You guys keep talking about governments creating/enforcing black lists. Governments don't have to enforce any such blacklist for there to be one. Companies like Chainalysis will offer address screening/validation services that merchants will choose to adopt, not because they are required to, but for liability purposes. It's simply a wise legal decision that protects them from lawsuit.
That way if someone steals 10,000 bitcoins and funnels it through XYZ business, XYZ can say "don't blame us! We took these security measures and all our transactions are verified through the Chainalysis/Coinalytics/whatever gateway to be free of suspicious activity." Third party services are some of the easiest ways for businesses to limit their liability and pass responsibility to someone else, so please don't tell me that MSBs and merchants won't willingly use chain analysis services for payment verification in the future.
The bottom line is that if a currency is not fungible, you can't expect everyone to pretend that it is.
Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1745. (Read 3313576 times)
how does nxt's upcoming coin shuffling feature compare to monero's? whats the pros/cons of each ?
Retweet this to get some speculative trading analysis done by professionals:
https://twitter.com/jessecouch/status/646747329781964801
XMR looks like a pretty good buy and is a fantastic coin.
Nice getting this out there. I'm doing some 2.5x margin trading on poloniex with this coin. I'm going long.
I hope coinigy says im correct! Is it going to be on the show in 2 hours?
Retweet this to get some speculative trading analysis done by professionals:
https://twitter.com/jessecouch/status/646747329781964801
XMR looks like a pretty good buy and is a fantastic coin.
Nice getting this out there. I'm doing some 2.5x margin trading on poloniex with this coin. I'm going long.
@futureofbitcoin: Blocktrail asks a premium for their minted coins, hence my post :-)
...
How is blacklisting of coins going to be enforced? It won't be. People can't even agree on the blocksize....
How is blacklisting of coins going to be enforced? It won't be. People can't even agree on the blocksize....
Very simply when BTC becomes mainstream and businesses accept it just like credit cards then the device that accepts the transaction will by law have a lookup to a blacklist.
It's so simple I can't believe I have to explain it. Not only that but there are even simpler ways for any government to enforce blacklisting on businesses. If they wished to do it to fiat they could simply by forcing businesses to use currency scanners.
If you believe this will never happen then that is your gamble, when it does happen and it will as history has shown government overreach is rampant and growing then those that protected themselves from it will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Does USD have fungibility problems? CAD? EUR? JPY? RMB?
They have serial numbers on them. Theoretically you can say "this serial number is now worthless". But they are working currencies. People trust them.
I think bitcoin's fungibility is a much smaller issue than people in this thread are led to believe.
They have serial numbers on them. Theoretically you can say "this serial number is now worthless". But they are working currencies. People trust them.
I think bitcoin's fungibility is a much smaller issue than people in this thread are led to believe.
please then explain how BTC-e could blacklist coins stolen from the dark market called Evolution?
Better yet, how about if that same thief sold you coins for fiat or something of value (hard asset)?
And then when you went to exchange those bitcoins for fiat or other goods the merchant or exchange tells you that those coins are blacklisted and are not accepted here (hopefully the return the coins to you).
I'm pretty sure it is NOT a "much smaller issue" than people in this thread are led to believe.
Your little argument only proves my point. I don't know what happened with BTC-e, but let's say what you're saying is true. Did OKcoin blacklist those coins? How about BTChina? Houbi? Circle? Coinbase? How about that coffee shop over there?
So these coins cannot be used on a single exchange. Well, you know what? Cryptocurrencies can't be used in most places. I'm sure there are more merchants that accept those bitcoins that are blacklisted by BTC-e than merchants that accept monero.
The main point is, can my money be used for services I want/need to use? If BTC-e wants to lose customers, they are free to do so. It'll be a long time before all or even most governments and companies come to an agreement on which coins to black or whitelist.
You ignore the example I gave where if you went to another location to spent BTC and they wont accept it and it continues...you would be pretty mad and possibly lose faith in it altogether.
ULTIMATELY BTC-E SET A PRECEDENT BY DOING WHAT IT DID.
It is not out of the realm of possibilities that governments could put pressure on their local businesses that accept BTC and make them blacklist any number of bitcoins that have been stolen.
This would imply that blacklisted bitcoins would be priced lower than whitelisted bitcoins if my said scenario were to come true.
See, the problem with your logic, is that you're only looking at it one way.
There's no central authority to enforce laws saying "you must accept all bitcoins". Similarly, there is no central authority saying "You can't accept these bitcoins".
How is blacklisting of coins going to be enforced? It won't be. People can't even agree on the blocksize.
There's no central authority to enforce laws saying "you must accept all bitcoins". Similarly, there is no central authority saying "You can't accept these bitcoins".
How is blacklisting of coins going to be enforced? It won't be. People can't even agree on the blocksize.
I think you miss the point, in that you apply a view inehrited of "good old" centralized systems, and believe there should be a ruling of some sort or at least a general consensus on this issue to actually endanger fungibility.
Fact: Some coins are already less (or more) valuable than others, without anybody ruling it should be the case. See also joinmarket. How do you reconcile that these facts exist, with your current view?
I'll tell you why:
In a decentralized system, you don't need people to "agree" to enforce (or weaken) fungibility.
Everybody is free to apply its own judgement. Its a judgement from the crowd to the crowd.
Everybody is potentially under social pressure, as when btc-e froze that 1M$ that came from the darmarket theft: everybody could know the taint: btc-e decided that it was better for them, in the clear view of all, to block those coins rather than allowing trades.
On a side note, what governement and tax authorities can do better than blacklisting is whitelisting. Or even easier, asking you to declare the origin of your crypto assets, then checking that blockchain observations don't contradict your declarations.
That is pretty much the definition of fungibility. So yes people do care about it. Perhaps they don't know what it is called.
But "they care whether their money can be spent" is FUNGIBILITY in its raw form.
Don't tell me what views I hold; that's not something for you to decide. You are just making a straw-man argument.
Apologize for that.I see a link about some mining operation selling bitcoins. How does that in any way prove that some coins are less or more valuable than others? when you claim that it is a fact, you have to point out exactly which bitcoins are worth more than a bitcoin and exactly which bitcoins are worth less. And I don't think you can do that.
I don't have to point out to anything, I'm not in a specific position to declare what is worth that or that. The point is anybody will have a different opinion. Therefore it impacts the ability to transact without everyone wondering with their own criteria, whether a coin is "clean" or not, whether it's worth 100% the bitcoin amount or 99% of it.The problem lies in when your currency is suddenly not accepted and valueless.
[...]
No one cares about fungibility. They care whether their money can be spent.
I am fairly certain at least the people that pay X% to "clean" their coins on joinmarket do care about fungibility, as they could save that X%.[...]
No one cares about fungibility. They care whether their money can be spent.
...
How is blacklisting of coins going to be enforced? It won't be. People can't even agree on the blocksize....
How is blacklisting of coins going to be enforced? It won't be. People can't even agree on the blocksize....
Very simply when BTC becomes mainstream and businesses accept it just like credit cards then the device that accepts the transaction will by law have a lookup to a blacklist.
It's so simple I can't believe I have to explain it. Not only that but there are even simpler ways for any government to enforce blacklisting on businesses. If they wished to do it to fiat they could simply by forcing businesses to use currency scanners.
If you believe this will never happen then that is your gamble, when it does happen and it will as history has shown government overreach is rampant and growing then those that protected themselves from it will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Does USD have fungibility problems? CAD? EUR? JPY? RMB?
They have serial numbers on them. Theoretically you can say "this serial number is now worthless". But they are working currencies. People trust them.
I think bitcoin's fungibility is a much smaller issue than people in this thread are led to believe.
They have serial numbers on them. Theoretically you can say "this serial number is now worthless". But they are working currencies. People trust them.
I think bitcoin's fungibility is a much smaller issue than people in this thread are led to believe.
please then explain how BTC-e could blacklist coins stolen from the dark market called Evolution?
Better yet, how about if that same thief sold you coins for fiat or something of value (hard asset)?
And then when you went to exchange those bitcoins for fiat or other goods the merchant or exchange tells you that those coins are blacklisted and are not accepted here (hopefully the return the coins to you).
I'm pretty sure it is NOT a "much smaller issue" than people in this thread are led to believe.
Your little argument only proves my point. I don't know what happened with BTC-e, but let's say what you're saying is true. Did OKcoin blacklist those coins? How about BTChina? Houbi? Circle? Coinbase? How about that coffee shop over there?
So these coins cannot be used on a single exchange. Well, you know what? Cryptocurrencies can't be used in most places. I'm sure there are more merchants that accept those bitcoins that are blacklisted by BTC-e than merchants that accept monero.
The main point is, can my money be used for services I want/need to use? If BTC-e wants to lose customers, they are free to do so. It'll be a long time before all or even most governments and companies come to an agreement on which coins to black or whitelist.
So if I choose not to accept USD as payment that is illegal?
Of course not. But if you accept USD, you're forced to accept all notes, whether you like their serial number or not.
And as smooth mentions you'd be forced to accept it as a repayment for a debth, as it's a legal tender.
See, the problem with your logic, is that you're only looking at it one way.
There's no central authority to enforce laws saying "you must accept all bitcoins". Similarly, there is no central authority saying "You can't accept these bitcoins".
How is blacklisting of coins going to be enforced? It won't be. People can't even agree on the blocksize.
There's no central authority to enforce laws saying "you must accept all bitcoins". Similarly, there is no central authority saying "You can't accept these bitcoins".
How is blacklisting of coins going to be enforced? It won't be. People can't even agree on the blocksize.
I think you miss the point, in that you apply a view inehrited of "good old" centralized systems, and believe there should be a ruling of some sort or at least a general consensus on this issue to actually endanger fungibility.
Fact: Some coins are already less (or more) valuable than others, without anybody ruling it should be the case. See also joinmarket. How do you reconcile that these facts exist, with your current view?
I'll tell you why:
In a decentralized system, you don't need people to "agree" to enforce (or weaken) fungibility.
Everybody is free to apply its own judgement. Its a judgement from the crowd to the crowd.
Everybody is potentially under social pressure, as when btc-e froze that 1M$ that came from the darmarket theft: everybody could know the taint: btc-e decided that it was better for them, in the clear view of all, to block those coins rather than allowing trades.
On a side note, what governement and tax authorities can do better than blacklisting is whitelisting. Or even easier, asking you to declare the origin of your crypto assets, then checking that blockchain observations don't contradict your declarations.
I see a link about some mining operation selling bitcoins. How does that in any way prove that some coins are less or more valuable than others? when you claim that it is a fact, you have to point out exactly which bitcoins are worth more than a bitcoin and exactly which bitcoins are worth less. And I don't think you can do that.
But that there may be sought after bitcoins doesn't hurt the system at all. It's like for example someone who likes to collect certain serial numbers because they think it's lucky or something.
The problem lies in when your currency is suddenly not accepted and valueless. And such a thing would require a mass acceptance of those coins being put on a blacklist or whitelist or whatever. Or else even if billy bob joe decides he doesn't want to accept those particular bitcoins, someone else will. That is basically the exact same situation as it is right now; people choose whether they want bitcoins or not; and they will choose whether they will accept moneros or not. Whether you want to call that fungible or not is completely irrelevant. No one cares about fungibility. They care whether their money can be spent.
Retweet this to get some speculative trading analysis done by professionals:
https://twitter.com/jessecouch/status/646747329781964801
XMR looks like a pretty good buy and is a fantastic coin.
I can't wait for the day people stop accepting fiat like they do with personal checks and only accept crypto. When this day comes then all work can be applied to an algorithm that can be used to fairly reward time and materials across the board. That day will see untold amounts being saved in both energy time and palpable materials.
When people did not trust USD (free banking era, late 1800s), it was common to make debts payable in gold.
One of the most shameful acts ever in the history of central banking (not that it in any way lacks shameful acts to compare with) was to retroactively declare such terms void in 1933 (in addition to forbidding making new ones). So people who had lent gold to other people in full accordance with all existing laws, got only about half back.
I am telling this just to present the playing field. Unfair statutes have been made as long as government has existed, and will. The freeman's responsibility is to select the ones he wants to comply with. In this thread far too few have realized the name of the game, so please forgive the old grump.
One of the most shameful acts ever in the history of central banking (not that it in any way lacks shameful acts to compare with) was to retroactively declare such terms void in 1933 (in addition to forbidding making new ones). So people who had lent gold to other people in full accordance with all existing laws, got only about half back.
I am telling this just to present the playing field. Unfair statutes have been made as long as government has existed, and will. The freeman's responsibility is to select the ones he wants to comply with. In this thread far too few have realized the name of the game, so please forgive the old grump.
Yes! That is the name of the game essentially, and I think a large majority of people who use cryptos understand that relation when it comes to government and money. It's amazing to me, that the central banks were allowed to do this kind of thing anyways. It would seem that the young "greatest generation to ever live" would have a little that kind of thing to take place, but I guess it's easy to say that for me when put into retrospect. The biggest issue I see with taking down the central banks, is that they are literally all over the world... Of course when you now put the wealthiest/most powerful/greediest man in the world such as Rothschild in the driver seat of the entire worlds central banking systems and we try to over take his power to pretty much run everything, we might be fought back, hard. He's indirectly in control of countless armies and puppet politicians, so if we were to go against what he wanted (which in this case is his monopoly on money supply) he would issue martial law in an instant.
Didn't want to get all tin foil-esque on here, but it happens from time to time
When people did not trust USD (free banking era, late 1800s), it was common to make debts payable in gold.
One of the most shameful acts ever in the history of central banking (not that it in any way lacks shameful acts to compare with) was to retroactively declare such terms void in 1933 (in addition to forbidding making new ones). So people who had lent gold to other people in full accordance with all existing laws, got only about half back.
I am telling this just to present the playing field. Unfair statutes have been made as long as government has existed, and will. The freeman's responsibility is to select the ones he wants to comply with. In this thread far too few have realized the name of the game, so please forgive the old grump.
One of the most shameful acts ever in the history of central banking (not that it in any way lacks shameful acts to compare with) was to retroactively declare such terms void in 1933 (in addition to forbidding making new ones). So people who had lent gold to other people in full accordance with all existing laws, got only about half back.
I am telling this just to present the playing field. Unfair statutes have been made as long as government has existed, and will. The freeman's responsibility is to select the ones he wants to comply with. In this thread far too few have realized the name of the game, so please forgive the old grump.
It also invalidated gold paper contracts, basically the same thing you said but I thought it was a nice addition.
In this thread far too few have realized the name of the game, so please forgive the old grump.
Please continue. It is a valuable perspective.
I need help!
When you open the wallet writes:
2015-Sep-23 23:44:30.742686 bitmonero v0.8.8.6-release
2015-Sep-23 23:44:30.748687 Module folder: bitmonerod.exe
2015-Sep-23 23:44:30.751687 Initializing P2P server...
2015-Sep-23 23:44:39.120166 ERROR C:/bitmonero/src/p2p/net_node.inl:128 Exception at [node_server::init_config], what=input stream error
2015-Sep-23 23:44:39.121166 ERROR C:/bitmonero/src/p2p/net_node.inl:289 Failed to init config.
2015-Sep-23 23:44:39.121166 ERROR C:/bitmonero/src/daemon/daemon.cpp:239 Failed to initialize P2P server.
2015-Sep-23 23:44:39.121166 Mining has been stopped, 0 finished
When you open the wallet writes:
2015-Sep-23 23:44:30.742686 bitmonero v0.8.8.6-release
2015-Sep-23 23:44:30.748687 Module folder: bitmonerod.exe
2015-Sep-23 23:44:30.751687 Initializing P2P server...
2015-Sep-23 23:44:39.120166 ERROR C:/bitmonero/src/p2p/net_node.inl:128 Exception at [node_server::init_config], what=input stream error
2015-Sep-23 23:44:39.121166 ERROR C:/bitmonero/src/p2p/net_node.inl:289 Failed to init config.
2015-Sep-23 23:44:39.121166 ERROR C:/bitmonero/src/daemon/daemon.cpp:239 Failed to initialize P2P server.
2015-Sep-23 23:44:39.121166 Mining has been stopped, 0 finished
Heya - please follow to this link to receive technical assistance.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12504261
When people did not trust USD (free banking era, late 1800s), it was common to make debts payable in gold.
One of the most shameful acts ever in the history of central banking (not that it in any way lacks shameful acts to compare with) was to retroactively declare such terms void in 1933 (in addition to forbidding making new ones). So people who had lent gold to other people in full accordance with all existing laws, got only about half back.
I am telling this just to present the playing field. Unfair statutes have been made as long as government has existed, and will. The freeman's responsibility is to select the ones he wants to comply with. In this thread far too few have realized the name of the game, so please forgive the old grump.
One of the most shameful acts ever in the history of central banking (not that it in any way lacks shameful acts to compare with) was to retroactively declare such terms void in 1933 (in addition to forbidding making new ones). So people who had lent gold to other people in full accordance with all existing laws, got only about half back.
I am telling this just to present the playing field. Unfair statutes have been made as long as government has existed, and will. The freeman's responsibility is to select the ones he wants to comply with. In this thread far too few have realized the name of the game, so please forgive the old grump.
There are Gold Bugs on my facebook page that are technology savvy, and aware of the Fiat ponzi scam, yet still refuse to acknowledge crypto. It reminds me what a peculiar type of brain you need in order to be on here and be aware of Monero.
Does USD have fungibility problems? CAD? EUR? JPY? RMB?
Nope. Why? See following point.
They have serial numbers on them. Theoretically you can say "this serial number is now worthless". But they are working currencies. People trust them.
You are forced by law to accept all notes.
Otherwise it would break fungibility. This has been the case all over the world in various financial systems, since this famous case:
http://www.paybits.net/blog/why-fungibility-matters/
Fungibility of money can be enforced by law only in a centralized monetary system. Bitcoin isn't centralized, there is nobody enforcing fungibility by law. It's possible for everyone to define their own rules, analyse and trace everything they wish, point the fingers to coins, transactions and merchants accepting or refusing them.
Thus, in a decentralized monetary system the only way to have fungibility is through privacy. (It applies to the physical world as well: if all gold historical ownership was known to everyone - with a simple internet connection! - gold fungibility would be broken instantly. Its fungibility comes from that it doesn't convey its own history with itself).
So if I choose not to accept USD as payment that is illegal?
You can't not accept it in satisfaction of an existing debt. You can contract to do business using another form of payment, if you agree to that ahead of time, but you can really only enforce it with up front payment (or escrow). If you agree on another form of post-payment and the buyer refuses to pay, you can sue and get a judgement, which can then be paid in USD.
Jump to: