|
Ad by Khad posted:US govt had no problem at all freezing and then seizing and then auctioning Ross's 6 digits of bits coin They always say “you can’t do X”, when X has already occurred numerous times and is common knowledge. Smooth brains
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
They seized them first, and it actually was incredibly difficult. Not only technologically, but because the agents kept stealing the coins. vv: you're talking about rubber hose cryptography and you didn't invent it xtal fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Jan 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
...the bitcoin so hard to steal that the agents stole it from government is an argument so stupid only you could think it's a good one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
I've never been somewhere that didn't accept cash. In fact, many places give a discount for cash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
Yeah, no poo poo i didn't invent rubber hose cryptography, the concept that I'll break your loving leg if you don't give the key is one that somehow is ignored for the purpose of defeating security. Even if we take your version of the events, claiming it was hard to possess the butts by also claiming it was stolen multiple times isn't the galaxy brain argument you think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
My roommate and a bunch of her friends are really big into crypto. I'm still on the fence but they do seem to make a bunch of money off of it. They show me balance sheets with $20,000 etc. Is the big reason to avoid it because of its volatility? Or is there another reason? The trend seems to be that it never loses so much value that it becomes insolvent, just gradual gains and crashes and gains and crashes. I only kept up with the thread occasionally over the years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
xtal posted:They seized them first, and it actually was incredibly difficult. Not only technologically, but because the agents kept stealing the coins. They seized them, then froze them, they didn’t freeze them then seize them. Checkmate. -A Brain Genius
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
Lil Peeler posted:My roommate and a bunch of her friends are really big into crypto. I'm still on the fence but they do seem to make a bunch of money off of it. They show me balance sheets with $20,000 etc. Is the big reason to avoid it because of its volatility? Or is there another reason? The trend seems to be that it never loses so much value that it becomes insolvent, just gradual gains and crashes and gains and crashes. Sell literally everything you own and buy bitcoin now
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
Flowers for QAnon posted:They seized them, then froze them, they didn’t freeze them then seize them. Checkmate. -A Brain Genius Do you not see why the difference is important?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 23:46
|
|
|
xtal posted:Do you not see why the difference is important? Explain why the difference is important in the case you suggested. Re: political dissidents
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 23:50
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:Yeah, no poo poo i didn't invent rubber hose cryptography, the concept that I'll break your loving leg if you don't give the key is one that somehow is ignored for the purpose of defeating security. You know how people are always going on about how torture doesn't work ect... Bitcoins are one of the only times that is incorrect. The decentralized nature of it means someone can keep getting tortured and the torturer can just check if the password works locally without having to use the Internet and possibly alerting anyone else. With traditional banking or any kind of financial system you could have alternative panic codes that would set off alarms or call security.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
Flowers for QAnon posted:Explain why the difference is important in the case you suggested. Re: political dissidents Seizing before freezing means you need to take control of the currency (such as through physical access and coercion). With conventional centralized currencies Mr. Banker can freeze your assets with a mouse click at any time. xtal fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Jan 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
xtal posted:Seizing before freezing means you need to take control of the currency (such as through physical access and coercion). With conventional centralized currencies Mr. Banker can freeze your assets with a mouse click at any time. Who do you think tells the Mr. Banker to freeze assets? It’s the same people that will just directly seize your poo poo. Mr. Banker can’t freeze your yacht with a mouse click. Surely won’t stop the Gov from seizing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
People seem do be doing fairly well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 00:16
|
|
|
xtal posted:People seem do be doing fairly well. Oh, so you were being disingenuous with your “political dissident” example, and meant cartel money. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
ianmacdo posted:You know how people are always going on about how torture doesn't work ect... Bitcoins are one of the only times that is incorrect. The decentralized nature of it means someone can keep getting tortured and the torturer can just check if the password works locally without having to use the Internet and possibly alerting anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
Captain Yossarian posted:Sell literally everything you own and buy bitcoin now Don't get me wrong I'm not jumping on board the block chain train, but I look at some of the discussion here and think that everything people with knowledge about economics or finance are saying makes sense. But also more people are buying into this stuff every day. I have a hard time wrapping my head around where it's going.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
Stocks (and therefore bitcoin) are a zero sum game. But it's worse than that because its a zero sum game that gives dumb people the impression that actually everyone wins! That's why wall street bets and bitcoiners are currently patting themselves on the back and buying in hand over fist because if number go up its literally creating wealth for everyone right??
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 01:35
|
|
|
Which strikes me as the "don't be left holding the bag" kinda rule. Like if I put in 50 bucks today and walk away with 2k in a few months, even if I only take $1500 away after taxes I still win, right? Seems like the dumb thing is sitting on this over and over and reinvesting because eventually this overpriced monopoly money bubble is gonna crash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
so should i open a coinbase account and buy some of this poo poo or what? i need a new RTX3080Ti
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
Lil Peeler posted:Which strikes me as the "don't be left holding the bag" kinda rule. Absolutely- but the flaw in the plan is that noone is behaving rationally and you could put your money in today and it could be gone tomorrow because someone spooked the horses and everything crashed. Now with $50 it's a big who cares but your returns are also who cares, may as well play a slot machine. But these people are playing with their mortgages and life changing amounts of money (while constantly telling people they're fine and it's not a problem they aren't betting anything they can't afford to lose etc)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
xtal posted:Seizing before freezing means you need to take control of the currency (such as through physical access and coercion). With conventional centralized currencies Mr. Banker can freeze your assets with a mouse click at any time. The same infrastructure that will be required to monitor wallet addresses for transfers of more than $3000 will be useful for publishing "blacklist warnings" about wallets associated with dumb fuckers who get their assets frozen. Blacklisted wallet lists will be pushed to exchanges and they will not touch them on threat of not being an exchange anymore. The blacklists will be pushed to tumblers, and if the tumblers do not also turn their nose up at it they will be shut down directly by men with guns. Responsible wallet software will check if a sending wallet is blacklisted, and if it is, will either send the crypto back or will forward it to a government holding wallet without further intervention from the user because accepting crypto from blacklisted wallets will be an excellent way to end up under legal scrutiny for money laundering or tax evasion. Crypto's no harder to stop than any other instrument. The fig leaf of immunity to government control is solely due to governments taking time to form cogent positions on new technologies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 01:49
|
|
|
Bitcoin is strictly zero sum; there's no actual profit created or earned by the existence of butts existing. If you buy Verizon stock, then you get dividends from profits generated, or capital gains from useful economic activity being created by the business. I think Tesla is stupidly overpriced and at some point there's a reckoning when they discover that tens of thousands of cars being sold in a year doesn't justify a P/E ratio in the thousands -- but it's still a business doing things that have an actual impact. The promise of selling a hundred thousand Tesla vehicles causes optimism in future revenues. This economic behavior is not zero-sum; you can grow real wealth by stock investment that usually (but not always) reflects in real growth of the real economy. There's no product with bitcoin. The "innovation" of blockchain does not require the actual associated coin. In fact, it creates negative value because its transactional process is so expensive that the economy bleeds money to pay for these expenses in fiat that is needed to pay utilities, rent, and other costs of mining.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 01:53
|
|
|
John_A_Tallon posted:The same infrastructure that will be required to monitor wallet addresses for transfers of more than $3000 will be useful for publishing "blacklist warnings" about wallets associated with dumb fuckers who get their assets frozen. Blacklisted wallet lists will be pushed to exchanges and they will not touch them on threat of not being an exchange anymore. The blacklists will be pushed to tumblers, and if the tumblers do not also turn their nose up at it they will be shut down directly by men with guns. Responsible wallet software will check if a sending wallet is blacklisted, and if it is, will either send the crypto back or will forward it to a government holding wallet without further intervention from the user because accepting crypto from blacklisted wallets will be an excellent way to end up under legal scrutiny for money laundering or tax evasion. Exchanges have been irrelevant since they started doing KYC Edit: I'm starting to think I fell for a troll here, mostly of "Responsible wallet software will check if a sending wallet is blacklisted, and if it is, will either send the crypto back or will forward it to a government holding wallet" xtal fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jan 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
This is more or less what I talk about when people get really into investing in it and I agree with everything there. But at the same time the idea that putting in 50 bux to see if you can walk away with more six months later doesn't seem like bad advice. Seems like a slot machine with slightly better odds that plays itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
Lil Peeler posted:This is more or less what I talk about when people get really into investing in it and I agree with everything there. But at the same time the idea that putting in 50 bux to see if you can walk away with more six months later doesn't seem like bad advice. Seems like a slot machine with slightly better odds that plays itself. thats capitalism
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 02:00
|
|
|
If you want to gamble, then gamble. You don't need our permission to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 02:01
|
|
|
you do, actually
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 02:01
|
|
|
I'll just have one gamble, as a treat
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 02:06
|
|
|
xtal posted:Exchanges have been irrelevant since they started doing KYC The feds can literally mandate that requirement if they want to, and can physically shut down distributors of any software that doesn't comply with requirements to reject transfers from black listed wallets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 02:12
|
|
|
While it's definitely possible to relitigate the Crypto Wars, it's highly unlikely and I really wouldn't be begging for it
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 02:18
|
|
|
It's the obvious outcome of the SEC's policy changes to require reporting on wallet transfers of over $3000 value. No one needs to beg for it, they're going to do it so they can exercise control.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
It really doesn't matter either way, Bitcoin very obviously isn't "censorship-resistant" in any way. States could even block the protocol completely if they wanted to. But I don't get why people keep bringing these obviously moronic arguments, just be honest and say "people should invest because I want to see the pump continued". Way more respectable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 02:24
|
|
|
John_A_Tallon posted:It's the obvious outcome of the SEC's policy changes to require reporting on wallet transfers of over $3000 value. No one needs to beg for it, they're going to do it so they can exercise control. There is better chance of the American empire collapsing tomorrow and bitcoin taking over the world, than there being a law that you can't make cryptocurrency software without a blacklist feature. It doesn't sound like you know a lot about software. Fame Douglas posted:States could even block the protocol completely if they wanted to. Same to this. Not the likelihood, the knowing about software.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
xtal posted:There is better chance of the American empire collapsing tomorrow and bitcoin taking over the world, than there being a law that you can't make cryptocurrency software without a blacklist feature. It doesn't sound like you know a lot about software. sure there is buddy, sure there is
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 03:03
|
|
|
Chinatown posted:so should i open a coinbase account and buy some of this poo poo or what? Not at their current fee rates. Robinhood's less dependable with pricing, but the chances are better you'll come out ahead of buying/selling with Coinbase.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 03:06
|
|
|
For your entertainment, a guy wrote a medium article about the guy in the news who is not able to remember the password to his bitcoins, that it's unironically good for bitcoin. https://omid-malekan.medium.com/about-that-guy-who-cant-access-his-bitcoins-8036583b3269 Basically the author argues that the spreading of the story of the loss helps support the idea, of how bitcoin is valuable due to it's scarcity, as you can't replace the bitcoins if you forget how to access them, and the risk of losing access to your bitcoin also helps support it's value. So with that big-brain logic, if everyone on the planet would simply agree to lose their passwords, or just set their wallets on stand-lone harddrives and destroy the drives, then crypto prices should increase in a unit price of the millions or billions each. So Serpah would do himself a favor and do something good for bitcoin if he just threw all his token thingies into an industrial furnace. Right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 03:39
|
|
|
xtal posted:Yes, because you are just explaining currency. If someone outlawed trading USD what value would USD have? I don't think that you understood the question. In that scenario, bitcoin is not outlawed; all that would be outlawed would be currency conversion. You don't normally need to convert USD into some other currency before using it, which is a central feature of all currencies, but the same cannot really be said of bitcoin. There are exceptions of course, but for the most part spending BTC first requires being able to convert it into an actual currency that people want. That's because bitcoin is not really currency, it's more like baseball cards. You can trade baseball cards for stuff if you find the right buyer, but it would be nonsensical to claim that that's sufficient to label baseball cards as a currency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 05:30
|
|
|
Chinatown posted:so should i open a coinbase account and buy some of this poo poo or what? iirc you can just use the Cash app to bet on bitcoin without actually buying any, and without giving a bunch of personal information to coinbase. If you just want to gamble a little bit that's the path of least resistance But if you just want to gamble a little bit there are better ways of doing that than bitcoin
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
John_A_Tallon posted:It's the obvious outcome of the SEC's policy changes to require reporting on wallet transfers of over $3000 value. No one needs to beg for it, they're going to do it so they can exercise control. They can regulate exchanges that are operating openly on the www yes, but I don't see how they can track bitcoin being exchanged on an encrypted TOR network with anonymous bitcoin wallets without doing something like installing a secret camera inside a suspect's house to look at their screen. The only time the wallets would connect to an actual exchange would be to cashout the bitcoin, but that's all they'd see, some random wallet cashing out bitcoin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 07:18
|
|