|
He said he is only doing a partial disclosure and not a full disclosure. I imagine he will do a full disclosure after the conference and will talk to Gavin.
I am guessing he just wants some credit for discovering this vulnerability.
|
|
|
|
It makes *no* sense for him to buy Pirate debt. It costs him money. How would he get that money back? From himself?
Well that isn't exactly true. Person sells x BTC worth of ddebt. Person creates uncertainty in the market and buys that debt back for y BTC. Persons profits (x-y) BTC. Not saying Pirate is doing that but there it isn't correct to say there is no sense in rebuying your own debt. How is that better than this: Pirate sells x BTC worth of direct debt. Pirate profits x BTC. Or this: Before he defaults, Pirate buys x BTC of PPTs. Pirate gets those x BTC back because they pass through. Pirate defaults. Pirate sells those x BTC of PPTs for y BTC. Pirate profits y BTC. Both of these scenarios are more profitable than yours and neither of these require Pirate to buy his own debt. Notice that they both require him to sell it. If you do accounting outside of the blockchain, you can "counterfeit" bitcoins sort of like fractional reserve banking. But, if you perform a transaction through a bitcoin client and have it record on the blockchain, then is it really possible for pirate to do what you suggested? |
|
|
|
|
Have way through the month. Announcement...plz come soon!!!
|
|
|
|
What does that last reply mean? I don't get it... You give him 2 weeks, and give me 24 hours…
Spoke with him yesterday and this morning, my belief is calm should prevail, continue your communication efforts with him, he is getting your emails . Sounds like he is upset for a second email "only" 24 hours later. Seems like a good reason to be upset. |
|
|
|
It's likely CPU-only.
If you mine with a CPU you will have a practically inifinite better chance of finding bitcoins than with the DSV. Can you show me how you calculated that? Using this calculator, http://www.alloscomp.com/bitcoin/old_calculator.php, at the current difficulty rate it will take on average only 31,145 days to find a block with a CPU which has 4200 kilohashes/second. I don't have the maths for the DSV, but 2^256 is a lot and a computer that tries to find the private key by brute forcing it will take longer than the age of the universe. |
|
|
|
|
Side topic: why is this paper work taking weeks when it should be days?
|
|
|
|
Why is this being posted on the forums? It's something to be sent to and between lawyers. This is just stiring the shit.
Really this SHOULD go to court, not just for the liquidation but for the theft and for other laws broken.
To ask or even expect this jpeg to be signed before the weekend is beyond wishful thinking.
Seems like it is a setup by tseale. Doesn't seem like they will sign it, just ignore it. Lotta blame to go around.  |
|
|
|
It's likely CPU-only.
If you mine with a CPU you will have a practically inifinite better chance of finding bitcoins than with the DSV. |
|
|
|
Got a nice response from piuk, so that's cool! He's ok with it as long as I use a custom user agent in my request headers so he can keep an eye on the load. I'll go ahead and further and develop this a lilttle more! I envision DSV to eventually double up as a fast address generator, watch-only balance checker, dictionary-based brainwallet bruteforcer, and screensaver. It will also support easy drag-and-drop of custom TXT lists with brainwallet sha256-formatted private keys, or 'interesting' addresses such as satoshi's addresses, top 500 rich addresses, etc  As I'm currently travelling, development will not resume immediately, though. The Deep Space Vagabond is worst than any lottery, any gambling casino, any search for alien life, and gives false hope. Other than that it is fun. :-) |
|
|
|
This showed up a day prior to the latest binary. http://pastebin.com/pfcqiKWXSeems to be logically consistent with what has happened, although it's impossible to know if it's legitimate. Has anyone tried downloading the files? Edit: Ok, I just read more of the thread. There are so many holes in this story. For instance, the binary message that was created by sending transactions...anyone can do that, right? It could be a hoax in a hoax in a hoax... Anyone can create a binary message by sending coins to that address and make anything up. |
|
|
|
The entire tangibility issue is really a matter of proof... Or, the belief in a proof.
If I am holding a gold coin in my hand that serves as a fair level of proof that A.) It exists, and B.) I control it (own it). Once gold is represented by an abstraction layer like a deposit in a gold account there has to be an extension of the proof in the validity of the ledger of those accounts, including proof that the gold is actually there to back them up.
Bitcoin solves this problem very efficiently, and it will become more efficient as economies of scale are realized and technology improves. But there is a limit to the efficiency of that proof for any physical commodity because it must be physically counted, stored, secured, transported, etc.
I can prove I have an air guitar. I just pretend I have an air guitar, pretend to jam, and voila! I have an air guitar! It's easy. So I don't think the "proof" method works to determine tangibility. That is proof... And it is worth exactly what air guitars are worth on the open market. Interesting. If that is the case then everything including thought, math equations, air guitars is tangible. It's just that it is worth $0. |
|
|
|
The entire tangibility issue is really a matter of proof... Or, the belief in a proof.
If I am holding a gold coin in my hand that serves as a fair level of proof that A.) It exists, and B.) I control it (own it). Once gold is represented by an abstraction layer like a deposit in a gold account there has to be an extension of the proof in the validity of the ledger of those accounts, including proof that the gold is actually there to back them up.
Bitcoin solves this problem very efficiently, and it will become more efficient as economies of scale are realized and technology improves. But there is a limit to the efficiency of that proof for any physical commodity because it must be physically counted, stored, secured, transported, etc.
I can prove I have an air guitar. I just pretend I have an air guitar, pretend to jam, and voila! I have an air guitar! It's easy. So I don't think the "proof" method works to determine tangibility. |
|
|
|
If bitcoins are tangible then tangibility needs to be redefined such that tangible objects cannot be easily copied. You cannot copy a bitcoin. A bitcoin is tangible because, in addition to being clear and definite, it cannot be duplicated (easily).
I think you are conflating two issues unnecessarily: tangibility and scarcity. An item, either physical or informational, can be tangible, or in other words be real, and yet not be scarce. And before we start talking about and discussing property rights with regards to bitcoins I think it is important that we establish that bitcoins are real, or in other words, tangible. I agree that bitcoins are tangible, but why are bitcoins tangible and math equations not tangible? Well, I think it could be possible that tangibility could also depend on scarcity. Hollywood movies are worth more if the material is new, has a good plot, and that pirated movies are scarce. If a film is more pirated then Hollywood makes less money. Hollywood would like to believe that their movies are tangible, but thepiratebay believes information is free and that movies are most likely not tangible. It seems like if something has value then it is tangible. Value depends on scarcity. There is an infinite supply of air guitars so these musical instruments have no value and thus are not tangible. Bitcoins are scarce and have value, and thus, it is one reason they are tangible. |
|
|
|
|
So are you going to compete with Mt. Gox or are you working with them. Seems like after you sold Mt. Gox there would be some sort of non-compete agreement.
|
|
|
|
I would say it compliments it. One thing you can do with it is exchange bitcoins for fiat without the need of a centralized market such as mtgox. Which will be very useful for bitcoin.
Sounds like a ripple implementation. Maybe using Open Transactions. We need this! EDIT: Maybe you guys are making a new coin, sort of like MintChip which is irreversible and allows exchange of bitcoin for mintchip/CAD and thus fiat. |
|
|
|
Is it a competitor of Bitcoin, or it complements it?
If it doesn't complement bitcoin this thread needs to be moved to Alternative Cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
|
OpenCoin? I hope this not a competitor to Bitcoin, but instead a complement to bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
I would argue bitcoin is tangible for the purposes of the argument presented in the sense that you can lock it away from access to third parties ("physically own it"). "tangible" == "not paper" == "no third party risk".
Maybe it'd be better to say: "Anything that doesn't involve some kind of a promise and can be owned unconditionally will go up" instead?
Unfortunately, in some kind of an economic meltdown situation, bitcoin might become generally unusable for a while. Temporarily nonexistant.
The word tangible means 'perceptible by touch' or 'cear and definite; real' but the etymology for tangibility has more to do with mental sense than corporeal status. It appears to be used to connote realness as opposed to fantasy, delusion or illusion. I have been thinking a lot about tangibility and how it applies in monetary science in an attempt to formulate a rule or theorem. In the Information Age I think organized information, information objects, can have properties of tangibility just as clear and definite, or real, as physical objects. Thus, for something to be real it does not have to be corporeal. The Bitcoin Magazine exists in both a corporeal (paper) and incorporeal (PDF) form. Both are both clear and definite thus they are equally real. One is an information object the other a physical object. But this distinguishment does not go to tangibility as they both exist in the real world and are not figments of imagination, fantasy, delusion or illusion. We would agree that the Bitcoin Magazine Issue #1 is tangible, regardless of of paper or PDF form, and flying fire breathing black dragons are not tangible. A bitcoin is real because it has clear and definite organization of information therefore making it an information object in the real world and is not a figment of imagination, fantasy, delusion or illusion. Therefore, a bitcoin is tangible. Anyone up for logically attacking the assertions? One major difference between electronic files and bitcoins is that electronic files can be copied. If I make a PDF copy of bitcoin magazine without paying for it then Vladimir would not suffer as much as if I stole all the physical copies of bitcoin magazine from him since he needs to mail those out and they cost money to print. (Yes you can use a photocopy machine to copy the magazine too but there is cost to do this. An electronic copy takes no effort and little or no monetary value to copy.) If bitcoins are tangible then tangibility needs to be redefined such that tangible objects cannot be easily copied. You cannot copy a bitcoin. A bitcoin is tangible because, in addition to being clear and definite, it cannot be duplicated (easily). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
