Is anyone else starting to become a bit excited?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Answer was provided above, Dohnjoe.

Anything I've found on derivatives and crypto based is super vague and speculative. And at the end of the day it's basically the same concept, lending out more than you have.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Anything I've found on derivatives and crypto based is super vague and speculative. And at the end of the day it's basically the same concept, lending out more than you have.

As above. It's not something that was proposed with Bitcoin/crypto. However, regrettably we can't depend on everyone storing their own coins. As above ^^ - solutions are being considered.

JohnnyFlash

https://www.wsj.com/articles/large-bitcoin-player-manipulated-price-sharply-higher-study-says-11572863400?mod=hp_lead_pos4

A paper about to be published in the Journal of Finance suggesting that the bubble in late 2017 was largely caused by Tether and a mysterious trader on Bitfinex. Tether created out of thin air to buy bitcoin, canny crypto investors rush in with real money because of FOMO, bitcoin and alt coins bought with tether are sold to them for real money, real money is cashed out.

Nothing that people like myself and Pintman weren’t suggesting at the time. Most of the twitter accounts closely associated with Bitfinex are not happy with this report.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

https://www.wsj.com/articles/large-bitcoin-player-manipulated-price-sharply-higher-study-says-11572863400?mod=hp_lead_pos4

A paper about to be published in the Journal of Finance suggesting that the bubble in late 2017 was largely caused by Tether and a mysterious trader on Bitfinex. Tether created out of thin air to buy bitcoin, canny crypto investors rush in with real money because of FOMO, bitcoin and alt coins bought with tether are sold to them for real money, real money is cashed out.

Nothing that people like myself and Pintman weren’t suggesting at the time. Most of the twitter accounts closely associated with Bitfinex are not happy with this report.

It was largely caused by irrational exuberance.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ok, but again, I only see this happening where the motivation provided is that FIAT has failed citizens.

As I have explained, failing to serve the selfish interest of a sizeable and well organised minority could be enough to trigger the successive waves.

If this is what you are calling fiat failing citizens, yes we agree.

And again, I am in no way saying fiat is perfect or well managed - just that there is a real possibility of a minority being able to trigger a chain of event s which would eventually lead to its downfall (without a conscious choice from the majority saying “fiat has failed us, we want to replace it by decentralised digital very hard money”, nor necessarily a clear understanding or the long term implications).

Bob24 wrote: »

As I have explained, failing to serve the selfish interest of a sizeable and well organised minority could be enough to trigger the successive waves.

Speculation is a side show. Are you suggesting that everyone is going to move over to crypto just to speculate? The extent of the 'selfishness' is contained within speculation. Unless you think its selfish to protect your life savings (in the event of a bank stealing it (where the bank fails and there is no state or industry protection) or a government stealing it (Cyprus) ...or a government mismanaging an economy and FIAT currency such that your wealth is about to vapourise.

Lets be clear. Those engaged in investment/speculation - are more likely to be 'selfish' - but there is nothing wrong either in principal with trying to turn a profit. Those people take savage risk - so they're entitled to such gains. That activity can get frothy and over exhuberent, yes. But for many its a regular activity that implicates self interest rather than selfishness.

The other examples above - couldn't be classified as 'selfishness' but they could be classified as self interest. I have no issue with that - and can't see how anyone could.

Bob24 wrote: »

If this is what you are calling fiat failing citizens, yes we agree.

It's definitely not. What I call FIAT failing is a government and its central bank mismanaging the economy and the FIAT currency that goes with it.

Bob24 wrote: »

And again, I am in no way saying fiat is perfect or well managed

Yeah, I wouldn't suggest for a second that you should because time and time again, we have seen that it's NOT perfect and oftentimes, it is NOT well managed - time after time, year after year.

Bob24 wrote: »

just that there is a real possibility of a minority being able to trigger a chain of event s which would eventually lead to its downfall

You have got this backwards. We have an existing system. People will need an extremely good reason to abandon that completely for crypto. That reason lies with FIAT - and not crypto.

