"Failure to Understand Bitcoin Could Cost Investors Billions" (Bitcoin's flaws)

[lumierre]

OP forgot to add one of Bitcoins and almost all cryptocurrencies' flaw. There is no way of incentivising running a full node. With the blockchain growing larger, less people are willing to run a full node and so in the future, we would have a very large market cap but only a few full nodes. This could become a target and a point of failure of Bitcoin. There are 2 originally coded altcoins I know that incentivises running a full node but I'm not going to promote them.

[1713582536]

1713582536

[1713582536]

1713582536

[barabbas]

Why would anyone invest in new 20nm rigs that don't make ROI?

That's not a possible scenario it is a reality: They have been ordered and PAID FOR many months in advance (and are sold out) so, from now to mid-June, they all will be mining ... at an incremental loss. It is a FACT from which inevitably derives the consequence that mining will not be profitable any longer and no one will do it after the initial period of realization. What happens then to the block chain and Bitcoin?

As for the projections on that chart, sorry but that just makes no sense other than a line in a "chart". FACT is that the price hasn't moved (except significantly down of late) at all since the rebound from the China debacle. FACT, not absurd projections -in which you obviously choose to believe for absolutely no reason at all-.

As for Bitcoin being anonymous and non-taxable, that simply wouldn't be viable. You cannot have it both ways: Amply accepted as currency and unregulated. You can't. You won't. There are legal requirements for any institution that deals with currency, called reserves. I'm sure you have heard of the "stress tests" bank all over the world are subject to since the big crisis of 2007? You cannot sell or loan "air" as currency (banks have done that long enough and we all know the potential consequences). BTC, like any other currency, will have to comply with those requirements to protect society against insolvency... or worse. So yes, it IS ALREADY regulated AND yes you already have to pay taxes on any gains, just like any other business or investment... and what is this, Bitcoin -or any other cryptocurrency- should be OK to avoid taxes? Taxes are bad? who pays for social security, medicare, infrastructure, government? Is this supposed to advance us towards a more fair, responsible society or is it a wild west, everyone for his own kind of initiative? Boggles the mind, really.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I want decentralized security which does not have the power vacuum. Only Satoshi's Proof-of-Work has that.

http://www.links.org/files/decentralised-currencies.pdf states that currencies based on PoW can't be decentralized because

To match this to the notion of “decentralised” (i.e. lacking central authority), the consensus group must be, at least, all participants in the currency. This does not present any real problem when that group is known. For example, it would be possible to define the group as “all people currently in the United States”– where the currency would be something akin to the US Dollar. Assuming the majority decide to behave honestly (as seems likely, after all, that is what happens now), then they should have no difficulty in forming consensus on who has how much money at what time. However, the most general notion of decentralisation does not admit such re-strictions. After all, in some sense, placing any such restriction simply pushes the central authority back a layer: instead of controlling the currency, the authority controls membership of the consensus group. A system like this must allow any entity to participate, and to join and leave the scheme at will. And here lies the problem. If you can never know who is in the scheme (bear in mind that knowing who is in is also a consensus problem!), then you can never get agreement.

So a whitepaper that proves that "only Satoshi's Proof-of-Work has that" is very welcome. Looking forward to read it...

[AnonyMint]

Pedantic and irrelevant part of our discussion don't you agree? There is gold throughout the universe. And we are not close to tapping all the gold on earth. Mankind's technology for tapping gold on earth and throughout the universe will continue to improve. Malthusians always annoy me, because throughout the history of the world they have never been correct.

No I think it's very relevant to this discussion. Even if we get the ability to move gold to earth from other planets at a cost less than the worth of the gold, there's still a finite limit ...

Irrelevant to the trust in gold today. Gold is not trusted because it might be finite someday in the distant future (we will all be dead and we won't be stuck to living on earth, who said we have to store it all on earth). I will quote myself again.

They both have their advantages, gold will always be trusted so long as the amount on this planet always remains finite.

Gold is not trusted because the total is not finite. It is trusted because it takes real effort to mine it, thus the supply can't be debased egregiously in corrupt ways, i.e. it won't go hockey stick tomorrow as Bernanke did. And the mining of gold is thus competitively available to everyone. Humans want a fair game of competitive opportunities not a corrupt one of top-down slavery. Actually many humans want socialism where they get everything equally without competition, but this is a failed economic system (The government and society is $150 trillion in global total debt and I estimated upthread only $241 trillion in global net worth but much of that $91 trillion balance is concentrated among the upper 1% and much illiquid such as real estate.  )

A few pools control more than 51% of the hash processing power. A cartel of them could eliminate the requirement to use Proof-of-Work (PoW) and so then we are right back to fiat again

And the moment they attempted to change any such critical aspects of the system would be the moment everyone lost faith in Bitcoin and then those pools would have doomed their entire business to failure.

Nope. The masses will love the centralized coin, because fees will be more stable and lower, transactions will be approved in seconds instead of 10 minutes, anonymity will gone so they can hunt down all the illegal activities to remove tainted coin threats to users, etc.. Remember the majority loves socialism and the government. And thus the value of Bitcoin will be rising, and no one will want to cause a fracturing of that ecosystem and lose that rising value. So the colluding (carteled) pools can make the changes slowly and the frogs will boil in the pot happily agreeing to these changes.

Welcome to the power vacuum of democracy. The leaders win and take all.

But I don't think that will happen because when ever a pool gets near 50% of the hashing power we always see a rebalancing of power by concerned parties.

Your fantasies aside, that in fact is not what is happening in reality today. It is fact that hashing power is becoming concentrated in a few major pools.

It is impossible to have a finite supply of anything without a top-down controller stealing the thing.

Why, explain to me the exact reason why that would be true.

I already did. Because there is nothing finite. The Second Law of Thermodynamics assures us the trend of entropy is always towards maximum. You just try to find one finite bound of anything in the universe. You won't be able to find it. Even if you count the number of a certain species, you can't guarantee with 100% certainty it will remain less than some bound (e.g. changes that you can't predict such finding another planet which can host).

And the mining of gold is thus competitively available to everyone.

How so? I surely cannot afford to buy the mining equipment required to mine gold. I might be able to sift out a few flakes of gold worth a few dollars if I spend hours panning down at a river, but I doubt anyone would be willing to buy a few specks of gold from me.

Actually there are people making a decent living mining gold individually in Alaska now. Ditto here in Mindanao where I am. I was offered to buy gold that is locally refined from the small miners.

[AnonyMint]

OP forgot to add one of Bitcoins and almost all cryptocurrencies' flaw. There is no way of incentivising running a full node. With the blockchain growing larger, less people are willing to run a full node and so in the future, we would have a very large market cap but only a few full nodes. This could become a target and a point of failure of Bitcoin. There are 2 originally coded altcoins I know that incentivises running a full node but I'm not going to promote them.

Already mentioned in the OP:

Bitcoin Take Over Threats

• Blockchain requires increasingly powerful full clients as scale to billions of transaction, thus more centralization and vulnerability to 51% attack.

Thanks for articulating the issue in more detail.

[AnonyMint]

Why would anyone invest in new 20nm rigs that don't make ROI?

That's not a possible scenario it is a reality: They have been ordered and PAID FOR many months in advance (and are sold out) so, from now to mid-June, they all will be mining ... at an incremental loss. It is a FACT from which inevitably derives the consequence that mining will not be profitable any longer and no one will do it after the initial period of realization. What happens then to the block chain and Bitcoin?

Nonsense. If the new 20nm ASICs are not profitable, then eventually they will quit being used and users will continue mining with the older technology. Either the old or the new will be profitable, because the unprofitable will eventually be forced to quit.

Organize your point better or you may find your next post is deleted. I don't want this thread filled with nonsense posts.

As for the projections on that chart, sorry but that just makes no sense other than a line in a "chart". FACT is that the price hasn't moved (except significantly down of late) at all since the rebound from the China debacle. FACT, not absurd projections -in which you obviously choose to believe for absolutely no reason at all-.

FACT is that the same thing happened twice already and the price continued to stay on the trend line. I am repeating what I already wrote in my prior reply to you. You can't say it makes no sense. You could say that no one knows the future for sure. You are treading very close to getting banned from this thread with such an illogical use of the very ad hominem "no sense". I am trying to be patient with you, because I want to address all view points.

As for Bitcoin being anonymous and non-taxable, that simply wouldn't be viable. You cannot have it both ways: Amply accepted as currency and unregulated. You can't. You won't. There are legal requirements for any institution that deals with currency, called reserves.

You have not read all the linked threads in footnote [2] in the OP.

