Wrong.

But I've always been in favor of your Bitcoin Island idea.

This makes it more of a pain in the rear to operate any kind of Bitcoin/crypto-currency (or other virtual currency) exchange if you're based in the U.S., at least in a complying above ground way.

Looks good. Haven't had time to read all of it yet but they refer to Bitcoin by name this time, even mentioning all the attention it's getting. Seems they are trying to clarify the earlier guidance.

Bitcoin does give power to individuals. Nobody can stop Roger Ver or me or you or anyone else saying what we want about Bitcoin to whomever we want, including press.

^ apparently not all Jr. members are created equally 

Growing pains. Expect a lot more.

Bitcoin already accommodates broad adoption because they are divisible to 8 decimal places.

What you propose is something that has already been discussed. Your fork won't work because the forked coins won't ever have comparable value to bitcoins. The people that hold bitcoins and others interested in their value, like merchants/miners, won't support forked coins that look to disrupt bitcoin in economically messy ways. If they did then what's to stop other forks after your fork?

Bitcoins have value because people accept them. Your forked coins wouldn't be accepted on the orignial bitcoin chain, yet holders of original bitcoins could still spend their coins on your fork, so you haven't taken away wealth from people with many coins at all.

Also, all possible bitcoins are not already held by people, only about half of total bitcoins exist so far. Last, for your coins to even have a chance at comparable value to bitcoins there should be less of them not more.

That project is for a small asteroid, around 25 feet. I'm pretty sure the scientists for the mining project you linked earlier considered any which might be brought closer to earth too.

Anyway, the Federal Reserve was created only 100 years ago, and the euro brought into existence far more recently than that. I'm pretty sure gold will have monetary value for a long while to come.

What do you call long term?


FYI two ounces of gold right now is worth about $2,800.

Yes, I actually had this idea in the form of getting coin shops involved. They are not high tech (I asked one once about any Web interest and he replied something about a webbed foot), so there might be a barrier there but everyone understands profit potential. All we would need to do is sign up shops to allow people to walk in and trade their gold for bitcoins or vice versa, giving the shop and any middle men a cut of course.

I think that would be really popular. As the FinCEN guidance says exchanging bitcoins directly for goods or services is not subject to regulation or record keeping requirements.

ALL computers are vulnerable to attack, though some more so than others.


lol if only it were that simple.

I disagree XBC > BTC.

I understand and acknowledge the standard, but you have to remember who is using it.

Most people when they go to the store see a $, not USD. If you're a professional forex trader then you don't care if the populace calls coins dog biscuits; if they are worth 100K each, you'll figure out what any proper ISO code is.

In the meantime using XBC will confuse everyone else, who will have a hard enough time understanding what a bitcoin is in the first place.

Let me explain about DDoS (I know many here know).

The problem is it's like standing in the middle of a clear field against an unseen army in the forest. You have to stand in the field so people can find you, but you're completely exposed to attack. You just have to be able to take everything that comes your way.

Translated to Web technology this means most sites exposed to significant DDoS attack are effectively disabled. There are mitigation techniques/software to reduce the effectiveness of attacks, but as the link provided above, which gives good information, points out even spending thousands of dollars on expert defenses is not always enough. The only real answer, like standing in that field, is to be big enough and bad enough to take it, having loads of bandwidth, servers, software etc. to ride the attack out. Cloudflare is something that helps the issue greatly, because they take the expensive problem many have independently and address it with consolidated resources. Still, it's an underdog fight to start with.

So how to effectively address DDoS? You might try finding the attacker(s) using social means as mentioned. The problem there is you'll never find everyone if anyone. Pooling resources, money, brain power, etc. in the style of Cloudflare in more organized ways might help.

The problem is more systemic. For example, there are DDoS extortion cases where it's less costly for a victim site, like a profitable gambling one, to pay a ransom then suffer extended downtime.

I'd say you really have to take away the main weapon which is botnets. To do that you have to provided better security against computer sheeple allowing their computers to be used unwittingly. I actually had a business idea which was a computer that was virus proof (it basically stored files in a compartmentalized way, and clean re-installed the OS with a click or on automated schedule) but never developed it.

That was extremely enjoyable. I'm a Colbert fan although I haven't watched recently.

