Origins of Bitcoin??? Who is changing the world of currency???

I don't think Nakamoto was one person. He was a sock puppet... And I think Hal Finney was one of the creators of Nakamoto.

a reply to: Mandroid7
It is similar to a 'brute force' hack. Miners are running random numbers through the algorithm looking for the correct 'solve'. The 'solve' confirms the transactions for that mining block across the entire Bitcoin network and is added to the end of the Blockchain(the public account of all Bitcoin accounts and transactions). The mining computer that finds the correct 'solve' is rewarded with Bitcoin.

The odds of finding a solve are astronomical. Many miners operate in a pool so that when a miner in their pool finds the solve the rewards are distributed to everybody based on the percentage of processing power each user contributed.

The whole point is that it gives systemic security. In theory the only way to hack or break the Bitcoin system is to rerun the entire collective historic processing power up to current and 'outspeed the system' and fill the new Blockchain with bogus data. As time goes on it becomes ever more secure.

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

Oh, OK
That makes more sense.

a reply to: ttobban

Well don't get me wrong, blockchains are just a technology that can be used to eliminate banks if we use them right. In that line of thinking, isn't it logical that banks would want to 'demonize' the technology and or monopolize it for themselves?

So that's sort of what I was getting at, the technology is a boon, but when it's combined with finance it can turn into a scam like any other financial product, stocks, bonds, etc.

The way I see it revolutionizing things is when you can tag tangible things like gold or silver to an encrypted blockchain and create coins off a known quantity of whatever it is you are using. Right now our 'money' is administered by the banks. But the premise of cryptos is they are a decentralized money, they circumnavigate banking. But when banks can monopolize them or get finance to monopolize them then the banks are still in control, they just have a better accounting system. But banks are still loaded with debt, all the bonds and loans they've issued making them all inter-dependent, derivatives took their leverage to the moon and beyond so now if 1 bank, say DB goes down, all the other banks are affected because our currency is like blood in a body 1 clot can cause a heart attack.

So we need an alternative way of doing business, but banks do provide credit. Without credit it's hard to get an economy to grow and provide general prosperity for all. Banks used to take deposits then make loans giving the depositors a cut of their profits. But risk governed the system, when the duration on the loans banks made were not matched with depositors desires to withdraw the banks could suffer bank runs and then become insolvent. Then central banks were invented to try and prevent bank runs, they were the lenders of last resort that is they provided liquidity when the loans the banks had made mismatched the depositors withdrawal requests. But then central banks got swamped with debt, right now they own over $21 trillion in assets they've purchased since 2008. So they could go down as well, don't listen to people who say they can just print money, they have duration mismatches as much as commercial banks.

So we need a system that is independent of banks and yet can provide credit for growth. Right now cryptos cannot do that but if we can build encrypted databases on gold or silver, then offer interest gains in gold or silver people will use the system. A new system that combines encrypted databases and real bills is probably the solution that the economy will come up with, and I think some people are already thinking about this solution and when the next crisis hits I think they'll kickstart the e-realbills system off gold and silver.

So for instance 100,000 people pool 10 ounces of gold each, that's 1,000,000 ounces of gold. Then they build an encrypted database on that gold and create 1,000,000 gold e-coins. Then if you wanted, you could withdraw your coin and the database would note that as a withdrawal that amount of gold could not be withdrawn again unless someone else deposited another ounce into the system.

I imagine like ATM machines that hold gold coins for the system, and you could 'fractionalize' the gold as well like gold wires 0.0001g embedded in a plastic bill. Then you just make a withdraw if you want the gold specie or keep it in electronic format and spend it.

The real bills system would then allow clearing of all the transactions that businesses in the system make, and you don't need an exponentially increasing amount of gold to make the system work because you're using the coins and they transfer hands at each step in the production process. So a limited amount of gold could still make the entire system function, which refutes the arguments of economists over the past 500 years that claimed there wasn't enough gold or silver for economies to grow (credit).

Loans could also be made within the system, and all lending would be 100% secured lending. Real bills essentially eliminate the need for banks because they are self-liquidating.

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

Those with enough wealth to set up a large mining system are probably already mining in secret.
It would not surprise me if that included banks.
They wouldn't disclose it, for obvious reasons, but I doubt they'd miss the opportunity to get in on the ground floor and invest for profit.

a reply to: Tulpa

Yah but a system is useless unless people are using it. So you either allow the economy to produce what it needs or you try a top down approach like we've done for over 500 years (since the bank of england).

Top down approaches are tyranny and they are unstable, they always fail in time.

originally posted by: Tulpa
a reply to: SkeptiSchism

Those with enough wealth to set up a large mining system are probably already mining in secret.
It would not surprise me if that included banks.
They wouldn't disclose it, for obvious reasons, but I doubt they'd miss the opportunity to get in on the ground floor and invest for profit.

Unless a bank is a top Tier 1 bank, they would not remotely have the processing power to mine for Bitcoin.... A financial processor (such as FIS, First Data, etc) could be another story altogether. But that's not a bank....

originally posted by: ttobban
Central Intelligence. Hmm... things just got interesting.

Like I said elsewhere on ATS, you can't carry out foreign intelligence operations without the capability of anonymous funding.

Cash was the quintessential anonymous transaction medium, that enabled intel ops to be funded in secret.

But, we're eliminating cash, and everything is going digital, and all "fiat money" in digital format is being tracked to the penny by the banking system under the new "money laundering" laws.

That means all foreign intelligence operations are under threat, worse than Snowden, from the encroaching inability of intelligence agencies to move money around without it being tracked, when funds pass through the banks of a nation.

The solution, the CIA/NSA/MI6 etc..came up with is bitcoin.

A digital crypto money with the essential "anonymous" properties of paper cash.

That's the origin.

Only the intel agencies has access to the "black budget" to fund the start up of crypto currencies, and to keep the spark going, until it catches fire in the minds of the general public, and becomes a steady flame.

It ain't an accident, nor random, nor fluke, its a deliberate well thought out scheme to re-enable intel agents out in the field.

a reply to: AMPTAH

I don't think that will work. What is backing electronic currency? Negative rates destroy capital, that's the main reason they want electronic currency.

Money is used by the economy to relate goods and services, it needs to have intrinsic value in and of itself. Digits they can manufacture at will doesn't relate actual goods and services being exchanged.

originally posted by: salty_wagyu
Anyone been able to cash out large sums of money from bitcoin though? Never hear stories about them, which strikes me suspicious.

It depends on the exchange. Some exchanges will let you pull out $50,000 per day (transferred to your bank account). Some more, some less. This, you have to explain to the IRS/Bank and it'll be taxed since the fed likes to know about all monies moved around for 10k or more. Some 5k or more. I've even had to explain to the bank that I wanted to pull 12k out of one bank and put it in another. They all but demanded that they do it themselves through transfer that would take a few days. I told them I wanted it right then and there. They didn't seem too happy about giving me MY money to do it this way and wanted to know what the 12k was for. If I said "none of your concern", my bank account would have been locked and all my money held by the IRS and I would have never gotten it back without a lengthy court battle that would have left me broke.

soooooo... that's the need for such things as crypto. The problem is, you can't always trust exchanges. I've lost twice by fraudulent exchanges .... all of it, because the persons running each stole the crypto and skipped off to china. No laws on this makes it hard to prosecute and when you can based on specific factors (lawyers can sometimes make cases on this), the person of interest is already gone. Jokes on that guy... China banned the trade..

However, you don't always need an exchange. Many places now take bitcoin. Granted, you would need an exchange to swap one coin for another, so if you have all say, ETH or DOGE or whatever, you need the exchange to swap it to BitCoin.

You can buy houses, cars (lambos!), food, etc but not everyone takes it so you're kind of limited.

The biggest issue with exchanges right now, aside from fraud/theft, is that many times when you make a purchase or request dollars for your crypto, a lot of them will sit on it, supposedly verifying the exchange but within a couple of days, those values will fluctuate A LOT. What they're really doing is trying to get the most out of you by giving you a lesser amount when possible. So when you 'lock in' at a certain price, buy or sell, they will not always give you that lock in price and if you argue with them, they'll ban you, as you see.... the person owning the exchange is probably some 20 year old, fat slob of a troll sitting behind a computer screen, picking Cheetos out of his belly button, getting super rich off his schemes. Anyone can have an exchange. No license, no requirements, no education needed. All you have to know how to do is a little coding to build the site.

So far, cypto history has taught us that ALL popular exchanges will fold at some point because of some supposed hacker issue only to be replaced by another exchange that will go through the same thing. When the exchange gets popular and obtains enough 'holdings' at one time... they will be "hacked" and will become just another news article. In every case I can remember, the owners get charged but in most of the cases so far, the owners skip the country. Most countries don't have laws against this since this IS all digital make-believe anyways.

All in all, it's like a digital make believe drug war with real world consequences. But, In the crypto world, you're own your own....

Another case for having a hardware wallet, once the amount becomes substantial.

originally posted by: Gazrok
Another case for having a hardware wallet, once the amount becomes substantial.

A hardware wallet is ideal but not perfect. You still have to send the coins through an exchange at some point. Also, there are trojans out there that look for wallets and some have even used wallets as a host for the trojans to steal from people.

It's kind of like downloading music. You can download all day long every day but if you do, you have a pretty good chance of catching a virus, the internet company sending you a letter to stop downloading illegal tunes, or come music company suing you for a few grand. ...or you could be safe for a lil while longer. The longer you go, the deeper you go, the higher the chance for something happening.

On my first go, it took about a year before my first stash of coins were stolen from me by an exchange. A year later, another exchange did the same to me. Unfortunately Cryptsy didn't tell people he was "having problems" when he was supposedly hacked and he just kept taking coins for exchange but wasn't giving anything back in return. So everything turned into a one way deposit and no one knew the wiser until we found out he skipped the country.

First time... lesson learned. Keep it in a personal wallet.

Second time... Lesson learned. Exchanges will likely rip you off when the temptation is too high.

Nothing can be fullproof in an unregulated industry. But you can certainly mitigate it with a hardware wallet. But also, at around $150 or more, it's also part of the investment, so not really worth it if just dipping a toe in, at least until you get something substantial...then it's worth it.

Once I get there, I'll certainly have a reserve amount always on the wallet, and some in the exchange for buying purposes only. (and keeping the coins that the wallets don't yet support).

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: AMPTAH

I don't think that will work. What is backing electronic currency?

Backing?

The greatest secret, and most powerful force of all time: "Habit." !

Once you get people into a habit, you can rely on that habit to persist through time.

Why do we accept the King as our ruler?

Because our fathers, and fore-fathers did. It's tradition, it's just a habit.

Everything works this way.

Same thing that backs the dollar, etc.

Faith in it.

If you want to say the dollar is backed by gold, think again, and look it up....

a reply to: ttobban

Bitcoin is Open Source.

Nobody controls it.

So you can flush your theory down the toilet.

Bitcoin

Github Repository Link

Besides if the (almost) World Government controlled Bitcoin, you would not see govt and central banks trying to bring it down.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Sounds like a bad habit to me.

a reply to: nOraKat

Agreed, Bitcoin is open source.

But, if people don't know who Shatoshi is, and governments will intervene and control the crypto pipelines can it really considered as open source as people may be led to believe?

Besides, what do we all the the Bitcoin Futures market entering Wall St is? Me... I feel it's a complete validation and entry point to slowly transfer fiat to crypto in a slow draw... to keep the rug being pulled out from wrecking the place settings.

Tell the people who Shatoshi is, and the people have a chance... keep it a secret and the chances start dropping significantly... chances that it doesn't get centralized that is.

What theory am I supposed to be throwing out now? I don't get your point or reasoning to flush debate away because one person on a forum claims they hold superior knowledge?