[XMR] Monero Speculation

[bitcoinvest]

no problem to ask we are here to communicate
when i first read about XMR i did not bought any but i agreed with me when i bought couple of days ago
this coin has a great future i think

[smooth]

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2653

[Hueristic]

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2653

You must be bored. I'm not sure I believe the OP but as was stated.

laanwj commented on Jan 17, 2014

This is a problem with wrong information from a third-party site.

I'm sorry that this happened to you, but we cannot realistically solve this as bitcoin devs.

If you don't want your IP to end up on some stupid service on the net you could use Bitcoin from behind TOR.

AFA

o-jasper commented 24 days ago

    I'm sorry that this happened to you, but we cannot realistically solve this as bitcoin devs.

This is about having a secure network of peers. It is not Sybil-proof in terms of information that can be harvested. Given that apparently "tar pitting" is a term now, it might not be sybil-proof in terms of nodes not co-operating.

The good news is that no hard fork is needed to change how the network works. You can just make a second one and have a sufficient number of nodes play in both networks.

I don't quite grasp what he's saying about tarpitting having anything to do with BTC? Something new? And is he recommending Sidechains as a solution?

[smooth]

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2653

You must be bored. I'm not sure I believe the OP but as was stated.

laanwj commented on Jan 17, 2014

This is a problem with wrong information from a third-party site.

I'm sorry that this happened to you, but we cannot realistically solve this as bitcoin devs.

If you don't want your IP to end up on some stupid service on the net you could use Bitcoin from behind TOR.

I have no idea about the various comments on that issue. Many of them are nonsensical. But the issue of it being a third party site collecting the data is the whole point. Anyone can scrape the Bitcoin blockchain and to various degrees spy on the p2p. That information can and will be used in various ways and even 100% innocent people will get hurt by it. That is how mass surveillance (and big data generally) works. False positives are rampant.

The best defense against this is to deny the data in the first place.

EDIT: clarify mass surveillance as opposed to just surveillance

[ArticMine]

It is fairly easy to see what happened here. Some law enforcement agency in some unknown country was tracking transactions to Bitcoin address they know was used for illegal activity. It could be a seized address, sting operation honeypot etc. They then went to blockchain.info, looked up the transaction and also the IP address that relayed the transaction to blockchain.info and then unleashed a raid on the OP's home. They did this even though blockchain.info has a clear disclaimer that the relaying IP address is not necessarily the originating IP address. It is very unfortunate that the OP did not identify the name of the law enforcement agency and its jurisdiction.

The safeguard suggested by smooth of denying the data in the first place of course solves the problem and is a case to for the use of Monero over Bitcoin.

[bitcoinvest]

if you are not bored or if you do

then have a look:

http://www.coindesk.com/chainalysis-ceo-denies-launching-sybil-attack-on-bitcoin-network/

[dreamspark]

It is fairly easy to see what happened here. Some law enforcement agency in some unknown country was tracking transactions to Bitcoin address they know was used for illegal activity. It could be a seized address, sting operation honeypot etc. They then went to blockchain.info, looked up the transaction and also the IP address that relayed the transaction to blockchain.info and then unleashed a raid on the OP's home. They did this even though blockchain.info has a clear disclaimer that the relaying IP address is not necessarily the originating IP address. It is very unfortunate that the OP did not identify the name of the law enforcement agency and its jurisdiction.

The safeguard suggested by smooth of denying the data in the first place of course solves the problem and is a case to for the use of Monero over Bitcoin.

I think that disclaimer was added after this happened. In fact I think it was added because of this case.

[smooth]

It is fairly easy to see what happened here. Some law enforcement agency in some unknown country was tracking transactions to Bitcoin address they know was used for illegal activity. It could be a seized address, sting operation honeypot etc. They then went to blockchain.info, looked up the transaction and also the IP address that relayed the transaction to blockchain.info and then unleashed a raid on the OP's home. They did this even though blockchain.info has a clear disclaimer that the relaying IP address is not necessarily the originating IP address. It is very unfortunate that the OP did not identify the name of the law enforcement agency and its jurisdiction.

The safeguard suggested by smooth of denying the data in the first place of course solves the problem and is a case to for the use of Monero over Bitcoin.

I think that disclaimer was added after this happened. In fact I think it was added because of this case.

What is more interesting is how little of substance has been done in the significant time period since that incident. A disclaimer? Really?

[ArticMine]

...

I think that disclaimer was added after this happened. In fact I think it was added because of this case.

This may be correct, but regardless in this case the fault lies solely with the law enforcement agency involved. If they do not understand how the technology works they have no business using that same technology as the basis to launch raids.

[smooth]

...

I think that disclaimer was added after this happened. In fact I think it was added because of this case.

This may be correct, but regardless in this case the fault lies solely with the law enforcement agency involved. If they do not understand how the technology works they have no business using that same technology as the basis to launch raids.

I'm not sure fault is the right word. Yes they apparently got it wrong (if OP on the issue is to be believed and who knows), but their job is to investigate these things based on often-unreliable information. The problem isn't really that they do that, it is that Bitcoin creates so such an enormous body of unreliable and dangerous information people may be reluctant to use it at all. This doesn't even need to involve law enforcement, at least not directly. As I said earlier, Coinbase has become much less useful to me since it has become apparent how they investigate blockchain taint meaning even innocent uses can put you under a cloud of suspicion. It makes me want to have nothing to do with it at all.

[Hueristic]

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2653

You must be bored. I'm not sure I believe the OP but as was stated.

laanwj commented on Jan 17, 2014

This is a problem with wrong information from a third-party site.

I'm sorry that this happened to you, but we cannot realistically solve this as bitcoin devs.

If you don't want your IP to end up on some stupid service on the net you could use Bitcoin from behind TOR.

I have no idea about the various comments on that issue. Many of them are nonsensical. But the issue of it being a third party site collecting the data is the whole point. Anyone can scrape the Bitcoin blockchain and to various degrees spy on the p2p. That information can and will be used in various ways and even 100% innocent people will get hurt by it. That is how mass surveillance (and big data generally) works. False positives are rampant.

The best defense against this is to deny the data in the first place.

EDIT: clarify mass surveillance as opposed to just surveillance

Ahh, Ic. Thought you were pointing out a BTC flaw. This is by design. I'm always amazed when people think a unencrypted ledger cannot be read. Lol

...

I think that disclaimer was added after this happened. In fact I think it was added because of this case.

This may be correct, but regardless in this case the fault lies solely with the law enforcement agency involved. If they do not understand how the technology works they have no business using that same technology as the basis to launch raids.

LEA does not fact check and does nothing when it's failures ruin people's lives. If you cannot afford the lawyers to fight the system then you have no rights. As such a large percentage of the population cannot defend themselves there is no incentive for them to change

[ArticMine]

...

I think that disclaimer was added after this happened. In fact I think it was added because of this case.

This may be correct, but regardless in this case the fault lies solely with the law enforcement agency involved. If they do not understand how the technology works they have no business using that same technology as the basis to launch raids.

I'm not sure fault is the right word. Yes they apparently got it wrong (if OP on the issue is to be believed and who knows), but their job is to investigate these things based on often-unreliable information. The problem isn't really that they do that, it is that Bitcoin creates so such an enormous body of unreliable and dangerous information people may be reluctant to use it at all. This doesn't even need to involve law enforcement, at least not directly. As I said earlier, Coinbase has become much less useful to me since it has become apparent how they investigate blockchain taint meaning even innocent uses can put you under a cloud of suspicion. It makes me want to have nothing to do with it at all.

I am assuming, and I may be incorrect, that were a dealing with a jurisdiction where probable cause or something very similar is needed for before a law enforcement agency can do what was described in the OP, which was a lot more than merely investigate. Yes Bitcoin has serious shortcomings when it comes to coin taint and Coinbase is adding to the problem in a big way; however this does not absolve the law enforcement agency involved if they needed probable cause or something very similar.  

What the OP actually may need is 1) A good lawyer, 2) The financial resources to pay for the lawyer and 3) The willingness to make an example out of the law enforcement agency involved in the courts.

Edit:  Hueristic is right on. In many cases law enforcement agencies and large corporations take advantage of the fact that many of their victims cannot afford to fight back even though they are well aware of the fact that they are in the wrong. In these cases when the victim does has the resources to fight back they also have the ethical and moral responsibility to not only fight back but to also make an example out of the law enforcement agency or corporation involved in the courts.

[Hueristic]

...In these cases when the victim does has the resources to fight back they also have the ethical and moral responsibility to not only fight back but to also make an example out of the law enforcement agency or corporation involved in the courts.

WORD.

[smooth]

I am assuming, and I may be incorrect, that were a dealing with a jurisdiction where probable cause or something very similar is needed for before a law enforcement agency can do what was described in the OP, which was a lot more than merely investigate.

"Probable cause" to seize computers (or worse cash) and make you work (and spend money) to get them back seems pretty damn low in practice today. Maybe it shouldn't be, and maybe more people should fight back but don't, but that's how things are now.

[Hueristic]

This is the latest scare. Pulling people over and if you have too much cash without an explanation they like they seize it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/asset-seizures/

[ArticMine]

This is the latest scare. Pulling people over and if you have too much cash without an explanation they like they seize it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/asset-seizures/

In the case of the two poker players in Iowa, months after their money was taken, they reached a settlement in which most of the money —$90,000 — was returned. They told CNN they believed it was the best deal they could have made at the time. Now, however, they are suing to get the rest of the money back and have asked for unspecified damages. The state of Iowa isn't giving it back and is not backing down.

This is the classic mistake: To settle for getting 90% of the money back. Now they are suing after the settlement. The question becomes are their chances of success more or less now?  
Edit: These guys are poker players yet they do not seem to understand the concept of bluffing. My bet is with the state on this one.

[Hueristic]

This is the latest scare. Pulling people over and if you have too much cash without an explanation they like they seize it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/asset-seizures/

In the case of the two poker players in Iowa, months after their money was taken, they reached a settlement in which most of the money —$90,000 — was returned. They told CNN they believed it was the best deal they could have made at the time. Now, however, they are suing to get the rest of the money back and have asked for unspecified damages. The state of Iowa isn't giving it back and is not backing down.

This is the classic mistake: To settle for getting 90% of the money back. Now they are suing after the settlement. The question becomes are their chances of success more or less now? 

Well I can tell you that if they were poker players doing the casino circuit then that was probably all their cash. Gamblers are notorious for not keeping a stash. There argument will more than likely be they settled under duress. I haven't even read that article I just know there is so much of this going on I did a quick search and that was the first link from a credible source.

[smooth]

This is the latest scare. Pulling people over and if you have too much cash without an explanation they like they seize it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/asset-seizures/

In the case of the two poker players in Iowa, months after their money was taken, they reached a settlement in which most of the money —$90,000 — was returned. They told CNN they believed it was the best deal they could have made at the time. Now, however, they are suing to get the rest of the money back and have asked for unspecified damages. The state of Iowa isn't giving it back and is not backing down.

This is the classic mistake: To settle for getting 90% of the money back. Now they are suing after the settlement. The question becomes are their chances of success more or less now? 
Edit: These guys are poker players yet they do not seem to understand the concept of bluffing. My bet is with the state on this one.

Let's assume they are professional poker players. That being the case the $100K was probably essential to their livelihood. If you are a baker and your bakery is seized, you don't really have the luxury of waiting ages for the case to play out in court to see if you might get it back.

[ArticMine]

...

Well I can tell you that if they were poker players doing the casino circuit then that was probably all their cash. Gamblers are notorious for not keeping a stash. There argument will more than likely be they settled under duress. I haven't even read that article I just know there is so much of this going on I did a quick search and that was the first link from a credible source.

It is a great example and it illustrates why this can work very well for the state as long as they can bluff their way to a settlement. In fact you seize $100 with the objective of obtaining $10. There is zero deterrent effect here. I stand by my position that the only way to stop this kind of thing is to call the bluff right at the start, and refuse to settle. Now here is an interesting question: Do they even have to answer the question of how much cash they are carrying?

It also illustrates the value of having a secret and legal stash of XMR in order to teach the state a lesson in the courts should the need arise.

[Hueristic]

...

Well I can tell you that if they were poker players doing the casino circuit then that was probably all their cash. Gamblers are notorious for not keeping a stash. There argument will more than likely be they settled under duress. I haven't even read that article I just know there is so much of this going on I did a quick search and that was the first link from a credible source.

It is a great example and it illustrates why this can work very well for the state as long as they can bluff their way to a settlement. In fact you seize $100 with the objective of obtaining $10. There is zero deterrent effect here. I stand by my position that the only way to stop this kind of thing is to call the bluff right at the start, and refuse to settle. Now here is an interesting question: Do they even have to answer the question of how much cash they are carrying?

It also illustrates the value of having a secret and legal stash of XMR in order to teach the state a lesson in the courts should the need arise.

Now don't quote me on this (yeah right ) But I think I remember reading that the first question people are being asked is, "How much money are you carrying", and if they do not give an answer then that is considered probable cause that a crime is in progress. And then a search is conducted. And if they do answer and some I read were as little as 1k they get there money seized right on the side of the road.