Bitcoin Forum
May 26, 2017, 12:04:50 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ... 1348 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It  (Read 3745856 times)
LazyOtto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 05:52:00 AM
 #281

On the point of 2FA.  Yes, it's a big deal and it's foolish not to use it.
So, even though using 2FA might not have prevented your loss, you are telling people to:
1) Sign up with Google, whether they want to or not.
2) Rely on Google for access to your finances.

I would be interested in a solid 2FA mechanism.

I'm not interested in letting Google be the gateway to my life.
1495757090
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495757090

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495757090
Reply with quote  #2

1495757090
Report to moderator
1495757090
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495757090

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495757090
Reply with quote  #2

1495757090
Report to moderator
1495757090
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495757090

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495757090
Reply with quote  #2

1495757090
Report to moderator
POLONIEX TRADING SIGNALS
+50% Profit and more via TELEGRAM
ALTCOINTRADER.CO
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1495757090
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495757090

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495757090
Reply with quote  #2

1495757090
Report to moderator
1495757090
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495757090

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495757090
Reply with quote  #2

1495757090
Report to moderator
1495757090
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495757090

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495757090
Reply with quote  #2

1495757090
Report to moderator
LazyOtto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 06:14:53 AM
 #282

However, the proportion of the company represented by each share could be adjusted. I'm considering making it a little higher to compensate the shareholders if the recent 300BTC trade doesn't end up well, as a plan-B (plan-A is that my partners and I fill the gap).
I consider that a reasonable compromise. And would be willing to vote "aye" for such a motion.

I'm merely pointing out the dangers of your "I'm considering" statement about actions being taken unilaterally.

You are now operating with some binding commitments. Or, you are now bound by nothing and we have no reason to expect any eventual payoffs for our investment.
friedcat
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 848



View Profile
August 28, 2012, 06:19:26 AM
 #283

I consider that a reasonable compromise. And would be willing to vote "aye" for such a motion.

I'm merely pointing out the dangers of your "I'm considering" statement about actions being taken unilaterally.

You are now operating with some binding commitments. Or, you are now bound by nothing and we have no reason to expect any eventual payoffs for our investment.
Yes, I'm operating with binding commitments. There should be compensation if the result of the drama is not ideal. I used "I'm considering" to say that I'm thinking of some more compensating plans other than the plan-A. It will of course be the shareholders who would decide.

LazyOtto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 06:20:49 AM
 #284

No problem.

Thank you for the response.
LazyOtto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 06:26:56 AM
 #285

BTW, if a question I asked earlier was answered and I overlooked it, I apologize.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg1102768#msg1102768

Is anyone holding 5000 shares classified a "Director", with all the rights and privileges ascribed to such a position, or only those who purchased 5000 shares directly from you?

The original terms are a bit ambiguous on that. Or I'm just confused. Still, I'm asking for clarification. (I'm slowly increasing my number of shares, but the answer to that question is germane to whether I should continue doing so.)
friedcat
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 848



View Profile
August 28, 2012, 06:31:21 AM
 #286

I'm sorry to hear that.

However, isn't that a commitment you made?
I'm very sorry for all the confusion. By "extra" I didn't mean leftover unsold shares, I meant
the extra shares for large investors.

Sending leftover shares proportionally to shareholders is technically very hard.
This sentence isn't a excuse for me to avoid my commitment with "technical difficulty".
It's just to explain that I understood it's very hard in the first place so my "extra shares" did
mean extra 10% and 12.5% for larger bulk purchasers, but not all leftover ones.

I'm sorry again and it's my fault to bring so much confusion in my last post of announcement.

friedcat
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 848



View Profile
August 28, 2012, 06:39:50 AM
 #287

BTW, if a question I asked earlier was answered and I overlooked it, I apologize.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg1102768#msg1102768

Is anyone holding 5000 shares classified a "Director", with all the rights and privileges ascribed to such a position, or only those who purchased 5000 shares directly from you?

The original terms are a bit ambiguous on that. Or I'm just confused. Still, I'm asking for clarification. (I'm slowly increasing my number of shares, but the answer to that question is germane to whether I should continue doing so.)

Thanks for the question.

In principle, anyone who could show the proof he owns 5,000 shares should be put in the board member list, and those who doesn't hold so many after some time will leave the list. This should be the right way.

However, currently the board member list is maintained in the way that only those who purchased 5000 shares from the issuer (me) are included.

The advantage of the first approach is that board members always use their own stake to represent their commitment. The disadvantage of the first approach is that we will need some serious effort to track the information of shareholders.

Therefore we don't know whether and how to switch to the first approach yet. Do you have ideas on that? Thanks.

LazyOtto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 06:41:03 AM
 #288

BTW, friedcat, you have made a good impression by your communications. Otherwise, I would never have invested.

My apologies if my tone sounded harsh. That often happens when just "laying things out flat", or "just trying to state things as I see it".

The Internet often isn't an 'easy' medium for amicable conversation.
LazyOtto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 06:48:16 AM
 #289

In principle, anyone who could show the proof he owns 5,000 shares should be put in the board member list, and those who doesn't hold so many after some time will leave the list. ... board members always use their own stake to represent their commitment.

I agree. I approve. Smiley

... we will need some serious effort to track the information of shareholders.

I guess I'm just surprised that GLBSE doesn't readily expose that information to you as the issuer of the security. Seems a pretty basic need to manage a distributed ownership asset.

Do you have ideas on that? Thanks.
Not yet. Smiley

And don't want to be 'pushy' by asking if you have explored all the mechanics offered by GLBSE as the issuer. I'm really assuming you have done all the relevant research/homework.

Perhaps GLBSE needs to be asked about providing more tools?
LazyOtto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 07:12:12 AM
 #290

anyone who could show the proof he owns 5,000 shares
That statement is the root of the problem.

Independent verification is required.

*I* could send you a 'screenshot' of my GLBSE account right now 'showing' such proof. (Photoshop is.)

Really, GLBSE needs to, if it is to be a full 'stock exchange', be able to provide the issuer/controller of a stock/bond / whatever-they-want-to-call-it a complete list of ownership with some 'identifier' + number of shares owned.

I used 'identifier' because some might wish to defer/abdicate 'control' in order to preserve anonymity.

Next step would be some way for those to want to 'expose' themselves to prove that 'identifier' is 'me'/share-holder.

--

The issue seems to be the default Bitcoin anonymity position intersecting with a 'public' ownership structure.

A thought / first thought, not necessarily a feasible thought, as is done with public corporations in the USA, the stock/share holders vote for members of the 'board'.

A scenario / thought exercise:

[sorry, as I was working through this I hit more problems than solutions.  Undecided ]

--

Surely we are not the first to hit up against this issue/problem. I'll do some research to see what I can find in the 'Bitcoin community'. ('Google is your friend.' Smiley )
DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
August 28, 2012, 08:02:41 AM
 #291

Really, GLBSE needs to, if it is to be a full 'stock exchange', be able to provide the issuer/controller of a stock/bond / whatever-they-want-to-call-it a complete list of ownership with some 'identifier' + number of shares owned.

I've asked this feature from nefario repeatedly for DMC, but it hasn't materialized yet. Maybe if both DMC and ASICMiner asks?

friedcat
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 848



View Profile
August 28, 2012, 08:20:36 AM
 #292

Really, GLBSE needs to, if it is to be a full 'stock exchange', be able to provide the issuer/controller of a stock/bond / whatever-they-want-to-call-it a complete list of ownership with some 'identifier' + number of shares owned.

I've asked this feature from nefario repeatedly for DMC, but it hasn't materialized yet. Maybe if both DMC and ASICMiner asks?

I think it's a good idea.

More specifically, it could be made optional, e.g, people could choose whether to show some of their assets to the issuer. It will keep the anonymous nature of GLBSE, but at the same time give people the choice of disclosure.

xkrikl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 159


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 08:40:04 AM
 #293

The Board can do 2 things:
1) give the large share holders more information - well that could be considered insider info which would put them into advantageous position against the smaller shareholders - BAD
2) let them have a vote in some decisions - well that's OK ... BUT
- there should be somehow specified and publicly presented what the Board can decide and what has to be decided in a motion ... as of now I understand it only as a communication platform because everything should go through a motion but it's a good platform to formulate a motion
- if the Board should have any decions making rights then we need each member to prove they still own 5000+

As of now GLBSE lacks this functionality so we should stick with what is implied by this.
I agree with Friedcat that it should stay optional for the share holders and effectivelly reserved for such cases where the share holders want to prove to the issuer that they own the shares.
LazyOtto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 08:55:18 AM
 #294

I don't really understand what you're saying, xkrikl.

"let them have a vote in some decisions"

They have no more nor less 'vote' than their number of shares weighted against all the other shares.

"only as a communication platform"

Yes. Their only significant 'power' is the ability to 'examine the books' of the 'company'. That is, verify, or not, that Bitfountain is doing what they say they're doing.

As such, they have a vested interest in 'making things look rosy'. That is, communicate good news to the community until they benefit from an inflated share price and can dump their stock. (After which, of course, they could then 'bare their souls' and tell everyone why they sold all they had. So, in a sense, they are canaries in the coal mine.)

Really, I only see the board member position as a, reasonable, way for Bitfountain to restrict who all they need to communicate fully with while at the same time having a credible amount of transparency.

Credible is the key word here. And now that the IPO is finished, it is pretty much a moot point.

We have all placed our bets. We'll see how they come out.
piotr_n
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


aka tonikt


View Profile WWW
August 28, 2012, 09:20:19 AM
 #295

how the hell would a 2fa protect any glbse user from the alleged "session fixation attack"?

Check out gocoin - my original project of full bitcoin node & cold wallet written in Go.
PGP fingerprint: AB9E A551 E262 A87A 13BB  9059 1BE7 B545 CDF3 FD0E
LazyOtto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 09:21:35 AM
 #296

how the hell would a 2fa protect any glbse user from the alleged "session fixation attack"?

It wouldn't.

As he subsequently stated.

--

His prophylactic practices were inadequate.
He suffered the penalties.
piotr_n
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


aka tonikt


View Profile WWW
August 28, 2012, 09:28:58 AM
 #297

His prophylactic practices were inadequate.
He suffered the penalties.
I would not be so sure that it was actually his fault.

SSL was invented to protect people from this kind of things.
But it's useless if your connection is SSL-ed only to the nearest CloudFlare server.
Which I had already pointed out to Nefarion - but this obviously doesn't bother him.
He's up with all the best security practices; triple bcrypt, 2 factor authentication, shutting down the service each time there is a glitch - but he doesn't give a shit about a fucking cloud, which is not only caching all the files (including your super secret Qr codes), but also intercepts any traffic to and from the server.
And here is some quote from their ToS:
Quote
SECTION 7: YOUR CONTENT
[...] CloudFlare may modify the content of your site.

Check out gocoin - my original project of full bitcoin node & cold wallet written in Go.
PGP fingerprint: AB9E A551 E262 A87A 13BB  9059 1BE7 B545 CDF3 FD0E
LazyOtto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 09:32:18 AM
 #298

I would not be so sure that it was actually his fault.
No, not necessarily.

My opinion was based on this:
"I think I have a good idea what might have happened.  My GLBSE session was still active after closing the browser tab.  I spent some time on web freenode and was probed and compromised from that source.
Speculation, but it's the best thing I can come up with."

IOWs, he closed the tab, but did not log off, then did some wanton browsing.
DutchBrat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 10:29:14 AM
 #299

Friedcat, is it possible to provide a timeline or a line without time  Wink of what is to happen next ?

Thanks
rxw
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49


View Profile
August 28, 2012, 10:35:55 AM
 #300

Friedcat, is it possible to provide a timeline or a line without time  Wink of what is to happen next ?

Thanks

+1

Was one of the large volume sell spikes yesterday (~4 PM and ~7 PM UTC) you moving to USD? If so, I think we got a pretty good price.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ... 1348 »
  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!