Nah, Satoshi was NSA. They finally found a way to track every transaction.
in exchange for denying the federal reserve the ability to print money on a whim, allowing them to tax the peasants as much as they feel like with nobody noticing.
would they really want to kill their goose and it's golden eggs?
It wouldnt be killing the goose, but instead asserting ultimate control over us through moving to a transactional system far better for surveillance than the current one. After 2008, the banking cartels have plenty of free money to invest in this technology and manipulate the market just like they are today (except with far more accurate data since total surveillance will be more effective).
And now everyone seems to be cool with 51% control of bitcoin so long as there is a "promise" not to do anything bad with that power....but people who speak up about potential schemes are usually laughed off as comspiracy theorists.
Didnt the Winklevosses open up a bitcoin hedgefund pretty early in the game? Hrm.....
yea, but for them to be able to assert total control through surveillance everybody has to be using bitcoin, which means fiat would lose value. if that's the case, then the government who funds the NSA is going to run out of money pretty quickly (even after initially investing a shit-ton in it-- that would just delay the inevitable) unless they tone back what they're spending, and when they start to run out of money they wont be able to just print more-- they'll actually have to use the taxes people pay them wisely. I just can't see my government being okay with that.
so if people are still using fiat, that means they can't actually completely conduct surveillance of everybody, kind of defeating the point.
the goose (printing press) either dies, or it doesnt. no middle ground if we're talking about the purpose of bitcoin being used for surveillance.
The linear "left-right" political spectrum has always been oversimplified. The reality is that extreme left and extreme right have a lot in common, plus there's no way to chart the statist vs. libertarian thing. And some people agree with one side on economic issues, but not social issues, etc., etc. There are some better charts that have an x- and y- axis and look more like a compass, plus others wrap around in a 3-D shape. But of course, the media still uses the old labels.
If in doubt, you can always take the World's Smallest Political Quiz; it's been featured in several publications as being fairly accurate, especially considering there are only ten questions:
http://theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php
hah. guess i'm a liberal according the smallest political quiz.
hmm... i guess with extreme conservatism the corporations would eat the government (like we see in the US). the opposite, extreme liberalism, would see the government eating the corporations (china anybody?)
in a more conservative government the focus would be on rights, but in a more liberal government the focus would be on liberties. but with both of the extreme ends, we see a degradation of liberties in favor of rights. (correct me if I'm wrong about china, but they don't seem to have more liberties than we do). so maybe both sides do have more in common, and the difference is just who our masters ultimately are.
there has to be some way we can prevent both extremes from happening.