Since the very early days (which was mid 2011 in my case) it struck me that Bitcoin has the potential to be very resilient because the data need is tiny and because it is not latency sensitive.  Absolutely the potential exists for transactions to be performed in even the most hostile environments though the methods you describe among others.

As I've alluded to before, I've assumed for some time that extensive deep packet capture and analysis has been underway.  The next shoe to drop would be active filtering.  We'd have to see compelling reason to do it, but if/when that reason comes into existence I expect that it will happen rapidly.  Even in this 'hostile environment' Bitcoin has a very real potential to continue to provide a framework for economic activity.

That said, it will never be exactly easy to use Bitcoin in an adverse environment.  A small fraction of people will have little trouble, and a growing fraction of people will develop the skills needed to do so, but we are still talking about a rarefied population.  And the notion of 'real time' activity would have to be drastically curtailed.  It never was a good fit with Bitcoin's design in the first place.  Anyway, this is the basis for my being fairly negative about efforts to extend the solution widely into the sphere of the masses and to try to forge it into a real-time solution (the domain of cash.)  Both of these will prove to be significant negatives if/when there is a genuine need for the solution.

I'm pretty much at the point now in the middle of 2014 of considering Bitcoin to be fatally damaged for the use-case that I envision as most valuable.  Maybe it could help bootstrap in a more viable and focused solution, but Bitcoin proper simply did not attempt to occupy the niche of a robust solution in a different and more hostile world than we see today.  Hopefully time will prove that it didn't matter much and nothing bad will happen in the real world.

It's not a matter of 'giving' the gov't any rights.  It's a matter of what they are willing and able to take.  It's a fair assumption that they'll take as much as they can, and it's important to understand what that might be.  Don't be thick.

You and I are both very much opportunists.  So what?  Who isn't?  My hopes for Bitcoin as a beneficial social phenomenon vary and are currently at a relative low point.  So yes, I want to profit as I can and am distinctly an 'opportunist'.  Calling out the potential threats is not helpful in this pump-n-dump, but I don't stroke my ego by believing that what I write on this board makes much of a difference one way or another.

My argument for Bitcoin has always been that it was likely under-valued and a good speculative play.  Now, 100x profits later, I still make that argument but more weakly.  I argue strenuously on this thread (being on-topic) that gold has some very real advantages in some very possible failure mode scenarios and they should be considered for those deciding their financial strategies.  Relatedly, there are some legitimate threats to Bitcoin and they should be considered as well.

I have zero shame about being either a 'pragmatist' or a 'realist', and people will find that I am a staunch defender of Bitcoin in cases where it is being ignorantly, dishonestly, or unfairly maligned.

At the end of the day, I've benefited mightily from Bitcoin already and at this point I'd just as soon walk away with a clear conscience than with even more of a windfall.  But I'd take either.

Korean inferiority seems to be one of the few areas of agreement between the Chinese and Japanese.  And they are delightfully open about elaborating on their opinions in their native environments.  (Absurdity is delightful to me.)  I've found that those who've chosen to and realized success in spending time in the U.S. have generally got the memo about political correctness.

I've always been more concerned about timing analysis at the network level.  I've figured the NSA and such have taps almost everywhere.  At least since Mark Klein blew the whistle on AT&T's Narus nearly a decade ago.

An unhappy paradox is that one (or one like me) gains significant confidence in something only after it has been successfully attacked in specific ways.  TrueCrypt is a good example.

A full peer who is not masking their activity is susceptible to transaction counting.  That is, detection of transactions which originated at the peer rather than those being relayed.  Or at least that was supposed several years ago.  Several years ago most people thought it impractical though I personally always considered it a potential threat.  Now (post-Snowden) it seems likely that fine-grained packet are captured, retained, and analyzed.  At least for anyone who is tagged for enhanced monitoring, and I think that there is a strong possibility that all Bitcoin users are.

A non-compromised https connection to a non-compromised exchange or wallet service (if there is such a thing) would be theoretically more safe.  It would require timing analysis to match user activity with transactions (if they even leave the service) and that would be very easily thwarted by introducing some random delays.  This assumes that the service is somewhat popular (and thus, active) of course.

Go ahead and say the magic words 'tor'.  For my part I never trusted it.  At least not for highly critical work.  It being largely funded by the government to 'help Iranian dissidents' doesn't pass the smell test for me.  But to each his own.

Good one via The Guardian.  Brushes on some of the topics discussed on this board, and provides one of the most plausible explanations for the scope of intelligence agency internal population surveillance, 'fusion center' construction, etc:

  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/12/pentagon-mass-civil-breakdown

Not at all.  Taint is not an issue.  The important thing is control of taint.  Obviously there will be mechanisms to remove it.  That'll be the incentive to register and pay one's taxes and so forth.  Eventually.  This will be ratcheted in over time of course.

Quite a good point.  It will be very interesting to know what these BTC sell for if that info is public.  Especially whether they command a premium or not.  It will also be interesting to see if they are tagged differently a-la the 'enjoy/sochi' methods.

I've been observing Bitcoinian scammers for some years now.  Very rarely are they stupid people.  It seems that the common calculus for them is to factor in the refund percentage among other market timing details.  The difference between ripping off 2,500 BTC vs. ripping off 25% of 10k is zero.  This makes all the sense in the world.  A very real problem when ripping someone off is that they'll be pissed and cause problems.  By refunding some BTC (especially to select individuals when practicable), and pretending to refund even more until victims short attention spans draw them away, one can mitigate the potential hassles caused by an angry victim.  It is even possible to convert an angry and threatening victim into a semi-supporter in fact!


I rest my case.

I call attention to Mongolia because graze lands were the most widely thought of example of a 'commons' back in the day and even carried that label specifically.  This specific example continues to be observed in that country.

Again, you are failing to be very specific about 'the commons' that you are analyzing.  'In Germany' is still a fail.


You are framing the problem as it relates to Bitcoin incorrectly (IMO).  'bitcoins' are not the resource and don't play a part in things.  The bitcoin network is the operative construct.  It is supposed (by most people) to be available for common use by anyone who feels so inclined.

I would argue with you and Angus that as soon as control measures come into existence (e.g., getting beat up by an angry mob, or taking defensive measures such as running off your competition's sheep to make more resources available for your own (rather than moving a mile to virgin grass)) then we are no longer talking about pure commons.  All you are saying is that 'the commons' are not workable except in unusual circumstances and people adapt.  Big deal.  Pretty much all life forms face this reality at some point and they all adapt else they would not be here.

Hardin was quite unpopular within many social science communities for his various views and prescriptions.  Similar to many of those who've studied other other sensitive topics such as human intelligence.  One could achieve instant popularity which was not in alignment with the quality of one's work by 'dis'n' the guy.  I think this happened from time to time in his case.

I read Hardin's tragedy work as a kid and several times since.  What I took away was mostly the observation that people have a propensity to maximize their personal gain and it impacts corner-cases such as pure commons and exploitation of resources within them.  I personally never took from it that 'privatization' was his preferred default way of dealing with the problem.  I'm a strong proponent of pubic ownership of bulk resources.  I live on a thin strip of private lands surrounded by a state forest, and I am very much in favor of public ownership of resources where it is feasible, though I am opposed to that being the exclusive mode.  The state forest (which I am seeing out my window as I type these words) is distinctly not 'commons' and exploitation of it is fairly carefully controlled.

One thing that would easily tell everyone a lot would be the audit which was supposed to have happened.  Or information from the analysis of the supposed hack.  Or from the police investigation which was supposed to be underway.  Or especially all of the above.

For some reason none of these things seemed to be very forthcoming and any questions about them were studiously ignored by the Paymium folks for a long time.  When little bits of information did appear they were extremely vague.  True, it is 'none of my business' since I was payed off for my minor loss at the place.  An audit of the records from Instawallet, on the other hand, may very well be the business of those who have not been paid what they claim to be owed, and would very likely confirm or deny the parts of PG's story that he can remember.  It is a very reasonable hypothesis that this is exactly why the audit, if it ever happened at all, remains shrouded from view.

That is a complete nonsense statement.  The whole point of 'the tragedy of the commons' is that indeed 'the commons' work find as an economic model (and in other ways) when there are abundant resources.  Saying that 'Commons still exist and work fine' makes zero sense unless you are specific about what instance you are pointing to.

The principle applied to Bitcoin mining casts 'the commons' as the Bitcoin system generally with the underlying assumption (arguably incorrect) that centralization is bad.  Abundance would be when there is no threat of centralization.  In that instance maximizing personal gain can be done without threatening the system because it doesn't matter what pool he associates with.  In the more classic scenario it would be the same thing as the sheep herder growing his flock to the maximum number he can handle without worrying about ruining the graze on the commons since there is so much of it.

Yes, it is true that 'the Commons still exist and still work fine' in Mongolia.  They've ceased to exist and work fine in many other places where they once thrived.

---

It would be interesting to note when the first time Satoshi seemed to be aware of the concept of mining pools.  I suspect that it may have been one of the things that he (or they) really didn't anticipate very clearly in formulating the various constructs which were to influence the ecosystem.  One of the impressively few things I might add.

