Slashdot Mirror
Bitcoin Inventor Satoshi Nakamoto Nominated For Nobel Prize
HughPickens.com writes: Nobel Prizes are given for making important — preferably fundamental — breakthroughs in the realm of ideas. That's just what Satoshi Nakamoto has done, according to Bhagwan Chowdhry, a professor of finance at UCLA. Chowdhry has nominated Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, for a Nobel prize in economics. The Prize Committee for the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, popularly known as the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, has invited Chowdhry to nominate someone for the 2016 Prize. He started thinking about whose ideas are likely to have a disruptive influence in the twenty first century: "The invention of bitcoin — a digital currency — is nothing short of revolutionary," says Chowdhry. "It offers many advantages over both physical and paper currencies. It is secure, relying on almost unbreakable cryptographic code, can be divided into millions of smaller sub-units, and can be transferred securely and nearly instantaneously from one person to any other person in the world with access to internet bypassing governments, central banks and financial intermediaries." Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin Protocol has also spawned exciting innovations in the FinTech space by showing how financial contracts — not just currencies — can be digitized, securely verified and stored, and transferred instantaneously from one party to another.
There's only one problem. Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? Suppose the Nobel Committee is convinced that Satoshi Nakamoto deserves the Prize. Now the problem it will face is how to contact him to announce that he has won the Prize. According to Chowdhry, Nakamoto can be informed by contacting him online just the same way people have communicated with him in the past. He has anonymously communicated with the computer science and cryptography community. If he accepts the award, he can verifiably communicate his acceptance. Finally, there is the issue of the Prize money. Nakamoto is already in possession of several hundred million U.S. dollars worth of bitcoins so the additional prize money may not mean much to him. "Only if he wants, the committee could also transfer the prize money to my bitcoin address, 165sAHBpLHujHbHx2zSjC898oXEz25Awtj," concludes Chowdhry. "Mr Nakamoto and I will settle later."
There's only one problem. Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? Suppose the Nobel Committee is convinced that Satoshi Nakamoto deserves the Prize. Now the problem it will face is how to contact him to announce that he has won the Prize. According to Chowdhry, Nakamoto can be informed by contacting him online just the same way people have communicated with him in the past. He has anonymously communicated with the computer science and cryptography community. If he accepts the award, he can verifiably communicate his acceptance. Finally, there is the issue of the Prize money. Nakamoto is already in possession of several hundred million U.S. dollars worth of bitcoins so the additional prize money may not mean much to him. "Only if he wants, the committee could also transfer the prize money to my bitcoin address, 165sAHBpLHujHbHx2zSjC898oXEz25Awtj," concludes Chowdhry. "Mr Nakamoto and I will settle later."
Actually he already communicated with me anonymously that he wants them to transfer the money to ME, personally, and I will deliver it to him. Cash only.
Which is obvious. Too bad he'll never see the light of day again.
Hey he loves tech - why not?
Nobel prize still does not outweigh a perspective of spending the rest of a life behind bars.
There is no Nobel Prize for economics; it is a pretend prize that tries to piggy-back on the Nobel name to push an agenda (of course, some of the real Nobel prizes have been politicized as well).
"The invention of bitcoin — a digital currency — is nothing short of revolutionary," says Chowdhry. "It offers many advantages over both physical and paper currencies.
But at a very high cost. The only way to create bitcoins is to waste energy. Worse, the amount of energy that must be wasted to create new bitcoins increases over time.
If we move forward with bitcoin's wasteful design, and it achieves widespread use, it will be an environmental disaster. It is imperative that we develop new-generation digital currencies that do not waste energy.
Inventor of dynamite never intended it to be used to kill people... Bitcoin has the potential to change the world, but it's not the creator's fault that bad people abuse it early on.
You know nothing.
He created a decentralized trust chain, one that could be used in applications we cannot today even imagine. Let's say there's a country with no proper land registry... How do you transfer, demarcate or make original claims for a piece of land?
If there's enough mobile phones, computers, participating in a specific swarm due to self-interest (protecting land) then some random can't come and claim rights to the land with forged documents. It would only be valid if both sides agreed to the transaction and signed it cryptographically.
