27 ms·

Committed ideological Bitcoin supporters commonly believe in a network effect race condition spiral they call 'hyperbitcoinization' which models a world where a

by tCfD 9y ago

Committed ideological Bitcoin supporters commonly believe in a network effect race condition spiral they call 'hyperbitcoinization' which models a world where a sort of event horizon in market adoption had been crossed, and everyone on Earth is forced to use bitcoin either directly or indirectly. In this techno-feudalist scenario, being one of the Bitcoin 1% or even 10% means the world is at your feet, and if you've maintained good opsec, nobody may even know how much of their lives are your property.

burger_moon 9y ago
Reminds me of this satire post from reddit (4yrs old). https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1lfobc/i_am_a_timetraveler_from_the_future_here_to_beg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1lfobc/i_am_a_time...
- varjag 9y ago
  It correctly predicted BTC at $10k in 2017. So much for satire!
  - qbrass 9y ago
    It also incorrectly predicted it from 2013-2017.
FLUX-YOU 9y ago
>and if you've maintained good opsec Don't exchanges verify identity? Wouldn't you be committing fraud by maintaining good opsec? Point being is that someone may eventually leak an exchange database with those details. Then the word's out. Kind of like Equifax.
- tCfD 9y ago
  If you subscribe to the Bitcoin in-universe dogma that views committing fraud and extortion as something that central banks and governments do, not what free market actors entering into voluntary contractual agreements with one another (which are regulated by math and logic spelled out in open source code) do, then maintaining good opsec is not just good business but a moral imperative.
- vidarh 9y ago
  Lets say you never maintain much in the exchange, and always tumble coins before moving them in/out. It would certainly be possible to prove identity when transferring BTC in/out of an exchange, but make it exceedingly hard to prove that they ultimately make it to/from wallets you control. But of course possible does not mean it is likely.

by tCfD 9y ago

burger_moon 9y ago

Reminds me of this satire post from reddit (4yrs old). https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1lfobc/i_am_a_timetraveler_from_the_future_here_to_beg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1lfobc/i_am_a_time...

varjag 9y ago
It correctly predicted BTC at $10k in 2017. So much for satire!
- qbrass 9y ago
  It also incorrectly predicted it from 2013-2017.

FLUX-YOU 9y ago

>and if you've maintained good opsec Don't exchanges verify identity? Wouldn't you be committing fraud by maintaining good opsec? Point being is that someone may eventually leak an exchange database with those details. Then the word's out. Kind of like Equifax.

tCfD 9y ago
If you subscribe to the Bitcoin in-universe dogma that views committing fraud and extortion as something that central banks and governments do, not what free market actors entering into voluntary contractual agreements with one another (which are regulated by math and logic spelled out in open source code) do, then maintaining good opsec is not just good business but a moral imperative.
vidarh 9y ago
Lets say you never maintain much in the exchange, and always tumble coins before moving them in/out. It would certainly be possible to prove identity when transferring BTC in/out of an exchange, but make it exceedingly hard to prove that they ultimately make it to/from wallets you control. But of course possible does not mean it is likely.