Unless you want to argue that fungibility is not related to anonymity of digital tokens, or that fungibility is not an important property of money.
Of course fungibility is important. But fungibility isn't all-or-nothing, and, in my humble opinion, it isn't all-important. Refusing to accept dollar bills or bitcoins that you believe were obtained illegally makes them less fungible, but so what? It's the right thing to do. As far as singular transactions go, one on one you are right, it is the right and moral thing to do, but the overall effect on the currency system itself will ultimately be fatal. I. e, how many transaction steps down the chain do you think it is appropriate to re-integrate tainted coins? You cannot hold every person who uses those coins from then on responsible for the sins of the the previous users of the coins. After a certain number of transaction cycles, any digital token system that has endless tracing trails will end up with money that was at any point involved in "illegal activities" contaminating the whole system, locking it up. Much like we are witnessing with the current central bank fiat digital chits that have recently implemented detailed tracking maybe? In the end, money is an information technology and like any other technology, amoral, bitcoin cannot be held responsible for the activities of the users of the technology. In my opinion, it is not a function of the money to know if it has been involved in "illegal activities", you obviously disagree. But it is well known that good money is fungible and you would be going against all evidence to the contrary to implement successfully something that wasn't. The free market will decide as soon as we get a truly anonymous (digitally fungible) competitor unit into the marketplace, it maybe a spectrum of anonymity is acceptable and it comes at a range of pricing as Segio is suggesting. Out of interest, given the choice and all others things being equal, which would you rather hold a pseudo-anonymous digital currency or a totally anonymous currency? Two years later, Gavin still won't answer this question: https://twitter.com/anonymouscoin/status/471177928097554433https://twitter.com/anonymouscoin/status/471748516323528705 |
|
|
|
How many degrees of separation do you think exist between Wasabi and In-Q-Tel? |
|
|
|
I'm 99% sure it's Nick Szabo
Yeah, but who is Nick Szabo? Has anyone ever seen a picture of him? |
|
|
|
Sounds good, I'd say it makes investing in NMC a more risky, I think Namecoin's value is in the merged mining and the total hashrate, i haven't been flowing btcd much, do you think it could fly as an alt?
What are you talking about? Btcd is an implementation of the Bitcoin protocol written in Go, not an altcoin. If a btcd-like implementation of Namecoin existed, you'd basically get the advantages of all the upgrades to Bitcoin that happened since 0.3 that Namecoin never got. |
|
|
|
On the up side, there is a good chance it will be integrated with Open-Transactions, for all those cool 2.0 Bitcoin type services, solving the P2P trust of individual identity in a decentralized and trust free way. Monetas just hired two Go programmers to work on adding features to btcd. What if they used those coders also to fork btcd and modify it to into nmcd - a Go implementation of Namecoin? |
|
|
|
Let's see. I think dark cryptocurrencies are too powerful a tool for our civilization in its current state. Governments must use whatever means necessary to control its development for the safety and security of law-abiding citizens. The problem here is that you don't know the difference between reality and projection. Your apocalypse fantasy (bitcoin=plutonium) is something you should be talking about with a therapist - it has nothing to do with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
this has been a bad weekend for news on Bitcoin 2.0 projects. we all know about Ripple now. Mastercoin allegedly has problems with Willett selling out (not confirmed by me), and now we have Bitshares: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/beyond-bitcoin-1-nxt-asset-exchange-and-bitshares-technical-updatelisten carefully to Larimer describe how, just last week, he's had to redo the entire implementation of how tx's are handled within his protocol. simple inputs and outputs structure like in Bitcoin have been discarded for database tables which will be required for every asset tracked by the Bitshare protocol. blocks require "delegate" (read centralized) nodes to sign off and approve tx's. apparently he had severe forking problems with his original code and lack of a mechanism to develop consensus. while listening to the podcast it dawned on me how centralized these Bitcoin 2.0 projects have become in the sense of depending on a core group of known devs who have a vested interest. he even says that if something happened to him while the protocol had a problem there would be no one to really fix it. that's bad. Satoshi was wise to remain anonymous. by leaving and turning the code management over to a distributed group of devs who don't have a vested interest in Bitcoin, other than whatever BTC they may have bought on the free market, he fortified the Bitcoin dev process from gov't pressure. all the Bitcoin 2.0 projects have dev teams whose personal financial success depends on the success of their product. if the devs themselves ever get attacked by gov't their project would be finished by the mere fact that most of them have awarded themselves an upfront disproportionate share of the equity. i am beginning to believe that blockchain technology may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as money. you heard it here first. i know what Satoshi said about scripting language and the potential to do more things like smart contracts et al but he said those things in a forum post and almost as an afterthought. he also could be wrong about growing these products out from the blockchain from an economic and technical standpoint. the masses don't care about these things, at least right now. i think they just want their money to be safe. here in the US, the arguably wealthiest country in the world, only a small % own things like stocks or bonds let alone assurance contracts or derivatives. i think it's an interesting thought that blockchain technology may only ever be used to protect Bitcoin as money. if i'm right, all that money directed at alt projects has yet to flow back to Bitcoin. I have a prediction - after all the Bitcoin 2.0 projects are dead, Open-Transactions is going to be around doing everything those projects promised to deliver, precisely because they are just building useful financial cryptography tools and not trying to create a competing currency. The reason you haven't heard much about them is because, unlike projects that have an alt to pump, they're being more careful about who they take on as investors and are focusing more on building software correctly than building it quickly. |
|
|
|
I've heard a lot about this strategy lately. It seems really cumbersome to me making a new address for every transaction. Is there some service that let's you so this but keep the same log in info? Sounds like you're using blockchain.info. It's not a good idea to use wallet services that encourage bad privacy and security behavior. |
|
|
|
The government uses drones and sometimes kills civilians but we still pay taxes.
What is this "we" of which you speak? |
|
|
|
My personal hypothesis: By 3rd/4th quarter of this year we will see ETF's, options, leveraging, etc come into the market. Once this occurs major Wall Street firms will start trading. This will create volume at levels never seen before and drive the price far, far higher. They'll trade paper bitcoins that they can't back with real ones, and keep the exchange rate artificially low just like they do with gold. |
|
|
|
No, Frost is saying that Jesse is promoting that as a false narrative.
It's not formatted very well then. No it not but that is what's going on. The way it's written, especially if you take the green text out of there, reads kind of like one of those apocryphal, "Help, I'm trapped in a fortune cookie factory" notes. |
|
|
|
No, Frost is saying that Jesse is promoting that as a false narrative.
It's not formatted very well then. |
|
|
|
Is "Ripple is now controlled by corporate "suits" who do not care about the community." a direct quote from the Law Offices of George Frost? |
|
|
|
But nowadays you´re right that the hopes of increasing an investment by buying altcoins by 100 times are really delusional. Altocoins believers want to achieve Bitcoin-like returns without producing Bitcoin-like innovations. The only reason early Bitcoin miners got incredibly wealthy is because they were doing something that had never been done in the history of the species. |
|
|
|
I think I'm right in saying that there are those of us who would consider being called an extremist or a criminal by people who advocate the use of high tech weaponry tagainst unarmed populations a compliment. Given the state of the modern world, anyone who is not labeled as a domestic extremist should be ashamed of themselves. |
|
|
|
|
Middle management government bureaucrats and regulators have just as much, if not more, reason to want a private place to stash their money as everyone else.
Things like Dark Wallet increase Bitcoin adoption by that class of people.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
