Topic: BitCoin CIA Psy-OP, physical coins persecuted (Read 4234 times)

Air America Two the new and improved version funded entirely by Bitcoin. Sponsored by MtGox and Nike.

I didn't quite understand the OP.  Is he saying that the CIA were the inventors of the bitcoin?  Well, even if this is the case, who cares right?  I mean, it's not like they're "in control" of it.  Only thing would be that they have 900 million of their own coins sitting around.

I can assure you that I see the problems quite clearly. However, I see them in perspective. At this juncture, these problems are non-existent. Indeed, most of them are non-problems period.

At some future date, the approximate 7 transactions per second _average_ throughput will become problematic. We already know how to deal with this - by increasing the block size. We don't do it today, as we are balancing block size against HDD capacity and network bandwidth. At least this is what I infer from what little I have followed the specific discussions. Moore's law works in our favor here, allowing us to scale blocksize, and thereby transaction volume, along with infrastructure capacity increases.

How many successful double-spends are you aware of? Can you point me to some case history? What is the reason you believe this to be a pervasive problem?

I'll grant you that the 51% attack is a potential issue. I don't think it will ever be successful, but concede it could be done, should enough hashpower coalesce in some cabal that is unconcerned about utterly destroying the value of bitcoin (in my estimation, a vanishingly unlikely prospect). What is your suggested fix?


How many BTC have you lost to the above problems? Any? Any proof thereof?


Then we're at the point the block size limit must be increased. Make the change and ship it. NBFD. In the meantime, there is no good reason to do so.


You seem to care enough to disparage the character of someone who is actually contributing, by making unfounded allegations.


The head of the foundation? Now you're dragging Executive Director Jon Matonis through the muck as well? Not that I have any partucular love for the BF, but this seems an odd assertion as well. Or did you mean Gavin again?

If there is clearly an _agenda_, perhaps you could publish it here for all to see.


So now PayPal and the biggest banks were at this meeting as well? Care to provide a citation for this assertion?


I've not scrutinized the patent. However, my impression is that it has nothing to do with a decentralized implementation, nor one based upon anything resembling the blockchain. If you know otherwise, please let me know where I am wrong. Bear in mind that all banks have been implementing digital currencies for longer than the internet has been in widespread use.


Looks like our all-time daily peak was 102,010 -- about 1.2 per second -- on Bitcoin Friday. So yes, If we grow by a factor of little more than five, transactions would be slowed. But not stopped. At the peak. And perfectly within bounds otherwise.

IOW, we have roughly an order of magnitude to go before it becomes an inconvenience. At which time we have a known fix waiting in the wings.

Naive? No. Perspective.

The first thing that comes to mind is that CIA created bitcoin and are the ones that harvested the "Shatoshi" coins.

Bitcoin doesn't have any problems when you compare it to current traditional currency.

Bitcoin solves all those problems, but has some of its own, like anything else.

By using traditional currency, you allow bankers and government to perform extra taxes that are becoming more and more apparent/noticeable every single day.

Bitcoins only lose value when they are spent, which happens in every currency system.

Traditional currency loses value just by holding it.

The biggest factor effecting any currency simply is the trust people put into it.

More and more people/business every single day is accepting or rejecting BTC.

So far people or big business who reject BTC do it for selfishness/wrong reasons. (investments that would die if BTC succeeds)

Your short narrow vision is amazing. Nobody is talking about now, if bitcoin becomes more successful and mainstream it will be doomed. But good fail arguments, and just because you haven't been a victim other people have, imagine the users multiplied by 100X.

I don't need to do anything about as I have zero coding experience, nor do I believe in Bitcoin enough at this stage to even care. When the head of the foundation puts out completely useless priorities there is no point to even bother, as clearly there is an agenda.

Lets see Gavin met with paypal and the biggest banks in the world at the CIA, I'm sure they didn't tell him Hey Gavin sit down shut your mouth and listen. If you think they were all their to be enlightened about digital cryptocurrencies you must be super nieve, since JP morgan had a patent on digital currencies 10 years ago.

Think what you want, end of the day Bitcoin has all these problems which have not been addressed and wont be anytime soon, your only hope is that more users and merchants don't use it or it will implode.

# times my transactions have failed due to volume: zero
# times my transactions had not posted or confirmed in reasonable time: zero
# times I've been ripped off by 51% attack: zero
# times I've been a victim of double spends: zero
U R doing it rong


You really are a whiny bitch, MikeyVeez, you know that? If you don't like the prioritized order of fixes, jump in and do it yourself. It's open source, remember? Code up a fix and submit a pull request. Problem solved. Be a hero. Not a zero.

Disclaimer: I'm sure Gavin's a nice guy, not accusing him of anything nefarious, just that organisations like the CIA need to be treated with suspicion.

Learning from your wonderful phrases such as  "bending over". He's the enemy because we all know Bitcoins issues, can't handle high amount of transactions, slow speed, 51% attacks, double spends. The fact that he has done nothing to fix these issues shows he's with them.

If he solved all these issues that's fine, maybe just went to CIA to talk about crypto, but the fact he hasn't done anything, just seems like purposely letting it fail.

Yeah I know what defunct means, thanks for that. So Gavin is the enemy because he visited the CIA, and you presumably think he's in league with them? If that's the case, bitcoin is dead already and has been since 2011. Can't you use more adult language than "butt buddies", or have you got a defunct podcast showing that as well?

I love how people use defunct like a negative word, when it means no longer exists. The podcast is not defunct the persons show was (as in no longer exists) was I'm sure if you bother to google for 2 seconds you could find it.

This is a fact, that this has occured. Gavin circle jerks the community everyday, makes zero difference. If all of a sudden Bitcoin got mainstream adoption like all the retards scream, Bitcoin would fail miserebly. This has been known for years, and the fact that he wasted a whole year not fixing the most important issue for Bitcoin shows his either incompetent, or just taking orders from his butt buddies.

No confusion here. You just misspoke. This is the line you were answering to. Unless of course you were talking about a random algorithm in your mind or any other algorithm that has nothing to do with the discussion in hand.......

Thanks, but I think we are referring to two different things. You are referring to the algorithm which Bitcoin is based on, which indeed is the product of the NSA. I was referring to algorithms in general (and ciphers), which are usually, though far from always, the product of the private sector.

There's nothing to be explained.

The Gavin CIA meeting did happen. As far as I know, there were also other similar events where some very early coins where sent to a couple Gov agents (can't find source on that now, if anyone has lnk...).

Now, regardless of what this may or may not mean, and setting aside all conspiracy theories, Satoshi made the obvious clear choice.

If you developed the tool with the power to change the world's status quo, worked hard from early on to protect your identity, and then hear that the man you just gave the keys to the house is meeting with the representatives of the main sponsor of the current status quo; you better disappear.

Do you really need an explanation on his mindset? Most people would've done the exact same thing.

He planned on anonymity and an exit right from the start. The CIA meeting just gave him the signal it was time to execute his exit strategy.

"SHA-2 is a set of cryptographic hash functions (SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512) designed by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and published in 2001 by the NIST as a U.S. Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS)."

He met with them. Taking it from that to "bending over" is in your head only 

Gavin does make a difference, every day. Can someone prove to me Satoshi left because of this? Apart from a "now defunct" podcast. How very convenient .....

Maybe because the CIA is one of the only groups that very early on saw the potential for Bitcoin.

Think about how hard it is to pay an operative in a remote, hostile country with huge bricks of $100 bills. Its a major security vector for all parties.

Sending someone $1M in bitcoins? Fast, easy, anonymous, clean, and very secure. Its an ideal payment method for covert ops. 

Didn't know Yoda had joined the forum. Very clever to use a pseudonym little fella 

Why did Gavin even bother meeting with the CIA? I hate it how people bend over to authority figures... no wonder Satoshi left, glad that he/she has some moral fibre. What happened to people wanting to make a difference?

i heard that Gavin flew with a chemtrail-plane to the CIA HQ