Bitcoin should remain safe from the paws of people doing business as "the state"

[Rudd-O]

Here's why: http://shadowlife.cc/2012/11/necessary-conditions-for-the-long-term-success-of-bitcoin/

Here's how: http://shadowlife.cc/2012/11/secure-and-professional-bitcoin-otc-exchanges/

[Stephen Gornick]

OTC is not the sending of cash in the mail or wire transfer.

- http://shadowlife.cc/2012/11/necessary-conditions-for-the-long-term-success-of-bitcoin

While that is a lofty goal, until the density of local traders increases these methods help as an intermediate step.  For instance, last month when the majority of cash deposit methods available in the U.S. (BitInstant, Bitcoins Direct, BitFloor, BitMe) went down at the same time (temporarily, fortunately) there were some people really in dire straights.  These are people who are now using bitcoins as a substitute for cash.   They've come to rely on the ability to visit a bank or 7-11  and convert cash into bitcoins.

Unless there already was an easy method that allowed them to use cash to acquire bitcoins, they would never have gotten to the point where they rely on there being a supply of bitcoins.  If the only way to convert cash to bitcoins was to locate and transact with a local trader, most of these people would never have gotten started.  But now that there is a demand for bitcoins this volume is now becoming sufficient to make it worth the effort for individuals to become local traders and begin offering to do OTC exchange.

The network had to build up before the network effect began to yield much value.

But we're seeing that now.

Look at the growth of offers to trade through Local Bitcoins for instance.
 - http://www.LocalBitcoins.com

[MoonShadow]

I have to point out here, that there is nothing that we can do to prevent either agents of the state or it's subsidiaries from using bitcoin for their own ends anymore than they can prevent us from the same thing.

[Stephen Gornick]

agents of the state or it's subsidiaries from using bitcoin for their own ends

What ways do you see this type of use occurring?

[MoonShadow]

agents of the state or it's subsidiaries from using bitcoin for their own ends

What ways do you see this type of use occurring?

I have no idea.  What ways do feds use cash beyond manipulation of the economy?  Maybe the CIA will switch to bitcoins to pay for all that heroin, once the hillbilies in Afganastan catch on to their game.

[DannyM]

agents of the state or it's subsidiaries from using bitcoin for their own ends

What ways do you see this type of use occurring?

Maybe linking bitcoin addresses and transactions to taxpayers for tax enforcement purposes.

[Rudd-O]

DannyM, tell us more.  How would that work on the registration and on the tax collection side?

We need to be prepared.

[Portnoy]

I disagree with this view:
"Their (sic) is no such thing as people working for the common good."

I feel that Bitcoin itself is an example that refutes that. 

[MoonShadow]

I disagree with this view:
"Their (sic) is no such thing as people working for the common good."

I feel that Bitcoin itself is an example that refutes that. 

While the net result of a truly free market must tend toward increasing the common welfare, the individual market players most certainly do not participate in the interests of the common good.  The net result is due to the fact that all free trades (truly in the absence of coersion) must be in the best interests of those involved.  Thus, in the aggregate, the results of those millions of free trades must be in the best interests of the society as a whole, even if the outcome may not be 'optimal' from a particular ideological viewpoint.  The "prisoner's delimma" argument does not exist outside of the context of a coercive theird party; be that the prison itself or coercive governments at large.

In short, Bitcoin does not refute the above quoted statement, but still tends toward that result.

[Rudd-O]

I disagree with this view:
"Their (sic) is no such thing as people working for the common good."

I feel that Bitcoin itself is an example that refutes that.  

First, thanks for sharing your feelings with us.

Second, perhaps you feel like Bitcoin is an example of people working "for the common good".  While I'm pretty sure that lots of people share your feelings, note that neither you nor the article author actually define what "the common good" is.

So, understandably, it might very well be the case that "the common good" for the corrupt (bankers, politicians, bureaucracy, their praetors) is a completely different thing that "the common good" is for you.  You can then understand how the corrupt (whose interests are threatened by Bitcoin) would consider Bitcoin to be the antithesis of "the common good", while you would see the actions of the corrupt trying to suppress Bitcoin as the antithesis of "the common good".

In other words: what the article author is saying is that "the common good" is merely an opinion with no intersubjectively verifiable basis, that there are thousands of different and conflicting opinions on what constitutes "the common good", and that what appears (to many people) to be "working for the common good" is merely groups of people working together aligned by a common interest.  That is exactly what public choice theory says, and the people working for and against Bitcoin are perfect examples that proves public choice theory.

And that's exactly what the author is saying here:

Even people who are supposedly helping others selflessly are actually helping them in order to live in accordance with their own value system.

We both like Bitcoin.  You are helping me to live in accordance with my value system.  I am helping you live in accordance with your value system.

[1455]

DannyM, tell us more.  How would that work on the registration and on the tax collection side?

We need to be prepared.

First of all, I'm part of the apparently small minority (if existent), that is not totaly abandoning the state as a concept.
The state could try to convience you to give out an "official" bitcoin adress where your payroll and any financial transaction of reasonable size could be tracked to collect VAT and other taxes. These "official" adresses would be mandatory to be stated in any contract and receipt.
Once received with a official adress it would be as hard to get your coins out of sight as it is today to launder your money the traditional way.
I do not like the imagination of such a concept but I rather prefer it to a total capitalism.

[MoonShadow]

I do not like the imagination of such a concept but I rather prefer it to a total capitalism.

Why?

[1455]

I do not like the imagination of such a concept but I rather prefer it to a total capitalism.

Why?

I do think that there are some tasks that are better performed by the market and some that are better performed by a state. Was it a good thing when firefighters were private enterprises and your house would just burn down if you weren't able to buy their services?
If you lower all the taxes (health care, social security, etc) especially poor workers wont get more for their work since the market will immediatly adopt to the situation and lower wages to the new level of minimum accepteable compensation. Taxes on wages are also a gurantee for a minimum of social security.
Taxes colected are bad managed in a degree that is unbearable. But I'm not ready to abandon the concept for a "If we just would have the REAL market" idea.

[MoonShadow]

I do not like the imagination of such a concept but I rather prefer it to a total capitalism.

Why?

I do think that there are some tasks that are better performed by the market and some that are better performed by a state. Was it a good thing when firefighters were private enterprises and your house would just burn down if you weren't able to buy their services?

Yes, it is.  <- Notice that I used the present tense there.  I did so intentionally.

If you lower all the taxes (health care, social security, etc) especially poor workers wont get more for their work since the market will immediatly adopt to the situation and lower wages to the new level of minimum accepteable compensation. Taxes on wages are also a gurantee for a minimum of social security.
Taxes colected are bad managed in a degree that is unbearable. But I'm not ready to abandon the concept for a "If we just would have the REAL market" idea.

Well, I've got some bad news for you then, because by my reconning, we are going to get a real free market within a decade whether we as a people are prepared for that or not.

[Rudd-O]

The state could try to convience you to give out an "official" bitcoin adress

By "convince" you mean threaten with punishment (caging, ruin, death), right?

[1455]

The state could try to convience you to give out an "official" bitcoin adress

By "convince" you mean threaten with punishment (caging, ruin, death), right?

No, I mean really convice. How could you force someone to give out not just n bitcoin adresses but all of the adresses that you're in possession?

[1455]

I do not like the imagination of such a concept but I rather prefer it to a total capitalism.

Why?

I do think that there are some tasks that are better performed by the market and some that are better performed by a state. Was it a good thing when firefighters were private enterprises and your house would just burn down if you weren't able to buy their services?

Yes, it is.  <- Notice that I used the present tense there.  I did so intentionally.

I was answering to your three letters question and took some time to give your reasons for my opinion. It would help when you would do the same even though it may look absolutely evident that you don't need to argue about that. So why don't you tell me why you think so?

If you lower all the taxes (health care, social security, etc) especially poor workers wont get more for their work since the market will immediatly adopt to the situation and lower wages to the new level of minimum accepteable compensation. Taxes on wages are also a gurantee for a minimum of social security.
Taxes colected are bad managed in a degree that is unbearable. But I'm not ready to abandon the concept for a "If we just would have the REAL market" idea.

Well, I've got some bad news for you then, because by my reconning, we are going to get a real free market within a decade whether we as a people are prepared for that or not.

Also regarding this argument I would like to hear what you're thinking, not that I'm just on the wrong side.

[Rudd-O]

The state could try to convience you to give out an "official" bitcoin adress

By "convince" you mean threaten with punishment (caging, ruin, death), right?

No, I mean really convice.

No, I really don't think you mean "convince".

You're talking about governments.  Governments don't "convince".  They threaten with punishment.

Here is an illustrated difference between convincing and what governments do:

- Convincing: Hey mate, can I have your Bitcoin address?  No?  Well, here's an argument.  Still no?  OK.  No problem, carry on.
- What governments do: Hey mate, can I have your Bitcoin address?  No?  Well, here's some papers with orders.  Still no?  OK.  Five years in a cage for resisting the orders in the papers.

Do you see what I mean now?

[1455]

The state could try to convience you to give out an "official" bitcoin adress

By "convince" you mean threaten with punishment (caging, ruin, death), right?

No, I mean really convice.

No, I really don't think you mean "convince".

You're talking about governments.  Governments don't "convince".  They threaten with punishment.

Here is an illustrated difference between convincing and what governments do:

- Convincing: Hey mate, can I have your Bitcoin address?  No?  Well, here's an argument.  Still no?  OK.  No problem, carry on.
- What governments do: Hey mate, can I have your Bitcoin address?  No?  Well, here's some papers with orders.  Still no?  OK.  Five years in a cage for resisting the orders in the papers.

Do you see what I mean now?

Of course can and will the state force you to reveal at least one adress. But how will they force you to give them all of your adresses you're dealing with?
If theres a way to force you in compliance a state will do so. But I don't see how in this case.

[DeathAndTaxes]

The state could try to convience you to give out an "official" bitcoin adress

By "convince" you mean threaten with punishment (caging, ruin, death), right?

No, I mean really convice.

No, I really don't think you mean "convince".

You're talking about governments.  Governments don't "convince".  They threaten with punishment.

Here is an illustrated difference between convincing and what governments do:

- Convincing: Hey mate, can I have your Bitcoin address?  No?  Well, here's an argument.  Still no?  OK.  No problem, carry on.
- What governments do: Hey mate, can I have your Bitcoin address?  No?  Well, here's some papers with orders.  Still no?  OK.  Five years in a cage for resisting the orders in the papers.

Do you see what I mean now?

Of course can and will the state force you to reveal at least one adress. But how will they force you to give them all of your adresses you're dealing with?
If theres a way to force you in compliance a state will do so. But I don't see how in this case.

Just for starters how about:
record your internet activity, make the use of strong encryption without key disclosure to the state a crime, secure a warrant for your home/computer/safety-deposit boxes, make the penalty for the refusal to provide passphrase (any passphrase) worse than the underlying crime (i.e. it is 5 years in prison and forfeiture of the value of the bitcoin address for hiding it from the state, but if asked to provide passphrase for an encrypted doc failure to reveal is 30 years in prison and forfeiture of all assets for not providing the passphrase), use enhanced interrogation techniques (a euphemism for torture make no mistake about it), employ the use of drugs to compel you to testify against yourself,  deem your non-compliance an enemy of the state and seize all property and assets even if the underlying crime can't be proven (truthful or not), keep you under surveillance,  compel your neighbors, business associates, or family members to testify against you ...

Worst case scenario, just deem you a national security risk and assassinate you without any due process or trial (he was a terrorist we had to act without trial or he could have gotten away).  While that might not get them your private keys it may make other subjects less likely to hide things from their masters for fear that future "misunderstandings" might result in their extermination (the occasional mis-assassination if useful to ensure the populace doesn't stray to far from the accepted norm).

Not saying the state will do so however the state makes the rules.  The idea that there is a limit to what the state "can" do is just laughable.    Governments have murdered more of their own people (people they exist to protect) than any criminal, terrorist or foreign enemy ever has.

Just some examples:

U.S.S.R. (1917-1987) 61,911,000
Communist China (1949-1987) 35,236,000
Nazi Germany (1933-1945) 20,946,000
Nationalist (or Kuomintang) China (1928-1949) 10,076,000
Japan (1936-1945) 5,964,000
Cambodia (1975-1979) 2,035,000
Turkey (1909-1918) 1,883,000
Vietnam (1945-1987) 1,678,000
North Korea (1948-1987) 1,663,000
Poland (1945-1948) 1,585,000
Pakistan (1958-1987) 1,503,000
Mexico (1900-1920) 1,417,000
Yugoslavia (1944-1987) 1,072,000
Czarist Russia (1900-1917) 1,066,000

Note these aren't governments killing "others" (i.e. the United States' extermination of Native Americans, or the number of humans who died under slavery) these are the known accounts of governments killing "self" and just in the last century.   Exact numbers may not ever be known but a pretty conservative number is that ~200 million "citizens" were killed by their own government just in the prior century.  So please don't think there is a limit on what the state can do.