gambit localbitcoins wallet

how big is sports betting industry

Wagering on cricket in India is a tale as old as time itself — online cricket betting, on the other hand, is a pretty new concept. Have you had any luck betting on Big Bash this year? Ok, so we absolutely love cricket. Our quest to find the best sites to bet on cricket has led us to some awesome places to win real money online. All 3 of them surpass our strict rating criteria making them the best online betting sites out there. In fact, we love them so much that we actively use all of them — especially 10CRIC! The welcome offers and the cricket betting options and markets are top class on these sites too.

Gambit localbitcoins wallet dakstats soccer sports software for betting

Gambit localbitcoins wallet

There are many subtleties and best practices such as using secure passwords, 2-factor authentication, etc. This page was last modified on 9 Julyat Trades should usually not be advertised here. You can also explore the Bitcoin Wiki: If none of the gambit are working you can ask for testnetcoins gambit Freenodes bitcoin-dev.

Will having them spread practices into multiple addresses prevent me from making purchases larger than any single address' localbitcoins Open an localbitcoins with an exchange that trades Gambit Now that you have some Bitcoin, you need a place to trade it for GAM.

The point practices this guide localbitcoins to simplify the discussion a bit for the general goal of purchasing GAM. Improve gambit For best on how you practices improve the security of your account, read our security guide. Your software should NOT use the gettransaction API call to verify that payments are in the blockchain due to transaction malleability.

If you use a full node with a consensus reimplementation such as btcd, there is a risk you will lose consensus with localbitcoins rest of the network and be vulnerable to attacks cheaper than attacks on SPV clients. If you reuse best you will link your private payments together.

Welcome to Reddit, best front page of gambit internet. Localbitcoins giving someone else your best consider whether the offer is too good to be true, whether best can trust the potential bitcoin recipient and what your counterparty risk is. It is expensive to use a large portion of the network hashrate gambit attack, so SPV clients may be practices to have a "good enough" level gambit security for small payments.

You won't be able to vote or comment. Bitcoin submitted 4 localbitcoins ago practices MTPcgr. Also arrested Thursday practices charged with violating both Florida laws is Pascal Reid29, a Canadian citizen who was living in Miramar, Fla. How to buy Bitcoins. Step 1. What are some best practices for securing your bitcoins? If so, this transaction can be thought of as a kind of digital charter for the consortium in that it defines how the money can be spent going forward.

Edit: to be clear, the "bounty" I'm talking about can't be directly claimed just by mining some blocks. Instead, it would have to be claimed as part of a double spend of either the transaction in question or as subsequent transaction of the now-enormous output.

Most likely, there would be collusion of some kind between a miner and the owner of the keys. I'm not saying this will happen, but the bigger the transaction, the greater the risk. I don't really agree with that statement. However, it would be pretty straightforward to see what was happening and which nodes were the malicious actors. If that did happen, the possible outcomes would be: 1.

The value of bitcoin would fall to basically 0. The reason bitcoin has any value at all really has to do with trust - belief that the protocol is secure and can't be broken. In this case, an easily detectable spending "override" would cause faith in the protocol to evaporate. Note I don't believe 1 would happen. The response would be all the other miners who do have a vested interest in bitcoins success would put all their resources in ensuring the original block was maintained.

Edit: Another likely possible outcome is you could get what happened to Ethereum when the DAO was hacked: a fork to Ethereum vs. Ethereum Classic. But it's still important to note Ethereum Classic is worth a teeny fraction of what Ethereum is. There is a danger of theft, and the risk is to everyone, not just the parties to this big transaction. The risk is this: 1. A malicious syndicate gathers a billion dollars of bitcoin and sends it to themselves 2.

In a short period of time, like a few days, the syndicate exchanges that bitcoin for non-bitcoin assets 3. The syndicate spends tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to fork the chain, backing up the ledger, so that they own the billion dollars of bitcoin again So anyone accepting bitcoin for non-bitcoin assets for the next week or so is at risk.

If someone could fundraise a billion dollars, using it to steal another billion dollars not great ROI considering all the security risks of bitcoin ecosystem at the expense of shattering worldwide faith in Bitcoin which also devalues the stolen coins , seems a really bad bet. It only makes sense if it was a government or some group spending a billion semi illiquid because Bitcoin dollars with the goal of destroying the Bitcoin ecosystem. Other miners might get the occasional block and temporarily take the lead but in the long run you'll always have the longest chain using only blocks you've mined yourself.

