|
patvarilly
Guest
|
 |
June 27, 2011, 06:15:55 AM |
|
A bigger risk is a governmental entity deciding to step in. A small fraction of the compute horsepower they have on hand to crack cryptosystems could be used to subvert the block chain, effectively destroying all credibility. They also have the incentive to prevent others from using Bitcoins as a payment system, for example they can't tax it.
This idea that governments "can't tax Bitcoins" keeps coming up again and again, and I find it quite strange. Taxes are owed regardless of the payment mechanism used. If I work for income, I owe taxes on that income, whether it comes via a direct deposit, a check, cash or shavings of gold. If I don't pay those taxes, I'm breaking the law: the end. It might be easier with some mechanisms than with others for someone else to find out I'm being paid, but ultimately, it's my own personal responsibility to report and pay the taxes due on the income I've received. And it's not like underreporting the taxes you owe doesn't lead to large inconsistencies that others can plainly see. What's that? You earn $1000 / year and you've just bought a million-BTC yacht? This fantasy that Bitcoins will bring governments' to their knees as they find themselves unable to tax people is just that: a fantasy. The following xckd (it keeps appearing in these forums) sums the essence of the flaw in this kind of thinking quite nicely: http://xkcd.com/538/. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even in the event that an attacker gains more than 50% of the network's
computational power, only transactions sent by the attacker could be
reversed or double-spent. The network would not be destroyed.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
gtabmx
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
|
|
June 27, 2011, 06:16:09 AM |
|
I think that some of us are forgetting that a large company, namely one that has software (such as Google) does not even need to use its own hardware, let alone buy more high end GPUs. Google can simple bundle a custom CPU/GPU miner in all of their free software (Earth, Picasa, Desktop, Toolbar, Talk, etc) and use users' hardware to mine for them, the same way as the website JavaScript miner mentioned elsewhere on these forums. Even using as little as 15% of each user's hardware that is running a Google software, can allow them to access a huge amount of processing power.
-Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
malditonuke
|
|
June 27, 2011, 06:21:39 AM |
|
This fantasy that Bitcoins will bring governments' to their knees as they find themselves unable to tax people is just that: a fantasy. The following xckd (it keeps appearing in these forums) sums the essence of the flaw in this kind of thinking quite nicely: http://xkcd.com/538/. don't overlook how dependent governments are on inflation. there's a good reason they were so keen on abandoning the gold standard. however, even with a gold standard there were still taxes. but they were so obvious, even a caveman could see them. |
|
|
|
|
|
patvarilly
Guest
|
|
June 27, 2011, 06:23:47 AM |
|
I think that some of us are forgetting that a large company, namely one that has software (such as Google) does not even need to use its own hardware, let alone buy more high end GPUs. Google can simple bundle a custom CPU/GPU miner in all of their free software (Earth, Picasa, Desktop, Toolbar, Talk, etc) and use users' hardware to mine for them, the same way as the website JavaScript miner mentioned elsewhere on these forums. Even using as little as 15% of each user's hardware that is running a Google software, can allow them to access a huge amount of processing power.
-Mike
This reminds me of the Folding@Home project ( http://folding.stanford.edu/). It might not be a bad idea to write a miner that runs as a screensaver on your machine. You wouldn't be mining for profit (the electricity costs more than the return), but you'd be mining to secure the blockchain. The combined computing power of *lots* of people can add up. |
|
|
|
|
gtabmx
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
|
|
June 27, 2011, 07:03:04 AM |
|
Hehe, it does add up. If I were a Google Exec, I would have instructed every team for every project to code a background bitcoin miner for all free software. And keep all the mined BTC myself...
|
|
|
|
|
Michele1940 (OP)
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
June 27, 2011, 08:29:23 AM |
|
This idea that governments "can't tax Bitcoins" keeps coming up again and again, and I find it quite strange. Taxes are owed regardless of the payment mechanism used. If I work for income, I owe taxes on that income, whether it comes via a direct deposit, a check, cash or shavings of gold. If I don't pay those taxes, I'm breaking the law: the end. It might be easier with some mechanisms than with others for someone else to find out I'm being paid, but ultimately, it's my own personal responsibility to report and pay the taxes due on the income I've received. And it's not like underreporting the taxes you owe doesn't lead to large inconsistencies that others can plainly see. What's that? You earn $1000 / year and you've just bought a million-BTC yacht? This fantasy that Bitcoins will bring governments' to their knees as they find themselves unable to tax people is just that: a fantasy. The following xckd (it keeps appearing in these forums) sums the essence of the flaw in this kind of thinking quite nicely: http://xkcd.com/538/. [/quote] Agree on this. |
|
|
|
|
Michele1940 (OP)
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
June 27, 2011, 12:41:43 PM |
|
TWO FRIENDS MEET : -DID YOU COME WITH YOUR MOTORBIKE ? -NO ASSHOLE, I AM WEARING A CRASH HELMET SINCE I AM A POWER RANGER !!  |
|
|
|
|
navimarin
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 8
Merit: 0
|
|
June 27, 2011, 03:51:33 PM |
|
Besides, I have never seen a company react quickly on a such a topic as for example bitcoins.
