CBS

[Sandoz]

Bitcoin has pretty strong privacy for the average person or business.

True. And the way for police to investigate / monitor by looking at ip traffic is not as simple as Jeff tried to make it look to the journalists. How are they going to detect a payment to - say - silkroad, let alone after the fact? Am I missing something?

Also: when time comes we can move to btcfn (bitcoin over freenet)

You know what? There is a simpler way: create a new wallet, fill it with money, encrypt it, sell and send the whole wallet to someone via email.
Done.

Do it via multiple jurisdictions and the trace is easily lost.

[1713629438]

1713629438

[1713629438]

1713629438

[Jaime Frontero]

i think garzik did a fantastic job.

he deflected those things which needed to be, avoided mining almost completely (even by inference), and did a fine job of walking the line between politics and geekdom.

hey look - my first concern is the success of Bitcoin.  ideology comes second - at the moment.  and the plain facts are that we are going - at some point - to need votes; whether in congress or in a general public election.  we need to lay the groundwork for that.  we need Bitcoin to be non-threatening to as many people as possible.

if the ideology you subscribe to sees certain benefits in Bitcoin, that's fine.  i see those too.  but the benefits Bitcoin offers will not go away, simply because we don't push them on people who don't care and wouldn't understand them even if they did care.

those benefits will always be there, waiting for us.

"it's like PayPal but it's free, payments can't be reversed, and it's a million times faster to get your dough."

on the other hand, you could spend a few hours with everyone you know explaining about cross-border transfers and capital gains arcana.  and what you'd get in return would be "Silk Road, Silk Road, Silk Road."

yes... garzik did just fine.

[matonis]

hey look - my first concern is the success of Bitcoin.  ideology comes second - at the moment.  and the plain facts are that we are going - at some point - to need votes; whether in congress or in a general public election.  we need to lay the groundwork for that.  we need Bitcoin to be non-threatening to as many people as possible.

It's naive to think that disingenuous, 'bitcoin-is-traceable' media interviews will result in congressional votes. What votes does bitcoin need anyway?

[tymothy]

What votes does bitcoin need anyway?
[/quote]

Only a vote of confidence from the free market.

[DarkKnightNomeD]

http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504943_162-1111.html

ITS BLANK FOR ME

i have Adblock plus disabled for that page, and nothing showsup, just a white rectangle box

[Jaime Frontero]

hey look - my first concern is the success of Bitcoin.  ideology comes second - at the moment.  and the plain facts are that we are going - at some point - to need votes; whether in congress or in a general public election.  we need to lay the groundwork for that.  we need Bitcoin to be non-threatening to as many people as possible.

It's naive to think that disingenuous, 'bitcoin-is-traceable' media interviews will result in congressional votes. What votes does bitcoin need anyway?

no, it isn't naive.  it comes from (what i hope is) a certain understanding of how the political process works.  by which i do not mean the process of voting, or of elections; but rather the process of how memes are propagated and become the norm.

start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

the free market, and capitalism, are wonderful things - but like it or not we exist in the political structure of the world as it is.

[Bazil]

http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504943_162-1111.html

ITS BLANK FOR ME

i have Adblock plus disabled for that page, and nothing showsup, just a white rectangle box

It was a live broadcast.  Here is a link to the story and vid: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20069780-10391715.html?tag=strip

[junomoneta]

That is masterful PR. Making the fear-mongers look silly is brilliant. Any viewer with half a brain will still get a hint of the great potential.

Cash is slowly going away and social utopians everywhere are talking about the nirvana of a global cashless society. Well, that all sounds great until people wake up one day and realize that what they have sacrificed in the transition to a cashless utopia is any thread of financial privacy that remained with paper cash. The phrase 'resist digital money unless anonymous' really means don't give up paper cash if the future is even more traceable and intrusive.

Therefore, stressing bitcoin's traceability and that bitcoin is not anonymous becomes the worst of both worlds -- cashless and traceable! No one is fooling the authorities by saying bitcoin is fully traceable and some people know safe bitcoin practices. Press interviews like this one retard the 'separation of money and State' cause and reinforce the harmful notion that money can and should be used for identity tracking. Those are bitcoin's positive key differentiators.

Those that propose regulation of BitCoin aught to become thoroughly familiar with the tragedy that befell the operators of e-gold and Liberty Dollars.

For years people closely familiar with e-gold warned and pressured the operators to become ex-patriots and take themselves out of easy reach to U.S. authorities (Brazil is a familiar country with no extradition treaty - that is MLAT - with the U.S.) Instead, the U.S. e-gold operators sought a legally binding opinion whether they were considered a Money Service Business (MSB) by the U.S. Treasury. If they were, they intended to register in Florida. They were formally told they were not. The reason, apparently, was that the U.S. based company did no exchanges for national monies but rather only held or traded in gold. Of course, this opinion became non-binding as soon as the political winds changed. The e-gold people were indicted, personally bankrupted, e-gold's reserves mainly confiscated and the company left in ruin.

The operators of Liberty Dollar tried to introduce a specie-based (silver) alternative to U.S. dollars. As you can read, the U.S. maintains that it has the exclusive franchise to any money (or in this case, tokens) circulating within its borders which can be used for value exchange.

