That's what has me worried. It's been a long time since we used dial up modems as a primary means of accessing the internet so how much attention has been paid to the OS serial port drivers and libraries with regards to security flaws? Can you prove there is no possible sequence of bits capable of exploiting a bug somewhere in the stack?

In the case of Linux, wasn't the entire TTY layer recently rewritten? How much security auditing has been done on that, given that serial ports don't get a lot of use these days?

The two largest problems I see in this post is that the tribalism and theocracy in Somalia represent anarchy instead of just another form of government and that the killing of citizens by law enforcement is the only measure of state violence.

So how well does the state model restrain the actions of the government? Just to pick on the the US for the moment, I don't see any effective restraint at all. Agents of the government seem to be able to act with near impunity and have an unimaginable amount of resources at their disposal. Exactly what is being restrained here?

Flexibility is nice but it also means more potential ways for a remote attacker to find an exploit. The lack of flexibility in a specialized device is a feature because it greatly reduces the attack surface.

It might not be worth it for $1000 but a wallet with $100,000+ is a highly desirable target for someone to go after.

How do you know what you are saying is objectively true instead of just being a story?

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Not at all. The argument against the state is a moral argument, just like the argument against slavery. It is no more necessary for anarchists to predict how a society would function without a state than it was necessary for abolitionists to predict how agriculture would work in the absence of slave labor.

Everybody already accepts that compulsion is wrong when they are on the receiving end of it; the job of the anarchist is to get people to accept that the excuses which are commonly used to justify exceptions to this principle are invalid.

If users really are storing $100,000+ there's no reason to use a general-purpose computer as an offline wallet. It seems like a dedicated hardware device should be able to be produced for less than the cost of two USB to Serial converters plus a PC. All it would need to do is receive unsigned transactions, wait for user input, sign the transaction, and return it.

Why didn't it work in Spain?

If it happens again I'll keep an eye out for those in the logs.

Actually the way the rule works is that a connection attempt to port 22 will not result in a blacklisting. The actual rule includes a few other ports for servers that I run. The idea is that random hosts on the internet should not be trying to initiate connections to random ports so any that do can be assumed to be up to no good. I expect connections to port 22 though because sometimes I use SSH from outside this network.

Unfortunately I don't have a log of the connection attempt that is tripping that rule. I've added a new logging rule but since it hasn't happened again yet I don't know specifically what triggered it. There isn't any good reason for your IP address to ever send me a packet with state NEW, is there?

Seems like a prolific author.

I have a firewall rule that automatically blacklists any ipaddress that tries to initiate incoming connections on ports which I am not actively listening for connections. It looks similar to this:
The thing is, bitcointalk.org periodically ends up in my blacklist ipset. I can browse normally most of the time but every once in a while I notice that the forum won't load and I have to manually remove its address from the blacklist ipset. Is there any reason this should happen?

Can you explain why?

I see that. You present facts when doing so is supports your position. But on the other hand in this thread you've also shown a willingness to employ logical fallacies when that suits your purpose.

It looks to me like you stick to logic and facts when doing so is convenient and abandon them the instant they don't support your position. Perhaps this is because my horizons just aren't broad enough to see that the physics definition of "force" refers to the exact same phenomenon as the ethical definition of "force".

Yes, because "quality" can mean anything unless it has been precisely defined and the context made it quite clear that your definition of quality is, "whatever I agree with". Your answer indicated that you reserved the right to refute any fact, not based on it being false, but based on coming from a source you considered to be a "sham organization". You also reserved the right to completely disqualify any statement you classified as a "meme", again with no requirement for it to actually be incorrect.

Your reply was an incredible display of intellectual dishonesty since you basically give yourself latitude to be right regardless of any facts or logic provided because you can disregard anything on purely subjective grounds.

Sure you can. But I'm not sure what that means.

If being "hung up on proof and logic" means that I care whether factual statements are true or false and that's a "simplistic ideal" should I expand my horizons by believing things that are false?

That certainly may be the case. If you don't mind me asking can you explain the methodology you used to arrive at that conclusion so that I can learn for myself how to avoid making such mistakes in the future?

I don't think proving a statement by using a homonym is a valid way to construct a logical statement.

You apparently disagree with theymos but I can't help but notice that you're expressing your disagreement using words like "sad" and "unoriginal" rather than "incorrect" or "illogical". If he is in error perhaps it would be more helpful to point out the specific mistake with logic or evidence rather than just describing your emotional reaction.