 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Article: Putin considers plan to unplug Russia from the internet 'in an emergency'President Vladimir Putin will convene a meeting of his security council on Monday. It will discuss what steps Moscow might take to disconnect Russian citizens from the web "in an emergency", the Vedomosti newspaper reported. The goal would be to strengthen Russia's sovereignty in cyberspace. The proposals could also bring the domain .ru under state control, it suggested. Article: How Hard Is It to Disconnect an Entire Country from the Internet? - 2012  [image from article] How would a large scale network disconnect impact Bitcoin? Disruption of connectivity between nations, based on my understanding, would lead to inevitable blockchain forks. If a large % of hashing power comes from a disconnected nation, then it seems the main network is also at greater risk of 51% attacks. Acquiring enough hashing power to disrupt Bitcoin seems greatly simplified if the underlying communication network itself is vulnerable. A malicious actor may not even need to drive the disruption itself, if ready to take advantage of the opening when an event occurs. A natural disaster may be all that is needed. If the above is true, how could the network recover once connectivity resumes, would the network effectively be useless until that point in time, and are there any existing plans to deal with such an event? Based on the global political climate, and recent history of mass scale outages, I find myself frequently thinking about the above scenario.
|
|
|
|
As I watch the situation in Ukraine unfold, my first impulse is that Bitcoin is ideal during periods of instability. After more consideration, I am no longer sure. I definitely think it holds that potential, but a major problem exists: communications infrastructure reliance. Bitcoin, in turn, is effectively reliant on governments and major powers for the networks that enable the decentralized network. Considering the recent internet shutdown in Syria, how would Bitcoin fair? Is Bitcoin utility and integrity at odds with communications infrastructure instability? Natural disasters also have potential to render Bitcoin useless for large groups of users. If a large group of users lose external connectivity, what happens? Blockchain fork? |
|
|
|
GENERAL1. Are you in general agreement with the payment system gaps and opportunities identified in the "Payment System Improvement Public Consultation Paper"? Please explain, if desired.
Yes, but the paper ignores the structural issues that stifle the U.S.: - only banks have access to the ACH rails and they operate as a gating mechanism killing participation by others unless permission is granted -- limiting innovation - Money transmission regulation has not been pre-empted by federal oversight. Thus moving money is the fiefdom of small minded state regulators with no overall view or authority - The law lets payors decide how they want to pay (i.e. using checks) rather than allowing payees dictate how they will accept being paid - The U.S. has subsidized legacy systems for years (check clearing). Rather than investing ahead of the curve, the U.S. mis-calculates the costs (i.e. fixed and variable) associated with preserving the status quo
2. Are you in general agreement with the desired outcomes for payment system improvements over the next 10 years? Please explain, if desired.
Yes. But I was at the Fed 10 years ago, and the same tone / attitude was taken then as now. The U.S. was behind the world then, and is more behind now.
2i. What other outcomes should be pursued?
IP rails should be allowed as a parallel processing environment to the legacy systems. That means breathing room for digital currencies. The assumption that sovereign governments should have a monopoly on the money supply and payments infrastructure needs to be re-examined. Alternate money systems based around the internet should be given a chance. UBIQUITIOUS NEAR-REAL-TIME PAYMENTS
4. In discussions with industry participants, some have stated that implementing a system for near-real-time payments with the features described in the second desired outcome (ubiquitous participation;sender doesn’t need to know the bank account number of the recipient; confirmation of good funds is made at the initiation of the payment; sender and receiver receive timely notification that the payment has been made; funds debited from the payer and made available in near real time to the payee) will require coordinated action by a public authority or industry group. Others have stated that current payment services are evolving toward this outcome and no special action by a public authority or industry group is required.
4i. Which of these perspectives is more accurate, and why?
These systems exist (i.e. Ripple). Banks are just afraid to work with them because of compliance concerns and the uncertainty of the regulatory enviroment. State oversight of money transmission makes the above goals impossible to practically pursue when there are 50 different regimes with 50 different opinions of what's allowable.
4ii. What other perspective(s) should be considered?
Allow a dual set of IP payment rails. Give a hands off like Amazon enjoyed on sales tax for a decade. See what the internet can produce before you choke it with the same strictures on the legacy rails
6iii. Is it sufficient for a solution to be limited to near-real-time authorization and confirmation that good funds are on their way, or must end user funds availability and/or interbank settlement take place in near-real time as well?
funds don't have to arrive in real time, but it’s actually simpler if they do (i.e. a stateless system). The internet already "gets" this but it’s not being given a chance to breath.
