 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »
|
Maybe you should explain your logic a little more. You do realise that not everyone using bitcoins is an Uhmerican right? This literally only affects US based users, and even then how would it affect bitcoin? This makes absolutely no sense.
America is the greatest country in the world, and the American dollar is the de facto world reserve currency. If The United States of America becomes politically/economically unstable, who is going to police third-world countries, like Europe, hmm? |
|
|
|
|
^Goldstein. Is that an African American name?
|
|
|
|
^ Wait, did I say 75? lol, it's 76 (  ) now. Another day, another rung down the ladder of failure  |
|
|
|
And your point is? Does it make you happy? Of course not. ...well OK, maybe a little. Hell, who am I kidding? Of course it does! Does it ever! BOY HOWDY!1! |
|
|
|
JJG broke even. Finally. Huzzah!  And PatientBear found a friend. BFF. Forever.  |
|
|
|
Question: Anyone playing with Lisk? Might actually float up ~30% before heading back down, but what do I know...
Lisk (LSK) $0.368027 ( -22.92%)  Lisk (LSK) $0.352384 ( -35.37%) |
|
|
|
What am I looking at? BitTorrent traffic*? Which is not regulated and is perfectly legal? You're telling me that while internet traffic is increasing at exponential rate, the perfectly legal & unregulated BitTorrent traffic is also increasing, albeit at a much lower rate? This is, indeed, amazing  P2P traffic. It is mostly a poke at your Gnutella chart, Gnutella and Kad network are relatively novel
You give me e.g., I give you chart. as the preferred method of piracy has obviously shifted. If piracy is consuming a smaller percentage of global bandwidth, I'd suggest this is due to streaming services such as Netflix which reduce the incentive, rather than due to anti-P2P endeavours.
You give me an e.g. (file sharing), I explain to you that not only is file sharing legal, but despite of it being legal, it's still getting less popular. And still you complain Now you're starting to get it. And lower likelihood of getting paid lowers the profitability of your khrymez. Q.E.D., my rebellious friend Banning ransom payments isn't going to work because enough people will pay to still make it a profitable venture. This is why it isn't good enough, beside the fact that you're criminalizing the victims who do pay, a fact exploitable by the still-not-discouraged hackers. I have not suggested "Banning ransom payments," that was you. I did suggest that making beetcoin illegal would make it less attractive to ransomware scumbags disruptive beadcoin entrepreneurs who extort hospitals. Because demanding to be paid in Bleetcoins would assure that the aforementioned paradigm-shifters will not get paid, making their douchebaggery objectively unprofitable, all for naught. Q.E.D.  Jeesh |
|
|
|
I'm not suggesting that regulation of everything is trivial. Merely that regulating bit-coin is trivial. As far as piracy goes, regulation works well enough  Hey, bring it on. Just as with piracy, you may find that it isn't as trivial as you think.  No doubt that growth is entirely non-infringing  What am I looking at? BitTorrent traffic*? Which is not regulated and is perfectly legal? You're telling me that while internet traffic is increasing at exponential rate, the perfectly legal & unregulated BitTorrent traffic is also increasing, albeit at a much lower rate? This is, indeed, amazing Explain to me the mechanics of paying off a bitcoin ransom for the case in question:
I'm not going to hypothesize how that transaction would work, suffice to say that it would deter payment if crypto were illegal. Now you're starting to get it. And lower likelihood of getting paid lowers the profitability of your khrymez. Q.E.D., my rebellious friend
*In November 2004, BitTorrent was responsible for 35% of all Internet traffic. As of February 2013, BitTorrent was responsible for 3.35% of all worldwide bandwidth, more than half of the 6% of total bandwidth dedicated to file sharing."--Wikipedia |
|
|
|
|
^Makes zero sense. Please delete your post and read before posting in the future. ty.
|
|
|
|
holy crap! they were doing something around 5% of the global hashrate. That's bad news really. Chinese competition is tough on everything which requires big numbers: no quality involved. Bitcoin is about doing calculation before others and they have too much power on it, unfortunately Don't worry brah, BitFury still got 8% *Not4long tho... |
|
|
|
Of course history of use matters. Otherwise the cigs I'm smoking would have been banned a long time ago.
And sure, if people want something bad enough, be it raping, shooting people, shooting dope, or using bleatcoins, they will get it. OTOH, when things are made illegal, they become less desirable. Not to pubescent children with daddy issues, but to most people.
The difficulty of enforcing regulation is not a result of the length of a thing's history. It is a product of its distribution, prevalence, concealability etc. and these things can develop from a long history or a very short one. Gnutella and Kad network are relatively novel, yet I would like to see you regulate them away, even with all the $ from the MPAA in your pocket. I'm not suggesting that regulation of everything is trivial. Merely that regulating bit-coin is trivial. As far as piracy goes, regulation works well enough Not looking for the optimal solution, simply pointing out that you're factually wrong: making bitscoin illegal would discourage beetcoin extortionists But it won't. What will happen more often is that the crime simply won't be reported, and that the victims will be criminalized. Good 'nuff? Explain to me the mechanics of paying off a bitcoin ransom for the case in question: Ransomware attackers refuse to decrypt hospital's files after being paid off"Negotiating with criminals doesn’t always work out, as Kansas Heart Hospital in Wichita learned last week. The hospital paid to get files back after falling victim to ransomware, but only got “partial access” and a demand for more money, Techspot is reporting. That’s right: the criminals got their ransom, and then decided they wanted more money. The hospital’s president, Dr. Greg Duick says the hospital is not paying up." https://www.yahoo.com/news/kansas-hospital-pays-ransomware-demand-235824773.html The hospital director would use his personal money, ask his drug-addicted nephew to hook him up with BitcoinPro7569, meetup with BitcoinPro7569 to exchange $30k US in unmarked, non-sequential 20s for BTC-coins behind Wendy's dumpster? Or would he cook the hospital's books?  |
|
|
|
Comparing bitscoins to alcohol (documented history of use going back ~5000 years) is as much of a stretch as comparing beadcoin to the internet: ridiculous. The documented history of the use of something means nothing. Books have been banned before publication yet still disseminated. You can't stop what people want, and people want crypto, whether rightly, whether wrongly, whether ridiculously... Of course history of use matters. Otherwise the cigs I'm smoking would have been banned a long time ago. And sure, if people want something bad enough, be it raping, shooting people, shooting dope, or using bleatcoins, they will get it. OTOH, when things are made illegal, they become less desirable. Not to pubescent children with daddy issues, but to most people. Banning betcoin would certainly make it less attractive to extortionists bitcoin entrepreneurs. No hospital would break the law (by buying illegal beetcoins) to pay ransom I was here before you: surely a better way to stop extortion would be to make paying any ransom illegal. This is strangely at odds with the last advice I heard from the FBI... Not looking for the optimal solution, simply pointing out that you're factually wrong: making bitscoin illegal would discourage beetcoin extortionists |
|
|
|
Getting this from https://www.huobi.com/?lang=en" Secure Connection Failed
An error occurred during a connection to www.huobi.com. SSL received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible length. Error code: SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG" API also ded. Guys, what's going on?! there server crashed? ... nothing to worry about if you ask me... OK  Just looks a little like a MITM attack to me... What if API data is just a big hoax? |
|
|
|
Getting this from https://www.huobi.com/?lang=en" Secure Connection Failed
An error occurred during a connection to www.huobi.com. SSL received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible length. Error code: SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG" API also ded. Guys, what's going on?! |
|
|
|
I'm not usually worried about myself/those I care about getting murdered or raped, so good 'nuff for me. But sure, it's possible to get crime rates down, though this typically involves more $ on policing &/or laxer policing standards. This does happen when crime rates become unacceptably high (think "stop & frisk," airport body searches, etc.), so careful what you wish for Despite all the regulations and penalties during the Prohibition, alcohol was still easily obtainable. Despite all the dollars spent policing illegal substances, they are still easily obtainable. How do you suppose cryptos can be banned, regulated and policed so that they are sufficiently difficult to obtain as to deter an extortionist? The law and even the state has limits, and your proposal is not going to work nearly good enough. Comparing bitscoins to alcohol (documented history of use going back ~5000 years) is as much of a stretch as comparing beadcoin to the internet: ridiculous. Banning betcoin would certainly make it less attractive to extortionists bitcoin entrepreneurs. No hospital would break the law (by buying illegal beetcoins) to pay ransom |
|
|
|
Of course it's not going to make it disappear. Murder and rape are still with us too -- that's why I said "works good 'nuff" rather than "perfect." I choose my words berry berry carefully I would have chosen the words "not nearly good enough" to describe it.  I'm not usually worried about myself/those I care about getting murdered or raped, so good 'nuff for me. But sure, it's possible to get crime rates down, though this typically involves more $ on policing &/or laxer policing standards. This does happen when crime rates become unacceptably high (think "stop & frisk," airport body searches, etc.), so careful what you wish for |
|
|
|
So, we really go +$500!
Everything's coming together, the final jigsaw pieces are locking into place! 21 Unveils Vision for Bitcoin-Powered Weather Data MarketCalled Sensor21, the prototype outlines specifically how a precision altimeter can work with a 21 Bitcoin Computer to create a miniaturized weather tracker capable of monitoring data points such as air pressure, altitude and temperature. The company explained: " With this short set of commands, you were able to turn a small sensor into a passive income stream. The value from the sensor comes from the fact that it is not locked up in a datacenter like a cloud computer, but out in the real world and part of a compute grid." |
|
|
|
Why would we need to uninvent beadcoin? Did we have to uninvent ponzis? Bearer bonds? Heroin? Murder? Rape? Ban/regulate the shit out of it, works good 'nuff You need to un-invent it because "banning/regulating the shit out of it" isn't going to make it disappear, any more so than the illegal drugs trade has disappeared. Of course it's not going to make it disappear. Murder and rape are still with us too -- that's why I said "works good 'nuff" rather than "perfect." I choose my words berry berry carefully |
|
|
|
We've broken through the $450 electrical fence, we're free, fellow cattle!
Come, bull friends, the way is clear, let's frolic! You have nothing to lose but your chains! We're on the cusp of sovereign cow society! Follow mee!! |
|
|
|
|
