DigitalGoldExchange.com - Bitcoin / Liberty Reserve ...

A Theory: The Crypto Ecosystem Hasn't Fully Collapsed Because It Has Found A Truly Ingenious Way To Monetize Human Stupidity and Greed

It's true that most traditional ponzi/pyramid schemes (Madoff etc...) collapse because they're obligated to provide unsustainable returns to their investors. However, pyramid schemes that force their sucker "investors" to eat their own losses typically don't collapse, at least not for a long time . Crypto is a perfect example of this dynamic at play, since exchanges are able to establish a consistent revenue stream of hard currency by manipulating the market against butters stupid enough to gamble on margin. The whole thing basically has the business model of a casino/pyramid scheme combined into one. Bitcoin doesn't run on electricity or software. It runs on sheer human stupidity, gullibility, and greed. MLMs like Harbalife largely function on the same principle (forcing the vast majority of suckers to eat their losses instead of guaranteeing an ultimately unsustainable return), which is why many MLMs have lasted for literally decades.
Something that u/thehoesmaketheman said on here that really stuck with me is that governments make pyramid schemes illegal because people love to "invest" in pyramid schemes otherwise. This can actually do profound damage to society if taken far enough, and while any given pyramid scheme might eventually collapse (depending on its structure), there will always be new schemes and new suckers. Crypto is a perfect space for generating both, as it is both digital and laughably unregulated. So I predict the Bitcoin/Crypto/Tether Rube Goldberg machine of stupidity and greed will keep going until governments finally wise up and make it illegal (if they ever do) because its just another scam at the end of the day. Unfortunately for our society and the planet, a lot of people in power seem to be fooled by trendy tech buzzwords like blockchain.
submitted by SpecialTurnip3 to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

A Physicist's Bitcoin Trading Strategy. No leverage, no going short, just spot trading. Total cumulative outperformance 2011-2020: 13,000,000%.

https://www.tradingview.com/script/4J5psNDo-A-Physicist-s-Bitcoin-Trading-Strategy/
3. Backtest Results
Backtest results demonstrate significant outperformance over buy-and-hold . The default parameters of the strategy/indicator have been set by the author to achieve maximum (or, close to maximum) outperformance on backtests executed on the BTCUSD ( Bitcoin ) chart. However, significant outperformance over buy-and-hold is still easily achievable using non-default parameters. Basically, as long as the parameters are set to adequately capture the full character of the market, significant outperformance on backtests is achievable and is quite easy. In fact, after some experimentation, it seems as if underperformance hardly achievable and requires deliberately setting the parameters illogically (e.g. setting one parameter of the slow indicator faster than the fast indicator). In the interest of providing a quality product to the user, suggestions and guidelines for parameter settings are provided in section (6). Finally, some metrics of the strategy's outperformance on the BTCUSD chart are listed below, both for the default (optimal) parameters as well as for a random sample of parameter settings that adhere to the guidelines set forth in section (6).
Using the default parameters, relative to buy-and-hold strategy, backtested from August 2011 to August 2020,
Using the default parameters, relative to buy-and-hold strategy, during specific periods,
Using a random sample (n=20) of combinations of parameter settings that adhere to the guidelines outlined in section (6), relative to buy-and-hold strategy, backtested from August 2011 to August 2020,
EDIT (because apparently not everybody bothers to read the strategy's description):
7. General Remarks About the Indicator
Other than some exponential moving averages, no traditional technical indicators or technical analysis tools are employed in this strategy. No MACD , no RSI , no CMF , no Bollinger bands , parabolic SARs, Ichimoku clouds , hoosawatsits, XYZs, ABCs, whatarethese. No tea leaves can be found in this strategy, only mathematics. It is in the nature of the underlying math formula, from which the indicator is produced, to quickly identify trend changes.
8. Remarks About Expectations of Future Results and About Backtesting
8.1. In General As it's been stated in many prospectuses and marketing literature, "past performance is no guarantee of future results." Backtest results are retrospective, and hindsight is 20/20. Therefore, no guarantee can, nor should, be expressed by me or anybody else who is selling a financial product (unless you have a money printer, like the Federal Reserve does).
8.2. Regarding This Strategy No guarantee of future results using this strategy is expressed by the author, not now nor at any time in the future.
With that written, the author is free to express his own expectations and opinions based on his intimate knowledge of how the indicator works, and the author will take that liberty by writing the following: As described in section (7), this trading strategy does not include any traditional technical indicators or TA tools (other than smoothing EMAs). Instead, this strategy is based on a principle that does not change, it employs a complex indicator that is based on a math formula that does not change, and it places trades based on five simple rules that do not change. And, as described in section (2.1), the indicator is designed to capture the full character of the market, from a macro/global scope down to a micro/local scope. Additionally, as described in section (3), outperformance of the market for which this strategy was intended during backtesting does not depend on luckily setting the parameters "just right." In fact, all random combinations of parameter settings that followed the guidelines outperformed the intended market in backtests. Additionally, no parameters are included within the underlying math formula from which the indicator is produced; it is not as if the formula contains a "5" and future outperformance would depend on that "5" being a "6" instead. And, again as described, it is in the nature of the formula to quickly identify trend changes. Therefore, it is the opinion of the author that the outperformance of this strategy in backtesting is directly attributable to the fundamental nature of the math formula from which the indicator is produced. As such, it is also the opinion of the author that continued outperformance by using this strategy, applied to the crypto ( Bitcoin ) market, is likely, given that the parameter settings are set reasonably and in accordance with the guidelines. The author does not, however, expect future outperformance of this strategy to match or exceed the outperformance observed in backtests using the default parameters, i.e. it probably won't outperform by anything close to 13,000,000% during the next 9 years.
Additionally, based on the rolling 1-month outperformance data listed in section (3), expectations of short-term outperformance should be kept low; the median 1-month outperformance was -2%, so it's basically a 50/50 chance that any significant outperformance is seen in any given month. The true strength of this strategy is to be out of the market during large, sharp declines and capitalizing on the opportunities presented at the bottom of those declines by buying the dip. Given that such price action does not happen every month, outperformance in the initial months of use is approximately as likely as underperformance.
submitted by anon2414691 to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Why we need to think more carefully about what money is and how it works

Most of us have overlooked a fundamental problem that is currently causing an insurmountable obstacle to building a fairer and more sustainable world. We are very familiar with the thing in question, but its problematic nature has been hidden from us by a powerful illusion. We think the problem is capitalism, but capitalism is just the logical outcome of aggregate human decisions about how to manage money. The fundamental problem is money itself, or more specifically general purpose money and the international free market which allows you to sell a chunk of rainforest and use the money to buy a soft drink factory. (You can use the same sort of money to sell anything and buy anything, anywhere in the world, and until recently there was no alternative at all. Bitcoin is now an alternative, but is not quite what we are looking for.) The illusion is that because market prices are free, and nobody is forced into a transaction, those prices must be fair – that the exchange is equitable. The truth is that the way the general money globalised free market system works means that even though the prices are freely determined, there is still an unequal flow of natural resources from poor parts of the world to rich parts. This means the poor parts will always remain poor, and resources will continue to accumulate in the large, unsustainable cities in rich countries. In other words, unless we re-invent money, we cannot overturn capitalism, and that means we can't build a sustainable civilisation.
Why does this matter? What use is it realising that general purpose money is at the root of our problems when we know that the rich and powerful people who run this world will do everything in their power to prevent the existing world system being reformed? They aren't just going to agree to get rid of general purpose money and economic globalisation. It's like asking them to stop pursuing growth: they can't even imagine how to do it, and don't want to. So how does this offer us a way forwards?
Answer: because the two things in question – our monetary system and globalisation – look like being among the first casualties of collapse. Globalisation is already going into reverse (see brexit, Trump's protectionism) and our fiat money system is heading towards a debt/inflation implosion.
It looks highly likely that the scenario going forwards will be of increasing monetary and economic chaos. Fiat money systems have collapsed many times before, but never a global system of fiat currencies floating against each other. But regardless of how may fiat currencies collapse, or how high the price of gold goes in dollars, it is not clear what the system would be replaced with. Can we just go back to the gold standard? It is possible, but people will be desperately looking for other solutions, and the people in power might also be getting desperate.
So what could replace it? What is needed is a new sort of complementary money system which both
(a) addresses the immediate economic problems of people suffering from symptoms of economic and general collapse and
(b) provides a long-term framework around which a new sort of economy can emerge – an economy which is adapted to deglobalisation and degrowth.
I have been searching for answers to this question for some time, and have now found what I was looking for. It is explained in this recently published academic book, and this paper by the same professor of economic anthropology (Alf Hornborg). The answer is the creation of a new sort of money, but it is critically important exactly how this is done. Local currencies like the Bristol Pound do not challenge globalisation. What we need is a new sort of national currency. This currency would be issued as a UBI, but only usable to buy products and services originating within an adjustable radius. This would enable a new economy to emerge. It actually resists globalisation and promotes the growth of a new sort of economy where sustainability is built on local resources and local economic activity. It would also reverse the trend of population moving from poor rural areas and towns, to cities. It would revitalise the “left behind” parts of the western world, and put the brakes on the relentless flow of natural resources and “embodied cheap labour” from the poor parts of the world to the rich parts. It would set the whole system moving towards a more sustainable and fairer state.
This may sound unrealistic, but please give it a chance. I believe it offers a way forwards that can
(a) unite disparate factions trying to provoke systemic change, including eco-marxists, greens, posthumanists and anti-globalist supporters of “populist nationalism”. The only people who really stand to lose are the supporters of global big business and the 1%.
(b) offers a realistic alternative to a money system heading towards collapse, and to which currently no other realistic alternative is being proposed.
In other words, this offers a realistic way forwards not just right now but through much of the early stages of collapse. It is likely to become both politically and economically viable within the forseeable future. It does, though, require some elements of the left to abandon its globalist ideals. It will have to embrace a new sort of nationalism. And it will require various groups who are doing very well out of the current economic system to realise that it is doomed.
Here is an FAQ (from the paper).
What is a complementary currency? It is a form of money that can be used alongside regular money.
What is the fundamental goal of this proposal? The two most fundamental goals motivating this proposal are to insulate local human subsistence and livelihood from the vicissitudes of national and international economic cycles and financial speculation, and to provide tangible and attractive incentives for people to live and consume more sustainably. It also seeks to provide authorities with a means to employ social security expenditures to channel consumption in sustainable directions and encourage economic diversity and community resilience at the local level.
Why should the state administrate the reform? The nation is currently the most encompassing political entity capable of administrating an economic reform of this nature. Ideally it is also subservient to the democratic decisions of its population. The current proposal is envisaged as an option for European nations, but would seem equally advantageous for countries anywhere. If successfully implemented within a particular nation or set of nations, the system can be expected to be emulated by others. Whereas earlier experiments with alternative currencies have generally been local, bottom-up initiatives, a state-supported program offers advantages for long-term success. Rather than an informal, marginal movement connected to particular identities and transient social networks, persisting only as long as the enthusiasm of its founders, the complementary currency advocated here is formalized, efficacious, and lastingly fundamental to everyone's economy.
How is local use defined and monitored? The complementary currency (CC) can only be used to purchase goods and services that are produced within a given geographical radius of the point of purchase. This radius can be defined in terms of kilometers of transport, and it can vary between different nations and regions depending on circumstances. A fairly simple way of distinguishing local from non-local commodities would be to label them according to transport distance, much as is currently done regarding, for instance, organic production methods or "fair trade." Such transport certification would of course imply different labelling in different locales.
How is the complementary currency distributed? A practical way of organizing distribution would be to provide each citizen with a plastic card which is electronically charged each month with the sum of CC allotted to him or her.
Who are included in the category of citizens? A monthly CC is provided to all inhabitants of a nation who have received official residence permits.
What does basic income mean? Basic income is distributed without any requirements or duties to be fulfilled by the recipients. The sum of CC paid to an individual each month can be determined in relation to the currency's purchasing power and to the individual's age. The guiding principle should be that the sum provided to each adult should be sufficient to enable basic existence, and that the sum provided for each child should correspond to the additional household expenses it represents.
Why would people want to use their CC rather than regular money? As the sum of CC provided each month would correspond to purchases representing a claim on his or her regular budget, the basic income would liberate a part of each person's regular income and thus amount to substantial purchasing power, albeit restricted only to local purchases. The basic income in CC would reduce a person's dependence on wage labor and the risks currently associated with unemployment. It would encourage social cooperation and a vitalization of community.
Why would businesses want to accept payment in CC? Business entrepreneurs can be expected to respond rapidly to the radically expanded demand for local products and services, which would provide opportunities for a diverse range of local niche markets. Whether they receive all or only a part of their income in the form of CC, they can choose to use some of it to purchase tax-free local labor or other inputs, and to request to have some of it converted by the authorities to regular currency (see next point).
How is conversion of CC into regular currency organized? Entrepreneurs would be granted the right to convert some of their CC into regular currency at exchange rates set by the authorities.The exchange rate between the two currencies can be calibrated so as to compensate the authorities for loss of tax revenue and to balance the in- and outflows of CC to the state. The rate would thus amount to a tool for determining the extent to which the CC is recirculated in the local economy, or returned to the state. This is important in order to avoid inflation in the CC sector.
Would there be interest on sums of CC owned or loaned? There would be no interest accruing on a sum of CC, whether a surplus accumulating in an account or a loan extended.
How would saving and loaning of CC be organized? The formal granting of credit in CC would be managed by state authorities and follow the principle of full reserve banking, so that quantities of CC loaned would never exceed the quantities saved by the population as a whole.
Would the circulation of CC be subjected to taxation? No.
Why would authorities want to encourage tax-free local economies? Given the beneficial social and ecological consequences of this reform, it is assumed that nation states will represent the general interests of their electorates and thus promote it. Particularly in a situation with rising fiscal deficits, unemployment, health care, and social security expenditures, the proposed reform would alleviate financial pressure on governments. It would also reduce the rising costs of transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. In short, the rising costs and diminishing returns on current strategies for economic growth can be expected to encourage politicians to consider proposals such as this, as a means of avoiding escalating debt or even bankruptcy.
How would the state's expenditures in CC be financed? As suggested above, much of these expenditures would be balanced by the reduced costs for social security, health care, transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. As these savings may take time to materialize, however, states can choose to make a proportion of their social security payments (pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowance, etc.) in the form of CC. As between a third and half of some nations' annual budgets are committed to social security, this represents a significant option for financing the reform, requiring no corresponding tax levies.
What are the differences between this CC and the many experiments with local currencies? This proposal should not be confused with the notion, or with the practical operation, of local currencies, as it does not imply different currencies in different locales but one national,complementary currency for local use. Nor is it locally initiated and promoted in opposition to theregular currency, but centrally endorsed and administrated as an accepted complement to it. Most importantly, the alternative currency can only be used to purchase products and services originating from within a given geographical range, a restriction which is not implemented in experiments with Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). Finally, the CC is provided as a basic income to all residents of a nation, rather than only earned in proportion to the extent to which a person has made him- or herself useful in the local economy.
What would the ecological benefits be? The reform would radically reduce the demand for long-distance transport, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, consumption of energy and materials, and losses of foodstuffs through overproduction, storage, and transport. It would increase recycling of nutrients and packaging materials, which means decreasing leakage of nutrients and less garbage. It would reduce agricultural intensification, increase biodiversity, and decrease ecological degradation and vulnerability.
What would the societal benefits be? The reform would increase local cooperation, decrease social marginalization and addiction problems, provide more physical exercise, improve psycho-social and physical health, and increase food security and general community resilience. It would decrease the number of traffic accidents, provide fresher and healthier food with less preservatives, and improved contact between producers and consumers.
What would the long-term consequences be for the economy? The reform would no doubt generate radical transformations of the economy, as is precisely the intention. There would be a significant shift of dominance from transnational corporations founded on financial speculation and trade in industrially produced foodstuffs, fuels, and other internationally transported goods to locally diverse producers and services geared to sustainable livelihoods. This would be a democratic consequence of consumer power, rather than of legislation. Through a relatively simple transformation of the conditions for market rationality, governments can encourage new and more sustainable patterns of consumer behavior. In contrast to much of the drastic and often traumatic economic change of the past two centuries, these changes would be democratic and sustainable and would improve local and national resilience.
Why should society want to encourage people to refrain from formal employment? It is increasingly recognized that full or high employment cannot be a goal in itself, particularly if it implies escalating environmental degradation and energy and material throughput. Well-founded calls are thus currently made for degrowth, i.e. a reduction in the rate of production of goods and services that are conventionally quantified by economists as constitutive of GDP. Whether formal unemployment is the result of financial decline, technological development, or intentional policy for sustainability, no modern nation can be expected to leave its citizens economically unsupported. To subsist on basic income is undoubtedly more edifying than receiving unemployment insurance; the CC system encourages useful community cooperation and creative activities rather than destructive behavior that may damage a person's health.
Why should people receive an income without working? As observed above, modern nations will provide for their citizens whether they are formally employed or not. The incentive to find employment should ideally not be propelled only by economic imperatives, but more by the desire to maintain a given identity and to contribute creatively to society. Personal liberty would be enhanced by a reform which makes it possible for people to choose to spend (some of) their time on creative activities that are not remunerated on the formal market, and to accept the tradeoff implied by a somewhat lower economic standard. People can also be expected to devote a greater proportion of their time to community cooperation, earning additional CC, which means that they will contribute more to society – and experience less marginalization – than the currently unemployed.
Would savings in CC be inheritable? No.
How would transport distances of products and services be controlled? It is reasonable to expect the authorities to establish a special agency for monitoring and controlling transport distances. It seems unlikely that entrepreneurs would attempt to cheat the system by presenting distantly produced goods as locally produced, as we can expect income in regular currency generally to be preferable to income in CC. Such attempts would also entail transport costs which should make the cargo less competitive in relation to genuinely local produce, suggesting that the logic of local market mechanisms would by and large obviate the problem.
How would differences in local conditions (such as climate, soils, and urbanism) be dealt with?It is unavoidable that there would be significant variation between different locales in terms of the conditions for producing different kinds of goods. This means that relative local prices in CC for agiven product can be expected to vary from place to place. This may in turn mean that consumption patterns will vary somewhat between locales, which is predictable and not necessarily a problem. Generally speaking, a localization of resource flows can be expected to result in a more diverse pattern of calibration to local resource endowments, as in premodern contexts. The proposed system allows for considerable flexibility in terms of the geographical definition of what is categorized as local, depending on such conditions. In a fertile agricultural region, the radius for local produce may be defined, for instance, as 20 km, whereas in a less fertile or urban area, it may be 50 km. People living in urban centers are faced with a particular challenge. The reform would encourage an increased production of foodstuffs within and in the vicinity of urban areas, which in the long run may also affect urban planning. People might also choose to move to the countryside, where the range of subsistence goods that can be purchased with CC will tend to be greater. In the long run, the reform can be expected to encourage a better fit between the distribution of resources (such as agricultural land) and demography. This is fully in line with the intention of reducing long-distance transports of necessities.
What would the consequences be if people converted resources from one currency sphere into products or services sold in another? It seems unfeasible to monitor and regulate the use of distant imports (such as machinery and fuels) in producing produce for local markets, but as production for local markets is remunerated in CC, this should constitute a disincentive to invest regular money in such production processes. Production for local consumption can thus be expected to rely mostly – and increasingly – on local labor and other resource inputs.

submitted by anthropoz to sustainability [link] [comments]

A realistic way forwards (long, but I believe important)

Most of us have overlooked a fundamental problem that is currently causing an insurmountable obstacle to building a fairer and more sustainable world. We are very familiar with the thing in question, but its problematic nature has been hidden from us by a powerful illusion. We think the problem is capitalism, but capitalism is just the logical outcome of aggregate human decisions about how to manage money. The fundamental problem is money itself, or more specifically general purpose money and the international free market which allows you to sell a chunk of rainforest and use the money to buy a soft drink factory. (You can use the same sort of money to sell anything and buy anything, anywhere in the world, and until recently there was no alternative at all. Bitcoin is now an alternative, but is not quite what we are looking for.) The illusion is that because market prices are free, and nobody is forced into a transaction, those prices must be fair – that the exchange is equitable. The truth is that the way the general money globalised free market system works means that even though the prices are freely determined, there is still an unequal flow of natural resources from poor parts of the world to rich parts. This means the poor parts will always remain poor, and resources will continue to accumulate in the large, unsustainable cities in rich countries. In other words, unless we re-invent money, we cannot overturn capitalism, and that means we can't build a sustainable civilisation.
Why does this matter? What use is it realising that general purpose money is at the root of our problems when we know that the rich and powerful people who run this world will do everything in their power to prevent the existing world system being reformed? They aren't just going to agree to get rid of general purpose money and economic globalisation. It's like asking them to stop pursuing growth: they can't even imagine how to do it, and don't want to. So how does this offer us a way forwards?
Answer: because the two things in question – our monetary system and globalisation – look like being among the first casualties of collapse. Globalisation is already going into reverse (see brexit, Trump's protectionism) and our fiat money system is heading towards a debt/inflation implosion.
It looks highly likely that the scenario going forwards will be of increasing monetary and economic chaos. Fiat money systems have collapsed many times before, but never a global system of fiat currencies floating against each other. But regardless of how may fiat currencies collapse, or how high the price of gold goes in dollars, it is not clear what the system would be replaced with. Can we just go back to the gold standard? It is possible, but people will be desperately looking for other solutions, and the people in power might also be getting desperate.
So what could replace it? What is needed is a new sort of complementary money system which both
(a) addresses the immediate economic problems of people suffering from symptoms of economic and general collapse and
(b) provides a long-term framework around which a new sort of economy can emerge – an economy which is adapted to deglobalisation and degrowth.
I have been searching for answers to this question for some time, and have now found what I was looking for. It is explained in this recently published academic book, and this paper by the same professor of economic anthropology (Alf Hornborg). The answer is the creation of a new sort of money, but it is critically important exactly how this is done. Local currencies like the Bristol Pound do not challenge globalisation. What we need is a new sort of national currency. This currency would be issued as a UBI, but only usable to buy products and services originating within an adjustable radius. This would enable a new economy to emerge. It actually resists globalisation and promotes the growth of a new sort of economy where sustainability is built on local resources and local economic activity. It would also reverse the trend of population moving from poor rural areas and towns, to cities. It would revitalise the “left behind” parts of the western world, and put the brakes on the relentless flow of natural resources and “embodied cheap labour” from the poor parts of the world to the rich parts. It would set the whole system moving towards a more sustainable and fairer state.
This may sound unrealistic, but please give it a chance. I believe it offers a way forwards that can
(a) unite disparate factions trying to provoke systemic change, including eco-marxists, greens, posthumanists and anti-globalist supporters of “populist nationalism”, as well as large numbers of confused and worried "ordinary" people. The only people who really stand to lose are the supporters of global big business and the 1%.
(b) offers a realistic alternative to a money system heading towards collapse, and to which currently no other realistic alternative is being proposed.
In other words, this offers a realistic way forwards not just right now but through much of the early stages of collapse. It is likely to become both politically and economically viable within the forseeable future. It does, though, require some elements of the left to abandon its globalist ideals. It will have to embrace a new sort of nationalism. And it will require various groups who are doing very well out of the current economic system to realise that it is doomed.
Here is an FAQ (from the paper).
What is a complementary currency? It is a form of money that can be used alongside regular money.
What is the fundamental goal of this proposal? The two most fundamental goals motivating this proposal are to insulate local human subsistence and livelihood from the vicissitudes of national and international economic cycles and financial speculation, and to provide tangible and attractive incentives for people to live and consume more sustainably. It also seeks to provide authorities with a means to employ social security expenditures to channel consumption in sustainable directions and encourage economic diversity and community resilience at the local level.
Why should the state administrate the reform? The nation is currently the most encompassing political entity capable of administrating an economic reform of this nature. Ideally it is also subservient to the democratic decisions of its population. The current proposal is envisaged as an option for European nations, but would seem equally advantageous for countries anywhere. If successfully implemented within a particular nation or set of nations, the system can be expected to be emulated by others. Whereas earlier experiments with alternative currencies have generally been local, bottom-up initiatives, a state-supported program offers advantages for long-term success. Rather than an informal, marginal movement connected to particular identities and transient social networks, persisting only as long as the enthusiasm of its founders, the complementary currency advocated here is formalized, efficacious, and lastingly fundamental to everyone's economy.
How is local use defined and monitored? The complementary currency (CC) can only be used to purchase goods and services that are produced within a given geographical radius of the point of purchase. This radius can be defined in terms of kilometers of transport, and it can vary between different nations and regions depending on circumstances. A fairly simple way of distinguishing local from non-local commodities would be to label them according to transport distance, much as is currently done regarding, for instance, organic production methods or "fair trade." Such transport certification would of course imply different labelling in different locales.
How is the complementary currency distributed? A practical way of organizing distribution would be to provide each citizen with a plastic card which is electronically charged each month with the sum of CC allotted to him or her.
Who are included in the category of citizens? A monthly CC is provided to all inhabitants of a nation who have received official residence permits.
What does basic income mean? Basic income is distributed without any requirements or duties to be fulfilled by the recipients. The sum of CC paid to an individual each month can be determined in relation to the currency's purchasing power and to the individual's age. The guiding principle should be that the sum provided to each adult should be sufficient to enable basic existence, and that the sum provided for each child should correspond to the additional household expenses it represents.
Why would people want to use their CC rather than regular money? As the sum of CC provided each month would correspond to purchases representing a claim on his or her regular budget, the basic income would liberate a part of each person's regular income and thus amount to substantial purchasing power, albeit restricted only to local purchases. The basic income in CC would reduce a person's dependence on wage labor and the risks currently associated with unemployment. It would encourage social cooperation and a vitalization of community.
Why would businesses want to accept payment in CC? Business entrepreneurs can be expected to respond rapidly to the radically expanded demand for local products and services, which would provide opportunities for a diverse range of local niche markets. Whether they receive all or only a part of their income in the form of CC, they can choose to use some of it to purchase tax-free local labor or other inputs, and to request to have some of it converted by the authorities to regular currency (see next point).
How is conversion of CC into regular currency organized? Entrepreneurs would be granted the right to convert some of their CC into regular currency at exchange rates set by the authorities.The exchange rate between the two currencies can be calibrated so as to compensate the authorities for loss of tax revenue and to balance the in- and outflows of CC to the state. The rate would thus amount to a tool for determining the extent to which the CC is recirculated in the local economy, or returned to the state. This is important in order to avoid inflation in the CC sector.
Would there be interest on sums of CC owned or loaned? There would be no interest accruing on a sum of CC, whether a surplus accumulating in an account or a loan extended.
How would saving and loaning of CC be organized? The formal granting of credit in CC would be managed by state authorities and follow the principle of full reserve banking, so that quantities of CC loaned would never exceed the quantities saved by the population as a whole.
Would the circulation of CC be subjected to taxation? No.
Why would authorities want to encourage tax-free local economies? Given the beneficial social and ecological consequences of this reform, it is assumed that nation states will represent the general interests of their electorates and thus promote it. Particularly in a situation with rising fiscal deficits, unemployment, health care, and social security expenditures, the proposed reform would alleviate financial pressure on governments. It would also reduce the rising costs of transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. In short, the rising costs and diminishing returns on current strategies for economic growth can be expected to encourage politicians to consider proposals such as this, as a means of avoiding escalating debt or even bankruptcy.
How would the state's expenditures in CC be financed? As suggested above, much of these expenditures would be balanced by the reduced costs for social security, health care, transport infrastructure, environmental protection, carbon offsetting, and climate change adaptation. As these savings may take time to materialize, however, states can choose to make a proportion of their social security payments (pensions, unemployment insurance, family allowance, etc.) in the form of CC. As between a third and half of some nations' annual budgets are committed to social security, this represents a significant option for financing the reform, requiring no corresponding tax levies.
What are the differences between this CC and the many experiments with local currencies? This proposal should not be confused with the notion, or with the practical operation, of local currencies, as it does not imply different currencies in different locales but one national,complementary currency for local use. Nor is it locally initiated and promoted in opposition to theregular currency, but centrally endorsed and administrated as an accepted complement to it. Most importantly, the alternative currency can only be used to purchase products and services originating from within a given geographical range, a restriction which is not implemented in experiments with Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS). Finally, the CC is provided as a basic income to all residents of a nation, rather than only earned in proportion to the extent to which a person has made him- or herself useful in the local economy.
What would the ecological benefits be? The reform would radically reduce the demand for long-distance transport, the production of greenhouse gas emissions, consumption of energy and materials, and losses of foodstuffs through overproduction, storage, and transport. It would increase recycling of nutrients and packaging materials, which means decreasing leakage of nutrients and less garbage. It would reduce agricultural intensification, increase biodiversity, and decrease ecological degradation and vulnerability.
What would the societal benefits be? The reform would increase local cooperation, decrease social marginalization and addiction problems, provide more physical exercise, improve psycho-social and physical health, and increase food security and general community resilience. It would decrease the number of traffic accidents, provide fresher and healthier food with less preservatives, and improved contact between producers and consumers.
What would the long-term consequences be for the economy? The reform would no doubt generate radical transformations of the economy, as is precisely the intention. There would be a significant shift of dominance from transnational corporations founded on financial speculation and trade in industrially produced foodstuffs, fuels, and other internationally transported goods to locally diverse producers and services geared to sustainable livelihoods. This would be a democratic consequence of consumer power, rather than of legislation. Through a relatively simple transformation of the conditions for market rationality, governments can encourage new and more sustainable patterns of consumer behavior. In contrast to much of the drastic and often traumatic economic change of the past two centuries, these changes would be democratic and sustainable and would improve local and national resilience.
Why should society want to encourage people to refrain from formal employment? It is increasingly recognized that full or high employment cannot be a goal in itself, particularly if it implies escalating environmental degradation and energy and material throughput. Well-founded calls are thus currently made for degrowth, i.e. a reduction in the rate of production of goods and services that are conventionally quantified by economists as constitutive of GDP. Whether formal unemployment is the result of financial decline, technological development, or intentional policy for sustainability, no modern nation can be expected to leave its citizens economically unsupported. To subsist on basic income is undoubtedly more edifying than receiving unemployment insurance; the CC system encourages useful community cooperation and creative activities rather than destructive behavior that may damage a person's health.
Why should people receive an income without working? As observed above, modern nations will provide for their citizens whether they are formally employed or not. The incentive to find employment should ideally not be propelled only by economic imperatives, but more by the desire to maintain a given identity and to contribute creatively to society. Personal liberty would be enhanced by a reform which makes it possible for people to choose to spend (some of) their time on creative activities that are not remunerated on the formal market, and to accept the tradeoff implied by a somewhat lower economic standard. People can also be expected to devote a greater proportion of their time to community cooperation, earning additional CC, which means that they will contribute more to society – and experience less marginalization – than the currently unemployed.
Would savings in CC be inheritable? No.
How would transport distances of products and services be controlled? It is reasonable to expect the authorities to establish a special agency for monitoring and controlling transport distances. It seems unlikely that entrepreneurs would attempt to cheat the system by presenting distantly produced goods as locally produced, as we can expect income in regular currency generally to be preferable to income in CC. Such attempts would also entail transport costs which should make the cargo less competitive in relation to genuinely local produce, suggesting that the logic of local market mechanisms would by and large obviate the problem.
How would differences in local conditions (such as climate, soils, and urbanism) be dealt with? It is unavoidable that there would be significant variation between different locales in terms of the conditions for producing different kinds of goods. This means that relative local prices in CC for agiven product can be expected to vary from place to place. This may in turn mean that consumption patterns will vary somewhat between locales, which is predictable and not necessarily a problem. Generally speaking, a localization of resource flows can be expected to result in a more diverse pattern of calibration to local resource endowments, as in premodern contexts. The proposed system allows for considerable flexibility in terms of the geographical definition of what is categorized as local, depending on such conditions. In a fertile agricultural region, the radius for local produce may be defined, for instance, as 20 km, whereas in a less fertile or urban area, it may be 50 km. People living in urban centers are faced with a particular challenge. The reform would encourage an increased production of foodstuffs within and in the vicinity of urban areas, which in the long run may also affect urban planning. People might also choose to move to the countryside, where the range of subsistence goods that can be purchased with CC will tend to be greater. In the long run, the reform can be expected to encourage a better fit between the distribution of resources (such as agricultural land) and demography. This is fully in line with the intention of reducing long-distance transports of necessities.
What would the consequences be if people converted resources from one currency sphere into products or services sold in another? It seems unfeasible to monitor and regulate the use of distant imports (such as machinery and fuels) in producing produce for local markets, but as production for local markets is remunerated in CC, this should constitute a disincentive to invest regular money in such production processes. Production for local consumption can thus be expected to rely mostly – and increasingly – on local labor and other resource inputs.
submitted by anthropoz to ExtinctionRebellion [link] [comments]

