Did you ask Bo?
Bo Knows!
Woah. I think the last time I heard that the Internet wasn't even around yet. |
|
|
|
|
I could turn off signatures, but then I wouldn't know for sure which posters are posting junk because they are getting paid to do it and which ones were posting junk because they don't know any better.
|
|
|
|
|
I have 1081 names on my Ignore list, mostly because I started adding people with paid signatures to the list.
|
|
|
|
From a Regulator/Law Enforcement point of view, they just can't have people running around pumping dollars into these machines and creating potentially untraceable virtual currency that will then all be funneled to benefit "Transnational organized cyber-criminals." That's their cover story anyway. If they actually cared about terrorism and cybercrime they'd go after the worst offenders and freeze the bank accounts of the DoD and NSA respectively. The fact that they don't reveals their true motives as enforcers of a protection racket. They're just mafia goons in fancy clothes. |
|
|
|
|
Robocoin and the proprietor are extremely lucky the local 2600 group was nice enough to not exploit what they found within a few hours of that ATM opening.
|
|
|
|
But if he is making a case that he should be allowed to track all bitcoin transactions, wouldn't that mean he should be allowed to implant microchips and GPS positioning devices into our physical selves and into all banknotes?
You think he doesn't want to do that too? |
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't trust a Bitcoin ATM with your biometric data.
Besides the fact that gathering that information is completely outrageous, the security on those machines is shit.
|
|
|
|
From a technical standpoint it's difficult to disseminate private keys and/or keep them in the clients deposit address. For every trade on the exchange the coins would have to be transferred into or out of the accounts. This would require confirmations, making the money unavailable for quite a white in relation to the speeds market change. The transactions would incur fees or take longer to be confirmed. Traders already bitch and moan over how long deposits take.
The security issue is a big one too. The exchange needs to keep all of those wallet's private keys available to its automated processes. This means if the system was ever compromised an attacker could instantly transfer all coins out of the exchange. I believe the exchanges currently keep a certain float in an unlocked wallet, and the vast remainder in a cold storage wallet. That minimizes the risk and amount of coins an attacker could steal. This problem isn't as easy to solve as some people seem to think. Fortunately there are people working on comprehensive solution. |
|
|
|
Gox is inviting all the wild speculation and innuendo you can possibly imagine by taking forever to resolve a fairly straightforward technical issue, lying about the nature of that technical issue to begin with, and offering zero helpful communications whatsoever. That's just how they roll. |
|
|
|
I thought this thread would be about the recent revelation that bitcoin inputs can be completely destroyed by miners who choose not to accept fees. Spending inputs completely destroys them - that's now transactions in Bitcoin work. What you mean to say is that whoever mines a block does not need to claim the full reward they are allowed, but this isn't a particularly recent revelation. |
|
|
|
::Sigh:: Alright, so here is a project for you. Close BitcoinTalk and GitHub for 5 minutes. There is a world out there with people in it. I know, IRL. It's crazy. Careful, the sun is bright. All those people you see, that's our ideal market, you know, mass adoption. What you'll want to do is realize the demographics on Bitcoin (metrics) hold up my argument that 28 years old, college education, white males are 80%+ of the current Bitcoin demographic. When BTCFoundation tweets a chart of the women in crypto and they ALL easily fit on it because there are 40 of them, something is wrong. No one questioned the protocol. My new concern is how defensive you became because someone asked some questions you don't have answers for. Questions that requires you to get out of your office area and contemplate. It's posts like this that gives articles like that the support. Out of touch. Fight it, deny it, anything but take ownership and provide leadership. Opinions are like assholes... |
|
|
|
|
FYI: You're trolling/shilling would be more effective if it was less obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
If Bitcoin wasn't being attacked by the likes of Krugman and Greenspan then it wouldn't be worthwhile.
The way you know you're doing good in the world is when people like that are opposed.
|
|
|
|
What I still do not fully understand is whether capturing and manipulating the transaction ID of a transaction would result in neither the original nor the modification making it to confirmation due to the perception of a double-spend attack, or would one win out and in all cases the desired transaction is accomplished.
The former constitutes a potentially severe DOS attack. The latter would not be that big a deal (in my own use-case and as far as I currently understand.)
Or is it the case currently that the end result of an intercept+modify_hash+redistribute attack would be somewhat left to chance due to differences in the protocol implementation and such-like. Before there were griefers on the network mutating transactions it was safe to spend your own unconfirmed change, because you could reasonably assume that you weren't going to invalidate your own transaction. Now it's no longer safe. because you don't know what version of your transaction is going to make it into the blockchain, therefore any transactions you make that reference unconfirmed change will fail. This is bad news for wallets that do not manage their outputs well. I'm interested in seeing how these single-key wallets like blockchain.info are affected. Any wallet that tries to keep its entire balance in a single utxo is going to only be usable for spends once per block. |
|
|
|
|
There's no such thing as "perfectly written" when the article is completely out of touch with reality, unless you're evaluating it as a work of fiction.
You can't just make shit up and expect to be taken seriously when we've got objectively measurable standards to compare to.
You say Bitcoin has existential flaws that are hindering its adoption?
Prove it.
There are lots of things we can objectively measure in the Bitcoin network - number of wallet client downloads, blockchain.info wallet users, transactions on the network, etc.
Oh, so all those metrics are still increasing exponentially, consistent with an adoption curve that apparently doesn't give a shit about your pet concern? No wonder all you've got is rhetoric instead of evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
BitPay also dropped Central Texas Gun Works on a few days ago.
That's a business that is fully legal at both the state and federal level so there's no gray area involved. It does show you how "regulatory soft power" works though. Something doesn't need to be illegal for it to generate regulatory problems for a business (or their bank).
|
|
|
|
What... ! Sending a youtube link to a Chinese is trouble some enough (our government bans it), and after some struggle I finally get the video, and it is someone saying "Office Space - What Would You Say .. You Do Here" -- you could have said that. Oh I envy the rest of the world who can use a video to save the typing...  Sorry about that. For the English-speaking crowd, especially the demographics who tend to post at this site, quoting that film is a particularly efficient means of communication. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
