Bitcoin: The Digital Kill Switch

[AnonyMint]

I started it in Newbies section because at the time AFAIK, it was the only area I had permission to post. I think it should stay in the Newbies section because I am doing a market survey, as well as discussing the ideas. The experts are finding their way into this thread, it is good to have a mix of discussion with experts and newbies. If you are going to move this thread, then you must move the thread on Bytecoin launch and numerous others, such as those comparing Litecoin, etc.. Unless there is some highly technical topic, I think you should respect the desires of the person who started the thread and which audience they wish to target.

As for the name, I registered DURACASH too. This type of conjunction of partial words is called a portmanteau.



If the Russians are the only ones who get a bad connotation from the english fragments, I think we can sacrifice them. They can learn. Considering they just got their butts handed to them in Cyprus, they will need to become smarter. I read on Thaivisa, that they cause a lot of commotion and problems in Thailand with scams and travel businesses they set up (don't know if this is true or if all nationalities are causing equivalent problems). Or let them stay with Bitcoin, we need multiple P2P currencies.  Someone with a 150 - 170 IQ who I created the term "open source", wrote The Cathedral and the Bazaar (which launched all these open source movement), and who I respect very much, has written the following about the Russians yesterday:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4867&cpage=1#comment-397459

>The result was a strengthened state each time. The same in Germany. And Russia, for that matter.

And how well did that work out for them, eh? Both regimes are dead. Germany got levelled and then mass-raped by the Soviet army, Russia has slid from superpower to a demographically-collapsing Third-World pesthole with the world’s highest rate of alcohol poisoning.

DURACASH is sufficiently different than Bitcoin, and the units would be duracoins. I definitely have been searching for a name that is sufficiently different than Bitcoin. I thought of DOTCOIN, but everybody hated that. My daughter likes DIGICOIN, but that is not available. If anyone can donate a better name, I suppose we can offer then coins in exchange and they can have the excitement of the appreciation of value.

I thought of other names trying to say the coin lives in the internet such as cosmocoin and ethercoin (or cash versions). Does anyone prefer these or prefer a meaning of privacy instead of durable, e.g. stealthcoin (but that is negative)?

The intended meaning is durable, meaning that it can't go "poof" as the money did in Cyprus and MF Global and also AFAIR in Spain's Bankia bailout where they gave deposits receipts for some paper instrument that was subsequently devalued.  Durable not only because it can't go "poof", but also because the cartel can't monopolize it because everybody can mine on their regular PC, and because the anonymity will be much stronger than Bitcoin.

Btw, BITGOLD is not plagarism, it adds value to BITCOIN and causes more people to use BITCOIN. Anything "BIT" is going to end up sending traffic to BITCOIN.

The general public has no idea what "BIT" means. My daughter is very smart and she knew what a "BYTE" is but she didn't realize there are 8 bits in a byte. And most of the general public is even less aware. Bit has numerous meanings in english. In for example Finland, they invented a word in the 1980s Bitto or something like that, which has the specific meaning, so Bitcoin works for them.

The best name in the america would something like Cybercoin or Digicoin. Bitcoin is flying over their heads. But they learn fast. People can learn fast when they are motivated.

The most important factor is to choose a name that is brandable. Meaning it doesn't have a zillion permutations just like it. And which has a meaning that can make sense. Durable seems to be a very positive quality for money. I envision a logo that is a combination lock. And there is nothing else similar to that name that also means the same. STURDYCOIN or STRONGCOIN don't have the same short brandable quality.

Questions / comments?

[Come-from-Beyond]

If the Russians are the only ones who get a bad connotation from the english fragments, I think we can sacrifice them.

Well... It's ur coin so u decide, but not only the Russians speak Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language). Seems u r going to sacrifice them as well.

[AnonyMint]

If the Russians are the only ones who get a bad connotation from the english fragments, I think we can sacrifice them.

