|
1162
|
Other / Meta / [+++] Bitcoin Spamstore - Forum spam and so much more! [+++]
|
on: August 11, 2013, 04:27:01 PM
|
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. "Bitcoin Megastore"
not accept bitcoins as payment.
Store is on-hold for now
Bump!
It sucks that self-moderated endless-bump topics like this get to take up real estate on page 1. This is spam, pure and simple. |
|
|
|
|
1163
|
Economy / Securities / Re: SEC Charges Bitcoin Savings and Trust (BTCST) as Ponzi Scheme
|
on: August 11, 2013, 03:26:27 PM
|
Do you see anything wrong with the picture? Sure, you don't want to go to jail. I have news for you, Gerald: you're already in jail. This is what jail is, this is what jail means, this is what it feels like. You're already there. Whether you move from the large jail cell hosting everyone else you know to one of the smaller cells isn't even up to you, because, again, this is what jail is. When your keepers decide to move you they will move you, and that decision has absolutely nothing to do with you. Sure, they'll represent it otherwise, especially if they may extract amusement out of you by doing so, much like a cat will play with a captured mouse. Go ahead, argue with me, explain how wrong I am and how great it all is. Make our day, mine and theirs equally, as that's the one bridge that unites the free people and the gaolers of the world: their equal contempt for that other kind of people.
не созда́й свою собственную тюрьму.
 |
|
|
|
|
1164
|
Economy / Securities / Re: VTX on Havelock rallying!
|
on: August 09, 2013, 07:46:27 PM
|
Looks like a pump and dump to me.
Selling at 0.95 right now.
Still smells like a pump to me.
 So, y'know, caveat omnes. Although, the merchant API certainly is exciting news. The company itself gets a +1 in my book, as I've been dealing with them since Nov '12 without any issues. |
|
|
|
|
1171
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Thoughts on the compromise of Casascius coin holograms
|
on: August 07, 2013, 02:56:52 AM
|
I'm not too familiar with PDF signing, but that sounds like it would be more accessible to non-technical people. Would it be too much of a reach to generate a PGP-signed message and have that placed into a signed PDF?
It would be easy to do but hard for the user to verify, only because when you copy text from PDF to the clipboard, how it looks when you paste it is a crapshoot, and it must be perfect to verify properly. But I could secondarily PGP-sign the entire (Adobe-signed) PDF file as a binary (creating a separate signature file that GPG recognizes) Signing PDFs also allows for easy signing of the embedded photos. I have scanned all of the silver coins and most of the recent brass coins. Secondary PGP-signing of the PDF would be great! The pictures are a great addition, as well, as they would clearly show the old holograms. |
|
|
|
|
1172
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Thoughts on the compromise of Casascius coin holograms
|
on: August 07, 2013, 02:43:11 AM
|
Would many graders have the know-how to verify such a message, I wonder? I can see many balking at the idea.
I can also digitally sign PDF, which Adobe Acrobat will recognize and validate without any hassle to the user. May come in handy. Though it's a paid hardware signing module that is not really that suitable for signing batches of documents in bulk, it remains an option for one-off requests. I'm not too familiar with PDF signing, but that sounds like it would be more accessible to non-technical people. Would it be too much of a reach to generate a PGP-signed message and have that placed into a signed PDF? I'd be more than happy with one signed document per roll, listing the coins contained therein. I can envision silkscreening some nice certificates of authenticity with the PGP-signed messages, reminiscent of old 19th century bearer bonds  Given that the final count of 0.5s with series 2 holograms is apparently only 45(!), I'm quite eager to get the "stamp of approval" on them! |
|
|
|
|
1173
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Thoughts on the compromise of Casascius coin holograms
|
on: August 06, 2013, 11:00:03 PM
|
I have much more faith in humanity than to consider my product broken. Sure, the world is full of bad guys, but the idea of trust going out of style I think is a bit overrated. Someone saying "all Casascius coins should be considered compromised" should also never shop in a grocery store or eat in a restaurant, as there's a similar possibility that someone poisoned all the food.
True, although there's much less motivation to poison food as there is to get free money. With respect to the idea of me refunding 1BTC instead of funding the coins... I don't believe that's what the buyers want. They want the intact coin with the bitcoin loaded as promised when they bought it. If they want the bitcoin off of it with the coin intact, they can try and "compromise" it themselves... if they can.
Personally, if I was buying a coin from a reseller, I'd rather buy an unfunded silver round for 1.5 BTC than a possibly funded one for 2.5 BTC, but you may be correct in believing me to be in the minority. To make such a drastic move would require complete consensus, which I don't think would be possible to achieve. Regarding grading... there's a subjective nature to it. A person submitting a coin for grading who also happens to be in possession of a PGP-signed message from me confirming they were the original buyer is going to pass outside analysis better than joe blow. Or on the other hand, the graders may throw up their hands and say we're not messing with this, making those graded ones that much more unique.
