But if you can access with TouchID, then you can justify typing a secure passcode if you want one because you won't lose access if you forget your passcode (or only have it written down at an inconvenient location).

I am asking for proof that doing that, will still rely on DRM which can be used to decode your private files.

Sorry religious arguments (e.g. "Apple is closed source therefor they must be doing evil in every aspect") are not logic for me. I need the logic.

But that is because the user didn't wipe their fingerprint off the phone. That doesn't prove that TouchID has an insecure DRM.

Precisely what sort of access would you recommend for a mobile device? Uses will not memorize a secure password.

A separate key they carry on their keychain?

P.S. this is important to me because my former colleague and boss if a top researcher at Apple.  And I have his ear. So I don't want to present an argument to him that is flawed.

Details please? Where is the specification for all this stuff? Closed source?

But wouldn't the TouchID be creating a secure password that only the user knows (by hashing the fingerprint data)?

I am thinking Apple recommends the 6 digit only because they know most users can't remember a long secure password. That is why Apple created TouchID.

Thus I am sorry, but I think you are incorrect on this issue.

I do think Apple uses a separate password to control which s/w you can install, which I detest, but that is an orthogonal issue.

Whether Apple is infiltrated and that the OS is closed source, is a point of concern I agree with.

ArticMine thank you. I learned something new and important. Do you have any citation to backup your claim of Apple's recommend policy of using an insecure password and their DRM?

Again you are making an moral argument that has no relevance on the economic argument. Don't you realize I get tired of repeating myself. Do Not Repeat Yourself is a fundamental tenet or goal of functional programming.

The demand for botnets will rise to the profit arbitrage compared to renting hardware, because there are a sufficient supply of people and capital that don't see a moral problem with it. Personally I wish viruses didn't exist, just like I wish cancer didn't exist. But living in a delusion is not my concept of rationality.

If the people being stolen from were significantly harmed, they'd be doing something about it. Obviously they don't care enough. Whose responsibility and culpability is it to not secure their belongings?

I suppose you can make the argument that those who rent a botnet will only do so if there is some profit compared to renting hardware legally, but I am not even sure if renting a botnet is illegal in every jurisdiction. And I am not convinced that someone couldn't rent out "mining services" and not tell the renters that a botnet is being employed.

If you argue that a botnet farmer will want to do all the mining himself instead of renting out to the highest bidder, the fact is that there is a price where it is more attractive to rent out than to incur the risk of mining yourself, e.g. guaranteed and faster cash flow, etc.. Why do ASIC manufacturers rent out versus mining with their own hardware. Demand rises to meet supply at rational price. This and competition insures it won't be a centralized outcome.

The point is that botnets are much more free market than electricity. This seems to be beyond the grasp of someone here who is now on Ignore at his own request.

Edit: and this same person can't seem to grasp that unenforceable laws have virtually no impact on the economics and thus free market. He conflates "free market" with his decision that he personally won't choose to rent a botnet. He also can't seem to comprehend that the cheapest electricity goes to those with the most capital and huge economies-of-scale (usually bankster loans and probably also corrupt political favors as well). Whereas, the competition for botnet farming includes any Eastern European or Russian geek who wants to spend a few months learning the art. I mean I really can't waste my time arguing with someone who can't grasp Economics 101. I estimate he didn't even take this course at the university. I aced it. Not a personal attack, just explaining why I am sometimes going to be terse and not explain ad nauseum because I don't want to expend all my time on explaining especially to those who won't get the point any way.

Moreover my economic point (for the slow minded who didn't get it the first time), is that we rent or purchase hardware to mine with if we are doing any serious mining. So what is the difference if we rent or purchase a botnet. It is a free market. The demand for botnets should increase to where price of a botnet and thus the profit from mining from a botnet is the same as from renting the hardware.

I mean common on. This is just Economics 101 that price meets demand at supply.

So the real question of importance is does large economies-of-scale of capital have an advantage with botnets which can lead to centralization? No! Whereas with ASICs and orthogonally (and mainly!) electricity, large capital does have an advantage over us, thus centralizes.

The unknown risk I raised is not whether these things are wanted, but to what degree and in what form will society allow and prefer and how will scalability impact the choice, will crypto-currency even be widely adopted, etc..

I was not implying a simple binary consideration where we are questioning whether privacy is desirable or not.

P.S. implied by my continued posting in this thread, it means I am satisfied with the final resolution of smooth's recent moderation.

Are you saying that Apple is lying when it says the user has the private keys and not Apple?

It is within the first minute or so. He gets straight to it once he begins speaking.

I was not arguing for the superiority of centralized trust. But I framed my statement in the holistic context (scalability, what society will allow, etc), not pigeon-holed to this one consideration you are highlighting.

That is a personal attack. Diagnoses implies there is a mental disease to diagnose.

Are you sticking with that choice of word?

No I was telling him that I will not get into a long disingenuous argument with an idiot. He replied to detailed logic of mine that he disagreed without refuting any of the economic logic I provided. That is not a personal attack. And it is certainly not a name.

If you don't apply logic, then I want nothing to do with you. Bye.

---

I didn't even bother to read that, because I figured what ever he had posted in reaction was going to totally ignore the point that he wasn't refuting the economic logic.  And he still didn't get it that "idiot" had nothing to do with bolstering my logic. It was my way of saying that if you are not going to refute my logic, then please don't waste my time, because I am too busy.

W.r.t. to WAVES, Charles is ostensibly very wisely making sure he and his company are not associated with the ostensibly illegal selling of unregistered investment securities to USA investors:


I applaud Charles' statements and actions in this thread and in the quoted video.

Disclaimer: IANAL, so make sure you consult your own attorney. My statements are my personal opinions.

Charles Hoskinson disclaims the decision of Ethereum to sell vaporware tokens and also to not blacklist USA investors! Wow!

Also Charles talks about his role in Bitshares and his opinion of DPOS.

I am damn glad meritocracy of market value drives nature and not subjective morals. Otherwise we'd be fucked.

Maybe one day you'll understand to stop fighting nature for your irrelevant moral desires.

Whose fault is if they don't keep their computer under proper working order. You want to empower the government to do the job that the individual is unwilling to take responsibility for. And precisely what can the powerless government do about botnets. Useless and non-meritocractic morals are despicable, irrelevant noise like the clanging of pots and pans in protest of reality.

Go defend your fragile ego in your 5 year old throwing sand box. I don't have time for you.

I didn't write the word healthy. I am speaking about the way markets work. It has nothing to do with my morals.


Yeah like investors didn't invest in Ethereum and Dash and oil companies that pollute, etc... 

I didn't disagree with you about ASICs.


Investors in the tokens are not the miners. Investors need to make sure the mining is secure, not that it is moral. You can't legislate people to stop getting viruses on their computers. If investors were driven by the desire to never invest in anything that could be leveraged by anything they think is immoral then there is a laundry list of investments they shouldn't be making, yet they still do.

Charles Hoskinson makes a very strong point at 10:30min in this video:


It seems to me you want to be designing privacy to enable compliance, not fight the government. Then on chain solutions are superior to centralized mixers (for several reasons).

There was a point made recently in the Monero Technical thread that there is no view key for the payer, only for the payee (recipient).