Bitcoin Forum

i.e why would anyone pay £350just to hold what is essentially the right to send a transfer.

He is wrong. Just like he was wrong about Microsoft and Facebook.

Can you please explain why he is wrong

Can you please explain why he is wrong

Buffet doesn't understand Bitcoin (like most people). In his comment he even compared it to checks and money orders, claiming they're just as efficient. You must be utterly clueless beyond belief to actually say such a thing.

It's like saying email is just as efficient as pigeon post.

Buffet and OP are right, the only difference is that the "cheque" is limited is the case of bitcoin, so btc cheques are valuable. But it does not need to be, one can change the original source code or switch to an alternative that with the same features except that it is not limited. Which can be easily done by any bank or anyone that can reach a large number of people and process the transactions. So Buffet is right when he calls it a Mirage.

The day a large financial corporation releases a bitcoin based money transfer system, if they keep all other features, bitcoin is over.

Note: Jp Morgan patented a money transfer system that is just the description/copy of bitcoin, including the privacy.

I'm still waiting for Microsoft to release Internet 2.0  ::)

You dont even know how dumb you sound.

So explain how dumb i am? Or better than that, explain how dumb Buffet is?
If you are thinking in the line of adption rate, bitcoin does not have any significant adoption rate and won't have in any near hypothetical future. Easily reversible.

Did you know that pigeons can deliver a message faster than a fax machine if the distance is under 1 mile?    Warren Buffet, like all other entities/logic/infrastructure/name-brand in life, has a shelf life; his time as oracle of finance is probably coming to an end.  The only aspect of life that has and will ever remain consistent is math. (yes, I am getting philosophical)  Bitcoins' worth is based on its mathematical structure, security and ease of use, and belief in its value.  The world is constantly changing whether some people like it or not...

Take my analogy, just because Microsoft has a large user base, they cant release their own network and call it internet.

Banks cant release a network like bitcoin because the key feature of bitcoin is decentralized.

The day a large financial corporation releases a bitcoin based money transfer system, if they keep all other features, bitcoin is over.

Note: Jp Morgan patented a money transfer system that is just the description/copy of bitcoin, including the privacy.

LOL ;D

*The* biggest advantage of Bitcoin is that it's 100% independent of any company, government, corporation, business or authority.

So if company/government/corporation/business/authority X would release their own Bitcoin variant, it defeats its own purpose by definition.

It doesn't matter what any company releases. The Bitcoin genie is already out of the bottle, and it won't get back in.

You comparison in ureasonable. Microsoft would be unlikely to succeed on that just due adoption rate. The whole world is on the internet already, satisfied, and there is a huge tested and working structure around it. But bitcoin in not the internet, again it does not not have any significant adoption and structure.

One(banks or not) can do it "descentralized" and still profit(if that's the interest). As i said one would have to keep all the features(except the fictional limit) to wipe bitcoin.

But just as a side note, bitcoin is not completely descentralized. bitcoin is limited exactly 'cause a centralized organization decided so and can decide differently at any time, there is no contract that does not allow it. The scarce is fictional, a mirage. bitcoin is 100% on risk while it does not go mainstream.

this is wrong. if all nodes or the majority of nodes decide to make bitcoins unlimited it will happen.
or rather all decisions based on changing the bitcoin code can only be applied if the majority of nodes agree to it.
there is no centralized organisation making decisions about bitcoin.

one of the main reasons for bitcoin is decentralization, which cannot be archieved by 1 entity.

It could be yourself, i just gave the bank example 'cause it is their business and they have resources to go mainstream quickly. They might do it without defeating the purpose. According to JP Morgan patent they don't have any interest in defeating the purpose.

You realize its not just about " having resource to go quickly" right?

If only banks that secure the network, then its nothing but the same old banking system that we've got.

Banks don't need to necessarily profit from transaction fees, processing can be descentralized and they still profit. The average joe, that joe from the mainstream will always demand bank services. By the way trusty bank-like services are a requirement for bitcoin going mainstream.

Banks don't need to necessarily profit from transaction fees, processing can be descentralized and they still profit. The average joe, that joe from the mainstream will always demand bank services. By the way trusty bank-like services are a requirement for bitcoin going mainstream.

Please dont make me laugh.... Whats the point of them releasing their bitcoin copy?

why cant they run those services with bitcoins?

You cant even stick to your goddamn opinion. Its time for me to stop wasting my time discussing this further.

Then why don't they start providing & selling such services for Bitcoin right now. There's HUGE opportunities waiting for the first bank that adopts Bitcoins and launches some new, innovative, customer friendly Bitcoin-related services.

Why the hell would they develop + launch some alternative altcoin instead, that is either:
(a) controlled by them, thus it would actually be a copy of fiat money, not of Bitcoin
or
(b) controlled by nobody, thus it would be a copy of Bitcoin that is 5 years behind and has no advantage for the bank (or for anyone) whatsoever

It sure sounds like he got no clue.
First he said if banks release something like bitcoin, then bitcoin is over.....

After being pointed out, thats not possible because of fundamentals of bitcoin is decentralized, hes just rambling nonsense  " no no, banks can just release a newcoin that let ppl in control of the network...., they just need to handle financial services "

 ::) where have i seen this dumb talk b4? ..... oh right, 2011.... after the first run up to $31

bananas is correct, he just doesn't know how to defend his point well.

Bitcoin isn't decentralized, it is controlled by a few pools which have more than 50% of the hashrate.

Bitcoin is taxed as a commodity, and normal people aren't going to want to keep tax records for every small transaction they make. This is why Bitcoin can never advance as currency.

Because of this Bitcoin is already controlled by the governments. When they are ready to bless their bankster fiat patented solution, they will simply increase the taxes to unbearable levels.

The masses will readily jump to the fiat solution which has theft protection, chargeback protection, don't have to jump through hoops to use it and get it. Instant transaction times, etc, etc.

Bitcoin is a joke. It is for speculators only, not for serious uses.

If you were really serious, you'd have an anonymous coin that can't be taxed, with cpu-only mining that can't be centralized in pools. But you aren't serious. You are just n00bs.

Get off my lawn kiddies. Bye.

(and fuck you too, all you fucking idiots who berated me)

Are you more than 13 years old?? The forum is in need of a underaged section.

Bitcoin is essentially a modern  moneygram.


This example is based on bitcoin maintaining price stability which is likely to occur when widely adopted.


example1
Person A pays x for a £100 money gram to which is sent to Person B. Person B trades the money gram to  x  and receives £100. The money gram is now worthless and disgarded. Person x charged £2.50 for holding and releasing the fiat currency.

example 2
Person a pays x for £100 worth of Bitcoin to which is sent to person b.Person B trades the bitcoin with person x  and receives  £100.  Person x retains the bitcoin and is free to trade again.

The only difference between the two is that in example 2 the transfer method is reused in other transaction. i.e the bitcoin continues to be used and owned by new people. Wheras in example 1 the moneygram is destroyed at the end of the transaction. A new one is printed for a new transaction.

So despite the obvious advantage in speed and it being free...what gives the bitcoin any more value than a single money gram? i.e why would anyone pay £350just to hold what is essentially the right to send a transfer.

Any comments?

Bitcoin is essentially a modern  moneygram....

Can moneygram quickly send money to people in over 180 countries who normally use only one of over 50 different currencies?

EDIT: I just checked:
moneygram = Lots of countries but only USD, no other currency.
BTC can be converted into a large and growing list of different currencies (sometimes with very low fees)

Bitcoin is much > moneygram.

Because even though he is best friend with Bill Gates, he still don't understand Tech investment.

I know Facebook shares go up and down really wildly. But the actual money they make a year is huge.

Let me guess..... Rambling about flaw of bitcoins mining.... lol

I guess hes working hard to pump his altcoin. Too bad hes ignored by most members on here.

You do realize that money is essentially paper (or coin) that represents the right to buy a product or service. But that all forms of fiat money are controlled by the fed or something similar, which is not part of the government (Altough it is above the law and it's protected by the government and influencing the government, even enslaving the government to a degree) and is only there to make profit for the shareholders by inflating the currency, stealing away value from your fiat, while also increasing national debt by the second?

If you realize that, holding bitcoin doesn't seem all that bad now does it?

Can moneygram quickly send money to people in over 180 countries who normally use only one of over 50 different currencies?

However, there is a way we could make him incorrect

And so now all of you have mixed your funds with drug dealers and all sorts of other illegal activity.

There's a high probability that the $100 dollar bill in my wallet and maybe even some of the $20's have traces of cocaine on them (based on research that's been done).  So I'm fairly sure that my fiat funds are mixed in with all kinds of illegal activity, so how does that make BTC any different?  

   First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Can you please explain why he is wrong

Where he wrong is in his appraisal of the idea of "intrinsic value".

I am done with you morons.

The people who designed Bitcoin obviously knew that all those who are against central banking would create a ponzi speculation bubble and ignore the facts that the masses don't share their enthusiasm for killing fiat, central banking, theft protection, consumer protections, etc..

Bitcoin can't become a unit-of-account for the reasons I just stated

So you are talking about a ponzi scheme conspiracy to attack people that "are against central banking"? Like, "make all these "anti-central-banking-bastards" poor by letting them invest into a ponzi and then let the bubble pop"?
Who are these "pro-central-banking-conspirators?
What was the reason for them to start fighting against the "anti-central-banking-anarchos"? Were they aware of an underground community that was about to fight against central banking, so they must react to kind of a revolution?
When they created Bitcoin, they didnt think about, that the early miners and adaptors could most likely be the same people that they are fighting against?
Or is the plan even more advanced: "Let these anti-central banking-idiots first get rich with Bitcoin and THEN we destroy all the other people (late adaptors) that only were into "anti-central-banking" because we gave them the initial idea with our invention (Bitcoin Interception).

Does this really make any sense to you?

So you are talking about a ponzi scheme conspiracy to attack people that "are against central banking"? Like, "make all these "anti-central-banking-bastards" poor by letting them invest into a ponzi and then let the bubble pop"?
Who are these "pro-central-banking-conspirators?

What was the reason for them to start fighting against the "anti-central-banking-anarchos"? Were they aware of an underground community that was about to fight against central banking, so they must react to kind of a revolution?

When they created Bitcoin, they didnt think about, that the early miners and adaptors could most likely be the same people that they are fighting against?

Does this really make any sense to you?

What do you think will happen on the very day of its release, when a central bank creates its own open source bitcoin copy (SHA256)? I give you some keywords to inspire: DDOS, PREMINING, INSTAMINING

I don't agree with your reasoning here.

By any measure, de-centralised currencies are a step away from "government control". Yes, government can issue a "cryptocurrency" but they can't control it other than by "hoping" then people will use theirs instead of another crypto.

Lets say they "declared" it legal tender and allowed people to pay their taxes in "govoCoin". So what ? It's not a substitute for true control such as the central banks now have over fiat.

And you did not address the point that the masses don't like the properties of Bitcoin:

• Mixes traceable illegal activity with their funds
• No protection against theft
• No refundable protection
• No consumer protection
• Very volatile price
• Must convert to and from fiat which is a hassle
• Very slow transactions, and confusing
• No government guaranteed deposit insurance
• Can't obtain a loan or credit card in bitcoins
• There is no cash version to use offline.

Fiat doesn't have those weaknesses. Fiat has other weaknesses which we are concerned about, but the masses don't care about those weaknesses that bother us. Later the masses will fall into the abyss, then some of them will learn to appreciate our ideals but most of them won't learn.

Duh. I wonder if you guys even have a brain stem.

Whether or not we "have a brain stem" you certainly don't understand much about how the mechanics of present money system, nor the difference between what banks do and what payment processors do.

The Bitcoin blockchain is no substitute for a payment processor services (i.e. the handle supermarket transactions for example). But then it was never intended to be. The services you cite above such as refundability, payments insurance, consumer protections etc are not provided by the bank clearing system per-se. They are all 2nd third and fourth tier services, largely serviced by 3rd parties.

Those services would be provided in a bitcoin economy just the same. The only difference would be that you'd "reacharge" your Visa account via the blockchain just as you do at any of the Cryptocurrency exchanges today.

I was a download software merchant in the past. I don't know if it has improved but in addition to the 3.5% MDR, I also paid 0.5% to the payment processor, and I had another couple of percent loses to chargebacks.

So the actual cost to most small internet merchants is 5+%.

That is significant. But again the consumers don't care.

Now if you can offer a significant discount for using Bitcoin, i.e. if the lack of chargebacks significantly lowers your cost of doing business, then consumers would care!

Anonymint,

One small criticism, some of the armstrong blog links dont add much to your points. I will post again and add some more informative links fwiw.

DR

I had seen that link before but I can't keep all the 100s (perhaps 1000s) of pertinent links in my head. That is an especially effective link.

Action will speak much louder than any words I can utter. And many disjointed comments spread out over a forum is I think much less effective than a well-organized whitepaper which shares all the technical knowledge I have. Which would also annoy the forum less.

Best regards.

He is wrong. Just like he was wrong about Microsoft and Facebook.

I see we have here a 24 year old little snot who built some GPU miners (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=190062.msg1970453#msg1970453). Disrespecting a 48 year old man who has written several million users commercial programs.

This is what our western society has devolved to. Complete disrespect for accomplishments and elders.

Don't worry little boy, I am leaving your sandbox. No need to throw sand.

Don't leave Kansas much do we.

If the transactions will not be on the block chain, then you have unregulated fractional reserves

Did you say something about a "brain stem" ?

"Unregulated fractional reserves" will happen with any money system, any culture, any technology, any market.

There's nothing to stop me advertising my car and sending 5 people a "promise" to deliver it in exchange for something of value to me. Thats an "unregulated fractional reserve".

The criticisms you cite are straw men. They are not the real problems with the blockchain. In fact, blockchain transactions are about 300 times faster than present day bank transfers. 10 minutes vs 1-3 days. Furthermore, bank transfers are no more reversible than blockchain transfers and you DO NOT want reversibility in the blockchain.

The point of sale issues (speed, refunds, discounts, store cards, insurance, payment protection, monetary media) are not the domain of a money system. They are the domain of particular payment processors. (If they want to operate a fractional reserve system like MT Gox, so be it - that's one of the hazards of payment processors but again - it has nothing to do with Bitcoin the same way as Gox didn't have anything to do with Bitcoin).

Bitcoin is not a fractional reserve money system - it is a full reserve, unlevered form of base money. It's exactly the opposite of what all the anti-NWO'rs (of which I suppose I am one) are paranoid about when they talk about "electronic money". It's just that most of them are clueless about the mechanics of money anyway and so just stick with "anything electronic" as their definition.

IMO, Again, this old man don't see the potential of the new technology !

There is an owner of moneygram..  THIS is a massive difference.

You guys keep making this same mistaken analysis even I've already explained upthread why this is incorrect.

Bitcoin is already owned by the few pools, the few big exchanges, Bitpay, and other offchain businesses that will all be de facto "owned" by the government via regulation.

You either go 100% decentralized and do everything on the block chain, or you go back to ownership by the elite again.

There is no such thing as a little bit pregnant. Decide what you want.

Edit: I would relish the day that no one needed a bank, insurance company, or any other leeches who serve no necessary function.

Anonymint, I get your points about anonymity (I've read a lot of your posts re: tainted coins/regulation/anonymity etc.)

Can you just explain one thing - the logistics of actually tracking down EVERY bitcoin owner/exchange customer IRL. I understand that with regulated exchanges there will be MORE chance of being tracked down, but I still think you're looking too much into the technicalities. For a start, there are anonymous exchanges like localbitcoins.

But even if peoples IP addresses/identities/RL addresses are logged, are LE going to go round everyone's house, arrest them and throw them in jail? It seems unlikely to me, I mean we're talking about millions of people, worldwide.

Insert more rocks in your cranium so you won't have that disturbing sound.


The distribution of ASICs is highly concentrated among a fewer number of owners. This trend will continue to get worse.

Really, where is your proof? I disagree, thinking that as/if things speed up cheaper hardware will become available to more users. It may not pan out that way, but there's no way to say it'll end up centralized either. If the mining market were to trend in that direction, it would be obvious and disastrous to bitcoin, as with the CEX 51% scare. Disastrous things bother the exchange rate and mining margins, so something WILL change. Not that there's plenty more already waiting and in dev, ready to sell at rock bottom. But asics wouldn't be worth anything in that scenario, which means instead of coins changing hands, hardware will. A hiccup, one long drawn out one I still think will never come.

Even if you little farts did have a uniform distribution of the ASICs, you would not risk leaving a regulated pool for an unregulated one once the shit hits the fan, else you devalue your hardware and profits to zero and jail time.

Regulated pool? What regulations? So the government is going to start scanning packets and come kick in my door if I'm found mining? Or regulated, as in insured for the idiots who do not understand auto-payouts? That sure has been a problem up to this point, rouge pools stealing enough profits to make "unregulated" mining so unprofitable. Or are you saying the gov is going to track all coins, making unregulated mining impossible? Really? Again, all I see is more "government is gonna get you" FUD.


It is unfortunate that your actions are not representative of the majority.

Yeah, you are right, probably the minority right now. But, I've put bitcoin into a lot of new hands, people too paranoid to go to an exchange. I'd say that what I'm doing is going to shift to the majority, if anything. Is that not the end goal? I don't give a damn about the exchanges, they are a necessary evil I feel most won't bother with in the future. You (or the majority) deal with a USD exchange on a regular basis, eh?


Because there will come a day where you won't mine without providing identity because the mining system is not anonymous.

Right, the mighty USA is going to force all bitcoin miners in the world to register, and it will work because US government has such a tight hold on the internet, let alone anything peer to peer? Or we are back to "colored" coins, any involvement in that fashion would devastate bitcoin, so who cares anyway. It will not happen.

WTF you think I been writing about for the past months?  ANONYMITY stoopid. Got it? Or are those rocks upstairs interfering with your comprehension.

Anonymity? Yeah, it's cool and I use it as much as possible, but I don't think it's as big a deal as you do, obviously. I believe those of us who pay attention will be able to stay two steps ahead, as has been tradition on the net. But, I don't think there will be a need to. This thing is too big now, and I don't share the same "gov is gonna get you" mindset as you. They won't fuck with it, because they can't win.


Agreed. So I guess you are calling all those majority who use exchanges and other offchain services stupid. I agree.

But how can you blame them when no one ever made it a priority to build the decentralized protocols needed.

Total blame, I don't care for speculators and feel no sorrow they lost out. They had to have seen the risks coming from gox, but they want to speculate anyway. I obviously deal with exchanges, mining with GPUs and selling bitcoins, but I don't speculate so my risk of loss is near insignificant compared to those fools. I never have to trust them for more than a few hours, thanks to mining. Yeah, I may not understand markets perfectly, but I would rather people trade for liquidity than bots and unregulated "exchange" engines anyone with some capital can open.  

How are you going to decentralize a USD exchange, when the USGov owns everything to do with the dollar. It does not get any better than peer to peer, nor will it, which still works pretty well considering how old bitcoin is. Stuff like ATMs and pre-loaded cards are the future. In the meantime, if people still want to trust anyone with a pile of money, let em.



You have a big cocky mouth Kansas-boy but not much astute logic to back it up.

Bitcoin is flavor of the month.

It's possible to conceive of a better cryptographic store of value (imagine a more deflationary version of bitcoin with close to zero coins generated on the network that requires 2-step verification in order for transactions to occur).

Conversely, it's possible to conceive of a better medium by which value can be transferred (imagine bitcoin with blocks generated every few seconds - fast enough to generate confirms that compete with credit card authorizations).

Other cryptocurrencies will gain popularity that offer superior options to bitcoin eventually, although this might take a while.  Buffett's dead on about bitcoin, but I definitely see other cryptocurrencies existing in the future and being quite popular.  Bitcoin's inability to compete with the instantaneous confirmation speed of cash, or the 5 second confirmation speed of credit cards, will render it obsolete eventually, fiat or not, it's just a terrible general currency platform.

RE: Is Buffet right or wrong?


 Buffett is a joke.


Caveat emptor

RE: Is Buffet right or wrong?


 Buffett is a joke.


Caveat emptor

More hogwash, CC transaction times are in the order of days, you just never see that.

Online transactions, that don't much care about a ten minute delay, are still worth a decent chunk of change.

They also benefit from other features of bitcoin.

A coin with no generation is worth nothing, surly you've heard of "pre-mine?" Quark tried quick generation, faster transactions (both pretty bad for a technical reason) and it sure seems to be floundering. Two step for transactions? Man, cmon...
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3718/what-are-multi-signature-transactions

All this time the other currencies are taking, you admit "quite a while" are loosing ground every day. If it takes too long, people are not going to want to change. To do so would undermine the entire trust in the whole thing, someone is holding the bag, either customers, merchants, or the most likely - everyone. Why would they want to do the whole shebang all over again?

Not to say they can't co-exist together, which just adds a whole 'nother layer of complexity to the "feds is gonna get you!" theory.

pontiacg5, you've displayed your youthful ignorant idealism. All the governments of the world are into regulation. Doing a few high profile prosecutions on pools will be enough to scare the rest of them to enforce the regulations on you. Once there are 51% of the pools who are refusing blocks from pools which don't attach their signed regulated control number, then your movement to a unregulated pool means you earn precisely zero and your ASIC is a brick.

You don't seem to understand that the bankrupt masses are against you. They will support their governments' attempts to stop tax evasion and get control over the movement of money, because for one reason the government pays them.

Whatever, I don't think it will go down that way. There is no tax evasion, you still need to pay what is legally owed unless you want to argue the ethics of taxes next. You want to sell to a US vender that restocks ATMs or loads pre-paids, you pay taxes. But again, you think all the nations in the world are going to colaboriate together and agree on a "regulated control number?" What are YOU smoking???


What are you smoking?

I had a merchant account. Verification is a few seconds.

If you are referring to when the cash is transferred to the merchant account, that is irrelevant because from the customer's perspective it is instant because the merchant trusts the credit card company to fulfill the payment 95+% of the time.


Hell no. I hate that 10 minute delay. It slows me down a lot. I don't have 10 minutes to wait when I have several transactions to do, in fact where they were sequentially ordered and I couldn't do them in parallel.

And often it is more like 20 - 30 minutes.

Right, so waiting days for USD to electronically move from a merchant account to a bank account is much, much shorter than 10 or even 30 minutes. ::)

If you are just a customer, what in the hell are you doing that takes thirty minutes to complete? I'm quite sure that's a daily task, too, right?



What benefits for your average consumer? I see only disadvantages and no benefits.

Advantages are opening up a lot larger marketplace, with less restrictions on both merchants and customers. Due diligence is not bitcoins problem, just as it is not the USD's problem, so don't go there.

Ebay is a good example, a steaming cesspool of what it once was, wrecked by overzealous customer protection and paypal fraud. Now it's a junk marketplace, for overpriced garbage or cheap Chinese junk the seller has a 200% markup on.



Faster block periods doesn't require no generation of new coins.

Btw, Bitcoin's generation of new coins declines eventually to virtually 0.

No duh, somewhere something 100+ years in the future. If anyone is still working them over that late in the game, you can bet the transaction volume alone would support the network. On the other hand, Quark, with it's super fast blocks and "no mining" since all the coins are gone in the first 6 months, is toast and ready to be wrecked by ~250 R9 290's. No support, no volume, and a very bleak future.

Faster blocks are no more secure than longer ones, and create plenty of problems on their own. Unless some super genius figures out zero latency connections for everyone in the world, people in disadvantaged areas with slow connections are at an even bigger disadvantage. Wasted work (stales) is a huge problem, and could easily lead to hard forks compared to bitcoin, either naturally from latency or by dubious methods (selfish mining, holding blocks) Course you knew that, right?  


You don't want your ASIC becoming a useless brick. I understand now the motivation for your myopia.

And yet again, you would be wrong. I own no asics at this point, save for some block eruptors. Of course I already said that, but you must be right though, being so old and all.


Indeed altcoins offer more opportunities to experiment with what might be more stable against threats. Most will not succeed, but some or one might.

Alas, the hole in your argument. The government could not allow these alt coins to exist, not when anyone with a server can set up a BTC/alt exchange. All your coin control (assuming it ever exists in the first place) destroyed, just like that. Trace my bits, as they jump chains. Are they going to make trading illegal now? Then surly new alt coin generation would be illegal, and therefore mining a fork of the blockchain on accident would also be illegal. To keep people from moving BTC to new altcoins would absolutely destroy the whole process, may as well outright ban any new innovation in the area. Every single newbie you've seen with a AMD GPU in the last year is now suspect for money laundering. Please step this way sir, all your coye are belong to U.S.

Tin hats, everyone  ::) 

All the governments of the world are into regulation. Doing a few high profile prosecutions on pools will be enough to scare the rest of them to enforce the regulations on you. Once there are 51% of the pools who are refusing blocks from pools which don't attach their signed regulated control number, then your movement to a unregulated pool means you earn precisely zero and your ASIC is a brick

Quote from: pontiacg5 on March 17, 2014, 11:41:07 PM
More hogwash, CC transaction times are in the order of days, you just never see that.

It's obvious why he said that: He owns tons of Fiat money. Bitcoin is NOT fiat money. This is bad for him, thus he tries to spread rumors and fear against Bitcoin and a lot of people fall for it and spread these rumors over and over again. Simple as that ! DO NOT fall for this cheap propaganda/misinformation attempt.

Not sure if he was misquoted on this one. It's also strange in a way for him to comment when normally he refuses to do so on matters he doesn't understand.

Warren Buffet made enough last year to buy every single Bitcoin that has ever been mined. If he truly thought this what would stop him buying up some Bitcoin?

I will not be replying to pontiacg5 and toknormal again...

toknormal, I already explained....

pontiacg5, the issue for miners..

The salient point (and I am sure it will fly over your head and you will reply something off point again) is that don't expect the government to act sane as it slides into the abyss.

All the nations will be bankrupted and under severe riots and stress by 2016ish. And the FATCA is coming this year which will compel all nations to comply with USA demands. And the dollar will become incredibly strong in 2015 as all the other currencies become very weak. Every nation will be eating from the USA's hand. The emerging markets are massively short the dollar. But you don't know any of this information because you don't study as deeply the details as I do.

Bitcoin's new coinbase awards will be 1.7% in 2020, 0.8% in 2024 and 0.2% in 2032, that is not 100 years from now. I can see 6th grade math is not your strong suite.

Faster block periods doesn't require no generation of new coins.

Btw, Bitcoin's generation of new coins declines eventually to virtually 0.

Sigh.


vir·tu·al·ly
ˈvərCHə(wə)lē/
adverb
adverb: virtually

    1.
    nearly; almost.

You need to take a class in formal logic.

No where did I make a statement excluding it reaching zero.

I said it eventually reaches virtually 0. That is logically consistent with (no exclusion of) it reaching 0 later.

I am a programmer and you are not. I have extremely accurate logic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=505355.0). Else I wouldn't have made the programs that I did. Period.

Now I said I want to stop this nonsense. Can we please?

Keep smoking that weed.

Illogical. He has no incentive to, because he knows very well the plan. He told you right there. Bitcoin will not become a unit-of-account. The banks will retain control. You don't want to believe this because it flies in the face of everything you want to believe about Bitcoin. But the facts is, he is correct.

Only with anonymity will he be possibly incorrect.

Mark my words. Come back to this post in a couple or 3 years max.

...For each bitcoin node to be aware of each "unspent" satoshi, would require on the order of 10^16 bytes of RAM, or 10,000,000 Gigabytes. A typical computer may have 8 Gbytes of RAM, so we're talking an amount of RAM equal to one million average computers just to run a single bitcoin node. So, no I don't think it would be physically possible redesign bitcoin in a way that the "stolen parts" could be tracked and peeled off in the future. 
 
I think this is a good thing because for money to be useful it must be fungible. We should fight crime at the source--not by impinging on people's ability to use and transact money freely.

As a programmer I'd think you would need to be deliberate and concise with things you do and "say" for lack of a better word? Guess not, huh?

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

All of what I wrote is just a re-summary of Martin Armstrong's Pi model of international capital flows. It has enabled him to make the following correct predictions years in advance of the predictions coming true. He spent $100 million developing the research and having his computer find all the correlations. That is when he discovered that human nature and thus international capital flows also move in waves, just like everything else in the The Universe (http://unheresy.com/The Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum) (my blog) does. That doesn't mean we can predict what any individual human will do, only that we can predict the macro waves. Martin Armstrong helped me to make a public prediction that gold would decline (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article39304.html) from $1550 to under $1200. I was also the person who exactly predicted the 2011 price moves of silver back in Oct 2010 (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23786.html). So shut your birdmouth. It is also allowing me to predict that the DJIA will go to 39,000 before 2015.75 and that gold will probably go up to 1424 - 1550, then crash back down to 1050 or below. Gold will not make new highs under after 2015.75. Now you just wait and see if I am correct again or not. I made one mistake betting too early on China's collapse last year, because I wasn't reading Armstrong (who makes it very clear China won't collapse until 2016).

...

=================================

Note I was starting to lean towards Armstrong's cycles when I INDEPENDENTLY discovered his 78 year cycle in Feb. 2013 (http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Housing%20Recovery%20Illusion.html). The key was looking at long-term charts for strange patterns that stand out like a bloody nose. This caused me to integrate his 3 x 26 = 78 year model into my understanding of technological unemployment (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160612.msg2001613#msg2001613) (follow the sub-links at the above linked pages to get to a table of historical dates evidence of the 78 year cycles).

Emerging markets are due for a lot more pain. The recent U.S. taper-induced selling was limited to retail investors mostly. As this crisis and the current geopolitical issues worsen, we will also see institutional investors exit emerging markets. With europe and the euro at their peak, the U.S. is the only market to absorb this capital and a subsequent dollar rally will squeeze emerging nations further.

a technical objection about the feasibility of tracking all of those dirty satoshis, from a comment to this article:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/missing-boat-on-bitcoin-ownership.html (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/missing-boat-on-bitcoin-ownership.html)

Theoretically, if each bitcoin (and fraction thereof) had a unique number ID (and I believe it would have been possible to have set bitcoin up this way), then they could be traced.  But if the bitcoin-blockchain was traceable in such a manner now, it would have already been done.

Bitcoin is essentially a modern  moneygram.


This example is based on bitcoin maintaining price stability which is likely to occur when widely adopted.

Any comments?

a technical objection about the feasibility of tracking all of those dirty satoshis, from a comment to this article:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/missing-boat-on-bitcoin-ownership.html (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/missing-boat-on-bitcoin-ownership.html)

(...)
Mark my words. I am 100% sure I am correct.
(...)

I am sorry for taking your time, but how to be so sure of something? Being sure of something garantee you are correct? I sometimes am sure of things and then it turns out I am wrong and then I feel stupid. I beg, if not take too much of your time, to teach me how to be more sure and correct? I think I will be able to accomplish a lot of things, if I devise a system to be sure of things. Please help me.

You better save your money, there are going to be much bigger wars with larger stakes before 2020.

This is only the beginning. Don't even imagine you will stop it in Ukraine, because the problem driving increasing strife (e.g. see China becoming aggressive in ASEAN) is global bankruptcy. That is what is forcing every man's hand. Russia's economy is also threatened and the gas pipeline to Europe passes through Ukraine.

Even the IMF has admitted that global debt is at a 200 year high. Central bank was invented a the end of the Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank#History), but it wasn't ubiquitous until the 20th century. In addition to the $223 trillion debt which is 313% of global GDP, there is something on the order of $quadrillion of derivatives and another $quadrillion of actuarial promises to society which are unfunded. Central banking being the omnipresent lender of last resort is the cause of humongous monstrosity, because it prevented liquidation of TBTF throughout the 20th century.

For example the emerging markets are heavily laden with corporate dollar bond debt because due to ZIRP the fixed income investments (e.g. pensions) were forced to seek higher returns abroad. Thus emerging markets are mathematically betting short the dollar. Thus as capital flees the peripheral (i.e. non-reserve currency) markets (to include Europe and Japan by next year), there will be massive strength in the value of the reserve currency (the dollar) in 2015 and concomitant doubling in the NYSE index. This would put a spiraling (the toilet bowl) pressure on emerging markets, because they will be repaying debt with weakening local currencies. This will spiral until they exhaust dollar reserves and default on external debt, because once you take away the bubble veneer, none of them have positive current accounts. Argentina is approaching default the earliest probably in 2016.

Central banking is an abject failure.

But there is currently no better solution on tap. The fundamental issue and potential solution is much deeper than I can insert into a blog comment.

Buffet wrong just like Alan Greenspan and Jamie Dimon.

there's a lot of other wealthy powerful people who say just the opposite.

toknormal, I already explained upthread that offchain accounts lead to fractional reserves and failure

Can you please explain why he is wrong

LoL. That's like saying that "not trading in gold" leads to fractional reserves and failure. Is that gold's problem ?

You haven't thought this through. I'm afraid the only alternative to trading in proxies for value is a barter economy.

Whatever the pros and cons of a crypto-economy, speed of transactions, consumer protection et al have nothing to do with a given medium's suitability to act as a store of value.

Bitcoin protocol is akin to tcp/ip for authenticated messaging.

Sure it is being used and pushed as a payment process.

Unlike promissory notes from one bank to another (not all banks trust one another), the present use of this protocol and its network participants is just one way to utilize this tool.

This technology has far greater implications and usage than most "established" businessmen understand.

ryanmnercer, mostly I agree with you and I wrote similar style of comment in the first thread about Buffet's recent accusations.

However as a young, idealistic man, please check your enthusiasm with a dose of reality on impacts which would not be readily apparent to you, given the USA has never had the type of economic implosion coming 2016ish. The Great Depression was different because we were a net creditor to the world. You can review my comments on page 6 for more details.

In short, the government is going to lay its heavy hand on crypto-currency and we don't have anonymity to stop them. And we seem to be adopting offchain accounts instead of onchain transfers as you applaud.

P.S. our mothers are similar age, even through I am 20 years older than you.

Asking Warren Buffett what he thinks of Bitcoin is like asking your great grandfather to help you choose a new laptop.

Thank the lord!

Oh, wait...


Well, that lasted a whole two lines of text, just like the last time you were going to finally fuck off.

Again, we are back to the mighty US government demanding anything on the internet, the same speculative bullshit you've been spewing forever. Somehow I guess that's different than my "broken arguments." Loosing badly, PM's? Whatever.

The world just lines up to do what the united states says. Especially now, after the world sees what we (US) do with control of the internet, or anything at all for that matter.


Bull FUCKING shit, you stupid bastard. What reason do you have to assume this will be the case? Unless EVERY FUCKING COUNTRY in the world empathetically agrees with the US, anything they attempt to do will FLOUNDER, as it does currently. Until that time, you are speculating just the same as I, except that your scenario DEMANDS impossible regulations, in both bitcoins and new currencies that may be exempt to new laws on technical points alone. How is a government going to regulate a new currency that DOESN'T EVEN EXIST YET, that possibly works in an inconceivably different way? How are bitcoins going to support the innovation in that area, if you can't move coins to an alt-chain without tainting them? Regulation on new currencies would kill them before they start, game over.

And that's just one massive hole in your "take over the world" theory. You contradict yourself, saying [your flavor of] regulation and new crypts will co-exist, it is not possible.


Tin hats, folks. Why the fuck are you here anyway, if you are so certain? Shouldn't you be digging bomb shelters, piling gold, and gathering MREs? Get the fuck outta here with your sensationalist bullshit, or at least post undeniable proof. You'll have to forgive me, but seeing your postings in the past doesn't exactly give me the utmost confidence in your "deep" research on who knows what. Can't even form a proper sentence on a regular basis, but calls the total financial seizure of the entire world by the USgovernment? Seems about right  ;)


Let me ask you a simple question, is 0.2% ZERO? No? Wow, so you mean coins will still be made? Exactly like I said, eh? According to the chart you linked to, coins will be generated till 2136. Is that not a solid 100 years? Or are you going to argue the fact that .00000001 is not a coin. I'd bet you will, because that's your style. If 6th grade math isn't my style, what does that say about you? Least I can read numbers posted in a table, RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY FACE.

Next, you'll probably say that's not enough coins to generate to sustain, like a typical know it all retard, completely missing the fact I already addressed that issue previously.

Stroke that ego buddy, it must be nice to be so old as to know everything in the world so perfectly.

I will not be replying to pontiacg5 and toknormal again, because they repeat the same broken non-arguments again and again. I have more important things to do.

Come on guys, this silly arguing is wasting our time. You guys go with Bitcoin and I will go my own direction.

You two can have the last word. I will prefer the last action.

You guys are losing badly where it matters for me. I am receiving overwhelming support in my private messages. You two are making fools of yourselves for those who are smart enough to see. And those are precisely the people I wanted to reach. My teaching goal here is done or at least as far as I am willing to take it in this forum. My wish is for all the dumb people to stay in Bitcoin and the smart people to exit something better.

toknormal, I already explained upthread that offchain accounts lead to fractional reserves and failure. You are repeating the same nonsense. Proceed with your offchain Bitcoin plan so you can retain the status quo of fiat banking and commerce.

pontiacg5, the issue for miners is not just tax compliance, it is about forcing you to force tax compliance on all transactions you add to the block. It is all about coin taint. You can read up on this coin taint issue from the core developers such a gmaxell, mike hearn, etc..

What you fail to appreciate is history. I guess you didn't pay attention during world history or perhaps your dumbed down education there in Kansas doesn't teach you about the way socialism slides into totalitarianism over and over throughout history.

The salient point (and I'm confident it will fly over your head and you will reply something off point again) is that don't expect the government to act sane as it slides into the abyss. They will demand blood from a turnip.

All the nations will be bankrupted and under severe riots and stress by 2016ish. And the FATCA is coming this year which will compel all nations to comply with USA demands. And the dollar will become incredibly strong in 2015 as all the other currencies become very weak. Every nation will be eating from the USA's hand. The emerging markets are massively short the dollar. But you don't know any of this information because you don't study as deeply the details as I do.

Sorry that you can't understand that when I pay with a credit card, I am done and get my domain name or download product in seconds. With Bitcoin, I wait 20 - 30 minutes. When I need to do this several times per day, it makes me curse Bitcoin. And this has actually happened to me numerous times.

Bitcoin's new coinbase awards will be 1.7% in 2020, 0.8% in 2024 and 0.2% in 2032, that is not 100 years from now. I can see 6th grade math is not your strong suite.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply#Projected_Bitcoins_Long_Term

Your points about alt/BTC exchange entirely misses the point that without anonymity, altcoins will be subject to the same regulatory controls as Bitcoin. Period. No tinfoil hats required to do that simple analysis.

I must agree with you that the nonrefundable quality of Bitcoin can open new markets. It also closes off much larger markets. See also my reply to toknormal above. Note Bitcoin has multisig on chain, so if developers would simply use it, then Bitcoin could do refunds via escrowed third parties. At least it would be on the block chain, so no slide into fractional reserves failure.

In this thread I have learned a lot about the way people think. Explains to me about why society is impossible to organize away from banksters.

In the abstract, not much has changed since when you could give a native a mirror and he would give you his vast acreage of land in exchange.

Asking Warren Buffett what he thinks of Bitcoin is like asking your great grandfather to help you choose a new laptop.

If you look at Buffet's track record, he has a few huge scores, and a lot of investments that did not go great.   I don't think his shares have out performed the S&P 500 in the last bunch of years (I could be wrong).  Obviously his big scores were astronomical, but those few investments have made the world believe that he is the investment wizard of the world.

I am very happy he said what he said because he said the same thing about the internet.  If BTC becomes only half of what the internet turned out to to be then we will see Buffet and Tony from Bitpay in 10 years talking about "if we only knew".

There is already research showing it can be done. The block chain is very traceable. Nothwithstanding that, I argued at the above legal analysis link that a more likely equitable restitution for widespread theft in mixed funds is a tax to pay for deposit insurance on Bitcoin, i.e. a shared and collective solution to theft.

In this thread I have learned a lot about the way people think. Explains to me about why society is impossible to organize away from banksters.

In the abstract, not much has changed since when you could give a native a mirror and he would give you his vast acreage of land in exchange.

Functionally, how would this even be possible?   If I put some bitcoin on a paper wallet and stuff it in my mattress, how would the authorities seize my asset without conducting a door to door mattress search?

The authorities could tax at the point where fiat and bitcoin are exchanged, but this would encourage the affluent to use offshore exchanges out of the taxing authority's jurisdiction, and the less affluent to use unlicensed street-level exchangers.

You are correct. People may claim they want to 'organize away from the banksters' yet they never have and likely never will.

They can make it illegal for you to do that if you are not anonymous. They don't have to go to every door, just to the ones who are bold enough to try to circumvent capital controls. And make a good example whipping of them for the rest to see.

I'm not seeing this happening.  A sales tax might be enforceable, but subject to a lot of cheating just like a cash business.  But to seize bank assets like Cyprus or USA's 1933 gold seizure is not really going to be possible with bitcoin.

If they can track who owns which coins, the IRS can simply send you a bill for tax you did not pay. If you don't pay, they put a lien on your assets and if necessary put you in jail. Simple.

To anonymize usage, it's as simple as using a wallet that generates a unique public/private key for each address, and never reusing an address after it is spent.  

The idea is as silly as the IRS sitting down with me and demanding me to account for the whereabouts of USD 100 bill with serial number LF72648054A which I withdrew from a bank 6 months ago.   Sorry tax man, I think I gave it to a homeless veteran that lost his leg fighting for freedom that looked like he needed it.

Hmm. Not that simple. (how would you get the coins into the new address without creating a transaction from the old address.). That's why there exists mixing services, tumblers, alt coins with privacy features, etc.

But I advise to ignore anonymint.  He's a troll disguised as an intellectual.

Definitely use a mixing service when doing something that may be considered shady.   But if I use a wallet with unique pub/priv keys, it really can't be tracked that I put a BTC into a paper wallet that's now in my mattress vs. giving it to a homeless veteran.   Reusing a public key is what gives away anonymity, as it is exposed when spent and can be attached to your identity.  If the money is transferred to a new address with a new public key, the blockchain isn't going to tell the government that I really own that address; that it was simply an internal transfer of my own assets instead of actually being spent and given to someone else.

Duh.

Both of you forget that your IP address ties you to those transactions, regardless if you started with unique spend keys or mixed keys with others.

Tor+VPN will not reliably stop the G20+NSA+GCHQ from knowing who you are and taxing you.

The person's of interest will be those who coins which are not showing up in their database as having paid the tax.

You going to Wifi won't stop them from drag-netting a person of interest.

A 1000 high profile prosecutions of those who don't comply, will scare the rest into complying.

I don't know why you 5 year olds can't grasp that they don't need to go after every single person, because most people would rather comply than be ass raped in jail.

Definitely use a mixing service when doing something that may be considered shady.   But if I use a wallet with unique pub/priv keys, it really can't be tracked that I put a BTC into a paper wallet that's now in my mattress vs. giving it to a homeless veteran.   Reusing a public key is what gives away anonymity, as it is exposed when spent and can be attached to your identity.  If the money is transferred to a new address with a new public key, the blockchain isn't going to tell the government that I really own that address; that it was simply an internal transfer of my own assets instead of actually being spent and given to someone else.


I realize that.  I'm just waiting for him to somehow say "Nazi" so I know that I won the argument.   Oh crap.  I just lost.

Not sure this pub key thing has anything to do with it.  Anyone can see what address is sending to what address and how much....
the only thing that really gives away your identity is if companies (like an exchange) keep records of who you are when you first get the coins.  
or if a company you buy from records who say you are when you order a product with coins.

Not sure this pub key thing has anything to do with it.  Anyone can see what address is sending to what address and how much....
the only thing that really gives away your identity is if companies (like an exchange) keep records of who you are when you first get the coins.  
or if a company you buy from records who say you are when you order a product with coins.

Maybe AnonyMint's black-magic, omnipresent, map-every-IP-address-in-the-world-to-a-person NSA can.

Sure, your bank knows that you withdrew a $20 bill from the ATM, and may even record the serial number.   But if a drug dealer is later caught with it, does that prove you bought drugs?

Maybe AnonyMint's black-magic, omnipresent, map-every-IP-address-in-the-world-to-a-person NSA can.

Sure, your bank knows that you withdrew a $20 bill from the ATM, and may even record the serial number.   But if a drug dealer is later caught with it, does that prove you bought drugs?

Maybe AnonyMint's black-magic, omnipresent, map-every-IP-address-in-the-world-to-a-person NSA can.

The only problem is if the DEA is running the mixing service :) hehe...

If you bought 1 BTC from coinbase and then used the same wallet address to send directly to silkroad, the path is fairly clear,
and if the government were to investigate silkroad (and had cooperation from coinbase) they could trace it back to you.

If you, instead sent that 1 BTC from wallet A to wallet B to wallet C to wallet D, and finally from wallet D to the silk road,
and assuming none of the wallets had any other activity, then a simple blockchain analysis would trace the coins
back to you (regardless of IP address).

Think of the analog of with a cash transaction.   I get a marked $20 bill from the bank. (Wallet A)  I spend it at the store. (Wallet B)  Someone later gets it in change for a hundred (Wallet C), and pays a friend that he owes money to.  (Wallet D) That friend uses it to buy drugs.   Drug dealer gets busted, and find that $20 on him, are they gonna convict you on that?

Sure, if most every $20 that you ever withdrew from the bank is found with the drug dealer, then LE may have some circumstantial evidence that may make you a person of interest.

It's not the same thing, because there is no way to determine where the dollar bill has been in between A and D.
But with the blockchain, you see everything, including if an intermediate wallet (C) was used only for
the purpose of (amateurishly) obfuscating the intended transaction.

That's the point of using a unique private/public key for each address in the transactions.   On the block chain, there's no way to determine if the transactions belong to the same wallet or not (unless they are done from the same non-shared IP, or very close together in time - which would be circumstantial evidence at best)

Same wallet or not doesn't matter. What matters is the input and outputs to that address.
Could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

I'm not following.  Are you saying that one should be held responsible for further activity of the output of a transaction, after it leaves the receiving address that is not attached to your identity?

Don't even bother arguing with me

I'm saying that if it leaves your address A (attached to your identity) and goes to address B, then leaves address B,
and assuming address B has no other outputs or inputs, it can be reasonable argued that address B was simply
a passthrough address, if you get my drift.

If you're doing something really illegal, and you don't want to become a person of interest -- then sure, using a mixer might be a good idea to cover your tracks, especially if the conduit is used more than once.

But if they can't prove you ever had control of address B, and that's the only thing that links you to the crime committed with address C, then I wouldn't worry about the case ever going to trial.

But the original supposition brought up by Hopper/Anonymint is that the omnipresent black magic spy agencies can somehow map all addresses holding bitcoin to individual people and demand payment of stupid tax to compensate those that got ripped off by a hacker or a fraudster is ludicrous.

The IRS can barely keep track
of a fraction of what's going on now, even with all their 1099s and W2s, and only
a portion of blockchain information will ever be able to associated with the parties' identities.

The traceable public block chain is a big improvement over cash in their ability to associate and track.

The proportion of the block chain that can be associated with identities is likely to be a super majority. Research has supported this and that research didn't have the data about every IP address association that the NSA does. And the fact that your IP address is almost never obscured (and the governments can remove your anonymous WiFi Hotspot and unregistered, prepaid mobile device options) strongly supports this conclusion.

Much of this analysis is circumstantial. We cannot say for certain whether or not these flows imply a shared agency in both incidents. However, it does
illustrate the power of our tool when tracing the flow of Bitcoins and generating hypotheses.

Buffet didn't have an issue with the internet, he had an issue with the way internet companies were being valued at the time.  Buffet was still valuing businesses based off of cash flows, whereas many were experimenting with valuations based off of page views or searchability, and Buffet was absolutely right that that the idiots doing the latter were off the mark.

When he said this, there really werent' internet companies with proven models like Google and Amazon.  You had hundreds of Pets.com sites that had no profits whatsoever, yet were being valued at insane prices.  Big difference between the current internet world and 15 years ago.

Much of this analysis is circumstantial. We cannot say for certain whether or not these flows imply a shared agency in both incidents. However, it does
illustrate the power of our tool when tracing the flow of Bitcoins and generating hypotheses.

Perhaps it's just me but I didn't read the reference to be taken literally, but as a common language explanation of anon-internet access, by wifi or whatever, becoming so difficult it may be impractical. Although you are correct, its not impossible, but your university access could make it easier to correlate you with whatever you did. Even if your not directly connected to the devices mac in any way the retailer is. Even if purchased second hand the original owner is, and your purchase probably involved email or other electronic contact a limited number of times that would pop out of the original owners records.  This can be enough for a correlation. Your university puts you in a photo-hot-zone. Run the faces,weighed for proximity based on whats known and suddenly meaningless metadata on each person becomes a frighteningly powerful tool. Sure its beyond the reach of local pd at the moment, but that is changing. I am not trying to make a case for theft, but you would need to somehow access a device, and best if its not reported stolen (which would narrow your location down). Cellular access is good, but shut it off for a period of time before you rx/tx and again after and wait a while before you leave the area. Point being, its kinda impractical.