Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 04:11:53 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 [316] 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 ... 800 »
6301  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: My bitcoins have been stolen on: May 06, 2013, 09:24:47 PM
You let a person you don't trust run an unknown program on your computer?  

Most likely he compromised your system.  Installed a rootkit, keylogger, made a copy of your wallet.dat, etc.

Why, why why would you let someone use the computer containing your bitcoin wallet?

6302  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 0.8.2. What do you think? on: May 06, 2013, 07:36:32 PM

Quote
That isn't my job, that is why Gavin gets a salary he should be working on that. Instead he just puts a temp patch and goes on a walk for an interview.

I would advocate leaving this decision to miners. Miners should have the ability to form a marketplace for what they will confirm in a block and what they won't confirm. Would you accept this system?

Great so you agree that 0.8.2 is a great solution because .... it does leave it up to miners.  It replaced a constant with a variable that has a a default value one any node can modify.  If a miner wants to include tx which has 1 satoshi outputs using 0.8.2 they can.  If they want to require no fee for a giant 200KB tx which spams the network by having 500,000 1 satoshi outputs ... they can.

So what is the problem? 
6303  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-05-04 Warren Buffett: We Haven't Moved Any Of Our Cash To Bitcoin on: May 06, 2013, 07:30:34 PM
I would have been surprised if Warren Buffet HAD bought Bitcoins but lets take a step back.

Buffet was asked about Bitcoins and had enough awareness of Bitcoin to provide a response.
Three years ago it would have been ... "Bittycoin what?"

Kinda shows how far Bitcoin has come in terms of mindshare. 

6304  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Buying a mining rig for scrypt ~1500usd - worth it? see specs on: May 06, 2013, 06:35:42 AM
Why 8GB of ram?  You do know when people say LTC is memory hard them mean like 128KB of L1 cache right.
6305  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Holders Must Prepare For Mass Adoption on: May 06, 2013, 06:30:01 AM
assuming Satoshi is US Gov and holding roughly 2% of btc, China just took the bait to trap anyone trying to flee from US currency.

That would be hilarious.  I would just have to say well played US Treasury, well played. 
6306  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Bitcoin Debt Collection in the US on: May 06, 2013, 05:22:37 AM
Possibly.  $20K excludes small claims court unless you are willing to settle for only $5K recovered (most small claims courts limits reward to ~$5K).  If the contract is valid, not usurious, doesn't involve any unlawful securities, and you have solid proof of identity and transfer of funds it may be worth it.

Expect to spend a few ($1K to $3K) in legal fees although most attorneys will do a introductory consultation and evaluation of your case merit for much less.  For damages in the tens of thousands some lawyers will offer to work as a % basis (usually 30% to 40%) however given the uncertain nature of your case I doubt you will find one willing to do so in this case.
6307  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 0.8.2. What do you think? on: May 06, 2013, 05:17:22 AM
There's a difference between micro payments of $0.10 or $1 or something, and $0.00005. The former is good, the latter not.

Says todays exchange rate.. tomorrow?? 

This is the issue.

Then the dust threshold is reduced.  The min tx fee for low priority tx was at one time 0.01 BTC (~$1.20 today) and it has been reduced twice.

There ALREADY are rules in clients on what tx are relayed.  This is simply changing the rules to one which better aligns the cost of creating outputs which will remain in the UXTO forever, something current anti-spam rules do not do.
6308  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 0.8.2. What do you think? on: May 06, 2013, 03:08:21 AM
There has got to be a better solution.

Like?

It's not like we could actually spend these outputs before, they were always/still are unspendable. Why should we have unspendable BTC? It makes sense to block them for now. Miner's ultimately decide what tx fees we have to pay, years down the line maybe the fees will be low enough in order to allow spending of these pico-transactions.

Once this change goes through an a super majority is using 0.82 I would like to see a "loophole" to the min-fee rules of low priority tx which makes low-priority tx that REDUCE the UXTO exempt.  This would allow cleaning up the pruned blockchain.  In periods where tx volume is low clients could combined large numbers of dust-spam into a single larger output.  Everyone benefits.  Miners benefit because the memory requirements for full nodes are reduced,  users with "fragmented wallets" benefit because they can "defrag" in an economical manner.  Allowing this loophole combined with blocking (at the client level) tx below dust threshold will make the network more robust.

The dust threshold can be reduced (just like min-tx fee on low priority txs has been reduced twice) to keep dust truly dust (i.e. uneconomical spam garbage).
6309  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 0.8.2. What do you think? on: May 06, 2013, 03:04:24 AM
The majority is speaking... too bad Gavin is sold out to the FEDS.  He has no interest in what the majority wants.

This is the death of btc if this happens... mark my words.

I will mark your words.  This isn't the death of anything.  It prevents the creation of outputs which are unecomical to spend.  Thus they are never spent and remain in the UXTO forever.  This bloats the UXTO.  Current rules don't distinguish between tx which are likely to be respent and tx which are unlikely to be respent.  Tx smaller than the min fee on low priority tx are not being spent.  The blockchain shows that is true, they make no sense to spend them (because generally it costs more to spend them then they are worth).  This rule merely prevents the creation of tx outputs which will never be spent.

The UXTO is the key bottleneck.  Even pruned full nodes need to maintain the UXTO forever.  For fast verification the UXTO will need to be kept into memory.  "Normal" tx tend to be respent A->B->C thus while they increase the size of the unpruned db they don't increase the size of the UXTO.  Without this rule (or something similar) the cost to run a full node will increase exponentially just so people can produce unspendable txs.
6310  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 0.8.2. What do you think? on: May 06, 2013, 03:00:46 AM
Good idea, I mean, if I send you 1 satoshi, with the fee structure we're using right now you cannot spend that 1 satoshi (0.0005BTC fee), so I loose 1 satoshi, you get nothing and the blockchain gets bloated. Its a no brainer, well at least until we have a proper fee structure in lace

This.

Worse it bloats the UXTO which puts unecessary load on all full nodes for absolutley not reason.  Nobody is going to spend 1/10 of a cent if it costs 5x as much to spend it.  Nobody so the current rules allow the creation of tx (at no cost) which produce outputs which will "never" (or highly unlikely) to be spent. 

Another way to look at it.  Over 50% of the pruned database consists of tx below the min fee threshold.  Outputs that very likely will never be spent.  Had this rule been in place since the beginning the pruned database would be half the size right now. 

The pruned (not full but pruned) database is the bottleneck to scalability.  The current fee rules don't properly account for the creation of tx which have a "lasting cost".  This rule improves that.
6311  Economy / Currency exchange / Re: FastCash4Bitcoins (Update: more funds for company checks available) on: May 05, 2013, 11:43:31 PM
Update:
Additional funds for company check payout are available now.
Additional funds for PayPal & Dwolla will be available on Monday.
6312  Economy / Currency exchange / Re: I was buying ripple and now I got SCAMMED on: May 05, 2013, 06:05:43 AM
Your right it is pointless.  Just quit.

I am sure wordpress or namecheap are just building up to the massive scam of stealing $10 worth of BTC from you.

Trade with people you trust.  If you don't trust someone use an escrow YOU TRUST (and no that doesn't mean blindly sending coins to the address the person you don't trust asks you to).
6313  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Is a compromised bitcoin wallet secured after changing the password? on: May 05, 2013, 04:00:27 AM
No it 100% doesn't make it secure.

If the attacker has (or you think they have) access to the wallet.dat the attacker has your complete list of private keys protected only by the encryption in place IN THEIR COPY.  You changing your copy does absolutely nothing.

If you even suspect that your wallet.dat might be compromised you should immediately send funds to a NEW ADDRESS in a NEW WALLET.  By immediately I mean immediately.  It literally is a race.  Your attacker the millisecond they break your weak password will be doing the same thing and whoever gets the funds into an address they exclusively control, "owns" those funds permanently.  Once an attacker moves your funds you are SOL.
6314  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Bitcoin Debt Collection in the US on: May 05, 2013, 03:56:26 AM
Assuming no usury, what are the hurdles to successfully suing someone for the return of their Bitcoins?

Proving that they still have funds? Perhaps if you tied the claim to a fiat currency loss, you could sue for USD  Huh

It doesn't matter if they still have the funds or not.  In awarding a judgement the court could careless if the debtor spent the BTC on "hookers & coke".  If the debt is legit and creditor can prove so in court then the court would award damage in legal tender (USD in US court) for the VALUE of the BTC (or gold, or original Rembrandt painting, or property at 123 main street Oklahoma City, OK) owed.

6315  Economy / Currency exchange / Re: FastCash4Bitcoins (Update: more funds for company checks available) on: May 05, 2013, 03:36:56 AM
Update: more bank funds available.

Wow, and they are still there 10 hours later. That has never seemed to happen before Smiley

Yeah funding is slowly getting back to normal.  We have a solid amount "in the pipe" going to PayPal and Dwolla so availability should improve there as well next week.
6316  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Bitcoin Debt Collection in the US on: May 04, 2013, 07:55:24 PM
Because everyone is shielded by law, even criminals. At least in my country we are.

On the flip-side we are required to pay income tax on criminally earned income as well.

You are in the US also but the courts don't mediate unlawful contracts. 
6317  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Can someone with more hard and software knowledge than me explain why MtGox.... on: May 04, 2013, 07:54:22 PM
They're using SQL transactions in their trade engine.  That brings an awful lot of speed limitations.

So does just about any financial service and they handle transaction volume in the thousands of transactions per second (with peaks in the tens of thousands).
6318  Local / עברית (Hebrew) / Re: Sold on: May 04, 2013, 03:58:12 PM
Are these academic or non-profit licenses?  

Office 2013 Professional Plus isn't available for ~$100 even in volume licensing (i.e. corporate license 1,000+ units).
6319  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Bitcoin Debt Collection in the US on: May 04, 2013, 03:34:35 PM
What is the practice in claiming the principle back for usurious loans?

It depends on the state but in most states not only do you have no legal standing to get the principal back but the borrower can sue you for any interest paid.  Some states allow the borrower to seek treble damages (i.e. 3x the interest charged) under certain conditions (like trying to enforce the unlawful contract by recovery, taking collateral, or seeking judgement in court).  In most states offering a usurious loan is a felony, loan sharking, although it is rarely enforced.

TL/DR: usury is illegal.  If you operate outside the law it is HIGHLY foolish to then seek legal protection wouldn't you say? Smiley  I mean it would be like suing a SR vendor because he sold you low quality illegal drugs.  While you may laugh, the courts see any unlawful contract as similar.
6320  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Bitcoin Debt Collection in the US on: May 04, 2013, 03:21:40 PM
No different than if someone didn't honor any other contract (verbal or otherwise).

Prove there is a contract, prove it is legal, prove it was broken.

Example in gold (because everyone for some reason thinks bitcoins are special):
You loan me 1 ounce of gold @ 6% annually (in mg of gold) with monthly periodic payments.  I don't repay.  You prove to the court the loan exists, I received the 1 ounce of gold, and broke the contract.  The court CAN'T award damages in gold however you can "prove" the value of gold by taking current exchange rate so the court might award you a judgement for ~$1,500 in damages in LEGAL TENDER.   If/when I satisfy that judgement you could take that legal tender (known as US dollars) and buy some "new gold" and thus are made whole (at least in theory).

Now replace gold with Bitcoin.  It works the same way.  To my knowledge no court anywhere has ever ruled that virtual currency don't have value.  Until that happens they do.  If you suffer damages (in legal sense of the word) you are entitled to recover those damages.

Now in the real world you have four major problems:
a) Usury.  Simple version, just about all bitcoin loans are usurious.  Doesn't matter if you and the borrower agree to the rate they are still unlawful under state law (in US).  It doesn't matter if the borrower begs and pleads to let him pay you 36% interest. No court is going to "assist" you in enforcing an unlawful contract.  Period.  A drug dealer can't sue another drug dealer for breaching a contract by not delivering a kilo of cocaine.  The courts simply don't aid in settling unlawful matters (it might be better if they did but that is another story).  If you lend at usurious rates you have no (legal) recourse when not repaid.  Note this isn't a morality lesson on what is a "fair" interest rate just pointing out the fact.  

b) proving identity.  generally online this is going to be very tough. 99.9% of the time you will be filing suit in small claims court and the court isn't going to give you hours to "prove" by email logs and PGP that the person you are suing actually entered into the contract and took possession of the lent funds.  Bitcoins psuedo-anonymous nature works against you here.  If I lend you $500 I can make a custom check which on the endorsement area indicates "by signing and depositing this check you agree to the terms of promissory note 12345".  Then prohibit the check from being cashed, or endorsed to any third party.  Your only option to get funds is to deposit it to YOUR bank account.  That paper trail makes if very hard to say "it wasn't me".

c) small claims court.  Generally the only option which makes economical sense is small claims court however while you can sue an out of state resident in your states court the judgement is for all intents and purposes worthless.  The defendants state isn't going to assist with recovery.  So this means filing in the debtors state.  So you have added cost BUT most small claims courts cap damages at $5K.  So really there is a narrow range of loans where it is worth it.  

d) deadbeats.  Judgments only matter if the person has something to lose.  For example getting a judgement against a plumber who did shoddy work would allow you to put a lien on his license.  This public record will allow other customers to know he isn't trustworthy, it will also affect his bond pricing, and if the judgement are large enough or numerous enough the state/city could pull his license.  The plumber has a vested interested in paying the judgement (and thus removing the public record).  Joe 4chan assclown doesn't really care.  No a judgement doesn't allow you seize his property, probably doesn't allow you to garnish his wages, it doesn't allow you to prevent him from spending money.  If he doesn't pay you well the judgement isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

TL/DR:
Think before you lend, most delinquent debt is never recovered. Not even by professionals.  Delinquent credit card debt (with signed contracts, cards delivered to the persons, and months if not years of usage and payments) routinely sells for pennies on the dollar.  Yes $10,000 CC debt might sell (as part of a portfolio) for $500.  The CC company will write off a $9,500 loss.  Why?  The odds are they would recover even less.  


On edit:
Standard disclaimer, I am not a lawyer.  Always seek qualified legal counsel, your situation may be different.  The post should be seen as educational and not legal advice.

Pages: « 1 ... 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 [316] 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 ... 800 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!