The bank of England , Goldman Sachs, and the new world order

So, I'm taking bids for taking out these guys. If you guys are up for or know somebody who wants to hire somebody to kill anyone associated with the company let me know. I only take payments in bitcoins though.

 

I can't stand Goldman Sach's they bought a lovely company I used to work for and sucked the soul out of them.

In regards to where to keep your money, Bitcoins are the way forward, I made a fair deal by poker then taking it out when rates were favourable and then transforiming them into bitcoins, I did eventually convert them back into pounds and into my bank. But it worked out well.

I also provide services for bitcoins but you will only be able to find me on the onion networks and tormail.

 

The Spanish minister of Economy is Luis de Guindos. He has last week been elected the worst minister of economy of all Europe. He was the head of Lehman Brothers in Spain... Obviously, he became minister for a job well done.

 

That isn't Bitcoin's fault though. What got hacked was Mt.Gox, an exchange sites. Exchange sites are responsible for their own management and stock, and can have their own security issues.

Fortunately, there is no need for such thing as a bank account in the world of bitcoin, so as long as you keep your credentials safe nobody is going to run with your money. The point is that Bitcoin is designed to be decentralised, precisely to be free of all sorts of market abuse, so it puzzles when people transfer their coins to any sort of banking service.

The problem with bitcoin is that it's going to take a long, long time to convince people that it's actually safe. I have some basic notions of cryptography and how p2p networks operate, and I have read Satoshi's papers, and that convinced me. But I really doubt your average Joe is going to go through all that study just to invest in a novel currency.

I still believe it's the future though. Let's just give it time.

 

Except that it is bitcoin's fault - it was made possible by the way that the currency works. Because of the way it works, it opens itself up more to this sort of bank heist.

Yes there is a risk with the actual banks as well, but they tend to have insurance against it at the very least.

Yep, so it's a case of keeping all your savings in your mattress. I'm not sure what happens in the case of a hard drive crash.

This would be because it isn't.

Not that the concept isn't good, as such, but the entire value of the bitcoin is what people will trade you for it. So, to have value, people must be willing to accept it. However there's no reason to accept it when all current services are shaped around existing currencies (and mostly work just fine).

There's also the problem that, no matter what precautions might be taken, the network is vulnerable to a DOS attack or similar. If you've got cash in your pocket, the only sort of attack you need to worry about is individual theft - no one can prevent you from buying something by flooding the network.

And of course, there are more risks:

There are better solutions.

 

The key issue, as you hinted there, is with eggs and baskets.

I'd make the argument that all of the problems you proposed come from people improperly using Bitcoin, not because of the network itself.

First, there is no such thing as a DDOS attack "on the network". Individual services, such as exchange websites and investment funds can be attacked, and that can be disruptive to the network in an indirect way. Similarly, users can have their credentials socially engineered (although pretty much every service can).

For Bitcoin to work well people will have to learn what it is and be very conscious that the security of their money depends entirely on them and their know how.

If I were to spend a significant amount in bitcoin, I would have multiple accounts stored on different machines, and be very careful on who I trust with them. I personally feel more safe by having absolute control over my currency, but then again I'm a technologically oriented person. I don't have the means to build a reliable fortress in which to store my real riches, but I'm able to build an electronic one, so that's why it draws me.

My only personal issue with Bitcoin right now is that it's too volatile. It's subject to misuse by the community (like I said before, not understanding well what it is) and as such, strikes of bad publicity (such as a service being hacked) can drive people away from it and make the prices plummet. I'll invest only a little and wait until (if ever) it becomes more mainstream. I have hope though.

 

Well I look at a couple of ways.I don't really think that there will be a huge collapse and apocalyps.but I do thing that things might change, our living standards might drop and some things may be valued less than they are now.
I think that the system is corrupt and I don't really want to aid or assist that corruption so I look to investing in things outside the banks. Silver is number 1 because it is so cheap to own and is a semi precious metal with a miriad of uses

, but if you can buy property ,without a mortgage then that would be good as well.

As to our canadian friend,he may well be very good at his job, although there is talk of a housing bubble in Canada forming, it's really his assosiation with Goldman Sachs that distubs me, call it conspiracy theory if you want , but there do seem to be a heckuvalot of ex Goldman sachs people as key players in governments and central banks it's like a huge web .

 

You are aware that banks trade in silver, gold, platinum and other precious metals right? If you can buy it with money then it's part of the system.

The banking system is open to abuse. There is no doubt of that. But it's not evil. If it weren't for the system we have right now, many people living in the developed world would still be living hand to mouth in a peasant nation.

 

WEll no, we don't have a gold standard.money is backed by nothing but the sweat of the working classes.........in fact you can't even call it money, by definition it is fiat currencey.....gold and silver both have value...........but "money" is a promisory note , backed by nothing. Gold and silver are not part of the monetary system because they cannot be printed,or rehypothecated oand have no counter party risk.if the US or the UK economies crash then there will still be a place for the metals..........they have 5,000 years of history...fiat currencey maybe 50 years:cry:

 

lol...

 

Technically you're right about our money not being backed by anything. But I never even touched on that.

Precious metals are however still part of the system. They are traded through global markets. Banks hold stocks of gold and other precious metals in their vaults. Not too long ago Gordon Brown was berated for selling a very large chunk of Britain's gold reserves held by the Bank of England for too low a price.

So while the banks won't redeem the value of £1 or a million pounds to you in gold. Gold is still part of the current banking system and the wider financial market system. So while it might not be currency for you and me buying a burger at McDonald's. It is however still currency for others. As is anything that can be traded.

You can't escape the system. It's the economy.

 

we are not on a gold standard so technically gold is not currencey. Our currencey is not backed by gold or anything else, therefore it is Fiat currencey.
Currency is not money. The fact that you can buy Gold with currency does not make it part of the banking system, in the sense that you mean. You can buy potatoes wth currencey, but that doesn't mean that potatoes are part of the banking system.

 

Then you don't understand what the gold standard is. I never said we were on the gold standard.

"Money" is what people agree money is. If you and I decide to trade in beans, then beans become a currency. They're not something you can go put in your high street bank account. But for all intents and purposes those beans are now effectively money so far as you and I are concerned.

 

Gold has value because we assign value to it.

 

Everything has value because we assign it some.

I used to be in the camp of "ahh this evil money system!!"

Now I realise well.. what would you rather have?
Surely it is logicial to have a means of trading with each other at a standard rate agreeable by both parties. The Fiat money system has been around since the Roman Empire.. not the last 50 years.

Fractional reserve banking is one of the problems, and so is the application of interest.

Raz

 

Gold has value because it's rare and hard to get to. And we value things that are rare and hard to get hold of. Having these things affords us a certain prestige and status in society. Which is highly prized by many in society.

Fractional reserve banking is certainly a problem. Any economy based purely on the acquisition of wealth (as our economy currently is) will create the same problems to varying degrees. The principle problem being the concentration of wealth amongst relatively few individuals.

If we all bought our groceries with gold, countries would fight over gold as well as oil. Returning to the gold standard does not solve anything. You must still accumulate wealth to get through life and live comfortably.