yes, this is just what India needs to succeed, more laws, regulations, rule books, bureaucrats and officials to oversee the new officiating regime.
Whole new armies of bitcoin bureaucrats in white shirts ... let's just accept the place is truly fecked up and move on ... they couldn't organise their way out of a paper bag. I don't know what you're talking about. I think all that needs to happen is for the honest Bitcoin businesses to pay for some lobbyists and open a dialog with regulators, so those regulators understand that Bitcoin isn't a threat. As long as they act in good faith to obey the rules then everything will be fine, because regulators are reasonable and fair people and regulations really are there for our protection, not to just to be arbitrary or vindictive or to benefit some parts of society at the expense of others. They just need to form some kind of Foundation in India, donate money, and believe; and everything will be fine. |
|
|
|
There's a selection effect in play here, where the kinds of people who become career-track civil servants are those who believe the government is somewhat immortal/omnipotent/eternal, or at least damn stable. Whether it's true or not is another thing. Some people believe this, some don't… the ones who believe it are much more likely to be civil servants. These people have a really really really really high threshold for jumping ship… major cognitive dissonance. As in, about as likely as me applying for a job at the NSA. It would take something truly apocalyptic. The fraction of government employees who are True Believers is fairly small, at least in the US. The typical government employee is disgruntled to at least some degree and is there for the pension. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin does not replace fiat. Bitcoin allows people to escape from fiat.
Some might believe that most of the population is very happy with fiat. They don't mind their purchasing power draining away over time, they enjoy restrictions on how they are allowed to use their currency, nothing pleases them more than having their bank accounts confiscated at the whim of distant politicians and used to bail out politically privileged groups.
If you believe that, there's no reason for Bitcoin to continue to grow.
On the other hand, if it turns out that most people don't actually enjoy those things then they will flee in ever larger numbers as alternatives to fiat become increasingly credible until nobody uses government-issued currencies any more.
|
|
|
|
Why do they allow person to person trading then?
Wrong question. "What could they do to stop P2P trading if they wanted to?" |
|
|
|
Yes we should. Because it is wrong. Reverse other people's transactions
Send coins that never belonged to him The attacker CAN do these things. Are you claiming that somebody broke ECDSA? |
|
|
|
|
US constitution is a very old piece of paper in a glass box that would fall apart very rapidly if you tried to use it to protect anything.
|
|
|
|
My Indian friend called me a few hours ago, and told me that he is deleting his Localbitcoins.com account. His bank accounts were linked to it, and he is now fearful that the police might come after him. But he also told me that there are still Indian users who are selling Bitcoins using that site.
I doubt that the owners of a site in Finland are giving customer information to the authorities in India. There's no means by which they could issue a subpoena. Only the USSA gets to effectively exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
|
Why are there votes in the poll for anything except "HODL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"?
|
|
|
|
Stamp is going down, gox is sitting tight, china is going up. Wonderfully confusing.
That set of indications would be consistent with exchange users buying up bitcoins in China, moving them to Bitstamp, and selling for fiat. |
|
|
|
The business would also have to re-tell the master public in case the customer does not have it at hand and we are back to square one.
Not really. An xpub + index hint does not restrict the customer's client in the same way a single address or static list of addresses restricts the client. |
|
|
|
otherwise it converges to a more complicated, but equivalent model of the business providing the address. If the business tells the client the next unused index value each time it sends an invoice that would solve the problem you describe without removing the client's ability to choose how many new addresses to use |
|
|
|
all normal businesses whether or not they accept it.
OH... I see... :-)... Yeah... "whether or not they accept it"... yeah...
It will make sense in due time and be obvious in retrospect. |
|
|
|
if no normal bussines (grocery, electronic, housing, energy, transport etc. etc. etc.) accept it, the price CRASHES= bitcoin is dead. (using it only in the black market wont save it). Decentralization is worthless argument here. Not everybody is as deficient in imagination as you. Soon enough we'll be able to use Bitcoins to obtain products and services from virtually all normal businesses whether or not they accept it. |
|
|
|
2. The customer pick the address(es) - This is potentially bad for the business since it could reveal its revenue to competitor if customer re-uses or leaks the master public. The customer doesn't have "the" master public key, they have one specific to them. At worst, they can leak the amount they, and only they, have paid. There is also a scale issue. If one assumes that businesses have magnitudes more customer than the number of businesses a customer deals with, then it is likely that 2. would magnify the effort on monitoring and reconciling payments on the side that already has the bigger problem. Any serious B2B or B2C business is already using net accounting that does not assume a 1:1 relationship between invoices and payment - if they weren't things would blow up all the time. Think about it: a phone company issues a $50 invoice to a customer in November. The customer is late with the payment and hasn't paid by the time the December bill posts. Now he owes $100. The customer can pay that as a $100 lump sum and the phone company's accounting system will have no problem whatsoever. The customer can even pay $75 when the December bill posts, and then $25 a week later. Their accounting system will have no problems keeping track of which invoices are paid and which are outstanding in either case. Maybe I need to write up a guide to business accounting practises for Bitcoin developers as a blog post. Implementing net accounting is not hard, but if somebody naively implements accounting with an embedded assumption that for every invoice there will be exactly one payment things are going to fail hard for somebody when real life fails to live up to the requirements of their accounting model. |
|
|
|
Yes, re-using addresses is bad in general and should be avoided if done for no reason, but is not a dogma.
In case of a bill where the address is generated to collect payments for that bill, I see no problem with it. But even if you would want to address that one could create more than one address for a bill that the payee can chose from. You're vastly underestimating the problem. Actions which reduce privacy are, by the nature of the blockchain, permanent and their ramifications are not always apparent at the time of the event. Actions today which may seem to be no big deal are only going to grow in severity over time as blockchain analysis techniques get more advanced. Dogmatically avoiding address reuse is the only responsible policy. It's not sufficient to ensure privacy but it is a minimum necessary condition. Putting control over privacy in the hands of businesses who hand out invoices guarantees it will be destroyed because many businesses are privacy-hostile or just don't give a shit. The only possibility of having good behaviour on the network is if the required actions are under the control of the payers, not the payees. This is where control over privacy should properly reside anyway because it leaves both sides free to choose how much privacy they do or do not want. A payee who receives unmerged outputs to distinct addresses is free to merge them if he or she wants, but a payer who is only allowed a single address to pay to has someone else's privacy police imposed on them unilaterally. Still I think that the person who creates the bill should be in control of where he wants to receive the money and not hop that the payee makes some sensible choice out of a huge range he has to potentially monitor. The attack vector you're describing exists no matter how many addresses are used for a transaction. A malicious customer could send 1000 separate outputs to the same address just as easily as he should send 1 output to 1000 separate addresses. |
|
|
|
posting the same question over and over without using search is trolling.
I can't believe how a forum with a noob-prison still has so many noobs running around.
Don't assume that everybody who posts like a noob actually is genuinely ignorant. It's always good to do due diligence on somebody who "suddenly" discovers fatal flaws in bitcoin that apparently they think nobody ever noticed before or is already working to correct. 9 times out of 10 they are either already or preparing to pump a scamcoin or some kind of service that can't stand on its own merits, thus they are using FUD to boost adoption beyond what they'd otherwise get. |
|
|
|
You must be joking. I leave this as is as this is off topic here.
Ok, now I'm really concerned. You're seriously saying you don't see why two transactions in the form (A->C, B->C) have a privacy problem that the two transactions (A->C, B->D) don't have? |
|
|
|
|
The forum needs a "Concern Trolling" section where threads like this can be moved.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
