|
Yet you use the example of Anonymous turning on itself... how is that different? Same with miners voluntarily leaving the biggest pool before it gets 50%.
|
|
|
|
The core idea of Bitcoin is that it is completely decentralized. If you create a "Bitcoin central bank" that decides which blockchain is right and which is wrong, it's going to be not Bitcoin but something else. Nobody is proposing this. If a rule such as "the valid chain is the longest one" is decentralized and not an authority, when why would any other rule be otherwise? With the overflow bug, it was obviously a bug so it was fixed. In case of 50% network attack, there is no way to decide what is right and what is wrong. Just because you can't think of a way, and I can't think of a way, doesn't meant there is not a way. |
|
|
|
|
Don't botnets generally have a centralized command and control system? Isn't that system what has been taken down in the past? I don't think that Bitcoin has any fundamental components vulnerable to such an attack. Right now there is the issue of using a single port and bootstrapping from IRC, but if we found ourselves in an arms race against a government, I think we would win.
|
|
|
|
|
Based on the idea of Blowcoin...
What if we create a fork just for illegal transactions? Nobody will ever use it of course, but we can point to it and say "oh no, nothing illegal going on here, that all happens over there -->".
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that a pool making up more than 50% of the network power is necessarily a bad thing. The operator could choose to use that power maliciously, but it would be difficult to hide doing so from the miners. Given that they are in it for the money, they're not going to tolerate any malicious use of their processing power and will switch to another pool. I'd rather have a mining pool control >50% of the network than a single individual or business any day.
|
|
|
|
If you start to decide which chain is right based on some other criteria, you need to accept some external authority. And this is the end of Bitcoin as a decentralized system.
Bitcoin is a system with rules, but no rulers. If it sounds like a contradiction, I'd say you need to think about those words more. Also, regarding "the end of Bitcoin", extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. |
|
|
|
I just came across this thread once again, and it made me reflect upon my recent sale at $2.80 and feel not so bad about that. Thanks laszlo, wherever you are.  |
|
|
|
Kiba, you're such a whore businessman.  Arsen, I really like your idea of using Ripple to link exchangers, it rather reminds me of Hawala. I'm not so sure of your idea for cashing out. It sounds like you're describing a dead drop, which I feel is not terribly practical. Useful in some cases certainly, but not all. |
|
|
|
|
IMO, the important question isn't "is it legal?". The important questions are "is it moral?" and "will you be caught?".
Anything using credit cards seems risky to me...
|
|
|
|
|
I have a somewhat tangential comment/suggestion. I would definitely be interested in purchasing some items from your toy store, but I have concerns about the quality of the items. Nothing personal, but they seem kind of cheap. Any plan on offering higher end adult toys?
|
|
|
|
The US economy continues to work, as do I, as do many other fiat currencies. That graph shows some number going up... while hundreds of millions of US citizens continue to work, eat, sleep and buy consumer goods. The graph shows that the monetary based has tripled in the past few years. The monetary base is highly liquid money that consists of coins, paper money (both as bank vault cash and as currency circulating in the public), and commercial banks' reserves with the central bank. The monetary base is called high-powered because an increase in the monetary base (M0) can result in a much larger increase in the supply of bank money, an effect often referred to as the money multiplier. An increase of 1 billion currency units in the monetary base will allow (and often be correlated to) an increase of several billion units of "bank money". This is often discussed in conjunction with fractional-reserve banking banking systems. Such a sudden increase does not cause concern about things to come? Care to share your supplier of rose colored glasses so we can enjoy the hyperinflation together? |
|
|
|
Every fiat currency system that has ever existed and failed, has done so in nearly an identical manner. vladimir's statement above sums it up nicely.
I live a nice lifestyle with US dollars, as do a great many others. I don't see direct evidence of "failed."  |
|
|
|
I know.
I was Anarchist myself when younger even.
But later I realized that pure anarchy is a utopia, you need at least judges and enforcers of law, because some individual WILL conclude that whatever is best for him, must be done, when that thing is not good for everyone else.
Sure, but you don't need a state in order to have a legal system. Look at Xeer, medieval Iceland, etc. I find polycentric law and private providers of protection to be a superior option to a monopoly. Why is it that most people think monopolies are bad, except the state? |
|
|
|
|
Is all of the software used in your system, and all of the software it depends upon, going to be open sourced like Bitcoin?
|
|
|
|
|
Care to make an argument, or just an assertion?
|
|
|
|
Actually, I reckon anyone who paid close attention to this thread will have formed a different opinion as to who was engaging in cognitive dissonance. Creighto's position appears carefully considered, whereas yours appears to be blind acceptance. So, no. |
|
|
|
Isn't that the idea in the link I posted? D'oh. Didn't read it. Consider my post a tl;dr for those too lazy or unwilling to click links. |
|
|
|
For some reason I had the tune of an Irish folk song running through my head while reading that. Nice job.  |
|
|
|
If you make Dwolla a base, it will severely impact every other non-US currency
Ah, the statist version of equality. Rather than trying to drag everyone down to your level, why not work on raising everyone else up instead? |
|
|
|
|
One of the problems with an anonymous exchange is the transfer of funds to and from the exchange. One interesting idea for solving this problem is the use of a cut-out (an espionage term). Basically, if I want to send money to the exchange, I set up a bank account for this purpose only. I keep one ATM card and send the other to the exchanger (via an intermediary, so I don't know the identity of the exchanger). Whenever I want to transfer money, I deposit money into the account and alert the exchanger. He sends a runner out to a random ATM to withdraw the money. Then he credits my account with the same amount (minus a fee?). When I want to withdraw, the opposite happens. I notify the exchanger of my intent, he sends a runner out to deposit some money into the account, and I withdraw it at my leisure.
There are some down sides that I see...
This could become a hassle with a large number of users, though there could be many anonymous exchangers that operate like this, or perhaps they merely supply fewer non-anonymous exchangers with liquidity.
It could be fairly easy for banks to determine who is using this method of exchange. It might look suspicious if a large number of accounts are being accessed at ATMs from all over the country as well as one specific geographic area. Perhaps the exchanger would have trusted agents located throughout the country?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
