|
Where are these alarm systems that are even more reliable than firearms? I was unaware it was possible to make electronics infallible.
|
|
|
|
|
With everyone aware of the arbitrage cycle, nobody logical would see the point in selling lower than the highest price possible, which would always be at No-Bid, until No-Bid #2 was cloned at a higher starting price than the last completed limit sell on No-Bid #1.
Cheaper BTC on other exchanges would be bought up to limit sell at the highest No-Bid, leaving other order books' bid sides in the dust with nobody logical dumping into them. Proper trading bot logic would not allow BTC to be sold for less than No-Bid's last, and sync with No-Bid's API to move the price up on other exchanges, if they had some vested interest in not transferring their BTC to sell on No-Bid.
One would think payment processors like BitPay and Coinbase would use No-Bid so that they can consistently profit the difference between what their customer is owed and what their customer's customer's BTC sold for.
|
|
|
|
If a person with lower scruples becomes the POTUS (it is not impossible), he might misuse his powers.
If? Impossible? You don't get the votes counted for you to win POTUS if you don't have the lowest scruples, if you're not the worst possible evil, running. I have not lived in a time where there has been a single POTUS who hasn't misused his powers, to categorically evil ends. |
|
|
|
A BTC/fiat exchange that has no bid side of the orderbook. Working title: "No-Bid" - Sellers enter limit sells (asks) above the latest completed limit sell price only. Any attempt to enter a lower price will auto-correct the price to the latest completed limit sell price+1 cent. No-Bid will open for business with a limit sell of its own 1 BTC at BitcoinAverage's last, so nobody else can complete a ridiculously lower trade. The price will go up with every sell wall (ex. 1000 BTC at 1 cent above the exchange-opening order at BitcoinAverage last) crested.
- Buyers enter the quantity of BTC they want to buy and the most they're willing to pay per BTC. This will either fill instantly, or be rejected instantly if they enter a price below the latest completed limit sell price. GUI in terms of numeric entry and/or price slider with confirmation password dialogue, or whatever, TBD.
- Terms and Conditions in the clearest possible language (and translated) that no fiat deposit is to be made to No-Bid with the expectation that a buyer's price lower than the latest completed limit sell price at time of order entry can be filled; it will always be higher than the time of deposit initiation. And the inverse for BTC deposits; no downward slippage is possible, by design.
Due to arbitrage, would a single, competently coded (multi-sig, no attack surfaces) No-Bid of this design destroy the incentive for dumping on all other exchanges? To limit arbitrage barriers, would No-Bid require a withdrawal process that allows streamlined direct fiat transfer to other exchanges' common deposit methods (assuming all of them accept international wire transfers, for example), and not just the sellers' personal bank accounts (which would require a double fee hit getting withdrawals to them and back out to another exchange)? Would any exchanges stand in the way of inter-exchange withdrawal/deposits from No-Bid? And if every single one of them did, would nobody want to sell at No-Bid? |
|
|
|
In most countries weapons have to be registered. At least in the U.S. they aren't restricting your right to own it, just want you to take the responsibility.
As for the buyback don't they have cameras in there? I'd be afraid to drop a stolen weapon there after shooting someone.
1) Weapon ownership is severely infringed aka restricted, so badly that violent criminals as a whole are better armed than their sober, law-abiding, mentally sound victims. 2) If there are cameras at buybacks, then it's the world's best-kept secret that prosecutions have actually resulted from them. It would defeat the purpose of the buyback (to effectively grant immunity to violent criminals and destroy as many self-defense tools as possible) if it ever leaked that they were traps. |
|
|
|
|
Customs seizing fiat, PM, diamonds, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Being the main outlet for spending BTC on the San Diego, CA craigslist.
Not spending BTC where it will be immediately converted to fiat to tank the market price.
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind if the gun was registered to my name. Why should I? It's even better because if it gets stolen it will be harder for thieves to trade it.
They will just take it to a government "gun buyback" for a nice profit "no questions asked" - after committing murder, etc. with it - and there's no guarantee the government will return and not destroy it. |
|
|
|
|
A thought experiment:
A newborn baby is laying on a blanket in the Rose Garden. Any POTUS standing over that baby. "Civilian" law-abiding gun owners screened for sanity with openly holstered firearms facing POTUS. Secret Service agents hidden, with their sights trained on the law-abiding gun owners heads, but POTUS still clearly visible to them. POTUS pulls a large knife and slowly kneels down. Before POTUS is able to slaughter the baby, the gun owners draw their guns and just as they're about to fire upon POTUS, who do the Secret Service agents shoot in self-defense?
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. I wonder how you're going to detect/deal with scammers who re-register V1 usernames that had balances on them.
|
|
|
|
|
Made new account with same user/pass. My balance from BitHorse V1 disappeared.
|
|
|
|
You led yourself off a cliff of logic.
"effectively no need" ≠ no need
The EFFECT of courts almost always granting government agents unreasonable doubt, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, et al is that government agents can feel they EFFECTIVELY have carte blanche.
If there was a law that officially said "no matter what any government agent does, he/she can NEVER be prosecuted or suffer any real consequences whatsoever for it, period", then I would remove the "effectively", and you could pull yourself back up the logic cliff.
The insurance I proposed has nothing to do with what cops feel and how they react due to whether or not they feel insured everything to do not forcing tax payers to pay a financial penalty when cops brutalize someone. Cops would be paying for that expense themselves now since the insurance premiums for police brutality would be paid exclusively by cops. Your last response has me wondering if we are even discussing the same thing. Perhaps we haven't been and I didn't realize it. And, back to square one: Even if each individual officer is legally required to sign up for liability insurance personally*, the government will always find a way to reimburse them for that expense with taxpayer dollars, no matter what any law says.
* as in pay his/her own premiums |
|
|
|
|
If you erroneously think private keys known to anyone other than yourself is "much safer", sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Eject totalitarian sociopathic fucks into space? Yes!
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see a way for an escrow agent to ever be riskless in an account trade without meatspace contact. I would not be an escrow agent if there was no way for me to trust AND verify both sides.
One hopes in 2025 when the new forum is ready, this BS practice will be put to bed.
|
|
|
|
<snip> I was going to post effectively the above but it appears nobody quoted or mentioned alani123's method. Is that method not effective at bypassing the https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php info leak? You have no way of knowing if the account named by the seller is actually owned by the seller, or even if it is, you have no way of knowing that the seller will actually provide the password to the account once escrow is funded. That method puts the escrow at risk. So how can you ever know that you're not dealing with a middleman scammer if you've never met them in person and had a chance to sign their PGP keyring, for later encrypting an OTP to them to place in a custom field of the account for sale, as you watch them on Skype webcam+screen sharing decrypt your PGP message, write it on a piece of paper held up to the webcam, then logout of their main account, login to the account for sale, place the OTP, and finally you hit refresh on the profile on your own computer? |
|
|
|
@alani123: Could you tell a possible safer way to do #1? You can't, without changing password. Escrow will either have to trust seller or escrow will have to risk his/her service to make it possible which an escrow won't or mustn't do.
Given that we already know all worhiper wanted to know was that an account matching the given description existed, it would be possible to do this just with a link to the profile. If he also wanted to confirm that the account is owned by the seller, then that's possible in several ways. Most popular way is to sign a message with an address posted in the account. Other way would be to change any custom info in the account (like signature, description, address or even avatar) with something the escrower provides. And you CAN verify this: Registered: 2012
Feedback: Neutral
Activity: 135+
Posts:135+
Feedback: Neutral
Trust: 0: -0 / +0(0)
Without logging in an account. I was going to post effectively the above but it appears nobody quoted or mentioned alani123's method. Is that method not effective at bypassing the https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php info leak? P.S. Account trading =  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
