Given that we know the BGP is mathematically unsolvable
i've heard this a few times already.
can u give a simple layman's description to why this is?
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 903. (Read 2032266 times)
Given that we know the BGP is mathematically unsolvable
i've heard this a few times already.
can u give a simple layman's description to why this is?
also, i think your statement is only stronger b/c you left out the word "may", whereas i intentionally include it as i can't be totally sure.
That is precisely why it is stronger.Given that we know the BGP is mathematically unsolvable, I'm sure we can't do better than an economic solution.
Dow -255
"The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money".
I think you can make an even stronger statement:"A distributed consensus ledger can only survive if it is successful as money."
Note that Bitcoin did not solve the Byzantine Generals Problem because that problem is unsolvable. Bitcoin made it so that any successful attack is uneconomical. That only works if bitcoins are valued as money.
This means anything that tries to replace Bitcoin's functionality will either do so by being better money or else won't be a distributed consensus ledger.
i think we're making the same argument only in slightly different ways. i've already expounded on the details as to why i believe this in past posts.
also, i think your statement is only stronger b/c you left out the word "may", whereas i intentionally include it as i can't be totally sure.
"The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money".
I think you can make an even stronger statement:"A distributed consensus ledger can only survive if it is successful as money."
Note that Bitcoin did not solve the Byzantine Generals Problem because that problem is unsolvable. Bitcoin made it so that any successful attack is uneconomical. That only works if bitcoins are valued as money.
This means anything that tries to replace Bitcoin's functionality will either do so by being better money or else won't be a distributed consensus ledger.
Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)
Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).
In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.
Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?
You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable?
My mistake... could have phrased that more clearly, I guess:
I don't suggest we "split up" Bitcoin. My question was, "what prevents the rest of the world from adopting Bitcoin, the distributed ledger, but (mostly) ignoring Bitcoin, the currency"?
The usual argument goes "the two functions cannot be separated, so the above is impossible". I'm asking, why? To me it looks like a possibility, and the implications for total valuation in the long term would be drastic.
Because there would be no incentives for the miner to secure and maintain that ledger?
Maybe I have your argument wrong but this is how I understand it
Again, apologies. Maybe not phrased clearly enough.
The side remark in my original post ("In order not to gloss over this") was meant to address exactly this point: even if the world only makes use of the ledger function of Bitcoin (and as such, no significant valuation floor is provided by that use), keeping the "ledger only" network secured will provide such a floor.
However, valuation in that world could be substantially lower than in the one that includes usage cases medium of exchange / store of value.
a) Valuation from the above two usage cases is missing.
b) Effort needed to provide security of the network could well be not in a linear relation to total value of ledger usage:
- double spends are less of a concern if contracts are to be settled (confirmation time less of a problem)
- there is more than just a monetary requirement to overcome to successfully mount an attack on a network the scale of Bitcoin (hardware procurement, mounting the attack without raising suspicion)
The point I'm getting at is that the total value of contracts settled through the ledger can be higher than the total cost to secure the network, as long as the cost to mount a successful attack on the network is prohibitively high for any individual actor.
So the total valuation / market price per unit could well be below the current (optimistic) estimates that include the medium of exchange / store of value usage cases, even though the security requirements for the ledger usage alone provides some valuation.
Dow -222
Moreover, as suggested above, this is another attempt at suggesting other applications of the distributed ledger are more useful than the money application which is patently false.
imo, the money function is paramount and foremost, which is why i often say "The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money".
good sign. some idiot tried to trigger a sell off with a 1400 BTC sell/short but has failed:
Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)
Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).
In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.
Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?
You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable?
My mistake... could have phrased that more clearly, I guess:
I don't suggest we "split up" Bitcoin. My question was, "what prevents the rest of the world from adopting Bitcoin, the distributed ledger, but (mostly) ignoring Bitcoin, the currency"?
The usual argument goes "the two functions cannot be separated, so the above is impossible". I'm asking, why? To me it looks like a possibility, and the implications for total valuation in the long term would be drastic.
Moreover, as suggested above, this is another attempt at suggesting other applications of the distributed ledger are more useful than the money application which is patently false.
Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)
Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).
In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.
Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?
You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable?
My mistake... could have phrased that more clearly, I guess:
I don't suggest we "split up" Bitcoin. My question was, "what prevents the rest of the world from adopting Bitcoin, the distributed ledger, but (mostly) ignoring Bitcoin, the currency"?
The usual argument goes "the two functions cannot be separated, so the above is impossible". I'm asking, why? To me it looks like a possibility, and the implications for total valuation in the long term would be drastic.
Because there would be no incentives for the miner to secure and maintain that ledger?
Maybe I have your argument wrong but this is how I understand it
Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)
Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).
In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.
Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?
You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable?
My mistake... could have phrased that more clearly, I guess:
I don't suggest we "split up" Bitcoin. My question was, "what prevents the rest of the world from adopting Bitcoin, the distributed ledger, but (mostly) ignoring Bitcoin, the currency"?
The usual argument goes "the two functions cannot be separated, so the above is impossible". I'm asking, why? To me it looks like a possibility, and the implications for total valuation in the long term would be drastic.
I suppose that is possible if we were primarily using the Bitcoin blockchain for contracts and properties, a la colored-coins or Mastercoin. But it seems to me that the primary use of Bitcoins will still be as an object of value in and of itself, used for the purpose of wealth storage and transfer. If you wanted to use the blockchain as a contract or property ledger only, you would then have to transact the value portion of that contract outside of the Bitcoin system, which then removes the real advantages of using Bitcoin in the first place.
Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)
Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).
In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.
Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?
You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable?
My mistake... could have phrased that more clearly, I guess:
I don't suggest we "split up" Bitcoin. My question was, "what prevents the rest of the world from adopting Bitcoin, the distributed ledger, but (mostly) ignoring Bitcoin, the currency"?
The usual argument goes "the two functions cannot be separated, so the above is impossible". I'm asking, why? To me it looks like a possibility, and the implications for total valuation in the long term would be drastic.
Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)
Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).
In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.
Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?
You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable?
$DXY still going up tonite. sidhuajag, i still don't see how stocks keep rising in the face of this, despite your reasoning:
I think they will wait for usdx retrace... Higher lows for both... Someone ban this lambchop guy seriously offtopicwhat's interesting is i have intermediate-term sell signals this past week on the S&P, NDX, Wilshire 5000, the $DJT and even the Dow Jones World Index.
Intermediate-term sell signals were also triggered on the French CAC and the German DAX.
the $DJI is the only holdout.
extrapolating forward to the end of week, it looks like we're going to get a weekly (intermediate term) sell signal on the Dow. that's a significant development as it has been the only holdout from the above indices. given where we are in the cycles, there is a chance this could be a long term top in the stock mkt. mind you as i've said before, i don't have the structural evidence yet that this is the case. former subs will know what i'm talking about. but i am on high alert.
like i also said, this would be good for Bitcoin, as it would cause a RunToSafety and could also highlight the benefits of non-correlated assets from the general financial world of which there is only one, imo.
must listen podcast of Robert Murphy by Tom Woods on Bitcoin and the Regression Theorum. it's a little past halfway in the podcast:
http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp
Murphy's Conclusions:
1. Bitcoin is unique in that it was developed from the start to be a form of money and did not evolve as a commodity.
2. Bitcoin leapfrogged the barter phase whereby it would have established it's own relative value (intrinsic value) as a commodity in the market place against other items prior to becoming a medium of exchange.
3. the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.
i extend his conclusions to say the Jeffrey Tucker's theory that Bitcoin only has value primarily b/c of it's payment network to be wrong. Woods alludes to Tucker's theory in the interview but clearly disagrees with it. Woods makes the correct argument that the reason ppl value the payment network is b/c the Bitcoin currency has value to begin with. IOW, the payment network would be worthless if Bitcoin the currency was worthless. this is where Andreas is also wrong when he says Bitcoin the currency is merely the 1st app existing on what is the real value, the blockchain and that they can be separated. same argument as Tucker's, same wrong conclusion.
also by extension, Konrad Graf's theory that the RT is consistent with Bitcoin's origin is also tenuous, if not wrong, altho not quite as aggregious in its conclusions as Tucker and Andreas. as far as i'm concerned, Mises is a great economist who was right on just about all things except for the fact that his RT did not, and could not, have been expected to have predicted something like Bitcoin which depends on the Internet and a scale of global communication never before seen in human history.
my final conclusion is the same one i've had since i started with Bitcoin back in 2011, and that is that Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked to Bitcoin the blockchain and Bitcoin the payment network.
http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp
Murphy's Conclusions:
1. Bitcoin is unique in that it was developed from the start to be a form of money and did not evolve as a commodity.
2. Bitcoin leapfrogged the barter phase whereby it would have established it's own relative value (intrinsic value) as a commodity in the market place against other items prior to becoming a medium of exchange.
3. the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.
i extend his conclusions to say the Jeffrey Tucker's theory that Bitcoin only has value primarily b/c of it's payment network to be wrong. Woods alludes to Tucker's theory in the interview but clearly disagrees with it. Woods makes the correct argument that the reason ppl value the payment network is b/c the Bitcoin currency has value to begin with. IOW, the payment network would be worthless if Bitcoin the currency was worthless. this is where Andreas is also wrong when he says Bitcoin the currency is merely the 1st app existing on what is the real value, the blockchain and that they can be separated. same argument as Tucker's, same wrong conclusion.
also by extension, Konrad Graf's theory that the RT is consistent with Bitcoin's origin is also tenuous, if not wrong, altho not quite as aggregious in its conclusions as Tucker and Andreas. as far as i'm concerned, Mises is a great economist who was right on just about all things except for the fact that his RT did not, and could not, have been expected to have predicted something like Bitcoin which depends on the Internet and a scale of global communication never before seen in human history.
my final conclusion is the same one i've had since i started with Bitcoin back in 2011, and that is that Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked to Bitcoin the blockchain and Bitcoin the payment network.
Yes, people need to accept the duality of bitcoin's value origination. I don't think it's fair to say that either one originates the value; they both have value because of the other, and are really the same thing: a distributed ledger, which gets us back to money as memory, and bitcoin as an ideal societal memory facilitator. It's perhaps easier to try and think of things separately, because humans like to think linearly, but the reality is that the currency/network should be viewed is a single atomic unit, or two units that can't be separately discussed (which is equivalent and therefore a mostly useless definition).
Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)
Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).
In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.
Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?
trying to make Bitcoin consistent with the RT is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
it'll go in eventually if you hammer it hard enough.
it'll go in eventually if you hammer it hard enough.
hero member
Activity: 836
Merit: 1007
"How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time..."
must listen podcast of Robert Murphy by Tom Woods on Bitcoin and the Regression Theorum. it's a little past halfway in the podcast:
http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp
Murphy's Conclusions:
1. Bitcoin is unique in that it was developed from the start to be a form of money and did not evolve as a commodity.
2. Bitcoin leapfrogged the barter phase whereby it would have established it's own relative value (intrinsic value) as a commodity in the market place against other items prior to becoming a medium of exchange.
3. the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.
i extend his conclusions to say the Jeffrey Tucker's theory that Bitcoin only has value primarily b/c of it's payment network to be wrong. Woods alludes to Tucker's theory in the interview but clearly disagrees with it. Woods makes the correct argument that the reason ppl value the payment network is b/c the Bitcoin currency has value to begin with. IOW, the payment network would be worthless if Bitcoin the currency was worthless. this is where Andreas is also wrong when he says Bitcoin the currency is merely the 1st app existing on what is the real value, the blockchain and that they can be separated. same argument as Tucker's, same wrong conclusion.
also by extension, Konrad Graf's theory that the RT is consistent with Bitcoin's origin is also tenuous, if not wrong, altho not quite as aggregious in its conclusions as Tucker and Andreas. as far as i'm concerned, Mises is a great economist who was right on just about all things except for the fact that his RT did not, and could not, have been expected to have predicted something like Bitcoin which depends on the Internet and a scale of global communication never before seen in human history.
my final conclusion is the same one i've had since i started with Bitcoin back in 2011, and that is that Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked to Bitcoin the blockchain and Bitcoin the payment network.
http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp
Murphy's Conclusions:
1. Bitcoin is unique in that it was developed from the start to be a form of money and did not evolve as a commodity.
2. Bitcoin leapfrogged the barter phase whereby it would have established it's own relative value (intrinsic value) as a commodity in the market place against other items prior to becoming a medium of exchange.
3. the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.
i extend his conclusions to say the Jeffrey Tucker's theory that Bitcoin only has value primarily b/c of it's payment network to be wrong. Woods alludes to Tucker's theory in the interview but clearly disagrees with it. Woods makes the correct argument that the reason ppl value the payment network is b/c the Bitcoin currency has value to begin with. IOW, the payment network would be worthless if Bitcoin the currency was worthless. this is where Andreas is also wrong when he says Bitcoin the currency is merely the 1st app existing on what is the real value, the blockchain and that they can be separated. same argument as Tucker's, same wrong conclusion.
also by extension, Konrad Graf's theory that the RT is consistent with Bitcoin's origin is also tenuous, if not wrong, altho not quite as aggregious in its conclusions as Tucker and Andreas. as far as i'm concerned, Mises is a great economist who was right on just about all things except for the fact that his RT did not, and could not, have been expected to have predicted something like Bitcoin which depends on the Internet and a scale of global communication never before seen in human history.
my final conclusion is the same one i've had since i started with Bitcoin back in 2011, and that is that Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked to Bitcoin the blockchain and Bitcoin the payment network.
Sounds like something I read a while back:
Bitcoin: A New Commodity Created To Serve Market Demand
http://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/bitcoin-a-new-commodity-created-to-serve-market-demand/
and
Bitcoin and Why Mises’ Regression Theorem is Wrong
http://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/mises-regression-theorem-is-wrong/
must listen podcast of Robert Murphy by Tom Woods on Bitcoin and the Regression Theorum. it's a little past halfway in the podcast:
http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp
Murphy's Conclusions:
1. Bitcoin is unique in that it was developed from the start to be a form of money and did not evolve as a commodity.
2. Bitcoin leapfrogged the barter phase whereby it would have established it's own relative value (intrinsic value) as a commodity in the market place against other items prior to becoming a medium of exchange.
3. the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.
i extend his conclusions to say the Jeffrey Tucker's theory that Bitcoin only has value primarily b/c of it's payment network to be wrong. Woods alludes to Tucker's theory in the interview but clearly disagrees with it. Woods makes the correct argument that the reason ppl value the payment network is b/c the Bitcoin currency has value to begin with. IOW, the payment network would be worthless if Bitcoin the currency was worthless. this is where Andreas is also wrong when he says Bitcoin the currency is merely the 1st app existing on what is the real value, the blockchain and that they can be separated. same argument as Tucker's, same wrong conclusion.
also by extension, Konrad Graf's theory that the RT is consistent with Bitcoin's origin is also tenuous, if not wrong, altho not quite as aggregious in its conclusions as Tucker and Andreas. as far as i'm concerned, Mises is a great economist who was right on just about all things except for the fact that his RT did not, and could not, have been expected to have predicted something like Bitcoin which depends on the Internet and a scale of global communication never before seen in human history.
my final conclusion is the same one i've had since i started with Bitcoin back in 2011, and that is that Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked to Bitcoin the blockchain and Bitcoin the payment network.
http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp
Murphy's Conclusions:
1. Bitcoin is unique in that it was developed from the start to be a form of money and did not evolve as a commodity.
2. Bitcoin leapfrogged the barter phase whereby it would have established it's own relative value (intrinsic value) as a commodity in the market place against other items prior to becoming a medium of exchange.
3. the Regression Theorum is too restrictive as it could not have predicted something as innovative as Bitcoin.
i extend his conclusions to say the Jeffrey Tucker's theory that Bitcoin only has value primarily b/c of it's payment network to be wrong. Woods alludes to Tucker's theory in the interview but clearly disagrees with it. Woods makes the correct argument that the reason ppl value the payment network is b/c the Bitcoin currency has value to begin with. IOW, the payment network would be worthless if Bitcoin the currency was worthless. this is where Andreas is also wrong when he says Bitcoin the currency is merely the 1st app existing on what is the real value, the blockchain and that they can be separated. same argument as Tucker's, same wrong conclusion.
also by extension, Konrad Graf's theory that the RT is consistent with Bitcoin's origin is also tenuous, if not wrong, altho not quite as aggregious in its conclusions as Tucker and Andreas. as far as i'm concerned, Mises is a great economist who was right on just about all things except for the fact that his RT did not, and could not, have been expected to have predicted something like Bitcoin which depends on the Internet and a scale of global communication never before seen in human history.
my final conclusion is the same one i've had since i started with Bitcoin back in 2011, and that is that Bitcoin the currency is inextricably linked to Bitcoin the blockchain and Bitcoin the payment network.
Yes, people need to accept the duality of bitcoin's value origination. I don't think it's fair to say that either one originates the value; they both have value because of the other, and are really the same thing: a distributed ledger, which gets us back to money as memory, and bitcoin as an ideal societal memory facilitator. It's perhaps easier to try and think of things separately, because humans like to think linearly, but the reality is that the currency/network should be viewed is a single atomic unit, or two units that can't be separately discussed (which is equivalent and therefore a mostly useless definition).
WTF? these guys are simply out of hand:
U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-30/u-s-seeks-to-reverse-apple-android-data-locking-decision.html
U.S. Law Enforcement Seeks to Halt Apple-Google Encryption of Mobile Data
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-30/u-s-seeks-to-reverse-apple-android-data-locking-decision.html
Quote
“What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law,” Comey said.
They are marketing it as a privacy feature. If seeking privacy means you are going "beyond the law", maybe decades of law enforcement overreaching and seeking extensions of the laws into our personal lives is the problem.
Besides, if they take it away from the default install they will only remove if from the average consumer who isn't breaking laws. The criminals will root their phones and use encryption anyway. They can't stop this unless they make rooting illegal, and even that will only slow it down slightly. If it comes to that, I'm fucking out of here. I won't live in a country where it is illegal to own a general purpose computer that can run software that doesn't have the approval of government and corporate overlords.
This is less paternalism, and more, I don't know, 14yr old insecure girl syndrome. "What are they saying? Are they talking about me?"
This government has gone nuts. Next they will outlaw envelopes.
Jump to: