One for the Spam Zoo.

Consider this oddity:

from: Sydney B. Kirklen <sydneybkirklen@gmail.com>
to: censored
date: Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:05 PM
subject: Is Loper-os.org For Sale? (Website Not Just Domain)

My business partners and I would like to present you with an offer to purchase loper-os.org.  We promise not to take up much of your time.  Would you be interested in selling if the price was right?

Best Regards,

Sydney B. Kirklen
Phoenix, Arizona

Being a chump, I replied, thinking it might be an actual human:

from: Stanislav Datskovskiy <censored>
to: “Sydney B. Kirklen” <sydneybkirklen@gmail.com>
date: Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM
subject: Re: Is Loper-os.org For Sale? (Website Not Just Domain)

No. Go Away.

Turns out, it was probably a script.  Although it isn’t clear to me what purpose (other than address harvesting) it might serve.  What happens if you actually agree to sell your site to the spammer?  What exactly is the point, from the spamming scum’s point of view, of purchasing a “human” site to turn into a link farm?  Presumably, your readers will make the mistake of loading the turd exactly once, after which they will curse your name for all eternity.

Posted in: Distractions, NonLoper by Stanislav 5 Comments

Bitcoin Adventures.


The Bitcoin Kill Switch is quite alive, well, and waiting to be pressed:

“I can’t assure with 100% certainty that the all the black dots are owned by Satoshi, but almost all are owned by a single entity, and that entity began mining right from block 1, and with the same performance as the genesis block. It can be identified by constant slope segments that occasionally restart. Also this entity is the only entity that has shown complete trust in Bitcoin, since it hasn’t spend any coins (as last as the eye can see). I estimate at eyesight that Satoshi fortune is around 1M Bitcoins, or 100M USD at current exchange rate. I’m sure there will be plenty of people that will carefully analyze the source data set and come up with the exact figure, which will be very close, but nevertheless they will scream at me again.”

BITSLOG: “The Well Deserved Fortune of Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin creator, Visionary and Genius.”

How many U.S. dollars / bricks of cocaine / alpaca socks are there, in total, circulating in the Bitcoin economy?  How many of them does one man deserve to be able to vacuum up at his pleasure? Evidently, if you ask Bitcoin users: all of them, and then some…


In February, I wrote a review of a Bitcoin-based stock exchange:


A reader from Romania, one Mircea Popescu, asked me to try out his MPEx, a stock and futures exchange working entirely in Bitcoin.  He presented me with a free account [1] containing one bitcoin, operational from Dec. 21, 2012 to Feb. 5, 2013.

What exactly did I do with my demo account on MPEx?  I am afraid the answer is rather boring.  Given that a single bitcoin is rather short of what one might need as collateral funds in futures trading, I focused solely on stocks.  That is to say, I picked the two best-performing stocks on MPEx and bought a small quantity of each.  These were, unsurprisingly: MPOE (MPEx’s own stock) and DICE (Satoshi Dice, a kind of casino.)  In the end, I ended up with ~1.4 BTC.  Popescu’s service works exactly as described.

“A Review of MPEx, the Bitcoin Stock Exchange.”

Mr. Popescu’s company is still in business and doing rather well.  Though apparently not quite as well as before.

I admit that I’ve sometimes wondered who else might have been asked to review MPEx.

Behold, we have (one) answer:

I’ve lived my life so far without the vaguest idea as to who Scott Locklin might be. It turns out he’s an ex biker/factory worker who lately fancies himself some sort of financier, scientist and whatnot – practically speaking yet another Kludge. I don’t happen to particularly care, the world is full of people toiling under the burdens of unwarrantedly high self esteem.

Our paths on this Earth crossed about an hour ago, when my PR asked for permission to tell him off, which resulted in my review of their communication so far. It’s an amusing little adventure, which I’ll retell presently, but first allow me to give a little context.

To : Scott Locklin

Date: Thursday, December 20, 2012, 7:15 AM

Hi,

Would you be interested in publishing a review of MPEx, the Bitcoin securities exchange? Compensation is available. You wouldn’t be expected to write anything other than the truth.

Let me know.


Mircea Popescu: “How to fail – the Scott Locklin method.”

Looks like Locklin, an ex-physicist and occasional reader of this site, was also contacted by Popescu’s slave girl. [1] I am certain that he will be a bit surprised – and entertained – to learn that he had in fact spent his life toiling away in a factory.

The slave asked of Locklin the very same thing she asked of me, in the same words, and on the same day. And personally, I have no problem with reviewing various oddities, so long as the oddities are interesting. And, having experimented with Bitcoin in various ways (not involving spending money) since 2010, I had quite a bit of fun trying out MPEx and writing down my impressions thereof.

But it turned out that Locklin isn’t much of a Bitcoin enthusiast:

From : Scott Locklin

Date: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:00 AM

I’m not a huge fan of bit coin. Can’t think of any real purpose to trading them held in escrow. If you had exchanged backed contracts, it might be a different story, but it appears you don’t.

Bit coin escrow I do not care for I have to ask me, what’s it there for?


Mircea Popescu: “How to fail – the Scott Locklin method.”

Whether Locklin is an overall cryptocurrency skeptic, or simply isn’t ready for the Brave New World of trust-free electronic commerce, I cannot tell. But the fact remains: he wasn’t terribly interested in playing with Mr. Popescu’s service, except as part of his day job.

And, learning this, Popescu proceeded to reason from the assumption that Locklin is an idiot – which he isn’t. Instead he is a skeptic and a “zoological” hater of anything which stinks of trendiness, in much the same way I am. Were I not an amateur cryptographer with a fairly good mathematical understanding of Bitcoin and its technological implications, I am not certain that I would find it the least bit appealing. [2] Certainly not in its present state: that of being covered head-to-toe in trendoid piss.

One interesting detail is that Popescu is worth (by his own – quite believable – admission) around $200M (U.S.)  He sees himself as royalty, and truly does pity us poor buggers who work for a living:

Since we (by which I mean MPEx in this case) have a lot of money at our disposal, and since I’m one of those weird types who still believes money should be used to promote socially valuable projects (as the monthly MPEx reports do attest), I’ve ordered a number of fringe bloggers be approached with an offer to discuss MPEx and make a little change for their efforts. The idea is that poverty and unemployment in the anglophone world and the United States especially being at record highs, and centripetal forces in the anglophone world and the United States especially being at their strongest in many years, it may be salutary to give a little rope to those least apt to survive on their own, which is to say those outside of the corporate and governmental mesh which compose the emerging new socialism.


I’ve never reviewed the list, I’ve never reviewed the exchanges, I’ve never reviewed the results in any systematical manner. I simply never cared. This to my detriment, because lo and behold what sort of gems I’m missing out on…


Mircea Popescu: “How to fail – the Scott Locklin method.”


And so it turns out that the ~1.4 BTC I got from MPEx wasn’t quite equivalent to a free video card which a computer magazine might receive in exchange for a review.  It was really something else:

“The problem with this is, of course, that he [Locklin] wasn’t being offered money for his opinion. He was being offered money for charity. There is a difference, even if the aforementioned burdens of unwarrantedly high self esteem demand it not be recognised.


This would have normally been the end of it, my prominent position in the most important thing to happen since electricity (yes, Bitcoin is more important than the semiconductor) makes me the target to a lot of confused communication from a lot of confused individuals, which in ninety nine cases out of the hundred go exactly nowhere.”


Mircea Popescu: “How to fail – the Scott Locklin method.”

Make no mistake, I am rather fond of Popescu, whether or not he imagines himself a Napoleon; and I am glad that he lives. (How many people are there with whom one could have a conversation like this one?)  I don’t even believe, at the present time, that he is a scam artist, or even a potential scam artist.  In fact, I fully agree with this customer’s colorful comment:

“Shady ROMANIAN character opens up unregistered bitcoin options exchange (complete with HTML from 1993) on his personal website (which also hosts porn) and charges exorbitant fees just to join, while constantly accusing pretty much everyone else in the bitcoin community of being a scammer, and, along with his (possibly virtual) -PR lackey, acts like a loudmouthed douchebag … but apparently scams no one.” (yet?)  Thank you Mircea for your services to the bitcoin community and for apparently being an honest and trustworthy entrepreneurial businessman. (Making you perhaps the only honest and trustworthy Romanian I know.)”


(Quoted by) Mircea Popescu: “The Bitcoin Drama Timeline.”

But, my dear readers, I will have you know that today I sent back Mr. Popescu’s 1.41421096 BTC.  Not because I dislike him (even if I did, this alone would not be reason enough: pecunia non olet and all that) – and not because I like him – though I hold him in some esteem: he’s rather unlikely to notice an extra BTC or two.

Instead, I did it because I would like to teach a little something to the man who does not believe that anyone else (and certainly anyone not worth >=$200M) has anything left to teach him.  Popescu might have an atomic icebreaker, while I would then have only a rowboat.  But the rowboat does not need anything from the icebreaker.  Not everyone is a charity case [3], and not everyone who disagrees with a clever man is an illiterate idiot.


