Re: bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market)
At 05:43 PM 11/25/2013, David Vorick wrote:
Bitcoin has a lot of problems. Andy, the problem isn't the denomination, the problem is that Satioshi has 5% of all the currency, and the Winklevoss twins have another 0.5%. If bitcoin becomes worth 100 trillion dollars, they've got a solid 500 billion for being nobody and doing nothing. That's a problem to me.
Satoshi gave us the technology and got people to start using it. If he gets fabulously wealthy by owning 5% of it, I'm not jealous (well, ok, a bit jealous, but I'm not going to contend that he shouldn't have it just because of jealously.) The Winklevossen are just speculators; I don't particularly like using a currency whose value is mostly from speculation, but experimentation is a critical part of rolling out something like a new type of currency, so whatever. At least they pumped some cash into the system early on. And that guy in Norway who was an early experimenter, then kind of forgot about his bitcoins until he suddenly noticed they were worth $800K? Cool, good for him! It wouldn't be surprising if the first people to do GPU-based mining also got a large pile of bitcoins compared to the CPU-based miners.
I'm working on one right now. It's not built but the idea is to use proof-of-contribution instead of proof-of-work, where contribution is disk storage contributed to a distributed network.
I think "proof of useful contribution" is a much better thing than "proof of wasted electricity"; good luck getting it off the ground. I'd recommend reading all of Zooko's Tahoe-LAFS work for getting some ideas about privacy and reliability issues, both of which are harder than they look. The other catch is that storage costs do keep decreasing, and storage in a cloud is always a lot slower than local storage, so you'll have to think hard about business models. One of the cool things Bitcoin did was created a way to have the proof-of-work turn into currency without needing a banker in the middle; that means that users and miners don't have to worry (much) about the creator absconding with the value or being shut down, and there's built-in protection against hyperinflation, unlike some of the dotcom silly currencies like Beenz and Flooz that appeared and vanished along with the dogfood-on-line dotcoms. It's been interesting to watch Bitcoin's value surviving after the loss of the Silk Road site (which got around the "Nothing To Buy With It" hurdle that helped kill the original Chaumian Digicash.)
Looking into primecoin I came across a hard fork called [datacoin]( https://github.com/foo1inge/datacoin-hp). Same PoW method and has tooken off in China. 1 DTC = 1 CNY. On Nov 26, 2013 7:01 PM, "Bill Stewart" <bill.stewart@pobox.com> wrote:
At 05:43 PM 11/25/2013, David Vorick wrote:
Bitcoin has a lot of problems. Andy, the problem isn't the denomination, the problem is that Satioshi has 5% of all the currency, and the Winklevoss twins have another 0.5%. If bitcoin becomes worth 100 trillion dollars, they've got a solid 500 billion for being nobody and doing nothing. That's a problem to me.
Satoshi gave us the technology and got people to start using it. If he gets fabulously wealthy by owning 5% of it, I'm not jealous (well, ok, a bit jealous, but I'm not going to contend that he shouldn't have it just because of jealously.) The Winklevossen are just speculators; I don't particularly like using a currency whose value is mostly from speculation, but experimentation is a critical part of rolling out something like a new type of currency, so whatever. At least they pumped some cash into the system early on. And that guy in Norway who was an early experimenter, then kind of forgot about his bitcoins until he suddenly noticed they were worth $800K? Cool, good for him! It wouldn't be surprising if the first people to do GPU-based mining also got a large pile of bitcoins compared to the CPU-based miners.
I'm working on one right now. It's not built but the idea is to use
proof-of-contribution instead of proof-of-work, where contribution is disk storage contributed to a distributed network.
I think "proof of useful contribution" is a much better thing than "proof of wasted electricity"; good luck getting it off the ground. I'd recommend reading all of Zooko's Tahoe-LAFS work for getting some ideas about privacy and reliability issues, both of which are harder than they look. The other catch is that storage costs do keep decreasing, and storage in a cloud is always a lot slower than local storage, so you'll have to think hard about business models.
One of the cool things Bitcoin did was created a way to have the proof-of-work turn into currency without needing a banker in the middle; that means that users and miners don't have to worry (much) about the creator absconding with the value or being shut down, and there's built-in protection against hyperinflation, unlike some of the dotcom silly currencies like Beenz and Flooz that appeared and vanished along with the dogfood-on-line dotcoms. It's been interesting to watch Bitcoin's value surviving after the loss of the Silk Road site (which got around the "Nothing To Buy With It" hurdle that helped kill the original Chaumian Digicash.)
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 11:07 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 05:43 PM 11/25/2013, David Vorick wrote:
Bitcoin has a lot of problems. Andy, the problem isn't the denomination, the problem is that Satioshi has 5% of all the currency, and the Winklevoss twins have another 0.5%. If bitcoin becomes worth 100 trillion dollars, they've got a solid 500 billion for being nobody and doing nothing. That's a problem to me.
Satoshi gave us the technology and got people to start using it. If he gets fabulously wealthy by owning 5% of it, I'm not jealous (well, ok, a bit jealous, but I'm not going to contend that he shouldn't have it just because of jealously.)
Absolutely. It's utterly absurd to claim that Satoshi got moderately wealthy (not hyperrich yet by any means) by "doing nothing." There are insights in Bitcoin enough to fuel dozens of PhDs worth of research, in wider areas than you'd initially think. -- Sent from Ubuntu
On Nov 27, 2013 1:25 AM, "Ted Smith" <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 11:07 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 05:43 PM 11/25/2013, David Vorick wrote:
Absolutely. It's utterly absurd to claim that Satoshi got moderately wealthy (not hyperrich yet by any means) by "doing nothing." There are insights in Bitcoin enough to fuel dozens of PhDs worth of research, in wider areas than
Says more about PhD's than Satoshi. The money he'll earn with Bitcoin has no direct relationship to his investment. It is unlikely that, through coincidence, his reward is set nearly right. Regardless of your idea of right. Lack of knowledge is the fail of all markets.
On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 01:36 +0100, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
On Nov 27, 2013 1:25 AM, "Ted Smith" <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 11:07 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 05:43 PM 11/25/2013, David Vorick wrote:
Absolutely. It's utterly absurd to claim that Satoshi got moderately wealthy (not hyperrich yet by any means) by "doing nothing." There
are
insights in Bitcoin enough to fuel dozens of PhDs worth of research, in wider areas than
Says more about PhD's than Satoshi. The money he'll earn with Bitcoin has no direct relationship to his investment. It is unlikely that, through coincidence, his reward is set nearly right. Regardless of your idea of right.
Lack of knowledge is the fail of all markets.
I'm not sure how you're evaluating his "investment," which was solving a number of previously-thought-unsolvable problems in applied cryptography in a way that became wildly popular, widely used, and enabled a large amount of very influential services. Contributing to the world in such a manner rarely results in such wealth, but I don't see why it shouldn't. -- Sent from Ubuntu
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
I'm not sure how you're evaluating his "investment," which was solving a number of previously-thought-unsolvable problems in applied cryptography in a way that became wildly popular, widely used, and enabled a large amount of very influential services.
Contributing to the world in such a manner rarely results in such wealth, but I don't see why it shouldn't.
Indeed. His invention is worth whatever value the market assigns it, and it's nobody's business to judge otherwise. -Bill
--On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:16 PM -0500 "Bill St. Clair" <billstclair@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
I'm not sure how you're evaluating his "investment," which was solving a number of previously-thought-unsolvable problems in applied cryptography in a way that became wildly popular, widely used, and enabled a large amount of very influential services.
Contributing to the world in such a manner rarely results in such wealth, but I don't see why it shouldn't.
Indeed. His invention is worth whatever value the market assigns it, and it's nobody's business to judge otherwise.
What market? Bitcoin exists because of the state, just like drug dealers. If there were a real free market out there nobody would bother with something like bitcoin.
-Bill
--On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:06 PM -0500 Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 01:36 +0100, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
On Nov 27, 2013 1:25 AM, "Ted Smith" <tedks@riseup.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 11:07 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 05:43 PM 11/25/2013, David Vorick wrote:
Absolutely. It's utterly absurd to claim that Satoshi got moderately wealthy (not hyperrich yet by any means) by "doing nothing." There
are
insights in Bitcoin enough to fuel dozens of PhDs worth of research, in wider areas than
Says more about PhD's than Satoshi. The money he'll earn with Bitcoin has no direct relationship to his investment. It is unlikely that, through coincidence, his reward is set nearly right. Regardless of your idea of right.
Lack of knowledge is the fail of all markets.
I'm not sure how you're evaluating his "investment," which was solving a number of previously-thought-unsolvable problems in applied cryptography
Such as?
in a way that became wildly popular, widely used, and enabled a large amount of very influential services.
Contributing to the world in such a manner rarely results in such wealth, but I don't see why it shouldn't.
-- Sent from Ubuntu
2013/11/27 Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net>
I'm not sure how you're evaluating his "investment," which was solving a number of previously-thought-unsolvable problems in applied cryptography in a way that became wildly popular, widely used, and enabled a large amount of very influential services.
Then how can you say his work was published into any sort of market?
Contributing to the world in such a manner rarely results in such wealth, but I don't see why it shouldn't.
Okay. Let me explain it a little bit. Satoshi (and maybe some buddies in the very-very-early days) is (are?) estimated to have 1.5MBTC (M for million, m for milli, k?). That's worth about 900MEUR now. Let's make a generous assumption, that Satoshi started working on Bitcoin right after DigiCash bankrupted (1998). That assumption is a bucket of nonesense, I think 2/3 years would be more right. Thebitcoin wik<https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto>i tells us he "has claimed that he has been working on Bitcoin since 2007", the Bitcoin software was released 2009. Paper distributed in 2008. Okay so: 1.5MBTC for 2 years. I doubt I'd have to show you that no other scientist, no matter his contribution, got quite that amount of money for his efforts. In fact most scientists waive what little they get because they do not need it (their dedication is to science, not to carnal pleasures). 1.5MBTC for 11 years is still a pretty high salary. But this is in "employment terms". If we compare to people like the creator of SnapChat, a hyperflawed consequence free multimedia application (media is deleted after being viewed for a specified amount of seconds), who's product is apperently worth 4 billion on a functional market. We're doing okay right now, because something far more usefull (it is) is priced at 1/4th of the price of SnapChat. However if you believe Bitcoin will stay at around 600 euro's (oh wait it's 700 today already, haha) than that's quite strange. If you think it'll stay at around 4x more (2400) than you're probably still thinking quite strangely. See, Bitcoin has a very unusual market mechanic. And Satoshi is rewarding himself in how much the system is used, the sum of all banks his software replaces will be his money. But nobody is paying him directly and his efforts are definitely not a markted good. Why shouldn't it? Because if satoshi lives in a huge home, spending freely, with several people assisting him in whatever whilst owning some companies that'll do things he deems important (squirrle rescue patrol, private police, education, art displays, helping the poor, etc) then he didn't need this much. Having this much of what might become world wealth simply isn't reasonable for what the money stands for. Somewhere I feel it unfair that someone who works at the top of his abilities in a more profitable field gets paid more, but it isn't actually unfair. But the amount of buying power that Satoshi now represents is so exeedingly vast, and will be so much vaster, I cannot fantom it "fair". The best we can go for is the amount being "realistic" and "result of a fair and honest process". And I think that because a buyer of Bitcoin has no reason to be interested in economic or Satoshi, just in his personal profits, we have a game-theory situation where Satoshi is paid in a way that nobody is interested in observing. After all, every Bitcoin you buy makes the Bitcoin scarcer at your expense and Satoshi profits. And because of this game theory problem I don't feel there is a market-related effect being placed on Satoshi's efforts. The bottom line is: wealth distribution fairness was never a core design goal of Bitcoin.
From: Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> 2013/11/27 Ted Smith <tedks@riseup.net> I'm not sure how you're evaluating his "investment," which was solving a
number of previously-thought-unsolvable problems in applied cryptography in a way that became wildly popular, widely used, and enabled a large amount of very influential services.
Then how can you say his work was published into any sort of market? Contributing to the world in such a manner rarely results in such wealth, but I don't see why it shouldn't. Okay. Let me explain it a little bit.
Satoshi (and maybe some buddies in the very-very-early days) is (are?) estimated to have 1.5MBTC (M for million, m for milli, k?). That's worth >about 900MEUR now. Let's make a generous assumption, that Satoshi started working on Bitcoin right after DigiCash bankrupted (1998). That >assumption is a bucket of nonesense, I think 2/3 years would be more right. Thebitcoin wiki tells us he "has claimed that he has been working on >Bitcoin since 2007", the Bitcoin software was released 2009. Paper distributed in 2008.
Okay so: 1.5MBTC for 2 years. I doubt I'd have to show you that no other scientist, no matter his contribution, got quite that amount of money for >his efforts. In fact most scientists waive what little they get because they do not need it (their dedication is to science, not to carnal pleasures). >1.5MBTC for 11 years is still a pretty high salary. But this is in "employment terms".
If we compare to people like the creator of SnapChat, a hyperflawed consequence free multimedia application (media is deleted after being >viewed for a specified amount of seconds), who's product is apperently worth 4 billion on a functional market. We're doing okay right now, >because something far more usefull (it is) is priced at 1/4th of the price of SnapChat.
However if you believe Bitcoin will stay at around 600 euro's (oh wait it's 700 today already, haha) than that's quite strange. If you think it'll stay at >around 4x more (2400) than you're probably still thinking quite strangely. See, Bitcoin has a very unusual market mechanic. And Satoshi is >rewarding himself in how much the system is used, the sum of all banks his software replaces will be his money. But nobody is paying him directly >and his efforts are definitely not a markted good.
Why shouldn't it? Because if satoshi lives in a huge home, spending freely, with several people assisting him in whatever whilst owning some >companies that'll do things he deems important (squirrle rescue patrol, private police, education, art displays, helping the poor, etc) then he didn't >need this much. Having this much of what might become world wealth simply isn't reasonable for what the money stands for. Somewhere I feel it >unfair that someone who works at the top of his abilities in a more profitable field gets paid more, but it isn't actually unfair. But the amount of >buying power that Satoshi now represents is so exeedingly vast, and will be so much vaster, I cannot fantom it "fair".
The best we can go for is the amount being "realistic" and "result of a fair and honest process". And I think that because a buyer of Bitcoin has no >reason to be interested in economic or Satoshi, just in his personal profits, we have a game-theory situation where Satoshi is paid in a way that >nobody is interested in observing. After all, every Bitcoin you buy makes the Bitcoin scarcer at your expense and Satoshi profits. And because of >this game theory problem I don't feel there is a market-related effect being placed on Satoshi's efforts.
The bottom line is: wealth distribution fairness was never a core design goal of Bitcoin. BRAVO! A magnificent explanation, and I agree in all the details. The design of the Bitcoin system contained hidden 'features' (for Satoshi) that were designed to earn him the 'seigniorage' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage of a rather large portion of the Bitcoins issued early in the process. Accident? I don't think so. I've already said that I think Satoshi's entitled to about $1 billion (USD), approximately, as reward for what he has done. Which, about now, he has received. (At current Bitcoin prices, or at least as of a month or so ago.) But, as you also noticed, the situation isn't static, and he is virtually guaranteed far more value if he simply doesn't cash-in his current Bitcoin holdings. This isn't market-driven: It is algorithm-driven, defined by the assumptions and decisions baked into the software Satoshi 'so generously' (<AHEM>!!! Sarcasm-warning!) provided the world. Had just a few things been changed, the amount he could reasonably have expected to 'earn' would have been very different. Bitcoin should have been harder to 'mine' at the beginning than it was; Bitcoin should be easier to 'mine' now than it actually is. I think that it is the ratio of these difficulties which define how much advantage an early-adopter has had over those who came later. This difference is not defined by a law of nature, it is defined by algorithm and software. And I strongly doubt that many people (other than Satoshi) realized this in 2009. Jim Bell
2013/11/27 Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>
This difference is not defined by a law of nature, it is defined by algorithm and software. And I strongly doubt that many people (other than Satoshi) realized this in 2009.
I realized it shortly after reading the paper. Then checked the realization for a few days before switching the denomination of my savings. 2011
--On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:36 PM +0100 Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
2013/11/27 Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>
This difference is not defined by a law of nature, it is defined by algorithm and software. And I strongly doubt that many people (other than Satoshi) realized this in 2009.
I realized it shortly after reading the paper. Then checked the realization for a few days before switching the denomination of my savings. 2011
That's why you whine about bitcoin's 'reputation' being tarnished by evil drug dealers eh? How long's the ponzi scheme going to last though?
No man. This isn't r/Bitcoin -_-. Your argument has already been invalidated thousands of times. I was enjoying the conversation before it got hostile :/. On Nov 27, 2013 3:47 PM, "Juan Garofalo" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
--On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 8:36 PM +0100 Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
2013/11/27 Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>
This difference is not defined by a law of nature, it is defined by algorithm and software. And I strongly doubt that many people (other than Satoshi) realized this in 2009.
I realized it shortly after reading the paper. Then checked the realization for a few days before switching the denomination of my savings. 2011
That's why you whine about bitcoin's 'reputation' being tarnished by evil drug dealers eh?
How long's the ponzi scheme going to last though?
2013/11/27 Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com>
<l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
2013/11/27 Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>
This difference is not defined by a law of nature, it is defined by algorithm and software. And I strongly doubt that many people (other than Satoshi) realized this in 2009.
I realized it shortly after reading the paper. Then checked the realization for a few days before switching the denomination of my savings. 2011
That's why you whine about bitcoin's 'reputation' being tarnished by evil drug dealers eh?
I would be totally fine with Bitcoin going darknet. Doesn't lower the value. Problem is that all legitimate dealings are made much harder, and humanity's freedom is decreased significantly. I wouldn't say I whined about it though. And the whole part about evil is just the opinion of the enforced legal system. Our dear dread pirate was an insane moron for living in America though. That doesn't change at all. How long's the ponzi scheme going to last though? This is the kind of scheme that could last indefinitely. I visualize a ponzi scheme as a funnel shaped like piramid growing downwards. Every "brick" layed at the bottom flows some air up and out through the tip. The tip flows towards the creator of the system. All the pieces higher in the piramid get some air too. In bitcoin the hole at the tip is closed. Although the pressure on the top increases (there's some gravity effect) there is no money dissapearing. There's a significant illusion that everyone involved in the system could "cash out" for a certain price. Market dynamics don't allow such an event to occur though. You'll note that all commodities follow the same mechanism, except for commodities being translatable to other valueable things intrisically. Currency, USD, EUR, JPY, pretty much all others too, follow the same mechanism completely except for the fact that governments can (and do) choose to inflate a currency. I answered this extensively because people have become allergic to discussing Bitcoin in the ponzi light. There's definitely similarities between Bitcoin and a Ponzi scheme. It is *VITAL *to note that *every currency* has those similarities, but they are not easily seen. Best regards, Lewis ps: thanks for remembering my earlier comments about drug dealers :)
Presumably, relatively few people have read the paper. I am embarrassed to say that I only started paying close attention to bitcoin 2 months ago. <sigh> And I still don't own any. Jim Bell ________________________________ From: Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> To: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com> Cc: "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>; "tedks@riseup.net" <tedks@riseup.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 11:36 AM Subject: Re: bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market) 2013/11/27 Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com> This difference is not defined by a law of nature, it is defined by algorithm and software. And I strongly doubt that many people (other than Satoshi) realized this in 2009. I realized it shortly after reading the paper. Then checked the realization for a few days before switching the denomination of my savings. 2011
Jim, install a wallet and send me an address. I'll send you some coin :) On 11/30/2013 07:28 AM, Jim Bell wrote:
Presumably, relatively few people have read the paper. I am embarrassed to say that I only started paying close attention to bitcoin 2 months ago. <sigh> And I still don't own any. Jim Bell
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> *To:* Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com> *Cc:* "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>; "tedks@riseup.net" <tedks@riseup.net> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 27, 2013 11:36 AM *Subject:* Re: bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market)
2013/11/27 Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com <mailto:jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>>
This difference is not defined by a law of nature, it is defined by algorithm and software. And I strongly doubt that many people (other than Satoshi) realized this in 2009.
I realized it shortly after reading the paper. Then checked the realization for a few days before switching the denomination of my savings. 2011
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Mike Gogulski <mike@gogulski.com> wrote:
Jim, install a wallet and send me an address. I'll send you some coin :)
and it should go without saying; don't use a third-party wallet service! the bitcoin network is one of the most hostile networks in the world; the trail of pwn is long and continuous. wallet services, changes, pools, casinos, just about every BTC denominated service is operating at an elevated risk level traditionally seen in banking while running their operations like a self hosted blog...
"Guy who publicly advocates spending anonymous currency to fund murder needs anonymous currency!" er, no. On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:55:10 +0100 Mike Gogulski <mike@gogulski.com> wrote:
Jim, install a wallet and send me an address. I'll send you some coin :)
On 11/30/2013 07:28 AM, Jim Bell wrote:
Presumably, relatively few people have read the paper. I am embarrassed to say that I only started paying close attention to bitcoin 2 months ago. <sigh> And I still don't own any. Jim Bell
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> *To:* Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com> *Cc:* "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@cpunks.org>; "tedks@riseup.net" <tedks@riseup.net> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 27, 2013 11:36 AM *Subject:* Re: bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market)
2013/11/27 Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com <mailto:jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>>
This difference is not defined by a law of nature, it is defined by algorithm and software. And I strongly doubt that many people (other than Satoshi) realized this in 2009.
I realized it shortly after reading the paper. Then checked the realization for a few days before switching the denomination of my savings. 2011
Because of the follow message(s), I feel the need to set the record straight. For the record, I have no intention of putting any 'bets', 'donations', or 'predictions' into Sanjuro's (or anyone else's) 'Assassination Market'-type system! First, as I think will be obvious, I am merely one of about 7.1 billion humans on Earth. Any 'bets' I would make would be insignificant and therefore superfluous. Secondly, right now I consider investing in my isotope-modified fiber-optic invention http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2013101261A1.html as being by far my highest priority. (My primary need at this point is raising money to 'buy' about 100 national-stage patents from nations around the world. There is no international patent system, at least other than Europe. An invention must be patented in any nation where patent protection is desired.) Disclaimer: I am not involved with Sanjuro's 'Assassination Market' in any way. I do not know who he is. Jim Bell ________________________________ From: Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> To: Cathal Garvey <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me> Cc: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>; Mike Gogulski <mike@gogulski.com>; "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@cpunks.org> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 4:36 PM Subject: Re: Jim Bell needs Bitcoins! On Dec 3, 2013 1:18 AM, "Cathal Garvey" <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
"Guy who publicly advocates spending anonymous currency to fund murder needs anonymous currency!"
er, no.
Doesn't mean he would do it or even like it. Damn square.
participants (11)
-
Bill St. Clair -
Bill Stewart -
Cathal Garvey -
coderman -
James A. Donald -
Jayvan Santos -
Jim Bell -
Juan Garofalo -
Lodewijk andré de la porte -
Mike Gogulski -
Ted Smith