Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

This and Abra Global are two beautiful ways of abstracting Bitcoin out of the picture for the benefit of commercial and mass consumer adoption.

Wow, another one I haven't heard of, also with no Bitcoin branding. Could 2015 be the year Bitcoin goes sort of invisible?

[1713560835]

1713560835

[1713560835]

1713560835

[1713560835]

1713560835

[ssmc2]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2015/04/02/how-bitcoin-will-end-world-poverty/

Posted by Steve Forbes himself.

there's that blockchain again!

Yeah I'm beginning to wonder if it's intentional or if they really don't grasp the connection. If the latter, then it truly shows how early days we are and when the undeniable realization does hit, well, hyperbitcoinization here we come.

[cypherdoc]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2015/04/02/how-bitcoin-will-end-world-poverty/

Posted by Steve Forbes himself.

there's that blockchain again!

Yeah I'm beginning to wonder if it's intentional or if they really don't grasp the connection. If the latter, then it truly shows how early days we are and when the undeniable realization does hit, well, hyperbitcoinization here we come.

I keep saying most people investing in cryptocurrencies are going to lose money. It's more than trivial and is because Bitcoin is uniquely complex. There's alot of components to grok at one time and most people aren't equipped to do so especially since the most important component involves sound money. Having been a gold bug really helps.

[tvbcof]

Where this is likely going is Coinbase declaring coins from pools that don't play ball to be "high risk" or alternately declaring all coins of unknown origin to be "high risk". High risk means they won't process transactions involving those coins (will require you to send them back or possibly just seize them) or will close your account if you try to do so.

IIRC Greg Maxwell himself mentioned that Coinbase closed his account.  I think I recall him mentioning it on this thread, or at least this forum.  I don't believe that they appropriated his BTC, but there would be very little to stop them if they were instructed to do by the regulators for whatever reason.

The most plausible reason for Coinbase to do take this action is that Maxwell's coins were mixed, probably with coinjoin which he mostly authored I think.  Certainly the guy has every reason to hodl a boat-load of BTC which he obtained through completely honest means.

I doubt that Coinbase is under any more obligation to tell anyone why they his account than Wells Fargo was when they canceled my bank account.  That is to say, none.  They told me straight up that they had no intention of telling me in writing why my account was canceled, though they did verbally tell me that it was due to my activities with Coinbase.  Coinbase was utterly un-interested in the details which surprised me slightly since they were implicated by name and one would think that such an action if it became a trend could impact their business.

Upshot:  Your projections of the possible future are somewhat off in terms of timing.  The future was already here.  There is room for things to become significantly worse, though, and they probably will.

I can see a situation fairly soon (if not now) where services like Coinbase, etc. will only deal in coins that are something of a closed loop between themselves, Bitpay, and a few others, meaning those services will be available only to customers for whom that is their entire use case for Bitcoin. The rest who trade coins outside "the system" will find themselves in a new version of unbanked.

This is not satoshi's Bitcoin any more.

I suspect that a participant in the Bitcoin ecosystem who is willing to lift the rose-colored classes on occasion and generally keep his eye on the ball will be rewarded for doing so.  At least if they have something non-trivial on the line.  As Gavin guides us gently closer to the alligator's mouth there will be times when it makes sense to take certain evasive actions.

[Melbustus]

...
This and Abra Global are two beautiful ways of abstracting Bitcoin out of the picture for the benefit of commercial and mass consumer adoption.
...

Fine on hand, but on the other it's really annoying when people just say "blockchain technology" because it lets people think that there's a purpose/value to blockchain technology without an independent valuable on-chain asset.

So I suppose we could just start calling the bitcoin blockchain something which cannot rationally apply to anything else. Like: "Secure Blockchain" or something.... eg: "Abra and Align Commerce both utilize the breakthrough Secure Blockchain as rails for cheap and instant global payments."

[vokain]

Where this is likely going is Coinbase declaring coins from pools that don't play ball to be "high risk" or alternately declaring all coins of unknown origin to be "high risk". High risk means they won't process transactions involving those coins (will require you to send them back or possibly just seize them) or will close your account if you try to do so.

IIRC Greg Maxwell himself mentioned that Coinbase closed his account.  I think I recall him mentioning it on this thread, or at least this forum.  I don't believe that they appropriated his BTC, but there would be very little to stop them if they were instructed to do by the regulators for whatever reason.

The most plausible reason for Coinbase to do take this action is that Maxwell's coins were mixed, probably with coinjoin which he mostly authored I think.  Certainly the guy has every reason to hodl a boat-load of BTC which he obtained through completely honest means.

I doubt that Coinbase is under any more obligation to tell anyone why they his account than Wells Fargo was when they canceled my bank account.  That is to say, none.  They told me straight up that they had no intention of telling me in writing why my account was canceled, though they did verbally tell me that it was due to my activities with Coinbase.  Coinbase was utterly un-interested in the details which surprised me slightly since they were implicated by name and one would think that such an action if it became a trend could impact their business.

Upshot:  Your projections of the possible future are somewhat off in terms of timing.  The future was already here.  There is room for things to become significantly worse, though, and they probably will.

I can see a situation fairly soon (if not now) where services like Coinbase, etc. will only deal in coins that are something of a closed loop between themselves, Bitpay, and a few others, meaning those services will be available only to customers for whom that is their entire use case for Bitcoin. The rest who trade coins outside "the system" will find themselves in a new version of unbanked.

This is not satoshi's Bitcoin any more.

I suspect that a participant in the Bitcoin ecosystem who is willing to lift the rose-colored classes on occasion and generally keep his eye on the ball will be rewarded for doing so.  At least if they have something non-trivial on the line.  As Gavin guides us gently closer to the alligator's mouth there will be times when it makes sense to take certain evasive actions.

Worse is here:

[2015-03-27] Evolution Marketplace Collapse Violates Bitcoin Fungibility

http://www.coindesk.com/bonafide-raises-850k-build-reputation-system-bitcoin/
"Moyer, who started his career doing signals intelligence for the army and later for the NSA, used cash as an analogy for the way bitcoin is right now pretty much anonymous [but right now pretty much not at all].

He said:

“You know if I bring you a million dollars of cash there is something wrong. The reason is, you have no way of knowing where that money comes from [but you definitely do with Bitcoin :malicious grin:].”"

[rocks]

...
This and Abra Global are two beautiful ways of abstracting Bitcoin out of the picture for the benefit of commercial and mass consumer adoption.
...

Fine on hand, but on the other it's really annoying when people just say "blockchain technology" because it lets people think that there's a purpose/value to blockchain technology without an independent valuable on-chain asset.

So I suppose we could just start calling the bitcoin blockchain something which cannot rationally apply to anything else. Like: "Secure Blockchain" or something.... eg: "Abra and Align Commerce both utilize the breakthrough Secure Blockchain as rails for cheap and instant global payments."

I like that suggestion.

It seems to me that when most people say they are interested in the "blockchain technology" but not BTC, they are focused on the protocol and ledger aspects of the blockchain and not on the distributed security mechanism of the blockchain. These are two separate things.

It is perfectly possible to have a Google blockchain or a FED blockchain where the 3rd party provides security and maintenance for their own blockchain. These blockchain chains would still have the same protocol, ability for direct transactions, machine to machine micro-payments, etc. They would however lack the distributed security mechanism of bitcoin and rely on trust with the 3rd party. People who say bitcoin's value is the blockchain and not BTC seem to be OK with this scenario.

Bitcoin's blockchain has both "the blockchain protocol" and "the blockchain distributed security mechanism" (which requires the token to have independent value).

We call this "the blockchain" today, but it's really two separate concepts and I think that is what is commonly missed in the general public. If you separate them conceptually, and convince people that the blockchain's distributed security mechanism is valuable and desirable also, then it becomes easier to discuss why the token has to have value. If that person doesn't need a distributed security mechanism and instead trusts the FED, then for them it is just the protocol that has value.

[brg444]

...
This and Abra Global are two beautiful ways of abstracting Bitcoin out of the picture for the benefit of commercial and mass consumer adoption.
...

Fine on hand, but on the other it's really annoying when people just say "blockchain technology" because it lets people think that there's a purpose/value to blockchain technology without an independent valuable on-chain asset.

So I suppose we could just start calling the bitcoin blockchain something which cannot rationally apply to anything else. Like: "Secure Blockchain" or something.... eg: "Abra and Align Commerce both utilize the breakthrough Secure Blockchain as rails for cheap and instant global payments."

I like that suggestion.

It seems to me that when most people say they are interested in the "blockchain technology" but not BTC, they are focused on the protocol and ledger aspects of the blockchain and not on the distributed security mechanism of the blockchain. These are two separate things.

It is perfectly possible to have a Google blockchain or a FED blockchain where the 3rd party provides security and maintenance for their own blockchain. These blockchain chains would still have the same protocol, ability for direct transactions, machine to machine micro-payments, etc. They would however lack the distributed security mechanism of bitcoin and rely on trust with the 3rd party. People who say bitcoin's value is the blockchain and not BTC seem to be OK with this scenario.

