Bitcoin Forum
June 15, 2024, 06:22:17 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 [127] 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 ... 184 »
2521  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: XMR the next bitcoin? on: September 19, 2016, 08:53:01 AM
but it's still possible that a coin like Monero Or Shadowcash couldn't catch a Niche market and hold it even a small percentage of DM transactions going into  either coins instead of only Bitcoin could have dramatic effects on price.

In fact, the use as a currency (and ONLY as a currency) has amazingly little effect on market cap.  Bitcoin is WAY WAY WAY too high to be driven by "currency demand".
When using Fisher's formula, you essentially have that the market cap of a currency equals the yearly value transacted as currency (the size of its market), divided by the number of times a currency unit changed hands during a year as a currency.

For instance, if on average, a currency unit is kept 2 weeks between obtaining it (in a trade) and spending it (in another trade: pure currency use, no hodling, no speculation, just an intermediate good between the first and the second trade), then this is a factor of 24.

So if the market cap of that currency is, say 100 million $, then it supported a 2.4 billion dollar per year market.

If the trades are much faster, say, 1 day between obtaining the currency (say, on an exchange against fiat) and buying something with it on DM, then this factor rises to 365.  That means that with a 100 million $ market cap of the currency, you can handle a 36.5 billion dollar per year market.

In the extreme limit, if you think of bitcoin and you wait only 6 blocks between getting it, and spending it, that amounts to 1 hour of "keeping the coin", then our factor in Fisher's formula becomes 8760.  A currency market cap of 100 million $ can then sustain a market of 876 billion dollars a year.   That is more than the GDP of some of the smaller European countries.

So depending on the "hold time" of a currency, you do not need huge market caps to sustain a large market.

In principle, with bitcoin's market cap, you could sustain a 87 trillion $ market, which is of the order of the world GDP.... except that bitcoin can't because of the block size limit.

2522  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Geth bug cuts in half Ethereum's hashrate on: September 19, 2016, 08:28:24 AM
This will not effect Ethereum supporters.  They have faith.  Ethereum is a belief system not unlike religion.  Moreover, they are all ready and willing to commit financial suicide and/or cryptojihad for their cryptofaith and, their almighty leader Vitalik Buterin (Peace be upon him). 
This religious DETH CULT will soon be having its annual Devcon pilgrimage / cryptohajj.  Ether People will travel from far and wide to Shanghai next week for the religious festival.  They feel nothing can stop them.

This is the 21st Century man.  The world turnd to shit.  Government are loosing control, the middle east is torn apart by proxy war, the fiat financial systems are crumbling. People need to believe in something!

Welcome to the first Church of Appliantology "Ethereum"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvnO3On4_fo

Brilliant  Cheesy
2523  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: XMR the next bitcoin? on: September 19, 2016, 07:39:35 AM
So monero should of just remained a pure byte coin clone and not made any improvements as they have(small)?

Monero is an experiment in anonymity transactions.  It is part of monero culture to have regular hard forks.  So monero is not a true "block chain" yet, but tries out anon technology.  As a currency, that's more than good enough, because currencies have only to keep value relatively short term.  
The nice thing about monero evolution is that it are hard forks, so if you want to, you can always keep the old chain alive if you want to.
But yes, if one day, the monero team decided to quit, at that point, monero would become a genuine block chain with an immutable protocol.  For the moment, I guess that improving anon tech is more important than immutability in the long run.  This is also why I wouldn't like the market cap of monero to go too high, and the recent rise can be problematic.  Hopefully, monero's market cap goes down somewhat, for it not to interfere with the development and evolution.
On the other hand, in order to really be used as a currency, it needs to have SOME appreciable market cap, in order to support sufficient transactions of value.
Crypto has to be tested real-world.  Hopefully the FBI tries to crack it.  If it survives, that's good news for crypto.  If it breaks, better find out now and mitigate (or give up).
2524  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: THE RISE AND RISE OF MONERO on: September 19, 2016, 05:55:03 AM
After doing a lot of research i've come to the conclusion that its not possible. Anon coins cant go major mainstream because the fiat gateways wont let that happen.

