I haven't listened to Jeff's CBS interview yet, but judging from the reaction here, I'd say it differs significantly from Jacob Appelbaum's response to NPR regarding the notion of building backdoors into Tor. I would have hoped for a similar response from Jeff.
That said, Bitcoin is open source and honest users and developers will simply route around any treachery.
Topic: Bitcoin press hits, notable sources - page 76. (Read 430922 times)
Quote
Yes, I too applaud Jeff's effort to distance Bitcoin from some dubious users (Silk Road), and to emphasize its openness and the importance for the community to comply with financial regulations.
No matter how mis-guided those regulations maybe?
Would you be saying the same thing if you lived in N. Korea, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen .... ?
You guys are starting sound like robots.
Bitcoin Money has the video clip (now moving discussion to the Bitcoin Forum CBS thread): http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=13077.msg184200#msg184200
http://www.bitcoinmoney.com/post/6305669012/cbs-whatstrending-bitcoin and
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20069780-10391715.html
http://www.bitcoinmoney.com/post/6305669012/cbs-whatstrending-bitcoin and
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20069780-10391715.html
Yes, I too applaud Jeff's effort to distance Bitcoin from some dubious users (Silk Road), and to emphasize its openness and the importance for the community to comply with financial regulations.
bitcoin supporter here.
imo the cbs story was the best pr move bitcoin could make to increase legitimacy and push through the silk road story. if you want BTC to keep growing, that was the right move. sacrifices have to be made. if you want to be liberty $, fight the man and give the finger. if you want to compete and grow, cooperate and form legitimate alliances. that's all, my 0.02.
BTC can do more good from the 'inside' than the 'outside'. can't wait to see where this goes.
imo the cbs story was the best pr move bitcoin could make to increase legitimacy and push through the silk road story. if you want BTC to keep growing, that was the right move. sacrifices have to be made. if you want to be liberty $, fight the man and give the finger. if you want to compete and grow, cooperate and form legitimate alliances. that's all, my 0.02.
BTC can do more good from the 'inside' than the 'outside'. can't wait to see where this goes.
Yep. Bravo Jeff!
bitcoin supporter here.
imo the cbs story was the best pr move bitcoin could make to increase legitimacy and push through the silk road story. if you want BTC to keep growing, that was the right move. sacrifices have to be made. if you want to be liberty $, fight the man and give the finger. if you want to compete and grow, cooperate and form legitimate alliances. that's all, my 0.02.
BTC can do more good from the 'inside' than the 'outside'. can't wait to see where this goes.
imo the cbs story was the best pr move bitcoin could make to increase legitimacy and push through the silk road story. if you want BTC to keep growing, that was the right move. sacrifices have to be made. if you want to be liberty $, fight the man and give the finger. if you want to compete and grow, cooperate and form legitimate alliances. that's all, my 0.02.
BTC can do more good from the 'inside' than the 'outside'. can't wait to see where this goes.
I think he said everything I didn't want to hear as a bitcoin lover.
bitcoin will not and cannot be regulated by design. Exchanges, however, can be regulated by local laws and should operate accordingly. If bitcoin can be regulated as such, it won't be what it is at the core.
I noticed a tone of resistance when it was first to suggested to see how chaumian blinding could be worked into bitcoin, icbw.
If it is another layer that works fine also. But bitcoin will die if bitcoin2.0 includes blind transaction signing at its core.
Smells like another Tor, black op. project gone feral.
bitcoin will not and cannot be regulated by design. Exchanges, however, can be regulated by local laws and should operate accordingly. If bitcoin can be regulated as such, it won't be what it is at the core.
To be blunt, in the interview you seem eager to cooperate with law enforcement in identifying bitcoin users. [/quote]
Way too eager! What attracted me to Bitcoin was its capacity for escaping from government regulation of private financial transactions. By saying that you are working with government to get the Bitcoin exchanges regulated and to make them comply with know-your-customer laws and anti-money-laundering laws you are embracing some of the same anti-privacy policies that make the government/banking cartel so odious to begin with. You seem to be selling out so you can gain wider acceptance from the mainstream. If Bitcoin exchanges will become just like other bureaucratic financial institutions, it makes me a lot less enthusiastic about Bitcoin.
BitterTea: I share your concern.
IMHO - any core developer of Bitcoin, if pressured by a government official to "fix" or change something within the software, should politely but firmly refuse. If pressure turns to coercion upon this developer, he or she should consider removing themselves from the development team.
IMHO - any core developer of Bitcoin, if pressured by a government official to "fix" or change something within the software, should politely but firmly refuse. If pressure turns to coercion upon this developer, he or she should consider removing themselves from the development team.
This link now has the full, unedited (thankfully) interview.
To be blunt, in the interview you seem eager to cooperate with law enforcement in identifying bitcoin users. I understand part of this is a reaction to the tone of the interview, but would you in your capacity as Bitcoin developer make changes to the client as requested by a government agency? What if they produce a legal document compelling you to do so and/or preventing you from divulging that information? If you want, we can move this to a new thread.
P.S. I understand this is open source software, but I'm lazy and don't look at the code for each version. Jeff, I don't mean to single you out, this is an admittedly unlikely but possible scenario for any of the trusted developers.
This link now has the full, unedited (thankfully) interview.
Nice interview on CBS, Jeff!
http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504943_162-1111.html
Edit: I guess this was a live webcast, that I happened to tune into, at the right time. Not sure where the archive is.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504943_162-1111.html
Edit: I guess this was a live webcast, that I happened to tune into, at the right time. Not sure where the archive is.
"The company has a public online ledger of where their currency is going and to whom so that Bitcoins can't be counterfeited. While the ledger is public, what is actually bought by BitCoin users is anyones guess as the ledger is coded and only shows how much money was spent."
Could someone inform CBS that Bitcoin isn't a company or a private organization? I couldn't figure out how to send an email to the author.
That article is riddled with errors. However this part causes me great concern:
"Garzik stopped by to talk about how his currency is being used on Silk Road, the online black market for any drug imaginable, and how he is working with the government to turn Bitcoin into a universal online currency."
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tageblatt.lu%2Fwirtschaft%2Fstory%2F18120071
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2011/06_-_June/SUMMARY_JUDGMENTS__Our_daily_legal-news_aggregator_for_June_7/
http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/networking/47679-social-networks-threaten-bank-orthodoxy
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20069707-10391715.html
http://memeburn.com/2011/06/10-reasons-why-you-should-get-your-hands-on-some-bitcoins/
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/columns/24853-bitcoin-the-significance-of-decentralised-currency.html
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2011/06_-_June/SUMMARY_JUDGMENTS__Our_daily_legal-news_aggregator_for_June_7/
http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/networking/47679-social-networks-threaten-bank-orthodoxy
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20069707-10391715.html
http://memeburn.com/2011/06/10-reasons-why-you-should-get-your-hands-on-some-bitcoins/
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/columns/24853-bitcoin-the-significance-of-decentralised-currency.html
Nice interview on CBS, Jeff!
http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504943_162-1111.html
Edit: I guess this was a live webcast, that I happened to tune into, at the right time. Not sure where the archive is.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504943_162-1111.html
Edit: I guess this was a live webcast, that I happened to tune into, at the right time. Not sure where the archive is.
"The company has a public online ledger of where their currency is going and to whom so that Bitcoins can't be counterfeited. While the ledger is public, what is actually bought by BitCoin users is anyones guess as the ledger is coded and only shows how much money was spent."
Could someone inform CBS that Bitcoin isn't a company or a private organization? I couldn't figure out how to send an email to the author.
http://www.openmarket.org/2011/06/06/bitcoins-four-objections/
The bias is obvious with statements like:
"The unbridgeable gap here is the transition from being used by a small group of hobbyists in barter to being used by financial institutions and the man on the street as a proper money."
I think he means currently existing "financial institutions" and MY "proper money"
Maybe we can help him as a gold/BTC trader.
I left him this response:The bias is obvious with statements like:
"The unbridgeable gap here is the transition from being used by a small group of hobbyists in barter to being used by financial institutions and the man on the street as a proper money."
I think he means currently existing "financial institutions" and MY "proper money"
Maybe we can help him as a gold/BTC trader.
I really think this is a misunderstanding of the regression theorem. As I understand it, the regression theorem can only be used to explain the exchange value of a good that is being used in indirect exchange. It can not be used to disqualify any good from becoming money once it has actually established an exchange value. Even Rothbard said that once a good has exchange value, it does no longer need a use value, quote "On the other hand, while money had to originate as a directly useful commodity, for example, gold, there is no reason, in the light of the regression theorem, why such direct uses must continue afterward for the commodity to be used as money" (http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Dolan/dlnFMA12.html).
Bitcons have an exchange value today and is being used in indirect exchange to some degree. I don't think there is anyway to deny that. So the only thing we can do with the regression theorem here, is to apply it to bitcoin and trace back it's (still somewhat limited) current exchange value in time to see where it originates from.
So bitcoin has an exchange value today since it had an exchange value yesterday. It had one yesterday since it had one the day before that and so on. If we go far enough back in time we will come to the first bitcoin exchange that ever took place (a 10.000 BTC pizza as I understand it). Why someone would actually exchange a pizza for bitcoins with no exchange value we can only guess, but reasonably the ownership of bitcoins gave him some sort of utility. According to the regression theorem (as I understand it), this very first transaction is where all of todays bitcoin value originates from. Bitcoins had some use value to someone, and this was enough to also give it an exchange value.
I think austrians should be very excited with bitcoin. It does not derive it's value from any other good (I've heard some people call it a dollar proxy). Bitcoin is the regression theorem in action, from the beginning.
It doesn't seem to be at the web site though. Does he read through the comments before accepting them?
your comment appeared on the site and also a reply by the authour, quote:
Quote from: Grant Babcock
2_Thumbs_Up: Consider the rest of that quote. “On the other hand, while money had to originate as a directly useful commodity, for example, gold, there is no reason, in the light of the regression theorem, why such direct uses must continue afterward for the commodity to be used as money. Once established as a money, gold or gold substitutes can lose or be deprived of their direct use function and still continue as money; for the historical reference to a previous day’s purchasing power will already have been established.” *Once established as a money,* a commodity can lose it’s use value. Note that “lose” implies it had to have had a use value in the first place, and “once established” implies this can only happen after something becomes a money. BitCoins never had use value, and are not widely accepted enough to be called monies (hence my remark about “hobbyists” vs “the man on the street”). That said, I am not convinced that when Rothbard says this he means that free-market monies can lose their use value and remain monies, or he has the paper currency situation in mind.
famulusfusion famulus
I was just interviewed by Businessweek about bitcoin! Thanks @cdixon!
2 hours ago
http://twitter.com/famulusfusion
I was just interviewed by Businessweek about bitcoin! Thanks @cdixon!
2 hours ago
http://twitter.com/famulusfusion
Bitcoin is backed by $200,000 pizzas imo.
Jump to: