;-)

That's what happens when we believe in a tiny minority of sociopaths who excel at lying, and allow them a monopoly on rulemaking and enforcement -- the other sociopaths outside this ring of public whoredom get a piece of the action by engaging in mutual back scratching.

I don't want to discount the validity of your question -- it's a legit question, after all.

But I do want to put forth the following observation: systems to organize society can't be dismissed on the basis of ultra-extraordinary situations.  There will always be a "what if" that no system whatsoever can address properly.  The system is not a recipe for 100% perfect harmony and cooperation, and one made-up hypothetical scenario that is very unlikely cannot be used to say "See?  Your system doesn't work".  Just like the statement "man is a biped" cannot be proven to be false by saying "Imagine men coming from war without legs.  See?  'Man is a biped' is a lie!".

This, I think, is a thought that quite often gets lost in the frenzy to "prove" that this or that system is "bad" or "unworkable".

On the other hand, systems to organize society can and should be judged on their usual performance.  And when you do that, you'll gain a new disrespect for political systems.  Look at the miserable failure that are the contemporary "justice", "legislation", and "law enforcement" systems. Look at how horrible these systems are at resolving human conflict; they are so shitty that people actively avoid or dread resorting to them.  Look at how many people were slaughtered by their own rulers in the 20th century: 270 million human beings.  Resist a man in a blue costume because he is being unjust?  Chances are he'll kill or maim you, and blame you for it.

When you see reality over thought experiments, it becomes pretty clear that pretty much any other system (save perhaps for mass and total suicide) can dramatically improve these criminal disasters that are ruining people's lives right now.

So, honestly, who cares if voluntaryism can't "solve" the "Mary Typhoid" problem?  At least I know voluntaryism won't cause the mass murder of 300 million people, and marginalize / gulagize more people than that.  That is strictly better, and I'm pretty happy with that solution to human conflict.

Your house is up in flames and you're asking me whether my firetruck can put out a lit match.  Maybe let's focus on your house before it crumbles in ashes to the ground?

That is my humble view on the subject.  Thanks for your question, it is appreciated.

I see people talk about what this or that mafioso is going to do, and this Quino cartoon comes to mind:

Not to come across as antagonistic, but:

I worked about a year ago for the largest Internet telecommunications company, entirely API-driven.  You might have heard of them -- they're pre-IPO.

Every single API request was logged and saved.  At multiple levels.  We were required by law to keep these logs.  Had we discarded them, we would have been punished.  Severely.

I'm only letting you guys know because, if you weren't aware of this, you should be aware now.  I can only speak from experience and reasonable deduction, of course.


Ah!  So the chances of someone already in your system experiencing a blockade of funds are close to nil.  OK.


This is an interesting development.  Thanks for the info.  Maybe you guys want to blog about this, and include these details in the blog post.

As usual and as always, remember: I do not hold you or anyone at BitInstant in ill regard.

If you tell the Internet Shamans that you are mining Bitcoin, they will be able to feel your computing system in oneness with the universe and the common good, verify that to be the case, and they'll restore your service.

But no, seriously this time, level 3 is usually understanding of this and will be able to determine that your activity is legit.  One tip: don't act apologetic (your activities are legitimate), but don't act belligerent either -- simply explain that there has been a misunderstanding somewhere down the line, your Bitcoin mining was misidentified as IRC botnet activity, and you'd love to continue being their customer so you'll expect them to help you swiftly resolve the issue.  Of course, if they still insist, ask them to share some tangible evidence so you can address any lingering issues on your side.

Unless cuntdicks in management gave the order to fuck your shit up, the problem ought to be resolved that way.  Sucks to wait on the phone, though.

Source: not a Rogers technician, but I have friends who are Level 3 ISP technicians and I've solved quite a few misunderstandings with many ISPs in 15 years (sometimes by switching to a better ISP).

That's alright -- there won't be any informed private discussion either.  There'll be lots of propaganda to try and assassinate Bitcoin into stillbirth, but informed discussion?  Haha, nope.

-----------------------------------

There is an interesting phenomenon that takes place in large and inflexible organizations like governments and corporations (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

It usually is the case that most important issues are never to be discussed openly -- even if everyone is aware of the issues.  People who could conceivably bring those issues up and address them usually don't, because the mere acknowledgement of the issues might come across as "too threatening", or "out of line", or bringing the subject up costs these people status within their organization.  So the issue is dealt on the basis of a "common understanding" on a nod-nod-wink-wink basis.

This situation usually proves fatal to the organization.  That is how revolutions and bankruptcies happen, and people are left saying "well, we didn't see that coming, one day we were getting our paycheck and the next day the doors were boarded up".  It is quite literally the inevitable fault that causes threats to be unaddressed, which ultimately brings them down.

This is why we will prevail.

Welcome to the Free Money movement -- it's already here, and we are it.

OK, I'm going to help you get to the bottom of the issue in a simple step by step fashion.

Call Rogers' support.

You'll be connected to level 1 support.  These guys are clueless.

So ask to talk to level 2 support.  Politely, of course.  You know they're losers but they can cockblock you, so be nice.

At this point you'll be talking to engineers.  Disregard them, for their methods to figure out what's wrong with your internet connection are naturally limited to the practice of science, and that methodology and epistemology -- clearly, as you have already been debriefed by Rogers -- is beneath the problem that is afflicting your internet connection.

So tell them to connect you to level 3.

When they patch you through, you'll finally have reached level 3 support.  This is where the Internet Shamans work.  They, and only they, can FEEL your internet connection, and they can FEEL the viruses that your computer is distributing over the internet.  These privileged and magical individuals, in their infinite benevolence and with their infallible judgment that privileges oneness with the internet universe, will surely be able to restore harmony to your computing system.

You're welcome :-)

First, thanks for sharing your feelings with us.

Second, perhaps you feel like Bitcoin is an example of people working "for the common good".  While I'm pretty sure that lots of people share your feelings, note that neither you nor the article author actually define what "the common good" is.

So, understandably, it might very well be the case that "the common good" for the corrupt (bankers, politicians, bureaucracy, their praetors) is a completely different thing that "the common good" is for you.  You can then understand how the corrupt (whose interests are threatened by Bitcoin) would consider Bitcoin to be the antithesis of "the common good", while you would see the actions of the corrupt trying to suppress Bitcoin as the antithesis of "the common good".

In other words: what the article author is saying is that "the common good" is merely an opinion with no intersubjectively verifiable basis, that there are thousands of different and conflicting opinions on what constitutes "the common good", and that what appears (to many people) to be "working for the common good" is merely groups of people working together aligned by a common interest.  That is exactly what public choice theory says, and the people working for and against Bitcoin are perfect examples that proves public choice theory.

And that's exactly what the author is saying here:


We both like Bitcoin.  You are helping me to live in accordance with my value system.  I am helping you live in accordance with your value system.

This is valuable info.  Thanks, man.

That probably means you ain't getting your money or your Bitcoins back.  That is a blacklist, after all, just like the no-fly list.

Yankee: say Person X attempts to withdraw money using BitInstant, and Person X is verbatim on the list (might be a different Person X, but still, on the list).  What will you do regarding the money transfer?  Will you refuse to execute the transfer and return the bitcoins to this person?  Will you keep the bitcoins and the dollars, and refuse to return them to Person X?  What portion of this decision is forced on you by external actors?

That's one way to look up information, but that's not what Yankee says BitInstant does.  Read his post.  They look the information up on a commercial partner's service.  This service logs everything you search, at the very least in their Web server logs.  Make no mistake, the queries are almost certainly logged with a timestamp, and BitInstant does not control when or even if those logs are ever purged..

For all we know, this service could be reporting who looked up whom when directly to the depraved people that conform OFAC.  They might even be "legally required" to do so for commercial third-party queries, as opposed to people who just download the database.

------------------------------------------------

Finally, I'd like to address your misrepresentations of my character:



Look, I don't know who you are and I don't know why you feel that I've somehow "wronged" you enough to earn a gratuituous personal attack from you, but if you can't engage me in terms other than defamation, insults and misrepresentation, please don't engage me at all.

I don't think this is an issue of "paranoia".  In my analysis, it's an issue of risk, mitigation and cost.

For example, if you're a poor (oh, god, I said the P word ) person who only has, say, BTC50 in your computer, a paper wallet is a non-issue.  Sure, it might be the case that someone phishing or stealing your computer will get away with money you might even need to make dinner next week, but it's not that you're losing a life-changing amount of money. 

Conversely, if you're the owner of, say, BTC50.000 and looking to stash 95% of that in non-current, cold storage, printing a paper wallet and taking measures to prevent other people from getting their paws on it, makes perfect sense.  In that scenario, it pays to be aware of how technology can be used to betray the user.

And, in that scenario, it would be a real shame if you were to, say, in the future, dump your laser printer to the trash, only to discover years after the fact that people "in-the-know" cracked open the printer, retrieved the spooled printouts in it, and wiped your nest egg.  And you're ultra fucked.  Or someone breaks into your house, and can't find your paper wallet because you have it on a safe deposit box, and you feel a false sense of security... but you discover  that the thief has smashed your home office printer open.  And one week after the fact, ta-daaaa, your paper wallet is worth $0.  And you're ultra fucked.

Now, I concede this might be a hard scenario for you to imagine.  If that's the case, I suggest you start working hard towards BTC50.000 so that this scenario begins to make more sense.  And you'll be filthy rich.

Thus: If you're going to do the paper wallet thing, don't be a cheapskate, buy a goddamn BTC3 inkjet printer, it's worth your while.  Also, if you're engaging in illegal activities, don't print anything, especially not on a laser printer.  And let's not discredit, minimize or dismiss certain use cases, just because you feel it couldn't apply to you.  The forum is for other people too, you know?

Viste... Estas son las cosas del mercado libre que me hacen saltar lágrimas de alegría.

Me alegro mucho por vosotros.

DannyM, tell us more.  How would that work on the registration and on the tax collection side?

We need to be prepared.

Yankee, with all due respect, I don't spread rumors.  I said it was a possibility.


Right now, due to the process you are forced to use, they cannot connect Bitcoin purchases with specific people -- at best they can only connect time/date of purchase with a specific name.  So you are literally correct in what you said.

However, there is no guarantee that the process won't change in the future and encroach on Bitcoiners' privacy further.  Remember how "Social Security numbers are not an identity card" gave way to "please give us your Social Security number to verify it's you"?  Well, gradualism is the way these crooks operate, as history proves.

Remember that, right now, pretty much every bank transaction out of the financial system into another currency is logged and available to these crooks (this is how they punish anyone who attempts to send money to, e.g., Iran).  It would not be surprising to see them start pushing to extend the same regime to Bitcoin (which they are beginning to see as a currency, no doubt you know that).

As always, I reiterate my sympathy to you guys.

But how would they recognize each other?

;-)

Warning: many laser printers save printouts in digital form to an internal hard disk.

You might want to consider this when printing a paper wallet.

You're in Kansas City.  How's the Google Fiber working out?