 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »
|
My understanding was that SourceForge is claiming that the specific OFAC sanctions against Iran would take precedence over the munitions export controls which were indeed relaxed for non-sanctioned countries. It just hasn't been challenged yet.
They can claim whatever they want as their excuse. They are wrong, but it's their choice if they don't want to do it. |
|
|
|
|
Do you want an actual domain registrar or someone to register the domains by proxy for you?
|
|
|
|
The developers don't have a choice. Bitcoin uses strong cryptography, which, for reasons which don't really make sense, is legally classified as a military weapon under the Wassenaar Arrangement, and therefore illegal to export to "certain" countries. Simply making the source code available for download worldwide is legally equivilant to selling bombs to Iran. As fucked up as the law is, it must be obeyed if you want to avoid being jailed for arms trafficking.
This is not true. Open source, free software does not fall under the US munitions export controls. Otherwise, tools like openssl, tor, openssh, linux distributions, etc would not be available outside the US. See https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/01/07/2010-32803/publicly-available-mass-market-encryption-software-and-other-specified-publicly-available-encryption for the public restatement of that fact. This fact has been true since 1996. See John Gilmore's fights and wins in the US courts here, http://www.toad.com/gnu/export/export.html. |
|
|
|
|
The bitcoin devs aren't really involved here, other than their choice of sourceforge for hosting. Sourceforge is blocking Iran and other sanctioned countries to minimize any legal risks with the US government. I'm willing to host a mirror of bitcoin.org+binaries in Iceland, if only there was some easy way to mirror the site. wget -u is a crappy way to do a mirror. rsync would be great.
|
|
|
|
|
I even searched before posting, and that thread didn't show up. Sorry. Feel free to delete it all.
|
|
|
|
Compiling is a different matter, everything must be exactly the same or you'll end up with differences. My box has slightly different libraries, and a very different compiler version, so the bitcoind that I build for my own use is wildly different from the official releases, for example.
They actually use a virtual machine to create a predictable build environment for the public releases. If you hang out in #bitcoin-dev around release day, you'll see that even with all the work they put into the VM, they have differences fairly often and need to resolve them.
There is an entire field of computer science research about repeatable, trusted software builds. Due to address randomization and other 'anti-vulnerability' hacks in compilers, even building the same binary on the same system can be a challenge. |
|
|
|
Anyone in the boston area up for a meetup this weekend? Even if it's three of us sitting at a table, it counts, right?  |
|
|
|
In my personal opinion, bitcoin.org along with it's binaries should be hosted on a hardened server,
separate from any other service.
A hardened server is irrelevant. Trusting pgp verification is relevant. With pgp verification, and a trust path back to the signer, the binaries and pgp sig can be hosted anywhere. Has there been a pgp keysigning party which involves key 29D9 EE6B 1FC7 30C1 (short key known as 0x1FC730C1)? |
|
|
|
The download links on bitcoin.org go to sourceforge. Also, the binaries are hashed and the hashes are signed with a well known key, so anyone that bothers to check would notice.
Sourceforge mirrors have been cracked in the past, here's a recent example, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113018.0 |
|
|
|
|
On the otherside, bitcoins are already a pain in the ass to get. With intersango stopping USD trade, this makes it even more difficult.
|
|
|
|
Simply: what services and infrastructure do we need to have to enable greater pure Bitcoin commerce? I get the usual like groceries and stuff but what else?
Trust. Without trust in merchants and customers, there will be no growth in the economy or usage of bitcoins. Any one product or service is irrelevant at this point. If I can't trust the other party in a transaction, I'm not going to do the transaction. Figuring out a reputation system/score by some identifier could go a long way towards building trust in trustworthy individuals and services. Here's a TED Talk as an overview of the issue, http://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_botsman_the_currency_of_the_new_economy_is_trust.html . There is a bunch of research into this area as well, https://duckduckgo.com/?q=journal+of+reputation+and+trust+research. Ebay, paypal, amazon, and others have had to figure this out. We will too. |
|
|
|
Great to meet you all. Happy to find some "local" btc people. The ride only cost about 1.547 btc in fuel. |
|
|
|
I see that as a mute issue, The word you're looking for is "moot". Hey now, let's not bring 4chan into this!  |
|
|
|
The EFF has been in DC for a long time. I think it's getting to them.
They have one guy in DC, the rest are in San Fran. |
|
|
|
I'm quite sure. e-gold dealt directly with fiat. Bitcoin has *nothing* to do with fiat. Someone like MtGox has to be concerned, but that's an entirely separate issue. e-gold worked with virtual goal and the trust that someone was holding your fractional gold bar. It dealt with fiat currencies in exchange for gold. My point is that the e-gold people relied on some technicalities thinking it would keep them out of trouble and jail. It seems others didn't agree with their hope in technicalities. Don't underestimate the motivation and lack of understanding of financial regulators. |
|
|
|
The legal concerns they express are valid.
What legal concerns? There is nothing illegal about Bitcoins. Stating otherwise is pure FUD. Treat them as any other kind of non-fiat donation. I donate my underwear and even cash anonymously to the Salvation Army, and then take a tax deduction for it, as do millions of other people. Bitcoin donations are no different. Are you sure about that? The e-gold people felt the same way until the US treasury arrested them and threatened them with money laundering. Here's a fine summary of the situation, http://stakeventures.com/articles/2008/07/22/the-man-finally-brought-e-gold-downMy guess is that this situation is exactly what the EFF is nervous about. They can continue to sue the NSA and US Government all day long on fundamental freedom rights. But taking on the banking regulation industry is an entirely different thing. Just because bitcoins use cryptography and mostly exist on the Internet, doesn't mean it's an "electronic frontier" anything. It's just a form of currency. Some places use sheep (as in the livestock) as currency. Stripe, dwolla, and paypal all took on the banking regulation industry with wide-eyed plans to revolutionize how people do banking. And now look, each one of them has been coerced into accepting the common regulations and acting more like a bank. Look at MtGox and Intersango. They both have to honor banking regulations or they get shut down. "Know your customer" and anti-fraud regulations are an unforgiving bitch. As soon as the treasury and their enforcement regimes wake up to bitcoins, or find evidence of heavy illegal activity with bitcoins, you can be sure the multi-pronged attack will make bitcoins sure seem illegal. None of this will matter until there is a court case precedent (at least in the US) stating bitcoins are legal or illegal as a currency. The global banking world doesn't like competition. You can be sure when the eye of sauron gazes on bitcoin, it will separate the adults from the children quickly. |
|
|
|
|
I'll even be in the country this time. I'm not on facebook, so I can't +1/like/hump or whatever fb people do.
|
|
|
|
|
