|
Having "kill-switch" like features on all phones is something that would cost money. Wireless carriers would need to invest in this technology and would need to work with phone manufacturers in order to make this work.
You also have the issue that the reason a phone works is because a SIM card has been inserted into a phone and a SIM car can be switched out if someone wants to use a different account for a specific phone. This would make the technology effectively moot because someone could remove the SIM card
|
|
|
|
There are a number of witnesses who say that brown was surrendering, however no video of this has turned up despite the likely-hood that a fight with a police officer would almost certainly be recorded by someone who would witness such a fight.
I agree with your first points, but this one... the fact that there's no video says nothing about the circumstances. If any conclusion were to be drawn from it, I would conclude that the only thing that means is there is no video. If someone had it, they would have sold it to a media organization for a pretty penny already. Much of the media have policies against buying news stories like this so the number of buyers is limited to tabloid like outlets. Plus there is the possibility that people like Sharpton and Obama have purchased all copies of the videos so they can be destroyed That's just not a credible concern. I would disagree. Both Obama and Al Sharpton are racists who like to use the race card in order to further their liberal agenda. I don't think it would be out of the question for them to have purchased a video of Brown not having his hands up when he was shot. |
|
|
|
So apparently this was not the first time he has done this, only the first time someone complained. Per the article, two other women have come forward with similar claims. |
|
|
|
Almost back to square one, then?! What's the point of having neutrals? Belief is not the same as proof, and should be a lesser rating level (that still displays in yellow on poster_info).
I don't see why I would ever give anyone a neutral rating. If I have had no dealings with them and haven't seen them acting in an untrustworthy fashion, I'll just not leave any rating. Currently I see a bunch of dice sites taking "investments". Historically that's been pretty dodgy, with a few sites running off with the invested coins. Does that mean I should leave a "neutral" rating for the sites which are still running successfully saying I suspect that they might run off with the coins even though I have no proof that they have any such intention? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy right now. Since neutrals ( I'd prefer they be called "suspect") don't get reflected in the design scheme to the left (poster_info) in rating display=on subforums, there's no point in leaving any, or having a neutral rating selector, at all. I would like to see a yellow number under the User name with the amount of warnings to entice others to view, but we have a workable fix for now. Thanks Theymos. Keep in mind: Almost any system implemented will have bugs and abuse at some level. I don't think a neutral trust rating is actually meant to be a warning, only something that would allow someone who is potentially going to trade with a user to see what people have said (that should be neither negative nor positive). One example would be that a user has used escrow several times to do deals; this would show that a user is willing to use escrow |
|
|
|
|
The US government actually tried this with their own special version of twitter in Cuba and failed.
I would somewhat doubt the effectiveness of the internet of being able to topple governmnets
|
|
|
|
lol the new chief sounds like a complete idiot. GCHQ is a relic from the cold war that should have been shut down years ago, all this 'terrorism' scaremongering isn't going to fool anybody.
Terrorism is not something from the cold war (there were very few terrorist attacks during the cold war), it is very much something from the 21st century. I think the best way to avoid terrorist attacks is to allow for law enforcement agencies to better communicate with eachother and to allow for better policies to protect places that would likely be of interest to terrorists. On 9/11 the terrorists did not breach any level of airport security as they used items that were legal to bring onto airplanes to hijack the airplanes |
|
|
|
people, I hope you see now what kind of guy he really is,
beware...
If I ever get my btc back, it will be because he saw a bigger chunk to steal elsewhere.
Maybe Charlie is low on cash (btc) and is having problems ponying up the required btc. well, he addressed that one too, said explicitly that I need not worry, that he has more than enough to cover the debt and even so, how come he spent my money in the first place ? I don't think it is accurate to say that he spent your money. The agreement was for him to sell the physical coins on your behalf and he would send you the money as he sold the coins (after the buyer confirmed receipt and confirmed there were no problems with them. It was only after you opened a frivolous scam accusation against him that did he agree to pay you ahead of schedule |
|
|
|
Satoshi is doing a good job staying hidden and his probably one of the most hunted people on the net at the moment. It's not easy but it's possible as he has showed us.
The difference between satoshi and defcon is that defcon was active in the community he was participating in while satoshi left the community long before he was someone that people would want to dox In fact the most useful piece of advice which would be marketplace operators should follow is to check their ego and be as invisible and behind the scenes as possible. Actively participating in "the community", and especially adopting the role of "visionary leader" is just plain stupid. It's an illegal business first and foremost. Leave the ideological bullshit to the users instead of courting their adoration. I think the reason why "defcon" was adopting the role of a "leader" was to inspire trust in his marketplace, especially after it has been hacked as many times as it was hacked. If you are not active in the community then people will not trust you as much |
|
|
|
Bitcoin, as with many markets, is very unpredictable. Regardless the long term fundamentals of BTC remain strong.
The bitcoin markets have tended to be more unpredictable then most capital markets that people are used to being. |
|
|
|
Probably THE most critical thing would be predictability, and the set-in-stone increase in transaction rate achieves that. Without predictability it would be much less easy to justify investments in infrastructure among other forms of planning and it would likely set the solution back a fair bit. So, hats off to Gavin on this thing at least. (No shit.)
I would strongly agree with this. It is unquestionable that the block size will need to be increased in order for Bitcoin to facilitate the number of transactions it would likely see when it becomes successful. If the protocol is forked multiple times then uncertainty would be caused |
|
|
|
MintPal stole your money. It's a common theme lately in the Bitcoin world, unfortunately.
It is something that will commonly happen when a company controls a large number of bitcoin that they did not earn themselves and are simply holding on behalf of others. This is because as an exchange starts to hold more bitcoin, they will become a larger target for both internal and external targets |
|
|
|
All that matters is it getting used, the rest doesnt matter.
If a significant portion of bitcoin related commerce is for illegal uses then anyone who is associated with bitcoin or that owns bitcoin would be somewhat associated with illegal activity (it would be implied they are somehow involved). If it is only a small percentage of the overall level of commerce then people who use and own bitcoin would likely not be implied to be associated with illegal activity I doubt if a significant portion of bitcoin related commerce is for illegal uses. Ross had accumulated ~144K bitcoin from commissions from SR in only ~2 years. He likely paid the site expenses and his living expenses out of the site commissions so the 144k bitcoin is the site profit (after Ross's living expenses). I think it is safe to say that SR was a significant portion of bitcoin related commerce up until it was shut down This is a great example as to how much bitcoin related commerce was/is taking place on illegal dark market websites. Other examples would include the fact that SR2 was hacked back early this year and well over $4 million was stolen |
|
|
|
The average cost of mining will all but certainly never actually hit the market price of bitcoin
That assumes that people are rational, but in reality people will mine bitcoins at a loss, so the average cost of mining a bitcoin may exceed the price of a bitcoin. They may happen temporarily as people do not calculate the cost of mining on a real time basis. I would say that once a miner's electric bill arrives and it is determined that a miner is spending more on electricity then they are making via mining they would simply disconnect the miner and buy whatever coins on an exchange that they hoped to earn via mining |
|
|
|
As long as you can keep the recovery seed in a safe place, I think you would be ok storing the entire 100BTC on mytrezor. You would also need to protect the seed in a way that you would protect a paper wallet containing 100 BTC. If someone were to gain access to the seed then it would be very easy for them to steal your bitcoin. |
|
|
|
It will likely have a positive affect for Bitcoin but likely not right away if at all. Bitcoin is here and from what I can tell it's not going to go anywhere and people will be made aware of it and be more interested why it is being banned. Bitcoin has proven to be reliable so people will have no reason not to use it especially if the have a use for It.
I think a more likely scenario is that Russia is unable to enforce this ban and people will use it anyway. There will likely be a lot of "black market" trade in Russia done in bitcoin |
|
|
|
Yes ,I'm very aware of Valeriy Poliyakov (the guy's a legend after all).But the fact remains that being in space is extremely detrimental(muscle and bone loss, ambient radiation, neurological and microbiological concern etc) to the human body.Unlike Earth bound landing ,there wouldn't be any ground crew to assist/rehabilitate the first settlers so they need to make them at least as fit as Poliyakov when he made landfall(he still struggled with the few yards despite his intensive off time workout regimen) or ship some very good support facilities(which they intend to do) beforehand(and hope it doesn't break midway) .I'll be wary of of the stated numbers too, cost overrun is still pretty much almost certain with endeavours like this.Not to say that that the minimum cost of 6 billion USD is chump changes either.
My problem is their website is very shy on divulging the details of the technology(and breakthroughs) needed to support this venture and this project is very much unprecedented in terms of scale and challenges that demands addressing.Till they reveal more, I guess.
The $6 billion figure is also seen by many as an unrealistically low number, possibly by 1-2 orders of magnitude. According to their site, they have taken in roughly $633k in donations so they have a long ways to go... I agree. It costs billions to run the international space station and to send people to/from it and the international space station is very close to earth. Each additional mile that needs to be traveled in space will be more expensive then the last because of the added weight (when on earth) and the need to have all the supplies on the spacecraft when it leaves earth. |
|
|
|
Apple signs up credit-card companies for NFC paymentsApple has reportedly struck a deal with American Express, MasterCard and Visa to bring NFC mobile payments to the iPhone 6. The agreements between Apple and the credit-card companies will be officially announced next week alongside the iPhone 6, iPhone 6L, next iPad and, possibly, the iWatch, according to Bloomberg. According to Bloomberg's source, the inclusion of the NFC chip in the next iPhone and improvements in its Touch ID fingerprint scanner "will allow consumers to securely pay for items in a store with the touch of a finger". Re/code separately reported the deal with American Express, while The Information claimed a deal had been signed with Visa back in July. Fourth time lucky? Of course, this isn't the first time NFC payment rumours have attached themselves to an iPhone launch. Speculation that Apple will adopt the technology has been rife since the 4S, but as yet nothing has materialised. In 2011, the company introduced its own rival iBeacon technology and, when the iPhone 5 was launched, Phil Schiller, SVP at Apple, categorically ruled out NFC, telling AllThingsD the company's own Passbook system "does the kinds of things customers need today". However, in the three years since its launch, iBeacon support by third parties has been slow to take off, which may have prompted Apple to adopt NFC alongside its own technology. http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/390496/apple-signs-up-credit-card-companies-for-nfc-payments#ixzz3C3wEFGRUWhat do you think? Good way to reduce identity fraud and at the same time making iphone a pos. If the fee is low enough, it will negate all the benefits btc has, The costs of processing these kinds of transactions would be the same as processing any other credit card transaction. So why would the fee to the merchant be less? Hint: I wont be. |
|
|
|
Alot of us bought BTC when they were *cheap* and been holding them since. Hoping they will keep climbing in value. And at the same time many altcoins rise and fall, people buying low and selling high, or even shorting BTC on sites like Bitfinex... Or mining new coins and then dump them as soon as they hit the market. There are also many securities out there to invest in like ASICMINER and HAVELOCK and now some mutual fund types investing in many altcoins, bitcoin and shares in crypto companies.
I am not talking soo much about Pool operators, or people with massive ASIC/FPGA/GPU/Rent-A-Server Farms, nor people that are just hodling. Looking for people invested in buying, holding and selling coins short / semi long term and or buying securities in groups that mine and give out dividends on their output.
With all these options out there, to invest in. Where you can possibly get a monthly, annual dividends, or as stated trade on the exchanges. Has anyone made this their full time job and been successful at it?
Certain names come to mind like Chris Dunn and Johnny Roquemore.
In the altcoin scene there are many professional traders. That would be the place to look for anyone interested in making a living trading crypto. You also have the issue that all alts have no real value so they will eventually all go to more or less zero. (you just need to wait long enough for this to happen). |
|
|
|
|
2 hours and 12 minutes is how long I have been logged in for.
|
|
|
|
|
They usually take donations via credit card and need to pay the credit card fees, plus make some kind of profit.
They also do not allow for BTC payments AFAIK.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
