 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
Exactly the same argument PayPal had at the beginning. Online and B&M shops wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Guess what? They ended up embracing it. Now a lot of those shops wished they hadn't touched it. They're in search of an alternative. I wonder if anybody on this board can think of one.
And Visa. And Mastercard. And American Express. And Discovery Card. |
|
|
|
this is a very well thought out post with important questions,
because of this I feel it will never happen (serious inquiry) and most people will post garbage like "you have no right to know any of this"
well, he doesn't have any right to know any of that. and what difference can it possible make? perhaps if he could explain why he needs to know i would change my opinion that he's just fishing. |
|
|
|
Anyone care to explain here just how a government can attempt to outlaw bitcoin?
By outlawing the use of the concept rather than any particular implementation of it. The law and associated penalties would only need be harsh enough to destroy market confidence. It wouldn't take that much. |
|
|
|
I personally wouldn't trust a BitBill worth more than a few hundred USD from what I know about their current physical specifications.
For an enthusiast at my level, this is really an interesting idea. I want bitcoins but I'm not trying to trade on the exchanges with them. I don't want to go through the hassle and expense of setting up an account on an exchange. I don't want a million BTC, just 5 or 10; enough to have in case somebody actually sells a service I can use them with. A central supplier of BitBills will gain a reputation and using that, I can evaluate risk. My risk is limited to the time period between sending the cash and verifying the content of the bill. As soon as I have the coins, I can transfer them to a different wallet and they'd be out of the control of issuing authority. I'd be willing to pay a commission for that. |
|
|
|
the problem is the article is partially correct.
If we continue down this path of stealing, hacking and robbing each other regarding bitcoins, it WILL fail. I spent large amounts of money building flexcoin... I'm betting big that we'll be okay.... but in order for that to happen there cannot be another "150,000 coins stolen / robbed " every 10 minutes....
think about it.
1 - dude saw 25,000 coins vanish from his desktop
2 - Goxed
3 - polish exchange 17,000 coins
4 - mybitcoin 150,000 coins
---- this list goes on....
I understand hackers... but what's happening with most of those cases isn't hackers... it's criminals and thieves... that's not the same thing... not even close.
hacking always meant (at least when I grew up) to try to break something... just to see if you can.... and if it turns out to be a security flaw you told the developer before publishing it.
This? These are people that steal bitcoins and in essence destroying what they are stealing, hence they are idiots.
Picture this... a company builds a program that secures stock transactions on NASDAQ and is listed on the said exchange.... hackers target the company, and hack their software where they "steal a bunch of shares of it" ... then the criminals try to dump it as everyone else is because their "secure" software isn't so secure.
In a nutshell, each time they are stealing it it's destroying the very nature of what makes it appealing... hence destroying it's value.
It's my feeling that these people are not actually motivated by money... they have a goal.. and that includes destroying bitcoins. I feel your rage but disagree about the motivation for the theft. It's mostly about the $ they can make. Sure, they're dumping and causing the market to fall but it is a 'bird in the hand' issue. Their 'investment' is the time and expense of stealing the coins, not mining or selling or other legitimate earning. Plus, if Bitcoin (the market and the algorithm) can't withstand this sort of problem, then fail it should. After all, we're always going to have thieves and the system must be robust enough to withstand them. I like Bitcoin but I haven't bought any. I'm not motivated to otherwise earn any either. I simply don't have a warm fuzzy about their security...neither their future utility. |
|
|
|
What's a Mio Bitcoin?
that was supposed to be short for million. 7 million bitcoins are now in circulation (minus those spilled) |
|
|
|
Why is everyone freaking out? It is not like your money is lost, they have said countless time they are having issues with banks. As far as tradehill is concerned they still will send you a check last I saw. (I do not do Gox after reading about the "incident")
I haven't heard anything about the whole sending checks thing, only for Dwolla. But even if it's true, it costs around $80 to cash out an international check here in Sweden... I'm "freaking out" because I need this money. Now. no bank wants to get near this. i can't say as i blame them. bitcoin is 'shady' in the eyes of banks. it draws fraudsters and money launderers like a fly to honey. they just don't have a firm sense of their liabilities and risks; they don't know how to price their services. |
|
|
|
|
what would be really cool is if tom williams used bitcoinlaundry to laundry the money and they stole it.
|
|
|
|
Just wow. Looking at the bitcoin monitor and watching the massive cashout. I suspect Tom Williams (AKA John Doe, lol) is the majority of the sells  Maybe the previous poster who put it at $5 by next week got it right. |
|
|
|
You say you know it's not about YOU but then you talk exclusively about YOU. While it has some novelty value, like Pet Rocks, its real value is in its utility, current and potential. That's what they'll target. Kill its utility and you kill its value. What good are your BTC holdings if they trade at a penny per coin?
well if i buy 100000 of them, is would have the same value are $1000. and i could go buy drugs anonymously. and no im not only talking about ME, i do need some people to trade with, and im sure there will be some. thats why i said I and other people are using the currency . it does not matter how many there is using it. only that there are more then one. OK, but when that happens, it is no longer a threat. They 'win'. |
|
|
|
They could get the EU to pass similar laws, and EU would do it; they have anti-money-laundering interests too. true. but im still behind 5 proxys. and you can't really not stop innovation. They can target the BTC/$ interfaces (the exchanges). sure they can, but only the ones in the states. mtgox is in japan. They can devote very significant CPU time to screwing with the bitcoin validation process. no. fallacy. the governments could *maybe* perform double spending, they could not create new coins, or use mine coins, or destroy mine coins. or do anything that would screw with my coins. to perform double spending, they would also need to isolate the node the want to double spend with. In short, while they can't really kill the underlying bitcoin algorithm, they can certainly apply enough leverage to destroy it's perceived value; destroy the 'general' confidence in the system, thus making the trade value zilch...or close enough to zilch so its not a threat. they can not destroy my confidence in the system. i could still use it. This isn't about you. It isn't [wouldn't be] about YOUR confidence in the system. It doesn't matter how many proxies you're behind, and I honestly don't know what that has to do with anything. They're not targeting YOU. Their goal would be to destroy 'general' confidence in the system and destroy the trade value. i know its not about me.but if I and other people are using the currency, and giving it value. there is nothing they can do about it. i can trade anonymously on slikroad if i like, they can't trace me. You say you know it's not about YOU but then you talk exclusively about YOU. While it has some novelty value, like Pet Rocks, its real value is in its utility, current and potential. That's what they'll target. Kill its utility and you kill its value. What good are your BTC holdings if they trade at a penny per coin? |
|
|
|
They could get the EU to pass similar laws, and EU would do it; they have anti-money-laundering interests too. true. but im still behind 5 proxys. and you can't really not stop innovation. They can target the BTC/$ interfaces (the exchanges). sure they can, but only the ones in the states. mtgox is in japan. They can devote very significant CPU time to screwing with the bitcoin validation process. no. fallacy. the governments could *maybe* perform double spending, they could not create new coins, or use mine coins, or destroy mine coins. or do anything that would screw with my coins. to perform double spending, they would also need to isolate the node the want to double spend with. In short, while they can't really kill the underlying bitcoin algorithm, they can certainly apply enough leverage to destroy it's perceived value; destroy the 'general' confidence in the system, thus making the trade value zilch...or close enough to zilch so its not a threat. they can not destroy my confidence in the system. i could still use it. This isn't about you. It isn't [wouldn't be] about YOUR confidence in the system. It doesn't matter how many proxies you're behind, and I honestly don't know what that has to do with anything. They're not targeting YOU. Their goal would be to destroy 'general' confidence in the system and destroy the trade value. |
|
|
|
The article certainly illustrates why Satoshi chooses to remain anonymous. This quote from the article was interesting: When authorities monitored the criminals’ communications, they discovered that E-Gold was among the carders’ preferred money-transfer methods, because the system allowed users to open accounts and transfer funds anonymously anywhere in the world. This is why bitcoin will eventually be a target...assuming the user-volume rises above its current noise floor. and how would they hurt us? just asking... freeze all bitcoins? There are a myriad of ways an entity with the resources of a nation-state can hurt bitcoin, even destroy it for all practical purposes. Will they? I think they will if it gets on their radar as anything other than a momentary blip. To what extent will they go after it? To whatever extent is necessary to remove the threat they think it poses to them. From the article: When the Shadowcrew investigation wrapped in October 2004 with the shuttering of the site — and the arrest of more than a dozen members — the Justice Department turned its sights on E-Gold. Its goal was to force the service to comply with regulations governing money-transmitting services like Western Union and Travelex. Federal regulations required those businesses to register with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), to be licensed in states that required it, to diligently authenticate the identity of customers and to file suspicious activity reports on shady-looking customers. But E-Gold wasn’t doing this. This represents the nut of it. so they will just say: bitcoins are illegal. know what i would say: FUCK YOU. i live in europe, you can't touch me, im behind 5 proxys. the main diffrences between bitcoin and e-gold is that bitcoin is decentralized, and backed by nothing. They could do exactly that, and other things as well. They could get the EU to pass similar laws, and EU would do it; they have anti-money-laundering interests too. They can target the BTC/$ interfaces (the exchanges). They can devote very significant CPU time to screwing with the bitcoin validation process. These are just a few of the things they could do. I'm sure their are tons more. In short, while they can't really kill the underlying bitcoin algorithm, they can certainly apply enough leverage to destroy it's perceived value; destroy the 'general' confidence in the system, thus making the trade value zilch...or close enough to zilch so its not a threat. |
|
|
|
The article certainly illustrates why Satoshi chooses to remain anonymous. This quote from the article was interesting: When authorities monitored the criminals’ communications, they discovered that E-Gold was among the carders’ preferred money-transfer methods, because the system allowed users to open accounts and transfer funds anonymously anywhere in the world. This is why bitcoin will eventually be a target...assuming the user-volume rises above its current noise floor. and how would they hurt us? just asking... freeze all bitcoins? There are a myriad of ways an entity with the resources of a nation-state can hurt bitcoin, even destroy it for all practical purposes. Will they? I think they will if it gets on their radar as anything other than a momentary blip. To what extent will they go after it? To whatever extent is necessary to remove the threat they think it poses to them. From the article: When the Shadowcrew investigation wrapped in October 2004 with the shuttering of the site — and the arrest of more than a dozen members — the Justice Department turned its sights on E-Gold. Its goal was to force the service to comply with regulations governing money-transmitting services like Western Union and Travelex. Federal regulations required those businesses to register with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), to be licensed in states that required it, to diligently authenticate the identity of customers and to file suspicious activity reports on shady-looking customers. But E-Gold wasn’t doing this. This represents the nut of it. |
|
|
|
The article certainly illustrates why Satoshi chooses to remain anonymous. This quote from the article was interesting: When authorities monitored the criminals’ communications, they discovered that E-Gold was among the carders’ preferred money-transfer methods, because the system allowed users to open accounts and transfer funds anonymously anywhere in the world. This is why bitcoin will eventually be a target...assuming the user-volume rises above its current noise floor. |
|
|
|
In regard to ANONYMIZING PROXIESWe need to know who the person is that creates the account, who logs into the account, who transfers the funds, etc, in order to prevent fraud and identity theft. This is NOT a Major rule, and is simply in the TOS to protect against abuse of our system. Fraud prevention is one of our top priorities, and this is simply an additional security measure to prevent against fraudulent use of our system. If at any time a Paxum account is terminated for the ANONYMIZING PROXIES Terms of Service clause, please do note that ALL FUNDS will be delivered to the Paxum client in question should the account be closed. (by check, or wire). Paxum is NOT an anonymous payment service, and we do follow a strict KYC policy to protect against fraudulent use of our system. I hope this addresses your concerns.  |
|
|
|
Can someone please figure out what is going on with mybitcoin.com? Looks to me like it's a catastrophe.
How? Mailed 3 different email addresses, one (the abuse mail address) bounced. 2 (one of the company registered at that address and one old one that I used in the past to contact them) Haven't replied yet. We need to raise funds to send the most badass member of the Bitcoin community on a secret mission to Nevis to hunt down Tom Williams! Maybe you can send John Doe. |
|
|
|
(f) Use of an anonymizing proxy:
WTF... Anonymizing proxies are legal and legitimate. This one totally irked me as well. Was considering paxum, but after this one - no go, and probably will not consider it even if they change this thing. Wtf? i already have paypal to phuck me up, I don't need a second one I think this rule regards your use of an AP in the course of communications with them, not your use of an AP in general. It's part of the whole "know your customer" thing. IOW, you can hide from others all you like, but you can't hide from your banker. |
|
|
|
|
Hopefully this is the right forum for this question. If I could better form my query I would just search wiki for an answer but I'm not smart enough to know what questions to ask.
What I'd really like is an old-style flowchart of the the whole process. If such a thing exists, please link me! I can't read code so...there ya go.
So...I start my bitcoin client. It starts making connections.
Who is it communicating with? How does that communication work? Is it connecting to a central bitcoin ip address?
Help me phrase the question if my question doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
Guilt people into paying taxes? I suppose that's one way to look at it. You can declare your bitcoin earnings or not, as you see fit, but if you don't, and you get audited, be prepared to pay the consequences. Income tax evasion is a serious crime.
So, there must be such a thing as a tax prison? I suppose the crime would be "being born"?  On a more serious note, I would like to see any taxman try to find my bitcoins.  On an even more serious note, I don't think you would like to see that.  There is no aspect of the IRS audit process that any rational human would enjoy seeing. Not to worry though. Unless you are laundering serious green through bitcoin, you're probably not a big enough target to show up on their radar. |
|
|
|
|
