Bitcoin

[MU82]

After shutting down local bitcoin exchanges and banning ICOs, China is moving to eradicate the country's bitcoin mining industry over concerns about excessive electricity consumption and financial risk, FT reports.

Another crackdown? The SEC has asked ProShares, as well as Van Eck Associates and First Trust Advisors, to shelve applications for bitcoin-related ETFs, marking a similar rejection issued to the Winklevoss twins last March.

(From Seeking Alpha this morning)

[MU82]

Stocks

South Korea is planning to ban cryptocurrency trading via exchanges, according to Justice Minister Park Sang-ki, sending bitcoin prices plummeting and throwing the virtual coin market into turmoil. It's a major development as the country is one of the biggest markets in the crypto space. The news also follows yesterday's warning from Warren Buffett that speculation in bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies, "will have a bad ending."

[Benny B]

Forbes.com ran a contributor piece this morning titled "Three Lies Bitcoin Skeptics Tell Themselves."  The contributor/author is a cryptoid (read: crypto fan/owner/promoter) who is responding to another contributor piece titled "Seven Lies Bitcoin Fans Tell Themselves (And Anyone Who Will Listen)" that ran in December.

In short, the three lies that skeptics tell themselves (according to the first piece) are:

1) Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme
2) Bitcoin is not secure
3) Bitcoin cannot be used as money

So here you have a cryptoid who's had over a month to respond to a "Bitcoin fan lies" article with his own "skeptic lies" article, yet these are the only three he could conjure?  Moreover, I don't know of any crypto skeptic who has claimed Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, so really, there are only two "lies" here, and both of the remainder are - at best - half lies (or half untruths?), i.e. granted Bitcoin is not not secure, but wallets and keys aren't always secure & Bitcoin can be used as money at some merchants, but it can't be used like money at all merchants.

Moreover, half of his references are citing information coming from pro-crypto sources, e.g. coindesk, 99bitcoins, the author's previous work, etc.

I'm actually working on a white paper discussing both sides of cryptos, and frankly, I've got 6 pages debunking the hype and explaining why cryptos are to be mostly avoided, but it's proving to be quite difficult to gather anything objective/empirical that would indicate a positive future for cryptos (not the future of blockchain... that's a different story) or its place in the global financial system just so I can present both sides.  In fact, I'm having a hard time finding anyone who doesn't hold Bitcoin (or isn't being incentivized to promote it) who will suggest - or even speculate - that cryptos are a good investment.

So I'm just going to be transparent here because evidently Benny's mad skillz are fading and trolling you cryptos in the hopes that you'll bombard me with something meaningful I can use simply isn't working.  Someone please help me out here... make the case for cryptos without citing hype because the only thing I've seen is a WSJ link that Heisey posted which is actually more con/neutral than pro-crypto.

Something peer-reviewed from another country would be ideal (preferably written or translated to English), but at this point I'd settle for anything written by anyone with any sort of objectivity with a Master's in any discipline so long as it's a notch about U of Phoenix.

[Eldon]

Forbes.com ran a contributor piece this morning titled "Three Lies Bitcoin Skeptics Tell Themselves."  The contributor/author is a cryptoid (read: crypto fan/owner/promoter) who is responding to another contributor piece titled "Seven Lies Bitcoin Fans Tell Themselves (And Anyone Who Will Listen)" that ran in December.

In short, the three lies that skeptics tell themselves (according to the first piece) are:

1) Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme
2) Bitcoin is not secure
3) Bitcoin cannot be used as money

So here you have a cryptoid who's had over a month to respond to a "Bitcoin fan lies" article with his own "skeptic lies" article, yet these are the only three he could conjure?  Moreover, I don't know of any crypto skeptic who has claimed Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, so really, there are only two "lies" here, and both of the remainder are - at best - half lies (or half untruths?), i.e. granted Bitcoin is not not secure, but wallets and keys aren't always secure & Bitcoin can be used as money at some merchants, but it can't be used like money at all merchants.

