|
Thanks for the article, genjix. Definitely cleared some things up for me.
My conclusion (for what little it's worth:)
BIP 17 seems to clearly be a superior method coding-wise. BIP 16 seems like overkill.
But my vote, in part made by continuing to run a pre-Qt client, is for neither.
Ultimately we seem to be fracturing the community (and potentially the blockchain!) just for the sake of convenience. If complex transactions require 70-character addresses, then so be it. To risk permanent harm to the system to avoid them just seems short-sighted.
I also don't buy the whole concern about who pays transactions costs... considering the recipient can charge whatever he wants for whatever he's selling, that point is more academic than anything. And the blockchain bloat? That almost seems like a distraction. Complex transactions are going to take up extra space in the blockchain; arguing over where and when the bloat occurs seems pretty academic too.
I'm thinking Tycho made the right call here.
Note: Again, I'm just stating my perspective on all this; no insult to anyone intended.
|
|
|
|
Nice how the video description concludes he is likely some sort of nasty criminal, suggesting he shouldn't have even been allowed to leave without further investigation. Could be as simple as there IS no paperwork to show he earned the money "legally" (as arbitrary as that can be nowadays.) Yeah, another case where bitcoins might have helped someone keep more of their money. |
|
|
|
Speaking as a poorly informed layman, it could be that the choice is not too important. In many cases, one expert will get become irate with another expert over a pretty trivial matter. Then the controversy will escalate, potentially developing into lifelong hatred.
Coming from cunicula... is this considered irony? I am civil in conversation with men of quality. However, given the company one typically keeps in the forums, to not be nasty and abusive would reflect poorly on me.  I'll have to remember this one for the next time I want to justify being an ass to someone I consider beneath me. Back on topic...I'm curious to know how thoroughly these proposals have been tested. That might go a long way toward swaying opinion. I would imagine having a public alt-coin for the sole purpose of implementing one proposal or the other and seeing how easy it is to break could be a great proving ground. |
|
|
|
...snip...
Hmm. It would appear that the article I read (from a Facebook post) differs from this one in a few points.
That said, I still don't think we're in as much agreement as we'd prefer. I'm actually challenging the core principle, that the judge has the right to order information be given in the first place, under any circumstance, regardless of how common it is the modern-day USA. The fact that the data can't be used against her (at least until someone, maybe this judge, overrides that later) doesn't address that.
Let me try to drive it home, boil it down to one big question:
If she claims she doesn't remember the password, or she says for some reason she can't decrypt the drive, or if she says the password is on a Post-It note which is missing from her desk and she says "Well, then I don't know who took it," then how long should she remain in jail?
"Until she remembers," of course, would mean "for the rest of her life, if necessary."
Is that what you feel is justified?
To be locked up for any crime, the prosecution needs to be prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. If they do that and if the amount stolen is significant, then lock her up as long as it takes. There is no way someone who has gained several million dollars by way for mortgage fraud should be able to do a few month custody for dishonestly filling in forms and keep the money for when they are released. Well, I agree with that last sentence. One would hope she would be watched, and prosecutors would swoop in as soon as signs of her ill-gotten gains appear. But again, "as long as it takes" potentially means forever, if she for whatever reason no longer can provide that unencrypted data. That potentially means her punishment for forgetting, or for losing her password, or just for being stubborn about it, would be far more severe than the punishment for the actual crime itself. That sets in motion a system whereby anyone can be over-punished in such a manner. Actually, where such a thing is guaranteed to happen to some people. That's an inherently unjust system, and one I can never support (which is consistent, because I *know* I'll be furiously protesting were I caught in such a situation where info was demanded that I couldn't provide even if I wanted to.) As far as this case in particular, I have no doubt that after punishment any attempt to use the funds would be obvious, unless she slowly spent it on trivial things, which wouldn't even be worth cracking down on. Actually, I'm a big proponent of restitution as punishment anyway. If instead of jail time she were charged to pay back what she owed, plus interest, plus damages, plus court costs and finally a fee just because she's a thief; and were that obligation held over her regardless of where she worked or what she did, she'd have every incentive to give up any ill-gotten gains. And if she couldn't? Well, tough, you were found guilty even without the files, and you need to pay it back, so get hopping.... |
|
|
|
You're still presuming guilt.
If someone legitimately can't remember some fact that is required to prove their guilt, then you don't KNOW they're guilty. You shouldn't be compelling him to be a witness against himself. That's not justice.
If someone legitimately can't remember some fact that isn't required to prove their guilt, then why not prove their guilt without it? Compelling him to be a witness against himself when it's not necessary isn't justice.
If you do prove it, and they still legitimately can't remember, say, the code to a vault full of money, then what are you going to do? Keep them in jail for the rest of their life? That's not justice either.
You're advocating for a methodology that is guaranteed to hurt innocent people, AND to overpunish guilty people.
That's not a just methodology.
We are actually in agreement. No-one should be forced to testify against themselves. And no-one should be allowed to obstruct justice by hiding evidence. What I can see from your replies is that you didn't read the article.
"The judge in the Colorado case said there was plenty of evidence — a jailhouse recording of the defendant — that the laptop might contain information the authorities were seeking.
The judge ordered Fricosu to surrender an unencrypted hard drive by Feb. 21. The judge added that the government is precluded “from using Ms. Fricosu’s act of production of the unencrypted hard drive against her in any prosecution.”" Ramona Fricosu has the trading history on her laptop so she has to give access to it. She has been offered immunity for parts of the contents of the laptop but they do need to get the details of her mortgage applications. Hmm. It would appear that the article I read (from a Facebook post) differs from this one in a few points. That said, I still don't think we're in as much agreement as we'd prefer. I'm actually challenging the core principle, that the judge has the right to order information be given in the first place, under any circumstance, regardless of how common it is the modern-day USA. The fact that the data can't be used against her (at least until someone, maybe this judge, overrides that later) doesn't address that. Let me try to drive it home, boil it down to one big question: If she claims she doesn't remember the password, or she says for some reason she can't decrypt the drive, or if she says the password is on a Post-It note which is missing from her desk and she says "Well, then I don't know who took it," then how long should she remain in jail? "Until she remembers," of course, would mean "for the rest of her life, if necessary." Is that what you feel is justified? |
|
|
|
I still want to buy this magazine with fiat (VISA or Mastercard).
Is there no way to do this?
I will not buy BTC online, since it can be tracked back to me, and I will not use the BTC I have, because getting new ones will link them to me, if I purchase them with Visa or mastercard or wire.
Will Barnes & Noble sell them online for fiat, and ship internationally?
This is the first time I read anyone saying that they want to use a credit card instead of btc because it's more anonymous. Really? If it really matters that much, why don't you send the btc to your mtgox account and then withdraw the correct amount to pay for the magazine? You can even use the green address option so there's practically no way to link that payment with your deposit. He wants to remain anonymous with regards to bitcoin usage. Perhaps he lives in Italy? |
|
|
|
If I've forgotten where I left the garage door opener, how long should I wait in jail?
You shouldn't. Now if you are in court and the judge is of the opinion you are lying about "forgetting," you can expect to remain in jail until your memory improves. Again: that's not justice. You really believe that if someone steals something from you, its wrong to insist he returns it ? You have strange ideas of what justice is. You're still presuming guilt. If someone legitimately can't remember some fact that is required to prove their guilt, then you don't KNOW they're guilty. You shouldn't be compelling him to be a witness against himself. That's not justice. If someone legitimately can't remember some fact that isn't required to prove their guilt, then why not prove their guilt without it? Compelling him to be a witness against himself when it's not necessary isn't justice. If you do prove it, and they still legitimately can't remember, say, the code to a vault full of money, then what are you going to do? Keep them in jail for the rest of their life? That's not justice either. You're advocating for a methodology that is guaranteed to hurt innocent people, AND to overpunish guilty people. That's not a just methodology. |
|
|
|
Don't know why you guys are all so against the idea! You (as much as me) hate fiat! How come you call the killing of a less efficient, faker and weaker currency immoral?  Because this way of doing it hurts me, and other innocents, as the result of a direct, intentional act of yours. Let's suppose you actually manage to flood enough fake fiat on the market to cause 10% inflation. Just suppose. You've essentially stolen 10% of my dollar-based savings. Not to mention my extended family (who hold more of their savings in dollars than I do.) You've done the exact same thing that central banks are despised for, only you smile and justify it by saying you're helping everyone out. And of course, there's the more personal example. Suppose you hand out your fake money (fraudulently), and it winds up in the hands of my mother. She tries to deposit it in a bank, and gets arrested. Whether she actually is sentenced to jail isn't my point: just the fact that she would be publicly embarrassed, arrested, and forced to endure that hassle would all be the direct result of your decision to commit fraud, and she would have simply been an innocent caught in the crossfire of your attack on fiat money. Those immoral outcomes are why I'm personally against such an idea. |
|
|
|
If I've forgotten where I left the garage door opener, how long should I wait in jail?
You shouldn't. Now if you are in court and the judge is of the opinion you are lying about "forgetting," you can expect to remain in jail until your memory improves. Again: that's not justice. |
|
|
|
For fun, I posted the cover on facebook, and asked people this: "If you saw this cover of a magazine, would you be intrigued and want to look at it more closely, or just pass over it like any other magazine?"
The first comment I received was from my cousin. For reference, she crochets and sells on etsy for extra money. Not really the technical/computer/political type. But, she said this:
"Before reading your comment, I read all the words on the cover that I could because I was intrigued... Does that help?"
Mission accomplished then Matthew, mission accomplished.
 |
|
|
|
This is clearly a breach of the 5th Amendment. IANAL either, but I am a rational human being with some common sense. When arrested, you're not obligated to lift a finger to help the prosecutors. You're (supposed to be) free to keep your mouth shut the entire time. But suddenly some judge thinks it's appropriate to require someone to aid their efforts at obtaining information? nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself That judge's order is total BS, a trampling of the spirit and letter of the 5th, and just flat-out contemptible. Makes me wonder when was the last time the judiciary got away with demanding someone produce a key to a lockbox, and holding them indefinitely until said key was produced.
"But your honor, I *thought* I put the key behind the shed, but I hid so many I honestly don't know where else it could be!" "Well, that's just too bad for you, isn't it? Life in prison then, for the crime of refusing to self-incriminate. Case dismissed... and let us know when your memory decides to cooperate." Total BS. The last time that happened was the last time someone made such a ridiculous statement in court. Seriously, you think a judge is going to sit there and allow a common thief to keep his ill gotten gains just by pretending that he doesn't remember where he hid the money? I'm a little concerned that the point of that exchange flew right past you. If the guy really did hide lots of keys (to what, who knows) it's entirely plausible: What if the guy REALLY DIDN'T REMEMBER? Let's even say it's visibly probable that he's guilty. But the prosecutor wants proof that the $1000 was stashed away just to convince the jury. Theft of $1000 is... what, under a year in jail? Maybe 6 months? But the guy gets sent to jail indefinitely because he can't remember something? That's the BS part. Whether or not the judge believes him is irrelevant. The proper principle is innocent until proven guilty, so that we let the guilty go before we trample upon the innocent. And if that judge can't prove the guy really DOES remember, then the very real possibility exists that an innocent person is about to get screwed. I recently came across a stash of... precious assets that I had squirreled away, and forgotten about. Had someone asked me about it, I wouldn't even remember, never mind recall the location. It sure would have sucked had that location been deemed an important enough part of some case that a judge would have tried to order me to disclose it. "Your honor, I seriously, *seriously* don't remember!" (Said with a don't-give-a-flip shrug and grin because, really, I don't, and nothing can change that fact, but I can already see where this is going, so screw it.) "That stash was worth $XXX! That smirk on your face tells me you're just lying. Well, maybe you'll just sit and decide how long you want to stay in jail while your memory comes back. Take him away!" That's not justice. In no sense of the word. |
|
|
|
*checks out Comparison_of_mining_pools link* Seems like pools keeping all the transaction fees is pretty common. But still... between that and the 10%, I don't quite get it either. Is the reduced variance for being in a large pool really that much worth it? I have to think there's something besides sheer inertia or not knowing it exists that keeps folks from switching to p2pool. |
|
|
|
This is clearly a breach of the 5th Amendment. IANAL either, but I am a rational human being with some common sense. When arrested, you're not obligated to lift a finger to help the prosecutors. You're (supposed to be) free to keep your mouth shut the entire time. But suddenly some judge thinks it's appropriate to require someone to aid their efforts at obtaining information? nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself That judge's order is total BS, a trampling of the spirit and letter of the 5th, and just flat-out contemptible. Makes me wonder when was the last time the judiciary got away with demanding someone produce a key to a lockbox, and holding them indefinitely until said key was produced. "But your honor, I *thought* I put the key behind the shed, but I hid so many I honestly don't know where else it could be!" "Well, that's just too bad for you, isn't it? Life in prison then, for the crime of refusing to self-incriminate. Case dismissed... and let us know when your memory decides to cooperate." Total BS. |
|
|
|
Good stuff! The innovations just keep coming. |
|
|
|
|
This is incredible! Seriously, I can't wipe the smile off my face!
One multi-issue order coming up.
|
|
|
|
Thing I want to know is how do I build a farraday cage with materials I can easily find? Where in the UK can I find these materials without too much trouble? How's the bitcoin network coping with the increased solar activity recently (solar flare)? I'm not sure what will happen in UK apart from the Northern lights in London (as it's normally in scotland,Northern England and near the Arctic).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cageI would think that the wire mesh used on screen doors would do fine. Seems like overkill, but whatever you feel you need. Personally, I'm not worried about the solar activity. I have my computers plugged into surge protectors, and have backups of my wallets on paper and/or CD as well as electronic media. If the problems from the flares get too severe, I don't think spending bitcoins would be on my "must get to" list anytime soon. |
|
|
|
I wonder if mass adoption could be sparked with a browser-friendly client that only allows a 1 BTC (or some arbitrary amount) wallet. It would only be used for micropayments. Advertising and websites could allow people to earn small amounts instead of mining. This might be something great for young people to purchase content rather than piracy. It could be upgradable to a full client for anyone over legal age.
Don't think so...a clever 10 year old will just install whatever client they want. Bitcoin doesn't care if you are of a legal age, and works excellently even when others don't want you to be able to send money. So I send the address 2BTC, and it explodes?That was my concern. How do you prevent someone from sending too much to the wallet address? Sure, the system could try to return any excess to the sending address(es), and hope they wont need to pay a transaction fee. That might work... until someone sends the 50-coin reward for a block to the address, leaving no address to send back to. |
|
|
|
Dumb Question, we store all the bitcoins sent to cold storage in a vault that is a faraday cage shielded to protect against something like this.
Well, it might not be that big of a deal, but if it's what you're doing, I wouldn't think it would *hurt* to advertise that fact. There would definitely be people who choose your service over others just for that. On a single piece of media that could spontaneously fail for any reason? I would be more comfortable hearing that the private keys were kept in two places and were maintained in such a way that, for example, an unexpected death of the custodian of those coins wouldn't result in their loss, while meanwhile ensuring that they're adequately protected from theft. I don't know that they don't have multiple copies, or what the data is stored on. I'm just pointing out that there are people who will hear about the solar flares due this year, think, "Holy crap! My computers might not be safe!", and then sometime down the road see the "Solar-Flare Safe!" line on their webpage and jump right on it. I have no comment as to the usefulness of it. Just that it shouldn't *hurt* sales to put it up on their website, and might actually gain a few. |
|
|
|
Dumb Question, we store all the bitcoins sent to cold storage in a vault that is a faraday cage shielded to protect against something like this. My question is due to us getting bombarded every 2 days now with CME's coming from the sun, the next one scheduled to hit earth tomorrow is that something I could be using for promotional stuff? In case you don't know what I am talking about, as you're reading this planes are being diverted due to the electromagnetic storm. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/01/23/planes-rerouted-fearing-strongest-radiation-storm-in-7-years/Like your bitcoins would be safe even in the event of a larger one such as a Carrington Event if they are sent to flexcoin's cold storage option. Well, it might not be that big of a deal, but if it's what you're doing, I wouldn't think it would *hurt* to advertise that fact. There would definitely be people who choose your service over others just for that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
