... just going to file here in the "Absurd" bin for posterity ... http://ktla.com/2013/06/21/exclusive-hastings-sent-colleagues-email-hours-before-crash/#axzz2X5MJsCFGhttp://ca.movies.yahoo.com/news/lapd-officially-confirms-michael-hastings-car-crash-victim-233000393.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2345332/Paranoid-Michael-Hastings-told-WikiLeaks-lawyer-investigated-FBI-hours-deadly-car-crash.htmlThe message read: “Michael Hastings contacted WikiLeaks lawyer Jennifer Robinson just a few hours before he died, saying that the FBI was investigating him.” Just wondering if it is possible to remotely hack a 2013 Mercedes C250 instrument system and set throttle to full? Or would a separate remote control device need planting on the vehicle to effect such an outcome? Hastings last piece on Buzzfeed, pretty chilling stuff: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/why-democrats-love-to-spy-on-americansIt’s unclear where a possible third leak investigation would lead. However, judging by the DOJ’s and FBI’s recent history, it would seem that any new leak case would involve obtaining the phone records of reporters at the Guardian, the Washington Post, employees at various agencies who would have had access to the leaked material, as well as politicians and staffers in Congress—records, we now can safely posit, they already have unchecked and full access to.
In short: any so-called credible DOJ/FBI leak investigation, by its very nature, would have to involve the Obama administration invasively using the very surveillance and data techniques it is attempting to hide in order to snoop on a few Democratic Senators and more media outlets, including one based overseas. For more reading re: drone killing: http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1687.htm |
|
|
|
Imagine in 10-50 years, when there are beyond billions of transactions monthly, the amount of resources a bitcoin blockchain takes up will be so out of control that only large data centers can support it. And whoever has enough money and resources to be able to service the entire blockchain has in essence centralized a decent chunk of bitcoin, and I'm assuming that there would only be at the most 10 block chains in existent if it's that out of control. It's pretty likely bitcoin will grow faster than moore's law.
So how will this impending centralization be stopped?
Off-chain transactions. Smart Checkpointing. Higher TX fees. |
|
|
|
I don't understand when they developed it why they did not make the difficulty fixed and vary the reward to maintain the steady creation of coins. This way you can mine solo.
Nice idea. The problem is that then the block creation rate would increase out of control, you'd have way too much orphaning and block chain bloat. Take a closer look at Liquidcoin experiment. And to the OP, there are a couple solutions. One, is that miners have a bit more control over which pools they mine for than say, citizenry can decide which country to live in. If a pool does get out of control and start messing with fee structures and TX insertion, people can move without totally abandoning their life. Two, is that centralized massive pools still won't be able to keep the money supply hidden and create new coins like the central banks have done. That will be for the next payment layer on top of bitcoin  Thank you for explaining the difficulty / coin value issue - it is like trying to get blood out of a stone round here for informative information Lol, I hear you there. Extensive filtering, skimming skills required around here after the huge increase in posts over the last 6 months. Unfortunately a lot of the really knowledgeable posters are harder to find these days, which is why you have to settle for my answer |
|
|
|
I don't understand when they developed it why they did not make the difficulty fixed and vary the reward to maintain the steady creation of coins. This way you can mine solo.
Nice idea. The problem is that then the block creation rate would increase out of control, you'd have way too much orphaning and block chain bloat. Take a closer look at Liquidcoin experiment. And to the OP, there are a couple solutions. One, is that miners have a bit more control over which pools they mine for than say, citizenry can decide which country to live in. If a pool does get out of control and start messing with fee structures and TX insertion, people can move without totally abandoning their life. Two, is that centralized massive pools still won't be able to keep the money supply hidden and create new coins like the central banks have done. That will be for the next payment layer on top of bitcoin |
|
|
|
The only surprising thing to me here is: a long bitcointalk thread where nobody questions the official story of the MSM. I wondered this myself and came to the conclusion that no-one even bothers questioning the MSM because they implicitly assume (KNOW?) that they are spinning propaganda ... it must have been like this with Pravda during the USSR. I'm not sure I follow you there.. can you give an example? |
|
|
|
At first I was outraged...$200k working for Booz Allen in Hawaii!!!  Then I saw the end: Snowden left the CIA in 2009 to work for a private contractor that gave him an assignment at an NSA facility on a military base in Japan. $200k makes sense. So does that mean his position is open? Yes. And advertised in the NYT. http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.co.uk/2013_06_01_archive.html |
|
|
|
The bickering about the power structure of HK is pointless; Snowden could be on the moon by now. He seems smart enough to formulate a simple plan like: "Tell everyone I'm trying to head to Iceland next, but sneak down to my secret bungalow in the Seychelles the minute this reporter leaves the room."People like you are part of the problem, not the solution. +1 yes, the government should operate within the law. Oversight committees have direct responsibility for making sure that happens. There should be consequences for illegal activities. Heads should roll. Time for everyone to consider the legality of what the NSA does. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Did you hear about that country that started up in the 1770s as the greatest experiment ever in small government? It only took ~230 years to become the world's most bloated and restrictive government in history. This has happened before a few times... But never this large. Sadly, it always ends the same way, so we can fully expect for that particular experiement to end a lot noisier: (Hence many people's interest in bitcoin here.) Anyway, what we learned from that failed experiment is: The smaller you make a government without actually removing the government entirely, the less structure there is in place to actually curb the growth of the government. So with all of this in mind, are you really trying to just keep the status quo moving along as usual? More oversight committees? More regulations? Hoping the problems will go away if we just get one more good man in some public office somewhere?  EL OH EL at the 700+ DEATH THREATS the author got in the comments below. Here's one for you too: Please go die in a fire.Great post BTCLuke  The only surprising thing to me here is: a long bitcointalk thread where nobody questions the official story of the MSM. |
|
|
|
I'm still not sure you people understand what LvM is proposing, so I will rephrase it.
Ripple.com uses what he wants instead of inputs/outputs. It also has a scripting system.
Why would they regret to use a regular ledger instead of inputs/outputs?
I don't think they will. Personally I don't think inputs/outputs are inferior enough to change it at this point.
As said, the refactor would be big, and you would need a hard fork. But I'm still missing why Satoshi didn't make it a balances ledger from the beginning.
Why is it a mistake on the part of ripple devs to substitute inputs/outputs with GAAP?
It is a balance ledger. It's a log structured database. The reason is because you want to trust each successful miner with only a single set of modifications to the database (the TXs). It makes sense to use a log structured database to keep track of the ledger. Unfortunately, its a bitch to parse and distribute, prune and whatnot. But the underlying reason is the same that this kind of DB is used for example in SSDs. BTW OP, does gold violate GAAP? |
|
|
|
Lower barriers help, but don't you think most people neglect data security b/c they simply don't value [or understand the value of] privacy? somewhat amusing paper - Ben Laurie decries PoW&spam almost a century ago (in internet time) http://goo.gl/xObnGWhat's so amusing about somebody being correct? As an anti-spam solution, PoW was never successful, and mostly for the reasons he gives. Edit: Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. It does have a light hearted tone and funny title  |
|
|
|
I wonder which is used more for illicit activities Cash or Bitcoin?
There probably is more money laundered into the wall street from delaware companies than with BTC total. You guys must be joking. If bitcoin had even 1% of black market or "money laundering" (in any meaning you might take from it) the USD/BTC exchange rate would be a factor 10 to 100 times higher. Do you seriously think silk road is even on the radar of the major importers / dealers? Leave the forum and get outside a bit. |
|
|
|
Why do these warrants bother claiming that LR was a "launderer" of money when in no case do they ever provide clean taxable income for anyone?
Laundering, IMO, is based on concealment. It's about whether or not you conceal the source of (ill-gotten) money. So, for instance, if you were able to move funds from hacked bank accounts to anonymous re-loadable credit cards, without the ill-gotten money being tied to you, that would be laundering. That is exactly the type of service that LR was able to provide. It's simply mixing, and it is definitely laundering. OK, so maybe I'm not familiar with the term in a financial sense but to me "launder" implies cleaning. Switching one pair of dirty socks with another pair of dirty socks seems hardly like doing laundry. |
|
|
|
What I am wondering is, how did the feds come by their numbers? Blunt lie? Or does money laundering require multiple transactions and they simply summed it up? Or....?
More important than the loss of the money by users of LR is the demonstration of power by the empire state court. A few folks proved they can take money from any bank accounts around the world (20 accounts in Cyprus, 10 in costa rica, accounts in China, Hong Kong, Latvia, Russia) based solely on unproven accusations. They showed they can take domains based solely on accusations. They showed they can shut down amazon web services based on accusations they make. That is big news I think and will affect the market. Speaking of accusations, does anybody understand why "money laundering" is claimed? I was under the impression that laundering had the implication of cleaning. This means showing a clean exit for money, for example as restaurant earnings (though not many people went to that mafia restaurant), construction company earnings (hey wait what did they build), etc. etc. Why do these warrants bother claiming that LR was a "launderer" of money when in no case do they ever provide clean taxable income for anyone? |
|
|
|
A bank here has customers from another country, and they send money home. Bitcoin is cheap. A bank to bank settling mechanism with bitcoin would help the banks, and in turn make banks protect bitcoin. Don't treat them as an enemy, treat them as a powerful neighbor that we want to form an alliance with.
To get bitcoins without mining: do what you do with money without a printing press. Work, or sell goods & services. I try to convince my wife that bitcoin is valuable, because I can get on the web and buy coffee with them.
Someone sells coffee, and they get bitcoins.
Find what you can sell.
The banks will never be your friend. Hindsight vision is 20-20 right? Bankers are our enemy? You need to be more specific. Are you talking about MtGox? Jamie Dimon? Perhaps you mean US Central Bankers? Satoshi, who figured out great ways to store, use and transfer money, was a banker. If you're just looking for a scapegoat why not use traditional racial ones? |
|
|
|
"One of the key drivers to healthy growth in an economy is liquidity."
How much truth does this statement carry? I see it quoted in this forum with references to economic texts. It makes me think about the function of traders in the greater economy. They will be driving a majority of the liquidity in the markets, taking that into account, would it be considered healthy growth?
When thinking into more depth, an online shop, say for example bitcoinstore (which I'm a big fan of) might trade $1mill in two months. This would involve a lot of people within the economy spending their coins in exchange for products. The benefits are easily seen and the growth in the economy easily visible.
On the other hand, a single trader with $5k in a margin account could rack up $1mill of traded volume within two weeks.
The original statement seems to suggest that the trader would benefit the economy more than the online shop.
From an economics perspective, what is healthy growth?
I would ask, growth of what? The landfills? The area of the globe covered with desert? The piles of crushed cars? Or perhaps literacy? Hash rate? I'm no economist but clearly we need some better or at least more specific indicators. |
|
|
|
If you're careful, and lucky, your back yard can grow enough wheat to feed you. A couple of window gardens with herbs, and maybe an indoor grow room for tomatoes, and you'll be doing OK. Not a very varied diet, but mostly nutritionally complete, if you can get some fish.
Why would you want fish? Protein, mostly. A couple of essential vitamins/oils and such. Take up less space than a cow, too. Keep in mind this is just off the top of my head, I haven't done a lot of research on what, exactly, you would need to have, but just spit-balling: bread for calories, herbs for flavor and vitamins, tomatoes for the all-important vitamin C, and fish for protein and other vitamins. I'm no nutritionist, but that seems fairly complete to me, if boring. Thanks, my apologies for off topic post and bring up nutrition which seems a science in its infancy with little we can say here productively. Personally I hope my family friends and I remain lucky enough to have enough fruits and plants to eat and to never be poor/hungry enough to be forced to eat many animal proteins. But when we are forced or gifted, we'll of course be thankful for any sustenance. |
|
|
|
If you're careful, and lucky, your back yard can grow enough wheat to feed you. A couple of window gardens with herbs, and maybe an indoor grow room for tomatoes, and you'll be doing OK. Not a very varied diet, but mostly nutritionally complete, if you can get some fish.
Why would you want fish? |
|
|
|
News flash. The difference between a "terrorist" and a "soldier" is who's telling the story.
So another version then: "Uniformed terrorist gang robs small-time entrepeneurs in plain daylight" If anybody didn't expect this kind of thing to occur, they obviously missed the most basic tenets of primate psychology. If you give a bunch of kids uniforms and guns and tell them its ok to rob people and commit violence for political gain, it's likely to happen. So, do you think this kind of thing is going to get more blatant and costly for us all until we fight back or will these guys grow up and find real jobs on their own? |
|
|
|
What exactly are you trying to accomplish by pointing this out?
I gather that you don't like Vessenes, but beyond that: Point == Missed.
I wasn't making a point to you. This post is directed at Peter. I'd like him to explain who exactly he is "crushing". crushing fiat transmitters that claim to be legit and trustworthy with our FIAT. then later found out they are not legit fiat transmitters. its all about fiat..... meanwhile bitcoin remains unaffected. if you think that bitcoin has been affected then you do not know bitcoin. please learn the non-exchange methods of obtaining bitcoin. the true, original way it was supposed to be dispursed. hint peer-to-peer (localbitcoin / irc-otc) style care to estimate the volume and liquidity in those channels? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