Moreover, half of his references are citing information coming from pro-crypto sources, e.g. coindesk, 99bitcoins, the author's previous work, etc.

I'm actually working on a white paper discussing both sides of cryptos, and frankly, I've got 6 pages debunking the hype and explaining why cryptos are to be mostly avoided, but it's proving to be quite difficult to gather anything objective/empirical that would indicate a positive future for cryptos (not the future of blockchain... that's a different story) or its place in the global financial system just so I can present both sides.  In fact, I'm having a hard time finding anyone who doesn't hold Bitcoin (or isn't being incentivized to promote it) who will suggest - or even speculate - that cryptos are a good investment.

So I'm just going to be transparent here because evidently Benny's mad skillz are fading and trolling you cryptos in the hopes that you'll bombard me with something meaningful I can use simply isn't working.  Someone please help me out here... make the case for cryptos without citing hype because the only thing I've seen is a WSJ link that Heisey posted which is actually more con/neutral than pro-crypto.

Something peer-reviewed from another country would be ideal (preferably written or translated to English), but at this point I'd settle for anything written by anyone with any sort of objectivity with a Master's in any discipline so long as it's a notch about U of Phoenix.

Jamie Dimon called Bitcoin a Ponzi Scheme a few months ago.

As far as anything peer-reviewed, you will likely have to wait.  As far as objective with a notch above U of Phoenix, there are a couple of decent blog posts by some good economists:

https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2017/11/bitcoin-and-bubbles.html

http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/2017/10/bitcoin-backlash-back-to-drawing-board.html

And FWIW, Nouriel Roubini--one of the few non-Austrian economists who predicted the burst of the Housing Bubble--claims that the crypto bubble will find its end (though he is bullish on blockchain technology more generally).

[mu03eng]

Forbes.com ran a contributor piece this morning titled "Three Lies Bitcoin Skeptics Tell Themselves."  The contributor/author is a cryptoid (read: crypto fan/owner/promoter) who is responding to another contributor piece titled "Seven Lies Bitcoin Fans Tell Themselves (And Anyone Who Will Listen)" that ran in December.

In short, the three lies that skeptics tell themselves (according to the first piece) are:

1) Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme
2) Bitcoin is not secure
3) Bitcoin cannot be used as money

So here you have a cryptoid who's had over a month to respond to a "Bitcoin fan lies" article with his own "skeptic lies" article, yet these are the only three he could conjure?  Moreover, I don't know of any crypto skeptic who has claimed Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, so really, there are only two "lies" here, and both of the remainder are - at best - half lies (or half untruths?), i.e. granted Bitcoin is not not secure, but wallets and keys aren't always secure & Bitcoin can be used as money at some merchants, but it can't be used like money at all merchants.

Moreover, half of his references are citing information coming from pro-crypto sources, e.g. coindesk, 99bitcoins, the author's previous work, etc.

I'm actually working on a white paper discussing both sides of cryptos, and frankly, I've got 6 pages debunking the hype and explaining why cryptos are to be mostly avoided, but it's proving to be quite difficult to gather anything objective/empirical that would indicate a positive future for cryptos (not the future of blockchain... that's a different story) or its place in the global financial system just so I can present both sides.  In fact, I'm having a hard time finding anyone who doesn't hold Bitcoin (or isn't being incentivized to promote it) who will suggest - or even speculate - that cryptos are a good investment.

So I'm just going to be transparent here because evidently Benny's mad skillz are fading and trolling you cryptos in the hopes that you'll bombard me with something meaningful I can use simply isn't working.  Someone please help me out here... make the case for cryptos without citing hype because the only thing I've seen is a WSJ link that Heisey posted which is actually more con/neutral than pro-crypto.

Something peer-reviewed from another country would be ideal (preferably written or translated to English), but at this point I'd settle for anything written by anyone with any sort of objectivity with a Master's in any discipline so long as it's a notch about U of Phoenix.

I'm not pro or con at this point....however the pro cause is relatively small simply because the entire concept of cryptocurrency is to circumvent government-based financial instruments, either for legitimate (reduce transactional friction/cost) or illegitimate (tax evasion, illicit activities). I haven't seen much of anything written about the transactional friction aspect, but I think that's largely because regulators are moving to limit/eliminate that benefit (insert commentary on the police/nanny state here).

[Tugg Speedman]

Jamie Dimon called Bitcoin a Ponzi Scheme a few months ago.

As far as anything peer-reviewed, you will likely have to wait.  As far as objective with a notch above U of Phoenix, there are a couple of decent blog posts by some good economists:

https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2017/11/bitcoin-and-bubbles.html

http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/2017/10/bitcoin-backlash-back-to-drawing-board.html

And FWIW, Nouriel Roubini--one of the few non-Austrian economists who predicted the burst of the Housing Bubble--claims that the crypto bubble will find its end (though he is bullish on blockchain technology more generally).

Bearish on bitcoin (or cryptos in general) and bullish on blockchain is code for "I don't understand what I'm saying."  Nouriel is certainly in this camp. It's like being bullish on the internal combustion engine and bearish on the automobile.  One is the technology and the other is the app.  They need each other to work.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/bitcoin-is-here-to-stayand-other-tech-trends-for-2018-1514601904//

Q: What don?t people understand about bitcoin?
A: Many people say ?I don?t know about bitcoin, but I believe in blockchain.? That?s a cop-out because most people still can?t explain blockchain. They don?t really believe in bitcoin, but want to say something positive about it. Yes, blockchain is a distributed public ledger, but we?re really talking about strong cryptography based on mathematics that is being used to create the distributed ledger of bitcoin transactions. Bitcoins don?t exist in a material way. Nothing is actually mined. Computers are being paid in bitcoin for adding transactions to this distributed ledger.

------------

And speaking of not knowing what they are talking about, here's what America's favorite bumbling old man that has done nothing in 15 years but we treat him like a demigod said yesterday ...

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-10/buffett-i-would-buy-five-year-put-every-cryptocurrency

"In terms of cryptocurrencies, generally, I can say with almost certainty that they will come to a bad ending," said Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.

But then there is this ...

Still, Buffett admitting that he'd be a seller even though he "doesn't know anything about" bitcoin - he even claimed he wouldn't be able to explain bitcoin to a classroom of young students - should signal that readers should take his comments with a grain of salt.

After all, by his own admission, Buffett doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Tugg Speedman]

Binance was started in August.  It now has 4.5 million accounts and opening them at a rate of 240,000/hour!

The CEO fled China for Japan because of the government crackdown

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-11/world-s-top-ranked-crypto-venue-added-240-000-users-in-one-hour

(he also noted that Buffett does really know what he is talking about)

[Tugg Speedman]

On a previous page, I told 82 that cryptos can save the newspaper industry.

There is now a crypto called Po.et that is designed to do exactly this ...

https://vimeo.com/227814769

[mikekinsellaMVP]

Bearish on bitcoin (or cryptos in general) and bullish on blockchain is code for "I don't understand what I'm saying."  Nouriel is certainly in this camp. It's like being bullish on the internal combustion engine and bearish on the automobile.  One is the technology and the other is the app.  They need each other to work.

That?s simply not true.  Just as the combustion engine has managed to find other applications outside the automobile (planes, boats, electrical generation, etc.), the excitement about blockchain technology from crypto skeptics comes from the realization of its potential for other applications (healthcare records, rights management, etc.)  It certainly doesn?t need cryptos to be a successful technology.

[Tugg Speedman]

That?s simply not true.  Just as the combustion engine has managed to find other applications outside the automobile (planes, boats, electrical generation, etc.), the excitement about blockchain technology from crypto skeptics comes from the realization of its potential for other applications (healthcare records, rights management, etc.)  It certainly doesn?t need cryptos to be a successful technology.

Any technology is meaningless without a killer app.  Without one it just remains an interesting idea.

The killer app for the internet is the browser.
The killer app for the internal combustion engine is the car
The killer app for cellular is the mobile phone

The killer app for the blockchain is cryptocurrencies.

Medical records are a rounding error.

[WarriorDad]

Jamie Dimon seems to be backing off his statements that Bitcoin is a fraud.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-the-times-dimon-may-regret-bashing-bitcoin-in-one-chart-2018-01-09

[Tugg Speedman]

Jamie Dimon seems to be backing off his statements that Bitcoin is a fraud.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-the-times-dimon-may-regret-bashing-bitcoin-in-one-chart-2018-01-09

If cryptos "work" and become a store of value and a medium of exchange, the biggest loser is the largest bank in the country, JP Morgan.  Cryptos compete with traditional banking and they are faster and cheaper.

So, if you need a "face" too attached to the loser because of the emergence of cryptos, Jamie Dimon is as good an example as you can find (Warren Buffett is a close second).

This is why he says this.  And like taxi drivers that were so sacred of Uber that in an act of desperation they beat up Uber drivers and set their cars on fire, Dimon is essentially doing the same thing.

[Tugg Speedman]

Surprised it took this long for this story to be written ...

Is Bitcoin Racist? (Review of "The Politics of Bitcoin")
https://extranewsfeed.com/is-bitcoin-racist-2a548fc86e5f

[Tugg Speedman]

Poll: Some Investors Use a Credit Card to Buy Bitcoin and Then Carry Over the Balance
https://lendedu.com/blog/bitcoin-and-credit-cards/

LendEDU polled 672 active Bitcoin investors and discovered that many of them are purchasing the crypto currency in an incredibly risk manner: incurring credit card debt.

[Jockey]

Surprised it took this long for this story to be written ...

Is Bitcoin Racist? (Review of "The Politics of Bitcoin")
https://extranewsfeed.com/is-bitcoin-racist-2a548fc86e5f

Why are you not banned after starting a blatant political thread about the so-called president and his whores?

Now you are trying again in this thread?


What gives?

[Tugg Speedman]

Ehtereum is taking off, now above $1,400.  The conversation is beginning that it might surpass bitcoin's market cap (Ethereum is now $137 billion, Bitcoin is $254 billion).

Why?  Because the Ethereum network released a software upgrade on January 1 called Casper Testnet.  It does away woth "miners" and uses "forgers" which requires a lot less comouting power and a lot less electricity.

https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/lightning-network-ethereum-eth-surges-casper-approaches/


Bitcoin is a "Proof-of-Work (PoW) network" that relies on miners to solve extremely complex cryptographic equations to verify that transactions are true. In exchange for their work, the mining nodes are rewarded with ?block rewards? in the form of crypto tokens.

However, mining equations have gotten to be so complex that the only way to mine Bitcoin profitably is to have a roomful of expensive equipment ? mom-and-pop miners have been priced out of the game. The Bitcoin mining industry is now dominated by large-scale, corporate operations; the block rewards are being distributed to a shrinking pool of high-powered miners. In other words, the Bitcoin network is becoming centralized.

Not only is the centralization of a blockchain a security liability, but centralized networks are also more susceptible to market manipulation. Crypto whales, who hold large amounts of currency, can dump them onto exchanges, causing quick, dramatic drops in price. Investors may then panic-sell their coins, driving the price lower still; the whale can then buy even more coins at a discount, and the cycle continues.

Ethereum uses a "Proof-of-Stake network" which does not rely on mining in order to confirm transactions and add them to the blockchain. Instead, PoS nodes perform ?forging? duties; they create new blocks as needed as transactions are processed.

Instead of distributing mining duties to the nodes with the most computing power, PoS distributes its own verification duties according to how much of the network?s cryptocurrency a node holds, as well as how long that node has held onto that cryptocurrency. Therefore, expensive mining equipment is not necessary to be a forger on a PoS network. There are no block rewards ? forgers collect transaction fees directly.

Because PoS incentivizes users to hold onto their coins, PoS promotes the stability of a blockchain network and the value of its corresponding cryptocurrency. In a PoW network, nodes do not actually need to own any of the cryptocurrency they are mining in order to perform their duties. PoS networks require that forgers hold some amount of the crypto they are earning.

PoS networks also have a much lower carbon footprint than PoW networks. Wired reported in early December of 2017 that a single Bitcoin transaction ?requires the same amount of energy used to power nine homes in the US for one day.? The Ethereum community and its conscientious leader, Vitalik Buterin, have seen the greener nature of PoS as additional incentive to make the switch.

[Tugg Speedman]

Earlier this week (above) we had stories about South Korea cracking down on cryptoexchanges and China cracking down on miners.  Both stories were not exactly true.  South Korea is looking a regulation, not ban, ditto China and miners. (also see the Ethereum post above, a solution to the power usage of mining might be here)

On the flipside, Venezuela is starting a cryptocurrency called the Petro and now Ukraine is thinking of getting in the game.

https://news.bitcoin.com/calls-for-legal-bitcoin-in-ukraine-as-natsbank-mulls-e-fiat/

Ukraine, now serious about crypto regulation, is setting up a special working group to oversee the completion of the necessary framework. Dedicated legislation has been making its way through parliament since October. The National Bank is considering plans to emit ?e-hryvnias?, while the justice minister says bitcoin is a fact and calls for its legalization.

Why is this important?  Two reasons

1) The US is a laggard in cryptos.  The third world and Asia are leading the charge into the area.

2) If the third world and Asia are adopting cryptos, it becomes impossible to ban them.  Because if you ban them, using these examples, then you are telling the American financial system they can no longer do business is Venezuela and Ukraine (and whoever else follows them).  If you ban a country's currency, whatever form they decide it to be, then you ban US commerce from happening in that country.

[Hards Alumni]

Earlier this week (above) we had stories about South Korea cracking down on cryptoexchanges and China cracking down on miners.  Both stories were not exactly true.  South Korea is looking a regulation, not ban, ditto China and miners. (also see the Ethereum post above, a solution to the power usage of mining might be here)

On the flipside, Venezuela is starting a cryptocurrency called the Petro and now Ukraine is thinking of getting in the game.

https://news.bitcoin.com/calls-for-legal-bitcoin-in-ukraine-as-natsbank-mulls-e-fiat/

Ukraine, now serious about crypto regulation, is setting up a special working group to oversee the completion of the necessary framework. Dedicated legislation has been making its way through parliament since October. The National Bank is considering plans to emit ?e-hryvnias?, while the justice minister says bitcoin is a fact and calls for its legalization.

Why is this important?  Two reasons

1) The US is a laggard in cryptos.  The third world and Asia are leading the charge into the area.

2) If the third world and Asia are adopting cryptos, it becomes impossible to ban them.  Because if you ban them, using these examples, then you are telling the American financial system they can no longer do business is Venezuela and Ukraine (and whoever else follows them).  If you ban a country's currency, whatever form they decide it to be, then you ban US commerce from happening in that country.

Reasons are twofold.  Americans and the rest of the world use the Dollar as a reserve currency so they will be slower to adopt.  If Asia can exploit this and make BTC a reserve currency, it levels the playing field.

[Goose]

Hards

There is nothing the Chinese would love more than leveling the playing field. Big time goal of the Chinese.

[forgetful]

Reasons are twofold.  Americans and the rest of the world use the Dollar as a reserve currency so they will be slower to adopt.  If Asia can exploit this and make BTC a reserve currency, it levels the playing field.

Not going to happen.  Countries will not give up their control over currency.  If anything, you will see nations create their own cryptos (like Venezuela and Ukraine) and we will see the US convert their currency over to a crypto...meaning the dollar stays and it is still the reserve currency, but the way transactions are handled will be shifted to a blockchain like model.  That model will be altered substantially, to allow greater centralized control over the monetary system. 

