Blockchain/Digital Currency as part of 'The Great Reset'

[Agent Orange Cooper]

The banks = the record industry. P2P file sharing = P2P value transfer. See where we're going? All they can do is adapt and evolve (like how now we have streaming services for the music corps to use to rake in profits while the artists get less than nothing).

I don't know from monetary theory, but not sure the PTP file sharing wrt music is a great analogy or something to be emulated, if you happen to be the artist, at least. The less than nothing that artists get from streaming services is more than the zero of nothing they get from P2P file sharing.

But, as we say here in the Zyxx Quadrant, you're the arbiter of that.

https://www.missiontozyxx.space/season1/112

Read the paragraph I wrote immediately following that one, regarding digital scarcity and NFTs.

[mentalgongfu2]

This paragraph?

By the way, that's another feature of Bitcoin, possibly its greatest feature. The invention of digital scarcity. Thus, after 50 years, the Internet can now reliably store value. Research NFTs (non-fungible tokens), and think about how this sort of tech will affect the future of art and artists' livelihoods on the internet.

I'm not sure how that assuages my concerns. Perhaps I am lacking in imagination, and I am certainly lacking in monetary theory background. I don't pretend otherwise. On any other day, I would have looked up NFTs in more depth, but you know, the whole storming of the Capitol distracted me. So forgive me if I ask you to maybe repeat the important points of how that addresses my concerns in a few sentences or paragraphs rather than sending me on a google hunt. I'm genuinely interested in learning and expanding my knowledge base. But rather than asking me to sort the wheat chaff, maybe you could give me a starting point in your own words. I would appreciate that much more than any link or video.

[Agent Orange Cooper]

Basically, digital scarcity will enable artists to own/manage/sell their own digital content without fear of its being copied/pirated.

"Digital artists can have a nightmare protecting their copyright — and it can be difficult for talented creators to make a living. Through NFTs, someone can buy a creation and proudly showcase it in a virtual space, with blockchain offering proof of ownership. Artists can get a bigger cut of the payment, too... and even portion out a residual profit from future sales, to create a recurring revenue stream." https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/nonf ... -use-cases

[DrEvil]

^^That doesn't make any sense. I can buy a piece of digital art, copy it and distribute it for free, just like piracy already works.

Stripping out DRM from the ebooks I buy is routine and easy, why should it be any different for NFTs?

[Harvey]

^ ^^ ^^^ Of course it doesn't make any sense but, of course, people are already buying this shit.

[Agent Orange Cooper]

"It doesn't make any sense" - says a person who doesn't know a thing about it

https://opensea.io/blog/guides/non-fung ... ible_token

[DrEvil]

^^There's still nothing there to prevent me from copying a piece of digital art. If I buy a song there's nothing to stop me from recording it onto a different device while listening to it. If I buy a painting there's nothing to stop me from hitting Print Screen and saving it as a new image.

[Elvis]

I wrote:

Here's the crux of the issue: the dollar is public; bitcoin is private.

Wrong, absolutely wrong. The dollar is privately issued. The 'public' has zero say over its creation (inflation schedule), and less than zero say over its distribution. We don't even know anything about its distribution, except that it doesn't go to us. All we get is the effects of their inflation, destroying the value of our savings. As Jack Mallers put it in that video I posted up above, under the monetary policy of the last however many decades, the average person operates their life at a loss if they aren't getting a 20% raise every year to keep pace with inflation (true inflation, not the phony CPI)

Wrong, absolutely positively—and legally—wrong! If you mean the notion that the Fed is "privately owned" and not part of the government, forget it. The Fed is a public institution—which means owned by the public. Legal ownership is the last word, and the courts have affirmed ownership of the Fed by the US federal government. The Fed is a tool created by the Congress, who can, and does, tell the Fed what it can and can't do, and, at times, what the Fed must do; the Fed must comply. If you mean the bank shareholders of the twelve regional Fed banks, they have no traditional shareholder power—no voting rights, no policy, no power. The Federal Reserve Act was a compromise, not a conspiracy: commercial banks won the right to continue creating money for profit by making loans, but it would henceforth be all US government dollars; the rest of us got a faster and more reliable payments system.

The system is far from ideal, there's a lot of out-dated rubbish in it, and as I've said, I would basically make commerical for-profit banks obsolete by replacing them with branches of the central bank, and/or other public banks, all of whose lending could be 0% interest or less—and user-owned credit unions (which are private, but private collectives). In this context, public means owned by the public, collectively.

Then there are legal issues. An important idea is that the entity who makes the laws governing credit & commerce should be the issuer of the unit of account.

Important to whom?

Important to the polity, to The People, to us—whose lives should never be forced to depend on profit-seeking money lenders—i.e. money creators. Anyone who takes out a bank loan or uses a credit card is participating in dollar created. You can look at the appropriations by Congress to see who gets it. Some of it goes to me. It's not that mysterious.

Bitcoin is no more private than the Internet is private

Well, guess who created the Internet, it wasn't private. Bitcoin is created by private entities (or have governments gotten into the act?). I read that it costs a lot to get set up, plus the electricity costs.

You'll have to define the 'public purpose' for me—it's very vague and I don't speak collectivist.

I think we're just having two different conversations about two different things. My encounters with bitcoin promoters have all reflected this complete lack of even any conception of a public purpose. You might also call it the "general welfare." I think what most bitcoiners are excited about is getting rich, and trying to remove the government from the commerce equation will be impossible.

[Elvis]

With regard to central bank digital currency, "stablecoin," privacy etc.:

https://decrypt.co/50384/cryptos-new-vi ... stable-act

the legal scholar who helped draft the controversial Stablecoin Tethering and Bank Licensing Enforcement (STABLE) Act with Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, wants you to know that he cares about anonymous digital cash—but he’s not about to give a free pass to those who he believes pose a systemic risk to the US monetary system.

Grey, an assistant professor at Willamette University College of Law, has worked with Rep. Tlaib to draft major financial regulatory reform bills, including the Public Banking Act, which was introduced in late October, and the Automatic Boost to Communities Act, a COVID emergency cash relief plan that directed the Treasury to invest in an open-source, self-hosted digital wallet capable of handling anonymous transactions.

“We think that it’s more important to preserve anonymous decentralized privacy when it comes to public money than forms of private money,” he said. “The idea that we don’t care about privacy is bullshit...I care so much that I think the only fight worth having is over public money, and that all this stuff about DeFi is just a mistake of attention and focus.”

More about the STABLE Act:

https://twitter.com/rohangrey/status/13 ... 1204325378

@RashidaTlaib's new "Stablecoin Tethering & Bank Licensing Enforcement (STABLE) Act", (#STABLEAct) cosponsored by @ChuyForCongress & Chair of the House Financial Services Committee's Fintech Task Force, @RepLynch

[Belligerent Savant]

https://twitter.com/JulietParrish15/sta ... 5060024321

[Elvis]

The WEF doesn't set policy or make laws. They publish papers and make videos.

[dada]

I don't think it matters, Elvis. It's all about evoking an emotion. The language of the tweet is geared to appeal to a particular subculture, all the right buttons must be hit, all the correct notes in the melody. The tweet is here just as an expression of fandom. Sharing the memes is sharing the love.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

The tweet was satire. It still exists, somehow, in this increasingly non-humorous world.


The yearly Davos conference attended by billionaires, policy-makers, bureau/technocrats suggests more influence than the flippant comment by Elvis above.

Time will tell, eh.

[dada]

Why does it suggest more influence to you? Bunch of folks who play the Capitalist game obsessively get together at a conference, listen to lectures and advertising pitches. Look for a well to throw their money down this year. Maybe it's buying into the mystique of Capitalism that makes it seem more romantic and powerfully moving to you than it really is.

What exactly is the tweet satirizing? Liberals?

[dada]

"Time will tell, eh."

Not if you tell time first!