Visa and Banks After BTC

[Dobrodav]

I am don`t get it - are we already overtaken by fake personalities  ?

[btcsquirrel]

While the OP's suggestion that a large financial institution was behind the mtgox hack has no evidence, his/her suggestion of a link between large financial institutions and Chuck Schumer is a matter of fact.  You can see on www.opensecrets.org (as previous poster did) how much Chuck receives directly from financial institutions.  Schumer didn't learn about bitcoin because he likes to surf the web and read up on tech stories.  He learned about it from the same people who told him what bitcoin is and what he should do about it.

A good example of what will eventually happen can be found in the recent attempt by AT&T to keep Wisconsin public schools/libraries from completing the fiber network they are working on.  This guy did a good synopsis if you missed it in the news. http://bit.ly/lD8N8x

If you don't think a large company will bribe public officials to have them write legislation to destroy a competitor, you haven't been reading a broad enough sources of news.

[Mark Oates]

check out the big donors to Shumer.

can you guess who?

Don't have to guess.

Top 5 Contributors, 2005-2010
Paul, Weiss et al   $145,550
http://www.paulweiss.com/
Paulson & Co   $137,300
http://www.paulsoninvestment.com/
Weitz & Luxenberg   $86,200
http://www.weitzlux.com/
Schulte, Roth & Zabel   $80,600
http://www.srz.com/
Fragomen, Del Rey et al   $72,700
http://www.fragomen.com/

Top 5 Industries, 2005-2010
Securities & Investment   $2,644,799
Lawyers/Law Firms   $2,137,360
Real Estate   $1,244,190
Lobbyists   $569,713
Misc Finance   $543,950

Where'd you find that information?

[cypherdoc]

i take seriously our OP.  i have read Creature From Jekyll Island and i follow the news in the eCONomy quite closely.  

in fact, it was my first thought that perhaps a bank was behind the hack.   why would an individual take the time and effort to squash the price to zero?  why wouldn't he just steal the bitcoin from an unlimited withdrawal acct before anyone would notice?

no, the intent of the hack was to drive the price down and destroy confidence.

[niemivh]

check out the big donors to Shumer.

can you guess who?

You're wasting your time.  These morons have been told that political intrigue doesn't exist and they eagerly lap it up because it precludes them from an adult and comprehensive world-view that requires a rigorous understanding of history and an analytical mind that can process all this without falling into despair at the present condition of mankind.  Needless to say, this is a hard thing to come by.

Julius Caesar tripped and fell on his own knife.
William Henry Harrison died of the flu.
Abe Lincoln was killed by a lone nut, JWB.
JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald.
19 mentally deranged low-grade morons overcame the most defended and secure airspace on the planet with box cutters on 9/11.

[benjamindees]

Also, it's a complete coincidence that the Senate just voted to limit debit card fees.  That was not at all intended to send a message to transaction processors or anything remotely like that.  That would be an insane conspiracy theory, and we don't believe in those.

[jashan]

in fact, it was my first thought that perhaps a bank was behind the hack.   why would an individual take the time and effort to squash the price to zero?  why wouldn't he just steal the bitcoin from an unlimited withdrawal acct before anyone would notice?

no, the intent of the hack was to drive the price down and destroy confidence.

Agreed. Named + verified sources or not - some things are just too obvious. Why would any hacker try to destroy Bitcoin? Why would any criminal try to destroy Bitcoin? Why would any greedy person try to destroy Bitcoin (except for: when they know they can make more money if Bitcoin wasn't there)? Driving the Bitcoin price to $0.01 only makes sense for one very specific rationale: Destroy the market, destroy trust in Bitcoin. So far, it seemingly wasn't too successful.

The really bad news: Given the markets are open to everyone - what keeps them from gradually buying up significant amounts of Bitcoins so they can "play" with the markets whenever they want to? Early adopters owning a significant part of the available Bitcoins could be trouble in theory - but given that they are early adopters and most likely in it because they like Bitcoin and believe in Bitcoin, it's unlikely that this would be a real problem. Banks buying up significant parts, however, would certainly be a severe problem. And at the moment, I can't think of anything that would keep them from doing that. If I was a bank, it would be what I would be doing.

So, everyone: Buy Bitcoin so the banks can't. And don't sell (buy stuff or ... um ... donate to me instead ;-) ) ... we just need to outnumber them in due time!

[TraderTimm]

Please, sell all you can.

I'll be there to buy them up from you, silly trading newbies.

[bitdragon]

these banksters are having more and more battles to fight and even though they are quite a daunting adversary they are losing steam and breaking down behind the scenes. They will attempt all they can to maintain their face through fear, and the more they try and the bigger their stunt the more we realise how week and desperate they are and not the other way round. Fear is a very very weak level of power and I remain utterly convinced that this control system is done with one way or another and the world will be rid of these parasites gradually in a manner that we collectively can handle. I expect and contribute my thoughts and action to the dismantlement of this illusion.

[kjj]

The credit card companies have nothing to fear from us.  We need them just as much in a bitcoin world as we do under our current system.

[Findeton]

My sources tell me that NO_SLAVE hasn't posted again in this thread he created.

