Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zarathustra]

@rocks, that's what I say. Silver was just a fraction of total debt. An economy is always about debt. Commodities have been standardised to serve/pay debt. Money is a weasel word. Some claim that bank accounts and even bank notes are not money. I say with Graeber that debt is the real money and grain, metals and other commodities are what they are: commodities. Gold became valuable since the war lords (church and state) demanded it. They needed it to produce weapons to control those who have been forced to deliver it.
"The history of violence of the precious metal" by Dr. Paul C. Martin:
https://www.goldseiten.de/content/kolumnen/download/pcm-17.pdf

The debt issued represents future promises on either money (physical metal) or currency (government notes). If the debt is issued against money, in times of stress governments always reneg and issue currency to fulfill the promise, this is what FDR did btw.
The debt issued represents future promises on either money (physical metal) or currency (government notes). If the debt is issued against money, in times of stress governments always reneg and issue currency to fulfill the promise, this is what FDR did btw.

According to this definition, we live in a moneyless environment.
To me, this is a joke.

A monetary system cannot have too much leverage in it, if there is too much leverage then at some point there is a run out of currency (banks, notes, etc) and towards physical base money, which depletes the reserves until the system breaks.

That's how the economy/society (=hypercollectivism) works since its invention thousands of years ago! Rise and fall. Tainter's law. It's not something stable that the aristocrats from Vienna painted.
It's what Thomas Cole painted:

• 1.1I The Savage State
• 1.2II The Arcadian or Pastoral State
• 1.3III The Consummation of Empire
• 1.4IV Destruction
• 1.5V Desolation

And this is how it worked for 5000 years, if too much leverage was introduced it broke the system. This was how currency and debt was kept reasonable and honest, usually more than a 1-to-2 ratio caused issues. The invention of central banking changed this.

Empires didn't need central banks to collapse. They didn't need central banks to leverage the economy.

With central banking governments removed the concept of money and made currency the base supply. Now they could create all the leverage they wanted, because the mechanism which would stop leverage were removed.

Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Turkey ...
No, they could not. A currency is backed by trust. Not by commodities. Code/metal is not law. The societies define their law.
Do we need a politbüro to set the leverage quota for banks and the central banks? In Switzerland, it's the people who directly vote whether they want their currency fully backed or not. They voted against it, because Switzerland wouldn't be able to compete in the economy if they reduce leverage to medieval level.

Now if there was too much leverage and the monetary system couldn't pay out (because lets say goldman sacks is leverage 50-to-1) the central bank could print currency to stop a run.

Ask Maduro. It's backed by trust. It works as long as people trust their economy.

This printing to stop a run is what as prevented normal mechanisms from keeping currency and leverage in check, and allowed both to run wild. (BTW if you are leverage you are forced to go bankrupt, while governments and banks get bailed out)

The vision of bitcoin I signed up for fixed that. LN would not.

They can print paper Bitcoin like they print paper gold.

 

[cbeast]

The term "tithe" literally means 1/10th.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yes, Paul C. Martin (former Austrian) called it 'debt ex nihilo'. That started the whole debt cycle aka the economy.
There is more to be learned from the first page of this paper than from all economic theories (theologies) combined.

Economy = debitism.

http://www.miprox.de/Wirtschaft_allgemein/Martin-Symp.pdf

Page 6:

"In meiner Tontafelsammlung befindet sich ein interessantes Objekt, wo der Tempel (Bank) an
einen Zalilum 6 Shekel Silber verleiht, wobei der Kaufmann Agaya 5 Ar („acres“) seines
Feldes verpfändet."

google translate:
In my clay tablet collection is an interesting object where the temple (bank)
gives a Zalilum 6 Shekel silver, whereby the merchant Agaya pledged 5 Ar ("acres") of his
Field.

And from a forum post:

I can prove that this also corresponded to the past history
with the help of the clay tablet that I discovered.
(Old Babylonian about 1900 to 1700 B.C.).

On the tablet, translated by experts from Yale University, it reads:
(poorly re-translated from German by me)

"Zalilum owes Nanna 6 Shekel Silver. As security 5
fields of land, owned by the merchant Agaya who pledged the land
for the repayment of the silver. As soon as Zalilum returns the
Silver, the pledge of the land of Agaya becomes
canceled. Until Zalilum returns the silver, Agaya may use the "miksu"
(miksu = yield of fields). Witnesses are Sindata,
Mannum-Girrishu and Silii-Eshtar, who prove their testimony
by unrolling their seals. In the VII month of the year (illegible). "

I had exhibited the clay tablet in Ochsenfurt.

The merchant Agaya is thus the famous X who makes a working title (money) out of debt between Nanna (A) and Zalilum (B). And that's the difference between debt and money or money and debt, explained very clearly.

This difference still exists today. From each central bank eligible
title must be clear that not just one, but at least
two debtors are liable. And of course, the banks are liable for those by the central bank provided collateral and not just the respective debtors of the whatever kind of obligation itself.

 

[cypherdoc]

ViaBTC getting excited!

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

 

[lunar]

Great talk from Ryan.

 

[Zarathustra]

Der Bergmann:

Blockchain Computing on Ethereum and Bitcoin SV

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/c2x8ut/blockchain_computing_on_eth_and_bsv_while/

 

[BldSwtTrs]

I don't understand how public addresses of the first 70 blocks are a proof.
Maybe I am missing something, isn't the public adresse of a block public information?
https://coingeek.com/dr-craig-wright-testifies-he-mined-satoshi-blocks-provides-addresses/

 

[cypherdoc]

if the coins haven't moved, which i don't think they have, then the raw pubkeys couldn't be derived from the addresses. if CSW provided the pubkeys that upon inspection hashed to the addresses via SHA256(RIPEMD160), that should be proof he owns the coins. somehow, i don't think this is the case though.

 

[BldSwtTrs]

Yeah but they are talking about adresses and not public keys.

 

[freetrader]

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

Sounds like he's pointing out that mined coins are acquired without an inbound transaction, and therefore no transaction IDs exist to report.

 

[Richy_T]

Coinbase payouts absolutely have a TXID.

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/0e3e2357e806b6cdb1f70b54c3a3a17b6714ee1f0e68bebb44a74b1efd512098
[doublepost=1561080268][/doublepost]

I don't understand how public addresses of the first 70 blocks are a proof.
Maybe I am missing something, isn't the public adresse of a block public information?
https://coingeek.com/dr-craig-wright-testifies-he-mined-satoshi-blocks-provides-addresses/

Interesting logic in that article. Craig can't be lying because that would make him a liar.

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

Hmm, guess I was thinking of inputs. That's what I get for not double checking. Still... kind of a transaction only by technicality. In context, it looks like he's explaining how the coin ownership was transferred to the entities in question -- not via on-chain transactions, but via access to the private keys.

 

[Richy_T]

Yeah. I'm skeptical that after 70/6 = a little under 12 hours, Satoshi suddenly decided to come up with some fancy trust scheme to keep himself from being able to access his valueless tokens. But that's just like my opinion, man. It's curious what this public addresses of the first 70 blocks could be about though.

 

[cypherdoc]

yeah, 70x50 is only 3500 coins out of a purported 1M coins. no way he gives up control that fast.

 

[79b79aa8]

connecting dots




https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/the-story-of-bitcoin-continued/

 

[Richy_T]

connecting dots

Probably with lines being as it's Colombia.

 

[79b79aa8]

someone in the colombian security establishment owed CSW one. es todo.

 

[freetrader]

connecting dots




https://craigwright.net/blog/bitcoin-blockchain-tech/the-story-of-bitcoin-continued/

What a fucking disgraceful joke.

Glad BCH got rid of you.