|
This idea is already useless from the start. I mean its to fight scams right? But any scammer that isnt fully stupid will collect the coins and change it to good ones instantly. I mean you never know before that its a scam. And then, when its a known scam, the coins are marked. And completely innocent people will lose possibly everything.
This is completely useless for preventing scams.
|
|
|
|
Vorweg... diese Idee ist schon im Ansatz total nutzlos. Jeder Scammer der was auf sich hält würde Gelder einsammeln und sofort gegen gute eintauschen. Wenn die Coins dann irgendwann markiert werden sind die einzigen die den Schaden haben Unschuldige. Das System kann also nicht mal einen Nutzen in dem Bereich haben für den es gedacht ist. Ähm, Bitcoin wird NICHT automatisch geupdated und so eine Regelung setzt sich auch nur bei jenen durch, die sich daran halten.
Die große Frage ist eher, ob die ~10 Firmen, die 90% von "Bitcoinland" ausmachen dazu gezwungen werden können, so etwas umzusetzen? Vermutlich ja... wobei alleine schon mal die Infrastruktur etc. da sowieso recht lange auf sich warten lassen dürfte.
Im Gegensatz zu Ripple, das hauptsächlich von bezahlten Entwicklern programmiert wird, gibt es kaum Leute, die für Arbeit an Bitcoin-QT bezahlt werden und das hauptberuflich machen. Die Foundation hat daher auch kaum Einfluss auf den Client.
Coin tracking hat aber auch gar nichts mit dem Client zu tun, das ist ein Mechanismus von außerhalb und kann auch theoretisch schon längst existieren bzw. muss man dafür nur Mastercoin oder einen ColoredCoin client modifizieren. Blockchain.info bietet diese Informationen auch schon längst an.
PS:
Eine eventuelle Entwertung betrifft dich ja nur bei den Leuten, die diese Entwertung akzeptieren - so lange du also nicht bei Service_X zahlen "musst", die deine Coins nicht nehmen, hast du auch keine Probleme. Ich nehme auch stark an, dass einerseits Tumbler und laundries aufrüsten werden und andererseits (sollte sowas wirklich kommen) es ein paar Spaßvögel geben wird, die an 1000e populäre Addressen "vergiftete" Satoshis senden werden, was dann dazu führt, dass man ein Maximallevel an "taint" einführt, auf das die Coins dann eben in Laundries "verdünnt" werden.
Ja, die offizielle Software mag nicht automatisch aktualisiert werden aber der normale User wird das praktisch automatisch machen wenn er darauf aufmerksam gemacht wird dass es eine neue Version gibt. Von daher ist eben die Herrschaft der Foundation über die offizielle Software das Problem. Natürlich kann man auch jetzt schon so eine Liste anlegen. Es würde nur keinen interessieren. Ganz anders wäre es wenn die Foundation das macht. Das wäre nicht mehr umkehrbar. Am Anfang mögen zwar noch ein paar dagegen sein aber sehr schnell merken dass die gezeichneten Bitcoins weniger nützlich sind und damit werden sie weniger wert bis sie am Ende kaum noch gehandelt werden. Das wäre unvermeidbar. Welche Infrastruktur sollte Zeit brauchen? Das wäre nur eine Datenbank in der man etwas markiert. Die Webseiten müssten das dann nur abfragen und fertig. Da ist nichts groß umzubauen. Die Foundation hat kaum Einfluss auf den Client? Ich dachte die meisten Entwickler sind in der Foundation so dass die Software praktisch unter der Kontrolle der Foundation steht. Das ist nicht so? Coin tracking, wenn du das tainted coins meinst, hat schon was mit dem offiziellen Client zu tun. Wenn da implementiert wird dass die tainted coins-Datenbank abgefragt wird dann ist das damit schon praktisch durchgesetzt. Es sind nicht alle Bitcoinnutzer so informiert wie wir hier und würden sich dagegen wehren. Und selbst dann braucht es nur eine bestimmte Anzahl User die diese Coins nicht mehr annehmen und praktisch sind diese Coins dann schon mal ein wenig weniger Wert für den Rest der User die da nicht mitmachen wollen. Denn wenn du Coins nicht mehr überall verwenden kannst dann will sie der nächste auch nicht mehr so gerne haben weil die Benutzbarkeit dieser Coins eingeschränkt ist. |
|
|
|
...what he's proposing is practically impossible to prevent anyway.
It is. If you create such a server it doesnt matter because no one would follow your servers notes of bad and good coins. But its completely different when bitcoin foundation is changing the official wallets in order to implement this thing. |
|
|
|
Heres more about this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824@Yifu... so you put me in a database without my consent? Bad coins, good coins? WTF... Im sure everyone has a couple satoshis that were stolen by a scam by now. Its like writing on your Euros or US-Dollar Notes that it was once used by a scammer and a dollar is less worth than a dollar now. So stupid. If they can't confiscate it, they can make it worthless. It's the goverments way of taking control back of money. We must never surrender bitcoin to them! The stupidiest part of it is that at the time when the coins are marked stolen... they already are long owned by others. So no one other than innocent people will suffer. It's worse.... the guilty may never suffer. Coins that are the proceeds of crimes become hot property. If you're the one left holding them when they get identified, you could lose the money (or people will refuse to accept it, send it to the confiscation authorities, then demand payment with untainted coins). But everyone who might have spent the coins before they become yours (including the original criminal) get to keep whatever they spent them on, the effect is to ruin Bitcoin's usefulness as money ("fungibility" is what this particular property is referred to). People might feel the jutification to black/red list Avalon payment addresses, they did after all break their delivery contract, using all sorts of feeble excuses, leaving ample evidence on their miners to prove they had been mining with the machines themselves while the delivery was being delayed. They could add the addresses Avalon used to mine with at Eligius as well. I believe i have read they will paint tainted coins white again for a fee in exchange for your private details to proof you arent the scammer. |
|
|
|
Some comments about the leaked document.
I think it is a very preliminary design and nothing impressive inside.
First, all the issuers addresses are kept in the OSE servers, so it is not a real decentralized socket exchange. There's nothing in the blockchain for others to verify the issuer's addresses and map addresses to the stocks.
Second, The seller has to send 100 BTC (although will be returned immediately) to sell his shares for 100BTC seems quite ridiculous to me.
Third, it takes one hour to execute an order seems really too long.
In short, if this one is genuine then it's a bad news.
How should a coin based exchange work faster without being risky? Its a solution to be independent. For users that want to own or sell shares, not high frequenzy trading. But its an advantage to have it. |
|
|
|
Heres more about this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824@Yifu... so you put me in a database without my consent? Bad coins, good coins? WTF... Im sure everyone has a couple satoshis that were stolen by a scam by now. Its like writing on your Euros or US-Dollar Notes that it was once used by a scammer and a dollar is less worth than a dollar now. So stupid. If they can't confiscate it, they can make it worthless. It's the goverments way of taking control back of money. We must never surrender bitcoin to them! The stupidiest part of it is that at the time when the coins are marked stolen... they already are long owned by others. So no one other than innocent people will suffer. |
|
|
|
Sorry to say but if i have such a supplier in my business chain i would hold of psyments fir some time to to handel futher in the chain trouble. I kinda understan CryptX.
What the fuck are you speaking about? Burnin already delivered everything to CryptX that was part of the contract. That was creating the miner design. And obviously CryptX is selling the bitfurys already. So now only CryptX has to move and pay burnin the reward. So how the fuck are you writing here that you understand that burnin is not getting paid? |
|
|
|
I know why ukyo is stalling:
All our BTC are still under his control, bitcoind issue is only a false excuse invented!
He is waiting for BTC / USD value max peak to sell for a max profit, and , once BTC value fall back to
200$ or less, he would repay everybody with a fraction of his profit, made on our back !!!
Would you trade this way? I think thats a big risk. If ukyo would try such a stunt he would have used the user funds before too to gain a profit. The only correct way would be to not use any user funds since nobody gave allowance to this. ukyo... please make an update where the withdraws are staying. You didnt answer my question about your one statement where it sounded like withdraws stopped now because bitcoind stopped working completely. Is this the case? If not where are we with withdraws? Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
ukyo... how does the withdraws go forward? What days are cleared and how many withdraws are still open?
|
|
|
|
|
Das ist der feuchte Traum jeder Regierungsbehörde. Geld in der Tasche einer Person wertlos machen. Festlegen dass der Euroschein wertlos ist weil er 10 Käufer vorher von einem Drogendealer benutzt wurde. Dann hast du einen Euro aber der ist nichts wert.
Eigentlich ist es schlimmer. Es ist eine feindliche Übernahme von Bitcoin. Bitcoin wird nicht mehr frei sein. Es wäre beherrscht von denen die entscheiden welche Coins etwas wert sind und welche nicht. Und diese Autorität lässt sich natürlich dafür bezahlen dir zu erlauben deine Bitcoins zu benutzen. Und deine Identität wollen sie auch.
Ich wußte es ist eine dumme Idee eine zentrale Bitcoin Organisation zu erschaffen die die Macht hat Bitcoin zu verändern da sie die Macht über den offiziellen Bitcoin Client hat. Sie haben keine Möglichkeit eingebaut Bitcoin zu forken. Was nützlich werden in einem Fall wenn die Bitcoin Foundation etwas dummes in Bitcoin einbaut. Dann könnte sich das Netzwerk entscheiden das nicht zu akzeptieren und allein weiterzumachen. Leider würde das hier in dem Fall auch nicht helfen.
Natürlich kann jeder so einen Server erstellen und behaupten Coins wären wertlich. Der Unterschied ist ob man ihm glaubt. Die Foundation und der offizielle Client sollten getrennt werden. Es sollte nicht möglich sein eine Änderung einzubauen die automatisch geupdated wird für einen großen Teil des Bitcoinnetzwerks. Das ist einfach zu gefährlich. Wenn ich lese wie viele Foundationmitglieder die Idee verteidigen frage ich mich ob es nicht besser ist die foundation zu schließen. Es ist ein Angriffspunkt gegen Bitcoin und mit der Macht über den offiziellen Client ist es ein effektiver Angriffspunkt.
|
|
|
|
If the foundation chooses to support this idea, it will be the day when Bitcoin splits. In one way or another, there will be two different Bitcoin protocols, be it in the form of an altcoin or as a hard fork. I hope they make the right decision, which is obvious in my mind.
mikes idea is not acceptable of course. it will be interesting so see, what the devs of Litecoin will do... What can they do? There's not much anyone can do about things like this. As Carlton has already pointed out, this isn't a protocol change. Tracking coins and creating whitelists/blacklists/redlists/bluelists is possible and open for anyone to do due to bitcoin's (and all other cryptocoins) design. Its different. If a average joe creates such a list on its server it doesnt matter. But if the bitcoin foundation changes the official wallet and shows tainted coins it will have a bad effect. |
|
|
|
This is the wet dream of every government being able to mark the money in a persons pocket useless. Claiming that the dollar note he has was used 10 trades before by a drug dealer. So you have a dollar note but its worth nothing. In fact its even worse. Its the hostile take-over of bitcoin. Bitcoin wont be free anymore. It would be ruled by the ones that decide what coins are worth something and what coins arent. And this authority of course let themself pay for the allowance to use your money. And you identity on top. I knew it was a stupid move to start a centralized bitcoin organisation that have the power to change bitcoin at the same time because of the power they have about the official wallet. They didnt implement the possibility to fork bitcoin yet. Which should be doable in case bitcoin foundation draws a stupid move. Only with the ability to fork the wallet the real bitcoin network could move on. Though it wouldnt help much with tainting in this case. Of course anyone can create such a server but it only matters if someone believes in it and think coins are less worth then. The bitcoin foundation and the official wallet development should be divided. It shouldnt be possible to implement a change that is automatically auto-updated for a big part of the bitcoin network. Thats simply way too dangerous. When i read how many members of the foundation seems to like the idea i wonder if its best to close bitcoin foundation. Its an attack point against bitcoin and with the might about the official wallet its an effective attack point. The following is a good explaination of the problem in another thread: But isn't the purpose of CoinValidation to label adresses and not coins?
I don't get why the fungibility of coins is destroyed if only adresses are impacted?
All previous addresses that received the coin are listed on the public blockchain ledger. From what was said I believe Coin Validation plans to look at the history of the addresses associated with coins. If your coin was used 10 transactions ago by a silk road user, (eg seen entering the silk road address) then likely implications are you will not be able to spend your coin on any site using their system. They hope it will be viral, ie because you dont want to hold coins you cant spend, you may also refuse to accept coins they do not white list. Having them validate your coins will not be free and the uncertainty arising from not knowing if your coins will suddenly become less spendable will create fungibility problems. There are costs associated with the fraud tracing validation, blacklisting and payment revocation. eg its bad for merchants too, they cant rely on receiving money they can spend themselves. This is why credit cards are expensive for merchants (3-5% + 30c). This is one thing that makes bitcoin attractive for merchants and users - the fees are close to zero in comparison. Coin blacklist/whitelistng (just different names for the same trend) damage the underlying irrevocability which enables low cost transactions, and pulls bitcoins transaction cost up towards credit cards and paypal. The problem is when fungibility degrades because everyone is mutually scared of accepting blacklisted coins the utility of the coin goes down, the cost of using the currency goes up and so its price falls. It might literally collapse if the feedback loop picks up momentum as people sell non-white listed coins at steeper discounts in a race to the door. This makes as much sense as a $100 note in your pocket disabling itself because 10 previous holders ago, someone stole it from a convenience store. Someone posted on reddit about a 17th centur scottish court case (cant find the link now), where a bank was able to prevent legislation that would've had that implication - if you're left holding a stolen note, you lose it. The court rejected the case based on the argument that doing so would be unfair and also destroy the fungibility and value of the currency. Coin Validation want to reopen that 17th century mistaken (but defeated) court case. Adam |
|
|
|
It's all just a bluff. Hearn is just going there testifying that he can serve bitcoin up on a platter for the sitting mob to control and manipulate... and they will believe it... and they'll finally feast on some of the lies they've been serving up forever... consider it a vision.
Believe this and... at some point its reality because you didnt stand up against and let everything move on in the believe its a bluff. |
|
|
|
Heres more about this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824@Yifu... so you put me in a database without my consent? Bad coins, good coins? WTF... Im sure everyone has a couple satoshis that were stolen by a scam by now. Its like writing on your Euros or US-Dollar Notes that it was once used by a scammer and a dollar is less worth than a dollar now. So stupid. |
|
|
|
I said this a long time ago and no one listened.
Everyone involved in the scam will cry and shout they were scammed/used/underpaid/etc...
I forget who, but remember that jerk complaining he only got paid 10 btc? And everyone soaked it up, what about theswede that plays a sob story about how he is still invested.
Theswede has a lot of bitcoin from other investments and is an early adopter, theswede also used his "reputation" and marketing speak to get people to fork over 7,000 bitcoin. I think theswede should pay out all of his bitcoin to the shareholders, even if he can only cover 10%. it is something.
Look how stupid everyone here looks, you have all these people to target and you let them funnel you into looking for one single person.
Everyone involved in Labcoin is involved in the scam, and they are "sob story"ing their way out of handing over cash. They must go bankrupt giving everything they own back to shareholders. Some of these scammers own business, that business must now be liquefied to pay back Labcoin shareholder debts. Theswede must now get out his cold wallets and pay back, even if he has not made anything from Labcoin he enabled the scam.
I am no longer invested but I get frustrated reading how yet again another scammer has told you to look down another dark alleyway.
Remember: Everyone involved is going to cry and shout and misdirect.
I doubt anyone here will actually pull through and theswede and the rest are going to get away with it. No way the scammers are going to pay. Scammers to smart obviously. Now Labcoin shareholders, prove me wrong!
*lol* Everyone that worked for a scammer has to lose everything too. Didnt you work for the scammer too by funding him? Man, im happy that you arent the judge. |
|
|
|
|
I made a testbuy now. There was a better offer for the same product i would have chosen when i privately would buy but ok. Its probably hard to check those offers.
What i didnt like with the process is that you only can order a single product. Normally i buy more than one product. And its not possible to buy more than one of the same product too it seems.
Otherwise the buying process worked though its a bit more expensive than simply changing bitcoins to euro and buy with them at amazon.
So far i see these disadvantages:
* only one product
* only one piece of one product
* what about broken products?
* a bit more expensive (but you can pay in btc)
* no support when i wanted it so i dont know if other shops can be done manually
|
|
|
|
|
What i wonder... when ordering you need to be sure that you keep it since its not possible to send it back because its broken or otherwise wrong right? Or can it be reversed?
|
|
|
|
Hi at all, hi Beutelschneider,
It is a pity, there are still some misconception about our service.
For sure we fulfill every order!
Since the 1th of November, Amazon & Ebay shipped more than €15k for our bitcoin users!
We gonna work-out some testimonials to create more trust,
our business is registered and we work each day to empower the bitcoin community.
Best regards from Berlin!
It might be that you really work but why the heck dont you do support? I never got an answer for forum pm's, emails, questions in threads and more. I mean thats so different from doing good business. Will this change? Anyway... since you do it with amazon... what about other shops? For example i wanted to buy a music instrument that wasnt cheap. You didnt answer. Do you do other shops too? If not why is amazon different? |
|
|
|
Wait a minute, I dont get it at all. If Ukyo has the BTC, why not to transfer them ALL to another wallet and process all withdrawals manually?
Ukyo answered this already. Hi seems to do this in small scale. So send a couple btc to another wallet and then send smaller withdraws fromt his wallet to safe time. But since the problem with bitcoind is that it crashes once it goes through too many bitcoin addresses to check if bitcoins are in it it wont work to send all bitcoins to another wallet. Because it would crash before sending when it tries to collect the bitcoins. Its open if there is a wallet at all that can handle so many bitcoin addresses. So its still 200 withdraws... the withdraws that are solved are replaced with new withdraws... i hope the coder are good to solve this problem. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
