|
Storing all your bitcoins in multi-sig addresses would give plausible deniability that one had all the passwords needed.
|
|
|
|
Now of course, this is absolute lunacy. Cash is cash. It is fungible money.
Bitcoins are the same.
No, they clearly are not. We wish bitcoins were fungible, but they are not, each bitcoin has a unique, identifiable number (and a string of previous transactions) associated with them, stored in a public database. Cash is still king, until crypto-currencies nail the strong-anonymity problem natively (that bitcoin is deficient in). |
|
|
|
|
So any ETA on when new source might be up on github?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
I would say it compliments it. One thing you can do with it is exchange bitcoins for fiat without the need of a centralized market such as mtgox. Which will be very useful for bitcoin.
jed, you better not be just teasing us! ... this would be awesome. |
|
|
|
|
Intersango is an open source exchange built by genjix.
|
|
|
|
What's the problem with getting bitcoins compliantt with GAAP???
It requires extensive modification of the Satoshi client. The upcoming v0.7 requires at least one modification less: "'blocktime' and 'timereceived' fields were added". No matter what, the core development group is dead set against using any auditable database technology for storage, so the cost of modifications will continue to be very high. This is just nuts, top down, guys-in-suits type thinking. Shoe horning some random accounting rules into a design spec (and implementation (which will never happen anyway)) for a network protocol is just wishful thinking ... pretty misguided also imho. NB : GAAP rules were suspended by US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (Hank Paulson) for the major banks at the height of the financial markets panic in 2008 and as far as I know they haven't been re-instated (specifically look at mark-to-model rules of off-balance sheet entities of JPMorgan for example) ... perhaps there are bigger problems with GAAP than "bitcoin doesn't comply" ? |
|
|
|
Those are my USD, not yours . . . This is not at all clear under US law, which would presumably apply given Bitfloor's ties to the US. Au contraire, US law is perfectly clear on the matter: Actually, that clause is exactly the problem. Until due process of law, it is not legally clear whether any of the USD controlled by bitfloor is the property of those who had BTC on deposit, the property of bitfloor, or solely the property of those who have USD on deposit with bitfloor. Bitfloor therefore cannot legally give USD to anyone until due process determines exactly whose property each and every $0.01 is. Here's your "due process" champ: Roman talked to a lawyer, who told him exactly what Death&Taxes, myself, and others have been saying all along.  Here's your "legal clarity" ace: The burden is on those who 'lost' BTC to sue those of us who are looking forward to a nice, juicy ACH transfer into our happy bank accounts. Good luck with that flimsy pretext, which will be thrown out of court like last week's garbage as completely frivolous and totally without merit. Recognition of property rights is enshrined in the US Constitution. Specifically, the 5th Amendment. If you can't understand that, STFU when the adults are talking.  Sounds like we need get you onto Jon Corzine on behalf of the MF Global customers who are still waiting for their deposits back .... |
|
|
|
I wonder how long until we get the encrypted Obama birth certificate ransom for bitcoins demands ....  |
|
|
|
|
SD is not a mixing service ... if it is, it is a pretty terrible one. They send you back coins to the same address they were spent from. When you spend a coin you have to broadcast across the network that you know the public key that produces the public hash (the bitcoin public address) ... so are probably the owner of those coins ... pretty stupid way to make your coins untraceable.
American Banker seems a little hysterical and at sea with the Bitcoin ... someone is stealing their lunch?
|
|
|
|
Remember that Bitcoin is not just the ledger/validation/anti-counterfeiting capabilities, but also a set of rules controlling and decentralizing the issuance. If I read your links correctly, the researchers are essentially proposing a system of digital/quantum monetary units that can be independently verified as genuine, thus leaving the issuance of money still in control of governments and banks. It's basically a drop-in replacement for the existing monetary system, but made fully digital and non-counterfeitable. So I'd argue that for most individuals, Bitcoin would still be better "money" if you valued features such as predictable and decreasing inflation or full decentralization. Wow you must have read through those links quickly  Actually the issuance of such money would be available to any entity in possession of the algorithm not just "still in the control of banks and government" ... big difference. There are other important differences that make the Public-Key Quantum Money much more like digital cash than the current blinded signature cash schemes out there, particularly there is no need to negotiate with the issuer to verify the validity of the coins. This is important since it makes the fully-anonymous coins easily transferable like cash without leaving a network trail of who's transacting with who and etc. Bitcoin cannot do this easily, and Bitcoin can't do fully anonymous at all, pseudo-anonymity will always be Bitcoins deficiency. The market values fungibility, that much is evidentially known with certainty, so I'd argue PKQM is theoretically 'better' money than Bitcoin on those grounds at least. Possibly some really smart new Satoshi could merge this idea of independent quantum monetary units with self-verification (i.e. not needing a Blockchain), with some Bitcoin-like system to restrict and decentralize issuance. In that case it could legitimately claim to be an improvement over the current Bitcoin.
We live in hope ... some of us may even be working on it, who knows? You are right that Satoshi has laid a groundwork for how it can be done and other technologies can incorporate whatever works best. The decentralised, restricted issuance, Open Source, network consensus part of Bitcoin technology is formidable to be sure. |
|
|
|
Deposits for debt swap ... or deposits for shares swap ... (albeit now evaporated deposits mind you) Convertible deposits |
|
|
|
Why can't someone invent a machine that can be switched on or off to connect to the internet and it's only purpose is to be a bitcoin wallet. It can have a little screen that says how many BTC you have. Just connect and it updates and disconnect. And the main thing would be if you needed to send BTC, it would require you to insert some type of key or swipe a card or something.
There's definitely profit to be made by coming up with a way to keep coins that is both secure and easy to use (but not necessarily cheap or free!). Automated multi-sig is the answer to this ... Gavin already outlined it in one of his blog posts. |
|
|
|
In 2001, the first (allegedly) quantum factoring was done, breaking 15 into 5 x 3. Now, in 2012, a state of the art quantum computer has advanced to the point that it can factor 15 into 5 x 3, almost half of the time. I think we have more than 5 years before QC starts threatening bitcoin.
exactly .... |
|
|
|
Yup, the announcement will probably be that they'll set up a legal organization that will act as an official contact and information center for everything Bitcoin related. Hence all these legal questions. It was already proposed a while ago actually.
"Bitcoin" has no phone number, that confuses the hell out of old world people. Lol ... "the Interweb tubes bit-money people don't have a phone number, they need to get one so we can call them and complain" .... Quite frankly, it shouldn't .... I don't know which part of "decentralised" people cannot understand. It is a democratic concept that goes back to the ancient Greeks. Putting one guy on a phone to answer bitcoin questions from old world people will just give a whole lot of people a biased view as to what it is .... get on-line a read about, that is where it lives, how hard is that? |
|
|
|
Idk, maybe my opinion will change after the announcement and it will be obvious why it had to be kept secret.
"Hey, I've got this fantastic idea!" "Really! Tell me all about it!" "We're going to blah blah blah." "Uhh... did you talk to a lawyer about that? That might be illegal." "Uhh... really? no." "And where will you get the money to do it?" "Uhhh... haven't figured that out yet." "And if I want to participate, what should I do?" "Uhh... I dunno, we don't really have a process for that yet..." I made the mistake of asking a reporter when her deadline was, because if it was far enough away I could tell her about the neat idea. I should have kept my mouth shut or sworn her to secrecy. Announcing a half-baked idea is counterproductive; you'll just get a gazillion questions that you can't answer, or, even worse, people will assume they know the answers and then be disappointed when it turns out the idea they thought they heard you describe isn't the same idea they thought they heard. Announcing a fully-baked idea and then modifying it based on what everybody thinks and how it works out in practice is the right way to do things, in my humble opinion. Hmmm, this little dialogue could be consistent with maybe a P2P bitcoin exchange extension/mod for satoshi client .... gawd knows we could do with one. Keep talking ... |
|
|
|
this situation makes bitcoin seem like it's run by a group of people with inside info. decentralized my ass.
this makes me feel left out.
You're missing the point of Bitcoin if you feel left out. You can be as involved as you want to be, just go make something happen-- find something you think needs doing, recruit some people to help if you need help, and do it. Are you waiting for an invitation or permission from somebody? He wants the key used to send messages to the Satoshi client.  NB : I'd like a copy also .... |
|
|
|
|
Sheesh ... 25K unencrypted keys lying around at an exchange ... really??
I'm sure they were doing all the right AML/KYC fiat protection racket crap though ... it does make one wonder if any of these exchanges have actually been set-up intentionally to fail?
Maybe time for another Goxing?
|
|
|
|
|
Saxobank offering BTC accounts?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
