No reason we cant have financial insurance with bitcoin, put in perspective of the East India Company, Lloyds insurance and pirates on the high seas there isn't a whole lot in the difference.
The only way someone could insure bitcoins would be to collect enough in premiums to cover a certain amount - which would be the premiums MINUS the insurers operating costs. Each company would be better off using their money for their own reserves rather than paying premiums to an insurer. Sounds like BTCe had it right, and kept a small enough percentage of their holdings in their hot wallet to prevent catastrophe. If there were many small companies, insurance may work by gathering more on average than they pay out. |
|
|
|
Yesterday, sock puppet dree12 starts a very detailed and carefully crafted list of Bitcoin hacks: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83794.0MINUTES after he starts this thread, BTC-E get's hack ( ). Dree12 happily announces that if the projected numbers are right, the bitcoinica hack is number three on the list now, instead of number two. He posts a sensationalistic header in red big letters stating that the BTC-E hack is going on "Right now!" Coincidence? Maybe... Zhou Tong hacking BTC-E to deflect attention from him? MOST LIKELY, specially considering his previous statements about his pastime of "Finding vulnerabilities", and the obvious sock puppetry from dree12. I just want to clear this up. 1. The thread was posted in May of this year. I did not start it "yesterday". 2. I am not a sock-puppet of Zhou Tong. In fact, I registered earlier than him. 3. The thread is meant to be as neutral as possible. I have listed Zhou as a suspect for the hack with as much recognition as he deserves. 4. The red header is meant as a warning. It is much less sensationalist now. 5. The value hacked from BTC-E is now listed at 4500 BTC, the official estimate. As I have been accused of sockpuppetry many times now, I will now withdraw from this thread, along with my radical views. I can assure you, this is my only account on these forums. |
|
|
|
|
To be fair, Bitcoinica was never hacked due to a coding error. It seemed to be management and VPS on every occasion.
|
|
|
|
This is a classic example of victim blaming.
Zhou has still not been able to explain selling LR using his own QQ account from the LR account Zhou said "the hacker" created. You conveniently pass this over every time. Your shilling is beyond obvious - I just can't figure out why. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95795.msg1063838#msg1063838https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95795.msg1063850#msg1063850So, I have done a deal "for a friend" on AurumXchange using my own account.
And I have also done a deal "for a friend" on QQ using a friend's account?
Both happened before I had any clue of the investigation.
I did the deals, but all in much larger amounts with my own account.
Excellent FUD you are spreading here. Here's a list: FearZhou has still not been able to explain selling LR using his own QQ account from the LR account Zhou said "the hacker" created.
UncertaintyOccam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is neither that someone, for no reason, created a screenshot where your QQ-account would start selling LR that when the transactions were made turned out to come from the LR account you yourself stated that the hacker created.
DoubtThe transactions you've so far claimed are completely unrelated and "for a friend", match up the LR account to information released much later by aurumxchange.
You have been just as much a shill as I have been. You are shilling because it is your rational opinion. This is mine. |
|
|
|
Do you think I could possibly have missed that? It being the single point of attack for all my arguments? In response, I post this equally likely and more credible response: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95795.0But I know: it won't change your mind. |
|
|
|
|
This is a classic example of victim blaming.
1. Attack Zhou Tong based on little evidence
2. When Zhou Tong says he's feeling like a victim, blame him more
3. Zhou Tong produces proof, deny the proof
4. Produce falsifiable evidence, deny falsifiability
5. Continue attacking the victim despite calls to stop
|
|
|
|
No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.
In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.
In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner. What is your native language? If I define a wubble to be a bubble or a flubble, I cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble and a flubble. I also cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble, nor can I assume that a wubble is a flubble. This is the magic of OR. You cannot just simply use ANY of the options you listed; there is uncertainly as to which one it is. It is therefore impossible to prove that "friend" is correct from the given definition. What is your native language? Your logic is keep failing you. If there is uncertainty then I can use any, especially if I believe that it was an imaginary friend. Vampire is the thief, a 37-year old, a male, a female, or something else. There is uncertainty here. Therefore I can assert that vampire is the thief. That is fallacious logic at best. |
|
|
|
|
Le français ici n'est pas très bon, n'est-ce pas?
|
|
|
|
No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement.
In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious.
In fact you're clueless. I can use ANY of the following: friend, associate, business partner. What is your native language? If I define a wubble to be a bubble or a flubble, I cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble and a flubble. I also cannot assume that a wubble is a bubble, nor can I assume that a wubble is a flubble. This is the magic of OR. You cannot just simply use ANY of the options you listed; there is uncertainly as to which one it is. It is therefore impossible to prove that "friend" is correct from the given definition. |
|
|
|
Are you even fluent in English? How does that have anything to do with this?
The penultimate term means nothing. All terms are equal in an OR statement.
Bingo. EQUAL. Therefore Chen is Zhou's friend/buddy/business partner/associate. No. An OR statement does not imply that it is all at once. That is an AND statement. In fact, in speech and writing, an OR statement is also often exclusive; i.e., it implies that it is not two or more of the terms at once. This isn't the case here, but your conclusion is still fallacious. |
|
|
|
Oh so he didn't say friend, you're just adding that part yourself? And he didn't protect his identity either and basically told everyone here exactly who it was?
I guess your English is bad. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/associate_2someone who is closely connected to another person as a companion, friend or business partnerKey word: OR. or 1 (ôr; r when unstressed) a. Used to indicate an alternative, usually only before the last term of a series: hot or cold; this, that, or the other. Back to school? Are you even fluent in English? How does that have anything to do with this? The penultimate term means nothing. All terms are equal in an OR statement. |
|
|
|
Oh so he didn't say friend, you're just adding that part yourself? And he didn't protect his identity either and basically told everyone here exactly who it was?
I guess your English is bad. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/associate_2someone who is closely connected to another person as a companion, friend or business partnerKey word: OR. |
|
|
|
Hello i am new around here. I've got some bitcoins, primarily to learn how stuff work. The question is what to do with a few bitcoins. I am not interested in buying something, i mean goods. Should i just watch closely the exchange rates, and make micro-exchanges with other people to gain some profit? Should i pick some shares from promising mining operations on glbse.com? Should i invest my few bitcoins in a Savings and Trust - like business ? (although having few bitcoins doesnt allow me to join the famous BST pirateat40's risky business)
Please remember that day-trading is negative-sum; that is, excluding the exchange, on average people lose. |
|
|
|
Money is an obligation in the sense that it only has value if people pay you back for it.
That's not what an obligation is. Just because something only has value (to you) if people are willing to exchange it for something doesn't make it an obligation. No obligation has been entered into by anyone. I don't like how people tell others that the deposits aren't money, because for practical purposes they are. They aren't risk-free though, but nothing is.
No, for practical purposes, the bitcoins you have at BTC-e right now are not money. They are numbers on a website called btc-e.com. The bitcoins you have right now are also not money, if you define it that way. They are numbers on your computer. Also, BTC-E codes were accepted by companies before the hack. These people are (or were) willing to exchange BTC-E codes. |
|
|
|
With a free economy making money will be a lot easier, for example buying and selling goods will be far simpler, more profitable for everyone involved and yet far cheaper for the consumer. Goods have to be delivered though, anyone can set up an IPO or get a loan to get funding for a van and get to work. Thats just an example and probably a bad one because a lot of the earnings would have to pay for using the infrastructure (road tax or tolls), fuel and anything else that sits still long enough to have a tax put on it.
I'd guess in 10 years from now just 1btc would be enough to live a comfortable life if they are working and I hope that money will become far less important and greed will fall with it.
10 years from now, if you have 1 BTC, you could be the wealthy elite. Of the 7 billion people in the world, you have 1/21000000 of the wealth! |
|
|
|
So he's not interested in Bitcoin's success, eh? Well, that explains blowing his cover by selling his coins the very next day.
Bullshit.
And that's your evidence? BULLSHIT. What's yours? Oh, wait, also bullshit. Both explanations are terrible. I believe mine to be better. |
|
|
|
They are still your bitcoins, because they can be used as them on demand.
Tell that to ThiagoCMC. Really, all money is just an obligation of someone to pay me back for something.
No. Money is not necessarily an obligation. Money is the most fungible commodity in an economy. And just like with every other commodity, no one is obligated to give you anything for the money commodity. Now, currencies - or money substitutes - are obligations. Traditionally, the dollar was an obligation (of the Federal Reserve) to pay someone back in gold, on demand. The British Pound was an obligation of the Bank of England to pay back the holder of said currency in sterling silver. Neither of these currencies are obligations any longer. Money is an obligation in the sense that it only has value if people pay you back for it. I don't like how people tell others that the deposits aren't money, because for practical purposes they are. They aren't risk-free though, but nothing is. |
|
|
|
Please click always on this below if it appears: "Advertisement: Bitcoin is worth $10 each on NameTerrific." I don't want to see this every time and we should protect Newbies.  There is nothing wrong with NameTerrific. Typing something as Truth does not make it so. Especially when up against the array of evidence, means and motive to the contrary. Not forgetting Zhou's prime bullshit storytelling.
BB.
This applies to you as well. Need I point out again the array of evidence that Zhou did not steal the funds? Sure. Since I don't remember you posting any evidence. The only thing you posted as evidence that zhou is interested in bitcoin's success, which I already proved to be wrong. So he's not interested in Bitcoin's success, eh? Well, that explains blowing his cover by selling his coins the very next day. Bullshit. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