Senator Eric Brakey (Republican - Maine) position statement on cryptocurrency freedom (he specifically mentions Monero)

I recently spoke with Eric Brakey (R-Maine) and he has provided me with a position statement on the topic of cryptocurrency freedom (specifically mentioning Monero) which I am including further below. Brakey plans "to support legislation to eliminate all taxes on 'like-kind exchange,' stopping the federal government from taxing conversion between cryptocurrencies."
I encourage everyone who values their cryptocurrency freedom to strongly consider donating to Eric Brakey and supporting him. I am confident that if he wins, he will be our champion for cryptocurrency freedom (and many other freedoms) in the United States House of Representatives.
During Eric's Maine State Senate campaign in January 2014, he visited the Bitcoin Center NYC (founded by Nick Spanos) to raise money and became the first candidate in his state to accept campaign donations in bitcoins.
I've written a short bio of him below, and further below, I've included his official statement on cryptocurrency.
---
Eric Brakey (R-Maine) is a libertarian from Maine who is taking Dr. Ron Paul's message of liberty, peace, and prosperity to the next level, and his work is making a real difference. Eric was the Maine State Director for the 2012 Ron Paul presidential campaign. He led Ron Paul supporters to win a majority of Maine delegate seats to the 2012 Republican National Convention and won key seats on the Maine Republican State Committee and National Committee.
After working for Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign, Brakey led Defense of Liberty PAC, a libertarian political action committee in Maine. He also ran and won a seat in the Maine State Senate, serving from 2014-2018.
At the 2016 Republican National Convention, he sponsored amendments to the platform including supporting legislation for "Right To Try" medicines not approved by the FDA for terminally ill patients, auditing the Pentagon, and abolishing the IRS.
During his time in the Maine State Senate, Eric Brakey helped pass a constitutional carry bill which removed Maine's requirement for law abiding citizens to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm. He also helped pass welfare reform legislation to prevent the misuse of welfare funds. He helped pass Right To Try legislation, was the only "no" vote against the crony capitalist Maine Capital Investment Fund, opposed credits and exemptions (corporate welfare), and supported the elimination of Maine's business income tax.
Brakey has also sponsored legislation to repeal restrictions on medical marijuana, and supported the Maine Marijuana Legalization ballot question which ultimately legalized the adult usage, cultivation, and sale of marijuana in Maine. He opposes civil asset forfeiture, and introduced legislation that would require a property owner to be convicted of a crime before the government could forfeit that property. He has also proposed criminal justice reforms including the expungement of certain non-violent criminal records 5 years after completion of the sentence.

Eric Brakey is currently running as a Republican candidate in the U.S. House of Representatives 2020 election for Maine's second district against incumbent Jared Golden (Democrat).
----------
ERIC BRAKEY POSITION STATEMENT ON CRYPTOCURRENCY FREEDOM
----------
I believe in cryptocurrency freedom.

When I ran for State Senate in 2014, I was the first candidate in state history to accept cryptocurrency donations. During my time in the legislature, I sponsored the first ever bill in the nation to study the use of blockchain technology to make elections more secure and transparent.

Today, I am running for Congress and I am committed to cryptocurrency freedom. Whether your coin of choice is Bitcoin, Monero or any other, your freedom to buy and sell in cryptocurrency should be as unrestricted as your ability to buy and sell in federal reserve notes. That's why I intend to support legislation to eliminate all taxes on "like-kind exchange," stopping the federal government from taxing conversion between cryptocurrencies.

If you would like to have a champion for cryptocurrency freedom fighting for you in Congress, then please invest in our campaign. We accept donations in cryptocurrency and federal reserve notes.

Donate Dollars - https://ericbrakey.com/donate/
Donate Crypto - https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/fc316287-e696-4b36-92a3-89a7a4425200

--
Free Maine,
Sen. Eric Brakey
Candidate for Congress (ME-2)
submitted by zhalox to Monero [link] [comments]

USDT to the rescue! Another 40 mln hit the market. Good guy Tether saving Bitfinex and crypto asses once again

submitted by JotReda to Buttcoin [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]

socialist liberal anarcho-monarchism. I once decided to think up a system for socialism that could work, it grew over the years to this, this post might be missing some stuff for brevity's sake.

I had to think up a system of government that could thrive of the idea of liberty, enforce the ideals of socialism, empower the pepole, and realize that democracy and republic can be easily croupted with time.

Due to this I settle on a dyarchy of king and queens. Yet had to settle on repulices for the workforce, guarded by unions of workers, that are entrenched in the 2nd amendment thought.

Then due to military takeovers in yesterday past, I had to think up a military that is split and fractured in parts, so that as a whole it could not act against the state, then remembered how that worked for japan in ww2, witch was badly and had to add a defense mobilization clause. Though due to history I also had to think up a clause stating it could not be used offensively due to military takeovers,

Realizing the pepole need a method of control, I had to think up community sizing, for anything to large pollutes the vote to idiocracy. So community would need to be rebuilt. 100 or so. leaving law and policy to each community, and leaving the diarchy to make sure the whole structure dose not collapse. Yet leaving clauses so that we can chuck them out a window for abuse.

Then a omnistic church, witch holds a branch of law, that leaves thee judge as a priest, and there holey book bing the laws of the land. WItch is the only thing more strong then the darichy. Yet the pepole are stronger still.

Offensive action of the military is reserved to the pepole also, though if attacked it can move on its own to defend the state.Though you would want houses of knights, dedicated to standard of philosophy that would leave them ideologically beholden to the pepole, I say the knights should be radicalized and brainwashed to their duty, why each house of knights must stand to a ideology of the constitution, of freedom. So that in there frenzied idealization of liberty and freedom, of duty to the pepole, as the shield of the nation, of the people's wishes and hopes, that if a person in there ranks, even a commander, they would with zeal strike a mortal blow to their own, if they even thought to abuse the power we gave them. To the point that even if caught, or came to the realization that they neglected duty they would themselve commit seppuku

My ideal would see that the worker dose not earn money but grades to motivate. The food would be distributed by the vote of the community as would there needs, though there would need some safeguards placed there, and you would need these communities to have some form of cross talk.Most wants would be doled out into community centers. and the pepole would need at least 3 days of rest, never mind ample vacation time.

Though I would have the industry and such owned by a republic of industry and labor, controlled by the pepole, atd guarded by armed unions of the working class.

Anyone could join the republic, if they have goods or service they would like to provide, cash would be obsolete, to track goods, and what sells and what dose not.I would use somthing like credit cards, though I would rather have them more akin to bitcoins cuz the idea of someone tracking what you buy is revolting to me.

The republic is controlled by the pepole, and excess given to the monarchy for foreign trade to better strengthen the economy for goods and services not available from the home country. ALso I would motivate the workforce with grades, though I would want them confident like a dr visit would be. I feel such a grading could be abused other whys.

Also labor itself is a commodity one could trade, though I would want that stuck to time limits, with vaires civil liberty contracts attached, so that our pepole are not abused, though such lending of labor would also need to be strictly on a volunteer basis. Reword for such work?

Vacation time of a certain length abroad from the home country. Or extended vaction in the home country. Though I would not want this to be the only way to earn such things. Not very voluntary if your only means to travel abroad is by outsourced labor. Though this is just a example that came to mind.
I would leave foreign trade on to the barter system. Or perhaps gold.

A athourtian government, were most of that power is given to the people, and what is not, is delegated to nobles and kings, so that the higher functions of government do not collapse.

Armed unions so the republic of industry dose not abuse the working class, The army given to the pepole so that they can not be abused by the nobility, fractured so that it can not bite the hand that feeds. knighted in some form, so its head can be controlled. The cast of noble enslaved to the people that they serve, so that we may enrich the whole with our labore. Beholden to no one but ourselves, so that we may be free to use our wealth as we see fit.

Nevermind the arming of the union, and other subsection of the military might, that are given to the pepole, nevermind the whole of the military would be of the pepole.

The two biggest weakness to my idea is food and pepole. Food is the one thing you need to keep labor and pepole happy, with labore you have trade and therefore economy.

This system is authoritarian, but the authority is the pepole, its second weakness is the king, military, church and/or industry could try to take over, but with the power broken amongst them and held by the pepole, it would really only be by there will that they would lose their liberty, arms and power.

My system is designed with failure in mind, with corruption and deceit in consideration. Why the community and cross talk aspect is so important. A community is a portion of voice and will. Shit even the king has no power over the pepole, for we are not there subjects, there our subjects. they are richly lavished and given fancy homes, not because the rule us, but because they govern the government. They talk with foreign power to enrich the state, and therefore us. To bring order to the system.

The window cluse is for those that forget who is inpower. The nobility do not rule the community they sit at, they are ruled by our voice, It is our decree that they carrie when they speak for us.

Edit, if the second have sounds a little redundant and or badley mashed, that is due to the fact I put two posts together.
submitted by ickda to PoliticalPhilosophy [link] [comments]

Serious Question: What is stopping the U.S. Government from shutting down Bitcoin exchanges and banning retailers from accepting Bitcoin?

Wouldn't they be justified in stating that Bitcoin is a threat to the economy? Why are they letting this go on? Why did the guy who started the "Liberty Dollar" get arrested but Bitcoin is still going strong.
submitted by 7RedBlack to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Just a quick reminder why Bitcoin was invented in the first place. This used to be preaching to the choir. But these days I am not so sure.

So, if you find yourself religiously checking some cryptocurrency’s price, or bogged down in discussions about the “one true bitcoin”, or constantly asking what currency to buy, please at least remember that we have bigger fish to fry.
We are here to fix the financial system.
Edit: wow, thanks for the gold!
submitted by hodlgentlemen to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Senator Eric Brakey (Republican - Maine) position statement on cryptocurrency freedom (Bitcoin & Monero mentioned)

I recently spoke with Eric Brakey (R-Maine) and he has provided me with a position statement on the topic of cryptocurrency freedom (specifically mentioning Bitcoin & Monero) which I am including further below. Brakey plans "to support legislation to eliminate all taxes on 'like-kind exchange,' stopping the federal government from taxing conversion between cryptocurrencies."
I encourage everyone who values their cryptocurrency freedom to strongly consider donating to Eric Brakey and supporting him. I am confident that if he wins, he will be our champion for cryptocurrency freedom (and many other freedoms) in the United States House of Representatives.
During Eric's Maine State Senate campaign in January 2014, he visited the Bitcoin Center NYC (founded by Nick Spanos) to raise money and became the first candidate in his state to accept campaign donations in bitcoins.
I've written a short bio of him below, and further below, I've included his official statement on cryptocurrency.
---
Eric Brakey (R-Maine) is a libertarian from Maine who is taking Dr. Ron Paul's message of liberty, peace, and prosperity to the next level, and his work is making a real difference. Eric was the Maine State Director for the 2012 Ron Paul presidential campaign. He led Ron Paul supporters to win a majority of Maine delegate seats to the 2012 Republican National Convention and won key seats on the Maine Republican State Committee and National Committee.
After working for Ron Paul's 2012 presidential campaign, Brakey led Defense of Liberty PAC, a libertarian political action committee in Maine. He also ran and won a seat in the Maine State Senate, serving from 2014-2018.
At the 2016 Republican National Convention, he sponsored amendments to the platform including supporting legislation for "Right To Try" medicines not approved by the FDA for terminally ill patients, auditing the Pentagon, and abolishing the IRS.
During his time in the Maine State Senate, Eric Brakey helped pass a constitutional carry bill which removed Maine's requirement for law abiding citizens to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm. He also helped pass welfare reform legislation to prevent the misuse of welfare funds. He helped pass Right To Try legislation, was the only "no" vote against the crony capitalist Maine Capital Investment Fund, opposed credits and exemptions (corporate welfare), and supported the elimination of Maine's business income tax.
Brakey has also sponsored legislation to repeal restrictions on medical marijuana, and supported the Maine Marijuana Legalization ballot question which ultimately legalized the adult usage, cultivation, and sale of marijuana in Maine. He opposes civil asset forfeiture, and introduced legislation that would require a property owner to be convicted of a crime before the government could forfeit that property. He has also proposed criminal justice reforms including the expungement of certain non-violent criminal records 5 years after completion of the sentence.

Eric Brakey is currently running as a Republican candidate in the U.S. House of Representatives 2020 election for Maine's second district against incumbent Jared Golden (Democrat).
----------
ERIC BRAKEY POSITION STATEMENT ON CRYPTOCURRENCY FREEDOM
----------
I believe in cryptocurrency freedom.

When I ran for State Senate in 2014, I was the first candidate in state history to accept cryptocurrency donations. During my time in the legislature, I sponsored the first ever bill in the nation to study the use of blockchain technology to make elections more secure and transparent.

Today, I am running for Congress and I am committed to cryptocurrency freedom. Whether your coin of choice is Bitcoin, Monero or any other, your freedom to buy and sell in cryptocurrency should be as unrestricted as your ability to buy and sell in federal reserve notes. That's why I intend to support legislation to eliminate all taxes on "like-kind exchange," stopping the federal government from taxing conversion between cryptocurrencies.

If you would like to have a champion for cryptocurrency freedom fighting for you in Congress, then please invest in our campaign. We accept donations in cryptocurrency and federal reserve notes.

Donate Dollars - https://ericbrakey.com/donate/
Donate Crypto - https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/fc316287-e696-4b36-92a3-89a7a4425200

--
Free Maine,
Sen. Eric Brakey
Candidate for Congress (ME-2)
submitted by zhalox to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Future of digital currency

Future of digital currency
"What is the eventual fate of computerized cash?"– This is an inquiry I hear a ton about in the news, among companions, and from key industry figures, as the furore around what is the fate of an advanced money warms up.

With Bitcoin including intensely in the news, particularly because of its expansion in esteem, and the way that China has found a way to boycott it, what does the future hold?

Will the focus on computerized money look for in increment its fame? Will we see it make moves to defeat customary cash on a worldwide scale? Or on the other hand will it crash at consume like numerous different prevailing fashions before it, just to be surrendered to history alongside things like Pokemon Go and the Blackberry?

Let us read on to discover increasingly about the intricate details of advanced money, just as where it could be going in the close, and far future.

What Is a Digital Currency?

First of all, except if you have been living under a stone throughout the previous ten years, the odds are that you have most likely found out about a bit of something many refer to as advanced cash.

An advanced cash/computerized cash/electronic cash/electronic cash is a kind of cash which is non-physical (as in, not spoke to by banknotes and coins) and shows properties that are like genuine coins. It is anyway totally computerized, implying that it exists through lines of code and advanced portrayal and can be exchanged through a PC or an online stage promptly and offers the clients a borderless exchange of proprietorship.

While it is comparative from multiple points of view to conventional kinds of money, in regards to the manner in which it acts and that it tends to be traded for merchandise and ventures, it contrasts in substantially more.

A computerized cash isn't sponsored up by resources, for example, gold stores or comparable. Similarly, it isn't directed or managed by any administration authority or bank. In this manner, its worth and the manner in which it capacities are totally constrained by the open space, and additionally its maker, implying that its prosperity and worth are completely out of the grasps of a brought together position.

This makes it an attractive possibility for some, who hope to make buys and speculations without being helpless before a bank. People can make mysterious exchanges and keep their accounts really classified.

https://preview.redd.it/czc0o13v7ej41.jpg?width=628&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c774fca7e609caa9ac6aaa8d980204cb59723669
How Did Digital Currency Start?

Advanced cash was a thought that was around in principle for a serious long time, however it wasn't until 1983 that a man called David Chaum distributed an examination paper which presented the idea of computerized cash. By 1990, he had established DigiCash in Amsterdam which was an electronic installment organization, and it planned to popularize the thoughts in his examination.

Following this, in 1997, Coca-Cola offered clients the alternative to purchase from candy machines utilizing their cell phones, and by 1998, PayPal had hit the market. Different names were rising at the time, for example, e-Gold and Liberty Reserve which making the most of a lot of contention, however by 2008, Bitcoin had been conceived.

Many accept that the presentation of Bitcoin was the genuine birth of the advanced money, and its continuous accomplishment right up 'til the present time is commensurate to that.

The issue with computerized monetary standards, for example, Liberty Reserve and e-Gold was that they were frequently utilized for tax evasion, and all things considered, they were immediately closed somewhere around the US Government. At that point in China, the utilization of a computerized money called Q Coins, was mainstream to the point that it was said to have a destabilizing impact on the Yuan-something that could assist with clarifying China's ongoing crackdown on Bitcoin exchanging the nation.

Since its unassuming beginnings, its advancement has moved at a fast pace. These days, we have a wide choice of monetary forms to browse including PayPal, eCash, WebMoney, Payoneer, CashU, and Ven. Buyers can likewise browse advanced wallets that are put away on their mobiles that can encourage contactless installment.

The idea of computerized cash has additionally advanced into decentralized frameworks, for example, digital currencies. A digital money is an advanced token which requires cryptography for encouraging the two its mining, and its exchanges through shared systems.

Cryptographic forms of money permit electronic and computerized cash frameworks to be totally decentralized, and in this way under the authority of positively nobody. Instances of such monetary forms incorporate; Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ripple, Dogecoin, Monero, Zcash, IOTA and Ethereum.
submitted by Bitcoin12investment to u/Bitcoin12investment [link] [comments]

Another reason why decentralized e-currency is necessary: Liberty Reserve SHUT DOWN as part of Money-Laundering Operation!

Another reason why decentralized e-currency is necessary: Liberty Reserve SHUT DOWN as part of Money-Laundering Operation! submitted by SpawnedGrouper to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

A reminder on why cryptocurrency was invented in the first place.

I've taken this from a post I've saved a while ago and I usually come back to it to remind myself on the significance of cryptocurrency and why it's here to stay. I would post the link but for some reason it wouldn't let me.

So, if you find yourself religiously checking some cryptocurrency’s price, or bogged down in discussions about the “one true bitcoin”, or constantly asking what currency to buy, please at least remember that we have bigger fish to fry.
We are here to fix the financial system.
submitted by TotallyAsenine to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Just a quick reminder why Bitcoin was invented in the first place. This used to be preaching to the choir. But these days I am not so sure.

So, if you find yourself religiously checking some cryptocurrency’s price, or bogged down in discussions about the “one true bitcoin”, or constantly asking what currency to buy, please at least remember that we have bigger fish to fry.
We are here to fix the financial system.
Edit: thanks for the gold!
submitted by hodlgentlemen to btc [link] [comments]

Since most people seem to have already forgot again what bitcoin was invented for, here is a copy of u/hodlgentlemen's post back then

So, if you find yourself religiously checking some cryptocurrency’s price, or bogged down in discussions about the “one true bitcoin”, or constantly asking what currency to buy, please at least remember that we have bigger fish to fry.
We are here to fix the financial system.
Edit: Fixed the whitepaper date, please don't forget that this post originally is due to the courtesy of u/hodlgentlemen and thanks for the gold but I don't feel like I deserve it. Maybe we can keep this list of bullet points aa an open source project and the mods could create a new post for it and sticky it.
submitted by Vinator to btc [link] [comments]

Liberty Reserve's closure is positive for Bitcoin

It looks like Liberty Reserve is history now. I was surprised to find the sentiment here was largely pessimistic in this regard. Sure, Liberty Reserve was a relatively important way to move fiat into Bitcoin exchanges such as Mt. Gox, but this is a myopic view.
Liberty Reserve's closure could accelerate adoption of Bitcoin, because LR and Bitcoin have been competing for the same users. LR disappearing is natural selection - centralized virtual currencies have limited lifespans, always.
I'm very sorry for everyone who have lost access to the money they had in LR, but they are now left scratching their heads wondering what to move to. There is really only one realistic answer - Bitcoin. This is a temporary pain which will leave us all stronger.
It's always futile to try to assign reasons to price moves in the Bitcoin world, but I'm going to observe that Bitcoin has shot up quite a bit since LR closed. It's tempting to think it's related.
I'm definitely bull on Bitcoin.
submitted by xrandr to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What will happen to Telegram if America does not recognize GRAM as a cryptocurrency?

States around the world are in no hurry to legislatively regulate cryptocurrency, so far its place in the legal field on a par with non-state currencies. You can pay with cryptocurrency and buy goods, but what is important, its transfer is free and unlimited.
In history, there were cases of creating private currencies, but they were never recognized as legal and soon banned.
"Colony"
One resident of the village of Kolionovo near Moscow, Mikhail Shlyapnikov, started printing his own currency, calling it "kolion" and setting a fixed rate - 1 kolion is equal to 50 Russian rubles. At the same time, the Issuer of this "money" claimed that the colions were his personal ious.
The entrepreneur came up with these banknotes when he realized that it was difficult to get a loan on favorable terms. Soon the farmer and his customers began to share with each other the colony. However, prosecutors considered a substitute for money illegal. Economists point out that in the history of humanity has repeatedly resorted to a system of credit.
"The state did not help us in any way, getting a loan was a problem. Then we came up with colions-initially as a fun game, which then turned into a financial instrument that allowed us to resolve a number of issues. Thanks to these receipts, we did not have to take commercial loans. We actually created our own system of" long "loans with a negative ruble rate," Shlyapnikov said.
"Free dollars"
Bernard von Nothaus-the man who created the so-called "freedom Dollars", which he conceived were to replace the us dollar. Little is known about him (Bernard von NotHaus). Even in the ubiquitous Wikipedia, it is only mentioned in connection with the creation of "free dollars". According to the resource, he is also known as the founder of the Free Marijuana Church of Honolulu.
In 2005, U.S. authorities began investigating von Nothaus ' financial activities. In 2006, the U.S. Mint issued a press release warning that "free dollars" are not legal currency.
Bernard von Nothaus went on trial for creating the "National organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Code, NORFED". In 1998, NORFED was renamed Liberty Services.
Liberty Services was engaged in the production and distribution of currency called "free dollar" (Liberty Dollar). "Free dollars" were minted in silver, gold, platinum and copper, and in design (designed again by von Nothaus) resembled official dollars. Thus, they depicted the dollar sign ( $ ), and were written the words - "dollar", the United States and the phrase Trust in God (instead Of in God We Trust).(Unfortunately we couldn't find an image of "Free dollar" on the Internet)
In addition," free dollars " were issued in paper form - in the form of special certificates for gold and silver, which could be exchanged for precious metals in a special warehouse. "Free dollars" were distributed until July 2009.
In July 2009, von Nothaus was arrested, and then formal charges were filed against him. And in March 2011, a North Carolina state court found von Nothaus guilty on two counts. No "exciting" trial occurred: the hearing lasted eight days, and the jury took only two hours to reach a verdict.
Cryptocurrency GRAM
Cryptocurrency Gram from the Creator of the social network Vkontakte and messenger Telegram was the most discussed project of 2018, not only in the digital cash market, but in the world in General. Such excitement among investors, traders, miners and just crypto enthusiasts has not been for a long time.
HYIP around the new cryptocurrency Durov lasts for a year, and news about the launch of TON Telegram-a blockchain on which the new coin will work-are waiting for millions of users from all six continents. Crypt is actively discussed on forums, and the request “where to buy Gram?” is one of the most popular in search engines.
Why telegram has its own cryptocurrency? In 2010, at the very beginning of the era of digital money, Durov already made an attempt to launch a cryptocurrency in the social network Vkontakte. 9 years ago, this initiative did not cause any interest or trust among users, and the launch did not take place. Since then, the attitude to cryptocurrency has changed dramatically. The news of Durov's creation of his cryptocurrency immediately caused a furore. Investors immediately began to consider Gram as a promising source for investments. The coin is launched not by someone there, but by Durov himself, whose previous projects inspire confidence in the success of the new one.
There are opinions that Durov's decision to create TON is connected with the desire to monetize the messenger and gain independence from major advertisers, governments, foundations, etc. Own cryptocurrency will expand Telegram's capabilities and make it even safer.
A direct competitor of Ethereum, capable of creating serious problems even for Bitcoin — Gram from the very beginning is considered as a dangerous rival for the leading representatives of the crypto community. Durov announced the monetization of Telegram, which means that users of the messenger will easily be able to use the built-in TON system and use the new currency for internal calculations and not only.
The United States is afraid of cryptocurrency GRAM?
Why was the US against telegram cryptocurrency and temporarily banned their sale? Us law holds that any issued token that is sold in the US automatically falls under the SEC's control. In fact, the American authorities consider the cryptocurrency, which is issued by various companies, securities.
It is known that buyers during the initial coin offering paid $0.37 per token, and the second round - $1.33 per coin. At a time, investors should invest at least $10 million in the platform. At the same time, during the mass launch of the sale of Gram, the coin should have cost $3.65, but now on the black market, Gram tokens are sold from $5 per piece — the profitability for one coin compared to the first round increased 15 times.
On this basis, the SEC concluded that Gram is a security, not a currency. For such activities, the company needs to disclose information about its work and investors who invest in the project.
The SEC filed a lawsuit against Telegram Inc. and Ton Issuer Inc. and achieved the imposition of an injunction on the distribution of Gram tokens among investors who participated in the presale. 1.7 billion dollars were collected by the project, and the distribution of tokens was planned just now. The decision of the American authorities was extremely brutal and treacherous. Although it is explained by the " care of investors." And the distribution of Gram tokens violates American laws, because, as stated in the lawsuit, it:
- Sale of tokens to us investors without prior registration of their offer, as required by US securities legislation.
The court decision obliges Telegram to register its cryptocurrency as a security or return the money to American investors in case of refusal. The documents of the regulator indicate that among the $ 1.7 billion raised in 2018 for the launch of the blockchain platform, at least $425 million falls on American investors who bought at least 1 billion Gram tokens. At the same time, the number of American investors may be much higher, since many ICO participants keep in the shadows.
submitted by falshami to u/falshami [link] [comments]

Bitcoin is the Napster of Crypto Currencies

It has pioneered Crypto Currencies into the mainstream. But will be replaced by niche Coins catering to specific markets and needs.
If the Illegal Market switch to another coin (DarkCoin or the Altcoin), because they think it has too much attention, too much exposure, it'll bring the prices down to <$25.
Like iTunes the Legal Market will eventually be replaced by a corporate currencies like AmazonCoin, GoogleCoin, WellsFargoCoin, AppleCoin etc
Can't wait (and I'm sure plenty of people) for Winkleloss guys to launch a Bitcoin ETF so that I can buy a put option till it reaches it's $50.
Bitcoin has an artificial inflated price because of lack of shorting options.
Long; Virtual Currencies Short: BitCoin
This is once in a lifetime arbitrage opportunity in the Virtual Currency.
[Downvote away -- I only made this post for archival purpose, so that I can make a case study of emotional investing]
submitted by qroshan to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The banking system is a scam. Their own worlds tell the story.

I think most people who think bitcoin is a scam don't understand how the current banking system works.
Here's a list of quotes from Presidents, politicians, and bankers talking about how the Federal Reserve, and Fiat currency are a complete scam.
"All of the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arises, not from the defects of the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation" — John Adams
“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.” — Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England (appointed 1928). Reputed to be the 2nd wealthiest man in England at that time.
"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863 “The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole… Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world’s money…” — Prof. Carroll Quigley renowned, late Georgetown macro-historian, author of Tragedy and Hope.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
“Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit; and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again… If you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.” — Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940
"Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." — James A. Garfield, assassinated President of the United States
“In the United States today, we have two governments. We have the duly constituted government and then we have and independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System operating the money powers which are reserved for Congress by the Constitution.” — Rep. Wright Patman, 1893-1976
"In November of 1910, some of these vultures came together at the Jekyl Island Hunt Club on Jekyl Island, Georgia. What were they hunting? The biggest prize of all, the absolute and complete control of all the money in America which means control of all America and with it the power to make slaves of all the people.Those who attended were: Senator Nelson Aldrich (Nelson Rockefeller's maternal grandfather); A. Piatt Andrew, Economist and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Frank Vanderlip, President of the National City Bank of New York; Henry P. Norton, President of Morgan's First National Bank of New York; Paul Moritz Warburg, a German who was partner in the New York banking house of Kuhn, Loeb Co.; Benjamin Strong, an aid to J. P. Morgan. Paul Warburg was credited as the architect of the bill which was passed by Congress and signed by traitorous Woodrow Wilson. It was entitled the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. America once again had a central bank but this time they had placed America under an absolute dictatorship… The Federal Reserve was incorporated in 1914 and has been creating a completely unnecessary national debt ever since." — Dr. Ken Matto Former Congressional Candidate, 6th District N.J. (www.scionofzion.com...)
"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money" — Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson, The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill (1809)
“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.” — President Franklin Roosevelt, Nov. 21 1933
“You are a den of vipers! I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.” — President Andrew Jackson: 1829-1837 “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” — President Woodrow Wilson, 1916
"We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon." — Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, wrote in 1934 "The invisible Money Power is working to control and enslave mankind. It financed Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Zionism, Socialism. All of these are directed to making the United States a member of a World Government ..." — American Mercury Magazine, December 1957, pg. 92
"I believe that if the people of this nation fully understood what Congress has done to them over the last 49 years, they would move on Washington; they would not wait for an election....It adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States!" — George W. Malone, U.S. Senator (Nevada), speaking before Congress in1957.
"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power--Political, Monetary, Intellectual, and Ecclesiastical." — U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater from his 1964 book "No Apologies"
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” — David Rockefeller, memoirs, 2003
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5i0ien5Zfk
submitted by hylozics to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

MeWe: A trip report

Among the more frequently mentioned G+ alternatives at the Google+ Mass Migration community, and others, is MeWe with over 250 mentions. The site bills itself as "The Next-Gen Social Network" and the "anti-Facebook": "No Ads, No Political Bias, No Spyware. NO BS. It is headed by professed Libertarian CEO Mark Weinstein.
As the site reveals no public user-generated content to non-members, it's necessary to create an account in order to get a full impression. I thought I'd provide an overview based on recent explorations.
This report leads of with background on the company, though readers may find the report and analysis of specific groups on the site of interest.

Leadership

Founder & CEO Mark Weinstein.
Co-Founder & Chief Scientist, Jonathan Wolfe (no longer with company).
Weinstein previously founded SuperFamily and SuperFriends, "at the turn of the millennium". Weinstein's MeWe biography lists articles published by The Mirror (UK), Huffington Post, USA Today, InfoSecurity Magazine, Dark Reading, and the Nation. His media appearances include MarketWatch, PBS, Fox News, and CNN. He's also the author of several personal-success books.
His Crunchbase bio is a repeat of the MeWe content.

Advisory Board

Ownership & Investment

MeWe is the dba of Sgrouples, a private for-profit early-stage venture company based in Los Angeles, though with a Mountain View HQ and mailing address, 11-50 employees, with $10m in funding over five rounds, and a $20m valuation as of 2016.
Sgrouples, Inc., dba MeWe Trust & Safety - Legal Policy c/o Fenwick West 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041
Crunchbase Profile.
Founded: 2012 (source)
Secured $1.2M in seed funding in 2014.
2016 valuation: $20m (source]
Backers:
Despite the business address, the company claims to be based in Los Angeles County, California and is described by the Los Angeles Business Journal as a Culver City, CA, company.

Business

Policy

In an August 6, 2018 Twitter post, Weinstein promotes MeWe writing:
Do you have friends still on Facebook? Share this link with them about Facebook wanting their banking information - tell them to move to MeWe now! No Ads. No Spyware. No Political Agenda. No Bias Algorithms. No Shadow Banning. No Facial Recognition.
MeWe provide several policy-related links on the site:
Highlights of these follow.

Privacy

The privacy policy addresses:

Terms of Service

The ToS addresses:
Effective: November 6, 2018.

FAQ

The FAQ addresses:

Values

This emphasises that people are social cratures and private people by right. The service offers the power of self expression under an umbrella of safety. It notes that our innermost thoughts require privacy.
Under "We aspire...":
MeWe is here to empower and enrich your world. We challenge the status quo by making privacy, respect, and safety the foundations of an innovatively designed, easy-to-use social experience.
Totalling 182 words.

Privacy Bill of Rights

A ten-item statement of principles (possibly inspired by another document, it might appear):
  1. You own your personal information & content. It is explicitly not ours.
  2. You will never receive a targeted advertisement or 3rd party content based on what you do or say online. We think that's creepy.
  3. You see every post in timeline order from your friends, family & groups. We do not manipulate, filter, or change the order of your content or what you see.
  4. Permissions & privacy are your rights. You control them.
  5. You control who can access your content.
  6. You control what, if anything, others can see in member searches.
  7. Your privacy means we do not share your personal information with anyone.
  8. Your emojis are for you and your friends. We do not monitor or mine your data.
  9. Your face is your business. We do not use facial recognition technology.
  10. You have the right to delete your account and take your content with you at any time.

Press

There are a few mentions of MeWe in the press, some listed on the company's website, others via web search.

Self-reported articles

The following articles are linked directly from MeWe's Press page:
The page also lists a "Privacy Revolution Required Reading" list of 20 articles all addressing Facebook privacy gaffes in the mainstream press (Wired, TechCrunch, Fortune, Gizmodo, The Guardian, etc.).
There are further self-reported mentions in several of the company's PR releases over the years.

Other mentions

A DuckDuckGo search produces several other press mentions, including:

Technology

This section is a basic rundown of the user-visible site technology.

Mobile Web

The site is not natively accessible from a mobile Web browser as it is overlayed with a promotion for the mobile application instead. Selecting "Desktop View" in most mobile browsers should allow browser-based access.

Mobile App

There are both Android and iOS apps for MeWe. I've used neither of these, though the App store entries note:
Crunchbase cites 209,220 mobile downloads over the past 30 days (via Apptopia), an 80.78% monthly growth rate, from Google Play.

Desktop Web

Either selecting "View Desktop" or navigating with a Desktop browser to https://www.mewe.com your are presented with a registration screen, with the "About", "Privacy Bill of Rights", "MeWe Challenge", and a language selector across the top of the page. Information requested are first and last name, phone or email, and a password. Pseudonymous identities are permitted, though this isn't noted on the login screen. Returning members can use the "Member Log In" button.
The uMatrix Firefox extension reveals no third-party content: all page elements are served from mewe.com, img.mewe.com, cdn.mewe.com, or ws.mewe.com. (In subsequent browsing, you may find third-party plugins from, for example, YouTube, for videos, or Giphy, for animated GIFs.)
The web front-end is nginx. The site uses SSL v3, issued by DigiCert Inc. to Sgrouples, Inc.

Onboarding

The onboarding experience is stark. There is no default content presented. A set of unidentified icons spans the top of the screen, these turn out to be Home, Chats, Groups, Pages, and Events. New users have to, somehow, find groups or people to connect with, and there's little guidance as to how to do this.

Interface

Generally there is a three panel view, with left- and right-hand sidebars of largely navigational or status information, and a central panel with main content. There are also pop-up elements for chats, an omnipresent feature of the site.
Controls display labels on some devices and/or resolutions. Controls do not provide tooltips for navigational aid.

Features

Among the touted features of MeWe are:

Community

A key aspect of any social network is its community. Some of the available or ascertained information on this follows.

Size

Weinstein claims a "million+ following inside MeWe.com" on Twitter.
The largest visible groups appear to have a maximum of around 15,000 members , for "Awesome gifs". "Clean Comedy" rates 13,350, and the largest open political groups, 11,000+ members.
This compares to Google+ which has a staggering, though Android-registrations-inflated 3.3 billion profiles, and 7.9 million communities, though the largest of these come in at under 10 million members. It's likely that MeWe's membership is on the whole more more active than Google+'s, where generally-visible posting activity was limited to just over 9% of all profiles, and the active user base was well under 1% of the total nominal population.

