Comments by "Frenchie’s Philosophy" (@tsuich00i) on "Inside a Secret Chinese Bitcoin Mine" video.

  1. So if I understand correctly, these people are using advanced processors to compute complicated algorithms unascioated with any actual productivity, to access a virtual currency who's value is derivative of "math" (Proof: quote from their site: "In short, Bitcoin is backed by mathematics") in order to make money.  When you put it that way, what could possibly go wrong? 
    156
  2. tizbr Interesting. From what I understand the value of bitcoin responds to supply and demand, which makes it a good as you say. On the other hand, it is used as a medium of exchange and not as a "end product" in itself: one does not acquire a bitcoin to feed a family, or watch television, but you can use that digital investment to get you more of those things, which makes it sound like a money and not a barter/trade good. It's the digital nature of Bitcoin that adds complexity to the topic that probably goes over my rudimentary understanding of contemporary economics. 
    9
  3. Simeon Simeonov You have point, but to address your last statement, cheaper for whom? Cheaper for the account holders and bitcoin miners? Almost certainly. Cheaper for bank tellers and accountants? Well, if you consider an income of "0" cheap, then yes, but somehow I doubt they'd see it that way. In fact, I suspect the c-word they would use is being cheated out of a job by a machine with little to no accountability.  So it may be cheap, but society is the one offsetting the cost in the form of growing unemployment. 
    3
  4. delusionnnnn which is particularly relevant to a country powered primarily by coal, which is the cause of the horrific smog that fills the lungs of Chinese citizens day-in day-out much to the detriment of their health and happiness.  From a cost/benefit analysis, this seems to be disadvantage outcome. 
    3
  5. ***** Your first response wasn't particularly informative.  Beliefs can be binding without being rational. We have faith in our senses, the basis for all science and just about everything else for that matter, ought we to abandon them as well?  If its a question of extent, well, theres a simple solution: look at how money has been used in relation to what it purports to represent in the world: namely, value. Obviously the amount of money in circulation currently, is not equivalent to assets on the planet, but now that national and international regulatory agencies, such as the federal resource or the Davos forum have the ability to monitor fluctuating trends thanks to internet, they now have the power to influence behavior through policy plans, faith in the market is maintained by the constant and predictable pattern that prevents the artificial accumulation of false-value such as the 2008 Crisis, specifically the housing bubble.   Faith is just one component of that equation.
    2
  6. Alejandro Drabenche Gold and Oil can't make you rich though, that may sound oxi-moronic, but people are the only ones who can trade in "power" to express their value. For example, The man who is in need of a plumber is "powerless" to fix his plumbing. So if he wants something done about it, he must first find a suitable specialist, and come up with something that person wants.  In this case, Gold and Oil are only as important as the desire for them is. The universal use of gold and oil is what gives them near-intrinsic value. Nevertheless, the plumber may deny their value at any time without owing anyone an explanation. There is no guarantee, and therefore, no reason and more importantly, nobody to trust.  Decentralization may be beneficial in some respects, but on the issue of trust it is not, because you can only place your trust in people, not things. Bitcoin's trustworthiness is a function of the individual trustworthiness of each and every individual who makes a share of the total number of bitcoins. In effect, you are distributing your trust among a much larger pool of people then you normally would have to with a monetary agency that can be held accountable if there is a breach in trust, which in the case of the Federal Reserve, it would fall on Chairwomen Yellen to answer for. I'm much more comfortable pointing my finger at her if and when "shit hits then fan" than the dubious proposition of isolating who is to blame when Bitcoin goes awry.  The only way to rationally access the degree to which one trusts such a share, largely depends on how much faith you have in humanity, with so many individuals across distance involved. I'm not prepared to make such a judgement, and choose to err on the side of caution.  You can read up on and study public figures like Yellen, with a name and face, that can maybe give you a glance at their motives, morals, and abilities. You'll have a much harder time getting to know the people behind Bitcoin. 
    2
  7. Kai Hansen That much I gather, however what makes Bitcoin finite, and what is to prevent this limit from being undone? you'll forgive me if i've missed something crucial, but is not the nature of anything open source that it is subject to modification? 
    2
  8. SuperDrMaximum I am glad you are amused. 
    2
  9. Egon Sung First, I never said physical currency was better than digital, I only said, and only can be interpreted as having implied, simply that Bitcoin is bad.  What you have just described does not set Bitcoin apart from government fiancal activity- bitcoin is not "special" nor is it novel. Online banking has existed for well over a decade, and a digital currency has been discussed for quite some time. Bitcoin, to their credit, has simply taken to opportunity to fill this gap in modern expection. What it does is not hard either, State entities are perfectly capable of replicating their results in far more controlled and regulated settings. Why they have not devoted more effort into digitizing the dollar is beyond me. As for security, Paypal has all it's activity on records, and is regulated to prevent incident. Bitcoin on the other hand, has been the subject of several thefts, quite a significant amount actually. Additionally, bitcoin bypasses standard government transfer controllers, allowing it to make it's way into the black market, which bitcoin is now estimated to make up about 5% of the total value of.  Other than the press it gets, I don't see what sets Bitcoin apart as a viable, stable, and trusted form of currency. Having said that, I wish it all the best. 
    2
  10. kirtonos I was looking at the edit time, so yeah, mistakes happen. Since you've never made one Its more than fair to chastise each and every person for the simplest of things. 
    2
  11. Kim Rollo Not quite. Faith yes, but if human history is an indication, faith is a much more powerful psychological force than math is. I've yet to read of the war fought over the Pythagorean theorem.  Secondly, currency is also backed by Nation-states. Which to go back to our ol' friend history, is a class of organization who's "survival odds" tend to fair far better than individual enterprise. When the going gets tough, people are much more inclined to respond to a sense of national identity (which is why currencies of every country came to be in the first place: pride, thats why their covered in patriotic iconography) than to trust in some disembodied, detached, online open source program that has no face, or loyalties to anyone.
    2
  12. ***** Hey, I got you to post didn't I? I'd call that mission accomplished, and not like Bush did, I talking about the real deal. The thing about making fun of people's hypocrisy, is getting them to do it, with or without them knowing it. Because either we, I win. And I understand, roomie's gotta be fresh for the Rodeo. I have it on good authority anything goes!
    2
  13. ***** which is exactly what makes it the antithesis of faith. One need not believe that 1+1=2, or have faith that any combination of 1 and 1 will equal 2. I reason it so in virtue of what I know "2" to be a union of 1 and 1. There is nothing to say otherwise to disprove this thesis. It is a priori. 
    2
  14. ***** well your introducing a concept new to me, at least I don't remember reading you mention it, which is function, and what do you mean by "math is it's functions". We can only give math functions, math has no intrinsic functionality. 
    2
  15. kirtonos no... I posted 4 hours ago. If that doesn't compute, contact technical support for further instruction. 
    1
  16. Brandon the Man What does that mean exactly?
    1
  17. ***** That makes much more sense, yet how would you substitute it into the context of the original contention?  OP: "It's just the difference is it's backed by faith in math [functions] rather than faith in the state." My argument is that these two variables are equivalent: the state is just the literal embodiment of human organization at the highest level of societal stratification which is to say it is pure function, and as such it facilitates the movement of money by adopting mathematical models which optimizes said process. 
    1
  18. ***** I think so. The only other thing I can think to mention is something not said yet: which is stability: The value of the dollar is extremely stable, and the U.S. governments does a very good job of keeping it that way, for which there are blatant benefits to. Bitcoin on the other hand, has moved from several cents to thirty something dollars all the way to over one thousand dollars per unit all in less than one year.  Since stability is always superior to uncontrollable fluctuation, national currency, while far from perfect, is still preferable.   
    1
  19. ***** yes, size is a major factor. Only time will tell if it catches on, and if it's safety will improve. 
    1
  20. Mirza Borogovac I have already addressed this point, but I will raise it again- how does bitcoin solve the problem of hyperinflation? Governments at least generate revenue at least in part, well, in fact mostly, from intrinsically valuable goods and services; from-barbers to oil- in addition to what they print, whereas bitcoin does not so much as attempt this. Secondly, What is the need that people have? People had money- digital money too- before bitcoin. What ostensibly has changed and/or improved? How does Bitcoin avoid government "manipulation" whatever that means?
    1
  21. MainAccount To beat a dead horse, this does not answer how bitcoin is any different. P.S. the most powerful computer in the world resides in a public university in China. Not sure what you mean by "computational network". Computation is a word that refers to the power of a mechanism to process, a network refers to an interrelated group. Computation is always aided by centralization, so you'll have to be more specific and more clear in what you mean. 
    1
  22. Mirza Borogovac Most of your answers are satisfactory, however there is one assumption I would bring up that overlaps a couple points: What makes Bitcoin safe?  Philosophies differ, and what i've found interacting with Americans and their financial attitudes is that they always prefer high risk, high rewards, to maintaining a strong capital base with gradual, minimal returns, the latter of which I subscribe to myself.  To illustrate my point with a concrete, micro-economic example, try and sell me on bitcoin if you will. Because from where I stand, with lets say upwards of 250,000 dollars, I can safely sit on that money knowing it is ensured by the FDIC. I can put the rest in Index's and annuities and make interest without great concern. Now this is no guarantee that the  price of goods and services external to my capital will not increase beyond my possible purchasing power, but I am reasonably certain any government interested in it's own self-preservation will subsidize food and other basic necessities to keep their prices in an affordable range, at least until it runs out of money, which is a highly unlikely scenario, as any and every other financial institution will have run out of funds long before the government coffers run dry. The basic principle of my position is that any alternative medium of exchange will always be secondary in nature to that offered by the government. It's simple hierarchy: Government is the only legal entity that can force parties to honor their contracts- through violence and/or detention if that becomes the only option- which is why banks have incentive to favor and follow government initiatives, and so long as the store of wealth among the rich, and the need for loans among the poor continues, banks will be favored by the citizenry. By the reverse, if citzens seek these services, they will go to banks where government currency will be the primary/popular medium of exchange, with the peace of mind that the courts will protect their investments in the worst case. I hope this exacerbated exposition makes my perspective clear. 
    1
  23. ***** I do not see a link, you can relink if you'd like.  Secondly, in any debate, I always favor an argument made in your own words, and that does not overly rely on citation. 
    1
  24. Egon Sung I may be misinformed, but you do not have a proper grasp of the English language to converse with the intent you have in mind: math cannot "enforce" anything, only people have that power, but that same program could prevent alternation, but any program can be modified by its author or any agent with the necessary skill and/or access. You seem to have a grossly naive view from what I gather: In a historical analysis, the way to destroy a nation's wealth is to capture it's repository (of gold) by conquering it's capital. All you have to do to destroy the wealth of Bitcoin is delete a series of numbers. Or modify those variables to suite their nefarious ends. Now tell me which is the more susceptible to corruption. Things today are different, and because of the virtual nature of the stock market, the problem exists in both cases, but it is still a problem, which has been my one and only point all along. 
    1
  25. ***** then I will repeat myself: If you feel I am ignorant of some important detail(s), rephrase that information in your own words and I will consider it so it may be discussed properly.  If you cannot or will not, the objection is moot. 
    1
  26. ***** ok.
    1
  27. Egon Sung the "attack" was immediately followed up by how the terminology pertinent to this topic was misused. I would hardly call that abusive.  "The fact that you think cryptocurrency can be modified by its author proves your inability to understand the subject." Is a convoluted form of evasion. AKA "you don't understand how great this thing is, therefore you can't talk about it so shut up"  The fact that you think I am "unable" to comprehend this subject, is demonstrative of some bizarre form of prejudice I won't even begin to address. If you really think it's that complicated, you shouldn't bother with us "simpletons" and are folk knowledge of the almighty Bitcoin.  I was talking about a platonic program, not specific to bitcoin, as an example of what would happen. The principle however, is the same. My point can be corrected by simply adding an "s" to authors, in which case the majority authors have the same powers described in my original post.  Your rebuttal is bad, and you should feel bad. 
    1
  28. ***** No one's forcing you to, if i've bored or frustrated you, by all means, direct your attention to some other site.
    1
  29. Kim Rollo Name a currency based on faith that has failed. I honestly don't know enough about the history of money to know, so If it's happened, i'll look it up on a case by case basis and address it then and only then.  To be clear, that is only an expression. What we actually mean when we say that "money is based on faith" is that, when I go to Starbucks and hand the Barrista a Jackson, I have faith, that he or she will hand me my mocha in return. What we have faith in is not the money itself, but in 1. the persons with whom we individually interact, and their faith in a 2. system of reciprocity we call the economy and the 3. role currency plays in that domain, namely that it will be accepted as value, in the absence of cumbersome and irregular forms of intrinsic value, such as heavy and scarce gold, or disobedient and/or undesired goats.   When those elements unite, a healthy market is made possible.  And this is just a side note not entirely relevant here, but faith is actually an incredibly stable force in history. Ancient Egypt is the most famous example: artistically, political, socially, and economically it remained EXACTLY THE SAME for three thousand years. When Herodotus visited the Land of the Nile, he remarked that the people who lived there where the most pious he had ever come across. Catholicism filed the power vacuum of the Roman Empire and similarly maintained an era of continuous "sameness" for centuries, by forcing conformity and strict observance of scriptural dictates.The Ancestral Worship of Ancient China, passed on from generation to generation, a loyal lineage of denizens who honored their descendants by respecting millennial old traditions that is the hallmark of Chinese Confucian collectivism to this day.
    1
  30. Egon Sung "The traditional system is exactly like a pyramid scheme."  And Bitcoin isn't? ROFL 
    1
  31. ***** Believe what you will.
    1
  32. Egon Sung I accept your pop-news crap and raise you published study: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf??941883c8460133b7758f498192a3ed9e To be clear, Bitcoin is not itself a Ponzi Scheme, but it's the freedom of use it allows and complexity it hides behind has created an environment rife with fraud. The fact that bitcoin has no one owner does not diminish the fact that it enables abuse and is the source of the problem.  Oh and if add hominid is your forte, I would'nt brag about attending the Ontario College of Art & design. Tell me, do they offer a economics course at that quaint little liberal arts college, or does Wikipedia suffice for you? 
    1
  33. ***** lol 15 minute conservation = translates to a comprehensive backround in internet user's educational backround.  Yeah, when poor taste and ignorance reaches this level, I would be surprised to find out you were a major in anything.  Stick to bitcoin and your "the University of the Internet", for you clearly aren't cut out for anything of true, intellectually interest. 
    1
  34. Egon Sung Do they not have sarcasm in your native tongue, or is your English just that bad?  Nor where in there does it say its not. Your deriving a conclusion based off information your parceled out without understanding the information. Individual users of bitcoins can still trade in bitcoin to unsuspecting investors, with false promises of compound interest. THAT is a pyramid scheme, plain and simple.  ex: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanmaglich/2014/11/06/texas-man-arrested-for-4-5-million-bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/
    1
  35. Jimmy Hickey "Frankly.... nobody hops on the BTC wagon unless they fully understand it and truly believe the currency is viable and powerful." Ignoring the sum total of what was otherwise a garbage wall of text, I suppose based on this baffling naive thought of yours, that everyone is a "rational actor" endowed with an esteemed sense of good judgement? lol... what drivel, and i'm the stupid one being talked down to. Its this classical economic assumption which is the cause of most financial wrongdoing. But hey, who am I to stop you from perpetuating the fantasy that everyone on the market comes prepacked with the background and knowledge it takes to spend their money wisely. With your bloated, self-righteous, assured attitude, I couldn't possibly know a fraction of what you know. I'm glad you were here to remind us that any view deviating from the most common one is to dismiss. Oh and P.S. there isn't a bitcoin in the world or online that I would accept, but it's a nice thought.
    1
  36. Egon Sung That is a ponzi scheme. Your only defense is that bitcoin can't be held accountable because it isn't owned by someone, which is a bad argument. Get rid of the offender, and another will take his place. Replace the system (in this case there already exists traditional currency to do that job) and the crime cannot be committed.  And thanks for the compliment, but i'll reserve conclusions as to my intellect to my professors. 
    1
  37. ***** It's your choice to be uncivil. If anything is characteristic of a troll it is something who can't take a discussion seriously.  sorry you feel the need to be that unpleasant. 
    1
  38. Egon Sung Your increasing negativity towards my argument, as shown by your rhetoric, seems to have left you with the impression that the issue is black and white. If you care to recall the original post, I only wanted to bring up that bitcoin could be bad, not that everything about it is evil.  Bitcoin, like most things, is probably more in the middle. I am simply skeptical and have given my reasons why. 
    1
  39. ***** no, just pitiful. 
    1
  40. ***** What is the simple part? Or are you always this cryptic when you have nothing left to add of your own?
    1
  41. Jimmy Hickey This coming from the typical punk American on the bench trying to look "deep" and and nonconforming by staring off away from the viewer, when they just come off as confused and out of place. 
    1
  42. Egon Sung pretty soon i'll be reduced to a teddy bear. 
    1
  43. ***** oh wow what witt! just when I thought you couldn't get more vague and cryptic
    1
  44. Jimmy Hickey Hey, I'm just waiting for the next Transformers.  America puts the "A" in art. 
    1
  45. ***** oh i'm sure you do. Afterall, it's always easier to call someone name's and convienently have a, what is it? Doctors appointment? Vaccination? Oh wait, Americans don't believe in that... Rodeo in town? Well in that case I can't blame you, please don't let me keep you. 
    1
  46. ***** As a philosophy major, "faith in math" is an enigmatic statement at best, nonsense at worst. But i'll happily hear the argument supporting the rationale behind that statement. 
    1
  47. Egon Sung American is now an ethnicity? Jesus you were right about me being stupid- I was in denial this whole time! 
    1
  48. ***** And with your cliches, they'd go out of business. 
    1
  49. ***** Hey if I jump on the propagandist's bandwagon do I get a dollar? Because I've always wanted to be a paid sellout to an advertisement agency. 
    1
  50. Egon Sung Me thinks one doth protest too much.
    1
  51. Egon Sung Just now? And here I thought that you'd constantlybe reminded by your crass disposition. 
    1
  52. Mirza Borogovac Good answers overall, with a couple caveats if you don't mind. I'm pretty tired but here are some of my thoughts. "Governments can easily run out of money, and be unable to borrow. Then they would start printing money which is why there would be a hyperinflation in the first place." I would challenge this, especially using your example of the Greece/Germany relation. I think the reason they are unable to borrow because they are presumed the guilty party- which just means Europe, with good reason, holds the Greek Government responsible for fudging the books, and leading the European Union to believe they were solvent. Here it's just a matter of international law, but when were talking about world powers, which I recognize as being the five members of the Security Council, with the addition of Japan and Germany. These countries have within their means, through central control, the ability to redirect productivity as needed to prevent and handle crisis as needed, using a multiplicity of specialists, the latest technologies, communication and coordination on a scale only government can accomplish, and lasting infrastructure that the private sector just doesn't have access to. That is how they are able to handle food shortages, droughts, and over consumption of oil. Which they do through major projects like the Hoover Dam, rationing as was done during WWII and during the 80's. Additionally, governments usually hoard a large store of natural resources and money for a "rainy day" like the US's oil reserve, or how China saves roughly 70% of everything dollar they make annually. All these facts put government into a class all it's own. I prefer political theory to economics and bitcoin presents a fascinating cross-pollination between the two which are sure to have vast implications for both fields of study. 
    1
  53. fastfood8472 the problem is who is they? If "they" the government messes up, at least we know who they are in the event that we might want to hold them accountable or fix what is at issue. But who do you go to if you have a problem with Bitcoin, and who to you seek out when you suspect bitcoin might be used with criminal intent?  Services, real services, comes with "terms of services" which stipulate what your parties obligations are, as well as what theirs are, as well as any rules and restrictions that may apply. Bitcoin does not, it's free-form like the wild west, which outside the film genre, isn't nearly so glamorous.
    1
  54. kirtonos ...4... hours ago, not that any sane person is counting or cares, but thanks for that inaccurate and useless piece of trivia that adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.  It takes a rare combination of defective genes and negligent parenting to produce a being that can be that wrong and worthless. 
    1
  55. Gasso Desec can't tell if your serious or just inserting random quote followed by patronizing cliche.
    1
  56. ***** I was not aware. How obnoxious online culture can be. 
    1
  57. Aaron66111 What does it represent? From what I gather the answer is nothing. How does Bitcoin avoid the problem of inflation indicative of uninhibited government printing? I honestly don't know enough about economics, so i'd love to know. 
    1
  58. ***** Your concern for my reputation is most enduring. 
    1
  59. Nicole Hahn Thank you for the information.
    1
  60. Mirza Borogovac What does a lack of centrality have to do with it? When a leader we can all look at is corrupt, we call him a tyrant, when a crowd is corrupt, we call them a mob.  There isn't a difference. Both are evils discussed by every major political thinker I think of. Knowing everything about everyone else from your vantage point (AKA "neighbors watching neighbors") is not a defense against the desire of those actors to gain greater control of that system- bitcoin being an interdependent union of autonomous systems- so I will just repeat the question, what is to prevent this "manipulation"?
    1
  61. Jimmy Hickey So whats the problem? Doesn't sound to me like you disagree with my approach, maybe just my conclusion. My opinion may be an unpopular one, but the point should be to attack me on what i'm wrong on, which most people have done without resorting to insult. I haven't for the record, "made anything up" nor do I think there is a "knowledge base" relevant to this subject: this isn't ancient Greek Philosophy, its online economics, a relatively new field, which any modern Economist worth his or her salt would tell you they don't understand never mind what the public thinks, which is the basis for why I have asked questions in the first place: because bitcoin is new territory with absolutely NO precedence, and even those who are considered "experts" say without reservation that Bitcoin is an experiment and until the thesis is proven through replication and time, having a background in it isn't really possible. If you disagree however, point me in the direction of some established academic source, and i'll take a look.  otherwise, it's an fascinating topic which is interesting to discuss. It really doesn't bother nor discourage me that some feel inclined to put the people they disagree with down, rather than engage in the material. I could care less what halff-witted miscreants buried in the shallow crevices of the web think. For everyone else, who has worthwhile to say add or ask, chances are i'll respond. It's only a matter of what I deem worth commenting on. 
    1
  62. Mirza Borogovac Oh and to be fair, my question was hardly technical. Actually it was quite broad. I don't think I've bitten off more than I can chew by asking a actually rather rudimentary if not fundamentally crucial question anyone with the wherewithal to both support and be critical Bitcoin should be able to answer. 
    1
  63. Jimmy Hickey Fine points. Still not bought by the idea that switching the crypto will effectively cut you off from whatever alteration, however minor it is. I mean how would that work? If one area of the network becomes independent from the majority network, wouldn't it cease to be bitcoin? In order to be considered a single currency, doesn't Bitcoin have to remain in contact with all its peer-to-peer networks? Seems like that creates more problems then it offers to liberate.  And yes, time will tell, and people could build confidence, or loose it entirely and go the way of Google glass.  Plenty people care. A life of thrills falls short of a life of meaning, and meaning can only be found in things that last, which I would not count Bitcoin among. I don't think it's all that creative either. 
    1
  64. Mirza Borogovac "The whole point of engineering fields of study is to be able to design cars that don't burst into flames and bridges that don't collapse. Similarly the whole point of computer science, encryption, etc. is to solve for enormous complexity that is needed to achieve basic functionality behind algorithms and software such as bit-coin." That is not exactly true, any field that causes confusion and breeds disagreement such as we are having now- introduces just as much if not more complexity as it aims to address and simplify. Physics for example, under a classic, Newtonian view, was simple before the advent of quantum mechanics. In a sense, the more we studied this science, the more we made things harder for ourselves, despite how useful the former model was, which is why it is still taught and used even though we now know Classical physics isn't "the whole picture". Computers likewise are systems created to add functionality which in the process become more complex, the greater the demand for greater utility becomes, and then simplified as the software and hardware is better understood and mastered. 
    1
  65. 61raindrops That is all well, good and true, but to use your example, the mathematical complexity of insurance has not prevented governments from forming policies to restrict the behavior of insurance companies, which essentially is my stance here: that they should continue doing so. Additionally, that the uncritical view of some earlier adopters, many of whom are in this chat, is loathsome.  If my mind were closed, I'd make no effort to some much as attempt to understand Bitcoin. I think I have done more than enough to demonstrate that is my intent. 
    1
  66. Mirza Borogovac If I can't get it, the chances that the average Bitcoin user does, is slim. Unless they really are the "tech geniuses" they present themselves as in the media or on YouTube, which I sincerely doubt.  That alone is reason enough to merit my original contention. 
    1
  67. Mirza Borogovac ahh but there is a big mistake made here: If I don't understand an action of my bank, what do I do? I enter my branch and i ASK. Because 1.) that IS where my money is, albeit it digitally they are responsible for it  and 2.) they are the ones providing the service. Bitcoin is a "service" without a "server". Don't take that as a play on words btw, server as in person/provider.  If I have question about my Bitcoins, who do I go to? No one, I can't, because it is nonlocalized and autonomous. If I want, I have to 1.) look it up and hope the information I come accross is credible or 2.) attain a computer science degree and study the software itself. That is what I meant when I said it adds complexity; "need-to-know" complexity. which means If I dont know, I put my money at risk. I don't need to know how a Bank works to put my money there, provided it is below the 250,000 insurance cap, at which point I would assume the risk. The proof is that millions even billions do without much problem. Bitcoin is another story altogether. That comparison is a false equivalence.  In fact the whole reason to use a bank is precisely because you (not you personally, but any bank member) are dumb. If you were smart, you could always use that expertise to make money on the stock market.Put it in a bank, and you don't have to think about your money, because 1.) you trust that bank, it has a good record, so on and so forth, and 2.) you are protected by the law. 
    1
  68. Mirza Borogovac "Problem with bitcoin is that you do not have the knowledge to understand the information that is freely available to you." Me and everyone else, as you have yet to answer my original questions, under the auspice that it is "too technical".  "Your understanding of situation and how you choose to label things does not change the reality of things." That is not an answer to anything, just a empty accusation of ignorance. If I have mischaracterized Bitcoin, you had and still have, the opportunity to correct me. Come back with substance not slander.  "Just because sometimes is not localized and is autonomous that does not mean that it is not well defined and well understood."  Then Define it. Here, i'll get you started: Bank (noun, middle English): "A bank is a financial intermediary and money creator that creates money by lending money to a borrower, thereby creating a corresponding deposit on the bank's balance sheet." See that definition was not hard for me to understand. Now you try: Bitcoin (?): "?"  "You seem to imply that you have to understand every product and process that you use."  No... You may have inferred it, but I certainly did not imply it.  I allege only that the control of Bitcoin is dubious and therefore suspect. You seem to be under the naive impression that Bitcoin is beyond the realm of human intervention. Earlier you admitted this possibility though conditioned it was "contrived". It isn't.  "The fact that there is risk in investing does not mean that a risky investment is not legitimate investment."  Never said it was illegitimate, only that it can 1.) never reach the status of national currency and 2.) This predicated on 1.), it cannot be trusted because it isn't backed by an institution that can be persecuted for wrongdoing. You cannot sue a program, you can only sue it's author(s)  In fact, the true identity of Bitcoin creator remains hidden for I suspect this very reason. Adding cause for concern, not detracting from it.  "So then you should use something even if you do not understand it?" You should use what you trust, not what you have faith in, and while people use the latter expression to describe money, money has "social standing" spanning decades if were talking about the dollar, which adds credence to it's acceptance. Doesn't mean you shouldn't stay informed. Open the paper, follow trends, make wise decisions. Bitcoin's current, brief track history only adds fuel to suspicion.  "I am not sure, but I seem to recall some sort of banking crisis back in 2007. Must not have been that important." Fair point, but that was because Banks, aided by government deregulation made irresponsible investments. As a counter-example of how government should operate, I would refer you to Iceland's handle of the Crisis, which is exactly the kind state-based model I am supporting.  The last statement is anarchist nonsense. Banks are bad because Wall Street and Silicon Valley culture is degenerate. Bitcoin isn't the opposite of banking, it's just another part of the problem. For the record I have most of my money in a Credit Union, the only financial institution I would recommend in good conscience.  
    1
  69. Charlie Mopps it's a good question, and i'm not one to usually speculate, but government might restrict the ownership of such devices, or change the system to one they can control the distribution of.  I'm not much of a futurist so I dont know. A radioactive signature harmless to user that could be specific enough while still hard to get your hands on is one possibility I've read of. It would take some kind of Walter White to decrypt and the replication process would be dangerous and difficult. I mean you can still pan for gold, just don't count on being rich. 
    1
  70. Charlie Mopps I'm still not sure how adopting Bitcoin makes things easier/cheaper. Yes, getting those middle men out of the way would be nice I guess, but 1.) Everyone lives in lives in a place under the jurisdiction of some government, thats unavoidable, and most people have an account with a major bank capable of international transfer. All you're avoiding are higher transfer fees. Bitcoin charges 1% Banks charge 4-5%. If it becomes more popular, I haven't the slightest doubt this fee will increase to be on par with Banks. OR Banks will drop theirs to be competitive, and as it grows- if it grows, government regulation will increase. The main reason the EU has not regulated it so far, is just a matter of size, and the fact that they have a lot more pressing financial troubles to deal with.  Furthermore, as the value of bitcoin fluctuates as dramatically as it does, your more likely to loose money (the longer you wait between purchases) then what you pay in fees to a Bank.  Bitcoins "freedom" is only a function of it's youth and size. The older and larger any attractive investment becomes, the more we will want to control it. That is human nature.  btw, people don't have a problem with expensive shipping fees when it comes to gold and silver, despite the fact those are not in the monetary mainstream anymore. This is for the same reason that a 15 cent can of coke, albeit in bulk, is worth shipping over seas: because people are willing to buy it for more. Cash isn't going any where. Many small business and private citizens still prefer this, and always will, because you can only manipulate it's value, but once it's in my possession, you can't do anything to it save to steal it, assuming you know I have it in the first place. 
    1
  71. Aaron66111 Yes, I understand, with the exception of what you say about control: Of course people control them. People created them! The only thing stopping people is that individual parties have no incentive to take over Bitcoin because that would in all likelihood reduce its value until their, and everyone else's share became worthless. Now if people were to be coerced or mislead into a change of Bitcoins programming that would prove advantage to some small special interest group, that is at least conceivable.  For more information that gives a fair assessment of this question see here: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/who-controls-bitcoin/
    1
  72. Mirza Borogovac  "However categories are approximations for your understanding and not defining characteristics of existing things. Your argument was basically: 1) birds fly, 2) penguins are birds 3) therefore penguins fly." Fine. This too is a characterization btw, and could fall well within the category of the strawman fallacy if I bothered to match my argument up with your analogy, but I'm not nearly interested enough, so i'll just leave it at that.  ""what is to prevent anyone from declaring themselves to be a bank and then lending money that they they create."  LOL the Law, end of story. So no, I wouldn't have. Which is why they're different to begin with, and why the false-dichotomy is the sustained. FYI: Banks require licensing. Some Legislators have considered this a requirement for bitcoin sites, but so far haven't acted on it.  "But you can trust a program to do exactly what it is programmed to do"  Circular argument- you only trust it because you trust the programmer OR you understand the program. Which you have admitted to the contrary.  "If you have access to it's source code and you know how to read it and compile it, than what is there to not trust?" I suppose that would be fine. However this would mean that bitcoin is a trustworthy service for those with the privileged education of knowing how to use it. To repeat my argument, personalized banking overcomes this issue.  ". You either prove something to be true yourself or you take it on faith. "  No idea what this means. You can't prove ANYTHING to be true, unless you think your Descartes, in which case you believe in yourself. Scientific proof requires peer-reviewed consensus, you can't do it alone in your basement. But you can trust things on intuition which is a pretty powerful force in the mind. A recent study I wish I had on hand, and if you really want i'm sure I can dig up, suggests that you judge a face on how trustworthy it is in less than 35 milloseconds of first seeing it, and that your first impression is often your best. So if you walk into a bank, and think to yourself these people seem trustworthy, chances are you are correct. There is no face to bitcoin, no values to speak of. That is both a flaw and something in it's favor. I think we just fall on different sides of that fence.  "Yes those things help but they are just some of the factors to consider and not a "definite proof" in themselves." Sure, they help, what more would you have me do? What sort of "ideal proof" were you hoping for?  Your argument hinges on the fact that Bitcoin is "divorced" from imperfect beings, and is therefore unnameable to human influence. The former is partially true: it is not a closed, impenetrable system as you have portrayed it as thus far. How bitcoin is used, and what it enables it's users to use it as, is just as important as what it is, and anecdotal evidence, including Bitcoin's more prominent supports, does not reflect well on the digital currency. 
    1
  73. Mirza Borogovac  "There is no disagreement in math" My father, a theoretical physics in the forefront of his field, would take strong exception to this statement. (Daniel Gogny, whom you can find the work of on google.)  And Programming is a language, and language, as a means of representative, is inherently subjective. That is it's definition.  "Similarly there is inherent complexity in what bt is trying to do and that can't be reduced for your benefit." Ah! Which is reason enough not to use it. Again, anything your going to recommend the public to endorse, you had better be able to explain to an idiot child. Take a page out of advertising agencies and find a way, or don't advocate for something neither of us seem to comprehend. It just isn't responsible, ethical or intellectually honest. 
    1
  74. Mirza Borogovac "seriously?"  Yes.  "Make things simple, not simpler" -Einstein btw, Bitcoin doesn't need to be complex in the same way the sciences do. This is just another bad comparison. When a scientist makes a discovery, they are forced to admit the complexities of the subject because they can't get rid of them. Even then, they'l strip the data to the basic concept and from there, describe it in the simplest possible terms to open the study up to the most amount of people. Bad publications are always the one the limit their audience. Bitcoin is artificial so theres no excuse. Any complexity exists there as a consequence of it's creator building off the foundations of their initial idea. Whenever evaluating a construct as opposed to a phenomena, simplification is always desired: to improve implementation and make the system more user friendly. Better yet, we loose nothing by getting rid of Bitcoin. On the other hand, we can't afford to ignore science without losing sight of reality. Your argument is the same one a lawyer/lobbyist would make to defend the tax code. 
    1
  75. Mirza Borogovac "to do things that it does" Now you are spouting a mere tautology.
    1
  76. Kai Hansen Good answer. Big fan of Proctor and Gamble btw. I don't have a lot to spair on investment, but what I do I send their way. 
    1
  77. Mirza Borogovac That is because the rest is just a repetition of meaningless factoids that have zero explanatory power. 
    1
  78. Mirza Borogovac Lol, and here I was thinking the same of you.  I don't think you know an Impasse when you see it. Which is the fault of any online format, but that isn't an excuse for falling back on senseless slander as a means to evade the the topic. If you can't rebuke my contention, do the respectable think and agree to disagree which I am more than happy to do.
    1
  79. ***** You do alot of guess work for someone so sure of themself. It's easy to call someone "narcissist" or "troll", anyone can do that. And your an idiot. See? that was simple! Of course I don't have the slightest proof. You say some awfully stupid things, but i'm not about to stand by that statement, because i'm not stupid enough myself to test your IQ over Youtube. Name calling online, is about as meaningful as calling an elephant a helicopter. But by all means, you seem to be the expert, so i'll let you explain that to me. Apparently, you know me better than I know myself, so this i'd love to hear.  You weren't here for the whole thread, you bowed out some time ago, so I could care less about your proclamations.  As for what's obvious, I doubt you'd know truth if it hit you in the face. and the Info? Lol, I have cited my sources on the subject several times: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/who-controls-bitcoin/ If your not going to deliver on substance, don't bother interjecting whenever it suites you. 
    1
  80. ***** Childlike response is childlike. 
    1
  81. ***** Condescension, oh how quaint. 
    1
  82. ***** lol, my how you waste such wit The fact that your response didn't make much sense is a detail i'm sure. 
    1
  83. ***** There's nothing more entertaining then a merry-go-round. 
    1
  84. ***** That I have understood. 
    1
  85. vikrant singh It's an analogue. Bitcoins are hidden behind "blocks" which are complicated algorithms you need to solve by expending computational power in order to gain access to. Once the block is solved, a "proof-of-work" stamp is sent throughout the network to confirm the validity of the process. After that you get your unique bitcoin, and the next block in the chain is queued up. Unlike physical mining however, Bitcoin is rewarded to the person/computer with the longest "chain". So miners compete with one another to produce the longest chain by having the most powerful computer basically.  Like mining, there are only so many bitcoins, and once the maximum amount of Bitcoins enters circulation, theoretically, no more can be produced. Like gold, or any precious metal.  I hope this answer helped.
    1
  86. ***** Bitcoin can be modified, it is strictly theoretical that the cap remain.  Bitcoin is like alchemy: the only thing to prevent people from changing the protocol is consensus. 
    1
  87. ***** Sounds like theory to me. 
    1
  88. ***** Prove it.  Which, if it isn't theory, should be easy. All you have to do is shown how it is it cannot be modified. 
    1
  89. ***** What we know from history is that "firewalls" eventually fall, and then are replaced by more sophisticated encryption programs.  So not only is it theoretically possible, it is theoretically likely, one might say envitable, but I am not prepared to speculate.  The SHA-2 series is no exception.
    1
  90. ***** That I knew, However you've already admitted to the possibility with quantum computing. Thats probably way off, but finding a design flaw, as was the case with MD5 is more than possible. Brute force isn't the only way to bring it down. 
    1
  91. ***** Secruity to my point isn't a problem. If people who have access (majority Bitcoin users) decide on a change, that change is possible. You seem to be under the false impression that you must "break the code" to change the protocol. If that were true, no Bitcoin transaction would, as you say, be "practical". You need only provide, in essence, a valid ID, and be in the majority. 
    1
  92. ***** ok. Not the point, but ok. 
    1
  93. ***** The only reason you commented was presumably to correct me. It is theoretical because it can, in theory, be done. That is all I need say; the proof is in the definition as applicable to the context. Since the two are logically sufficient, my wording is justified.  It isn't "impractical" (def: "not easy to do or use") because it never has been done. Once it has, and proves difficult, it can then be said to be "impractical".  You are thinking of the word "Impracticable" (def: "difficult or impossible to do or use : not practicable") Which is different, but may be so. Lastly, they are not mutually exclusive. Something can be both "theoretical" and "impracticable"; (since it is not impossible, only difficult, only the other part of the definition applies by default) the 'practice' in this case being limited only by the extent to which one is willing (feasibly) over an inconceivable span of time. It is additionally the difference between "probable" and "possible". YouTube debate attracts binary oppositions. It is fallacious to fall into a self-constructed category on the feeling that one is really and truly right, and the other completely wrong. 
    1
  94. ***** Defend the position that you can theoretically live without oxygen.  note: the perimeters are scientific mainstream, e.i published, peer-reviewed journals. 
    1
  95. ***** Know all about it. Worms are nontrivially isomorphic from humans.  You'd have to prove the two (worms and humans) are enough alike first, for the theory to be sound.  Imagination is not theory. 
    1
  96. ***** "Everything is theoretically possible" -Mr5HT2A, 2/10/15, 7:20 pm
    1
  97. ***** We don't base action on Multiverses (primarily, because they don't pertain to us) or string theory for that matter.  We do base actions on theoretical possibilities in economics. Even if they're small, they have dire consequences. Another in a long line of terrible comparisons.  Freewill is probably more of a theory than determinism, still doesn't matter, because people will always think they act on that premise.
    1
  98. ***** Don't care.  That's not even a complete sentence. Now normally that would bother me, but nope, THAT's how little I care. 
    1
  99. ***** Gotta be quick ace. 
    1
  100. DubbedDemon hmm... Well, lets see, Janet Yellen has a PhD in Economics from Yale, so unless you're setting an impossible standard for intelligence, or you can be more specific as to whom else you refer, I'm more than ok with trusting the Fed based on what little I know of that particular institution.  By the way, If you've ever used a Federal Reserve note (a dollar), then you've in some sense, already placed your trust in them. 
    1
  101. Jase SideFX I do not take your point. Please clarify. 
    1
  102. CrystalStearOfTheCas I never said it was. 
    1
  103. John Trollinski Thank you, I am glad you were able to see my point. 
    1
  104. John Trollinski Therein lies the problem.
    1
  105. Sync Conan History would say you made a poor choice. 
    1
  106. CrystalStearOfTheCas If you are refering to me, this is my answer: Governments are risk adverse in that they cannot be dissolved, save to be replaced by some other government. Even in this most extreme case, your money would still be good, as this new government would still have to do business with the citizenry it now governs, which means accepting the money they now have as just as good as it was before. Yes, under dire circumstances your money can be worth less but it cannot be worthless. Governments that cannot maintain the quality of life it's citizens demand however, are doomed to fail and be replaced. The Wiemar Republic, for example.  Businesses on the other hand, like bitcoin, come and go: they are not tied to the land nor do they have stake in the world. ex: Nation-states have historical ties to the land, owners of gold have stake in a percentage of all the gold in the world.  and math is merely a mental abstraction: yes, you can trust it to be correct, but all math statements are meaningless unless having some context/application. It can show you that an apple and an orange is worth five dollars, but it cannot explain why they are valued. Value comes from our needs and wants, which there is no equation for.  The logic is this: The necessity of the state is universal. The use of money is universal. The two are tied to each other in such away as to allow the free exchange of goods and services as secured and guaranteed by the government. 
    1
  107. Shark Attack Videos 2015 Not at all. I can't imagine what gives you that impression.
    1
  108. Shark Attack Videos 2015 Ok.
    1
  109. ***** What was confusing? 
    1