>> BTC could allow an anonymous party to control a currency,
> How, exactly? They can't control the minting so I'm not sure what you mean by "control". The Fed is already an anonymous (because no one is personally responsible) party controlling the US dollar.
By buying the largest chunk of bitcoins. Simple as that if you don't understand you clearly don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
You're making rounds without saying anything: The FED is there to ensure stability. You don't agree with their policies for a variety of reasons, I'm all with you. But what you're promoting here has nothing to do with democracy or fairness. It's more of a jungle where the big guy eats the small guy for lunch.
The old saying is stupid because everyone who studied monetary policies knows that currencies are enforced upon population (taxes).
I already explained what a player with big % of BTC can do to manipulate a free-from-regulation market, as BTC is. But it's really elementary, if you know how stock markets work.
Who is desperate and moving away from the USD? You seem to switch from micro-view to macro-view in no time and back. You're talking about average Joe again or Iran/China/Russia for example? Because average Joe and China are not on the same level currency-wise.
I tend to be skeptical when instead of counter-arguments I'm told "it's so elementary I won't even tell you". Some quick research shows experts are still debating whether the 51% attack is a real threat. I also don't know that comparing Bitcoin to the stock market is fair, as you didn't offer an argument for it. They seem different to me.
Also, you're saying that it would be a really bad thing for a currency (such as Bitcoin) to suddenly become controlled by an anonymous party, yet that is exactly what instating the FED did to the dollar. But then you say the FED ensures stability. So I ask, do you believe the only way to achieve stability is through maintaining the worst possible scenario for a currency?
I don't believe in democracy and so of course I'm not promoting it, and I don't think it is associated to fairness as you imply - I see it more as a tragedy of commons. I do believe what I promote is fair because it is free of coercion and it encourages engagement with others and with one's community, leading by example, and so on.
People are desperate, people that lost their savings because of the government playing money scientist. They might not know that what they want is a money that cannot be manipulated by decree, but they seem to recognize pretty well why is it that their savings are gone.
And your view of economics in this micro/macro false duality is what might be making it hard for you to see what I am talking about. At what point does exchanging value for goods and services need to be divided into two different things? I don't see that.
> How, exactly? They can't control the minting so I'm not sure what you mean by "control". The Fed is already an anonymous (because no one is personally responsible) party controlling the US dollar.
By buying the largest chunk of bitcoins. Simple as that if you don't understand you clearly don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
You're making rounds without saying anything: The FED is there to ensure stability. You don't agree with their policies for a variety of reasons, I'm all with you. But what you're promoting here has nothing to do with democracy or fairness. It's more of a jungle where the big guy eats the small guy for lunch.
The old saying is stupid because everyone who studied monetary policies knows that currencies are enforced upon population (taxes).
I already explained what a player with big % of BTC can do to manipulate a free-from-regulation market, as BTC is. But it's really elementary, if you know how stock markets work.
Who is desperate and moving away from the USD? You seem to switch from micro-view to macro-view in no time and back. You're talking about average Joe again or Iran/China/Russia for example? Because average Joe and China are not on the same level currency-wise.