http://qz.com/32889/why-virtual-currency-bitcoin-cant-save-the-iranian-economy/

A follow-on from the Bloomberg Business Week article discussed https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128473.0

Reading it the way you want to see it apparently is.  By now I am not seeing you come up with anything that has not already been well responded to in this thread.  That you choose not to take these replies on board is up to you but could you at least desist with the insulting accusations?

If the coding issues involved in maximising the chances of this project succeeding are a substantial challenge, which I am getting the impression they are, then what the dickens is wrong with someone giving their full attention to that?  Are you saying anybody who wants to get involved at the core of the technical development also needs to be a legal/political expert and a legal/political warrior (and one of the same political persuasion as you at that)?

It seems to me a nonsense to expect this.

Well you and some others are opting to begin the ascent now.  Not all of us are.  'The Project' doesn't appear to me to need to right now.  Some of us may request you hold back from running full speed to the commence with the ascent before the project is strong enough to make it to the top but nobody is physically going to stop you.

That we are heading towards that mountain I will agree is unavoidable and even possibly desirable - but utilising every opportunity to get stronger on the journey to the foot of the mountain is I think the wiser option.  By all means run on ahead but don't be surprised if some consider your actions to be a little naive all things considered.

If what you're referring to is promoting Bitcoin in Iran or soliciting such promotion then that's just a matter of opinion.  My tendency is towards holding off on activities more likely to be construed as inviting an attack on Bitcoin until it is a lot more robust than it is - but that's just my opinion.

As for whether such a solicitation is appropriate in that particular forum is another question - and is one the moderator at the time decided wasn't.  Maybe 'inappropriate' is closer to the mark than 'bad'.

Again, we've got a number of issues that when mushed together keep the issue as a heated one going round in circles rather than allowing us to move forward.  If we tease it apart it gives us at least three questions:

Could the promotion of Bitcoin in Iran be justifiably considered as promoting illegal activity?

Is reasonable to expect that a moderator make an immediate, informed and 'correct' judgement on this matter when deciding whether to allow a discussion to develop/continue?

Is it reasonable to criticise the moderator of a developer channel in such harsh tones when in the moment he errs on the side of caution - especially given what's potentially at stake - and given that promoting a political issue had nothing to do with the technical development of Bitcoin in the first place?

We don't know what preceded the conversation recorded in the pastebin but fom what's there it looks like jeramias went there specifically in order to solicit support for his promotion of Bitcoin in Iran.  There followed a discussion about whether or not that was a good idea then when jgarzik decided he wasn't comfortable with this topic being discussed in that particular channel he put a stop to it.  It was only then the translating Bitcoin-Qt to Farsi topic was raised.  Whether it was jeramias's intention or not I can completely understand why, in the context of the previous conversation, it could look like this was just an attempt to keep the conversation going by using the translation thing to get around the 'off topic' and 'promoting illegal activity' accusations.  My guess is had the translation thing come up in a neutral way in the first place there would not have been a ban.

Technically those saying that the throwing out was in response to the comment regarding the translation are likely correct but jgarzik has agreed with Gavin Anderson's take that there may have been an element of 'having a bad day, can't be bothered with this right now' in the decision.  So whilst the banning (since removed) might not have been the 'best' move I don't see a single, slightly mistaken/intolerant moderating decision as justification for the consequent outrage and calls of treason.

jgazrik did not 'oppose the translation'.  He just wasn't prepared to talk about it - nor to have that conversation go on on that particular channel at that particular moment in the context of how it had been brought up.  Regardless of whether or not we believe the decision was justified or not the two are not the same.

Some people seem to spend their time next to their saddled up high horse with one foot in the stirrup already just waiting to hear the snap of a twig before jumping up on it to start shooting at anyone with an opinion that doesn't 100% concur with their own.  Good for me to learn from though so thanks all

I'll use this as an excuse for a post script because it illustrates the futility of trying to too closely tie a technology to the ideas that may have given rise to it.  If anybody had the resources to keep the internet/ARPANET on the 'straight and narrow' to serve its initial purpose (and not its antithesis) it was the US government.

It just makes no sense to me to be criticising developers for displaying behaviour some of us deem to be not 'in the spirit' of Bitcoin.  However highly we may value our concepts of freedom, the technology itself is even freer in not being limited to them.

Once again, Bitcoin may have been created to fulfill a purpose but once out there 'it' has no purpose.  Where it ends up, including possibly nowhere, will be as a consequence of the aggregate of the way each of us (and others not yet involved) chooses to use it.

Edit:  I wrote this before seeing repentance's reply.  I guess this confirms we're on the same wavelength on this one!

Thanks for this link.  I'm not speaking for anyone else but I certainly don't see hard currency as a panacea.  But as desperate as the situation was in that village at that time can you think of any reason the merchants would have brought in the bread and scarce resources the villagers were able to purchase had the villagers not been 'fortunate' enough to have access to gold in this manner?  This was hard enough to watch for me.  I don't think I would like to see the scenario in a similar village at that time where there was no hard currency.

I don't see this video as supporting the case against hard currency.

PS @hardcore-fs  I've not forgotten.  I'm still thinking.  I will get back to you on your last post.

OK, I'm going to risk getting crushed by some of the high horses here, not in order to add anything that hasn't already been said, but to present things from a slightly different perspective that might be of help to someone.

First I want to talk more generally about exchanges such as this one has been.  Whilst I jest about high horses I also acknowledge some here have personal experiences that appear to have led to passionate and principled positions.  I'm not saying it oughtn't be so.  Yet there's a danger when one feels so strongly about something that we drag in related but not necessarily directly relevant points and mush them together to present a highly principled and inflexible viewpoint surely nobody in their right minds could disagree with.  Again I'm not criticising but there is a problem in this in that it can lead to outrage when despite it being so 'obvious' others still aren't seeing things our way.  It is only a short step from there to insults and we end up with increasingly entrenched positions and missing the opportunity available here for us all to understand one another a little better, to be learning from one another and venturing to re-evaluate our own positions in the light of the rich diversity of opinions being expressed.

I'm not going to go anywhere near addressing all, or even the primary issues raised in this thread but I would like to attempt to untangle two of the ideas.

First this idea of whether or not there should be a Bitcoin representative body.
We have:

• Glad there is one, pleased with who is on it, grateful they appear to be doing a good job;
• Maybe there should be one but not these folks if they are not behaving in a way consistent with my value system (or the value system I see Bitcoin as representing);
• Having one (and having elections) is not consistent with my value system (or the value system I see Bitcoin as representing) but if there is one they shouldn't be behaving in such and such a manner.
  

As far as I can see (and this was brought home to me by having it pointed out that its name is not 'The' Bitcoin Foundation but Bitcoin Foundation) whilst its main product may be called the 'official' client and has heritage/lineage, being Open Source there is nothing about the code nor its use that gives these folks a privileged position.  Reasonable options, depending on where one stands with reference to the above list include:

• deciding it's a hopeless position and stopping being involved with Bitcoin;
  
• deciding to use/develop alternative client software in order to weaken any claim to the bitcoin.org software having the title 'official';
• deciding to instigate/support the forming of another representative organisation, even if one doesn't believe in the idea of one but would rather support one with different values than the present one;
• etc. etc.

There is one position I don't consider to be reasonable:  'I don't like the fact that Bitcoin Foundation exists and that it claims to represent me (where was that claim?) therefore I want them to adopt the Bitcoin principles I deem to be true and to act accordingly.'

The other thing that is not coded into the software AFAIK are ideological/political principles.  It is transparent to all that the built-in rules virtually amount to a fully fledged monetary policy (and the headline in the first block gives us further clue as to what was behind it) but once the rules were coded in all we have is a set of rules defining the behaviour of Bitcoin.  It is then 'out there' and independent of any ideology or political standpoint.  We each can use it in the way we deem appropriate for our own ends and/or to further our own values.  Sure we can extrapolate from the rules (and from historic threads etc.) what we believe the intended ideology behind Bitcoin was but not even Satoshi has the right to say unless a user believes in certain principles and behaves in a prescribed manner (outside of the coded rules) they shouldn't be involved.

It's the difference between being attracted to Bitcoin because the rules concur with our world view and saying Bitcoin is the saviour of our world view and anyone using/developing it not in accordance with our world view is committing sacrilege.

Sorry that got a bit long!

I just helped a Christmas tree seller friend on the corner of Mitcham Road/Charlmont Road, Tooting SW17 download a Bitcoin app so he can accept Bitcoins for his trees  He's selling 5' - 8' non-drop trees for 4.5 BTC.  Come make his day  If he gets more than a few BTC sales he'll try get his wholesaler to take them as part payment on his next order.

