Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 02:10:07 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: CBS  (Read 8192 times)
Sandoz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 85


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 05:36:57 PM
 #41

Bitcoin has pretty strong privacy for the average person or business.

True. And the way for police to investigate / monitor by looking at ip traffic is not as simple as Jeff tried to make it look to the journalists. How are they going to detect a payment to - say - silkroad, let alone after the fact? Am I missing something?

Also: when time comes we can move to btcfn (bitcoin over freenet)


You know what? There is a simpler way: create a new wallet, fill it with money, encrypt it, sell and send the whole wallet to someone via email.
Done.

Do it via multiple jurisdictions and the trace is easily lost.
1481033407
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481033407

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481033407
Reply with quote  #2

1481033407
Report to moderator
1481033407
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481033407

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481033407
Reply with quote  #2

1481033407
Report to moderator
1481033407
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481033407

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481033407
Reply with quote  #2

1481033407
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481033407
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481033407

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481033407
Reply with quote  #2

1481033407
Report to moderator
1481033407
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481033407

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481033407
Reply with quote  #2

1481033407
Report to moderator
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 06:05:50 PM
 #42

i think garzik did a fantastic job.

he deflected those things which needed to be, avoided mining almost completely (even by inference), and did a fine job of walking the line between politics and geekdom.

hey look - my first concern is the success of Bitcoin.  ideology comes second - at the moment.  and the plain facts are that we are going - at some point - to need votes; whether in congress or in a general public election.  we need to lay the groundwork for that.  we need Bitcoin to be non-threatening to as many people as possible.

if the ideology you subscribe to sees certain benefits in Bitcoin, that's fine.  i see those too.  but the benefits Bitcoin offers will not go away, simply because we don't push them on people who don't care and wouldn't understand them even if they did care.

those benefits will always be there, waiting for us.

"it's like PayPal but it's free, payments can't be reversed, and it's a million times faster to get your dough."

on the other hand, you could spend a few hours with everyone you know explaining about cross-border transfers and capital gains arcana.  and what you'd get in return would be "Silk Road, Silk Road, Silk Road."

yes... garzik did just fine.
matonis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 301



View Profile WWW
June 08, 2011, 06:39:04 PM
 #43

hey look - my first concern is the success of Bitcoin.  ideology comes second - at the moment.  and the plain facts are that we are going - at some point - to need votes; whether in congress or in a general public election.  we need to lay the groundwork for that.  we need Bitcoin to be non-threatening to as many people as possible.


It's naive to think that disingenuous, 'bitcoin-is-traceable' media interviews will result in congressional votes. What votes does bitcoin need anyway?

Founding Director, Bitcoin Foundation
I also cover the bitcoin economy for Forbes, American Banker, PaymentsSource, and CoinDesk.
tymothy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 06:50:12 PM
 #44


What votes does bitcoin need anyway?
[/quote]

Only a vote of confidence from the free market.
DarkKnightNomeD
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 06:57:07 PM
 #45

http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504943_162-1111.html

ITS BLANK FOR ME

i have Adblock plus disabled for that page, and nothing showsup, just a white rectangle box
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 07:08:38 PM
 #46

hey look - my first concern is the success of Bitcoin.  ideology comes second - at the moment.  and the plain facts are that we are going - at some point - to need votes; whether in congress or in a general public election.  we need to lay the groundwork for that.  we need Bitcoin to be non-threatening to as many people as possible.


It's naive to think that disingenuous, 'bitcoin-is-traceable' media interviews will result in congressional votes. What votes does bitcoin need anyway?

no, it isn't naive.  it comes from (what i hope is) a certain understanding of how the political process works.  by which i do not mean the process of voting, or of elections; but rather the process of how memes are propagated and become the norm.

start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

the free market, and capitalism, are wonderful things - but like it or not we exist in the political structure of the world as it is.
Bazil
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 07:44:19 PM
 #47

http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504943_162-1111.html

ITS BLANK FOR ME

i have Adblock plus disabled for that page, and nothing showsup, just a white rectangle box

It was a live broadcast.  Here is a link to the story and vid: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20069780-10391715.html?tag=strip

17Bo9a6YpXN2SbwY8mXLCD43Wup9ZE4rwm
junomoneta
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 5


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 09:29:02 PM
 #48

That is masterful PR. Making the fear-mongers look silly is brilliant. Any viewer with half a brain will still get a hint of the great potential.


Cash is slowly going away and social utopians everywhere are talking about the nirvana of a global cashless society. Well, that all sounds great until people wake up one day and realize that what they have sacrificed in the transition to a cashless utopia is any thread of financial privacy that remained with paper cash. The phrase 'resist digital money unless anonymous' really means don't give up paper cash if the future is even more traceable and intrusive.

Therefore, stressing bitcoin's traceability and that bitcoin is not anonymous becomes the worst of both worlds -- cashless and traceable! No one is fooling the authorities by saying bitcoin is fully traceable and some people know safe bitcoin practices. Press interviews like this one retard the 'separation of money and State' cause and reinforce the harmful notion that money can and should be used for identity tracking. Those are bitcoin's positive key differentiators.

Those that propose regulation of BitCoin aught to become thoroughly familiar with the tragedy that befell the operators of e-gold and Liberty Dollars.

For years people closely familiar with e-gold warned and pressured the operators to become ex-patriots and take themselves out of easy reach to U.S. authorities (Brazil is a familiar country with no extradition treaty - that is MLAT - with the U.S.) Instead, the U.S. e-gold operators sought a legally binding opinion whether they were considered a Money Service Business (MSB) by the U.S. Treasury. If they were, they intended to register in Florida. They were formally told they were not. The reason, apparently, was that the U.S. based company did no exchanges for national monies but rather only held or traded in gold. Of course, this opinion became non-binding as soon as the political winds changed. The e-gold people were indicted, personally bankrupted, e-gold's reserves mainly confiscated and the company left in ruin.

The operators of Liberty Dollar tried to introduce a specie-based (silver) alternative to U.S. dollars. As you can read, the U.S. maintains that it has the exclusive franchise to any money (or in this case, tokens) circulating within its borders which can be used for value exchange.

Further, governments (especially the U.S.) have longstanding regulations enabling them to seize anything they consider of value pretty much whenever they like.

In a letter dated August 12, 2005 and written by Sean M. Thornton, chief counsel for the department's Office of Foreign Assets Control he stated that the government's authority to interfere with the ownership of gold, silver, and mining shares arises from the Trading With the Enemy Act, which became law in 1917 during World War I and applies during declared wars, and from 1977's International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which can be applied without declared wars.

While the Trading With the Enemy Act authorizes the government to interfere with the ownership of gold and silver particularly, it also applies to all forms of currency and all securities. So the Treasury official stressed that it could be applied not just to shares of gold and silver mining companies but to the shares of all companies in which there is a foreign ownership interest. Further, there is no requirement in the law that the targets of the government's interference must have some connection to the declared enemies of the United States, or, really, some connection to foreign ownership. Anything that can be construed as a financial instrument, no matter how innocently it has been used, is subject to seizure under the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Most Americans may be surprised to learn that the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act could expropriate them instantly and far more broadly without any of the due process extended to parties in eminent domain cases. All that is needed is a presidential proclamation of an emergency of some kind -- and of course Americans lately have been living in a state of perpetual emergency.

Are these the people you wish to invite into the BitCoin economy?
xf2_org
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 10:11:26 PM
 #49

Those that propose regulation of BitCoin aught to become thoroughly familiar with the tragedy that befell the operators of e-gold and Liberty Dollars.

Please search the forums for endless discussion on this.

nazgulnarsil
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


View Profile
June 09, 2011, 10:12:32 PM
 #50

That is masterful PR. Making the fear-mongers look silly is brilliant. Any viewer with half a brain will still get a hint of the great potential.


Cash is slowly going away and social utopians everywhere are talking about the nirvana of a global cashless society. Well, that all sounds great until people wake up one day and realize that what they have sacrificed in the transition to a cashless utopia is any thread of financial privacy that remained with paper cash. The phrase 'resist digital money unless anonymous' really means don't give up paper cash if the future is even more traceable and intrusive.

Therefore, stressing bitcoin's traceability and that bitcoin is not anonymous becomes the worst of both worlds -- cashless and traceable! No one is fooling the authorities by saying bitcoin is fully traceable and some people know safe bitcoin practices. Press interviews like this one retard the 'separation of money and State' cause and reinforce the harmful notion that money can and should be used for identity tracking. Those are bitcoin's positive key differentiators.

Those that propose regulation of BitCoin aught to become thoroughly familiar with the tragedy that befell the operators of e-gold and Liberty Dollars.

For years people closely familiar with e-gold warned and pressured the operators to become ex-patriots and take themselves out of easy reach to U.S. authorities (Brazil is a familiar country with no extradition treaty - that is MLAT - with the U.S.) Instead, the U.S. e-gold operators sought a legally binding opinion whether they were considered a Money Service Business (MSB) by the U.S. Treasury. If they were, they intended to register in Florida. They were formally told they were not. The reason, apparently, was that the U.S. based company did no exchanges for national monies but rather only held or traded in gold. Of course, this opinion became non-binding as soon as the political winds changed. The e-gold people were indicted, personally bankrupted, e-gold's reserves mainly confiscated and the company left in ruin.

The operators of Liberty Dollar tried to introduce a specie-based (silver) alternative to U.S. dollars. As you can read, the U.S. maintains that it has the exclusive franchise to any money (or in this case, tokens) circulating within its borders which can be used for value exchange.

Further, governments (especially the U.S.) have longstanding regulations enabling them to seize anything they consider of value pretty much whenever they like.

In a letter dated August 12, 2005 and written by Sean M. Thornton, chief counsel for the department's Office of Foreign Assets Control he stated that the government's authority to interfere with the ownership of gold, silver, and mining shares arises from the Trading With the Enemy Act, which became law in 1917 during World War I and applies during declared wars, and from 1977's International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which can be applied without declared wars.

While the Trading With the Enemy Act authorizes the government to interfere with the ownership of gold and silver particularly, it also applies to all forms of currency and all securities. So the Treasury official stressed that it could be applied not just to shares of gold and silver mining companies but to the shares of all companies in which there is a foreign ownership interest. Further, there is no requirement in the law that the targets of the government's interference must have some connection to the declared enemies of the United States, or, really, some connection to foreign ownership. Anything that can be construed as a financial instrument, no matter how innocently it has been used, is subject to seizure under the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Most Americans may be surprised to learn that the Trading With the Enemy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act could expropriate them instantly and far more broadly without any of the due process extended to parties in eminent domain cases. All that is needed is a presidential proclamation of an emergency of some kind -- and of course Americans lately have been living in a state of perpetual emergency.

Are these the people you wish to invite into the BitCoin economy?

good post.  the illusion of common law runs strong, but they can do whatever the hell they want.

Bitcoin has "significant foreign circulation".
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
June 10, 2011, 12:42:03 PM
 #51

Bitcoin has pretty strong privacy for the average person or business.

True. And the way for police to investigate / monitor by looking at ip traffic is not as simple as Jeff tried to make it look to the journalists. How are they going to detect a payment to - say - silkroad, let alone after the fact? Am I missing something?

Also: when time comes we can move to btcfn (bitcoin over freenet)


You know what? There is a simpler way: create a new wallet, fill it with money, encrypt it, sell and send the whole wallet to someone via email.
Done.

Do it via multiple jurisdictions and the trace is easily lost.


There's a patch (I think it will be pulled in) that allows import/export of keys from/to a wallet, making what you suggested even nicer (also makes bitbills easier to redeem)

I fail to see how that's simpler (from a user perspective) than btcfn would be. Start freenet, start bitcoin, use as normal.


PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
Dobrodav
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 12:54:19 PM
 #52

I am not  read the thread  from a to z, but idea to send whole encrypted wallet.dat,  with needed sum, by the mail,  is so f*king great !

We will  meet in not-so-distant future.
Today`s strange music :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8mCgjbBPMk
Yesterday`s  strange music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uCTyC1FGLw
Sandoz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 85


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 01:02:10 PM
 #53

There's a patch (I think it will be pulled in) that allows import/export of keys from/to a wallet, making what you suggested even nicer (also makes bitbills easier to redeem)

I fail to see how that's simpler (from a user perspective) than btcfn would be. Start freenet, start bitcoin, use as normal.

The whole concept of selling a wallet is simpler: you can send it via snail mail, USB stick or via morse code. It becomes independent of the medium and is quite intuitive. AND: no transaction costs

Imagine, it could even happen that at some point you sell wallets of 0.1 bc like they were discrete units.

"It costs 20 Bc"
"Ok, I'll send you 4 x 5 Bc wallets"

Untraceable and no transaction fees..
shady financier
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


etcetera


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 01:13:56 PM
 #54

Spot on, although there are transacvtion fees for sending bitcoin via the bitcoin-network, you can also send thousands (conceivably millions) of dollars/pounds/euro/whatever worth of bitcoin literally for free, and completely untraceable.

People can stop correcting all those ignorant media articles talking about free transaction costs and anonymity, both remain literally true.

1G8AUgSTAw8hfatNnDHuYEqBAUzC3qvAAL

Bitcoin news: http://thebitcoinsun.com/

Rapidlybuybitcoin here.

The value of goods, expressed in money, is called “price”, while the value of money, expressed in goods, is called “value”. C. Quigley
cloud9
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 01:20:28 PM
 #55

The operators of Liberty Dollar tried to introduce a specie-based (silver) alternative to U.S. dollars. As you can read, the U.S. maintains that it has the exclusive franchise to any money (or in this case, tokens) circulating within its borders which can be used for value exchange.

Is barter trade/exchange illegal in the United States?  Better leave those silverware ornaments in the cupboard - don't exchange them for someone's bicycle!!

If you exchange something of intrinsic value for something else of intrinsic value - is that not barter trade?

Does uniquely identifiable Bitcoin (digital goods) give the private key holder - the intellectual property right (intellectual property right value = fluctuating intrinsic value determined by market forces) to a world wide, efficient accounting network system - based on cryptocragphic key pairs, and backed by a secure network of thousands of computers (number and secureness determined by free market trading/exchange/barter forces), dedicated to this task?

Disclaimer:  Postings of Cloud9 are only individual views of opinion and/or musings and/or hypothesisses.  On a non-authoritative, peer-to-peer public forum, you do not need permission from Cloud9 to derive your own conclusions or opinions, so please do.  Calculations and assumptions to be verified.
tymothy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 01:31:23 PM
 #56

There's a patch (I think it will be pulled in) that allows import/export of keys from/to a wallet, making what you suggested even nicer (also makes bitbills easier to redeem)

I fail to see how that's simpler (from a user perspective) than btcfn would be. Start freenet, start bitcoin, use as normal.

The whole concept of selling a wallet is simpler: you can send it via snail mail, USB stick or via morse code. It becomes independent of the medium and is quite intuitive. AND: no transaction costs

Imagine, it could even happen that at some point you sell wallets of 0.1 bc like they were discrete units.

"It costs 20 Bc"
"Ok, I'll send you 4 x 5 Bc wallets"

Untraceable and no transaction fees..

Could you embed a wallet file into a piece of paper? Some sort of QR barcode or RFID thing?
Sandoz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 85


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 01:46:45 PM
 #57

Could you embed a wallet file into a piece of paper? Some sort of QR barcode or RFID thing?

I guess you could put an encrypted wallet on a public server (or bittorrent) and distribute a printed password on a paper.

The issue is that as soon as you exchange that piece of paper the recipient must scan the password, decrypt the file, validate the contents and change the password so that nobody can just pick up the bill and decrypt the same wallet.

This means that your bill would become worthless after use (or somehow supports changing passwords)
chiropteran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 348



View Profile WWW
June 10, 2011, 01:54:13 PM
 #58

You know what? There is a simpler way: create a new wallet, fill it with money, encrypt it, sell and send the whole wallet to someone via email.
Done.
Do it via multiple jurisdictions and the trace is easily lost.

I don't see what problem this would solve.

Step 1- create wallet.  Ok, no problem here.

Step 2- fill wallet with money.  Oops, how are you going to do this without it being traceable?  Any money you send into this wallet from yours is going in as a transaction and recorded forever.

Step 3- Send/mail wallet.  Ok, no problem, although if you are going to mail the wallet it'd be just as easy to mail cash, so why bother with bitcoins at all?

You gotta fix step 2 in order to make it work.  And if you can fix step 2 (add money to wallet without leaving any transaction evidence), you could just add money directly to the seller's wallet, rendering steps 1 and 3 unnecessary.

db
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 279



View Profile
June 10, 2011, 02:13:33 PM
 #59

Could you embed a wallet file into a piece of paper? Some sort of QR barcode or RFID thing?

http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=3716.0
http://bitcoin.modernjob.info/print.html
lonestranger
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 115


I like long walks on the beach, shaving my head...


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 02:41:29 PM
 #60


Those that propose regulation of BitCoin aught to become thoroughly familiar with the tragedy that befell the operators of e-gold and Liberty Dollars.
.
.
.
Are these the people you wish to invite into the BitCoin economy?

Fantastic post. The regulators that Garzik invites into bed with us are an organized criminal gang with a flag on the wall.  They are ruthless and evil and will hurt us.  They will never play by any rules.  To court them is disaster.  One must fight them when one can and run from them when one can't.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!