The intangible asset classification (like goodwill) raises the question whether any (all?) digital money would be classed as intangible wouldn't it? FASB and IFRS are standards not law. More error from the fledgling Legal Beagle. You, sir, are in over your head on this topic. Allow me to shut you down: (1) The SEC is an administrative agency. (2) SEC makes administrative law, which is a very important part of the legal spectrum (3) The SEC requires certain entities to use GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principals) in their financial reporting (4) GAAP contains Goodwill reporting requirements (4.1) Incidentally, FASB is responsible for establishing GAAP. But keep it up with the creative nicknames. Really effective logic there. Just fyi ... GAAP were suspended at the height of the financial crises in 2008 ... I'm not sure if they have been re-instated ... hey maybe there's some really useful research you could do for society? Find out what the status is of GAAP being applied to major banking institutions, particularly with regards to the "mark-to-market" or "mark-to-model" rules of MBS held by the off-balance sheet entities of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase .... the public really got screwed over on that one, go at it! Seeing as you seem to have abandoned doing anything novel in the Bitcoin field, since "I've talked to a lot of professors and practicing attorneys in the last week or so, and they all agree that the attachment of property rights to bitcoin is so obvious that it is barely even a legitimate question." is probably not really "Legal Research", and probably not any more conclusive than hearsay. |
|
|
|
to turning the blockchain into something recognizable to legal system(s).
... because bending technology to suit the legal system(s) inflexibility is such a good idea .... |
|
|
|
Looks like you don't have the QT package .... (or know if you are on 64 or 32 bit machine ...) Most likely you'll want to install the "qt-x11" package. Without knowing anything about your OS or particular set-up you're on your own from here ... have fun learning some linux  |
|
|
|
Gavin signs the package that is uploaded, but the reports of the built itself, and signatures of that are uploaded here. Thanks ... what does this mean ? $ gpg --verify bitcoin-build.assert.sig
gpg: Signature made Wed 19 Sep 2012 03:36:41 AM NZST using RSA key ID 2346C9A6
gpg: BAD signature from "Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@gmail.com>" $ gpg --verify bitcoin-build.assert.sig
gpg: Signature made Tue 18 Sep 2012 11:13:44 AM NZST using RSA key ID C87992E0
gpg: BAD signature from "Pieter Wuille (Dept. of Computer Science, KULeuven) <pieter.wuille@cs.kuleuven.be>" TheBlueMatt doesn't have a PGP signing key advertised anywhere prominently that I could see so didn't test that one .... (I downloaded the bitcoin-build.assert files from github and imported gpg keys of you guys from key server, and directly from linked bitcoin front page) Is there a special method needed to download/verify these bitcoin-build.assert files or should straight gpg work? EDIT: okay I was able to get some good signatures ... if anybody else is wondering you need to download both .sig and bitcoin-build.assert files as raw (right click Save As on Raw button) , it seems git must add something even when you use "wget" ... maybe needs a binary ftp or ... ? Will look like this $ gpg --verify bitcoin-build.assert.sig
gpg: Signature made Tue 18 Sep 2012 11:13:44 AM NZST using RSA key ID C87992E0
gpg: Good signature from "Pieter Wuille (Dept. of Computer Science, KULeuven) <pieter.wuille@cs.kuleuven.be>"
gpg: aka "Pieter Wuille (Location: Leuven, Belgium) <sipa@ulyssis.org>"
gpg: aka "Pieter Wuille (Location: Leuven, Belgium) <pieter@wuille.biz>"
gpg: aka "Pieter Wuille (Location: Leuven, Belgium) <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>"
gpg: aka "[jpeg image of size 6073]"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: D762 373D 2490 4A3E 42F3 3B08 B9A4 08E7 1DAA C974
Subkey fingerprint: E3F8 2E40 73CC 179E 70F1 F44B 8F65 3255 C879 92E0 and $ gpg --verify bitcoin-build.assert.sig
gpg: Signature made Wed 19 Sep 2012 03:36:41 AM NZST using RSA key ID 2346C9A6
gpg: Good signature from "Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@gmail.com>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 71A3 B167 3540 5025 D447 E8F2 7481 0B01 2346 C9A6 |
|
|
|
It's been said various places that multiple devs sign the binaries (all built separately using identical VM and etc). The links from the main Bitcoin page (has PGP links for devs) go to sourceforge download page http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.7.0/ Here there is SHA256SUM.asc, verifies as good signature for linux tar ball from Gavin. Where are the other signatures from other devs verifying the SHA256SUM of the linux tar ball located or how is that done? |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin-release-1.4 is an older version of Bitcoin, right? It's not 0.7.0?
