- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: And So It Begins: Bitcoins seized by DEA
Posted on 6/25/13 at 9:23 am to Broke
Posted on 6/25/13 at 9:23 am to Broke
I think that Wiki has always been clear that it can be anonymous that it can be secure...however, as you note, you have to be a very advanced computer programmer in order to be able to do that. And that's why it won't achieve broader appeal.
2
Posted on 6/25/13 at 9:26 am to cwill
In your opinion, which is easier to conduct transactions and remain anonymous, using bitcoins on the internet or cash?
Posted on 6/25/13 at 9:30 am to LSURussian
I think my above post provides the obvious answer.
Posted on 6/25/13 at 9:39 am to LSURussian
quote:
In your opinion, which is easier to conduct transactions and remain anonymous, using bitcoins on the internet or cash?
you're comparing face-to-face cash transactions with internet bitcoin transactions?
When you buy something on the internet, do you put cash in an envelope and mail it out like a retard?
Your question makes no sense.
Posted on 6/25/13 at 9:46 am to cwill
quote:
I think that Wiki has always been clear that it can be anonymous that it can be secure
IMO, the overarching issue is the vast majority of people have no issues with parting with a little private data so they can be a part of the mainstream financial system.
One of the major "pluses" of bitcoin is something that no one really cares about. In general, people just don't care about anonymity.
Posted on 6/25/13 at 9:53 am to ZereauxSum
quote:
In general, people just don't care about anonymity.
Unless you are dealing in illegal drugs or black market weapons. Just this week I ordered ammo. 500 rounds of 7.62X39. They asked me for a copy of my drivers license and guess what? I gave it to them. Know why? Because I'm not doing anything illegal.
Posted on 6/25/13 at 9:55 am to ZereauxSum
quote:
In general, people just don't care about anonymity.
this may be true to some extent, but PRIVACY is a huge issue, and bitcoin might be able to offer much more privacy for your financial transactions than traditional payment methods can.
Posted on 6/25/13 at 10:46 am to gizmoflak
quote:
this may be true to some extent, but PRIVACY is a huge issue
I honestly don't think this is the case anymore. Just look at the information people divulge on Facebook and Twitter for free.
Google, Facebook and Apple have all been busted for taking/storing data behind users' backs and not a single frick is really ever given. It's the cost being charged for "free" services like email, social networking, maps, search, etc etc. and people are more than willing to pay.
Posted on 6/25/13 at 11:11 am to gizmoflak
quote:If you think any financial transaction on the internet is not monitored and archived then you're a bigger fool than I thought....which is damn near impossible.
but PRIVACY is a huge issue, and bitcoin might be able to offer much more privacy for your financial transactions than traditional payment methods can.
Posted on 6/25/13 at 1:38 pm to LSURussian
quote:
If you think any financial transaction on the internet is not monitored and archived then you're a bigger fool than I thought....which is damn near impossible.
I do think that.
I also think that peer-to-peer bitcoin transactions can potentially offer more privacy than conventional financial transactions conducted via third party banks and clearinghouses, notwithstanding the fact that every single bitcoin transaction is publicly accessible.
How big of a fool do you think I am?
Posted on 6/25/13 at 2:43 pm to Gmorgan4982
Luddites were against things that increased efficiency. This bitcoin shite seems crazy inefficient right now don't you think penis head?
Posted on 6/25/13 at 3:06 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
The more "taint" the stronger the link that remains.
I do not know why I found this sentence funny.
Posted on 6/25/13 at 3:08 pm to HamCandy
Wiki actually explained Taint in great detail. I just thought it was funny. He gave me like a 500 word synopsis of how it works.
Posted on 6/25/13 at 3:10 pm to Broke
quote:
He gave me like a 500 word synopsis of how it works.
I copied and pasted that description from blockchain.info
Posted on 6/25/13 at 3:11 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
I copied and pasted that description from blockchain.info
So, you're saying you could not explain it in your own words?
Posted on 6/25/13 at 3:18 pm to LSURussian
quote:
So, you're saying you could not explain it in your own words?
It's too complicated.
Posted on 6/25/13 at 3:26 pm to Broke
quote:
It's too complicated.
BC it's taint.
What a crock of shite!
Posted on 6/25/13 at 4:02 pm to gizmoflak
quote:So anyone knows exactly when a Bitcoin transaction took place. Can't the NSA, who allegedly is monitoring everyone's internet usage, compare all messages that occurred at the same time as Bitcoin transactions and look for patterns regarding the senders and recipients of messages that correspond with Bitcoin transactions. If so, then any claim to privacy for Bitcoin transactions is hot air. In fact, the use of Bitcoins might be cause for increased suspicion by government such that it could trigger government to increase surveillance on Bitcoin users.
I also think that peer-to-peer bitcoin transactions can potentially offer more privacy than conventional financial transactions conducted via third party banks and clearinghouses, notwithstanding the fact that every single bitcoin transaction is publicly accessible.
Posted on 6/25/13 at 4:16 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:
So anyone knows exactly when a Bitcoin transaction took place. Can't the NSA, who allegedly is monitoring everyone's internet usage, compare all messages that occurred at the same time as Bitcoin transactions and look for patterns regarding the senders and recipients of messages that correspond with Bitcoin transactions. If so, then any claim to privacy for Bitcoin transactions is hot air. In fact, the use of Bitcoins might be cause for increased suspicion by government such that it could trigger government to increase surveillance on Bitcoin users.
Hypothetical: Person buys bitcoins from an exchange that is regulated and follows all KYC laws and what not. Person requests the exchange send those bitcoins to Address1. (Therefore it's provable that the person owns Address1.)
Then the person proceeds to send them a bunch of different times to other addresses.
example:
Address1 ---> Address2 ---> Address3 ---> Address4 ---> Address5
(that's a simple example. we could have many branches off that trunk too, if we wanted)
it looks like there were 4 transactions, yet the individual controls every address involved in the transactions.
How do you prove in a criminal trial that he controls Address5?
Do you think that the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard would be enough to protect a person, or will you argue that the burden of proof will actually be on the individual instead of the state?
In other words, would the defense that Address2 was actually an online webcam stripper and that Address3 through Address 5 are transactions from the stripper be enough to plant the seed of doubt, IYO?
This post was edited on 6/25/13 at 4:17 pm
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News