Bitcoin Forum
January 17, 2020, 01:05:50 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 ... 158 »
561  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Here is the Seizure Warrant on: May 15, 2013, 08:19:06 PM
I'll bet the leadership is kicking themselves right now they didn't follow through selling North American Ops to coinlab... Could have avoided the US govt's nonsense and saved $50 million +
Actually, I'm not entirely sure. What would be the legal difference between MtGox using Dwolla (a registered money transmitter) and CoinLab (also registered)? If MtGox had a company in the US that held some of their funds in the US for conveniently transferring funds between them and CoinLab, would that company also have to register as a money transmitter? What about a cashier at Wal-Mart? After all, they are accepting money and transmitting it to Wal-Mart's bank account according to the wishes of the customer! And, OH NO! They might give refunds to people using that very same money that came into their till from another customer a few minutes ago! I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that MtGox might have a case here, at least on the Dwolla side of things. International wire transfers I don't know about...
562  Bitcoin / Important Announcements / Re: MtGox's Dwolla account in the USA has been seized by the DHS on: May 15, 2013, 07:13:55 PM
Quote
In the warrant, a special agent with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), states that there's probable cause to believe Mt. Gox is engaging in "money transmitting" without a license, a crime punishable by a fine or up to five years in prison. The warrant goes on to demand that Dwolla hand over the keys to account number 812-649-1010, which is owned by Mt. Gox subsidiary Mutum Sigillum LLC, and held in the custody of Veridian Credit Union.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/feds-reveal-the-search-warrant-that-seized-mt-gox-account/

Discussion:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=206267.0
563  Other / Meta / Re: If Gox has domain(s) seized, is forum protected? on: May 15, 2013, 05:26:25 AM
We used to be hosted by MtGox, but we've since outgrown that and are now hosted by Private Internet Access. Everything else is also distributed: The domain is held by sirius, who has no admin powers here, and the site is administrated by theymos, who has no direct access to the domain. All of this is besides the fact that an encrypted database is distributed daily to several staff members here which can be restored by various big names in bitcoin, including Satoshi. If any one person goes rogue, it will be a minor inconvenience. If it's more than that, at the very least no data will be lost, even if a whole new forum staff has to be brought in. So yes, we're totally fine.
564  Other / Meta / Re: [NOT CONFIRMED] Bitcointalk users info leaked? on: May 15, 2013, 02:51:00 AM
Quote
Pricing

100,000 bitcoin users emailed for 1BTC
300,000 bitcoin users emailed for 2BTC
This forum only has 115,000 users. Clearly they didn't think this through...
565  Bitcoin / Important Announcements / Re: MtGox's Dwolla account in the USA has been seized by the DHS on: May 15, 2013, 02:13:26 AM
Quote
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security confirmed it has initiated legal action that prompted the Dwolla payment service to stop processing bitcoin transactions.
Nicole Navas, a spokesperson for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, confirmed the legal action to CNET this afternoon.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57584511-38/homeland-security-cuts-off-dwolla-bitcoin-transfers/
566  Bitcoin / Important Announcements / Re: MtGox's Dwolla account in the USA has been seized by the DHS on: May 15, 2013, 01:59:56 AM
From MtGox's facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/MtGox/posts/468895216528224
Quote
Statement Regarding Dwolla:

Like many who have contacted us, MtGox has read on the Internet that the United States Department of Homeland Security had a court order and/or warrant issued from the United States District Court in Maryland which it served upon the Dwolla mobile payment service with respect to accounts used for trading with MtGox. We take this information seriously. However, as of this time we have not been provided with a copy of the court order and/or warrant, and do not know its scope and/or the reasons for its issuance. MtGox is investigating and will provide further reports when additional information becomes known.
567  Bitcoin / Important Announcements / MtGox's Dwolla account in the USA has been seized by the DHS on: May 15, 2013, 01:49:33 AM
I just attempted to get a withdrawal of my USD from MtGox to Dwolla and got the following in an email:

Dwolla Support
MAY 14, 2013  |  01:44PM CDT
<name removed>,

Due to recent court orders by the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland seizing the account of Mutum Sigillum LLC (“Mt. Gox”), Dwolla is immediately no longer legally able to service Mutum Sigillum LLC’s account.

As a result if you have not seen funds arrive in your Dwolla account from this merchant then this will not be occurring with Dwolla. You will want to contact Mutum Sigillum LLC (https://mtgox.com/contact-us) to inquire on how to go about withdrawing these funds.

Sincerely,
Dwolla Support
www.dwolla.com
www.trydwolla.com (Send someone free money on us to get them started)

Anyone else seen this? I guess this is the fallout from the Coinlab lawsuit?

More info:
http://betabeat.com/2013/05/department-of-homeland-security-shuts-down-dwolla-payments-to-and-from-mt-gox/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/feds-seize-money-from-top-bitcoin-exchange-mt-gox/
http://www.businessinsider.com/dwolla-mt-gox-2013-5
http://pandodaily.com/2013/05/14/dept-of-homeland-security-freezes-accounts-between-dwolla-and-bitcoin-exchange-mt-gox/

More discussion:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205370.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205403.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205671.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205679.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205396.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205660.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205462.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205539.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205571.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205621.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205668.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205665.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205513.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205742.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205722.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205542.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205744.0
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ebzru/dwolla_no_longer_allowed_to_do_business_with_mtgox/
568  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Is miningunited.com a SCAM, turning .1 bitcoins into .137 for almost free? on: May 10, 2013, 05:25:21 AM
At first, I was a bit cautious of MU. However, I sent in one or two transactions and, sure enough, earned a bit of BTC back. So far, things have gone smoothly. Will they keep doing this forever? Highly unlikely. For now though, MU seems legit. I plan to keep using them.
If you insist on continuing to use them, never forget that you are gambling. This is not a legitimate enterprise, so don't accidentally convince yourself otherwise.
569  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Initial replace-by-fee implementation is now available on testnet on: May 10, 2013, 05:19:01 AM
Also, if the network doesn't operate on this principle, it will be because we've implemented ways to punish those who do otherwise
Why do you keep assuming this? What's wrong with simply rejecting the block discouraging mechanism as a bad idea and keeping the situation as it is? Just because we may currently have some protection for zero-conf transactions, doesn't mean we have to add more. It's already good enough!

I'm sorry dude, but you are wrong about this.  Most blocks are already assembled by software other than bitcoind.  Also, we have to accept that people using the stock client for mining are certainly capable of getting and applying this patch.  We can discourage patches like this from the main client, but we can't keep them off the network.
Of course not! I fully expect a small percentage of miners to deploy this, and that's OK! That does not mean that we should encourage this behavior as a community by building it into the main client by default, however.

The some protection that you and other see is an illusion.
Code-wise, it is indeed an illusion. But that doesn't automatically mean that the human element in this is also an illusion.

If even a single miner is running this code, or similar code in some other block assembly software, then no transaction is safe until confirmed.  The bulk of them may continue to get confirmed as everyone expects, but that is luck, not safety.
Huh? They don't even need to run this code for that to be the case right now. All you need is for a miner to restart their node and a double-spend can get through just as easily. Remember that fork we had?

For the hundredth time, this has nothing to do with safety, but with playing the odds. Fast food restaurants realized that they can save several seconds per transaction by not having people sign their credit card receipt, meaning that they would automatically lose any chargeback. And yet, that savings more than made up for the additional losses that policy brought about. This issue is not just black and white, nor is it even 50 shades of grey.
570  Economy / Speculation / Re: Sentiment in 2011 on: May 10, 2013, 04:18:44 AM
I am beginning to think there is a chance I was wrong. It would be great.
That means that you weren't wrong. This is why crashes hurt so badly. You end up thinking that you were wrong, end up buying, see the price go down a bit, immediately realize that you weren't wrong, then sell at a loss. If you aren't thinking that you were wrong, that's when you should be worried.
571  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Initial replace-by-fee implementation is now available on testnet on: May 10, 2013, 04:04:06 AM
Also, if the network doesn't operate on this principle, it will be because we've implemented ways to punish those who do otherwise
Why do you keep assuming this? What's wrong with simply rejecting the block discouraging mechanism as a bad idea and keeping the situation as it is? Just because we may currently have some protection for zero-conf transactions, doesn't mean we have to add more. It's already good enough!

572  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: What thread would respond to if not confined to the "Newbie Forum"? on: May 10, 2013, 03:36:32 AM
Take notice, everybody. Posts like this get you whitelisted  Wink
573  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Reminder: zero-conf is not safe; $1000USD reward posted for replace-by-fee patch on: May 10, 2013, 03:05:32 AM
Of course not. Until bitcoins become commonplace, the most common user of zero-confirmation transactions - brick and mortar businesses - won't really exist. If this change is inevitable like you guys claim, why not wait for it to happen naturally?

False sense of security.

The point of all this is that zero-conf tx should not be used for zero-trust situations.
Why are you on the internet right now? After all, it is impossible* to get a virus if you don't have an internet connection.

*Yeah, there are other ways, but ignore that for now.

What about your money? I suspect that you have it all in gold (because USD can't be trusted) stored in a vault that you personally designed (because someone else may have put a backdoor in their design) stored under your personal supervision. After all, every action you ever take must require zero-trust, right?

Please tell me that you get where I'm going with this. This is a problem that should be solved through general education, not reducing effective security. Also, stores don't even need to ask for ID - they just need to have a camera, which is something that they should have to prevent general shoplifting anyway.

Zero-conf replacement requires only a few miners to participate for it to make zero-conf transactions pretty much useless in zero-trust transactions.

I don't think that's right - people accepting zero-confirmation transactions are already playing the odds. 1% of mining power taking the later arrival with the higher transaction fee still leaves you getting the payment 99% of the time, so in a lot of cases it would still be worth it for the extra sales.

Double-spend attackers welcome, buy 99 pizzas and get one free...
And that's worst case, when every order is made by an attacker.
574  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: "Humble Double Fine Bundle, Now With Bitcoin!" on: May 10, 2013, 01:11:34 AM
Woah! I guess I'm going to get a shirt now after all!
575  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Reminder: zero-conf is not safe; $1000USD reward posted for replace-by-fee patch on: May 10, 2013, 12:10:00 AM
Or is there an assumption or recommendation that Bitcoin not be used for transactions that are immediate, such as point-of-sale?
No, this is an assertion that bitcoins not be used for transactions that are immediate, even if a business is already capable of handling the levels of fraud the current system would entail.

In fact, out of the roughly half dozen people running services I have either contacted, or who have contacted myself or John Dillon, nobody has actually asked us not to implement replace-by-fee.
Of course not. Until bitcoins become commonplace, the most common user of zero-confirmation transactions - brick and mortar businesses - won't really exist. If this change is inevitable like you guys claim, why not wait for it to happen naturally?
576  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Admins/Mod: Please create a sub-subforum! Idea/Proposal! on: May 09, 2013, 11:40:03 PM
Every time I click "Show unread posts since last visit" 90% of the post displayed have nothing to do with Bitcoin
FYI: You can choose to ignore boards in your profile.
577  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bootstrapping the pruned blockchain on: May 09, 2013, 11:35:46 PM
The validity of bootstrap can easily be checked by checking the hash (which has to be hardcoded into the software) - the way current (full) blockchain bootstrap works.

Ah, that makes sense. Thx.

/thread
I wouldn't say that really is the end to the thread, since you are then trusting that the developers set the correct hash for the unspent transaction output tree at a given time. Admittedly, it is far better to trust them than random nodes, so it is better than nothing. However, a solution that implements something like etotheipi has suggested would be preferable assuming that it can be made practical.

Could u give the link to etotheipi's suggestion, plz? Can't google it.
Sorry about that:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88208
578  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Is miningunited.com a SCAM, turning .1 bitcoins into .137 for almost free? on: May 09, 2013, 12:06:18 AM
We currently are looking into redoing this as we need to prevent single user domination. The point was to provide the service to a lot of people. Another reason for why the fee is so high is to prevent a single user from taking all the spots.
What possible reason could you have for wanting to prevent single user domination? A legitimate company would prefer dealing with a single person, since it is much less work.

The only possible explanation for this is that this is a ponzi scheme. That's it.
579  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bootstrapping the pruned blockchain on: May 08, 2013, 11:07:53 PM
The validity of bootstrap can easily be checked by checking the hash (which has to be hardcoded into the software) - the way current (full) blockchain bootstrap works.

Ah, that makes sense. Thx.

/thread
I wouldn't say that really is the end to the thread, since you are then trusting that the developers set the correct hash for the unspent transaction output tree at a given time. Admittedly, it is far better to trust them than random nodes, so it is better than nothing. However, a solution that implements something like etotheipi has suggested would be preferable assuming that it can be made practical.
580  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: How long does it take to get rid of Newbie Status? on: May 08, 2013, 09:58:03 PM
Wow, there are some useful people who posted here. The following people qualified for preemptive whitelisting:

mueslo: OK
jbsnyder: OK
marvel212: OK
Jos-T: OK
CobaltBlue: OK

Don't expect me to check back here more, though. If you want a guaranteed whitelist review, see the whitelist request thread linked from the newbie readme sticky.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 ... 158 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!