If anon coins depend on fiat gateways, then by definition they are not mainstream, because then fiat is mainstream.  That said, anon coins don't have to go "mainstream", but just big enough to be useful as a currency.

However, if anything, probably a right approach would be: fiat -> bitcoin.  Once you are in the crypto sphere, even with a transparent ledger, many more things are possible, such as distributed exchanges.  True distributed anonymous exchanges for fiat are not possible, because or you have to have physical contact with cash, or you have to have some bank account.  In both cases, it cannot be "distributed - anonymous".  But one could think of distributed smart contracts on networks like Tor where there is no anonymity rupture exchanging coins of different nature.  One could even do it on top of ethereum although ethereum is much too transparent as such ; I'm more thinking of something like Hawk. (the "monero" version, or better, the zcash version of ethereum).  So after fiat -> bitcoin, we can have bitcoin --(hawk)--> monero.

But it won't be bitcoin, nor monero of course.  It will be something newer, invented the next century.

So once, if ever, bitcoin-like transparent coins are "mainstream", one can easily go the anon side.
2525  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Geth bug cuts in half Ethereum's hashrate on: September 19, 2016, 05:20:01 AM
Here is a quote from someone who has a better idea on what is going on. The problem is minor and it only proves some people get too excited and get carried way causing them to sensationalize the issue.

Memory leak means you have to restart the program from time to time, else it could eat up all the available memory then freeze/crash.
It's nothing big and it's not a security issue.
I don't think it would cause dump unless more FUD is placed onto the forums.



The point is that a specific block (and probably a specific transaction) caused such a significant memory leak that the software crashed.  Normal memory leaks do, as your quote says, but that would never get any "coherent effect" because nodes are started up with random times, and hence the crashing rate would be constant and small.  The simultaneous crashing by memory leaks on a specific block actually means something totally different: an exploit.  Mostly, probably, a kind of buffer overflow, the base of 95% of all exploits.
It means that special transactions can blow up your node... or maybe totally other things.  That means the code contains at least one buffer overflow or similar error, and hence most probably MANY.  This is no surprise, as the execution of the complex code means that your node is a small OS in a certain way.  Much, much more complicated to manage exploitless than bitcoin-like nodes.

This is the signature of ethereum: security was an afterthought, and the system they set up is just too complex.

Ethereum is a hacker's paradise.
2526  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: almost an hour into an attack on the ETH network? on: September 19, 2016, 05:13:05 AM
Should a coin with eth's current marketcap being experiencing things like this? I'm open to discussion.

I don't see the point of a hypothetical question, when reality just proved it.  A coin with ETH's market cap DID experience this. 
Your question is akin to "should the moon undergo earth's gravity ?" .

Or maybe you meant something else ?

2527  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: XMR the next bitcoin? on: September 19, 2016, 05:11:04 AM
So your development team only builds the coin and then leave it to the users to market it and get merchants to accept it?

Well, I find that the purest form of immutability, honestly.  The code is there, once and for all, implementing the white paper protocol.  One can of course always implement bug corrections, and efficiency improvements, but ideally, once the protocol is correctly implemented, that should be it, and there shouldn't be any "dev team" hanging around, having some moral high ground to break immutability by "improving" the protocol (and hence change it).
2528  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: XMR the next bitcoin? on: September 19, 2016, 05:09:14 AM
I doubt it just have a look at how it measures up to the supposed shit coin Shadowcash(SDC).
No wonder XMR fan boys wage a smear campaign on it this chart sort of speaks for its self! now go check the price difference  Roll Eyes




I would say that the only thing that is of any importance here, is multisig.  All the rest is not a coin's business.  The coin = the block chain protocol.  Whether you can chat, have graphical interfaces, an Apple implementation, commercial applications, network technology etc... ON TOP or NEXT to it is not the coin's business, and has nothing to do with the soundness of the protocol.

