I've been a sleep a while it must seem....but where does blockchain.info get tags from? The tx's themselves or ?
The address tags are created by signing a message with the private key of the address that you want to tag. The public notes attached to TXs are from the TX themselves. |
|
|
|
Horseshit.
For private transactions there is no need to follow any rule but the one that says "Show me the money!"
The federal government has the authority to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce as per the constitution. Assisting others with laundering money will affect interstate commerce. I take it that you do not understand the difference between commercial transactions and private transactions. In terms of the government's ability to regulate there are no differences. Private citizens need to follow federal law even when going about their normal lives. Are you a government plant? I need to do AML/KYC on a private deal like I need a hole in the head. Oh!; You bought my '63 Ramber? Need all you personal information! Yeah, right. If I would buy your car from you in a private transaction you would need to know who to sign the title over to. If you were not to sign the title to my name then I would be at risk that you later report the car stolen. |
|
|
|
I noticed that there were a lot of bids and participants in the auction. You can infer that everyone who bid did not win the auction. As a result it would be possible that some of the losing bidders would simply try to buy on the open market.
Ya I think we have yet to see what happens, but I think we'll all notice it when the ball drops. It will likely not be a knee jerk type reaction, but rather a gradual move upward as the loosing bidder try to buy some of the bitcoin they tried to buy via the auction |
|
|
|
Does anyone know how well their escrow system works?
I've always been afraid of not being able to see disagreements in public and how they play out, which is the reason I still sell bitcoin undervalued... Has anyone ever been through a dispute with them?
I think its safer to use a person for escrow instead of these random escrow sites. At least this way you can contact them directly to figure out the problem.
I am on same boat as you, I can't get myself to trust them for some reason, I have read here and there about people who have had not so good experience trading there which is why so far I haven't done a single trade there. There are a lot of scams on localbitcoins however face to face meetups via local bitcoins is generally safer from scammers |
|
|
|
1 -If the key to decrypt the file is held on your computer then in the event that your computer crashes (all data lost) then you would lose your file.
2 -If all you need is a password to decrypt the file (similar to a brain wallet) then all an attacker would need would be the password instead of the private key. The attacker could simply brute force the password instead of brute forcing the private key to decrypt the file.
True and true. And so the password I use to encrypt is a very long password (20+ characters, with special characters) that only I know and I am pretty sure I won't forget it ever (as it has some special meaning to me but just random characters to others). If your passwords were valuable enough then an attacker could invent/buy a ASIC type device that is designed for brute forcing passwords with your type of encryption You could use truecrypt and employ AES-Twofish-Serpent then. Of course it is still possible to crack all the three algorithms or simply brute-force your long password, but it is highly unlikely IMO. I would say the trick would be to try to hide the type of encryption is being used. |
|
|
|
If you count commuting time/costs, income taxes, and lost welfare benefits then a well paying job could potentially only pay someone ~$2 per hour in additional income above what they got before leaving the various welfare rolls.
Cost of living in developed countries is just too high... And that is probably unsolvable issue on short term, until global labour prices stabilise... The issue is not the cost of living, the issue is that there are not enough incentives to find a job and work for your money. There are too many incentives to work off of other's money |
|
|
|
Paypal ripped me off for over $3,000 and stop a honest money flow that I built up from $10 a day to $1,000 a day within a week. They locked my account and asked for me to explain. I sent them the biggest email I ever sent and explained from the day I got my first computer up to how I was making that money. They sent me an automated reply just saying my account is closed for good and they held $1,900 of mine for over 6 months (then they did pay me) But In all the payments I got that week I never had a chargeback, refund request or any problems from the buyers and when my account got locked, I had hundreds of emails of people saying "I am trying to buy but your paypal is locked...are you a scammer?" Oh that made me so damn mad (at paypal) that I sent them a very bad email and they sent the cops to my house...to make sure I was not on my way to HQ like I said I was. That was years ago and I have moved on from that but that was a million dollar Idea that only crashed because paypal did not want to work with me...while at the same time they let facebook sell poker chips (in the hold poker game) for paypal or any game credits for paypal and thats against the paypal rules too! FUCK PAYPAL! The sad thing is this isn't even an isolated incident. This kind of crap happens constantly. Paypal does not like people using it to sell digital products. AFAIK it is against their TOS to sell digital products via paypal. |
|
|
|
The jackpot is just there as an incentive. If there was any chance that people would win it it would cost the owner too much to be profitable.
