What are the chances of the money and bitcoins being frozen until this is settled?
Don't know exactly, but I worry about the chances of that enough given the current state of third party infrastructure that I'm keeping every last bitcent I own right now in offline wallets. Bitcoin has an anti-pathy towards 3rd party infrastructure at its core ... 3rd parties need to figure out ways to become useful without requiring complete ownership of private keys, like blockchain.info approach that keeps only keys that have been encrypted on the client side. There are many other approaches that can allow for services to be delivered without 3rd party having total access to private keys, multi-signature, time-lock escrow, smart contracts and etc. 3rd party control is a bad approach modelled on old ways of handling money, it doesn't need to be like this any longer with a crypto-currency public-private key-pair as the ownership basis. Providers need to think of service+owner business models .... |
|
|
|
Maybe the answer is to use bitcoin as the public face of crypto currency, and as the whole idea matures, the freedom element is taken by some new altcoin, much like TOR is the internet for the minority who demand privacy. But don't expect these coins to ever be worth a fraction of a bitcoin! Wink Winks and grins aside .... the market decides which is the best money, not any arrogant, regulation-pusher on the Intertubes. Now ask yourself this, would you rather hold a currency that allows for total privacy in transactions or one that does not? |
|
|
|
Couple of pages ago ( #102), I was asking for help with Debian Testing compilation, as Testing is provided with python2.7, but there is no PyQt4.QtCore for python2.7, only for python3.0, which is not supported by Bitmessage. But on Ubuntu it's working fine, thanks  I just compiled binary and installed it without problems. I will have to look again on my Debian laptop Unfortunately Debian, Fedoria, (and thus others like Mint Linux) cannot run it as easily because their copies of OpenSSL doesn't include Elliptic Curve cryptographic functions for patent reasons. Umm, no. Redhat derivative flavours lack the ECDSA module in OpenSSL ... that is Redhat, Fedora, CentOS, Yellow Dog, etc Debian derivatives are OK ... that is Debian, Ubuntu(s), Mint, etc. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg |
|
|
|
Biggest question is if BTC is considered a currency or commodity by goverments around the world. Ummm, no. There are several bigger questions, not the least being the question of what precisely is a 'bitcoin'? Is it the private key? Is it the number in the shared public ledger, the blockchain? At present, the asset you are referring to as a 'bitcoin' has no legal definition. For all intents and purposes people are trading coded numbers amongst themselves that have exactly zero legal standing. |
|
|
|
How about we tell them hey this is free open source, each and every code change you want you can implement in your own fork, and any combinations of them to your heart's content, go crazy, have fun, roll your own...
The unintended consequences of attempting to regulate the mathematical protocols of p2p open source software are infinitely unpredictable .... ... hilarity, mayhem and ridicule will inevitably ensue if any idiotic regulator or legislator chooses to take that path. Power can only be commanded while respect remains. My only advice to those pondering or advocating for such foolhardy actions .... "When you are in a hole, stop diggin'." |
|
|
|
I don't think Gavin needs to worry about his paycheck - can't he just dump 5% of his BTC holdings? BTW baking a fee into the client is a horrible idea.
There are already fees when sending bitcoins with the official client. If there was a miniscule increase of those, and it would be used to further the work with the Bitcoin infra-structure - would it be bad ? Yes ... think it through. |
|
|
|
Hi, I wasn't using BitMessage for couple of weeks. Is there any more support for Linux, or I still cannot use it on Linux as ready-to-go? Binaries, or something? Why is only crappy Windows supported?  Works fine on linux ... what are you talking about? |
|
|
|
This means nothing in the long term but is an excellent buying oportunity right now.
Quite honestly, it was unclear from the beginning why Coinlab even needed a deal with Mt. Gox when a huge portion of the Mt. Gox base would gladly jump ship to a venture-backed US-based exchange if the opportunity presented itself.
Hopefully Coinlab will spend their money on building what everyone wants instead of wasting it on a protracted legal battle with a foreign entity where the possibility of collecting damages is minimal at best.
Coinlab needs more coders, and fewer lawyers!
Coinlab likely got Gox to sign a contract on purpose, one which Gox wasn't prepred for, so Coinlab could sue them in the end. This. It is starting to smell like a hostile bid trap has just been sprung. They are after Goxes monies and suing for damages is always a good easy way to start the negotiations ... just quietly I would not want to have any money tied up in either Coinlab or Mt. Gox right now in the event they "send in the clowns", all the money gets frozen and it is weeks, months or years until the what little is left is trickled back to the 'customers' ... that's how these things invariably pan out these days once lawyers get involved in money businesses, suddenly there is no money and no business. |
|
|
|
|
Interestingly this is almost exactly along the lines I predicted it would pan out ... although there is a small detail I predicted in the saga that hasn't yet come to fruition, a major hack of either Coinlab or Mt. Gox and in the ensuing melee a mysterious loss of customer's bitcoins ... mergers, lawyers and inexplicable thefts, the three-ring circus of 'business'.
|
|
|
|
I can post up the code I use to get it if you want. Sure ... better than re-inventing the wheel. |
|
|
|
|
The fiction that "IRS operates voluntary compliance" has been made a bald-faced lie with draconian ans criminal penalties for errors and omissions. It now clearly operates by projecting fear and intimidation through threat of incarceration for non-compliance or even simple errors, unless you are a big corporation or politically connected. Even so, we welcome the revenue departments to the crypto-currency rabbit-hole ... there are warrens and tunnels running off into infinity for those agents of an inquiring and mathematical bent good with numbers ... watch out for the terriers.
|
|
|
|
Too frequent?  Do you have the m-code? ... I can plot those as 3-d rendered surfaces that evolve in time if you like ... or as a movie too. |
|
|
|
This is mostly what is suggested by moving most interviewees to an external website. That is a good example of what would probably have a good consensus and be a good compromise for everyone.
I also love Ver and Matonis BTW. And exchanged briefly with them. Roger Ver was not postponed because of his presentation but for his criminal record. Everyone seemed happy otherwise about how he was presenting Bitcoin. And because of all the noise on this forum, we could not discuss about them. I was about to recommand myself to open discussion about Roger inclusion a few days ago just before trolls started back to disrupt everything. So this thread actually played against himself. Nice one, you have been found to be wrong and now you go on again labelling people who disagree with you "trolls". You got sucked in by luke-jr's games and jgarzik machiavellian scheming to try and fly bitcoin under the mainstream radar ... and so you did nothing, which was worse than doing something, further prolonging the divisive nature of having the Press Center in place. Basically, you have proven yourself unworthy to be webmaster of what is becoming an important piece of webspace ... have some integrity and resign already, please. And whoever takes over, please take bitcoin.org back to its techie roots and away from the cheerleader PR fuzzy graphic goofest it is becoming ... dumbing it down for mainstream was a poor decision and direction for bitcoin.org. Bitcoin is a technology, not a kids toy. |
|
|
|
cool thanks, should this also work for litecoin based coins since they are using scrypt? I don't know for sure but since scrypt is used for getting the block hashes it may need some tweaking ... |
|
|
|
We can work with regulators to make sure Bitcoin is acceptable to them. For instance we can ensure that it remains possible to track the flow of money through Bitcoin. We can also ensure that there are options if certain funds need to be frozen and blacklisted, due to fraud, theft, or because they encode illegal data. We can work with them to find ways to apply AML rules to Bitcoin transactions and to the exchanges. There are ways to put taxation into Bitcoin itself, so that taxes are automatically applied when a transaction is made. Maybe even one day we'll be required to prevent dangerous levels of deflation. A lot of these changes are technical, such as improving scalability so transactions can remain on the blockchain, developing P2P blacklist technologies, and preventing deflation.
Sounds freakin' dandy. Count me out if it goes this direction. The trouble(*) is that at this time, and possibly for some time to come, for every '1' in the real world who is turned off by such things, there will be '10' who will think they sound great(**). Their response will be 'Count me in.' (*) Of course "One man's trash is another man's treasure." so 'trouble' may not be the right word exactly. (**) I'm not standing by and exact 1/10 ratio. Just making a point as I see it. Yeah but the 10 who think it sounds great don't have any money ... and is a large part why they don't. Bitcoin is getting adopted because capital markets can appreciate what good money looks like ... if bitcoin now turns around and changes itself into bad money capital will move elsewhere. Govt. money was formerly gold, then paper cash and now traceable digital units ... if govt. money was widely available as untraceable (fungible) gold-backed digital units bitcoin would be worthless. |
|
|
|
My involvement with BitcoinATM has turned out to be a mistake. But not one without some positives. I sat front and center in front of the US and world media alerting to the scam of central banking and government controlled money systems. That alone has some value.
