Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 08:59:10 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 [1216] 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807740 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 03:29:16 AM
 #24301

the way i see it, the market has already beaten down most of your concerns.

yes, there has been lotsa discussion but i'm just looking at the results.  and that is that there is no formal blacklisting services that exist yet that i know about.  and if there is one, i'm sure it's not significant.  do i care when about origin when i buy coins nowadays?  no.

also, i view what CB is doing differently.  i do believe they are dedicated Bitcoin advocates and know and care deeply about fungibility.  it's just that they don't want to go to jail so they track the first hop and i'm sure they'd cooperate with any legal investigation.  but that doesn't mean they are in favor of blacklisting.  in fact, i'm quite sure they aren't.

1. Clearly the market hasn't decided anything. Either Bitcoin is a long, long way from its potential, with many pitfalls and unexpected twists ahead, or it won't ever be very significant.

2. The "Chainanalysis" uproar was two months ago. As far as I know that company is still in business and still working on tracking and risk-scoring, and presumably still has customers or expects to. I very much doubt they are the only company working on these things. I also very much doubt we've heard the last about tracking, whitelisting, blacklisting, bans on mixing/tumbling, etc.

3. Coinbase apparently tracks more than one hop. I'd guess they use services like Chainanalysis, too, but I don't really know. It doesn't really matter what they are in favor of as a matter of opinion, it matters what they do.
1481360350
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481360350

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481360350
Reply with quote  #2

1481360350
Report to moderator
1481360350
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481360350

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481360350
Reply with quote  #2

1481360350
Report to moderator
1481360350
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481360350

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481360350
Reply with quote  #2

1481360350
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481360350
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481360350

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481360350
Reply with quote  #2

1481360350
Report to moderator
1481360350
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481360350

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481360350
Reply with quote  #2

1481360350
Report to moderator
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 03:33:58 AM
 #24302

Quote from: smooth
There is no "natural mixing" that occurs, really. Inputs to a transaction are all controlled by the same party, unless you are using a mixing protocol like coinjoin.

Let's imagine a bitcoin thief sends three "black" outputs to three recipients whom were not involved with the original crime.  The first recipient then uses this black output along with two other white outputs to purchase something from Overstock.  The output that Overstock receives can now be thought of as gray and is an example of "natural mixing."  

It is the Overstock customer who screwed up here, and and Overstock may well reject the purchase, or require additional documentation and reporting. Let's say Overstock rejects the purchase and sends the coins back. The customer now has mixed gray coins that may be difficult to use for anything, instead of white coins that were clearly usable.

...

I think I see what you're saying Smooth, but I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make: the black listing can occur after the transactions took place.  So suddenly Overstock is stuck with coins that it accepted according to the rules (they appeared to be "white"), but that are now suddenly gray or black.  And if this can happen, then either the currency system is essentially unusable or the blacklisting efforts are largely ignored.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 03:39:34 AM
 #24303

Quote from: smooth
There is no "natural mixing" that occurs, really. Inputs to a transaction are all controlled by the same party, unless you are using a mixing protocol like coinjoin.

Let's imagine a bitcoin thief sends three "black" outputs to three recipients whom were not involved with the original crime.  The first recipient then uses this black output along with two other white outputs to purchase something from Overstock.  The output that Overstock receives can now be thought of as gray and is an example of "natural mixing." 

It is the Overstock customer who screwed up here, and and Overstock may well reject the purchase, or require additional documentation and reporting. Let's say Overstock rejects the purchase and sends the coins back. The customer now has mixed gray coins that may be difficult to use for anything, instead of white coins that were clearly usable.

...

I think I see what you're saying Smooth, but I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make: the black listing can occur after the transactions took place.  So suddenly Overstock is stuck with coins that it accepted according to the rules (they appeared to be "white"), but that are now suddenly gray or black.  And if this can happen, then either the currency system is essentially unusable or the blacklisting efforts are largely ignored.   

Again, or they just act conservatively and try to avoid accepting coins that place them at this risk, which means rejecting coins of unclear or uncertain origin. If your coins come from some part of the explicitly-legal the walled garden (Coinbase, Bitpay, etc.), they will welcome you with open arms. Otherwise they may take a pass, even if you coins are (or might be) perfectly fine.

I don't disagree the currency system may become unusable under these conditions, or have limited potential. Fungibility is very important. It just isn't assured by the technology in any way I see.

EDIT: Also I would imagine a method for Overstock to legally separate the gray coins in the instance you describe. They could take 1.5 BTC which contains 0.5 BTC of blacklisted coins, split off 0.5 and send it to some government-blessed escrow or claims fund, with the remaining 1.0 BTC being white again. Of course Overstock still takes a 0.5 BTC loss here, which again is going to make them want to be careful what coins they accept. So, again, not fungible.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 03:53:45 AM
 #24304

Quote from: smooth
There is no "natural mixing" that occurs, really. Inputs to a transaction are all controlled by the same party, unless you are using a mixing protocol like coinjoin.

Let's imagine a bitcoin thief sends three "black" outputs to three recipients whom were not involved with the original crime.  The first recipient then uses this black output along with two other white outputs to purchase something from Overstock.  The output that Overstock receives can now be thought of as gray and is an example of "natural mixing."  

It is the Overstock customer who screwed up here, and and Overstock may well reject the purchase, or require additional documentation and reporting. Let's say Overstock rejects the purchase and sends the coins back. The customer now has mixed gray coins that may be difficult to use for anything, instead of white coins that were clearly usable.

...

I think I see what you're saying Smooth, but I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make: the black listing can occur after the transactions took place.  So suddenly Overstock is stuck with coins that it accepted according to the rules (they appeared to be "white"), but that are now suddenly gray or black.  And if this can happen, then either the currency system is essentially unusable or the blacklisting efforts are largely ignored.  

Again, or they just act conservatively and try to avoid accepting coins that place them at this risk, which means rejecting coins of unclear or uncertain origin. If your coins come from some part of the explicitly-legal the walled garden (Coinbase, Bitpay, etc.), they will welcome you with open arms. Otherwise they may take a pass, even if you coins are (or might be) perfectly fine.

I don't disagree the currency system may become unusable under these conditions, or have limited potential. Fungibility is very important. It just isn't assured by the technology in any way I see.

you're missing the point that it might not need to be assured by the technology.

what might assure fungibility is mere market behavior.  it's quite possible the community herd instinctively understands that by accepting blacklisted coins we encourage a massive crowd effect which might positively determine Bitcoin's outcome as a successful currency despite your individual technical privacy concerns.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 03:56:59 AM
 #24305

Quote from: smooth
There is no "natural mixing" that occurs, really. Inputs to a transaction are all controlled by the same party, unless you are using a mixing protocol like coinjoin.

Let's imagine a bitcoin thief sends three "black" outputs to three recipients whom were not involved with the original crime.  The first recipient then uses this black output along with two other white outputs to purchase something from Overstock.  The output that Overstock receives can now be thought of as gray and is an example of "natural mixing." 

It is the Overstock customer who screwed up here, and and Overstock may well reject the purchase, or require additional documentation and reporting. Let's say Overstock rejects the purchase and sends the coins back. The customer now has mixed gray coins that may be difficult to use for anything, instead of white coins that were clearly usable.

...

I think I see what you're saying Smooth, but I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make: the black listing can occur after the transactions took place.  So suddenly Overstock is stuck with coins that it accepted according to the rules (they appeared to be "white"), but that are now suddenly gray or black.  And if this can happen, then either the currency system is essentially unusable or the blacklisting efforts are largely ignored.   

Again, or they just act conservatively and try to avoid accepting coins that place them at this risk, which means rejecting coins of unclear or uncertain origin. If your coins come from some part of the explicitly-legal the walled garden (Coinbase, Bitpay, etc.), they will welcome you with open arms. Otherwise they may take a pass, even if you coins are (or might be) perfectly fine.

I don't disagree the currency system may become unusable under these conditions, or have limited potential. Fungibility is very important. It just isn't assured by the technology in any way I see.

you're missing the point that it might not need to be assured by the technology.

what might assure fungibility is mere market behavior.  it's quite possible the community herd understands that by accepting blacklisted coins we encourage a massive crowd effect which might positively determine Bitcoin's outcome as a successful currency despite your individual technical privacy concerns.

I do acknowledge that (or something else unforeseen that makes the problem go away) is possible. If I thought Bitcoin had no chance to succeed I would have dumped mine a long time ago.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 19, 2015, 04:17:32 AM
 #24306

Quote
Coinbase et al. may attempt to keep their users inside a walled garden that is only allowed to transact with other people in the same walled garden, but they won't get away with it in the long term.

I'm not so sure. That's certainly now how things are going now.
They are going to make the attempt. Whether because they want to, or because they are helpless pawns of regulatory forces beyond their control, is irrelevant.

In the end, it won't work. Unencumbered bitcoins will always have more purchasing power than restricted bitcoins. The price incentives this situation creates will ensure the eventual failure of their walled garden attempts.
Johnny Mnemonic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 633



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:02:39 AM
 #24307

This is only a debate because at this point nobody (that we're aware of) has been falsely imprisoned due to mistakes in blockchain analysis. You can mix your coins all you want, but that doesn't mean your money can't be connected to something illegal.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:12:47 AM
 #24308

This is only a debate because at this point nobody (that we're aware of) has been falsely imprisoned due to mistakes in blockchain analysis. You can mix your coins all you want, but that doesn't mean your money can't be connected to something illegal.

Good point. And conversely, with a transparent blockchain it's more likely that the truth will prevail than with an obfuscated blockchain.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
aminorex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Sine secretum non libertas


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:40:02 AM
 #24309

This is only a debate because at this point nobody (that we're aware of) has been falsely imprisoned due to mistakes in blockchain analysis. You can mix your coins all you want, but that doesn't mean your money can't be connected to something illegal.

Good point. And conversely, with a transparent blockchain it's more likely that the truth will prevail than with an obfuscated blockchain.

The truth does not have a gun.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.  Give a man a Poisson distribution and he eats at random times independent of one another, at a constant known rate.
domob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 937


View Profile WWW
May 19, 2015, 05:50:29 AM
 #24310

Regarding the recent privacy debate here, has anyone seen JoinMarket? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=919116.0

IMHO that's a very interesting project, and may well finally lead to more liquidity in CoinJoin providers (simply due to a profit motive).

Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
Donations: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS | GPG 0xA7330737
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 05:57:27 AM
 #24311

Quote
Bond markets rarely if never go from $50 trillion "market cap" to "no ask" instantly.

(You probably meant no bid.) And besides they do: I was quite close to follow the shtf in Sept-Oct 2008, when mutual funds closed the redemption window as there was no bid for their assets, and consequently no way to calculate the daily value, nor liquidity obtainable to process the redemptions.

Yes "no bid". I meant sovereign bond markets and more specifically the bond market of the global reserve currency. When these beasts go no bid that is collapse of an empire, thus very rare perhaps every 309 years (I believe that might be the cycle according to Armstrong's model,haven't verified).

...but this resource grab is so out of whack in relation to global consciousness and fairness that it is not easily done. They need the consent of the sheep at minimum to do it, but otoh the population of sheep (the boomers) will soon experience a rapid decline due to the reason that TPTB is killing them via the big pharma! Wink So it's not going to be easy.

And even if they manage to continue along these lines, they cannot easily destroy the knowledge capital which anyway grows every year, keeping the population's share of the total capital high.

You've hit precisely on my bifurcation of the global economy into a dying NWO and prospering Knowledge Age.

I do believe many of the youth are hopelessly ingrained with socialism ideology and thus they will support the NWO as a "reform the system, 99% against the 1%". You can clearly see this in both the Occupation Wallstreet rallies and even the posts of the younger guys in this thread (they think they are fighting for freedom yet they are really fighting for a collectivized outcome...and boy do they fight for it!).

Quote
capital flows into the USA will have no where alsoelse to go! because the investors won't have the knowledge or options and the capital is finally realized as destroyed).

I hope you realize Pruden's point that what you call "capital" here is "liquidity" and that is not affected by changes in asset values, rather it is diametrically the opposite: rising liquidity causes the fall of interest rates and they both cause the rise in asset values and vice versa.

And I hope you realize that my point is that "capital" can't be measure a priori. We only know the difference between "liquidity" and "capital" after the "the tide goes out, and we can see who wasn't wearing underwear" (Warren Buffet).

Quote
So relatively the knowledgeable capital—that can flow out of bonds into gold and crypto—is immense.

My bold 2013 prediction for forward escape and bitcoin singularity (the collapse of fiat and bonds, leaving only the CB's printing money to prop up their market in hyperinflation, and the printed money chasing bitcoin prices up to unfathomable heights denominated in currency, and quite high in purchasing power as well  - it is already the case that CB's buy all the new bond issuance as there is no sane market actor doing it with their own money!) was just a few years early. With the developments in Bitcoin in the last 2 years with TPTB buying clandestinely with both hands and enacting draconian regulation in this 100% transparent chain, I have more confidence than ever to the scenario becoming true soon.

You underestimate the degree to which socialism is ingrained in the psychology of the people.

And you underestimate the technological weaknesses of Bitcoin that put into the lap of regulation (that the people want!).

Afaics, your conceptual logic is astute (and even you formulate the concepts in a way that adds value to my understanding), but IMHO your analysis is not sufficiently pragmatically based in reality. That is why I was railing against your predictions and I was correct.

They are trying to use it for entrapment of the value to a thing they can control to a larger extent even than the present assets. For this reason diversifying to the private cryptocurrencies now is very prudent. Armstrong's model forecasts that the private assets will enjoy in the coming years, and that includes Bitcoin only to the point that it is perceived as a private asset. Unfortunately in my thinking it is strongly entrenched in a slide to not being one in the years to come.

There are at least two some what orthogonal phenomenons, A) mainstream thinking about what is an alternative asset and/or hot speculation, B) what is actually a protection against the government's (TPTB's) expropriation.

Bitcoin is likely to succeed wildly at A and I assert fail at B.

Problem cryptos have is that most people doesn't trust them (i.e. "they can go poof overnight"). Bitcoin will gain more trust because of the behemoths that will be offering online wallets, etc..

To get around this trust/scale dilemma requires a novel approach that can drive popularity that is orthogonal to misunderstandings and concerns about viability of decentralized digital stores of value. This is one of the key paradigms I addressed in my marketing design for an altcoin.

Quote
[1] Note Fekete was the one who taught me that gold is used as a store-of-value because it has very high stocks-to-flows ratio.

To me as well. But confidence in gold was formed during millennia, cryptos have quite a game ahead for gaining the same level of confidence, because low inflation == premine, and there is no question that all the cryptos that exist have far too much tilted to gaining the low inflation too early, and attempting to make a huge value grab to early adopters. Despite its infancy, I dare to say that CKG is the most level-headed attempt at correcting the flawed economic thinking in cryptocurrency issuance.

We had that discussion about distribution recently the Economic Totalitarianism thread. I agree with the issues that have to be balanced.

But I don't think the primary reason for not hurdling the distrust curve is inflation concerns and speculators' opinions. Rather I think if you want to leapfrog Bitcoin you have to paradigm shift that issue. As I wrote, your idea to distribute CKG to those who play the game more is in line with that sort of paradigm shift. Now you just need to make sure they are spending the coin in the game and not just sitting on it as speculators only.

P.S. I am on the road and my replies are very rushed.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:09:03 AM
 #24312

  • Accepted - Widely used and valued by the population - Not yet, Bitcoin misses here for now (gold is betterworse)

Sorry I can't register domain names for an altcoin anonymously with gold. I've never paid for anything with gold nor silver, yet I have purchased many things with Bitcoin.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:20:44 AM
 #24313

Monero is...what Bitcoin was promised to be (but is not, and likely cannot be) - private cash, and nothing more.

What was Bitcoin "promised to be"?  How does the Bitcoin of today not fulfil the description from the Satoshi white paper?  Bitcoin is more useful than Monero because it does not force privacy upon its users.  It gives its users the freedom to choose their privacy requirements.  Cryddit (Ray Dillinger) made a series of insightful posts beginning here arguing against all but niche adoption of strong-privacy coins.

Cryddit's logic is a dinosaur still stuck in the brick-and-mortar Industrial Age, and entirely missing the point of the Knowledge Age. In the Knowledge Age, we obviate the need for trust and everything moves to a meritocracy on the actual content and knowledge, e.g. open source. I have specific ideas of how this will interface with crypto which I won't detail now. You can't have a meritocracy if you can't avert the Economic Totalitarianism coming. We've moved beyond being able to choose. It is being forced on us.

Bottom line is a paradigm shift coming which is going to sweep away your jaded, outdated assumptions.

OTOH, I do understand the criticism that if you have strong anonymity in a coin, then the authorities might be more likely to crack down on it in the future. Thus my thought is that if you put strong anonymity in a coin, you better have all the other aspects worked out so that the coin can't be attacked technologically. Monero doesn't appear to have done that afaik.

Furthermore, even if you assume that protocol-enforced privacy is a positive (which I don't), the trade-offs made to get that privacy have real costs.  But we won't fully know what these costs are until something like Monero is trading at a much higher market cap and transaction volume.  

That being said, I like Monero because (a) it had a fair launch, and (b) it offers something unique.  I would love to see it overtake Dash (Darkcoin) and then Litecoin.  But I think best-case scenario for Monero is a few % of the bitcoin market cap.

Monero's anonymity is optional.

I am an autodidact psychologist. I think you like Monero's "fair launch" (no it wasn't entirely fairly launched but that is not relevant to the point I am making) because that "fair launch" has made it nearly impossible to fund the massive amount of work that needs to be done so that it could slaughter Bitcoin. And you really don't want any altcoin to slaughter Bitcoin.

Monero has one small piece of the puzzle done (but not quantum secure and thus in perhaps 15 years all your anonymity is removed), but not nearly enough to scale on all the various points about distribution, use as currency, and scaling the mining decentralized, etc.. And I am not 100% confident that Monero is anonymous but I don't make any specific allegation. I am just not yet comfortable because I haven't put in the effort to do the analysis in great detail on the crypto and the combinatorial type attacks on the rings.

Nevertheless if you need a few years of anonymity on a blockchain, I think Monero is probably the best there is right now. And kudos to the devs!

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:32:55 AM
 #24314

Cryptocurrency 2.0 (or do I mean 1.0?) ideally would keep the distributive and verification aspects as a part of the tx/mining network as we know it, but somehow allow the acceptance of the transaction to be determined only by the individual/s who receive it.

You are getting closer and closer to my solution. Kudos. Smart.

Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:35:04 AM
 #24315

Cryptocurrency 2.0 (or do I mean 1.0?) ideally would keep the distributive and verification aspects as a part of the tx/mining network as we know it, but somehow allow the acceptance of the transaction to be determined only by the individual/s who receive it.

You are getting closer and closer to my solution. Kudos. Smart.

stop talking

Vires in numeris
klee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:37:11 AM
 #24316

TPTB_need_war do you think technology per se can help us?

I think it needs a political battle too from the people - time to unite & challenge this elite!

Tools/weapons will be of great help but 'blood' will be needed too.

If we are fragmented and isolated to each other behind anonymity, stealthiness etc how can we win this battle?

Guerilla warfare is enough?

Just questions that I have no definite answer...

EDIT: We have to use probably both Ninja tactics AND Spartan (heroic, self sacrificing groups of people)
EDIT 2: Anyone thinking just to get rich and 'escape' by himself is delusional IMHO. Also, if you think we are not at war... (last edit not directed to you TPTB)

BTC: 1K9atu5zgz7izCMAynk5adBJ8Qn2YgS6nT
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:37:33 AM
 #24317

Privacy has not usually been considered a core requirement for money

Some where upthread I quoted Nick Szabo on "TTP" as disagreeing with you. He said personal property has always been orthogonal to the need to trust a third party. Without optional privacy, then inherently you must trust the society and the government not to steal from you.

I think what you meant to write is that privacy has never been a non-optional property of money.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:38:54 AM
 #24318

stop talking

correct. soon.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:48:54 AM
 #24319

TPTB_need_war do you think technology per se can help us?

I think it needs a political battle too from the people - time to unite & challenge this elite!

Tools/weapons will be of great help but 'blood' will be needed too.

If we are fragmented and isolated to each other behind anonymity, stealthiness etc how can we win this battle?

Guerilla warfare is enough?

Just questions that I have no definite answer...

EDIT: We have to use probably both Ninja tactics AND Spartan (heroic, self sacrificing groups of people)

In the one world reserve currency thread in the Economics forum (and else where such as my reply to rpietila a few minutes ago above) have argued that the masses are going to fall into the NWO outcome and there is nothing we can do to stop that. The political outcomes always favor the banksters, e.g. Napolean's revolution reestablished the same type of system that existed before it. The reason is because of human nature and the Iron Law of Political Economics (Google it).

I believe the technological win is a political win, because when people vote with their actions instead of the voices, then an economic avalanche effect occurs. This is what we were hoping for with Bitcoin, but the technology is not quite right.

We fight by switching our economy.  No words. Just a clearly superior option that people adopt because it makes their life better.

Remember I had linked upthread to where I point out the TPTB can't take the internet away from us because it has too high of an entropic vacuum sucking everything in. The best they can do is brainwash the masses into sticking with socialism and falling into the NWO and centralized client-serverservant-master websites.

Hard sells never work and mass manipulation is the domain of the Iron Law of Political Economics.

So in short, yes we win with technology but the devil is in the details of that.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 19, 2015, 06:56:40 AM
 #24320

This is why I'll maintain privacy is a matter of usage, but is not a property of money.

Money without optional privacy is a Dark Age.

It is ridiculous to assert that viable privacy is orthogonal to money.

Privacy against the NSA with Bitcoin is very tedious if not impossible.

As we move further into the coming Economic Totalitarianism, the possibility of this Dark Age will become more obvious and visceral.

Problem for Monero is they sell it as being more robust anonymity than CoinJoin or DarkCoin, but Monero is not likely immune to the NSA either since I posit that both I2P and Tor are compromised. Monero's mining would become centralized too if the usage rose to what Bitcoin is facing now.

Climbing the wall of what we need technologically is a massive undertaking.

Pages: « 1 ... 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 [1216] 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!