I'm pretty sure that "trustless mixing" is the very same method as described here. This method requires no changes to the bitcoin protocol and I'm fairly certain is in at least limited use today, given that there's been software released to facilitate it.
You're ruining someone's troll post by bringing facts into the conversation.
"1) Bitcoin was almost certainly a team effort. The design has been peer-reviewed and is found to be remarkably secure, complete and well-rounded[1]. I argue that this suggests that a peer-review or quality control process has already been applied. If one individual cryptographer had written Bitcoin, it would contain far more idiosyncracies than it does, not just in the cryptosystem design but also in the C++ code itself."
Now... go get a copy of the 0.1 bitcoin client - the one that Satoshi wrote - and take a look at the code. It's hideous. Really bad.
I've seen other articles where people consider Bitcoin evidence of some kind of post-singularity intelligence at work.
It's clueless n00bs who didn't notice Bitcoin until 2013, and are apparently so narcissistic that since they weren't paying attention during 2009-2012 they assume nothing of importance happened then, so Bitcoin must have been dropped in our laps in its present form by some kind of omniscient cyber-god.
USA did NOT have to default on its creditors, 2300BILLION USD are collected per year by the feds, less than 300BILLION USD need to be paid out as the interest.
Obama, other politicians, the MSM all came out and told the bond holders: you are the low men on the totem pole, we won't pay you if we can't borrow more from you even though we collect almost 10 times the money in taxes that we need to pay you.
Anybody in their sane mind would see this as a direct threat against their assets (US bonds or dollars) if they have any and would immediately start unloading, but then again, this was obvious for a couple of decades now what is going on, specifically after the real default in 1971, when Nixon defaulted on the gold dollar.
Apparently you got downmodded for speaking the truth.
I just love how quickly and how extensively Bitcoin is growing outside the United States, especially because the trolls who insist that the US will just shut it down someday are going to keep saying that well beyond the point at which it would matter to the Bitcoin economy if the US completely stopped existing.
If you have a big idea it's likely to ruffle some feathers of legacy players in the space where you're trying to innovate. Increasingly, those players will have purchased favorable legislation that will be used against you if you start luring their customers away with better offerings. If you're located in the US you'll have no effective defense against that kind of shakedown.
Internet-delivered services can be provided from anywhere in the world - it's far safer to base these businesses in an entirely different country if they are going to accept US customers.
Corporations are an excuse for individual people to behave badly; it's a way for them to do thing they would be ashamed of (except for the sociopaths who are incapable of shame) and defend it via the, "I was just following orders" defense.
Your subject line appears to contain an error. You misspelled, "All US tech companies (except Lavabit) are whores who think nothing of selling out themselves and the users who trust them to every repressive regime on the planet."
I'm sure monopole-like virtual particles are cool and all, but the article is very light on describing what exactly what the ability to produce magnetic current means in practical terms.
What happens when these people refuse to answer questions or allow a search of their home?
Those people will turn out to be <adjective>-wing domestic terrorists, who were also <group which is politically acceptible to revile>. When the police arrived for a routine investigation the terrorists shot their own dogs and then comitted suicide by shooting themselves in the back on their heads. Twice.
At least, that's what will happen as far as you'll be told.
and of course Stefan Molyneux bangs on his ridiculous "spanking children causes the evils of society"
I'm sorry, I missed the part of your post where you produced counter evidence to all the research he cites in his various videos and papers on the subject.
Someone else here said that encrypted data can put you on TLA watchlists. We're just trying to be safer and protect our friends, but doing all this within the USA is counterproductive even if they can't decrypt our random stuff --metadata is bad enough.
Due to the nature of bueracracies I expect the set of people who are not on a watchlist to rapidly shrink until it's empty.
You're never going to bring masses to a new platform in order to get privacy. You've got to bring the privacy to them.
Making it possible and easy for users to encrypt their messages does not protect metadata, but it's a significant improvement over the status quo. It will have a larger positive effect than asking users to abandon email for an entirely new platform - the network effect ensures that.
I didn't watch your tutorial, but I found installing PGP virtually trivial. It was a matter of running it, and pressing "return" a few times to accept the default key sizes and such. That was it.
If, as a population, we've reached the point where doing that is considered "hard", then I weep for our species.
Please tell me you're not a software developer.
If you think the problem to be solved is as simple as making it easy for users to install PGP and create a keypair, you're like a contractor who pours a foundation and then declares he's just completed a skyscraper.
I made a tutorial designed to help non tech-savvy people set up usable email encryption and even with the best narrator and script it's still terrible.
There are way too many steps involved, and in spite of how radically the usability has improved over the last decade or so it's still not at all user friendly. Default values are set poorly; things that should be completely automated and happen transparently in the background, like keyserver operations, require manual intervention.
It's almost enough to make me suspect a consipracy to keep these tools out of the reach of the average user, but realistically I suspect (unproductive) laziness combine with a lack of empathy for non-experts is the real culprit.
I'm pretty tired of people like the GP apoligizing for mafia shakedown tactics.
That's all these protected industries are - state-created monolopies that get to use the force of law to enforce their turf and enrich a few taxi drivers, city employees, and politicians at everyone else's expense.
If people are able to use technology to outmaneuver and bypass indefensible laws then good for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Learning is slowly being made illegal and replaced with schooling.