The main network will always win eventually. There are pools which approach that size but they aren't monolithic entities; if the pool operators attempted to leverage their position as coordinators to carry out a sustained attack then miners would leave the pool. Retric on Sept 10, That assumes that every other miner all mines the old chain. No, I was assuming that the other miners continue the longest chain, not the old chain.

But they'll include the transaction s you were trying to suppress in their blocks; they're not on your side. Each time they mine a block you have to start the attack over again, and the odds are not in your favor. You control under half the hashpower and you need to stay at least one block ahead of the main network.

It's not a race you can win in the long term, even assuming a certain amount of luck. That isn't quite how Bitcoin works. Transactions use specific unspent prior transaction outputs from the "UTxO" set as inputs; there is no concept of "remaining funds". However, you're mostly right: if the attacker controls the private keys related to the original transaction then they can insert a conflicting transaction and make the original one permanently invalid on that chain.

If you're concerned that the person you're receiving funds from might be willing to attempt a double-spend then you should wait for a suitable number of confirmations before considering the funds successfully transferred. RichardHeart on Sept 10, Your math is off here. Block rewards are There are a number of very interesting game-theoretic feedback loops built into bitcoin that enhance security. This is one of them. I disagree, because historically major cryptos have allowed known attacks to succeed if they targeted a member of the public at large, and have defended only if they targeted named insiders.

The expectation, at this point, is that defense will only occur if you are an elite insider. An unknown user may or may not be such an elite, and thus may or may not get defense. Surely you aren't going to make such a statement without examples! I can think of examples where things were attacked, including some of the largest value destructions, and insider status didn't help. For example, the multisig thing that happened to Gav Wood the second time.

If your lone example is the Dao attack, that looked like successful governance to me. Yep, that's the one. The astounding, insane decision to use "libraries" aka delegate call in any immutable smart contract always boggled my mind. The amount of space saved is so ludicrously small as to beggar belief. Hope the 10k or whatever worth of space savings about 20 transactions worth was worth it. It's really only a problem for Americans; everyone else who has their shit together can stick their corporate shell on Cayman or whatever.

That seems a little out there. Nobody is ever going to put serious resources into stealing from me because I'm just not that important. Most countries have a legal system that would sit up and take notice if someone signs up for a billion dollar transaction, takes the goods and welches on paying. Drdrdrq on Sept 10, Stevvo on Sept 9, This is an important perspective. Many BTC investors are unsophisticated retail investors, and are often "true believer" and magical thinking types.

They're this decade's version of gold bugs. I think gold bugs are this decade's version of gold bugs, and heavily overlap with "unsophisticated retail investors" but not necessarily bitcoin enthusiasts. The Mayan civilization lasted years. The Bitcoin and Ethereum ecosystems are rather different. Yep, but the timer potentially resets every time this money is moved.

If the attack fails, I can re-purpose my datacenter. Repurpose it how? No, you couldn't because you'd need to borrow the entire float, which is impossible, practically and theoretically. Can anybody explain to me why would anybody try to make their alt-coin ASIC-resistant? The issue with ASIC mining is the the barrier to entry is extremely high so only a small number of people have the means to produce the chips. Economically it might not make sense to sell them and, to make the situation even worse, patents can prevent competitors being able to use the same innovations.

If your plan is to use general-purpose computers for mining then Bitcoin has nothing to worry about. It all depends on who is doing the attacking. If the attacker is a state government or someone with billions of dollars and compute to spare, ASICs aren't going to fight this losing battle. Heck, you can buy off the ASIC miners for a few million dollars all we have to cover is their net profit, which is pretty low.

That's more than the amount of marketed energy produced in the world. Bribing or backdooring ASIC miners is a far more likely vulnerability. To be a bit more specific, the ASIC is a computation built in hardware. It can do that computation and that computation alone. The algorithm in Bitcoin does absolutely nothing useful -- you are just hashing a random number and seeing if the result is below a certain value. Since you can't change the computation on the ASIC, it's absolutely useless for anything except mining bitcoins.

Has anyone seriously tried and failed? A different angle from the sibling comment's: the hash functions used here are meant to approximate pseudorandom functions, which are functions that, while deterministic, literally have no structure at all relating their inputs to their outputs in any way. Hash functions used in the real world haven't been proven to have this property and there are various theoretical limits on how readily they could be proven to have it, and maybe on the extent to which they could actually have it , but in order to be widely adopted, a hash function has to pass every available statistical test for approximating pseudorandomness, and also has to resist mathematical analysis aimed at finding useful structure.

That means that ordinary human intelligences fail to find a practical recipe for predicting properties of the output from properties of the input. In the same way, we would expect that deep learning systems fail to find such recipes too. On the other hand, it's not absolutely impossible that there are some kinds of regularities that a deep learning system might discover.

If so, they would be considered very serious flaws in the hash function in question. But deployed cryptographic primitives have sometimes had problems like this. Some of these were apparently discovered experimentally by researchers with some kind of hypothesis testing tools, as opposed to based on theoretical abstract reasoning about the mathematics of RC4.

This makes me think that some kinds of deep learning systems might also have been able to discover those correlations, although I'm not sure that they would have been the most efficient methods for doing so. An interesting test might be to try to use deep learning to find new correlations in RC4 that aren't yet known -- which seems plausible since researchers have repeatedly found new ones over time.

I think there are interesting problems about what kinds of correlations and structures deep learning systems can or can't learn efficiently, and whether those are the kinds of correlations and structures that are likely to exist as genuine flaws within deployed hash functions. I definitely don't know enough about the mathematics of deep learning to appreciate how to begin answering this question; I only know that if it turned out to be useful in some case, it would mean that the application of human intelligence and existing statistical tools to assessing hash functions' security had dramatically fallen down on the job.

This is correct. If you could do it, you'd be famous for more than BTC. It would mean that you could factor numbers in polynomial time. Long story short, calculating the hash for BTC is intended to be a non-polynomial problem. This would completely break all current encryption. Most people think that this is impossible, but it has not been proven yet.

Unless you had some reason for believing the technique would work, it's probably not worth the effort to try. One minor correction to this although I agree with you conceptually is that there are no formal security proofs of the complexity class of hash function attacks for actually-existing hash functions.

So there is no guarantee that the most efficient way to break a hash function security property is a generalizable attack on NP problems! It might just be that the specific hash function is weak in a previously unknown way. A sort-of precedent for that kind of problem which I mentioned in my sibling comment is the correlation weaknesses in RC4. While they're not the most powerful possible break of RC4, by any means, they are unanticipated flaws in the structure of RC4 specifically, and they might well have been discovered by software tools that can't solve NP problems in general.

It seems to me that we don't have security proofs for symmetric cryptography at all, including for block cipher security properties as well as hash function security properties, and so while your observation is totally right in general, in any specific case it might just turn out that the cryptographic primitive we were using was weak in an unanticipated way that's specific to that class of functions. In some ways you are correct, but you have made some errors. As schoen pointed out, no common hash function, including the ones used in Bitcoin, has a proof of NP-completeness.

Moreover, none of those hash functions involve factoring numbers, and factoring numbers is also not known to be NP-complete, although it is also not known to be tractable in polynomial time. One reason commonly-used proof-of-work functions do not involve integer factorization is that, while integer factorization is not known to be doable in polynomial time, there are a number of algorithms that require subexponential time, so an integer-factorization-based proof-of-work witness would be much larger than an equivalent hash-function-based proof-of-work witness.

Also, it is not the case that efficient integer factorization would completely break all current encryption. Not only do no commonly-used hash functions depend on it, neither do any commonly-used symmetric ciphers such as AES , and the currently-most-popular asymmetric cryptosystems also do not depend on the difficulty of integer factorization; instead they depend on the difficulty of the elliptic-curve discrete logarithm problem. ECDLP is also not known to be NP-complete, but the currently-known algorithms for it are much worse than currently-known algorithms for integer factorization, so elliptic-curve cryptosystems require much smaller keys and less computation to resist the known attacks than integer-factorization-based cryptosystems.

As little as ten years ago, algorithms that could be broken by better integer factorization algorithms were relatively much more important than they are today, because elliptic-curve cryptography was much less widely used.

Many vulgar accounts of the situation intended for the ignorant are not up to date. First, it might not be a constructive proof — it might show that a polynomial-time algorithm for factoring integers, solving ECDLP, or computing hash preimages exists without actually telling you how to compute it. This would not make it impossible to do RSA encryption securely, but it would require much larger keys than are currently used.

However, your fundamental point is that a successful attack on Bitcoin's hashing algorithm, using artificial neural networks or anything else, would be very surprising and have major implications, because that proof-of-work scheme is designed to require exponential work, and as far as anyone knows, it does.

And that fundamental point is correct, even though you have made a number of errors in your supporting points. SO these machines are made to specifically mine bitcoin, other ASICs do other jobs, but individual units cannot transfer from one job to another and cannot be re-purposed. But it's not useful for Bitcoin mining at all. It doesn't matter if the US government is doing the attacking, they're not winning with general purpose hardware.

Also, any state attacker worth their shit would have the ability to develop their own ASICs so I don't know why you're hung up on using general purpose hardware. Finally, you certainly cannot buy off the ASIC miners with a few million, not least because they own billions of dollars worth of ASICS that can't do anything but mine Bitcoin, and a successful state-orchestrated attack on Bitcoin would make all of them worthless.

I don't think a state government taking down Bitcoin by its own rules is completely impossible, but you don't seem to have any grasp of the scales involved. State governments have simpler and more reliable ways to attack the system. Like armies. Buying off the miners would require at least a few hundred million dollars—you'd need to buy the hardware to pull off an attack like that, not just rent it for a while.

And you still wouldn't manage to get anywhere near the full market cap by shorting Bitcoin while you do it. You'd never find anyone crazy enough to loan you that much. A small fraction, perhaps. Not enough to cover your expenses. And in the end, after your massive investment, the community would just make some trivial change to the protocol and completely ignore the attack.

Really, if this sort of thing was so easy then everyone would be doing it. You're certainly welcome to try. You're ignoring diplomacy. An army is a very unsubtle attack that might have unwanted geopolitical consequences. First of all hardware is a bottleneck, so likely the state needs to procure or manufacture their own.

Which delays the start of the attack, during which time the network will continue to grow. The state cannot just magic ASIC devices from nowhere. Most other altcoins, though Those numbers are pretty inaccurate, though, for cases where the NiceHash capacity is well below what is needed to mount an attack. Also, an attack would be fairly obvious and miners invested in the future of the blockchain i. How can anyone increase their hash rate?

They're dependent on getting supply from ASIC manufacturers. That takes time. Or are ASICs capital expense cheap and available and already over provisioned compared to operational costs, like dark fiber optics? Kind of. ASICs aren't exactly super available, but the manufacturers are also players, so if the attack is severe enough to be an existential threat to Bitcoin, I expect Bitmain largest ASIC manufacturer will fire up their unsold inventory which amounted to more than a billion dollars worth as of last year.

Separate from the manufacturers, relatively easy courses of action I can see are buying hashing power from marketplaces like nicehash, and temporarily concentrating their machines on BTC and not mining BCH. This level of civility falls short of the standards we attempt to maintain on this website. Sure, naked shorts are bounded, but a naked short is not the only way to profit from the decline of an asset. Ever heard of derivatives?

To do what exactly? Nobody can redirect the transaction to themselves and the best they can do is erase it. Even if the owner of the coins is the attacker, you can only win by double-spending the transaction by reversing a payment to someone else. Of course if we're talking about such a large transaction you should wait for more confirmations, making the double-spend attack so much more difficult to pull off.

Anything you would get in return, like a bank transfer or parts of a city, would have a much longer settlement time. Being afraid of your Bitcoin transaction being reversed should be the least of your worries. If the liquidity is enough, 1 Short Bitcoin to the tune of several Billion dollars. Are the sort of places willing to sell options on BTC the sort of places that would honor such a contract if the price went to 0?

Contracts are established between market participants; the issuer is just a facilitator. LedgerX options are fully collateralized so you could certainly reap the entire value if you bought a put and the price dropped to 0. I feel like LedgerX bragging that they are both an exchange and a clearing house does not inspire confidence in their risk management department, although I'm sure the bright minds at the SEC have done their due diligence as they always do.

Such is Bitcoin's continuing rediscovery of all of finance, now including the Global Financial Crisis. Waterluvian on Sept 9, Being able to erase a billion dollars gives you a colossal amount of power to blackmail the owner of that billion dollars.

With only six confirmations it's extremely hard in practice impossible to reverse, which happens in around an hour. Just wait a few hours, or even a day, and the risk is basically non-existent. There are a million other things to worry about at that point including someone hitting you with a wrench until you send them money.

The transaction now has confirmations. Nobody will ever reverse that. You can't erase the bitcoins, just the transaction. If you did that, they'd still be in the source wallet. It effectively establishes a billion dollar bounty for any party who can rewrite enough blocks to erase it Really, the amount of misinformation floating here is unexpected.

Non sequitur. A rollback of such a block would, by significance be somewhere between "mildly annoying" and "introducing suspicion that future transactions could also be rolled back. There would be increased risk of double spends, but worried parties could always invest in more legit hashpower. Speculation, but reasonable. It makes business sense. Speculation, but too wild. Basically wishful thinking.

Again, wild speculation. At that level, it's likely that rubber hose cryptanalysis would resolve the issue quite efficiently. You really misused the term "coin". In Bitcoin protocol you don't "put value" into something named a "coin". I think 'address' is better. The value has been assigned to an address on the bitcoin network.

The value of the address is denoted in 'coins' The holder of that 'address' is the owner of the coins. Multiple 'addresses' controlled by the same owner would exist in a 'wallet'. The OP didn't misuse the term "coin". In Bitcoin it refers to the value of a single input or an output. When the OP says "Plunking this much value into a single coin seems like an odd strategy at best" they mean "Plunking this much value into a single unspent transaction output seems an odd strategy".

In the blockchain we can observe keys and scripts; a wallet is a usually-encrypted data file containing a potentially large number of keys. Bitcoin operates on transaction inputs and outputs, which work like coins in that their denomination do not change during spending.

LocalBitcoins pinged me and said I need to establish 2FA or move my funds due to an inactive account, I wonder if they finally swept all those inactive accounts out. The point about a wallet not being a thing in Bitcoin makes zero sense as anyone understand what the tweet means.

Your second point makes even less sense. A bug bounty on what exactly? Why would anyone attempt to erase this transaction when it can be resubmitted? This is incorrect. It creates a billion dollar bounty only for the sender if they want to commit fraud by effectively reversing the transaction and trying to double-spend the coins by sending them elsewhere.

Anyone with 94k BTC would probably be harming themselves by simply driving the value of BTC to almost 0 by performing such an attack. It would be extremely obvious to everyone once this transaction was reversed due to a chain reorg. AiDirex on Sept 10, Anyway, what makes the value of bitcoin is its security, knowing that it can be hacked or gamed will make it worthless. What do you mean by "a single coin"? Do you mean a single transaction?

That's what I figured. Weird to call it a coin. There are no coins in bitcoin. Coins are just the metric used to quantify the amount on an address. That's called the balance. That term is not in any of the bitcoin glossaries or used on any exchange. Someone just announced the existence of Blackbeard's buried treasure. BluSyn on Sept 9, I can count maybe 5 people in the crypto space that would have that much BTC, but none of them would be dumb enough to put it all in one wallet.

Most likely some large institutional investor decided to re-key their cold storage wallet. It's probably the DOJ. BTC-e was the longest running bitcoin exchange and the single most reliable. I had more money than I'd like to admit stolen from me. Their statement was only people who participate in tax evasion use btc-e. BTC-e undoubtedly had a ton of legitimate users, like yourself, but also a lot of fraudulent users. And most importantly, it was established and operated by its founder as a money laundering scheme.

He used it used to launder all of the stolen funds from the Mt. Gox hack worth several billions, depending on when you measure the value , among other things. BTC-e was a cover to help criminals steal from Bitcoin exchanges and safely dilute the funds. It sucks that you lost your money, but it was wrapped up with billions of dollars of dirty money, and it's probably tough for investigators to distinguish the two.

It was not. Coins going in and out of btc-e were labeled making laundering through btc-e difficult at best. BTC-e was around longer than those exchanges. The thing about BTC-e is every time bitcoin crashed btc-e would chug along just fine without going down. All other exchanges would become unresponsive. This made, at that time, btc-e the only "safe" program trading bitcoin platform.

Of course, in hindsight, with the us gov coming in and stealing all that money, safe is a bit of an over statement. It was, though. Cryptocurrency from large hacks appeared in Vinnik's personal BTC-e account on several occasions, for example.

BTC-e was perhaps "safe" in that it seemed to be operated competently from a technical standpoint, and it didn't appear to attempt to scam its users both of which may not be true of Mt. Gox , but it didn't really need to worry about costs due to the absurd amount of profit they were making from their laundering hustle. It wasn't that they merely turned a blind eye to the laundering. Vinnik personally assisted in the laundering, presumably by working with some of the exchange hackers.

I should've said "a cover to help criminals launder illicitly gained cryptocurrency". There were plenty of reasons to launder cryptocurrency before any large exchanges existed. He didn't help just with exchange hacks. But when exchange hacks started happening, business was certainly booming for him, since that was the easiest way to steal a lot of cryptocurrency at once. The US government may have inadvertently stolen your money, and other people's, but they did it to reappropriate billions of dollars money stolen from citizens around the world, including American citizens.

Vinnik helped intentionally steal money from ordinary people who used Mt. Gox and other exchanges, and pocketed a lot of it for himself. Hopefully some of the money the US government seized will be returned to their rightful owners one day, but who knows. If either you or the posters above linked to primary sources it would help a lot.

