Comments by "Frenchie’s Philosophy" (@tsuich00i) on "Motherboard"
channel.
-
156
-
18
-
9
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
Egon Sung First, I never said physical currency was better than digital, I only said, and only can be interpreted as having implied, simply that Bitcoin is bad.
What you have just described does not set Bitcoin apart from government fiancal activity- bitcoin is not "special" nor is it novel. Online banking has existed for well over a decade, and a digital currency has been discussed for quite some time. Bitcoin, to their credit, has simply taken to opportunity to fill this gap in modern expection. What it does is not hard either, State entities are perfectly capable of replicating their results in far more controlled and regulated settings. Why they have not devoted more effort into digitizing the dollar is beyond me.
As for security, Paypal has all it's activity on records, and is regulated to prevent incident. Bitcoin on the other hand, has been the subject of several thefts, quite a significant amount actually. Additionally, bitcoin bypasses standard government transfer controllers, allowing it to make it's way into the black market, which bitcoin is now estimated to make up about 5% of the total value of.
Other than the press it gets, I don't see what sets Bitcoin apart as a viable, stable, and trusted form of currency. Having said that, I wish it all the best.
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** Your first response wasn't particularly informative.
Beliefs can be binding without being rational. We have faith in our senses, the basis for all science and just about everything else for that matter, ought we to abandon them as well?
If its a question of extent, well, theres a simple solution: look at how money has been used in relation to what it purports to represent in the world: namely, value. Obviously the amount of money in circulation currently, is not equivalent to assets on the planet, but now that national and international regulatory agencies, such as the federal resource or the Davos forum have the ability to monitor fluctuating trends thanks to internet, they now have the power to influence behavior through policy plans, faith in the market is maintained by the constant and predictable pattern that prevents the artificial accumulation of false-value such as the 2008 Crisis, specifically the housing bubble.
Faith is just one component of that equation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Alejandro Drabenche Gold and Oil can't make you rich though, that may sound oxi-moronic, but people are the only ones who can trade in "power" to express their value. For example, The man who is in need of a plumber is "powerless" to fix his plumbing. So if he wants something done about it, he must first find a suitable specialist, and come up with something that person wants.
In this case, Gold and Oil are only as important as the desire for them is. The universal use of gold and oil is what gives them near-intrinsic value. Nevertheless, the plumber may deny their value at any time without owing anyone an explanation. There is no guarantee, and therefore, no reason and more importantly, nobody to trust.
Decentralization may be beneficial in some respects, but on the issue of trust it is not, because you can only place your trust in people, not things. Bitcoin's trustworthiness is a function of the individual trustworthiness of each and every individual who makes a share of the total number of bitcoins. In effect, you are distributing your trust among a much larger pool of people then you normally would have to with a monetary agency that can be held accountable if there is a breach in trust, which in the case of the Federal Reserve, it would fall on Chairwomen Yellen to answer for. I'm much more comfortable pointing my finger at her if and when "shit hits then fan" than the dubious proposition of isolating who is to blame when Bitcoin goes awry.
The only way to rationally access the degree to which one trusts such a share, largely depends on how much faith you have in humanity, with so many individuals across distance involved. I'm not prepared to make such a judgement, and choose to err on the side of caution.
You can read up on and study public figures like Yellen, with a name and face, that can maybe give you a glance at their motives, morals, and abilities. You'll have a much harder time getting to know the people behind Bitcoin.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mirza Borogovac Most of your answers are satisfactory, however there is one assumption I would bring up that overlaps a couple points: What makes Bitcoin safe?
Philosophies differ, and what i've found interacting with Americans and their financial attitudes is that they always prefer high risk, high rewards, to maintaining a strong capital base with gradual, minimal returns, the latter of which I subscribe to myself.
To illustrate my point with a concrete, micro-economic example, try and sell me on bitcoin if you will. Because from where I stand, with lets say upwards of 250,000 dollars, I can safely sit on that money knowing it is ensured by the FDIC. I can put the rest in Index's and annuities and make interest without great concern. Now this is no guarantee that the price of goods and services external to my capital will not increase beyond my possible purchasing power, but I am reasonably certain any government interested in it's own self-preservation will subsidize food and other basic necessities to keep their prices in an affordable range, at least until it runs out of money, which is a highly unlikely scenario, as any and every other financial institution will have run out of funds long before the government coffers run dry. The basic principle of my position is that any alternative medium of exchange will always be secondary in nature to that offered by the government. It's simple hierarchy: Government is the only legal entity that can force parties to honor their contracts- through violence and/or detention if that becomes the only option- which is why banks have incentive to favor and follow government initiatives, and so long as the store of wealth among the rich, and the need for loans among the poor continues, banks will be favored by the citizenry. By the reverse, if citzens seek these services, they will go to banks where government currency will be the primary/popular medium of exchange, with the peace of mind that the courts will protect their investments in the worst case. I hope this exacerbated exposition makes my perspective clear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kim Rollo Name a currency based on faith that has failed. I honestly don't know enough about the history of money to know, so If it's happened, i'll look it up on a case by case basis and address it then and only then.
To be clear, that is only an expression. What we actually mean when we say that "money is based on faith" is that, when I go to Starbucks and hand the Barrista a Jackson, I have faith, that he or she will hand me my mocha in return. What we have faith in is not the money itself, but in 1. the persons with whom we individually interact, and their faith in a 2. system of reciprocity we call the economy and the 3. role currency plays in that domain, namely that it will be accepted as value, in the absence of cumbersome and irregular forms of intrinsic value, such as heavy and scarce gold, or disobedient and/or undesired goats.
When those elements unite, a healthy market is made possible.
And this is just a side note not entirely relevant here, but faith is actually an incredibly stable force in history. Ancient Egypt is the most famous example: artistically, political, socially, and economically it remained EXACTLY THE SAME for three thousand years. When Herodotus visited the Land of the Nile, he remarked that the people who lived there where the most pious he had ever come across. Catholicism filed the power vacuum of the Roman Empire and similarly maintained an era of continuous "sameness" for centuries, by forcing conformity and strict observance of scriptural dictates.The Ancestral Worship of Ancient China, passed on from generation to generation, a loyal lineage of denizens who honored their descendants by respecting millennial old traditions that is the hallmark of Chinese Confucian collectivism to this day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1