So, there's no way to get 0.7.0 on my Fedora 17?
You can run with the multiply signed binaries the dev team publishes. Sadly, I don't know how to do that. Care to walk me through it? Sure. 1). Download bitcoin-0.7.0-linux.tar.gz from here http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.7.0/2) Just to be sure you got the uncorrupted, complete file check the sha256sum hash with that in file SHA256SUMS.asc (also at above link) $sha256sum bitcoin-0.7.0-linux.tar.gz (Optional: import Gavin (or other dev signatory) PGP signing key and check the SHA256SUM.asc file authenticity, see GnuPG for specifics) 3) Unpack the tarball $tar -xzvf bitcoin-0.7.0-linux.tar.gz 4) Navigate to binaries folder (32 or 64-bit depending on your OS) $cd bitcoin-0.7.0-linux/bin/64/ 5) Launch bitcoind or bitcoin-qt as required 6) Optionally, create a binary folder in your home directory, move those bitcoin binaries to it and place that bin folder on your PATH so you can launch code from anywhere. |
|
|
|
|
The intangible asset classification (like goodwill) raises the question whether any (all?) digital money would be classed as intangible wouldn't it?
Like the digital money held in databases of MegaBank corp on deposit for loyal customers, wouldn't that be an "intangible asset" by the same reasoning as bitcoin is an intangible asset?
Aren't all currencies that are not redeemable in hard asset (like gold, silver, commodity basket) intangible assets?
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin-release-1.4 is an older version of Bitcoin, right? It's not 0.7.0?
So, there's no way to get 0.7.0 on my Fedora 17?
You can run with the multiply signed binaries the dev team publishes. Or you can build (or otherwise install somehow) a local version of openssl with ecdsa support and build bitcoin 0.7.0 locally upon that. |
|
|
|
Alright, so I just finished reading through this thread, and I must say I'm a bit confused....what exactly are we talking about here? Is the primary topic focused on 'property and Bitcoin' or are we just spit-balling various legal issues for LegalEagle to research for his paper?
Spit-balling, imo. |
|
|
|
A thread about Electrum's security model was started here a week ago: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=CANEZrP3Ei8tU%3Dr_gp5K1fPGFe4gvX02gp%2ByuQRi0cwHhLLTe8g%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=bitcoin-developmentI agree with gmaxwell about the technical arguments presented in that thread. Electrum is susceptible to some attacks, and we should do what we can to improve it. However, I also think that when discussing security, it is important to also look at what actually happens with real users. Lots of users reported that they have lost their coins with bitcoin-qt, because they did not properly backup their wallet. This is a big issue, IMO, bigger than the possible attacks mentioned in that thread (which remain theoretical so far, as far as electrum is concerned). For some developers this does not seem to be a real issue, because users should be educated, so that if users lose their coins it is their fault. I disagree on that. This does not mean we should not listen to criticism. I believe we should try to improve Electrum where it is possible. gmaxwell suggested the following improvements, and I will work on them: - adding confirmation icons to the gui (I did it right away, using an old pull request made by Tachikoma) - adding SSL to the protocol. This should be easy, and can be targeted soon, maybe in the next (1.1) release. - adding SPV (simple payment verification) to the protocol. This will take more time, I guess we should add it in the 2.0 release. - adding a better explanation of the security model to the website. he is willing to help me on that. One problem that is mentioned in the thread is the lack of response from Electrum developers. I was not aware of the existence of that thread since I unregistered from the bitcoin-dev ML; I prefer to use bitcointalk.org for discussions about Electrum, because I think messages posted here reach more people. In addition, the messages in that thread were forwarded to the 'official' Electrum email support address, which I believe is genjix's address. And genjix has been away for quite a while now. This is, IMO, a big issue. It caused gmaxwell to suggest that we are "unwilling to disclose" the limitations of the software. Good stuff ThomasV ... I sense you are not so 'retired' from Electrum as you indicated you might be, and this is not a bad thing. |
|
|
|
However, I do believe the block chain is a large distributed creative work. I also think its a problem that no license applies to the block chain as its copied all over the world. Very few people in the developer thread seemed to care. There is only one registered copyright with the word Bitcoin in the U.S. right now and its by CBS for "The Good Wife S3E13: Bitcoin For Dummies".