What matters for a coin is the protocol, and its privacy and economic consequences.  Can it be asic mined, can one track a succession of transactions on the block chain, are there ways to do more than simple transactions (multisig for instance), smart contracts, are there hard limits like block size, what is the coin emission model, ...

But chatting, networking, and other fancy stuff can always be done *independently* of the basic coin protocol.  So it doesn't matter.

But multisig is essential.
2529  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: The Criminal Coin on: September 19, 2016, 04:14:03 AM
You have done nothing but use ad hominem attacks. You've already lost the argument son.

What imaginary argument is it that you speak of, Mr. Got-my-head-so-far-up-my-ass-all-I-can-see-is-my-rib-cage?   Undecided

The argument is this one: a successful "attack" in crypto is not "criminal" but is "winning".  This is why there is nothing criminal about the DAO failure, except to strip the rightful winner of the lottery from his gains by changing the rules.

A successful breaking of AES wouldn't be "criminal" either, but a success of the one finding the trick, and a failure of AES.  In crypto, breaking crypto is the normal thing to attempt - otherwise there is no need for crypto.

So the only criminal coin, if any, is ETH, who didn't respect its own engagements, by stripping a winner from its bait.

Now, you can say, that the game is more complex, and that "being able to change the rules at will" is also part of the game.  In that case, ETH is not a criminal coin, but an even smarter attack.    As crypto is warfare, you can hardly call "the enemy trying to hit you" criminal.  But you could consider that "changing the rules of warfare" just as well a tactic.

So in the crypto scene, NOTHING is criminal.  It is a battlefield, and may the one that outsmarts and destroys the other best, win.

As such, neither ETC (where someone used the crypto according to the announced rules to make a surprise win), nor ETH (where the surprise attack was to break the block chain) is criminal.  Both are ways to rip off the other, which is the goal of this game in the first place.

So, in summary: the DAO hacker outsmarted ethereum/DAO, and was hence a winner (on ethereum/ETC).  But ETH outsmarted the DAO hacker, by breaking the block chain.  As such, ETH was an even greater winner in this war game, by inventing an even bigger weapon.
2530  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Expect ransomware arrests soon, says bitcoin tracking firm Chainalysis on: September 19, 2016, 03:53:31 AM
Ransomware cases are mostly nuisances that disrupt and delay your work. Companies especially banks back up their important data daily or sometimes more than that.
You are talking about corporate ransomware cases. But I assure you that anyone can be a victim here.
I am basically a nobody with no business and yet my secondary laptop which my mother use was infected with CryptoWall ransom ware..
I didn't backup any that files prior to that attack as it were mostly only family photos and movies.

But that's the point !!
Suppose the disk died.  Not that this doesn't happen, right ?  So that means that you valued what was on that laptop less than the price of a hard disk and the pain of making a backup: less than, say, $100.  Then one could at most ask you 0.2 BTC as ransomware, no ?  You didn't care.  At least, with the ransomware, you can still pay, and get the files back.  If the disk scratches, or if someone by accident does a deep format, its gone forever.

Disks die all the time.  People make errors all the time.  Data is destroyed all the time.  But if it is "ransomware" then suddenly this is drama !   There's only one lesson: BACK UP or consider the data lost at any moment is not going to harm you.

I would even say that ransomware has a very good effect: it is (by paying) reversible in most cases.  Usually, people learn about data loss and the need for back ups the hard way: they don't consider it, until data is gone (computer stolen, disk scratched, human error, ...) for good.   Ransomware gives you a wake-up call with still the possibility to get your data back.

I would say that ransomware has only one extra problem: that is that you now also have to make air gapped backups.  Indeed, ransomware could encrypt everything that is easily network-mounted, like your online backup storage.  But then, human errors can ALSO format the backup disk.  So if your backup storage can be erased from the network, you should consider air-gapped copies of it too.  That's indeed a pain.  The other solution is to have a one-way backup storage, that can only ADD stuff to it.  This, you can leave on your network, as long as you make sure that that system is hardened (you don't use it for anything else).

2531  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Geth bug cuts in half Ethereum's hashrate on: September 19, 2016, 03:41:58 AM
Just wait and see:

https://twitter.com/FAILCommunity/status/777624681536946176

This could not be another DAO FAIL, but will surely teach you some lessons.  

The AMAZING thing is that price is hardly affected. 
2532  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: almost an hour into an attack on the ETH network? on: September 19, 2016, 03:39:05 AM
Unstoppable Turing complete code LMAO  Grin

This is maybe a trick by Vitalik to give him a root password to the chain ?  After PoW and PoS, we will also have PoV ?

Now, one has to be fair, bitcoin experienced similar things too, when its market cap was $100.
2533  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: New privacy centric altcoin - ideas on: September 18, 2016, 07:04:01 PM
You should also make anonymous transactions compulsory: ONLY notes after the coinbase creation. 

As someone said somewhere: if you use ZCASH, it is for its anonymity.  But then you should use anonymous transactions.  Even if they are "heavy".

Could you expand a bit on this? I haven't read much discussion of it. I would think that the possibility of some recipients being exposed (by not using anonymous transactions) entails significant privacy concerns for those who are using them.

You are perfectly right.  A problem with ZCASH is that you can do also "normal transactions" like bitcoin transactions.  In fact, for a long time, I wasn't sure about it.  But ZCASH is essentially the realization of the old proposal of implementing zerocoin into the bitcoin protocol.  Because bitcoin doesn't move, the ZCASH team essentially decided to launch a new "bitcoin" with, this time, the zerocoin protocol (the improved version, zerocash) incorporated.  So you can have zcash "coins" which are like bitcoin, and which are transparent ; and then you can transform coins into notes, which are the anonymous version.  You can also redeem coins with notes.  The notes are anonymous because when you transact notes, you do this with a zero knowledge proof: you prove that you have been using a valid note in your transaction, but people don't know which one.   So the anonymity set is all the notes that have ever been created.  The ZK proof also indicates that this note was not yet "spend".  The next time you try to spend the same note, it won't work, you will not be able to make a new ZK proof of valid note.   But nobody apart you knows which note.

These notes ZK proofs are very computationally heavy to make (about a minute on a high end PC).

So essentially you have:

normal "bitcoin" transaction: (coins) -> (coins)

ZK proof: (coins + ev. notes) -> (notes)    OR (notes) -> (coins + ev. notes) OR (notes) -> (notes)

2534  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Apple and DASH on: September 18, 2016, 06:52:49 PM
Could anybody explain to me, why corporation Apple allow integrate crypto-currency into applications except DASH?
In my opinion Apple want follow the trend of cryptos coins and they choose coins that has potential in the future. Not DASH only that be rejected by Apple, ETC too be rejected by Apple. Maybe both are not potential growing up in the future.

We're talking about *applications* that do this, not Apple itself.  It is very strange to limit customers in the kind of applications that they can run, based upon which specific things that application handles.  It is almost as if they would only allow PDF readers that can read English and Spanish texts, but PDF readers that can display Russian or French texts would be banned from the Apple store.  You can say that Apple only promotes languages that are growing, but why stop applications that can read French documents ?
2535  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Apple and DASH on: September 18, 2016, 06:48:32 PM
....

I've heard about those locked boot loaders.  One should avoid buying such devices, but I think it must be possible to hack them open.  I don't think there is any legal procedure that can be used against you for REMOVING software or firmware from a device ; and if so, it would be the OEM that would have a strange hardware selling licence.  I've never had an intel machine on which I couldn't remove windows entirely (that's usually the first thing I do with a new computer).  It is true that UEFI is a pain, but I thought even (though I never bothered) that there are laws in some countries that force microsoft to pay back the windows license if you ask to remove it.

There could be manufacturers that lock down windows in the UEFI.  Then one mustn't buy stuff from them.  They can make life technically difficult, but I don't see how you could be legally annoyed by doing away with software.

I'm not sure if removing UEFI locks is prohibited by law, but it seems to be prohibited by technical measures on newer processors from both AMD and Intel:
https://libreboot.org/faq/#intelme
https://libreboot.org/faq/#amd

IThat was not my point.  The Intel ME is seriously problematic.  However, I think it is not as dramatic as it seems at first sight.  My point was that one shouldn't buy hardware with windows-locked-up UEFI.  One should keep the UEFI but one that allows you to install free systems.  Up to now I never had a problem with that.  There are European laws that FORBID OEM to lock down an operating system, so there will always be manufacturers that allow Linux installs.

That said, there is (and I have to thank you for those links) a serious problem with that ME (bigger than I had realized) - but I consider that it is their good right.  The reason why - even though intel's secret key is essentially the back door in every computer that the NSA would like to impose so much - I'm not really so worried about it, is that foreign states use intel PC too, including their intelligence services.  Now, either these people are vastly incompetent and are putting their state's secrets open to read by the NSA, or they cracked the ME and then they are vastly incompetent by using intel machines in the US government because now THEIR machines are open to just any foreign cracker that broke the ME, if this were such a wide open back door.  Also, there are too many things that the US government *doesn't* get right if it were true that they can just enter every computer in the world without the slightest effort.
That said, this ME *is* a problem and it is one day going to blow in Intel's face.  When a totally unknown party will have hacked into the ME.
2536  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: New privacy centric altcoin - ideas on: September 18, 2016, 06:35:21 PM
The main drawback of the trusted setup is that it is not auditable. It makes it impossible to ever know if the setup was corrupted, and if the supply really is limited to 21M.

I think the trusted setup can be made more trustworthy, if there is an open participation, and if there are MANY participants.  I already suggested this.  Instead of 18 participants or so, you could provide for thousands of participants, essentially everybody who is interested.

A suggestion is this: consider, say, 20 000 participants in the setup (with the idea that less people will actually show up).  Ask people on bitcointalk to post their public parameters.  Up to 20 000 people can do so before a given date.  We can all see those contributions, and YOU can see YOURS. 
At the given date, include all the published public parameters in the final trusted setup parameters, and generate as many others to reach 20 000 in total.  The only thing YOU have to verify is that YOUR parameters are part of it.  Then you know if you can trust yourself.
It doesn't matter if 99% of the others are "Sybil" parameters: your parameter is sufficient to give you some trust in it.
You can also verify that all the published parameters are included.   It would be a good idea if people could sign their parameters with PGP signatures, so that we have an idea of the diversity of the number of people involved.

But again, if YOU are part of the trusted setup, YOU can trust it.  With, say, 20 000 participants, chances are that many people can trust the trusted setup, and in the end, even people that are not part of it (later) know maybe some people that are part of it, and which they can trust.

Of course, you can never take away the existential doubt of a trusted setup, unless you are part of it and you know it ; but if, say, 20 000 people are in that case, then I think the trusted setup can in practice be trusted.

Quote
A few friends and I are considering forking Zcash with a couple small tweaks. 1) address the trusted setup, perhaps by enforcing a periodic coin audit (transaction which reveals not who, but how much owned) at the protocol level. 2) reduce or eliminate the founder's reward. (I'm for eliminating it, but I understand that it's tough to motivate anyone to work entirely for free)

You definitely should eliminate it.

You should also make anonymous transactions compulsory: ONLY notes after the coinbase creation. 

As someone said somewhere: if you use ZCASH, it is for its anonymity.  But then you should use anonymous transactions.  Even if they are "heavy".

2537  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: I think Ethereum will be finished after this attack on: September 18, 2016, 09:23:00 AM
Looks like the glory days of ETH is coming back. How far do you think it can go this time?

We'll see that when the next exploit of a smart contract happens...
2538  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Expect ransomware arrests soon, says bitcoin tracking firm Chainalysis on: September 18, 2016, 09:21:18 AM
Ransomware cases are mostly nuisances that disrupt and delay your work. Companies especially banks back up their important data daily or sometimes more than that.

Indeed, if you are panicked about ransomware, then you should rather thank the guys doing that for doing a wake-up call.  At least, with ransomware, there IS a means to get your data back: pay up.  If your data are so badly protected and so badly backed up that ransomware can put you into (reversible) difficulty, then you have created a situation where you can easily, by material or software failure, be put in the same, but this time irreversible, difficulty.
You should have backups, and you should have air-gapped backups of everything important.

That said, having to restore from backup is a pain, and you will lose recent work.  But it shouldn't be more nuisance than this.  If it is, the ransomware just indicated you've put yourself in deep potential risk.
2539  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: New privacy centric altcoin - ideas on: September 18, 2016, 09:08:21 AM
Again, I think you are confusing operational security with the coin protocol.  There are of course coin protocols that are easier to make secure in operation than others, but the way you encrypt your wallet, hide the data, or the human interface to enter one's pin code, the way the networking is done and so on, is NOT part of the coin protocol.  For instance, hiding your IP can be done in bitcoin by transmitting the transactions over TOR or the like.  You could send transactions by paper mail if you want.  These operational security and anonymity questions have nothing to do with the coin protocol itself.
For instance, you might use TOR and many other means to hide your identity, when you put your bitcoins on an exchange, the transparency of the block chain kills most of that effort.  On the other hand, you might use monero to obfuscate the transaction history, but if you do this on a compromised machine or a compromised network, it is of no use.

But the coin, and the opsec, cover different aspects of the security and anonymity question.  There's no point in trying to solve opsec questions with the coin protocol, and there's no point in trying to solve coin protocol questions with operational security tools.  Although one has to keep in mind one when dealing with the other, they are nevertheless different things.

The relationship is somewhat similar between cryptography and OPSEC.  Both address different problem domains, although one has to take into account the requirements of the other.

There's no point in using AES-256 if you have a key logger on your machine.  But you shouldn't use broken crypto for your password encryption either.

2540  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Apple and DASH on: September 18, 2016, 05:37:11 AM
...

I think this is somewhat unfair to Apple.  After all, the *ONLY* reason why Apple is pickish about these things is because they feel the heat from the Biggest of all Brothers on this planet: the totalitarian united states of america federal government.   Otherwise they wouldn't bother.

The United States Government is not forcing Apple to do anything here.

Well, real power is when you don't even have to tell your lackeys any more what your wishes are, but they fight amongst themselves to guess them and please you, and go and impose your wishes even before you have to say so, no ?

Quote
When it comes to violence on the part of the United States Government the passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998 by the United States Congress stands out as the one act of violence by the United States Government in the last 25 years. It is further reinforced by the actions of US Trade Representative in promoting DRM around the world. Yes this is far worse then all the actions of United States military, the CIA, NSA etc combined during the same period.

Without the violence stick behind it, we would all laugh our ass off DMCA.  Don't confuse the means and the goals.  They are not separated.  The means are the goals, and the goals are the means, in this vicious circle of power.

But I agree with you that "intellectual property rights" are incompatible with fundamental freedoms, and allow at the same time some elite to gather immense wealth and power.

Quote
To understand this one only needs to consider that the number deaths due to smoking worldwide in the 20th century were actually higher than the deaths caused by World War I and World War II combined. A critical component in these smoking deaths was that the tobacco industry went out of its way to hide and obfuscate the data on the relationship between smoking and premature death. Data that they claimed was their proprietary information. Protecting the "intellectual property" of multinational corporations can be a crime worse than war if one measures this crime by the number of deaths it can cause. This is just one industry. Multiply this by the crimes committed by large multinational corporations in areas as diverse as manufacturing to pharmaceuticals and one gets the real picture here. The vast majority of corporate crimes are crimes of deceit and fraud, and withholding information because it is proprietary is a critical component of such crimes.

This is a bad example, I'm afraid.  Nobody forces you to smoke.  With freedom also comes the freedom to scam.  It gets worse when, using DRM, these companies attack in justice *independent analysis*, but nobody can force you (in a free world) to tell the truth about your own data.  Even if I have huge labs that have examined in every detail the effect of radioactivity on human health, I consider it part of my fundamental freedoms to set up a publicity campaign to have people buy my plutonium sun tan cream "to boost the vitality of their immune system" or any other scam.  And if I'm successful, and I can kill 90% of human population that way, I would consider this as nothing else but the normal enjoyment of my personal fundamental freedoms.

However, if I send out thugs that force people to put that cream on, I'd be a criminal violator of people's freedoms.

Quote
Furthermore most violence attributed to governments worldwide is actually done at the behest of multinational corporate interests. Every time a government drops a bomb one must ask the question which multinational corporate interests asked the government to drop said bomb. There is where the real fault for the violence, death and misery the bomb causes actually lies.

This is because, again, goal and means are one and the same.  The government is partly multinational corporate world, and vice versa.  The official government is only the tip of the iceberg of what government is about.  But these multinational corporations couldn't exist without the violence of the state, and the politicians couldn't do their manipulative acts without those corporations (otherwise the politicians wouldn't do them any favours).  This is ONE AND THE SAME aristocracy, and the "democratic show" we see every so many years to get one or another straw man "winning a popular election" is nothing else but a façade for this aristocracy to keep the power.

Quote
Again there are some very serious misconceptions here. In the case of Intel computers and Microsoft this used to be the case say 20 years ago, but it is no longer the case, in particular since the advent of UEFI bios. These computers can be locked down even worse than most mobile devices including iDevices. Microsoft has mandated that they be sold with the UEFI bios locked. Those with Windows 8.x and Intel/AMD compatible processors Microsoft required that the UEFI bios be unlock-able by the end user. In the Windows 10 case the noose was tightened further with the mandate that they be sold with the UEFI bios locked, but the requirement that the UEFI bios be unlock-able by the end user removed. With Windows ARM devices (Windows surface) the Microsoft Mandate is that UEFI bios be not unlock-able by the end user, creating a situation that is actually worse than with Apple. When it comes installing software on Windows, Microsoft is moving towards a closed platform with their Windows store and Windows Universal, and has added language to their EULA allowing Microsoft to remove any software it so desires from end user computers running Microsoft Windows 10. On the other hand it has modified the Windows kernel in Windows 10 64bit to run the GNU tool chain on top of Windows. So we literally have both extremes on one computer.

I've heard about those locked boot loaders.  One should avoid buying such devices, but I think it must be possible to hack them open.  I don't think there is any legal procedure that can be used against you for REMOVING software or firmware from a device ; and if so, it would be the OEM that would have a strange hardware selling licence.  I've never had an intel machine on which I couldn't remove windows entirely (that's usually the first thing I do with a new computer).  It is true that UEFI is a pain, but I thought even (though I never bothered) that there are laws in some countries that force microsoft to pay back the windows license if you ask to remove it.

There could be manufacturers that lock down windows in the UEFI.  Then one mustn't buy stuff from them.  They can make life technically difficult, but I don't see how you could be legally annoyed by doing away with software.


Quote
The issue with Android is the manufacturers and telcos and not Google. The vast majority of Android devices are sold with locked boot loaders and no root access. This is required for the DRM in these devices to do its dastardly deeds. In some cases they are also locked to the Google play store like iDevices. The impact of this is that a lot of software cannot be run on these devices without rooting. The secret to freedom in Android is to 1) Unlock the Boot loader 2) Root the device and 3) as in any mobile device remove the carrier lock. Rooting an Android device will of course break the DRM. and can lead to "a police raid on one's home" as in the Apple case. Once these three steps are accomplished then one is free and how one chooses to exercise one's freedom such as by installing a different ROM becomes one's own business.

I wouldn't, indeed, mess with a stock rom.  That's probably "illegal".  One should only buy devices that are listed on, say, cyanogenmod's list.  Again, I don't see how one could get raided because one installed cyanogenmod on one's device.

Quote
As for Apple customers not been interested in Crypto this again is not true. What happens with Apple customers is that they are for the most part deceived by Apple on these issues. Here is an example of what can happen when a Apple customer figures out they were had.

Well, I consider it "fair play" to want to deceive one's customers, as long as you don't use violence to impose it on them.

Pages: « 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 [127] 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 ... 184 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!