There is a textbook economic response to the bullshit fabricated on this message board to make bitcoin's terrible economic principles sound more valid?

If there is anything to take away from that post, it is that bitcoin will have *zero* effect on consumerism. The consumers simply won't use it in favor of something else (likely fiat) that does not impede it.

Consumerism is a byproduct primarily of technological progress, not "inflation". A deflationary side-currency will do nothing to stop this because it will be discarded if it gets in the way. Western countries benefit heavily off of the USD/EUR reserve status and take advantage of weaker economic markets (outsourcing). As bitcoin will do absolutely squat to level that playing field, it will do nothing to spur environmental conservation. When and if that playing field does become more level, it becomes a matter of directing resource consumption into knowledge consumption - education.


I would suggest adding thoughts on the business cycle to your argument. A whole lot of human suffering is caused by the machinations of money. It is easy to point the finger at the fed or governments in fiat, and it is easy to pretend that there won't be a BitStreet in the bitcoin economy, but that is foolhardy.

No, I wouldn't. I didn't spend over 2 years doing this to give it away. Where is your algorithm, Anonymint? Oh yeah, no where. I've done far more than my fair share of being free with information. You have contributed nothing but ego. And you constantly misinterpret EVERYTHING in a way that you can easily attack (oh, he must mean private keys! I can attack that!). You are a hopeless cause and your stubbornness knows no bounds.

Why, so we can continue this game of you thinking you know everything and can prove everything incorrect by saying so? Stop wasting everyone's time including yours and build your wonderful system on top of broken technology. No one's going to validate an idea that you have not proposed. No one (else) is going to code it either.

Disastrously incorrect. Anyone in the line of coin taint who is caught can leave trails to prior coin holders.


No, for fuck's sake, I don't.

But this is wrong. Private property isn't going to survive a crazy devolution of society. That's why it's a crazy devolution of society. If the establishment kicks and screams so hard to stop it, there is nothing to be done for western society. As I mentioned previously to you in a PM, it becomes time for the "3rd world" economies to take the reign where the governments have much less power. They can't go after everybody, so anything that is a hindrance to adoption by everybody slows down the possibility of a quick and hopefully less painful switch.


Coin taint is only an issue with a transaction ledger--less so with the "mini-blockchain" but still there. Rather than square pegging the round hole, the universally better design of the account ledger solves it natively.

Additionally, in lieu of "sending coins", one can simply send accounts by changing keys. Following this principle, it is impossible to follow more than one hop in an account's life without rubber hosing each person down the line. If done correctly, it is impossible to know how much was even sent.

As far as IP anonymity, the NSA cannot be everyone. Timing attacks on tor cannot isolate individual transactions from the noise. With a healthy mix of clear net and tor nodes, very good IP anonymity is possible with very little effort (and those who wish for greater privacy help those who don't care!). And, if they do catch something, all they have is the tiniest window of information that is stopped in its tracks at the next account change. And of course for those who need even more, there are more precautions that can be taken. But the protocol should not be designed to cater to them.

Over and over and over and over and over again. If you would stop for one second and drop the megalomania, we could possibly go somewhere. But nothing ever works for you but you. I try to pry you open, but you shut tighter, so there is no point and I am just wasting my time yet again. I guess I don't learn either.

No, you didn't, you regurgitated what someone else said.


If done correctly, it is precisely the opposite. The common man Tor use case will make it magnitudes more effective.


Rationalize all you want, hose beats crypto. So does surveillance.


Tor is not a web browsing anonymizer. Belittling it in such a way means that either your understanding of it is poor, or it is an attempt to manufacture a reason for your case, again. Neither choice leaves me impressed.


I am against you wasting your time on pursuits that are not that useful.

AnonyMint, I am not going to write a whitepaper whenever I need to make an argument for you. This has already taken up way too much time. First you imply that there is some ulterior motive behind disliking your anonymizing design with your loaded question, then jump to the conclusion that I am uneducated about timing attacks based on a jab at your resort to appealing to authority.

A P2P transaction network interfacing with tor is *not* the same as your typical (lol what?) tor user scenario. No, I'm not going to hold your hand until you understand the implications of this.


Because *I* have a much more idealistic outlook on life-after-cryptocurrency (NB: It is insanely unfortunate that the first had to be designed like Bitcoin). You can think the way you do, but the problem with that is that it doesn't matter what gidget you come up with to anonymize the network, shit is going to hit the mother f***ing fan. There is no winning here.

