1123
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: List of Major Bitcoin Heists, Thefts, Hacks, Scams, and Losses
|
on: October 27, 2014, 11:29:54 AM
|
Perhaps we need a thread on dollar heists, thefts, scams and losses.
Sure. Keep denying or minimizing the theft/scam problem, that is a wonderful way to build public confidence. At least 10% of all the bitcoins in existence must be in possession of thieves and scammers (the MtGOX "theft" alone took 5%). Only a couple of thieves have been caught and prosecuted. Few if any of the bitcoins that were stolen, embezzled, or obtained by fraudulent means have been returned to their legitimate owners. There is no evidence that such crimes are diminishing.
|
|
|
1125
|
Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: [ESHOP launched] Trezor: Bitcoin hardware wallet
|
on: October 27, 2014, 01:02:24 AM
|
is trezor 100% safe?
against what? against hackers is it safe like a paper wallet? There are some possible attacks using combinations of malware in the host computer, "human engineering", hidden cameras, theft, replacement of the device, infiltration of Satoshilabs, etc.. Appears to be safe if the latter two are considered unlikely and the device is used strictly according to the instructions.
|
|
|
1128
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: October 24, 2014, 09:24:32 AM
|
All the charts on blockchain show very steady growth, transactional volume is up 300% since this time last year. Number of transactions is all time high, as is daily wallets used
Price too is still 3x last year, but that is still the effect of the November bubble. We cannot tell whether other markets (responsible for previous bubbles) have been growing in the meantime. Moreover, the blockchain USD traffic since January does not show growth where expected, so a large component of the traffic is probably not payments but merely hot/cold swapping, tumbling, deposits/withdrawals, etc.. As for wallets, it would be necesary to know how many hold significant funds.
|
|
|
1129
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Answer the question above with a question.
|
on: October 24, 2014, 09:17:13 AM
|
Here are three answers: Answer A Answer A or B Answer B or C The Question: There is only one correct answer to this question. Which answer is this? Answer this :p Very simple question
Is this school test or something? What a fail, didn't he know that the correct answer had to be a question?
|
|
|
1130
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: October 24, 2014, 05:17:27 AM
|
I suspect that the Chinese were responsible also for the Jan-Apr/2013 bubble, that lifted the price from ~12$ to ~120$. Specifically, the start of that bubble seems to coincide with the hiring of Bobby Lee by BTC-China in Shanghai. In that case, if that market closes too, so that the Jan-Apr/2013 bubble gets undone, the price could go down again to 10--20$.
At least the other trolls realise they're trolls for the most part, I think you really think you're an academic Please state your understanding of what is going on, then.
|
|
|
1131
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: October 24, 2014, 05:15:58 AM
|
(Neither the number of stores that "accept bitcoin", nor the blockchain traffic, nor the venture capital investments imply growth of any market.)
What would imply growth? Good question. As it has been discussed here, most stores that "accept bitcoin" are attractive mainly to people who already own bitcoins, and probably attract few if any new users. Blockchain traffic does not evolve in the way one would expect from increasing use. Most investment has not been in bitcoin itself, but in ventures like exchanges, funds, payment processors, and the like --- services that will make money out of bitcoin users. I do not know where to get reliable data on bitcoin usage.
|
|
|
1132
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: October 24, 2014, 04:56:41 AM
|
What about growth in existing markets?
If we look at previous bubbles, after a month or two of roughly exponential growth, and another month or so of oscillations, the price usually settled down to a nearly constant value. I take that as a sign that the markets responsible for those bubbles were saturated and stopped growing. Maybe they started to grow again this year, but I have not seen any real evidence of that. (Neither the number of stores that "acecpt bitcoin", nor the blockchain traffic, nor the venture capital investments imply growth of any market.)
|
|
|
1133
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: October 24, 2014, 04:44:40 AM
|
..see you at $100...
The last big bubble lifted the price from ~120$ in early Oct/2013 to ~800$ in Jan/2014. The fall from ~800$ in Jan/2014 to the present ~350$ can only be due to the undoing of that bubble (and to the undoing of the May/2014 "pseudo-bubble"). I cannot see any plausible explanation for the Oct-Nov/2013 bubble other than the opening of the mainland Chinese market. The undoing of that bubble then must be due to the loss of that market. According to a few articles, the Chinese bitcoin market consists mainly of amateur and semi-professional speculators who, lacking access to the stock market, were used to day-trading other bizarre commodities. So, if those traders pull completely out of the market, the May/2014 pseudo-bubble is completely undone, and no new market opens, the price should eventually go back to ~120$. Draw a straight line on the Bitstamp price chart, in log scale, from the prices at Jan/2014 (~800$) and at May 19, 2014 (~400$). Extrapolation of that line suggests that the price (minus the May pseudo-bubble) will reach ~120$ by the end of the year. I suspect that the Chinese were responsible also for the Jan-Apr/2013 bubble, that lifted the price from ~12$ to ~120$. Specifically, the start of that bubble seems to coincide with the hiring of Bobby Lee by BTC-China in Shanghai. In that case, if that market closes too, so that the Jan-Apr/2013 bubble gets undone, the price could go down again to 10--20$. Needless to say, these extrapolations will be moot if another market opens (COIN? Argentina? Africa?).
