Peter Schiff sparks bitcoin debate once more & asks ...
Peter Schiff sparks bitcoin debate once more & asks ...
Peter Schiff is So Right on Bitcoin – But Wrong on Gold
Peter Schiff Lost His Bitcoin, Claims Owning Crypto Was a ...
Peter Schiff sparks bitcoin debate once more & asks ...
Peter Schiff Is the Last Person Who Should Lecture the ...
Peter Shiff Explains Brilliantly Why Capitalism Works And Socialism Causes Misery - Money Facilitates Capitalism, But Bitcoin is Better Money for Same Underlying Reason: Human Nature
We discuss many things here and people may be familiar with certain topical keywords - taxes, capitalism, libertarian, Peter Schiff, Venezuela, socialism, privacy, choice, free markets - but many may not realize the underlying connection. I have a gift for explaining complicated ideas in easy to understand ways. However, nobody knows everything and we all continue learning and growing as we go. I just learned something listening to Peter Schiff recently and wanted to share. It wasn't something I didn't subconsciously know, but I'd never heard it explained so clearly before. I want to give people an opportunity to learn and understand because I think many just don't know how to make the lives of ordinary people better, which should be a common goal for us. We've just hit 2020 which means an election year in the United States. A big theme in the country now is how middle of the road politics are no longer sufficient to make people happy. The country is being pressured to move more extremely left or right, meaning toward more freedom and less government or the opposite, less freedom and more government. I wished someone had explained this to me earlier so I'll try to do so for others. To understand the difference between political left and right think of a line representing how free people are. On the furthest left of the line people are the least free. Think of communism and places like North Korea where the government has nearly complete control over nearly all aspects of lives; there is no free press, and people heasee only what the gov allows. On the furthest right people are the most free they can be, and in fact there is no government at all. That's called anarchy and Roger Ver, I believe, is an anarchist. America, after leaving Britain, started as anarchist. There was no federal government, but later libertarians, which are slightly more toward the left on the line, created the Constitution and federal government. What does this all have to do with Bitcoin? I'm getting to that. I'm covering all this because people worldwide are struggling, but many just don't know how to make things better. This post here explains the answer. It also explains how Bitcoin (Cash) is part of that answer. So an age old debate came down to which system of government makes people happiest? One where they are very free or one where there is a government managing everything for them? If we look at countries that have achieved the most in terms of average quality of life, advancements in human knowledge and achievement it's not even close. The free situations win easily. Yet with all that factual history people still even today question whether capitalism is a preferable system to socialism which is a close relative to communism. Why is this? Peter breaks it down wonderfully. In essence he explains the fundamental argument for why socialism should work is beautiful. People want it to be true. That argument is: people will work harder for others than they work for themselves. That's a beautiful sounding thought, but that isn't the reality. Capitalism works because people, ALL people, for the most part care most about themselves. That's not a bad thing. It's just reality. It doesn't mean people don't also care for others, it's about priorities. Capitalism works because it deals with the reality that people prioritize themselves first. The key thing I learned, however, is that even though capitalism should be preferred because taxation is theft, which alone should elevate it morally, there is something else: capitalism actually does care for others, and it does this better. Listen to Peter explain how: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbGBMVb6Fnk&feature=youtu.be&t=1018 Listen 17:00 to 25:00 Getting back to Bitcoin. The reason Bitcoin helps solve world problems is it aligns with the reality people prioritize their own interests first. Bitcoin (Cash) is being designed to allow people to control the most wealth they can. It does this by seeking the lowest fees. It does this by making it hard for people to lose from theft, whether illegal (using things like hardware wallets) or legal theft in the form of taxes (using things like strong privacy features). All this is about working with human nature as it actually is, not how we wish it could be. In doing so we actually make the situation better, via capitalism, for everyone around us too, because that's how capitalism works.
Peter Schiff will be hosting a live youtube session where he invites bitcoiners to 'educate' him. Be careful!
Peter Schiff will be holding his first youtube live podcast on Monday 15th of July at 9pm EST. The topic will be Bitcoin and he has invited bitcoiners to "call-in" and convince him he is wrong about bitcoin, and if he can be converted he will apparently start buying bitcoin. He said people can call-in to educate him so its not yet clear whether the session will be conducted through the comment section or via a phone call. Peter is a merciless debater and enjoys cutting his opponents off and talking over the top of them so this platform will not be for the faint hearted. There is also a very high liklihood that this live stream will be used by Peter to try and showcase how many "dumb moon boi kids" are in this space allowng him to discredit us all live on air infront of his 250,000 subscribers. This live education session will be perfect for the more technically literate and people who are good at debating and articulating their points. If this is not you please DO NOT call-in as Peter will eat you alive and make you sound foolish. For the people who know they can handle this invitation please do us proud, for the people unsure of their ability to debate Peter (like me) we can all just tune in and listen to the live stream in action. The goal doesn't need to be to convince Peter of anything, everyones time frame is different. Our goal just needs to be to come across as smart, calm, rational and knowledgeable when talking. Peter wants to make us all look like a bunch of "ignorant moon boi children", lets not let that happen. For those up to the challenge he asks that you research his views on Bitcoin and explain to him where and why you think he may be wrong. This is his youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/useSchiffReport All the best.
[meta] [long and rambling] [philosophy] Flirting with Nihilism ; Is Conversation Pointless?
I used to have an ideal of conversation as being a Socratic dialogue: people ask probing questions of each other about important philosophical issues and reveal the mistakes in each other’s logic, ultimately reaching life-changing conclusions through the argument. Over the years, I have often tried to engage in such debate and while there have been some interesting discussions more typically it has been a pointless endeavor which simply leaves everyone involved convinced more thoroughly of their rightness and doubting the sanity of the others. To be sure, my abrasive style and personality have played a role, but this has itself in part come from the mistaken views of the world and human nature which I held. By the standard I used to hold, conversation is largely pointless. Now, of course, most normal people would characterize argument and debate as being very different than conversation. This is because their objectives in conversation are not trying to change someone’s mind but to exchange more basic information or simply enjoy each other’s company. To be sure, there is clear value in conversation of this sort, but it is not what I’m talking about here. What I’m suggesting is that the attempt to change someone’s mind by reason is generally impossible and not worth trying. We all have certain foundational beliefs which no one is likely to be able to change. What exactly these are varies widely by person: for some people it is religious, for others political, or philosophical principles (whether or not a person explicitly recognizes them as philosophy). But what is common about them is that no matter how sound an argument may appear to some “neutral”, disinterested third party, if someone tries to reason you out of these core positions, your mind will always be able to find a rationalization in response. And again regardless of how strong or weak this response is judged by our hypothetical third party, it will be sufficient to convince you that your position is right and likely cause you to be somewhat annoyed at the person making an “obviously” bad faith argument against something so basic. This is not, as it might appear to be, an argument that people are irrational nor that I am any different in this. It is simply a fundamental side-effect of the process of reasoning. One must have a basis upon which to operate; there is no green field to work from. Even Descartes’ brilliant argument showing how one can prove to themself that one exists, which is as close to pure reason without any external base as it is possible to get, itself relies upon certain foundations: the desirability of trying to prove such “trivial” matters; the value of pure reason as a source for truth. And it rapidly moves on by “the clear light of reason” to further argument which rests upon, essentially, “it seems obvious to me that…” This is, essentially, a generalization of Gödel's incompleteness theorems (not that I fully understand them and certainly don’t know how to prove it, but simply that I recognize this point is not a fundamentally original thought) and similar: we must always start with something which we simply believe and cannot prove. This may seem trivial, but I do not think it is. What it suggests to me is that the space for productive discussion in disagreement is far smaller than is often believe by those who, as I used to, believe that everything that matters could in theory be resolved by honest, wise intellectual exploration. Therefore, when we find ourselves in disagreement with others on a fundamental level, there may well be no resolution to be had other than the phrase I have so hated for so long: “agree to disagree”. Others are able to accept this with grace and move on. I have always been bothered by reaching such impasses. If we are in disagreement about an important issue which is the basis for much of our reasoning, then how could we come to any agreement on any of the things which follow as a result of that basic view? And how could we have meaningful discussion if we simply must avoid all consequences of a major section of our world view? And so, to me, the segmenting of discourse into “echo chambers” of various sorts makes perfect sense: people must have a shared foundation in order to be able to meaningfully communicate productively. And yet, that is not enough to make forward progress either, because while less irritating perhaps, discussion simply among those who agree is pointless too. So, then, if we cannot in general convince anyone else of anything that matters, nor do we wish to simply preach to the choir, what discourse could be useful?
Disagreement on facts rather than worldview
Among people who agree about, for instance, valid sources and other basic foundations, but who disagree about a particular fact, then linking to a source can actually be productive. This is as opposed to those who do not have such an agreement beforehand, where linking to a source can just be a self-congratulatory act which is unproductive.
