Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin: The dream of Cypherpunks, libertarians and crypto-anarchists - page 4. (Read 3366 times)

hero member
Activity: 1873
Merit: 840
Keep what's important, and know who's your friend
unpopular opinion alert*

Unfortunate Bitcoin does more to reveal info about your past transactions by default; requiring you to opt in for any privacy... fantastic store of value for all cryptos, but I would argue this isn’t what Satoshi had in mind.

What does it reveal if you do not re-use Bitcoin addresses or when you use Mixer services? Satoshi never said... "I will make Bitcoin 100% anonymous" ....he knew it will never be accepted by governments if it was. That would defeat the whole goal, if governments banned it, because criminals would have had a field day with it.

Bitcoin can only be disruptive, if it can replace the oppressive financial system that was built on government manipulation. The whole point of Bitcoin is to replace a currency that are printed like toilet paper to pay for bailouts and corrupt government actions.  Roll Eyes

Satoshi envisioned a *digital cash*. Cash transactions between two individuals aren’t broadcasted on any ledger where other people and government can keep tabs on it. Plus in the white paper it specifically states that he wanted to circumvent any government or third party to be a part of censoring transactions, I don’t think Satoshi was that concerned about it being “accepted” or not.

Sure you can reuse addresses, but that doesn’t fix what’s wrong. Tracing every transaction makes Bitcoin unfungible, period.

Even Satoshi proposed the idea of ring signatures a long time ago because of this realization before he disappeared.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 6524
Fully-fledged Merit Cycler|Spambuster'23|Pie Baker
There could be a better thread for my question, yet I would like to raise a question that came into my head while I was reading OP, which I understood attempted to suggest both an ideological underpinning to bitcoin that was achieved through technological progressions and/or improvements to what ended up being bitcoin.

So, when you described b-money in OP, you suggested that it seemed to have a lot of bitcoin's attributes but it was both subject to sybil attacks, but also suffered from the problem of NOT being coded or implemented.  Bit Gold was also subject to sybil attacks, and I am suspecting that the network of proof of work was not decentralized enough in bitgold so it ended up having potential  hashpower manipulation vulnerabilities?

A question came in my thinking regarding what aspects of bitcoin exactly helped bitcoin to overcome the deficiencies of b money and Bit Gold? [...]

Sorry for the delay in answering this... The answer to this question is not an easy one and I had to think a lot on how to put things in a proper manner here, in order to be easily understood by any reader.

In order to understand how Bitcoin overcame the problems presented by Bit Gold and b-money, let's first analyze these problems.

Regarding Bit Gold, let's use as reference its white paper and Nick Szabo's blog entry related to his invention. Some of the problems are emphasized by the author. I highlighted below just two of his observations.

Quote
(3) Representations of ownership of these solution bits are stored in a public manner, e.g. in a distributed property title registry I also originally suggested (both off the list and in an impractical but privacy-protecting form I described on the list) that publically known levels of wealth can be represented by a system of publicly shared books. However, I think using this approach and discarding the solution bits raises several unnecessary problems. [...]

A potential big problem remains: the possibility of a trade secret algorithmic or hardware breakthrough. The world lacks a cryptanalytically stable problem. Almost every year there are cryptanalytic breakthroughs speeding up cryptanalysis of particular block ciphers or hash functions by \( 2^{10} \) or more, and there are no proven lower bounds precluding such a breakthrough for any cryptographic algorithm.

However, Bit Gold's biggest issue is best explained on Bitcoin Wiki:

Quote
Transfer with prevention of double-spending, via a Byzantine-resilient peer-to-peer method, is described in another linked article which calls the method secure property titles and proposes also applying it to other kinds of digital property, such as domain names. However, this Byzantine method relies on a quorum of network addresses rather than a quorum of (hash) computing power, so unlike bitcoin it is vulnerable to Sybil attacks.

On the other hand, b-money had its own flaws, part of them being also admitted by Wei Dai. Let's use the description from weidai.com. You can see there that Wei Dai actually made two proposals (both related to b-money), not just one.

Quote
I will actually describe two protocols. The first one is impractical, because it makes heavy use of a synchronous and unjammable anonymous broadcast channel. However it will motivate the second, more practical protocol.