I'm also liking this.  It reminds me of another fledgling project I've been involved with coming up five years now where those involved are asked not to involve the media, not to show its benefits to celebrities or do anything else that might draw too much attention too soon.  For both Bitcoin and this other project the longer we can give ourselves to keeping steady and manageable growth via word-of-mouth, to fine-tune the technology and to prepare for a rapid escalation, the higher the chances if and when the tsunami of interest happens that they will, rather than getting crushed by the wave, be able to ride it to a brighter future

It's tempting, more for Bitcoin in my case than the other, to think if it doesn't happen fairly quickly it won't happen at all and therefore I'm itching to promote it but maybe accepting it might/it might not and playing the long game is the way?

^ Thanks for taking the time to explain what's behind your initial response hardcore.  Appreciated.  It's a lot to take on board and I'll give myself some time to think it through before replying but I wanted to acknowledge your post immediately.
Tf

+1 - and to all you folk who have played your role mining, trading, hoarding, talking about - whatever it is that got Bitcoin to where it is today.  It could have been very different.  Now let's see what the future brings

OK, well thanks hardcore for bringing a different perspective to the table.

I am aware that ill-thought-through, half-baked dogooders' ideas can cause much more harm than good which is why I welcome your input because if there is a critical flaw then better it be brought up sooner rather than later.  So if you don't mind may I ask you to clarify your position here?

After waxing lyrical about the future in my last post I probably needed the reality-check provided by the grim tale in the link you provided.  Paddy Ashdown, writing about his experience in Bosnia was convinced trying to introduce democracy and other wonderful, beneficial processes is futile until law and order is established.  So if what you're saying with the link is that introducing bitcoins and bitcoin mining in areas where the beneficiaries are almost certain to be the abusers then I take your point.  However, bare in mind too this is the Daily Mail we're talking about here where a significant proportion of the readership are those who would prefer to dismiss a whole continent as savages in order to justify sitting on their arses and doing nothing other than moan at the size of the UK international aid budget!*

That certain regions are prone to the unprotected successful being slammed back down by abuse is a fact that needs to be borne in mind.  However for me that is no justification to stop thinking of ways that may help turn these places around - but that's just me.

I agree there is nothing like experience on the ground to get a proper perspective.  But I don't either believe unless I'm prepared to drop everything in my life and go volunteer that I should shut up and do nothing.  It is, admitedly only the once I went to Africa, the Khartoum experience - part of whcih I shared above, but it was enough to know the problems are very real and that they vary enormously over this vast continent.  There are some common denominators but the differences mean that where a solution such as I'm proposing would fuel violence in some regions it might have a chance in others.

An idea has to start somewhere.  I am aware of my fallibility in not having considered all the factors involved.  Hence my OP finishing with the request 'Thoughts?'.  I didn't particularly solicit opinions but sure, 'fucking stupid idea' is better than no feedback

Thoughts?


* Incidentally one of the reasons I much favour private philanthropic projects over public aid - especially ones run by successful entrepreneurs such as Gates - is the increased odds of the money having the desired effect.    Because without a good understanding and close scrutiny, the chances are pretty high that money from the well-meaning will end up wasted, skimmed off by aid organisations or worst of all - as we're talking about here - in the wrong hands thereby defeating the object.

Absolutely.  One of the reasons I got interested in currency was to have experienced first hand in the mid 90s in Khartoum what hyperinflation was doing to the day-to-day lives of the Sudanese.  The story I most vividly remember was our driver explaining that nobody really knew when the army was going to get paid but he and everybody else in ordinary jobs just had to hope the army's pay would not come before their own.  Because as soon as the army was paid from money that had been printed for the purpose the school fees would double and so the timing made the difference to our driver of whether or not he could keep his kids in school for the next month.

At the time I'd just learned about the WWW and was really excited about the potential of the wealth of hyperlinked knowledge and communications to break the power of abuse that was held over those people by their government (and to a lesser extent, all of us).  Now with the combination of smartphones and crypto-currencies it seems like there's only a small step to be taken not only to lift a vast number of people out of political tyranny and the poverty trap but to release their creativity onto the world.  'Scuse me verging on the hyperbolic but with so many more free and connected thinking people we have no idea where mankind can go in the forthcoming years and decades.  I feel it is a privilege to be alive at this time to witness what I believe we're about to.

  Don't know how serious you were with this response but it tickled me thanks.

I know BFL on their exchange programme count the purchase value of returned items against the new ones so I suppose whilst this continues (and people are upgrading rather than stopping mining) then it does equate to a donation of $1200.  So yes, maybe this is a fundamental flaw in the plan.
I don't know much about litecoin.  And to a certain extent it doesn't matter which cryptocurrency is used nor what it is valued at outside of a community using it providing it serves its purpose of providing an easy means of payment.  The fact that gpu mining for litecoin is a longer-term thing also means that there'll be some usable parts in all the e-waste currently landing in Africa.

But although as Hardcore-fs intimates mining hardware shouldn't be donated with any promise of riches the odds of Bitcoin disappearing entirely is in my opinion much less than that of litecoin  - and is diminishing by the day so is more likely, if a practical way was found of bringing this about, that the additional benefits of having an increasingly internationally accepted value can play its role in protecting users against local-currency inflation and can be of value for exporting services too (such as paying someone to generate the electricity for my own mining operations    )

I'm feeling it now for those who ordered early.  With BFL's much bigger initial chip order the difference in delivery time between the first to order and the last is not going to be very long if they send them out soon-as-built meaning the big-returns widnow is likely to be short-lived as the ASIC hashing power goes through the roof.  Profitability is not essential for me because it's as much novelty/supporting the project than anything else but to the extent that I am counting profitability it is versus returns in pounds had I simply bought Bitcoin instead.  BTCGBP was about £6.80 when I made my BFL order (being now around £7.80) but those who put their money in when BTC was much cheaper have not only lost out on the raise in Bitcoin value but will also have little reward over latecomers in terms of getting an early advantage with mining.  I really hope it works out for everyone but it's looking less likely by the day.

Oh no, not the 'p' word again.  I can see where you're coming from but please let's not go there!  It's such an emotive term for which people have substantially differing ideas of what the essential characteristics of a ponzi scheme are.  Isn't there another way to convey the problem with the aspect of what's going on you see as problematic?

Sorry if I'm just being over-sensitive to it!

Bitcoin most certainly has the potential to be but we're a long way from that yet.  All it needs is time and gradual adoption and adaption to developing circumstances without being attacked or otherwise destroyed by the powers that be.

I had not realised that part of the reason the massive QE going on is not resulting in a significant devaluation of the dollar is that other countries are buying it up as reserve.  If some countries are going to be disposing of some, to an extent it doesn't matter what they replace it with because the resultant flooding of dollars will surely be good for the BTC/USD rate - thus making Bitcoin more attractive?  I'm no economist so I may be missing something essential here.

Thank you - and to you

...well the good ones do!  Giant swings are where the big trading profits are to be had (for the competent few) and trading losses (including some big) for everyone else who thought they could make a quick buck but don't really know what they were doing!  It's the vast numbers of people who convince themselves they know what they're doing (on MtGox or in the wider trading world) that never ceases to amaze me.  The actual number of people with the knowledge, the understanding, the discipline and the skill to trade long-term at a profit is very small - and certainly doesn't include me!

Yaaay   I'd absolutely love to see rapidly expanding Bitcoin economies in developing nations (see my related thread).  I'd like to support it.  This might be worth splitting the thread to discuss but I wonder if there's a relatively simple way by utilising the features of Bitcoin (that I barely understand) to have a reasonable chance of being able to donate to such a project without it being a 'project' with legal charity status and significant administration.

Just off the top of my head, using the above example, how about us offering 0.1 BTC gifts to your professor friend's friends - and to their friends?  So we'd have a thread here for people to post their addresses to which I (for one) would make a payment requiring the professor's signature to verify they are indeed his friends.  Of course this depends on contributors being content that you really do have a professor friend in Botswana whom you judge to be trustworthy enough to play his role that the recipients are within his local economy. Not that I'm doubting either but ideally we'd have a built in means of verifying this kind of thing too.  For it to work we'd need to have confidence it wasn't just someone creating multiple addresses to harvest others' good will; we'd need for it to be low enough maintenance for a volunteer (such as your professor friend) to be able to handle without disrupting his workday.

I can already see weaknesses but I haven't got the time to think it through properly right now.  Ideas?  Thoughts?