Gavin is an Agent

[benjamindees]

* Payments cannot be reversed
* Users are anonymous

Advantages.

* The fixed supply created the expectation of fabulous gains that turned it into a speculative pyramid schema
* That "ponzification" in turn resulted in extremely volatile price, that makes a bad currency.
* The block reward and the market price were too high, leading to a hypertrophied and unsustainable mining industry.
* For that reason, the cost per transaction is way too high.

Fair enough.  Satoshi was not prescient.  I think he made it clear that he had hoped for slow, steady growth.  What he got instead was massive early attention and a bubble.  Bitcoin is not unique in that regard, however.  So I think we should try to lay responsibility for "ponzification" of real assets (nay, the entire economy) at the feet of those actually responsible.

* Mining got inevitably centralized (last time I checked, the top 5 Chinese miners had 60% of the hashpower).

Hmm... I think this is a bit controversial.  Mining centralization hasn't seemed to have had any ill effects, so far.  But fair point.

* There is no mechanism to reward the relay nodes, which carry increasing load.

Premature optimization is the root of all evil.

* Its design cannot support 1 billion users, maybe not even 10 million, even indirectly.

That's actually just not true.  There's good reason to believe it could support 1 billion users, indirectly at least.

[1714780280]

1714780280

[1714780280]

1714780280

[1714780280]

1714780280

[1714780280]

1714780280

[1714780280]

1714780280

[JorgeStolfi]

* Payments cannot be reversed
* Users are anonymous

Advantages.

As I wrote, bitcoiners call them advantages, but for the other 99.9% they are fatal flaws.  A system that does not allow mistakes and crimes to be corrected is a stupid defective system.  Anonymous accounts are much more useful to criminals than to honest people.  The two together prevents enforcement of property rights.

* Its design cannot support 1 billion users, maybe not even 10 million, even indirectly.

That's actually just not true.  There's good reason to believe it could support 1 billion users, indirectly at least.

1 billion users doing on average 1 payment per day would be 1 billion tx/day.

Suppose that most of the traffic gets pushed off the blockchain, e.g. to Lightning Network; even so, there will be a need for blockchain transactions.  Let's say that 25 transactions offchain for each transaction on the blockchain.  Then the bitcoin network would have to handle 40 million transactions per day.

The current capacity of the network is 300'000 transactions per day.  You don't want to operate near capacity even at peak hours, so 200'000 tx/day will probably be the limit with 1 MB blocks.  It would have to grow by a factor of 200.

That does not seem bad, but the Ligntning Network is still only a fuzzy dream. No one knows whether it is technically and economically viable, whether people will want to use it, whether it will really achieve 25:1 offchain/onchain ratio.

Note also that, in the 5 years since the 1MB limit was set, the capacity of the network has increased 0%.  How long will it take for it to increase 200x?

[cbeast]

* Payments cannot be reversed
* Users are anonymous

Advantages.

As I wrote, bitcoiners call them advantages, but for the other 99.9% they are fatal flaws.  A system that does not allow mistakes and crimes to be corrected is a stupid defective system.  Anonymous accounts are much more useful to criminals than to honest people.  The two together prevents enforcement of property rights.

If that were true there would not be cash. Everyone would simply use personal checks and use several forms of biometric ID.

[ammy009]

Absolutely NO. I voted for it 

[Xialla]

* Payments cannot be reversed

Advantages.

uhh my experience:

I'm using bitcoin at least once every week for buying some product/service (for last ~3 years) and I really can't call "non-reverse payment" system as advantage. Quick example: I paid part of my BFL order with BTC and part with paypal.

With BTC, I never got my money back, with paypal I simply opened dispute and they pushed them to reverse everything. I also made lot of mistakes during usage of paypal last years (wrong amount, wrong mail address) and I never had any problems to fix them.

With BTC, in last years I sent them once incorrect address (wrong copy paste) and 2x made mistake with floating point..

If you think, that non-reverse payment system is advantageous for customers/end-users, please time to time turn off your laptop, go outside and ask common people, what they think. maybe you will be surprised..

[S4VV4S]

* Payments cannot be reversed

Advantages.

uhh my experience:

I'm using bitcoin at least once every week for buying some product/service (for last ~3 years) and I really can't call "non-reverse payment" system as advantage. Quick example: I paid part of my BFL order with BTC and part with paypal.