Challenging one’s own worldview (or refining arguments ; this write-up’s category)
If you truly wish to have your own beliefs examined for whether or not they are incorrect, or their limitations; or if you simply want to try to refine and make more coherent something which you’ve vaguely thought, then it is useful to express your views not for the purpose of changing another’s opinion, but for the purpose of understanding your own. This is what this piece is for me: a response to my own thoughts, particularly set in motion about a month ago when the title occurred to me, about what is and isn’t useful ground for disagreement and debate.
Responding to an invitation to challenge another’s world view (limited circumstances)
This is something which is often presented but rarely genuine: whether intentionally or unintentionally many people who present themselves as looking to have their own views challenged are actually going to respond with rationalizations to anything presented. While that means that this apparent opening is often unproductive, there is a kernel of sincere and thoughtful people who are open to examining their beliefs and are looking for something to build on to do so. I actually consider this less important than it may often seem, as people’s desire for self-justification generally means that there is abundant material available for one who looks to understand any major viewpoint, so there is relatively little need to try to seek to be the one to minister to such a unicorn. But, since so much conversation is pointless, recognizing it and moving on rather than getting bogged down in it is more productive. There is a large realm of productive material, for us to gain knowledge on a more “superficial” level - much does have a shared basis, and we don’t see these issues visibly in, for instance, learning a language or learning history (even though there really are philosophical issues underlying both, but generally speaking a person can find much productive ground). Since our time is limited, it makes sense to pursue these unambiguously productive areas instead of beating our heads against a wall trying to convince others about things we consider important but which are foundational for them and which they have not sought to question. Examples of pointless discussions from unbridgeable views:
Bitcoin vs gold
While this might seem unintuitive as I have written about how I see Bitcoin and gold as having complementary strengths rather than being in opposition, what I mean when I express it as a pointless category is that trying to tell a Bitcoin fanatic about the uses of gold is a waste of time, just as trying to explain to Peter Schiff that it’s possible for people to create sustainable and meaningful value out of nothingness arbitrarily is a waste of time. The “Bitcoin-only” and “gold-only” camps will never change their mind as a result of someone trying to come in and ‘save’ or ‘educate’ them.
Tsla vs tslaq
Quite similarly: those who believe Tesla will save the world have essentially no common ground to discuss productively with those who believe Tesla will go bankrupt and vice versa. There are simply fundamental differences about approaches to reasoning which will not be surmounted by the surface arguments like “but he lands rockets!” or “look at the historical rates of cash burn!” Less obviously: the actual outcome will not resolve this either. Even if Tesla becomes wildly successful, the critics will still believe dishonest and unjustifiable actions to have been taken. Even if Tesla fails, the supporters will not believe Musk did anything wrong. World views are generally proof against what might seem from the outside to be events which should break them.
Given the general argument I’ve made, this should be fairly obvious. However, I spent a fair amount of time over the years arguing some of this from both sides (when I was much younger I was an evangelical Christian ; by college age I was an “evangelical atheist” ; in hindsight, I don’t consider either a good way to spend time).
This too follows clearly from the positions I’ve taken. No socialist is going to convince a capitalist that profit is evil. No capitalist will convince a socialist that profit is good. (Choose whatever dichotomy and examples you find appropriate.) Examples of productive discussions sharing a common foundation: These examples have been generally covered previously or are self-explanatory.
Specific facts between mutually respecting people
World view in rare cases where seeker wants introduction to different view
Skills (languages) or Bodies of knowledge (history)
This last is a potentially interesting one: even when changing a person’s mind may be impossible and unproductive, unbridgeable divides as far as resolving the disagreement can still be productive in terms of understanding what exactly the relative positions are. The socialist may not convince the capitalist of anything, but if they simply want to understand what the capitalist believes, that could be productive (and vice versa). Of course, if it devolves into trying to convince the other person they’re wrong rather than trying to understand their position, it goes back to being pointless. My choices: As a practical matter, what am I doing with these views?
Unfollowing and blocking easily on Twitter
I’ve been using Twitter for the first time lately. I find it interesting and useful in many ways. However, there is a potential to waste a lot of time there trying to argue things where the other person will never be convinced. Other people wiser than myself may well choose to hear all voices, but I wish to maintain an environment where I find what I’m reading useful and where the people I hear from are ones where I think I could engage productively or at least enjoyably. So I am unfollowing and blocking fairly quickly when I encounter views which I consider to indicate unbridgeable divides of opinion. Unfollow is my first step. If I wasn’t following the person previously and find something irritating they say, I will block rather than engage. In rare instances I will engage where I think there may be a productive discussion but I won’t go into extended arguments.
Maintain open discussion here
However, I have long held a different view for this subreddit: I specifically want to encourage and allow dissenting voices. I wish to avoid building an echo chamber here for a multitude of reasons, but in particular because I think it’s extremely important to try to avoid having a blindspot about critical issues with the system or will drawbacks to any proposed changes. In the framework of what I’ve discussed here, this could be seen as a combination of wanting to maintain space for understanding other views (even if we don’t change each other’s minds) as well as trying to deliberately hold open at least in some cases a willingness to change my mind. For instance, while I am strongly opposed to ever removing the 337 nillion cap, I want to allow such discussion and encourage anyone with those views to be free to express them. In other areas, like the block size cap, while I had held a stronger position toward larger blocks on principle, and still tend in that direction, some of the discussion previously here and more broadly on the other side has at least led me to more of a wait-and-see approach. Some various concluding thoughts:
Difference between random vs long-term relationships and discussion.
Twitter is an example where there is generally little to no strength of relationship as a starting point. This makes any challenging discussion more difficult and less likely to be productive and is part of my hair-trigger in unfollowing and blocking. However, in general I don’t tend to believe that in most cases a long-term relationship changes what ground is productive so much as it changes the calculation about whether one unproductive area justifies severing a connection. Necessarily those we have chosen to be part of our lives will not agree with us in everything, but there are likely to be areas not worth engaging in. For those we have no particular prior need or desire to have in our lives, I see no reason to accept any noise.
Low value in one-way communication upon determining different foundation (watching videos or twitter feed, etc. upon significant disagreement)
I tend to believe that without some shared common basis, there’s not much point in taking in what’s presented by someone. This can be seen as creating one’s own echo chamber, but the more positive way I might put it is that you have to have a reason to respect what a person is saying for it to be worthwhile to listen to them. Someone whose arguments you are likely to reject almost entirely is not worth listening to in the first place, as the goal should be to get new information or listen to someone who might change your views rather than to simply suffer through for the sake of having heard what can be known in advance to be something you will reject.
Tie-in to views on crypto: neither dedicated pumpers nor dedicated critics are useful. Nor are we looking to bring in people who aren’t interested. So what’s left? Those who are seekers are welcome and we should look to assist with helping people get exposure and broader knowledge of strengths and weaknesses.
Weighing the various perspectives on the overall issue I’ve put together here led me to this view which is a refinement of what I’ve thought for a while. We do not want mindless fanatics. And we do not want to try to convince people who aren’t interested or those who have already decided the whole concept is worthless. However, there is still a productive sliver left there: people who are interested in cryptocurrency but have not already set their opinions in stone. This fits in with the early mindset I had that we would want to have offering technical support as a core competency (and which is something I’ve been proud of this community doing well). This also fits into my original coin-a-day series, long defunct, trying to offer a view of the strengths and weaknesses of various cryptocurrencies. Perhaps this may be worth reviving in some form in the future, but the general concept at least fits my views here: offering a perspective to those who are looking for it, but not trying to convince anyone who has already decided and just wants to argue. As I have been discussing here, at this point my choice is generally: I make no attempt to change someone’s mind. Occasionally I’ll make one response I expect to be futile. Twitter is not suited towards meaningful in-depth communication and there is no established relationship to anchor a difficult discussion. In closer relationships, topics simply become no-go areas. I’ve probably swung too far towards avoidance from confrontation at this point, but I’ve got too much scar tissue from years of fruitless argument. Some examples of aspects I collected while putting this together https://twitter.com/Venado_0320/status/1125060447646957570 (twitter thread which shows a specific example of TSLA bull vs bear thesis and pointlessness of general discussion although room for discussion on one specific aspect) https://twitter.com/Jonathankrier1/status/1125922545679527936 (twitter thread example of production conversation - starting from same point of view but slightly different knowledge) https://old.reddit.com/RealTesla/comments/bmcy5q/teslacom_forum_5719_collision_while_using_auto/emwbohb/ (comment about people changing their mind over time) https://twitter.com/jposhaughnessy/status/1128005778445611010 (news and knowing what isn’t so)
Who should be good speakers for our crypto mining forum?
Hey Guys, I am helping to organize Soho Crypto Mining Forum in Sep. It will be a fundraise conference of Soho Forum, the leading libertarian debate forum in US. Soho forum is very cool, not just debating politics but often discuss about crypto currencies. For example the latest event was “Bitcoin, or a similar form of cryptocurrency, will eventually replace governments' fiat money as the preferred medium of exchange." and they invited Erik Voorhees of Shapeshift and Peter Schiff. I am a small scale miner in US and happened to end up helping organizing the conference which focuses on crypto mining. I try to make it not a generic & expensive conference, but make it an at home event where down to earth discussions can occur. I am also a big BCH fan. I just want to get some inputs from smart people in this community. From the view of big block supporters, what kind of topic do you want to see in such mining conference? I personally want to see some one talking that the effect of scaling and mass adaption to the mining industry, potential growth of the relative businesses. Any topics or people that you want to see in the mining conference? thanks
Does Peter schiff's argument against bitcoin come from his vested interest in gold?
So I'm not (yet) taking a position in this argument, but I do have some questions. On the one hand there's the bitcoin community and users (and Stefan Molyneux), and then there's Peter schiff and other libertarians. Peter Schiff points out that beside some technical arguments a lot of proponents of bitcoin have a vested interst in them because they own some (like the dotcom bubble). But I can't stop thinking that this is also true the other way around. Every dollar going to bitcoin isn't going into gold, being his preferred currency. Also, so his major objection with bitcoin is that it's missing 'intrinsic' value. Is that really a valid argument here? I know that that is empirically how things came about, but is it also really nessecary for a currency? Stefan hosted some of Peter's shows, so they must really appreciate eachother. I would love to see a debate between the two on this topic. What do you guys think?
"Now that the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership has finally been released, it is even worse than I thought." Sanders declares, hours after the release of a 1,000 odd page legal document. by u/Tiako (144 pts, 266 comments)
136 pts: u/besttrousers's comment in "But companies still hire people because they have no choice but to. They need enough workers to meet the demands of the market and so they hire people. So if a layoff was to occur I'd occurred regardless of wage hike."
118 pts: u/Timster757's comment in "Now that the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership has finally been released, it is even worse than I thought." Sanders declares, hours after the release of a 1,000 odd page legal document.
115 pts: u/-Rory-'s comment in Economics is an art, therefore rent controls are a good idea
Hot Topics. Breaking News. BREAKING NEWS BLOCKCHAIN EXCHANGES MINING WALLETS FIAT. ANALYTICS Jefe Caan Sally Ho. COINS Binance Coin Bitcoin Bitcoin Cash Cardano DASH EOS Ethereum Ethereum Classic IOTA Litecoin Monero NEO Ripple Stellar Tether TRON ZCash Zilliqa. Crypto Indices . All Indices Large Cap Crypto Index Mid Cap Crypto Index Small Cap Crypto Index 21 Leaders Index. Charts ; ICO / STO ... I have a question for Bitcoin HODLers. If a global pandemic, crashing stock markets, world-wide recession/depression, zero percent interest rates, unprecedented government borrowing and fiat money printing, plus a breakout in #gold hasn’t caused #Bitcoin to go up, what will? — Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) April 15, 2020. On Jan. 19, famous crypto skeptic and gold bug Peter Schiff claimed on Twitter that he has lost access to his Bitcoin wallet and that his password is no longer valid. Schiff added that his BTC is now intrinsically worthless and has no market value. He also added that: “I knew owning Bitcoin was a bad idea, I just never realized it was this ... Peter Schiff has spent the past few years bashing Bitcoin and advising people not to even touch it, leading one to wonder why he’s bent on giving counsel about the asset. On Sunday, the gold bug sparked a massive debate over cryptocurrencies and their storage after he announced on Twitter that he had lost access to his Bitcoin after his wallet was corrupted. Peter Schiff’s primary point is that bitcoin has become akin to a religion. He insists that those holding bitcoin are living in a fantasy world, and believe they will get rich by holding on to bitcoin. Image from CNBC’s Youtube video. The thrown-down between bitcoin skeptic Peter Schiff and bitcoin bull Anthony Pompliano was an entertaining debate. Yet while everyone focuses on how bitcoin ...
Peter Schiff destroys Max Keiser on Bitcoin vs. Gold Debate
Max Keiser explaining to Peter Schiff what Bitcoins value proposition is. "It's the most secure, immutable database that's ever been invented - it's also pub... Peter Schiff and Max Keiser debate Gold vs. Bitcoin at the Nexus Conference in Aspen, Colorado September 22nd 2017. Open your Goldmoney account today: https:... On July 2, 2018, Reason and The Soho Forum hosted a debate between Erik Voorhees, the CEO of ShapeShift, and Peter Schiff, CEO and chief global strategist of... Bitcoin debate at Las Vegas Freedom Fest featuring Jeffrey Tucker, Peter Schiff, Gary Smith, and Anthem Blanchard. Naomi Brockwell as the moderator. Topic: B... 🔴 Peter Schiff Debates on Bitcoin, Blockchain, Gold - Duration: 9:58. Peter Schiff 52,659 views. 9:58 🔴 Peter Schiff Argues w/ Bitcoin Activists in Heated Debate - Duration: 25:46. ...