nope, were flying the bitcoin flag, we our sovereign.
Now if you wanted to fly say a Liberian flag, sure you have to follow Liberian rules, which state no firearms on civilian vessels.
Ah, no. It doesn't matter what flag you fly, civilian vessels may not have weapons. Otherwise they are a valid target of war. That is stated explicitly in an international treaty called "the law of the sea". Who signed this treaty and who enforces its rules? Most nation-states large enough to have their own navy, google is your friend here. As to who enforces the rules, if you have weapons on board and enter Liberian waters, or even close enough that they can forciblely board your ship, if weapons are found on your boat most nations arrest you. Liberia might just shoot you and drop you overboard. Either way, your next of kin get nothing and there is not a thing that your country is going to do to help you. Yes, China has signed the treaty. That same treaty is why military vessels cannot enter soverign waters unless those nations have agreements, and why China & Japan keep getting into small fights over a few useless islands between them, because both nations claim them. |
|
|
|
I can agree that the marketing ring to the article was a bit negative. However, it is a constructive article. Authors propose an improvement which will make 0-confirmation transactions safer.
If you read it carefully, the proposed alert mechanism may be very useful.
I read the suggestions presented in the paper, and I've personally proposed both over a year ago. Looks to me like someone has been lurking the forum and turned that into a school project. The 'listening post' solution that they present isn't even as hard as they imply, because there is a flaw in how they perceive transactions propagate. Normally, a transaction is transmitted to every peer once verified, but do not propagate those that fail validity at all. So any particular vendor is unlikely to ever receive both transactions in a race attack, as the only nodes that get both are, by definition, the "front" where the propagation waves of each transaction meet. Yet if a vendor, who accepts 0/conf transactions, were to modify his own client to send transactions to all peers except one (preferablely as far from himself along the network topology as he could determine) then that client could simply wait to get the 'correct' transaction from both his "nearby" peers and his chosen special peer from across the network. If they match & are good, then a (successful) race attack is very unlikely. If they don't match or the special peer never sees either transaction, then something has gone wrong and the trade should not be approved. This method doesn't require that a special service or a distant node owned by the vendor exist. Why not to take it a step further and simply do not propagate a transaction message if receiving address belongs to the vendor/owner of the node. This effectively turns all vendor’s peers into listening posts. It is also hard to judge which node is the farthest. On internet distance can be quite tricky: ping time, trace hoops, BitCoin hoops, geographic distance. While it is hard to find farthest one, it is quite easy to locate peers which are close to each other, the difference in timing of messages from two close nodes will have low variation. Excellent idea. |
|
|
|
nope, were flying the bitcoin flag, we our sovereign.
Now if you wanted to fly say a Liberian flag, sure you have to follow Liberian rules, which state no firearms on civilian vessels.
Ah, no. It doesn't matter what flag you fly, civilian vessels may not have weapons. Otherwise they are a valid target of war. That is stated explicitly in an international treaty called "the law of the sea". |
|
|
|
I can agree that the marketing ring to the article was a bit negative. However, it is a constructive article. Authors propose an improvement which will make 0-confirmation transactions safer.
If you read it carefully, the proposed alert mechanism may be very useful.
I read the suggestions presented in the paper, and I've personally proposed both over a year ago. Looks to me like someone has been lurking the forum and turned that into a school project. The 'listening post' solution that they present isn't even as hard as they imply, because there is a flaw in how they perceive transactions propagate. Normally, a transaction is transmitted to every peer once verified, but do not propagate those that fail validity at all. So any particular vendor is unlikely to ever receive both transactions in a race attack, as the only nodes that get both are, by definition, the "front" where the propagation waves of each transaction meet. Yet if a vendor, who accepts 0/conf transactions, were to modify his own client to send transactions to all peers except one (preferablely as far from himself along the network topology as he could determine) then that client could simply wait to get the 'correct' transaction from both his "nearby" peers and his chosen special peer from across the network. If they match & are good, then a (successful) race attack is very unlikely. If they don't match or the special peer never sees either transaction, then something has gone wrong and the trade should not be approved. This method doesn't require that a special service or a distant node owned by the vendor exist. |
|
|
|
Hello, I would like to find a business or exchange which can convert my bitcoins into cash.
I am not in the US, so I will need an international wire, western union, or some other way of transmitting the funds.
I don't necessarily need an exchange, I just need to easily convert my BTC as I accumulate them. Also, I absolutely will not use Mtgox.
I really appreciate any suggestions/ideas you may have. Thanks
What city & country? |
|
|
|
|
The ten second window has been (intuitively) known among most of the old salts of this forum for two or three years. This might be the first time that it was confirmed with any kind of experiment, or perhaps not. Many methods of reducing exposure risk to a 0/conf race attack have been proposed, but none yet implimented simply because they don't have any current demand in the marketplace. I've personally suggested more than one method, myself. Furthermore, since there are so many different tactics at reducing said exposure, there is no practical way that an attacker could know in advance which method, if any, his mark may be employing. The simplest method of all would be to simply delay the completion of the transaction for ten seconds. How often have you seen an electronic check or a cc transaction take longer than that?
|
|
|
|
Sweet. So the only laws that need to be concerned about are ones of Universal jurisdiction!
Sorry, but no. The 'Law of The Sea' is significantly more strict in many ways one might find surprising. For example, no one on a ship in international waters (or the soverign waters claimed by a nation other than on your flagpole) may have a working firearm in their possession unless they are officials of some government or their military. This is why merchant marines have to use fire hoses to fend off pirates in the Indian Ocean. |
|
|
|
I take it that Mt Gox is completely accountable to no-one?
They're accountable to the government of Japan. If you think you have standing there, feel free to file a complaint. |
|
|
|
How does the server intemperate the 4 hours on the site. Is it by time span of get requests or does it work in sessions?
Time span of get requests, but if they come too fast they don't count. |
|
|
|
An astute observation, my dear MoonShadow, quite unlike your implication that the Fed has some control over the federal government because it is its biggest lender.
It does, indirectly. But it's kind of a circular loop, since the fed chairman is appointed by the president. Of course, the fed chairmen can only be appointed from a very short list provided by the board members of the federal reserve, whom are themselves appointed by the largest member banks. Granted, the federal reserve board is very limited in it's practical influence upon the actions of Congress, but that is not to say that they don't have any. |
|
|
|
OHNO THE FED PAYS ITS OWN SALARIES, THAT MEANS THEY HAVE THE US GOVT BY THE BALLS
HEARD IT HERE FIRST!
Note that I said profit.
No, you pay the fed's salaries, via the inflation tax. There must be profit before there can be a salary. |
|
|
|
Only if she travels beyond a single hop range, and again, if I know generally where she is going (say the mall or a public park) I don't need to know precisely where to meet her if I need to drive to pick her up. I couldn't text her from the house if she was beyond the single hop range, but if I sent a text like "I'm on my way to pick you up, we're going to grandma's, be ready" the text would arrive at her card as soon as I were close enough for a single hop to work.
Why not a simple SMS instead? If you had read the thread, I mentioned that I can do that all now if I'm willing to pay for a cell phone & service, but I can avoid such charges with a meshable device. |
|
|
|
Yes, but if the device is cheap enough, there are uses for the device that would drive adoption that does not necessarily depend upon a critical mass to support mesh networking. I agree perfectly but my understanding is that without mesh support that device would be more or less useless. That is my point, I have personal uses for a number of such devices that would encourage me to deliberately create a mesh network within my own family. I'm sorry I miss how the mesh network in your home would be useful for you: 1) for being functional, the bitcoincard needs a POS that serves as a gateway between your cards (any of them) and the Internet: you can't use other ones because bitcoincard uses radio frequency and not wifi or other widely deployed technology I'd likely buy a usb dongle to serve this purpose in my own home, in order to keep my own cards up to date.
2) when you give the card to your daughter and she walks away from your home it become useless because the mesh network is not operable any more
Only if she travels beyond a single hop range, and again, if I know generally where she is going (say the mall or a public park) I don't need to know precisely where to meet her if I need to drive to pick her up. I couldn't text her from the house if she was beyond the single hop range, but if I sent a text like "I'm on my way to pick you up, we're going to grandma's, be ready" the text would arrive at her card as soon as I were close enough for a single hop to work. |
|
|
|
I disagree, the mesh texting feature makes such a device useful for me independently of whether or not it can transact in bitcoin. What I was trying to say is that the mesh networking, for working correctly and being useful, needs peers everywhere. So, the meshing capabilities of the device will be unfunctional until this (wonderful) device will be widespread. Yes, but if the device is cheap enough, there are uses for the device that would drive adoption that does not necessarily depend upon a critical mass to support mesh networking. That is my point, I have personal uses for a number of such devices that would encourage me to deliberately create a mesh network within my own family. Get enough of those, and a critical mass is created regardless. |
|
|
|
Partially true, mostly not. The single largest creditor of the US Federal Government is The Federal Reserve and member banks.
The Fed may be the largest creditor, but any profit the Fed makes goes to the treasury, so this is always a silly point. ORLY? Who pays for the Fed's employee pensions, then? How is the US monetary system paid for? You know that it costs money, right? |
|
|
|
Apologize if this has been addressed and I missed it, but is #5 still enforced? Seems a good amount of NSFW content goes entirely unmoderated. (Not stating that this is good or bad, just asking)
It is if I see it. Where are you finding this NSFW content at? |
|
|
|
China.
Partially true, mostly not. The single largest creditor of the US Federal Government is The Federal Reserve and member banks. |
|
|
|
Yet, the common American didn't have any direct experience with those banks that failed. The Federal Reserve exists to protect the banks' investors and their funds, not the livelyhood of the public.
+1 If the "bank bailout" had gone to pay down principle instead of paying off those who wound up with a mortgage in default, there would be a lot less defaults and a lot less people who lost access to credit at the same time they lost their house. Our economy would be in much better shape, but we're not their concern. Their concern is keeping the bankers happy since banks own the world's governments via debt. Bingo. A very wise person was once quoted by saying, "the borrower is slave to the lender." This is true enough at the personal level, and true enough at the national level as well. If the federal government is the borrower, who is the lender? It sure isn't me. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