This also extends to bank-to-bank trust, and various others. Paedo-phobia and drug druggies are just where it found a proving ground.
popularly known as the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences
Economists like to call it that. But Alfred Nobel had more sense than to give a prize for hand waving.
And as we all know, traditional currency has never been used for criminal activity whatsoever.
You have made a currency for an underworld of drug & arms dealers, paedophile porn sites and murder for hire. Oh yes, a few people use it for normal transactions too, and it ruins the environment as you have to run computers for a long time to create it.
That's a pretty lame way to frame it. You forgot to mention that it rots your teeth and destroys family values.
American paper money is also the currency of underworld drugs and arms, pedophiles, and murder for hire.
Bitcoin is also the currency of freedom from oppression, freedom from centralized regulation based on political agendas, and massive surveilance.
The American dollar... not so much.
Did you think that the credit cards refusing to allow payments to WikiLeaks was a good thing?
Googling "BitCoin freedom" turns up just shy of a million links.
At least 2000 girls in Afghanistan are being paid in bitcoin for their blog writing and social media skills.
Bitcoin Will Thrust the World Towards Freedom
So, just like normal currency then?
You should read up about gift economies. The gist of it is that only over time as people wanted better account of the effective credit of gifts did there need to be an exact accounting and only then did it become normal to deprive others of food or shelter on the bases of a lack of goods or money--which isn't to say people didn't find other reasons to deprive people, but then it wasn't "just business".
Growing cotton/trees for paper, mining and smelter gold/silver, or drilling for oil and making plastic money all does nothing good for the environment and it's all been done to further the betterment of man which has come at great cost to the environment. But, yea, feel free to go back to subsistence farming and be wiped out because of a poor year or two.
Inventor of dynamite never intended it to be used to kill people...
How peculiarly relevant that the inventor of dynamite was Alfred Nobel, the founder of the Nobel prize
That's for the Nobel prize in economics, not for the peace prize.
Awarding a fictitious person the Nobel Prize is stupider than the BitCoin fanaticism .
and I'll make sure that Saroshi gets his prize funds.
I mined one whole Bitcoin in 2012 and lost it because I kept it in an account on Mt.Gox.
Surely, the largest Bitcoin exchange is too big to fail, right?
Sorry, no FDIC for you!
Right. People with that kind of criminal record usually don't get a Nobel Prize for economics. They get the one for peace.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't see what solving the double spending problem has to do with economics. The initial bitcoin implementation is based on a gold-standard like relic from antiquity nowhere near worthy of any price.
You just described the US dollar fiat currency!
Hell...anyone can be 'nominated'. Even Rush Limbaugh was 'nominated'.
Oh man, I wish I'd thought of that. But then nobody would trust me to nominate the brightest sock in the drawer even literally.
You have made a currency for an underworld of drug & arms dealers, paedophile porn sites and murder for hire.
You seem to think that Bitcoin is only useful for governments.
At last, the circle is complete.
If payement is not doing the needfuls, please be reverting the same kind guru's and post you're documents here showing error's of the same.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Who could have foreseen that something that makes a violent explosion could be used as a weapon?
In other news, the inventor of the ping pong paddle never intended it to be used to hit a little white ball.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You have made a currency for an underworld of drug & arms dealers, paedophile porn sites and murder for hire. Oh yes, a few people use it for normal transactions too, and it ruins the environment as you have to run computers for a long time to create it.
You know what they used before? Yes, that is right, regular money.
Excellent! Please stop using whatever currency it displaced.
Oh wait, you mean what you're paid with?
Shit, choices, choices...
He should be nominated for the Peace Prize, which actually is a Nobel prize. The Swedish Banker's prize is far less prestigious.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
so, according to that, gold-backed currency is not a currency?
Or pay the Nobel prize to *my* bitcoin address.
I will settle with Mr Nakamoto later.
In fact I offer this service to all Nobel prize winners.
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
Excuse me but the federal reserve has nothing to do with govt. The argument that bitcoins are freedom from govt is absurd because it like most things pandered is a lie. On top of that, if this satoshi guy has hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of bitcoins, the prize itself is a sham, and therefore so is the award. It would be like bill gates stopping to pick up a hundred dollar bill. Not worth the time of day. This is like the banks giving themself an award for bailing themselves out. What a fucking joke.