I fully agree, and I think the PGP-signed messages are a good idea. Would many graders have the know-how to verify such a message, I wonder? I can see many balking at the idea. Just to be clear, I'm still very pleased with my purchase. This being my first silver buy, I was shocked at the size and heft of the 1oz rounds!  |
|
|
|
|
1174
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Thoughts on the compromise of Casascius coin holograms
|
on: August 06, 2013, 10:15:21 PM
|
I am suddenly soooooooo thankful I got mine graded and hard-cased (ANACS) months before this exploit was discovered.
Emphasis mine. I think you mean "before this exploit was published". Who's to say that you didn't discover a similar exploit, weeks or months before you got your coins graded and hard-cased?  |
|
|
|
|
1175
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Thoughts on the compromise of Casascius coin holograms
|
on: August 06, 2013, 09:15:21 PM
|
|
It definitely makes it tough to resell the coin without subtracting the face value from the price -- once you start having to trust two people (casascius as well as the reseller), there's no way of knowing which party to blame if a coin gets defunded. The trust problem also grows each time the coin changes hands.
It's too bad the coins couldn't remain unfunded and have the face value returned to the purchaser; the problem with this scenario is that you'd then have a bunch of unfunded coins floating around alongside the funded ones, which makes all of them fall under suspicion.
EDIT: I just realized that NONE of the 2013 silver rounds are funded yet -- or at least, I don't think so. If all of the silver rounds remained unfunded, the original purchasers could receive a refund for the face value of the coins. Word would spread quickly that all of the 2013 silvers are unfunded, and any future buyers would be aware of this when the coins are resold in the future.
Seems like a win-win situation...?
|
|
|
|
|
1176
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Thoughts on the compromise of Casascius coin holograms
|
on: August 06, 2013, 01:44:36 PM
|
As reported by Mike Caldwell ( http://casascius.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/defcon-21-successful-compromise-of-the-hologram-reported/), the hologram on Casascius physical bitcoins was compromised a few days ago by security researchers at DefCon 21. While I've seen many people react to this news with dismay that their coins have lost all resale value, I'd like to offer a differing opinion, in the hopes of getting a discussion going. Let's use the 1oz / 1 BTC silver round as an example. Currently, this coin can be bought directly from Casascius for BTC2.5. Since the face value is BTC1, one could make the assumption that the rest of the coin (the silver round itself, plus the intact hologram) has a nominal value of BTC1.5. Redeeming the face value of the coin by removing the hologram would destroy the BTC1.5 nominal value of the coin, as collectors don't want to purchase coins that are no longer in mint condition. It's not hard to imagine that the removal of (or visible tampering with) the hologram would cause a steep decrease in the nominal value of the coin: say, from BTC1.5 to BTC0.5 (essentially, spot price of silver plus a premium for the scarcity of the rounds). I can think of only three reasons for removal or tampering of the hologram: (1) curiosity (some people want to know what it looks like underneath), (2) honest redemption (some people may wish to spend the BTC contained within), and (3) fraud (some people may wish to redeem the BTC and then resell the coin as if it were intact). For the purposes of the argument, we're really only interested in (3). Situations (1) and (2) would result in a visibly tampered (most likely fully removed) hologram. Situation (3) is a more interesting situation, in that it's impossible to know when purchasing a coin from a third party whether or not they possess the private key -- that is, until you check the balance and find that it's been transferred to another address. Now, a coin which has been successfully tampered with (i.e. no evidence of tampering is present) still retains a nominal value of BTC1.5, even without the added BTC1 face value. Given that the holograms will likely be given an upgrade in the near future, the value of existing coins as collectibles will likely increase; but by how much? For numismatic purposes, a successful, no-evidence tamper would not result in any decrease in value from a non-tampered, unredeemed coin; or would it? I'm much less worried about this situation than I originally was, but I'd still love to get the opinions of other people on the subject. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
1177
|
Economy / Auctions / Re: [AUCTION] Casascius Series 1 with Error
|
on: August 06, 2013, 01:03:01 PM
|
Auction is for a Casascius 1 BTC coin from Series 1 with hologram typographical error. The coin is intact and loaded.
* Bidding starts at 3.5 BTC
* Bid in increments of 0.05
* Shipping is included in the US (add 0.1BTC for international).
* Buyer pays for escrow, if desired.
* Auction ends Sunday, August 2013 @ Midnight EST.
* Each valid bid will extend the auction 2 minutes.
I'd trade you for a Casascius 0.5 BTC silver round -- Series 3 with the Series 2 hologram. Only ~30 were produced with the old sticker |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
