2013-08-04 WSJ: Famed Trader Joe Lewis Backs Bitcoin (hoax)

[btchedge]

Perhaps Yifu was smart enough to amass a war chest and the needed capacity to balance the network at will precisely because he actually believes what he says?

[Vycid]

This is the WSJ writer Harriet Agnew's twitter page

https://twitter.com/HarrietAgnew

Lots of activity in financial reporting. Would be real egg-on-face to have the wrong Avalon completely.


Edit: two earlier crypto pieces:

Harriet Agnew ‏@HarrietAgnew 5 Jul
@annairrera @tylerwinklevoss @winklevoss The crypto community is pumping up the next new thing: Litecoins http://bit.ly/16beDAD

 Harriet Agnew ‏@HarrietAgnew 5 Jul
Q&A with #Bitcoin backer @tylerwinklevoss:  http://bit.ly/1bbQaAI  @winklevoss
Expand

and this is her linkedin:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/harriet-agnew/1a/73/23a

University of Edinburgh..I highly doubt she would fuck up such a simpleton misunderstanding like Avalon Mining and Avalon Ventures

Also note the little "—Robin Sidel contributed to this article." at the bottom.

This article was not the effort of a single person. It's getting printed in the Monday edition of the WSJ. They do not fuck up - not like this.

[Ytterbium]

Also note the little "—Robin Sidel contributed to this article." at the bottom.

This article was not the effort of a single person. It's getting printed in the Monday edition of the WSJ. They do not fuck up - not like this.

Exactly. They wouldn't just read random shit on the internet and put in their story, they would have called people on the phone and verified with them what was going on.

Note that the story says they were unable to contact Yifu, but does not say they were unable to contact Joe Lewis himself, or some of the other players.

The only risk is if one of their sources claimed to know more then they really did, and the $200m figure got injected into the rumor mill from the old stories.

It still seems improbable. Maybe they're putting out fake news in order to drive the price of BTC up so they can sell for a profit.

[Vycid]

Also note the little "—Robin Sidel contributed to this article." at the bottom.

This article was not the effort of a single person. It's getting printed in the Monday edition of the WSJ. They do not fuck up - not like this.

Exactly. They wouldn't just read random shit on the internet and put in their story, they would have called people on the phone and verified with them what was going on.

Note that the story says they were unable to contact Yifu, but does not say they were unable to contact Joe Lewis himself, or some of the other players.

The only risk is if one of their sources claimed to know more then they really did, and the $200m figure got injected into the rumor mill from the old stories.

It still seems improbable. Maybe they're putting out fake news in order to drive the price of BTC up so they can sell for a profit.

That's not impossible either. Joe Lewis could have bought millions of USD worth of Avalon's BTC (someone did), and now he's releasing false rumors to send the price into the stratosphere and create tons of demand. Then he's gonna offload.

Guys like Joe are pretty shrewd... but honestly, pulling a scam like that is probably not on his radar.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Not good that a big-time thief like this guy is getting involved with mining. Mining is the way to control Bitcoin. Once you control the mining operation, you can do anything with Bitcoin you want. It not longer is beholden to limited supply or anything. They know this. Once the masses jump into Bitcoin and these mega douches control everything Bitcoin is over, it will be just another exploited currency. The problem is that we are still in their system of monetary control - i.e., they can buy up anything they want and that includes Bitcoin. The only time to strike is is when their system has collapsed.

Please learn how bitcoin works first

I know how it works. If you control the mining, you control the voting of the bitcoin network. Once, the masses jump in, all of us "decentralization whores" and libertarians aren't going to have a voice. The Big money will control the mining and the forking of the network and they will lead the masses, who don't understand the need for decentralization, along with them.

Once again... LEARN HOW BITCOIN WORKS.

The only thing miners "vote" on is which tx is valid in a conflict and which txs are included in the next block.  That is it.  If a group of miners change the protocol it is a fork and existing users and continue to use the existing (original) Bitcoin.

[Ytterbium]

Once again... LEARN HOW BITCOIN WORKS.

The only thing miners "vote" on is which tx is valid in a conflict and which txs are included in the next block.  That is it.  If a group of miners change the protocol it is a fork and existing users and continue to use the existing (original) Bitcoin.

Exactly. 

[Hfleer]

Anyway, hoping this is BS so these stock prices will correct.

Is it affecting the price of the bitcoin mining stocks or something else?

[bigdude]

Does anyone recall Yifu, at the 2013 Bitcoin Conference, saying that he didn't like investors - that there should be no need for them

[jl2012]

Not good that a big-time thief like this guy is getting involved with mining. Mining is the way to control Bitcoin. Once you control the mining operation, you can do anything with Bitcoin you want. It not longer is beholden to limited supply or anything. They know this. Once the masses jump into Bitcoin and these mega douches control everything Bitcoin is over, it will be just another exploited currency. The problem is that we are still in their system of monetary control - i.e., they can buy up anything they want and that includes Bitcoin. The only time to strike is is when their system has collapsed.

Please learn how bitcoin works first

I know how it works. If you control the mining, you control the voting of the bitcoin network. Once, the masses jump in, all of us "decentralization whores" and libertarians aren't going to have a voice. The Big money will control the mining and the forking of the network and they will lead the masses, who don't understand the need for decentralization, along with them.

Once again... LEARN HOW BITCOIN WORKS.

The only thing miners "vote" on is which tx is valid in a conflict and which txs are included in the next block.  That is it.  If a group of miners change the protocol it is a fork and existing users and continue to use the existing (original) Bitcoin.

To be precise, a 51% attacker could implement any soft-fork to the system, i.e. making an originally valid transaction invalid. That's all he can do. So he could blacklist bitcoin addresses, decrease money supply, decrease block size, charge ridiculous tx fee, reverse confirmed transactions, etc.

A 51% attacker cannot pull a hard-fork (making an originally invalid transaction valid), e.g. inflating money supply, raising block size, printing money out of thin air, stealing money, etc.

[Vigil]

Not good that a big-time thief like this guy is getting involved with mining. Mining is the way to control Bitcoin. Once you control the mining operation, you can do anything with Bitcoin you want. It not longer is beholden to limited supply or anything. They know this. Once the masses jump into Bitcoin and these mega douches control everything Bitcoin is over, it will be just another exploited currency. The problem is that we are still in their system of monetary control - i.e., they can buy up anything they want and that includes Bitcoin. The only time to strike is is when their system has collapsed.

Please learn how bitcoin works first

I know how it works. If you control the mining, you control the voting of the bitcoin network. Once, the masses jump in, all of us "decentralization whores" and libertarians aren't going to have a voice. The Big money will control the mining and the forking of the network and they will lead the masses, who don't understand the need for decentralization, along with them.

Once again... LEARN HOW BITCOIN WORKS.

The only thing miners "vote" on is which tx is valid in a conflict and which txs are included in the next block.  That is it.  If a group of miners change the protocol it is a fork and existing users and continue to use the existing (original) Bitcoin.

Not if the "original" bitcoin is made illegal. The users can decide which chain they are a part of through client updates and such. Don't sit there and try to tell me that can't work. It absolutely can work. When FTC was forked, we had to update our clients to make sure we weren't on the forked chain, and many were, and were mining and transacting on the forked chain. They could fork the masses right off to a new chain and leave the original hanging with computer nerds and the sound money crowd who were fine with running an illegal chain. It. Can. Happen. Especially if the big players want it to happen, easily once they get everyone on board and the infrastructure built. So shut your ass.  

Not good that a big-time thief like this guy is getting involved with mining. Mining is the way to control Bitcoin. Once you control the mining operation, you can do anything with Bitcoin you want. It not longer is beholden to limited supply or anything. They know this. Once the masses jump into Bitcoin and these mega douches control everything Bitcoin is over, it will be just another exploited currency. The problem is that we are still in their system of monetary control - i.e., they can buy up anything they want and that includes Bitcoin. The only time to strike is is when their system has collapsed.

Please learn how bitcoin works first

I know how it works. If you control the mining, you control the voting of the bitcoin network. Once, the masses jump in, all of us "decentralization whores" and libertarians aren't going to have a voice. The Big money will control the mining and the forking of the network and they will lead the masses, who don't understand the need for decentralization, along with them.

Once again... LEARN HOW BITCOIN WORKS.

The only thing miners "vote" on is which tx is valid in a conflict and which txs are included in the next block.  That is it.  If a group of miners change the protocol it is a fork and existing users and continue to use the existing (original) Bitcoin.

To be precise, a 51% attacker could implement any soft-fork to the system, i.e. making an originally valid transaction invalid. That's all he can do. So he could blacklist bitcoin addresses, decrease money supply, decrease block size, charge ridiculous tx fee, reverse confirmed transactions, etc.

A 51% attacker cannot pull a hard-fork (making an originally invalid transaction valid), e.g. inflating money supply, raising block size, printing money out of thin air, stealing money, etc.

I am not just talking about a 51% attack. We are talking about using the majority of the mining base to fork the chain while altering the protocol on the fly to adopt to government regulations - they can change the max number of coins, just as they can alter the blocksize, etc. You need a mining base to maintain the particular network for each chain - that is why they would take over the mining infrastructure. But they also need to alter the protocol.

Taking over Bitcoin will be easy once the infrastructure is established AND the masses join... because the masses can be duped into anything. they will take it over, eventually, if allowed to. Whether or not we maintain the original in a black market is a different story.

[viboracecata]

fool, why not buy bitcoins directly?

[vokain]

fool, why not buy bitcoins directly?

why not? would you rather pay the water company every month, or be the water company?

You are in no position to call Joe Lewis a fool.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

This is the WSJ writer Harriet Agnew's twitter page

https://twitter.com/HarrietAgnew

Lots of activity in financial reporting. Would be real egg-on-face to have the wrong Avalon completely.


Edit: two earlier crypto pieces:

Harriet Agnew ‏@HarrietAgnew 5 Jul
@annairrera @tylerwinklevoss @winklevoss The crypto community is pumping up the next new thing: Litecoins http://bit.ly/16beDAD

 Harriet Agnew ‏@HarrietAgnew 5 Jul
Q&A with #Bitcoin backer @tylerwinklevoss:  http://bit.ly/1bbQaAI  @winklevoss
Expand

and this is her linkedin:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/harriet-agnew/1a/73/23a

University of Edinburgh..I highly doubt she would fuck up such a simpleton misunderstanding like Avalon Mining and Avalon Ventures

Also note the little "—Robin Sidel contributed to this article." at the bottom.

This article was not the effort of a single person. It's getting printed in the Monday edition of the WSJ. They do not fuck up - not like this.

Harriet Agnew has been the editor for only two months, thus shit happens. I think the key here is Robin Sidel.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robin-sidel/6/ba1/ba

Experience

Wall Street Journal
Senior Special Writer
Wall Street Journal
March 2001 – Present (12 years 6 months)
I write about the banking and credit-card industries

https://twitter.com/smirobi

Robin Sidel
@smirobi
Online marketer, mom, wife, yadda, yadda, NOT WSJ reporter, NOT active tweeter (yet).

Washington, DC

[Hfleer]

fool, why not buy bitcoins directly?

Well liquidity is fairly low right now.  Should only get better from here and hopefully more buy directly in the future.

[Ytterbium]

https://twitter.com/smirobi

Robin Sidel
@smirobi
Online marketer, mom, wife, yadda, yadda, NOT WSJ reporter, NOT active tweeter (yet).

Washington, DC

Um, wow dude - did it occur to you at any point that the reason that twitter said she wasn't a WSJ reporter was because she was a different person, someone with the same name who people confused her with?

____

Not if the "original" bitcoin is made illegal.

...

They could fork the masses right off to a new chain and leave the original hanging with computer nerds and the sound money crowd who were fine with running an illegal chain.

The problem with idiots is that no matter how much time you spend trying to explain things to them, they will never understand  -- if they simply lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend the explanation. Makes it a huge waste of time to bother.

[Vigil]

Could there be hyperinflation in Bitcoin?

Currently the creation of new coins is fixed at a certain rate which halves every few years and will at some point in the future drop to zero. As I understand it, this is by consensus, i.e. all the nodes in the network agree on this protocol.

Suppose at some point in the future the Bitcoin community were to decide that the currency's deflationary bias wasn't such a good thing for the economy and that it would be better to start expanding the monetary base at a higher rate. What would it take for such a policy to take effect? Specifically, what percentage of the nodes in the network would have to vote in favor of the new expansionary policy?

And if indeed the network could vote itself into an expansionary policy, is it then also conceivable that it might vote itself into a hyperinflation, where the rate of expansion gets out of hand?

In short, what does it take to change the rate of expansion of the Bitcoin monetary base, and how easy or difficult is it to achieve as compared with the stroke of a central banker's pen?

Answers:

As per the current rules there will only ever be 21 million coins at most (explained in other answers here). However, I'd like to add that this is by general agreement, which means that it can be changed.

See this question: Could there be hyperinflation in Bitcoin?

Looking at the history of money, I am skeptical that there will only ever be 21 million coins. I don't know of too many instances in history when money could be created out of thin air and wasn't. It would be foolish to ignore history. Whether or not there will be more than 21 million coins depends on whether or not "the people" demand it, and once again history is our guide.

Not everybody needs to agree (that would probably never happen!) for there to be a change in the protocol (which would be needed to cause inflation), but it's not based on just a majority of hashpower either.

It's really a vast majority of users that need to agree; if just 51% of users decided to change the protocol, it's entirely possible that it would cause a massive loss in confidence in both resulting chains. Retailers and every other service would need to choose which to accept (or accept both), and try to understand the difference, and communicate that on to users.

I think most of us know its a bad idea to go down that path with Bitcoin while it's not yet been fully accepted as mainstream. A smoother option would probably be to create an alternative cryptocurrency with a new name, rather than trying to split the Bitcoin user base into two parts.

All they have to do is secure the mining power, fork the chain while altering the protocol to allow more bitcoins, tell the masses that any other chain is illegal and disastrous to society and there you go - job complete.


trader joe nor any of his zionist banker buddies should be allowed within an astronomical unit of a bitcoin mining operation under any circumstance.

The problem with idiots is that no matter how much time you spend trying to explain things to them, they will never understand  -- if they simply lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend the explanation. Makes it a huge waste of time to bother.

Especially those who think they understand it when they do not.

[vokain]

I actually like Joe Lewis, he's a (quiet) force of good in this world. Huge art collection, donated a ton to worthy causes, etc. I guess it is true that society cannot stand a winner. Can you tell me what he has done that you so abhorrently do not approve of?

[Vigil]

I actually like Joe Lewis, he's a force of good in this world.

Magically went from a bus-boy to multi-billion dollar fortune through hard work and dedication - BS, he thieved his fortune with the help of insider info just like the rest of his kind: Soros, Buffet, etc. they are low lifes who wouldn't be crap if they had to compete with everyone else.

[vokain]

Lewis was born to a Jewish[1][2] family above a public house in Roman Road, Bow, London,[3] Lewis left school at 15 to help run his father's West End of London catering business Tavistock Banqueting, starting out as a waiter. When he took the reins, he quickly expanded it by selling luxury goods to American tourists, and also owned West End club the Hanover Grand, where he gave Robert Earl his first job.[3] He later sold the business in 1979 to make his initial wealth.

You sir, are what I deem a racist. Makes sense, racists are very ignorant.

Let me ask you this: If this is all insider trading, and not through realizing opportunities that others do not see as the entrepreneurial spirit entails, tell me, oh tell me, what is he doing in bitcoin? What is this insider information that he is about to "thieve" a fortune from?