The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Lothar on June 07, 2010, 04:29:16 PM

Title: Bitcoin
Post by: Lothar on June 07, 2010, 04:29:16 PM
Anarchir & John Shaw inspired me...

Bitcoin.  I think I understand it.  I'm intrigued.  Anyone use it?  Is there anyone out there who could describe it in layman's terms?
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: atomiccat on June 07, 2010, 04:49:40 PM
http://www.bitcoin.org/faq

You let them use your CPU power in exchange for bitcoins? then buy stuff with them from merchants I guess

or buy them

"Our maximum exchange per request is currently 2500 BTC or $10 LR USD

Our minimum exchange per request is currently 250 BTC or $1 LR USD"

only services available are Money exchange services and web hosting pretty much, and 1 game

http://www.bitcoin.org/trade
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: anarchir on June 07, 2010, 04:58:51 PM
This interesting. I'm not sure how it works exactly upon scanning but I'll have a look at it later (gotta head to work :P).
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on June 07, 2010, 05:06:10 PM
Is this a way of rewarding the more productive on the internet, while encouraging productive internet use in others by using information and bandwidth as "currency"?
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Terror Australis on June 08, 2010, 02:44:08 AM
Anarchir & John Shaw inspired me...

Bitcoin.  I think I understand it.  I'm intrigued.  Anyone use it?  Is there anyone out there who could describe it in layman's terms?

It is a currency that governments can't control.Instead of a monetary system based on a central bank swindle it is distributed across peer to peer networks as "nodes".If you have ever heard of TOR (the onion router) it makes it impossible for the feds to track transactions.It uses pgp encryption to manage the transaction http://www.pgpi.org/doc/pgpintro/ (http://www.pgpi.org/doc/pgpintro/) .If this takes off the state will lose control of the monetary system,unless they stop all electricity generation and make us live in caves.

Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: anarchir on June 08, 2010, 02:49:56 AM
Anarchir & John Shaw inspired me...

Bitcoin.  I think I understand it.  I'm intrigued.  Anyone use it?  Is there anyone out there who could describe it in layman's terms?

It is a currency that governments can't control.Instead of a monetary system based on a central bank swindle it is distributed across peer to peer networks as "nodes".If you have ever heard of TOR (the onion router) it makes it impossible for the feds to track transactions.



Explain further please...
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Terror Australis on June 08, 2010, 02:52:51 AM
Anarchir & John Shaw inspired me...

Bitcoin.  I think I understand it.  I'm intrigued.  Anyone use it?  Is there anyone out there who could describe it in layman's terms?

It is a currency that governments can't control.Instead of a monetary system based on a central bank swindle it is distributed across peer to peer networks as "nodes".If you have ever heard of TOR (the onion router) it makes it impossible for the feds to track transactions.



Explain further please...
sorry i was modifying what i wrote.
It is a currency that governments can't control.Instead of a monetary system based on a central bank swindle it is distributed across peer to peer networks as "nodes".If you have ever heard of TOR (the onion router) it makes it impossible for the feds to track transactions.It uses pgp encryption to manage the transaction http://www.pgpi.org/doc/pgpintro/  .If this takes off the state will lose control of the monetary system,unless they stop all electricity generation and make us live in caves.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Terror Australis on June 08, 2010, 02:56:50 AM
Think of it like this.....the current money supply is printed at the federal reserve and sent out to banks.Under bitcoin every bank now has its own printing press.....making it impossible for the federal reserve to corner the production.It is open source money supply and therefore stealing your money through inflation is impossible.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: davann on June 08, 2010, 01:20:48 PM
Think of it like this.....the current money supply is printed at the federal reserve and sent out to banks.Under bitcoin every bank now has its own printing press.....making it impossible for the federal reserve to corner the production.It is open source money supply and therefore stealing your money through inflation is impossible.

I don't get it. How is currency created? As in, how do I earn bitcoins? Also, what can I use earned bitcoins for? What is available for purchase. From what I understand, money requires a nearly universal acceptance of it value to be classified as currency. Screwing the current system seems kinda like putting the cart before the horse.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: atomiccat on June 08, 2010, 04:48:59 PM
you can buy Bitcoins with USD or Generate coins by letting them use your PC processing power, in which you get very very lttle bitcoins this way, so the bitcoins are based on CPU cycles I guess, and there are a few places that accept bitcoins but not many, if people in Keene started using it to transfer money around and buy and sell it might be useful, and people Using TOR use bitcoins to buy and sell illegal items.

And if you believe bit coins is a good idea it could be a alternative way of protecting against inflation
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Lothar on February 13, 2011, 10:59:11 AM
I've intended to look into this further since I first heard about it... until I noticed this http://www.freetalklive.com/content/bitcoin_now_worth_more_us_dollar (http://www.freetalklive.com/content/bitcoin_now_worth_more_us_dollar).  So now, finally, I decided to at least download the client, and start selling cycles.  I left my computer/bitcoin running overnight wondering if I'd wake up and see .01, or more, Bitcoin balance.  Still 0, at this point.  Anyone have any experience w/Bitcoin to share?

A while ago I saw a schedule describing how Bitcoins would be released into the market.  Perhaps this is one of the points after the current batch have been generated, and before the next batch begins?
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on February 13, 2011, 02:32:31 PM
Yeah, I tried it just for giggles. Left it running for almost 2 days just to see how much it generated. Not a single cent yet.

At that rate, you might get 25 cents by the year 2020..............sweet!!!
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Riddler on February 13, 2011, 02:46:57 PM
nigga takes cash

take the rest of your shit to the curb
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on February 13, 2011, 03:03:50 PM
nigga takes cash

take the rest of your shit to the curb

Oh come on gringo!! I trade you my seester!!!
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Lothar on February 13, 2011, 03:40:53 PM
I just had a conversation with someone about any/all encryption in general.  The basic point was this; don't believe that anything is private, or secure.  US military, and therefore likely other intel agencies, have the ability to crack anything, and "in not much time", too.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: anarchir on February 13, 2011, 06:11:41 PM
I just had a conversation with someone about any/all encryption in general.  The basic point was this; don't believe that anything is private, or secure.  US military, and therefore likely other intel agencies, have the ability to crack anything, and "in not much time", too.

I dont think they can quickly crack TrueCrypt, even if they have the technology. I'm still not sold on the idea of Bitcoins however. And if I, an agorist, am not on board, how will they be able to convince a greater percentage of the population? I think using alternative currency will catch on more and more, but this version I'm not too sure about.
Oh, and thanks :) :
Quote
Anarchir & John Shaw inspired me...

What did we do and how can we do it, not that I'd dare of putting myself on the level of epicness as the Shaw.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Lothar on February 13, 2011, 09:41:42 PM
lol

I can only vaguely remember it, but I think I had submitted an article to FTL about Bitcoin before reading a thread where, apparently, you & John suggested starting discussions rather than simply submitting links.  Hence the inspiration to create this topic.   :)

I know someone who was recruited by the military to be a language, and encryption, specialist.  This person said essentially not to believe anything as secure, private, unbreakable, etc..  They said that with the specialists, as well as the resources, the military can handle "anything in no time".
I am far from competent in this regard, but I find that credible, both in that I kind of believed that to be the case anyway, and also...  I don't know why this person would have suggested otherwise.  Take this 2nd hand info for what it's worth.  I'm not really sure what implications this has for Bitcoin.  I was more concerned about the counterfeit-ability, or the risk of theft, than the issue of anonymity (though both being sound would be preferable, obviously).
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Bradley on February 14, 2011, 08:36:14 AM
It's true all systems can be broken. That is the very nature of a system, isn't it?

Recently this was demonstrated on TOR.

http://i2psites.com/Content/Search/ViewCached.aspx?CachedURL=privacy.i2p/category/tor-is-not-safe/

However you have nothing to loose on encryption. So why not use it, as an extra layer of safety.

Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: error on February 21, 2011, 08:01:27 PM
I just had a conversation with someone about any/all encryption in general.  The basic point was this; don't believe that anything is private, or secure.  US military, and therefore likely other intel agencies, have the ability to crack anything, and "in not much time", too.

And why should anyone believe this?
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Lothar on February 21, 2011, 11:38:51 PM
I just had a conversation with someone about any/all encryption in general.  The basic point was this; don't believe that anything is private, or secure.  US military, and therefore likely other intel agencies, have the ability to crack anything, and "in not much time", too.

And why should anyone believe this?

If you're asking why anyone would believe what this person told me, I can only tell you why I did..  It's because I know very little about it, I have no reason to think this person is dishonest, and this discussion is this person's very unique job.

If you're asking why anyone would believe me, and my claim that I had this discussion, the only reason I can think of is that I haven't proven to be a liar yet.

I've asked around, and as it turns out, I just don't know enough about encryption to resolve all that I've been told on my own.  Virtually everyone, though, assured me that Bitcoin was secure, and private.  I'd really like to think that's the case.  I'll probably exchange for some, and hope it proves to be.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Alex Libman on February 22, 2011, 11:58:21 AM
BitCoin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin) is the subject of the latest episode (http://twit.tv/sn287) (1 hour 27 min) [MP3] (http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/aolradio.podcast.aol.com/sn/sn0287.mp3) of one of my favorite technical podcasts, Security Now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Now).


And, recently on Slashdot -- Online-Only Currency BitCoin Reaches Dollar Parity (http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/02/10/189246/Online-Only-Currency-BitCoin-Reaches-Dollar-Parity) --

Quote
The BitCoin peer to peer currency (http://www.bitcoin.org/) briefly reached exchange parity with the US dollar (http://bitcoinwatch.com/) today after a spike in demand for the coins pushed prices slightly above 1 USD:1 BTC.  BitCoin was launched in early 2009, so in only two years this open source currency has gone from having no value at all to one with not only an open market of competing (https://bitcoin-central.net/) exchanges (http://www.mtgox.com/), but the ability to buy real goods and services like web hosting (https://vekja.net/), gadgets (http://www.bitcoingadgets.com/), organic beauty products (http://www.myhealthyorganics.com/index.php?main_page=index), and even alpaca socks (http://www.grasshillalpacas.com/alpacaproductsforbitcoinoffer.html).


And...  Digital currency lets GPU cycles print money (http://www.i-programmer.info/news/141-cloud-computing/2015-digital-currency-lets-gpu-cyles-print-money.html)


(Note: this is not a personal (anti)endorsement of BitCoin, just some relevant links.)

Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: error on February 22, 2011, 03:11:33 PM
I just had a conversation with someone about any/all encryption in general.  The basic point was this; don't believe that anything is private, or secure.  US military, and therefore likely other intel agencies, have the ability to crack anything, and "in not much time", too.

And why should anyone believe this?

If you're asking why anyone would believe what this person told me, I can only tell you why I did..  It's because I know very little about it, I have no reason to think this person is dishonest, and this discussion is this person's very unique job.

If you're asking why anyone would believe me, and my claim that I had this discussion, the only reason I can think of is that I haven't proven to be a liar yet.

I've asked around, and as it turns out, I just don't know enough about encryption to resolve all that I've been told on my own.  Virtually everyone, though, assured me that Bitcoin was secure, and private.  I'd really like to think that's the case.  I'll probably exchange for some, and hope it proves to be.

Ah, the problem is not with your statement, but that of your friend.

While nobody outside the military, NSA, whoever, really knows what their capabilities are, it's highly unlikely that anyone who does know would be allowed to talk honestly about it with uncleared persons (like yourself). This makes it most likely that your friend has fed you an official story given to him by his superiors, which is cleared for release because it advances a government objective. (It is, in fact, an official story I've heard being disseminated before.) It's unlikely that your friend is aware that he's spreading official propaganda.

Now, with that out of the way, every single instance I've been able to find of the government "cracking" strong encryption has been because they got hold of the password through means other than actually cracking the crypto, such as finding it taped to the bottom of the keyboard, rubber hosing, keyloggers, etc.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Lothar on February 22, 2011, 10:57:23 PM
Thank you both for the input!
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on February 23, 2011, 01:44:45 AM
At the request of some fans who wanted to donate, I'll be accepting Bitcoins for contributions toward the release of new comics.  I just learned about them and have a few more things to figure out like exchange rates, but it sounds like that may be already handled and I can generate a widget for it or something.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Terror Australis on February 23, 2011, 08:17:42 AM
An intriguing thought would be if you setup  a local bitcoin market in NH as bitcoin is best when you dont have to transfer to fiat.  Shire silver co-branded with a bitcoin logo ?

If you have an android phone we even have a client for it now and a browser extension for merchants.

I was one of the bootstrappers for the bitcoin economy back when a bitcoin was worth under .006 where I started selling amazon gift cards for them and offering rebates (see my sig. )

Currently Im setting up http://witcoin.com (http://witcoin.com) which lets people earn coins for content and soon answering questions for bitcoin bounties.

I think even Ian and Mark accept bitcoin donations privately (email them ). The eff ,tor project and now freenet  accept bitcoins.

If you are worried about the security of bitcoin look at how resilient bittorrent is even with all the force of the worlds governments against it incapable of shutting it down. Pretty soon bitcoin will be the worlds largest supercluster of machines and all the feds will be able to do is snipe from the sidelines as people voluntarily trade.




Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Lothar on February 23, 2011, 12:54:07 PM
Thanks again, everyone, for the input.

I just finished watching Security Now.  I am curious..  Could it be possible for some state/s to throw the "killswitch" on the internet, and then highjack the chain?

Also, wouldn't it be possible to piece together the transactions if enough of the personal wallets were taken?  It seems that creating a new address with each transaction would be a good way to stay anonymous, but I just read that each address remains valid, or connected to you, indefinitely, unless you lose your wallet.  Is there anyway to purge the wallet, and maintain the BTCs?  I guess one could send your BTCs to a new "account", or wallet, and then get rid of the old one.

Please excuse me if this is all painfully obvious to most of you.  :D  I am learning, albeit slowly, as I type.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Lothar on February 23, 2011, 03:10:13 PM
A suggested thread on anonymity..

http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=241.0

Someone said "I'm not saying that it's not something worth working on, but we shouldn't prioritize anonymity features ahead of basic functionality, ease-of-use, and driving adoption.".  I disagree with that.  If it's secure, and anonymous, "driving adoption" won't be an issue.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Terror Australis on February 23, 2011, 11:52:24 PM
Thanks again, everyone, for the input.

I just finished watching Security Now.  I am curious..  Could it be possible for some state/s to throw the "killswitch" on the internet, and then highjack the chain?

Also, wouldn't it be possible to piece together the transactions if enough of the personal wallets were taken?  It seems that creating a new address with each transaction would be a good way to stay anonymous, but I just read that each address remains valid, or connected to you, indefinitely, unless you lose your wallet.  Is there anyway to purge the wallet, and maintain the BTCs?  I guess one could send your BTCs to a new "account", or wallet, and then get rid of the old one.

Please excuse me if this is all painfully obvious to most of you.  :D  I am learning, albeit slowly, as I type.

If they throw the kill switch there will be bigger problems than bitcoin to deal with. I doubt they will because the masses need their facebooks . It would instantly cause a revolution . The bitcoin network confirms transactions whether you have a client runnning or not.

Dont make any address you own public and you cant be tied to them. Its good to create a new address for each transaction as well. you are correct in saying just send your btc to a new wallet and delete the old one. Encrypt your wallet with truecrypt and back it up on dropbox.



Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Lothar on February 24, 2011, 01:18:10 AM
Thanks again, everyone, for the input.

I just finished watching Security Now.  I am curious..  Could it be possible for some state/s to throw the "killswitch" on the internet, and then highjack the chain?

Also, wouldn't it be possible to piece together the transactions if enough of the personal wallets were taken?  It seems that creating a new address with each transaction would be a good way to stay anonymous, but I just read that each address remains valid, or connected to you, indefinitely, unless you lose your wallet.  Is there anyway to purge the wallet, and maintain the BTCs?  I guess one could send your BTCs to a new "account", or wallet, and then get rid of the old one.

Please excuse me if this is all painfully obvious to most of you.  :D  I am learning, albeit slowly, as I type.

If they throw the kill switch there will be bigger problems than bitcoin to deal with. I doubt they will because the masses need their facebooks . It would instantly cause a revolution . The bitcoin network confirms transactions whether you have a client runnning or not.

Dont make any address you own public and you cant be tied to them. Its good to create a new address for each transaction as well. you are correct in saying just send your btc to a new wallet and delete the old one. Encrypt your wallet with truecrypt and back it up on dropbox.





My hypothetical about the kill switch was really just me asking to see if I understood the concept of the chains, and each node adding to the security of the whole system.  I'm not concerned about that, just curious about the possibility.

Thanks for the rest of the advice.  Good idea about Truecrypt, too!
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Terror Australis on February 24, 2011, 01:54:21 AM
Thanks again, everyone, for the input.

I just finished watching Security Now.  I am curious..  Could it be possible for some state/s to throw the "killswitch" on the internet, and then highjack the chain?

Also, wouldn't it be possible to piece together the transactions if enough of the personal wallets were taken?  It seems that creating a new address with each transaction would be a good way to stay anonymous, but I just read that each address remains valid, or connected to you, indefinitely, unless you lose your wallet.  Is there anyway to purge the wallet, and maintain the BTCs?  I guess one could send your BTCs to a new "account", or wallet, and then get rid of the old one.

Please excuse me if this is all painfully obvious to most of you.  :D  I am learning, albeit slowly, as I type.

If they throw the kill switch there will be bigger problems than bitcoin to deal with. I doubt they will because the masses need their facebooks . It would instantly cause a revolution . The bitcoin network confirms transactions whether you have a client runnning or not.

Dont make any address you own public and you cant be tied to them. Its good to create a new address for each transaction as well. you are correct in saying just send your btc to a new wallet and delete the old one. Encrypt your wallet with truecrypt and back it up on dropbox.





My hypothetical about the kill switch was really just me asking to see if I understood the concept of the chains, and each node adding to the security of the whole system.  I'm not concerned about that, just curious about the possibility.

Thanks for the rest of the advice.  Good idea about Truecrypt, too!


im certain the eventual power of the voluntary economic system will blow the existing one away and fund a worldwide mesh network for its own sustainablity. Where are they going to get the funds to support the tyranny if the only way they can get money in future is voluntary donations ? 
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Alex Libman on March 23, 2011, 04:32:24 AM
From Slashdot -- Google Engineer Releases Open Source Bitcoin Client (http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/03/23/0210207/Google-Engineer-Releases-Open-Source-Bitcoin-Client) --

Quote
angry tapir writes:

"A Google engineer has released an open source Java client (http://www.cio.com.au/article/380396/google_releases_open_source_bitcoin_client/) for the Bitcoin peer-to-peer currency system (http://www.bitcoin.org/) [WP] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin), simply called BitcoinJ (http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/).  Bitcoin is an Internet currency that uses a P2P architecture for processing transactions, avoiding the need for a central bank or payment system.  Cio.com.au also has an interview with Gavin Andresen (http://www.cio.com.au/article/380394/open_source_identity_bitcoin_technical_lead_gavin_andresen/), the technical lead of the Bitcoin virtual currency system."

Just don't say you're minting (http://) anything.

There was an empty link in the last sentence - perhaps the author wanted to link to a story about Liberty Dollar but screwed up.


(My fellow supporters of market-friendly free software licenses (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=19771) (as opposed to the commie GNU crap) will be happy to hear that BitcoinJ has an Apache license, and hopefully it will be able to run on the Apache Harmony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony) JVM in addition to the restrictive GPL one from Oracle.  The original Bitcoin client also has a Copyfree (http://copyfree.org/) license (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/license.txt), but it has some restrictive dependencies (ex. wx (http://www.wxwidgets.org/about/licence.htm)) and it's a pain to install on *BSD (http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=379).)
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: anarchir on March 23, 2011, 05:17:55 AM
That Silk Road tor/bitcoin market looks mighty interesting.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Terror Australis on March 27, 2011, 06:51:25 AM
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1663664 (http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1663664)

Just want to post this here to show how deeply the Australian population is brainwashed and how hard it is to convince people they are being conned.

The best quote I saw in the thread was someone saying "I love paying tax"

Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on March 27, 2011, 09:28:01 AM
Yeah, I tried it just for giggles. Left it running for almost 2 days just to see how much it generated. Not a single cent yet.

It comes in chunks after a long period of time.  Based on the mathematics and an average processor, you should get about 50 after a year and that number will go down over time in order to be a control on inflation.  I've heard there is a cap of about 24 million that can never be exceeded.  I don't think this is a hard cap on them because that's likely impossible with a distributed node system.  I think it's more of an asymptotic limit.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on March 27, 2011, 09:43:18 AM
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1663664 (http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1663664)

Just want to post this here to show how deeply the Australian population is brainwashed and how hard it is to convince people they are being conned.

The best quote I saw in the thread was someone saying "I love paying tax"



Same goes with the American population.

Im at the point where I've given up all hope of ever educating the masses that they are being systematically screwed out of their own freedom.


Let them eat their cake.............. till theres none left.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on March 27, 2011, 10:36:56 AM
Yeah, I tried it just for giggles. Left it running for almost 2 days just to see how much it generated. Not a single cent yet.

It comes in chunks after a long period of time.  Based on the mathematics and an average processor, you should get about 50 after a year and that number will go down over time in order to be a control on inflation.  I've heard there is a cap of about 24 million that can never be exceeded.  I don't think this is a hard cap on them because that's likely impossible with a distributed node system.  I think it's more of an asymptotic limit.


In that case, I'd be better off taking that processing power and using it instead for charging batteries and selling them to someone at a flea market.  :lol:
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Lothar on March 28, 2011, 12:06:07 AM
Yeah, I tried it just for giggles. Left it running for almost 2 days just to see how much it generated. Not a single cent yet.

It comes in chunks after a long period of time.  Based on the mathematics and an average processor, you should get about 50 after a year and that number will go down over time in order to be a control on inflation.  I've heard there is a cap of about 24 million that can never be exceeded.  I don't think this is a hard cap on them because that's likely impossible with a distributed node system.  I think it's more of an asymptotic limit.


My understanding is that there will only ever be 21,000,000 Bitcoins available.  10.5 million of them made in the first 4 years.  5.25 more in the next 4.  2.625 made in the next 4, and so on, until all 21 million are in distribution.  It will become possible to transact in as small as .00000001 Bitcoin (if I remember correctly) as needed.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: BonerJoe on March 29, 2011, 11:44:05 PM
The only people that care about BitCoin are the speculators trying to make a shitload on their investment.

*STARES AT SOMEONE IN THIS THREAD*
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: anarchir on March 30, 2011, 12:05:55 AM
The only people that care about BitCoin are the speculators trying to make a shitload on their investment.

*STARES AT SOMEONE IN THIS THREAD*

Its a good point. The only reason I'd buy any at this point would to specifically buy something like for instance from the silkroad site.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: yamnuska on March 30, 2011, 05:35:36 AM
A suggested thread on anonymity..

http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=241.0

Someone said "I'm not saying that it's not something worth working on, but we shouldn't prioritize anonymity features ahead of basic functionality, ease-of-use, and driving adoption.".  I disagree with that.  If it's secure, and anonymous, "driving adoption" won't be an issue.

I strongly agree, there is a huge market for people to go online and trade anonymously, and not for evil purposes either. People just want government free transaction possibilities, especially since every other online currency is bending over and doing whatever the government wants. I think we'll gradually see more currencies like bitcoin pop up and become linked to each other and the markets, people will do it and governments will jump up and down and be able to do absolutely NOTHING about it. I don't like calling bitcoin an alternative currency either, it's a currency, we need to call it such, to do so otherwise demeans the whole idea.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: phonon on May 19, 2011, 09:44:55 PM
Yeah, I tried it just for giggles. Left it running for almost 2 days just to see how much it generated. Not a single cent yet.

It comes in chunks after a long period of time.  Based on the mathematics and an average processor, you should get about 50 after a year and that number will go down over time in order to be a control on inflation.  I've heard there is a cap of about 24 million that can never be exceeded.  I don't think this is a hard cap on them because that's likely impossible with a distributed node system.  I think it's more of an asymptotic limit.


My understanding is that there will only ever be 21,000,000 Bitcoins available.  10.5 million of them made in the first 4 years.  5.25 more in the next 4.  2.625 made in the next 4, and so on, until all 21 million are in distribution.  It will become possible to transact in as small as .00000001 Bitcoin (if I remember correctly) as needed.


Since the code is open source, would it be possible for someone to modify the program to where it would create lots of bitcoins quickly? If this version of the program becomes popular it seems that bitcoins would become worthless relatively quickly.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Lothar on May 19, 2011, 09:55:21 PM
It's been a while since I had a grasp as to why, but no.  Every transaction, and each client, has a record of every other transaction.  Theoretically, if everyone stopped generating, or if the internet kill switch was thrown, the chain could be "hijacked".

Sorry I can't explain any better, but someone included a podcast earlier in the thread where they went into detail, I believe.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on May 20, 2011, 10:25:21 AM
If you're not a math and/or software expert, it's going to be really hard to fully grasp the concept.  In the meantime, it's probably not unreasonable to have some faith in a bunch of experts who insist that the system has been pretty fully vetted for such things.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: anarchir on May 21, 2011, 02:32:59 AM
If you're not a math and/or software expert, it's going to be really hard to fully grasp the concept.  In the meantime, it's probably not unreasonable to have some faith in a bunch of experts who insist that the system has been pretty fully vetted for such things.

Sort of like how people dont ynderstand credit cards and the like,
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: BonerJoe on May 21, 2011, 08:59:03 AM
Sort of like how people dont ynderstand credit cards and the like,

I took a pair of shoes in to get repaired. The repair guy is like 45 or so. We chit chat, and he mentions my shoe size. He says "Gotta be hard finding those." I'm like "Not really, just order them off the internet."

He says "Oh, I keep forgetting you can do that."

Maybe its all the vapors from the shoe polish.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on May 21, 2011, 09:53:40 AM
Sort of like how people dont ynderstand credit cards and the like,

I took a pair of shoes in to get repaired. The repair guy is like 45 or so. We chit chat, and he mentions my shoe size. He says "Gotta be hard finding those." I'm like "Not really, just order them off the internet."

He says "Oh, I keep forgetting you can do that."

Maybe its all the vapors from the shoe polish.

You shouldn't fuck with peoples reality like that. You should say "yeah, I order em out of that new fangled Sears & Roebuck's catalog they have nowadays. Dang, they got everything.  I git em with muh rock candies and buggy whips n' such"
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 07, 2011, 03:33:37 PM
Upon clicking this thread: "The site www.fbi.gov wants to set a cookie."  Probably some hacker's practical joke.

The Coming Attack on Bitcoin and How to Survive It (http://keepyourassets.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/the-coming-attack-on-bitcoin-and-how-to-survive-it/)
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: jadams on June 09, 2011, 09:57:45 AM
Yesterday, a new bitcoin exchange called Tradehill (https://www.tradehill.com/) opened as a competitor to Mt Gox. Competition is a good thing so give them a look. Use referral code TH-R1956 to get a lifetime 10% commision discount.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on June 09, 2011, 11:18:28 AM
So what happens if you put all your faith in the bitcoin, and some guy/company with deep pockets sees it becoming a success, then starts his own BIGGER AND BETTER version of the bitcoin? Everyone would scramble for the exit door of the bitcoin.

Thats what bothers me about bitcoin. NOTHING backing it whatsoever. Its just air. If nobody wants it, it has no value........none.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 09, 2011, 12:53:12 PM
If nobody wants it, it has no value........none.

That's true of anything.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on June 09, 2011, 03:44:34 PM
If nobody wants it, it has no value........none.

That's true of anything.

Let me rephrase that.

It has no value due to the fact that it cant be used for anything else. Gold, silver are used in manufacturing of electronics, for example. Hell, if you were in a tight spot, you could even chuck a 10 silver bar at someones head and kill them with it in self defense. Can you do anything with a bitcoin intrinsically? so even if the use as a currency were to suddenly evaporate with something like metals, they would still be worth something intrinsically and could be used to trade for goods and services. The same cannot be said about the bit-coin. It is nothing, whatsoever. Can you hold a bitcoin? Can you weigh it? No................ it is nothing.


I could never trust anything like that.

Now if it were widely used, I would most likely use it, but as it stands now, I dont trust it. Same way I look at the US dollar. When I have extra dollars I dont need, I put it in silver. Its been around for a loooooong time and will most likely stay around. Bitcoin? Who knows.


Thats all im sayin.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on June 10, 2011, 12:26:54 AM
People all breathless about bitcoin are teleported from 1997. It's just a series of tubes, yo.

Here's the one thing you need to know about Boitcoin:

Every single Bitcoin is a number. That's it, that's all, and nothing else.
It's a big number number with some fancy mathematical properties, but it's just a fucking number.

If I give you a much smaller number with similar fancy mathematical properties, like oh say "17", do you get richer?




If there's no atoms, there's no money. Period.

Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 10, 2011, 01:44:49 AM
Just watched Bitcoin vid and read up on it because I'm behind on the rest of the world.

It looks interesting. I wouldn't use it as an investment.

One gooberment raid on a meatspace outlet where they turn Bitcoins into Real Things(tm) would collapse the whole thing, it seems to me.

Also it's not backed by anything, obviously. And bitcoins have to come from somewhere. It's fiat all over again, algorithms or no.

I wouldn't be against using it for incoming transactions, say for selling digital stuff, especially micro type payments, but it'd go right into meatspace as fast as possible. If it's not possible to do fast, I'd be hesitant.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on June 10, 2011, 06:27:40 AM
It's fiat all over again, algorithms or no.
Interesting point...

They *have* managed to design bitcoins to be scarce so they're not "printable" like traditional fiat currency. They don't even suffer from the theoretical problem that gold does ("what if a gold meteor suddenly delivered 10 tons of gold to the earth?")

They are like fiat currency, though, in that they have no intrinsic value, each bitcoin just being a number.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: LTKoblinsky on June 10, 2011, 06:37:07 AM
Exchange value is still value. So, are they valuable? Yes, as long as people are willing to exchange tangible services and goods for them.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 10, 2011, 07:33:37 AM
They are like fiat currency, though, in that they have no intrinsic value, each bitcoin just being a number.

The countless numbers that were used to build your house (like measurements, budgets, heat exchange calculations) have "no intrinsic value" and yet your house couldn't have been built without them.  In context, they had tremendous utility.  A Bitcoin is just a number, but in the context of the Bitcoin network, it is essential in a tool for facilitating trade, a very useful activity.

And I don't think one raid will collapse Bitcoins.  Things like Silk Road are already taking precautions against raids and they are extremely useful for stuph like that.  Other exchangers can take some basic precautions against raids as well.  The TOR network is already another layer of anonymity on top of what's already part of Bitcoins.

I wouldn't invest a LOT in them.  I've simply looked at them as a diversification option.  They have advantages and disadvantages over other options.  One of the disadvantages is that they're new and therefore very speculative.  Hell, look at all this speculation going on!  But people saying they have "no intrinsic value!" sound like a caveman looking at a lump of freshly mined copper and saying it has no value because they've never seen fancy plumbing or electrical wire in action.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Fred on June 10, 2011, 12:45:41 PM
a David Kramer post on Lew Rockwell about bitcoin:   

« Previous: The Truth About Filibustering | LRC Home | LRC Blog | Next: Hillary Clinton, World Bankster? »

June 9, 2011
Bitcoin: Just Another Bogus Medium of Exchange
Posted by David Kramer on June 9, 2011 03:00 PM

I'm sure by now many of you have heard about Bitcoin. The fact that it's called "virtual currency" gives you an idea about its actual value as a real medium of exchange. While many people who are touting it on Facebook are enamored with the fact that it was voluntarily created by the marketplace (i.e., is not forced down our throats by a private central bank), I'm afraid that those people are losing sight of how a real medium of exchange arises in a free market. A medium of exchange arises from something that had a material use/value in the market prior to becoming a medium of exchange, i.e., it was also a good being  bartered for other goods and services. Over the centuries, gold and silver won out as the two most preferred mediums of exchange—with gold holding the number one position due to it being more scarce than silver.

What was Bitcoin's prior material use/value? Zero. It is just bits in a computer. And what's with the "fixed" amount of Bitcoins? Who determined the "proper" amount? A computer programmer? Only the free market can voluntarily determine how much of a real medium of exchange is needed in the marketplace over time. While the idea of  attempting to get rid of the Bankster monopoly on creating money out of thin air is commendable, Bitcoin is also money created out of thin air. Bitcoin is just substituting one bogus medium of exchange for another.

UPDATE: I've been getting a lot of reader response trying to "explain" to me the economic virtues of Bitcoin. Some responders have even mistakenly used Austrian economics to rationalize their views. I would suggest that before you write to me about the Austrian economics view of a medium of exchange, you should read the two books by one of the two giants of Austrian economics, Murray Rothbard, on what a medium of exchange is. Here is the pdf for Rothbard's What Has Government Done to Our Money and here is the pdf for Rothbard's The Case Against the Fed. For those of you who have not yet read any Austrian economics, please do not waste your time writing to me trying to explain the "scientific" breakthrough of the bogus Bitcoin computer program. (There already was a REAL digital currency, e-gold, that was backed by a real commodity until the Federalistas shut it down. Eventually, Bitcoin will be shut down too because of its anonymity capabilities.)
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 10, 2011, 01:35:03 PM
The countless numbers that were used to build your house (like measurements, budgets, heat exchange calculations) have "no intrinsic value" and yet your house couldn't have been built without them.

Yes, and all those numbers measure a tangible physical object that requires said numbers to work in a tangible physical reality.

Bitcoins have no such requirement and are not backed by a tangible physical object.

A free market fiat currency has no more value than a government fiat currency. Fiat currency as a concept is the problem.

Like I sez, I'll probably take 'em when I get more into the selling things, but they'll be turned into real money, or even real fake money like FRNs as quickly as I can do it. If I can't turn a pile of Bitcoins into something else more tangible within a matter of hours I'd have serious concerns about runs on Bitcoins and government attacks.

One government raid will cause a run on Bitcoins where people cash out to protect their money. The value will drop. Doesn't matter if a raid doesn't kill Bitcoins outright. What matters is the reactions of individuals when their lives and investments are threatened.

They will SELL! SELL! SELL! and poof.

Like I said, the only reason I could see dealing in 'em is to take money from people or maybe as a method of transferring moneys directly from one person to another. The Bitcoins would remain in the wallet for a matter of hours longer than the length of the transaction.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Brooklyn Red Leg on June 10, 2011, 01:43:40 PM
A free market fiat currency has no more value than a government fiat currency. Fiat currency as a concept is the problem.

I think as long as people realize its a fiat currency and are not forced into using it, why should anyone else care? If someone wants to literally buy stuff with Monopoly money and some merchant actually accepts it for whatever that's their business. Its not so much fiat currency is the problem as ENFORCED fiat currency.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 10, 2011, 01:58:16 PM
Yes, and all those numbers measure a tangible physical object that requires said numbers to work in a tangible physical reality.

The point is the numbers had value because they had an application.  They were useful in context.  None of them had intrinsic value but that didn't matter.  The numbers, in the context in which they were used, had tremendous utility.  Saying Bitcoins have no value because they're just bits is like saying the program Photoshop has no value because it's just bits.  Why is it that libertarians see the obvious value in a program that can put a celebrity's head on top of a pornstar's naked body but this amazing distributed application with functionality for anonymity, security, confirmation of transactions, and immediately conclude it has no value based on a couple of criteria that they don't normally apply to the virtual world of bits?

I don't quite follow your concern about government raid having such a powerful impact.  Encryption and backups would make it nigh impossible to steal someone's Bitcoins.  A single operation might be shutdown and it would reduce by one a place where Bitcoins are exchangeable, but that's just a single op.  Bitcoins operations are peer-to-peer.  Napster has been shutdown but bit-torrenting has continued for years with no sign of being stopped in sight.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 10, 2011, 02:07:49 PM
John, Chartarum has no intrinsic value.  It's just bits.  It's just a sequence of numbers on a hard drive.

UPDATE: It just occurred to me that this wasn't the best example for making my point because John wasn't making the point that they have no value because they're just bits.  Obviously it was meant to be sarcastic.  We all go and watch multi-million dollar digital movies and we wouldn't say the movie has no value because it's just bits!  Talk to the people who invested countless hours acting, directing, arranging sets, editing, etc. And obviously lots of people are willing to pay to see the "bits".  Yet people apply that same irrational criteria to this incredible useful massive network of applications that keeps up with transactions and facilitates trade with anonymity and security.  I'm about to post what I think is a better way of thinking about it.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on June 10, 2011, 02:16:03 PM
The value of something is exactly what someone would pay for it. Bitcoins are valuable right now, and coincidentally pretty close to a once of silver at the moment. I wish I had listened to Terror Australia when he said to buy these things.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 10, 2011, 02:52:23 PM
<<<Glad he called Dale before responding to posts.

I'll leave my argument at "As a conservative investor, I am not yet ready to place money into Bitcoins as any sort of long term wager."

CHARTARUM has MASSIVE INTRINSIC VALUE.

HOOORJ. Iputonmyrobeandwizardhatetc.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 10, 2011, 03:48:20 PM
Imagine a giant Excel sheet that's visible to everyone who wants to engage in peaceful trade without interference from third parties.  We'll call it, oh... a free market.  When someone provides an item or service, it's recorded on the sheet that the recipient now owes that person something in exchange of arguably equal value.  Now that debt can be transferred to someone else who is also considered trustworthy within this cozy group dubbed the "free market" via a trade from the debtor to someone else.  It then gets recorded on the giant Excel sheet.  It gets really complicated to imagine such a thing in action, but think of all the records as a cloud of goods and services and debts between everyone.  You provide something of value, the cloud owes you something in return.

The Bitcoin network is that giant spreadsheet but with everything automated and convenient.  Bitcoins are a tracking mechanism to keep up with what the cloud owes any individual via a market-controlled universal unit of value.

Think of Bitcoins as a contract-facilitating tool that's excellent at foiling interference from violent busy-body outsiders, making traditional currencies obsolete in many ways.  Why do libertarians find a tool that facilitates trade so effectively to be of no value?

Another way to think of it is that a Bitcoin is in fact backed up by an array of goods and services, whatever people are willing to trade within this network, which is a lot right now, and will be for as long as there are peaceful people who want to be a part of this network of peaceful exchange.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 10, 2011, 04:07:13 PM
Some questions I have -

Where do Bitcoins come from?

Can you Convert Bitcoins into FRNs or Silver or Gold or whatever within an hour of receiving them?

Can you withdraw Bitcoins as FRN's in the same quantity as you can deposit them? Specifically can you put $10,000 into your wallet and then immediately turn around wnd withdraw the full amount? Are there withdrawal limits?

Also can you address this?:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20069780-10391715.html

Quote
Garzik says that they have cooperated with authorities in conjunction with Silk Road and are currently working to distance themselves from the illegal site. Similarly the site is working to make their service entirely legal and in conjunction with government standards.

Meaning that their goal is just to be another bank, yes?

More -

https://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/bitcoin-and-agorism/

Quote
We are working with the government to make sure indeed the long arm of the government can reach Bitcoin
Jeff Garzik, Bitcoin Developer


Two days ago, on the show, What’s Trending, Bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik remarked that despite the opinions of the libertarian user base of Bitcoin, the success of Bitcoin required cooperation with government regulation.

That sounds really really bad.


Anyway, I totally get the my paranoia and cynicism have denied me great profit at times, nevertheless, I'm personally gonna stay away from this product at this time.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 10, 2011, 04:47:54 PM
As I understand it, I don't see how they could possibly offer to do those things.  The nature of the beast is that they created it, like a Frankenstein monster, and let it lose in the world.  It's peer-to-peer now.  The software is open-source.  The whole point was that it's not centrally-controlled.  There is no head of the snake to chop off nor to negotiate with for terms like that.  Thousands of peers, all equal in status, are running the show now based on the algorithms they designed.

Again though, I've not looked into it closely as a software engineer and encryption has never been my specialty.  In fact, I'm pretty new to the concept.

It would be like Jason Sorens showing up at the police dept, all on his own, and saying "I represent the free-staters".  Then he might negotiate some terms for none of the free-staters to chalk the MPD anymore and to behave, etc. Meanwhile, he's just one dood with no power who came up with the idea before it started evolving into something he could never have anticipated.  Know what I mean?  Therefore I find the quotes confusing and I think they might just be playing along to keep themselves out of trouble for being deemed domestic terrorists or something.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 10, 2011, 05:00:30 PM
I'm just telling you what's out there with the quotes. Seems like a valid concern. The dude who created the thing is a government sellout, publicly. Basing investments on whether or not you *think* you know what a dude is thinking is... Not so great. I'd never invest money on the bet that "He might just be saying that he's in line with gooberment just because he doesn't want them harassing him." That's a big assumption. The dude said it publicly. I'll take him at his word and stay away.

But my real concerns were the questions I asked:

Where do Bitcoins come from?

Can you Convert Bitcoins into FRNs or Silver or Gold or whatever within an hour of receiving them?

Can you withdraw Bitcoins as FRN's in the same quantity as you can deposit them? Specifically can you put $10,000 into your wallet and then immediately turn around wnd withdraw $10,000 (the full amount)? Are there withdrawal limits?

Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on June 10, 2011, 05:01:42 PM
They are like fiat currency, though, in that they have no intrinsic value, each bitcoin just being a number.
The countless numbers that were used to build your house (like measurements, budgets, heat exchange calculations) have "no intrinsic value" and yet your house couldn't have been built without them.
Dude, this demonstrates a deep fail in understanding what money is.

No matter how much information I have about the specified sizes of the parts of my house... no brainful contractor will trade me the words "35'x45' living room" for the labor & materials required to actually produce such a room for me.

But people saying they have "no intrinsic value!" sound like a caveman looking at a lump of freshly mined copper and saying it has no value because they've never seen fancy plumbing or electrical wire in action.
Funny... you sound a lot like a former Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury that I got to interview on my show. I asked him why the central banks of India and China are buying gold, and he told me it was because their understanding of economics are not as well-developed as our here in the USA. Gold, basically, is like a security blanket or teddy bear for them.

Keep your bitcoins. I hope they make you rich.


This post brought to you by Mersenne primes 2305843009213693951, 618970019642690137449562111, 162259276829213363391578010288127, and 170141183460469231731687303715884105727.

Keep the change.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on June 10, 2011, 05:03:00 PM
as long as people realize its a fiat currency and are not forced into using it, why should anyone else care?
'cause I got friends smoking that crack, man, and I don't want to see them get hurt
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Wayne on June 11, 2011, 01:37:53 AM
Bitcoin was never intended to be a long-term (or even mid-term) store of value. The misperception that that is it's best use is really causing some PR problems for bitcoin, and is going to get a lot of people burned.

The ideal use for bitcoin is as an anonymous, decentralized means of transferring money. That's it. But it's the best thing for that; so good that the feds are scared to death, and are trying to shut it down (good luck with that though.)

Trying to sell your friends onto bitcoins because of how much it's going up is to turn them into speculators. It might pan out, it might not. That's kinda risky.

Instead, just suggest that when your friends want to buy stuff online, they try to use bitcoins to do it. Privacy and all. Want to send money to a loved one across the country? Use bitcoins, and avoid those hefty transaction fees. Someone trying to leave the country, but not wanting to carry their gold with them? Convert the gold to bitcoins just before the trip, then upon arrival, immediately cash out in the local currency and buy more gold. It'll cost a little for the transaction fees and bitcoin price fluctuation, but it's better than not getting the gold across the border at all.

Transfer of value, folks, not store of value.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on June 11, 2011, 05:55:58 AM
Michelle Seven on the 10-06-2011 FTL said something pretty smart about bitcoin. Paraphrasing, she mentioned that because there is no physical entity nothing of value could be seized. The government couldn't use the stolen bitcoins against the creators like they did with the liberty dollar.
I can't afford to invest in bitcoins but I am stoked on my new possibilities with my agorist machining business.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on June 11, 2011, 07:08:45 AM
Transfer of value, folks, not store of value.
THANK YOU, Wayne, that makes like 1000x more sense than anything I've read so far.

So, a better term would be "BitChecks"
They're like checks, not like coins
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on June 11, 2011, 08:01:28 AM
Is it speculators investing in bitcoins and jacking up the price or are they actually trading that much?
I guess that if bitcoin can only have a limited amount in existence a individual bitcoin would gain value everytime it was used in a transaction via the invisible hand, but I doubt there is that much trade for goods at the moment. Most are probably hanging on to them like Dalebert. Could be a simple matter of no one allowing them to move and buyers needing them for the silkroad and such.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 11, 2011, 10:31:55 AM
Keep your bitcoins. I hope they make you rich.

Someone did.  If he sells them now, he will make a ton.

http://tinyurl.com/65po2gx

But let's get something clear here.  I own about 12.  Srsly.  All I did was start accepting them as contributions to the comic.  Yes, I've been sitting on them but I don't know how long I would.  I didn't expect them to shoot up this fast and anything like that always appears to be a bubble.  If I had a LOT of Bitcons right now like the dood above, I'd cash a good chunk out for that reason.  They're new and have a lot of promise so it's natural that some people are placing a high value on them and predicting increase in value.

Wayne's right.  They're value is in their utility for facilitating trades.  If you're familiar with debt currency, they're like that except they have engineered them to solve many of the downsides associated with debt currency.

For those who aren't familiar, a debt currency is a tool for facilitating trade.  Everyone in some community gets issued the same amount of an agreed-upon currency (yes, fiat).  Anytime they feel there is not enough in circulation they ALWAYS issue more currency to every individual evenly.  When Jack hires Jill to do something, he gives her some of this currency.  What this effectively means is that Jill has produced something and is now owed something back by the "cloud".  Jack hasn't produced anything yet and so is in debt to the "cloud", the cloud being all the participants in the agreed-upon currency.

There's nothing anti-NAPish about a debt currency.  It's a tool to advance the process of trade to something more efficient, just as hard asset currencies like precious metals.  Debt currencies have pros and cons and hard asset currencies have pros and cons.  Traditionally I have always heavily favored the pros and cons of hard asset currencies, but then Bitcoins comes along and drastically improves on some of the worst cons of debt currencies-- off the top of my head-- not centrally controlled, can't be printed arbitrarily (scarce to avoid excessive inflation), very difficult to counterfeit.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 11, 2011, 12:27:20 PM
Basing investments on whether or not you *think* you know what a dude is thinking is... Not so great. I'd never invest money on the bet that "He might just be saying that he's in line with gooberment just because he doesn't want them harassing him." That's a big assumption. The dude said it publicly. I'll take him at his word and stay away.

I still have to investigate further and do a bit more research, but that's not what I was saying.  I was saying he CAN'T do the things he's promising the gubment.  I'm saying he has no control over Bitcoins anymore so they are empty promises.  I was only psychoanalyzing him to figure out why he would say things like that when he knows he can't and when he knows that people who understand Bitcoins know he can't.  They DESIGNED them to be decentralized and NOT controllable in that manner.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 11, 2011, 06:00:27 PM
Basing investments on whether or not you *think* you know what a dude is thinking is... Not so great. I'd never invest money on the bet that "He might just be saying that he's in line with gooberment just because he doesn't want them harassing him." That's a big assumption. The dude said it publicly. I'll take him at his word and stay away.

I still have to investigate further and do a bit more research, but that's not what I was saying.  I was saying he CAN'T do the things he's promising the gubment.  I'm saying he has no control over Bitcoins anymore so they are empty promises.  I was only psychoanalyzing him to figure out why he would say things like that when he knows he can't and when he knows that people who understand Bitcoins know he can't.  They DESIGNED them to be decentralized and NOT controllable in that manner.


Aight.

But Imma ask again -

Where do Bitcoins come from?

Can you Convert Bitcoins into FRNs or Silver or Gold or whatever within an hour of receiving them?

Can you withdraw Bitcoins as FRN's in the same quantity as you can deposit them? Specifically can you put $10,000 into your wallet and then immediately turn around wnd withdraw $10,000 (the full amount)? Are there withdrawal limits?

Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Branlin on June 11, 2011, 08:55:17 PM
I read the first few pages of this thread, and have read about bitcoins on their own website as hawked by Mark and Ian and have read the Wiki article on them, but have yet to see any explanation on how any real value is, or can be, attached to them.

Forget about the gubmint cracking the codes, or shutting down the internet to stop it, yadda yadda yadda, as I see it, they are like any other fiat currency -- they are created out of thin air and have no intrinsic value.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 11, 2011, 10:08:54 PM
Where do Bitcoins come from?

Extremely complex number-crunching.

Quote
Can you Convert Bitcoins into FRNs or Silver or Gold or whatever within an hour of receiving them?

As long as people want them and have FRNs or Silver or Gold to trade for them, then yes.

Quote
Can you withdraw Bitcoins as FRN's in the same quantity as you can deposit them? Specifically can you put $10,000 into your wallet and then immediately turn around wnd withdraw $10,000 (the full amount)? Are there withdrawal limits?

There are several services that facilitate such things and there can be many more.  It will depend on the market.  It appears to be growing and getting better every day which is why Bitcoins are shooting up in value.  Confidence in them is growing.  More services are being provided.  For instance there is service that let's you use Bitcoins to buy from anywhere online that accepts VISA.  There's an elaborate gambling site that uses Bitcoins.  There's no one entity that controls them.  Whomever out there wants to become a part of the trading "cloud" by starting to accept them will broaden the possibilities and impact the market.

I'm predicting them becoming more of a tool for black and gray markets because they are nigh impossible to control.  It would place them into something of a niche market (people distrustful of and willing to defy gubments) but I see that as a rapidly growing niche market.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 11, 2011, 10:24:23 PM
Here you go, Shaw.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Osborne on June 12, 2011, 12:31:27 AM
Musical chairs.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 12, 2011, 02:04:45 AM
Extremely complex number-crunching.

...  

But where do they come from? I am asking a very specific question here, and it leads to more questions.

There is vague talk of "Generating" bitcoins "Using unspent processor cycles."

What does this mean? Are we talking about the client processing data in exchange for currency created by the cloud? If so, why wouldn't I use the source code to make a virus that performs the same task but only for my bitcoin account? Or for that matter, why wouldn't I release a game, an app, a screensaver, whatever to do the same thing using the source code?

Or if we go "Legit", what about the IT guy who puts a client on every PC in an org?

It's open source, right? The source is there and if you aren't altering the primary mechanism what can anyone do about it? What is to stop a dude from setting up 500 accounts that do nothing but transfer bitcoins back and forth, creating the illusion of more transactions than there actually are? I mean, a motivated coder could probably design a single client that runs 1000 accounts at once, right?

You're not suggesting that open source developers can enforce some sort of control against abuse of the license, right? I mean you made very clear that no one can do anything about bitcoin and that it's pretty much unassailable from the networking standpoint.  

I forsee fifty billion altered but fully functional bitcoin accounts sitting someplace in China being a problem.


As long as people want them and have FRNs or Silver or Gold to trade for them, then yes.

Lemme reiterate what I was trying to say -

If there is a run on Bitcoins, can I get them out before it devalues? Can I move it quickly. I don't care about the medium of exchange.

There are several services that facilitate such things and there can be many more.  It will depend on the market.  It appears to be growing and getting better every day which is why Bitcoins are shooting up in value.  Confidence in them is growing.  More services are being provided.  For instance there is service that let's you use Bitcoins to buy from anywhere online that accepts VISA.  There's an elaborate gambling site that uses Bitcoins.  There's no one entity that controls them.  Whomever out there wants to become a part of the trading "cloud" by starting to accept them will broaden the possibilities and impact the market.

I'm predicting them becoming more of a tool for black and gray markets because they are nigh impossible to control.  It would place them into something of a niche market (people distrustful of and willing to defy gubments) but I see that as a rapidly growing niche market.

Again, that wasn't the answer to my question.

I specifically want to know can I withdraw as quickly as I can put in? Are there withdraw limits?


I'm not busting your balls here, but I just don't see how it's a good move to keep any money sitting there for more than minutes at a time, and if the services that provide for the edge of the network don't offer quick access and unlimited access to funds there's a major problem.

Not to mention all of the software issues I see.

I was dubious at first, but now I am fairly certain that using Bitcoin would not be good for me as a medium of exchange and I won't be using it. If I, as a non programmer layperson (Sure, I'm a sharp cat, but I haven't written code since maybe 1990 or earlier) can see dozens of problems with this model then a real programmer would tear this thing apart and abuse the shit out of it.

And mind you, I haven't even gotten close to talking about the actual economics of it all.

This thing stinks of a ponzi scheme and I really really hope you don't end up getting fucked in the bad way.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on June 12, 2011, 02:30:35 AM
+1 John Shaw.

From the beginning I've seen BitCoin as a scam.  I hope I'm wrong....
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on June 12, 2011, 11:41:47 AM
From the beginning I've seen BitCoin as a scam.
Deosn't have to be a scam to be a bad idea
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on June 12, 2011, 12:28:50 PM
From the beginning I've seen BitCoin as a scam.
Deosn't have to be a scam to be a bad idea

Hey now, Bit-coins are the product of extremely advanced number crunching, which takes almost zero effort for a computer to calculate.  That makes them valuable. :lol:
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on June 12, 2011, 01:19:35 PM
A lot of liberty people took a huge loss because of the value backed liberty dollar. "Commodity based" may be outdated. I took M7's point to heart, there is nothing for the state to steal with a private fiat currency. I use government fiat currency and I trust private providers more. Its the connections to the government, that others have pointed out, that makes me the most skeptical of bitcoin.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: mauiguy on June 12, 2011, 01:22:03 PM
And I wonder too, what exactly does all that number crunching do?

Could all this CPU power be used to perform some other hidden task?
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on June 12, 2011, 01:32:51 PM
 :lol: :lol: Yeah... leaving your CPU doing whatever-the-fuck from some unknown programmer doesn't sound to smart does it. I used to file share and I didn't know how that worked either, though.  
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on June 12, 2011, 01:47:31 PM
A lot of liberty people took a huge loss because of the value backed liberty dollar. "Commodity based" may be outdated.


Yet the commodity that the Liberty Dollar was manufactured from still holds value, not to mention that if you're still lucky enough to hold a few of the LD's that slipped through the cracks, they still have plenty of value as well. Only the company went down, not the underlying commodity. Whats the underlying value of the bitcoin if they were to get infiltrated somehow? I dont think you could say the same thing about bitcoins that can be said about the LD, if TPTB were to crack down on it.

Its not even the use of bitcoins right now that worries me. Its what happens if they were to ever become popular on a wide scale and gain the attention of the wrong people, that I worry about. 
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Osborne on June 12, 2011, 01:52:30 PM
I just spent a half hour taking a shit. I guess I should have wrapped it up and sold it to one of these bitcoin advocates.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on June 12, 2011, 02:14:45 PM
I just spent a half hour taking a shit. I guess I should have wrapped it up and sold it to one of these bitcoin advocates.

(http://www.historicalstockphotos.com/images/xsmall/536_theodore_roosevelt_laughing.jpg)
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on June 12, 2011, 02:19:32 PM
I invested in some malt syrup, so I never take more than 5 minutes. Taking me months to read the last issue of Easy Riders I bought.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 12, 2011, 09:15:27 PM
Shaw, the best answer I have for most of those questions about whether various services will be offered is "I don't see why not.  If there is a demand for it, there is the likelihood someone will try to fill that demand and make money off of it."  This is akin to statists asking how is the free market going to solve problem X?  Problem Y?  Anyone can buy and sell Bitcoins in exchange for FRNs, precious metals, or archive them for people, etc.  This is already happening.  I believe I linked a list of lots of people doing it.

As for the Bitcoin boogeyman scenarios, better programmers than you and I have already tried to anticipate fraud attempts of all sorts in the design of Bitcoins.  The problems that you, basically a non-programmer, just rattled off the top of your head have probably crossed their minds and been discussed over late night pizza over many nights.  That doesn't make them fraud-proof, but I bet they're better than FRNs in that dept.  Like I said, I haven't read up on the technical details.  Like a lot of people, I'm trusting that a lot of smart people believe in them who understand encryption and the source code a lot better than I.  Even though I have a Master's degree in Software Engineering, I'm just not entertained by tinkering or by perusing long pages of source code.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 13, 2011, 12:08:16 AM
Shaw, the best answer I have for most of those questions about whether various services will be offered is "I don't see why not.  If there is a demand for it, there is the likelihood someone will try to fill that demand and make money off of it."  This is akin to statists asking how is the free market going to solve problem X?  Problem Y?  Anyone can buy and sell Bitcoins in exchange for FRNs, precious metals, or archive them for people, etc.  This is already happening.  I believe I linked a list of lots of people doing it.

Oh my god, dude, please reread the question.

CAN YOU GET YOUR MONEY OUT IN THE SAME QUANTITIES AND AT THE SAME SPEED AS YOU PUT IT IN?

That is the question. If there is a run on bitcoins, can I get my shit? Don't tell me there will never be a run, please.

ARE THERE MAXIMUM WITHDRAW LIMITS?

If what you are saying is that you do not know the answer, that is fine. Stop putting words into my mouth about statist arguments about who is going to fix the roads when you are trying to sell me on the idea of a fiat currency, please.

It's fiat currency. Is this or is this not correct? It is a simple answer, yes or no.

If it is a fiat currency, it will not work. If it is not a fiat currency, describe for me the functional difference, please.

Also, full disclosure time - Are you:

A: Receiving goods, services, Bitcoins, or any other trade good to promote Bitcoin?

B: Heavily invested in Bitcoins?

I think that these are valid questions and handwaves in general are just gonna make me ask more questions.

Also, for the record, I don't trust anyone based on their being "Smarter and better coders than X." That is not a valid supporting claim. I am interested in economic realities, not faith in a programmer. The economic reality is that Bitcoins have nothing material backing them and that it does, indeed, matter that this is so. CPU cycles can make them. CPU cycles can be stolen and abused. Someone is or will be getting fucked in the ass.

You haven't addressed source code spamming and botnets and virus's and screensavers and so on that mine as well. I was told today by a programmer who has looked at the code (He loves bitcoins and was just talking shop) that botnets are both easily possible and don't violate the GPL. He said that the math limits a particular account at this point in time to generate up to $300 USD (At current values etc.) an hour based on the voodoo that powers the network. There is a mechanism to slow the growth in value but if some IT dude slathers his entire network with Bitcoin clients or whatever he can generate fake money until the cows come home, all on the dime of the people who own those computers.

Seems to me that as long as people are getting more people to use bitcoins the value increases. That's a pyramid scheme.

Dale, don't get fucked, man. S'all I'm saying.

Individual transfers yes, storage no.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Wayne on June 13, 2011, 03:14:17 AM
Extremely complex number-crunching.

...  

But where do they come from? I am asking a very specific question here, and it leads to more questions.

There is vague talk of "Generating" bitcoins "Using unspent processor cycles."

What does this mean? Are we talking about the client processing data in exchange for currency created by the cloud?

The clients create new bitcoins.

Specifically, there are two kinds of clients: regular clients, and miners. The "official" releases of the bitcoin client allowed you to click a button to start mining, but nowadays most systems aren't setup with enough power to get any bitcoins doing that, so release 0.3.22 got rid of that button.

Miners process the transactions for the bitcoin network, and use encryption and hashing to secure each "block" of transactions. This requires a brute-force approach, so all the miners race to secure each block, and the first one (random, but influenced by number of hashes-per-second) is rewarded by being allowed to add in a transaction that gives itself 50 brand-new bitcoins.

The required level of security rises as more miners join the network, such that the number of new bitcoins created stays pretty much on-schedule, and all the miners wind up splitting them. The schedule, enforced by each client and each other miner, has the rate of bitcoin production slow to a crawl, pretty much petering out in 20 years. And just in case, there's an actual hard cap of 21 million bitcoins.

Quote
If so, why wouldn't I use the source code to make a virus that performs the same task but only for my bitcoin account? Or for that matter, why wouldn't I release a game, an app, a screensaver, whatever to do the same thing using the source code?

Or if we go "Legit", what about the IT guy who puts a client on every PC in an org?

Funny you should mention this. There's actually code out now so websites can "embed" mining... instead of showing ads, you visit the page, and your spare CPU cycles are used to crunch the bitcoin transaction blocks, trickling in bitcoin income for the webpage owner. It's expected that this is used responsibly, but it can always be turned off in the browser (and people can do this anyway for any purpose... it's not like bitcoin is responsible if someone DOES hijack your browser or even your system. A guy who starts mining for bitcoins on, say, company property without permission, is IMHO stealing, considering the amount of electricity usually required to crunch out bitcoins.)

Quote
It's open source, right? The source is there and if you aren't altering the primary mechanism what can anyone do about it? What is to stop a dude from setting up 500 accounts that do nothing but transfer bitcoins back and forth, creating the illusion of more transactions than there actually are? I mean, a motivated coder could probably design a single client that runs 1000 accounts at once, right?

That's call spamming in bitcoin terminology. This is dealt with by restricting the spending of small amounts, or of newly-received bitcoins. The "official" client requires a transaction fee for these cases. Other clients may not require a fee, but then you're pretty much going to be waiting a while for a miner to choose to process such transactions (miners get the transaction fees, so they're incentivized to process the transactions that pay fees first.)

Quote
You're not suggesting that open source developers can enforce some sort of control against abuse of the license, right? I mean you made very clear that no one can do anything about bitcoin and that it's pretty much unassailable from the networking standpoint.  

I forsee fifty billion altered but fully functional bitcoin accounts sitting someplace in China being a problem.

Not really. If they're too altered, they're just running their own, incompatible version of bitcoin. Chinacoin, if you will. If they're compatible enough that all other clients accept their transactions, then there's nothing they can do to harm the network.

Quote
As long as people want them and have FRNs or Silver or Gold to trade for them, then yes.

Lemme reiterate what I was trying to say -

If there is a run on Bitcoins, can I get them out before it devalues? Can I move it quickly. I don't care about the medium of exchange.

Not unless you have someone in your area who readily exchanges bitcoins for cash. That's a service I'm trying to provide in my area.

Quote
There are several services that facilitate such things and there can be many more.  It will depend on the market.  It appears to be growing and getting better every day which is why Bitcoins are shooting up in value.  Confidence in them is growing.  More services are being provided.  For instance there is service that let's you use Bitcoins to buy from anywhere online that accepts VISA.  There's an elaborate gambling site that uses Bitcoins.  There's no one entity that controls them.  Whomever out there wants to become a part of the trading "cloud" by starting to accept them will broaden the possibilities and impact the market.

I'm predicting them becoming more of a tool for black and gray markets because they are nigh impossible to control.  It would place them into something of a niche market (people distrustful of and willing to defy gubments) but I see that as a rapidly growing niche market.

Again, that wasn't the answer to my question.

I specifically want to know can I withdraw as quickly as I can put in? Are there withdraw limits?

Withdrawal limits? Not in the mechanics of the system, no. You can send as many bitcoins as you want to someone.

As far as who is exchanging cash for your bitcoins, I'm sure there will be a limit of some sort, unless you stumble across someone with a lot of disposable income who's wanting to get into the market, pronto. I personally wouldn't be able to handle more than several hundred dollars of trade at one time. Mt. Gox, probably the biggest exchange of USD, has withdrawal limits, though I'm not sure what those limits are; and, I'm thinking those limits apply to withdrawing their "Mt. Gox Dollars" out of their system into USD, not so much the cashing out of bitcoins into their MGD.


Quote
I'm not busting your balls here, but I just don't see how it's a good move to keep any money sitting there for more than minutes at a time, and if the services that provide for the edge of the network don't offer quick access and unlimited access to funds there's a major problem.

I suppose, depending on how many bitcoins you have, there might be a problem. Personally, except for people investing or speculating, or for businesses who don't mind accepting and holding onto bitcoins, I wouldn't recommend anyone keeping more than a couple hundred $$$ in bitcoins at any one time. SOME people, those who probably can't handle their own bitcoins (older folks, luddites, etc.) should probably only cash in as needed, to send money, and should cash out as soon as they receive a transfer.

Quote
Not to mention all of the software issues I see.

I was dubious at first, but now I am fairly certain that using Bitcoin would not be good for me as a medium of exchange and I won't be using it. If I, as a non programmer layperson (Sure, I'm a sharp cat, but I haven't written code since maybe 1990 or earlier) can see dozens of problems with this model then a real programmer would tear this thing apart and abuse the shit out of it.

And mind you, I haven't even gotten close to talking about the actual economics of it all.

This thing stinks of a ponzi scheme and I really really hope you don't end up getting fucked in the bad way.

I personally don't think it's even close to a ponzi. It's just someone's attempt at an anonymous, decentralized, unit-capped (i.e., inflation-proof) currency. If it takes off, it makes sense that early adopters are going to profit more than latecomers.

Just out of curiosity, how would you have recommended that the 21 million bitcoins have been initially distributed so that the system WOULDN'T be ponzi-like?
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 13, 2011, 11:38:32 AM
If what you are saying is that you do not know the answer, that is fine. Stop putting words into my mouth about statist arguments about who is going to fix the roads when you are trying to sell me on the idea of a fiat currency, please.

I don't know the answer.  I sent you a very long list of services that accept and/or sell them.  I haven't looked at EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM FOR YOU  and made a chart of their various buy and sell limits, etc.  I'm glad Wayne responded because he clearly knows more details than I do.

Quote
It's fiat currency. Is this or is this not correct? It is a simple answer, yes or no.

If it is a fiat currency, it will not work. If it is not a fiat currency, describe for me the functional difference, please.

Based on the this (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/fiat-currency.html) definition of fiat money, they are not.  There is no issuing authority because they are peer-to-peer, i.e. market controlled and backed by the Bitcoin market.

What does "backed by the Bitcoin market" mean?  Think of it like this.  You saw that long list of services I sent, right?  And it's growing rapidly.  Those are all people who have enough faith in them to cause the market value to rise as it has.  EVERY SINGLE BITCOIN SERVICE would have to end for them to drop to zero value.  But yes, it could happen.

Quote
Also, full disclosure time - Are you:

A: Receiving goods, services, Bitcoins, or any other trade good to promote Bitcoin?

No.  I started accepting them from people who want to contribute to comic releases.  Someone paid me $40 worth of them to sponsor a comic which comes with an ad on the site but my only obligation is to leave that ad up until someone else sponsors a comic which are the terms I set up when I created that ad space.  I'm not getting anything out of promoting them other than hopefully seeing them work for facilitating trade and creating all kinds of new agorist opportunities that I can benefit from.

Quote
B: Heavily invested in Bitcoins?

I have 12.  I haven't spent a penny on them.  I've merely accepted them and provided the same service that I would have for FRNs or silver or whatever.  I WISH I had bought some a short while back when I could have gotten them for 88 cents a piece.  *sigh*

Quote
I think that these are valid questions and handwaves in general are just gonna make me ask more questions.

The reason they're frustrating the Hell out of me (hand-waving?) is because it feels like you're failing to grasp some crucial facts about them, like that there is NO CENTRAL AUTHORITY controlling their value.  Like anything else, their value is controlled by the market.  You can't buy silver and be promised to get your money back out of it.  That will depend on the market for silver.  If you turn right around and sell it immediately, you will almost certainly lose value due to the margin.

Quote
Also, for the record, I don't trust anyone based on their being "Smarter and better coders than X." That is not a valid supporting claim. I am interested in economic realities, not faith in a programmer.

But faith in the programmers who made and vetted them DIRECTLY AFFECT the economic realities.  If they are not sufficiently fraud-proof then their utility as a means of facilitating trade is compromised, thereby making them less valuable.  If I tell you I designed a gun for self defense, then its value is tied to how well it shoots.  Does it shoot straight?  Does it jam a lot?  Failing to fulfill it's purpose well would make it a less valuable gun and as word got out that it jams a lot, people who had bought them when they first hit the market would likely find they can't sell them for as much and feel jipped.  Lots of people don't understand guns and will read various consumer reports on guns to decide if a gun fulfills its purpose well.  That's me right now regarding Bitcoins!

I am admitting that right now I don't know any more than what I've heard from various people and I'm basing my sense of their value largely on who seems the most knowledgeable, lease biased, etc. and I'm also considering that some seem negatively biased because they don't seem to really understand them.  Wayne knows more than me, clearly.

Quote
The economic reality is that Bitcoins have nothing material backing them and that it does, indeed, matter that this is so. CPU cycles can make them. CPU cycles can be stolen and abused. Someone is or will be getting fucked in the ass.

Wayne addressed why that will become increasingly difficult.  One problem I can foresee is as they decrease in production (supply slows down dramatically and eventually STOPS) and demand goes up because more people want to use them, then I can see people treating them as an investment instead of as a means of facilitating trade (the reason they're valuable in the first place), but that's like any market bubble.  I think it must eventually pop and normalize-- people will stop offering more and more for them because it's just getting ridiculously high and people will stop sitting on them for fear of getting greedy and missing the pop.  It should sort itself out.

Quote
Seems to me that as long as people are getting more people to use bitcoins the value increases. That's a pyramid scheme.

That's what you call it when market demand for something raises it's value?  Srsly?
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 13, 2011, 12:51:57 PM
For Wayne:

Just out of curiosity, how would you have recommended that the 21 million bitcoins have been initially distributed so that the system WOULDN'T be ponzi-like?

First, thanks for your answers. You have verified my primary concerns to be true.

1. Odds are high that if there is a run on bitcoins, no one is gonna be buying them and you'll probably be fucked. A point I was repeatedly trying to get at.

2. The system can be abused but it is "expected" not to be. Mass abuse of the system will drive (Yes, with diminishing returns, I get it) the value of bitcoins up.

3. Botnets are possible. Transactions are a measurable factor in the system that is used to determine operation of the network. Transactions can be artificially inflated.

The number and value of bitcoins can be gamed. It is highly risky to buy bitcoins as an investment.

So we're right back to what I've been saying from point one.

Transactions yes, investment no. You seem to agree:

Quote
I wouldn't recommend anyone keeping more than a couple hundred $$$ in bitcoins at any one time. SOME people, those who probably can't handle their own bitcoins (older folks, luddites, etc.) should probably only cash in as needed, to send money, and should cash out as soon as they receive a transfer.

Now, back to your original question - "Just out of curiosity, how would you have recommended that the 21 million bitcoins have been initially distributed so that the system WOULDN'T be ponzi-like?"

I think the better question is "What happens when 21 million is reached?" and I think we both know that the answer, if bitcoin is still running, will be "The cap will be increased, just like any other fiat money." Setting an arbitrary number is just setting an arbitrary number. Artificial scarcity doesn't work.





For Dale: You mentioned that you didn't think that bitcoins were fiat money. Imma answer that one here as well.

"Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith. " http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiatmoney.asp

Technically you're sorta right. Sorta. Doesn't fit the exact definition. But only because of who or what the issuing agent is.

Let me make a tiny change to that definition and see if it still fits.

"Currency that Bitcoin Algorithm has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith. "

There is no functional difference between those two sentences. I just changed the name of the issuing party.

If you think that the only problem with fiat money is that government runs it, I would seriously beg to differ.

On my repeated questioning about withdraw limits and so on - The answer to the question wasn't my point there. Maybe I should have asked you a more personal version of the question so you can see what I'm getting at -

"If there were a run on Bitcoins and the bottom was falling out, would you be buying them up? Wouldn't you have a general policy regarding this up front?"

Odds are high that your answers will be "No" and "Yes" respectively.

Do you see my point now? If there is a run on people cashing out of Bitcoins, the rational thing to do would be to stop buying that shit. A whole lot of something (Calling bitcoins a thing is debatable, but whatever) worth nothing is nothing.

It doesn't matter what services are out there and what their individual policies are. I can guarantee you that if I go to Bob's Bitcoins today, and buy X dollars in bitcoins from him, and I go back to him tomorrow and the value of Bitcoins hasn't changed relative to what we are trading in and I try to sell my Bitcoins back to him, there will be a mechanism in place by which he will win and I will lose. It will probably not be the same exchange.



My conclusions -

Bitcoin is a high risk investment.

The price mechanism of Bitcoin can and probably is being manipulated.

Early users of Bitcoin (Particularly people who have invested a decent chunk of change) have an incentive to promote the use of Bitcoins to others.

Businesses that are acting as an edge to the Bitcoin network (Large dealers) have an large incentive to sell rather than buy, especially in the case of a destabilization.

Bitcoin as an investment fits the definition of fiat money in all but name, on the technicality of the Bitcoin algorithm not being a government. It is otherwise functionally identical.

Transactions yes, investment no.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 13, 2011, 01:53:24 PM
For Dale: You mentioned that you didn't think that bitcoins were fiat money. Imma answer that one here as well.

Okay, it's not all caps, but using giant blue lettering?  Really?  You're shouting now as if that's going to make your point better.  I used caps selectively to put emphasis on certain words but your bolding and coloring entire definitions as if I can't read and interpret normal-sized lettering.  I prolly should have used italics for emphasis to seem less hypocritcal, but anways...

It's hardly a technicality that no central authority releases or controls them and that they are monitored essentially by the entire cloud of the Bitcoin network of users.  That's about as free market as you can get.  As for your concerns about them not being liquid enough or there being a profit margin on large sellers, these are valid concerns, but that's almost certainly just as true for precious metals as I just explained.  If you buy silver and then turn around and sell it right back, you will almost certainly get hit with the dealers profit margin between his buy and sell rate.  The only way to avoid this is perhaps dealing with a lot of individuals in a piecemeal fashion who are eager for cash and will sell at a loss because silver and gold aren't very liquid.  It's not like they can just go online and find buyers and sellers and do an exchange right there... like they can with Bitcoins.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 13, 2011, 01:55:49 PM
And BTW, I agree with Wayne.  Bitcoins are a tool for trade, not an investment.  The closest I am going to "investing" is that I'm kinda sitting on the ones that have landed in my lap for the moment.  As I already said, I haven't spent a penny and I don't plan to buy any in the immediate future unless I have a use for them, i.e. want to make use of one of the services out there.  I'm inclined to wait for them to stabilize out some.  They are very new.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 13, 2011, 02:00:25 PM
Okay, it's not all caps, but using giant blue lettering?  Really?  You're shouting now as if that's going to make your point better.

What?!?! No dude. I was just highlighting my most important point. For the names I was answering two people with one post and wasn't assumiont you'd want to read a giant block of text.

<Was trying to be helpful.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 13, 2011, 02:03:25 PM
And BTW, I agree with Wayne.  Bitcoins are a tool for trade, not an investment.  The closest I am going to "investing" is that I'm kinda sitting on the ones that have landed in my lap for the moment.  As I already said, I haven't spent a penny and I don't plan to buy any in the immediate future unless I have a use for them, i.e. want to make use of one of the services out there.  I'm inclined to wait for them to stabilize out some.  They are very new.

*Facepalm*

Then why are we having this conversation, Dale?!?!?

The first frigging post I made on this thread said that I saw no problem with using Bitcoins as a transaction tool. In almost every subsequent post I have said "Transactions yes, investment, no."

Also, you keep saying "No central authority" - There is a central authority, Dale. There is the codebase. It has complete control. It is one thing distributed widely. It is a top down economy.

Being voluntary <> Being in any way functionally different than the economic mechanisms of fiat currency.

Bitcoins aren't backed by anything. They aren't. If you have silver, you have silver. It's there. You can add value to it through art or add value to it by using it as a conductor or add it to paper and print photographs to it or etc.

You can't do anything with Bitcoins. It is represented by nothing and has no intrinsic value. It has the same practical problems as fiat money and is worth exactly as much. The fact that it isn't run by a government does not change this.

Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 13, 2011, 02:54:10 PM
The last sentence for my first post in this thread, for the record.

I wouldn't be against using it for incoming transactions, say for selling digital stuff, especially micro type payments, but it'd go right into meatspace as fast as possible. If it's not possible to do fast, I'd be hesitant.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 13, 2011, 04:40:48 PM
*Facepalm*

Then why are we having this conversation, Dale?!?!?

Go back and it's obvious that I am responding to/ debunking statements and/or questions from you and others such as "they are just numbers and so have no value".  It's not like I set out with some goal to get people to go out and invest in large numbers of Bitcoins.   That is a straw man.  From the beginning, I've been pointing out their apparent utility (in the context of the network of applications) as a tool for engaging in trade.    You chimed in.  Don't get pissy that I responded.

I also made myself fairly clear early on, I believe in several occasions, such as...

But let's get something clear here.  I own about 12.  Srsly.  All I did was start accepting them as contributions to the comic.  Yes, I've been sitting on them but I don't know how long I would.  I didn't expect them to shoot up this fast and anything like that always appears to be a bubble.  If I had a LOT of Bitcons right now like the dood above, I'd cash a good chunk out for that reason...

Wayne's right.  They're value is in their utility for facilitating trades.

So please don't try to act as if I'm being disingenuous.  You actually asked me, in an accusatory manner *, how many I had and whether I had an incentive to be deceptive about their real value when I had already said how many I have and that I was not planning to invest a lot in them!  Do you not know me well enough at this point to believe that I engage in discussions honestly and to take what I say at face value?

*
Also, full disclosure time - Are you:

A: Receiving goods, services, Bitcoins, or any other trade good to promote Bitcoin?

B: Heavily invested in Bitcoins?

I think that these are valid questions and handwaves in general are just gonna make me ask more questions.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 13, 2011, 05:26:07 PM
Go back and it's obvious that I am responding to/ debunking statements and/or questions from you and others such as "they are just numbers and so have no value".  

I never said any such thing. I said that they are backed by nothing.

It's not like I set out with some goal to get people to go out and invest in large numbers of Bitcoins.   That is a straw man.  

I never said you did. Ever. But you did say this:


Quote
Someone did.  If he sells them now, he will make a ton.

http://tinyurl.com/65po2gx


From the beginning, I've been pointing out their apparent utility (in the context of the network of applications) as a tool for engaging in trade.    You chimed in.  Don't get pissy that I responded.

But I haven't! Jesus man! How is me asking valid questions and then making a decision and then expressing my concern for your money getting pissy?


So please don't try to act as if I'm being disingenuous.  You actually asked me, in an accusatory manner *, how many I had and whether I had an incentive to be deceptive about their real value when I had already said how many I have and that I was not planning to invest a lot in them!  Do you not know me well enough at this point to believe that I engage in discussions honestly and to take what I say at face value?

*
Also, full disclosure time - Are you:

A: Receiving goods, services, Bitcoins, or any other trade good to promote Bitcoin?

B: Heavily invested in Bitcoins?

I think that these are valid questions and handwaves in general are just gonna make me ask more questions.

*Grows two new arms for a quadruple facepalm*

Dale, I was asking if you'd invested in Bitcoins or done business with Bitcoin because I was wondering if you had some emotional investment in the debate. It wasn't an accusation.

Every time someone tries to sell me on some idea, I'm gonna ask that question. It is not accusatory nor was it implying dishonesty. If Bob comes to my house and mentions that he's really digging Amway or Travelers Group or Tupperware or whatever I'm gonna ask the questions: "How much have you put into it?" and "Are they paying you to say this?"

The fact that Bitcoin comes off like Amway and Travelers Group and Tupperware (And fuck, Liberty Dollar for that matter) is not your fault.*

You kept responding to me when in every single post I made had the summation "Transactions yes, investment no."

I raised valid concerns about how Bitcoins are generated. I showed that Bitcoins are for all practical purposes fiat money. I raised valid concerns about the ability to pull money out of Bitcoins quickly in an emergency.

All under the pretense of "Transactions yes, investments, no."

Bitcoin is not money. It is paypal without fees and with some anonymity. (Two benefits that are not long for this world, if you ask the creators of Bitcoin) That's all I've been saying and I've given my reasons why.

So again, why are we even having this discussion? Is it that you are really attached to the idea that Bitcoins aren't fiat money?

Once again I should have just called you up because you can't write tone. *Sigh*

In summation: (This is not directed at you.)

BITCOINS: TRANSACTIONS YES, INVESTMENT NO.


*Every time I hear about Bitcoins, those are the companies that I am immediately reminded of. *Shrug*
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 13, 2011, 05:37:59 PM
One more thing -

I understand the difference between a voluntary fiat currency and a government enforced fiat currency, from a moral standpoint. I totally get it.

Now, which would you prefer, jumping off of a bridge or getting pushed? It's the same net result.

<<<Will cross the bridge.


You aren't throwing away money by putting tons of it into Bitcoin, so I won't warn you about it again. I will stick with this topic, though, because I know several people who have planned to put upwards of 30% of their assets into Bitcoins, and they can't friggin' afford such a risky investment.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on June 13, 2011, 05:42:33 PM
Anyone can answer this....

If I offered you the equivalent of $10,000.00 in either bitcoins or gold bullion, which one would you take?
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 13, 2011, 05:51:35 PM
If I offered you the equivalent of $10,000.00 in either bitcoins or gold bullion, which one would you take?

(http://chattypics.com/download.php?file=Yo_b2oqvxemgy.jpg)


AU/AG 4 LYFE
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 13, 2011, 06:14:39 PM
Also, in an attempt to lighten the tone on this subject -

(http://chattypics.com/download.php?file=Bitcoin_w39trzkkef.jpg)
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dmgov on June 14, 2011, 04:45:42 AM
Also, in an attempt to lighten the tone on this subject -

(http://chattypics.com/download.php?file=Bitcoin_w39trzkkef.jpg)

You read to much reddit/4chan
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Wayne on June 14, 2011, 09:29:18 AM
For Wayne:

Just out of curiosity, how would you have recommended that the 21 million bitcoins have been initially distributed so that the system WOULDN'T be ponzi-like?

First, thanks for your answers. You have verified my primary concerns to be true.

1. Odds are high that if there is a run on bitcoins, no one is gonna be buying them and you'll probably be fucked. A point I was repeatedly trying to get at.

Quite possible. I don't know how likely it is, or how likely it is to be long-term though... it's not as if the bitcoins will vanish, or lose their utility. And even if they drop to a few cents apiece, they can still be used to send money (if you didn't have enough at that point, you'd just have to acquire more to send.)

EDIT: I realize that this would probably be little comfort for someone who had a lot of $$$ in bitcoins sitting around.

Quote
2. The system can be abused but it is "expected" not to be. Mass abuse of the system will drive (Yes, with diminishing returns, I get it) the value of bitcoins up.

I guess I'm not sure what abuse you envision here. Market manipulations? People misusing bitcoin code on other's systems?


Quote
3. Botnets are possible. Transactions are a measurable factor in the system that is used to determine operation of the network. Transactions can be artificially inflated.

Well, I suppose bots could increase the number of transactions (until they ran out of bitcoins for transaction fees, anyway.) But I don't see what that would accomplish. More transactions doesn't mean more bitcoins generated. The system is setup so that, regardless of number of transactions, and regardless of number of miners, one transaction block is generated every 10 minutes. And throwing more processing power at it to try to generate the blocks more quickly only results in the security difficulty increasing so that the block rate falls back down to 1 every 10 minutes.


Quote
The number and value of bitcoins can be gamed. It is highly risky to buy bitcoins as an investment.

The value, quite possibly, although as the market expands that becomes harder and harder, since buys and sells is pretty much how one would accomplish that.

The number of bitcoins? Nope. (I'll come back to that below.)


Quote
So we're right back to what I've been saying from point one.

Transactions yes, investment no. You seem to agree:

Quote
I wouldn't recommend anyone keeping more than a couple hundred $$$ in bitcoins at any one time. SOME people, those who probably can't handle their own bitcoins (older folks, luddites, etc.) should probably only cash in as needed, to send money, and should cash out as soon as they receive a transfer.

Mostly.

I think MOST people shouldn't be trying to invest in it.

I would hope that MOST investments are something along the lines of buying enough to be able to satisfy cash-for-bitcoin exchanges, where money is made on the conversion fees, not the actual value of the bitcoins. Bitcoins are IMHO a poor long-term store of value.

I personally can understand some level of outright speculation, considering how much they've risen (and I feel they very well could rise much, much higher in price.) But I would hope only a few people are doing that, or that those who are are doing it with very little money, because there are so many unknowns here, and so much risk, that it's definitely NOT worth, say, sinking one's entire life savings into it (I'm sorry, but having seen that article where someone did that almost made me ill.) Not even a large fraction of one's savings, for that matter.

Quote
Now, back to your original question - "Just out of curiosity, how would you have recommended that the 21 million bitcoins have been initially distributed so that the system WOULDN'T be ponzi-like?"

I think the better question is "What happens when 21 million is reached?" and I think we both know that the answer, if bitcoin is still running, will be "The cap will be increased, just like any other fiat money." Setting an arbitrary number is just setting an arbitrary number. Artificial scarcity doesn't work.

Hmm.

You know, I jumped at the concept of bitcoins so quickly, and familiarized myself with how it works so soon afterwards, that I guess I didn't realize folks might doubt the rigidity of the 21-million-bitcoin cap.

The way the system is designed, the generation of extra bitcoins beyond the cap is so unbelievably unlikely, and so enormously impractical, that I personally deem it impossible. Again though, me just saying that probably isn't enough. Perhaps an analogy will help:

Suppose you're using torrents for years, and are familiar with how they work. Suppose that suddenly you hear of someone... could be Joe Shmoe, could be Bill Gates... announcing that they're going to release a new torrents client. They claim that it'll offer you faster download speeds initially, but admit that after a week you'll probably be down to speeds less than you get now, and that the speeds will continue to decline perpetually thereafter. Oh, and the client will be totally incompatible with current torrents.

Who would actually want to download such a thing? Would you? If you did, and found only a handful of other people using it, even long after a week into the release, what would be your first step? Would you find it reasonable to believe that a large portion of torrent users would jump on board?

Even if that, by some miracle DID happen, consider the incompatibility: assuming you kept your "normal" torrent client, how big of an impact do you think having a chunk of torrent users switch would have on you? A big enough impact for you to switch to the perpetually-slowing-down client, with a smaller user-base?

That's how it would be for someone to try to undercut the system by introduce a higher cap into the bitcoin protocol. Considering the number is hardwired into the clients (as well as the math of the system), that the clients are open-source, and that anyone who did try to break the cap would have their transactions rejected by everyone else, you'd have an easier time trying to get rich somehow by convincing the mass of casual computer users to switch from Windows to Linux. I just don't see it happening. I do see people trying Bitcoin 2, Localcoin, Inflate-a-coin, etc. But not affecting bitcoin in any significant way.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Wayne on June 14, 2011, 09:36:36 AM
Anyone can answer this....

If I offered you the equivalent of $10,000.00 in either bitcoins or gold bullion, which one would you take?

Gold. Of all possible opportunities that size where gold was an option, I'd only hesitate if the choice was between gold and silver.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on June 14, 2011, 12:45:02 PM
Having all of ones wealth stored in easily confiscated hard assets wouldn't be a very good idea right now. I don't have any better ideas though.
What little money I have to invest, I am investing in equipment, tools, and raw materials of different types.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on June 14, 2011, 01:40:38 PM
By the time a government gets to the point where they are talking about asset confiscation, they are already to the point where they dont even have the manpower to to go around enforcing it.

Historically thats been the case and something tells me that the US govt woudln't have the foresight to try something like this until its too late to do actually do it.

I dont know man, I'm not too worried about it.

If it ever got to the point where there was even a hint of that starting to happen, I'd be burrying the shit in the woods somewhere.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on June 14, 2011, 01:42:35 PM
Having all of ones wealth stored in easily confiscated hard assets
WTF are you talking about?

Physical Au is not easily confiscated. It's a high enough store of value in a small enough place, a little creativity can store a hell of a lot of value around even a small apartment in ways that even a determined thief will be hard-pressed to find.

Mining stocks, ETFs, shares of companies in BRIC countries... yeah, those assets the gubmint might swipe. But theyre never, ever going to notice that the water filter in the fridge doesn't function for a reason....
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 14, 2011, 02:11:12 PM
But theyre never, ever going to notice that the water filter in the fridge doesn't function for a reason....

They've learned to do really intrusive searches from drug raids and the like and I doubt they'd be fooled by clever hiding places, but they have to have a good reason to spend that much manpower on someone.  It's not the kind of thing they can do on a wide scale for a mass confiscation.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on June 14, 2011, 02:23:06 PM
Theres always this.............


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkk6gE0s3ts[/youtube]
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on June 14, 2011, 04:25:31 PM
By the time a government gets to the point where they are talking about asset confiscation, they are already to the point where they dont even have the manpower to to go around enforcing it.

Historically thats been the case and something tells me that the US govt woudln't have the foresight to try something like this until its too late to do actually do it.

I dont know man, I'm not too worried about it.

If it ever got to the point where there was even a hint of that starting to happen, I'd be burrying the shit in the woods somewhere.
I am worried after what happened to the liberty dollar. That silver will do no one any good buried with no one wanting it. I am betting the world will be like one big Cuba. So I figure one will have to be able to adapt quickly and be a jack of all trades criminal  to make it.
Or maybe the government will just say "Oh.... kay... everybody looks like we were wrong. Our bad sorry. We will now allow competing currencies and repeal all prohibition laws. All federal employee pentions are null and void and all schools are privatised." Then silver will be completely swell, til a disgruntled postal worker wants it.

Having all of ones wealth stored in easily confiscated hard assets
WTF are you talking about?

Physical Au is not easily confiscated. It's a high enough store of value in a small enough place, a little creativity can store a hell of a lot of value around even a small apartment in ways that even a determined thief will be hard-pressed to find.

Mining stocks, ETFs, shares of companies in BRIC countries... yeah, those assets the gubmint might swipe. But theyre never, ever going to notice that the water filter in the fridge doesn't function for a reason....
Oh for crying out loud.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_confiscation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_confiscation)
And don't you remember this movie?http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066728/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066728/) When they couldn't do anything with the gold because it still wasn't leagal to own it?

The folks who will take your swag are evil, not dumb. They are good at going after independent personalities. For example something so simple as moonshining has few people trying to do it because the statists can take all your shit if they catch you with a still. If SHTF things occur, and I would say, in a world where people contemplate charging 5 year olds for murder and everyone who trades can be legally called a terrorist, the fat lady is about to sing on that one, no one will except silver out of fear. Then it's no fucking good.
This thread is about bitcoins and right now it looks as good as anything else. It has its pluses and minuses but if it can get you things, leagal and not, around the world, its not much worse than anything else.
Full discloser I own some silver (junk dimes I bought in the 80's) and I own no bitcoins.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 14, 2011, 05:32:29 PM
I'm pointedly posting this here even before I've watched it so that it won't be taken as either an endorsement or a criticism of whatever is said in it.  It is merely relevant to this thread.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcchQs2YDZ0[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcchQs2YDZ0
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 14, 2011, 08:24:09 PM
I hope Stef doesn't get fucked, either.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on June 14, 2011, 08:38:21 PM
Looks like Mr. Stef drank the kool-aide
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 14, 2011, 08:56:29 PM
There's also this, but it's long and I doubt anyone will watch it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygoqDBfjimM[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygoqDBfjimM
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: error on June 16, 2011, 12:20:41 PM
Ahhh, 18th century thinking in the 21st century world. I wonder what Adam Smith or Murray Rothbard would have thought of the Internet.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on June 16, 2011, 12:59:44 PM
The Internet has no intrinsic value.  It's just bits.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on June 16, 2011, 03:53:45 PM
The Internet has no intrinsic value.  It's just bits.
Ever been to a data farm, boy?
It's a hell of a lot of physical assets, paid for by people who want to buy services that, before computers, would have been "magic"

I see the intrinsic value here:
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/5/18/1242677586431/Server-farm-in-San-Jose-C-001.jpg)

I see no intrinsic value in the number below, despite its fascinating mathematical qualities:
170141183460469231731687303715884105727

Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Level 20 Anklebiter on June 16, 2011, 06:55:39 PM
Bitcoin has a weakness: the wallets themselves. It's been discussed before by the developers that this is a big issue, so I suspect they'll either offer tools to encrypt or to store the wallets securely. Until then, I'd say steer clear of bitcoin. Also, where the hell are the big vendors at that support it? Oh wait, they don't exist, so it's not worth it as a service either. Sorry, for being a jerk about this, but lets be realistic: it's a neat exercise in a distributed monetization system, but it is not (nor ever will be) a replacement for cold hard cash (preferably the shiny yellow kind).
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: freeAgent on June 16, 2011, 11:53:21 PM
When the value of a currency, or any asset for that matter, is changing wildly as bitcoin has been, it's a red flag...especially when it's relatively new and untested.  You can hardly consider bitcoin a medium of exchange when the value is changing so much.  It's more of an investment, and that investment is backed by nothing except the network of machines participating in the bitcoin system.  There are no physical assets, and unlike USD, there are no guns forcing anyone to accept bitcoin.  Once the value stabilizes, I'll be more comfortable using bitcoin but for now it is far too volatile.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: anarchir on June 17, 2011, 01:10:02 AM
Also, in an attempt to lighten the tone on this subject -

(http://chattypics.com/download.php?file=Bitcoin_w39trzkkef.jpg)

You read to much reddit/4chan
artoftrolling.memebase.com
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on June 17, 2011, 12:30:27 PM
Bitcoin would be a bad idea even if it were implemented well.
Unfortunately, however....


http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/141228/Trojan-Goes-After-Bitcoins

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2247736&cid=36474542
Quote
I always thought that the actual money file was encrypted, and could have an arbitrary name. You know, like a truecrypt volume file. Then I find out it's by default a text file hanging out on your computer. Fine and dandy if you have 100% control over your computer at all times, but we all know that's never the case. And judging by the passwords people use, it will be easy to brute force most passwords.

Somehow, I think bitcoin is going to flame out in a rash of digital thievery when criminals realize that it is easier to steal someone's bitcoin file than it is to mine it or even look for credit card info.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on June 20, 2011, 08:02:28 AM
http://www.schiffradio.com/
Quote
Today's guest is Donald Norman, co-founder of Bitcoin Consultancy, on why an online digital currency is the monetary system of the future. Peter is looking forward to your calls on politics, finance, and the economy.

SHOW HOURS: Weekdays, 10am-noon ET
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on June 20, 2011, 03:12:57 PM
http://gizmodo.com/5813039/theres-a-virus-that-will-steal-all-your-bitcoins (http://gizmodo.com/5813039/theres-a-virus-that-will-steal-all-your-bitcoins) :shock:
I told you guys to buy silver. 8)
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on June 20, 2011, 03:22:11 PM
I told you guys to buy silver. 8)

*Looks over at some silver*

Nods sagely.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on June 20, 2011, 03:34:29 PM
I told you guys to buy silver. 8)

*Looks over at some silver*

Nods sagely.
And I also was a doubter.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on June 20, 2011, 05:43:55 PM
http://gizmodo.com/5813039/theres-a-virus-that-will-steal-all-your-bitcoins (http://gizmodo.com/5813039/theres-a-virus-that-will-steal-all-your-bitcoins) :shock:
I told you guys to buy silver. 8)

See, now they cant even track the stolen bitcoins down and return them to their rightful owners because they are just floating around the inter-t00bs. I wonder, does each bitcoin have its own individually identifiable serial number or something like that? Can they cancel the stolen ones out somehow, or make new replacements for those stolen ones?................... what a mess.

Just more evidence of how much nothing the bitcoin is.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: anarchir on June 20, 2011, 10:02:53 PM
http://gizmodo.com/5813039/theres-a-virus-that-will-steal-all-your-bitcoins (http://gizmodo.com/5813039/theres-a-virus-that-will-steal-all-your-bitcoins) :shock:
I told you guys to buy silver. 8)

See, now they cant even track the stolen bitcoins down and return them to their rightful owners because they are just floating around the inter-t00bs. I wonder, does each bitcoin have its own individually identifiable serial number or something like that? Can they cancel the stolen ones out somehow, or make new replacements for those stolen ones?................... what a mess.

Just more evidence of how much nothing the bitcoin is.

If they can manipulate it so much, well how can they NOT have eventual corruption.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on June 20, 2011, 10:53:27 PM
http://gizmodo.com/5813039/theres-a-virus-that-will-steal-all-your-bitcoins (http://gizmodo.com/5813039/theres-a-virus-that-will-steal-all-your-bitcoins) :shock:
I told you guys to buy silver. 8)

See, now they cant even track the stolen bitcoins down and return them to their rightful owners because they are just floating around the inter-t00bs. I wonder, does each bitcoin have its own individually identifiable serial number or something like that? Can they cancel the stolen ones out somehow, or make new replacements for those stolen ones?................... what a mess.

Just more evidence of how much nothing the bitcoin is.

If they can manipulate it so much, well how can they NOT have eventual corruption.


yeah, I guess thats the catch isnt it.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on June 21, 2011, 07:08:21 AM
On the Peter Schiff interview the Bitcoing guy (Donald Norman) kept saying over & over that he wanted more regulation for Bitcoins.

You people using these things are going to get screwed in every possible way.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: LTKoblinsky on June 21, 2011, 07:13:52 AM
And if cash gets stolen, is there a way to trace it back to the original owner once it's passed through a few hands? It seems like a similar level of difficulty to return bitcoins. Still, simple encryption and watching what links you click should keep your precious bitcoins safe.

disclaimer: I do not have any bitcoins to steal.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: blackie on June 21, 2011, 08:03:25 AM
I'm not into bitcoins, but if I had any, I wouldn't store them on my hard drive.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: freeAgent on June 21, 2011, 08:50:09 AM
I'm not into bitcoins, but if I had any, I wouldn't store them on my hard drive.

Agreed.  I'd at least put my "wallet" on a USB flash drive and lock it up with my other important documents.  It also seems prudent to use something like TrueCrypt on it.  It doesn't add much hassle, but adds a ton of security.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on June 21, 2011, 10:54:22 AM
I'm not into bitcoins, but if I had any, I wouldn't store them on my hard drive.

Agreed.  I'd at least put my "wallet" on a USB flash drive and lock it up with my other important documents.  It also seems prudent to use something like TrueCrypt on it.  It doesn't add much hassle, but adds a ton of security.
Ok so what happens when you decrypt it to send the "coins" to someone for a transaction and you have a hidden malware that automatically grabs all your shit?
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: blackie on June 21, 2011, 11:32:54 AM
I'm not into bitcoins, but if I had any, I wouldn't store them on my hard drive.

Agreed.  I'd at least put my "wallet" on a USB flash drive and lock it up with my other important documents.  It also seems prudent to use something like TrueCrypt on it.  It doesn't add much hassle, but adds a ton of security.
Ok so what happens when you decrypt it to send the "coins" to someone for a transaction and you have a hidden malware that automatically grabs all your shit?
Call the police. Tell your mom.
Title: Bitcoins are now "worthless"
Post by: phonon on June 21, 2011, 07:12:16 PM
http://nerdr.com/bitcoin-exchange-scam-bitcoins-are-worthless/

Bitcoin Exchange Scam – Bitcoins Are Now Worthless

http://nerdr.com/shutting-down-bitcoin-really-taking-down-the-bitcoin-network/

Shutting Down Bitcoin – Taking Down The Bitcoin Network

But it's not as bad as it sounds:

http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view/18796/online-currency-bitcoin-loses-most-of-its-value-due-to-exchange-hack/

The exchange said that once it is back online, trading on Bitcoins will revert to the level before the breach, that is, $17.50 per Bitcoin. The value of the currency had plunged to pennies as a result of the hack. Users will be required to enter a new password once trading resumes.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: freeAgent on June 21, 2011, 07:26:31 PM
I'm not into bitcoins, but if I had any, I wouldn't store them on my hard drive.

Agreed.  I'd at least put my "wallet" on a USB flash drive and lock it up with my other important documents.  It also seems prudent to use something like TrueCrypt on it.  It doesn't add much hassle, but adds a ton of security.
Ok so what happens when you decrypt it to send the "coins" to someone for a transaction and you have a hidden malware that automatically grabs all your shit?

That is still a problem, but you would at least give yourself (or your antivirus software) some time to detect the infection.  I'm not a bitcoin user and I posted earlier about how I think it's a bad idea to invest in them right now.  However, if someone is going to invest in some bitcoins, they should at least attempt to protect themselves.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Wayne on June 22, 2011, 03:37:55 AM
Bitcoin would be a bad idea even if it were implemented well.
Unfortunately, however....


http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/141228/Trojan-Goes-After-Bitcoins

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2247736&cid=36474542
Quote
I always thought that the actual money file was encrypted, and could have an arbitrary name. You know, like a truecrypt volume file. Then I find out it's by default a text file hanging out on your computer. Fine and dandy if you have 100% control over your computer at all times, but we all know that's never the case. And judging by the passwords people use, it will be easy to brute force most passwords.

Somehow, I think bitcoin is going to flame out in a rash of digital thievery when criminals realize that it is easier to steal someone's bitcoin file than it is to mine it or even look for credit card info.

This is just another example of why most folks shouldn't be dumping tons of money into bitcoins. The technology is still pretty new. For now, going to a local exchanger to send money should be enough for most folks. Anyone wanting to keep a few bitcoins should consider the free "online wallets" like https://instawallet.org or http://mybitcoin.com
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Wayne on June 22, 2011, 04:22:41 AM
On the Peter Schiff interview the Bitcoing guy (Donald Norman) kept saying over & over that he wanted more regulation for Bitcoins.

You people using these things are going to get screwed in every possible way.

I heard this too. He's not the first bitcoin promoter begging for regulation, which is weird... these folks should know it's decentralized, and that regulating it will work as well as regulating torrents. I have to imagine most of these advocates are being deliberately misleading, in the hopes of making bitcoin go mainstream more quickly or something. Or perhaps some are just statists who bought in early and now want the govn't to somehow help protect their gains.

As far as dealing with thefts....

The entire bitcoin transaction chain is public, but it's not as "trackable" as that sounds. The way it works, even if you could follow "a bitcoin" through a hundred transactions and finally find an address that ties to a public identity, could you really go to just THAT person and demand compensation? And since the reality is that any given "single bitcoin" will get fractured and reassembled (with other coins) dozens of times through the course of those transactions, you'd likely be looking at dozens, if not hundreds of "recipients" of any stolen bitcoin.

Whether this is all a good thing or a bad thing is subjective. But considering one of the points of bitcoin is to have a near-cash-like level of anonymity, I think most in the bitcoin community aren't going to be too concerned about it. People lose cash. Thieves steal it. Same with bitcoins.

Title: Re: Bitcoins are now "worthless"
Post by: Wayne on June 22, 2011, 04:36:45 AM
http://nerdr.com/bitcoin-exchange-scam-bitcoins-are-worthless/

Bitcoin Exchange Scam – Bitcoins Are Now Worthless

http://nerdr.com/shutting-down-bitcoin-really-taking-down-the-bitcoin-network/

Shutting Down Bitcoin – Taking Down The Bitcoin Network

But it's not as bad as it sounds:

http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view/18796/online-currency-bitcoin-loses-most-of-its-value-due-to-exchange-hack/

The exchange said that once it is back online, trading on Bitcoins will revert to the level before the breach, that is, $17.50 per Bitcoin. The value of the currency had plunged to pennies as a result of the hack. Users will be required to enter a new password once trading resumes.

Fortunately, Mt. Gox isn't the only exchange. Even if it was, it isn't the final authority on how much a bitcoin costs; there are ways to determine prices apart from any central exchange.

I'm a little tempted to scold the folks who are seriously upset over this. Bitcoins are decentralized. Having so many people (including a lot of speculators, I'm sure) depend on Mt. Gox as a central hub for trade is convenient, but it introduces a focal point for abuse. Seriously, what did they expect?
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on June 22, 2011, 06:33:53 AM
People lose cash. Thieves steal it. Same with bitcoins.
But cash is universally accepted. And if instead of FRNs you use Silver (or convenient Shire Silver cards) as cash, you also have a store of value, which Bitcoint ain't.

Bitcoin: many downsides, no upside
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Wayne on June 22, 2011, 08:10:24 AM
People lose cash. Thieves steal it. Same with bitcoins.
But cash is universally accepted. And if instead of FRNs you use Silver (or convenient Shire Silver cards) as cash, you also have a store of value, which Bitcoint ain't.

Yes, cash is universally accepted. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to use alternative means of exchange, like silver, which aren't. In fact, I would think that for liberty-minded folk, local trade in silver and gold would be ideal. Unfortunately, the fed is cracking down pretty hard on means of digitally transferring precious metals beyond your local community (I was really hoping eLibertyDollars would have become the standard for that.)

A non-FRN alternative for online exchange would be nice, wouldn't it?


Quote
Bitcoin: many downsides, no upside

Seriously? You can't see a single upside?
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on June 22, 2011, 11:11:37 AM
Seriously? You can't see a single upside?



* They wont tarnish

* They dont weigh much

* If the government wants to steal them, they have to hire a 14 yr old hacker-boy to do it for them.


Theres 3 pluses right there, off the top of my head.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Evil Muppet on June 22, 2011, 11:26:13 AM
Bitcoin just seems to be someone's attempt to be clever at complicating something which is already being done. 
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on June 22, 2011, 11:48:20 AM
yup
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on June 22, 2011, 01:42:49 PM
Bitcoin just seems to be someone's attempt to be clever at complicating something which is already being done. 
Engineers in general are the worst people for that kind of thing.
Software Engineers in particular are the worst of the worst.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: anarchir on June 22, 2011, 07:12:38 PM
People lose cash. Thieves steal it. Same with bitcoins.
But cash is universally accepted. And if instead of FRNs you use Silver (or convenient Shire Silver cards) as cash, you also have a store of value, which Bitcoint ain't.

Bitcoin: many downsides, no upside

If it was started by a FSP politico you would be singing a different tune.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Terror Australis on June 27, 2011, 06:34:12 AM
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_16988452 (http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_16988452)

Quote
"The Pasadena Police Department would like to inform the public that buying gold is against the law unless you are licensed by the California Department of Justice," the statement said.

In addition, police added, "Gold buyers are required by law to ask for identification from whoever they buy from and maintain a description of the items they are buying. This information is then reported to law enforcement."

"Business operators that buy or sell gold without a license are subject to arrest, a $1,500 fines and accusations of dealing in stolen property, police added."


The people calling for regulation are pissing against the wind. As soon as that happened bitcoin agorist version would spring up  :lol:

I think no matter how much they have wet dreams about statist bitcoin policies there is nothing they can do to prevent anyone else starting their own block chain and everyone migrating to a non regulated version.

tl;dr they are telling the sheep what they want to hear as the truth is fucking scary to the control freaks.

welcome to the wikipedia of money.

Think of a version of bitcoin running over freenet...and able to still function over sneakernet with no internet needed at all. Ive seen the future and the end of the nation state is closer than you realise.


This article by economist Jon Matonis explains all the libertarian hating on bitcoin - he refutes it better than I can

http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-are-libertarians-against-bitcoin.html (http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-are-libertarians-against-bitcoin.html)

Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Terror Australis on June 27, 2011, 07:04:53 AM
From 15 July 2011 it will be illegal to do over the counter trading of metal currency at forex retail providers for all US citizens in terms of the recently enacted Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
 

https://www.kitcomm.com/showthread.php?p=1408112
http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?p=4721826
http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?p=4725167

Meanwhile people on #bitcoin-otc network on freenode are selling gold and silver for bitcoins....  :D

It will be ironic when the only way you can buy silver and gold in the us is to buy and sell it over the internet with people from other countries - using bitcoin. Now you might understand why we use it.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: blackie on June 27, 2011, 07:22:34 AM
It will be ironic when the only way you can buy silver and gold in the us is to buy and sell it over the internet with people from other countries - using bitcoin. Now you might understand why we use it.
That isn't how the black market works.

For the right price, I can get pretty much anything I want in the US. That won't change because a law is passed.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on June 27, 2011, 01:13:39 PM
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_16988452 (http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_16988452)

Quote
"The Pasadena Police Department would like to inform the public that buying gold is against the law unless you are licensed by the California Department of Justice," the statement said.

In addition, police added, "Gold buyers are required by law to ask for identification from whoever they buy from and maintain a description of the items they are buying. This information is then reported to law enforcement."

"Business operators that buy or sell gold without a license are subject to arrest, a $1,500 fines and accusations of dealing in stolen property, police added."


The people calling for regulation are pissing against the wind. As soon as that happened bitcoin agorist version would spring up  :lol:

I think no matter how much they have wet dreams about statist bitcoin policies there is nothing they can do to prevent anyone else starting their own block chain and everyone migrating to a non regulated version.

tl;dr they are telling the sheep what they want to hear as the truth is fucking scary to the control freaks.

welcome to the wikipedia of money.

Think of a version of bitcoin running over freenet...and able to still function over sneakernet with no internet needed at all. Ive seen the future and the end of the nation state is closer than you realise.


This article by economist Jon Matonis explains all the libertarian hating on bitcoin - he refutes it better than I can

http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-are-libertarians-against-bitcoin.html (http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-are-libertarians-against-bitcoin.html)



Dude! Where the hell have you been? Did you liquidate at $40.00?
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Terror Australis on June 27, 2011, 10:22:27 PM
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_16988452 (http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_16988452)

Quote
"The Pasadena Police Department would like to inform the public that buying gold is against the law unless you are licensed by the California Department of Justice," the statement said.

In addition, police added, "Gold buyers are required by law to ask for identification from whoever they buy from and maintain a description of the items they are buying. This information is then reported to law enforcement."

"Business operators that buy or sell gold without a license are subject to arrest, a $1,500 fines and accusations of dealing in stolen property, police added."


The people calling for regulation are pissing against the wind. As soon as that happened bitcoin agorist version would spring up  :lol:

I think no matter how much they have wet dreams about statist bitcoin policies there is nothing they can do to prevent anyone else starting their own block chain and everyone migrating to a non regulated version.

tl;dr they are telling the sheep what they want to hear as the truth is fucking scary to the control freaks.

welcome to the wikipedia of money.

Think of a version of bitcoin running over freenet...and able to still function over sneakernet with no internet needed at all. Ive seen the future and the end of the nation state is closer than you realise.


This article by economist Jon Matonis explains all the libertarian hating on bitcoin - he refutes it better than I can

http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-are-libertarians-against-bitcoin.html (http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-are-libertarians-against-bitcoin.html)



Dude! Where the hell have you been? Did you liquidate at $40.00?


I sold 10 000 btc at $30 and paid my house and debt off.



Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on June 28, 2011, 03:00:20 AM
High-fucking-five.  :D
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on July 06, 2011, 06:12:36 PM
So, have any of the dudes poo pooing on bitcoin cleared 300 000 investing in the more solid stuff.....?
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on July 06, 2011, 11:19:28 PM
So, have any of the dudes poo pooing on bitcoin cleared 300 000 investing in the more solid stuff.....?
Depends on what you mean by "solid"
Anyway, I suspect the ROI you got would be damn hard to match -- it's great to get out of a bubble before it bursts. Some of my original ORCL shares had that benefit. The ones that vested in 2000. Not the ones that vested in 2001. Dig?

Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on July 07, 2011, 10:11:33 AM
So, have any of the dudes poo pooing on bitcoin cleared 300 000 investing in the more solid stuff.....?

I once put a $20 bill in a slot machine. It payed out $6,500.00 net profit after they took out federal  taxes.

Thats a 32,500.00% return on investment.

I wouldn't recommend it as an investment strategy though.

Same with bitcoins.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sandm000 on July 07, 2011, 10:39:00 AM
Just earned ฿0.01 in a mining pool, took 6 computers x 5 days. Not worth it really.

Also, since it's an internet currency, I think the Ascii version of Bitcoin should be /b/. Problem?
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on July 07, 2011, 03:51:30 PM
So, have any of the dudes poo pooing on bitcoin cleared 300 000 investing in the more solid stuff.....?

I once put a $20 bill in a slot machine. It payed out $6,500.00 net profit after they took out federal  taxes.

Thats a 32,500.00% return on investment.

I wouldn't recommend it as an investment strategy though.

Same with bitcoins.
You have to calculate the total cost of being at the location of the slot machine plus the total cost of the money you invested in gambling on the trip divided into the total return you had in pocket upon return home. So even if you were in Vegas on business and invested a $20 in a slot on a whim on the way through the casino to the strip burlesque transvestite ABBA tribute show, (all I like to see when I am in Vegas) you would have had a 3250% return I believe.
Still, congrats.
So, have any of the dudes poo pooing on bitcoin cleared 300 000 investing in the more solid stuff.....?
Depends on what you mean by "solid"
Anyway, I suspect the ROI you got would be damn hard to match -- it's great to get out of a bubble before it bursts. Some of my original ORCL shares had that benefit. The ones that vested in 2000. Not the ones that vested in 2001. Dig?


My point being if we would have taken Terror Australia's advice when he tried to get people interested, we all would have payed for houses.

As it is, you are right, there was a bubble. However I think once the bitcoin to FRN ratio settles down I think the concept will prove to be useful. It got too high to be used for trading which is it's primary use/ value (as opposed to silver which has commodity value as well as trade) so there was indeed a need for a correction which it uh....did.
If It gets under $5 I'll invest in some. I will be using the things on my next international sale no matter what.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on July 07, 2011, 04:43:28 PM
Just earned ฿0.01 in a mining pool, took 6 computers x 5 days. Not worth it really.



Assuming these were averaged priced laptops used to do the number crunching, it would take you 4,109 years to make enough to pay for the laptops and break even on your investment, assuming that the laptops did nothing but number crunch 100% of the time, running 24 hrs a day. Not even figuring the cost of electricity to run the things.

Drinking your own piss would be a better return on investment than this.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on July 07, 2011, 04:54:51 PM
So, have any of the dudes poo pooing on bitcoin cleared 300 000 investing in the more solid stuff.....?

I once put a $20 bill in a slot machine. It payed out $6,500.00 net profit after they took out federal  taxes.

Thats a 32,500.00% return on investment.

I wouldn't recommend it as an investment strategy though.

Same with bitcoins.
You have to calculate the total cost of being at the location of the slot machine plus the total cost of the money you invested in gambling on the trip divided into the total return you had in pocket upon return home. So even if you were in Vegas on business and invested a $20 in a slot on a whim on the way through the casino to the strip burlesque transvestite ABBA tribute show, (all I like to see when I am in Vegas) you would have had a 3250% return I believe.
Still, congrats.



It was at a riverboat casino about an hour drive from here. I went to play blackjack, but the tables were all full, so im there sitting on a stool like a dumbass waiting for a spot to open and stuck 20 bucks in a slot machine. Like the 4th pull, it hit the jackpot. fuckers took like $2,000 in fed taxes out of it right off the top.  :evil: I dont even play slot machines and stuff like that really. Odds are all in the house favor, by far. Blackjack is the only game where you can get even odds with the house if you play perfect basic strategy and know how to keep track of a deck that is heavy in cards with a 10 face value.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on July 07, 2011, 05:28:59 PM
So, have any of the dudes poo pooing on bitcoin cleared 300 000 investing in the more solid stuff.....?

I once put a $20 bill in a slot machine. It payed out $6,500.00 net profit after they took out federal  taxes.

Thats a 32,500.00% return on investment.

I wouldn't recommend it as an investment strategy though.

Same with bitcoins.
You have to calculate the total cost of being at the location of the slot machine plus the total cost of the money you invested in gambling on the trip divided into the total return you had in pocket upon return home. So even if you were in Vegas on business and invested a $20 in a slot on a whim on the way through the casino to the strip burlesque transvestite ABBA tribute show, (all I like to see when I am in Vegas) you would have had a 3250% return I believe.
Still, congrats.



It was at a riverboat casino about an hour drive from here. I went to play blackjack, but the tables were all full, so im there sitting on a stool like a dumbass waiting for a spot to open and stuck 20 bucks in a slot machine. Like the 4th pull, it hit the jackpot. fuckers took like $2,000 in fed taxes out of it right off the top.  :evil: I dont even play slot machines and stuff like that really. Odds are all in the house favor, by far. Blackjack is the only game where you can get even odds with the house if you play perfect basic strategy and know how to keep track of a deck that is heavy in cards with a 10 face value.
+1 Same reason I don't gamble.




All you pro-bit coin sycophants should listen to the episode of Thinking Liberty where they talk about Bit Coin.  Might open your eyes a little bit about what it really is instead of what some people claim it to be.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: sillyperson on July 07, 2011, 08:40:05 PM
Blackjack is the only game where you can get even odds with the house if you play perfect basic strategy and know how to keep track of a deck that is heavy in cards with a 10 face value.
Craps comes pretty close. And if you play right you can make your money last a long time in Craps -- long enough that if you're drinking the free house drinks for gamblers, you can easily come out ahead, basically drinking for free with a few hours of entertainment. Lord knows I have....
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: dalebert on July 07, 2011, 09:10:38 PM
Yep.  Barring counting cards in BJ, and if you know which bets to play and which to avoid, Craps has the lowest House advantage of all gambling games.  It's close to, but not quite zero.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on July 07, 2011, 10:09:38 PM
Yep.  Barring counting cards in BJ, and if you know which bets to play and which to avoid, Craps has the lowest House advantage of all gambling games.  It's close to, but not quite zero.


Even if you're playing with bitcoins? :P
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: theodorelogan on July 08, 2011, 10:16:36 AM
Quote
All you pro-bit coin sycophants should listen to the episode of Thinking Liberty where they talk about Bit Coin.

Not sure who is being a sycophant...I see people in this thread who see positive qualities in bitcoin.

I did listen to the podcast you mentioned last night, and the main criticism that I heard is that it isn't anonymous right out of the gate like some in the MSM are saying.  Reading more, it looks like there are measures you can take to make it as anonymous as you want (and not just by using anonymizing services like torr, which they talked about some potential problems with on the show).

I think there are some people here who are transferring their well-earned distrust of fiat money ontp bitcoin.  It seems almost reflexive in this thread.  Yes, this iteration of bitcoin might not be the e-money that ends up winning out.  But people who don't see that transferring wealth with nearly zero transaction cost in a potentially anonymous way HAS VALUE...attributes that gold, though it has many great, well proven qualities, does not have (and that value is proven by the fact that people currently use bitcoin to make these very transactions) have their fiat blinders on, IMO.

Obtaining bitcoins to save IS speculation...it's definitely a risk.  Obtaining them to spend, however, is completely practical, and makes many transactions easier, faster, and cheaper.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: John Shaw on July 08, 2011, 12:36:47 PM
Quote
All you pro-bit coin sycophants should listen to the episode of Thinking Liberty where they talk about Bit Coin.

Not sure who is being a sycophant...I see people in this thread who see positive qualities in bitcoin.

I did listen to the podcast you mentioned last night, and the main criticism that I heard is that it isn't anonymous right out of the gate like some in the MSM are saying.  Reading more, it looks like there are measures you can take to make it as anonymous as you want (and not just by using anonymizing services like torr, which they talked about some potential problems with on the show).

I think there are some people here who are transferring their well-earned distrust of fiat money ontp bitcoin.  It seems almost reflexive in this thread.  Yes, this iteration of bitcoin might not be the e-money that ends up winning out.  But people who don't see that transferring wealth with nearly zero transaction cost in a potentially anonymous way HAS VALUE...attributes that gold, though it has many great, well proven qualities, does not have (and that value is proven by the fact that people currently use bitcoin to make these very transactions) have their fiat blinders on, IMO.

Obtaining bitcoins to save IS speculation...it's definitely a risk.  Obtaining them to spend, however, is completely practical, and makes many transactions easier, faster, and cheaper.

Transactions yes, investment no.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on July 08, 2011, 04:19:14 PM
Unless you bought them before they took off.
I see the bitcoin people saying "use" bitcoin not "invest" in bitcoin. Most of the advocates looked a little embarrassed about the bubble. Terror Australia did something anyone would have done and seems very modest about it. If I had invested in something and had so many bust my balls about it, then make a good profit, I would have been cocky as hell. My avatar would be me getting a blowjob from a high class whore with a Cuban smoldering in my shit eating grin and my title would have been HA HA!
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on July 08, 2011, 05:10:36 PM
Unless you bought them before they took off.
I see the bitcoin people saying "use" bitcoin not "invest" in bitcoin. Most of the advocates looked a little embarrassed about the bubble. Terror Australia did something anyone would have done and seems very modest about it. If I had invested in something and had so many bust my balls about it, then make a good profit, I would have been cocky as hell. My avatar would be me getting a blowjob from a high class whore with a Cuban smoldering in my shit eating grin and my title would have been HA HA!
I agree, he pulled a good stroke of luck out of that one and took excellent advantage of the situation, but I really don't think Bitcoin is going to last.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Turd Ferguson on July 08, 2011, 07:27:57 PM
Unless you bought them before they took off.
I see the bitcoin people saying "use" bitcoin not "invest" in bitcoin. Most of the advocates looked a little embarrassed about the bubble. Terror Australia did something anyone would have done and seems very modest about it. If I had invested in something and had so many bust my balls about it, then make a good profit, I would have been cocky as hell. My avatar would be me getting a blowjob from a high class whore with a Cuban smoldering in my shit eating grin and my title would have been HA HA!
I agree, he pulled a good stroke of luck out of that one and took excellent advantage of the situation, but I really don't think Bitcoin is going to last.

So what do you think will happen to all of them?  :P
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Fred on July 08, 2011, 07:44:03 PM

So what do you think will happen to all of them?  Razz


of course, nobody knows.....
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Terror Australis on July 10, 2011, 01:48:40 AM
Bitcoin is a medium of exchange NOT an investment. As such it is unparalleled. Try sending a payment to someone overseas using a bank or western union to see what the difference is.

I didnt cash out all of the bitcoins I picked up I used a fair few to help finance the bounty for the video here http://www.weusecoins.com/ (http://www.weusecoins.com/)

The rest I wasted on hookers and blow  :D

Yes,there is a massage parlour somewhere that accepts them as payment.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Terror Australis on July 10, 2011, 01:55:27 AM
Just earned ฿0.01 in a mining pool, took 6 computers x 5 days. Not worth it really.

Also, since it's an internet currency, I think the Ascii version of Bitcoin should be /b/. Problem?

Unless you are using a gpu and have more than 1.5 ghash of combined hashing power its not really worth it - unless you dont pay electricity or hosting fees - like this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLt8Se3vVNg

Thats what you call porn for bitcoin watchers .  :D

Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: galets on July 27, 2011, 02:56:29 PM
But cash is universally accepted. And if instead of FRNs you use Silver (or convenient Shire Silver cards) as cash, you also have a store of value, which Bitcoint ain't.

Bitcoin: many downsides, no upside

I wouldn't say there's no upside. Bitcoin does not weight as much as silver does, and it can be stored significantly more secure that silver. And you can buy stuff with it significantly easier than with silver: just go to btcbuy.info (http://btcbuy.info) and exchange it on amazon gift card, it only takes, like half an hour.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: evoorhees on November 20, 2011, 12:50:34 AM
To anyone who heard the Bitcoin discussion on FTL tonight (Sat, Nov 20), if you want to learn more about Bitcoin, a good starting place is WeUseCoins.org.  Also, if you're ready to buy or sell or store them, I recommend CryptoXChange.com

To those in the Free State, I run the Free State Bitcoin Consortium page on Facebook, you're welcome to join! http://www.facebook.com/groups/195492163844669/ (http://www.facebook.com/groups/195492163844669/)

The volatility and technical details can be problematic, but Bitcoin is really an amazing new technology for a truly global free market.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: CaptainWhomp on November 20, 2011, 02:26:39 PM
To anyone who heard the Bitcoin discussion on FTL tonight (Sat, Nov 20), if you want to learn more about Bitcoin, a good starting place is WeUseCoins.org.  Also, if you're ready to buy or sell or store them, I recommend CryptoXChange.com

Many things about bitcoin are unclear to me. For example, Crypto requires that you submit your physical address before performing any trades. Can someone explain to me why that is necessary?

Presumably, if someone wants to use Crypto to buy bitcoins, and then use those coins from their wallet account later for anonymous transactions with other vendors, they shouldn't need any physical address (or the person's name, for that matter).

Also, if the vendor can tell someone's physical address information from a bitcoin address, what would prevent any other party from doing the same?

I'm confused about the claims of anonymity.


Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on November 20, 2011, 02:44:28 PM
http://traffic.libsyn.com/ftl/FTL2011-11-19.mp3 (http://traffic.libsyn.com/ftl/FTL2011-11-19.mp3)
Bitcoin was pretty much all that was talked about on this FTL.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: AdamStgBit on November 20, 2011, 03:10:28 PM
Go see: http://www.thebitcoinreview.com/ (http://www.thebitcoinreview.com/)

It has over 750 bitcoin businesses listed

Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 20, 2011, 04:06:31 PM
To anyone who heard the Bitcoin discussion on FTL tonight (Sat, Nov 20), if you want to learn more about Bitcoin, a good starting place is WeUseCoins.org.  Also, if you're ready to buy or sell or store them, I recommend CryptoXChange.com

Many things about bitcoin are unclear to me. For example, Crypto requires that you submit your physical address before performing any trades. Can someone explain to me why that is necessary?

Presumably, if someone wants to use Crypto to buy bitcoins, and then use those coins from their wallet account later for anonymous transactions with other vendors, they shouldn't need any physical address (or the person's name, for that matter).

Also, if the vendor can tell someone's physical address information from a bitcoin address, what would prevent any other party from doing the same?

I'm confused about the claims of anonymity.



That's because it's really not anonymous.

Bit Coin is a scam.
</paranoid but truthful rant>
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: AdamStgBit on November 20, 2011, 04:53:21 PM
To anyone who heard the Bitcoin discussion on FTL tonight (Sat, Nov 20), if you want to learn more about Bitcoin, a good starting place is WeUseCoins.org.  Also, if you're ready to buy or sell or store them, I recommend CryptoXChange.com

Many things about bitcoin are unclear to me. For example, Crypto requires that you submit your physical address before performing any trades. Can someone explain to me why that is necessary?

Presumably, if someone wants to use Crypto to buy bitcoins, and then use those coins from their wallet account later for anonymous transactions with other vendors, they shouldn't need any physical address (or the person's name, for that matter).

Also, if the vendor can tell someone's physical address information from a bitcoin address, what would prevent any other party from doing the same?

I'm confused about the claims of anonymity.



That's because it's really not anonymous.

Bit Coin is a scam.
</paranoid but truthful rant>


Bitcoin is anonymous

don't use Crypto, use MtGox that's where all 90% of the bitcoin trading happens and they do not ask for your home address.

vendors would have to look thought the block chain to find your the address you loaded the coins two, and then find out from the exchange site which bank account was used to deposit the money used to buy the bitcoin. (not easy thing to do, you'll need a court order to force the exchange site to give away this info.)

if you want you could make it 100% impossible, for anyone to trace you like this, just send the coins to another wallet once you bought them. in that case the they will hit a dead end when trying to trace a transaction back to you.

compare that to a VSIA or paypal payment.

remember when this happened.

Sony Hacked Again; 25 Million Entertainment Users’ Info at Risk  (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/05/sony-online-entertainment-hack/)

bitcoin make payments safe, and anonymous.
 


Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 20, 2011, 05:11:42 PM
To anyone who heard the Bitcoin discussion on FTL tonight (Sat, Nov 20), if you want to learn more about Bitcoin, a good starting place is WeUseCoins.org.  Also, if you're ready to buy or sell or store them, I recommend CryptoXChange.com

Many things about bitcoin are unclear to me. For example, Crypto requires that you submit your physical address before performing any trades. Can someone explain to me why that is necessary?

Presumably, if someone wants to use Crypto to buy bitcoins, and then use those coins from their wallet account later for anonymous transactions with other vendors, they shouldn't need any physical address (or the person's name, for that matter).

Also, if the vendor can tell someone's physical address information from a bitcoin address, what would prevent any other party from doing the same?

I'm confused about the claims of anonymity.



That's because it's really not anonymous.

Bit Coin is a scam.
</paranoid but truthful rant>


Bitcoin is anonymous

don't use Crypto, use MtGox that's where all 90% of the bitcoin trading happens and they do not ask for your home address.

vendors would have to look thought the block chain to find your the address you loaded the coins two, and then find out from the exchange site which bank account was used to deposit the money used to buy the bitcoin. (not easy thing to do, you'll need a court order to force the exchange site to give away this info.)

if you want you could make it 100% impossible, for anyone to trace you like this, just send the coins to another wallet once you bought them. in that case the they will hit a dead end when trying to trace a transaction back to you.

compare that to a VSIA or paypal payment.

remember when this happened.

Sony Hacked Again; 25 Million Entertainment Users’ Info at Risk  (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/05/sony-online-entertainment-hack/)

bitcoin make payments safe, and anonymous.
 



(http://www.x-entertainment.com/pics/kool1.jpg)
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: anarchir on November 20, 2011, 06:04:35 PM
I'm a third of the way through that podcast, and its a really good one. I looked at the physical bitcoins, they're so cool. They'd make great christmas presents.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: CaptainWhomp on November 20, 2011, 06:06:32 PM
Bitcoin is anonymous

don't use Crypto, use MtGox that's where all 90% of the bitcoin trading happens and they do not ask for your home address.

vendors would have to look thought the block chain to find your the address you loaded the coins two, and then find out from the exchange site which bank account was used to deposit the money used to buy the bitcoin. (not easy thing to do, you'll need a court order to force the exchange site to give away this info.)

if you want you could make it 100% impossible, for anyone to trace you like this, just send the coins to another wallet once you bought them. in that case the they will hit a dead end when trying to trace a transaction back to you.

compare that to a VSIA or paypal payment.

remember when this happened.

Sony Hacked Again; 25 Million Entertainment Users’ Info at Risk  (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/05/sony-online-entertainment-hack/)

bitcoin make payments safe, and anonymous.
 

Thanks for the comments. It's still not clear to me how it works. It seems to me that no matter how many transfers you do to how many accounts, it should always be traceable. In fact, the whole bitcoin network as I understand it is built upon the ability to track and record every transaction. But, it's supposedly anonymous, and I'm trying to understand exactly how. Those two things seem to be in contradiction. I'm guessing maybe it has something to do with public/private key encryption so that only the buyer and seller have the records, but the network still must "know" about the transaction.

In other news, I downloaded the bitcoin client, but only because I was hoping to be able to send or receive money with it. But while running it, it seems to be crunching numbers quite a lot. Is it mining? I have no interest in that. Am I completely missing the point of all this?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 20, 2011, 06:12:31 PM
Bitcoin is anonymous

don't use Crypto, use MtGox that's where all 90% of the bitcoin trading happens and they do not ask for your home address.

vendors would have to look thought the block chain to find your the address you loaded the coins two, and then find out from the exchange site which bank account was used to deposit the money used to buy the bitcoin. (not easy thing to do, you'll need a court order to force the exchange site to give away this info.)

if you want you could make it 100% impossible, for anyone to trace you like this, just send the coins to another wallet once you bought them. in that case the they will hit a dead end when trying to trace a transaction back to you.

compare that to a VSIA or paypal payment.

remember when this happened.

Sony Hacked Again; 25 Million Entertainment Users’ Info at Risk  (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/05/sony-online-entertainment-hack/)

bitcoin make payments safe, and anonymous.
 

Thanks for the comments. It's still not clear to me how it works. It seems to me that no matter how many transfers you do to how many accounts, it should always be traceable. In fact, the whole bitcoin network as I understand it is built upon the ability to track and record every transaction. But, it's supposedly anonymous, and I'm trying to understand exactly how. Those two things seem to be in contradiction. I'm guessing maybe it has something to do with public/private key encryption so that only the buyer and seller have the records, but the network still must "know" about the transaction.

In other news, I downloaded the bitcoin client, but only because I was hoping to be able to send or receive money with it. But while running it, it seems to be crunching numbers quite a lot. Is it mining? I have no interest in that. Am I completely missing the point of all this?

Thanks.

Sounds like you got it completely my friend.  Combine that with the fact that it's a fiat currency and I'd say that's a huge reason to avoid bit coin like the plague.  If you really want to do anonymous transactions, use cash in person.  There's really no such thing as anonymous on the internet.
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: AdamStgBit on November 20, 2011, 08:04:46 PM
Bitcoin is anonymous

don't use Crypto, use MtGox that's where all 90% of the bitcoin trading happens and they do not ask for your home address.

vendors would have to look thought the block chain to find your the address you loaded the coins two, and then find out from the exchange site which bank account was used to deposit the money used to buy the bitcoin. (not easy thing to do, you'll need a court order to force the exchange site to give away this info.)

if you want you could make it 100% impossible, for anyone to trace you like this, just send the coins to another wallet once you bought them. in that case the they will hit a dead end when trying to trace a transaction back to you.

compare that to a VSIA or paypal payment.

remember when this happened.

Sony Hacked Again; 25 Million Entertainment Users’ Info at Risk  (http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/05/sony-online-entertainment-hack/)

bitcoin make payments safe, and anonymous.
 

Thanks for the comments. It's still not clear to me how it works. It seems to me that no matter how many transfers you do to how many accounts, it should always be traceable. In fact, the whole bitcoin network as I understand it is built upon the ability to track and record every transaction. But, it's supposedly anonymous, and I'm trying to understand exactly how. Those two things seem to be in contradiction. I'm guessing maybe it has something to do with public/private key encryption so that only the buyer and seller have the records, but the network still must "know" about the transaction.

In other news, I downloaded the bitcoin client, but only because I was hoping to be able to send or receive money with it. But while running it, it seems to be crunching numbers quite a lot. Is it mining? I have no interest in that. Am I completely missing the point of all this?

Thanks.


a the wiki page that explains bitcoin Anonymity

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity)

Bitcoin is in Beta
you may want to wait a few years for bitcoin 1.0 to come out, Anonymity might be built-in by then
Title: "Blockchain" app, & "How to Buy Bitcoins Anonymously"
Post by: Lothar on April 27, 2012, 01:52:58 AM
"Blockchain" app:  http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/blockchain/id493253309?mt=8 (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/blockchain/id493253309?mt=8)

&

"How to Buy Bitcoins Anonymously in the US, Instantly"

https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2012/04/how-to-buy-bitcoins-anonymously-in-the-us-instantly/ (https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2012/04/how-to-buy-bitcoins-anonymously-in-the-us-instantly/)

"An anonymous member of the Bitcoin community has contributed these wonderful instructions detailing 6 simple steps to buying Bitcoins with near anonymity in the US.

• • •

Step 1.

Download and install TOR from https://www.torproject.org/ (https://www.torproject.org/)
Step 2.

While using TOR create a Tormail account at http://jhiwjjlqpyawmpjx.onion (http://jhiwjjlqpyawmpjx.onion)
You can confirm the address at http://tormail.org/ (http://tormail.org/)
Step 3.

While using TOR, visit http://www.bitinstant.com (http://www.bitinstant.com)
Step 4.

Choose the Cash deposit to Bitcoin to email option.


Step 5.

Follow the instructions on Bitinstant to make your cash deposit, and have your Bitcoins sent to your new Tormail account.
No ID is needed.

Step 6.

Receive your Bitcoins via email.

And voila.  Now you can use your anonymous e-mail account and anonymous bitcoins to buy goods and services online, truly anonymously."
Title: ZeroCoin - Supposedly anonymous transactions.
Post by: Lothar on July 02, 2013, 11:51:35 PM
http://www.reddit.com/r/ZeroCoin/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/ZeroCoin/)

Quote
Zerocoin is not intended as a replacement for Bitcoin. It's actually a separate anonymous currency that's designed to live side-by-side with Bitcoin on the same block chain. Zerocoins are fully exchangeable on a one-to-one basis with bitcoins, which means (in principle) you can use them with existing merchants.

Zerocoins themselves can be thought of literally as coins. They're issued in a fixed denomination (for example, 1 BTC), and any user can purchase a zerocoin in exchange for the correct quantity of bitcoin. This purchase is done by placing a special new 'Zerocoin Mint' transaction onto the block chain.

Once a Mint transaction has been accepted by the Bitcoin peers, the same user can later redeem her zerocoin back into bitcoins. She simply embeds a (preferably new) destination Bitcoin address into a 'Zerocoin Spend' transaction, then sends it into the network. If the transaction checks out, the Bitcoin peers will treat it just like a normal Bitcoin transfer -- meaning that she'll receive the full bitcoin value of the coin (minus transaction fees) at the destination address.

Now you're probably wondering what any of this has to do with privacy. To explain that, I need to give you one more piece of information:

Aside from educated guesswork, there's no way to link a Zerocoin Mint transaction to the Zerocoin Spend transaction that redeems it.

Redeeming a zerocoin gives you a completely different set of bitcoins than the ones you used to purchase it. In fact, you can think of Zerocoin like the world's biggest laundry -- one that can handle millions of users, has no trusted party, and can't be compromised. Once as user converts her bitcoins into zerocoins, it's very hard to determine where she took them back out. Their funds are mixed up with all of the other users who also created zerocoins. And that's a pretty powerful guarantee.

-Matthew Green

I just read the following in a thread called "Explain it like I'm 10";

Quote
Multiple people all put exactly 1 bitcoin in a shared pool. And when someone wants to spend their bitcoin they grab a completely different coin from the pool. But that transaction is only valid when you provide anonymous proof that you also put 1 bitcoin in the pool, and did not already take 1 out already.

This of course also works with other denominations (like 10 BTC, 100 BTC or 0.1 BTC etc.)
Title: Re: Bitcoin
Post by: alaric89 on December 06, 2013, 05:56:38 PM
While we are all so amped over bitcoin, maybe it would be a good idea to read how we weree all reacting when this all started. SITREP: As of now I agree with Shaw's additude in this thread. The Chinese government seems to like them and the US government isn't criticising them much either, therefore I am not comfortable. As of this writing, they are over 1000 bucks.