If I felt that I was a target for a kidnapping, I would wear an implantable gps device and give access to my friends, family and colleagues.
that's probably how the US will push/justify the RFID chip on every human being. I think plenty of criminals forget the fiat element though. You may end up with thousands of coins, turning them into cash if you have that need will become ever trickier under the radar. If and when the need for conversion is gone then things may get heavier.
If there is no need for conversion then this won't be an issue. If there is a need for conversion then think of the following scenario. 1. find a billionaire 2. steal his cat 3. announce that you will give them the GPS coordinates when 1 BTC reaches 100 000$ on all major exchanges. 4. the billionaire will move the market 5. all bitcoin sellers will become criminals during that period of time 6. the real criminal will sell a couple of hundred of bitcoins and lives happily ever after the latter is possible during the times when bitcoin has a market cap smaller than the billionaire's wallet |
|
|
|
this topic doesn't seem to have anything to do with cryptograffiti.infohopefully that "artist" changes their name because it is confusing in the context of http://cryptograffiti.info/  but if they decide to upload their work on the block chain, it would start to make sense. |
|
|
|
|
Sooner or later criminals start using Bitcoin. When that happens, it is very possible that legal enforcements can't do anything about certain kinds of crimes (see ransomware, for example).
I have spawned this thread to start fighting these new kinds of crimes before they manifest in our everyday life. Has anyone thought what could stop criminals from utilizing Bitcoin with such a great success? I wouldn't want to give up my Internet privacy / rights to visit the (deep) Internet anonymously. It's sort of a human right thing. However, I wouldn't want to become a victim to some new kind of international Bitcoin Mafia either. How to accomplish this? Is it even possible?
Perhaps it requires a total shift in the social paradigm. For example, instead of boasting about their wealth on the social media, people would start hiding their wealth and pretending to be poor so that criminals wouldn't target them.
Right now it is just too damn easy to blackmail almost anyone. Civilians are already attaching handguns to their personal drones for fun. Perhaps soon those armed drones start mugging pedestrians in the dark alleys, demanding bitcoins. And with the help of GPS, kidnappers would never have to actually meet their victim in real life. They would just announce the coordinates of the kidnapped child after having received the requested amount of bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
I'm sure a lot of lurkers will appreciate it in silence.
Satisfied lurker reporting in.  |
|
|
|
|
450 during november. it happened in november 2014, it will happen in november 2015.
|
|
|
|
|
bter will soon have hard time paying back their customers' bitcoins.
edit: not that they already were having hard time with that. now it might just become impossible for them.
|
|
|
|
Isn't it so convenient that the rise we are seeing fell just before the last silk road auction batch of btc up for sale very soon ? It does not seem like a coincidence.  That's some serious conspiracy theory you have the! Feds drive up price, get more money and hold same amount of bitcoin as in the beginning. Rinse and repeat, only this time the coins were only bought by them instead of being taken I suspected the same. What a strange coincidence. When is that auction held anyway? |
|
|
|
|
we just reached 320$. there are 2 more days left for this month. we could easily touch 350 even this month. Leave 350-3500 range for november.
|
|
|
|
If this is a bubble then this must be a very slow one  . Looks to me more like some "organic growth" after a couple of good news. when exactly does a bubble begin? it's definitely not when a new ATH is claimed. with this topic I tried to capture the beginning of this bubble as early as possible. it makes totally sense that the growth right now is barely parabolic. give it a couple of more weeks and this topic will become more obviously relevant. |
|
|
|
we're almost there! $297 now at preev if this upward trend continues, we may wake up in the morning with $300 showing one every exchange site's yeah!
actually we touched 300$ on stamp already.  |
|
|
|
Weekly parabolic SAR just went into raging bull mode. We just broke 300$ psychological barrier. We have been in green 6 weeks in a row. I declare this the official start of the 2015 Shit-Hits-the-Fan Bubble. Next stop: Canis Majoris. EDIT: A WEEK LATER   |
|
|
|
299 |
|
|
|
Hey Hyena, to some degree the dust threshold is relevant for a meta protocol I'm contributing to, but we tackled this quite early by using the minRelayTxFee explicitly to determine the dust threshold on the fly (based on the user's "minrelaytxfee" setting and script size). The minRelayTxFee is exposed via the RPC "getnetworkinfo". ... The already merged pull request Limit mempool by throwing away the cheapest txn and setting min relay fee to it #6722 (GitHub) resets the minRelayTxFee to the old default, and even though it introduces the notion of a floating relay fee, the dust threshold remains to be static. However, I wouldn't bet that this remains to be true in the future, and I could imagine the dust threshold becomes floating, too. Thanks for the info. getnetworkinfo RPC is probably the way to go for a bitcoin application that somehow depends on the minRelayTxFee parameter. I like the idea of a floating tx fee. The dust threshold should be made irrelevant if the tx fee is calculated from the tx size. If the mempool gets full it makes sense to start throwing out the tx-s with cheapest fee-to-size ratio. |
|
|
|
While yes the merchant needs a static IP/Domain Name, how else would you get data to and from computers without rewriting the internet? How would nodes communicate without using this system.
Take I2P or Tor network for example. It's possible. From the merchant's point of view, a publicly accessible server is a huge security threat. I have developed all my bitcoin applications in a way that the most critical infrastructure is in my laptop behind a firewall and "hidden" from the public. Not to mention that domain hosting costs money and that your hosting provider could go rogue and hijack your service. I would propose functionality to be added to the Bitcoin's protocol that allows storing payment details in the Bitcoin's block chain for a month (or some other period of time). When the payment details expire nodes can purge them from their copy of the block chain to save space. The merchant has 30 days to turn on their bitcoin node and fetch the payment details from the block chain. Those details should be signed by the payer's private key and encrypted with the payee's public key. |
|
|
|
I agree that all of the messages should be signed by the message sender's private key to ensure that the message isn't modified between the consumer and the merchant. E.g. the request from the merchant is signed by one of the addresses in the output section, the payment from the consumer is signed with one of the addresses used in the payment transaction, and the paymentACK from the merchant is signed with the same key as the first message.
Regarding the http/https, I think that was a good choice since that is an existing protocol which provides some privacy and direct connection between two computers instead of flooding the network like transactions do. Although the choice of X.509 certificates for signing is questionable, I can also understand that because those have names associated with them.
Perhaps you (or maybe I, if I have enough time) can write some code to add such things to the payment protocol and submit at PR.
Why would we need HTTPS if bitcoin already has the concept of public and private keys in itself? Instead of a HTTPS certificate you would use the other party's public key and you would get it directly from the block chain, so its integrity is automatically guaranteed. What is more, currently the merchant has to have a static IP address. It's a remnant from the old and centralized way of internetting. We don't need this client<-->server concept any more. The nodes should be able to talk to each other directly, from behind ISP firewalls with their ports closed and what not. |
|
|
|
the difference is: i stated my opinion but you are acting according to your opinion and force it to everyone.
aren't you acting according your opinion too? besides, I don't force anything on anyone. Feel free to not relay the TXs you don't like. Or perhaps, if you're a miner, feel free to not confirm them. |
|
|
|
to cite yourself: Who are you to dictate what is proper and what is not anyway? IMHO creating unspendable outputs and bloating the UTXO is bad. it puts a burden for everyone and forever. no fee can cover that. good boy. That's why the acronym IMHO was invented now it's solely your opinion. You're no longer a dictator and thus I can respect your opinion since now we're equal. |
|
|
|
I think I remember when this was added and I was strongly against it since I don't think HTTPS should ever be relied on. This BIP describes payment protocol messages encoded using Google's Protocol Buffers, authenticated using X.509 certificates, and communicated over http/https. Future BIPs might extend this payment protocol to other encodings, PKI systems, or transport protocols. Everything in the above quote is utterly wrong and against my philosophy. In my opinion, such messages should be exclusively deliver over the Bitcoin's own network, signed by the private keys of the sender's bitcoins, and perhaps encrypted using the message receiver's public key (PGP over Bitcoin). Is it technically possible? I don't know, but it should be, since Bitcoin utilizes PKI and PGP is based on that. |
|
|
|
By the way, all normal money transferring methods allow you to attach a message to the payment. Bitcoin failed to provide such capabilities as a built-in feature. It makes so much sense to encode payment details in the bitcoin transaction and it isn't even wrong. How on Earth can you call encoding payment details in bitcoin TX an abusive behaviour when ALL BANKS ALLOW THIS on their centralized ledgers. That's it. My last sentence just demolished all arguments of any opponent to encoding payment details in the BTC TXs.
BIP70 which is for payment requests, allows both the customer and the merchant to attach memos to payments, although I don't think that these memos will be stored in the blockchain. However, AFAIK those memos do stay where you really need them, in your wallet. You don't need (or want) everyone to know what you were spending your Bitcoin on, which is what encoding those memos into transactions in the blockcahin would do. Ok that's cool, but are the memos cryptographically signed? Is it easy to verify that the text is written by the person who sent the bitcoins? |
|
|
|
The same can be applied to Bitcoin; abusing the system because you can afford to pay the fines does not make it OK and should be discouraged.
There's a difference between a fine and a fee you know. Bitcoin has fees. University had fines. You can't compare these two. Who are you to dictate what is proper and what is not anyway? With the university it is at least explicit that the girl was doing the wrong thing. Can't say the same about bitcoin. By the way, all normal money transferring methods allow you to attach a message to the payment. Bitcoin failed to provide such capabilities as a built-in feature. It makes so much sense to encode payment details in the bitcoin transaction and it isn't even wrong. How on Earth can you call encoding payment details in bitcoin TX an abusive behaviour when ALL BANKS ALLOW THIS on their centralized ledgers. That's it. My last sentence just demolished all arguments of any opponent to encoding payment details in the BTC TXs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
