• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 14:05
CEST 20:05
KST 03:05
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202560RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 What tournaments are world championships? RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion Dewalt's Show Matches in China [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? [G] Mineral Boosting Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food!
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 884 users

Bitcoin discussion thread - Page 25

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 23 24 25 26 27 71 Next
Mstring
Profile Joined September 2011
Australia510 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-08 23:16:36
December 08 2013 23:15 GMT
#481
On December 09 2013 08:08 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, that sounds nice, but then how do people turn their money into more money? our entire social order is predicated on the ability for capital to valorize itself and increase. when this falls apart you have to totally reorganize society

The whole point is that you won't need to turn money into more money. Of course you will be able to invest in this or that, to put your expertise into action in ways other than labour, but it won't be a need in order to stay in the green like it is today. Without an inflationary usury system, in one that maintains the 1:1:1 ratio, you could store your $100 in your wallet for 50 years and pull it back out to buy the same value of labour it would have bought when you earned it, because every dollar in circulation is exactly matched by someone's outstanding promise to labour to retire it, no less, no more.

Yes things will have to change, but first, the general understanding of what money really is and how it is created, which is why I'm in this thread in the first place.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-08 23:20:57
December 08 2013 23:16 GMT
#482
hmm that sounds like what Proudhon wanted to do, I don't think it worked out very well

the problem is that the value of labor really is different in different times and places, it's not just an artifact of the monetary system...
shikata ga nai
Shival
Profile Joined May 2011
Netherlands643 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-08 23:25:16
December 08 2013 23:20 GMT
#483
On December 09 2013 08:08 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, that sounds nice, but then how do people turn their money into more money? our entire social order is predicated on the ability for capital to valorize itself and increase. when this falls apart you have to totally reorganize society

Show nested quote +
On December 09 2013 08:04 Shival wrote:
On December 09 2013 07:58 sam!zdat wrote:
On December 09 2013 07:57 Shival wrote:
On December 09 2013 07:54 sam!zdat wrote:
On December 09 2013 07:50 Shival wrote:
On December 09 2013 06:45 sam!zdat wrote:
financial crises are not prevalent in every social form, don't be thick. i'm not talking about all the sins of the human race here

rather than wasting time with inane cliches about human nature, why don't you put some effort into thinking about our problems and how we might go about solving them


Financial crisis is prevalent in every social form so far tried and likely in every probable social theory so far proposed.


haha ok mr anthropologist

how about before they invented financial instruments? lots of financial crises in those societies I bet


Trade has always happened... and even if there were no trade in those societies, you think we can go back to that? That's a laughable suggestion.


it's not a suggestion. I'm just saying that when you say "there have always been financial crises in every society" you are being stupid in a very obvious way


I'm not, suggesting it isn't the case is stupid. Financial crisis (at whatever level and impact) happens whenever you have a society that's active in trade. Which may only exclude stone age civilization, but I believe even those had trade.


i would love to see some literature on this if you weren't just talking out of your ass.

trade and financial crises are very different things. even the sorts of debasement problems that the roman empire ran into, or the class imbalances that led to periodic necessity of land reform or debt jubilee, e.g., are very different beasts than a financial crisis of the sort we are concerned with here.

I know you want to believe that everything is always the same and nothing ever changes and so therefore we don't have to worry about trying to solve problems


Ah, crawling back are we? We're talking about only financial crisis that are similar to this one? I thought we were talking about financial crisis' itself.

Trade and financial crisis are linked. Trading in tullips caused one even.

The crisis of the third century is actually widely accepted as part a financial crisis.

Brown, Augustus. (undated booklet) The Financial Collapse of the Roman Coinage in the 3rd Century A.D. 20 pp. 1 plate. Published by Augustus Brown, Kyrenia, Kingston, Canterbury, Kent.
Mstring
Profile Joined September 2011
Australia510 Posts
December 08 2013 23:24 GMT
#484
On December 09 2013 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
hmm that sounds like what Proudhon wanted to do, I don't think it worked out very well

Lol solid argument. I hope you give some serious thought to what I've been saying. If you want more information there's lots of work by others regarding these ideas: search for "MPE". It isn't anything we aren't already doing in the world today, just no more fraud and lies. No ideology, just destruction of scams. Good day my friend.
sam!zdat
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States5559 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-08 23:31:19
December 08 2013 23:24 GMT
#485
On December 09 2013 08:20 Shival wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 09 2013 08:08 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, that sounds nice, but then how do people turn their money into more money? our entire social order is predicated on the ability for capital to valorize itself and increase. when this falls apart you have to totally reorganize society

On December 09 2013 08:04 Shival wrote:
On December 09 2013 07:58 sam!zdat wrote:
On December 09 2013 07:57 Shival wrote:
On December 09 2013 07:54 sam!zdat wrote:
On December 09 2013 07:50 Shival wrote:
On December 09 2013 06:45 sam!zdat wrote:
financial crises are not prevalent in every social form, don't be thick. i'm not talking about all the sins of the human race here

rather than wasting time with inane cliches about human nature, why don't you put some effort into thinking about our problems and how we might go about solving them


Financial crisis is prevalent in every social form so far tried and likely in every probable social theory so far proposed.


haha ok mr anthropologist

how about before they invented financial instruments? lots of financial crises in those societies I bet


Trade has always happened... and even if there were no trade in those societies, you think we can go back to that? That's a laughable suggestion.


it's not a suggestion. I'm just saying that when you say "there have always been financial crises in every society" you are being stupid in a very obvious way


I'm not, suggesting it isn't the case is stupid. Financial crisis (at whatever level and impact) happens whenever you have a society that's active in trade. Which may only exclude stone age civilization, but I believe even those had trade.


i would love to see some literature on this if you weren't just talking out of your ass.

trade and financial crises are very different things. even the sorts of debasement problems that the roman empire ran into, or the class imbalances that led to periodic necessity of land reform or debt jubilee, e.g., are very different beasts than a financial crisis of the sort we are concerned with here.

I know you want to believe that everything is always the same and nothing ever changes and so therefore we don't have to worry about trying to solve problems


Ah, crawling back are we? We're talking about only financial crisis that are similar to this one? I thought we were talking about financial crisis' itself.

Trade and financial crisis are linked. Trading in tullips caused one even.


the tulip bubble was a result of a crisis of overaccumulation in the dutch capitalist system, it didn't cause anything, it was a symptom.


The crisis of the third century is actually widely accepted as part a financial crisis.


that's the debasement problem I was talking about. it was not a financial crisis in a sense that is meaningful for us today. the problem was that they didn't have enough specie to pay their troops, so they started debasing the coinage. the fiscal problems of a despotic empire are not really a good point of comparison with the financial crises of a capitalist state, even though on a very superficial level there is "something going funny with the money"

On December 09 2013 08:24 Mstring wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 09 2013 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
hmm that sounds like what Proudhon wanted to do, I don't think it worked out very well

Lol solid argument. I hope you give some serious thought to what I've been saying. If you want more information there's lots of work by others regarding these ideas: search for "MPE". It isn't anything we aren't already doing in the world today, just no more fraud and lies. No ideology, just destruction of scams. Good day my friend.


ok well I hope they are studying proudhon's attempt to create labor notes and what went wrong with that

On December 09 2013 08:20 Shival wrote:
Brown, Augustus. (undated booklet) The Financial Collapse of the Roman Coinage in the 3rd Century A.D. 20 pp. 1 plate. Published by Augustus Brown, Kyrenia, Kingston, Canterbury, Kent.


lol @ "undated booklet"

LOLOLOLOL http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Financial_Collapse_of_the_Roman_Coin.html?id=Qi02HAAACAAJ

Good source mr shival http://www.accla.org/actaaccla/kramer.html
do they pay you to do this kind of research on a daily basis?
shikata ga nai
0x64
Profile Blog Joined September 2002
Finland4554 Posts
December 08 2013 23:31 GMT
#486
On December 09 2013 08:11 Shival wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 09 2013 07:09 0x64 wrote:
Woooow slow down guys... This is derailing.

Shival, what I don't understand is that by buying bitcoin, you are actually trading savings (money not invested) with someone. Therefor your money will be invested by that person somewhere else.
If we take the most extrem case that one person owns all the bitcoins, and that it becomes valueless, then all the money he used is in the real economy.
If people are not investing in the bitcoin, then there is no liquidity for those who needs it to make purchases or transfers.
What would stop the bitcoin to behave like gold or better.
I don't think anyone would replace the cash with the BTC...


Anyway, to try and get the topic a bit more back on track.

You're assuming the only money that goes into the system are savings, but whenever you can invest in something that can make your Peugeot 207 into a Porsche in a month, would you spend the money now, or wait a month? Exactly. Thus, it's not only savings that are being spend into bitcoin, there's even huge loans already put into bitcoin, hoping to gain alot quickly.

Near to nothing will replace current valuta, BTC least of all, and yet it is hyped to be. If you take that possibility away, what exactly are you investing in?


In a replacement for online payment solution that is universal. I think that is something worth investing in. Even if the money come from loans, it has been given to someone else on the other end, and unless that person is keeping it in cash, it is invested.
The major case I see is when someone would invest that money professionally somewhere else and he buys from someone who will then keep it in cash or something similar.
I'm not looking hard toward your side though, it's getting late but thanks for your answer
Dump of assembler code from 0xffffffec to 0x64: End of assembler dump.
Shival
Profile Joined May 2011
Netherlands643 Posts
December 08 2013 23:34 GMT
#487
On December 09 2013 08:24 sam!zdat wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 09 2013 08:20 Shival wrote:
On December 09 2013 08:08 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, that sounds nice, but then how do people turn their money into more money? our entire social order is predicated on the ability for capital to valorize itself and increase. when this falls apart you have to totally reorganize society

On December 09 2013 08:04 Shival wrote:
On December 09 2013 07:58 sam!zdat wrote:
On December 09 2013 07:57 Shival wrote:
On December 09 2013 07:54 sam!zdat wrote:
On December 09 2013 07:50 Shival wrote:
On December 09 2013 06:45 sam!zdat wrote:
financial crises are not prevalent in every social form, don't be thick. i'm not talking about all the sins of the human race here

rather than wasting time with inane cliches about human nature, why don't you put some effort into thinking about our problems and how we might go about solving them


Financial crisis is prevalent in every social form so far tried and likely in every probable social theory so far proposed.


haha ok mr anthropologist

how about before they invented financial instruments? lots of financial crises in those societies I bet


Trade has always happened... and even if there were no trade in those societies, you think we can go back to that? That's a laughable suggestion.


it's not a suggestion. I'm just saying that when you say "there have always been financial crises in every society" you are being stupid in a very obvious way


I'm not, suggesting it isn't the case is stupid. Financial crisis (at whatever level and impact) happens whenever you have a society that's active in trade. Which may only exclude stone age civilization, but I believe even those had trade.


i would love to see some literature on this if you weren't just talking out of your ass.

trade and financial crises are very different things. even the sorts of debasement problems that the roman empire ran into, or the class imbalances that led to periodic necessity of land reform or debt jubilee, e.g., are very different beasts than a financial crisis of the sort we are concerned with here.

I know you want to believe that everything is always the same and nothing ever changes and so therefore we don't have to worry about trying to solve problems


Ah, crawling back are we? We're talking about only financial crisis that are similar to this one? I thought we were talking about financial crisis' itself.

Trade and financial crisis are linked. Trading in tullips caused one even.


the tulip bubble was a result of a crisis of overaccumulation in the dutch capitalist system, it didn't cause anything, it was a symptom.

Show nested quote +

The crisis of the third century is actually widely accepted as part a financial crisis.


that's the debasement problem I was talking about. it was not a financial crisis in a sense that is meaningful for us today. the problem was that they didn't have enough specie to pay their troops, so they started debasing the coinage. the fiscal problems of a despotic empire are not really a good point of comparison with the financial crises of a capitalist state, even though on a very superficial level there is "something going funny with the money"


Still crawling back mate. We're talking about financial crisis on a whole, because you're disputing my claim that pretty much any society can have a financial crisis. So your comparisons to financial crises in the capitalist system makes absolutely no sense and is merely fleeing to solid ground.

The tullip bubble caused a financial crisis because it put into doubt any other valuable good's value. It may not have caused alot of people to be put into hardship, it did collapse for a moment the current market. Thus it caused by itself a financial crisis. Anyway, we can discuss this all we want, either way the dutch suffered a financial crisis (how minor it seems to today's standards) due to trade and speculation on that trade.
Shival
Profile Joined May 2011
Netherlands643 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-09 00:41:07
December 08 2013 23:35 GMT
#488
On December 09 2013 08:24 sam!zdat wrote:

Show nested quote +
On December 09 2013 08:20 Shival wrote:
Brown, Augustus. (undated booklet) The Financial Collapse of the Roman Coinage in the 3rd Century A.D. 20 pp. 1 plate. Published by Augustus Brown, Kyrenia, Kingston, Canterbury, Kent.


lol @ "undated booklet"

LOLOLOLOL http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Financial_Collapse_of_the_Roman_Coin.html?id=Qi02HAAACAAJ

Good source mr shival http://www.accla.org/actaaccla/kramer.html
do they pay you to do this kind of research on a daily basis?


Moron, just because I googled it doesn't mean it isn't a valid source. Why don't you put something of subject on the table for once. I'd still like to hear you come with a thought on what would be better than the current system.

On December 09 2013 08:31 0x64 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 09 2013 08:11 Shival wrote:
On December 09 2013 07:09 0x64 wrote:
Woooow slow down guys... This is derailing.

Shival, what I don't understand is that by buying bitcoin, you are actually trading savings (money not invested) with someone. Therefor your money will be invested by that person somewhere else.
If we take the most extrem case that one person owns all the bitcoins, and that it becomes valueless, then all the money he used is in the real economy.
If people are not investing in the bitcoin, then there is no liquidity for those who needs it to make purchases or transfers.
What would stop the bitcoin to behave like gold or better.
I don't think anyone would replace the cash with the BTC...


Anyway, to try and get the topic a bit more back on track.

You're assuming the only money that goes into the system are savings, but whenever you can invest in something that can make your Peugeot 207 into a Porsche in a month, would you spend the money now, or wait a month? Exactly. Thus, it's not only savings that are being spend into bitcoin, there's even huge loans already put into bitcoin, hoping to gain alot quickly.

Near to nothing will replace current valuta, BTC least of all, and yet it is hyped to be. If you take that possibility away, what exactly are you investing in?


In a replacement for online payment solution that is universal. I think that is something worth investing in. Even if the money come from loans, it has been given to someone else on the other end, and unless that person is keeping it in cash, it is invested.
The major case I see is when someone would invest that money professionally somewhere else and he buys from someone who will then keep it in cash or something similar.
I'm not looking hard toward your side though, it's getting late but thanks for your answer


But there already are online payment solutions, you don't need a completely new, and deflationary coin for that. If you call putting money in gold or the like investing in economic growth, you would be wrong in my opinion. That money is no longer being spend and thus is not flowing through the financial system anymore. It cannot be used. None but yourself is benefiting, and someone on the other end is losing. And what if you invest with a loan and the commodity crashes?

Keeping it in cash is nearly the same as keeping it in bitcoin, gold, etc, it isn't benefiting economic growth.
Mstring
Profile Joined September 2011
Australia510 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-09 02:35:46
December 09 2013 01:52 GMT
#489
On December 09 2013 08:35 Shival wrote:
Keeping it in cash is nearly the same as keeping it in bitcoin, gold, etc, it isn't benefiting economic growth.

What is the purpose of striving for "economic growth"? Wanting to increase growth in the system we live in is like wanting to increase your food intake when you've got intestinal parasites eating half your food. The smart thing to do is get rid of the parasites, not accommodate and compensate for them!

If we didn't live in an usury-mad perpetually inflating world, holding cash wouldn't be a problem for anyone. If you keep $100 in your pocket for 25 years there'd be a matching $100 debt that is yet to be payed out of circulation, a debt that someone has promised to pay down, a debt that created the $100 that you are holding in the first place! In any case, at the bare minimum there will always be at least some circulation that constantly flows, no matter how much people try to stash their cash, because everyone needs to eat and producing food takes labour that must be paid for with flowing money.

When money is available to purchase property at no interest you will be able to horde as much of your hard earned cash as you like. That money is a representation of the labour you have inputted into the system and you deserve to be able to use it however you like whenever you like. Your holding $100 isn't stopping someone from selling something worth $100 since new money can be issued against that new item. When money is a commodity such as BTC or gold, this is impossible, since issuing new commodity currency has an intrinsic opportunity cost-- you must actually transfer something of value that you can no longer use yourself (not to mention the fact that you must actually mine the stuff). This is a backwards step compared to what money-as-a-primisory-note can do for us. There is no opportunity cost in issuing a promise of future payment, except of course when we let banks take over the process and pretend it's a 'loan', tricking us into agreeing that future labour is worth less than present labour, creating the whole viscous cycle that we're in.

If you have low water pressure at the faucet because there's a leak in your pipe do you increase the mains water pressure or do you fix the leak?!?! If you answered up the pressure you should apply for a job running the world's economy XD
Shival
Profile Joined May 2011
Netherlands643 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-09 02:43:54
December 09 2013 02:43 GMT
#490
On December 09 2013 10:52 Mstring wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 09 2013 08:35 Shival wrote:
Keeping it in cash is nearly the same as keeping it in bitcoin, gold, etc, it isn't benefiting economic growth.

What is the purpose of striving for "economic growth"? Wanting to increase growth in the system we live in is like wanting to increase your food intake when you've got intestinal parasites eating half your food. The smart thing to do is get rid of the parasites, not accommodate and compensate for them!

If we didn't live in an usury-mad perpetually inflating world, holding cash wouldn't be a problem for anyone. If you keep $100 in your pocket for 25 years there'd be a matching $100 debt that is yet to be payed out of circulation, a debt that someone has promised to pay down, a debt that created the $100 that you are holding in the first place! In any case, at the bare minimum there will always be at least some circulation that constantly flows, no matter how much people try to stash their cash, because everyone needs to eat and producing food takes labour that must be paid for with flowing money.

When money is available to purchase property at no interest you will be able to horde as much of your hard earned cash as you like. That money is a representation of the labour you have inputted into the system and you deserve to be able to use it however you like whenever you like. Your holding $100 isn't stopping someone from selling something worth $100 since new money can be issued against that new item. When money is a commodity such as BTC or gold, this is impossible, since issuing new commodity currency has an intrinsic opportunity cost-- you must actually transfer something of value that you can no longer use yourself (not to mention the fact that you must actually mine the stuff). This is a backwards step compared to what money-as-a-primisory-note can do for us.

If you have low water pressure at the faucet because there's a leak in your pipe do you increase the mains water pressure or do you fix the leak?!?! If you answered up the pressure you should apply for a job running the world's economy XD


If fixing the leak means I will eventually in the long term have low to no water pressure I would increase the pressure.
Can't I have both?

But yes, preferably I would very much like to change certain parts of capitalism, such as rampant lending schemes and derivatives. Minor inflation is not one of them though, I'm afraid.
Mstring
Profile Joined September 2011
Australia510 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-09 02:58:17
December 09 2013 02:51 GMT
#491
On December 09 2013 11:43 Shival wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 09 2013 10:52 Mstring wrote:
On December 09 2013 08:35 Shival wrote:
Keeping it in cash is nearly the same as keeping it in bitcoin, gold, etc, it isn't benefiting economic growth.

What is the purpose of striving for "economic growth"? Wanting to increase growth in the system we live in is like wanting to increase your food intake when you've got intestinal parasites eating half your food. The smart thing to do is get rid of the parasites, not accommodate and compensate for them!

If we didn't live in an usury-mad perpetually inflating world, holding cash wouldn't be a problem for anyone. If you keep $100 in your pocket for 25 years there'd be a matching $100 debt that is yet to be payed out of circulation, a debt that someone has promised to pay down, a debt that created the $100 that you are holding in the first place! In any case, at the bare minimum there will always be at least some circulation that constantly flows, no matter how much people try to stash their cash, because everyone needs to eat and producing food takes labour that must be paid for with flowing money.

When money is available to purchase property at no interest you will be able to horde as much of your hard earned cash as you like. That money is a representation of the labour you have inputted into the system and you deserve to be able to use it however you like whenever you like. Your holding $100 isn't stopping someone from selling something worth $100 since new money can be issued against that new item. When money is a commodity such as BTC or gold, this is impossible, since issuing new commodity currency has an intrinsic opportunity cost-- you must actually transfer something of value that you can no longer use yourself (not to mention the fact that you must actually mine the stuff). This is a backwards step compared to what money-as-a-primisory-note can do for us.

If you have low water pressure at the faucet because there's a leak in your pipe do you increase the mains water pressure or do you fix the leak?!?! If you answered up the pressure you should apply for a job running the world's economy XD


If fixing the leak means I will eventually in the long term have low to no water pressure I would increase the pressure.
Can't I have both?

But yes, preferably I would very much like to change certain parts of capitalism, such as rampant lending schemes and derivatives. Minor inflation is not one of them though, I'm afraid.

Why would you want "minor" inflation? What is the benefit over a system that guarantees no inflation through equal circulation, debt and property? (i.e. the exact system we have now minus the leeches and lies)

I run into people all the time who feel the need to 'invest' their money in order to keep up with the rest of the game. In Australia it's all about buying property and 'shares'. Why on earth should someone who has zero value to add, zero expertise, have to invest anything? Make no mistake they wouldn't do it if they didn't feel like they had to. Investment should be for people to leverage their earned wealth by their expertise. People give away their savings to 'experts' to manage just to keep level. To what end? What could be better than keeping what you earn and not having it erode at all? A system where we don't need 'experts' to make a living off of their backs.
Shival
Profile Joined May 2011
Netherlands643 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-09 02:59:39
December 09 2013 02:57 GMT
#492
On December 09 2013 11:51 Mstring wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 09 2013 11:43 Shival wrote:
On December 09 2013 10:52 Mstring wrote:
On December 09 2013 08:35 Shival wrote:
Keeping it in cash is nearly the same as keeping it in bitcoin, gold, etc, it isn't benefiting economic growth.

What is the purpose of striving for "economic growth"? Wanting to increase growth in the system we live in is like wanting to increase your food intake when you've got intestinal parasites eating half your food. The smart thing to do is get rid of the parasites, not accommodate and compensate for them!

If we didn't live in an usury-mad perpetually inflating world, holding cash wouldn't be a problem for anyone. If you keep $100 in your pocket for 25 years there'd be a matching $100 debt that is yet to be payed out of circulation, a debt that someone has promised to pay down, a debt that created the $100 that you are holding in the first place! In any case, at the bare minimum there will always be at least some circulation that constantly flows, no matter how much people try to stash their cash, because everyone needs to eat and producing food takes labour that must be paid for with flowing money.

When money is available to purchase property at no interest you will be able to horde as much of your hard earned cash as you like. That money is a representation of the labour you have inputted into the system and you deserve to be able to use it however you like whenever you like. Your holding $100 isn't stopping someone from selling something worth $100 since new money can be issued against that new item. When money is a commodity such as BTC or gold, this is impossible, since issuing new commodity currency has an intrinsic opportunity cost-- you must actually transfer something of value that you can no longer use yourself (not to mention the fact that you must actually mine the stuff). This is a backwards step compared to what money-as-a-primisory-note can do for us.

If you have low water pressure at the faucet because there's a leak in your pipe do you increase the mains water pressure or do you fix the leak?!?! If you answered up the pressure you should apply for a job running the world's economy XD


If fixing the leak means I will eventually in the long term have low to no water pressure I would increase the pressure.
Can't I have both?

But yes, preferably I would very much like to change certain parts of capitalism, such as rampant lending schemes and derivatives. Minor inflation is not one of them though, I'm afraid.

Why would you want "minor" inflation? What is the benefit over a system that guarantees no inflation through equal circulation, debt and property? (i.e. the exact system we have now minus the leeches and lies)

I run into people all the time who feel the need to 'invest' their money in order to keep up with the rest of the game. In Australia it's all about buying property and 'shares'. Why on earth should someone who has zero value to add, zero expertise, have to invest anything? Make no mistake they wouldn't do it if they didn't feel like they had to. Investment should be for people to leverage their earned wealth by their expertise. People give away their savings to 'experts' to manage just to keep level. To what end? What could be better than keeping what you earn and not having it erode at all? A system where we don't need 'experts' to make a living off of their backs.


The benefit is exactly that, more money that is pumped into companies and therefore higher development.

I don't recommend anyone to give away their savings to so called 'experts' though. Never seen it really work, and often times they're simply benefiting from you, instead of you benefiting from them.
Mstring
Profile Joined September 2011
Australia510 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-09 03:17:44
December 09 2013 03:05 GMT
#493
On December 09 2013 11:57 Shival wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 09 2013 11:51 Mstring wrote:
On December 09 2013 11:43 Shival wrote:
On December 09 2013 10:52 Mstring wrote:
On December 09 2013 08:35 Shival wrote:
Keeping it in cash is nearly the same as keeping it in bitcoin, gold, etc, it isn't benefiting economic growth.

What is the purpose of striving for "economic growth"? Wanting to increase growth in the system we live in is like wanting to increase your food intake when you've got intestinal parasites eating half your food. The smart thing to do is get rid of the parasites, not accommodate and compensate for them!

If we didn't live in an usury-mad perpetually inflating world, holding cash wouldn't be a problem for anyone. If you keep $100 in your pocket for 25 years there'd be a matching $100 debt that is yet to be payed out of circulation, a debt that someone has promised to pay down, a debt that created the $100 that you are holding in the first place! In any case, at the bare minimum there will always be at least some circulation that constantly flows, no matter how much people try to stash their cash, because everyone needs to eat and producing food takes labour that must be paid for with flowing money.

When money is available to purchase property at no interest you will be able to horde as much of your hard earned cash as you like. That money is a representation of the labour you have inputted into the system and you deserve to be able to use it however you like whenever you like. Your holding $100 isn't stopping someone from selling something worth $100 since new money can be issued against that new item. When money is a commodity such as BTC or gold, this is impossible, since issuing new commodity currency has an intrinsic opportunity cost-- you must actually transfer something of value that you can no longer use yourself (not to mention the fact that you must actually mine the stuff). This is a backwards step compared to what money-as-a-primisory-note can do for us.

If you have low water pressure at the faucet because there's a leak in your pipe do you increase the mains water pressure or do you fix the leak?!?! If you answered up the pressure you should apply for a job running the world's economy XD


If fixing the leak means I will eventually in the long term have low to no water pressure I would increase the pressure.
Can't I have both?

But yes, preferably I would very much like to change certain parts of capitalism, such as rampant lending schemes and derivatives. Minor inflation is not one of them though, I'm afraid.

Why would you want "minor" inflation? What is the benefit over a system that guarantees no inflation through equal circulation, debt and property? (i.e. the exact system we have now minus the leeches and lies)

I run into people all the time who feel the need to 'invest' their money in order to keep up with the rest of the game. In Australia it's all about buying property and 'shares'. Why on earth should someone who has zero value to add, zero expertise, have to invest anything? Make no mistake they wouldn't do it if they didn't feel like they had to. Investment should be for people to leverage their earned wealth by their expertise. People give away their savings to 'experts' to manage just to keep level. To what end? What could be better than keeping what you earn and not having it erode at all? A system where we don't need 'experts' to make a living off of their backs.


The benefit is exactly that, more money that is pumped into companies and therefore higher development.


Imagine if you had a business where you only had to pay down depreciation on your equipment. How do you think that would affect your "development" costs? And if your customers only had to pay down depreciation on your products, how do you think that would affect sales?

Everyone would be massively incentivised to produce and consume the highest possible quality goods and services since these depreciate the least and thus cost the least day to day. Systemic incentive to produce the best possible goods? Sounds like a path to "higher development" to me.


I don't recommend anyone to give away their savings to so called 'experts' though. Never seen it really work, and often times they're simply benefiting from you, instead of you benefiting from them.

What do you think the average joe does? He doesn't have a clue how his super fund makes money but he gives his money to it all the same. Not because he wants to, because he understands, but because he must, else he falls behind in the game.

Why is a system to guarantee retirement wealth through super-fund parasites better than a system in which I can simply put cash into a jar and use that for retirement? Having to put your money somewhere that you don't understand is a symptom of something going wrong. A "minor" inflation today is a "major" inflation tomorrow.
Shival
Profile Joined May 2011
Netherlands643 Posts
December 09 2013 03:17 GMT
#494
On December 09 2013 12:05 Mstring wrote:
Imagine if you had a business where you only had to pay down depreciation on your equipment. How do you think that would affect your "development" costs? And if your customers only had to pay down depreciation on your products, how do you think that would affect sales?


Positive. But I doubt it'll weigh up to the investments lost, especially so for new companies that need investments to stay afloat.


What do you think the average joe does? He doesn't have a clue how his super fund makes money but he gives his money to it all the same. Not because he wants to, because he understands, but because he must, else he falls behind in the game.

Why is a system to guarantee retirement wealth through super-fund parasites better than a system in which he can simply put cash into a jar and use that for his retirement?


Because money is spend that way, money is still circulating in the financial system. Otherwise it would be dead money, and thus no money to develop. I would like to do without the parasitic behaviour of the 'experts' though.

Mstring
Profile Joined September 2011
Australia510 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-09 03:33:01
December 09 2013 03:22 GMT
#495
On December 09 2013 12:17 Shival wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 09 2013 12:05 Mstring wrote:
Imagine if you had a business where you only had to pay down depreciation on your equipment. How do you think that would affect your "development" costs? And if your customers only had to pay down depreciation on your products, how do you think that would affect sales?


Positive. But I doubt it'll weigh up to the investments lost, especially so for new companies that need investments to stay afloat.

So you are saying that new companies should be floated on the backs of the average joe who invests not because he wants to but because he has to?

If you want people to invest, let them invest of their own volition don't force them.


Show nested quote +

What do you think the average joe does? He doesn't have a clue how his super fund makes money but he gives his money to it all the same. Not because he wants to, because he understands, but because he must, else he falls behind in the game.

Why is a system to guarantee retirement wealth through super-fund parasites better than a system in which he can simply put cash into a jar and use that for his retirement?


Because money is spend that way, money is still circulating in the financial system. Otherwise it would be dead money, and thus no money to develop. I would like to do without the parasitic behaviour of the 'experts' though.


This is only a problem when you are viewing it through the frame of reference of the current financial system.

$100 of kept out of circulation today can only be replaced by $100 loaned at interest, thus, it costs less tomorrow if we use that $100 that's in our pocket rather than saving it and keeping the flow going by borrowing $100 at interest. The $100 is "dead" because it costs us more than $100 tomorrow to replace it with a new $100 today, a huge disincentive for actually taking on such a loan and incentivising spending it now!

Without usury, $100 kept out of circulation today can be replaced by $100 of new circulation without interest. My keeping it out of the circulatory flow does nothing to stop someone buying that same $100 good I chose not to buy, with new issued money (money backed by their future promise to pay it back, at a rate of depreciation, summing to the total principal and not a cent more). Exact same circulatory flow without the future debt crunch. The only ones who suffer are the parasites.
Shival
Profile Joined May 2011
Netherlands643 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-09 03:37:27
December 09 2013 03:35 GMT
#496
On December 09 2013 12:22 Mstring wrote:
So you are saying that new companies should be floated on the backs of the average joe who invests not because he wants to but because he has to?

If you want people to invest, let them invest of their own volition don't force them.


They aren't forced, they're merely incentivized. They can still say, nope, not for me, too risky. Obviously there's a drawback to denying the option, but hey, if we don't think on the level of the average joe, but on human developmental growth, then I would say screw you average joe. The system isn't in place for the average joe, it's in place for the entire species as a whole.


This is only a problem when you are viewing it through the frame of reference of the current financial system.

$100 of kept out of circulation today can only be replaced by $100 loaned at interest, thus, it costs less tomorrow if we use that $100 that's in our pocket rather than saving it and keeping the flow going by borrowing $100 at interest. The $100 is "dead" because it costs us to replace it with a new $100.

Without usury, $100 kept out of circulation today can be replaced by $100 of new circulation without interest. My keeping it out of the circulatory flow does nothing to stop someone buying that $100 good with new issued money (backed by their future promise to pay it back, at a rate of depreciation, summing to the total principal and not a cent more).


Bolded: What the hell? I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but I don't think that's how it works. There's no net loss as a whole society for inflation.

Edit: I think I'm completely misunderstanding here. Can you rephrase? I'm sorry for asking, I'm sure you're putting effort in explaining yourself, I simply don't really get your meaning
Mstring
Profile Joined September 2011
Australia510 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-09 04:07:21
December 09 2013 03:46 GMT
#497
On December 09 2013 12:35 Shival wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 09 2013 12:22 Mstring wrote:
So you are saying that new companies should be floated on the backs of the average joe who invests not because he wants to but because he has to?

If you want people to invest, let them invest of their own volition don't force them.


They aren't forced, they're merely incentivized. They can still say, nope, not for me, too risky. Obviously there's a drawback to denying the option, but hey, if we don't think on the level of the average joe, but on human developmental growth, then I would say screw you average joe. The system isn't in place for the average joe, it's in place for the entire species as a whole.


I for one want a system that actually services the needs of every individual, not makes them suffer for some 'good of the species' ideology. While we're sharing ideology, I believe that a system that is fair and provides for each individual will service "the entire species" far better than any top-down approach could ever dream of doing.


Show nested quote +

This is only a problem when you are viewing it through the frame of reference of the current financial system.

$100 of kept out of circulation today can only be replaced by $100 loaned at interest, thus, it costs less tomorrow if we use that $100 that's in our pocket rather than saving it and keeping the flow going by borrowing $100 at interest. The $100 is "dead" because it costs us to replace it with a new $100.

Without usury, $100 kept out of circulation today can be replaced by $100 of new circulation without interest. My keeping it out of the circulatory flow does nothing to stop someone buying that $100 good with new issued money (backed by their future promise to pay it back, at a rate of depreciation, summing to the total principal and not a cent more).


Bolded: What the hell? I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but I don't think that's how it works. There's no net loss as a whole society for inflation.

You don't think that's how what works?

If you don't have $100 and want to buy something for $100. How do you get it? You borrow it. How much does it cost you, in this world, to borrow $100? More than $100, over time. What aren't you understanding?

Of course there is a loss over time, that's my whole point!! This is why the parasite analogy is so apt! When your water pipes are leaking onto the ground you don't ignore it and say 'it's really not a loss because it's going back into the earth'. You're paying for something you're not getting!! We're all funding things that we otherwise wouldn't if we were informed! That's a net loss!!


You're saying that because you're saving your money in a sock, someone else can loan that $100 with the promise to pay it back, without interest? Nice utopia, what if he can't pay back because he lost it on an investment?

You could only issue new currency for property of value, new or otherwise, exactly the same way the banks issue currency today. It isn't "someone" doing the lending, it is new currency being issued into existence. If you can't pay it back, the property is sold and the circulation retired 100%. This is the core of what I've been saying: circulation = outstanding debt = represented property value. If ever there's a default (much less likely when you only have to pay down depreciation, not fund everyone who works at the bank and all the other parasites), the property value remaining is always equal to the remaining debt, and thus it can always be fully recovered. "Pay[ing] back" this money is not to another person but out of circulation, maintaining the 1:1:1 ratio.

There is nothing utopian about this my friend, except in the sense that it is actually a fair system for all! It's exactly the same as the way that banking works today, except instead we've all been conditioned to agree to pay back far in excess of the principal, and at a far greater rate than property depreciation. Virtually all of that interest is stolen. Yes, it's a jagged little red pill.
Shival
Profile Joined May 2011
Netherlands643 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-09 04:11:16
December 09 2013 04:07 GMT
#498
On December 09 2013 12:46 Mstring wrote:
I for one want a system that actually services the needs of every individual, not makes them suffer for some 'good of the species' ideology.
Show nested quote +


Ah, but that's the kicker! Humanities progress is eventually servicing the needs of every individual. It's simply less immidiately apperant.


You don't think that's how what works?

If you don't have $100 and want to buy something for $100. How do you get it? You borrow it. How much does it cost you, in this world, to borrow $100? More than $100, over time. What aren't you understanding?

Of course there is a loss over time, that's my whole point!! This is why the parasite analogy is so apt!


Obviously for borrowing $100 you need to pay back a certain interest. That's the loss you yourself have to take, but there's no loss for society as a whole. Thus no net loss. Why would you want people to be able to borrow without interest, there's no incentive for them to pay you back in any short amount of time. Besides, you're only looking at the lending part right now, inflation can certainly be a damper on lending, but that's not the point of inflation.


You could only issue new currency for new property, exactly the same way the banks do it now. If you can't pay it back, the property is sold. This is the core of what I've been saying: currency = debt = property. If ever there's a default, the property value remaining is always equal to the remaining debt, and thus it can always be fully recovered.

There is nothing utopian about this my friend. This is exactly the same as the way that banking work today, except instead we all agree to pay back far in excess of the principal, and at a far greater rate than property depreciation. All that interest is stolen. Yes, it's a jagged little pill.


It is an utopia, if that system you're proposing was in place right now.. I think I would buy myself a villa and sportscar right now. I mean society won't lose anything at all in the end anyway if I can't pay it back, thus why do they need to put a damper on what I can spend?

That interest is stolen only for that moment, eventually, because the money is in the system, you get it back as long as you're getting paid. Normally your salary also increases roughly around the same amount or higher as the inflation. Thus it means you should spend, but you're eventually not getting stolen from.
Mstring
Profile Joined September 2011
Australia510 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-09 04:35:12
December 09 2013 04:19 GMT
#499
On December 09 2013 13:07 Shival wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 09 2013 12:46 Mstring wrote:
I for one want a system that actually services the needs of every individual, not makes them suffer for some 'good of the species' ideology.


Ah, but that's the kicker! Humanities progress is eventually servicing the needs of every individual. It's simply less immidiately apperant.


You don't think that's how what works?

If you don't have $100 and want to buy something for $100. How do you get it? You borrow it. How much does it cost you, in this world, to borrow $100? More than $100, over time. What aren't you understanding?

Of course there is a loss over time, that's my whole point!! This is why the parasite analogy is so apt!


Obviously for borrowing $100 you need to pay back a certain interest. That's the loss you yourself have to take, but there's no loss for society as a whole. Thus no net loss. Why would you want people to be able to borrow without interest, there's no incentive for them to pay you back in any short amount of time. Besides, you're only looking at the lending part right now, inflation can certainly be a damper on lending, but that's not the point of inflation.

The whole point is there is no incentive to pay you back any time soon. You don't need them too!

The only reason we want people to pay us back fast in this insane system is because money now is worth more than that money tomorrow. If we don't get it back as fast as possible we lose out. It doesn't need to be this way.

Saying it's no loss on the whole is like saying there's no loss of food when you eat twice as much because your intestinal parasites eat 50% of it so it's not wasted at all! You'll shit twice as much and double fertilize the soil so you'll grow twice as much food, you can just eat twice as much no problem. It's all good right? What if we don't want parasites to eat our food? What if we don't want a parasite stealing our money and distorting the world's industry to the point where financial services dominate western economies while giving virtually zero benefit in return?


Show nested quote +

You could only issue new currency for new property, exactly the same way the banks do it now. If you can't pay it back, the property is sold. This is the core of what I've been saying: currency = debt = property. If ever there's a default, the property value remaining is always equal to the remaining debt, and thus it can always be fully recovered.

There is nothing utopian about this my friend. This is exactly the same as the way that banking work today, except instead we all agree to pay back far in excess of the principal, and at a far greater rate than property depreciation. All that interest is stolen. Yes, it's a jagged little pill.


It is an utopia, if that system you're proposing was in place right now.. I think I would buy myself a villa and sportscar right now. I mean society won't lose anything at all in the end anyway if I can't pay it back, thus why do they need to put a damper on what I can spend?

One legitimate thing the banks actually do is assess creditworthiness. If you can demonstrate you can pay down the depreciation on your sports car and villa then all the power to you. In the system I'm describing (which again, employs the exact same methods of money creation as we have today, sans being sucked dry by parasites) far more people would be able to afford higher quality goods, like luxury villas, since they only have to pay for what they consume, a far cry from today's world where money itself has become a consumable which must be paid for.


That interest is stolen only for that moment, eventually, because the money is in the system, you get it back as long as you're getting paid. Normally your salary also increases roughly around the same amount as the inflation. Thus it means you should spend, but you're eventually not getting stolen from.


Lol.

'I'm ok with the local gang stealing from everyone because I'm on the payroll'

You said it, you don't care about average joe, just "the entire species", whatever that means.

Thanks for the chat my friend. I've enjoyed it. Let's agree to disagree for now and reconvene down the line
Shival
Profile Joined May 2011
Netherlands643 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-12-09 04:37:37
December 09 2013 04:34 GMT
#500
On December 09 2013 13:19 Mstring wrote:
The whole point is there is no incentive to pay you back any time soon. You don't need them too!

The only reason we want people to pay us back fast in this insane system is because money now is worth more than that money tomorrow. If we don't get it back as fast as possible we lose out. It doesn't need to be this way.


Nope, it will stay the exact same as before. Nowadays you pay interest on your loan, which is roughly 1-2% + whatever they expect the inflation to be over the time of the loan. In your case, it would be minus the inflation, but there would still be interest. So there's no real problem for those that give out loans in either case.


One legitimate thing the banks actually do is assess creditworthiness. If you can demonstrate you can pay down the depreciation on your sports car and villa then all the power to you. In the system I'm describing (which again, employs the exact same methods of money creation, except is sucked dry by parasites) far more people would be able to afford higher quality goods, like luxury villas. After all, the incentive is for long lasting quality goods that people actually want.


Sigh, no, that's how it seems on the onset. However, prices for quality goods will simply get higher. Average joe will never get access to loads of quality goods as long as he has average income. No matter the system.

Lol.

'I'm ok with the local gang stealing from everyone because I'm on the payroll'

You said it, you don't care about average joe, just "the entire species", whatever that means.

Thanks for the chat my friend. I've enjoyed it.


No, it's not about payroll, it's about getting paid. Which in a civilized country is pretty much everyone. Either through salary or unemployment benefits. None will lose out when there's inflation except for those that stow their money in socks. Inflation is merely an incentive to spend your money, nothing else, there's no damn stealing but from those that like their money in damn socks.

Yeah, enjoyed it aswell in fact. Different views, no middle ground it seems.
Prev 1 23 24 25 26 27 71 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
OSC
14:00
King of the Hill #219
davetesta23
Liquipedia
Esports World Cup
11:00
2025 - Final Day
Serral vs ClassicLIVE!
EWC_Arena30284
ComeBackTV 5894
TaKeTV 1275
JimRising 957
Hui .773
3DClanTV 699
Fuzer 454
EnkiAlexander 330
Rex254
CranKy Ducklings168
Reynor161
SpeCial102
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
EWC_Arena30284
JimRising 940
Hui .773
Fuzer 437
Rex 254
Reynor 161
UpATreeSC 154
SpeCial 105
JuggernautJason15
StarCraft: Brood War
Shuttle 2881
Bisu 2710
Mini 897
Larva 793
Soma 373
actioN 337
EffOrt 251
Rush 129
TY 102
JYJ80
[ Show more ]
Shine 68
sorry 32
zelot 28
sas.Sziky 26
Aegong 25
yabsab 22
Terrorterran 16
JulyZerg 10
Sacsri 10
NaDa 9
soO 5
Dota 2
420jenkins697
League of Legends
Trikslyr60
Counter-Strike
fl0m3710
sgares402
oskar216
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu33
Other Games
gofns10571
FrodaN2273
tarik_tv1764
Beastyqt725
KnowMe185
crisheroes95
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• FirePhoenix5
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV919
League of Legends
• Nemesis4970
• TFBlade386
Other Games
• imaqtpie848
• Shiphtur381
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
15h 55m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
19h 55m
CSO Cup
21h 55m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
23h 55m
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 14h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 19h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 23h
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.