How Billionaires Are Buying Up Bitcoinhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2019/05/30/how-billionaires-are-buying-up-bitcoin<< Far from the murky, impersonal world of online bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchanges, billionaires who want to buy bitcoin do it through an office in west London's upmarket Mayfair - and the relatively new service is becoming increasingly popular amongst the super rich with an interest in crypto. The Dadiani Syndicate, which styles itself as an investment "platform for... maximizing your digital holdings", and matches big bitcoin buyers and sellers in a way similar to buyers and sellers of fine art, claims to have helped clients who want to acquire "up to 25% of the bitcoin market". >>
|
|
|
|
Esse artigo, publicado ontem no Portal do Bitcoin, de autoria de Henrique J. B. Marcos (pesquisador, Mestre em Ciências Jurídicas e Doutorando em Direito Internacional pela USP, além de advogado e consultor jurídico em compliance), dá uma boa aprofundada no assunto: https://portaldobitcoin.com/um-raio-x-na-norma-da-receita-federal-que-vai-mudar-o-mercado-de-criptomoedasFica bastante claro que há ampla margem para contestação judicial da Instrução Normativa 1.888, especialmente no que diz respeito à criação de regras punitivas através de Instrução Normativa, como destaca o autor: " De toda feita, é de se apontar que a criação destas regras punitivas através de uma Instrução Normativa é, no mínimo, temerária. Afinal, a multa tributária por gerar uma obrigação a ser adimplida pelo infrator somente pode ser instituída por lei ou instrumento de força semelhante (art. 97, inciso V, do Código Tributário). " Minhas conclusões são as mesmas do autor: " Em que pese seja compreensível o interesse da Receita Federal em ter informações detalhadas sobre a criptoeconomia nacional e seus atores, é possível enxergar na IN 1.888 um excesso de exigências que podem desacelerar o desenvolvimento do setor no Brasil. Para os contribuintes, a recomendação é buscar aconselhamento contábil e jurídico especializado para possibilitar cumprimento das novas exigências desta Instrução Normativa, evitando suas punições específicas e as consequências indiretas que a IN 1.888 terá sobre sua atividade, em especial a preocupação com a proteção dos dados e prevenção à lavagem de dinheiro. " Considerando ainda que, segundo o artigo, a IN 1.888 cria até mesmo confusão terminológica com o disposto no Projeto de Lei 2060/2019, outro grande problema que eu vejo é: que contador ou advogado irá se sentir seguro o bastante para dar qualquer tipo de orientação confiável aos seus clientes? |
|
|
|
There is always a choice to convert it to alts and use it as your means of transferring to save fees. Though I rarely do this but this is effective and being done by majority here if they find the fees unacceptable to them. I actually do that all the time, not only because of fees, but also because transfers usually confirm much faster. Even considering the exchanges fees per conversion operation, it's still worth it in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
Um dos pontos que eu considero mais problemático é obrigar as corretoras a informar toda e qualquer transação, de qualquer valor. Oras, em qualquer mercado, quem faz daytrading vai realizar inúmeras pequenas transações diárias, o que também vai fazer o tal limite de movimentação de R$ 30 mil ser ultrapassado rapidamente. Alguém aqui opera diretamente em mercados de ações e poderia informar se as corretoras precisam declarar cada movimentação que os clientes fazem? Também não consigo dissociar o fornecimento de informações feito desta maneira indiscriminada como quebra de sigilo financeiro/bancário.
|
|
|
|
Operações com criptomoedas terão que ser informadas à ReceitaCompra e venda de criptoativos como Bitcoin terão que ser comunicadas; objetivo é combater sonegação, segundo o fisco.https://g1.globo.com/economia/noticia/2019/05/07/operacoes-com-criptomoedas-terao-que-ser-informadas-a-receita.ghtml<< A Receita Federal quer saber quem está usando criptomoedas, quanto está pagando por elas e como: a partir de 1º de agosto, pessoas físicas, jurídicas e corretoras que fizerem operações com criptoativos, com o Bitcoin, terão que informar ao fisco. A determinação está em uma instrução normativa publicada nesta terça-feira (7) no Diário Oficial. Os objetivos, segundo o órgão, são combater a sonegação fiscal e evitar crimes como lavagem de dinheiro e remessa ilegal de divisas ao exterior. (...) Informações prestadasDe acordo com as novas regras, as exchanges de criptoativos (corretoras que fazem a compra e venda das moedas virtuais) localizadas no Brasil terão que informar à Receita todas as operações realizadas, sem limite de valor. Já as operações realizadas por brasileiros e empresas brasileiras em exchanges no exterior, ou fora do ambiente dessas corretoras, terão que ser reportadas pelos próprios clientes, sempre que o valor mensal movimentado ultrapassar R$ 30 mil. Entre as informações que serão solicitadas pela Receita, estão a data da operação, o tipo de operação, os titulares da operação, os criptoativos usados na operação, a quantidade de criptoativos negociados, o valor da operação em reais e o valor das taxas de serviços cobradas para a execução da operação, em reais, quando houver. O fisco também quer saber o endereço da carteira virtual do remetente e do recebedor das criptomoedas. As informações terão que ser prestadas à Receita até o último dia útil do mês seguinte ao da operação com criptoativos. As exchanges também terão que fornecer um relatório anual dessas operações. As multas pelo atraso na apresentação das informações variam de R$ 100 a R$ 1,5 mil. Já pela prestação de informações incorretas, o valor pode chegar a 3% do valor da operação. >>
|
|
|
|
All 5 algorithms are controlled by ASICs since the middle of 2017
So, any plan from Digibyte team to build up new algorithm to fight against domination of ASICs? Not until the developers' $$$upporters can't profit from their ASICs anymore. |
|
|
|
 Australia's Controversial And Draconian Encryption Law Could Mean Jail Time For Tech Employeeshttps://hothardware.com/news/australia-controversial-encryption-law-jail-time-tech-employees<< Go home, Australian government, you're drunk. That's the general sentiment among technology firms and privacy advocates around the world, in response to a controversial encryption bill Australia's parliament passed this week. The new legislation forces companies to crack their own encryption when and if it's requested by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. That in and of itself is controversial - Apple, for example, refused the US Federal Bureau of Investigation's demands to build a backdoor into iOS so that it could crack an iPhone that was confiscated from a crime scene. The issue was headed to court, until the FBI found another way to unlock the iPhone, and subsequently dropped its lawsuit. Australia's law is much more concerning though. The vaguely worded bill would force companies like Apple and Facebook to build backdoors into their secure messaging platforms (WhatsApp and iMessage, respectively). Not only that, the bill enables intelligence and law enforcement officials to approach specific employees within a company to break encryption. The way the bill is worded, a law enforcement official could, in theory, compel a software engineer in charge of pushing out software updates to crack his or her company's own security measures, and do it in secret. Failure to comply could mean actual jail time, while companies would be on the hook for fines of up to around $7.3 million. Australian lawmakers passed the controversial bill, but what's really surprising is that even opponents to the bill in Parliament threw their support behind it. "We will pass the legislation, inadequate as it is, so we can give our security agencies some of the tools they say they need", opposition Labor party leader Bill Shorten told reporters, according to Wired. Australia is essentially setting a dangerous precedent that other government agencies around the world can follow. >> |
|
|
|
THE LAND OF THE FREE TO GENITALLY MUTILATE WOMEN AND CHILDREN:JUDGE RULES THAT FEDERAL LAW BANNING FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONALhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/judge-rules-that-federal-law-banning-female-genital-mutilation-is-unconstitutional/2018/11/21/a9455728-edd2-11e8-96d4-0d23f2aaad09_story.html<< A federal judge dismissed criminal charges against two doctors in a landmark female genital mutilation case and ruled that Congress "overstepped its bounds" by passing a law banning the procedure. The case centered on two Michigan doctors and six others charged last year in connection with arranging to perform female genital mutilation on nine girls, four from Michigan and five of whom were brought to the state from Illinois and Minnesota. While female genital mutilation has been a federal crime in the United States for more than two decades, the Michigan doctors were the first to be charged under the law. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement touted the indictments at the time, saying the charges "will hopefully deal a critical blow to stamping out this inhumane practice". But on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman found the federal ban unconstitutional, ruling that, among other reasons, female genital mutilation is a "local criminal activity" that must be regulated by the states, not Congress. Genital mutilation is the removal of all or part of a female's genitals for nonmedical reasons. It is condemned by the United Nations and considered a human rights violation, but the practice is common for girls in parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East. The World Health Organization says more than 200 million women and girls living in 30 countries have experienced FGM, the common acronym for female genital mutilation. >> [VIDEO] The Horror Of Female Genital Mutilation[VIDEO] All You Need To Know About FGM | End FGMGIRLS HAVING THEIR CLITORISES AND VAGINAL LABIA REMOVED ON US SOIL - HOW MUCH LOWER CAN THE COUNTRY GET??? IS THERE EVEN A BOTTOM???
|
|
|
|
In Groundbreaking Decision, Feds Say Hacking DRM To Fix Your Electronics Is Legalhttps://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xw9bwd/1201-exemptions-right-to-repairThe new exemptions are a major win for the right to repair movement and give consumers wide latitude to legally repair the devices they own.<< The Librarian of Congress and US Copyright Office just proposed new rules that will give consumers and independent repair experts wide latitude to legally hack embedded software on their devices in order to repair or maintain them. This exemption to copyright law will apply to smartphones, tractors, cars, smart home appliances, and many other devices. The move is a landmark win for the "right to repair" movement; essentially, the federal government has ruled that consumers and repair professionals have the right to legally hack the firmware of "lawfully acquired" devices for the "maintenance" and "repair" of that device. Previously, it was legal to hack tractor firmware for the purposes of repair; it is now legal to hack many consumer electronics. Specifically, it allows breaking digital rights management (DRM) and embedded software locks for "the maintenance of a device or system … in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications" or for "the repair of a device or system… to a state of working in accordance with its original specifications." New copyright rules are released once every three years by the US Copyright Office and are officially put into place by the Librarian of Congress. These are considered "exemptions" to section 1201 of US copyright law, and makes DRM circumvention legal in certain specific cases. The new repair exemption is broad, applies to a wide variety of devices (an exemption in 2015 applied only to tractors and farm equipment, for example), and makes clear that the federal government believes you should be legally allowed to fix the things you own. "I read it as the ability to reset to factory settings," Nathan Proctor, head of consumer rights group US PIRG’s right to repair efforts, told me in an email. "That’s pretty much what we’ve been asking for." While this is a huge win on a federal level, this decision does nothing to address the practicalities of what consumers and independent repair professionals face in the real world. Anti-tampering and repair DRM implemented by manufacturers has gotten increasingly difficult to circumvent, and the decision doesn’t make DRM illegal, it just makes it legal for the owner of a device to bypass it for the purposes of repair. >> Source: Motherboard
|
|
|
|
so we have still no news about the algos switch ?
why they keep so silent? are they gonna add 1 algo POS or not ?
it s gonna be 6 month and no news about that
Forget about that. The DGB devs and their friends have no intention of sharing the money they've been making with their ASICs, which they certainly got before most average DGB users. This is complete and utter FUD. Please go cause problems elsewhere. A hard fork to a new algo takes a tremendous amount of work at this point. And as mentioned previously, the Algos we had planned on switching to in January of 2018 now have confirmed ASICs as well. So, in summary, switching from one ASIC algo to another is not wise or secure. However, research is being done into some very innovative ways to get around this problem. We very much watch DigiByte to stay as decentralized as possible. Finally you came out of the woodwork. Custom equihash algos don't have Asics at the moment, take a close look on those, as a developer you should've known about that. The amount of silence on the dev team along with the broken promise of changing algos only shows incompetence really. It's not incompetence. He hasn't changed the algos simply because he and his "associates" are profiting from the current situation. This thread's OP hasn't been updated in years and most of the information there is wrong or misleading. A honest, hard working dev would have found a little bit of time to at least stop spreading lies on the first post of his coin's main thread (or have someone do it for him). He also silently removed from the official wallet the possibility to easily solo mine for technical reasons that only benefit ASIC miners and the pools he's in bed with, which of course don't want people solo mining because that means less fees for them.  |
|
|
|
so we have still no news about the algos switch ?
why they keep so silent? are they gonna add 1 algo POS or not ?
it s gonna be 6 month and no news about that
Forget about that. The DGB devs and their friends have no intention of sharing the money they've been making with their ASICs, which they certainly got before most average DGB users. This is complete and utter FUD. Please go cause problems elsewhere. A hard fork to a new algo takes a tremendous amount of work at this point. And as mentioned previously, the Algos we had planned on switching to in January of 2018 now have confirmed ASICs as well. So, in summary, switching from one ASIC algo to another is not wise or secure. However, research is being done into some very innovative ways to get around this problem. We very much watch DigiByte to stay as decentralized as possible. Yes, sure. The Monero and Aeon devs (among others) don't seem to have a problem with that, always changing and/or tweaking their coins' algos whenever needed. You've been making false promises and lying to this community for too long. Go to hell and take you scammy pump-and-dump coin with you. I can't believe I actually fell for it and supported this coin at one point. |
|
|
|
so we have still no news about the algos switch ?
why they keep so silent? are they gonna add 1 algo POS or not ?
it s gonna be 6 month and no news about that
Forget about that. The DGB devs and their friends have no intention of sharing the money they've been making with their ASICs, which they certainly got before most average DGB users. |
|
|
|
This Windows File Might Be Secretly Collecting Sensitive Data Since Windows 8https://fossbytes.com/windows-file-might-be-secretly-collecting-dataThere is a Windows file named WaitList.dat that covertly collects your passwords and email information, with the help of Windows Search Indexer service. Digital Forensics and Incident Response (DFIR) expert Barnaby Skeggs first discovered the information about the file back in 2016 but wasn't paid much attention. However, in after a new and exclusive interview with ZDNet – it appears that the file, in fact, is reasonably dangerous. People who own a touchscreen Windows PC or a stylus-compatible laptop are prone to the dangers of this Windows file. Specifically, users who have enabled the handwriting recognition tool which automatically translates touchscreen scribbles into text format. Essentially, the file is there to improve the accuracy of the handwriting recognition to come up with better predictive suggestions. But while doing so, the file starts storing actual text from your e-mails and office documents. "Once it (handwriting recognition tool) is on, text from every document and email which is indexed by the Windows Search Indexer service is stored in WaitList.dat. Not just the files interacted via the touchscreen writing feature," Skeggs says. Skeggs also mentions that WatList.dat contains an extract of every recognized text, even if the original file/source has been deleted or removed from the system. In his last month's tweet, Barnaby also pointed out the critical dangers of possessing this Windows system file. He said if an attacker wanted to collect sensitive data from a user, instead of searching the whole disk for private information, he would grab the WaitList.dat and search for passwords using simple PowerShell commands. The default location of the file is C:\Users\%User%\AppData\Local\Microsoft\InputPersonalization\TextHarvester\WaitList. The handwriting feature is there since Windows 8 which means the vulnerability has been there for many years. However, if you don't store valuable information like passwords or email on your PC, you aren't much likely to get affected much.
|
|
|
|
 FCC Admits It Lied About the DDoS Attack During Net Neutrality Comment Processhttps://wccftech.com/fcc-admits-lied-ddos-ajit-pai-obamaDuring the time the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was taking public comments ahead of the rollback of net neutrality rules, the agency had claimed its comments system was knocked offline by distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. These attacks were used to question the credibility of the comment process, where millions of Americans had voiced against the net neutrality rollback. The Commission then chose to ignore the public comments altogether. FCC now admits it's been lying about these attacks all this timeNo one bought the FCC's claims that its comment system was targeted by hackers during the net neutrality comment process. Investigators have today validated those suspicions revealing that there is no evidence to support the claims of DDoS attacks in 2017. Following the investigation that was carried out after lawmakers and journalists pushed the agency to share the evidence of these attacks, the FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has today released a statement, admitting that there was no DDoS attack. This statement would have been surprising coming from Pai – an ex-Verizon employee who has continued to disregard public comments, stonewall journalists' requests for data, and ignore lawmakers’ questions – if he hadn't thrown the CIO under the bus, taking no responsibility whatsoever for the lies. In his statement, Pai blamed the former CIO and the Obama administration for providing "inaccurate information about this incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people". He went on to say that the CIO's subordinates were scared of disagreeing with him and never approached Pai. If all of that is indeed true, the Chairman hasn't clarified why he wouldn't demand to see the evidence despite everyone out of the agency already believing that the DDoS claim was nothing but a lie to invalidate the comment process. Sources: Wccftech, Gizmodo, CSO Online, Newsweek |
|
|
|
When will the algo change happen? Any date announced allready?
No algo change is gonna happen any time soon, if ever. The devs and their friends have been making big bucks since the previously ASIC-resistant algos became mineable by ASICs, something they certainly knew was gonna happen way before it did and I'm 100% sure they already had their ASICs ready to go. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