Bitcoin's blockchain has both "the blockchain protocol" and "the blockchain distributed security mechanism" (which requires the token to have independent value).

We call this "the blockchain" today, but it's really two separate concepts and I think that is what is commonly missed in the general public. If you separate them conceptually, and convince people that the blockchain's distributed security mechanism is valuable and desirable also, then it becomes easier to discuss why the token has to have value. If that person doesn't need a distributed security mechanism and instead trusts the FED, then for them it is just the protocol that has value.

Other applications attempting to use a block chain data structure are merely creating an alternative type of db. One that is arguably less efficient unless centralized at which point it becomes questionable whether the use of a block chain is preferable.

Bitcoin's data base is unique in that the information it transmits is scarce and a liquid market exists for it.

[Cconvert2G36]

It seems to me that when most people say they are interested in the "blockchain technology" but not BTC, they are focused on the protocol and ledger aspects of the blockchain and not on the distributed security mechanism of the blockchain. These are two separate things.

The former without the latter is akin to putting a horse on roller skates.

Centralized ledgers and protocols precede bitcoin, the blockchain is wholly unnecessary for such a system. 

[brg444]

It seems to me that when most people say they are interested in the "blockchain technology" but not BTC, they are focused on the protocol and ledger aspects of the blockchain and not on the distributed security mechanism of the blockchain. These are two separate things.

The former without the latter is akin to putting a horse on roller skates.

Centralized ledgers and protocols precede bitcoin, the blockchain is wholly unnecessary for such a system. 

You tell that to the lunatics at @Eris (Preston Byrne) 

[Melbustus]

...
This and Abra Global are two beautiful ways of abstracting Bitcoin out of the picture for the benefit of commercial and mass consumer adoption.
...

Fine on hand, but on the other it's really annoying when people just say "blockchain technology" because it lets people think that there's a purpose/value to blockchain technology without an independent valuable on-chain asset.

So I suppose we could just start calling the bitcoin blockchain something which cannot rationally apply to anything else. Like: "Secure Blockchain" or something.... eg: "Abra and Align Commerce both utilize the breakthrough Secure Blockchain as rails for cheap and instant global payments."

I like that suggestion.

It seems to me that when most people say they are interested in the "blockchain technology" but not BTC, they are focused on the protocol and ledger aspects of the blockchain and not on the distributed security mechanism of the blockchain. These are two separate things.

It is perfectly possible to have a Google blockchain or a FED blockchain where the 3rd party provides security and maintenance for their own blockchain. These blockchain chains would still have the same protocol, ability for direct transactions, machine to machine micro-payments, etc. They would however lack the distributed security mechanism of bitcoin and rely on trust with the 3rd party. People who say bitcoin's value is the blockchain and not BTC seem to be OK with this scenario.

Bitcoin's blockchain has both "the blockchain protocol" and "the blockchain distributed security mechanism" (which requires the token to have independent value).

We call this "the blockchain" today, but it's really two separate concepts and I think that is what is commonly missed in the general public. If you separate them conceptually, and convince people that the blockchain's distributed security mechanism is valuable and desirable also, then it becomes easier to discuss why the token has to have value. If that person doesn't need a distributed security mechanism and instead trusts the FED, then for them it is just the protocol that has value.

Other applications attempting to use a block chain data structure are merely creating an alternative type of db. One that is arguably less efficient unless centralized at which point it becomes questionable whether the use of a block chain is preferable.

...

+1. I think people are irrationally enamored with the idea of "blockchains!" right now, and will discover, in due time (and after millions in wasted VC money), that if your design necessitates centralization somewhere in the system (googlecoin, fedcoin), you may as well ditch the whole blockchain encumbrance and just spin up a few redundant server clusters around the world and make a nice API.

There are probably some exceptions, but I think matching use-cases to their ideal spot on the decentralization continuum will show more polarized clustering than people realize right now.

[Melbustus]

It seems to me that when most people say they are interested in the "blockchain technology" but not BTC, they are focused on the protocol and ledger aspects of the blockchain and not on the distributed security mechanism of the blockchain. These are two separate things.

The former without the latter is akin to putting a horse on roller skates.

Centralized ledgers and protocols precede bitcoin, the blockchain is wholly unnecessary for such a system. 

You tell that to the lunatics at @Eris (Preston Byrne) 

Let's just spin up "MarmotCoin" and he'll be completely distracted for a couple years.

[rocks]

...
This and Abra Global are two beautiful ways of abstracting Bitcoin out of the picture for the benefit of commercial and mass consumer adoption.
...

Fine on hand, but on the other it's really annoying when people just say "blockchain technology" because it lets people think that there's a purpose/value to blockchain technology without an independent valuable on-chain asset.

So I suppose we could just start calling the bitcoin blockchain something which cannot rationally apply to anything else. Like: "Secure Blockchain" or something.... eg: "Abra and Align Commerce both utilize the breakthrough Secure Blockchain as rails for cheap and instant global payments."

I like that suggestion.

It seems to me that when most people say they are interested in the "blockchain technology" but not BTC, they are focused on the protocol and ledger aspects of the blockchain and not on the distributed security mechanism of the blockchain. These are two separate things.

It is perfectly possible to have a Google blockchain or a FED blockchain where the 3rd party provides security and maintenance for their own blockchain. These blockchain chains would still have the same protocol, ability for direct transactions, machine to machine micro-payments, etc. They would however lack the distributed security mechanism of bitcoin and rely on trust with the 3rd party. People who say bitcoin's value is the blockchain and not BTC seem to be OK with this scenario.

Bitcoin's blockchain has both "the blockchain protocol" and "the blockchain distributed security mechanism" (which requires the token to have independent value).

We call this "the blockchain" today, but it's really two separate concepts and I think that is what is commonly missed in the general public. If you separate them conceptually, and convince people that the blockchain's distributed security mechanism is valuable and desirable also, then it becomes easier to discuss why the token has to have value. If that person doesn't need a distributed security mechanism and instead trusts the FED, then for them it is just the protocol that has value.

Other applications attempting to use a block chain data structure are merely creating an alternative type of db. One that is arguably less efficient unless centralized at which point it becomes questionable whether the use of a block chain is preferable.

Bitcoin's data base is unique in that the information it transmits is scarce and a liquid market exists for it.

We both agree that the distributed security mechanism has value, we probably also see it because of our politics.

But a centralized blockchain offering the protocol but not the security does have valid purposes to some people. That fact that it is not interesting to me or you does not change that. And there are people working on centralized chains and they will probably be used and be a thing.

Melbustus' point was to separate and highlight the security mechanism as a separate concept by using a separate name. I like that.

I think it will help communicate the "real" bitcoin better and highlight what makes bitcoin, well bitcoin.

[HeliKopterBen]

It is perfectly possible to have a Google blockchain or a FED blockchain

This would be a distributed database.  IMO we need to get the terminology correct.  A blockchain, by definition, is decentralized where validating nodes are controlled by different parties.  Any system where validating nodes are controlled by one party is a distributed database or something else entirely, but not a blockchain.  If someone referred to a horse and carriage as an automobile, they would be wrong.

[sickpig]

Just to add another point to the above list:

Court accepts DOJ's 'state secrets' claim to protect shadowy neocons: A new low.

But then something quite extraordinary happened: In September of last year, the U.S. government, which was not a party, formally intervened in the lawsuit, and demanded that the court refuse to hear Restis’s claims and instead dismiss the lawsuit against UANI before it could even start, on the ground that allowing the case to proceed would damage national security.

i didn't think it was possible but this makes the situation even worse.

And the MSM and every lefty I know is just silent because "their" guy is in office. What this means is the US has fully descended into tribalism, where no one focuses on objective facts and logic as they exist or on first principles, but instead only focus on if their "clan" is wianning.

The R team is just as bad, but at least when they are in office everyone is suddenly against government overreach, whereas otherwise they'd be for it.

It seems that there's really no limit to the bad

http://www.jmwagner.com/

Nothing new under the laws prospective, but this story just seems to summarize all the abnormal aspects mentioned above. This is a really sad story.

[rocks]

Just to add another point to the above list:

Court accepts DOJ's 'state secrets' claim to protect shadowy neocons: A new low.

But then something quite extraordinary happened: In September of last year, the U.S. government, which was not a party, formally intervened in the lawsuit, and demanded that the court refuse to hear Restis’s claims and instead dismiss the lawsuit against UANI before it could even start, on the ground that allowing the case to proceed would damage national security.

i didn't think it was possible but this makes the situation even worse.

And the MSM and every lefty I know is just silent because "their" guy is in office. What this means is the US has fully descended into tribalism, where no one focuses on objective facts and logic as they exist or on first principles, but instead only focus on if their "clan" is wianning.

The R team is just as bad, but at least when they are in office everyone is suddenly against government overreach, whereas otherwise they'd be for it.

It seems that there's really no limit to the bad

http://www.jmwagner.com/

Nothing new under the laws prospective, but this story just seems to summarize all the abnormal aspects mentioned above. This is a really sad story.

Wow, and this is all for just trading Bitcoins outside of the Coinbase or other "clean" KYC abiding services.

It seems a lot of people here disagree with me that the government has any tools to control bitcoin and that forcing everyone to use green address provided by the IRS is an impossibility. Just imagine if this type of government raid/arrest/life destroying case is done against anyone and everyone who is even suspected of having a non-green addresses or of using Bitcoin before the IRS implemented their system (all of us). I'm pretty sure they would be able to convince most people to go along.

Whenever I call Burt and he doesn’t answer right away, she is afraid her daddy has been arrested again.  She is scared of law enforcement and gets nervous when she sees police cars.  She won’t say the Pledge of Allegiance at school.  We had to put her into counseling.  She had to see a counselor every other week until recently (Feb 2015).  Sometimes she will suddenly cry uncontrollably for no reason.  She is afraid the feds will come back and raid our house again.

She should be afraid of the government. That is why our founders gave us the bill of rights and other protections. The baby boomers may have thrown that all away, but maybe after being kicked enough times the following generations will re-learn their lessons and take back what was lost.

[rocks]

It is perfectly possible to have a Google blockchain or a FED blockchain

This would be a distributed database.  IMO we need to get the terminology correct.  A blockchain, by definition, is decentralized where validating nodes are controlled by different parties.  Any system where validating nodes are controlled by one party is a distributed database or something else entirely, but not a blockchain.  If someone referred to a horse and carriage as an automobile, they would be wrong.

To me a blockchain is just that, a chain of crytographically connected blocks. A blockchain can be imagined to have any security mechanism.

Bitcoin's security mechanism is an SHA256 based lottery system, this makes the security mechanism to be a distributed system where any miner can participate and add their hash power.

Google or the FED could create a blockchain with a single signer security mechanism. For example Larry, Sergey or Yellen could have the only key to sign and validate a chain of blocks. They would then issue new blocks every x minutes, creating a chain. Anyone and everyone could transact on that blockchain in the exact same manner as Bitcoin. The only difference is there would be a centralized server to communicate with (not a P2P network) and you'd have to trust Larry, Sergey or Yellen (not distributed hash power).

To me a blockchain is just a chain of crytographically connected blocks, of which there are many options.

Bitcoin's blockchain adds to that by implementing a distributed security mechanism on top of the blockchain. At least that is my terminology.

[justusranvier]

Just to add another point to the above list:

Court accepts DOJ's 'state secrets' claim to protect shadowy neocons: A new low.

But then something quite extraordinary happened: In September of last year, the U.S. government, which was not a party, formally intervened in the lawsuit, and demanded that the court refuse to hear Restis’s claims and instead dismiss the lawsuit against UANI before it could even start, on the ground that allowing the case to proceed would damage national security.

i didn't think it was possible but this makes the situation even worse.

And the MSM and every lefty I know is just silent because "their" guy is in office. What this means is the US has fully descended into tribalism, where no one focuses on objective facts and logic as they exist or on first principles, but instead only focus on if their "clan" is wianning.

The R team is just as bad, but at least when they are in office everyone is suddenly against government overreach, whereas otherwise they'd be for it.

It seems that there's really no limit to the bad

http://www.jmwagner.com/

Nothing new under the laws prospective, but this story just seems to summarize all the abnormal aspects mentioned above. This is a really sad story.

Wow, and this is all for just trading Bitcoins outside of the Coinbase or other "clean" KYC abiding services.

It seems a lot of people here disagree with me that the government has any tools to control bitcoin and that forcing everyone to use green address provided by the IRS is an impossibility. Just imagine if this type of government raid/arrest/life destroying case is done against anyone and everyone who is even suspected of having a non-green addresses or of using Bitcoin before the IRS implemented their system (all of us). I'm pretty sure they would be able to convince most people to go along.

Whenever I call Burt and he doesn’t answer right away, she is afraid her daddy has been arrested again.  She is scared of law enforcement and gets nervous when she sees police cars.  She won’t say the Pledge of Allegiance at school.  We had to put her into counseling.  She had to see a counselor every other week until recently (Feb 2015).  Sometimes she will suddenly cry uncontrollably for no reason.  She is afraid the feds will come back and raid our house again.

She should be afraid of the government. That is why our founders gave us the bill of rights and other protections. The baby boomers may have thrown that all away, but maybe after being kicked enough times the following generations will re-learn their lessons and take back what was lost.

I don't expect any "taking back" to happen in the US.

The cost/benefit doesn't add up.

Those with any sense will simply withdraw and let the Boomers stew in the consequence of their own choices.

[vokain]

Any suggested places to withdraw to?

[justusranvier]

Any suggested places to withdraw to?

Withdrawing is more a state of mind than an aspect of geography.