Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[majamalu]

I'm a man of principle I guess

Weren't you a socialist?

[1714012117]

1714012117

[1714012117]

1714012117

[tvbcof]

I'm a man of principle I guess

Weren't you a socialist?

I've changed my mind about whether I want to use that label exactly due to some economic structure preferences.  I believe (now and before) that certain economic activities should be public or have public oversight (like public utility districts) and resource extraction from public lands should be carefully managed for the benefit of all members of society (and that there is a place for public lands) but in general I don't believe in centralized management of economic activity as do many socialists.  Oversight yes in a lot of cases however since unregulated markets often lead to collusion, price fixing, fraud, and other sorts of mischief.  I have probably stronger private property rights views than true socialists.  I do believe in a 'welfare state' where the old and unfortunate are cared for at the expense of those who can shoulder the burden although with strong enough controls that the level of fraud is tolerable.  So for the purposes if this forum I might as well be a 'socialist'.  Or 'communist' to many here.  Whatever.

[zeetubes]

I'm a man of principle I guess

Weren't you a socialist?

Quote from 30+ years ago when I was at college. "In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism it's the other way around."

[zeetubes]

In May, I celebrated my birthday in the backwoods of China. And found myself stuck without any money. Without the credit/debit cards that I loathe so much, I would have been royally screwed. I did have a few silver coins on me but I didn't have to try and use them and I doubt they would have been much use in practical terms. It's way too early to sound the death knell on PMs as store of value just yet, and for the foreseeable future, but the writing is on the wall with crypto currencies. For everyday money, fiats rule for now. But the soon to ship debit cards that use bitcoins in some form or another should be a nice bridge between the current infrastructure and the new.

[majamalu]

Oversight yes in a lot of cases however since unregulated markets often lead to collusion, price fixing, fraud, and other sorts of mischief.

Oversight from whom? Who watches the watchers?

[domob]

Oversight yes in a lot of cases however since unregulated markets often lead to collusion, price fixing, fraud, and other sorts of mischief.

Oversight from whom? Who watches the watchers?

I'm not him, but a possible solution could be to make certain transactions / accountings public.  Oversight and transparency in the way the crowd found out about MtGox's "surprise 200k coins", for instance.  Public blockchains can be useful to provide the public accountability of charities or governmental spending, for instance.

[zeetubes]

Oversight yes in a lot of cases however since unregulated markets often lead to collusion, price fixing, fraud, and other sorts of mischief.

Oversight from whom? Who watches the watchers?

I think what tvbcof is pointing out is that in a totally unregulated world, humans tend to murder, rape, pillage, steal, cheat and much more. Because there are around one billion too many people on the planet, some level of regulation is required in most aspects of life.

[Peter R]

Oversight yes in a lot of cases however since unregulated markets often lead to collusion, price fixing, fraud, and other sorts of mischief.

Oversight from whom? Who watches the watchers?

I think what tvbcof is pointing out is that in a totally unregulated world, humans tend to murder, rape, pillage, steal, cheat and much more. Because there are around one billion too many people on the planet, some level of regulation is required in most aspects of life.

There's an enormous difference between a de-regulated world and a lawless world.  Removing regulation doesn't mean that people can defraud and murder with impunity.  Quite the contrary I would say.  In a de-regulated world, one must build a solid reputation to earn trust.  And so reputation becomes more valuable and thus more protected than in a world where the state attempts to remove all risk.

[Trader Steve]

Oversight yes in a lot of cases however since unregulated markets often lead to collusion, price fixing, fraud, and other sorts of mischief.

Oversight from whom? Who watches the watchers?

I think what tvbcof is pointing out is that in a totally unregulated world, humans tend to murder, rape, pillage, steal, cheat and much more. Because there are around one billion too many people on the planet, some level of regulation is required in most aspects of life.

Tools of self-defense (bitcoin being one of them) that enable you to better protect your life, liberty and property definitely raise the costs of violence. The State, of course, is one of the most prominent aggressors. Departments of "pre-crime" are everywhere. The State regularly commits "certain" acts of violence in order to deter "possible" acts of violence. An abomination really.

Regarding "one billion too many people": Who is one of the "too many?" Is it me? Is it you? Who decides? How do you know there are too many?

Reality: There will never be a "perfect" world where violence does not exist. That doesn't preclude us from doing the activities that can help make it better:

1. Education - show others the benefits of peaceful, voluntary association
2. Self-Government ("Autarchy" as coined by Robert LeFevre) - make sure that we, ourselves, are not violators of other people's life, liberty and property.
3. Self-Defense - continue building the tools that help protect us from the sociopaths and ignorants that do not respond to #1.

[cypherdoc]

This is big news for those who are worried They might turn off the Internet to block bitcoin tx's:

http://m.slashdot.org/submission/3694105

[tvbcof]

Oversight yes in a lot of cases however since unregulated markets often lead to collusion, price fixing, fraud, and other sorts of mischief.

Oversight from whom? Who watches the watchers?

I'm not him, but a possible solution could be to make certain transactions / accountings public.  Oversight and transparency in the way the crowd found out about MtGox's "surprise 200k coins", for instance.  Public blockchains can be useful to provide the public accountability of charities or governmental spending, for instance.

Very well put, and very much a key part of a solution to this very real problem.  I'm a big advocate of transparency.  Off-hand I would say that anyone who earns a living working for the government or using taxpayer money has little privacy, and at certain higher levels, almost none.  They would make a decent living and be paid generously, but they would be in a shit-load of trouble if they abused their authority with real punishment for malfeasance.  I would like it if there were career public servants who worked under a verifiable meritocracy.

People who do NOT make a living off the government are just the opposite.  We would have much more privacy and autonomy than we have now. 

Unfortunately things in the U.S. are going in exactly the wrong direction in this respect, and fairly rapidly.  The danger of this trend is significant.  I do fear that we are on the fast-track to genuine totalitarianism.

[tvbcof]

This is big news for those who are worried They might turn off the Internet to block bitcoin tx's:

http://m.slashdot.org/submission/3694105

Good find.  Now you might start to understand why I've been super paranoid about block size (aka, transaction rate) for three years now since I've been around.  Also why I am so enthusiastic about 'sidechains'.

Since I've not pointed it out in a while, I'll again note that even in the most hostile environments where there is anything like the Internet we know today (even if it is just acoustic modems) it will be possible to perform a transaction (though it could be dangerous and tricky.)  This is because it is a tiny bit of data which can slip through a very tiny crack.  Actually operating an infrastructure which can see a bunch of other people's transactions and process them is a different matter.  The attack surface of someone attempting that is much greater.  At a rate of 1MB/block (and a block frequency of ~1block/10min) the Bitcoin system itself could probably exist on an auxiliary and defensible networks.  Currently as one of the non-Snowden whistle blowers (Binney?) says "The NSA owns the network."

[Erdogan]

Oversight yes in a lot of cases however since unregulated markets often lead to collusion, price fixing, fraud, and other sorts of mischief.

Oversight from whom? Who watches the watchers?

I think what tvbcof is pointing out is that in a totally unregulated world, humans tend to murder, rape, pillage, steal, cheat and much more. Because there are around one billion too many people on the planet, some level of regulation is required in most aspects of life.

So your plan is to intrude into the markets, and kill a billion? I am sure there is a club for you.

[cypherdoc]

This is big news for those who are worried They might turn off the Internet to block bitcoin tx's:

http://m.slashdot.org/submission/3694105

Good find.  Now you might start to understand why I've been super paranoid about block size (aka, transaction rate) for three years now since I've been around.  Also why I am so enthusiastic about 'sidechains'.

Since I've not pointed it out in a while, I'll again note that even in the most hostile environments where there is anything like the Internet we know today (even if it is just acoustic modems) it will be possible to perform a transaction (though it could be dangerous and tricky.)  This is because it is a tiny bit of data which can slip through a very tiny crack.  Actually operating an infrastructure which can see a bunch of other people's transactions and process them is a different matter.  The attack surface of someone attempting that is much greater.  At a rate of 1MB/block (and a block frequency of ~1block/10min) the Bitcoin system itself could probably exist on an auxiliary and defensible networks.  Currently as one of the non-Snowden whistle blowers (Binney?) says "The NSA owns the network."

i don't think Sidechains is your answer especially if you don't want a for-profit company modifying the core protocol to enable the means for it's own success. 

it's possible that you could get your wish re: block size @ 1MB.  imo, if Gavin really wants to increase block size, he should be doing it now while the stakes aren't so great.  in a few years if the #tx's increases as we expect it to, so will market cap via a price increase as well.  if he's hesitant now, he'll be petrified then to make such a change.  while they have been making some incremental improvements, there is the possibility that the protocol is ossifying down to the point that the only changes to be made will be reactive in the face of an attack or a hard fork.  given neither of those come, 1MB/block may be as big as we ever see and in that case it may be consistent with Bitcoin having a shot at the world's reserve currency status.

i do hope that mesh networks, bitsats, bitcoincards, Kryptoradio, and this new Finnish project become mainstream as they would harden Bitcoin and make an attack all but impossible.  and if it requires that blocks stay small so be it.

i also doubt that the NSA owns the internet anymore than Google owns it.  yes, they certainly have the means and force to surveil it, as we've seen, but we are seeing pushback.  once again, i think the big picture depends on how you see the world as a glass half full or half empty.  i think you're more of the latter.

[Pruden]

There's an enormous difference between a de-regulated world and a lawless world.  Removing regulation doesn't mean that people can defraud and murder with impunity.  Quite the contrary I would say.  In a de-regulated world, one must build a solid reputation to earn trust.  And so reputation becomes more valuable and thus more protected than in a world where the state attempts to remove all risk.

The state attempts (and in many cases succeeds) to remove risk because failures at building a solid reputation, that is, negligence, result in people dying, a consequence that no law can amend. That there is no impunity is little compensation to the sufferers.

[smoothie]

This is big news for those who are worried They might turn off the Internet to block bitcoin tx's:

http://m.slashdot.org/submission/3694105

Yes as well as other satellite or cellular means to transmit data.

[tvbcof]

There's an enormous difference between a de-regulated world and a lawless world.  Removing regulation doesn't mean that people can defraud and murder with impunity.  Quite the contrary I would say.  In a de-regulated world, one must build a solid reputation to earn trust.  And so reputation becomes more valuable and thus more protected than in a world where the state attempts to remove all risk.

The state attempts (and in many cases succeeds) to remove risk because failures at building a solid reputation, that is, negligence, result in people dying, a consequence that no law can amend. That there is no impunity is little compensation to the sufferers.

Bitcoin has proven an awesome case study in the 'de-regulated' world.  I cannot count the number of times some entity 'built a solid reputation' for just long enough to take their cash-out at an opportune time.  Over and over again we saw (and probably will continue to see) exchanges and wallet services fold and take everyone's money.  Usually the give back a pittance to preserve some plausible deniability.  The ratio of people who have been chumped out of their BTC vs the number of people who ever held any is truly impressive.  Were such a ratio observed in the real world where the stakes are higher it would be an unmitigated disaster.

In my analysis I would say that many Libertarians (at least in Bitcoinland, but elsewhere as well) have animosity toward regulation and enforcement mainly because in their world they defrauded (or would like to defraud) people fair and square, and the evil state sometimes holds them to account.  How unjust!

Again, in the real world, we see time and time again that when someone says 'de-regulation' it's time to put your hand on your wallet because your pocket is about to be picked.  It's even worse than that though because most of those who claim to want de-regulation actually want anything but.  They are perfectly happy to use state powers to quash and harass competition and apply muscle to the population they are shaking down.  In an environment such as this I am a 'small government' type of guy, and such a thing is becoming more and more or a problem here in the U.S.

[tvbcof]

...  Currently as one of the non-Snowden whistle blowers (Binney?) says "The NSA owns the network."

