In any case, it doesn't help anything when Anonymous and Lulzsec make threats.
What ever happened to "we will not negotiate with terrorists". First we pretty much know many of the Lulzsec clan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulzsec#Former_Members_and_Associates. And secondly... why would the courts ever change their behaviour based on threats from anonymous entities? The courts should act according to reasonable law... not based on threats from anonymous sources. Otherwise, we are really providing these group with the power to manipulate our actions within the courts through threats alone.
We may not be able to control what anonymous entities choose to do or how they react. But we certainly shouldnt live our lives or allow the courts to be swayed by threats from unknown entities. The courts should release or not release the names to the family based on law alone. This nonsense about some hypothetical negative impact should have no bearing and I feel it is an excuse for the courts to support a legal decision which may not be the correct one.
OTOH if it was worth as much money as people are saying the NSA would have dedicated their server farms to bitcoin mining a long time ago. Magicking $1 trillion out of thin air would make the US government very happy.
Bitcoin is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it. Nobody is claiming that one bitcoin is $90 USD. Instead we are simply seeing that $90 is exactly what people are willing to pay for one right now.
if the US government was able to simply mine all the remaining bitcoins, they wouldnt be able to sell them at $90 a piece, because they would cause rapid inflation. Try to sell 10 million bitcoins today and see what happens to the price of bitcoin... it would go to near $0, because there isnt anyone offering $900 million for bitcoins on any exchange I know of. But in any case, this simply cannot be done. There is not way of cheating the production rate of bitcoins because if the NSA applied massive power to bitcoin mining and increased the production rate, the difficulty of mining new bitcoins would rise in propotion in order to compensate, thus keeping bitcoin production at the same slow rate.
A far more likely senario would be for the US government to destroy the functionality of bitcoin. Thus making bitcoin worthless. I dont know whether they have the power to do this, perhaps they could if they assigned massive computing and manual labour to the effort. But this would cost a lot of money and they would need to hide their tracks, because it would be generally viewed as a nasty act.
The latest reports coming from the US instead indicate a concern that bitcoin could be used as a mechanism of tax avasion. Due to the limited size and usage of bitcoin within the united states, I would suggest that tax evasion is a small concern compared to what US citizens are already getting away with using cash and other banking mechanism. It seems that the current US government position is to try to keep ahead of bitcoin usage so that if and when it becomes a common alternate payment mechanism that they can be sure that they will be able to extract their lawfully required taxable portion.
This doesnt have much to do with cryptography. Your concern is more about the cost of implementation for the average user. This is a known concern and there are some potential future solutions for this, but the main ones in use today are: 1) using an online wallet. Where you would trust a website of your choosing to access your bitcoin holding through their online interface. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Browser-based_wallet 2) using a thin client: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Thin_Client_Security
Both of these existing solutions are not ideal. The ideal solution is for you to bite the bullet and make sure your hardware is sufficient to run a full client with the full block chain on your local PC. Right now, every computer has enough space and processing power to do this. So the problem you mention is a potential issue for the future. But I have researched this and there are potential solutions for improving the space requirements at some point in the future. For now, there are 2 simple solutions available for you if you dont wish to run a full client on your own.
I have some experience with both cryptography and decentralized systems of this kind. Which doesn't make me an expert. But I know enough to ask questions. I have had grave concerns about the validity of their design since I first read about it on slashdot some years back. It seemed to me the case had not been made that bitcoin was not vulnerable to rapid destruction of value, due to attacks on fundamental flaws in its design.
I do not doubt your experience. I would like you to point out any flaws you see in the process that are not already mentioned in the original paper. I do not want to remain blind to potential threats to bitcoin. I would love to hear from anyone who can point them out.
I find when people get technical about bitcoin, they say "no" a lot when they really mean "yes, but also". I think you are both right on point #2. Your descript is just a bit more detailed. Like who needs to know what a nonce value is anyways unless you are a miner talking to another miner or a programmer.
Point number #3 is correct because most documentation uses metric notation to describe bitcoin divisions, but I would add that there is no such thing as a nBTC as the smallest unit is 10nBTC, so there isnt really such think as a nBTC, just a "sotachi". And people should ready about why it is called this.
Point #4: I think you can say that the bitcoins are in the block chain. Because anyone with the private key can use this to move bitcoin funds from one addres to another, so to claim the bitcoins are not in the ledger, doesnt reveal that the ledger contains both the address and amount of bitcoins at that address. For example, if someone where to break or guess you private keys, then they would have full access to take your coins by moving them to an address that you do not have the private keys for. In this way, I think it is more correct to think of the bitcoins as being in the block chain ledger rather then at the location of your private keys. Because for example, you cannot know how many coins an address has from the wallet data alone, but you can now from the ledge how many bitcoins an address has.
I would love to see a court case, because I think the outcome would either be that they call it intangible and cannot tax it, or they admit that it is tangible and officially declare bitcoin a currency.
The law specifically discludes taxing people who use bitcoin to purchase regular goods. They want to tax businesses that make their money from mining bitcoins and then exchanging this for other currencies. And they want to tax companies that spend all their time exchanging funds between bitcoin and fiat currencies. Like a bitcoin exchange. They specifically do not desire to tax anyone who has a few bitcoins and uses it to make personal purchases. Because they are getting tax money on the purchase through the merchant who properly applies taxes. If the poster said that they would not be taxed for holding on to the mined bitcoins. This is correct so far. The law would allow this in its current state. He could hold on to them forever or give them away for free or put them in his will.
So yes, please do show where the law says that running an algorithm on your computer for no monetary gain is taxable. Because at this point, its clear that the US government is not ready to declare bitcoin as a "real" currency. If they did do this... you can expect the value of bitcoin to increase a lot and you will see many more financial firms offering it as an option for currency traders/investors.
You are incorrect on your tax idea there buddy. That is income and you should be reporting it. You might get away with not reporting a small amount, but if it is ever worth anything you will have the IRS after you.
No your wrong there. He said "unless I convert it into real dollars, it'll never be taxed". Which is correct. If he converts it to cash, he would claim this as income. But in its purely digital form, it is no more taxable then running his computer to compute digits of pi. Why would that be taxed? Now if he used it to barter for tangible goods, then the merchant would (should) charge tax for the purchase... but that has nothing to do with him as he paid the purchase tax and its up to the merchant to pay the government. No if the merchant subsequently converts this to cash, then the merchant should declare this as earned income. But bitcoin is not a currency. It is not a recognized currency by the US government, nor any other government in the world. So you cant just tax bits of something until they are converted to something tangible. Unless the government changes their policy and officially declares bitcoin a real currency. The US has stated that if you are in the business of creating bitcoins and selling them for fiat currency, then you need to comply with money exchanging laws. I dont know all the details, but this appears to specifically exclude what the post wrote.
There isnt really any means for a put or call with bitcoin. So you cannot hedge against bitcoin. At least I dont know of any that are offering this yet. I often here people talk about "shorting" bitcoin. Based on the theory that bitcoin is in a bubble. And I wonder how they will go about selling bitcoins they havent purchased yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorting
No that's the problem with gambling. And if you won it would bolster your confidence and you'd bet it all again. Speculative markets are nothing but high stakes gambling.
Statistics show that gamblers are more likely to bet after a loss then a win. Maybe they think they are "due" or maybe they just want to recover what the had before.
Your responses sound like knee jerk reactions to a payment system you are unfamiliar with.
It's very simple even today. The criminal hacks the BC terminal at the merchant, and from that point on - until detected - the merchant gives his wares out in exchange for invalid bitcoins (that his terminal sees as always valid.)
I dont know any merchants using bitcoin terminals. But if there is a problem with the bitcoin registers, then it is entirely the fault of the register and not the payment system. Cash registers are designed like mini vaults... and they have to be because they are holding liquid cash inside. Bitcoin does not have any physical component, so no cash register is required. When is the last time you saw a credit card or bank card swipe device in a vault like device? They dont have any such protection and usually the plastic device is handed directly to you, the customer. This is because like credit card, bitcoin is purely a digital component and so the actual funds do not exist at the store or in the customers hands. In fact, a store register could simply be a card with a QR code printed on it. Here is an example to give you an idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ-pqo0cLcE. Its not an ideal solution... a better solution would to have the bitcoin system built into the food server system so that your receipt would have a QR code printed directly on it. Then you just use your cell phone to pay the bill without contacting the waitstaff. The payment information would automatically inform the till that the table has paid.
