FWIW, I'm personally convinced Ulbricht is guilty. I bet he's going to get a retrial, but I'd bet on him going to jail anyway. Bitcoin angle aside, Ulbricht is just another crook. There is absolutely nothing special about him. He did what crooks do, he got caught like crooks get caught, he's going to jail like crooks go to jail.
Force and Bridges on the other hand are special. They are corrupt Lions, and they are the people who are supposed to be taking crooks down. Police corruption is not merely bad, it's WORSE than anything an ordinary crook can do. Those guys? I want them to rot in jail. Not just for stealing or extortion or bribe-taking or money laundering or all those other ordinary-crook kinds of things that they could and should do time for - although they deserve jail time for that too. But the horrible thing, the poisonous thing, the thing that absolutely cannot be tolerated in a nation that aspires to be free, is this: I want them to rot in jail for betrayal of the public trust.
Bolded- Interesting, because what Ulbricht did is against the law, you just throw him under the bus with all the other "criminals". Ross did what he did because the war on drugs was killing and hurting way more people than it helped (for starters). It was hurting the planet. It enriched the wrong people and governments, a tax on the poor. He sure wasn't living a kingpin lifestyle and a quick view at the life he lived showed he was a great guy by every account. So, he created a website which allowed people to freely trade whatever they wanted. Yeah, lots of it was drugs, lots of those were legal drugs without prescriptions (I hear). To side with law because it is law, removes ones ability to think. And it is not such a crazy thing to say. The war on drugs is a HUGE failure and it was designed to be, it is a war against people and their consciousness. Cannabis looks to be going full legal over the next few years and our government is being forced to compassionately and rationally reconsider these archaic laws. The silk road brought down violence by all accounts. Silk Road(s) are not actually needed, but they are just speeding up the inevitable legalization of drugs, breaking the corrupt monopolies that certain... groups possess. BTW - From every account, Ross sure is special in many peoples opinions. You can see it here, on Reddit, on podcasts, etc. Its about sharing |
|
|
|
Curious, does Obama passing this new crazy Gestapo law have any affect on Monero?  These types of laws are just going to increase use cases for Monero, etc. and increase BTC mixing sites. (Taken from reddit) http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/31443f/donating_to_snowden_is_now_illegal_and_the_us/Donating to Snowden is now illegal and the U.S. Government can take all your stuff. - Thanks Obama."Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1 of this order include but are not limited to:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person."
Sec. 7. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order." ... aka, they can take all your stuff without due process instantly if you have "constitutional rights" in the US (wow).
The rabbit hole is deep people. This is almost as bad as the patriot act... a national emergency LOL what a joke. I pray that non of you donated to Snowden using Coinbase or any other bitcoin platform that keeps your identity on file source - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m |
|
|
|
For all we know he could have been a great and lawful officer for 99.9% of his career but we must remember than everyone has a price and can succumb to greed. Maybe he just saw the opportunity to make some easy and what he thought would be victimless cash. When you're sat at your computer and all it takes is a few clicks to transfer massive amounts of anonymous money from a drug lord greed can always fall over you, but that's obviously not excusing it. In this line of work you need to have some restraint or you'll push yourself down a dark path and he's obviously facing the consequences of those actions now.
Maybe but I still believe that some people can guard a truckload of cash their entire life and never be tempted because it's not in their makeup. People with no integrity and no morals take the first opportunity to prove themselves if they think they can get away with it. Hard to tell. To others they may appear trustworthy but nobody can no for certain if they ever had doubts about stealing the money. I think greed is just part of being human and everyone can succumb to it at some point regardless of how moral you may or try to be. Sometimes situations pop up in your life that alter your morals or behavior too. What if a person becomes in debt or needs it to save a child etc? Desperate measures sometimes call for desperate measures. Just look at how monkeys and apes behave. If you've ever encountered monkeys in the wild you'll know they're incredibly greedy, they'll steel your camera, wallet, whatever they can get without even knowing what those things are. Greed is clearly in our DNA, but that doesn't make it acceptable. I'd say greed is just a lack of understanding. This is more a consciousness "thing" than a genetic one (at this stage in our development). We've been sold on Survival of the Fittest, when it is in actuality Flourishing though Cooperation. |
|
|
|
only 4 of those ahead are real coins Being a non-proof-of-work doesn't mean it's not a real coin. Unfortunately the top 10 are full of bad coins, but this is another story. I thought rather that a lot of those are 2.0 coins and there is no way possible that they can keep up with BTC's valuation (ratio wise). e.g. Ripple, Steller, Bitshares, nxt. I mean sure they can be used as a coin but I think they are more like tokens on their network. |
|
|
|
Judging the Poloniex sell orderbook it is actually quite easy to reach 10 % btc marketcap for Monero.
I do not want to pump but I am quite positive we will reach it.
You can buy quite large stake of Moneros for 5,000-10,000 btc.
Perhaps if if you triple that you can shake pretty many weak hands.
Just a quick reminder, 5 kbtc represents just over 1 million usd.
Who doesn't want to get Mark Force IV'd?  But yeah I'm also having some BTC/XMR on Polo for some short-term trades but most of my holdings aren't in exchanges because I don't want to get Mark Force XXXIV'd. ~200k XMR out of ~7m total supply is 2.85% of coins on Polo, which isn't a low percentage but it can and will definately go up as the price is moving up, or coins will be market sold into big buy orders as we saw 2 days ago. It depends. Keep in mind that when we started the bull trend there was 500 k xmr in sell orders. So while the price has been rising, the number of coins for sale has decreased actually. That is a really interesting stat. I wonder how much the liquidity (actively) has decreased and the affect that will have going forward. T Minus... |
|
|
|
So perhaps it is formal English, which has the problem. Judging your own manner of writing is understandably hard.
Anyway, the bold statement was intended to have the meaning:
"If ever in the future, some of the (honest - not intended to apply to premines such as Auroracoin or token coins with indeterminate supply and function) alts reaches even as low as 10-20% of BTC's marketcap, this is an indication that it has all that BTC has to offer and more, and will probably take over."
Well, this is an interesting statement, colloquial English aside. A lot of the money in BTC is actually early adopters imo, perhaps even a majority, in a created wealth sense. Anyway, these early adopters have a bit of a wealth effect on their hands. (Their at one time near worthless BTC's have now made them millionaires.) And where to put some of that? We have seen some very early brilliance from the likes of Erik Voorhees, imo. Now, this is where it gets interesting. Those with the foresight to see BTC years ago is a rare thing. Black Swans are hard to spot, even when explained and handed to you (e.g. Just think of all the people who have heard of this space (from us) and do absolutely nothing. Some of whom might even ask you for investment advice 2 weeks after this talk but never bring up BTC! Hello, Hello, McFly). Anyway, so now these select few are looking for the next great step within and without this space. And imo, some have found it... Something (or is that someone) tells me quite a few of them are looking here. |
|
|
|
If any alt reaches about 10-20% of Bitcoin's marketcap, Bitcoin is doomed in such a great probability that I'll sell mine (in favor of the alt).
Wasn't Litecoin at it's peak about $1 billion vs Bitcoin at the time around $10 billion? Now look at Litecoin... Litecoin, at its very highest peak reached ~0.05 LTC/BTC. Mostly it's been 0.03 or lower. Since supply is 4x that means LTC was worth 5*4 = 20% of bitcoin. , it should be clear from the context that this clause refers to the future (hint: use of will indicates explicit future tense).  I think "reaches" is a state satisfied by the quality of the binary, "has it been reached (or touched, if you'd rather)?". Presently, the answer is "yes" by Litecoin but by using a future tense verb in conjunction, you could infer that he effectively means "when an alt reaches (or "touches") again i.e. in the future". I think. I don't know :p I see. I just have never seen (or do the Americans prefer "I never saw" ) colloquial English described as such. I've always seen it as an informal way, or street level way, of communicating. And now he got me thinking... Conjunction junction, what is your function? (No, don't tell me!) Thx |
|
|
|
If any alt reaches about 10-20% of Bitcoin's marketcap, Bitcoin is doomed in such a great probability that I'll sell mine (in favor of the alt).
Wasn't Litecoin at it's peak about $1 billion vs Bitcoin at the time around $10 billion? Now look at Litecoin... Litecoin, at its very highest peak reached ~0.05 LTC/BTC. Mostly it's been 0.03 or lower. Since supply is 4x that means LTC was worth 5*4 = 20% of bitcoin. , it should be clear from the context that this clause refers to the future (hint: use of will indicates explicit future tense). |
|
|
|
What is your ratio between bitcoin and XMR you have ? I have personnaly put about 50% of my investment in BTC and about 50% in XMR.
Not that I disagree with that ratio but I'm not doing that. I hear more people use 5%-10% on alts. (initial value) As the price rises they often cash out to keep that % (or maintain a certain percentage.) That said I do feel like Monero is worthy of taking a bigger risk on as I have more than a strong feeling that many early BTC adopters see what is happening and they want to up the ante with XMR. IF XMR is showing this kind of strength with BTC relatively down, I can only imagine where it goes once BTC turns upwards. My guess is from .01 BTC or .02 BTC on the lower end, to .1 BTC on the extreme high end.
So, being that we are in the .003-.004 range, a higher % of BTC in XMR is a decent chance to take.What timeframe are you looking at? The .01 ratio can happen overnight but I imagine in the next 3 months or so we see it happen. My extreme high end ratio would involve unforseen forces as I can't see under normal circumstances that happening. But then again, when the public moves into Crypto en masse, all bets are off Being better tech than Bitcoin, I'd expect a more than 1:0.1 ratio at some point. After that, maybe we will have to witness a new paradigm (ie: the first alt to threat bitcoin's reign). Again, a long shot.  Better tech is not a huge part of the equation for me, after all, that can be debatable and needs to be proven after many attacks, which BTC has endured. There are government and banking laws to consider, as they in large part will affect the price (depending on many factors of cousrse). Since Monero is not based on BTC, I would imagine that affects adoption in the early going. I would not be completely shocked if another Crypto outside of BTC is the new number one bit in 5 years or so. In the meantime, spread your eggs wisely and this is coming from a HUGE Monero believer and supporter. |
|
|
|
What is your ratio between bitcoin and XMR you have ? I have personnaly put about 50% of my investment in BTC and about 50% in XMR.
Not that I disagree with that ratio but I'm not doing that. I hear more people use 5%-10% on alts. (initial value) As the price rises they often cash out to keep that % (or maintain a certain percentage.) That said I do feel like Monero is worthy of taking a bigger risk on as I have more than a strong feeling that many early BTC adopters see what is happening and they want to up the ante with XMR. IF XMR is showing this kind of strength with BTC relatively down, I can only imagine where it goes once BTC turns upwards. My guess is from .01 BTC or .02 BTC on the lower end, to .1 BTC on the extreme high end.
So, being that we are in the .003-.004 range, a higher % of BTC in XMR is a decent chance to take.What timeframe are you looking at? The .01 ratio can happen overnight but I imagine in the next 3 months or so we see it happen. My extreme high end ratio would involve unforseen forces as I can't see under normal circumstances that happening. But then again, when the public moves into Crypto en masse, all bets are off |
|
|
|
What is your ratio between bitcoin and XMR you have ? I have personnaly put about 50% of my investment in BTC and about 50% in XMR.
Not that I disagree with that ratio but I'm not doing that. I hear more people use 5%-10% on alts. (initial value) As the price rises they often cash out to keep that % (or maintain a certain percentage.) That said I do feel like Monero is worthy of taking a bigger risk on as I have more than a strong feeling that many early BTC adopters see what is happening and they want to up the ante with XMR. IF XMR is showing this kind of strength with BTC relatively down, I can only imagine where it goes once BTC turns upwards. My guess is from .01 BTC or .02 BTC on the lower end, to .1 BTC on the extreme high end. So, being that we are in the .003-.004 range, a higher % of BTC in XMR is a decent chance to take. |
|
|
|
Just sayin
XMR: 0.00415444 BTC
XMR: 1 USD
I'm a bit shocked to see the strength post at this level. I know many, me included, really saw .003 coming and perhaps holding but the push post that has been huge. Seems like big buyers have really helped push us up, nothing new there. Is is synonymous with smart money? The more I look into XMR the more that seems to be the case. Scary to think what might (actually, what probably will) happen when BTC starts another run. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure I've got this straight, but it's likely that the investigation into actions of these agents has been going on for some time. If so, then as Ulbricht's trial was going on, the federal government knew that it likely had a big mess on its hands internally.
So is it reasonable/possible that they worked hard to scrub the prosecution's case to keep it clean of any evidence of contamination from Force and Bridges? If so then Ulbricht's conviction may hold up. But if they did not do this and evidence from their activities was used, then it looks like he may have a serious opening.
That possibility you just mentioned sure does fit like well fitting glove, now doesn't it? I believe when I saw the trial notes that is when I really started to question the case. Though going in I couldn't imagine the trial would be fair. For sure they will do everything in their illegal and legal powers to make sure Ulbricht doesn't go free. But that said, the case can fall apart and would be even beyond corruptions manipulative hands. They are on their heels now. This is not small thing. I would not at all be shocked at a Dismissal, but they can't have dancing in the streets, now can they? And they sure as Eternal Life don't want a made for TV movie or series, ending where he gets let go and the war on drugs basically collapses a few months later. It looks like a "well fitting glove," because it's something done very frequently in federal prosecution. Let me sketch out an example of how this is done. Let's say a confession is take from a suspect in violation of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Miranda v. Arizona. The government cannot use that confession in court. Moreover, the government prosecutors cannot use any of the fruit of that confession. So the government regularly will set up two teams of law enforcement and prosecutors. A so-called "taint team," that knows the confession, and a "trial team" that takes case to trial. The taint team screens all the evidence to make sure it isn't tainted with the unconstitutional confession, and then gives the untained evidence to the trial team. While a procedure quite as rigorous as that would not have been necessary here, because there is no unconstitutional taint, I bring it up to demonstrate that federal prosecutors are familiar with segregating different components into different teams in order to avoid similar problems. Thanks a lot for sharing that info. It helps to better understand things. Has anyone seen any legal experts comment publicly on the case now? |
|
|
|
The Crypto space, which BTC essentially founded, is just starting. I'm sure there will be similar stories with some of the alts. We really don't know the timeline, but few of us can question the overall direction. He who laughs last, laughs longest/best.... Careful with the judgements. The OP helped BTC greatly and will go down in BTC lore, probably on a few talkshows (expenses paid) in due time. Its about sharing |
|
|
|
I don't think this helps volume much there but wouldn't it be nice to have more volume (across more exchanges)? |
|
|
|
I'm not sure I've got this straight, but it's likely that the investigation into actions of these agents has been going on for some time. If so, then as Ulbricht's trial was going on, the federal government knew that it likely had a big mess on its hands internally.
So is it reasonable/possible that they worked hard to scrub the prosecution's case to keep it clean of any evidence of contamination from Force and Bridges? If so then Ulbricht's conviction may hold up. But if they did not do this and evidence from their activities was used, then it looks like he may have a serious opening.
That possibility you just mentioned sure does fit like well fitting glove, now doesn't it? I believe when I saw the trial notes that is when I really started to question the case. Though going in I couldn't imagine the trial would be fair. For sure they will do everything in their illegal and legal powers to make sure Ulbricht doesn't go free. But that said, the case can fall apart and would be even beyond corruptions manipulative hands. They are on their heels now. This is not small thing. I would not at all be shocked at a Dismissal, but they can't have dancing in the streets, now can they? And they sure as Eternal Life don't want a made for TV movie or series, ending where he gets let go and the war on drugs basically collapses a few months later. |
|
|
|
I like the non bolded part but your comment in bold is confusing. I mean can you say BTC is no better than governent fiat, yet it holds its value (no huge governmental inflation), has a host of other benefits, etc. Sounds like you are giving us an either or thing here, and it ain't that. It is disruptive and it's affect is not separate from the interconnect system. It's effects will be felt in far reaching ways. (e.g. Blockchain tech.)
I'm talking about coins that are instamined and/or got their rules of emission (printing money) changed, and the brand changed many times (BTC/XMR never did that!) coins are dumped and distributed into the market (dash like to use this argument to play down their emission changes): but this argument is only fair if you do not change the rules of the game aka screwing late adopters forever. You cant make sure every person in the world has the same tools and capabilities to mine Bitcoin/Monero (same mining equipment and software) but you can make sure the rules are never changed and told upfront (keeping consensus). oops! Sorry for the confusion. But it felt like an expression for me. LOL Agreed btw. |
|
|
|
no surprising re-namings, no fishy optimized miners
Here's the facts: optimized miners, specially secret optimized miners are a reality in all kinds of coins, like specialized mineral mining equipment, the thing is, while you cannot make sure everyone at all times have access to the same amount of hashing power and algo optimization, (and even money to buy coins) you can make sure they are playing on equal grounds, no tampering with emission and making asics virtually impossible of mining the coin, thats the situation we have with Monero. In Bitcoin history individuals had access to optimized miners from the very beginning, coins are dumped and distributed into the market, but this argument is only fair if you do not change the rules of the game aka screwing late adopters forever, thats what crypto is about, any coin that goes away with consensus is no better than FIAT!I like the non bolded part but your comment in bold is confusing. I mean can you say BTC is no better than governent fiat, yet it holds its value (no huge governmental inflation), has a host of other benefits, etc. Sounds like you are giving us an either or thing here, and it ain't that. It is disruptive and it's affect is not separate from the interconnect system. It's effects will be felt in far reaching ways. (e.g. Blockchain tech.) As a normal human being I don't find it being screwed to have money that isn't used for war and holds it's value as opposed to being inflated away (e.g. Euro down 30% plus, maybe as high as 37% in a year!) Can it be better? Yea sure, but it seems like a logical (and heartfelt) step to take. It is for the benefit of the planet. Think about that, what Crypto can do here. Right now BTC, Monero, etc. is just getting started but once there is a foothold you will be square in the middle of a financial revolution but don't worry, it won't go unnoticed. We basically need something to get us through the coming years of what looks like coming Economic collapse. This might be our best chance guys and gals. We have to take money into our own hands. That is sort of like a government via expression, not one that has power over us via corruption and such. In the future, when we decide as it is up to us, money won't be a thing of power. But till then, BTC/XMR/Crypto will help destabilize a corrupt system and allow a nice intermediary when we are ready for it. |
|
|
|
Huh? What are you talking about? I'm only saying these two guys (and NO ONE else) had the ability to taint the evidence and we already know they knowingly did. They did this regarding the murder for hire. Yeah, it doesn't get much worse than cops working on a case using "inside information" to extort money from a person.
Don't distort my argument or try to red herring this. Ulbricht wasn't convicted of murder-for-hire. I imagine because of the problems with the Baltimore investigation. You are using the word "taint the evidence," which is a legal term of art, which you are not using correctly. I stated above why it is being used incorrectly. It's certainly bad that these officers extorted Ulbricht and others. That's why they are being prosecuted for crimes. But the fact that they committed crimes does not impugn the convictions against Ulbricht. The government's argument, and one that I find persuasive is that the Baltimore investigation was separate from the New York investigation, and no evidence used in the trial came from that Baltimore team. Do you get paid by the post from the Fed or ?
[snip]
These kinds of ad hominem attacks don't do you any credit. 2 separate investigations but with the same people? Is the information wrong that has stated that Force was the lead investigator? He had the SR Admin password? I don't see how you can separate the two investigations. And regarding the ad hominem, it was a real question. I found your argument quite deceptive and hence the question, Are you a paid poster? I'm not attacking your person, just questioning it. If you want to talk about logic that is more important to our arguments, let's start with your summarizing my points into something I didn't say nor even imply. I wonder if you even read the post to come up with your conclusion in the prior post (not quoted) I'm not sure which logical fallacy that is??? I'll bet on "Non Sequitur" - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.. An regarding the word "taint the evidence" being used incorrectly. Fine, I might be guilty. But the point stands, those two detectives already have been accused (thoroughly so) with some heavy crimes. They "tainted" in the sense of could have "planted/distorted" the evidence (they had direct access and in some cases created it.) I mean they have already knowingly done this, the question is just how much and where and of course, did it affect the outcome of the case. My bet is probably but we'll see during the re-trial, if there is one. |
|
|
|
Are you basically saying that these two corrupt cops, one of which was a lead detective in the case (not just the murder for hire charge), that stole money from Ross, entrapped him for murder, blackmailed him, had access to the sys Admin account, etc. - that that has no bearing on the validity of the evidence which puts him behind bars? Are you saying that having key corrupt officials on the prosecution is a separate issue from what Ross did when their evidence/work arguably had a decent factor in his conviction? This makes no sense and I'm trying to really see your point here.
All the defense now has to work on is how these two corrupt cops had help in giving but 1 little tiny bit of false evidence. It appears they got them for damn near everything and they are deeply tied to not only the evidence, but to the actual SR site, Admin account! Had they been legit you would just have hoped they were not corrupt, but now they are. We see: what they did, the depth of what they did, the ways in what they did what they did, how the judge disallowed obvious connections/questions, etc from being admissible in court. The list goes on. This is an absolute travesty. I will not look at this situation, as disgusting as it now has become, through simplified legal jargon when every sense in most peoples bodies right now is screaming to them: "Alert, Alert, Alert something is really really wrong here."
Sometimes those within the system (any system really) can't see outside that system. They are so "in"trained in that system the craziest of things make sense to them, because it fits that "systems" way of think, and ironically enough can be disproven in a court of law (just need reasonable doubt). And right now it seems like there is much much more than reasonable doubt going on about that trial. I feel a lot of your argument is trying to use (legal) semantics to make your point valid but all it does is try to exclude people from really seeing what is right in front of them by controlling perspective.
[snip large image] Really, it sounds like your argument boils down to: these cops did some bad things, therefore the other cops did bad things. Moreover, those bad things go towards whether or not Ulbricht was guilty and/or the credibility of witnesses who testified. Generally, we tend to eschew this kind of guilt by association. Just because two officers on the Baltimore team were corrupt and committed crimes does snot impugn the credibility of officers on another team. Just because two officers on the Baltimore team were corrupt and committed crimes does not mean that Ulbricht did not commit the crimes he was convicted of committing. I'm not condoning what these officers did. Nor am I suggesting that these are the best practices for law enforcement or prosecutors. But it is difficult to say, from what has been publicly disclosed, that these officers' committing crimes is exculpatory as to Ulbricht. Huh? What are you talking about? I'm only saying these two guys (and NO ONE else) had the ability to taint the evidence and we already know they knowingly did. They did this regarding the murder for hire. Yeah, it doesn't get much worse than cops working on a case using "inside information" to extort money from a person. Don't distort my argument or try to red herring this. Do you get paid by the post from the Fed or ?  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
