Haha, no kidding.

Based on some in person conversations about the topic, threads like this on SlashDot over the last 1.5 years at least, my five+ years of education in Economics (with a Finance/Investing/Monetary specialization), and ample personal research on the topic, Bitcoin has theoretical problems of its own as well as the most logical incongruent fallacious basis to begin with: It cannot achieve stability in scale without the backing of the people (and their representatives, the government). To suggest that all people are always sitting at their computers all the time ready to manage the monetary system is wrong, and to suggest that the people of the world are willing to hand over their monetary system to a group of people that are sitting at their computers (but that they didn't vote for) is wrong.

Simply put, scale can only be achieved if all (or most) people have faith in the system. How do people have all faith? With a vote.

Going into the technicalities of their system itself (which has many validities, and likely even some theory that can be adopted by the current money systems) is mostly an exercise in futility. I do it to practice my knowledge on these topics in which I am quite familiar, as it expands my knowledge base about the actual, scaleable, money system each time I do.

Ah fair enough: I half expected it was copied from somewhere in haste.

It is always important to pay credit forward in some fashion or another, especially since my last comment seemed to imply that your initial comment was "your" mini poem. That being said (note:::trolling-flame-bait::: sorry this is really my passion and how I ended up in the slashdot community in the first place), if Universal and Access Industries (or whoever currently maintains global distro rights for this particular album) had their complete way with the use of those lyrics, Slashdot and yourself would pay some fee to keep that post there under both your names - as that is very much "their" content. In this case though, I am glad we fight for fair use, and it is people like you that show why fair use is so important: Educated people will pay their credit forward.

That being said, now that I know these are Dire Straits lyrics (could have searched the lyrics anyhow) I will now go contribute to the bands existence by listening to this song on a medium of my choosing (your youtube link for now). Who knows, one day I might even purchase and add this album to my collection if I can find a copy I enjoy on a medium that suits me. I picked up an old shitty beat up copy of their first album on vinyl, mostly for the artwork and my bland walls, and for whatever reason I've never ventured much further into their discography. I most certainly would have paid to see Sultans of Swing live, if I had the chance.

Thanks for the tip!

Don't put words in my mouth when I'm not asking you to feed me.

I made no claims about your assurances in the jurisdiction you live in.

I only made the claim that, by definition, money (or currency) is pseudo-anonymous. Allow me to explain this definition, starting by using your very next sentence as you have clearly not taken a monetary economics (300 level undergrad or higher) class:

Once again, I never said US cash is 100% anonymous. I said money (or currency) is pseudo-anonymous. And yes, US Cash fits this definition.

In some forms, US Cash is anonymous and in some forms it isn't. In some forms it is representative of anonymity (like the trillion "missing" dollars). In many (most) cases, the choice is yours as to how anonymous you would like your cash to be, but it will be very difficult (if not impossible, much like with Bitcoin as we will see at the end of this comment) to actually achieve 100% currency anonymity on any legitimate scale. The world is not as absolute as you'd like to think it is.

Pseudo-anonymity can can be contrasted with a currency like Bitcoin, which claims complete 100% anonymity (though it is not). Until the system is broken or until there is a warrant out for someone's arrest, you might feel as though you are 100% anonymous. This is how people felt when they first started posting things to livejournal/myspace/facebook, and it is how most people feel when they are using Torrents or some form of proxy.

Now that we have definitions out of the way, moving the current currency system closer to 100% anonymity has not yet been proven to produce more desirable outcomes than a definably pseudo-anonymous currency. Sometimes, for society, it is pretty important to know where, when, and who the money passed through, and there must be devices in place to access this information in the case of catastrophe.

Obviously, if you are receiving a direct deposit from your employer, and are paying for rent/mortgage with cheques/e-payments, and are withdrawing said cash from the bank where said payroll was deposited you should expect 0% anonymity in this case. Do you honestly think you have complete anonymity when you transfer those same dollars into Bitcoins, and from there on out?

If current US Cash were 100% anonymous for example, you would likely have more difficulty finding the person that hired the super-cool-ninja-assassin who to tried kill you in your sleep last night (thank god for the anonymous Bitcoin-purchased gun under your pillow). One way investigators (private and public) could do this would be to "follow the money" and its paper trail. But because the current government backed money systems in the Western Democracies I am familiar with are already pseudo-anonymous, the person who hired your assassin has ways to ensure his/her name is not associated with the act.

Everybody already wins.

Furthermore, many legitimate professions like Bartenders and Cab Drivers are paid in largely in cash and at no point are they required to be subject to said aforementioned tracking mechanisms. You can always ask your employer to pay you in cash. Where did you employer get that cash from? Who knows, only they do. Your employer doesn't want to pay you in cash, but you only want to be paid in cash? Find a new employer.

You do realize that there is already a lot of cash in circulation, yes? Much of it is "claimed" to be missing, yes? No currency that is already in circulation necessarily has to be associated with any one person's name. This is how drug dealers operate and provide their necessary services. Bitcoin is an alternative for them, as for now it provides them with more assurances regarding anonymity. Drug dealers will still be taking cold hard currency just like everyone else for the foreseeable future, as on average it still retains some level of anonymity for them.

Moving on to the rest of your points:

You literally pay the Bank to do this for you, this is a service they provide, and the vast majority of people see this as a good thing (and it is). If Bitcoin was suddenly adopted by everyone (all things equal), Banks would still provide this exact same service as they would likely specialize in storing and securing your Bitcoins better than you can. Tracking where US Cash/Bitcoins go is a part of storing and securing, which is what banks do. Much like banks store and secure your current cash, much like banks used to (and still do) store and secure gold, much like banks used to provide private security forces and lock boxes for other trinkets people want to hold (and still do). Every squirrel needs a tree for its acorns (and will always). Bitcoin will not remove the involvement of banks.

If you have a source for the threshold at which the government tracks these transactions, please provide said source now. You should be spending more time banning this act in your jurisdiction, rather than arguing for the validity of an alternative currency like Bitcoin as The Currency.

If your local government is doing this, this does not represent a problem with currency: It represents a problem with the laws in your jurisdiction.

Once again, having a tracking mechanism associated with currency is not proven to be a bad thing, especially when you do not have to subject yourself to said tracking as proven above. Bitcoin, as an alternative, is not proven to offer a better solution to the current situation.

Also, please provide a source which indicates that your local police can immediately detect these notable quantities of cash containing embedded metallic strips. Please also provide a source which indicates that your local police is using said mechanism without warrants on ordinary citizens, and is abusing the power of the mechanism in general.

If the police can and are doing these things, you should be working to change this act in your jurisdiction once again, instead of spending time debating me here. This is not a fault of the currency, this is a fault of the laws governing the currency, as I have and will repeat many times in threads like this.

First of all, you need to prove to me that law enforcement currently is tracking notable quantities of cash, as I mentioned in regards to your previous statement. After you do that, then you can work on proving that "Large cash purchases" are always being tracked, or are "similarly being noted" by law enforcement officials.

After you have proven both these two things, you then need to realize this is a policing problem not a currency problem.

But let's say it is a currency problem: How is tracking large cash purchases a bad thing? Here is my retort, if you believe it is a bad thing:

If you are making large cash purchases in my jurisdiction, this means there is a seller, and that there are likely domestic and/or imported goods and/or labour and/or services involved. Like fuck one of these isn't getting taxed. And if you think one of these should not get taxed, well then sir, we are on a totally different page. Yet still, this page is in regards to taxes, and not currency itself.

Moving on to your next statements:

This is factually incorrect.

Identity is required to rent cars, but your form of payment is determined by the rental provider themselves. There are many seedy joints that will rent you a car without identity or plastic cash.

Furthermore, you should be required to show identity when renting a car even if this was 100% factually correct. Why is this? Well, in order for you to drive said car away from the rental location, you will likely have to use some form of government road. Guess who owns the government road? If you guessed the people that compose the government in that jurisdiction, you win the prize. And guess what the funny thing about public AND private roads are? It is not your inalienable right to use said roads, it is a privilege provided to you by the taxpaying base or the private landowner. I, and other taxpayers, would like to know who you are when you are using my road, in case you fuck up which you will inevitably do. Private companies will likely want to know as well, for liability and damages purposes.

Once again, this is not a problem of currency, these are semantics relating to specific types of transactions. Bitcoin does not improve the situation, and may work to prevent some of this if everybody was driving anonymous vehicles on my roads.

Moving on:

Again, this is factually incorrect.

I have been paying rent in cash for over 2 years, and will soon no longer be doing so. Plenty of hotels (the shitty ones, and the good ones as long as you provide identification as with car rentals) accept payment in cash. Hourly hotels for hookers and drug/gun deals like the many near my new place of living take payment in cash. I went on a road-trip last year through the southwest of the United States and stayed in many totally normal hotels that actually preferred cash payment. This is all anecdotal evidence, sure, but I'm not the one trying to supplant an entire system: You are. You need to provide evidence that is not factually incorrect, and when your facts are simply wrong, I feel it is okay to respond with anecdotes.

That being said, these totally normal hotels still wanted some form of identity. But this is so they can sue your ass or kick your ass out of the rental unit if you damage their property or stay for too long. This is pretty fucking reasonable, in my books, and this is a contract I am aware of when engaging these private landowners.

Once again, this is not a problem of currency, these are semantics relating to specific types of transactions. Bitcoin does not improve the situation and may work to prevent some of this, though it is the choice of the hotel rental company whether or not they want to prevent any of this. They have the ability to choose Bitcoin if they wish. Unless you have a warrant out for your arrest, I'm not sure why you would want to be an anonymous rentee of property anyways, as you will no longer be afforded the due process of law which protects tenants far more than it likely should - much like all other Consumer Protection Laws which require you to identify yourself.

As you see above, no. No it does not. Not in the least for any situation you mention above or below. Moving on:

In my jurisdiction, all payments can be reversed, within reason, and within the defined terms. This is done by private entities to ensure that their customers are satisfied to the fullest extent, and it is also written into our Consumer Protection Laws.

Once again, this is not a problem of currency, these are semantics relating to specific types of transactions in your jurisdiction. Bitcoin does not improve the situation and may work to prevent some of this especially in regards to protecting the consumer (you). Being anonymous won't help you when you get fucked by your favourite company, on purpose or on accident.

But please, enlighten me. What types of transactions payments cannot be reversed (payroll? I'm sure there are many examples, but I am asking you), and does being anonymous in these transactions provide for a more optimal social outcome?

Please provide sources where necessary.

Honestly, what on earth do you think escrow is? You do realize most escrow payments are made using a government backed currency and that escrow is a very common form of payment, especially for a wide range of industries? Escrow was the first most popular form of payment on the internet, as seen with sites like Ebay (and before this) because everyone was paranoid and nobody trusted each other. Most escrow payments then, and now, are delivered and executed as government backed currencies. Bitcoin, like E-Gold, and Ebay were not the first to use Escrow. It has been around since prostitution/banks.

You can send escrow payments in acorns for all anyone cares, just like I imagine squirrels do in some capacity.

Once again, this is simply not indicative of a problem with currency. Moving on:

This is not a problem with currency, and there is no such thing as perfect law enforcement. You paint things in cartoonish absolutes.

This is a problem with how you vote for your officials, and the power your elected officials give to your jurisdiction's police force.

That being said, you are wrong: I think most people would agree that we should most certainly equip our law enforcement agents where it is reasonable to do so in regards to currency, and even the most staunch Libertarian believes in security for private property. If it is reasonable to include a law enforcement mechanism in the currency itself, most people are okay with this unless the use of the mechanism is not reasonable.

Once again, not a currency problem. It is a law enforcement problem that we willingly chose.

So tell me again how bitcoin is 100% anonymous, and how it can hope to remain anonymous with scale? It may be more anonymous than the current currency system, but neither is 100% anonymous while neither REQUIRES that your name is attached to the currency.

And once again, how is more anonymity proven to provide a greater net social benefit than the current currency which is already pseudo-anonymous?

I would expect nothing short of a full reply from you regarding all these points, as you have already spilled thousands of words on this article thread alone. I have addressed every single one of your sentences that you wrote for me. I would love it if you were able to address all of mine.

Well here is an E-Handshake for you good sir. Glad to say I shared a sentence with a person that worked for a service I valued highly for a while. Thank you for your efforts, for however long you may have been doing them.

I guess that mini poem you wrote at the top of this comment reply line hit a little too close to home then, huh. Too bad I had to comment in this thread, otherwise you would have had my mod.

Apparently, you didn't read my previous comment (which you decided to respond to (twice) anyways) where I stated this exact same thing:

Why the fuck are you responding to my comments if you are not even reading what I am writing? At the top of this comment reply line you make a terrible flame-baiting comment, and I call you out on it. Then you refuse to debate your trolling comments because you have no leg to stand on. I have the ability to admit I am wrong, do you? Because the second clause of your first statement in this comment reply line is wrong, yet you refuse to admit or provide justification for the terms you used.

Can you please address the fact that the Internet is the most pure Capitalist system known to man, yet somehow this is not evidence of Capitalism having some merit? You have literally ignored this for three straight comments now, while I acknowledge that Communism has merit.

I addressed all of your examples to show how subsistence farming, sharecropping, and collective farming are not very good examples of either Communism or Capitalism while they most certainly are not scaleable on any level.

Why bother engaging in conversation or debate in an online setting via a written word forum if you are not fucking reading?

The aforementioned comment where I explained my second clause wasn't even that long, but apparently it was too long to keep your attention. This is slashdot, not twitter. I put a lot of this comment in bold, so that you actually made it to the end this time.

This comment is so ignorant I don't know where to start.

But allow me to provide you with one example for your mind to chew on for a while: An example of an industry that should not be taking a bullet in the head anytime soon, as those that take bullets will need this industry.

Consider the healthcare systems of most major Western Democracies: They contain some share of public and private presence. Should the government be waiting for Bitcoin transaction approvals in order to appropriate funds from the Bitcoin taxbase to the Hospitals that need these funds for equipment, drugs, and payroll within the immediate future? If there are already examples of transaction approvals taking upwards of 20 days, how do you expect to pay for refills and hospital payroll in a timely manner? People's lives depend on this.

If you are pursuing some form of private healthcare, should you have to wait any longer than the blink of an eye for your transaction to be approved? You might be pursuing private healthcare because you feel there is better quality, or it is an elective procedure, or many less obvious reasons. But take for example the case of Dentistry, which is not covered by a public health system like Canada. Should you really have to wait any amount of time for emergency dental surgery, if in the case of serious mouth/teeth problems that is actually causing you pain?

I will repeat this until necessary: The problem is not with Currency itself, the problem is with laws that govern Currency. Bitcoin does not currently present a better alternative to Currency itself. Once upon a time there was E-Gold, then there was Bitcoin. CyberPunkMoney is no different than all other alternative currencies, like cigarettes and gold, which existed before the internet. It may have a fresh approach, but its end result is no different. If it wants to achieve legitimate scale, it will be government controlled.

I think it is quite obvious that all three of these religions have different prophets and theories about the one true God, but it is hard to deny that they all share the exact same one true God.

Let me break this down for you as simply as possible: If the Jewish faith worshipped the Computing Device in front of you as God (instead of God himself), then you must also accept that all sects of the Christian faith worship that same Computing Device in front of you (if you don't, you clearly are not familiar with the Old and New Testament). The Computing Device for these two people is often referred to as Yahweh, maybe for the sake of this story we can call it Apple.

In Christianity, they believe that this Computing Device gave birth to your Mobile Computing Device which they worship as Jesus Christ, and a USB Cord to connect the two, known as the Holy Spirit. Together, the Computing Device , the Mobile Computing Device, and the USB Cord compose the Holy Trinity of God for Christians, but that the Computing Device remains the father of all devices.

In Judaism, they do not believe that the Computing Device has yet produced a Mobile Computing Device and USB Cord that is good enough for them. Both Christians and Jews have written many Manuals as to how to best use your Computing Device .

Many centuries after your Computing Device gave birth to an empirically non-existant character known as your Mobile Computing Device, an empirically existant dude named Mohammed rolled around and claimed that we may have had it wrong about using a USB Cord connection with our Mobile Computing Device in conjunction with our Computing Device . He thanked the Mobile Computing Device and the USB Cord connection for their framework, though he was slightly pissed that only some of the software and hardware were open sourced. He then created his own Manual for how one should use said Computing Device , while many others created more Manuals. The Muslim Computing Device is known as Allah, but is still an Apple Computing Device

Moral of the story: The Computing Device still reigns supreme over all three of these groups.

No kidding, it is quite funny. I even got into a live debate with some people regarding this recently (I was an Econ student that went to a CS/Engineering school, thus you can imagine who my friends are and how poor and nerdy this debate was), and none of them had heard of E-Gold. I was using E-Gold many years ago, as far back to high school, and none of these people were aware of it.

I'm surprised you got the jist of my last comment based on how poorly it was written.

All my friend (singular......tear) always state that half my humour is pointing out the obvious.

When it comes to websites like these, and seeing general stupidity in public, I have typically made it my goal to at least share my knowledge with these people. At the bare minimum I want them to question their own belief system, much like people make me do every day. It's not easy telling other young people that the money systems we use today are actually kind of okay overall. Logic and empirical evidence, along with the scientific method are typically used to back my argumentative standpoints.

Sometimes I do get a joy out of it, almost like a bully, but I don't find a consistent need to do it. It really is that certain kind of intelligent (or well trained) wackjob (seemingly found in abundance on this website) that is knowingly blind and knowingly paints the world as a set of "cartoonish" extremes rather than a spectrum of solutions and possibilities (this could even be a function of this website having started out appealing to those that write binary computer code). I do not feel like a bully when facing these people, as they are bullies themselves. Bad, poor, and mis-information must be stamped out. Much like your sig, it is human duty to do so. The blind may not lead the blind. /high-horse

All this is why I am even willing to entertain the notion of bitcoin in the first place: I am willing to entertain the notion of the spectrum of solutions, alternative currencies, and that the bitcoin technology might have some validity which can help make government currency have more checks, balances, accountability, and transparency. But to suggest that bitcoin will supplant all government currencies? The notion is fallacious as you say, and totally misses the point of the current currency system. If any one singular group of people had the ability to supplant government currencies in one fell swoop such that the majority of people actually had faith in said currency, it would be some conglomerate of banks, much like it was before gold standard and fiat currencies.

People have always wanted to store shit, and banks have always been there to store said shit. Currency is just a different pile of said shit, in representative form.

I remember living in America, in a relatively small town, needing to use E-Gold in order to buy stuff online. Bitcoin is fundamentally different, yes, but alternative currencies have and always will exist. Don't like the currency you are using? Fortunately most of us commenting on these forums live in a country that provides the opportunity to use a different currency.

I'm a closeted fascist as well: An omnipotent, omniscient singular leader would likely be the best and most effecient form of government for all.

Unfortunately no such person/hero/god has or ever will exist.

Yes, I imagine that like E-Gold it will just be shut down in any capacity it can be as, because like E-Gold (man i remember those days) most of the activity it is used for are illegal transactions (man I remember engaging in many of these online, now I just have friends and don't live in a remote area so I don't need to be concerned about this).

I'm confused. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the point I made? Allow me to repeat my point for clarification:

You can understand how I am confused by your response.