jasonisalive

The problem of credit cards is that when you make a payment, you have to give away your private key. No amount of securitisation will take away this fundamental flaw.

This is one of Bitcoin's evolutionary advantages in this space. To send money with Bitcoin, there is no need to expose one's private key. A massive corporation could take millions of annual payments and their paying customers needn't be concerned about their money being at risk. If the entity has poor security, the only people they endanger are themselves.

Great, so you're concerned about some people being more competitive than others in the free market. So what's your response? A monopolistic ostenisbly communally-controlled central power to oversee and address alleged abuses? Excellent, you just created a superbly manipulable tool of power for society's most capable individuals to wield. You just made problems of fundamental unfairness much worse, not better.

And the irony is that people like yourself, chasing phantoms of unfairness in the free market, support the extension and entrenchment of coercive governments, an institution which is and always will be eminently corruptible, an institution whose history is a litany of abuse and overreach.

Uber offers a certain deal to potential drivers, they either like it enough to accept it or they think they can get a better match for their skills and circumstances and they keep looking. Uber has no responsibility to try and offer a deal which matches your sense of fairness. No one is being coerced and no one is being exploited.

So what, some people have urgent needs, different parties in economic transactions have access to different information. Welcome to the free market. They're still choosing to work for Uber. No one is forcing them. Uber isn't forcing them. Uber is just offering an opportunity that they are deciding to accept.

The entire economic system is built around people trying to get the best deal possible for themselves. You can try and paint that as inhumane and abusive if you're commited to emotionalising economic dynamics, but it really doesn't make any sense. At the end of the day as long as the transactions are consensual, there's no need for this rhetoric of abuse. Uber drivers know the deal and they can take it or leave it. No one's holding a gun to their heads. Likewise, it's not Uber or anyone else's job or responsibility to guarantee anyone or anybody a certain standard of living.

You might as well vilify people for choosing the potatoes which are 10c/kg cheaper at the supermarket, isn't that a case of those wealthy enough to buy potatoes victimising helpless potato farmers?

If by illegal images you mean child pornography, there's a few key differences between CP and Bitcoin. Namely: very very few people are into CP, while practically everyone who isn't an enthusiast is violently opposed to it. Therefore, law enforcement has a practical free reign to track down and destroy the lives of CP-sharers, and are actively supported and even acclaimed by the wider public for their actions.

The excuses for the prohibition of free financial services on the other hand are all basically covert attempts to protect the sovereignty of state military/police institutions, and do not actually align at all with the interests of regular folk. Plus absolutely everybody needs and enjoys high quality, unrestricted financial services.

So I see the chances of government attempts to suppress Bitcoin succeeding as more or less 0. What would be the grounds for it? Where would they gather the support that would allow them to openly violently suppress great swathes of people to try and keep it from happening?

It's even less likely to succeed than efforts to suppress copyright-breaking, because with Bitcoin there are no legitimate victims, it is only the state who will lose out.

Alternative advice from someone with an anarchistic bent: ignore the law and join the resistance against government. The more people who do it, the less power they have to stop it. People convincing themselves that they need to stay out of trouble and play by the government's rules is what Nietzsche would call internalising the slave mentality, and Foucault "self-policing."

Hello, I'm a Bitcoin community member, I can help clear this one up for you:

1) Bitcoin is claimed as a legitimate alternative to cash money insofar as: Bitcoin proponents believe that, if the world valued Bitcoin, it would function superbly as a money. So "legitimacy" here means "workable" or "beneficial" - it has nothing to do with legitimation by governments.

2) Many Bitcoin proponents are of the opinion that governments destroy wealth and hamper economic progress by trying to restrict and control the actions of people, in so doing preventing more organic and consensus-based mechanisms of social organisation emerging. Thus the argument that Bitcoin should not be subjected to existing cash laws is a) an attempt to prevent Bitcoin from early smothering by suspicious governmental authorities and b) an early-game strategy, the end game of which would be the significant or total disempowerment and/or disestablishment of government.

It's almost as if the government as a social institution continuously and inexorably acts to expand and reinforce its power over society, regardless of any constitutional or rational or utilitarian grounds for its expansion... as if the people in government seek to reinforce and expand the job security and fiscal prospects of being an agent of government, regardless of whether their actions are welcomed by or beneficial to the people they are ostensibly meant to serve, or actually just ever more patronising and controlling overreach...

/s

Why would you say that? There are attempts to regulate them, but those attempts so far are mostly just succeeding in ensuring that the regulating districts become uncompetitive and virtual currency businesses leave for somewhere with better promise.

How are you supposed to regulate these services when anyone can open a Bitcoin bank and serve anyone anywhere in the world with an internet with an internet connection? If they couldn't stop movie piracy, how are they supposed to stop free global financial services? They have even less of a legal case to make for intervention than piracy!

The USD is a pretty lousy global currency. You can't exactly use it anywhere in any sort of transaction. I've only ever heard of a handful of places outside of the States where the local currency is terrible enough that local people prefer to hold and transact in USD over long periods of time. A true global currency would be one that you could use to buy practically anything, anywhere, whether it was a very large or very small transaction.

Regardless, Bitcoin has several advantages. For one thing, you're not dependent upon continually obtaining a flow of paper notes from a foreign country that may lie halfway around the world. For another, you can divide Bitcoin to extremely small and precise quantities - the dollar on the other hand doesn't scale as well to economies where a penny may start to approach a significant individual unit of money.

There are of course many other advantages of Bitcoin that make it attractive for people in many different countries to adopt. The fact that you can transmit and receive it to and from anywhere in the world, with the same certainty of transaction confirmation as cash in hand, without the need to either physically ship cash or rely on a network of physical cash shipment, is a pretty good one, especially as the world grows ever smaller.

A final advantage would be that you are never hostage to the political dangers of a nation-state controlled currency (i.e. a small group of rich white men can at any point decide to devalue your savings, to the point of destruction, by printing an unlimited amount of the currency.)

FYI that vulnerability was fixed already by the time he wrote that post. He brought it to Trezor's attention, helped update the firmware, and published the article after the update was pushed.