With BTC, I never got my money back, with paypal I simply opened dispute and they pushed them to reverse everything. I also made lot of mistakes during usage of paypal last years (wrong amount, wrong mail address) and I never had any problems to fix them.

With BTC, in last years I sent them once incorrect address (wrong copy paste) and 2x made mistake with floating point..

If you think, that non-reverse payment system is advantageous for customers/end-users, please time to time turn off your laptop, go outside and ask common people, what they think. maybe you will be surprised..

That is true. Many people prefer the security the bank offers them, which is why they have their money there.
I am however sure that we will at some point see Bitcoin banks that will do that.

The question now is: Will merchants accept Bitcoin if they have to wait for 3 months for their payment to be cleared?
And have fear of chargebacks?

[Xialla]

The question now is: Will merchants accept Bitcoin if they have to wait for 3 months for their payment to be cleared?
And have fear of chargebacks?

merchants have to wait 3 months these days for clearing payments? I'm just asking, I really dunno.

why should be any serious merchant afraid of chargeback? In my entire life, I used chargeback once against BFL retards..As consumer, you have NO RIGHTS using bitcoin these days, you can only pray in basement, that merchant/service provider will deliver, what you paid for.

and this is not cool at all. Don't get me wrong here, I like bitcoin and everything, but counting non-reverse payment system THESE DAYS as ADVANTAGE is simply fucking madness.

[dblink]

CIA has nothing to do with the Bitcoin Digital currency, these are not into their projects, CIA is an external intelligence service tasked with gathering, processing and analyzing national security information from around the world, CIA has no domestic law enforcement function and is focused on overseas intelligence collection.

[hdbuck]

CIA has nothing to do with the Bitcoin Digital currency, these are not into their projects, CIA is an external intelligence service tasked with gathering, processing and analyzing national security information from around the world, CIA has no domestic law enforcement function and is focused on overseas intelligence collection.

Right, cuz bitcoin is not so much external, just domestic..

[QuestionAuthority]

CIA has nothing to do with the Bitcoin Digital currency, these are not into their projects, CIA is an external intelligence service tasked with gathering, processing and analyzing national security information from around the world, CIA has no domestic law enforcement function and is focused on overseas intelligence collection.

Sure, the CIA never does anything on U.S. soil. Also, you look beautiful in that dress, no you're not fat, the check is in the mail and I promise I won't cum in your mouth.

[JorgeStolfi]

The pseudonymous nature of Bitcoin allows savvy users to protect themselves from all types of crime, including criminals with shiny badges. I find it quite useful and I wouldn't initiate force on anyone. (I hesitate to simply say that, "I am not a criminal", because it seems that in today's world pretty much everything is a considered a "crime" if you look hard enough. As an example, I'll invoke Godwin's law and point out that Anne Frank was a criminal according to her government.)

We must distinguish what is (not) a crime from what ought (not) to be a crime.  The former is decided by laws and courts, and its mostly useless to discuss it except with a lawyer.   For the latter, each one is entitled to his opinion, has the right to defend it on forums, TV, bars, etc.,  and should take it to his lawmakers.

So you seem to be saying that, in your opinion, the only thing that should be a crime is "initiate force on anyone".  Well, that is not my opinion.  While you may not care for my opinion, you should worry that 99.9% of mankind does not agree, either.  

Theft and most kinds of fraud, even if they don't involve any violence, are crimes in almost every country (and I say "almost" just for precaution; actually I don't know of any exception).  In fact, the earliest criminal codes that survive cover theft as well as murder and other crimes.  Corruption of public servants (paying or being paid for violations of duty) is generally a crime, even if it is one where the law most often fails.

Taking drugs ought not to be a crime in my opinion; but pushing people into drugs (whether by advertising, by example, by peer pressure, or just by making them too easily available) ought to be a crime; and, likewise, profiting from other people's addictions.   Gross negligence ought to be a crime too (like intentionally failing to provide fire exits and safety equipment, failing to do standard safety checks in the design of buildings and machines, failing do standard medical tests or to report contagious diseases, etc.) -- and indeed it is in many jurisdictions.

Bitcoin allows me to enforce my property rights unlike any other asset on the planet. No one can take my coins without my explicit permission, again including those with shiny badges. (Before someone posts the $5 wrench comic, yes I realize that someone can attempt to threaten you until you give permission.)

Again, one must distinguish what are one's rights from what one thinks that ought to be one's rights.  The former are defined by laws and courts.  For the latter, different people will have different opinions.  Without a government, those opinions are irrelevant: in a dispute, the side with more guns, more thugs, or better skills will prevail.  

In particular, without laws and courts there is no concept of "property".  Property is distinct from possession; it is the right to have possession.  If a thief takes your car, he will have possession, but the car is still your property; and the government is supposed to use its power (with force, if needed) to take the car from the thief, and give possession back to you.   On the other hand, if you default on payments and the contract says that property of the car returns to the seller, the government is bound to support him in taking the car from you.  Ditto if you have possession of money that the government thinks it is their property (i.e., unpaid taxes).

[hdbuck]

The pseudonymous nature of Bitcoin allows savvy users to protect themselves from all types of crime, including criminals with shiny badges. I find it quite useful and I wouldn't initiate force on anyone. (I hesitate to simply say that, "I am not a criminal", because it seems that in today's world pretty much everything is a considered a "crime" if you look hard enough. As an example, I'll invoke Godwin's law and point out that Anne Frank was a criminal according to her government.)

We must distinguish what is (not) a crime from what ought (not) to be a crime.  The former is decided by laws and courts, and its mostly useless to discuss it except with a lawyer.   For the latter, each one is entitled to his opinion, has the right to defend it on forums, TV, bars, etc.,  and should take it to his lawmakers.

So you seem to be saying that, in your opinion, the only thing that should be a crime is "initiate force on anyone".  Well, that is not my opinion.  While you may not care for my opinion, you should worry that 99.9% of mankind does not agree, either. 

Theft and most kinds of fraud, even if they don't involve any violence, are crimes in almost every country (and I say "almost" just for precaution; actually I don't know of any exception).  In fact, http://www.general-intelligence.com/library/hr.pdfthe earliest criminal codes that survive cover theft as well as murder and other crimes.  Corruption of public servants (paying or being paid for violations of duty) is generally a crime, even if it is one where the law most often fails.

Taking drugs ought not to be a crime in my opinion; but pushing people into drugs (whether by advertising, by example, by peer pressure, or just by making them too easily available) ought to be a crime; and, likewise, profiting from other people's addictions.   Gross negligence ought to be a crime too (like intentionally failing to provide fire exits and safety equipment, failing to do standard safety checks in the design of buildings and machines, failing do standard medical tests or to report contagious diseases, etc.) -- and indeed it is in many jurisdictions.

Bitcoin allows me to enforce my property rights unlike any other asset on the planet. No one can take my coins without my explicit permission, again including those with shiny badges. (Before someone posts the $5 wrench comic, yes I realize that someone can attempt to threaten you until you give permission.)

Again, one must distinguish what are one's rights from what one thinks that ought to be one's rights.  The former are defined by laws and courts.  For the latter, different people will have different opinions.  Without a government, those opinions are irrelevant: in a dispute, the side with more guns, more thugs, or better skills will prevail. 

In particular, without laws and courts there is no concept of "property".  Property is distinct from possession; it is the right to have possession.  If a thief takes your car, he will have possession, but the car is still your property; and the government is supposed to use its power (with force, if needed) to take the car from the thief, and give possession back to you.   On the other hand, if you default on payments and the contract says that property of the car returns to the seller, the government is bound to support him in taking the car from you.  Ditto if you have possession of money that the government thinks it is their property (i.e., unpaid taxes).

state & violence: http://trilema.com/2015/the-problem-of-the-state/

[benjamindees]

We must distinguish what is (not) a crime from what ought (not) to be a crime.

We should also distinguish the way legal systems actually work from how they ought to work.  You've offered a lot of opinions on how they ought to work.  How they work instead is that international financiers buy off or threaten all of the judges and they just do whatever they are told.  Legal systems have no duty to protect individual rights.  When push comes to shove, they don't even have the ability to do so.  Trial judges typically don't even attempt to try.  Millions of people live outside of organized legal systems.  And national governments and their dictates have no jurisdiction in international relations, where Bitcoin must reside.

So you seem to be saying that, in your opinion, the only thing that should be a crime is "initiate force on anyone".  Well, that is not my opinion.

Then your opinion is inconsistent and, therefore, wrong.  It is impossible for any logic-based system to attempt to impose your opinion.  So there is no reason for Bitcoin to even try; and it won't.

A system that does not allow mistakes and crimes to be corrected is a stupid defective system.

Yes, and that's the "system" most of us live under.  Fortunately, Bitcoin isn't a "system".  It's a simple realization of fundamental natural law.  I'm sure, at some point, some will attempt to build reversible "systems" on top of Bitcoin.  And then you and the other 99% can use those, if you prefer.  But, when that happens, they will be as voluntary as Bitcoin is.

In particular, without laws and courts there is no concept of "property".

Individuals are perfectly capable of enforcing agreements without laws and courts.

As I wrote, bitcoiners call them advantages, but for the other 99.9% they are fatal flaws.

I'd argue that most people prefer their currency not to track and front-run them and not to evaporate based on the whims of some third party.  The current bank runs going on in Greece should be evidence of this.

Like I said, Bitcoin is a currency.  It's not a "system".  Systems can be built on top of Bitcoin, and using Bitcoin;  and, eventually, they will be.  But nothing like Bitcoin, which protects the rights of everyone, not just those lucky few capable of navigating corrupt legal systems, can be built on top of any kind of "system" you have advocated so far.

[Kazimir]

No, but even if it were true... What difference would it make?

[tvbcof]

...

...

The above is really nice work in my opinion.  Thanks, bengamindees, for taking the time.

I'll look forward to StolfiCoin as a sidechain and would not hesitate to use it.  If his ideas are good and the offer the kinds of protections for individuals and need for the state that he promises, it will be successful.  If not it will fail.

I have no problem supporting the needs of the state if the state is supporting the needs of the people and will gladly do so.  When the needs of the people are not being served adequately and transparently by the state, I very much welcome other options.

[RodeoX]

I find it so fascinating to see what people think "agents" do.

[Xialla]

I find it so fascinating to see what people think "agents" do.

yeap, everybody is just full of some hollywood blockbusters and similar stuff. common agent is just doing paperwork and bureaucracy, but it least is funny to read, what others imagine behind agent role:)

[acid_rain]

I find it so fascinating to see what people think "agents" do.

yeap, everybody is just full of some hollywood blockbusters and similar stuff. common agent is just doing paperwork and bureaucracy, but it least is funny to read, what others imagine behind agent role:)

I point my finger towards The Bourne movies. They're the culprit!

[BitcoinEXpress]

Yes Gavin is an agent and wants to destroy Bitcoin

No Doubt this explains why he has worked for five years tirelessly to make Bitcoin what it is today.

Because he wants to destroy it.



~BCX~

[JorgeStolfi]

We must distinguish what is (not) a crime from what ought (not) to be a crime.

We should also distinguish the way legal systems actually work from how they ought to work.

But that is another question altogether.  The point is that the word "crime" cannot even be defined, except as "whatever the laws and courts say it is a crime".  Without laws and courts, there are just 7 billion different opinions of what ought to be a crime, and no objective way to choose among them.

So you seem to be saying that, in your opinion, the only thing that should be a crime is "initiate force on anyone".  Well, that is not my opinion.

Then your opinion is inconsistent and, therefore, wrong.  It is impossible for any logic-based system to attempt to impose your opinion.  So there is no reason for Bitcoin to even try; and it won't.

Duh?

Fortunately, Bitcoin isn't a "system".  It's a simple realization of fundamental natural law.

What "findamental natural law"?

If you refer to "guaranteed by math", it isn't: bitcoin is a process executed by humans with the aid of computers.  The humans are unpredictable, and their computers can be programmed to do anything.  

If you mean that "property" is a "natural" concept, you are just wrong.  Property is a cultural invention that (like "crime") did not exist before humans invented governments and laws.

In particular, without laws and courts there is no concept of "property".

Individuals are perfectly capable of enforcing agreements without laws and courts.  

How exacty? By shooting at each other?  By starting a thread on bitcointalk?

An agreement or contract is useless if there isn't an authority that can force the parties to honor it, and arbitrate disagrements.   That is why every functioning contract specifies the jurisdiction for resolving disputes over it.  The ridiculous "contract" between Roger Ver and OKCoin showed very well what happens when that clause is missing...