Is Bitcoin getting the wrong kind of attention?

[stan.distortion]

Man it feels so long since I wrote this, shame to delete it as it was about silkroad and the trouble it might bring down on Bitcoin in those early single-digit days. But whatever, that and lots of other shit happened and Bitcoin's still ticking along nicely... or is it? If you're reading this, well, it might pop up briefly on the "new posts" page after editing but you're more likely interested in my post history for whatever reason so thanks for taking an interest and onwards.

Bitcoin, what a work of genius, we really thought it could make it all happen, break the stranglehold and bring us to a better world without the banks. But then something strange happened, all of a sudden we had stability on the exchanges, ex-banking execs in big startups in the crypto space, interest all the way from the US senate to Paypay and something didn't quite look right.

Move on a while and the banks themselves are getting all friendly but I'm getting a little ahead of myself, I forgot to mention the alt spam. Pages and pages of the damn things, so many you had to put the alt section of this place on ignore 'cos it was all you'd see when checking new posts and if there was any trace of innovation amongst the damn things it'd be buried amongst a hundred shitcoin clones. One made it through the rabble though and we shook our heads in wonder and uttered a collective wtf?! at its rise. Doge, a litecoin clone backed by the full faith and credit of a meme.

Where's all this going? Well, long story short, we missed the ball, we'd let trust based exchanges flourish with no proof of reserves, hundreds of BTC walk away in hacks and heists and to cap it all off we'd let a fscking meme take coins off kids. It gets worse, we shouted and yelled while this was going on but to no avail and then we started to get close to Bitcoins networks limitations and this is where it gets really nasty, even worse than stealing coins from kids.

We tried to discuss it rationally, throw ideas around and see what came out of it but all the time there was a yell and yammer getting louder and louder until rational discussion became impossible and any future chance of rational discussion stood no hope, the devs couldn't utter a word. Sorry, we dropped the ball, the biggest player won the whole pot on the markets and then they killed any hope of evolution, they wanted the inefficiencies kept in because that's where the profit is.

Oh doom and gloom and woe is us, lets pack our bags and go home. Lol, you cant kill ideas that easily, the idea moved on and Bitcoin blew the door wide open for them. Look to the idea, it's out there and its wild and free, we're coming to get you squiddy

The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

[237]

They just fear Bitcoin, because its not easy to controll.

Everything that Bitcoin is and can be done with it, applies to cash as well.
Just that BTC is harder to fake.
They will keep trying to discredit BTC and, if they succeed other chains.
All the community can do, is creating honest trading-platforms and promote
crypt.cur. as independent, global and great oppertunity.

#237#

[01BTC10]

Talking about propaganda: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/software/3371446/bitcoin-seven-reasons-be-wary/

[asw0210]

An attack on the exchanges and individual accounts would violate U.S. and International law. It would violate U.S. due process laws to seize the account without first being able to prove suspicion illegal activities associated with the account. Also, cited in the article below, this kind of attack would violate WTO agreements.

Online poker would be a comparable case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheinberg In this case however the primary and only purpose of having an account is for illegal gambling; this is not the case with Bitcoin.

<Disclaimer>
I am not a lawyer.
</Disclaimer>

[AndrewBUD]

^ Good first post!



They should legalize the sale and consumption of certain ilicit drugs.... end of story

[conspirosphere.tk]

As we all know, the authorities have a fine tradition of doing the sensible thing and being quick to understand and embrace emerging technologies and wouldn't, for instance, freeze the accounts of every exchange they can find and issue a press release stating they have crippled underground trading by closing the accounts used to channel funds into these criminal organizations...

Another good reason to stay clear from centralized exchanges as much as possible. I expect a similar move any time from now on.
I just hope that the GLBSE has a good backup plan up and ready.

and if anything as heavy handed as that should happen, what does bitcoin have in its defense, what does it have to present to Joe Public as a legal and legitimate usage?

Are we already at the point of having to prove one's innocence?
Yes, I know. My suggestion is to stay as much underground as possible anyway, always deny everything to the "authorithies", and try to keep confidential info confidential.

if the powers that be choose to attack it and close down every exchange development will continue but it will be a big setback to its growth and a huge pain in the butt.

I would see this as free publicity. Many ppl are smarter than that and appreciate real value. In any case if TPTB were not able to stop any form of cybercrime, you can figure what could they do about BTCs.

[asw0210]

What constitutes proof? Not sure about the US but in my part of the world (Ireland) just using bitcoin and having a history of drug use would be sufficient "proof".

I think that would be enough suspicion in most countries to freeze an account. There are however ways to exchange bitcoin anonymously so that a name or history of drug use will never be associated with an account. That's one of the wonderful things about bitcoin 

[AndyRossy]

I dont think BTC is getting *enough* attention to be honest.

[Taz]

Sure you can hold, trade and mine them but would you be able to but them anonymously?
Could you maybe have an agreement with someone to buy something through sites like ebay, but receive btc instead of whatever item?

We definitely needs more press on the good side, how about a notable charitable donation made in btc.
Given to a media friendly cause it doesn't have to be a huge amount, just a useful amount.

[JTurner]

Talking about propaganda: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/software/3371446/bitcoin-seven-reasons-be-wary/

Reason #7 is pretty valid IMO...

[Frankie]

Online poker would be a comparable case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheinberg In this case however the primary and only purpose of having an account is for illegal gambling; this is not the case with Bitcoin.

This is not quite true. Poker is probably not illegal in many states that ban gambling; it's not a banking game, skill has a significant impact, etc. Moreover, poker is not even illegal in all the states. The reason they dropped the hammer on Poker Rooms is the passage of UIGEA, which did make financing poker room illegal, even though the underlying activity was not necessarily illegal.

Can you imagine something similar happening to bitcoin? Yes, easily. Without the ability to get checks, wire transfers, ACH, Dwolla, etc., bitcoin becomes very difficult to use--not just for drug dealers, but for everyone.

Lots of people have said that bitcoin would survive the loss of Silk Road, but I think it depends. If Silk Road is infiltrated by law enforcement and coordinated high-profile arrests made, I think the site might become too scary for customers to use, and that is dries up in the US. In that case, I think Bitcoin survives. But if they go after it with something like and anti-bitcoin UIGEA (call it ABU), I think Bitcoin could honestly die out.

Maybe you think that an ABU would not pass because there are legitimate for it, I say bullocks. Judging by Silk Road and this forum, the top three uses of bitcoin seem to be illegal drugs, gambling, and Ponzi schemes. It's not as if they are commonly accepted on eBay, for example. Bitcoin desperately needs high-profile legitimate uses. Moreover, compared to Poker Rooms, Silk Road (and the Armory) are terrifying to ordinary citizens. Most people didn't see anything wrong with poker, and UIGEA itself probably would not have passed without land-based casinos lobbying for it. It is true a lot of people think pot should be legal, but just the splash screen of Silk Road shows a whole lot more. If a politician demagogues on Silk Road, I bet something even more draconian than UIGEA gets passed, no problem.

But would this destroy bitcoin?  I mean, it would still be tradeable overseas.  I think it does kill bitcoin as a real currency (as opposed to quirky hobby).  We'd see the mother of all bank runs as US bitcoiners cash out. When this happens, not only with the price drop precipitously, but some of the exchanges will not have enough cash on hand and won't be able to cover claims. This will terrify non-US bitcoiners as well, and at the end of the day I think bitcoin is trading in the range of pink sheets, and the exchanges may all be belly-up. It won't make sense to mine, rigs will be sold off, and bitcoin becomes a cute novelty susceptible to attacks--kinda like Litecoin. And unlike bitcoin circa 2010, there isn't much of a chance for it to rise from the ashes--not with an an anti-bitcoin UIGEA in place, stifling the US market.

I'm pro-bitcoin, so I hope (1) flashy legal uses come to fruition quickly, and (2) the Silk Road is seriously compromised by LEO so that it doesn't become an excuse for demagoguery.

[01BTC10]

Talking about propaganda: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/software/3371446/bitcoin-seven-reasons-be-wary/

Reason #7 is pretty valid IMO...

Early adopters taking the risk of investing their time and fiat when the currency have almost no value and security is unfair?

Maybe early adopters and miners of gold are also unfair?


Price of gold between 1955-2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_as_an_investment#Gold_Price_History_1955-2011

Central banks printing and lending money out of thin air thus devaluing your accumulated fiat is more fair?

A peer-to-peer currency distributed via an open source software and mathematical algorithm is unfair?

Botnet might be unfair but the security/anti-virus sector is flawed/unfair and it has nothing to do with BTC. Think about CC and identity theft.

This article is pure media propaganda at his best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0IJCGuNtqk&feature=channel&list=UL

[asw0210]

Frankie,

That was a rather gloomy forecast for BTC but not unwarranted.

If bitcoin grows popular enough for credit card companies and banks to notice they will lobby government to put the lid on BTC. Once they realize that they will not collect on transaction fees, overdraft fees, finance charges, account management fees and ect... They would use the negative aspects of BTC to scare the sheeple and gain their support. We all know that our government (and subsequently our tax dollars) is in the pocket of these institutions so they wouldn't hesitate to drop the hammer.

I feel that the Bitcoin Community would not have the organizational structure or the finances to weather that storm. Maybe if we can get politicians to accept BTC Campaign donations...

 

[Frankie]

Frankie,

That was a rather gloomy forecast for BTC but not unwarranted.

If bitcoin grows popular enough for credit card companies and banks to notice they will lobby government to put the lid on BTC. Once they realize that they will not collect on transaction fees, overdraft fees, finance charges, account management fees and ect... They would use the negative aspects of BTC to scare the sheeple and gain their support. We all know that our government (and subsequently our tax dollars) is in the pocket of these institutions so they wouldn't hesitate to drop the hammer.

I feel that the Bitcoin Community would not have the organizational structure or the finances to weather that storm. Maybe if we can get politicians to accept BTC Campaign donations...

I think lobbying by banks and transaction services is not impossible.  It's kinda like how UIGEA wasn't really passed because fundamentalists dislike gambling (although they claim to), but because physical casinos could not compete with the online ones. I think you could see something similar here, where a law and order politician demagogues about how terrible Silk Road is--and they are suddenly supported by all the banking lobbyists.

Bitcoin needs to become legitimate before it becomes outlawed. That's my take, and it's why I'm encouraged by real venture capitalists backing bitcoin ventures: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4177605

[asw0210]

Frankie,

That was a rather gloomy forecast for BTC but not unwarranted.

If bitcoin grows popular enough for credit card companies and banks to notice they will lobby government to put the lid on BTC. Once they realize that they will not collect on transaction fees, overdraft fees, finance charges, account management fees and ect... They would use the negative aspects of BTC to scare the sheeple and gain their support. We all know that our government (and subsequently our tax dollars) is in the pocket of these institutions so they wouldn't hesitate to drop the hammer.

I feel that the Bitcoin Community would not have the organizational structure or the finances to weather that storm. Maybe if we can get politicians to accept BTC Campaign donations...

I think lobbying by banks and transaction services is not impossible.  It's kinda like how UIGEA wasn't really passed because fundamentalists dislike gambling (although they claim to), but because physical casinos could not compete with the online ones. I think you could see something similar here, where a law and order politician demagogues about how terrible Silk Road is--and they are suddenly supported by all the banking lobbyists.

Bitcoin needs to become legitimate before it becomes outlawed. That's my take, and it's why I'm encouraged by real venture capitalists backing bitcoin ventures: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4177605

Link came up dead. "We've temporarily limited requests for old items."

[Charlie Prime]

what does it have to present to Joe Public as a legal and legitimate usage?

Bitcoin's greatest strength is the fact that it works regardless of whether it's "illegal" or "illegitimate".

It makes no sense to attempt to propagandize Joe Public's opinions on that.

Bitcoin will eventually dominate the marketplace because of it's inherent technical advantage of lower price.

Time is on our side.

[BackwardsTurtle]

in australia, bitcoin isnt getting any attention, and i like it that way.

[fbastage]

"no"

[keystroke]

Reminds me of back in the mid-90s when people were afraid of the Internet.

I remember this cover back in the day: https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldrqtm2iCf1qapb8bo1_400.jpg
Looks like it was published in 95... I was just a kid playing on the net then and I remember shuddering whenever I saw that cover during the week(s) that it was lying around.

[Le Happy Merchant]

It doesn't take a genius to know what site I'm talking about, it's all over the news channels and bitcoin is getting portrayed as a secret underground currency for illegal trading.

I fail to see a downside, a massive amount of value that is currently in the bitcoin market comes from people pumping the price up, by getting money for silkroad, if more people begin to use it, and they will, the value can only increase.

I personally don't care if a part of the money in the market was at one time drug money, its not like bitcoins get tainted by people snorting cocaine through them. 

Additionally, at this stage, any attention is positive attention, because the people who would buy anyway wouldn't be scared off by hype. Its just like how I can still buy groceries with dollars, even while dollars are used elsewhere illegally.