Bitcoin is also the only way to pay for many things without the banks getting a piece of it. Bought something on ebay? Paypal gets 3-4%. Paying with a different currency than the merchant? Make that 7%
If your definition of currency requires that it be the liability of a counterparty, then who need that shit anyway?
By that standard, Bitcoin is better than currency.
Yeah, we all know the peace prize is reserved for warmonger like president Obama.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
nventor of dynamite never intended it to be used to kill people
Not true at all. Nobel was one of the biggest armament manufacturers and merchants of the nineteenth century. As he got older he felt guilty about all the people who were being killed as a result of his inventions and business so he turned to philanthropy.
Nice try FBI and Wallstreet. You won't lure him out anytime soon. If you think someone's pride will allow them to unveil themself as the creator of bitcoin, you've got another thing coming.
"Bhagwan Chowdhry" an India National enjoying the freedoms in Los Angeles his other nationals do not.
"Satoshi" "Nakamoto"!
The first name suggest an India National and the second name suggest a Japanese National.
Both likely deceptive.
So the Thing calling itself "Bhagwan Chowdhry" living in Los Angeles nominates a ... Thing.
Well Mr. or Ms. Queer "Bhagwan Chowdhry" ... Hindi's love the "Bi" after all ... KISS MY ASS!
Ha ha
Feynman said getting the prize was the worst thing that ever happened to him.
"Country with no proper land registry"
So, for example, the United States of America
"How do you transfer, demarcate or make original claims for a piece of land?"
However you like, and then you just cross your fingers that nobody sues. If they do, it'll cost a vast amount of money and take years and probably nothing useful will be decided. Having a "decentralised trust chain" will alter nothing. You can buy insurance, and indeed if you need a mortgage you'll have to buy insurance.
You can't fix this problem with technology, it's a policy problem. Some people get very, very rich off the lack of a working registry. If you propose to implement one they will spend every penny they have to stop you.
n/t
Have gnu, will travel.
Just send the bitcoins to one of his original addresses.
" It's a trap "
They finally gave up trying to figure out who the person is behind the name. So, they're gonna try a million dollar piece of cheese to see if they'll bite :D
It's a Trap
Yep and that philanthropy survives today as the Nobel prize, the money for the prizes comes from his estate, it's held in perpetuity in a trust fund, profits from the fund are given away as prizes.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Do you know how many people have died over even small amounts of fiat? WTF do you know, moron?
Besides, criminals prefer US Dollars, but nice work fitting every bullshit argument the banks and government has tried to push in a single sentence. Keep hating.
"Only if he wants, the committee could also transfer the prize money to my bitcoin address ..." concludes Chowdhry. "Mr Nakamoto and I will settle later."
Seems like it would make more sense to transfer the money to one of Mr Nakamoto's bitcoin addresses.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
>"Nobel Prizes are given for making important â" preferably fundamental â" breakthroughs in the realm of ideas"
Um, not always. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.cracked.com/article...
Sometimes the Nobel prize is a joke.
It would only be valid if both sides agreed to the transaction and signed it cryptographically.
All it does it confirm that the document hasn't changed since it was signed, the validity of the document is determined by property law. You can do the same thing by giving a copy of the document to an independent party for safe keeping. It's a complex solution to a simple problem of trust, and a waste of electricity to boot.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Latest reports are that the nobel prize being awarded needs five more confirmations from random networks across the world, so I guess we'll need to wait on those.
In related news, Charles Ponzi has been nominated for a posthumous Nobel prize in Economics for similarly exciting and novel ways of thinking about investment, albeit without the "with a computer" aspect.
There's plenty of ways to make explosions in war, though. Those were all around way before that.
What makes you think your digital trust chain will be in any way enforcable in a nation that has collapsed so far that it doesn't even have a "proper land registry"?
In that situation, a gun would be far more useful than some bits on a computer somewhere. And that's only if someone else doesn't have bigger and/or more guns.
BTW, Nakamoto didn't invent the idea of decentralised trust chains. He borrowed the idea from existing public key encryption.
That a modern economics prize would consider rewarding what was effectively a pyramid scheme.
Why the mod down. Facts upset you? Are you mad because president Obama is a warmonger or because the Nobel prize comity is corrupted?
