Buying drugs with bitcoins hitting the mainstream

Whether BTC itself will mature enough to serve as a "real world" currency remains to be seen, but it shows the potential for digital currencies where the value is derived from the users rather than government fiat. There's nothing physical to back BTC, of course, but it has developed real value due to its advantages over government-issued currencies.

Note: BTC is not fully anonymous. If you don't want your name ever attached to a given transaction, you have to know what you're doing.
 
Not really because it's a centralized solution hence no solution at all.
Wtf where do you read that?

"Microcash is a micropayment currency operated on a decentralized network to offer fast, low fee, and anonymous monetary transactions. The network's decentralized nature removes the need for a central authority."
 
Last edited:
This is Microcash's predecessor (Microcash improves upon Solid Coin 2.0). I wish there was a third party writing on the claims here, but clearly Bitcoins are not secure and will fail in the near future. For those who don't like to read: the essential difference between Bitcoin and Solidcoin is also the real difference between Democracy and a Representative Democracy. If malicious users take up 51% of the Bitcoin miners, then the whole network can be compromised and nobody will know about it!

SolidCoin - Officially the most secure P2P currency

51% protection algorithm

Pretext

Trying to solve the 51% attack issue inherent in cryptocurrency designs like Bitcoin is quite challenging. On the one hand it is fantastic having thousands of nodes around the world processing transactions, on the other it is also quite the security issue. In his Bitcoin paper, Satoshi identified several issues, with the 51% attack being the greatest.

So what is the 51% attack? To understand that you have to understand how Bitcoin works. Essentially Bitcoin is a collection of nodes performing "virtual work", the more work you do the higher your rating on the network. So what happens when malicious users get together and manage to do more "virtual work" than the "good people" ? Well that is the 51% attack, and it basically means you can wake up tomorrow with zero Bitcoins in your wallet. It means any business that accepts Bitcoins can get robbed and have all their goods taken with fake Bitcoins. It also means if they wanted, governments, large corporations or hackers can "shut down the network" by refusing to accept any new transactions. Complete network shutdown. Can't do anything with your Bitcoins, neither can anyone else.

Now obviously Bitcoin proponents will say things like "Yes well we just need to pool together the good users" or "it's unlikely anyone will have that much network power" . Yet as this article is being written one person (deepbit) controls nearly 50% of the Bitcoin network. One person. Could you operate a Bitcoin business in conditions where you the only thing standing between you and complete bankrupty is words like "well only if" or "it's sort of unlikely, but" ? Will any serious business open themselves up to a group of hackers able to steal millions of dollars from them? The short answer of course is NO.

Obviously to reach the next evolution of p2p cryptocurrencies we cannot sit around holding hands and praying that nefarious people don't attack the network. We know they will, it's human nature. Furthermore serious businesses will not accept a cryptocurrency until it's easy for them to implement, secure for them to do so and they can be sure their funds are as secure, if not more secure than funds in the traditional banking system.

How SolidCoin 2.0 solves it

SolidCoin takes a basic human trait found in many communities and systems. The more investment someone puts into a system, the more they want to protect that community or system. Pretty simple theory that most of us are familiar with, yet how does this relate to SolidCoin?

As with existing cryptocurrencies, SolidCoin 2.0 stores transactions in a "block chain" which is essentially what it sounds like. Transactions go into a block, nodes do work on that block to verify it, and if the work is good enough they can submit it to the rest of the network. SolidCoin 2.0 then comes into action, every _other_ block in the chain must be worked on by someone with at least a million (1,000,000) SolidCoins in an account.

Why can you trust someone with a million dollar account? Simply because if they have that many coins they are well invested into the SolidCoin system, if they tried to attack the network they would obviously devalue a great amount of their assets. But it's not just this simple, multiple people can have million dollar accounts so how do we sort out who is "more right" if they submit blocks at the same time? We trust the person with the most money, as they have the most to lose.

Some may say "but now you have only a few nodes on the network susceptible to being hacked". Well this is somewhat correct, however nothing is limiting the placement of the million dollar accounts on multiple nodes, therefore making the pinpointing harder. A new feature is being added to SolidCoin which also allows you to proxy where a block will "come out" onto the network, making identification of trusted nodes nearly impossible.

Unlike the Bitcoin model where Satoshi falsely thought you could rely on this relationship of CPUs being humans, with money accounts you can be pretty sure it is. The network is no longer susceptible to botnets, hackers, or even governments. The only way to attack the SC2.0 system is try to become the two or three largest account holders, and how would that happen? They'd have to buy SolidCoins just like everyone else, driving price up insanely in the process, that's even if people were willing to sell them enough SolidCoins.

One initial problem with this p2p security feature is SolidCoin only had 1.112 million coins prior to this security feature being implemented. To solve this, 10 accounts of 1.2 million were created in the genesis block. These are special accounts that cannot be spent on the network, effectively making them "Null accounts used for special purposes", until SolidCoin does have real millionaires.

With this new 51% protection feature there is a finally p2p cryptocurrency large businesses and users can rely on. Protected from major threats and attacks by governments, corporations and hack groups.

http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-most-secure-currency.php


edit: RealSolid (founder of SolidCoin) is a libertarian and he doesn't even know it:
In some places you are a criminal if you eat pig meat or drink alcohol. Should we attempt to therefore ban beer and ham sales with SolidCoins? You may think that buying alcohol shouldn't be a crime but 80 years ago the USA said it was, so people need to realize that laws are quite subjective and often change. SolidCoin is not a government or culture, it is merely a currency that people can use for whatever they want to trade. We will never artificially restrict trade, no matter how offensive we personally may find them.
http://solidcoin.info/myths.html
 
Last edited:
This is Microcash's predecessor (Microcash improves upon Solid Coin 2.0). I wish there was a third party writing on the claims here, but clearly Bitcoins are not secure and will fail in the near future. For those who don't like to read: the essential difference between Bitcoin and Solidcoin is also the real difference between Democracy and a Representative Democracy. If malicious users take up 51% of the Bitcoin miners, then the whole network can be compromised and nobody will know about it!



http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-most-secure-currency.php


edit: RealSolid (founder of SolidCoin) is a libertarian and he doesn't even know it:

http://solidcoin.info/myths.html

thx for posting, +rep, but half the people here are bitcoin trolls. They don't see the fundamental issue of "if it was created by man, it can be recreated by man period."

for those, who are unsure about bitcoins, its such a dumb idea, you really want data bites as your money? fuckin wake up, stick to tangleable assets, but if you want another "fiat" currency just stick with federal reserve notes, their more useful.
 
Last edited:
Another bitcoin thread by Hazek..

Bitcoin is just a pyramid scheme.
It is backed by nothing.
It is a digital currency and will be hacked eventually.

It is basically the honor system when it comes to transferring them.
You send someone bitcoins and they promise to send you stuff, but they can keep your bitcoins and send you nothing and there is NO recourse.

Having to use a place my mt gox or dwolaa or whatever to convert your bitcoins into dollars...
They could just totally fuck everyone, just decide that today is the day to keep everything, YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE.


Using bitcoins is like handing a crackhead $20 to go get you some crack, there is always that chance they wont come back with your shit.
 
Last edited:
Another bitcoin thread by Hazek..

Bitcoin is just a pyramid scheme.
It is backed by nothing.
It is a digital currency and will be hacked eventually.

It is basically the honor system when it comes to transferring them.
You send someone bitcoins and they promise to send you stuff, but they can keep your bitcoins and send you nothing and there is NO recourse.

Having to use a place my mt gox or dwolaa or whatever to convert your bitcoins into dollars...
They could just totally fuck everyone, just decide that today is the day to keep everything, YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE.


Using bitcoins is like handing a crackhead $20 to go get you some crack, there is always that chance they wont come back with your shit.
Check out my posts on Solidcoin/Microcash. I think its fair to say that Bitcoin can't be clubbed together with all crypto-currencies, and there are viable alternatives to Bitcoin out there.
 
Another bitcoin thread by Hazek..

Gold is just a pyramid scheme.
It is backed by nothing.
It is a lump of rock and can be lost or stolen eventually.

It is basically the honor system when it comes to transferring it.
You send someone gold and they promise to send you stuff, but they can keep your gold and send you nothing and there is NO recourse.

Having to use a place like a coin dealer or futures exchange or whatever to convert your gold into dollars...
They could just totally fuck everyone, just decide that today is the day to keep everything, YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE.


Using gold is like handing a crackhead $20 to go get you some crack, there is always that chance they wont come back with your shit.


Do you see how silly you sound?
 
Hazek, go peddle your pyramid scheme elsewhere.

Your editing of my quote shows you have no fucking idea what your talking about.

Bitcoin isn't a pyramid scheme. I'm not the most knowledgeable person on the subject, but I do know it isn't that.
 
Hazek, go peddle your pyramid scheme elsewhere.

Your editing of my quote shows you have no fucking idea what your talking about.

Man, I'm probably the worst peddler I have ever heard of. I never tell people to use bitcoins, I never tell people to buy butcoins, I never link any websites where they could buy them, all I do is link to articles or news with the aim to inform people of the current events around Bitcoin. Worst peddler ever!

:rolleyes:
 
Man, I'm probably the worst peddler I have ever heard of. I never tell people to use bitcoins, I never tell people to buy butcoins, I never link any websites where they could buy them, all I do is link to articles or news with the aim to inform people of the current events around Bitcoin. Worst peddler ever!

:rolleyes:
you don't peddle bit coins but you sure do defend it, its just another "fiat" system that is worthless.
 
This is Microcash's predecessor (Microcash improves upon Solid Coin 2.0). I wish there was a third party writing on the claims here, but clearly Bitcoins are not secure and will fail in the near future. For those who don't like to read: the essential difference between Bitcoin and Solidcoin is also the real difference between Democracy and a Representative Democracy. If malicious users take up 51% of the Bitcoin miners, then the whole network can be compromised and nobody will know about it!



http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-most-secure-currency.php


edit: RealSolid (founder of SolidCoin) is a libertarian and he doesn't even know it:

http://solidcoin.info/myths.html

Interesting, but realistically, if everybody had their bitcoins stolen then they would probably completely lose their value almost instantly.
 
Bitcoin is just a pyramid scheme.
I disagree.
It is backed by nothing.
This is obviously true. This is the basic problem with bitcoin.
It is a digital currency and will be hacked eventually.
This is debatable.
You send someone bitcoins and they promise to send you stuff, but they can keep your bitcoins and send you nothing and there is NO recourse.
Irrevocability is not necessarily a bad thing. I consider it a good thing. Remember that cash, also, is an irrevocable payment. For the payer, it can be a risk. This risk can be mitigated or eliminated by various means, such as third-party escrow.

Having to use a place my mt gox or dwolaa or whatever to convert your bitcoins into dollars...
They could just decide that today is the day to keep everything, YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE.
It is much much more likely that the gov't goons will do that, they will attack all the exchangers. It would be a relatively small and easy project for them to shut down all the commercial exchangers, severing the link between the (totally gov't-controlled) banking system and bitcoin. This would make it essentially impossible to get established currencies in exchange for bitcoin.

Using bitcoins is like handing a crackhead $20 to go get you some crack, there is always that chance they wont come back.
The more important element in that transaction, in my opinion, is not that you are using cash, an irrevocable payment medium, but that you are dealing with a vendor of disrepute or unknown repute. Paying "the crackhead" with a check does not necessarily completely solve your problem and make this into a wise transaction.
 
It is much much more likely that the gov't goons will do that, they will attack all the exchangers. It would be a relatively small and easy project for them to shut down all the commercial exchangers, severing the link between the (totally gov't-controlled) banking system and bitcoin. This would make it essentially impossible to get established currencies in exchange for bitcoin.

When you think about it, that's really all it took for gold to be taken out of circulation. Roosevelt outlawed ownership of gold, and by extension transactions in gold, and for as much of an outcry as there was at the time, it amounted to a whimper from an already ignorant and easily subdued public. There were no house-to-house searches and or seizures. No physical confiscation required. Most people simply complied, the rest were left alone, forced to hide what they owned but would not give over to the government. Making it illegal was sufficient to remove it completely out of circulation.

That same thing could happen to bitcoins. No big internet crackdowns required. Maybe a couple of larger users are tracked down and prosecuted, made examples of to intimidate everyone else into compliance -- no different than the few high-profile tax cases (Irwin Schiff et al), or the two major cases involving hard specie (Liberty Dollars and the contractor out of Las Vegas who is now serving time). The details of those cases are irrelevant to their effectiveness in shutting others down. Already people are asking how many merchants will accept them as payment. What happens to those few if they're made illegal?

That really is the as-yet unsolved problem for any competing currency, including bitcoins, and that stems, ironically, from the very reason that fiat currencies are so easy for governments to impose. Gold, silver, bitcoins, barter, you name it: they can all work to a degree on a silk road or a black market, but for any of them to be used in any kind of normal, regular circulation requires some kind of economic catastrophe, or a showdown between people and their government.

Absent an actual competing currencies Act (read=government's "fiat" blessing), and a revocation of legal tender laws, the only real threat from competing currencies is that it gives people a taste of what is possible, along with the opportunity to prepare for the INEVITABLE death of the reigning currency. Most importantly, it establishes a black market. And if times are tough enough, a MASSIVE portion of the population faced with survival will avail themselves of it. The Great Firewall of China didn't stop my Chinese friends from accessing and using Youtube and Facebook. It just forced them underground, while the remainder of the population stopped using them.
 
Ah the typical bitcoin arguments.

It's not a pyramind scheme, yes it is growing in acceptance, yes it's real money. There are a few places you can walk in with cash in hand and get bitcoins, and vice versa - not many but growing. People get fixated on the mining and that's just a technical issue and a small bit of overall usage. Outside of the bubble because of hyped press it's had a very stable growth.

The quantum computers comment make me laugh. If quantum computers start breaking encryptions the last thing we have to worry about is bitcoins. Not having any secrets or be able to reliably communicate with existing infrastructure would change the world overnight and governments, businesses, people would have major issues. Personally I think we'll have a nanoscale builders before quantum computers and allow people to churn gold out of hydrogen. But I'm not going to worry about either for a decade.

Bitcoins are not anonymous. There are bitcoin laundries so you can try to hide but if you want to oh, use silk road, you still need a postal address to pick up whatever you order. So the digital to real world goods does leave a trail.

With the success of bitcoins there are a number of people trying to be alternatives, most of those are setup as a pyramind scheme with the "inventors" having a big chunk of money and just hope for the masses to come. Until there is a reason to switch I don't see people leave bitcoins.

Now you want to talk about an pyramind scheme of digital money, there is always the Diablo 3 auction house. Selling virtual goods for realworld cash, run by the company that gets a piece of the action. What a scam! South Korea has already banned it.
 
you don't peddle bit coins but you sure do defend it, its just another "fiat" system that is worthless.

I don't defend anything but the truth. If someone states a false claim I tend to be annoyed and tend to correct them, whether it's about Bitcoin or religion, or philosophy or whatever, that's what I usually do.

It just so happens to be that this is the Economics & Sound Money which I most often read, under which the topic of Bitcoin falls and it just so happens to be there are a lot of misunderstandings and false beliefs about it out there finding their way into threads informing people of new developments around it which all together are the reasons why I just so happen to usually dispel the false beliefs and appear to defend it in threads in this section of the forum.

If you're going to hold that against me, so be it.
 
Last edited:
This is a most interesting development. It shall be more interesting still to see what the various "governments" do about it. If it begins to gain traction beyond the trivial, rest assured government action will be forthcoming. The question will be on what pretext shall they interfere yet again with the market? Counterfeiting appears to be an unlikely candidate for plausibility. There are, of course, the good old standbys of the drug war and that of terr'izm. And of course there is always the tax man's interests in all of this - which is one of the truly problematic aspects of the bitcoin and why I cannot come to trust them as the technologies currently stand: they are eminently traceable by those one may not want tracing.

I can see a possible business opportunity here: an anonymous transaction clearing house whereby all bitcoin transfers are opaquely affected such that only the parties to the transactions would have knowledge of when, how much, and between whom the exchanges occur. A transaction cost of, say, 0.01% is charged to the initiator of the action. One percent of one percent of all such transactions could result in a very tidy sum, the operations of which would be HQ'd on some rock such as Vanuatu or the Caymans. Of course, if it got as big as it might, I would expect US Marines to eventually be called in to "clean things up" a bit and take possession of the infrastructure in the name of the USA and "fairness". Ugh.

I will be watching this carefully.

One other concern about bitcoins, and this is something that we should all be thinking about: what if they start to take over? There has been much talk over the years of eliminating cash. If enough people begin using them and if using them becomes convenient and using cash becomes far less so, there is nothing to prevent cash from being phased out such that eventually it becomes extinct. If this happens and there come no honest competitors to the bitcoin, we end up going from frying pan to fire. I would also ask, where did bitcoin come from? Who are the people? These questions should be made very public. How do we know they are not fronts for some covert economic initiative to gain greater control over currency movements? After all, barring the existence of a trustworthy anonymous clearing house per above, there will be no more Mr. Employer paying Mr. Employee under the table. Pay in bitcoins WILL be readily traceable and will indeed be tracked. Of that, one may bet the farm.
 
Back
Top