Bitcoin May Be Doomed

[Anonymous]

the internet makes geographic boundaries irrelevent. Bitcoin makes central banks irrelevent.

Unfortunately this does not comfort me.  What it means is there are only two options going forward: politicians in individual countries will recognize the power of the internet and will allow their countries to become freer economically and more open and responsive politically, or politicians in individual countries will recognize the power of the internet and will subsume their power to an authority with worldwide jurisdiction.

I don't see how the first option can win.  The public's impulse to get something for nothing (healthcare, education, pensions), and their fear of terrorism and economic collapse will have them begging for one world government.

Government is inneficient at running our lives.The End.

Innefficiency is only a problem if you're in a competition.  If there's only one government, it won't matter.

Do you honestly think politicians will give up their power that easily to some central world power?

Look at whats happening in europe for instance. It will fall apart at the seams and war will result.

[1714776857]

1714776857

[1714776857]

1714776857

[davout]

The topic line should be edited and "[SOLVED]" added

[Giulio Prisco]

I used to be in favor of a global government, but now I see it as a nightmare. Imagine a worldwide oppressive dictatorship with nowhere else to escape.

[Anonymous]

The topic line should be edited and "[SOLVED]" added

http://witticisms.witcoin.com/p/93/Bitcoin-may-be-doomed

[ribuck]

What it means is there are only two options going forward...

Option three is that a peer-to-peer society arises that makes governments impractical and redundant. By using bitcoin, you are part of that solution.

[Bimmerhead]

Do you honestly think politicians will give up their power that easily to some central world power?

Look at whats happening in europe for instance. It will fall apart at the seams and war will result.

Absolutely.  In part because these politicians will also think they will become part of the worldwide ruling elite.

Europe is the perfect example of how half measures are 'inadequate'.  You can't centralize monetary policy but leave fiscal policy to the provinces - it must all be centralized (in their view) in order to "succeed".

I don't think the Germans, Luxembourgers (?) and others will continue to bail the PIIGS to infinity.  They will either demand an end to the EU failed experiment (possible) or they will demand control over spending policy.  If the EU does fall apart and war result that will just be more "reason" for a tighter integration next time around.

Think about where we were two years ago: Obama was massively (pathologically) popular in just about every country in the world except Israel.  I think a lot of people at that time would have gladly traded their local yokel for subservience to him.  Obviously the shine is off of Barry O. but I don't see why such a phenomenon can't happen again.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Folks, I'm sorry to say it but Bitcoin may be doomed, as well as all other cryptographically based Internet communications outside the sanction of government. The reason is simple: centralized government controlled cloud computing could take over the Internet (as we know it).

Here are some thoughts for you: "Clouds" is only buzzword, we already had clouds in the 70ties and 80ties of previous century, the only difference is they were called "TERMINAL & MAINFRAME computing" or something like this.

Did clouds work ?
-- Yes
Did clouds completely overtake computing ?
-- No, it was the other way around - computers started from cloud and evolved into what we have now.

Also it's not like every person out there is going to trust middleman to store their data. Of course, 80-95% of users probably wouldn't care, but still there is geek world, which has low tolerance for clouds and low trust in big companies. Computer specialist will never fully trust cloud, because they know what dangers it creates.

Also, cloud has many many many disadvantages - there is even no point in explaining them there, this is obvious.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I used to be in favor of a global government, but now I see it as a nightmare. Imagine a worldwide oppressive dictatorship with nowhere else to escape.

"World government" was never what you would expect from the term.

It would be ruled by Rotschilds, Rockefellers & other fraudulent banksters. So there is nothing good in it for us. Unless you want to be bred, controlled & killed at the wish of masters - like cattle.


---------
Going back to the topic:

There is also the problem of technology vs politics, law & social standards. Technology always wins.
Simply put, if cloud computing is worse technologically than "current computing", then it will fail. It doesn't matter how hard it will be pushed.

Technology is always ahead of politics, law & social changes. P2P succeeded in spite of constants heavy attacks from every direction possible, because it is just the best way to transfer data. You cannot stop technology with political, moral, legislative or other mambo - jambo attacks. The best tech will ultimately prevail.

[BitterTea]

Innefficiency is only a problem if you're in a competition.  If there's only one government, it won't matter.

The government does have to compete with the black market though. Agorism is the idea that the black market will eventually grow to the point that it can compete with the government for security and other services.

[Timo Y]

Here are some thoughts for you: "Clouds" is only buzzword, we already had clouds in the 70ties and 80ties of previous century, the only difference is they were called "TERMINAL & MAINFRAME computing" or something like this.

Clouds and mainframes are not the same thing.

Mainframe means you have a central physical machine serving several user accounts.

Cloud means your computer is virtualised and agnostic of the underlying hardware.

A cloud account could be hosted on a central physical machine (eg. Dropbox) or it could be hosted on a p2p network (eg. Wuala). The latter is very different from the terminal+mainframe model.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Clouds and mainframes are not the same thing.

Well of course not the same - but still very close.
- In mainframe model you had  mainframe serving your applications, video to your screen, processor power, etc.
- In cloud computing, "mainframe" or "cluster of mainframes" serves either data, applications, or processing power to clients.

The general idea is the same, only details changed.
One could say that cloud is extension of mainframe-terminal model.

Mainframe means you have a central physical machine serving several user accounts.

So ? Cloud also has central physical cluster serving certain kind of user accounts which are used for different applications.
The same thing, only different layer.

Cloud means your computer is virtualised and agnostic of the underlying hardware.

Yeah... but that is still very close to client-mainframe model. Only this time on a different layer.
Mainframe/Terminal = Operational system layer
Cloud = The same, but 1 or 2 layers higher (application layer, web layer etc)

A cloud account could be hosted on a central physical machine (eg. Dropbox) or it could be hosted on a p2p network (eg. Wuala). The latter is very different from the terminal+mainframe model.

Oh. I wasn't aware of p2p clouds, thx for the info.
You are correct, if we're talking about cloud in P2P, then that's new. But cloud in a mainframe or in a cluster of mainframes - we have already seen that.

[kwukduck]

We'll build our own mesh internet...
http://www.open-mesh.org/

[lumos]

We'll build our own mesh internet...
http://www.open-mesh.org/

MESSSHH NETWORK

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

We'll build our own mesh internet...
http://www.open-mesh.org/

MESSSHH NETWORK

All the technologies to build alternative interwebs already exist: TOR, I2P, GnuNet, OpenVPN, Mesh etc. The only thing needed is the will of people to switch to that alternative.

[nickwit]

I think mesh networks in some form are inevitable.

I don't think the cloud is a treat to Bitcoin though - this particular question (and any to do with DRM etc) revolve around The Battle For The Root.

A couple of years back, Sony (the CEOs of which should have gone to prison) attempted to put a rootkit virus onto the buyers of their music's PCs. A couple of years before that there was the scare that Microsoft (and others) and the hardware manufacturers created a thing called "Palladium" which gave them control over the root of your machine, and therefore, what you could do with it.

It didn't happen - but Apple have done it with their new hardware, with very few people complaining.

So - bitcoin could be doomed if everyone buys iPhones/iPads/iWhatevers - and Apple's built-into-hardware top-down-control becomes the defacto standard - but freedom is one hell of a driver. It's the killer-app, intel-inside. I don't think it will happen.

We do need to start getting into more decentralised (at the extrema, mesh) networking (and other vital-services) though - so we don't get a repeat of various corporations displaying (by Mussolini's definition) fascist behaviour by extra-judicially becoming enforcers for the whims of a state.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

So - bitcoin could be doomed if everyone buys iPhones/iPads/iWhatevers - and Apple's built-into-hardware top-down-control becomes the defacto standard - but freedom is one hell of a driver. It's the killer-app, intel-inside. I don't think it will happen.

Agreed - not gonna happen.
Hackers / security specialists, "true" geeks and people who know WTF they are doing, are never going to step in this controlled corporational shit.
Even if >60% majority adopts it, still a lot of people will be using alternative solutions.

And for iCrap, there is a cure - much more open Android.

We do need to start getting into more decentralised (at the extrema, mesh) networking (and other vital-services) though - so we don't get a repeat of various corporations displaying (by Mussolini's definition) fascist behaviour by extra-judicially becoming enforcers for the whims of a state.

Definately. Internet should be a "black anonymous box" into which you send data, and from which you receive data, not knowing what is the identity of the client on the other side of the wire.
Only then people can be truly free from government/corporational opression.