The Nike swoosh and McDonalds yellow M are very specific geometric depictions. Anyone can use a swoosh logo, as a Google image search for "swoosh logo -nike" shows.
Further, each of these examples represents (at least) hundreds of thousands of dollars of development, and hundreds of millions of dollars in direct investment to reinforce through advertising.
But seriously. If Google had easy access to such private spaces, and they were convenient to their employees (in the crowded Haight, Mission, etc.), I'm sure they'd use those options. But convenient stops big enough for a bus to pull into are quite rare there.
Some developers predicted that China's new Tianhe-2 supercomputer would be the first to break through.
Wait... *what* uninformed developer(s) predicted that? The previous record (six months ago) was set by Titan, at 17.59 Petaflop/s. So to pass the exaflop barrier this time around would require over a fifty-fold improvement -- something never before seen in the history of the Top500 list. Did someone *really* make this prediction, or is author Kevin Fogarty just making shit up?
That's a good point, assuming that government regulations will require exchanges to record traders' identities (which seems likely). On the other hand, one could use the money to buy something with the Bitcoin and remain anonymous.
Tangentially: I used to think that Bitcoin couldn't be anonymous because one could build an identifying profile based on a series of purchases or exchanges. Then I learned that quite a few holders of Bitcoin use a *different address for each transaction*. That really does muddy the waters!
Decentralized authority works for some things -- the Bitcoin system demonstrates that. But some (such as judging insurance payouts) require the human touch.
The meatspace Tom Geller can be arrested and held. He has to personally show up at the bank to verify his identity when he opens an account. He has a picture on his driver's license that more or less matches his face.
<quote>bitcoins are not anonymous.</quote>
That's true in a technical sense. But practically speaking, they can be mostly so.
<quote>No. Pseudonyms with private keys can achieve the same thing.</quote>
We disagree. I think you're underestimating the reasonable requirements of governance.
<quote>This is done in bitcoin today without any centralized authority.</quote>
No, it's not. The spender is never identified in a real-world way.
What makes are the units? This sounds quite out of line with what others have reported.
(Consider that Blockchain.info reports a net *loss* for mining -- see https://blockchain.info/stats . Maybe that includes only transaction fees or something?)
I think that future Coin will be based on essentially the same specs, procedures, and algorithms Satoshi described -- in that sense, it's decentralized. However, I think there'll be a layer above that which *isn't* decentralized. And there will be a tie between the two layers.
Here's an example. Let's say that Bitcoin continues to be the leading cryptocurrency -- anonymous and decentralized. However, if you want to insure deposits in it, you have to submit to some kind of identity proof through a central authority. People who need that service will submit, thereby taking part in a system with elements of both decentralization (the Coin) and centralization (the services supporting it).
It could also be that the centralization has deeper roots, making it essentially impossible to work in Coin without taking part in the layer of centralization. For example, what if merchants could only accept coin if it was authenticated to its identified spender? Then everybody would use the "top" layer, or be unable to spend their Coin.
So how do your numbers jibe with BFL's homepage claims of 5GH/s?