Eh, one-time pad has exactly that property: if you use the same key to encrypt similar files, you get similar output. And nobody complains about one-time pad.;)
That's not a one-time pad if you use it more than one time. It's extremely insecure to use a one-time pad twice. An attacker can XOR both ciphertexts to remove the keystream and be left with the XOR of both plaintexts. From there, they just have to figure out one of the plaintexts, and they can decrypt the matching parts from the other.
The Silk Road didn't do trustless mixing. They did run a mixing service, though it was successful at that. DPR got caught because he advertised The Silk Road on an account that was publicly linked to his personal email address that had his full name in it.
You have everyone put the same amount of money in, and they all take it out into brand new addresses. Anyone trying to trace the money will see X bitcoins go into the pool along with N-1 other people's X bitcoins, and then N new addresses each take X bitcoins out. Now you have to investigate N addresses instead of 1 address to figure out which owner used to own the original X bitcoins you were tracing.
Bitcoin's transaction history across addresses is very public, so this isn't just about privacy from law enforcement. It's about basic privacy from regular people too.
The price was just in another bubble after rapdily rising recently, and is cooling off again. Nothing about the recent price movements was very unusual to support an explanation like that. (Also, as another person linked, you can see that the confiscated bitcoins are all sitting still in a certain address.)
Ignoring the logistics of actually doing that (which would affect many more transactions than just that), you'd have to convince 51% of miners that the loss of confidence in the Bitcoin system that would result from that network meddling would be worth it. A 51% attack on Bitcoin for any reason would destroy a lot of confidence in the system. The price of bitcoins would plummet. Good luck convincing miners, who profit from the price of bitcoins, to ever do that. Also, not everyone who uses or mines Bitcoin is a big fan of the Silk Road.
No, the person they caught was the one who originally advertised the Silk Road. Read the investigation documents. The story he told reporters about him being the second DPR and completely replacing the first are false.
What even is free will? What would the apparent difference be between a world where we had "free will" and one that we didn't? What experiment or observation would come up differently between those worlds? If those worlds are identical, then the question is meaningless.
Mining bitcoins with GPUs is no longer profitable for the most part. Most profitable miners today use hardware designed specifically for bitcoin mining.
NSA would need a CA under their control, and MITM requires a bit more hardware than their mass-eavesdropping setups. It's a lot of effort to go through when they already "ask" Google for access to their servers.
With that logic, why not break it open and then get unlimited amounts of dollars?
(They don't load it with unlimited bitcoins for the same reason they don't load it with unlimited amounts of dollars. There aren't infinite of either.)
The important part about bitcoin isn't that it's digital. That's been done many times. The revolutionary part is that it's decentralized. There is no government, organization, or corporation controlling it. There is no one who can freeze your account. There is no one who can set limits on your account. There is no one who can control who you can send money to. There is no one who can turn up the mint rate and destabilize the market.
The kiosks allow users to select how much money they would like to spend, insert cash into the machine and then scan a QR code on their phone to transfer the Bitcoins to their wallet. It also allows users to redeem their Bitcoins for cash.
First, each BTC is very expensive (tens of US Dollars each.)
How is that relevant? You can use less than a whole BTC, as you seem to acknowledge in your post. You can just call 1 BTC as 1000 mBTC if you want. Complaining that 1000 mBTC is expensive is like criticizing the US Dollar because hundred dollar bills are expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey mods, why is my post considered any more "flamebait" than those of Snowden supporters?
Both sides of any discussion aren't automatically equal. What gave you that idea?
Wait, so you're only a legitimate whistleblower if you're anonymous? I've heard many people say the opposite.
Eh, one-time pad has exactly that property: if you use the same key to encrypt similar files, you get similar output. And nobody complains about one-time pad. ;)
That's not a one-time pad if you use it more than one time. It's extremely insecure to use a one-time pad twice. An attacker can XOR both ciphertexts to remove the keystream and be left with the XOR of both plaintexts. From there, they just have to figure out one of the plaintexts, and they can decrypt the matching parts from the other.
Uh, what do you expect them to use online besides internet protocols? Magical protocols?
The Silk Road tried the same thing. It failed.
The Silk Road didn't do trustless mixing. They did run a mixing service, though it was successful at that. DPR got caught because he advertised The Silk Road on an account that was publicly linked to his personal email address that had his full name in it.
You have everyone put the same amount of money in, and they all take it out into brand new addresses. Anyone trying to trace the money will see X bitcoins go into the pool along with N-1 other people's X bitcoins, and then N new addresses each take X bitcoins out. Now you have to investigate N addresses instead of 1 address to figure out which owner used to own the original X bitcoins you were tracing.
Bitcoin's transaction history across addresses is very public, so this isn't just about privacy from law enforcement. It's about basic privacy from regular people too.
Layers have their own size, potentially distinct from the image size. You can make the layer larger than the image boundaries.
The price was just in another bubble after rapdily rising recently, and is cooling off again. Nothing about the recent price movements was very unusual to support an explanation like that. (Also, as another person linked, you can see that the confiscated bitcoins are all sitting still in a certain address.)
Ignoring the logistics of actually doing that (which would affect many more transactions than just that), you'd have to convince 51% of miners that the loss of confidence in the Bitcoin system that would result from that network meddling would be worth it. A 51% attack on Bitcoin for any reason would destroy a lot of confidence in the system. The price of bitcoins would plummet. Good luck convincing miners, who profit from the price of bitcoins, to ever do that. Also, not everyone who uses or mines Bitcoin is a big fan of the Silk Road.
If it came from his computer, ... I can't imagine in what reality that wouldn't hold a lot of water in court.
No, the person they caught was the one who originally advertised the Silk Road. Read the investigation documents. The story he told reporters about him being the second DPR and completely replacing the first are false.
DPR's bitcoins were moved to a new wallet by the FBI to prevent that from happening already.
https://blockchain.info/address/1FfmbHfnpaZjKFvyi1okTjJJusN455paPH?offset=400&filter=0
Checking if they're already used is ... not just a standard feature of every bitcoin wallet, but the way it works practically necessitates that.
Anyway, they've already moved the bitcoins to an address they control, so there's no chance of someone else moving the bitcoins first before them. https://blockchain.info/address/1FfmbHfnpaZjKFvyi1okTjJJusN455paPH?offset=400&filter=0
What even is free will? What would the apparent difference be between a world where we had "free will" and one that we didn't? What experiment or observation would come up differently between those worlds? If those worlds are identical, then the question is meaningless.
the FBI left behind a rootkit on the hosted servers to infect users wholesale, that wasn't an NSA payload - it was a 0-day they bought on Silk Road.
Source please? I missed that.
Just because all SR users use Bitcoin doesn't mean all or even a significant amount of Bitcoin users use SR.
There's little point in dual-booting to SteamOS. SteamOS is aimed at Steambox computers that don't even have Windows.
Mining bitcoins with GPUs is no longer profitable for the most part. Most profitable miners today use hardware designed specifically for bitcoin mining.
NSA would need a CA under their control, and MITM requires a bit more hardware than their mass-eavesdropping setups. It's a lot of effort to go through when they already "ask" Google for access to their servers.
There are only two linux-compatible games in that bundle! Why would you expect a higher linux turn out there?!
With that logic, why not break it open and then get unlimited amounts of dollars?
(They don't load it with unlimited bitcoins for the same reason they don't load it with unlimited amounts of dollars. There aren't infinite of either.)
I don't live in Canada. How are these Bitcoin kiosks going to help me or someone else who can't even get to them?
The important part about bitcoin isn't that it's digital. That's been done many times. The revolutionary part is that it's decentralized. There is no government, organization, or corporation controlling it. There is no one who can freeze your account. There is no one who can set limits on your account. There is no one who can control who you can send money to. There is no one who can turn up the mint rate and destabilize the market.
How is this Score:4? Has no one read the article?
The kiosks allow users to select how much money they would like to spend, insert cash into the machine and then scan a QR code on their phone to transfer the Bitcoins to their wallet. It also allows users to redeem their Bitcoins for cash.
First, each BTC is very expensive (tens of US Dollars each.)
How is that relevant? You can use less than a whole BTC, as you seem to acknowledge in your post. You can just call 1 BTC as 1000 mBTC if you want. Complaining that 1000 mBTC is expensive is like criticizing the US Dollar because hundred dollar bills are expensive.