Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[devphp]

Bitcoin Core Developer Greg Maxwell Has ‘Ethical Concerns’ with Altcoins

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/bitcoin-core-developer-greg-maxwell-has-ethical-concerns-with-altcoins/26952

In other words, it sounds like we dont want to stop people buying into fads, we just want them to stop buying into Alternative Chain fads, and to rather buying new Side Chanse fads.

[1714024026]

1714024026

[1714024026]

1714024026

[1714024026]

1714024026

[1714024026]

1714024026

[1714024026]

1714024026

[rocks]

once again, this is why we need to continue focus on what has got us here, Bitcoin as Sound Money.  b/c one day, the sharks will be coming not for your stocks, bonds, or insurance contracts, but your money:

All this fancy footwork is to prevent a run on the TBTF banks, in order to keep their derivatives casino going with our money. Warren Buffett called derivatives “weapons of financial mass destruction,” and many commentators warn that they are a time bomb waiting to explode. When that happens, our deposits, our pensions, and our public investment funds will all be subject to confiscation in a “bail in.” Perhaps it is time to pull our money out of Wall Street and set up our own banks – banks that will serve the people because they are owned by the people.

http://ellenbrown.com/2014/12/01/new-rules-cyprus-style-bail-ins-to-hit-deposits-and-pensions/

hmmm, those personal banks sound like Bitcoin.

That is a pretty decent overview of the G20 bank bain-in plan.

Unlike coins and paper bills, which cannot be written down or given a “haircut,” says Napier, deposits are now “just part of commercial banks’ capital structure.” That means they can be “bailed in” or confiscated to save the megabanks from derivative bets gone wrong.

Rather than reining in the massive and risky derivatives casino, the new rules prioritize the payment of banks’ derivatives obligations to each other, ahead of everyone else. That includes not only depositors, public and private, but the pension funds that are the target market for the latest bail-in play, called “bail-inable” bonds.

“Bail in” has been sold as avoiding future government bailouts and eliminating too big to fail (TBTF). But it actually institutionalizes TBTF, since the big banks are kept in business by expropriating the funds of their creditors.

Sometimes I seriously consider simply closing every single dollar account and going all in on bitcoin and fully exiting the dollar system. Revolutions have started over less. Even if it all goes to zero at least it was the good fight.

[SmoothCurves]

the state is just a bunch of people doing what they know to be good, a little education and an investment in Bitcoin will help align self interest with public good and heal any perversions we see today. 

Could not disagree with this more.

Gold bugs have spent 100 years knowing  they are "right" and waiting for everyone else to education themselves understand history and see the light. Never happened.

In the meantime the state resorted to banning private possession of gold for almost 2 generations in order to break the public's view of gold as money. The state will fight Bitcoin just as hard.

Harder to do that now with 99% of Americans on Social Media

[rocks]

This is basically where I see Bitcoin going.  The coin itself will be (more or less) irrelevant, but the technology (or something like it) will play center stage.  The U.S. government isn't concerned about Bitcoin as a threat to the dollar.  The IRS has already made it impossible to use as a traditional currency without running afoul of tax code.  Report capital gains on every transaction?  Yeah right.  They knew exactly what they were doing .. marginalizing Bitcoin.  Digital currency has been here ever since banks established electronic lines of intrabank credit.  This technology will likely be adopted in some form by governments, with their own strings attached (100% oversight).  People will go along with it.  Middle/upper class Americans simply don't have the stomach for dissent.  They've too much to lose.  Credit cards work fine for now, and when the time comes, a shift will be made to something a bit more streamlined, all the big players will be right there at the trough, make no mistake.

The tax code is a such a serious barrier to adoption now. Remember the FEDs finally brought down the mob not by convicting on actual crimes, but convicting on tax evasion. The Bitcoin tax rules will be so hard to follow it will function as a trap for most people.

If the TV says Bitcoin is for terrorists but both my friends & neighbors use it and have doubled their wealth in the span of a year then I might just consider it.

Greed

We are 100% in agreement on the greed factor, but what if the scenario plays out as:

"The TV says Bitcoin is for terrorists and both my friends & neighbors were dragged into court over tax evasion, one got off but lost his house and the other went to jail." Would kinda dampen the greed factor.

[rocks]

the state is just a bunch of people doing what they know to be good, a little education and an investment in Bitcoin will help align self interest with public good and heal any perversions we see today. 

Could not disagree with this more.

Gold bugs have spent 100 years knowing  they are "right" and waiting for everyone else to education themselves understand history and see the light. Never happened.

In the meantime the state resorted to banning private possession of gold for almost 2 generations in order to break the public's view of gold as money. The state will fight Bitcoin just as hard.

Harder to do that now with 99% of Americans on Social Media

Most twitter comments don't focus on concepts for money. Most seem to be about Kim Kardashian and pictures of dinner.

I fully agree with you that social media should help with education, I'm just trying to point out it is still extremely difficult, maybe we can cross the education hurdle this time, but maybe not.

[neurotypical]

OP should reverse thread title at this point.

[neurotypical]

the state is just a bunch of people doing what they know to be good, a little education and an investment in Bitcoin will help align self interest with public good and heal any perversions we see today. 

Could not disagree with this more.

Gold bugs have spent 100 years knowing  they are "right" and waiting for everyone else to education themselves understand history and see the light. Never happened.

In the meantime the state resorted to banning private possession of gold for almost 2 generations in order to break the public's view of gold as money. The state will fight Bitcoin just as hard.

Harder to do that now with 99% of Americans on Social Media

Most twitter comments don't focus on concepts for money. Most seem to be about Kim Kardashian and pictures of dinner.

I fully agree with you that social media should help with education, I'm just trying to point out it is still extremely difficult, maybe we can cross the education hurdle this time, but maybe not.

Trying to educate people in technical stuff is worthless. Bitcoin will be a success when the kardashians use it to buy dinner and tweet about it. Then maybe, maybe we will be rich with our current smalltime wallets.

[tabnloz]

the state is just a bunch of people doing what they know to be good, a little education and an investment in Bitcoin will help align self interest with public good and heal any perversions we see today. 

Could not disagree with this more.

Gold bugs have spent 100 years knowing  they are "right" and waiting for everyone else to education themselves understand history and see the light. Never happened.

In the meantime the state resorted to banning private possession of gold for almost 2 generations in order to break the public's view of gold as money. The state will fight Bitcoin just as hard.

Yes, they will fight tooth and nail. The question is what are their viable strategies?

Passing a law saying "you may not accept bitcoin as payment, under penalty of 10 year prison sentence", would pretty much destroy bitcoin in that country. There's no ecosystem when no law-abiding person can use it at all.

However that's not the end of the story, other countries' bitcoin economy would continue to flourish at the expense of the iron-fist country. It's possible that pressure might open things back up.  I think the equilibrium is where some fraction of the people use bitcoin, and the rest won't be bothered due to regulations and simple lack of demand. The drug war is similar - drug policy doesn't really stop anyone from smoking a joint, but you have to want it a little more, compared to it being freely available on every corner. The government just selectively enforces the law for their benefit (disproportionately on minorities). Same will happen with bitcoin.  They'll just create a multi-billion-dollar governmental department just for enforcing "bitcoin crime".

I think the "hyperbitcoinization" scenario is sheer fantasy. The vast majority of the population do as they are told, if the tv says bitcoin is for terrorists, they will not be interested.  Only when those people die off and are replaced by bitcoin-savvy youth, might there be a chance for a takeover.

If the TV says Bitcoin is for terrorists but both my friends & neighbors use it and have doubled their wealth in the span of a year then I might just consider it.

Greed

On top of this, I think the fact that the majority of economies worldwide are in the toilet at least gives bitcoin a chance to be heard. Jobs, growth, efficiencies....votes?

[brg444]

This makes it clear that we must be careful to distinguish between the ledger (a conceptual spreadsheet keeping track of who owns what percentage of the economic community known as "the Bitcoin ecosystem" and later perhaps just "the global economy") and the protocol for updating that ledger.

We're back to this silly idea of separating the currency from from the blockchain. You can't, they are one in the same.

This "ledger" rhetoric is a paraphrase of the false idea they are separable.

The system is the blockchain is the currency is the protocol is the ledger.

Yes you could. Not to say the currency can run without a blockchain. Of course it can't.

But you did not address the essence of ZB's argument which is that monoculture in currency is absolutely desirable. We don't want multiple ledgers of ownership where different, conflicting stakes are attributed to the same persons.

This ledger cannot "economically" fail, only the protocol updating it. If that happens, we could still "transfer" a picture of the ledger (who owns what) to a new protocol that will update it. So yes, if the blockchain fail, we could, theoretically, seperate the currency (ledger) and "attach" it to a new chain.

[smooth]

This makes it clear that we must be careful to distinguish between the ledger (a conceptual spreadsheet keeping track of who owns what percentage of the economic community known as "the Bitcoin ecosystem" and later perhaps just "the global economy") and the protocol for updating that ledger.

We're back to this silly idea of separating the currency from from the blockchain. You can't, they are one in the same.

This "ledger" rhetoric is a paraphrase of the false idea they are separable.

The system is the blockchain is the currency is the protocol is the ledger.

Yes you could. Not to say the currency can run without a blockchain. Of course it can't.

But you did not address the essence of ZB's argument which is that monoculture in currency is absolutely desirable. We don't want multiple ledgers of ownership where different, conflicting stakes are attributed to the same persons.

This ledger cannot "economically" fail, only the protocol updating it. If that happens, we could still "transfer" a picture of the ledger (who owns what) to a new protocol that will update it. So yes, if the blockchain fail, we could, theoretically, seperate the currency (ledger) and "attach" it to a new chain.

Well I disagree, and I think this is just part of the process of recognizing that you can't separate the protocol from the ledger. Otherwise, you could simply argue that we already have a ledger (fiat) and we should import that into the protocol. Which of course is exactly what the "bitcoin the protocol not the currency" folks are saying.

You need a new currency because the currency and the protocol are inexorably linked. Change the protocol and the currency also must change. For example, one might imagine (non-bitcoin) protocol that can't possibly work with a fixed money supply because it doesn't charge transaction fees at all.

You can't logically argue that "there is only one ledger" and still accept bitcoin because bitcoin is already creating a new ledger (as it must).

[brg444]

This makes it clear that we must be careful to distinguish between the ledger (a conceptual spreadsheet keeping track of who owns what percentage of the economic community known as "the Bitcoin ecosystem" and later perhaps just "the global economy") and the protocol for updating that ledger.

We're back to this silly idea of separating the currency from from the blockchain. You can't, they are one in the same.

This "ledger" rhetoric is a paraphrase of the false idea they are separable.

The system is the blockchain is the currency is the protocol is the ledger.

Yes you could. Not to say the currency can run without a blockchain. Of course it can't.

But you did not address the essence of ZB's argument which is that monoculture in currency is absolutely desirable. We don't want multiple ledgers of ownership where different, conflicting stakes are attributed to the same persons.

This ledger cannot "economically" fail, only the protocol updating it. If that happens, we could still "transfer" a picture of the ledger (who owns what) to a new protocol that will update it. So yes, if the blockchain fail, we could, theoretically, seperate the currency (ledger) and "attach" it to a new chain.

Well I disagree, and I think this is just part of the process of recognizing that you can't separate the protocol from the ledger. Otherwise, you could simply argue that we already have a ledger (fiat) and we should import that into the protocol. Which of course is exactly what the "bitcoin the protocol not the currency" folks are saying.

You need a new currency because the currency and the protocol are inexorably linked. Change the protocol and the currency also must change. For example, one might imagine (non-bitcoin) protocols that can't work with a fixed money supply because it doesn't charge transaction fees at all.

You can't logically argue that "there is only one ledger" and still accept bitcoin because bitcoin is already creating a new ledger (as it must).

The fiat ledger is devaluing the holding of its participants. It is corrupted, debased and cannot be "imported" onto a blockchain.

So yes, we do need a new currency in our transition from the fiat world.

Change the protocol and the currency also must change.

I don't see how this is even remotely true. The protocol is not only monetary parameters. Of course you would know this but it is equally encryption algorithms, amongst other things.

Assume, for example, that SHA-256 is broken, then the protocol would have to be changed but of course that does not result in a change to the currency.

I can absolutely champion "only one ledger" and accept Bitcoin because I believe that the current ledgers (money) are corrupted and do not serve the greater good. You are therefore correct that Bitcoin must create a new ledger and it is imperative that we protect it as the one and only and not be distracted by others unless a better one comes along.

[smooth]

This makes it clear that we must be careful to distinguish between the ledger (a conceptual spreadsheet keeping track of who owns what percentage of the economic community known as "the Bitcoin ecosystem" and later perhaps just "the global economy") and the protocol for updating that ledger.

We're back to this silly idea of separating the currency from from the blockchain. You can't, they are one in the same.

This "ledger" rhetoric is a paraphrase of the false idea they are separable.

The system is the blockchain is the currency is the protocol is the ledger.

Yes you could. Not to say the currency can run without a blockchain. Of course it can't.

But you did not address the essence of ZB's argument which is that monoculture in currency is absolutely desirable. We don't want multiple ledgers of ownership where different, conflicting stakes are attributed to the same persons.

This ledger cannot "economically" fail, only the protocol updating it. If that happens, we could still "transfer" a picture of the ledger (who owns what) to a new protocol that will update it. So yes, if the blockchain fail, we could, theoretically, seperate the currency (ledger) and "attach" it to a new chain.

Well I disagree, and I think this is just part of the process of recognizing that you can't separate the protocol from the ledger. Otherwise, you could simply argue that we already have a ledger (fiat) and we should import that into the protocol. Which of course is exactly what the "bitcoin the protocol not the currency" folks are saying.

You need a new currency because the currency and the protocol are inexorably linked. Change the protocol and the currency also must change. For example, one might imagine (non-bitcoin) protocols that can't work with a fixed money supply because it doesn't charge transaction fees at all.

You can't logically argue that "there is only one ledger" and still accept bitcoin because bitcoin is already creating a new ledger (as it must).

The fiat ledger is devaluing the holding of its participants. It is corrupted, debased and cannot be "imported" onto a blockchain.

So yes, we do need a new currency in our transition from the fiat world.

Change the protocol and the currency also must change.

I don't see how this is even remotely true. The protocol is not only monetary parameters. Of course you would know this but it is equally encryption algorithms, amongst other things.

Assume, for example, that SHA-256 is broken, then the protocol would have to be changed but of course that does not result in a change to the currency.

Fair point, not all changes. But certainly some changes must include changes to the ledger.

I can absolutely champion "only one ledger" and accept Bitcoin because I believe that the current ledgers (money) are corrupted and do not serve the greater good. You are therefore correct that Bitcoin must create a new ledger and it is imperative that we protect it as the one and only and not be distracted by others unless a better one comes along.

Yes, that is exactly the point. If the premise is that bitcoin catastrophically fails then there might be "a better one" that doesn't fail. And yes that includes monetary properties but not only monetary properties

As I said earlier, gold has not had a fixed supply, including over the thousands of years that was cited as it being something close to a monetary standard. ZB did not address this. So the historical example of gold does not support the premise that bitcoin can serve as a universal monetary standard. The experiment of a fixed supply monetary standard has never been run, and certainly not run repeatedly to determine the range of outcomes.

Bitcoin may work great, we will see. Or it may fail. Investors are rational in attaching a non-zero probability to "a better one comes along."

[solex]

Like you pointed out, there's a fundamental difference between the transfer of a bitcoin, and the transfer of a token that represents a claim on some external-to-the-blockchain property.  In the later case (asset-backed tokens), all that is transferred is ownership (and ownership is really a social construct, valuable only to the extent that one's society is willing to enforce property rights [as control of the property in question remains a physical problem]).  In the former case (bitcoin), what's transferred is control itself.

Thank you. This is brilliant stuff.

Going back to this interesting area. Agreed with above.

There seems to be a greyscale in the amount of the social trust needed to enforce off-blockchain rights, depending upon the type of asset involved.
An example where the blockchain token can have good control in the physical world is where physical keys exist, such as car keys or house keys. If physical keys are made smart, activated by a verification signature from the same private key which controls the recipient bitcoin address, then cars and houses can respond only to their new owners. Usage rights pass with the bitcoin transaction.

This is not watertight as physical locks can be changed, but the principle exists for the blockchain to hold access to some external assets, particularly other digital assets.

[rocks]

Interesting discussion and analysis on the possibly of Russia backing the rubble with gold and reinstituting a gold standard.

http://www.goldmoney.com/research/analysis/russia-s-monetary-solution

[lebing]

Interesting discussion and analysis on the possibly of Russia backing the rubble with gold and reinstituting a gold standard.

http://www.goldmoney.com/research/analysis/russia-s-monetary-solution

Chances of that happening are about 0.5%. This is worthless hype.

[Melbustus]

Interesting discussion and analysis on the possibly of Russia backing the rubble with gold and reinstituting a gold standard.

http://www.goldmoney.com/research/analysis/russia-s-monetary-solution

I don't understand how a gold-standard could be considered credible. Whether it's the Switzerland, Russia, China, or anywhere, how is it not obvious that after implementing a gold-exchange standard at some fixed peg, they'll eventually just move or eliminate the peg?

Not only is it obvious in theory, but there's historical precedent.

Pegs don't work. Clinging to the idea that a peg somehow conveys credibility is ludicrous.

[brg444]

It's not for me, but I feel https://bitreserve.org/ has a very solid business model.

Their new "Gold" card is quite interesting for gold bugs, I would think. https://bitreserve.org/en/our-vision/gold To me this all seem pointless but I can see some people liking the idea.

The transparency model is impressive and I believe, and hope, that this practice will be made a standard in the industry.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Like you pointed out, there's a fundamental difference between the transfer of a bitcoin, and the transfer of a token that represents a claim on some external-to-the-blockchain property.  In the later case (asset-backed tokens), all that is transferred is ownership (and ownership is really a social construct, valuable only to the extent that one's society is willing to enforce property rights [as control of the property in question remains a physical problem]).  In the former case (bitcoin), what's transferred is control itself.

Thank you. This is brilliant stuff.

Going back to this interesting area. Agreed with above.

There seems to be a greyscale in the amount of the social trust needed to enforce off-blockchain rights, depending upon the type of asset involved.
An example where the blockchain token can have good control in the physical world is where physical keys exist, such as car keys or house keys. If physical keys are made smart, activated by a verification signature from the same private key which controls the recipient bitcoin address, then cars and houses can respond only to their new owners. Usage rights pass with the bitcoin transaction.

This is not watertight as physical locks can be changed, but the principle exists for the blockchain to hold access to some external assets, particularly other digital assets.

Isn't the problem that at some point there will have to be some centralization for smart contracts to link up with physical objects IRL?

[NewLiberty]

Assume, for example, that SHA-256 is broken, then the protocol would have to be changed but of course that does not result in a change to the currency.

Probably not the best example.
This would be a pretty big change to the currency.  At minimum a lot of it could change hands against the will of the owners.
This would be an emergency hard fork that would not be a simple change.
It would destroy every current mining operation and force a complete restart there from CPU-GPU-FPGA-ASIC progression.

I know some notable speakers use this example as one of the "there are no problems we can't solve" message, but this would in fact truly wreck havok on Bitcoin.

Fundamentally though I'd agree with the broader point that not every protocol change is necessarily a change to the currency.  Many would be entirely seamless to users.  This just isn't one of those.

[cypherdoc]

Assume, for example, that SHA-256 is broken, then the protocol would have to be changed but of course that does not result in a change to the currency.

Probably not the best example.
This would be a pretty big change to the currency.  At minimum a lot of it could change hands against the will of the owners.
This would be an emergency hard fork that would not be a simple change.
It would destroy every current mining operation and force a complete restart there from CPU-GPU-FPGA-ASIC progression.

I know some notable speakers use this example as one of the "there are no problems we can't solve" message, but this would in fact truly wreck havok on Bitcoin.

Fundamentally though I'd agree with the broader point that not every protocol change is necessarily a change to the currency.  Many would be entirely seamless to users.  This just isn't one of those.

and the good news is that SHA-2 seems to be holding up pretty well with no successor clearly in sight even tho SHA-1 has been proven to be insecure.  it also seems that these advancements come from the academic circles thru NIST competitions IIRC.  we should have plenty of warning that some breakthrough is on the horizon with a need for SHA-3.