a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by b_b
b_b  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment

I don't buy it for the simple reason that bitcoin's utility is relatively unrelated to its 'share price' (for lack of a better word. I can move money on the network whether one btc is worth $1 or $1,000,000. If the US government wants it gone, then they should be undermining it in an operational sense, not sabotaging its price, which is what this seems to be. Occam's razor does not point at the government here, I'm afraid.

Edit: I readily admit that China have shown themselves to be amateurish enough in the last half year that I might not put this past them.





mk  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

No, I am not saying that someone is sabotaging the price. The blocksize choke point is undermining the operation of the network.

b_b  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Also btc has lost 10% today. Operation successful, I'd say.

b_b  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

If that's true, then it wouldn't it have to point to China? Aren't there enough Chinese miners that their adoption makes or breaks updates? Are you suggesting that the government of China controls the large mining operations that are based there?

mk  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Yes, Chinese miners have enough hashing power that they determine the fork status. I doubt the CCP does, but that'd be a pretty awesome conspiracy, yet there is no reason to believe that at all. If you make a lot of money in China, it is difficult to stay clear of complications, however, and the CCP has gone back and forth on their bitcoin stance. Chinese miners have crappy internet, so they are at a disadvantage if the blocksize increases too much. Several months ago, they agreed that 8MB was doable, but it seems they have mostly walked that back.

kleinbl00  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

It's almost cute the way you think public policy statements about a cryptocurrency have anything whatsoever to do with clandestine policy actions.

mk  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The CCP first cracked down, then let up on bitcoin. I could see it as reflecting a shift in strategy.

kleinbl00  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

...or co-opting the miners.

mk  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

could be.

b_b  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Right so you have a clear incentive from a huge bloc of miners, coupled to the fact that the btc power circle has their little lightning chain company, another powerful negative force on the block size. Whence, then, is the government?

mk  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Two tinfoil hat hypotheses: 1) Chinese government doesn't like something that escapes capital controls. 2) US government would like to delay to see if something like R3 can take hold, as it will surely have less anonymity.

am_Unition  ·  3244 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Doesn't sound very tinfoilly to me.

As for the anonymity, last I heard, the current policy for US taxation is to report BitCoin USD value owned on the honor system :D. Even though it may be next to impossible (and sitting on BTC flies in the face of what it was created for, pisses the community off, etc.), IRS probably wants to get in on any collections from that. At least to some degree, they view it like a novel stock/bond, and I'm sure you know that the total BTC in circulation is something like $6 trillion. Hah, that number sounds ridiculous to me. That's a lot of wealth.

Now, for my tinfoil: Apparently R3 will be open source? It's backed by BIG banks. Do I think they've recently rediscovered their moral compasses? Nope. Any current "open source" claims could be undermined in the future if they achieve monopolization of the cryptocurrency market. And when you've got a widely-adopted infrastructure in place... well, America still calls Comcast for tech support, but prays for a Google Fiber. I know this isn't the same as a physical infrastructure, but still, R3 has at least some potential for strong-arming, no?

Never did pony up, myself. I would have almost broken even as of a few days ago (1 BTC was $430 when I was looking to "invest"). Shoot, I might throw five bucks worth of BTC at Hubski just to be able to say I've made a transaction and have a wallet. Sorry if it's worth next to nothing a few units of time away from now. I'd be curious how many BTC donations you've seen, but if you don't/won't divulge, that's perfectly reasonable.

Also, great thread. Thanks to both you and b_b for hashing ;) it out here and not face-to-face. YOUR PERSONAL FRIENDSHIP IS CONSTANTLY ROBBING THE COMMUNITY OF VALUABLE CONTENT. Edit: Oh sorry, that was just my cat stepping on my keyboard at the end part there.

But seriously; all corrections, proverbial face-punching, and/or ridiculing is welcome.

b_b  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I don't disagree that the us government could benefit from btc's failure. They have motive, but not means or opportunity. The source code is out there, and who are the cia to stop Chinese miners from installing it?

steve  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

just tell me not to panic

kleinbl00  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Remember back when BTC went to like $1200 and then crashed to like $150? No?

Then you sure as fuck won't remember when BTC went from $400 to $450 and crashed to like $350.

steve  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

ha! I was thinking about that just a few minutes ago.

mk  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

just panic a little

steve  ·  3245 days ago  ·  link  ·  

it's only money...