- 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: Let's play a game called Bitcoin Forensics
Posted on 3/22/13 at 4:51 pm to lsu_tiger_az
Posted on 3/22/13 at 4:51 pm to lsu_tiger_az
0
Posted on 3/22/13 at 5:02 pm to lsu_tiger_az
quote:
I don't think we have any of those organizations out here in Scottsdale/Phoenix....
The organizations on that list are mostly "virtual", so they are nowhere and everywhere. They are composed of the same type of people who were early adopters of all technology, so it makes sense that they are the early adopters of bitcoins.
Not too long ago, a lot of people thought it was crazy to buy things or do their banking online. I'm not saying bitcoins are definitely going to explode in popularity, but I can see them becoming a major currency on the internet.
Posted on 3/22/13 at 5:05 pm to Korkstand
quote:
but I can see them becoming a major currency on the internet.
For hackers.
The virtuous will continue to use the ole dolla bill.
Posted on 3/22/13 at 5:15 pm to LSURussian
quote:
"hackers"???? "pirate support"??? Seriously???
"Hacker" isn't used in the sense of breaking into computer systems. It is a general term for "modifying" things, whether hardware, software, or other objects and devices.
And here is the definition of "pirate" in the political sense per Wikipedia:
quote:
Pirate parties support civil rights, direct democracy and participation, reform of copyright and patent law, free sharing of knowledge (Open content), information privacy, transparency, and freedom of information.
Posted on 3/22/13 at 5:22 pm to Broke
quote:
but let me cherry pick a few for the viewers pleasure
Can I cherry pick some too?
Animals in Distress Sanctuary
Archive.org
Church of Saint John the Evangelist
Free Software Foundation
Recycles.Org
Douglas County Dental Clinic
Creative Commons Bibliothek
Early Intervention Program at SPICES
Sun City
Singularity Institute
GirlsGoneBitcoin
Those all seek to make the world a better place!
Posted on 3/22/13 at 5:28 pm to Korkstand
The definition of pirate that you quoted can be summed up in one word: thieves.
Posted on 3/22/13 at 5:29 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
Those all seek to make the world a better place!
"GirlsGoneBitcoin"???? Seriously???
Posted on 3/22/13 at 5:31 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
Can I cherry pick some too?
Animals in Distress Sanctuary
Archive.org
Church of Saint John the Evangelist
Free Software Foundation
Recycles.Org
Douglas County Dental Clinic
Creative Commons Bibliothek
Early Intervention Program at SPICES
Sun City
Singularity Institute
GirlsGoneBitcoin
Those all seek to make the world a better place!
Do "GirlsGoneBitcoin" get asked to "Show Us Your Bits"?
Posted on 3/22/13 at 5:45 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
The porn industry is notorious for charging credit cards on a recurring basis and making it difficult to cancel.
Easy to deal with - use a card issuer that allows you to hand out a single-use number. Or just use free porn.
quote:
Actually, credit card transactions aren't really instant in terms of finality. This kind of goes back to the chargeback topic. Merchants can be hit with chargebacks months after a purchase is made. They may appear instant to a consumer, however.
Exactly - it's instant to me.
quote:
I imagine the people of Cyprus didn't either, and yet they haven't been able to get at their money for a week now.
Earlier in this thread I pointed this out as well.
quote:
Do you think overall that people throughout the world may find value in those qualities? That is the question.
You asked about my personal thoughts about your listed points, so that's how I responded. I have said elsewhere that I can understand the appeal of bitcoin to basically three groups: 1) Hobbyists; 2) Those who must worry about kleptocrats or a shaky financial system; 3) Criminals.
And there are lots of people in the world who could fall into one of those categories. Russian mobsters who stashed drug money in Cyprus? Sure, I'll buy that argument. US Joe Citizen? Uh, no.
Posted on 3/22/13 at 5:52 pm to foshizzle
quote:
2) Those who must worry about kleptocrats or a shaky financial system
And I'd argue that the US system is kleptocratic and shaky.
We have an inflation rate officially between 2% and 3%, but realistically much higher. That's a form of kleptocracy.
Not only that, but we've got a debt based system built on a house of cards.
I know, I know, I'm one of those crazy kooks.
Posted on 3/22/13 at 6:05 pm to WikiTiger
You started this thread on Bitcoin Forensics. All I did was introduce an element of forensic accounting to show you that the advantages you claim can be a double edged sword. That which gives a virtuous user advantages also gives the same advantages to the miscreant.
I understand the infinite divisibility of bitcoins better than most, I have degrees in Math and Accounting, so I know you could create one million bitcoin addresses with a fraction of a bitcoin. I was just trying to point out that you did not give your example much thought when constructing it. And if you are careless about the math, what else might you be careless about?
If you think the volume of bitcoin transactions is useless as a metric for determining the value of bitcoins, then why do you play up the fact that more and more merchants are accepting bitcoins? The only value of a currency is its acceptance as a medium of exchange. And manipulating the volume of exchanges surely changes the impression of acceptance.
Telling you might not do any good, but I did so anyway, as I'm sure others will understand that which you may be incapable, or simply unwilling.
I understand the infinite divisibility of bitcoins better than most, I have degrees in Math and Accounting, so I know you could create one million bitcoin addresses with a fraction of a bitcoin. I was just trying to point out that you did not give your example much thought when constructing it. And if you are careless about the math, what else might you be careless about?
If you think the volume of bitcoin transactions is useless as a metric for determining the value of bitcoins, then why do you play up the fact that more and more merchants are accepting bitcoins? The only value of a currency is its acceptance as a medium of exchange. And manipulating the volume of exchanges surely changes the impression of acceptance.
Telling you might not do any good, but I did so anyway, as I'm sure others will understand that which you may be incapable, or simply unwilling.
Posted on 3/22/13 at 6:14 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:
If you think the volume of bitcoin transactions is useless as a metric for determining the value of bitcoins, then why do you play up the fact that more and more merchants are accepting bitcoins?
Transaction volume and more merchants accepting bitcoin are not necessarily linked.
There are much better metrics than simple transaction volume, such as bitcoin days destroyed. Not only that, but the value of bitcoins is based solely on supply and demand and has nothing to do with the number of transactions. Yes, one could infer that more transactions equal more demand, and it might actually be so, but it's still a poor metric to use.
And furthermore, what you are talking about is spamming the blockchain. If someone were to repeatedly send and resend small transactions, transaction fees would eventually be required and that would begin to cost the attacker money. This is covered in the Weaknesses page I've linked here in the past under the Spamming Transactions section.
quote:
Spamming transactions
It is easy to send transactions to yourself repeatedly. If these transactions fill blocks to the maximum size (1MB), other transactions would be delayed until the next block. This is made expensive by the fees that would be required after the 50KB of free transactions per block are exhausted. An attacker will eventually eliminate free transactions, but Bitcoin fees will always be low because raising fees above 0.01 BTC per KB would require spending transaction fees. An attacker will eventually run out of money. Even if an attacker wants to waste money, transactions are further prioritized by the time since the coins were last spent, so attacks spending the same coins repeatedly are less effective.
This post was edited on 3/22/13 at 6:24 pm
Posted on 3/22/13 at 6:45 pm to WikiTiger
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but does it cost money to send bit coins between your various wallets?
Posted on 3/22/13 at 6:45 pm to WikiTiger
Hall of Shame
This is just one website. They basically admit, yeah, there's really nothing you can do. Just make sure you use an escrow service next time! It's supposed to be sooo easy though.
This is just one website. They basically admit, yeah, there's really nothing you can do. Just make sure you use an escrow service next time! It's supposed to be sooo easy though.
Posted on 3/22/13 at 6:59 pm to C
quote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but does it cost money to send bit coins between your various wallets?
It's a market based system with certain protections built into the algorithm.
Simple answer: Sending bitcoins from one address to another can be done for free.
Complex answer: Including a transaction fee in your transaction will bump you up in the queue so that your transaction will be performed before transactions without a fee (or a smaller fee than you included). The standard fee right now is .0005 BTC per 1k in bytes. Due to the recent jump in bitcoin price, that currently equates to about $0.035 USD. When it was made the standard, it was approximately $0.002 USD. I would imagine if the bitcoin price stays so high that the standard transaction fee will get lower yet again.
As I quoted in my previous post, to prevent spamming the blockchain, the algorithm begins requiring fees if recently received coins are attempted to be resent.
You can read more about fees here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees
Posted on 3/22/13 at 7:38 pm to WikiTiger
So literally every transaction even within your own controlled wallets are tracked and not instant?
Posted on 3/22/13 at 7:53 pm to C
quote:
So literally every transaction even within your own controlled wallets are tracked and not instant?
Any transaction put out on the bitcoin network is included in the blockchain and available for all to see.
Say you own addresses A and M and you wish to send 1 bitcoin from A to M, then yes, it would go out onto the network and be "tracked" as you say.
As far as it being instant...well that depends on your view. Will you see the 1 bitcoin arrive instantly? Yes. Will it be confirmed instantly? No.*
Confirmations are necessary to feel secure that the transaction cannot be double-spent. The standard for extreme high security is 6 confirmations, which takes about 1 hour (approx 10 mins per confirmation).
However, successful double spends take some effort, and would only be worthwhile for a somewhat nice chunk of change.
So, for instance, if I were a coffee shop, I would probably be willing to sell a $2 cup of coffee with 0 confirmations (i.e. instantly), however, if someone were sending me $100 or more, I'd probably want to want for 1 or 2 confirmations. $1000 or more and I'd probably wait for 6 confirmations.
Now, I know what you're thinking: "Well that pretty much makes bitcoin unrealistic for most retail transactions." And you're right. But stay tuned. The scaffolding is being built. Remember, bitcoin in 2013 is like the internet was in 1993.
*If you send yourself a bitcoin, you can be sure that you aren't going to double-spend it, therefore it's probably safe to assume the transaction was instant, since you don't need to wait for any confirmations.
This post was edited on 3/22/13 at 7:54 pm
Posted on 3/22/13 at 7:57 pm to WikiTiger
So you are paying for confirmations not actually transferring the bitcoin
Posted on 3/22/13 at 9:06 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
And I'd argue that the US system is kleptocratic and shaky.
We have an inflation rate officially between 2% and 3%, but realistically much higher. That's a form of kleptocracy.
Ahhh, and now we come back to the point I've been trying to make for awhile now. Money is not just a medium of exchange. It can also be a store of value. Econ 101, as I'm sure you recall.
Most of your points relate to bitcoins as a medium of exchange. And I happen to agree that if you live in circumstances (whether by citizenship or by inclination to criminality) where your choice of exchange currency matters, yes - bitcoin is a fine and maybe superior choice compared with the rouble. Or these days, the Venezuelan Bolivar. Especially if I lived in Cuba I'd be all over bitcoin.
But as a store of value? Not really, so long as people can easily shift assets. I'm not worried much about bank stability b/c I invest in many different areas. And although I'm aware I can retain my claim on assets by good backups I'm not sure this is much better than just buying and stashing gold bars (although gold bars aren't as convertible, granted).
I see this as a complex question depending on one's personal circumstances, but not one with an obvious answer for everyone by a long shot.
At any rate (ahem) so long as you are plugged into the world's financial system and can freely exchange one asset for another, bitcoins are simply another form of currency. One that appeals to those who need transactional (and extralegal) protections possibly, but as a store of value it doesn't seem to offer anything extra.
Posted on 3/22/13 at 9:12 pm to foshizzle
i've come to think of this as russian's reaction to every bitcoin thread wiki starts
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News