It occurred to me today that the essence of Bitcoin is that it's a certain kind of open agreement between people. An agreement that says something to the effect of "these bits have value and an owner who has the sole right to decide who to pass them on to". In addition to this, there's an agreed on procedure for establishing a consensus about who has and what bits.
This is of relevance in the context of the widespread idea of governments eventually making Bitcoin illegal. If Bitcoin is to be made illegal, that means making a Bitcoin specific aspect of this open agreement illegal.
This sort of agreement has obviously been at the core of all societal function since the dawn of civilization. Bitcoin, however, makes one very big change in the dynamic. Bitcoin makes it extraordinarily difficult for a third party to force(1) changes into the common agreement. All changes have to go through the current owners to happen. In addition to this, Bitcoin makes it challenging(1) to locate them if they don't want to be found.
So, to disable Bitcoin legislatively, this is the aspect that would need to be targeted. Actually, this is two aspects. Pseudonymity and truly exclusive ownership. I suspect that if an attempt is made, it'll target the latter one. For example, this could mean a legislation requiring this sort of agreements to have backdoor for the government.
(1) Obviously, this is still possible as a result of bad security practises, however, I expect users' security awareness and skills to increase fast enough that you can consider this point moot.
I like your points about the essence of Bitcoin. The thing is, worrying about hostile governments to me is ways low on the list of priorities or interests. Bitcoin has much more serious and real problems than this - and even these problems are not that worrisome. So far, so good. |
|
|
|
...
Change of ownership shouldn't be an issue, as there is no point in preventing people from using bitcoins as an exchange (except if attempting to kill our own userbase). Bankruptcy could be more of an issue, however we are working on solving this problem too as we explore possible options with our legal counsels. As soon as we have found a definitive option, we'll announce it.
Good to know, thanks! |
|
|
|
|
This thread reminds me of that supposed translator in one "underdeveloped" country, who was working for a group of foreign medical doctors visiting local facilities. After a strange discussion mediated by this translator, the visitors realized that the only meaning of "virus" he knew was that of a harmful computer code...
Back to basics: "demos" means "people," and "kratos" would be "power," or maybe "rule." So there you go. Bitcoin is democratic in the sense that it places the power of issuing, storing, and controling the money in the hands of the people. I've been mining until recently. I'm free to exchange Bitcoins as I see fit. I'm free to burn my paper wallet. I don't depend on anyone or anything in particular when I do these things. There is no need to overthink this and get confused.
|
|
|
|
The intention behind this is excellent.
I'd be happier if it was a separate legal entity that held the trademark though. If for some terrible reason (simultaneous earthquakes destroying your BTC wallets?) Tibanne went into administration - wouldn't the administrators simply view it as an asset for sale in order to recover funds for creditors?
Similarly, if Tibanne changes ownership - the original intention may not hold.
Still.. you can't account for every possibility. For now, it's well placed in your hands I think.
This (change of ownership or bankruptcy) is a legitimate concern. Mark, what's the plan? Also, thanks for all the hard and productive work. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is NOT a Currency Etsy Labs Brooklyn, May 14th 7pm Nerds LOVE Bitcoin. It's technologically and cryptographically fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitcoinBut is it actually a currency? Kenneth Bromberg, lead programmer of Bloomberg's foreign exchange platform, will explain what actually makes something a "currency", why Bitcoin doesn't fit that definition, and why it therefore doesn't trade on the global currency exchanges. Would anyone in the area like to go to this and counter any FUD this guy comes out with? I'd be happy if he succeeds. Classifying Bitcoin as a 'currency' is a significant liability in my opinion. I figure it's to late, and also that it's too obvious that Bitcoin is, for all intents and purposes, a 'currency', but hopefully Bromberg does his thing well and Bitcoin continues to remain uninteresting to legislation and the like for as long a period of time as possible. I'm happy to have Bitcoin classified as a 'foodstuff' if it perpetuates the amount of time it and it's economy has to evolve and develop unmolested. Be careful what you wish for. If the establishment, well, establishes that Bitcoin is not a currency, then it will likely be treated as a commodity, implying a sales tax or VAT whenever you "exchange" it for fiat or barter it for other commodities. This would totally impede the use of Bitcoin. I tried arguing before that Bitcoin is neither a currency nor a commodity, but simply an accounting system, more precisely a distributed ledger. After some discussion here on the forum, I changed my mind. To me Bitcoin most closely resembles a currency. This is not wishful thinking on my side, but simply a conclusion I've come to. |
|
|
|
|
I cannot afford to read through 27 pages of posts, and obviously there is much more going on than what is in Zhoutong's original post. Zhoutong, would you please edit OP to add relevant updates?
|
|
|
|
|
As a researcher who often claims things and listens to claims of peers, all I can tell you: never trust a scientist. Long gone are the days of scientific method and integrity. There are solid facts and statistics showing that only 10-30% of published academic research can be reproduced. The morale of the story: be very reserved, and don't fall for it easily.
Here's an exercise for you: whenever faced with an article making grandiose, game-changing claims (curing cancer, developing new computing technologies, etc.) - make a note of it. Few years later, check on the status or even existence of these claims.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to live in a new economy whereby "the beast of government" is strong and healthy. The government and its dealings would be as open and free as the public ledger we now call "blockchain" is. Bitcoin would then ensure that all transactions and personal wealth are publicly known and traceable. Tax evasion would be impossible, unless you use alternatives like barter or some new sort of anonymous currency. This new economy would be voluntary - that is, people would have a choice to join in, and kids when they grow up would have a choice to opt out.
The picture I painted above is as unrealistic as the one painted by anti-government proponents here. There have been examples in the history which came close to either of these pictures. The point is, Bitcoin is what you make of it. Not more, not less.
|
|
|
|
|
As I see it, the most positive thing about this is that Coinlab - and investors - will have to report Bitcoin-related income to the IRS. They'll have more legal power at hand than a typical miner, and any precedents that they set will be that much better for all of us.
Another positive thing is that, if it works, it creates a buzz among tech investors. It validates Bitcoin as a solid, secure, and free system that is open to use and innovation.
|
|
|
|
|
While generally I may be emphatic towards people who had their money gone missing for one reason or the other, I can't feel for the obviously ignorant, angry folks who throw around serious accusations without any regard to known facts.
Calling someone a scammer implies an intention and planning to scam people. It doesn't seem like there is any of that in case of Tradehill. You can bitch about them being unresponsive, sloppy, whatever, but you have to take into account the fact that most of people did get their money back. Also, the fact that Tradehill have been a victim of a scam. You can even take legal action if you think that's reasonable. But calling Jered a scammer is out of touch with reality. I understand you are angry that your money is gone, but try and be realistic and act accordingly.
|
|
|
|
18% of voters are the 1%. Seems legit.
If you ask university professors whether they are in the top 50% of their field, 94% of them say they are. |
|
|
|
It would seem the fastest method is now to post your account number in this thread.
Suspended, not closed. I have a feeling that closing the account and having your information forgotten is impossible. |
|
|
|
Yes, you can pour loads of money into your "hobby" and not be allowed to deduct one red cent, but Caesar wants a piece of your first nickle of income. So if you made 100 BTC last year and it's sitting in your wallet.dat, how much do you send to the IRS? Do they even have a receiving address for BTC? Here's one interpretation: We need some more data, so let's assume the 100 BTC was earned by mining two bitcoin blocks. One on June 30, 2011 and the other on November 1, 2011. Record this as ordinary income of 50 BTC * $17 (price of bitcoins on June 30, 2011) = $850 50 BTC * $3.10 (price of bitcoins on June 30, 2011) = $155 Total $1,005 So whatever your tax bracket is (let's assume 25%), then your tax line would include $251 of tax. Now if you want to offset the $1,005 with hardware & electricity costs, I think that's reasonable (and why I haven't declared any income yet). I'm not sure if you'll need to setup some sort of LLC to do that or not. Disclaimer: I'm not a tax accountant, and do not rely on these estimates or interpretations as they are a brainstorm of thought and have not been verified by a qualified source. I think this would apply only if you sold BTC for fiat - and in that case, the exchange rate at the time of sale would apply. If you simply hold on to your mined coins, there is no tax involved. So say you cultivated 10,000 bushels of corn on June 30, 2011, someone said this is considered a "taxable event" and you would need to pay taxes on the market value of that corn. ~do not use this as tax advice~ Say you came up with a patentable and marketable idea, and kept it to yourself. Is this a taxable event? Ich don't think so. Say you painted a painting, even framed it, but never took it to the gallery for sale; instead, you kept it at home. Taxable event? Not in my country of residence. A related thought: If Bitcoin is treated as a commodity, then in most jurisdictions each and every BTC transaction will include sales tax or VAT. |
|
|
|
Yes, you can pour loads of money into your "hobby" and not be allowed to deduct one red cent, but Caesar wants a piece of your first nickle of income. So if you made 100 BTC last year and it's sitting in your wallet.dat, how much do you send to the IRS? Do they even have a receiving address for BTC? Here's one interpretation: We need some more data, so let's assume the 100 BTC was earned by mining two bitcoin blocks. One on June 30, 2011 and the other on November 1, 2011. Record this as ordinary income of 50 BTC * $17 (price of bitcoins on June 30, 2011) = $850 50 BTC * $3.10 (price of bitcoins on June 30, 2011) = $155 Total $1,005 So whatever your tax bracket is (let's assume 25%), then your tax line would include $251 of tax. Now if you want to offset the $1,005 with hardware & electricity costs, I think that's reasonable (and why I haven't declared any income yet). I'm not sure if you'll need to setup some sort of LLC to do that or not. Disclaimer: I'm not a tax accountant, and do not rely on these estimates or interpretations as they are a brainstorm of thought and have not been verified by a qualified source. I think this would apply only if you sold BTC for fiat - and in that case, the exchange rate at the time of sale would apply. If you simply hold on to your mined coins, there is no tax involved. |
|
|
|
A rather shallow analysis. He first asserts (he doesn't explain) how fundamental limits to further miniaturization of silicon devices are based in heat (the chip would melt itself) and leakage (due to quantum principles electrons won't stay localized in such small features - "can't say anymore if an electron is in the chip or outside the chip").
Then he moves on to mention molecular circuitry whereby current flows through a molecule instead of only through metals and silicon - but he never explains why the above two fundamental problems wouldn't apply to molecular circuits. It's not like organic molecules are more thermally stable than metals and silicon, or that they are bigger than patterned silicon features.
What a waste of time.
there is some research that shows that carbon nanotubes do not generate heat in or on the actual tube, but rather the area around it. I do not know how much that would affect the whole thing (there is still the problem of where does the heat go, what would stop it from going to the tube?). and mores law only states that the amount of transistors will double every 18 months. this has little to do with the "speed" of computation of complex problems. You could likely argue that the current main stream system (x86) is old and inefficient. current mobile processors like the arm architecture in a way prove this. although i have no idea how well they scale up to high frequencies. but really, we do not know how this will all pan out until they actually start to make some chips that do useful calculations reliably. I agree - we will only know once it starts happening. I was just pointing out that many spectacular promises of molecular electronics have not bee thought through at all - for example, Kaku mentions heat and leakage as problems with current Si technology, then offers an alternative but fails to explain why those same problems wouldn't apply there. Also, let's face it: after hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of person-years thrown at it, there is no single instance of a useful, working, reliable molecular electronic device. If it were a valid concept, it would have already ended up in breakthroughs. The next paradigm shift will have to come from something other than molecular electronics. Whatever it is, Bitcoin is safe - the algorithm for signing transactions can be upgraded, no? |
|
|
|
|
A rather shallow analysis. He first asserts (he doesn't explain) how fundamental limits to further miniaturization of silicon devices are based in heat (the chip would melt itself) and leakage (due to quantum principles electrons won't stay localized in such small features - "can't say anymore if an electron is in the chip or outside the chip").
Then he moves on to mention molecular circuitry whereby current flows through a molecule instead of only through metals and silicon - but he never explains why the above two fundamental problems wouldn't apply to molecular circuits. It's not like organic molecules are more thermally stable than metals and silicon, or that they are bigger than patterned silicon features.
What a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
|
What if major exchanges got shut, perhaps due to legal isssues? People would have a much harder time exchanging BTC to/from fiat in centralized fashion. The market would get fragmented and really decentralized, with exchange value varying significantly from one location to another due to differences in supply/demand. Perhaps then people would start simply assigning a BTC price to goods/services they offer, rather then to the USD? This would be a reboot of the current economy, and we would be starting from scratch, but it may be a good thing. The way things are now, BTC simply serves as an intermediary in fiat transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
oh no
I'm sure Gox will be getting lots of heat about this from frustrated users like me...
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure all BTC-related businesses have already spent considerable resources on legal aspects. It would be a shame if conclusions and findings of all this effort remained fragmented and hidden. Perhaps a good first step for CLAG would be to get in touch with as many BTC businesses as possible and compile and publish relevant legal adventures to date. The next step would then involve coordination of future efforts, advocacy, and general PR.
|
|
|
|
|
Over the past year I've used Bitcoin quite a bit, and never used it for anything illegal. Most of the transactions involved international transfer of value, and some were a long-term BTC investment. Also, sold a few of my mined coins for fiat. This paid off the mining rig completely, which I built so it can work as a powerful desktop too.
Bitcoin will be used for legitimate (or illegal) stuff as much as you and I use it for legitimate (or illegal) stuff, much like fiat cash.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
