Look like you got me beaten to the android bitcoin client. However, I might have a trick or two up my sleeves.
|
|
|
That could be a problem. It could also be something to make the use of Bitcoins in America illegal. Certainly the U.S. government is very interested in "paper trails" and keeping track of where money came from and where it is going, where even cash transactions have to be reported on some level. This move simply adds that issue all that more.
The government just don't like competing currencies or anything that threaten their monopolies, period. If you set up a country 50 miles away from shoreline of America, they will find a reason to bomb/invade/murder/etc the island to oblivion.
|
|
|
The parallels between the Bitcoin and the Euro are obvious. Say the BTC becomes a global currency. How do we deal with the issue of necessary currency value differentials to accommodate the differing capabilities of disparate geographical locations? Obviously, if we can't, then the BTC is worthless in all but the economic top-tier countries, because it cannot be used save on an equal footing with such countries.
Use local currencies rather than just using bitcoins.
|
|
|
I don't understand the hideous threat in this new requirement. If a business purchases $600 or more in product from a supplier, it must fill out a form to verify that the supplier is reporting these sales (which they should be reporting anyway) to be taxed.
I'm very much in disapproval of the current American administration and its policies, and very much a free-market libertarian. However, this does not impose any new tax or tax requirement - they're just double-checking to make sure that all goods *already* taxed are reported. Said taxes might need to be eliminated, but at least this only imposes a reporting requirement, not a new tax. Pain in the rear? Yes. Huge change of policy? No.
Well, they're not going to have much records of many bitcoin users' trail.
|
|
|
3. While the accounting is clean. The market seems subject to manipulation. For example, this forum is obviously a tightly knit group relative to the worlds general population. And this tight group has all the bit coins and decides the rules of how they operate. For example it would be trivial for you bit coin rich to decide that you would keep the community in close beta for a year or two. Thereby assuring yourselves an initial hidden stash. Those coins could be considered "lost" to the latecomers. Then after commodity values begin to rise, this group would control say 30% of all currency. That is as close to a fiat currency and a federal reserve as I've ever seen.
Am I missing something?
It is a bad idea to keep out people, because it mean that your market is limited. There are less goods and services to buy. It would only make sense if you want relative power over others. However, if you're interested in wealth, you would instead open the market up to more people.
|
|
|
A suggestion: Offer bounty to security researchers for increasing security and decentralization of the bitcoin network and software.
|
|
|
[Edit: the hard coded coin limit embedded in the bitcoin concept is a clear example of centralisation. The centralisation is determined by fiat at the beginning and then embedded into the code]
Satoshi cannot decide what clients people get to use. It's not centralization. It's a universal consensus.
|
|
|
The narrative that suggests that if you cause the scales to tilt full swing in one particular direction or another then everything will be well is a delusion whether it is peddled by austrians or keynsians.
That much should be obvious to anyone except an austrian or keynsian fanatic.
An Austrian would consider many types of deflation a good thing, but it doesn't mean that they consider all inflation a bad thing.
|
|
|
As a footnote, the Austrians is not one of monetary deflation in normal times nor as a proscribed policy. Their position is that credit bubbles should be allowed to bust, but money should otherwise be honest and stable; that is, neither inflationary nor deflationary.
Money can't be neutral. It's like saying oils are dishonest for being inflationary. The correct view is that the free market should determine the amount of money that is available.
|
|
|
Possibly related though: Can the bitcoin project survive if Satoshi is hit by the bus tomorrow?
Yes, all the source code is available, anyone can compile the client or modify it, fork it, etc. I meant an orderly succession, not a thousand forks of bitcoin.
|
|
|
Possibly related though: Can the bitcoin project survive if Satoshi is hit by the bus tomorrow?
|
|
|
|