Monday, August 1, 2016

Fighting California Gun Control Laws (and Winning) with Simple Technology

 This is a copy of a post originally made on July 4th at USACARRY, regarding how to circumvent recently enacted California gun control laws using simple technology, in ways that allow people to defend their constitutional rights.

From October 2013 through October 2014, 20 gun control bills in California that ended up getting signed into law by the Governor alone.  Seven more bills were just signed into law designed to ban many of the most commonly used weapons in the state and demand registration for ammunition purchasers and home builders.  While these laws will be challenged in the courts, there are technological methods of circumvention of these laws as well.


The State of California corporation-state just adopted various unconstitutional laws. But they can be fought with simple technology.

Some of them are as follows:

AB 1135 - "requiring," in part, that any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined, and including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, register the firearm with the Department of Justice before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of specified regulations.

You'll note this is a retroactive law and that the states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution. So even before taking the 2nd Amendment into account, this law is facially unconstitutional.

That aside, there is some neat (and simple) technology coming out which will enable you to defeat statist loser bureacrats who might claim that you are violating this law.

Witness, if you will, the introduction of the Bullet Button Reloaded. The website for further info on the Bullet Button Reloaded is here. Putting this bullet button (reloaded) on will help AR users avoid becoming subject to registration "requirements" of AB 1135.

(You could also try the Armaglock. It is available right now today. Both devices are examples of simple tech being used to get around stupid laws.)

It has also been suggested that there is a method that does not rely upon buying the Armaglock or Bullet Button Reloaded. This technique would involve drilling a hole into the rear takedown pin for the AR and putting something through the hole you can pull, or replacing it with a rear takedown pin that has something you can grasp on it. From there, you can use only drop-in magazines, which when the top is closed result in the weapon having a fixed magazine (with this technique, in order to reload, you must release the rear takedown, open it from the top, and remove the drop-in mag and replace it with another, then close it up). In this case, with this technique, you will be able to use the pistol grip, flash hider, etc. Drop-in mags for ARs are available by contacting Franklin Armory, for example, which markets them as DFM Magazines (see video on their page which explains the process), and there are various other sources you may be able to obtain them from as well.

Then there's SB 880. This bill defines an "assault weapon" in part as: "A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (...)"

Well, that would be what most AR platform builds look like.

This bill also would "require" "that any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined, and including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, register the firearm with the Department of Justice before January 1, 2018"

Another unconstitutional retro law.

To deal with this issue, enter the Monsterman Grip - you could probably make one yourself, but this one costs very little to order. It keeps you from having "a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon" and thus you aren't triggering the "assault weapon" definition. (And therefore, you don't have to end up registering it as an assault weapon and have it subject to seizure.)

If you're reading this and thinking, "But why should I be concerned about a registration "requirement?" Why should I get serious about avoiding such registration?"

Well then, you need to read this article posted in American Thinker, titled Gun Control, Jews, and the Third Reich. Do yourself a favor, read it now.
Articles: Gun Control, the Jews, and the Third Reich

You may also wish to remember that a federal law, FOPA, prohibits the "United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof," from establishing "any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition." Under FOPA and the US Constitution, California is prohibited by federal law and the 2nd Amendment from developing any kind of registry of non-NFA firearms. (The California government will still try to continue to develop registration schemes with the ultimate objective of bans and seizure of property, but you're not obligated to participate in any registration scheme.)


By the way, it is still legal to build a receiver in your own home in CA without registering or serializing it, and even Governor Brown has consistently vetoed the bills that the Legislature has put up to try to create registration requirements for what the Legislature calls "ghost guns." Brown vetoed SB 808 (2013-2014), the original "ghost gun" bill, and he just vetoed Gipson's AB 1673 (2015-2016), another "ghost gun" bill.

AB 857, an unconstitutional "ghost gun" bill which contains a form of prior restraint, has been signed into law on July 22, 2016. However, this bill does not go into effect until July 1, 2018, and there remains time to mount a lawsuit to challenge this law. If you are interested in helping to challenge this and other bills, donate here or alternately, here.

AB 857 attempts to apply its provisions to (as quoted from the law) "“firearm(s),” includ(ing) the frame or receiver of the weapon." Under the GCA (The Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618), a "firearm frame or receiver" is defined as "That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel." AB 857 demands that "Commencing July 1, 2018, prior to manufacturing or assembling a firearm, a person manufacturing or assembling the firearm shall (...) Apply to the Department of Justice for a unique serial number or other mark of identification (...)" and "Within 10 days of manufacturing or assembling a firearm in accordance with paragraph (1), the unique serial number or other mark of identification provided by the department shall be engraved or permanently affixed to the firearm in a manner that meets or exceeds the requirements imposed on licensed importers and licensed manufacturers of firearms."

These "requirements" from AB 857 have no legal effect because (1) they are unconstitutional, (2) they will be challenged in court, (3) even if they were not able to be successfully challenged, they would not take effect until July 2018, (4) they can be circumvented simply by not finishing your receiver (leaving portions of it unfinished, so that it can not be deemed to be considered a finished receiver, and thus not be considered as a firearm within the meaning of AB 857). It is possible that this could be done in such a way that you would still have functionality from your receiver, but this would require extra testing on your part of your build. Thus you don't have to apply to the State prior to or after doing the work to make your receiver.  It is also arguable that the subtractive machining process used in making your frame or receiver with a drill press in your own home, for example, is does not legally qualify as "assembling," which means under AB 857, to "fabricate or construct."  Using your own tools in your own home, you are not "manufacturing," and you are also not "assembling."  You are merely engaged in the process of "making" a receiver using subtractive machining (use of a router, drill press, or drill).

Some home-build options can be found below (These products can be sent straight to your door, no FFL needed due to that these items are not firearms. Basically you just need the "80 percenter," a jig kit, appropriate tools such as certain drill bits and drill press, and some space to complete your project.) Although these items show below are not firearms, when you finish the lower receiver in your own home it is the firearm. (Under United States law, the receiver is the actual firearm itself (for the AR platform, this is the lower receiver) and if you bought a finished lower receiver through an FFL, it would have certain numbers and marks required by the BATFE and would ultimately be subjected to registration restrictions of the state as well.) You may wish to engrave your own serial number on the lower receiver in case it is stolen and would later need to be reported (and it's a very good idea to do so), but engraving your own serial number does not mean that you need to register the serial number or any other parts of the weapon with the state. Please also note that there can be no claim that people who finish their own lower receiver from an eighty percent lower receiver would possess a "rifle" that would be subject to "registration requirement" as defined by the courts (which has never been upheld at the US Supreme Court level). That is because various build configurations exist that for firearms that are classified as neither Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, or AOW under either State and/or Federal law -- for examples, see franklinarmory[dot]com at the "Other" firearms section (archived) or at the current Franklin Armory "Other" page here. (This implies that when someone is finishing their lower receiver at home, that when they put the weapon together, that when it is finished, it won't necessarily be a pistol, rifle, shotgun, or AOW if they follow certain instructions from a manufacturer, and if they seek a letter or guidance from the ATF as well, unless such a letter or guidance is already provided.)

1) 80% Arms - AR15 80% Lower Receiver | Billet 80 Percent Lower | Lower Jig (AR "80 percenters")

2) JTACTICAL - Home (AR "80 percenters")

3) Matrix Precision, High Quality Parts (1911 / Sig P229 builds)

4) (Pistol frame and AR-type "80 percenters")

5) (AK-47 style flats, plus has a CA compliant magazine product section)

6) (AR "80 percenters,", .308 "80 percenters," 1911 "80 percenters")

(Each of the above has instructions specific to the product, so follow manufacturer's guidance and videos provided.)