Just to be clear. I have never heard of a merchant giving out goods for free based on some defective terminal. But if such a case exists, I propose that this is a design flaw in the terminal and not the concept of bitcoins as a payment system. But I actually suspect you are speaking about some hypothetical terminal in your mind.
The card reader at the grocery store is far more secure, and on top of that you have contractual protection. A Bitcoin terminal - not so much.
What sort of contract do you need for in personal transactions? When is the last time you handed a merchant cash and he put it in the till and never gave you the goods that you just purchased from him? This never happens, because a business would not last long with a policy like that. But with bitcoins, you have proof of the transaction. Every transaction is recorded from which account it came from and which account it when to. And the time is stamped. And it is forever for all to verify. Cash has much less evidence... what fingerprints? But really it is pretty rediculous that you would think you need some sort of protection when dealing with a merchant in person while using bitcoin. The other senario you may be referring to is when someone fraudulently uses a credit card. This just cannot happen with bitcoin. There is absolutely no way for someone to impressinate you by stealing your credentials. Because unlike a credit card, you are not handing out a piece of your personal information every time you make a transaction. It is very easy for a deciteful merchant to copy your credit card information or bank card magnetic strip and hand this off to others who can extract money from your credit or your bank account. This simply isnt possible with bitcoin. The danger with bitcoin is if someone gets into your phone or computer and records your password. But this is a good thing as it moves the security into your hands. You want to be careful with your private information... like your PIN number on your bank card.
BC is also nonfunctional if there is no Internet or no power. It's a currency for a stable, well connected society. You cannot depend on your Bitcoins as you travel, for example, because no bank is likely to give you money in exchange for numbers. BC is only good if you use it for occasional, incidental purchases that do not matter - like buying coffee o
The good thing for Bitcoin itself is that Bitpay is offering merchants who take Bitcoin a much much less expensive payment option 0.99% with no other fees, credit requirements, or charge backs and they can have payments instantly convert to fiat to work like a credit card or can keep it in Bitcoin. They are signing thousands of merchants a month.
Do you have a link from a reliable source that backs up your claim of thousands of merchants per month signing up to bitpay?
3d printing is the future. Maybe not home 3-d printing...
I think you are absolutely wrong. I think home 3d printing will be the biggest gain. Business have methods of mass producing goods and 3d printers will surely help them in their prototype developments. But I think the biggest winner in cheap 3d printers will be in the home, where anyone can print out the required part to fix their fridge, car or washing machine from the open source design spec they simply download online. And this will serve great value to small remote villages. The cost savings and value to the individual will be greatest because they dont have the benefits of economy of scale.
One day we will have large labour forces extracting energy for the sole purpose of feeding "the network" while governments let citizens starve and die out in the cold. And no one will find this strange. That is my darkest prediction for the future.
Whenever I read into the NIF, I get excited about the potential. And then I read about the science behind it and I see that we dont even have a clear understanding of the amount of power it would actually take to achieve it. I feel like this is a giant expense crap shoot. And we are just hoping to stumble about a success. Despite the flashy homepage and the awsome shots from inside the labrotory, I am not convinced everyone is acting in a responsible manner with all the money that this project is consuming. I think this money would be better spent in improving on existing energy technologies that are known to actually product energy.
This seems like a really dumb move. What the team has done now is to raise the exposure level of this vulnerability by a HUGE margin. Now all any script kiddie needs to do is find a mirror of the code from 24 hours ago or any other recent period, which is likely quite trivial to do with an open source project as large as postgresql, and hunt for the vulnerability. They know it will be pretty bad since they did this action!
Raising exposure helps companies prepare for a database change. I know if we were using Postgres, we would be scheduling time for the upgrades an preparing for potential down time if needed. We would be going through all our database code to identify exactly what needs to be checked after the upgraded software and documenting as much as possible. Because if this is major, the changes could effect the way our code integrates with the database. For example, if its an authentication breach, then much of our own code would need to be changed to accomodate it.
In any case, I dont think companies are concerned about what "script kiddies" are going to do about it, and instead are happy to be alerted to security fixes of an urgent nature.
You left out option C:
C) Don't tell anyone there's a problem, and pretend that there isn't one until you have a new version to sell.
MAYBE MS doesn't do that anymore. I stopped using their products, so I don't know. They certainly used to.
D) Everyone including MS knows there is a problem, but the fix doesnt come out in the next patch because it doesnt effect enough customers to be worth the effort involved in making the neccessary changes. Because MS is profit driven organization and has no incentive to assist a minority when there is no return on investment.
No one should ever try to prove the Bible to be false. There is absolutely nothing to prove, as it is clearly the responsibility of those who believe in the miraculous to prove its possiblity.
1: Encrypt everything in software so the key nor a hash of it could never possibly be stored on the drive in unencrypted form.
2: Physical destruction.
Agreed
Most people dont realize how permanent solid state drives really are. I send USB keys through the wash in my pants by accident and the data was fine.
I now use software encryption on all my hard drives. To wipe them I use/dev/urandom and then smash them with a hammer on pavement to complete the process.
I expect in many years, SD drives, sticks and cards will be a significant archaeological find.
Here in Canada, we have something called HST. This is a combined state (provincial) and federal tax. As an online seller of goods to these provinces, the business is required to apply and charge the HST as a combined tax. The result is that all this tax is paid to the federal government and then the proper portion of this is distributed back to the state (province). I wouldnt say that everyone here likes this solution, but I think it is probably the best solution to guarantee that buyers of online goods in those states actually pay their taxes. I expect more and more provinces will move to the HST over time. I am guessing this is probably what will eventually happen in the US too. Because requiring businesses to understand and properly charge the taxes of 50 or so independent states is unreasonable.
This isnt such a bad idea really. The online vendor could then also email the customer information on how to reclaim the paid tax from the state. As they would need to do if they were visiting a state and paid state tax on goods for which they do not have to pay. This would put much of the labour back into the hands of individual customers and the states themselves rather then putting it into the hands of the sellers of goods.
Excuse me, but how effen hard is this?... It is not that difficult.
Youre wrong. This will be very difficult and require a lot of knowledge of tax law in every state in the US. Its not just a matter of applying a different percentage for the final purchase amount based on the state. You need to know the specific laws of each state, because often a single items is taxed differently and at different amounts for each state. You cannot simply apply a blanket tax formula for each state, you need to consider all of the products you sell and other seemingly strange things, such as the quantity of the item sold, and possibly other seemingly unrelated things, such as the race of the individual your selling to. I know it seems easy from the outside, but until you really get into the specifics of state tax law you may not realize how much more difficult it is to multiply this complexity by about 50.
Shouldn't change life in Delaware much. We don't have sales tax, period.
Tell that to the merchants selling goods from Delaware to other states. First this effects sellers of goods and second it indirectly effects buyers who try to avoid paying their sales tax on purchased goods. So although it may not effect you personally as a buyer, I am certain it effects many business owners in Delaware selling goods online and will increase their accounting and administrative expenses. In general, the seller or exporter of a good is not required to collect sales taxes for the state in which they are delivering to. It is the responsiblity of the buyer or importer to account for and pay the sales taxes as appropriate for the state in which they reside. With this new regulation, a business owner in Delware would need to apply for a sales tax license in every state in the US. And then adjust their shopping cart to account for all of the specific tax regulations for every good they sell based on the specific state tax law of the state they are shipping to. And then they would need to be sure to store this information and pay the taxes properly and on time. This is a lot of hassle for smaller business just trying to sell a few product online. The law is trying to make sure taxes are paid because many individuals do not properly declare their online purchases to their state and pay the taxes. However, the states have absolutely no juristiction over sellers outside of the united states. As a result good from Canada, Mexico and any other country will be able to sell the same goods online for a perceived cheaper value to customer because the state sales tax will not be added in the checkout cost. Furthermore, these companies outside the US will have lower administrative costs as they do not need to apply for licenses, determine which items are taxable and for what amount in each state, account for taxes charged and make payments to each of the states individually.
So it may not seem to effect you as an individual. But I assure you it will have an effect on businesses in Delaware
Collecting state tax is probably an important thing. But unless the states find a good way of ensuring tax is charged for all imported goods... it seems like it will put online domestic sellers at a disadvantage in comparison to international ones.
Slashdot Mirror
... says AC to AC.
In any case, it doesn't help anything when Anonymous and Lulzsec make threats.
What ever happened to "we will not negotiate with terrorists". First we pretty much know many of the Lulzsec clan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulzsec#Former_Members_and_Associates. And secondly... why would the courts ever change their behaviour based on threats from anonymous entities? The courts should act according to reasonable law... not based on threats from anonymous sources. Otherwise, we are really providing these group with the power to manipulate our actions within the courts through threats alone.
We may not be able to control what anonymous entities choose to do or how they react. But we certainly shouldnt live our lives or allow the courts to be swayed by threats from unknown entities. The courts should release or not release the names to the family based on law alone. This nonsense about some hypothetical negative impact should have no bearing and I feel it is an excuse for the courts to support a legal decision which may not be the correct one.
OTOH if it was worth as much money as people are saying the NSA would have dedicated their server farms to bitcoin mining a long time ago. Magicking $1 trillion out of thin air would make the US government very happy.
Bitcoin is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it. Nobody is claiming that one bitcoin is $90 USD. Instead we are simply seeing that $90 is exactly what people are willing to pay for one right now.
if the US government was able to simply mine all the remaining bitcoins, they wouldnt be able to sell them at $90 a piece, because they would cause rapid inflation. Try to sell 10 million bitcoins today and see what happens to the price of bitcoin... it would go to near $0, because there isnt anyone offering $900 million for bitcoins on any exchange I know of. But in any case, this simply cannot be done. There is not way of cheating the production rate of bitcoins because if the NSA applied massive power to bitcoin mining and increased the production rate, the difficulty of mining new bitcoins would rise in propotion in order to compensate, thus keeping bitcoin production at the same slow rate.
A far more likely senario would be for the US government to destroy the functionality of bitcoin. Thus making bitcoin worthless. I dont know whether they have the power to do this, perhaps they could if they assigned massive computing and manual labour to the effort. But this would cost a lot of money and they would need to hide their tracks, because it would be generally viewed as a nasty act.
The latest reports coming from the US instead indicate a concern that bitcoin could be used as a mechanism of tax avasion. Due to the limited size and usage of bitcoin within the united states, I would suggest that tax evasion is a small concern compared to what US citizens are already getting away with using cash and other banking mechanism. It seems that the current US government position is to try to keep ahead of bitcoin usage so that if and when it becomes a common alternate payment mechanism that they can be sure that they will be able to extract their lawfully required taxable portion.
This doesnt have much to do with cryptography. Your concern is more about the cost of implementation for the average user. This is a known concern and there are some potential future solutions for this, but the main ones in use today are: 1) using an online wallet. Where you would trust a website of your choosing to access your bitcoin holding through their online interface. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Browser-based_wallet 2) using a thin client: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Thin_Client_Security
Both of these existing solutions are not ideal. The ideal solution is for you to bite the bullet and make sure your hardware is sufficient to run a full client with the full block chain on your local PC. Right now, every computer has enough space and processing power to do this. So the problem you mention is a potential issue for the future. But I have researched this and there are potential solutions for improving the space requirements at some point in the future. For now, there are 2 simple solutions available for you if you dont wish to run a full client on your own.
I have some experience with both cryptography and decentralized systems of this kind. Which doesn't make me an expert. But I know enough to ask questions. I have had grave concerns about the validity of their design since I first read about it on slashdot some years back. It seemed to me the case had not been made that bitcoin was not vulnerable to rapid destruction of value, due to attacks on fundamental flaws in its design.
Here is the initial design spec: http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. It very close to what is actually being used today. It seems very clear and solid in concept for such a short paper. Here is a graphical representation of the main processes involving cryptography: http://spectrum.ieee.org/img/06Bitcoin-1338412974774.jpg
I do not doubt your experience. I would like you to point out any flaws you see in the process that are not already mentioned in the original paper. I do not want to remain blind to potential threats to bitcoin. I would love to hear from anyone who can point them out.
Either way... its going to make a great movie.
I find when people get technical about bitcoin, they say "no" a lot when they really mean "yes, but also". I think you are both right on point #2. Your descript is just a bit more detailed. Like who needs to know what a nonce value is anyways unless you are a miner talking to another miner or a programmer.
Point number #3 is correct because most documentation uses metric notation to describe bitcoin divisions, but I would add that there is no such thing as a nBTC as the smallest unit is 10nBTC, so there isnt really such think as a nBTC, just a "sotachi". And people should ready about why it is called this.
Point #4: I think you can say that the bitcoins are in the block chain. Because anyone with the private key can use this to move bitcoin funds from one addres to another, so to claim the bitcoins are not in the ledger, doesnt reveal that the ledger contains both the address and amount of bitcoins at that address. For example, if someone where to break or guess you private keys, then they would have full access to take your coins by moving them to an address that you do not have the private keys for. In this way, I think it is more correct to think of the bitcoins as being in the block chain ledger rather then at the location of your private keys. Because for example, you cannot know how many coins an address has from the wallet data alone, but you can now from the ledge how many bitcoins an address has.
I would love to see a court case, because I think the outcome would either be that they call it intangible and cannot tax it, or they admit that it is tangible and officially declare bitcoin a currency.
The law specifically discludes taxing people who use bitcoin to purchase regular goods. They want to tax businesses that make their money from mining bitcoins and then exchanging this for other currencies. And they want to tax companies that spend all their time exchanging funds between bitcoin and fiat currencies. Like a bitcoin exchange. They specifically do not desire to tax anyone who has a few bitcoins and uses it to make personal purchases. Because they are getting tax money on the purchase through the merchant who properly applies taxes. If the poster said that they would not be taxed for holding on to the mined bitcoins. This is correct so far. The law would allow this in its current state. He could hold on to them forever or give them away for free or put them in his will.
So yes, please do show where the law says that running an algorithm on your computer for no monetary gain is taxable. Because at this point, its clear that the US government is not ready to declare bitcoin as a "real" currency. If they did do this... you can expect the value of bitcoin to increase a lot and you will see many more financial firms offering it as an option for currency traders/investors.
You are incorrect on your tax idea there buddy. That is income and you should be reporting it. You might get away with not reporting a small amount, but if it is ever worth anything you will have the IRS after you.
No your wrong there. He said "unless I convert it into real dollars, it'll never be taxed". Which is correct. If he converts it to cash, he would claim this as income. But in its purely digital form, it is no more taxable then running his computer to compute digits of pi. Why would that be taxed? Now if he used it to barter for tangible goods, then the merchant would (should) charge tax for the purchase... but that has nothing to do with him as he paid the purchase tax and its up to the merchant to pay the government. No if the merchant subsequently converts this to cash, then the merchant should declare this as earned income. But bitcoin is not a currency. It is not a recognized currency by the US government, nor any other government in the world. So you cant just tax bits of something until they are converted to something tangible. Unless the government changes their policy and officially declares bitcoin a real currency. The US has stated that if you are in the business of creating bitcoins and selling them for fiat currency, then you need to comply with money exchanging laws. I dont know all the details, but this appears to specifically exclude what the post wrote.
There isnt really any means for a put or call with bitcoin. So you cannot hedge against bitcoin. At least I dont know of any that are offering this yet. I often here people talk about "shorting" bitcoin. Based on the theory that bitcoin is in a bubble. And I wonder how they will go about selling bitcoins they havent purchased yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorting
No that's the problem with gambling. And if you won it would bolster your confidence and you'd bet it all again. Speculative markets are nothing but high stakes gambling.
Statistics show that gamblers are more likely to bet after a loss then a win. Maybe they think they are "due" or maybe they just want to recover what the had before.
Your responses sound like knee jerk reactions to a payment system you are unfamiliar with.
It's very simple even today. The criminal hacks the BC terminal at the merchant, and from that point on - until detected - the merchant gives his wares out in exchange for invalid bitcoins (that his terminal sees as always valid.)
I dont know any merchants using bitcoin terminals. But if there is a problem with the bitcoin registers, then it is entirely the fault of the register and not the payment system. Cash registers are designed like mini vaults... and they have to be because they are holding liquid cash inside. Bitcoin does not have any physical component, so no cash register is required. When is the last time you saw a credit card or bank card swipe device in a vault like device? They dont have any such protection and usually the plastic device is handed directly to you, the customer. This is because like credit card, bitcoin is purely a digital component and so the actual funds do not exist at the store or in the customers hands. In fact, a store register could simply be a card with a QR code printed on it. Here is an example to give you an idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ-pqo0cLcE. Its not an ideal solution... a better solution would to have the bitcoin system built into the food server system so that your receipt would have a QR code printed directly on it. Then you just use your cell phone to pay the bill without contacting the waitstaff. The payment information would automatically inform the till that the table has paid.
Just to be clear. I have never heard of a merchant giving out goods for free based on some defective terminal. But if such a case exists, I propose that this is a design flaw in the terminal and not the concept of bitcoins as a payment system. But I actually suspect you are speaking about some hypothetical terminal in your mind.
The card reader at the grocery store is far more secure, and on top of that you have contractual protection. A Bitcoin terminal - not so much.
What sort of contract do you need for in personal transactions? When is the last time you handed a merchant cash and he put it in the till and never gave you the goods that you just purchased from him? This never happens, because a business would not last long with a policy like that. But with bitcoins, you have proof of the transaction. Every transaction is recorded from which account it came from and which account it when to. And the time is stamped. And it is forever for all to verify. Cash has much less evidence... what fingerprints? But really it is pretty rediculous that you would think you need some sort of protection when dealing with a merchant in person while using bitcoin. The other senario you may be referring to is when someone fraudulently uses a credit card. This just cannot happen with bitcoin. There is absolutely no way for someone to impressinate you by stealing your credentials. Because unlike a credit card, you are not handing out a piece of your personal information every time you make a transaction. It is very easy for a deciteful merchant to copy your credit card information or bank card magnetic strip and hand this off to others who can extract money from your credit or your bank account. This simply isnt possible with bitcoin. The danger with bitcoin is if someone gets into your phone or computer and records your password. But this is a good thing as it moves the security into your hands. You want to be careful with your private information... like your PIN number on your bank card.
BC is also nonfunctional if there is no Internet or no power. It's a currency for a stable, well connected society. You cannot depend on your Bitcoins as you travel, for example, because no bank is likely to give you money in exchange for numbers. BC is only good if you use it for occasional, incidental purchases that do not matter - like buying coffee o
The good thing for Bitcoin itself is that Bitpay is offering merchants who take Bitcoin a much much less expensive payment option 0.99% with no other fees, credit requirements, or charge backs and they can have payments instantly convert to fiat to work like a credit card or can keep it in Bitcoin. They are signing thousands of merchants a month.
Do you have a link from a reliable source that backs up your claim of thousands of merchants per month signing up to bitpay?
3d printing is the future. Maybe not home 3-d printing...
I think you are absolutely wrong. I think home 3d printing will be the biggest gain. Business have methods of mass producing goods and 3d printers will surely help them in their prototype developments. But I think the biggest winner in cheap 3d printers will be in the home, where anyone can print out the required part to fix their fridge, car or washing machine from the open source design spec they simply download online. And this will serve great value to small remote villages. The cost savings and value to the individual will be greatest because they dont have the benefits of economy of scale.
One day we will have large labour forces extracting energy for the sole purpose of feeding "the network" while governments let citizens starve and die out in the cold. And no one will find this strange. That is my darkest prediction for the future.
Whenever I read into the NIF, I get excited about the potential. And then I read about the science behind it and I see that we dont even have a clear understanding of the amount of power it would actually take to achieve it. I feel like this is a giant expense crap shoot. And we are just hoping to stumble about a success. Despite the flashy homepage and the awsome shots from inside the labrotory, I am not convinced everyone is acting in a responsible manner with all the money that this project is consuming. I think this money would be better spent in improving on existing energy technologies that are known to actually product energy.
This seems like a really dumb move. What the team has done now is to raise the exposure level of this vulnerability by a HUGE margin. Now all any script kiddie needs to do is find a mirror of the code from 24 hours ago or any other recent period, which is likely quite trivial to do with an open source project as large as postgresql, and hunt for the vulnerability. They know it will be pretty bad since they did this action!
Raising exposure helps companies prepare for a database change. I know if we were using Postgres, we would be scheduling time for the upgrades an preparing for potential down time if needed. We would be going through all our database code to identify exactly what needs to be checked after the upgraded software and documenting as much as possible. Because if this is major, the changes could effect the way our code integrates with the database. For example, if its an authentication breach, then much of our own code would need to be changed to accomodate it.
In any case, I dont think companies are concerned about what "script kiddies" are going to do about it, and instead are happy to be alerted to security fixes of an urgent nature.
You left out option C: C) Don't tell anyone there's a problem, and pretend that there isn't one until you have a new version to sell.
MAYBE MS doesn't do that anymore. I stopped using their products, so I don't know. They certainly used to.
D) Everyone including MS knows there is a problem, but the fix doesnt come out in the next patch because it doesnt effect enough customers to be worth the effort involved in making the neccessary changes. Because MS is profit driven organization and has no incentive to assist a minority when there is no return on investment.
here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
No one should ever try to prove the Bible to be false. There is absolutely nothing to prove, as it is clearly the responsibility of those who believe in the miraculous to prove its possiblity.
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=1024 &
Won't work on an SSD.
For SSDs there are two reliable options.
1: Encrypt everything in software so the key nor a hash of it could never possibly be stored on the drive in unencrypted form. 2: Physical destruction.
Agreed
Most people dont realize how permanent solid state drives really are. I send USB keys through the wash in my pants by accident and the data was fine.
I now use software encryption on all my hard drives. To wipe them I use /dev/urandom and then smash them with a hammer on pavement to complete the process.
I expect in many years, SD drives, sticks and cards will be a significant archaeological find.
Here in Canada, we have something called HST. This is a combined state (provincial) and federal tax. As an online seller of goods to these provinces, the business is required to apply and charge the HST as a combined tax. The result is that all this tax is paid to the federal government and then the proper portion of this is distributed back to the state (province). I wouldnt say that everyone here likes this solution, but I think it is probably the best solution to guarantee that buyers of online goods in those states actually pay their taxes. I expect more and more provinces will move to the HST over time. I am guessing this is probably what will eventually happen in the US too. Because requiring businesses to understand and properly charge the taxes of 50 or so independent states is unreasonable.
This isnt such a bad idea really. The online vendor could then also email the customer information on how to reclaim the paid tax from the state. As they would need to do if they were visiting a state and paid state tax on goods for which they do not have to pay. This would put much of the labour back into the hands of individual customers and the states themselves rather then putting it into the hands of the sellers of goods.
Excuse me, but how effen hard is this? ... It is not that difficult.
Youre wrong. This will be very difficult and require a lot of knowledge of tax law in every state in the US. Its not just a matter of applying a different percentage for the final purchase amount based on the state. You need to know the specific laws of each state, because often a single items is taxed differently and at different amounts for each state. You cannot simply apply a blanket tax formula for each state, you need to consider all of the products you sell and other seemingly strange things, such as the quantity of the item sold, and possibly other seemingly unrelated things, such as the race of the individual your selling to. I know it seems easy from the outside, but until you really get into the specifics of state tax law you may not realize how much more difficult it is to multiply this complexity by about 50.
Shouldn't change life in Delaware much. We don't have sales tax, period.
Tell that to the merchants selling goods from Delaware to other states. First this effects sellers of goods and second it indirectly effects buyers who try to avoid paying their sales tax on purchased goods. So although it may not effect you personally as a buyer, I am certain it effects many business owners in Delaware selling goods online and will increase their accounting and administrative expenses. In general, the seller or exporter of a good is not required to collect sales taxes for the state in which they are delivering to. It is the responsiblity of the buyer or importer to account for and pay the sales taxes as appropriate for the state in which they reside. With this new regulation, a business owner in Delware would need to apply for a sales tax license in every state in the US. And then adjust their shopping cart to account for all of the specific tax regulations for every good they sell based on the specific state tax law of the state they are shipping to. And then they would need to be sure to store this information and pay the taxes properly and on time. This is a lot of hassle for smaller business just trying to sell a few product online. The law is trying to make sure taxes are paid because many individuals do not properly declare their online purchases to their state and pay the taxes. However, the states have absolutely no juristiction over sellers outside of the united states. As a result good from Canada, Mexico and any other country will be able to sell the same goods online for a perceived cheaper value to customer because the state sales tax will not be added in the checkout cost. Furthermore, these companies outside the US will have lower administrative costs as they do not need to apply for licenses, determine which items are taxable and for what amount in each state, account for taxes charged and make payments to each of the states individually.
So it may not seem to effect you as an individual. But I assure you it will have an effect on businesses in Delaware
Collecting state tax is probably an important thing. But unless the states find a good way of ensuring tax is charged for all imported goods... it seems like it will put online domestic sellers at a disadvantage in comparison to international ones.