Here’s How I Would Bring Down Bitcoin

[Blind Legs Parker]

.... the people in this thread wow..

So you think a multi TRILLION.. 100's.. of Trillions.. perhaps even quadrillion dollar organizations wouldn't attack the first threat to them in over 100 years...

... honestly....

According to this research, the world's total wealth is $241 trillion. Phail.

I didn't understand the rest of your post, by the way. What does it mean "the first threat to them in over 100 years"?

What form of money has been a thread to the FED since 1913. None.

Well there's gold...
Has it destroyed printing plates like it could have? No. Instead it's co-existing together with fiat currencies. I don't think bitcoin really has much more power to destroy printing plates than gold did (to start with it doesn't even have as much power to do anything as gold  ). More likely bitcoin will co-exist with fiat currencies for a good while. And I mean a good while. That is, until people are no longer afraid to stand for themselves.And also it will take average people to accept going through the hassle of memorizing complicated passwords and seeds, just to do something that they think can already be done with fiat paper. We have a long way to go before bitcoin becomes a real threat for fiat currencies.

[MrGodMan]

If not: take a look at the mirror...

What are we trying to imply here?

That if we keep nodding contentedly, thinking that the description applies
only to the "other crowd", we might benefit re-reading the article and perhaps our own
output. That's what we try to do here.

Thats is really a nice reply of it. we should be more confident what we are doing.

[btcusury]

What I'm only uncertain of currently is, who's exactly behind the campaign.

How much research have you done in other areas? 9/11 disinfo? "TV fakery" hoaxers? JFK diversions? Are you familiar with the name Sunstein?

There was no "divide" until the previously uncontroversial blocksize increase was yoinked in place of something else. All the drama since then is the stuff that is described in your linked article (on both sides) is what created a divide. The entire article is a cheap parody of the "CIA Handbook" in its various incarnations. It reads very naively to me "I'm a green beret.. I'd make sock puppets on reddit".

This article seems intent on furthering the idea of a division.

The article describes controlling everything on the ground. There is inference of some kind of central command, but then nothing describing how that central command would operate. A police force is only as strong a the government that leads it. Controlling the map is done by controlling the generals not the troops. Very little is said about central command.

The article is written assuming that authority is the correct model. It characterises attacks on authority as attacks on bitcoin.

Bitcoin *shouldn't* be controlled by anyone. Any attempt to create an authority structure around bitcoin is in fact an attack on bitcoin.

You are a great example of the "old man just posting his point of view" character who never replies to counter-arguments and just pretends that his initial impression is accurate.

.... the people in this thread wow..

So you think a multi TRILLION.. 100's.. of Trillions.. perhaps even quadrillion dollar organizations wouldn't attack the first threat to them in over 100 years...

... honestly....

Make that 6,000+ years...

And it's not about the numbers (trillions), it's about the control of the issuance/creation... as debt.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Hahaha, Lauda yes it sounds familiar but all of those things happen in a typical day at work for me and on this forum and wherever women gather.  This is like your horoscope where it's a bunch of generalizations that are just so typical that it's not much of a prediction at all.  The predictions are usually correct.

i agree on your point but that doesnt mean, that Govs dont try to manipulate bitcoin. they did already some research about this and some govs will try to stop/hinder bitcoin for sure.

[daveon]

Even if they take down bitcoin, what about the other 1000's of altcoins??? Does these people even have a brain?

Firstly Bitcoins can be taken down. Secondly if it is, then there is no furture of Altcoins.
Altcoins are alive because of bitcoins.

Like they stopped filesharing? They stopped Napster. But BitTorrent popped up and is still alive and kicking as of today. How can they take down bitcoin when they cannot even stop file-sharing? You sir do not understand that you cannot control the human race.

[RodeoX]

.... the people in this thread wow..

So you think a multi TRILLION.. 100's.. of Trillions.. perhaps even quadrillion dollar organizations wouldn't attack the first threat to them in over 100 years...

... honestly....

I honestly do not think such a thing will happen. The reason is because the millions of threads warning of a takeover never include a plausible way for it to happen. Until I see that I will continue to ignore these threads the way I have for years now. Banks may not like it, but what can they do about it?

[btcusury]

.... the people in this thread wow..

So you think a multi TRILLION.. 100's.. of Trillions.. perhaps even quadrillion dollar organizations wouldn't attack the first threat to them in over 100 years...

... honestly....

I honestly do not think such a thing will happen. The reason is because the millions of threads warning of a takeover never include a plausible way for it to happen. Until I see that I will continue to ignore these threads the way I have for years now. Banks may not like it, but what can they do about it?

It's more subtle than the idea of a "takeover" by non-technical shadowy people sitting around a table. It's about fooling enough minds so that the project succumbs to the ignorant tyranny of the majority. Cuz, you know, democracy.

It's about getting people to believe that Bitcoin is about making a better PayPal/VISA, as opposed to making third-parties (central authorities) obsolete thus giving people control over their own finances.

It's about leveraging conformist minds (Gavin, Hearn, Garzik, ...) into diverting the project toward a state of increased vulnerability/uncertainty.

It's about creating/promoting the perception of disassociating the crypto-anarchist roots of Bitcoin and placing the steering wheel into the hands of people who don't think there's anything wrong with debt-based money (because they only pay attention to mainstream sources of information).

[xslugx]

.... the people in this thread wow..

So you think a multi TRILLION.. 100's.. of Trillions.. perhaps even quadrillion dollar organizations wouldn't attack the first threat to them in over 100 years...

... honestly....

It's a good question.

I'm not sure they would even care in fact...
But you're right, at a moment or another, they'll try to crush it.

But right now? Not sure we're enough of a threat for them to do anything else than lobbying.

[RodeoX]

It's more subtle than the idea of a "takeover" by non-technical shadowy people sitting around a table. It's about fooling enough minds so that the project succumbs to the ignorant tyranny of the majority. Cuz, you know, democracy.

That could happen. I agree that poor decision could be a huge problem. Only a consensus can change things and a dumb consensus would likely produce a dumb result. Elections have sometimes resulted in a dictatorship or horrible policy. Still, democracy is better than tyranny. That's my hope anyway. 

It's about getting people to believe that Bitcoin is about making a better PayPal/VISA, as opposed to making third-parties (central authorities) obsolete thus giving people control over their own finances.

That may be true for some. I would not even consider using a centralized money anymore. Bitcoin has no way for a central authority to operate. No one can change the price, the supply, the distribution. No one can keep me from using it or compel me to use it. They cant change the fees or the use cases. What is left to control? 

It's about leveraging conformist minds (Gavin, Hearn, Garzik, ...) into diverting the project toward a state of increased vulnerability/uncertainty.

Gavin has no more authority than you do. There is no official anything and you could create a competing chain that becomes the "real" bitcoin.

It's about creating/promoting the perception of disassociating the crypto-anarchist roots of Bitcoin and placing the steering wheel into the hands of people who don't think there's anything wrong with debt-based money (because they only pay attention to mainstream sources of information).

What steering wheel?

[btcusury]

The github code repository... If the Classic hardfork were to succeed (not that that's gonna happen), Gavin/Toomin would have the greatest access to the proverbial "steering wheel".

The problem with the idea of 'creat[ing] a competing chain that becomes the "real" bitcoin' is that it would quite probably have a devastating effect on fungibility and thus trust in the system... thus "diverting the project toward a state of increased vulnerability/uncertainty". The altcoins and crypto 2.0 projects are competition... these attempted hardforks are subversion.

It's all about managing perception; they understand that it's decentralized and thus can't be controlled.

[Lauda]

The github code repository... If the Classic hardfork were to succeed (not that that's gonna happen), Gavin/Toomin would have the greatest access to the proverbial "steering wheel".

Exactly. However, some of the 'forkers' tend to try and divert attention from this and statements that there is 'no control'. Someone is in control of the main repository though. Neither Gavin nor Toomin deserve to take up that position in any way.

Gavin has no more authority than you do.

I think what he meant was influence. Gavin has a decent amount of that (some are even blindly following Classic just because of him). However, I don't think that this is the right thread to discuss this.

[watashi-kokoto]

We're gonna see this year if there's someone out there trying to stop Bitcoin in it's tracks. But the Classic thing is pretty lame attempt to be honest.

[Lauda]

We're gonna see this year if there's someone of there trying to stop Bitcoin in it's tracks. But the Classic thing is pretty lame attempt to be honest.

Well, I would not mind it that much if:
1) The consensus threshold was adequate.
2) Grace period was adequate.
3) The team of developers was comparable to the current one(currently it is similar to Barcelona vs. some High School soccer team).
Another fine example was the recent attack on the network that caused delays for people who were using wallets that were either outdated or had bad fee settings. They've tried to create a sense of false urgency.

[Hamuki]

What I'm only uncertain of currently is, who's exactly behind the campaign.

The easiest answer: who is their target? By knowing the target you know the attacker. I have some clues, do you?

I'm pretty sure, tho, the real who-vs-who is actually at higher level than those...

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Anyone with experience in extended, unconventional conflict should be able to recognize current patterns in the Bitcoin and digital currency space that resemble subversive activity.
Is a game of social engineering being leveled at the Bitcoin community? Based on open source information alone, it’s conceivable that certain individuals or teams are trying  to demoralize and disrupt the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Full article can be found here.
Does any of this seem familiar?

Thank you for posting that.

This is exactly what I see happening.

At least since the great depression, and possibly longer in other countries, there has been an economic elite that controls the flow of money. That control over the flow of money gives them an incredible amount of power.

Bitcoin has a decentralized flow of money, it brings that power back to the people where it belongs.

This is a threat to the economic elite. At first they did not recognize that threat, but now that it is clear Bitcoin is real, they recognize the threat is real. They can't take it down directly, but what they can do is attempt to seize control of the network.

And that is what I believe they are trying to do, using the very social engineering tactics quoted in your original post.

[Lauda]

The easiest answer: who is their target? By knowing the target you know the attacker. I have some clues, do you?

That question does not make sense as it is labeled in the title "bring down Bitcoin".

Bitcoin has a decentralized flow of money, it brings that power back to the people where it belongs.
This is a threat to the economic elite. At first they did not recognize that threat, but now that it is clear Bitcoin is real, they recognize the threat is real. They can't take it down directly, but what they can do is attempt to seize control of the network. And that is what I believe they are trying to do, using the very social engineering tactics quoted in your original post.

The worst part of this is that genuine people are being manipulated by the campaign and they're indirectly joining it. This does make a lot of sense if you consider:
1) Bitcoin "has many enemies".
2) Bitcoin can't be damaged otherwise (no known exploits).
3) Humans are flawed.

[btcusury]

Bitcoin has a decentralized flow of money, it brings that power back to the people where it belongs.
This is a threat to the economic elite. At first they did not recognize that threat, but now that it is clear Bitcoin is real, they recognize the threat is real. They can't take it down directly, but what they can do is attempt to seize control of the network. And that is what I believe they are trying to do, using the very social engineering tactics quoted in your original post.

The worst part of this is that genuine people are being manipulated by the campaign and they're indirectly joining it. This does make a lot of sense if you consider:
1) Bitcoin "has many enemies".
2) Bitcoin can't be damaged otherwise (no known exploits).
2) Humans are flawed.

Indeed, people organically spread the meme ("urgent max block size increase required or Bitcoin will stagnate and possibly die") as misinformation, but its origins are probably as disinformation. It's not so much that "humans are flawed", it's more that propaganda and mind control and perception management techniques have gotten quite advanced.

[SanaButt]

No matter what everyone says, Bitcoins cannot be brought down. It is liked by many peoples as it is easily and readily tavailable.
The current price of Bitcoins also suggests that it is growing in a positive directions.

[Lauda]

Indeed, people organically spread the meme ("urgent max block size increase required or Bitcoin will stagnate and possibly die") as misinformation, but its origins are probably as disinformation. It's not so much that "humans are flawed", it's more that propaganda and mind control and perception management techniques have gotten quite advanced.

Regardless, they are still flawed. The first thing that one tries to exploit (e.g.) when hacking is the human. Similarly, Bitcoin can't be broken by mathematics nor technology (as of today), and thus the logical step would be to try to exploit the humans.

No matter what everyone says, Bitcoins cannot be brought down. It is liked by many peoples as it is easily and readily tavailable.

That is overly-optimistic at best.

The current price of Bitcoins also suggests that it is growing in a positive directions.

This is not related.

[Genius Einstein]

Wow, what a great article. everybody who does bitcoin should be able to read this. Really good article about bitcoin. Great stuff