7) And if you are really hard core you can do it from a 'raw forging' for AR, which you can find here - and, instructions with pictures found here on how to complete an AR from a raw forging.

NOTES: You do NOT Need a license of any kind to do the builds in your home.

"(P)er provisions of the GCA, an unlicensed individual may make a "firearm" as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution. Individuals (doing this) are not required to submit a sample to ATF for approval. (...) Also, based on the GCA (...) marks of identification are not required on firearms that are produced by individuals for personal use. Nevertheless, ATF recommends (it) (...) (to) aid law enforcement authorities in identifying the firearm should it become lost or stolen." -- US Department of Justice, BATFE guidance from Aug. 30, 2010

However, you are NOT allowed to transfer these things you build to anyone, unless you have special licenses, due to the following:

a) If someone were to attempt to sell a lower that they had made later, it would need to have a serial number and bear the markings required of the BATFE. But this would not allow them to do so, because they would run afoul of the State Department.

b) The State Department requires (in tiers, somewhere around) $2,250/year for the right to manufacture (by "manufacture" it is meant not only make but also to be able to transfer and / or sell). There's a fairly recent and authoritative blog post on the subject here, and an updated Department of State guidance here which you really need to read if you are even thinking about getting into the business of manufacturing (making something AND transferring it to others, selling it, etc). And in order to get that, you have to have a Type 07 FFL (Federal Firearms License). Which adds another $150 to the cost...

c) Anyone who violates the (ALREADY EXISTING) above laws that I've mentioned is in all likelihood going to go to jail for a Very Long Time.

d) Ordinary people who make their own weapons in their own home are able to do so in their own home, without a State Department license to manufacture, and they don't require a Type 07 FFL or any license of any kind. Remember, when you do your builds in your own home, for your own purpose, with your own tools, you are "making," but not "manufacturing." The term “make” is defined in the NFA to include manufacturing, putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm (the definition can be found at (26 U.S.C. 5845(i))). Within this context, when you are finishing an eighty percenter in your home, you are "putting together" or "otherwise producing" a firearm, but you're not "manufacturing" one (this distinction is important). So those of us who have made weapons in our own home (who do not have any special licenses) well understand that we cannot transfer it to someone else. For example, receivers I've made for myself in my own home starting from an 80 percenter, are for my use only and will NEVER be transferred and sold to anyone else. Why? I'm not a Type 07 FFL and I don't have a license to manufacture. I don't have any desire to get in trouble with State Dept.

(But I can still give California the middle finger and keep right on making stuff, and so can you.)

(p.s., edit) If you're trying to figure out a way to get ammo made while avoiding the background check, fees, and in-person / at-FFL ammo buy requirements of SB 1235 (the ammo registration and ban bill that takes effect July 1, 2019, unless the so-called Safety for All initiative statute passes on November 8, 2016, in which case the restrictions of SB 1235 would take effect in early November), then read this post which deals with that issue.

HAPPY 4th!

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

My Open Letter to Bitcoin businesses: Why I'm closing my accounts

(The following letter was sent today by me to a number of bitcoin businesses. I posted my Bitcoin Foundation forum post to Reddit to check on the reaction, and it seems to have gone straight to the top.  I'll be increasing my advocacy for anonymity as well as learning much more about code than I presently do, so that I can do better in the future at helping build the solutions I'm advocating for.  As an aside, if you've read my blog before, you'll note that I used to have a Coinbase button which you could click on to donate bitcoin to me ~ that's been removed.  Additionally, I've removed the script in this blog that prompted people to donate with BitPay.  This is simply a part of my dis-intermediation process, as my accounts with Coinbase and BitPay (and other similar web-based services) will soon be closed.)

Dear innovators in the bitcoinisphere,
I hope you'll take a moment to read my recent post at the Bitcoin Foundation forum, titled "Open Letter to Bitcoin Businesses:  Why I'm closing my accounts."

You can also see some of the comments from some leaders in the Bitcoin business field regarding my letter here on reddit.
Some of you may observe that I'm sending you this message from a gmail account.  I hope that the same principles that I'm advocating for in the bitcoin business community, will also be adopted by providers of e-mail and other primarily web-based services. 
So, I've copied Google and PayPal (and some others) on this email as well.

My exit strategy post-account closure will primarily involve use of fully decentralized exchanges or brokerages such as OpenBazaar and BitXBay, wallets where the software and the keys reside on the users' computers such as Electrum or Armory, use of alternative currency systems that preserve or enhance anonymity such as BCN and Zerocash, and as well, my ongoing advocacy favoring anonymity as an option that I hope more companies will come to adopt.

"I believe there is another world waiting for us... a better world."
"And I'll be waiting for you there."

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Bitcoin Privacy Developments, Power Ecology, and Helping the Homeless

Today's blog will briefly cover some recent privacy developments related to bitcoin, as well as developments in what I'll refer to here as "power ecology," and a description of some bitcoin projects to help the homeless.

Bitcoin Privacy Developments

There are several bitcoin privacy developments you should be aware of that are maturing significantly.

1) Peter Todd mentioned on Jan. 5, 2014 to the bitcoin development mailing list that "CoinJoin, CoinSwap and similar technologies improve your privacy by making sure information about what coins you own doesn't make it into the blockchain, but syncing your wallet is a privacy risk in itself and can easily leak that same info."  He additionally stated in part, "It is often advantageous if blockchain queries can be efficiently spread across multiple servers to avoid allowing the attacker to correllate the information into a whole. (...) With bloom filters doing this (it) is extremely costly as the full blockchain data needs to be read from disk to apply the filter; with prefix filters if the nodes have appropriate indexes there is little overhead to splitting the queries and no performance loss. (...) If addresses associated with change txouts are truly one-time-use, we can reduce or eliminate queries associated with them."

2) On Jan. 6, 2014, Peter Todd released an e-mail titled "Stealth Addresses" to the bitcoin development mailing list.  In this e-mail, he stated in part: "A Stealth Address is a new type of Bitcoin address and related scriptPubKey/transaction generation scheme that allowers payees to publish a single, fixed, address that payors can send funds efficiently, privately, reliably and non-interactively. Payors do not learn what other payments have been made to the stealth address, and third-parties learn nothing at all. (both subject to an adjustable anonymity set) (...)
Credit goes to ByteCoin for the original idea. Gregory Maxwell, Adam Back, and others on #bitcoin-wizards contributed valuable input on the implementation. Finally thanks goes to Amir Taaki for input on the
general idea of stealth addresses and use-cases."

3) Also on Jan. 6, 2014, Amir Taaki released new versions of libbitcoin, obelisk, and sx.  These releases are significant not only because these tools were used to develop Dark Wallet (on github in development here), but because they can (independently or jointly) be used for any privacy initiative relating to decentralized protocols.  From his e-mail announcement to the unSYSTEM mailing list (in part):
"This marks the first major release of Obelisk and SX. The version number
of libbitcoin has been bumped to 2.0, and I recommend everyone to
upgrade. This release has important bug fixes and code quality
"These packages will be maintained for some time, with bug fixes
backported. I'll also help with upgrading code to newer versions as the
API changes (just send me a message)."

The sha256sum of tarballs for this project were described in the e-mail as follows.  (The link to the source code on github is shown in hyperlinks provided earlier in this post.)


Power Ecology, Helping the Homeless

4) 'Power ecology' in the context of bitcoin is simply my way of describing shorthand the desire of many people to see bitcoin energy consumption be addressed in an ecologically sound manner.  While there are arguments that ecological concerns about bitcoin power use are essentially myths, it should be pointed out that there is no reason why we should not seek renewable sources of energy for bitcoin mining and maintenance.  Additionally, open source hardware intended to support production of sufficient renewable energy for bitcoin generation is a technology that already exists, and people have also built systems themselves to support such endeavors.  Such systems (whether offered for sale or built as "DIY") are not very expensive, considering the potential for the value they can produce.

5) Bitcoin Across America is a newly-released joint initiative involving Sean's Outpost and KryptoKit.  This is an effort to raise awareness about homelessness in the USA.  I hope you will support Bitcoin Across America with your donation.

See you next Tuesday.

Recommended Reads:

BitMonet (which was covered in the first post of the EdgedSolo blog) and Coinbase partner to release an Android SDK enabling micropayments within the app.
features (as quoted from the Coinbase blog post on the subject):  
"The new Android SDK allows you to:
  1. Accept bitcoin payments from within Android apps - the customer never needs to leave the app to pay.
  2. Accept payments with zero transaction fees, and just a few taps for seamless checkout.
  3. Perform micro-transactions on mobile with zero fees.
  4. Initiate debit payments in bitcoin, and support other payment flows which weren’t possible previously using bitcoin."
The code for this endeavor is open source, and can be found on github, here.

Developer's Introduction to Bitcoin (very informative!) by Vitalik Buterin

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Implications of License Approaches for Giving Economy and New Social Good

Well, one thing is certain if you are analyzing licensing options when developing anything that is intended to foster a "giving economy" and a new social good:  Your head is going to hurt.

"It seems to me this is the culmination of three prior digital disruptions... One of which is commerce going digital, the second is peer-to-peer exchange going mainstream... The third is the digitization of social. (...) (This) has started to bring online some of the real-world assets, like reputation, like histories, like social capital, that will be the trust infrastructure for the sharing economy."
(...) "(R)egulation perhaps can be supplanted or supplemented by these digital institutions."
- Arun Sundararajan, professor and NEC Faculty Fellow at New York University's Stern School of Business, speaks about a "sharing economy" and "digital disruption" at Techonomy 2012. 

Based on the record of software development in particular, there is strong evidence that the license approach that you choose, apart from the merits of your proposal, can (in many situations) make or break your project in terms of its potential to be used widely.

For example, Microsoft's NetBSD for eMIPS (which refers to a "dynamically extensible processor" - a mechanism for building and developing a processor or providing machine instructions) has a license which is known as a 2-clause BSD license (see more information on BSD licenses here).  In 2011, the NetBSD project adopted Microsoft's eMIPS port. Such licenses are highly permissive, which enables use of code in almost any way so long as copyright notices are conveyed with it.

Bitcoin, which has the highest market capitalization of any decentralized protocol utilized as a cryptocurrency, is released under what is known as the MIT License. That license is considered to be compatible with the GNU General Public License described below, but what developers want to do with the software they are developing will influence what sort of licenses they choose (in terms of MIT versus GNU General Public License) as well as influencing the circumstances in which the license(s) will be applied.

The GNU General Public license scheme, and some others that are similar, are detailed here.  This license also relies upon the copyright concept, although it utilizes the "copyleft" concepts to help ensure free use of the software regardless of whoever uses it.  This approach is not as permissive as the BSD license, and was successfully used for many software projects, including Linux (GNU/Linux).  In 2008 alone, GNU/Linux was thought to have resulted in revenue that was approximately equivalent to nearly $36 billion USD.  The Linux kernel was used to build Android, which is now used for over 80% of the mobile phone market (by any measure, the market is currently dominated by Android).

Copyright-dependent licensing schemes are not the only options out there.  There are, for example, systems which exist that are intended to coexist with copyright law, while generally rejecting modern notions of intellectual property.  One such example is the Unlicense, which has been used for many projects.

These are just a few examples of licenses used in software development, but further complicating the issue is that multi-licensing or dual-license concepts can also be employed.

The licensing approach has significant implications for modern developers of the giving economy and any new social good.  The terms you use and the licensing approach you choose are significant considerations that must be given serious thought in any endeavor intended to promote a 'sharing' or 'giving' culture.

Recommended reads:

ABIS Protocol on github - a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy and a new social good.  (Initially presented using the GPLv3 license.)
Airbnb case (sharing economy related) to be decided by January 18, 2014.
BitMonet, which has just added support for TypePad.
North American Bitcoin Conference to be held at Miami Beach on Jan. 25-26, 2014.
South America: Crowdfunding with Bitcoin.
( to receive $2.4 million USD Series A Funding in March 2014)
Sharing Visionaries Unite:
Andreas Antonopoulos, Katie Chin, Chelsea RustrumStanislav Shalunov (of Open Garden), and others speak at Sharers' Talks on Dec. 17, 2013.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

What, Exactly, does Decentralization Change?

Decentralization in many parts of the world is increasing (see, for example, this recent study published in the Journal of Public Deliberation on the development and politics of subnational decentralization).
Some studies have examined decentralized versus centralized markets, and have shown, for example, that in certain conditions, a decentralized market is more efficient than a centralized marketplace.  Decentralized markets generally produce superior outcomes in the context of surplus when friction is reduced, or exists at a minimal level, and is small.  This raises the question of how "frictions" should be evaluated in the information economy, and suggests that "official attempts to manage economics" should be reduced wherever possible.  Organizations - including governments - that fail to either implement or adapt to decentralization will be absorbed by individuals, associations, and firms that demonstrate capacity to navigate an increasingly decentralized society.

Here I am not speaking of administrative decentralization, but rather a larger view, which includes political, fiscal, economic, and even personal and familial identity decentralization.   In this larger view, individuals and associations are empowered by their new-found realization that they can, merely through collective participation in the decentralization of financial systems (including individuals' and collective choices as to what we will fund in a giving economy), do away with most of what has traditionally been accomplished by government - and either continue it through funding of certain activities, or discontinue it by not funding others.  This also affects how people will in the near future develop the internet itself.  Broken trust in the common Certificate Authority (CA) system means more people will be turning to decentralized and open source solutions (such as TACK) to alter or replace the standard CA system, which until now has been assumed to be "just how things are done on the internet."

Wherever a potentially beneficial result occurs from government policy, such as reducing the potential for economic collapse via implementation of the Volcker rule, there should be maximum flexibility granted to innovators and participants in the new economy.  It should be understood that as part of this process, not only will some governments disappear and be replaced by  new organizations (or be done away with entirely in the transition to a new civil society), but as well, traditional financial institutions will eventually fade.  A good area to examine these developments is in the decline and death of banks as we understand them today.  The transition to a decentralized economy is accelerated by development of privacy enhancements (to the extent that those enhancements also spread in a free, open source, and decentralized fashion, which reduces the previously mentioned frictions).  These enhancements are now beginning to be implemented in not just one, but various decentralized currency protocols, which marks a historic point in what could be described as a revolution of purchasing power imparted to the individual.

"Bitcoin is really that revolution... I call it the seed of the resistance."  - Max Keiser

And that's all for this week, folks.  See you next Tuesday (that's a promise.)

Recommended Reading:

How to use bitcoin anonymously
Thoughts on alt-coins and diversification
FreeBSD moves away from Intel, Via
Cryptabyte - free cryptographic messaging service
KryptoKit -  one method for using bitcoins anywhere, even with places that don't yet accept them
Darkwallet - open source, decentralized wallet supporting bitcoin transaction anonymity, now 200% funded (over 100% of target level of USD donations, over 100% funded from bitcoin donations)
Sparecoins - open source, decentralized bitcoin wallet - in your browser.
The Largest Investment in a Bitcoin Product in known history:
Coinbase to use equivalent of $25 million USD to protect customers' bitcoins offline.
BitPhone - turns decentralized virtual protocol (namecoin) into a phone.  Yep, a phone.
"By using an autonomous, distributed communications network based on BitCoin principles, BitPhones require nothing but a shared network to send & receive messages, make voice and video calls, share photos, transfer files or run applications of all sorts."
BitGive Foundation (Give a Bit This Holiday Season)

Recommended Video Interview (added Thursday, Dec. 12, 2013):

"One of the problems that decentralization solves... is the difficulty of information moving around within centralized systems... Instead of... giving money to a central group of individuals... the best thing is to actually go to the source itself.... Instead of going to a centralized point.... you go to specific points and you've done away with a big part of the knowledge problem...."
"Sometimes peer-to-peer systems are the right approach.... or sometimes you really want both, because both lend themselves to some aspects of the problem."
-- Max Marty,
Co-founder and Chairman of the Board; former CEO,
Co-founder and CEO of Spotsell (as of Nov. 2013)

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Crypto Diversification & New Public Good

If you've been watching decentralized virtual currency developments at all over the past week or so, you've run into some interesting news.  Litecoin has shot up again, edging over $37 USD per LTC on the btc-e exchange as of the time I'm writing this post, and is approaching $39 (well over 241 CNY) on the OKC exchange. (Note: by the time this post was finished, litecoin was at over $40 USD on that exchange.)  In the process, jurisdictional arbitrage is providing users of various alt-coins with newly found wealth, even if they are not cashing out to their fiat currency of choice.  Five days ago, news broke in Forbes describing litecoin breaking the billion dollar mark for market capitalization, with namecoin breaking a 100 million dollar mark. Four days ago, the Guardian talked up not one, not two, but nine alt-coins, including quarkcoin -- which has now increased by over 500% in value. (It's also dropped quite a bit in value and has generated controversy over early mining efforts.  You can track what's happening with quarkcoin in real time at Cryptocoincharts.)  That's a coin that can be mined just with your CPU, and word on the street is that in addition to the areas where quarkcoin (and many other alt-coins) can be traded at present (Cryptsy, Coins-e, Bter, and Btc38), it is anticipated that quarkcoin (and other lesser known coin not yet in currency pairs on most exchanges) will be traded on btc-e as well, beginning at some point between December 15 - 20, 2013.
Bill Still (who will film the Dec. 19 Keiser report on Dec. 16, 2013) does a pretty good job of explaining quarkcoin, and covers it in an interview with Kolin, one of the quarkcoin developers.  (Kolin has a perspective on bitcoin (referring to it as "fantastically centralized") that I don't agree with, since bitcoin is a decentralized protocol. However, I've put the video here, so you can decide what you think. In my view, we will see development of many more coin types in the near future, and people who watch these developments closely, enter new markets early, and trade out at the right times, will be well-positioned to benefit.)

You would be right if you are thinking that you should engage in some 'crypto diversification.'  Beyond bitcoin, the march of decentralization has led to a proliferation of protocols, and huge surges of interest in the same.  But what about that new public good and the corresponding protocol development I alluded to in the prior post?  And, what are some ways to easily mine - to produce for yourself - namecoin, quarkcoin, and the like?

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Living in Interesting Times: Decentralization becomes the rage, something new is released upon the world

At the risk of sounding cliché, I'll say it:  We are living in interesting times.

Decentralization has become the rage.  
The Pope (paradoxically, or not?) has championed decentralization.
People are sending bitcoins to charitable organizations in the Philippines, aiding recovery from Typhoon Haiyan.  Decentralized and open source search, content curation, and operating systems are becoming more popular.  And so on.

What to make of this?  So that you can get a good understanding of the implications of decentralization in today's world (and why many people have been championing it for so long), below is shown a video in which Andreas Antonopolous, founder of RootEleven (and several other bitcoin-based businesses), explains what decentralization is and why it is beneficial:

"In a way, hierarchical systems are a solution to the problem of direct access to information, direct access to each other, and communication scarcity.  When the problem no longer exists, (a) centralization hierarchy is the wrong solution." - A. Antonopolous