I agree with this.

Someone like the US should be bright yellow: legal but huge barriers to entry because of regulatory compliance. EU and CA on the other hand, should be green because of limited compliance oversight.

https://creditorwatch.com.au/express/asic/organisation/119439691


Anyone have anything to say about this?

Haha no we have Bitcoin NYC, satoshi square etc.. Bitcoin Monday - Friday We are working on getting an official space.

I'm just offering my perspective. If I thought it, just imagine how many others might too, many of whom will be unfamiliar with Bitcoin and could be confused. That's all I'm saying.

.

I have seen it used a few times in contexts not politically motivated, but even then it is usually nation-state centric. Unfortunately that is not where the issue with the usage lies in my opinion--embassy implies an official representation of some thing, in this case Bitcoin, which it could not be for the reasons I mentioned earlier. This could be argued to be a matter of opinion, so we may not agree on this point. But I had to say my peace.

This is more like a community center, not an embassy--that should give you context for what types of names I feel are more appropriate.

If you are going to quote something please link. I looked it up and you grabbed it from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador

The words Ambassador/Embassy are NOT interchangeable in the context of a standalone building that is a hub for Bitcoin enthusiasts by Bitcoin enthusiasts. This project is neither official or unofficial, it just is. There is no distinction in Bitcoin because there is no such thing as centralized authority. This name rejects that.

Even if there are alternative use cases for the word you can't separate them in this context from the word's diplomatic, official derivation. It's confusing to most--not to mention it sends the wrong signals... you probably don't want to invite insinuations of centralization or that this is some extension of the core developers or Satoshi himself. It's oxymoronical, and I say that with all the respect in the world.

Conceptually (and practically) this is super exciting. I applaud you guys... thanks for making this happen. Just please, no embassy.

Good read, thanks. I agree with your first statement, it's either a sham or plain old ignorance. You pick.

http://www.mlive.com/business/detroit/index.ssf/2013/07/dan_gilbert_detroit_bankruptcy.html

Dan Gilbert is dropping billions into Detroit real estate. Apparently the man has vision.

I wrote about five 'paradoxes' of Bitcoin in this thread, the first of which is similar to your supposition: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=253792.20

Long story short they aren't really paradoxes and they are effectively self correcting.

Thanks for the informative post.

They are definitely not paradoxes--someone mentioned that earlier. My bad.
I'll reference my last post: changes can be made to the protocol that would not drive users away from Bitcoin but could be motivated by self interest. It may not be a paradox, but it certainly is a reality.


Hmm, I'm not sure that example fits. In the case of the scientific method, modus operandi is fairly straightforward. There is consensus on the rules. Opinions on legal and economic theories are neither standard nor universally applicable, thus they open the gateway for bias in their respective worldviews.

So for a core dev to be the most effective, they must not be bias in their understanding of them and how they may apply to the Bitcoin protocol.


See, you've taken the quote and changed and didn't even mention the substance. Let's look at the important part: "Bitcoin 'strives' for official and normal prominence... [but] It may turn out...[it is] in no need of any official confirmation."

Might not be a paradox... but it certainly isn't redundant or ridiculous if you ask me. We are all entitled to our opinions, of course.


Very good point.

Honestly, this argument is not going to go anywhere. Crumbs look up counterfeit--it's not simply about devaluing other currencies. It's about imitating them and passing them off as equals.

Bitcoin is not legally a currency so it couldn't be counterfeiting other currencies, simply by that definition. Period, end of story.

That's simply not true. Bitcoin offers heaps of use-value outside 'avoiding' preexisting banking infrastructure. Examples: lower transaction fees, trustless contracts, smart property, micropayment channels, payment infrastructure for bankless locales, list goes on. These are quickly becoming the centerpiece to Bitcoin's appeal.


Of course speculators have entered the market, that was bound to happen. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that--just some cats trying to make a few bucks. Yea they pump and dump and whatnot, but as Bitcoin grows so will its stability.

We are still very much in Bitcoin's infancy there is no way you could make a judgment about how it 'looks' because it doesn't even look like anything we have seen before. There is no cryptocurrency historical data going back 100 years. We simply don't know what's gonna happen.

I disagree. Here is an example: The Bitcoin core devs are approached by a collection of nation-states that have an ultimatum: add KYC features to transactions or we will outlaw Bitcoin. They promise to utilize the technical prowess of their collective intelligence agencies to filter network calls to the blockchain and fragment the network.

Here's the problem: core devs want Bitcoin to thrive and prosper, and even if Bitcoin can operate without the need for approval by regulators, it will stymie the growth of Bitcoin thus lowering its value... perhaps sending it into an unprecedented downward spiral. Do they risk losing all this money they made or do they hold true to the Nakamoto architecture? That's one hell of a conflict of interest.

Yes, you're right. They are not paradoxes, it was poor choice of wording by the author. I should have changed it.


See, that's the problem though. Even determining 'minor' technical changes is not an easy thing to do, and problems arise when deciding on the best possible solutions. The intensity of debate will scale in proportion to the number of players who have an increasingly large stakes in the outcome of Bitcoin.

I don't want to over think the situation but we certainly want to be prepared for anything. Being complacent and letting the code do the work won't work; Bitcoin is as much a collection of individuals as it is a protocol for transacting/storing value. Their use-value cannot be separated. You must treat them and their problems as equals. Not to mention these problems extend beyond technical aspects of Bitocin; legal guidance by regulators will still happen, and it's best we position Bitcoin in a way to promote its acceptance. That is one of my main concerns.

edit: these are not paradoxes; their substance still stands, though.

There are a number of interesting paradoxes that arise from the blend of human nature and programmatic expression. Bitcoin suffers, you might say, from this plight in its own special way. According to Bergestra & Leeuw, there are five such paradoxes–let’s walk through them.

First up is the expectation paradox, a consequence of Bitcoin’s deflationary model. The conundrum is as follows: as a deflationary currency, Bitcoin lends towards hoarding–a predictable but unfortunate phenomena, because for Bitcoin to thrive, it must not only be used as a long-term store of value, but also as a means to transact value, quickly and cheaply. To spend or not to spend, that is the question.

Next we have the programmer loyalty paradox, a conflict of interest that arises from the Bitcoin core devs that extract economic value from Bitcoin independent of their contributions to the Bitcoin source code. It is conceivable that development priorities could be shifted on that basis alone. This goes on now (see: Bitpay and Jeff Garzik) [note: I am not claiming bias with this specific relationship, just mentioning it].

Third is the standardization paradox. As it stands, this issue hasn’t come to light but with eventual power shifts in the dev team this could become problem. The question being: are the Bitcoin developers committed to building an open standard for Bitcoin “that is a family of specifications of intended behavior for Bitcoin clients of various kinds that work independently of their implementations” or are they committed to releasing [official] clients that require people to rely on core devs to keep up with changes in the Bitcoin source code. It would appear that these two motives cannot operate harmoniously.

Fourth is the idealogical paradox. At first glance it would appear as though some (if not all) of the Bitcoin development community has arrived at the conclusion that an international finance system can operate stably without central or fractional reserve banking to maintain inflation and deflation. There is nothing inherently wrong with that conclusion, in fact it’s a reasonable one if you ask me; however, to maintain the integrity of the Bitcoin project, developers must remain unbiased against the legal and economic aspects of managing money.

Finally we have the legality paradox, everyone’s favorite. I’ll just take this one straight from the horses mouth:

These paradoxes speak volumes about many of the political/social/idealogical issues Bitcoin will face in its lifetime. While not immediate threats per se, it is vital we keep an open dialogue about these issues and begin formulating solutions before they become a problem. Such are the reasons I believe it all the more important to develop a philosophy of Bitcoin that builds a framework of language for understanding Bitcoin, both pragmatically and philosophically.

You guys agree, disagree? Any the authors missed? etc...

Original post: http://btcgsa.info/?p=186
Source: http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4758

Thank you, I will.

Mike and Matt - thanks for the outstanding work, this is exactly Bitcoin needs right now.

I'm no wizard but I'm working on a bitcoinj-based GUI for building some basic m-of-n transactions right now; been wanting to do this for quite awhile. Once I get comfortable I'll spread my wings and build out from there.

again thnks for making it all possible

Thank you for the thorough reply, quite informative. Much appreciated.

Not sure if this is a widely known issue but I stumbled across it this morning thought I would share it with you guys...


Source: http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/view/eth:7083

It includes all markets that Bitcoins intersect with. This is implicit in any statement about the overall Bitcoin economy.

The point? So they can build models for the various aspects of the Bitocin protocol from an economic perspective.


Can you give examples specifically that exude that "we know better" tone please? The tone appears very matter of fact to me; perhaps I missed something though.