The virtual economy coming in the Knowledge Age is not physical, e.g. downloading a design and printing it at home on your 3D printer. Just as the government can't tax you when you make copy of something on a DVD. There is no place for the authorities to physically go and find out who bought what from whom.

I'm sure you have heard of the "stress tests" bank all over the world are subject to since the big crisis of 2007? You cannot sell or loan "air" as currency (banks have done that long enough and we all know the potential consequences). BTC, like any other currency, will have to comply with those requirements to protect society against insolvency... or worse. So yes, it IS ALREADY regulated AND yes you already have to pay taxes on any gains, just like any other business or investment... and what is this, Bitcoin -or any other cryptocurrency- should be OK to avoid taxes? Taxes are bad? who pays for social security, medicare, infrastructure, government? Is this supposed to advance us towards a more fair, responsible society or is it a wild west, everyone for his own kind of initiative? Boggles the mind, really.

Yes Bitcoin will be taxed + confiscated because it can't remain even partially anonymous due to for example footnote [2] in the OP.

I already explained in the linked Mad Max thread why socialism can lead to a Mad Max Dark Age. That is bad. Go reply in that thread if you want to argue that point. Don't move that debate over here in this thread.

Also refer to the Economic Devastation thread.

[barabbas]

The virtual economy coming in the Knowledge Age is not physical, e.g. downloading a design and printing it at home on your 3D printer. Just as the government can't tax you when you make copy of something on a DVD. There is no place for the authorities to physically go and find out who bought what from whom.

OK, this will surely not see the light because, well, you will delete it, of course, but.... what a load of crap! Of course the government can -and actually DO, have been doing it for years- tax you when you make a copy of something on a DVD. It does already, for example, by taxing the physical DVD. But also the internet providers are and will be watching your activities. And any goods that are transacted will be taxed -just like they are now- whether you choose to sell it for bitcoins, sex, or give them away for free. Knowledge age of whatever. And you do know that everything online leaves a trail, don't you? Or what you mean is that you can break the law and hope the government doesn't catch up with it? Oh well, enough of this crap, really.

[AnonyMint]

The virtual economy coming in the Knowledge Age is not physical, e.g. downloading a design and printing it at home on your 3D printer. Just as the government can't tax you when you make copy of something on a DVD. There is no place for the authorities to physically go and find out who bought what from whom.

OK, this will surely not see the light because, well, you will delete it, of course, but.... what a load of crap! Of course the government can -and actually DO, have been doing it for years- tax you when you make a copy of something on a DVD. It does already, for example, by taxing the physical DVD.

That is not taxing the value of the content that was put on the DVD. The price of the DVD at a few pennies is only a small fraction of the value of the content, such as a movie which sells for $19 in your local store.

But also the internet providers are and will be watching your activities.

Not when we are anonymous. That is one of the main points of this proposed altcoin to provide stronger, mandatory anonymity that defeats any trail.

Not because we want to cheat, but because without it, we very likely go into a Mad Max Dark Age as the society owes $150 trillion in global total debt and I estimated upthread only $241 trillion in global net worth but much of that $91 trillion balance is concentrated among the upper 1% and much illiquid such as real estate. So the socialism is going to tax + confiscate itself into the abyss.

And there are other legitimate reasons to be anonymous, such as I don't want to be discriminated against for my political views, my eating habits, etc..

There will come a day in a Mad Max world where you have to break the laws in order to survive. Go ask those people in history who survived the repeating failures of socialism.

Disclaimer: I am not advocating any specific activity, nor I am giving tax or law advice. Consult your own professional advisor. I am merely sharing my opinions.

[AnonyMint]

I want decentralized security which does not have the power vacuum. Only Satoshi's Proof-of-Work has that.

http://www.links.org/files/decentralised-currencies.pdf states that currencies based on PoW can't be decentralized because

I see FUD errors in this whitepaper:

http://www.links.org/files/decentralised-currencies.pdf#page=3

but in essence all solutions are the same: consensus is
arrived at when some sufficient number of members of the group agree,

In Satoshi's PoW the miners don't have to reach any centralized census. They ALL agree to use the same protocol (else they are not making Bitcoin block chain). But there is no centralized collection of a vote. They are all free to disagree about which block solution was found first. The longest chain wins, but this concensus is completely decentralized.

http://www.links.org/files/decentralised-currencies.pdf#page=4

It also unknowable: we can never be sure that we actually are burning half of
all the power in existence, because we do not know how much power exists.

We know exactly how much power exists that will mine at the current difficulty and market price, and it is precisely the amount that was mining. To go backwards and rewrite the entire blockchain takes not just 51% of the hash rate, but takes asymptotically 100% of the hashrate as the blockchain goes asymptotically to infinite length.

The author set up this strawman to support the requirement of knowing who all the miners are in his Proof-of-stake (PoS) proposal. Then he commits the entropy error that I said will always occur for non-PoW, in that he requires to randomize the order of the PoS miners ("participants") but of course he can't do it without a centralized vote thus it isn't random at all.

Fail. Sorry.

[Ozlanthos]

I really wish people would grow up. Liberating ourselves of the onerous obligations and !imitations induced on our economy by our forced participation in the Federal Reserve's monetary monopoly is at hand, and tards want to allow the federal government to regulate it! Ha! The Bitcoin network is the single largest concentration of computing power on Earth. It's "owners" are everyone involved in mining and transacting in Bitcoin. Therefore everyone else (including any governments that think they have a right to regulate it)  can go pound sand as far as I am concerned. Bitcoin has thus far endured at least 3 major similar challenges, and has come back better, stronger, and more secure every time!  It is also worth noting that the detection, assessment and resolution of ALL SUCH PREVIOUS EVENTS, TOOK PLACE SANS ANY INVOLVEMENT OF A FEDERAL OR STATE AGENCY!

The members of the network have a vested interest in the proper function of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. If left to us many of the useless governing bodies we employ just to justify taxing yourselves will lose their meaning and purpose.....Boohoo. I think the private market can figure out better uses for those funds...Don't you?

-Oz

[Come-from-Beyond]

Fail. Sorry.

Ok. Waiting for the whitepaper.

[AnonyMint]

Fail. Sorry.

Ok. Waiting for the whitepaper.

Thank you for prompting me to explain a bit. I am very much overloaded with tasks but it is was important to explain what I meant enough that you have a taste of what I would put in such a white paper.

[AnonyMint]

I really wish people would grow up. Liberating ourselves of the onerous obligations and !imitations induced on our economy by our forced participation in the Federal Reserve's monetary monopoly is at hand, and tards want to allow the federal government to regulate it! Ha! The Bitcoin network is the single largest concentration of computing power on Earth. It's "owners" are everyone involved in mining and transacting in Bitcoin. Therefore everyone else (including any governments that think they have a right to regulate it)  can go pound sand as far as I am concerned. Bitcoin has thus far endured at least 3 major similar challenges, and has come back better, stronger, and more secure every time!  It is also worth noting that the detection, assessment and resolution of ALL SUCH PREVIOUS EVENTS, TOOK PLACE SANS ANY INVOLVEMENT OF A FEDERAL OR STATE AGENCY!

The members of the network have a vested interest in the proper function of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. If left to us many of the useless governing bodies we employ just to justify taxing yourselves will lose their meaning and purpose.....Boohoo. I think the private market can figure out better uses for those funds...Don't you?

-Oz

I agree except Bitcoin is failing to protect against regulation, taxation, centralization, and thus eventually complete control by the government.

That is why I proposed an altcoin without Bitcoin's flaws.

[User705]

...

There will come a day in a Mad Max world where you have to break the laws in order to survive. Go ask those people in history who survived the repeating failures of socialism.

Disclaimer: I am not advocating any specific activity, nor I am giving tax or law advice. Consult your own professional advisor. I am merely sharing my opinions.

That day is already here.  In the USA it is estimated that a person commits approximately three felonies a day.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Hi again, AnonyMint.

I'd like to reiterate that scattershot is weak strategy: people see the weakest arguments among your volley (51% attack, selfish mining) and assume (rightly or wrongly) that you're in the business of building paper tigers.

[AnonyMint]

Do you have any idea how exhausting it is to deal with these sort of posts that are not focused on technical facts? Your intentions may or may not be a sincere attempt to raise the point about the way sheep Bitards (don't) think or it may also be a propaganda ploy.

I come from the world of programming and working with enthused co-developers where we spend our time being happy and enjoying our work. Slogging through discussion on this forum really challenges my peace-of-mind and patience. I will relish the day after which I no longer need to speak or write about this.

Hi again, AnonyMint.

I'd like to reiterate that scattershot is weak strategy: people see the weakest arguments among your volley (51% attack, selfish mining) and assume (rightly or wrongly) that you're in the business of building paper tigers.

There is a much easier way for the government to take over Bitcoin than 51% attack and selfish mining. Simply tax the coin and per footnote [2] all coin is tainted regardless if you used Tor or not, so in effect regulate every pool and exchange. Regulation can accomplish much of the same goals as takeover. Then later (ramp up the regulation to drive the independents bankrupt and) the large corporations beholden to the government buyout the pools and exchanges, and then the drift towards cartels and corporate-fascism.

The lack of a feature in Bitcoin to limit the concentration of mining in a few large pools is an egregious flaw. But this was planned from the beginning as Satoshi predicted takeover of mining by large corporates and the core developers also reiterated that in this forum in the past. It is not very hard to gain a picture that Bitcoin was planned from the outset to not be a hacker-like decentralized internet paradigm but rather a mainstream integration into the taxaholic socialism. I used to target my business to that paradigm too. The problem with that socialism is peaking and heading for the cancer death syndrome where it taxes itself to death. We are no longer in 1999, and now is it 2014.

It is very simple. When the governments start confiscating nearly all of the wealth especially targeting millionaires, people will decide they need anonymity. I don't have to convince anybody of anything. Some of those with significant net worth will run scared from Bitcoin.

Those who have big gains in Bitcoin, will instead perhaps comply with the government and give up most of their gains (to tax + confiscation) in return for a nice profit (e.g. give up 90% of the gains and still have 10 bagger).

Yet the easiest marketing advantage is cpu-only mining. There is really nothing that needs to be said. People will mine cpu-only especially the mining client is very easy to run!   Now all the Bitards get off my fucking lawn. You are dealing now with real commercial programmers who have experience in making popular commercial software. All of the underhanded propaganda tactics I am seeing from fanboys are not going to work in this case. You can see the vote on the poll can't you.

P.S. the Bitards who want to think they are smart, much better they miss out on early mining opportunity. Perfect. I hope I read their never ending excuses about security of Java, etc.. Meanwhile the people of the world will be chugging along mining and mining, since the opportunity for the average person to download a client and instantly mine Bitcoin with their PC went "poof its gone".

[BldSwtTrs]

There is a much easier way for the government to take over Bitcoin than 51% attack and selfish mining. Simply tax the coin and per footnote [2] all coin is tainted regardless if you used Tor or not, so in effect regulate every pool and exchange. Regulation can accomplish much of the same goals as takeover. Then later the large corporations beholden to the government buyout the pools and exchanges, and then the drift towards cartels and corporate-fascism.

Don't you think that P2P mining pool can solve the problem of regulation or big corporations takeover?

[AnonyMint]

There is a much easier way for the government to take over Bitcoin than 51% attack and selfish mining. Simply tax the coin and per footnote [2] all coin is tainted regardless if you used Tor or not, so in effect regulate every pool and exchange. Regulation can accomplish much of the same goals as takeover. Then later the large corporations beholden to the government buyout the pools and exchanges, and then the drift towards cartels and corporate-fascism.

Don't you think that P2P mining pool can solve the problem of regulation or big corporations takeover?

Definitely not since it is so easy for the centralized pools to have their miners compute shares for a competing P2Ppool but withhold block solutions from the P2Ppool (and submit them for themselves) thus parasiting the P2Ppools of revenue while not impacting the revenue of the centralized pool. So centralized pools which wanted to eliminate P2Ppools could do so (in theory).

I will quote myself where I answered this in the past.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=339902.msg3715641#msg3715641

Why don't you just use P2Pool? Is there any reason?

I was waiting for bytemaster to answer because I wanted to know his thoughts. Seems to me that you have no way to stop the Share Withholding Attack since it is decentralized. And every peer has to run more of a full client if I am not mistake. And there is a lot more overhead I believe. And perhaps also much less resistance against denial-of-service flooding. Frankly I didn't analyze for long enough to be very sure of my initial intuition which is to stay away from it.

I know it is generally impossible to enforce reputation on a 100% decentralized system. So I am intuitively skeptical of P2Pool.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool#Payout_logic

A miner with the aim to harm others could withhold the block, thereby preventing anybody from getting paid.

Incorrect. The miner can still be paid for the shares he generated which were not a block solution, because another peer might generate the block solution after. Thus the share withholding miner can parasite income off the pool while robbing the pool of his major contribution to the revenue. So this brings revenue to the miner, while parasiting on the pool. If enough shares are from attackers, this destroys the economics of the honest miners in the pool and probably destroys the pool.

So if you owned a centralized pool, it would probably be in your interest to attack all the P2Pools.

Whereas centralized pools could (in a redesigned block chain) implement Meni Rosenfeld's oblivious shares to thwart the share withholding attack.

So as I wrote upthread, P2Pool is not a sustainable or reliable solution.

After making those posts, I remember I eventually studied P2Ppool in more detail and don't remember changing my opinion. I think I posted about it again with additional details, but I can't find the latter post.

Let me add the oblivious shares fix I mentioned in the OP can not be applied to a pool which is decentralized. Many readers may not understand well this very technical issue. Try reading the link I provided in the OP to Meni Rosenfeld's white paper. Perhaps at some point in the future I can take some time to write a layman's explanation of this issue.

[AnonyMint]

Note I have deleted the original post because he continues to write very noisy and illogical sentences. To be fair, I have quoted and responded to the meat of his argument.

That is not taxing the value of the content that was put on the DVD. The price of the DVD at a few pennies is only a small fraction of the value of the content, such as a movie which sells for $19 in your local store.

Nor it should be. Why should anyone have to pay again for using the content they already paid...

Irrelevant. That wasn't my point. I was providing an example of activity at homes (versus store fronts) that the government couldn't tax even if it wanted to. When we download software or coming designs to be printed in our homes on 3D printers, the government can't tax it if the vendors choose to be anonymous with an anonymous currency. Right now that is not an option because there does not exist a reliably anonymous payment option.

Additionally, law enforcement has prosecuted harshly those that perpetrate the intellectual property stealing...

Again that is irrelevant to the point I made. Now you are trying to argue that anonymity is bad because you think prosecution of content theft is more important than preventing the horrifically peaking socialism (200 year debt high, most western nations taxing over the Laffer limit, etc) from taxing us into another Dark Age as has happened numerous times throughout human history.

Fact is that if you provide content at low enough price, people will rarely bother to go out of their way to steal it. They want the official content. And there is a 7 billion person market on the internet, no need to charge $19 for a movie. Make it 50 cents. You will still get rich.

So there's no "anonymity" possible on the internet

Bullshit. You are ignorant of what is technically possible.

nor, up to a point, it is desirable. You are, I'm sure, fully aware of those hackers that encrypt your computer's content and will demand a ransom for the private key, right? They demand the ranson in BTC, of course... "advantages" of anonymity?

There's very limited advantages to anonymous activities -they are mostly illegal- and those that are legitimate are already protected by laws, such as discrimination, etc. that you mention.

Total bullshit. So I guess you hated paper cash too, because it enabled many anonymous activities.

That is freedom dumbass. And when you lose your freedom like they did until Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc.. then you will learn the hard way not to trust the end game of peaking socialism and collectivism.

I suppose you are not aware that Obama can declare any citizen a terrorist and without proof they can take away all your due process and kill you with a drone. Yet you claim the government will respect my political views, etc.. No way. The Constitution is dead. The socialism has taken over and we are headed into totalitarianism.

It'd be nice, when advocating for anonymity, to come up with ANY reason at all that would justify even its contemplation. There are none not already contemplated by the laws of the western world.

For the love of Christ, you are one clueless example of why we need anonymity. Frogs like you will boil in the pot all the while singing the praises of the next totalitarian (perhaps it is Obama, we need to see how it progresses).

Mandatory? in a democracy? or are we regressing and going towards dictatorships where things such as laws will be "mandatory"?

Did anyone force you to buy and use that altcoin?

Mandatory only for that altcoin dumbass.

Also 'mandatory' is not entirely accurate. Any user can reveal his identity there is no technological way to stop that. Rather I am proposing the anonymity is automatically on by default.

Oh and those figures of debt and net worth? A fallacy. Total fallacy.

Bullshit. Those figures are accurate. Did you even bother to check my sources?

Just go along your merry way to blissful pot boiling. You are done here in this thread. You made your point. I strongly disagree with you. You don't need this altcoin. It isn't for boiling frogs like you. It is for the 33% who voted yes.

[barabbas]

Evidently. And if 1 in 3 (even in this minimal and quite partial environment) makes you happy, count us both as VERY happy... dumb ass.