|
Poor old Karl, a day late and a dollar short ....
... not only has he showed up late for the party, it is the day after the party and he's going around drinking the dregs, firing up old roaches from soggy ashtrays, inspecting the vomit and kicking people off couches who are sleeping it off ...
|
|
|
|
Fox Business News and the guy didn't know that a Federal Reserve Note is a dollar bill. OMG!
He, yeah that was kind of the tell that he was an idiot. It is actually a good point of distinction because the Federal Reserve Notes are not strictly US Dollar Bills. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 just made FRN redeemable into US Dollar Bills and the colloquial use to correlate the two exactly has been ingrained down through the generations since then. In the eyes of the law though, they must be distinct monetary instruments, or the FRN would be unconstitutional as per Article I, Sect. 8 & 10. |
|
|
|
My point is that it doesn't require a trusted third party. Yes they seem horrible naive (academics usually are). A privacy "coin" where the govt has the backdoor key has essentially no utility. Bitcoin's pseudo-anonymous capabilities are more that sufficient for "casual anonymity" (not wanting your wife to know where you spend your money). Anyone interested in something stronger isn't going to be ok with backdoors.
You guys need to read between the lines. The authors are in the awkward position of explaining a way to make Bitcoin anonymous. They need a way to say, "see this could be set up so that the government could audit it" because this provides the "moral cover" to prepare the research in the first place. But if you read between the lines, they've released the method for making this without such a backdoor, and that's all that matters. That's what it looked like to me also. It is a sad state of affairs when researchers cannot investigate new ways of doing things without the chilling effect of "what will the fed/govt think?" It seems even freedom of thought is under threat. |
|
|
|
I see this pendulum swing ... bitcoin rallies and gains momentum then a concerted effort at talking it down from the academics and others occurs and bitcoin idles for a while, but then it gains traction again and that becomes undeniable where it starts to rally again and the cycle repeats. But each time bitcoin ends with higher highs and higher lows.
The exposure these people bring to bitcoin is invaluable.
Nice analogy. The beauty of this is that we can't even be blamed for that. Yes, we are blameless ... it is just the people doing it, they yearn for freedom  Edit: Adam Smith Hates Paul Krugman? |
|
|
|
2) If your concern is fungibility, then Zerocoin-like systems - not just this particular implementation with massive proofs and pruning issues, but basically any system that requires formation of "fixed-denomination" non-fungible "tokens" with fixed BTC value - would not appear to be acceptable solutions.
Since they outright break fungibility
I think you are confusing fungibility with divisibility. gmaxwell's points about enhanced fungibility due to strong anonymity are correct ... and are not widely appreciated. You are correct that fixed-denomination tokens are not as divisible, but this is a simple technical matter of choosing the smallest denomination that makes sense in terms of value. Eg. if we had system that dealt with strongly anonymous satoshis as the fundamental unit it would be functionally equivalent as a money to bitcoin as it is now. |
|
|
|
|
I think maybe the Winkelvoss twins involvement has got Bitcoin talk/inquiries going round the chatterati in DC, NY and the Fed. propaganda machine has been awoken.
If the those airheads at the center of power start to question "what is money?" ... then the game has begun, CONfidence can be fickle thing, especially when trust has been abused.
|
|
|
|
The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in "Metcalfe's law"--which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants--becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.
As the rate of technological change in computing slows, the number of jobs for IT specialists will decelerate, then actually turn down; ten years from now, the phrase information economy will sound silly. - Paul Krugman, 1988 I know I can sometimes be bad at predicting things, but wowzee! That's devastating ... the guy clearly is a technical ignoramus ... and has a terrible propensity for prediction of economic trends, who listens to him still I wonder? |
|
|
|
Kind of sad that Nobel prize winner in economics would not understand (or intentionally abuse ) the dictionary meaning of "fiat" ... since bitcoins are in a sense the ultimate fiat currency, with a value conjured out of thin air. Federal Reserve Notes form the most anti-social network of currency the planet has seen since the Roman dineros, so it is plain that Krugman doth protest too loudly ... |
|
|
|
The bond bubble is the one they are struggling with all their might to keep inflated .... if investors start to abandon bonds then the game is up, (interest rates will rise regardless of the illusion of control from any central bank). Gold and BTC were beginning to present viable alternatives to the "safe-haven" bond holdings ... that the central banks are devaluing with their unprecedented fiat money creation. The bond bubble is the next to pop and the crash will be spectacular.  We are at the nexus, debt or asset money, your choice? |
|
|
|
|
Classic attack journalism. Aggressively ask questions in rapid fire succession in order to unsettle the interviewee, cut his answers short with new questions.
Basically, subliminal message that they are trying to put out is to confirm the "Bitcoin is a scam!" first impression many people have who haven't looked into too deeply ... i.e. scaring away the sheeple.
|
|
|
|
Let them think they can regulate the bitcoin, and when they wake up it will be too late, people hates banks, big government and too big to fail and fork with less regulation will be always most sucessful
This one. Bring on the contrived rules and edicts from the privileged few to aid the privileged few ... the sooner the new rules are known the sooner the true bitcoin will learn how to route around them and fork as/when needed. NB: We can play this game ad infinitum ... and we have home field advantage. |
|
|
|
Wow, looks powerful. Kids are gonna have a field day with this one .... Edit: wanted to ask how do we know you won't just run off with the coinz ? |
|
|
|
Friedcat, I dream about PCIe card with size similar to GPU, taking about the same 300W, using similar cooling and using 100 of your chips.
Any chance to get this into reality? The market would be fantastic for this.
Really good idea. A drop in replacement for GPU cards with a huge installed base that will already have power, housing, cooling, network, mobo, etc infrastucture in place. Makes huge amount of sense so probably v. cost effective and therefore marketable. |
|
|
|
|
I highly doubt that the airhead that raised the "unconstitutional" argument has ever read the Constitution. For one, the point is nonsensical in that context and secondly that she doesn't strike me as the type that would bother to do such basic due diligence as background reading.
|
|
|
|
You all make it sound like this is some sort of game of who will come first to the finish line.
Um, it was the professor of finance that said it was a game. Unfortunately, he appears to be unaware of the irony in that him (and hundreds of millions of others) were duped into playing the Federal Reserve's version of the game ... and they are losing terribly. Hint: take a look at Llyod Blankfein's, Jamie Dimon's, etc take home pay. |
|
|
|
Winklevoss twins have used some of their bitcoin to pay for the services of a Ukrainian computer programmer who has worked on the site should keep an eye on that Ukrainian programmer ... what site is he building now? lol ... Facecoin? Bitbook? |
|
|
|
|
Good one Roger Ver.
Georgetown University Finance Professor James Angel - "Bitcoin's a game"
This one is a keeper for the history books. How many more Keynesian fiat apologists (dinosaur relics) are going to regret even opening their yaps as this revolution plays out I wonder?
I hope these guys know how to secure their IT wealth, assets and livelihood because sticking your head above the parapet may not be the brightest idea for powerful from a fast receding era who now ride a wave of technology, but do not create it. Where we're going they are on a fast track to obsolescence.
Edit: upon re-watching I noticed the crucial moment when Angel conceded that people are free to voluntarily use bitcoin if they want. In essence, they cannot fundamentally disagree with monetary freedom because that would make them facists ... they just strongly disagree with anybody else choosing not to play their version of MMPOG money game (USD digital fiat).
|
|
|
|
It is possible, I believe, to make p2p blockchain ledger systems which do useful mining (ie: the miners do calculations that solve real life problems such as protein folding) or indeed that don't require mining at all. I'm about to try and make one myself (don't really know whether it'll work or not though).
This is an intriguing question that has been raised before whether the hash power involved in securing the network could actually be harnessed to perform a secondary function at the same time ... like finding large primes for example, if the right mapping could be found ...  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