[1]  Mr. Popescu claims to own actual slaves. I’ll take his word for it.
[2]  People who claim to find Bitcoin interesting, while comparing it in any way to, say, Warcraft gold, aren’t thinking about Bitcoin at all, but rather some weird mental chimera of their own.
[3]  Yes, there is a BTC donation address on this page.  It is there on the off chance that someone is a wealthy oddball who wants to put serious money behind my ideas.  Stranger things have happened. This would be a truly insane thing to do: especially considering that any legal ownership of the results by the donor is permanently off the table. But I do not presently lack for money, food, FPGAs, luxuries, etc. – only free time.  Donations which cannot buy me free time (by freeing me from commercial work) will merit a “thank you” but will not bring the Loper architecture any closer to completion. At any rate, I no more expect such donations than I expect to find hundred-dollar bills on the asphalt. But I still refuse to ignore the asphalt entirely, perhaps out of childhood habit.

A Review of MPEx, the Bitcoin Stock Exchange.

“The most important thing a crook needs is an impeccable reputation.”
(Attributed to Agatha Christie.)

Bitcoin interests me as an obvious example of a technological jewel tossed around aimlessly by the brutal hands of cave men. I can’t help but picture a flashlight or a radio set, left behind in the wilderness by geologists, to be picked up later by some Stone Age aboriginals; to be fought over and worshiped. Until the batteries run out.  But the batteries have not yet run out!  The flashlight shines, the radio plays. Let’s listen and hear what it plays.  We can always go back to sharpening our flints and skinning bears later!  But if you aren’t the least bit curious about Bitcoin and your bear is going stale, you can safely skip this post.

Bitcoin-related scams and swindles of every kind are so numerous (and monotonous in their predictability) that I will not further waste my readers’ time describing them.  They are discussed in excruciating detail elsewhere.  So, let’s talk about something different for a change: a nontrivial Bitcoin-based business, beyond mere retail; and one which, at present, works exactly as described on the box.

A reader from Romania, one Mircea Popescu, asked me to try out his MPEx, a stock and futures exchange working entirely in Bitcoin.  He presented me with a free account [1] containing one bitcoin, operational from Dec. 21, 2012 to Feb. 5, 2013. Mr. Popescu’s creation is remarkable in a number of ways. He eschews the complexity and creeping featurism of “Web 2.0″ in favor of a simple back-and-forth messaging protocol secured by traditional PGP.  A trivial script turns this into a self-explanatory command line tool.  I am told that third-party graphical front-ends also exist.

The simplicity of MPEx’s front-end allowed its author to focus things that actually matter. For instance, security. The latter being “cheap and angry,” like a Kalashnikov rifle: bitcoins and other cryptographic valuables are kept on a machine electrically-separate from the automated exchange, and all operations involving incoming or outgoing coins are handled by human hands. This is practical primarily because MPEx is specifically not designed for casual users.  Rather, its intended clientele consists of serious traders, of the kind only a notch or two poorer than those who might purchase a seat in the New York Stock Exchange.  The intended use cases of MPEx’s Bitcoin gateway are: to deposit one’s starting capital (plus Popescu’s 30 BTC account creation fee [2]) and to withdraw one’s earnings infrequently and in large parcels.  For this, sneakernet easily suffices.

The 30 BTC fee is perhaps the most controversial aspect of MPEx.  Just about every online discussion of the service ends up being exclusively about the thirty coins.  The masses are indignant.  They want Free Stuff!  Many go so far as to request an MPEx account without sending any bitcoins whatsoever with their request, as some kind of bizarre protest.  (Why not try this at a filling station or a jewelry store?)  Evidently, because this is the Internet, the true motherland of Free Stuff.

Of course, idiots clamoring for their God-Given Right to Free Stuff is nothing new.  It is an age-old plague in the software industry, where the widespread availability of genuinely high-quality products at little or no cost has distorted nearly everybody’s expectations.  Anyone asking for money in exchange for a software product or service – especially serious money – risks being seen as at least vaguely unsavory.  This is not entirely unreasonable, considering many computer users’ experiences with “enterprise software” and other digital swindles.  Of course, plenty of people are willing to oblige the Free Stuff crowd.  Some of them give away well-engineered software, in the ancient spirit of scientific collaboration.  Others happily peddle questionable “freebies” to chumps:

“Anyone who plans to waste the shareholders’ money can undercut the competition.  The easiest thing in the world is to charge too little, it is just as easy as spending too much of other people’s money.  Customers will flock to those who do because they are giving away some, if not all, of the value for free.  Somebody may even pick up the underpriced goods and sell them at a profit when the stupid company ceases to exist or raises prices to try to survive after all.  People of very limited intellect just _love_ “free” stuff. That is how they can be lured into bad and costly deals with free offers, miniscule chances to win some “prize”, and other marketing techniques aimed at the non-thinking.  And then there are the cynics, who do not understand that by only taking the free stuff and not buying anything else, they are making everybody else lose, so that free stuff is no longer goodwill to honest people, but reduced to free crap for the fools.  When something _must_ be widespread in order to be used, the only option may well be to give it away to lots of people until you have enough market share that those who want on the bandwagon later will be willing to pay for it, but then you need to be damn certain that you are able to keep your customers and not provide free marketing for your competitors, who do not need to recover those marketing costs.  Fax machines, cellular phones, even operating systems, have been sold with this technique.  Many other products have failed to gain the required market share and have lost all the shareholders’ money.  Remember all the web sites that used this trick to cause people to use them, but who were left behind when the _next_ outlet for free goods and services sprung up to waste new money.”
Erik Naggumcomp.lang.lisp. Thu, 17 May 2001. (Emphasis mine.)


Popescu is quite uninterested in pushing freebies.  He has something entirely different in mind:

“The MPEx registration fee has been in my estimation very successful at selecting high quality, competent and intelligent investors, the sort of which a company benefits from. Consequently it will never be either reduced or waived. While currently it is at a level which I judge adequate, it may be the case in the future that further increases will be warranted. In general it is reasonable to expect that by the time MPEx exceeds in size NYSE, the cost of a seat at the table will also exceed the NYSE.”

Mircea Popescu, Feb. 3, 2013: “So, What’s the Plan with MPOE/MPEX?”


MPEx’s long-term business model consists of charging a 0.2 percent commission on sales. (And possibly other income sources [3].)  However, the company’s January 2013 financial report shows a net profit of 321.60848092 BTC deriving from the sales commission, and 980 BTC from new account registrations.  So, if the figures are to be believed (and neither I nor the angry critics know of any specific reason to doubt them) MPEx is doing a brisk trading business – but at the moment, it derives a hefty share of its income from the sale of new accounts.

The MPEx team consists of what one might call “true believers” in Bitcoin. They are willing to take certain risks – and forgo some of the advantages of dealing in traditional currencies – in order to advance the general state-of-the-art of decentralized cryptocurrency. (Being involved in Bitcoin “high finance” today is more or less guaranteed to cement one’s reputation as a scammer, even if one is entirely honest.)  Popescu’s official position is that a high cost of entry keeps out the idiot rabble.  Not everyone (and certainly not the rabble) understands why this might be a good idea.

My view of stock and futures trading (by no means an expert view!) is that there are two basic ways to profit:
  • To move money from “stupid” pockets into “smart” ones, the way professional poker players do. One exploits information asymmetries, flowing from a better understanding of the market (or a knowledge of secrets.)
  • To invest directly in the physical world.  When you purchase aluminum futures from a broker, you stand to profit if a new deposit of bauxite were to be discovered. And so forth.
When I wrote to Popescu to ask why he prefers to keep the “stupid pockets” away from MPEx, he explained that the misbehavior of casual, uninformed, lazy, or simply unintelligent investors is liable to frighten off businesses who might otherwise consider listing their stocks on the exchange. [4] Thus he chose to forgo the opportunity to harvest the pocket change of poor fools (wealthy fools are presumably welcome at MPEx.)

MPEx is a product intended for financial professionals. The very concept of a professional product is steadily being lost in the noise of modernity.  Like most civilized people, I am a satisfied user of countless mass-market products.  However, I also recognize that certain products and services by their very nature do not benefit from mass-marketability.  Erik Naggum explains it better than I ever could:

“in _every_ field I know, the difference between the professional and the mass market is so large that Joe Blow wouldn’t believe the two could coexist. more often than not, you can’t even get the professional quality unless you sign a major agreement with the vendor — such is the investment on both sides of the table. the commitment for over-the-counter sales to some anonymous customer is _negligible_. consumers are protected by laws because of this, while professionals are protected by signed agreements they are expected to understand.”
Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp. Feb. 16, 1997.


“You can find a job at a hamburger joint without any skills whatsoever, but if you want to look at how you produce equipment used in hamburger joints that should be simple enough that any unskilled person can operate it without causing himself damage or produce bad food, you look at the end of the market that Common Lisp is good at helping — you don’t see many ads for hamburger joint equipment designers, either.”
Erik Naggum: comp.lang.lisp. May 1 1999.


What exactly did I do with my demo account on MPEx?  I am afraid the answer is rather boring.  Given that a single bitcoin is rather short of what one might need as collateral funds in futures trading, I focused solely on stocks.  That is to say, I picked the two best-performing stocks on MPEx and bought a small quantity of each.  These were, unsurprisingly: MPOE (MPEx’s own stock) and DICE (Satoshi Dice, a kind of casino. [5])  In the end, I ended up with ~1.4 BTC. [6]  Popescu’s service works exactly as described.  ”Buy” and “Sell” requests are processed in a timely manner (albeit with some curious random delay intended to thwart “high frequency” traders. [7])  So what is there to complain about? At the moment, most of the complaints appear to come from envious idiots, whose semi-literate whining is of little consequence.  But there are a few problems of some concern to the intelligent reader.

MPEx, seen from a distance, is a pretty good machine for converting ten thousand dollars into twenty thousand. [8]  But, given the registration cost, it is profoundly useless as a machine for converting ten dollars into twenty.  And most of the idiot critics are angered precisely by its failure to be the latter machine.  Unlike the Reddit crowd, I have no ideological problem with the fee.  I understand that an MPEx account is only a sensible purchase for those who intend to invest the equivalent of tens of thousands of U.S. dollars in the Bitcoin economy, and are willing to trust Popescu with such sums.  As I do not presently fall into either category, I will not be shelling out for a permanent account on MPEx.

Contrary to popular opinion, machines which “convert a million dollars into two million” do in fact exist, but by their very nature they can be accessible only to a few (what some call the rentier class.)  Only a handful of people can live off dividends, doing whatever they please.  The rest of us must provide them with food, clothing, software, and so forth.  But MPEx is not such a machine.  It is merely a machine for converting ten thousand dollars into twenty.  Thus, it requires a modicum of intelligence (and a good bit of luck) to operate correctly.  Much of the anger directed at Popescu by the peanut gallery is arguably misdirected.  Its intended targets are almost certainly the owners of the machines of the former kind: oil wells, banks, etc. (Which also require intelligence to operate, but said intelligence is normally purchased by the dividend-drawer.) [9] MPEx is “guilty by association” because it too appears, at first glance, to be an apparatus which generates wealth by virtue of being well-placed (access to brokers) and well-advertised.  In reality, MPEx is more like a fleet of trucks or a sawmill.  It will in fact generate wealth, but it is an instrument which requires a good measure of talent to operate (talent which is difficult to simply rent without losing a large share of the rewards, because it is rare enough to name its own price.)

Yes, it was once the case that you had to be a financier to send an intact penny across the ocean.  But the fact that Bitcoin enables you to do so does not turn you into a financier.  Nobody cancelled “money makes money.” It would be rather like demanding that an asteroid should have the gravitational pull of Earth.  The Third Rock From The Sun can hold an atmosphere and your piece of cosmic flotsam can’t.  Such is life.  Quantity still has “a quality all its own.”  Ten million dollars buys you a money printer, but ten dollars do not.  Not even a proportionately-smaller one.  Everyone who hopes to see some kind of democratizing influence in Bitcoin is gravely misguided: by some indications, the Bitcoin ecosystem is at least as “top heavy” as the world of meatspace finance.

And then there are those who see the success of MPEx as clear evidence of fraud.  Once you get past the fools who hate success per se (especially success earned without literal sweat or obvious physical risk), what valid criticisms remain? Turns out, there’s plenty to think about.

MPEx presently derives two-thirds of its profit from registration fees.  And its own stock is among the best-performing.  Does this, by itself, make it a scam?  I do not think so.  There is nothing devious about operating a bubble, so long as the participants are made to understand exactly what they have become involved in.  In fact, in some countries, traditional pyramid schemes are legal, so long as they advertise themselves as such.  Do Popescu’s clients understand their place in life?  Given their level of investment, I should like to think so.  The Popescu bubble is not my problem, and it won’t become your problem unless you choose to make it so.

My problem with MPEx lies elsewhere, and serious students of Bitcoin would do well to give it some thought.  MPEx is an example of just the kind of thing I spoke of when I wrote that Bitcoin is a microscope being used as a hammer.  Bitcoin is an elegant jewel of mathematical engineering because, for the first time in the entire history of money, it makes it possible to conduct commerce without trusting anyone.  Or, more precisely, without trusting any particular person or small group of people.  It is even possible to construct a stock or futures exchange in this manner. Or a universal reputation-tracking system.  One must simply build on top of the mathematical foundation of Bitcoin, creating a fully-decentralized system secured by strong cryptography – rather than a conventional organization made up of fallible human beings.  The problems of interfacing such a system with the world of physical commerce and fiat currencies are genuinely hard – but not unsolvable.

Is Popescu interested in converting MPEx into a peer-to-peer system which does not require you to trust a Romanian businessman – and could not be shut down by a well-placed lawsuit or bullet?  Yes and no.  Let’s ask him:

“In its current incarnation MPEx is a centralised system. This is not happenstance, all markets are by their very nature centralised affairs and financial markets especially, as trust is the only required ingredient to their continued operation. Decentralisation will occur, if and only if the environment makes it impossible for MPEx to be operated as is, but it will probably not exactly take the form of a blockchain-based system for reasons already discussed.”

Mircea Popescu, Feb. 3, 2013: “So, What’s the Plan with MPOE/MPEX?”

21. What happens if your domain(s) or server(s) are confiscated ?

In case the domain is confiscated or otherwise lost MPEx will move to a different domain, in a different jurisdiction. Should the same happen again, MPEx would move to what will at the time be a solid alternative for a free Internet, be it the TOR network, namecoin or some equivalent DNS or any comparable solution. No government will ever be able to stop the Internet, in general. We’re prepared to show this in the particular.  Should the systems be confiscated or otherwise lost the service will failover to different systems, possibly on bulletproof hosting if need be. If sufficient pressure is put on this side MPEx will be recoded as a p2p system.

Mircea Popescu, MPEX FAQ.


I admire the man’s optimism, but to me it reads a bit like: in the event of MPEx being thrown off the roof of a skyscraper, we intend to invent the parachute on the way down. I understand Popescu’s reluctance to discuss details of MPEx’s contingency plans within earshot of the enemy, I really do.  But the tight lips and inexplicable bravado ought to raise some eyebrows.

I do not, at present, believe that Mircea Popescu is a dishonest man.  His creation operates more-or-less exactly as described, and he takes great pains to ensure that everyone who decides to trust him with money understands what he is getting into.  Yes, there are a great many off-putting aspects to MPEx. Its home, Romania: the land of countless spammers who have never seen the inside of a jail; the fact that its relationship with traditional meatspace commerce and law is quite murky (Is MPOE incorporated? Where? What are its liabilities? Has anyone won legal redress from it for any perceived wrong, in a traditional court?)  But none of these things are secrets.  Although certain features of Popescu’s behavior are rather worrisome.  I am not, of course, referring to his disdain for idiots. (I enthusiastically share in it.)  Instead I mean things like this:

“Legally MPEx will continue to promote the correct view of BTC, as a game currency not in any significant way different from any other game currency. This stance can not be changed through Internet chatter, mass delusion no matter how widespread or court rulings, whatever jurisdiction they may be issued in. Specific legislation alone may change things, and we will certainly lobby against such nonsensical legislation should it come under consideration anywhere. I would imagine we’d not be in any way alone.”
Mircea Popescu, Feb. 3, 2013: “So, What’s the Plan with MPOE/MPEX?”

So, either BTC is a “game currency” and MPEx is a toy (and children ought to be able to purchase time on it with their lunch money) or BTC is serious adult business, fit to displace the New York Stock Exchange when its hour comes.  Which is it?  I understand that the above is intended to keep the hordes of predatory lawyers and bureaucrats at bay.  Unfortunately, governments bent on confiscating wealth (and, more importantly, retaining control over the basic mechanisms of commerce) are seldom stopped by one man’s Talmudic arguments, no matter how clever.  When American bureaucrats finally decide that Bitcoin is a threat to their hegemony, cryptocurrencies might continue to exist.  But will MPEx?  At times, it seems to me that Popescu has declared war on traditional meatspace institutions: banks, stock exchanges, courts.  What are the rules of this war?  What other aspects of mainstream society is Popescu at war with?  This kind of thinking is not by itself damning, but these are questions which I would like to see some clear answers to before I give a man serious money.

Popescu insists that his contigency plan will allow MPEx to operate regardless of what any government might do.  It will, he insists, carry on as a massively distributed peer-to-peer system. What interest might Popescu have in a fully-decentralized Bitcoin stock exchange? Well, presumably he will own it, and reap the profits.  But I confess that I am rather unclear on the concept of how a genuinely peer-to-peer system could have an owner.  Ah, but it must have an owner.  Popescu and his friends have to eat, after all.  Well, in that case it is not peer-to-peer.  Anything with an identifiable meatspace owner can be destroyed by a bureaucrat in the blink of an eye.  If MPEx were owned and operated by the ruler of North Korea – or some other organization which might stand a chance against a modern army and a real blockade – I might be willing to believe that it could weather the wrath of the U.S. financial overlords.  Otherwise it looks like a bit of a long shot, to put it mildly.

Popescu posted some very insightful criticisms of the peer-to-peer Bitcoin stock exchange concept, but studiously ignored the most obvious one: a decentralized MPEx would have no room for an owner, any more than the Bitcoin network itself does.

In conclusion, I would like to reproduce one unusually-insightful comment from the peanut gallery.

“he should not be trusted. here’s why: a person with his attitude, believing that idiots should die, may not be a scammer today but could easily be one tomorrow. just like that. because a scammer is essentially exploiting “idiots” (by his own definition at least) and he can easily rationalize his actions (at least to himself) and even think he’s doing humanity a service. so by extension you would automatically be an idiot if you trusted him.”
(http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/17zq8j/because_most_people_are_idiots_in_spite_of_never/c8abuqh)


I disagree that Mircea Popescu’s attitude towards actual idiots shows him to be untrustworthy.  But, like many entrepreneurs, he fails to understand that trust involves an element of irrationality. Most people come to trust a merchant not merely through an understanding that honest dealing is to his continued advantage, nor solely through the threat of physical punishment dealt out by governments.  They build trust as an emotional connection.

Popescu patiently explains that bamboozling his clients would not be in his best financial interests. This is well and good, but it can be turned around, and one could reasonably ask whether he will betray, should it ever be in his best interest to do so.  Among technologists, a disdain for “human” emotional mishmash is almost a universal.  Yet it remains a character flaw.  By rejecting the seemingly-irrelevant world of human trust-building (beyond strict adherence to promises) one asks to be thought of as a mechanism. That is, to be reasoned about game-theoretically.  And reasonable people will sit around and try to predict exactly when and in what manner you, the master of reasoned thought, will betray them.  To his credit, Popescu appears to be making this tradeoff consciously.  The disdain of Internet chatterers neither picks his pockets nor breaks his bones.  But at some point, when the MPOE gravy train comes to a halt, MPEx might find it necessary to stop ignoring these aspects of public relations. [10]

At present, Mr. Popescu is genuinely and truly loaded, and does not need my (or anyone else’s) advice on how to do business. Right now there is a never-ending supply of people eager to purchase shovels in his gold mine without asking too many questions.  But should this gold rush end, the crowd of wealthy risk-takers who ask few questions might give way to a considerably smaller crowd of somewhat poorer ones, who do ask questions.  Should this come to pass, Popescu may need to rethink some of his choices (or retire to writing books. I’m quite in favor of that.)

If you have a hundred thousand dollars stashed between your sofa cushions, by all means invest it in stocks and futures on MPEx.  But make sure they aren’t the last hundred thousand in your sofa, as you may well lose them.  Contrary to Popescu’s claims, if American bureaucrats should decide to give MPEx the “full WikiLeaks treatment,” he will run into nontrivial problems – not necessarily limited to legal ones.  I, for one, will wait for the fully-decentralized systems. [11]

Once again, Mircea Popescu could very well be an exceptionally-honest man.  I, for one, have little reason to think otherwise.  He might even have the moral integrity given to few, and will one day stoically face the firing squad, taking his PGP private key passwords to the grave to protect his clients.  Such men do exist.  But I would like to point out the obvious yet important fact that MPEx relies heavily on the future honesty of a small handful of people.  We take this for granted in our meatspace dealings, as “the cost of doing business.”  Yet there is no reason for Bitcoin users to make permanent peace with this constraint.  Bitcoin makes trust-free systems thinkable, if not immediately practical. And they are a worthy goal, because the world has a way of turning honest men into, well, other kinds.  With money, or with firing squads.


Edit: Popescu’s reply.


[1] MPEx communicates almost exclusively through Mircea Popescu’s personal secretary.  A bit of an oddity for an operation consisting of a handful of people.

[2] ~630 USD, at the time of this writing.

[3] It is possible that Popescu, being a clever fellow, invests the bitcoins he holds in trust in some conservative way.


[4] Private communication.


[5] Satoshi Dice is a can of worms which almost deserves its own discussion.  It is, at its core, a simple “numbers game.”  That is to say, an industrial-strength harvester of chump money, precisely the kind of thing which Popescu expresses his disdain for at every opportunity. But listing its stock on MPEx does not bother him, because there are sufficiently many layers of isolation between him and the chumps.  The cost of running Satoshi Dice is approximately zero.  So, it is essentially a pyramid, where a group of people owns stock (yielding hefty dividends, while the fun lasts) and taking every effort to drum up its value by selling shares.  Whether you see this as an outrage or business-as-usual depends on your upbringing.

[6] I transferred this sum to a personal address to test MPEx’s withdrawal mechanism. But if Popescu would like the 1.4 BTC back, he (not his secretary or other minion) is welcome to leave a comment here to this effect, signed with his public key.  I will happily return his pocket change.

[7] My understanding is that MPEx reserves the right to operate profitable “trading bots” entirely for itself.

[8] If you buy its own stock, and while the latter continues to be in demand. Naturally.

[9] This is not a political blog, so I will not bother explaining what I consider to be obvious aspects of how modern industrial societies are put together.

[10] As I gather, the MPEx PR department currently consists of one person, paid to post pictures of pretty girls in Bitcoin forums.

[11] And for the fully-decentralized Bitcoin-to-fiat exchanges.  Why should I fax my passport to a stranger in Japan?

MicroWriter Redux.

I have decided to publish some of my “archaeological” work from last year on Cy Endfield’s MicroWriter.  The original objective was to produce a cycle-accurate emulator.  I do not currently have the free time to complete this project, so I will post my results here for anyone who might care to pick up the torch. Click on some of the images to see the full-resolution version.

MicroWriter Disassembled.

MicroWriter Disassembled.

MicroWriter Circuit Board (Top View)

MicroWriter Circuit Board (Top View)

MicroWriter Circuit Board (Bottom View)

MicroWriter Circuit Board (Bottom View)

MicroWriter Reverse-Engineered Schematic. (Click to view.)

MicroWriter Reverse-Engineered Schematic. (Click to view.)

MicroWriter Reverse-Engineered Schematic, Eagle-ized. (Click to view.)

MicroWriter Reverse-Engineered Schematic, Eagle-ized. Not 100% Complete! (Click to view.)

MicroWriter EPROM Close-Up.

MicroWriter EPROM Close-Up.

MicroWriter RomSucker Circuit. Easy to build, Applicable to Other Vintage Devices.

MicroWriter RomSucker Circuit. Easy to build, Applicable to Other Vintage Devices. (Click to view.) IC1 is an '8255A.'

MicroWriter RomSucker (Breadboard.)

MicroWriter RomSucker (Breadboard.)

Results of RomSucker:

And now for something completely different:

A very basic web-based emulator of Endfield’s chording system.  (Supports lower-case alphabet only.)

Practical Cryptoanalysis of Elliptic Curve DSA.

"Rectothermal Cryptoanalysis: a Textbook for Institutes of Higher Learning."

Posted in: Bitcoin, NonLoper, Photo, Predictions by Stanislav 3 Comments

On the fact that Bitcoin has a Kill Switch; and how to disconnect it.

“There are three classes of people: Those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.”
(Attributed to Leonardo da Vinci.)

It is widely understood that early adopters of Bitcoin, who showed up on the scene in the days when mining difficulty was low, are sitting pretty, and will continue sitting pretty without ever having to do much of anything ever again. And so, skeptics often describe the system as a Ponzi scheme. The Bitcoin FAQ addresses this accusation thus:

“In a Ponzi Scheme, the founders persuade investors that they’ll profit. Bitcoin does not make such a guarantee. There is no central entity, just individuals building an economy. A ponzi scheme is a zero sum game. Early adopters can only profit at the expense of late adopters. Bitcoin has possible win-win outcomes. Early adopters profit from the rise in value. Late adopters, and indeed, society as a whole, benefit from the usefulness of a stable, fast, inexpensive, and widely accepted p2p currency. The fact that early adopters benefit more doesn’t alone make anything a Ponzi scheme. All good investments in successful companies have this quality….

Early adopters have a large number of bitcoins now because they took a risk and invested resources in an unproven technology. By so doing, they have helped Bitcoin become what it is now and what it will be in the future (hopefully, a ubiquitous decentralized digital currency). It is only fair they will reap the benefits of their successful investment. In any case, any bitcoin generated will probably change hands dozens of time as a medium of exchange, so the profit made from the initial distribution will be insignificant compared to the total commerce enabled by Bitcoin. Since the pricing of Bitcoins has fallen greatly from its June 2011 peak, prices today are much more similar to those enjoyed by many early adopters. Those who are buying Bitcoins today likely believe that Bitcoin will grow significantly in the future. Setting aside the brief opportunity to have sold Bitcoins at the June 2011 peak enjoyed by few, the early-adopter window is arguably still open.”

Bitcoin FAQ. “Is Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme?” “Doesn’t Bitcoin unfairly benefit early adopters?”

I do not deny that the creators of Bitcoin deserve some reward for taking the trouble to create an elegant and, for the most part, mathematically-sound decentralized cryptocurrency. Yes, they “bought Manhattan for a quarter.” And some people find this off-putting. But such objections are rooted mainly in envy. Everyone wishes that they, rather than the founders, had pulled off the early land grab. Debates about how much the founders “deserve” to profit from their foresight are largely an exercise in pointless bickering. Count me out.

But the real problem with Ponzi schemes – and the reason why they are considered a legally-actionable type of fraud in every civilized country – is not the abstract unfairness of some clever fellow getting “something for nothing.” Rather, it is the fact that such schemes come with a built-in self-destruct mechanism, whereby at a certain point, those who sit on the apex of the pyramid decide to cash out, pocketing nearly all of the meatspace wealth previously invested into the system.

A Ponzi scheme is generally agreed to be a Bad Thing, and most Bitcoin enthusiasts do not like the idea of being involved in one. They vigorously deny the possibility that Bitcoin has a removable “floor,” which might one day “fall out” and permanently transfer ever penny’s worth of traditional money, precious metal, alpaca socks, cocaine – and everything else which has been exchanged for bitcoins – into a handful of pockets.

Unfortunately, the facts speak for themselves. One of the world’s greatest cryptographers published the following analysis:

“We use the fact that all the transactions ever carried out in the Bitcoin system are available on the internet (in an anonymous way). On May 13th 2012 we downloaded the full public record of this system, which consisted of about 180,000 HTML files. After parsing and processing these files, we built a graph of all the Bitcoin addresses and transactions up to that date. We then used the intrinsic properties of the scheme in order to identify many cases in which we can show that different addresses must belong to the same owner, and used this information to contract the transaction graph by merging such addresses, in order to get a more accurate picture of the full financial activity of all the owners. After obtaining this new graph, we analyzed many of its statistical properties. In this paper we describe the most interesting and informative distributions we found in a series of tables. In addition, we isolated all the large (≥ 50,000 Bitcoins) transactions which were ever recorded in the system, and analyzed how these amounts were accumulated and then spent. We discovered that almost all these large transactions were the descendants of a single large transaction involving 90,000 Bitcoins which took place on November 8th 2010, and that the subgraph of these transactions contains many strange looking chains and fork-merge structures, in which a large balance is either transferred within a few hours through hundreds of temporary intermediate accounts, or split into many small amounts which are sent to different accounts only in order to be recombined shortly afterwards into essentially the same amount in a new account.”

Dorit Ron and Adi ShamirQuantitative Analysis of the Full Bitcoin Transaction Graph. (Mirror)

By the nature of the system, the ownership history of every bitcoin in existence is public.  Ron and Shamir found that a sizeable bulk of the Bitcoin transaction history to date consisted of shell game switcheroos, designed to conceal certain inconvenient facts.  And it should surprise no one that, once the fog of deliberate obfuscation clears, we see the following distribution of ownership:

Most bitcoins are, in fact, in the hands of a very few people. Are you surprised? I’m not.

We also learn that, of the approximately 9 million bitcoins which currently exist, less than 2 million actually circulate – that is, change hands with any appreciable frequency:

“It is remarkable that 97% of all owners had fewer than 10 transactions each, while 75 owners use the network very often and are affiliated with at least 5,000 transactions.”

And it would appear that most of the non-circulating coins are in the hands of a very small number of people – who, one may reasonably suspect, were involved from with building and propagandising Bitcoin from its very beginning. So, who are the lords of Bitcoin?


Who, one might wonder, is “A” ? Satoshi Nakamoto? I doubt that we’ll ever know for sure. And I’d bet serious money that “R” and “S,” with their astronomical transaction frequencies, are botnets specializing in the theft of CPU/GPU cycles for mining (and unguarded Bitcoin wallets.) These are known to exist.

But the most damning fact revealed in the paper is not the extreme top-heaviness of the Bitcoin ownership pyramid, but rather the elaborate lengths to which the hoarders went in order to conceal their existence from “rank and file” users. Think of it! Hundreds of thousands of shill accounts, with vast rivers of wealth moving back and forth – for one purpose only: to deceive. None of it was done by accident.

And perhaps the most interesting thing to be learned here is not in the paper itself, but rather in the reaction of the Bitcoin user community. This, in short, is summed up by the reply of a suspect in a stereotypical “whodunit” story, who, when confronted with an accusation of murder, often says: “He ain’t dead, and if he is, I didn’t kill him, and if I had, the bastard had it coming.”

Hundreds of people are busy pointing out largely-imaginary flaws in Ron and Shamir’s paper. They conveniently ignore the fact that the data set is entirely public, and if they disagree with the stated conclusions, they are welcome to perform a similar analysis and try to produce different ones. But no one has done so, and I dare to predict that no one will. On the other hand, those who acknowledge the revealed facts are busy insisting that the hoarders could not possibly harm other users by dumping their coins on the market in the future. All right, maybe you can’t do arithmetic. Brain damage happens, and we should feel sympathy for you. But some of us can. And arithmetic doesn’t lie.

Some people are incensed by “hoarders” – not I. I don’t give a damn. At least Bitcoin hoarders never had to kill anyone to obtain their wealth, unlike those who control land and other natural resources. The problem here is a much more concrete one: Bitcoin turns out to be something other than the fully-decentralized, unkillable network which so many imagined it to be.

People who have invested serious time and wealth in Bitcoin ought to feel angry.  Not from any abstract sense of fair play, but from the simple fact that Ron and Shamir’s findings reveal a serious – and quite mathematically-certain – flaw in the sytem. The total number of bitcoins in actual circulation is much smaller than previously believed. If the early adopters were to cash out and place their hoards on the market, the exchange rates (as denominated in anything) would dive through the floor, never to recover. The hoarders, in effect, possess an off switch for Bitcoin.

Whether and under what circumstances they would press the switch, I cannot say. But the Bitcoin kill switch exists.

So, what, if anything, could be done about it? Unfortunately, the one solution which I can think of (other than the idiotic head-in-the-sand solution of not giving a damn, which the Bitcoin user community seems to favour) is a rather unlikely one, and would be quite distasteful – on a gut level – to most users. I am speaking, of course, of proscription.  If the Bitcoin community – or a reasonable subset thereof – agreed that the kill switch ought to be neutralized by any means possible, it would be a fairly straightforward matter to declare the hoarders persona non grata and collectively agree to use modified Bitcoin clients (let’s call them Bitcoin-P) which act as if the particular coins currently held by A, C-F, H-K, and M-S were not bitcoins at all. And that such pseudo-coins will never be accepted as genuine in trade for any good or service. In effect, they would be retroactively shitcoined for all time.

This act would not require cooperation from every single Bitcoin user, or the imposition of any kind of governing authority. If even a minority of users were to move to Bitcoin-P, operating separate exchanges and the like, said users would be forever immune to the effects of a future market glut resulting from hoarders cashing out. Users of conventional Bitcoin would feel the effects in full, suffering the loss of most if not all of their purchasing power.

But I am under no illusions that Bitcoin-P will ever happen, given the libertarian bent of most Bitcoin users. They will mutter of dekulakization and the like. Fine, lose your hard-earned wealth to a pyramid scheme operator at some unspecified future date. But if you like the idea of decentralized cryptocurrencies without built-in kill switches, think hard about Bitcoin-PAnyone who wants to can start using Bitcoin-P right now, without having to wait for others to be convinced of its merits. Just compile a list of the Satoshi gang’s bitcoins, and start pretending that they aren’t coins at all. It really is that simple.

Or better yet, consider the possibility of entirely novel mathematical schemes for “digital gold,” which have yet to be discovered. The field has a delightfully rich history, and perhaps great things await the honest and enthusiastic amateur cryptographers willing to take on the challenge.


Edit: Apparently people still think that I have some sort of religious problem with “hoarders” per se. I couldn’t care less whether you sit on your coins or spend them, or how many you presently have. The problem with the Satoshi gang’s hoard in particular is not simply the size of the latter. It is rather that Satoshi and his friends never had to put U.S. dollars, gold, cocaine, alpaca socks, etc. into the system in order to obtain their coins. They are collectively sitting on top of a massive cheque that the Bitcoin economy probably could not ever cash without bleeding to death. So if this handful of people were to decide that they’re done with Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will be done with itself.


And in the interest of full disclosure, I presently own a total of ~0.1 BTC. (If you’re willing to take my word for it.) I mined the damn stuff with a Xilinx “Virtex 5″ FPGA. It was a total waste of time, but writing the miner made for good Verilog / general logic layout skills practice.

Shitcoin: a Modest Proposal.

This post is of interest only to those who study Bitcoin. If you have never heard of Bitcoin, read my previous post on the subject.

Shitcoin is to be a distributed network for attaching “dirt” to particular bitcoins when certain conditions are met, in a manner which allows Bitcoin users to post bonds in order to establish trustworthiness.  Unlike a conventional bond, these bitcoins could be spent at a later time, without voiding said bond. [1]

A Bitcoin user intent on “putting his money where his mouth is” could post a bond in the following way.  He would start by creating a fresh Bitcoin address, publishing it, and transferring a certain number of bitcoins to it. He will prove that he is the particular user who did so by carrying out the transfer in a sequence of amounts announced in advance, or by allowing those whose trust he is trying to win – the bond-holders – to collectively specify the least-significant digits of the total amount. At any rate, he will have proven that he, at that time, was possession of a certain number of bitcoins, and proclaimed just which coins they were. The next step is to generate a certain number of shitcoins.  A shitcoin consists of two numbers: J, which is randomly-generated and reasonably-long, and K, which is a cryptographic hash of the concatenation of the bitcoin value and of J. A J is given to a bond-holder, who keeps it secret, while K is posted to the Shitcoin distributed hash table network, along with a time stamp (secured through hash chaining, in exactly the same way as ordinary Bitcoin transaction records.)

If, at some future time, a bond-holder is dissatisfied with his relationship with the bond-issuer, he can invoke his shitcoin(s) by publishing his J on the network. When this happens, the bitcoin is to be considered, for all time, “dirtier by one shitcoin.” Anyone with access to the Shitcoin network can verify that a given J is genuine simply by hashing it with the bitcoin value in question to produce the previously-published K.  At any later time, anyone can query the network and determine just how “dirty” any given bitcoin is, by counting the number of published valid J-K pairs.  Given this fact, users could choose to distrust any bond issuer who posts excessively-dirty bitcoins as a bond.

Just how dirty is “too dirty” would be a matter for individual would-be bond-holders to decide for themselves. A certain amount of dirt may be seen as acceptable, as there will always be bond-holders who are angry at the bond-issuer for a less-than-legitimate reason and choose to maliciously invoke their shitcoins. Naturally, any user who would like to verify the dirtiness of a particular bitcoin will use a Shitcoin network client which verifies that the coin in question was actually held by the bond-issuer at the time K was originally posted.

Additionally, a bond-issuer who wishes to emphasize his honesty may choose to issue multiple shitcoins to each bond-holder, giving him a proportionately-greater power to damage his reputation should he decide to do so.

One possible variant of Shitcoin would allow bond-issuers to attach expiration times to the K values they publish, proclaiming that any J value posted after that time should be ignored by those interested in the history of the particular bitcoin to which K is linked. Users of the Shitcoin network may choose to respect these declarations, or they may not, as it suits them.

The beauty of this scheme is that it requires no modification to the Bitcoin protocol itself, and could exist independently of and in parallel with the existing Bitcoin network.  Those who wish to post Shitcoin bonds could do so, and those who care about the dirtiness of a particular bitcoin could query the network, without any cooperation whatsoever from those Bitcoin users who think little of Shitcoin and choose to do neither.

One potential problem with the scheme is that innocent receivers of bonded bitcoins would suffer if the shitcoins attached to said bitcoins are invoked at a later time. The obvious countermeasure is for would-be receivers of a particular bitcoin to check (using automated means, of course) whether an unexpired Shitcoin bond is attached to these coins at the particular time they are about to receive them.

If Shitcoin were to become popular, any dealing with Bitcoin users known to be disreputable – and, by extension, dealing with those who choose to deal with them – would be heavily disincentivized.  And this would happen if even only a substantial minority of Bitcoin users chose to use Shitcoin.


Edit: One bit of criticism I got after posting this is that Shitcoin would make bitcoins less fungible. Well yes, that’s the whole point! It appears that there exist two kinds of people: ones who believe that theft and fraud should be thought of as parts of the great circle of life; and those who believe that a world in which money turns a tell-tale black when it is stolen or otherwise ill-gotten would be a better world to live in. I belong to the latter category. The beauty of Shitcoin is that both types of person could peacefully co-exist, and recognize one another for what they are at a glance whenever they chance to meet. If you want to freely receive and spend fully-fungible bitcoins, with no regard to where they’ve been, don’t use Shitcoin. If you care about doing business with clean people who only ever do business with other clean people, then use it. But if you’d rather that neither Shitcoin nor anything like it exist at all, you’ve publicly revealed yourself as a scumbag, and provided a useful warning to your would-be victims – even if Shitcoin is never built – to avoid you like the plague.


Edit: The people who commented that a scheme like Shitcoin is unnecessary because one could instead use PGP-style trust identities are missing an important point. In a decentralized system like Bitcoin, identities are cheap. In fact, the only thing which isn’t arbitrarily cheap are the coins themselves. Which is why a reputation system where negative reaction from users threatens anything other than your coins themselves is mostly worthless. If you could literally bet your coins on your reputation, in a completely decentralized and mechanical way, you would be able to establish trust quickly, without having to present any meatspace credentials or giving your customers any hint of your legal identity whatsoever. In effect, a Shitcoin bond issuer would say: “If I were to defraud you, you could set my coins on fire.” (Or at least, “singe” them.)  And as far as I can see, Shitcoin or something quite like it is the only possible way to give defrauded parties in Bitcoin transactions some genuine “teeth” without compromising the decentralized nature of Bitcoin or tying users’ reputations to their meatspace identities in any way.


[1] One could still spend a bitcoin which has one or more unexpired shitcoin bonds linked to it, but users of Shitcoin would be aware of the encumbrance when they consider receiving that particular coin in payment, and said coin would be considered less-valuable than an unencumbered one. Just how much less would naturally depend on the reputation of the bond issuer(s).

Bitcoin, or How to Hammer in Nails with a Microscope.

“The enlightened, disciplined mind is the holiest of holies, a wonder among wonders. Upon the Earth – a grain of sand in the Universe, man is on the order of one-billionth of the smallest magnitude… And yet this particle in your mind’s eye, that lives but for sixty or so trips of the Earth around the Sun, possesses a mind capable of embracing the whole Universe… To comprehend this, we must switch to the language of higher mathematics… And so, what would you say if someone were to take from your laboratory a precious microscope and start pounding in nails with it?.. Garin has been treating his genius in just such a manner…”

Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy, “The Hyperboloid of Engineer Garin.” (Translation and emphasis mine.)

“…like a refugee from very rural Pakistan who gets relocated to Oslo, Norway, and still thinks that he could make better food if he were only allowed to light a fire in his living room instead of using that complex electric stove. (This is a real news item.  Every now and then, landlords discover indoor fireplaces and occasionally the “newbies” to civilization burn down the building.)”
Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp, 15 October 2002.

By now, nearly everyone has heard of Bitcoin. I will not bother with a detailed account of its mathematical, historical, or political foundations.  All of this has been written about at considerable length elsewhere.  But a short introduction is in order – if only because the word “bitcoin” has already started to give off a faint smell of spam and cocaine, and it is possible that respectable people who have never heard of Bitcoin will soon be met with less often than respectable people who have heard of it, but pride themselves on staying ignorant of its workings.  And being a long-time connoisseur of beautiful technologies which were trampled into the mud by stampeding herds of idiots, I could not resist the urge to say a few words on this subject.

The idea of a cryptocurrency has been around for a while.  All you need to create a cryptocurrency is for someone to declare that integers with certain properties are valuable, and put together a system which keeps track of who, at any given time, “owns” every known such integer; plus a means for the orderly transfer of said integers between owners. Bitcoin, like some past attempts at decentralized electronic “cash,” satisfied these conditions through Byzantine fault tolerance – in essence, a networked consensus algorithm where all activity is public (albeit pseudonymous and authenticated through public-key cryptography.)

Now, the above would, in principle, be enough for a working electronic cash system.  There is still one obstacle: if someone were to proclaim that he is sitting on top of a stash of “valuable integers” and suggest that others should offer him goods or traditional money in exchange for some, everyone would laugh.  Firstly, because the natural question is, “why should we pay you for valuable Joe Smith Primes, when we could pay him for precious John Doe Primes? Or better yet, keep our dollars and buy some ice cream?”  And secondly, because everyone, even those foolish enough to purchase Joe Smith Primes for a penny each would naturally ask, “why should we purchase these particular Joe Smith Primes, if there is infinitely more where they came from?” [1]  Bitcoin satisfies these objections through the use of a Proof-of-Work System, where valuable integers can be searched for only by carrying out a computationally-expensive task, in conjunction with hash chaining, where the exact nature of the task at any given time depends on every past solution found, and on a faithful record of past transactions (cleverly dovetailing with the Byzantine consensus apparatus mentioned previously.) The latter process is referred to as “mining.”  Thus, no one person starts with a vast supply of Bitcoins. And the properties of the “valuable integers” in question are well-understood, and from them it follows that there can never exist more than 21 million Bitcoins in total (each one, fortunately, can be subdivided, much like certain gold coins once were.)  And that “mining” will become exponentially more difficult as this limit is approached. Mathematically-inclined readers should refer to the original paper on the subject.  From this point on, we will ignore the mathematical details, save for assuming that the algorithm works “as described on the box” – something a great number of first-rate mathematical minds have verified to their satisfaction. Which does not, of course, rule out the possibility of a  yet-undiscovered cryptographic flaw – whether of the accidental or the intentional kind.

Bitcoin is quite different from all traditional currencies, as it is decentralized and non-inflationary, as summarized above.  The closest resemblance is perhaps to monetary gold – a rare metal, one easily tested for purity, and the supply of which increases very slowly. Of course, gold cannot be teleported, or concealed on a thumb drive, while Bitcoin can.  Thus the latter has become a popular subject among self-styled revolutionaries and protesters of all stripes, as well as the frugal, the fraudulent, and the merely avaricious.

Of course, any scheme that promises to become a more convenient means for the reliable storage of wealth than keeping bricks of precious metals around is also of some interest to ordinary people, especially in its early stages, when there may be some intrinsic reward for getting in “on the ground floor”:

“One metaphor for monetization is that of a storage vessel, like a battery for electricity or a tank for compressed gas. When people buy into the currency, they are charging the battery and compressing the tank. When they sell out, they are discharging the battery. When new currency is created (perhaps by alchemists) without a buy-in, the tank has sprung a leak…  If Bitcoin becomes the new global monetary system, one bitcoin purchased today (for 90 cents, last time I checked) will make you a very wealthy individual. You are essentially buying Manhattan for a quarter. There are only 21 million bitcoins (including those not yet minted). (In my design, this was a far more elegant 2^64, with quantities in exponential notation. Just sayin’.) Mapped to $100 trillion of global money, to pull a random number out of the air, you become a millionaire. Wow!”

Mr. Moldbug is, of course, quick to point out that the project is surely doomed, as no modern government could possibly tolerate the existence of anonymous electronic currency:

“Here is the problem with Bitcoin: the tank, I think, will pop. This is not due to any technical fault in Bitcoin’s algorithms or economics. It is due to a political fault in our society, which is that we’re governed by dumb people.  Because we’re governed by dumb people, here is what I think will happen with Bitcoin. Stage 1: Bitcoin does not exist. Stage 2: Bitcoin exists, but is worthless. Stage 3: Bitcoin exists, and is used by strange and desperate weirdos and geeks. Stage 4: Bitcoin is used by Slashdot readers, perhaps slightly less desperate. (You are here.) Stage 5: Bitcoin is used by criminals. Stage 6: All Bitcoin exchanges are shut down by USG. Stage 7: Bitcoin exists, but is worthless. Stage 8: Bitcoin does not exist.”

“At least on the surface, Bitcoin exchanges violate the critical know-your-customer rule which USG enforces on all money-transfer businesses. As a money-transfer business, you are essentially an agent of the government – a spy. To a regulator, Bitcoin seems like a way to transfer arbitrary quantities of money anonymously. This is a nonstarter, and the regulator knows exactly whose necks he has to squeeze – the spies who are not doing their jobs.  He cannot shut down Bitcoin itself. He can trivially shut down Bitcoin-dollar exchanges, or even Bitcoin-gold exchanges. Probably seizing all their dollars, etc. He probably can’t seize their bitcoins, but it doesn’t really matter.  To save in a currency is to place your trust in that currency. If you put energy into this great collective battery, you have to be able to get it back out. If that trust can be convincingly damaged, the currency has no chance. If people lose money in bitcoins, the currency can never recover. No one will ever again exchange it for dollars, or even alpaca socks. It will be dead. Its chances, now and forever, will be zero – not even epsilon.  If Bitcoin was centralized – sacrificing all real coolness – it could deal with this problem, perhaps, by applying KYC to all dollar transactions. But Bitcoin is not centralized, so there is no way the development team can prevent exchanges from operating. These exchanges are obvious targets for numerous predatory authorities. When they are destroyed, the currency dies.”
Mencius Moldbug, “On monetary restandardization.”

All modern governments stay in power by skimming from every “storage tank” (taxation), as well as by monitoring and keeping tight control of trade (in strategic commodities, arms, and just about everything else.)  So the above is more-or-less a no-brainer.

As economies around the world continue to tank, governments everywhere are certain to grow more unabashedly tyrannical and desperate to stay in control of trade and the storage of wealth.  Dmitri Orlov describes the fate of one foolish (physical) coin peddler who dared to market his wares as an “alternative” currency in competition with the U.S. Dollar:

“…precious metals have been and continue to be a spectacular investment, and a good way to avoid being robbed blind by the out-of-control printing presses at the US Treasury. But eventually it goes off into ontological self-delusion—that gold and silver are “real” money, as opposed to paper fiat currency, which is “fake” money. Ladies and gentlemen, it doesn’t matter whether or not it’s shiny; it’s all as real or as fake as you are. Some people go straight over the edge and decide to take the law into their own hands and, waving about a dog-eared copy of the US Constitution, set off to coin their own “coin of the realm,” not realizing that the realm isn’t theirs. If the realm is financially stable, it will simply change the rules to make such a gambit unprofitable. If the realm is financially distressed and teetering on the verge of collapse, it will panic, shout “Terrorism!” at the slightest provocation, and the result is long-term political imprisonment for the ontologically deluded:

March 21, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A North Carolina man was convicted for creating and distributing a counterfeit currency that was very similar to the real dollar, a U.S. Attorney said.

Bernard von NotHaus, 67, minted Liberty Dollar coins in the value of $7 million dollars. The conviction concludes an investigation that was started in 2005.

“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” Anne Tompkins, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, said in a statement on Friday.

“While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country,” she said.

This Reuters story has since been taken down, after being ignored by media in the US (but not in Russia). Von NotHaus is looking at 20 years in jail. This is a lot, you might think, for stamping some politically edgy shiny trinkets, but then Stalin gave out similarly long sentences to millions of people for doing absolutely nothing, so let us count our blessings. Let’s get one thing straight, though: in the United States, by law, anyone who, “except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design . . .” faces a fine or imprisonment. It is the same in every other country: the term “coin of the realm” implies that it is the realm that controls creation of all coinage and its circulation. You can wave your US Constitution around, or you can swat flies with it, or you can use it as kindling: the result will be exactly the same. “
Dmitri Orlov, “Financial Totalitarianism.”

Nearly every serious student of the subject seems to believe that Bitcoin will be ruthlessly suppressed in the near future.  The only disputed details appear to be: what form the ban will take, and how it will be enforced.

Now, as Mr. Moldbug pointed out, if our rulers were truly clever, they might allow Bitcoin to live on indefinitely as a kind of honeypot. And if we are ruled by dull and desperate thugs, as Mr. Orlov believes, Bitcoin will be banned and woe be unto anyone who is found exchanging money or goods for a cleverly-chosen integer, or vice-versa.  There is certainly plenty of precedent for tyrannical bans on exchanging illegal bits – and certainly for arbitrary restrictions on the voluntary exchange of currency and goods.  It is entirely conceivable that incorrigible Bitcoiners will soon find themselves in front of firing squads, or at the very least, thrown into pits where they are to be tortured to death or driven mad by violent criminals.  No one save a few digital activist weirdos will notice or care.

But what if our rulers are clever, but not foolish enough to risk allowing anonymous, decentralized electronic cash to live on and grow in economic importance?  There is some evidence for just this scenario.  Said evidence also sheds light on the question of why the Bitcoin system was allowed to be popularized and grow to its current scale.  A clever tyrant would not remain content with merely filtering packets, or even shooting a few Bitcoin users in the public square to make an example. Instead, he would discredit the system in the eyes of its users – steering rebels, contrabandists, and digital misfits of every other kind back to old-fashioned, state-controlled money.

The real laugh is that there is no solid reason to believe that the world’s national banks have seen it fit to sweat so much as one drop to vanquish Bitcoin through discreditation.  Bitcoin users themselves have been doing a thorough job of this.  Consider the case of GLBSE, (an abruptly-defunct) Bitcoin-based stock exchange:

“GLBSE user funds are more or less safe, but I have bad news from the GLBSE shareholder meeting.

Nefario has, without a shareholder motion and in violation of the bylaws and GLBSE ToS, decided to close down GLBSE. Users will be able to collect deposits only after submitting identity info. A similar system to the one that Goat was forced to use will be provided so that assets can be traded elsewhere.

He is also illegally using user deposits to pay for his lawyer. If he continues, the GLBSE cash reserves (which I manage) will not be enough to cover costs and GLBSE will be in debt to users.

I’m very sorry about this, but those shareholders who are sane are helpless against Nefario and the insane shareholders who for some mind-boggling reason think that closing down GLBSE in this way will help both themselves and GLBSE users.

Since Nefario refuses to give complete details about his legal concerns and he has been acting strangely, I feel that it is somewhat possible that Nefario is working under some sort of plea bargain and is gathering IDs for future prosecution.

Nefario has defrauded me and others in several different ways and deserves a scammer tag.
- The BitcoinGlobal bylaws state that BitcoinGlobal’s purpose is to operate GLBSE. By shutting down GLBSE without amending the bylaws, Nefario has violated the bylaws.
- He has stated that he would ignore any motion to remove him as CEO.
- He is knowingly making BitcoinGlobal shares worthless, violating his fiduciary duty.
- He is refusing to release my GLBSE balance without my ID, which I did not agree to.

Since my GLBSE shares are now worthless, it should be obvious that I had no knowledge of this before now.

I urge everyone to never work with Nefario again. A Bitcoin stock exchange is a good idea, though. I hope that someone will create something better than GLBSE and MPEx.”

What is wrong with this picture? Can you, dear reader, ferret out from the above text the general trend which dooms Bitcoin, firing squads or no firing squads?  And this incident is certainly not the first of its kind. Or even the most destructive in purely financial terms.  A hint: the secret does not lie in the abundance of fraud artists which have flocked to Bitcoin: traditional currency has attracted fraudsters for as long as it has existed.  Nor is it the absence of the customary legal mechanisms for keeping honest people honest (police, courts, prisons.)

The answer instead is that, while the unknown inventor of Bitcoin was quite clever, most of its users are alarmingly dull.  This includes the “pioneers” who set up Bitcoin-based financial services of every kind.  Why? Because they are pounding in nails with a microscope. These fools have been handed a technology so clever, so disruptive and revolutionary, that the rulers of the world would have to fully unmask themselves as ruthless tyrants in order to suppress it, — or give up their thrones on their own free will — if it were used correctly, that is. But at present, the microscope again and again goes “clang!” against the table, the nails slowly and crookedly creep inward, and tiny shards of the world’s finest lenses fly in all directions.

Bitcoiners are pounding in nails with a microscope, because they have insisted on faithfully re-creating the financial institutions of the meatspace world – banks, stock markets, derivatives trading, and the like – without any of the familiar meatspace law enforcement mechanisms (police and courts) or the best-known traditional black-market alternative to these mechanisms: the threat of immediate physical violence as an incentive to promise-keeping.

Satoshi Nakamoto, the supposed inventor of Bitcoin, could be a Bourbaki or a man in a grey suit drawing an NSA salary.  But whoever he was, he handed this lot of morons a true jewel of “alien technology.” With which they proceeded to knock one another on the head with, exactly as they did with their stone-age cudgels the day before.  Bitcoin allows the user to exchange value without physical proximity, without the use of a central arbitrating authority, anonymously, and without having to trust anyone (save for the “Byzantine-condition” assurance that a plurality of users are running the actual Bitcoin algorithm, and not a subverted version.)  And yet the fools insist on building shoddy copies of meatspace institutions where the cryptographic perfection of this jewel is all for naught, and we’re back to having to blindly trust the user on the other side of the Internet connection when he insists that he will invest our virtual coins in real-world commodities (or the paper imitations thereof), and return some of the proceeds to us in the future.  And with none of the admittedly-limited safeguards of meatspace in the mix.  Yes, the meatspace universe contains Bernie Madoff, Jon Corzine and their many merry friends.  But in the present-day world of Bitcoin, any digital bum who can set up a Linux box and string together some slick words imagines himself a Corzine.  And, what is far sadder, fools invariably show up, ready to part with their Bitcoins on their own free will.  They give them up in exchange for promises, backed by nothing at all. And then have the gall to complain.

For those who like the idea of Bitcoin but are disturbed by the fraud artists who ply their trade with impunity, there are several choices to consider:

1) Stick with means of value storage and exchange backed by traditional, more-or-less reasonable and predictable legal systems, where the keeping of one’s word is encouraged using the threat of draconian punishment.  However, legal systems which meet the “reasonable” and “predictable” conditions specified here are growing rather thin on the ground. So quite a few people are sure to remain interested in the alternatives below:

2) Build electronic systems based on Bitcoin (or other decentralized electronic cash) which incorporate “web of trust” mathematics.  Perhaps this could even be done in some especially-elegant manner, where a Bitcoin in the possession of a widely-trusted individual is actually worth more “units of value” than one owned by a newly-created or disgraced account holder.  Study the theory of Secure Multi-Party Computation. Perhaps a low-tech inspiration for this kind of thing could be Hawala, a word-of-mouth banking system successfully used in the Islamic world since the 8th century – and which no modern country has been able to suppress, despite plentiful reasons to try.

3) Build electronic systems based on Bitcoin (or other decentralized electronic cash) which scarcely require you to trust anyone at all – just the same as Bitcoin itself.  The weak link here is the connection between the world of of electronic currency and real-world physical goods (and traditional money.)  Possible solutions here include mechanical delivery systems, perhaps controlled by multiple parties: dead drops, “geocaches” or even autonomous flying machines:

…Or: Bitcoin users could ignore the above, as I’m quite certain they will, and happily carry on signing up for “banks” and “stock exchanges” run by take-the-money-and-run artists. And steadily cement the reputation of the system as a sad joke. And on the positive side, a few die-hard activists might thus avoid facing the firing squad.  Using Bitcoin will become its own punishment, the way sniffing glue is.  But the down-side is that we won’t learn just what sort of world is possible given a functioning, decentralized cryptocurrency (perhaps an interesting, albeit somewhat macabre one.  Or possibly a somewhat boring one: something like a more consumer-friendly version of the world organized criminals presently live in – the world of Swiss numbered bank accounts and airborne luggage trunks full of diamonds.)

Edit: And here is another idea for a more trustworthy yet equally-decentralized Bitcoin.


[1] Primality is mentioned here solely for the sake of argument, since we are discussing classes of “special integers,” and primes (and certain varieties thereof) are one kind of “special” integer known even to schoolchildren.

Kalman Reti, the Last Symbolics Developer, Speaks of Lisp Machines.

Boston Lisp Meeting; June 28, 2012.

(more…)

To Lend is the Right of an Owner – That is, Not You.

Three years ago, I predicted that publishers will inevitably declare war on book-lending:

“Let’s pretend that a Nook book (or any similar DRM’d ebook) could be lent in exactly the same manner as a physical book: to whomever you like, whenever you like, for as long as you like – with the added benefit of instantaneous, guaranteed, and toll-free shipping in both directions. This suggests that one could set up a library – a perfectly legal thing to do with physical books. The library (let’s call it Cranny) would consist of an online service which automates the process of requesting a Nook book from anyone who owns a copy but isn’t reading it at the moment. It would also allow you to send a request to recover any of the books you have lent out, with the same speed and ease. Consider: how many of the physical books on your shelves are you currently reading? In the course of any given hour? day? week? month? There is no reason to suppose that this situation would be any different for electronic books. The result: once a Nook book has been purchased by some critical number of Cranny users, just about all future readers would be able to enjoy it for free, with the aid of a vast global library. In fact, the entire process of pretending that a limited number of copies of a work exist (with the resulting need to ration access) becomes a farce. The Cranny scenario is clearly unacceptable to B&N, and (unsurprisingly) they have crippled the Nook’s lending mechanism to prevent it – just as I predicted upon first hearing of the device…. …publishers understand that the freedoms traditionally enjoyed by book owners (such as the freedom to lend without restriction) will ultimately lead to the collapse of their business model.”

“The Nook, the Cranny, and the Lend Me Not.” (yours truly, October 21 2009.)

And now, my prediction has come true in the most literal sense imaginable:

“LendInk, an innovative site dedicated to helping readers share their legally purchased ebooks with one another, has chosen to shut down in the face of legal intimidation. Despite the fact that the site was apparently operating within the terms of service of the Amazon Kindle and the Barnes & Noble Nook, its hosting company was targeted with “hundreds of threats,” including cease-and-desist letters.  LendInk didn’t even host any ebooks itself: it simply connected users seeking a particular title with other users who had a legally-purchased ebook to lend. The site planned to eventually make money by providing links to purchase books through the Amazon affiliate program, but for the past year it had been operating without income.”

“Content Industry War on Sharing Claims Another Victim.” (Parker Higgins, Electronic Frontier Foundation.)

The scarcity industry eagerly pushes to destroy the physical property rights of ordinary people (the freedom to tinker, the right to borrow and lend goods, freedom from outright sabotage of your personal computer, and so forth) in order to preserve their intellectual property regime.

I can see one of two futures: one where everyone is issued copyright-protection goggles, not to be removed on pain of death; and one where the “content industry” as we know it has gone the way of the slave trade.  This is not a moral judgement, merely a statement of fact.

To those who would retain their right to personal property: your only true allies are the pirates. Not “lending libraries”, not “reasonably priced” and “humane” iTunes-like services.  The pirates are the only people presently defending the no-compromise, My-Computer-is-Mine point of view.

The ‘you don’t own your computer’ paradigm is not merely wrong. It is violently, disastrously wrong, and the consequences of this error are likely to be felt for generations to come, unless steps are taken to prevent it.