Hey TS, nice to see you again today buddy. Sure is swell you give us so much content on here (so addicted that you have posted multiple times on 2+2 every day this month). It's amazing you have the time to be an expert on everything and make so much money.

You've given a sentiment with no backing argument.

What am I supposed to refute here? Your ad hominens?

Again I'm citing experts that have given complete coherent and consistent arguments about the future of banking in relation to the breaking of money issuance monopoly which bitcoin has perfectly done.
Keynes also propsed the introduction of a high value settlment system called the Bancor. I have also read keynes so if that is the work you are familiar with, state you have read the associated literature, and we'll start debating. Here is an inquiry into the relation and his argument:

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/keyne...n-8fa008614f65

A cited and more detailed inquiry can be found here. https://medium.com/@rextar4444/re-so...n-b8f4c6d2754e

Nash explicitly defines and refutes the keynesians argument in relation to the advent of an international ecurrency with a stable supply. You are citing yourself, I am citing 4 experts in the field as well as your reference to keynes himself. ALL of who disagree with you.

We aren't living in keynes world, we are living in a modern interpretation which is not what he intended:

Keynes proposed exactly what the others I quoted use as there premise. The only difference is keynes wrote up a political implementation and the others know that to be an impossible way to bring such an end about:

What I think is fun about the discussion is it is forcing so many to actually learn something about economics. Sure you have a huge portion that are in it just for the momentum and gamble but I really think the digital ledger has massive potential especially in banking and transactions (which is already an insanely hot space right now with digital payments taking serious share). And no one, even the guys that created it, has a firm grasp of what's going to happen (Kind of like when the Internet itself was created). That's the premium in the coin itself, it could be worth $0 or $100k, I see arguments to both.

The people that created it disagree that they don't know what will happen. It's already been laid out by 5 experts on the subject, grounded in our historical empirical evidence.

Do you really feel its correct to say, because you are unaware of the associated arguments, that they don't exist?

Going back to the first few pages of this thread, some of the same main arguments are still being had. The fact that it's still around and as relevant as ever is meaningful no matter what anyone says. I do wonder if the global markets go into a recession what would happen, I think the rise of crypto in general is definitely correlated to how much liquidity there is out there. Having said that I could also see an inverse effect where the alt coins largely crash and Bitcoin regains most of the market share and possibly even soars higher. There is no question certain investors/funds are using it as a way to hedge their own currencies. Like the stock market itself especially after years of sample size, to try to time the top is a fool's errand.

Whats going to happen then noose? Please educate me because I like to make money when possible.

As bitcoin becomes more relevant and significant it will start our respective fiat currencies on an asymptotic trend towards secularly deflating international value stabilization:

This explains nothing about why Bitcoin specifically is going to be that vehicle nor when that's going to happen (could take beyond our lifetimes, who knows?). It's just an opinion.

The process is explixity laid out by Selgin, Nash, and Hayek. It's not my opinion its a very well supported argument by the experts on the subject.

Selgin's is the easiest argument to traverse, I give a summary here: https://medium.com/@rextar4444/draft...g-60ed1d44e2be

Selgin uses the theoretical notion of Ruritania a free banking world, to explain how things would unfold to create a settlement system based on an otherwise effectively useless commodity money.

Bitcoin fits the premise of all of these philosophers arguments as well as Keynes proposal for the bancor.

There are requirements and only bitcoin can fit them which includes its security, uncheangeability, and its apolitical nature. It needs to rival gold as an inflation hedge and it does so, in every relevant way.

Its a very deep and dense argument and you can't just accuse it of not existing because you haven't read it and I cannot type it out in a forum post. What I can do is cite and reference quotes from the conclusions and arguments to show that these arguments exist, they are written by the experts on the subject and they are mutually supportive

The funny thing is I think a few of these guys ended up getting into it pretty early on, just incredible for those who got in on the ground floor. Sort of that same feeling every time someone brings up the Bitcoin pizza.

So is most/all of your net worth in Bitcoin then (also when did you first get into it)? Just curious since you and your research seems to have it all figured out.

Seems like a boring question. I would advocate a strong % of ones savings. I am also working on various projects and skills related to the industry.

So according to you, I'm a dishonest person. I played on pokerstars before Black Friday, but did not have the resources or the desire to relocate to another country simply to play online. I don't like live poker nearly as much for a variety of reasons, though I still play it sometimes. Immediately after Black Friday (within a month) I discovered Bitcoin based poker sites and played on them and did well. Literally no other illegal activity have I done, of any kind, with Bitcoin.

This is a poker forum after all, you'd think there would be some sympathy for someone like me who literally had their livelihood ripped away from them when I wasn't doing anything wrong, just trying to make money to support myself and my family through my own wits and hard work, which I dedicated years of my life to, studying and improving my game.

But, according to you, I am not an honest person, because the UIGEA was passed attached to a safe ports bill in 2011 by corrupt politicians.

Why can't people understand this? How much do banks have to steal before people realize how many scams they are running?

A great quote is this:

(@mwilcox twitter)

The cryptoanarchists who predict anarchy are not correct, banks and nation states will not be destroyed. What bitcoin will do is force them to be more honest and accountable for their actions. These are net benefits to society as a whole.

For us to win, others do not have to lose, that's what people need to start understanding!

By the way, it already is happening, I'm not talking about the future. This is all already happening and we can see it reflected before our eyes. Has there been a banking crisis since 2009? No. And I don't think there's going to be. The price of coins would skyrocket too quickly and the central banks realize this now, they're already having to play more honest. The strong ones WILL survive a slow bleed of coin price increasing, as it has thus far.

Def don't have it all figured out, but I feel better this way. What we're actually learning from these forks is that we don't understand bitcoin very much at all. Like, at ALL. It is very different from what people think it is.

Poker is typically not good for society. If UIGEA is evil it is because it undermines civil liberty, not because it undermines the poker world. I think there is a very strong argument that gambling -- both online and in casinos -- should not exist in society. If you were an engineer and the government banned the use of calculus I think you'd get a lot more sympathy. This is coming from someone who has profited greatly from poker. (I also hold Bitcoin!)

Anyway, can you elaborate on how banks and governments were "playing dishonestly" before the inception of cryptocurrency? What qualities of cryptocurrency have made them play more honestly?

Lastly, if one of your theses is that no one understands Bitcoin "AT ALL", why should we give credence to your other theses?

I am curious what you/they think will happen on Nov 17th.

Oh, another person who has been fortunate and hardworking in poker who is in denial about how the real world operates.

People are going to gamble. Gambling dates back thousands of years, it is not going to go away. Yeah, it'd be a net benefit to society if it disappeared, no ****! It'd also be a net benefit to society if nobody ever drank alcohol again, good luck pushing that one!

Degens are going to blow their money. They are going to find a way to blow it. Poker is at least a social thing, people get together and develop bonds over a poker game.

It *is* gambling, but if someone is going to blow their money to a state-run Keno machine where they lose 40c on the dollar vs at a poker table to a more skilled player where they lose at a much lower rate, I think the latter is preferable.

Even the less personable version, online, has a chat box, and communities develop. I don't see any communities developing over online slots or blackjack playing groups.

As for the playing honestly thing, uhh, printing money? Making money in obscure financial products that caused the 2009 crisis?

And we don't understand it at all, but we are beginning to. Nobody should pay any attention to me, period. I am a troll. Do your own research.

Am interested if anyone has any contingency plans for the S2X fork in November? Maybe i'm being bearish but I'm struggling to see a scenario where where BTC doesn't just tank and who knows about new S2X coin. Just seems really hard to gauge how far the mining pools backing S2X are willing to go. Would be keen hear any insight from more knowledgeable people on the subject. Whole thing looks like a massive **** storm.

It's not really a livelihood - you're a parasite. Calling poker an "honest" living is a bit of a stretch. Poker isn't theft but it's not productive in any way either - you take without giving anything in return, which is parasitic. Not that I have a problem with it. I'm pretty libertarian and believe people should do what they want with their time and money. But calling it an honest living is a bit of stretch
Your community standards are against you playing poker. You want to circumvent the laws of your jurisdiction so you can continue parasitically taking money off the less intelligent or the addicted (by sometimes bluffing aka deception aka dishonesty, no less).

And you have a problem with this being lumped in with "dishonest" activities?
So bank steal and you, taking money off grandmas and gambling addicts by actively intimidating and deceiving them, are making an honest living?

Of course they have to lose. Bitcoin is a competing currency that has no economic output. For you to make money, others have to lose money.

So it's your position that banks are being more honest (how, exactly?) because Bitcoin will skyrocket if they **** up?

I haven't heard/read of a single shred of sentiment that any core dev believe there is any hope of overthrowing core or bitcoin as it is. It's simply not possible and the experts understand this and the ignorant people will always question it because they cannot traverse the math, game theory, and philosophy.

Nov 17th will flop, it might not even happen, its just going to solidify already ruined reputations and separate those that know from those that don't.

Adam Smith's the wealth of nations explains that the economy runs best and freest when we are all on our selfish pursuit. The theory of moral sentiments which he is known for explains how the selfish pursuit is moral.

Poker as a game in which intelligent people are incentived to advance game theory (and network security). Poker has contributed greatly. Probably better than any sport.

Again you are professing about economics, but I'm not convinced you've ever read a book on the subject. In fact I'm quite convinced you haven't.

It's the stability of supply and the supply rate that is "honest". It is perfectly predictable and knowable and not changeable.

Many people think that the devaluation of the domestic currency via monetary policy (ie printing money) is dishonest. Its keynesian based theory that is often hated, but its a consistent theory that makes sense for the shorterm (which makes it an easy sell).

You devalue your dollar in economic difficulties and this facilitates exports. But its at the expense of creating cycles of booms and busts.

Honest money is a reference to this type of devaluation that often eventually gets out of hand like we see in Venezuela.

It's also a reference to historical times when emperors begin to inflate the value of their gold and metal coins with lead etc.This was studied eventually and became the basis for Greshams law as an explanation of why the queens wealth was fleeing her.

The dishonest money was being passed around within her territory will the honest money fled to where it was value higher than its counter part of devalued fiat.

Watch john nash explain, its funny but super interesting if you know the context:

https://youtu.be/NUyCO3FXHS4


This is related to the congress report on bitcoin:

The honest money doesn't circulate as much in comparison, its the reverse, the velocity of the inflating money starts to increase (if the supply isn't changed)

Anybody actually know how distributed the mining operations in China are? These denials of a possible 51% attack seem to ignore that there is nothing stopping the Chinese government from walking into these places and do whatever they want with them if they decide that is what they want to do.

I'm under the assumption chinese government has full control of all the major mining in china. As I understand some or much of it is subsidized etc.

Electricity is subsidized in certain regions which is why it is so hard to compete with Chinese miners but I hope they are not controlling mining operations themselves.