AFAIK, the number is generated with Sha512 and is provably fair. And the chance does exist, though it is very very small at 0.005%.  The number may be provably fair but the chances of winning the jackpot are still very slim and essentially zero We can say its more then under zero because no one have this from the start of this faucet No, there is a chance of winning the jackpot. It is the same chance of having any other specific number hit. The chances are one in 10,000 to win the jackpot, you are allowed to play once per hour. So you will win the jackpot, on average once every 416 days if you played every hour and did not sleep. |
|
|
|
Did the economist warn about bank run happening around the world?
It depends on your country. I suspect the reason why it happened in Bulgaria was due to its' infant banking laws. They've only been capitalist for 25 or so years. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bulgarian Banks had no banking holidays or withdrawal rules. We remembered what happened when people tried to cause a bank run at the Bank of America during Occupy Wall Street - only took them hours to respond by shutting down banks, blaming 'technical errors', or limiting people to $200 withdrawals and no one revolted or rioted over it. Bank runs simply don't happen anymore in the west as they've gone to all the lengths to put in limits and the law is on their side (courts rule it's constitutional to have limits since you're not forced to use the banks, they provide that service of keeping your money safe and you sign away your rights in all that paperwork). 2008 is a classical example of bank run. They will keep reoccurring because of low reserve requirement and fractional nature of the banking system. True bank runs are essentially non-existent in the US due to the FDIC. What we saw in 2008 was asset/liability time mismatch. Banks borrowed money with loans that had shorter time-frames then the assets they purchased with those borrowed funds |
|
|
|
Apparently you can't anonymize yourself on the Bitcointalk forum without having to pay. I fired up my TOR browser to get this message. Extortion for privacy... amazing business model. Privacy measured in units of evil..
-----
Remove Proxyban
Your IP address has previously been used for evil on this forum, or it is a known proxy/VPN/Tor exit node, so you are required to pay a small fee before you are able to post messages or send PMs. You can still use all of the read-only features without paying.
Your account contains 48.46 units of evil. To atone, you must pay a total of 0.00194935 bitcoins (1.94935 mBTC; 194935 satoshi). Pay to the address 1NPn2BcxKeg7d4sxAbSxNxutALhBddxgyp. Once you have paid the full amount, wait a few seconds and then reload this page.
Alternatively, any forum staff member and some other notable members can manually whitelist you. Paying the fee is probably easier/quicker, though.
If you don't have any bitcoins, you can get small amounts of free bitcoins using the sites listed here. It is recommended that you give the free bitcoin sites the address listed above. Do not collect money in your own wallet and then send the bitcoins to the forum -- this will likely result in significant network fees.
The amount of bitcoin they are asking for is very little. .002 BTC is worth roughly $1.28 with bitcoin @ $640. This is a very small price to pay to use these forums on tor. IMO the reason for this is that a lot of people try to use these forums via tor to try to scam others. You would only have one chance of trying to scam before someone could accuse you of being a scammer and your account would be worthless (to a scammer). As a result people would create a lot of accounts, hoping to be successful on at least one scam. Forcing people to pay something prior to even attempting to scam discourages people to scam this way. If you feel that it's not that big of a deal feel free to send $1.28 to that address. Sorry but these forums are free nobody should have to pay unless you are advertising. New accounts have to make a certain amount of posts before they can actually post outside of the newbie areas.. so that argument of yours in null/void. If you're stupid enough to get scammed by a noob then you deserve to be homeless. Also, relating TOR to scamming is the same as relating curtains in your house with being a terrorist - just because your neighbor can't look into your house you must be a terrorist. The main issue is that this forum is created in the spirit of Bitcoin (pseudo-anonymity). If you really want to be anonymous you have to pay for it. This is the same attitude of the Bitcoin core developers. "Privacy is evil" -Bitcointalk.org What would stop someone from creating a bunch of newbie accounts, posting for several months on them to increase post count and forum ranking? These accounts would no longer be "noob" accounts. If it were to come down to it, the admins could give one's IP address to law enforcement if there was evidence that a particular account had clearly scammed other users. If the users used TOR then this would not be possible (the IP address provided would simply be that of TOR exit nodes). What is discussed on these forums is not illegal nor is the subject matter very controversial. So there is little legit reason to need your ISP and others who can watch your IP address to not know you are using these forums. |
|
|
|
I love the part where they say they're under no legal obligation.
They should be refunding the people who want a refund since they haven't shipped. FTC has laws that clearly spell this out, but in BFL's world laws are made to be broken.
Why would anybody want 600GH/s from them now for $4500. You can buy 3 S1s for $500 that do the same thing.
There have been several articles/reports that BFL would use their customer's miners to mine at their pool for their own account. It is almost like they were secretly charging their customers higher prices in the form of delayed shipments. That's last year's news (which sadly is repeated this year). I think the issue smoothie brought up is why cloud mine 600GH/s for a customer when they could ship the device. The reason being that they don't have a device doing 600, or if they do it's not a Monarch (might even be a KNC Jup they bought second hand). They could have some Neptunes and have a program to split the hashes between different accounts, allocating 600GH/s worth of WU to each account - which is most likely what is happening. They probably did this to commit the customer to the purchase rather than acknowledging that they should refund the pre-order. I don't think it is the fact that they don't have a 600 GHs device, it is that the device is not as efficient in terms of electric usage as what they advertised. The delays have essentially made it so the machines might have ROI to they will def not every come anywhere near to ROI Trust me, their efficiency is not the issue this time (that was the 2013 failed promise). The issue currently is their boards are pulling too much power and burning out. Apparently their engineers at the zoo are busy throwing poo. BFL advertised a 600GH/s device. Unlike their last go around they can't just give you smaller units like they did with the minirig. Most people only have 1 PCIe slot per machine that could handle that much heat. So they are forced to try to cram 600GH/s onto a PCIe card. It is doable if done by professional. But BFL would have to find some professionals since they can't even handle their own PR mascot correctly. They would have to give customers a lot more then two units in order for them to potentially ROI. Miners could potentially house the cards in a milkcrate fashion similar to how GPU rigs were setup |
|
|
|
the fed has done a pretty good job of minimizing inflation with interest rates over the past several decades.
Do you really believe the graph and what you just said? I would argue that 4% inflation (the ~rate after the 70's) is a good target to try for in reference to inflation. During the 70's and the oil crisis the Fed did a very poor job handling inflation. |
|
|
|
The Obama administration has essentially decided that no one is going to be criminally prosecuted over this scandal. |
|
|
|
Now Angela Merkel will learn what PRISM is.
I tend to think she already knew of the existence of PRISM its all just pretending just like she pretended how furious she was when she learned that the NSA is tapping her phone. And we all know that her government is in bed with the usa gov http://rt.com/news/us-drones-germany-ramstein-625/Germany is very big about being against surveillance. Hitler "watched" germany's citizens very closely prior to him taking away the rights of Jews and was able to do so because he was already watching everyone. |
|
|
|
Let me ask you another question: would you feel that it would be okay to get an abortion if the baby may, or may not survive for long once born and regardless of survival would suffer greatly? One possible scenario would be that a drug addict of some kind is trying to get sober, gets pregnant, but doesn't think she can stay sober for her entire pregnancy. If she cannot stay sober it would cause the fetus great pain and suffering in the event it survives and would damage the baby's organs greatly.
That is no longer a question of abortion but rather a question of euthanasia. I'm not against euthanasia in cases where consent is given of sound mind in cases where death is highly likely (in this case by parental consent.) Nobody should have to suffer the torture of waiting for certain death, writhing in agonizing pain, slowly suffering; it's also a major financial burden on the healthy family members left behind. If a sane and competent mind can look at a scenario and conclude that they would never wish themselves or loved ones to suffer to the extent of such a scenario then it is no longer a question about the morality of abortion, rather the morality of euthanasia. Wouldn't an abortion and euthanasia be one and the same from a medical viewpoint in this case? Another scenario would be that the mother is not sure she can provide a safe "home" for the fetus during her pregnancy. If she is the subject of abuse and/or was (and could potentially be again) the subject of physical abuse then when the abuser hits her the fetus could be hurt and have similar issues as above. She is forced to stay with the abuser because of some kind of dependency on him (either for shelter, money or similar - and no other resources are available including a women's shelter), or she has a restraining order against him but is not 100% sure that he will actually stay away.