Se my previous posts and the welfare state exemple I gave - pretty clear what kind of potentially undesired chain reaction I have in mind and that in that context by selfish interest I don’t mean speculation.

Bob24 wrote: »

Se my previous posts and the welfare state exemple I gave - pretty clear what kind of potentially undesired chain reaction I have in mind and that in that context by selfish interest I don’t mean speculation.

Ok, but your welfare state analogy doesn't fit in this instance.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Speculation is a side show.

In crypto that is overwhelmingly the main show right now

q85dw7osi4lebg

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In crypto that is overwhelmingly the main show right now

Says who? Just Dohnjoe it appears.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ok, but your welfare state analogy doesn't fit in this instance.

Yes it does.

You could have a similar chain of events whereby a small group of people decides to largely opt-out of national currencies (for reasons which are valid from their own perspective). Then because that small group has left, it would weaken national currencies for another wave of people, and so one as per the mechanism I had described.

There could be others, but one reason I see which could trigger the initial wave is a refusal of the fact that in practice national currencies are used as a way to tax depositors to boost economic activity. From an individual depositor’s selfish perspective it is not good and one might want to opt-out, but if the depositor’s income also depends on economic activity it might be worth accepting that hidden tax as long as everybody also accepts it. In short, within reason John Doe accepts inflation and currency devaluation (causing him a loss of savings) because the counterpart is that it is boosting government spendings and economic activity and thus employment and salaries (increasing his income). Since that system essentially transfers wealth from depositors to workers and public service users, the more he relies on savings vs labour income and government spendings, the more likely he is to feel the system is not working for him (the typical exemple in Europe of someone who feels it is not benefiting them is a German pensioner). But overall a majority of the population is currently OK with it.
Problem is that individual acceptance relies on the fact that as a group everyone is forced to accept the drawbacks in order to enjoy the benefits (John only accepts this because he knows everyone also accepts it; if a minority of depositors start to refuse the system, its value will weaken for the majority which has chose to remain inside and it will cause another batch of people to start refusing it, similarly to my welfare state exemple). So once you offer a way for individuals to easily opt-out of the drawbacks (loss of currency value) while still enjoying some of the (weakening) benefits - gradually everyone opts our as layer by layer different parts of society see the system becoming non-beneficial to them after the departure of the previous layer.

Now of course if what the majority wants is to to replace our money by very hard money it is fine from a democratic perspective (from a practical perspective, whether it is a good idea is open for debate - but the majority rules). But it should be a controlled and voluntary group choice, rather than a chain process triggered by a minority.

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

Says who? Just Dohnjoe it appears.

It"s common knowledge

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-31/bitcoin-s-rally-masks-uncomfortable-fact-almost-nobody-uses-it

Hardly anyone is using the world’s largest cryptocurrency for anything beyond speculation. Data from New York-based blockchain researcher Chainalysis Inc. show that only 1.3% of economic transactions came from merchants in the first four months of 2019, little changed over the boom and bust cycles of the prior two years.

JohnnyFlash

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

Says who? Just Dohnjoe it appears.

It’s not even speculation. It’s degenerate gambling masquerading as risky investing. The only use cases found for crypto in 10 years are money laundering, and paying for drugs and child porn on darknet markets.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

It’s not even speculation. It’s degenerate gambling masquerading as risky investing. The only use cases found for crypto in 10 years are money laundering, and paying for drugs and child porn on darknet markets.

Did you buy any yet?

q85dw7osi4lebg

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Everyone, it"s common knowledge

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-31/bitcoin-s-rally-masks-uncomfortable-fact-almost-nobody-uses-it

Oh, so because a biased financial media outlets says so it must be true. I see.

JohnnyFlash

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

Oh, so because a biased financial media outlets says so it must be true. I see.

Why is Bloomberg biased? Any examples of media outlets that aren’t biased against crypto?

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

Oh, so because a biased financial media outlets says so it must be true. I see.

