de-dollarization

[Into the Night]

I've been reading your discussion with Into the Night, and I think that this statement of yours reveals a fundamental error in your logic. This statement does not make sense in our republic. If We the People wish to limit government's role in one, many or all areas, then We simply do so. If We are not doing so then We the People do not wish the government limited in that respect.

One of the reasons crypto is anything but inevitable is the same reason that all crypto besides Bitcoin is called "Shitcoin" collectively. Crypto, as it is currently understood, is a scam, i.e. a so-called currency that is marketed and purchased as an investment in absolutely nothing that exists. If you are a purchaser of crypto other than Bitcoin then I advise you to sell, recoup whatever money you can and invest it in an actual investment.

This is not to say that crypto cannot evolve/transform, but the most it can do is evolve into exactly the electronic fiat monetary system that we have today. There is no need to wait until the future. We already have electronic banking. If you are saying that you want the government out of banking then convince We the People to have Our representatives make it so.

There is a certain selective memory going on here, but I can understand why it is.

'Investing' in any currency to try to make a 'profit' doesn't really make a profit or loss. This includes blockchain currency like Bitcoin, the target of your sentiments.

It's just trading one currency for another. If you make a 'profit', it's only a reflection of the inflation of the currency you traded away from and back to.
All you are really doing is just trading inflation rates. When you trade back, the 'investment' currency still continues it's own inflation rate.

Bitcoin is deflationary, but the effect of 'investing' in it is the same. All it means is that when you trade back to your fiat currency, next time you buy Bitcoin it will generally be more expensive.

The deflationary effect of Bitcoin (or any blockchain currency) comes about as the blockchain opportunity is consumed. It simply becomes harder and harder to create a new Coin, until no more can be created.

No blockchain currency is fiat. Due to the nature of the blockchain algorithm, it's not possible.

 

[Into the Night]

Your concerns are noted. If you read my replies, you know at the moment I couldn't possibly care less. However, I do thank you for your comment. You and ITN are usually the only real debates I have here so don't misunderstand. I may revisit this in the near future, but I don't have enough give a shit right now. Thanks again.

I understand why. I'm dropping this debate here.

Take care, my friend. We will get through the effects of this heinous crime eventually. If it's any consolation to you, the Democrats won't.

 

[Into the Night]

Fascism is fascism.

Identity. A statement that accomplishes nothing.

All fiat currency has failed.

Not yet. It is failing, but it has not yet failed. People still accept and use it.

Its the banskter trick on the world

Nope. Fiat currency is constructed by governments, not banks.

 

[Into the Night]

What is it backed by?

Blockchain; and the algorithm associated with that particular blockchain.

 

[IBDaMann]

Fascism is fascism.

Let me jot this down and get back to you.

All fiat currency has failed.

Have you purchased anything in dollars lately?

Its the banskter trick on the world

Have you ever used cash? How did the bankers trick you during that transaction?

 

[IBDaMann]

Identity. A statement that accomplishes nothing.

Not yet. It is failing, but it has not yet failed. People still accept and use it.

Nope. Fiat currency is constructed by governments, not banks.

I hadn't seen your response to Name-Changer when I made my response. You had already said what I said.

 

[IBDaMann]

It is, due to the blockchain nature of the currency. It has operational problems, though. It really is only practical in limited environments.

This about sums it up. Even if Bitcoin were to fix its current problems, it would still be working within a fiat currency system that would all but drown it out, i.e. Bitcoin would only be practical in limited environments dictated by the fiat currency system.

Bitcoin happens to be sound currency, just not practical in most environments.

Correct. Bitcoin is a viable currency whereas other "cryptocurrencies" are not, specifically because Bitcoin has done the legwork to get Bitcoin accepted as payment for goods and services. I can't buy a Big Mac with Solaxy (SOLX) or BTC Bull Token (BTCBULL). I can't use any "cryptocurrency" other than Bitcoin to pay for anything I need or want. The set of things that I can buy with Bitcoin are exceedingly limited (to the point that I have no motivation to use it as a currency). All of the others are purchased on speculation that they will increase in value, despite the reasonable certainty that they will lose their shirts.

I prefer gold and silver as a sound currency.

You prefer gold and silver as assets. They make shitty currencies. This is why the US was taken off the gold standard. The economy probably would have already collapsed if we had remained on the gold standard.

Anyone can use it, you don't need the internet to conduct a transaction, and it is easy to verify the purity of these metals and resulting value.

You just described why they make great assets. Everyone is well-advised to have some precious metals in their portfolios, for a hedge if for no other reason. You'll notice that none of what you wrote distinguishes gold and silver from any fiat currency. You specifically omitted the main differentiator, i.e. what got gold removed as the standard.

Until most nations went to fiat currency, gold and silver were used for thousands of years.

I don't remember off-hand which specific fallacy this is, but gold and silver were treated as fiat currency once they were coined, thus establishing the unit of currency. Yes, people bartered with gold and silver bullion, but they gravitated to the coin and to the currency.

Units of measure -- what separate us from the other animals on the planet.

The age of fiat currency is coming to an end.

Hardly. There really is nothing else. It is human nature to use fiat currency. Tying a currency to any asset will destroy the currency.

The world has never been here before.

The world has always been here. Humans have always behaved and thought according to human nature. It's why the concept of coining even came about. Economics is based on human nature, as reflected in the supply-demand curve. Bartering in gold and silver on any sort of large scale will only occur where there isn't any currency.

 

[IBDaMann]

'Investing' in any currency to try to make a 'profit' doesn't really make a profit or loss.

I know that you have tried to ignore the Xadoman discussions, but the single reason for the gambling addition to "cryptocurrencies" is the hope of winning the 50x or 100x jackpot. Buying a "cryptocurrency" is buying chips and placing them on the roulette table.

This includes blockchain currency like Bitcoin, the target of your sentiments.

You have to divide my sentiments into two categories: Bitcoin and Shitcoin. Bitcoin differs from the others.

It's just trading one currency for another.

Bitcoin is parasitic; it depends on a society that already fully utilizes some other fiat currency, into which it can become a sub-currency. As such, yes, one can substitute between the currencies, but the set of goods and services that can be legally/morally/ethically purchased with Bitcoin are a proper subset of those things that can be purchased with the fiat currency, making Bitcoin wholly unnecessary as a currency except for illegal/immoral/unethical things.

If you make a 'profit', it's only a reflection of the inflation of the currency you traded away from and back to.

If one makes a profit, it's happenchance.

Bitcoin is deflationary,

That throttles Bitcoin as a currency and makes it a speculative investment, or gambling. You just cited it's "investment" selling point.

but the effect of 'investing' in it is the same.

Gambling. Win your 50x!

All it means is that when you trade back to your fiat currency, next time you buy Bitcoin it will generally be more expensive.

That was the SAFEMOON fear tactic: You had better hold onto your SAFEMOON, because if you do, you will MOON to 1000x but if you sell, we'll take you for everything you've got. Xadoman framed it as "Safemoon forcing everyone to become rich."

Take a quick walk with me down memory lane:

SafeMoon V1 (original token, still exists):

• Opening price: $0.0000098 (March 2021)
• Current price: $0.000000000000000001 (as of September 2025)

SafeMoon V2 (post-restructure token, 1,000 original tokens merged into 1 new token):

• Opening price: $0.007232 (December 2021, having lost 99.9% of its original value)
• Current price: $0.000008022 (as of September 2025, having lost 99.9% of its value again)

Thank you for indulging me the quick reflection. It's always good to remind oneself that there will always be people who insist that currency be based on something tangible with high intrinsic value, who will then rush to buy something that doesn't even exist.

The deflationary effect of Bitcoin (or any blockchain currency) comes about as the blockchain opportunity is consumed.

I wouldn't use the word "consumed." Two people complete a transaction, they don't consume it, and no opportunites are consumed; new opportunities are created.

It simply becomes harder and harder to create a new Coin,

It's always a simple matter to create more of that which does not exist. You're allowing the deceptive use of the word "coin" (which implies something solid, tangible, of high intrinsic value) to be applied to a digital token that doesn't represent anything that exists.

I advise you against allowing yourself to be fooled by psychological marketing. There are no coins. It should be called "Bittoken." I can create a gazillion of such tokens on my laptop using Python in just a few minutes. It would take a lot longer if I had to apply a blockchain, but there's nothing preventing us from creating a token currency on my laptop that begins with an initial supply of tokens and we just sell them (or otherwise distribute them) to those within our currency community, for us to exchange amongst ourselves for our transactions.

Note: the entire community would be operating on the sheer faith of the currency that isn't backed by anything. Adding a blockchain adds to the community's faith in the currency, and technically is what makes it a "crypto" currency, but the blockchain adds nothing to the currency itself, and if the community already has full faith in the currency, no blockchain is needed.

until no more can be created.

You mean to say that no more can be created by the previously agreed-upon algorithm, and that the community will be upset and will protest when more are created anyway, which will be declared a bug, and the issue goes away.

No blockchain currency is fiat.

All cryptocurrencies are fiat. There is nothing tangible to any token. The whole idea of having a blockchain is to maintain the community's faith in a token that is backed by nothing.

Due to the nature of the blockchain algorithm, it's not possible.

Do to the nonexistence represented by the token, anything is possible. You should have been paying closer attention to the SAFEMOON fiasco.

 

[Tobytone]

I understand why. I'm dropping this debate here.

Take care, my friend. We will get through the effects of this heinous crime eventually. If it's any consolation to you, the Democrats won't.

My response to your reply? I wasn't planning to be a dick, but then I was. I think I'll cool off eventually.

I’m still gutted over it. The primal urge to hit back just as hard is overwhelming, and Democrats are damn lucky that sane, God-fearing people don’t give in to that temptation and go full Old Testament, if you catch my drift. I was thinking, if we stooped to their level, who do they even cherish? Who’s their equivalent? The best I can come up with is Bernie Sanders, how pathetic is that?

Picture some radical right-wing nutcase taking him out. What would happen? A mob of communist crazies would go wild, smashing windows, torching cars, and attacking anyone who even looks remotely Republican for starters. Same goes for any of their darlings, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Jasmine Crockett. I’d say Chuck Schumer, but I’m not so sure, lol. The world would barely blink. Once the fires died down, no one would give a damn in a week.

Besides the lowlifes celebrating Charlie’s death, you’ve got Democrats talking about gun control, forget that they've never proposed a single law that would stop a bolt action hunting rifle, but who cares, they know their brain-dead donors don't have a clue about that. Some are actually trying to pin the blame on Republicans, claiming they’re just as guilty or solely guilty of inciting violence.

I just now heard that little puke David Hogg, answering a question no one asked: “What would you want to be remembered for if a radical right-winger killed you?” His answer? He’d want his party to politicize his death to pass gun control. Delusional, grandstanding egomaniac punk doesn't begin to cover it. As if his death would move any needle let alone one constitutionally protected, what a gasbag. These people are so vile it’s almost too much to stomach.