Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 343. (Read 2032266 times)

sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 03:00:19 AM

You made one smart post then you muck it up. Surely you have some psychological hangup, but i don't have time to figure out where your vestment lies.

It's only a meritocracy while your fellow chimps are not agitating to bite your face off. It's obvious to me what your schtick is. Please leave.

I don't know what your psychological problem is, but I am here to work on a serious solution to a very serious global problem. You may think I am up to some kind of gimick but you are sadly mistaken.

What I am doing now is a combination of:

1. Education (also for those who are lurking)
2. Demonstrating I have a grasp of concepts.

The only gimick you could rightfully claim is that I am making sure that the people who are with me can see clearly that I have a grasp of the issues and can retort or clarify. And correct, at some point one has to shut up if they expect to get any real work done.

It seems this discussion reached a crucial juncture wherein we are clarifying the fundamental differences that could apply to any crypto that is not Bitcoin. That is why I am participating.

I don't think you can claim that the posts I made today were vacuous.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
May 19, 2015, 02:58:58 AM
EDIT: We have to use probably both Ninja tactics AND Spartan (heroic, self sacrificing groups of people)
EDIT 2: Anyone thinking just to get rich and 'escape' by himself is delusional IMHO. Also, if you think we are not at war... (last edit not directed to you TPTB)

+2.  (there were 2 points Wink )

A highly public conscientious objector noncompliance group, who declare sovereignty from geographical countries (defacto bankster rule), or submit to their rule but only in the matters that are not against human rights as defined by the UN and interpreted by the group themselves, which include the right to treat anything to your physical, mental and spiritual being (freedom of food, drugs, information and consciousness) and refuse to be treated with stuff you don't appreciate, under no circumstances can morally force/permit you to give out access to your crypto, and require your consent to tax you (as there is no exception to voluntary dealings rule just on the grounds that someone needs your money and has the racket to take it).

The "creed" or "declaration of independence" is short and appealing to people who can't understand why a gang that calls itself "government" is empowered to do stuff, which is unlawful for its constituents (the people), who are even punished by the government for doing it! The leaders have full-color information pages in the professional website, they live their lives with drone videocameras recording all they do, the footage can be used against the infringers of their freedom and sovereignty. Surely some of them will be thrown to jail and to prison, but even killing them is a tough call as the whole struggle is marketed to the masses as a better reality TV.

So most of the freedom movement is underground, and the leading figures who show by example are in a real danger of getting a long prison sentence (but that will cause a public outcry if applied). If they are harassed too much, and if what we offer is better than the current system (the system is making this one easier by the visible degradation of their alternative  Embarrassed Wink ), anything they do just heaps coal upon their head. If they "finish it off", they lose, as the masses will get a shock therapy and start to fear for their existence, quickly regenerating the movement. If they fight against it with soft means, it is a war of attrition, but we will spend the time getting the masses (de-)educated while their position gets more untenable by the year. If they let it be, it spreads like wildfire as nobody will pay taxes if they can avoid it just by joining a movement.

Don't get depressed, nor violent! In the Internet age, public, even marketed, civil disobedience is more fun, and more effective than ever!  Grin

legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
May 19, 2015, 02:57:53 AM

You made one smart post then you muck it up. Surely you have some psychological hangup, but i don't have time to figure out where your vestment lies.

It's only a meritocracy while your fellow chimps are not agitating to bite your face off. It's obvious to me what your schtick is. Please leave.
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1000
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 02:51:39 AM
That said, what is true of Coinbase isn't necessarily true of Bitcoin unless Coinbase and services like it become so pervasive that talking about Bitcoin outside of them is in practice meaningless.

I need to learn to use this politically astute method of making a point that would offend the reader if stated the more blunt way, "The behemoths are arguably taking over Bitcoin along with a global, societal slide into Economic Totalitarianism and if that comes true then what Coinbase is demonstrating now is only the tip of the iceberg of what is coming". Noted.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 02:47:02 AM
Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.

