Jump to content

hypersniper

Members
  • Posts

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

hypersniper's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

18

Reputation

  1. It was a report that was originally meant to be made public. To argue that it would be confidential under the scope of FOI is utter nonsense. I never did apply under the code of practice - it's a fair while back and can't remember why, I'm not even sure I knew about the code. http://www.travelwatch-isleofman.org/
  2. Remember back in 2011 the inquiry/report into the Steam Packet Company trading practices was scrapped under dubious reasoning? I've been waiting since then for a FOI act to get access to said report. Lo and behold, the cutoff date for FOI requests is 2 months after the report was scrapped. I guess the first order of business would be to make a request for information pertaining to the choosing of October 2011 as the cutoff date (It seems oddly arbitrary)
  3. Like a bank then? It's not really a bank though is it. You're only "banking" your keys. It's like calling Dropbox or Google Drive a bank. Is this what this entire argument rests on, our differing definitions of a bank? I'm out
  4. If you're not comfortable storing your keys, use an insured service to do it for you. There's no reason to allow anyone control of your bitcoins
  5. If you hand over your unencrypted private key to anyone, of course they are able to steal your coins. If you transfer your coins to someone (the case of gox), of course they can choose not to give them back. The "'powah'" of cryptocurrency is that you aren't required to do either of these things. And even if you aren't capable of securing your own data, you can still delegate a third-party to secure them for you without trusting them - i.e. encrypted keys. Cryptocurrency is not synonymous with cryptography. The big breakthrough was the distributed ledger (the blockchain) and proof of work that solves the double-spend problem. I'm not arguing anything, you've changed your position to agree with me
  6. ... Cryptocurrencies use Public/Private key cryptography, the clue is in the name ... Just to be clear, I was saying you don't understand the capabilities of cryptocurrency and acknowledge that you understand the capabilities of cryptography. You chose to interpret that as, cryptocurrency is not based on cryptography. Which would be an absurd conclusion.
  7. I don't believe I am. I've studied cryptography and the safety of private keys is a cryptography issue. Cryptocurrencies use Public/Private key cryptography, the clue is in the name. How is that being obtuse? Just so I'm clear, can you explain what you mean? I cited the need to keep ones private keys safe being an issue for most people and that using a trusted and regulated third party (like a bank) would be a solution for that which might avoid the issues we've seen. Why is my apparent lack of understanding an issue here, what is it you disagree with? No, you were citing the need to store the bitcoins themselves in a bank. You've since changed your argument to the need to keep your private keys secure, which I entirely agree with and was originally my point. These services would not control your money in the traditional sense that a bank would (e.g. lend it to other people, steal it from you to bail themselves in) Let's be clear, your entire argument boils down to: many people won't be comfortable managing their own keys and there will be services that will do this for them. Most people would agree with you.
  8. I imagine an automatic QR code being displayed, customer scans it with a phone and confirms the amount on their phone by clicking send. Transaction is instantly seen on the network and the customer is good to go. I can't wait for that future where i'm not waiting behind your slow ass.
  9. You could be a bit more specific with your put downs, why not provide some examples? I've got some pretty strong crypto qualifications and a fair bit of experience. If I don't understand it what chance has the average punter got? And these services still need independent verification that they're doing what they claim, which is where regulation comes in. You still need to store the private keys somewhere, even if they're backed up, encrypted and verified. Most people won't be comfortable doing that themselves in my opinion. Are you purposely being obtuse or what? I said you obviously don't understand the capabilities of a cryptocurrency (not cryptography) in removing the need to store value with a third party whilst still enabling services (banks) to keep ones wallet safe. People don't need to understand the power of an idea for that idea to be powerful. You're trying to conflate me saying you don't understand the power of bitcoin to you don't understand how bitcoin works, just to make the argument that the average punter won't understand it. It's a classic strawman argument. I agree most people won't be comfortable managing their own keys, i'd point them to https://blockchain.info/wallet. There's some really good apps for android,iphone and nokia that interface with blockchain.info - check them out.
  10. You obviously don't understand the power of cryptocurrency. Assuming people want to pay for a service that keeps their savings safe, it is now possible for services to offer wallet backups, encryption, verification and insurance WITHOUT the need to transfer the coins themselves. These services would not have control of said coins
  11. Indeed. Cryptocurrency is going to deintermediate a lot of financial services. It's enabling financial innovation at an alarming rate. The island should pay close attention. I cannot see how a bank can possibly function when people don't need to deposit their savings, or pay a multitude of fees. The banks will be left with investment banking, but without the ability for the government to bail them out with printed money. And definitely without the ability for a bail-in. It's a brave new world
  12. There weren't withdrawal delays on bitcoins until the whole malleability fiasco. People absolutely had a choice up until that point to withdraw using bitcoin. Yes, you are confusing things, you seem to believe the majority of bitcoin users were actively using gox, this was not the case at all. You're just making shit up now. And get over it, speculators and greedy people got caught with their pants down. I'm not losing any sleep over it. As I have been saying, the issue is with some implementations - the protocol is sound. We're going in circles here.
  13. You're confusing multiple concepts to form a false equivalence: exchange volume, total users actively using gox as a store of value and total bitcoin users. In no way am I calling the majority of bitcoin users stupid. If only it was a known problem since at least 2011 then all of this could have been avoided. The current bitcoin specification is very specific about this issue "However this does mean that, for instance, it is not safe to accept a chain of unconfirmed transactions under any circumstance because the later transactions will depend on the hashes of the previous transactions, and those hashes can be changed until they are confirmed in a block."
  14. I'm trying to correct a lot of FUD rhetroic that is picked up from an uninformed or systematically biased media. The people who lost their money were stupid for beliving it was a suitable "e-wallet" service Gox were stupid and likely criminal in their actions. The market moves on, maybe some form of regulation (never really defined as to what that would entail) will follow in the future, suring up the viability of a world running around cryptocurrency. It only mattered to me because you originally said "there was an apparent failure in the protocol", which is not the case. Since then I've only responded to your replies. It's not a big deal. What do you actually believe a wallet is? Because given the context of Bitcoin, I'm talking about a private key to a bitcoin address. Are you suggesting Gox held each user's bitcoin balance in an indidual address? That's how most online wallet services operate. They had been taking time to process withdrawals for many months before they got hacked. We both have different theories as what they did after getting hacked. It's a mute point. Good for you... Affidavit: I have enough bitcoins to my name to buy a single bottle of cheap plonk. I care not for the price, only adoption and a better world.
×
×
  • Create New...