Are you planing to repeat the experiment any soon?
that question is easily answerable. nefario moved and now works for intersango exchange in london. he also developed and operates glbse stock exchange. thanx  |
|
|
|
If I'd stolen coins and was worried about exchanges not accepting them, I send bitdust to as many addresses as I could an exchange refusing them would have trouble keeping the rule implemented without pissing off innocent civilians.
Oh, at first sight I was tempted to take this approach for a cure of my worries about bitcoin's anonymity. Imagine exchanges would not refuse tainted coins right out but "untaint" them by sending the tainted fraction to a well known unspendable address (aka destroy the stolen coins). A future recipient would well notice the tainted coins but also the untainting and accept the input for full bitcoins again. Imagine gox doing this. Who would want tainted coins? All others would follow and refuse to take tainted coins aka untaint them and demand compensation for the tainted fraction of the payment. I could imagine such a system for the good of bitcoin as the scheme "move your coins -> claim to got hacked -> profit" would get eliminated and bitcoin would be ultimately more secure but I have a problem to decide who should judge which coins are tainted and which not. Imagine somebody selling bitcoin and only getting 70% of the promised [dirty something]. He could claim he got hacked to piss off his business partner who would not go to a court for [dirty something]. In a case as yesterday, I see no problem to count bitcoins as stolen and therefore nonexistent/invalid. But what if the raid is discovered only 3 months later and many people already accepted them? What if gox is forced into blacklisting coins from Iran? Etc ... I love these thought experiments but I would prefer it were easier to say once and for all coins will never be tainted. Else mining would be the only way to get clean coins for sure. Mining where I get the created coins ... from blocks without fees  Well if implemented, it would be to easy to bork the system. By the nature of the system, they are forever marked but with time become but a residue. Just like 90% of Dollars have drug residue on them. You are all suspects now if you have a dollar. What makes the idea of tainting even worse, is the ability to 'frame' others for something. i.e. 18,000 coins were supposedly stolen, the 'thief' could send 2,000 of them to a reputable person's address. The recipient will claim innocence but who is going to believe that the 'thief' just gave the coins to him? We're talking 10K about now. So, while they are not anonymous technically, they are anonymous as far as proving anything. And if there are more than 1 'thief' if one gets caught the other can move the coins taking suspicion away from the one that was caught. All the 'what ifs' put it back into the anonymous realm, unlike getting caught with DB Cooper's loot. Let me guess: You did not read my post? If your account A with 98 BTC receives 2 blacklisted/stolen BTC then A contains 100 BTC. When you now send 50 BTC from A to G at MtGox, they could send 1 BTC to /dev/null and add 49 BTC to your balance. Now if they cash out 10 BTC from G to some other user, this user's client with the same blacklist could see the stolen coins but also the cleaning and accept the 10BTC for 10BTC. Alternatively getting paid 2 BTC that are blacklisted could directly be forwarded to /dev/null and rerequest just like MtGox would do to you. If the biggest player does so, all others will do so, too. |
|
|
|
If I'd stolen coins and was worried about exchanges not accepting them, I send bitdust to as many addresses as I could an exchange refusing them would have trouble keeping the rule implemented without pissing off innocent civilians.
Oh, at first sight I was tempted to take this approach for a cure of my worries about bitcoin's anonymity. Imagine exchanges would not refuse tainted coins right out but "untaint" them by sending the tainted fraction to a well known unspendable address (aka destroy the stolen coins). A future recipient would well notice the tainted coins but also the untainting and accept the input for full bitcoins again. Imagine gox doing this. Who would want tainted coins? All others would follow and refuse to take tainted coins aka untaint them and demand compensation for the tainted fraction of the payment. I could imagine such a system for the good of bitcoin as the scheme "move your coins -> claim to got hacked -> profit" would get eliminated and bitcoin would be ultimately more secure but I have a problem to decide who should judge which coins are tainted and which not. Imagine somebody selling bitcoin and only getting 70% of the promised [dirty something]. He could claim he got hacked to piss off his business partner who would not go to a court for [dirty something]. In a case as yesterday, I see no problem to count bitcoins as stolen and therefore nonexistent/invalid. But what if the raid is discovered only 3 months later and many people already accepted them? What if gox is forced into blacklisting coins from Iran? Etc ... I love these thought experiments but I would prefer it were easier to say once and for all coins will never be tainted. Else mining would be the only way to get clean coins for sure. Mining where I get the created coins ... from blocks without fees |
|
|
|
subscribing. (I would prefer to list the articles in the wiki and link to the discussion there. Watching a wiki article is as easy as watching this thread. Press could contain all articles and they could be moved to "Press Archive" after a while. Grouping re-runs of identical articles could be managed easier, too. Guess we don't need a new thread for every re-run of the FBI-thing or others.) |
|
|
|
|
oh come on please delete this bullshit!
|
|
|
|
|
So 4 months later how many of them still talk of bitcoin? You mentioned the kung-fu video twice. Can you provide a link?
Did the teams get their coins and sell them at 30?
Are you planing to repeat the experiment any soon?
How was your colleagues' reaction?
|
|
|
|
I was just putting "slow and steady" in a context. Also if this meet-up was on so short notice I doubt that the coverage or the people themselves caused the spike with many people involved. Finally I don't want to spoil the party. Bitcoin will rock China, no doubt |
|
|
|
How many threads on the rising transaction count do we have to make?