Bitcoins are nothing more than copied data that is processed by individuals collectively making their own contributions of data. "I own Bitcoins and I can spend them" is nothing but an idea. I believe it is an expressible idea, that the expression is creative, and that the mechanics involved in Bitcoin can enjoy protection under existing copyright law if all else fails. The blockchain is a public creative work ... that's an interesting line of thinking. A common good, work of art, branch of the body of mathematics like the database for the digits of Pi for example. OR ... Could the blockchain possibly be regarded as a kind of ever-extending, massively multi-party [Ricardian?] Contract? The blockchain is a multiplied signed, ever extending contract ... also an interesting line of thinking. Could it be both, i.e., are the two above interpretations mutually exclusive? I would say no, the blockchain could be both of these things. |
|
|
|
You cited an internet forum as a reference, for god's sake. I did nothing of the sort. I merely pasted some links at the end of my comment. You've assumed they were even tangentially related, which they must be because you have just argued against it, as if they are relevant. Anyway, you are here picking brains for free for your self-glorification paper (or was it truly edification?), so what do you expect a free ride full of willing consultants? The problem with what you're saying is that you're vastly overestimating how much the mechanics of bitcoin matter in the attachment of property rights. They only matter to a very small degree.
The mechanics of bitcoin do matter, why else are you asking about them? It is ignorant to think you can write intelligently about a topic without knowing anything about it, but there you go, that's the legal profession for you these days I suppose. I thought I already warned you to stay away from the property right lines of reasoning, they are all wild goose chases ... but fine run up those blind alleys if you insist, report back for our amusement. The monetary freedom and constitutional issues are much more interesting and relevant, given that you seem to be choosing to remain ignorant and resistant to learning about the mechanics of the cryptography involved and how it pertains to ownership, possession and the like. |
|
|
|
Edit : Federal reserve notes are legal tender, meaning that the failure to accept them as repayment of debt results in a default on your contract, by operation of law. So yes, there IS a compulsion to use federal reserve notes. Actually, this is wrong (far be it from me to tell you how to do lawyering) but contracts can be done in any currency trading parties choose, so there is no compulsion just an implied contractual arrangement that you are using legal tender (which happen to be private FR debt notes) when it is not explicitly stated in a contract otherwise. Just having a SSN implies an unwritten contract to use FRN private debt notes .... this is how they get around the constitution by using contract law (implied consent to contract when choosing to be paid in "legal tender" etc, etc) and the body of contractual law surrounding private debt notes. Legal tender laws don't apply to goods and services. They mainly apply to pure loans. There is no legal obligation to accept cash for goods and services, but there is one to accept it as repayment for a loan (as distinguished from sale on credit). However, given the prevalence and necessity of loans for almost any kind of commercial enterprise, there is definitely a compulsion to use federal reserve notes. I think you successfully argued against compulsion there .... what would I know though, eh? |
|
|
|
|
I thought he might have recalled the mons pubis bitcoin tatoo episode for some dramatic effect ... pounding nails and all that.
When all's said and done how is bleating impotently (or even waxing poetically) going to help? Why isn't he out there building something positive?
|
|
|
|
Out of "there" depth? Really? I think you're clearly the one who's out of his element here.
Go on .... I was waiting for your eloquent and erudite espousal on the effectiveness AES-256 keys used for wallet protection in Satoshi client (mathematics included) providing a basis for property rights legal arguments. All I got was ... rant, blah, 9-11, conspiracy, libertarians in the attic, rant, blah, blah. So I suggest you go back to school (actually to fire your teachers) and then start to unlearn your brain-washed state of what you thought you knew about money and property. I can really do condescending if that is what you expect? Most "LegalEagles" need to realise they are out of their depth in the new IT world, more so in the crypto-currency tech. frontier and start with a fresh mind. We come to steal your lunch, get used to it. Or sharpen up. Edit : Federal reserve notes are legal tender, meaning that the failure to accept them as repayment of debt results in a default on your contract, by operation of law. So yes, there IS a compulsion to use federal reserve notes. Actually, this is wrong (far be it from me to tell you how to do lawyering) but contracts can be done in any currency trading parties choose, so there is no compulsion just an implied contractual arrangement that you are using legal tender (which happen to be private FR debt notes) when it is not explicitly stated in a contract otherwise. Just having a SSN implies an unwritten contract to use FRN private debt notes .... this is how they get around the constitution by using contract law (implied consent to contract when choosing to be paid in "legal tender" etc, etc) and the body of contractual law surrounding private debt notes. |
|
|
|
|
You give every appearance of someone lashing out wildly when well out of there depth ... just saying.
E.g: There is not necessarily a "private key" to a bitcoin wallet, older versions of the client, that some people still run, have unencrypted wallets.
Getting all bent out of shape and abusive over links that you CHOOSE to click on is puerile ... I might recommend you go back to newbie jail.
|
|
|
|
|
Hot-air, dryer room, dryer plug, right next to dryer ..... ever thought about ducting hot-air off rig into dryer air intake? Will make your dryer work less if it has temp. control, might save some pennies and when dryer isn't running re-direct or might just pipe through on its own (depends on resistance to flow).
|
|
|
|
Yes, I believe it does everything described above, although OT currently doesn't directly do anything on the blockchain itself. You will have to make your own scripts to interface between the two.
And supplies a scripting environment, "opentxs" for high-level CLI interface with OT API. |
|
|
|
To start, you may want to learn how the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm, XOR ciphers and SHA-256 work Welcome to the new battle-field. Learn how to use the weapons or prepare to meet your maker. Good luck, have your library get you a copy of Dr. Vieira's Pieces of Eight. Hurry, it may take a while. But to save you some time; you are probably chasing a red herring off in the weeds with this issue. Damn. You probably just took the fun out of witnessing a wild goose chase. I submit that our "LegalEagle" law student should brush up on the battlefield of the monopoly of State issued fiat currencies in general. And in particular take notice that United States Federal Reserve Notes are actually a State-sanctioned monopoly issuance of a private debt note. The fact that it is a private debt note, rather than a Federal Government elastic paper money supply, allows the Federal Government of the United States to circumvent their constitutional requirement for sound money. Ostensibly there is no compulsion to use the Federal Reserve private debt notes State-sanctioned monopoly "money" (as this also would be unconstitutional), but in practice, life in the USA without using the private debt notes of the FR is difficult so the monopoly exists in effect but not in law. Competing private money supplies are also discouraged with every legal angle in the Federal Government's bag of low tricks. |
|
|
|
Therefore, the export control determination has to be made by the project’s registered administrator on SourceForge, which for Bitcoin is lead developer Gavin Andresen Well, I imagine Matonis is a little conflicted at this point, given that he is sitting on the board of The Bitcoin Foundation alongside the chief dev who has blocked Iranians from downloading the software .... seems like there might be a case for a hidden service on Tor mirroring bitcoin "official" repo. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
