BitCoin Master Thread

[hachover]

What happens top all the people whose title to their land in Mexico is on ether when shmether comes?  And all the money ppl have in ether? It all just goes into the ether?

Why do you think it would vanish? How does shmether verify the initial record?

[henche]

Think of it as Euros instead. If you frequently go to Brussels for business, do you buy EUR every time and exchange back the excess?

Businesses that have real holdings in foreign currency also do complicated hedging transactions to avoid the risk of currency fluctuation.  It is an additional transaction cost

[henche]

Why do you think it would vanish? How does shmether verify the initial record?

Because of you can only find a buyer on shmether, your ether title won't work. 

You tell me how they verify ownership. So far we're assuming a court is sitting and passing rule on every property, which assumes that jurisdiction has legislated that they can,  and the rules, which will probably require that the court can also reverse itself down the road

[hachover]

Businesses that have real holdings in foreign currency also do complicated hedging transactions to avoid the risk of currency fluctuation.  It is an additional transaction cost

That sounds like an ad for a universal currency like crypto

[hachover]

Because of you can only find a buyer on shmether, your ether title won't work. 

You tell me how they verify ownership. So far we're assuming a court is sitting and passing rule on every property, which assumes that jurisdiction has legislated that they can,  and the rules, which will probably require that the court can also reverse itself down the road

This is interesting. And I definitely defer to you on how insurmountable legal challenges might be.

But its a fundamental flaw to say that the courts can reverse themselves. What does that mean? Let's say the property was sold 5 times over the blockchain, and now the court has charata. The whole world knows that the land now belongs to person #5.

If you meant that the court kight take back the property record keeping responsibilities, that's fine, but then they'd have to pick up wherever the land rights are now.

ETA: as would Shmether

[hachover]

Because of you can only find a buyer on shmether, your ether title won't work. 

Let me clear up some common misconceptions.

1. A cryptocurrency is not another Paypal. Paypal is a platform for making payments using various currencies. A cryptocurrency is a currency itself.

2. A blockchain is not an ebay. Ebay is a marketplace. Blockchain is a ledger. Its like an accounting firm (that you can trust)

[AsherO]

Who polices the blockchain in cases of fraud? Where are those policies outlined.

On the one hand you say the blockchain is anonymous, OTOH you say it'll record who owns what, which one is it? (Or can you magically have your cake and eat it too?)

[henche]

This is interesting. And I definitely defer to you on how insurmountable legal challenges might be.

But its a fundamental flaw to say that the courts can reverse themselves. What does that mean? Let's say the property was sold 5 times over the blockchain, and now the court has charata. The whole world knows that the land now belongs to person #5.

If you meant that the court kight take back the property record keeping responsibilities, that's fine, but then they'd have to pick up wherever the land rights are now.

ETA: as would Shmether

I don't see why you can't have take backsies. The court orders the parties to effect a give backsie.

And I certainly can't see how a system without take backsies works. How do you revert fraud?

And you certainly need a system for the court to take things. How do you enforce a judgment?

[hachover]

Who polices the blockchain in cases of fraud? Where are those policies outlined.

On the one hand you say the blockchain is anonymous, OTOH you say it'll record who owns what, which one is it? (Or can you magically have your cake and eat it too?)

Yes! Believe it or not, you can have anonymity and integrity. That's the beauty of it.

Fraud is really tough to pull off. First of all, no records can ever be deleted from the blockchain because each block has to reference the prior block. So in order to change ownership you would have to add a new record to the chain using the proper protocol. Since this involves encryption using private/public keys and verification/consensus by thousands of nodes, it's incredibly hard to fake.

[hachover]

I don't see why you can't have take backsies. The court orders the parties to effect a give backsie.

And I certainly can't see how a system without take backsies works. How do you revert fraud?

And you certainly need a system for the court to take things. How do you enforce a judgment?

These are common questions that actually just bring out the allure of the blockchain technology.

As long as you maintain the integrity of your private encryption key, no one can pretend to be you. New blocks are only added to the chain as long as there is democratic agreement across the independent nodes that the transaction is real.

The nature of blockchain is a bit anarchist. The courts would have to ensure that the democratically run blockchain agreed to do the transactions necessary to enact "backsies".

[henche]

Yes! Believe it or not, you can have anonymity and integrity. That's the beauty of it.

Fraud is really tough to pull off. First of all, no records can ever be deleted from the blockchain because each block has to reference the prior block. So in order to change ownership you would have to add a new record to the chain using the proper protocol. Since this involves encryption using private/public keys and verification/consensus by thousands of nodes, it's incredibly hard to fake.

Here's a case:

A owns a company.  Let's call it Yaakov's and is a chain of supermarkets in New England.  His ownership is in the blockchain. A's son's Reuven and Shimon take over the company, and their ownership is registered in the block chain by [fill in blank--does blockchain know the inheritance laws in Massachusetts, and who is related to who and how?]. Both have kids.  Shimon dies, and Reuven continues running the company on behalf of himself and his nephews, and nephews are in the block chain.

Reuven starts to be jealous that he is the only one running the company and his kids get half. So he sets up another company called Reuven's, and registers that to only himself in the block chain and each time he opens a new store, he just opens it as part of the new company under the new company's blockchain. After a few years, Reuven is making lots of money and nephews are mad.

So they sue.  They say, you are running Yaakov's and have a duty to the shareholders to not divert corporate opportunities to yourself.  And they win.

The court says that Yaakov's and Reuven's are all one company, and that each family is entitled to exactly 50%.

Blockchain god, please solve this puzzle using only blockchain.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12954652872970013968&q=market+basket&hl=en&as_sdt=4,22&as_ylo=1990&as_yhi=2015
https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/aug/14/timeline-market-basket-supermarket-arthur-family-feud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeMoulas_Market_Basket

[henche]

Now how about this BitCoen, which was posted above. http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/BitCoen-to-become-first-electronic-currency-specifically-for-Jews-501885

The plan is to initially issue 100 million BitCoens.  The company hopes that they will be able to circulate up to $1.5 billion in the first two years.

So basically,  you give them a dollar, and they give you a BitCoen. Are they contractually required to let you buy your dollar back? I dunno. If they aren't, then you're just giving them money for nothing. If they are, then it's a ponzi scheme.

[solls108]

http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/BitCoen-to-become-first-electronic-currency-specifically-for-Jews-501885

I had to check the date twice to make sure that it wasn't April 1st.

Limited to jews, doesnt look to appetizing

[hachover]

Here's a case:

A owns a company.  Let's call it Yaakov's and is a chain of supermarkets in New England.  His ownership is in the blockchain. A's son's Reuven and Shimon take over the company, and their ownership is registered in the block chain by [fill in blank--does blockchain know the inheritance laws in Massachusetts, and who is related to who and how?]. Both have kids.  Shimon dies, and Reuven continues running the company on behalf of himself and his nephews, and nephews are in the block chain.

Reuven starts to be jealous that he is the only one running the company and his kids get half. So he sets up another company called Reuven's, and registers that to only himself in the block chain and each time he opens a new store, he just opens it as part of the new company under the new company's blockchain. After a few years, Reuven is making lots of money and nephews are mad.

So they sue.  They say, you are running Yaakov's and have a duty to the shareholders to not divert corporate opportunities to yourself.  And they win.

The court says that Yaakov's and Reuven's are all one company, and that each family is entitled to exactly 50%.

Blockchain god, please solve this puzzle using only blockchain.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12954652872970013968&q=market+basket&hl=en&as_sdt=4,22&as_ylo=1990&as_yhi=2015
https://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/aug/14/timeline-market-basket-supermarket-arthur-family-feud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeMoulas_Market_Basket

Interesting case. I have to read about it to understand it better. My gut reaction is that the court would require Reuven to turn over his private key to the court so that they can enact the transactions necessary to execute the decision.

[aygart]

Well, the majority of bitcoin holdings are just ppl sitting on a big pile, hoping that it becomes money one day. So you can see why they'd promote it.

Which is a good way of ensuring that if it ever does become money it will go back to being worthless pretty soon when they all flood the market.

[henche]

Interesting case. I have to read about it to understand it better. My gut reaction is that the court would require Reuven to turn over his private key to the court so that they can enact the transactions necessary to execute the decision.

Is it ironic that the ppl making this think they're obviating government, but the government ends up holding everyone's private key and knowing every single thing you own and do?

[hachover]

Is it ironic that the ppl making this think they're obviating government, but the government ends up holding everyone's private key and knowing every single thing you own and do?

No way. Government holding everyone's private key? Why would you even think such a thing?

BTW, there is some really fascinating history with RSA encryption where that was actually proposed. Basically, the government wanted to ban encryption because it would prevent them from interpreting messages sent by criminals or terrorists. Privacy activists were horrified that everyone's correspondence would be open for anyone to read. It used to take effort to intercept messages, so no one would bother to intercept common communications, but once electronic communication took off, intercepting messages became trivial so encryption became important even to common people. The "moderate" viewpoint was to create a "key escrow" agency that would hold all private keys and release them to the government when there was a warrant to do so.

I bet you can guess where that idea went.

[hachover]

Is it ironic that the ppl making this think they're obviating government, but the government ends up holding everyone's private key and knowing every single thing you own and do?

Oh, I get it, because I said that the court could force a person who refuses to comply with its ruling to turn over his private key.

You sure took a logical leap from there.

I think that the simple threat of losing your digital privacy would be enough for anyone to comply with the court without making them resort to seizing the key. But if for some reason I was forced to turn over my key to anyone (government or otherwise), I would create a new key as soon as possible and transfer whatever I still had left to that new digital identity.

[henche]

Oh, I get it, because I said that the court could force a person who refuses to comply with its ruling to turn over his private key.

You sure took a logical leap from there.

I think that the simple threat of losing your digital privacy would be enough for anyone to comply with the court without making them resort to seizing the key. But if for some reason I was forced to turn over my key to anyone (government or otherwise), I would create a new key as soon as possible and transfer whatever I still had left to that new digital identity.

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.

[Let3]

That would definitely do it, but I think wide enough individual acceptance would work too. We are so extremely far away from that goal no matter how it is eventually achieved - right now more than 90% of people would not even be able to figure out how to purchase a BTC and store it.

how do you purchase btc or ether?