True. That's also why I created this topic, to try to see if people already know of "alternative infrastructures".

The main problem with internet access - in what concerns avoiding censorship - is that it depends on physical infrastructure to provide the link between ISPs and clients. Even wireless networks like 3G need antennas who can't be too far from the end points. By too far I mean a continent away.

The only type of link that can avoid this is satellite. For example, somebody could launch satellites that would take connections from anywhere in the world and, by having a physical infrastructure in a place controlled by a still-not-so-authoritarian government, link censorship victims to the open internet, anonymously and cersorshipfree. Of course, authoritarian governments would forbid their citizens from accessing such network, but as long as the equipment needed to connect to it is cheap enough and small enough to be hidden, I suppose it would be difficult to trace down everyone. And with bitcoins, clients could pay for their access anonymously too - the problem here would be how to obtain bitcoins in such a hostile place... I imagine it would be almost like drug dealing...

Now, all that said... launching satellites is expensive! I suppose the costs of launching a satellite largely outcomes the revenues one would expect to have from it. That's why I asked on that topic if it would be possible to hijack those US military satellites for such purpose.

It won't help that much, it's quite easy to block all Tor bridges.


I have a hard time imagining services being provided to a not-so-geek audience by such means...

Yes, that's what I mean. And there are a lot of people who still believe in that.
If we here, that do understand the difference, keep using terms that only have meaning when this false theory is true (intrinsic value) we'd be just fueling even more this misunderstanding.

That's somehow what Gary North says in his text: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-fallacy-of-quotintrinsic-valuequot/

There not two different definitions (economic vs common). I've posted before the dictionary entry. An intrinsic attribute of something is inseparable from the thing itself. Value just can't be intrinsic. Ever.

Yeah, but, you know, the cypherspace needs a physical space to exist... The Chinese government is already successfully blocking Tor, for example. Yes, Chinese geeks manage to escape, but once a technology becomes popular enough to be more accessible to not-so-geek folks, then the government can always block if they are really determined. They could go as far as creating a "whitelist" sort of blocking instead of the blacklist model they use right now. (by whitelist I mean you block everything with the exception of a specific list, instead of allowing everything with the exception of a specific list)

It's complicated... but anyway, I also think that cryptography+p2p networks will help society a lot, for sure.

WTFx2 !?

What the hell is your problem with miscegenation?

The value of tobacco is not an intrinsic property of it. The intrinsic properties it has that make it useful for smokers are not its value, nor determine it. Previous belief that value was an attribute of stuff led to serious economic misunderstandings - and it does until today. That's why I'm being pedantic and asking you people not to spread this mistake. "Come on", it's not that difficult

If you've agreed that anything has intrinsic value then you've agreed on a fallacy.
Just understand the terms you're using, they have a meaning.
If value is on the beholder only - and it is - it can't be an inseparable attribute of valued things.

No, you're contradicting yourself. Just read again what I said.
Something cannot be a subjective opinion of the beholder and an intrinsic feature all at the same time.
And utility is not value.

People, please, stop spreading misinformation! There's no such thing as intrinsic value, this is a fallacy. A fallacy on which Marxism is based, by the way!

intrinsic (comparative more intrinsic, superlative most intrinsic)

• innate, inherent, inseparable from the thing itself, essential
• (of a body part, relating to anatomy) comprising, being part of a whole

Therefore, by the definition of instrinsic, and by the fact that value is subjective (it's an opinion people have on stuff, not something innate, inherent, inseparable from the thing itself), intrinsic value is a contradiction in terms.

Also, do not confuse utility with value. Water is a buzillion times more useful than gold, nevertheless gold is much more valuable.

Isn't there any sort of pegging between the Swiss Franc and this WIR currency? Like, is it an independent, floating-value currency?

The wiki article is very biased by the way.

Here it implicitly assumes that for profiting means not serving the interest of clients, what is obviously not true.


If it is anyhow linked to the Swiss Franc, this is not true. If it has to obey to the Swiss central bank, then it also carries the same fundamental flaws as the "current banking system".

The main difference is that the Swiss central bank has a reputation of not being such irresponsible as other central banks. They expand the monetary base very slowly, normally.

WTF!?

Anyone could perform such change. It's open source.

If you make a fundamental change, you'll probably end up forking the project. Some might follow you, some will remain using the previous branch.

Dollar parity can come much before that. The internet economy alone is much, much bigger than current bitcoin's 1,5M$. There's much room for valuation before every bar or grocery store accepts it.

I agree with those who think parity will come this year.

This is a good point.

Ok, viruses can steal bitcoins even if the wallet is encrypted. But an unencrypted wallet is much more vulnerable than that. Any asshole that happens to have access to your computer may steal them from you. This may vary from an angry-ex-(girl|boy)friend to a computer technician who was there just to fix something...

Anyway, currently only geeks use the client, so this is not a big issue. But if we want to go mainstream, we need more security/safety features. The simple fact that the client doesn't ask confirmation before sending a transfer for example is quite dangerous... a typo and you can get screwed!

Nice!

It would also be cool if we could add a short description text to it, where the merchant could identify himself and maybe describe the transaction. This could be useful for controlling how you spend your coins.

Aunque no encuentres mucha gente aquí en el foro, creo que tal servicio podría ser de grande utilidad a los mexicanos que viven en los estados unidos. Convertir los dólares en bitcoins, transferirlas,  y después convertirlas en pesos mexicanos seria probablemente mucho más barato y práctico que los métodos convencionales. Eso podría finalmente ser la "killer app" que introduciría las bitcoins a los que no son ni libertarios ni geeks.

Have you tried asking them, directly?
Maybe they have even a better API than the CSV...

Indeed, too hard to beat Google.

Such service would probably be of great use by black or "gray" markets that have a hard time advertising on (or receiving ads from) conventional sites.

This could also allow a stronger anonymous financial support for hidden services... again, black markets...

Quite dangerous your venture, I'd say...

True, that's a security risk. I don't see how to remove it completely, but it could be mitigated by

• Making cards with an expire date.
• Improving fraud detection by physically tracing each card. Something like every merchant that verifies the validity of a card also publishes somewhere that "card X was here at this timestamp". This way the issuer might detect cloned cards faster.

As long as counterfeiting such cards is harder or as difficult as counterfeiting paper money, this can be see as an improvement... think about credit cards... all you need is to get hold of the numbers written on it and it's done, you can use somebody else's money to buy stuff on the net.

But yeah, it starts to get so complicated to implement it that maybe smartphones apps will be much more popular and efficient.