BitCoin Master Thread

[hachover]

I misunderstood. I thought you mean the court has access to do it.

If the court needs to ask you for your key, you can say no. And then maybe they can put you in jail, but they can't torture you  until you give it.  And maybe you'd rather go to jail than lose all your money.

See, today, if the govt thinks you owe money, they just go take it.  They can walk into your house and take it, or can levy your accounts.  And no way the govt is going to give up the ability to do that.

Can they stop it from happening?

Let me rephrase - if all the conditions are right for cryptocurrency and it's about to become a real medium of exchange, but the government is afraid of it, will it become something or not?

[hachover]

how do you purchase btc or ether?

Coinbase is the most user friendly DIY way I know. Or you can meet up with a friendly enthusiast who will sell you some and hold your hand in the process

[henche]

Can they stop it from happening?

Let me rephrase - if all the conditions are right for cryptocurrency and it's about to become a real medium of exchange, but the government is afraid of it, will it become something or not?

Yes, they are the government. 

But more fundamentally, I think you need the government's cooperation to recognize as ownership and as legally binding the transactions that you are doing. 

[henche]

New question:

Does this mean going back to a gold standard essentially, and no monetary policy? Read this article by Paul Krugman that I linked yesterday http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.html

[hachover]

Yes, they are the government. 

But more fundamentally, I think you need the government's cooperation to recognize as ownership and as legally binding the transactions that you are doing.

I'll meet you halfway. The government is a huge potential threat, but their cooperation is not ultimately necessary. The government is just a consolidation of the power of the people - if the people democratically choose to instill the power of ownership records to the blockchain, then it can (and should) happen. Of course, the gov't can use their military to oppose the will of the people and in general be a nuisance, and they might win or they might lose. I'd argue that even if they win, they lose, because they usurp democracy in doing so. I told you this stuff is a bit anarchist.

But as far as transactions go, saying that the government's blessing is necessary is completely inaccurate. Once there is a hash ID for the transaction, it's over. That money is not coming back unless the new owner wants it to. The only ways to circumvent this are through decryption (backing into an individual's private key) or manipulating thousands of nodes on the blockchain at once.

[hachover]

New question:

Does this mean going back to a gold standard essentially, and no monetary policy? Read this article by Paul Krugman that I linked yesterday http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1998/08/babysitting_the_economy.html

I read it, and it was fun. Scrip is stupid because it limits your purchasing power, and the babysitting scrip was even stupider because there was only one way to acquire it too. But I understand that the point was to draw lessons from the story.

How small can you slice a bar of gold? To accommodate all the demand for money you'd need to cut it down so that a 1 oz sliver is equivalent to the value of a house. Imagine trying to cut your gold bar down to the size you'd need to buy a bag of lollipops. And where do billionaires store all their saved up gold?

But you can slice a bitcoin infinitely small, and you can just as easily store a million bitcoins as you can store a fraction of a coin.

[henche]

I'll meet you halfway. The government is a huge potential threat, but their cooperation is not ultimately necessary. The government is just a consolidation of the power of the people - if the people democratically choose to instill the power of ownership records to the blockchain, then it can (and should) happen. Of course, the gov't can use their military to oppose the will of the people and in general be a nuisance, and they might win or they might lose. I'd argue that even if they win, they lose, because they usurp democracy in doing so. I told you this stuff is a bit anarchist.

But as far as transactions go, saying that the government's blessing is necessary is completely inaccurate. Once there is a hash ID for the transaction, it's over. That money is not coming back unless the new owner wants it to. The only ways to circumvent this are through decryption (backing into an individual's private key) or manipulating thousands of nodes on the blockchain at once.

But then what do you do about fraud, and about any of a million reasons why somebody might owe somebody else money or money might need to transfer outside the blockchain? 

It is conceivable that the people may want to live in anarchy, but you'd think they'd also vote for that at the polls if that's what they wanted.

The funny story I put above was funny, but there are any of a million similar questions.

Yaakov writes his will over only to Yosef.  Reuven and co. sue alleging undue influence.

Yaakov writes his will to Yosef but only if Yosef doesn't marry eishes potifar--otherwise it goes to Yehuda.  Yosef sues, alleging that enforcement is contrary to public policy (See  In re Estate of Feinberg, 383 Ill. App. 3d 992 (1st Dist. June 30, 2008))

Reuven punches shimon. Shimon sues.

Reuven posts on ddf that Shimon is a big crybaby and a mamzer anyway.  Shimon sues again for defamation.

Apple Juice Simpson kills his ex-wife. Her family sues.

 

[henche]

I read it, and it was fun. Scrip is stupid because it limits your purchasing power, and the babysitting scrip was even stupider because there was only one way to acquire it too. But I understand that the point was to draw lessons from the story.

How small can you slice a bar of gold? To accommodate all the demand for money you'd need to cut it down so that a 1 oz sliver is equivalent to the value of a house. Imagine trying to cut your gold bar down to the size you'd need to buy a bag of lollipops for your daughter to be shabbos abba. And where do billionaires store all their saved up gold?

But you can slice a bitcoin infinitely small, and you can just as easily store a million bitcoins as you can store a fraction of a coin.

I thought you'd answer that you can use smaller pieces but that doesn't get you to having monetary policy.

Now, there are arguments against having a monetary policy, but the ability to use crypotcurrency is not one of them.

[hachover]

But then what do you do about fraud, and about any of a million reasons why somebody might owe somebody else money or money might need to transfer outside the blockchain? 

It is conceivable that the people may want to live in anarchy, but you'd think they'd also vote for that at the polls if that's what they wanted.

The funny story I put above was funny, but there are any of a million similar questions.

Yaakov writes his will over only to Yosef.  Reuven and co. sue alleging undue influence.

Yaakov writes his will to Yosef but only if Yosef doesn't marry eishes potifar--otherwise it goes to Yehuda.  Yosef sues, alleging that enforcement is contrary to public policy (See  In re Estate of Feinberg, 383 Ill. App. 3d 992 (1st Dist. June 30, 2008))

Reuven punches shimon. Shimon sues.

Reuven posts on ddf that Shimon is a big crybaby and a mamzer anyway.  Shimon sues again for defamation.

Apple Juice Simpson kills his ex-wife. Her family sues.

Maybe I'm missing your point, but the big common denominator you seem to be concerned with is that the courts will have lost the ability to directly carry out their rulings. So what? They will still issue judgments, and will find other means to ensure that it is complied with.

Garnishing wages? Easier than current. Employers will still comply with the courts.

Extracting money from an unwilling individual's account? Harder, surely. And you already made the point that threat of prison may not always work. But think creatively - there are unlimited ways of making sure that the judgment is complied with using leverage other than prison. And there are additional ways that may not be obvious - one that comes to me is exerting control over *public* keys - e.g. the court demands that the verification service (the likes of Verisign today) delete or disable a person's public key.

[henche]

Maybe I'm missing your point, but the big common denominator you seem to be concerned with is that the courts will have lost the ability to directly carry out their rulings. So what? They will still issue judgments, and will find other means to ensure that it is complied with.

Garnishing wages? Easier than current. Employers will still comply with the courts.

Extracting money from an unwilling individual's account? Harder, surely. And you already made the point that threat of prison may not always work. But think creatively - there are unlimited ways of making sure that the judgment is complied with using leverage other than prison. And there are additional ways that may not be obvious - one that comes to me is exerting control over *public* keys - e.g. the court demands that the verification service (the likes of Verisign today) delete or disable a person's public key.

Ok, maybe there's ways to do that.  This wasn't my main objection; main objection is the arbitrariness of calling something value with nothing to back it.

[aygart]

Ok, maybe there's ways to do that.  This wasn't my main objection; main objection is the arbitrariness of calling something value with nothing to back it.

Like strips of paper with green printing on them?

[henche]

Like strips of paper with green printing on them?

Backed by the U.S. government.

Not backed by the Venezuelan government

[Yammer]

Backed by the U.S. government.

Not backed by the Venezuelan government

The Venezuelan ones were doing good until 2 years ago...

[henche]

The Venezuelan ones were doing good until 2 years ago...

Was it?

Here's a story from 10 years ago, noting that the black market value was half the official value of the Venezuelan Bolivar http://www.economist.com/node/9621513

[Yammer]

Was it?

Here's a story from 10 years ago, noting that the black market value was half the official value of the Venezuelan Bolivar http://www.economist.com/node/9621513

On 4 July, the bolivar traded in the parallel market at 7,691 VEF per USD. The result marked a steep 19.3% depreciation from the same day of last month. The parallel dollar shed 58.8% of its value since the start of the year and a massive 86.5% from the same day last year.

https://www.focus-economics.com/country-indicator/venezuela/exchange-rate

[henche]

On 4 July, the bolivar traded in the parallel market at 7,691 VEF per USD. The result marked a steep 19.3% depreciation from the same day of last month. The parallel dollar shed 58.8% of its value since the start of the year and a massive 86.5% from the same day last year.

https://www.focus-economics.com/country-indicator/venezuela/exchange-rate

1. Are those official numbers or black market numbers? Venezuela was trying to manipulate its currency.
2. Obviously it went down in recent months. My point is that it was never healthier than Venezuela was generally.

[Yammer]

1. Are those official numbers or black market numbers? Venezuela was trying to manipulate its currency.
2. Obviously it went down in recent months. My point is that it was never healthier than Venezuela was generally.

1. Black Market of course. The official market is pegged to the dollar and barley moves.

2. Venezuela had a booming economy, so why wouldn't the currency be strong?

I wasn't agreeing or arguing with what you said over the last few pages. Just the Venezuelan line.

[henche]

.

2. Venezuela had a booming economy, so why wouldn't the currency be strong?

I dunno

[hachover]

https://mobile.twitter.com/NelsonMRosario/status/921550998233079808

[henche]

https://mobile.twitter.com/NelsonMRosario/status/921550998233079808

Nice