Ah, so your defense is that the BTC-economy is "trivial" in size. How well does that match, I wonder, with the fact that any non-sovereign system is always a potential threat to an existing power structure?

Doesn't it make more sense to strike now before it gets more hashing power added? That is, if they understand the full implications of a global non-government controlled monetary system.

Also, your claim of "some millions" is off by a considerable amount. Reference: https://www.resallex.com/bitcoin/brix

And actually, as an addendum to all of my other points, I'm a little pissed at the Bitcoin Foundation anyway, because they just blew any lead we had on Bitcoin adoption by the "regular" people out there. Government will realize quickly that they need to poison public perception, and they're pretty damned handy in that area.

Look out for the coming campaigns (after they've exhausted the initial hands-off regulation honeymoon period) where Bitcoin is demonized for being the "currency of Edward Snowden and other traitors" - Thanks clueless bitcoin promoters!, the scrip of "hordes of terror organizations" and the last but never unused trope of "pedophiles and their evil deeds".

So thanks a bunch Bitcoin Foundation, for not only launching a nice bright magnesium "hey regulate us" flare into the sky, but getting the hulking government leviathan to slowly change course towards the small Bitcoin lifeboat bobbing in the financial sea.

They now know we're here, and it isn't going to be pretty.

With all due respect, I think it is obvious given the decentralized and non-sovereign oriented features in Bitcoin itself. It is money without the state, period.

Here's what it really is:

1.) A lazy way to get a completely free briefing on a topic that may threaten the existing financial infrastructure. (if it isn't co-opted or integrated).

2.) An opportunity to assign faces/names to "Bitcoin", just in case they need to make an example out of someone.

3.) A display of complete cluelessness on part of the Foundation, thinking that the moderate scenario has a chance in hell. (Softball regulation, some hooks for government revenue streams. The problem here is, even if it starts out this way, when the threat becomes more apparent - it won't end this way.)

If you think that regulation and working within the system is the overall goal of Bitcoin, you're not paying attention to why Bitcoin was created in the first place.

Bitcoin is freedom. Financial freedom that isn't reliant on any kind of controls. Please explain to me how that reconciles with the urge of the Foundation to seek controls on using Bitcoin. They're incompatible, and everyone should understand that. The fact that the Foundation doesn't, and some users don't -- is a rather appalling display of critical thinking failure.

Riddle me this then, if it is so "feasible" - then how come we haven't seen one... ever?

Your simple-simon logic is rather obvious and painfully newbie-ish.

I'll take a look at the thread you mentioned, but I'm a bit disturbed by your casual deference to addressing the risks involved. I realize you're too close to the whole issue, after all, you're staking your livelyhood on it - but the users of bitcoin in general deserve more than a slight glance at the possible problems you'll cause.

If anything, this will cause the asic run-and-gunner outfits to dwindle in popularity - which judging by their dismissive attitudes towards their customers, they truly deserve to be relegated to the dustbin of history.

The professionals have stepped in, no more hot-glue, velcro or repurposing consumer electronics, kiddies - its fabs, custom enclosures and cooling systems. Step aside and watch how a real company makes equipment.

"Rewrote" bitcoin?

Hey guys, I just downloaded some source from GitHub, and I changed a few variables - I rewrote it! I'm so awesome.

I'm going to download a few e-books and rewrite them too, I'm so damned productive.

Sent to David just a bit ago:

Mastercoin - Protocol Or Blockchain Trojan?

I've read recently that you're defending the Mastercoin project. While this is to be expected considering the
ambitious goals that have been put forward by its creator, I'd like you to please consider the longer-term
implications of what this project means for Bitcoin.

This project is taking an existing resource, the collective hashing power of the entire Bitcoin network, and
exploiting it for its own ends. There is no way to opt-out, unless we hard-fork with another client upgrade.

By treating the blockchain and the transactions within it as a "resource", to collectively read/write data into
the blockchain itself, we have a dangerous precedent -- resource usage that will burden the entire network and
everyone who uses it -- without bearing any gains, except for those using the Mastercoin protocol.

This is alarmingly similar to the behavior of bot-nets, collectively compromised machines (no opt-in, of course)
being exploited to perform other tasks that their users don't condone.

Please reconsider your defense of this project, as added weight behind it may cause a knock-on effect that will
be very difficult to correct in the future without a deliberate hard-fork, and will cause other problems.

Confer with gmaxwell, he's on freenode IRC #bitcoin channel - or via the forums - to confirm what I'm saying.
He's a in-depth subject expert in blockchain mechanics, and I believe he has the same view - that writing data
to the blockchain as Mastercoin proposes is a dangerous and potentially disruptive force.

Thanks for reading,

TT

Dude, I fucking told these guys....

But no, it commences nonetheless....

The only way I can see around the gaming problem for deployment and maintenance is a steady stream of BTC coming from those interested in growing the network, so you have a given area you'll gladly deploy and fix - and you getting those funds depends on your uptime or something tied to doing a good job.

It would be harder to 'fake' a node than it would be to fake its broken and needs fixing for a bounty. Would have to include some kind of neighbor check either using underlying TCP/IP routing protocols or packet transit stats for verification. (A neighbor has your MAC as the source, etc..)

That would enable automatic polling too, so you couldn't just put up a node, turn it off and keep getting BTC. It would have to stay alive and be available.

Great, so now they're "briefed" on Bitcoin.

The next steps are dependent on whether they think Bitcoin is a threat to the dollar, and by extension, to the policies of the Fed and Treasury. Don't forget to throw in the law enforcement concerns about all the "bad things" you can do with Bitcoin. (Naturally they'll overlook that you can do the same with cash.)

If they accept Bitcoin, they'll put out some softball regs to see where it goes, place the framework for further governmental "hooks" to get some of that tasty revenue stream.

If they reject Bitcoin, they'll use every flaw and wrinkle they can devise about the Bitcoin network, and the foundation members, to make sure nobody uses Bitcoin again. Dirty tricks, making sure exchanges and payment processors have onerous requirements, the whole ball of wax.

So, guess which one it will be?

(Hint: They like the dollar just fine...)

Just watch, this isn't some goddamned game show, the stakes are real and they've just been raised.

I love the gamification aspect, but its hard to prevent gaming of the system. Lets say I have a bounty for fixing a long-haul node, but all I've really done is disconnect the power leads from the solar circuit to the board. I reconnect it, get my money and go on to disable another node for profit.

I'm not sure how to get around that kind of behavior.

Also totally ignores local bitcoin transactions, where you wouldn't know the source until the trade was made anyway. Most people don't check for 'tainted' coins to begin with.

Now that's pretty cool.

Taking a look at what areas are involved, but it seems to be USA-wide.

Your example was of transferring money, not trading between currencies. So, please explain how wire is competitive?

I've been busy so I must've missed that one. Funny how difficulty in the single-digit millions seems so 'quaint' now.

Yet we still see questions from people new to bitcoin about "what if we get a 51% attack?", even at these hashrates. Silly newbies...

While a lot of long-haul lasers sounds exceptionally cool, that's true, it would still be susceptible to environmental factors. Unless someone decides to start trenching fiber on their own from the back of a pickup truck, we'll need some other method - perhaps a mix of passive directional 'cantenna' type relays and powered ones.

I'm still absorbing everything presented in this thread, thanks for contributing ideas.

Er, what?

How does wire even come close to being competitive with bitcoin fees that are fractions of the original amount? Does not compute.

Holy hell, if any of that capacity comes online in December 2013 we're going to see substantial difficulty increases, hitting 100 million won't be out of the question in a short period of time.