I would like to see this project created as a multi lingual application - added language menus, translation files etc. If that is done I pledge additional 5 BTC. Anyone has experience with Qt Linguist?
|
|
|
The moment quantum computing becomes a reality, your private keys are useless, and bitcoin becomes worthless. Unless miners start hashing with quantum computers.
|
|
|
I can hardly follow all the developments in this project. 24 hours a day is not enough.
|
|
|
Currently Mt Gox and other exchanges are the only source for price reporting. With a decentralized exchange, how will anybody know how much Bitcoin is worth? How do black markets work?
|
|
|
BTC indeed tries to simulate CASH for CASHLESS transactions. You are not aware what CASH is. Cash is not only bills or banknotes. Cash is every form of money (in paper, metal, wood, digital or whatever form) that you can instantaneously spend without increasing anyone's debt!
|
|
|
Show me that US attorneys have no evidence, please.
This is laughable. Again, as I said, you want from me to prove that I'm not guilty. This the Holy Inquisition approach as described above. Your only evidence is that I'm concealing or try to conceal the source of my money. I'm not concealing or trying to conceal anything. I just don't show the source off because I don't owe you anything, do I? Your perverted logic is saying that privacy is a crime. But it isn't! Moreover, privacy is a Constitutional right! This is why you have to break the law to prove that I'm breaking the law. The only "crime" that LR did is that they refused to spy on their customers.
|
|
|
I'm not endorsing anyone's arguments, but the fact that sources are concealed (or perhaps more suitably, that attempts were made to conceal the sources) doesn't mean there is no evidence of illegal proceeds. Well, answer my question then. What evidence would you have of money being illegal if you don't know where they come from? You made the same assumption again. How do you know that I don't know? That attempts were made to conceal the sources does not necessarily make it so. Again, you avoid answering my question. The reason you avoid answering is obvious. There is no way to claim my money are illegal if you don't know where they come from! So, LR can't be indicted for money laundering since there is no way they knew where their customers money were coming from!
|
|
|
I'm not endorsing anyone's arguments, but the fact that sources are concealed (or perhaps more suitably, that attempts were made to conceal the sources) doesn't mean there is no evidence of illegal proceeds. Well, answer my question then. What evidence would you have of money being illegal if you don't know where they come from?
|
|
|
I can't say who is right and who is wrong in this LR stuff, but the legal system is working as it was designed. Not at all. You seem to forget the definition of money laundering you pointed out? You don't have any evidence of illegal money because their source is concealed. To have any evidence of money being illegal you have to know the source. Simple as that. Your arguments are the same the Holy Inquisition used during the dark ages. Inquisition agents selected their targets on "probable cause" based on "some evidence". During the interrogation the "defendant" has to prove he/she is law-abiding citizen and that he/she is not guilty. If the poor victim died during the "indictment process" this was the ultimate proof that they were guilty, because God won't allow innocent people to die.
|
|
|
Then the presumption is that at least some of it is ill-gotten No. The presumption always is "not guilty unless your guilt is proven"! Or, are you saying that AML law is an exception to this universal principle in every judicial system? You're guilty by presumption and you have to prove you are not guilty?! ...if there is probable cause for indictment and some evidence against them. Please accept my apologies for putting an important part of the sentence near the end where it can be neatly chopped off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_causeProbable cause is like probable pregnancy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PregnancyIs the probable pregnancy a pregnancy or it isn't? So, please accept my apologies I should have modified the universal principal to suit AML laws. It should read - "not guilty unless you're probably guilty"
|
|
|
What's up with this mischievousness?
They see how BFL ponzi time is ending soon. This is why they are so nervous about every refund request.
|
|
|
Then the presumption is that at least some of it is ill-gotten No. The presumption always is "not guilty unless your guilt is proven"! Or, are you saying that AML law is an exception to this universal principle in every judicial system? You're guilty by presumption and you have to prove you are not guilty?!
|
|
|
"Money laundering is the process of concealing illicit sources of money." - Wikipedia"money laundering (concealing the source of illegally gotten money)" - Princeton WordNetSo, if I'm concealing the source of legally gotten money everything should be okay?! AML laws get you then, too! So, my "tin-foil hat" definition is correct!
|
|
|
"Money laundering is the process of concealing illicit sources of money." - Wikipedia"money laundering (concealing the source of illegally gotten money)" - Princeton WordNetSo, if I'm concealing the source of legally gotten money everything should be okay?!
|
|
|
Micon, don't pay anything before you make your own test! BFL fraudsters and their sock puppets should not be trusted at all, especially on that forum.
|
|
|
Suppose there was a blockchain that allowed an 'OpenTransactions Server' to 'checkout' some currency to use on their server. Why would you need another blockchain? Won't it be possible to achieve the same by using the bitcoin blockchain and OT colored coins?
|
|
|
Why should we censor a business based on nothing but our opinion? Why did you censor people based on nothing but your opinion when they warned about BFL fraudsters many months ago? You didn't just censor them. You've also locked the threads and have changed the titles to insult and mock them. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137026.0
|
|
|
Laundering, IMO, is based on concealment. It's about whether or not you conceal the source of (ill-gotten) money. No. Laundering is every financial transaction if Big Brother has no information about how much money, from whom, and for what are transferred. If they don't know EVERYTHING about your money then you're dubbed money launderer. It's simply mixing, and it is definitely laundering.
Well, cash is mixed in every cash register in every shop. Does it mean that every cash register in every shop is a money laundering machine? Fungibility is one of the key functions of real money. If you can't mix them then you're not using real money but some substitute.
|
|
|
--- In the protocol, I am assuming it's the same asset type on both servers (same issuer.) You would need the same asset type ID in order for the discovery to work over Bitmessage the way I've described. If it is the same asset type ID I'm not sure why would Alice want to transfer it from Server A to Server B for a fee. Who is the beneficiary of that transfer on Server B?
|
|
|
Let's say Alice is someone who wants to transfer Silver Grams from Server A to Server B. Are Silver Grams from Server A and Silver Grams from Server B issued by different Issuers? If so then they'll be totally different assets. If Bob is willing to exchange Asset B against Asset A then he has to maintain Asset B account on Server A? Is that correct?
|
|
|
|