Craig: Hi.

Gavin: Who r u?

Craig: I'm Satoshi.

Gavin: Ok, sign this with the privkey to the coinbase in the genesis block: "I, Craig Steven Wright, am Satoshi Nakamoto. 1 May 2016."

Craig: Nah, why don't I fly you to London and I'll show you.

Gavin: Sounds great! I love London!

Craig: lol

Gavin: lol

[deleted]

Most people having trouble with bitcoinlaundry.com are either a) having trouble following directions ("send EXACTLY BTC <amount>") or b) sending from a wallet that subtracts the fee from the total send rather than adding it.

I'm sorting this out in private.

You're welcome.


Your ignorance speaks loudly. I've operated bitcoinlaundry.com and bitlaundry.com since early 2011. 3 seconds of googling would have shown you that, but it's so much easier to sling shit.

One more thing:


So there is an opportunity here for someone to optimize for infrastructure costs.

So, my not-Darlene friend has some more non-info for y'all.

First, there hasn't been any serious inquiry to this offer since it was posted, either PM or email. No, the square footage of your mo m's basement doesn't help.

Second, consider carefully the implications of this:

s

That's TWO MEGAWATTS. It's a big heap of gear, and draws a big mess of power.

I did talk to my friend, non-Darlene, tonight. He's not actually *that* concerned about this. He's got other shit going on. But he and his partners would rather unload this stack of capital now, in collaboration with a buyer willing to agree to a reasonable NDA and consulting support agreement, than to see it all end up as heavy-metals pollution in someone else's river.

If you've got serious interest in it, either PM or email me or Google me and then do the same. Let's you and I start to work out the parameters of discussing a serious deal.

Peace,
Mike

Eat flaming death.

He hasn't disappeared. He works. He does stuff. He's credited by name in manpages you probably haven't read.

My name is Mike Gogulski, and I'm a stateless Earthen mouth-breather and a bitcoinaholic.

btcequip is someone who has reached out to me for a vouching. We probably haven't talked more than 200 minutes fnord in the past 20 years, but I know him, deeply and well.

At the moment, I don't know what he's up to. He posted a "free" thing with a picture of a rack-row of gear. I spent 30 minutes on the phone international until I could get someone to bridge me into local directory assistance for the last area code of his I knew, only to be met with "Well, there's only Darlene {Surname} here."

His name's not Darlene.

I'll get some more details and come back to y'all on this thread. I don't know what the game is beyond what you've read here already, but I do know that (ugh) "btcequip" is a man of rock-solid integrity, who I would trust with my life.

Peace,
Mike

You lie:


Domain registered less than a year ago, not "approximately 3 years".

Sounds to me like you're trying to capitalize on the existing reputation of my service, bitlaundry.com, up since 2010 and under my ownership since early 2011.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the other readers of this board to determine whether or not this is a fraud, or merely disingenuous marketing.

I've found it useful to divide not into just white/black markets, but into five areas: white, black, gray, red and pink.

From http://www.nostate.com/3441/black-markets-vs-free-markets/ :

“Black market” as commonly understood is a problematic term, since it encompasses both harmless things that governments ban (the cannabis trade, for instance) in most places, as well as harmful things that governments also ban (murder for hire, for example).

I personally favor the market analysis given by agorist theory, which breaks down things along two axes:

• White market: State-approved, moral (i.e. non-rights-violating) (e.g. on-the-books employment)
• Gray market: Banned unless done in state-approved manner, moral (e.g. off-the-books trade)
• Black market: State ban, moral (e.g. drugs)
• Red market: State ban, immoral (e.g. murder for hire)
• Pink market: State-approved (and largely state-conducted), immoral (e.g. taxation, conscription, compulsory education)

Visual illustration on slide 7 of a powerpoint I made for a presentation to a libertarian meeting this summer at http://www.nostate.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/What-Sort-of-Libertarian-Are-You1.ppt (reproduced for readers of this blog below).

I, for one, support Charlie Shrem...

EVEN IF HE IS INNOCENT.

/praying here that Mircea Popescu never pulls his finger out of his ass... we'll not survive the smell.

None of this makes you any less of an insufferable boor.

See, e.g., the Subway shop in Bratislava, Slovakia mentioned above, and at http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qrp1h/subway_accepting_bitcoins_in_slovakia_bratislava/ and also the discussion above around non-profits and other entities wishing to conduct transparent finance on the blockchain.

Meanwhile, outside the bubble of authoritarian-minded mining pool operators:



(via http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qrp1h/subway_accepting_bitcoins_in_slovakia_bratislava/ )

"Guilty" is rather too strong a word, especially given that a library like bitcoinj sits fairly distant from the wallet UIs, which is where the flags and cautions need to be shown to the user.

What would be very nice to see as at least a minor mitigation here would be wallet clients presenting users with an additional challenge when attempting to send to an address the client has already spent to. That only takes a chink out of the systemic problem under discussion, but has a nice side effect in reducing the risk of a mis-click someplace leading to an unintended irrevocable spend to an incorrect address (which, er, I've done more than once).


Cool. I'd be thrilled if wallet clients used the BIP32 scheme as the default. It's a win for the whole ecosystem -- provided that, in light of the use cases above and others -- the choice to re-use addresses is not phased out.


Another very good perspective on this.

My overall point is that this kind of solution tends to raise costs for certain use cases.

BIP32 is all well and good, but requires significant tooling for a donation-accepting entity to implement, requires much broader dissemination among wallet clients, and is largely incompatible with the widely-deployed single-address model already in use by many entities.

I'm not here to scream bloody murder about Luke's initiative, but rather to encourage looking at this from as many sides as possible. CoInvalidation etc. present real threats to Bitcoin as a privacy-enhancing system, but, as I think I demonstrated above, privacy is not the sole or even primary concern for every use case.

I can very well understand Luke's motivation for publishing and implementing this patch as a counterweight to CoinInvalidation and similar awfulness. Admittedly, my poor brain hasn't had time to sort through all the pros and cons here. But:


Er, not so. If you're arguing from the standpoint of a profit-driven business in a competitive landscape or from the standpoint of an individual burdened by increasingly pervasive financial surveillance, you're right, but those are not the only use cases for a currency.

There are lots of people around the world continuously pushing for more and more transparency in government finance, the logical endpoint of which is real-time, globally-visible transactions records for state treasury accounts. Most inputs (taxes, fines, fees, etc.) blinded for privacy reasons, and most outputs (salaries, goods, services, etc., but not, for example, welfare payments) required to be explicitly linked to an identity, for transparency and accountability purposes. Want to work for the state or one of its corporate appendages/owners? Be transparent and accountable.

The non-profit sector, and donors to it, would also benefit from such radical transparency. Charities that can prove that they're not blowing donor funds on exorbitant executive pay, corporate jets, fancy hotels and catering, for example, and are actually delivering real benefits to people in need (or at least working diligently toward what they've promised to donors), globally visible (at least up to the fiat interface or the real-world-goods/services interface), supplant and, er, out-compete, those which waste so much on overheads. For them and for donors, globally visible public records are a desirable feature, at least for the ones that survive the transition to a cryptocoin economy.

As another example, I operate a Bitcoin legal defense fund for the accused Dread Pirate Roberts (link in my sig). The transaction record to the fund's sole address shows that I've disbursed nothing of what's been given, and it needs to stay that way until I can properly justify an expenditure.

All of these models, and others, can benefit from reusing addresses tied to individual and/or institutional identity, and address re-use carries a massive benefit in simplicity ("donate here" QR codes on paper flyers? yes we can!), despite the known drawbacks. Deprioritizing or (especially!) filtering transactions seems to raise the costs for implementing such models, significantly.

(At another level, all of this sums down to mining pool centralization as systemic risk, but that's another discussion entirely.)

It's gotta be fun being able to think two entirely contradictory thoughts at once.

Governments are institutional corruption. Corruption is their reason for existence, and the fuel they run on, when they're not busy chewing up and destroying human beings.