I'm a Central Bank trying to keep Bitcoin from being adopted

[mindtomatter]

Buying up or mining a significant amount the coins would not necessarily cripple the Bitcoin economy.

People would simply use what is left in circulation.

We sort of already have that situation now with lots of the coins from the original miners being forgotten or lost.

I doubt the central banks *want* a crippled economy, what they want is not to lose their position as your lord and master!

What do you think the point of this game is?  It isn't to make everybody love bitcoin

You seem to be prescribing motives to players that don't really match their actions - Do you not think the Gold and Silver markets are manipulated to keep the price from running away and causing a panic into the "safe haven"?

[1714041683]

1714041683

[1714041683]

1714041683

[1714041683]

1714041683

[manfred]

At the end of the day there is only two possible ways.
Either the banking cartel controls bitcoins or it does not. If they don't control it they will destroy it its as simple as that.
To get rid of this great concept u only need to use human natures GREED for money and power and it will destroy itself. Up until the beginning of the year bitcoins acceptant s and price where moving in the right direction. Now acceptance is decreasing and price is sky-rocketing because everybody just hoards the coins because on day x there worth a million each. Which is still low as there only ever will be 20 million of them (1 million be lost over time). All the cartel needs to do is throw some blood into the water to intensify the feeding frenzy and then at the height of it raid gox (or any small exchange will do, which ever has got the most favourably jurisdiction) for money laundering or ter******* charges and it will wreck havoc since confidence will be gone. All the people who took out loans, prawned the family jewellery and mortgaged the house to buy bitcoins will try to cash in asap. Then when everyone still trying to figure out what happened the cartel will say thanks for the crypto idea and since it is such a great and wonderful tool we will implemented and from now on u can pay our taxes with it and use it in all major retailers and ….. well, make it part of you.
Now the second scenario.
I know most believe (made belief) Satoshi is this lone hacker writing this marvellous code and hold only a handful of bitcoins himself, really just coded out of kindness. Well few may believe the entity satoshi really holds power (more than 50% of coins). Who the satoshi group is and how many coins they really are in control of we will never find out, so much is certain. Only someone very naïve believes they are smart enough to write this extremely technical code and at the same time are dumb enough to relinquish power being fully aware of the monstrous power of it. No one can argue that on day one they had not control of more than 50% so why give it up? Before early adaptors jumped on board they already had several millions of bidcoins mined, so having this great hashing power they mined a fair few since 2010 as well, and of course adding with smart buying and selling since they are in control of it since day one. (you will never be able to prove otherwise). There is no logical reason for satoshi not identify himself. Bitcoin will exist without him just as well from now on. There is nothing illegal releasing a open source code nor is his use otherwise every user is guilty too.
As a banking cartel if you would try to introduce a “one world currency” the traditional way people would revolt and fight to the end, yed if u come in at an arse about way from behind the people trip over each other to get in on the action, once it is widely accepted its game over.
The fast majority (billions) will never posses a full coin at most a fraction of it and only few (thousands) will hold the fast majority of wealth. No different to the current fiat system.
The power of belief, yes just look at religion to what extremes some go because the "believe". As an atheist only facts can convince me, so u will have a hart time argue.
Which of the two ways it is, time will tell. so far the money involved is only small change for the powers to be, 1000 merchants accepting it worldwide no reason to act upon at this time and no reason to hurry after all, all transaction are forever available!

[MikeH]

I think if the banksters or any government agency were behind bitcoin there would have been endless positive stories in the mainstream media over the last 2 years.

[gollum]

I think if the banksters or any government agency were behind bitcoin there would have been endless positive stories in the mainstream media over the last 2 years.

If the rulers are behind bitcoin, this might be a beta version before they create a crypto currency that is better suited for their purposes. We might be guinea pigs...

[mindtomatter]

The "bankers" have to control Bitcoin from the shadows - if it's understood that the currency is controlled what's to stop people  from starting a new fork that's the "bankers don't control this version of bitcoin" and then all the people who don't like the idea of bankers controlling Bitcoin would be able to switch.   If bankers controlled bitcoin, it would be because they bought a large portion of the market, which would cause the price to increase quite a bit - so selling out at that point on bitcoin and switching to something new is very plausible.

