Interesting point about "If bitcoin was libertarian it would have been
owned by someone from the beginning.". However, not all libertarians
believe in individual property rights. That seems to be an interpretation
of US libertarians. Others associate libertarianism with anarchism.[1]

Bitcoin mining was a weak point in the design though I can't think of a
better solution. I think Satoshi underestimated Moore's Law and the impact
of innovation driven by greed publicly justified by an intent for
wide-spread adoption. I predict the 21 million bitcoin limit will be
reached much sooner than 2140. Prepare now for the bitcoin cults predicting
the end of the world.

I've always considered bitcoin to be a currency allowing for the private
exchange of goods. I don't think it was intended to be used for
speculation. More people are speculating bitcoins to cash out than using
them for the exchange of goods.

[1] http://goo.gl/vG3GvH

John



On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Tomer Kantor <pollenator@???> wrote:

> IMO this comes down to 'what is bitcoin?'
>
> If bitcoin was libertarian it would have been owned by someone from the
> beginning.
> It is commonly understood that it is Anarcho (Cap/Syn). The 'rules' are
> anarchic, but with the formation of mining guilds/foundation we get
> structural power.
> To Amir's point that the foundation is financing the development team;
> that's the beginning of centralisation, no doubt.
>
> The protocol doesn't have strong property rights that allows for top down
> control of the system, it was written in an anarchist form, so there
> could/should be no owner of bitcoin.
>
> TK
>
>
> On 28 April 2014 12:34, Joerg Platzer <joerg@???> wrote:
>
>> @Luke
>>
>> Now i don't even call myself a 'libertarian' as I know too many weird
>> people labeling themselves libertarian.
>>
>> But as clear as the window I cleaned this morning:
>>
>> of course Bitcoin _is_ anarchism as it has no leader as long as we don't
>> designate one and change the protocol in ways that allow to control it and
>> hand that over to the leader.
>>
>> Of course Bitcoin _is_ volanteerism as long as it is everybody's free
>> desicion to use it or not, volantarily.
>>
>> And of course Bitcoin _is_ a movement for financial freedom, what else
>> could it possibly be? You are one hell of a coder and do not understand
>> that?
>>
>> When I read this Circle guy's comments like "Bitcoin is absolutely moving
>> away from its libertarian roots." I'm like yeah, sure, and bacon and eggs
>> is absolutely moving away from the bacon or what!? What a nonsense. These
>> people are screaming for government regulation in order to save me from
>> identity theft through Bitcoin. They wish to protect me and 'de-risk'
>> Bitcoin. The most hilarious statement is that the reason for banks not
>> getting involved is that they are scared to have to go to jail. As if one
>> banker ever was sent to jail.
>>
>> Whoever wants to adopt Bitcoin is free to do so or not and I don't care
>> about their political views as long as they leave me alone. But the people
>> we are talking about do not simply want to adopt it, they want to coopt it
>> and turn it into your usual financial product which they can control so
>> they can keep on committing their crimes.
>>
>> 'Free money first' is what Benjamin Tucker said 100 years ago already.
>> And he was right when he said that without free money there will be no
>> freedom whatever we do.
>>
>> Financial freedom is hammered into the code in a much more resiliant way
>> than anything ever written in stone and with financial freedom comes the
>> rest.
>>
>> ++jp
>>
>>

>> ________________________________________
>> Von: unSYSTEM [unsystem-bounces@???]" im Auftrag von
>> "Luke-Jr [luke@???]
>> Gesendet: Samstag, 26. April 2014 20:11
>> An: Amir Taaki
>> Cc: unsystem@???
>> Betreff: Re: [unSYSTEM] oh fuck it's really happening... bitcoin is under
>>       attack

>>
>> Amir, I think you contribute much to bitcoin, and I value that. But
>> Bitcoin is
>> *not* libertarianism. Bitcoin is *not* anarchism. Bitcoin is *not*
>> "volunteerism". Bitcoin is *not* a movement for financial freedom - or any
>> political movement at all. Bitcoin is a technology, which can and should
>> be
>> embraced by people of any political affiliation. Adoption by people with
>> views
>> contrary to your own is not an attack on Bitcoin, it is growth.
>>
>> On Saturday, April 26, 2014 5:33:48 PM Amir Taaki wrote:
>> > I get what you're doing, but we both know that really isn't the case.
>> > Allaire speaks from his heart, and they hired Mike Hearn.
>> > I don't think we'll ever know the whole truth as that's not how these
>> > proprietary cultures work.
>> > Check this quote by him:
>> >
>> > "A lot of the safeguards that businesses and consumers take for granted
>> > in their everyday interactions and payments don’t exist in bitcoin
>> [...]"
>> >
>> > or
>> >
>> > "if your goal is to ensure widespread adoption of bitcoin, there needs
>> > to be rules around its use, he says, arguing that it’s not good enough
>> > to imagine bitcoin can exist above society."
>> >
>> > This doesn't sound like descriptions of systems that empower users to
>> > self-regulate. This is the exact speech used behind many surveillance
>> > and censorship tools to push them on us. Things like "anti-fraud"
>> > blacklists or researching correlation techniques on consumer activity.
>> >
>> > If this tech is developed it will be deployed or pushed upon places like
>> > Coinbase. Coinbase is the only business (or US?) in the valley with a
>> > banking relationship which they have due to a special relationship with
>> > JP Morgan and one of their bankers on their board.
>> > And that's where these products that work against their users will come
>> > into play. Maybe the industry doesn't have enough balls, and big Bitcoin
>> > businesses with a large following (CoinBase, BitPay, ... whoever) start
>> > "self-regulating" by spying, tracking and censoring their users.
>> >
>> > On 26/04/14 06:31, Peter Todd wrote:
>> > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 10:37:11AM +0100, Amir Taaki wrote:
>> > >> reducing the risk is newspeak for censorship
>> > >>
>> > >> protection against fraud is codeword for surveillance.
>> > >
>> > > Maybe it is; maybe it isn't.
>> > >
>> > > I hope Circle is just implementing all the decentralized technologies
>> > > we've been talking about for ages that let people chose on their own
>> > > terms how to reduce the risks involved in their transactions; best
>> case
>> > > is all this talk about moving Bitcoin away from its libertarian roots
>> is
>> > > just PR material. After all, Dark Market is an example of that
>> approach,
>> > > yet could also be marketted as "bringing Bitcoin into the mainstream
>> > > with anti-fraud, lower costs, greater privacy safeguard, and
>> protection
>> > > against identity theft".
>> > >
>> > > I'm not very hopeful that's the case, but lets hold off on the torches
>> > > and tar until they publish hard details on what exactly they are
>> doing.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> > > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Tomer Kantor
>
> Development|Production|Post
> OneName - IamSatoshi <https://www.onename.io/iamsatoshi>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>