Bitcoin: More than Money

The digital protocol promises to change more than just the future of currency, despite government attempts to rein it in.


On August 6, Judge Magistrate Amos Maazant of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas made many a headline when he became the first known United States government official to declare that Bitcoin-the non-government and non-bank currency, payments network, and anarchic digital phenomenon-is indeed money. In a ruling rejecting a defense argument that a certain Ponzi scheme was not in fact a Ponzi scheme because its shares were sold in Bitcoins, instead of "real" money, Maazant made this declaration: "Bitcoin is a currency or form of money, and investors wishing to invest in [the scheme] provided an investment of money."

The following week, the German Ministry of Finance also formally recognized Bitcoins as a private money. Germans can now use Bitcoins to buy bratwurst, sell lederhosen, or invest in Volkswagen. The government is developing rules to ensure Bitcoin transactions are taxed, just like those in euros.

So governments are slowly acknowledging the obvious: Bitcoins are money. But bureaucrats, like many observers since the digital currency burst on the scene in January 2009, are likely missing the larger implications. Bitcoin is much, much more than just money.

At its core, Bitcoin is a completely decentralized ledger system. It can be thought of as a massive online version of an accountant's book in which transactions are recorded by deducting from one account and adding to another. An accountant's ledger can be used to keep track not just of dollars, but also cows or bushels of corn or anything else, and Bitcoin is just as flexible. That means it can serve as the backbone for any online transaction that relies on a ledger, such as property registration, futures swapping, and bonded contracts. Because Bitcoin is decentralized, these applications can exist largely outside regulators' reach. And because Bitcoin is growing in popularity, financial regulators are beginning to make plans for dealing with it, much to the chagrin of those who see the private currency as a revolutionary force inherently unmanageable by statist forces.

The Mysterious Rise of Bitcoin

The Bitcoin concept was introduced in a remarkable academic paper published online in late 2008 by someone calling himself Satoshi Nakamoto. (So far, Nakamoto's true identity remains a mystery despite the attempts of several investigative reporters to uncover it.) The paper described a cryptographic breakthrough that for the first time made possible "a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash [allowing] online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."

In early 2009, Nakamoto released open-source software implementing the concept and launching the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network. After the launch, volunteer programmers from around the world began to work with Nakamoto to further develop the underlying software protocol, collaborating via email, forums, and chats. Nakamoto remained an active participant through mid-2010, when he turned over control of the project to a contributor named Gavin Andresen. In April 2011, when asked by a developer to explain his declining involvement, Nakamoto said that he had "moved on to other things." He hasn't been heard from since.

The mystery of Bitcoin's designer is fascinating, but the fact that we don't really know where Bitcoin came from does not undermine its security or stability. The Bitcoin protocol and software are completely open-source, open to inspection by anyone. Hundreds of programmers and cryptographers have pored over the code's thousands of lines, and volunteers are continuously adding innovations. By now most Bitcoin code has been written by people other than Nakamoto.

At first, Bitcoin attracted interest mostly from a small group of cryptographers and technology enthusiasts who casually traded the currency back and forth and even gave some away to attract new users. The currency's early value was commonly in the pennies. The first known Bitcoin purchase took place in May 2010, when one user paid another 10,000 Bitcoins for two pizzas. That sum would be worth around $1.2 million at today's exchange rate.

Merchants ranging from bars and restaurants to online specialty retailers began to accept Bitcoin for payment in 2010. Now businesses as big as WordPress, Reddit, and OKCupid accept the stuff. The most popular use of Bitcoin today is in online gambling at sites such as

As demand grew and the marketplace expanded, so did the exchange rate. Before settling at a relatively stable price of about $120 per Bitcoin over the last few months, Bitcoin experienced several bubbles and crashes. It reached an all-time high of $266 in April 2013-an increase of more than 1,000 percent over the previous three months-and then dropped to $105 before turning back up. Each bubble has largely been driven by media attention, which attracts new users and thus new demand. At some point in these cycles of publicity, a critical mass of speculators cashes out, sending the currency tumbling.

Such volatility is not surprising. The total value of all outstanding Bitcoins is still relatively low-about $1.5 billion. This means even a small increase in interest in Bitcoin can send prices soaring. Additionally, a large portion of existing Bitcoins are for the moment being held as a long-term investment, so the market is not very liquid. As more and more people begin to use them for everyday purchases, the exchange rate will likely increase.

The How of Bitcoin

Until the invention of Bitcoin, online digital payments had to rely on trusted third parties, such as PayPal or Visa, to keep a ledger of account-holder balances, or a record of who owns what. For example, if I send you $100 via PayPal, PayPal will deduct the amount from my account and add it to yours.

Without such ledgers, digital money could be spent twice. Imagine that digital cash is simply a computer file, just as digital documents such as spreadsheets or photos are computer files. I could send you $100 by attaching a "money file" to a message. But just as with email, sending you an attachment does not delete that file from my computer. I could send the same $100 file to a second person, essentially spending the same money twice. In computer science, this is known as the "double spending" problem. Until Bitcoin it could only be solved by employing a trusted, ledger-keeping third party.

What makes Bitcoin revolutionary is that for the first time the double-spending problem can be solved without a third party. Bitcoin accomplishes this by distributing the necessary ledger among all users of the system via a peer-to-peer network. Every transaction in the Bitcoin economy is registered in a public ledger called "the blockchain." Complete copies of the blockchain reside on the computers of everyone who uses Bitcoin. New transactions are checked against the blockchain to ensure that the same Bitcoins haven't been previously allocated, thus eliminating the double-spending problem.

Transactions are checked by users called "miners," who lend their computers' processing power for that purpose. Miners essentially solve the difficult cryptographic math problems that verify transactions, and they are awarded newly created Bitcoins for their trouble. This is how new Bitcoins are injected into the money supply. As more users become miners and the processing power that is dedicated to mining increases, the Bitcoin protocol also increases the difficulty of the cryptographic problem miners must solve to verify transactions, thus ensuring that new Bitcoins are always mined at a predictable and limited rate.

This mining process will not continue forever. Bitcoin was designed to mimic the extraction of gold or other precious metals from the earth-only a limited, known number of the coins can ever be dug up. The arbitrary number chosen to be the cap is 21 million Bitcoins. This certainty and predictability appeals to many because it makes artificial currency inflation impossible. In most countries, a central bank controls the money supply, and sometimes (such as during the recent economic crisis) it may decide to inject more money into an economy. A central bank does this essentially by printing more money. More cash in the system, however, means that the cash you already hold will be worth less. By contrast, because Bitcoin has no central authority, no one can decide to increase the money supply. The rate of new Bitcoins introduced to the system is based on a public algorithm and is therefore perfectly predictable.

Yet as interesting as Bitcoin's deflationary nature is, it is the decentralized design that makes the innovation truly revolutionary. It means you and I can transact online without PayPal or any other central authority between us, much in the same way we might exchange cash for goods on the street. This design has two important ramifications: First, because the ledger is decentralized, the Bitcoin protocol leaves governments with no intermediary to regulate or shut down. Second, the technology is potentially useful for many other types of transactions.

Censorship and Resistance

In late 2010, after WikiLeaks began releasing its trove of State Department cables, many individuals sought to show solidarity with the group by donating money. They found that many payment processors, including Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal, would not remit money to Julian Assange's organization, thanks to U.S. government pressure. PayPal even froze the group's account so that it could not access funds it had already collected.

"Hey, Visa, Mastercard, Paypal: It's MY money," media critic Jeff Jarvis tweeted at the time. "How DARE you tell me where I can and can't spend it?"

As long as you rely on intermediaries to transact, they can indeed tell you how you can and can't spend your money. This is why governments seeking to control online activity tend to regulate not end users but the facilitators in-between. For example, the rightfully defeated Stop Online Piracy Act would have worked not by going after digital pirates, but by requiring payment processors to block the transactions of people merely suspected of piracy.

Because it is a decentralized peer-to-peer network, Bitcoin is inherently resistant to censorship or control. There is no Bitcoin company to subpoena, no headquarters to raid, not even a server to shut down. Add to that its pseudonymous nature and Bitcoin becomes a real challenge to the state's ability to restrain or keep track of financial transactions.

Unlike cash, Bitcoin is not anonymous, since a public record is made of every transaction. But it is more private than traditional electronic payments, such as credit card transactions, because users' identities need not be tied to the exchanges. Security researchers have begun to develop techniques to unmask the identities of the persons behind transactions by analyzing the patterns of activity in the blockchain, and there is no doubt that law enforcement will soon adopt such schemes. While the state may be able to uncover the identity and punish the parties to a Bitcoin transaction, however, it will no longer be able to prevent those transactions from happening in the first place by regulating middlemen. That genie is out of the bottle.

With a little bit of effort, usually involving meeting a stranger in person, you can purchase Bitcoins anonymously with physical cash. From that moment, a whole universe of government-disfavored activities opens up. You could buy illegal drugs on the notorious "Silk Road," an encrypted website that has operated with impunity for the past two years, facilitating annual sales estimated at over $20 million (until federal agents shut it down and arrested its alleged operator as this story went to press). You could gamble at various casinos or prediction markets, buy contraband Cuban cigars, or-yes-give money to WikiLeaks. Dissidents in Iran or China can use Bitcoins to buy premium blogging services from WordPress. And perhaps more importantly, Bitcoin can potentially replace not just the intermediary payment processors, but the intermediary markets as well.

More than Money

Mike Hearn, an engineer at Google who serves as one of Bitcoin's core developers, likes to compare the currency's potential to the early Web. "The Web started out as scientists simply showing documents to each other," he says. "You could link documents and embed images, but the true potential of the Web really came when these pages became interactive and started gaining more and more features allowing people to build things like Facebook or online shops. Those things are not documents, and now probably half the time people use the Web they aren't really interacting with documents; they are actually using applications."

Bitcoin, Hearn says, is now only being employed for its most obvious use-money transmission. But its design supports any number of other applications, just like the Web.

"Ultimately Bitcoins are data, and you can use a data transit protocol to transit information other than just 'I'm sending you Bitcoins.' It could be 'I'm sending you a stock,' or it could be 'I'm sending you a bet,'รขโ‚ฌล " says Jeff Garzik, another core Bitcoin developer. Each of these applications would by definition be beyond government control.

One of the most interesting potential applications of the protocol is decentralized electronic markets. These could be for futures contracts, sports bets, or political predictions. J.R. Willett, author of a white paper proposing such a system, explains with a thought experiment. Suppose two parties, A and B, want to bet on the future price of Google stock; and suppose there is a third party, C, that publishes the price on the network every few minutes. A thinks the price of Google will go up, and publishes a message saying so, establishing how much he's willing to wager. B thinks it will go down and publishes a message accepting the bet.

Once that happens, both parties are committed to the transaction. The only question is who takes the pot. Others on the distributed network don't know the real-life identities of the bettors, but they can see that A said it would go up and that B said it would go down, and they can see C publish the price of Google shares. "If the price goes up, then the whole protocol recognizes that A won that bet; the whole protocol recognizes that A now owns B's coins," says Willett.

Bitcoin, then, may soon enable a world of decentralized electronic betting markets largely impervious to government sanction. The predictions market Intrade, a darling of academic economists and political scientists, closed down last year after the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued it for violating a ban on certain options trading. (See Katherine Mangu-Ward, "The Death of Intrade," page 44.) According to the CFTC, Intrade "unlawfully solicited and permitted U.S. customers to buy and sell options predicting whether specific future events would occur, including whether certain U.S. economic numbers or the prices of gold and currencies would reach a certain level by a certain future date, and whether specific acts of war would occur by a certain future date."

A predictions market built as a peer-to-peer network on top of Bitcoin could not be shut down so easily. And no operator could abscond with users' funds, as has also been rumored of Intrade in the wake of the CFTC action.

Eliminate the Middleman

When users don't rely on intermediaries to transact, governments have a much harder time restricting with whom users can engage and for what purpose. (It also makes it harder for tax collectors to grab a cut of the transaction.) Governments seeking to control online activity so far have tended to crack down on the intermediaries first. For example, online gambling and sports betting is perfectly legal in countries such as the U.K., Ireland, and Australia, and residents of the United States can easily access those websites. Placing a bet is another matter, however, because the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 requires payments processors, such as PayPal and Visa, to block transactions to online gambling sites. (See Jacob Sullum, "How Poker Became a Crime," page 62.)

Not only does Bitcoin remove the need to rely on third-party payments processors, it has the potential to remove the need to rely on third-party betting platforms altogether. Suddenly, the government can't regulate gambling either.

Another possible application of the protocol is to power decentralized crowdfunding without third-party intermediaries such as Kickstarter or Indiegogo. Bitcoin transactions can be structured in such a way that they are not finalized until the recipient has received a certain predetermined amount. If an entrepreneur promises to work on a project or produce a good if he raises a certain amount, contributors can pledge their support in any amount safe in the knowledge that Bitcoins will not leave their wallets unless and until the entrepreneur receives sufficient pledges to meet his goal.

This would make crowdfunding cheaper than it is now. Kickstarter, for example, takes 5 percent of the funds raised through its service. It would also make crowdfunding more resistant to censorship. Last year, Indiegogo suspended Defense Distributed's campaign to raise $20,000 to develop schematics for a 3D-printed plastic firearm. Using the Bitcoin protocol, there is no central authority or middleman that would have the power to suspend unpopular crowdfunding campaigns. (For more on 3D-printed guns, see Brian Doherty, "The Unstoppable Plastic Gun," page 24.)

Bitcoin's potential is not limited to transactions. One non-transactional use of the technology is as a decentralized notary service, allowing anyone to verify that a particular document existed at a certain point in time. Say you've written a movie screenplay, and before you shop it around Hollywood you want to record that you had it first. To accomplish this, you can add the document's cryptographic signature to the blockchain, the Bitcoin public ledger. If someone ever were to claim the screenplay as his own, you could point to the blockchain to prove you had it first. The website is a first attempt at creating this kind of service.

Another non-transactional application of Bitcoin is being developed by Joe Cascio, a semi-retired software engineer living in Connecticut. Cascio calls his innovation "collateralized identity," which he initially developed to address the problem of sockpuppetry on online forums. Because creating new accounts on online services is often free and easy, one individual can conjure up many different identities and use them to harass, spam, or otherwise annoy other users. Suspending sockpuppet accounts does little to address the problem because a malicious user will simply create new ones in their place.

Online forums have tried to defeat sockpuppetry by requiring account holders to use their real identities or by allowing pseudonymous usernames but charging a membership fee to deter one person from creating more than one account. But Cascio has developed a system allowing users to log into websites pseudonymously using Bitcoin addresses. What this means is that a website owner can restrict who can create an account based on the user's current Bitcoin balance, or even her balance history.

For example, a site might require that new users must have at least 30 days of a continuous balance of the Bitcoin equivalent of $100 associated with the address he is using for his ID. That $100 is not a membership fee you have to pay, only an average balance one has to carry for each account. That makes multiple accounts a very expensive proposition for malicious users, while remaining inexpensive for average users. Only because Bitcoin's ledger is public can the site verify that a user does indeed meet its collateral requirements.

"The fact that you can observe the history of a Bitcoin address is important because it means that you can't play Three Card Monte with IDs," says Cascio. Otherwise, a malicious user might simply move money around to different Bitcoin addresses before creating new accounts.

While Cascio only intended to address the sockpuppet issue, he has since discovered that his invention essentially leverages Bitcoin to create pseudonymous identities tied to something akin to publicly verifiable "credit histories"-something that has potential implications far beyond blocking Internet jerks.

The bottom line is that the Bitcoin protocol has the potential to be much more than just digital money. It is a platform for financial and informational innovation open to anyone and everyone, with no requirement to obtain a permit.

Bitcoin vs. the State

The potential benefits Bitcoin can bring to liberty and the broader economy are profound. But such a system obviously threatens the authority of the government. Just the few examples mentioned in this article touch on the regulatory jurisdictions of the Treasury Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the CFTC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, various state regulators, and the Internal Revenue Service, for starters. Such entities are beginning to mobilize in response.

The state's main concern at the moment is that Bitcoin could be used for money laundering, for financing terrorism, and for trading in illicit goods. Traditional payments networks, such as PayPal or Western Union, are subject to the Bank Secrecy Act, which requires that companies verify customers' identities, keep records of financial transactions, and report suspicious transactions. This data facilitates investigation and prosecution of money laundering and other crimes. Because Bitcoin is a decentralized network, the government worries that no one is responsible for identifying users and reporting transactions.

While it's virtually impossible to regulate the Bitcoin network itself, many new businesses are now emerging to facilitate consumer adoption of the currency. Those companies will certainly be subject to regulation. For example, if you would like to convert dollars to Bitcoins, you could find a stranger on Craigslist willing to trade and meet him at a coffee shop to make the exchange. Such a transaction is virtually impossible to regulate, but it's also not very consumer-friendly.

As a result, there is a slew of venture-capital-backed startups setting up easy-to-use online exchanges, as well as so-called "wallet services" that help one easily store and spend Bitcoins, and processors that help merchants accept payment. These new middlemen of the Bitcoin ecosystem are just as susceptible to regulation as existing banks and other third-party payment networks.

In March, the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a regulatory guidance determining that the businesses now developing Bitcoin's consumer infrastructure are to be classified as money transmitters who must register with the agency and comply with existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements. More onerous regulation will likely come from states that require money transmission businesses to be locally licensed before they can operate.

Today, a company that wants to launch a new Bitcoin exchange would have to spend at least $1 million dollars and labor for more than a year acquiring 48 different licenses before it could open for business (according to various entrepreneurs and compliance officers associated with the industry), since 48 states have their own money-transmitter license requirements. In August, New York State's Superintendent of Financial Services Benjamin Lawsky subpoenaed two dozen Bitcoin-related businesses to gather more information about their operations, and he is now conducting an inquiry to determine how to regulate virtual currency businesses.

What has struck some of Bitcoin's more ideological backers-who cherish the currency as a system apart from, and perhaps even against, the state-is how eager and willing these Bitcoin-ecosystem companies are to comply with regulators.

"A year or more ago there was very much an 'Occupy' type feel to Bitcoin, where this is the anti-establishment currency, and now the establishment is getting interested in Bitcoin," says Bitcoin developer Garzik. "There is a tension, and you definitely see the libertarian crypto-anarchist roots bang heads with the venture capital that's coming in right now."

Many entrepreneurs are inviting regulation as a way to legitimize virtual currencies. They are looking to get rich through what they rightly see as a disruptive technology, and ideology plays little part in that quest. If playing ball with regulators is what it takes, they figure, then so be it.

Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the Facebook-cofounding twins who own about 1 percent of all Bitcoins, filed papers in September with the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking permission to launch a fund that would allow investors to easily speculate on the price of Bitcoins. They have been making a full-court press for regulation.

"I don't think anyone wants a fight-I think everyone here wants to build Bitcoin, to work with regulators," Cameron Winklevoss told the crowd at a Bitcoin conference in San Jose this May. "Cooperation is really the way forward." In June Winklevoss turned it up another notch, telling the NExT entrepreneurship and technology conference in Brooklyn that "in the Bitcoin world, we love regulation." He said regulation would confer legitimacy on Bitcoin, helping to stamp out illicit uses.

Ultimately, both camps-those who would like to see Bitcoin regulated, and those who see Bitcoin as a perfect escape from state control-will have to face facts. Regulators and law enforcement will have to come to terms with the fact that the Bitcoin protocol is beyond their reach, and while they may be able to spy on the vast majority of consumer transactions by regulating third-party Bitcoin businesses, they will not be able to stop individuals from transacting with each other directly on the network. Meanwhile, those who would rather have nothing to do with the state will have to face the fact that laws that ban money laundering and license money transmission exist, and that the choice before the Bitcoin community is not whether it should want regulation but what to do about it.

Given this inevitability, what matters is how onerous the ultimate regulatory structure around Bitcoin will be. Why should this matter to those who seek to opt out of the legacy financial system altogether? Because Bitcoin is a network and networks depend on network effects.

The more people use Bitcoin, the stronger it will grow; the stronger it grows, the more difficult it will be to regulate in the long run. Does Bitcoin need millions of average American consumers (or Chinese consumers, for that matter) to succeed? No, but that would surely help. Eventually, hopefully, more and more value will remain inside the Bitcoin economy, not requiring easily regulatable conversion to government currencies. But that process will take time. The more people transact with Bitcoins and are comfortable doing so, even under a regulated regime, the quicker the currency's full potential can be realized.

While governments can't kill Bitcoin, it would be naive to think that they could not substantially slow down its development and raise the cost of using it. "The choice is not whether to have digital currencies," Jim Harper wrote recently in Cato Unbound. "The choice is between adopting digital currencies the hard way or the easy way." Right now U.S. regulators seem to be choosing a middle path.

At the moment Washington is not interested in outlawing Bitcoin, especially since the currency's $1.5 billion economy is comparatively trivial. The government is interested, however, in forcing Bitcoin to fit within its existing bureaucratic buckets.

If regulators can avoid big-ticket prohibitions or mistakes early on, they may counterintuitively enable the growth of something they'll never be able to control. The stronger the network effects grow, the harder it will be for states to take more aggressive actions in the future. Before you know it, Bitcoin will never look trivial again.

NEXT: Brickbat: On My List

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ooh, I can’t wait for the AM links for this one.

    “Was the Gettysburg Address a Mistake?

    “Lincoln was far too kind to the South. And we still are.

    “…Over the succeeding century and a half, the Dixie pathos that Lincoln and [Thaddeus] Stevens sought to destroy instead morphed into the scoliotic backbone of American politics that burdens us today?a vendetta against Washington, D.C., so besotted with ancient grudges and hidebound demagogic exaggeration that it renders productive discourse and open exchange of ideas a virtual impossibility.

    “The game of division practiced by conservative reactionaries today?mostly southern, though the obstructionist contagion has spread to all 50 states?is the same as the fathomlessly fraudulent politics that split the country in 1861. Think the Dixie-fried Tea Party and health care fight represent something new? The impulse behind them is the same one that gave us Jim Crow, brought the National Guard to Little Rock High School and led Hank Williams, Jr. to record, “If the South woulda won, we woulda had it made.””…..z2l5tPFOxp

    1. Not going to read that tripe but the Gettysburg Address accomplished exactly what it was intended to — changing the subject.

    2. so everyone outside of the South loves DC? That must be it.

      1. Apparently. Nevermind that millions of people in the South love DC.

    3. Translation: All opposition to D.C. is racist!

  2. BTC is in the midst of a major correction after all of the gains the last few weeks. This is a great time to buy imo, if one can find it for sale anywhere.

  3. Well-written article capturing why I am excited about bitcoin. There’s tons of potential combined with a stubborn resistance to governmental strangling. However, it is nearly impossible to glean a “true value” of bitcoin as the early adoption is a speculation-driven rollercoaster.

    1. But what would one do if the government decides to turn off the Internet? Currently a far-fetched scenario here (though I believe it is on the mind of many a bitcoin user trapped in despotic countries), but if bitcoin grew to threaten the post-Bretton Woods currency monopoly then it could be a reality.

      1. I have to think they couldn’t get to that stage — it would be, what, 50% or more drop in GDP immediately? And would just let someone else take over as the leading spot.

        I can’t see anyone being able to make that happen. Far too huge of a loss.

        Longer term, at that point, you probably end up with an underground network (peer to peer, mesh net, etc.)

        1. Bitcoin transactions are pretty onerous already on the power-hungry, custom-made, GPU-rich network that runs it now. Further, the hardware is relatively unique relative to other computing applications. If a government wanted to shut Bitcoin down it would have little trouble in doing so.

          You *might* have alternative crypto-currencies pop up. But I think envisioning some low-energy p2p crypto-currency popping up under the thumb of an oppressive regime is like expecting a rose bush to grow out of a random pile of manure.

          I think the better role of Bitcoin is as an example of modern low-overhead currency. Not a sign that the Fed and fiscal policy are unnecessary but certainly obsolete.

          1. Government would have an extremely hard time shutting Bitcoin down. They haven’t managed to shutdown BitTorrent. It’s peer-to-peer.

            The biggest thing, though, is that it is international. It’s taking off in China, and it’ll take off in India and South America, too. Even if the US government tries to nail it, it’s still running in all the other places, and people will still want to get on board.

            GPUs are disappearing from the network at this point, replaced by ASIC. The amount of power that actually goes into securing the network will keep declining as GPUs get shut down and replaced with ASIC, and ASIC hardware only gets more efficient, as well. The scare stories about the amount of power that goes into securing the network are rather overblown.

      2. If the government is at a point where turning off the internet seems like a good idea I would be worrying about food, water, and bullets, not bitcoins.

        If you were in Egypt when they tried to shut down the internet you would still have your bitcoins.

    2. Hm, if you and I agree to barter with one another for pigs and softwood, then which of the two objects of the transaction are money?

      What ‘is money’ versus ‘what is said to work like money by people ignorant of barter’ is whether or not it has a legally fixed ‘true value.’ Either by diktat or for paying taxes.

      1. The difference between barter and trading with money is whether the exchange is direct or indirect. It has nothing to do with “fixed ‘true value'” or taxes. If one person wants pigs and the other wants softwood, for their own use, then neither is being used as money. If the only reason to accept one of those goods is so that it can be traded for something else later, then that goods is being used as money in that transaction. If a good is commonly used *as* money, then it *is* money.

        Bitcoin has no direct use; it exists only to facilitate indirect exchange. It would be unreasonable to consider it anything but money.

  4. Because Bitcoin is decentralized, these applications can exist largely outside regulators’ reach.

    Since when has decentralization been a barrier to bureaucracy? Especially one born from an ready-made network? If memory serves correctly bureaucrats were able to, pretty quickly, reach the Veins of California in the middle 1800s and whether it’s the Deserts of the Gulf or the Tar Sands of Canada, if the wealth isn’t flowing fast enough for them, they build a pipeline.

    Bitcoin is the tech-boom equivalent of beanie babies. There are pretty obvious indicators that plainly display that it is not a medium of exchange as much as a medium of hoarding and fetish. Indeed several alternative cryptocurrencies have shown faults in Bitcoin which the creators and network are unwilling or incapable of correcting.

  5. The use of a type of Bitcoin protocol for different uses is already happening with the open source Ripple protocol. Currently it can transfer any world currency between parties including Bitcoins and it’s own currency, Ripples. Essentially it’s a protocol to facilitate any transaction without the need for a third party.

    1. Ripple doesn’t get to call itself decentralized until it releases its server source code, and someone other than OpenCoin is running validators.

      Until then it is not decentralized, and not safe from regulatory crackdown.

      Go spam somewhere else.

  6. Seems to me the secret to success of any currency is acceptance.

    Humans create value of their own work. That means anyone can enter the market by simply creating something of value to others.
    So let’s say I knit a sweater. Someone else then agrees to pay me a certain number of Bitcoins for the sweater. Voila! I now have Bitcoins w/o having used any gov’t currency (aside from what I spent to get the yarn). In other words, I didn’t just “buy” the Bitcoins. So that’s how we get new people into the market. But then what? Why would anyone want to enter the market?

    The only good reason to want Bitcoins is to buy other things with them, right? That’s how money works. So it’s critical that there be a large and diverse marketplace that accepts them. I must be able to buy stuff I want and need, real stuff, like food and clothing. If I can’t buy most of the things I want with Bitcoins, they’re really just a novelty.

    This has two major implications. First, Bitcoin will never truly work until it is widely accepted as payment for most things most people want. Second, gov’t could seriously hurt the system by punishing businesses that accept Bitcoins.

    How can both of these hurdles be overcome?

    1. The black market needs something other than cash to function.
      This means even if completely illegal, Bitcoin can continue to grow (albeit slower).
      Adoption has been growing exponentially for the last few years. I’m not worried it’ll just stop.

      1. The black market is also full of crooks who will gladly steal and there is an infinite supply of them.

    2. You also left out the possibility of it collapsing like any pyramid scam.

  7. Google is paying 75$/hour! Just work for few hours & spend more time with friends and family. On sunday I bought themselves a Alfa Romeo from having made $5637 this month. its the best-job Ive ever had.It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out

  8. can produce more money.. great post

  9. For me the idea of Bitcoin is rather interesting at present, but still I have rather a vague idea of it. Also I doubt that the Government will allow more money to appear and to be out of its regulation.

  10. There is already a bitcoin prediction market replacing the now shutdown Intrade: Predictious
    It launched back in July, and they have predictions on Sport, Politics, Entertainement, Economics.

  11. The article about virtual money is worth reading, if you want to know more about this new thing in our world.

  12. If anyone is unsatisfied with their Bitcoin, just send it to me! I’ll send my three daughters to college with it someday. 1MboYtUypfEKuDg1iwgBf4TWh5uUjDNRqu

  13. Bitcoin Investment – Double Your Bitcoin’s In Hours
    Deposit Payment Invest Now
    1 BTC Receive 3 BTC In 48 Hours Pay with Bitcoin
    2 BTC Receive 8 BTC In 48 Hours Pay with Bitcoin
    5 BTC Receive 25 BTC In 48 Hours Pay with Bitcoin
    10BTC Receive 80 BTC In 48 Hours Pay with Bitcoin
    20 BTC Receive 200 BTC In 48 Hours Pay with Bitcoin
    50 BTC Receive 800 BTC In 48 Hours Pay with Bitcoin
    100 BTC Receive 2000 BTC In 48 Hours Pay with Bitcoin
    200 BTC Receive 5000 BTC In 48 Hours Pay with Bitcoin

    Large deposits recommended for quick returns!

    Guaranteed Rate Investment Insurance…..iporg.html

  14. Now those algorithms are appearing in contexts that hint at how cryptocurrency is only one possible application for such math, and how other applications may be even more powerful and socially useful.For info installment lender please visit.

  15. Exactly Jerry, In the current online gambling market Bitcoin can be used as a currency, but it is much more than currency. I think it’s cousin posture like litecoin, peercoin, and even doge coin are the core algorithms that power it.

  16. Bitcoin is an interesting company. cpa firm las vegas

  17. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas made many a headline when he became the

  18. The article about virtual money is worth reading, if you want to know more about this new thing in our world and make virtual money. ๐Ÿ™‚

  19. Well Bitcoin (BTC) is a digital currency which has been accepted by many options trading platforms as a payment method for the trading deposits of clients. There are lots of benefits using Bitcoin as a currency such as the cost of transaction i.e. it is much lower than all forms of online payment. Also no service fee is paid as it has not been under central authority.

  20. Wow! Now I feel like I’ll be absolutely safe, actually. I like to spend my time, visiting . So, everything gets better!

  21. Yes today bitcoin pleads to all investors to make a stable store of value in global market. It is considered as a digital currency, provided us the chance to ‘be our own bank’. You can use bitcoins in options trading as well. Some of the top binary options brokers allows this feature to make trading easier and accessible.

  22. Almost 3 years since this article was published, and still relevant today – if not more. Bitcoin has found it place in the industry. Still the concern is the fluctuations of Bitcoin, it needs to be much more stable to be used as a “currency”.

  23. Thank you for thos article, Really nice and useful information. In our country be we have some fast payment platforms like: Paskol? refinansavimas internetu , hope it will be worldwide someday ๐Ÿ™‚

  24. I am new to bitcoin and as it drops I am thinking to buy some. After reading your article I 100% decided to do that ๐Ÿ™‚

    Thank you!
    Seo paslaugos

  25. great thinking from seo paslaugos.

  26. Great LTU team here. Check out this European hosting.

  27. Vey nice article, keep it going from Darbas internetu namuose

  28. Sounds very good. But what would one do if the government decides to turn off the Internet?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.