On balance, Bitcoiners are about the ugliest and most ethically challenged people around.  (It should go without saying that there are exceptions of course.)  Many of the most significant reasons to get into Bitcoin are unsavory (to deal with stolen loot, cheat on taxes, etc.)  A large number of Bitcoiner's would have no qualms about stealing from you directly.  The simple fact that one person put's another person's money into his own pocket is proof enough that the thief has some innate superiority and deserves to have the money.  It's a dog-eat-dog world and it's proper and correct that the most ruthless and capable rise to the top.  Fuck the rest.

Don't worry about making money off these people.  The capital infusions are probably most significant from venture capitalists at this point anyway and they've got plenty of $$$ to give away.  Donate some funds to a worthwhile charity if it bothers you.

Thanks for finding some stuff.

Worse than nothing.  Condemns us to another decade or two of disfunctional malaise.  Insurance companies (totally parasitic) are thriving though.
There has not been another 2008 in spite of the underlying problems getting even more tightly wound.  We'll see if he gives his sponsors in the financial industry a payout in his last year as did the last POTUS.
More war.  Great.  Popularized social media PSYOPS targeting Americans.  Continued same old 'color revolutions' with an even higher reliance on out-of-country mercenaries often enough with radical religion mixed in.  Populations suffered accordingly.  Worked in Libya, not so much in Syria.  It's not without a risk of blow-back.  Might be what we're seeing in Iraq now.  New saying two years after Gaddafi: "Before we only had one Gaddafi, but now we have hundreds.”
Oddly, I've never been strongly against pipelines (unless they are the basis for wars to control territory.)  My liberal peers seem to get bent out of shape for silly reasons about them.  Not sure why.  If eminent domain is abused that is a different story in my mind, but I rarely see that as a complaint.
Agree, but I'm not terribly impressed with his performance on 7.  It is true that I had to pay more than 0% on my long-term capital gains from Bitcoin this year due to a tiny change to the tax code which took 'him' five shorty years to implement.  Boo-hoo for trust-fund brats (and successful Bitcoin long-term speculators.)
Debatable.  No particular reason for it in the minds of anyone paying much attention.  The U.S. found someone who could complete a sentence to lead the country.  We rock!

Pffft!  I'm a 'Marxist' by the definition of most mouth-breathing fox news watchers and he hasn't done squat for 'us'.

I have put some thought into this question and I really cannot think of anything.  Then, idea!  I'm a lib/progressive type, so if I think of a point where I dis-agree with most of my fellow progressives then maybe I'll spot something.  Sure enough.  I'm a 2nd amendment supporter and Obama hasn't done dick about the 'scourge of gun violence.'  So he's taken no action on an issue which ends up being for the better.  I guess that could qualify as 'doing.'

Not that he hasn't talked about dealing with 'the gun problem.'  So what?  He talks about all kinds of stuff in eloquent prose.  He just doesn't actually do jack shit.

Presumably you are referring to miners and their supposed free will.  If so, you hit the nail on the head.  Anyway...

Don't worry about it.  Most people are way to fuckin stupid to understand what this means.  A fair fraction of those who do understand it are in favor of having ways for the authorities to manage the solution so the 51% is a good thing.  It's pretty artificial and easily rectified from a PR point of view anyway.  Just give have Google with %33, Facebook with 33%, and Microsoft with 33%.  The net effect is the same (or better actually) than a '51%'.  Most people who welcome the control will be delighted and most people who fear it will be put at ease.  The leftover dead-enders can work on something else.

You mean like this?



That might be a good meme of a Bitcoin early adopter and some future newbie.  If only my crystal ball could tell me the ideal inflection point.  Trying to estimate these things is what makes life interesting I suppose.

Under the current implementation of Bitcoin entities need to take steps NOT to obtain 50%.  If/when the block reward/value relationship falls to make mining with non-state-of-the-art gear unprofitable it won't be a legitimate argument that miners could switch pools since most will simply shut down (this happened at around $5 IIRC.)  Basically as ASICs get better there will likely be times when only those who have access to the latest chips will be competitive.  When this happened in relationship to the first ASICs (the 130nm ones who's name I forgot even though I own a few) it was pretty clear that they had to bend over backwards to NOT obtain 50%.  Started selling the chips in USB devices and arrays instead though they probably didn't even wish to undertake the hassle.

From a speculator's point of view, and I'm almost a 100% speculator now though that was not always the case, the demonstration of 51% is a good thing.  At least in the near term to mid term.  What it means is that Mike Hearn's 2010 projections about mining centralization and blacklisting are panning out nicely.  What that means is that Bitcoin will be easy enough to control.  What that means is that it will be allowed to the plebs.  This spells an infusion of capital as mainstream entities get into the game.

I actually planned to sell 50% (as supposedly via another thread did Peter Todd) some time ago, and my pessimism about the long term trajectory of Bitcoin was certainly a factor.  I actually slowed my offloading in part to capitalize on an event just like this one.  Also I hoped to avoid the trough which formed after the last spike.

Just for the record (from the house progressive here), Antiwar is one of my long term go-to sites for a lot of news.  I lend financial support to them from time to time (especially since they take Bitcoin) and almost no others that I can think of.  Not only do they do a good job at what they do but they also put Libertarians in a good light.  Were it not for them, I would be even more anti-Libertarian than I am.

Not totally off-topic, I've been reading more about Cantor's loss and the various theories.  Especially the 'anti-semitic' slant which there seems to be some reticence to even mention.  It's discussed most forthrightly in Israeli media.

Excessive support for the state of Israel is certainly a problem for me and is something which would factor significantly into my vote.  I am quite sure that this is not 'anti-semitic' insofar as it's a result of 'hatred of Jews' because quite simply I don't.  I dislike many of the actions of the state of Israel and I dis-like the ways that supporters of the state manipulate our politics, policies, and society, and I see these things as damaging to our country.  That's all.  For whatever reason or set of reasons, it seems that Israel towers above all other nations in terms of being able to marshal OUR politicians to a near fanatic support of THEIR objectives.  If any other nation did so on this level I'd be suspicious and negative about them just as I am about Israel in this way.

Anyway, I would not rule out the possibility that many other voters on all sides of the spectrum feel as I do and will vote on it.  And this very well may have been a factor in Cantor's downfall.  I hope this is the case and I hope the trend continues.

I can imagine it putting many groups into panic mode, and in my research on the topic that seems to be the case.  Several stories have lamented the fact that Cantor was rounding up Jr. Republicans and sending the to Israel, and now he's gone so who's going to be doing that?  Hopefully no one!  They are supposed to be U.S. politicians beholden to the need of U.S. citizens.  The program itself strikes me as highly problematic, and again, I would feel the same if some it happened systematically with respect to any country.

This is not exactly the list I saw, but since we are talking politics it might be useful to know how this progressive thinks.

I want full single payer and no private insurance companies which I see as parasitic and harmful since they make a profit by charging more for less.  A public option would be better than nothing which is what Obamacare is.
Fiat systems dig a hole until it collapses.  Not sustainable.  Trying to make is sustainable is pissing into the wind.  Get worthwhile shit (e.g., enduring infrastructure and general quality of life) out of the system then try to make the re-set as painless as possible for normal people.
I think we should make a decent place to live where people wish to come, then raid the rest of the world for tallant.  Basically incorporate them into the gene pool.  Decent work ethics and the like only last a few generations before regression to the mean takes it's toll, so it should be an ongoing process.
I would like to see dedicated career politicians and pay them well, but also see them with no real privacy and very limited ability to capitalize on their authorities.  Term limits just provides a revolving door for crony capatilism to thrive.
Agree.
I think our education system problems are due in large part to the attitudes that most people have about knowlege and education.  Priorities and expectations.  I think private schools mostly provoke a stratification of society.  I believe that our school systems should put people in tracks sooner.  By 6th grade it is easy enough to see who is and is not going to become a rocket scientist.
We've got nukes so we are strong enough to defend our borders.  More strength than that tempts us to do bad things and is a wast of money.  Benghazi is just a foot in the door for impeachement, but nobody has the balls to follow through and it is more and more pointless.
Presumably as a step toward killing it.  If so, I agree (with the caveat that it should be part of a controlled demo and reset of our monetary system.)
Most of these guys want to sell the natural resource that should belong to all of us to their corporate sponsers to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.  If Brat does not, and if he treats the countries natural resources as an asset which belongs to all of us, I'll agree with him.  When people say 'free market' they usually don't mean that.
Usually code for de-regulating which usually leads to disaster for all but a handful of corporate types.  I see plenty of areas where the Federal govt is most well situated to provide regulation and oversight.  As long as it is not under a system of crony capitalism I've got no real problem with it.
Agree.
Major Fail.  I'm s staunch supporter of separation of church and state.  I'm also an athiest and have no interest whatsoever in having anyone's religion rammed down my throat.  Or even influencing me in any tangible way good or bad.