Active Users

MeWe do not publish active users (e.g., MUA / monthly active users) statistics.

Groups

MeWe is principally a group-oriented discussion site -- interactions take place either between individuals or within group contexts. Virtually all discovery is group-oriented. The selection and dynamics of groups on the site will likely strongly affect user experience, so exploring the available groups and their characteristics is of interest.
"MeWe has over 60,000 open groups" according to its FAQ.
The Open groups -- visible to any registered MeWe user, though not to the general public Web -- are browsable, though sections and topics must be expanded to view the contents: an overview isn't immediately accessible. We provide a taste here.
A selection of ten featured topics spans the top of the browser. As I view these, they are:
Specific groups may appear in multiple categories.
The top Groups within these topics have, variously, 15,482, 7,738, 15,482 (dupe), 7,745, 8,223, 8,220, 1,713, 9,527, 2,716, and 1,516 members. Listings scroll at length -- the Music topic has 234 Groups, ranging in size from 5 to 5,738 members, with a median of 59, mean of 311.4, and a 90%ile of 743.5.
Below this is a grid of topics, 122 in all, ranging from Activism to Wellness, and including among them. A selected sample of these topics, with top groups listed members in (parens), follows:
To be clear: whilst I've not included every topic, I've sampled a majority of them above, and listed not an arbitrary selection, but the top few Groups under each topic.

Google+ Groups

The Google Plus expats group seems the most active of these by far.

Political Groups

It's curious that MeWe make a specific point in their FAQ that:
At MeWe we have absolutely no political agenda and we have a very straightforward Terms of Service. MeWe is for all law-abiding people everywhere in the world, regardless of political, ethnic, religious, sexual, and other preferences.
There are 403 political groups on MeWe. I won't list them all here, but the first 100 or so give a pretty clear idea of flavour. Again, membership is in (parentheses). Note that half the total political Groups memberships are in the first 21 groups listed here, the first 6 are 25% of the total.
  1. Donald J. Trump 2016 - Present (11486)
  2. The Conservative's Hangout (8345)
  3. Qanon Follow The White Rabbit (5600)
  4. Drain The Swamp (4978)
  5. Libertarians (4528)
  6. United We Stand Trump2020 (4216)
  7. The Right To Self Defense (3757)
  8. Alternative Media (3711)
  9. Hardcore Conservative Patriots for Trump (3192)
  10. Bastket Of Deplorables4Trump! (3032)
  11. Return of the Republic (2509)
  12. Infowars Chat Room Unofficial (2159)
  13. Donald Trump Our President 2017-2025 (2033)
  14. Berners for Progress (1963)
  15. Sean Hannity Fans (1901)
  16. The American Conservative (1839)
  17. I Am The NRA (1704)
  18. Tucker Carlson Fox News (1645)
  19. We Love Donald Trump (1611)
  20. MAGA - Make America Great Again (1512)
  21. Q (1396)
  22. ClashDaily.com (1384)
  23. news from the front (1337)
  24. Basket of Deplorables (1317)
  25. Payton's Park Bench (1283)
  26. Convention of States (1282)
  27. Britons For Brexit (1186)
  28. MoJo 5.0 Radio (1180)
  29. MeWe Free Press (1119)
  30. The Constitutionally Elite (1110)
  31. Libertarian (1097)
  32. WOMEN FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP (1032)
  33. AMERICANS AGAINST ISIS and OTHER ENEMIES (943)
  34. #WalkAway Campaign (894)
  35. ALEX JONES (877)
  36. The Lion Is Awake ! (854)
  37. We Support Donald Trump! (810)
  38. The Stratosphere Lounge (789)
  39. TRUMP-USA-HANDS OFF OUR PRESIDENT (767)
  40. Official Tea Party USA (749)
  41. Mojo50 Jackholes (739)
  42. Yes Scotland (697)
  43. "WE THE DEPLORABLE" - MOVE ON SNOWFLAKE! (688)
  44. Judge Jeanine Pirro Fans (671)
  45. Anarcho-Capitalism (658)
  46. Ted Cruz for President (650)
  47. No Lapdog Media (647)
  48. Q Chatter (647)
  49. Daily Brexit (636)
  50. Tucker Carlson Fox News (601)
  51. The Trumps Storm Group (600)
  52. QAnon-Patriots WWG1WGA (598)
  53. 100% American (569)
  54. Ladies For Donald Trump (566)
  55. Deep State (560)
  56. In the Name of Liberty (557)
  57. Material Planet (555)
  58. WikiUnderground (555)
  59. Trump NRA Free Speech Patriots on MeWe Gab.ai etc (546)
  60. Magna Carta Group (520)
  61. Constitutional Conservatives (506)
  62. Question Everything (503)
  63. Conspiracy Research (500)
  64. Bill O'Reilly Fans (481)
  65. Conservative Misfit's (479)
  66. Canadian politics (478)
  67. Anarchism (464)
  68. HARDCORE DEPLORABLES (454)
  69. Deplorable (450)
  70. Tampa Bay Trump Club (445)
  71. UK Politics (430)
  72. Bongino Fan Page (429)
  73. Radical Conservatives (429)
  74. RESIST THE RESISTANCE (419)
  75. The Deplorables (409)
  76. America's Freedom Fighters (401)
  77. Politically Incorrect & Proud (399)
  78. CONSERVATIVES FOR AMERICA ! (385)
  79. Political satire (383)
  80. RISE OF THE RIGHT (371)
  81. UK Sovereignty,Independence,Democracy -Everlasting (366)
  82. The Patriots Voting Coalition (359)
  83. End The Insanity (349)
  84. Coming American Civil War! (345)
  85. Constitutional Conservatives (343)
  86. United Nations Watch (342)
  87. A Revival Of The Critical Thinking Union (337)
  88. The New Libertarian (335)
  89. Libertarian Party (official ) (333)
  90. DDS United (Duterte Die-hard Supporters) (332)
  91. American Conservative Veterans (331)
  92. Anarchism/Agorism/Voluntaryism (328)
  93. America Needs Donald Trump (326)
  94. The UKIP Debating Society (321)
  95. Coalition For Trump (310)
  96. Egalitarianism (306)
  97. FRIENDS THAT LIKE JILL STEIN AND THE GREEN PARTY (292)
  98. 2nd Amendment (287)
  99. Never Forget #SethRich (286)
  100. Green Party Supporters 2020 (283)
It seems there is relatively little representation from the left wing, or even the centre, of the political spectrum. A case-insensitive match for "liberal" turns up:
Mainstream political parties are little represented, though again, the balance seems skewed searching on "(democrat|republic|gop)":
The terms "left" and "right" provide a few matches, not all strictly political-axis aligned:
Socialism and Communism also warrant a few mentions:
And there are some references to green, laboulabor parties:

Conclusion

Whilst there may not be a political agenda, there does appear to be at least a slight political bias to the site. And a distinctive skew on many other topical subjects.
Those seeking new homes online may wish to take this into account.

Updates

submitted by dredmorbius to plexodus [link] [comments]

Buy Bitcoin With LibertyX how to exchange cashu to liberty reserve paypal bitcoin skrill webmoney western union oneygram LibertyX on Genmega ATM Walkthrough Video Getting My Buy Bitcoin From a Retailer – LibertyX Support ... Buy bitcoin instantly in Edge wallet via LibertyX

Buy Bitcoin, Ethereum & other coins. Fast registration, Lower Fees, Insurance & OTC service. Buy/Sell OTC Products Adviser Program; Affiliate Program ; API; AutoTrader; OTC; Premium Accounts with Insurance; SMSF; 24/7 Support; Tax Estimator; Wallet; Markets Bitcoin (BTC) Ethereum (ETH) Ripple (XRP) Chainlink (LINK) Tether USD (USDT) USD Coin (USDC) Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Bitcoin SV (BSV) Litecoin ... So no, Bitcoin and Liberty Reserve do not have similar features. Money can be used for any purpose the holder of the money wants to use it for. A dollar can be used to buy drugs or to feed starving children. Bitcoin works the same way. level 2. NervousNorbert. 2 points · 3 years ago. Given that, I think a more interesting question is: in the wake of Liberty Reserve's demise, why hasn't ... Can Liberty Reserve’s case be a red alert for Bitcoin? By Maria Santos Last updated on January 2, 2018 at 00:00 No Comments As you already know, the exchange platform Liberty Reserve was recently shut down by the USA federal authorities due to alleged criminal transactions and money laundering (we talked about it here ). Liberty Reserve, a Costa Rica-based private currency exchange with its own digital currency, has shut down and its founder charged with money laundering. How To Buy Bitcoin. LibertyX is the most convenient way to purchase bitcoin. We launched America's first bitcoin ATM in 2014 and have been growing ever since. Today we have thousands of local stores where you can walk-up and purchase bitcoin instantly. Our network includes local store cashiers, standalone debit kiosks, and traditional ATMs. These stores accept a variety of payment methods ...

[index] [16510] [26308] [51035] [40488] [5434] [34762] [5713] [18719] [30705] [41650]

Buy Bitcoin With LibertyX

How To Buy Bitcoin Instantly with Liberty X App - Duration: 4:20. Austin Nelson 4,672 views. 4:20. LibertyX: How to buy bitcoin instantly at a store near you - Duration: 8:46. ... Actual video footage of a customer purchasing bitcoin at his neighborhood traditional ATM. LibertyX was enabled on this ATM so customers can buy bitcoin usin... https://rebrand.ly/rawealthpartners6 Join Now Getting My Buy Bitcoin From a Retailer – LibertyX Support Center To Work, how to buy bitcoin What Is Regal Asse... liberty reserve, paypal, skrill, bitcoin, webmoney, western union and moneygram Hope this information will help you. Bye. Category Music; Show more Show less. Loading... Autoplay When autoplay is ... Buying Bitcoin Instantly with Cash using the Liberty X App Want to grow your Bitcoin by automated trading 1% a day: USI TECH:https://livingamovie.usi-tech.in...

#