Bitcoin - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Almo said:
I think that's shorthand for "people in the government are discussing the possibility". Though I'd like to see a source for where that was discussed.
Click to expand...

It is certainly intended to be taken that way, but with out any idea who was saying that it doesn't mean much.
 
Belz... said:
Uh-huh, sure.
Click to expand...
Had you read the link you would have found that it was the bitcoin technology (blockchain etc) rather than the bitcoin "currency" itself that was being considered a weapon against poverty.

Of course, both concepts are moot if the people are too poor to have access to the internet.
 
psionl0 said:
Had you read the link you would have found that it was the bitcoin technology (blockchain etc) rather than the bitcoin "currency" itself that was being considered a weapon against poverty.

Of course, both concepts are moot if the people are too poor to have access to the internet.
Click to expand...

I doubt the technology will have much effect on the macro level. It assumes that it would catch on among the general public and not just a few techies and libertarians. A few early adopters probably made a bundle. For late adopters I think it's just a kind of gambling.
 
psionl0 said:
Had you read the link you would have found that it was the bitcoin technology (blockchain etc) rather than the bitcoin "currency" itself that was being considered a weapon against poverty.

Of course, both concepts are moot if the people are too poor to have access to the internet.
Click to expand...

I read the article and my opinion is also "Uh-huh sure."

Singer apparently doesn't understand that blockchain is neither encryption nor crytographic in nature. It's a means of recording transactions - which is a different, but concept than ownership. We should also be concerned about black-pools of transactions in a blockchain scheme.

Also this trend should create some skepticism of it's practicality on a large scale.
https://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size

The "ownership problem" is primarily that in many places it's extremely hard to ever assert ownership rights. In the 3rd world the issues is that there is no clear means of recording ownership so you create collateral, a major hurdle to capital formation. Someone can show up and claim ownership of a property your family has used for a couple generations. In both the 3rd & advanced worlds governments have a regular tendency to nationalize property in part of whole. It might be a socialist land reform movement, or the EPA asserting you cannot use your property; either way constructive ownership is lost.

If magically these poor nations came to some rational & enforceable means of assessing ownership (at least of real estate) then a means of publicly recording transactions (like blockchain) would be required. But any land-office or deed registry system will do.

The article is about like declaring the saddle as a major innovation to transportation, without first domesticating the horse. It's more than a few tweaks shy of a solution.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
I doubt the technology will have much effect on the macro level. It assumes that it would catch on among the general public and not just a few techies and libertarians. A few early adopters probably made a bundle. For late adopters I think it's just a kind of gambling.
Click to expand...
Somebody else who didn't read the article (nor my response). :rolleyes:

stevea said:
I read the article and my opinion is also "Uh-huh sure."

Singer apparently doesn't understand that blockchain is neither encryption nor crytographic in nature. It's a means of recording transactions - which is a different, but concept than ownership. We should also be concerned about black-pools of transactions in a blockchain scheme.
Click to expand...
You at least read the article though I don't know what you mean by "black-pools of transactions".

Ripple's "consensus model" may be more appropriate than the blockchain but either technology has a long way to go before eliminating the middle man becomes a reality. If I understand you, being able to prove publicly that you paid for something may not guarantee ownership for something. OTOH blockchain-like technology may be useful for storing more than just records of money transfers. One possibility is that it might serve as an unalterable record of a property transfer which a human being can not interfere with.

However, like I said above, it all depends upon one being able to afford access to the internet.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Somebody else who didn't read the article (nor my response). :rolleyes:


You at least read the article though I don't know what you mean by "black-pools of transactions".
Click to expand...

Transactions that are not publicized. I claim no great expertice wrt blockchain, but it appears to be a replicated distributed DB. So say that North & South Dumbibia go to war and they each shut off the others external Inet access. Ppl w/in each half-nation continue to trade & transact, but the records can't leave the half-nation. After the war we find discrepant records of transactions. What to do ? Which transactions are valid and which invalid ?


Ripple's "consensus model" may be more appropriate than the blockchain but either technology has a long way to go before eliminating the middle man becomes a reality. If I understand you, being able to prove publicly that you paid for something may not guarantee ownership for something. OTOH blockchain-like technology may be useful for storing more than just records of money transfers. One possibility is that it might serve as an unalterable record of a property transfer which a human being can not interfere with.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree, but my local deed recorder's office has done a pretty good job of keeping RE records w/o much dispute for a century & a half w/o any technology. I am not suggesting that BC-like algorithms wouldn't be better, but the extra value is marginal, small.

But transaction records do not imply ownership. Here in the US (in at least two states I'm familiar with) to get a mortgage or use RE as collateral, a lender will require that a deed search is performed by a 3rd party that insures against alternative claims of ownership.

A transaction record showing I sold you the Brooklyn Bridge says nothing about ownership. Doesn't prevent alternate claims, doesn't solve the 3rd world problem w/o first asserting ownership.

---

There is all sorts of evidence that enforceable or at least decidable property ownership is a major factor in economic productivity. The improved ownership on post WW2, post feudal Japan or post-reform China. But also the relative economic performance of nations with English vs Napoleonic law heritage (compare the Western hemisphere N vs S of the US/Mexican border for example. It seems to require a cultural shift as much as improved record keeping.
 
Last edited:
stevea said:
So say that North & South Dumbibia go to war and they each shut off the others external Inet access. .............
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt that you could physically chop a country off from the internet (much less that two countries could mutually do that to each other). You would be physically cutting them off from all forms of communication with the rest of the world and that would create bigger problems than whether they had access to the block chain. They would have no access to most porn sites, you tubes, facebook, pirated movie web sites etc (come to think of it, that might not be so bad! :D)

stevea said:
I mostly agree, but my local deed recorder's office has done a pretty good job of keeping RE records w/o much dispute for a century & a half w/o any technology.
Click to expand...
A lot of people would say the same thing about their local bank (and as long as you don't want to transfer money from your private bank account to mine, I suppose that's true). It might have applications in countries where you would otherwise have to bribe clerks to do their jobs but even that is limited.

It is one thing to associate "X" bitcoins with wallet "abc" and while you might be able to do something similar with digital titles, it would take some form of legal recognition to associate those titles with real world possessions. Any such recognition once given, can be taken away again so, like you, I guess this is not a "save the world" moment.
 
My understanding is that govt spooks are stealing bitcoin with abandon so my earlier supposition that bitcoin was good has been shaken a bit. The thing is bitcoin is so big that its hard to take a big enough bite out of it to bust it. One of the problems is that I believe the privacy program I think called TOR has been compromised for sure by govts and their agents, but apparently random groups of hackers can divert it to their own ends too.
 
MinnesotaBrant said:
My understanding is that govt spooks are stealing bitcoin with abandon so my earlier supposition that bitcoin was good has been shaken a bit.
Click to expand...
Law enforcement agencies may be able to seize or demand that you hand over a bitcoin wallet (if they are aware that you have it) but nobody has been able to take bitcoins out of somebody's wallet without the private encryption key yet so it is still "good".

MinnesotaBrant said:
One of the problems is that I believe the privacy program I think called TOR has been compromised for sure by govts and their agents, but apparently random groups of hackers can divert it to their own ends too.
Click to expand...
If your intent is to strictly use bitcoin for nefarious purposes then you need to get very familiar with VPNs and "washers". You can be as private or as public with bitcoin as you want.
 
you go on to sites such as the register and panda dot.com and you will hear stories about the hundreds of millions of bitcoin dollars that go missing on a fairly regular basis. The govt is holding a bunch but spooks are out there stealing just as much. the encryption might be good I don't know, but most people using bitcoin are using TOR to send the data and TOR might be a bit suspect. There was an article about a store that accepts bitcoins to buy merchandise the other day in the mainstream news that was kind of funny.
 
You can hardly expect me to respond to something as vague as "you will hear stories ...........". Give me the details (including references) of one of those stories and I will be able to say if you are on to something or not.

The fact remains that while wallets can be lost or stolen, nobody can take bitcoins out of a wallet they don't possess. If you store your wallet with adequate security then the risk of loss or theft is minimized.
 
psionl0 said:
You can hardly expect me to respond to something as vague as "you will hear stories ...........". Give me the details (including references) of one of those stories and I will be able to say if you are on to something or not.

The fact remains that while wallets can be lost or stolen, nobody can take bitcoins out of a wallet they don't possess. If you store your wallet with adequate security then the risk of loss or theft is minimized.
Click to expand...

Hey, just like my regular wallet, or storing money under my mattress!
 
let me go look up some articles at the time. You are not addressing that most bitcoin transactions use TOR which, presumably is a weak link at this point since it was presumably started by the CIA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom