Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Martijnvdc]

earlier this year ghash did get over 50% and some "rogue" employee pulled off a small double spend but was immediately caught and fired.  at least, that's the story.

but immediately the community responded by individual miners dispersing to other pools and even ghash voluntarily began restricting new miners to actively bring down their %.

Discus will unlikely be a problem as hardware costs are decreasing allowing more wide distribution and the mining sector, in general, is likely to contract for a short while until the price starts going back up.

From over 50% to 14% within the same year?!
I wonder if this could ever happen again. What if a single big investor comes along and builds a very large mining facility? Or would that be irrelevant since the worldwide hashrates increase too fast for it to really matter?
I'm surprised the BTC market didn't panic... Since it threatened the decentralised foundation on which bitcoin relies.

[1714155839]

1714155839

[1714155839]

1714155839

[1714155839]

1714155839

[1714155839]

1714155839

[1714155839]

1714155839

[1714155839]

1714155839

[cypherdoc]

earlier this year ghash did get over 50% and some "rogue" employee pulled off a small double spend but was immediately caught and fired.  at least, that's the story.

but immediately the community responded by individual miners dispersing to other pools and even ghash voluntarily began restricting new miners to actively bring down their %.

Discus will unlikely be a problem as hardware costs are decreasing allowing more wide distribution and the mining sector, in general, is likely to contract for a short while until the price starts going back up.

From over 50% to 14% within the same year?!
I wonder if this could ever happen again. What if a single big investor comes along and builds a very large mining facility? Or would that be irrelevant since the worldwide hashrates increase too fast for it to really matter?
I'm surprised the BTC market didn't panic... Since it threatened the decentralised foundation on which bitcoin relies.

yep.

i personally doubt it altho you'll get plenty of disagreement on that. 

[cypherdoc]

ppl are getting closer to "The blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money"-cypherdoc.

There is only one blockchain and it’s called Bitcoin

http://blog.oleganza.com/post/104274846653/there-is-only-one-blockchain-and-its-called

[cypherdoc]

its good news when the sharks start turning on themselves.  "someones" gotta pay:

The ruling is one of the first court decisions to clarify the legal confusion between retailers and banks in data breaches. In the past, banks were often left with the financial burden of a hacking and were responsible for replacing stolen cards. The cost of replacing stolen cards from Target’s breach alone is roughly $400 million — and the Secret Service has estimated that some 1,000 American merchants may have suffered from similar attacks.

The Target ruling makes clear that banks have a right to go after merchants if they can provide evidence that the merchant may have been negligent in securing its systems.

Mr. Newman said that Tuesday’s ruling was the beginning of a new “legal road map in determining who’s responsible for paying the significant costs associated with a hacking incident.”

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/banks-lawsuits-against-target-for-losses-related-to-hacking-can-continue/?smid=tw-nytimestech&seid=auto&_r=1

[ssmc2]

Wonder how much they would have had to pay if Bitcoin addresses were stolen? Oh, that's right, nothing. 

[brg444]

Dan Morehead ‏@dan_pantera
Bidding closed for US Marshals #Bitcoin auction.  Pantera placed bids below the market.  Results out tomorrow by 2pm PST.  Probably earlier.

 

markets are not gonna like this

[SmoothCurves]

Dan Morehead ‏@dan_pantera
Bidding closed for US Marshals #Bitcoin auction.  Pantera placed bids below the market.  Results out tomorrow by 2pm PST.  Probably earlier.

 

markets are not gonna like this

I think Pantera is not going to like it. Tim Draper is nuts for Bitcoin and will bid aggressively.

[brg444]

Dan Morehead ‏@dan_pantera
Bidding closed for US Marshals #Bitcoin auction.  Pantera placed bids below the market.  Results out tomorrow by 2pm PST.  Probably earlier.

 

markets are not gonna like this

I think Pantera is not going to like it. Tim Draper is nuts for Bitcoin and will bid aggressively.

 

that's also what I'm thinking. Tim or someone else. Pantera, I believe, only bids as a syndicate and I would expect those to bid low

[traderCJ]

it's not just ridiculous, it's dangerous.

yeah.  it just goes to show you how far down the totalitarian rabbit hole these guys have gone.  really scary shit.

Lol, oh brother.  Listen to what he's saying.

1) Recourse.  There's no recourse for a fraudulent transaction in the Bitcoin world.  Sure, it's possible that in the future a bank or insurance company could act as an intermediary to shield people from these risks, but as it is right now, you're on your own.

2) Ease of use.  Bitcoin wins in some circumstances.  Charge cards win in other circumstances.

3) Transparency.  No one likes oversight into their own financial matters, but like it or not, people in general want those who engage in illegal trade to be brought to justice.  They also expect everyone else to pay their taxes.  This isn't about what you want, it's about what the voters demand.  Bitcoin makes forensic accounting more troublesome, so naturally law enforcement and the tax collectors bristle at the idea of criminals utilizing technology that makes their job harder.

And no, I'm not saying he's 100% right, but to say this is "scary", "dangerous", etc. is simply fear mongering.  MasterCard isn't going to embrace Bitcoin competition, but I don't think anything he said was outright disingenuous.  If anything, his arguments were tepid.  He didn't even mention the tax implications of using Bitcoins for something as simple as a cup of coffee.  I don't find anything troubling about his statements, they're pretty much what you'd expect from someone in his position.  May the best man win.

[cypherdoc]

that was a pain in the ass.  but well worth the time:

Yep.  You'll always remember the first time you did raw multisig. 

was it my imagination or was pybtctools alot easier?

[NewLiberty]

Mastercard head of SE Asia goes all out with every myth, stereotype and piece of FUD he could possibly fit into 4.30 of attacking bitcoin.

This is scripted propaganda and it is excellent to watch. It really shows how worried they are that they have to make such an anti bitcoin informerci that can easily be taken apart. The part about what their core business is shows just how stupid they think their customers are

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=bO4jHXjCXw8

This is sickening!

I see this as primarily a message to government officials: we'll help you collect taxes, apply capital controls and 'financial transparency' to your population so you can keep control. In turn you better start regulatorily strangling those goddamn cryptocurrencies!

A direct attack on human rights (imo) like financial privacy and freedom of economic interaction. Those things should be valued much higher than the governments ability to collect taxes or spy on their constituencies.

yep, totally ridiculous.  the good thing is he twisted himself all up in knots and hypocrisies which to any intelligent person was laughable.

A little ridicule...

Matthew Driver 1:43: "It's quite hard to understand what the appeal is of a cryptocurrency"
NL:  "Then do not speak about what you do not understand"

Matthew Driver  2:56: "We at Mastercard are not completely ..um.. comfortable with the idea of cryptocurrencies largely because
They go against the whole principle that we have established out business on which is really moving to a world beyond cash and assuring greater transparency and security and (chuckle) simplicity."
NL:  "That bit you mentioned before about not understanding cryptocurrencies?  You really should study what transparency security and simplicity mean and how they are delivered better with cryptocurrencies by the efforts of a few years of hobbyist developing, than they are by your multi-billion multi-decade operation has accomplished.  Do that before you think about bragging."

Matthew Driver 3:35: "Trust is a critical component in any payment system."
NL: "You might think so until you have the opportunity to do without it as a requirement.  Mastercard requires far more trust (and blind faith) than cryptocurrency.  So if you mean that it is critical that folks trust you in order for you to soak up their money, than we agree."

[NewLiberty]

it's not just ridiculous, it's dangerous.

yeah.  it just goes to show you how far down the totalitarian rabbit hole these guys have gone.  really scary shit.

Lol, oh brother.  Listen to what he's saying.

1) Recourse.  There's no recourse for a fraudulent transaction in the Bitcoin world.  Sure, it's possible that in the future a bank or insurance company could act as an intermediary to shield people from these risks, but as it is right now, you're on your own.

2) Ease of use.  Bitcoin wins in some circumstances.  Charge cards win in other circumstances.

3) Transparency.  No one likes oversight into their own financial matters, but like it or not, people in general want those who engage in illegal trade to be brought to justice.  They also expect everyone else to pay their taxes.  This isn't about what you want, it's about what the voters demand.  Bitcoin makes forensic accounting more troublesome, so naturally law enforcement and the tax collectors bristle at the idea of criminals utilizing technology that makes their job harder.

And no, I'm not saying he's 100% right, but to say this is "scary", "dangerous", etc. is simply fear mongering.  MasterCard isn't going to embrace Bitcoin competition, but I don't think anything he said was outright disingenuous.  If anything, his arguments were tepid.  He didn't even mention the tax implications of using Bitcoins for something as simple as a cup of coffee.  I don't find anything troubling about his statements, they're pretty much what you'd expect from someone in his position.  May the best man win.

This is hogwash.

Bitcoin makes forensic accounting less troublesome, not more.
Bitcoin comes pre-subpoenaed.  All transactions on the block chain are public, unencrypted, and permanent.
Contrast this with financial institutions that can change their records, auditors that can shred documents, and companies that can refuse to comply with disclosure requirements, delay and forstal.

If you want to launder money, forget about Bitcoin.  Start a bank instead, it is a lot easier that way, and a lot more lucrative.

In 2012, a single bank paid more in fines for their money laundering than Bitcoin's market cap in 2013.  Bitcoin is peanuts, its not even big enough to handle real money laundering today.
By the way, 2012 wasn't anything extreme.

In 2014m BNP (a different single bank) is paying US$8.9Billion this year in fines for money laundering.  If you think these fines are going to slow the banks down... they aren't.  Its just a part of the cost of doing business.  Pay the vig to a government to cut them in on the deal so you can carry on.



Keep in mind, this is only what was caught, not what was missed, no telling how much.

[smooth]

Keep in mind, this is only what was caught, not what was missed, no telling how much.

True, although bear in mind that "caught" (and fines paid) doesn't necessarily mean guilty in the casual sense either. Often times the actual offense being charged or investigated (and then settled) are technical violations of recordkeeping requirements, failure to follow the bank's own AML policies, etc. These may or may not relate directly to actual criminal activity. This doesn't mean they aren't guilty of course. For example, one reason a bank might settle is to stop the digging before it uncovers something worse.

[Chainsaw]

I'd love to watch a voiceover video of both this presentation and the Ernst & Young presentation, replacing any usage of 'Bitcoin' with 'cash'.
I mean, as a company, they seem to have strategized on an attack vector, but this seems to bring to light both the ridiculousness and luddite nature of their stance better than anything else I've been able to come up with.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Hard to argue we've moved on to the fight stage.
One step away.

[traderCJ]

This is hogwash.

Bitcoin makes forensic accounting less troublesome, not more.
Bitcoin comes pre-subpoenaed.  All transactions on the block chain are public, unencrypted, and permanent.
Contrast this with financial institutions that can change their records, auditors that can shred documents, and companies that can refuse to comply with disclosure requirements, delay and forstal.

If you want to launder money, forget about Bitcoin.  Start a bank instead, it is a lot easier that way, and a lot more lucrative.

In 2012, a single bank paid more in fines for their money laundering than Bitcoin's market cap in 2013.  Bitcoin is peanuts, its not even big enough to handle real money laundering today.
By the way, 2012 wasn't anything extreme.

In 2014m BNP (a different single bank) is paying US$8.9Billion this year in fines for money laundering.  If you think these fines are going to slow the banks down... they aren't.  Its just a part of the cost of doing business.  Pay the vig to a government to cut them in on the deal so you can carry on.



Keep in mind, this is only what was caught, not what was missed, no telling how much.

Haha.  Thanks for the laugh.

Sure, the blockchain is public, but good luck linking a cautious criminal to a wallet.  And good luck tracking coins through a well-designed mixing service, not to mention portions of ill gotten coins being sprinkled like pixie dust across innocent wallets to throw off the authorities.  Really, this isn't supernatural.  It isn't complicated.  A patient, thoughtful criminal will have no problem evading even the best forensic specialists.  It's a nice feature for Bitcoin users and a pain in the ass for investigators.  A losing battle.  Does Bitcoin offer true anonymity right out of the box?  No, not directly, but the tools are there.

You're arguing that since most money laundering is done through banks, then money laundering through Bitcoin isn't practical?  You realize how ridiculous that argument is, I hope.  Essentially all of the world's wealth sits in banks.  Thus, I would expect most laundering to originate from those banks.  Besides, you're talking about a technology that hasn't even been around for a decade.  It'll take just a little time to catch up.

[NewLiberty]

Haha.  Thanks for the laugh.

Sure, the blockchain is public, but good luck linking a cautious criminal to a wallet.  And good luck tracking coins through a well-designed mixing service, not to mention portions of ill gotten coins being sprinkled like pixie dust across innocent wallets to throw off the authorities.  Really, this isn't supernatural.  It isn't complicated.  A patient, thoughtful criminal will have no problem evading even the best forensic specialists.  It's a nice feature for Bitcoin users and a pain in the ass for investigators.  A losing battle.  Does Bitcoin offer true anonymity right out of the box?  No, not directly, but the tools are there.

You're arguing that since most money laundering is done through banks, then money laundering through Bitcoin isn't practical?  You realize how ridiculous that argument is, I hope.  Essentially all of the world's wealth sits in banks.  Thus, I would expect most laundering to originate from those banks.  Besides, you're talking about a technology that hasn't even been around for a decade.  It'll take just a little time to catch up.

No I am arguing that it is easier to launder money with a bank, and easier to get away with it by using a bank.  The higher the amount, the more true this comparison is.

The "tools" you mention for Bitcoin are also available in traditional banking, it is just harder to track through traditional banks because none of the transactions are transparent to government by law without subpoena.

Really the main advantage to forensics with banks is just that banks are are mostly slower.

You speculate that it will take time to catch up... however we might be surprised at the crypto currency tracking tools already automated in some of the nation-state software dev shops.

The old and already public tech should provide some clue for you to what is newer and still secret
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~smeiklejohn/files/imc13.pdf

[solex]

ohoh

even i have to admit there was a point late last year or early this year when i was worried about the lack of tx growth.  that clearly is no longer a concern and i am as bullish as ever.

A contributing factor: 2.0 business

bitcoin n tx reached 100045 for the first time, 3402 were counterparty tx, that's 3.4%

quite a bit of those were the GEMS sale held by koinfiy

https://koinify.com/blog/gems-public-sale-launch/

[Melbustus]

...A patient, thoughtful criminal will have no problem evading even the best forensic specialists...

Well... Marc Andreessen has noted that the smarter people he's talked to in certain three-letter-agencies have realized that encouraging bitcoin use will help them catch the *really* bad guys.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Our task to fight them, we are doing well.

Actually we don't even need to fight, just build an alternative system that is completely outside of their facist control.

Enough with the BS compromise and 'working with regulators' memes, these are all essentially sops to the facists when examined closely.

[hdbuck]

Our task to fight them, we are doing well.

Actually we don't even need to fight, just build an alternative system that is completely outside of their facist control.

Enough with the BS compromise and 'working with regulators' memes, these are all essentially sops to the facists when examined closely.

+1 the next thing you get working with them is their BS propaganda about the "underlying technology".

but the effective disruption is that we dont need them anymore. they are obsolete.