Bitcoin trades the inequity of dynastic power for the inequity of early adoption

[myrkul]

And nothing you said in that thread changes anything. Please read:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work

I think you're misunderstanding Red's contention here.

If I understand correctly, it's not that proof of work is unnecessary if you want to reach consensus on transaction order without trusted bookkeepers.

Rather, it's that having trusted bookkeepers isn't so bad.

So, basically, Red wants to make MtGox into the new Rothschilds, and revans says that early adopters are already them.

[Qoheleth]

If you were an early adopter in Bitcoin you were risking your life to develop and test the idea during a time where every government in the world and every bank wanted to stop you.

[Luckybit]

And what of all those people with similar vision and desire too young to know about this burgeoning revolution; if the Bitcoin masturbators get their way these children will grow up in a world from which they are financially disenfranchised unless Mummy or Daddy happened to be a Bitcoin early adopter; so very little difference from the inequity of the world of state fiat.

Yeah.  Brilliant point.

I spend part of every day feeling bad for all those kids in middle-school today, who were too young to know about investing in IBM back when they made typewriters the ubiquitous office tool.

Then be a better leader if Bitcoin is a success. Bitcoin and money are just tools of empowerment and if you have a lot of it then you can do more good than if you don't.

[John Self]

The Rothschilds are relatively small fish these days.

[revans]

Think of the early adopters like founding fathers. If you were an early adopter in Bitcoin you were risking your life to develop and test the idea during a time where every government in the world and every bank wanted to stop you.

If you were brave enough to take the risk at that time you should be rewarded. Why wouldn't you want to reward bravery? At the same time miners have to be rewarded as well for protecting Bitcoin. Family dysnasty doesn't really serve any function in society. They protect a broken system. I could see if the US economy were working or if the Euro were working but these are broken systems and only solutions from outside the system can work because they have too much to lose to experiment or take any risk.

The best solution they could come up with was to either raise taxes or cut benefits or bailouts to austerity. But none of that shit helps people in my age range 20s-30s or younger. Bitcoin as unstable as it is, at least it's an alternative to the sure failure which awaits us in the fiat currency.

When you have to roll out saccharine hubris like that to defend the fundamental unfairness of the Bitcoin model you are losing the argument.

[revans]

And nothing you said in that thread changes anything. Please read:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work

I think you're misunderstanding Red's contention here.

If I understand correctly, it's not that proof of work is unnecessary if you want to reach consensus on transaction order without trusted bookkeepers.

Rather, it's that having trusted bookkeepers isn't so bad.

So, basically, Red wants to make MtGox into the new Rothschilds, and revans says that early adopters are already them.

MtGox is undoubtedly the central bank of Bitcoin already, and they engage in the kind of price fixing activity central banks always do

[revans]

The Rothschilds are relatively small fish these days.

Lower profile, but don't be fooled, behind the scenes they still have massive influence.

[Luckybit]

If you were an early adopter in Bitcoin you were risking your life to develop and test the idea during a time where every government in the world and every bank wanted to stop you.

Why do you think Satoshi couldn't reveal his identity? What he was doing was risking his life to develop Bitcoin and he knew that. There are a lot of ruthless people who don't lime competition even if its for the betterment of society.

[Luckybit]

Think of the early adopters like founding fathers. If you were an early adopter in Bitcoin you were risking your life to develop and test the idea during a time where every government in the world and every bank wanted to stop you.

If you were brave enough to take the risk at that time you should be rewarded. Why wouldn't you want to reward bravery? At the same time miners have to be rewarded as well for protecting Bitcoin. Family dysnasty doesn't really serve any function in society. They protect a broken system. I could see if the US economy were working or if the Euro were working but these are broken systems and only solutions from outside the system can work because they have too much to lose to experiment or take any risk.

The best solution they could come up with was to either raise taxes or cut benefits or bailouts to austerity. But none of that shit helps people in my age range 20s-30s or younger. Bitcoin as unstable as it is, at least it's an alternative to the sure failure which awaits us in the fiat currency.

When you have to roll out saccharine hubris like that to defend the fundamental unfairness of the Bitcoin model you are losing the argument.

If you aren't willing to risk your life as much as Satoshi was willing to risk his for the idea then why should you expect that you'd get the same benefits? Being an early adopter in something like Bitcoin means risking your life. Satoshi could have been declared a terrorist or criminal and locked up before Bitcoin development was complete or the local mafia could have tracked him down and put an end to him. He was taking risks whether you understand that or not.

[Red]

And nothing you said in that thread changes anything. Please read:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work

I think you're misunderstanding Red's contention here.

If I understand correctly, it's not that proof of work is unnecessary if you want to reach consensus on transaction order without trusted bookkeepers.

Rather, it's that having trusted bookkeepers isn't so bad.

Thanks for all the replies. Yes I intimately understand the block chain and the point. I personally exchanged PMs with Satoshi on some low level technical details.

Qoheleth's paraphrase comes closest to what I'm trying to say.
At the beginning bitcoin was a philosophical problem. How do we do all these things in complete anonymity with everyone being an equal peer. Today, bitcoin and its ecosystem isn't the same beast.

I'm not saying trusted bookkeepers aren't so bad. I'm saying they exist and you discuss them everyday. The Bitcoin community is just pretty pnambic.
http://jargon.net/jargonfile/p/pnambic.html

Ever considered what happens when a block chain fork actually occurs? This:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152030.0

The wizards spring into action!

[myrkul]

And nothing you said in that thread changes anything. Please read:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_work

I think you're misunderstanding Red's contention here.

If I understand correctly, it's not that proof of work is unnecessary if you want to reach consensus on transaction order without trusted bookkeepers.

Rather, it's that having trusted bookkeepers isn't so bad.

So, basically, Red wants to make MtGox into the new Rothschilds, and revans says that early adopters are already them.

MtGox is undoubtedly the central bank of Bitcoin already, and they engage in the kind of price fixing activity central banks always do

And that would be why I wouldn't use MtGox if they were paying me.

[revans]

Think of the early adopters like founding fathers. If you were an early adopter in Bitcoin you were risking your life to develop and test the idea during a time where every government in the world and every bank wanted to stop you.

If you were brave enough to take the risk at that time you should be rewarded. Why wouldn't you want to reward bravery? At the same time miners have to be rewarded as well for protecting Bitcoin. Family dysnasty doesn't really serve any function in society. They protect a broken system. I could see if the US economy were working or if the Euro were working but these are broken systems and only solutions from outside the system can work because they have too much to lose to experiment or take any risk.

The best solution they could come up with was to either raise taxes or cut benefits or bailouts to austerity. But none of that shit helps people in my age range 20s-30s or younger. Bitcoin as unstable as it is, at least it's an alternative to the sure failure which awaits us in the fiat currency.

When you have to roll out saccharine hubris like that to defend the fundamental unfairness of the Bitcoin model you are losing the argument.

If you aren't willing to risk your life as much as Satoshi was willing to risk his for the idea then why should you expect that you'd get the same benefits? Being an early adopter in something like Bitcoin means risking your life. Satoshi could have been declared a terrorist or criminal and locked up before Bitcoin development was complete or the local mafia could have tracked him down and put an end to him. He was taking risks whether you understand that or not.

How gullible are you?

Satoshi is a composite identity, and that identity was disappeared once it has served its purpose; giving Bitcoin an air of mystery and intrigue and distancing certain people from the early mining bonanza.

[Qoheleth]

Why do you think Satoshi couldn't reveal his identity?

I always just figured that he valued his privacy.

Then again, I also don't think "the government" or "the banks" are particularly interested in stamping out something like this, especially not enough to go for black-bag jobs and assassination back when it may not have even taken off. Maybe I'm naïve!

[Red]

So, basically, Red wants to make MtGox into the new Rothschilds, and revans says that early adopters are already them.

LMAO! I didn't do it! I've been gone for a couple of years.

I'm just the kid saying that guy over their in the Emperor's Clothes... He's the Emperor.
Why are you people naked?

[revans]

Why do you think Satoshi couldn't reveal his identity?

I always just figured that he valued his privacy.

Then again, I also don't think "the government" or "the banks" are particularly interested in stamping out something like this, especially not enough to go for black-bag jobs and assassination back when it may not have even taken off. Maybe I'm naïve!

I would think TPTB love Bitcoin as it is priming people for an all digital global currency. It would be more in their interest to discredit Bitcoin and then offer people a state sanctioned alternative.

[myrkul]

So, basically, Red wants to make MtGox into the new Rothschilds, and revans says that early adopters are already them.

LMAO! I didn't do it! I've been gone for a couple of years.

I'm just the kid saying that guy over their in the Emperor's Clothes... He's the Emperor.
Why are you people naked?

OK, you've got a point, MTGox is a central point in a supposedly decentralized network. I think that problem has been recognized, however, and is in the process of being remedied.

[Luckybit]

Think of the early adopters like founding fathers. If you were an early adopter in Bitcoin you were risking your life to develop and test the idea during a time where every government in the world and every bank wanted to stop you.

If you were brave enough to take the risk at that time you should be rewarded. Why wouldn't you want to reward bravery? At the same time miners have to be rewarded as well for protecting Bitcoin. Family dysnasty doesn't really serve any function in society. They protect a broken system. I could see if the US economy were working or if the Euro were working but these are broken systems and only solutions from outside the system can work because they have too much to lose to experiment or take any risk.

The best solution they could come up with was to either raise taxes or cut benefits or bailouts to austerity. But none of that shit helps people in my age range 20s-30s or younger. Bitcoin as unstable as it is, at least it's an alternative to the sure failure which awaits us in the fiat currency.

When you have to roll out saccharine hubris like that to defend the fundamental unfairness of the Bitcoin model you are losing the argument.

If you aren't willing to risk your life as much as Satoshi was willing to risk his for the idea then why should you expect that you'd get the same benefits? Being an early adopter in something like Bitcoin means risking your life. Satoshi could have been declared a terrorist or criminal and locked up before Bitcoin development was complete or the local mafia could have tracked him down and put an end to him. He was taking risks whether you understand that or not.

How gullible are you?

Satoshi is a composite identity, and that identity was disappeared once it has served its purpose; giving Bitcoin an air of mystery and intrigue and distancing certain people from the early mining bonanza.

Of course but how naive are you to think that something like Bitcoin could be developed without any risk to the lives of the early adopters? Bitcoin was extremely high risk early on which is why myself and others did not get too involved with it. The people who decided to get that involved were risking everything and if they happened to be successful and now become rich thats a good thing. It's good because it encourages that kind of bravery for the next Bitcoin type project.

[Luckybit]

Why do you think Satoshi couldn't reveal his identity?

I always just figured that he valued his privacy.

Then again, I also don't think "the government" or "the banks" are particularly interested in stamping out something like this, especially not enough to go for black-bag jobs and assassination back when it may not have even taken off. Maybe I'm naïve!

They aren't now in 2013. But back in 2008-2009 when the project was unknown there would have been minimal to no consequences at all if Satoshi and others were arrested on ridiculous charges. They wouldn't necessarily be assassinated, but if enough people want to stop you in government then you get stopped and if enough people with enough money want to stop you in the private sector then you get stopped even faster and no there is no real justice about it.

I think in 2013 it's a different scenario, the developers are known and part of a community. Everyone knows about Bitcoin and if something happened then it would make big news. Back then if something happened it wouldn't have made news.

[Severian]

Satoshi is a composite identity

I'm sure you have proof for such a claim. If so, you'll scoop every investigative reporter in the world.

[Red]

OK, you've got a point, MTGox is a central point in a supposedly decentralized network. I think that problem has been recognized, however, and is in the process of being remedied.

Good we're on the same page!

But do you realize that the exchanges as a group CANNOT ever be forked from one another?

I mean hackers could physically try to isolate one from the rest of the network. But after 20 minutes or so the exchange must notice and stop trading before anything is confirmed. At that point it is not a coding problem. It's a humans figure out WTF is happening problem.

No exchange can ever willing decide to be permanently forked from the others.
Agreed?