6iv. Which payment scenarios are most and least suitable for near real-time payments? (B2B, P2P, P2B, POS, etc.)
all are suitable. This should have occurred 20 years ago
10. What would be the implication if the industry and/or the Federal Reserve Banks do not take any action to implement faster payments?
2023 will look a lot like 2013 just as 2013 looks a lot like 2003 (when I was at the Fed). The U.S. should lead rather than lag other countries by opening up options rather than sitting on top of the status quo with the current stifling regulatory environment and uncertainty.
10i. What is the cost, including the opportunity cost, of not implementing faster payments in the United States?
The rest of the world out innovates us and has a lower structural cost of business
11i. What is the likely timeframe for any such modernization?
For the legacy system -- possibly never. Too many protected interest and too much fear that change might have negative consequences along the way to finding positive outcomes. Best hope is a parallel track based on IP rails
12. Some industry participants suggest that a new, centralized directory containing account numbers and routing information for businesses and/or consumers, to which every bank and other service providers are linked, will enable more electronic payments. A sender using this directory would not need to know the account or routing information of the receiver.
12i. What are the merits and drawbacks of this suggestion?
Centralized has to be global -- doing this for one country is just more head in the ground thinking. Look to how the internet solved similar problems for domain names, email servers, etc. The solutions are there --but the description above shows the same tunnel vision as has characterized this discourse for years
14. Business-to-business payments have remained largely paper-based due to difficulties with handling remittance information. Consumer bill payments also are heavily paper-based due to the lack of comfort some consumers have with electronic alternatives. In addition, many small businesses have not adopted ACH for recurring payments due to technical challenges and/or cost constraints. The payment industry has multiple efforts underway to address these issues.
14i. To what extent are these efforts resulting in migration from checks to other payment types?
Gosh, has no one looked to see how well and easily these issues are solved in other countries. This is a lack of will. Let the payees determine how they will be paid (rather than the payees). Biasing law to favor payor rights over payee means we are mired in the past. Check 21 showed just how timid we are/were
14ii. What other barriers need to be addressed to accelerate migration of these payments?
Stop punishing banks who would partner with players offering alternative payment rails. How many bitcoin friendly U.S. banks are there? Zero not because they are not curious, but because they are afraid of their regulators and regulation and law enforcement
14iii. What other tactics, including incentives, will effectively persuade businesses and consumers to migrate to electronic payments?
Reducing the risk of trying alternative systems. Allowing failures to happen rather than having a zero tolerance for failure of financial payment networks. Its ok to have failures in payments systems. We learn from those.
CROSS-BORDER PAYMENTS15. To what extent would the broader adoption of the XML-based ISO 20022 payment messagestandards in the United States facilitate electronification of business payments and/or cross-borderpayments?
Ugh, this has been dribbling along for 20 years. Just accept that the internet is more efficient than these incremental half measures
16. What strategies and tactics do you think will help move the industry toward desired outcome four -consumers and businesses have greater choice in making convenient, cost-effective, and timely cross-border payments?
Allowing internet based innovation as a parallel track to legacy channels. Resistance to lobby groups that make digital payments alternatives look too scary to be integrated through gateways to the traditional payment system SAFETY17. Payment security encompasses a broad range of issues including authentication of the parties involved in the transaction, the security of payment databases, the security of software and devices used by end users to access payment systems, and security of the infrastructure carrying payment messages.
17i. Among the issues listed above, or others, what are the key threats to payment system securitytoday and in the future?
The main risk is the arrogance of the NSA and other Federal bodies that have shown a lack of respect for privacy and have made a mockery of encryption. If the Federal government has no credibility on this front, how can they be seen as an honest broker of future progress in this arena. The Federal Government has to follow the same rules it asks others to live by otherwise all of the above are just speed bumps to bad actors.
17ii. Which of these threats are not adequately being addressed?
The double standard of the national government’s own actions and the silence from other authorities on whether such violations of privacy are warranted for national security.
17iii. What operational or technology changes could be implemented to further mitigate cyber threats?
Stop the Federal Government from compromising the very standards that are built to protect us from cyber threats. It is ridiculous to believe that the Feds have a monopoly on managing cyber threat technology. By weakening the internet, they weaken the future system that is best positioned to carry payments of the future. ADDITIONAL21. Please share any additional perspectives on U.S. payment system improvements. The bank monopoly on many aspects of the money system of the U.S. does not contribute to innovation.