They didn't, they aren't the source. I suggest reading the article before blindly dismissing it

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In crypto that is overwhelmingly the main show right now

I'm not sure why you brought this up at this juncture in the conversation. I wouldn't use the same language but yes, it's quite a significant part of activity right now.
In the context of this latest discussion, I made the point that Bitcoin as it stands today isn't going to motivate the masses to transfer across to crypto and abandon FIAT. FIAT is the incumbent system we have. For that scale of transfer something significant would have to happen to FIAT (as in total mismanagement) for people to consider an alternative.

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes it does.

I disagree.

Bob24 wrote: »

You could have a similar chain of events whereby a small group of people decides to largely opt-out of national currencies (for reasons which are valid from their own perspective). Then because that small group has left, it would weaken national currencies for another wave of people, and so one as per the mechanism I had described.

A 'small group of people' won't weaken a FIAT currency. Mismanagement of an economy and a FIAT currency by a government and its central bank will! And it's likely to lead to people to look at alternatives in much greater numbers at that point.

Bob24 wrote: »

There could be others, but one reason I see which could trigger the initial wave is a refusal of the fact that in practice national currencies are used as a way to tax depositors to boost economic activity.

There are many means of applying taxation. We now have the technology to enable very precise pay per use. That may be the way forward in the future.

Bob24 wrote: »

From an individual depositor’s selfish perspective it is not good and one might want to opt-out, but if the depositor’s income also depends on economic activity it might be worth accepting that hidden tax as long as everybody also accepts it.

There's quite a focus on a perceived 'selfishness'. People have a duty of care to themselves to act with self interest. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Bob24 wrote: »

In short, within reason John Doe accepts inflation and currency devaluation (causing him a loss of savings) because the counterpart is that it is boosting government spendings and economic activity and thus employment and salaries (increasing his income).

I think many are oblivious to the effects of inflation. I see it as a stealth tax. I don't want it and don't agree with it. In the nordic countries, they've found that 20% of peoples taxes are lost within the tax system itself. Who knows what it is in Ireland. Perhaps it would be more progressive to employ blockchain within that system and see exactly where that money is going?

Bob24 wrote: »

Since that system essentially transfers wealth from depositors to workers and public service users, the more he relies on savings vs labour income and government spendings, the more likely he is to feel the system is not working for him (the typical exemple in Europe of someone who feels it is not benefiting them is a German pensioner). But overall a majority of the population is currently OK with it.

Probably as a result of the shenanigans that came to a head in 2008, people worldwide are far less trusting of governments, public administrations, etc. The crypto movement forms part of that.
They have every right to question it. You've mentioned people feeling aggrieved but the reality is that we all have a right to feel aggrieved. There's no doubt but that public money is being misspent in every jurisdiction. It's just a question of how bad it gets - country by country. There's no doubt that we have better technology that could provide for more equitable taxation if the will was there to implement it.
You're putting this on individuals 'selfishness'. What of governments and people in public administration that are not acting in the best interests of citizens? That is where this starts from.

There's been talk of crypto and tax evasion and also the need to withdraw cash to counter evasion and illicit use. Ok. Will the same administrations that try and enforce this apply the same standards to themselves - and utilise blockchain right throughout public administration so that we can follow the money in its entirety? Turkeys don't vote for christmas!

Bob24 wrote: »

Problem is that individual acceptance relies on the fact that as a group everyone is forced to accept the drawbacks in order to enjoy the benefits (John only accepts this because he knows everyone also accepts it; if a minority of depositors start to refuse the system, its value will weaken for the majority which has chose to remain inside and it will cause another batch of people to start refusing it, similarly to my welfare state exemple). So once you offer a way for individuals to easily opt-out of the drawbacks (loss of currency value) while still enjoying some of the (weakening) benefits - gradually everyone opts our as layer by layer different parts of society see the system becoming non-beneficial to them after the departure of the previous layer.

Technology doesn't stop for anyone. You can build systems around it - and respond to it as it develops. That's what needs to happen in your example. It's not realistic to ask people to hold the line and not utilise it - that simply won't happen.
Consider also the fact that in the longer term - despite certain issues - we could still end up in a far greater position than the starting point.

Bob24 wrote: »

Now of course if what the majority wants is to to replace our money by very hard money it is fine from a democratic perspective (from a practical perspective, whether it is a good idea is open for debate - but the majority rules). But it should be a controlled and voluntary group choice, rather than a chain process triggered by a minority.

So - right now the majority either don't agree with crypto, don't understand it or don't see the value in it. More technically minded people are more familiar with the technology and see great value in it. You want to wait until the majority give it the seal of approval before its used? That's not how things work in real life.

What technology is not triggered by a minority?

On a side note, I'd sooner leave this taxation business aside - as we're veering off topic.

As regards purported manipulation by Bitfinex/Tether in 2017, there's this => Twitter

Thargor

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

https://www.wsj.com/articles/large-bitcoin-player-manipulated-price-sharply-higher-study-says-11572863400?mod=hp_lead_pos4

A paper about to be published in the Journal of Finance suggesting that the bubble in late 2017 was largely caused by Tether and a mysterious trader on Bitfinex. Tether created out of thin air to buy bitcoin, canny crypto investors rush in with real money because of FOMO, bitcoin and alt coins bought with tether are sold to them for real money, real money is cashed out.

Nothing that people like myself and Pintman weren’t suggesting at the time. Most of the twitter accounts closely associated with Bitfinex are not happy with this report.

So just yourself then?

Thargor

Lol, that reminds me of the time Jonnyflash boasted of how he likes to vote twice in elections because he gets 2 voter cards at 2 addresses or something, surprised at the reaction from Boards calling him various types of scumbag etc he panicked and got his Pintman Paddy account to suddenly appear to lend support, Paddy also just happened to have 2 voting cards aswell and tried to reassure people that this was fine, good times

Arrival

Thargor wrote: »

Lol, that reminds me of the time Jonnyflash boasted of how he likes to vote twice in elections because he gets 2 voter cards at 2 addresses or something, surprised at the reaction from Boards calling him various types of scumbag etc he panicked and got his Pintman Paddy account to suddenly appear to lend support, Paddy also just happened to have 2 voting cards aswell and tried to reassure people that this was fine, good times

...to be honest, at this point I just kind of feel bad for him

Apparently China are scrapping their plan to ban cryptocurrency mining: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bullish-for-bitcoin-china-scraps-plans-to-ban-cryptocurrency-mining

Quite a good news in terms of bitcoin hash power ...

unkel

I'm not that surprised. Chinese economic decisions seem largely pragmatic these days. Bitcoin mining in China is largely done on renewable electricity and China has more of that than the rest of the world combined (both hydro, PV and wind). And adding to it at an extraordinary pace. A lot of "wealth" is generated in China from BTC mining by the likes of Bitmain alone.

JJJJNR

Interesting reading, not sure if posted in the right thread or not. Hacker group accessed bank funds and bought bitcoin.. for the greater good of crypto.

Real Robin hood stuff.

https://pastebin.com/8rXhtqgr

JJJJNR wrote: »

Interesting reading, not sure if posted in the right thread or not. Hacker group accessed bank funds and bought bitcoin.. for the greater good of crypto.

Real Robin hood stuff.

https://pastebin.com/8rXhtqgr

Site doesnt work for me, what happened?

JJJJNR

First couple of lines.

Translation notes:
Bulk of translation done by Google Translate (which did a remarkably good job outside of slang and computer terms!), with edits for clarity and formatting by @laudecay. I got the Spanish version from the bottom of this article, it’s in the leak: https://unicornriot.ninja/2019/massive-hack-strikes-offshore-cayman-national-bank-and-trust/
The UR article also has a lot of info about the history of Phineas’s hacks and resources she’s provided to the community in the past, and Crimethinc has some interviews with her. She’s also posted video interviews (a puppet and a voice actor reading chat logs, lol) and a screencast of her hacking a police department

Sources are mostly left as in the original, except where there was an obvious directly translated english version lying around

FFVII

17,000 for Xmas

Fill your boxers

(So I'm told)