Bitcoin Forum

Hi Bitcoiners,

At some point in the not too distant future, the government of the United States will figure out that Bitcoin is a very high risk to its Hedgmony. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony), Alan Greenspan loved this word.) The United States will make cryto-currency illegal because it will threaten the government's form of money (Federal Reserve Notes). Something similar happened on April 5, 1933 with Executive Order 6102. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102)). History tends to repeat itself.

Those who disobey the upcoming Executive Order or new law will learn what truly backs a Federal Reserve Note, that is, the force of its military and growing internal police state.

What is the solution to prevent the United States government from implementing such an action against cryto-currency?

buy some lobbyists with Bitcoins :)

This might slow down Bitcoin, but it wouldn't stop it.

Military grade cryptography changes the rules of the game forever, just as nuclear weapons did, though in a completely peaceful way. It exists, there are open source implementations in the hands of the public, it cannot be uninvented, and it has many legitimate purposes. It leaves society with a stark choice: either we allow it, in which case its tremendous power has far-reaching consequences, both good and bad, or we try to suppress it, in which case we need draconian measures and will likely at most succeed in taking it away from honourable citizens rather than criminals, who will not be deterred. Radical liberty or tyranny. There are of course less dramatic compromises in between, but I think we'll find that the power of cryptography makes these compromises unenforceable.

See: Untraceable Digital Cash, Information Markets, and BlackNet (http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/tcmay.htm)

To get it widely accepted outside of the US first might slow them down. Sadly this leaves the problem with the other governments.

I gotta admit that I wear the same tinfoil hat as you seem to, and in the security work I've done, I've kind of trained myself to assume the worst case scenarios.

Although it does not seem to be the consensus...at least on bitcointalk.org...I personally doubt that the policy makers in our government are stupid.  They may have been and still be a bit ignorant about distributed crypto-currencies, but then again, so is everyone at this point.

I strongly suspect that the decisions about if/how/when to crack down on Bitcoin will be made with a decent amount of care in predicting the likely outcomes.  If a course of action is counter-productive (e.g., it chases the solution underground where it is more difficult to monitor) then it probably won't be taken.  A similar example would be to fragment things into a myriad of similar but smaller solutions.

This leads me to be strongly of the opinion that a durable distributed crypto-currency should do everything in it's power to retain a position of strength.  This means to actively develop around attack vectors which are not currently presented.  A sub-set of this is to remain jelously 'peer2peer' and to actively foster similar, and even 'competing' systems such that it would be less likely to successfully attack at one point.

If Bitcoin is on a trajectory which will make it easier to attack as time goes by, the wise course of action from the point of view of an attacker would be to sit on his hands.  Similarly, if there are 'upsides' (e.g., participant identification / honeypot effect) it also may make sense to bid one's time.  I would not rule out the possibility that both of these things are a factor right now.

---

Oh ya, that reminds me...I still have an open question for the Bitcoin Foundation:

 - What will you do if the regulators 'just say no' no matter how unfair/unjust/wrong it may be?

There are legitimate reasons to keep the answer something of a secret, but I think that the benefit of openness here will be cause more good than harm and is something which is worthwhile for the community to know.

I simply lose the investment i totally can sleep at night without. srry. my bad

Well said.


I think we're still at a stage before that. Governments and banks don't really understand Bitcoin just yet, and they are only barely aware of its existence. I don't think it strikes them as something that needs their urgent attention just yet. They see it as a fad, and as a toy for nerds that is too complicated for the general public. This will obviously change, but for now we still have time to make preparations. And of course, Satoshi - whoever he was - was already making preparations right from the beginning.

BTCUSD probably will double/triple after the initial shock.

I hope you are right.  I suspect that the last run-up was a notable wake-up call, and things are not so complex that it would take a long time to get up to speed.  Most people do, intuitively, recognize Bitcoin as subversive and as something of a threat from an early phase of their understanding in my experience even if only semi-consciously or in ways that they cannot quite put their finger on.  Of course to some people that is good and to others it is bad.  The former tend to become the enthusiasts.

I also believe that there is probably a good deal more capture, storage, and analysis of what happens on the network than a lot of people realize.  Bitcoin was probably on the radar enough to give this traffic special treatment from fairly early on.

Lastly, a possible 'attack' might be to simply leave Bitcoin alone and let it blow itself up.  It lack of scalability is a remarkable Achilles heal, imho, and if I were tasked to destroy Bitcoin, I may actually approach the problem by adding growth hormone...if that were even necessary in order to achieve the desired effect.  The trouble is that there will likely be follow-ons which learn from Bitcoin's mistakes.  But there will be anyway no matter what.

We will eat cake.

Prison rape. Lots and lots of prison rape.

The cake is a lie.

I've seen this question a lot over the past two years and I've come to the conclusion that the asker still hasn't grasped the concept of crypto currency.

nothing really, if satoshi thought things through... if all those businesses and exchanges were government burn bitcoin fronts, and ripple turned out to be a scam they still have 150,000,000,000,000 satoshis... I think that is more than enough to run the world economy on any given day.

and like a previous poster said, you really do not understand what Bitcoin has just done.

It is really insane, a freggin blockchain man! it holds the record of all history and makes it impossible to alter with current technology, there are people who are making messaging services out of it, creating money laundry services on it, fact check systems to prove when something was done and so much more.

did you know A.Is can use bitcoins to make purchases... that blows my mind! a sentient program can own property!

But staying on track, yeah this thing would be a serious hassle to get that Genie back in the bottle.

and I don't think they want to, think about it... why are they cracking down on exchanges? the information they get combined with the blockchain is the largest repository of economic data ever conceived.   Every single transaction in the bitcoin economy can be accurately and decisively known by anyone; The FBI have no clue what they are talking about, not being able to track terrorists? my God! once spotted they'll know exactly how much money they have!

I laugh at them while they suck my dick?

Does this potential outcome excite you? Will you be the rapist? Are you sure your handle properly represents your current position?

Come on, admit you're a prison guard.

I suspect that it would have about as much long term effect as them trying to "shut down" the internet. They are too dependent on the same technologies to actively suppress it. Sure, you COULD shut down the internet by jamming the airwaves from about 100 meters down to .0001 millimeters, but that would shut down ALL communications. And somebody would figure out how to jam the jamming...

Short term? The value of the Bitcoin would go psycho. And it just MIGHT trigger a long needed revolution.

To say they are barely aware is wrong.  When fitting my tin foil hat into this mix. I have to be the one to pull the "they will scare people into dislikeing it" card.  Right now as I see it in a very short time bitcoin has beaten the US dollar,  euro and every other currency systen out there.  1 usd fr example isn't even worth the paper it's printed on.  But 1 bitcoin is worth a little over 100 of those worthless dollars.

They can't really stop you from accepting it as currency if so they would need to go after folks that work for a case of beer.  Or fixssomeones shitter for a lawn mower engine repair etc.  In theory strength in being able to do labor is currency one can without fail work within his means for food.

So to what end does the line actually draw?  I believe like many it will buckle up and go for a huge ride with the children.  Btc makes it way easy for a person to hide his actions.  Individuals under the age of 18 do have the right to make money however they do not have the right to spend that money in most cases the same way an adult does. 

Most people accepting btc do not ask for someones age or proof of age.  It's easy to access paid porno,  gamble,  purchase bootleg booze tobacco and hell as we all know contraband.  These are the facts of life that exist with every currency yes.  But BTC is the new kid in town.  So it's nitpicked a hell of a lot more then what is dubbed "safe".

They will over look the give and take.  Such in example as pulling btc out to the central banks to buy products from eBay, amazon etc. And hell even pay on a water bill or car loan.  Instead like said they will look at that percent of people who are fucking up and getting caught only to blame bitcoin for enableing them to preform the action to begin with.

It's very much like what happend to midway when they released mortal kombat.  It was all well and fine til little Johnny tried to pull his sisters spine out of her asshole. Now we have the ESRB as a reward for Johnny inability to handle his mental health and his parents inability to be self aware of what was fact and fiction

The government is powerful, but it is also simultaneously fat, lazy, and ponderous.  Our opponent is not so much James Bond as it is Barney Fife or Sergeant Schultz.

Bitcoin dealers are required to register as financial institutions.  We must adapt to that reality.  We can adapt better than they can.

 A lot of VCs like the Winklevoss twins will sue and overturn it.

I maintain that bitcoin will be banned and the price of it will tank when all the statist pussies wet their panties and bail.  It will continue to be useful for the third worlders and the outlaws, so it won't go away.

Something may happen before this, though, and that is the blockchain forks, one going toward the regulation trap that the VC money is pushing and the other going toward greater anonymity that the outlaws want.  If the corporate bitcoin skyrockets in value I am sad because the people have sold out for cash.  But if the outlaw bitcoin rises in value I am happy because it says the people have had enough of financial "hegemony".

But the cat is out of the bag on this one.  Crypto-currencies are here to stay.  The war is on and humanity has finally responded.

@SEC agent - you do understand your George Washington quote offers a libertarian endorsement don't you? It's saying ordinary people should be involved in defending a free government. Bitcoin represents the interests of ordinary people and liberty. So....

Its more than that, it is your duty as a citizen to not only pay taxes to your government, but also to serve and defend it. 

The "Crypto-Camps" have already been built for the reprogramming operation. They have not included Internet access for the patients.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcQ7mLoFro4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcQ7mLoFro4) 2 minutes 53 seconds

I agree. But I think you're misunderstanding what that means.

Libertarians are not against paying taxes. They are however against being forced to pay unconstitutional taxes. Bitcoin can be taxed, just as an economy that runs on gold can.

Defending a free government doesn't mean you must enlist in the military, because a government might only be free in appearance.

Rather, truly defending a free government means being involved politically and if necessary militarily to ensure your government remains free. The arbiter of that is the U.S. Constitution. Wouldn't you agree?

Do you actually have any evidence there are such mysterious objects in this universe as citizens?

Do me a favour and tell what a citizen is factually.

One can only be as free as one is able to assert their right to choose for themselves.  i do not defend nations I defend the right of my fellow citizens to earn a living, be safe in their own homes, this I can only do for myself by free choice and the actions I take to defend what I believe in.

I agree, I don't believe that military or other government work is the only way to serve and defend your country.  I also believe that this (duty to your country and government) is a political viewpoint that can and should be shared across all political parties, not just Libertarians.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/citizen

I'm really not going to put any more effort than that into this discussion with you (because judging from our past discussions, you are just going to go off on some silly tangent about how words have no meaning).    

There are four different conflicting definitions in this link. You clearly cannot use conflicting terms. Do me a favour and tell what a citizen is factually. or in what meaning you are using the term ''citizen''.

Amen to that! It sounds like you're ready to become a bitcoin user ;)

Nice to see you again after all these years.

I maintain that Bitcoin will become so centralized, monitored, and controlled (with taint and such) that it will put any current options we have to shame in this regard.  And that Libertarians will be to stupid to notice.

Don't be a pussy and tell me what a citizen is. I am starting to think you are just throwing words without understanding their meaning.

Don't be a pussy - this guy will pay you $25,000 (ongoing contest) if you can provide a single evidence there is at least one citizen on this planet http://marcstevens.net/

For you entertainment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9-eImAWCqw

I have no problem with the bitcoin project in and of itself; and as a proof of concept, it is actually pretty interesting.  

That said, I wont be using bitcoins anytime soon.

Fair enough.

You have a political quote, and hanging around this place it's easy to get the feeling all Bitcoin enthusiasts are anti-government.

It's not that. Bitcoin enthusiasts, which are often libertarian, are not necessarily anti-government/anti-taxes. They just want a government that plays by the rules, and the one thing all Americans should agree on is Constitutional rules are the ones which ultimately matter.

Why is it anyone's duty, because some bureaucrat wrote is down on a piece of paper a few centuries ago?

I can only speak for myself but my duty is to uphold my own moral values and dignity, regardless of the personalities. I say getting on your knees to do your duties is rape and you are the victim, unless of course you enjoy it.

In a state with as high a GINI index as the US or China, the terms 'patriot' and 'chump' are pretty interchangeable.

Likewise for anyone who thinks that the US constitution has a lot of meaning in 2013.  Especially if/when the shit hits the fan.

'Duty' is a legal term - whatever your own beliefs its your duty to pay taxes and if you evade taxes, you eventually will end up in jail.  

Out of curiosity, what is it with libertarians and rape?  Everything they dislike is akin to rape.  

owenprescott, it appears you're from the U.K. You do realize you're commenting on an American political discussion.

I agree with that, but would add the caveat that the Constitution is a living document, and the rules within changes and grows with our society.

Nonsense. The rules don't change.

If they do then what's the use of having rules in the first place?

You abide by the rules, and if you need the rules to change there is a constitutional process for doing that called amending the Constitution. What's so hard to understand about that?

I would like to know how they would actually do this.
IMHO an outright ban would be ineffective and just draw more attention to cryptocurrencies.

"[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things.... "
Justice Antonin Scalia

Interpretations change.  Segregation was unconstitutional in the 1870s, it was constitutional in the 1890s and then unconstitutional again in the 1950s.

I've notice that about the term 'violence' as well.

My theory is that a Libertarian is an Anarchist who got picked on in school.  Perhaps they got goosed a lot.

Sure they do, that's why we have Constitutional Amendments.

That's why you use a constructionist reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

That's what I said in my reply, but let me reword it for clarity:

The rules don't change except with Constitutional amendment.

Then we agree completely.

I'm not certain. As I mention above I also believe in a constructionist reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

I used the term rape in reference to the posters statement of getting raped in prison. Also I am not a libertarian (assuming the sentence is directed towards me) lol.

I agree.  But if the choice is between a bad law and a generous interpretation, judges often go for the generous interpretation. 

I agree, but that's why you try to write laws clearly, and why it's up to citizens, as always, to have final oversight.

Comrades, what would you say if someone build the constitution of a nation into a program? A program so effectively constructed that by merely using it you are agreeing to it's terms of use, any attempts at hacking it would merely be patched.

I'm going around the issue a little bit, but isn't Bitcoin a system akin to A Democracies Constitution?

We have a protocol, the Constitution, it is freely available as Open Source.
We engage in it's use every time we interact with each other.
If deprived of it's terms of use, there are others that can bridge the gap to repair the damage done.

so... are we noticing a network breach of protocol if they try to ban something that is a expression of ones freedom of expression? or is it a flaw in the protocol that allows you to say what you want... but not to do what you want. freedom of speech is not freedom of action.

Again with the "living document" horseshit.

No. It. Is. Not.

It's at best a contract, and a contract CANNOT be unilaterally altered. It has within it provisions for making a change. Those provisions DELIBERATELY make it very difficult to change. You and your heroes in Washington have made a mockery of that. As Spooner said, If the constitution does not PREVENT the sort of government we have, OR if it ALLOWS the government we have, then it is unfit to exist.

If it can be changed by the will of the government, or ignored at their will, then it is, as GWB, just a goddamned piece of paper.

Jefferson was wrong. Evil is NOT necessary. Further, enshrining it as something sacred and giving it power and legitimacy is just plain stupid,

The constitution is difficult to change, but it can change (there have been 27 amendments), and those changes are a reflection of our societies views at that point in history.  

How exactly is that not a living document?

Surely it's not possible to ban them as it would be tantamount to banning the Internet. U.S.A. don't really control the world anymore hahahaha  ;D

I doubt the U.S Government has the power to stop Cryptocurrencies. I also doubt that they'd try.

If they ever do, I'd laugh right in their faces.
And I think other people would also know my reason why.

It depends on what you mean by living document. If you only mean amending the Constitution yes that is constitutional, but "living document" would not be the right way to refer to this process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_document

The first part of that Wikipedia article states, "A living document or dynamic document is a document that is continually edited and updated". 

I suppose (depending on what you consider "continually") the definition may apply to the Constitution or not.  My interpretation is that since the document can (and is) updated through Ammendments, it would qualify.  That said, I see how you arrive at your interpretation as well.

The reality of the situation is that there is not one definitive answer, which is why we have the supreme court to analyze and interpret the law, and why different judges, legal scholars, and lawyers have come to conflicting conclusions about how the constitution should be interpreted.


 

I disagree. Occam's razor. The most common sense thing to any person is to read the text only for what it says.


Okay, but how many ways can you interpret the following:

No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

Reason why the U.S won't ban it:

Don't you think a Country would want to make a powerful currency? Right now BitCoin is used by millions. All from different cities, towns, states, countries, and regions. BitCoin is probably the highest cryptocurrency right now. Instead of destroying it, wouldn't you think the U.S would want to control all of it?
I doubt they'd have the guts to destroy the future currency of the world. Most likely try to control it.

IMO is obvious that sooner or later factual powers will attack Bitcoin. But banning it may very well be a short sighted and counterproductive strategy,  and they should know it.

Mid term would be more effective for them to buy as many coins as possible and then crash the market so millions of people are ruined. Sure, they would have created notable fortunes in the process, but that's just collateral damage. Most of people would just avoid to go nowhere near Bitcoin, at least for a while.

Long term, not even that kind of stunt may be enough to kill Bitcoin (or a superior decentralized crypto)

Many people would be ruined.  But huge buys would be seeb miles away in a sence.  Lots of people would cash out rather quickly with the hike.  Look what happend when it hit $250. The winners wher the ones who bounced some serious coin at that pinnacle price  I certainly bounced a fair amount.  Most didn't really give two shits.  They would hang on reguardless.  The losers however kept buying at that high rate without feeling it out.  The same thing would happen if the feds engulfed the market.

The major problem I do see.  If it was to hike up to ab insane price would these exchanges be able to pay out? Can you see btc cashing out a few million?  Not I

It has been interesting to observe the development of our thread.

My comments so far are:

1. The current US government requires the US dollar. It is necessary for its survival in its current form. Hence, Bitcoin will be made illegal soon in the United States. (With Peter Vessenes organizing a lobby, he will fuck it up. Perhaps there is a reason he will fuck it up).
2. Hemp and certain Mushrooms are illegal in most of the United States. They have been here for millions of years, Bitcoin for about 4 years.
3. The current US government is controlled by a layer above.
4. Most people who in live in the geographical area of the United States are good people. They are not the US government.

Predictions for the future:

1. People will be put in "Crytpo-Camps" for reprogramming by the US government.
2. The idea of distributed crypto-currency is out of bottle, the next stage of economic organization will take place. It will be a difficult transition.

Comment on the dork (troll) SEC Agent:

Where was the SEC for Lehman, Enron, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and AIG scams? The SEC is an unnecessary appendage of the US government.

Comment on charters:

These charters are old, they refer to god. There is no god. If god shows up with a charter then we can take a look.
There could be a new charter for the rights of people in this digital age.

Comment on countries:

There should be no countries and no world government. Let's get back to the freedom of the Magna Carta days where you could travel where you wanted without papers. But let's get rid of the Lords too.

Comment on discoveries:

Bitcoin was a wonderful discovery by Satoshi. All the pieces were there and he put them together. Let this be encouragement that there are other great discoveries that can be uncovered to free people from the Lords.

that is an AMENDED document. Under the living document argument, it means whatever the PTB say it means (read Oliver Wendell Holmes, I believe he coined the term).

Love this

If the government really wanted to get rid of Bitcoin they could take down the internet, although that is unlikely because too many businesses in this day and age rely on the internet. I think another dangerous outcome could be the investment in mining equipment. Who are the best miners? The richest people. Who is the richest entity? The government.
They could litteraly invest millions in building ASICs just to take over the network.

A citizen is an undead cartoon of a human, an enslaved payer of protection money to the state/church mafia, farmed in monogamous pairing families.

This is an opinion. I asked for facts. I wanted him to tell me what a citizen is factually.

BTW, I find your opinion on what a citizen is 99% in concordance with mine  ;D

move to a real country . . .

they never controlled the world anyways, tried to - failed miserably.

Literally, someone who lives in a city.

I mostly agree with the above opinion as well. Through no choice of my own, I am a subject of the Empire, but I refuse to bend the knee so far as to be called a citizen.

Got any candidates? (Not snark, I mean it. I hate what the USA has become. It doesn't even resemble the nation I grew up in, and I am only middle aged.)

Someone (human?) living in a city (densely populated area / building saturated area?).

Then if a human lives in a rarely populated area / building unsaturated area, such a human cannot be a citizen (therefore is not a citizen)?

Although I agree significantly, I'm not really completely convinced that the US has ever been all that angelic.  The Vietnam war and the Latin American activities which transpired during at least part of my early lifetime were pretty repulsive.  It is true, however, that the spoils of our 'activities' have been more evenly distributed in times past.  Of course that does not excuse morally wrong activities, but it does add incentive to not wish to participate.  And as sure as eggs are eggs, an increase in income gap brings with it the need for enhanced internal security apparatus.

The Assange thing knocked Sweden way down no my list of interesting options and elevated Ecuador to near the top.  As best I can tell the actual people of Ecuador themselves had some understanding of the Wikileaks/Assange details, and support their government's actions.  To me this says a lot about the people.  Like most folks though, I've mostly thought about such thing and have made little concrete action.

Well, having done both, I would almost posit that you cannot be both a citizen and a human. To live in a city requires so much loss of self/autonomy as to fundamentally alter you.

But, yes, the original meaning did exclude the rural folk. It's an old, largely useless concept, and in its modern/Roman conception, anti-human.

Agree thoroughly with the 1st paragraph. I too am old enough to remember the Southeast Asia War games. Was very young, but old enough to remember. But the domestic police state and it's broad acceptance is pretty new. Kids didn't get arrested for having a plastic steak knife or a heated argument when I was a young adult, let alone a kid. Hell, most of us brought our rifles to school on the opening day of hunting season as late as 1980 in Wyoming.

Now, SAYING that could get you arrested.

Land of the free, my Cherokee ass!

Is a ''citizen'' the same as a ''human''?

If the correct answer is ''no'', then you cannot be both a human and a citizen at the same time.

Let me give you an example: is a ''lampshade'' the same as a ''human''. If the correct answer is ''no'', then certainly you cannot be both a human and a lampshade at the same time, can you?

I would like to hear from people (i) believing they are both humans and citizens or (ii) believing a human is the same as a citizen.

Governments (Banks) cannot stop bitcoin, they are rather forced to create a cryptocurrency of their own and promote big companies to use it in their payment systems. Bitcoin will still be legal and used at independent shops and online but will never reach a massive scale since large companies like Mc Donalds, Starbucks, Amazon etc will ignore bitcoin.

The media will of course play their part to discourage a widespread bitcoin usage by talking negative about bitcoin and mentioning its usage in drug deals (the truth is USD is the biggest drug currency). Our subconscious accept opinions and lies for fact if is it is repeated many times, and that is the job of media to repeat until they have manipulated the opinions of average joe (to not use bitcoin).

Well, you already got my opinion, but just to firm it up:

No, I do not believe you can be a human and a citizen. To be a citizen is to ABDICATE individuality, which is a fundamental condition of humanity. You are either a human, or something rather less.

I'm a citizen.  I'm a human.  That means you are an idiot.

Look up non sequitur. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html) this will help you out.

The concept of Citizen, and the concept of human (beyond just a tag for the species homo sapiens) is a complex subject. My opinion, stated above, is incomplete as it must be in a short reply. Yours has no obvious thought behind it, nor even any explanation of what it means, to you, to be a citizen. The standard definitions of the word are contradictory. The most common understanding of a citizen, vs. a subject, is that you have some hand in your own governance in exchange for some loss of autonomy. In the modern world's actualities, that exchange is so uneven as to be meaningless, OBJECTIVELY.

I may be an idiot, but it certainly doesn't follow from what you posted.

Actually, it follows perfectly.  You say that a person can't be both human and a citizen.  Everyone who is both human and a citizen proves you are an idiot. 

If to be human means to be part of a hive, then I am an idiot. If to be human means to be a discrete individual with discrete motivations, then I am not. History seems to be on my side here.
Further more, ad hominem is usually used when you are unsure of or don't have a valid counterargument.

ad hominem is also used when someone says something so stupid that you have to wonder what Darwin was smoking. How does someone so deluded who thinks that the rest of humanity are idiots get to reproduce?  Is there an infinite supply of drunk sluts?

If a ''citizen'' does not equate a ''human'' than it is impossible for any object in this universe to be both a human and a citizen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a ''citizen'' equates a ''human'' than we all are both citizens and humans.

But be careful, humans have lived on this planet for at least 200 thousand years. You would need to prove that those humans were also citizens to be able to equate a ''human'' to a ''citizen''. I wish you luck in proving humans who lived on this planet 20 thousand years ago were citizens.



So far you proved yourself to be an idiot (that non-sequitur of yours).

I am a human and I am an Irish citizen.  I am proud of both aspects of my life. If you think the 2 can't be combined, you are a fool. 

Meanwhile, what's with people trying to use Latin to make stupid statements sound clever? 

Then tell me what a citizen is for christ's sake. It shouldn't be so difficult if yoy think you are one, should it?


If you can prove with facts and evidence that a human = citizen, then you will convince me. So far you only claim to be both at the same time, but this claim has not been substantiated with anything that can be rationally or empirically verified.


Why do you think people care about your loaded questions?

How stupid are you?  Of course a human != citizen.  Do you think anyone imagines slaves were citizens?

Good. I assume this exclamation (!) is for a negation.

If you are right that a human is not the same as citizen, than a human cannot be a citizen.  Just like a dog is not the same as a washing machine, therefore a dog cannot be a washing machine.

You just proved yourself not to be a citizen. Why on Earth do you keep calling yourself a citizen?

Yes, I do. In order to be a citizen, by the general meaning since AT LEAST 100 BCE, one has to give up a degree (or in the modern sense just about ALL) of their individuality and rights. To be a CITIZEN is to be a servant of the body politic. To be a SLAVE, within that reference, is to be a servant to a private individual (who it could be argued couldn't really be a citizen).

Though in this case, especially in the modern world, I think I shall defer to Lysander Spooner's definition that Slavery is that which makes a thing of a man.

As to the use of "latin phrases", we are engaging in formal debate to a loose degree, and the logical fallacies have latin labels.

We are, not very loosely, debating what it means to be human, and whether one can still claim that status and be a citizen. My argument, again loosely, is that the two cannot equate as being a citizen makes a thing(property) of a man, and is thus slavery in an "exalted" form. I freely admit that I am a subject of the empire, and thus a slave. I do NOT believe this is in any way a good or even morally defensible thing.

More wisdom in this post than in the next N pages. The original question was interesting; a flame war about the definition of citizen not so.

+ 1

In ancient Rome unfortunate humans labeled ''slaves'' were allowed to retain 10% of their income. The so called masters received 90%.

In modern times unfortunate humans labeled ''citizens'' are allowed to retain (in majority of places on Earth) 10% - 30%. The so called governments / states and other legal fictions receive 70% - 90%.

In ancient Rome the so called masters provided ''services'' to their happy slaves like, ''free'' healthcare, ''free'' water from aqueducts and most importantly they provided ''free'' education where the so called slaves were taught how good, noble and beneficial the slavery was.

In modern times the so called governments provide ''services'' to their happy slaves, pardon: their citizens, like ''free'' healthcare, ''free'' roads and most importantly they provide ''free'' education where the so called citizens are taught how good, noble and beneficial the citizenship is.

The factual difference between ancient Rome and many places now is:
- in ancient Rome the so called slaves could not choose their masters;
- at present the so called citizens can vote every few years who their masters will be.

Note, some humans in ancient Rome were very proud to be labeled ''slaves, just like now many humans are proud to be called ''citizens''.

The word ''citizen'' is a substitute for the old-fashioned ''slave''.

GOOOSES!
A libertarian is a commmon anarchist who watches fox news, has money, and is scared of stuff.
A redemopublicratian is an anarchist who doesn't read books.
A monarchist is an anarchist who likes simple structure.
A statist is an anarchist who is also a sociopath, or who doesnt read groovy books.

On topic: The government as an abstract superstructure will lay down and die like an old dog, in favor of a working, equitable series of structures sooner or later. Civil servants themselves, will adopt bitcoin, speeding this along
If it's outlawed, every non-america-victim bitcoiner becomes insanely wealthy overnight. This is pretty unlikely. A smear campaign from ingorant herpderps threatens the propagation of cryptocurrency mote than the threat of legal violence.

I think you and I are in agreement on this. Though as noted, I think we've gone significantly off topic.

I also note how you illuistrated how much more of their income the ROMAN slaves/citizens got to retain, and back somewhat on topic, The Caesars, especially later in the Roman experiment, became infamous for debasing the currency and requiring the "Citizens" to use the debased coin as if it were at full weight. Which, currently, is very difficult if not impossible for OUR Caesars to do to bitcoin, which is why it will be/is seen as a threat to their hegemony.

the answer is to let them try to stop it. they cant anyway and their attempt will show the world just how naked the emperor really is.

So we have. I just simply can't resist when a fellow human being calls himself a citizen / slave and seems to be proud of it.

You, my lovely and intelligent and correct comrade, need some better deriding slurs.
Don't get me wrong, I ignored that deluded halfass lazy troll, but in all fairness, resorting to discouragement of pussydom doesnt nearly do your argument justice.
/nitpicky form critique
Here's a good definition for citizen... the proud consumer of a police state.

Im sure this has been said before, but if cryptocurrencies are made illegal then they are dead in the water. Without the ability to switch them out for real money that are effectively worthless.

True. I called him a pussy. This is my opinion of him that he is a pussy (I can put forward convincing arguments). Although factually he is a human. He can use this thread to defend himself.


1. It is not a good definition of a citizen. It does not tell me what a citizen factually is (is it a cat, is it a dog, is it a pudding or is it a piece of paper, is it a human, is it a bicycle, is it a brick?).

2. Let me give you an example what I mean by ''factually'':
- if I want to know what your ID document factually is, I want to know it is a piece of plastic or a piece of paper; I do not want to know your or somebody's else opinion that it is / might be a proof of your ID or your age or a document allowing you to raise a loan - these are opinions / these are subjective.
- if I want to know what a constitution factually is, I want to know it is a piece of paper with ink on it; I do not want to know your or somebody's else opinion that it is / might be a supreme law of the land or a document giving you certain rights or bullshit or legal gibberish - these are opinions / these are subjective.

3. Now tell me, if you can, what a ''state'' factually is - I want to understand your definition of a citizen.

Just like the price of anything that becomes prohibited by law (and for which there still exists an enormous demand for), Bitcoin's value will skyrocket through a few thousand dollars at least. While doing business in BTC will no doubt become close to impossible in broad daylight, keep in mind that there's always Tor (however slow and tedious).

Factually, and historically provably, a State is a group of people who claim and attempt to enforce a monopoly of violence over a given territory. Statists hate that definition, but cannot FACTUALLY counter it.

Citizen is a bit more slippery. In a democracy (which in my opinion is potentially the most oppressive of all forms of tyranny), a citizen is generally a nominally human person who has the franchise.

However, in operating practice, the only place I can think of where having that franchise ACTUALLY gives an individual even a modicum of power over the ruling apparatus is Switzerland.

The term "citizen" is deliberately obfuscatory. It can mean a number of contradictory things. In it's original conception (as near as I can determine), it literally meant "city dweller" and purposely excluded the people outside the boundaries of the city state as in the case of Athens.

Back then it had significantly more impact on the individual outside of their own head. It entailed a great deal of responsibility, including being an active part in the rule of the city-state. That principle carried through somewhat to Rome, where being a citizen gave a man much more privilege and personal power than NOT having the title. It could be purchased, in fact, and often was. The cost was great, and not just in sestercii. Prior to the idea of universal suffrage, the commoner (peasant, denizen, vagabond) understood that they were subject to a ruling authority, but had no illusions as to being actually a PART of said hegemony. Democracy is a grand con game. It allows the commoner to have the illusion that they make  a difference to the State, other than as a milch cow. As Emma Goldman put it so well: If voting could make a difference they would make it illegal.

Do I correctly read your statement that ''a state'' factually is a few / many humans? More than one and less than all 7 billion? - it doesn't matter at the moment (for this exercise) what these humans do.

Surprised to read here, that there are 'Hero Members' who believe to be a human, the same time as they are enslaved and forced to pay protection money. A protection money payer who is proud to be such a citizen, can only be a mafioso, a happy slave, but never ever a human. An enslaved domestic pig is not a pig. Therefore a domestic human cannot be a human; at best a cartoon of it. As hard as it sounds: we are not humans, as long as we accept gods and rulers, and exactly that is the case since the so called neolithic revolution, the birth of the tragedy: the monogamous patriarchy (idiocy/imbecility) instead of anarchy.

Lets see.  You re-define words to mean that people who agree with you are clever and everyone else is less than human. 

Pathetic.

We are humans and have always been humans. We are beautiful creatures :)

The problem is some of us were brainwashed (since they were kids for a long period up till now) to believe some of the humans somehow are superior (and have moral right to extract money from others) because of the objects called:

- gods (although no-one ever empirically evidenced an existence of a single god - yes, there are pictures of gods, but they rather prove creativeness of painters) or

- states (although no-one ever empirically evidenced an existence of a single state - yes, there are lines on maps drawn by people called politicians, but these lines were never proved to be a reality when looking at satellite pictures)


I am even more surprised that a guy whom I labeled a ''pussy'' and the other guy labeled a ''troll'' has no courage to earn BTC 100 from me for providing an evidence he is a citizen and the so called US government regulations apply to him.

Try google. 

Try proving.

Think that though.  Not all rectangles are squares but that doesn't mean a square is not a rectangle.  Not all humans are citizens but all citizens are human.  

Prove this claim true with either rational or empirical evidence and I will pay you BTC 100.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Ahuman&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

hu·man 
/ˈ(h)yo͞omən/
Adjective
Of, relating to, or characteristic of people or human beings.
Noun
A human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.
Synonyms
adjective.     humane
noun.     man - person - human being - individual - soul - mortal

I think you will find that anyone who is a citizen meets that criterion.

Keep the money - I feel sad for you that you pretend not to know how to use Google because you don't like the search results from "define: human"

That's wrong. Domestic pigs/humans are not pigs/humans. Only free pigs/humans are real pigs and humans.

I don't want you to prove you are a human. I want you to prove you are a citizen. For proving you are a citizen, you will get:
- BTC 100 from me, and
- USD 25,000 (on-going contest) from this guy http://marcstevens.net/ you can even call him during the radio show.

Just show the evidence you are a citizen or an evidence of a state, and this money is yours.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Acitizen&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

cit·i·zen  
/ˈsitizən/
Noun

    A legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized.
    An inhabitant of a particular town or city.

Synonyms
subject - burgher - national - denizen - townsman

If you think someone will pay you for saying you are a citizen, go for it.  My bet is the guy will refuse to pay.

For future reference, if you are struggling to get the clear meaning of a word go to Google and enter "define: " and the word.  Works every time. 

It's an opinion. It doesn't tell me what a citizen factually is. You can't prove anything with an opinion. You prove something with facts and evidences that back these facts.


Do cockroaches and dogs live in cities? If yes, than cockroaches and dogs are also citizens, right?

Are those (humans, dogs and cockroaches) that don't live in a particular city non-citizens then?

Why do you blindly rely on google?

You simply don't get it. I am not paying you (or anyone else) for saying you are a citizen. I am paying for proving you are a citizen.

Let me draw a parallel: if you claimed you were Napoleon or an alien from another planet or a lamp, I still wouldn't pay you BTC 100 for just saying you are a Napoleon or an alien or a lamp. I would pay you for proving you are one.

No, does not work. That is not the language of the humans. It's orwell speak. It is the language of the domestic humans, the brainwashed, the happy slaves, the protection money payers (mafiosi).
Ask a real human (there are still some of them in the rain forest or at the arctic tundra), if a domestic human (collectivised protection money payer and destroyer of the flora and fauna) is a human. You'll get the correct answer.

Hmm, so when presented with the definition of a citizen, you are not happy its "factual."

How stupid did you say you are?

Again with the denigration of everyone who disagrees with you.  You are human and those who disagree with you are not.

Pathetic. 

Both you guys are at war with the English language.  Its pathetic that you think you are superior to everyone else because you refuse to accept words in their common meaning.  I wonder if you two have redefined 'sex' to include wanking and if you think that makes you better lovers than anyone else?

Yes, the English language is not my native language. It is the language of the hegemonial giga-collective of so called 'humans', which they are not, and which (most of them) do not speak any other language. But also my native language, the German language is an orwellian language.
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, CITIZENS (SLAVES, DOMESTIC PIGS/HUMANS) ARE HUMANS etc.

The children on this forum have seemed to have gone way off topic.  Back to the OP, there is no silver bullet solution and I wish you the best of luck.

But I'd remind you that the USA is a very small part of the world by population with a disproportionately large influence which one could argue is partially ill gained.  (The vast and worthy innovations and contributions from the US to the world aside, sending national troops to enforce private profits in the banana, oil, guano, fill in the blank sectors - is exploitive bullshit verging on criminal theft and murder.)

The US is also a fading empire which currently exhibits many if not all the negative indicators which have repeated through history as empires fall.

So my point is, as someone who doesn't live in the US:  The world is sick the USA Hegemony.  If Bitcoins are made illegal in the US (confiscation as in 1933 isn't possible with BTC) then it would set the US back, but the rest of the world would (I think) raise an eyebrow and shrug.  It would also be a powerful legitimizing force if a ban went into effect as it would tell everyone in the world the gold confiscation message:  Gold (now BTC) is valuable and we dont want a public that owns it.  What does Joe Public say?  I'm gonna get me some!!  The prohibition of alcohol and today with illicit drugs, tells us that banning something just makes it more valuable in the long run and denies you the privilege of taxation.  It also teach us that market forces will just take big profits underground while cash balloons for taser, handcuff and prison suppliers.

In the end, the world needs to evolve into a place that doesn't really give a damn about what silly crap any one country is up to.  Where the good examples of good countries will inspire other nations to borrow the things that work to improve.  If the US excludes itself from boarding the Bitcoin bus, then it can board the next bus some day when it gets over itself.  Take solace in the rapid pace of improvements in life for those outside of US borders because this is proceeding rapidly leaving the globe with a net positive trend despite setbacks in places like the US.  (gapminder.org)

You presented a non-definition, according to which cockroaches inhibiting in a city are citizens.


Come on, how stupid are you?

"Citizen bitchez" please get a room somewhere else, this started as a good thread!


This is a bit overstated - USG won't need to break out guns to contain Bitcoin.

The various organizations who should theoretically want to regulate and/or quash Bitcoin are already overtly engaged in manuevers:

* FinCEN: announced GLOBAL guidelines (completely overstepping their jurisdiction)
* The Fed: policy paper is circulating from the ECB, likely there are a hundred more we don't know about
* CIA: Gavin gave a talk there, and likely is wiretapped and backdoored to hell and back
* Wall Street corporate entities: already heavily involved in BTC arbitrage, price fixing, trading bots, other destabilizing tricks

(BTW, I think it's fair to include Wall Street corporations in this list, given their complete "regulatory capture" of the USG. )


Good points - I suspect we can look at the Bittorrent wars as a model for attempts to shut down the Bitcoin P2P network:

Measure / Countermeasure:
* Malicious nodes / Node blacklisting
* Port blocking / Port randomization
* Insane litigation / Grandma arrest fallout
* User busts / More VPN users
* ISP traffic throttling / Protocol encryption
* FUD, "terrists" / Geeky pro-BTC media campaigns


Right now it would appear that core devs are not committed to securing the network against a governmental attack, although they've dealt with various hack and double spend attacks quite efficiently. Placing their eggs in the "friendly regulation" basket allows them to be blissfully ignorant of the extortive and coercive elements of the USG. Also, geeks tend to focus more on technical vulnerabilities and less on bureaucratic/legal attacks. 

I'm guessing some geeks at Palantir (or some such company we've never heard of) are currently engaged in wargames scenarios to take down the bitcoin network. Anybody working there care to leak a Powerpoint? 

And you are dodging questions.

If you ever think you can prove you are a citizen, BTC 100 + USD 25,000 will be waiting for you.

Again, google it.  Only a fool thinks that by refusing to accept the meaning of words, he is superior.  If the common meaning of the word "citizen" is not good enough for you, that makes you a fool.  

Hmmm.  A German saying other people are "so called 'humans' which they are not."

Perhaps the word you want for these "so called 'humans' which they are not" is untermenschen?  I'm sure if you search your history, you will find lots of people with solutions to the problem of "so called 'humans' which they are not."  Perhaps you, being the smart little man you are, can find a final solution?

This thread is going offtopic. I suggest you leave the racial discussion behind.


US Gov going to war with crypto-currencies - a lost battle.

Think so? I don't think the government would waste time outlawing it if it wanted Bitcoin gone.

US Goverment contracts with Intel for $50M to develop a buttload of 22nm SHA-256 ASICs. 51% attacks the living hell out of the network; the loss of profitability causes miners to drop out and the government gains proportionally more and more of the blocks.

Game over.

Fair enough.  Zarathustra + Loozik - if you want to pursue your thesis that most people are subhumans because they rejoice in being citizens, then the Politics and Society board awaits you.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=34.0

I agree with Moebius327 - a government can't ban Bitcoin.  It will make things difficult as Bitcoin is the type of disruptive innovation that causes people to freak out but it can't stop people using it.

I did not say I am a German. My native language is German only. That does not necessary mean that I am a German.



No. Don't put words in my mouth. As I explained already: glückliche und unglückliche Sklaven (happy and unhappy Slaves), Mafiosi (protection money payers), Kollektivisten (collectivists), Bürger (citizens), domestizierte Menschen (domesticated humans).


My history???



Yes, that would be easy: Don't accept orwell speak of the common anymore, don't accept to be ruled, civilized, domesticated and brainwashed anymore. If everybody would do that: problem solved.

What have you smoked today?

Things like Linux have vast infrastructures of people who provide hardware and code because they believe in the concept.  Is it not optional for miners to confirm transactions regardless of profit? 

Sure, but the government has access to technology and production on a scale that individual miners - and even small companies like ASICMiner - do not. If they're serious about killing bitcoin, they just leave the ASICs running and the network is constantly under 51% attack. They could double spend and send coins to random addresses that had been used previously in the blockchain. It'd be chaos.

Lets assume you are right; if they did that, is an altcoin that is immune to the 51% attack possible?

It's a good question. I've seen some efforts to make coins that are much more resistant to 51% attacks, yes, but I haven't done enough reading to give you an answer.

The combination of scrypt and one of those 51%-attack resistance schemes might be sufficient. But you can't underestimate a government that feels its money is threatened. They could turn all the supercomputers at national labs on the network, rent out every Amazon cluster, whatever it takes... $100M is not a lot of money for a government to protect its currency.

Also, China has a lot to lose from Bitcoin. They would have an even easier time doing what I'm describing, since they have most of the electronics manufacturing and are not above telling companies what to do. Hell, they could take over ASICMiner now if they wanted to.

For me this is a significant post. I'm Impressed to see someone else express this opinion in such a logical manner. Clearly I agree strongly enough to add my support for this position.

I wish those who would like to discuss semantics would "fork" off in a different thread, and leave this one for the original topic - about the implications of crypto-currency being made illegal.

Wow, that is incredible. Satoshi IS the Cyberchrist. He given to A.I. Property!!!

Having online property that does not require the "protection" of government.

China, Russia, India, etc adopt it as a new world reserve currency. We all get filthy rich. US is massively hurt.

Americans tend to think they're the center of the world, but they're not the whole world.

Hooray, for the awakening, let's trade freely without middlemen. I'd like to meet in Perth to trade BTC for what have you?

I thought it was fact. Perhaps if you read it again you might discover why you question the fact of this. I find it quite strange that Zombies have been created by the state. I'm not using it as a derogatory term but as factual.

Calling a Zombie an "undead cartoon of a human" might be a good euphemism, or an incredible accurate description, I'm not sure which.

I hope saying it didn't get you arrested. The biggest challenge of the FUD right now is convincing all the "Citizens" that they have the right and the power to tell them all what to do. I'm not suggesting you say things to get arrested, I'm saying that people like this SEC character are just here to stir up controversy, he probably is from the SEC and this is their best plan of attack, shout scary stories in the Forums!

I'm thinking even if the US government pulled out the big guns and Somehow managed to shut down bitcoin, there's 100's of other currencies they can't just shut down because they shut bitcoin down. What do you think

I have not read the entire thread, but one scenario would be US makes it a felony to use cryptography without a license.   You know, because terrorists and drug dealers are using cryptography.  Banks, software companies that provide back doors, browser companies that play ball, registered Bitcoin exchanges, etc. would get licenses.

I could see the government imposing licenses for crytography, but drug dealers ...ect......would still probably get them.

pitchforks and torches time!

The fat old men that control the US Government are trying to figure out how to get their hands into our collective bitcoin pockets.  They smell the money and recognize the potential, but they have yet to figure out how to gain control of it. 

I fear the day, man :'(