I think this is evidence that the cold war has returned, thanks to the lack of military leadership of president Obama. There is no doubt that Putin would have not have done this during the Bush era, nor would he have done this if Romney was in charge of the US military |
|
|
|
|
Hitler was not actually a war hero. His superiors during World War 1 actually gave him mediocre ratings and he did not receive leadership promotions that almost everyone in the German Army received who fought in he war.
His rise to leadership was the result of extremely poor economic conditions that were caused by the crushing debt that was put on by the US, Britain and France after World War 1. The world learned a very hard lesson that it is not good to burden a country you beat in war with massive "war" debt
|
|
|
|
|
1 - This does not matter. The individual countries in Europe are still sovereign and any citizen of each country is still only considered a country of only that country. The EU is meant to be only a economic and trade union, not a sovereign union. In other words you can ship goods and services between European countries without having to deal with taxes or regulation (as well as travel between countries), however each individual country is free to create their own laws, ect.
This is very different from the US which treats anyone who does not given as much sovereign authority to the individual states
|
|
|
|
|
There is git hub which is well known within the community as a site that is designed to host open source software that can be worked on by anyone and whose code can be inspected by anyone
|
|
|
|
"To protect our independance, we'll never run adds"
To protect my independance, I won't give you my name.
As mentioned above, it is possible they collect your name (among other information) so you can receive a tax deduction the following April when you file you taxes. I would think that most people would likely want to take advantage of such tax breaks. Additionally, from what I can tell they do not check your identity information for accuracy, so there is nothing to prevent you from saying your name is "John Doe" who lives at "123 Main street" I wonder why Mozilla doesn't require anyone to fill in so many details. They only ask for your email address. They are probably classified as different kinds of charities under the IRS tax code. Only charities that meet certain criteria can allow donors to deduct donations on their taxes. |
|
|
|
I don't think bitcoin can help people in countries that have this low of a standard of living. When a country has people living on less then $10 (equivalent) per day, the economy is not going to lose very much from inefficiencies in payment processing (neither in cost nor time), nor will they have a large concern about counterfeiting as it would be too obvious when people are spending too much money when compared to others and what they are making. These are all things that bitcoin solves
They can also not afford technologies like a smart phone which would be another important required factor. Smart phone technologies are getting substantially cheaper over time. Even the latest iPhone (which is probably the most expensive smart phone to produce) only costs a few hundred dollars to produce, but sells for $800+ without a contract. Older iPhone models retail for next to nothing. Maybe you could talk about how Bitcoin can help the unbanked if you have some philanthropist who is willing to hand out cheap tablets and provide places where they can pick up free Wi-Fi so they can participate in the world marketplace, and it would help if more people who hire freelancers would pay in Bitcoin. Too many people aren't poor because they're lazy; they're poor because they don't have access to most of the financial services that the rest of us have and they don't have access to ways they can sell their services. Bitcoin can help with that if somebody is willing to make an initial investment.
This may be true, however it would require investment from outside sources. The financial infrastructure that Bitcoin could potentially provide would take a long time to develop and a longer time to have long term positive impacts on the overall standard of living of such an economy |
|
|
|
Quite a large sum of existing bitcoins are stolen, so wouldn't it be a crime to accept bitcoins in the first place?  It is not actually possible to "steal" bitcoin as bitcoin is fungible and do not physically exist. The same logic goes for accepting bitcoin that can be traced back to "stolen" bitcoin. What is illegal is the act of hacking a computer/some kind of account that contains a person's private keys. This is somewhat of a different crime, however generally will have similar, if not worse consequences Well, if someone has his wallet on a usb pendrive, don't they exist physically throught that usb pendrive? No. Only the private keys would be stored on the USB drive. The private keys are what allow the inputs that have been sent to the BTC address to be spent. There would be no "balance" on the USB drive. This is a very difficult concept for many people to grasp and is very different from how traditional banking/assets works |
|
|
|
It probably will not pass this year as it is a far from urgent bill in a lame duck congress. It looks like it is currently in committee now and will probably pass at least the house eventually in some form as it reduces regulations which the GOP (who controls the house) is in favor of.
One thing the bill is missing is a reversal of the IRS's ruling to treat bitcoin as property instead of currency as this makes keeping track of the value of your bitcoin when you buy and sell it very burdensome whenever a consumer tries to use/spend it
Certainly reads as reversing the IRS ruling! SEC. 5. DECLARATION OF NEUTRAL TAX TREATMENT.
(a) In General.--It is the sense of Congress that the production,
possession or use of cryptocurrency, whether in trade, commerce or
personal non-commercial transfers, should not be disfavored or
discouraged by the Federal tax code or other Federal or State statute
or regulation.
