Slashdot Mirror


ATM Repairman Accused of Taking (and Faking) Cash

fysdt writes "An ATM repairman was nabbed in Phoenix on charges of having stolen about $200,000 in ATM funds. His method was almost brilliant in its sheer stupidity: He pocketed the cash, and replaced it in the machines with 'counterfeit or photocopied $20 bills.'"

258 comments

  1. Would come as a suprise... by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Funny

    Go to ATM... Spit out money... "Yep, the dollar ain't what it used to be..."

    1. Re:Would come as a suprise... by Tripp-phpBB · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Please mod up

    2. Re:Would come as a suprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes please because "slashdot ain't what it used to be...."

    3. Re:Would come as a suprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please mod up.

  2. Photocopied? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

    If he'd been a little smarter, it sounds like it could've been a good way to get half-decent counterfeits out into they system without them being noticed. If the guy was really throwing photocopies in there, though, I don't know what he was expecting to happen.

    1. Re:Photocopied? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To be fair, he was a Diebold employee. He probably assumed that there was no fraud sufficiently blatant to be punished for.

      More realistically, he was probably an opportunist, possibly with a newfound need for fast cash, and good counterfeit currency, while certainly not impossible to make or obtain, is not something you can just get ahold of in a moment. Were a sophisticated counterfeiting operation looking for a dispersal method, an ATM service dude might be a useful 'hire'. A random ATM service dude probably doesn't know how to just look up the local counterfeiters...

    2. Re:Photocopied? by Shrike82 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, they look for the EURion constellation and refuse to copy anything with it in. Modern scanners also block attempts to reproduce anything with the pattern. Obviously there are ways round this, but it probably puts off casual attempts at counterfeiting by morons and curious kids.

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    3. Re:Photocopied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they should do.

      My photo editing software directs me to this site, for information, when I try to open a scan I have of a £10 note: http://www.rulesforuse.org/pub/index.php?lang=en

    4. Re:Photocopied? by Nighttime · · Score: 1

      For shits and giggles, I tried photocopying a £20 note on our new colour copier in the office. I ended up with an A4 sheet of black toner.

      --
      I've got a fever and the only prescription is more COBOL.
    5. Re:Photocopied? by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, if he was smarter he would have grabbed a couple of million then gone to the Bahamas.

      As a police friend of mine says, if you're going to commit a crime, do it just once and make it worthwhile. The people who get caught are the ones who have to keep going back to do it again.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:Photocopied? by Shrike82 · · Score: 1

      Interesting that it would produce a black page rather than simply do nothing, or print an error message. Of course your main concern should be the copier phoning a special hotline informing your local constabulary of your actions. You can expect the boys in blue, or men with excessive amounts of firearms if you're American, to be knocking on your door any minute.

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    7. Re:Photocopied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if any of you had RTFA, you'd see that he did essentially do it once --- he hit up all six ATMs one after another 10 months ago. He got away with it for nearly a year. That's not bad. It's not like he's been repeatedly doing that since then.

    8. Re:Photocopied? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't try that very often; some machines will seize up and refuse to operate further when they find a banknote until a service person from the company comes to reset it, and then you'll have some 'splainin to do.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    9. Re:Photocopied? by ATestR · · Score: 3, Informative

      The ATM machines don't hold that much. I know... I did some pick-up work as an ATM messenger (read: guy who stuff's money in and takes deposits out) for a while after the dot.Bomb. Typical bank ATM might hold $200K in $20's if it was full. The little ATMs that you find in a Walmart or 7-11 are maxed out at $60K.

      --
      âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    10. Re:Photocopied? by PPH · · Score: 2

      This guy was in Phoenix. US banknotes. Crappy security features compared to other nations currencies.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:Photocopied? by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      Right, the thing is afaict there are three stages to "getting caught"

      1: the police decide it was probablly a given person
      2: the police manage to track the person down and arrest them
      3: the court confirms the polices determination in 1

      If the criminal can break the chain at any of these stages then they don't "get caught"

      This criminal spectacually failed to break the chain at stage 1 (he used his work ID). He kept it stopped at stage 2 for a while but ultimately failed (the article doesn't say exactly how but I would guess that the only driving license he had available at the traffic stop was one tied to his old identity) and it seems unlikely he will break the chain at stage 3 either.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    12. Re:Photocopied? by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      As a police friend of mine says, if you're going to commit a crime, do it just once and make it worthwhile.

      A police officer not only encouraging crime, but encouraging BIG crime. Fantastic.

    13. Re:Photocopied? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Yes, citizens having an open discussion about the hegemony is obviously a dire situation.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    14. Re:Photocopied? by stepdown · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like he's looking to replace lots of little crimes with one big crime. I guess it could cut his workload dramatically.

    15. Re:Photocopied? by creat3d · · Score: 1

      You're right, I say we hang him for treason!

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    16. Re:Photocopied? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      And maybe his payola would go up.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    17. Re:Photocopied? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The guy is in Phoenix, so it doesn't surprise me. I live there, and I can't wait to move out. This town is full of con artists, scammers, MLMs, and meth-heads (I'm probably being a little redundant here), and highly lacking in people who do real work for a living.

      Seriously, the guy is probably a meth addict, and in his euphoria didn't see why he would get caught.

    18. Re:Photocopied? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Makes sense. If you have to do it twice, you double your odds of getting caught. OTOH, if you're a pro and do thousands of crimes per second then the incremental odds of getting caught are negligible. That's why the best criminals are corporations.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    19. Re:Photocopied? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      When you have a serious oversupply of frail minded individuals then surely you invite predators.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    20. Re:Photocopied? by bcmm · · Score: 1

      If you have to do it twice, you double your odds of getting caught.

      Not how probability works.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    21. Re:Photocopied? by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 0

      Diebold? You mean the people who control our electronic voting machines which controls our entire government and way of life? Wow, that makes me feel all warm and snuggly about lax Diebold security and auditting.

      --
      I8-D
    22. Re:Photocopied? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      It's worse than that. This guy was an employee of their ATM division, which makes products that count things people care about. Their election systems division is the shallow end of the talent pool.

    23. Re:Photocopied? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Correct. More specifically: If the events are completely independent (i.e. the probability of one doesn't influence the probability of the other) and the probability of getting caught is p, then the probability of getting caught in n attempts is (1 - (1 - p)^n). In other words, if there's a 25% probability of getting caught each time and you do it twice, that's (1 - 0.75*0.75) = 43.75% of being caught. If you do it three times, ~57.8%; four times, ~68.4%; etc.

      However, most likely the events are not independent (the probability of one influences the probability of the other). Since there's really no way of determining the conditional probability of getting caught on a 2nd attempt vs. on a 1st attempt, trying to mathematically analyze the probability is rather ridiculous and IMHO it's fair enough to say that you have twice as many opportunities to be caught; note that I'd intentionally avoid using a word like "odds" or "probability" since those imply precision that simply can't be drawn from the information that we have.

    24. Re:Photocopied? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Forget the gloat, show some empathy. Quite clearly a 64 year flip out. Felt his life had gone nowhere, died his hair and basically had a mental breakdown and committed a crime that he must have known he would never get away with.

      That final acceptance of imminent demise compared to the immortality of youth and no hope of change in future strike many people in different ways, fortunately the harm caused by this bout of temporary insanity was minimal. Keeping screwing tighter the screws of competitive pressure of the difference between winning and losing and you inevitably get more illogical public failures.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    25. Re:Photocopied? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      You know, there is a (small amount) of hope. The human body is a collection of machinery that is repairable, in theory, but it would take technology that is more complex than anything we have today. (but nothing violating any laws of physics)

      You just have to get your body to a future point where the technology to fix it and rebuild it back to the original specs (a adult in their 20s) exists. Have yourself frozen cryogenically or something.

      There's no guarantee of success, but several folks with Phds and M.D.s who understands the technology involved estimate the chances of success at somewhere between 10 and 70 percent, depending on assumptions. Ain't the same hope as an invisible sky man, but this hope is based on a physical process in the real world possibly succeeding.

    26. Re:Photocopied? by hldn · · Score: 1

      US notes have the same feature. i get a similar message opening up a scanned US banknote in photoshop.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    27. Re:Photocopied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to work for Kinkos and was a color key operator for part of that, and they will in fact copy a bill. The copier we used would just discolor the whole page a browinsh color. Sometimes it would happen trying to copy something legitimate like a photo or drawing. I believe it would also pick up the colors and detect a bill that way as well, so there are probably several ways for it to detect a bill. You could tweak it to make it copy properly if you knew what you were doing, but only ever succeeded in doing that with something that was not a bill, when it would mistake something else for money.

    28. Re:Photocopied? by treeves · · Score: 1

      Obviously, it wants to punish you for trying to counterfeit by using up expensive toner.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    29. Re:Photocopied? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I think he was full well he was being noticed. A counterfeit stays hidden only a short time, it will be discovered eventually. And then you've got your picture all over the video tapes. This is undoubtedly why he ripped off all the ATM machines in one day and then vanished the next day not even telling his wife.

      Getting a hold of good counterfeits is hard if you're not tuned into the criminal world. But photocopies will work well enough for the purpose of making the machine think it is still full. I imagine they use something like these fake bills internally at Diebold for testing and training.

      A crime of opportunity. And then he got caught because of a dumb routine traffic stop.

    30. Re:Photocopied? by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      You know, the government isn't supposed to control you. That acquiescence is your own fault, not Diebold's.

      You don't get to ask for a nanny then get pissed when they run your life.

    31. Re:Photocopied? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      OK; I always get called out one way or another when it comes to statistics. Not my strongest subject. OTOH, your proper analysis lines up approximately what my seat-of-the-pants intuition. That 2nd attempt has much more serious consequences than the Nth attempt.

      Intuitively, we also know that *something* is doubled and as you say, opportunities is what's doubled, not "odds".

      You also make some very good points about the independance of the events. A criminal with a MO, or one that attracts media attention... increases... well... he increases something, and it ain't good for him.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    32. Re:Photocopied? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to work as an ATM tech, and there are a few ATM companies that make their own "money" for testing the machines. Sounds like this is what the moron did, was to replace what he stole with that shit. By the way, a "normal load" on a full size ATM runs around $160,000.00, so something tells me that he was nabbing money out of several machines.

    33. Re:Photocopied? by Geminii · · Score: 1

      In which case, you make your "once-off" crime ripping off a whole bunch of fully-stocked ATMs in the same night.

      As long as you can perform an action or series of actions before the cops/security/investigators can react and put measures in place to prevent or hamper you doing it again, it counts as a once-off.

      What gets me is that an ATM restocker/repairguy would be the perfect person to commit physical money laundering: if you had a whole lot of hot cash (maybe the serial numbers are sequential, or being looked for by the police), you could simply swap it for the ATM's stash and let the ATM distribute the results.

      This is of course assuming that the serial numbers of cash which goes into ATMs aren't recorded. Then you're right back where you started once the trail leads back to the ATM. Although a high-capacity ATM in a busy CBD might make it difficult to determine exactly which batch of ATM cash had been substituted, which means the range of serial numbers of interest to the police would increase and they'd have to track down more false trails.

  3. what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Troll

    the only difference between the paper he was taking out and paper he was putting in is that one was counterfeit by a crook, and the other was a bad duplicate of that counterfeit fiat.

    1. Re:what's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of them can be legally used to pay your taxes and bank debts.

    2. Re:what's the difference? by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Isn't it a little late to be complaining about this? It's 40 years later and Nixon's dead.

    3. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      There is such thing as Gresham's law, and gov't decree only makes the matters worse due to capital flight. You can outlaw real money, but you can't make your fake money have any value artificially.

    4. Re:what's the difference? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as real money.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    5. Re:what's the difference? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      What "real money" are you talking about?
      And where is this fantasy land you are talking about that doesn't tax your work and/or crash the value of the currency?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:what's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      all aboard the crazy train.

    7. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      1. Wealth is production capacity, money is gold.
      2. There are enough countries in the world now, that are doing the right thing, lowering taxes, becoming more business friendly. USA is not one of them.

    8. Re:what's the difference? by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Let me rephrase my question then. Since there are no countries in the world still using "real money" and the US was actually one of the last to switch from gold-backed currency what exactly do you expect to happen? Do you really see the entire world switching back to a gold standard? Do you really plan on going to the store and paying in gold coins that are weighed at the register?

    9. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Sure there is.

      Money is a store of value, unit of account and medium of exchange.

      Fiat is the last thing that can do any of that, whenever it rises, it eventually falls. The thing holds value relative to other commodities (barring changes in production output) is gold.

    10. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No, I don't need to pay gold at the register, it's not needed at all. However bank accounts and credit lines, etc., will be backed with gold again.

      Is the world going to switch to the gold standard? What do you think it's doing all this time, the decade that is seeing gold reserves being grown by individuals and national banks?

      BTW., the transition will be sudden and abrupt. Nobody wants "an orderly decline" - once you realize that the value is gone, and it's all going down and not up in real terms, why would you wait for your money to decline in value orderly?

    11. Re:what's the difference? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Gold's value is also arbitrary, just a little more stable. It has value only because people have historically desired gold; if all of a sudden people were to decide gold looked ugly, I think you would start to see that it doesnt really have "intrinsic value" other than its use in semiconductors and fillings.

    12. Re:what's the difference? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Why is wealth gold? What property does gold possess, in and of itself, that makes it valuable?

      Put another way-- WW4 has just happened, all the worlds economies have crashed, the US is in a state of anarchy, and everyone has to fight to survive. Whats more valuable now, a hunk of gold, or a rifle? How bout gold, or a loaf of bread?

      Looks like you might as well declare that "french loaves are real money"; its just as arbitrary, and makes a good deal more sense.

    13. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Gold has actual value in our physical world, learn why.

      As to the value of it being 'arbitrary' - however the relative value is decided, it's stable.

      2003: 1 ounce of gold was USD350, one pound of cotton was USD50.
      2011: 1 ounce of gold over USD1500, one pound of cotton over USD200.

      Notice anything?

    14. Re:what's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I really shouldn't respond, but I can't resist. By 'real money' do you mean gold? Gold is only good for trade since we all agree that it is worth something. This is the same reason that money printed by governments is worth something: we all agree that it is. Gold is in the middle of a huge bubble right now. If it were traded like a normal commodity it would be worth way less. Once people stop being so paranoid it is going to crash hard. Also, since it is constantly being mined, it too is constantly getting devalued.

    15. Re:what's the difference? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      How much gold does it take to buy a loaf of bread? For that matter, where can you buy a loaf of bread with gold? And how do you measure out that small an amount of gold?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    16. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Why is wealth gold?

      - indeed.

      I never said that, so I am now asking you right back: why is wealth gold?

      Now, what I said was that production capacity is wealth and gold is money. To your question about properties of gold in itself, there is a good primer on that right here, will take just over 4 minutes (there is a longer version, I don't have the link).

      As to things being measured in gold after some cataclysmic event: I certainly would prefer gold to ANY currency at that point. History proves me correct, as during any war you could get things for gold, but not for currencies, which immediately became irrelevant.

      Now, I said WEALTH is production capacity, so that is what people actually need, and if rifles and bread are what people need, then that's the real wealth. However gold is actual money - store of value, unit of account, means of trade. It's unchangeable, easy to test, easy to work with, easy to reclaim, rare enough, but not too rare, easily recognizable, does not have major industrial use, etc. It's pretty much made to be used money unlike anything else (there are other possibilities, but they have more drawbacks than gold in various ways.)

      Last thing: French loaves are real wealth and gold is real money.

      If you need a loaf of bread and there is no bread in vicinity at all, then you can't buy it with any money, including gold, but if there is a way to get some of that bread in exchange for something and you have gold, you stand a much better chance of getting that bread, than anybody with fiat in their pocket.

    17. Re:what's the difference? by russotto · · Score: 1

      Fiat is the last thing that can do any of that, whenever it rises, it eventually falls. The thing holds value relative to other commodities (barring changes in production output) is gold.

      Gold is a somewhat uncommon soft metal. It has several properties which make it useful as money, but there's nothing about it that makes it "real money". As with all other commodities, its price has gone up and down relative to other commodities. Viewed as a useful metal, its price is likely inflated precisely because people feel it is somehow real money.

      Fiat money from the Federal Reserve is backed up by the full faith and credit of the US government. Said flowery phrase basically meaning "naked force".

    18. Re:what's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only difference between the paper he was taking out and paper he was putting in is that one was counterfeit by a crook, and the other was a bad duplicate of that counterfeit fiat.

      *sigh* Look, to short-circuit your discussion to its predictable conclusion, it doesn't matter how much you want to make your l33t processing cluster into spendable currency because you don't have any marketable skills, we're still not going to take BitCoin seriously. Get over yourself and get a job.

    19. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      How much gold does it take to buy a loaf of bread?

      - depends where you are, but somewhere around 1/1500 to 1/350 of a troy ounce per loaf is a good price range depending on where you live, I suppose.

      For that matter, where can you buy a loaf of bread with gold?

      - anywhere they take a credit card of a bank card?

      And how do you measure out that small an amount of gold?

      - you don't. You transfer gold credits.

      Banks used to issue actual notes - pieces of paper fully backed by an amount of gold written on them. That's how you use gold for trade without carrying the heavy stuff around.

    20. Re:what's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only difference between the paper he was taking out and paper he was putting in is that one was printed by a crook, and the other was a bad duplicate of that.

      Joke would be more apt and just as funny without the the hyperbolet

    21. Re:what's the difference? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Wealth isn't production capacity, wealth is assets. They don't even have the same units; the former is an amount (measured in money), the latter is an amount per unit time, e.g his net worth is X, he earns Y per month.

      If wealth is length, production capacity is velocity, and money is a ruler.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    22. Re:what's the difference? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      If I can't pay my grocery bill directly with gold, it isn't money. For that matter, I would like you to list a place where you are paying in "gold credits", not the country currency, when you use a bank card that draws against your gold account.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    23. Re:what's the difference? by Ben4jammin · · Score: 1

      One was sanctioned by the Federal Reserve, the other was not.

      And much like the mafia, the Federal Reserve does not take it lightly if you invade their territory.

      The sad thing is that you were modded troll...apparently by someone that isn't interested in contemplating why a country that has a printing press and a sovereign right to print money ends up trillions in debt.

    24. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      Gold is only good for trade since we all agree that it is worth something.

      - no, it has actual intrinsic properties that allow people to accept gold as unit of account/means of trade/store of value.

      This is the same reason that money printed by governments is worth something: we all agree that it is.

      - this is true. Now, those of us who think that gov't printed fiat is worth nothing, move to the real money, that's all there is to it. I don't see fiat as worth anything. It certainly is worth less and less every day even for those who disagree with me, otherwise things wouldn't be constantly rising in price, all because the fiat is printed but nothing backs it up - neither production nor gold.

      Gold is in the middle of a huge bubble right now.

      - I've been hearing that for a decade. However there is a huge bubble, it's not in gold, it's in US government bonds (and bonds of other countries as well, but mostly US.)

      If it were traded like a normal commodity it would be worth way less.

      - it's a monetary metal, not a 'normal commodity' like oil or pork bellies.

      Once people stop being so paranoid it is going to crash hard.

      - no, once gold ounce gets to 1:1 ratio with Dow, then it would mean Dow is cheap enough to buy, but in fiat currencies, that are being printed there is no reason for it to 'crash hard'.

      Also, since it is constantly being mined, it too is constantly getting devalued.

      - it's being mined, not printed. They produce very little of it on grand schema of things. This cannot be said about fiat.

    25. Re:what's the difference? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Your implied reason for the debt is incorrect.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:what's the difference? by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and what value does shiny yellow metal have besides the ability to get you laid if you use real money to buy it for hot women?

    27. Re:what's the difference? by Roblimo · · Score: 1

      Free silver, 16 to 1!!!

      And no, you will NOT crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

      Now please stand for Our National Anthem, as performed by the Claytonsburg Cornet Band.

    28. Re:what's the difference? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Yes: Instead of buying gold, you could as well buy cotton. Which has the additional advantage that it seems less attractive to thieves. ;-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    29. Re:what's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Informative ... Wish I had mod points!

    30. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      why, is getting laid by hot women not good enough for you? Anyway, here is something to start with.

      Women are not as dumb as some would believe - they don't take fake money, they require the real deal, and screw the 'legal tender', which has to be accepted just because politicians say so.

    31. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      There is more to the reasons gold is money than you think.

      As to 'full faith and credit of the US gov't" - I don't have that faith and US has no credit. The value of USD fell by huge amount since the Fed was created in 1913, since 2003 alone, the USD lost 75% of value.

      Gold was 350/ounce, cotton was 50/pound. Now gold is 1500/ounce, cotton is over 200/pound. The ratio holds, the USD denominated price goes up.

      Gold is money especially given that it's not good for anything much beyond that and some limited industrial/jewelry use, and yet based on all of its properties, people see it as money. It's not wealth, production capacity is wealth. Products are wealth. It's money. It definitely is much better money than any fiat.

      Also you can't force people to hold US dollars and bonds once they realize what those things really are, especially now, that most of US spending is done on borrowed time and money, this includes the military.

    32. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, I build products and provide services as well, I'll take gold any day over any currency of any country. Now, your gov't makes it illegal to not accept legal tender and it creates various artificial boundaries to using real money, namely capital gains tax, which is unfairly taxing any increase in gold's value relative to your fiat currency, even though the only reason the gold's value in your currency is increasing is the inflation.

      So by trying to avoid inflation, you become somebody to take advantage of. Of-course instead of storing value in gold, you can buy products today, so that when inflation that is created every day translates to higher prices, you'll have the advantage, that you already own the goods you need and you won't be taxed capital gains on that.

      As to where am I paying in gold credits: J.P. Morgan accepts gold as collateral to counter-party debt. You can buy stocks at JPM with gold, that's what I am saying. There will be more and more banks doing this, and there will be more and more gold backed accounts and credit cards, and they will be preferred over any other type of credit or fiat.

    33. Re:what's the difference? by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      Start saving your bottle caps now...

      --
      AJ Henderson
    34. Re:what's the difference? by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      If I had $200k in stolen money I was trying to hide, I'd put it in Bitcoins. No, really, I would.

      Then I'd sell those Bitcoins over the course of a month or two, via wire transfer to a bank in the Turks & Caicos.

      Then I'd move to the Turks & Caicos :)

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    35. Re:what's the difference? by Skillet5151 · · Score: 1

      I noticed that the video just describes gold as being ideal in past millennia for carrying around in one's pocket and minting into coins, which seems like a pretty ridiculous reason for declaring it to be "real money." Paper fiat currency is even better for carrying around, so by this metric it's clearly superior now that we have printing presses.

      Right? Or is it possible that the video is just a pop historical discussion irrelevant to your point?

    36. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are way off base on the number of reasons why gold is money and would have been money if it all had to play out over again

      found the full version.

      0. It cannot be printed by politicians to buy elections.
      1. It's rare, but not too rare.
      2. It's easy to test (chemically or with ultrasound for thick bars).
      3. It's easily recognizable.
      4. It has no major industrial use.
      5. It does not change over time, drop it in the ocean, recover it centuries later and it's the same.
      6. Easy to work with (easy to split, melt, mint coins, etc.)
      7. It's stable, it does not explode, it's not a poison, not radioactive, not a gas, does not corrode, does not decay radioactively.
      8. People like it, it looks nice.

      Point is those ARE intrinsic values. Saying they are not is like falling into the homunculus theory of mind fallacy, where you expect things to be reduced forever, and this infinite regress would not answer the question of what is really your mind vs what is the observer. We are physical beings, not spirits, we live in physical world, and things we value are physical because they allow us to get things we need for survival.

    37. Re:what's the difference? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Notice anything?

      Yes, both of the commodities that you cite are part of the Goldman-Sachs commodity bubble caused by the US government relaxing the rules on futures trading.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    38. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      well, sure. But you are again, mixing terms. Cotton is a raw material - product, it's wealth. Gold is money. In some cases cotton can be more useful than gold: socks have cotton in them for example, you won't use gold for socks. But you can buy socks with gold.

      With fiat you will buy less and less cotton over time, as fiat is printed by politicians, but with gold you'll buy at worst the same amount and hopefully if cotton production is increased, you'll get more for the same amount of gold tomorrow once that happens.

    39. Re:what's the difference? by russotto · · Score: 1

      There is more to the reasons gold is money than you think.

      If you can't put it into words, your video isn't going to help.

      Gold was 350/ounce, cotton was 50/pound. Now gold is 1500/ounce, cotton is over 200/pound. The ratio holds, the USD denominated price goes up.

      If they'd actually moved in lockstep between those two points, you might have something. Though I don't see how it would be any better at proving gold was money than that cotton was money.

      Gold is money especially given that it's not good for anything much beyond that and some limited industrial/jewelry use, and yet based on all of its properties, people see it as money.

      People see Federal Reserve Notes as money too.

    40. Re:what's the difference? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I think you would start to see that it doesnt really have "intrinsic value" other than its use in semiconductors and fillings.

      Nope. There's other and better filling materials out there, namely the white resin stuff that's light-cured that they've been using for the past decade or so. The only reason gold is still used for fillings is because some (not a lot) people think it looks cool. Most people prefer their teeth to look like normal teeth. So the filling thing is exactly the same as people liking gold for jewelry: it's because of its appearance, not its intrinsic qualities.

      If people suddenly decided gold looks ugly (people in the Americas before the Europeans colonized it didn't care that much about it, for instance), then the only value gold would have would be for purely industrial purposes: semiconductors, corrosion-resistant plating for electrical connectors, etc. That's enough to make it somewhat valuable, but not remotely as valuable as it currently is.

    41. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Assets and money (gold) are capital.

      Production capacity is wealth. A wealthy economy, is economy that produces everything that people need and the prices are as low as possible based on the current maximum level of technology.

      Economy that is poor, is economy that cannot provide its people with most of what they need.

      By this definition the US economy is poor, as USA does not have production capacity to provide for its population's needs.

      Wealth is all about production.

    42. Re:what's the difference? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Actually, it does have intrinsic value.

      1) It's pretty much corrosion-proof, so it makes a great plating on electrical connectors.

      2) It has no taste, unlike other metals, so it makes a great plating on silverware for professional food tasters.

      Of course, these two uses alone aren't exactly going to make it super-valuable...

    43. Re:what's the difference? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I thought you were a little off until I read this comment.

      Cotton is a raw material, that went up 300%
      Gold is a raw material, that went up 650%.

      You say that gold will keep buying the same amount or more. Without any justification for that. Other than "gold is money".

      You have no clue that the price of gold, just like cotton and any other raw material, is determined on the open market. You might want to google for the historical price of gold - specifically looking at 1981-1983 timeframe where the price of gold dropped by 50%.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    44. Re:what's the difference? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      2. There are enough countries in the world now, that are doing the right thing, lowering taxes, becoming more business friendly. USA is not one of them.

      Care to name any? Are any of them places where civilized people would actually want to live? I'll bet Mexico has lower taxes than the US too, but only a fool would pack up and move there with all the corruption, violence and lawlessness going on there now.

      In my observations, the countries that are generally nice to live in, with very low corruption (esp. at the lower levels where individuals see it on a daily basis, like with the cops), violence, pollution, and a high availability of good jobs, and good transportation and information infrastructure, are also countries with higher taxes. Countries with ultra-low taxes are generally either shitholes or backwaters (which might be nice to visit as a tourist but you're only living in luxury there on your 2-week vacation because you have, relatively, tons of money you earned in an industrialized nation, and which you won't be able to keep earning there because the only jobs there are things like scuba instructor and tour guide).

    45. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Funny, GS is not interested in having real money - they benefit immensely from US Fed printing and US Treasury buying, they are the front runners in that scheme. They benefited greatly from the housing bubble, that the US gov't inflated with cheap money, FHA, Freddie/Fannie, which caused the lax lending standards all over the place and allowed banks to repackage and securitize the terrible loans and mortgages because of the gov't guarantee.

      No, GS is really not interested in 'gold bubble', they are trading up and down, they are manipulating the market, just like they did this month with Oil, first releasing 'forecast' that Brent will fall to 105 from 125, then buying on the rumor they started at 112 and then forecasting it will go back up to 120 or so, so suckers will be buying from them again, and they'll make the spread.

      It's good to be GS, what can I say, good for them. Too bad for the pensions of folks, who are forced by gov't to hold their retirement money in those 401Ks

      However if you think that gold and cotton are both in a bubble (and not somehow going up in price relative to the fiat, that is printed by the trillion) then explain the entire CRB, because all commodities and food and energy (everything that people actually use) are going up and have been for over a decade. You think it's a bubble, OK, trade that way. I believe US bond is in a huge bubble, and US dollar is on a verge of a collapse based on all the printing.

      AFAIC the US rating should be F today, not AAA.

    46. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      2003: gold 350, cotton 50. 2011: gold 1500, cotton 200. The ratio holds. The price in USD goes up by x4. That's a better justification than 'gold is money'.

      The prices in fiat currencies are determined in open market, and the market says that fiat is garbage.

      As to 1981 - Volcker was a hero, really. Pushed the interest rates up to 18 or more percent, didn't he? Gold started at 35 in 1971 (well, that was the artificial price) and then it ended up in 250-350 territory until the nineties, when it started going up again based on loose monetary policy, free money by all the Fed chairmen and insane borrowing by the US gov't.

      So where do you see an inconsistency exactly?

    47. Re:what's the difference? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      well, sure. But you are again, mixing terms. Cotton is a raw material - product, it's wealth. Gold is money. In some cases cotton can be more useful than gold: socks have cotton in them for example, you won't use gold for socks. But you can buy socks with gold.

      Gold is also a raw material. Indeed, it is an element, which is about as raw as you can get for materials.

      With fiat you will buy less and less cotton over time, as fiat is printed by politicians, but with gold you'll buy at worst the same amount and hopefully if cotton production is increased, you'll get more for the same amount of gold tomorrow once that happens.

      Or, if for some reason the government suddenly decides to sell off the gold reserves all at once, you'll get much less cotton for your gold.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    48. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      What do you mean 'I can't put it into words'?

      What I don't want to do, is repeat the same thing 20 times over.

      If they'd actually moved in lockstep between those two points, you might have something. Though I don't see how it would be any better at proving gold was money than that cotton was money.

      and that's why you should go read the link I just posted in this comment in the first paragraph, it will explain to you what money is.

      People see Federal Reserve Notes as money too.

      - well, sure, but that's not money that can keep value and keep existing, it will be destroyed by the politicians, who print it.

      What's bad about it, is that once it's destroyed, as in once people lose all faith in it completely, then it won't matter how much of it exists in circulation, even if 99% of it is removed from circulation then, nobody would want it anyway.

      --
      This thread is very large now, so if you want to make more claims about my positions and ability to respond to comments, just read the thread, I might have provided the response already.

    49. Re:what's the difference? by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      Psh, forget gold and its various properties.
      A herd of cattle is real money. You can eat them. You can make clothes from them, make shelter from them. They make cow patties to make fire. They reproduce, to make more of themselves. Sounds like they have gold beat.
      A few hundred years ago in this country you couldn't get a wife with a chunk of shiny rock, but a few cattle? Now we're talking.

      The properties of gold made it convenient. It didn't make it have any intrinsic value.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    50. Re:what's the difference? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      So then gold has no intrinsic value because you say it it has no intrinsic value for you.

      Very clever. (golf clap)

      Now, the rest of the world would like to deal with reality, without the clever word games.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    51. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      A herd of cattle is real money

      - no, you should pay attention to this thread if you are going to reply in it. Your cattle is wealth.

      Gold is money.
      Cattle is not money, it's not suitable to be money, but you can barter with it, the problem will be setting a price that makes any sense relative to other things.

      Money is store of value (cattle is not really, once you eat it, it's gone). It's possible to use cattle as store of value, but much more difficult, especially if you want to be able to move (be mobile).

      Money is unit of account - try doing that with one cow. How will you decide what an egg is worth in cows? Pretty hard.

      Money is means of trade - this you can do with cattle, but again, you have to find a willing partner for the trade to exchange for a cow or for part of a cow, and it's not good for long term exchanges, where you have to store part of a cow somehow, it gets messy.

      Again, to clear it up for you: cattle is wealth and gold is money.

    52. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      gov't can do whatever it wants actually, the people are getting rid of the fake money, that the gov't is printing, and eventually the gov't WILL have to sell their reserves, as gov'ts will become totally insolvent, and the welfare state mentality will force the reserves to be sold to keep the welfare flowing for yet another day.

    53. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      you are in a mental trap, the kind of trap people fall into when they argue for the homunculus mind theory: what is mind, if the external signal are just observed by it, so something has to be inside you to observe the signals, but it's not 'you', it has to be reduced further into infinity.

      Things do have intrinsic value, as people need to survive. So wealth are those things: food, energy, clothing, medication, etc.

      Money is not in itself one of those things, it is the store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account to be able to get the things that you need to survive (thus things that actually do have value in themselves for you, and if you disregard that value, you'll die from hunger and cold and sickness and you won't be asking that question any longer.)

      The value of gold as money, is that you can get the things for it, that are necessary for your survival. Whether this value is attached to gold or is intrinsic - doesn't matter. What matters is that it's true, and there is no further space to reduce it.

    54. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I don't know if anybody wants to live in Lucerne, I don't mind though, but maybe I am not civilized enough.

    55. Re:what's the difference? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I mistyped, and meant to ask "why is gold money".

      As to that NPR interview, a few issues. For starters, he mentions that "If you expose lithium to air, it will cause a huge fire that can burn through concrete walls"
      This is just not true. If lithium is exposed to water, then it will burn with a modest amount of red flame, turning into lithium hydroxide in the process. I do not believe that the flame is particularly hot, either. It possibly could combust in air if it were finely powdered and dispersed into a humid environment, I suppose.

      As for the rest of it... "You want the thing you pick to be rare......At the same time, you don't want to pick an element that's too rare. So osmium — which apparently comes to earth via meteorites — gets the axe." Seems pretty arbitrary. For starters, why couldnt pyrite be money? Why does it have to be an element? Why should money even be something that has no use in and of itself-- and if that is a requirement, how does gold possibly fit the bill? That video (assuming this is an accurate transcription) doesnt address why the barter system is insufficient, or how the argument for gold kind of falls apart in societies that are rich in gold and poor in salt, or societies that decided to use other standards.

      Plain and simple, using gold as a standard today would be about as arbitrary as anything else; why not osmium (as the article mentioned)? Why is "we dont want it to be too rare" a good argument-- how is that even relative?

      History proves me correct, as during any war you could get things for gold, but not for currencies, which immediately became irrelevant.

      That is simply because people have historically valued gold and had faith in it. Any "money" that people will trust is a good currency; if people fail to trust it, it is a bad currency.

      However gold is actual money - store of value, unit of account, means of trade.

      Well, actually I believe it has changed several times in history. Didnt the Chinese start using "flying money" about 1500 years ago? Was it based on any "gold" standard? How does paper money fail to meet your definition of "stored value, unit of account, means of trade"? In fact, gold fails in one important way that paper succeeds-- gold is very heavy and very bulky.

      There are merits to gold, mainly that it is not a human invention and thus remains static from society to society, but it really is no less arbitrary than some piece of paper with drawings on it.

    56. Re:what's the difference? by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      Oh please.

      You can keep a herd of cattle just fine even if you eat one every now and again, they are built in interest bearing accounts. And they walk around so they're more mobile than gold that just sits there.

      And it worked well enough as a unit of account for a long time, a head of cattle is worth 3 pigs, a pig is worth 5 chicken a chicken is worth 40 eggs.

      As a means of trade, if you want a new wagon, you trade a cow and get the wagon and a few chickens back.

      Gold isn't money any more than dollars or euros. If society collapses those dollars and euro won't be worth anything, and neither will gold. The only reason gold would be worth anything would be "ooo shiny" and that isn't a big selling point to someone who has to work for a living. In a small town where there is no gold, they'll use for trade instead of gold, and it will be based on the cattle standard, not the gold standard.
      Money is an arbitrary system made to make it easier to trade things. On a small scale, such as that of a few hundred years ago, gold was convenient. Gold isn't worth anything. Just like diamonds aren't worth anything.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    57. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You know what else is valuable as money? Money

      - yes, but not fiat.

      The value of fiat goes down immediately, as it stops being backed by something. The backing can be anything. One share of a company is based on the value of the company, dividends it pays - that's interest bearing investment.

      Fiat printed by Fed is like a share in US Fed. My point is that the 'earnings' of the Fed are fake, there is no upside, the stock is being diluted every second and the policy of the state ensures economic destruction, but I think at this point the economic destruction is now, and the next logical step is financial collapse starting with US bonds and monetary collapse.

      If you don't understand what I am saying, look at what you could buy with US dollar 10 years ago, and what you can buy now in relative and in absolute terms.

    58. Re:what's the difference? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      That's fine, lots of people barter, but money is necessary for a trading economy to function. Once upon a time, gold was money. It isn't any more. Gold credits are just like other attempts to make barter systems more like real money.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    59. Re:what's the difference? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      0. It cannot be printed by politicians to buy elections.

      I may be wrong, but I believe it is in fact possible to make new gold-- that IS what nuclear reactions do, transform elements into other elements. Not sure that its terribly cost effective, of course.
      Also, gold can be hoarded by the government and released at various times to manipulate the worth of gold; that accomplishes much the same as printing new money.

      1. It's rare, but not too rare.

      That is incredibly arbitrary. What qualifies as "too rare"? What are the parameters that make "good money"?
      Also, both paper money and coinage (zinc / copper / nickel) fits this(/these) requirement(s).

      2. It's easy to test (chemically or with ultrasound for thick bars).
      3. It's easily recognizable.
      4. It has no major industrial use.
      7. It's stable, it does not explode, it's not a poison, not radioactive, not a gas, does not corrode, does not decay radioactively.

      So are a lot of things, these arent terribly exclusive.
      Also, both paper money and coinage (zinc / copper / nickel) fits this(/these) requirement(s).

      5. It does not change over time, drop it in the ocean, recover it centuries later and it's the same.

      Also, coinage (zinc / copper / nickel) fits this(/these) requirement(s).

      6. Easy to work with (easy to split, melt, mint coins, etc.)

      Its also very bulky, very heavy, and very soft. Why not use bronze as currency?
      Also, both paper money and coinage (zinc / copper / nickel) fits this(/these) requirement(s).

      8. People like it, it looks nice.

      I fail to see the relevance. Lots of people like the sight of paper money too.
      Also, both paper money and coinage (zinc / copper / nickel) fits this(/these) requirement(s).

      See any patterns there? Possibly you get some credit on #5, but with paper money you can always print replacement money, and I dont believe we have a huge problem with rats eating our paper money or rot setting in-- usually failing bills are replaced at very minor cost.

    60. Re:what's the difference? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Ok, that's one that from my quick bit of research seems to have somewhat lower taxes (although it looks like it can vary wildly based on Canton) than the USA. Any others? You said earlier: "There are enough countries in the world now, that are doing the right thing, lowering taxes, becoming more business friendly. USA is not one of them." "Countries" is plural. I've been looking around for other countries to possibly move to, and I haven't seen many that have significantly lower taxes than the US which would also be nice to live in and politically stable. I'm not sure about Ireland; I thought I read one place that they had low taxes, then I looked somewhere else and it said the opposite (well, it said they were low compared to UK, but not compared to USA).

      It seems to be very, very hard to find concrete info on tax rates in different countries, mainly because tax systems are so complex. I'd like to see a site that shows, graphically, what kind of taxes you'll likely pay in a range of countries, based on particular incomes. For instance, if I make $100k in the USA (and can assume that I'll get a similar-paying job, converted to local currency of course), what would I pay in the top 30 industrialized countries? What about $150k? Or $50k, $75k, etc.?

    61. Re:what's the difference? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      It could also be used, in my apocalyptic scenario, to beat would-be robbers over the head with, owing to its high density.
      In that sense everything has intrinsic value, as in there is some value that you could get from it.

      Honestly, my reply was a bit of a tongue-in-cheek troll, intended to get people to stop thinking they have some absolute standard of worth here. There are reasons to back the dollar with gold, but gold is only valuable for the reasons that paper money is valuable. The reasons to back money with it are simply that its relative worth stays more stable over time and between governmental shifts; but its value is in no sense "assured".

    62. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You can keep a herd of cattle just fine even if you eat one every now and again, they are built in interest bearing accounts

      - they reproduce, but if you stop working and taking care of them, stop feeding them, they'll stop storing the value.

      And they walk around so they're more mobile than gold that just sits there.

      - silly quote from Warren Buffet. What's the difference between the gold that sits there and fiat currency that sits there? Both just sit there, but fiat loses value due to gov't printing and gold keeps value even if you don't feed it grass, like you'd have to do with your cattle.

      And it worked well enough as a unit of account for a long time, a head of cattle is worth 3 pigs, a pig is worth 5 chicken a chicken is worth 40 eggs.

      - however with the increasing efficiency of production, the relative values change quickly, as productive output grows and/or demand curve changes. Also what if your cow is too thin or maybe it's a record producer of milk? Are the values the same?

      As a means of trade, if you want a new wagon, you trade a cow and get the wagon and a few chickens back.

      - and that's how some weird Imperial system of trade starts: a furlong for a hog-shed and some such. We have invented the decimal system, how about we use it for once? It's really convenient.

      Gold isn't money any more than dollars or euros.

      - and that's why gold was at record high against Euro last week, and will be at record high against USD next week in nominal terms (again)? Those things are LEGAL TENDER, but they are not real money. They are fiat currencies, that are failing quickly right in front of everybody's eyes, and it's all because some people (politicians) love that concept: print money. They can't print gold, so it's not a 'legal tender'.

      Gold has properties much above the 'ooooh, shiny' silliness. It keeps value, and your precious fiat is falling in value all the time.

      All the time fiat is falling in value against actual things, but they do this funky dance around one another, and it seems like they are worth something measured in each other, but they are constantly setting new record lows against real money.

      In a small town where there is no gold, they'll use for trade instead of gold, and it will be based on the cattle standard, not the gold standard.

      - and that's their full right to do so, and it makes sense for them to do so, but when they will buy something from other places, that they do not produce, they'll trade in something that is convertible between those places and that has real money for such trade.

      Money is an arbitrary system made to make it easier to trade things.

      - it's all good, until there is a way for a politician to abuse it, which is immediately, once gov't starts printing the fiat.

      On a small scale, such as that of a few hundred years ago, gold was convenient. Gold isn't worth anything. Just like diamonds aren't worth anything.

      - and that's why gold is over 1500/ounce, and diamonds, well depends on a diamond. They are not good for unit of account, they are not really excellent for storing value, because they cannot be recast into larger diamonds, once they are broken into smaller chunks, but they can be used as means of exchange of-course, but their relative value will still be calculated in gold.

    63. Re:what's the difference? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Gold is not that suitable to be money either. Gold is too useful to be used as money.

      Why? Because it has VERY useful properties as an industrial material. If everyone used gold as money, due to its rarity it would artificially become more expensive as an industrial material.

      Supply and demand and all that.

      Find out how much gold there is in the whole world (estimates range from 4 to 10 billion troy ounces). Divide it by the number of people. Then keep in mind that the top 1-2% own a lot of it ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec/06/business.internationalnews ) , so once you've "shifted" the gold around to reflect the current distribution, the average person would have even fewer grams/ounces of gold as their TOTAL cash holdings (includes bank balances) not necessarily net worth - since some people may have cash but have a mortgage.

      Estimate how many ounces/grams of gold you'd get paid per month. You are probably richer than the average person in the world. But would you get paid an ounce of gold every month? Think the people paying would now be able to afford that? So the relative cost of gold would go up.

      The US benefits from being able to create US dollars practically on demand. Because by doing so it can transfer wealth from other countries who are still using the US dollars for billions of stuff.

      The USA's real problem is what its Government does with that transferred wealth...

      --
    64. Re:what's the difference? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      My reply was a bit tongue-in-cheek too; I was pointing out that its intrinsic qualities don't make it intrinsically valuable for very many applications. It just really isn't good for much except looking pretty. It's cool that you can drop it in the ocean and go pick it up 500 years later and it hasn't changed or corroded away, but that's really not valuable (it would be if it were structurally strong like aluminum or steel, and also lightweight, because then you could build corrosion-proof ships out of it, but instead it's super dense and heavy and not strong at all).

    65. Re:what's the difference? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Other people pay taxes and bank debts and hence will trade you goods and services for those bits of paper. But they won't for the photocopie variant.

      It's a really simple system, the notes have no intrinsic (well an instrinsic value that is tiny) but they make trade easier and hence people agree to use them as a mechanism of exchange. It makes no difference if they are fiat or if each one represents some physical item and can be exchanged for it for the purposes of exchanging them in trade.

      And yes by using a fiat system you have to trust that whomever is doing the printing won't increase the supply by more than economic production has increased, but in exchange you avoid random inflationary spikes when a new gold deposit is found or a new source of pretty shells is found, or whatever your backing item is. And you avoid milder inflation/deflation when the growth of the economy differes from the growth of that item.

    66. Re:what's the difference? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Is the world going to switch to the gold standard? What do you think it's doing all this time, the decade that is seeing gold reserves being grown by individuals and national banks?

      So who is the other group which has been getting rid of their gold reserves? Assuming you are already accounting for the increase in supply via mining and factoring that out, if individual holding and national bank holdings are growing who is getting rid of it to those two groups?

    67. Re:what's the difference? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      And the rather large disadvantage that it degrades over time and is significantly harder to store.

    68. Re:what's the difference? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      No shit Sherlock.

      The stuff we replaced gold with actually shares some of the properties of gold. But not all of them, which is the entire point.

      Yes you can find a million things satisfy some of those items. Zinc/copper/nickel all fail at item 4. paper money fails at 0 and 1 (assuming it's what we now have not paper as proxy for something).

      And it's cheaper to dig gold out of the ground than to create it in a nuclear reactor, so that's hardly a problem.

    69. Re:what's the difference? by adavies42 · · Score: 1

      0. It cannot be printed by politicians to buy elections.

      I may be wrong, but I believe it is in fact possible to make new gold-- that IS what nuclear reactions do, transform elements into other elements. Not sure that its terribly cost effective, of course.

      yes, nuclear synthesis of gold is possible, from (at least) mercury or platinum, but it involves either a nuclear reactor, or a particle accelerator that costs orders of magnitude more in power to run than the new gold will be worth. if we ever got to the point where power was cheap enough that nuclear alchemy was profitable, i think society would be past the point of needing money at all.

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    70. Re:what's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you look around a bit, you can find businesses that will take actual gold (in the form of 1/20 tr. oz. coins or 1 gm PAMP) or silver (most popularly "junk" silver (US dimes/quarters/half-dollars/dollars from before 1965)) in payment. there aren't many of them, and they're not generally found in major cities, and they're mostly run by other goldbugs, but they do exist.

    71. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Because you say so?

      - CRB index says it. Gold price chart says it. Copper, cotton, wheat, rice, nickel, coffee, pork bellies, orange juice, steel say it.

      The inflating bubble of the US debt says it.
      The increasing gold position of national bank of China says it.
      The debt crisis all over the Western world says it.
      The Middle East with its revolutions over the food prices say it.

      I am not saying, I am listening.

      "If it doesn't matter whether the value of something like gold is intrinsic or assigned, then there is no difference between gold and paper money." They are valuable because people want them.

      - yes, gold is money and it's not food, so people really want food, but they know they need money to buy food.

      Gold stores value, so if you take a silver dime minted in USA prior to 1968, you can buy a gallon of gas with it. That's the cheapest gas in US history ever, because the cheapest gas recorded was 25 cents/gallon (but they also offered full service with that, so that's part of the 25 cents).

      When you say: people 'want', I am going to reply with this: people do not want their money to lose value. People do not want their money to become less valuable tomorrow than it was today, and USD lost 75% of its value since 2003 in gold and other commodities.

      I suggest you go play around with the Inflation Calculator for a little bit and discover that inflation occurred even when the US was on the gold standard.

      - I am not only talking about gold standard, I am talking about money printing, so if you go back to that calculator and enter 1 dollar starting from 1800 and then put the final date at 1913, you will find out this:

      What cost $1 in 1800 would cost $0.58 in 1913.

      Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 1913 and 1800,
      they would cost you $1 and $1.76 respectively.
      - which proves my point.

    72. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      In Lucerne the taxes are around 9-12%, depends, but it's going to be reduced by 50% in 2012 and will be eliminated by 2016 if people keep voting the same way as before, and there are no indications to the contrary.

      Singapore rates - I like the place.

      I have a company registered in Cyprus, here is the chart, once Lucerne gets taxes below 6%, I'll move one here too.

      Even the most socialist states, such as Sweden are lowering their income taxes now, reducing business regulations as well, because they know what's coming. They see Portugal and Greece and where the West is heading with its welfare state policies, and it's not pretty.

    73. Re:what's the difference? by Ben4jammin · · Score: 1

      Well don't keep us in suspense, elaborate.

    74. Re:what's the difference? by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      This is a discussion. You can't just point back to your own comments and say "No" to someone's arguments. Go get all the gold you can. Don't worry about everyone else. That's just more gold for you. Maybe the reason you really want to convert the masses to be gold bugs is that that is the only way to try and start a collapse of fiat currency? (please don't tell me about how long fiat currencies have been collapsing already)

      Let's say I have something for sale and you would like to purchase it. You can tell me all about the intrinsic value of gold, but if I have no interest in gold. You will not be using it as money to buy anything from me. Whatever you use for money, must be considered to be of value to both parties of a transaction. Today fiat currency generally has value to both parties of a transaction. You could surely find many people that would accept gold as money. You could also find someone somewhere that would take a payment of cattle or beef for a product or service. Don't get too caught up in this money vs. wealth issue. If you can use things that you posses as a form of payment to obtain other things that you need, you're fine. Pick your horse and place your bets.

    75. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I own gold and silver and mining stocks, I have them for enough time to appreciate the gains, brought around by the printing of the governments of the world, I don't need to convert anybody into anything.

      I LOVE LOW GOLD PRICES, because that's when I can buy more with any new fiat I have at that point.

      You can tell me all about the intrinsic value of gold, but if I have no interest in gold. You will not be using it as money to buy anything from me. Whatever you use for money, must be considered to be of value to both parties of a transaction

      - you are wrong, every time I buy something, I buy it with gold, that's because I have to convert some gold into that particular currency, in which the transaction takes place.

      This way I am safe from inflation and you get your fiat.

    76. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Gold is not that suitable to be money either. Gold is too useful to be used as money.

      - it's not that useful as industrial material, and as the value of fiat plunges, the usage of gold as of industrial material will diminish further, as people will find alternatives.

      the average person would have even fewer grams/ounces of gold as their TOTAL cash holdings (includes bank balances) not necessarily net worth - since some people may have cash but have a mortgage.

      - you don't divide gold among all people by equal amounts, that's nonsense, it would be a tragedy for the money if it was in equal possession by all parties. As to the imagined worth of the various housing properties that people own -their worth is just that - it's imaginary, as the prices for housing are in a steady decline, and are held up only by inflation, but as housing prices are kept high by inflation, this will force the housing prices to fall in real terms anyway, as prices for everything else people use rise faster.

      Estimate how many ounces/grams of gold you'd get paid per month. You are probably richer than the average person in the world. But would you get paid an ounce of gold every month? Think the people paying would now be able to afford that? So the relative cost of gold would go up.

      value of money needs to go up, it always needs to go up so that the relative costs of everything else will be going down, and that's good for economy, regardless of what your gov't would have you believe, as in 19 century USA, the economy was becoming stronger and wealthier year to year, with more automation and innovation and inventions, while value of money was in a steady up trend, so the dollar ended the century twice as valuable as when the century started.

      The US benefits from being able to create US dollars practically on demand. Because by doing so it can transfer wealth from other countries who are still using the US dollars for billions of stuff.

      - well yes, and that's going to end and then US population will be left starving and without any products, and they will have to rebuild a real economy - manufacturing, production, agriculture, mining, everything that people actually use, as opposed to having the fake 'economy' of consumption by borrowing from the very people, who also provide the products.

    77. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Other people pay taxes and bank debts and hence will trade you goods and services for those bits of paper. But they won't for the photocopie variant.

      - those who matter realize that there is no difference.

      It's a really simple system, the notes have no intrinsic (well an instrinsic value that is tiny) but they make trade easier and hence people agree to use them as a mechanism of exchange.

      - 'agree' is a strong word for a fiat system that arose from former economy with gold/silver being money of the land, and gradually this was removed, then there was gold backing, which was removed (one of the many defaults, USA has purported on the public, never mind that the politicians say it can't default, it has already at least once in 1971).

      And yes by using a fiat system you have to trust that whomever is doing the printing won't increase the supply by more than economic production has increased,

      - and what does the reality tell us? That governments print fiat. They print and print, the more debt and so called "social obligations" they have, the more they print. They could tax, but then gov't would be much smaller, as taxes are unpopular, so they borrow and print and do bail outs and everything else.

      So what trust are you talking about?

      but in exchange you avoid random inflationary spikes when a new gold deposit is found or a new source of pretty shells is found, or whatever your backing item is.

      - hold on, hold on, let me get this straight.

      You are worried about new gold deposits (and we know about them in advance, so the 'inflationary spike' would be calculated into the market well in ahead of actual mining production) but you are willing to accept a politician with a printer and bunch of ink and paper? I see.

      And you avoid milder inflation/deflation when the growth of the economy differes from the growth of that item.

      - I have news for you: inflation today, in a USD based world is around 10% in USA (amount of new money created per year) and the rest of the world is suffering huge price rises due to the export of that inflation, (and all they have to do to stop it, is to stop using USD and stop buying US bonds).

      I welcome deflation. I mean I really WELCOME deflation based on competition and increased efficiencies. It's the best thing since sliced bread, because it's cheaper sliced bread.

    78. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have a clue. He doesn't understand that inflation is driving savings and investment capital out, ends up driving jobs out. Combined with income taxes it allows gov't to grow into some sort of a monstrosity, that regulates everything under the Sun, making US worker totally uncompetitive. There are millions of people without work, yet in USA there are still a minimum wage laws, and there are still all sorts of regulations, that make hiring US citizens an extremely unattractive proposition when compared to people in other places.

      He doesn't understand that gov't, which promises to insure bank deposits, insure health care, insure 'affordable housing', insure retirement, insure monopolies against competition, gov't that subsidizes the car industry by building roads and then starts all sorts of wars to keep the oil coming in to subsidize that type of life further, that gov't ends up creating a monstrosity of a society: totally dependent on the gov't tit, incapable of taking care of itself, thinking that everybody owes them something, unwilling to take any sort of risk, expecting every grievance to be covered by a lawsuit (as gov't displaces other jobs, then inflates value of education by artificial demand through gov't mortgages, that kids end up taking without any collateral before they even graduate, and then so many graduate in social studies, that for not knowing what to do with themselves, they continue the education in the law profession further, creating an ungodly number of lawyers in one country). That society will drive all production capacity out, and the only thing left would be the printer with a seemingly endless supply of ink and paper.

      Of-course in order to get something useful out of that paper, it has to provide something, even if only a promise, so bonds are printed and sold to unsuspecting foreigners, who end up buying them forever, and if they ever stop buying, they are threatened that the US will default on the debt (that's what they are talking about, when they say debt ceiling must be raised,) but they are full of shit. Hitting the debt ceiling and not getting into further debt would only require spending to be cut, as US still collects over 2 trillion a year in taxes, that's enough to pay for a much smaller gov't and to start paying out some principal on the debt even, not only the interest.

      In 19 century USA used to borrow money as well, but it was building things with that money: infrastructure, factories, etc. Then the products they made were used to pay the debt back.

      Now USA borrows only to spend, and at this point, the Fed buys over 30% of all bonds on the market, and over 80% of all new bonds from the Treasury (through GS, BTW.) so clearly the printing press IS the reason that the country is in such terrible shape and debt and so totally unproductive and is in so many wars.

      Sound money would put a stop to this nonsense, but that's exactly what GS doesn't want (and they are one of many, who oppose it, they benefit greatly), so it's not going to happen, and US bonds and dollars will be destroyed and then US will have to rebuild, but it won't have any savings to do so, and interest rates will be very high, so it's going to hurt like hell before it gets any better.

    79. Re:what's the difference? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Gold has industrial use as well, so at this point we're quibbling over "what qualifies as major use", and "how rare is too rare".

      Why does paper money fail @ #1, by the way? Its value is related to its rarity, and printing money is an analogue to mining more gold. Also, you did not address the issue with gold @ #0, which is an issue for ANY currency.

    80. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Quite a number of institutional holders. IMF sold a few metric tons of the metal within the last 2 years alone.

      Those who say that gold is in a bubble, should really look at HUI stocks. Gold mining companies are basically where they were at the 2008 lows - doesn't look like a speculative bubble at all, there is no speculative money in the stocks, and they are easier to trade than gold for most speculators.

    81. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      If lithium is exposed to water, then it will burn with a modest amount of red flame, turning into lithium hydroxide in the process. I do not believe that the flame is particularly hot, either.

      Lithium fire - no water involved, but the fire seems quite hot and very dangerous. I wouldn't want my money to do that.

      You want the thing you pick to be rare......At the same time, you don't want to pick an element that's too rare. So osmium â" which apparently comes to earth via meteorites â" gets the axe." Seems pretty arbitrary. For starters, why couldnt pyrite be money? Why does it have to be an element?

      - because iron pyrites contain iron. Iron is an industrial metal and it corrodes. It's hard to test what is in an iron coin exactly and gold is easy to test with either acids or ultrasound for large bars.

      Why should money even be something that has no use in and of itself-- and if that is a requirement, how does gold possibly fit the bill?

      - that's just a strange question. Why would I want to put money into a product, so I can sell it for money, it makes no sense.

      Of-course we want as little industrial uses for gold as possible. There are a few uses, but they are irrelevant, given that there is relatively small amount of gold in existence and it's still not used up for anything industrial. Besides, industries are not ran by people who just want to burn money in manufacturing process, it's nonsense.

      why the barter system is insufficient,

      - it is actually sufficient, given that banks become warehouses for cows, chickens, wheat, orange juice, etc. and if that becomes the case, you can have even a credit card backed up by goats, not gold, but this will never happen precisely because there are so many other uses for a goat (which I leave to your imagination), hopefully most uses are dietary in nature.

      or how the argument for gold kind of falls apart in societies that are rich in gold and poor in salt, or societies that decided to use other standards.

      - salt is not money, but it can be used for barter. It's not money, because people consume it and it can be destroyed - it goes bad.

      Half the reasons why gold is money, is because it withstands the natural and man made disasters and accidents so well. Fire? Flood? Earthquake? A meteor strike? Titanic? Who cares. If there is a way to find pieces of the metal, it can be reclaimed.

      Plain and simple, using gold as a standard today would be about as arbitrary as anything else

      - really? So what do you suggest would be a good standard then? Something that cannot be faked because it can be easily and cheaply tested, something that's easy to work with, recognized easily by anybody (who would recognize osmium as osmium if you showed it to them? It could be any alloy, how do you test it?)

      Osmium is insanely hard to mint, to melt, to machine, anything you do with it is freaking difficult and expensive. It looks nice, though, I like it, but it's not money that people would use, otherwise they WOULD HAVE used it already as money. Is that a difficult concept?

      That is simply because people have historically valued gold and had faith in it.

      - oh, it's that simple, ha? So if it's that simple, how come this thread is filled with people that can't seem to grasp the concept?

      Any "money" that people will trust is a good currency; if people fail to trust it, it is a bad currency.

      - yeah, but trust has to be based on something. Money is not a religion, it does require proof. I don't trust fiat for a second, never have, never will, any fiat, any country, any time, it's because there are politicians somewhere, trying to steal the value of the money from you, and they always succeed at this one thing.

    82. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Except whatever you think is real money (fiat) is garbage AFAIC, it doesn't store value at all. USD lost 75% of value since 2003 alone, you want to hold it? You do that.

    83. Re:what's the difference? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Money does not store value. That is not the purpose of money. However, the U.S. dollar has not lost 75% of its value since 2003. If the USD had lost that much value, my grocery bill would have gone up by a lot more than it has.
      This does not mean that I approve of how the U.S. government has managed the currency, or that I think your interpretation is completely off base. Things are not hunk dory and if something doesn't change very soon, the U.S. economy (and probably the world economy) will pass the point of no return.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    84. Re:what's the difference? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      it's not that useful as industrial material, and as the value of fiat plunges, the usage of gold as of industrial material will diminish further, as people will find alternatives.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Industry

      Alternatives? List which materials are malleable, corrosion resistant, a very good conductor of electricity and cheaper than gold.

      Artificial money does not have any other use except as money. Whereas gold has many industrial uses. Making artificial money go up in cost is fine. Making the cost of gold go up artificially is not fine. And that's what you are proposing. And for what? NO REAL BENEFIT![1].

      you don't divide gold among all people by equal amounts, that's nonsense,

      Did you even read and understand what I wrote?

      As I ALREADY said in my previous post - wealth is not and will not be evenly distributed - the top 1-2% own a lot of it. So if gold was money (or currency was gold backed) each person would have less than 1 ounce worth of gold. So the value and cost of gold goes up.

      And as the population grows faster than the amount of gold grows, the value and cost of gold goes up. So the rich would give less and less gold as wages to the poor born without it.

      value of money needs to go up, it always needs to go up so that the relative costs of everything else will be going down.

      Sure the value of money can go up. But your proposal makes the cost of gold go up.

      It would be great if people stopped valuing gold so much as jewellery, and people like you moved on from their ignorant and primitive obsession with gold as money. There's no magic in gold as money ok? It is even more stupid than having currency backed by land area on the Moon or Mars.

      [1] As long as there is poor regulation people can still issue way too many IOUs than they have gold/USD/seashells to back them up. The recent economic crisis would not have been prevented even if money was gold backed.

      The crisis was a result of looser/poor regulation allowing people to borrow what they could not afford; and allowing the smart, amoral and greedy to create ways to bundle up those loans, play pass the parcel/hot potato with them while taking commissions each time they pass it amongst themselves.

      One would be ignorant or stupid to think that these smart amoral greedy bunch would be unable to find more ways to take wealth from the stupid/ignorant just because money is gold or gold backed. They are clearly smarter, so guess who will win in the financial games that THEY create?

      You need the regulators to be on the side of the "greater good" not the filthy rich.

      The problem is the regulators changed sides, and the US Gov is no longer even doing a good job pretending to help the "common people".

      --
    85. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You are correct.

      - I know.

      Money does not store value.

      - fiat does not store value.

      That is not the purpose of money.

      - that's not the purpose of fiat.

      However, the U.S. dollar has not lost 75% of its value since 2003.

      - it did.

      Here is coffee price chart it was between 60 and 72 USD per contract in 2003.

      Here is coffee price chart now. It's between 259 and 290.

      In fact, if measured in coffee, the value of USD decreased at the lows by 76%.

      select 27 May, 2003 - you will find out that gold closed at 367.20.

      Select 27 May 2011, you will find out it closed at 1536.50.

      In fact, if measured in gold, the value of USD decreased by 76%.

      oil traded between 20 and 28 in 2003, May 27, 2011 it is 100 Do I need to do the math?

      I can go on. My point is that when you say things like:

      However, the U.S. dollar has not lost 75% of its value since 2003.

      - you better be ready for a barrage of numbers.

      If the USD had lost that much value, my grocery bill would have gone up by a lot more than it has.

      - maybe you should go back to your old receipts and try and figure this out, but prices for food in USA went up by a factor of 2 easy since 2003. However there is a huge factor, which prevents the end user consumables from going off the charts in US (like by factors of 10) today, and that's the fact that US dollars are collecting dust in foreign central banks, who also destroy their currencies following the so called 'reserve'. They are waking up, they stopped buying almost all new US bonds, now Fed buys over 80% of all new bonds, and buys over 30% of bonds on the market, from those, who are dumping them, like Bill Gross and China, etc.

      Things are not hunk dory and if something doesn't change very soon, the U.S. economy (and probably the world economy) will pass the point of no return.

      - wrong again, bud, it will be US economy and some of the European economies that will go to hell and will have to rebuild from hell, but it's not going to be the world.

      Again: wealth is production, not fiat or even gold, and there are plenty of countries today who do have enough production capacity, that they generate trade surpluses, not deficits, like USA does (with pretty much every country, though you only hear about the 50Billion/month deficit with China, but go ahead, look it up, USA has trade deficits even with Canada.)

      As long as those countries keep their manufacturing base, they will be just fine. Their USD denominated holdings will be destroyed, but it won't matter, their own currencies will rise and will allow their own population finally to enjoy the fruits of their own labor, which until now USA had the privilege to.

    86. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Alternatives? List which materials are malleable, corrosion resistant, a very good conductor of electricity and cheaper than gold.

      - it does not matter. As gold is used more and more only as money, everything we do with gold will be reevaluated and alternatives will be found. It's as simple as that. In any case, very little of the stuff is used for industrial purposes, and whatever is used, will be reclaimed in the future, and returned into the monetary system.

      Did you even read and understand what I wrote?

      - Yeah, I understand to the t, don't worry.

      As I ALREADY said in my previous post - wealth is not and will not be evenly distributed - the top 1-2% own a lot of it. So if gold was money (or currency was gold backed) each person would have less than 1 ounce worth of gold. So the value and cost of gold goes up.

      - precisely. As it must.

      Deflation - that's the point. That's the key. That's the goal. That's the best thing for economy. That's the best thing for the poorest of the poor.

      What is the Fed trying to do with printing all this money? They are trying to keep the valuations (prices) up for various companies, for asset classes that they see as necessary - home prices.

      They are keeping prices up for things that should fall in prices dramatically, so what the real consequence is, is that the prices for everything else are going up, to ensure that the real valuations of those companies and houses, etc., fall in real terms.

      Do you understand? Everything that gov't does is about pushing prices up, and they do it by destroying your fiat.

      Gold, on the other hand, would push prices down, as in itself it would become more and more valuable and scarce, and wages would fall. But the economy of deflation years of USA shows that it was the most productive and it generated the most wealth, while the value of money was increasing steadily.

      And as the population grows faster than the amount of gold grows, the value and cost of gold goes up. So the rich would give less and less gold as wages to the poor born without it.

      - oh, god. The value of gold goes up relative to value of all things, that will go down, thus deflation. I explained it in previous paragraph.

      Sure the value of money can go up. But your proposal makes the cost of gold go up.

      - First: gold IS money. Second: you think I am proposing something that will not be done without such a proposal? You don't get it at all, do you? Not for a millisecond it goes through you skull? Gold is money. It's going up in value relative to fiat, because fiat is no longer sound money, it's created at a rate of about 10% a year to keep the valuations of things up, that gov't wants to push up, that's all. But those things need to go down in valuations, that's why gold is going up, so that the real prices drop.

      It would be great if people stopped valuing gold so much as jewellery, and people like you moved on from their ignorant and primitive obsession with gold as money. There's no magic in gold as money ok? It is even more stupid than having currency backed by land area on the Moon or Mars.

      - I am not forcing you to do anything. If you follow your own advice and keep to your fiat, that's fine with me, I don't care that you are losing most of your purchasing power.

      Here I showed that fiat USD lost over 75% of its value since 2003. YOU keep it, go ahead. Those who get it, will do fine. Those who don't - well, too bad.

      The crisis was a result of looser/poor regulation allowing people to borrow what they could not afford; and allowing the smart, amoral and greedy to create ways to bundle up those loans, play pass the parcel/hot potato with them while taking commissions each time they pass it amongst themselves.

    87. Re:what's the difference? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      And as the population grows faster than the amount of gold grows, the value and cost of gold goes up. So the rich would give less and less gold as wages to the poor born without it.

      - oh, god. The value of gold goes up relative to value of all things, that will go down, thus deflation. I explained it in previous paragraph.

      And the value of stupid people like you (to those with the gold) will go down as well. I explained it in the very paragraph you are responding to.

      The rich would need you less and less, since their gold is more and more valuable each day.

      The problem is the regulators changed sides, and the US Gov is no longer even doing a good job pretending to help the "common people".

      - where the hell did you get this idea from, that US gov't ever had a mandate to help anybody?

      Again you prove that you have difficulty reading. I used the word PRETEND for a reason. Basically with so many stupid voters around, the US leaders no longer even need to do a good job pretending to help the voters in order to stay in power. In the past at least the voters got some interstate highways and infrastructure.

      Now more than 9 trillion US dollars have been created out of thin air and what do the voters get? I hear the US people complaining about stuff falling apart, no money to build railways, highways, bridges, broadband. And I think - hey didn't they just print 9 trillion? They could have printed 1 more trillion and used it to buy stuff from China to build all that crap before China wises up. Before you spout about inflation, they've ALREADY created at least 9 trillion, so what's a trillion more before everyone else catches on?

      You can't do that trickery with gold. But you can with US dollars. So the US petrodollar is better tool for the US than gold is. It's just not being used for the benefit of the US people.

      Shame about Obama really. He seemed so promising. Promising this and that ;).

      --
    88. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      And the value of stupid people like you (to those with the gold) will go down as well. I explained it in the very paragraph you are responding to.

      - no, the labor costs will go down, as they must. As for 'stupid people like you' - you are entitled to your opinion.

      The rich would need you less and less, since their gold is more and more valuable each day.

      - the rich don't need you today either. You need them, not the other way around. If it weren't for people, who are capable and willing to save and re-invest their savings into businesses, you'd be still a hunter/gatherer or maybe a farmer today, working for food only.

      Again you prove that you have difficulty reading. I used the word PRETEND for a reason. Basically with so many stupid voters around, the US leaders no longer even need to do a good job pretending to help the voters in order to stay in power. In the past at least the voters got some interstate highways and infrastructure.

      - being boiled slowly, and not being thrown into boiling water all at once - that's how the notion came up, that the government is somehow responsible for any individual well-being, rather than what its real reason for existence was in the first place. So if people forgot the reasons for their gov't even existing, decided to invent that magical reason and started believing in it, then it's their problem, when the reality come back, crushing their world view and their economy all at once.

      As to infrastructure and roads, I explained why this was a terrible idea, to have government in that many times over on this site.

      Now more than 9 trillion US dollars have been created out of thin air and what do the voters get?

      - the destroyed currency and high prices, just what they want, or is it?

      I hear the US people complaining about stuff falling apart, no money to build railways, highways, bridges, broadband. And I think - hey didn't they just print 9 trillion?

      - yes, the government propped up the failing businesses, failing housing market, banks, just to keep their valuations up, prices high, and to preserve their very existence in most cases. Nothing good comes out of that ever, because money gets destroyed and the market still has all this nonsense in it, that should have been gone long ago.

      They could have printed 1 more trillion and used it to buy stuff from China to build all that crap before China wises up. Before you spout about inflation, they've ALREADY created at least 9 trillion, so what's a trillion more before everyone else catches on?

      - I agree. Just crash that fucker all the way down now. But all that infrastructure investment, that could have been made, would only make sense if it was made by private businesses, building things that markets actually need, not all this nonsense subsidized infrastructure, which only looks good for gov't statistics of the fake GDP, but it does nothing to improve the economy and create real investments and jobs and wealth.

      You can't do that trickery with gold.

      - you don't need trickery with gold. With gold you get USA 19 century - huge increase in productive activity and wealth creation and standard of living and dropping prices simultaneously.

      But you can with US dollars. So the US petrodollar is better tool for the US than gold is. It's just not being used for the benefit of the US people

      - well no, you should go back to my link to my comment, where I explain the fall of the dollar value relative to other things just from 2003 alone, and you'll see that it lost over 75% of that value

    89. Re:what's the difference? by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      How can gold keep value when it doesn't have value?
      I'm aware gold has properties that make it a convenient form of exchange etc etc ad nauseum. But that doesn't give it value.

      It is assigned a value in just as arbitrary a way as fiat currency is.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    90. Re:what's the difference? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      How can gold keep value when it doesn't have value?

      - thousands of years of human trade prove you wrong.

      I'm aware gold has properties that make it a convenient form of exchange etc etc ad nauseum. But that doesn't give it value.

      - it's money. Do you think your paper money has value? Gold has all properties needed for money, so it's the best money people have invented so far.

      It is assigned a value in just as arbitrary a way as fiat currency is.

      - 'arbitrary' in a sense that the amount of work that goes into mining it and scarcity of it vs desirability of it allow us to calculate the relative value of anything in gold, and it can't be printed by politicians, which gives it the most important aspect of value, beside all of the other benefits.

    91. Re:what's the difference? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      More likely some form of carbon standard

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    92. Re:what's the difference? by headwes · · Score: 0

      - it's not that useful as industrial material, and as the value of fiat plunges, the usage of gold as of industrial material will diminish further, as people will find alternatives.

      So if I understand you correctly, gold is valuable because its relatively useless?

    93. Re:what's the difference? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Lithium fire [youtube.com] - no water involved, but the fire seems quite hot and very dangerous

      Thats a Li-ion battery; not the same thing as elemental lithium. Perhaps you should read up on just how a Li-ion battery differs from a pile of lithium. Protip, you can generally handle it with your bare hands so long as theyre not super moist, and it certainly doesnt spontaneously combust into concrete-disolving fires. I know, because when I was younger I tossed a pile of lithium into my toilet for kicks, and while it stank the place up and probably wouldnt have been healthy to inhale the fumes, it certainly didnt do any damage to the toilet.

      because iron pyrites contain iron. Iron is an industrial metal and it corrodes

      Pyrite is NOT the same thing as iron, it is a different chemical (FeS2) entirely and thus does not corrode in the same way as iron. You cant just assume because something contains gold, for example, that it is necessarily immune to corrosion, nor that because something contains iron that it necessarily rusts. So while pyrite (which does appear to succumb to rust) might not be the best option, you never answered why it couldnt be something else non-elemental.

      that's just a strange question. Why would I want to put money into a product, so I can sell it for money, it makes no sense.

      Um, we do that with gold all the time. Fillings, electrical contacts, corrosion-resisting platings, etc. We do it with silver as well, and platinum, and titanium, and iridium, and osmium, and any of the other elements you might want to use as money.

      There are a few uses, but they are irrelevant, given that there is relatively small amount of gold in existence and it's still not used up for anything industrial.

      Theres even less osmium, and we use them in ball point pen tips (due to their high hardness).

      salt is not money, but it can be used for barter. It's not money, because people consume it and it can be destroyed - it goes bad.

      Um, salt is REALLY stable last time I checked; it can be dissolved, but I am not aware of it undergoing any chemical changes with less than substantial input of energy (that is, reactions involving salt are, AFAIK, endothermic).

      If there is a way to find pieces of the metal, it can be reclaimed.

      Gold can be physically lost, and then that money is lost to society. Paper money can be reprinted. And again, gold is not the only substance which meets your needs; there are many alloys which could potentially work, platinum could work, etc. You have arbitrarily declared gold as "the best" despite all these other candidates.

      you can have even a credit card backed up by goats, not gold, but this will never happen precisely because there are so many other uses for a goat

      No, it will never happen because the per-volume and per-weight value of a goat is really really really low compared to a US 1 dollar bill. And guess what, gold does too, which is why you dont have many banks that will store gold bars any more (safety deposit not withstanding).

      recognized easily by anybody (who would recognize osmium as osmium if you showed it to them? It could be any alloy, how do you test it?)

      Lots and lots of folks were fooled by Fools Gold (aka pyrite); even searching online you will find people with chunks of it that they thought were real gold. Sure, there are chemical tests you can perform, but the same is true of osmium, and osmium is a bit easier to prove than gold-- just bathe it in some aqua regia (i believe a mix of hydrochloric and nitric acids), which will dissolve pretty much anything except osmium and a few other really resistant metals. Other than that, how would YOU test something to be sure its gold?

      Really t

  4. How to rob a bank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Get a job as someone handling money
    2. Replace money with fake money
    3. Go to Aruba
    4.????
    5. Never rob a bank

    Seems like he forgot to follow step 3

    1. Re:How to rob a bank by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrong

      1. Join Bank Management
      2. Pay yourself a bonus every time the Bank gives a loan
      3. Loan out all the banks money, and when that runs out, borrow more from other banks and lend that money out in turn.
      4. PROFIT! (Beyond your wildest dreams)
      5. When the bank goes bust, ride away into the sunset with a handsome golden parachute.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  5. held in lieu of bail? by Spectre · · Score: 5, Funny

    Geez, he has $200,000 in cash and can't make bail? He should have asked the arresting officer to stop by an ATM on his way to jail ...

    --
    "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
    1. Re:held in lieu of bail? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      $25,000 bail. He should be having one hell of a party with $175,000 cash before the trial.

    2. Re:held in lieu of bail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, my friend, is a bit of comic genius!!

  6. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by rilles · · Score: 2

    He pushed a button on a photocopy machine. The machine is a technical wonder - you put one paper in and a copy of it appears after you push a button - like magic.

  7. I'm curious... by steelfood · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...how this even remotely constitutes as "news for nerds." I'd have expected to see this in Fark or Digg, but not Slashdot.

    Really guys? Is it that slow a news day?

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    1. Re:I'm curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...how this even remotely constitutes as "news for nerds." I'd have expected to see this in Fark or Digg, but not Slashdot.

      Really guys? Is it that slow a news day?

      If you expect to see this on Digg then why would you be surprised to see it again on /. a day later?

  8. Re:When he get's out Diebold can put in the votein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is the first time I have seen someone with a username who is automatically at -1.

    What heinous crimes did you do? Urinate in CowboyNeal's plants/pants?

  9. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

    I had the same reaction. I don't get the technical connection here. If he had used photoshop or something to make the copies more realistic maybe I could see it but this is just generic police blotter fodder.

  10. Photocopied? by hackertourist · · Score: 2

    Aren't color photocopiers supposed to give an error message when you try to copy a banknote?

  11. pretty close to my thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "His method was almost brilliant in its sheer stupidity: He pocketed the cash, and replaced it in the machines with 'counterfeit or photocopied $20 bills.'"

    and this is different than banks selling MBS(s)/CDO(s) and/or ING selling CDS(s) how?

    the only "stupidity" I see is that he forgot to make his "campaign contributions"...

  12. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Spectre · · Score: 2

    It gives us geeks somebody to point at and say "duh, stupid!"

    We get to feel all superior, in this case, with real justification.

    --
    "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
  13. Diebold by Oh+Gawwd+Peak+Oil · · Score: 1

    According to TFA, this guy worked for Diebold.

    He shouldn't have fled. After what he did they probably would have promoted him to a high executive position.

  14. Love that name by 6Yankee · · Score: 2

    An ATM guy called Kioskli. Classic.

  15. diebold dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt that the fake money was simply counterfeit. Most ATM's nowadays have censors that detect the bills thickness. It was most likely something like diebold dollars.

    1. Re:diebold dollars by _0xd0ad · · Score: 2

      He'd have access to the money box inside the machine, thus bypassing the sensors. Open it up to count the money, slip a few $20s out and replace them with a few fakes; as long as the money count comes out right when the next serviceman comes to check the ATM, nobody would know the difference... and if they eventually found the fakes it'd just look like some bank customer(s) had passed the fake $20s to the machine.

      However, if the machine should have been able to detect the forgeries, that might be one thing that led them to suspect a repairman was behind it - bank customers shouldn't be able to feed the machine fake $20s.

  16. If he was so stupid.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did he get away with it until he'd made $200,000 worth of counterfeit notes. That is a hell of a lot of $20 notes.

    Most criminals get greedy, rather than stupid.

    [libertarian]PS: All money is equally arbitrary.[/libertarian]

    1. Re:If he was so stupid.. by Spectre · · Score: 1

      Apparently he hit at least 7 ATMs on a US holiday (July 4th, senior staff not monitoring security cameras, in all likelihood).
      That would be about $30,000 per machine ...

      --
      "Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
  17. What's with all the 'money' articles? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin, faked cash in ATMs etc?

     

    --
    Deleted
  18. Who else is doing this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like he just messed up that system for all the other hardworking counterfeiting ATM repairmen. Before he got caught, nobody was looking for this kind of fraud. (:-)

  19. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by jemtallon · · Score: 1

    ATM has machine in it's name? Kinda like how we get stories about Hasselhoff because he was in Knight Rider. Wait... that doesn't sound right

  20. I knew it!! by bobdawonderweasel · · Score: 2

    My Dad always told me there was a little man in the ATM printing the money it spit out!

    --
    "We'll cross the minefield under the cover of daylight..." -A. Rimmer
  21. Why is the bail so low? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    He's accused of stealing $200k, but his bail was put at only $25k? Which Wall Street investment group manager is he related t?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Why is the bail so low? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      A) It's just bail. Bail has to do with risk of fleeing not punishment for a crime.
      B) He probably pissed the money away as fast as he got it
      C) 175K is't really enough money to go into hiding for any sizable period of time.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Why is the bail so low? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) It's just bail. Bail has to do with risk of fleeing not punishment for a crime.

      Being pendantic, it ensures you show up for trial, not punishment for a crime. As I recall, you get your bail money back once you show up and the trial ends (either way) to make sure arresting folks just doesn't become a source of income. And since he hasn't been convicted, its not like the judge can assume he has the stolen money.

      Since most people waive their right to a speedy trial so they can have time to hire a lawyer, prepare a defense, etc, bail is a convenient way to keep the already overcrowded jails free, they want you to pay your bail because the don't want you sitting in jail, taking up space, food, etc. /P.

    3. Re:Why is the bail so low? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Apparently the bail was enough to keep him in jail, so why should it have been any more? How high do you think it should have been? Sure, he stole $200K, but where is it? They're not going to let him out of jail so he can go dig up some of his money and come back with the cash to pay his bail. And he can't really ask his wife to go get it for him, because he ditched her as soon as he stole the money.

    4. Re:Why is the bail so low? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bail isn't a punishment! The amount of bail is set in relation to the accused's danger to the public and risk of flight. This guy no longer has access to ATMs, presumably, and likely has ties to the community. Hence, a larger bail isn't called for.

      dom

    5. Re:Why is the bail so low? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "it ensures you show up for trial, not punishment for a crime. "
      Isn't that what I said?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  22. You know what really sucks? by lavagolemking · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The people who withdrew money from this ATM will probably never get their money back, since customers are always fully liable for ATM transactions. The banks will just write it off as a loss, which comes right out of their customers checking accounts. Worse, if the people don't notice they'll even be held responsible for trying to pass of counterfeit bills they thought were real.

    1. Re:You know what really sucks? by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

      The bank would probably lose more money from pissed off customers. $200,000 is a drop in the bucket to them.

    2. Re:You know what really sucks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The banks will just write it off as a loss, which comes right out of their customers checking accounts.

      What have you been smoking lately? Let's hope you are not a banker.

    3. Re:You know what really sucks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was a crime to _knowingly_ use counterfeit bills.

    4. Re:You know what really sucks? by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're crazy. We've reversed transactions at ATMs with our bank where the ATM didn't spit out the money but marked it as a successful transaction; they gave us a temporary credit and a month later sent us a letter saying their investigation found that our report was accurate and that the credit was now permanent. With something like this, I'd imagine the investigation would be pretty easy; just track which machines the guy refilled.

      C'mon. There's cynical and then there's not doing the research.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    5. Re:You know what really sucks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, because banks go out of their way not to piss of their customers. Keep smokin' that free market crack.

    6. Re:You know what really sucks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you prove you didn't know?

    7. Re:You know what really sucks? by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      where the ATM didn't spit out the money but marked it as a successful transaction; they gave us a temporary credit and a month later sent us a letter saying their investigation found that our report was accurate

      That might be down the difference in what the machine records state. In your case there was no physical withdrawal and the device which dispenses the notes must have the capability to record that nothing happened and your complaint was substantiated. However, there does seem to be a difference in the bank's attitude if the machine records say it did dispense something. And I speak from experience; it was about 20 years ago and involved an ATM dispensing half the requested amount but the bank (not actually the one I use) hosting the ATM said that the machine had dispensed everything it was supposed to and I was not reimbursed.

    8. Re:You know what really sucks? by bws111 · · Score: 2

      The one thing a bank offers to it's checking/savings account customers is trust. If word gets out that a given bank can not be trusted with your money (they give you counterfeit money and make it your problem), that bank will quickly find itself with no account holders.

    9. Re:You know what really sucks? by lavagolemking · · Score: 1

      You're crazy. We've reversed transactions at ATMs with our bank where the ATM didn't spit out the money but marked it as a successful transaction

      I am not a lawyer, but I believe legally the customer is liable for ATM transactions, except in a case where the card is stolen, AND the transactions happen no more than 72 hours before the report, and then I think your liability is capped at $50. Any reimbursements would be at the bank's discretion, so if you have a good, sympathetic bank(er), like it sounds like you have, you might get off the hook. I've had my fair share of disputes with banks that like to pin things on customers, and they're generally not as cooperative or polite about it.

      If somebody, for example, does this or this, and you see it on your statement the next month; or even if you used your card soon after it happened (can't claim the card is stolen) but didn't check your statement online until later that night, you're stuck with it.

      I didn't need to do "research" because I had personal experience to back it up, and no amount of research would have led me to your experience. Banks, in general, try to pin these things on the consumer instead of eating the loss, especially Bank of America.

    10. Re:You know what really sucks? by lavagolemking · · Score: 1

      Erm, I meant to say they'll pass the loss onto customers by not reimbursing them, not "write it off as a loss".

    11. Re:You know what really sucks? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the whole thing about BoA? That's why we don't bank with BoA. :^P

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    12. Re:You know what really sucks? by Rossman · · Score: 1

      This isn't true, at least in Canada. We had our debit/ATM cards duplicated by some criminals once, they withdrew $2500 over three days from our chequing account, but when we notified the bank they gave us all our money back.

    13. Re:You know what really sucks? by lavagolemking · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the bank mentioned in the original article. I don't bank with them either, but I've had similar nightmarish experiences with other banks.

    14. Re:You know what really sucks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wager the prosecution for counterfeiting usually boils down to physical evidence. The real counterfeiter has equipment someplace and a handful of distribution points. The innocent victims have no equipment and a pattern of spending all over town in small quantities. IANAL but if I were defending you I'd poke at the prosecution's failure to tie you to equipment that was used to forge the bill.

    15. Re:You know what really sucks? by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Not Bank of America. I got cleaned out via PIN, and I think it was actually a Diebold employee too. Someone in a Diebold van was nearby acting suspicious once when I made a withdrawal, but then 3 months later I got cleaned out.

      It took some fighting - one lady summarily denied my claim because when she asked me if it was fraud or not, I (in typical law student fashion) told her I couldn't tell her that. It could have been just an error on their part, that's not fraud. They also used my response to the question "Did you follow the rules and not write your PIN anywhere?" against me: If I'd never given my pin to anyone or written it down, how did someone get it? Eventually, however, I was sent a letter stating that they now consider my temporary credit to be a "permanent credit." Whatever. I got my money back.

  23. Seriously unsurprising by erroneus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Some years ago, I worked for a company (two companies actually) centered around the ATM vending machine service. While there, I learned how trivial it actually is to rob ATMs. While I am certain the technologies and security protocols involved have evolved beyond my previous knowledge of the time, most ATMs were a small terminal with a cash dispenser and connected to "the network" by a simple dialup modem which operated over the public POTS network. By using a device called a "skuch" box which simulated POTS networking, modems and other such things such as a laptop with transaction processing software simulating the ATM authorization network, a person could connect to a local ATM terminal, run simulated transactions and dispense real cash in massive amounts without raising a great deal of suspicion from most shops and stores which host ATMs.

    As I said, my knowledge is "OLD." I am pretty sure the are now using other communications technologies such as wireless networks and such, but given that it has been shown how trivial taking over or creating your own local GSM network actually, is, adapting the previously described methods to current technologies would not only be easier, but could be done wirelessly from a "service van" close by. (I observe that many businesses still authorize credit card transactions over POTS so it seems to me that ATM debit transactions are still done over POTS as well, so many the old methods are still valid in some places.)

    But you get the idea -- ATMs are cash dispensers controlled by highly vulnerable computers operating over highly vulnerable networks.

    1. Re:Seriously unsurprising by niado · · Score: 1

      John Connor - the last best hope of mankind - performed this feat in Terminator 2. It was probably a little simplified for the sake of theatrics though.

    2. Re:Seriously unsurprising by maxume · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the whole U.S. banking system is built around hoping nothing goes wrong and then working to leave someone else holding the bag when it does.

      Credit card fraud gets charged back to merchants, banks open up lines of credit with minimal documentation and then send an innocent third party a collection notice, it's awesome.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Seriously unsurprising by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I'd like to think that the connection between the ATM and whatever it talks to is encrypted with something straightforward and effective like an SSL connection with preshared keys to prevent a trivial attack like you describe above, but I've been shocked and dismayed at security in the financial world too many times to be completely surprised if this is not the case. This is the industry that thinks the signature on the back of a credit card is some sort of security measure.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:Seriously unsurprising by erroneus · · Score: 2

      You would like to think that, but no. Very often, transaction processing goes through several networks and agents along the way. And each of them take a portion of the [often ridiculous] fee you get charged for every transaction. Some segments of the processing network get as little as 5 cents per transaction while others collect a quarter. But if you imagine that it is one ATM programmed to talk to one end point, you would be sadly mistaken. It's far more complex than that.

    5. Re:Seriously unsurprising by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      You'd think they'd be using public key encryption to verify both the machine and the ATM network (which would mean, if done right, it wouldn't matter what transport you used).

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    6. Re:Seriously unsurprising by bjb_admin · · Score: 1

      I would like to think so too. When I developed a point of sale system in the mid 90's which used dial-up for CC verification there was no encryption involved at the time. But it did use a custom protocol specific to that CC processor which required an NDA to be signed. So it was security through obscurity. I guess most transactions are done through the internet today and use encryption and for simplicity dial-up would have inherited this as well (probably using a PPP IP connection instead of these custom serial protocols but I am only guessing on this, maybe that is too simple a solution for the banks). I suppose a real hard core thief could have patched into the phone line used for CC authorization, pretended to be the host by reverse engineering previous transactions using a phone line sniffer and authorized all transactions while making purchases. But that is a lot of work a relatively small payoff.

    7. Re:Seriously unsurprising by erroneus · · Score: 1

      They just aren't as smart as you give them credit for. This is Diebold and similar companies we are talking about -- they can't create a system that adds one to a number reliably (voting machine) let alone a secure cash vending system.

      The cash vending system has MANY players and providers involved. And an ATM owner needs to be able to change carriers at will for various reasons including transaction providers going out of business or shopping for a lower transaction fee.

      BTW, owning a fleet of ATMs is a lucrative "money for nothing" business to be in provided you are able to balance insurance, security and other costs involved properly.

    8. Re:Seriously unsurprising by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Just to emphasize how bad ATM security is likely to be, most ATMs are made by Diebold. Yes, that Diebold.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Seriously unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to think that the connection between the ATM and whatever it talks to is encrypted with something straightforward and effective like an SSL connection with preshared keys to prevent a trivial attack like you describe above...

      It's been a few years since I worked for a small financial institution, but yes, there is encryption involved with unique keys for each device. A decade or more ago, it was DES, I believe. I played a small part in migrating our machines to 3DES and that was the standard when I hopped jobs. In any case, there are fairly elaborate procedures for ensuring the keys are kept private. I vaguely recall that provisioning a new or replacement ATM required the participation of two separate employees, each keying-in key-halves that had been delivered independently in sealed envelopes.

    10. Re:Seriously unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know where you live, but about 20 years ago, I was a repairtechnician for a european vendor of Diebold ATM.

      - The ATM itself was part of a safe. Only a banker could open it and when I had to work with it, they simply removed all cash.
      - For testing the dispenser, I had some test money.
      - the connection was encrypted through a X25 network

      The company exploiting the ATM's did several security modifications.
      - The keyboard had a random scan (unable to rack a PIN using interference and timing)
      - The communication module was also a development of the company and did contain several security measures, like tampering switches

      I think it was already quite advanced securety, given the time

    11. Re:Seriously unsurprising by swb · · Score: 2

      I had dinner with a guy who ran the ATM operations for a major Midwest bank about various schemes to defraud ATMs.

      I remember in the 1980s seeing ATMs from his bank at the student union with exposed modems and I asked him explicitly about faking transactions. His response was that even back then they were running 3DES between ATM and bank and that it would have been pretty much impossible.

      He says the best technique was and is just stealing the entire ATM and breaking into it at your convenience, which he said remained a considerable problem for freestanding ATMs. Sometimes alarms help, but he said the best defense was cash management -- filling those ATMs just before the biggest withdrawal periods and letting them run on minimal cash between.

    12. Re:Seriously unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freestanding ATMs today are pretty much all equipped with GPS locators broadcasting their location over a cellular network, so you'd better have a Faraday cage in the back of your rented van or whatever.

    13. Re:Seriously unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, this technique was perfected by a boy name John Conner and his friend, the red-headed Guns & Roses kid.

      "Easy money"

    14. Re:Seriously unsurprising by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      but could be done wirelessly from a "service van" close by.

      Shit man, take a look at the post above mine. I got cleaned out because of some asshole in a Diebold van, I'm sure of it. Well, Bank of America got cleaned out.

    15. Re:Seriously unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, since 3DES wasn't published until 1998.

    16. Re:Seriously unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are actually easier ways, too.

      I worked at a bank while putting myself through my undergrad. The ATM we had was probably built in the early nineties. The "modem" (a box about the size of a 2U server) would stop working quite often. Since the ATM was so old, we had no option other than buying refurbed units. They always sent a guy to install them--my boss said the guy was from IBM (I have no idea if that's the IBM I think it is...). Anyways, this guy told me some interesting stories. If you don't grab the money when the ATM sticks it out in a certain amount of time, the ATM sucks the money back in and tells "the system" that the transaction was reversed. So, on your statement, you'd see a withdrawal for the amount you wanted, followed directly by a credit of the same amount. With older ATMs, the tech told me that they were having problems with people taking the money from the center of the bills--leaving some behind. The sensors on the machines at the time couldn't tell that some of the money had been taken--only all or nothing. So, the crooks got away with some free cash.

      I think the best story he told me was this: He kept getting service calls from a bank that had an ATM in a mall. Three times he went, checked it, it was in working order, but the bank insisted that it was still broken and they were getting complaints. He found out that someone had put together a FAKE ATM and painted it up just like the other ATM located in the mall. The screen had the normal types of prompts: insert card, enter pin. After you inserted your card and entered your pin, it would say loading or some such, followed by "We apologize for the inconvenience, but this terminal is out of order, please try again." Turns out that someone was using it to skim debit card numbers with the corresponding pin codes. Inside was a wifi router, so whoever put it there could check it remotely. Pretty slick.

    17. Re:Seriously unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, most ATMs are still POTS devices. I've had many run-ins with customers on VoIP systems that had to change because their provider wasn't POTS modem compatible. To top it off, the software side requires IE6. Banks are some of the worst offenders when it comes to outdated software.

    18. Re:Seriously unsurprising by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Heh. Now I'm thinking of something involving rigging a freestanding ATM so that as soon as it's filled, it gets ripped out of the ground and choppered away, or the back falls off and the money shoots out into a waiting pouch.

      Caper movie scene: New guards fill up an ATM and drive off. ATM turns out to be a fake; the building frontage had been switched with the one next door. I guess it would only work if ATM refills were done somewhere outside normal business hours... unless the directions to the ATM were switched as well, and a fake security team arrived and refilled the real ATM with counterfeit notes at the same time...

      It's all a bit silly, though. The largest bill currently around is $100; if you want to steal enough of them to retire on with even a moderate lifestyle, that's going to be a fair chunk of mass to lug around, hide, and/or eventually distribute. Unless you have access to a cash laundering system, I guess. There really aren't that many ways you can acquire high-value assets with cash without attracting the attention of various authorities. Try buying a car worth more than a couple of thousand dollars, or a house, or even paying rent in some places. Then try doing it without attracting the attention of the tax authorities.

    19. Re:Seriously unsurprising by Agret · · Score: 1

      I never had to do work involving the actual cash inside an ATM but I had a short time doing a job upgrading ATMs 2 years ago. Some ATMs are still using dial-up modems, others are using 3g modems. I imagine the protocols they use are probably public/private key encrypted though. I think the easiest way to steal money from an ATM would be to go into the admin menu and change it so that it thinks the $50 tray is actually the $20 tray and then withdraw $40 a couple times. Not really worth it though, especially considering how easily you can get caught.

      --
      Have you metaroderated recently?
  24. Diebold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet Diebold, the company involved, gets away with stealing elections on a regular basis.

  25. Told you, never trust ATM by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Say what you want about Asynchronous Transfer Protocol, it ain't gonna do the job of regular Ethernet. Someone along the way is going to nab all the good packets and replace them with fake packets. There is no protection against the man-in-the-middle for ATM.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Told you, never trust ATM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see what you did there.

  26. Fractions by travdaddy · · Score: 4, Funny

    If he wanted to steal from the bank, here's a better, technical solution:

    Every time there's a bank transaction where interest is computed, you know, thousands a day? The computer ends up with these fractions of a cent, which it usually rounds off. Just take those little remainders and put them into an account.

    There were a couple movies where this was done and it worked brilliantly.

    --
    Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
    1. Re:Fractions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Superman 3, I think, with Richard Pryor...except the big boss was stealing/embezzling those fractions before Richard got the idea and started routing them into his payroll account.

    2. Re:Fractions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but his job was to repair ATMs, not to repair code for the bank's mainframe.

      So while a salami job might be "better", it's not a simple opportunity for him. Unlike in those movies, in real life, most criminals are opportunistic, not masterminds with some grand scheme.

    3. Re:Fractions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He could steal a tiny strip out of each $20 bill he collected, and eventually he'd have enough paper strips to make an entire new $20 bill.

    4. Re:Fractions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he wanted to steal from the bank, here's a better, technical solution:

      Every time there's a bank transaction where interest is computed, you know, thousands a day? The computer ends up with these fractions of a cent, which it usually rounds off. Just take those little remainders and put them into an account.

      There were a couple movies where this was done and it worked brilliantly.

      yea..... banks never look for this type of thing

    5. Re:Fractions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a much better method. Note that they only failed because they filled in the electronic fund transfer forms incorrectly! Almost the world's most brilliant bank heist.

    6. Re:Fractions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly would the dude who makes a living refilling the ATM pull this off??

    7. Re:Fractions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red stapler.

    8. Re:Fractions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes because movie crimes are ALWAYS effective in real life.

    9. Re:Fractions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were based on a true story that worked brilliantly. For years.
      Of course, not so brilliantly, he was caught. ;)

      Btw.: Doesn't mean if you do it, you get caught. Because of course you never hear from them, if they weren't ever caught. ^^

    10. Re:Fractions by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You could go to Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison for that.

    11. Re:Fractions by ignavus · · Score: 1

      I just type in the command "OVERRIDE" and then the ATM does whatever I want.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
  27. Brilliant ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really,, how is using your own work tied ATM key while on camera consider brilliant ?

  28. Someone managed to do this in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was a few years ago now but I remember hearing a story that he'd used just enough real money at the top of the machine before filling the rest with paper and that gave him time to get away.

  29. Yes you will by stabiesoft · · Score: 2

    Your describing a situation where trust is lost. If trust is lost, how does the merchant know you really have gold in the vault? For that matter, even if you bring gold to the merchant, how does the merchant quickly test to ensure the gold is 100% pure and has not been cut with some other metal, or that your gold is not just gold plate? The modern world requires trust. A breakdown of which will result in anarchy. Food/water/guns will be much more valuable than gold.

    1. Re:Yes you will by cforciea · · Score: 1

      No! Gold has magical powers given to it by the great fairies! Nothing bad can ever happen to our currency if it is backed by the (unbacked by any reality based value) gold standard! Because... uhm... I can impress girls and uhhhh... have limited industrial use for the shiny metal! Surely people will want my heavy shiny bricks when civilization collapses because somehow they will magically help people acquire food!

    2. Re:Yes you will by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You are mixing up ideas.

      Food and guns are products - wealth. Gold is money.

      Gold is easily tested to be either pure or it's in coins, which are recognized and also can be tested easily (that's where the term 'acid test' comes from). Large bars are normally tested with ultrasound, as density of gold is precisely known, and so are densities of other metals, it's what they do in banks.

      However this is not needed if you simply hold an account in a bank, that would have your account backed with gold, you'd have a credit card or bank card from there, that's all. Of-course banks used to issue bank notes - actual gold promises for different amounts.

      As to modern world requiring trust - you are right, and fiat cannot be trusted not because it's just paper, but because the printing presses are in the hands of politicians.

    3. Re:Yes you will by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Gold is a commodity, not a currency.

      It totally breaks fractional lending. Gold is just gold, nothing magic about it. Monetary use of gold artificially raises its value and hurts the real economy. Now other less good materials have to be used in its place.

    4. Re:Yes you will by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Gold does not break "fractional lending". Goldsmiths invented it for god sake.

    5. Re:Yes you will by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Google for it. Basically, "fractional lending" means that reserve ratio thing where a system of banks can lend out more money than they actually have in their vaults. Often 10 times more. If every dollar has to be backed by a tiny amount of gold, that isn't possible.

    6. Re:Yes you will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "fractional lending" means that reserve ratio thing where a system of banks can lend out more money than they actually have in their vaults [...] If every dollar has to be backed by a tiny amount of gold, that isn't possible.

      For gold-backed currency, most of the gold is stored in Ft. Knox, etc. The banks may have been required to exchange gold for currency if anyone wants to trade in their gold-backed dollars for metal; however, at any given time, they had only a fraction of the amount of gold physically on-site to back the currency that they had lent out, which means that if everyone wanted to exchange their currency for gold all at once, they couldn't. Hence, fractional lending.

    7. Re:Yes you will by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      It works just fine. As I said the goldsmiths invented it by doing exactly what you claim "isn't possible".

    8. Re:Yes you will by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Gold is a commodity, not a currency.

      - show me why would anybody would be buying gold at all, if it wasn't money? Because its use in industries and jewelry requires very little of it.

      It totally breaks fractional lending.

      - yes. That's a good thing.

      Gold is just gold, nothing magic about it

      - wow, no shit.

      Monetary use of gold artificially raises its value and hurts the real economy

      - real economy? Real economy in your estimation gets 'hurt' if people buy gold? Ha.

      Real economy is what China has, it's what Japan could have, if they stopped with destruction of their currency. It's what Germany could have, if it stopped running a huge welfare state and stopped propping up failing societies of other silly European nations. It's what USA had in 19 century - fully on gold (and silver, which was silly and counterproductive, as silver is much more corrosive and has much more industrial use).

      Real economy is production. Having real money, that is not printed by politicians is a great help to real economy, because it allows storing value, it allows accumulating capital, which can be lent or used directly for new production capacity. Real economy is production capacity and products and services that production capacity provide the people with.

      Buying golds saves the people from inflation created by politicians, it saves them, gives them ability to avoid inflation, and gives them the tools to store enough money to start a business or to lend to one.

      As to fractional lending: cry me a river. With the current system, where banks are making all the profits, while gov't destroys money through printing, and you can't get a return on a bank deposit, which even begins to cover that inflation itself, I wouldn't want to hold my money in any of those banks.

      AFAIC fractional reserve is part of the problem, not part of the solution. I wouldn't hold anything in a bank that did that. When the bond and currency crisis hit, US will bail FDIC out, so that the banks and personal deposits will be bailed out, but the actual currency will be worthless. FDIC is a freaking crime. Glass Steagall was introduced to offset the damage of FDIC, but the damage should never have been inflicted in the first place, as FDIC should never have existed.

      Great depression, caused by gov't inflation and spending, didn't even cause more than 2.5% losses associated with bank runs. FDIC was introduce to stave off the perceived damage of a bank run, but the real problem was never a bank run, but the worthlessness of the currency.

    9. Re:Yes you will by bennettp · · Score: 1

      The modern world requires trust. A breakdown of which will result in anarchy.

      Insightful comment. Older currencies were based on precious metals, or coins, or beads... whatever; anything relatively scarce could be used as currency. Modern currencies are based on trust. Trust that a bank will not lose your money. Trust that someone will repay a debt. Trust that the central bank will not devalue the currency to the point where your money is worthless.

      Modern currency is trust.

  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. I may have been wrong by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This makes me wonder if maybe some of the many counterfeiters I have seen were telling the truth. Years ago when I worked at a gas station we would get people trying to pass counterfeit bill a few times a month. I noticed that people passing them fell into one of 3 categories:
    • 1. Legitimately didn't know they had a counterfeit bill
    • 2. Claimed they got the bill from the casino
    • 3. Claimed they got the bill from the bank/ATM

    Those in category 1 would usually be annoyed that they had funny money but would be cooperative. The other 2 categories no so much. Very often these people would become belligerent and when informed that I would be bringing in the police would get threatening. The worst case was one individual who had tried to pass a counterfeit $100 bill that he had run off on his home ink jet printer. The colors were all wrong, incorrect weight, incorrect texture, was cut wrong (used scissors), missing the water mark, missing security strip, and also failed the counterfeit detector pen.He insisted that the bill was real as he had just gotten it from the ATM (our ATM only Dispensed $20s) and that he had a wallet full of them now, yes he really did show me a pile of counterfeit $100s. When informed that I was calling the cops he threatened me stormed off. The nice thing was that the Eagan police station was only a couple of blocks down the road. So while I was calling the police he was stuck at the light waiting to turn right heading towards the police station. I was able to give the police a complete description of the person, car description, and license plate number. The picked him up about half way between the gas station and police station.

    --
    Time to offend someone
    1. Re:I may have been wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story bro.

    2. Re:I may have been wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess he shouldn't have had multiple 20's on him or anywhere that would be considered in his possession. Or for that matter have the devices, papers, inks, credit card (bills) or other receipts for such things near or on him or considered to be in his possession. And certainly should have had an escape plan when/if caught red handed!

    3. Re:I may have been wrong by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well most criminals aren't very smart, but if they were then they probably wouldn't need to be criminals.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  32. That's not how bank losses work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... The banks will just write it off as a loss, which comes right out of their customers [sic] checking accounts...

    Banks can't write off a loss out of a consumer checking account - that would be illegal. Indeed, the actual loss to the bank would be the repayment of the counterfeit money to the customers who received it, since the bank wouldn't recognize any loss on the original theft if they didn't compensate the victims. Perhaps the thought here was that banks pass the costs of fraud on to customers via fees that are higher than they otherwise would be, but that is true of every business. The original post is factually wrong.

  33. Why does the ATM play a tune? by paiute · · Score: 1

    Seriously. The old Diebold ATM at my little local bank plays a short mechanical tune with a trill at the end when dispensing cash. What is this? No one has ever been able to answer this question.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Why does the ATM play a tune? by HBI · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it isn't modem connect tones?

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re:Why does the ATM play a tune? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does it have brail on the buttons too? any chance there are lots of tones going on and its a prompt for the blind? after that im out of ideas

    3. Re:Why does the ATM play a tune? by pz · · Score: 1

      I always thought that was the bill-counting mechanism. My uninformed parsing of the sounds leads me to think there are multiple counting passes (for example, if your withdrawal comprises 5, 10, or 15 bills, you can make out 5, 10, or 15 quickly-spaced noises from the bills going through the counter). The trill could easily be a stack-shaker that brings the bills back into an even bundle at the end before sticking them out of the slot. If you've ever been to a bank and seen a manually-operated bill counter in action, I'm imagining ATMs have a similar mechanism internally. But this is all speculation.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    4. Re:Why does the ATM play a tune? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      It's reseting the mechanics for the next transaction.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    5. Re:Why does the ATM play a tune? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they'd verify funds and execute transfer requests "prior" to dispensing cash. But then if not, mind telling me where that ATM is I think I'd like to make a withdrawal.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    6. Re:Why does the ATM play a tune? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. The old Diebold ATM at my little local bank plays a short mechanical tune with a trill at the end when dispensing cash. What is this? No one has ever been able to answer this question.

      That's the ATM equivalent of "OH, GOD! OH, GOD! YES! YES! YES!"

    7. Re:Why does the ATM play a tune? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They got that from the casinos. That's why old people like ATMs so much, it makes them think they just hit the jackpot.

    8. Re:Why does the ATM play a tune? by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 0

      it's to let the guy hiding in the shadows know that the ATM has successfully dispensed money to you, and he can commence to rob you as soon as you step away from the camera.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  34. I saw this episode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of Las Vegas a couple of months ago... it was a re-run from years ago of course, but a good one. If it wasn't for that Danny McCoy that meddling kid would've got away with it too

  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. We will have to agree to disagree by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    I plan on building up a horde of gas, food, guns and ammo, hopefully before anarchy takes firm hold. Good luck with the gold.

    1. Re:We will have to agree to disagree by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on this though.

      I agree, because first: those things are useful in case of things taking a bad turn and second: those things will go up in price, especially in USA.

      However the more logical conclusion is to convert whatever you have into real money and skip the destruction altogether and leave.

  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. It's ATM Repairman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our hero! See how he uses a password to access the operating system! Why, he's restocking the funny money with his BARE HANDS!

  39. The ATM Customer gets screwed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This happened to a friend of mine. The ATM at a store spit out photocopied 20s. He didn't leave the ATM but called clerks to report the issue; then the store manager. None of which were very cooperative. I think he called the police directly - if he had left the scene or done anything else he would have been stuck with $200 is worthless paper. If you are the one stuck with counterfeit money its your loss - unless you can pass it off on someone else.

  40. hack the ATM by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 0

    i once got admin access to an ATM that had, for some reason, decided to display an error screen telling users the ATM was down along with an input field for a tech to enter a password. knowing that the default password for BREW was either 000000 or 111111, i followed a hunch and tried the former and was successful on the first attempt. i didn't take any money -- not that i have anything against stealing from insurance companies -- but the camera was on me. so i changed the messaging, using the keypad like you would type a text message on an old flip phone. lots of fun. not sure how to reproduce the error screen, though. unless you have a plan, you may just have to get lucky.

    --
    insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. I may be missing something by alexo · · Score: 1

    Don't photocopiers employ "currency recognition" (EURion constellation and others) algorithms and will refuse to copy bills?

    1. Re:I may be missing something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second I heard of that stuff I photocopied some money in the hopes of seeing some "warning no counterfeiting aloud, authorities are being notified" pop up. It just copied the money.