At the moment it is 'only' a geeky project with lots of people putting their spare time into. This is (not yet) something of true market value to, lets say, google.
Imagin how many people this corporation would need to involve with decisions until the intern gets his idead approved to build Google Mining Riggs TM.
An putting 'secret' code in their programs for distribution is a far shot aswell. Just look at other software which is suspected of doing things the user does not know of. This would be a huge image damage. Just look at M$ XP activation and how long people have been trying to find out what data is being send.
Just my humble opinion...
|
|
|
|
|
Atom
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
"Basics Of Generational Dynamics" - Look it up!
|
|
June 27, 2011, 04:17:31 PM |
|
This idea that governments "can't tax Bitcoins" keeps coming up again and again, and I find it quite strange. Taxes are owed regardless of the payment mechanism used. If I work for income, I owe taxes on that income, whether it comes via a direct deposit, a check, cash or shavings of gold. If I don't pay those taxes, I'm breaking the law: the end. It might be easier with some mechanisms than with others for someone else to find out I'm being paid, but ultimately, it's my own personal responsibility to report and pay the taxes due on the income I've received. And it's not like underreporting the taxes you owe doesn't lead to large inconsistencies that others can plainly see. What's that? You earn $1000 / year and you've just bought a million-BTC yacht? This fantasy that Bitcoins will bring governments' to their knees as they find themselves unable to tax people is just that: a fantasy. The following xckd (it keeps appearing in these forums) sums the essence of the flaw in this kind of thinking quite nicely: http://xkcd.com/538/. Agree on this. [/quote] You have the idea, but you're looking at it from the wrong perspective Do you pay sales tax on all items you purchase on the internet? I'm willing to bet not. Why? Because cross-state sales made it very very difficult to actually enforce collection practices. So it's not that the liability, or the law went away - just the ability to meaningfully enforce it collection. It turned paying sales tax on many purchases into a voluntary exercise. Bitcoin is the same way - If you feel like your government is going to spend your contribution in a way that you approve of, by all means! pay your taxes on all BTC transactions and purchases! The reality is Bitcoin defaults you to opting out of that system. And frankly, it's not even legally or ethically a problem - Remember, the world doesn't view bitcoin as a currency - If you trade someone a loaf of bread for a bag of apples, how much tax do you owe the government on that transaction? Same situation with bitcoin, same advantage to its users. As to whether BTC has the power to bring governments to its knees, the answer there is "  " - Frankly this is another perspective problem too though. Many of us have come to see that Governments all around the world are in the process of bringing themselves to their own knees under the sheer weight of debt they've taken on to stall the financial sectors systemic insolvency. That happens whether Bitcoin was ever invented or not, so the question isn't "Can bitcoin bring them down" so much as "will bitcoin be a successor to the dollar when the dust clears" |
BitTalk with Atlas & Atom A Show for the Bitcoin Universe, Fresh Episodes Weekly! Episode 3 out now at BitTalk.tvLiked this weeks episode of BitTalk? Send us your 2¢ (.02BTC) 13RVBjpo3xLeDBkB2NM64N8sWK4fariZUu |
|
|
Michele1940 (OP)
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
June 28, 2011, 03:56:09 AM |
|
As to whether BTC has the power to bring governments to its knees, the answer there is " " - Frankly this is another perspective problem too though. Many of us have come to see that Governments all around the world are in the process of bringing themselves to their own knees under the sheer weight of debt they've taken on to stall the financial sectors systemic insolvency. That happens whether Bitcoin was ever invented or not, so the question isn't "Can bitcoin bring them down" so much as "will bitcoin be a successor to the dollar when the dust clears" [/quote] You are right, BTC development has nothing to do with bringing governments down. Beter not wast time on issues like this. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ThomasC
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
June 28, 2011, 06:40:30 AM |
|
This scenario is really unlikely. But it would be terrible for miners, great for early adopters, and awesome for BitCoin itself. Obviously, miners would be screwed because the difficulty would go through the roof. Early adopters would be thrilled because the value of a BitCoin would go up and they could consume a very high fraction of the market volume selling off their BitCoins without causing it to crash. Not only would they get absurdly rich, but they'd be *helping* BitCoins by doing it. It would be awesome for BitCoin itself because the value of coins would go up and the involvement of large companies would legitimize BitCoins further.
The only motive I could see for them doing this would be to try to kill BitCoins. But like the Goldfinger attack, this is an absurdly inefficient way to do that.
Wait until people start building there own circuits to mine... if they have not already! |
|
|
|
|
Michele1940 (OP)
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
June 28, 2011, 06:49:24 AM |
|
A COMMENT ON THE VENUS PROJECT This is taken from the Venus Project at http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy"Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such." [Quoted] Absolutely True ! In the article the author advocates that in a Resources Based Economy, all the Earth Resources become a common heritage for all humans, this making the monetary system no more needed and thus allowing a generalized growth for all people that would experience a better ( enhanced ) life - style. In addition, he states that : " our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival." [Quoted] This rationing comes from the unproper use of the available resources that must be rationed since we are wasting them. What else could be more appropriate for our world survival ? My hat off to you, Author. Now, Human Intellect is also a natural resource. Most of the times it is , unfortunately, rationed through money and wasted even thought Human Intellectual is not a Scarce Resource. Could be argued that Human Intellect is not a resource for survival, but I think this is a far fetched hypothesis. The whole thing is therefore addressed to a better use of the available resources promoting thus a MUTUAL BENEFIT for all people. My previous post (Basic Staff - Part Three) goes exactly on the same direction. I haven't deepened my knowledge of the Venus project to such an extend that I can see if they have a starting point for the whole project, any entry. Most probably they have and they are already operating it ( would be glad if someone points my in the right direction about this matter so that will save me a lot of time ). My project, instead, has a very clear starting point : the world wide web and more specifically the USERS of the web. All of us. Good Theories are always welcome, but they need to be practical and applicable, possibly in the Near Future. As I have already said, I am working, with a very restricted team of people, on a new web based project that would involve actively the Users. The project aims, at first , to gain control of the web by the users by re balancing the economy of it. Than goes on and on...... Anyone interested in sharing some thoughts, can contact me privately at michele.intertex2000@gmail.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
jaebird
Member
Offline
Activity: 79
Merit: 10
|
|
June 28, 2011, 02:22:23 PM |
|
aren't the large pools really just a form of company? They could also corrupt the block chain if they gained 51%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michele1940 (OP)
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
July 02, 2011, 07:11:16 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michele1940 (OP)
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
July 03, 2011, 07:51:27 AM |
|
ANSWER GIVEN TO http://falkvinge.net/2011/07/03/bitcoins-four-drivers-part-3-merchant-trade/#comment-87785I have followed all your articles on BTC so far. They are all very insightful and interesting. Thanks. It still remains to solve the issue regarding what people can actually do with btc ? At present, they can only be traded on the exchanges markets. Even if a large number of merchants would adopt btc as a form of payment ( finding it convenient according to your article ), they still will need a way to change btc into real cash. Unless, of course, the chain does not stop here and they would be able to buy from their suppliers paying with btc, go shopping for their personal needs and pay with btc and so on…. At present, btc move from the exchange market to people who buys them. From these people could move to merchants , providing there would be enough to notice this movement which, at present , is not the case, Than from merchants btc can only move back to the exchange market. Thus for merchants adopting btc as a form of payment , ( aside from the advantages you have illustrated in this article ) could be considered as a form of investment, a speculation if you like. This tends to limit the number of merchants interested in btc for obvious reason. It is my opinion that , in order to boost btc economy, the final place where btc have a real tangible value, cannot be the exchange market alone. There is nothing wrong in trying to make some extra money in speculation, but this bounds btc potential. For example e-commerce, would be advantaged from adopting btc as a form of payment. Once the transactions are made, we will have these e-merchants loading up with btc and while they will unload their available stock of goods. Than, what ? They have to go to the exchange market and buy back fiat money in order to fill up theirs werehosues. If btc economy is confined into this boundaries, it is very unlikely that we would see it booming up like many are expecting. The underling concept of btc ( being a currency that allows to avoid double spending on transactions cutting of all the middle man ) remains intact even inside the boundaries I have outlined above. Merchants would have benefit from a cost free transaction on theirs sales even if they would have to buy back real cash at the end of the game. We need to have some alternative ways for merchants to spend their btc rather that buying back fiat money. Or , at least , a way to spend some of the btc they would accumulate. Perhaps a way that would allow them to increase their sales more and more like Advertising on the internet paying with BTC…… |
|
|
|
|
|
