Exactly tangible doesn't have to mean physical but often the PM crowd uses the world tangible when they really mean physical. Bitcoin may not be physical but it certainly is tangible. Math and cryptography give it tangibility. If I have the private key to an address which has 100,000 BTC I have tangible control over that wealth. Now someone may say well what if someone attacks you and steals the key? The analogy would be what if someone attacks you and steals the key to your vault of gold?
This a crucial conceptual link that needs to be made, it is going to be a stretch for anybody who has little knowledge of physical location of computer files (e.g. in RAM on disk, clipdrive, etc), bit representations of numbers and understanding of what private keys are. Now the next big jump once those foundations are in place; since the tangible private key can be copied ad infinitum, is how the blockchain ensures that the locked "mail box" that holds the bitcoins that fits the private key 'cannot' be tampered with, since it is secured by the power of the bitcoin mining network. Once led through this chain of logic, the thinking gold bug gets it. Doesn't mean that other hurdles aren't still there and some are more personal hurdles besides ... how confident are they managing securely their own private keys?, securing their computers generally? ... anonymising themselves on the Internet so they can benefit from private transaction capabilities? ... it goes on, each individual has their own concerns and reasons for acting  At this stage, for a portion of wealth that needs to be stored, it is still simpler to dig a hole in the ground somewhere and bury gold, than 'do the satoshi' ... that's not to say that it will always be like that or there aren't other advantages of one over the other. It's a competition and horses for courses ... I just don't see it as one or the other. |
|
|
|
|
Suggest that you get it SSL enabled for business like this ....
looks okay, you don't think associating yourself with the daktory is going to attract unwanted attention?
|
|
|
|
I'm tired of arguing about Mises' Regression Theorem and the definitions of money and currency.
We should just admit that Bitcoin isn't "real money" because it's better than money, just like how a web site is better than a newspaper.
This article is a perfect example of why - mere money can't do any of those things.
Lol ... and an excellent point to boot ... a "bitcoin is not real money" statement should be just agreed with, or reposted with a cryptic answer such as. A : Bitcoin is not real money! B: But what is real money? The key here is that "real money" lacks a precise definition, Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of Fed. Res., someone you would think qualified to know about these things stated this in congressional testimony. So they will always be right, bitcoin is not real money because in fact no such a thing exists since it hasn't been precisely defined. Call it what you will, but just like land, gold, silver, exotic collectables, diamonds, property, stocks and a myriad of other liquid assets, it appears value can be stored and transferred using these crazy digital keys, becoming commonly known as bitcoins. I would say bitcoin is nothing like money as we have known it and although bitcoin is NOT money it does not stop it being valuable. Bitcoin is a value information transfer and storage technology. You may or or may not call it money, as you wish, that does not stop it being what it is. |
|
|
|
|
Actually you could do this probably easier with a Open Transactions smart contract, technically it is designed for this kind of thing bitcoin less so ... but installing OT and managing contracts is still a hurdle for most users.
|
|
|
|
Seems like there is a demand for a "Protection Business" ... pay some regularly and you get security services for your site that may include things like unspecified counter-attacks against attackers and other black arts that could serve as deterrents against would-be threats.
Is this a serious proposal?? In real world this pattern is known as racketeering: put a shop on fire and then offer protection to the threatened owner. Do we really want Bitcoinland go that route? Semi-serious. In the real world it is known as "advanced" policing or mafioso tactics ... take your pick. CloudFlare is free ( http://www.cloudflare.com/) i doubt you can compete with that...  Do they take bitcoin?  |
|
|
|
Seems like there is a demand for a "Protection Business" ... pay some regularly and you get security services for your site that may include things like unspecified counter-attacks against attackers and other black arts that could serve as deterrents against would-be threats.
Is this a serious proposal?? In real world this pattern is known as racketeering: put a shop on fire and then offer protection to the threatened owner. Do we really want Bitcoinland go that route? Semi-serious. In the real world it is known as "advanced" policing or mafioso tactics ... take your pick. |
|
|
|
|
Seems like there is a demand for a "Protection Business" ... pay some regularly and you get security services for your site that may include things like unspecified counter-attacks against attackers and other black arts that could serve as deterrents against would-be threats.
|
|
|
|
|
Deploy to afghanistan ... wow, hit the lottery there hackster.
Hmmm, do I stay in silicon valley bitcoin start-up or move to afghanistan to track down bad guys using bitcoins?
What are they on these govt. wonks?
|
|
|
|
Yes, exactly, the protocol is the same. Mining server just provide other services with different methods.