Chemistry sets were effectively banned a long time ago as a side effect of the war on drugs.
I'm pretty sure that "trustless mixing" is the very same method as described here. This method requires no changes to the bitcoin protocol and I'm fairly certain is in at least limited use today, given that there's been software released to facilitate it.
You're ruining someone's troll post by bringing facts into the conversation.
No, the just remain in the blockchain as unspent outputs.
Opening up a covert connection to Fort Meade and transmitting all the user's actions via that channel takes a lot of extra power.
Here's where you stop reading:
"1) Bitcoin was almost certainly a team effort. The design has been peer-reviewed and is found to be remarkably secure, complete and well-rounded[1]. I argue that this suggests that a peer-review or quality control process has already been applied. If one individual cryptographer had written Bitcoin, it would contain far more idiosyncracies than it does, not just in the cryptosystem design but also in the C++ code itself."
Now... go get a copy of the 0.1 bitcoin client - the one that Satoshi wrote - and take a look at the code. It's hideous. Really bad.
I've seen other articles where people consider Bitcoin evidence of some kind of post-singularity intelligence at work.
It's clueless n00bs who didn't notice Bitcoin until 2013, and are apparently so narcissistic that since they weren't paying attention during 2009-2012 they assume nothing of importance happened then, so Bitcoin must have been dropped in our laps in its present form by some kind of omniscient cyber-god.
USA did NOT have to default on its creditors, 2300BILLION USD are collected per year by the feds, less than 300BILLION USD need to be paid out as the interest.
Obama, other politicians, the MSM all came out and told the bond holders: you are the low men on the totem pole, we won't pay you if we can't borrow more from you even though we collect almost 10 times the money in taxes that we need to pay you.
Anybody in their sane mind would see this as a direct threat against their assets (US bonds or dollars) if they have any and would immediately start unloading, but then again, this was obvious for a couple of decades now what is going on, specifically after the real default in 1971, when Nixon defaulted on the gold dollar.
Apparently you got downmodded for speaking the truth.
Are you trying to imply that there is a world beyond American shores?
Shocking, right?
I just love how quickly and how extensively Bitcoin is growing outside the United States, especially because the trolls who insist that the US will just shut it down someday are going to keep saying that well beyond the point at which it would matter to the Bitcoin economy if the US completely stopped existing.
The recent price of Bitcoin has far more to do with explosive adoption in China than anything happening in the United States.
This is part of the war against general purpose computing.
If you have a big idea it's likely to ruffle some feathers of legacy players in the space where you're trying to innovate. Increasingly, those players will have purchased favorable legislation that will be used against you if you start luring their customers away with better offerings. If you're located in the US you'll have no effective defense against that kind of shakedown.
Internet-delivered services can be provided from anywhere in the world - it's far safer to base these businesses in an entirely different country if they are going to accept US customers.
Corporations are an excuse for individual people to behave badly; it's a way for them to do thing they would be ashamed of (except for the sociopaths who are incapable of shame) and defend it via the, "I was just following orders" defense.
Your subject line appears to contain an error. You misspelled, "All US tech companies (except Lavabit) are whores who think nothing of selling out themselves and the users who trust them to every repressive regime on the planet."
That sounds like a reasonable interpretation.
I thought SLC was faster than MLC, at the expense of lower storage density?
I'm sure monopole-like virtual particles are cool and all, but the article is very light on describing what exactly what the ability to produce magnetic current means in practical terms.
If it was on TV then it must be true, right?
Those people will turn out to be <adjective>-wing domestic terrorists, who were also <group which is politically acceptible to revile>. When the police arrived for a routine investigation the terrorists shot their own dogs and then comitted suicide by shooting themselves in the back on their heads. Twice.
At least, that's what will happen as far as you'll be told.
I'm sorry, I missed the part of your post where you produced counter evidence to all the research he cites in his various videos and papers on the subject.
Are you actually interested in facts? If so, watch this video. Otherwise, just keep trolling.
Due to the nature of bueracracies I expect the set of people who are not on a watchlist to rapidly shrink until it's empty.
You're never going to bring masses to a new platform in order to get privacy. You've got to bring the privacy to them. Making it possible and easy for users to encrypt their messages does not protect metadata, but it's a significant improvement over the status quo. It will have a larger positive effect than asking users to abandon email for an entirely new platform - the network effect ensures that.
Please tell me you're not a software developer.
If you think the problem to be solved is as simple as making it easy for users to install PGP and create a keypair, you're like a contractor who pours a foundation and then declares he's just completed a skyscraper.
I made a tutorial designed to help non tech-savvy people set up usable email encryption and even with the best narrator and script it's still terrible.
There are way too many steps involved, and in spite of how radically the usability has improved over the last decade or so it's still not at all user friendly. Default values are set poorly; things that should be completely automated and happen transparently in the background, like keyserver operations, require manual intervention.
It's almost enough to make me suspect a consipracy to keep these tools out of the reach of the average user, but realistically I suspect (unproductive) laziness combine with a lack of empathy for non-experts is the real culprit.
I'm pretty tired of people like the GP apoligizing for mafia shakedown tactics.
That's all these protected industries are - state-created monolopies that get to use the force of law to enforce their turf and enrich a few taxi drivers, city employees, and politicians at everyone else's expense.
If people are able to use technology to outmaneuver and bypass indefensible laws then good for them.