The first solution was based on the possibility that all the network participants held a copy of a same ledger, similar to Bitcoin protocol. Also similar to Bitcoin, there was no central authority needed for b-money, the protocol was decentralized and the network users would update their own version of the ledger after each transaction. But this first proposal of b-money did not solve the double-spending problem, as the transactions could not be broadcasted through the entire network.

The second solution for b-money was a client-server approach, where the servers would be the ones holding the ledger. The servers were entitled to publish the transactions while the clients were responsible for verifying the correctness of the information provided by the server.



Bitcoin took the best from all the previous proposals. With other words, we can say that Satoshi learned from the mistakes made by his predecessors and made sure that he won't repeat them. He used HashCash, proof-of-work, 0 central authority, public/private keys and a distributed ledger - which came to be known as the Blockchain (although this term was never used in the Bitcoin white paper). But his innovation was that he used the chain of signatures which link with hash functions every coin (transaction) to its previous owner (author) in an unbroken chain which ends at the generation of the respective coin. Practically, nobody can falsely allege that he owns a coin, as the real owner can sign a message from the transaction which attributed the coin to him, proving that the other one is an imposter. And the importance of this invention can be seen now, many years after Bitcoin was launched, as you know: CSW is trying in vain to steal Satoshi's identity and also to convince people that he owns several of Bitcoin's first addresses -- addresses which are supposed to belong to Satoshi; actually no matter to whom they belong, it is certain they don't belong to CSW as he is unable to sign a message from them. Furthermore, he was ridiculed by the real owner of such address, which signed a message from his address, saying "Craig Steven Wright is a liar and a fraud. He doesn't have the keys used to sign this message.". Furthermore, the recently moved 50 BTC from the address created in 2009 (movement observed also by many forum users) were contained in an address previously mentioned by CSW as belonging to him. The movement of these coins by their real owner proved that he didn't control that address.

This concept, which proves 100% the real owner of a coin, was not present in the previous electronic money proposals.

Excepting all these, Bitcoin also managed to avoid the 51% attacks. As Satoshi had forseen the need for proving the ownership (described above) and many other technological (but also political and ideological issues) which could appear after offering his brilliant invention to the world. He also anticipated that Bitcoin could become the subject of various types of attacks, one of them being the so-called 51% attack.

For those which don't know, a 51% attack represents an attack to the network, the attack being performed by a miner (or a group) having more than 50% of the total hash power of the entire network. In such cases (which in Bitcoin network's case the chances are astronomically low of occurring), the respective miner would have absolute power over the protocol, including but not limited to: stopping other miners from finding new blocks, find all the blocks by himself and obtain all the mining rewards, rewriting the blockchain history, double-spending etc. (more details can be found on Bitcoin Wiki).

Satoshi knew that such attack could occur and implemented two methods for mitigating the risk, as it follows:

1 He detailed an incentive in the white paper meant to keep honesty among the network participants: "The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest.  If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins.  He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.".

Besides, regarding double spending and attacks, the white paper also details the following: "We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU proof-of-worker. As long as a majority of CPU proof-of-worker is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure."

2. The second measure was not based anymore on users' honesty, but rather on code: Bitcoin is programmed to make it more difficult the process of finding new blocks as more hash power is brought inside the network. Practically, the more the nodes are, the more difficult the mining process gets. And, as a consequence, as the network expands more and more, it would be way more difficult for an attacker to control more than 50% of the network's hash power*.

Regarding this second solution, laszlo (the pizza guy) alleged in recent CoinTelegraph article that Satoshi told him at some point that he has coded a mining software for GPUs and he was prepared to switch the actual (at that moment, of course) CPU miner to the GPU software, if he really had to defend the network. Of course, the defense would mean to raise exponentially the difficulty, as the GPUs have much more computing power than the CPUs. Laszlo, which according to his topic from May 2010 might have been the first developer (excepting Satoshi) of such mining software for GPUs, could have said the truth or could have lied in the interview. But what's certain is that Satoshi had two ways for avoiding these attacks in Bitcoin network, this being an aspect where Bit Gold and b-money were vulnerable.

I hope the above mentioned explanation answers your question.



* It happened in Bitcoin history for an entity to have more than 50% of the total hash power, but fortunately no attack occurred. In 2014, Ghash.io had 55% of Bitcoin's hash power, for almost 24 hours. Fortunately, Ghash.io agreed to reduce its hash power in order to ensure the community that it has no intention of a 51% attack.

Excepting Ghash, I also remember that at one time an individual miner had on his own more than 50% of Bitcoin's hash rate. If I remember well, it was the GPU mining era. But I really can't remember his name, in order to mention it here. If any other forum member remembers this incident, please share this miner's name and I'll update my post. However, I am certain that I read that a while ago, but no matter how hard I search now on Google, I don't find anything anymore. I also remember that in the respective article which I read years ago, the miner was mentioned by his nickname, if that helps.

Conclusion

A 51% attack could have been performed in the past at least one time (two times, I my memory is correct), but fortunately it didn't happen. Ghash and that individual miner were not interested in such attacks. But at that time the network was way smaller than it is now. In the present is almost impossible to assist at such attack on Bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 3892
Merit: 11105
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
Wow man. That was a hell heaven of information [...] Thanks for sharing such a great article and I am sure it will help a lot of people like myself and give them more knowledge about the earlier digital financial system.

GazetaBitcoin, The reminder about what is really important is refreshing, thank you!

Thank as well for spending the time and reading this topic. I am so happy to see so many people here interested in history, libertarianism, anarchism and crypto-anarchy! I also recommend you to follow all the hyperlinks inserted thorough the text, as you'll find there even more valuable information.

This essay was very important for me, being my 1000th post and I put a lot of efforts in writing it, making the proper research, finding the quotes together with their sources, proof-reading and so on. However, the result makes me so happy: seeing it raised so much interest!

There could be a better thread for my question, yet I would like to raise a question that came into my head while I was reading OP, which I understood attempted to suggest both an ideological underpinning to bitcoin that was achieved through technological progressions and/or improvements to what ended up being bitcoin.

So, when you described b-money in OP, you suggested that it seemed to have a lot of bitcoin's attributes but it was both subject to sybil attacks, but also suffered from the problem of NOT being coded or implemented.  Bit Gold was also subject to sybil attacks, and I am suspecting that the network of proof of work was not decentralized enough in bitgold so it ended up having potential  hashpower manipulation vulnerabilities?

A question came in my thinking regarding what aspects of bitcoin exactly helped bitcoin to overcome the deficiencies of b money and Bit Gold?  Surely, bmoney was not coded, so the lack of coding or implementation causes a considerable amount of disadvantage to figuring out how it may have possibly played out or even further developed based on having code that would have to run if it were attempted to be coded and thereafter run - even with the computing power and network (internet) limitations of the late 90s and early 2000s. 

Did bitcoin overcome the sybil attack angle (even if not really completely eliminated) by making it costly to attempt to sybil attack because of proof of work and the time chain of subsequent blocks that would cause going back each block more and more expensive to attempt to undo the earlier established blocks.. so in that regard, if you have miners who are already attempting to put resources into solving the next block through their hashpower, any sybil attacker not only would have to attempt to maintain hashpower to solve the next block, but would have to continue to maintain hashpower at a kind of 51% level to be able to go back in time for each subsequent block that is mined while competing with all the other hash power? 

So, I am not sure if that resolved some of the issues of the earlier proposals?  Of course, wei dai had said that he was not exactly excited about the strict supply of bitcoin, and surely some kind of prolonged tail emissions would cause different issues in terms of coding. Implementing the code does likely cause a lot of the theoretical questions to have a much more likelihood of better understanding how they might play out in a variety of scenarios.

I am not sure if what I am attempting to describe is making much sense, and maybe there is a thread, an article or series of posts out there that actually address my curiosity about bitcoin's development that causes it to build upon other ideas but to be able to become much more likely to be successful as compared to its predecessors that most closely resemble it?


This post in a bitcoin prehistory thread (that I browsed through) gives a seemingly good overview description, too.

Here's one article that I found on the topic, but I am really thinking that there must be much better articles and discussion out there.
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
Something about "... living under facism masquerading as social democracy. (see page 1 posts) ...

- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54642739

"Rules of Fight Club
1st RULE: You do not talk about FIGHT CLUB.
"

... and perhaps something about censorship is bad because ... #### ## ### ### ##### ## ## ########## ########.

...

This one is a great read ...

Read the First Chapter of the KLF’s Bonkers New Book, 2023: A Trilogy
- https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/read-the-first-chapter-of-the-klfs-bonkers-new-book-2023-a-trilogy/

Nope not off-topic - excerpt(s);

"... Before the 2013 crash, AmaZaba were already considering a move into using Bitcoins as their main trading currency. The Bitcoin movement is very much adopted by the young and alternative. So it is no surprise the Occupy Movement adopts the Bitcoin wholesale as a way of trading internationally among themselves. The fact that Bitcoins are an international currency that has nothing to do with the financial markets or any "big bad" nation states is perfect for both Occupy and a global online retailer like AmaZaba. Occupy and AmaZaba are to be a perfect marriage and the dowry is paid in Bitcoins..."

"... Who is running the Occupy Movement is a bit less clear: some say it is just some teenagers drinking cider in a tent; others say it is someone in Helsinki called Hannu Puttonen..."

...

Free the Network: Hackers Take Back the Web
- https://youtu.be/Fx93WJPCCGs

...

HAR 2009: Why Tor is slow 3/6
- https://youtu.be/WJD1hDKDqlo?t=297

Tor - Incentive Mechanisms !?! HAR 2009
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1981287

...

Topic: Whois Satoshi? Known Satoshi IP addresses? ...
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/whois-satoshi-known-satoshi-ip-addresses-5155191

...

-punks!

NOFX - Dinosaurs Will Die *NSFW* *Explicit Lyrics*
- https://youtu.be/TPKQSQSVVos

 Grin
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 6524
Fully-fledged Merit Cycler|Spambuster'23|Pie Baker
The ultimate dream of cyberpunks,libertarians and anarchists is to throw away governments and any form of power and oppression.Bitcoin is just a currency and I can't see how this currency will help for dethroning the governments and the rich elites.

First of all, please stop offending the Cypherpunks! Their were called Cypherpunks, not Cyberpunks! You should know that...because it is a part of the history and, as a crypto enthusiast which I believe you consider yourself, you should know their name. And the name is also stated and explained in the OP:

Soon, another enthusiat joins them: the hacker Jude Milhon, also known as St. Jude. He finds also a name for the group: by combining the words "cipher" (related to cryptography) and "cyberpunk" (which is a part of the science fiction genre based on dystopian reality and anarchy) he invented the name "Cypherpunks".

Second of all: Bitcoin is not just a currency. "I can't see how this currency will help for dethroning the governments and the rich elites." One step at a time.

[...] Governs are oppressing people for centuries. The methods are various, including direct taxes, indirect taxes, inflation, censoring access to information, indictments, prohibition, slavery, unfair trials, collecting personal information and using it against honest people.

One way of governs' oppression is through fiat money - those money which can be traced, for which you pay taxes. People's honest work is subject of taxation by the govern. For your honest work you must pay to the govern. Why? Because these money keep the govern alive. Your money! This is one of its control methods. Disable it and the govern will have less power. Of course, it still has other control methods, but this is one of them which, if dismantled, will make it less powerful.

The US government can almost completely destroy Bitcoin by banning crypto mining and trading.

Lol that's impossible. If it would ban mining and trading then the govern will do a great prejudice to itself: because it would force the users to use Bitcoin the way it was meant: anonymously. The govern doesn't want to ban it because it hopes to (1) centralize it (and, as a consequence, control it) and (2) earn some money from the users. So: even if the govern would want to ban Bitcoin, it would be unable to do so; if somehow it would, then this move would be for the benefit of Bitcoin.

99% of the crypto users are all about making money.They don't care that much about ideologies and political statements.
The whole cryptocurrency community is moving towards more government regulations,so I cannot say that the big majority of Bitcoin and altcoin users are anti-government anarchists.

That's because everywhere in the world the 1% makes the difference. Everything big started will small steps at a time.

The real conflict is between the naive idealism of a small minority of cyberpunks vs. the reality.

And that small minority made a revolution! When more people will be aware of Bitcoin's power, they would realize they can be free with its help. Re-read this:

"Cypherpunks write code", emphasized Eric Hughes [...] And through code, they wanted to offer people privacy. They wanted the public to have free access to cryptography. Other points of interests were online anonimity, game theory, secure file sharing, reputation systems, free market and civil disobedience. [...] Another big desire of the Cypherpunks was to create electronic cash. A form of untraceable money which could stop the govern's surveillance over the financial life of the individuals.
legendary
Activity: 3836
Merit: 4969
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
.he knew it will never be accepted by governments if it was.


