smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 05:33:11 AM |
|
That's just a bunch of FUD. Tainting coins has not worked once in Bitcoins history. That depends what you mean by worked. If the reports of a blockage of btc-e transactions are correct (I'm not really sure) then people were inconvenienced by the mere attempt to sort through tainted coins, whether or not that attempt was successful. As long as people believe BTC has taint then maybe that perception itself is a problem? This is not the first and won't be the last time we've heard about the concern. In any case, I have to agree with iCEBREAKER that LTC is irrelevant and the more interesting question is other coins that are actually different from BTC in meaningful ways.
|
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 05:59:37 AM |
|
That's just a bunch of FUD. Tainting coins has not worked once in Bitcoins history. You may define down, or otherwise minimize, as rigorously and deflectively as you like the term 'tainting.' smooth and I prefer the functional definition, elucidated via praxis. IE, if you wish to move your coins, but are prevented from doing so by consequence of some third parties' ostensible interest in them rather than technical obstacles, they are by the common understanding 'tainted.' The nightmare scenario for you Old Whales is a whitelist, where by default movement of all non-permitted coins is forbidden. Did you read the linked reddit discussion? Peter Todd makes some good points in this area, albeit on the shaky grounds of the slippery slope trope.
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ Monero
|
| "The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." David Chaum 1996 "Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect." Adam Back 2014
|
| | |
|
|
|
sidhujag
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 06:45:53 AM Last edit: March 22, 2015, 06:57:07 AM by sidhujag |
|
Was satoshis intent to allow for a gold backed bitcoin since there is a reason he chose 21 million units based on amount of gold oz estimated that will be mined? I was also thinking that the limit would be removed though because an exchange medium involving two parties relies on work instead of debt... With proof of work you exchange work for proof of work.. With limit being reached the value of the work stops rising breaking incentive to provide work reducing value as a currency.. Although the population increase may negate that. Maybe you make it asymptotically reach 21 million so that you have an ever increasing value of work and strong incentives to work to mine.. And create efficiencies to mine easier (making it an energy issue rather than a algorithm issue)
|
|
|
|
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 06:53:50 AM Last edit: March 22, 2015, 07:42:21 AM by Zangelbert Bingledack |
|
The nightmare scenario for you Old Whales is a whitelist, where by default movement of all non-permitted coins is forbidden.
Did you read the linked reddit discussion? Peter Todd makes some good points in this area, albeit on the shaky grounds of the slippery slope trope. Voluntary whitelisting will never take off. Government whitelisting might happen, but so might government bans. Both are likely to be isolated/temporary, because of the chilling effects they would have on economic growth in the countries implementing them, once Bitcoin is a little more advanced. Peter Todd is sounding like a codehead, thinking of everything from the technical angle not actual incentives (cypher's meme: "The Geeks Fail to Understand That Which They Hath Created"). There is no slippery slope of incentives for a voluntary whitelist, and that's why it's never been done before. If thieves come to an exchange practically announcing, "THESE COINS ARE STOLEN," the exchange might see it as good PR to refuse them until the coins are better mixed, but if they do any more than that, refusing coins with some level of taint, they just destroy their own business. There's a somewhat bombastic speech by Stefan Molyneux on /r/Bitcoin today where he points out that if people had to pay directly for the war on drugs, it would come to $XXXXX per person, and people would find their moral indignation fading away quite quickly. I think the same is true with whitelists. The momentary outrage at scammers is not realistically going to incentivize people to make actual sacrifices, especially monetary sacrifices. People might say they'd patronize BTC-e if they only take clean coins, but if accounts start getting frozen customers will make a beeline out of there. People think they have a strong opinion when they're gabbing on a forum, but the market reveals how much they really care. It's only in government where people's voice on what they think they want, but would never be willing to pay for, comes to fruition.
|
|
|
|
tabnloz
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 961
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 06:54:58 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4662
Merit: 1276
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 07:16:36 AM |
|
That's just a bunch of FUD. Tainting coins has not worked once in Bitcoins history.
It's never been attempted. The infrastructure has not been developed or if it has it is not yet unvailed. All in good time. Probably we need Gavin's bloatchain to make sure it isn't premature and fails due to adaptation. I personally think that even primitive tainting will work quite well even at this point due to the mechanism I've described multiple times here. We'll see soon enough I suspect unless it waits on Gavin and he gets enough resistance to push back his timing significantly. You may define down, or otherwise minimize, as rigorously and deflectively as you like the term 'tainting.'
smooth and I prefer the functional definition, elucidated via praxis.
IE, if you wish to move your coins, but are prevented from doing so by consequence of some third parties' ostensible interest in them rather than technical obstacles, they are by the common understanding 'tainted.'
The nightmare scenario for you Old Whales is a whitelist, where by default movement of all non-permitted coins is forbidden.
Did you read the linked reddit discussion? Peter Todd makes some good points in this area, albeit on the shaky grounds of the slippery slope trope.
Thankfully my coins are clean so whitelisting for me would only be a disaster insofar as it would destroy any reason whatsoever for anyone to used Bitcoin and thus the solution (and my stash) would eventually die. I'd either cash out before it dawned on people that Bitcoin was useless, or hope that a following system would start out where Bitcoin left off vis-a-vis a value base. Probably some combination of both.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 07:56:36 AM |
|
Was satoshis intent to allow for a gold backed bitcoin No since there is a reason he chose 21 million units based on amount of gold oz estimated that will be mined? and no.
|
|
|
|
uki
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000
cryptojunk bag holder
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 10:02:32 AM |
|
Gold up, Bitcoin down in the last few days, folks. Although in the grand scheme of things it is all versus the US dollar (the king). I don't think Bitcoin and gold are correlated in any direct way.
|
this space is intentionally left blank
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 02:33:45 PM |
|
Gold up, Bitcoin down in the last few days, folks. Although in the grand scheme of things it is all versus the US dollar (the king). I don't think Bitcoin and gold are correlated in any direct way.
i think in the grand scheme vs the dollar they are correlated - as safe havens, store of value.. one digital, and one material - two faces of the same coin. and both subjects to fiat-ers manipulations.
|
|
|
|
_mr_e
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 817
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 04:21:16 PM |
|
JR,
what's up with Odom leaving Monetas? I only know one side of the story right now, so I can't really say. Why aren't more people talking about this? OT was supposed to be huge for Bitcoin, it was Chris' baby for a long time now...
|
|
|
|
belmonty
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 04:41:55 PM |
|
Was satoshis intent to allow for a gold backed bitcoin No since there is a reason he chose 21 million units based on amount of gold oz estimated that will be mined? and no. I might be wrong, but thought there was some programming reason why there are 100 million sats in a bitcoin. That might also be why he chose 21 million total coins.
|
|
|
|
uki
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000
cryptojunk bag holder
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 04:49:24 PM |
|
Gold up, Bitcoin down in the last few days, folks. Although in the grand scheme of things it is all versus the US dollar (the king). I don't think Bitcoin and gold are correlated in any direct way.
i think in the grand scheme vs the dollar they are correlated - as safe havens, store of value.. one digital, and one material - two faces of the same coin. and both subjects to fiat-ers manipulations. that is true, although I think still not that much noticeable for Bitcoin due to relatively small market cap, as it is for gold. Once Bitcoin becomes more widely spread (more applications) I expect similar "trends" as for gold, in function of US dollar.
|
this space is intentionally left blank
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 05:17:13 PM |
|
Gold up, Bitcoin down in the last few days, folks. Although in the grand scheme of things it is all versus the US dollar (the king). I don't think Bitcoin and gold are correlated in any direct way.
weren't you the one with the great log chart of BTC/XAU showing a clear uptrend?
|
|
|
|
sidhujag
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 05:21:12 PM |
|
Was satoshis intent to allow for a gold backed bitcoin No since there is a reason he chose 21 million units based on amount of gold oz estimated that will be mined? and no. Yes "This decreasing-supply algorithm was chosen because it approximates the rate at which commodities like gold are mined." https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supplyIf true then could be yes to first question too because many ppl would feel "safe" with their money in bitcoin backed by gold...ofcourse benefiting the early adopters the most.. The perception that bitcoin is not backed by anything would change and the negative nancies would have nothing else to fight with.. That is when we distribute.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 05:32:18 PM Last edit: March 22, 2015, 05:42:53 PM by cypherdoc |
|
That's just a bunch of FUD. Tainting coins has not worked once in Bitcoins history. You may define down, or otherwise minimize, as rigorously and deflectively as you like the term 'tainting.' smooth and I prefer the functional definition, elucidated via praxis. IE, if you wish to move your coins, but are prevented from doing so by consequence of some third parties' ostensible interest in them rather than technical obstacles, they are by the common understanding 'tainted.' The nightmare scenario for you Old Whales is a whitelist, where by default movement of all non-permitted coins is forbidden. Did you read the linked reddit discussion? Peter Todd makes some good points in this area, albeit on the shaky grounds of the slippery slope trope. i think BTC-e is temporarily deluded at best. first, they have no clear way of proving which coins were stolen. it makes no sense that the thieves would send stolen coins directly to BTC-e for sale w/o a few intermediate hops at least. similarly, "mule" activity can only be suspected, not proved. secondly, while i agree BTC-e has the right to choose to behave as they wish (it being a free mkt), the consequences of such actions will be to destroy their own business as internet of money (Bitcoin) will choose to route around them if their behavior persists. thirdly, i doubt they're acting out of pure ethics; the behavior is suspicious as the owners have been anonymous from the beginning making this freezing of coins highly suspicious. my bet is that they had some of their own coins on Evo and they're just trying to retrieve them. thirdly, do you really think they will just freeze the coins and then destroy them? hell no, they'll eventually have to decide to return them to their rightful owners, destroy them, or turn them over to some law enforcement agency (think DOJ). in the first instance, those owners will then merrily go off and spend those coins freely as if nothing happened and recipients of those coins will do likewise. in the second instance, destroying them would be an untenable act as the rightful owners (if they can even be identified) would scream bloody foul again destroying their customer base. if they try to hold them "forever", suspicions will arise that they might eventually spend them themselves (BTC-e). in the third instance of turning them over to DOJ or some gvt (and here's the real zinger) what do you think they would do with them? Voila! we already have 3 instances of exactly what the feds would do: auction them off. and this is where the ultimate hypocrisy comes from all this moral and legal parsing going on about this tainting issue. when gvts believe they have the moral authority to do what's right for them and them only (auctioning and running off with the proceeds from "illegal activity") they undermine confidence in themselves from the viewpoint of the people. i know that when i see these auctions going off on SR coins or the auction the Aussie authorities are planning, i think hypocrisy, ie theft. this is why the Bitcoin community will ultimately give those tainted coins a pass and accept them in everyday trade. if the gvt can do it, so can they. this "pass" just takes time. in 2 wks, this Evo thing will have blown over. furthermore, if the community refuses to do this, it means the end of Bitcoin as what is paramount is the principle of fungibility.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 05:38:22 PM |
|
Thankfully my coins are clean so whitelisting for me would only be a disaster insofar as it would destroy any reason whatsoever for anyone to used Bitcoin and thus the solution (and my stash) would eventually die. I'd either cash out before it dawned on people that Bitcoin was useless, or hope that a following system would start out where Bitcoin left off vis-a-vis a value base. Probably some combination of both.
i'd bet you have a few of MyBitcoins theft in your stash: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=548508.0
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 05:48:28 PM |
|
Was satoshis intent to allow for a gold backed bitcoin No since there is a reason he chose 21 million units based on amount of gold oz estimated that will be mined? and no. I might be wrong, but thought there was some programming reason why there are 100 million sats in a bitcoin. That might also be why he chose 21 million total coins. that was Vitalik in an article coupla years ago. it was interesting.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 05:51:42 PM |
|
JR,
what's up with Odom leaving Monetas? I only know one side of the story right now, so I can't really say. Why aren't more people talking about this? OT was supposed to be huge for Bitcoin, it was Chris' baby for a long time now... well i tried
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 06:02:14 PM |
|
That's just a bunch of FUD. Tainting coins has not worked once in Bitcoins history. That depends what you mean by worked. If the reports of a blockage of btc-e transactions are correct (I'm not really sure) then people were inconvenienced by the mere attempt to sort through tainted coins, whether or not that attempt was successful. As long as people believe BTC has taint then maybe that perception itself is a problem? This is not the first and won't be the last time we've heard about the concern. there have been multiple attempts to taint BTC's over the years. all have failed. to be clear, i don't condone theft in any way, but the fact of the matter is that Bitcoin IS fungible for all the reasons i've stated above. it has to be to survive. just like USD's are fungible. sure the gvt can issue warnings for certain serial #'s on dollar bills but that is a limited and a non-scalable act (probably purposely). tainting just a few BTC would eventually taint the entire supply of existing BTC as demonstrated in Taras thread i linked to above. it is scalable and therefore dangerous to Bitcoin. tainting is not practical either as just a few hops obfuscates ownership quite effectively w/o extreme degrees of detective work: http://trilema.com/2014/guidance-there-is-no-such-thing-as-bitcoin-taint/any gvt that subscribes to the notion of tainting will only exclude themselves from the growing Bitcoin economy as there will always be gvts somewhere that will allow those coins through either b/c of better understanding of how distributed systems over the Internet work or b/c of greed. In any case, I have to agree with iCEBREAKER that LTC is irrelevant and the more interesting question is other coins that are actually different from BTC in meaningful ways.
i disagree. when the #2 cryptocurrency goes down that sends a big message. this assumes of course that Bitcoin is "good enough" or that it can be adaptable in the future.
|
|
|
|
domob
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1135
Merit: 1170
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 22, 2015, 06:23:13 PM |
|
Was satoshis intent to allow for a gold backed bitcoin No since there is a reason he chose 21 million units based on amount of gold oz estimated that will be mined? and no. I might be wrong, but thought there was some programming reason why there are 100 million sats in a bitcoin. That might also be why he chose 21 million total coins. Usually, one has to take great care when programming with monetary values - floating point numbers as they are dominantly used in computations introduce rounding errors. And because they are based on a binary representation, they can not even store "trivial" fractions like 0.1 in an exact fashion. The solution is to use "fixed-point numbers", which basically means computing in satoshis (as integer value) instead of bitcoins (decimal number required). Just like Bitcoin Core does. However, the number of satoshis in existence is (as far as I read) chosen in such a way that it still "fits" into a standard-format floating point number as used by most programming environments. There are still rounding errors, but for all possible bitcoin amounts, the errors are just below one satoshi. Thus, it is harder to shoot oneself into the foot when programming carelessly. Whether or not this really is the reason for Satoshis original choice or not, I do not know. The initial block reward of 50 BTC and the block schedule looks also "innocent", so maybe he just chose that and the 21 million figure is just what results from it.
|
Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/Donations: 1 domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NC domobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS | GPG 0xA7330737
|
|
|
|