|
|
|
1134
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL fucked us over again
|
on: October 23, 2014, 07:58:06 PM
|
Note that those laywers mostly helped BFL to fight lawsuits by customers, and answer to investigations of BFL by the District Attorney. I bet that the court will grant the payment, unfortunately. Morally, though, those lawyers should join the queue of creditors, and hopefully be paid with assets recovered from the managers.
|
|
|
1136
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL fucked us over again
|
on: October 23, 2014, 03:20:50 AM
|
I've got issues with another ASIC company (Black Arrow and the Gypsy thieves that run it; Alex SOVU, Daniel ANDRONIC and their shit eating Russian sock puppet Alexey ANDREEV).
Curiously, the mysterious owners of BTC-e go by the names of Aleksey and Alexander, and are believed not to be Russians. Just a meaningless bitcoincidence?
|
|
|
1137
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I just paid the $100K USD via BTC to become a Platinum Member of TBF.
|
on: October 23, 2014, 01:40:57 AM
|
I would reject both a trader association and a miner's association. The fact that the market is self regulating would make it difficult/impossible for an exchange without transparency and ethical operations. Having a miner's association would potentially open the network to 51% type attacks as the miners would literally be working together
Well, the exchanges now are all but transparent. Are they solvent? Are they front-running their clients? Are they faking orders and traffic? Do some clients have special privileges (like a few seconds advance knowledge of the order book)? For a 51% attack, it suffices that the 3-4 largest miners collude. That is much easier backstage than through a professional association. On the other hand, a miner's association could better spot and sue fraudulent manufacturers, for example.
|
|
|
1138
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I just paid the $100K USD via BTC to become a Platinum Member of TBF.
|
on: October 23, 2014, 12:35:36 AM
|
If there is so much angst against the foundation, why don't people just organise a new one?
Because we're too lazy. It's much easier to sit behind a keyboard and bitch about the current one. I would say that it is more because there is no real need for any kind of official group of foundation that "represents" Bitcoin. People will work on the bitcoin code with or without the help of TBF (or any other similar entity). The market is self-regulating and there is no need for TBF to assist in molding the market Obviously having an entity to "govern" bitcoin in any way would negate bitcoin's very goals. The situation of Gavin wrt the Foundation wrt the blockchain is already, ahem, interesting. However, there could be * A Foundation to sponsor technical studies, education, etc. -- but not to control the blockchain, protocol, or core software, or represent bitcoin to government, or engage in business. * A Trader Association, to publish standards and ethical guidelines for exchanges, pressure them for openness and independent auditing, and evaluate them for compliance; * A Miner's Association, to do the same for miners. Ideally these institutions should have a low fixed fee, and refuse donations. Otherwise they would soon be "owned" by a few large members, and will cater to their interest even when it is against the interest ot the majority of the memebrs. Which seems to be the current state of The Shrem Karpelès & Friends Foundation...
|
|
|
1139
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: October 23, 2014, 12:11:29 AM
|
Everything is based on risk/reward. If someone gave you 3-1 on a coinflip you would accept it instantly, but you could easily lose. Moreover, if they demanded you wager your entire net worth, the math would direct you to decline the offer.
Indeed. The actual gain/loss is not linear on the monetary gain/loss. If all your worth is 100'000$, earning another 100'000$ will only make your life a bit better; but losing 100'000$ woud be a terrible disaster, from which you may never recover. So, taking that bet at 3:1 chances, even though it has a +50'000 expected monetary return, has a hugely negative expected actual return. That is the reasoning behind the advice "only invest what you can afford to lose".
|
|
|
1140
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Marc & Tibianne sucking the gox well dry?
|
on: October 23, 2014, 12:03:16 AM
|
The title of this thread is incorrect, the company is spelled "Tibanne" or "Tibane" depending on the context (without the second "i").
Tibanne demanded more kitty litter and a new addition to the cat condo. Calling BS (again!) http://www.goxdox.org/2014_10_01_archive.htmlIndeed, it is unfortunate that Tibanne is officially a separate company that is a creditor of MtGOX. I do not know why they are being paid before the account holders, but there is a priority list for payments mandated by law (employees first, excluding management; then ...; then investors; then, for last, managers). Presumably, as service providers, they are somewhere in "...", before the account holders (which may be regarded as investors). I insist: former MtGOX account holders must, individually or in groups, hire a lawyer familiar with Japanes bankruptcy law, and let him interact with the liquidator. The lawyer will know what are the right questions to ask (such as, "why is Tibanne being paid before us", "how will the claims be computed", "is the disappearance of the 600'000 coins being investigated", etc.). He will know how to ask those questions so as to maximize the chances of a useful reply (which is not by email, not personally, but by a paper letter in proper legalese, signed by a lawyer). He will know how to request that the liquidator considers Tibanne as management rather than a service provider, if such is possible by law. Trust the adage, "he who chooses to be his own lawyer has a fool for lawyer and a fool for client."
|
|
|
|