Well... It's ur coin so u decide, but not only the Russians speak Russian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_language). Seems u r going to sacrifice them as well.

It is a valid point and if anyone can give the project a better name, then I am willing.

But my point is also that BITCOIN means negative to most americans, but they figure it out. BIT means small piece. Why would I want a small piece of a coin?

[AnonyMint]

Since the mining is given away in a more or less random fashion how about LottoCoin and LottoCash?  Kind of sums it up pretty well, right?

I understand you are thinking of the promotional aspect.

Is that the meaning you want people to think of first when thinking about protecting their money from the confiscation wave that is going to go bezerk globally over the next few years?

ALL PAPER MONEY is going to be confiscated in ALL COUNTRIES, including CHINA.  All pensions, all life insurance plans, all stocks and bonds, all of it will go "poof".

Please read the following (read all of JustSaying's (my) comments following the linked one):

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4867&cpage=1#comment-397475

[Come-from-Beyond]

Electrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrum).

History repeats itself. But now these coins will be truly electronic. And there is no annoying "coin".

[AnonyMint]

I will be back to rebutt mobodick, I want to go write something else first and make a few phone calls before 5pm EST USA.

[mobodick]

I started it in Newbies section because at the time AFAIK, it was the only area I had permission to post.

In fact, you started a whole series of negative FUD stories since you registered on the 24th.
You demanded access to a thread because you had evidence that bitcoin will break down in a month? LOL

Your trollcraft is pretty weak for bitcoin standards.

[AnonyMint]

mobodick I will back shortly to reveal that you are wrong about your allegation that the threat from the cartel does not exist.

You also don't seem to understand how impossible it will be to migrate from Bitcoin in the future. You think the alleged attack will be noticeable, it won't be. It can be hidden behind invisible "transfer pricing" (a more general concept of transferring pricing to taxes, fees on your competitors, etc).

Let me ask you a question. Is the terrorism real the US govt has the citizen's fighting? Is that attack on our freedom invisible or noticeable? Can you get the citizens to know that it is a lie? How?

Duh! You don't realize how foolish your thinking is?

You seem to forget the weakness of a P2P database is the smallness of its peer proof-of-work. If you switch to a new p2p currency, but the masses don't switch, your new p2p currency can so easily be destroyed.

Duh! Are you just a total idiot?

Or are you profiting from making a cartel 666 currency?

You never think in terms of scale. You think the knowledgable ones are the majority. What fucking planet is that?

EVERYONE, I am doing a marketing survey before I will code. If you want me to code, I need to see others defending the need for my proposal. No one makes a currency alone.

And you better get it soon, because in a few more months, the opportunity is gone forever. You will be locked into the 666 currency direction with BitCON.

[mobodick]

mobodick I will back shortly to reveal that you are wrong about your allegation that the threat from the cartel does not exist.

You also don't seem to understand how impossible it will be to migrate from Bitcoin in the future. You think the alleged attack will be noticeable, it won't be. It can be hidden behind invisible "transfer pricing" (a more general concept of transferring pricing to taxes, fees on your competitors, etc).

If there is a 51% attack then the chain is split in two parts and it will be pretty obvious who has the offending part.
This is a technical aspect of bitcoin and cannot be hidden.
This cartel would have to own all of the mining (which they can't cause people will be mining just to show them wrong) to be able to attack bitcoin and not get noticed.

Let me ask you a question. Is the terrorism real the US govt has the citizen's fighting? Is that attack on our freedom invisible or noticeable? Can you get the citizens to know that it is a lie? How?

Let me ask you a question back.
Are you even capable of organizing your conspiracy theories in your head before writing a scentence?

Duh! You don't realize how foolish your thinking is?

You seem to forget the weakness of a P2P database is the smallness of its peer proof-of-work. If you switch to a new p2p currency, but the masses don't switch, your new p2p currency can so easily be destroyed.

New coins can be pre-mined untill they are safe enough for the future.
I don't see the problem.

