(Un)Quick post from Japan. No politics please.....

[markm]

Has Canadian Tire become a central target for government(s) due to their issuing of Canadian Tire money?

If not, is it maybe due to some security blanket effect produced on the government(s) by some kind of record keeping of which serial numbers of Canadian Tire money notes were issued to which customers? (I think I recall cashiers handing out used notes though without any apparent attempt to make sure they gave out precisely the serial numbers the cash register thouht they were giving?)

-MarkM-

[amincd]

I'm a Ron Paul supporter too. Fingers x-ed.

C4L FTW!

Apple could easily do so, they would just pay artists in Applecoin.

This is unlikely to work IMO.

[TradersEdgeDice]

There once was a crown jewel called aluminum -or however the British misspell it ;-).

Any rock put into the crown sent the message that it was not only more valuable than anything you will never own, it is more valuable than your existence.

Today, I wrap peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in aluminum foil.

Things change.

In my lifetime, I want to wrap my sandwiches in gold foil.

Look up the relationship between lead and gold.

Silver is inflationary for reasons similar to aluminum.  Silver is a byproduct of zinc and copper mining.

Industrial requirements will win the day with shiny "precious" metals.  There's a lot of money to be made shorting this nonsense.

Another situation relates to the death of De Beers.  Diamond foil.

Quantum computing will require heat resistance that silicon can't handle.  Diamonds can handle it.  Diamond wafers are an absolute necessity to the future and if necessary, the future will crush Debeers.

The point of all of that, which I could've just stated in one line, is that artificial scarcity (example, 21,000,000 bitcoins) backed up by strong mathematics IS the future. I know it's optimistic but post scarcity will come.

And regarding apple coin…

1. The overwhelming majority of artists cannot afford apples.  If anything is post scarcity, it's the music business.

2. "No greater treason than the right deed for the wrong reason."- TS Elliott

I hope to the flying spaghetti monster that Apple does their own variation of bitcoin and then shed their containers before the first bust arrives.

[bearbones]

In my lifetime, I want to wrap my sandwiches in gold foil.

Unfortunately, I think gold is poisonous.  :-/

+1 for the rest of the post!

[TradersEdgeDice]

As a heavy metal, it is indeed poisonous.

Napoleon gave his guests a thin golden leaf for his dinner guests to eat as an appetizer.

The aristocracy of Europe has more problems than just inbreeding.  :-)

Another anecdote on aluminum vs. gold in history…

Napoleon give his VIP guests aluminum flatware for dinner.  Everybody else got gold flatware. 

You don't have to go far back in history to see metals considered more valuable than gold.  Silver basically financed the entire Spanish expeditions to the new world.  Silver was lacking in Europe but, to this day, the western hemisphere is well endowed with this shiny metal.

A currency based on silver for the whole world is possible. Do I want that?  Hell no.  The more virtual, the better.  Fiat is already 97% virtual.  It's very convenient.  It's the smoke and mirrors and power plays (see paypal, Et Al) that ticks off any one not sleeping under a rock.

I'll tell you what cryptocurrency means to me: ability.

I grew up with the science fiction stories with credits as a plot device.  These electronic units were apparently independent of whatever evil empire was wrecking things.

Unfortunately, severe disability precludes using physical cash and coins.  As a consolation prize for disabilities beyond my control, I got to use credit and debit cards.

I get a degree of freedom if I trade for it with my privacy.  Is it necessary to know that I bought a book or went to a restaurant? As a merchant, why does anybody care if a customer buys from me?  Will I get an audit for selling a few hundred units while GM and The Federal Reserve get no audit whatsoever ever.

Nobody's business.

I hope it's not an elaborate (REALLY elaborate) pyramid scheme because that would be so disappointing.

SHA 256 is a good an encryption method at this level.  I'd like to see worst case scenario of what we're going to do in the event of a hack.  I'm like to see the system moved to SHA3 before any catastrophe as it will not have any possible hidden weakness of SHA1 as SHA2 might have.

[MoonShadow]

You don't have to go far back in history to see metals considered more valuable than gold.  Silver basically financed the entire Spanish expeditions to the new world.  Silver was lacking in Europe but, to this day, the western hemisphere is well endowed with this shiny metal.

I don't disagree with your general point, but the above statement is no longer true.  Silver in a mined, refined and elemental state (above ground stock, or basicly bullion, coins and jewlry) is much less abundant in our modern world than gold in the same state.  The reason for this is, although gold has been used primarily as a store of value even in the absence of a gold standard anywhere in the world, silver has largely lost it's monetary and investment value as a precious metal (up until last year, anyway) and it's value for the past 50 years or so has been dependent upon it's many industrial uses.  Many of those industrial uses consume the elemental stocks by using silver in chemical compounds that are difficult to reverse, (i.e. photography development) or by using the metal for it's electrical properties in devices that require it and are thus difficult to retrieve (i.e. satellites, aircraft/spacecraft avionics, military equipment and undersea cables).  So over the past 50 years or so, more silver was consumed in industry than is mined each year; although this may change with the recent rise in silver prices.  While pretty much all of the gold that has ever been mined can still be accounted for, as gold has very little industrial uses that cannot be replaced by cheaper materials.

[shane]

@Creighto

Good call. I agree with everything you say there.

But whatever the final analysis here, I (and I hope you) are discussing the technology whole rather than the specific algorithm called Bitcoin.If it is sound (and personally I believe it rules for many ideological and practical reasons) then it should be adopted.

Where we disagree is that if Bitcoin (the system) is proven sound, you believe that the first to market advantage Bitcoin has will ensure it succeeds over competing algorithms.

I however feel the first to market advantage will be nothing once a credible contender hits the airwaves. If Bitcoin is tested to destruction and passes with flying colors and finally proves itself as a viable currency, the technology itself will be adopted. And Bitcoins first to market status will prove to be its death.

A credible adopter of the technology will not use Bitcoin. Why would they? Give up first access to capital? Nup.

I contend that if the technology proves sound and is adopted, the public will not make a conscious decision to use Bitcoin or not. They will just be told "From now on, Korea Air accepts KCoins" or "Apple has just unveiled a NEW GREAT TECHNOLOGY called Applecoin (ra ra raaaa) " and the muppets will eat it up.

 I don't think the public has any concept of privacy, govt interference or just how screwed they are. The U.S just extended the 'Patriot' Act (hah) for four more years,  the cops in the U.S can now kick in your door if they smell weed (or say they did) http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2011/05/17/constitutional-rights-a-casualty-of-endless-war/
etc etc and Obama will be re-elected in a landslide while adding wars to Bushes total. The public just don't make decisions that are good for them.

So if Bitcoins technology is good enough to be adopted commercially you think they will bootstrap Bitcoin? And pass up those billions and billions of dollars? Doh.

Dramatic advantage? Nah man. All you need is a guarantee from Kirin Beer that each KirinCoin will be able to be redeemed for a 6-pack from here on out and Bitcoin is toast.

The only people with a financially vested interest in making Bitcoin succeed are those who have a bunch of them. If someone with real political or economic power wishes to adopt the technology (and don't forget, I am hoping we are talking about the technology itself here) they will want their own algorithm.

So are you are saying that either the technology itself is not good enough for mass consumption (ie Bitcoin remains a curiosity) and therefore Bitcoin has value because its not good enough to have credible contenders? Or that the technology is sound but anyone wishing to seriously adopt it will bootstrap Bitcoin and forgo all the benefits they could accrue by merely making their own algorithm?

[shane]

@amincd

Oh, it wouldn't work because they wouldn't accept AppleCoins? Guaranteed by Apple. Yeah man, They' d say "Wee don't accept no skeeeenkin' AppleCoins man. It's U.S dollars, Aussie dollars or Bitcoins only!"

I would be totally into a band that said something like that. They would be making a political statement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_EsYmPwYWI&feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju5W_FT2D5I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zVECruSI3k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk0086ewpjg&feature=related

But the airwaves are ruled by shit bands. Therefore those bands wouldn't say that.
They'd say 'Meh, Applecoins. Yeah o.k. Lets get Biebers new CD with it."

[stillfire]

So are you are saying that either the technology itself is not good enough for mass consumption (ie Bitcoin remains a curiosity) and therefore Bitcoin has value because its not good enough to have credible contenders? Or that the technology is sound but anyone wishing to seriously adopt it will bootstrap Bitcoin and forgo all the benefits they could accrue by merely making their own algorithm?

We might very well see competing cryptocurrencies (to the extent that it is legal to provide comparable services) with commercial backing. Note though that many digital currencies run by companies today are very severely restricted and can't be used as regular money, so with current realities as a guide it is not true that the 'new competition' will be exactly the same as Bitcoin.

Any currency which has a backer of last resort will be heavily controlled and regulated since there is just one entity to send the hounds of the prosecutorial offices upon. I think this by itself is enough to leave a sizeable market for Bitcoin beyond its first to market advantage. There will be people who just don't like Apple or Kenya, or are inconvenienced by the arcane laws and regulations which will doubtlessly control the currency. They might fear that the commercial entity goes bankrupt and takes the currency into the grave with them.

Bitcoin can't go bankrupt precisely because it's a public project. There might be other public projects competing with Bitcoin - there already are - but they won't be the Apple backed kind you describe. Competing public projects must only compete on terms of technical excellence.

So even if the 'muppets', as you call them, will use whatever currency they are told to use, there will still be a market for a free public currency, if small. Leave it up to the market to decide if they prefer the muppet coins or the Bitcoins.

[xDan]

@ shane

I'm not an expert at any of this, but....

You seem to contend that some bigger player can come along, create a clone, and their marketing / influence will make their version more popular.

That *might* be possible at the moment, but as Bitcoin keeps getting more popular...

The many *small* shop type places that accept Bitcoin will add up. And the sum total of small businesses can exceed by a huge amount any one single company.

So maybe, at the moment, a large company could step in and take over... but as time marches on that becomes less and less likely.

Also, maybe in future a new virtual currency does appear. But all these many small businesses will not immediately drop bitcoin in perfect synchronicity. Bitcoin might then slowly decrease in value as a new virtual currency takes over. But as long as it's not an instant drop I don't see how that is a problem.

[shane]

@stillfire

That's an excellent post.

I guess coming from the finance area we feel it's fun to follow the business. So you try and spot problems or predicate how things could go to improve on it. Which you have done also.

Looking back over my thoughts, my scenario comes true in in a free market, that is what would happen (I believe). Or a variation of it.

Your thoughts are just as likely, and address aspects more political in nature. Certainly most our economic decisions are no longer made with anything but politics in mind.

So many big questions.  

I guess we just have to see what happens.

[MoonShadow]

There is also the possibility that if a major market leading corporation were to set up a chain and start to gain ground on Bitcoin, that corporation's direct compatition is then inclined to do something similar.  Certainly the larger competitors could follow the exact same model, and start their own block chains; but some of the smaller competitors are going to look at the field of choices and chose to simply base their market offering off of the open market choice already in existance, namely Bitcoin.  This effect will all but garrantee that the smaller institutional blockchains are marginalized as many small players in many different industries do the same thing.

[MoonShadow]

So are you are saying that either the technology itself is not good enough for mass consumption (ie Bitcoin remains a curiosity) and therefore Bitcoin has value because its not good enough to have credible contenders? Or that the technology is sound but anyone wishing to seriously adopt it will bootstrap Bitcoin and forgo all the benefits they could accrue by merely making their own algorithm?

I'm saying that, under the premise that the tech is sound and that there are no major flaws left (a large assumption, I admit) that Bitcoin's large first to market advantage will prevent similar competitors from catching up.  An institutional blockchain isn't really comparable to Bitcoin, because (by definition) there is a central institution supporting the value, and any threats to that institution also threaten the trade value of the currency.  That's comparable to Wal-Mart starting a blockchain to use their actual stock price as currency.  That's a possibility, but it doesn't protect Wal-coins from the issues of centralization, and people from Kenya are unlikely to ever have interest in owning Wal-coins.

Bitcoin's first to market advantage protects it from other unbacked and distributed competitors.  But I don't thing there is much threat from institutional blockchains either.  After all, if there was an economic incentive for these institutions to issue their own currencies in direct compatition with the national governments that regulate their charter, they would have already done so.

[shane]

@Creighto

Aren't we talking about a new technology that will allow them to get the economic advantage? That has just been invented?

[MoonShadow]

@Creighto

Aren't we talking about a new technology that will allow them to get the economic advantage? That has just been invented?

