Yes it is a good idea. The trick is implenting it. How do you convert BTC to USD? Etc. Anything that let's you convert btc to usd and vice versa is great.
Well, the ATM operator would in essence just be an exchanger, with some customized and automated hardware to do the exchanges. Not that much different from a web-based exchange service really. They would set their own rates based on the market and their profit margin. |
|
|
|
Sorry, I'm relatively new and excited, and the ideas are flowing...  I was thinking about how a lot of people have their bitcoin address posted on the web as a piece of text and it made me think of the "mailto" links that are available in HTML. <a href="mailto:bob@hotmail.com?subject=hello">Email me!</a> Imagine if we could get Chrome (go Google!) or other browsers to accept the following as a valid link and launch your bitcoin client: <a href="payto:12HbhjqzxNNLjTVbEPkhzcPHLzXdN9sD8b?amount=0.01">Pay me!</a> (Then of course you should hit a confirm button once your client presents the send window). What would be involved in making this happen? |
|
|
|
The problem is that sharing your wallet is not secure. But it is a great idea in whole.
I agree, you wouldn't want to load your phat savings wallet. But right now, can't 3rd-party (non-bank) ATM operators theoretically save your pin number and duplicate your card and empty your bank account? I guess the difference with that is you would have recourse by complaining to your bank. |
|
|
|
Tell me to shut up if someone already thought of this, but I just suddenly had an idea. What if there was an ATM that looked a bit like regular ATMs but instead of a card slot it has a USB port for people to load a wallet.dat. The interface could tell you your balance, and you could make a cash withdrawal by sending BTC from your wallet to the wallet of the ATM owner, then it spits out the equivalent fiat. Just thought of this 2 minutes ago, so I'm sure there are many details to consider... would be fun to discuss anyway  (I know you might have to trust the ATM operator not to copy and steal your entire wallet contents while it's loaded). |
|
|
|
Ponzi schemes are immoral
is it lonely up there? Hahaha, hey Akarbb I wonder, have you ever bought real estate and then sold it for a higher price? Left someone else holding the bag? |
|
|
|
normal, non greedy people I believe that notion to be an oxymoron. |
|
|
|
"wealth-distribution" will never be fair, no matter what currency we use.
2 things: "wealth-distribution" will always be fair, no matter what currency we use. "wealth-distribution" will never be even, no matter what currency we use. |
|
|
|
|
Does anybody know of somewhere or someone to exchange ZAR (cash, bank transfer, etc.) for BTC?
Any South Africans here want to cash out their BTC holdings?
|
|
|
|
Power does exist and therefore I have difficulty to imagine a society without it.
Truly, in the world there will always be at least one person who will be willing to take the power. If nobody does, I will.
I prefer to think of it as everyone having power, and personal cryptography is just one tool that helps in that area. |
|
|
|
In conclusion: Don't believe everything you see on the Corporate Mainstream News.
I have a better advice: just don't watch corporate mainstream news. Especially TV. Pictures are most often selected, edited, sometimes scenarized. They are misleading. Which is a problem, because I'm reluctant to tell a member of the general population that I'm an 'anarchist' for fear of what they think anarchy means (like I did), because they watch mainstream news. |
|
|
|
Could someone describe said picture in a non-offensive way (for those of us like me that missed it)? Nevermind... No, you don't. Unless you are a gay gerontophile. |
|
|
|
Addresses
This has been fairly well covered by others, particularly Nicholas Bell's calculations on how long it would take to generate sufficient addresses to deliberately try to grab someone else's money. So it's not feasible as an attack.
Now, let's examine what would happen if it happened by chance. Suppose you and I hit that once in a billion billion lifetimes of a universe chance, and we both generate the same address. Someone sends 100BTC to that address. Both of our clients would say "Aha, that's for me!" and each of our wallets would show an increase of 100BTC. One of us would be pleasantly surprised that 100BTC suddenly appeared. Whoever spent it first would be successful, and the other one would see a mysterious disappearance of 100BTC.
In addition to that, you should keep in mind the % of transactions that are "my entire life savings". It's far more likely that even if the above scenario took place, it'd be a micro-transaction. I'm just guessing because I haven't seen studies or stats on this anywhere, but I'd say the majority of transactions are for tiny amounts, then a smaller number of them are for 'large' transactions, then an even smaller number again would be for "this is everything I've got!"-type transactions. So if you're really that paranoid, you could somewhat reduce your (already insanely low) risk by sending multiple small amounts, instead of one large. (Edit: And by sending any large amounts you receive immediately to a 'savings' address.) That is exactly what I do. Whenever I receive a payment that is larger than 20BTC, I send it to a savings wallet in smaller chunks. But here is my question: Let's say I send 10BTC to my savings address. Then I send another 10BTC to the same savings address. How are these two transactions treated in the savings wallet? Do they get combined or do they stay separate? Should there be an address collision (I know, it's very unlikely), are both amounts vulnerable or only one of them? Good question. Say you had a savings address that had 1000BTC but was pretty much always offline, and you never spent it. Then one day an address collision occurs and someone else out there has the same address as your savings account. Could they instantly be able to spend your 1000BTC from their client, even though you save that money before the collision occurred? |
|
|
|
[removed offensive picture]
Could someone describe said picture in a non-offensive way (for those of us like me that missed it)? |
|
|
|
Are there any alternative sites doing an SCI? |
|
|
|
This fledgling currency will never really take off unless it can be used for real transactions. *phew* Under that logic, it will take off then. If it could be used to securely and anonymoulsy buy stuff it would be invaluable. Therefore, it is currently invaluable. So it need an app for mobile phones.
Therefore we need a way to connect from our mobiles to somone else's and send them some btc. Is there already an app for this?
Well, I don't know about running 'client' software on a phone, but you can easily sign up for a web-based bitcoin account at http://www.mybitcoin.com, which can be used on a phone. |
|
|
|
|
Not sure if this is being discussed yet, but just posting my thoughts on the 'anarchist' label and how I think most people would associate it with the chaotic bullshit they see happening in London today.
If I really had to choose an exact label for myself, and I could only choose one, I might call myself a 'market anarchist', however I absolutely don't want to be associated with people spray-painting buildings with the 'A' symbol or smashing out the windows of successful and 'posh' businesses.
It's funny, I grew up actually thinking the word 'anarchy' meant 'chaos' and it was only just recently I realised how wrong that definition is, and that the mistake probably came from mainstream TV media, where those kind of rioters are just labelled 'anarchists' in general.
|
|
|
|
Addresses
This has been fairly well covered by others, particularly Nicholas Bell's calculations on how long it would take to generate sufficient addresses to deliberately try to grab someone else's money. So it's not feasible as an attack.
Now, let's examine what would happen if it happened by chance. Suppose you and I hit that once in a billion billion lifetimes of a universe chance, and we both generate the same address. Someone sends 100BTC to that address. Both of our clients would say "Aha, that's for me!" and each of our wallets would show an increase of 100BTC. One of us would be pleasantly surprised that 100BTC suddenly appeared. Whoever spent it first would be successful, and the other one would see a mysterious disappearance of 100BTC.
In addition to that, you should keep in mind the % of transactions that are "my entire life savings". It's far more likely that even if the above scenario took place, it'd be a micro-transaction. I'm just guessing because I haven't seen studies or stats on this anywhere, but I'd say the majority of transactions are for tiny amounts, then a smaller number of them are for 'large' transactions, then an even smaller number again would be for "this is everything I've got!"-type transactions. So if you're really that paranoid, you could somewhat reduce your (already insanely low) risk by sending multiple small amounts, instead of one large. (Edit: And by sending any large amounts you receive immediately to a 'savings' address.) |
|
|
|
Wow, thanks for posting that. I just went and read the entire thread... good to get a different perspective. |
|
|
|
So how does one properly transact anonymously, if everyone can track things in blockexplorer?
there is nothing in the block that specifically identifies you and you can use a different bitcoin address for every transaction. Okay, but your client keeps a record of the addresses you have sent from? And your counter-party client keeps a record of addresses they've received at? So to prove you transacted with said counter-party, authorities would need access to both to and from clients? (The wallet.dat x2?). |
|
|
|
|
I'll send you 5 BTC if you never tell any more jokes again.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