(b) Tax Treatment.--It is the sense of Congress that the current
guidance just promulgated and released by the Service in its Notice
2014-21 is advisory, subject to public comment and not in final form
pending the expiration of the comment period. As such, Congress
believes that the current guidance is less than optimal for the
American people and economy, and directs the Service to issue or revise
interim regulations consistent with the following.
(c) Treatment as Currency.--It is the sense of Congress that
virtual currencies should be treated as currency instead of property in
order to foster an equitable tax treatment and prevent a tax treatment
that would discourage the use of any cryptocurrency. Tax treatment of
cryptocurrency as property does not account for the substantial
illiquidity and highly limited acceptance and use of cryptocurrency,
and substantially and unfairly discourages taxpayers engaging in a
trade or business from using cryptocurrency in commerce. This
circumstance is likely to discourage economic activity and stifle
innovation and growth. At present, a taxpayer accepting cryptocurrency
for goods or services will be taxed on the fair market value of the
cryptocurrency despite the fact that exchange rates (from
cryptocurrency to conventional currency) are both highly volatile and
published or available only on a small number of proto-exchanges in the
early stages of development, acceptance and awareness by cryptocurrency
users. As a result, current tax treatment will measure income on the
basis of an illiquid and likely inaccurate fair market value that
exceeds the taxpayer's true fair market value and hence income,
resulting in the risk of a consistent overtaxation or overpayment that
will act as a strong deterrent to or penalty for accepting
cryptocurrency in payment. Such tax treatment is inconsistent with the
tax treatment of secured notes for payment in trade or commerce, which
recognizes a discount from the face value of the note due to the
illiquid nature of the payment. (Note: See IRS Pub. 525 at 4.)
Ah damm, you are correct. I guess the article I read describing the bill left this part out (this reflects poorly on bitcoin related news sites). Although this is technically subject to change since bills in committee often change, sometimes substantially |
|
|
|
 props for writing all this though  I suspect this is the case for many people. Skimming through the short story the TL;DR version is that in RL satoshi still has not been found |
|
|
|
PoS isn't horrible but the cost to produce coins vs PoW coins is a lot less so the price for PoS coins will always be much much lower.
There is no connection between the cost to produce a crypto coin and the price, hence your conclusion is a fantasy. Price is a function of supply and demand only. If supply of a PoS is fixed or inflates at a predictable rate comparable to a PoW coin inflation rate, there is no reason for the market cap (and price too if total caps are the same) of a PoS coin to be below the market cap (price) of a PoW coin (Bitcoin has a first mover advantage vs all others, PoW and PoS coins, it shouldn't really be compared here for the purity of this experiment as it clearly wins now just based on the adoption numbers). The cost to produce a coin is a function of it's price, as if the price declines, the difficulty will decline causing the cost of producing (mining) the coin to decline. With PoS coins on the other hand, the cost of mining is simply the cost of holding the coins |
|
|
|
Quite a large sum of existing bitcoins are stolen, so wouldn't it be a crime to accept bitcoins in the first place? It is not actually possible to "steal" bitcoin as bitcoin is fungible and do not physically exist. The same logic goes for accepting bitcoin that can be traced back to "stolen" bitcoin. What is illegal is the act of hacking a computer/some kind of account that contains a person's private keys. This is somewhat of a different crime, however generally will have similar, if not worse consequences |
|
|
|
...
for instance if i wanted to buy 200k coins today. i would cause coinbase's price to go from $360~ all the way above $1000. meaning if i had lets say $72million, you would think that equates to 200k coins at $360.. but no,,, as soon as i start buying some the price rises thus by the time i have bought 2000 coins the price could be in the $400 price range. by the time i get to 4000 coins it could be in the $500 price range.. and thus with 196k coins to go, its becoming more and more expensive to just buy the amount of coins i like.
however by mining them i can grab coins and never need to touch an exchange, thus getting closer to the 200k coin figure i want, than i would have simply buying them.
That's very good point, franky! This separates PoW from other systems, where all money are assigned to a group of participants and the most of it might simply be "not for sale". Mining allows to get as much of it as there is still under the digital crust and after that still get what is available in the flow of transactions. I think he is forgetting the fact that with PoW you generally need to invest in a lot of very expensive equipment in order to "buy" bitcoin via mining. Also any bitcoin that you "buy" will not be "delivered" instantly like it will on an exchange, but will be "earned" over several months |
|
|
|
This is meant to ruffle some feathers. We need a second coming of Satoshi.
I think this is the opposite of what we need. I argue that the community takes what satoshi has said as gospel, and this is a bad thing. I am not sure if satoshi is a single person or a group of people, but I think he should have presented himself as a group of people, at least for a short while before he decided to leave the community. |
|
|
|
You can probably go to the Project Development section of this forum. In order to potentially get any money you will probably need to have a detailed business plan, although with somewhat of an established business, in other words you will probably not receive funding from an idea alone. |
|
|
|
Although it appears that you were previously the owner of atleticofa, I am going to say there is a very good chance that it is now banned as per your above post it was posting malware which is a very good/quick way to get your account banned.
While I certainly agree that it is not fair that someone else can get your account banned when they hack your account, it is also virtually impossible to prove that it was not you spreading such malware.
Luckily nobody published malware yet with atleticofa account  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=161675;sa=showPostsAccording to the below quote, the hacker published a "Trojan", which would be consider malware. It appears the post has been deleted. The decision to ban your account is not mine, nor is the decision to unban the account (if applicable) however my experience in this forum would say that it is probably banned and probably not be unbanned (at least from information that is publicly available - I have never seen an account publicly get unbanned) |
|
|
|
I think you did an exceptionally good job of documenting evidence against this scammer. I think it is safe to say that he is the person who you sent bitcoin to, and that he agreed to send you a game in return (and apparently did not). I generally do not see many newbies who are able to document evidence so well. I have seen a few hero members who have not been able to document any evidence people they are claiming to have gotten scammed by. Sadly however, I don't think much will come of this as the person's account who scammed you is worth very little and he will probably just create a new one and start his scam over :/ |
|
|
|
"To protect our independance, we'll never run adds"
To protect my independance, I won't give you my name.
As mentioned above, it is possible they collect your name (among other information) so you can receive a tax deduction the following April when you file you taxes. I would think that most people would likely want to take advantage of such tax breaks. Additionally, from what I can tell they do not check your identity information for accuracy, so there is nothing to prevent you from saying your name is "John Doe" who lives at "123 Main street" |
|
|
|
Does anyone here mind telling me what a Brain wallet is please ? Basically you remember your Private key from your Wallet or how does it work exactly ?  A brain wallet is a wallet where all the information needed to spend the held bitcoins is memorised. Memorising a private key (or extended private key: BIP-0032) is one simple way of doing this. You might also memorise the essential contents of some service's paper-wallet backup (related reading: BIP-0039). Some people will generate a passphrase themselves and take some 256-bit hash of that passphrase to be used as a private key. However, it is common for people to create insufficient entropy in this process and thereby run the risk of having their bitcoins stolen. silver fish kracker utoob the noob with phat boobs.
you can see were getting into serious entropy already.
I don't see. How much entropy do you have here? Very conservatively, that would be about 27 bits of entropy minimum, since you have 4 words. (sliver fish kracker utoob). The assumption is there would be minimum of 100 words people would choose. 100^4 = 100,000,000 combinations. As I mentioned, you would need a 24 word passphrase to generate 160 bits of entropy. I disagree with your assumption. There are roughly 1 million words in the English dictionary. One a potential attacker knew that a passphraise was going to be exactly 4 English words, then the number of potential combinations would be 1,000,000^4 which is 1 * 10^24. While this may sound like a lot, you need to understand that testing one combination would generally take the same amount of computing power to make one "hash". You also need to understand that "mining" brain wallet addresses is not the same as mining Bitcoin blocks as once you check an address, you will forever know what the private key is to an associated public address |
|
|
|
|
Although it appears that you were previously the owner of atleticofa, I am going to say there is a very good chance that it is now banned as per your above post it was posting malware which is a very good/quick way to get your account banned.
While I certainly agree that it is not fair that someone else can get your account banned when they hack your account, it is also virtually impossible to prove that it was not you spreading such malware.
|
|
|
|
I reallly don't see why would they not let another escrow members hold the funds(redsn0w) , who is trusted and is willing to hold the funds for free.
Why redsn0w? He has a clean escrow record so far, but he only started several months ago after bumping his thread daily for weeks. Little is known of him other than he is a mod at the Stellar forum. He might be legit, but I think it's strange that you're pimping him instead of more established escrows. I agree. He appears to be pushing his escrow services too aggressively. While he may or may not be trying to scam via his escrow service, I think he is trying to build up trust to potentially pull off some kind of long con. This is especially relevant for signature campaigns that he is trying to escrow for, as it may result in him receiving trust from people on default trust. I personally would prefer an escrow from someone that is recommended by others rather then someone who recommends themselves. I very much agree that this campaign needs to use a legit escrow service (or offer up front payments) for participants if there is any chance they will be paid. Are you serious  ? However I respect your opinion , I bump my thread 1 time each 24 hours ( it's allowed from the forum rules). I think you say this because my service is free , but this is my choice and finally I've started my escrow service only for help the community, nothing else. It is nothing personal against you, and I may be wrong about my above statement. My concern is not so much about you bumping your thread, (many reputable escrow services bump their thread), but is more about you soliciting your services when a new thread is started offering some kind of short-medium term service that does not have a escrow lined up. While you probably would honor any escrow agreement in this case, I would probably not trust you with larger amounts of money, and it is possible that you are trying to build up trust for your ego (instead of trying to pull some kind of long con) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