The banks fears that they will get on the wrong side of their regulators reinforces a stagnant dynamic that makes the U.S. a terrible laggard relative to the innovation and cost structures being achieved elsewhere in the world. Accepting risks and that there will be payment systems failures needs to be an ok outcome. This requires a fundamental change in thinking from the fear ridden, status-quo oriented perspective that I saw when working at the Fed. It’s ok to have payment system failures, just like its ok to have bank failures. Once you start thinking otherwise, then you've left the objective world of experimentation and are living in a self-referential bubble. The internet shows an alternative that the Fed has done almost zero to open itself to. I watched this during the horrific process of doing something as simple as making it easier to submit an ACH file over the web.What a nightmare and how indicative of Fed reticence. A great place to start would be federal pre-emption of state money transmission licenses. This process is so universally acknowledged as stupidly obtuse by everyone .... yet nothing ever changes here. It’s two years and several million dollars just to get a seat at the table. And when you get there, it’s a hodge podge shakedown as PayPal and Square can well relate. The Fed could step up to the plate and show that regulation could/should be rational, fair, and pragmatic. But it never steps up to the plate, and the consequential lag in our country's competitive position continues to stretch. I see it in the figures of money moving through our network via China versus the U.S. We are missing out. Excerpts from this pdf responseManu Sporny of the W3C also delivered a lot of great insight
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin's emergence has led to a rapid rise of new wealth in new hands. As a community, cryptocurrency users have an overwhelming tendency to diverge from mainstream political beliefs. I expect that the steady rise of new cryptocurrency wealth will continue through 2016. US Presidential campaigns are fueled by wealth. 2012 Campaign Finance: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-financeCandidates who have previously been considered fringe may suddenly have real opportunity in 2016, based on the substantial new funding source that the cryptocurrency community may represent. Do you expect new cryptocurrency wealth to have a significant impact on the 2016 US Presidential election? Edit:Any value in considering a Cryptocurrency PAC? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committeeI see more than enough future wealth and impassioned activism to drive deep and lasting change. |
|
|
|
About this GiveawayWe are running a 5€ Euro giveaway. 1,000€ in total funds are available. Post your Ripple public address. We will send 5€ Euro to each unique address, until we run out. All users are eligible, including those who have participated in previous giveaways. Funds will only be sent to wallets that are properly setup to receive EUR. If you are new to Ripple, jump to the New to Ripple? section below. Note: we are not revisiting posts of users who just submit 'reserved', and then later plan on filling in details. Setup first, then submit.Setup InformationIn order to receive Euros, you must trust Bitstamp for €5. Click the Advanced button, after logging in to your wallet.  Click Add Trust.  Grant trust to Bitstamp for €5 Euro, as shown below.  Address: rvYAfWj5gh67oV6fW32ZzP3Aw4Eubs59B Confirm.  After, you receive confirmation, then post your address here.  New to Ripple?You can learn about Ripple in the Ripple Info section below. Create a wallet at ripple.com: https://ripple.com/client/#/register (use a strong password) After creating a new wallet, you must receive XRP to activate. Post your new address here.We will send 100 XRP to activate your wallet. It will be enough to allow you to establish trust, and leave you with some extra XRP. You can use it to help others get started, exchange, hold, or anything else you might like. After getting started and receiving activation XRP, post your address again for the EUR offer.Ripple InfoHow Ripple Works (Gateways and Pathways): http://vimeo.com/63784865Ripple Introduction for Bitcoin users: https://ripple.com/wiki/Introduction_to_Ripple_for_BitcoinersEarn XRP: https://www.computingforgood.org/USD RewardWe also want to recognize positive action in the Ripple community. Link to a contribution you have made: a software project, startup, gateway, running a giveaway, or anything at all positive for the Ripple community. It may even be as basic as helping someone get started on a forum. Note: you will need to trust Bitstamp for the amount you will receive. We plan to give out up to $25.
|
|
|
|
|
It is good for a laugh, but I am concerned that legal action against Coinye could be used to establish damaging legal precedent in US courts, and ultimately provide basis for regulations.
While its developers may be anonymous, anyone profiting from the coin could become a target for legal action. Exchanges, pools, investors, and even miners could potentially become vulnerable. Crypto currencies are still a legal grey area, with little case precedent. It would suck to see all of crypto damaged, just to let a joke play out.
I am more amused by it than any other currency, but would like to ask the devs to consider any potential unintended negative fallout.
Rename it to Gay Fish coin and see if the lawyers back down?
It would be just as amusing to see them base a claim against that.
|
|
|
|
Ripple is misunderstood. Centralization is a threat to Bitcoin and most Alts. Ripple is a complementary system for all currencies. It battles against centralization, and in entirely different ways than most cryptos. It targets eradicating centralization issues at different levels, with its own unique decentralization model. Yet, most people are unaware, misinformed---or have vested interested in attacking Ripple. MasterCoin, NXT, eMunie, and Monetas are all systems attempting to solve similar issues. They are all worth taking the time to evaluate and understand. I do not claim any one system solves all major threats we are facing today. Why are so many misinformed? http://ripplescam.org/ (inaccurate and outdated) In almost any discussion this site comes up, despite it offering no real value. Understanding why Ripple is important means understanding major issues threatening most crypto currencies today. When you trade on almost any exchange, you are embracing centralization. Likewise, the same is true for most Bitcoin payment systems. Ripple is derided for its decentralized IOU system, yet it is designed specifically to mitigate the threat posed by centralized exchanges and payment systems. In using those systems, you are embracing closed IOU systems. All of the value of crypto transactions is gone at that point. Many have been bitten by the scams that this has allowed, and the fallout from ineptitude of the operators of many of these services. https://inputs.io/ is the poster child of these threats. Scam or hack? Ripple is attacked, in part, because it threatens the business model of closed centralized exchanges and payment systems. It is important to note that the author of ripplescam.org is, in fact, the same person responsible for inputs.io, along with centralized systems that have wreaked havoc on the community. TradeFortress is the perpetrator: https://www.google.com/search?q=tradefortressWhy would he attack? He had major interested in detracting from Ripple. Its model conflicts with his (and all other) closed centralized payment systems. In driving people away from Ripple to his centralized system, he cost trusting users dearly. An angry community is looking for him. His specific whereabouts are currently unknown. It is worth carefully evaluating all he has had to say about Ripple. Everyone should read this conversation clarifying lower level misconceptions of the Ripple system: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6867324Ripple is, in fact, open source: https://github.com/rippleIt is leading radical new concepts that may be beneficial for all new currencies to consider: https://ripple.com/wiki/ContractsRipple may or may not be the future---but it brings vital concepts to the table. They need to be considered for their individual merit. Decentralized payment and exchange systems are vital to the future of crypto currencies. Ripple does not need to replace any currency. Its system complements all currencies. It is not about Ripple vs. Bitcoin vs. your favorite crypto currency. If you do not believe in Ripple, or Ripple Labs, then by all means fork the code. Create a system that aligns with your ideals. Create a new code base altogether---as Ripple alternatives like MasteCoin, NXT, Monetas, and eMunie are attempting. Dismissing Ripple and all concepts tied to Ripple disservices the future of crypto currencies. Many of those who attack have vested interest, to drive their centralized alternatives. It hurts the community. Scammers with vested interest in centralized systems abound. Support decentralization. |
|
|
|
|
If BigVern closed down the site to fix known and ongoing issues, then how could he continue to charge transaction fees?
Isn't that the most important thing?
It is impossible for him to do anything wrong since we know his real identity.
Consider that fraud and gross negligence have never been linked to a known identity throughout human history.
No one is crediting him for adding extra LTC markets over the past 24 hours. 99% of complaints on this board over the past 2 weeks have been regarding the urgent need to add more LTC markets. He has delivered. End of story.
Cryptsy understands piorities.
As for the remaining 1% of criticisms fixated on lost money and lost opportunity: everyone gets it, but seriously---you need to understand that BigVern is a nice guy. Why should it suddenly become his problem if Cryptsy users experience issues while he is away in Las Vegas?
Is the financial welfare of you yourself as a Cryptsy user really all that important?
|
|
|
|
Alt exchange index: http://howtobuycryptocoins.info/We are overly dependent on Cryptsy, and everything suffers as a result (including Cryptsy). Alternatives out there are potentially great---but volume is terrible. We need to explore. Migrating to other sites will reduce load on Cryptsy, while increasing pressure on Cryptsy to fix its services. Even if you are an ardent Cryptsy supporter, helping it find some breathing room is a good thing. I think spreading out between markets would be the most productive outcome, in response to everything that has gone down today. Can we use this thread for ongoing exchange reviews, praise, rants, and warnings? |
|
|
|
|
MCX realized that its support system could not keep up with demand. It suspended trading and ensured all users were able to withdraw funds. Its creator is now actively working to improve the system, so that it can re-open and effectively meet demand.
Cryptsy has proven itself insecure, unstable, and unable to handle load. Its customer support is abysmal.
Ultimately: MCX chose to sacrifice revenue before sacrificing the experience and safety of its users; meanwhile Cryptsy lines its pockets with abandon.
I never thought I would reach this conclusion, but MCXNow looks like a class act in the Alt market world.
|
|
|
|
|