If the dollar is not the reserve currency (a crypto dollar or the conventional dollar), it will be because the UN creates their own global crypto currency that will be a universal reserve currency.

Currency manipulation by centralized governments is the bedrock of our economic system and the bedrock of capitalism.  They will ensure it stays. 

[Hards Alumni]

Not going to happen.  Countries will not give up their control over currency.  If anything, you will see nations create their own cryptos (like Venezuela and Ukraine) and we will see the US convert their currency over to a crypto...meaning the dollar stays and it is still the reserve currency, but the way transactions are handled will be shifted to a blockchain like model.  That model will be altered substantially, to allow greater centralized control over the monetary system. 

If the dollar is not the reserve currency (a crypto dollar or the conventional dollar), it will be because the UN creates their own global crypto currency that will be a universal reserve currency.

Currency manipulation by centralized governments is the bedrock of our economic system and the bedrock of capitalism.  They will ensure it stays.

I agree with you mostly.  They'll try to ensure it stays, but my guess is that there will always be some sort of NGO crypto that exists... who knows what the legality of it will be, but it will certainly exist.

[Tugg Speedman]

Not going to happen.  Countries will not give up their control over currency.  If anything, you will see nations create their own cryptos (like Venezuela and Ukraine) and we will see the US convert their currency over to a crypto...meaning the dollar stays and it is still the reserve currency, but the way transactions are handled will be shifted to a blockchain like model.  That model will be altered substantially, to allow greater centralized control over the monetary system. 

If the dollar is not the reserve currency (a crypto dollar or the conventional dollar), it will be because the UN creates their own global crypto currency that will be a universal reserve currency.

Currency manipulation by centralized governments is the bedrock of our economic system and the bedrock of capitalism.  They will ensure it stays.

The highlighted part, that the Fed and/or Treasury will create a digital dollar is often given as a reason for why bitcoin or other non-government backed cryptos will die.  But, if you think about it, this can never happen.

While creating a Fed/Treasury-backed digital dollar, the Fed/Treasury would also have to offer a way to acquire and store them, like an electronic wallet.  A Fed/Treasury-backed electronic wallet would end traditional banking and credit cards. 
 
If a Government-backed electronic wallet did exist, the need for a checking account (to store money) and/or a third party to transfer money (i.e., a debit or credit card) goes away.  This function would be done for free by the Government's electronic wallet putting them in direct competition with banks and credit card companies. 
 
And since the Fed/Treasury has the best credit rating making them the safest financial institution, and would do it for no fee, banks would lose.  If they charged a fee, they would be accused of supporting the banking system because the cost of running an electronic wallet is so low that they should charge no fee.  This would be a political issue that they would not want to get into.  I could see Liz Warren hammering them for not allowing the poor to have a free Fed electronic wallet on their mobile phone.
 
Could the Fed create a digital currency and not offer a way for the public to acquire and transfer it?  In other words, force someone to use a bank.  Again, I think this would be politically difficult.
 
A Government created digital currency, and ensuing electronic wallet would be embraced by lefties who want it to become a genuine alternative to banks, much like the Japanese postal savings system.  Conservatives, led by the big banks, would rail against it as they see it as government competition with the private sector.

Given that a government-backed digital currency would inflame both the left and the right, I do not see the Fed/Treasury wanting to step in the middle and willing become the punching bag of both sides.

That said, the existing payment system really looks like an oligopoly that extracts massive rents from merchants (especially small ones) and it would be great to see someone try and disrupt it.  As I wrote a few pages back, the ability to transfer money instantly, at no fee, and in micro-payments, is what the internet desperately needs.  The financial system will never offer that.  So they are ripe to be disrupted by something like a blockchain crypto.

[Tugg Speedman]

Not going to happen.  Countries will not give up their control over currency.  If anything, you will see nations create their own cryptos (like Venezuela and Ukraine) and we will see the US convert their currency over to a crypto...meaning the dollar stays and it is still the reserve currency, but the way transactions are handled will be shifted to a blockchain like model.  That model will be altered substantially, to allow greater centralized control over the monetary system. 

If the dollar is not the reserve currency (a crypto dollar or the conventional dollar), it will be because the UN creates their own global crypto currency that will be a universal reserve currency.

Currency manipulation by centralized governments is the bedrock of our economic system and the bedrock of capitalism.  They will ensure it stays.

See my post above that with any digital or cryptocurrency comes an electronic wallet***  If these 10 countries pull this off, with an electronic wallet, it could force a "game changer" on everyone else.

---

*** You cannot have a crypto without an electronic wallet.  That is like issuing a Government-backed currency and then outlawing banks.  The electronic wallet serves the same purpose as banks do today.  But the electronic wallet does it faster and far more efficiently making the current set-up of banks obsolete.  This is why people like Jamie Dimon, Larry Fink (BlackRock CEO) and Warren Buffett rip cryptos.  It threatens their empires and wealth as it makes them obsolete. (Again think of them as owners of taxi companies and cryptos as ride-sharing).

Venezuela Urges 10 Other Countries to Adopt Its Oil-Backed Cryptocurrency
https://news.bitcoin.com/venezuela-urges-10-other-countries-adopt-oil-backed-cryptocurrency/

Maduro held a meeting of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America ? Treaty of Commerce of the Peoples (Alba ? TCP) on Friday. Alba consists of Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Grenada, and Venezuela.

During the meeting, ?Maduro called on the countries of the Alba to assume together the creation of the cryptocurrency, the petro,? Prensa Latina reported.

?I call on us to assume the petro as an integration currency of our peoples,? Efecto Cocuyo quoted him, adding that it is ?imperative? to take the proposal with ?maximum priority.?

[Hards Alumni]

The highlighted part, that the Fed and/or Treasury will create a digital dollar is often given as a reason for why bitcoin or other non-government backed cryptos will die.  But, if you think about it, this can never happen.

While creating a Fed/Treasury-backed digital dollar, the Fed/Treasury would also have to offer a way to acquire and store them, like an electronic wallet.  A Fed/Treasury-backed electronic wallet would end traditional banking and credit cards. 
 
If a Government-backed electronic wallet did exist, the need for a checking account (to store money) and/or a third party to transfer money (i.e., a debit or credit card) goes away.  This function would be done for free by the Government's electronic wallet putting them in direct competition with banks and credit card companies. 
 
And since the Fed/Treasury has the best credit rating making them the safest financial institution, and would do it for no fee, banks would lose.  If they charged a fee, they would be accused of supporting the banking system because the cost of running an electronic wallet is so low that they should charge no fee.  This would be a political issue that they would not want to get into.  I could see Liz Warren hammering them for not allowing the poor to have a free Fed electronic wallet on their mobile phone.
 
Could the Fed create a digital currency and not offer a way for the public to acquire and transfer it?  In other words, force someone to use a bank.  Again, I think this would be politically difficult.
 
A Government created digital currency, and ensuing electronic wallet would be embraced by lefties who want it to become a genuine alternative to banks, much like the Japanese postal savings system.  Conservatives, led by the big banks, would rail against it as they see it as government competition with the private sector.

Given that a government-backed digital currency would inflame both the left and the right, I do not see the Fed/Treasury wanting to step in the middle and willing become the punching bag of both sides.

That said, the existing payment system really looks like an oligopoly that extracts massive rents from merchants (especially small ones) and it would be great to see someone try and disrupt it.  As I wrote a few pages back, the ability to transfer money instantly, at no fee, and in micro-payments, is what the internet desperately needs.  The financial system will never offer that.  So they are ripe to be disrupted by something like a blockchain crypto.

Great post

[Herman Cain]

I continue to be happen collecting dividends. For example, my basis in AAPL is $2 per share and I am getting $2.52 in dividends per share. Doesn't require any effort and the money comes in like clock work.

I am happy to let others take the risk on ventures like Bitcoin etc. When the government takes tax payments in bitcoin then life will change . Until then US $ cash is king.