Wired Thinks It Knows Who Satoshi Nakamoto Is (wired.com)

An anonymous reader writes: In a lengthy exposé, Wired lays out its case that Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto is actually Australian businessman Craig Wright. As evidence, Wired cites leaked communications and posts on Wright's blog from 2008 and 2009 establishing a connection between him and the launch of Bitcoin. Wright is also known to have amassed a significant Bitcoin fortune early on. Wired tried to contact Wright and got some perplexing responses, and they admit that it could all be a (long and extremely elaborate) hoax. But hours after publishing, Gizmodo followed up with the results of their own investigation, which came to the conclusion that Satoshi is a pseudonym for two men: Wright and Dave Kleiman, a computer forensics expert who died in 2013. After questioning (read: harassment) from both publications, Wright seems to have withdrawn from public comment. Regardless, both articles are quite detailed, and it will be interesting to see if the leaked documents turn out to be accurate.

Comments

who gives a shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

really... what does it matter who "invented" bitcoin?

Re:who gives a shit?

[dreamchaser]

I came here to say this same thing, only I would have phrased it as 'Who cares?' or 'Who gives a fuck?'.

Re:who gives a shit?

[Lisandro]

I do. BTC is gaining a lot of traction as the defacto digital currency standard, and we have no idea who's behind it.

Bitcoin is a solid design and has survived a lot of scrutiny so far, but imagine what would happen if we found out that the design was introduced by, say, the NSA.

Re:who gives a shit?

[bangular]

Get ready for a long line of comments saying "who cares?" It's been vetted pretty well by many experts in many fields. The only issue I would have if it was created by the US government with a very subtle backdoor to monitor transactions.

Re:who gives a shit?

[dreamchaser]

Fair enough. You care. The vast majority does not. Bitcoin and other 'virtual' currencies are a fad and will vanish in due time.

Re:who gives a shit?

[kamapuaa]

Sure, because the person who invented Bitcoin is sitting on a huge pile of bitcoins, and has the ability to completely devalue the currency, perhaps taking the opportunity to enrich himself along the way.

Re:who gives a shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then don't use Bitcoins if you don't accept the risk. It's super easy.

Re:who gives a shit?

[angel'o'sphere]

The current versions may vanish.

However it is inevitable that in near future we will have a globaly accepted and supported digital currency.

Re:who gives a shit?

[ArmoredDragon]

I wouldn't say that at all. Whether or not the currency retains a value, the whole blockchain concept (which is essentially what bitcoin is) is gaining huge momentum in the financial industry.

Re:who gives a shit?

[dreamchaser]

Most fads do gain a lot of momentum before they fade.

Re:who gives a shit?

[NotInHere]

what would happen if we found out that the design was introduced by, say, the NSA.

good ideas stay good ideas, and bad ideas stay bad ideas, totally independent from who has created them. Bitcoin is a good idea, even if it was created by kim jong un himself.

Re:who gives a shit?

[Zero__Kelvin]

You evidently don't understand that the U.S. Dollar is a "virtual currency." You don't seem to understand that "Rock 'N Roll" is (was) a "fad" and will vanish in due time. Maybe it will eventually, but before it does it will have made it's mark on the world to the tune of half a decade or more. Despite your attempt at hand-waving, Bitcoin is already significant. Wishful thinking won't change that.

Re:who gives a shit?

[ledow]

Maybe not, but I've bought a shit-load of humble-bundles with them.

Put in a tiny amount of cash (think it was GBP20) years ago. I've since cashed out probably ten times that in actual monetary value for humble bundles (including the ones where you have to pay a minimum to get the higher-end products).

It's a viable payment system, it just hasn't gained mainstream traction yet. What would make it more viable is discovering that the creator was, say, some entrepreneur trying to make a digital currency rather than, say, the NSA/GCHQ trying to lure you into an "anonymous" payment system.

That said, I've never relied on, nor cared about, the anonymity side of things with my Bitcoin. It's a cinch to trace all my Bitcoin purchases back to the original seller and, from there, to a bank transaction between myself and them. I have nothing to hide in it, just a massive interest in cryptography and thus crypto-currencies as an aside.

That I put GBP20 into a toy project to see what happens, and got at least ten times that value out? It's obviously doing something right.

Considering that my bank want to charge me to hold my money, while fining me for every tiny infraction for a fraction of a millisecond deliberately introduced via their "X days to clear" bollocks in the modern age, while giving me an absolute pittance in interest, and locking up the branches so there's no staff in them and I can never get to them - by comparison Bitcoin is positively user-friendly and offers a great return.

And is my money guaranteed in my bank? Is it fuck. If nothing else, it's worth putting a small piece of disposable income into Bitcoin just to spread funds out. I can convert it back to real cash in a matter of seconds at the moment. That may or may not hold true in the future but as it's "just another" store of pocket-change money accessible to me, in an emergency it could come in handy.

Re:who gives a shit?

[ledow]

Yeah.

Like credit cards?

What fool is going to put their money into a bank and be issued with a number they can use to add or remove funds from this "fake" virtual account as if it was real cash?

Thank God Visa and Mastercard never took off and we still have to pay Amazon in coins and notes before their same-day-delivery.

Re:who gives a shit?

[demonlapin]

It's a long way from anonymous (after all, every transaction is in the blockchain), so why worry about simply monitoring transactions?

Re:who gives a shit?

[TheSunborn]

Would $ or euro not count as a globaly accepted and digital currency? Most of the economy is 100% digital, and I think you can pay with $ digitally in 99% of all countries.

Re:who gives a shit?

[driblio]

Monitor? You know the blockchain is public, right? One of us is missing something!

Re:who gives a shit?

[viperidaenz]

The fool that knows that if someone steals their magic numbers and takes all their money, the bank will give their money back.

Re:who gives a shit?

[cloud.pt]

You can't ask for currency to have perks that you like to have in open source software and hardware (or any intelectual property for that matter). Currency is a special case of ownership, usually "supported" by governments, or on the larger scale, supported by levels of trust between governments (or groups of governments) that use specific currencies, or even levels of trust between organizations whose value is tied to a given currency.

When you ask for "support" and decentralized at the same time, you're implying that decentralized currency is broken from the start, because ensuring intended behavior (i.e. "supporting") is _centralizing_ control: I am not, in any way, biased to the use of golden standard, but the golden standard was THE best possible "support" a currency should ever have - 1 dollar would always have the exact same value in gold, because even though "new" gold might stop flowing eventually, the only 3 things the dollar user could be certain of, at medium to long term (long term being 2 to 3 human lifespans), were (1.) that gold becomes gradually harder to mine/find, yet (2.) not hard enough that it fluctuates faster than you can buy it back in actual physical gold, at a reasonable rate, before becoming completely broke, and finally (3.) that the entire world should never apply rule 2. all at once (i.e., society would prevent itself from mass gold-runs) because the reppercussions of doing so are obviously harmful to the correct function of society as it's known.

The reason bitcoin has come this far is because it effectively emulates 1. and 2. to quasi-perfection in a digital perspective, and further expands 3. by having a built in limiter to such mass in-dollar runs (network/bank/transfer latency, immediate loss of privacy, logarithmic devaluation). When you ask for support because there's this single instance mathematical loophole where everybody will be able to acquire 2 bitcoins at the cost of 1, is much the same as saying money doesn't make sense because it can be faked with a 0.001% success rate - i.e. it has no effect whatsoever if supervised closely by the end user himself, thus is a non-issue.

Re:who gives a shit?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Try to pay in USD$ in Canada. You'll be lucky if they accept your money and even luckier if they give you any exchange rate at all.

Re:who gives a shit?

[arse maker]

I would feel very safe in betting my house on many millions of people being very interested.

Re:who gives a shit?

[Idimmu Xul]

thats all very exciting, but no. the bitcoin technology is more suitable for internal banking systems than public use.

Re:who gives a shit?

[jdavidb]

You don't seem to understand that "Rock 'N Roll" is (was) a "fad" and will vanish in due time. Maybe it will eventually, but before it does it will have made it's mark on the world to the tune of half a decade or more

Maybe even longer than that. ;)

Re:who gives a shit?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Yes, that is what the word "more" means.

Re:who gives a shit?

[dohzer]

The IMF need to know who to assassinate.

Re:who gives a shit?

[ultranova]

Most fads do gain a lot of momentum before they fade.

And most things which won't fade will be called mere fads by people who don't like them for whatever reason. So why do you think Bitcoin will fade?

Re:who gives a shit?

[Dan East]

really... what does it matter who "invented" bitcoin?

Bitcoin is a bit like a pyramid scheme, in that blocks become progressively more computationally expensive to calculate over time. Thus the first blocks were very low-hanging fruit that were quick and easy to calculate. Of course those easy blocks were calculated by the creator of Bitcoin, and it is estimated Satoshi has at least 1 million bitcoins (the current value of which is over $400 million dollars). So I think many people are curious as to who holds this wealth, which is an unduly massive reward for having created a crpytocurrency. It also raises the question of whether bitcoin was created merely to enrich the creator, or if it really was for some larger purpose. The only person who knows the answer to that is Satoshi.

Re:who gives a shit?

[invictusvoyd]

I came here to say this same thing, only I would have phrased it as 'Who cares?' or 'Who gives a fuck?'.

You do because you wasted a few satoshis worth of your time to post in this discussion.. amirite ?

Re:who gives a shit?

[jonnythan]

I think when all is said and done, rock n roll will have been significant for more than 5 years.

Re:who gives a shit?

[Zero__Kelvin]

I know for a fact that what you say is true, in a context where Rock n' Roll can be considered significant. Don't get me wrong. MY life revolves around it! ;-)

Re:who gives a shit?

[Flytrap]

It matters because 100 years from now, people will want to know in much the same way we want to know the people who gave birth to much of our present day civilisation... the Newtons, Marconis, Teslas, Edissons, Berners-Lees, Da Vincis, Graham Bells, Franklins, Einsteins, Pasteur, Curies, Wright Brothers and lots more.

Bitcoin may not still be around in 100 years, but the distributed ledger and crypto currency genies are never going back into their bottles and they will transform the world as we know it in more ways than the internet and world wide web has. The concept of centralised control over the generation, storage and transmission of tokens of value is unravelling faster than the centralised control and distribution of information and knowledge has.

It matters because 100 years from now people will want to know more than a pseudo name... they will want to know to who Nakamoto really was, where he lived, what inspired him, what he ate for breakfast, and all the other stuff that make our modern day legends more than myths.

It matters because if we do not solve this mystery in our lifetime, the genius of Nakamoto will remain a myth forever.

Re:who gives a shit?

[Jack Griffin]

Bitcoin is already significant. Wishful thinking won't change that.

My daughter says the same thing about Justin Bieber...

Re:who gives a shit?

[dryeo]

American money is usually accepted most everywhere in Canada though most businesses will give a bad exchange rate to different degrees. Don't know where in Canada you're having problems in. The other way, Canadian money is usually only accepted close to the border and the Americans often give a worse exchange rate.

Re:who gives a shit?

[Dog-Cow]

You got lucky. You got in on the ground floor of something which took off (and up, in value). Those coming in later don't and won't see your gains, so it's perfectly reasonable for the vast majority of people to be "meh" at best with respect to bitcoins.

Re:who gives a shit?

[geekmux]

The current versions may vanish.

However it is inevitable that in near future we will have a globaly accepted and supported digital currency.

"inevitable"

"near future"

Gosh, with statements like that one would think bitcoin would be running on an IPv6 network...

Re:who gives a shit?

[thegarbz]

However it is inevitable that in near future we will have a globaly accepted and supported digital currency.

That's an interesting statement to make considering opposition to such a scheme by established parties and general lack of interest from the wide public. So backup your statement. Why do you think it's inevitable/

Re:who gives a shit?

[FlyHelicopters]

However it is inevitable that in near future we will have a globaly accepted and supported digital currency.

"Inevitable" and "near future" are not likely to be compatible.

Keep in mind that such currencies are acceptable only at the whim of the government, if you honestly think that Bitcoin will challenge US Dollars without laws getting passed to affect it, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Re:who gives a shit?

[FlyHelicopters]

The concept of centralised control over the generation, storage and transmission of tokens of value is unravelling faster than the centralised control and distribution of information and knowledge has.

While that sounds nice, it also would not be hard for the government to regulate, or outlaw the use of Bitcoins.

Oh sure, criminals could still use them, but if you can't use them at any legal reputable merchant, then they aren't going anywhere.

It is much more likely we'll see digital cash issued by governments before Bitcoin or any other digital currency gets used by anything other than the extreme fringe of society. And there are reasonable reasons for this to happen.

Re:who gives a shit?

[dargaud]

It matters because if we do not solve this mystery in our lifetime, the genius of Nakamoto will remain a myth forever.

Good.

Re:who gives a shit?

[AmiMoJo]

You mean all those pop sci-fi novels where credits are the universal currency will come true?

The main problem with BTC at the moment is that 1 BTC is worth way too much for everyday stuff, and there is no language for talking about small fractions. Even 1 "cent" is currently worth â3.83.

I suppose it depends what the target market is, for moving money internationally and large purchases it's not a problem, but it is unlikely to take off for daily use if a coffee is BTC 0.0052.

Re:who gives a shit?

[KGIII]

Err... Hmm... You know, I live on the border and cross with an alarming frequency. I have property in Canada and, by heritage, am a citizen of Canada as well as the United States. I don't think I've had an issue with a credit or debit card and I've never had an issue with cash - ever. And yes, I go further than just beyond the border but that doesn't really apply as the vast majority of the Canadian population lives within something like 50 miles of the border.

I've carried credit and debit cards around the globe. I've carried cash to those same areas. I have had to make exchanges or have been limited in what I was allowed to spend or exchange but I've never really had a problem paying for goods, even illicit goods, anywhere I've ever been. Hell, I'm in a foreign country right now (Washington D.C.) and they seem content to take my money!

Re:who gives a shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it really be worth that much if "he" dumped all of his bitcoins in the market at once? Not sure if the market is big enough for all of that to be converted at once at the current valuation.

Re:who gives a shit?

[Rob Lister]

The main problem with BTC at the moment is that 1 BTC is worth way too much for everyday stuff, and there is no language for talking about small fractions. Even 1 "cent" is currently worth â3.83.

Sure there is.

I suppose it depends what the target market is, for moving money internationally and large purchases it's not a problem, but it is unlikely to take off for daily use if a coffee is BTC 0.0052.

So 5.2 millibitcoins (also referred to as mbits (pronounced em-bits) or millibits or even bitmills)

The [current but not written in stone] resolution is 8 decimal places. .00000001=1 microbitcoin (aka 1 BTC or 1 ubit [pronounced yu-bit])

Re:who gives a shit?

[Crowd Computing]

It matters because 100 years from now, people will want to know in much the same way we want to know the people who gave birth to much of our present day civilisation... the Newtons, Marconis, Teslas, Edissons, Berners-Lees, Da Vincis, Graham Bells, Franklins, Einsteins, Pasteur, Curies, Wright Brothers and lots more.

Much of our present civilization was invented by Mr. & Ms. Anonymous. Who invented the wheel? Who invented language? Who invented music, fine arts, war, the missionary position, agriculture, printing, writing, religion, the scientific method, weaving, astrology, alchemy, chemistry, or algebra? Sure, we can identify certain groups like the Chinese, who are said to have invented printing a few hundred years before the pretender named Gutenberg, or the Arabs, for having laid down the foundations of algebra. But most inventions cannot be traced to a single individual.

And even when there's a definite inventor, we often find examples of parallel invention. Darwin and Newton weren't the only geniuses thinking of the evolution of species or calculus respectively. They were part of a wave trending toward the solution of some then mysterious phenomena.

For what's worth, let's hope that our descendants forget the patent troll named Edison.

Re:who gives a shit?

[DarkOx]

Serious question does that matter?

I admit if it was the NSA that would certainly raise my level of concern. Just because it would do that does not mean its reasonable. It amounts to an ad hominem attack on a technology does it not?

Its open source an it has had a lot of eyes on it. So far there have been no OMG moments. On the other hand its remarkable the lack of understanding and sometimes seemingly willful ignorance on the part of the users and press coverage of it. I still to this day here news reports saying things like "Bitcoin, the anonymous online currency" when BitCoin is probably the most traceable currency that has ever existed. Its a heck of a lot more likely you can figure out where a BitCoin has been than a Benjamin. Same goes for all the exciting frauds a few years back around the exchanges. We are banks, no we are commodities brokers, no wait were are retailers etc: trying to figure out what the laws were or evade them. BitCoin was a currency except when it wasn't. So with all that in mind maybe there really are not that many people who have thought critically about it.

Like any other technology crypto currency can be used well or badly by people.

Re:who gives a shit?

[AmiMoJo]

Shouldn't a microbitcoin be a "mu-bit"? It's not an English letter U after all, it's a Greek mu that I can't type on Slashdot.

Re:who gives a shit?

[serviscope_minor]

So I think many people are curious as to who holds this wealth, which is an unduly massive reward for having created a crpytocurrency.

Define unduly. Is bitcoin a better thing for the world than Facebook, uber, instagram or a whole host of others?

It also raises the question of whether bitcoin was created merely to enrich the creator

Who cares what his motivation was? The entire purpose of just about every for-profit company is to enrich its creator. That doesn't make their products less useful or worthwhile.

Re:who gives a shit?

[jonnythan]

The joke is that you said half a decade and probably meant half a century.

Re:who gives a shit?

[jwdb]

Bitcoin as a currency might disappear, but the idea of a distributed verifiable ledger (the blockchain) is drawing a lot of attention from all over the place. The Economist did a long article on it a while back discussing the possibilities, for instance using the blockchain as a land registry in a country with no existing central authority on deeds. Just look at all the companies springing up that use Bitcoin's own blockchain as an authenticated information store, ignoring the currency aspect all together.

The tech that enables bitcoin has broader applications.

Re:who gives a shit?

[Notorious G]

Visa and Mastercard are the global digital currency. I've been a lot of places, unless you're in the middle of a third world country, those credit cards get you buying power and the currency conversions are done automatically.

Re:who gives a shit?

[squiggleslash]

If you mean, pay USD$ in paper or metal, yeah. But the discussion is about digital currencies.

If you use an American (billed in dollars) credit card (or debit card backed by a dollar based checking account) in Canada (or Britain, or France, or whatever), it'll be accepted as payment.

So.... not seeing the problem here. If the problem is "How do I make a payment to anyone in the developed world (ie the part of the world that has the Internet)", Bitcoin is "solving" a problem that was solved many decades ago. The issues left - the size of transaction fees, and the possibility of temporarily (until/unless BTC becomes mainstream) hiding transactions from tax collectors - are very different, and aren't compelling enough to get people to move away from dollars, francs, or sterling.

Re:who gives a shit?

[Slugster]

Despite your attempt at hand-waving, Bitcoin is already significant. Wishful thinking won't change that.

No, not really. Not compared to say,,,, the US dollar.

A major portion of the way that bigger countries control their citizens is by manipulating the value of currency. How long you work until you retire, what sort of work pays well, where and how you can spend your money and so on.

The people who run the governments of these countries know how critical this ability is, and they will never give it up willingly.

If bitcoin is a good concept for individuals is beside the point. It's a bad thing for governments trying to manage economies, and governments can change the rules of the game whenever they want.

Re:who gives a shit?

[ledow]

Nope.

I only got into it a couple of years ago. Bitcoin was actually MUCH more expensive back then - it was hitting over $1000 each at one point and then promptly dropped.

I put what's left of my disposal income / slush fund (from which I would normally buy a DVD or gadget) at the end of each month into it.

It's a pittance but. so far, it's increased or held steady until I've withdrawn it (or bought games with it directly). I don't expect that to continue but given my bank's attitude to saving rates, interest rates, withdrawal limits and generally dealing with my money like it's their "precious", I don't think I'm any worse off even if the price drops.

I don't have a savings account, even. I just don't have enough to bother opening one.

Re:who gives a shit?

[samwichse]

http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

There's your answer.

Re:who gives a shit?

[omnichad]

That's a bit like saying that the 1849 California gold rush was a pyramid scheme. Money is money. Early adopters got rewarded, but that was always known to be temporary - nobody was deluded. The supply was always limited.

Re:who gives a shit?

[JesseMcDonald]

the bitcoin technology is more suitable for internal banking systems than public use.

A "blockchain" designed to keep records under private, centralized control between trusted parties is more commonly known as a "database", and is much more efficiently implemented without the overhead of a cryptographically-secure blockchain. The whole point of the "bitcoin technology"—the only reason to accept the corresponding overhead—is to enable decentralized transfers between untrusted parties. In other words, Bitcoin itself, or something very much like it.

Re:who gives a shit?

[JesseMcDonald]

Bitcoin is a bit like a pyramid scheme, ...

Without the "scheme", which is a pretty critical part of the definition. It's as much like a pyramid scheme as any new company's IPO, or a new commodity, or really just about anything else new that has value in trade.

... and it is estimated Satoshi has at least 1 million bitcoins (the current value of which is over $400 million dollars). So I think many people are curious as to who holds this wealth, which is an unduly massive reward for having created a crpytocurrency.

You really think $400m is "an unduly massive reward" for putting together a worldwide, decentralized, distributed transaction system currently handling transfers worth over $100m per day? Plenty of others have received a lot more money for much smaller contributions.

In any case, that's merely theoretical paper wealth. There is no guarantee that Satoshi still has the private keys to all those early coinbase transactions, which were worth very little at the time. Even if he did, liquidity is not yet so high that anyone could sell a million BTC over a short time at anywhere near the current market price. Sold over a longer term, it represents a couple days' worth of normal trading volume—enough to lower the price a bit, but not enough to flood the market.

Re:who gives a shit?

[angel'o'sphere]

That is a strange comment:

Keep in mind that such currencies are acceptable only at the whim of the government, if you honestly think that Bitcoin will challenge US Dollars without laws getting passed to affect it, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Why should that be so?

I can make contracts whith whom ever I want and Exchange what ever I want for what ever I want unless the "goods" are explicitely illegal like drugs, weapons etc.

Ofc. such a law could be made for BitCoins ... legal enforceable for US citicens in the US. But elsewhere?

Re:who gives a shit?

[FlyHelicopters]

I can make contracts whith whom ever I want and Exchange what ever I want for what ever I want unless the "goods" are explicitely illegal like drugs, weapons etc.

Actually, that statement isn't true...

Try buying and selling 100 cars at once without a licence and see how well that works out. Most states have laws that say if you do more than X number of cars, you must have a dealer's license.

I make the point only to say that you can't actually make any contracts you want, with whomever you want, for anything you want (yes, I know you excluded drugs, weapons, etc.).

Ofc. such a law could be made for BitCoins ... legal enforceable for US citicens in the US. But elsewhere?

No, of course not. US Law applies in the US (mostly). But we have a lot of friends and a lot of clout in the world.

If the US passed a law that said that any central bank that wants to do business with the US Federal Reserve Bank must ban the use of Bitcoins, what do you think would happen?

Does France want to allow Bitcoin so badly that they would decide to break ties with the US Federal Reserve?

I doubt it.

And frankly, that issue aside, I doubt many of the EU nations want Bitcoin to take off either, it isn't in a government's interest to lose control over the currency its citizens use.

Re:who gives a shit?

[ramriot]

Remember though with all these historical figures they always represent a gross oversimplification of history & in many cases it was the first to publish not necessarily the first to invent that is celebrated e.g.

Newton actually used the phrase "On the shoulders of giants" as partly self deprecation, partly insult of the real sage of his work in optics while his work on infinitesimals was predated by Leibniz.

Marconi only implemented the discoveries of Hertz, Orstead and others while ensuring he got the money up front and patented everything.

Edison basically stole and bullied his way to the top more by the perspiration of those he employed than his own inspiration

Graham-Bell was actually the 3rd person to invent the method of carrying voice over wires. Even the US congress acknowledges that Antonio Meucci was the first inventor 26 years before Bell.

The Wright Brothers were only able to claim first powered flight because several years earlier British inventor Percy Pilcher was killed demonstrating his glider to investors in an effort to get funds for his final tests of his powered aircraft.

Tesla, well OK you got me on that one.

Re:who gives a shit?

[angel'o'sphere]

Well,
In Europe you don't need a license to sell cars. For alcohol or pharmaceutics: yes, but cars? Sounds retarded ;)
Well, Bitcoin is already officially recognized as currency and exempt from VAT when 'exchanged' by most EU states. (Unlike gold e.g.)

If the US passed a law that said that any central bank that wants to do business with the US Federal Reserve Bank the french Parliament must ban the use of Bitcoins, what do you think would happen?

Well, if you mean it as I 'FIFY' then the French most certainly would say: fuck off. They are to proud to give in to pressure.

How ever, you never know. The US lobbies are strong here and bribing what they can.

Re:who gives a shit?

[vemene]

"Inevitable" how, exactly?

Re:who gives a shit?

[david_thornley]

Gold is not a particularly good backing for a currency, since it has limited uses. I am concerned with how much in the way of groceries I can get for $100, not how much gold. The groceries can vary no matter whether the currency is backed by gold or not.

Bitcoin is also not a stable currency, since its value fluctuates so much. If I have $100, I have a good idea how many groceries I can buy with it next month. This is not the case with bitcoin.

Currency isn't defined by governments, except for legal purposes (in the US, bitcoins are commodities). Currency is what's accepted. In many places, US dollars are used as currency (which is good for the US, as if a country uses a million dollars for internal transactions that's a million-dollar interest-free loan).

Re:who gives a shit?

[Rob Lister]

Good point. And inflamable and flammable shouldn't mean the same thing either. :)

But while we're gedunkin', I notice I made an error. .000000001 should actually be a nanobitcoin. Or nanbit. My bad.

Re:who gives a shit?

[doccus]

Well. He's the guy with the keys to the safe. I certainly don't think I need elaborate here on /. where everybody knows what that means!

Re:who gives a shit?

[doccus]

I do. BTC is gaining a lot of traction as the defacto digital currency standard, and we have no idea who's behind it.

Bitcoin is a solid design and has survived a lot of scrutiny so far, but imagine what would happen if we found out that the design was introduced by, say, the NSA.

Or if the NSA got axccess to the original algorythm.Doesn't that worry anyone at all?

Re:who gives a shit?

[ledow]

Only true for credit cards (not electronic debit cards).
Only true if the charge was fraudulent (not your own carelessness).
And the retailer gets the burden nowadays, not the card company.
Also, you can pay several percent more just for using that method of payment.

P.S. Try contesting a charge when Chip & PIN transaction when your PIN was used. It's not as easy as you might think.

P.P.S. Google "Jeremy Clarkson sort code". Sort code and account number are enough to charge debits, and you WILL NOT necessarily get them refunded at all. Same "magic numbers", completely different liability, because it doesn't cost 2% or risk you running into chargeable credit in order to use.

We're still discussing this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we just put this alternative currency nonsense to rest already?

Re:We're still discussing this?

[Wootery]

Well, yes they are, or they wouldn't be powering the Xbone and the PS4. Anyway, no, that ship has sailed. GPUs aren't economical for bitcoin mining any more. Dedicated circuitry is used.

Re:We're still discussing this?

[Zero__Kelvin]

I would like it much better if we put this whole failed experiment of "Anonymous Coward" to rest. It's pretty clear that people aren't using it to post "juicy" stuff they couldn't post otherwise. It's just a forum for people who are too lazy or stupid to create an account to spew bullshit that nobody would ever say if they knew people could identify the source of said idiocy.

Re:We're still discussing this?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Yes idiot. If I see AC it could be 1 of 1 million people, the identity of which I don't know. If I see an actual SlashID I don't know who it is, but I know it is almost certainly the same person that posted under that SlashID last time. Way to be the shining example of my point, though!

Re:We're still discussing this?

[Zero__Kelvin]

You need to look in the mirror.

Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[perpenso]

I do. BTC is gaining a lot of traction as the defacto digital currency standard, and we have no idea who's behind it. Bitcoin is a solid design and has survived a lot of scrutiny so far, but imagine what would happen if we found out that the design was introduced by, say, the NSA.

That would be irrelevant. Who created the Bitcoin system, be it a Satoshi or an NSA, is at best a historical piece of information. Bitcoin is an open design and its code open source, free to be analyzed by anyone who has an interest. It is not controlled by its creator.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[Dynedain]

Well, the creator owns a huge chunk of coins that are worth some serious money today and will only increase substantially if the network continues to have growth.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[Zero__Kelvin]

Thank you for openly posting that. It is good to know that Slashdot is not completely devoid of people with a clue, even if there has been a shift of the readership towards the "clueless idiot" category.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[Lisandro]

It is not. Knowing who the author is might very well impact BTCs reputation and adoption though, specially if we found out some government agency is behind it.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[perpenso]

Well, the creator owns a huge chunk of coins that are worth some serious money today and will only increase substantially if the network continues to have growth.

OK, I suppose there is gossip value in additional to historical value. :-)

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[perpenso]

It is not. Knowing who the author is might very well impact BTCs reputation and adoption though, specially if we found out some government agency is behind it.

No. Given open design, open standards, open source and a peer to peer community implementing the application of the technology ... a government agency being behind blockchain theory and its use in a digital currency is irrelevant. You do realize the "internet" is largely a creation of Department of Defense research? That Tor was a creation of DOD research?

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[Lisandro]

Right. Tell me you can't see people distrusting a digital currency if we found out it was surreptitiously designed by the NSA.

Look, i like the idea of BTC and, again, i find its design sound. People more capable than me have already thoroughly dissected it, and found nothing obviously funny with it. But sadly designs and protocols live and die for much more than their technical merits. See what happened to the last TrueCrypt release after someone thought it found a hidden message referring to the NSA, even when no evidence of foul play or backdoors where found whatsoever.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[jonnythan]

Whoever created it is sitting on a huge, huge reserve of Bitcoin. Enough that he or she still have some significant influence over the market, if that person decides to wield it.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[perpenso]

Right. Tell me you can't see people distrusting a digital currency if we found out it was surreptitiously designed by the NSA.

Open design, open standards, open source and a peer to peer community implementing the application of the technology restores trust.

See what happened to the last TrueCrypt release after someone thought it found a hidden message referring to the NSA, even when no evidence of foul play or backdoors where found whatsoever.

Users did nothing. The TrueCrypt developers released an update that was read-only, stated they were done, and suggested folks look elsewhere. However given that TrueCrypt was open source users and other interested parties audited the source code, found no back door or serious bug or flaw and have created new products based on the TrueCrypt source code. These new products merely go by different names since the original developers own the rights to "TrueCrypt".

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[Lisandro]

I wish i shared your optimism.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[perpenso]

Again, Tor, US Navy designed.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[houstonbofh]

That and the market power if he decided to dump them all at once.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[perpenso]

I do. BTC is gaining a lot of traction as the defacto digital currency standard, and we have no idea who's behind it. Bitcoin is a solid design and has survived a lot of scrutiny so far, but imagine what would happen if we found out that the design was introduced by, say, the NSA.

That would be irrelevant. Who created the Bitcoin system, be it a Satoshi or an NSA, is at best a historical piece of information. Bitcoin is an open design and its code open source, free to be analyzed by anyone who has an interest. It is not controlled by its creator.

if the creator amassed millions of coins early on, they certainly do control it, as they control it's ultimate value through their willingness to part with it.

No. The creator has no control over bitcoins, he/they can not move anyone else's bitcoins, he/they have no way to override the community consensus of what resides in the blockchain, he/they can not take their ball and go home.

As for your tangent regarding a bitcoin's price. Only the speculators really care whether bitcoin is $1,000, $100, or $1 on a given day. Many consumers are buying only enough bitcoins for their immediate purchase/transfer needs and most merchants "accepting" bitcoins never see or touch a bitcoin. A 3rd party payment processor calculates a bitcoin equivalent price, collects bitcoins and immediately pays the merchant in fiat. Basically few consumers and merchants are holding bitcoins, its just a transaction mechanism, a payment processing system.

So no, a massive "early adopter" holder of bitcoins could crash the price but few beyond speculators and crypto enthusiasts would care, the later more for political reasons than personal financial impact. And of course any such massive holder would crash the price before they could sell anything beyond a small fraction of their holdings. So such a holder who wanted to cash out would do so slowly over an extended period of time.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[perpenso]

That and the market power if he decided to dump them all at once.

But that is not quite control. He can't move other people's coins, he can't override the community consensus on the blockchain, etc.

Even if he crashes the price many bitcoin users won't care, how the price changed since yesterday won't matter. They just use bitcoins for transfers or payments, they aren't holding bitcoins. They immediately convert to bitcoin as needed and from bitcoin immediately. Especially so for merchants, well that is their 3rd party payment processors do, the merchants never see or touch a bitcoin themselves. The 3rd party converts the merchant's fiat price to bitcoin in real-time, collects the coins and pays the merchant in fiat currency immediately.

Only the speculators will get hurt, well, that is if they sell in the panic. So the creator cashes out, his coins are still in the system, in the hands of others, others who bought his coins at their preferred price. The price may be depressed temporarily, but he wasn't able to shut down anything or take a single coin from anyone. So transactions and the blockchain continue.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[Dog-Cow]

Or his drugs.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[Dog-Cow]

So? There's no inherent distrust of the US Navy when it comes to security or privacy.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[quantaman]

I do. BTC is gaining a lot of traction as the defacto digital currency standard, and we have no idea who's behind it. Bitcoin is a solid design and has survived a lot of scrutiny so far, but imagine what would happen if we found out that the design was introduced by, say, the NSA.

That would be irrelevant. Who created the Bitcoin system, be it a Satoshi or an NSA, is at best a historical piece of information. Bitcoin is an open design and its code open source, free to be analyzed by anyone who has an interest. It is not controlled by its creator.

It matters for reputation, and when you're talking about a currency reputation is everything.

If the founder is an entrepreneur bitcoin becomes viewed as a startup, possibly a mechanism for speculation or even a ponzi scheme.

If the founder is has a checkered past people will focus on the cyber criminals using bitcoin for ransomware, arms deals, and other disreputable purposes.

If the founder is an idealist they'll think of bitcoin as a mechanism for international development, working around broken 3rd world central banks and allowing new kinds of social and economic interaction to emerge.

I'm not saying the founder is the only thing that matters, but it's far from irrelevant.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[Dog-Cow]

I have no idea what would happen if someone dumped a large percentage of bitcoins on the market, but the idea that day-to-day fluctuations don't affect those using bitcoins to transfer funds is ridiculous. Your own example of a merchant accepting bitcoins through a payment processor is the perfect argument to your thesis. Like any foreign currency, the amount of bitcoins required to complete a transaction will vary depending on the conversion rate between bitcoins and the merchant's "native" currency. If the value of bitcoins depresses, it will take more bitcoins to purchase an item with the same price in "native" currency.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[Lisandro]

Maybe they would if they had a track record of pulling shit like this.

The only thing i'd distrust the US Navy with is handling a budget.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[Lisandro]

Prices would plummet (for a while at the very least). The BTC market, for all its current popularity, is still ridiculously small and medium to large operations can shake its value a lot; it has happened several times this year alone.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[AmiMoJo]

We know that the NSA has released flawed crypto systems before, and it took people a long time to notice because those guys are pretty sly and have a lot of talent working to screw us over. We know that supposedly shallow bugs in popular open source software have gone unnoticed for years.

Frustrating as it is, we have to be suspicious of anything that the NSA has had a hand in, even if it looks okay.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[AthanasiusKircher]

Even if he crashes the price many bitcoin users won't care, how the price changed since yesterday won't matter. They just use bitcoins for transfers or payments, they aren't holding bitcoins. They immediately convert to bitcoin as needed and from bitcoin immediately. Especially so for merchants, well that is their 3rd party payment processors do, the merchants never see or touch a bitcoin themselves. The 3rd party converts the merchant's fiat price to bitcoin in real-time, collects the coins and pays the merchant in fiat currency immediately.

They will care if during these transactions there's some sort of "flash crash" where companies start losing money. Maybe it won't be the end users or maybe not the merchants -- but somebody is holding the coins during the transaction and making the whole thing work. If the value takes a severe enough nosedive and becomes too volatile, it makes it risky for the intermediaries to keep handling the exchanges.

Also, they will care if bitcoins become so worthless that they are no longer feasible for these sorts of transactions. Everyone seems to assume that this could never happen because they assume currencies only devalue like that in hyperinflation due to "printing money," and they assume bitcoin must therefore be immune due to its limited pool.

Except there are loads of things in the world that are somewhat rare but no one finds value in. There are a limited number of rocks in my backyard -- much smaller than the number of bitcoins. But I'd have a hard time convincing anyone to use "rocks from my backyard" as a medium of exchange with enough consistent value to justify it.

Only the speculators will get hurt, well, that is if they sell in the panic.

Ah, you're a true believer -- just stay in for the "long haul," and the price is guaranteed to go up.

See, that depends on one significant assumption -- i.e., that nothing better will have come along before this happens. It's the same as any speculation, any stock, any company. Sometimes it takes months, sometimes years, sometimes decades, and sometimes even longer than a century -- but almost all "innovative" companies or ideas will eventually be outdone by something newer and better.

That's particularly true in the case of bitcoin, which is sort of frozen in its current state. Even if people want currency with the features you mention, you have no guarantee that people won't start migrating to something better in the future... whether that's next year or in 10 years or longer, you can't know. And at that point, everyone who invested in bitcoin itself and the infrastructure which supports it could lose big. Will it happen? I don't know, but the first version of some innovation on the scene is rarely the best final product that ends up being adopted widely.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[perpenso]

They will care if during these transactions there's some sort of "flash crash" where companies start losing money. Maybe it won't be the end users or maybe not the merchants -- but somebody is holding the coins during the transaction and making the whole thing work. If the value takes a severe enough nosedive and becomes too volatile, it makes it risky for the intermediaries to keep handling the exchanges.

The bitcoin exchanges offering the merchant services would be at risk and perhaps they would temporarily halt their services. However I don't think that would be the end of the bitcoin world. I imagine they already have some automated monitoring of prices and automatically go offline during a "crash" of some sort. But if prices move from a high plateau to a low plateau they probably automatically come back online.

Also, they will care if bitcoins become so worthless that they are no longer feasible for these sorts of transactions.

$1,000, $100, or $1 per bitcoin. What does it matter for a convert, transfer, convert cycle?

Ah, you're a true believer -- just stay in for the "long haul," and the price is guaranteed to go up.

No, I am not a speculator (or an investor as they like to call themselves). I do not think bitcoin is a currency nor will it become one anytime soon. It fails on the store of value criteria, too volatile. However I do believe that as a transaction system it is quite useful. But that too may have limits, once block rewards for miners become low enough that transaction fees must become substantial to keep miners going ... that is the point where we will find out if bitcoin is a success or a failure. However that time is a long ways off and for the near future bitcoin is quite useful for transferring money around.

To put it another way. Bitcoin is not a competitor to the US dollar or the Euro. It is a competitor to PayPal.

No, the price is not guaranteed to go up after someone with a huge horde of coins dumps them. But it probably will on the scale of years not decades, and in the short term it will probably plateau at some lower level. A person can not dump coins without willing buyers, and a huge horde of coins moving from a single person to many people is not something everyone will consider "a bad thing". So the "creator" "cashes out". The system has been running for years without the creator's input, its a proven transaction processing system. The creator after all has no control. So no, I don't think a creator dump will be anything more than a one time and temporary (months, years not decades) price crash.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[perpenso]

So? There's no inherent distrust of the US Navy when it comes to security or privacy.

The point is that people who are not so trustful of the US government have examined the Tor design and source code and are using it. The notion that people will inherently avoid something designed and/or created by the government is demonstrably false. Complete openness can overcome the suspicions.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[perpenso]

If the founder is an entrepreneur bitcoin becomes viewed as a startup, possibly a mechanism for speculation or even a ponzi scheme.

Well bitcoin prices are pretty much speculatively defined, despite that it is still a pretty useful transaction/payment system. The day to day price of bitcoins is irrelevant to people making these transactions and payments. Bitcoin is quite useful despite any speculation involved.

If the founder is has a checkered past people will focus on the cyber criminals using bitcoin for ransomware, arms deals, and other disreputable purposes.

Porsche. You realize who they were partnered with in the 1930s/40s? What well known "leader" commissioned the Volkswagen design that became so popular around the world two decades later.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[perpenso]

Its the bitcoin exchanges offering these merchant services, not the merchants themselves, that are at risk. However their risk is not based on day to day prices, rather minute to minute prices. The number of minutes determined necessary for sufficient confirmations to validate a transaction. The price could crash from one day to the next, go from a a high priced plateau to a low priced plateau and the exchange would not care. Its only those transactions that would occur in the midst of the crash that would be detrimental and its a pretty safe bet that exchange services would go offline automatically should the bitcoin price become too volatile. Much as stock exchanges have their automatic "circuit breakers" that halt trading if a stock price drops "too much".

Keep in mind that a dump by someone with a huge horde of bitcoins is limited by buyers. Without a willing buyer at an agreeable price the seller can not get rid of their horde. Someone wishing to cash out and maximize their "winnings" is going to sell more slowly over a long period of time. In any case, selling quickly or slowly, what is the problem with a horde of coins moving from a single owner to many owners? A creator cashing out is not the end of the world, especially a creator that has absolutely no power or control over the system, a system that has been running well and that has proven itself a useful transaction/payment system for years without any influence by the creator.

Re:Bitcoin is not controlled by its creator

[perpenso]

We know that the NSA has released flawed crypto systems before, and it took people a long time to notice because those guys are pretty sly and have a lot of talent working to screw us over. We know that supposedly shallow bugs in popular open source software have gone unnoticed for years.

Frustrating as it is, we have to be suspicious of anything that the NSA has had a hand in, even if it looks okay.

Whether the source of a crypto algorithm is university researchers, private industry researchers, or government researchers bugs and oversights are always an issue. Intentional flaws unnoticeable by all the non-governmental researchers seems a lesser concern.

Not really much opportunity to cash out

[perpenso]

Not as much opportunity for enrichment as you might assume. Any cashing out on the scale you suggest would crash the price. Bitcoin's price is largely based on speculation and is highly volatile.

Re:Not really much opportunity to cash out

[Lisandro]

Not meaning to be a dick, but on modern economics all prices are based on speculation. Nothing has intrinsic value.

Re:Not really much opportunity to cash out

[perpenso]

A lack of intrinsic value is not equivalent to speculatively priced. The USD/EUR/etc have many other economic factors in play with respect to their price. Bitcoin does not, it is primarily speculatively priced.

Re:Not really much opportunity to cash out

[rthille]

Let's go to the desert. I'll hold the water...

Re:Not really much opportunity to cash out

[Lisandro]

Now let's go to Lake Superior. See how well that works for you :)

This is exactly what i'm talking about. Water, per se, has no intrinsic value - like most things economics, value is just a function of the supply/demand balance.

a third and forth option exists

[strstr]

"Either Wright invented bitcoin, or he’s a brilliant hoaxer who very badly wants us to believe he did."

or wired.com is a fraud out to make money by selling us an article without proof knowing this topic would be click bait, or they secretly want to frame this guy to be the dude for some other type of hoax/profit motive.

remember Newsweek tried this shit, as have plenty of other media conglomerates.

media ain't worth two shits people.

the only way to know for sure if he invented anything is to go into his mind using fMRI of a government satellite interferometry scan and then read his memories. he either has memories of creating bitcoin or he does not. no speculation or going by any persons falsified word.

obamasweapon.com

Re:a third and forth option exists

[fred911]

" wired.com is a fraud out to make money"

  Their mandatory pop-over 25 second video ads are the most intrusive I've ever seen. Many times I just close the tab. I might have accepted this for other websites but Wired? The high S/N ratio these days makes me want to go back to links.

Re:a third and forth option exists

[cfalcon]

There's no ads on wired.com. If you're seeing them, you are configured incorrectly. Did you accidentally disable your ublock origin? If you aren't using that, we'll make apk come by and tell you what to use instead.

Re:a third and forth option exists

[Zero__Kelvin]

Did you have a point?

Re:a third and forth option exists

[Anonymous Coward]

"After questioning (read: harassment) from both publications, Wright seems to have withdrawn from public comment."

Since when is a news reporters questioning considered harassment? That's how journalism is done, and here I thought this was a news site! I am also troubled by these constant opinions appearing in the summery. Shouldn't the summery be just that, and the opinions left for the comment section.

Re: Fortune?

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't hoard prior to release. Nobody wanted to mine it early on so Satoshi mined it to keep the network going. Get your facts straight.

Never Going To Happen.

[Frosty Piss]

We already do, it's called a debit card. But the fact is, there will always be a significant contingent of people who want to live off the grid, those that want something to hold and pass around more than plastic, and homeless. "Paper" money will never go away. As irrational as it is considering how governments manipulate their paper money, many people feel safer with it than some nebulous concept of concurrency that perhaps you and I understand, but guess what? We will always be in the minority.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[DiSKiLLeR]

No, no we don't.

A debit card is NOT currency. Nor is it universally accepted. And it is tied to a single currency.

I've lived and worked in multiple countries, have bank accounts in multiple countries, and have savings and investments in multiple currencies.

When travelling currency conversion fees are annoying. Even when using a debit card or credit card.

It's all a huge pain in the ass. A real pain in the ass. I can't wait for a single universal internet currency you can use everywhere and we can rid of bank fees, foreign exchange transaction fees, and other bullcrap. It's getting better but very far from ideal.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[DiSKiLLeR]

But if you've never been anywhere in your life, and your little bubble around you in which you exist is all you know, then sure, the status quo is great.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mush have shit for credit, because I've never had any problems with my credit cards in Europe, Asia or NA; and I have cards that don't charge currency conversion or foreign transaction fees.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[rthille]

Transaction fees are built into bitcoin and that's how people will get paid for signing block after the new blocks reward all run out.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[turbidostato]

"When travelling currency conversion fees are annoying. Even when using a debit card or credit card.
It's all a huge pain in the ass."

And you think it comes from the fact of currencies not being somehow "digital"?

"I can't wait for a single universal internet currency you can use everywhere"

Yes, you do. I have news for you: that's not because of currency not being "digital" but because currency is strictly controlled by governments. You already have "borders-free" money (i.e.: dollars and, to a less extent, euros) but only on depressed countries with weak governments and it is not because of the nature of money but because of the nature of governments. Any change will need to come on the latter, not the former.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[Jack Griffin]

It's all a huge pain in the ass. A real pain in the ass. I can't wait for a single universal internet currency you can use everywhere and we can rid of bank fees, foreign exchange transaction fees, and other bullcrap. It's getting better but very far from ideal.

The problem with your dream is that it can't exist. Any sufficiently unregulated thing will be stolen from you by someone more badass than yourself, and anything regulated with come with inconvenience and cost.
Both come with overheads, but what we have now is about as good as anyone should expect.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[rtb61]

Bury all your assets in a single currency and what happens when any one you want to buy anything from, says, nuh uh, you ain't stickin me with that funny money just because you want to cheat on taxes. So likely problem coming up for bitcoin, how many bitcoins do the originators have and how will that affect things, you know, ponzi scheme side of things. So how many crypto currencies are out there now, with their own creators trying to achieve the same ponzi scheme, make millions of them real easy and then release it for the mugs to grind away at nothing and become you ponzi scheme sales force. Tracking the flow of bitcoins across the internet is being used to mark people for criminal investigation. I would seriously suggest you only ever transfer them by hand and never ever across digital communications line, at minimum you are guaranteeing an tax evasion investigation.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[Knossos]

I guess you never went to Germany.

There are many places in Germany that simply don't accept most cards.

They accept only cash or Electronic Cash cards.

Re: Never Going To Happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Living off the grid is going to become impossible and illegal in the near future. The push worldwide is towards the "transparent citizen", where the authorities know who you are, where you are and what you are doing all the time. This is unfortunately unavoidable. What saved us so far was that it was either not possible or antieconomical to do it. Now it's no longer the case.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[Sique]

A credit card is a method of payment, not a currency. There have been virtual currencies before (e.g. the Ecu), but they were never publicly available.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[GLMDesigns]

There is a big difference between paying 3.50% for a transaction (much more if you're sending cash) and .035%

Re: Never Going To Happen.

[GLMDesigns]

It will work the same way 20 year prison terms have halted the drug trade.

Re: Never Going To Happen.

[GLMDesigns]

It might. Glad to hear of someone else concerned about an ever-growing government. I'm assuming you're voting for candidates who wants to (or at least says he wants to ) limit the scope and power of the government.

Re: Never Going To Happen.

[johnsmithperson123]

Well I might disagree with you on the environmental front Bitcoin is really backed by our global energy. Thus people in areas with cheaper power can get ahead in the same way that conventional currency trading does.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[Lisandro]

Fair enough, on countries with a free exchange market it is an option. Doesn't free you from currency conversion taxes though, which are (sadly) common.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[ladoga]

"Paper" money will never go away.

Earlier this month [May 2015], the Danish Parliament proposed a law that would allow stores to refuse to accept cash payments in exchange for goods or services. http://fortune.com/2015/05/22/...

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[david_thornley]

If I am in the US, and want to pay you (in Germany) in euros, there's two processes I can follow.

I can go to a bitcoin exchange, exchange my dollars for bitcoin, transfer the bitcoin for you, and you can then go to an exchange and have it changed into euros. This involves two currency exchanges and three bitcoin transfers (exchange to me, me to you, you to exchange). Bitcoin transfers involve complicated calculations, by design.

Alternately, I can send you money through the banking system. In that case, a certain number of dollars will be deducted from my account, the system will change dollars into euros, and the correct number of euros will be added to yours. This requires one currency exchange, simple arithmetic, and a secure method to transfer information. This requires considerably less resources, and only one currency conversion.

In other words, if bitcoin is more convenient than banks, it's because banks are not operating efficiently (or they are and they're taking a lot of profit). If enough people transfer bitcoins around, the banking system is eventually going to undercut it in cost and convenience.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[david_thornley]

What do you mean, gaming the system? My wife and I have 800+ credit scores, from doing things normally and consistently and not gaming the system. We've been married for a long time, have had several home mortgages, bought cars on credit, live in a house we own, and pay bills consistently.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[BasilBrush]

They tried a common currency across the Eurozone. It's been a disaster.

Re:Never Going To Happen.

[doccus]

"Paper money will never go away" .. Respectfully.. are you uninformed or simply naiive? As soon as it's discontinued (i.e. made illegal) it will certainly go away. Only collectible old coins and biills will probably still be acceptable. Keep in mind that paper is nothing more than a bank's IOU. Gold silver and real assets including property gas and food are the real "money". If any community standardizes on an acceptable form of IOU that will 'represent' money, then perhaps there will still be paper "money" but it would likely need to be on the low down. Just like all the local barter and exchange communities operate now.

What bitcoin risk?

[perpenso]

Then don't use Bitcoins if you don't accept the risk. It's super easy.

What risk? There is little risk in using bitcoins. Convert USD/EUR/etc to BTC, transfer BTC, convert BTC to USD/EUR/etc. *Use* does not have to involve risk.

Holding bitcoins does involve risk, just like holding any other speculatively priced asset. However many users of bitcoins do not hold them. For example merchants accepting bitcoins for payment. They contract with 3rd party payment processors to do real-time "currency conversion" for BTC pricing (so products and services only need to be priced by merchants in USD/EUR/etc), payment processing and delivering the originally specified USD/EUR/etc to merchants. Merchants never see or touch a bitcoin despite the buyer making payment using bitcoin.

Re:What bitcoin risk?

[Jack Griffin]

Merchants never see or touch a bitcoin despite the buyer making payment using bitcoin.

For a fee. So why bother?

Re:What bitcoin risk?

[perpenso]

Merchants never see or touch a bitcoin despite the buyer making payment using bitcoin.

For a fee. So why bother?

Your pricing and accounting is entirely in dollars, euros, whatever you native currency is. Your taxes are simpler for never having seen nor touched a bitcoin. You pay fees to credit card processors for most transactions anyway, if the bitcoin exchange fees are competitive it fits into your existing business model. You don't have to have the infrastructure and expertise to offer and process bitcoin payments in house, you need an exchange to cash out the bitcoins anyway.

I know how we can get proof!

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

If Satoshi Nakamoto sends 50,000 bitcoins to the wallet address 18LQHMjKSCSU3g4f29TfmtfxHXUfnh7juB, we'll know it's really him!

A Hoax

[OnAironaut]

This is a scam if I ever saw one!

Re:A Hoax

[OnAironaut]

The PGP Keys Are Probably Backdated and Point to a Hoax http://motherboard.vice.com/re...

the opposite of fiat (declaration) it's speculatio

[raymorris]

It's actually pretty much the exact opposite of fiat. Fiat means the authority declared it to be so. The government says their dollar is valid to satisfy any and all debts, and that dollars MUST be used to pay taxes, which a majority of people have to pay. In other words, you need dollars because the government ordered that you do, and they will put you in prison unless you get some dollars to pay them with. That's what a fiat is - an order, a declaration by the ruling authority.

Bitcoin is pretty much the opposite- noone requires that you use it. It's price is purely based on the hope that tomorrow someone else might buy it from you, who in turn wants it for the same reason- they hope that later someone else might be willing to pay them for it, that the ponzi will continue and someone else will treat it as valuable.

As you mentioned, neither is backed by gold. The dollar is backed by two things. As I mentioned, it's backed by guaranteed demand due to taxes - people WILL want your dollars, because they have to have dollars in order to pay their taxes. Secondly, it is backed by the US government bomd rating (credit score) which the government must maintain because they survive on debt. If the govt devalued the currency beyond expected inflation rate, that would be constructive default on their debt, which is denominated in dollars. If they did that, no-one would lend them money anymore and they'd be unable to function.

So those are the two major things backing the dollar - the fact that people will need dollars to pay taxes, and government's need to protect their ability to continue borrowing.

Wright's home raided by Australian Police

[Anonymous Coward]

At 1:30pm today, Australian Police raided the home of Craig Wright.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-founder-craig-wrights-home-raided-by-australian-police

Re:who gives a Trump Soundbite?

[Marginal Coward]

FWIW, if you're sitting on a big pile of bitcoins, the best thing to do would be to sell them slowly. If I were the inventor, I would:

- Remain steadfastly anonymous (unlike anyone else who creates a major new technology.) Using a pseudonym doesn't hurt. (Hey, it works for me here.)
- Mint myself a big pile at first
- Sell them slowly so as not to devalue them or draw too much attention to myself.

IIRC, Spain once had a problem where they had acquired a big pile of gold from the New World and they thought they were rich. Then, they learned that they weren't as rich as they thought because a sudden increase in the supply of any currency inevitably devalues it.

The primary selling point of gold as a currency is that it can't be created, it can only be mined at ever-increasing cost - much like Bitcoin. The sudden increase of supply from the New World was an anomalous exception to that rule. I'm sure the Bitcoin folks won't make the same mistake.

Police were quick to act!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just an hour ago police raided his place, more than 10 officers... But rest assured people, this is only related to an ATO investigation and has nothing to do with him being suggested to be the Bitcoin master mind. The ATO always have such a strong task force in Australia, regardless of the recent massive lay offs and the fight over the rich dodging tax for years (we just passed a bill that allowed the richest Australian's to hide their tax information due to threat of kidnapping, of which our law enforcement agency never got consulted on and there has never been a kidnapping attempt made).

There is a war going on in Australia over the need to overhaul our tax codes as more and more details of rich companies and people paying NO tax on billions of profit each year. The ministers swore at the G20 to go after them and then the next week quietly sacked a large minority of ATO works and cut their budget to pathetic levels. Then passed laws to protect the rich from being revealed.. But NOW we have a 10+ raid performed on a barely billionaire who was only just outed as the creator of Bitcoin and we have an international attach on encryption with Australia being a part of the five eyes group... Yeah no connection at all there, they will trump this as going after the rich and the bulk of citizens will cheer.

Re:Police were quick to act!

[KGIII]

Hmm... I can kind of, sort of, see tax information being private for individuals. Back in 2008 or so, someone doxxed me, partially, and that resulted in someone posting my tax information online. It kind of felt intrusive and sucked to have it made public. I did the only "rational" thing that I could think of and that was just to accept it and move on. Sure, they got to see that I'd donated a bunch of money and had made a few dollars but it wasn't too bad. I'd made the mistake of mentioning the parent company that bought my company and, sure enough, that information was enough to get them started.

It was just felt intrusive. I know it's public information and all that but, really, it just seemed excessive. The forum's dead but I'm sure the stuff is cached somewhere. It might not seem like much and, really, so they learned I give money to Red Cross, ACLU, Heifer International, etc... I did have some negative repercussions. I had people crawling out of the woodwork to email me and asking me to support this cause, that cause, etc. I got hate-mail (I even got some snail mail) for not donating to a few causes. (The urge to name and shame is strong but these weren't "official" things but just zealots.) I'm not entirely sure how they got all of the information but they managed to put enough together and dox me pretty well.

Now, I'm running for office in 2016 and that means I'll be subjected to more scrutiny but that's because I'm electing to do put myself in that position. I'm accepting that I'll be public information (for a very small group of people, it's a rather tiny district) and I'm okay with that. There's a big difference between that and being doxxed and having your tax information posted online. I was already in the process of moving so it wasn't too tough to change some of the information but I ended up closing a few sites, getting rid of some email addresses, and things like that.

So, I guess, I can kind of see keeping tax data private for individuals or I can at least see a reason why we might want to have that discussion as a society. I'd not done anything wrong and I didn't stress over it a whole lot but it sucked. I got some pretty crappy emails, a bunch of begging emails, regular mail, and had to clean up after that but it really felt intrusive. It did show that I paid my taxes, in full, to the letter of the law. It did show that I have some favorite charities. I can imagine that it'd be much worse if I didn't pay my taxes or if I'd been donating to causes that were harmful. I also imagine that it would have been different if I'd stressed out over it and gone on an internet rampage trying to take it all down.

Meh... It's probably cached somewhere. One could probably find it by Googling my SSN. The genie doesn't go back in the bottle. 'Snot much I can do but it still kind of sucks. So, as I said, maybe we can have that discussion but it does presuppose that the government is doing its job and collecting taxes effectively and efficiently.

Fuck Wired, Fuck Gizmoto

[AndyKron]

Ya, and he got fucking raided as a result! http://www.rawstory.com/2015/1...

Re:Fuck Wired, Fuck Gizmoto

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/09/bitcoin-founder-craig-wrights-home-raided-by-australian-police

- claimed to be unrelated (?) - however, I doubt there is 10 (ten..) Tax Enforcement Oficers on his doorstep entirely co-incidentally. If satoshi and he gets taxed on his holding, gonna be a whole lot of previously unseen BTC on the market shortly.

Re:Fuck Wired, Fuck Gizmoto

[ledow]

Doubtful.

I don't know Australian law but even things like capital gains tax only take effect when you actually sell the asset. If you buy a house and it goes up in price, you don't get taxed the profit from it until you sell the house (or otherwise trade it).

And even if it was taxed, it's unlikely to be more than a pittance of the overall amount and only an idiot would try to dump the lot, rather than just cash our a bitcoin per week or whatever.

But more likely is that in all their poking, they found out that he was running a financial institution without proper licenses, or something like that. "Unrelated" to Bitcoin, but happened to be discovered while the article was written and reported to police diligently if/when he refused to give an exclusive? Nah, that's just me being cynical.

Re:Fuck Wired, Fuck Gizmoto

[thegarbz]

Quote from the article:

"The police raid in Australia came hours after Wired magazine and technology website Gizmodo published articles saying that their investigations showed Wright, who they said was an Australian academic, was probably the secretive bitcoin creator."

So no he got raided for incidental reasons. The AFP don't move that quickly even when they have real solid evidence let alone one the whim of some technology magazine.

Plus they were there on behalf of the taxation office. There's nothing taxable about holding value in a non-currency form until you actually convert that form to real currency again. Even if he had a massive stash of bitcoins it would be no different from having a massive stash of shares where the only real tax implications arise from making money through their sale or acquiring them under illegal means, neither of which has anything to do with them being the founders.

Re:Fuck Wired, Fuck Gizmoto

[RubberDogBone]

The cops were already on to him. They knew who he was. The Wired story blew it open and forced the police to act. The police did not surf around and see the Wired story and say "hey we should arrest that guy! This magazine says it's him!" They already knew. They were watching and waiting.

The magazine blew away the option to keep watching. The way the police swooped in so fast means they had warrants and plans already in the works. He was going to get raided soon.

In a sense the magazines may have done him a huge favor: there cannot now be a shadowing secret raid where the key "person of interest" nobody has ever heard of simply disappears into a prison. Wired knows who he is and so do we all now. And there will be reporters all over this like lions on meat. Wright may not escape the cops, but the cops won't be able to just bury him in jail without hundreds of reporters nagging them silly about it. Wright's cover got blown AND his ass got saved at the same time.

Re:Fuck Wired, Fuck Gizmoto

[psergiu]

Very uncool.
Where can we get a list of all the domains used by Wired to add them to our (and our friends) host file pointing to 127.0.0.1 so we can ensure we don't accidentally visit those sites?

Re:Fuck Wired, Fuck Gizmoto

[Ferocitus]

Someone also tipped off the media so they could be there to photograph the Fed's raid.

Re:Fuck Wired, Fuck Gizmoto

[KGIII]

Hmm... I'm not sure where to begin and I'm not an expert in Australian tax law.

If, for instance, you sell your business you can't just stuff the money into an investment account quickly and avoid being taxed at the income tax levels. You get taxed at income tax levels and then you invest and the profits from the investments (and just the profits) are taxed as capital gains rates. If not listed and taxed (regardless of liquid status) this might be income in Australian law.

I think it's interesting because for them to tax this as income they'll have to declare it has value, officially. They may even need to declare it's a currency. This could have wide-reaching implications.

That said, I'm not an accountant nor an expert on their tax code. I do, however, have a passing familiarity with such and I do employ an accountant. For the record, I pay all of my taxes. In my case, it was a little odd. When I sold my business a goodly portion was payment in shares from the now-parent company. They actually increased in value and I was unable to sell them or trade them immediately because of SEC(?) rules. (I don't remember if it was 60 days or 6 months but it was one of those. You can't just sell 'em immediately.)

Re:Fuck Wired, Fuck Gizmoto

[thegarbz]

If, for instance, you sell your business you can't just stuff the money into an investment account quickly and avoid being taxed at the income tax levels.

That is true but we're dealing with assets of changing values. These are typically accounted for at the time of purchase and at the time of disposal or depreciation. If they mined bitcoins then it would be hard to justify having to declare them as a line item on tax as they didn't acquire them through the purchase of assets and their value is not fixed in Australian dollars.

But I agree this would be a major grey area as these kinds of assets don't normally appear from nowhere. Still I doubt the magazine article has anything to do with the raid.

Re:Fuck Wired, Fuck Gizmoto

[KGIII]

Nah, if anything someone in the police probably leaked it. I really am not sure where these fall as far as taxation but I'm pretty sure they're gonna have to declare them somewhere and that might be before they're liquidated, it really depends on how they classify it. I mean, it's earned income and capital gains. It's not by a standard means.

You know, I don't know how mining works for declaration. I wonder if that might actually be how it is classified? Though I think they use an estimated value and depreciation and costs for taxation purposes? I'm really positive they're gonna wanna know about it and it's probably covered by some regulation if they're at all like the US. Where that line item is, I have no idea. It should be interesting. I really wouldn't be surprised to see it work however mines work in Australia.

Re:Fuck Wired, Fuck Gizmoto

[thoromyr]

The write ups had nothing to do with it. They had warrants because he has been under investigation by the Australian tax authority for a long time. Probably something to do with hiding (from their point of view) millions of dollars in bit coin. Last year Australia declared that bit coin was taxable (as capital gains, IIRC). He hasn't paid the required taxes on his bit coin holdings. Which are extensive.

This has absolutely nothing to do with someone leaking real or fabricated documents to the press in an attempt to make it look like he is the founder of bit coin. This *does* have to do with bit coins, though, and taxes and the desire/need of governments to collect on that.

Re:Fuck Wired, Fuck Gizmoto

[speederaser]

I don't know Australian law but even things like capital gains tax only take effect when you actually sell the asset.

I hope you're not mining bitcoins because you've gotten it wrong enough to end up in jail. Since it's an asset you have to balance the value of the asset at the time you received it against the cost of mining it. If "Satoshi" made a profit when he mined his bitcoins and didn't report it then he has committed tax fraud.

For example, if he mined 1,000,000 bitcoins when they were worth 10 cents each, his profit is $100,000 of revenue less the cost of electricity and depreciation of his mining rig. It's hard to imagine him not turning a profit with those kind of numbers. Craig Wright is in big trouble if he is Satoshi and never reported his bitcoin earnings.

Re:Fuck Wired, Fuck Gizmoto

[ledow]

Not in the UK:

https://www.gov.uk/capital-gai...

Which is why I prefixed my post as not knowing if such was applicable in Australia.

Re:the opposite of fiat (declaration) it's specula

[blueg3]

they will put you in prison unless you get some dollars to pay them with

We eliminated debtor's prisons in this country, actually. While individual states and smaller jurisdictions are, recently, pushing at the borders of this principle, the Federal government still follows it. You can be jailed for cheating the IRS, but you can't actually be jailed just for owing them money.

sometimes. Lauryn Hill to prison, Willie Nelson

[raymorris]

-Most- of the time, the IRS will only take your stuff because sending someone to prison costs them money. However, Lauryn Hill went to prison for failure to pay taxes and Willie Nelson nearly did. Unlike private creditors, the IRS can seize your bank account and other assets without a court hearing, and you -can- go to prison for failure to pay them.

Re:sometimes. Lauryn Hill to prison, Willie Nelson

[blueg3]

Hill had the ability to pay her taxes and didn't. They will jail you for choosing not to pay them. They can't jail you just because you don't have the money to pay them. They can, as you point out, take all your stuff, plus your future stuff, which is ugly.

Is this new swatting method?

[sinij]

Is being outer as Satoshi Nakamoto is the new swatting thing, but with more long-lasting negative consequences?

Re:Is this new swatting method?

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean more long-lasting negative consequences than dying?

Re:Is this new swatting method?

[sinij]

Yes, since it would involves back paying taxes.

Re:the opposite of fiat (declaration) it's specula

[Jack Griffin]

Bitcoin is pretty much the opposite-

BTC is pretty much the same. Instead of the authority being an established governemnt it is a bunch nof nerds who think they are saving the world. Still the same concept.

Re:the opposite of fiat (declaration) it's specula

[FlyHelicopters]

So those are the two major things backing the dollar - the fact that people will need dollars to pay taxes, and government's need to protect their ability to continue borrowing.

You're overlooking something...

The US economy, that is really what backs the US dollar. Well, that, and the US military, our allies, and various agreements we have around the world...

We have printed over 4 trillion dollars since 2008, but the world seems to have absorbed it, which I'm actually surprised about, but given issues in other economies, it may have simply balanced out.

The Fed's books are likely very ugly, but as long as the US economy continues to function, it probably doesn't matter. At the end of the day, the US has huge natural resources, we still actually make a ton of stuff, and we have the most powerful military in the world.

China is rising, and we're wise not to speak to them the same way we speak to the Russians, who are last century's news (even if Putin doesn't want to hear it).

In the 21st Century, it is going to be China and the US, and then everyone else.

Police Raid basically confirms it

[RubberDogBone]

Reuters is reporting Australian police have executed search warrants (or the Aussie version of such a thing) on several different locations owned or occupied by Wrights. This proves Wired and Gizmodo got it right.

It takes evidence and time to get these warrants in the US and more time to stage people an officers and make plans for this kind of raid. Again assuming Aussies work the same way, this means the cops were already onto him before the media suddenly got on the trail and tipped him off that his cover was shattered. With the media sniffing around, he probably had time to run, hide, or do something else to escape. The cops slammed the door shut the moment they saw the media coverage. Their plans to keep watching him blown. It didn't sound like he was in custody yet.

Wired's evidence seems good and solid and the dots connect nicely. This man is an idiot tripped up by the same thing that catches many people trying to hide: their own damn mouths.

Re:Police Raid basically confirms it

[RubberDogBone]

adding my own comment from another post:

In a sense the magazines may have done him a huge favor: there cannot now be a shadowy secret raid where the key "person of interest" nobody has ever heard of simply disappears into a prison. Wired knows who he is and so do we all now. And there will be reporters all over this like lions on meat. Wright may not escape the cops, but the cops won't be able to just bury him in jail without hundreds of reporters nagging them silly about it. Wright's cover got blown AND his ass got saved at the same time.

Re: Police Raid basically confirms it

[bestweasel]

The BBC are reporting that the identification is based at least in part on leaked conversations with Australian tax officials. Who could have taped and leaked those?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

Re:Police Raid basically confirms it

[Anonymous Coward]

Or ... maybe they were investigated him for something unrelated and were forced to execute the warrants when the news coverage spooked him.
Perhaps even one of his alleged co-conspirators leaked a phony bitcoin news story to let Wright know that he was about to get arrested.

Hypothetical conversation: "If you get arrested and you think they're going to arrest me, just say I'm the creator of bitcoin. The news will reach me anywhere on the globe within 24 hours, and I'll know to go into hiding. Whatever you do, don't tell them where Nakamoto is buried."

Re:Police Raid basically confirms it

[thoromyr]

The raid is essentially unrelated to the recent press releases. It hasn't been big press stuff, but he has been under investigation for what amounts to accusations of tax evasion for some time. Related to bit coin, yes, as the vehicle for avoiding taxes (that is the fact in question).

Guilty or not, the raid is about his possession of a lot of bit coin (revealed in financial statements, he used it to back one of his startups) and a long, on going investigation. It has zip, zero, nada, zilch to do with his "outing" by the press.

Re:Police Raid basically confirms it

[thoromyr]

if you actually read the Wired article you will notice how they acknowledge that him being the founder could be a hoax -- one perhaps perpetrated by Craig Wright himself. What they don't mention is his motivation. He has been fighting with Australian tax authorities for a long time and, whether or not it would pan out, he may (if it is in fact a hoax, I have no way of knowing) have been motivated by a desire to become too famous to imprison.

Personally, I don't see it having that sort of impact. That doesn't mean he didn't, though. And he is likely facing a huge fine/back taxes for tax evasion related to his bit coin activity. And as this has been building up over time the 20 months Wired was able to document for laying the ground work starts to become plausible.

Do I think it is a hoax? And that he orchestrated it? Honestly, I have no opinion. My point is that your comment provides the *motivation* for *why* he might be attempting a hoax (if he his).

No they don't

[campuscodi]

WIRED knows s%!#, they just want reads and ad impressions. Tomorrow they'll say they know something else, cause there's nobody to call them on their BS.

Good job, Wired...

[Anonymous Coward]

...apparently, some guy goes out of his way to hide his identity, probably because he doesn't want the fame and associated annoyances, so what do you do ? You go against his every wish and make him famous, of course !

You have no right to make someone famous without their consent (it's a little thing called the right to publicity). This is typical self-serving bully behaviour, and shouldn't stand, especially from a renowned journal. Shame on you, Wired !

Re:Good job, Wired...

[Ash-Fox]

You have no right to make someone famous without their consent (it's a little thing called the right to publicity).

I'm not American, but even I know that's a State law and not necessarily even criminalized.

I see now

[ThatsNotPudding]

It matters because if we do not solve this mystery in our lifetime, the genius of Nakamoto will remain a myth forever.

Ahh, that's why the cops arrested him! Thanks, Po-Po!!

Re: who gives a shit? The cops do.

[niftydude]

They raided Craig Wright's home today: http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

It's theirs before it's yours

[raymorris]

Income tax is a percentage of income. If you owe $30,000, it's because you got paid $90,000. You're supposed to IMMEDIATELY put aside the $30,000 and only spend $60,000, then pay the IRS at least every three months. So according to the law, everyone had the ability to pay their taxes. If you owe the IRS it's because you improperly spent their money when you had it in your possession. I did that a long time ago, so I had to learn more about back taxes than I wanted to know. So legally you -can- go to prison. "I don't have the money" isn't an excuse because you DID have it.

Of course it is rare for that to happen. The IRS really wants to first get people paying their current taxes, so that the taxpayer isn't permanently behind, then get them to pay back any taxes due. Prison doesn't typically accomplish either goal. It is a possibility though.

Re:It's theirs before it's yours

[JesseMcDonald]

You're supposed to IMMEDIATELY put aside the $30,000 and only spend $60,000, then pay the IRS at least every three months. So according to the law, everyone had the ability to pay their taxes. If you owe the IRS it's because you improperly spent their money when you had it in your possession.

That does kind of break down in the not-unheard-of case where someone receives non-divisible goods valued at significantly more than their disposable income. In that case you never had any money to spend or set aside; you won a house, a yacht, a fancy vacation... and unless you decide to sell it, assuming that's even an option, you don't have anything with which to pay the taxes they claim that you owe based on the (estimated) market value of your prize.

Also, it's not their money. Theft only confers possession, not ownership. Unfortunately, they're the ones with the courts and police and armies, so good luck recovering your stolen property.

six years of open source testing

[peter303]

Far more important than a name behind the currency. We've found than many basic elements of the currency have survived despite a decent fraction of world computing power analyzing it. And we found some weaknesses which newer cryptocurrencies address.

FBI significant bitcoin in raid

[peter303]

Of a dark site allegedly used for drug trading some years back. They got it from the bitcoin computer files on seized disks. The Australian raid could acquire bitcoin too.
I lost track whether the FBI sold their bitcoin.

Re:the opposite of fiat (declaration) it's specula

[omnichad]

Unless people want BTC, it has no value. A blockchain doesn't have any intrinsic value or any practical use outside of being a currency. You can't make a watch with it, or plate conductors with it. It's a different type of fiat currency (tautologically instead of government backed), but it's still fiat.

Defintion. fiat (noun) A decree by the authorities

[raymorris]

fiat (noun)
        an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it.

Who is the absolute authority enforcing their decree that you must use Bitcoin?

Fiat doesn't mean "related to something that isn't used to make a watch". A fiat is a government order. That's the definition of the word fiat.

Re:Defintion. fiat (noun) A decree by the authorit

[omnichad]

Note how I said it's tautologically fiat. Bitcoin declares that Bitcoin has value.

If it has no intrinsic value, it is fiat.

Economies have abandoned currencies, high inflatio

[raymorris]

Economies have continued to function while the currency was significantly devalued by high inflation. So just because the US economy exists doesn't by itself mean that the government can't print money and devalue the dollar. If they govt "printed" $100 trillion (digitally), the dollar would lose most of its value, despite the existence of the US economy.

More than once, a country's economy has continued to function while people abandoned the local currency. In fact, it happened in America during the articles of confederation.

So just because you think the US economy will continue does NOT mean that either the dollar won't be devalued or that the economy will continued to be based on the dollar. There are other forces at work that make the dollar relatively safe. Namely, the economy will continue to use the dollar because government requires that it be used for tax computations and payment (effectively meaning that all your accounting has to be done in dollars). The govt won't print $100 trillion because it would ruin their ability to print or borrow money in the future, and it would be bad for the economy too.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means

[raymorris]

"If it has no intrinsic value, it is fiat."

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Maybe you're thinking of "symbolic" or "representational".

Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it means

[omnichad]

What gives Bitcoin its value? Let's start there.

Rather than government regulation, this one's value is determined by mathematical rules.

Symbolic or representational is the dollar bill when it was gold-backed.

Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it means

[orgelspieler]

And what gave the gold value? I would much rather be paid in tiny bricks of ABS than gold flecks.

Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it means

[omnichad]

Gold flecks can be melted in with larger masses of gold and you can do the same with those flecks as you can with a larger mass. It has industrial, medical, and aesthetic purposes. Its value is due to being what it is.

Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it means

[orgelspieler]

Back when gold was really popular for money, its industrial and medicinal uses were virtually unknown. What does that leave us, aesthetic purposes? So it has value because some people like shiny things? No, it has value because people agree it has value. Since people agree that I can pay them for things with little ones and zeros on a server somewhere, those ones and zeros have value, too. This applies equally to Bitcoin and USD. If suddenly people stop letting me use ones and zeros, whether they represent Bitcoin or USD, then they will cease to have value. Likewise, since people don't generally accept gold bullion in stores or online, it is roughly worthless to me for the purpose of paying my bills.

Re:That word doesn't mean what you think it means

[omnichad]

This applies equally to Bitcoin and USD.

That goes back to my original point that I posted way above - Bitcoin is fiat currency. Just because it's not a government, it's still people assigning it value.

Whether gold is also fiat currency is another argument altogether.

Likewise, since people don't generally accept gold bullion in stores or online, it is roughly worthless to me for the purpose of paying my bills.

Likewise, people don't generally accept bitcoin for payment except via a processor who converts it to USD.

Re:who gives a Trump Soundbite?

[Areyoukiddingme]

- Sell them slowly so as not to devalue them or draw too much attention to myself.

There's a problem with that. The blockchain is public. The largest accounts have been identified. The Satoshi account has been provisionally identified. It hasn't conducted any transactions in years. If it did, it would make world-wide news. And that transaction would be de-anonymized in mere hours. Suddenly, no more anonymity.

Satoshi Nakamoto is the richest person or persons in the world who can't spend a dime of their riches without being found out.

Re:the opposite of fiat (declaration) it's specula

[smugfunt]

it is backed by the US government bomd rating (credit score) which the government must maintain because they survive on debt. If the govt devalued the currency beyond expected inflation rate, that would be constructive default on their debt, which is denominated in dollars. If they did that, no-one would lend them money anymore and they'd be unable to function.

The US Government can create dollars out of nothing (and therefore without limit). It can never default on dollar denominated debts (unless it wants to), nor go bankrupt. It does not need to borrow a cent to function, the only reason it does is because it can control the interest rate that way and (it thinks) that has some effect on the money supply and hence the economy.

Re:who gives a Trump Soundbite?

[Marginal Coward]

Or, to paraphrase an old saw: "Bitcoins, bitcoins everywhere, and not a bit to spend."

I don't understand much about the technical details of Bitcoin anonymity, but if what you say is true, something seems to have gone afoul in his (their) plan. What sort of "anonymity" is it that can be "de-anonymized in mere hours?"

Gold plating

[tepples]

Let me try to address it from a different angle: Does any fiat or cryptographic currency have a use value apart from its exchange value? Gold does. In real life, it's used to plate electrical connectors. But I'll grant that use value isn't the only thing that lends stability to exchange value.

Re:Gold plating

[Lisandro]

You can plate with copper just as well. Yes, i, know gold is a very interesting material for engineering, but the point is that its golds value comes from the fact that it is scarce. Period.

Re:who gives a Trump Soundbite?

[Areyoukiddingme]

I don't understand much about the technical details of Bitcoin anonymity...

You misunderstood the availability of anonymity in Bitcoin transactions. There isn't any. There is only pseudonymity. The blockchain is public. Your wallet is uniquely identified. It's only necessary to tie your wallet ID to your own ID to know everything you've ever done with Bitcoins. And that's usually quite simple, because extremely few people get paid in Bitcoins, so somewhere along the line is a currency exchange that knows both of those identifiers. And judging by the recent past, they're full of security holes. Alternatively, if you purchased something with Bitcoins, you accepted delivery of that something somehow. Since very few people have functioning dead drops, odds are you can be identified that way too, either directly by an address or indirectly by ownership of an account (when accepting digital products).

Actual anonymity is achievable while still using Bitcoins, but it is a serious, serious effort, that is in no way facilitated by Bitcoins themselves.

only once

[raymorris]

Suppose the US government borrowed $10,000 from YOU, by selling you bond.
Suppose they then issue (print) 100 trillion dollars, meaning the dollar loses 90% of its value.
When you cash in the bond, it is therefore only worth 1/10th of what you paid for it. Would you keep buying more bonds from them, so that you can keep losing 90% of your money?

Of course you wouldn't. They borrowed $10,000 from you and effectively paid back only $1,000. That's called "constructive default". If they did so, nobody would buy their bonds anymore, so they would be unable to borrow. Government spending is funded largely by borrowing, especially in the last three years or so. So if they ruined their ability to borrow by constructive default, they'd lose a major, major source of funds.

Suppose they then skipped the borrowing part and just started printing money to pay their bills with. Plenty of governments have tried that. What -always- happens is precisely what the law of supply and demand requires; first the greatly increased supply of dollars significantly reduces their value. Second, since the value of dollars is lower, they have to pay employees and suppliers more dollars in order to get what the govt needs. By paying out more printed dollars, they increase supply and reduce the value further. It's a death spiral of hyperinflation, one we've seen several times. It ends when the populace ignores the government currency and switches to a foreign currency, which the domestic government cannot produce from thin air. This leaves the government unable to make purchases or pay employees since their currency is worthless and unused. The government is frequently replaced with a new one.

So yes, the government can "just print money " for a day or a week, but if they try to fund their ongoing operations the money they print quickly becomes worthless and the government falls.

Re:only once

[smugfunt]

The Government can issue as much (sovereign) money as it likes without causing inflation provided it is in exchange for new wealth so the wealth per dollar ratio is maintained. The limit is the capacity of the economy and ecosystem to produce wealth.
Exceeding this will cause inflation. Borrowing is entirely optional.

The causes of hyperinflation are a little more involved than the popular narrative you relate. See Michael Hudson's definition here: H is for...
A more detailed examination of Weimar and Zimbabwe here:
Positive Money
A fuller explanation of the whole borrowing/spending thing here: Warren Mosler

Re:who gives a Trump Soundbite?

[Marginal Coward]

Very interesting, thanks.

Re:who gives a Trump Soundbite?

[cthulhu11]

Rather the parallel with DeBeers and diamonds.