Rant: Since the US government is discouraging cash and other non-bank transactions and forcing people to use banks to make transactions more traceable, then banks should be treated more like utility companies and laws should be changed to disallow banks from closing a person's account without reason.
I'm not sure about the US, but in the UK at least I think we're (slowly) moving in that direction i.e. banking services as a basic right, not to be withheld without good reason. We have a financial ombudsman service that can help and the courts are always an option. The US is moving in the opposite direction. An increasing percentage of the population is "unbanked" meaning they do not have a basic bank account and rely on things like check cashing services and money orders to get paid and pay bills. History's long arc tells a different story. Once upon a time, payrolls were done in cash. Make no mistake, despite the increasing number of unbanked, the US is very anti cash at the policy level. That this increases costs for the unbanked also increases the need for things like bitcoin. What policies would you say that are encouraging people to use cash less? I would say that the low costs associated with paying employees directly into their bank account is causing less people to be paid in cash but this is not a policy, it is companies using lower cost services. I agree that the unbanked do incur a lot of costs in paying their bill and getting paid. This does increase the need for more widespread acceptance of bitcoin as bitcoin payments are a lot cheaper then these kinds of services charge. |
|
|
|
I know a lot of people will disagree with me but I kinda like having my Bitcoin in an online wallet. It means I can access them anywhere in the world without having to carry anything with me and without incurring fees from CC companies. I've been using Coinbase for a while now and I personally think they're as safe as it gets when it comes to online wallet services. Also they now have the 'Vault' accessible to everyone and it allows you to store big amounts of BTC offline.
I think as long as you use coinbase's vault service it would be somewhat safe to keep your bitcoin there. I would personally prefer blockchain.info above coinbase, but this is personal preference. I would say that if you are going to keep a large amount at coinbase that you will not need in the near future there is no reason not to use their vault services. Absolutely not advised. Who wants "somewhat" safe? The only methods you should be using for your savings are multiple offline generated paper wallets (with bip38 encryption recommended) and copies on usb stored in multiple safe locations. Other options include Armory wallet generated offline or hardware wallet like Trezor (use a password and store seeds in multiple safe locations). I use all 3 methods. I would say the chances are likely higher that you would either lose access to your bitcoin or have your bitcoin stolen verses potentially loosing bitcoin from having it stored at coinbase vault. I think the chances of each are very low, but coinbase is likely more secure. HIGHLY disagreed. This is maybe true only for someone who isn't quite sure what they are doing when it comes to paper wallets/cold storage and encryption. Perhaps you need a little education and practice to feel comfortable and secure? Also, still a chance coinbase can be hacked. (they don't insure all your coins), their site can go down, it takes 48 hours to withdraw, who knows what else could possibly happen in the future leaving your coins with a 3rd party. I would not feel at all safe and neither should anyone else. I also don't suggest anyone recommending CB Vault as a secure method of storage. During this 48 hour time-frame if you did not actually authorize the withdrawal then you have the opportunity to cancel/stop the withdrawal, you will be notified via multiple ways that you will likely not miss. If you have control of your private keys and are using some method of cold storage then you could potentially be notified of a withdrawal, however it would be more or less impossible to stop a TX if you did not actually authorize it. |
|
|
|
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/nsa-hacked-100-000-computers-radio-signals-article-1.1580254This is fairly old news, and I'm also not familiar with what kind of threat this might pose. Hopefully someone more knowledgable can share their input. Since it's now no secret that the NSA has the capacity to hack into computers via radio waves (though apparently only on computers constructed with the proper hardware), what does this mean for things like Armory's offline transactions? Do you believe that this poses a viable threat, particularly if companies increasingly integrate backdoor radio transceivers into household computers and mobile devices? Moreover, has this issue been considered by the core devs? I don't think it would be an issue. The possibility of this happening is still only theoretical and has not been proven. There are also ways to shield your computer from radio waves relatively easily. Also if you have your offline wallet secured with a sufficiently strong password this will not be as much as an issue because even if they got the wallet file they would need to crack your password in order to do anything with it. Referring to bolded section, I considered this but quickly dismissed it as it would certainly not be an issue to upload a keylogger and wait. How would they upload a key-logger if the computer is disconnected from the internet? I think they would need to have physical access in order to accomplish this. |
|
|
|
I've read the report... seems legit. I think it was something like a faulty Securimage (or similar) setup. They probably used the Securimage code as-is, and when found out that it wasn't working over the tor pseudo-device (or proxy), they messed with iptables until it worked  . My concern is that they did not provide the technical details of what exactly they did to get the IP address via the headers. I would speculate that the FBI launched an attack that would likely be considered to be malicious against the SR site. |
|
|
|
i agree that bitcoin doesn't really bring anything of interest to the average person.. which is why i don't like the internet comparisons. the internet became so huge because it provided something unique that people actually wanted.
The thing of interest that bitcoin will have to the "average person" is the lower cost of using it verses other payment methods. You can send money to anyone in the world more or less instantly for what is essentially free. There is not any other way of doing this. True that remittances (what you refer to above) are Bitcoins strong suit. Yet shockingly, nobody is doing a damn thing to get the Bitcoin remittances market going. Aside from ( I suppose) Robocoin, which says it has a remittances tool on the way. Quite a few people are dissatisfied with the Robocoin kiosks, the insane "spread" from buy to sell being put on them by the greedy ATM owners, and of course the complete lack of privacy. This article however is most likely referencing consumer adoption locally for buying and selling. -B- I don't think robocoin ATMs are so much a way for remittance but rather a way for people to buy and sell bitcoin conveniently. The companies that are promoting people actually buying items with bitcoin (commerce) are mainly coinbase and bitpay. Coinbase has a feature that allows companies to offer a discount of up to 25% at the shopping cart level for customers paying with bitcoin, although I don't think many merchants are taking up this offer. |
|
|
|
I received a very similar transaction to my address on my profile. I have only posted the address in one place (on the thread to sign up for the signature campaign I am in). It is also the BTC address on my forum profile, however it has not received any other payments. My address is: 189ZeVvKf9rd9mEgJxUwLU7FcEjqsxDA64 The TX that I received the payment from is: 6ad7496bb01e3b513be40118057c971273606acd5dc74e85b7e2d4c492998001 There is a blockchain public note saying laxotrade.com and there are both an input and an output with an address tagged with laxotrade on blockchain.info (the same as in your case). |
|
|
|
Rant: Since the US government is discouraging cash and other non-bank transactions and forcing people to use banks to make transactions more traceable, then banks should be treated more like utility companies and laws should be changed to disallow banks from closing a person's account without reason.
I'm not sure about the US, but in the UK at least I think we're (slowly) moving in that direction i.e. banking services as a basic right, not to be withheld without good reason. We have a financial ombudsman service that can help and the courts are always an option. The US is moving in the opposite direction. An increasing percentage of the population is "unbanked" meaning they do not have a basic bank account and rely on things like check cashing services and money orders to get paid and pay bills. |
|
|
|
Proving you have funds to another party. You'd like to commission a painting, but to ensure you aren't screwed over, you don't want to pay 50% up front. What methods could be used to place your bitcoin in escrow so that the other party would know it was there and available for them to retrieve? This one may almost definitely require a third party, but I am open to ideas. I think muti signature can solve this problem. A feature in my mind can be created like a contract, which you put the whole amount of BTC in the contract address. The other party feel comfortable to see fund is there. After the party finishes the job, then you sign the contract with your private key then the fund will be released to the other party. In this case you would have to trust the escrow to not collude with the other party. Also putting money into escrow is essentially the same as paying for the services in advance in that you no longer have access to the money instead of paying when the bill becomes due. |
|
|
|
it is very likely that your bitcoins were stolen because you logged into a fake localbitcoins site by accident and the site recorded your name and password.
Scammers pay for ads on google and when people type "localbitcoins" into google, the fake site is listed first because it is a paid ad. People click on the ad and log in because it looks just like the real site.
Lol really bro I've made 50 purchases on localbitcoins.. It was someone I used before got he coins then 10 minutes later they were withdrawn no password or anything weirdest thing ever I don't understand exactly what happened. You said that you purchased .8 BTC from someone on LBC, was it a face to face trade? If so then the seller would have had to release escrow for the bitcoin to be available in your account. You seem to imply that someone somehow withdrew bitcoin from your account. I do not see what the person you bought from has to do with anything if this was the case. I also do not see how you know the coins were withdrawn with no password. No it wasn't the seller.. I bought the coins then 10 minutes later someone withdrew them.. Never hit a fishing link never used same password or name on any site.. I'm so confused how I got hacked How do you know you never clicked on a phishing link? You could have easily clicked on a link that would capture your login information, forward it to LBC and log you in if the credentials were correct. This would steal your credentials while hiding the fact that they were stolen from you. |
|
|
|
I am curious to know how the government made the connection between the servers in Iceland to Ross. It has been previously reported that he used a VPN to connect to SR. I would assume that he did not use his real identity (and likely used fake IDs) to sign up for the hosting service. One flaw that I have read is the fact that the government says the Ross did not even own the server, but rather leased them from a third party. My understanding of the law is that there is no difference between owing something and being a tenant when it comes to the rules regarding searches. |
|
|
|
|
I would think the rational behind this is due to the fact that MIT students have received $100 worth of bitcoin they now likely want to spend it somehow. Since college books are horribly overpriced, and college students are generally poor, what better way to capture some additional money from students then accepting bitcoin to get more of a student's limited amount of money?
|
|
|
|
But bitcoin isn't money. How can he plead guilty to running a money exchange, when the IRS has ruled it isn't money. He was only buying and selling a virtual property. Do we need to start arresting people who buy and sell high ticket items like wine or cars?
You're confused. The IRS said it's a property, but their opinion doesn't matter when it comes to regulatory issues. The various departments of the government are under no obligation to treat bitcoin the same. It's stupid, but that's reality. It's not confusion. It's pointing out the hypocrisy of the system. It is not a money exchange it was a money transmitting service. There is a big difference; a money exchange would be to exchange one type of money ($5 bills) for another type of money ($100 bills); a money transmitting service is when you accept money and agree to send/give a certain percentage of that money to someone else while taking the rest as payment. |
|
|
|
I sell quite a bit online for BTC and have seen some of the discussions on here but want to make sure I am updated on the best ways to keep on the level when selling. Most of the time I sell smaller things and since I have a contract with several delivery companies I can send all my stuff for free. I am now selling larger things, mostly right now I have been selling my tactical crossbows along with tons of accessories for 5BTC, sold 4 out of 10 so far but I will be selling larger including large edgeless TVs and used cars. I just wanted opinions on the best ways to sell larger items to make sure both sides are feeling comfortable. With the Crossbows, not to much security goes into it as they just send the bitcoin, send an email with their information and I send it, they get it a week later, 2 if they want something more and that is it. With the cars and tvs however might be a bit different. If anyone can share a few pointers on how they would handle it please let me know as it would be of help.
Also, I have started helping with "referrals" on a survival info site and been getting a few bitcoins here and there so if you interested in that I can send you information.
1. Deliver the product in a timely fashion when you are paid. 2. Build trust. 3. Offer on escrow with good guys off of here who you know would cost them more in their rep to fuck you over than they would financially gain from running off with the funds. (SaltySpitoon is who I would trust. The dude is a A+ guy) For large transactions that might be worth wacking you in the head over you should put some funds in escrow or at the very least have them sign a address with the number of coins it would take to buy the product. Meet in a nice public place, so you can yell "rape" if they pull some funny shit.  Selling cars sucks donkey dick in general IMO. I got one I need to sell atm. Honestly, I prefer to do large trades for BTC over cash by far and away. Big problem with cash is what if the person has their buddy around the corner to rob you once they drive off with the new bought car. In other words someone knows you have a good size chunk of change on you. With BTC you can have the payment sent to a paperwallet that is sitting locked up safely in your Safety Deposit box (or where ever.) I think 1 and 2 would be very difficult to do without first getting people to trust you without any reputation. This is really a conundrum because it is difficult to get people to trust you without you having prior successful trades, but it is hard to get a successful trade without people trusting you. Free samples... duh! Didn't you browse the SR  I think free samples would be very costly. It would also open you up to potential scams (people ordering multiple free samples from you). For example the silver shot I had for sale. I could mail a piece of shot with a stamp for about 30 cents and each person that verifies it is just another notch under the belt. What would prevent you from scamming (meaning accepting payment and not sending the product) once someone wants to buy a larger quantity? Don't you think that buyers would see through what is essentially purchased feedback? |
|
|
|
Actually the mining cost of the whole network is what backs bitcoin's value. Since digital currency is not backed by any government or physical assets, the only thing that can baseline its value is the cost, no cost = no value. I can not think of anything that has value without a cost
Of course the cost means the lowest possible cost, which is already very energy efficient today. If you do those hashes using CPU you will cost millions of times more electricity
I would disagree with this rationale. The profitability of mining has varied widely since bitcoin was born. Sometimes it would be vastly profitable to invest in a machine that is capable of mining bitcoin and the electricity to run it while other times it has not. I would argue that the fact that the network is secure is what gives bitcoin it's value. |
|
|
|
I was just concerned about the security of multibit bitcoin wallet.
The bitcoin are stored in the cloud like other services such as Blockchain or does it make a wallet.dat just like the bitcoin qt on the devices??
The private keys are stored on your computer. I don't think they make a wallet.dat file, but it is a similar type of file that holds your keys. You should keep your wallets password protected so in the event someone does gain access to your wallet file they will not be able to access your private key as long as they cannot figure out your password. Nothing is kept in the cloud. Thanks for the explanation,so having the private key me or anyone could easily have access to my coins then?
As long as the RNG that you use to generate the private keys is not flawed, then the chances of someone else having the same private key is essentially zero. |
|
|
|
Shem wasn't a banker or any other kind of criminal.
Apparently even Charlie disagrees with you, since he is pleading guilty. Not true. It means that he feels that the risks of going to trial outweigh the potential chances of a not-guilty plea. This is likely due to the potential jail time he would serve in the event he is found guilty and the evidence that the government has against him. |
|
|
|
Anyone have a syllabus for the class? They're probably going to teach kids why crypto currencies will fail.
I would doubt this would be the only thing they teach. I think the classes will likely be somewhat more balanced then the views about bitcoin on this forum, but I also don't think they will teach that crypto currencies will certainly fail eventually. I think the classes will most likely teach the pros and cons behind crypto currencies, the risks and potential rewards of using a crypto currency as well as the technical aspect as to how they work. |
|
|
|
i like when people defend this guy. go defend someone who runs a drug dealing business in real life too then. i dont get why anyone talks about dread pirate moron at all. he was dumb, he is dumb, he did illegal things that were totally illegal to start with, and the majority of people agreed it is illegal except some "bitcoin wackjobs"... th emore and more people who talk about this guy like he is something to be respected, the more and more the media is goign to say bad things about bitcoin.
get it? got it? good.
granger, for the ones who get it done.
Its not a question of the guy being an idiot or doing something illegal. The point is the U.S government is over-reaching like they have a long history of doing. Look what they did to online gaming. They arrested guys who had a business in another country where it is legal. WTF!? BTW drug dealers are not the problem. Drug users are. Solve the root cause of drug abuse and there will be no need for dealers. If it was not for drug dealers then drug users would never be able to get ahold of drugs, nor would they have ever gotten into using illegal drugs. Also drug dealers will often take advantage of a person's addiction and do things like extend credit and give a discount to a person who is unable to pay to prevent them from potentially breaking their habit. |
|
|
|
Free Advertising:
Million dollar <fill in the blank> being sold -- for Bitcoin
It doesn't even need to be a million dollar something being sold for bitcoin. Generally speaking anything with a more then "everyday" value (meaning more value then what people generally spend everyday), or anything that is sold in large volume will get press when it is sold for bitcoin. |
|
|
|
It is now that we need the features for the products 5 years from now. Only a developer would use the logic that we can put these enhancements off 5 years. That is suicide. Any idiot with an ounce of knowledge of product development, marketing, and business trends knows: You create it now. Always.
Generally, I agree. The sooner you can add features, the better. But what features do you think are required? The only thing that I can think of that would be an unqualified improvement is a solution to the 51% quandary. But that would not be a feature - it would be a complete re-architecting of the system. Further, it is dependent upon a breakthrough invention. I don't think it is really possible to solve the problem of being vulnerable to a 51% attack. An attacker could simply mine from various geographic locations to various BTC addresses to hide the fact that each of his mining farms is part of a potential large percentage of the network. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
