhalving #jamesBuchanan #MiltonFriedman #AlvinToffler #FirstAmendment #LudwigVonMises #TimMay #freeMarket # SatoshiNakamoto #FriedrichHayek #Cypherpunk #Cryptocurrency #GoldStandard #IsaacNewton
submitted by HKBNews to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Consortium>Elite>Fed/Bankers>Military Industrial Complex>Corporate Industries>Rulers>Media, Entertainment>Workers>Children>Retired, Disabled, Sick, Unemployed

Are you ready to really wake up? Then you must fathom the nature of our peril, and the plots against us. Understanding the state of the world today begins with understanding the pecking order, and how far down we are in both power and freedom. Though many people live under the illusion that we are all equal, nothing could be further from the truth. Let me describe each level of their pyramid power structure.
CONSORTIUM
The Consortium exploits the minor differences between us: race, religion, sex, age, and nationality, in order to separate us and keep us from working together against them. It is a false choice, because we are ALL humans. We all live under the thumb of a hidden Consortium full of many species of aliens profiting off of us in every way.
We have spoken here and on the reptiliandude forum about these aliens at length. The main points to realize is that they have been with us all along, influencing and manipulating, they live for thousands of our years and are a million years ahead of us. It seems pretty bleak, yet we have alien allies who help us and the One God who loves us and intercedes on our behalf, so that gives us hope. There are about a million of them, but 7.5 billion of us. They have the tech, we have the numbers. And if we quit letting them turn us against one another for scraps tossed from their table, we just might win.
ELITE
The elite are a combination of well positioned humans and mentally overwritten ones puppeted by the Kayeen. Each year, more and more elderly and dying Kayeen lying in vats on their home planets cherry pick humans to wear like a suit. By using particle entanglement to overwrite infants in utero, their memories are gradually activated until the child is fully overwritten. They also try to cut corners and overwrite adults at times, but the older the humans are, the less effective it is. Dementia, death or schizophrenia can result when they detach. These wealthy elites leave trust funds of their money to their children and grandchildren, and detach and overwrite subsequent generations when the bodies they use wear out.
The well positioned humans are usually wealthy, educated at elite universities, part of secret societies, foundations, and leading international financial institutions. They are invite only groups who congregate on islands, compounds, bunkers and resorts to get their marching orders from the Consortium. These elite are typically sociopaths picked from childhood and groomed. They had powerful mentors.
These elite are bribed with sexual temptations, like pedophilia, financial rewards and power. In exchange, they sign do not disclose agreements and in effect, sell out humanity, even lead in the efforts to manipulate, experiment, exploit or kill us. If they waiver, they are threatened, as are their families. Sex tapes are filmed of illegal or humiliating encounters that could destroy the reputations of the elite if made public, so they comply.
FED/BANKERS
The Federal Reserve, International Monetary Fund, Foundations, Internatuonal Banks, Financial Consultants and Intetnational Investment Firms are the most powerful corporations in the world. They have pushed for the new world order in order to lump us all together and dependent on them for all monies. They seek deregulation, monopolization and government backed security for their greedy international schemes. Trillions of dollars has been forked over to them, especially in times of war or crisis, payable by future taxpayers. When Covid hit, banks were paid FIRST.
They are not required to give much in the way of accountability. Their shareholders profit before their customers do. And when they make completely risky loans, they are bailed out by taxpayers. They win if we win and they win if we lose. Either way, none of them ever go to jail for their wrong doings since they are protected by the elite.
Their goal is to profit no matter what, control the masses through a digital currency they can freeze or remove from bank accounts at will. Contagions on dollars will be the excuse to go digital federally, then internationally. If we accept this, we will be chipped to participate, then become wage slaves dependent on social compliance to gain access to our own money.
Other forms of currency are our best hope to delay them financial power over us, such as gold/silver, bitcoin, land, and trade. The independent and self employed have the most adaptability right now. Everyone else needs to look for alternative means to earn or trade.
MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
Eisenhower warned of this great threat. Kennedy tried to disable it but was murdered. All political leaders have had to give in to it in some way and conduct their wars. Why? Because wars are not only profitable, but they reduce overpopulation. They allow the power of the elites to be reshuffled when they start getting demanding, or not complying. And most of all, they gather munitions for future wars against our own people in support of Consortium objectives.
Think of every industry that profits during wars, and their lobbyists who buy and pressure politicians. Guns, munitions, chemicals, tech, uniforms, supplies, meds, hospitals, food, you name it, they are part of it. And all of them want to profit. Propaganda and lies are spread to control the narrative of the latest enemies or terrorists they want us to fight. Military used not only for defense, but expansion, control and conquest under the term "democracy" has continued in civilization after civilization. The ones in power considered themselves the "good guys", while the ones seeking to displace them, or even reject them, are marked as enemies. And so it goes, administration after administration. Because we must always have an excuse to shoot those not cooperating with Consortium profit and control objectives.
We could just stop warring. We've done it before when we demanded to leave the war in Vietnam. But then we also must quit telling other nations who to elect and who to reject. Our CIA and other spy agencies are part of the military/industrial complex, and they must be muzzled too. The people of a nation should not serve as fodder for military and corporate objectives. The police, national guard and military services are all humans, as powerless as individuals and the people they intend to support. Let us all keep that in mind and reject the manufactured conflicts spread via lies and propaganda to separate us.
CORPORATE INDUSTRIES
Jobs. They have them. We want them. We work hard to afford to live and raise families. Right now, many of them are tightening their belts to survive, meaning our jobs are not secure. They have all the power, we do not. There have been times when we've gathered against them and they have given in to us after we were outraged. Unions formed. Laws were passed demanding oversight, compliance, taxes and accountability. Workers demanded benefits, better hours and wages.
But then a war, natural disaster or calamity like a pandemic comes along and all advancements are reduced, if not eliminated. So industries get artificially propped up with bail outs, reduced compliance and tax free opportunities. Meanwhile the workers lose, and lose big. You know who doesn't lose? CEOs and investors, because most of them are the elites. How else can we have only a quarter of us working, no growth at all, and yet the stock market is soaring? Because corporate industries and investors are enjoying the trillions of dollars they received along with loan forbearance or interest free loans.
Corporations have power as long as we defer to them. You might even admit that the U S. is now a corporate oligarchy. They will pay workers as little as possible, market to consumers non-stop and keep holding out their hands for more money. They lose power when we quit buying their products and start growing or making our own supplies. Nobody needs all the stuff we've bought. And if we work for ourselves, they can't make us do anything. Keep that in mind.
RULERS
We all have them, either elected, appointed or acquired via royal birth or totalian regime. Most have clawed their way to power and don't give it up easily. Sometimes they move laterally and bide their time until they regain power. But most are bought and paid for by the billionaire elites or lobbyists or corporate sponsors. That's why they have the best healthcare, retirement packages and benefits. They may start out idealistic and hopeful, but if they've been around very long, they've joined the corruption that has grown every year. Most don't even try to pretend anymore. They blatantly and arrogantly tell you what to do or think and demand fealty of us as if we are peasants and they the Lords of the manor.
Only large group protests affect them, for they fear the mobs most of all. So gathering en mass requires a worthy cause, otherwise, the resultant crack down that eventually comes with anarchy will have made the effort ineffective. Beware the infiltrators and secret tellers who corrupt worthy causes and manipulate them to serve alternate agendas.
MEDIA, ENTERTAINMENT
Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies. But they do lie, exaggerate, tell half-truths, provide alternate facts, and biased ones. Most media and entertainment people are liberal in comparison to the masses they are trying to influence toward their corporate/political/elite/Consortium goals. Everything you watch on tv or movies is trying to soothe or manipulate you into accepting their point of view, which is always present. Commercials also blatantly influence to push their wares. The message is: do what we suggest if you want happiness. Don't do what we suggest if you want sadness. It's pretty simple, said in metaphor, story and song. And it is exhausting. They are making us fat, dumb, lazy and indebted consumers, and we're letting them.
PEOPLE
Workers are more valuable than non-workers. Children are more valuable than elderly, sick or unemployed. The bottom of power lies in those who receive benefits without continuing to contribute to them, regardless if you contributed in the past. There is no better way to push people off the dole than for them to die, either through sickness, starvation, pestilence or war.
As far as the Connsortium elite are concerned, children are a commodity, useful for blood/organs/sexual perversions, overwriting or future debt workers. That is what they want from us. Work hard and long hours, be too tired to fight tyranny, enjoy distractions while decisions are made that reduce your options. That is how they control, for profit and life extension. We are given busy work to do while they harvest us using grey synths that alter us and grab, then return us while we sleep. They dump contagions on us that cull the bottom level of us, considered useless, while providing new immunities in the rest of us for them to sell around the universe. It is appalling.
We do not have to remain product. Knowledge is power. RESIST!!!
submitted by garbotalk to InsurrectionEarth [link] [comments]

Banks don’t get most of their funding through interbank borrowing—they also lend out reserves indirectly—a refutation of MMT discovered:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/spontaneousfinance.com/2013/12/17/the-problems-with-the-mmt-derived-banking-theory/amp/
P.S. I am a Hayekian but I don’t like Bitcoin—I demand free banking (not full-reserve “banking”)—and with a Constitutional amendment specifically stating that no agencies or chartered companies could be created to regulate other banks in any way (except those under gov’t contract—but even then they could not regulate the financial aspect), reestablishing a freely-coinable gold-and-silver-specie backed standard with the US using its diplomatic influence to get as many countries as possible to adopt this (and stay on it)—bringing the ratio of gold to silver back to historical levels. Also, it would be specified that passing any law or signing into “law”, or issuing any executive order or ordinance to manipulate the currency would be a felony, subject to life in prison. Banks would be able to freely issue their own notes—the federal government would be allowed to charter a national (but NOT a central) bank—but which could have no political appointments, regulatory power, ability to buy federal bonds, interest rate power, monopoly on interstate banking, or monopoly on issuing banknotes—essentially just a carbon copy of Hamilton’s First Bank of the United States. Furthermore it would be a felony, subject to life in prison, to vote to pass, sign into law, ratify, etc. any amendment repealing this one or modifying it so that currency could be manipulated. Furthermore, the dollar would be required to be reset to its original value, where $1 in 1792 = $ 26.32 in 2019.
submitted by James-Bancroft to austrian_economics [link] [comments]

Agustín Carstens, General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS, the central bank of central banks) on Cryptocurrencies today

I'd like to hear your thoughts on his lecture held today at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany.
Read the full transcript here or via pdf link. https://www.bis.org/speeches/sp180206.pdf
1/10 Money in the digital age: what role for central banks? Lecture by Agustín Carstens General Manager, Bank for International Settlements House of Finance, Goethe University Frankfurt, 6 February 2018
Introduction Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for that kind introduction, Jens. I am very happy to be here at this prestigious university and to be part of this impressive lecture series sponsored by Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE), the Center for Financial Studies (CFS) and the Deutsche Bundesbank. I would also like to thank Professor Brigitte Haar for being such a generous host today. It is an honour to discuss money at an event organised by the Bundesbank, which has been a beacon of stability since its foundation some 60 years ago. As Jens can attest, being a central banker is a fascinating job. In fact, it is a privilege. During the last decade it has been anything but quiet in the central banking world. We have been confronted with extraordinary circumstances that have required extraordinary policy responses. In such an environment, it has been of the utmost importance to share experiences and lessons learnt among central banks, creating a body of knowledge that will be there for the future. One of the reasons that central bank Governors from all over the world gather in Basel every two months is precisely to discuss issues at the front and centre of the policy debate. Following the Great Financial Crisis, many hours have been spent discussing the design and implications of, for example, unconventional monetary policies such as quantitative easing and negative interest rates. Lately, we have seen a bit of a shift, to issues at the very heart of central banking. This shift is driven by developments at the cutting edge of technology. While it has been bubbling under the surface for years, the meteoric rise of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has led us to revisit some fundamental questions that touch on the origin and raison d’être for central banks: • What is money? • What constitutes good money, and where do cryptocurrencies fit in? • And, finally, what role should central banks play? The thrust of my lecture will be that, at the end of the day, money is an indispensable social convention backed by an accountable institution within the State that enjoys public trust. Many things have served as money, but experience suggests that something widely accepted, reliably provided and stable in its command over goods and services works best. Experience has also shown that to be credible, money requires institutional backup, which is best provided by a central bank. While central banks’ actions and services will evolve with technological developments, the rise of cryptocurrencies only highlights the important role central banks have played, and continue to play, as stewards of public trust. Private digital tokens posing as currencies, such as bitcoin and other crypto-assets that have mushroomed of late, must not endanger this trust in the fundamental value and nature of money.
What is money? “What is money?” is obviously a key question for any central banker, and one on which economists have spent much ink. The answer depends on how deep and philosophical one wants to be. Being at a university, especially one named after Goethe, I think I can err on the side of being philosophical. Conventional wisdom tells you that “money is what money does”.1 That is, money is a unit of account, a means of payment and a store of value. But telling you what something does does not really tell you what it is. And it certainly does not tell you why we need or have money, how it comes about and what the preconditions are for it to exist. In terms of the “need” for money, you may learn that money is a way to get around the general lack of double coincidence of wants. That is, it is rare that I have what you want and you have what I want at the same time. As barter is definitely not an efficient way of organising an economy, money is demanded as a tool to facilitate exchange. What about the other side of the coin, so to speak? How does money come about? Again, conventional wisdom may tell you that central banks provide money, ie cash (coins and notes), and commercial banks supply deposits. But this answer is often not fully satisfactory, as it does not tell why and how banks should be the one to “create” money. If you venture into more substantive analyses on monetary economics, things get more complex. One theory, which proposes that “money is memory”, amounts to arguing that a “superledger” can facilitate exchange just like money. This argument says a ledger is a way of keeping track of not only who has what but also who owes, and is owed, what. I will come back to this later. Moving beyond this line of thought, other scholarly and historical analyses provide answers that are more philosophical. These often amount to “money is a convention” – one party accepts it as payment in the expectation that others will also do so.2 Money is an IOU, but a special one because everyone in the economy trusts that it will be accepted by others in exchange for goods and services. One might say money is a “we all owe you”. Many things have served as money in this way. Figure 1 gives some examples: Yap stones, gold coins, cigarettes in war times, $100,000 bills, wissel (Wechsel), ie bills of exchange or bearer notes, such as those issued by the Bank of Amsterdam in the first half of the 17th century. It includes an example from my own country, Aztec hoe (or axe) money, a form of (unstamped) money made of copper used in central Mexico and parts of Central America. 1 See J Hicks, Critical essays in monetary theory, 1979. 2 See D Lewis, Convention: a philosophical study, 1969.
Common to most of these examples is that the nominal value of the items that have served at one time as money is unrelated to their intrinsic value. Indeed, as we know very well in the case of fiat money, the intrinsic value of most of its representations is zero. History shows that money as a convention needs to have a basis of trust, supported by some form of institutional arrangement.3 As Curzio Giannini puts it: “The evolution of monetary institutions appears to be above all the fruit of a continuous dialogue between economic and political spheres, with each taking turns to create monetary innovations … and to safeguard the common interest against abuse stemming from partisan interests.”4 Money can come in different institutional forms and colours. How to organise them? The paper by Bech and Garratt in last September’s BIS Quarterly Review presented the money flower as a way of organising monies in today’s environment.5 It acknowledges that money can take on rather different forms and be supplied in various ways. The money flower Allow me to explain, noting that we do not sell seeds to this money flower! 3 Fiat means “by law“. So, in principle, it should be said that money exists by convention or by law. But if trust in money does not prevail, the legal mandate that conveys value to money becomes meaningless. 4 C Giannini, The age of central banks, 2011. 5 M Bech and R Garratt, “Central bank cryptocurrencies”, BIS Quarterly Review, September 2017, pp 55–70.
The money flower highlights four key properties on the supply side of money: the issuer, the form, the degree of accessibility and the transfer mechanism. • The issuer can be either the central bank or “other”. “Other” includes nobody, that is, a particular type of money that is not the liability of anyone. • In terms of the form it takes, money is either electronic or physical. • Accessibility refers to how widely the type of money is available. It can either be wide or limited. • Transfer mechanism can either be a central intermediary or peer-to-peer, meaning transactions occur directly between the payer and the payee without the need for a central intermediary. Let us look at where some common types of money fit into the flower, starting with cash (or bank notes) as we know it today. Cash is issued by the central bank, is not electronic, is available to everyone and is peer-to-peer. I do not need a trusted third party such as Jens to help me pay each of you 10 euros. Let us try another one: bank deposits. They are not the liability of the central bank, mostly electronic, and in most countries available to most people, but clearly not peer-to-peer. Transferring resources from a bank deposit requires the involvement of at least your own bank, perhaps the central bank and the recipient’s bank. Think here not only of commercial bank deposits but also bills, eg non-interest bearing (bearer) certificates, issued privately, as in the case of the Bank of Amsterdam mentioned earlier. Local or regional currencies are the ones that can be spent in a particular geographical location at participating organisations. They tend to be physical. The túmin, for example, was a local currency circulating (illegally) for some time around 2010 exclusively in the Mexican municipality of Espinal. What does digitalisation mean for the flower? Digitalisation is nothing new: financial services and most forms of money have been largely digital for many years. Much of the ongoing transformation is just adding a mobile version for many services, which means that the device becomes a virtual extension of the institution. As such, there is not a new model. The money flower then also easily accommodates these forms.
That is also the case for the digital, account-based forms of money that central banks traditionally have made available to commercial banks and, in some instances, to certain other financial or public institutions (ie bank reserves). It would also be the case if the central bank were to issue digital money to the wider public for general purposes. Each central bank will have to make its own decision on whether issuing digital money is desirable, after considering factors such as the structure of the financial system and underlying preferences for privacy. The central bank community is actively analysing this issue. A potentially important and leapfrogging digital-related development, however, is distributed ledger technology (DLT), the basis for Bitcoin. Many think DLT could transform financial service provision, maybe first wholesale, then possibly retail. For example, it could enhance settlement efficiency involving securities and derivatives transactions. A few central banks have conducted experiments in this area, for example the Bank of Canada, the Bundesbank, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Bank of England.6 Yet doubts remain regarding the maturity of DLT and the size of associated efficiency gains relative to existing technologies. Moreover, their robustness, including to cyber-risk, is still to be fully understood and ascertained. Still, there are potential benefits, and I expect that central banks will remain engaged on this topic.7 For now, DLT is largely used to “create” bitcoin and other digital currencies. Such cryptocurrencies can be placed easily in the money flower. Nobody issues them, they are not physical and they are peer-to-peer. But beyond that, how should one think about them? What constitutes good money? Just because we are able to find a place for bitcoin in our money flower does not mean we should consider it as “good” money. As I mentioned before, trust is the fundamental tenet that underpins credible currencies, and this trust has to be earned and supported. There are many lessons from history and institutional economics on the earning of trust that we can use as we move further into digitalisation.8 Over the ages, many forms of private money have come and gone. It is fair to say that the same has happened with various experiments with public money (that is, money issued by a public entity that is not the central bank). While some lasted longer than others, most have invariably given way to some form of central bank money. The main reason for their disappearance is that the “incentives to cheat” are simply too high. Let me give three historical examples: one in Germany, another in the United States and the last one in Mexico. In Germany, the Thirty Years War (1618–48), involving small German states of the Holy Roman Empire and neighbouring regional powers, was associated with one of the most severe economic crises ever recorded, with rampant hyperinflation – just as happened three centuries later during the Weimar Republic – and the breakdown of trade and economic activity. The crisis became known as the Kipper- und Wipperzeit (the clipping and culling times), after the practice of clipping coins (shaving metal from their circumference) and sorting good coins from bad. This morning, we are launching a BIS Working Paper, by Professor Isabel Schnabel and BIS Economic Adviser Hyun Song Shin, which further details and explains this experience, as background to my speech. 6 See Bech and Garratt, op cit. 7 See Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures, Distributed ledger technology in payment, clearing and settlement: an analytical framework, February 2017. 8 See D North, Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, 1990.
While episodes of currency debasement have occurred throughout history, this one stands out for two reasons. First is the severity of the crisis and its rapid regional spread. Debasement proceeded at such a pace that public authorities quickly lost control of the downward spiral. Second is how the debasement was brought under control. This occurred through standardisation of wholesale payments by public deposit banks, for example the Bank of Hamburg and the Bank of Amsterdam. These were in many ways examples of the precursors of modern central banks. As the working paper argues, monetary order could be brought to an otherwise chaotic situation by providing reliable payment means through precursors to central bank money, which at the end means the use of a credible institutional arrangement. In the period in the United States known as the Free Banking Era, from 1837 to 1863, many banks sprang up that issued currency with no oversight of any kind by the federal government.10 These so-called free bank notes did not work very well as a medium of exchange. Given that there were so many banks of varying reputations issuing notes, they sold at different prices in different places, making transactions quite complicated. And as supervision was largely absent, banks had limited restraint in issuing notes and did not back them up sufficiently with specie (gold or silver), thereby debasing their values. This era of “wildcat banking” ended up being a long and costly period of banking instability in the history of the US, with banking panics and major disruptions to economic activity. It was, after some further hiccups, followed by the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Let me present a final example, from Mexican monetary history. A little known fact is that Mexico had the first series of hyperinflations at the beginning of the 20th century. My country had a revolution from 1910 to 1921, in which no central government existed in an effective way, with many factions fighting and disputing different territories. A winning faction would arrive in a territory, print its own money and make void previously issued cash. So different bills issued by different factions coexisted, leading to chaos and hyperinflation. To give you an idea of the disorder, in 2015 four trunks full of bills were returned to Mexico after having been appropriated by the US Navy in 1914, when the US occupied the port city of Veracruz. In the trunks, the Bank of Mexico discovered dozens of types of bills that the central bank had not even known existed.11 At the end of the conflict, a new constitution was drafted, having as a central article one which gave the Bank of Mexico the appropriate institutional framework, designating it the exclusive issuer of currency in the country. Once this was in place, hyperinflation ceased, illustrating the importance of controlling fiscal dominance (which tends to be the result of the abuse of publicly issued money). Based on these experiences, most observers, and I suspect all of you here, would agree that laissez-faire is not a good approach in banking or in the issuance of money. Indeed, the paradigm of strict bank regulation and supervision and central banks overseeing the financial and monetary system that has emerged over the last century or so has proven to be the most effective way to avoid the instability and high economic costs associated with the proliferation of private and public monies. 9 I Schnabel and H S Shin, “Money and trust: lessons from the 1620s for money in the digital age”, BIS Working Papers, no 698, February 2018. 10 See G Dwyer, “Wildcat banking, banking panics, and free banking in the United States”, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, vol 81, nos 3–6, 1996; A Rolnick and W Weber, “New evidence of the free banking era”, The American Economic Review, vol 73, no 5, December 1983, pp 1080–91; and C Calomiris, “Banking crises yesterday and today”, Financial History Review, vol 17, no 1, 2010, pp 3–12. 11 See Bank of Mexico, “La SRE entregó al Banco de México un acervo de billetes de la época del porfiriato”, press release, 1 June 2015, www.banxico.org.mx/informacion-para-la-prensa/comunicados/billetes-y-monedas/billetes/%7B3A41E6F8-FBD8-2FA7-DA0B-66FCCE46430A%7D.pdf.
The unhappy experience with private forms of money raises deep questions about whether the proliferation of cryptocurrencies is desirable or sustainable. Even if the supply of one type of cryptocurrency is limited, the mushrooming of so many of them means that the total supply of all forms of cryptocurrency is unlimited. Added to this is the practice of “forking”, where an offshoot of an existing cryptocurrency can be conjured up from thin air. Given the experience with currency debasement that has peppered history, the proliferation of such private monies should give everyone pause for thought. I will return to this shortly. We have learned over the centuries that money as a social institution requires a solution to the problem of a lack of trust.12 The central banks that often emerged in the wake of the private and public money collapses may not have looked like the ones we have today, but they all had some institutional backing. The forms of this backing for their issuance of money have differed over time and by country.13 Commodity money has often been the start. History shows that gold and other precious metals stored in the vault with governance (and physical) safeguards can provide some assurance. Commodity money is not the only or necessarily sufficient mechanism. Often it also required a city-, state- or nation-provided charter, as with the emergence of giro banks in many European countries. Later, the willingness of central banks to convert money for gold at a fixed price (the gold standard) was the mechanism. Currency boards, where local money is issued one-to-one with changes in foreign currency holdings, can also work to provide credibility. The tried, trusted and resilient modern way to provide confidence in public money is the independent central bank. This means legal safeguards and agreed goals, ie clear monetary policy objectives, operational, instrument and administrative independence, together with democratic accountability to ensure broad-based political support and legitimacy. While not fully immune from the temptation to cheat, central banks as an institution are hard to beat in terms of safeguarding society’s economic and political interest in a stable currency. Where do cryptocurrencies fit in? One could argue that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies’ attractiveness lies in an intelligent application of DLT. DLT provides a method to broadcast transactions publicly and pseudonymously in a way that achieves in principle ledger immutability.14 Who would have thought that having people guessing solutions to what was described to me by a techie as the mathematical equivalent of mega-sudokus would be a way to generate consensus among strangers around the world through a proof of work? Does it thus provide a novel solution to the problem of how to generate trust among people who do not know each other? If DLT provides the potential for a superledger, could bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies then substitute for some forms of money?15 We do not have the full answers, but at this time the answer, also in the light of historical experiences, is probably a sound no, for many reasons. In fact, we are seeing the type of cracks and cheating that brought down other private currencies starting to appear in the House of Bitcoin. As an institution, Bitcoin has some obvious flaws. 12 See M King, “The institutions of monetary policy”, speech at the American Economic Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, 4 January 2004. 13 See Giannini, op cit. 14 See Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures, op cit. 15 See N Kocherlakota, “Money is memory”, Journal of Economic Theory, vol 81, pp 232–51, 1998. In fact, he shows in a very stark setting that having a costless means to record the memory of all economic actors, both present and past, can do as much as money, and sometimes more. Conversely, money effectively functions as memory by providing an observable record of past transactions – that is, agents can tell whether a potential trader is running a current deficit or surplus with society by looking at the money balances that trader is carrying. The finding, however, is theoretical and not robust to slight changes in assumptions, including the risk of loss of data.
Debasement. As I mentioned, we may be seeing the modern-day equivalent of clipping and culling. In Bitcoin, these take the form of forks, a type of spin-off in which developers clone Bitcoin’s software, release it with a new name and a new coin, after possibly adding a few new features or tinkering with the algorithms’ parameters. Often, the objective is to capitalise on the public’s familiarity with Bitcoin to make some serious money, at least virtually. Last year alone, 19 Bitcoin forks came out, including Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Diamond. Forks can fork again, and many more could happen. After all, it just takes a bunch of smart programmers and a catchy name. As in the past, these modern-day clippings dilute the value of existing ones, to the extent such cryptocurrencies have any economic value at all. Trust. As the saying goes, trust takes years to build, seconds to break and forever to repair. Historical experiences suggest that these “assets” are probably not sustainable as money. Cryptocurrencies are not the liability of any individual or institution, or backed by any authority. Governance weaknesses, such as the concentration of their ownership, could make them even less trustworthy. Indeed, to use them often means resorting to an intermediary (for example, the bitcoin exchanges) to which one has to trust one’s money. More generally, they piggyback on the same institutional infrastructure that serves the overall financial system and on the trust that it provides. This reflects their challenge to establish their own trust in the face of cyber-attacks, loss of customers’ funds, limits on transferring funds and inadequate market integrity. Inefficiency. Novel technology is not the same as better technology or better economics. That is clearly the case with Bitcoin: while perhaps intended as an alternative payment system with no government involvement, it has become a combination of a bubble, a Ponzi scheme and an environmental disaster. The volatility of bitcoin renders it a poor means of payment and a crazy way to store value. Very few people use it for payments or as a unit of account. In fact, at a major cryptocurrency conference the registration fee could not be paid with bitcoins because it was too costly and slow: only conventional money was accepted. To the extent they are used, bitcoins and their cousins seem more attractive to those who want to make transactions in the black or illegal economy, rather than everyday transactions. In a way, this should not be surprising, since individuals who massively evade taxes or launder money are the ones who are willing to live with cryptocurrencies’ extreme price volatility. In practice, central bank experiments show that DLT-based systems are very expensive to run and slower and much less efficient to operate than conventional payment and settlement systems. The electricity used in the process of mining bitcoins is staggering, estimated to be equal to the amount Singapore uses every day in electricity,16 making them socially wasteful and environmentally bad. Therefore, the current fascination with these cryptocurrencies seems to have more to do with a speculative mania than any use as a form of electronic payment, except for illegal activities. Accordingly, authorities are edging closer and closer to clamping down to contain the risks related to cryptocurrencies. There is a strong case for policy intervention. As now noted by many securities markets and regulatory and supervisory agencies, these assets can raise concerns related to consumer and investor protection. Appropriate authorities have a duty to educate and protect investors and consumers, and need to be prepared to act. Moreover, there are concerns related to tax evasion, money laundering and criminal finance. Authorities should welcome innovation. But they have a duty to make sure technological advances are not used to legitimise profits from illegal activities. 16 See Digiconomist, “Bitcoin energy consumption index”, digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption.
What role for the central bank? Central banks, acting by themselves and/or in coordination with other financial authorities like bank regulators and supervisors, ministries of finance, tax agencies and financial intelligence units, may also need to act, given their roles in providing money services and safeguarding money’s real value. Working with commercial banks, authorities have a part to play in policing the digital frontier. Commercial banks are on the front line since they are the ones settling trades, providing real liquidity, keeping exchanges going and interacting with customers. It is alarming that some banks have advertised “bitcoin ATMs” where you can buy and sell bitcoins. Authorities need to ensure commercial banks do not facilitate unscrupulous behaviours. Central banks need to safeguard payment systems. To date, Bitcoin is not functional as a means of payment, but it relies on the oxygen provided by the connection to standard means of payments and trading apps that link users to conventional bank accounts. If the only “business case” is use for illicit or illegal transactions, central banks cannot allow such tokens to rely on much of the same institutional infrastructure that serves the overall financial system and freeload on the trust that it provides. Authorities should apply the principle that the Basel Process has adhered to for years: to provide a level playing field to all participants in financial markets (banks and non-banks alike), while at the same time fostering innovative, secure and competitive markets. In this context, this means, among other things, ensuring that the same high standards that money transfer and payment service providers have to meet are also met by Bitcoin-type exchanges. It also means ensuring that legitimate banking and payment services are only offered to those exchanges and products that meet these high standards. Financial authorities may also have a case to intervene to ensure financial stability. To date, many judge that, given cryptocurrencies’ small size and limited interconnectedness, concerns about them do not rise to a systemic level. But if authorities do not act pre-emptively, cryptocurrencies could become more interconnected with the main financial system and become a threat to financial stability. Most importantly, the meteoric rise of cryptocurrencies should not make us forget the important role central banks play as stewards of public trust. Private digital tokens masquerading as currencies must not subvert this trust. As history has shown, there simply is no substitute. Still, central banks are embracing new technologies as appropriate. Many new developments can help. For example, fintech and “techfin” – which refers to established technology platforms venturing into financial services. These are changing financial service provision in many countries, most clearly in payments, and especially in some emerging market economies (for example, China and Kenya). While they introduce the possibility of non-bank financial institutions introducing money-type instruments, which raises a familiar set of regulatory questions, they do present scope for many gains. Conclusion In conclusion, while cryptocurrencies may pretend to be currencies, they fail the basic textbook definitions. Most would agree that they do not function as a unit of account. Their volatile valuations make them unsafe to rely on as a common means of payment and a stable store of value. They also defy lessons from theory and experiences. Most importantly, given their many fragilities, cryptocurrencies are unlikely to satisfy the requirement of trust to make them sustainable forms of money. While new technologies have the potential to improve our lives, this is not invariably the case. Thus, central banks must be prepared to intervene if needed. After all, cryptocurrencies piggyback on the institutional infrastructure that serves the wider financial system, gaining a semblance of legitimacy from their links to it. This clearly falls under central banks’ area of responsibility. The buck stops here. But the buck also starts here. Credible money will continue to arise from central bank decisions, taken in the light of day and in the public interest. In particular, central banks and financial authorities should pay special attention to two aspects. First, to the ties linking cryptocurrencies to real currencies, to ensure that the relationship is not parasitic. And second, to the level playing field principle. This means “same risk, same regulation”. And no exceptions allowed.
submitted by stellan0r to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Barron's: Bitcoin - Buy or Buyer Beware?

Bitcoin – the controversial newish digital currency that has been much in the news of late – had an eventful first day of August, when it was announced that henceforth there would be two versions of the cryptocurrency. How that will affect valuation remains to be seen, and for now, this is a small tempest in an even smaller teapot. After all, Bitcoin has a total market capitalization of barely $45 billion, which is a pittance compared to hundreds of trillions in stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments worldwide.
And yet, in speaking with clients, advisors report that questions about Bitcoin are among the most prevalent curiosities of investors today. So with equity markets in a consistent uptrend (as of this writing at least) and bonds stuck in a narrow range with a slight bias toward higher rates, we thought to turn to the Bitcoin conundrum.
Why Bitcoin matters
In sheer dollar value, Bitcoin may be small, but its impact is potentially large. It -- along with a few other crypto or digital currencies -- could become a new, global means of exchange. It is issued by no government; it can be used without the intermediation of banks; it does not require cumbersome custody arrangements; and it can be used for peer-to-peer transactions almost instantly, across borders, and between any two parties. Its algorithms, based on a complicated ledger known as the blockchain, make it uniquely secure from hacking and counterfeiting.
Bitcoin has also been on a tear of late, rising from barely $1,000 at the beginning of the year to nearly $3,000 in July. That may be one reason for such investor interest. Anything that runs that much quickly attracts attention and curiosity.
Not all of the attention has been positive of course. Famed investor Howard Marks of Oaktree Capital recently warned his clients that Bitcoin was not only too risky but inherently flawed. The currency, he wrote, has “no intrinsic value,” and is worth only what buyers, sellers and traders will pay for it. The result, Marks argued, is that Bitcoin is a bubble or a Ponzi scheme, and that it can only end badly for those who buy it or invest in it.
Perhaps. It is certainly true that a chart of Bitcoin over the past few years would show both extreme volatility and a recent surge that looks like a typical bubble pattern. Based on past oscillations, it would not be surprising if the currency were to give up some of its recent gains in the near term. The question for investors, then, is whether Marks is inherently correct, or whether the apostles of Bitcoin — who claim that it will, over the next decade, become a viable global medium of exchange— are on to something that skeptics such as Marks fail to appreciate.
There are at least two reasons to challenge the skeptics: one is that Bitcoin offers advantages in a globalized world that is still in the early stages of an emerging middle class, and the second is that it is too soon to write an obituary simply because these newfangled currencies have yet to gain widespread adoption.
On the second, it should be remembered that no medium of exchange has intrinsic value. All monies, from gold to various metal coins to paper money and then fiat currency, are invented by humans who then assign value to them. Food, people, and maybe land have some “intrinsic” value. Everything else is made up.
In fact, the concerns about Bitcoin bear more than a passing similarity to 19th century concerns in the United States about paper money, which also suffered from extreme valuation volatility and ubiquitous public skepticism. That money was at least backed in those days by gold (or sometimes by silver), yet it still made people nervous. Then, in the 20th century, government began to print money without the backing of gold or some hard-metal specie. The beginning of the fiat currency era in the mid-20th century still makes some traditionalists in financial markets nervous, believing that trusting governments to maintain and hold value in money is a mistake. They have often been proven correct in that distrust.
Yet, over time, people have come to accept paper money backed only by the full faith of whatever government is issuing it. It did not happen easily or quickly. Even today, fiat currency has critics, so it should hardly be a surprise that Bitcoin, barely a decade old, has not convinced many of its value. But in a world where commerce is conducted evermore digitally, Bitcoin has distinct advantages over fiat currency. It also has distinct advantages over gold as a possible repository of value.
Gold is an intriguing comparison for Bitcoin. It too has no intrinsic value, though humans have ascribed value to gold for thousands of years, and that means something. Gold is what people have held when they do not trust a government to create or maintain the value of a currency. In today’s world, however, gold has some real limitations: it is physical; it is easy for governments to locate and register; and it is difficult to use for transactions.
Bitcoin, however, solves many of those issues. It requires no physical security, only digital vaults. Although it can be traced by governments, it isn’t clear how easy it would be for a government to seize Bitcoin, given that it can be stored in any cloud anywhere. It is also easy to use for transactions, though as yet it is not widely accepted, and its primary use is for an investment.
For many millions outside the developed world, Bitcoin also solves the problem of mistrust in governments and lack of access to banks. If you grew up in Argentina, for instance, you have a healthy and merited distrust of what the government might do to the value of the peso, or even what it might do with your right to the title of your land. The same would be even truer of Zimbabwe. Holding some of your assets in Bitcoin, which isn’t susceptible to government meddling with its value, and which doesn’t require you to have access to a bank, makes as much sense as owning some gold coins did from time immemorial.
The skeptics may, of course, be entirely correct. The best advice for those interested in owning or investing in Bitcoin is truly “buyer beware.” This is a high-risk, maybe high-return investment that should be treated as utterly speculative. That doesn’t mean it is foolish, only that you should only invest money that you are prepared to lose entirely. You may one day see a huge return. You may also one day see whatever you invested go to zero.
The arguments against Bitcoin, however, are often weak. Its newness is a risk but not a strike against it. Caution is imperative. And there are other risks. The technology could become compromised or less secure if computing power increases exponentially, or governments could attempt to interfere. But Bitcoin and other digital currencies could prospectively become vital and powerful components of an emerging 21st century digital economy. Beware the risks, but don’t ignore the potential.
Source: http://www.barrons.com/article_email/bitcoin-buy-or-buyer-beware-1502385019-lMyQjA1MTA3NDExMjcxNDIzWj
submitted by germandar to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

"Gold and silver had intrinsic value; no special trust had to be placed in anyone before precious-metal coin was accepted in payment...." awesome excerpt from a Vanderbilt biography!

Was just reading a biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt (The First Tycoon, the Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbuilt by T.J. Stiles) and came across this gem of a paragraph. Had to share. Amazing that it has taken almost 200 years to solve the trust problem without using gold or silver! So excited about Bitcoin's future.
To Jacksonians, this was a fraud: banks were loaning what they did not have. Paper money was a dangerous shell game that only worked as long as everyone agreed not to look for the pea. "Real money," wrote William Gouge in an influential book of 1833, "is a commodity." Gold and silver had intrinsic value; no special trust had to be placed in anyone before precious-metal coin was accepted in payment. By contrast, paper money had replaced "the old standard of value" with "the new standard of bank credit," one that was subject to bank failures, to counterfeiting, to deliberate manipulation by greedy corporate officials. By 1833, Americans had already suffered panics in which note holders rushed to a bank all at once, forcing it to suspend specie payments, thus rendering its paper money virtually worthless.
submitted by zherbert to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Satoshi left a backdoor...

Thanks for taking it easy on me in my first post, guys/gals.
It's emboldened me to bring something else up that I didn't want to include in my first post.
I'm sure you've read the title by now... and you're probably thinking I'm full of it, because you've scoured the code, as have thousand, yet nobody has been able to find the backdoor... The reason why nobody has found it is because you were looking in the wrong place... It's been in front of us the whole time, and despite it being right smack in front of our noses, it's not something you can simply hack (at least not yet), because it's built into the design.
I really hope that Satoshi truly was not one person, that if Satoshi really is/was one person then s/he isn't dead yet (for ease of reading, I will refer to Satoshi as "they" from now on, despite me not believing that), and that if they really were/are one person, that they shared what I'm about to tell you, or made provisions for it to be shared somehow with someone trustworthy and capable enough to handle it upon their death. Given their writings and the amount of forethought that went into every step of their actions, I truly believe that they did make provisions, but only time could tell us with any certainty.
I believe that Satoshi did this as a precaution. A protection, in case things go the wrong way. Playing out in my head the 4-dimensional global chess game of our current situation and how things are progressing, I think that there's a 50/50 chance of it still being needed... but I'm no Edgar Roy.
Satoshi's backdoor necessitates a few things for it to not only be needed, but for it to be potentially successfully used.
First, the inevitable coming global financial crisis must be well underway. (I believe that the Satoshi's final card was meant to be the last-ditch resolution to the potential wars/famines/plagues/pestilences that this crisis can/will cause.)
Second, "enough" wealth transfer into bitcoin by not only the politically elite and wealthy, but also the masses, must have occurred. I used quotations because there is no concrete measure of this, so if the Satoshi are alive, they will never know if it has been "enough" so they will therefore wait until the absolute last second to deploy this "backdoor". Hopefully, they won't have to... Keep in mind that adoption follows a logarithmic curve... so the window of opportunity to play Satoshi's final card will probably be very tight.
Third, the global financial crisis must have truly gotten to the point where it is so bad that the Satoshi have to believe that there is no longer any hope of peaceful and successful resolution without intervention in the face of potentially plunging the human race into the second Dark Ages.
I know what you're thinking... "This goes against everything that Satoshi stood for! I refuse to believe that s/h/th/ey would have left a centralized backdoor like this!" and you may very well be right, and I am looking forward to your adult, mature discussion about this, because I can't think of any other explanation. Hal Finney's death, IMO, is not a valid response, because you need to explain why he would have sat on all those BTC until his death, so this argument is still valid in that case. In fact, the only valid argument I can think of is that the Satoshi all died shortly after the last bitcoins were transferred into those wallets and they erased their tracks.
Keep in mind that the genesis of the Satoshi's actions and therefore the outcomes of those actions necessitated "centralization", and I think that they fully understood the centralization implications of them being the "centralized birth" of bitcoin. Even though the Satoshi collaborated with many people, the original idea and "spark" was almost certainly from one mind... even if the Satoshi were/are an individual... When it comes down to it, "centralization" is necessary (at least temporarily) for progress to occur, because new ideas are formed in the (centralized) individual's mind, which is as small of a centralization as exists in the human race. If we eradicate centralization completely, the voice of the individual ceases to be heard. Imagine if we wouldn't have listened to Nikolai Tesla or Albert Einstein because their voices were too "centralized".
You don't believe that is "centralization"? That must mean that you don't think that monarchies are centralized... Sure, this comparison can be poked at in many ways, if you really want to nitpick... it won't distract from the big picture, though.
I believe that the Satoshi fully understood that centralization can be a good thing in some situations, in order for individual sparks to be fanned, as long as it is backed by good intentions, kept free from corruption, and time limitations put in place. History has proven that remaining centralized for too long is never a good idea... After all, this is the reason that the most civilized countries put time limits on the terms that leaders can stay in power. The problem is figuring out how long "too long" is, ensuring a means of removing the centralization when it is no longer "good", and also a working definition of "good".
"Good" luck...
I'm sure that if what I'm saying is true, the Satoshi made provisions for this "backdoor" to not remain "centralized" to them, once its utility was not needed any more... As far as when that utility would not be needed any more, I'll get to that later.
So what I believe the Satoshi's backdoor is, is simply the ~1.5m BTC (debatable, of course) that they own.
Wait, please hear me out...
Given the Satoshi's dedication to forethought, do you really believe that they didn't realize that in the future, any individual or conglomerate that owns 1.5m BTC would hold immense power? Do you really believe that they held onto that many (especially not distributing it over many wallets!) without having a REALLY GOOD reason for it? If you've read all of the Satoshi's writings, don't you think that they realized that by holding that many, it was almost a certainty that their holdings would eventually be discovered and they were going to be targeted in the future? IMO this was one of the primary reasons (if not THE primary reason) that they went into hiding...
They were altruistically holding the one global "get out of jail free" card, and knew that they were the only ones that could be trusted with it. Having said that, I really do believe that they did make provisions for it to not be lost in case of their untimely death, and let's not focus on the "Satoshi is a number of individuals" debate, because we won't get anywhere. This is all still applicable in either scenario.
So how did the Satoshi believe that their "backdoor" could be our "get out of jail free" card? Simple, really. Given the three assumptions I wrote above, Satoshi would anonymously declare himself, and prove his identity by moving X BTC from one of his addresses (probably to a charity IMO). The entire world would immediately come to attention, and as long as the world's fiats had already started collapsing enough, there would not be another viable store of wealth that is also useful for every day transactions. "What about gold and silver?" you say? Not a useful means of currency today. Sure, it'll always be a good store of wealth (until a vast gold mine is discovered somewhere on earth or another planet), but unless we truly do plunge back into the Dark Ages (in which case the Satoshi would have missed their window of opportunity and their card will become unplayable) global transactions will continue to be necessary, and gold is rather inconvenient and inefficient in that situation.
"What about altcoins?" Whether or not you think that all altcoins will die, I don't think that bitcoin will ever lose its store of value. Let's assume that LN is unfortunately unsuccessful, and so is any future update to increase tps... At this point, even if we would never get to the level of using bitcoin for everyday transactions, the worst future for bitcoin would essentially turn it into a digital copy of gold... Slow, cumbersome, expensive and difficult to interact with for everyday small transactions, extremely difficult for global transactions. Yet, gold has held its "value" (buying power, not numerical price, which has all kinds of things affecting it) despite these (and more) drawbacks (especially when compared to bitcoin), and in the face of globalization and digitalization. Yes, I know that transaction cost has gone down since January 2017... and you can show me all the data you want... but until we see what happens in the next bullrun (the best real-world simulation of mass adoption that is possible, outside of virtual mathematical simulations), there is nobody on this planet that can guarantee it to be prepared for true mass adoption, or that future developments will be successful. Nobody knows the future, which means that there are no guarantees, at least for us humans living in this 4-dimensional universe.
It's really all besides the point, though. Put simply: worst case scenario, at the very least, bitcoin will forever be a store of value, because it currently equals or exceeds gold in every aspect. As long as humans remain alive in any meaningful way and technology is not lost (this is, ultimately, the Satoshi's goal, is it not?), it will be impossible for it to not become a store of value because of its historical value as being "the first", and at the very least, it will turn into a "collector's item" due to its historical significance. Since there is no way to "sell" somebody your private keys without being certain that there are no other copies of the seed phrase, the "future collectors" will be forced to transfer it to their own wallet, which means that transactions on the blockchain will continue, and bitcoin will never "die" unless the human race is eradicated, or we evolve to the point that we eradicate money (in which case bitcoin won't even be needed any more, but most people alive today don't even have the capacity to visualize this as being not only possible, but also as a potentially desirable future for humans) as well as the human desire to "collect" (which won't have any effect if we truly evolve past "money"). Like I said, though, worst case scenario, and if it will happen, it is quite far off. Definitely at least a few generations, unless we really get our butts in gear (highly unlikely).
Anyway, I digress.
At this point, you're probably asking: "But what would the Satoshi do, after they publicly declare themselves and prove their identity?" Well, here goes... Keep in mind that this is the Satoshi's last card... and that they would only do this if it got bad enough... but the timing has to be perfect because if they wait too long, they might lose the last hope we might have, if it comes down to it. They absolutely don't want to have to play the final card, either, unless they think it's absolutely necessary to keep us out of the Dark Ages, or worse. I'm sure that they are hoping that they won't have to, but just in the case that things don't turn out the way that they are hoping they will, I think they are planning to threaten to dump their btc all at once in order to crash it, unless the world leaders causing whatever strife stop what they were doing and start playing nice. Since by this point the world leaders would have converted even most of their own holdings primarily into btc/crypto and probably precious metals, they would not want that to happen.
Of course, the successful deployment of the Satoshi's final card is not foolproof... and if they are all still alive, then I'm sure they dread the possibility of the day arriving in which they deem that deployment cannot be prolonged. How soon could that day come? No human knows the answer to that, but every day shows us that it is still in the cards.
So when would the Satoshi's final card not be needed any more? Easy: if we can pull ourselves out of the coming financial crisis by peacefully converting fiats to crypto before wars/famines/plagues/pestilences kill too many, and we can peacefully focus on humans becoming an interplanetary species before another mass extinction level event happens, whether or not we cause it. But, as Ron Paul recently said:
"The first steps are passing the 'Audit the Fed' bill, allowing people to use alternative currencies, and exempting all transactions in precious metals and cryptocurrencies from capital gains taxes and other taxes."
Unfortunately, that seems like an alternate reality at this point, rather than even a far-off future, and every passing day seems to shift us closer to the possibility of the Satoshi's final card play being necessary, with no hope of change appearing yet on the horizon. Over the years, (in my mind, at least) the possible situations ending in the Satoshi's final card not needing to be played have one by one been invalidated, until now it truly hangs almost precisely in the balance at about 50%. One can only hope, though, that if it comes down to it being necessary, the Satoshi's final card will be played so masterfully and skillfully that it will be the game-ending Final-Boss-killing "Ultimate Fatality" to fiats and currency mismanagement by those who wish to oppress, truly the "Trump to end all Trumps" (no potential future pun intended? please don't let it come to that?).
One way or another, the illusion of time marches on, and most people alive today will probably have to witness the Satoshi's final card being played. Every day, more cycles and signs converge in this direction. The coming years are going to be one heck of a doozy, so invest and prepare wisely, and make sure you bring lots of popcorn... and let's just hope that the dolphins aren't all going to disappear one day.
"The way I see it, there's only two possible outcomes: either I make it down there in one piece and I have one hell of a story to tell, or I burn up in the next ten minutes. Either way, whichever way, no harm no foul, 'cause either way, it'll be one hell of a ride. I'm ready." -Ryan Stone
What do you guys think? Since the Satoshi didn't "pull a Charlie Lee", can you justify them holding onto that many BTC in any other way, given their writings, level of forethought, and philosophical alignment? Or do you think that they died before spending or selling any? Do you think the Satoshi created a "Bitcoiniminati" that will pass the keys down before/if they die? Most importantly, do you think that it will come down to the Satoshi having to play their final card when all hope seems lost in the 11th hour (as humans seem to have a knack for) and will we see a time when it is safe for the Satoshi to reveal their true identity?

EDIT: Satoshi(s) if you're out there, I hope that I haven't done the world harm by my posting this LOL
submitted by CryptoH0DLEM to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Announcing New Physical Bitcoins (Silver and Gold Bullion). Bitcoin is now also the Gold Standard in currencies.

The goals of this project are many. Here are some of the top items on our bucket list of what we hope to accomplish with this project by offering the following to the Bitcoin community at large:
Update: As of now we have formally launched and are open for all orders globally filled without delay.
We do not compete with any of the other physical crypto-currency available, but provide a complementary offering. We owe a debt of gratitude to the previous offerings that have helped to foster the Bitcoin economy from early days. This is a perpetual project that will continue so long as Bitcoin is accepted as money anywhere in the world.
The advantages of bitcoin and bullion are relatively opposite, but by unifying them, each gain strength from the other. Bullion pieces are most useful in person and locally. Shipping them is costly, requires security, and delay. Bitcoin is less useful at point of sale, requires time to confirm, but Bitcoin is the best there is for long distance transactions. Bitcoin's value is consensus based, not backed, and not intrinsic. Bullion is the opposite. The hope is that by providing this offering we create a way to unify these, and in so doing make each better than they could be alone. These pieces do not "contain" bitcoin, they are not "backed by bitcoin" the backing is in the other direction. All holders of these pieces become a part of the DECENTRALIZED BANK of the Bitcoin community, and provide an asset backing for the Bitcoin currency.
The idea of this is that it can also be used at a point of sale for trade value (barter money) in the same way that a crypro-currency can, but also with folks that have never used bitcoin... This lets us do outreach for Bitcoin. It is a physical object, and as silver and gold are great conductors it will be warm out of your pocket but cold as it quickly offers up its heat. Drop it into someone's palm and it will glisten with a nice BTC on it. Flip it over and scan the QR code and show the current value of it in bitcoin (or dollaeuro/litecoin/yen...) and make your trade.
The recipient of it will be enticed to scan it to show it to their friends, and they will see the price of bitcoin change over time. They may wish that they had taken the bitcoin instead of the silver. They may also be happy that they took the silver instead of the dollars. So they won't be entirely disappointed.
We hope you will let us know how we are doing after you learn more about this project. There are some more details and pictures publicly available here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=269535.0 (currently down thank you for your patience with theymos, he is working diligently on this)
submitted by ColdHard to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

"Gold and silver had intrinsic value; no special trust had to be placed in anyone before precious-metal coin was accepted in payment...." awesome excerpt from a Vanderbilt biography!

Was just reading a biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt (The First Tycoon, the Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbuilt by T.J. Stiles) and came across this gem of a paragraph. Had to share. Amazing that it has taken almost 200 years to solve the trust problem without using gold or silver! So excited about Bitcoin's future.
To Jacksonians, this was a fraud: banks were loaning what they did not have. Paper money was a dangerous shell game that only worked as long as everyone agreed not to look for the pea. "Real money," wrote William Gouge in an influential book of 1833, "is a commodity." Gold and silver had intrinsic value; no special trust had to be placed in anyone before precious-metal coin was accepted in payment. By contrast, paper money had replaced "the old standard of value" with "the new standard of bank credit," one that was subject to bank failures, to counterfeiting, to deliberate manipulation by greedy corporate officials. By 1833, Americans had already suffered panics in which note holders rushed to a bank all at once, forcing it to suspend specie payments, thus rendering its paper money virtually worthless.
submitted by zherbert to ShowerCoins [link] [comments]

[WTS] Buffalo rounds, Bitcoin rounds and more

I've been a lurker on this subreddit and am ready to sell some silver and copper rounds. Pictures and verification here.

20 | Buffalo / Indian Head (1 ozt .999 silver) by Golden State Mint | $22 each
5 | Bitcoin Specie (1 ozt .999 silver) by Joseph Vaughn Perling | $39 each
1 | Grim Reaper (1 ozt .999 silver) by Loco Pecunia | $31
20 | Bitcoin Commemorative (1 AV oz .999 Copper) by MJB | $1.25 each
1 | 2012 Trivium Proof (1 ozt .999 silver) by SBSS) | $75

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Item specific notes

Purchasing Information

EDIT: SOLD 20x Bitcoin Commemorative copper rounds to I_Fuck_Whales
submitted by zootek to Pmsforsale [link] [comments]

Markets and Price-Setting: Thoughts on information, created goods and services, fixed-supply commodities, financial instruments, and other market values behave

I've been reflecting on Paul Mason's Postcapitalism, particularly as concerns what he identifies as a hum-dinger of information goods: Information goods destroy the price formation mechanism based on scarcity.
That's one of a few cases in which markets as price-setting mechanisms fail, or are subject to very high degrees of ambiguity.
Four particular instances come to mind:
Each poses specific failures to usefully set a market price that corresponds to the true costs of production.
What I'm posing here is more an exploration of aspects I've found, and still find, contradictory. I'm not claiming to have final answers, though I'm starting to land a few good leads.

On "natural prices"

While much lay discussion of economics holds that the market price is the fair price for a good or service, the question of what a "natural" or "fair" price has occupied a great deal of economic thought and discussion since the time of the Greeks. Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations proposed a definition which remains close to what's commonly accepted today -- a total cost of inputs, plus normal profits:
When the price of any commodity is neither more nor less than what is sufficient to pay the rent of the land, the wages of the labour, and the profits of the stock employed in raising, preparing, and bringing it to market, according to their natural rates, the commodity is then sold for what may be called its natural price.
The cases I'm considering here all violate this in one way or another. This is troubling as they're increasingly key to economic activity.

Information Goods

Information wants to be free.
-- John Perry Barlow
In an efficient market, quality information is consistently undervalued.
In this case: fixed costs of production are high, but marginal costs of production are low. It takes a lot of time and research to create a quality book, a piece of music, software, news reporting, pharmaceutical, chemical process, etc., but once developed the costs of manufacture are far, far less, effectively zero in many cases.
That's one fundamental contradiction of the "knowledge economy".
There's the further problem of Gresham's law as applied to information: cheap, low-quality information tends to drive out high-value, but expensive-to-produce information. Ask anyone in the news, broadcast, or publishing industries.

Extant Goods

There are good cars and bad cars (which in America are known as "lemons").
-- George Akerloff, "The Market for Lemons"
This is the second-hand market -- goods which are re-sold by an initial buyer, after initial purchase. Flea markets, swaps, Craigslist, consignment stores. And antique shops and auctions.
The fundamental characteristic of each of these is that the good already exists. There is no production function. Price, instead, is effectively a motivator -- what does it take to convince the holder of a good to part with it?
There's a Spanish folk saying I've only recently learned, its English translation "Buy from desperate people, and sell to newlyweds." In both cases, the supply and demand curves are shifted to the advantage of the middleman buying in the first instance and selling in the second.
In some cases, there's an alternative to buying used: you can buy a new item or make one yourself. For many utilitarian goods (clothing, furniture, children's toys, used books or records), the second-hand market offers considerable savings over new or self-made.
Keepsakes and mementos have highly asymmetric valuations: the holder usually ascribes a high sentimental value, while others may view the item as little more than clutter or "old junk". In this case it's typically unlikely for the piece to be sold -- the holder's valuation is higher than any potential buyer's, unless the former is desperate.
Antiquities or fine arts, as opposed to personal mementos and keepsakes with high sentimental value pose a different situation: if it is the specific item in question and not a functionally equivalent replacement that is sought, then there is no ascribable production cost. You cannot make a "new" original Rembrandt, or Picasso, or Ming Dynasty vase, or piece of ancient Egyptian art. Price of such goods is entirely dependent on the demand for such products. It calls into question the entire concept of what a "natural price" of such a good is.
This case is actually the genesis for this essay -- the example I had in mind was of a Stradivarius violin -- there are about 650 left in the world, largely manufactured between 1680 and 1700, and present market values range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.
This despite notable failures for blind listening tests to distinguish or prefer Strads over other instruments. While modern mass-produced violins can be had for as little as £80 new, more expensive hand-crafted instruments comparable in tonal quality to a Strad fetch about £15,000. That's still a considerable discount on the Strad -- by a factor of 200.
The embodied labor?
It takes around 120 hours to make a violin, 150 hours for a viola and 300 hours for a cello.
That's an all-in £125/hr cost of labor, assuming labor is the principle input.
Similarly, nearly indistinguishable art forgeries are fairly common, there's the case of "Jefferson's Bottles", literally an instance of new wine in old bottles. Or forgeries of antiques, antiquities, and the like.
In all cases, the immediate quality of the forgeries is quite difficult to tell, though dating of materials by radioisotopic means usually manages to distinguish them. What's changed is the perception. What marketers call "selling the story".
Or, quite bluntly: changing the demand curve for a product.
Extant products fall into two general categories:
And finally, extant goods have the "lemon" problem, and in fact, in the form of the used-car market, are the basis for George Akerloff's "The Market for Lemons" paper noted in the epigraph for this section.
In the case of established goods (e.g., antiquities and fine arts), the asymmetry detailed by Akerloff tends to be minimized. In the case of certain complex goods: automobiles and electronics certainly come to mind, concerns on the part of the buyer over the serviceability of the good in question tends to 1) keep prices depressed and 2) limit the number of quality items actually offered to market -- the seller knows that it will be unlikely to recapture the true value of a quality item.

Financial/Investment Assets

Because that's where the money is.
-- Willie Sutton, on why he robbed banks.
Here, you've almost the inverse situation of information goods: marginal cost of production is exceptionally high - - there's either a workfactor cost, or simply a finite supply (for numerous reasons, to be explored more). Will Rogers on land: they're not making it anymore. The asset value of precious metals is that their supply is (theoretically) constrained by the high costs of mining. Bitcoin is similar.
But the intrinsic utility of the good is close to nil. A dollar bill has little intrinsic value, or, if you prefer, a $100 dollar bill. It's a piece of paper, ink, and anti-copyright features. The production cost is a factor of regulatory limits on production. Gold and silver have some utility, but this is generally less than is reflected in its exchange value. Diamonds are a case of induced scarcity, though with a few other twists which tends to inflate the retail value while affording virtually no resale value.
The added value by virtue of being money is referred to as seigniorage:
the difference between the value of money and the cost to produce and distribute it.
What's key is the "story": not all rare things are valuable, but all valuable things are rare. The key to creating a market for a given asset class is to convince people that other people are convinced of the value. It's a bit of a circular definition.
Some assets have value ascribed to them. I've previously discussed what gives money value, in particular the United States Dollar. There are five key aspects:
Several of these elements are recognized as well by Modern Monetary Theory which I'm coming to like.

Real Estate

Buy land. They ain't making any more of the stuff.
-- Will Rogers
Other asset classes are real, in the sense that they're tangible, with real estate being a classic example. In Smith's time, the value of land was largely based on the produce one could derive from it: crops, lumber, cattle, fish. Perhaps wind or water power. In urban economics one learns that the value of housing (whether rented or sold) is based on the earning potential and travel time associated with it -- generally housing costs fall as one moves further from an urban center.
But a secondary factor of housing is as an investment, though as many critics has pointed out, the long-term performance isn't particularly good, the carrying costs are high, the asset can be highly illiquid (especially when it's carrying a mortgage valued more highly than the property itself). In some areas title may be difficult to establish -- Hernando de Soto and Niall Ferguson discuss this in their respective books The Mystery of Capital and The Ascent of Money in the context of South America, and the resulting difficulties and alternative conventions.
One interesting conclusion is that surplus profits of labor (or of business) tend to be subsumed by increasing housing (or office / store-space) costs.

Extractive Goods

These are also consistently undervalued.
Any resource that's being extracted or consumed at rates greater than its replenishment is effectively an extractive good. The typical examples are minerals and mining, and fossil fuels, but this can include other and nominally renewable resources: topsoil, freshwater, groundwater, rhinoceros horn, timber, topsoil, fisheries....
The market price is set by the access price: how much effort it takes to extract the resource, but not a depletion allowance for the fact that the removed unit(s) will not be restored. The latter is a suggestion of many authors, including Herman Daly.
It's interesting to note cases of societies which were formerly based on extractive technologies which have run through the entire resource and have lost their former wealth. A classic instance is the island nation of Nauru, briefly the wealthiest nation on a per-capita income basis during the 1980s due to deposits of phosphate rock -- bird guano -- valuable as fertilizer. Its 9,000 inhabitants on 21 km2 now rely on revenues for running a detention center for the Australian government. It's also served as a tax haven and offered passports to foreign nationals.
The export land model of Jeffrey Brown describes the dynamics of oil exporting nations as domestic consumption rises to exceed total extraction capacity. Some analysis of the Arab Spring revolves around falling oil extraction in Egypt, Syria, and Libya as contributory causes, though a prolonged drought in Syria has also been mentioned.
Cataloging a list of other nations formerly based on exported natural resource wealth could prove illuminating.

Overconsumption of Luxury Goods

As a counterpoint, there are products obtained unsustainably for which the market price is high (though possibly still undervalued). Rhinoceros horn would be an example, whale meat, and tropical hardwoods others. Often within what's a globally small market -- rhino horn is largely valued in south-east Asia and China, whale meat in Japan -- there's a significant social signaling status (Veblen good) for the product. Paradoxically, price is itself a signifier of signaling value, and total quantity demanded, while in excess of replenishment factor, is such that increasing the cost of the good doesn't reduce overall demand (or at least not sufficiently to avoid exhaustion or extinction of the source).
Arguably the price is still too low (there should be an extinction/exhaustion premium), but even with increasing prices due to scarcity, the market response is not rational. Moreover, the value ascribed these goods isn't intrinsic to their practical application but to social signalling status. That is: a cheaper replacement would be inferior simply on the basis that it's cheaper, and hence, a weaker signal.

Information vs. Assets

The most striking aspect of Mason's Postcapitalism lecture is his juxtaposition of information goods, in which scarcity drives prices to zero, and of financial assets, in which an ascribed value increases the worth of an asset above its intrinsic value.
But more critically:
The key contradiction in modern capitalism is in this emerging contradiction between free socially produced abundant [information] goods, and a system of monopolies, banks, and governments who are forced, in order to survive, to behave desperately to maintain this information asymmetry.
That is: Facebook or other service providers retaining proprietary control, and often, secrecy, over their APIs. There's an intrinsic fight between the network, information goods, and the hierarchy, proprietary and material goods.
I further see the need for the financial system to see ever further growth, and interest payments, which a largely information-based economy is unlikely to provide.

In summary ...

I don't want to title this section "conclusions" because, generally, I'm far from them. I do hope this proves useful (and not too personally embarrassing to me) for further discussion / exploration on where and how value is ascribed and attributed.
submitted by dredmorbius to dredmorbius [link] [comments]

Money From Nothing

There are many excellent topic posts here in Reddit claiming we are facing an imminent collapse of our current world monetary system. On the off chance of these latter predictions coming true, I would like to discuss what features make for a GOOD currency in the hope of having a replacement ready for the rebuilding of our world economy on a new foundation when the need is felt.
I believe the most basic concepts of currency are types of value, which I will call intrinsic and extrinsic. Please understand I am redefining these words only for the purpose of this discussion and only in this post. Separating and explaining the difference of only these two is what I am trying to do. There are many other aspects of currency but those are topics for other discussions.
According to commonly accepted theory (Menger) currencies originate when marketable commodities, used as value storage, are substituted for original goods in place of straight barter trade transactions. During the early period of currency implementation, utility and portability of the commodity are the most important factors of selection. The Extrinsic Value placed on the commodity comes from destroying or consuming the product. Examples of extrinsically established values are: grain baked by the cook; the cigarette smoked by the inmate; and the silver used in making electrical conductors. Extrinsic value is the measure of utility that comes from the consumption process.
However, during later phases of currency creation, there are commodities that will be selected as currencies whose useful purposes do not involve destruction. These are the commodities that I am defining to have Intrinsic Value. Examples of Intrinsic Value currencies are: gold and silver jewelry worn by high status individuals; land used to obtain rents or crops; fiat paper currency which has no use whatsoever but is universally desired.
IMO Intrinsic values are often based on psychological factors that have ill-defined, or nonexistent, physical aspects of the real world. Why in the world is gold valuable? My Belief: Because people just want it.
These two types of value are not mutually exclusive. For example silver has both intrinsic and extrinsic components that establish its desirability and thus its price.
Even though early currencies are consumable commodities, I think a modern money should have limited or no extrinsic value (usefulness). My reason for this statement is that changes in technology, or social factors that increase or decrease the economic utility of an item, can precipitously change the value of a marketable commodity and thus affect its use as a currency. A large component of the extrinsic value of silver has recently disappeared with the decline of the photographic paper industry. Oddly enough, this destruction of extrinsic value has shifted silver more toward intrinsic valuation and made it a better currency per my theory here.
My theory is that a GOOD currency will have both high intrinsic value and (nearly) no extrinsic value. Gold is the element most readily springing to mind matching this condition. Humans have desired it forever, but the stuff has never had a use outside of jewelry. As an offer of proof of this statement, the economic value of gold used as a conductor, or in chemical reactions, is so low as to not affect the price of the metal at all. Please don’t think I am not advocating gold currency in this post. Gold is NOT completely immune to technological or regulatory changes, and it is strongly affected by psychological evolutions.
Bitcoins are being offered as a modern currency, yet they have limited intrinsic value because so few people desire them AT THE CURRENT TIME PERIOD, and intrinsic value MAY never develop further. However, the complete lack of an extrinsic value is a mark in their favor.
Frighteningly, I believe that most of the specie (fiat) currencies in use have high intrinsic value. So, as far as the proposal of this discussion goes, almost all fiat currencies are really GOOD currencies. I am purposely not discussing other factors in this post; I just want to investigate the merit of my intrinsic/extrinsic theory of value as a basis of further exploration with hope of developing a replacement for fiat currencies.
Is my intrinsic/extrinsic theory of value full of hot air?
submitted by moneyfromnothing to austrian_economics [link] [comments]

Congress Forgets How To Pass A Law - YouTube The Life and Sad Ending of Jack Wild - YouTube Shifting Silver Demand - A Blessing or a Curse? Sans limites TV - YouTube Oldest Technologies Scientists Still Can't Explain - YouTube

Silver Bitcoin Specie. Published on December 6, 2013 by Pablo Summerbee in QR Codes. Source: Bitcoin Talk. Tweet . Tags: culture, currency « Nailed It! A load of rubbish » Comments Off www.freeqrcodetracker.com. Blog roll. How to Photoshop QR Codes (videos) The Business Guide to QR Codes (PDF) www.freeqrcodetracker.com. Tag Cloud. advertising animals art branding business cards campaign cars ... Bitcoin Specie Project IMG_4416. Bitoin Specie Project, silver and gold-plated, limited edition. Bitcoin Silver price today is $0.004806 USD with a 24-hour trading volume of not available. Bitcoin Silver has no change in the last 24 hours. The current CoinMarketCap ranking is #5216, with a market cap of not available. The circulating supply is not available and the max. supply is not available. You can find the top exchanges to trade Bitcoin Silver listed on our crypto exchanges page ... 2014 Silver Bitcoin Specie June 22, 2017 June 24, 2017 / by Author VA Admin. Released after the 0.25 BTC denominated round, this round is identical except its denomination is only 10mBTC (0.01 BTC) and the year is 2014. An image of the ‘Pizza Day Commemorative’ hallmark is shown on the right (hallmarks are found on 2013 coins only). Related. Post navigation ← Previous Previous post ... > Unexpected shipping mishap refund from Agora Commodities & Introducing the Bitcoin Silver Specie Coin. Unexpected shipping mishap refund from Agora Commodities & Introducing the Bitcoin Silver Specie Coin. Posted on January 16, 2014 by kevin Posted in Reviews — No Comments ↓ Unexpected shipping mishap refund from Agora Commodities Introducing the Bitcoin Silver Specie Coin. During the ...

[index] [31743] [4365] [2060] [16524] [48995] [23883] [41300] [11718] [29280] [22080]

Congress Forgets How To Pass A Law - YouTube

https://smaulgld.com/shifting-silver-demand-a-blessing-or-a-curse/ Become a Smaulgld Patron https://www.patreon.com/smaulgld Donations to :Smaulgld LLC PO Bo... After years of gridlock, Democrats and Republicans have realized no one remembers how to actually enact legislation. Subscribe to The Onion on YouTube: http:... Mini Bio of actor/singer Jack Wild who is most famous for playing the Artful Dodger in the film "Oliver" as well as Jimmy on the children's TV series H.R. Pu... Bitcoin’s emergence as a global digital currency has been as revolutionary as it has been erratic. But while fledgling investors obsess over every fluctuatio... Get The Thoughty2 Book: https://unbound.com/books/thoughty2/ JOIN The PRIVATE Thoughty2 Club & Get Exclusive Perks! http://bit.ly/t2club SUBSCRIBE - New Vide...

#