Topic: Should we worry about what the Chicago Federal Reserve said? (Read 2266 times)
HealthCoin
It seems they don't feel threaten by bitcoin at all since they believe they can create their own bitcoin at will 
I wonder if building a national cryptocurrency is more or less complicated that creating a health insurance portal web site?Let's build one !
Bankers don't understand open source. In their mind open source is something opaque.
This is exactly what he says.
... it is hard to imagine a world where the main currency is based on an extremely complex code understood by only a few and controlled by even fewer
This is contradicted by himself at the end...
That said, it represents a remarkable conceptual and technical achievement, which may well be used by existing financial institutions (which could issue their own bitcoins) or even by governments themselves
What he really says is that bitcoin has no
accountability, arbitration, or recourse.
At the end that is his only concern. What he doesn't understand is that Bitcoin really has "accountability, arbitration, or recourse" but it's always an option.
What govt IT system has ever been successful?
would you trust your coins in a govt created system.
would you trust your coins in a govt created system.
That Chicago Fed article is very good and I would recommend reading it.
There is a wonderful gem inside :
There is a wonderful gem inside :
Quote
Although some of the enthusiasm for bitcoin is driven by a distrust of state-issued currency, it is hard to imagine a world where the main currency is based on an extremely complex code understood by only a few and controlled by even fewer, without accountability, arbitration, or recourse.
The Fed said this. I'll print that and hang it on the wall. He's not making all that much sense. The bitcoin code, as an open source project, is the opposite of opaque. And for that reason it's rather more unlikely that governments could intervene in the code-base, without the network and anyone looking at it noticing. The government obviously can easily intervene where bitcoin interfaces with the traditional financial system. Maybe that's what he's talking about, but it sounds like he thinks the former. Am I missing something here?
[/quote]
Bankers don't understand open source. In their mind open source is something opaque.
they dont own the world so wouldn't hacking from them be hacking the world and illegal
Hi guys,
As someone posted in another forum, I worry more about this part of the conclusion:
The Achilles heel of bitcoin is with no doubt the bitcoin foundation. They already did send a signal subpoemating them for no reason...
I know that if the foundation does something that we don't like we can fork...etc...but for that you need to have enough miners well coordinated...and that they don't kill the fork with a 51% attack...it is not obvious to me that you can fork easily with the actual protocol if you have a powerful ennemy...
As someone posted in another forum, I worry more about this part of the conclusion:
Quote
Should bitcoin become widely accepted, it is unlikely that it will remain free of government intervention, if only because the governance of the bitcoin code and network is opaque and vulnerable.
The Achilles heel of bitcoin is with no doubt the bitcoin foundation. They already did send a signal subpoemating them for no reason...
I know that if the foundation does something that we don't like we can fork...etc...but for that you need to have enough miners well coordinated...and that they don't kill the fork with a 51% attack...it is not obvious to me that you can fork easily with the actual protocol if you have a powerful ennemy...
i guess he means, that the gov will give out more guidelines and laws about crypto. this will happen of course.
can also be a good thing in the end because bigger investors will step in.
can also be a good thing in the end because bigger investors will step in.
Nah, they aren't even understanding how bitcoin work lol. It is like when that politician said "the internet is a serie of tubes" 
Quote
Should bitcoin become widely accepted, it is un-likely that it will remain free of government intervention, if only because the governance of the bitcoin code and network is opaque and vulnerable. That said, it represents a remarkable conceptual and technical achievement, which may well be used by existing financial institutions (which could issue their own bitcoins) or even by governments themselves.
http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2013/cfldecember2013_317.pdf
He's not making all that much sense. The bitcoin code, as an open source project, is the opposite of opaque. And for that reason it's rather more unlikely that governments could intervene in the code-base, without the network and anyone looking at it noticing. The government obviously can easily intervene where bitcoin interfaces with the traditional financial system. Maybe that's what he's talking about, but it sounds like he thinks the former. Am I missing something here?
It seems they don't feel threaten by bitcoin at all since they believe they can create their own bitcoin at will
I wonder if building a national cryptocurrency is more or less complicated that creating a health insurance portal web site? 
It seems they don't feel threaten by bitcoin at all since they believe they can create their own bitcoin at will
This is pretty bullish IMO
This is pretty bullish IMO
I didn't read the whole thing, but I think one of the best things about btc is that it's teaching people that we don't need the violence of the state of have money.
Quote
Should bitcoin become widely accepted, it is un-likely that it will remain free of government intervention, if only because the governance of the bitcoin code and network is opaque and vulnerable. That said, it represents a remarkable conceptual and technical achievement, which may well be used by existing financial institutions (which could issue their own bitcoins) or even by governments themselves.
http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2013/cfldecember2013_317.pdf
Jump to: