Interesting concept but you've missed a few key features of bitcoin.

1) It's an open source project. Anyone can pull the source code and fork it or contribute to it, and due to bitcoins liberal nature as described by the white paper that Satoshi released, a lot of the early and core developers are also aligned with liberty and freedom in mind.

2) The early dev's have more money than they know what to do with. They could cash out and live the rest of their lives quite well but they haven't. They keep working on bitcoin because what attracted them to it initially is important to them, more important than profit. There is practically no financial incentive that could sway their minds.

3) The mining and validation system of transaction is decentralized and run on the basis of overall consensus. And again, the biggest miners are the guys who got in early, the guys who also adopt to free and liberal ideals. If companies want to sign up to a green list, all the miners have to do is agree to blacklist those companies and it defeats the very benefits of being on the greenlist (more trusted by users, faster transaction times).

Source (it won't brainwash you if you read it):

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

I'm curious as to why you think the open source nature of BTC somehow precludes the OP's theory??

Open source means "ANYONE CAN READ IT"

If this was a setup, some programmer reading through it all would read "We made this to steal all your money!"

They'd instantly make that public everywhere, if they fail to, other programmers will see it, and they'll spread the word to.

The OP never suggest that any plan involved proprietary code, so what difference would it make??

The OP never said btc would suddenly change and steal all your money, so you aren't responding to anything that's actually being debated.

The difference is you can fork it and create left_onecoin etc and endless variations, where the block chain is assuredly new and seperate.

The goal is to control the masses. Nobody uses proxys to have anonymity today. The same tomorrow. In the IT world you will always have an elite of hackers who live more or less outside the system, but they are not a very serious risk.

You constitute a part of the masses, and I do too, and look, here we are talking about how The Conspiracy may or may not have been planning to corral us into opting in into what is.. an opt-in system. People aren't as dumb as you're making them out to be. I don't get what infosec types have to do with this, that was a bit of a non sequitur

That's not at all a difference from what I described, and in actuality, is exactly what I described.

The OP never suggest that any plan involved proprietary code, so what difference would it make??

The OPs point is it's "THEIR" network. Whoever THEY are.... (From my POV this is just childish Us vs. The Unknown-style thinking.)

My point is that if you don't like it, fork it, and it's suddenly YOUR network, which makes yours and the ops points both unthought and moot.

The whole point of the thread is completely reactionary.

Open Source software is public property. Free as in you can take it and rework it. I'm not one of these cats who'll tell you to vet the source, I'm the type to tell you to take it and modify it.

Perhaps the next resurgence of hippy-style DIY off-grid living will include communal power generation and commune-specific cryptocurrencies. etc. for the next couple of hundred years, cyclically, on earth, in space, on other earthlike planets, ad infinitum.

My point is that if you don't like it, fork it, and it's suddenly YOUR network, which makes yours and the ops points both unthought and moot.

So, you think other people are going to use your btc just because it's a fork of the original?

I'm glad that you are a cool cat that has read about 'open source', but nothing you've written precludes the OP's point.

Not because it's a fork of the original, but because the original works and is a good starting point, as opposed to starting from the ground up. A general rule of software engineering is "Don't roll your own crypto".

You/I wouldn't name the currency after your/myself because it'd put people off using it, but you can create your own spinoff and there's nothing to stop it taking off with your circle of friends if there's interest in the idea.

I write open source software in my free time and OPs point is it's "THEIR network", and my point is that if you don't like it don't use it, or fork it.

Hopefully you see how this option precludes OPs "THE SKY IS FALLING" rambling.

also as an aside, I was aware of the NSAMINT doc about half a year ago, and didn't see it as nefarious then, either. Is it really that amazing that a clandestine (no such) agency which engages in corporate espionage and cryptography would be interested in cryptographically-backed currencies?

Cryptocurrencies are just an interesting concept, in theory and implementation and OPs entire point strikes me as deep curiosity mixed with a bit too much fear of the unknown.

Not because it's a fork of the original, but because the original works and is a good starting point, as opposed to starting from the ground up. A general rule of software engineering is "Don't roll your own crypto".

Do you have any concept of what this means in the context of software development? Because it doesn't really apply to what you are talking about in regards to btc. Cash is incredibly more anonymous compared to btc which offers a trace of one's actions. The difficulty of identifying a person and their btc accounts has nothing to do with any 'cryptographic designs' in btc. Imagine if the gov't forced any entity that converted btc to dollars to demand identifying information from their customers. Blammo - no more anonymity in btc-land.

If a number of large nation-states agreed to use btc as the core of a new international transaction network, do you think those nation-states are going to let their citizens trade in competing btc implementations? Do you think the businesses in those nation-states will use the gov't supported btc, or the free-btc?

The OP might be ridiculous, however, I was asking if anyone could, in the op's scenario, demonstrate how BTC is inherently secured against such attacks. So far you've suggested that it's self-evident. However, I don't think that is realistic. In fact, it's damn naive. To go with an example often used by libertarian btc fans, the dollar is backed by guns. Well, I don't know why you'd think the guns would suddenly disappear with any nation/state-adopted future-currency, cryptographic or otherwise.

Do you have any concept of what this means in the context of software development?

Yeah, an entirely different project is formed.

Because it doesn't really apply to what you are talking about in regards to btc. Cash is incredibly more anonymous compared to btc which offers a trace of one's actions.

Yes but you now have an entirely separate blockchain. How long could ten people keep this concealed to themselves, through using the system via a vps, or over a vpn or even tor (or all three at once) ?

The difficulty of identifying a person and their btc accounts has nothing to do with any 'cryptographic designs' in btc.

Once a sophisticated adversary acquires the new projects client and gets their copy of this private versions new blockchain all they can see is amounts being transferred between addresses, and if they're able to coerce participants wallet addresses from them then it's stopped being a software problem anyway.

Imagine if the gov't forced any entity that converted btc to dollars to demand identifying information from their customers.

Right, but what, as opposed to today where your bank, Ebay, Amazon etc would willingly give their records of you to law enforcers?

Imagine if a government forced any entity that converted cryptocurrency to hard cash, though, because it's instructive. There would be total outrage at first, and then imaginative uses of proxies for the process, like getting gold shipped to PO boxes and redeeming that for cash at a seperate time for example.

If a number of large nation-states agreed to use btc as the core of a new international transaction network, do you think those nation-states are going to let their citizens trade in competing btc implementations?

Yeah because it's really enforced by the involved parties who're willing to barter with whatever they have at hand.

Lets say just you and I have a forked copy of bitcoin (call it privcoin for the sake of this) and we've mined some currency and are willing to transact via two virtual private servers that are running the privcoin client. Funnily enough we've paid for the VPS' anonymously, with bitcoin, and we're coordinating the transactions by logging into one machine over ssh and connecting to an IRCd running internally, so we're also communicating via one anonymously rented machines memory on a service that's not visible from the public internet and to the NSA the traffic just looks like two SSH sessions. I sell you something you want and I accept your privcoins in return for shipping your purchase to you. All the government (any country) sees is use of the postal system, possibly even going from me to a PO box.

Do you really mean to tell me this hypothetical scenario is a matter of any government "letting" this happen? :)

The OP might be ridiculous, however, I was asking if anyone could, in the op's scenario, demonstrate how BTC is inherently secured against such attacks.

Actually you're not asking that anywhere but it is a good point. The best defence against having your *coin address linked to you is utmost secrecy about what implementations you're using, because physical intimidation isn't normally a software issue (apart from in TrueCrypts design).

Yes but you now have an entirely separate blockchain. How long could ten people keep this concealed to themselves, through using the system via a vps, or over a vpn or even tor (or all three at once) ?

Concealment? How could you conceal it? When did I EVER say it would be concealed?? Who are these 10 people?? What the FUCK are you talking about????

Imagine if a government forced any entity that converted cryptocurrency to hard cash, though, because it's instructive. There would be total outrage at first, and then imaginative uses of proxies for the process, like getting gold shipped to PO boxes and redeeming that for cash at a seperate time for example.

Total outrage? Maybe in BTC circles, but not in the democracies were the legislation was passed.

Look, if you aren't willing to look outside the bounds of the limited BTC community and answer the question at the scale I asked it, then don't bother.

Right, but what, as opposed to today where your bank, Ebay, Amazon etc would willingly give their records of you to law enforcers?

Umm - this is exactly what I'm saying. That there is nothing stopping the gov't from going and making btc just like any other reserve currency.

Actually you're not asking that anywhere but it is a good point. The best defence against having your *coin address linked to you is utmost secrecy about what implementations you're using, because physical intimidation isn't normally a software issue (apart from in TrueCrypts design). Truecrypt is only as secure as the tubes your transactions travel on, so I'm not sure what sort of system designer you are pretending to be.

I'm not asking for the vulnerabilities of the software protocol, I'm asking for the vulnerabilities of the software protocol IMPLEMENTED AS an international currency. Unlike a paradigm where the currency is weighed upon the might of an army, btc rests upon nothing. Subsequently there is nothing that prevents it from being co-opted or squashed. Shit dude, you can counterfeit US dollars, but it's pretty stupid because you can't use them anywhere. Anytime you use a counterfeit dollar you run the risk of getting caught committing a federal crime.

If traditional btc is outlawed you can be sure that there would be nowhere useful to spend your bit coins. So I fail to see how an exposed block-chain is a defense against this type of 'attack'.

So if you can't grasp the example of an international accord of state banks coming together, forking BTC and outlawing the previous implementation - don't bother responding.

I'm not addressing the design of the cryptographic elements of btc (of which none of it is novel).

Edit: here is the conversation you are responding to. So that is where the question is asked. Feel free to pay attention

Concealment? How could you conceal it?

Don't tell people about it.

When did I EVER say it would be concealed??

You didn't. It's the point I'm making, regarding forking bitcoin into a new, private currency for groups of any size of similarly inclined people. Try to keep up.

Who are these 10 people??

It's a hypothetical situation, to convey a point. Did you just not read what I'm communicating to you?

What the FUCK are you talking about????

Guess not.

Total outrage? Maybe in BTC circles, but not in the democracies were the legislation was passed.

If everyone moves to BTC then entire countries are BTC circles. Hopefully you get what I was responding with, now, at the scale you asked it.

Unlike a paradigm where the currency is weighed upon the might of an army, btc rests upon nothing.

Cryptocurrencies rest on the will, the volition, to use them, and their relative and mathematically assured scarcity. Relative compared to the US dollar, in that you can't just decide you're going to print a couple billion and introduce inflation. You can counterfeit paper currency but you can't counterfeit cryptocurrency, so your point with the US dollar isn't relevant, possibly like the US dollar next century.

If traditional btc is outlawed you can be sure that there would be nowhere useful to spend your bit coins. So I fail to see how an exposed block-chain is a defense against this type of 'attack'.

Yeah that's because you haven't read what I'm explaining, in talking about a concealed blockchain that's between private individuals, and I'd like you to explain how and why this would be outlawed, because that "if tradition btc is outlawed" is a pretty f'n big if.

If you'd have understood that then you'd have understood that what you're proposing (outlawing bitcoin or a variation of bitcoin) is unenforceable. Completely unenforceable against private parties using the methods I've outlined.

I'm not addressing the design of the cryptographic elements of btc

I don't think you could if you wanted to, mate.

I'm not asking for the vulnerabilities of the software protocol, I'm asking for the vulnerabilities of the software protocol IMPLEMENTED AS an international currency.

Then bitcoin loses it's anonymity if the law requires you to couple your wallets uuid with your social security info. Better start mining alternative cryptocoins if you want anonymity, and not blabbing about it.

You could start by forking the main bitcoin branch and working on it/using it from an anonymously rented vps.

Guess not.

10 people isn't going to cut it. I'm not talking about whether or black-markets are viable with bitcoin. I am talking about the global market.

If everyone moves to BTC then entire countries are BTC circles. Hopefully you get what I was responding with, now, at the scale you asked it.

No, that is your ridiculous fantasy. I meant if the government adopted it as currency. Most people wouldn't know much about it, they'd use it through their bank to buy shit just like they do with the numbers they see now. Most people are fairly ignorant as to how money is created anyway. To suggest that most people would suddenly become knowledgeable in such a fashion is fucking ludicrous.

Yeah that's because you haven't read what I'm explaining, in talking about a concealed blockchain that's between private individuals, and I'd like you to explain how and why this would be outlawed, because that "if tradition btc is outlawed" is a pretty f'n big if.

Yes, the big f'n if is the ridiculous scenario created by the OP. And that's why I said, 'within the ridiculous scenario of the OP - what would happen?' If the government adopted btc, it seems fairly obvious that alternative blockchains would be the equivalent of counterfeit currency and therefore just as useful. Welcome to the fucking conversation!

If you'd have understood that then you'd have understood that what you're proposing (outlawing bitcoin or a variation of bitcoin) is unenforceable. Completely unenforceable against private parties using the methods I've outlined.

That's like saying you can't get caught with child pornography because it's encrypted. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop acting so ridiculous. They nab cyber-criminals all the time, being smart enough to encrypt data doesn't make you dumb enough to trade it. How useful is that money if you can't trade it widely? If you commit a crime now, you'd likely get paid in cash that you can use anywhere.

I don't think you could if you wanted to, mate.

Sure, you are entitled to your own opinion. But if you are suggesting that bitcoin is a novel cryptographic system to guarantee anonymity, I don't know why I'd bother to continue to talk to you. As your own examples demonstrate that you must rely on other systems to hide your bitcoin identity.

Then bitcoin loses it's anonymity if the law requires you to couple your wallets uuid with your social security info. Better start mining alternative cryptocoins if you want anonymity, and not blabbing about it.

Right, and very few people are interested in bitcoin because of it's anonymity. I'd say the most attractive feature of bitcoin is it's inflationary policy, which some might say 'beats the hell out of fed'.

It's like you can't stop jacking off to your own bitcoin-fantasy to realize you've engaged yourself in a discussion about something more specific than whether 'bitcoin is totally cool or not'. Who gives a shit about running it on your own vps - that's not what I'm talking about. This is /r/conspiracy - the entire point of this subreddit is to explore such wild accusations.

Like, I'm sure there are anarchists somewhere that are willing to trade anything for either cheeseburgers or blow jobs, but that's an entirely different discussion from what I'm having.

10 people isn't going to cut it.

I'm just going to quote my original post, because it's funny.

It's a hypothetical situation, to convey a point. Did you just not read what I'm communicating to you?

A private group of people willing to trade in a currency that only exists within and for that group? Ten as a number picked out of a hat for this hypothetical scenario will do just fine thanks.

On a global scale? Not practical. Cash, for that.

Cryptocurrencies'll kill paper money just like e-readers'll kill paper books...Cash isn't going anywhere. Don't believe the end-times hype.

No, that is your ridiculous fantasy. I meant if the government adopted it as currency.

It's not something I give a shit about, but it would make an entire nation a circle of bitcoin users, too, wouldn't it.

Also when you say "the government", you mean the US government. Not everyone you talk to online is from the states.

Listen rather than having a conversation to yourself. You have two ears and one mouth.

If the government adopted btc, it seems fairly obvious that alternative blockchains would be the equivalent of counterfeit currency and therefore just as useful.

Nope they'd be alternatives, not counterfeit bitcoins (good luck with that). Wouldn't outlaw it. I've made my points on this and I rest my case, because you can't even figure this out for yourself.

That's like saying you can't get caught with child pornography because it's encrypted.

No, secrecy about what you're doing is like not getting caught for years, with child pornography, because no one is examining you.

It's like you can't stop jacking off to your own bitcoin-fantasy to realize you've engaged yourself in a discussion about something more specific than whether 'bitcoin is totally cool or not'.

I don't even use bitcoin, I find it (and electronic countermeasures) interesting, and I don't see you espousing anything useful. If you're not busy completely failing to receive incoming signals you're busy being an arsehole.

Who gives a shit about running it on your own vps - that's not what I'm talking about.

It's what I'm talking about, the person you are talking to, in response to things you've asked, you stupid bloody idiot.

I'm sorry if you don't find that idea useful. So fucking what. On a planet of 7 billion-and-counting? Others might.

This is /r/conspiracy - the entire point of this subreddit is to explore such wild accusations.

And woe fucking betide if anyone has solutions.

A private group of people willing to trade in a currency that only exists within and for that group? Ten as a number picked out of a hat for this hypothetical scenario will do just fine thanks.

No, it won't. That's the whole damn point of the example. As I said before, if you aren't willing to have a discussion regarding the theoretical scenario that has been outlined, you should find someone else to share your masturbatory fantasies with.

Nope they'd be alternatives, not counterfeit bitcoins (good luck with that). Wouldn't outlaw it. I've made my points on this and I rest my case, because you can't even figure this out for yourself.

Why would the gov't allow other block chains to exist? You could fork the dollar right now - it's only as good as the people willing to accept it. It's like you don't get the most basic concept of currency.

No, secrecy about what you're doing is like not getting caught for years, with child pornography, because no one is examining you.

What's your point with this link? I can show you plenty more of child pornographers getting caught so your anecdote doesn't trump the common sense notion that participating in illegal activities often results in one's arrest.

I don't even use bitcoin, I find it (and electronic countermeasures) interesting, and I don't see you espousing anything useful. If you're not busy completely failing to receive incoming signals you're busy being an arsehole.

I'm not here to espouse ANYTHING, you fucking moron, I asked a very specific question. You, unable to stop tripping over your own interest in espousing bitcoin, entirely missed the point. Can you, like, fuck off or something?

And woe fucking betide if anyone has solutions.

You haven't outlined any solutions, all you've done is insist there are no theoretical problems. If you'd like to believe that the government wouldn't outlaw other block chains, feel free to, but you've provided no reasons as to why the government would do that. It flies in the face of common sense.

It's what I'm talking about

Yes, I'm aware you are essentially having a conversation with yourself, through me.

Does the US government currently allow any competitors to flourish in this country?

On a global scale? Not practical. Cash, for that.

Well, yeah. That's the fucking point.

No, it won't. That's the whole damn point of the example. As I said before, if you aren't willing to have a discussion regarding the theoretical scenario that has been outlined, you should find someone else to share your masturbatory fantasies with

It's not an example you were fucking making you moron. If I think that number will fit the example I'm making then it will do just fine. Fuck off.

You could fork the dollar right now

It's not a software project. Good luck cloning a mint. Idiot.

What's your point with this link?

You don't get how secrecy works, and especially not in relation to that example I was giving ("hurrr concealment????"), which you even confused and suddenly thought you were giving.

I asked a very specific question.

Not until a few posts in, and when I pointed that out you referred me to the OP, who also wasn't asking it.

Bitcoin and as many forks as people want, on a global scale? Exactly the same as what we see today, and you can receive a salary and pension for helping. Governments can only regulate around it, not through the design of what exists today - its source is on too many computers to just put it back in the box, or they can curtail ordinary god-fearing joe schmuck from getting some perks from it through intimidation and brand loyalty to USGOV. So what. Fuckhim. The coward. Bitcoin as we know it isn't going into some magical legal box where we'll never see it again. That's not how distributed systems designed to be resilient against nuclear holocaust fucking work.

What's going to happen is more corporate entities out of silicon valley (spook R&D territory since WWII) springing up to offer services around the Bitcoin protocol and it's nifty API. So that's even more salaries and pensions for working with the Bitcoin protocol. More on this here.

Also, protocols evolve, networks extend into space, and there's other habitable planets out there.

Think about other countries on other planets, their economies and periods for daylight synchronized with terran commerce (think ~800 years in future). You need proof-of-work and a distributed ledger for this. Which brings me back to my first point that bitcoin is a good starting point to fork from, and your enhancements can always be merged back into the original project, which is a safe way of ensuring only good mutations evolve in the dominant project. Cash isn't going anywhere and neither are networked currencies. The money in your bank account has always only ever been a fixed point value in a database somewhere.

If you'd like to believe that the government wouldn't outlaw other block chains, feel free to, but you've provided no reasons as to why the government would do that. It flies in the face of common sense.

The weight is on you to explain why the government would outlaw forking a specific software project (you are literally copying a directory. That's what forking is.), when there's no counterfeit coins coming out of it but a new currency entirely. What's "common sense" is that once you start making changes to a new project it is a new project, not a counterfeit copy of the original. Reckon the US govt made moves to outlaw the fucking euro because they're not dollars, too? Idiot.

Does the US government currently allow any competitors to flourish in this country?

Yeah it's awfully nice how the CIA is letting mexican cartels shift industrial quantities of coke to the US. Maybe they wanted the competition! Who knows?!

The internet isn't a country though fucktard it extends beyond borders and into space.

I seem to remember another open source and highly popular software stack heavily influenced and developed by DARPA, called 'UNIX'...

Yeah and tcp/ip.

Maybe.... uh... maybe the New World Order isn't all that ba-

angel of light..

?

UNIX is closed-source all the way to version 5 (System V), and was developed by Bell Labs not DARPA. Bell (now owned by Alcatel-Lucent) was/is a spook corp though so your underlying point is still right even if the facts aren't.

Unix was an accident. The money and practicality behind it not.

How was Unix an accident?

Anyone can read it, but how many can understand math on that level?

The early dev's have more money than they know what to do with. They could cash out and live the rest of their lives quite well but they haven't. They keep working on bitcoin because what attracted them to it initially is important to them, more important than profit. There is practically no financial incentive that could sway their minds.

Ensuring the success of bitcoin is their financial incentive.

When the difference is between being able to buy 3 or 5 planets, you probably don't care all that much about making more money.

Their money is stuck in bitcoin right now. They need adoption to actualize their wealth. That's why they are all working for adoption. It's a simple concept. Opensource does not mean libertarian ideals control the actual network. It means you can fork the code and make your coin. Go for it. Doesn't effect bitcoin. Read this enjoy: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/8132/obama-initiative-spawns-identity-based-bitcoin-greenlist/

[deleted]

you'll see bitcoin users regularly pointing out that they've contacted bitcoin creators about security issues with bitcoin and have been ignored

Link please?

they have their own code backdoors

Source? Proof?

exactly, i think he is confusing the blockchain.info wallet security issue with bitcoin as a whole.

If he making this confusion then he is infact wrong. It isn't an issue with bitcoin but the website

you'll see bitcoin users regularly pointing out that they've contacted bitcoin creators about security issues with bitcoin and have been ignored

are referencing to blockchain.info's security issue that was exposed last week?

1) Open Source doesn't mean jack shit. Somebody made it. It's only "open source" so they can get free work to fix any errors that may be in the code.

I believe in open source, VLC and Matroska and Linux are all proof that through cooperation and good will, we can make computer operating systems and programs free through community effort.

This, however, is entirely different. Bitcoin was made to "free" us from having to use dollars, so we could not be tracked.

Hmmmm, I wonder if the government would stand to benefit from a digital currency that can't be tracked and can be easily used to massively scam people...........................

2) I was an early adopter, I was mining back when you could make 2 coins a day. I don't have any more coins because I rode the short train to fun town and cashed out early, huge mistake financially but oh well, life happens.

You can't offer people any "incentive" to get rid of their coin because there is none, are you fucking kidding? It's like the easiest way to make money on the face of the planet if you know what you're doing, and my friend with the mining machine most definitely does, he is not cashing out any time soon.

Sell high, buy low, and keep on milking that cow.

3) Again, so what? If anything, this is more argument FOR bitcoin being made by DARPA/NSA because again, decentralized, off the books, anonymous, DO THE MATH.

The whole "Liberal Freedom from Bankers Greed!" is just a buzz phrase to get people who still have ideals to go along with it.

People that just want to make money off it could give a fuck less about your ideals, they just want MONEY.

Your "few key features" are not case enough to disprove this theory, which I view as one of the most credible theories on Bitcoin I have ever heard.

Is this the way you guys internalise and deal with feeling butthurt that you didn't invest in bitcoin early?

Invest in it. it's going much higher.

Troll.

On #1: it's been reviewed by thousands of the world's best computer security experts. Nobody has found a serious flaw yet.

1) open source means you can see exactly what it does, how it works, how its monitorable, how secure it is, what privacy issues there may be. i'd say that's a lot of "shit" and not jack shit. Used to massively scam people? LOL. Here's a hint: don't get scammed? Credit cards/paypal are vastly more scammable due to chargebacks. bitcoin has no "take backsies" on transactions. no takebacks means less customer support needed at banks, which leads to lower fees. lower fees on bitcoin means vendors who accept it can offer products cheaper, or profit more to innovate or buy hookers who cares.

2) 2 coins a day isn't "early adopter" i mean, anyone adopting it before now is earlier. I would say early bitcoin adopters are those who could cash out (ignoring ramifications of doing such) and never need to worry about money again, aka, mining 50 every few seconds/minutes/hours with a CPU and the default client. 2 a day makes it sound like you were using a pool (pools came YEARS in)

to me early adopters see this in their bitcoin-qt transaction logs: http://i.imgur.com/yNCgQ6q.jpg

See how dumb you sound when you try and establish "when" you opted in as some sort of meaningful insight as to "how correct" you are?

This whole sell/buy mentality is a dead giveaway that you never actually adopted shit, you just traded it like baseball cards.

3) please explain as to how disruptive technologies that undermine the government are made by the government? You'd be a little more credible if you said it was the commies or the terrorists that invented it, but not much more. or even that the shady black/grey markets are gov funded to discredit bitcoin as the "drug terrorist kiddie porn currency"... but the coin itself? Please explain why the gov would make a partially anonymous currency that allows someone to break so many laws, so easily, so long as they trust nothing? I'd really like to know. More "digital currency anti cash" bullshit? BTC is far more anonymous than cash...

If you think this is argument is credible... logic, facts and reason aren't going to win you over... shrug

1) What's your point with open source? Duh that's how it works, just saying that doesn't mean it's some benevolent little start up like vlc or audacity.

2) Don't get scammed. Well okay, say that. Say that to all those people that got scammed through silk road where the site operators were caught running fraudulent accounts used to just straight up scam people and take their coins.

3) I started May 2011. That's pretty early into the game as your "early" definition has a date of "12/?/2010". Yes, some people were able to cash out early on, others do buy low sell high strategies where they siphon off a certain portion of their coins to do so with while maintaining their reserves. There are many ways you can do bitcoin, it's a digital investment that can be a bit volatile.

4) The whole sell/buy mentality makes sense when you want to increase your investment. Buy a coin at 500, sell it at 620, buy more when they drop again.

5) Disruptive technologies that undermine the government are made by the government so that the government can get around having to follow its' own laws. How much easier is it for them to make money off drugs through bitcoin than it is through their current MO trading guns and cash with terrorists.

The government made LSD and they still have the recipe, and the facilities to make it in. Hmmm, wonder if they could make money selling LSD on silkroad using bitcoins...............

On #5: interesting how FBI would be in on it but Homeland Security want it gone.

It's an open source project.

Open source is not all rosy! Example: Firefox paid a lawyer to head its wares & I [& many others] was paid nothing as a peeon & I thus stopped my minor efforts in making them loot, as they mined google for large cash all of which caused my eyes to be opened to the top players being a source opening pockets to ill greed.

There is practically no financial incentive that could sway their minds.

How do you know this? when "Satoshi" & all involved his network seem non entities.

Financial incentive does not die once one is rich. Grow up & emit smells of truth or show me links to people expressing in great detail how they have killed all seeds of greed leading them to no financial incentive. It seems you wear rose nosed glasses o_0, I would like to believe too, but have no faith in shadow people that are not known.

a lot of the early and core developers are also aligned with liberty and freedom in mind

Otay 0_o freedum & liberty. I need to see a scale & hands with no fingers influencing it. All I sniff is scales of reptiles whom according to you mined the shaft hard early. I postulate this early wealth gained could give them power to manipulate exchange rates to this non stable non money currency of a currency. I do love dragons & lizards, but I do not let their predatory minds guide me to believe they of no harm to all those in their paths or mined lairs. How much loot has been lifted from the scales they built to place on their sides of it? exactly, openly & precisely?

No need to answer the above ? marks, because their profits are not known.

I am cunning enough to postulate that the biggest miners could still mine & manipulate the mine as long as the mine produces non solid [bytes] currency from non solid [fiat] currency. Decentralized does not mean no backdoor or manipulation can occur. I also postulate a backdoor encryption key is likely held by the key network players of this sporadic currency that cuts in on Rothschilds drug like market of non solid money.

backdoor encryption key

Sorry man this right here discredits you. Encryption and backdoors are two different things.

If the random number generation is even partially deterministic because of hardware initiatives then those with the information can compromise the encryption. Also, asics can be compromised at the hardware level. This kind of compromise was detailed in leaked emails by the creator of the Avalon ASICs. Anyway... No need. Bitcoin security isn't their angle of control. They like it. With greenlist http://bitcoinmagazine.com/8132/obama-initiative-spawns-identity-based-bitcoin-greenlist/ it's their wet dream.

Except for when it's a door that's opened with a cryptographically generated key. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ssh-keygen

Is every byte of the bitcoin network accessible to all?

Can people hack into the network with keys only they have?

If shit was hitting the fan & the bitcoin was free falling could some with backdoor access gain access & milk the system quicker than others?

Could they jam it for the common non network coin holders if the network controllers see fit to control the bit flow to their advantage?

The above is the intent of my ill choice of original wording you seek to discredit all my other words with.

By encryption key, I mean to imply that if the network is encrypted, how does no one have a key. Encryption can be opened with keys, broken to damage or corrupt, & also hacked. In that sense keys to the flowing bits are possible are they not. If something is sent encrypted, it can be altered rerouted slowed or read & tampered with before reaching its destination.

I am not a computer genus & seemingly picked my words in an ill manner. I make no claims to know fully how this complicated scheme works, just as I do not completely comprehend the feds currency scam. I hope that you discredit only the tiny portion of my words you call out & I admit are a rushed ill choice of wording.

It is a non solid byte currency bought with non solid fiat dollars. This seems ill. I hope you & others do not lose money that to me seems like a bet on bits. I do not gamble.

Is every byte of the bitcoin network accessible to all?

Yes. That is the entire point of a decentralized consensus network, after all.

There is no backdoor, everything is 100% auditable by anyone who chooses. They don't need to get permission, they can look at the source code and the block chain.

The network was created to eliminate the need to trust a human.

Thank you that was helpful info that I somewhat deciphered before I posed the question, but wanted a little more knowledge in laymans term about. You added a tad of clarification to assist me to wrap my head around the sceme a bit better.

I do think E gold, currency or wallets are risky & hope all goes well for those that uses them.

I must restate I do not trust the shadow founder BS nor the potential for hacking abuse nor their following info site: http://bitcoin.org/en/faq

"Satoshi's anonymity often raised unjustified concerns" No concerns people have are legit & justifiable. Whom ever is writing that page sounds manipulatively ill of logic to tell people such questions are "unjustified concerns". I find it ill that no ones name is attached to the pompous sounding FAQ & feel it leads me & likely others to postulate that the shadow dude could have wrote it.

I do not trust a non solid byte currency that is bought with a non solid fiat currency.

If bartering/goods backed it as money, I would see it as more safe & solid. That would be a major dealeo to create & manage, plus the FEDS would shut it down super quick. The fact that the FEDs are dragging feet to deal with bitcoin & are not going after it like hotcakes on a sunday morning after a marathon run, seems sketchy & tells me the OP may be on to something about the feds being part of it.

I do feel strongly that unless the FED Parker bros types & Rothpires have a hand in the control of it then it is doomed to fluctuation manipulation by them getting ton of coins & working the network. I do feel that those ill entities make a global cabal that controls all big time drugs & currency movements on their turfs.

I find the silk road dealeo to prove the direction of their hard on erection to fuck people that cut into their drug turf & I see waves of internet surf threatened by a huge shark bigger & bluer than a smurf on the horizon. I hope all works in the masses favor. Cowabunga bitcoin dudes & may they keep safe!

I do thank you again for being civil & attempting to be helpful which you were ;)

That would be a major dealeo to create & manage, plus the FEDS would shut it down super quick. The fact that the FEDs are dragging feet to deal with bitcoin & are not going after it like hotcakes on a sunday morning after a marathon run...

