In reality, from money laundering law enforcement point of view, C is usually the one to blame, because the dirty money ends up at C's address
If that is true, then the law is pretty stupid, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
I have seen this before. It was not supposed to be a wedding ring, just another standard ring. Also, the reason people like jewelry is because it's valuable by itself. If you can just print yourself another wedding ring, then what was so special about it in the first place?
|
|
|
|
If i ask you do you have black friend? is that racism?
No, but if you ask me if I have a “ching chong” friend (the term that you used), that is racist. Anyway, you dont know racism until you're in China. Go north at the border of Mongolia, racism in America is nothing to what you would see.
Again, the fact that there are racist people in the world does not entitle you to be racist as well. At least try to be a better person. |
|
|
|
But ofcourse those ching chong [...]
This is racist. As much as being called white devil..... or Brack Others being racist doesn't give you the right to be racist too. |
|
|
|
But ofcourse those ching chong [...]
This is racist. |
|
|
|
Hacking is one thing, but publishing your results from your hacks is another, which might be illegal in some places.
Also, if Bitcoin is hypothetically hacked, then it's hypothetically done. I don't see the problem there.
It might be illegal. This doesn't make him a thief, rather a criminal. 1 private key being hacked =/= Bitcoin hacked. Sorry, this came from the assumption that Person A hypothetically found a vulnerability in Bitcoin itself and was actually exploiting it. |
|
|
|
Person A didn't do anything wrong if he "found" that balance.
well but he did two things.) 1. found private key 2. distribute this to others and simply point 2 is not so cool at all.. But it's just the number 17. When did distributing the number 17 become illegal or immoral? Well, 17 is a prime number, so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_primeBut seriously, though, it's not distributing “17” what's illegal, it's distributing “17 is the key to this address which contains 10BTC”. |
|
|
|
This is quite simple. The thieves are B and D. Also that would include person C if he does not send the stolen funds back by request. All A did was hack it. Hacking =/= stealing. Simple. Noone. You can brute force a key? Bitcoin is done. Bitcoin being done, nothing of value has been stolen  No, it is not. Read: hypothetical situation. Hacking is one thing, but publishing your results from your hacks is another, which might be illegal in some places. Also, if Bitcoin is hypothetically hacked, then it's hypothetically done. I don't see the problem there. |
|
|
|
|
How many core devs does Litecoin have? Peercoin? Goldcoin?
I'm sorry, but I believe that your proposals are even more centralized than Bitcoin, according to your own criteria.
|
|
|
|
With existing technology you could fill the universe with computers
I'm interested in such a technology. My point was [...] It was a joke. |
|
|
|
I suppose it can be done if enough people join in this project. Kinda like the SETI project, distributed computing will allow an impossibly difficult problem to be solved by millions of individual systems. If someone can figure out the math, maybe we can estimate how long and how many individual systems it might take to brute force the private key.
No, even then it wouldn't be enough. Please refer to the post about filling the universe with computers and bit having enough computing power. |
|
|
|
With existing technology you could fill the universe with computers
I'm interested in such a technology. |
|
|
|
Wait wait wait, I already lost track of the discussion. Why is cryonics involved in the discussion of Satoshi Nakamoto = Nick Szabo? I'm getting confused now.  Because Hal Finney was cryonized (is that the right word?). That and fridge logic. |
|
|
|
5) 21 may enable a new kind of Internet, where, people actually pay minute amounts directly, in return for avoiding all those ads.
This is awful. I'm already paying for my Internet. Now I will have to pay even more? A similar promise was made by pay TV when it first started, that it would be “TV with no ads!”. What happened to that? |
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but I still don't see the point.
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimately you need to trust someone, since no person is capable of knowing everything. That's how society works. People specialize on different fields, trusting that other people in other fields know what they're doing.
Imagine you have a building. It's open source, in the sense that you have access to all blueprints and all details about the construction process. But you're an accountant, and you don't understand anything about architecture. So, do you trust the architect and all the construction workers that are making the building you will be living in for the next decades?
|
|
|
|
It's just that the positive aspects of this don't seem to work in a real scenario, at least from my perspective. When you say, I want to buy a $3 game, there's effectively no reason to spend $23 on a $3 game, but spending $23 is not for the game, it's for exchanging currency. And people usually exchange currency in bigger amounts, not in $3 chunks.
If you have an “extra credit” that you can spend on more Internet connection... how did you get your extra credit in the first place? From that phone that is sucking your electricity bill? When you see the whole picture, that “extra credit” is really negative. The only way to get the extra credit for real is not investing in such device in the first place.
Well I'm expecting this to work for the same reasons that you don't expect it to work. What a strange situation right? That's my reasoning too. If you want to buy a 3$ game why should you be required to have 23$ in order to buy from an exchange? You can easily use your 3$ credit to buy your game. Job done. No other hassle. No, you don't understand. Spending $3 and spending $23 is in two totally different situations. It's like asking, “If I want to buy a $5 hamburger, why should I spend $200 on a dining table?” Well... no, you don't. You are buying a hamburger, not a dining table. How did you even come up with that connection? |
|
|
|
Why would anyone bother to acquire just some satoshis, instead of a reasonable fraction of bitcoins (like 0.1 BTC, for example, for which you don't need any documents to get)? Getting just the satoshis is as useful as using faucets so much announced in these forums, which many knowledgeable people can assure you they are not worth the hassle (you don't even get a single penny after being hours in those sites).
It seems that you're trying to find a motivation of a hypothetical client of this product, a motivation that I see unrealistic.
Well for start we don't even know if the user will directly keep the satoshis or if they will have some sort of credit on their account. The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to believe that the users will not keep a wallet. Having some sort of credit is much easier for both the user and 21 inc. But let's say I want to buy a game that costs 3$. Why should I go and spend 23$ or the equivalent of 0.1 BTC to buy something worth 3$? Maybe I don't have 23$, but I have 3$. What if I want an additional 100MB of internet on my phone this month only? Why should I go and to some other transactions when I can just use my credit to buy the 100MB? Less friction, less problems. Easy life. I am not trying to find a motivation. I am only trying to make you see that there are many alternatives to your negative way of thinking. There are some good things that will come with these devices. Why do we/you only have to see the negative ones? It's just that the positive aspects of this don't seem to work in a real scenario, at least from my perspective. When you say, I want to buy a $3 game, there's effectively no reason to spend $23 on a $3 game, but spending $23 is not for the game, it's for exchanging currency. And people usually exchange currency in bigger amounts, not in $3 chunks. If you have an “extra credit” that you can spend on more Internet connection... how did you get your extra credit in the first place? From that phone that is sucking your electricity bill? When you see the whole picture, that “extra credit” is really negative. The only way to get the extra credit for real is not investing in such device in the first place. |
|
|
|
Earned satoshis that make them lose money. I think it would be better for them (and everyone) to just use an exchange. They will get a way better rate for their bitcoins.
Buying some satoshis from an exchanger has very big added costs compared to what you buy. The wire transfer cost may be bigger than what you buy. Think about that too. We are talking about satoshis that are worth less than 5$/month. Why would anyone bother to sign up and to send documents to an exchange when they can get them from their mobile phone? It's too complicated and pointless to use an exchange for such low amounts. Why would anyone bother to acquire just some satoshis, instead of a reasonable fraction of bitcoins (like 0.1 BTC, for example, for which you don't need any documents to get)? Getting just the satoshis is as useful as using faucets so much announced in these forums, which many knowledgeable people can assure you they are not worth the hassle (you don't even get a single penny after being hours in those sites). It seems that you're trying to find a motivation of a hypothetical client of this product, a motivation that I see unrealistic. |
|
|
|
The average user? Really? I don't see my mom or my siblings caring whether the Bitcoin network is strong or not.
They will care if they will want to use their earned satoshis. Earned satoshis that make them lose money. I think it would be better for them (and everyone) to just use an exchange. They will get a way better rate for their bitcoins. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