Teoretically is possible to have electrum client with build-in miner, which handles both blockchain requests and mining on the same connection.
Cool, nice work. |
|
|
|
This comment made my week already .... This particular conclusion was derived at after the last presentation at the forum by Senior Legal Counsel to the Federal Reserve .... The presenter said, “well, if the regulators don’t like what Bitcoin is doing, it’s very possible they could come after you.” To this Voorhees replied that there was no “you”. On this the counsel said in that case the law would go after the server farms and the infrastructure. Fed. Res. senoir legal counsel thinks they can shutdown the Bitcoin Company's "server farms" ... cool. The intertubes are getting all gummed up with disinformation heheheh! |
|
|
|
The protocol has been designed for Electrum client and it is fully compatible. "Stratum mining" is just the Stratum service used for bitcoin mining instead of providing user's balance...
Interesting. So theoretically you could set it up so an Electrum client could be pointed at the Stratum 'mining' proxy and get it's requests forwarded to an Electrum server or more specifically a group of servers with failover etc handled by the proxy in same way it handles mining traffic? ... not saying this is necessarily a good idea just curious if it could be done. |
|
|
|
|
Sounds interesting. Is it any way, except name, related to the Stratum (electrum) client-server protocol used for bitcoin transaction forwarding?
|
|
|
|
Well 1861/62 saw the first Revenue Act to tax income. But a careful read shows it applied only to federal things, soldiers, officer pay, etc. Basically Congress taxing Congress' stuff. But yes, the introduction of FRNs allowed the banksters (in partnership with government) to apply federal taxation out to the rest of America. But it was a very slow, gradual process. Remember, the early FRNs were backed by metal, real money, and were probably considered placeholders for money, not money itself. Says right on them: "PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND...TEN DOLLARS."
The layers of deception that have gone into achieving the Federal Income Tax are repugnant. E.g. If you choose to use the Federal Reserve Notes for your income you are voluntarily (probably unwittingly) entering into a contract with the the legal entity known as the "Federal Government" (note this is a separate legal entity to the "United States of America"), to use the FR's private debt notes that are subject to private law, not public law, and are giving consent to the IRS to treat you as willing participant in the body of contract law surrounding taxation arising from the use of Federal Reserve private debt notes. Note, the debt is never extinguished in this system but merely passed onto the next holder of the notes and whilst you choose to use these notes your body becomes liable for any costs incurred in the volutary use of these notes (taxes, levies, fines, inflation, war costs, etc, etc). Congress has had its part to play in this deception, since the structure was needed to get around the provisions for lawful money given by the Constitution. It is now an elaborate and sophisticated web of laws, contextual contracts and deception that the majority will never escape. But it seems there maybe "Remedy" supplied in the Federal Reserve Act itself. You can opt out of the Federal Reserve system of private debt money and demand for your income "Redeemed in Lawful Money, Pursuant to 12 USC § 411" when collecting your paycheck at a US bank .... and then things get interesting. http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?471-Redemption-of-Lawful-Money-at-US-BankSo the US does not actually have a state monopoly issued currency but a duopoloy of currencies. The first, United States Notes and the other being the Federal Reserve System's private debt notes. |
|
|
|
Wow, leave it to an Aussie bitcoiner to discover the American system of banker oppression ... carried out with Federal Reserve money. I've been redeeming lawful money (public money) for years here in the US, and can confirm that 'deadlizard' is (mostly) correct. US notes were discontinued but still in circulation. Not a moot issue, trentzb, and very much on topic. The judge says the Constitution is not applicable because he's enforcing a private agreement - you've endorsed private credit of the Federal Reserve backside of your paycheck. You are contracting. Make your demand for lawful money instead as written in Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act (codified at 12 USC 411) and you'll then be NON-contracting, operating outside the federal districts overlaid on the States. If true, you realize that bitcoin operates outside their system too. Bitcoin receipts are not income under the Revenue Acts, unless of course you consent to consider them so. That's where the propaganda, psychology & conditioning come into play. I haven't paid federal income taxes since 2007; no issues. Here's a company that beat the IRS using lawful money: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?681-Company-beats-IRS-penalties-with-Lawful-MoneyPS. beware. There's a quatloser site out there that's disinfo - specifically setup by attorneys to steer you away from this. So you are saying that the introduction of the Federal Reserve Notes is what enabled the Federal government to apply Federal Income Taxes? It seems more than a coincident that both arrived around the same time. Edit : here's the Fed. Res. view on it ... http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_15197.htmEdit : and here's how the de-linking "legal tender" from "lawful money" was done, over the years. http://www.the-privateer.com/paper.html For judges to dismiss challenges to such treasonous banking acts as "frivilous" is a disgusting crime against society, complicit in the looting. |
|
|
|
Interesting to see this thread, as I just started reading the Denationalization of Money book today. The following made me think he'd be sceptical about bitcoin as a concept until he saw it actually working (which it now is): It is probably impossible for pieces of paper or other tokens
of a material itself of no significant market value to come to be
gradually accepted and held as money unless they represent a
claim on some valuable object.
It seems to me Bitcoin has significant value as a way of safely, quickly, and inexpensively, sending money globally between people, without interference from governments or other parasitic agencies. Yes. this has been over-looked, that money can have a value to the market just for being useful at being good money. In some ways these properties provide a floor that can be placed on bitcoin's value, albiet one that is subject to political actions. The other floor is the cost of production by mining, if bitcoins get cheaper in the market than it is to mine them then some miners will buy at the market rather than mine, supporting them at that price, (I have knowingly disregarded secondary effects to difficulty in this argument). One of the thing's Hayek witres about is how any new issues of free market 'token' money would need to be guaranteed with a floor by the issuing agency. The floor is what gives the market confidence that they will not go to zero. As the market adopts and uses the tokens more then they can achieve any value, a premium, above that floor. In this sense, all token money is a market in a permanent bubble state since it is only the collective confidence of the market that maintains the confidence premium value above the floor. |
|
|
|
it would be useful to link to the relevant article of Hayek's that DGC refers to https://mises.org/daily/3204I like these bits about what Hayek says that applies to bitcoin (and any non-state monetary experiments) ... he may be old and dead but he is still well ahead of anything in establishment and lots of those in the modern "Austrian" school who cling to the gold standard like a shibboleth, disregarding the glaring dichotomoy of advocating for a state-monopoly at the core of their purported free-market, limited state ethos. The interesting fact is that what I have called the monopoly of government of issuing money has not only deprived us of good money but has also deprived us of the only process by which we can find out what would be good money. We do not even quite know what exact qualities we want because in the two thousand years in which we have used coins and other money, we have never been allowed to experiment with it, we have never been given a chance to find out what the best kind of money would be. The essential point which I can not emphasize strongly enough is that we would get for the first time a money where the whole business of issuing money could be effected only by the issuer issuing good money. He would know that he would at once lose his extremely profitable business if it became known that his money was threatening to depreciate. He would lose it to a competitor who offered better money. I wish I could say that what I propose is a plan for the distant future, that we can wait. There was one very intelligent reviewer of my first booklet who said, "Well, three hundred years ago nobody would have believed that government would ever give up its control over religion, so perhaps in three hundred years we can see that government will be prepared to give up its control over money." We have not got that much time. We are now facing the likelihood of the most unpleasant political development, largely as a result of an economic policy with which we have already gone very far. |
|
|
|
Just stumbled upon this article describing a hack where between $75 million and $2.5 billion was lost: The hackers targeted banks first in Europe and then in Latin America and the US, according to Intel-owned security vendor McAfee, which helped in the theft investigation, dubbed Operation High Roller.
The company said the hackers focused on large bank accounts and stole between $75 million and $2.5 billion. Most of the withdrawals were less than $10,000, and the biggest was $130,000. The thieves transferred stolen money to their own accounts in various European locations.
McAfee said the attacks were unusual in that they were largely automated and used cloud computing. Typically, people who hack bank accounts steal usernames and passwords and then manually transfer money from one victim at a time. That's more money lost than the entire bitcoin economy. Hopefully this helps to put things into perspective a bit. Yes, but did depositors actually lose their deposits? (or maybe, were they told they would be maybe paid back in 3 years time?) Which demonstrates who actually had deposits, and not just fictional numbers in a database. |
|
|
|
John raises excellent points in this article.
"We demand you give us the private keys to these addresses within 24 hours!"
Transfer bitcoins.
"Here ya go"
FreeMoney raises an excellent countermeasure against Easily done with a 'panic button' script that can broadcast all your coin to a laundry service into your own personal and more private brain wallet or friends/family/spouse's wallet. For how long can you be jailed for contempt of court? In a quite recent similar case, Martin Armstrong was held for 7.5 years in prison without a trial, in contempt of court. He insisted he didn't know where the missing gold was and court insisted he did ... essentially. The bigger issue this raises for me is how ready people are to blow-off clearly corrupt court rulings and look for other ways around the "problem". The longer the courts go on rubber-stamping facistic, totalitarian unconstitutional govt. decrees the more respect they lose. This is a dangerous situation for the society to head into. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
