The google-translated version of the text at that link does not even mention bitcoin or virtual currencies.

ROFL, that is awesome   Thanks

If you read and understand this article, you will be enlightened:

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/01/21/bitcoin-platform/

Here is some more food for thought for you, from the NY Times.  Bitcoin is much more than just a simple financial instrument:
(The author is the same Marc Andreesen who created the original Mosaic webbrowser and co-founded the Netscape Corporation)

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

I would like to see that quote too.

@JorgeStolfi, I am just trying to expand your view of Bitcoin, but you seem to be more interested in finding a point of argument over some detail in each article.  I guess maybe you already knew all this about what Bitcoin is, and what it can be, and I am just wasting your time.  Sorry about that.

An example of what?  There is a risk of <INSERT NAME OF ANY CURRENCY HERE> being stolen en masse, in exactly the same way.  This is not a problem unique to Bitcoin.


Did you actually read the article?  He discusses this at length, focusing on network effects primarily.



As is true of cash in any currency.  Again, this is not unique to Bitcoin.


That is a possibility.  Some governments can do damn near anything.


I will have to refer you to the original whitepaper here.  Success is not yet proven, but so far it's looking pretty good, I think.


Again, I have to wonder if you really read the article.  It addresses stability concerns very well, and shows how many merchants with low-margins can seriously benefit by avoiding CC processing fees.

Thanks

It HAS been invented.  The bitcoin network itself is a distributed autonomous corporation.

^ this

I used to enjoy Jorge's posts as a balanced and well thought-out counterpoint, but nowadays his posts consist almost entirely of FUD that has been repeated and refuted ad nauseum on this forum.  Not worth reading anymore.

There should be a different name for "Libertarianism" because it is not an "ism" at all.  "Ism"s are always doctrines of people who want to coerce others to do what the Ismist thinks should be done.  Libertarians don't want to coerce anyone into doing anything.

Libertarianism is simply the acknowledgement that it is the nature of humans to resist coercion.  If you look at the history of government, you will notice that it is quite naturally becoming less and less coercive as the centuries roll past, and it will continue to do so, simply because it is the basic nature of humans to resist coercion.  It doesn't matter if you understand or want this - it is simply a result of human nature.

It's heartening to see that you recognize the evolution of less coercive government that is represented by the United States of America, but I think it's silly that you suggest that we are free enough because we are in some ways freer than others.  It seems very natural to me that humans should always seek to maximize freedom and minimize coercion.

You seem to believe that civilization can only exist through coercion - and on that point Libertarians will disagree with you - but we still don't want to coerce you into doing what we want...  We just want you to stop trying to coerce us.

Maybe you are free enough, but some of us don't believe we have reached the optimal state just yet.  And we believe that Bitcoin technology, whether or not the bitcoin currency succeeds or fails, will be key in the further evolution of freedom and minimalization of coercion.

+1
QFT

Wrong.  They were socialists.

In Hitler's Germany, every citizen was guaranteed a job by the government.  Every citizen was guaranteed an education, at government expense.  Health care was not totally socialized, but it was heavily subsidized by the government.  Sound familiar?  They weren't Marxists, but Fascists really are socialists too.

I don't think you know what left-wing and right-wing actually mean.  In America, at least, these terms have become almost meaningless.  Nowadays, right-wing = conservative = republican, and left-wing = liberal = democrat.  In reality, all of these terms have distinct, useful meanings.

The left-wing/right-wing terminology originated in France after the French revolution, where those who favored the old aristocracy sat on the right side of the legislature, and those who were more egalitarian in their views sat on the left.  Thus, right-wing came to be associated with those who believed that some people (the aristocracy, in this case) were genuinely better than others by birth, and ought to rule over others based on their basic genetic superiority.  In this way, the Nazis were clearly right-wing, even though they were also socialists.  I don't think any political group in America now is really right-wing, other than fringe groups like neo-nazis and the Ku Klux Klan - but it makes Democrats feel better to associate that term with Republicans.

Look up "classical liberalism" on Wikipedia to see what the original (and real) meaning of liberalism is.  I think you will be surprised by the answer.  Spoiler:  It reads a LOT like what most of us call 'Libertarianism'.

"Conservative" historically has meant to oppose change, to favor maintaining the status quo - whatever that might be at the time.  I don't know too many American 'conservatives' who are happy with the status quo nowadays.

The media and the political establishment try to conflate any term that has negative connotations among their supporters with their political opposition, and thereby render good, useful words useless.

I don't think Jorge is a troll, per se -I think he just decided on the thesis for the book he plans to write about The Great Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme long before he showed up here to start doing research - so now he cannot allow himself to be swayed.

Sad because he would probably make more money investing in bitcoin than he is ever likely to make from any such book.

If it makes you feel any better, your "stubborness" doesn't bother me at all.  I'm not one of those guys who can't sleep when 'someone is wrong on the internet'  You made it pretty clear that you would not be swayed by mere logic and reason some time ago, but I still read your posts because they occasionally contain actual information of interest, regardless of your prejudices.

I don't hope to have fun from seeing you corrected by the marketplace...  I am not much into schadenfreude myself.  It is certainly true, though, that if you are proven to be a fool, you will be a very well-documented fool

You are quoting the fake JJG here I believe.  Bad form Jorge.

So I am.  Bad form, Me.

I would be interested in seeing more detail on this calculation.

Also, it has been my observation that whenever the current 'reserve currency' is replaced, it does not happen because the old reserve currency suffered a terminal event...  For example, the previous 'reserve currency' was ostensibly the British Pound, which is still considered to be in a non-terminal state, isn't it?

For the sake of completeness, you should mention that a stateless world is not just an anarcho-libertarian ideal.  It's also the Marxist ideal.  Mr. Marx says that at the actual Communism stage of societal development there will be no government.

When people with such opposite political beliefs as Communists and Libertarians want the same end, it probably is worth pondering on.

I agree with you on both points.  Even without sociopaths seeking power, a stateless equilibrium could be destroyed just by natural disasters, I would imagine.  There will always need to be some mechanism in place to maintain that equilibrium, at the very least.  I don't know if it has to be some form of 'government' per se, but something is required.

The guy from Vaurum says Brazil is one of their prime targets.  They're coming to get you, Jorge!  Brazil will be assimilated...

They want to help people who need their help the most.

You really should be more grateful :p

There is no meme.  Aminorex literally has a prediction monkey.  See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg7398180#msg7398180 for instructions on how to build your own.

It wouldn't matter if it was, really.  Ownership of gold bullion was illegal in the US from 1932 to 1971, but I think it still retained it's value pretty well if you happened to have some anyway.

You keep using that word 'anarchy', but I don't think you know what it means.  Anarchy is not a synonym for chaos...  As Pierre-Joseph Proudhon famously said, "Anarchy is order without power." .  You should read up on it some time.  Really.

You don't get to redefine terms to fit what you believe.  Proudhon invented the term, so he can define it any damn way he wants - even if that means a social order that he desired, but you don't believe can exist.

Unlike Proudhon, I am neither a socialist, nor an anarchist, so I won't try to make his argument for him - but I am at least well-read enough to know what the term means, and to use it as it was meant to be used.  If you want to discuss 'chaotic lack of order', then you should use that phrase, or maybe make up one of your own - but using the term 'anarchy' is just incorrect.

I was under the impression that anarchy as a political ideal was the subject under discussion - and I'm pretty sure Proudhon's definition is the one used by anyone who claims to be an anarchist, regardless of whether they favor getting to that state via socialism or libertarianism.

Exactly

Despite Jorge's protestations to the contrary, he clearly equates 'anarchy' with 'chaos' in post after post. I'm pretty sure that most people who consider themselves 'anarchists' are not aspiring to maximize the chaos in the world.

I think you just tried to redefine your position to something different from all the posts you made before that one here - but even if that is what you believe, then you still don't get the actual meaning of 'anarchy' as most anarchists use that word.  Anarchy is an intentional state that is achieved, not something that just 'happens when a government collapses, etc.'.

As far as the sustainability of an anarchic political equilibrium goes, you may well be right.  I have never seen any state reach a state of anarchy, as I understand it.  Communist governments ostensibly aspire to it, but I think it's clear that none has achieved any such thing so far - and I have never seen any nation with what I would consider a truly libertarian government, let alone an anarcho-libertarian one.

It's a very well-known fact that there is massive overcapacity in the European automotive industry - just google 'european automotive overcapacity' to see tons of stories on that.  The only way to fix this problem is to shut down automotive plants, each of which provides thousands of high-wage jobs.  I would not be shocked at all to find out that some European government entities were covertly subsidizing overproduction just to keep their local plant(s) open.  Pure speculation, of course - but it would make a lot of sense.

Too soon, Jorge?

ROFL 

What exactly do you define as 'ultra-capitalist'?  Could you name a few such countries, just so I understand what you mean here?

So your definition of 'ultra-capitalism' is plutocracy?  I think the more plutocratic a society is, the less possible free markets are - and the lack of free markets is antithetical to any kind of real capitalism.  I would call such a country 'faux-capitalist', not 'ultra-capitalist'.

Crony capitalism is no more representative of "capitalism" than rigged elections are representative of "democracy".

You may have discussed some of these principles with someone on this forum.  It was not me.

I see it exactly the opposite way from you:  The regulations you believe are necessary for a free market (ironic, if you think about it) are always and everywhere used to subvert market forces, and give preference to whichever entity has the most political control over the 'regulators'.

I can't speak for all Libertarians, but personally, I believe that an entity of some kind is necessary to prevent those who would deprive others of their life, liberty, or property from doing so - and I believe that acting in a manner that would make free markets less free is one way of imposing such deprivation, and consequently, should be prevented.

The goal is to minimize coercion as much as possible.  It will always be necessary, however, to coerce those who would harm others into not doing so.

I think the point I am failing to convey to you is that government and regulation pose EXACTLY the same threat that you ascribe solely to the market participants.  Yes, it is theoretically possible for a regulated market to be a free market, but we need only to observe the real world we live in to see that that never really happens.

I believe that we live in a world that is not painted purely in swaths of black and white.  The truth rarely lies in absolutes at either end of any spectrum.

I agree with you that bad actors in the economy would subvert free markets if allowed to do so, BUT so will their agents, the government, if empowered to do so.

Total freedom in the sense of absolutely no restraint, is certainly never desirable...  My need for individual liberty does not demand that I have the freedom to coerce and murder, and economic entities should certainly be held to the same standard.  THAT is the problem that needs to be solved: how do we prevent the players in the game from bending the rules in their own favor, thus cheating the other participants?  The answer is surely not as simple as government regulation - that is just another cheating mechanism.

I don't claim to know what the ideal answer is.  I imagine that there probably is no ideal answer, really.  But I do know that empowering regulators is just arming the enemy.

We need to find the sweet spot...  We need to cut through the vast web of regulations that have become the worst part of the problem, while still requiring the players to play fair.

It's not a trivial task, and the answer is not going to be something you can put on a bumper sticker or into a sound bite.  And it won't be yet more government regulation either.

I definitely agree with this - this is the fundamental basis of my interest in Bitcoin.

If this had been posted right before 'The Great Deletion of 7777', he would've been just as wrong this time too

God does know - and so do I.  Neapolitan comes from the original Greek name of the city Neapolis  

I believe Jorge has said that he is an Italian native also.  Maybe he forgot his Italian since he has been away...

He does that kind of thing a lot with the English language, i.e. calling a country "Holland", but every thing from that country "Dutch"

Cocaine is a helluva drug...

Sometimes cocaine causes people to wax exuberant (even excessively so) about subjects they are fond of  I think we may have an example here

On the Dave Chappelle Show, there was a series of stories told by Charley Murphy (Eddie's brother) about his adventures with Rick James, which usually involved Rick doing some crazy shit.  He invariably explained the aforesaid 'crazy shit' by saying "Cocaine is a helluva drug...".

I thought it was funny  Clearly, I am alone in this sentiment

Twitch is apparently the 4th biggest consumer of bandwidth on the internet, behind Netflix, Google, and Apple:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/twitch-ranked-4th-in-peak-internet-traffic-ahead-of-valve-facebook-hulu/1100-6417621/

You don't know squat about the 'poor' in America.

I grew up dirt-poor, as we say on the south.  My father was an uneducated, unskilled worker in a cotton mill, and my mother was a full-time mother to 7 kids.  We never went hungry or without clothes because my father was both frugal enough and industrious enough to make sure we always had what we needed - without ANY government assistance - even though plenty of that was available to those who would take it.

In America, there is always someone who will pay you to do useful work, and my father took advantage of that fact to supplement his income.  On the weekends, he would grab me and/or one of my brothers and we would go do house painting or general handyman work, yard work, or whatever we could to make a little money.  We also did plenty of hunting and fishing to supplement the food budget.

When I left high school, my family didn't have the money to send me to college.  I went to work in the same cotton mill where my father (and his father) had worked  and EARNED the money to send myself to college.  My siblings did exactly the same.  One sister is a veterinarian, one is a nurse, I'm an engineer, one brother owns a construction company now, another is a CS geek - well you get the picture...  All of us achieved what we have without the handouts you seem to believe are REQUIRED to escape 'poverty', and I never owed ANYBODY any student loans - because I went to college BEFORE government interference in the education market drove the prices through the roof.

The only people in America I have ever seen "struggling in poverty" were doing so because they chose to depend on the government to support them.

People like you would voluntarily make yourselves into livestock owned by your 'government'.  Well, have fun with that.

I agree that the US government spends what to much money on imperialistic endeavors, but that is another argument for another time...

My father was ROBBED of money that he could have used to support my family, who damn well needed it.  Being robbed by the government doesn't ENTITLE you, it should ENRAGE you.

When I was a kid, my mother could call the local doctor and he would COME TO OUR HOUSE and treat us (an unbelievable concept in America now), and he would charge us $10 for that service.  Everyone I knew was about as poor as we were, but I cannot once remember hearing someone say "Oh my God, what will we do about the medical bills?".  The mess that the American health care system is in now is another creation of our government - but again, that is a long argument that exceeds greatly the bounds of this thread.


You are just wrong about this.  People who live in 'entitlement societies' cannot seem to comprehend that stealing from others to make you life easier is just plain WRONG, so I will not try to re-argue that argument here yet again.  I will just agree to disagree with you, and hope that you can someday come to know the value of personal initiative.


The American dream is that we may help our children to live better than we could.  It's really just that simple.  My parents succeeded in that dream, and I hope that I will also.

I made no such suggestion.


I did not imply anything of the kind.  I simply pointed out that government assistance is not strictly necessary, and for many of us not desirable.


I'm a little sick of hearing about this "wealth disparity/inequality".  If the rich get 10% richer while those of us who are not rich get only 4% richer, I am ok with that - especially since "the rich" usually means people who are actually starting/growing companies and making life better for others (intentionally or otherwise), while risking their own wealth.

Are you really poorer now than you were 20 years ago?  Of all the poor souls I grew up with, very few could answer "yes" to that - and the ones that can are usually going to be victims of other problems created by the government, like the current health care system.

This statement shows an utter ignorance of the evolution of the current health care issues in the US.  Anyone can research this and see that the situation was going pretty damn well until the government decided to dive in to the health care market head first with Medicare.  I was a just a kid when Medicare became law, and the effect on health care costs was apparent pretty quickly thereafter, and has never let up since.

There were no old people dying in the streets of America before Medicare, btw.

You say "Sounds like..." and "You imply..." a lot.

Maybe you could try reading what I wrote and taking it at face value, or at least responding to it directly, instead of replying to some vague interpretation you drew from it.  I am not an anarchist, and I am, for the most part, not inclined to generalization, but your every response seems to assume such of me, while at the same time not providing much, other than hand-wavy generalization as support for your own argument - if you really have any thing to say other than "Government is good.  You are a fool not to blindly accept it as your savior, as I have".

As far as multiplier effects go, I recently read a study done by an economist at the San Francisco branch of the Federal Reserve, who attempted to measure the "jobs multiplier" of the stimulus package promoted by the incoming Obama administration back in 2009.  He determined that the president's claim that the stimulus had 'created or saved' ~2,000,000 jobs was an accurate claim.  He also noted that this represented a cost of ~$400,000 per job.  I think this is fairly representative of the multiplier effects I have seen from the government attempting to do the job of the private sector.

Oh, and again - do you really believe Americans are poorer now than they were in the '30s?  I have never seen the American standard of living decline in my lifetime.  When I was a kid, we didn't even have a telephone, or air conditioning (in the deep south!).  Now, even the poorest people I know have cellphones and HDTVs.  Is it different where you live?

Valid point.

That's fine - if you are interested in having a conversation with yourself, which I am coming to realize is exactly what you want.



So your job is simply to read what I write supporting my assertions, then just say "nuhn'uh!"  I am starting to understand your rhetorical style.



Uhm, could you at least share the logic that led you to this conclusion?  I stated an example of a multiplier that fits the context, and you conclude from that one quite valid example that I have a "limited knowledge of the concept of the multiplier effect"?  How exactly does that follow logically?

I can't make any sense of your 'attempt to link Obama performance' at all.  I didn't attempt anything.  I presented an example.  If you think that example is specifically a bad reflection on President Obama, that is a conclusion that your have reached on your own.  I just presented another example of this nonsense Keynesian notion that government spending of money they steal from people who would have spent it themselves, probably more wisely, somehow "multiplies" the effectiveness of that spending.  Richard Nixon made even stupider economic moves when he was president, i.e. wage and price controls...  Jimmy Carter did some very smart economic things as president, i.e. deregulation of the transportation industries.  This is not a Republican vs. Democrat thing.  Stupid and wrong is stupid and wrong no matter who does it.  And the stimulus bill was stupid and wrong.  And there is NO example of any such spending resulting in such a multiplier effect that you can point to with evidence to back it up.  It has never happened.  Not in the US.  Not in the world.  Not in history.  Not ever.  It sounded good when Keynes wrote it, but in practice it just doesn't happen.


Not indications of wealth.  Indications of being better off than someone who DOES NOT have those things.  Yes, that is a narrow definition of 'better off', but I don't think any of us here are qualified to judge every facet of the quality of anyone's life, so we have pick something as an indicator.  If you have an indicator that negates mine, please present it.


You are not making your case more persuasively by turning this into some ad hominem attack, or an attempt to paint me a some political caricature you feel superior to.  I might be right in my beliefs, or I may be wrong - but I am just as well-read and educated on the subjects at hand as you are.  I may disagree with you, but I will respect you and your opinions as long as you afford me the same respect.

I do believe people are better off in general than they were 25 years ago, certainly in terms of material wealth - although, as Richie_T pointed out, that is mitigated somewhat by the fact that we do have to work longer hours now - and we ALL have to work too.  Single income families are not really viable now like they once were.

Any of you market-smart guys want to comment on this?:

http://www.coindesk.com/citi-miners-merchants-keeping-bitcoin-prices-check/

Sounds pretty dire, at least for the short term.

If you were not interested in engaging in a dialogue on these matters, why did you bother responding at all?

I never said I was smarter than you - never even suggested that.  I read what you write, then search vainly for what I wrote that inspired it.  

Suggesting that someone gets all their political opinions from some consumer news outlet is certainly insulting, demeaning, and clearly ad hominem.

I leave you now to continue believing what you believe now, and will always believe, simply because you cannot bear to believe otherwise.  Back in my early 20s, when I was working my butt off to get through school, I was pretty much a full-on Marxist, and thought I was damn clever to understand what my contemporaries were too complacent to see.  I came to understand better though, because I value the truth more than I value my own personal intuition born of ignorance.  I don't claim to know the breadth of your economic education and learning, but I suspect that there are some truths you simply have not read yet - and it's certainly true that none of us is likely to change anyone's economic outlook in this limited medium.

I think you missed the part where it was working FINE as a free market until the government forcibly took over a large percentage of the market, and distorted that market from Capitalism to pure cronyism.


I am gonna go out on a limb here and guess that JayJuanGee is NOT a libertarian in any sense of that word.

Ok, well, if even JorgeStolfi is dismissing this report, then I have to say it must be total BS

On a totally unrelated tangent, Mr. Stolfi:  I read some where that you were involved in something to do with E-voting systems in Brazil.  What are your thoughts on the various blockchain-based voting systems, and the impact they may have on fair and honest elections?


One example:

http://www.bitcongress.org/

Ok, at this point, I'm gonna go ahead and call it:

Jorge Stolfi is just an old dog who simply cannot or will not learn a new trick. 

Thanks for the insight.

No, that dog is OLD.

Jorge, I get it that you are dubious of the long term prospects of bitcoin as a currency or a store of value.  I disagree with your assessment, but even I realize that the future of that enterprise is still not certain.

HOWEVER, one thing that is NOT experimental or yet to be determined is blockchain technology.

The bitcoin network is a Distributed Autonomous Corporation that manages billions of dollars of value, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in a distributed, trust-less manner.  It has been working flawlessly in this capacity for over 5 years now.

That being said, how do you just dismiss out-of-hand the possibility that this same technology might not be leveraged to create a distributed, trust-less voting system?

This statement:
is ridiculous, and makes it seem that you are more interested in maintaining the status quo than in exploring real solutions to the problem of guaranteeing free and fair elections.  What is being done now is not working all that well in many places.

I find it impossible to believe that you are really that close-minded.

'Enlightened self interest' created the very intelligence that you abuse here to denigrate its value and power.  It's called "evolution".

Ok, fair enough.  Evolution ~= enlightened self interest - but there is a valid analogy to be drawn that speaks to your claim.

The evolution that resulted in YOU and the intelligence you are attempting to display here today began with random interaction of subatomic particles that formed more complex particles, which then formed molecules, which eventually somehow managed to accidentally come together in a self-replicating form.  Skipping forward a bit, we get complex living creatures, who tend to act in a manner consistent with their own self-interest - either 'enlightened' or otherwise.

Somehow, all that random and, ultimately, intentional activity - none of which ever involved any higher centralized planning - resulted in YOU.

Yet you choose to belittle the concept of 'enlightened self interest', and you seem to suggest that 'enlightened self interest' is a priori inferior to planning and committees and government.  I would suggest that, so far, nature seems to be more clever than any committee I have seen - so I would not belittle the value of what can come of random interactions of actors pursuing their own ends.

I don't suggest here that nature (or enlightened self interest) always produces the 'best' immediate result - that is a very subjective judgement.  But, like Adam Smith, I do marvel at how often it does produce a wonderful result - and I can't seem to think of anything achieved by committee that is comparable.

I don't disagree with anything you have said above re: evolution, but it seems you have gone way off in the weeds to try to invalidate a perfectly good analogy.

When I originally responded to your response to Richy_T, I did so in the belief that you were dismissing the power of individuals acting freely in their self-interest to effect significant change, but after a couple of exchanges with you now, I have re-read it, and you seem to be equating 'people acting in their enlightened self interest' with 'everything that humans do, ever, full stop".  If that is indeed what you mean, then, indeed, everything that has ever happened re: the human species is definitely the result of 'enlightened self interest'.

That, however, is almost certainly not the idea that Richy_T was promoting, and that you appeared to be trying to contradict.  Re-reading that post, it seems that he never spoke of 'enlightened self interest' at all, and that concept certainly does not seem to be necessary to support the claim he was making - that local control is frequently more responsive and effective than centralized control at some higher level (if I understand him correctly).

Jorge, I didn't say anything about any specific blockchain at all.  I actually did not envision this working on the existing Bitcoin blockchain, although I am sure that could be done.

When I brought this to your attention, I did so simply because I genuinely thought that it might be something you might be interested in, since you have a background of having worked with some e-voting issues.  I see now that you are PROFOUNDLY uninterested, so I will let an old dog go back and lay down in the shade   I will not disturb you further.

While I don't necessarily disagree that the above is not the 'definition' of evolution, the notion of 'survival of the fittest' being a component of evolutionary action seems pretty intuitive, no?  I don't think Darwin's use (or non-use) of that specific term is really meaningful.

It's not clear to me why you seem to think that this technology could only be used to vote from home.


I don't agree with this...  People learn to trust technology they don't understand all the time, both from necessity and from convenience.  Most people don't understand ANY technology, really.

Well, the whole point of blockchain-based technology is precisely that it takes trust out of the equation completely.  I think maybe you really should read up on this and try to understand it - you are a CS guy primarily, right?

I realize that I resolved to leave you alone on this issue earlier, so now I will be true to my word.  I think there is really something here that you might find interesting if you would but deign to look into it seriously, but I will not press the issue further.

I don't know the answer to that question.  It may be unlikely, or maybe not so much.  It may very well be that people will never accept such a thing, but clearly, blockchain-based voting is at least worth exploring.  The potential upside is truly free and fair elections.  The potential down side is that every thing stays the same.  I know there are plenty who would fight to maintain the status quo, even if this technology was 100% proven and workable, so it will definitely be an uphill battle.


I disagree.  First of all, I'd say that ATMs are really kind of a bad example.  People mostly just use them to access cash they already own, and there is not a lot of trust required.  I know lots of people who still will not deposit money in an ATM, because they specifically DON'T trust them.

People trust their experience, and the anecdotal experience of others, when it comes to technology.  I don't particularly trust banks, and I have actually had at least one bad experience where an ATM network problem caused debits to be charged against my account, when I tried and failed to withdraw money several times, even though I did not receive any cash - but I still feel pretty confident using ATMs, because, in my experience, and the experience of most everyone I know, an ATM will do what I expect it to do 99.9% of the time.


See above.  Maybe it will never work - maybe you are right that no one will ever trust it, maybe the current powers-that-be will never allow a system they cannot control.  But it is a no-brainer for those of us who would honestly like to see 100% free and fair election that it is something that should be explored.

+1

I agree with this post

If you'd like to post some support for that contention, I will be glad to address it.

My only point in this exchange was that this was a technology worth looking into.  I have not seen any evidence that would refute that simple claim.  Have you?

I did not complain that Jorge was 'not trying hard enough'  Jorge himself stated outright that certain preconceptions that he had - voting from home systems were a priori bad and wrong (although I am still not sure why he would see this only a a vote-from-home system) had caused him to dismiss this technology out-of-hand, without even examining it at all.

I don't deny that Jorge shared some knowledge about e-voting issues that were interesting and informative, but nothing he said would justify just dismissing this technology out-of-hand.

Nevertheless, as I have stated, my only intent here was to bring something to Mr. Stolfi's attention that I genuinely thought he might have interest in.  Damn me for expressing my disappointment when he dismissed it summarily without even considering it.

I think, Mr. JayJuanGee, that you are not a very careful reader.  I am not a perfect poster, but I am not guilty of the heinous crimes you accuse me of.  You should reread this discussion more attentively.

The worst thing I am guilty of is accusing Jorge of being an old dog who won't even try a new trick - and I stand by that characterization

Thank you for replying with meaningful support for your position, instead of just snarky sarcasm  

Yeah, I agree with you completely.  It's a tough problem.

It's still not clear to me that block chain based systems are so obviously unworkable that they are not worth even considering, but I am surely no expert in this field.

These guys seem to be working on some zero-knowledge-proof solution, but it's hard to dig out any details from he site.  I think the project may still be pretty immature:

http://www.bitcongress.org/

I would like to offer you my public apology, Jorge, for my characterization of you as 'an old dog who won't learn a new trick'.  It really wasn't fair or particularly accurate, and, in retrospect, I would like to think my rhetorical skills are good enough that I could have made my argument without the need for that characterization.

You have my deepest apologies, and, in the future I will strive to keep my arguments at a less personal level.

I can't speak to what everyone means when they say "free market", but I think this term is mostly used in this forum to mean "free" in the libertarian sense.  That is, my freedom ends where it starts to impinge on your freedom, and vice versa.  This means that a "free market" is explicitly NOT one in which you are free to restrict my economic freedom, nor I yours.

From context, I gather that your definition of "free market" is simply 'the exercise of free will', and thus much broader than the meaning intended by the people you are responding to.

Of course you could, if you could if your could provide sufficient proof to support your claim.

My perception is that you are too focused on semantics.

Have you read Isaiah Berlin's paper on positive and negative liberty?  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty )

I think that paper illustrates the point I am trying to make, insofar as 'free markets' are part of what can be called 'liberty'.

http://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/wiso_vwl/johannes/Ankuendigungen/Berlin_twoconceptsofliberty.pdf

I can't rewrite it here better than Dr. Berlin did there.

It's clear from your postings that you are highly intelligent, and that you have put considerable thought into what you say.  You have an admirable mind.  But it seems that you always get laser-focused on semantics, and seem to miss the actual concept others are trying to express.

Please read the paper I linked, and see if you don't find a better definition of what 'free markets' might mean.

Neither of the concepts of 'free markets' nor 'liberty' will, in itself, answer all of the complex issues of human social, political, and economic interaction, such as you pose above.  Again, you are wanting to conflate a rather simple concept with 'all of human thought and action' - and that's just not what is actually meant.

Jorge, here is a study of an important case involving the theft of bank notes and the Royal Bank of Scotland.  This case illustrates pretty clearly why fungibility of a currency takes precedence over being able to recover stolen currency.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2260952

There is no dilemma here - it is design.

You have missed the point.  The 'problem' you describe is not a problem at all, but a fundamental requirement of ALL currencies.  It's called 'fungibility'.

The ruling of the court in this case recognized the validity of the Royal Bank's claim that allowing 'marked' bills to be forcibly returned to their rightful owner in the case of a theft would utterly destroy the utility of the notes as money.  Fungibility is a hard requirement for any real currency.




 

They did not say that.  You are putting your words into the mouths of 18th century jurists

The entire importance of this case is that it is the first legal recognition of the requirement of fungibility for usable currency.

That being said, I can't imagine that the legal powers that be would not see X amount of bitcoin returned to one from whom it had been robbed, if the robber could be positively identified, just as they might with X US dollars that had been stolen.  It's not clear to me why you emphasize the 'physical note', because with most modern currencies, the owner rarely actually possesses a physical note of any kind.

It's also not clear to me why you think legal remedies for theft of bitcoins must differ significantly from what they would be for other effectively virtual currencies, like US dollars.

I didn't suggest that it said that.  I am emphasizing fungibility specifically because most (maybe all) schemes I have seen that would add to bitcoin some kind of 'consumer protection' against theft would also make bitcoin non-fungibile, and useless as a currency.  Additionally, NO currency that I am aware of has built-in consumer protections, and very likely cannot have such without giving up fungibility, and therefore utility as a currency - and that is the specific issue dealt with by the decision in this case.


This is true, but I don't think the bitcoin theft situation is in any meaningful way different than theft of cash in the form of any currency.  Do you really think it would be easier to get your money back from some random thief that steals your wallet?  I don't see the huge risk associated with bitcoin that doesn't exist with any other kind of cash, and that seems to be your thesis.  I'm sure you will correct me if I am misinterpreting you.


As far as I know, this is true also - but bitcoin is still very new.  I'm sure that you can find similar cases where cash money was stolen, and although there was a suspect who's guilt in the theft was deemed highly likely, sufficient legal proof for prosecution/recovery was not found.

Is it really true that economics is a 'soft' science, or is it that people seem to have a ridiculously difficult time separating the philosophy of economics from the actual science of economics?

Every science, even the hardest of sciences, like mathematics and physics, also have multiple philosophies underlying them, but somehow people don't seem to get the two aspects confused.

Economics seems to be a special case in the sciences in a number of ways though.  It seems that scientific thought advanced steadily throughout history in pretty much every field except one - economics.  The ancient Greeks started to develop a science of economic thought, but somehow it seems to have just faded away, for reasons not entirely clear to me.  The situation stayed that way for quite some time, until Adam Smith reestablished economics as a science.

It has to make you wonder - how could one aspect of existence, especially one so vital to our well-being, be left so utterly neglected for so long?  Could it be that some folks have a vested interest in most people NOT having a real scientific understanding of economics?  Could it be that some people STILL have conflicted interests along these lines, and profit from blurring the lines between economic science and economic philosophy?

The science of physics is an attempt to understand All of Reality, which is generally considered to be an even larger set of phenomena than your description of economics  

Are you suggesting that since we can never really understand All of Reality, that no 'hard science' of physics can exist, and that such a purported 'hard science' of physics can't have any predictive power or utility?

You seem to think it is somehow not 'hard science' to study dynamic nonlinear systems, and that no good can come of such study.  I don't know why you think that, but I'm pretty sure a vast array of scientists, from meteorologists to mathematicians to quantum cosmologists would strongly disagree with you.

You answer does not address whether it is possible that there might exist a hard science of economics, as opposed to a mere philosophy, which was the original point.  Characterizing economics as a dynamic nonlinear system (which it certainly is), does not invalidate it as a subject of hard science.

You are describing dynamic nonlinear (chaotic) systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system#Nonlinear_dynamical_systems_and_chaos

It looks to me like you are redefining the definition of all chaotic systems as the definiton of the simplest such system - but, the definition of chaotic systems, again, is not why I originally responded to you.

Your contention that a system that is complex is a priori utterly resistant to scientific method seems absolutely silly

Honestly, NotLambChop made my point in a post above better than I was making it.

FWIW, I share your disdain for "economists" in general, as I perceive most of them to be philosophers or politicians, rather than scientists.  I would not, however, paint them all with that brush.

Both CGMiner and BFGMiner have GBT solo mining modes now, specifically designed to let you solo mine directly to your local bitcoin node.  The README for either miner will tell you all about it.

When you tax corporations, those taxes become part of their cost of doing business, and thus end up reflected in their prices.

All taxes end up being paid by individuals, either directly or indirectly.

So once upon a time, it was relatively cheap to produce bitcoins, and those who produced them are now profiting from that.  This is called 'seigniorage'.  Wikipedia notes that 'Seigniorage is a convenient source of revenue for some governments.'.

You are paying the shopping bills of those who produce your currency too.

The difference with bitcoin is that there will only ever be 21M bitcoins which become more and more expensive to produce, so seigniorage for bitcoin is not quite the never-ending scam it is for governments.

If you really care about the answer to questions such as these, you should probably ask in the 'Development & Technical Discussion' forum.  The people in there can answer your questions handily, and very few of them read this thread, I think.

This thread would be a damn sight more entertaining if a true Pro Troll like Proudhon took control of the situation 

The NYDFS extended comment period ends on Oct. 21.  How long do you guys think it will be after that before NYDFS acts on virtual currency rules?  I think a lot of bitcoin business is waiting to see how that shakes out...

Just out of curiosity, why do you always capitalize the word 'not'?  Not criticizing or anything, really just curious.

Are you "an example of one person taking advantage of the fact that nearly NO one else engages in such practice"?  

Jeff Garzik has a project that is planning to launch satellites to broadcast the blockchain from orbit.

http://www.coindesk.com/core-developer-bitcoin-node-space/

I'm aware.  I just thought it was relevant to the discussion at hand.  I wasn't claiming it was 0-day newz...

Do you really think Andreas is just a shill?  I haven't read everything he's written about bitcoin, but my past impression of him was that he was earnestly trying to educate people about Bitcoin technology.  I never got the impression that he was trying to mislead anyone.

Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly with the thesis of your posts above.

Which standard do you think this technology should be disruptive of - the bitcoin symbols, or the bitcoin subunits?  That's pretty much all this press release mentions.

Wow, I hope this is true.  That would be epic.

An interesting article related to this:

http://www.zdnet.com/w3c-launches-a-payments-interest-group-to-monetize-the-web-7000034710/

Maybe you guys should start a thread in the "Development & Technical Discussion" section about this stuff, so that people actually doing the implementation may join in the discussion.

ROFL!!!

I think you guys are using the wrong tactics here.

You need to realize that NLC is cyberbullying you.  This will obligate our current nanny state to send gentlemen out to have a word with him/her.

 

I think the point of that promo is that brilliance is often seen as madness early on.  I didn't see any suggestion that there was a bijective mapping between the set of madmen and the set of geniuses, but thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Did I make that comparison?  You lost me...

I don't think so.  You accused someone of lunacy (apparently because they profess a different view than you).  I posted a link to a short film whose thesis is that sometimes people who seem to be crazy may actually turn out to be just taking a path not familiar to you - may even be brilliant, who knows.  I don't see any non-sequitur there.

Again, I made no such comparison.

I didn't say anything about 'the people in this thread'.

AGAIN: You made a statement based on the posting of an individual stating basically that that person was a lunatic, apparently because you disagreed with the viewpoint that person was expressing.  I posted a link to a video that points out that maybe one should think twice before making such an accusation.
 
It's ok that you misunderstood.  I forgive you.  Please do stop telling me what I meant, though, and just read what I have written.

I am curious what YOU think the purpose of the video is...  What do you think was the point that the filmmaker was trying to get across?

HINT:  I have already stated it at least twice.

HINT 2:  It does not require any analogy between any individual you deem to be crazy and anyone appearing in the video.  It is a generalization.

Hey Mr. notSockpuppet - just out of curiosity, are you Jeffrey Robinson IRL?  A lot of the stuff you say about bitcoin sounds like him.

Maybe just a case of great minds thinking alike tho  

I surely was not accusing anyone of original thought...  Just asking a question.

It's hilarious that the people promoting electronic, programmable virtual currency are the "Luddites" in your mind

As long as we are on the subject of education, you should know that Bitcoin is not inflating at all.  All 21M coins that ever will exist already exist in the protocol.

yw

Really.  Can you point me to the math that limits the number of CNY that will exist on 17 July 2017?

I'm pretty sure I know how it works.  You may not be able to predict the exact number, but the math restricts it to a pretty small range.  I'm pretty sure that no such math exists for CNY.

Inflation is never needed.  It is a tax that, for all intents and purposes, is paid only by the poor.

EDIT: Hey, notice how I was able to make my point w/o including a picture of ponies?  You should strive to emulate that kind of self-restraint

He is pretty damn clever.  Too bad he uses his powers for evil, trolling the bitcoin forums - but hey, the world needs super-villains too I guess

FTFY

Back to education again...  I'm pretty sure Keynes was not a Monetarist.  That would be the work of Milton Friedman you are talking about.  If governments would be satisfied to only expand/contract the money supply in very unusual circumstances, as prescribed by Dr. Friedman, it might be marginally tolerable, but governments will not restrain themselves to the necessary, and any inflationary currency will always be abused for political expediency.

I think it's you who are failing to understand what 'Bitcoin' is.  If you changed the 21M coin limit or the generation algorithm you will have created yet another alt coin (which is done every day) .  You will not have changed Bitcoin.

The other day Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, D.C. all legalized marijuana, joining Colorado and Washington state.

At the same time, California decriminalized possession of even heroin, cocaine, and most other scheduled drugs.

Prohibition is ending.

I guess the feds are packing in all the fun they can while it lasts.

He's around:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg9557645#msg9557645

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-wish-list-when-deciding-which-assets-to-seize.html?_r=0


.
.
.

The article I cited does not mention corruption at all.  It just describes the way asset forfeiture works in the US currently.  It's not corruption if it's not illegal, right?

Auction coins moved:

https://blockchain.info/address/1i7cZdoE9NcHSdAL5eGjmTJbBVqeQDwgw?offset=0&filter=0

Neil Degrasse Tyson is so damn gangsta... :p

I believe Bitstamp is in the UK now, isn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitstamp


EDIT to correct myself:
From the same wiki page -

So you're probably right.

If they did that, they would have created Yet Another Alt Coin (which happens very frequently), and it would have no effect on Bitcoin at all.

There is no belief involved.  What constitutes Bitcoin is defined by the consensus of the miners - period.  If a majority of miners were to choose to mine according to a different protocol than what they currently do, that protocol will effectively become Bitcoin.  It has nothing to do with what Gavin or the foundation want.

Again, I think you are just describing a situation where someone creates an artificial demand to create an alt coin.  Hell, I will personally create you a Bitcoin clone with a 25 million premine if you want to buy all 25 million right now.  I don't know how you will coax miners to continue to mine (i.e. validate) your personal alt coin, though.

Come on, Jorge.  You have been around here long enough now to have a better understanding of how this works.  AGAIN - that "99% (including Chinese day-traders, blah, blah, blah)" DON'T MATTER - only the MINERS matter in defining the Bitcoin protocol - and the miners DO know that changing the protocol at the whim of of anyone who promised to buy a lot would render the coin valueless.

I don't think there is any viewpoint involved.  It is simply an observable fact that ONLY the consensus of miners decides what IS Bitcoin protocol, and what is NOT Bitcoin protocol.  Miners will presumably act in there own self-interest, which, I believe, involves maintaining the value of the coin they are mining - which, again, would obviously be destroyed by allowing the protocol to be arbitrarily changed by anyone who promised to buy a bunch.

It's not clear to me why you seem to feel that the nationality of said miners is relevant.

LOL

That's very intriguing  Thanks for pointing this out.

Did you log in?

The hashcash algorithm that was ultimately adapted as Bitcoin's proof-of-work was originally designed as an anti-spam tool.  In order to send an email, you had to generate a hash of the email header with at least 20 leading zeros, if I recall correctly.

Maybe they're referring to NYSE investing in Coinbase.

Unless you extend the range of the graph in time:



Then it again looks pretty terrible.

The address in your signature (1BqcwhKevdBKeos72b8E32Swjrp4iDVnjP) shows an interesting transaction:

https://blockchain.info/tx/69d9d66aae4812b6cf156f32267b773fb2118db696bb847ebd3454a198b59fbd

You sent BTC40,000 and the change went to 1GMaxweLLbo8mdXvnnC19Wt2wigiYUKgEB.

Interesting

Ah, I see, thanks   So Loaded is not really GMaxwell after all...  Dammit

I think it's predicated mostly on the belief that the majority of people (miners in this case) will act rationally.  I would say that most miners consider the 21M coin cap to be a defining characteristic of Bitcoin, and probably the most important characteristic that gives the coin value.  If you accept that premise, then it is logical to assume that miners will not act irrationally by destroying the value that is their whole incentive for mining in the first place.

I think miners understand that any such change would destroy the faith that users have in the coin, as the known-in-advance maximum supply is a critical component of the valuation.  I can't imagine a scenario where increasing the limit would actually be a win for the miners.

I don't think all readers are familiar with all your alts, and therefore, do not automatically conflate their ramblings.  Maybe you could post a comprehensive list?

Thanks in advance.

+1

I would be curious to see this demonstrated as well.

It looks like you reposted the claim, not any demonstration - or am I missing something?

I concur, for the most part - but apparently this is NOT what he is claiming, as it has been pointed out to him multiple times that he is just describing the creation of Yet Another Alt Coin, but he keeps posting this FUD as if it represents some weakness in Bitcoin.  I would like him to clarify his claim, or demonstrate the supposed weakness, once and for all.

Not if you are claiming it's a recipe for creating Yet Another Alt Coin.

As I recall, your original claim was that it would be possible for 'any kid with a laptop' to effectively remove the 21M bitcoin cap.  This is NOT an example of that happening.

I assume that you are more software-capable than some random kid, so I would like to see YOU raise the 21M coin limit, then get the majority of miners to mine it so that it effectively becomes Bitcoin.

If you can't do that, then please retire this particular bit of FUD and concentrate on the less ridiculous objections you frequently voice.

Do you really not understand that when you say 'series A bitcoin' and 'series B bitcoin', you are really saying 'bitcoin', and 'some altcoin'?

It's true that you will have a free supply of 100 units of the alt coin, which may or may not retain value over time, depending on whether anyone continues to mine it - but you will still only have 100 bitcoins - whichever branch eventually establishes itself as the 'real' bitcoin.

I do understand that.  At this point, I am pretty sure that you understand why that makes no difference at all, too - but apparently, no amount of reason will deter you from your mission of spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, so have at it.

I would love to at least get some insight into your actual motivations  - but clearly, nothing is being accomplished in this "debate", so I will leave you to it.

That is really not true, due to the fact that the atmosphere gets less dense at higher altitudes.

Jumping out of a plane at 12,000 feet, an average-sized man will reach a terminal velocity of between 100 and 120 mph in about 12 seconds.

If the same man jumps out at 180,000 feet, his terminal velocity would be supersonic.

If I understand your philosophy re: Bitcoin, there is only 'the worst':  Either Bitcoin will fail on its own defects, or some government(s) will destroy it, if it works as designed.  Is that a fair summation of your position?

Every one of Dr. Stolfi's 'point's has been addressed multiple times, most of them in this very topic, over the several years he has been trolling here.  If he was really interested in debating the merits or lack thereof of Bitcoin, he would do so in the technical discussion forum where there are people who are more qualified to address his concerns.

Neither of those quotes are from the technical section of this forum that I referred to:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=6.0

That forum is where you will find people who are most likely to be able to address any technical concerns you have with Bitcoin - and I don't think many of them read this thread.

Since you are a computer science guy, I would have thought you'd have started out there if you really had any interest in understanding Bitcoin, but I can't find a single post from you in that forum.

It's actually not just a technicality.  National Socialists really were socialists - not only in name.  They apparently took the 'Nationalism' more seriously than the 'Socialism', but they were, nonetheless, actual socialists.

For example, in Hitler's Germany, all German citizens were guaranteed a job by the government.  All German citizens were entitled to an education at government expense.  Healthcare was not totally socialized, but was heavily subsidized by the government.  Etc., etc., etc.  Sounds reasonably socialist to me.

Real bids now on OTCQX/GBTC:

http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/GBTC/quote


[EDIT:  Oops - looks like it disappeared.]

It's back - an ask at $44 for 298 shares.

I was not implying any kind of value judgement at all - just relating historical fact.

EDIT:  I realized I did not answer your point.  It is a fact that capitalists can practice a little socialism, socialists can practice a little capitalism, and either can be practiced to varying degrees by both good and evil men.  We do not live in a binary universe.

Yes, Socialism is a very effective way to gain the hearts and minds of the people, no doubt.

Your responses seem to suggest that you read my initial post as implying that socialism was evil because Nazis were socialists.  I certainly never said anything like that.  I just pointed out that they were, in fact, socialists, both by their own claim, and demonstrably by many of their social and economic policies.

Well, as you can probably tell by my signature, I would strongly disagree about that - but experience tells me that we will probably not resolve that argument here

You appear to be defining 'socialism' very narrowly.  They were NOT *technically* socialist - they were socialist, period.  Fascism is just as much a form of Socialism as, say, the Mutualism espoused by Proudhon.  Mutualism is vastly different than Fascism - and both are very different than so-called "marxist socialism", but they are all examples of socialist political/economic philosophy.

Geez, daily volume of GBTC will break 10,000 any minute now.  They are selling chunks of 1000 shares @ $50/share pretty fast 

I think the problem the Chinese miners are concerned about is that, because of their lower bandwidth, they are already at a bit of a disadvantage with block propagation time, which increases the likelihood that their mined blocks may be orphaned - and increasing the block size increases that problem.

Increasing the chance a block will be orphaned doesn't require that 'network traffic jump up', it just requires that that one block be propagated to the network more slowly than another simultaneous block.

No.  If two miners are similarly connected and have similar bandwidth, their propagation time should be roughly equal, I would think, regardless of the block size.  If one or the other is better connected or has more bandwidth, however, then there will be a disadvantage to the less-connected or slower connection, and that disadvantage will increase slightly with block size.  I think one of the Chines miners posted the math that explains this relationship more precisely on the dev list.

I am not really arguing the case for the Chinese miners here, just trying to explain what their objection was, based on what I read on the dev mailing list.

He must've been hacked by Anonymint then.  He's the only one that mentions Armstrong Economics in every post.

Just out of curiosity, are you the author of the book in your signature, or just advertising for it?

No.

I'm not sure that block is really an XT block.  It was mined by Slush pool, which is still creating all version 3 blocks.  That particular block has a bizarre version field for some reason.

I don't really think it's either - the version in that block is "536870919", where the version field in a normal block (up to now) has been 1, 2, or 3.  I don't think any of the current BIP proposals or XT client creates weird versions like that, do they?  I would have expected maybe "4".  I confess that I have not looked at the XT code to see what it puts in the version field, but I would not expect what appears to be a large random number.

I think maybe the version field just got corrupted in that block somehow.

Ok, I see now.  Slush is allowing individual stratum miners to support XT by mining to a specific port (3301 instead of 3333), and XT does, indeed, use that rather odd number for the version.  I stand corrected.

https://www.facebook.com/MiningBitcoinCz?fref=nf

There are a lot of 'implementations' of the Bitcoin protocol.  Just look at the debug.log from Bitcoin Core and you will see lots of different 'subver' strings that are, effectively, user-agent strings for different clients, many of which are not Bitcoin Core.

It's my understanding that neither of these assertions is true in Bitcoin XT.  XT changes the consensus mechanism significantly:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1089283.0

If I understand correctly, Bitcoin XT has not actually changed this yet - but will do so, if necessary, to 'work around' recalcitrant miners that don't mine the 'right' blocks.

You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.

To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB).  At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.

I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.

Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.

A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin.  It very much IS a technical problem.

If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead.

I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way.

1)  I don't think see any way this can be avoided.  The top Bitcoin developers will always be in demand by the top Bitcoin-related companies, and developers are free to work for anyone they want.  I don't think it's really a problem in the long run.  If people really believe that the Bitcoin Core project is compromised by developer self-interest, someone will start a BitcoinXT-like project, and Core will no longer define what IS Bitcoin.

I would caution that you shouldn't assume out-of-hand that developers are acting purely in their own interest, like Dr. Stolfi does.  Isn't it possible that the Core devs who are also Bitstream devs have thought a lot longer and harder about this problem than most of us, and realized (like I said earlier) that there really IS no way (as of now) to have Bitcoin be both scalable AND decentralized, and set about building a project that might insure that Bitcoin will still be usable anyway?  Sure they MIGHT be acting solely (or even partly) in their own interest.  But making money out of having the foresight to anticipate this problem does not, a priori, mean that their solution is not the RIGHT solution.

2) I can't parse this.  If you think a protocol must have multiple, conflicting versions of itself, you may not understand what the word 'protocol' means.  If you mean something related to alt coins, I would point out that there are plenty of those already.

3) It's not just an issue of mining scalability - it's a matter of even being able to just run a validating node.  There is no monopoly, as Gavin and Mike have proven.  Anyone who is unhappy can fork, and if the world agrees with them, their fork will become Bitcoin.

I concur.  But they don't HAVE to be biased in their judgement, just because the possibility exists that they might be.  It's possible that the technical solution they propose is the BEST solution.  I don't know that it is, I am just providing counterpoint to the relentless negativity toward Blockstream I see on here.  They might be evil, or they might be RIGHT.  You should at least consider it.



If you look in the debug.log file of your Bitcoin Core client, you will see lots of /version/ lines - these lines are the equivalent of the user-agent sent by browsers.  There are many different implementations of the bitcoin client, in addition to the Satoshi client.  Look for yourself.

Because it may also be fundamental for Bitcoin to remain decentralized.

If you think this problem is a no-brainer, it's because you don't really understand the problem.  I don't claim to know the right answer, but I do know that it is more complicated than many would have you believe.

Uhm, the last time I looked, they had about $2.5 trillion in excess reserves (that is, above and beyond what they are legally required to hold).

Dude, for someone I once mistook as intelligent, you sure post a lot of crap nowadays.  Are you just staying drunk 24/7 nowadays?

You really believe the banks have $2.5T plus required reserves in 'underperforming loans'?  That number is at least as big as the total current M1.

That graph is actually a lot more interesting than you seem to realize, in multiple ways.

M1, M2, etc., in no way represent 'liabilities of banks'.  They are measures of how much money (in US dollars) exists.  M1 is all the money that exists in the form of cash and demand accounts, i.e., all the dollars in the world that are immediately spendable.  The other Ms add other money that exists but is not immediately liquid. like bank reserves, savings accounts, CDs, etc.

Your initial claim was basically that banks have 'underperforming loans' that exceed the actual amount of money that even exists.  While I guess this is theoretically possible, it seems to me to be highly unlikely.

In any case, the intent of my initial post was not to defend the solvency of the banks, but rather to bring attention to the unnaturally huge amount of excess reserves held by banks now - especially considering that the level of excess reserves has (naturally) been vanishingly close to zero throughout the history of banking - and maybe get someone to wonder why this has changed, and maybe even wonder what the implications of this change might be.

You made a statement that was demonstrably false - that banks effectively have no reserves now - which is literally the polar opposite of the truth, as they actually have more excess reserves than ever in history.  You can theorize that their real liabilities are still greater than even this record level of reserves until you go blue in the face if you want to, but it won't change the fact that you clearly just didn't realize that banks actually have record reserve levels now.  Own your wrongness and move forward.

And AGAIN - I really don't care about the argument as to whether the the banks are solvent or not...  I just wanted to point out the anomalous level of excess reserves, and you gave me the opportunity to do that.  Thanks

Well, at least you are consistent:  Wrong again.

They are not letting the money sit around doing nothing - well, not exactly.  It is making money for them still because, in the same bill in which congress authorized $800B in 'fiscal stimulus', they also authorized the federal reserve to pay banks (i.e., themselves) interest on their excess reserves, with your and my tax dollars.  You and me are paying fat cat bankers billions in interest every year to hang onto their own money.  You may also notice that almost instantly after passage, the amount of excess reserves rose to ~$800B - that number sounds familiar   And when the Fed added $1.3T in monetary stimulus in QE1, and then another $600B in QE2, excess reserves (interest-bearing accounts for the banksters) went up accordingly.

If you believe in the monetarist principles the Fed operates from, there is some logic behind the policy - it allows them to now control interest rates from both the supply AND demand sides - whereas before they only could influence supply.  Nevertheless, the sheer volume of current excess reserves is becoming a potential problem even for the Fed, as there is potential for very negative political blowback since the interest is becoming a significant budget item now.

BTW - the name-calling is pretty childish.

Not sure if you are addressing me in this post, but if so - ONE MORE TIME: I AM NOT ARGUING THAT THE ECONOMY OR BANKS ARE SOUND.  I just made a statement about banks and reserves, which just happened to involve a correction to something you got wrong.  End of story.

Yeah, and that person is YOU.

You have spent this whole discussion trying to redefine 'bank reserves' as 'bank net worth' just so you don't have to admit you made a mistake.  Reserves != net worth, never was, never will be.  Banks have plenty of reserves at the moment.  Net worth, maybe not so much.

On a totally unrelated (and admittedly off-topic [if that is possible in this thread]) subject:

Dr. Stolfi, you have been following Bitcoin with "academic interest" for some time now...  Will we see an article in Ledger revealing your findings any time soon?

This sounds like a sufficient subject for a journal article, if, indeed, you can support that thesis.

That sounds like a lot of opinion.  I'd like to see it formalized into a journal article, and see what the peer review looks like. 

Wouldn't it be vastly preferable if the good professor were to formalize his thoughts and publish them in a scientific journal, where his ideas could be subjected to all due academic rigor by his peers?

Dr. Stolfi is an academic who, according to his signature, at least, has an 'academic interest in Bitcoin' - and there now exists an academic journal created precisely for such academics.

I, for one, would much rather see Dr. Stolfi's support his ideas re: Bitcoin in a more formal atmosphere than to read yet another eight-paragraph opinion from yet another opinionated poster on this thread, wouldn't you?

I think we should all encourage Jorge to publish.  I would be interested to see if he actually has ideas with academic merit or not.

?

I'm not being passive-aggressive, nor (I think) am I being particularly opinionated by suggesting that I would prefer to see Dr. Stolfi's ideas taken to the next level, rather than just encouraging him to continue to post random opinions.

He is the only poster on here that I know of that has identified himself specifically as an academic with an interest in Bitcoin, so that puts him in a unique position to educate us all with his erudite analysis of this subject.

Now that there is an official outlet for Dr. Stolfi's hard-won Bitcoin expertise, I would like to see him take advantage of it.  Wouldn't you?

Apparently you're academic background is in psychology  

Thanks for the pop psychoanalysis.  I value your opinion.  Really.

I would really like to see how Jorge's ideas stand up to academic scrutiny, wouldn't you, (ex)NLC?

Not sure what your issue is here.

I have no interest in interfering with Dr. Stolfi's ability to opine anywhere he chooses, but thanks for your concern on his behalf

I will continue to urge him to make use of the opportunity offered by Ledger though, as I am sure I am not alone in being curious as to what rigorous academic analysis of his ideas might teach us all.

A well-reasoned response:

https://medium.com/@btcdrak/full-of-lies-and-desperation-of-someone-who-risked-his-entire-reputation-on-something-and-lost-and-6c206e68d0cf#.i2wtg2uhv

You are just making a semantic argument.  I'm sure BTCDrak did not mean literally entirely without risk, and no reasonable reader would interpret it that way.

What exactly did Mr. BTCDrak do (or not do) to make you feel that way?

If you want to reply to BTCDrak, you should probably do it in the same forum he posted in.  I don't know if he will read your response here.

That is a pretty bold statement about solving a non-trivial computer science problem.  I'm sure your patches will be accepted if you have a solution.

I think the problem is that you assume that increasing the blocksize fixes the problem.

I imagine a future where all manner of services that are currently ad-supported or subscription-based might instead be payed for with bitcoin microtransactions, seamlessly and transparently.  There could be millions, or maybe even billions of transactions per day from all these page views/minutes of video/etc. - vastly more than even Visa handles at peak capacity.  And add to that all the microtransactions that might be generated by devices on the Internet of Things, that none of us know the extent or nature of yet.

I don't see how increasing blocksize will handle this.  Even data-center sized nodes may not be able to handle all those microtransactions.

I don't claim to know what the answer is, but I am pretty sure that block-size alone won't do it - and lurching down that path in a non-judicious way could lead to permanent problems that will be painful to work around in the long term, after a real solution is found.

Your response did not address anything I posted.  It addressed the content of BTCDrak's post, which I simply provided a link to.

That's correct, but that is not what his post addressed.  I don't think anything in his post even suggests that BTCDrak's response was not well-reasoned - just that he personally disagrees with the content of that post.

Wow - NLC replying to JJG while channelling JJG - that is funny

Ok, now you made me spit coffee on my monitor!  Happy NOW???

I didn't "shut him down" - you credit me with far more power here than I possess, I think  I just suggested that if he really wanted to respond to Mr. BTCDrak he should probably do so in the forum where Mr. BTCDrak might actually see his reply.

Uhm, thanks (?)

I don't really think that the people resisting block-size increase are just interested in creating a transaction-fee market.

I don't work for Blockstream, nor am I a Core developer - but even I can see that there is potentially a heavy price to be paid (in terms of Bitcoin decentralization) if we rush head-long down the path of block-size for scaling - and this could turn out to be a mistake that can't be undone, AND one that does not really solve the problem in the long-term.

I don't see the urgency you do for raising blocksize right now.  Full blocks are still uncommon (except during "stress-tests").

Again - full blocks are, as of this writing, still fairly rare.

No one who wants to use Bitcoin is sitting on the sidelines saying "Oh, I'd like to buy this with bitcoin, but darn...  Their blocks are just too darned small!".  Raising the blocksize now is NOT going to cause a stampede of new users.  Bigger blocks MAY be necessary soon, to accomodate new use - if it comes.  Or maybe another solution will be found before that is necessary.

I agree that we need to scale capacity AS NECESSARY - even if that means raising the blocksize somewhat in the short term, due to no other solution being at-hand.  I just don't want to see panic drive the community to prematurely choose a path that does not really solve the bigger problem, and potentially hurts Bitcoin decentralization forever.

Yeah, I have...  You realize that is just a term he made up for this presentation of some of his ideas, right?  It's not like a recognized Law of Economics or something.

In real life, if you produce a product that people want, they will run over you to get it, and they don't give a damn what your theoretical production limits are..  They will use all your capacity and demand more.

lol

Actually, it's both.  You should read this to understand more.

Most society currently greatly overemphasizes the collective/cooperative, and largely ignores the value of the individual/competitive aspect.  Both are important and necessary components of a healthy society.

+1

Couldn't agree more.  The paper I linked in my original reply really is worth reading, btw, if you haven't seen it before.  Isaiah Berlin was a brilliant man.

Actually there IS a hard limit.  What has not yet been pointed out in this conversation is that producing more pigs is not free, and as your pig production increases, costs will increase as well, at some point exponentially.  And at that point lies your hard limit.

There is a hard limit on how many pigs you can economically supply to the market, as the price your pork-loving customers are willing to pay is not without bound.  If you can't afford to produce them => limit.

Now lets discuss the properties of spherical chickens in a vacuum!

Well, I think a more fundamental question is "bag or bag-less"?  

Your sense of humor is wasted in this venue

Americans are no different than any other group in their perceptive abilities in this regard - but some groups have sociopolitical reasons to make Black/White race a binary condition...

During the days when legally-enforced segregation was practiced in some states, the motivation was obvious.  Interestingly, in Louisiana, where the culture was different because of having been a French colony, they did have a graduated system of racial classification, with some people being classified as "octaroons" or "quadroons", etc. based on what part of their ancestry was black.

There has always been a resistance to acceptance of multi-racialism from the Black community in general too.  Multiracial people who were seen to be 'passing as white' were greatly despised by other blacks - and even now, most Americans who have Black heritage strongly resist being identified as anything except Black.

There are exceptions - I know Tiger Woods has stated before (much to the chagrin of many in the Black community) that he does not self-identify as a 'black golfer', and I believe Russel Wilson of the Seattle Seahawks has made similar statements, so maybe things are changing.

Could someone point out a few of Mr. Hearn's more notable contributions to Bitcoin?  I am having trouble finding them. (serious question)

Thanks.

Yeah, I was aware of bitcoinj - and that is certainly a contribution - but I was thinking more along the lines of contributions to the actual Bitcoin protocol.  Although Mike has been at the center of a lot of controversy in the Bitcoin world over the last couple of years, it seems that he has actually only worked on his own projects, as far as I can see.  It's hard to tell if he influenced the work of others or not, though.

lolwut?

lolwut?

What response do you want?  I asked an honest question - "What had Mike Hearn contributed?" -  The answer is clearly NOTHING to anyone who bothers to look.  And yet you post this nonsense?  What is my response supposed to be?

Bitcoinj is just a library that allows you to call the Bitcoin API from Java/Python/etc.  It's a nice tool if you want to write a bitcoin-related program in one of the languages it supports - but that kind of thing is pretty trivial as a programming accomplishment.  Any competent programmer could have created bitcoinj, and someone else would have except Mike already did it.

It's not NOTHING AT ALL - it's useful - but it really is NOTHING if you are trying to present NOTABLE CONTRIBUTIONS to Bitcoin.

Well, most recently the addition of CLTV comes to mind.

Well, your description is a little more florid than mine would be - but it is a nontrivial and notable contribution to Bitcoin.

Look, we both know the difference between a trivial programming task (like creating a library of API calls) versus a non-trivial one (like designing and implementing new protocol features).

You could argue that any code at all could be written by any competent coder.

Well, CLTV is not even really live yet - it's a soft-fork - so time will tell on that one.

I don't have any interest in whatever that "all this idol-worship-segue-to-'fuck him, we never liked him anyway' rejected girl bullshit" is either.

It was one of the free-trade zones in Honduras, like this.

The Seasteading Institute was founded by Peter Thiel, the co-founder of Paypal.  I don't know if he ever had an account on this forum.