Bitcoin Forum
November 25, 2017, 08:22:15 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 [1108] 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2014096 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 02:28:35 AM
 #22141

you still haven't answered my question about how the US gvt could get away with the hypocrisy of auctioning off the SR coins while at the same time tainting others drug coins.

It is written into the law that seizure auctions clean the title, same as with seized cars, houses, etc. If anything that might be one reason for strong interest in these auctions. If you are a buyer with repetitional concerns the only two ways to buy known untainted coins are from a government auction or direct from a (reputable and verifiable) miner.


i know how the gvt couched this situation.  my point is that there are alot of ppl in the community who think they should have returned the coins to the owners who left them on SR or flat out destroyed them.  by selling them off under their own interpretation of the law, the gvt risks eroding faith in its sense of fairness in that application of the law.  b/c of that, there will be alot of ppl transacting despite any attempt of gvt to "taint" coins.  and then it becomes a matter of whether or not the gvt can trace what they've deemed tainted, hence the debate btwn tvbcof and me, as to whether or not they will be able to do this from a technical and politically correct way.
1511598135
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511598135

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511598135
Reply with quote  #2

1511598135
Report to moderator
1511598135
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511598135

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511598135
Reply with quote  #2

1511598135
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511598135
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511598135

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511598135
Reply with quote  #2

1511598135
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 02:32:03 AM
 #22142

you still haven't answered my question about how the US gvt could get away with the hypocrisy of auctioning off the SR coins while at the same time tainting others drug coins.

It is written into the law that seizure auctions clean the title, same as with seized cars, houses, etc. If anything that might be one reason for strong interest in these auctions. If you are a buyer with repetitional concerns the only two ways to buy known untainted coins are from a government auction or direct from a (reputable and verifiable) miner.


i know how the gvt couched this situation.  my point is that there are alot of ppl in the community who think they should have returned the coins to the owners who left them on SR or flat out destroyed them.

There is no precedent for that. Property of all kinds involved in various illegal activities and most especially the drug trade is routinely seized, auctioned, and the new owner gets a clear title.

Returning could possibly be argued, if there was no evidence that was part of illegal activity (I understand there was some small amount of legal trade on SR). That would of course only be a tiny minority of cases. But there is no precedent for destroying otherwise ordinary property that is otherwise legal to own (as opposed to illegal drugs for example). Seize and sell is the norm.

I have no strong opinion the feasibility of tainting, whitelisting, etc. but putting that aside I certainly believe the government can seize tainted, partially tainted, etc. coins and sell them as clean untainted, whitelisted, whatever coins under existing law.

KSGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 429



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 02:33:36 AM
 #22143

To try and get back on topic, I'd like to own some gold. I've been picking up silver lately to add to my collections, I'd like to add gold as well.
What I'd really like is one of the bitcoin coins in silver and gold each with 1 bitcoin loaded on them.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
March 23, 2015, 02:45:46 AM
 #22144


that's assuming you or anyone else has the ability to determine whether or not a UTXO has 100% cleanliness.  i'd say it depends on who is doing the analysis.  you yourself admitted, after i pointed it out, that you might indeed have stolen coins from allinvain in your wallet.  should we lock down your coins?

 - grandfather all UTXO at a point in time.
 - validate UTXOs from then forward by the simple metric: 'do we know who is responsible for them?'

This is as simple as the filter for general cryptography which we are likely to see:

 - packet has a govt back-door?

These things are really very simple.  If you want to sooth yourself by imagine them as complex, suit yourself, but don't whine and bitch when you lose your ass.

if it's so trivial, tell us how splitting out UTXO's works technically.  wallet software follows a particular logic of UTXO selection when assembling for a specific tx which i've not been able to get a good sense of and i'm sure you haven't either.  there's no such thing as "UTXO control" like there is "coin control" for addresses, afaik.  tell us how you would construct a tx to select or exclude certain UTXO's that you'd deem tainted.  from what i do know, the wallets select the most suitably "sized" UTXO's which when combined together fits the tx amount so as to minimize splitting and efficiently packages the tx at the least cost in terms of fees and data requirements.  furthermore, for a UTXO that has 0.15% "taint", tell us how you'd split that out practically.  stop pretending that Coinbase has a way to do this when you don't know that.

Formulating a spend from select UTXO's is a _very_ simple problem.  It's not often needed these days (though it's been done to try to deal with the dust problem) but it's uncommon because it is not very useful rather than because it is difficult.

As for identifying a UTXO as validated or not (to decide whether to spend it) that is not possible because there is no validation service at present.  Here again, it does not mean that it is a difficult problem.

I do suggest that you brush up on how to formulate transactions from abstract UTXO's in a desired way before the USGavincoin alt is pushed out.  You can thank me later.

what you're proposing is "possible" is mostly likely not possible and certainly is not "practical".  i've never seen any wallet with the ability to allow users to spend certain UTXO's.  what would be the point except to satisfy your socialistic mandates?

OK.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 03:11:51 AM
 #22145


that's assuming you or anyone else has the ability to determine whether or not a UTXO has 100% cleanliness.  i'd say it depends on who is doing the analysis.  you yourself admitted, after i pointed it out, that you might indeed have stolen coins from allinvain in your wallet.  should we lock down your coins?

 - grandfather all UTXO at a point in time.
 - validate UTXOs from then forward by the simple metric: 'do we know who is responsible for them?'

there you go again with the socialist attitude. "just make it so" says you.  care to tell me how all gvts worldwide will coordinate this simple action?  and tell us how you would tell "who is responsibel for them"?  wake me up when they do and maybe i'll pay attention to your FUD.  and even if they do, i see no discussion from you as to how to practically implement your pronouncements. 
Quote

This is as simple as the filter for general cryptography which we are likely to see:

 - packet has a govt back-door?

These things are really very simple.  If you want to sooth yourself by imagine them as complex, suit yourself, but don't whine and bitch when you lose your ass.

this is just you being a pessimist again.  you really do think the gvt is all powerful, don't you?
Quote
if it's so trivial, tell us how splitting out UTXO's works technically.  wallet software follows a particular logic of UTXO selection when assembling for a specific tx which i've not been able to get a good sense of and i'm sure you haven't either.  there's no such thing as "UTXO control" like there is "coin control" for addresses, afaik.  tell us how you would construct a tx to select or exclude certain UTXO's that you'd deem tainted.  from what i do know, the wallets select the most suitably "sized" UTXO's which when combined together fits the tx amount so as to minimize splitting and efficiently packages the tx at the least cost in terms of fees and data requirements.  furthermore, for a UTXO that has 0.15% "taint", tell us how you'd split that out practically.  stop pretending that Coinbase has a way to do this when you don't know that.

Formulating a spend from select UTXO's is a _very_ simple problem.  It's not often needed these days (though it's been done to try to deal with the dust problem) but it's uncommon because it is not very useful rather than because it is difficult.

the dust problem was not dealt with via filtering UTXO's.  it was dealt with by increasing the tx fee.
Quote

As for identifying a UTXO as validated or not (to decide whether to spend it) that is not possible because there is no validation service at present.  Here again, it does not mean that it is a difficult problem.

Alex Waters has figured out it won't work.  you should too.
Quote
I do suggest that you brush up on how to formulate transactions from abstract UTXO's in a desired way before the USGavincoin alt is pushed out.  You can thank me later.


why don't you spare us all some time and tell us how you would technically separate out taint from a set of UTXO's with varying percentages of taint all within the same address?  not only that, but tell us how you would make it practical and easy for avg Bitcoiners to comply with your law?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 04:02:56 AM
 #22146

let me ask you a further simple question. 

let's say you receive 2 inputs of 0.5 BTC into the same new address, thus creating 2 UTXO's of 0.5 BTC each.  one of them is 100% tainted, the other perfectly clean.  you now want to spend 0.5 BTC to buy an ipad.  according to your laws, will you allow it?  if so, why?  i could argue that you have 1 BTC in that "address" that is 50% tainted uniformly, therefore, it would illegal to spend even the clean 0.5 BTC.  how fair is that?  again, i am not aware of any wallet software that allows you to preferentially pick certain UTXO to be spent.  or what if you want to spend 0.51BTC for a laptop?  ignore tx fees for both these examples.  would you allow that?  i could argue that you're "dipping into" the tainted UTXO thus it should not be allowed. 

the flipside is you could argue that you're just a merchant that innocently received these coins from ordinary customers who also claim they have no idea where they got them.  therefore, they should be allowed to be spent.  ppl will spend their coins no matter what laws you pronounce and it will be up to you to enforce them in a reasonable manner.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
March 23, 2015, 04:14:03 AM
 #22147


there you go again with the socialist attitude. "just make it so" says you.  care to tell me how all gvts worldwide will coordinate this simple action?  and tell us how you would tell "who is responsibel for them"?  wake me up when they do and maybe i'll pay attention to your FUD.  and even if they do, i see no discussion from you as to how to practically implement your pronouncements.

Dude, I've had at least a foot in the Socialist bathtub all my life.  Now more like part of a toe, but I understand it fairly well.  Why would you think that that makes my insights into how this group thinks invalid?  Wouldn't it be just the opposite?


this is just you being a pessimist again.  you really do think the gvt is all powerful, don't you?

Just generally it's better strategy to overestimate and adversary than to underestimate one.  But yes, I think that governments have quite a lot of power in general and very much so here in the U.S.  Currently.

the dust problem was not dealt with via filtering UTXO's.  it was dealt with by increasing the tx fee.

I didn't mean to imply that it was the only way, or even an important one (and I should have made that more clear.)  Some good Sameritan type (Todd iirc) cooked up some deal which would scour a wallet for small UTXO's and aggregate them into a spend (into the ether as I recall the details.)

Generally speaking, formulating a spend is like reaching into your pocket and rifling around for change (UTXOs).  You can take the time to pick out the 90% and wheat-tails, and/or make pretty close change, or just give the teller a handful and let them sort it out.  None of these operations are difficult and all will work fine.


Alex Waters has figured out it won't work.  you should too.

I consider Waters to be a repulsive puke and irrelevant enough at this point to not to go out of my way looking for his works.  Guo same.   I may skim their stuff if there was a link handy just to see if they may be up to new mischief or continuing said from the past.  For this reason I will only guess that 'won't work' means it would ruin Bitcoin rather than be any particular technical challenge.  Well, no shit!  Anyone with a brain could have figured that out in a matter of seconds just as I did as I read about their new CoinValidation company.


why don't you spare us all some time and tell us how you would technically separate out taint from a set of UTXO's with varying percentages of taint all within the same address?

Well, the question displays a lack of understanding, but for shits-n-giggles here is some quasi-metacode:

Code:
while UTXO in wallet && desired spend not achieved:
  check validation using api
  if unvalidated && recip_is_retard_who_might_accepts_it
    add to transaction
  else
    add to transaction

not only that, but tell us how you would make it practical and easy for avg Bitcoiners to comply with your law?

Use Coinbase or Multibit.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
March 23, 2015, 04:35:45 AM
 #22148

let me ask you a further simple question. 

let's say you receive 2 inputs of 0.5 BTC into the same new address, thus creating 2 UTXO's of 0.5 BTC each.  one of them is 100% tainted, the other perfectly clean.  you now want to spend 0.5 BTC to buy an ipad.  according to your laws, will you allow it?  if so, why?  i could argue that you have 1 BTC in that "address" that is 50% tainted uniformly, therefore, it would illegal to spend even the clean 0.5 BTC.  how fair is that?  again, i am not aware of any wallet software that allows you to preferentially pick certain UTXO to be spent.  or what if you want to spend 0.51BTC for a laptop?  ignore tx fees for both these examples.  would you allow that?  i could argue that you're "dipping into" the tainted UTXO thus it should not be allowed. 

the flipside is you could argue that you're just a merchant that innocently received these coins from ordinary customers who also claim they have no idea where they got them.  therefore, they should be allowed to be spent.  ppl will spend their coins no matter what laws you pronounce and it will be up to you to enforce them in a reasonable manner.

Firstly, note that when things are working after the switch (grandfathering and initial validation) you should never have an unvalidated UTXO in your wallet, and if you do, that's your fault.  Should have used Coinbase if you could not work it out for yourself.

Secondly, your 'address' is irrelevant.  It's needed to sign stuff but that's about it.  It's not a factor in formulating spends.  That is just straight up aggregation of UTXO's and acceptance of change.  If you don't have the appropriate UTXO's to make the desired spend that the recipient will accept, you don't have the money.

It could be in practice that a validation service can re-validate an unvalidated UTXO, but I expect that it will cost you the price of an investigation...and then some as their profit margin.  I would expect that part of a government charter would allow a validation service to perform such actions.

Lastly, try to imagine the look on Big Brother's face when you complain that his requirements are destroying Bitcoin.  Seriously, Bitcoin's best hope is probably that the govt considers Bitcoin more useful alive than dead.  They probably do currently for the honeypot effect, and in the future they very well might in order to detract from exploration of alts.  In order to do so, they may actually be pretty relaxed about things.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 05:35:15 AM
 #22149

let me ask you a further simple question. 

let's say you receive 2 inputs of 0.5 BTC into the same new address, thus creating 2 UTXO's of 0.5 BTC each.  one of them is 100% tainted, the other perfectly clean.  you now want to spend 0.5 BTC to buy an ipad.  according to your laws, will you allow it?  if so, why?  i could argue that you have 1 BTC in that "address" that is 50% tainted uniformly, therefore, it would illegal to spend even the clean 0.5 BTC.  how fair is that?  again, i am not aware of any wallet software that allows you to preferentially pick certain UTXO to be spent.  or what if you want to spend 0.51BTC for a laptop?  ignore tx fees for both these examples.  would you allow that?  i could argue that you're "dipping into" the tainted UTXO thus it should not be allowed. 

the flipside is you could argue that you're just a merchant that innocently received these coins from ordinary customers who also claim they have no idea where they got them.  therefore, they should be allowed to be spent.  ppl will spend their coins no matter what laws you pronounce and it will be up to you to enforce them in a reasonable manner.

Firstly, note that when things are working after the switch (grandfathering and initial validation) you should never have an unvalidated UTXO in your wallet, and if you do, that's your fault.  Should have used Coinbase if you could not work it out for yourself.

Secondly, your 'address' is irrelevant.  It's needed to sign stuff but that's about it.  It's not a factor in formulating spends.  That is just straight up aggregation of UTXO's and acceptance of change.  If you don't have the appropriate UTXO's to make the desired spend that the recipient will accept, you don't have the money.

It could be in practice that a validation service can re-validate an unvalidated UTXO, but I expect that it will cost you the price of an investigation...and then some as their profit margin.  I would expect that part of a government charter would allow a validation service to perform such actions.

Lastly, try to imagine the look on Big Brother's face when you complain that his requirements are destroying Bitcoin.  Seriously, Bitcoin's best hope is probably that the govt considers Bitcoin more useful alive than dead.  They probably do currently for the honeypot effect, and in the future they very well might in order to detract from exploration of alts.  In order to do so, they may actually be pretty relaxed about things.



no, but i don't want to start at the grandfathering.  i want to start with allinvains theft.  no doubt, you have some of his coins in your wallet.  humor me and go back and find out which of your UTXO's and what % of those UTXO's have his coins in them.  you might want to read this thread first:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583579.0

i'll bet you have no idea where to start and would have a difficult time at best finding out just what you have today.  btw, here's the algorithm:

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1077/what-is-the-coin-selection-algorithm/29962#29962
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
March 23, 2015, 06:08:28 AM
 #22150


no, but i don't want to start at the grandfathering.  i want to start with allinvains theft.  no doubt, you have some of his coins in your wallet.  humor me and go back and find out which of your UTXO's and what % of those UTXO's have his coins in them.  you might want to read this thread first:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583579.0

i'll bet you have no idea where to start and would have a difficult time at best finding out just what you have today.  btw, here's the algorithm:

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1077/what-is-the-coin-selection-algorithm/29962#29962

Assuming that the word on the street was correct and allinvain's former coins were on the market when I was buying, it is only more likely that some of the UTXO's accessible with keys in my wallets are closer in hops than most compared to the ones which at one point (purportedly) were associated with a secret key residing on allinvain's windoz box.  They still passed through at least one transaction to get into Tradehill and another to get out, then whatever sorting I did on my side.  I thought that one of the recent posters did a pretty good job of explaining this basic idea to you, and more generally, that it is pretty intuitive that nobody has stolen BTC to the extent that the term 'BTC' makes any sense here (unless it was a secret key which was stolen and the thief has yet sign any transactions with it.)

Put another way, the BTC I control have been fairly well 'laundered' through Tradehill, or would be if 'laundering' did not automatically imply a criminal event which I certainly and Tradehill probably did not participate in.  As I say, I can prove both my fiat and my BTC transactions with Tradehill if I needed to bother which is entirely unlikely in any realistic implementation of 'validation'.

A glance at the diagrams from your link indicates that the guy's rather tedious exercise in meaninglessness is kind of a waste of time if he's not talking about UTXO's (and discrete STXO's for historic analysis.)  That's the only thing which matters.  If he's simplifying them into block diagrams, fine, but it's not inherently interesting enough to be worth my time.  A validation service may concern themselves with such things if they get into re-validating stuff as I described before, but that's a small side-show to the salient core aspects of their business.


sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
March 23, 2015, 07:23:35 AM
 #22151

Decentralized exchanges will destroy any fungability worries because there will be no way to choose what kind of coins get traded to you or that you can trade to someone else.

On that matter I've always wondered if a decentralized exchange could work for something else than decentralized crypticurrencies. I.e. I'm not able to imagine such a market place where you can trade fiat for btc (in both ways) in a "decentralized" fashion. Am I missing something obvious?

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1610



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 07:28:39 AM
 #22152

Decentralized exchanges will destroy any fungability worries because there will be no way to choose what kind of coins get traded to you or that you can trade to someone else.

On that matter I've always wondered if a decentralized exchange could work for something else than decentralized crypticurrencies. I.e. I'm not able to imagine such a market place where you can trade fiat for btc (in both ways) in a "decentralized" fashion. Am I missing something obvious?

The hard part is verifying that the fiat transfer actually occurs (and can't be reversed).

As far as decentralized exchanges I don't necessarily agree. If you might get back 'tainted' coins, and if that matters, people just won't use them, or only people with already -heavily-tainted coins would (which of course guarantees you will get tainted coins in a race to the bottom). Who would want to trade untainted coins and get tainted ones back?
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 08:52:21 AM
 #22153

Bond market topping out? liquidity collapse imminent, seems the ultimate debt bubble is shimmering and quivering if you read between the lines.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/11487546/Liquidity-crisis-could-spark-the-next-financial-crash.html

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 09:06:47 AM
 #22154

Bond market topping out? liquidity collapse imminent, seems the ultimate debt bubble is shimmering and quivering if you read between the lines.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/11487546/Liquidity-crisis-could-spark-the-next-financial-crash.html

liquidity crisis will just set the fire on a major credit crisis. hence, adios the money. suck it up your useless plastic cards. ^^
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
March 23, 2015, 09:07:52 AM
 #22155

Bond market topping out? liquidity collapse imminent, seems the ultimate debt bubble is shimmering and quivering if you read between the lines.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/11487546/Liquidity-crisis-could-spark-the-next-financial-crash.html




██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 09:37:44 AM
 #22156

A crash is never announced in MSM. I guess it will take a few more years until faith is lost.

         ▄███████████████▄
       ▄██▀             ▀██▄
    ▄▄██▀                 ▀██▄▄
█████▀▀       ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄    ▀▀█████
██          ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▀█▄▄      ██
▐█▌       ▄▀ ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▄▀▀▀███   ▐█▌
 ██      ▄▀▄▀▄▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀█ ▄█▀   ██
 ▐█▌    █▄▀▄▀▄█▀▀▀ ▀█▀ ▄▀▄▀█   ▐█▌
  ██    █▄▀▄▀▄▄█▀ ▄▀ ▄▀▄▀▄▀█   ██
  ▐█▌ ▀▄█████▀▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀█  ▐█▌
   ██▌▀████▀██▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄█▀ ▐██
    ██▌▀█▀▀█▄▀▀▄▀▀▄▄▀▄█▄▄█▀ ▐██
     ██▌ ▀  ▀███▄▄▄█████▀  ▐██
      ██▄      ▀▀▀▀▀      ▄██
       ▀██▄             ▄██▀
         ▀██▄         ▄██▀
           ▀██▄     ▄██▀
             ▀███▄███▀
               ▀███▀
.DeepOnion.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★  .❱❱❱ JOIN AIRDROP NOW!.
TOR INTEGRATED & SECURED
★  Your Anonymity Guaranteed
★  Your Assets Secured by TOR
★  Guard Your Privacy!
|Bitcointalk
Reddit
Telegram
|                        ▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▀▀
                    ▄▄██▀█▀▄▀▀▀
                  ▄██▄█▄██▀
                ▄██████▀
              ▄██████▀
  ▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
██████▀▀▀▀▀██████▀
 ▀█████  ▄███████
  ████████████▀██
  ██▀███████▀  ██
  ██ ▀████▀    ██
  ██   ▀▀      ██
  ▀█████████████▀
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 10:15:56 AM
 #22157



Quote
this is just you being a pessimist again.  you really do think the gvt is all powerful, don't you?

Yes, the collectivists think so. They believe in the New Idol:

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle507-20090222-04.html
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
March 23, 2015, 11:27:18 AM
 #22158

i think BTC-e is temporarily deluded at best.

first, they have no clear way of proving which coins were stolen.  it makes no sense that the thieves would send stolen coins directly to BTC-e for sale w/o a few intermediate hops at least.  similarly, "mule" activity can only be suspected, not proved.  secondly, while i agree BTC-e has the right to choose to behave as they wish (it being a free mkt), the consequences of such actions will be to destroy their own business as internet of money (Bitcoin) will choose to route around them if their behavior persists.  thirdly, i doubt they're acting out of pure ethics; the behavior is suspicious as the owners have been anonymous from the beginning making this freezing of coins highly suspicious.  my bet is that they had some of their own coins on Evo and they're just trying to retrieve them.  thirdly, do you really think they will just freeze the coins and then destroy them?  hell no, they'll eventually have to decide to return them to their rightful owners, destroy them, or turn them over to some law enforcement agency (think DOJ).  in the first instance, those owners will then merrily go off and spend those coins freely as if nothing happened and recipients of those coins will do likewise.  in the second instance, destroying them would be an untenable act as the rightful owners (if they can even be identified) would scream bloody foul again destroying their customer base.  if they try to hold them "forever", suspicions will arise that they might eventually spend them themselves (BTC-e).  in the third instance of turning them over to DOJ or some gvt (and here's the real zinger) what do you think they would do with them?  Voila!  we already have 3 instances of exactly what the feds would do:  auction them off.  and this is where the ultimate hypocrisy comes from all this moral and legal parsing going on about this tainting issue.  when gvts believe they have the moral authority to do what's right for them and them only (auctioning and running off with the proceeds from "illegal activity") they undermine confidence in themselves from the viewpoint of the people.  i know that when i see these auctions going off on SR coins or the auction the Aussie authorities are planning, i think hypocrisy, ie theft.  this is why the Bitcoin community will ultimately give those tainted coins a pass and accept them in everyday trade.  if the gvt can do it, so can they.  this "pass" just takes time.  in 2 wks, this Evo thing will have blown over.  furthermore, if the community refuses to do this, it means the end of Bitcoin as what is paramount is the principle of fungibility.

Doc, please.  Paragraphs.  Because my eyes!

I agree BTC-E has painted themselves into a no-win corner (*checks popcorn supplies*).  I share your suspicions w/r/t some 'self-help' going on.  I agree there is no way to prove technically the taint.

The problems arise because people nevertheless believe, and vehemently insist, some coins are less legitimate than others.  It's a social thing, the opposite of neatly provable/disprovable coin 'color.'  That's why it's such a sticky mess.

My model here is diamonds.  They are all made of blameless carbon.  But social, market, and media pressure (sorry for pun) has created ex nihilo a de novo problem and furor over 'blood diamonds.'

There is no way to ask a diamond about its origin.  So a whitelist, in the form of Happy Diamond Certification, is now in place and presumption is of guilt.

I agree a BTC whitelist is problematic and unenforceable for all manner of good reasons.  But I also have full faith Statists and other do-gooders will ignore those fine reasons and proceed to blunder about with (un)pleasantly futile regulatory schemes.

"We have to make sure people don't use Conflict Coins from nasty dark markets; it's For The Children" they will undoubtedly say.

Today we have Know Your Custom, tomorrow it will mutate into Know Your Coinbase.  BTC-E vs Evo is only a first skirmish, among the first drops in an oncoming monsoon.


Would you mind telling me exactly how, from a technical standpoint, you would even white or black list BTC?

Given that there is no such thing as a coin but just a series of inputs and outputs, what do you taint and how is that sustainably identifiable throughout the life of a "coin"?

It's not a 'what does the code output say' technical point.  It's a subjective matter of he-said-she-said/who has the most juiced-up legal team.

IOW, nightmare stuff.  Best to sidestep the entire tar pit by making claims of taint nigh-impossible to prove, even for TLAs.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
March 23, 2015, 04:07:01 PM
 #22159

i think BTC-e is temporarily deluded at best.

first, they have no clear way of proving which coins were stolen.  it makes no sense that the thieves would send stolen coins directly to BTC-e for sale w/o a few intermediate hops at least.  similarly, "mule" activity can only be suspected, not proved.  secondly, while i agree BTC-e has the right to choose to behave as they wish (it being a free mkt), the consequences of such actions will be to destroy their own business as internet of money (Bitcoin) will choose to route around them if their behavior persists.  thirdly, i doubt they're acting out of pure ethics; the behavior is suspicious as the owners have been anonymous from the beginning making this freezing of coins highly suspicious.  my bet is that they had some of their own coins on Evo and they're just trying to retrieve them.  thirdly, do you really think they will just freeze the coins and then destroy them?  hell no, they'll eventually have to decide to return them to their rightful owners, destroy them, or turn them over to some law enforcement agency (think DOJ).  in the first instance, those owners will then merrily go off and spend those coins freely as if nothing happened and recipients of those coins will do likewise.  in the second instance, destroying them would be an untenable act as the rightful owners (if they can even be identified) would scream bloody foul again destroying their customer base.  if they try to hold them "forever", suspicions will arise that they might eventually spend them themselves (BTC-e).  in the third instance of turning them over to DOJ or some gvt (and here's the real zinger) what do you think they would do with them?  Voila!  we already have 3 instances of exactly what the feds would do:  auction them off.  and this is where the ultimate hypocrisy comes from all this moral and legal parsing going on about this tainting issue.  when gvts believe they have the moral authority to do what's right for them and them only (auctioning and running off with the proceeds from "illegal activity") they undermine confidence in themselves from the viewpoint of the people.  i know that when i see these auctions going off on SR coins or the auction the Aussie authorities are planning, i think hypocrisy, ie theft.  this is why the Bitcoin community will ultimately give those tainted coins a pass and accept them in everyday trade.  if the gvt can do it, so can they.  this "pass" just takes time.  in 2 wks, this Evo thing will have blown over.  furthermore, if the community refuses to do this, it means the end of Bitcoin as what is paramount is the principle of fungibility.

Doc, please.  Paragraphs.  Because my eyes!

I agree BTC-E has painted themselves into a no-win corner (*checks popcorn supplies*).  I share your suspicions w/r/t some 'self-help' going on.  I agree there is no way to prove technically the taint.

The problems arise because people nevertheless believe, and vehemently insist, some coins are less legitimate than others.  It's a social thing, the opposite of neatly provable/disprovable coin 'color.'  That's why it's such a sticky mess.

My model here is diamonds.  They are all made of blameless carbon.  But social, market, and media pressure (sorry for pun) has created ex nihilo a de novo problem and furor over 'blood diamonds.'

There is no way to ask a diamond about its origin.  So a whitelist, in the form of Happy Diamond Certification, is now in place and presumption is of guilt.

I agree a BTC whitelist is problematic and unenforceable for all manner of good reasons.  But I also have full faith Statists and other do-gooders will ignore those fine reasons and proceed to blunder about with (un)pleasantly futile regulatory schemes.

"We have to make sure people don't use Conflict Coins from nasty dark markets; it's For The Children" they will undoubtedly say.

Today we have Know Your Custom, tomorrow it will mutate into Know Your Coinbase.  BTC-E vs Evo is only a first skirmish, among the first drops in an oncoming monsoon.


Would you mind telling me exactly how, from a technical standpoint, you would even white or black list BTC?

Given that there is no such thing as a coin but just a series of inputs and outputs, what do you taint and how is that sustainably identifiable throughout the life of a "coin"?

It's not a 'what does the code output say' technical point.  It's a subjective matter of he-said-she-said/who has the most juiced-up legal team.

IOW, nightmare stuff.  Best to sidestep the entire tar pit by making claims of taint nigh-impossible to prove, even for TLAs.

except that blood diamonds are NOT critical for world trade as a form of money.  Bitcoin, otoh, has the distinct possibility to enable frictionless payments across all borders with a strictly known and fixed supply.  yes, a gvt can perform irrational tainting acts but they risk isolating themselves and cutting themselves off from what has the potential to fundamentally change commerce.  which nation wants to risk that?

sure, i agree that anonymity could be better provided in the code.  but is it good enough?  maybe.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
March 23, 2015, 04:12:55 PM
 #22160

except that blood diamonds are NOT critical for world trade as a form of money.  Bitcoin, otoh, has the distinct possibility to enable frictionless payments across all borders with a strictly known and fixed supply.  yes, a gvt can perform irrational tainting acts but they risk isolating themselves and cutting themselves off from what has the potential to fundamentally change commerce.  which nation wants to risk that?

Oh, I'm not disputing the triviality of diamonds, nor the ability of Bitcoin's anti-fragility to obsolete, ultimately prevail over, and finally replace TPTB.

My point is it will not be a painless nor victimless process, and we should watch our eggs to ensure they are not the ones broken for the sake of making the cryptopian omelet.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Pages: « 1 ... 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 [1108] 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 ... 1558 »
  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!