The options are very limited actually - Nobody is locked in, so bitcoin needs to continue providing advantges in order for it to continue being used.

At the end of the day there is only two possible ways.
Either the banking cartel controls bitcoins or it does not. If they don't control it they will destroy it its as simple as that.
To get rid of this great concept u only need to use human natures GREED for money and power and it will destroy itself. Up until the beginning of the year bitcoins acceptant s and price where moving in the right direction. Now acceptance is decreasing and price is sky-rocketing because everybody just hoards the coins because on day x there worth a million each. Which is still low as there only ever will be 20 million of them (1 million be lost over time). All the cartel needs to do is throw some blood into the water to intensify the feeding frenzy and then at the height of it raid gox (or any small exchange will do, which ever has got the most favourably jurisdiction) for money laundering or ter******* charges and it will wreck havoc since confidence will be gone. All the people who took out loans, prawned the family jewellery and mortgaged the house to buy bitcoins will try to cash in asap. Then when everyone still trying to figure out what happened the cartel will say thanks for the crypto idea and since it is such a great and wonderful tool we will implemented and from now on u can pay our taxes with it and use it in all major retailers and ….. well, make it part of you.
Now the second scenario.
I know most believe (made belief) Satoshi is this lone hacker writing this marvellous code and hold only a handful of bitcoins himself, really just coded out of kindness. Well few may believe the entity satoshi really holds power (more than 50% of coins). Who the satoshi group is and how many coins they really are in control of we will never find out, so much is certain. Only someone very naïve believes they are smart enough to write this extremely technical code and at the same time are dumb enough to relinquish power being fully aware of the monstrous power of it. No one can argue that on day one they had not control of more than 50% so why give it up? Before early adaptors jumped on board they already had several millions of bidcoins mined, so having this great hashing power they mined a fair few since 2010 as well, and of course adding with smart buying and selling since they are in control of it since day one. (you will never be able to prove otherwise). There is no logical reason for satoshi not identify himself. Bitcoin will exist without him just as well from now on. There is nothing illegal releasing a open source code nor is his use otherwise every user is guilty too.
As a banking cartel if you would try to introduce a “one world currency” the traditional way people would revolt and fight to the end, yed if u come in at an arse about way from behind the people trip over each other to get in on the action, once it is widely accepted its game over.
The fast majority (billions) will never posses a full coin at most a fraction of it and only few (thousands) will hold the fast majority of wealth. No different to the current fiat system.
The power of belief, yes just look at religion to what extremes some go because the "believe". As an atheist only facts can convince me, so u will have a hart time argue.
Which of the two ways it is, time will tell. so far the money involved is only small change for the powers to be, 1000 merchants accepting it worldwide no reason to act upon at this time and no reason to hurry after all, all transaction are forever available!

[Razick]

From what I can tell there area lot of people looking to get into Bitcoin or even start accepting it who are waiting for more realistic prices. A drop in price could take Bitcoin mainstream.

You really don't get bitcoin uh?
It doesn't matter what price bitcoin is at...
you can just use mBTC.
Where is your source stating that a lot of people are waiting for for more realistic prices?

I do very much get Bitcoin, and love it. It doesn't matter what price it's at if I'm going to spend it today, but if I don't have confidence that it can retain it's value, I'm not going to let it sit around. Let's not get into whether the current price represents a bubble; it looks like one, and to outsiders that's all it is!

[manfred]

everyone knows its open source so not sure what u on about there.
New crypo currencies are created regularly and the creators have no trouble identifying themselves. so the onus is with the satoshi guys to reveal themselves and move bitcoin forward to its rightful place.
i'm happy to add to my bitcoins stack if i know
a: how many persons are behind "satoshi"
b: what was there stack of bitcoins before they went public with it
c: what is there combined mining power

without this basics we are simply sheep on a truck "thinking" to go to greener meadows but really we are taken to the slaughterhouse.
 

[Arzack]

Hey guys, what about this: banks will start using BTC.

If you can't beat them join them.

[sgbett]

Buying up or mining a significant amount the coins would not necessarily cripple the Bitcoin economy.

People would simply use what is left in circulation.

We sort of already have that situation now with lots of the coins from the original miners being forgotten or lost.

I doubt the central banks *want* a crippled economy, what they want is not to lose their position as your lord and master!

What do you think the point of this game is?  It isn't to make everybody love bitcoin

You seem to be prescribing motives to players that don't really match their actions - Do you not think the Gold and Silver markets are manipulated to keep the price from running away and causing a panic into the "safe haven"?

I think the gold/silver markets are likely manipulated, for no less a nefarious reason than the money being made on derivatives based on the market far outweighs the cost of moving the price.

However, this does not necessarily lead to that, bitcoin is not metal. It is not subject to the same laws that govern its control. I am not aware of any actions that have been taken by the central banks with regard to bitcoin. The only motives  I assign to the bank is the betterment of its own position in the game.

As for the point of the game - I think we have different games in mind. I have the broader goal of how the central banks might serve their own best interests through the mechanism of bitcoin, whereas you seem to be specifically focused on how best to discredit bitcoin, based on the assumption that this *is* the optimum strategy.

I don't agree with the premise that discrediting BTC is the best action for the banks to take. I think we even agreed that you can't *kill* it you can only mess with it. If it can't be killed, then maybe it can be controlled.

The more I think on the more the 'own the network' plan seems to make sense for the banks. I'd be glad to hear counter arguments to that, as it has me a little worried. I'm really hoping they are stubborn/stupid enough not to.

[mindtomatter]

Buying up or mining a significant amount the coins would not necessarily cripple the Bitcoin economy.

People would simply use what is left in circulation.

We sort of already have that situation now with lots of the coins from the original miners being forgotten or lost.

I doubt the central banks *want* a crippled economy, what they want is not to lose their position as your lord and master!

What do you think the point of this game is?  It isn't to make everybody love bitcoin

You seem to be prescribing motives to players that don't really match their actions - Do you not think the Gold and Silver markets are manipulated to keep the price from running away and causing a panic into the "safe haven"?

I think the gold/silver markets are likely manipulated, for no less a nefarious reason than the money being made on derivatives based on the market far outweighs the cost of moving the price.

However, this does not necessarily lead to that, bitcoin is not metal. It is not subject to the same laws that govern its control. I am not aware of any actions that have been taken by the central banks with regard to bitcoin. The only motives  I assign to the bank is the betterment of its own position in the game.

As for the point of the game - I think we have different games in mind. I have the broader goal of how the central banks might serve their own best interests through the mechanism of bitcoin, whereas you seem to be specifically focused on how best to discredit bitcoin, based on the assumption that this *is* the optimum strategy.

I don't agree with the premise that discrediting BTC is the best action for the banks to take. I think we even agreed that you can't *kill* it you can only mess with it. If it can't be killed, then maybe it can be controlled.

The more I think on the more the 'own the network' plan seems to make sense for the banks. I'd be glad to hear counter arguments to that, as it has me a little worried. I'm really hoping they are stubborn/stupid enough not to.

Central banks can't serve their purpose through Bitcoin because Bitcoin cannot be created at will to accomplish policy goals.  If CBs were going to support Bitcoin, they'd already be supporting gold as it provides many of the same balances.   The problem with gold is it's opaque - you have to store it, and it's very valuable so you don't want to let everybody see it.   This provides a way to, even on a gold standard, produce currency in excess to what your "backing" would allow, because nobody checks how much you actually have and lacking that information it's pretty much impossible to determine how much currency should be out there.

Bitcoin doesn't allow that - If a currency were to be backed by it, the reserve address would probably be printed on the money so that anyone who wanted to check what their dollar was backed by could just look up the bitcoin address and see how many BTC there are relative to the amount of the paper currency in circulation. 

So again, please re-examine what purpose central banks actually serve - If you think it's to "keep inflation low" I suggest you re-examine your analysis.

It is to finance government.   The way you finance government when you don't want to tax as much as you want to spend is by devaluing the currency.  Bitcoin would make that impossible, and in being such good money demonstrate to the world what bad money all alternatives are.

[sgbett]

Buying up or mining a significant amount the coins would not necessarily cripple the Bitcoin economy.

