|
So how do these "financial surveillance" laws and LE financial information dragnets not fall afoul of the 4th amendment?
BCB : would you like to post the fourth amendment with regards to financial privacy for everybody so we can see the history of those abuses? thanks.
|
|
|
|
One more thing: why isn't there (or is there that I don't know about?) a web-of-trust model system for SSL certificates? At this point, it seems like the only secure solution is self-signed certificates, and that is only "secure" if you know the person who runs the server.
At this point I would say anyone who wants web-based secure email had better be running their own web and mail servers. Or else they are more trusting than I am that every Certificate Authority in the world isn't CCing everyone's private webserver keys (which the CA's generate) to every three-letter-agency on Earth.
I agree the CA system is flawed and proven to be broken/compromised in some important cases. Namecoin TLS is now at functional state and the concept has been proven. Now it needs some more work (and devs) to bring it to a level where widespread usage is simple. http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=552 |
|
|
|
BCB gets a post award for quality. Thank you sir.  Yes, quality fore-lock tugging, bowing, scraping and general sycophancy. |
|
|
|
|
I think they call it "bait and switch" .... double down on a bigger fabrication to distract from the first one
|
|
|
|
Devil's advocate: There is another opening that users should consider as Bitcoin Brokers grows. It seems that the bitcoins the sellers place in escrow with BB are then solely controlled by BB (correct me if I'm wrong here?). So as the business grows and the number of transactions increases the amount of btc in the current float (under BB escrow) increases accordingly. At some point in time that amount of btc may become an incentive that overwhelms the incentive to honestly continue business. I'm not saying this will happen or that the current owner is dishonest, it is just a remaining conceptual hole in the business model using anonymous money and anonymous exchange operator that I would like to point out ... in case of different owners, circumstances or copycat businesses etc. I'm not sure what would be the best practice of closing this hole in the business model either, (maybe delegate 2 or several independents to facilitate the escrow?) .... I think ways to fix this can be found. Generally I'm very impressed with this business model and think it is Gen 1 of many more that will come and improve upon it, with more automation, crypto hardening, separation of duties, knowledge, privacy, etc. An interim protection measure for sellers, is to only put in escrow with BB what you can afford to lose (but seeing as we are all in bitcoin only with money we can afford to lose then that shouldn't be a problem ) |
|
|
|
|
Anti-money laundering laws, however well-intentioned, righteous and god-faring they make you feel, inevitably destroy the fungibility of the monetary unit.
When shaping money into a tool of law-enforcement and moral judgement, you lessen, even remove completely, its usefulness as an economic good.
How much are you prepared to penalise the whole of society by removing the enumerable benefits that good fungible money provides, in the mostly vain quest of catching a few bad apples through their money?
Just because it is Law does not make it right.
|
|
|
|
Let's get down to specifics instead of vague ill-informed commentary shall we? The coinbase transaction itself is not like a currency issuance, the currency issuance was done when Satoshi put 21 million bitcoin into the protocol. The coinbase transactions are merely discovering these previously issued currency by finding the correct block hashes. And it would actually be the pools (or whoever does the actual coinbase transactions) since pool miners are exchanging processing power for btc, which is nothing like currency issuance. “I don’t think the intention was” to regulate the miners, Rinearson says. “But it’s right there in black and white.” Under a literal reading of the guidance, “a miner should be registered as an MSB.” I don't think Rinearson has come anywhere close to reading the bitcoin protocol, the coinbase transaction mechanism is right there in black and white, yet she seems to be claiming to be an expert on bitcoin issuance and 'regulations' ... I guess we are going to be overrun with these legal shysters looking to clip the ticket henceforth. |
|
|
|
I'd assume that government "size" has to do with regulations/power, correct? Wrong. It is necessarily based on an objective quantitative measure (you might be unfamiliar with such concepts if you are a touchy0felly type of analyst), percentage of GDP. The "chinese miracle" you are getting all excited about many holes in it when put under the microscope, not the least of which is that the govt. is the only entity producing economic numbers ... and happens only in pockets of there economy (foreign corporate factories) where the authoritarian govt intentionally gets out of the way and allows the free market to work (usually through kickbacks and working around the central govt laws rather inside them). |
|
|
|
I also understand we need to delegate some responsabilities, and need people we trust to decide for us on small matters.
But I think everyone should be able to talk to those representants to complain or issue congratulations easily. Nations are way too big to acheive this.
All regulators and authorities are not equal. Some will understand what Bitcoin is and just sorta get it and some wont understand and wont be open minded enough to try to. So there will be some who are easier to work with. I think most of the regulation should somehow be done internally if it's possible and then bring in outside help to handle stuff like extortion and scammers. It's a balance that has to be found. Nations are made up of parts, and businesses influence those parts to bring favorable conditions to their special interests. I don't see why Bitcoin community cannot have it's friends in congress and law enforcement. It obviously should and that is how Apple went about it when trying to launch the personal computer. Apple managed to get the personal computer put in every school by working with the congress to pass laws which benefit children and that is when lawmakers finally got it. Apple was for the benefit of education of the children of America. And above all, those people who we trust to decide for us, should systematically evaluated by those who trusted them, once their time is over. And people should be allowed to vote on how many years the "leader" and his team should rot in prison, judging his overall performance in taking decisions. This is why we need complete transparency so all decisions can be reviewed. We need to know certain things like how money influences the political decisions of certain candidates and which candidates are pro cryptocurrency, which are against, and which just aren't educated enough on the subject to understand what they are saying. This would hopefully turn away all the greedy fucks that currently take decisions for you, and for me.
They who make decisions shouldn't be making decisions for you and me, but on our behalf and according to our standards. Just as there is an Internet defense fund and just how Facebook has fwd.us or whatever, there must be both think tanks and lobbyist groups for cryptocurrencies and virtual currencies. This should not be about Bitcoin but be about the technology. It should not be about radical libertarian or anarchist politcs but purely about protecting the technology itself. If people want to promote their political views they can join the libertarian party, or start a US version of the pirate party, but I don't think all cryptocurrencies should be linked to a specific political side because that will kill it in the womb. Most of America might be able to understand Bitcoin just fine, but they aren't going to understand some of the conspiracy theories and other stuff that gets talked about on here. Do they pay you by the word? Edit: there is no foxhunt without a fox |
|
|
|
|
I don't feel like reading the whole white paper but this has piqued my interest ... is there a summary of how MasterCoins is supposed to work?
So far by osmosis I got;
- it is piggy-backing transactions onto bitcoin blockchain somehow to achieve something like coloured coins functionality
- you can make other master sub-coins that have in built auto-regulators for issuing based on supply-demand/pricing (where are the market operations taking place?)
- dacoinmeister is getting a ton of btc sent to an address controlled by him (and his wife if he dies) to do the dev work
- if you don't get in now and send coins to dacoinmeister now you will miss out on the great early adopter mastercoin gold rush
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a Network with ~200.000 Participants (Pure Assumption). Where you can send digital signatures (Bitcoin) instantly, unforgeable, unstoppable and at very low cost to anyone of this 200.000.
The Only measurement in this Network are Bitcoin and there is a fixed amount of them, therefore each Bitcoin can be seen as one share of this Network.
Does such a Network have value? Does therefore a share of this Network (a Bitcoin)?
This ... and the blockchain as a shared asset, secured public database all have intrinsic value. The cost of production of private keys are negligible but they work for signing transactions that will be accepted on the network and into the blockchain. You could argue that Bitcoin, the payment system (OS code, network and blockchain), provides the intrinsic value for bitcoin, the currency (private-public key pairs and non-zero blockchain ledger entries). |
|
|
|
|
Senate oversight MO ...
"illegal spying? out of control agencies? massive executive overreach? ... "yeah we'll get back to you, nothing to worry about, move along quickly now"
"virtual currencies allowing people freedom to peacefully transact globally?" ... "ten different committees are looking into it, red alert, blue-ass fly mode"
The contrast couldn't be starker.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm wondering what commonly used code on Android has been accessing this "flawed" RNG ... e.g. TSL connections, banking apps?
|
|
|
|
i don't think smaller governments are necessarily a good thing, in theory or in practice. when a government has less power, corporations have more power. yes, there may be problems with the government, lots of corruption. but it is still for the people. we should not replace government with corporations. it would be terrible for the world and the future of humanity. unfortunately it is starting to happen and it looks like the government is somewhat/partially owned by corporations.
Did you read the OP and the referenced paper? Smaller governments are better for more economic growth ... or do you have some kind of problem with economic growth that you didn't spell out clearly? |
|
|
|
|
google "crypto flaw" or google nsa back-door?
... guess we'll never know, they got laws for lying about stuff like that.
|
|
|
|
Just sent 1 BTC to our hero.
USA official declare him enemy of state so why you call him hero .. it's just how it happens with rogue states. Lies are Truth, up is down, black is white, bad is good ... everything goes crazy because the governing infrastructure is effectively at war with the citizenry so nothing seems to make sense any more. It's kind of tearing itself apart, the fabric of society is being disintegrated by the legal and moral contradictions spewing out in the form of decrees and edicts. |
|
|
|
Does anyone really believe this is not about eventually placing control mechanisms in the Bitcoin protocol?
Obviously they see they must target the The Bitcoin Foundation companies who control the lead developer.
The problem is that the majority of the Bitcoin network's hash power is outside the regulator's jurisdiction. ... that's okay, he invoked the "national security" magic words so the US military is now involved and his jurisdiction just became the world ... |
|
|
|
Sshhh...Lawsky has a secret.  That's pretty good ... I can spot at least 4 hidden btc references are there any more? Lawsky's reference to "national security" was been duly noted. This is govspeak for the "National Security Agency" is taking an interest/helping us with us investigation ... i.e. the US military resources (NSA) can be used once they declare it a matter of "national security". |
|
|
|
I assume someone has already mentioned bitmessage.org (even though it's not email) it could replace email someday as a secure alternative.
Unless it becomes possible to send and receive messages to non-bitmessage users I highly doubt it will gain much acceptance. There's too much network effect to overcome. It is already possible to configure Thunderbird mail client to route mail through the bitmessage network ... it will become just another protocol layer option like POP, IMAP, SMTP, etc. Is there a tutorial? If so, I would love to do this. In fact, yes there is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppk_zzjZRIgno guarantees on what privacy leaks this opens up regards using the mail client both over bitmessage and normal channels. To begin with I would not use a Thunderbird client configured for bitmessage transport for regular mails or vice versa ... and I have no idea what other traffic Thunderbird may send/leak out, I know it can have lots of plugins etc ... so dyodd. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
