[...] Umgelegt auf den Dollar könnte man hier also von "BTC drucken" sprechen wenn für einen BTC-Kauf über Paypal keine entsprechende Transaktion auf der Blockchain stattfindet. Die Kunden kaufen also über Paypal/Paxos die Coins, bezahlen dafür jede Menge Geld, können über die Coins aber nicht verfügen und es ist nicht mal klar, dass die gekaufen Coins überhaupt existieren oder einfach nur eine Nummer in einer Paypal-Datenbank sind. Wäre allerdings bei genauerer Betrachtung nur PayPals Problem. Wenn deren Kunden um USD 1.000,- "Bitcoin" kaufen und sich dann nach zehnfachem Preisanstieg die USD 10.000,- wieder auszahlen lassen müsste das PayPal dementsprechend aus der eigenen Tasche zahlen. Positiv betrachtet: Wo keine Coins, kann nix gestohlen werden!  Auf den Markt hätten die "gedruckten Bitcoin" keinen Einfluss da ja nur von PayPal "gekauft" und an PayPal "verkauft" würde. Dementsprechend könnte der PayPal Preis nur den richtigen Exchanges folgen und nicht umgekehrt. Tether ist da schon etwas problematischer weil es hier bei ebenfalls fragwürdiger Deckung einen realen Markt gibt was ja in dem Sinn bei PayPal nicht der Fall wäre (egal ob die Bitcoin gedeckt sind oder nicht). Jetzt könnte man natürlich argumentieren das PayPal den richtigen Exchanges Handelsvolumen "abwirbt", aber ich glaub auch das wird nicht zutreffen. Niemand der bereits traded wird zu PayPal wechseln und jene die erst durch PayPal auf Crypto kommen sind für richtige Exchanges noch nicht bereit. Unterm Strich ist PayPals Ansatz natürlich eine absolute Perversion jeglicher Crypto-Grundsätze. Aber das war jetzt auch nicht anders zu erwarten. |
|
|
|
Will I get a private key for the Cryptocurrency I buy on PayPal?
You own the Cryptocurrency you buy on PayPal but will not be provided with a private key. In case you are wondering, a private key is a person's secret code to access and manage their Cryptocurrency. If lost, stolen, or even forgotten they can never get to their Cryptocurrency again -- pretty risky in its own right
Nicht nur, dass das jedwedem Ansatz der Cryptocurrencies widerspricht sondern es ist auch noch eine glatte Lüge. Dir gehören die Coins einfach nicht wenn du keinen PrivateKey dazu hast. Paypal kann damit machen was sie wollen - wenn es die Coins denn überhaupt gibt. Ist und war bei Exchanges ja auch nie anders. Die Frage ist halt nur ob es tatsächlich dabei bleibt das die Coins nicht ausgezahlt werden können. Im Gegensatz zu Tether wäre PayPal ja zumindest theoretisch in der Lage zu beweisen dass sie die entsprechenden Reserven halten; ob Sie das dann auch machen ist allerdings eine andere Frage. |
|
|
|
Also, ich fasse mal kurz zusammen, nur damit ich das richtig verstehe: Man kann keine Bitcoins einzahlen. Man kann keine Bitcoins auszahlen. Man kann keine Bitcoins an irgendwen überweisen. Man kann Bitcoins von PayPal kaufen, sie aber für nichts nutzen. Man kann Bitcoins an PayPal verkaufen, aber nur solche, die man vorher auch von PayPal gekauft hat. Versteh ich das soweit richtig? Dann versteh ich's nämlich nich.  Was soll das? Wie sonst soll man still und heimlich fraktionale Reserven einführen? Ja schade wenn das tatsächlich auf das hinaus läuft. Wär schon cool gewesen wenn alle Online Shops die PayPal akzeptieren damit auch indirekt Bitcoin akzeptieren würden. Wobei selbst dann hätte PayPal in klassischer PayPal-Manier sicher einen Weg gefunden einem die Suppe zu versalzen. |
|
|
|
...
I appreciate your answers. (2,3)-threshold multisignature protocol is even off-chain in its entirety, and with what I have read on news lately, I am very sure that BIP340 (Schnorr signature), BIP341 (Taproot) and BIP342 (Tapscript) is now well ready, but only remian to be included in bitcoin core, if this is included in bitcoin core, multisig transactions will be indistinguishable, and I hope the payment for multisig transactions will be lower and be like normal single key payment. So, I think this will be the best choice which is even included in blockchain rather than off-chain. Based on this quote I do believe they are leaning towards targeting alt coins rather than Bitcoin anyway: The compatibility of the signature with the standard algorithm means that this custody solution does not depend on blockchain support, namely, it is blockchain-agnostic. As a result, it can be applied to many current prominent or in-progress (e.g., Libra) cryptocurrencies that do not natively support multisignature schemes. Thing is, I'm not aware of any major alt that is lacking multisig support? My altcoin knowledge is not really up to speed though, so maybe there's projects out there for which this solution could be particularly interesting. That being said, o_e_l_e_o's concerns about introducing third party trust really need to be emphasized. If two other parties can collaborate to move your funds (either due to voluntary cooperation or one party deceiving the other) it's just a sneaky way to introduce custodial wallets, ie. the "not your keys, not your coins" problem -- made worse by adding a false sense of security. |
|
|
|
I have been reading this paper and understanding it little by little. Now, I have known about Threshold Multiparty Computation (MPC) Signatures, and to be specific, (2,3)-threshold multisignature protocol which the paper really focused on. A user which is the client can depend on Service Provider and on Recovery Server in a way private keys can be well protected in a way the two (service provider and recovery provider) can be able to provide the user with the private key at a point in time, maybe due to private key loss.
For example, if the user lost his private keys, the private keys can be recovered in a secure and safe way from the service provider, but if the service provider is affected and can not provide the private keys, the user can recover back the private key from the recovery server also in a safe and secure way.
But, I have a question. Assuming the service provider and recovery server are both affected, hope the private key is not lost forever? Or, no matter what, the recovery server can not be affected and will always be able to provide the private key even if the service provider is affected?
Private keys are never transmitted as that would be insecure. 2 out of 3 parties are signing transactions together, without knowing each others private key. Since the threshold is 2 out of 3, if both the service provider and recovery server lose their keys, the user will be unable to access their coins. |
|
|
|
|
Interesting, however it looks like the benefits of this approach over the current multi-sig scheme (ie. smaller signature size, better privacy) will become nullified by the deployment of Schnorr signatures. The added complexity, both user-facing and in terms of protocol logic, would then further detract from the attractiveness of this approach.
Depending on how easy it is to layer on top of existing cryptos it could be a neat addition to the cryptocurrency-toolbox though. At least I assume that's what they mean by this approach being a "blockchain-agnostic solution".
|
|
|
|
I'm surprise that https://safedice.com/ is now down, when did just the site goes offline? Just curious as I still see some discussion months back that the site was still running though without a support. It looks like the domain finally expired. The domain was registered on 2014-09-01 so it probably got renewed automatically every September: https://www.whois.com/whois/safedice.comAccording to here (can't directly link to the request unfortunately), the name servers got set to the default registrar name server on 2020-09-03, indicating that the original owner failed to renew the domain name: https://whoisrequest.com/history/And then its whois status switched to "Reactivation Period" one month after entering the grace period, indicating that the owner didn't use the grace period to reclaim the domain, meaning it will probably get auctioned off to the highest bidder sooner or later: https://www.whoxy.com/safedice.com#historyIt's amazing really that the site kept on running without an admin for so long. For all we know the server is still running, just unreachable for lack of a domain. |
|
|
|
Das Problem & Risiko hast Du auch bei Bitcoin.de - Gruß zurück Da hast Du natürlich völlig recht. Das ist neben dem besch..eidenen Support und der Obrigkeitshörigkeit einer der Gründe, warum ich Bitcoin.de meide, wie der Teufel das Weihwasser und auch niemandem raten kann, deren "Service" zu nutzen.  Gab es bei Bitcoin.de tatsächlich schon Fälle von geklauten Konten? Das es Geldwäsche-Verdachtsmomente gegeben hat hab ich mitbekommen, aber das die Probleme mit geklauten Konten haben wäre mir neu. Soweit ich mich erinnern kann machen die ja das übliche KYC von Kopf von bis Fuss (also von Ausweis bis Bankkonto). Oder gabs da schon Fälle wo sich Leute mit Konto A registriert aber mit Konto B überwiesen haben? |
|
|
|
[...] i'm sure its not just BTC that they are up to.
Some outliers may have holdings in alts that they are directly involved with, but I think it's doubtful we'll see significant altcoin treasuries anytime soon. Ethereum seems like a bad store of value for lack of a defined supply maximum and centralized currencies such as Ripple only introduce unwanted dependencies. Further down the list market cap size and volatility become an issue. |
|
|
|
Neat link, here's hoping that this list continues growing! I already see late-coiners moaning how it's unfair that all the big companies have bought into Bitcoin before them and now they're once again at an disadvantage. Also I completely missed the news that Square now has Bitcoin holdings! Makes sense though, seeing how Jack Dorsey has been a Bitcoin bull for quite a while now. When Twitter? |
|
|
|
Problematisch könnte das nur werden, wenn du die Coins über einen Exchange verkaufen willst. Durch ALM5 und die damit verbundenen Geldwäschebestimmungen sind Exchanges gezwungen nachzufragen, woher die Coins stammen ... und das detailliert bis ins kleinste Detail. Im Bitpanda Thread wurde so eine Anfrage geposted, kann dir die sonst auch gerne weiterleiten.
Uff, AML5 hab ich komplett verschlaffen... Wie solche Anfragen ausschauen würde mich jetzt tatsächlich ebenfalls interessieren, leite mir die bitte auch gleich weiter  |
|
|
|
Theoretisch sollte es reichen wenn du über die Blockchain die Haltefrist von 1 Jahr beweisen kannst (z.B. mittels Signatur), allein deswegen da es somit weder was zum versteuern noch dem Finanzamt mitzuteilen gibt. Praktisch könnte es natürlich schwierig mit der Bank werden wenn plötzlich größere Euro-Beträge von dem Exchange deiner Wahl einlangen und in weiterer Folge eventuell das Finanzamt verständigt wird, welches dann anfängt nachzufragen wo die Coins ursprünglich herkommen. Ich bin mir allerdings nicht sicher inwiefern du überhaupt in der Beweislast bist mehr anzugeben außer das du die Coins vor mehr als einem Jahr privat käuflich erworben hast. Für allgemeine Infos würde ich diesen Thread empfehlen: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1976285.0Was deine konkrete Situation betrifft macht es unter Umständen Sinn mit einem Steuerberater in Kontakt zu treten sobald du vor hast größere Beträge zu verkaufen. |
|
|
|
I find the countries that receive the largest amount of investment are directly proportional to the number of Olympic gold medals they get. For example the USA, China, Germany, UK.
They have developed countries and have the education and working environment at a professional level suitable for creating high technology, high economy.
Other countries that receive moderate FDI capital are developing countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, they receive lower investment because they do not have enough standards to invest like the big countries I mentioned. on.
Usually at this point I'd say that correlation does not imply causation, but looking at the data there's not even correlation. Let's take the examples of USA, China, Germany and the UK. So the USA and China are both in the top 2 spots of both Math and foreign investments. Sure. But they are also the countries with the largest economies and the highest population. Also in the last 10 years China has won more mathematical competitions than the US yet China sees only half the foreign investment. According to your theory foreign investment should be at least equal. Next, what about Russia? In the last 10 years they have won more gold medals than Germany and the UK combined. Yet in terms of foreign investment they lag behind Brazil, Netherlands, France, Germany, Switzerland and many other countries. South Korea. Won even more math gold medals than Russia in the last 10 years. Yet it has even less foreign investment than Russia. And looking at the long term picture, let's not even talk about the USSR. |
|
|
|
Is "required_signatures" parameter always be "1" ?
Not always: {
"name": "required_signatures",
"type": "INT64",
"description": "The number of signatures required to authorize spending of this output"
},There's multisig transactions that require n-of-m signatures so according to the above the value of "required_signatures" will depend on whether it's a multisig transaction or a regular one with only a single required signature. |
|
|
|
In germany we have very hard laws for CP. The form of CP is free even writing a CP Text is forbidden or having a encrypted code. The point is not the technic, olny the sexual aspect of minors.
So yes , a windows that would need that CP dll file would be illegal to store.
Thats my point. I think goverment knows about that, maybe some goverment even placed it there.