Duh! Are you just a total idiot?

Or are you profiting from making a cartel 666 currency?

EVERYONE, I am doing a marketing survey before I will code. If you want me to code, I need to see others defending the need for my proposal. No one makes a currency alone.

Ok, so we're playing the 'If you don't agree with me your either an idiot or profiting from 666 currency' game now, right?

I'm sorry i called you a troll previously, you are clearly just broken to the head.

[jjdub7]

Good points, but your economics are a bit off.

Let me take the time to remind everyone that the value of gold and Bitcoin (or whatever, really) isn't determined by the labor theory of value (you little Marxists, you).  These assets are valuable because they're scarce, not because labor or wages contributed to their genesis.  I mean come on...that's like Econ 101.

[AnonyMint]

mobodick I will back shortly to reveal that you are wrong about your allegation that the threat from the cartel does not exist.

You also don't seem to understand how impossible it will be to migrate from Bitcoin in the future. You think the alleged attack will be noticeable, it won't be. It can be hidden behind invisible "transfer pricing" (a more general concept of transferring pricing to taxes, fees on your competitors, etc).

If there is a 51% attack then the chain is split in two parts and it will be pretty obvious who has the offending part.
This is a technical aspect of bitcoin and cannot be hidden.
This cartel would have to own all of the mining (which they can't cause people will be mining just to show them wrong) to be able to attack bitcoin and not get noticed.

How many times have I written up thread that the cartelization threat has nothing to do with an overt 51% attack. Are you deaf, dumb, and blind?

Could you please learn to read the entire thread before making redundant arguments which have already been refuted up thread. Do you think I have time to come here and continually refute the same thing over and over again. You are trying to filibuster me so I won't have time to code.

It is not necessary for the cartel to fork the block chain, nor do anything noticeably malicious. You won't even know they are monopolizing the mining, except that you will notice that mining is becoming increasingly free or at below cost.

They can make their profits in an invisible way as I said in the prior post, "It can be hidden behind invisible 'transfer pricing' (a more general concept of transferring pricing to taxes, fees on your competitors, etc)."

I have written this same explanation 3 times up thread already. You lazily and ignorantly come here slinging mud without even reading the thread.

So you deserve to be embarrassed.

writing a scentence?

Spell checker is your friend.

Duh! You don't realize how foolish your thinking is?

You seem to forget the weakness of a P2P database is the smallness of its peer proof-of-work. If you switch to a new p2p currency, but the masses don't switch, your new p2p currency can so easily be destroyed.

New coins can be pre-mined untill they are safe enough for the future.
I don't see the problem.

This shows you are too ignorant to be a reliable source here.

Pre-minting does nothing to insure sufficient base of miners.

Ok, so we're playing the 'If you don't agree with me your either an idiot or profiting from 666 currency' game now, right?

No we are adhering to the principle that you should read the thread before making stupid posts, which are redundant arguments that have already been refuted up thread.

[AnonyMint]

Good points, but your economics are a bit off.

Let me take the time to remind everyone that the value of gold and Bitcoin (or whatever, really) isn't determined by the labor theory of value (you little Marxists, you).  These assets are valuable because they're scarce, not because labor or wages contributed to their genesis.  I mean come on...that's like Econ 101.

I assume you are making the argument that the labor or wages component of the mining cost (or even the mining cost itself) is not what gives the value to the Bitcoin?

This has nothing to do with the thesis of my article and the diabolical threat I have shown exists.

Indeed you are correct that the value of Bitcoins derives from factors that have nothing to do with the cost of mining.

And the threat I am explaining has nothing to do with the value of the Bitcoins.

The threat I am explaining can coexist with a very high value for the Bitcoins.

I am explaining that the threat is that since there is no guaranteed income stream for the miners after the 21 million coins are minted, then cartels can offer the processing for free (or below actual cost), thus driving all other honest miners bankrupt. Thus the cartel will control the system. It doesn't mean they will do anything noticeably malicious. They can hide their malicious activities in a way that the broad public will never see, somewhat analogous to how they hide now their crackdown on freedom behind the lie of a "war on terror". The broad public believes it is a war on terror-- they don't understand it is a war on freedom.

Your post is an example of why I think it is important to let newbies post on this thread (you had 5 posts at the time of writing the above). You demonstrate that you don't understand the application of the economic concept you are putting forward as an argument.

Your cockiness about "Marxists" is so ironic, because your misapplication of economics makes you the Marxist and you don't even realize it. Wake up sheep! Your ignorance will lead you into your cocky slaughter by the cartel. They confuse you very easy.

The correct reaction is not to feel hurt, but to thank me for snapping you out of your delusion.

[AnonyMint]

I am trying to understand the logistics of the attack vector you propose.  Correct this as needed:

1) "They" decide to do this to Bitcoin

It could be premeditated or it could just happen naturally.

The large retailers will offer mining for free, because they want to make sure their transactions get processed quickly and as an advantage over their competitors.

Over time this becomes consolidated and cartelized, because the economic incentive to do so exists in Bitcoin's flawed design.

2) They start building hashing systems.  In order to do this they will either have to buy ASIC hashing rigs from one of the current manufacturers or build their own.  Let's say they spring for the $1M to develop their own hashing rigs.
3) They start hashing, just like any other miner they collect the subsidy and whatever fees they get.

Now the new part:

4) They raise the number of free transactions they process per block as high as they can.
5) They get a good chunk of the network
6) They let everyone know that there is no need to send fees anymore - they will process all transactions for free.
7) This puts pressure on all the other miners, pushing them out (ala the oil company monopolies)
8 ) Through this process of mining at a loss they end up with a larger portion of the network
9) Even more miners find it unprofitable to mine so they quit
10) Eventually they end up with the entire or most of the network.

So in the end they have spent X dollars and they now "own" the network.

Does this capture the essence of the attack vector you are worried about?

I would only differ to emphasize that this can happen very slowly and appear to be part of competition amongst retailers vying to offer lower transaction fees.

It is the long run where one day it is cartelized and by then it is much too late to change systems.

666

[AnonyMint]

I am capable of coding what you all need to prevent this outcome. This will not destroy the value of Bitcoin, it will merely provide an alternative, maybe 10% market share is enough to insure we don't get locked into 666.

But I need to hear that you all understand, you want me to code it, and that you are willing to defend my thesis, so I don't have to come here always. I need time to code.

Bitcoiners should stop perceiving this as a threat. It will help to expand the awareness and bring more interest to P2P currencies. Competition is a good  thing. You bitcoiners like competition or a monopoly for bitcoin? Competition will put pressure on the bitcoin developers to improve their rate of innovation and improvements.

Tell me now please.

I was in the middle of coding a decentralized social network. I am willing to stop that work to do this, but I need to see serious support. I don't do half-assed projects. If I do something, I do it correctly and professionally.

mobodick if you said, "I understand, please go make yours, let the market decide", I would not be so discouraged by your posts.

[AnonyMint]

So, retailers will be mining?

One of the global moderators here told me (in a prior post in this forum) that was the conclusion from prior discussion as to what Satoshi meant by "some will be provided free" and the logical hope or conclusion of discussions the experts had in this forum long ago.

Ok, so as one of these large mining/retailer operations would I be including just the transactions for my store or all the transactions for the entire network?

I deduce (as agreed/expected/hoped by the bitcoin experts in prior discussion) they would prioritize their own transactions, that is one of the points of giving it away free. One might deduce that they would probably process transactions for others that have a fee attached.

If each mining/retailer is including only the transactions they care about (for free) into their blocks then we end up with "retailer specific" blocks.  Since each retailer does not want their customers to wait to be included in a block I see an "arms race" between these miner/retailers in hashing power, right?

One can deduce numerous ways that the incentives play out, but all roads lead to cartelization in the long run, because the economic incentive is there in the Bitcoin design flaw of ending the new coins reward for miners in the future.

If so then it sounds like the business to be in would be building hashing rigs for these mining retailers.

Might be a good business. Doesn't affect my thesis though.

This sounds very expensive in the long run as they compete with each other.  At some point you must have them cooperate and include each other's transactions or set up mining as a separate entity.

Or cartelize. Which is what always happens in the quagmire you describe, because a winner must arise to lower the costs of fighting each other. This is Standard Oil all over again.

[TiagoTiago]

But if having a bigger HDD means you earn more, wouldn't that also lead to a spontaneous symmetry break where whoever gets enough of an advantage first becomes able to increase their own advantage exponentially faster than anyone else and eventually will hoard the equivalent of 51% of the storage space of the network?

[jjdub7]

Good points, but your economics are a bit off.

Let me take the time to remind everyone that the value of gold and Bitcoin (or whatever, really) isn't determined by the labor theory of value (you little Marxists, you).  These assets are valuable because they're scarce, not because labor or wages contributed to their genesis.  I mean come on...that's like Econ 101.

I assume you are making the argument that the labor or wages component of the mining cost (or even the mining cost itself) is not what gives the value to the Bitcoin?

This has nothing to do with the thesis of my article and the diabolical threat I have shown exists.

Indeed you are correct that the value of Bitcoins derives from factors that have nothing to do with the cost of mining.

And the threat I am explaining has nothing to do with the value of the Bitcoins.

The threat I am explaining can coexist with a very high value for the Bitcoins.

I am explaining that the threat is that since there is no guaranteed income stream for the miners after the 21 million coins are minted, then cartels can offer the processing for free (or below actual cost), thus driving all other honest miners bankrupt. Thus the cartel will control the system. It doesn't mean they will do anything noticeably malicious. They can hide their malicious activities in a way that the broad public will never see, somewhat analogous to how they hide now their crackdown on freedom behind the lie of a "war on terror". The broad public believes it is a war on terror-- they don't understand it is a war on freedom.

Your post is an example of why I think it is important to let newbies post on this thread (you had 5 posts at the time of writing the above). You demonstrate that you don't understand the application of the economic concept you are putting forward as an argument.

Your cockiness about "Marxists" is so ironic, because your misapplication of economics makes you the Marxist and you don't even realize it. Wake up sheep! Your ignorance will lead you into your cocky slaughter by the cartel. They confuse you very easy.

The correct reaction is not to feel hurt, but to thank me for snapping you out of your delusion.

Lol.

[jjdub7]

Good points, but your economics are a bit off.

Let me take the time to remind everyone that the value of gold and Bitcoin (or whatever, really) isn't determined by the labor theory of value (you little Marxists, you).  These assets are valuable because they're scarce, not because labor or wages contributed to their genesis.  I mean come on...that's like Econ 101.

I assume you are making the argument that the labor or wages component of the mining cost (or even the mining cost itself) is not what gives the value to the Bitcoin?

This has nothing to do with the thesis of my article and the diabolical threat I have shown exists.

Indeed you are correct that the value of Bitcoins derives from factors that have nothing to do with the cost of mining.

And the threat I am explaining has nothing to do with the value of the Bitcoins.

The threat I am explaining can coexist with a very high value for the Bitcoins.

I am explaining that the threat is that since there is no guaranteed income stream for the miners after the 21 million coins are minted, then cartels can offer the processing for free (or below actual cost), thus driving all other honest miners bankrupt. Thus the cartel will control the system. It doesn't mean they will do anything noticeably malicious. They can hide their malicious activities in a way that the broad public will never see, somewhat analogous to how they hide now their crackdown on freedom behind the lie of a "war on terror". The broad public believes it is a war on terror-- they don't understand it is a war on freedom.

Your post is an example of why I think it is important to let newbies post on this thread (you had 5 posts at the time of writing the above). You demonstrate that you don't understand the application of the economic concept you are putting forward as an argument.

Your cockiness about "Marxists" is so ironic, because your misapplication of economics makes you the Marxist and you don't even realize it. Wake up sheep! Your ignorance will lead you into your cocky slaughter by the cartel. They confuse you very easy.

The correct reaction is not to feel hurt, but to thank me for snapping you out of your delusion.

Lol.

Bitcoin's value originated as essentially a composite ETF comprising different dark sectors of the black market.  Anonymity is the scarce commodity, not Bitcoin itself.

[AnonyMint]

I have some technical questions about this whole disk drive thing.  But it sounds as if you have it all worked out so I say go for it!

Thank you for another vote to proceed. As I said, I am taking a market survey, so I am counting these.

Realize that the disk-space Proof-of-Work is not critical for fixing the design flaw in Bitcoin that allows cartelization. The only required fix is to not stop making new coins. This was called "inflatacoin", but it is only a very small rate similar to gold which is debased roughly 2.5% per year (consider it a storage fee if you want). This is not inflation, it is funding your miners and keeping the ecosystem from degenerating to cartelization.

I hope you all know that Rockefelller got his opening, because of the bottleneck of the railroads and that creating railroads cost (on an opportunity cost yearly ROI basis) "more" than could be earned from the fees of transport. So it is analogous in that way and also where there could be two competing railroads, then better to form a cartel than drive each other bankrupt (remember this is very large capital so it is ripe for political capture too). Remember all utilities end up under the control/regulation of the government. The cellular wireless networks are similarly heading this way for the same reasons.

My proposed disk-space Proof-of-Work improvement is a separate improvement, as are my proposals to increase anonymity, make transactions faster, fix micropayments, etc. Many improvements I am proposing over current Bitcoin.

[jjdub7]

Good points, but your economics are a bit off.

Let me take the time to remind everyone that the value of gold and Bitcoin (or whatever, really) isn't determined by the labor theory of value (you little Marxists, you).  These assets are valuable because they're scarce, not because labor or wages contributed to their genesis.  I mean come on...that's like Econ 101.

I assume you are making the argument that the labor or wages component of the mining cost (or even the mining cost itself) is not what gives the value to the Bitcoin?

This has nothing to do with the thesis of my article and the diabolical threat I have shown exists.

Indeed you are correct that the value of Bitcoins derives from factors that have nothing to do with the cost of mining.

And the threat I am explaining has nothing to do with the value of the Bitcoins.

The threat I am explaining can coexist with a very high value for the Bitcoins.

I am explaining that the threat is that since there is no guaranteed income stream for the miners after the 21 million coins are minted, then cartels can offer the processing for free (or below actual cost), thus driving all other honest miners bankrupt. Thus the cartel will control the system. It doesn't mean they will do anything noticeably malicious. They can hide their malicious activities in a way that the broad public will never see, somewhat analogous to how they hide now their crackdown on freedom behind the lie of a "war on terror". The broad public believes it is a war on terror-- they don't understand it is a war on freedom.

Your post is an example of why I think it is important to let newbies post on this thread (you had 5 posts at the time of writing the above). You demonstrate that you don't understand the application of the economic concept you are putting forward as an argument.

Your cockiness about "Marxists" is so ironic, because your misapplication of economics makes you the Marxist and you don't even realize it. Wake up sheep! Your ignorance will lead you into your cocky slaughter by the cartel. They confuse you very easy.

The correct reaction is not to feel hurt, but to thank me for snapping you out of your delusion.

Lol.

Bitcoin's value originated as essentially a composite ETF comprising different dark sectors of the black market.  Anonymity is the scarce commodity, not Bitcoin itself.

And the Marxist thing was a playful jab - I'm a moderate but I do like the way Marx thought.  Capital was the only book I've ever read that was simultaneously interesting and boring lol