Ok admit it, who's selling?
Me obiously  Ive said i will close today session under $100, im honest guy You know that you can provide cryptographic proof over the control of a Bitcoin private key? sncr, but the people ignoring Jaroslaw probably have me on their list since ages |
|
|
|
|
Ok admit it, who's selling?
I find Jaroslaw quite dull tbh. The funny is in your reaction to him.
|
|
|
|
I don't know this guy. Can someone link me to a succint summary of what he is and how he is related to the reptile?
I don't think there is. Either he's is some random guy trolling them softly or else our patient got fed up with the status quo and wants to try something different. |
|
|
|
I doubt this had anything to do with it though, still the irony is striking. |
|
|
|
|
"Prove me wrong" is fallacious reasoning.
But, Jaroslaw clearly does a charade about rpietila. And for those who were cheering for the guy in april: It's your own fault, don't come crying about it now.
|
|
|
|
forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/06/23/bitcoin-foundation-receives-cease-and-desist-order-from-california/
Bye, BTC Foundation
Let them take some heat for all the others with less legal backing. This might be the test if the foundation is worth the donations they receive. If they opt for claims that delay a decision on the case for years, they will not get my money for years. California’s Department of Financial Institutions decided to issue a cease and desist warning to conference organizer Bitcoin Foundation for allegedly engaging in the business ... thanks for the warning lol! weird news is weird bitcoin will go UP!  It's quite stupid to try to call a bureaucrats bluff. The reason bureaucracy has been so successful historically is that you lose even if you do. |
|
|
|
It looks like the market does not care about the mishap of Bitcoin Foundation.
Price has been stable and steadily rising!
uhh no, gox was out and an hour later somebody bought 100 Bitcoins. Nothing else happened. |
|
|
|
A HackerNews comment making the rounds: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5928480Most of the comments here are not particularly well-informed and should be ignored. Yes, the Bitcoin Foundation (probably--I don't know anything about them other than what I've read) isn't strictly speaking a money transmitter. Yes, the California Department of Financial Institutions--which will cease to exist in 7 days when it gets merged into the California Department of Corporations--is totally ignorant of Bitcoin. But they know the law pretty well. Especially the one that they wrote. (See the name Robert Venchiarutti on the letter? He's really the one behind it. The DFI lawyers just do what they're told. They don't even like the law. Venchiarutti actually wrote it, with the help of TMSRT's lobbyists.) That being said, the law to worry about here isn't even the one cited. It is, as I've stated quite frequently, 18 U.S.C. § 1960 ( http://www.plainsite.org/laws/index.html?id=14426). And that law says that you don't have to be a money transmitter to get a letter such as the one received by the Bitcoin Foundation ( http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/149335233?access_key=key-2l...). "(a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business..." The question then becomes whether the Bitcoin Foundation has any "control" or "direction" over its members and/or affiliates, who are most clearly in violation of the law under section (b). These words are vague. It could be argued that it does. [...] BIG FAT WARNING/DISCLAIMER: This is Aaron Greenspan, who has his own "interesting" legal history etc. Bingo. The point is, The Bitcoin Foundation is a conglomerate of mtgox, bitpay and possible others subject to money transmitter regulations. |
|
|
|
But there is any specific reasons of why they are "transmitting money" in the document? Can't read it all now.
No, there is no specific allegation in the document, just a general admonishment against violating the statute. California clearly has their wires crossed because, even under the most expansive interpretation of the law, the foundation is not a money transmitter. They cannot be a money transmitter simply for advocating for Bitcoin as there are first amendment issues preventing regulation of that type of speech. The point here is: They are a conglomerate of mtgox, bitpay and others which do fit the term money transmitter. What if the state already knows they aren't a money transmitter but are looking to engage the membership all at once. Some of them are money transmitters. Remember, California is broke. Fines represent real income for the state. On a side note, they just raised the parking meter violation fine next to my house in SF. It's $90 now! This place is fucked! Yes that also makes sense, understanding how Buerocrats think isn't that hard... |
|
|
|
But there is any specific reasons of why they are "transmitting money" in the document? Can't read it all now.
No, there is no specific allegation in the document, just a general admonishment against violating the statute. California clearly has their wires crossed because, even under the most expansive interpretation of the law, the foundation is not a money transmitter. They cannot be a money transmitter simply for advocating for Bitcoin as there are first amendment issues preventing regulation of that type of speech. The point here is: They are a conglomerate of mtgox, bitpay and others which do fit the term money transmitter. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoiners create their own FUD, even no need to spread it.
What a clusterfuck!
|
|
|
|
can someone explain why they should be a money transmitter? Because they have created an org that is a central point of contact for money transmission businesses. Remember that whole "centralization is evil" thing? Well they did it anyway. Well if they disappear nothing happens to bitcoin. Still a pretty crafty piece of work in regards to creating FUD. |
|
|
|
Oh, I fully expect the mother of all crashes in real-estate to happen soon.
aye putting bonds and mortages on the sky level and removing any form of state borrow-welfare this have to big way to end bad 1) politicians invent a new type of enemy, terror and terrorism is getting old to keep Joe's in control 2) Joe's go bananas start to riot and elect some kind of communist+nazi+hippie politician for price controls and all the measures that destroy the economy cybercrime these goddamn annoying people. Why should you care about the peasants out there? After all you are the new wealthy elite. Gentlemen! |
|
|
|
"It grabs answers from another dimension."
I think that is as good an explanation as any. But I'm no a physicist. What works for me is thinking of a quantum computer as an analogue computer with infinite signal/noise ratio. Can you give some simple examples of algorithms for quantum computers? What kinds of questions can I ask this magic ball? Sorry I can't. |
|
|
|
"It grabs answers from another dimension."
I think that is as good an explanation as any. But I'm no a physicist. What works for me is thinking of a quantum computer as an analogue computer with infinite signal/noise ratio. |
|
|
|
Finding a suitable nonce is a lot like reverse phonebook search, and Grover's algorithm operates in order sqrt(N) guesses, instead of the classical N guesses. Assuming this is in fact the best way to use a quantum computer for mining, this has a curious effect. It means that if the difficulty quadrupled, it would take only twice as long to find a suitable nonce
Doubt it. How I understand QC its just a matter of what kind of tradeoff you have to take to solve a problem with a computer of a particular size. And if you can even make such a trade-off (currently we can not) As quantum computers get larger the trade-off can be reduced to the point where it is none existent. |
|
|
|
A QC is either useless for hashing (if it is too small) or can determine the right nonce for any hash (if it is large enough).
There might be some indeterminate use but since it makes difficulty increases a linear problem out of an exponential one once it is useful it would make difficulty useless soon after.
Try to explain in plain English for those of us still thumbing through Win95 for Dummies. Well with traditional computers you would count this way to 1000: 1, 2, 4, 5, ... , 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000 With a quantum computer you would do (1-9), (10-99), (100-999), 1000 (It's not exactly right since it is bits vs. qbits and I used the decimal system for the example but in principle.) |
|
|
|
|
I don't attribute myself to it, but I can understand that from a Libertarian perspective I can be viewed as such.
There are things in socialist schools of thought which I agree upon as well as many I disagree upon.
But if you ask me this question in a real debate I'd probably say: "Yes, I am socialist! *eg*"
|
|
|
|
Neither,
I already made my point clear, the crux of the matter are the means of production. These are so unfairly distributed in our society that any discussion about if money is a necessity becomes irrelevant.
This is also where Libertarians and traditional Anarchists disagree, it's the central point of all economics.
But can't small scale production still be controlled by the little guy and money is just a tool (kind of like Atlas was - a tool I mean)? The junior nutball has a point. What I am saying is that the means of production shall not be subject to traditional ownership in a capitalist sense. It is not supposed to be hoarded since it isn't utilized then. There is a (in)famous marxist quote on that matter: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" The same way Libertarians express their "freedom" as the ability to own the means of production, I express mine as the ability to seize them without payment within need. |
|
|
|
|
Neither,
I already made my point clear, the crux of the matter are the means of production. These are so unfairly distributed in our society that any discussion about if money is a necessity becomes irrelevant.
This is also where Libertarians and traditional Anarchists disagree, it's the central point of all economics.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
