You seem to have forgotten to supply a link to your evidence that shows that any reduction in warming from this feedback will counteract the rise. I assume it's peer reviewed of course.
IMHO the real culprit for global warming is the exploding human population. Not CO2
I don't want your humble opinion, I want to see the evidence that supports this idea that it's human population alone and not carbon dioxide.
I'm curious to know how human population causes an increase in temperature, if it isn't indirectly via increase carbon dioxide emissions.
You also seem to be making a straw man. I'm sure that most people who want lower emissions would be all in favour of trying to do less cutting down of the rainforests - indeed, the fact that the rainforests are carbon sinks is well known. However it's not enough to simply stop cutting them down (that just stops it getting even worse).
Ice at the poles melting due to heat from the research base, okay that's just funny.
Anti-CO2 emission enthusiasts (a subset of Global warming enthusiasts)
By "enthusiasts", you mean the vast majority of professional scientists.
Seashells have the problem of being easy to obtain a large number, so not at all limited, which makes them not very useful as a store of value. There are various properties that makes some things (e.g., gold) more useful as a store of value than other things.
One practical use is being able to transfer money between people anywhere in the world. Even if exchanging with currency at both ends, the fees are typically lower than other systems like card fees, Paypal, or international bank transfer fees. Individuals have a way to receive money without signing up to Visa. Some companies accepting Bitcoin pass the savings of lower fees onto customers.
In terms of anonymity: all Bitcoin transfers are public, but the catch is you then have to match up the Bitcoin addresses with people. So someone would still have to be careful: if the first thing the virus writer did was exchange it for currency through a Bitcoin exchange - well the police could then go to that exchange and ask for the details of where the money was then sent (or ask for the identity documents that are typically required by exchanges). But they could also spend or exchange the bitcoins in ways that don't have any way to track who they are.
@Gian-Reto Yes sure, I wouldn't expect people to handle Bitcoin without understanding how to use them on a basic layer, as you say. I just disagreed that this is beyond "even a mathematician", or that "the normal citizen will have no chance to understand it".
As with any high risk investment, one should consider how much to invest, but that doesn't mean one should never invest anything. High risk investments can be a way to make money, as long as you're prepared to live with losing it (a reasonable policy is to have some investments in higher risk investments - too much is a bad idea, but everything in safe investments means little return).
@BrianRhineheart: Bitcoin isn't made up, it exists. I would compare Bitcoin more to things like gold; they don't need to be protected. In principle credit could be created in the same way that non-central banks do it for other currencies, by lending out Bitcoin that people have deposited - though the lack of a lender of last resort may make that unfeasible. But who cares, the fact that people don't create credit with gold doesn't stop investments in it.
mdwh's example is simple and plain. Can you respond to it, using simple and plain language?
It does not work if you give the same 100 out. In that scenario, you would lose 10.
Only the Central Lender can loan a new 100. But it does not lend directly to the public. It lends to other Lenders or Government. The Central Lender also gives permission to Banks to create money, but there are strict rules for how to do so.
I think I see what you mean now. Sure, central banks (and in some cases banks under permission from the central bank) can print and create money directly.
Note though that when businesses borrow from private banks, the usual situation is that this isn't money that was created by printing it just for the loan. Hence my confusion - your earlier post talked about businesses borrowing from a lender, and didn't specify central banks or those authorised by the central bank.
But this doesn't mean that businesses will suddenly be able to take out loans as typically the interest rates will be somewhat higher than central bank ones. Also your earlier post seems to talk as if non-lenders not being able to create money of their own is a bad thing. But if anyone could print money, there'd be massive deflation.
Also I'd be careful about talking about central banks profitting when they create money - they can't just keep printing money, as that devalues the currency.
So what did your bank say to you when you asked it if you could deposit cryptocurrency?
I still don't see how if I lend someone $100, and then they later only have to pay back $90, I've somehow made $90.
Treat 'debt' and 'money' separately. This will make it easier to understand.
Remember, you do not have the license to do do what the Lender does. You can't make money, the Lender can. If you do it, it's called 'conterfeit', if the Lender does it, it's called 'credit'.
Some might have missed my last post on the previous page. (Hopefully it expands/explains a little clearer.)
"So what did your bank say to you when you asked it if you could deposit cryptocurrency?"
I know people who have deposited their Bitcoin wallets in their bank safety deposit boxes, no problem at all. (Just in case you're going to quibble "bitcoins" versus "bitcoin wallets", the bitcoins have no presence themselves other than being part of the Bitcoin network; it's the wallets that people own.)
If you're complaining I can't store them as part of my regular savings account, well no, but I can't do that with gold either. Also there's no reason a bank couldn't also offer Bitcoin accounts just like currently available online wallets.
As for lending - the argument by which banks "create" money is that when they lend out money that's deposited with them, the money gets counted twice (or even multiple times if that lent out money is redeposited). This is different to counterfeiting. In fact, an individual can do this, we just don't do it on the same scale as banks.
Suppose person A gives me $100 for safe keeping. I think "He's not going to ask for that back in a while, I know, I'll lend it out to someone else." So I give the $100 to person B.
So A thinks he has $100, and B now has an extra $100 - I've created money with credit.
So you're suggesting I should be happy if B only pays me back $90. And that means I'm now $90 better off. This seems to be down to a misconception that because I (or the bank) created money, that created money remains in existence for the me or the bank to keep.
But it doesn't - once the loan is paid back, the credit - and hence the created money - disappears again.
And think about it: So I've now got $90, what happens when A asks for his money back? Now I've lost $10.
So I'm wondering how on earth I was meant to have made $90 or $100; or why there was any point in lending money out to B.