The mother can leave the child at the Hospital without any legal recourse. The child will be taken care of and orphaned. There are already several legal precedents in cases where an assailant is charged with the murder of an unborn child...[/quote]A mother can also leave the child at a fire station with the same legal protection. I remember learning this as a very young child (probably in elementary school, maybe in ~3rd grade) in a school setting but was really never told this fact again. The fact that I remember learning is that it can be left at a fire station with no questions asked and they would see that the baby is taken care of. I don't remember specifically learning about leaving a baby at a hospital, but I do not doubt the truth to that statement and it makes sense to me. I think our education system should stress this option more. The above point is not so much a safe place to live, but rather that her body may not be a safe place for a fetus as she is the subject to abuse. It is about prior to her giving birth. |
|
|
|
Horseshit.
For private transactions there is no need to follow any rule but the one that says "Show me the money!"
The federal government has the authority to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce as per the constitution. Assisting others with laundering money will affect interstate commerce. I take it that you do not understand the difference between commercial transactions and private transactions. In terms of the government's ability to regulate there are no differences. Private citizens need to follow federal law even when going about their normal lives. |
|
|
|
I had talked about this before and every seller should be able to pay an additional fee of 1% to prevent all unauthorized transactions. This will solve 99% of all chargebacks. PayPal then calls up the buyer and verifies the buyer made the transaction. Seller has absolutely no responsibility for unauthorized transactions. Seller still has to deal with "not sending disputes" and "description not matches."
But the majority of scams are the unauthorized.
I would say that unauthorized scams are that way because it is simply the easiest. It requires the least amount of proof and the least amount of work. If this kind of feature were to be implemented then we would likely see other types of dispute scams. I would also argue that paypal would likely charge more then 1% for this kind of feature. They would need to keep an audit-able log of each time they talk to someone. I would say that it would take, at minimum 5 mines for the agent to verify that they are in fact speaking to the customer and verify that the customer authorizes the transaction. I think that most paypal transactions are relatively small (<$100) so I don't think that paypal would want to be making this little on something that cannot be done with automation. Another issue is that I believe that the FCRA (fair credit reporting act) allows people to dispute credit transactions after the fact. If a customer was to successfully dispute a transaction that could not be reversed to the seller then paypal would have to take the loss. You're right. It would definitely be more than 1%. I'd think of it more like Unauthorized Protection - But like you said other disputes require more work and don't have as high chance of winning. I'd say the system would be better overall. Whole process can be automated pretty easily. 1. Email verification can be automated. Lots of scammers don't have access to PayPal email. 2. Phone verification. Text to phone. Done. 3. Security questions. The ones you need to pass when signing up for Coinbase. If they fail, seller can make decision whether to proceed. Coinbase already does all these and I never spoke to Coinbase once on the phone. TADA! All automated and much safer. After "authorization" is established it's actually pretty easy if they have eBay username. You can just go by feedback. Regarding the whole unauthorized transaction situation, I think it's ridiculous the seller should ever be liable for unauthorized transactions because PayPal has all the information to do this verification not the seller. (Including IP addresses.) 1 and 2 - This would not stop people from saying that their account was hacked and an attacker was able to access the email and 2FA device. 1 - If someone were to hack into someone's paypal email then they could perform a password reset on the paypal account (AFAIK), making this option moot. 2 - This would work, but how would paypal verify your identity when you change phone numbers, or if your phone were to be shutoff because of non-payment? You could potentially be shut out from your money because of this. Another issue is that this would need to be opted in by the buyer, so if the buyer does not opt in then the seller would not benefit from the feature. AFAIK paypal does not offer a way to only do business with accounts with certain security features (they would likely not do this either due to, among other things, security concerns). 2 and 3 - Paypal would have the issue of fake paypal sites that could pretend to be paypal, get your login credentials, then ask for your 2fa and/or security questions then forward you to the actual paypal site. This is what the fake blockchain.info sites do when they try to trick users into putting their identifier and password into the fake site, they actually open their wallet but the coins are transferred out shortly thereafter. 3 - You have the same issue of the buyer needing to opt in but is protecting the seller as above. Having these questions would also not resolve the issue of the fact that paypal would likely not force users to answer these security questions prior to every transaction, it would likely be only once to verify one's identity. 1, 2, and 3 - The current system generally works for paypal as the majority of paypal transactions go through without any issue. It is only with bitcoin related transactions that paypal is not good for (not "only" but it is one of the larger struggles). With a shipped good, it is easy to document that the item was actually shipped to the customer's house, and if so then even if the transaction was unauthorized, paypal could have the customer ship the goods back to the merchant to be reimbursed. It is much more difficult to prove that the customer received any kind of digital goods, and the fact that bitcoin cannot be reversed makes it even more complicated (in theory a digital license could be revoked in the event of a chargeback). 2. Back when I was doing business on PayPal with intangible goods, I'd require all buyers to send a phone number to contact them. Scammers are usually shy to accept phone calls. I'd then match the phone number area code to make sure the address state was the same. If not, I'd start asking questions. Tricks like asking to speak to "Mr. Shoobitz" to make sure a kid's dad was aware their kid was making "authorized" purchases on PayPal. With people having cell phones more and using landlines less, it is becoming more common for people to have a telephone number whose area code does not match the "local area code" to which they live. I do agree with you that many scammers do not want to speak on the phone. I think they are afraid of being recorded making some kind of promise they do not intend on keeping. Although these are not bad idea, I would doubt that paypal would implement any of them as they would likely somewhat irritate and inconvenience their buyers, who are really their more powerful customers. Prior to bitcoin, merchants/sellers had little alternative to selling with paypal as paypal was really the option for instant internet purchases. Buyers on the other hand buyers can easily use credit cards to make online purchases, while it would be very difficult for many paypal merchants have too little sales for using a merchant services credit card processor to make sense. |
|
|
|
Kim farted, I mean, launched 2 projectiles into the sea off the Korean peninsula. (CNN) -- North Korea fired two projectiles Sunday that "appear to be short-range missiles" into the sea off the eastern coast of the Korean peninsula, a South Korean defense ministry official told CNN.
The launch took place shortly before 5 a.m. (4 p.m. ET Saturday), according to the official. The projectile's estimated range is 500 km (310 miles).
This is the second reported launch by North Korea in recent days.
On Thursday, U.S. and South Korean government officials reported North Korea had launched three projectiles from its southeastern coast. http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/28/world/asia/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html?hpt=hp_t2I wonder what he's crying over this time. He seems to be much more immature then his father was. I sometimes wonder how it is that he stays in power and why his people do not overthrow his government with how he treats his people and how outrageous he acts. The propaganda is so structured and the nation so isolated. The population does not know how good life can be outside the walls of its country. I remember reading about one North Korean that escaped from a labor camp. He decided to make a run for it when he saw a crate for food that had an expiration date on it. The fact that food was plentiful enough to spoil in other parts of the world was enough to convince him to make an attempt to escape. Scary to think how brainwashed an entire nation can be. it is very interesting that they are able to keep the country so isolated. |
|
|
|
If everyone in the scheme knows the risks it is caveat emptor. For me personally it is neither ethical or intelligent to take part but to each his own. It really is just another form of gambling.
I also take this viewpoint, if everyone participating fully well know the nature of it being ponzi it's just gambling. How ever if someone have more info on it, or some don't fully understand the it being ponzi; it becomes un-ethical. Insider info or scamming isn't ethical. If everyone knows that it is a ponzi scheme wouldn't it be fair to say that it is no longer a ponzi but is a game of musical chairs. |
|
|
|
1 -If the key to decrypt the file is held on your computer then in the event that your computer crashes (all data lost) then you would lose your file.
2 -If all you need is a password to decrypt the file (similar to a brain wallet) then all an attacker would need would be the password instead of the private key. The attacker could simply brute force the password instead of brute forcing the private key to decrypt the file.
True and true. And so the password I use to encrypt is a very long password (20+ characters, with special characters) that only I know and I am pretty sure I won't forget it ever (as it has some special meaning to me but just random characters to others). If your passwords were valuable enough then an attacker could invent/buy a ASIC type device that is designed for brute forcing passwords with your type of encryption |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