That's the thing, because it is a distributed network that anyone can participate in, the network can never ever be shut down (without shutting down the entire internet). The FEDs aren't shutting it down because it's literally impossible to shut it down.

Also, because of the way the network was created, the code cannot be changed without a majority consensus of the network. Since the 21,000,000 hard limit of coins was built into the code, that is incredibly unlikely to change, because who would voluntarily devalue their own currency? Remember, the network (and therefore release of currency) is not owned by anyone and CAN'T be owned by anyone due to its nature.

The FEDs aren't shutting it down because it's literally impossible to shut it down.

Passing a law outlawing it & having eN-S-A do the leg work to round up a newly deemed bitQaeda 0_o. This could happen easily if the puppet masters choose @ the stroke of a puppetry pen.

Also, because of the way the network was created, the code cannot be changed without a majority consensus of the network. Since the 21,000,000 hard limit of coins was built into the code, that is incredibly unlikely to change, because who would voluntarily devalue their own currency? Remember, the network (and therefore release of currency) is not owned by anyone and CAN'T be owned by anyone due to its nature.

Sounds like once the limit is reached it becomes stagnant & would gain insane value that could only rise & not ever fall [if ill powers left it alone]. That is a scheme & IMO not even a currency once the limit is reached. It would soon then become fractionalized so deep that .000000000000000000000000000000000001 = 1 dollar in value & hard to work with for the little people & an eternal gold mine for the big fat cats. That sounds like a pyramid scheme or trade in limited shredded religious relics feeding the greed of rich church leaders. You seem to know more than me on the subject & it is interesting none the less.

I do hope all works out for small owners of bitcoins. I must admit I dislike all currency that is not backed in solid items with the same fury Gsus dude had when he [if he ever existed 0_o] attempted to cease Caesars flowage of coin by tax collectors, usury loaning & shekel conversion by money changers on church/temple grounds.

NSA is having troubles with Tor, why would Bitcoin be easier to fight?

FYI, the properties of Bitcoin strongly resembles that of gold (divisible, scarce, easy to verify, etc...)

IMO If you buy eN-S-A seeded BS that states eN-S-A is having trouble anywhere on the planet then you are not too wise & underestimate their propaganda. They practically own every byte sent IMO as storage. I doubt they can do much in real time & but if they sniff they can follow. Most people do not hide unless they are involved in ill activity. All humans emit patterns & most are very repetitive. I most often find it is not wise to underestimate anything especially FEDs with supercomputers that fill warehouses.

TOR is not cutting in on rothspires fiat currency monopoly is it?

Go on your TOR & talk some terror stuff using real spellings & commonly used terms for terror activity. Name types of Ekplosieves & make a story about doing an ill ignorant monstrous act. I shall likely see you in the paper within days.

FYI

o_0 OTAY, I guess this means your next words lead to me being instructed with solid factual gold & bitcoin knowledge.

FYI"In your opinion" is the reality of your remark stating that bitcoin strongly resembles gold.

That statement seems ignorant & not an FYI, just as I am sure much I have stated as postulation seems ignorant to you. The difference is I do not state the things you likely see me as ignorant about as FYI.

I agree to disagree.

I hope bitcoin keeps the resemblance you see it with today for while longer & if issues come up you can bail easily.

Tor is simply too effective at obscuring patterns. Don't leak personal info and you're safe. Even NSA don't have the computing power to fight it. There are too many variables involved, and y don't even know in advance who exactly you'll find if you try to follow a trace. In 99.999% of all cases you'll just find some random benign dude, which means you just wasted tons of resources for nothing. Bitcoin is just the same. It just ain't worth it, and it is too easy for the high value targets to defend themselves.

What is the properties of gold that in your opinion gives it economic value? Then look at Bitcoin again and see if there isn't any resemblance.

Tor is simply too effective at obscuring patterns.

I hope you stay safe. IMO you underestimate their power. I do appreciate you writing that out. I do not agree with most of it & do not seek to argue. I was a nice read, thank you for sharing.

What is the properties of gold that in your opinion gives it economic value?

That it is solid bright nontarnishable & brightly bold. It is slightly cold to the touch when skin first touches it. It can be rolled super thin & is easy to fold into shapes. It melts @ lowish temps for molds. Since days of old, it has been used for things that are sold. All that told, it is not made of non solid bytes purchased with non solid fiat money.

Enjoy ;þ

You overestimate it. They'd rather have you paralyzed of fear through propaganda than to waste that level of resources.

Bitcoins don't tarnish. It is incredibly divisible. It is easy to move around.

History had to be made, gold want always used. Physical look and feel isn't important enough to warrant that kind of value, there are tons of shiny things that are worthless.

Bitcoin can be stored in any number of ways as all you need is a 256 bit private key, or something like an Electrum 12 word deterministic seed. Paper, etched on metal, USB, whatever.

I grew up in a town that was owned by the feds for a while & also a major oil corp. Many peoples parents I grew up around worked for three letter FED ops. I asked way too many questions back then know wisely to not ever think they are not listening or sniffing, if they wish to. My fear is wisely cautious.

I have heard stories from the mouths of fear filled white bread straight laced marionette worker ants about people being more than paralyzed & no paperwork was made, no story shall ever dig up such graves. High ups kill for sport work or fun & fear is wise when within reason. Treason rhymes with reason because if high people in power find any reason to sniff out game anyone can be in season o_-

If the current house of cards falls & I see the next fall as long overdue. Gold would be more solid & stable IMO

Enjoy ;Þ

I make no claims to know fully how this complicated scheme works, just as I do not completely comprehend the feds currency scam.

Atleast you can admit that much.

Where would that backdoor key be hidden in the code?

I made a postulation. I am cunning enough to know not to assume something I make no claim to comprehend fully is safe from manipulation. If anything moves it can be milked &/ or killed IMO, just like death & taxes. Or a spider for anti venom. Energy spent to go after someone for taxes or to milk a creature on another planet is the only obstacle.

I made no claim to where any backdoor could be, if one is even possible, because I do not even know how bitcoin fully functions.

Maybe you know & read all of bitcoins code well, I do not know it @ all. Maybe you know all the code inside your browser & every program you use. I do not.

I hope you stay safe from losing your bitcoin, if bitcoin goes awry.

github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin - there's the code.

I would like to state I did load the link & If one types "bitcoin code" into google this link comes up. You did not provide anything I need or would be hard to find. I looked around for few minutes to see that it is complicated enough that I doubt you can fully comprehend the code & how it fully functions[I could be incorrect & you could be a computer code wiz]. It seems now you are just trolling to waste my time. I did not ask for the code nor do I want it.

Enjoy your bytes. I hope they do not get bit, nor bite your ass. lol just being silly 8P

I am not trolling. There are tons of computer security experts who have checked the code. Who wouldn't want to be the first one to announce having found a hole? It would literally be worth billions! He'd have job security for life.

And by the way, it is written in C (it's roots traces back to the 70's). That programming language is defined well enough that when you know it, you actually know it, there's not much room for ambiguity. If these security experts would find something that seems unclear or unmotivated in the code, they could just suggest a change that makes it simpler with even less room for hiding exploits. But they haven't even had to do that, they have simply concluded that the code is unlike anything they seen before (somebody called it alien due to it's exceptional quality), in a good way. The protocol is solid.

I am not trolling.

I figured that out on my last reply on the other line of replies lol. I apologize for the accusation, I also apologize for wasting your time, if you feel any has been wasted. Thank you for the detailed reply, It was an nice read & I learned some things[example: I did not know it was in C & do now].

Enjoy ;Þ

one reference is the source code

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/src

where you can find, in main.h

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.h

line number 48 which says

static const int64 MAX_MONEY = 21000000 * COIN;

and that is one of the lines of code that can be changed at any time

for example, the max number of coins can be increased by a factor of a thousand or a million or whatever

kind of like the balance sheet of the fed

which is pretty cool, because somewhere down the road there probably "won't be enough bitcoins", so the number will need to be increased

-I copied this verbatim from someone else. So, credit to you Mr. SafelyGraze from Zero.-

You are right that anybody can change the code, but that doesn't matter. What matters is how are you going to convince the majority of bitcoiners and miners to adopt your changes? They aren't going to. Bitcoin is democratic in this way. It can only be changed by the majority.

Exactly. You can't just make changes to the codebase, check it in and believe it will magically transform all the nodes and blockchain. You won't even have permission to check it into the official repository.

If bitcoin WAS created by some secretive agency, it wasn't to be the one world currency, it was to disrupt all others to a point that they could cry foul and create one.

I agree.

It was a lab set loose in the wild. Doesn't matter if it's the one. The policy to control it or any digital currency already exits. http://bitcoinmagazine.com/8132/obama-initiative-spawns-identity-based-bitcoin-greenlist/

Thank you I have been saying this for months. It was marketed towards the libertarians and an-caps in order to minimize resistance. They made the people who should be most against a global digital currency the people who champion it. Its a genius brainwashing scheme, shows that the people who claim to be not sheep, are indeed sheep.

As soon as I noticed bitcoin getting pushed on the libertarian radio stations and podcasts I KNEW it was a trojan horse.

THANK YOU! I've thought this for a while, that it's a mind fuck that I support the idea of the anonymity of bitcoin and its idea, but in doing so you're forced to actually advocate for the first true one world currency, an idea anyone and everyone should be against.

The thing is though, that its not anonymous. It's, as they put in the congressional hearing this week, "nearly" anonymous. Every transaction is tracked, if you buy something online with a bitcoin and get it shipped back to your house, they got you right there, there are all sorts of ways of tracking it.

Head of FinCen stated 'we already have the technology' to eliminate anonymity. Here is the policy http://bitcoinmagazine.com/8132/obama-initiative-spawns-identity-based-bitcoin-greenlist/

[deleted]

Global Consumption Tax. Paid to the mega banks in order to "equalize" the planet aka make everyone equally poor. Its a pillar of enslavement under the technocratic elite, do a little research. If every transaction is tracked every transaction can be taxed. That includes giving money to your buddy or buying privately from someone etc. Every time money transfers hands it can(and will) be taxed.

[deleted]

Bitcoin is "nearly" anonymous. If you watch the congressional hearings they keep repeating the term "nearly" anonymous, which means not anonymous. You can be forced to pay taxation whilst transacting. Once the government sanctions something there will be infrastructure set up to account for that type of system I can guarantee it.. The people pushing bitcoin have zero foresight, they see the technology now and say wow its great without seeing that there will be intervention especially if it is recognized by big corporations and government, it will be regulated and it will be taxed there is no question on this. Its a trojan horse, the people pushing it have no concept of history or how the people in power will use anything and everything to remain in power. Some nerd with a computer science degree has little to no historical context as to how a global digital currency will work in the new world order.

[deleted]

the government can destroy it by getting hold of 20% of the market or making it illegal to trade

Or say that they now have control of the exchange network, and that anyone that wishes to trade have to register their wallet uuid with a photo ID.

Open source forks doesnt carry over the value from BTC so that isnt a solution.

Its a pillar of enslavement under the technocratic elite, do a little research.

Source?

Books books books and books. You can't just point to one little source and say see? It takes years to amalgamate this information. People who constantly say "source?" on complicated subjects are usually those who wouldn't accept it even if there was one single source. Start reading, read HG Wells' non-fiction, read Zbignew Brzezinski, read Kissinger, read Huxley, I could go on and on, these people all lay out the need for a global currency and consumption tax. They are the initial thinkers who put the ball in motion and most of what they said would come to pass, has come to pass, so its a fair bet that global consumption taxes are on the way. Now that "consumerism" is a four letter word, the "liberals" will cheer a consumption tax because they are thoughtless and have no foresight.

yeah that's what i thought

You thought what?

Lack of resiliency.

Bitcoin is pretty much the definition of resilient

That was an example. And anything digital is inherently not resilient.

"Hey, who cut off power?"

Gold and silver are resilient. Bitcoin has to beat a history of thousands of years. Edit: you are aware that you can loose bitcoins? Found gold can be reused.

You have to cut off power globally, including that of every device protected by a Faraday's cage. Also, see paper wallets.

Interesting. If you've any more reading material on the matter it'd be greatly appreciated, too.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Why hasn't it gained more backing among governments like the U.S and UK? Some government officials have labelled it a national threat.

Bitcoin has not been around long. The US Senate hearings went well, German gov. approved it, as well as the Chinese gov. yesterday. It IS gaining backing by more governments everyday.

Peter Schiff has also said he thinks Bitcoin is really just a bubble. People are hanging onto Bitcoins expecting them to go up but eventually people will dump them because they don't have any intrinsic value and Bitcoins don't have any other good features except for the fact you can spend them easily online.

First, if Bitcoin becomes the new currency of choice, gold goes way down. His whole life has been invested into gold. Second, Bitcoins do have intrinsic value. There is a finite number of them and they can be used with less friction, more speed, and with lower fees than normal money. It is like saying the internet hold no intrinsic value, or google can't be a legitimate business because they don't sell a physical product. Just because numbers can't be held does not mean there is no intrinsic value.

Why would gold go down if bitcoin becomes the currency of choice?

Maybe initially, but I think gold still holds its long term purpose

I actually think if the price of bitcoin goes up (and by goes up i mean there will be more dollars to buy one bitcoin,) the value of gold will rise as well..infact sky rocket because the dollar will lose credibility

I agree. Which is why I wanted to hear a counter-argument

Second, Bitcoins do have intrinsic value.

Yes, but the issue with that right now, at this moment, is that intrinsic value is determined by whatever you cash them out into. I can't turn frogskins into bitoin, I have to go from cash (or other currency) to bitcoin to purchase it as an exchange medium.

As it stands right now, BTC is much like using the Euro or Kuwaiti Dinar in a country outside that zone, albeit with a both insanely high and volatile exchange rate.

Why would gold go down if bitcoins go up? Gold is already heavily invested in and all major currencies are (if not all) are not backed by gold like the euro and the dollar. They are debased from anything just like bitcoin.

Its a Fiat currency just like any other out there. The dollar for example.

Please read the said definition of Fiat before hastening a comment. The currency of bitcoin is not backed by anything other than its supporters. There is not commodity to support it nor is there intrinsic value to it and thus it can be referred to as Fiat.

I know people use the term "fiat currency" around and mean different things by it, but I don't see how bitcoin is a fiat currency as per the very definition of that word ("fiat" - as in by the will/decree of the state.)

Fiat as in having no intrinsic value other than the backing of the Government or people in position of power. Its not fixed in value, has terms of any objective standard or is backed by a physical comoddity. Yes it may be put in power, but the worth of the currency is its weight in paper if everyone chooses not accept it. Link is the Wiki page to the Fiat definition.

The value of bitcoins stems from their scarcity, kind of like that of say.. most precious metals.

You can't just decide you're going to mint a billion fresh bitcoins, unlike with paper currency or bonds.

The reason for their success is the computational effort required to "mine" them, guaranteeing a degree of scarcity and value, assuming people are willing to barter with them.

Energy. Electricity. Computational power. It's fundamentally worth the electronic paper it's encrypted on! Hahah

I was referring to paper currency such as the dollar or the euro. There is also the existence of a paper bitcoin wallet.

there isn't intrinsic value to ANYTHING if you take that semantic approach, so its redundant / condescending to state it. People confuse being backed by something an 'intrinsic' value when they mean 'extrinsic' ... see I can get all semantic n stuff, as well.

if the dollar was backed by gold, that doesn't mean the gold connection is inherent or within the dollar. And as shown, that connection is easily breakable since it is EXtrinsic.

At the outset of bitcoin, and for everyone who's ever generated a coin, the value of the coin was minimally tied to the amount of energy required to create it. People stopped mining when it was trivial to do so on CPU power because "ugh my electric bill went up."

That was one of the foundational basis for a sort of "auto-valuation," the cost of producing it.

X bitcoins are created based on total hashing power, and that power has a cost. A bitcoin costed that much on average.

So people went along with it and started USING IT and trading it based on that. This is why a 10,000 coin pizza was invented, 10,000 coins only cost that person some fraction of a pizza cost in electricity. The person who got the 10,000 coins wouldn't need to spend that electricity (though it was investing, novelty, and all that "non intrinsic" valuation that mattered even then.)

veering towards arguments over semantics is silly. are we going to start debating the tree falling in the woods making sound concept over "essential properties that are inseparable from any thing" vs. "things are only the combination of their properties" next?

Bottom line is it doesn't even have to be a "currency" it is a proof of work system. People assign value to whatever they want to, just because they do so doesn't imply anything about its essential nature. I can say my dirty socks are a currency too, and see what valuations that yields.

EDIT: Thank you to /u/the_hedgemon insisting that "fiat" applies to bitcoin I now take objection to the word "fiat" and the word "currency" being applied to bitcoin.

According to Blacks Law Dictionary "Fiat Currency" is:

Currency by official order whose value is based on the authorities ablity to pay. All currency is fiat currency.

A bitcoin transaction is not "an official order" based on "the authorities ability to pay". In fact it has no value in traditional commerce, or in fact, because it is not a "promise to pay". What makes it into "bitcoin" is the result of a transaction, not the state of an unfinished transaction.

Bitcoin only says you have a balance at an address if it is verified as having already happened. No traditional monetary value is ascribed because it is not a debt. Therefore it is not "currency". By law, by decree, by fiat all money must be an accounting of a debt, an unfinished transaction.

Also, it is not "fiat" currency either. It is just a distributed accounting system with a publicly available ledger.

Original Comment

Fiat means force. Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Fiat does not mean worthless. Bitcoin is not currency or money, nor is it a durable good.

The most concise way I can describe bitcoin is as a positive-value public ledger of accounts. Our currency is debt based, not positive valued. So every transaction we do is at best a double-negative (you holding other people's debt to yourself instead of holding a store of real value). Bitcoin cannot go negative. The blockchain shows the creation of value, and the chain of credits associated with the transaction, but the balance of accounts is always 0 or positive.

Bitcoin is a debt-free accounting system. It is the inverse of our current system which only trades debt. Bitcoin only trades positive values. Also, our current system is all based on secrecy. The Federal Reserve System has never been audited. The regulators literally must guess how much USD is in ciruclation and make up interest rates hoping to move the economy in the intended direction. But even they don't know how much is in circulation, or at what rate it is changing hands and therefore have no idea how much to print.

Bitcoin is public, it relies on the opposite of secrecy. It does not necessarily expose your identity. It is still pseudonymous. But it is also public so you do have proof, and you also know as a user or as a regulator (I guess that would be a miner in this analogy) the exact status of the network and can make decisions, and base public policy (bitcoin protocol decisions) on real, live, substantive data.

Bitcoin is literally the inverse of Fiat currency, yet because our current system relies on a negative inversion of value, a positive value system appears to perform identically. I.e. we have used an inverted negative value system for so long we no longer discern its true nature. "Debt IS Money" as Orwellian as that literally and literately is.

Fiat does not mean force if it is being related to currency.

Fiat as in having no intrinsic value other than the backing of the Government or people in position of power. Its not fixed in value, has terms of any objective standard or is backed by a physical comoddity. Yes it may be put in power, but the worth of the currency is its weight in paper if everyone chooses not accept it. Link is the Wiki page to the Fiat definition.

The "fiat" word is what I was referring to. The word itself means "by decree" or, inevitably by force.

Bitcoin is not "fiat" in any sense of the word. It is all those other things you said, but the one thing it is not is "fiat".

Well lets look at the Wiki definition step by step and determine if it is a Fiat currency.

• Has it been declared a government to be legal tender? Yes it has.

• Is it fixed in value in terms of any objective standard? No, its not. I dont even need a link for this one if you know anything about BTC.

• Does it have any intrinsic value? No it does not.

So therefore, by definition, the bitcoin is a fiat currency. There isnt much to it. The only way it dodges the definition is it isn't provided or supplied by the government. Now if looking at this post we can agree that the BTC network was setup by DARPA and will eventually be used by the government, than the least we can agree on is if its not already being managed or mandated by the government, it will be soon.

It does have it intrinsic value though. The value of the machines providing it.

I went with the real definition instead of a colloquialism.

The word itself means "by decree". That is the one point where bitcoin differs from every fiat currency in existence.

Once a government chooses bitcoin as its state-mandated legal tender I will accept "fiat" being used to describe it. But the one thing that word means is antithetical to bitcoin itself.

You are right. It has no intrinsic value. That does not mean that the word "fiat" is an accurate description.

Since we are talking about matters of law let's go with this legal definition of "fiat":

Currency by official order whose value is based on the authorities ablity to pay. All currency is fiat currency.

By that definition bitcoin is not even a currency. It is not an "official" order whose value is "based on the authorities ability to pay".

Bitcoin is not a promise to pay or an order by an authority. It is just a public ledger of accounts, of values themselves, not value. It records the VALUE transferred associated with a transaction. It is not money.

When I send you a donut through the mail in exchange for 0.01 BTC the blockchain records that an amount of value or equity, here recorded as 0.01 arbitrary Bitcoin units, moved from you to me. No money changed hands. Only a record in a distributed public record keeping software system.

I'm glad you pushed the issue. I had not realized by their rules bitcoin isn't even currency and cannot even be regulated with their existing rules.

Normally the US would break down the door if anyone using or creating alternative currencies. The lack of enforcement is support.

complete misunderstanding as to how peer networks work

Perhaps you're right, is there no way for the gov't to know who is carrying bitcoins?

Why hasn't it gained more backing among governments like the U.S and UK? Some government officials have labelled it a national threat.

That's actually completely in-line with Western conspiracies. Wouldn't be a very well-planned conspiracy if they were openly pushing for Bitcoin use, would it?

And the best way to get permission to control something is to label it a national threat.

The fact that the NSA (and the cipherpunks mailing list generally) were curious about cryptocurrencies (it's in their remit after all) early doesn't necessarily mean the original devs are on the payroll.

Seeing as bitcoin is open source, how do you feel about forking the project infinitely into as many mutations as you need?

All of this just seems rather paranoid and silly to me. No one's forcing you to pay for things directly from your bitcoin wallet with your thumbprint, and we can just unanimously let it be known that we don't want it if anyone seriously suggests it.

If you don't like bitcoin, why not stick to cash, or if you want a cryptocurrency of your own, why not fork the project and clue people in that you'll accept nicolaosqcoins?

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-creator-of-bitcoin

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/8132/obama-initiative-spawns-identity-based-bitcoin-greenlist/

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1b1szk/how_do_i_know_bitcoin_is_a_scam_and_covertly/c92xqrd

The real problem is that any new currency placed on an exchange can be bought up by fiat printers when it is still cheap. When the central banks print money to buy up all the bitcoins, of course the exchange rate of the bitcoin for the dollar goes to the moon - the bitcoin isn't just worth more, the dollar is worth less. Those at the top maintain their position simply by squeezing more value out of those at the bottom.

for any currency, digital or physical, fiat or not, to have a real diminishing effect on the existing central bank currency control structure, then users of that currency must refuse to trade it for fiat or goods produced through fiat financing. a group using the currency must communize and produce their own goods, using the new currency as an index of their own social relations, and essentially isolate itself from the outside fiat world. people must collectively stop using fiat altogether. when you see stories like "guy bought 25$ of bitcoins then 'cashed them in' for $600k to buy a house or whatever" this behavior only hurts bitcoin and helps the banks. the story ought to be "guy mines bitcoins, buys house with bitcoins".

Absolutely correct. You should distrust anyone who wants to closely tie Bitcoin to the existing financial system.

You mean every exchange? The source of over 90% of trading.. The very reason bitcoin is 900?

What is a greenlist wallet exactly?

Edit: Thanks for the responses guys. Yeah thst sounds awful.

For the rest of the confused, bitcoins would essentially be linked to identities, the exact opposite of why Bitcoin was supposedly created in the first place. Sketch. We're going to need a Bitcoin for Bitcoin...

[deleted]

That didn't help at all haha.

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/8204/why-the-bitcoin-greenlist-is-structurally-dangerous-to-the-bitcoin-ecosystem/

This is what I was able to find about it.

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/8132/obama-initiative-spawns-identity-based-bitcoin-greenlist/

*

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/8132/obama-initiative-spawns-identity-based-bitcoin-greenlist/

You're right. I realized it when it wasn't shut down immediately.

It's also a wonderful money laundering tool for the alphabet agencies working black ops.

It's decentralized... I guess BitTorrent is also a CIA/NSA/MPAA/RIAA plot because it still hasn't been shutdown?

False equivalent. This is another game. First alternative currency to be so universally adopted and accepted by the Fed.

This will become the world currency, OP is right imho.

Accepted by the Fed? Possibly. Manipulated by the Fed? Not so much. You can't "qualitative ease" the Bitcoin.

Sure you can. All they have to do is move the decimal place. Bitcoin is by design infinitely divisible. Right now there are, what, 6 or 8 decimal places behind the zero you can divide it into. Make it 20, or 30. Or 500. I'd think that would be similar to lopping a zero off of a denomination. Look at the Zimbabwe example, they devalued their currency by taking NINE zeros off the denomination, and still had 100 trillion dollar notes as an everyday small-purchase currency. It could easily become buying a cup of coffee for 0.00000000000000003BTC which is actually worth $3.50.

Just because something may not be manipulable by the Fed does not mean it's not manipulable by someone, in this case programmers absolutely no one knows and who have zero accountability AND would profit handsomely from such a move.

What you're saying still requires a centralized authority which Bitcoin does not have. Furthermore, Bitcoin was designed to be highly divisible down to many decimal places. The advantage of a digital currency is not having to worry about the denominations of physical media.

No single currency is immune to people hoarding it. There is always the ability to play the market especially when exchanges are involved, but that is fundamentally different than controlling the currency itself.

Everything you're saying relies on people caring about exchanging the Bitcoin with another currency. For now, that's required, but as more places accept it then that need goes away. If people's wages could be paid in bitcoins, goods and services purchased, and bills paid with it, it would be a non-issue.

If people could come off the USD completely, then the Feds game would end. At any given moment you can know the exact amount of Bitcoins in circulation based on the block chain. You can't print more. Therefore, it'd be easy to determine if your debt is really backed or not.

Bitcoin has a central authority in a way...it's the power grid. Think about that. Pick who you want your currency held hostage by, the Fed, or public and/or private power companies.

You can inflate and deflate if massive amounts are suddenly purchased or sold. The Fed can literally print out millions of dollars, inject it into bitcoin, inflate. Then deflate on demand with large simutaneous withdrawals.

You can inflate and deflate if massive amounts are suddenly purchased or sold.

Um, no. Do you know what those terms mean? Buying/selling != PRINTING MORE.

Um yes, the fed at this point has unlimited dollars which means that they can inflate bitcoin with unlimited dollars until the world ends.

Wrong. Fed would only be devaluing dollar against btc

That's exactly what we're talking about, bitcoin as the world currency over dollar. Thing is, those that are able to print "legally" at the fastest rate, control bitcoin.

Yes they can do that but it's far different than printing bitcoins.

Same damn thing. Inject bitcoin with FIAT dollars, inflate, crash with massive withdrawal.

better than diamonds

Yessir, nothing to carry or sell.

Lol what? You think black book operations have any problem with money?

Do you even know what laundering money is?

Yes. You load up some cash and its automatically bitcoin. Untraced and now accepted by Virgin and many others. Its perfect for laundering money.

Yeah... They were doing it for 6 decades before BTC came around... They don't really need BTC at all...

Nothing a send you back to the pre-industrial era global EMP from the Sun can't fix.

Fiber optics are remarkably resilient against EMP.

But ICs aren't.

Faraday's cages are

Great idea, let's build a faraday cage around... everything.

Stop ruining the fantasy :)

What's you're take on litecoin? Is it expected to be ignored or will both these currencies blossom? Will a new one come out or is it too late for that?

Give me Flooz or give me death!

Buy litecoin now. Gox, coinbase, btcchina coordinating support. It will pop to 25% of btc value in an instant with the announcement.

Human ingenuity eventually will conquer our own greed. When something is created it can be duplicated and when it can be replicated in a fashion that doesn't deter from it's original purpose... We win. The shortsightedness of, bad now, must act, seems to be an evolutionary trait of humanity that is often being exploited. Scary to think we could be powerless and be restricted from re-creating currency in the future if bitcoin became a legitimate world currency, but I believe it's impossible to abolish the barter system, but when one man creates more worth than he can carry, what are we to do? .

Reserving the right to rebut any and all claims in your post in the future if I so desire, you do make one very profound point.

The people will demand it.

Even on the chance that everything else you said is false, you are absolutely correct about that point. It is what they are used to. It is what they expect. And it is what they will demand once they realize that they are 100% responsible and liable for their own wealth.

The huge banks and governments will become the 51% mining pool (or 100% by decree), and will enforce all sorts of things to allow people to get redress through their government.

I've been saying for years that bitcoin is not money, it is not a commodity. It is a public ledger which outlaws debt.

By law (protocol) no transaction can ever be in deficit. Deficit is everywhere in our current economic system, in fact if you think about "Debt IS Money" enough you start to realize we don't use any positive values in our standard dual-entry bookkeeping systems of today.

But in bitcoin there are no negative values. Debits always equal or are less than credits in every single account. Original credits only come into existence under limited, and publicly verifiable conditions. Those original credits are positive values deposited into an account. Then that account is debited equal or lesser amount and deposited to another account, which only increases in value.

No account can ever be in deficit, it can never be in debt. The blockchain only records completed transactions. If it is "owed" or "pending" or "someday I'll send it" then it's not bitcoin. That's just a story you tell yourself to explain why coins that should be at one address are not there yet. The public ledger shows the truth, and only the truth. Equity is enforced.

Imagine if you had a law saying your books always at every single moment had to be up to date and balanced or you don't get to use money. That you could never accept something you haven't paid for. That is the future of "one world currency" bitcoin... unless extra-protocol means of enforcing liabilities and debts are added... as demanded by its users and/or the users of various government entities.

Wrappers will be build around bitcoin and bitcoin will become the way that banks and money changers transmit value to each other. You and I will use our Visas and PayPals and no end user of "money" will need to understand what SHA-256 is.

A reminder that the poor would just perish in a no deficit world.

not necessarily.

Exactly. The concept of debt and money causes the problem of the poor. Without it, in a completely equitable world, ownership is replaced with stewardship.

When you remove the concept of "debt" you remove the concept of being "owed". When nothing can be owed, it is what it is. Things are where they are and they move when they move.

Bitcoin is a perfect inverse analogy for our current monetary model. We use debt-as-money debts-to-me as "money". Bitcoin cannot be "in debt", it is only indicating credits to accounts, or positive values.

It is easy to misunderstand our current system as being a positive value system instead of a double-negative value accounting system. If you see our current system as positive value money then bitcoin is just another type of "money".

But in bitcoin things are where they are, until they move. There is no concept of debt or being owed anything. Only proof of where everything is right now as of this block of time.

Bitcoin illustrates the illusion of debt. It has the ability to belie the inherent lie of liabilities by prohibiting them in the protocol itself. Sure, you can say "I owe you 35 BTC" on a piece of paper, but that's traditional "money", or debts. It's not bitcoin because it does not adhere to the protocol.

If I have food and you don't that doesn't mean anything. I'm not owed that food. I simply have it. And I can move it to another "account". And then it will be there. In reality there are no debts. Even the common recited principle of a vacuum thwarts the assertion that imbalance are natural.

You are not owed anything. You are entitled to nothing. The very assertion that you "own" or are "owed" something is itself a lie. And our ability to lie allows us to incur or create liabilities in a debt based money system. In a fabrication of human ingenuity.

In reality nobody is poor. The concept would perish if the concept of money and traditional models of wealth were abolished or superseded.

It is the very idea that someone can rightfully and ethically withhold necessary resources from another human being that precipitates the systems of enforced and controlled scarcity that plagues our logistical processes in modern day commerce. They say there is enough food produced to feed every human being on the planet, yet for some reason people believe they are entitled to let it rot rather than alleviate the suffering of another human being.

Once you remove the concept of debt. Once you realize there is only what there is and debt is a human fabrication, then the ideas of greed and induced scarcity become abhorrent. Only by making such ideas a fundamental aspect of society can you justify the means and systems for enforcing and perpetuating profitable scarcity and imbalance.

Without the concept of debt it is much harder to "enslave" a population of people. Debt is enslavement. It always has been. Even today your actions can be compelled because of your promise written on a piece of paper and signed by you. Indentured Servitude is still alive and well, it just changed its name.

Forgiveness is the opposite of debt. It is "giving at the start". Giving be"fore". When I give you $20 and later you say you can't pay me back I say "I forgive you", meaning, "At the start it was a gift".

Instead of forgiveness being something on the back-end of an agreement, in a debt-free world, everything would be given freely from the start and any remuneration would be voluntary and an expression of gratitude.

In a no deficit would there would only be forgiveness. I think I would eagerly seek out such a world to live in. In fact, I might actually take actions to perpetuate such a world. A world without poverty, where everyone who has, shares, and those who do not have, benefit greatly from the abundance and generosity of a forgiving society.

That is one badass comment. My vote is for a switch to a debt free currency. Now if only we had a government that wasn't interested in enslaving us.

How about a "money free" economy?

I'm working to set up small scale models of currency-free trading systems operating as cooperative associations. At first the commodities will be limited to specific classifications to ensure liquidity of commodities in the trade engine, however the ultimate goal is to have an open source distribution that acts as a Depot or Marketplace of sorts, providing all of the infrastructure for vendors to effect trade.

The marketplace would be one "server" managed by a person or association. That person could set their rates and charge fees for their services. For example they may charge 12 eggs per month to allow another person to rent a "store" where that person lists their goods for sale, and the marketplace may even offer storage and order fulfillment services. Inventory management, labeling, and accounting services could be offered by the marketplace too.

An individual starting to trade in this system without any credibility would rely on someone with established presence, such as the owner of a marketplace, to vouch for them. Marketplaces as well as individuals gain credibility and communities form. These communities trade among each other and everything is tracked in real goods.

The key here is to treat every commodity as a currency. In the past they did this and they were using pen and paper. Today we have amazing computers to do the math for us faster than we could ever imagine doing by hand.

In the past they used currency and certificates of debt as an intermediate currency to simplify the number of accounts and currencies they had to deal in. But we just conflate "currency" and "commodity" and the result is simply a modern day stock market style system.

A solid trade matching engine will be critical. On a small scale I can write something in PHP that does basic array sorting to match hundreds of items, but a real trade engine with a distributed database and parallel trade match simulation processes working to optimize the results will have to be built to allow the idea to scale much larger than a few hundred users.

This is all theoretical though. I understand the technical side of it, but the accounting stuff is still a bit rough for me. And this is all just a huge accounting system with a commodity trading interface tacked on top.

As an example of a currency-free cooperative you can look at my question over in /r/cooperatives about keeping proper accounting in a scenario where currency is not used but equitable distribution of assets is desired.

Look up Open Transact.

That may come in handy. I'm reading up on it now. Thank you.

Very inspiring post, this is exactly what I am trying to get people to understand what bitcoin is! Here, have some dogecoin +/u/dogetipbot 30 doge verify

^{[wow so verify]}: ^{/u/endless_loops -> /u/highguy420 Ð30.000000 Dogecoin(s) [help]}

There is more to Bitcoin than is publicly known, that's correct. But you are overstating a few key elements of the narrative. This, for instance, is not even close to accurate:

That's why we see things like Greenlist written into law without a mention of bitcoin until recently.

Maybe. Time will tell.

I always had a gut instinct that this was the case. Too convenient for the globalists who were planning on transitioning to a digital currency all along.

This is being discussed on Morning Edition, right now. They even allege that Satoshi is a pseudonym.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bitcoin#Satoshi_Nakamoto

Satoshi Nakamoto is a pseudonym for the unknown person or people who designed the original Bitcoin protocol in 2008

Indeed. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/11/22/246611393/a-bitcoin-insider-on-crime-congress-and-satoshi-nakamoto

Well, there's really not any argument on whether Satoshi was a pseudonym. It obviously was.

One of their researchers and investigators is a man named Tatsuaki Okamoto. When they actively started writing the code they chose the pseudonym "Satoshi Nakamura" to ultimately promote the idea that Tatsuaki Okamoto to any and all who investigated the source of bitcoin long enough

This is a very big leap. Where is the evidence for it?

Read the guy's bio and his papers.. Then look at bitcoin.

Weak attempt at centralized currency vs fully decentralized one.

yup

I think it's interesting that just the other day on a similar thread OP called me, and I quote, 'an ignorant dumb fucking idiot', for pointing out some of these flaws in bitcoin and asking some of the same questions. His comment closed with 'perhaps you shouldn't comment on things you don't fully understand'...from this post it seems to me he may be the one who came across some understanding, just saying.

'perhaps you shouldn't comment on things you don't fully understand'

Ah, the timeless cry of the arrogant and genuinely misinformed.

i've been noticing some strange rhetoric about bitcoin in the recent week.

I've been watching it all afternoon and up until now. It's shot from the low 700s all the way to $840 currently. And who knows, tomorrow it could be $850, or $10,000, or $0.001 for all we know.

oh believe me, i have been watching as well. What I meant was that I've been seeing some persistent fear mongering of bit coin bubble crash or things like OP's post. Which is all fine but it's really all backed by no factual info or anything really. Its strange to me

Well, anything that has 800% growth in the last 50 days should garner way serious concern for a collapse.

i think so too. Its cool to always ask why, its not cool to address the why with bs too. On another note.. heres for a big deep or three before the new norm is above 1000.

There is actually a wealth of info around. Hit up /r/bitcoin and /r/bitcoinmarkets, as well as Coindesk.com and the like. It's actually a fascinating economic microcosm that's formed, with its own laws and trends. /r/bitcoin would be a good first stop for some info on the concept in general.

It's not hocus pocus really, the technology is interesting however the human element is predictable - it's a new currency/store of value type thing so it's evolving right now. The bubble/crash stuff is more a byproduct of market psychology, as the value is overinflated by speculators and people overinvesting, then realising there isn't much they can do with it, then they sell again etc. it behaves like a stock in many regards.

At this point in time, it will take serious effort to get it to his 10000 or drop to 0.001. Stuff like "half the population buys some bitcoins right now" or "a fundamental flaw in the bitcoin protocol allowed a hacker to shut down the whole system". Its value is largely dominated by herd movement rather than actual utility value (which is considerable but not quite yet $10,000 considerable if you know what I mean).

frequent those subs and website pretty often. I'm just curious to wonder what you were getting at in your 3 month late post though

There was a TIL on the frontpage that made a link to this thread. I should have seen that it was so old sorry.

Fuck dude..

[deleted]

Its funny because the OP has another post asking where to buy bitcoins with a credit card...I think they call it hypocrisy?

Finally a decent post here - OP here is so full of shit his eyes are brown and his nose is leaking diarrhea.

I can't BELIEVE what I am READING right now. This INFORMATION is honestly BLOWING my MIND.

Water is wet?

Seriously though, there are inherent conditions on currencies that can't be circumvented. If you circulate any currency, it can work just as well as the dollar if enough people believe in it and use it. It doesn't have to be backed by anything. Bitcoin also replaces the dollar in reverse proportion, i.e. for every unit Bitcoin goes up in value, the dollar drops just as much.

This leads only to two conclusions: either TPTB have to take control over the currency if it really is open source, or they have been in control over it from the beginning.

GJ BTW on this post.

If you circulate any currency, it can work just as well as the dollar if enough people believe in it and use it.

THIS is true. Just look at how Tide detergent has become a preferred street currency. (http://nymag.com/news/features/tide-detergent-drugs-2013-1/)

all true, and it will be used to start a "revolution" that will "seem" to come from the people but is really "their" revolution initiated in order to change from one scam to another

Disgusting. I want to believe so bad that the people can revolt on their own without their needing to be break to hear a "word from our sponsors".

"The revolution will not be televised." -Gil Scott-Heron

" That's why we see things like Greenlist written into law without a mention of bitcoin until recently."

Wait, there are greenlist laws already? Interesting, are you claiming that there's some sort of shadow law creation that passes laws 'for reals' and the public, verifiable, and precedent based/setting laws are pretend?

Global ACH has pretty much nothing to do with bitcoin. I work on B2B systems and their entire point for a global ACH is to stop "Bank of LOL Zimbabwe" from defrauding people since there is no standardization of security.

You are aware that right now certain banks in Canada will not accept non-chipped US credit cards? Certain payment processors will not accept certain african, asian and european transactions by default?

this adds up to increased fees since they have to build their OWN network of trust, aka, centralized point of failure.

Having 1 protocol for transactions is not "lack of freedom" because if there were 2, all you'd end up with is more ways to stop freedom. Pretty simple.

big bad gov will exist and censor external freedoms in your paranoiac uneducated scenario if there are 1 payment systems or 2 or 100.

I find it hilarious that you can't see bitcoin as an antidote to centralized banking, which was the central conspiracy tenet? Your claim is that it makes it actually MORE centralized? Except, of course, for all of the fees and anonymity? LOL...

your post reads like "bitcoin sucks because its actually the governments creation even though it completely thwarts gov meddling so don't use it ok??? signed, not_an_agent"

Wait, there are greenlist laws already?

No, there wasn't. Most of this post is completely random rambling without any actual facts, for what it's worth.

There was one company that's barely in start up that is planning a greenlist scam, and pretty much every bitcoin user is against them (the whole sub BLEW UP with anti-CoInvalidation stuff after it came to light).

There's no greenlist law.

after reading OP's post, i was completely mindfucked until i came to my senses. This post is precisely what people who confused or unsure to form an opinion about should read before forming one as a counter to OP's post.

I don't understand the faction of people who are against bitcoin...but i'm sure those people don't understand why we are for it as well. In due time this will subside

My own belief is that govs have not played their hand yet, unless their hand is "false flagging" illegal operations regarding bitcoin (linking it to kiddie porn, drug, piracy, mob currency).

They can easily step in and curtail it from the inside out: their biggest roadblocks will not be to the software and network internals, it will be in curbing adoption via laws and policies. For example they could set laws that prohibit tax-incentivized companies from using it. This would be profitable if the number of large companies that jump ship for greener pastures (districts without those laws) are trumped by the mid- small- companies that are not so agile.

saying "lol you can't stop bitcoin" is ignoring the pressure and power the government has to stop its adoption. it is actually very similar to the stranglehold microsoft has on enterprises... the discounts they give to certain institutions can't be matched by other companies, and so its either go with ms or lose this sort of "funding."

I'm waiting to see these gauntlets drop, when non-profits start to accept bitcoin only to find a year later their audits are revealing things that cause them to mysteriously lose gov aid/funding.

1 subway franchise accepting bitcoin is interesting PR until subway loses their sweetheart credit processing deal that they upcharge to franchises due to it, you'll see those franchise contracts change in a heartbeat.

I'm all for a good consp. theory, but i think the gov is more likely to stall things under the guise of "chin scratching investigation" when they're really buying time to fortify positions.

Does anyone honestly think successful capitalists are trying to do anything other than maximize their own profits? That should be obvious, I'd hope. If there is any potential for profit here (hard to argue with +4,000% even if it is the biggest scam in the world) you'd see all sorts of experiments (how much money can we make honeypotting a TOR based drug empire / laundering network / exchange).

Especially since the government can easily EASILY EAAAAAAAAAAAASILY buy in to bitcoin and crush it under its own thumb by mining themselves, or draining the coins with $$$ assigned to "black budgets."

There are so many ridiculous points of failure on the system that are so obvious, its a bit silly. Are you telling me the US gov doesn't have the power to completely take over bitcoin via $$$ or computing power? Looool.

This is my verbatim post on /r/bitcoin. Glad it's getting more interest here.

The people there are hopeless, they've bought into it 100%

If OP is right then we should all be buying into it immediately. If it gets used as even a percent or so of world transactions at full bitcoin allocation it's worth something like a million dollars per bitcoin.

Also, did you guys see THIS: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1r87p5/omfg_what_is_going_on/

Earlier today someone sold 193,000 bitcoins for about $150 MILLION...

where is the bitcoin xpost? I'm interested in that sub's take on this.

I always wonder if we'll transition to the world of sci fi in which we pay for everything with Credits.

HAHAHAHAHA and that's exactly why i regret not buying them early on although i knew better!

So is the price going to go up or down?? ;)

Up.

The weak point of your demonstration is where truth is to be found:
- When Bitcoin mining process will be over ( near 2017 ) no one will be ever able to generate more.
- a fixed supply money can't handle economic growth.
- Thus making that money useless for sutainable monetary policy, well, at least for a capitalistic economy. ( yeah, but.... are there other economic dogmas, mum? ;) )
- When the mining retribution ends, who the fuck will give energy to sustain the blockchain hashing for free ???

When the mining retribution ends, who the fuck will give energy to sustain the blockchain hashing for free ???

The transaction fees handle that.

Nonsense, sir:

1- applying transaction fees to what? To exchange $ to bitcoin?, because adding a transaction to a blockchain can't be proxied

2- OR, you think that mtGox will rent 6.79 phs ( as today ) of FPGA asic mining boards, knowing that the computing power doubles every month to handle the difficulty increase, and to make it work?

3 - If you apply mining costs to $-Btc operations, you'll end with a 1000% fee!

Educate yourself: http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/

applying transaction fees to what? To exchange $ to bitcoin?, because adding a transaction to a blockchain can't be proxied

NO. To the transaction itself. It happens (currently) every time there is a transaction.

NO?
"Except for special cases like very small payments, there is no enforced fee."
http://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-for-individuals Do you have insider infos about 0.9 bitcoind fee policy, dude?

OP, you mentioned the desire for a deflationary currency... Source?

Bitcoins is the NWO, one world currency. Invest now or be forced to join the mobs later.

If this is true, then wouldn't you want to buy in now?

If you are planning to hold for over 6 months, sure. Otherwise the current spike cant be trusted in the shortterm.

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1r6g86/how_can_bitcoin_be_a_revolutionary_currency_when/ All gilded.

And like the creation of the Internet they lost control of it...So now they are seeking control of something that can't be controlled.

And like the creation of the Internet they lost control of it.

Wow. So wrong. You're in r/conspiracy, you should know about the rampant censorship on the web. And about the multiple attempts to shut down internet free speech and innovation through regulatory bodies. Ever heard of the TTP?

Ever heard of the TTP?

http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/congress-may-have-killed-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

They've been trying to pass this since 2010 and have been unsuccessful dude.

Wow. So wrong.

If I'm so wrong then why are they trying so hard to censor and control the internet?

Ever heard of TTP?

Do you even no what you are writing? I feel like I'm debating Siri who just repeats back the same thing I said to her.

I'm obviously mocking your last statement and yes everyone knows what TPP is.

Do you even no what you are writing?

Do you even know what you are writing?

Are you a bot? Is this a turing test? Shut up or say something useful.

I think you should stick with your kind and keep posting useful stuff in /r/conspiratard with the rest of the trolls.

I can't be the only one who is really starting to like the idea of a NWO?

I want to thank you for providing this document link.

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm

It should be a standard sidebar link in r/bitcoin.

I did not however see a reference to a computationally distributed blockchain to prevent doublespends but I did see a reference to a database of spent coins which is in a way a blockchain - just not p2p or computationally intensive to prevent duplication.

anyway. fascinating intereting history to know the NSA was working on this stuff that long before 2009.

And they would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!

Seriously, do you think they'd be dumb enough to let a power user have a name that gives away their connection? Really?

This is they type if stuff that makes me hate this sub. First we hate the Federal Reserve, then we find a viable solution to USD, and then someone comes along calling conspiracy...

I want a sub that us verified "conspiracies" only not this tinfoil hat type shit.

This. Honestly I think OP is a paid account at this point.

He doesn't actually present any sources, information that is credible or really anything interesting - it's just insane rambling.

How do you verify a "conspiracy" without it turning into fact and thus not a "conspiracy" anymore?

Conspiracy does not mean not fact.

The Gulf Of Tonkin incident and the coverup is a factual conspiracy (just one example).

I don't know how people are still confused on the difference.

That was what the quotes are for. To imply that we are talking about the generalized version of what conspiracy means and not that actual meaning.

I am sure when you read my sentence, you realized this. It was pretty obvious, I thought, that we meant conspiracy in terms of theories and cover ups and not any meeting between two or more people with the purpose of hiding information from others.

Am I clear, or am I still confusing to you?

See JFK.

What part about JFK that is a conspiracy, that main stream didnt believe before, that is now considered fact?

Anyone can read it, but how many can understand math on that level?

exactly, i think he is confusing the blockchain.info wallet security issue with bitcoin as a whole.

If he making this confusion then he is infact wrong. It isn't an issue with bitcoin but the website

complete misunderstanding as to how peer networks work

That was what the quotes are for. To imply that we are talking about the generalized version of what conspiracy means and not that actual meaning.

I am sure when you read my sentence, you realized this. It was pretty obvious, I thought, that we meant conspiracy in terms of theories and cover ups and not any meeting between two or more people with the purpose of hiding information from others.

Am I clear, or am I still confusing to you?

The OP never suggest that any plan involved proprietary code, so what difference would it make??

The OP never said btc would suddenly change and steal all your money, so you aren't responding to anything that's actually being debated.

I seem to remember another open source and highly popular software stack heavily influenced and developed by DARPA, called 'UNIX'...

You overestimate it. They'd rather have you paralyzed of fear through propaganda than to waste that level of resources.

Bitcoins don't tarnish. It is incredibly divisible. It is easy to move around.

History had to be made, gold want always used. Physical look and feel isn't important enough to warrant that kind of value, there are tons of shiny things that are worthless.

Bitcoin can be stored in any number of ways as all you need is a 256 bit private key, or something like an Electrum 12 word deterministic seed. Paper, etched on metal, USB, whatever.

Not because it's a fork of the original, but because the original works and is a good starting point, as opposed to starting from the ground up. A general rule of software engineering is "Don't roll your own crypto".

Do you have any concept of what this means in the context of software development? Because it doesn't really apply to what you are talking about in regards to btc. Cash is incredibly more anonymous compared to btc which offers a trace of one's actions. The difficulty of identifying a person and their btc accounts has nothing to do with any 'cryptographic designs' in btc. Imagine if the gov't forced any entity that converted btc to dollars to demand identifying information from their customers. Blammo - no more anonymity in btc-land.

If a number of large nation-states agreed to use btc as the core of a new international transaction network, do you think those nation-states are going to let their citizens trade in competing btc implementations? Do you think the businesses in those nation-states will use the gov't supported btc, or the free-btc?

The OP might be ridiculous, however, I was asking if anyone could, in the op's scenario, demonstrate how BTC is inherently secured against such attacks. So far you've suggested that it's self-evident. However, I don't think that is realistic. In fact, it's damn naive. To go with an example often used by libertarian btc fans, the dollar is backed by guns. Well, I don't know why you'd think the guns would suddenly disappear with any nation/state-adopted future-currency, cryptographic or otherwise.

10 people isn't going to cut it.

I'm just going to quote my original post, because it's funny.

It's a hypothetical situation, to convey a point. Did you just not read what I'm communicating to you?

A private group of people willing to trade in a currency that only exists within and for that group? Ten as a number picked out of a hat for this hypothetical scenario will do just fine thanks.

On a global scale? Not practical. Cash, for that.

Cryptocurrencies'll kill paper money just like e-readers'll kill paper books...Cash isn't going anywhere. Don't believe the end-times hype.

No, that is your ridiculous fantasy. I meant if the government adopted it as currency.

It's not something I give a shit about, but it would make an entire nation a circle of bitcoin users, too, wouldn't it.

Also when you say "the government", you mean the US government. Not everyone you talk to online is from the states.

Listen rather than having a conversation to yourself. You have two ears and one mouth.

If the government adopted btc, it seems fairly obvious that alternative blockchains would be the equivalent of counterfeit currency and therefore just as useful.

Nope they'd be alternatives, not counterfeit bitcoins (good luck with that). Wouldn't outlaw it. I've made my points on this and I rest my case, because you can't even figure this out for yourself.

That's like saying you can't get caught with child pornography because it's encrypted.

No, secrecy about what you're doing is like not getting caught for years, with child pornography, because no one is examining you.

It's like you can't stop jacking off to your own bitcoin-fantasy to realize you've engaged yourself in a discussion about something more specific than whether 'bitcoin is totally cool or not'.

I don't even use bitcoin, I find it (and electronic countermeasures) interesting, and I don't see you espousing anything useful. If you're not busy completely failing to receive incoming signals you're busy being an arsehole.

Who gives a shit about running it on your own vps - that's not what I'm talking about.

It's what I'm talking about, the person you are talking to, in response to things you've asked, you stupid bloody idiot.

I'm sorry if you don't find that idea useful. So fucking what. On a planet of 7 billion-and-counting? Others might.

This is /r/conspiracy - the entire point of this subreddit is to explore such wild accusations.

And woe fucking betide if anyone has solutions.

applying transaction fees to what? To exchange $ to bitcoin?, because adding a transaction to a blockchain can't be proxied

NO. To the transaction itself. It happens (currently) every time there is a transaction.

There was a TIL on the frontpage that made a link to this thread. I should have seen that it was so old sorry.