Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1252.

wachtwoord

legendary

Activity: 2324

Merit: 1125

Quote from: molecular on October 27, 2013, 05:37:41 AM

You Have even more options: of you have people you trust you can distribute parts of the key to them (for example using shamir secret sharing). It's questionable whether you'd want this. In case of torture maybe you want to be able to give then access. But it is possible to protect your holdings even against that, albeit not without introducing some other risks.

In SF books people often have automatic self-euthanasia options build in that can be triggered mentally. If this ever becomes available I will have it installed. "Let me go now, or I'll euthanize myself and you'll never have anything!"

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: wachtwoord on October 27, 2013, 05:14:51 AM

Quote from: rpietila on October 27, 2013, 01:10:45 AM

Quote from: wachtwoord on October 26, 2013, 04:43:31 PM

Land you "own" isn't really yours.

Could you tell, what is the difference in this regard, between:
- bitcoins
- gold
- land?

How hard it is for another entity to claim it from you? Land is completely effortless for a state to take (and they have and will). Gold takes more effort because it's hideable but states have (USA at least did) and probably will again. Bitcoin is hardest to claim and given proper security needs 1) to physically capture the owner (not required with the other two) and 2) physically or mentally force him to give up ownership.

Bitcoin (or actually cryptocurrencies) is the only holding in which in the end they need my cooperation. Sure, torturing someone into doing pretty much anything is possible but since they need me it's more secure then other holdings and more MINE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-3e0EkvIEM

Land and gold are somewhat harder to take by means of a computer insecurity.

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

Quote from: molecular on October 27, 2013, 05:37:41 AM

You Have even more options: of you have people you trust you can distribute parts of the key to them (for example using shamir secret sharing). It's questionable whether you'd want this. In case of torture maybe you want to be able to give then access. But it is possible to protect your holdings even against that, albeit not without introducing some other risks.

Hah, I just realized that my bitcoin security arrangements are so elaborate that if I am not in top mental condition, even I myself am unable to access my bitcoins. So if somebody wants them when I am well, he may succeed by asking nicely. But by causing physical or mental harm, he also makes the bounty inaccessible to everyone. Interesting.

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: wachtwoord on October 27, 2013, 05:14:51 AM

Quote from: rpietila on October 27, 2013, 01:10:45 AM

Quote from: wachtwoord on October 26, 2013, 04:43:31 PM

Land you "own" isn't really yours.

Could you tell, what is the difference in this regard, between:
- bitcoins
- gold
- land?

How hard it is for another entity to claim it from you? Land is completely effortless for a state to take (and they have and will). Gold takes more effort because it's hideable but states have (USA at least did) and probably will again. Bitcoin is hardest to claim and given proper security needs 1) to physically capture the owner (not required with the other two) and 2) physically or mentally force him to give up ownership.

Bitcoin (or actually cryptocurrencies) is the only holding in which in the end they need my cooperation. Sure, torturing someone into doing pretty much anything is possible but since they need me it's more secure then other holdings and more MINE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-3e0EkvIEM

You Have even more options: of you have people you trust you can distribute parts of the key to them (for example using shamir secret sharing). It's questionable whether you'd want this. In case of torture maybe you want to be able to give then access. But it is possible to protect your holdings even against that, albeit not without introducing some other risks.

wachtwoord

legendary

Activity: 2324

Merit: 1125

Quote from: rpietila on October 27, 2013, 01:10:45 AM

Quote from: wachtwoord on October 26, 2013, 04:43:31 PM

Land you "own" isn't really yours.

Could you tell, what is the difference in this regard, between:
- bitcoins
- gold
- land?

How hard it is for another entity to claim it from you? Land is completely effortless for a state to take (and they have and will). Gold takes more effort because it's hideable but states have (USA at least did) and probably will again. Bitcoin is hardest to claim and given proper security needs 1) to physically capture the owner (not required with the other two) and 2) physically or mentally force him to give up ownership.

Bitcoin (or actually cryptocurrencies) is the only holding in which in the end they need my cooperation. Sure, torturing someone into doing pretty much anything is possible but since they need me it's more secure then other holdings and more MINE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-3e0EkvIEM

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on October 27, 2013, 03:38:49 AM

Quote from: molecular on October 27, 2013, 03:09:34 AM

posession, ownership, control ... I think we need to get these straight.

In Bitcoin, there is no such thing as ownership besides control (which in Bitcoin is the same as possession).

Ok, I can live with that.

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on October 27, 2013, 03:33:06 AM

Quote from: molecular on October 27, 2013, 03:08:10 AM

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on October 27, 2013, 02:32:42 AM

Owning bitcoin means YOU CONTROL YOUR MONEY. Period.

The FBI controls ~170kBTC, but they don't (yet) legally own it.

I don't see what you're getting at. With Bitcoin, legal or moral ownership doesn't matter for control - it's the ultimate neutral money, transcending the laws and power and opinions of individuals or groups.

In the FBI's case, someone in the FBI knows the private key or the password for accessing it, and that person has complete control over those coins. Unless multiple people have access, in which case each of them do.

You are correct. I was getting at the fact the "ownership" is probably a purely legal term. It might even be made illegal to own bitcoins (theoretically), yet you can still have control over them.

I shouldn't say "I own bitcoins", rather "I control" or "I possess" bitcoins.

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: molecular on October 27, 2013, 03:09:34 AM

posession, ownership, control ... I think we need to get these straight.

In Bitcoin, there is no such thing as ownership besides control (which in Bitcoin is the same as possession).

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: molecular on October 27, 2013, 03:08:10 AM

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on October 27, 2013, 02:32:42 AM

Owning bitcoin means YOU CONTROL YOUR MONEY. Period.

The FBI controls ~170kBTC, but they don't (yet) legally own it.

I don't see what you're getting at. With Bitcoin, legal or moral ownership doesn't matter for control - it's the ultimate neutral money, transcending the laws and power and opinions of individuals or groups.

In the FBI's case, someone in the FBI knows the private key or the password for accessing it, and that person has complete control over those coins. Unless multiple people have access, in which case each of them do.

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

posession, ownership, control ... I think we need to get these straight.

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on October 27, 2013, 02:32:42 AM

Owning bitcoin means YOU CONTROL YOUR MONEY. Period.

The FBI controls ~170kBTC, but they don't (yet) legally own it.

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on October 26, 2013, 09:44:13 PM

Quote from: justusranvier on October 26, 2013, 09:07:46 PM

So far in 2013 alone, the US Dollar has lost 93% of its value compared to Bitcoin.

Most all assets on earth have collapsed when compared to bitcoin thus far in 2013.

It's funny how the "big crash" is really already in full force and noone in the mainstream even recognizes the fact because everything they look at crashes in unison ;-)

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: wachtwoord on October 26, 2013, 04:34:01 PM

BUT, various people can each own the same Bitcoin at the same time (just share your private key) and a number of people can own Bitcoin but only jointly (multi-sig). These things are not really possible with something physical such as gold.

Yes they are.

Firstly some terminology nitpicking: you don't *own* bitcoins, you *have access* to them (ability to spend unspent outputs).

Now to the issue: Using fucked-up legal frameworks and banking system, it's easily possible multiple people to have valid claim on the same gold and I'm pretty sure it's a widespread occurence.

Just as with a bitcoin-key being accessible to multiple persons: the first one to act can be the sole controller if he wants. Why isn't this happening with gold. Well, it is to an extent: germany asked for her gold back, for example. Many private investors (and/or institutional investors) are probably not aware or don't want to be aware of these "problems".

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on October 26, 2013, 03:18:10 PM

Quote from: molecular on October 26, 2013, 03:09:27 PM

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on October 26, 2013, 02:46:34 PM

Bear in mind that in a better freer future with less financial facism or simply some locales, a system of provably gold-backed cryptocurrency, if it was ever allowed to flourish under rule of law, would probably give bitcoin a stiff run for its money, pun intended, dyodd, diversify, imho.

How would that even work? How to prove there's gold backing it? I don't see how to do this, at least not without "3rd party risk".

it may work being convertible in pm at a fixed rate as fiat money used to be once upon a time.
it just takes an alt.coin easily convertible in pm. Anyone can do it. But yes, it would require trust in a third party for the "backing"/conversion-thing.
and now trust is rightly becoming a rare commodity.

Well, one could easily do it by setting up a network of localized ripple gateways. There's already some silver currency on ripple, probably also gold. To make it big and work one just needs to cover the globe with trusted physical gateways (gold shops might be a good option).

So yeah, I guess it can work, but it's not as trustless as pure crypto and it seems quite fragile to me. Who's to prevent the governments or foreign military to raid the storage facilities, for example.

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin enables such unimpeachable control over your money that the distinction between ownership and control goes away.

Owning gold implies you have the moral and/or legal right to control your money.
Owning bitcoin means YOU CONTROL YOUR MONEY. Period.

It's so incredibly and obviously superior in hindsight that people will look back and laugh that Bitcoin took so long to be adopted.

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036