No.  Bitcoin has an economic advantage over fiat currencies by reason of it's cash like attributes while in use online.  Decentralization and anoninimity are central to those cash-like attributes.  I can't see an advantage for a centralized blockchain, since the primary reason that the proof-of-work system exists is so that no single institution (or group of institutions working in conjunction) must be trusted for the value of the currency to remain intact.  Wal-coins might be able to make a credible claim towards anoniminty on technical grounds, but would you take that risk?  Would the Federal Reserve suffer Wal-coins to exist if it were true?  The fact that Wal-coins were centrally supported tells those with a vested interest in the status quo exactly which CEO's office to visit, and which board members need a good IRS audit.  E-gold tried the centralization route, and got hammered for it.  And as a matter of quality online money, a gold backed currency is superior on many economic and historical points.  Bitcoin's decentralization says that there is no headquarters to raid, and anoniminty says that end users are hard to find.  Any credible competitor to Bitcoin needs to have both these attributes, and be able to prove it on technical grounds, to even stand an even chance.  If this could be done and also have a credible claim to being backed by gold, silver or even U235, Bitcoin would fade away and I'd be one of the first to sell my bitcoins for the new chain.  But how could that work?  Even if someone could crack that in the near future, it would also have to be a method that Bitcoin couldn't just adopt itself.

[shane]

@Creighto

I guess I feel that if the concept is as good as it seems, and it seems really good, someone, somewhere will work out the benefits of introducing the worlds first true cryptocurrency and actually having a shot at doing it. The person with first access to that would hold 20% of the worlds money supply for all internet transactions. We have all seen the calculations on the fantasy forums. 21 millions units as 30% of the world money supply means a Bitcoin is a trillion bucks etc etc

But that maths isn't far away if everyone DOES start to use it. If its truely successful, someone will consider it who actually has a chance of doing something like that. Adopting the system but with a new algorithm. It would be like the new Swiss Franc but better because it would have built in deflation, and the people who started it would own a third of them.

[amincd]

I think artists and labels accepting the equivalent of Apple scrip for payment instead of national currencies is farfetched. I think it's even less likely that a large company like Apple can afford the risks associated with making a currency like bitcoin, due to possibility of regulatory action that could be taken against them. It it bitcoin's decentralized nature that is its main strength, and a company issueing it would be a central authority and point of failure.

[MoonShadow]

@Creighto

I guess I feel that if the concept is as good as it seems, and it seems really good, someone, somewhere will work out the benefits of introducing the worlds first true cryptocurrency and actually having a shot at doing it. The person with first access to that would hold 20% of the worlds money supply for all internet transactions. We have all seen the calculations on the fantasy forums. 21 millions units as 30% of the world money supply means a Bitcoin is a trillion bucks etc etc

But that maths isn't far away if everyone DOES start to use it. If its truely successful, someone will consider it who actually has a chance of doing something like that. Adopting the system but with a new algorithm. It would be like the new Swiss Franc but better because it would have built in deflation, and the people who started it would own a third of them.

Only if they can get others to join them.  That is the big if.  Bitcoin was lucky in this way, as there was never any certainty that people would join.  Now they are, and even the users sometimes complain about the 'fairness' of it all.  If any institution were to actually start another blockchain, why would the public favor one set of early adopters over another?

[istar]

Bitcoins will most likley have value for a long time since there will allways be a need to transfer money across the world anonymously and with almost no fees.

As long as there are drugs to buy with bitcoins. Someone will want them.
As long as there can be use for bitcoins, someone will believe in them.

[neptop]

Most of the things you described actually happened to hard (as in hardware) currencies. Yes, Bitcoin need a bigger market to become more stable. The thing you can do as developer is making things easier, probably providing some services, etc. Yes, it's still risky and most people know this, but because it's risky you can make a lot of money with it. A bit like stocks, but I wouldn't really compare them with stocks. So we need to make some cunning entrepreneurs aware of Bitcoin.

As for simply creating another currency doing the same. Why would anyone use it? Yet another search engine like Google, yet another microblog, like Twitter, yet another social network like Facebook wouldn't be successful unless they provide something very special.

Bitcoin is heavily distributed and so what do you mean when you say "someone with more power shows up"?

Also the statement that a new BitCoin would make the original one worthless isn't true. Namecoins didn't make Bitcoin worthless, like the Euro didn't make the Dollar worthless. Why should it?