Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Adrian-x]

They get it! I wouldn't expect them to drop terms like sha-256 and ecdsa but they get the basic concept! And with the Senator knowing that a stolen private key can be used to modify the public ledger! How far we have come

edit: YES! they even get that you can use Bitcoin to hedge against unstable inflation!

the best part was that Shassky understands that Bitcoin can be used as a legitimate store of value.

She is pro Bitcoin it makes here job way easier, it puts the responsibility of identifying criminal public key holders on all levels of law enforcement.  Today I wish she would have held her toung and just corrected fud.

[1713295292]

1713295292

[1713295292]

1713295292

[1713295292]

1713295292

[1713295292]

1713295292

[Spaceman_Spiff]

She is pro Bitcoin it makes here job way easier.

I think she is neutral.  She just wants to do her job well.

[jojo69]

My "most-awesome" reward of today goes to Warner, for implying bitcoin could become the world reserve currency   .

for a while there they were more like "as" not "if"

electrifying stuff

Wtf, only "can" and "if"?

Give me a call when he says: "will" and "when".

I distinctly remember a couple of them saying basically "as this becomes more prevalent"  not directly in the context of becoming the reserve currency.

[Adrian-x]

I've long come to terms with the likelihood that if Bitcoin is to have any success, it will be corrupted. The greatest manifestation of this was in March, when a group of developers and pool ops colluded to pick a particular chain over another. While everyone cheered at how well it was handled, I died a little inside over the brainwashing Bitcoiners have subjected themselves to and the ignorance to this problem. We have what I believe to be benign devs and pool ops now, but it will not always be so.

I do not believe for one second that most Bitcoin users are or will ever again be able to read and analyze open source code or even to adequately judge the opinions of those who can and "vote" for that which is in their interest. Neither do I believe that ASIC ownership will stay as distributed as it is now once profit margins tighten and it becomes a game of electricity prices and wholesale.

And then, there is of course the block size issue. We increase the block size, we will increase centralization due to higher requirements for nodes. Block size stays the same, people will inevitably be forced to use third parties to transact BTC as blockchain transaction fees skyrocket.

Decentralization comes with costs. That is why normally, markets favor centralization. It is to be seen how great they are.

As a miner I realised I gave my power to the pool and my pool owner is IMO a simpleton on these political issues.

P2pool seems a little more reliable so it isn't all doom and gloom.

What I concluded was you want old coins as it is the old coins that vote with there spending power. In effect they keep the stability of the network safe. A fork gives old coins serious double spending ability and provide a motive to maintain the Status quo would it not?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I think many people on here coming from a libertarian (I'm in that category) or full-out anarchy philosophy tend to view government as one giant beast, whose actions are coordinated and deliberate. I think the reality is that gov is a loose collection of individuals, most of whom just want to do their jobs, maybe get some praise every now and then, and take home a paycheck. Regulators want to meet their mandates, law enforcement wants to catch people who break the law, the Fed wants to meet their inflation and employment targets, and politicians want to get re-elected. The notion that there's a coordinated well-thought-out deliberate conspiracy across agencies, involving calculated strategic deception, to twart bitcoin as a threat to a devious fiat banking regime is....naive. Government is not coordinated. The individuals that comprise it are generally not that visionary. Agencies are composed of a wide array of individuals with all manner of their own ideologies.

I've raised this exact point myself. I call it the collectivist fallacy, and it's one most libertarians fall into. Once this misconception is cleared away it becomes apparent that Bitcoin won't necessarily encounter much resistance from petty bureaucrats as it doesn't directly affect them, or at least it won't seem to them that it will be able to affect them by the time they leave office.

Nevertheless, there are powerful people who do see sound money as a direct threat, and they would see Bitcoin as a threat if only they understood it AND believed there was a decent chance it could take over. The ECB report and others suggest at least some of them see the threat. But do they understand how clear and present it is? Maybe they are too slow to care, but if they did understand they only have two options that I can see: 1) Attempt to suppress it, or 2) Buy in massively.

