>>13577173

No, they did. Plenty of people tried to kill him and his friends for doing naughty things. It's the same reason many heroes in mythology were murdered: for trying to liberate people and save them from the cube ruse.

The world didn't not give a shit. In fact, they kept what he taught around for a long time after the man finally died (in old age, somewhere in India) and many of his followers had to hide for generations (still do).

He did save the world, anon, there's no doubt about that.

You can do it too.

You're going to have to remember why the number 7 is so important first, though.

>>13577205

kek

>>13577215

You don't seem to get it.

It's not about not moving to digital currency, it's about not letting [them] regulate faster than /ourguys/ can innovate.

In terms of logistics, you don't have a choice when it comes to digitization. All sectors will succumb to digitization. There's just no reason to continue doing this bullshit charade the world is doing where we use a private ledger and pretend we're printing money enough for it all to "suddenly vanish" after people get taxed.

You guys have the wrong idea and it's evident proponents are drowned out by mongrels shouting about how digital money is bad because they don't want the USA competing with the new digital frontier, which intimately shapes wider sectors currently.

The digital currency revolution is nearing and it will soon become parabolic, which everyone "good" or "bad" will no longer be able to ignore.

>>13577320

Yeah, that's not easy to argue with there, but our society is going to have to realize sooner or later than this analog system cannot support itself.

There's too many people to keep track of all of, anon. There's too many logistical hurdles we can solve with Blockchain. There's no way people are going to make international payments in gold and silver.

Smart Contracts alone are revolutionary enough on their own. When we add in things like Oracle solutions and trustless and immutable utility, there's only fools left wondering how we can fix our glaring faults.

The solutions to so many things are staring us in the face and too many of you have been scared under your bed, away from the solutions that are present today.

Escrow services alone are enough of a refutation of the modern analog system, let alone banks or data harvesters.

I can't argue that digital currencies can be constitutional, but cash wasn't ever constitutional either.

Gold and Silver cannot compete in the modern world, not in a world where there's so much cooperation globally and definitely not in the case where we're so cooperative with other countries that citizens have pervasive economic relationships, especially to the point of running businesses overseas and with foreigners.

There's just so much to unpack here and I urge you vehemently to do your own research and inform yourself before you have to wait another four years again.

>>13577355

Feel free to describe why you think that.

>>13577342

Don't be fooled by the magic tricks and bright lights, anon.

You didn't forget that this is a Show and you're on the Stage, did you?

>>13577374

Yeah, I think this says more about the issues with the ways that banking was perceived back then.

These days, humans don't have to sit around and wait on some centralized entity to put sigils on dried tree slices.

I don't like the deterioration of important values either, but the world has evolved rapidly due to the industrial era and, like it or not, the vast majority of modern logistics depend intimately on digitization. We cannot afford to halt all dealings in the digital world, especially not if we control shipping lanes with the most advanced navy the world has ever seen.

You guys just don't seem to understand how modern business, logistics, or infrastructure works. Each area (and plenty more) observes the fulcrum that is the digital economy. If we don't find a way to innovate that and ensure it isn't corrupted to, [they] just win, we sleep in the pod and eat da bugs.

Maybe do your own research sometime.

>>13577384

>muh power

Black Eye

Reread the drops

Also, you can just use another kind of payment method, anon… this isn't an argument about why everyone should only use digital currencies, I'm just explaining how they're inevitable and that the modern world can't support itself without them, whether that's by malevolent design or not.

>what do you do when you go someplace in the boonies where bar owners operate cash-only?

Carry cash on you to give to the bar guy.

>those forms of crypto not govt created are compromised. don't fool yourself.

I can't even tell if you're being serious or not at this point.

So, let me get this straight: all crypto "created by non-governments" are bad?…

Am I reading that right?

>PMs

Yes, I tend to agree with this. Historically, we've reached consensus long ago that metals are the only real money. Unfortunately, metals are heavily suppressed, you can't send metals overseas to your business partner or to settle an invoice, you're not going to send it across the country to pay for your new boots you got off of Amazon and you're probably not going to even send it across the state you live in.

Metals offer no immediate transaction finality. Metals depreciate alongside the USD and their supply inflates upon new mining, albeit the deprecation is significantly less than something like RE.

What else? Metals are physical and someone can steal them from you. Metals aren't programmable, so there can't be conditional transactions; they operate largely on trust, like that you won't be defrauded when someone gives you copper coated gold. Oh, and metals aren't decentralized either. Finally, they aren't very portable in comparison either.

>>13577420

I'm not missing the point. I'm also not arguing against holding metals… you just fit your brain in to these damaging dichotomies to protect your perspective.

Just because I'm trying to explain to you how imperative digitization is, it doesn't mean I think you should be only allowed to use what you're told you're allowed to or anything. You're choosing to interpret it that way.

In fact, I think diversifying your resources is intelligent, but I'm not here to offer financial advice.

>>13577404

>>13577423

>>13577464

You guys are missing the point though.

It doesn't matter how constitutional something is if the prosperity of We, The People hinges upon us interacting with the new digital frontier.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is here even if you'd prefer it not be.

We can't avoid digitization in a world that demands it because some brainlet on 4chan said something that made you think it's a bad idea once.

You guys need to do your own research and actually read what people like me say, instead of jumping to conclusions about how I'm a shill or something retarded.

Study things. Learn. You guys are great at that.

>>13577501

well maybe now I'm not the one following

>>13577512

You don't.

>>13577573

>muh power go out

Black Eye.

Reread the drops.

Again, I'm not saying don't keep cash on you or don't own metals or something. Read what I'm writing and quit arguing with strawmen.

>people pushing crypto as the wave of the future are fundamentally incompatible with a world which would return to Constitutional law.

I'm fine with Constitutional Law, anon. I love the constitution. Unfortunately though, we HAVE to use digitization to scale our economy to a global framework. There isn't an option to not compete on the global stage and further regulating it will only hamper our ability to keep up with logistical demands of our increasingly digital world.

>All crypto, including those not created by clowns, are crackable/hackable/compromised.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Bitcoin was released by /ourguys/. Think about it - it's the antithesis of Fiat money.

You're significantly overestimating [their] competence and ability to outpace innovation.

>Are you new here?

Oh, sorry, I guess I thought people here still did their own research and thought for themselves.

>>13577757

>anything released by a 3 letter agency will have backdoors.

Why are you speaking in absolutes about this, especially when "Satoshi" has never been revealed and morans like Craig make a huge stink about it being him so he can profit widely off of claiming the pseudonym?

>What the world needs is a strong gold backed Dollar that can of course be transfered digitally or be redeemed for physical gold and silver (in the USA, fuck redeeming it in physical metal overseas, they get to redeem for the full faith and credit).

Now you're getting it, anon.

See, even you realize we cannot escape the digital world and what it demands of us.

So, now that we have that figured out, we can come up with a way to implement this idea.

>>13577794

>After hurricane Sandy I had no power for over a week. Don't tell me no power is a strawman. I can't put crypto in my tank on the way to work.

Where did you read me saying that you shouldn't have any other assets?…

>That's the funniest thing I've read all week.

The signs are there. They even tell us…

Who is Satoshi Nakamoto, anyway?

By the way, I own exactly ZERO Bitcoin.

>We're well on our way there if we pick and choose what's modern enough to survive without going through the process that keeps it within our Constitution.

I fully understand this argument, but if we don't keep up with digital innovations, we're just going to get left behind and the alternative is just letting China control the digital framework… which is currently being prevented by USD and our navy occupying shipping lanes for a reward.

>>13577857

You can believe whatever fantasies about Blockchain currencies you'd like to believe, anon.

>There are no buts when it comes to the Constitution.

Agreed. I'm just suggesting that we have to make some sort of investment in learning more about Blockchain.

You're quite the sperg, aren't you?

Do your own research, fren.