Get some perspective - they have to heard about the pyramid scheme and care enough before bothering to go looking.
Whoever nominated him has serious problems in keeping things in perspective - guys your grubby little hobby is not earthshaking and is a million miles away from the initial dreams of a viable digital currency. Without trust it's just a temporary token to aid in exchange of real currencies.
So, invent a hybrid pyramid/ponzi scheme disguised as some form of alt-currency/alt-security scam = Nobel Prize?
It's a nomination for a Swedish bank's award.
> nominated Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, for a Nobel prize in economics
That is a ridiculous suggestion. Consider that Tor development is financed by the US Navy (in hopes that foreign embassies will give up their expensive but uncrackable short-wave radio stations with one-time pad, for cheap and fancy, but inherently backdoored digital comms).
Bitcoin could also be an NSA (or NSA puppetmasters) concotion easily, in fact all three publicly identified Bitcoin inventor candidated have significant past ties with the US military-industrial complex. Can you imaging the peace or economics memorial Noble prize unwittingly awarded to a three-lettered agency or the six-lettered one? Considering the purpose of Bitcoin is to swindle gentiles out of their money and make them throw away solid metal currency, my guess would be on the nation that declares itself chosen, to be behind Bitcoin.
> The invention of bitcoin a digital currency is nothing short of revolutionary
In revolutions a lot of gentiles are executed, especially the catholic clergy and the nobles. The great many unwashed masses can then be easily brainwashed to forget about Jesus. A world without Jesus but with Bitcoin has already been described in the Revelations as the rule of 666.
Keep your panties on. Every US president since 1900 has been a warmonger. It is just not possible to get elected and remain unmurdered otherwise.
Besides, Obama got the Nobel prize for not being Bush. I guess he must have felt rather awkward about the whole thing, he hadn't actually implemented any policies yet. But much of the rest of the world was understandably relieved when that idiot's time was finally up, and had not had the time to be duly disappointed with the new boss.
Also yes, obviously the Peace Prize committee has blundered on quite a few occasions. Henry "Everything that flies on everything that moves" Kissinger, for reals?
You are talking about the USD?
Your simple problem of trust none the less manages to give rise to cases of fraud on a daily basis.
What he did do was take the corruptible fleshy mass of mostly water out of the equation. That is quite a significant achievement.
As soon as he shows up he will be arrested, deported, imprisoned, interrogated and disappeared. Anyone dealing in bitcoins will then be "contacted" by authorities and fined into poverty. Anyone behind Bitcoin is pretty much a dead man walking already.
So you are upset because the previous republican warmonger did not receive a Nobel prize?
LOL. "But but but other did too" fallacy. President Obama is unique; he is the first to have a iphone app to the NSACIAAF back-end where he can select target for elimination, have a drone strike anywhere in the world, and kills confirmation in the same day. That is warmongering beyond anything that was possible by his predecessor. But yeah, let turn that into a partisanship issue because you need to feel better about voting for him twice.
I'm not even american, you moron. You made this partisan. If you think a drone strike is any more (or less) mongery than invading a sovereign nation, I can't help you.
yep, use bitcoin, lose maybe 20% instead in the daily fluctuations or 5%+ if you want to convert it into a normal currency, while getting no financial protection, no chargeback or insurance. personally I would rather the banks getting a smaller cut of my money than the amount you lose by using bitcoin combined with the massively increased risk
so maybe guilt is driving bill gates too?
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
"here's 50 quid, this document is totally legit and the original version." , "Why so it is!"
Yep, government backed paper doesn't have a weakness to sophisticated attacks on complex math equations to forge and cheat the system. Clearly miles better than BtC.
Let's say there's a country with no proper land registry... How do you transfer, demarcate or make original claims for a piece of land?
You don't.
Without a central administration, there is no claim to land. The land isn't yours to sell, or yours to buy, or yours to own. No executive power can determine ownership, and so the enforcement of police and military does not protect your claim to land.
In such a situation, a decentralized cryptographic trust chain is as valid as a handshake over beer.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
He's probably an anarchist and thinks you can have a society without government.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Dynamite was never used as a military explosive except for certain demolition purposes.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Which is strange, since he invented something with no economic value.
BitCoin is only useful for trading to other currency--it's a currency at best--and thus for speculation. BitCoin has spawned speculation and BitCoin production, two operations which consume labor to produce nothing but the ability to transfer money from others to yourself. That's equivalent to a Government jobs bill which mandates you get taxpayer money for digging holes and filling them in again: you could get paid to stay home and do nothing and we'd have the same result (nothing useful produced).
It's not a great amount of labor, fortunately. A tiny, tiny fraction of available labor has sunk into waste production--essentially the building of trash nobody is going to use. It's still just waste, economically.
Economics is strange. Classical economic theory--what we operate on now--is all about determining "value", which has about a dozen different definitions all used interchangeably (making the entire theory of economics one enormous fallacy of equivocation). Basically, they try to determine the "correct" price of goods and services. Meanwhile I've rewritten macroeconomics from scratch based on "wealth theory", which has lead to a lot of understanding of how nations become wealthy, how this impacts day-to-day standard of living, where welfare systems come from, how income inequality happens, what advantages income inequality provides (progressive tax systems!), cost of labor considerations, and so forth.
This leads to interesting conclusions: expense of labor in non-productive ways is actively harmful, yet the effects of welfare are complex and useful--and the current optimal system really is just sending people money for nothing, without consuming their labor time for no economic benefit. (Of course, this is *extremely* unstable if not financed in such a way as to align with the well-understood basic economic behaviors discovered through wealth theories of economics; and it's only become the better system recently, since our current system will eventually collapse the economy in ways even modern economists recognize openly.)
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Bitcoin is also the only way to pay for many things without the banks getting a piece of it.
Or, you know, cash.
Actually, does anybody know if checks are "free" as well? My intuition says they are not, but I've never been charged anything for cashing a check at a bank where I had an account with at least as much cash as the check was worth. (This is ignoring the money the bank is earning from interest on my open account.)
"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)
Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...
(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)
I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).
I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.
I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).
Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).
APK
P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk
"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)
It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
---
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:
"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)
"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)
"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)
"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)
... apk
Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:
"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Hypocrite admits using admin priv
&
How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?
---
"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!
FACT:
Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!
---
Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit-> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?
---
Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!
I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise-> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
You told me you learn from guides?
I write good ones that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...
+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that are endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
You did all that? No!
(& that's ONLY a SMALL part of what I could put out)
APK
P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" in security... apk
Trust is not a simple problem.
Bill Gates' wife is driving him. She's actually nice from what I can tell, and she's using his money to take him along on the ride and trying to do good things with that wealth. I don't know what he'd do with his money if not for her, but I suspect he might go Scrooge McDuck and build a big vault of money to go swimming in.
> He started thinking about whose ideas are likely to have a disruptive influence in the twenty first century
Moving forward, "disruptive influences" are going to become more and more "dangerous". The folks coming up with them are going to want to stay anonymous more and more often.
Bark less. Wag more.
Whoosh...
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
At the time he made it, he was "rather focussed" on making it possible for miners to not blow their hands off, which was happening regularly with nitroglycerine.
... Is first in the queue
So how do you transmit cash over the Internet without the banks getting a piece of it?
That's fine if you don't like the risks involved with freedom, we're not replacing traditional financial services to use Bitcoins exclusively. Bitcoins are an extra form of currency that is backed by the Bitcoin rules rather than backed by the strength of any government to back the Bitcoin. When we use Bitcoin, we know fully well that we don't have the safety of chargeback or insurance.
That is temporary.
If I want to send the equivalent of $100 to somebody overseas, I spend $100 at a Bitcoin exchange to get BTC. I send the BTC to my recipient, who cashes it in at a Bitcoin exchange to get euros or whatever. That's two transactions with a Bitcoin exchange, and three Bitcoin transactions. Those aren't going to be free. Banks can do that sort of thing cheaper. Thing is, they don't.
With pressure from Bitcoin, banks will be forced to lower their international money transfer and currency exchange fees to the point where it's cheaper to use the banks.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You only have to do that the first time. I could say that if I want to spend $100 online I need to open a bank account, deposit the $100, etc.
Look at it this way: if everybody were using BTC as currency nobody would be losing anything to the banks. That's a really good thing.
It's quite easy to defeat that kind of tracking. Send your coins to a bitcoin exchange, and sell them for currency. Later trade back to bitcoin and pull your funds out, typically on a different address.
Another way is to trade on localbitcoins.com for paper cash. The coins now belong to an unconnected person.
Finally, people run "tumbler" services, where multiple people put in funds, they are randomly sent through various addresses, and finally go back to the original people, but in random amounts to different addresses (addresses are essentially free to create).
Ah, but the irony of a system that eliminates the need for banks as middlemen being nominated for a banker's prize is delicious.
All quite true, but we're discussing bitcoin not the US dollar.
Bitcoin is useful as a way to transfer value without going through the banks, to fund illegal activities, and as a speculative investment. It is not useful as a store of value. Therefore, since I'm not into that much speculation, I wouldn't just have Bitcoin sitting around, and to transfer value I'd have to buy the things off an exchange. Are there any exchanges where I can buy $100 of Bitcoin, and the next day, assuming no fluctuations in the market, sell that Bitcoin for $100? Even if there were, I'd not trust them, as I wouldn't see where they got their profit. I can deposit $100 in my bank account, then withdraw $100 the next day, and my balance is not changed by those transactions. I haven't lost money. The bank makes their money in lending my money out.
Suppose I want to send $100 to someone in Europe who wants it in Euros. I buy Bitcoins from an exchange, and there's a transfer of dollars to them and Bitcoins to me. I transfer my Bitcoins to my European friend. My European friend sells Bitcoins to an exchange in exchange for Euros. There are two exchange fees and three Bitcoin transactions, and those transactions are inherently expensive. Alternately, I deposit money in my bank, paying nothing for the privilege, and transfer it to my European friend, who withdraws it in Euros. That's two transactions which cost the banks almost nothing to perform, and a single currency exchange. Further, money in a bank is a good store of value (although I won't make any money on it), and so I'm likely to have that sitting around anyway.
If Bitcoin is cheaper than banks for this, it's because the banks are slapping on charges because they can. They can offer such international transfers cheaper than Bitcoin if they like.
And what do you have against banks? They'll do all sorts of useful things with my money, storing it safely, disbursing it according to my instructions, and it really doesn't cost much. I consider them useful institutions. I'm not talking about investment banking here, or the fancier stuff, just the bank services a guy like me would want.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So it's blood money then?
so Chowdhry = Satoshi?
You're missing the point. You're comparing BTC to USD and saying that when the market fluctuates in favor of USD you're losing money holding BTC. That's true but by the same token you are losing money by holding USD when it goes the other way.
I agree that USD is a more convenient currency, I can't pay my rent or buy groceries with BTC.
If you haven't realized that banks are evil by now than I won't convince you. You've lived through a 7 year (and counting) recession that was caused by predatory lending policies, saw nobody get in any kind of trouble for it, saw those jerks fly to DC in their private jets to ask for handouts, and still you love them? Banks are bad news.
I'm a freelancer and when I can get a client to pay me with BTC I win. I keep all the money, don't pay account fees, don't worry about my account getting frozen (it's happened to me with paypal)
See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)
APK
P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!
(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk
The USD is a reasonably stable currency. What I can buy with $100 decreases very slowly for the most part. It's a reasonable store of value. I know that, if I get paid, my pay is a reasonable amount for the work I did in the last pay period. I know that I'll not lose noticeably by paying my bills a week later. That isn't really true of Bitcoin.
Also, it's true that the transfer of value from me in the US to someone in Germany is inherently less expensive with banks than Bitcoin.
Banks also have different functions. Some of the functions serve my purposes very well at a reasonable price, and some don't. These functions were pretty well separated from the highly speculative and dangerous functions before the repeal of Glass-Seagal. If you don't like banks, I'd suggest finding a credit union you like. They stay out of the harmful stuff.
Every time a client pays you in Bitcoin, there's an inherent cost. Somebody's going to have to put a computer through a lot of work to make it happen. If you keep all the money by not paying taxes on it, you're in violation of the law. If you're saying you're avoiding fees, that's because the banks are charging what they can rather than something proportional to their actual costs. You don't have to worry about your account being frozen, but you do have to worry about keeping your key secret as well as making sure you can always get it, and you do have to worry about large value fluctuations.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes