Yep. Cheat on your taxes like "everyone does" for a couple grand here and there, and even if you get caught, they might waggle their finger at you and say "Oh you." And, of course, collect the delinquent taxes plus a nice fat penalty and interest. Do it for a few million, though, and you're looking at serious time.
People who get caught at that level often haven't been tracked down by any extraordinary means or any genius investigation. The IRS just gets interested in you for whatever reason and notices you claim to do tech support for a buck above minimum wage and yet you showed up at the audit driving a Rolls, live in a million dollar house, and wear a Rolex.
The IRS has informants everywhere and can basically violate all privacy. There is nothing they can't search, no one they can't question and no rule they can't bend or break to get the information they want. |
|
|
|
Mere possession can be outlawed, but those laws can never be successfully enforced.
Example: firearms - there are laws all over the world regulating the possession of firearms, and those laws are utterly ineffective in their attempt of preventing the illegal firearm possession. Those laws are only effective if applied to the legal and dully registered firearm owners - which ironically are the only ones who comply with those laws.
Same with Bitcoin - if the governments outlaw the Bitcoin, the only Bitcoins that could be (easily) confiscated will be the ones deposited with legally compliant institutions - the ones stored in a private wallet could never be effectively confiscated.
Time to post the Bitcoin version of a "MOLON LAVE" poster, I suppose. :-)
The way they will take down Bitcoin is by linking it's users to CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. If you use Bitcoin, Tor, etc, then you're a pedophile with a pedophile kit. Why else would you need all that? And if accused of being a pedophile it's near impossible to prove you aren't when Nancy Grace or whomever in the media crucifies you. |
|
|
|
I am reminded of FDR's executive order 6102 of 4/5/1933 which, by the stroke of a pen, made the mere possession of gold a federal crime, and offered rewards to anyone who betrayed anyone else. Sure, a handful of brave people tried to hide their gold, but the practice became as marginalized and shunned as, say, drugs or porn today.
I hate to say it, but if possession of a bitcoin privkey became a federal felony, with informant rewards, I can think of a couple of relatives who would rat me out in a heartbeat.
Try brainwallet. "Yes, good sir, I do own some bitcoins, but only 3 BTCs, here is my private key. What, 500? Who told you so? Some of my relatives? You can't just rely on some hear-says as evidences right?" Or if your prosecutor is more of a "by the book" type: "Yes sir, I did store 500 bitcoins in an address(which is too long, who the fuck will remember that?) And I use this brainwallet setup to protect my private key, but unfortunately, I have totally forgotten about my passphrase, so perhaps these bitcoins are forever lost. And I think you can't prove otherwise." or just simply: "Sorry I lost my private key." They will torture you and destroy your brain to destroy your coins. |
|
|
|
I am reminded of FDR's executive order 6102 of 4/5/1933 which, by the stroke of a pen, made the mere possession of gold a federal crime, and offered rewards to anyone who betrayed anyone else. Sure, a handful of brave people tried to hide their gold, but the practice became as marginalized and shunned as, say, drugs or porn today.
I hate to say it, but if possession of a bitcoin privkey became a federal felony, with informant rewards, I can think of a couple of relatives who would rat me out in a heartbeat.
FDR did this because the Nazis and their allies had control of the majority of the gold at the time. If you're gonna actually cite history please do so in context. It was World War 2 and FDR had no easy options, also the gold hoarders tried to launch a fascist coup attempt (Google the Business Plot) which triggered his response. You're right about informants though. In this world you cannot fully trust anyone, not friends, not family, not parents or siblings or best friend or husband or wife. For some things you can only trust yourself to look out for you. |
|
|
|
As long as SOPA/CISPA stays out (and it's never going to stop coming up, it seems,) we have as much to worry about BTC being confiscated as TPB finally going offline. But if this is just that much more incentive to lobby CISPA into existing law, get ready for a fun brawl. The one chance we got at actual freedom, whether some realize it or not, remains in the Internet being entirely open. Once government finds a way to censor (and they won't ever find a reliable way, just a good enough way for the typical uneducated,) we have a lot more trouble than Bitcoin being confiscated. They could just end the system all together, along with several other certain services we currently enjoy. I'd say civil unrest at that point will reach an all time high.
Bitcoin is money and the brightest hacker minds in the country if not in the entire world are backing it. So the police who might be against it don't have any skill to stop it. Those who have the skill to stop it would be more likely to use it than to stop it due to their line of work. |
|
|
|
" One [could] not merely confiscate bitcoins", gloats a forum member regarding the Cypris bank crisis. Bitcoin is great, but it's not immune to 'powers that be' corruption. Governments could legislate 1 a 'buy back'. Corporations could seize assets via heavy handed legal action. ISPs or agencies could subjugate the network via technical (ISP/Backbone) level filtering, man-in-the-middle attacks, denial of service. What could be done to the bitcoin network to prevent - say a government, corporation - from network/developer/miner coercion? How resilient would Bitcoin be to any of these 'social engineering' scenarios? At the technical level, consider ISP port filtering (ala Bitorrent) (I have not read the whitepaper as to how much thought was given to this). Bitcoin Network Monitor, Bitcoin address <=> IP monitor, ISP subpoena, etc. If BTC nodes end up requiring services similar to TOR to survive, what chance does legitimate BTC usage have? Offline, deposit only 'cold' wallets could protect against technical efforts. Pre-existing software security solutions might help when applied to BTC (i.e. randomize Bitcoin port, bundle Bitcoin-QT with TOR, one click cold wallets...) Hoarding physical cash might prevent 'bank' level manipulation from effecting you, similar to cold bitcoin wallets. Think of physical fiat as a cold wallet, and electronic fiat as online wallets. The benefits of 'running your own bank' might not seem significant if you can't connect to the network (i.e. you can't process transactions). /TheEndIsNighRant 1 1933 Emergency Banking Act authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to order any individual or organization in the United States to deliver any gold that they possess or have custody of to the Treasury in return for "any other form of coin or currency coined or issued under the laws of the United States - http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1930s/EmergBank_1933.htmlYou don't seem to understand the the police and ISPs are some of the least technologically skilled in the US populace. The police don't know what Bitcoin is and probably wouldn't understand the whitepaper to how it works. The police cannot deal with cryptography at all and ISPs aren't resourced enough to deal with it. So basically speaking, the only people who could stop Bitcoin are the secret service, the NSA, MI5/6, FSB, those kinds of people. Those kinds of people are more likely to make use of Bitcoin for their own operations than to kill it. The result is Bitcoin isn't going to be shut down because all the brightest people and all the intellect masters are behind Bitcoin. The college professors, the engineer, the spy master, the computer hacker, the elite programmer, the cryptographer, they all are behind Bitcoin. So who exactly is left to be against Bitcoin? The people who don't have any skill or knowledge of how Bitcoin works or what Bitcoin can do are the ones most likely to be against it. The people who don't believe in science and who think that evolution is a myth. |
|
|
|
I think its deeply rooted in materialistic way of thinking.
Taken to the extreme, people are pro-socialist when it gets them free stuff and are anti-socialist when their stuff gets taken away...
The problem I have with socialism is that somebody else decides what, how much and when to away from you. I'd rather "cope" with never ever getting anything for free than cope with having what I earned go to somebody else because someone "smarter" decided it the right thing. First, they take your money, then your property and, finally, your freedom.
Some stuff has to be taken away to have a society at all though. The bare minimum. This would mean enough of a basic income so everyone can have food, shelter, clothes, education and healthcare. This is the minimum any human should be able to expect from any society. Even prisoners have that so to say we shouldn't give people that is inhumane. Beyond that, no one is entitled to a good job or a good life, just the opportunity to pursue it as the Constitution says. So some level of socialism is necessary just so people have the opportunity to pursue happiness or to better their lives. Education for example, if you cannot educate yourself or pursue knowledge then you're basically static and can never advance in anything. You can be against socialism, but on some level you have to also be against ignorance, because to be for ignorance but against socialism is not only bad for your self interest but bad for the economy as well. So education is necessary and while it does not have to be public run, it must be public funded and funded nationally. |
|
|
|
There is also no successful example of a purely capitalist state with no elements of socialism.
If by "no elements of socialism" you mean no social support structure, then yeah. But if you mean no state-operated social programs, whoo, buddy are you dead wrong. The USA has always been socialist. FDR was a socialist and socialism is necessary when a country reaches a certain size. I think the population size and size of a nation necessitates socialism due to the mere fact that people who don't know you wont care about you unless forced to and while small towns where everyone knows each other don't need social programs, large towns where no one knows each other or where one part of the country doesn't know the other part, this requires socialism. It's just a matter of the kind it requires, authoritarian sociaiism is not the kind of socialism I endorse. But there should be a basic income. That should be mandatory both for economic reasons (it's better for the economy if everyone has at least some money to spend), and humanitarian/human rights reasons. Human rights are important and the basic income helps to protect the human rights of those who receive it. I think also education or the opportunity to self improve has to be considered a human right. If it requires socialism to have that then so be it, but if we don't allow people to work hard and improve themselves over time then we are wasting their lives, skills and talents and it will show in our economy. Already the USA suffers from ignorance due to the fact that education is so expensive. |
|
|
|
Socialism destroys any natural incentive that comes from human desire and puts it in the hands of elected bureaucrats that are incapable of true failure. They get paid no matter how well their mandates work and can only be fired every term or so. That's assuming they are held accountable. There's no competition to do that.
In conclusion, due to little true accountability and the inability to fail, socialist services are inherently inferior in terms of product output and the vast amount of inefficiency required to generate said product.
This assumes motivating people either requires fear or greed. This is not true. |
|
|
|
TL;DR
Those who are interested can read further.
First of all, I'll try my best to express my thoughts on this matter. My English is rather poor, so forgive me. My thoughts are very basic I assume.
There are existing posts by users on this forum related to the bitcoin-economy though I am sure I only have read some and not most of them, so forgive me once again. I am nor a computer programmer (still learning) neither an economist.
One can ask himself following questions.
What kind of environment or world is given birth to Bitcoin?
The answer is Bitcoin was born in the world of softwares. Therefore I suggest, we must tackling this in a software-way besides setting up stores, exchanges, markets.
My idea here is to take a step further in building up economy. Software-developers (programmers) on this forum that support Bitcoin develop softwares and sell them for fixed in price of bitcoins. The softwares are games, applications and so on.
From reading on this forum tells me there are plenty of good programmers out there. We need volunteering programmers to accept payment only in bitcoin and not in any other fiat-currency.
The pricing might be change once in two or three months for example. So your softwares will directly compete with other's who sell their for fiat-currencies.
So why fixed price in bitcoins? Up to now we have some stores etc., where you can buy things over Internet with your bitcoins, which is great. Pricing is in USD, how much you pay in bitcoins will vary from day to day which is based on buy/sell of exchanges. I understand why almost all (or all?) markets, stores must do that way. It's about money and living, they have to care about their money, and in their right doing so.
The fixed price of a software/btc will strengthen Bitcoin even more. It will mentally enlightening the existence of Bitcoin and how it is related to the outer world which is important for mainstream.
The chance to change this in a good way I think lies in the hands of software-guys. I know it will be a tough task and will require alot of time, programming knowledge and sacrifice to make this real.
At the moment, I think you guys compare to other groups have the best possibility to do this.
just some thoughts
How can I earn Bitcoins? At least mBTC? I've seen sites which let us earn uBTC but how can we earn mBTC? Do you mean a software store? A subscription model? Bounty? |
|
|
|
Go on a gold trading website like Kitco and look in the forums for bitcoin. You'd think these tinfoil hat gold standard guys would be all over bitcoin. Nope: it's a 'pyramid scheme' invented by the feds or monopoly money. Even more surprisingly, none of these gold companies want to take BTC for payment, even using bitpay.com where the price is fixed , guaranteed and they are paid cash to bank account next day. Total morons. They would boost sales instantly if they did, be exposed to no risk either because if bitpay doesn't pay you out then don't ship. Right now they want bank wires and hold for days or mailed cashiers cheques. DA FUQ. It's not like gold is covered by any fincen or other regulations. You can freely sell up to $10k worth no ID.
Even Alex Jones is against Bitcoin now. I've even had arguments with people on this forum claiming Bitcoin early adopters are the new Rothschilds and are part of the Illuminati. |
|
|
|
Ive found that some people are politically against Bitcoin and therefore think its ok to say whatever they can to stop it.
The real mystery to me is why someone would be politically against Bitcoin if they aren't rich. Are fiat currencies so good for you that you should seek to fight all alternatives? |
|
|
|
I have noticed that on some general message boards that I am a long time member, there have recently been a lot of bitcoin threads popping up.
On certain boards the topics are immediately crushed/deleted/warnings handed out just for mentioning what they claim is a "pyramid scheme"...I'm actual quite surprised by this huge amount of inexplicable aggression towards bitcoin by some people.
And there is no reasoning with them, they throw out total incorrect facts, or outdated articles and when you show them that this information is incorrect they basically stick their fingers in their ears and then warn you again.
I just don't understand where is all this hate coming from (and i was encountering this long before the recent $250 price spike/crash, so it's not just coming from people burned at $250)
It's a shame because their ignorance is costing other people from learning useful information.
Google astroturfing. This is politics and if you use Bitcoin you are an enemy of most authoritarian types. |
|
|
|
I have noticed that on some general message boards that I am a long time member, there have recently been a lot of bitcoin threads popping up.
On certain boards the topics are immediately crushed/deleted/warnings handed out just for mentioning what they claim is a "pyramid scheme"...I'm actual quite surprised by this huge amount of inexplicable aggression towards bitcoin by some people.
And there is no reasoning with them, they throw out total incorrect facts, or outdated articles and when you show them that this information is incorrect they basically stick their fingers in their ears and then warn you again.
I just don't understand where is all this hate coming from (and i was encountering this long before the recent $250 price spike/crash, so it's not just coming from people burned at $250)
It's a shame because their ignorance is costing other people from learning useful information.
They hate Bitcoin because Bitcoin was making the wrong people rich. |
|
|
|
It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.
Memcoin in specific proposed something like adding democratic processes into the coin itself. I think that would be the best way to improve the protocol. The next coin should probably include democracy and voting within the coin itself so that holders can somehow vote as a group. Problem with such a scheme is how to weigh the votes. By held BTC? By hashpower? None of the solutions are exactly ideal. It's an interesting proposal, though. Reminds me of "BIP" 2112's proposal to generalize the current "Version"/"P2SH coinbase" mechanisms by embedding the block validation code in the blockchain itself, and letting miners indicate which such algorithms they're willing to endorse. It's not ideal but it could be worked out. Like I said my idea which I've been thinking about is a type of smart currency with autonomous functionality. This would mean it wouldn't necessarily be completely hard coded but in some instances there would be democratic functions, in other cases the coin would decide that there isn't enough coins or that there are too many, but in order to have something like that every "miner" would have to still be part of the AI grid. Either way as of 2013 it's not possible and after 2030 when it might be possible it would still probably be overly centralized because super computers will probably still be centralized. Here is the #1 issue politically of our time. Closed source artificial intelligence has to be banned. |
|
|
|
It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.
Memcoin in specific proposed something like adding democratic processes into the coin itself. I think that would be the best way to improve the protocol. The next coin should probably include democracy and voting within the coin itself so that holders can somehow vote as a group. Anyway I think the future is intelligent cryptocurrencies or smart currencies. These currencies would be able to adapt to our flaws and inflate or deflate or self destruct or decay etc. There is a lot of room for innovation once AI becomes smart enough. |
|
|
|
Okay let me explain. If you're part of a community that makes people rich, when that community comes under attack by people from other communities then the rich people from the community that you're part of can invest in the infrastructure or initiatives to protect that community. We all rely on the Internet so we'd all protect that, and we'd all protect Bitcoin since we all rely on that. If you're an early adopter and Bitcoin made you rich then you'd be wise to protect whatever fluke in the system or cheat code you found which allowed you to hack your way to getting rich. The only responsibility you would have is to keep the door open or perhaps open new doors so the successor to Bitcoin can be even better.
Google for instance has given great support to Open Source projects. What makes you think the Bitcoin Billionaires wont fund stuff or invest in stuff which is in the interest of Bitcoin or a free Internet? A free Internet benefits Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.
I do agree with one thing you said, some of it is a human problem. Nepotism is a human problem and family currency and family elitism is a human problem. Not everyone involved with Bitcoin has that problem though.
It's not like the oil barons of yesteryear were burying their money in a hole in the ground or anything. They were reinvesting. They were doing what they could to maintain the infrastructure that was keeping them wealthy - which included both the stuff that society needed, and the stuff that kept society down. And sure, let's say for a moment that the guys who come out of this thing as billionaires are actually good people - better than the Rockefellers, better than Larry Ellison. Let's say Shamir User A was just shuffling their money around out of paranoia that the Men in Black would kick down their door and take it all. That's an optimistic assumption, and it buys us, what? Sixty years? Eighty, if they're young and strong and get the expensive medicine early? Whoever they leave their money to, whether family or friends or foundations, we can't attest to their moral character. If you say that some people will always have an advantage, then you have to accept the consequence of that creed: no matter how the advantage was initially created, there's no statistical reason to believe that the people who have the advantage a generation later will be good. If you want a Pareto-efficient wealth curve, there's a good argument for designing the system such that it tries to initially distribute the wealth no less lopsidedly than that - if you "trust nobody", you can't trust the new money to create that curve for you. It's too late to do anything about it for Bitcoin - we've gotta live with the distribution we got. And maybe it won't be a problem. But for future cryptocurrencies, it's something we need to consider. And we need to watch out and be ready to refine the idea if it looks like the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss. According to game theory and mathematics some people always have the advantage in any competitive game. But there is the state of equillibrium. We can create an environment where all of our lives collectively get better even if the people at the top get the medicine and advances first. Honestly I don't care who gets it first just so long as the overall trajectory and trend is better. Our current trend is unsustainable and can't work. Bitcoin is not going to last for 60 years. Capitalism probably wont last for 60 years. Once we get artificial intelligence, the singularity, and super intelligence, all this will be pointless. The only thing to invest in at that point would be better AI as humans wont even be required to work anymore. But getting from point A to point B is the challenge and I think Bitcoin actually helps get us from point A to point B but it's not the final destination. Read IJ Good's paper http://www.stat.vt.edu/tech_reports/2005/GoodTechReport.pdfAll this arguing about who will be the elite wont matter once we enter the age of ultraintelligent machines and I don't think that is 60 years away. I think Bitcoin and money itself is just a means to an end. |
|
|
|
The difference between Bitcoin and existing systems is that everyone using Bitcoin must play by the same rules. That's as fair as you are going to get in this world.
Those who first take advantage of the available tools will always have an edge. Such is life. I suggest you embrace it.
How are they playing by the same rules when the founders mined millions of Bitcoins when it was computationally trivial to do so? Bitcoin mining will soon become so hard that massive investment in equipment will be required. Because, that's what the rules say. It's right there in the protocol. Yup. If you don't like those rules, there are plenty of other games in town. But therein lies the rub. I don't see any of the Bitcoin evangelists explaining that the 'rules' allowed a small group of early users to make a massive coin grab. The rule is first come first served. The math of that rule produces fairness. Think about it like game theory, if you make it clear the first people who pick the gold up get to keep it then it's fair. If you don't discover it in time it's partly your own fault if you had the Internet and could have been researching cryptocurrencies. If you discovered it in time like me but thought it was a ponzi scheme or bound to fail like E-gold then what? And what if you just didn't rush to buy coins when they were cheap? I made those mistakes but I'm not complaining that I didn't do something that someone else was fortunate enough to do. And had I been fortunate I would hope that people would congratulate me not diss me and call me the 1% illuminati. I would probably be furious and very insulted by that notion. Your arguments are divisive and bad for the community. |
|
|
|
The difference between Bitcoin and existing systems is that everyone using Bitcoin must play by the same rules. That's as fair as you are going to get in this world.
Those who first take advantage of the available tools will always have an edge. Such is life. I suggest you embrace it.
How are they playing by the same rules when the founders mined millions of Bitcoins when it was computationally trivial to do so? Bitcoin mining will soon become so hard that massive investment in equipment will be required. Because, that's what the rules say. It's right there in the protocol. And nothing stops us from creating a better newer protocol if this protocol does produce corrupt EVIL elites who are as bad or worse than the current central power structure. The point is as long as there is social mobility at least musical chairs is better than to have the same group of people in power for a lifetime. It's like would you rather have a monarchy with all it's flaws of lifetime leadership or a Republic where leaders can change? If Bitcoin really does produce bad leadership then the next time it will be refined by scientific method. This is better than what we can say about most of society where the rules aren't even fair (different rules for different people) and where it's impossible or difficult to change anything or fix what is broken because changing the code in government is harder than changing it in Bitcoin. The US government can't even pass a budget to pay for itself without having a Civil War between it's elites. |
|
|
|
The problem with the current system (not Bitcoin) is that we have different rules for different players according to family. Bitcoin actually helps solve this problem but introduces the early adopter issue, but I think having early adopters is better than family currency.
How does Bitcoin solve this, though? If your early-adoptorship gives you more money than you will reasonably spend on yourself in your lifetime, then your children inherit it - they gain the initial advantage according to family. Seems to me that the initial redistribution of a new economic system doesn't change anything about dynasties in the long run. That's a human problem, not a protocol problem. Okay let me explain. If you're part of a community that makes people rich, when that community comes under attack by people from other communities then the rich people from the community that you're part of can invest in the infrastructure or initiatives to protect that community. We all rely on the Internet so we'd all protect that, and we'd all protect Bitcoin since we all rely on that. If you're an early adopter and Bitcoin made you rich then you'd be wise to protect whatever fluke in the system or cheat code you found which allowed you to hack your way to getting rich. The only responsibility you would have is to keep the door open or perhaps open new doors so the successor to Bitcoin can be even better. Google for instance has given great support to Open Source projects. What makes you think the Bitcoin Billionaires wont fund stuff or invest in stuff which is in the interest of Bitcoin or a free Internet? A free Internet benefits Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. I do agree with one thing you said, some of it is a human problem. Nepotism is a human problem and family currency or family elitism is a human problem. Not everyone involved with Bitcoin has that problem though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
