[2014-07-26] Why Bitcoin May One Day Split Into Black and White Coins

[epere]

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-bitcoin-may-one-day-split-into-black-and-white-coins

Rumors are swirling that as governments move to integrate and legitimize bitcoin, it could have a divisive and lasting effect on the virtual payment system. Forcing regulations on bitcoin could divide the digital currency into two camps: coins that are regulated and managed by a government or central agency, and coins that remain pseudonymous and decentralized. White coins and black coins.

[1715075412]

1715075412

[1715075412]

1715075412

[1715075412]

1715075412

[1715075412]

1715075412

[1715075412]

1715075412

[cr1776]

It won't divide bitcoin, it will fork it into bitcoin and something that is no linger bitcoin, a regulated-government-alt-coin.

[gbooz]

"The white coins would be currency that's circulated through the regulated system; black coins would be coins still off the authorities' radar"... I think you can say the same about any currency.

By the way, who are "those that want to honor bitcoin’s cyberpunk, anti-establishment roots" and are against the "mainstream adoption" of BTC?

[justusranvier]

Black coins would be the remaining bitcoins that don't fall into this loop—the unregistered coins operating free outside the system. As the theory goes, these black coins would be harder to maintain and more versatile to use, and could grow more valuable than their traditional counterparts over time.

...which is exactly why such a scheme won't last.

The increasingly restricted govcoins will be effectively be removed from the supply of actual Bitcoins, causing an exchange rate between then that will become increasingly unfavourable to govcoin holders.

You'll see a situation in the US like there is with Argentina - where there is an official (fabricated) USD-ARS exchange rate which virtually nobody uses, and the real market rate which you can only get in the black market. Media scare stories notwithstanding, regular people have no aversion to operating in the black market when it's favourable to do so.

Regulated Bitcoin businesses will whither and die, while their black market counterparts will flourish.

Eventually the institutions holding the govcoins will get increasingly desperate to get the higher black market exchange rate for their coins, so they'll arrange for them to be "stolen" by Chinese/Russian/Martian hackers.

[gbooz]

It depends what the word "regulation" means in the real life. If they talk about paying taxes - the businesses are already split into those who are "white" and those who are "black". And this is not the BTC regulation problem.

[cbeast]

"I would like to buy your product. Do you take Black Coins? You do? You are under arrest."

[justusranvier]

"I would like to buy your product. Do you take Black Coins? You do? You are under arrest."

There's a technological solution for that.

But even without it the empirical evidence is that sting operations have limited effectiveness once disobedience reaches a critical mass.

They could be arresting everybody who operates of the Blue Dollar exchange rate in Argentina, but it wouldn't work. They'd have to arrest the entire population, and before that happened the cops would just start disappearing on the job.

[justusranvier]

There's a kind of static thinking that leads its practitioners into logical errors, such as assuming that punishment works to create compliance.

In all cases punishment creates fake compliance in the moment, followed by more sophisticated circumvention in the long term.

This is why punishment is a self-defeating strategy - all it leads to is infinite escalation.

[cbeast]

I see it as an evolutionary thing. I agree that price between Black and White will decouple with Black winning. That's the same thing that would happen if a sovereign issues a PoS cryptocurrency and it is traded on the open exchange. People would shop with the local currency and save with Bitcoin. I'm not saying they are right to do this, that's just how they roll.

[justusranvier]

People would shop with the local currency and save with Bitcoin. I'm not saying they are right to do this, that's just how they roll.

That's what a naive interpretation of Gresham's Law would suggest, sure.

[cbeast]

People would shop with the local currency and save with Bitcoin. I'm not saying they are right to do this, that's just how they roll.

That's what a naive interpretation of Gresham's Law would suggest, sure.

Or they will invest in stocks, mutual funds, or even municipal bonds. I'm not invoking Gresham's law at all. This is about savings, not currency.

[MegaHustlr]

I very much doubt this will happen. Why is it even needed? Isn't pretty much all money dirty in some way or another. I'd love to see this happen with fiat money .

[colinistheman]

I very much doubt this will happen. Why is it even needed? Isn't pretty much all money dirty in some way or another. I'd love to see this happen with fiat money .

Agreed.  This article is one big, hot, steaming pile of FUD.

I can't believe a news article is being based off a reddit thread as its source. Seriously, that's where that entire article came from.

[ajareselde]

I very much doubt this will happen. Why is it even needed? Isn't pretty much all money dirty in some way or another. I'd love to see this happen with fiat money .

Agreed.  This article is one big, hot, steaming pile of FUD.

I can't believe a news article is being based off a reddit thread as its source. Seriously, that's where that entire article came from.

Since there was, and there allways will be a way to mask/mix transactions, i seriously doubt this will happen.
I understand the idea behing this, but i doubt it will be worth the trouble.
Definetly seams like more FUD than authentic threat tho.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Fungibility is important coins cannot be split into black or white coins

Forcing regulations on bitcoin could divide the digital currency into two camps: coins that are regulated and managed by a government or central agency, and coins that remain pseudonymous and decentralized. White coins and black coins.
Implies that they can be divided in the first place.
But my dollar is the same as your dollar so that doesn't apply in Bitcoin as well.

[gbooz]

It is fashionable to write about the BTC in press. But very rarely you can read something really interesting. Usually it is junk, like this article.

[Swordsoffreedom]

It is fashionable to write about the BTC in press. But very rarely you can read something really interesting. Usually it is junk, like this article.

It could very well be, lot of fluffy articles but I'm guessing its more from people who don't really get Bitcoin yet but just need to write some headline on it.

[Dogtanian]

I very much doubt this will happen. Why is it even needed? Isn't pretty much all money dirty in some way or another. I'd love to see this happen with fiat money .

Agreed.  This article is one big, hot, steaming pile of FUD.

I can't believe a news article is being based off a reddit thread as its source. Seriously, that's where that entire article came from.

Since there was, and there allways will be a way to mask/mix transactions, i seriously doubt this will happen.
I understand the idea behing this, but i doubt it will be worth the trouble.
Definetly seams like more FUD than authentic threat tho.

I'm sure it could theoretically happen, but people would need special wallets which would only accept certain coins, but it's a silly and pointless idea and hardly anyone would use it.

[Kprawn]

A fork will only happen, if two groups support two different changes to the bitcoin protocol. right?

The group supporting the "centralized" protocol will no longer adhere to the "Satoshi white paper" specifications, and can thus no longer be called "Bitcoin"

In my opinion it would be a coin on it's own. {Alt coin} It will cause confusion and a divide in the bitcoin community.

Bitcoin have to be decentralized, to be defined as Bitcoin. 

[Brooker]

A fork will only happen, if two groups support two different changes to the bitcoin protocol. right?

The group supporting the "centralized" protocol will no longer adhere to the "Satoshi white paper" specifications, and can thus no longer be called "Bitcoin"

In my opinion it would be a coin on it's own. {Alt coin} It will cause confusion and a divide in the bitcoin community.

Bitcoin have to be decentralized, to be defined as Bitcoin. 

Exactly. In fact, I think people have already tried to or have wanted to do something similar with colored coins or creating their own alt coin on top of the blockchain. It's pointless but people are free to do it if they wish and I doubt it'll take off.