so it's more like a middle man.
that's cool.
can any1 be an Escrow? (I dont want to be/) just asking how hard it is to be 1?
Anyone can hold collateral. It doesn't require any special equipment. It's ridiculously good pay for the time, usually, but in cases where there's a dispute and a weak contract, it can easily take up waaaay more time than it's worth, especially when there's a language barrier. Actually - I forgot to mention something pretty important - multi-sig escrow, where you don't even have to worry about the escrow agent running off with the money (unless either the buyer or seller are colluding with the escrow agent to scam one of the other guys). Forbes has an article on multi-sig and some of the implications here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnvillasenor/2014/03/28/could-multisig-help-bring-consumer-protection-to-bitcoin-transactions/A real escrow agent is licensed and insured because they are holding your funds. Some people on here claiming to escrow lend out your funds while they are holding them so be careful with unlicensed escrow services. people also buy and sell forum accounts so you can't always depend on the rating system. Also note that dispute resolution is NOT part of escrow, it is a separate thing. It is a conflict of interest for an escrow agent to also resolve a dispute but many of the unlicensed escrow services on here do both. A licensed escrow service such as escrow.com has a third party resolve any disputes that arise. In some cases these unlicensed escrow agents have simply closed up shop and took all the funds. Also, if something is supposed to be mailed to you the escrow agent has no idea what is in the box unless it goes to them first. The multi-sig thing is also not technically escrow, it is a mediated transaction. This is because the mediator never has access to the funds. I think this will be the way of the future because you don't have to turn over the funds to a third party like escrow. |
|
|
|
Finally, what's the correct level of security that Bitcoin needs? A 51% attack would be detrimental, but it wouldn't mean the end of Bitcoin. There are ways to counter and mitigate it, and the worst that would happen is a suspension of transactions until the attack is resolved. So, what's to say that $10M of attack prevention isn't enough? Currently it would cost somewhere in the hundreds of millions, but is that really necessary? I'd be interested to see some analysis in that regard.
A 51% attack is not just a mining pool getting 51%. If some entity got 51% and mined secretly all past transactions could be wiped out from the block they started mining. It could mean weeks or months of transactions could be wiped out. If someone wiped out the last 6 months of Bitcoin transactions I think that would kill it. The cost analysis that I have seen calculated a price based on buying equipment from vendors. A 51% attack like this would mean the entity would make their own hardware. If they had control of places that manufacture chips that would make a big difference with the cost. I don't think it would happen but it is not completely out of the question. The key to this scenario is that they would need to activity attack the network by secretly mining and then reverse the past transactions (or perform some other attack). If they simply have 51% of the hashpower and do not launch an attack then nothing would happen. You give a good example of how it would be cheaper for someone to launch an attack, but you fail to mention the fact that if the attack was not launched then the would-be attacker could use their equipment to mine legitimately and earn a lot of bitcoin. Right, the attacker could not profit from the case I am discussing. it would be an attacker who wanted to destroy Bitcoin without concern for the cost. A government who had chip manufacturers under their control could do it if they really wanted to do it. He asked about the worst case and I think the worst case is some entity who wanted to attack and destroy without any incentive to earn money from it. |
|
|
|
|
They contacted me and said they would send me a unit to test and they wanted me to run ads. This has happened to me before, a company wants a story to be done on them so they promise to send a test unit to get you put up a blog post. I told them I would buy equipment instead of just testing a unit but I told them I wanted to pay by credit card because they have no record of delivery. Then they stopped answering me. I would not send them any money.
|
|
|
|
Finally, what's the correct level of security that Bitcoin needs? A 51% attack would be detrimental, but it wouldn't mean the end of Bitcoin. There are ways to counter and mitigate it, and the worst that would happen is a suspension of transactions until the attack is resolved. So, what's to say that $10M of attack prevention isn't enough? Currently it would cost somewhere in the hundreds of millions, but is that really necessary? I'd be interested to see some analysis in that regard.
A 51% attack is not just a mining pool getting 51%. If some entity got 51% and mined secretly all past transactions could be wiped out from the block they started mining. It could mean weeks or months of transactions could be wiped out. If someone wiped out the last 6 months of Bitcoin transactions I think that would kill it. The cost analysis that I have seen calculated a price based on buying equipment from vendors. A 51% attack like this would mean the entity would make their own hardware. If they had control of places that manufacture chips that would make a big difference with the cost. I don't think it would happen but it is not completely out of the question. Satoshi client have checkpoints, (9.3.1rc at block 295.000 I guess) so you cannot publish 6 months old longest blockchain, most Bitcoin clients will simply reject it. Do you have more info on this? Are checkpoints made every so often? If someone had a 51% starting today how long could they go before a checkpoint? |
|
|
|
Finally, what's the correct level of security that Bitcoin needs? A 51% attack would be detrimental, but it wouldn't mean the end of Bitcoin. There are ways to counter and mitigate it, and the worst that would happen is a suspension of transactions until the attack is resolved. So, what's to say that $10M of attack prevention isn't enough? Currently it would cost somewhere in the hundreds of millions, but is that really necessary? I'd be interested to see some analysis in that regard.
A 51% attack is not just a mining pool getting 51%. If some entity got 51% and mined secretly all past transactions could be wiped out from the block they started mining. It could mean weeks or months of transactions could be wiped out. If someone wiped out the last 6 months of Bitcoin transactions I think that would kill it. The cost analysis that I have seen calculated a price based on buying equipment from vendors. A 51% attack like this would mean the entity would make their own hardware. If they had control of places that manufacture chips that would make a big difference with the cost. I don't think it would happen but it is not completely out of the question. |
|
|
|
there are always large layoffs somewhere. The question is whether it is the norm or the exception.....and politicians don't tell us about economy unless you are stupid enough to listen to them....economists do. Casinos going out of business doesn't break my heart. Maybe people are finally realizing it is a losing proposition......a voluntary tax on the ignorant (usually poor). Why the U.S. economy is outperforming many of its peers (even-handed, positive and negative) http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/03/why-the-u-s-economy-is-outperforming-many-of-its-peers/It's all a matter of comparison - which you are incapable of doing. If Obama had been inaugurated and inherited a stable economy (not even growing, just stable), and then things deteriorated and got to the point where they totally suck, you could have a point. But you always pretend that all of this started when Obama took office. You never acknowledge the fact that when he took office we were bleeding 700,000 American jobs a month and the economy was in freefall. Compared to the state it was in when he took office, and considering the Republicans blatant efforts to PREVENT recovery, I think it's pretty clear that what we should be discussing is not "Obama driven" problems, but "Obama driven" recovery - which as you have just been reminded yet again, is actually recovering better than any other western industrialized nation that was affected by the collapse. So- by all means, why don't you regale us with all the specific moves Obama has made that have resulted in deterioration of the economy. Economic recoveries are driven by businesses, not politicians. |
|
|
|
|
The blame goes to the politicians who try to run casinos, build shopping malls, etc. with tax dollars rather than allowing the free market to take hold. No one party is responsible because they both do it. The politicians are having a big summit here Monday. Revel was not going to be built at all until the politicians got involved and bailed the project out. Plus the City did all kinds of stuff. Now there is a 29% property tax increase on top of the lost jobs. But many of the jobs were not real to begin with, they were government bailout jobs, not free market jobs. The politicians ran around saying "a rising tides raises all ships" and that was their business plan for the new casino.
Everybody knows the only reason AC was popular was because they had a monopoly. People stopped coming to AC when jet planes became popular in the 1950's and that is not going to change. the casinos in Philly are not "major casinos," they are boxes with slots and table games and the parking lots need to be patrolled so they can arrest the parents who leave their small children in the car to go in and gamble.
|
|
|
|
So they declined again , this time without any reason.
Bank transfer isn't possible too .
Semms they only want to take bitcoin.
Hmh really strange,because Last week they told me that banktransfer is possible but can take 12 working days!
And they also told me shouln't be a problem to pay by credit card.
They never got back to me at all. I would have ordered via credit card a week ago. |
|
|
|
|
Other jurisdictions close by (PA, DE, and NY) have implemented casino gambling so many have no reason to travel to AC to gamble. The same companies are opening those places so the workers often move around to whatever is hot at the moment.
|
|
|
|
is it a scam?
No, it's not a scam. They just use different DNS servers than other ISPs. It is the same as Namecoin and .bit, users need to update the DNS settings. You should go for the ICANN .coin and raise the $185K. But still, you have to sell a lot of domains just to break even by the time you pay the application fee, legal fees and setting up the registry. |
|
|
|
Most ISP's do not implement alternative root systems. They have been around for years and they have never taken off so far. You have to get users to switch their DNS settings which is a huge difference. Not impossible, New.net tried it a number of years ago ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New.net). Now many ending would clash with ICANN root so an ISP can't implement it without resolving collisions. |
|
|
|
|
One of the best intros I have ever seen. The first 15 mins is an overview then he starts on detailed stuff.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is in theory community controlled, but in reality is controlled by the tiny development group that decides when to roll out an update.
They only control as much as people let them control it. They have no way of stopping it if users go in a different direction. |
|
|
|
Is there anything comparable to a "board of directors" for Bitcoin control?
Yes, there is a group of developers that control how changes are made to the default client. It allows contributions from anyone but the decisions are made by a few developers who would effectively be the "Board of Directors" you ask about. As pointed out anyone can create their own version of the software and distribute it to users. The "Board of Directors" know this is possible so they generally consider and address issues and so far the system seems to be working and nobody has produced a different version that is widely accepted. |
|
|
|
If you had AML/KYC info for that guy that was selling them to SR then you are not guilty.
From what I understand he is pleading guilty to knowingly selling Bitcoin when he knew they would be used for Silk Road so it doesn't matter what info he had. While it is well known Silk Road was used for some illegal activities not everything there was illegal. BitInstant's part seems be relatively small compared to people actively involved in planning and conducting substantial illegal activities on a regular basis. The documents show the activity he is pleading to was more of an aberration to get the guy out of his hair rather than some type of ongoing effort. Anything else is irrelevant since that is what he is pleading to. I think he will get probation. Even probation is too much unless he knew what the coins would be used for. If I sell Bitcoins to someone from Localbitcoins and he said I work at Newegg but I deal drugs too. Would I be guilty? How am I supposed to know whether he's using them for a purchase at Newegg or to buy drugs. That seems like a lot of circumstantial bullshit to me. Or I don't know the whole story. I believe he is admitting he knew the coins were going to be resold guy was not a licenses transmitter and that they were sold on Silk Road. The docs shows he told the guy no a few times but gave in at one point. That is different then someone who planned a business around illegal activities. |
|
|
|
If you had AML/KYC info for that guy that was selling them to SR then you are not guilty.
From what I understand he is pleading guilty to knowingly selling Bitcoin when he knew they would be used for Silk Road so it doesn't matter what info he had. While it is well known Silk Road was used for some illegal activities not everything there was illegal. BitInstant's part seems be relatively small compared to people actively involved in planning and conducting substantial illegal activities on a regular basis. The documents show the activity he is pleading to was more of an aberration to get the guy out of his hair rather than some type of ongoing effort. Anything else is irrelevant since that is what he is pleading to. I think he will get probation. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