Legally yes, but in terms of fungibility no. If I'm a fully compliant Bitcoin user I may -- purely as a practical matter -- have to check on coins I'm receiving to see if they are "bad", and because coins may be added to a blacklist (or removed from a whitelist) after I receive them, it means I'm left with performing my own KYC to convince myself that the counterparty is unlikely to be passing off "bad" coins.

I'm not doing this because the law requires it but because I'm worried about being left holding the bag with "bad" coins, even if the transaction itself is entirely legal. This is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of fungibility (again, which is distinct from legality).

The risk of this is fungibility concerns is far less to nonexistent with a private coin, where tagging coins as "good" or "bad" is technologically less feasible or impossible (Monero is not as private as say zerocash, so some issues remain there, but far less so than Bitcoin).

Kudos smooth. A public blockchain is a new era. Without fungibility, then it the culpability falls onto the user of the money to research the entire trail of the coin. This was never a widespread property of money in the past, even though serial numbers do exist on cash now they aren't a very viable method to blacklist because they are spent decentralized. Centralization of the mining is the key aspect the government needs so it can enforce regulation. Without enforcement, laws are impotent. The government doesn't like to enforce impotent laws that people can't possibly not ignore (e.g. anti-jaywalking law for rural roads or outlaw spending of cash via physical serial numbers), because their impotence emboldens the people towards fighting for freedom. Government exists because people are confident that government has to power to enforce its edicts.

Add: people would never slow down to MANUALLY check serial numbers on cash against a government black or white list. I have observed how difficult it is to get people in a social network format to do any simple action consistently. People are really hard-headed.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 02:41:33 AM
Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fully agree. But as HeliKopterBen and dEBRUYNE pointed out a few posts ago, a fully private currency such as Monero could just as easily be outlawed in it's entirety. Which puts Monero in the same position as a Bitcoin where blacklist coins are outlawed.

The government can attack the fungibility of both by either outlawing the currency or outlawing blacklist transactions, so the fungibility of both rest to a certain extent on the ability of individuals to interact with the currency outside of the law. This is true for gold or any other money in existence.

For an example, the privacy of gold was broken when they outlawed direct possession and forced everyone into bank notes. Gold used to be able to be used privately (direct transfer) but now it wasn't (no direct transfer legally allowed). The innate properties of Gold and Money did not change, gold was still fungible. What changed was the legal framework around them that prevented that fungibility from being used to gain privacy. This leads me to believe again that privacy is NOT an innate property of money, but is determined by how it is used.

The key distinction of yore was you could escape to geographical frontiers (with your gold). Geography is no longer an option. Physical gold can't be moved without being likely intercepted.

We've entered a new era where the governments could have total control and eliminate all frontiers, if we don't build a technological solution.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 02:38:28 AM

You made one smart post then you muck it up. Surely you have some psychological hangup, but i don't have time to figure out where your vestment lies.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 02:32:52 AM
[2] And indeed, according to one source, the BTC economy is in fact fragmented into KYC and non-KYC segments.
http://www.ofnumbers.com/2015/04/22/the-flow-of-funds-on-the-bitcoin-network-in-2015/

Exactly. Bifurcation is underway. I don't believe it is possible to straddle the fence and that is essentially my complaint against Monero (while also praising their effort).

(MAD magazine) Bush Jr. said, "you are either with us, or against us".

Bitcoin folks appear to think that normal commerce will be non-anonymous. I disagree. I think the normal commerce will be anonymous. Because I think commerce is going to radically change in the Knowledge Age.

They are thinking in terms of the dying paradigm of Amazon.com, Barnes-and-Noble, Facebook, Peter Thiel, Winklevoss triplets, Paris Hilton, etc..

I am thinking along the general direction of Silk Road (but in a more general sense, not just drugs) and software as micropayment service.

Popular activities now amongst the youth in dating are for example swiping to indicate you like someone. That is a micropayment action, just need to monetize it!

What people do is what is economic. You guys are afaics thinking too much in terms of physical production and commerce. You are dinosaurs. The world has changed while you were not looking. The internet changed things in ways you haven't fully observed.

(I am thinking out of the box)
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 02:21:18 AM
Am debating what are the innate properties that constitute money. For the reasons stated in prior posts I do not consider privacy to be applicable to what makes good or bad money and do not see that as a factor towards driving adoption.

Privacy is not necessarily a property of money. Fungibility is a property of money though, and without strong legal guarantees of fungibility, it likely does require privacy because if you can trace "bad" or "good" coins then fungibility isn't there. Bitcoin currently doesn't have whitelisting/blacklisting, etc. (for the most part; there do seem to be some exceptions involving Coinbase, etc.) but as long as that concept is in play fungibility is a question.

Fungibility is not the only quality at risk. If the government can regulate money, they can extract all wealth to the misallocation and corruption of the Some Iron Laws of Political Economics. Early on this is tolerable, but in the end game scenario of repeating bouts of socialism where we are now, then a gestapo control over money will result in a severe economic collapse into a Dark Age.

Bitcoin proponents either fail to appreciate what stage of the cycle we are in, or they fully accept that they will go with the NWO fork of the coming bifurcation and take their chances on expropriation. Or the anonymity proponents are incorrect about the coming Economic Totalitarianism (and note there are sub-groups, e.g. some believe it is impossible technologically to make crypto that can't be effectively outlawed by government)
legendary
Activity: 981
Merit: 1005
No maps for these territories
May 19, 2015, 02:20:04 AM
make it happen
full member
Activity: 660
Merit: 101
Colletrix - Bridging the Physical and Virtual Worl
May 19, 2015, 02:15:43 AM
Let’s see ...

Gold is fungible in principle, as 1 oz. 24 K gold is indistinguishable from any other. That is an inherent physical property of the element, which facilitates its use as a currency.

Bank notes have no such property: they have serial numbers (to fight counterfeiting), and can otherwise be marked. In the 1749 Crawfurd v. The Royal Bank of Scotland case, it was ruled that despite lack of inherent fungibility, the law will not consider any genuine bank note to be different from another, lest their use as currency be hindered, and commerce along with it. In other words, government issued bills are fungible by decree.

Like gold, Bitcoin is fungible in principle, since, as rocks has argued, from the network’s perspective, 1 BTC = any other BTC. The coin is designed to have this property to facilitate its use as a currency.

However, some jurisdictions may decide to:

a) Impede BTC from gaining currency status. One way of achieving this, as Peter R notes, would be to place enforceable legal restrictions on fungibility.

b) Attack BTC fungibility, not necessarily to prevent it from becoming a currency, but to achieve other policy goals, such as combatting money laundering, illegal trade, or tax evasion.[1]

This leads to the question: could legal restrictions on BTC fungibility be technically enforced?

Bitcoin proponents argue that legal restrictions on BTC fungibility would probably always be defeatable or circumventable. On this view, legally restricting BTC fungibility would be like banning the melting of gold: unenforceable in the long run. This, in turn, makes it unlikely that such restrictions would be imposed in the first place.

Monero advocates disagree, because of bitcoin design features, and because legitimate BTC-accepting businesses operating in the relevant jurisdictions must comply with regulations.[2] In addition, they make the assumption, based on prudency, that legal restrictions on fungibility will inevitably be placed on cryptocurrency. Accordingly they have developped a coin for which, as far as they can see, it is technically impossible to enforce such restrictions.

In my eyes, this points to a significant divergence between the positions of BTC and XMR proponents. BTC proponents expect to legally use BTC as a fungible currency -- they may be foiled. XMR proponents anticipate going rogue -- they trust their tech., but cannot expect to use it for open commerce. BTC adopters want a currency suitable for the open market. XMR adopters are building a currency suitable for the black market.

There seems to be room for both.


[1] Note that attacking fungibility is not the only way to pursue such policy goals. The USG currently pursues them in the dollar economy by means such as asset forfeiture, or the ability to freeze bank accounts (these powers can be asserted previous to any court mandate, i.e., without demonstrated guilt), or by placing restrictions on the deposit or withdrawal of cash from banks, or on moving cash across borders. Some though not all of these means can be used in the BTC economy as well (Coinbase *will* freeze your account or seize your funds if so ordered).

[2] And indeed, according to one source, the BTC economy is in fact fragmented into KYC and non-KYC segments.
http://www.ofnumbers.com/2015/04/22/the-flow-of-funds-on-the-bitcoin-network-in-2015/
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 02:15:03 AM

no, I meant "shut up" (politeness gets you nowhere these days)

Would you care to demonstrate any logic to justify your command?

Do you have any authority to enforce a command on me? Do you want to have such authority? (if you do then you are antithetical to the goals of a meritocracy)
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
May 19, 2015, 02:09:29 AM

no, I meant "shut up" (politeness gets you nowhere these days)
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 02:09:14 AM
The subset of people who need privacy can use both in a manner that achieves it.

If TPTB close off the ability to get an anonymous connection to the internet (e.g. public open WiFi and/or unregistered 3G USB dongles), then neither Monero nor Bitcoin can be used anonymous any more.

They are likely to pass regulations banning those in next few years. I have seen legislation and movements by the telcos and ISPs.

You could I guess rent a botnet to obfuscate your IP. But much better we fix Tor or I2P (if they are compromised by Sybil attack and timing analysis as I posit they are).

Bitcoin's lack of onchain anonymity means it is nearly impossible to maintain anonymity in any sane usage scenarios. Do we need to detail why? Hasn't this been explained already in Monero threads?

Also I think you are assuming that anonymity will be a rare usage scenario; whereas, I am think it will be normal one in the Knowledge Age.

Regarding "better mining algo", again this is not a property of money I think people who are resorting to these types of arguments to convince themselves that altcoin x is better are kidding themselves.

When Bitcoin is centralized and fully regulated you can appreciate that the mining algorithm goes hand-in-hand with driving the freedom that makes money.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 01:56:40 AM
This is why I'll maintain privacy is a matter of usage, but is not a property of money.

Money without optional privacy is a Dark Age.

It is ridiculous to assert that viable privacy is orthogonal to money.

Privacy against the NSA with Bitcoin is very tedious if not impossible.

As we move further into the coming Economic Totalitarianism, the possibility of this Dark Age will become more obvious and visceral.

Problem for Monero is they sell it as being more robust anonymity than CoinJoin or DarkCoin, but Monero is not likely immune to the NSA either since I posit that both I2P and Tor are compromised. Monero's mining would become centralized too if the usage rose to what Bitcoin is facing now.

Climbing the wall of what we need technologically is a massive undertaking.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 01:48:54 AM
TPTB_need_war do you think technology per se can help us?

I think it needs a political battle too from the people - time to unite & challenge this elite!

Tools/weapons will be of great help but 'blood' will be needed too.

If we are fragmented and isolated to each other behind anonymity, stealthiness etc how can we win this battle?

Guerilla warfare is enough?

Just questions that I have no definite answer...

EDIT: We have to use probably both Ninja tactics AND Spartan (heroic, self sacrificing groups of people)

In the one world reserve currency thread in the Economics forum (and else where such as my reply to rpietila a few minutes ago above) have argued that the masses are going to fall into the NWO outcome and there is nothing we can do to stop that. The political outcomes always favor the banksters, e.g. Napolean's revolution reestablished the same type of system that existed before it. The reason is because of human nature and the Iron Law of Political Economics (Google it).

I believe the technological win is a political win, because when people vote with their actions instead of the voices, then an economic avalanche effect occurs. This is what we were hoping for with Bitcoin, but the technology is not quite right.

We fight by switching our economy.  No words. Just a clearly superior option that people adopt because it makes their life better.

Remember I had linked upthread to where I point out the TPTB can't take the internet away from us because it has too high of an entropic vacuum sucking everything in. The best they can do is brainwash the masses into sticking with socialism and falling into the NWO and centralized client-serverservant-master websites.

Hard sells never work and mass manipulation is the domain of the Iron Law of Political Economics.

So in short, yes we win with technology but the devil is in the details of that.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
May 19, 2015, 01:37:33 AM
Privacy has not usually been considered a core requirement for money

Some where upthread I quoted Nick Szabo on "TTP" as disagreeing with you. He said personal property has always been orthogonal to the need to trust a third party. Without optional privacy, then inherently you must trust the society and the government not to steal from you.

I think what you meant to write is that privacy has never been a non-optional property of money.
Jump to: