Again not to my knowledge! But I do moderate another forum, just in the interests of full disclosure.OK, just checking to make sure you are fully declaring your vested interests. You and James aren't the same person are you?
Again not to my knowledge! But I do moderate another forum, just in the interests of full disclosure.OK, just checking to make sure you are fully declaring your vested interests. You and James aren't the same person are you?
OK, so because you moderate another forum you're saying that you could be James? OK...Again not to my knowledge! But I do moderate another forum, just in the interests of full disclosure.
Of course it is dishonest. It is an attempt to poison the well, to argue ad hominem (along the lines of "well, you would say that because you have a vested interest..." without actually addressing the arguments raised). Dismiss the person (due to perceived vested interest) and you can dismiss the argument, right? : rolleyes:Me "declaring" an interest in Bitcoin is a dishonest approach and you should know that.
Nope. I am not James. I am a moderator like James, which means I have similar duties. So we are alike in that way. But "alike" does not mean "the same."OK, so because you moderate another forum you're saying that you could be James? OK...
They can't. It's decentralized. They can't "print" more of it. 22 million Bitcoin is all there will ever be.If Bitcoin ever becomes the “largest currency,” I think the government would get involved. Why do you not think so, Seattle?
Interesting. Well, they can control people from becoming wealthy from it, by regulating it, high taxation, etc.They can't. It's decentralized. They can't "print" more of it. 22 million Bitcoin is all there will ever be.
They'll try to get involved as in, try to regulate it, discourage it's use, maybe "outlaw" it but they can't control it or devalue it.
Interesting. Well, they can control people from becoming wealthy from it, by regulating it, high taxation, etc.
I don’t know much about Bitcoin but there are a few ways to make unattractive, thereby devaluing it?
Nope, but they can make it illegal to possess or trade it - which they would do if it became a way to avoid the control of the federal reserve on the money supply.Not really. If the price goes up and you have enough of it...you would be wealthy. If they taxed it higher than anything else, no one would declare it and pay it. They can't confiscate it.
Nope, but they can make it illegal to possess or trade it - which they would do if it became a way to avoid the control of the federal reserve on the money supply.
I think they haven't made it illegal because it is almost irrelevant in terms of its effect on the money supply. If that changed, their approach would change.Even China hasn't made it illegal to possess Bitcoin since that's not something that anyone could inforce.
US Constitution, Article 1 Section 10: "No State shall . . coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts . . " (Bills of Credit are effectively fiat currency, and Bitcoin can be described that way.)It's unlikely for that to happen because there will always be enough politicians who are in favor of Bitcoin (owe Bitcoin) and it would probably be unconstitutional to do so anyway.
I agree that it seems that way. But peope have been predicting that since 1913 or so, and most people were certain that the debt we incurred during World War II would ruin the US economy. It hasn't happened yet. I have a strong revulsion towards the idea that we can just print our way out of any deficit, but so far it has been successful. That does not mean it will always be successful, but it also means that the odds that it will suddenly "run into the ground" are low.The reality though, IMO, is that we're already past the point where the government can ever do anything but continue to print money (quantitative easing) and eventually that will just run the whole thing into the ground.
I agree. But as I said, that will continue only until Bitcoin starts to influence the economy significantly. Then politicians will want control of it, and as mentioned they have all the tools needed to do that.That's what is going to make Bitcoin adoption more widespread in the U.S. as the dollar becomes more and more worthless.
Whether you own Bitcoin or work for Bitcoin or are paid to promote Bitcoin became relevant the moment you started spruiking the merits of Bitcoin at every opportunity. Before that, it probably didn't matter much.This is a ridiculous question. I have a favorable view of Bitcoin obviously. There is nothing to "declare". Whether I own any Bitcoin or not is not relevant nor is it any of your business.
Thank you for finally declaring your vested interest. Now our membership is empowered to take your promotion of Bitcoin with a large grain of salt, understanding that by advancing the cause of Bitcoin you are also potentially increasing the value of your own "investment".I own some Bitcoin. I own a house. I own some stock. What does any of that have to do with anything?
The obvious question arises, then, as to why you felt it necessary or desirable once again to promote the virtues of Bitcoin, in a thread where you say that such promotion is irrelevant.It's an even more ridiculous question because the thrust of my thread wasn't about Bitcoin.
You failing to declare your vested interest in Bitcoin, while promoting it, it a dishonest approach.Me "declaring" an interest in Bitcoin is a dishonest approach and you should know that.
I don't know about need. But I am in control, to some degree, whether you like it or not.Do you just need to be in control or something?
1. This thread doesn't appear to be about UFOs, so I am unlikely to introduce them into the thread. In point of fact, it appears to be you who has introduced them.I suppose you'll find a way to bring UFO's into this as well? When will you declare your vested interest in UFO's? Do you have a financial interest in a weather balloon company?
It would be relevant if you started spruiking the benefits and attractions of nuclear weapons, recommending that people invest in nuclear weapons, etc. If your words increase demand for nuclear weapons, then the price of nuclear weapons goes up and your nuclear weapons are worth more than they were before. You understand how these things work, I have no doubt.I have an opinion regarding nuclear weapons, do I need to mention whether or not I own any nuclear weapons? It's not relevant.
Please share your thoughts on vested interests, in light of my post explaining their relevance to Seattle. Ta.Of course it is dishonest.
Is this a not-so-subtle way of you telling us that you don't actually understand what a vested interest is or why it might be relevant on a forum such as this?It's so obviously fallacious that coming from someone who tries to paint themself as a paragon of rationality it is laughably ironic.
Oh, look! James R being pathetic again! And still in the playground! How rare!Oh look! Sarkus has popped into a thread 5 minutes after Seattle, to try to defend him against evil James R. How rare!
My thoughts remain as they were when first explained to you: whether or not he has a vested interest is not relevant to what he has said. He's not encouraging anyone to buy, or sell, just laying out the factual situation. There's opinion in there, naturally, but it's not an advertisement, not a fluff piece, and his views would be the same whether he held any or not. Unfortunately this red herring of "vested interest" is just you looking to dismiss what he has said without having to actually address it. Maybe you'll have the intellectual honesty to do so, one day. Who knows.Please share your thoughts on vested interests, in light of my post explaining their relevance to Seattle. Ta.
I understand, thanks, James R, which is why I know it is irrelevant. Stick to what he has said. Argue against that. Not the person. Not whether he holds any currency or not. Not whether he works in that industry or not. You know, address the actual points he makes. The relevant stuff.Is this a not-so-subtle way of you telling us that you don't actually understand what a vested interest is or why it might be relevant on a forum such as this?
This is a strange way of going about showing your ignorance, if so. You could just ask, for instance.
So you're just trolling. I get it. Please don't do that in future. You have repeatedly pushed for him to answer an irrelevancy, while admitting that you aren't here to partake in the thread topic. That makes you a troll. You warn other people for that. But, double standards, I guess.I only popped into this thread to comment on Seattle's promotion (for the n-th time) of Bitcoin. I'm not particularly interested in the thread topic. I have made no attempt to engage with any of the claims made about the ostensible thread topic, let alone to try to counter any of them.
Explaining to you (why your pushing the need to declare any vested interested is a fallacious approach) is hardly irrelevant. Unless you consider yourself such, perhaps? Or maybe you recognise that him having a vested interest is indeed irrelevant to the points he makes, in which case, yeah, pointing that out to you would be a continuation of that irrelevance, I guess.It seems you're barking up an irrelevant tree again.
I do want your attention, James R, so you can become cognizant of your poor behaviour, yet again, that I am highlighting. But whether you actually pay attention or not, and whether you just carry on being the troll, and bully, that you are, well, that's up to you.Are you going to discuss the topic with Seattle, or are you just here because you want my attention again?