Bitcoin Forum

This is a call to arms.
Cryptoland as a whole is entering into decadence. We are resting on our laurels because BTC reached 1000 dollars and even now it is three times its 2013 ATH.

Delusion of grandeur
While we are partying, the real competition¹ is readying its weapons.
What? You really think banksters will disappear,  fiat will disappear, a several century-old institution (fiat currency) will disappear thanks to a 5-year old technology? That some 50 year-old people (maximum, most are in the 20-30's) could change one of the latest powers of nation-states? Even the European Union's euro has a hard time doing it and it is not that big of a change. If fiat exists for so long, it is not only because of the lack of a better technology. It is also because it suits us (mankind). "But again, truth be told...if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror."


Radio was supposed to kill newspaper. TV was supposed to kill radio. Internet was supposed to kill TV. See a trend, here? Fact is this is just not how things works. Without going at length about the differences between protocol and symbol (sumbolon), let's just say that centralised money is here to stay. Sure, it will have to negociate its position with decentralised money, like newspaper did with radio and so on, but that's all.
And let me tell you: cryptofiat is a thing to come. Newspaper adapted to the rise of internet by going digital (ebook and apps), because being paper is a protocol. Providing daily written information is a symbol. Symbol don't die, protocols do.
That's the same with fiat. It is a symbol, something that unite people². Fiat could change its protocol, like moving from arbitrary (decree, fiat) to cryptographically-enforced. Yes, cryptodollar or cryptoeuro or cryptoyuan could very much become a reality; or cryptocredit, if you buy the SF staple of one universal money - doesn't change much, except if you are in the forex or exchange office businesses.

And guess what, nation-states won't have any desire to share power with hippies/hackers using this Bitcoin thing. Once they'll realise prohibition doesn't work and cost them money³ (some are starting to understand it), they will create their own cryptofiat. Nicaragua is doing it and I know some other places are doing it too.
The best way to kill bitcoin and all is to make it irrelevant.
100% premined fiat would not even need to change money creation (a crypto can be infinitely inflationary, like most Peercoin-based cryptos or Dogecoin). On top of it, cryptofiat would make surveillance so much easier. And since blockchain has tremendous uses out of money (see #powerofblockchain on Google+ (https://plus.google.com/explore/powerofblockchain)), you can be sure that incentives for moving to "crypto-everyting" will be there. Governement could even encourage it. Every passing year, somewhere in the world a law is promulgated to reduce the amount of cash that can be used for buying something. Connect the dots.

Meanwhile, what we, Cryptolanders, doing? Self-congratulation ("we're gonna kill banksters") and infightings ("my coin is better than thyne"). These are signs of decadence. The Chinese Empire decayed in the middle of the last millenium when it decided that there was nothing interesting outside of its frontiers. And we are far from being the Chinese Empire. We are digging our own hole. Narcissism of small differences. A friend used the word of "crypto-balkanization". That's exactly it.


This is a war and we are soldiers
Now, what can we do?
First, we should both not care too much about infighting (the altcoin war is also Darwinian evolution at work, it has its uses) and at the same time still care enough to remember what really matters. Speaking of that, what does really matters, mmh? You have four hours.

Second, it is easier to win if your competitor lets you win. Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across. If a governement can take advantage of crypto (and I already explained it can), make it so that this is a mutually-profitable agreement. Hatred only go that far; negociation goes much farther. Hey, I'm French, I know what I am talking about, we have an A-grade in Stubborness and Stupidity (Africa, Indochina...) whereas the British were much smarter.
Governement wants money and control. Let us do it whilst allowing anyone on an individual basis to opt-out. If we create the tool, it will be possible. If we let the government create it, much less.

Third, read history. Remember WIR. Remember how local currencies die when crisis are over (or sort of). Fiat won't disappear, it will adapt and there is room for non-fiat cryptocurrencies as long as it makes sense. What could an "illegitimate" currency (as in "not backed by governement") be good for? I believe that anonymity is the important thing⁴. You can be sure that cryptofiat will be traceable. You can also be sure also there will be a need for untraceability. A homeostatic system integrates its own opposition, that's why it is homeostatic. In simpler terms, legality has to tolerate illegality to continue to exist (which doesn't mean that tools useful for illegal action can't be used for legal actions - you do pay your coffee with some quarters, right?)

It would be embarrassing for a government to have his fingerprints on an untraceable currency - after all, if you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to refuse traceability, right? Sometimes a governement needs a freelancer like us.

So stop infighting and look at the real threat. Come on. It would be one of biggest missed deed of our time if open source failed to liberate more than code.

Update: a very interesting reply (http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2i8pr5/united_we_stand_divided_we_fall_the_coming_rise/cl02gni) on the Reddit with particularly insightful remarks; one about the future use of mining (which reminds me how patent transitionned from a defensive weapon to an offensive one) and the second about an essential limitation of PoS.


Update 2: How to adapt and change nothing:

Update 3: How a state can destroy Bitcoin and, consequently, Bitcoin requires the implicit approval of a state: The Stateless Currency and the State: An Examination of the Feasibility of a State Attack on Bitcoin (http://randomwalker.info/teaching/spring-2014-privacy-technologies/state-attack.pdf). Damn interesting.
And also State-sponsored cryptocurrencies (https://miki.it/blog/2014/11/1/its-just-a-game-handful-of-scenarios-in-the-bitcoin-world/)

---

1. I don't like the word "enemy", it brings hate and I am like Churchill, I don't hate people, I just compete with them.
2. Sumbolon: which unites. Diabolon: which divides.
3. Forbidding prostitution doesn't work but doesn't cost money, for instance.
4. Full disclosure: I am a core team member of Monero, a currency whose main selling point is anonymity.

Interesting. Definitely following!

Pretty powerful.

A really great writeup and definetly true. Governments (well, not only govs, everybody) fear the loss of control. Idealism would be a soultion but in the current cynical days of political movements, this will be hard.
Idealism was always what brought the society on the next level, both in good ways and in bad ways, but generally you can say, that progressive movements (for equality and more freedom(for the 'small guy', not companys inherently)) are normally in advantage for society.
Let's hope, atleast for once, that, instead of a system, that only tries to gain power and survive, we get a good government, idealistic driven, which tries to do it for the people and a greater good, a government that will immigrate and bid it's, the own powers threatening, advancement welcome, instead of fighting it (Bitcoin)

Thanks for the writeup David

Very good write-up David.  Enjoyed reading it. 
Seems like the community is doing a fine job "dividing" on its own, making easier for the banksters/governments to do the "conquering" part.

Super article
Bravo

Intersting read, and I agree with the whole "bitcoin resting on it's laurels" thing.

RE: crypto-fiat:

Isn't the market capital that you can safely store/transact in a blockchain only proportional to the power (difficulty) of the overall network?

How would a crypto-fiat survive? If any serious capital existed in it then it would make financial (if not ethical) sense to brute force hack the blockchain.

We all know fiat scheme operators like to run their games with minimal overheads, I can't see them investing in or evolving the network hardware too much.

Even if you couldn't extract any capital out of the system (due to traceability issues) it would still be a target for a competing government on the global stage.

I think a premined coin can never hold alot of capital for this reason.

But having said that: I can see SHA256 miners getting lured onto a fractional reserve blockchain for "perks". And agree with your general sentiment.

Excelente analysis.


What concrete actions must be done in your opinion about this second point?

I dont get why gov would like to create own cryptocurrency. I mean if we agree cryptocurrency = decentralized currency with public ledger nobody is granted to control.

I like the term cryptofiat.

Brute force a centrally checkpointed blockchain isn't all that effective, especially when checkpoint servers can automatically update the checkpoints.  At least from my own understanding, could be wrong of course.

David, awesome write up. It is refreshing to take a step back from the daily grind of the mechanics of the cryptocurrency community, and put this all in realistic terms.

I've been saying that state issued PoS coins are a good option for governments. I don't think premined PoW coins are ever a good idea. They (PoS) offer everything a centrally planned state needs. There can never be fair exchanges between them because of politics so instead people will use Bitcoin as a currency basket to exchange on decentralized markets.

Remarkably powerful speech you gave there. I couldn't have said it better myself - I have said this for many years that to continue to survive in this ever-changing world is to evolve to embrace your fellow human. United we stand.

It's all well that we have created bitcoin and altcoins; both of which have a powerful markup against fiat currency, however what's to stop a bank, or the government or even one of the super-rich to buy a shitload of everything and start to manipulate, rise, fall, or even kill the entire market. We forget that if bitcoin or whatevercoin were to render fiat currency useless, the people in charge would have had a lot of notice from their sector advisors and would already have invested x amount of coin as a contingency plan. There would be no shift of power. None whatsoever.

Like you said, working together to achieve common goals is the best way to move forward. And, of course, nothing like a bit of Darwinian evolution amongst the coin Devs to keep competition tough and on top of their game!

 

What do you propose?

Time to get out of Bitcoin and invest all my money into Reynolds Wrap.

Hi,

First, thank you all for your insightful remarks. This really makes my day.

Can't answer, I don't really understand. Could you reformulate, please?

First, big money can recruit the crème de la crème for the technical part.
If I understood correctly, a large part of Bitcoin protection comes from its peta-hash network. I assume crypto-fiat would have a several order of magnitude higher network, exa-hash or even zetta-hash. Or, since we are talking 100% premine, take the PoS route that I know well with HyperStake (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=678849) (shameless plug here). Mega holders (central banks), major holders (top 500) as well as the long trail of small-time taxpayers would secure the network by stacking.
Speaking of PoS, government would like so much inflation to come back... Cryptofiat with 3% inflation, they'd like it (just joking on this part, I don't know if PoS inflation can be compared with real-life inflation - if presstab comes by, he could give his opinion). In any case, major network security here. Won't protect against exploit, but will make them seriously expensive still.
Finally, still on the PoS idea, there is the whole "protecting the planet" thing. Protection against terrorism is becoming passé. Protecting the planet has (sadly) a bright future. As a famous modern French thinker, Jacques Attali, pointed it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baWfd-vRIqM&t=25m16s), dictature in the name of ecology makes completely sense (not that cryptofiat would necessarily mean dictature, but it would be easier to make "transparent transaction" acceptable for the public opinion if it is "in the name of Mother Earth").

Crème de la crème and bazillion-hash network are just two parts of it. The other part I see it that network WILL be attacked. Cyberwarfare, mon ami.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Bitcoin_mining_is_a_waste_of_energy_and_harmful_for_ecology "No more so than the wastefulness of mining gold out of the ground, melting it down and shaping it into bars, and then putting it back underground again. Not to mention the building of big fancy buildings, the waste of energy printing and minting all the various fiat currencies, the transportation thereof in armored cars by no less than two security guards for each who could probably be doing something more productive, etc."
Should apply for more than energy. Plus, the price of computing hardware decreases very fast (an avatar of the Moore Conjecture, a.k.a. Moore's Law). If that was not enough, the price of wetware (organic traditional computers, colloquially called "humans") increases - and the price of brick-and-mortar stuff as whole increases too). Plus, biology-based computer hardware (in its infancy for the moment) promises to decrease even faster (see Juan Enriquez at 6m (http://youtu.be/PzSXTWhBUD0?t=6m)). Meanwhile, human will still cost as much (or even more, as more and more countries will have crossed the Lewis turning point where employees demand more social right and salaries). I for one, welcome our parabiologic overlords.

Yep. More fun for competing countries terrorist organisations.

Test drive with companies already started (I discussed some ideas for making Monero part of this game too, I expect the future crowdfunding platform to make it a reality). We'll see how it scales, especially considering that some companies, like Disney[/email] or [url=https://plus.google.com/explore/citizensamsung]Samsung (http://davidlatapie.blogspot.com/2013/06/private-state.html) are not that different from countries.. Prepare popcorn.

You assume too much :) Ripple, Stellar, MaidSafe... started as centralised. Now, the issuer cannot control what you are doing with the token once it gives it to you (but he can know what you are doing with it, because transparent blockchain). The same way today a government cannot prevent you from buying a forbidden documentary but can know you did (well, he can freese your bank account and could probably freese your address, especially if freezing could be implemented without hard forking, buy using a "consensus freeze" that 51% peers would follow).

There is one way to prevent such control, it is by using cash (coin, not banknotes). In crypto, cash is ring signature. You know where I'm heading (if  not, check my sig).

You will pardon me to speak about what I know the best: Monero.

First the code. Monero is transparent by default, optionally anonymous and can whitelist inquisitive institutions if you want to (viewkey). This means that you are in control and can exercice you control as much as you want: absolutely for private transactions (this "special package" you really don't want people to know about), moderately for ordinary transactions (buying your daily coffee at Starbucks), lowly for public transaction (a charity receiving a donation, a public company or a governement).
Everyday transaction: mixin count 0
Private transaction: mixin count 2+
Public transactions: viewkey either to everyone (on the website, like we do for Monero), or to specially appointed people (justice, FinSen/SEC...)

Second the initiative. The Monero Economy Workgroup exemplifies the title of this essay: United we stand. To increase adoption, to be better able to speak to institutions, we must unite. So-called "investors" are not enough. We need actors, people willing to actually do something with the technology they have. The best tools is of no use if you don't use.

There is a word for this: empowerment.

To answer your question more directly, Manu92: what concrete actions must be done.
- promote optionally anonymous cryptos (I believe mandatory anonymity is not much better than mandatory transparency)
- do not just buy; also promote, propose, throw yourself into (in French, to invest and to throw yourself into are very similar which leads to confusion: "investir" and "s'investir" are different things)
- always remember the big picture, what is truly at stake

Sincerely,

Many thanks for your extensive reply!

With my question above, I was alluding to the fact that a blockchain with higher difficulty is more secure, the lock on the safe is harder to pick.

You raise interesting points, especially regarding network setup/maintenance costs and the deep pockets of some groups. Although I still think it would be cheaper to hijack SHA256 miners if a big player wanted a POW system (loyalty dissolves quickly behind closed doors) miners will work for peanuts compared to establishing a centralised body. And also a widely spatially distributed network is far superior to attack resilience.

My prediction is that we will see a fractional reserve system atop POW crypto before fiat. Miners initially sharing the spoils of the debt repayments (and transaction fees).

But for sure, us "hobbyists" must prepare for larger moves in the game, whatever form they take. To think otherwise is naive.

edit:
a truly anonymous blockchain will never be allowed to flourish.

Nice write up dude.  This cryptofiat term is pretty nifty

Cryptofiat would be a double edged sword. One of bitcoin's biggest challenge is bridging between fiat and currencies. If a government were to adopt cryptofiat they would also be establishing a convenient means to leave their fiat for something else.

Understood. This is what we are doing with HyperStake. It has the highest difficulty of any PoS, by order of magnitudes. Some specific code (read here (http://hyperstake.wikia.com/wiki/Inflation_control) if interested), just reputable people, good code, good karma, good promotion and no bullshit like "we'll replace BTC". What I mean is: if you have all the population of a country securing the blockchain, you can be pretty sure it will be secure (out of exploit, of course).

I believe corruption scales worse than a full-fledged on-purpose solution. In other words: hijacking SHA256 is good but there a better solutions, especially if you are thinking long-term.

An interesting article about fractional reserve in crypto (https://plus.google.com/107266737312698360485/posts/AWxqYkbMJZe) and why it is a dangerous road to take but could be coming.. And bitcoin.it wiki article on it (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Fractional_Reserve_Banking_and_Bitcoin) (did not read, probably interesting, but lazy).

Keyword is allowed :)

Cryptofiat Law, January 1, 2017. "The only cryptocurrency that can be bought with euros/dollars is CryptoEuro (EUR)/CryptoDollar (USD). Violators will be prosecuted. Natural persons of age 18 or more will be fined of 1260 $/€. Natural persons of less than 18 will have their parents or tutor pay the fine. Officials will be fined 1520 $/€ and businesses will be fined 25,200 $/€." (pure fiction, of course (http://cointelegraph.com/news/112668/russia-to-issue-ban-and-fines-for-cryptocurrency-use))

"A piece of paper is stronger than any technology" - Agent from the DRCI (France counter-espionage agency)

Voilà!

At least this confirms that PoS is fiat.

Not a all. PoS is a technology, like PoW is.

Making it mandatory to use this particular crypto would make it fiat. Fiat means "let it be done" (like fiat lux) and, on the particular topic of currency, it means that a currency have been established as legal by decree.
Any currency that has value from obligation (decree) instead of actual value is fiat. If a government can hardfork at will and not let users decide if they like it or not, this is fiat. Banknote or cryptographic token, this makes no difference. And the exact protocol (PoW, PoS, PoB, PoI, PoT...) makes no difference.

This can't be done with PoW. It can only be done with PoS. You can't force anyone to use a PoW because you don't control it. Your little tinpot dictatorship will be outgunned by your superior enemies that will overpower your miners and reverse their transactions. It would be a tactical error to use PoW in an oppressive regime. PoW is for the free man.

There might be a misunderstanding of PoS if one considers it fiat.

PoS is distributed not by random miners competing for a lottery, it is distributed by people (either directly or using an anonymization algorithm) that can choose to take (optionally anonymous) irrevocable capital control. Fiat is also distributed by people that maintain capital controls. So far there is no significant difference between paper money and PoS except that foreign agents can't counterfeit PoS.

I know that people are working on trying to make a fair PoS system, but it is turning out to be a wild goose chase.

good read. as for plan of action, actually one guy can really bring us a victory. read on: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=784545. i'm dead serious, satoshi can save the world. i would do that if i was him.

I agree. I always thought this will happen sooner or later.
It still needs more developement, of course.

But you need to take in mind, at that point with cryptofiat will be extremely easy to buy or sell bitcoin or any other crypto instantly. So bitcoin would probably benefit from it, being an alternative.

great read. thanks.

That's why my sources are using PoS for their premined :)

I agree this is not Cryptoland definition of fiat (fiat = traditional money) but more a technical definition of fiat (fiat = mandatory currency - I will develop this more on the Monero Handbook I am writing). Plus "cryptofiat" conveys the right imagery. People seem to immediately understand what this is about.

Joe Sixpack could choose between a governement-backed, arguably sure, very widely adopted "normal" money (dollar, euro...) and a tiny rebels-driven, scandal-ridden complicated-to-pronounce cryptocurrency. It is easy to see the outcome.
The tiny 1% of people choosing Bitcoin (or Monero :)) will not matter at all in the grand scheme of things.

I just looked up the definition of "fiat money" in my favorite dictionary of economics (former econ student here).  I tend to like their definition far better than the typical wiki/bitcointalk definition. There is a dichotomy between money - either commodity money (asset backed) or fiat money. Fiat money is a type of money that has no intrinsic value. This would mean all national currencies as well as most digital currencies are in fact fiat under this definition. Interesting that the article doesn't really say much about the method of issuance.

If anyone wants to look it up, it is in the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, and you probably need to access it through an school or institution that has access.

Glad to see I'm closer to the real definition of fiat money than the bitcointalk definition of it.

Excerpt from the Monero Handbook:

I never understood why Proof of Work (or Proof of Stake, Transaction, Importance...) should make a crypto a commodity money. There is NO intrisic use of cryptocurrency tokens - even the most "intrinisically useful cryptos (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=606402.0)" (Primecoin and Riecoin) are still far from commodity money. So, if Proof of Work is not asset-based (commodity), then it is fiat. Period. Or we invent a third category (not a big fan of it).

On the other hand, as I note it in the Monero Handbook, even value is relative. Dioxygen is worthless in everyday life because of its abondance and despite its critical usefulness. But on restricted environment like submarines or space stations, it is much more valuable. Same goes for cigarettes when shit hits the fan (http://shtfschool.com/). Even gold: Native Americans did not value gold as much as Conquistadores did. So, how reliable is this "commodity money" thing if even critically-important stuff like dioxygen may be worth much less than utterly-superfluous stuffs like a Lamborghini?

tl:dr: for me, fiat and commodity are mostly pointless ways to categorize money. There is stuff people want and stuff people don't. That's all.

"United we stand, divided we fall"


Great. How does Monero help Bitcoin instead of bleed off marketshare? Why couldn't the features within monero be built around the Bitcoin blockchain as a sidechain or with counterparty?

Tell that to the miners that invested small fortunes in mining equipment that  their PoW is not asset based. That's like that song "Money for Nothing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7GroZ60UYc)" by Dire Straits. Just because you don't understand how it works only makes you sound foolish.

Very dramatic, OP. Good for entertainment and not much else.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll270/sweetchinmusical/golfclap01kq5.gif

I know overweight armchair revolutionaries love to think of themselves romantically, but reality check: There is no war, and we are not soldiers. This is plain old technological evolution, which you are needlessly dramatizing. It can be delayed and danced around only for so long before the inevitability of this new reality asserts itself.

There is no threat. Again, this is technological evolution. Cryptofiat is a joke, it's not going to happen, even if it did, who would buy in? What's the government going to do, force us to trade our dollars for cryptodollars at gunpoint? I don't think so.

To quote an excellent comment from Reddit:


Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2i5oim/omg_watch_this_and_tell_me_mainstream_media_does/ckz51s1

Read my sentence again. I said that I never understood, not that I disagreed. Please refrain from making me say what I didn't, this is a sure-fire way to start ambiguity and flaming, which rarely leads to something productive.
Back to topic. So you are saying that Bitcoin is backed by mining rig? This is a honest question.

Mmh, let me guess. The 98% of people who don't care about cryptocurrency and just want to continue using their credit card? They would not even know they are using cryptofiat, because it would be even less visible than a change of banknote.

Thanks for reminding us all the three uses of a money (medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account). But I profundly disagree that one cannot separate blockchain and Bitcoin. Even disregarding all altcoins (which are blockchains but not Bitcoin), there are a lot of non monetary uses of blockchain (voting, smart contracts, directory, etc... you know the drill).

As a final note (and this is not directed to someone in particular): please this thread free of "retarded", "moron" or other derogatory terms or sentences. I will not answer to such post, even if they are interesting.

I'm happy to see people are considering the option (since they reading). Discussion is mother of improvement.

This is not a matter of opinion, but fact. An insecure blockchain is a useless blockchain. The value proposition is the only incentive for miners to secure it. The end.

And since you're pushing some shitty altcoin, "monero", you should probably read this (http://trilema.com/2014/the-woes-of-altcoin-or-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-cryptocurrencies/).

A very interesting reply (http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2i8pr5/united_we_stand_divided_we_fall_the_coming_rise/cl02gni) on the Reddit with particularly insightful remarks; one about the future use of mining (which reminds me how patent transitionned from a defensive weapon to an offensive one) and the second about an essential limitation of PoS.


(beliathon, I was going to reply to your comment, but I said earlier that "I will not answer to [post using derogatory term or sentences], even if they are interesting." (and shitty is such a term). Now if you edit to make the sentence more neutral, I would happily reply.)

Your altcoin is bad, and you should feel bad. All altcoins are temporarily existing, short-lived bitcoin parasites. You are ticks riding on the back of the Bitcoin dog.

You will go broke if you keep your wealth there. I don't need any reply from you, my parasite-pushing friend. I'm just stating facts here. I'm a messenger of reality.

A dog does not "unite" with the ticks riding on its back, it simply waits for them to die of their own short lifespan and carries on.

Great. A new all powerful bogeyman. Cryptofiat.

What are the essential characteristics of this new fictional threat? I note they have not been described anywhere up thread.

-Imaginary
-dramatic
-fud

++!
этo тo, o чём я нe пepecтaю дyмaть. / there is the things i can't stop think about

thanx! we translate your post in russian: http://forklog.com/eto-prizyv-k-vojne-bitkojn-razrabotchik-obyavil-vojnu-natsionalnym-gosudarstvam/

It's something like Ripple, just by the gov. It is not really about the blockchain or the decentralized anture of Bitcoin. Cryptofiat only means, that they will probably use a blockchain system to keep track of all dollars, euros etc to get the same transactions speeds and fees, which would render Bitcoin useless for the normal user. Hence, even economic professors state this^[1]

[1]One recent example: Futuremag on arte, german/french tv station with a recent (and very positive) segment about BTC: German: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV2yOYhTD-g French: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmpmUFlK9tg&list=UU2u8DRz3KhzXo9h3g__ZhzQ

Sorry if this was not clear. This means I should amend my text and make it more clear.

Cryptofiat: governments (and megacorpo) recognize the usefulness of the blockchain tech but don't want to share the power of minting money with the world at large (Bitcoin) but want to keep tight control over it, like it'd been done for millenia (ahem, Fed). Example in the work: Nicaragua.
Please, tell me if it is understandable. By "understandable", I do not mean you agree with it or not, just if you understand the idea. This is what Quanttek said and thank you for the link!

Thank you for notifying me. If you get some interesting feedback, I'd appreciate you sum them up here.

Please alert me when this FascismCoin hits the market, I'd sure love to divest my savings from bitcoin and dump them there. I'm sure I'm not the only one, either!

 ::)

Update:
Exactly where the economist speaks about cryptofiat (without using the term)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmpmUFlK9tg&t=11m47s (French, probably the same in German)

I think I understand the _idea_. But I don't understand the characteristics of an actual _implementation_. Sounds like you are scared of your shadowboxing sparring partner.

Why would governments use a blockchain to enact fiat? Why would they just not print it at random as they have always done? It is easier, they know how that system works, and there is no advantage to them to put it on a blockchain.

I guess they can watch all the transactions, but they can already watch the vast majority with our current system. I don't think they'd constrian their abilities for this incremental (tyrannical) benefit.

Isn't "cryptofiat" by definition the same thing we call "fiat" nowadays?

Another reason why the government would not want this is because with a publicly viewable blockchain everyone would know exactly what information is available and against them. With the current fiat system the government can not only monitor the flow of money but they do not necessarily need to tell a suspect of a crime the extent of the evidence against him (or what the government may be able to uncover in the future) which would give a suspect an incentive to confess if they have committed a financial crime.

This is what I've been proposing for a long time. Basically it has the security, pseudonymity, and protection from counterfeiting of a cryptocurrency, but no speculative value because it is fiat and issued by a state. Basically it's a bitcoin premined coin backed by the treasury debt. It's also an ideal platform for a PoS coin.

Folks would trade bitcoins with other cryptofiat coin's. Governments would have the best of both worlds and bitcoin becomes the defacto reserve currency.

No. Currently fiat is managed in banks' excelsheets. It can be moved to blockchain with increased security. When more and more of the premine is emitted to the market, it is visible. It has some advantages. I would likely take it over the current bank cash.

Did you mean prostitution or should that have been Prohibition?

I really like your post +1

I would still perhaps consider the other side that when you compare the evolution of technologies (radio vs tv etc.) you are not considering the HUGE dept fiat has been tied into. If they were to replace this with a cryptofiat how would they overcome the large depts that are tied into it between almost all nations around the world?  This is just a small scope on what differences there could be between the two though your point remains valid in that, we need to stop infighting and start realizing we are all but the children of a single entity and that we all have but one goal. There are a lot of weak hands and opportunist (as there always is with things of value) who care not for the overall success of bitcoin but their short/med/long term gains and other law makers who look to disease bitcoin with their sick fiat regulations that has created a cancerous currency.

Just some thoughts. We will see and stand by the moral code of bitcoin as always as much as possible.

There is only one traditional way of resolving international debt...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Sino_Japanese_war_1894.jpg

A war in which soldiers compete is not a war, so why use pathological terminology? Thinking of the crypto revolution as a "war" plays into the hands of the warmongers whom the crypto revolution is putting out of business.


Seems like an absurd generalization that leaves out of the picture the coders/thinkers who are working on novel crypto projects... such as yourself, no?


I think resistance to change is overwhelmingly dominant in authoritarian control structures, in government and also in the dinosaur banking system. Even if not, the innovation brought about by the decentralized ledger means we are at a huge advantage. Have you seen this idea for "crypto-everything"? The Cryptoglobalist Coalition (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=769692.0;all)


Is that a justification of colonialism (i.e. violent subjugation and mass murder) as "Stubborness and Stupidity", or do I read you wrong?

Blockchain advantages in cost reduction
Transparent blockchain advantages in surveillance
"To kill your enemy, become your enemy"
These are just the off the top of my head. Longer consideration would lead to even more usecases.

Yes and no.
No because it is blockchain-based
Yes because it government-issued and enforced

How would it be any different than now?

Or the de facto killed currency.
"Fast transaction? We have it, even faster than bitcoin, because we are PoS"
"Security? Our central bank and government hold most of the coin at any given moment, so 51% is not possible. Not only this, but it will never be possible - with Bitcoin, you are at the mercy of some terrorist groups having more miners than the honest taxpayers."
"Adoption? Nothing can beat a governement-issue money, the same as your grandparents used to use. Fully credit-card compatible - try to use your VISA with Bitcoin."
"You are in the Eurozone and you insist on being paid with something else than Euro? What is wrong with you? Maybe I should call the police."

Both :). The non-prohibition of prostitution doesnt' cost (enough) money. The non-prohibition of Bitcoin could cost a lot of money to some persons :)

You got me on this one :) The title is a reference to Matrix Reloaded and is intended to prove a point, whilst the footnote is more about the actual psychology to have.

One cannot deny that most activity in altcoin is about infightings. Not all of course, but most.

Until the matter of money (or reelection) comes to dinner. All of a sudden, they are surprisingly reactive. The decentralized ledger is not an advantage for us. It as an advantage for all. Hence cryptofiat.

You read me wrong. I meant that France did not accept its colonies' request for independance and it ended up in bloodbath. Constrast UK, which negociated peaceful separation. Today, the Queen of UK still rules Australia and Canada (even if it is purely symbolical) and, more importantly, not much blood was spilt. So, this is neither a justification nor a denonciation of colonialism, just a reminder of two different ways to deal with a crisis: being inflexible and make it end badly for all (France), or be flexible and make it a win-win situation (UK).

Exactly my point. If everyone chooses a cryptofiat of their own, nobody will accept anyone else's as legal tender. They will have to exchange them at the border. Rather than pick one nation like USA to be the reserve currency so they can enjoy all the benefits of that status, why not a neutral gold-like cryptocurrency?

David, that was a great read. In principle, I actually fully agree with you there.

As a man dedicated to bringing down the current system of governments (I am an anarchist), I think that the best way to do it is twofold: Use their services to bankrupt them, and incrementally render their currency worthless and irrelevant WHILE replacing it with something.

Governments are organisms, and organisms adapt or perish. The goal then, is to make them adapt to liberty over time. On front number one, we should use each and every "service" they monopolize to the maximum of our ability WITHOUT being dependent on it.

Front number two, well, the first part of it requires no action from the activist. They couldn't shoot themselves in the foot any better than they do. All full fiat currencies fail. It's as inevitable as the sun rise.

I think Cryptos are a big part of the second part. I work for a company that will integrate fiat and crypto to a greater level than it has ever seen. That interconvertability will not harm crypto, and probably not harm fiat in the short run. It will strengthen both.

But cryptos are not very open to manipulation and obfuscation of the money supply. They increase at a predictable rate, and attempts to alter it require a large consensus. This makes them a superior form of fiat. (I've long said that cryptcurrency IS a fiat currency, but it is not a CENTRALIZED fiat currency. It's still backed solely by intangibles, as opposed to commodity monies. I think this will merge to some extent in the future, as I think that I'm not the only one interested in creating crypto purchased "backups" of precious metals and other durable goods.

We're at the early stage of a highly revolutionary change in monetary operability, but in many ways it's more of an evolutionary change.

As much as I would personally like to see all governments fall today, the truth is that this would be catastrophic for the vast majority of people. at the moment. Crypts can help that, as they are a difficult to trace means of storing value. There is of course a great deal more that has to be done to get people at large to learn what self reliant MEANS, let alone how to do it.

More later. As always, you make me think. I like that in a person.

There is absolutely no scenario under which a centralized blockchain implementation can be a cost reduction over a database.

Thanks Biomech for your reply.

Look at this, from las Thursday: National Bank of Serbia states Bitcoin is not legal tender in country (https://coinreport.net/national-bank-of-serbias-states-bitcoin-is-not-legal-tender-in-country/). First forbid, second propose an "authorized version" (cryptofiat - probably by then, Serbia will be in Eurozone - if not, then we'll see cryprodinar).

To be fair, I don't think much politicians are considering cryptofiat - they are just afraid of what they can't control. But surely later on the idea of cryptofiat will be a convincing argument for them.

Exactly!

I was not comparing to database. I was comparing to fiat (minting, transporting, securing, coins and banknotes; protection of databases via redundancy, physical protection, use of expensive closed-source software and devices...)

I disagree.
Right now the actual calculation of how many dollars exist is... Well, convoluted would be a compliment. With blockchain technology, the creation and distribution of the currency is reduced to a common protocol that all the banks can use for the price of a few servers. By comparison to just the regulatory compliance softwares in banks, that's a pittance. Whether they'll have the brains and balls to actually do it is another story, but the public ledger/blockchain idea for transmission of data and tracking the money supply would simplify really a lot of modern finance.

The vast majority of fiat is database transactions. The tangible, physical notes we sometimes take out of our back pocket and employ is a vanishing minority of fiat.

So unless I continue to misunderstand you after your clarification, you were indeed referring to fiat.

While agreeing with your above-quoted statement, I still disagree with your disagreement.

You seem to have the impression that easy tracking of the entire money supply is something of value to those whom have been granted a charter to zap money into existence at their leisure. I assert that this would actually be counter to their interests, as it would wake the masses to the chicanery of the entire system.

Just look at how hard the entrenched interests have been fighting -- year after year -- the intent to conduct an audit of the FED. (be you American - otherwise, the example may admittedly be rather obtuse)

I am American, though I do not consider myself a citizen. Subject is a more accurate word, and I'm not good with that either.

However, while I can't disagree with your assessment, I tend to look to where they might go if pushed. Bitcoin and associated blockchain based coins are not likely to go away. The very existence of a disruptive technology, especially one as potentially devastating to them as this, requires a response. Since it is in the best interests of the powers to APPEAR benevolent, and since the cracks in the foundation of the Federal Reserve Act and it's egregious succesors are becoming obvious even to the sheeple, it behooves them to try to co-opt it. Destroying it is impossible, and I think they learned that lesson with the Internet.

Think, then, what advantage such a thing would give them. The disadvantages are somewhat obvious and are discussed on this forum on an hourly basis, but few have bothered to look what the powers might GAIN from this technology.

First, let's dispense with the idea that they care a great deal about money. They don't. The currency they deal in is power. Money is merely an aspect or symbol of that power. Losing control of it it is catastrophic to the way they currently do business, but if you look at the history of rulership, they're incredibly adaptable. In America, they have turned a nation of renegades and individualists into a sociofascist empire that maintains and appearance of liberty. So, looking to that, how might blockchains be incorporated?

One that I find obvious is that they can hide their legerdemain in plain sight. Instead of fractional reserves, they have an adjustable rate of proof of stake, based on some metric they control. It appears that all money creation is above board and clean... but they control the metric.

I could go on for a while on the ways they might subvert the technology while APPEARING to "fix" the economic system. If they can come off as heroes, then they elevate themselves and again appear to be the benevolent overlords.

EDIT. Just saw your flavor text. Lose and loose :D I hate that shit. Bravo!

Sorry to step in here, but it's very interesting stuff, your perspective seems clear and true.

The bolded part, that is the part that seems illogical to us... One party able to tweak issuance destroys the fairness of a blockchain.

But then as you allude to, it only needs to "look good" to the majority, the more objective minds don't seem to be considered nowadays as we've seen in so many of the farces over the past few decades.

So a "cryptofiat" system although an oxymoron might be implemented and lauded by the dumb masses. :-\

Yes, it does seem illogical. On it's surface, it is, because you're proceeding from the axiom that a greater degree of liberty is a good thing. They are NOT proceeding from that axiom. Govenments are parasites. They produce nothing, steal everything they have, and distribute it by whim (seemingly). A good parasite does not too quickly kill the host.

I've said for years that governents are organisms. Free men are their food. Thus, when the food gets smart or lucky, they have to work harder or change direction.

Yes, I've also thought of governments and religions as competing organisms. Surviving and evolving over millenia, passing on memetic information instead of genetic. Using every trick in the book to survive, multiply and kill competitors.

I still carry a little faith that a more symbiotic ( to humans and environment ) parasite may become the winning one some day. Maybe technology like bitcoin will help us with that.

Reminded me of this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs

But we elected them to represent us! They are us!


In that case why would you call it a "parasite" rather than a symbiot, or a "less parasitic symbiotic system"?

There will be a day when crypto will achieve total independence from fiat benchmark. For example, if one day you are buying a car, you don't quote the price in dollar or offered the amount in btc and then cross check the price in dollar, you straight away measure that in BTC. That day my friend will arrive

Disagree. In elections, all we can choose is the particular set of power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us. There is never an electoral option to abolish the entire system.

I love Larkin Rose. He and I started doing videos on anarchism about the same time on YT. Difference being, his are good and mine were not :P Well, I had a decent following, but I thought I could do far better.

At any rate, the only disagreement I have with your reply is that I don't see that much competition between religion and government. They tend to be symbiotes, though who is dominant changes.

...and who's this "we"? I stepped out of the system almost 2 decades ago, when I realized what a horrible lie they have perpetuated. As Emma Goldman said, if voting could effect a change, it would be made illegal.

Note how much they focus (In The United States at least) on the presidential election! The one federal election that the masses have zero influence on. I cringe every time I hear some braindead milch cow saying "I voted for the other president" or some such. NO YOU DIDN'T! A shadow group of influence peddlers called an electoral college did that.

Yet there's no focus on the House of Representatives, which is elected by direct ballot, or the Senate, which only exists in name according to it's orignal function, but nevertheless by direct ballot. If the voters were serious about reform, and the media serious about elections, THESE would be the focus. If it ever happens, you'll see the truth of Ms. Goldman's words.

The truth, the ugly, horrible truth, is that the franchise is the alloy our chains are made of. By casting your vote you are accepting the system and the results. By any valid logic, you cannot bitch if you vote.

You may not be amongst the 'we'. I am.

While I think I understand (and respect) your position, I disagree with it completely. I have even had this debate with Larken, face-to-face, and we both came away from it with a begrudging respect for each other's position. Allow me to explain. But first a question:

By employing the use of Federal Reserve Notes -- in whatever limited manner -- are you necessarily making the statement that you fully approve of the FED, central banking, and all that it entails? I say no - you can be completely against these things, and still use the 'dollar' for some things. What other choice is there? Is 'opting out' completely a viable option? Not that I can see.

By the same token, by voting, you are not necessarily advocating the legitimacy of the entire concept of 'government'. One need not _believe_ in The Most Dangerous Superstition in order to attempt to ease the concordant suffering, even if a near-negligible amount.

At this point in time, there is essentially an equivalent-to-zero chance that 'government' of the form currently practiced in the USA will be cast off. Some day, perhaps. But the near future? Absolutely not.

In the meantime, voting is the _only_ mechanism we have to exert any influence whatsoever over the system.

OP's got some good thoughts on this 'industry'....wow.

While I do not consider this a deliberate logical fallacy, I think you are conflating two different things. And that is apparent in your own words. As you noted, we have almost no choice in the use of the fiat currency. The overlords have decreed it legal currency, and for the most part you cannot legally refuse dollars. A lack of choice is not an endorsement. In truth, I'd rather not sleep, as it interrupts my busy life. But I must, or I will eventually die.

The franchise, by contrast, is directly participating in the system, not merely being subject to it. It is a claim on the right of accession, and by implication (and stated law) a promist to abide by the decision. this would be true even if the money were gold or other things like blockchain based coins that they could not control. It is by the very act of voting an endorsement of the system if not the outcome. If the system could be reformed (I would argue that it works precisely as intended), then this might be valid. But in the actual facts that we must live with, you actually have NO say in the policy, NO say in the choices presented, nor in the most hyped election, NO say in the outcome. In the presidential election, you're vote literally and legally don't count.

Participation in a rigged system will never lead to it's demise or it's reform. I completely disagree with this:
If you look to the history of the United States completely in a vacuum, without refernce to it's roots or any other nations, this still rings false. Those who have made the most impact and had the most influence never did so via the franchise, but via the pulpit. Education, Indoctrination, rallies, leaflets, pamphlets, Youtube videos, always taking a public stand against what you're opposed to ,and more importantly FOR what you believe in. These things wil gain far more traction on anything you have to say or want to change than changing the face of your kings.

This is a democracy. It was once a republic, but that was fatally shot with the 17th amendment. The loudest and most persuasive voices sway the mob, and that is where change occurs. Not the franchise itself, but CONTROL of those votes. This is the currency of the "elite" and why they truly don't care about the fate of the dollar so long as they control the electorate.

Principled resistance, and gathering sufficient numbers to sufficiently resist the edicts spewing from the legislature is far more effective. And it does not lead you to look like a hypocrite, even when you are not intentionally being one. Thus the last time I voted (I once believed as you) was in 2000. I will never do so again, but I will continue to do anything I can within and without the framework of their paradigm to subvert and trivialize their involvement. The emperor has no clothes but those he stole. But he also stole all the money, and claims all the power. This cannot be allowed to go unchallenged, and you cannot challenge it by participating in a farcical ritual designed to keep you quiet.

And as long as I am within the geographical confines of 'The United States' (or any other governmental construct for that matter), I am subject to their edicts. Again, no choice.


What 'franchise' are you talking about here? I am unaware of any stated law that states 'if one votes, one promises to abide by the decision', and if you don't vote, then you need not abide. Can you cite it for me? Indeed, the enforcers will enforce without even considering whether or not you voted - it matters not to them. I certainly deny that there is any such implication. You may believe that there is, which says something about what _you_ think it implies. You are not able to enforce your opinions upon me.


Your statement that the very act of voting is an endorsement is an unsupported assertion. I disagree. Again - show me something authoritative that states such.


Sorry. False. Don't misunderstand - I am directly aware of electoral fraud, and am convinced that it is way more extensive than reported. But there are elections, and to the greater extent, they do reflect the will of the voters. More germane, however, most elections have a choice which is less bad than the others. While some may say 'the lesser of two evils is still evil', not voting certainly does absolutely nothing to eliminate -- nor even reduce -- the evil. Further, the selection thereof can make a measurable difference in quality of life.


By and large, the members of the electoral college respect the will of the voters whom they each represent. So as a practical matter, I would term your 'literally' assertion as false. Further, most states bind their delegates -- by law -- to vote according to the will as expressed by the general election. So your 'legally' assertion seems also on loose soil.


You are correct. It is not the only mechanism.


So are you asserting that it need be either/or, and that the two are mutually exclusive? I think many would find Martin Luther King Jr as an example of someone who did much outside the system in order to reform it. Voter.


This may be true. I must say however that the track record isn't very good. Either there has not been enough generations born and buried since the internet gave the power of the press to each of us, or we need to change tactics, or _something_. The US has been sliding ever-further into tyranny each passing year despite more people discussing more injustice. Yes, I realize this example could also be used to point to the failure of the idea of voting.

And I am involved with all of the above. As an additional increment, I vote.


Can you explain to me exactly what you mean by control of the votes? I know something of the processes and procedures by which at least one of our major political parties operates. But I am unaware of any such control - at least in any manner that seems consistent with the context of your statement.


I don't mind appearing a hypocrite to people I believe are acting the fool. Probably not any more than you may be concerned appearing a fool to those you think are being hypocrites.


'This farcical ritual' does nothing to keep me quiet. Again, you seem to be seeing this as an either/or, mutually-exclusive mode of operation. It is not.

@ jbreher, I currently don't have time to answer point by point (and I will even concede a couple of yours when I get back to it) but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring this. I'll get back to you, in detail, as soon as I'm able. This has gotten rather involved, and I cannot properly answer you without going even more in depth.

I must say you debate quite well. I'm not easily impressed :D

Not a problem. I've been around, and will continue to be. We can pick it up when you have time. I'll be going off-grid in a couple days myself, but will return about 10 days later.


Thanks. Tip o' the hat to you as well.

Though I guess I'm most interested in defending my position, rather than to change your mind or anything. After all, I'd hate to be continue to be viewed as a hypocrite ;)

LOL. The law of unintended consequence. I meant it as an example. Have fun off grid. You'll come back to a detailed response. I think we may have gone off topic, so if it gets as long as I suspect, I'll start a new thread and PM you. I did not mean to paint you as a hypocrite, just that it can appear so if one is not rather careful of their actions.

I intend to at least try to persuade you, or others. It's what I do. My tagline, Anarchy is not chaos, is much more than a slogan to me. I'm relatively new to cryptos, but I've been an anarchist for a long while. I can back my position, and will enjoy the opportunity. Whether I convince you or not? Well, that's the question, isn't it?

Have a good day.

Love it, will add to the the addendum

cryptofiat... I must say it does make me chuckle.

It's like constructing the ultimate massive safe matrix out of 6 inch hardened steel plate, each user has their own little safe cell and key, a tremendous feat of engineering! And then someone ( a banker of course ) has the smart idea of putting a little hinged wooden back door in each safe cell that get's locked with a bike combination lock, you gotta laugh! :D

That's what the people would be doing... entrusting their labor, their resources and their time, to a few that knew the combo.

Of course it would be trivial to crack the combos or break the little wooden doors, that is if you could gain access to the back of the safe past the armed guard needed to watch over such shitty locks.

To those that understand what money is: cryptofiat is as useful as a crotchless chastity belt, some fuckery is going to go on... GUARANTEED!

The vast majority do not understand what money is. You can see that in a five page slice of any internet forum dealing with anything remotely related to commerce. This is deliberate social engineering that has become progressively more aggressive since 1913, and will continue apace until either broken or replaced with another form of money. Crypto has the potential to be that, but it also has the potential to be subjugated. Never underestimate the power of manipulation by rulers, and more importantly, never underestimate their ability to harness the power of millions of stupid people.

Precisely. And by extrapolation, money is any generally accepted commodity that can be traded for services. Note that I said generally accepted, as opposed to universally accepted or forced to be accepted. Desirability has to exist either for it's ability to be traded, or a desire for the commodity itself. "Legal Tender" doesn't qualify, as it's declared to be of value by central banks and it's use enforced by, ultimately, the point of a gun.

However, it is in the interest of those who rule to APPEAR to be angels, not devils. Thus they try (and often succeed) to make the "legal tender" real money in the eyes of the masses. This allows them to pull off all sorts of legerdemain, from uncontrolled inflationary policies to outright theft (eg. Quantative easing and the theft of all gold bullion in 1937).

Banks have been complicit in this as it has served to enrich them and make them invaluable to the brokers of power. Banking in itself is both desirable and necessary to any sort of widespread commerce. It's what they have done to debase the currency that makes them wrong, not their existence. Bankers, like politicians, can read the writing on the wall, and Bitcoin and it's successors scares them. They are smarter than most politicians, and will try to control this new currrency rather than fight it openly. If they play it right, the populace will see them as heroes.

So we find ourselves living in an idiocracy, great ::)

Bitcoin serves every purpose needed for a global trade currency, but it seems only a few people realize that.

The powers that be will always say inflation/deflation controls are needed, of course they are not, the free market will run just fine on a finely divisible secure money like bitcoin, just as it did on gold in the past.

I suspect that a fractional reserve system on top of bitcoin may happen before a full fiat. Bretton woods with bitcoin. A stepping stone move if you will.

If that's the case then I just hope regular people will still be allowed to transact with the raw blockchain if they wish.

Thinking about it... how come nobody has developed a fractional reserve layer over bitcoin yet? Like pirate40s scheme only not centralized, but P2P.  Oh wait I just worked it out... because the "available funds" in each account would have to be honest, i.e. only 10% of what you deposited in there, the rest being tied up in loans to others that may or may not be paid back in the future, nah that wouldn't fly without centralized regulation by a large org with a good militia. ho hum.

A young "industry" idealist or a very young wiz developer. Anyway, I wish you good luck on this and keep the fire burning!

You write this, but then you write this...


Slavery is not going to end any time soon, said the chained African slave, so in the meantime, voting for Mr Jones or Mr Jacobstein is the _only_ mechanism we have to exert any influence whatsoever over the system.

The problem is not the "power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us". The problem is you paying attention to them and believing that they have any power over you whatsoever.

You are completely missing the point of how change works. You don't influence or reform or fix or patch or improve the existing system (i.e. people's belief systems). You build something new that replaces the old as it dies by its own weight. See the Soviet Union. Would you remain on the Titanic rearranging furniture to one side of the deck hoping that it won't sink? Or would you jump on the decentralized boats? ;)


I guess then I just wasted 10 minutes.

I have already conceded that voting is not actually the only mechanism. But I fail to detect your point. What are you getting at?


But they do have power over us. Legitimate or not (I'm going with not). Stop following their edicts, and they put you in a cage- end of story. Of course I think you would likely agree that this is the case. I again fail to see your point.


Says you. I say you are wrong about this. You seem to have read right over the point where I indicated that voting is most certainly not the only thing -- nay, not even the most significant thing -- I am doing in order to bring about change. It is an additional thing I am doing on the margin.

In what way does my voting prevent any other mechanism for bringing about change? In no way. Period.

Go ahead and think yourself superior for avoiding the ballot. Maybe you even think that refraining from voting is somehow, in and of itself, bringing about the change you want to see. If so, I think you're being delusional.


You spend your time however you want. Can't put that responsibility on me.

It'd be spectacular to see the term "Crytpofiat" become mainstream and "mean something" to the world one day!

Call to arms.

mmmmhhhhhhhmmm of course you are ;)

The OP is nuts and has a nasty reputation of being behind "experiment" Altcoins considered a scam.. to make money.. blatantly.
so what he went on to say is funny to say the least LOL

check post history.. he thinks you guys will not know in this section of the forum about his antics (or Mr Monero King's antics) and he/they wants credibility.

be careful about falling for the multiple accounts game guys.. and they can make *more money with a shiny great rep with Altcoins too ;)
the reptiela guy told me he made $3,000 from people on a forum game in the altcoin section by posting comments LOL
they came and they want money period.
don't be a fool !

lol.. I will never use fiat. Ever.

@jbreher, I still haven't gotten to my dissertation here. Sorry, work has been crazy. I can dash off stuff from the top of my head, but that's really not sufficient to our debate. I haven't forgotten :D

You legitimize the system of control that you say you don't like, thus giving your consent to the idea that other people have the right to rule over you. Allow George Carlin to humorously explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efKguI0NFek


No one is superior to anyone else; we are all literally one, experiencing oneself from different points of view. If a group calling itself the mafia told you that you have to choose one gang or another and they held "elections", would you feel that by participating in their sham you are somehow contributing to positive change, just a little bit? The act of participating is what creates the illusion of legitimacy.


The point is that if you're here to defend a position, you're approaching the idea of truth and knowledge, and the discovery of such, from a perspective of ego (attachment to beliefs) rather than an open-minded persepective.

Nice cliff notes :D I'm still working on the big hammer to back this very position.

On a semi related note, George Carlin, may he rest in well deserved peace, will be seen by history as one of the greatest philosphers, not a comedian. And it will amuse him if there's an after life.

Such is your claim. Now substantiate it.

That's what I did...

You consider that as substantiating your claim? Good thing you're not a lawyer.

Firstly, it is merely an unsupported assertion. Secondly, an 'illusion' says more about the party whom is looking upon the situation than it says about the party being observed.

All you are substantiating here is that your ability to reason has been overridden by your preconceived biases.

I take the same position as btcusury, as you already know, and I have to agree with your assessment. Btcusury, and anyone else debating something of substance, I highly recommend the following site: Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html) . It will sharpen your wit, and help you to avoid obvious fallacies (or at least construct them in such a way as to entrap the unwary, such as strawmen).

In the past, I did find references where it had been determined that participating in an elective system binds you to the outcome regardless of whether you agree to it. My time has been severely truncated for the time being, so I cannot make that argument with reference at this time. I'll find my old sources eventually.

However, as my basal argument, I would have to say that by participating in the system, you at least agree that it has utility, and that it's outcome is influenced by your desires. Would you agree thus far?

"
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"  - Shakespeare

I do believe that the outcome is influenced by my participation, and that my participation thereby has some marginal utility, yes.

nobody is going to buy cryptofiat because they will launch it according to their wishes and rules and that can't compete with the standards that the crypto of these days has set. I don't think 'cryptofiat' will make btc irrelevant because nobody would like to use it. People will still prefer to hold other crypto. Cryptofiat will only be used to facilitate certain transactions. It would be nothing people will want to hold for longer than they have to.

It is not very common however there are people who are not affiliated with either political parties elected to public office and once elected, a member of public office do not always need to vote on party lines

What "obvious" logical fallacy or fallacies did I commit?

jbreher recognizes that he is voting for one or another of the "power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us", yet doesn't see how it is that by participating in the "elections" sham these "power-mad psychopaths" and the "news" media create he is contributing to the legitimization of the belief in what he recognizes as "The Most Dangerous Superstition", i.e. the belief in authority. If this logic seems unclear or fallacious to you, I'd suggest you haven't done enough research.


You seem as confused as jbreher... I mean, "references where it had been determined"? Determined by whom? An "authority" other than yourself? Perhaps these will help:

Voting Is An Act of Violence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etFVtckQNmU)
Ya Gotta Vote! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAJCFfVAdUg)
Message to the Voting Cattle - Larken Rose (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5FNDRgPOLs)

Sorry, it was from earlier in the thread. I have seen court cases where it was determined AS CASE LAW that a vote is binding upon the voter. I said so, which is an unsupported assertion. I'm not confused, I'm without a lot of time. I post on here in between working or while waiting for things to compile. I promised him I'd go more in depth, and I will. But my time is very limited. I'll check your links (Larken Rose has already come up: I'm a fan ) when I get a few minutes.

The logical fallacies link was more aimed at getting you (and several others who have, frankly, hit every mark) to sharpen up their arguments. I use that link whenever I'm constructing a serious argument. I ask myself what an opponent would call me on, and see if I have made an argument that will withstand the accusation.

THIS IS WHY I MINE!!!

I mine to ensure I can cast a vote when the powers that be attempt to take over bitcoin to control the population. 

The ability to black list wallets, coins, etc is very possible if BTC is controlled  by several govs.  If they get the hashing power it's over for us, MINE FOR FREEDOM!

Great article, do you think a country like America would want to introduce a international fiat currency? With USD being the benchmark in most countries i imagine they would want the same with their own crypto.

Well, I don't know how this might be classified as a logical fallacy, but you made a bald assertion, unsupported, and presented it as settled fact. You followed that by presenting the impression that my actions engendered in your mind as another matter of settled fact.


Not quite accurate. I am voting against the more egregious options.


Again, no. I am not contributing to any legitimization of any such belief. The cold stark reality is that, for the foreseeable future, there will be overlords. Refraining from voting will do absolutely nothing to change this.

I can accept as a matter of faith that the reason you refrain from voting is that you believe it somehow advances the cause of liberty. I think you are wrong, but I can accept that as a motivating factor. However, you know who else refrains from voting? The disillusioned. The apathetic. The lazy. In refraining from voting, your actions in this regard are in effect, and in fact, indistinguishable from these classes. Yes, I realize that my act of voting is indistinguishable from that of power mad collectivists as well. But my point is that refraining from voting accomplishes exactly nothing. For you to assert that it is somehow superior seems silly to me.


Perhaps you missed upthred where I have had this discussion face-to-face with Larken, and we both walked away with a begrudging assent that our respective positions were defensible. If you really want to debate this, I'm not going to do it through proxy to YouTube.

But you know what I find funny? Each of us are expending energy -- trying to show each other the error in each others' ways. Despite the fact that we likely agree largely with each other on the important underlying issues. I've already sunk more effort into this stupid thread than my act of informed voting consumed. Would our time not be better spent actually out amongst the masses, telling them about the evils of 'authority'?

Alright, I see where our understanding departs. I don't agree at all that that is "the cold stark reality". You will have overlords only as long as you are of that vibration.


Refraining from voting "accomplishes exactly nothing" in terms of affecting the existing system that you don't like. And this is the illusion you are choosing to buy into. What advances the cause of liberty is discovering who and what you (we) are. Seek the answers to be big questions.


As you can see in his videos, Larken doesn't agree with the idea that your position is actually defensible, because by voting you are contributing (however insignificantly) to the enslavement of human beings by means of fear and violence.


We don't currently agree with each other on the (most) important underlying issues. Though you see a major aspect of the big picture of the problem, it is not until one understands the true nature of change that any major positive change will happen in one's reality. Simply put, the more you pay attention to the system you don't like (even to the degree of participating in it), the more you'll get of that, because the universe does not understand like/dislike, only likeness.

I guess governments don't agree with that definition. They just agree with the public ledger bit.

"Of that vibration"? Can we perhaps stay rational? You are talking like an emotion-dominated, ganja-drenched hippie.

Running with this image, let us posit that you engage in a perfectly moral, consensual, yet frowned-upon activity -- perhaps partaking of the ganja in a locale where this is verboten -- in the presence of the overlords' enforcers. No matter what frequency you believe yourself to be vibrating at, chances are very good that you would be put in a cage. Ergo, you have overlords. That is indeed the cold stark reality.

If you want to get mealy-mouthed about the definition of 'overlords', then fine. I'll just change my term to your accepted one for such a concept.


No journey of self discovery is going to change the behavior of the overlords, ergo will do nothing to advance the cause of liberty.


I did not say that he agreed with my idea, my claim was that he accepted that my position was defensible. Now obviously I don't know what was happening inside his head. But I certainly came away with that impression.

I was there, and unless you are Larken, my son, or one of about three other people, you were not. I don't think you are Larken. His arguments start with clearly delineated axioms, and proceed rationally from those. You 'argument' here has so far consisted of nothing but unsupported assertions.


Perhaps you can clearly state, then, what you believe to be the most important underlying issues. For it seems to me that the single topic we are discussing is whether or not it is evil to engage in the act of voting. Which is, in truth, a relatively trivial thing in my mind.


There you go with trippy-talk again. I have seen exactly zero evidence that the universe is a conscious entity. It seems clear to me that no matter how much internal thinking, hoping, and wishing you do, unless you follow that with concrete action, nothing in the external universe is going to change as a result.

good insight, but i think the gov would oppose it cause it is decentralized. they don't like this way.

The gov would love it because it IS centralized.

Fiat has to be centralized, do you really think a coin would work if in the wallet there was a button labelled "Mint Coin Now" you would trust all users to use the button with restraint? :D

like -rgedit setgenerate true 1 (evil grin)

Some of us call that button, the right clicky thingy on your mouse. COPY + PASTE = crypto fiat shitcoin  :/

Look at how the private/fiat banks got their start during the late 1700 and 1800s. Now look at our current state of crypto affairs.

Do you see a difference ? I don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IJeemTQ7Vk&list=UU7TvL4GlQyMBLlUsTrN_C4Q

Ha ha,

At least we know gov (aka banks, yes they're now one and the same) would use POW for fiat shit coin mining.

where POW == Proof of Weapons!

https://www.google.ru/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QyCkwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbE_1tCasi_Q&ei=Q91qVL6aJ4L7ywPusYLAAg&usg=AFQjCNEqJ4iow9v_WHg9mCS7jAcFlX7JrA&sig2=_POKcRy7KEi1FWJkBdLydQ&bvm=bv.79908130,d.bGQ (https://www.google.ru/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QyCkwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbE_1tCasi_Q&ei=Q91qVL6aJ4L7ywPusYLAAg&usg=AFQjCNEqJ4iow9v_WHg9mCS7jAcFlX7JrA&sig2=_POKcRy7KEi1FWJkBdLydQ&bvm=bv.79908130,d.bGQ)

Is cryptofiat coming to Ecuador? Technically, no. Functionally, looks fairly close: Ecuador embraces electronic money, misses the whole point (http://cointelegraph.com/news/112147/ecuador-embraces-electronic-money-misses-the-whole-point).

I wonder if having a blockchain being digitally signed by a central authority (scrapping out the 51% requirement) would create something like "cryptofiat".

I failt to see why they would do this, but this is secondary. If a governement cannot intervene on transactions, I think it would not qualfy as cryptofiat.

On a related note, I suggest reading The Stateless Currency and the State: An Examination of the Feasibility of a State Attack on Bitcoin (http://randomwalker.info/teaching/spring-2014-privacy-technologies/state-attack.pdf). It is damn interesting.
And also State-sponsored cryptocurrencies (https://miki.it/blog/2014/11/1/its-just-a-game-handful-of-scenarios-in-the-bitcoin-world/)

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q3digitalcurrenciesbitcoin1.pdf, page 3


This is the Bank of England which writes this

It's coming: China to consider a "chinacoin" (https://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbc.gov.cn%2Fgoutongjiaoliu%2F113456%2F113469%2F3008070%2Findex.html). The wayI see it, it would be a PoS.

The have cryptofiat....? I thought crypto was just code and whatnot, and then Fiat would be physical money. I don't know.


In any case, cryptocurrencies are doing just fine on their own. No need to cause hype over a nonexistent topic.

With the current fiat system the government can not only monitor the flow of money but they do not necessarily need to tell a suspect of a crime the extent of the evidence against him (or what the government may be able to uncover in the future) which would give a suspect an incentive to confess if they have committed a financial crime. Bitcoin takes that possibility and this is really an important thing to be considered.