Jump to content

Wandering_Dog

Member
  • Content Count

    620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About Wandering_Dog

  • Rank
    Advanced

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I know right, that dictionary, crazy stuff. EDIT: What would make me really happy is you taking this course before your next post.
  2. Lighten up gents. We're all here to talk about changing the financial system--instead of telling people who disagree with you to stop posting ("why are you even here, man?"), or calling it FUD, do some research and share why they are wrong. The forum benefits by keeping standards for information high.
  3. You misunderstood. I wasn't asking why you are literally here (you are probably here to talk about XRP), I was mocking your attempt to silence other posters using some of the same language from your post. If you think XRP will democratise finance I'm happy to learn more about what you think that means. Posts on instability and inequality can be found in other threads.
  4. Maybe English isn't your mother tongue. In which case: Someone who does a poor job of silencing opposition on a forum, assuming they are paid to perform that function (a professional), and the work they produce on said forum is poor (such as a poorly written post) despite their professional status, means they are by definition a hack (a professional who's work quality is poor). In this case, the assumption that the posts in support of the product associated with the forum may or may not be true, and are difficult to verify. Thus: if the poster is not a professional working in support of the product but is making claims about future performance of an unregulated commodity or asset from a position of knowledge, then they are by definition a shill (someone acting as a spokesperson or promoter; a person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they themselves have an interest; or an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others). If the individual is genuinely ignorant of facts and posts in opposition of said facts they are a moron (a very stupid person). Which can be corrected through education, for example, by reading a dictionary. And to save us all the trouble: Stupid: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting. TL;DR Don't hide behind ad hominem like a dirty Hippy Tiny (<-- that would qualify as a personal attack)
  5. Furthermore, threats of censorship on a forum promoting "censorship-resistant technology"? Really? If you aren't peddling snake oil, Tiny, feel free to support your views properly. That means no calls for silencing opposition or appeals to faith, in case you were wondering.
  6. This is duplicitous. My statement mirrors his and others like it (yours included). Continuing the trend: your post, Tiny, is aggressive negativity, perhaps make your points without attacking others.
  7. So if I'm a billionaire lobbying the gov to give me a monopoly license over banking, which you disagree with, you think your best course of action is to ignore me? A better question is why would you support a system so fervently if it increases instablity and inequality? The argument "why are you here" applies much more to you than anyone else. So, honestly, why are you even here? Just another hack or shill looking for personal gain on the back of institutional exploitation? Do the world a favor and stop posting.
  8. What benefit is there for a sovereign that moves from a fiat currency to a liability backed by real assets, especially real resources (generally land)? For example, the US, obviously would lose a great deal, and the world, as the supply of money would become fixed--it would crash the global economy. For a small developing nation, say DRoC, which is rich in natural resources but is exploited by larger developed countries whose currencies are higher in the settlement hierarchy, the benefits accrue to outside investors who no longer have to fear instability associated with domestic institutions--DRoC citizens don't benefit, it's just another, faster, means of being pillaged. As stated in the video the system is easily manipulated, either outright, through inaccurate information on the feed, or more importantly, third party manipulation of exchange rates for fiat currencies, or say, land (!). Issuing a USD_land_01 where land_01 is, say, a copper mine in Brazil, how do you re-collaterize it? Do you add more copper mines when the first mine is flooded? When the Brazilian political system alters labour laws and prevents anyone from working in the mine, the mine's value falls to zero and the stable coin is worthless at best, or the collateral is transferred to parties with the power to issue fiat USD. Backing liabilities with real assets is a path to exploitation, not freedom. Closing your borders and issuing your own fiat, for example China, is the best way to develop an economy--not making your real resources vulnerable to international legal systems over which you have no control. There are no price indexes for natural resources. Where's the price index for Russian uranium deposits, or oil deposits in the South China Sea? Furthermore, who enforces claims on the ledger? No one. How? If a bank issues USD in a gold standard system, and my belief in the reserves of that bank vanish, there is nothing stopping people from exchanging that USD--there is literally nothing new here. What do you mean "asset holders [can] pull their assets"? Are you talking about the gold standard (the thing xrp is trying to recreate)? What money supply is based on "assets", and what assets are you talking about? A copper mine, a private bond, a public municipal bond, a public federal bond, and a system of redemption (such as a peg or conversion) are all very different things and none of them determine the money supply of a sovereign. Yeah, like opening up households to getting financially ***** by larger players issuing USD without any regulation at all. A responsible country... Hmm, ok. Well, I'm more interested in your analysis, maybe you can add more information using, say, Argentina as an example. Hong Kong (imports 90% of its food, has almost no land, and survives as a financial hub for fiat currencies)? Saudi Arabia (will have an average annual temperature of 50C by 2100)? I'm not following your logic here. You say: backing liabilities with real assets improves things--but you haven't made clear why. Historically backing liabilities with real things has had negative consequences and is simple a naive way to think about money. Again, how does backing a USD with a copper mine in Brazil help growth, and I won't even bother bringing up whether or not growth is the answer (hint: it's not).
  9. No, preventing someone from buying something is not the same as increasing spending by someone else. If spending by workers is too low, in a system where xrp is used as a settlement layer, that spending can't be increased by gov intervention, the stagnation cannot be corrected.
  10. Ok, this is an incorrect understanding of a fiat ledger, which treats entries like commodities, when they are not. You cannot "hide" USD, as it exists on a ledger that is controlled by the gov. When we say it's "hidden" or "inaccessible" to the gov, that is an expression of our political system, which controls that ledger, our laws, and the legal system. All USD are always accessible by the US Gov, that we choose to prevent ourselves from some actions or contrain others is a choice--and this choice does not exist on ledgers outside of the gov's control, such as the XRPL. So no, the premise that dollars bills can be hidden is false. Furthermore, it is irrelevant--because the gov can create more USD, or destroy any USD, at any time, the supply of reserves is fully flexible as are the supply of the lower monies such as commercial bank deposits and private debt instruments. USD can always be taken as the gov can adjust its ledger any way it chooses--it simply reduces numbers in one account and adds numbers to another--nothing needs to be "forced", as it was never under anyone else's control. So you need to be more specific about how the statement "crypto is secure" but also "crypto can be taken without consent", because the latter sounds like a negation to me. Again, you cannot retrieve my keys by putting me under duress. Futhermore, I can destroy my keys, or the person or device who knows the keys can be destroyed. In all cases, regardless of consequences, the XRP can be made inaccessible, period. And no, you cannot tax something that is inaccessible in such a way, when that thing is the settlement asset. Show me how you tax a balance sheet with XRP on it that you can't access--that is magic, and I'd be interested in seeing it, as you say its a non-issue.
  11. Do you mean to say, that XRP, or any crypto, is not secure and can be accessed by governments and private parties without your consent? So my premise that 'crypto is secure' is false? Is that really your belief here?
  12. You are interested in something you don't understand... And you aren't interested in the work involved to understand it... But you expect the future to reach a future state based on faith... That's religion mate.
  13. "people can already hide things" is not a valid argument, because the state can create the settlement asset in one system but cannot in another. A state's inability to access 'hidden' money in a fiat sustem, whether a warehouse in Iraq filled with cash or a complex legal structure across multiple jurisdictions holding financial assets, is immaterial as it controls its own ledger on which the settlement asset resides--what matters in such a system are the real assets, ie productive capacity. In contrast, if the state needs to redistribute XRP in order to redistribute purchasing power, they are powerless to do so.
×
×
  • Create New...