...
i also doubt that the NSA owns the internet anymore than Google owns it.  yes, they certainly have the means and force to surveil it, as we've seen, but we are seeing pushback.  once again, i think the big picture depends on how you see the world as a glass half full or half empty.  i think you're more of the latter.

What the guy meant is that 'the NSA' (probably including the 5-eyes and networks they've infiltrated) have visibility into a large majority of the global internet.  I've suspected this for some time and it's one of the reason why I have limited confidence in TOR.

It is true that 'visibility' is not exactly the same thing as 'control', but it is also true that with a lot of network gear it is quite trivial to activate filtering at the flip of a switch.  How practical that would be in practice is hard to know without a lot more information.  Comcast was doing interesting things to P2P packets a decade ago on what was at the time a pretty high traffic network.  Concepts of 'network neutrality' (and probably hardware availability and economics) interfered with their procedures, but Obama has just tossed network neutrality out the window.

We've been prepped for some time for a 'cyber 9/11'.  Such prep work usually ends up in an actual event in my observation.  If/when this happens, I expect that we'll see some significant changes to how the global internet functions and it could easily have some fallout on how the Bitcoin network functions.  I do hope that we are at least not completely blindsided and a tiny bit prepared to deal with such a scenario should it occur.

In terms of 'ownership', I would say that for all intents and purposes the NSA 'owns' Google and other corporate networks that operate in the U.S. when push comes to shove.  I'll bet that a good deal of the 'pushback' is nothing more than PR posturing.  I also don't doubt that there is genuine resentment and distaste at the state's methods, and that that sentiment is held from the bottom to the top, but at the end of the day the core responsibility of a corporation is to maximize shareholder profits and having your network shut down and your door kicked in will not achieve that effect.

BTW, it's nice to not be having a complete troll-fest conversation for a change

[Trader Steve]

There's an enormous difference between a de-regulated world and a lawless world.  Removing regulation doesn't mean that people can defraud and murder with impunity.  Quite the contrary I would say.  In a de-regulated world, one must build a solid reputation to earn trust.  And so reputation becomes more valuable and thus more protected than in a world where the state attempts to remove all risk.

The state attempts (and in many cases succeeds) to remove risk because failures at building a solid reputation, that is, negligence, result in people dying, a consequence that no law can amend. That there is no impunity is little compensation to the sufferers.

Bitcoin has proven an awesome case study in the 'de-regulated' world.  I cannot count the number of times some entity 'built a solid reputation' for just long enough to take their cash-out at an opportune time.  Over and over again we saw (and probably will continue to see) exchanges and wallet services fold and take everyone's money.  Usually the give back a pittance to preserve some plausible deniability.  The ratio of people who have been chumped out of their BTC vs the number of people who ever held any is truly impressive.  Were such a ratio observed in the real world where the stakes are higher it would be an unmitigated disaster.

In my analysis I would say that many Libertarians (at least in Bitcoinland, but elsewhere as well) have animosity toward regulation and enforcement mainly because in their world they defrauded (or would like to defraud) people fair and square, and the evil state sometimes holds them to account.  How unjust!

Again, in the real world, we see time and time again that when someone says 'de-regulation' it's time to put your hand on your wallet because your pocket is about to be picked.  It's even worse than that though because most of those who claim to want de-regulation actually want anything but.  They are perfectly happy to use state powers to quash and harass competition and apply muscle to the population they are shaking down.  In an environment such as this I am a 'small government' type of guy, and such a thing is becoming more and more or a problem here in the U.S.

I like to break things down into simple, first principles. In affairs of human relations the primary question I always ask is this: "is this relationship one of mutual voluntary assent or is someone being coerced?" I find this an excellent filter which usually identifies the State as the most common aggressor.

I found the following essay to be very interesting in that regard:

 A Way To Be Free - by Robert LeFevre
http://centerforselfrule.org/a-way-to-be-free/

[cypherdoc]

Hey tv,

One of the State's finest (her ex) is setting up a Bitcoin fund! What a hoot!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-12/wtf-headline-day-blythe-masters-ex-husband-launches-offshored-bitcoin-hedge-fund