Bitcoin Forum
January 16, 2018, 04:13:05 PM *
News: Electrum users must upgrade to 3.0.5 if they haven't already. More info.
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 ... 93 »
721  Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy on: October 01, 2012, 01:03:58 AM
And nearly every part of it is funny.  If the poor were worth stealing from, they wouldn't be poor.  What I usually see is the government stealing from anyone they can steal from, and bribing the poor to not wreck up the place.  Generally speaking, the rich have the means to protect themselves from this theft, while the middle class does not.

The food thing is only a mystery if you assume that everyone's time is valueless.

Ahh so it's all about the government for you; the fact that the rich and powerful and the government are intertwined has no meaning for you then? Or do you just shrug it off as "lol they can protect themselves by buying politicians to do favorable things for them"? Is it not the underclassmen that support the rich? Otherwise why do recessions even happen? Money doesn't just disappear.

Is the business cycle just a necessary consequence of capitalism? Blame it on credit, sure, but isn't it the people who produced all of these things which credit can buy? Is society really advancing when we are all mortgaging our lives away to the powerful? Does this really help anyone? How quickly would the collapse of western society happen if the countries we take advantage of for cheap labor were to suddenly resist?

I don't care much about the things you're talking about.  Before bitcoin I owned gold.  So I was not much concerned about inflation, for instance.  Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's extremely biased to think Wall Street activity is representative of "the whole world economy".

Are you so dense as to believe that it does not affect the whole world economy?

I would not be surprised if the drug market in whole world represent much more money than WallStreet, for instance.  So your picture of an evil government-controlled economy does not fit well in my idea of what economy is.

The Wall Street derivatives market is almost 400X the GDP of the US.

Say the government steals 10% of each economic transaction in the world.  Well, that's 10% of the whole economy.  That's bad, sure, but that's not the fucking whole worldwide economy.

You are an idiot.
722  Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy on: October 01, 2012, 12:38:54 AM
There is no fool proof system for fairness in macro economics:

If you like freedom and little regulative interference, some people will make better choices than you, and get a larger piece of the pie relative to their effort in society.

If you like social "fairness" and distribution of wealth, some people will make better choices than you, and get a larger piece of the pie relative to their effort in society.

The system itself certainly has no need to be fair, and shouldn't be. However, the deck shouldn't be stacked either.
723  Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy on: October 01, 2012, 12:31:19 AM
You were talking about "the entire economy of the world".   This was a grotesque oversimplification.

People produce. Production is rewarded. Most of that production is rewarded in the form of money. Money power is universally stolen from producers. Is the world economy not about production and consumption? Is there something I'm missing when people who manipulate numbers on wall street to make millions of dollars are doing something far more productive than someone building cars or serving food? Why is it that when these "money producers" (as opposed to "product/service producers") do their job extremely well, the economy falls into a massive recession? Why do governments seem to be constantly flabbergasted as to how this happens? And why do they think that the only solution is to "produce more money"?

Are you sure that it is really a grotesque simplification?

Reminds me of a discussion I had in an other thread with an other adept of these communist idea about redistribution of wealth.   He also kept talking about food and starvation.   Jeez, is the situation in US that bad that you are so obsessed with starvation?   Are you personally hungry right now or do you just take starving people as an excuse to steal from rich people?

Oh how cute you're calling the fairness of the power of money and production communism.

It's amazing how few people can see the forest for the trees when they think they're in the position to be the ones to benefit from a favorable type of money.
724  Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy on: October 01, 2012, 12:11:53 AM
No, I'm sorry but I do not share this very peculiar view of the world economy.

It's strange how so few bitcoiners apparently do not yet they rage against the government and monetary machine, because it does SOMETHING they don't like, they're just not sure what. Surely inflation doesn't steal the wealth and productivity of the lower castes and squeeze it to the rich. Surely 70 year copyright laws after the death of the author is for the good of the people, not the corporations.

There is a "disconnect in the system".  Precisely:  people who are starving are far, far away from people who throw food away.   Either they are physically far away, and thus it would cost a lot to ship the remaining of food you're talking about (not to mention how humiliating it would probably be to accept to eat that), or they are socially far away (they don't know who they are, and they don't know they are starving).  They are literally "disconnected", as you said.

Oh how embarrassing to accept free food when starving.

kjj are you just going to run away again after another one of your hit and run LOLs
725  Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy on: September 30, 2012, 11:54:50 PM

So you don't think the monetary system and the interests of government are in tune with the rich? They are actually designed for "the people"?
726  Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy on: September 30, 2012, 11:48:58 PM
Yeah but what's your plan exactly to provide the means for people to have the comfortable and meaningful life you're talking about?  Does it consist on stealing the work and savings of those people who only care about profit and personal wealth?

You do realize that the entire economy of the world is based around stealing from the poor and middle classes to give to the rich and powerful, right? When the US throws out billions of pounds of food annually yet there are millions of people who aren't sure where their next meal is coming from, there is a disconnect in the system.
727  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fujitsu Cracks Next-Gen Cryptography Standard on: September 30, 2012, 01:16:35 AM
It is true that shorter bit length keys in known crypto systems like ECDSA and RSA get tested and broken and this is often the basis for how long a key needs to be to keep safe. ECC keys of length 112 have already been broken but if tomorrow some researchers cracked a key length much greater then security analysts would probably recommend using longer keys rather than just giving up on ECC altogether.
A 112 bit ECC key length is only about as effective as 56-bits of security though, and DES (56-bit) was broken in 20ish hours via brute force over a decade ago. It lasted for 20 years though.
728  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "All cryptography is breakable" criticism on: September 30, 2012, 12:04:49 AM
Nor would breaking bitcoin's blockchain security give you access to anyone's vault that you, personally, didn't already own in the recent past.

I don't think it was the block chain security to which I was referring, considering that that does not give you access to any money.
729  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "All cryptography is breakable" criticism on: September 29, 2012, 11:24:18 PM
Very simple counter-argument: "online banking uses cryptography too (HTTPS), do you also consider it unsafe?" Of course not.

Breaking a bank's website security does not give you access to the vault.
730  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fujitsu Cracks Next-Gen Cryptography Standard on: September 29, 2012, 09:50:21 PM
Isn't the point that as long as we use sufficiently large key sizes, it doesn't matter?

No, because ECDSA and RSA are based on problems that are considered hard in today's mathematics. That does not preclude them from being easy in future mathematics. The underlying assumptions of discrete logarithms and integer factorizations are that they will remain hard, but there is no guarantee.

And then of course the whole quantum computing thing.
731  Economy / Economics / Re: Deflation and Bitcoin, the last word on this forum on: September 29, 2012, 09:15:25 PM
I disagree.  If they are both effects, then they are both effects of the business cycle, which I know that you don't believe in.

Uhh where have I ever expressed a disbelief in the business cycle? Where our opinions clash on the matter is that I quite strongly believe that a limited commodity currency is no solution to the business cycle.

An inflexible commodity money adjusts value in the marketplace just fine, if left alone to regulate itself.

When gold was left to regulate itself, FRB was its and anti-regulation's lovechild.

Then our disagreement here is one of semantics, not substance.

The so-called semantics led to your red herring and misrepresentations of my position. As I would be wise to be more careful about history, you would be wise to be less quick to judge.
732  Economy / Economics / Re: Deflation and Bitcoin, the last word on this forum on: September 29, 2012, 08:47:18 PM
Which, in your view, is the cause and which is the effect?

They are both effects of a limited commodity currency.

It's a prohibition on states issuing unbacked currencies, but not a prohibition on the actual coining of gold or silver by those same states.  Granted, the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibt the federal level from FRL; but the implicit idea was that the federal government couldn't do such things when the individual states would still be producing gold & silver coin.

You are right on pretty much all counts in regards to the arguments about the US. My view was occluded by later interpretations. I concede and appreciate the lesson.

Interesting logic.  Do I really need to point out the errors here?


You make the claim that gold was not used in a free market during a economic boom in the absence of fractional reserve banking (I think you really mean credit expansion, which is different) so I pointed out that it ceratinly was, just not by whom you consider to be part of the market.

I did not. I said that gold was not chosen in particular. The person I had originally responded to made the claim that "the free market has chosen gold/PMs" which fails a simple logic test. "of or pertaining to a single or specific person, thing, group, class, occasion, etc., rather than to others or all;"

And I used evidence of prior fiat-like money and the massive economic expansion under those schemes to make a case that gold does not need to back free market currency and implied that it might hinder growth. I also used bitcoin as an example.

The fact that other cultures used other commodites much later, or that gold was not the only such free market money in common use, doesn't change the fact that gold is and was money.

Again, I did not say that gold was not used as money.
733  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Decrits Proposal: Solution for an unbound, energy-related, stable value currency on: September 29, 2012, 05:23:29 PM
It wasn't a post about my goals. I don't know why people would be interested in a post about my goals, being pseudonymously here. I think particular, concrete issues are more interesting for most people to contribute their thoughts and ideas.

Well, I don't really see why you would get a more thought-provoking discussion by using minor modifications to bitcoin as a discussion point.

In an earlier post you said nobody thought about a system like bitcoin before bitcoin, and I showed you how actually a number of people had very clear ideas about it. They just didn't put all the elements in place in a sensible system like Satoshi did.

B-money did not solve the consensus problem even though he had written about using a system like bitcoin's money creation system to create money, he did not link the two together. It's a big black hole of a problem in his design where Satoshi filled the void.

So yeah, implementation is a big, BIG part of the deal. Which is why, while I'm willing to listen to everybody, it will take some convincing to get me working in a system several times more complex than bitcoin. Bitcoin itself is far from "solved" (we still struggle to improve blockchain storage, checkpoint sync, etc and we still find new pros and cons and possible attacks to this day).

Well perhaps you'll be happy to know that Decrits, at least, solves block chain storage and checkpoint sync. Wink

By counter-productive I meant in this particular instance that it would hinder adoption. That's the general impression I get. I've thought of similar schemes but these will need to be thoroughly tested.

The share system is for securing the network. The money creation system is a separate entity. Both systems can easily provide for an early adoption benefit, though it would be nowhere near on the same order as bitcoin's. But there's no point in pretending that bitcoin's characteristics will ever work again--we've already got that currency.

I have no way to know whether you are capable or not of devising these attacks. If security is not provided by proof of work in some sense (doesn't need to be SHA cracking) you'd have to tell me what and how does the system stop someone from faking a big number of early users of varying characteristics. If you come up with a good answer to this I'd be a lot more interested.

Proof of work is provided by the currency you need to create via minting in order to buy a share. Do something detrimental to the network and you will either instantly or eventually lose your share depending on the transgression. Anyone who doesn't agree on these protocol transgressions will also lose their share in the eyes of the clients, the honest cloudnet, and the honest shareholders. There is no 51% attack against this system, there is really even no 99% attack. The worst anyone can do without losing their stake is delay some transactions, and I'm working on making sure this is penalized as well. It's a bit delicate though and these are some of the deepest intricacies that I am trying to make rock-solid even though their impact is small unless a very big portion of the shareholders are intent on causing disruption. But the disruption they are able to cause is far less damaging than a 51% attack on bitcoin.

Note that bootstrapping the system is a very delicate part of the process, if you tell me that I need to pay someone in US$ to enter the network then I can only assume that it will fail miserably. Not going to happen. The alternative is basically proof of work of some sort.

The shareholder system does have a big caveat that shareholders will need to exist at the start of the system, but this I plan to resolve by having a community effort in designing and creating the software and awarding shares to people that have an interest in seeing the system succeed. This poses no adoption benefit over early adopters, just a bit of free money. I also plan on requiring that these free shares require at least 6 years of service before being able to be cashed out. Anyone else is free to create money (at the accelerated early adoption rate) and buy a share as well (at the reduced early adoption rate). The system could start out by using proof of work to reach consensus and wait until a minimum number of people have purchased shares before starting the shareholder system, but it will be a lot of extra code for something that isn't strictly necessary. I would never take real money from people for shares, I only used USD as an equivalent value par exemple.

I can only devote so much time to reading and debating other people's ideas instead of working in my own stuff.

Well hey maybe I can convince you that I'm pretty far along in the ideating process and that you should make these ideas part of your own. Smiley
734  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Privacycoin/Anoncoin on: September 29, 2012, 04:31:40 PM
Having a built in coin mixer or tumbler is pretty crucial I suspect.

And I think it could be made completely trustless, all you have to do is prevent the standard stake withdrawal for 30 days or however long you want to keep the blinded transactions available for use and make sure that the shareholder has the money covered until then. This does come with a big caveat though--"money laundering" as a defined part of the protocol. That may raise the ire of the powers that be. An interesting topic to discuss though.
735  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Privacycoin/Anoncoin on: September 29, 2012, 11:30:59 AM
Actually, I thought about it a bit more, and specifically under the Decrits system this would be possible because of the shareholder system.

