Topic: Gavin will visit the Council on Foreign Relations - page 12. (Read 55011 times)

What is all that computational power really doing ?  hmmm ...

1 BTC + 2 BTC = 19,471,315.5946 ghash

There is the random thought that Satoshi is a group in the NSA.

They get a ledger of all transactions in the economy, self selected by the very secretive.
It uses their strengths, cryptography.
It gives more data than fiat does.
It is a daunting piece of work, it boggles the mind to think that a single individual pulled it off.

Well, it kind of is deception. I think we've reached a point where there's not much point in not being open. I'm particularly thinking of the anonymity issue, more than the colored coin issue. The latter is somehow neither here or there, as that's a separate kind of architecture (issuer). If we continue to propagate the notion, as was done in the Senate hearings, that "bitcoin is traceable and so AML and tax will be fine", it will be seen as deception by all participants in the discussion, when it's later found that practical traceability is rapidly lost due to coinjoin/stealth/coinswap/mixers etc etc.
If they want to implement Fedcoin or USDcoin within a OT structure, a colored coin structure, a ripple structure or whatever - to me that's an orthogonal issue to Bitcoin. That's just about more elegant ways of centrally controlling an asset (at best - at worst it's a waste of time).
As for the government being one monolithic entity, don't worry, I'm under no such illusion. However those driving policy will be informed (after all they are supposed be information and security agencies) if it becomes clear that there is an unexplained threat from cryptocurrencies.

I think ultimately our disagreement on this point will be very much moot since Gavin does not see the situation at all as we do (as you put it "fiat is doomed").

Hmm... I wonder. I wonder how they could possibly try kill Bitcoin. It's so hard, I'm really trying, but you're right, I just can't see any glaring weak spots...

This was my point. They would never believe that the fiat empire will be destroyed. It's just completely outside of the realm of reality to them.

But they do feel a little funny about AML/KYC, so why not offer that to them? And they have recently voiced fears about losing the unit of account, so why not offer them a way to fix it? "Dollarcoin"! "Eurocoin"! This will be perfect in their eyes. They know that banks suck, and that new technology is coming out, but they want to preserve the dollar / euro. Colored coins give them a way to do these things.

What I say about colored coins isn't said in the spirit of deception. It's more in the spirit of "they would never believe us anyway, so why not offer them what they currently think they want?"

The reality is, cryptocurrencies are here to stay. The fiat empire is doomed. It is too late to change anything about that now. But they will never believe that, will they? In the meantime, let's give them what they want so we can get what we want. It will be easier for everyone.


And how do you propose they will do that, the same way they killed Bittorrent?


"Government" is not some giant monolithic person. It's a sea of competing interests and agencies, all composed of individuals with their own priorities.

"NSA" is not the same as "the banks." Likely the NSA doesn't really give a shit (at all) about the priorities of the banks. Most of them are probably good people who just want to protect the country. Many of them are probably like Edward Snowden -- remember where he was working?

The priority of the NSA is data collection, data mining, and systems penetration. (Not controlling the unit-of-account of our money system.)

What good would the money they keep printing be if we stopped using it?

Good luck with that, You need to earn it and burn it faster than they print it. Politicians are bought and paid for with public propaganda campaigns not tax payers; the tax payers just pay the interest of the idle capital of those who manage the CFR.

You guys are all acting like Bitcoin is impregnable.
 
If you sort out the pool mining issues, then you guys can act as cocky as you like, but if you don't take the power out of the pools,





                             

They won't have much if we stop paying their wages. No money = no power.

They have everything < /period>

Then we must uprise and show them who really has the power! 

Oh yes, they will love to see how 'Gavin' from some 'Bitcoin foundation' says "..you will continue to have...control.."

Fiat currencies are not going to die, they are the main vehicle for them to 'control' our society. Besides, they won't like/believe anyone saying Bitcoin will destroy the dollar. If they ever think that could happen, they will kill Bitcoin in 1 day.

Bitcoin simply fills some holes that fiat and current payment system are not able to fulfill. Not a threat at all to their money. It's simply another option, it will always be another option. Nobody will ever be forced to use bitcoins. If it gets big, that means it's reliable and has some value for their users.

POLL : Should Gavin stay ... or should he go ??  VOTE NOW !

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/poll-should-gavin-decline-or-accept-the-cfr-invite-418110

Ya, right.  That would give the evildoers(tm) information then need to escape and ply their evil trades.  You know how it is...we hear it all the time.

Seems that the best way to escape the vise-like grasp of those doing God's work at The Bitcoin Foundation is to become a paying member.  Like TradeFortress.

... hmmm, surely you're not suggesting to conspire to herd the CFR and elite establishment into a false sense of security like sheep into a pen?

The conspired upon become the conspirators? 

That would be hilarious hehe

Here is a brief history on the origin and purpose of the CFR with some must see quotes from influential members.


Rule from the Shadows - The Psychology of Power - Part 1

Pardon the pun and the recursion, but do we agree that there's also exploitation of child exploitation? We are living in a cruel world and the real clashes for power, wealth, influence and control are more serious than breaking virtual spears and hurting egos in forums by downvoting or banning - those clashes kill people and make the whole life of many innocent people miserable.

Have you read Rick Falkvinge's "Cynicism Redefined: Why the copyright lobby loves child porn"?

falkvinge.net is down ATM, is this yet another crazy conspiracy?

Another common sense question is why the lead developer of a transparent free software project would agree to participate to a closed meeting? What exactly stops you from telling them something like "if it's not open and transparent, then no thanks, I'm not going there"? That's exactly your best bet for staying safe against kind demands like "Hey Gavin, can you please add a backdoor to the bitcoin client? Of course you are prohibited to tell others that we have asked and if you do it - you end in Gitmo". Why would you refuse such a safety opportunity?

We can occasionally see people pointing fingers at RMS and laughing, calling him crazy and all that stuff. But nobody ever dares to even suspect he has a hidden agenda that's different from his public point of view, because he's straightforward, open and transparent about the things he claims to believe in. Do you think these shady meetings you get yourself involved with contribute to the trust level the [often not enough informed] community has in you as lead developer of Bitcoin project?

And by the way "moderated by somebody yet-to-be-determined" just SCREAMS CENSORSHIP, I really hope that's not your own wording.

I still don't get it. Gavin might as well end this hearing by:
"And now I'll give you the keys to control bitcoin, please do as you like", and provide them with a github link.
What would it change?

I really like LightRider's suggestion, though.

Bitcoin is more fragile now than it was in January 2012. People are looking at the market price as success thinking this is the make or break.

Just explain how it works - if it grows it is individuals in agreement to corporate by the protocol rules. If it doesn't you get an I told you so. The economic and political implications are immaterial, they are dependent on ubiquitous adoption of the protocol.

Let others determine its utility, don't give insights that threaten the status quo.

Bitcoin achieves the new world order just without centralization and this is a threat to those who depend on it.

I also like the cardboard finger idea, that takes balls more than I have.