Further, governments (especially the U.S.) have longstanding regulations enabling them to seize anything they consider of value pretty much whenever they like.

In a letter dated August 12, 2005 and written by Sean M. Thornton, chief counsel for the department's Office of Foreign Assets Control he stated that the government's authority to interfere with the ownership of gold, silver, and mining shares arises from the Trading With the Enemy Act, which became law in 1917 during World War I and applies during declared wars, and from 1977's International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which can be applied without declared wars.

While the Trading With the Enemy Act authorizes the government to interfere with the ownership of gold and silver particularly, it also applies to all forms of currency and all securities. So the Treasury official stressed that it could be applied not just to shares of gold and silver mining companies but to the shares of all companies in which there is a foreign ownership interest. Further, there is no requirement in the law that the targets of the government's interference must have some connection to the declared enemies of the United States, or, really, some connection to foreign ownership. Anything that can be construed as a financial instrument, no matter how innocently it has been used, is subject to seizure under the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Most Americans may be surprised to learn that the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act could expropriate them instantly and far more broadly without any of the due process extended to parties in eminent domain cases. All that is needed is a presidential proclamation of an emergency of some kind -- and of course Americans lately have been living in a state of perpetual emergency.

Are these the people you wish to invite into the BitCoin economy?

[xf2_org]

Those that propose regulation of BitCoin aught to become thoroughly familiar with the tragedy that befell the operators of e-gold and Liberty Dollars.

Please search the forums for endless discussion on this.

[nazgulnarsil]

That is masterful PR. Making the fear-mongers look silly is brilliant. Any viewer with half a brain will still get a hint of the great potential.

Cash is slowly going away and social utopians everywhere are talking about the nirvana of a global cashless society. Well, that all sounds great until people wake up one day and realize that what they have sacrificed in the transition to a cashless utopia is any thread of financial privacy that remained with paper cash. The phrase 'resist digital money unless anonymous' really means don't give up paper cash if the future is even more traceable and intrusive.

Therefore, stressing bitcoin's traceability and that bitcoin is not anonymous becomes the worst of both worlds -- cashless and traceable! No one is fooling the authorities by saying bitcoin is fully traceable and some people know safe bitcoin practices. Press interviews like this one retard the 'separation of money and State' cause and reinforce the harmful notion that money can and should be used for identity tracking. Those are bitcoin's positive key differentiators.

Those that propose regulation of BitCoin aught to become thoroughly familiar with the tragedy that befell the operators of e-gold and Liberty Dollars.

For years people closely familiar with e-gold warned and pressured the operators to become ex-patriots and take themselves out of easy reach to U.S. authorities (Brazil is a familiar country with no extradition treaty - that is MLAT - with the U.S.) Instead, the U.S. e-gold operators sought a legally binding opinion whether they were considered a Money Service Business (MSB) by the U.S. Treasury. If they were, they intended to register in Florida. They were formally told they were not. The reason, apparently, was that the U.S. based company did no exchanges for national monies but rather only held or traded in gold. Of course, this opinion became non-binding as soon as the political winds changed. The e-gold people were indicted, personally bankrupted, e-gold's reserves mainly confiscated and the company left in ruin.

The operators of Liberty Dollar tried to introduce a specie-based (silver) alternative to U.S. dollars. As you can read, the U.S. maintains that it has the exclusive franchise to any money (or in this case, tokens) circulating within its borders which can be used for value exchange.

Further, governments (especially the U.S.) have longstanding regulations enabling them to seize anything they consider of value pretty much whenever they like.

In a letter dated August 12, 2005 and written by Sean M. Thornton, chief counsel for the department's Office of Foreign Assets Control he stated that the government's authority to interfere with the ownership of gold, silver, and mining shares arises from the Trading With the Enemy Act, which became law in 1917 during World War I and applies during declared wars, and from 1977's International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which can be applied without declared wars.

While the Trading With the Enemy Act authorizes the government to interfere with the ownership of gold and silver particularly, it also applies to all forms of currency and all securities. So the Treasury official stressed that it could be applied not just to shares of gold and silver mining companies but to the shares of all companies in which there is a foreign ownership interest. Further, there is no requirement in the law that the targets of the government's interference must have some connection to the declared enemies of the United States, or, really, some connection to foreign ownership. Anything that can be construed as a financial instrument, no matter how innocently it has been used, is subject to seizure under the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Most Americans may be surprised to learn that the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act could expropriate them instantly and far more broadly without any of the due process extended to parties in eminent domain cases. All that is needed is a presidential proclamation of an emergency of some kind -- and of course Americans lately have been living in a state of perpetual emergency.

Are these the people you wish to invite into the BitCoin economy?

good post.  the illusion of common law runs strong, but they can do whatever the hell they want.

Bitcoin has "significant foreign circulation".

[molecular]

Bitcoin has pretty strong privacy for the average person or business.

True. And the way for police to investigate / monitor by looking at ip traffic is not as simple as Jeff tried to make it look to the journalists. How are they going to detect a payment to - say - silkroad, let alone after the fact? Am I missing something?

Also: when time comes we can move to btcfn (bitcoin over freenet)

You know what? There is a simpler way: create a new wallet, fill it with money, encrypt it, sell and send the whole wallet to someone via email.
Done.

Do it via multiple jurisdictions and the trace is easily lost.

There's a patch (I think it will be pulled in) that allows import/export of keys from/to a wallet, making what you suggested even nicer (also makes bitbills easier to redeem)

I fail to see how that's simpler (from a user perspective) than btcfn would be. Start freenet, start bitcoin, use as normal.

[Dobrodav]

I am not  read the thread  from a to z, but idea to send whole encrypted wallet.dat,  with needed sum, by the mail,  is so f*king great !

[Sandoz]

There's a patch (I think it will be pulled in) that allows import/export of keys from/to a wallet, making what you suggested even nicer (also makes bitbills easier to redeem)

I fail to see how that's simpler (from a user perspective) than btcfn would be. Start freenet, start bitcoin, use as normal.

The whole concept of selling a wallet is simpler: you can send it via snail mail, USB stick or via morse code. It becomes independent of the medium and is quite intuitive. AND: no transaction costs

Imagine, it could even happen that at some point you sell wallets of 0.1 bc like they were discrete units.

"It costs 20 Bc"
"Ok, I'll send you 4 x 5 Bc wallets"

Untraceable and no transaction fees..

[shady financier]

Spot on, although there are transacvtion fees for sending bitcoin via the bitcoin-network, you can also send thousands (conceivably millions) of dollars/pounds/euro/whatever worth of bitcoin literally for free, and completely untraceable.

People can stop correcting all those ignorant media articles talking about free transaction costs and anonymity, both remain literally true.

[cloud9]

The operators of Liberty Dollar tried to introduce a specie-based (silver) alternative to U.S. dollars. As you can read, the U.S. maintains that it has the exclusive franchise to any money (or in this case, tokens) circulating within its borders which can be used for value exchange.

Is barter trade/exchange illegal in the United States?  Better leave those silverware ornaments in the cupboard - don't exchange them for someone's bicycle!!

If you exchange something of intrinsic value for something else of intrinsic value - is that not barter trade?

Does uniquely identifiable Bitcoin (digital goods) give the private key holder - the intellectual property right (intellectual property right value = fluctuating intrinsic value determined by market forces) to a world wide, efficient accounting network system - based on cryptocragphic key pairs, and backed by a secure network of thousands of computers (number and secureness determined by free market trading/exchange/barter forces), dedicated to this task?

[tymothy]

There's a patch (I think it will be pulled in) that allows import/export of keys from/to a wallet, making what you suggested even nicer (also makes bitbills easier to redeem)

I fail to see how that's simpler (from a user perspective) than btcfn would be. Start freenet, start bitcoin, use as normal.

The whole concept of selling a wallet is simpler: you can send it via snail mail, USB stick or via morse code. It becomes independent of the medium and is quite intuitive. AND: no transaction costs

Imagine, it could even happen that at some point you sell wallets of 0.1 bc like they were discrete units.

"It costs 20 Bc"
"Ok, I'll send you 4 x 5 Bc wallets"

Untraceable and no transaction fees..

Could you embed a wallet file into a piece of paper? Some sort of QR barcode or RFID thing?

[Sandoz]

Could you embed a wallet file into a piece of paper? Some sort of QR barcode or RFID thing?

I guess you could put an encrypted wallet on a public server (or bittorrent) and distribute a printed password on a paper.

The issue is that as soon as you exchange that piece of paper the recipient must scan the password, decrypt the file, validate the contents and change the password so that nobody can just pick up the bill and decrypt the same wallet.

This means that your bill would become worthless after use (or somehow supports changing passwords)

[chiropteran]

You know what? There is a simpler way: create a new wallet, fill it with money, encrypt it, sell and send the whole wallet to someone via email.
Done.
Do it via multiple jurisdictions and the trace is easily lost.

I don't see what problem this would solve.

Step 1- create wallet.  Ok, no problem here.

Step 2- fill wallet with money.  Oops, how are you going to do this without it being traceable?  Any money you send into this wallet from yours is going in as a transaction and recorded forever.

Step 3- Send/mail wallet.  Ok, no problem, although if you are going to mail the wallet it'd be just as easy to mail cash, so why bother with bitcoins at all?

You gotta fix step 2 in order to make it work.  And if you can fix step 2 (add money to wallet without leaving any transaction evidence), you could just add money directly to the seller's wallet, rendering steps 1 and 3 unnecessary.

[db]

Could you embed a wallet file into a piece of paper? Some sort of QR barcode or RFID thing?

http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=3716.0
http://bitcoin.modernjob.info/print.html

[lonestranger]

Those that propose regulation of BitCoin aught to become thoroughly familiar with the tragedy that befell the operators of e-gold and Liberty Dollars.
.
.
.
Are these the people you wish to invite into the BitCoin economy?

Fantastic post. The regulators that Garzik invites into bed with us are an organized criminal gang with a flag on the wall.  They are ruthless and evil and will hurt us.  They will never play by any rules.  To court them is disaster.  One must fight them when one can and run from them when one can't.