Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 656.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 24, 2014, 06:42:59 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 24, 2014, 06:37:11 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 24, 2014, 05:52:33 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 05:39:54 PM

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.

yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream)

Quote

i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error)

You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is.

Quote from: Odalv on November 23, 2014, 06:08:21 PM

Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M. => M of N ( eq. 3 of 5 )

Quote

Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate.

Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive.

Pick your poison

Citation needed, this is just conjecture

my position is clear, dont make the protocol change.

just because the impact is belittled in the whitepaper calling it a mere security upgrade, doesn't make your argument. it's not a mere security upgrade, its a huge change to the protocol that alters the incentive system that secures Bitcoin. it may be a mere change to developers who've go to dev, but it's has economic impacts you repeatedly undermine.

FTFU
"the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen ~~as merely a security upgrade~~ as a way to final separate the value on the block chain from BTC the asset to reduce the trust required in the system."

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 06:58:05 PM

yes they are. and that's b/c they have some regulation in place that alot of ppl seem to value. not everyone is an anarcho-capitalist.

otoh, what assurances to ppl have with federated servers? they could disappear in a moment and no one would have any recourse.

the 1:1 spvp is vaporware at the moment. and MM is theoretical at best. NMC is not a valid example of success.

your disingenuity knows no bounds.

I suggest you leave technical assertions to technical people.

Not that I am one but saying things such as "federated servers could vanish" (as if Bitstamp, Bitfinex or BTC-e couldn't), "1:1 spvp is vaporware" and "MM is theoretical at best" only serves to make you look like a clown who has little clue what he is talking about.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 24, 2014, 06:51:51 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 06:47:53 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 24, 2014, 06:42:59 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 24, 2014, 06:37:11 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 24, 2014, 05:52:33 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 05:39:54 PM

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.

yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream)

Quote

i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error)

You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is.

Quote from: Odalv on November 23, 2014, 06:08:21 PM

Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M. => M of N ( eq. 3 of 5 )

Quote

Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate.

Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive.

Pick your poison

there's the FUD again.

go ahead and use federated servers if you want. as long as they don't change source code.

but they aren't going to succeed anyways b/c of centralization and insecurity. AND the fact that ppl will hold BTC until the last moment before using the server for whatever function or asset it offers. and then they will withdraw immediately. that's b/c of the opportunity cost of losing out on BTC appreciation over time. b/c of that reduced liquidity of the server asset, it won't be valued.

so Blockstream, don't expect to make any money off federated servers.

it seems to me Coinbase, Circle, Bitfinex, Bitstamp, every and any exchange or off-chain schemes can be considered relatively successful even with their centralized model.

There is no "opportunity cost" of losing out on BTC because they are redeemable 1:1, no matter the fluctuating value of the scBTC.

yes they are. and that's b/c they have some regulation in place that alot of ppl seem to value. not everyone is an anarcho-capitalist.

otoh, what assurances to ppl have with federated servers? they could disappear in a moment and no one would have any recourse.

the 1:1 spvp is vaporware at the moment. and MM is theoretical at best. NMC is not a valid example of success.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 06:52:28 PM

another article on the Currency Wars. Bitcoin wants to be in the middle of this. ultimately, fiat currency will be consumed by the soundest of monies; Bitcoin. forget SC's and intra-protocol speculation that will enrich Blockstream at the expense of Bitcoin as Money:

WSJ's Mattich: The Currency War is On

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Mattich-currency-war-China/2014/11/23/id/609158/

forget speculation

there is no speculation

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

another article on the Currency Wars. Bitcoin wants to be in the middle of this. ultimately, fiat currency will be consumed by the soundest of monies; Bitcoin. forget SC's and intra-protocol speculation that will enrich Blockstream at the expense of Bitcoin as Money:

WSJ's Mattich: The Currency War is On

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Mattich-currency-war-China/2014/11/23/id/609158/

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 06:47:53 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 24, 2014, 06:42:59 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 24, 2014, 06:37:11 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 24, 2014, 05:52:33 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 05:39:54 PM

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.

yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream)

Quote

i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error)

You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is.

Quote from: Odalv on November 23, 2014, 06:08:21 PM

Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M. => M of N ( eq. 3 of 5 )

Quote

Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate.

Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive.

Pick your poison

there's the FUD again.

go ahead and use federated servers if you want. as long as they don't change source code.

but they aren't going to succeed anyways b/c of centralization and insecurity. AND the fact that ppl will hold BTC until the last moment before using the server for whatever function or asset it offers. and then they will withdraw immediately. that's b/c of the opportunity cost of losing out on BTC appreciation over time. b/c of that reduced liquidity of the server asset, it won't be valued.

so Blockstream, don't expect to make any money off federated servers.

it seems to me Coinbase, Circle, Bitfinex, Bitstamp, every and any exchange or off-chain schemes can be considered relatively successful even with their centralized model.

There is no "opportunity cost" of losing out on BTC because they are redeemable 1:1, no matter the fluctuating value of the scBTC.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 24, 2014, 06:42:59 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 24, 2014, 06:37:11 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 24, 2014, 05:52:33 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 05:39:54 PM

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.

yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream)

Quote

i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error)

You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is.

Quote from: Odalv on November 23, 2014, 06:08:21 PM

Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M. => M of N ( eq. 3 of 5 )

Quote

Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate.

Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive.

Pick your poison

there's the FUD again.

go ahead and use federated servers if you want. as long as they don't change source code.

but they aren't going to succeed anyways b/c of centralization and insecurity. AND the fact that ppl will hold BTC until the last moment before using the server for whatever function or asset it offers. and then they will withdraw immediately. that's b/c of the opportunity cost of losing out on BTC appreciation over time. b/c of that reduced liquidity of the server asset, it won't be valued.

so Blockstream, don't expect to make any money off federated servers.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 24, 2014, 06:37:11 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 24, 2014, 05:52:33 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 05:39:54 PM

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.

yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream)

Quote

i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error)

You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is.

Quote from: Odalv on November 23, 2014, 06:08:21 PM

Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M. => M of N ( eq. 3 of 5 )

Quote

Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate.

Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive.

Pick your poison

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Odalv on November 24, 2014, 05:52:33 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 05:39:54 PM

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.

yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream)

Quote

i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error)

You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is.

Quote from: Odalv on November 23, 2014, 06:08:21 PM

Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M. => M of N ( eq. 3 of 5 )

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 06:30:38 PM

more and more realization about the Sound Money advantages of Bitcoin from the gold community. forget intra-protocol speculative trading:

Bullion Dealer Agora Commodities Will Rebrand to Focus on Bitcoin

http://www.coindesk.com/agora-commodities-rebrand-bitcoin/

forget speculation

there is no speculation

there is no spoon

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 24, 2014, 05:47:55 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 05:39:54 PM

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.

i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

No, you disagree simply because of previous butt hurt with gmax & lukejr. After some digging it is clear as day your problem is your ego.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

more and more realization about the Sound Money advantages of Bitcoin from the gold community. forget intra-protocol speculative trading:

Bullion Dealer Agora Commodities Will Rebrand to Focus on Bitcoin

http://www.coindesk.com/agora-commodities-rebrand-bitcoin/

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 05:39:54 PM

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable.

That's not actually what cryptoanarchism is about.

The violence which cryptography is supposed to protect people from is the violence initiated by governments.

It's about making anonymous trade possible and safe, so that no third party can rain down retribution upon consensual trade for which they are not involved but disapprove, or for which they demand to be paid tribute for the privilege of not being assaulted.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 24, 2014, 03:20:17 PM

I don't think you are reading everything posted here.

I'm sorry. My english is not good enough to explain details.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 24, 2014, 05:47:55 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 05:39:54 PM

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.

i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

No, you disagree simply because of previous butt hurt with gmax & lukejr. After some digging it is clear as day your problem is your ego.

no, the disagreement has to do with your lame brain idea of splitting the currency unit from the blockchain. simple as that. it's stupid.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 05:39:54 PM

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.

yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream)

Quote

i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error)

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 05:39:54 PM

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.

i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

No, you disagree simply because of previous butt hurt with gmax & lukejr. After some digging it is clear as day your problem is your ego.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.

i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Odalv on November 24, 2014, 05:05:36 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 04:33:34 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 21, 2014, 02:35:58 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 21, 2014, 01:48:04 PM

I've been looking everywhere for this and someone finally found it for me. Thanks!

That was a brutal demonstration of heavy handedness displayed by those guys, gmax and lukejr. Fortunately, they were proven wrong in the end. The bitcoin.org press center they were promoting got shot down, Ver got added to Andreas' new site, and Matonis went on to serve 2y as TBF head. Justice got served.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17151432

The really sad thing to note here is that those devs never relented to the majority opinion expressed in that GitHub thread. Sirius, the owner of bitcoin.org actually had to be contacted after 2 or so years of being in seclusion to resolve the dispute.

Martti Malmi, aka Sirius. He needs no introduction, but he is somewhat reclusive these days so it's not clear that he'd necessarily appreciate the nomination. Incidentally, he is the owner of the bitcoin.org domain.-Andreas

Sirius was shocked as to how these devs were ruling over his domain and immediately shut down their press center and demurred to Andreas' new site.

And the other shocker? To this day, gmax sincerely believes he "won" that battle.

gmax and lukejr are not original cryptoanarchists. they are techno-communists. here's a follow up discussion i had with gmax last month. note the complete lack of contrition on his part regarding the Press Center debacle despite widespread community disapproval and at least 2 other high profile community members directly against them (Andreas and Trace Mayer) in the dispute along with myself. from Reddit:

from nullc [-9] sent 1 month ago

The news center? lol. Becuase I thought it was imprudent to list a convicted felon as top contact on Bitcoin.org? You haven't a clue how much seedy and scammy stuff has been going on behind the scenes, I guess. That whole shitshow with Shrem and the Foundation? That half the foundation's board will no longer enter the US? It's important that Bitcoin the technology and the currency keep a distance from people's unlawful stunts (regardless of what we think about the morality of the laws), so that when the shit hits the fan Bitcoin can keep running.

I have no regrets about any of that, and I'm somewhat surprised to not hear from you... "You know, you were right."

me:

this just goes to show how differently we see things. i was hoping you'd say the same thing to me. b/c in the end, Andreas' site is what became the preferred go to Press Center and included Ver and Matonis, nevermind the community outrage over what you guys did.

I like gmax and his work. I have never met him(he does not know me) but I understand what how and why he wants to say.
=> He is not techno-communists.

It is not easy to understand. It is all about math logic.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pay-to-contract-with-forgability-using-a-chameleon-hash-318279

Quote

I am fascinated by Tim May's crypto-anarchy. Unlike the communities traditionally associated with the word "anarchy", in a crypto-anarchy the government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and permanently unnecessary. It's a community where the threat of violence is impotent because violence is impossible, and violence is impossible because its participants cannot be linked to their true names or physical locations.

Until now it's not clear, even theoretically, how such a community could operate. A community is defined by the cooperation of its participants, and efficient cooperation requires a medium of exchange (money) and a way to enforce contracts. Traditionally these services have been provided by the government or government sponsored institutions and only to legal entities. In this article I describe a protocol by which these services can be provided to and by untraceable entities.

Edit:
Bitcoin(money) + SC(a way to enforce contracts) can replace "Traditionally services(government)".

+1

Hit the nail on the head, once again.

Cypher you are making this too easy, I don't even have to say a word and our dear Odalv continues to try and make you see the light.

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 24, 2014, 04:33:34 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 21, 2014, 02:35:58 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 21, 2014, 01:48:04 PM

I've been looking everywhere for this and someone finally found it for me. Thanks!

That was a brutal demonstration of heavy handedness displayed by those guys, gmax and lukejr. Fortunately, they were proven wrong in the end. The bitcoin.org press center they were promoting got shot down, Ver got added to Andreas' new site, and Matonis went on to serve 2y as TBF head. Justice got served.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17151432

The really sad thing to note here is that those devs never relented to the majority opinion expressed in that GitHub thread. Sirius, the owner of bitcoin.org actually had to be contacted after 2 or so years of being in seclusion to resolve the dispute.

Martti Malmi, aka Sirius. He needs no introduction, but he is somewhat reclusive these days so it's not clear that he'd necessarily appreciate the nomination. Incidentally, he is the owner of the bitcoin.org domain.-Andreas

Sirius was shocked as to how these devs were ruling over his domain and immediately shut down their press center and demurred to Andreas' new site.

And the other shocker? To this day, gmax sincerely believes he "won" that battle.

gmax and lukejr are not original cryptoanarchists. they are techno-communists. here's a follow up discussion i had with gmax last month. note the complete lack of contrition on his part regarding the Press Center debacle despite widespread community disapproval and at least 2 other high profile community members directly against them (Andreas and Trace Mayer) in the dispute along with myself. from Reddit:

from nullc [-9] sent 1 month ago

The news center? lol. Becuase I thought it was imprudent to list a convicted felon as top contact on Bitcoin.org? You haven't a clue how much seedy and scammy stuff has been going on behind the scenes, I guess. That whole shitshow with Shrem and the Foundation? That half the foundation's board will no longer enter the US? It's important that Bitcoin the technology and the currency keep a distance from people's unlawful stunts (regardless of what we think about the morality of the laws), so that when the shit hits the fan Bitcoin can keep running.

I have no regrets about any of that, and I'm somewhat surprised to not hear from you... "You know, you were right."

me:

this just goes to show how differently we see things. i was hoping you'd say the same thing to me. b/c in the end, Andreas' site is what became the preferred go to Press Center and included Ver and Matonis, nevermind the community outrage over what you guys did.

I like gmax and his work. I have never met him(he does not know me) but I understand what how and why he wants to say.
=> He is not techno-communists.

It is not easy to understand. It is all about math logic.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pay-to-contract-with-forgability-using-a-chameleon-hash-318279

Quote

I am fascinated by Tim May's crypto-anarchy. Unlike the communities traditionally associated with the word "anarchy", in a crypto-anarchy the government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and permanently unnecessary. It's a community where the threat of violence is impotent because violence is impossible, and violence is impossible because its participants cannot be linked to their true names or physical locations.

Until now it's not clear, even theoretically, how such a community could operate. A community is defined by the cooperation of its participants, and efficient cooperation requires a medium of exchange (money) and a way to enforce contracts. Traditionally these services have been provided by the government or government sponsored institutions and only to legal entities. In this article I describe a protocol by which these services can be provided to and by untraceable entities.

Edit:
Bitcoin(money) + SC(a way to enforce contracts) can replace "Traditionally services(government)".

Edit2:
- do not trust gmax
- do not trust government
- your signature in blockchain-2 is proving what you did (and wanted to do)

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 656. (Read 2032266 times)