Gavin will visit the CIA

[cottoneyeJoe]

get a life.

[/quote]

lol. or at least a credible alt-chain

[1713572849]

1713572849

[1713572849]

1713572849

[becoin]

I was listening to Bruce Wagner interview Gavin after the CIA conference and just wondered why not much had been made about Satoshi and the real reason he gave up all Bitcoin contact? According to Gavin himself the CIA visit itself could have been the reason he quit?

Of course, it is bad that Satoshi gave up all bitcoin contact. I have always wondered why? Worse than that however he can't already prove he is Satoshi! Switching from CPU to GPU mining is a mistake with critical consequences. That will be seen more clearly when incentives for miners begin to go down. If I may borrow Lincoln's phrase - "Currency of the people, by the people, for the people" - should entirely depend on ordinary people using it every day, not on a few mining pool operators.

Keep up the good work, CoinHunter. SolidCoin definitely has a brain wave.

[Steve]

I was listening to Bruce Wagner interview Gavin after the CIA conference and just wondered why not much had been made about Satoshi and the real reason he gave up all Bitcoin contact? According to Gavin himself the CIA visit itself could have been the reason he quit?

Of course, it is bad that Satoshi gave up all bitcoin contact. I have always wondered why? Worse than that however he can't already prove he is Satoshi! Switching from CPU to GPU mining is a mistake with critical consequences. That will be seen more clearly when incentives for miners begin to go down. If I may borrow Lincoln's phrase - "Currency of the people, by the people, for the people" - should entirely depend on ordinary people using it every day, not on a few mining pool operators.

Keep up the good work, CoinHunter. SolidCoin definitely has a brain wave.

There are a lot of plausible reasons Satoshi might want to keep his identity secret:
- Satoshi was an introvert and simply didn't want the attention that he would surely have received (Occam's Razor)
- Satoshi was fearful about backlash from those in power in the legacy financial system
- Satoshi had a day job, and perhaps a reputation, that would have been threatened by being associated with bitcoin
- Satoshi was actually a few people working in secret at a large corporation that needs bitcoin

I sometimes ponder this last possibility.  Imagine that you're Amazon, Apple, or Google and you dealing with money all the time and all the hassle involved with collecting payment through the legacy financial system.  So, you put a small team of bright people on the task to find ways to make it better.  That team arrives at the bitcoin solution which is obvious to everyone, including the executives.  Then they start thinking about how to roll it out.  They quickly come to realize that simply announcing a brand new currency isn't viable given the existing interests and politics.  It would be too controversial for them to be involved in such an effort.  So they find an alternative.  Open source it while being very careful not to reveal their connection to the project.  Help it along until they can safely back away without the project failing due to a lack of critical mass.  Wait a few years until it becomes commonplace, then start adopting it and reaping the obvious benefits (i.e. Amazon being able to sell to anyone in the world with no risk of chargeback).

I can tell you first hand that some of the largest retailers are struggling within the existing financial system.  Payment solutions really touches a raw nerve with many of them.  It certainly doesn't seem like a far fetched idea that many of them would have teams of people trying to find better and cheaper ways of transacting business.  Innovation and cost savings in that area could have an enormous impact to their bottom lines.
 

[CoinHunter]

I was listening to Bruce Wagner interview Gavin after the CIA conference and just wondered why not much had been made about Satoshi and the real reason he gave up all Bitcoin contact? According to Gavin himself the CIA visit itself could have been the reason he quit?

Of course, it is bad that Satoshi gave up all bitcoin contact. I have always wondered why? Worse than that however he can't already prove he is Satoshi! Switching from CPU to GPU mining is a mistake with critical consequences. That will be seen more clearly when incentives for miners begin to go down. If I may borrow Lincoln's phrase - "Currency of the people, by the people, for the people" - should entirely depend on ordinary people using it every day, not on a few mining pool operators.

Keep up the good work, CoinHunter. SolidCoin definitely has a brain wave.

There are a lot of plausible reasons Satoshi might want to keep his identity secret:
- Satoshi was an introvert and simply didn't want the attention that he would surely have received (Occam's Razor)
- Satoshi was fearful about backlash from those in power in the legacy financial system
- Satoshi had a day job, and perhaps a reputation, that would have been threatened by being associated with bitcoin
- Satoshi was actually a few people working in secret at a large corporation that needs bitcoin

I sometimes ponder this last possibility.  Imagine that you're Amazon, Apple, or Google and you dealing with money all the time and all the hassle involved with collecting payment through the legacy financial system.  So, you put a small team of bright people on the task to find ways to make it better.  That team arrives at the bitcoin solution which is obvious to everyone, including the executives.  Then they start thinking about how to roll it out.  They quickly come to realize that simply announcing a brand new currency isn't viable given the existing interests and politics.  It would be too controversial for them to be involved in such an effort.  So they find an alternatively.  Open source it while being very careful not to reveal their connection to the project.  Help it along until they can safely back away without the project failing due to a lack of critical mass.  Wait a few until it becomes commonplace, then start adopting it and reaping the obvious benefits (i.e. Amazon being able to sell to anyone in the world with no risk of chargeback).

I can tell you first hand that some of the largest retailers are struggling within the existing financial system.  Payment solutions really touches a raw nerve with many of them.  It certainly doesn't seem like a far fetched idea that many of them would have teams of people trying to find better and cheaper ways of transacting business.  Innovation and cost savings in that area could have an enormous impact to their bottom lines.
 

No one can truly know except Satoshi and Gavin about their "details". It's just if you look at everything that is now public record then what Gavin says is quite misleading about Satoshi and his departure.

I don't think bitcoin achieves anything that those large organizations actually desire, if credit card is faster and more secure than Bitcoin why would they be interested? I think you'll find any large organization is quite happy with the status quo when it comes to financials. They bend over backwards to interface with the existing banking systems as these banking systems are heavily invested into them.

Bitcoin was invented by a creative guy that pulled together various known ideas into a relatively nice working system. Many of those unknown variables are now taken as law within the Bitcoin community, the pyramid system, etc, when really they should be questioned. Any normal person looks at it and sees that the earlier they get in the more they get , it seems like a scam.

I liked Bitcoin when I first heard about it, it excited me because of its anonymous nature. It was only when I started to learn the details that I realized this was never going to be anything serious. When a bank with a few million dollars can shut you down do you seriously think you are "in their world" ? As soon as bitcoin is a threat, or a perceived threat, these banks will throw money at it and shut it down with a 51% attack. 5 million dollars is nothing to these people. Let alone governments. The only answer Bitcoin supporters have is things like "p2pool" or "one day we'll be so powerful they'll need 50 million dollars" . This isn't a real answer to that question.

[Steve]

I don't think bitcoin achieves anything that those large organizations actually desire, if credit card is faster and more secure than Bitcoin why would they be interested? I think you'll find any large organization is quite happy with the status quo when it comes to financials. They bend over backwards to interface with the existing banking systems as these banking systems are heavily invested into them.

Well, here's the thing, it's not faster, it's not more secure and it's not cheaper than bitcoin.  Many industries are turning over close to 50% of their earnings to the banking industry.  Retailers that operate on very thin margins are very interested in alternatives to the legacy banking system.

As soon as bitcoin is a threat, or a perceived threat, these banks will throw money at it and shut it down with a 51% attack. 5 million dollars is nothing to these people. Let alone governments. The only answer Bitcoin supporters have is things like "p2pool" or "one day we'll be so powerful they'll need 50 million dollars" . This isn't a real answer to that question.

By my calculations you would need a couple hundred million right now to mount an effective attack.  This is taking into consideration the very power hungry data center you would need and all the construction costs.  You might even need to build a manufacturing facility to crank out the number crunching hardware that you'd need (that will push your costs up substantially).  You may well succeed in destroying bitcoin.  But then you have litecoin and all your massive investment rendered useless.  All you need to do is tweak the proof of work algorithm to render any such attempt an exercise in futility.  You might disrupt or delay bitcoin (or an equivalent successor), but you won't, in the end, stop it.

I think any bank or government that seriously studies bitcoin will ultimately arrive at the analysis that the bigger existential threat is in ignoring or trying to stop bitcoin.  Any government that cracks down on it will not succeed in stopping it and simply push the investment and innovation into bitcoin overseas.  They may in fact be cementing their fate to a future as a third world country with such action.  My biggest concern is that people in position of power will make rash decisions out of fear and ignorance to their own detriment and the detriment of their citizens.

And, no, you don't need need a cooperative banking system for bitcoin exchange to continue and even thrive.  A p2p exchange system could operate entirely in the absence of any bank accounts.  The better play would be for the banks to try and regulate the existing exchanges because if they cut them off, they'll lose any possibility of control.

My advice to banks would be to start using and learning about bitcoin now.  At the end of the day, it's just a piece of software that tries to invent a better, more secure way of implementing money by taking advantage everything we know about cryptography and the internet.  It's stands to reason that we can do better than the legacy system that has been cobbled together over the past 40 or 50 years and which is full of inefficiency and security holes.

My advice to government would be to start mining and buying bitcoin now.  And start thinking about the future when you'll need to enter into treaties with other countries concerning the amount of hashing power they agree to devote to securing the bitcoin network (and stockpile some hardware in reserve just in case some countries try to cheat).

[MoonShadow]

I was listening to Bruce Wagner interview Gavin after the CIA conference and just wondered why not much had been made about Satoshi and the real reason he gave up all Bitcoin contact? According to Gavin himself the CIA visit itself could have been the reason he quit?

Of course, it is bad that Satoshi gave up all bitcoin contact. I have always wondered why? Worse than that however he can't already prove he is Satoshi! Switching from CPU to GPU mining is a mistake with critical consequences. That will be seen more clearly when incentives for miners begin to go down. If I may borrow Lincoln's phrase - "Currency of the people, by the people, for the people" - should entirely depend on ordinary people using it every day, not on a few mining pool operators.

Keep up the good work, CoinHunter. SolidCoin definitely has a brain wave.

There are a lot of plausible reasons Satoshi might want to keep his identity secret:
- Satoshi was an introvert and simply didn't want the attention that he would surely have received (Occam's Razor)
- Satoshi was fearful about backlash from those in power in the legacy financial system
- Satoshi had a day job, and perhaps a reputation, that would have been threatened by being associated with bitcoin
- Satoshi was actually a few people working in secret at a large corporation that needs bitcoin

I sometimes ponder this last possibility.  Imagine that you're Amazon, Apple, or Google and you dealing with money all the time and all the hassle involved with collecting payment through the legacy financial system.  So, you put a small team of bright people on the task to find ways to make it better.  That team arrives at the bitcoin solution which is obvious to everyone, including the executives.  Then they start thinking about how to roll it out.  They quickly come to realize that simply announcing a brand new currency isn't viable given the existing interests and politics.  It would be too controversial for them to be involved in such an effort.  So they find an alternatively.  Open source it while being very careful not to reveal their connection to the project.  Help it along until they can safely back away without the project failing due to a lack of critical mass.  Wait a few until it becomes commonplace, then start adopting it and reaping the obvious benefits (i.e. Amazon being able to sell to anyone in the world with no risk of chargeback).

I can tell you first hand that some of the largest retailers are struggling within the existing financial system.  Payment solutions really touches a raw nerve with many of them.  It certainly doesn't seem like a far fetched idea that many of them would have teams of people trying to find better and cheaper ways of transacting business.  Innovation and cost savings in that area could have an enormous impact to their bottom lines.
 

No one can truly know except Satoshi and Gavin about their "details". It's just if you look at everything that is now public record then what Gavin says is quite misleading about Satoshi and his departure.

I don't think bitcoin achieves anything that those large organizations actually desire, if credit card is faster and more secure than Bitcoin why would they be interested? I think you'll find any large organization is quite happy with the status quo when it comes to financials. They bend over backwards to interface with the existing banking systems as these banking systems are heavily invested into them.

Bitcoin was invented by a creative guy that pulled together various known ideas into a relatively nice working system. Many of those unknown variables are now taken as law within the Bitcoin community, the pyramid system, etc, when really they should be questioned. Any normal person looks at it and sees that the earlier they get in the more they get , it seems like a scam.

I liked Bitcoin when I first heard about it, it excited me because of its anonymous nature. It was only when I started to learn the details that I realized this was never going to be anything serious. When a bank with a few million dollars can shut you down do you seriously think you are "in their world" ? As soon as bitcoin is a threat, or a perceived threat, these banks will throw money at it and shut it down with a 51% attack. 5 million dollars is nothing to these people. Let alone governments. The only answer Bitcoin supporters have is things like "p2pool" or "one day we'll be so powerful they'll need 50 million dollars" . This isn't a real answer to that question.

Ah, Coinhunter; our own resident Treasury agent persona.  Did the last guy get a promotion?

[k9quaint]

I am not given to conspiracy theories at all. I took too many physics, chemistry and mathematics courses to lend credence to off the wall theories put forth by the truthers and the fake moon landing luddites.

Even so, I feel this little tiny twinge in the hairs on the back of my neck. Then I picture Gavin in an orange jumpsuit @ gitmo 

[film2240]

I really wonder why would Gavin visit the CIA? What interest would the CIA have in Gavin and Bitcoin? It just sounds so strange to me.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

I really wonder why would Gavin visit the CIA? What interest would the CIA have in Gavin and Bitcoin? It just sounds so strange to me.

You have 28 pages of discussion spanned over 9 months to satisfy your curiosity.

[fellowtraveler]

I really wonder why would Gavin visit the CIA? What interest would the CIA have in Gavin and Bitcoin? It just sounds so strange to me.

Maybe they told him "we can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way."

Maybe he was just happy for the money, or for the reputation opportunity, or for the opportunity to reach those in the intelligence community to see Bitcoin in the most positive light.

Maybe the CIA is interested in Bitcoin for the same reason they like Tor: Because they can use it overseas, and because it disproportionately impacts authoritarian regimes, relative to "free" ones.

Maybe there are elements within the CIA who see the Federal Reserve the same way that we do.

Maybe they have interest in learning about Bitcoin, and learning how to trace BTC transactions, since there are entities in the real world who are utilizing it, and the CIA operates in the real world.

Most importantly, since we don't see the lead developers of "Beenz" and "Flooz" being summoned to the CIA, I think this portends well for the technology, as it gives an indicator that they take it seriously.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I really wonder why would Gavin visit the CIA? What interest would the CIA have in Gavin and Bitcoin? It just sounds so strange to me.

Wait a few more months, and well see an article similar to this, but pertaining to currency: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/the-fbi-wants-to-read-your-tweets/252059/

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I was listening to Bruce Wagner interview Gavin after the CIA conference and just wondered why not much had been made about Satoshi and the real reason he gave up all Bitcoin contact? According to Gavin himself the CIA visit itself could have been the reason he quit?

Bruce Wagner : When was the last time you chatted to satoshi?
Gavin Andresen: Um... I haven't had email from satoshi in a couple months actually. The last email I sent him I actually told him I was going to talk at the CIA. So it's possible , that.... that may have um had something to with his deciding

http://solidcointalk.org/topic/529-did-gavin-andresen-push-satoshi-out-of-bitcoin/

Mmm, somebody with great necromancy powers I sense, yes.

Topic so long dead reviving...

[btc_artist]

Glad it got revived, I didn't know this.

[dishwara]

I was listening to Bruce Wagner interview Gavin after the CIA conference and just wondered why not much had been made about Satoshi and the real reason he gave up all Bitcoin contact? According to Gavin himself the CIA visit itself could have been the reason he quit?

Bruce Wagner : When was the last time you chatted to satoshi?
Gavin Andresen: Um... I haven't had email from satoshi in a couple months actually. The last email I sent him I actually told him I was going to talk at the CIA. So it's possible , that.... that may have um had something to with his deciding

http://solidcointalk.org/topic/529-did-gavin-andresen-push-satoshi-out-of-bitcoin/

Not only gavin many know satoshi. He/she is in bitcoin still & if you look closely you can able to find him.
But what is the use?
he/she came in the satoshi & gave a great thing & now gone.
Now its in hand of gavin to represent bitcoin.
satoshi is still in the bitcoin world & doing what he can in some other name.

[The-Real-Link]

I hadn't seen this but found the entire thread a worthwhile and insightful read.  Gavin, thank you very much for showing us your experiences with an organization most people would normally tend to fear or be wary about.  I think your presentation was very nicely done (or well, the PDF at any rate). 

[kentrolla]

so did gavin give the cia the master key?

[BkkCoins]

Forgive my ignorance, still learning here.

Is Bitcoin at risk should an individual lead developer (or all of them together) become compromised?
Does a "master key" exist that one could give up to an alphabet agency, enabling the agency to do harm to the blockchain?

so did gavin give the cia the master key?

There is no master key. That would make it all worthless.
But I suspect that if Gavin was compromised it would have a negative impact.

[Gyrsur]

Forgive my ignorance, still learning here.

Is Bitcoin at risk should an individual lead developer (or all of them together) become compromised?
Does a "master key" exist that one could give up to an alphabet agency, enabling the agency to do harm to the blockchain?

so did gavin give the cia the master key?

There is no master key. That would make it all worthless.
But I suspect that if Gavin was compromised it would have a negative impact.

If Gavin was compromised and would delay the Bitcoin experiment other people would take over his part and put Bitcoin forward.

But Bitcoin is still an experiment if you look around. What I can see is speculation, gambling, hoarding. Not interesting for ordinary people at the moment. IMHO

[rjk]

There is no master key. That would make it all worthless.

The "master key" in this case is the key that is used to sign messages that get broadcast to all nodes, for instance to warn of a security vulnerability. As far as I know, that particular key isn't used for anything else, but I'm not sure of that.

[MoonShadow]

There is no master key. That would make it all worthless.

The "master key" in this case is the key that is used to sign messages that get broadcast to all nodes, for instance to warn of a security vulnerability. As far as I know, that particular key isn't used for anything else, but I'm not sure of that.

There is no such of that kind of master key, either.  That was only a proposal discussed a couple years ago that never went anywhere.