People would simply use what is left in circulation.

We sort of already have that situation now with lots of the coins from the original miners being forgotten or lost.

I doubt the central banks *want* a crippled economy, what they want is not to lose their position as your lord and master!

What do you think the point of this game is?  It isn't to make everybody love bitcoin

You seem to be prescribing motives to players that don't really match their actions - Do you not think the Gold and Silver markets are manipulated to keep the price from running away and causing a panic into the "safe haven"?

I think the gold/silver markets are likely manipulated, for no less a nefarious reason than the money being made on derivatives based on the market far outweighs the cost of moving the price.

However, this does not necessarily lead to that, bitcoin is not metal. It is not subject to the same laws that govern its control. I am not aware of any actions that have been taken by the central banks with regard to bitcoin. The only motives  I assign to the bank is the betterment of its own position in the game.

As for the point of the game - I think we have different games in mind. I have the broader goal of how the central banks might serve their own best interests through the mechanism of bitcoin, whereas you seem to be specifically focused on how best to discredit bitcoin, based on the assumption that this *is* the optimum strategy.

I don't agree with the premise that discrediting BTC is the best action for the banks to take. I think we even agreed that you can't *kill* it you can only mess with it. If it can't be killed, then maybe it can be controlled.

The more I think on the more the 'own the network' plan seems to make sense for the banks. I'd be glad to hear counter arguments to that, as it has me a little worried. I'm really hoping they are stubborn/stupid enough not to.

Central banks can't serve their purpose through Bitcoin because Bitcoin cannot be created at will to accomplish policy goals.  If CBs were going to support Bitcoin, they'd already be supporting gold as it provides many of the same balances.   The problem with gold is it's opaque - you have to store it, and it's very valuable so you don't want to let everybody see it.   This provides a way to, even on a gold standard, produce currency in excess to what your "backing" would allow, because nobody checks how much you actually have and lacking that information it's pretty much impossible to determine how much currency should be out there.

Bitcoin doesn't allow that - If a currency were to be backed by it, the reserve address would probably be printed on the money so that anyone who wanted to check what their dollar was backed by could just look up the bitcoin address and see how many BTC there are relative to the amount of the paper currency in circulation. 

So again, please re-examine what purpose central banks actually serve - If you think it's to "keep inflation low" I suggest you re-examine your analysis.

It is to finance government.   The way you finance government when you don't want to tax as much as you want to spend is by devaluing the currency.  Bitcoin would make that impossible, and in being such good money demonstrate to the world what bad money all alternatives are.

Wow, neither have I said that I think think that, nor do I think it.

I made it quite clear that my view on central banks, and to be clear I mean the IMF, ECB, Federal Reserve etc is to retain and/or increase the power they have over their subjects using money as the proxy.

It's all about power. What you are explaining to me is economic theory. A theory that it suits the central banks for you to believe. They want you to believe the choice is "Buy and Spend vs Austerity" because it suits them for you to believe that. It is a form of divide and conquer.

You need to stop thinking that the way things are is the only way things can be. If you keep arguing based on those assumptions then your whole argument collapses the moment your assumption is proven invalid.

When you say "Central Banks can't serve their purpose because..." and then define their purpose as that which they would have you believe it is, then of course you will only draw the conclusions that can inevitably come from a basic flawed assumption.

When you say "If CB's were going to support bitcoin they would be supporting gold..." you have i) misunderstood what I have been saying. They dont want to 'support' bitcoin, they want to control it.

The key difference is that you saying support bitcoin implies some benefit to you (and the other serfs) just as supporting gold implies some benefit to you (and other serfs).

Think carefully about the implications of them 'owning' the network - in particular the endgame scenario, once the block reward dries up. They ream the transaction fees, they have better control over the transactions (remember miners choose what goes in what block - hello censorship).

Right now, who is to say they arent the ones pushing the price up, buying all the loose coin. This not only gets the necessary mindshare by making it appealing, but it also lets them offload all those soon to be worthless dollars.

But what about all the millionaires they are creating?? I refer you to the 'worthless dollars' clause...

So think bigger dont think about bitcoin in the context of everything that went before, think about how it is different and how those differences can be (ab)used to the ends of those nefarious enough to want to controll all of the money in the world.

In some ways its easier. There is a fixed amount, so they always know exactly how much they have, they have a significant control over the block chain (who is to say they couldn't effect a meta-minimum fee, or your transaction nver gets included in 'their' blocks, voila taxation!)

You are underestimating the ways in which the ideas of good man can be twisted by those with evil motives.

 

[Arzack]

Do you guys think it will be possible for central banks to generate new cryptocurrencys in the future?

What are the implycations if it's possible?

[manfred]

Do you guys think it will be possible for central banks to generate new cryptocurrencys in the future?

Yes of course they will. And when you go shopping or pay taxes u will convert your bitcoins ether directly or indirectly to the gov.  approved money.

The Satoshi fork seems to have unstoppable momentum... despite Litecoin, PPCoin, Novacoin and all the rest.

Yes, like the tulip mania......despite roses, orchids, lilys and the rest.
Bitcoin has the major "satoshi entity" flaw other crypto currencies dont have. Also EVERY transaction EVER sent is 100% traceable FOREVER.
Cash in your pocket is 100% anonym forever.

Most people have not idea of the power bitcoin possesses.

[abbyd]

Central banks can't serve their purpose through Bitcoin because Bitcoin cannot be created at will to accomplish policy goals.  If CBs were going to support Bitcoin, they'd already be supporting gold as it provides many of the same balances.   The problem with gold is it's opaque - you have to store it, and it's very valuable so you don't want to let everybody see it. 
...
So again, please re-examine what purpose central banks actually serve - If you think it's to "keep inflation low" I suggest you re-examine your analysis.
...

Quick point - the official stated policy of the Fed is to "meet inflation rate targets".  In plain English this means "continually devalue US dollars". Any "hedge", like precious metals (and perhaps bitcoin, it would seem) works against their stated policy because these things can hold their value against the dollar. Therefore the Fed is thought to work hard at keeping precious metal prices DOWN. JP Morgan has been "naked shorting" silver for years without being prosecuted - periodically there is a bit of bluster about this, but nobody has gone to jail for this highly illegal practice.  FDR confiscated privately held gold in the 1930s in order to make the Fed system work. There are plenty more examples around of the Fed manipulating PM markets, though I am not an expert on this subject.

Logically, the Fed SHOULD be working to undermine Bitcoin, because it represents (at the very least) a hedge against USD inflation. Worse still (from their perspective), it is an entire alternate GLOBAL currency that they don't control!  US dollar hegemony is VERY important to controlling the global financial system - how else can the US keep the deck stacked in their favor?

Finally, I agree that the Fed probably does have goals other than their stated ones - keeping labor active, wages low, and unemployment high, for example...

[sgbett]

Do you guys think it will be possible for central banks to generate new cryptocurrencys in the future?

What are the implycations if it's possible?

I'd say sure it's possible! However, getting a strong following like Bitcoin is another matter. And we mustn't let facts get in the way of a good story either.

The Satoshi fork seems to have unstoppable momentum... despite Litecoin, PPCoin, Novacoin and all the rest.

There's also the question of how Bitcoin could be controlled if it can't be printed at will. Well, printing is just one brute-force technique for controlling inflation. Fractional reserve and setting interest rates for banks is another technique. However, just because those particular techniques are not well suited for Bitcoin, me mustn't assume there is no available technique! Bitcoin's monetary velocity could, in theory, be controlled by miners (and operators of so-called "full nodes") by setting transaction fees. It's bloody simple once it clicks in your mind. E.g.:

• Bitcoin's short-term price is getting too high and bubbly --> Miners start rejecting "low bids" --> Less trade can be done and network performance suffers and becomes more laggy --> THE EXCHANGE RATE GOES DOWN.
• Bitcoin's short-term price is too low and it's falling or heading lower --> Miners accept more "low bids" --> More trade can be done, "micro-transaction" opportunities pop up, network performance gets faster --> THE EXCHANGE RATE GOES UP.

But of course nobody wants to engage in discussion on this topic.

YES. You totally nailed it. Central Banks don't need to discredit or destroy bitcoin, they just needs to control it, and right now they have infinite money to make that happen.

[MisterMelancholy]

> Teach about Bitcoins via schools, media, social media, etc. (Will likely take years or decades)
> Wiser public will not invest in banks, people will withdraw money, etc.
> Banks go broke.
> Hold onto Bitcoins until this point in time. (Difficulty would likely in a new realm and prize would likely be very low)

GG

[mindtomatter]

Do you guys think it will be possible for central banks to generate new cryptocurrencys in the future?

What are the implycations if it's possible?

I'd say sure it's possible! However, getting a strong following like Bitcoin is another matter. And we mustn't let facts get in the way of a good story either.

The Satoshi fork seems to have unstoppable momentum... despite Litecoin, PPCoin, Novacoin and all the rest.

There's also the question of how Bitcoin could be controlled if it can't be printed at will. Well, printing is just one brute-force technique for controlling inflation. Fractional reserve and setting interest rates for banks is another technique. However, just because those particular techniques are not well suited for Bitcoin, me mustn't assume there is no available technique! Bitcoin's monetary velocity could, in theory, be controlled by miners (and operators of so-called "full nodes") by setting transaction fees. It's bloody simple once it clicks in your mind. E.g.:

• Bitcoin's short-term price is getting too high and bubbly --> Miners start rejecting "low bids" --> Less trade can be done and network performance suffers and becomes more laggy --> THE EXCHANGE RATE GOES DOWN.
• Bitcoin's short-term price is too low and it's falling or heading lower --> Miners accept more "low bids" --> More trade can be done, "micro-transaction" opportunities pop up, network performance gets faster --> THE EXCHANGE RATE GOES UP.

But of course nobody wants to engage in discussion on this topic.

YES. You totally nailed it. Central Banks don't need to discredit or destroy bitcoin, they just needs to control it, and right now they have infinite money to make that happen.

Again, this is only a problem if people don't figure out what's happening.  If they do, then miners looking for money making opportunities will buy new machines so that when the "conspiracy" network turns off, they turn on - When the conspiracy network is accepting all transactions, they turn off because it's not profitable.   Seems a simple matter to see when normally accepted transactions start being rejected, or normally sub-acceptance transactions are accepted - Wouldn't be hard to automate the balancing process based on that information.

That's why I keep coming back to discredit - You can't force people to quit something better once they understand why it's better and what it does for them, Bitcoin is like Napster, squishing it just makes a bunch of small ones that eventually grow larger than the original you wanted to get rid of.  But if you scare them early into thinking it's not safe and they'll get hurt, then they have to weigh that "fact" against the potential gains, and many risk-averse individuals will simply walk away to play it safe.

There's a book called the Starfish and the Spider, very worth your time if you're confused on these issues of decentralized vs. centralized organizations, they're very hard to control and even harder to stop.

Do you believe that once the manipulation is realized (slowdowns that drop the price, acceptance that brings it up) it would not be countered by other miners not in on the game?  Or are you just saying "MINERS" as one giant group implying they're all operating under the same motivational/organizational structures?

[Operatr]

Bankers and Bernake fans think Bitcoin is some novelty or a ponzi scam, they have no idea what Bitcoin is about to do to them. I'm really hoping Bitcoin creates a literal firesale across the financial landscape.

[sgbett]

Do you guys think it will be possible for central banks to generate new cryptocurrencys in the future?

What are the implycations if it's possible?

I'd say sure it's possible! However, getting a strong following like Bitcoin is another matter. And we mustn't let facts get in the way of a good story either.

The Satoshi fork seems to have unstoppable momentum... despite Litecoin, PPCoin, Novacoin and all the rest.

There's also the question of how Bitcoin could be controlled if it can't be printed at will. Well, printing is just one brute-force technique for controlling inflation. Fractional reserve and setting interest rates for banks is another technique. However, just because those particular techniques are not well suited for Bitcoin, me mustn't assume there is no available technique! Bitcoin's monetary velocity could, in theory, be controlled by miners (and operators of so-called "full nodes") by setting transaction fees. It's bloody simple once it clicks in your mind. E.g.:

• Bitcoin's short-term price is getting too high and bubbly --> Miners start rejecting "low bids" --> Less trade can be done and network performance suffers and becomes more laggy --> THE EXCHANGE RATE GOES DOWN.
• Bitcoin's short-term price is too low and it's falling or heading lower --> Miners accept more "low bids" --> More trade can be done, "micro-transaction" opportunities pop up, network performance gets faster --> THE EXCHANGE RATE GOES UP.

But of course nobody wants to engage in discussion on this topic.

YES. You totally nailed it. Central Banks don't need to discredit or destroy bitcoin, they just needs to control it, and right now they have infinite money to make that happen.

Again, this is only a problem if people don't figure out what's happening.  If they do, then miners looking for money making opportunities will buy new machines so that when the "conspiracy" network turns off, they turn on - When the conspiracy network is accepting all transactions, they turn off because it's not profitable.   Seems a simple matter to see when normally accepted transactions start being rejected, or normally sub-acceptance transactions are accepted - Wouldn't be hard to automate the balancing process based on that information.

That's why I keep coming back to discredit - You can't force people to quit something better once they understand why it's better and what it does for them, Bitcoin is like Napster, squishing it just makes a bunch of small ones that eventually grow larger than the original you wanted to get rid of.  But if you scare them early into thinking it's not safe and they'll get hurt, then they have to weigh that "fact" against the potential gains, and many risk-averse individuals will simply walk away to play it safe.

There's a book called the Starfish and the Spider, very worth your time if you're confused on these issues of decentralized vs. centralized organizations, they're very hard to control and even harder to stop.

Do you believe that once the manipulation is realized (slowdowns that drop the price, acceptance that brings it up) it would not be countered by other miners not in on the game?  Or are you just saying "MINERS" as one giant group implying they're all operating under the same motivational/organizational structures?

Clearly it doesn't suit your agenda, as a writer, to consider anyone else's point of view other than your own. You are convinced that BTC will save you. You refuse to consider it could enslave you.

Look at blahblahblah's post above this, thats another great point of view, again it exposes the concept that the BTC network can in fact be controlled (though this example is not so nefarious as mine!), this is a fundamental property of the world.

Starfish and the spider works when no one person is a power hungry psychopath. Show me a world where we don't have any of those, and I will submit to your thesis that decentralised power cannot be controlled.

You are campaigning against human nature!

[abbyd]

There's also the question of how Bitcoin could be controlled if it can't be printed at will. Well, printing is just one brute-force technique for controlling inflation. Fractional reserve and setting interest rates for banks is another technique. However, just because those particular techniques are not well suited for Bitcoin, me mustn't assume there is no available technique! Bitcoin's monetary velocity could, in theory, be controlled by miners (and operators of so-called "full nodes") by setting transaction fees. It's bloody simple once it clicks in your mind. E.g.:

• Bitcoin's short-term price is getting too high and bubbly --> Miners start rejecting "low bids" --> Less trade can be done and network performance suffers and becomes more laggy --> THE EXCHANGE RATE GOES DOWN.
• Bitcoin's short-term price is too low and it's falling or heading lower --> Miners accept more "low bids" --> More trade can be done, "micro-transaction" opportunities pop up, network performance gets faster --> THE EXCHANGE RATE GOES UP.

But of course nobody wants to engage in discussion on this topic.

YES. You totally nailed it. Central Banks don't need to discredit or destroy bitcoin, they just needs to control it, and right now they have infinite money to make that happen.

Wait a minute - bitcoin CANNOT BE INFLATED - that's the whole point of the (eventually) static monetary base and the steady release of coin via difficulty adjustments. If anything miners might need to adjust fees DOWNWARD to INCREASE monetary velocity.  Conventional Keynesian economists spread exactly this FUD:  deflation creates a downward economic spiral called a "liquidity trap". Of course, anyone espousing this viewpoint regarding bitcoin is immediately blown out of the water:  bitcoin can merely revalue versus fiat, and prices can be held constant by always making them relative to fiat, hence making it an inflation hedge and store of value... This could be what has the central banks' undies in a wad...

Nonetheless I agree that miners could have a significant impact on bitcoin monetary velocity - it's something I'd like to discuss further.