[Timo Y]

This is an anonymous forum where anyone can join. We have no way of telling whether you are a troll.

FUD posts like this one should automatically be considered trolling. Until proven otherwise.

I'm am not saying that you definitely are are troll, but give us some proof, or a least plausibility, that you know those "sources", or stop polluting this forum with FUD posts.

[NO_SLAVE]

My sources tell me that NO_SLAVE hasn't posted again in this thread he created.

Im not getting into a slug fest with trolls, who has the time for that BS. I put the information out there, take it as you may.

[scribe]

It's always good to be a little paranoid either way - crypto & source code attacks aren't the only attacks on Bitcoin.

The BTC economy is in its infancy and is in a good period to test out its dynamics - both intended and unintended. There are vanloads of laws around established currencies and market trading for good reason (i.e. to stop themselves imploding), but very few of these apply to Bitcoin as it stands, so I can imagine both individuals and companies looking for ways to exploit it.

Way I see it, some exploits will benefit individuals but not affect the overall sustainability of Bitcoins, while others will attack Bitcoins as a functioning economy. Are technical protocols enough to withstand or circumvent either or both? Maybe the true test of Bitcoin won't be how spread out individual nodes are, but how much the Bitcoin community establishes new controls and agreements on top of it.

Whether or not NO_SLAVE has sources, it'd be foolish to pretend everyone is in it for the long-term survival of Bitcoins.

p.s. Surely Bitcoins are more of a threat to other net-payment services like PayPal at the moment?

[chihlidog]

It's always good to be a little paranoid either way - crypto & source code attacks aren't the only attacks on Bitcoin.

The BTC economy is in its infancy and is in a good period to test out its dynamics - both intended and unintended. There are vanloads of laws around established currencies and market trading for good reason (i.e. to stop themselves imploding), but very few of these apply to Bitcoin as it stands, so I can imagine both individuals and companies looking for ways to exploit it.

Way I see it, some exploits will benefit individuals but not affect the overall sustainability of Bitcoins, while others will attack Bitcoins as a functioning economy. Are technical protocols enough to withstand or circumvent either or both? Maybe the true test of Bitcoin won't be how spread out individual nodes are, but how much the Bitcoin community establishes new controls and agreements on top of it.

Whether or not NO_SLAVE has sources, it'd be foolish to pretend everyone is in it for the long-term survival of Bitcoins.

p.s. Surely Bitcoins are more of a threat to other net-payment services like PayPal at the moment?

+1. A bit of paranoia is healthy. Sometimes the resulting theories are indeed correct.

I dont see any reason for banks NOT to be attacking bitcoin. Better to eliminate the competition while it's weak than deal with it after it has become entrenched.

[finnthecelt]

While the OP's suggestion that a large financial institution was behind the mtgox hack has no evidence, his/her suggestion of a link between large financial institutions and Chuck Schumer is a matter of fact.  You can see on www.opensecrets.org (as previous poster did) how much Chuck receives directly from financial institutions.  Schumer didn't learn about bitcoin because he likes to surf the web and read up on tech stories.  He learned about it from the same people who told him what bitcoin is and what he should do about it.

A good example of what will eventually happen can be found in the recent attempt by AT&T to keep Wisconsin public schools/libraries from completing the fiber network they are working on.  This guy did a good synopsis if you missed it in the news. http://bit.ly/lD8N8x

If you don't think a large company will bribe public officials to have them write legislation to destroy a competitor, you haven't been reading a broad enough sources of news.

Well then, it's a good thing that LulzSec is on our side... LOL

Does LulzSec have a "side"?

[finnthecelt]

The credit card companies have nothing to fear from us.  We need them just as much in a bitcoin world as we do under our current system.

But they don't need us.

[finnthecelt]

While the OP's suggestion that a large financial institution was behind the mtgox hack has no evidence, his/her suggestion of a link between large financial institutions and Chuck Schumer is a matter of fact.  You can see on www.opensecrets.org (as previous poster did) how much Chuck receives directly from financial institutions.  Schumer didn't learn about bitcoin because he likes to surf the web and read up on tech stories.  He learned about it from the same people who told him what bitcoin is and what he should do about it.

A good example of what will eventually happen can be found in the recent attempt by AT&T to keep Wisconsin public schools/libraries from completing the fiber network they are working on.  This guy did a good synopsis if you missed it in the news. http://bit.ly/lD8N8x

If you don't think a large company will bribe public officials to have them write legislation to destroy a competitor, you haven't been reading a broad enough sources of news.

Well then, it's a good thing that LulzSec is on our side... LOL

Does LulzSec have a "side"?

LulzSec has many sides.

I walked right into that one!!   

[qualia8]

This was my speculation.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/i4ign/conspiracy_theory_its_the_banks/

[lonestranger]

I am don`t get it - are we already overtaken by fake personalities  ?

Fake personalities?  Are you referring to the military project to create fake people on the internet?

Me and the other government-loving, mainstream TV watching, ignorant, arrogant, know-it-all statists here on this thread laugh at such a notion. It's not mentioned TV now, is it? Right?!