All of the listed bounties are for people that have the ability to right their wrongs but have not done so
How would you know that since the people are not identified? How do you know what really happened in these cases anyway? Maybe posts on Bitcointalk from people only known by screen names? This is the kind of things I am talking about, the people involved with this thing don't have the slightest idea about standards of proof and evidence. |
|
|
|
Should we not give people an opportunity to right the wrongs, they did in their past?
Was he promoting these services, knowing that they were scams or was he scammed too?
I believe in forgiveness, if someone :
1. Announce publically that he did wrong, and takes ownership for it.
2. Try to make ammends, by doing something to counter the wrong.
3. Do these things without hidden agendas or to do more wrong.
He had his "strike 1" ...I suggest we give him "strike 2" ......
It's easy to ruin a reputation, it's much harder to build it back up. If his actions add value and it makes a positive difference, it will be better for all.
The governments and press jumps on every opportunity, to bash the bitcoin protocol, when it's not even the protocol that was hacked, but the services using the protocol.
This in a way, can be seen as consumer protection, something that are lacking in the "payment processor" service side of bitcoin, and that is good.
Right or wrong, what was done in the past, etc. all do not really matter. What matters is the present situation and the perceived reputation of Bitcoin. Many of the early Foundation members did irresponsible things over a long period which has resulted in significant damage to Bitcoin's rep and those activities continue. Some would say that Bitcoin would never be where it is today without those early people. That is true to a certain extent but I am on the fence whether they are an overall good thing or not. In any case you can't change history so you just have to look forward. The early spokespeople of Bitcoin such as Ver, Shrem , Karpeles, etc. and the Foundation itself are all tainted. Things have changed significantly over the past couple years but some of these early people are not changing along with it. They think it is normal to run something Bitcoin Bounty Hunter program and set up some kind of screwball video and run threads here. It is not, it is lunatic fringe activity that damages Bitcoin's reputation. I complained to the Foundation about this 18 months ago and I told them I thought all the major players such as Gox, Coinlab, and Bitinstant would all be gone within 18 months. It was obvious to anyone who looked at the situation that all this stuff like Mt. Gox was going to happen. That fact goes right over the heads of people like Ver and Shrem and they just continue on like nothing happened. |
|
|
|
|
A general has several commanders. The general has to give an order to attack or retreat via messenger. He knows a small percentage of the messengers are traitors and they will give the wrong order. if a section of the troops were to attack when they are supposed to retreat they would be wiped out. If the general simply gave the orders directly to each commander nothing can be done to stop the traitors from giving the wrong orders to portions of the troops. Instead, each commander must send messengers to all the other commanders and the order is not "finalized" until each commander receives the same message from every other commander. That way a small number of traitors cannot cause a false order to be relayed. It takes extra work but that extra work circumvents a disaster. It depends on the majority of the players to be honest (like Bitcoin miners).
Bitcoin is actually a variation on the Byzantine General's Problem. For one thing you don't have to wait for each and every node to agree but it is the general idea.
|
|
|
|
what the so called regulators should do is not have licences.. but instead request BUSINESSES to register in what ever country they reside in as a business (standard protocol anyway).
Legacy laws should be considered first which is the comments I submitted on the Bitlicense proposal and what Patrick Murck discusses here: https://soundcloud.com/epicenterbitcoin/eb-bitcoin2014-08 |
|
|
|
So there's one simple conclusion: Let's help him!
He is part of the original Foundation and he promoted businesses where many, many people lost money at web sites where the Foundation's logo appeared. The people involved with the original Foundation are tainted and the "brand" is known for scams and incompetence. The bounties posted are all associated with these activities. The current situation is attracting all the wrong people and I wouldn't support that. If some reasonable people got involved I could see the benefit but this is just generating bad publicity for Bitcoin as it is. |
|
|
|
It never was as easy as before to produce evidence which can be ripped apart in a court of law by defense lawyers because it was obtained/stored/forwarded in a way which disrupts the chain of evidence. In the Bitcoin-world, it is much easier to get evidence which is forensically sound.
I don't think that would be the case. It would be extremely difficult and complicated to present Bitcoin-related evidence in court and it would most likely require an expensive expert to testify even if you could collect the evidence. Also, if it comes out that law enforcement gets a "bounty" that could be a basis for dismissing the entire case. The OP has no concept of the requirements for evidence that can be presented in court. Of course it would be complicated to present Bitcoin-related evidence in a court of law. But this is the normal day-to-day business: You have to "translate" what happened in the world of technology into the language of a lawyer. And: In a criminal case - and it seems at the moment that most of the cases will be criminal cases - you can give the evidence to a DA. This DA will not only rely on what you give him, but will do his own research in the real world. So at the end of the day, the evidence will be embedded in a whole bunch of other evidence. In my day-to-day business, I am used that you spend per 100 hours research 300 hours in explaining the evidence to law enforcement. With Bitcoin-related evidence, this rate most probably will rise (in some cases in which Bitcoins were involved, I spent literally weeks to explain the concept of Bitcoins to cops, lawyers, DA and judged). So I do this expert work and agree with you that this is time consuming and complicated and some times as expensive as frustrating, however: Should this be the reason not to go after criminals? Many law enforcement agencies all over the world currently cease cases because they think they are too complicated. Your argument that a case could be dismissed because of a bounty is void. It may be the case in some jurisdictions, but only in few. And finally: Given the fact that many law enforcement agencies in the world do not know how to deal with cases in which Bitcoin is involved, and given the fact that media, politicians and banks all over the world repeatedly say that Bitcoin is the perfect tool for comitting crimes: Who else but the Bitcoin community would be the ones who can show that there is a possibility to catch those criminals? I agree with what you say if there was some type of organization, say modeled after CERT, that provided information to law enforcement. However, having one guy in Japan with a personal agenda making bounties and whose experience with law enforcement is getting arrested for firecrackers is not the way to go. |
|
|
|
It never was as easy as before to produce evidence which can be ripped apart in a court of law by defense lawyers because it was obtained/stored/forwarded in a way which disrupts the chain of evidence. In the Bitcoin-world, it is much easier to get evidence which is forensically sound.
I don't think that would be the case. It would be extremely difficult and complicated to present Bitcoin-related evidence in court and it would most likely require an expensive expert to testify even if you could collect the evidence. Also, if it comes out that law enforcement gets a "bounty" that could be a basis for dismissing the entire case. The OP has no concept of the requirements for evidence that can be presented in court. |
|
|
|
I just saw the http://coincenter.org announcement. Jerry Brito is one of the best advocates for Bitcoin in Washington, DC. I hope this organization is separate from the Foundation. Many people on here will discuss all kinds of conspiracy theories about the Bitlicense and other regulatory issues. The fact is one of the main reasons is complaints from within Bitcoin users themselves. Huge numbers of complaints have been generated by Bitcoin businesses and things like Bitinstant, Satoshi Dice Investments, pirateat40, Mt. Gox, Bitfloor, BFL, etc. have all generated complaints to regulators. The regulators don't know what to do so they propose all kinds of screwed up regulation. Since this stuff is going to happen anyway Jerry Brito is probably the best person to deal with it. Listen to Jerry Brito https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgf5UnhirR0 |
|
|
|
|
xbtex.info domain name. 15 mBTC
Good for a site to provide Bitcoin exchange information.
this domain must be transferred into a registrar you choose at your expense. You can use places like namecheap to use Bitcoin ... or Godaddy and find a coupon code
|
|
|
|
It is ambiguous: Satoshi & Roger Ver Hacker actually means Satoshi OR Roger or Satoshi AND Roger?
It is pretty clear that the hacker is the same person for both instances. They are using the same names, and profile images. Nobody cares about your email hack and you are just trying to inflate your importance by associating yourself with Satoshi. |
|
|
|
We know that Mark Karpeles is a half breed. Half European and Half Japanese. We need to collect a sample of Mark Karpeles DNA to find out if he was a descendant of the 13 inbred Terrorist European Bloodlines of the Illuminati. The case might be bigger than you think, Mark Karpeles might be a CIA agent bought & paid for by Central Banks to sabotage the idea of trust in Bitcoin. American Patriots vs. The 13 European terrorist bloodlines of the Terrorist organization illuminati (also known as The European Union) Full coverage of the current Civil War in America http://civilwarinusa.blogspot.com/You look like a perfect fit for this project. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRIJ_jpmwzo |
|
|
|
Sorry if I mis misunderstood. I still see a download/storage/time issue even if they found a way to break the algorithm without brute force. We are talking about a lot of addresses and keys. I guess I'll leave it alone.
If it was completely broken you can go through and see the addresses that have a balance and then calculate the private keys of just those addresses. But I would not worry about it. I couldn't find the paper where this claim was made but if was that much of a concern it would be big news. Ask Gregory Maxwell, he would know. |
|
|
|
^ Its a speed, time, space and energy problem. They will have to hack all those things first.
That is brute force. The thread is about using research and mathematics to break the algorithm without brute force or at least reduce the brute force portion to a manageable amount so it can be broken with current computers. |
|
|
|
the advanced progress in hacking the protocol and encryption is one of the reasons that bitcoin will completely colapse within a years time
we are selling the complete details and research for 0.5 btc, after signing the non disclosure agreement and send payment you receive the personalized information to help your investment.=
The bitcoin protocal is open source, so there is nothing to hack there and the only encryption are the keys to your wallet address. Someone else has already done the math on that: A private key is a 256-bit value, meaning there are approximately 1.1579e77 possible keys (There are about 1.2288e66 invalid values, but subtracting them from the full The issue is calculating the private key from the public key or Bitcoin address using a mathematical formula by breaking the algorithm. It seems unlikely someone would break the digital signing algorithm all in one swoop, it would most likely be broken in pieces. In order to go from the Bitcoin address to the public key you have to break an additional, different algorithm. |
|
|
|
This page has a great comment: "Who bet on yes is pretty dumb, because if the bitcoin break will not win anything anyway." |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a protocol, Correct. Let's look at exactly what that means. A protocol is a standardized way of doing something. Recipes are good examples of protocols. You could make a very sweet cake with too much sugar in your recipe, or you could put in some jalapeno peppers and put someone in the hospital... Both recipes, when written down, are protocols. Bitcoin is not a bland recipe for currencies. Satoshi understood the ingredients he was working with far better than most, and not just the cryptography... He understood economics, which is the science of human action as it relates to value. By placing the right economic incentives in the recipe, there is only one possible outcome for this money's future. It will keep giving people reasons to leave other currencies and only hold bitcoin for years and years to come. Probably all the way to 2140 when all coins are mined. National currencies have absolutely Zero chance against this recipe. It's in the bag. Since nations are funded by printing currencies, and in fact are no longer capable of waging war without control of a printing press for money, (No decent-sized war in 100 years was funded by taxpayer money!) Satoshi's recipe is the most devastating move that can be imagined in any modern political arena. All these arguments were already played out when the Internet was developed. in 1995 there were groups saying the Internet was meant for research and advertising ISPs are centralized, and the governments of the world easily control them. It isn't surprising to anyone paying attention that the internet cannot be the bastion of freedom it was meant to be. ...Of course the Meshnets are coming, but that's another argument for another time. Some people say it is a tool of freedom fighters while other say it is a tool of the State to track transactions. The former group understands economics & praxeology, the latter has problems with the concept of distributed software architecture. you have a lot of hyperbole in there and you confuse what something is with how it can be used. Also, Bitcoin is not a religion and Satoshi is not some kind of messiah. If you go around saying how Bitcoin is going to abolish banks nobody reasonable will listen to you. In fact banks will most likely be using Bitcoin in the future and nothing will "collapse." Bitcoin is part of an evolutionary process and people who go around with all kinds of hyperbole about governments and banks collapsing and wars ending really do no good. Even if it was true promoting it in that fashion will assure it always stay weak and never catch on. These people discuss these issues. Ted Nelson dismisses the whole "wing nut" group in a couple sentences and that is how most people react: Preston Byrne: http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-137-eye-of-the-beholderPeter Todd: https://soundcloud.com/mindtomatter/e73-round-pegs-and-squareTed Nelson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CMucDjJQ4EI used to think that Free state project was a good thing. I have changed my mind because bringing these people together isolates them and distances them from reality and they sit around reinforcing each other with nonsense. It would be much better if they were dispersed among the regular population so they could live in reality. |
|
|
|
Not clear why you would post this here, just use whois. Whois query for bitcoin.vegas...
Results returned from whois.afilias-srs.net:
The domain, bitcoin.vegas, is an ICANN Reserved Name and is not available for registration. same for bit.vegas. Coin.vegas is going through some kind of "update period" and it looks like it is registered via Godaddy. regular, nonpremium .vegas names are $50 at Godaddy. |
|
|
|
Mr. Ver says because I don't like his ideas that I don't understand Bitcoin. He wanted to make some challenge over his claim that Bitcoin will end wars. My idea for a challenge is that we get 200 random people who never heard of Bitcoin. 100 people are shown Bitcoin Bounty Hunter and his video. The other hundred will be shown the http://bitcoin.me video. Afterwards they can be asked if they would plan to use Bitcoin the future. What do you think the results would be? |
|
|
|
So you are saying it is not credible that the site is sponsored by the Foundation but claims it is completely independent ... and now people are mad? The Foundation is welcome to help bitcoin.org. As for the worry that the Foundation could try to "buy" some control over the website, I was concerned this could happen when we started having recurring costs (server) until we had alternative funding options. So currently, the sponsorship is just a "win-win" for everyone, and the Foundation thus far is only helpful. Hi, The process for determining what things get posted on Bitcoin.org is very unclear and it appears to be one person who makes the decisions. Given those circumstances and the history of the Bitcoin Foundation I certainly believe the Foundation effectively runs the site. Vague posts by people within the inner circle do not really clarify anything. As for the DNS you set the TTL low so you can change IP's during a DDOS so it won't take 24-48 hours for most people to switch if it is that bad. As for clouflare, you do have to give them the SSL keys because they process the web site traffic. Nobody is entering personal information and it is a static web site so it is unclear what the issue is there. As far as I can tell that was an excuse used by Bitcointalk when they kept getting hacked and nobody did anything. |
|
|
|
LOL. No matter how many times you repeat that pathetic wish it isn't going to come true.
Bitcoin is a protocol, not a political thing. It may be used by all types of people for all types of reasons, including political but that does not mean it is itself a political things. All these arguments were already played out when the Internet was developed. in 1995 there were groups saying the Internet was meant for research and advertising would not be allowed. One guy used to say it meant freedom and he attached child porn pics to all his newsgroup posting to "prove" the Internet meant freedom. Where are those people now? Who knows? They have faded into oblivion and, what do you know, the Internet is now used by all sorts of factions to do all sorts of things. It did not free people from the State because they now use the Internet to track people. So which is it? A tool for freedom or a tool for the State to track people? The answer is that it is both. There are several people who have latched onto Bitcoin to promote their personal agenda. They try to claim to know what Bitcoin is and try to imply people who use it agree with them. That is what is going on here when people say Bitcoin is inherently political. Some people say it is a tool of freedom fighters while other say it is a tool of the State to track transactions. It will be used by both those factions for their purpose because Bitcoin has no political motive, it has a mind of its own. If you listen to Peter Todd in his interviews on let's Talk Bitcoin he explains it well. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
