 <-- what's this!  There's a thread somewhere in the meta section that reveals these little hidden gems.  |
|
|
|
How does getting out of DAO work? I heard today was the first day people could get out, but is everyone free to get out at the same time, or do some have to wait longer than others before they can dump DAO?
I believe you can burn your stake by proposing to fund with it an eth address that you own (although last I heard they wanted to put a moratorium on proposals due to security considerations). You can also obviously sell it at an exchange. |
|
|
|
I remember, but it was at 260$, and made me panic sell. Bought back after it was eaten.
You're right, it was around the previous ath. Was a great show, anyway.  |
|
|
|
Someone is trying very hard to suppress price w/ giant 650 coin wall @ 497 on Stamp
Does it get eaten? Pulled?
They're going to have to try harder than that. Remember in November '13 when someone (Mark?) put up 10,000 BTC @ ~$260 on Gox? |
|
|
|
Right, I forgot. 'Over the top, almost comical expression of antisemitism' is something else one needs to be able to deal with on this forum.
It's very tiring on the eyes, that's for sure. |
|
|
|
I wonder what is the next FUD-attack. Hearn, Ver, Wright, Ehrsam,...  Ha ha, I was half expecting something from the bogus Tulip Trust, like a story that the trustee had absconded with a million BTC  |
|
|
|
I noticed that the price was on a small linear rise these past few days, then it just popped up. The only thing I can find as to what it might be is this: "CFTC Grants Full Registration to Bitcoin Swaps Trading Platform" -- Coindesk.... or is it just the "pre-halving"?
What's the prevailing wind out there say? There are some technical reasons, because there was a fakeout, and we've broken through resistance. |
|
|
|
Pre-halving rally is go.  |
|
|
|
I have not suggested "Banning ransom payments," that was you. I did suggest that making beetcoin illegal would make it less attractive to ransomware scumbags disruptive beadcoin entrepreneurs who extort hospitals.
Because demanding to be paid in Bleetcoins would assure that the aforementioned paradigm-shifters will not get paid, making their douchebaggery objectively unprofitable, all for naught. Where the payment is demanded in crypto, your suggestion is tantamount to just that. Anyway, good luck saving hospitals by smashing our roof in with a hammer. I'd put better odds on Boolberry becoming the #1 crypto myself, but each to their own. |
|
|
|
In particular, we have identified seven causes for concern that can cause DAO participants to engage in strategic behaviors. Some of these behaviors can cause honest DAO investors to have their investments hijacked or committed to proposals against their interest and intent. http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/05/27/dao-call-for-moratorium/The dump that will commence soon on Polo is going to be epic. Always good for some extra BTC. |
|
|
|
What am I looking at? BitTorrent traffic*? Which is not regulated and is perfectly legal? You're telling me that while internet traffic is increasing at exponential rate, the perfectly legal & unregulated BitTorrent traffic is also increasing, albeit at a much lower rate? This is, indeed, amazing  P2P traffic. It is mostly a poke at your Gnutella chart, as the preferred method of piracy has obviously shifted. If piracy is consuming a smaller percentage of global bandwidth, I'd suggest this is due to streaming services such as Netflix which reduce the incentive, rather than due to anti-P2P endeavours. Now you're starting to get it. And lower likelihood of getting paid lowers the profitability of your khrymez. Q.E.D., my rebellious friend  Banning ransom payments isn't going to work because enough people will pay to still make it a profitable venture. This is why it isn't good enough, beside the fact that you're criminalizing the victims who do pay, a fact exploitable by the still-not-discouraged hackers. |
|
|
|
I'm not suggesting that regulation of everything is trivial. Merely that regulating bit-coin is trivial. As far as piracy goes, regulation works well enough  Hey, bring it on. Just as with piracy, you may find that it isn't as trivial as you think.  No doubt that growth is entirely non-infringing Explain to me the mechanics of paying off a bitcoin ransom for the case in question:
I'm not going to hypothesize how that transaction would work, suffice to say that it would deter payment if crypto were illegal. |
|
|
|
Of course history of use matters. Otherwise the cigs I'm smoking would have been banned a long time ago.
And sure, if people want something bad enough, be it raping, shooting people, shooting dope, or using bleatcoins, they will get it. OTOH, when things are made illegal, they become less desirable. Not to pubescent children with daddy issues, but to most people.
The difficulty of enforcing regulation is not a result of the length of a thing's history. It is a product of its distribution, prevalence, concealability etc. and these things can develop from a long history or a very short one. Gnutella and Kad network are relatively novel, yet I would like to see you regulate them away, even with all the $ from the MPAA in your pocket. Not looking for the optimal solution, simply pointing out that you're factually wrong: making bitscoin illegal would discourage beetcoin extortionists But it won't. What will happen more often is that the crime simply won't be reported, and that the victims will be criminalized. Good 'nuff? |
|
|
|
Comparing bitscoins to alcohol (documented history of use going back ~5000 years) is as much of a stretch as comparing beadcoin to the internet: ridiculous. The documented history of the use of something means nothing. Books have been banned before publication yet still disseminated. You can't stop what people want, and people want crypto, whether rightly, whether wrongly, whether ridiculously... Banning betcoin would certainly make it less attractive to extortionists bitcoin entrepreneurs. No hospital would break the law (by buying illegal beetcoins) to pay ransom I was here before you: surely a better way to stop extortion would be to make paying any ransom illegal. This is strangely at odds with the last advice I heard from the FBI... |
|
|
|
I'm not usually worried about myself/those I care about getting murdered or raped, so good 'nuff for me. But sure, it's possible to get crime rates down, though this typically involves more $ on policing &/or laxer policing standards. This does happen when crime rates become unacceptably high (think "stop & frisk," airport body searches, etc.), so careful what you wish for Despite all the regulations and penalties during the Prohibition, alcohol was still easily obtainable. Despite all the dollars spent policing illegal substances, they are still easily obtainable. How do you suppose cryptos can be banned, regulated and policed so that they are sufficiently difficult to obtain as to deter an extortionist? The law and even the state has limits, and your proposal is not going to work nearly good enough. |
|
|
|
i always see this topic gets bumped up from time to time and i have only read the comments so far, and i have to say i doubt if anybody is foolish enough to go all in on an investment like bitcoin.
it is good and profitable but it is also risky and investing all means losing big even with a small drop!
Are you new to humankind? People take crazy risks all the time. |
|
|
|
Seems like the honey badger don't give a shit about scaling |
|
|
|
It's all the same pump team behind them both ... so it's not really stealing.
Heh, wouldn't surprise me. I know they've recruited the same PR company as Ethereum, so no doubt the forum will be spammed soon with Lisk posts from new users. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
