Looks like the toys have gotten thrown out of the cot ...   epic.

http://seekingalpha.com/user/7761841/instablog/tag/bitcoin%20bubble%20euphoria%20crowd%20delusion%20token%20money

Bruised ego most likely.

He basically admits right at the start that he doesn't understand the technology and has made no attempt to learn what he senses to be "jargon",


and then he immediately abstracts away this deficiency in his understanding by resorting to an analogy (a dangerous tactic for any thorough logician), from the time when the technology he does not want to understand, or admit to the functional novelties of, does not exist


From there on you know he can be only analyzing bitcoin in the abstract sense using a theory of money framework applicable to the 1970's ... a nice trick but useless for a modern understanding.

Also he italicises quotes from well-known authors, Menger, von Mises, etc and then does the same thing for his own sections he thinks are that important, in his own mind, or to lend undeserved authority or weight to?

It smells like a 'literate' hit-piece, sprinkled with digs to smear Chuck-E-Cheese tokens, tulip manias, derision of crypto-geeks and hints at underworld characters who choose to use btc, etc ... sour grapes?, wants to get in lower? spurned gold-bug? ... hard to say, but not a serious academic work, or even that useful to gain a market understanding.

That is not say that bitcoin isn't in a bubble of course, all monetized instruments are in a state of bubble, 

http://monetary-metals.com/is-bitcoin-money/

Solo talk by Keith Weiner, Austrian 'expert' on monetary stuffs apparently.

Here's some fresh meat for the grill boys ... summary quotation "... bitcoin is just another irredeemable currency".  

Be kind.  

Interesting concepts, I've been musing over similar thing also for some time to do with the Bitcoin 'nation', like macro-economy measures that might be interesting.

Just waiting for a well-researched estimate for the GDP of the bitcoin economy to make an appearance ... any budding economists around? We could have net import/exports, trade surplus/deficits, per capita GDP  ... the whole enchillada.


Someone mentioned that monetary base put Bitcoin somewhere near Burundi(?) on the ladder in that respect?

Mmmm, nice theory.

Regardless of the fact that the whole thing is highly speculative and even if it ever could be made to work ..... with all the users dropping into a coordinated super-secure special boot handshake dance several times, how is this faster/more convenient than regular btc blockchain transfer?

I think there maybe a fundamental flaw in this thread ... but I can't see that it has that much to do with bitcoin.

Your argument is basically saying that some vapour-ware method for off-chain transactions is going to become the predominant mode for bitcoin transactions and quickly pose a systemic problem since it will be the only thing users will want to do with bitcoin .... ?? There's so many layers of BS shaky speculations in here it's difficult to see how the thread made it to 4 pages.

Maybe, but did you ever hear any politician campaign for an election with the argument they were going to lower cash transactions limits for your "security". It is just an idiotic argument that wouldn't wash with the masses. No, they do it in the dark of night and in back rooms with bureaucrats and bankers' technocrats figuring out how they can screw "them" for a few more pennies.

As Mike Hearn is saying, it would be great to see some objective analysis (and transparency) on the economic/financial arguments in a proper cost-benefit on limiting cash transactions. I've never seen any research on this, and they are gutting their own cash economies, for what, a few tax dollars? It's insane, cruel and stupid.

Bitcoin incentive to hoard is not a bug, it is a feature.  

Also many people may not realise but bitcoin can only stabilise once it has a deep market. A deep market will be signified by significant holdings of value inside the btc ecosystem. Because of the fixed limit of bitcoins this will only happen at much higher values w.r.t. to dollar, euro holdings etc ... i.e. 0.adoption => hoarding => higher price => more stability => goto 0.

It is a kind of all or none, with us or agin us, type of deal. We are shooting for the fences.

I'm musing about beginning the "Plato Club", people who have gone 'all in' on bitcoin savings. Plato and Rick Falkvinge would be honorary founding members of course.

Didn't anybody vote for a party that said it was going to limit cash transactions?

They never make this part of their election manifesto do they? It is always brought in under colour of "protecting them from themselves" type bureaucracy arguments. Has there been any polling to see what the majority of people actually want for cash transactions?

It doesn't seem at all democratic, or good for the economy or helpful for the people at all. It just seems to suit a very narrow agenda of the banks to cut costs ... who are these laws actually benefiting and who the hell wants them except the govt. and the banks?

This is just hilarious ... it really goes to show that big numbers can explode small minds!

Bitcoin "innovators" arriving late to the party, i.e. the ones who didn't see bitcoin coming, will almost by design not see the next one coming either. They should forever be looking over their shoulders if they are heavily or fully invested.

Also, they can centralise as much as they like, in fact we invite they do. It will be instructive to know what upgrades the true bitgold needs to achieve the optimal solution.

some of the best bitcoiner one-liners ever ... come back billyjoeallen all is forgiven

Yes ... this is around the time the Mt. Gox (US/Canadian accounts only strangely) gets a massive hack and Coinlab is non the wiser wtf just happened ....

... got the stench of regulatory and FACTA bots crawling around in the background I'm afraid ... seem to vaguely recall Coinlab has some hook-up with the "Foundation" doesn't it?

Ok, the specific law that relates to what is "lawful money" in the US, i.e. what is money in the eyes of the law, is specified in the Federal Reserve Act 1913. There is a body of Supreme Court rulings and precedences surrounding the 1913 Act, that you can dig out for yourself. Interestingly, the federal reserve private bank debt notes have been brought into being under the body of contract law not civil law, so as to not fall foul of the constitution whilst still retaining FR monopoly on credit issuance, but the 1913 Act specifies that FRNs can be "redeemed for lawful money".

In fact you do not even have to go look up the Federal reserve Act 1913 (but it could be instructive for your learning), you simply need to take a greenback out of your wallet and read the fine print on it!
"This note is legal tender for all debts public and private, and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States treasury, or at any Federal Reserve bank."

Note that just by using FRNs contract law debt notes for commerce, but not redeeming for "lawful money", you are agreeing implicitly to enter into contract with the Federal Reserve and then have to play by their rules.

http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/forumdisplay.php?16-Private-Credit-vs-Lawful-Money

It is quite specific what is "lawful money" ... trying to claim bitcoin as "money" in court could land you in prison as a counterfeiter.

Now, do you want to try to tell the judge what is and isn't "lawful money" ?

Your whole "bitcoin = cash/money in the eyes of the law" is just so much ill-informed FUD.

Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut, rather than reveal your ignorance .... just saying.

Here's what Black's law has to say on money ... just a starter for you, there is so much else besides that says you are wrong it doesn't bear getting into.

http://thelawdictionary.org/money/


Now ask yourself, does this sound at all like Bitcoin, Namecoin, Litecoin, Devcoin, etc? NB: only the specific sense is relevant.

Sounds like you'll keep yourself busy making sure everybody is paying their taxes ... you better go get started on that right now, maybe on Google's time?

Quite ... and the ability to recognize good money is at the pinnacle of financial market analysis which leads to asymmetric market  knowledge.

Need I remind you that Chairman of the Fed. Res., Ben Bernanke testified under oath to congress, in answer to question by Ron Paul that "gold is not money", his words. In the eyes of the law, only the state-issued fiat is money ... they have been very specific about that in order to secure the monopoly they enjoy issuing private banking (Fed. Res.) contract law debt notes as "money". Also the courts use legal tender laws to decide what is and isn't  "money". Read the case precedent of all those people that tried to pay Federal taxes in gold, the constitutional money .... it is broad and deep.

But say we follow your reasoning, you are effectively saying then that all crypto-currency blockchains that might have Chaum tokens issued against them will also be considered money. Are you going to stand up in front of a judge and argue that Namecoin Chaumian tokens are money? Or Litecoin Chaum tokens are money? Or Devcoins Chaumian tokens?

Painting people as ridiculous in front of the judge is easy to do ... how about we stick to the facts?

Good to hear. Ultimately, it is a war of ideas ... gunslingers don't come cheap, but maybe they'll accept bitcoin?

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that bitcoin needs to be defined at all ... right now it is just "bitcoin".

The technology is still evolving, and rapidly also, already it is capable of doing things completely unlike any simple "resource". In the far future, "bitcoin" could be a whole concept definition basis of its own, for example, do you think people defined what a "wheel" was before it was invented, refined, matured as a technology? By defining, it you are trying to put a highly complex, multiply-connected surface in to a simple closed box ... and it just doesn't work.

Leave it be, it needs no definition to be a palpable reality and it grates on many levels to attempt to do so. Somethings just cannot be defined, labelled, controlled, enforced, as much as you wish them to be.

Mike:
Chaum "banking" with bitcoin-backed tokens (recall bitcoins are not money in law) is a completely different regulatory animal than Chaum banking with the state-backed fiat money of the realm. I would suggest comparing the regulatory challenges of the two is moot.

Retep:
The fidelity bond idea is interesting, it could be just what OpenTransactions needs to complete it's semi-trusted server federation model .... it already does much of what you have outlined in the OP (but you probably already know this).