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

[AnonyMint]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=491181.msg5463449#msg5463449

I'm perfectly happy to have a serious debate about this. But before I do so you really do need to do some proper research. Until then, I think we're back to "ask your dad".

Stop playing hide&seek games and cite some case law.

I've already provided a resource which says nemo dat quod non habet applies in tracing into mixed funds.

Now it is your turn to cite something that refutes that. Otherwise you are just playing games.

" the original payer will have an equitable proprietary interest in the monies so long as they are traceable into whomsoever's hands they come other than a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice."

 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] UKHL 12 (22 May 1996) at p. 26 per Lord Browne Wilkinson

Your turn

Hahaha. You misinterpreted the decision. So now I know you are not an attorney. Rather the decision reaffirms the equitable interest in mixed funds even if the recipient "had no knowledge at any relevant time that the contract was void".

http://www.ucc.ie/law/restitution/archive/englcases/westdeutsche.htm

He held the money to be recoverable by the bank either as money had and received by the council to the use of the bank, or as money which in equity the bank was entitled to trace into the hands of the council and have repaid out of the council's assets. He decided that the bank's right to restitution at common law arose from the fact that the payment made by the bank to the council was made under a purported contract which, unknown to both parties, was ultra vires the council and so void, no consideration having been given for the making of the payment. The decision by the judge, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal [1994] 1 W.L.R. 938, raised important questions in the law of restitution, which are of great interest to lawyers specialising in this field. Yet it is an extraordinary feature of the present appeal to your Lordships' House that the judge's decision on the substantive right of recovery at common law does not fall for consideration by your Lordships' House. The appeal of the council is confined to one point only - the question of interest.

The breadth of the submission

    Although the actual question in issue on the appeal is a narrow one, on the arguments presented it is necessary to consider fundamental principles of trust law. Does the recipient of money under a contract subsequently found to be void for mistake or as being ultra vires hold the moneys received on trust even where he had no knowledge at any relevant time that the contract was void? If he does hold on trust, such trust must arise at the date of receipt or, at the latest, at the date the legal title of the payer is extinguished by mixing moneys in a bank account: in the present case it does not matter at which of those dates the legal title was extinguished. If there is a trust two consequences follow: (a) the recipient will be personally liable, regardless of fault, for any subsequent payment away of the moneys to third parties even though, at the date of such payment, the "trustee" was still ignorant of the existence of any trust: see Burrows, "Swaps and the Friction between Common Law and Equity" [1995] R.L.R. 15; (b) as from the date of the establishment of the trust (i.e. receipt or mixing of the moneys by the "trustee") the original payer will have an equitable proprietary interest in the moneys so long as they are traceable into whomsoever's hands they come other than a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice. Therefore, although in the present case the only question directly in issue is the personal liability of the local authority as a trustee, it is not possible to hold the local authority liable without imposing a trust which, in other cases, will create property rights affecting third parties because moneys received under a void contract are "trust property."

[1714117381]

1714117381

[S4VV4S]

AnonyMint, how did you become a senior member here?

Dating back, March 14th 2013, when you first joined, your very first post was about a flaw in Bitcoin.

What gives?

Why do you fight Bitcoin so much?

Who is your employers?
You are spending too much time trying to get people away from Bitcoin so obviously there is something else behind it.

Wanna share with us?

[AnonyMint]

AnonyMint, how did you become a senior member here?

Dating back, March 14th 2013, when you first joined, your very first post was about a flaw in Bitcoin.

What gives?

Why do you fight Bitcoin so much?

Who is your employers?
You are spending too much time trying to get people away from Bitcoin so obviously there is something else behind it.

Wanna share with us?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=493115.msg5463544#msg5463544

Incorrect. You had to transmit your public key to the sender who sent you BTC.

This guy claims a deep technical understanding and argues why Bitcoin is doomed to fail and yet demonstartes his total ignorance by clearly not understand the basics of Bitcoin... What a muppet... Ignored.

Quoting me out-of-context by eliding much of the quoted post (and pretending not to read my post that followed it), and then using that liar-method to claim I didn't understand something, is the epitome of beta-male chest thumping.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=491181.msg5462012#msg5462012

DooMAD, I like what is linked from your signature. One mistake is you seem to assume that Bitcoin is the certain solution.

Okay it is quite clear now to me what is going on. If for example you study the linked website from DooMAD's signature and study his posts in that thread where he is debating me and factor in comments such as above, it is quite clear that the beta-males think they discovered the Holy Grail that can empower them to fight back (while getting rich at the same time!) and they are very butthurt when any one tries to tell them:

"Wait, the concept of decentralized crypto is great, but Bitcoin has serious flaws which render it incapable of giving you that win that you think you are getting".

I am here to make the decentralized cypto that will win.

I am not here to hang out with beta-male losers who can't comprehend.

Guys decide whether you want to follow the losers or the winners.

Be astute.

Signing off now. See ya at the winning coin. It will be up to you to find it in that sea of altcoin announcements. I won't be posting it here.

[AnonyMint]

Ah have to sneak back in to say, looks like I am winning the information war:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=441414.msg5466479#msg5466479

I get really nervous when I read articles like this or talks like this which highlight the extreme dangers that can be imposed by world governments without anonymity.

Add my thread to the logic about the threats from lacking anonymity.

Zerocoin doesn't obscure IP addresses. Still vulnerable to traffic and pattern analysis too. CoinJoin can't scale due to denial-of-service in its 2nd signing step. DarkCoin appears to be fundamentally flawed. Etc.

All the gory details in this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=439357.msg5355485#msg5355485

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=441414.msg5467500#msg5467500

I get really nervous when I read articles ... or talks like this which highlight the extreme dangers that can be imposed by world governments without anonymity.

Andreas' rant started around 33 minutes or so, and he really got into by 39 min. He basically says that the developed world is too focused on profit, navel-gazing, kissing the boot of regulators. He says the 6 billion are driving the real future of Bitcoin.

Cool! He and I are shouting the same thing!

So fuck these assholes in this forum who are criticizing me.

P.S. Andreas has one flaw in his analysis, the developing world is short the dollar and the tail doesn't wag the dog yet. The USA is still fully in control for another decade or so. So we have to go through a really big mess first before we get to his ideal.

[AnonyMint]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=491181.msg5474716#msg5474716

I really want to sign off now, because I have programming work to do. So I hope this is the last time I need to rebutt here.

If they can't stop people torrenting movies and games, they won't be able to stop the flow of digital money.

And my point is I agree with you only if the coin has anonymity which the NSA can't subvert.

Bitcoin does not and will never have it.

Because we are talking about control of money, which is essential to governments' existence, so they will fight with every tool in their warchest. As they have been with 9/11 falseflag to foist AML and KYC laws every where. Now FATCA forced on all sovereign nations. Downloaded media has actually been a boon to Hollywood not an existential threat, and they aren't the government any way.

So as I said, you have a few screws loose in your ability to see reality. Perhaps you can tighten them.

This whole thread is built upon a fundamental misconception

...

The decision to handle and classify Bitcoins in a specific way is a political decision.

Exactly it is a political outcome and the fact of democracy is that it is a power vacuum and always controlled by the vested interests who control the money i.e. the banksters. And you thought I was disagreeing, because you conflate orthogonal issues as non-intellectual people do.

Did anyone even mention the legal fees to accomplish all this would probably be equal or higher than the Bitcoin market cap itself? lol

And you are too myopic or naive apparently to see that the real cost here is the loss of control of the money, which is an existential threat to government and vested interests. They will spare no expense and besides Japan is complicit state in their network. Haven't you seen that Rockefeller is often over there hobnobbing with the elite and government over there.

BTC is not legal tender but clearly a BEARER INSTRUMENT

so, not affected in most countries

http://books.google.ch/books?id=uJxxMrf4MEkC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=Nemo+dat+quod+non+habet+bearer+instrument&source=bl&ots=RNMPS9ew7Z&sig=6UxI9ljhlE7nsAZHMqR1dIRDdds&hl=de&sa=X&ei=CsETU8WLMMLnygP96oGwBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20bearer%20instrument&f=false

...because it is not practically possible to chase bearer instruments, that is why lawmakers all over the world agree on this

You searched on a Germanic language Google, the english link is:

http://books.google.com/books?id=uJxxMrf4MEkC&lpg=PA244&ots=RNMPSafs85&dq=Nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20bearer%20instrument&pg=PA244#v=onepage&q=Nemo%20dat%20quod%20non%20habet%20bearer%20instrument&f=false

This does not apply to Bitcoin because bearer instruments (e.g. physical ownership certificates without a name on them and no ledger) are an exception only because the law doesn't want to make illegal what it can't enforce, as it makes the law look impotent.

Bitcoin chain of ownership is very explicit in the public block chain (the public ledger), thus the law can very easily trace.

And remember we are talking about an existential threat to governments, so they will spare no effort.

I agree with you that anonymity is the way to defeat the government and make them go away.

However Tor, DarkCoin, CoinJoin, Zerocoin are all fundamentally (meaning can't be fixed) flawed.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.msg5474597#msg5474597
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=439357.msg5454853#msg5454853

Note I think Zerocoin has a very important role to play combined with my design for mixing, but not by itself.

[AnonyMint]

The information war has been won. Really time to sign off now. See ya on the other side.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=441414.msg5475723#msg5475723

The next incarnation of Bitcoin will be spearheaded by another anonymous genius.

Thank you very much. 

[AnonyMint]

Back one more time for sloppy seconds...  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=500994.msg5518821#msg5518821

Bottom line is Bitcoin can be cracked with a future quantum computer (because it is based on number-theoretic assumptions cryptography, e.g. destruction factoring from a constructed whole, instead of Random oracle style cryptography, e.g. construction of deconstruction into partitions).

It is argued this won't matter because the public key addresses are hashed on the blockchain until the balances are spent. (that is if you follow best practices and don't resend the change back to same public key address spent from) And that everyone can spend their balances to a new quantum-proof encryption method (e.g. Lamport) if ever quantum computers are known to be created.

However that erroneous argument has at least 4 flaws.

• When you spend, the quantum computing adversary could sniff your spend before it propagates sufficiently on the network and insert a double-spend that reaches more mining nodes faster than yours. In particular a powerful entity such as the NSA is already admitted to be capable of propagation attacks (see "The Quantum system" section at linked article).
• How do you ever get everyone to do the same human action in large distributed systems? There isn't even an official Bitcoin client any more.
• How do we know when the adversary has a quantum computer, given the capability of the NSA to issue national security letter gag orders? They had differential analysis to break cryptography in the 1970s and 80s and the public was unaware.
• If we adopt something like Zerocoin to add more anonymity to the tracing of trail of ownership of a coin, these signatures can't be retroactively hardened later, thus all that history of anonymity is suddenly lost once the adversary gains a quantum computer.

And people wonder why I think Bitcoin is piece-of-shit.   (and this is only 10% of the technical problems I see in Bitcoin)

The worst would be if the current ECDSA variant chosen was seeded by the NSA. There is some speculation about that yet apparently Bitcoin's choice was not one of the ones seeded opaquely by NIST or other potential surrogate (although I haven't dug in and don't trust the summaries I've seen to do my homework for me).

[AnonyMint]

We see here the true nature of man. When someone is trying his best to fix and improve what we human kind need the jealous mofos have nothing better to do but try to mock and sabotage.

They won't succeed.

[Vlad2Vlad]

We see here the true nature of man. When someone is trying his best to fix and improve what we human kind need the jealous mofos have nothing better to do but try to mock and sabotage.

They won't succeed.

Welcome to Bitcointalk but I'll say this: you're doing a lot of talking for a full year now with nothing to show for it.

You can clone Bitcoin and add your changes in a single day.  If you're good enough you can code an entire new coin in a month so my questions is:  What are you waiting for, 3,000 alt coins to burry your idea?

Seriously, if you're that good and you have a great idea then get to it.  

Just do it!

[Vlad2Vlad]

Stop teasing us by claiming you're leaving.

He can't trust himself. He is not able to follow his own will. Such a life is punished by itself the most.

Ahahahaaa.  There may be some truth in that.

[cAPSLOCK]

Stop teasing us by claiming you're leaving.

He can't trust himself. He is not able to follow his own will. Such a life is punished by itself the most.

That's pretty good stuff really.  Wise and sad.

[redsn0w]

Ok, I'm not going to debate what the powers that be may do or not do, but Visa is still worth something, yes?  

If Bitcoin, in any form, effects the sort of large scale change on the financial system that it is capable of, even to the point of grabbing  any substantial market share whatsoever from traditional payments people, Visa, PayPal et al, that is still going to be worth a good pile of cabbage.

I am not arguing that Bitcoin won't go up in price (although it is remotely possible it could be entirely defeated by an altcoin, the more likely future is Bitcoin prospers while an altcoin might also due to a bifurcation on the principle of strong anonymity).

I am arguing that we will lose our decentralized currency and anonymity.

Well I can't disagree.  They have the tools, and they'll use them, no doubt.

And I agree it's utter bullshit, although I do not see anything whatsoever that can be done about it.

Not adhering to laws results in bitcoin going underground.  If that happens, people may think it will still retain value/use, but I am not one of them.  If it is not an accepted medium of exchange now it is no more likely to be so after some financial meltdown or Mad Max situation.

If bitcoin is not widely adopted, and the financial system melts down, it isn't worth anything.  Then it's gold, silver, the normal things.  Stuff.  If it is widely adopted it may well be a great hedge against exactly that sort of thing; and on a financial level and with enough ease of access, that a lot of people could afford to squirrel away some amount, but only if they know it exists, know how to use it and have a realistic expectation that it will have value that will be portable and insulated from fiat meltdown.

Widespread adoption is basic to use in any future scenario, including a global meltdown, which I'm not going to argue isn't going to happen, as I'm as amazed as anyone with what I see going on in that department.  To allow for adoption that you have to follow the law, even if it sucks because you know damn well half of it was written so governments can stick their noses in places it doesn't belong, behind the guise of the greater good, whatever the hell that means anyhow.  

It's not a matter of not understanding anything, I don't think, it's a difference of opinion on what actually has the better chance at any sort of real success.  

Why The Only Solution is Technological

By the time you realize I am correct, you will be behind the others who realized earlier. Most people are still on the Titantic rearranging the deck chairs (see quote of Hoover). This is why the USA is actually booming until 2015.75, because capital is now fleeing into the USA from the emerging (peripheral) markets where the riots first manifest. But this ends up at the core reserve currency at the end game 2016ish. We can see how regulation appears to be a very loving and correct direction (listen to her charming speach). She is head of the IMF that is proposing 10% confiscation (termed "financial repression") of bank account balances across the EU to bring debt back to 2007 levels (i.e. not a solution and they will have to come back for more and more).

My opinion is that anything that does not circumvent law (which can be a legal activity, e.g. see the "Don't follow me, I'm the 5th car") is going to end up destroyed just like that dramatic upthread chart of the population of Rome falling from 1.3 million to 30,000 (because everyone fled the government). Apparently the-powers-that-be in the USA government are moving towards totalitarian allegiance analogous to recent events in the Ukraine. The entire premise of the Economic Devastation thread is that the Ineptacracy of socialism can't stop until it kills everything or until one of the following occurs:

• A new technology renders the government impotent.
• A Benevolent dictator like Caesar crosses the Rubicon to restore sanity

Note the people rising up as in Ukraine is not a solution, because they have no economically viable technology to remain decentralized. They will fall right back into the power vacuum of democracy with escalating chaos with Egypt as a recent example, because the fundamental problem is economic bankruptcy due to peaking socialism and debt (the people are not ready to embrace the decentralized Knowledge Age and the end of a public welfare and retirements system). Only a dictator or a technological solution to the power vacuum is a solution at this time (the contentionism has swung to anarchy because the time to make new social constitutions is not now for reasons stated).

And the benevolent dictator is also not sustainable, e.g. Rome continued to destroy itself after the vested interests of socialism killed Caesar. This is why only technology is responsible for sustainable gains in the lives of the people. Note CoinCube and I have postulated that in the theory of contentionism (a new term we invented) the top-down order (with socialism being one form) plays a role in the organization necessary to spawn new entropy, e.g. decentralizing technology.

Thus the only popular thing left standing will be the one that is impervious to government.

Gold and silver hoarding leads to a feudal Dark Age (which historically typically have long durations, e.g. 600 years), because the velocity-of-money (V in the Quantity Theory of Money) collapses. V is already down -50% since 2008. Capital is already running and disappearing into hoards. This will accelerate (as more frogs wake up from their blissful ignorance of what is going on and jump out of the boiling pot) if we don't have technological solution very soon.

And I have good news for you. I've had an additional epiphany recently that I have not written about publicly. I am becoming uber confident that Bitcoin is not the future of commerce, finance, and business. And become more confident I see (all the economic and algorithmic details of) the future technology in my mind's eye. Stay tuned, it won't be too long now. Commerce, finance, and business will never go back to centralized again. This changes the order that had existed since Mesopotamia.

So this isn't about crossing a crisis and coming back to the same notions of the way things are today. This is leaving the old ways behind forever.

P.S. Three prominent forecasters (with not such stellar prediction performance as Martin Armstrong who predicts the same, yet all with a correct model) are predicting "economic devastation" ahead. CoinCube do you think they read your thread and got that quoted term from you? (your thread in in the top 3 listings at Google for that quoted term)

P.S.S. W.r.t. to Bitcoin becoming government compliant, there is this problem that there isn't just one global government (yet), so its global fungibility will be pecked away by the discordant nation-state vultures. And as the recent Mt.Gox fiasco exemplifies, there isn't anything the government touches that doesn't get bloated and less efficient.

"An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications." - Lazarus Long.

Disclaimer: I am not providing legal nor tax advice. I am not a professional adviser, please consult your own. I am merely sharing my thoughts and anything you do after reading my thoughts is your own responsibility.

Update: there is a new thread on anonymity which is quite astute and exemplifies the evolving improvement in the knowledge of the community.

+1

[AnonyMint]

Bitcoin core developers wumpus and gmaxwell on the new improvements announced (but not yet published) for Zerocoin.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=336514.msg3674938#msg3674938

My understanding was that the size of the proofs was the primary hurdle to implementation. Is that true?

There were several other additional limitations:

* Very slow to validate (e.g. on the order of 1-2 tx per second)
* Required a trusted party to initiate the accumulator, and if they violate that trust they could steal coins
* Uses cryptography which is less well studied
* Only handled anonymized coins with one value, reducing the anonymity set size substantially
* Didn't conceal values
* Spent coins list is needed for validation and grows forever (e.g. no pruning of the critical validation state).

Of these only the first two and the last are probably real barriers, the others are more "doesn't work as well as some hypothetical future system might".

There was no way within their prior system to achieve size reductions to the currently mentioned, I'd speculated in some other threads on some technology that could make the proofs smaller and faster, but if they've gone that route there may be some other consequences. It's hard to say much of anything useful without more information being made public.

I would note that the prior ZC implementation has been made available for some time now, and no altcoin has picked it up.

Deep technical explanation of the original Zerocoin:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=175156.msg2296916#msg2296916

[AnonyMint]

We see here the true nature of man. When someone is trying his best to fix and improve what we human kind need the jealous mofos have nothing better to do but try to mock and sabotage.

They won't succeed.

Welcome to Bitcointalk but I'll say this: you're doing a lot of talking for a full year now with nothing to show for it.

How do you figure? I am the messenger. Have I not delivered it far and wide?

There is a difference between nothing to show and nothing shown.

If you were digging (not on the forum although your hint of where to dig is here on the forum), you could possibly locate a breakthrough in cryptography on trading computation for space which I helped publish today. The core idea was not mine however I helped clarify it.

You can clone Bitcoin and add your changes in a single day.  If you're good enough you can code an entire new coin in a month so my questions is:  What are you waiting for, 3,000 alt coins to burry your idea?

Seriously, if you're that good and you have a great idea then get to it.  

Just do it!

AnonyMint has already answered the question upthread as to whether he is creating an altcoin with a one word post "No".

AnonyMint has also promised in the DarkCoin thread to never announce nor help promote any altcoin (note what I didn't promise by exclusion). See the post upthread about DarkCoin, I added to it (in short the anonymity if any is not scalable).

If you are not entirely confused, that is unfortunate because it is intentional.

The best way to destroy your enemy is to first destroy their fear of you.

So many rushed altcoins, and what is the result?

[cAPSLOCK]

I anticipated you'd nuke my Sistine Chapel of a parody post.  So I preserved it in advance.

[sidhujag]

The information war has been won. Really time to sign off now. See ya on the other side.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=441414.msg5475723#msg5475723

The next incarnation of Bitcoin will be spearheaded by another anonymous genius.

Thank you very much. 

I thought true nobility is when a person is not bringing upon himself asking to be in the light.. quite the contrast to your actual behavior in your posts.. or is it that you just wanted to preach that you know what a noble genius looks acts and feels like but that is anything but you?

[Paashaas]

If another alt-coin pops up that it better than Bitcoin, it will need to kill Light-coin first and i've not even seen 1 alt-coin thats doing that in this time.
In time scale; Bitcoins infrasturcture+the amounth of the ppl in the world that is even aware of Bitcoin will be to big to catch up. In other words; Bitcoin wil be in the top 3 most used crypto money in the comming 10+ years.

[cAPSLOCK]

If another alt-coin pops up that it better than Bitcoin, it will need to kill Light-coin first and i've not even seen 1 alt-coin thats doing that in this time.
In time scale; Bitcoins infrasturcture+the amounth of the ppl in the world that is even aware of Bitcoin will be to big to catch up. In other words; Bitcoin wil be in the top 3 most used crypto money in the comming 10+ years.

Litecoin as a early warning system for the eventual bitcoin-killer is worth considering. A very interesting thought.  I wonder if it has merit.

[GodHatesFigs]

The guys over at the Mises Circle have already shown that altcoins cannot succeed; my main worries are coin taint and a backdoor in the cryptography.

[AnonyMint]

The guys over at the Mises Circle have already shown that altcoins cannot succeed; my main worries are coin taint and a backdoor in the cryptography.

The OP has a link to the thread where we discussed that article and tore it to shreds.

Any altcoin can be converted to Bitcoin instantly upon payment if there are liquid exchanges, as Bitpay does for converting Bitcoin to fiat at checkout time. The OP mentions the fallacy of the lockout network effect in this case and explains why it is different than the inertia of a network protocol that requires changing every server on the internet. However there is a post upthread wherein I admitted that the market size is an inertia in terms of brand recognition, confidence, economies-of-scale, etc.. So yes there does come a point where Bitcoin can not likely be surmounted and we are almost there, with the userbase some where in the range of 1 million already and growing very very fast.

However, one of my other points is if Bitcoin can't adopt anonymity (which I am very confident can't be done, because CoinJoin doesn't scale, Tor isn't a good choice to build-in, and Zerocoins is insoluble as all mixers are because the coin amounts can't all be the same thus pattern analysis eliminates the anonymity), then a bifurcated future is likely where there is an altcoin which is highly anonymous (can't be DarkCoin their CoinJoin technology can't scale), even if Bitcoin remains the most popular the anonymous coin will also have transaction volume. Because the world is headed into a debt collapse and governments will confiscate and hunt down wealth. Thus there will be a demand for anonymity, regardless how popular Bitcoin is. I've also explained that anonymity must be built-in to the coin, otherwise the commerce with the coin is tainted and can't be anonymously used by anyone.

And there is a technical reason Bitcoin can't adopt my anonymity solution, but if I tell you, then you will know what my solution is. And I am not ready to reveal it quite yet. Soon.

The information war has been won. Really time to sign off now. See ya on the other side.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=441414.msg5475723#msg5475723

The next incarnation of Bitcoin will be spearheaded by another anonymous genius.

Thank you very much.  

I thought true nobility is when a person is not bringing upon himself asking to be in the light.. quite the contrast to your actual behavior in your posts.. or is it that you just wanted to preach that you know what a noble genius looks acts and feels like but that is anything but you?

I am conflicted on that. Certainly I would rather shut up. But also I wanted to give his buried point more eyeballs and weight, so that people won't lose hope on the ideal of what we thought Bitcoin was going to be. It is not so impossible as it might seem to be.

I anticipated you'd nuke my Sistine Chapel of a parody post.  So I preserved it in advance.

Keeping the thread less noisy, but that terse link is fine.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=471355.msg5518181#msg5518181

One way to get the fiat in is to accept centrally issued Fiat-backed crypto currencies as well in the p2p exchange.

-1

You are right back to the same problem of centralized theft again.

People will always disfavor P2P exchange, because it is more inconvenient, the spread is higher, and it feels more unsafe (which is debatable).

That is why a cpu-only coin is so damn important. Most people will then enter by mining, and spending will be preferred over selling!

Nobody can ever force you to sell your bitcoins for Gollum_USD_IOU. But you should have the technical possibility to do so on the p2p exchange.

We can't stop people from dangling centralized failure nodes in front of the naive users.

One thing we can do is make the altcoin very anonymous, thus any user going through these centralized vehicles is going to give up their anonymity via AML & KYC regulation of the centralized vendors.

For the moment users have no reason to care, because Bitcoin isn't anonymous any way.

If we issue an IOU coin it would be a piece of code, just like bitcoin.

What part of centralized failure modes is not clear?

You promise to pay fiat. Many people become dependent on your ability to do so. Govenment fines you, you can't meet obligations. Or you are corrupt/inept and issue more IOUs than you have resources to pay. Many centralized failure modes to get same result.