If you sacrifice liberty for security... (do I need to finish this sentence or is the ellipsis enough?) Liberty being very loosely defined as the utility and accessibility of the network. Cheap, fast, scalable are properties that are of paramount importance to anonymity. And IF you can find a way to increase anonymity via increasing difficulty/cost with little affect on those who do not want it or need it, then you allow a happy medium between both needs and, imo, have the best chance of achieving what I think is roughly the same goal between us.

You mean like "well bruce schneier sez!!!"?


Sorry, but this fails the smell test. It is a manufactured argument for pushing an agenda. Crypto accounts can't be frozen, and they are difficult and sometimes impossible to confiscate (lol let's raid EVERYBODY!!), let alone prove that you are in possession of them.

You do not have a grasp on the situation here. I'll leave it at that.


Hmmm. AnonyMint, why are you so scared? May I imply that you are a criminal in various ways?

PS - For crying out loud, stop editing your posts.

And the gigantic point that you miss is that the originator of the transaction is lost in the noise. With basic protocol encryption, the NSA would have to not only be watching your connection, but they would have to BE every peer you are connected to on the "clear net" so that they can isolate the incoming tx that you see and retransmit, then they would have to control a vast majority of every bridge or relay in the tor network to ensure that they control each hop you use (which is astronomically unlikely if the client acts as a tor bridge--unless the NSA is the only one using it, you're fairly safe).

What in the ever loving fuck are they going to do? Control every bit of data, crunch all the numbers and put it in a tidy box for the IRS to examine and send a tax bill? What happens if people start opening up their wireless connections for transactions? What happens if KimDotCom (or insert random person with wealth and anti-establishment values) creates a tor hidden service and says "send me your tx, I will forward them on"? They will now need to control every piece of tor infrastructure and his service.

The NSA does not have the ability to suppress this or do whatever it is you've gotten into your mind that they can do. Not without destroying the internet, the tool they have fallen so deeply in love with.

SO WHAT? The relays do not know what the data is!

And this is completely irrelevant in the case of a distributed shared file. No one is trying to hide anything except for a tiny little portion that they do not want attributed to them. They DO need to be able to decrypt the traffic if they want to know what transaction originated from where.

Tor is perfectly acceptable for anonymizing transactions. Why you don't see this is beyond me. And the trade-off for high latency is an unusable network for commerce, at least of the face to face variety. In that case, only criminals are likely to use such a system making the target much juicier.

This is the rub. You are either forcing lots of people who don't care about the data to receive it, or you are forcing lots of people who don't care about the data to receive it and those who do pay a tx fee. These are things better tackled outside of the primary network, imo.

I still don't get your view on this. Even if they somehow manage to have such a massive amount of control over Tor that they can determine where a packet of data originated on the tor network, it does not prove or even imply that the transaction belongs to the originating connection. That is a preposterous presumption to make of a distributed shared file. Hell, I could imagine that even if the NSA was watching every local connection for everyone, this would be easily defeated by pseudo/fake Tor peers that occasionally feed each other nonsense data. How are they going to prove it? "We control every single node and we know that that isn't one of them?" That could be foiled by occasionally sending real data among the nonsense data.

AnonyMint suggested this very thing but with scrypt at one point. However, I think it would have made verifying even more difficult. He would know better. He would probably also be a reasonable judge of this corollary to that idea.

You are banking on the irrationality of the masses. Not necessarily a bad bet, but it is a square peg treatment again that involves wasting energy.


It is less clever than giving that value away without requiring the token of wasted energy.

This is not a well-thought argument. A CPU coin is likely to be dominated by expensive CPUs and/or CPU farms that are available for time purchase. Those with low-end CPUs will be forced to upgrade to remain relevant, but the simpler and perhaps more financially sound option is to purchase the currency in lieu of mining it. This is the *exact same* scenario with GPUs. And it also makes sense economically because if everyone is a miner, no one is demanding to trade fiat for it, and all value must enter the coin via burning electricity.

A GPU is a relatively general purpose device, and with GPGPU on the horizon, is it really a problem? What is the fascination with CPU only? As long as ASICs remain specific and an algorithm is easy to change, ASICs can't have an advantage over GPU/GPGPUs because they can easily become obsolete. With this algo, it is trivial to change the hashing algorithm while keeping the verification simple and general purpose devices relevant.