Users blind their transactions and shareholders add them to a blind sig queue. Once there are enough in the queue (decided by the protocol, say 50 or so txes), a shareholder will sign all of them and have the coins deposited to his shareholder stake. Then the txes can be unblinded by their owners and sent along the network whenever they feel the need. You have the slight chance of getting boned if the shareholder removes his share, but he is only allowed to do this once per year, otherwise he has to pay a very big penalty. This does mean that the total of the blinded txes would have to be no more than a percentage of the shareholder's stake though, so if you want to unlink a lot of money it is going to take a lot of time. There may perhaps be a better way though. (perhaps being willing to put a bigger stake on the line to provide this service? for a fee, obv)
736  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Privacycoin/Anoncoin on: September 29, 2012, 11:16:25 AM
Well you're posting about bitcoin but it's in the alt currency section so I'll remark about how account ledgers in lieu of transaction ledgers, such as the idea employed by the Decrits proposal, may help with the unlinkability of transactions. At least as far as the sense of "coin taint" goes.

Because of this, I think it would be possible to create signature-blinded tokens that would remove all linkability (with the caveats that they will have to be in a fixed amount of money and you must wait some time for deniability), supported by the protocol. But I am totally not sure on this because blind signatures are really hard to understand. Tongue
737  Economy / Economics / Re: Deflation and Bitcoin, the last word on this forum on: September 29, 2012, 09:05:13 AM
Fractional reserve lending was fraud before 1913 in the US.  You cannot rationally make the argument that FRL resulted in economic growth when such an activity was a crime that should have been suppressed as far as possible during those eras.

Nowhere did I specifically refer to the US. The US had other things that functioned as money supply expansions such as the Bank of North America--funded on credit and issuing paper currency, silver, greenbacks, and fractional reserve notes from other countries.

Deflation resulting from a rigid monetary base was not.

Deflation itself wasn't a problem, just the panics every other year.

Yes, those empires did exist, and as far as one might consider an empire to be 'successful' they certain were, for a time.  If the laws of economics were not slow in action, even you wouldn't be advocating what you do.

All I am advocating is free market currency. Every single one of the downfalls of the aforementioned currencies falls on to the fact of monopoly control.

"No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."

Article 1, Section 10, united States' Constitution

Really?  Is that what you're going with?

What does a limitation on the states have to do with the federal government?

Article I, Section 8: Enumeration of Powers

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

There ain't no gold and silver clause there. Of course the exact meaning was and is up to the judicial system. But the founding fathers were well aware of the concept of paper money.

His reasons for doing what he did were not relevant to the  point.  You claimed that they were "replaced", I said that they were defaulted upon.  The treasury sticks were deliberately burned to erase all evidence that a debt ever existed.  Are you actually incapable of seeing your own error?

The tally sticks weren't defaulted on, it was the contract that was defaulted on by the king (he could have just as easily defaulted on gold). But the only real losers were the goldsmiths. Well, and the country at large for single-handedly ruining the image of what was probably the best system of currency in history. I should concede that it was debased though, but really only because it put gold in circulation as a replacement.

Whether or not you agree that gold was "useful" for the masses or not is also irrelevant.  I highlighted your error, and you dismiss it as not useful.  Priceless.

As I mentioned, you posed a red herring to the discussion. And you did so via your unwillingness to understand my argument (you admitted so yourself) because you would rather attack what you think threatens the foundation for your misguided logic in what could make a sound currency. Even though I have Hayek on my side. You did not highlight any error.

Where did you argue "efficiency" before I jumped in?  If you did, I missed it.  Of course, that would be easy since I tire of reading your BS.  I already am again.  I was not, and am not, arguing the relative "efficiency" of gold.

I argued the inefficiency of gold by arguing that the free market had not particularly chosen gold (or other PMs) as its currency of choice until the advent of fiduciary media. This, I believe (I am speculating), was due to a lack of availability more so than any other reason.


738  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: General Credit Corp on: September 29, 2012, 05:14:20 AM
That link is far from an enlightening answer to my question. Crossfire RPG has no link, maybe freeciv is viable, Battle for Wesnoth links to a few threads on a messageboard started by you with a half dozen replies. I don't care enough to dig through all of the information that again seems written by you, looking for evidence that people are actually making use out of all this.
739  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: General Credit Corp on: September 29, 2012, 05:02:03 AM
A Corp that uses various virtual currencies to conduct its business, including many of the various blockchain-based currencies discussed in this section of these forums.

In particular, a Corp whose operation depends upon the existence of multiple asset types, so that if only one type (such as only bitcoins, for example) existed that would not suffice for its needs.

Thus it serves as an illustration and example of why there is in fact a practical need for multiple virtual currencies, preferably with more than one (and hopefully more than two) of them being blockchain-based cryptocurrencies.


Not trying to sound like a jerk, but does anybody besides you actually follow this stuff? Is there actually some virtual economy going on here?
740  Economy / Economics / Re: Deflation and Bitcoin, the last word on this forum on: September 29, 2012, 03:48:08 AM
The brits did try it at least once, and the results were about as effective.

But the amusing part is that the romans started by saying "this coin is worth 10x its weight in gold" or whatever, and that actually worked for a very long time. It was when they tried to fix it after initially making its value that things didn't work out.

Of course not, neither has anything else.  While the chosen medium of exchange can become a burden upon the economy, it's not particularly helpful even under the best condtions.

I disagree. The evolution of money has served, in general, to make trade easier. This is not a burden on the economy in any sense. The problem has always been the manipulation thereof.

The reason is that money, be it gold or silver or paper notes, is only an abstraction of wealth and not wealth itself.  Money is the corpse of wealth, as was so well stated in the book Cryptocromincon.

Lovely phrase that I was unfamiliar with. I will definitely keep it around.

Again, that's not true.  I could provide a number of cases wherein FRB was not present within a gold standard & the economy at large boomed; if I were inclined to the trouble, but I'm not because I've already had enough conversations with yourself in the past to know that your worldview is as deep as dogma.

Whatever, we can go back and forth on this issue nitpicking details here and there. I have the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and the industrial revolution (coincidence that it happened just as FRB took off, I'm sure) as my evidence. Yes, all three failed due to greed and monopolies (NB: referring to gold-backed paper for the third), but they also all succeeded for a very long time.

Currencies do not need to be backed by precious metals to be useful for economic growth. There is no reason that modern economies use a credit/debt based medium of exchange other than governments gave up their power to print money to private banks, so that is irrelevant.

Another falsehood.  Most central banks in our modern era are truly government owned, even if the Federal Reserve of the US is not.  And that is just a legal fiction anyway, necessary only because the constitution prohibits governments from issuing "debt instruments" i.e. FRN's lacking backing.

Another falsehood? If you want to agree to blur the lines between big finance and government, I'm all for it. But it is not a falsehood. Regardless if most central banks are privately or publicly owned, there is no need to create money as debt. This is just a historic policy of patting the wealthy on the back for generous donations to government officials, to the detriment of society as a whole. The US constitution (to which I assume you are referring) does not prohibit the government from issuing debt instruments--it gives them the power to coin money. This power is rightly interpreted to mean that the US government can create any money it so desires. "Coining" was just a phrase of the time and did not specifically refer to metal coins. Lincoln did not violate the constitution by creating greenbacks. You are "provably" wrong.

Tally sticks weren't replaced, they were defaulted upon.  When the king of England stole the gold in the valuts of the goldsmiths, the government agents would carve the "King's debt" into both sides of a stick and then break it in half.

Bro, you can't take one part of it and ignore the rest. One person took his personal need for conquest ahead of the society and caused the default after the system had worked amicably for hundreds of years. He only defaulted because parliament limited his powers, that's why he turned to selling debt for gold at a discount in the first place. It's always about greed and power.

When you have a set of free market, unbacked currencies, such a thing can't have wide reaching effects because people will simply stop using it in favor of another. Some balance of power may shift to the issuer ephemerally, but in the long run it will be for naught. They will always be better off competing rationally with other currencies.

Not a red herring, very relevant.  The trade between soverigns was a free market.  Moreso than any of the markets within any particular borders, if for no other reason than there was no greater power to enforce trade regulations.  As I have already noted, international trade has been a free market, as a matter of reality, up until around 1880 or later.  Even then, Admarlaity law treaties really didn't have a significant effect on international trade for decades more.

Then it is just as relevant as my examples of roman and british fiat as well as currency people actually used rather than nations. A free market currency isn't nearly as useful if only a certain class or caste can use it.


There, I did it too.  A letter of credit isn't Fractional reserve banking, and it's not a deposit note.   It's basicly a corporate check drawn on an international bank, or more accurately, it's the credit score that the bank is providing to the receiving company and the check.

Again, see above. A letter of credit is useless as a form of money whereas deposit notes are not. Why do you not understand this distinction? Just because gold has been used does not mean it was an efficient medium of exchange. I never claimed that gold wasn't used. But it was not efficient until FRB and deposit notes, and ergo the expansion of the money supply to meet demand.

And you would be wise to refrain from challenging me on my knowledge of any history, for that is one subject for which I will soundly beat you down with.

Well it looks like you have beaten yourself, so I'll leave you to it.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 ... 93 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!