http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9143581/Technology-could-take-the-bankers-out-of-banking-says-BoE-policmaker-Andy-Haldane.htmlImprovements in technology could be used to remove bankers from banking, a top policymaker has suggested. Speaking in New York, Andy Haldane, executive director of financial stability at the Bank of England, argued that the failure of information and risk management systems contributed to the financial crisis and that new technology to prevent a repeat of past mistakes could make “banking middle men ... surplus links in the chain”. The banking middle men may in time become the surplus links in the chain. Where music and publishing have led, finance could follow.” Comment: The revenge is all the sweeter that they can see their inevitable end and they get to write about their own demise.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like the troll has a few of you hooked in to his empty, verbose arguments.
|
|
|
|
The concepts in the paper http://www.w3.org/Conferences/WWW4/Papers/228/are clearly related to bitcoin and online cash but I would say are an iteration or two beforehand, they all are based on client-server models (like Open Transactions). The peer-to-peer (decentralisation) crucial (and most brilliant) step of bitcoin has come along after, or entirely separately, I would guess. The forth-like script stuff for the tx is someone experienced with thinking in very low level network functionality (big endian) ... Holy Trinity, O'Mahony, Pierce and Clear?  Who knows, who really cares anyway? Godspeed to whoever it is. |
|
|
|
Send all your tainted coins to me ....  |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoins are amoral, like all technologies, and monetary instruments.
They do not know that they are stolen or not stolen .... it is a human problem not a technology problem.
|
|
|
|
we need some way to be able to "melt-down" tainted bitcoins so they can be like fresh minted again ... Transaction fees.  Care to elaborate on that ... ? |
|
|
|
... or we could just accept that due the fundamental of the design, bitcoins are just not that fungible. Of course, a more fungible cryptocurrency than bitcoin would also be more anonymous and private (by corollary?). The poor fungibility is related to what makes bitcoin only pseudo-anonymous with further layers being required to achieve strong anonymity with the bitcoin scheme .... however it is difficult to imagine a pattern of bits that is indistinguishable from another pattern of bits and yet can be issued in only limited amounts .... double-spend and fungibility are not easy to satisfy simultaneously it seems ... makes gold look like good money ... we need some way to be able to "melt-down" tainted bitcoins so they can be like fresh minted again ... |
|
|
|
|
Pirates prefer gold doubloons ... now that really is some kind of piracy currency .... hahaha-arrrr-haaaa!
... pirates will accept many currencies, (maybe not the digital fiat, monopoly issuance of the evil facist empire though) but does that make them "piracy currencies"? or privacy currencies?
Swapping electronic files with friends becomes "piracy" when exactly? Swapping other digital files (like private keys) in exchange can only blur the boundaries further and ultimately, stretch the flawed laws to their inevitable absurd outcomes ... "reductio ad adbsurdum".
Laws are made for peaceful societies, peaceful societies are not made by laws.
|
|
|
|
When someone steals something the rule of law applies. It is the responsibility of law enforcement not a currency to ensure assets are recovered and dishonest people punished.
That has nothing to do with an ad-hoc non-fungible tainted coins nonsense.
And what rule of law applies with regards to the Linode fiasco, or stolen bitcoins in general? What law enforcement agencies are involved? Where were the reports filed? Nobody is going to be prosecuted for this or any other bitcoin theft, ever. Even if Mr. Wright does manage to track down whoever was responsible for the Linode hack, there is very little that can be done. Especially if the guilty party resides in a jurisdiction such as Russia. Not having any repercussions for stealing bitcoins only encourages more theft. You have a system where thieves can repeatedly rob the banks and suffer no consequences for it. Then you blame the bank for not having enough security. Classic. You will never gain the trust of the masses that you need in order to make Bitcoin succeed that way. Again, you are essentially asking regular people to keep their money at the First Bank of Somalia. Although at this point it may actually be safer in Somalia. The lack of trust will be a large part of what keeps Bitcoin from ever being more than niche market for libertarians, anarchists, some geeks, and few speculators. There will never be any kind of enforcement mechanisms with regards to Bitcoin, which is why the entire market cap will never be worth more than some banker's pocket change. Top of the page, it says experimental, beta. The way with tech. means the next iteration will improve, not devolve Banker's pocket change is decreasing .... cryptocoin tech. is increasing. Place your bets, pick your battles, we are on journey not in a war. |
|
|
|
So if a bunch of the stolen coins go through the bitcoin fog http://www.bitcoinfog.com/and are mixed and bundled with 'worthy' coins and then deposited in the goxhole ... which ones do the goxes poach then? Gox in charge of the hen house? |
|
|
|
|
Raspberry Pi would make a great offline wallet/ bitcoin storage device.
First person to get bitcoin ported onto the Pi gets a raspberry ....
|
|
|
|
Awesome solution. This makes .bit websites much more easily accessible. |
|
|
|
I'll just note there are exactly 3 real references to numbers in the entire design document .... DIANNA resistant against 51% Attack as long as Bitcoin network is resistant. Merge-mining will bring to miners some additional profit (0,0001 ... 15% of Bitcoin block reward - depending on network activity) for doing proportional work. So, 1 byte can contain 256 different name spaces. .... just wondering what experience in network systems design makes you think you got this all covered champ? (hint: vinced and satoshi have the same m.o.) |
|
|
|
All my arguments you already read and your answer was only "fuck off man, namecoin is fine".
Your arguments consist of vaguely written documents and flow charts. Your amazing leap of logic is that burning a few coins for the name_firstupdate op will ZOMG! "destroy namecoin" (somehow, maybe) is ridiculous and, as yet, unsubstantiated in theory or practice. And please do not put filthy words like that into my mouth, I never said anything like that. |
|
|
|
The hotel owner is not a person but the network as a whole. the money destroyed is the fee payed for the domains.
destroying coins really is not a problem at all. new coins are being mined. limits could be raised - while at the moment despite all the destruction coins are still too cheap.
You remind me the words of Alan Greenspan: "US debt is not a problem, we always can print this money". Well, I dont see the sense in continuing this debate if you dont understand that every work must be paid. I think you chose not to debate because your arguments are vague and full of holes. You have oft repeated this "going to destroy namecoin", but that is as good as the argument gets, that you have repeated it many times doesn't make it more or less truthful. But each to its own and the proof of the pudding is always is in the eating ... let me know when DIANNA is ready for "stress testing", I'll go sharpen up some 'test' tools. |
|
|
|
Garr: Bitcoind not up to date? What's the output from "bitcoind getinfo"?
This: { "version" : 50200, "balance" : 44520.93652163, "blocks" : 197724, "connections" : 8, "proxy" : "", "generate" : false, "genproclimit" : 1, "difficulty" : 1376302.26788638, "hashespersec" : 0, "testnet" : false, "keypoololdest" : 1307423814, "keypoolsize" : 153, "paytxfee" : 0.00000000, "errors" : "See bitcoin.org/feb20 if you have trouble connecting after 20 February" } That is without p2pool and cgminer running. Assuming your output for the "balance" is genuine ... wow! p2pool rocks that much? Also, word of warning, for security reasons you probably do not want to have a live instance of bitcoind used for mining pointing at a wallet containing upwards of U$200K ... unless you are supremely confident and good at network security. Best to read up on how to create storage safe, off-line wallets, etc for large amounts .... can provide links if you need them. |
|
|
|
So I've been tossing around this idea for a while but have reached some blocks due to my own limitations in experience so would like to throw it out there to see if others can show a clear path, or demonstrate the totally wrong badness of the whole idea. Simplified Model: Set-up a website (or global system of localised sites) that performs as a global market place for web advertising where all trades are done using bitcoin.Primary Rational: One of the best ways to monetise web activity is web advertising, Webads. However, the payment model imposed by the current fractionated, localised banking systems means it is prohibitive to buy/sell Webads between localities, particularly for small sums, between small business Webad buyers and sellers of Webad space. Introducing an online (global) market place for Webads where the buyers and sellers can transact in bitcoins means global advertising audiences become much more easily available to buyers of Webads and sellers of Webad space can more easily reach a previously external market of Webad buyers outside of their locality. Secondary reasons: Account payment types for Webads already take many forms, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_advertising, from Pay-per-click to monthly fixed amount payments. Bitcoin can easily accommodate most of these payment types without any additional expense of traditional banking systems. A successful Webad market will showcase bitcoin in the biggest performing Internet commerce space. Discussion: As always the devil is the details, presently I'm undecided exactly what the best business model for this on-line market would be, eg. something like a public marketplace, E-bay for Webads denominated in bitcoin, where the site takes a fixed fee (in bitcoin of course) for transactions that take place based on winning bids, or would it be best to set it up like a traditional advertising house where the clients all come in the Internet front door (email, web forms) and are then matched up with Webad space that suits there needs. My lack of experience in the marketing area holds me back from understanding the risk/rewards from the various approaches. So if anybody would like to contribute ideas and opinions to flesh out the general proposal, it would be appreciated. I can provide the technical know-how on the technologies needed to integrate the bitcoin payment systems to evaluate the various business models. Basically I'd like to be able to accurately assess the feasibility of this idea to see if it is worth putting a venture together, and so am crowd-sourcing for brainstorms and/or qualified advice. |
|
|
|
|
Last time I checked, block diagrams do not provide mathematical proofs, just abstract schematics ....
|
|
|
|
There is a "double transfer" hole that would need to be solved in some way. Someone could create a DNS transfer transaction that they distribute, and a second one they keep to themselves…they create the bitcoin transaction for the secret DNS transaction and get it into the block chain before they distribute the fake DNS transfer transaction…after someone has paid them money for the fake DNS transfer, they announce the secret one that undoes it. I've not given it any thought how to solve it. So it is admittedly NOT better than Namecoin, which includes natively the same double-spend protection as bitcoin ... by your own admission. Back to the drawing board? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