That was actually not as bad as it could have been given the complexity of Bitcoin. The biggest problem I have is with the guest saying not to buy them at all because you don't know what the value will be the next second. That's actually a good point, but it's not complete. First, bitcoins value will probably stabilize greatly as its market cap grows. Second, you don't need to hold bitcoins long term to use them effectively.


+1 exactly.

No, that is not true.

Password uniqueness and strength, as well as two-factor authentication, are measures which HELP keep bitcoins safe online.

None of that matters if the online service you use becomes corrupted. Two-factor authentication would not have helped anyone with a mybitcoin.com account. Password uniqueness and strength would not have helped Bitcoinica customers.

I will say it again:

For ANY online Bitcoin service I advise only storing as much there longer term as you are willing to lose completely if something unforeseen (like hacking/dishonesty/mistakes etc.) happens.

How important are your funds to you? If you lose whatever amount you have on an online service I daresay you would feel it's important. The only way to minimize that loss/importance is to minimize what can be lost that way.

Now if you're asking about likelihoods sure that can be a consideration. Is it likely Blockchain.info will be effectively hacked or that piuk, the site's creator, is dishonest and/or unreasonably incompetent on security matters? Given its history I'd say no that's not likely. That still doesn't mean I'm willing to trust 100% of my coins there. I'd put there as much as might be used for typical transactions, for example.

EDIT: now that I think about it where is Blockchain.info hosted? If it's not hosted under only piuk's administration (i.e. with a hosting provider) then anyone with access can compromise the site and steal coins with clever code.

This is correct.

Unless you are reading the code/information exchanged between your computer and blockchain.info (or elsewhere) EVERY TIME you connect and exchange information then you can't be sure things are happening as you imagine and hope they are.

For ANY online Bitcoin service I advise only storing as much there longer term as you are willing to lose completely if something unforeseen (like hacking/dishonesty/mistakes etc.) happens.

I don't think there is a sticky focused on etiquette, but there may need to be as this place becomes more popular.

Right now we're pretty much self-policing. With a shared public resource it's in the interest of everyone to try to keep things as nice and usable as possible. Moderators also help a lot.

Start by adding a signature to your profile. Make quality posts and people will probably want to check out what else you're involved in. Announce sites and services directly here and here, and possibly also here.

List your site on the Trade wiki too:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade

Edit: you might also try advertising with a service like CoinURL or OperationFabulous.

Bold emphasis mine. What you don't understand is what's most important. By confiscating gold Roosevelt effectively forced the market to prefer to use dollars instead of gold.

Using gold as money is superior to dollars in terms of guaranteed value. Gold has been valued by people for thousands of years and can't be easily counterfeited. That's not true of dollars (dollars are easily counterfeited by the Federal Reserve). So a free market if left on its own would probably choose to use gold (whatever is superior). Roosevelt took that option away from the market. He couldn't do that with Bitcoin.

 

Make sure you understand the definition of confiscation as opposed to theft:

confiscate - Take or seize (someone's property) with authority.

I'm not aware of any government seizing someone's bitcoins on authority, and even if so, certainly not on a large enough scale to influence a market.

Max Keiser is correct.

Governments would find it difficult to impossible to confiscate (or outlaw) bitcoins effectively. The reason is for every action governments might take bitcoins can be routed around. A government outlawing bitcoins would simply drive their use underground.

Regarding confiscation Max Keiser references Roosevelt confiscating gold in 1933:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102


There are several differences bitcoins would have from the above. First, gold or silver being tangible items could be argued to be natural resources. Governments often feel automatic authority/jurisdiction over such things. This along with the argument "hoarding of gold" was prolonging the depression probably seemed sufficient basis to push the action through.

For people not wanting to comply what were their options? The threat of men with guns showing up with metal detectors, and rewards for nosy neighbors was probably sufficient deterrent to try hiding large quantities of the physical stuff.

On the other hand bitcoins are obviously not natural resources nor tangible at all. One could literally hide/keep secret over 1 trillion dollars worth of value from the government in the form of a bitcoin brain wallet, which of course is immune to metal detectors, satellite imagery, nosy neighbors or whatever other means governments might successfully employ to locate physical things.