Link please.
legendary
Activity: 3542
Merit: 1965
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
unpopular opinion alert*

Unfortunate Bitcoin does more to reveal info about your past transactions by default; requiring you to opt in for any privacy... fantastic store of value for all cryptos, but I would argue this isn’t what Satoshi had in mind.

What does it reveal if you do not re-use Bitcoin addresses or when you use Mixer services? Satoshi never said... "I will make Bitcoin 100% anonymous" ....he knew it will never be accepted by governments if it was. That would defeat the whole goal, if governments banned it, because criminals would have had a field day with it.

Bitcoin can only be disruptive, if it can replace the oppressive financial system that was built on government manipulation. The whole point of Bitcoin is to replace a currency that are printed like toilet paper to pay for bailouts and corrupt government actions.  Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 3836
Merit: 4969
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it

The real conflict is between the naive idealism of a small minority of cyberpunks vs. the reality.

Oh really?

If this were true then bitcoin would not exist at all so Welcome to the NEW reality.
hero member
Activity: 3150
Merit: 937
The ultimate dream of cyberpunks,libertarians and anarchists is to throw away governments and any form of power and oppression.Bitcoin is just a currency and I can't see how this currency will help for dethroning the governments and the rich elites.The US government can almost completely destroy Bitcoin by banning crypto mining and trading.
99% of the crypto users are all about making money.They don't care that much about ideologies and political statements.
The whole cryptocurrency community is moving towards more government regulations,so I cannot say that the big majority of Bitcoin and altcoin users are anti-government anarchists.
The real conflict is between the naive idealism of a small minority of cyberpunks vs. the reality.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 6524
Fully-fledged Merit Cycler|Spambuster'23|Pie Baker
Actually, this is the real magic of Bitcoin. Satoshi slapped the govern in the face by creating Bitcoin in this manner. It's a feature, not a bug. It's a brilliant design, not a vulnerability.

Why is that so? Because the govern needs to know all the financial transactions. It needs to know how much money are in every pocket. Satoshi gave the govern what it wanted and still kept the privacy. You want to see how much money (BTC) are transacted? Take a look, the blockchain is public. You want to know the wealth stored in every pocket (wallet)? Feel free to find out using the blockchain.

But the users are secure, as the govern can't know their true names. Of course, while using Bitcoin as it was designed. By not revealing their identities to various third parties, such as centralized exchanges. If people don't care about their privacy and offer their personal information to third parties, then it's their problem, not Bitcoin's nor Satoshi's fault.
hero member
Activity: 1873
Merit: 840
Keep what's important, and know who's your friend
unpopular opinion alert*

Unfortunate Bitcoin does more to reveal info about your past transactions by default; requiring you to opt in for any privacy... fantastic store of value for all cryptos, but I would argue this isn’t what Satoshi had in mind.
legendary
Activity: 3836
Merit: 4969
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
This could use a bump.
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
...snip...

My only quibble with that quotation is the no one should want to live under either.  Fascism, socialism, communism, "social democracy", authoritarianism, collectivism etc are all very similar, just substituting who is doing the controlling.  A limited, constitutional republic (with enumerated powers, like in theory the US is supposed to have) protects people's freedoms and rights from tyranny of the majority.

Utah Data Center
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

Ad libitum ... ?

- https://youtu.be/DoeNbZlxfUM?t=501

...

Herewith, DEF CON 18 - Moxie Marlinspike - Changing Threats To Privacy ...
- https://youtu.be/DoeNbZlxfUM?t=71

Touches on the 'Crypto wars', Cypherpunks and crypto-anarchy.

Onward.
legendary
Activity: 4214
Merit: 1313
...
I would argue that, for the main part, we are actually living under facism masquerading as social democracy.

...

More 'cypherpunks' ...

rop, frank: Ten years after ‚We Lost The War‘
- https://youtu.be/P4k7RKx4OQM

My only quibble with that quotation is the no one should want to live under either.  Fascism, socialism, communism, "social democracy", authoritarianism, collectivism etc are all very similar, just substituting who is doing the controlling.  A limited, constitutional republic (with enumerated powers, like in theory the US is supposed to have) protects people's freedoms and rights from tyranny of the majority.
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1722
https://youtu.be/DsAVx0u9Cw4 ... Dr. WHO < KLF
...snip...

Thank you, BitcoinFX. Based on your replies, I believe you share the crypto-anarchic ideology Smiley Feel free to share more information on the subject, if you have more. Your suggestions are very interesting as well.

The following thread is probably of interest to this topic, as unbelievably we have not yet fully ascertained the exact origin of the word cryptocurrency ... I seemingly have the first iteration of the word on this forum, although I saw it first used on bitcoin.org (unsurprisingly) ...

Re: Who coined the word "cryptocurrency" ...
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51504401
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52786029

The links to the other research papers on digital cash should also be of interest.

...

Dan Held's recent twitter storm on Hal Finney was very interesting and insightful indeed ... 1/ to 83/ ...

- https://twitter.com/danheld/status/1244655439024779265

Bitcoin certainly wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't for Hal Finney's work and input.

...

I will dig out some more relevant content when I can find the time.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 6524
Fully-fledged Merit Cycler|Spambuster'23|Pie Baker
Wow man. That was a hell heaven of information [...] Thanks for sharing such a great article and I am sure it will help a lot of people like myself and give them more knowledge about the earlier digital financial system.

GazetaBitcoin, The reminder about what is really important is refreshing, thank you!

Thank as well for spending the time and reading this topic. I am so happy to see so many people here interested in history, libertarianism, anarchism and crypto-anarchy! I also recommend you to follow all the hyperlinks inserted thorough the text, as you'll find there even more valuable information.

This essay was very important for me, being my 1000th post and I put a lot of efforts in writing it, making the proper research, finding the quotes together with their sources, proof-reading and so on. However, the result makes me so happy: seeing it raised so much interest!
member
Activity: 144
Merit: 27
"Quietly Making Noise"
GazetaBitcoin, The reminder about what is really important is refreshing, thank you! With all the greed and focus on short-term gains it is nice to see people interested in learning from history.

An investment in knowledge pays the best interest. --Benjamin Franklin
I love money. I love everything about it. I bought some pretty good stuff. Got me a $300 pair of socks. Got a fur sink. An electric dog polisher. A gasoline powered turtleneck sweater. And, of course, I bought some dumb stuff, too. --Steve Martin  Cheesy

hero member
Activity: 2702
Merit: 716
Nothing lasts forever
Wow man. That was a hell heaven of information. I never really cared to read about the early versions of digital money.
Though I knew about hashcash and digicash, I didn't have any idea about b-money and I was happy to read about it and how Satoshi contacted WeiDai regarding it. Thanks for sharing such a great article and I am sure it will help a lot of people like myself and give them more knowledge about the earlier digital financial system.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 6524
Fully-fledged Merit Cycler|Spambuster'23|Pie Baker
Honestly, I have not yet knownn most of stories you collected and presented in OP so thank you. I am going back to OP for reading it now.

Thank you as well. I am glad that you find this topic interesting Smiley

Won't the economy be affected?

It may be, but that is the state economy. For people it would be better, without being robbed everyday for their honest work.

I am saying this because there are still people out there who still like the way they are living and they are not ready change it and go for something else.

Yes... you can not help people by force, if they don't realize they need that help... All we can do is to spread the word as much as possible and hope that some will understand...

Thanks interesting reading

Thank you!

Linking this to the Monero thread.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54633230

Thanks for spreading the word.

This wired article is also an excellent read ...

Thank you, BitcoinFX. Based on your replies, I believe you share the crypto-anarchic ideology Smiley Feel free to share more information on the subject, if you have more. Your suggestions are very interesting as well.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1563
This is the only time that I have realized the importance of liberty from the creation of these cryptocurrency made before the implementation of the bitcoin network and bitcoin itself.

I don't know if it's just me who is thinking that bitcoin was being used to evade taxes that is being imposed on people who are having an online businesses to make a living on their own. Because if the use of bitcoin promotes freedom from being oppressed by the government in terms of monetary policies -- then it is our job to persuade and educate the masses why the use of bitcoin really matters.

Won't the economy be affected?
Pages:
Jump to: