Slashdot Mirror
BitInstant CEO Says World Operates "On an Inferior Monetary System"
hypnosec writes "BitInstant's CEO Charlie Shrem and Erik Voorhees were invited to speak about virtual currency at the NACHA (the North American Payments Association) Annual Global Payments Forum held in Rio de Janeiro. At the conference the duo stated that the world operates 'on an inferior monetary system'. One of the more interesting parts of the whole forum was how Bitcoin as a currency and transaction system "works within current legal frameworks." A presentation by Senior Legal Counsel to the Federal Reserve titled: 'The Implications of Dodd-Frank Section 1073' sheds light on requirements that need to be fulfilled by "Remittance Payment Company" (RPC) guidelines. This law requires such companies to disclose a lot of information about money transactions. This is where Bitcoin as a currency and system collide head-on with the law."
Bitcoin is useless from a PRACTICAL standpoint. Why?
1) Transactions aren't instant, you have to wait potentially for hours for your transaction to go through and the value in your account to change. (Even transactions between two accounts you own, because Bitcoin isn't smart enough to handle that.)
2) Every device using Bitcoin needs a copy of the Bitcoin database. As of about a year ago, this was 700 MB of data. Every device needs a copy of this. Every device needs to go through this file and parse it. Including your low-power cellphone.
I'm not against the concept of Bitcoin, but the implementation stinks.
Comment of the year
the bitcoin system would require only trivial mods to do remove the privacy and track the "who" as well as the "what".
That's not how it works. First and foremost, the creation of public addresses can be done entirely offline, without connecting to the Internet and without any information leaving RAM. I can request money to be sent to one of these addresses and only the person sending it knows that it belongs to me as there is no other record of its existence. An infinite number of such addresses could be created and there is no way to tie them directly to me.
Secondly, any such non-trivial changes to the network would require nearly everyone on the network to agree, which is EXTREMELY unlikely given Bitcoin's user base and ideology.
A different level of security vigilance is necessary for a Bitcoin exchange operator, than for an individual holder of Bitcoins - because it's a much more tempting target for thieves. Much like a traditional bank requires rather more security than one's wallet.
People need to learn how to barter again and save on taxes
In general, countries that have sales taxes or value added taxes officially tax barter as well. In British Columbia, and in Ontario the last time I lived there, there is no sales tax on the resale of used personal items: i.e. you don’t have to pay sales tax at a garage sale/boot sale/flea market.
But if you trade computer repair for plumbing repair, the law says that you are required to collect the service/sales/value add tax for the computer repair and send it to the tax man, and the plumber likewise is required to collect the tax on the plumbing repair.
The government generally doesn’t try to track down and collect such taxes because it would be too much effort for too little return, but the law is clear, and if a significant portion of the populace switched to barter without paying taxes on it, there would be a tax crackdown. The government couldn’t afford not to.
Alice doesn't put your Oxytocin in the mail until she sees your transaction confirmed by six or seven nodes on blockchain.info -- the people calculating the blocks are validating the transactions against the rules of the system. Once the money passing to Alice is "spent" on the blockchain, all of the peers processing transactions will see your wallet as empty and any attempt to debit BTCs from a wallet that's empty will be rejected.
This can be broken if you get a peer to accept your transaction, stick it in as block and lie that it's validated; but other peers are seeing your transaction too and computing their own blocks against the truth on the chain. Six or seven different nodes have to agree on the validity of your transaction, and you have no control over which nodes will be able to validate a block containing your transaction. If you got some vast percentage of the computing power on the block chain (not a vast amount of power per se, but a commanding proportion of the total cycles computing transactions), you might be able to get enough confirmations to make your false transaction look valid. And that's a problem, and it's a way that a large single guild could possibly create rule changes, but at his time it's probably not a major issue.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.