Yeah, cypherpunks were worried about being extrajudicially killed in the 90s just for developing the code for something better than btc.
Far worse to be an operator than a software developer.
Also some people are at more risk, even if they wouldn't be killed or even arrested for creating ecash. If you were at all legally questionable for drugs, taxes, politics, or had a day job with a clearance, a company with pr exposure, etc....
The whole amount of money involved is less than what some LOCAL restaurant chains make in a year.
There have been more widespread regional alternative currencies in the past. Given that this one also has all those internet-technology advantages to spread, it's surprisingly minuscule and insignificant.
Yeah ok but this is not regional, this is global.
It has done quite well so far and I can't think of a better global currency with no one controlling it and with the same utility as today.
Maybe gold a long time ago but still doesn't fully compare
>It has done quite well so far and I can't think of a better global currency with no one controlling it and with the same utility as today.
Well, how about gold?
>Maybe gold a long time ago but still doesn't fully compare
Why not? In addition you have:
a) no logs
b) no reason to trust some advanced crypto stuff (that might collapse 10 years from now due to some hole/collision/whatever discovered in the algorithms).
c) acceptable everywhere already
Oh, and it doesn't lose 70% of it's value in 2 days, like BitCoin has done in the past (from what I read).
Gold is heavy, easy to counterfeit with (cheap) tungsten, difficult to take across borders, easy to steal, etc.
Bitcoin won't be so volatile after it has been more widely adopted.
And the "advanced crypto stuff" of Bitcoin can never collapse. It is already partially post-quantum and was designed to be easily upgradeable to fully post-quantum algorithm set.
You would do yourself some good if you took a minute to learn some things about crypto.
Not clear how the creators would, or could, be blamed for any perceived misuse of the currency. Publishing some software and specs isn't illegal, and if the creators have any further control over the bitcoin trade, that in itself is a dealbreaker for bitcoins-as-currency.
A culture of anonymity and unaccountability may be a good thing with respect to the users of a currency, but not for its creators and backers, IMHO.
(2) bitcoin is broken, a fatal flaw is detected, lots of people lose money, lots of parties angry
In either scenario there will be a lot of parties pissed off at bitcoins creators. Anonimity seems to be a smart move, just like many other pre-emptive strikes that are embedded in bitcoin.
Phil Z.'s problems are part of the distant past, at this point. Going forward, nobody is ever going to catch that much grief for releasing encryption software. You might as well refrain from publishing role-playing game manuals about bitcoins for fear you'll be targeted by the Secret Service, a la Steve Jackson.
Trust me, no governmental entity gives a hoot about who created the bitcoin standard. They probably will give a hoot about how it's used.
You say that there's no upside to claiming credit, whereas it seems to me you could comfortably retire to the lecture circuit, or enjoy sinecure directorships on just about any business that was heavily dependent on crypto, or get tenure in the university of one's choice, or...
No, that was a long time ago. Everybody who maintained those files on John Lennon is either retired or dead.
Also, I don't think John Lennon would have turned down his opportunity for celebrity if he'd known that J. Edgar Hoover was going to open a file with his name on it. He might have thought twice if someone had told him about that Chapman fellow, though.
>No, that was a long time ago. Everybody who maintained those files on John Lennon is either retired or dead.
The people die, the practices do not.
Government agencies have Harry Potter long files on all kinds of peaceful activists, from tree-huggers to EFF members, to authors and free press writers, and such. Even more so than back in the day, because they can get tons more info through electronic means.
>Also, I don't think John Lennon would have turned down his opportunity for celebrity if he'd known that J. Edgar Hoover was going to open a file with his name on it.
Lennon might not, other people that would only get the negatives without any benefits of that celebrity, would not.
Consider me amazed at how far it's already gone, if it goes much further it may very well be extremely wise to not be known as one of its creators.