4 ms·

I'm always astounded by comparisons of bitcoin to paper cash - in 10 years we probably won't even be using paper cash and it is hardly ever used for large trans

I'm always astounded by comparisons of bitcoin to paper cash - in 10 years we probably won't even be using paper cash and it is hardly ever used for large transactions now in advanced countries - paper cash is history. I think I've done about 5% at most of my spending in paper in the last month. How about digital cash? Also, Bitcoin can be confiscated by the government, along with the computer/server it sits on (see silk road). A $5 wrench or a jail cell will deal with your encryption. You can also permanently lose it if someone copies your wallet/backup and then spends it particularly while it is on one of these exchanges - that's because transactions are not reversible or traceable to a verified identity. Technically, I think Bitcoin sounds really substantial and love the idea of creating/spending keys which avoid government inflation, but the axioms on which the usage is based are all wrong - I've never lost money in a fire, and never will. I don't want to avoid government confiscation by technical means (which fail), I want to avoid it by law. I don't want to be able to launder money (or for others to). I don't want my transactions to be anonymous and to have no central authority and no accountability when theft/fraud happens.

qnr 13y ago
> Also, Bitcoin can be confiscated by the government Not if you specifically want to prevent this. A bitcoin private key is 256-bit ECDSA, which provides 128 bits of security. If you can remember a 10 word randomly generated diceware phrase[1], you can securely store bitcoins in your brain. [1] calculating the private key as a SHA256(phrase) for example
- grey-area 13y ago
  A $5 wrench or a jail cell will deal with your encryption.
  - aianus 13y ago
    I don't think the US is at the point where they torture citizens for private keys. And they'd only be able to use jail as leverage by offering a reduced sentence. Even then, you might refuse if, for example, you'd rather stay in prison and leave the money to your family.
    - grey-area 13y ago
      Even then, you might refuse if, for example, you'd rather stay in prison and leave the money to your family. Somehow, I don't think the government will leave you that option ;) You'll stay in prison and have the means to use the bitcoins confiscated or outlawed. They can also confiscate all your other assets, like the house your family lives in. There are many options available to a sovereign government which mean that relying on purely technical measures will not defeat them, because they have a monopoly on force, up to and including lethal force.
      - aianus 13y ago
        Yes, but unless the government becomes significantly more tyrannical than they are at present, bitcoin is a useful tool for dodging asset forfeiture. For example, your private keys could be distributed amongst n of m gangsters/wife/sons/lawyers/whatever including foreigners. Implemented correctly, it's much much more difficult to steal or seize than cash while at the same time being much much easier to smuggle to places with no extradition where money trumps the rule of law.
    - barkingcat 13y ago
      Be careful with your first sentence. For example, the US would not hesitate to torture Snowden for his key if they even had the slightest way to get their hands on him. Just declare this person an enemy of the state/terrorist and there you go - to you and your encryption.
  - mrb 13y ago
    You are wrong and overly pessimistic. Look at DPR. The govt confiscated 174k BTC, but he supposedly has another (encrypted) ~500k BTC wallet, and he is NOT/will NOT be tortured to reveal the key.
    - grey-area 13y ago
      The govt confiscated 174k BTC, but he supposedly has another (encrypted) ~500k BTC wallet If he does I'd be very surprised if he can ever spend it, even if he does somehow get to a copy. Torture is not the only or most effective avenue to thwart encryption or your plans to keep money from them, they could claim enough back-taxes to bankrupt you, repossess anything you buy etc, etc.
      - mrb 13y ago
        Of course an oppressive government has many options to attack an individual, but Bitcoin enables individuals to protect themselves. For example a political refugee can flee his country with bitcoins in his head (brainwallet) which would be a lot safer than fleeing with cash in his pockets. You also have scenarios that are not as drastic, where the adversary is not a government but, for example, a powerful (ex-)spouse trying to seize some of the assets in illegal ways during a divorce going wrong. Etc. Your refusal to acknowledge this usefulness of Bitcoin makes your criticism look weak and one-sided.

qnr 13y ago

> Also, Bitcoin can be confiscated by the government Not if you specifically want to prevent this. A bitcoin private key is 256-bit ECDSA, which provides 128 bits of security. If you can remember a 10 word randomly generated diceware phrase[1], you can securely store bitcoins in your brain. [1] calculating the private key as a SHA256(phrase) for example

grey-area 13y ago
A $5 wrench or a jail cell will deal with your encryption.
- aianus 13y ago
  I don't think the US is at the point where they torture citizens for private keys. And they'd only be able to use jail as leverage by offering a reduced sentence. Even then, you might refuse if, for example, you'd rather stay in prison and leave the money to your family.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    Even then, you might refuse if, for example, you'd rather stay in prison and leave the money to your family. Somehow, I don't think the government will leave you that option ;) You'll stay in prison and have the means to use the bitcoins confiscated or outlawed. They can also confiscate all your other assets, like the house your family lives in. There are many options available to a sovereign government which mean that relying on purely technical measures will not defeat them, because they have a monopoly on force, up to and including lethal force.
    - aianus 13y ago
      Yes, but unless the government becomes significantly more tyrannical than they are at present, bitcoin is a useful tool for dodging asset forfeiture. For example, your private keys could be distributed amongst n of m gangsters/wife/sons/lawyers/whatever including foreigners. Implemented correctly, it's much much more difficult to steal or seize than cash while at the same time being much much easier to smuggle to places with no extradition where money trumps the rule of law.
  - barkingcat 13y ago
    Be careful with your first sentence. For example, the US would not hesitate to torture Snowden for his key if they even had the slightest way to get their hands on him. Just declare this person an enemy of the state/terrorist and there you go - to you and your encryption.
- mrb 13y ago
  You are wrong and overly pessimistic. Look at DPR. The govt confiscated 174k BTC, but he supposedly has another (encrypted) ~500k BTC wallet, and he is NOT/will NOT be tortured to reveal the key.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    The govt confiscated 174k BTC, but he supposedly has another (encrypted) ~500k BTC wallet If he does I'd be very surprised if he can ever spend it, even if he does somehow get to a copy. Torture is not the only or most effective avenue to thwart encryption or your plans to keep money from them, they could claim enough back-taxes to bankrupt you, repossess anything you buy etc, etc.
    - mrb 13y ago
      Of course an oppressive government has many options to attack an individual, but Bitcoin enables individuals to protect themselves. For example a political refugee can flee his country with bitcoins in his head (brainwallet) which would be a lot safer than fleeing with cash in his pockets. You also have scenarios that are not as drastic, where the adversary is not a government but, for example, a powerful (ex-)spouse trying to seize some of the assets in illegal ways during a divorce going wrong. Etc. Your refusal to acknowledge this usefulness of Bitcoin makes your criticism look weak and one-sided.