Bitcoin Forum

First Vessenes starts the Bitcoin Foundation, uniting the lead developers

Now his company is taking over Gox and bringing them to the US?

It's a little worrying when the primary exchange and the lead developers are controlled by the same people.

hmmm.. It will be a good idea to keep a close eye on them

good point all eyes should be on watch.

I would think the lead developers still retain a mind of their own regardless of their involvement with the Foundation. Atleast thats still the case when you look at the Block Size issue.

I always hear the advice to store your gold outside of the US because the government will take it away. So im not sure if moving MtGox to the US is such a bright idea given the government's track record. It becomes very easy for the US government to confiscate the coins and dollars.

Sure.  Bitcoin is on a course to become a leader in the new space of virtual currencies.

Most of the primary developers and those leading successful businesses in Bitcoin-land are pretty up-front about their friendly posture towards mainstream economic players.  And the path of least resistance vis-a-vis scaling is to move toward large-scale deployments.

Anti-bank dead-enders are going to end up as road-kill 100 miles back.  Indeed, that process is actually well underway already.  These people were critical in bootstrapping the solution, but their participation is rapidly becoming unnecessary and, frankly, kind of embarrassing and detrimental to increased adoption.  Of course such people may also end up quite wealthy if they hold on to some secret keys.

so your idea of bitcoin would be that its like paypal? neat

meanwhile, others see that the true value of bitcoin stems from its decentralization, and lack of inhibiting regulation. bitcoin is fundamentally different than "other virtual currencies" in that it is not controlled by any central authority, and in that its characteristics are immutable (or should be).

In short, if bitcoin itself were somehow controlled by a central authority it would be worthless.

+1

+ 21 000 000

Not 'my idea'.  I just call it like I see it.

The who 'fundamentally different' nature if Bitcoin is a great marketing ploy which could give it a giant leg up on it's competition.  Alas, it probably won't have much basis in reality.

Centralizing the control will depreciate it's value to you and me, but most people won't give a shit.  Indeed most people will welcome measures to stop criminals and tax cheats and I'm sure that this will be how it's marketed.

While I find the trajectory distasteful personally, it probably is my best hope to never have to work again in my life.  And the cat is out of the bag so I'm sure that there will be other solutions which match some of the features that I find important.

Like that embarrassing Satoshi guy?

so what you're saying is that you're invested in bitcoin for your own personal profit, but hope that the core goal of the project ultimately fails so that everyone has to pay their taxes like good citizens, and you can enjoy your retirement?

social security recipient spotted

I see what you did there ;D

Anyway it's called sold out not bought out.

I recommend you stop complaining and face reality: As long as the infrastructure itself isn't decentralized these things are inevitable.
Problem is, every time somebody suggests building a decentralized exchange they get bullied out of it. It's the communities own fault.

Actually, from what I can see in the little bit of looking that I've done, yes.

A serious question: What good are banks now that Bitcoin is proving itself?

The idea of Bitcoin is obviously sound. When implementation and usage becomes easier and more widespread, I don't see much use for banks if their idea of money is so flawed compared to a better tool.

You have a fairly imaginative way of reading...and it translates into incorrect conclusions FWIW.

But yes, I made a highly speculative investment in Bitcoin in part because I could see various ways in which it could pay off.

It is true that I don't feel 'violently abused' by paying taxes since I don't tend to subscribe to Libertarian dogma without careful consideration.  I've never sucked off the government teat (like our dear friend Ms. Rand) yet, but I'd do it if I find myself in need at some point.  If I don't, great!

the point of bitcoin's decentralization is not to avoid paying taxes -- the point is to decouple money storage and transmission from inflationary monetary policy and replace the outdated system we have of transferring money from a to b.

in a zero interest (for depositors) environment, what is the point of keeping your money in a bank? the technology exists to eliminate the need for this type of service. and yet everyone does it. Does that sound like an optimal solution to you?

I would not call the current debt-based monetary systems or the providers which service the public under them 'outdated'.  They are tuned to a high level of perfection using the force of (what I consider fascist) government muscle and media propaganda to control the populations and extract the maximum amount from them.  Both from a monetary and privacy perspective.  And, of course, to transfer the proceeds to private individuals.


I personally keep a fairly minimal amount of assets in the bank in the form of demand deposits, or in any paper form which has counter-party risk.  Indeed, seeking options was one of the driving forces which steered me toward Bitcoin in the first place.  It is also why I am kind of discouraged about the direction that Bitcoin seems to be going from a philosophical point of view.

I cannot speak for others.

what ever happened to a p2p exchange?

See above.
Paranoia aborted them.

I think bitcoin might do just fine if there were dozens of centralized exchanges in many different countries, which seems to be a likely scenario.

Nobody within 100 miles, and nobody interested in more than about 1/5 the USD values I want to deal with.  Hopefully time will change that.

There are lots of reasons to expect the positive change you described, and one of these reasons is "Bitcoin being bought out" by people with vision, experience, and the ability to innovate further.
  

Actually i kind of agree with tvbcof.

If you look at history, the masses eventually submit to a central authority, whether it be a King, government run by a controlling elite, etc.. Even with the discovery and spread of democracy, we are not really much better off today. The majority still slave away for a small group at the top. It's almost as if its inbuilt in most humans to give up their liberty.

Having said that, some progress has been made overtime. In the past, kings maintained power via fear. Today banks/dictators/politicians maintain power via "educating"(aka Keynesian Economics)/brainwashing/hope. Today, they atleast have to pretend that they have power for our own good. America/EU have to sustain social/welfare programs to prevent revolt from the masses.

Bitcoin will be a major step in removing power from banks and governments, atleast in the short run. The question is whether this will just be a transfer of power from TBTF banks to TBTF miners/exchanges/wallet services. Already, we can see majority of newcomers using e-wallets like blockchain/coinbase and placing trust of their money with them. Same goes with exchanges.

As long as there is a low barrier to entry to provide these services or the ability to run your own full node, this is not an issue as decentralisation is present. The failing/heist of one service will not bring down the entire system. But if history is our guide, this may very well not be sustained once the masses come in.

America/EU have to sustain social/welfare programs to prevent revolt from the masses.

This cannot happen. The welfare system is bankrupt and the "west" will fall-as all empires do!
The philosophy is sound in that there will be for the first time in human history a transfer of all autonomy to the individual. As the depression plays out only those invested in BTC will be able to survive in any meaningfull way. The "masses" will be harassed for their assets until nothing is left, then banks become defunct and government on a national scale will cease. Local city and towns will provide essential services by voluntary contributions "in BTC" from their inhabitants. In 50 years or even less the world will be unrecognisable in my opinion. reg

Does anyone sell TinFoil in bitcoins? ;)

Seriously though, its very interesting to see what is happening here, because the first step is to move to a position where everyone is talking.

Nobody really knows the outcome to all this, but my gut feeling is that this is about setting some rules in place.

The biggest strength and flaw in bitcoin is its fixed quantity.  The bitcoin will inflate in value as all fiat is slowly devalued by their central banks.  This means that bitcoin is more of a savings tool than a currency.  This might be fixed by matching a bitcoins value to the Dollar, or maybe the Euro.  Stability is the first thing to fix.  All the other advantages come later.

If this scenario runs through to the end, you will basically end up with a digital dollar, a lot of rules, and power shifted to a central bank near you!

I am losing confidence that my pension is going to be safe here, but its very early days!

Isn't Ripple a pretty good platform for "p2p exchange" ?

What is RIpple lacking that "a p2p exchange" would feature?

-MarkM-

Users? Although that may change of course.

I am losing confidence that my pension is going to be safe here, but its very early days!

your pension (private) will be the first thing the gov us/eur will nationalise to pay interest on debt alone-then all other assets "whilst they have fiat value" houses,cars etc. then the collapse of civil society because police/soldiers civil servants will not be paid!.  I am hoarding some tangible assets (unperishable food stuffs) things that will become scarce and keeping some fiat out of the banking system. what are you doing practically ?just hoping it wont happen like in 1928 or it wont be so bad 1913-1938? reg

Solution : Stop using Gox

There a lot of good if not better exchange out there.. the volume will pick up sometimes, dont wait some "possible major drama" to switch to another exchange !

Lol @ people who think government regulation and centralization are the best way to bring BTC to the mainstream.

Seriously, just LOL.

Some people want a currency that allows them to avoid having to pay USD for pakistani children's heads getting accidentally blown off in the name of "terrorism," or treating drug addiction as a crime rather than a mental illness, or driving up the price of education by throwing billions in federally-guaranteed SLs into the market, any of the hundreds of other horrible things that modern socialist governments do to piss people off.

Double tap = you drop your bomb on the terrorist's house, and then you come back half an hour later and drop another one in the same spot, killing the crowd that gathered. Logic: "If you come to the aid of a terrorist, you must be a terrorist."

Not wanting to pay taxes has nothing to with libertarian dogma, it has to do with genuine human compassion which many people apparently lack.

But,
1) There are other coins
2) There are other exchanges
3) Ripple provides a p2p currency exchange although it isn't exactly popular. That doesn't mean it won't be. And if the concept is out there, there will be competitors.

Basically, I love bitcoin, but not so much that if it was decentralized for "mainstream adoption" I wouldn't totally move to a different coin in a heartbeat.

Moral of the story: Move your money away from Mt Gox

That's called conditioning. If you beat a dog or a woman in the right way, they grow to not mind it and sometimes even like it. Governments, kings and sadists have known this for generations.

Huh? Are you saying because he disappeared he is left behind?

Because otherwise, Satoshi invented Bitcoin...  ???

Interesting.
This scenario is very similar to what was being predicted in The Sovereign Individual (in 1999)!
.

coming back on topic, the reasons are there for all to see why the price is rising. BTC is being bought out not by one or a few but many. In fact anyone who can get hold of some will try to do so. What I first read was "do the math" 21 million into 8 billion = a very high price for 1 BTC. so we will be trading ,buying and selling in fractions of btc before too long, in my opinion. reg

One dev is paid by the Foundation.  One.


Who controls me?  Please be specific as to how, and what evidence of this you have.

Don't get me wrong. All the developers, and Vessenes too seem like stand-up guys with the best interests of Bitcoin at heart.

My point is that in designing a "governmental" structure for bitcoin it is important to include checks and balances to limit the power of a few individuals. This would make bitcoin stronger and more resistant to various forms of subversion/attack.

So long as a majority of mining power doesn't get centralized, Bitcoin cannot be centralized.

So long as a majority of mining power doesn't get centralized, Bitcoin cannot be centralized.

yes, I agree but there is a general concern that with asics mining will end up centralised! however I would point out an anecdote from forex- as soon as someone buys they become a seller!. so miners simply cannot just mine and hold or the market will disappear- they have to sell and distribute to survive thus decentralising btc holdings. reg

I say that because of a conversation I happened upon once between several of the current primary devs who seemed confused an dismissive of Satoshi's fixation on keeping the system lean.

I say that because the amount I pay in taxes is well under what I receive back in terms of  being able to live in a functional society (and I probably pay more in taxes than a fair fraction of what the US population earns, BTW.)  Ironically I am probably more capable than most in surviving in an environment where it is commonplace to kill other people to protect what I have (and to gain more) but it is worth a lot to me to not have to live such a life.  Just not needing to see the lower third and the old people starving and suffering because they are the weak is worth a lot to me.

Now it is true that such things as the double-tap drone strikes, extraordinary rendition, security apparatus surveillance centers, etc, etc bother me greatly and I am very much against them.  But cheating on my taxes is not going to make these problems go away and indeed is likely to bring a lot of grief to myself and halt my own progress in other areas.  Funding and participating in efforts which expose and work against such abusive programs is a more productive use of my resources.

It may only be a conspiracy but Mt Gox have a huge motive for the blockchain to become as bloated as possible as fast as possible so that "little guys" are forced out and can no longer host a bitcoin node on their own but need a centralised wallet.

I expect the "solution" to the block size issue will be the one that benefits larger services and leaves smaller players in the cold.

Certain players have no interest in bitcoin being something you can host on your own machine.

That's an honorable position in the face of evil. My position (noncompliance) is different but works for the way I live. I doubt anyone will be talking either of us out of our precepts anytime soon.  ;)

Neither position is an easy one, either.

Drive space gets cheaper by the year as does a percentage of bitcoin users that will run a full node. I don't think this will be an issue.

If that were true, they'd deploy a few international editions of Satoshi Dice :)

As for taxes, I'd prefer things to evolve to a system where we pay for what we truly need - community policing, etc, and only voluntarily contribute to programs that we'll either use in the future or other special interests. It would take a complete overhaul, of course, so I'm not holding my breath.

I'm wary of the payment processing move, but I understand why they're distancing themselves from being the money-changers.

The way bitcoin is structured, it reminds me of a 'poison pill', but built to take down legacy currencies. The edge exchanges show up, value is perceived and everyone starts converting their currencies. The end-game however is when complete supply chains end up having their services and products priced in BTC. Then the bitcoin user has no need to step outside the system anymore, and conventional currencies get left in the dust.

It's quite brilliant, because it leverages the greed of people to destroy their own flawed currency system.

Drive space is probably never going to be the primary constraint.  I don't think that there will be much difficulty running the small fry out of the Bitcoin infrastructure biz if interest picks up and if there is a desire shared by development and relatively well capitalized players to do so.

Actually, if/when the small fry are dismissed it won't necessarily be malice or conspiracy on the part of dev and the well capitalized players.  The simple truth is that the technical challenges of scaling the system are much simplified by shifting it out of the domain of the private citizenry.  And it is probably the only practical way of meeting one set of (mostly mutually exclusive) promises made in marketing the Bitcoin solution.

Taxation pays for very little % of the war machine. Most of it is financed through printing money. And as we all know its been a looong time since the people have had any control over that.

 + 1

I'll agree with that.  I'd re-phase it as 'people flush with experience and proceeds gained in exploiting peons in other sectors.'  But fine.  Most of them will get in later than I did so they can be my bitch if they want my BTC.

Thats what capitalism is all about. Except for the little fact that government enacted legislation to ensure that capitalism only applied to the non-financial private sector.

It will have to be network bandwidth and many people and myself have commented on this issue in the centralization thread.

Sometimes i think that the Bitcoin experiment was not so much so an experiment to see how crypto-currencies evolve and perform in the world but rather how people when given the means to fight back the status quo either use the means to fight back or give it all up.

History says they will eventually give it all up again.

History says they will eventually give it all up again.

I don't agree with that.  Rarther history shows it has been taken from them. Given the ability "for the first time" to retain autonomy, political ,social and economically within each individual. They will I think choose to retain it. reg

Bitcoin "innovators" arriving late to the party, i.e. the ones who didn't see bitcoin coming, will almost by design not see the next one coming either. They should forever be looking over their shoulders if they are heavily or fully invested.

Also, they can centralise as much as they like, in fact we invite they do. It will be instructive to know what upgrades the true bitgold needs to achieve the optimal solution.