|
1541
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A Warning Against Using Taint
|
on: June 07, 2012, 12:00:13 AM
|
Why do you think you are allowed to use force to prevent me from implementing some scheme on my own client?
Because you can't control who sends you coins. If somebody sends you tainted coins, what are you going to do about it? You can't send them back, since the address they came from may not be under the sender's control (eg, e-wallets), and you can't keep them but refuse to accept them as payment. Can you imagine if that happened with cash? "Sorry, we can't accept this $100 note as payment, you'll have to give us another one. No, you can't have this one back; no, it's not counterfeit, we just think it might have been involved in some form of criminal activity at some point in the past." You'd have some use of force directed at your face if you tried that in real life. You don't have to accept coins that have been obtained dishonestly, either. That would be a personal choice. Because bad actors could respond, to honest traders who only making transactions with other honest people, with violence does not invalidate the idea. I encourage the sympathetic readers of this post to stop thinking about bitcoin as "cash" and start thinking in terms of a distributed file system containing a perfect accounting ledger. The idea is much more sophisticated than "cash" and will lead one day to a system that will allow us to keep track of our debts to each other in terms of personal economic value.
So, everyone's bitcoins will have a different value to everyone elses? How exactly are you supposed to set prices with such a scheme? "This product costs 10 BTC, but only 8 BTC if the coins come from a verified Mt Gox account, with a 50% surcharge if the coins ever touched SR, plus 10% if they came from a coin mixing service... etc" Is that pretty much how it's supposed to work? And if so, how does that make any sense? That would cause problems if you tried it in real life, too. What you're asking is like asking how Mt. Gox can give you 5 USD/BTC one day and 6 USD/BTC the next day. Why are exchange rates set on an open market with bids and asks any different than devaluing dishonest money? If someone you want to trade with wants to charge you more because you have dishonest money, you don't have to trade with them. I'd encourage you to find someone to trade with that will give you the full value you believe your BTC is worth. |
|
|
|
|
1542
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A Warning Against Using Taint
|
on: June 06, 2012, 12:16:10 PM
|
|
GREAT IDEA.
I find it highly ironic that the forum's "libertarians" are the ones that are most opposed to a personal blacklist. By public ridicule, and by threatening to attack the block chain, they seek to impose their academic hypothesis of fungibility on all bitcoin users. Why do you think you are allowed to use force to prevent me from implementing some scheme on my own client?
This begs the question as to the true motivation of the anti-taint thugs. Why are they attracted to the bitcoin cryptocurrency? Because it makes sense to them personally, or because they are confidence artists and believe the irrevocable nature of transactions will help them defraud more people?
We have a perfect record of every transaction that has ever occured in the economy. Why not use it?
I encourage the sympathetic readers of this post to stop thinking about bitcoin as "cash" and start thinking in terms of a distributed file system containing a perfect accounting ledger. The idea is much more sophisticated than "cash" and will lead one day to a system that will allow us to keep track of our debts to each other in terms of personal economic value.
|
|
|
|
|
1543
|
Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Discussion of Leaked FBI Report on Bitcoin- April 2012
|
on: May 31, 2012, 12:56:53 PM
|
3. No US agency identifies Classified status by the paragraph, especially not any document that would have For Official Use Only status. The entire document would be identified as such on the cover, only.
http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/EPIC_DOJ_FOIA_NoFlyList_09_13_11_CT_Guidance2.pdfhttp://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf9. A real report would not mis-identify the entity that money transmitters must register with. They are not legally required to register with "FinCEN", that is where reports are filed by Law Enforcement, and advisories developed to coordinate the efforts of Law Enforcement to combat financial crimes, not as a registry for money exchangers. 31 CFR §1022.380(a)-(f) They would be far more likely to be required to register with their respective Secretary of State, or Corporate licensing agency on a state by state basis, licensing of financial institutions is done on a state level, not on a Federal one.
Yes. MSBs are required to be properly licensed with the states they operate in, in accordance with the laws of those states. Sorry kids, as juicy as this may sound, the myth is completely and irrevocably busted.
 |
|
|
|
|
1544
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: [ANN] 700,000 Cash Deposit Locations in Brazil, Russia, USA - BitInstant
|
on: May 27, 2012, 05:54:39 PM
|
Hey, No, we are not the same people as TradeHill. We have been around for about a year. Here is more info about us https://www.bitinstant.com/aboutus To answer your question, yes I come from an economics and financial background with a degree in both. Every country we support we are in accordance with taxes and regulation. Everyone in this forum knows us. -Charlie Sorry, I ask not because I am skeptical, but because you are setting a very good example for the rest of community. |
|
|
|
|
1546
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Spending and Receiving Stolen Coins.
|
on: May 27, 2012, 04:10:26 PM
|
How about a system where each bitcoin is valued based on how much you personally trust each person (wallet) that has ever held it? If everybody did this, that would make us a lot more discerning about who we dealt with, wouldn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FungibilityIt would be the death of Bitcoin (or any currency). The currency would still be fungible for the set of all honest participants that only dealt with other honest people.  |
|
|
|
|
1547
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Spending and Receiving Stolen Coins.
|
on: May 27, 2012, 03:35:40 PM
|
|
How about a system where each bitcoin is valued based on how much you personally trust each person (wallet) that has ever held it? If everybody did this, that would make us a lot more discerning about who we dealt with, wouldn't it?
I'd like to see a situation where Bernie Bitoff may steal all the bitcoins, but they would not buy even one pair of alpaca socks.
Additionally, just because we have an anonymous service, doesn't mean we should primarily use it anonymously. The best members of this community reveal exactly who they are. The power of an anonymity service is that at any moment you could "go dark." However operating in the dark is a lot like being in an underwater submarine versus one that has been surfaced. Everything you do becomes a little more difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
1549
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "Bitcoin Security Module": Adding hardware security for hot wallets
|
on: May 27, 2012, 01:22:14 AM
|
Well, I wouldn't trust myself to implement such a system on a raspbery pi for production use. I would review this document ( http://static.yubico.com/var/uploads/pdfs/YubiHSM%20Manual%202011-09-14.pdf) for operation mode ideas if I was going to try to implement one myself. Additionally, I would like to review some other vendors products, but I doubt they will openly discuss their implementation. The Yubico HSM is a classic example of how I said Bitcoin presents some unique challenges. In most HSM applications you are simply protecting the private key. The Yubico can protect a private key, it can even sign a tx but it has no concept of "what" it is signing. So to take Bitcoinica as an example the attacker would be unable to steal the private key but it could ask the Yubico to sign this tx transfering 18K from Bitcoinica hot wallet to the attacker's address and the Yubico would happily do it. I think the point of the hardware in this application is to verify that the internal servers are receiving their commands from the web server directly, before the transaction server does the transaction. I don't think the HSM can verify anything beyond that. The verification of accounts (ledger entry) is a separate verification. The verification that the user is authorized to initiate the transfer is a separate step of authentication. |
|
|
|
|
1550
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "Bitcoin Security Module": Adding hardware security for hot wallets
|
on: May 27, 2012, 01:04:59 AM
|
galambo: Or what about a raspberry Pi?
The Raspberry Pi could BE the HSM actually, and have a hardened OS on the SD card. Theres space on the board to mount a extra physical button that will affect one of the GPIO's that will make the HSM to bypass almost all security checks while its depressed.
like if (sha512($suppliedpassword) == $userhash || $GPIO16 == true) then
end if
The OS could be built by the bitcoin community and be freely downloadable as a image, that then can be dd'ed to a SD card. And SD card size then tells how many users it can store.
There is serial connections on the board, else a simple USB null modem serial cable (a cable with 2 USB males and a fat thing in the middle containing rs232 electronics) could be used to connect the raspberry to the host.
since the rs232 interface is well defined, there would be no possibility to "hack" the system.
Well, I wouldn't trust myself to implement such a system on a raspbery pi for production use. I would review this document ( http://static.yubico.com/var/uploads/pdfs/YubiHSM%20Manual%202011-09-14.pdf) for operation mode ideas if I was going to try to implement one myself. Additionally, I would like to review some other vendors products, but I doubt they will openly discuss their implementation. |
|
|
|
|
1552
|
Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: MT.Gox will not release over $26,000 USD
|
on: May 16, 2012, 02:49:20 AM
|
But the real kicker here is first they lie about the Dwolla transfer - 6 business days my ass, when I had the transfer in for longer than that (and this was prior to the 6 business days deal, where it was previously instant), it never completed and had to be canceled. Then they tell me I have to mail them (via snail mail) notarized documents for their "AML team" to "review." I've already sent them proof of my personhood, any further documents I would send them could just as easily be forged as what I've already sent them, so it's a useless request... not to mention it would then force me to wait for an undetermined amount of time for the documents to arrive in the mail, then the "AML Team" to "review" them.
Oh, so it's an anti-money laundering issue? I guess my question is relevant. |
|
|
|
|
1553
|
Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: MT.Gox will not release over $26,000 USD
|
on: May 16, 2012, 12:04:06 AM
|
Inaba, do you care to publicly disclose the source of this 26,000$ USD that you have managed to acquire in bitcoin?
Like tvb suggested, I would guess Bitcoin mining. He's a big-time miner. I didn't ask you to disclose your assumptions. I asked Inaba to disclose the source of this income. Inaba doesn't seem to be interested in discussing it. Why should the bitcoin community consider his whining if he doesn't want to discuss this issue in an objective manner? |
|
|
|
|
1555
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: OK, i confirmed the model of FPGA they are using in BFL single.
|
on: May 11, 2012, 11:49:46 AM
|
His argument doesn't make sense anyhow. I'm a high count poster, a forum mod, author of DiabloMiner, owner of Diablo Mining Company, one of the first 100 Bitcoin users, and a very big advocate of Bitcoin usage, and I have made only positive posts about BFL. In fact, unless 28nm hardware comes out and its cheaper mh/$ than BFL MiniRigs, I want those to become the backbone of DMC (which, incidentally, would make me the biggest BFL user in the world).
Good Luck. Have you ever seen a BFL product in person? I imagine very few people have. Are they all shills? So your business plan is to issue counterfeit securities and use the proceeds to acquire capital in the form of a product you aren't sure actually exists or not? Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
1556
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: OK, i confirmed the model of FPGA they are using in BFL single.
|
on: May 11, 2012, 11:45:18 AM
|
His argument doesn't make sense anyhow. I'm a high count poster, a forum mod, author of DiabloMiner, owner of Diablo Mining Company, one of the first 100 Bitcoin users, and a very big advocate of Bitcoin usage, and I have made only positive posts about BFL. In fact, unless 28nm hardware comes out and its cheaper mh/$ than BFL MiniRigs, I want those to become the backbone of DMC (which, incidentally, would make me the biggest BFL user in the world).
Good Luck. Have you ever seen a BFL product in person? |
|
|
|
|
1557
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: OK, i confirmed the model of FPGA they are using in BFL single.
|
on: May 11, 2012, 02:52:45 AM
|
|
I think its very odd that whenever someone makes a negative post about BFL, a bunch of low post count users either attack, or bump the positive BFL posts in the forum.
Even stranger is that these posters typically have a very low ratio of useful posts to complete garbage if you review their history. Most of their posts are promoting the BFL "product" for lack of a better term.
BFL promotional posts types-
1) 'tech support' questions about supposed operational BFL units
2) claims of having received a BFL unit in the mail
3) making a post asking if the BFL is a scam, replying to the negative with another account
etc.
If only we could harness and direct this creativity to a more productive activity, like ngzhang has.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
