Until all the requirements are met for lawful eviction: a tenant occupying has a legal right to continue living there, undisturbed.
This right takes priority, even over the landlord's ownership claim to the property.
Attempting to disturb the tenant -- such as through harassment, turning off critical services, pumping in noxious gasses, taking other actions to make the place unlivable, setting the building on fire, would all be acts of unlawful eviction; possible crime of attempted murder and insurance fraud with the fire --- such acts could very well cause the landlord to lose all his property rights to the building, or have to pay the tenant compensation, in addition to preventing the landlord from evicting.
Or just, you know, search the outgoing email of every Google employee. Why is this not obvious?
Well... they say the employee was not using a Google e-mail account.
What they don't tell us... is whether or not the employee was on a computer connected to Google's network at the time, or using a Google laptop, or other computer with Google-provided software, in order to send the e-mail.
We also can't rule out the possibility that the person's Ex logged into the employee's non-Google e-mail account, saw the juicy message, and decided to cause trouble by forwarding to Google.
Or that Google hired a private investigator who used pre-texting or other techniques to deceive the news reporter into sharing or leaking info ultimately allowing them to identify the employee, and break into their poorly secured outside email account.
How does finding 20% of the missing bitcoins change that situation?
It helps him make the situation appear more strongly to be total incompetence on his part ---
as in he doesn't have fscking clue..
Which is an appearance different from him masterfully sneaking away with 99% of the exchanges
Bitcoins held in wallets that are supposed to be Gox wallets, but due to "lost keys" are now controlled only
by partners in crime.
(such as repairs, inspections or to show prospecting buyers).
Not unless you signed a lease that says they can enter and disturb you to show to prospecting buyers.
Of course if they disturb your right to quiet enjoyment of the property, you might be inclined to move out early, and terminate the rental, resulting in financial loss for the landlord.
I know someone who owns a house that his ex wife has been staying in. When they divorced it also resulted in a restraining order being taken out by her against him. It is his house though. So he is in the position of being unable to approach the house or her to collect rent on the house or to evict her.
Simple solution to this. Pay an agent to serve the notice for eviction.
These actions can still be done on his behalf by a paid employee or contractor.
4: Do exchanges have any internal protection if hacked? There should be a layer between the wallets and the outside world, something that isn't easily breachable by a single phish attempt or two.
If they wanted to operate a truly secure Exchange...... they could start by having a policy of not holding customer Bitcoins. Instead: they should hold a small 'security deposit' for each customer --- a minimum $100 or so. And use a rule, that the most BTC you can sell in one trade is your deposit times 5; so to sell $10000 worth of Bitcoins, you would need a $2000 deposit.
When you want to buy fiat: you enter your trade, and then you have 15 minutes to settle by immediately depositing your Bitcoins plus the Exchange's fee after making the trade.
If you fail to settle the trade within 20 minutes, then the exchange will match the buyer with a different seller, and add up to your security deposit to the buyer's payment, in order to reduce the buyer's risk caused by market fluctuation from seller's failure to settle.
I have not understood the concept of BitCoin exchanges:
An Exchange: You deposit something of value of one type, then trade it for something else, then withdraw the thing you traded it for.
I don't know any BitCoin exchanges that have insurance, much even an independent auditor coming in to check that they have a basic set of security standards.
It's not necessary, until some Exchanges are in competition with each other, and one of them starts advertising that they have insured all the Bitcoin assets, or a regulator forces them to do so.
By the way.... it would be very expensive or impossible to insure a Bitcoin exchange, most likely.
What traditional insurance company understands Bitcoin well enough..... and is going to have the Bitcoin funds necessary to initially back such a policy?
If an exchange takes all the coins it has, dumps them into a wallet, and walks off, there is no criminal liability for doing so. Just using the excuse of being hacked is good enough to get off the hook.
This is not necessarily true. There may be liability, particularly for fraud, negligence, or other crimes related to running a financial institution without the required adherance to certain rules. Investigators will ultimately have to look into the nature of the 'hacking' and ascertain if the claim is legitimate.
Then the wallet can be sold, the goods transferred into other wallets, etc. BitCoin by itself can be traced, but some shell games with wallets make for easy laundering.
This is when other Bitcoin exchanges, retailers, etc, start getting served with papers to disclose all wallet IDs that they have received funds at... And separately, all wallet IDs that made payments/deposits to them.
If someone sends new funds to the old address you won't have exclusive control over them until you've transferred them elsewhere.
That's true. They ought to add a spend transaction type of "Spend and revoke source wallet".
With an optional challenge phrase used to originally construct the keypair
Revoke transaction requiring knowledge of both the private key -- and the challenge phrase.
So any future spends to the revoked wallet will either be invalid and not be confirmed by the network,
or the money goes to the first revoker, instead.
Also: revokation of a wallet, should dump any unconfirmed transactions with that wallet as source on the floor,
except spends to the replacement wallet declared in the revokation.
The team found that 82% of the genome was made up of duplicated segments, compared with just 25% in humans.
See! The pine trees are smart and make multiple copies of their genome segments, for backup purposes.
Humans always forget the importance of backups, until it's too late.
You do know a vast majority of research is conducted with money from public sources right?
Research in general yes. Research into pharmaceuticals with a mind towards FDA approval... not so much.
And the National Center for Complimentary and alternative medicine has studied, in depth, a lot of "natural" cures
Yes.. well... I am not so sure the Center for Complimentary and alternative medicine has been particularly selective and judicious in choosing what treatments to study.
Do you suppose they have investigated Coffee as a possible treatment for 9AM sleepiness or ADHD?
Or have the center just been looking at the most complicated serious diseases, hoping there is a natural magic bullet
matching folklore?
Bingo! I've identified an anti-science kook! Do I win something?
Your argument is weak and unsubstantiated.
Name a "natural cure" I can't get that actually works.
I am not saying the FDA is going out of their way to block natural remedies known to work.
But, due to a BIAS in the system, the science doesn't get done on the natural remedies in the first place.
If my argument is right, then THERE ARE legitimate effective natural treatments ---- BUT, for at least most of them, nobody can say that they actually work. This means that If I am right: an inherent conclusion is that it is probably impossible to 'name a natural cure' that definitely works 100% which can't be marketed.
With very high confidence, there are many, BUT I cannot tell you with confidence which ones actually do work, since they are lacking the basic research ---- that pharma companies would only be willing to pay to commission - if they could profit from the result of their studies moreso, than their work on treatment formulations containing synthetic active ingredients.
Best example would be: penicillin being discovered today, as a mold found in nature.
Since it was a discovery of something in nature -- nothing to patent. The FDA would crack down anyone trying to sell this silly mold product, in principal. To get it approved to FDA standards; a sponsor would be needed.
The sponsor would have to be able to profit. They profit by patenting the result so nobody else can make and sell it for cheap. If they can't patent it..... they are better off, forgetting about it --- and continuing to sell their less-effective remedies that do not actually cure the disease, only mask some symptoms.
There are plenty of natural formulations that the FDA has cracked down on,
without evaluating the effectiveness of these treatments.
I am in favor that science be done, but I am also in favor of free choice from buyers.
Let's be realistic about it ---- if there's not money to be made; it would be stupid for a business to spend money on the science: when another company will free ride -- just use the results, to compete with them, without the substantial capital required to do have hired the scientists and paid the expenses to commission the studies.
If there's a natural remedy; it makes more sense, to figure out a synthetic formulation that does what the natural remedy does.
Bitcoin is not an insured bank, gone means gone with no legal recourse. Yes, skimmers exist. Credit card companies have far more protection against fraud.
ATM cards don't. If someone steals from you over time, and you don't notice, within the next two statements, you are essentially out 100% of what was stolen.
With Bitcoins, you can generate and print out say 50 paper wallets, put no more than $50 in any one wallet; lock up the secret keys in your safe; you can divide your funds any which way you want.
Someone steals one... you are out a maximum of $50.
That's also your potential liability in case of a stolen credit card.
It is an unintended consequence of rules that are meant to protect people, plain as day.
three times as many people believe U.S. regulators prevent people from getting natural cures
EXPLANATION: US Regulators (the FDA) work to suppress ANY and ALL marketing of any product
as a Cure for any disease, unless the FDA has approved it as a cure with an indication for that disease,
on the basis of application, Clinical studies up to their standards, and an approval process.
However, naturally: these standards are very high, and likely to forbid marketing anything as a cure that has
not been through such a rigorous process --- inherently means there will be cures That are legitimate cures,
which cannot lawfully be marketed as treatments for disease or condition, because the FDA didn't approve them as treatments for that disease or condition.
Also.... application and study are expensive processes, that only occur if funded.
With artificial cures: the inventor gets to patent it and claim exclusive rights --- so there is a lot of money to be made, AND
the pharma company can justify the massive expenses required to navigate the bureaucratic processes.
With natural products there is no exclusive right via patent, since the product is just from nature, IN FACT:
It may be so common that people don't need to buy your product at all.
It doesn't make sense to make the investment required for all these FDA studies, since you probably won't recoup the money --- and, once you get the certification, a hundred other companies can market the natural product and undercut you on price.
So what is really happening is Creation of synthetic cures is subsidized via IP law.
Marketing of natural cures is blocked by the same barriers, but they are not subsidized,
so if you have limited resources, it makes more sense to develop synthetic cures.
Also, a natural cures could cannablize your market for a synthetic cure.
Therefore.... it is not rational for pharma companies to pursue natural cures,
or any cures they can't patent.
Nobody has ever stolen my cash by making a copy of it.
And nobody has ever stolen any of my bitcoins by picking my pocket.
In fact... they couldn't. They'd need my security codes to unlock my private key. Just like they'd need my ATM PIN number to go steal cash out my bank account.
there is a clear and present risk involved with keeping something so easily, and irreversibly stolen, in a computer.
There is no requirement to keep your private key on a computer.
You can have a large number of paper wallets with small amounts on each, and only go get it out of the vault and scan the key into your computer when needed to execute a transaction.
There are also various hardening methods -- such as putting your coins in a form where two signatures will be required to unlock; using a verification script where your certain dedicated holding wallets have coins they can only spend to certain "staging" wallets and no other address.
Using a signing procedure requiring two-factor authentication, with neither the computer, nor your portable device privvy to the full private key, but both required to participate in signing, etc.
You are probably covered by a special policy with a private insurance company [* Although in the event of massive theft insurance company may be found insolvent, policy may not actually exist, or the situation may have voided coverage], is a HECK of a lot different than, Your deposit is guaranteed by the FDIC, backed up by the full faith and credit of the US government.
Although the idea is good, I think it will cause lots of issues with users with valid and certified devices. Let's wait and see....
The chinese phone manufacturers are going to start faking codes in the ranges assigned to other vendors' models, such as Apple's. Resulting in multiple phones from different manufacturers claiming to have the same IMEI
You're thinking of an alarm loop line, not Integrated Services Digital Network line.
It doesn't matter if you pay the high premium for an alarm loop line of like $1500/Month per hundred miles.
Still subject to getting hacked by physical intrusion.
If the distance is long enough: you still can't be certain if your line is passing through shared
infrastructure or not, or landing on a "man in the middle". The trend is definitely towards services
being delivered over IP.
All analog alarm loop really tells you for sure is the telco has arranged for any voltage drop you push out one end
to arrive at the other end, etc.
No, it is not. If the remote analog access is by a dedicated wire (and that is what you do in analog), then the attacker has to have physical access to that wire.
Usually the "remote analog" access is through an analog circuit provided by a telecommunications company between two locations called an ISDN circuit.
If the locations are far enough, your so called "dedicated wire" gets muxed, and then transmitted over a digital trunk which may be copper or optical with a bunch of other "dedicared wires"
The communication is subject to possible attack -- interception and insertion of false signals, at any point the line crosses, if compromised physically.
Or theoretically possible by remote attacks, if the Telco becomes compomised.
lol...are you actually trying to make the argument that dollars are just as unsafe as bitcoin?
As unsafe against bitcoin against WHAT?
There are an infinite number of threats against both. Both have certain fragilities.
Therefore... there is no basis of comparison for safety, except when you identify what kinds of shocks or unusual events that you are most concerned about.
But they both seem to be pretty darn risky and likely to be stolen, when we are talking about possibilities of physical theft and certain kinds of digital theft....
When someone steals real money from a bank, it is insured by the FDIC.
Actually.... loss due to fraud, theft, or accounting errors, are the iconic examples of a bank loss that IS NOT FDIC covered.
FDIC insures the funds against the bank losing the money through the ordinary course of business (market risks -- such as the risk of borrowers defaulting on the loan, and the bank, therefore losing the principal required to cover their obligations to depositors).
WP has some other examples of items not insured by the FDIC, also not covered:
Investments backed by the U.S. government, such as US Treasury securities
The contents of safe deposit boxes. -- Even though the word deposit appears in the name, under federal law a safe deposit box is not a deposit account – it is merely a secured storage space rented by an institution to a customer.
Losses due to theft or fraud at the institution.
These situations are often covered by special insurance policies that banking institutions buy from private insurance companies.
Accounting errors.
In these situations, there may be remedies for consumers under state contract law, the Uniform Commercial Code, and some federal regulations, depending on the type of transaction.
Insurance and annuity products, such as life, auto and homeowner's insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
it's his house, set it on fire! lol
Until all the requirements are met for lawful eviction: a tenant occupying has a legal right to continue living there, undisturbed.
This right takes priority, even over the landlord's ownership claim to the property.
Attempting to disturb the tenant -- such as through harassment, turning off critical services, pumping in noxious gasses, taking other actions to make the place unlivable, setting the building on fire, would all be acts of unlawful eviction; possible crime of attempted murder and insurance fraud with the fire --- such acts could very well cause the landlord to lose all his property rights to the building, or have to pay the tenant compensation, in addition to preventing the landlord from evicting.
Or just, you know, search the outgoing email of every Google employee. Why is this not obvious?
Well... they say the employee was not using a Google e-mail account. What they don't tell us... is whether or not the employee was on a computer connected to Google's network at the time, or using a Google laptop, or other computer with Google-provided software, in order to send the e-mail.
We also can't rule out the possibility that the person's Ex logged into the employee's non-Google e-mail account, saw the juicy message, and decided to cause trouble by forwarding to Google.
Or that Google hired a private investigator who used pre-texting or other techniques to deceive the news reporter into sharing or leaking info ultimately allowing them to identify the employee, and break into their poorly secured outside email account.
How does finding 20% of the missing bitcoins change that situation?
It helps him make the situation appear more strongly to be total incompetence on his part --- as in he doesn't have fscking clue..
Which is an appearance different from him masterfully sneaking away with 99% of the exchanges Bitcoins held in wallets that are supposed to be Gox wallets, but due to "lost keys" are now controlled only by partners in crime.
Google read the email of a third party that that one their employees sent an email to.
No... we have a hearsay claim that Google must have read the email of a third party.
They assumed because the recipient account was a gmail account; they must have gotten the message by opening his mailbox.
There might be some other way(s) they could have gotten ahold of the message, such as internet traffic monitoring of the employee's computer.
(such as repairs, inspections or to show prospecting buyers).
Not unless you signed a lease that says they can enter and disturb you to show to prospecting buyers.
Of course if they disturb your right to quiet enjoyment of the property, you might be inclined to move out early, and terminate the rental, resulting in financial loss for the landlord.
I know someone who owns a house that his ex wife has been staying in. When they divorced it also resulted in a restraining order being taken out by her against him. It is his house though. So he is in the position of being unable to approach the house or her to collect rent on the house or to evict her.
Simple solution to this. Pay an agent to serve the notice for eviction.
These actions can still be done on his behalf by a paid employee or contractor.
This is a critical problem with the suggested "solution"; X.500 code signing.
4: Do exchanges have any internal protection if hacked? There should be a layer between the wallets and the outside world, something that isn't easily breachable by a single phish attempt or two.
If they wanted to operate a truly secure Exchange...... they could start by having a policy of not holding customer Bitcoins. Instead: they should hold a small 'security deposit' for each customer --- a minimum $100 or so. And use a rule, that the most BTC you can sell in one trade is your deposit times 5; so to sell $10000 worth of Bitcoins, you would need a $2000 deposit.
When you want to buy fiat: you enter your trade, and then you have 15 minutes to settle by immediately depositing your Bitcoins plus the Exchange's fee after making the trade.
If you fail to settle the trade within 20 minutes, then the exchange will match the buyer with a different seller, and add up to your security deposit to the buyer's payment, in order to reduce the buyer's risk caused by market fluctuation from seller's failure to settle.
I have not understood the concept of BitCoin exchanges:
An Exchange: You deposit something of value of one type, then trade it for something else, then withdraw the thing you traded it for.
I don't know any BitCoin exchanges that have insurance, much even an independent auditor coming in to check that they have a basic set of security standards.
It's not necessary, until some Exchanges are in competition with each other, and one of them starts advertising that they have insured all the Bitcoin assets, or a regulator forces them to do so.
By the way.... it would be very expensive or impossible to insure a Bitcoin exchange, most likely. What traditional insurance company understands Bitcoin well enough..... and is going to have the Bitcoin funds necessary to initially back such a policy?
If an exchange takes all the coins it has, dumps them into a wallet, and walks off, there is no criminal liability for doing so. Just using the excuse of being hacked is good enough to get off the hook.
This is not necessarily true. There may be liability, particularly for fraud, negligence, or other crimes related to running a financial institution without the required adherance to certain rules. Investigators will ultimately have to look into the nature of the 'hacking' and ascertain if the claim is legitimate.
Then the wallet can be sold, the goods transferred into other wallets, etc. BitCoin by itself can be traced, but some shell games with wallets make for easy laundering.
This is when other Bitcoin exchanges, retailers, etc, start getting served with papers to disclose all wallet IDs that they have received funds at... And separately, all wallet IDs that made payments/deposits to them.
If someone sends new funds to the old address you won't have exclusive control over them until you've transferred them elsewhere.
That's true. They ought to add a spend transaction type of "Spend and revoke source wallet". With an optional challenge phrase used to originally construct the keypair
Revoke transaction requiring knowledge of both the private key -- and the challenge phrase. So any future spends to the revoked wallet will either be invalid and not be confirmed by the network, or the money goes to the first revoker, instead.
Also: revokation of a wallet, should dump any unconfirmed transactions with that wallet as source on the floor, except spends to the replacement wallet declared in the revokation.
They'd be less reluctant to refactor it in-place if only compilation didn't take so long.
They have version control comparable to a 'git reset --hard ...' using nonsense codons.. via NMD / Nonsense-Mediated RNA decay.
Probably... they were 'magically discovered' when it became clear to Mark that the authorities might be contemplating criminal charges against him.
The team found that 82% of the genome was made up of duplicated segments, compared with just 25% in humans.
See! The pine trees are smart and make multiple copies of their genome segments, for backup purposes. Humans always forget the importance of backups, until it's too late.
You do know a vast majority of research is conducted with money from public sources right?
Research in general yes. Research into pharmaceuticals with a mind towards FDA approval... not so much.
And the National Center for Complimentary and alternative medicine has studied, in depth, a lot of "natural" cures
Yes.. well... I am not so sure the Center for Complimentary and alternative medicine has been particularly selective and judicious in choosing what treatments to study.
Do you suppose they have investigated Coffee as a possible treatment for 9AM sleepiness or ADHD?
Or have the center just been looking at the most complicated serious diseases, hoping there is a natural magic bullet matching folklore?
Bingo! I've identified an anti-science kook! Do I win something?
Your argument is weak and unsubstantiated.
Name a "natural cure" I can't get that actually works.
I am not saying the FDA is going out of their way to block natural remedies known to work. But, due to a BIAS in the system, the science doesn't get done on the natural remedies in the first place. If my argument is right, then THERE ARE legitimate effective natural treatments ---- BUT, for at least most of them, nobody can say that they actually work. This means that If I am right: an inherent conclusion is that it is probably impossible to 'name a natural cure' that definitely works 100% which can't be marketed.
With very high confidence, there are many, BUT I cannot tell you with confidence which ones actually do work, since they are lacking the basic research ---- that pharma companies would only be willing to pay to commission - if they could profit from the result of their studies moreso, than their work on treatment formulations containing synthetic active ingredients.
Best example would be: penicillin being discovered today, as a mold found in nature. Since it was a discovery of something in nature -- nothing to patent. The FDA would crack down anyone trying to sell this silly mold product, in principal. To get it approved to FDA standards; a sponsor would be needed. The sponsor would have to be able to profit. They profit by patenting the result so nobody else can make and sell it for cheap. If they can't patent it..... they are better off, forgetting about it --- and continuing to sell their less-effective remedies that do not actually cure the disease, only mask some symptoms.
There are plenty of natural formulations that the FDA has cracked down on, without evaluating the effectiveness of these treatments.
I am in favor that science be done, but I am also in favor of free choice from buyers. Let's be realistic about it ---- if there's not money to be made; it would be stupid for a business to spend money on the science: when another company will free ride -- just use the results, to compete with them, without the substantial capital required to do have hired the scientists and paid the expenses to commission the studies.
If there's a natural remedy; it makes more sense, to figure out a synthetic formulation that does what the natural remedy does.
Either the product had to be discontinued, or the marketing had to be changed, so it no longer claimed to help with any disease; products like Genzyme, various anti-bacterial soaps containing materials such as Tea Tree oils, Article: Under pressure from pharma lobby, US cracks down on Ayurvedic diabetes medicines, other ayurvedic products.
Name some natural formulas that have been approved by the FDA to be marketed as a treatment for a disease.
Bitcoin is not an insured bank, gone means gone with no legal recourse. Yes, skimmers exist. Credit card companies have far more protection against fraud.
ATM cards don't. If someone steals from you over time, and you don't notice, within the next two statements, you are essentially out 100% of what was stolen.
With Bitcoins, you can generate and print out say 50 paper wallets, put no more than $50 in any one wallet; lock up the secret keys in your safe; you can divide your funds any which way you want.
Someone steals one... you are out a maximum of $50. That's also your potential liability in case of a stolen credit card.
No conspiracy theory required.
It is an unintended consequence of rules that are meant to protect people, plain as day.
three times as many people believe U.S. regulators prevent people from getting natural cures
EXPLANATION: US Regulators (the FDA) work to suppress ANY and ALL marketing of any product as a Cure for any disease, unless the FDA has approved it as a cure with an indication for that disease, on the basis of application, Clinical studies up to their standards, and an approval process.
However, naturally: these standards are very high, and likely to forbid marketing anything as a cure that has not been through such a rigorous process --- inherently means there will be cures That are legitimate cures, which cannot lawfully be marketed as treatments for disease or condition, because the FDA didn't approve them as treatments for that disease or condition.
Also.... application and study are expensive processes, that only occur if funded.
With artificial cures: the inventor gets to patent it and claim exclusive rights --- so there is a lot of money to be made, AND the pharma company can justify the massive expenses required to navigate the bureaucratic processes.
With natural products there is no exclusive right via patent, since the product is just from nature, IN FACT: It may be so common that people don't need to buy your product at all.
It doesn't make sense to make the investment required for all these FDA studies, since you probably won't recoup the money --- and, once you get the certification, a hundred other companies can market the natural product and undercut you on price.
So what is really happening is Creation of synthetic cures is subsidized via IP law. Marketing of natural cures is blocked by the same barriers, but they are not subsidized, so if you have limited resources, it makes more sense to develop synthetic cures.
Also, a natural cures could cannablize your market for a synthetic cure.
Therefore.... it is not rational for pharma companies to pursue natural cures, or any cures they can't patent.
Nobody has ever stolen my cash by making a copy of it.
And nobody has ever stolen any of my bitcoins by picking my pocket.
In fact... they couldn't. They'd need my security codes to unlock my private key. Just like they'd need my ATM PIN number to go steal cash out my bank account.
there is a clear and present risk involved with keeping something so easily, and irreversibly stolen, in a computer.
There is no requirement to keep your private key on a computer.
You can have a large number of paper wallets with small amounts on each, and only go get it out of the vault and scan the key into your computer when needed to execute a transaction.
There are also various hardening methods -- such as putting your coins in a form where two signatures will be required to unlock; using a verification script where your certain dedicated holding wallets have coins they can only spend to certain "staging" wallets and no other address.
Using a signing procedure requiring two-factor authentication, with neither the computer, nor your portable device privvy to the full private key, but both required to participate in signing, etc.
they are all covered by some kind of insurance.
You are probably covered by a special policy with a private insurance company [* Although in the event of massive theft insurance company may be found insolvent, policy may not actually exist, or the situation may have voided coverage], is a HECK of a lot different than, Your deposit is guaranteed by the FDIC, backed up by the full faith and credit of the US government.
Although the idea is good, I think it will cause lots of issues with users with valid and certified devices. Let's wait and see....
The chinese phone manufacturers are going to start faking codes in the ranges assigned to other vendors' models, such as Apple's. Resulting in multiple phones from different manufacturers claiming to have the same IMEI
You're thinking of an alarm loop line, not Integrated Services Digital Network line.
It doesn't matter if you pay the high premium for an alarm loop line of like $1500/Month per hundred miles. Still subject to getting hacked by physical intrusion.
If the distance is long enough: you still can't be certain if your line is passing through shared infrastructure or not, or landing on a "man in the middle". The trend is definitely towards services being delivered over IP.
All analog alarm loop really tells you for sure is the telco has arranged for any voltage drop you push out one end to arrive at the other end, etc.
No, it is not. If the remote analog access is by a dedicated wire (and that is what you do in analog), then the attacker has to have physical access to that wire.
Usually the "remote analog" access is through an analog circuit provided by a telecommunications company between two locations called an ISDN circuit.
If the locations are far enough, your so called "dedicated wire" gets muxed, and then transmitted over a digital trunk which may be copper or optical with a bunch of other "dedicared wires"
The communication is subject to possible attack -- interception and insertion of false signals, at any point the line crosses, if compromised physically.
Or theoretically possible by remote attacks, if the Telco becomes compomised.
lol...are you actually trying to make the argument that dollars are just as unsafe as bitcoin?
As unsafe against bitcoin against WHAT?
There are an infinite number of threats against both. Both have certain fragilities.
Therefore... there is no basis of comparison for safety, except when you identify what kinds of shocks or unusual events that you are most concerned about.
But they both seem to be pretty darn risky and likely to be stolen, when we are talking about possibilities of physical theft and certain kinds of digital theft....
The difference is, this has happened to a bigger swath of bitcoin than it ever could to a bank.
Not if the 'bank' was as negligent as Mt.Gox was, and still managed to elude any regulators.
When someone steals real money from a bank, it is insured by the FDIC.
Actually.... loss due to fraud, theft, or accounting errors, are the iconic examples of a bank loss that IS NOT FDIC covered.
FDIC insures the funds against the bank losing the money through the ordinary course of business (market risks -- such as the risk of borrowers defaulting on the loan, and the bank, therefore losing the principal required to cover their obligations to depositors).
WP has some other examples of items not insured by the FDIC, also not covered:
no bitcoin transactions are ever reversible.
No cash transactions are ever reversible.
[And Bitcoin is a form of cash.]
There, fixed it for you.