I think there have been two or three addressing the recent spike. Seems reasonable to me. You're welcome to not make another one if they are bothering you. As a passionate troll I felt tempted to follow that invitation I'm surprised to see people cheer for joy rather than to debate if SatoshiDice is a problem for Bitcoin. For me it seems unfair that the block size limits and resulting fees only compensate the miners that mine exactly those blocks while all miners ever after will have to deal with that pay load. What do you mean by all miners ever after will have to deal with that pay load? Thanks for the question. Thinking of it, big block chain is less of a miner's issue than a full client's issue. Considering that any kB of dust transactions not only needs to get verified by <5k miners (once per pool + solo miners) but also saved to millions of full clients (if we don't have millions now, all the data accumulating now will be downloaded at some point by all future clients) it is more an issue for those full clients especially in cases where bandwidth is an issue like full clients on the mobile phone. |
|
|
|
How many threads on the rising transaction count do we have to make?
I think there have been two or three addressing the recent spike. Seems reasonable to me. You're welcome to not make another one if they are bothering you. As a passionate troll I felt tempted to follow that invitation I'm surprised to see people cheer for joy rather than to debate if SatoshiDice is a problem for Bitcoin. For me it seems unfair that the block size limits and resulting fees only compensate the miners that mine exactly those blocks while all miners ever after will have to deal with that pay load. |
|
|
|
|
I was once thinking of a website that publicly stores encrypted messages for any bitcoin address but some smart guy explained to me that the public key of a receiving address is not known until it is used as an input and therefore using it would only work for some addresses or to be more precise, not with addresses as the users knows them at all.
My use case would be to send secret anonymous messages to anonymous recipients and I would totally love to see this come true but it seams not to be straight forward.
Spam comes to mind but the origin of this idea was exactly to prevent spam by publicly announcing to accept only messages that contain at least x BTC in form of a private key. My client could then sweep all received bitcoins and only show me those messages that meet the threshold and where sweeping worked.
Any thoughts if that would be possible after all?
|
|
|
|
I could also stream a non-porn movie if you prefer I guess for the sake of testing scalability and getting feedback it would not be a bad idea to drop the NSFW nature. Care to submit a design? I don't like the design of MFC to much neither as on 16:9 half the screen is chat, some part the links to the other channels, quite some part task bar and browser menus and not even half the screen actual video. I like their snapshots on the other channels and some other features Disclaimer: I was thinking about doing something like this in bitcoin when I first saw MFC and find the idea totally mind blowing not only for porn and not only for video. Why not tip a live audio streaming from some event. The channel list should be a drop down hovering over the video. When I open it (click to open, click to close) it should list snapshots of all channels + name + visitor count. To get the user right into the experience, the landing page could be a welcome video streamed in a loop with some girl pointing out of her video to the elements of the site. "click here to ...". (Gah, I can't find this cool promo video they had on youtube once where some action hero is being shot at by evil guys in the other (fake) preview videos on youtube and shoots back with the youtube layout in ashes in the end you know what i mean.) My nick and preference to watch or stream should be saved in a cookie! it's annoying to have to provide them each time. Hmm ... for the rest I see now your ambitions are not short term profit. Fair enough. Hope you can keep making it better as long as it takes to get a solid user base. |
|
|
|
Sorry for the pessimism but as much as I would love to see you succeed, this is not gonna happen. Maybe with - regulation of broadcasters
- much better streaming/video quality most likely via fallback to use a server as a repeater.
- many interface improvements like preview of other cams, chat history, bookmarks, ...
- at least one interesting channel at any time. I assume your test broadcast is streaming content that will not get you in trouble. Maybe you should rather get some girl from myfreecams or any other such site to also stream to your system for x USD/h. I heard of somebody who knows somebody who has seen girls stream to different sites there already. I guess what gets people to pay for is not naked girls but getting connected to these girls and therefore canned content will not work. Guess it wouldn't even need to be porn.
- alternative ways of payment at least for now (which would again require logins).
out of curiosity: - How long do you log IP addresses?
- Do you store streams/snapshots?
|
|
|
|
If I used an address for many purposes and suddenly fear my wallet might have gotten into the wrong hands I can never be sure if my contacts might still reuse those tipping addresses for example that i gave them or that i embedded in pictures. I guess people would want to run a watch dog to sweep charges to that address without publicly announcing they lost their wallet. Other use-case: I found a lost wallet. Of course I would want to likewise run a watch dog on that one. I just imagine some key of some miner leaking and 60,000 users importing it hoping to be the lucky sweeper of the next automatic mining pay out .... hmmm ... most likely the winner could only be some pool that has such a watch dog on their own. |
|
|
|
That's exactly what "sweeping" is for, in Armory. Copy the key into Armory, select "sweep" and it will search the blockchain for the balance and transfer it to the selected wallet. The private key is not saved (because if you are sweeping, it is assumed you don't trust it and shouldn't put it in your wallet).
Why would you ever want to delete a private key? If ever accidentally anybody reuses that key, it should repeat the sweeping if anything. Showing it in my address book is another thing. |
|
|
|
Bitvps.com is now back up and running smooth as butter.
... frozen butter. |
|
|
|
You know bitmit? Both bought and sold there months ago and liked it despite some minor issues I assume to be fixed by now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