And I will be back and the next time smarter and bolder. This is not the last you've heard from me on bitcoin. Thanks Jeff ... a good job and well done. Looking forward to your next forays, you will be a great ally. |
|
|
|
|
emansipater has never bothered with mathematical proofs too much when it is clear his intellect is proof enough ...
|
|
|
|
I'm just sensitive to takeovers by a few. Forgive me if I'm seeming a bit extreme. I love bitcoin. I don't want to see bitcoin become paypal 2.0. It's a bigger idea.
I understand, and it's not going to happen regardless of what people say or think about Bitcoin, all that matters for it to remains the same is in the code and all levels of decentralization. If you are thinking otherwise, I think you are not realizing that you are loosing faith on what Bitcoin really is.  I think it's time for the community to enter in a maturity phase and realize a few things. Including that Bitcoin is in a decisive turning point right now. Journalism might sometime represent free speech, but mass medias are not free speech at all. It's a big strategic game. And any businesses that is confrounted to this world must have a good strategy or fail. The current press center has been developed not as an open recognition board for community members we all respect, but as a PR strategy. Like it or not, The overwhelming majority of the people are either not politicized, misguided or opposed to whatever you'll say. And about no business in this world is doing philantrophy. That means that associating Bitcoin to any ideology or "bad thing" in the mass medias equates to preventing Bitcoin to develop. As simple and cruel as that. So if you care about Bitcoin to develop for ideological reasons, you most probably have no choice but to be wise enough to help Bitcoin to "win all battles in silence". It's much less exciting and it's more pragmatic and efficient. Most future Bitcoin users comfortably think they are not approving anything political when they are using money, and they want to do the same with Bitcoin. Even though we all know that is always false, that is how it works. Those people will actually indirectly endorse ideologies if they can pretend they're not. And be sure that I am the first to think it's absurd. Let's be aware of our environment and never under-estimate the power of representation. Hopefully, in a few years, a press team will be fully obsolete and people associating Bitcoin to any political idea will not scare new users. But right now, it's different. Bitcoin is confusing for most people and it is about to become either a niche for activism, or a global innovation with no borders. We are so close. And what is going to be the turning point will be the public perception and adoption of Bitcoin. We are there right now. Just for the picture, Internet at its beginning was not labelled as a "political tool for free speech and individual freedom" but as a competitive technology. And that is how it became both. So before you interfere with this process, please keep in mind that it is being done by involved people having a long-term strategic approach. Constructive work in order to improve things is always appreciated. And it starts with questionning what's being done before fighting it. A lot of interesting issues has been raised and there is constructive work being done right now. Please learn to do some compromise and understand valid issues pointed by others. I've been doing this all days despite the hostile environment. It seems you are quite comfortable with living and telling a lie, to the whole world ... you are probably the best person suited to operating a "Press Center" of the old paradigm. I have now lost absolutely any remaining faith that you are the right person to be holding the keys to bitcoin.org. |
|
|
|
We need regulation because that is how you keep others from creating regulations and it makes far more sense to create the regulations in house, than to give it to someone who has an unknown agenda.
I have seen many users post this argument and i don't understand it. HOW can you regulate a currency that was designed impossible to regulate? To me it looks like the people in charge are trying to make either a fork or a central bank-type layer so that it can be regulated. Because let's face it, Bitcoin right now CAN'T be regulated if we don't let them regulate it. They want to close all the exchanges? Fine! We have TOR, we can meet in the streets and people will find other ways to bypass that. That's why 'm not afraid of the government forbidding Bitcoin. But it looks to me like they want to change the whole nature of Bitcoin and that is what's dangerous. And even more because many Bitcoin users have no problem with that. Think of it this way. You have a wonderful Apple pie on your kitchen window, which is warm, and smells delicious. If you give the bully a small slice, he will leave you alone, happy that he got some pie. If you don't, he might take the whole pie, and give you a small slice. If you run away with the pie, he might come after you and not only steal your pie, but also smash it into your face. If you run away, you might out run the bully, but also end up away from the house, not able to watch TV while eating your pie with no plate, cutlery, or lemonade! The point is, when you have something that someone else might want, the first move is to be reasonable, because it stops them being unreasonable! Bullies never settle for "a small slice" ... they always come back for more and more and more because they are getting it for free .... And the "we don't negotitate with terrorists" doctrine applies here also. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