[cypherdoc]

cypherdoc,

There are many levels to "getting it." The crypto part is fine to just understand as magic, and "can't print it" is nice given the recent anti-banker sentiment, but most of the US and the world still believe that deflation is disastrous, for example.

Now I've heard some theories that the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, etc. actually understand Austrian economics simply because they've been at the money printing game for so long and were bankrolling Keynes and the general mainstream corruption of economics as a science. But even so, why give up their power so easily? They obviously haven't bought in yet or else the price would be a lot higher...unless they're doing it right now. Buying in a major way would be the only way to preserve the level of power they now enjoy, so I can only conclude that very few of them understand the full implications.

And even if they grokked the implications, they'd probably be like most people and assume it will fail, due a lack of understanding of antifragility, emergent order, open source, etc. I just don't think that many people will get this so quickly due to the sheer number of subjects they have to master.

The main thing: if a sizable portion of the government and power elite were really privy to the full extent of what is happening and the likelihood that it really will happen, the price would be a lot higher now than it is. I can't see the world's most powerful people greenlighting or being comfortable with this thing until they've bought in. Maybe we're witnessing soe of the elites jumping in and pulling strings in an effort to outcompete the rest.

i haven't had a chance to rewatch today's hearings but i recall the very first words out of Senator Warren's mouth at the beginning was along the lines that Bitcoin has the potential to profoundly change the entire financial and monetary system with huge implications for taxes, the reserve currency status, and the like.  they're starting to put it together.

the one thing we're witnessing though is the parabolic move in the price which is a helpful indicator of what's going on at the hive mind level.  it's happening quicker than most of us thought.  we almost hit $1000 yesterday.  i think we will go back up and clear that level sometime soon.  after that it'll be gold parity and that fact alone will rock the world.  we're close.  then again, it's only 2013.  the 10 yr plan puts us out to 2020 if things move along at the Internet adoption speed but maybe we're moving even faster than we did back then b/c we're talking about a new form of money.

don't forget i got the "we've got to get moving" thing from you.   and i happen to wholeheartedly agree.  even when ppl "get it" it takes them time to act.  Bitcoin is so foreign and new that it will cause them to pause.  these things tend to come in waves.  i convinced 2 of my friends last Spring to buy as the ramp began.  we topped @ 266 and crashed.  did they buy more?  NO.  and what did i hear all this past week?  whining about how they wished they'd bought more.  that's just how ppl act even after they've made an initial commitment.

yes, the timing of all this is debatable but all you have to know is that it's going in the right direction.

[Adrian-x]

the gold bugs believe in the end of the world and the internet.  i don't.  that Armageddon play itself is doomed.  Bitcoin doesn't mean Armageddon, it is financial innovation.  i think the US will somehow weave it's way through the mess we find ourselves in and incorporate Bitcoin in some very useful way.  yes, it will take time.  that is indeed optimistic isn't it?  but Bitcoin is going to prove to be a powerful tool that will benefit all of mankind and i think the US realizes it can't afford to shun it.

I'm both more optimistic and more pessimistic or wary than I think you are. I'm more optimistic about what Bitcoin will achieve for the world, but more wary about what the central bankers will do when they realize the extent of the threat. I'm not saying I necessarily expect these government people to be up in arms, but I expect someone in the power elite to be. Probably many people. I'm not necessarily pessimistic, just wary of what kind of attacks will come. I don't think the banking dynasties will give up without an epic fight, if they aren't too blindsided to wage one.

And what if they see the writing on the wall?  And they decide "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"?  Being in a position of power, if you could see that bitcoin could really become the world reserve currency, how about buying a f*ckload with your own money?

This accounts for much of the speculative value today, given the binary nature of Bitcoin. (And by no means is the writing on the wall.)

But after today's hearing the presentations didn't seem as well prepared. And I felt no definitive understand was reached.

My expectation is the powers that be saw no pillar of strength in Bitcoin and we'll see resistance from the tentacles of the existing power structure managed through the central banks.   

[jojo69]

What pool you with Adrian-X ?

[cypherdoc]

the gold bugs believe in the end of the world and the internet.  i don't.  that Armageddon play itself is doomed.  Bitcoin doesn't mean Armageddon, it is financial innovation.  i think the US will somehow weave it's way through the mess we find ourselves in and incorporate Bitcoin in some very useful way.  yes, it will take time.  that is indeed optimistic isn't it?  but Bitcoin is going to prove to be a powerful tool that will benefit all of mankind and i think the US realizes it can't afford to shun it.

I'm both more optimistic and more pessimistic or wary than I think you are. I'm more optimistic about what Bitcoin will achieve for the world, but more wary about what the central bankers will do when they realize the extent of the threat. I'm not saying I necessarily expect these government people to be up in arms, but I expect someone in the power elite to be. Probably many people. I'm not necessarily pessimistic, just wary of what kind of attacks will come. I don't think the banking dynasties will give up without an epic fight, if they aren't too blindsided to wage one.

And what if they see the writing on the wall?  And they decide "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"?  Being in a position of power, if you could see that bitcoin could really become the world reserve currency, how about buying a f*ckload with your own money?

This accounts for much of the speculative value today, given the binary nature of Bitcoin. (And by no means is the writing on the wall.)

But after today's hearing the presentations didn't seem as well prepared. And I felt no definitive understand was reached.

My expectation is the powers that be saw no pillar of strength in Bitcoin and we'll see resistance from the tentacles of the existing power structure managed through the central banks.   

seems to me that those banks would have taken the opportunity to really hammer home alot of negative implications during these very hearings.

also, why would Bernanke come out yesterday with the positive comment on Bitcoin?

not to mention, Schumer got on the band wagon today inexplicably and flat out said he doesn't want to ban Bitcoin. 

[thezerg]

I think many people on here coming from a libertarian (I'm in that category) or full-out anarchy philosophy tend to view government as one giant beast, whose actions are coordinated and deliberate. I think the reality is that gov is a loose collection of individuals, most of whom just want to do their jobs, maybe get some praise every now and then, and take home a paycheck. Regulators want to meet their mandates, law enforcement wants to catch people who break the law, the Fed wants to meet their inflation and employment targets, and politicians want to get re-elected. The notion that there's a coordinated well-thought-out deliberate conspiracy across agencies, involving calculated strategic deception, to twart bitcoin as a threat to a devious fiat banking regime is....naive. Government is not coordinated. The individuals that comprise it are generally not that visionary. Agencies are composed of a wide array of individuals with all manner of their own ideologies.

I've raised this exact point myself. I call it the collectivist fallacy, and it's one most libertarians fall into. Once this misconception is cleared away it becomes apparent that Bitcoin won't necessarily encounter much resistance from petty bureaucrats as it doesn't directly affect them, or at least it won't seem to them that it will be able to affect them by the time they leave office.

Nevertheless, there are powerful people who do see sound money as a direct threat, and they would see Bitcoin as a threat if only they understood it AND believed there was a decent chance it could take over. The ECB report and others suggest at least some of them see the threat. But do they understand how clear and present it is? Maybe they are too slow to care, but if they did understand they only have two options that I can see: 1) Attempt to suppress it, or 2) Buy in massively.

In fact re the USA Law Enforcement its well documented that agencies would not work together (they essentially compete for the big bust, that gets your agency the funding) and that individual agents would not share their case files with others for the same reason (big busts -> promotion).  This is one reason they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age.

[jojo69]

What pool you with Adrian-X ?

at the time it was BTCguild I'm not mining at the moment.

I would be very interested to learn the particulars of eleuthria's political naivete.  He has been quite good on network decentralization issues I feel.

[Adrian-x]

1)seems to me that those banks would have taken the opportunity to really hammer home alot of negative implications during these very hearings.

2)also, why would Bernanke come out yesterday with the positive comment on Bitcoin?

3)not to mention, Schumer got on the band wagon today inexplicably and flat out said he doesn't want to ban Bitcoin.  

1) I thought I saw bankers influence in undertones (porno guy discussing Bitcoin with central bankers) and in general the presentations today seemed unfounded in fact.

2) on reflection Bernanke called Bitcoin an innovation in low cost payments (he knows it's a financial redistribution virus) and he went on to say he doesn't have the authority to regulate it - reading between the lines he stopped short of saying - he doesn't have the authority to regulate it yet. Implying law enforcement need to OK this for now.

3) yes that was very nice to see.

3) Schumer Shasky sounded like she was on the Bitcoin payroll today not nearly as confident and prepared as yesterday. All in all she was the highlight of the hearing.

[jojo69]

3) Schumer sounded like she was on the Bitcoin payroll today not nearly as confident and prepared as yesterday. All in all she was the highlight of the hearing.

[Adrian-x]

I would be very interested to learn the particulars of eleuthria's political naivete.  He has been quite good on network decentralization issues I feel.

He has been open and sensitive to political issue - he has avoided many of my questions though.
I can only speculate but it is my belief to whom much is given much is expected.

A pool doesn't need to be the equivalent of today's political parties it can be dynamic and still impart proportional representation to it's contributing members.  

[oakpacific]

Much of the worries about mining problem seems unwarranted, the degree of the decentralization of the network is limited by mostly two factors only: the Bitcoin price and its adoption rate.

Had miners been able to receive a yearly revenue as much as that of Paypal, at 10 times the hashrate of current network a USB ASIC miner is still able to remain significantly profitable.

Also, USB miner consumes negligible amount of power, why not just consider your power cost to be spent on buying some lottery tickets? Billions of people bought them each year, what's different when it comes to Bitcoin mining?

[thefiniteidea]

3) Schumer sounded like she was on the Bitcoin payroll today not nearly as confident and prepared as yesterday. All in all she was the highlight of the hearing.

Wait what? She?

doubletake...

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

cypher,

I admit I was too busy watching the developments to actually listen to the hearings. It appears I should. Reserve currency status, tax haven... The mere mention of such things is surprising enough.

This makes me think the next wave is coming very soon. Gears must be turning in many people's heads, many powerful people's heads.

One important difference between Bitcoin and a market commodity is the landgrab aspect. So many people, consciously or not, are thinking of Bitcoin as something to buy low and sell high. A few of us, including of course rpietila and you I'm sure, understand that it's about how many coins you can get. There's no exit. Bitcoin is the ultimate exit - the Bitcoin standard. You can doubt that Bitcoin will succeed and hedge accordingly, but insofar as you believe it will succeed it should be viewed as a landgrab rather than a "buy low, sell high" trade (except with a small portion in order to accumulate more).

As people realize this, the bubbles could come faster and faster, since the dynamic is making that subtle switch from netting maximum fiat to netting maximum coin.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I hate governments BECAUSE they're beasts with many heads.

HOWEVER Bitcoin will be victorious because of this very feature as well: one by one everyone will abandon ship governments out of self-interest. (think Soviet Union)

Yeah that's what I'm thinking. As the rats jump from the ship, the S.S. Bitcoin will be waiting for them with open arms. Not only that, its very presence will allow people to secure their exit before they've actually taken the plunge...and make money even in the interim while they're making up their minds.

[cypherdoc]

I hate governments BECAUSE they're beasts with many heads.

HOWEVER Bitcoin will be victorious because of this very feature as well: one by one everyone will abandon ship governments out of self-interest. (think Soviet Union)

Yeah that's what I'm thinking. As the rats jump from the ship, the S.S. Bitcoin will be waiting for them with open arms. Not only that, its very presence will allow people to secure their exit before they've actually taken the plunge...and make money even if they decide not to jump ship entirely.

while i think TPTB do understand Bitcoin, there's no urgency yet.

until something like the stock market cracks and we go into the next recession, which could be pretty deep, all's well and ppl will bide their time.

the question has always been, when is that going to happen?  can infinite money printing forestall the inevitable?

[Adrian-x]

3) Schumer sounded like she was on the Bitcoin payroll today not nearly as confident and prepared as yesterday. All in all she was the highlight of the hearing.

Wait what? She?

doubletake...

mmm.... yes Schumer is a man LOL