|
The more interesting question is how do they locate the server? They just busted Freedom Hosting not long ago. Are there some fatal problems with TOR?
|
|
|
|
"............Canadian law enforcement authorities ... have no record of there being any Canadian resident with the name DPR passed to redandwhite as the target of the solicited murder-for-hire. Nor do they have any record of a homicide occurring in White Rock, British Columbia on or about March 31, 2013." So DPR did pay 1670XBT but no homicide happened. Most probably, he was scammed  "FriendlyChemist" (the blackmailer) and "redandwhite" (the supplier) are most probably the same person. After all, there was no evidence showing they were different persons, and DPR was naive enough to trust redandwhite and sent him 150000USD in bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Yes! I just find the same with google! |
|
|
|
They probably used the mixer service, so it could be hard to identify.
"In DPR's message confirming the deal, DPR included a transaction record reflecting the transfer of 1,670 Bitcoins to a certain Bitcoin address." It might be simpler than you think |
|
|
|
So the bitcoin price is crashing due to SR shutdown. This really reminds me the crash in August 2012 after the close of Pirate scheme. At that time, people believed the Pirate scheme was the only thing supported the demand of bitcoin. Price reduced from $15 to $7 in just a few hours. The history is just repeating. Now we all know what happened since.  Probably, we were really lucky that SR were shutdown in Oct 2013, not Oct 2012. Should this happened in 2012, there was a real probability to go below $1 and won't recover for a very long time (but I still believe it would recover eventually). Today, bitcoin has become big enough to resist the death of SR. At this moment, bitcoin has just started attracting attention of high profile investors like SecondMarket. These people don't like their names linked to drugs. Therefore, I see the death of SR as medium-to-long-term bullish ---- very bullish. For those $100,000 bitcoin believers: do you really believe SR will bring bitcoin to $100,000? |
|
|
|
The is the real way to launder money: the betting site operator is the guy with dirty money, or connected to the guy with dirty money. By betting on the site, the loss in the dirty money becomes the clean profit of the site.
Wouldn't work for just-dice though, because other users are the bank in this case. This actually makes it a BETTER money laundering scheme. The guy with dirty money can invest like an ordinary anonymous user. |
|
|
|
|
How about requesting the 2 or more certificates from different CAs? That makes a random hacker much more difficult to MITM attack
To prevent MITM attack from the government, we could require CAs from different countries. We could further divide countries into groups: US allies, Russian allies, tax havens, etc.
|
|
|
|
It's all rigged. These btc gambling sites are just used for money laundering.
Explain? OK, lemme jump in here: The way to do it (in theory) is the following; you (the guy with dirty money) bet whatever you want to launder at bets with a close to 50/50 chance of winning. This way you can launder almost arbitrary sums of money by betting on a 50/50 bet. Some times you win, some times you loose. After a couple of thousands of bets you come out more or less even. The only "fee" this costs you is the house edge. In this case 1%, which is another name for the banks advantage over you. So to launder 1 million USD you only have to pay 1% house edge, you throw it all against the casino and get payed out in "clean" money that you legitemately won. The same deal with sports bets where the outcome is almost 50% of winning. Especially popular with horse races or football matches among Asian money launderers. If the gamblers try to use the service as a "mixer" or "tumbler" (same thing), to reduce taint it wouldnt work very well though. With those amounts they are pretty much the only guys playing, just shoving their own coins around. At the end of the day they wont reduce their taint significantly, not even if justdice has to tap in their cold storage tro cover pay outs. This doesn't make any sense, because all just-dice bets are off-chain. Sure, bets are off-chain but deposits and pay outs are not - are the Bitcoins you deposit the same you are payed out? So the "bad guy" doesn't need to bet at all and this trick works for any shared wallet. The is the real way to launder money: the betting site operator is the guy with dirty money, or connected to the guy with dirty money. By betting on the site, the loss in the dirty money becomes the clean profit of the site. |
|
|
|
据本人所知（不一定正确），使用冷储存（Cold Storage）的离线钱包（Offline Wallet）的唯一途径就是使用Armory客户端，有能力使用的赶紧开始用吧。
Electrum也可以, 使用的資源更少, 但沒Armory那麼好用. |
|
|
|
|
The checksum is not part of the bitcoin protocol and is not relayed nor recorded in the blockchain
|
|
|
|
好文，支持一下。不知道能不能使用usb矿机（或者其他矿机）来计算？这比GPU要快不少。
不可能 |
|
|
|
I did a small experiment, I copied the wallet.dat and put it on another offline computer. I was able to send the same bitcoins twice! How can this be fixed?
You can send as many times as you want. Only one of them (at most) would be confirmed. |
|
|
|
btckan has market depth: http://btckan.com/chart/btc100the price would have moved several hundred yuan, if there is even that much there and that rebate promotion is actually a sale of their shares, meaning the more you trade the more shares you get in any case if its true, it must have been an arranged deal Ignoring this exchange there still seems to have been about 25,000 bitcoins traded in the last 24 hours in China. This is very close to the total usd figure. I had no idea there were so many exchanges in China. The last column is trading fee: http://btckan.com/priceAs you can see many CNY exchanges have 0% fee now. This explains the high volume |
|
|
|
Do you accept non-EU customers?
With its new Payment Institution partner, BC can accept all residents of the 30-state European Economic Area: Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Iceland Italy Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom So its OK if you hold an Australian passport as long as you can provide a proof of residence in the EEA. Note that the Payment Institution partner does not accept mobile telephony bills as proof of residence (only utility bills or fixed line telephone bill). What if someone holds an UK passport but not EEA residence? |
|
|
|
I warned you guys: volume of many CNY markets are not trustworthy, especially those new markets. Trading 100,000BTC without moving the price up or down at all? That's insane Look at this site: http://btc008.com/ . Their volume is extremely stable: before 23 Sept, they always had ~5000 per day; after 24 Sept, they always had ~10000 per day. It's simply impossible |
|
|
|
providing a HTTP API
Actually there is only an API, the frontend is simply a ligthweight JS client that relies on it. We need to document it for third-parties to be able to use it. looks like one has to verify again (documents lost??)
Our new partner requires a proof of residence which wasn't required before. All documents that were submitted previously have been properly migrated for inclusion in the new verification process. Edit: Deleted the Google Authenticator again, installed
new one. Now I possess a different shared key. I filed a report
concerning this issue.
That sounds about right, your shared secret was saved along with the rest when we migrated and a new one was generated when you reset the whole thing. Do you accept non-EU customers? |
|
|
|
So where would they stop? Block 252,451 or some random earlier block?
They may not stop at all. The behavior fixed in BIP50 is non-deterministic. They'll likely stop if they see a reorg of a couple large blocks, but it depends on the minutia of how the database records aligned to page boundaries. As I can identify, we had the following forks in chronological order All of those (save BIP50) are reductions in what the network will accept, so they don't break compatibility. Yes, they are softforks. Do I miss any? |
|
|
|
I heard that anything before 0.3 would not work (even before the latest BIP50 fork). Is that true and what's that about?
No, anything 0.2.9 or higher should work with no more effort than helping it find a peer (ignoring the fact that the BIP50 stuff means that there is a good chance it'll get stuck), prior to 0.2.9 and back to the original release will work so long as you provide a gateway node that will accept the old checksumless version messages. So where would they stop? Block 252,451 or some random earlier block? I find that we don't have a centralized page (preferably on the wiki) to describe all forks since 0.1. There is one at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures but it doesn't provide much details. As I can identify, we had the following forks in chronological order Disable OP_LSHIFT etc Limit the number of sig check commands Fix output overflow P2SH v2 block BIP50 (hard fork) Do I miss any? (I consider the "Block hash collision via merkle tree" a bug fix, not a fork, because the malformed blocks are always rejected by all versions) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
