Decentrally mined currency has failed so far

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Edit: "Decentrally mined currency has failed and can't possibly be rescued" original title was corrected.

I identified in April that the powers-that-be (Peter Thiel et al) were taking over Bitcoin. Since then it is become more noticeable with Paypal and soon eBay adopting Bitcoin.

Bitcoin mining and everything else about it can be highly regulated because none of it is anonymous. Even recent research found that 81% of Tor users can be unmasked, as I had long warned was the case. Regulation means any decentralization is just for show and doesn't have any practical protective effect. Some have argued about inability to get consistent regulation across all jurisdictions, and even one country that took a free market stance would provide hope. Any one who believes that, isn't studying the reality of what is happening in the world with G20 pledging cooperation[2], etc.

I have thought deeply (I was AnonyMint) about the possible designs for decentralized consensus, as well the various strategies for anonymity that are plausible.

It is impossible there can be all 3 of true anonymity, fast enough transactions, and truly decentralized mining consensus. I could explain in depth, but I'd rather challenge anyone who thinks they are technically capable, to explain a design that makes it possible. Because over the past year, I've run every possible design through my mind, studied everything I could find from others, and have finally come to this conclusion.

Note I didn't say there couldn't be decentralized adoption, use, or even decentralized mining shares. But the mining pools will be centralized and thus regulated (unless they are anonymous). Note I didn't say there couldn't be anonymity nor fast transactions, but decentralized pools would have to be forsaken (and they don't really exist now, it is just for show).

It might be possible to get anonymity and decentralized mining pools, but this certainly wouldn't be able to support fast transactions nor would it be resistant to a Sybil attack on the number of mining pools.

Some of have argued that there is P2Pool, but how many times do I have to repeat that P2Pool can't be impervious to a share withholding attack[1], thus it can't be a sustainable paradigm.

Conclusion: Bitcoin is not a savior. As I had warned in my first essay on this forum, Bitcoin: The Digital Kill Switch, Bitcoin is part of the push towards electronic money that will be used to control all of us[2].

I have come full circle. The situation is quite hopeless (note I didn't say Bitcoin won't appreciate in value, although I still expect a bottom below or near $200 first), rather I mean hopeless in terms of the idealism of protecting our monetary future. Maybe it is time for me to leave cryptocurrency and go back to writing software applications.

Satoshi's invention of decentralized consensus is useless from a practical standpoint at least for money and sent us on a wild goose chase where we end up with nothing in the end. Sad but true.

[1]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=339902.msg3719385#msg3719385 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789978.msg9115612#msg9115612

[2]

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/25/electric-money-will-eliminate-bank-runs/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/04/electronic-money-taxes/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2012/06/27/reality-check/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/03/17/the-downside-of-electronic-money-what-is-left/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/17/negative-interest-rates-eliminating-cash-the-summers-solution/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/14/the-secret-agenda/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/24/electronic-money-coming-everywhere-sooner-than-you-think/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/06/18/g8-going-to-hunt-down-all-capital/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/07/g20-to-cordinate-to-hunt-down-taxes-worldwide/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/07/g20-agrees-on-worldwide-access-to-all-information-on-the-wealth-of-the-citizens-for-global-taxation/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/16/g20-to-change-status-of-bank-accounts-investments/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/16/the-truth-about-g20-banking-directive/

[ReserviorHunt]

I identified in April that the powers-that-be (Peter Thiel et al) were taking over Bitcoin. Since then it is become more noticeable with Paypal and soon eBay adopting Bitcoin.

Bitcoin mining and everything else about it can be highly regulated because none of it anonymous. Even recent research found that 81% of Tor users can be unmasked, as I had long warned was the case. Regulation means any decentralization is just for show and doesn't have any practical protective effect. Some have argued about inability to get consistent regulation across all jurisdictions, and even one country that took a free market stance would provide hope. Any one who believes that, isn't studying the reality of what is happening in the world with G20 pledging cooperation[2], etc.

I have thought deeply (I was AnonyMint) about the possible designs for decentralized consensus, as well the various strategies for anonymity that are plausible.

It is impossible there can be all 3 of true anonymity, fast enough transactions, and truly decentralized mining consensus. I could explain in depth, but I'd rather challenge anyone who thinks they are technically capable, to explain a design that makes it possible. Because over the past year, I've run every possible design through my mind, studied everything I could find from others, and have finally come to this conclusion.

Note I didn't say there couldn't be decentralized adoption, use, or even decentralized mining shares. But the mining pools will be centralized and thus regulated (unless they are anonymous). Note I didn't say there couldn't be anonymity nor fast transactions, but decentralized pools would have to be forsaken (and they don't really exist now, it is just for show).

It might be possible to get anonymity and decentralized mining pools, but this certainly wouldn't be able to support fast transactions nor would it be resistant to a Sybil attack on the number of mining pools.

Some of have argued that there is P2Pool, but how many times do I have to repeat that P2Pool can't be impervious to a share withholding attack[1], thus it can't be a sustainable paradigm.

Conclusion: Bitcoin is not a savior. As I had warned in my first essay on this forum, Bitcoin: The Digital Kill Switch, Bitcoin is part of the push towards electronic money that will be used to control all of us[2].

I have come full circle. The situation is quite hopeless (note I didn't say Bitcoin won't appreciate in value, although I still expect a bottom below or near $200 first), rather I mean hopeless in terms of the idealism of protecting our monetary future. Maybe it is time for me to leave cryptocurrency and go back to writing software applications.

Satoshi's invention of decentralized consensus is useless from a practical standpoint at least for money and sent us on a wild goose chase where we end up with nothing in the end. Sad but true.

[1]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=339902.msg3719385#msg3719385 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789978.msg9115612#msg9115612

[2]

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/25/electric-money-will-eliminate-bank-runs/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/04/electronic-money-taxes/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2012/06/27/reality-check/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/03/17/the-downside-of-electronic-money-what-is-left/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/17/negative-interest-rates-eliminating-cash-the-summers-solution/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/14/the-secret-agenda/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/24/electronic-money-coming-everywhere-sooner-than-you-think/

DOOM


In all seriousness, saying bitcoin or crypto is a savior was the same as saying you are anonymous and 'free' on the internet.

Both false.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

In all seriousness, saying bitcoin or crypto is a savior was the same as saying you are anonymous and 'free' on the internet.

Both false.

Agreed.

[bigtimespaghetti]

Anonymint may be stating some obvious facts, but these facts aren't widely recognised by crypto cheerleaders, which is why I believe he continues to bring up these issues.

When governments start pushing totally digital fiat currency the urgency for the technology to replace cash will undoubtedly increase. I hope that some technical person can come up with a successful design for just this.

[ArnoldChippy]

Nothing's failed because nothing's really started as yet.

Bitcoin is here and chugging along, with every passing day proving it's here to stay thanks to continued infrastructure investment and acceptance by an ever growing user base.

As more people become aware, they will discover three more parts to the decentralised jigsaw puzzle, which at the moment are best represented by the following:

MaidSafe - Complete user anonymity on the internet and a way to store and access data anywhere etc, on any suitable device.

OpenBazaar - Fee free  P2P transactions.

Crowd Funding - P2P Loans and donations.


Once all four of these elements are used in conjunction, it becomes clear we have a parallel trading and financial system that is minus the parasites that live off us and independent of the current scheme.

As individuals discover the immense burden of maintaining the status quo, then the advantages of the new options will become obvious.

[Q7]

To imply that it is a complete failure may not be fair or in any way reflect the current situation. Well it has flaws, weaknesses  become more evident, in fact i don't  think the word decentralization bears any meaning now in bitcoin's dictionary. However to look on the bright side, we are progressively moving forward... more adoption, growing userbase, people start to see abd accept bitcoin as an alternative currency that can replace fiat... and more important with world economy in its current state whereby fiat is becoming like paper junk, well all that point to bitcoin's advantage

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Q7, true but not as something that can resist regulation, thus in the end, not any different than fiat. If government can regulate any thing, they own and control it. So you are upbeat because you just want to see world adopt electronic currency so we can all be tracked perfectly by the government and never have any chance of buying or selling without permission of the government?

Because once electronic currency is widely adopted, cash will not be accepted any more. There will be no way to opt out of this 666 system coming.

Electronic currency is coming no matter what we do. The only question that remains is whether there is any alternative to Satoshi's model that could actually be anonymous and impervious to regulation, while also meeting the requirements for adoption of electronic currency.

To all readers, this is a free for all thread. Any one is free to write any thing and totally disagree with or even ridicule me.


P.S. both you and ArnoldChippy are very idealistic, as most people who support Bitcoin are. But it appears you are not as deeply immersed in the technological details as I am. I will soon reply to Arnold to bring him up to speed on some realities he is apparently not aware of.

[illodin]

In before cash gets banned.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Nothing's failed because nothing's really started as yet.

Bitcoin is here and chugging along, with every passing day proving it's here to stay thanks to continued infrastructure investment and acceptance by an ever growing user base.

We are approaching 6 years since Bitcoin was launched.

Regulation of Bitcoin is increasing always. Nothing is proposed to stop this.

I've tried to find and design solutions. After much inspection of various possible designs, I reached this conclusion.

As more people become aware, they will discover three more parts to the decentralised jigsaw puzzle, which at the moment are best represented by the following:

MaidSafe - Complete user anonymity on the internet and a way to store and access data anywhere etc, on any suitable device.

MaidSafe is not anonymous, and it is not applicable to hosting websites. Thus MaidSafe is pretty much useless for our concerns about creating an anonymous internet (so users won't leak their identity through some side channel, i.e. a website).

Sorry to all those who are giddy about MaidSafe and Storj, but you need to study the details. If you are not a computer scientist, you probably don't understand.

OpenBazaar - Fee free  P2P transactions.

Yes this is feasible. I wrote in the OP that use can be decentralized. But if the coin is not immune to regulation (i.e. not anonymous and decentralized), then the OpenBazaar is not either.

We have a lot of salesmanship about anonymity and decentralization out there with some altcoins, but they aren't really decentralized and some aspects are not anonymous, i.e. Monero (ditto DarkCoin) does not have IP address anonymity, I2p/Tor will both fail to provide it, and Monero's mining and mining pools are not anonymous, so they can be regulated.

I argue in the OP, this can't be rectified.

Crowd Funding - P2P Loans and donations.

Yes same comment as for OpenBazaar.

Once all four of these elements are used in conjunction, it becomes clear we have a parallel trading and financial system that is minus the parasites that live off us and independent of the current scheme.

As individuals discover the immense burden of maintaining the status quo, then the advantages of the new options will become obvious.

No sorry it all fails down due to regulation. Government will not give up control, unless it is technologically impossible for them to do so. Bitcoin does not make it technologically impossible to regulate.

[jonald_fyookball]

I have thought deeply (I was AnonyMint) about the possible designs for decentralized consensus, as well the various strategies for anonymity that are plausible.
 

Then you probably shouldn't be taken seriously.

You were the guy who was claiming all kinds of doom scenearios with
people losing their houses and ending up in jail just for using
Bitcoins, and that massive bitcoin thefts would lead to transaction
"clawbacks".  So far we haven't seen a single case of any of this
nonsense.

I agree you should leave cryptocurrency.  Your pessimism isn't
adding anything of value to the community, yourself, or anyone else.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

I have thought deeply (I was AnonyMint) about the possible designs for decentralized consensus, as well the various strategies for anonymity that are plausible.
 

Then you probably shouldn't be taken seriously.

You were the guy who was claiming all kinds of doom scenearios with
people losing their houses and ending up in jail just for using
Bitcoins, and that massive bitcoin thefts would lead to transaction
"clawbacks".  So far we haven't seen a single case of any of this
nonsense.

I agree you should leave cryptocurrency.  Your pessimism isn't
adding anything of value to the community, yourself, or anyone else.

I have welcomed ridicule of myself in this thread, but this means I can also ridicule you in return when you deserve it.

For any one who is not familiar with this Dunning-Kruger idiot (and really, he doesn't have the IQ nor the technical understanding to be commenting in that linked thread), I suggest reading the last interaction I had with him. Btw, gmaxell was wrong in that thread, for which I have written a detailed design document in private to explain, but I am not going to rehash that here.

I have not said people would lose their houses and end up in jail specifically because of Bitcoin. As AnonyMint I wrote tens of 1000s of posts, and I think in maybe 10 of those I mentioned that if Bitcoin was not anonymous and people did not follow regulations and pay their taxes, then they could end up losing everything to the authorities, as they would in any normal case of tax and law evasion. I was making that point in the past in support of the need for anonymity. He is also referring to a thread, where we debated the law about clawbacks in cases where a fund has been hopelessly comingled with stolen funds, can't be unwound, and the authorities can trace all the bad funds through to see it has been over time comingled with all the money supply, as is probably the case for Bitcoin. This is a well known issue for Bitcoin, for which Adam Back and Gregory Maxell have been working hard to try to develop some anonymity methods to avoid the loss of fungibility in Bitcoin due to tainted coins. Afaics, they have not succeeded.

Don't forget I was also the guy who predicted Bitcoin would fall from $1000 to $350 (it is some where in one of rpietila's threads). I was also the guy who publicly predicted the exact top price for silver a year before it happened. I was also the guy who predicted silver would fall from $30s to below $17.

[jonald_fyookball]

For any one who is not familiar with this Dunning-Kruger idiot (and really, he doesn't have the IQ nor the technical understanding to be commenting in that linked thread), I suggest reading the last interaction I had with him.

Ha!

Yeah, I invite anyone to read that thread.
The experts there (gmaxwell and Deathandtaxes)
quickly got tired of talking to you.

When you started using weird analogies like
"aliasing" that had nothing to do with Bitcoin,
I called you out on it, and you couldn't handle it.

Even gmaxwell had no idea what you were talking
about with the aliasing, and gave up trying to
talk to you. 

Their conclusion was that your idea was not
really a security improvement overall as far
as using the longest chain rule for consensus.
Not sure what your latest "proof" related
to selfish mining has anything to do with that...
and I don't really care.
 
I may not be the smartest guy in the room,
but I'm certainly capable of having a conversation
about Bitcoin. 

You're the only person I've encountered
in my life that told me I need a higher IQ
to participate in the discussion.  Pretty arrogant.

Anyway this isn't about me.  No one cares.
You're the one making claims about Bitcoin here.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

For any one who is not familiar with this Dunning-Kruger idiot (and really, he doesn't have the IQ nor the technical understanding to be commenting in that linked thread), I suggest reading the last interaction I had with him.

Ha!

Yeah, I invite anyone to read that thread.
The experts there (gmaxwell and Deathandtaxes)
quickly got tired of talking to you.

Indeed I invite all to the read what gmaxell can not rebut.

Please don't spam (filibuster) this thread with your usual noise. I don't mean it as a personal attack. I have nothing against you as a person, but I am trying to do serious analysis. It doesn't help me nor readers to wade though endless posts of ad hominen noise. You've made your points, and I have responded. Readers now have the information to form their own judgements.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

No sorry it all fails down due to regulation. Government will not give up control, unless it is technologically impossible for them to do so. Bitcoin does not make it technologically impossible to regulate.

Bitcoin, used properly, makes it technologically impossible for an authority to enforce regulation. So... let them piss into the wind.

Could you please elaborate what you mean specifically by “used properly”?

I have some ideas about what you might be thinking, and I still disagree. But before I can detail my logic, I need to make sure I understand what you are thinking specifically?

If you are thinking about anonymity techniques, the authorities can simply regulate the mining pools that they are not allowed to add transactions which are untraceable (unidentified) on the block chain. Only if the mining pools themselves are anonymous, can a crypto-currency escape this dilemma. This was the central point of my OP.

As for your bolded emphasis on enforcement, the mining pools are easy to locate. Btw, are you not aware of the recent seizure of 100s of Tor hidden services servers all over the globe under the cooperation of the USA and European authorities. Enforcement they have proven they can do.

I mean, sure, they can still kidnap/kill you, but they can't stop someone from using Bitcoin, nor can they seize/freeze bitcoins. If you are savvy, they won't even know you are using Bitcoin.

The authorities will be able to block transactions. All they have to do is regulate the mining pools, which they are already starting to do[1]. Once they fully regulate the mining, in addition to requiring mining pools to block certain transactions without needing to change the Bitcoin protocol; and the G20 could also gang up and change the protocol with the force of the law if they need to in order to accomplish the full extent of their regulatory responsibilities under the law (they may not need).

I challenge you and readers to seriously get an expert or core Bitcoin developer such a DeathAndTaxes, Gregory Maxell, or Adam Back to make a sufficient explanation of why it isn't possible for the G20 to regulate mining as the G20 made it clear they plan to cooperate against tax havens and non-compliance. If someone is transacting in Bitcoin and hasn't complied with their tax obligations (or is transacting with tainted coins that were formerly stolen upchain), the authorities can confiscate within the current law. I don't believe the experts can rationally disagree.

[1]

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-mining-pool-btc-guild-forced-sell-due-uncertain-bitcoin-regulation-mining-centralization/ https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/proposed-bitcoin-regulation-bitlicense-shut-mining-bitcoin-businesses-us/ http://bitcoinvista.com/2014/11/14/bitcoin-accounts-may-be-subject-to-fbar-fatca-reporting/ http://www.irs.gov/irb/2014-16_IRB/ar12.html#d0e624 A–8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income.

Technology can only go so far. Ultimately it is up to individuals to decide if they want to retain their power or willingly hand it over to an authority. Most, it seems, happily hand it over for some promise of security.

Agreed. That is my point in the OP.

However, I have an idea of how it might be possible to create something more impervious to the authorities and I will detail in a later post in this thread.

Regulating Bitcoin mining would be about as effective as regulating marijuana growing. As long as it remains profitable someone will find a way to do it, regardless of any regulations in place.

I appreciate you made this analogy, because you have precisely hit upon what is different about Bitcoin and decentralized activity such a marijuana growing (e.g. under a hot lamp in your house or planted in random locations in the forest).

So I am disagreeing with you. Bitcoin can be regulated because the mining is not effectively decentralized, because it is not anonymous and thus the mining pools can't hide from the authorities (authorities == top down control, i.e. not effectively decentralized). This is my central point in the OP.

Should a fork come which changes Bitcoin into something which can be controlled by the authorities, it will be up to the users to decide whether or not to accept those changes.

We don't need a fork for that. The existing Bitcoin and all altcoins can be regulated by the authorities.

[ArnoldChippy]

I'm not sure if this discussion can actually lead anywhere as you seem to be saying that governments can regulate anything and indeed everything if they so choose.

If that's the case then I think I can state with some certainty that many of us are aware of the grandiose image governments have of their assumed powers, but the real question is do these governments have the resources to satisfy their wants?

Bitcoin and the other technologies I mentioned aren't just decentralised but also disruptive. As they gain traction, other similar and possibly better solutions will come along and governments will be fighting on many fronts. Other avenues may also appear that don't yet exist.

Besides this, they must battle with their debt problems and the inevitable decline in tax revenue brought about by more and more 'off grid' transactions caused by the new technology. The longer the battle, the weaker they will get.

Here in the UK we now have councils starting to ask residents to carry out road repairs due to lack of money.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11155213/Residents-asked-to-repair-potholes.html

When things get to this level, then it's clear to me that things are fundamentally broken.

So yes, in theory governments could band together, and in the footsteps of King Canute, could legislate against or even ban Bitcoin, but the bigger picture is that if the people have the vision to use it, then Bitcoin would be more akin to a virus and be so very hard to kill.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

ArnoldChippy,

I agree that the government will probably have to contend with more disruption. I don't think we are going to be satisfied with Bitcoin or any of the existing altcoins which don't make the mining pools anonymous. Also I don't think we will be satisfied with the existing Tor or I2P, which have been proven to not be anonymous as I predicted more than a year ago.

I and history disagree with you that the government won't confiscate all the revenue as its revenues worsen (this leads to a Dark Age if the people don't stand up to this downward spiral of confiscation) and they need to meet their socialism obligations in order to remain in power. Throughout history mainstream governments confiscate the wealth every time[1] as they enter economic collapse, is they confiscate everything (and start external aggression wars if they have a nationalist population in order to get them to sacrifice, i.e. China, Japan, and Russia today[2]). I am not talking about what failed revolutionary governments with failed military do, i.e. the communists in defeated Weimer Germany or Zimbabwe[1].

Btw, there is $200 trillion in global wealth to confiscate. The government can remain in control for much longer than you and I can remain solvent if they start confiscating from us.

Bitcoin as a virus can be easily controlled (no need to kill it for as long as government can regulate, tax, and confiscate it) as I explained in the prior post about regulating the mining pools. The people can't stand up and fight if their weapon is fundamentally impotent, regardless of how many people adopt it.

For those who say the government can't confiscate your private keys, my prior post says that it is irrelevant. They can block you from transacting, so then your private key is useless.

[1]

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/06/18/g8-going-to-hunt-down-all-capital/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/06/24/12703/ (Praying for Hyperinflation) http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/02/25/gold-silver-hyperinflation/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/09/is-hyperinflation-associated-only-with-revolutionary-new-governments/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/14/hyperinflation-is-it-even-possible/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/06/24/forget-the-fiat-its-confidence/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/08/10/can-europe-hyperinflate/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/07/g20-to-cordinate-to-hunt-down-taxes-worldwide/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/09/07/g20-agrees-on-worldwide-access-to-all-information-on-the-wealth-of-the-citizens-for-global-taxation/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/16/g20-to-change-status-of-bank-accounts-investments/ http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/16/the-truth-about-g20-banking-directive/

[2]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg9640340#msg9640340 ...you pontificate without considering reality of history as a catalog of repeating outcomes. 1. The entire world is on the verge of economic collapse. Historically when countries implode economically, they start an external hot war to turn national disgust into patriotic sacrifice which is what we will see in those countries which are unified internally (e.g. Putin has 80% approval rating, Japanese and Chinese are still patriotic to the extreme of being xenophobic). The USA instead will fracture internally as the disagreement over socialism (Obamacare, police state, etc) reaches the boiling point...

[cbeast]

Bitcoin as a virus can be easily controlled (no need to kill it for as long as government can regulate, tax, and confiscate it) as I explained in the prior post about regulating the mining pools. The people can't stand up and fight if their weapon is fundamentally impotent, regardless of how many people adopt it.

For those who say the government can't confiscate your private keys, my prior post says that it is irrelevant. They can block you from transacting, so then your private key is useless.

History is full of examples where common citizens ignored ridiculous laws until they went away. Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s didn't stop people from drinking. Doctors prescribed alcohol as medication. Private drinking clubs proliferated. Police were easily bribed because they didn't believe in that law. Slavery laws were often disregarded in favor of human decency. Traffic laws are routinely ignored.

The thing about Bitcoin is that there is no moral reason to ban it. In fact, it's just the opposite. Cash is used for violent crimes because it is untraceable and anonymous. Since paper money technology isn't banned, there is no worry that Bitcoin will be outlawed.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Bitcoin as a virus can be easily controlled (no need to kill it for as long as government can regulate, tax, and confiscate it) as I explained in the prior post about regulating the mining pools. The people can't stand up and fight if their weapon is fundamentally impotent, regardless of how many people adopt it.

For those who say the government can't confiscate your private keys, my prior post says that it is irrelevant. They can block you from transacting, so then your private key is useless.

History is full of examples where common citizens ignored ridiculous laws until they went away. Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s didn't stop people from drinking. Doctors prescribed alcohol as medication. Private drinking clubs proliferated. Police were easily bribed because they didn't believe in that law. Slavery laws were often disregarded in favor of human decency. Traffic laws are routinely ignored.

You are making the same category error in your comparison as Holliday did (erroneously equating two orthogonal categories). Please refer to my reply to him, wherein I pointed out that the government can not centralize actions (e.g. growing marijuana) people can do independently.

Whereas, money is inherently a centralized concept, because we all need a ledger that we can agree is the record of who paid what to whom. Thus individuals can't ignore government regulations acting independently with their Bitcoin if the authorities can find the mining pools (and thus the government can regulate the mining pools, i.e. the servers control which transactions are put on the block chain).

The only way you can stop the government from having this power, is to hide the mining pools so the government can't find them (the servers).

The thing about Bitcoin is that there is no moral reason to ban it. In fact, it's just the opposite. Cash is used for violent crimes because it is untraceable and anonymous. Since paper money technology isn't banned, there is no worry that Bitcoin will be outlawed.

1. How many times do I have to repeat that the government doesn't need to ban Bitcoin, as long as they can regulate it, tax, and confiscate their desired portion of the wealth (which is the what governments are always doing, nothing out-of-the-ordinary here). When I write "government can block your transaction by regulating the mining pools", I mean if you are not cooperating with the going to be very high confiscation (ahem I mean "tax") rates. Most of the people will cooperate and comply with government regulation (many of them are receiving government aid any way). It is the people who have wealth that have to worry, i.e. if you are in "the 1%". The masses ("the 99%") are hunky-dory with government regulation. Click here to see if you are in the 1%.

2. Government has a huge moral obligation to regulate Bitcoin to protect the public from fraud, theft, and tax evasion. And please realize the government is bankrupt and has an obligation to the public (e.g. unfunded promised future liabilities of the USA government to its constituents is $150+ trillion), so they will be increasing the portion of the wealth they confiscate each year. Governments will confiscate (ahem "tax") increasingly larger share of the GDP every year for next next couple of decades, because the global debt is $158+ trillion and the debt-to-GDP ratios are greater than 200% in every western nation on earth.

[UnunoctiumTesticles]

Why would the government want to ban Bitcoin? Heck no! It is the greatest tracking tool ever invented. The governments want electronic currency, because then they can eliminate cash and control everything we buy and sell.

They don't need to ban it. They can regulate the mining pools, thus they can force every Bitcoin owner to comply with edicts or lose their ability to transact.

Those in the government who are astute (e.g. Larry Summers and his push for electronic currency) love Bitcoin!

(and they should, because "they" invented it. All the insiders strongly speculate that Satoshi = NSA think tank or working group)

[cbeast]

The only way you can stop the government from having this power, is to hide the mining pools so the government can't find them (the servers).

Not only is this very possible, it is our civic duty to do so. Government employees must be shown their limitations to power that are already clearly laid out in the US Constitution.

The thing about Bitcoin is that there is no moral reason to ban it. In fact, it's just the opposite. Cash is used for violent crimes because it is untraceable and anonymous. Since paper money technology isn't banned, there is no worry that Bitcoin will be outlawed.

1. How many times do I have to repeat that the government doesn't need to ban Bitcoin, as long as they can regulate it, tax, and confiscate their desired portion of the wealth (which is the what governments are always doing, nothing out-of-the-ordinary here). When I write "government can block your transaction by regulating the mining pools", I mean if you are not cooperating with the going to be very high confiscation (ahem I mean "tax") rates. Most of the people will cooperate and comply with government regulation (many of them are receiving government aid any way). It is the people who have wealth that have to worry, i.e. if you are in "the 1%". The masses ("the 99%") are hunky-dory with government regulation. Click here to see if you are in the 1%.

I was confused by your statement regarding the blocking of private keys. It is very strange that you think government can have any control over Bitcoin at all. You seem to think you speak for most people. I disagree.

2. Government has a huge moral obligation to regulate Bitcoin to protect the public from fraud, theft, and tax evasion. And please realize the government is bankrupt and has an obligation to the public (e.g. unfunded promised future liabilities of the USA government to its constituents is $150+ trillion), so they will be increasing the portion of the wealth they confiscate each year. Governments will confiscate (ahem "tax") increasingly larger share of the GDP every year for next next couple of decades, because the global debt is $158+ trillion and the debt-to-GDP ratios are greater than 200% in every western nation on earth.

While probably factual, it is irrelevant. There is nothing in the US Constitution about any of this. I think Obama's last act will be to mint many One Trillion Dollar coins to pay off all debts. But my opinion is also irrelevant. Methinks this is a troll and I fell for it.