Topic: Decentrally mined currency has failed so far - page 10. (Read 11292 times)
I'm not sure if this discussion can actually lead anywhere as you seem to be saying that governments can regulate anything and indeed everything if they so choose.
If that's the case then I think I can state with some certainty that many of us are aware of the grandiose image governments have of their assumed powers, but the real question is do these governments have the resources to satisfy their wants?
Bitcoin and the other technologies I mentioned aren't just decentralised but also disruptive. As they gain traction, other similar and possibly better solutions will come along and governments will be fighting on many fronts. Other avenues may also appear that don't yet exist.
Besides this, they must battle with their debt problems and the inevitable decline in tax revenue brought about by more and more 'off grid' transactions caused by the new technology. The longer the battle, the weaker they will get.
Here in the UK we now have councils starting to ask residents to carry out road repairs due to lack of money.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11155213/Residents-asked-to-repair-potholes.html
When things get to this level, then it's clear to me that things are fundamentally broken.
So yes, in theory governments could band together, and in the footsteps of King Canute, could legislate against or even ban Bitcoin, but the bigger picture is that if the people have the vision to use it, then Bitcoin would be more akin to a virus and be so very hard to kill.
If that's the case then I think I can state with some certainty that many of us are aware of the grandiose image governments have of their assumed powers, but the real question is do these governments have the resources to satisfy their wants?
Bitcoin and the other technologies I mentioned aren't just decentralised but also disruptive. As they gain traction, other similar and possibly better solutions will come along and governments will be fighting on many fronts. Other avenues may also appear that don't yet exist.
Besides this, they must battle with their debt problems and the inevitable decline in tax revenue brought about by more and more 'off grid' transactions caused by the new technology. The longer the battle, the weaker they will get.
Here in the UK we now have councils starting to ask residents to carry out road repairs due to lack of money.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11155213/Residents-asked-to-repair-potholes.html
When things get to this level, then it's clear to me that things are fundamentally broken.
So yes, in theory governments could band together, and in the footsteps of King Canute, could legislate against or even ban Bitcoin, but the bigger picture is that if the people have the vision to use it, then Bitcoin would be more akin to a virus and be so very hard to kill.
No sorry it all fails down due to regulation. Government will not give up control, unless it is technologically impossible for them to do so. Bitcoin does not make it technologically impossible to regulate.
Bitcoin, used properly, makes it technologically impossible for an authority to enforce regulation. So... let them piss into the wind.
Could you please elaborate what you mean specifically by “used properly”?
I have some ideas about what you might be thinking, and I still disagree. But before I can detail my logic, I need to make sure I understand what you are thinking specifically?
If you are thinking about anonymity techniques, the authorities can simply regulate the mining pools that they are not allowed to add transactions which are untraceable (unidentified) on the block chain. Only if the mining pools themselves are anonymous, can a crypto-currency escape this dilemma. This was the central point of my OP.
As for your bolded emphasis on enforcement, the mining pools are easy to locate. Btw, are you not aware of the recent seizure of 100s of Tor hidden services servers all over the globe under the cooperation of the USA and European authorities. Enforcement they have proven they can do.
I mean, sure, they can still kidnap/kill you, but they can't stop someone from using Bitcoin, nor can they seize/freeze bitcoins. If you are savvy, they won't even know you are using Bitcoin.
The authorities will be able to block transactions. All they have to do is regulate the mining pools, which they are already starting to do[1]. Once they fully regulate the mining, in addition to requiring mining pools to block certain transactions without needing to change the Bitcoin protocol; and the G20 could also gang up and change the protocol with the force of the law if they need to in order to accomplish the full extent of their regulatory responsibilities under the law (they may not need).
I challenge you and readers to seriously get an expert or core Bitcoin developer such a DeathAndTaxes, Gregory Maxell, or Adam Back to make a sufficient explanation of why it isn't possible for the G20 to regulate mining as the G20 made it clear they plan to cooperate against tax havens and non-compliance. If someone is transacting in Bitcoin and hasn't complied with their tax obligations (or is transacting with tainted coins that were formerly stolen upchain), the authorities can confiscate within the current law. I don't believe the experts can rationally disagree.
| [1] | https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-mining-pool-btc-guild-forced-sell-due-uncertain-bitcoin-regulation-mining-centralization/ https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/proposed-bitcoin-regulation-bitlicense-shut-mining-bitcoin-businesses-us/ http://bitcoinvista.com/2014/11/14/bitcoin-accounts-may-be-subject-to-fbar-fatca-reporting/ http://www.irs.gov/irb/2014-16_IRB/ar12.html#d0e624 Quote from: IRS A–8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income.
For any one who is not familiar with this Dunning-Kruger idiot (and really, he doesn't have the IQ nor the technical understanding to be commenting in that linked thread), I suggest reading the last interaction I had with him. Ha! Yeah, I invite anyone to read that thread. The experts there (gmaxwell and Deathandtaxes) quickly got tired of talking to you. Indeed I invite all to the read what gmaxell can not rebut. Please don't spam (filibuster) this thread with your usual noise. I don't mean it as a personal attack. I have nothing against you as a person, but I am trying to do serious analysis. It doesn't help me nor readers to wade though endless posts of ad hominen noise. You've made your points, and I have responded. Readers now have the information to form their own judgements. legendary
 Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
 Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
 For any one who is not familiar with this Dunning-Kruger idiot (and really, he doesn't have the IQ nor the technical understanding to be commenting in that linked thread), I suggest reading the last interaction I had with him. Ha! Yeah, I invite anyone to read that thread. The experts there (gmaxwell and Deathandtaxes) quickly got tired of talking to you. When you started using weird analogies like "aliasing" that had nothing to do with Bitcoin, I called you out on it, and you couldn't handle it. Even gmaxwell had no idea what you were talking about with the aliasing, and gave up trying to talk to you. Their conclusion was that your idea was not really a security improvement overall as far as using the longest chain rule for consensus. Not sure what your latest "proof" related to selfish mining has anything to do with that... and I don't really care. I may not be the smartest guy in the room, but I'm certainly capable of having a conversation about Bitcoin. You're the only person I've encountered in my life that told me I need a higher IQ to participate in the discussion. Pretty arrogant. Anyway this isn't about me. No one cares. You're the one making claims about Bitcoin here. I have thought deeply (I was AnonyMint) about the possible designs for decentralized consensus, as well the various strategies for anonymity that are plausible. Then you probably shouldn't be taken seriously. You were the guy who was claiming all kinds of doom scenearios with people losing their houses and ending up in jail just for using Bitcoins, and that massive bitcoin thefts would lead to transaction "clawbacks". So far we haven't seen a single case of any of this nonsense. I agree you should leave cryptocurrency. Your pessimism isn't adding anything of value to the community, yourself, or anyone else. I have welcomed ridicule of myself in this thread, but this means I can also ridicule you in return when you deserve it. For any one who is not familiar with this Dunning-Kruger idiot (and really, he doesn't have the IQ nor the technical understanding to be commenting in that linked thread), I suggest reading the last interaction I had with him. Btw, gmaxell was wrong in that thread, for which I have written a detailed design document in private to explain, but I am not going to rehash that here. I have not said people would lose their houses and end up in jail specifically because of Bitcoin. As AnonyMint I wrote tens of 1000s of posts, and I think in maybe 10 of those I mentioned that if Bitcoin was not anonymous and people did not follow regulations and pay their taxes, then they could end up losing everything to the authorities, as they would in any normal case of tax and law evasion. I was making that point in the past in support of the need for anonymity. He is also referring to a thread, where we debated the law about clawbacks in cases where a fund has been hopelessly comingled with stolen funds, can't be unwound, and the authorities can trace all the bad funds through to see it has been over time comingled with all the money supply, as is probably the case for Bitcoin. This is a well known issue for Bitcoin, for which Adam Back and Gregory Maxell have been working hard to try to develop some anonymity methods to avoid the loss of fungibility in Bitcoin due to tainted coins. Afaics, they have not succeeded. Don't forget I was also the guy who predicted Bitcoin would fall from $1000 to $350 (it is some where in one of rpietila's threads). I was also the guy who publicly predicted the exact top price for silver a year before it happened. I was also the guy who predicted silver would fall from $30s to below $17. legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I have thought deeply (I was AnonyMint) about the possible designs for decentralized consensus, as well the various strategies for anonymity that are plausible. Then you probably shouldn't be taken seriously. You were the guy who was claiming all kinds of doom scenearios with people losing their houses and ending up in jail just for using Bitcoins, and that massive bitcoin thefts would lead to transaction "clawbacks". So far we haven't seen a single case of any of this nonsense. I agree you should leave cryptocurrency. Your pessimism isn't adding anything of value to the community, yourself, or anyone else. Nothing's failed because nothing's really started as yet. Bitcoin is here and chugging along, with every passing day proving it's here to stay thanks to continued infrastructure investment and acceptance by an ever growing user base. We are approaching 6 years since Bitcoin was launched. Regulation of Bitcoin is increasing always. Nothing is proposed to stop this. I've tried to find and design solutions. After much inspection of various possible designs, I reached this conclusion. As more people become aware, they will discover three more parts to the decentralised jigsaw puzzle, which at the moment are best represented by the following: MaidSafe - Complete user anonymity on the internet and a way to store and access data anywhere etc, on any suitable device. MaidSafe is not anonymous, and it is not applicable to hosting websites. Thus MaidSafe is pretty much useless for our concerns about creating an anonymous internet (so users won't leak their identity through some side channel, i.e. a website). Sorry to all those who are giddy about MaidSafe and Storj, but you need to study the details. If you are not a computer scientist, you probably don't understand. OpenBazaar - Fee free P2P transactions. Yes this is feasible. I wrote in the OP that use can be decentralized. But if the coin is not immune to regulation (i.e. not anonymous and decentralized), then the OpenBazaar is not either. We have a lot of salesmanship about anonymity and decentralization out there with some altcoins, but they aren't really decentralized and some aspects are not anonymous, i.e. Monero (ditto DarkCoin) does not have IP address anonymity, I2p/Tor will both fail to provide it, and Monero's mining and mining pools are not anonymous, so they can be regulated. I argue in the OP, this can't be rectified. Crowd Funding - P2P Loans and donations. Yes same comment as for OpenBazaar. Once all four of these elements are used in conjunction, it becomes clear we have a parallel trading and financial system that is minus the parasites that live off us and independent of the current scheme. As individuals discover the immense burden of maintaining the status quo, then the advantages of the new options will become obvious. No sorry it all fails down due to regulation. Government will not give up control, unless it is technologically impossible for them to do so. Bitcoin does not make it technologically impossible to regulate.
In before cash gets banned.
Q7, true but not as something that can resist regulation, thus in the end, not any different than fiat. If government can regulate any thing, they own and control it. So you are upbeat because you just want to see world adopt electronic currency so we can all be tracked perfectly by the government and never have any chance of buying or selling without permission of the government?
Because once electronic currency is widely adopted, cash will not be accepted any more. There will be no way to opt out of this 666 system coming. Electronic currency is coming no matter what we do. The only question that remains is whether there is any alternative to Satoshi's model that could actually be anonymous and impervious to regulation, while also meeting the requirements for adoption of electronic currency. To all readers, this is a free for all thread. Any one is free to write any thing and totally disagree with or even ridicule me. P.S. both you and ArnoldChippy are very idealistic, as most people who support Bitcoin are. But it appears you are not as deeply immersed in the technological details as I am. I will soon reply to Arnold to bring him up to speed on some realities he is apparently not aware of.
To imply that it is a complete failure may not be fair or in any way reflect the current situation. Well it has flaws, weaknesses become more evident, in fact i don't think the word decentralization bears any meaning now in bitcoin's dictionary. However to look on the bright side, we are progressively moving forward... more adoption, growing userbase, people start to see abd accept bitcoin as an alternative currency that can replace fiat... and more important with world economy in its current state whereby fiat is becoming like paper junk, well all that point to bitcoin's advantage
Nothing's failed because nothing's really started as yet.
Bitcoin is here and chugging along, with every passing day proving it's here to stay thanks to continued infrastructure investment and acceptance by an ever growing user base. As more people become aware, they will discover three more parts to the decentralised jigsaw puzzle, which at the moment are best represented by the following: MaidSafe - Complete user anonymity on the internet and a way to store and access data anywhere etc, on any suitable device. OpenBazaar - Fee free P2P transactions. Crowd Funding - P2P Loans and donations. Once all four of these elements are used in conjunction, it becomes clear we have a parallel trading and financial system that is minus the parasites that live off us and independent of the current scheme. As individuals discover the immense burden of maintaining the status quo, then the advantages of the new options will become obvious.
Anonymint may be stating some obvious facts, but these facts aren't widely recognised by crypto cheerleaders, which is why I believe he continues to bring up these issues.
When governments start pushing totally digital fiat currency the urgency for the technology to replace cash will undoubtedly increase. I hope that some technical person can come up with a successful design for just this. In all seriousness, saying bitcoin or crypto is a savior was the same as saying you are anonymous and 'free' on the internet. Both false. Agreed.
Edit: "Decentrally mined currency has failed and can't possibly be rescued" original title was corrected.
I identified in April that the powers-that-be (Peter Thiel et al) were taking over Bitcoin. Since then it is become more noticeable with Paypal and soon eBay adopting Bitcoin. Bitcoin mining and everything else about it can be highly regulated because none of it is anonymous. Even recent research found that 81% of Tor users can be unmasked, as I had long warned was the case. Regulation means any decentralization is just for show and doesn't have any practical protective effect. Some have argued about inability to get consistent regulation across all jurisdictions, and even one country that took a free market stance would provide hope. Any one who believes that, isn't studying the reality of what is happening in the world with G20 pledging cooperation[2], etc. I have thought deeply (I was AnonyMint) about the possible designs for decentralized consensus, as well the various strategies for anonymity that are plausible. It is impossible there can be all 3 of true anonymity, fast enough transactions, and truly decentralized mining consensus. I could explain in depth, but I'd rather challenge anyone who thinks they are technically capable, to explain a design that makes it possible. Because over the past year, I've run every possible design through my mind, studied everything I could find from others, and have finally come to this conclusion. Note I didn't say there couldn't be decentralized adoption, use, or even decentralized mining shares. But the mining pools will be centralized and thus regulated (unless they are anonymous). Note I didn't say there couldn't be anonymity nor fast transactions, but decentralized pools would have to be forsaken (and they don't really exist now, it is just for show). It might be possible to get anonymity and decentralized mining pools, but this certainly wouldn't be able to support fast transactions nor would it be resistant to a Sybil attack on the number of mining pools. Some of have argued that there is P2Pool, but how many times do I have to repeat that P2Pool can't be impervious to a share withholding attack[1], thus it can't be a sustainable paradigm. Conclusion: Bitcoin is not a savior. As I had warned in my first essay on this forum, Bitcoin: The Digital Kill Switch, Bitcoin is part of the push towards electronic money that will be used to control all of us[2]. I have come full circle. The situation is quite hopeless (note I didn't say Bitcoin won't appreciate in value, although I still expect a bottom below or near $200 first), rather I mean hopeless in terms of the idealism of protecting our monetary future. Maybe it is time for me to leave cryptocurrency and go back to writing software applications. Satoshi's invention of decentralized consensus is useless from a practical standpoint at least for money and sent us on a wild goose chase where we end up with nothing in the end. Sad but true.  Jump to:
|
