Tabletop Bitcoin ATM Is Huge for Payment Privacy

It looks like a high school science project, but this countertop machine may be a bulwark of financial privacy in the age of digital money.

Read full article:

5 comments on “Tabletop Bitcoin ATM Is Huge for Payment Privacy
  1. mijj says:

    “bulwark ” .. favorite word of the day!

  2. snoop diddy says:

    me likey

  3. Ronron's Nemesis says:

    don’t forget the anti-theft tracker device,be great to see this go mainstream.

  4. William Mook says:

    There’s some work done at MIT that uses physical one way functions to make counterfeit proof documents and tokens. It always seemed to me that associating a bitcoin with a piece of silver or gold secured by a QR code which is checked by a scanner against a physical property of the silver or gold piece, was the way to go for an emergent distributed banking system. These are the first steps. A meshnet instead of internet connection completes the system.

    So, if we assume a mature system would have about 3% of the stock of money in physical metal equipped with a digital signature supporting 97% balance in pure digital form as bitcoins, (32:1 leverage) we would need according to Stephen Keen’s analysis a stock of money equivalent to $20.8 trillion to support our $70.0 trillion per year economy without any reference to fiat money.

    That’s $624 billion worth of silver and $20.176 billion worth of bitcoins. This is about $1,000 per bitcoin with a 21 million bitcoin limit and with total demand of 1,081 million ounces per year we have something in the $600 per ounce range for silver. If we take the 188.2 million ounces of silver per year that goes into coins we can see the price could be as high as $3,300 per ounce. A 1:1 parity between silver and bitcoin would be nice at around $1,000 per ounce, $1,000 per bitcoin.

    This would be perfectly adequate to support the world’s physical economy without reference to legacy fiat systems. Emergent systems of control can be applied as well by imparting conditions on the trade of the digitally encoded values by the owners of the currency. haha – this expands an already long comment.

    But more can be found here


  5. William Mook says:

    Did the figures in my head, and I got them wrong – $20.176 trillion worth of bitcoins (not billion) means $1,000,000 per bitcoin (not $1,000) but no worry, bitcoins can be subdivided into 1 million pieces. Which is convenient and likely why Satoshi Yakamoto chose 21 million with 6 digit precision as the limit for his algorithm.

    Money is merely the ability to demand the time and attention of people. IF we turn this around and say $0.01 = 1 second of useful time and attention (on average) then we are saying people earn $36 per hour (on average). With 7.057 billion people and 4.2 billion workers in the world working 2,000 hours per year – this is 8.4 trillion hours – and by this standard generate $302.4 trillion per year.

    Applying this idealized situation to Keen’s econometric matrix of a well run physical economy means a world economy of $458.2 trillion per year which requires a money stock worth $140.5 trillion dedicated to real world physical stuff.

    This is 6.58x larger than calculated previously which translates to a value for bitcoins of $6.58 million each and a value for silver of $6,580 or more.

    Of course a real physical economy requires energy at a reasonable cost and at an abundance to run all the machinery. Dividing GWP by number of barrels of crude and then by the number of gigajoules of energy released by each barrel, we find that each GJ supports $382.51 of economic activity. So, we need to get something like 1.2 trillion GJ per year of low cost energy to support this level of economic activity. This is the second piece to a multi-part problem.

    This can be gotten through ultra-low-cost hydrogen producing solar panels, or aneutronic inertial confinement fusion using Lithum-6 and Deuterium. Surprisingly the fusion piece was solved in 1954 and talked about by Leo Strauss, then chair of the Atomic Energy Commission. He was of course fired by Eisenhower and discredited, along with Marion Hubbert to whom Strauss was responding to at a science writers conference when he said, by 1970 energy would be too cheap to meter.

    Since I’m on the subject lets look at the other parts. Water. Well, the US Army Corps of Engineers in the 1930s under FDR worked out a global plan for water supply. TVA was the start. NAWAPA was the follow on. World War Two intervened. US troops gave Libya plans to tap their underground flows from Nile flooding when they fought the war. Qaddafi found them in 1969 when he took power and began the Great Man Mad River Project. He got no outside support and funded it all internally. He was making the desert bloom when he got kicked from power. Water isn’t an issue all we need do is end the capital strike on that one.

    Alright, farming and food. Water solves a lot of that. Modern methods, all organic, not involving pesticides, GMOs and all that crap, can produce significant quantities of food. From 1800 through 1950 as population doubled every 50 years, food output per acre tripled. As a result by 1950 there was less land under cultivation than in 1800 even though there were over 3 billion people in 1950 and fewer than 1 billion in 1800. Now some say we can’t continue doing things like this. NASA studies of space colonies in the 1970s show we can continue to triple output every 50 years for another century. It was a capital strike by those who sought to maintain control by limiting food that caused the shortages after 1950. There is a process called aeroponics that radically increases crop yields per acre reducing labor and cost while eliminating pesticides GMOs and other harmful inputs.

    Back in the 1970s NASA scientists also figured out that if your energy costs were low, you didn’t need high quality ores to maintain raw materials. You could break garbage down to the atomic level, and reassemble it through chemical vapor deposition into anything you like. If you needed more than the garbage could supply because of growth, you just dug up some rocks and throw it in your plasma torch. That’s how they were going to live on the moon in 1970, and its how we could live on Earth today.

    Tele-robotics, AI, and autonomous operations, should not be applied to weapons systems, they more profitably can be applied to work. However, since money is tied to people in this discussion, it makes sense to limit ownership of robots to people who have jobs and control that aspect.

    These are just the high points in creating an emergent system free of the artificial scarcities built into the present system, using an emergent system involving free silver and digital trading currency tied to the values of the market.

Watch the latest Keiser Reports:

Watch our Google Hangouts: