Paying a meaningful fee to miners has no effect on the thousands and thousands of bitcoin users who have to store the transactions on their disk...
They don't really have to, AFAIK. It's up to miners to do something, if they want to do something. Maybe they can handle the volume and are happy with the fees. EDIT: And when I say miners I mean solo-miners and pool operators, the only ones who really need the entire blockchain to operate. |
|
|
|
I LOVE BITCOIN! 18rZYyWcafwD86xvLrfuxWG5xEMMWUtVkL (and want to see how this novela ends...  ) |
|
|
|
lol wtf. "Math is not science." This is not the direction I thought that this debate would go... And I don't understand how it makes either side's point.
It is related. Keynesians practice economic wrongly. They try to use the empirical method, which doesn't work for social sciences as you simply cannot repeat experiments at will, much less isolate all the variables. The empirical method is the one used in Physics, Chemistry etc. The aprioristic method is the one used in Economics, Mathematics... |
|
|
|
OK, so you claim math is a science. Fine. a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is a math theorem that is mathematically accurate to absolute precision. Now show me a perfect triangle anywhere in nature that can be measured and independently tested and verified to have perfectly straight lines and can be accurately measured at anytime to be be consistent of the theorem that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 exactly.
But I don't have to show you anything in nature for it to be true.... A triangle has such properties a priori. That's exactly why you should not always use empiricism as a way to acquire knowledge. "Measuring and testing independently at anytime" is the empiricist way of acquiring knowledge, which doesn't fit neither to Math, nor to any social science. The Pythagoras equation holds true for any triangle, even if you're not capable of finding an object with triangular form in nature. Are you trying to argue that the equation is not true because you've never seen a natural object of triangular shape? |
|
|
|
Math is not science. Math is a descriptive language just like this language. There are no more perfectly straight lines real world than there are invisible pink unicorns. They only exist in the language of our imaginations. This is about philosophy. You can learn more about it by searching the term epistemology.
Mathematics is a science. It's not (only) a descriptive language. Math allows us to obtain true knowledge, not only talk about it. Ex: If two items of the same nature are put together with another two items of the same nature, you'll have four items of that nature (2+2=4). That's not a product of "imaginations", it's a true fact. |
|
|
|
A theory requires empirical testing, otherwise it is a hypothesis.
You're basically calling mathematics entirely a "hypothesis". That's nonsense. Logical deduction on top of axioms can produce valid scientific theories, and in some situations this method is much more reliable than trying to conduct repeatable experiments with all the variables properly isolated (the "empirical" way). Social sciences are an example: experiments can't be repeated at will, and it's impossible to even distinguish all variables, let aside isolate them. |
|
|
|
Yup. No need to require everybody, though. Just a few people (like me and you) need nodes that connect Torland to the Internet. My node is setup to talk to both networks.
I understand that's not needed to. But this is great news. I've always thought that running bitcoin behind Tor should be a "recommended practice", pretty much like using different address for each transaction. The only problem was that the more people following such practice, the less listening nodes we'd get. Not a problem anymore with this patch you talk about. I hope this patched is merged in the main version soon. By the way, I've never created a Tor hidden service. Is is something simple? And by simple, I mean something that an average computer user could do, like, is there a wizard install and all? If you have to go though text files, most people would just give up. If there's such a thing, it would be a good idea to start releasing a bitcoin+Tor* bundle that configures everything and launches your bitcoin already behind a hidden service. * I say Tor but I guess it could be I2P too... whichever is easier. |
|
|
|
Once AML flags go off, they can't legally send money to these scammer clowns even if they wanted to.
If that was the case, they shouldn't have sworn the money was on its way for weeks/months. And "stolen bitcoins" alone wouldn't trigger an AML investigation on the bank side. Something more would be necessary. Anyways, it's pointless to discuss this here. The best option is trying to stay away from centralized exchanges, if possible. |
|
|
|
What I want to know is the Govt forcing CX to act like this, or are they doing it because they want to be the new bitcoin police/hold onto the cash cuz they do not have funds?
That's what I'd like to know too. |
|
|
|
It's not just a question of AML law it's also a question of privacy laws etc here. A company that is required in case of AML/KYC laws etc to hold customer information, and bank accounts/recipts/statements are very much customer information, are in most civilized countries severely restricted in what they can and can't do with such information and suggesting that they post such on the internet is frankly kinda fail. In Australia the rules are quite clear: http://www.privacy.gov.au/materials/types/infosheets/view/6541#kWhat you're suggesting is in legal terms under AUS law the same as your bank suddenly deciding to post everything they have on you on the internet. Not really a smart move at all. WME himself has already made the details public. So I guess he wouldn't mind giving authorization to make the receipt public as well. |
|
|
|
I like Matthew and he's done a bang-up job with the magazine, but I have to agree here. The key to getting wider adoption is absolutely, positively in making better software, not hardware.
Unfortunately software alone will never be secure enough to protect the private keys of non-tech people. No matter how much you invest in your software, it cannot be more secure than the environment it runs at. And if the environment is "generic", it is not secure. A dedicated device is needed for security purposes. That said, I also wonder if people would like to carry another device around. Maybe for daily spends, smartphone apps are the way to go. Devices like this would be kept home, to access your savings account. Don't know, let's see how it goes. |
|
|
|
1) They can't directly say that the bank is who triggered the AML request. Showing the receipt would absolutely prove that.
You're assuming there's an official AML investigation on the way. Posting the receipts would just prove they send the money which is now stuck at the bank, for whatever reasons. In no way that states there's an AML investigation on the way. I really doubt that's illegal. 2) They submit the wire requests in large batches. Giving us the receipt would reveal the transactions of others.
Please, just blur the other names. Honestly, this is an issue that's well beyond the court of public opinion. I support the OP in wanting to do a lawsuit, as that is the only way that both sides could lay all their cards on the table.
You're probably right on that one. The thing is, OP being a thief or not, I'm very uneasy with a btc exchange "playing police", tainting coins and all that. If CryptoXChange would show us the bank is at fault here for not sending the wires, we could at least rule that out. |
|
|
|
Because the wire never left the bank - it was only ever a request, and the bank denied it.
Wire requests normally produce receipts too. Posting the receipts would prove CryptoXChange was telling the truth about having submitted the wires. And I can't believe that's illegal... |
|
|
|
Has it occurred to you that this all happen because of the police? The wire was stopped at the bank, not CryptoXchange. The bank is the one that is requiring the documents. And they can't just convert the funds to BTC, because MtGox is on their ass too.
You know this for a fact or you're supposing? I have a hard time believing the bank would be aware of "stolen bitcoins". Red flags would only be raised on their end if perhaps the account the wire was going to was "marked" somehow. And if that was the case, I guess CryptoXChange could just say that and relief the burden of his shoulders ("it's the bank, not us! here's proof.."). |
|
|
|
AML / CFT / KYC is very important in Australia, there is a lot more to this than is shown, we are doing what we legally have to do
Care to show what's not shown? Have you received a court order or a police order telling you to seize this money or freeze this account? And why telling him that the money's on the way if it isn't? The same way he's refusing to send you notarized documents, it seems by the pictures you've avoided sending him wire receipts. |
|
|
|
Just send him back his BTC and quite trying to be the fucking Bitcoin Police
That's probably the best way out of it. |
|
|
|
|
Red Emerald, you mean that with this patch bitcoin clients are able to send their .onion (or eventually another darknet) URL to other bitcoin nodes in the discovery process?
The bitcoin network may now operate inside a darknet if everybody wants to?
|
|
|
|
|
I understood that. "Them" in my phrase is PayPal.
|
|
|
|
I'm wondering if the transactions are invalid for some reason, and so his peers aren't accepting the transactions. I don't know why that would be though.
Could someone isolate his node and refuse transactions ? Theoretically possible, but very unlikely. Hard to do, and, why would the attacker cherry-pick these 5 transactions? Jeremy, if the backup thing doesn't work, would you mind adding some trusted peers in your list manually? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Fallback_Nodes |
|
|
|
I used my current wallet with a backup of all the rest of the files in the bitcoin folder from 1 day prior to the unconfirmed transactions. My understanding was that the wallet contained nothing but the private keys. Is this incorrect?
No, I believe the wallet.dat also contains transactions stored. If you use the same it won't work. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
