An "interesting" point to consider is whether or not the economic powers of the ever encroaching "New World Order" will allow the democratization of "money" to continue?

How will these "lockstep" central bankers continence such a way to circumvent the "bankers" control? My guess is that the powers that be will not allow that to happen therefore, Bitcoin and other "crypto" currencies might succumb to the control of these powerful entities.

Interesting point to be noted! There are now only three world economies that "DO NOT" have a Central Bank presence? These three (interestingly) are; North Korea, Cuba and Iran. There were until recently four with the 4th being Syria. Isn't it funny, we are essentially at varying states of war with all three of the remaining?!

World domination can only happen if the Bankers will it (remember, they make money by making loans and the best loans are to made to governments and the best way of making large loans to governments is to get countries into a perpetual state of war!). Note: During the American Civil War, the Bank of London lent to both the North as well as the South! Keeping the war going worked to their advantage because of political leverage and wealth accumulation!

There you have it folks! The Central Banks have the Con and the rest is going to be easy (for the NWO that is)!

What relevace is 3700? Whete did this occur? What backs a bitcoin to make it worth something? A nations currency has value because its backed by gold or the country's potential to produce. If bitcoin is backed by the wealthy or intrnational companies standing on traditional currency, isn't it just a house of cards, scheme to get real dollars for virtual digits?

So , what do you want to discuss? I'm no expert on Bitcoin but intrigued and would like to learn. What is your knowledge?

Cool K. Thanks. I haven't seen your comments in a bit.

No one knows who created it, governs it or if they might switch it off for some reason. It sounds riskier to me than the counterfeit fiat currency we are forced to use. It works only so long as the confidence in the coin exists, hence the name 'con game.' I think it is less reliable but that is like comparing one serial killer to another. . . .which is worse?

Thanks to Kaila Halling for helping me to recollect this quote

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people who created the phrase “to make money.” No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created." p. 93, The Meaning of Money, For the New Intellectual."

The very nature of bitcoin, how it is design to function, by anonymous programmers, creates a fixed amount of wealth (a static quantity), creating deliberate scarcity similar to the notion that there is one pie and everyone is working/struggling to get it.

"Bitcoins are mathematically generated as the computers in this network execute difficult number-crunching tasks, a procedure known as Bitcoin “mining”. The mathematics of the Bitcoin system were set up so that it becomes progressively more difficult to “mine” Bitcoins over time, and the total number that can ever be mined is limited to around 21 million. There is therefore no way for a central bank to issue a flood of new Bitcoins and devalue those already in circulation." http://www.economist.com/bitcoinexpla...

Is this not the fixed amount of wealth, created by anonymous people, that goes against "to make money" that the quote above celebrates?

I am not against Bitcoins, however I do remember junk bonds, and the dot com bubble bursts. People are converting actual money, creating debt, to get something that simply does not exist, and never has existed, outside the fact that a group of people believe it has value.

I think most realists expect government controllers to eventually regulate away the beauty, efficiency and value of crypto currencies into oblivion. But until they do, there is an unparalleled gold rush of profiteering happening. The dream of a totally decentralized currency sells itself.

While I like the concept of a currency that is not dependent on a government, until the major reason for hearing about Bitcoin is no longer about some hacker holding companies hostage until their ransom is paid in Bitcoin, Bitcoin will remain a footnote.

Fivedollargold buys Bitcoin via an exchange traded fund. Ticker symbol GBTC.

It's trading value generally follows the need to launder dirty money (the primary purpose for it).

Bitcoin is one of the most volatile commodities out there - because it has no underlying assets. Granted the dollar doesn't either, but at least it's backed by the 'full faith and credit of the US Government' and anyone take a dollar for something.

Try to offload those bitcoins somewhere... not very easy to actually do I'm sure.

To each their own, but I'm old enough to have remembered many rises and falls of many markets. I'm considerably more careful with my life's savings - as all Gen X'ers are. We have too often been stuck holding the bag and paying for it for the Boomers and the Millennials it seems like.

It was worth 8 cents in July of 2010, then $1.00 in Feb 2011, $31.00 in July of 2011, and $2.00 in December of 2011. It's interest follows the news cycle running some story about it, and how many terrorists want to transmit some form of untraceable currency at the moment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...

While someone that bought at 8 cents is no-doubt very happy right now, there is still the question of what you can actually do with it. Converting it into tangible goods or services can be quite difficult.