Quote from: UnunoctiumTesticles on November 29, 2014, 11:18:42 AM

I identified in April that the powers-that-be (Peter Thiel et al) were taking over Bitcoin. Since then it is become more noticeable with Paypal and soon eBay adopting Bitcoin.

Bitcoin mining and everything else about it can be highly regulated because none of it anonymous. Even recent research found that 81% of Tor users can be unmasked, as I had long warned was the case. Regulation means any decentralization is just for show and doesn't have any practical protective effect. Some have argued about inability to get consistent regulation across all jurisdictions, and even one country that took a free market stance would provide hope. Any one who believes that, isn't studying the reality of what is happening in the world with G20 pledging cooperation[2], etc.

I have thought deeply (I was AnonyMint) about the possible designs for decentralized consensus, as well the various strategies for anonymity that are plausible.

It is impossible there can be all 3 of true anonymity, fast enough transactions, and truly decentralized mining consensus. I could explain in depth, but I'd rather challenge anyone who thinks they are technically capable, to explain a design that makes it possible. Because over the past year, I've run every possible design through my mind, studied everything I could find from others, and have finally come to this conclusion.

Note I didn't say there couldn't be decentralized adoption, use, or even decentralized mining shares. But the mining pools will be centralized and thus regulated (unless they are anonymous). Note I didn't say there couldn't be anonymity nor fast transactions, but decentralized pools would have to be forsaken (and they don't really exist now, it is just for show).

It might be possible to get anonymity and decentralized mining pools, but this certainly wouldn't be able to support fast transactions nor would it be resistant to a Sybil attack on the number of mining pools.

Some of have argued that there is P2Pool, but how many times do I have to repeat that P2Pool can't be impervious to a share withholding attack[1], thus it can't be a sustainable paradigm.

Conclusion: Bitcoin is not a savior. As I had warned in my first essay on this forum, Bitcoin: The Digital Kill Switch, Bitcoin is part of the push towards electronic money that will be used to control all of us[2].

I have come full circle. The situation is quite hopeless (note I didn't say Bitcoin won't appreciate in value, although I still expect a bottom below or near $200 first), rather I mean hopeless in terms of the idealism of protecting our monetary future. Maybe it is time for me to leave cryptocurrency and go back to writing software applications.

Satoshi's invention of decentralized consensus is useless from a practical standpoint at least for money and sent us on a wild goose chase where we end up with nothing in the end. Sad but true. Cry

[1]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=339902.msg3719385#msg3719385
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789978.msg9115612#msg9115612

[2]

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/25/electric-money-will-eliminate-bank-runs/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/12/04/electronic-money-taxes/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2012/06/27/reality-check/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/03/17/the-downside-of-electronic-money-what-is-left/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/17/negative-interest-rates-eliminating-cash-the-summers-solution/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/14/the-secret-agenda/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/24/electronic-money-coming-everywhere-sooner-than-you-think/

DOOM

In all seriousness, saying bitcoin or crypto is a savior was the same as saying you are anonymous and 'free' on the internet.

Both false.