And when they need to forbid Bitcoin, they do with this argument
Well, the good news is that looking at the paper itself it seems like the researchers didn't even find CP, there was only a claim they found on an online forum that they didn't actually verify for ethical (and possibly legal) reasons: Bitcoin’s blockchain contains at least eight files with sexual content. While five files only show, describe, or link to mildly pornographic content, we consider the remaining three instances objectionable for almost all jurisdictions: Two of them are backups of link lists to child pornography, containing 274 links to websites, 142 of which refer to Tor hidden services. The remaining instance is an image depicting mild nudity of a young woman. In an online forum this image is claimed to show child pornography, albeit this claim cannot be verified (due to ethical concerns we refrain from providing a citation). The bad news is that of course that's not stopping anyone from adding CP in the future. The good news is that it's still unlikely that German courts (or any court, really) would put anyone behind bars for a binary blob of data on the Bitcoin blockchain. Law is based on the legislative intent rather than technicalities and in this case it's about content rather than binary data. This Heise comment said it best: pi = 3,141 592 653 589 ...
In den Nachkommastellen soll jede Zahlenfolge die es gibt abgebildet sein.
Damit auch die Zahlenfolge von jedem in Zahlen kodiertes KiPo Bild.
Nur an welcher Stelle sich diese Zahlenfolge befindet muss man selber suchen.
-> also Pi verbieten! Let's ban the number Pi because it contains every kind of CP imaginable! All you need to do is find the correct starting point in its digits. |
|
|
|
A country with many students winning high prizes in OLYMPIC math will get more attention and those countries will be considered for investment.
Southeast Asian countries are being invested in inflows of FDI inflows that have increased dramatically in recent years due to the number of students winning the OLYMPIC award in math. ...I don't think any investor cares about how countries fair in the Math Olympics. Honestly I doubt investors even care much about a country's education system. Samsung is moving its factories from China to Vietnam. iPhone manufacturing factories are considering moving to neighboring countries Malaysia and Vietnam.
China's workforce has become more expensive due to their economy catching up big time, so moving production out of China is probably due to labor being cheaper in South East Asia. Worries about industrial espionage are likely also a factor. |
|
|
|
If its real, having the blockchain on a computer is illegal. And thats the way the goverment can attack it
Probably real, still doesn't make storing the blockchain illegal. It's been discussed time and again, whatever illegal content may be stored on the Bitcoin blockchain is merely there as an unreadable blob of binary data and can not be accessed without considerate technical effort. Unless you go through the effort of extracting this content and converting it into a format that can be read by media software there's no laws being broken. Imagine a rogue Microsoft Engineer steganographically including CP in a DLL that gets updated during a Windows update. Obviously that engineer would have to answer some questions, but that wouldn't make Windows users liable for having this hidden data on their hard drives. |
|
|
|
|
I think people should be generally more aware that there's a lot of bespoke malware circulating that doesn't get caught by antivirus software. Many of which run silently in the background, hence the importance of cold storage and hardware wallets.
|
|
|
|
To be fair though a steady increase in difficulty does imply block times of less than 10 minutes which is also why the recent halving moved up to May from the first halving in November 2012. So if subsequent halvings keep moving up a few weeks or months at a time, the last coin to be mined could already happen around 2136.
A far shot from 2050 of course, but those few seconds below 10 minutes do add up.
The 10-minute time is only relative to the random difficulty of the algorithm that blocks are mined for. With the speed of development of mining equipment being enhanced more, using less energy and mining more efficiently, Bitcoin mining becomes faster. The time for the Halving is fixed for 4 years so I believe my argument may be correct. Bitcoin is pretty good at keeping its average block time around 10 minutes. Moving the last coin mined from 2140 to 2050 would require the average block time to be reduced to 2.5 minutes, consistently, for the next 30 years. To put that much consistent pressure on the network would require technological leaps like the transition from classical to quantum computing every other month, with miners being forced to buy new hardware every other week. Humanity will become a Kardashev Type III civilization before that happens. For reference, Bitcoin grew from a handful of CPUs to a global network of ASICs at industrial scale within a decade and the average block time still barely budged from the average block time of 10 minutes. |
|
|
|
And yeah getting a hashed token, house edge information and a way to confirm how much the casino makes in some cases (ie investing a small amount) is quite a nice bit of detail regular online casinos still don't have (outside of live games). It'd cost them very little to implement such a system too so I don't know why they don't start making it a selling point somewhere.
I think there's multiple reasons for that: 1) Don't underestimate the cost of retrofitting a provable fair system onto existing legacy systems. 2) By being opaque classical casinos can take a much bigger cut than provable fair casinos. 3) The majority of old school gamblers simply aren't aware of this technical possibility and probably wouldn't even care enough. Accordingly there's no incentive for a classical casino to (1) pay a lot of money for a feature that (2) cuts into their profit for (3) a feature players are not (yet?) asking for. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
