Nice at least a few more years then.
Are we forgetting about Mt Gox's account that is also locked up by the USG? The more they lock up and would eventually want in their coffer, the longer Bitcoin will stay online. The Gox seizures were a US dollar Wells Fargo account ($2.1 million) and more recently a Dwolla account ($2.9 million), totalling $5 million, held by a subsidary called Mutum Sigillum LLC. Of course, "seizing" fiat digital bank accounts is a misnomer because the funds do not have an objective existence, e.g. like a private key, but are merely database entries that everyone believes have value so they do, until someone sets a flag against the database entry that signifies "seized". |
|
|
|
|
Yes, it would be a little like "coloured notes" using the terminology of the coloured bitcoins concept ... assuming I'm understanding it correctly.
In another weird twist it would then be possible for an ATM operator (trusted bitbanknote issuer) to receive regular notes and issue bitbanknotes. An unknowing observer would see someone putting cash notes into a machine and getting probably less cash notes back out in the same transaction ... ! Or vice versa ?! ... and who could know the difference except the operator of the machine and the specific user.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting direction ...
|
|
|
|
|
You're tying yourself up in knots trying to program for some insane regulatory hurdles that your users will most likely never encounter ... a simple cost/benefit will show you are wasting your time if AML of specific country's (of which there are hundreds) is your driving s/ware design concerns.
E.g. leave a space where others can add-in a module or etc if they want it ... wash your hands of it and concentrate on the core. (charge them later for the extra)
|
|
|
|
Sergio: is there any way to redeem the note for BTC in your scheme? ... (also do you mean an "unspendable output Tx" or an "undependable output Tx"?) In related news, the new U$100 C-note has lots of gold (colouring) apparently http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-100-bill-costs-60-more-to-produce-2013-10-08The government has printed 3.5 billion of the new $100 bills, which it began delivering to financial institutions Tuesday. How soon customers will see the new bills depends on their distance from a regional Fed office, demand, and a few other factors. Using only new notes for BTC linking would greatly reduce counterfeit risk ... |
|
|
|
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.
Nakamoto, "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" Paragraph 2. So could it be extensible to Namecoin stored self-signed certificate fingerprints? Getting wedded to the broken CA system is a poor idea and your petulant non-rebuttals so far make me wonder if you already know you are on a hiding to nothing on this one. |
|
|
|
|
But in the final analysis you are bolting on "just trust us we're the good guys" payment protocol onto a labelled "trust no-one currency system".
Sounds like a bait and switch. The CA system is prime for MITM because it introduces a third party into every secure connect negotiation, it is complex enough to seem like it must be secure if you don't dig down into it ... but it is broken as all fuck and that's why the NSA loves and pushes it endlessly, eh Mike?
I'm just counting the days until ALL bitcoin transactions are going to be required by legal or regulatory measures to be via the surveillance dragnet payment protocol ... it's pretty transparent where this is heading.
Edit: ""We have over 960 Ph.D.s, over 4,000 computer scientists, over a thousand mathematicians." -Gen. Keith "Starship" Alexander - NSA
|
|
|
|
Could it be extensible to SSL certificate fingerprints stored in Namecoin blockchain, instead of X.509 (centralised) option?
... since we are having an extended discussion on merits of different authentication approaches I'm going to bump this seemingly simple query |
|
|
|
|
Try not to get side-tracked with the AML stuff, it is an unnecessary complication ... it's p2p not "Big Brother says"
|
|
|
|
I think he just coined the epitaph of his own journalistic career:  There are Bad Bitcoin Journalists and Then There Are Ones That Just Don't Make Any Sense in the First Place Touche ... good one. |
|
|
|
I gotta say guys this is one mean hack onto the legacy banking system that warms the cockles of my heart almost as much as crypto-currencies themselves do .... the nous, moxy and genius makes for a delicious combination if you can pull it off ... it really says, "you are playing on our turf now".  |
|
|
|
|
Excellent and a fine sentiment too, it is almost impossible to get the wording exactly correct but having these words in place is a good start.
Particularly pleased with the financial privacy and distributed network aspects, these make the technology unique in today's world of currencies and payment systems with compromised and perverted functions, so codifying it into a statement will be an enduring point of difference.
|
|
|
|
He doesn't know what he doesn't know ... And that’s something that you can do just as well as they can: ... ... maybe, maybe not. He probably does not understand the security implications of physically securing private keys that could be worth in the millions of dollars in this case. Unless he really is a linux security admin + bitcoin expert (I don't think so, he's wearing a tie and suspenders.) |
|
|
|
|
Could it be extensible to SSL certificate fingerprints stored in Namecoin blockchain, instead of X.509 (centralised) option?
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder what their security and transparency set up will be like? (Who is main sys. admin. most importantly?)
Just all to easy for the Trust to haz the coinz just disappear and no-one is the wiser if it was inside job or some master hacker or NSA ... same as it ever was with centralised repositories of wealth i suppose ... it's just that bitcoin has seen this business model so many times, albeit much smaller scale, but some 'good' sys admins have got fingers badly burned in bitcoin security already, just saying.
|
|
|
|
This guy is definitely saying that Bitcoin money supply (market cap) should be compared with "monetary base" (MB or M0) ... but it's not clear that the CIA usage of M1 for "stock of narrow money" is used widely anyway. http://www.dgcmagazine.com/bitcoin-money-supply-and-money-creation/What should not be done is to compare the Bitcoin monetary base to the M1 money supply of fiat currencies. As long as there are no figures on the total outstanding Bitcoin loan volume available, we won’t know what Bitcoin M1 is. We would need to sum up mined Bitcoins and outstanding Bitcoin loan volume in order to get Bitcoin M1. As we have seen on the Euro zone example, the larger part of M1 is created from lending. A comparison of the Bitcoin monetary base with M1 of other currencies would try to compare two incomparable figures. |
|
|
|
why do these story tellers even have bank accounts in the first place to complain about.
Because their bosses won't pay their wages cash in hand. +1 Even worse in some cases their employers insist on a prepaid debit card that then extorts the employee with usurious fees. The latter is becoming a very serious problem in parts of the United States. My take on this is that the war on cash in many 1st world countries is having a particularly detrimental effect on the poor and lower middle class. A very simple example is payroll. 50 years ago many employers would pay their employees in cash. The cost of handling the cash was the responsibility of the employer. Today many of the same employers will pay by cheque or even worse a prepaid debit card. The cost of handling cash is now passed on to the employee either in the form of a fee to cash the cheque at a cheque cashing store or fees on the debit card. I do not begrudge the banks at all, they have their place and actually do a very good job in many cases of meeting the needs of the upper middle class and the wealthy. Where they fail is at the bottom of the income scale, where it is very difficult for them to break even let alone make a profit from these customers without charging exorbitant fees. Let us not forget that the cost of AML / KYC compliance to the bank is the same regardless of whether the customer has a net worth of 1,000,000 USD or 10 USD. The profit opportunity for the bank on the other hand is very different. The reality is that cash and now Bitcoin are by far the most cost effective solutions at the bottom of the income scale. These are good points. Also there is the fact that small to medium size businesses provide 70-90% of the economic activity and employment in many countries. Stifling the cash economy to such an extent is effectively killing economic activity at the bottom end of the scale. It might not look like you are stopping much, since who cares about $1-$1000 trades ... well if there are millions and billions of small cash trades then even small disruptions of the cash economy inevitably lead to less economic activity and growth for the wider economy. I'm quite sure if they rolled back all these insane cash restrictions and printed larger denomination notes again (e.g. $500, $1,000 and $10,000 dollar bills) then the economy would grow significantly ... oh wait, the terrorists might win if the economy booms? |
|
|
|
|
Financial facism, welcome to the 21st century.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
