How do you think the future of currency plays out? All-powerful governments determine what people will use, destroy anything that threatens them, and this works into perpetuity?

You could still use it at real businesses even if the government told you not to.

They don't have to be all-powerful. Just powerful. And yes, when something can be destroyed for far less than the cost of what damage it would cause, it will be destroyed. Far more powerful things than Bitcoin have been destroyed by things that threaten government. See US's foreign policy.

No real business is going to stupidly accept it if they risk their legitimate business. The only groups that will accept it are those who are doing shady things or have a huge benefit in using it.

It seems like it's 100 years ahead of it's time. How long before you can buy food with it and create an index based on a bag of groceries?

Now.

hmm?

The bag of groceries will approach a price of 0 Bitcoins over the next few weeks as it starts to decompose.

Except Carrots. Carrots are the future of currency.

hmmmm....I can do an index based on the price of a drug cocktail!!

So you're answering yes, governments will successfully force people into using their fiat currency into perpetuity?

Sure. "Cost" isn't as one-dimensional as the way you seem to be looking at it though. If the government destroys Bitcoin, do you think people just give up on the idea and settle for arbitrary paper, or do you think it's only a matter of time before something else pops up (maybe better, maybe with more people aware of what the heck it is)?

It's not clear to me that destroying Bitcoin would help them even if it was zero-cost.

Not sure I really follow this example. War is healthy for the government. Especially wars against tin-pot dictators that they prop up in the first place, half a world away with no significant military.

Of course not, just as long as they are powerful.

Only if it's in peoples interests to use it. It usually is not, unless the government becomes excessively offensive.

If it's a threat to their control of currency, how could it not help?


And so is having control of the currency.

seriously tho, it's such a great invention that it can't possibly go to zero value, that means it can only increase in value because it's a deflationary currency...but people have to value it as a valid currency and sell you something of value with it...that means it will have gained mainstream use the moment you can pin a cost of living index on it (bag of groceries)

it will never go away because it's a perfect currency system -- so it's value will always go up. I am very bullish.

^ It's not perfect. Real gold is superior. It's survived many wars over thousands years. This is not true and will never be for bitcoin. It's actually very fragile when times are very hard.

Gold is the standard unit of worldwide currency because it's a beautiful rock that people want to look at...this will be a worldwide currency because it's a beautiful piece of code that people want to read...we don't know what the transition from industrial to technological civilization will become, small sample size obv, but it seems like this is a natural transition as soon as you get interconnected computers...in 200 years will there be more stored value in BTC or USD?

OK, so I guess you only disagree with him that it'll happen in 20 years. I thought maybe you were saying there's some reason why governments issuing money needs to continue forever.

To me it seems hard to say, 2012-2032 is a long time, a lot different than any 20-year span so far. Certainly if you extend it to 50 or 100 it quickly becomes impossible to imagine what life will be like. I don't think it's a great assumption that we'll still be using fiat currency in 20 years, but who knows.

We're talking about a hypothetical where people use it so much that the government shuts it down. This is a goal post shift.

In the same vein pouring gasoline on the fire doesn't help. Destroying Bitcoin doesn't destroy the possibility of people to create a different thing like Bitcoin, or the exact same thing again. So on one hand you shutdown the current operation, on the other hand you draw a lot of attention and curiosity to the idea.

Maybe the government will attack Bitcoin, maybe it will help them, but my point is it isn't as clear-cut as a $3million cost and nothing else to think about.

Apples and oranges. Gold isn't a currency.

Did you read what I've written? I know bitcoin is a beautiful piece of code. Not arguing that. However, it'll not survive the worst times - war. It'll be destroyed in some way. That's the problem. You can't (easily) destroy gold that's why it's superior.

Doesn't change a thing.
Anyway, haven't heard bitcoin was officially approved as a currency by any country? Gold was currency in the past, just law changed but it doesn't really matters. What matters is that it stores wealth.

What's going to happen when your kids grow up and have a computer in their hand of some sort or another from the time they are born? The more sophisticated a society is, the simpler and more uniform currency needs to become.

All bitcoin does is solve the double spend problem, which eliminates the need for a third party. That means the physical currency is the cheapest it can possibly be. That means you can purchase items from your phone or electronic wallet. The use of a third party to conduct electronic real time transactions will seem archaic.

I don't think it's a good short term investment tho but if you have young kids I would def start buying

OK, if you want to compare apples and oranges, go ahead.

So? My dick hasn't been approved by any country, but it still does its job.

Gold was never currency (at least not a good one), you're thinking of paper notes redeemable for gold. (There's a difference.) The big downfall there is you have to trust somebody to hold the gold.

Store of wealth doesn't mean something makes a good currency. It means something makes a good store of wealth.

LOL, ok what do you want to compare bitcoins to then? If gold and bitcoin is apples and oranges.
HINT: You can't compare it to official currencies, cause bitcoin is not one.
HINT2: Gold does its job as well.

What are you talking about? Haven't heard of gold coins? You make no sense.
Paper notes redeemable for gold are no different. Essentially gold was at the core. WTF. Why do you have to trust somebody to hold the gold? You don't have to give it to anybody if u don't want to. What's your point?

Hint: Slow down and think for a moment.

Try paying for your lunch with a gold coin. Or better yet using it to pay someone in China for work on your website. Then let me know who's making sense and who isn't.

If you think gold is the exact same thing as a paper note redeemable for gold, then you can probably find a really good deal on old school US dollar notes.

You don't have to do anything. But if you want to pay with notes redeemable for gold, somebody needs to be trusted.

What? You said gold was never a currency. I pointed out there were gold coins and gold was used as a currency in the past and you're talking something about paying for lunch with gold coin now. Again. What are you talking about? This doesn't make sense.
I know it's not a currency now (which I pointed out in the previous posts as well)

It was, but it's been changed. NOW, it's OBVIOUSLY NOT and you can't do that. You see the difference now?

so what's the point.

Where is your example of bitcoins being compared to something which is not apples and oranges.

Even if fiat fails, it doesn't mean that Bitcoin is the natural successor. There are many other alternatives. One of those alternatives that is the most likely to replace it is another fiat currency, as recent history has taught us with every failed fiat currency.

They don't have to use it "so much". They just have to view it as a threat that it *might* be used so much.

The incentive to create something that will continually be destroyed is quite silly and reserved for only the most ideologically interested. Which is not many.


If they wanted to destroy it, they could. If they view it as a threat, they will. If they mistakenly miss that threat, then it survives and thrives. If not, it remains a niche currency for illegal activities.

Gold could easily be a currency now, it just needs to be in micro increments. Borodog even was working on a gold currency that involves placing mg worth of gold into bills, which would be verifiable as legitimate.

As for paying someone in China, if Bitcoin takes off, you will use trusted 3rd parties for this almost all of the time. Casual users are not going to want to hold their own wallets, as witnessed by the numerous hacking scandals. It's about as dumb as holding your net worth in your closet, except not only do local people have access to it, but every hacker around the world.

Trusted 3rd party solution works amazingly well in a lot of cases. It only works poorly when that party can be stopped (government seizures). This is primarily beneficial in corrupt countries and with illegal activities.

I've only been reading about it for the last few days and it would actually be nearly impossible for a government to destroy it. That's what makes it dangerous. I mean you can convincingly argue that the function of a government is solely to be a third party in wealth transference. In the future electronic transfers of wealth will be so ubiquitous that eventually bitcoins could be the sole world currency. My guess it is it will function mainly as a store of wealth for about 20-50 years. But I definitely think you will be able to go to the store and pay with bitcoins sometime in the future. Maybe after I'm dead tho.

pretty sick