so you're saying "a liar lied again"

that was an incredible prediction, any gambling tips?

Bitwala were doing interviews talking about negotiating a banking license 2-3 years ago. One gets the impression that one party wanted something the other wasn't happy with, until someone changed their mind. No negotiation takes multiple years unless something like that is going on behind the scenes.

I wonder what happened? My guess would be that the regulators had all the negotiating power, and Bitwala gave up something pretty extraordinary to get the deal. The company board at Bitwala is probably now stuffed with banking industry cronies, and their CTO is probably straight out of the German equivalent of the NSA (or someone who worked for them surreptitiously in the banking industry).

The final bitch-slap will be left until Bitwala have been running a few months; their negotiations counterpart at the German banking regulator will change the conditions out from under their feet, putting even more weight on their own side of the see-saw (aka the ejector seat move ). This happens with so many startups in so-called free market capitalism, "compliance" turns into a take-over.


so when a company in a high profile business goes bust very quickly, either they were crooks, or they were eaten by regulators, and preferred to self-destruct the company than let the psycho-chimps steal it

yep



yep (Ubuntu does something similar also)



well, there's Linux users here on this forum. everything you need to know to get started is above: don't use Mint or Ubuntu (or Windows) if you want privacy. Don't use Windows if you want security, online or offline.

so, you're saying that I misunderstood the carbon credit scheme


but your outline of the scheme is essentially identical to what I stated

• credits are created
• big polluters sell the credits they do not need

that's more or less exactly what I said.

what makes you think these highly dubious characters with bad reputations for corruption will not game that system? By adhering to this nonsense without due diligence (instead you believe the information you are given from known bad actors), you are doing the job of the energy industry to force it on everyone.

we won't need to buy any credits? well, possibly that promise will exist when the scheme begins. how reliable do you think that promise will be

---

but it's all moot when the science has been distorted (not wrong, distorted), and the data which motivated the whole field cannot withstand basic peer review.


there is a whole group of climate scientists that have done published studies that contradicts the basis of anthropogenic climate change. why would you ignore this, and just repeat 1 side of a 2 sided story over an over again? do you want to believe in an "end of the world" scenario? it is said that no-one ever went out of business selling stories that predict the end of the world

but hey, don't listen to me. just pay your exhalation (i.e. breathing) taxes!!! have fun with that

it sounds like a protocol level flaw, as all clients were affected (at least both c-lightning and lnd anyway)

but we don't know yet, the c-lightning team and the lnd team released fixed clients, then waited, then made an announcement that a flaw exists, but not the details of the flaw. this is the most responsible way to handle it, as many people (including myself) had already upgraded their Lightning daemon anyway.


There's no evidence that any funds have been stolen using the still-not-public flaw, so any tangible fallout from this event should be minimal to none.

well to me it's kind of neutral


but @nulltxmark has been copy-pasting threads in this Press board twice over the past few days, and did so for 3 stories that all could be perceived to have a negative slant, just not by me


the threads were literally posted originally by @nulltxmark, and by @nulltxmark the 2nd time too. But it's just a mistake, right @nulltxmark?

why?

you didn't provide any reasoning at all as to why

My reply came before your assertions:


what this means is that malware can do what it likes, because the VM it infects is simply a copy of a template VM that is thrown away every time you shut it down. there's also a system that destroys the user file system on shutdown also.

I've literally spent the last 5-6 years opening 30-100 "Disposable VM's" every time I sit down to use my PC. The hypervisor that shepherds the VMs is very small, and so even though I couldn't and wouldn't scrutinize the code, I can and do compile it, and there are people who can read and understand that codebase because of it's relatively small size.


please don't reply to posts if you're not even going to read them, thank you

that's the old security model though

new security model (since ~ 2012):

• Virtual machines for sandboxing apps
• Dedicated CPU instructions sandbox hardware devices
• Non-persistant filesystem stops malware from sticking after a reboot

if you're thinking "that sounds too hard to use/setup", then maybe you should be asking "how much do I want to keep my BTC safe?"

if you believe the 1990's model (anti-virus) is good enough, I hope you won't be upset if you get hacked. By someone who works for Avast or Kaspersky.

what it probably means is that either:

• user has 1 key, and Bitwala have another, 1 key unlocks user wallet
• user has 1 key, and Bitwala have 1 key, a 3rd key is held by an "independent arbitrator" (approved by Bitwala or German banking regulator etc), 2 keys needed to unlock user wallet

and it's probably the latter option.

in other words, the 2nd or 3rd keys will be used to "keep depositors safe". Of course, that can also stop the user from being able to withdraw their own money as the see fit. But Bitwala will (naturally) say "we only prevent withdrawals if we detect untoward behavior with a customer account", which can mean anything they want it to in practice

whatever multi-sig scheme they're using, it means only one thing: you need them to agree when you spend "your" money

dunno about you folks, but that doesn't correspond to my definition of "my money", it belongs as much to Bitwala as it does to me.

welcome to bitcoinbank, banks 2.0

no honor among thieves, as ever

algebra thread, eh?

if it fell x% in A minutes, what is the value of the variable "A"?

there needs to be an equality operator in your expression though. your equation as it stands is insoluble without an equality operator and a constant value to which your lhs equates

Answer this question:

is there ANY POINT AT ALL in using a cash-like internet currency if we accept a middleman that changes it back into a controlled system?


actually, don't bother answering, just go play in a lightning storm wearing a tall copper hat instead


this is why we can't have nice things

"Bitcoin: be your own bank"

it's a bit like politicians; you'd be crazy to actually trust somebody who actually wants to be a bank


we don't need politicians to represent our interests (they don't anyway)

we don't need banks to keep our money safe (they don't anyway)

I won't be using Shopify or their partner gateway for Lightning



fixed

@nulltxmark


why are you making more than 1 thread about negative news stories?

talk

@nulltxmark


why are you making more than 1 thread about negative news stories?

talk

I agree, but smaller operators of nodes might only ever number in the 10's of thousands. I hope there will be more, but who knows. Simply by discussing this, it could eventually reach the eyeballs those 10's of thousands while they (inevitably) look for ways to improve their node's competitiveness.



this is useful information.


I still think that the 'sybil'¹ problem exists. And so what of a "route through this node, if we can" type of routing logic? Has anyone implemented that? What problems could it cause?


A problem with the "avoid this route" routing logic is that, depending on how many nodes are circumvented, the routing calculation will likely increase in time and complexity, and possibly also fee amount. This problem depends a great deal on the precise network topography and it's liquidity distribution, but certainly the worst case will be affected.

---

¹(it's not really the proper definiton of sybil, as it's not an attack on the connectivity or topography of the network)

so, the point is that someone must issue the carbon credits, and they must do it according to some rationale

and I outlined the rationale above. Although I missed out perhaps the most significant detail; those who produce most CO₂ are those with the most leverage to decrease their output.



think about it; the big oil and gas extractors & the fossil fuel based electricity production industries fit this profile more or less exactly. They create more CO₂ than anyone else, because they are the root source of all the carboniferous products.

and so they have been anointed as the carbon credit controllers, they control the supply, and the price. but none of this was in their interests all along, right? they just had to fight all this taking away bestowal of extra political power all through the 70's and 80's

it was probably (at least at some point in the development of this culture) a simple reverse psychology trick: "oh no IPCC!! please don't give us the power to print and sell carbon credits as a worldwide monopoly!!!! Noooooooooooooooo!!!"




there was other climate change news this week too


when you measure the average temperature change of the planet from suitably equipped satellites, not from a cherry-picked range of non-standard weather stations in unevenly distributed locations, there is no discernible or statistically significant warming trend over the last decade, despite the increases in CO₂

so, what do you think we should do about the problem?

you both need to read the OP again



if "don't use this route" gets gamed, "do use this route" cannot be


if you fail to understand this a second time, you won't be posting in this thread again, as unfortunately there's little difference between someone who cannot grasp something and someone who pretends not to be able to grasp something in order to be obstructive