|
MtGOX said they were "cooperating with the authorities" ... is tantamount to them saying "MtGOX was a honeypot for people searching for privacy"
... I think the privacy-conscious money has decided MtGOX is a risk that is not worth it right now ....
anybody got a clue on why both MtGOX and TradeHill have US bank accounts in Delaware? what is special about that state?
|
|
|
|
This is an awesome quote. Do you mind if I use it in the future? Don't mind, attributable to no one. |
|
|
|
Few questions; - how do we know that the s/ware running on the web server is the same s/ware represented by the posted source code? (seems like this throws up an interesting technical problem of an "untrusted" server being verified to be running trusted source, maybe it has been solved elswhere?) - can you list any relevant technical stats that are not revealing but may serve to build trust in the integrity of the servers operation? .... throughput, total tokens blinded, issued, redeemed, faults, etc If you offered such a service with paper money, your most obvious clients would be organised crime and you'd probably be classified as a money launderer. I had been thinking of setting up a bitcoin mixer, but got turned off once I thought of this issue. I disagree with this statement. Due to the public record of transactions of bitcoin, the most basic of transaction privacy can only be achieved by blinding services or "laundering" (perjorative, vague term anyway) ... the "most obvious client" is everyone who desires privacy for their individual transactions. Who amongst us would actually say "I prefer less privacy" when it concerns their own private transactions? Simply put, privacy is not just for criminals, because the medium of exchange, bitcoin, is a fully open public transaction record, everybody needs blinding in this scenario. |
|
|
|
It has always perplexed me that the bitcoin core users seem to prefer ubuntu/debian over Redhat/Fedora/CentOS linux when they are supposedly "security conscious" elites of some sort ....
... industrial users who "need" security go the enterprise RH, Novell, suse linux direction not the other way ... just saying, seems weird.
For example, btw, has anybody got bitcoin 0.3.23.beta to build on fedora 15? (or any recent non-debian *nix derivative for that matter?)
Let's please sooo not start a distribution fight. There are many places on the internet where one can find the advantages and disadvantages of every single Linux distribution. The guy was asking about Ubuntu, nothing else. Start your own thread  Okay then, as far as ubuntu goes, I wouldn't put more than about 3 btc on any ubuntu machine ... it is gui-bloated bunch of crap. If you must, use ubuntu server and strip out any network capable apps and forget about running a browser in same account as wallet or even on same machine ... ... happy? Only windows would be a worse option. (Linux user since '96.) |
|
|
|
|
It has always perplexed me that the bitcoin core users seem to prefer ubuntu/debian over Redhat/Fedora/CentOS linux when they are supposedly "security conscious" elites of some sort ....
... industrial users who "need" security go the enterprise RH, Novell, suse linux direction not the other way ... just saying, seems weird.
For example, btw, has anybody got bitcoin 0.3.23.beta to build on fedora 15? (or any recent non-debian *nix derivative for that matter?)
|
|
|
|
I also think it would make sense to include it in the upstream source. I'm a bit puzzled by the assertion that the GPL is incompatible with the MIT license. Its not incompatible, unless someone is thinking that they want to redistribute bitcoin, and the man page, under a more restrictive license for some purpose. Which MIT permits, but GPL does not. For what purpose would someone want to restricting users' rights?
Sorry, I suppose I wasn't clear there. I didn't mean that its incompatible ie not possible, but that it is incompatible ie of a more restrictive license and thus wouldn't be committable to the Bitcoin repo. Without wanting to get into the intricacies of FLOSS licensing, Bitcoin is MIT for a reason, and GPL isnt committable. Okay, so we can't use the debian man page for the main client because of "the intricacies of FLOSS licensing" , so what now? If someone was to re-write a man page I can't see how it would be largely different from the debian man page without being wrong, I mean, how many ways can you write a man page? So bitcoind is doomed to exist forever without a man page in the main client? Have we arrived at the ridiculous stage where writing an OSS man page is more about the licensing than informing the users of how to use the program? (That would suck). I'll close this thread and be done with it if there isn't any ideas towards furthering the cause. |
|
|
|
|
What does Satoshi think about regulation?
US govt. definitely has the ability to trace every bitcoin transaction already, that is what Garzik was saying. Linking btc addresses to IP's and names is not difficult with the internet traffic analysis tools they have. Eventually, they could even adopt bitcoin and MAKE everyone use. Sure it screws the bankers, but then the power shifts completely to the spooks, the watchers, those who like to be hidden but to know everybody else's secrets.
Satoshi = Uncle Sam?
What does Hal Finney think?
It is not the back doors that are the worry, it is the public record at the core and that will never be changed. It is flawed as a monetary technology.
|
|
|
|
|
A good monetary system does not rat out its users to the flavour-of-the-day despots in government, that's what crap money does. We already have crap money.
A "bitcoin" with strong anonymity is a technological improvement not an ideological enhancement. The market will decide.
|
|
|
|
Yes, I too applaud Jeff's effort to distance Bitcoin from some dubious users (Silk Road), and to emphasize its openness and the importance for the community to comply with financial regulations. No matter how mis-guided those regulations maybe? Would you be saying the same thing if you lived in N. Korea, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen .... ? You guys are starting sound like robots. |
|
|
|
|
I support Jon Matonis wholeheartedly.
Society needs to have this debate about financial privacy before they sign their childrens future away to 100% govt. surveillance of your every move.
Have the debate Jeff. What are you afraid of?
|
|
|
|
Look at the link to the video of the CBS News interview I posted earlier. The main exchange is already regulated and looks like bitcoin developers will cooperate with regulators.
So the biggest bitcoin exchange is legal. Why is that a bad thing? It actually is a very good thing. You didn't really think you could avoid paying taxes on dollar profits, did you? If you don't want to pay taxes, don't buy dollars with your bitcoins! Let your bitcoins rest or sell them for goods not for dollars. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. What I'm saying is a large portion of the people on this forum believe the value of bitcoin is it's ability to not be regulated or controlled by a government. Once they figure out they are wrong what's going to happen to the value of bitcoins? I say it becomes a paypal. Whats a paypal worth? Depends what currency you put into your account Pro-gubmint troll wants to buy in cheap eh? Two words. Blind signing. We're going feral babe. |
|
|
|
|
[Tycho] should put his fees up higher and higher until all those people whaling on him for being good stfu.
He is under pricing his service so the network can grow fast and get away from possible outside attacks, if you don't trust [Tycho] then we are fucked.
|
|
|
|
I just pointed my 1.2 GH/s to BTC Guild. If I'd have found them earlier I would never have pointed at deepbit in the first place. The estimated MH/s of each worker is a huge feature that I often found myself wishing deepbit had. I still have a couple miner threads pointed at deepbit, but those are my -f60 threads in case my new primary pool goes down  You can also point your miners at multiple pools at once. Like If you ever accidentally started two miners on the same card, both miners start mining at half rate. You can do this so that if one pool stops sending you work, the miner with work will take over using the entire GPU. I haven't done extensive testing, but i image there is a very small drop in rate because two miners are running on one GPU, but I could never notice it. You can actually get a slight overall, long term increase in has rate by running two processes on the same core I've found. I'm pretty sure it is because when the other process is getting work or sending an output (diff. 1 share) then the other process can jump in and take up the slack, albeit temporarily. But because of this crazy diff. 1 share system of the pools there is quite some cumulative downtime when the processes are submitting and getting work. |
|
|
|
|
gat3way:
When BFI_INT was implemented on poclbm lower mem. clock produced speed improvement and lower power usage on linux.
They may be related but icbw.
|
|
|
|
The biggest risk to bitcoin comes from the US government, which may criminalize and ban it. In fact I am pretty sure they will do that once it gets into their radar.
You can always move to St. Petersburg and leave behind any backwaters that ban bitcoin. |
|
|
|
bitcoin will not and cannot be regulated by design. Exchanges, however, can be regulated by local laws and should operate accordingly. If bitcoin can be regulated as such, it won't be what it is at the core.
I noticed a tone of resistance when it was first to suggested to see how chaumian blinding could be worked into bitcoin, icbw. If it is another layer that works fine also. But bitcoin will die if bitcoin2.0 includes blind transaction signing at its core. Smells like another Tor, black op. project gone feral. |
|
|
|
|
2.1 quadrillion satoshis is a lot of supply ... what if we have inflation? (just kidding folks)
my money is on the satoshi ... 100 satoshis to the bitbuck and go from there.
Although it doesn't really matter what joe average thinks or if he eve needs to, the computer does it all for him.
|
|
|
|
Here is a related worry i have: if big retailers and similarly large corporations and institutions start accepting BTC transactions, many of the BTC will likely be funneled straight to the banks. The banks wouldn't have to *buy* any BTC at all. Then, having acquired all this BTC, the banks could just sit on it, and take the losses on the chin. It wouldn't take long before that would become a very big pile of bitcoin for them to sit on.
Retailers are not going to pass BTC onto banks when they can sit on an appreciating asset themselves for little to no cost (few security experts). |
|
|
|
All the news talks about is money laundering..seriously wtf.
it probably doesn't help matters that there is a service called the Bitcoin Laundry listed on the "who accepts bitcoins" page Although it should - because the fact that there is a service dedicated to laundering ought to indicate that bitcoin itself does not serve that function. But unfortunately, the old media doesn't think too good. Either that or they are really just as corrupt as the government on which they depend. Bitcoin is not money so you can launder it as much as you like I think .... unless they are officially recognising it as money? Jumbling up crypto tokens on a website for an on-line game is what exactly? |
|
|
|
|
Best way to say it, I think, is difficulty provides lower bound on price (as measured in mining input costs).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