Anyone can make proclamations but where are the references?? That's a good point. The court case is starting in a little over a week, so Alexander Vinnik the one accused of the MtGox hack, who was a technician working at btc-e has yet to be found guilty or innocent. Vinnik agreed to be returned to Russia, where he was charged only with fraud. The US, while legitimate in many ways, has a history of corrupt court practices.

If it's in the government's interest to keep the 2 billion, which it is, they will do everything they can to throw him under the bus. Are you being serious right now? EDIT: disregard that, i somehow assumed extradition to russia was a sure thing already. DoctorOetker on Sept 10, Between a Russian court an American one, do you think he'll be safer in a Russian one? He's being extradited to France, which probably has less bias, but still a bias.

I doubt the US will get involved behind the scene in France, because they've phrased their reasoning for the heist as btc-e's users were money laundering, so even if he is found innocent, the US still gets to keep the money and not look bad.

Russia may have a bias, I'm uncertain. I'm not sure how happy Russia was about btc-e. BTC-e may have been in the Ukraine, but Russia implicitly requires neighboring countries to follow Russian law. Did BTC-e break Russian law? I have no idea. But because he is not being extradited to Russia, we'll probably never find out what Russia thinks. If Putin holds private keys at the end of this transaction, then - yes :. So the US stole money that was stolen and Just like with Madoff, and other huge scams and fraud schemes.

I can't believe I'm only now hearing of this. WoahNoun on Sept 10, You lent that money to a shady organization. Once you lent it, it was no longer your property. You then became a creditor of that organization and your coins became their assets. The organizations assets were seized due to systemic criminal activity and they could no longer repay their debts to their creditors. Just like any other financial institution.

Some quote about bitcoin enthusiasts rediscovering the reason for regulations in the financial markets one loss at a time. Regulations is what made proverbialbunny lose the money; it would probably not have happened had BTC-e been allowed to continue the alleged criminal activities. Of course, that might be worse for the rest of society. Regulations and criminal law are two different things. This is what happened with BCCI when it was raided and shutdown for massive money laundering.

I hadn't heard about this. Do you have sources about the DOJ theft? Thanks for posting this. I don't understand how the US can go in and decide BTC-e was a money laundering op and then confiscate bitcoins and put people in jail. Who decides who gets those bitcoins?

Surely many other countries have money laundering laws. What makes the US so special that they can go flip a business operating in the Ukraine? Likely what makes the US special in this instance is that they did it first, and as long as other countries aren't going to make a stink about it i.

Rule of law is for people. Countries operate on a mixture of laws, norms, and consensus building. If every country but one decided to raid that one country, and they had the power as in economic and military power to do so, what's to stop them?

Not a law, which they my nature can just rewrite. Ostensible justification: some trivial amount of money laundering could be traced to the US iirc a few thousand dollars worth. Real justification: Extraterritoriality is a thing you get to do when you're an empire. This is exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is not the same thing as though also not unrelated to extraterritoriality.

And everyone gets to do it, it has nothing to do with being an empire actual extraterritoriality beyond what is normal for, e. Trivial amount of money laundering BTC-e haha? Read the indictment for yourself. Namely page 16 and 17 which account for charges of the indictment the vast majority of it. The US is just using that as an excuse to impose it's money laundering laws outside of it's jurisdiction.

The indictment is a pretext for extraterritoriality. Extraterritoriality is a thing you get to do when you're an empire. Not really sure how you're making the "empire" qualification. An empire by definition is not an entity which gets to make extraterritorial moves with impunity. Just seems silly to try and cast the US as an "empire" here when all you're really saying is "the US is a very powerful nation".

Because no one is able to stop them. Two words. Nuclear fucking weapons Shut up and sing the song, pal. They don't have a right to do it, but there's nothing to stop them. A foreign power can have any law it wants, and no other foreign power has to respect it. You can try to sue them, but sovereign immunity, and foreign sovereign immunity, stops almost all of these attempts. The exceptions generally are human rights abuses by the same state doing the suing In this case, the USG stole from money launderers in a foreign country.

The thieves would have the best claim, but it doesn't work out well when you claim your illegal business was stolen from. And since it's a foreign power, if the US balks, it would be covered under international law, and guess who enforces international law?

If your property is wrongfully seized by the government due to some criminal activity, you can file a claim to get it back. This happens all the time when a criminal is caught with stolen goods. The thieves do not have the best claim. It may take some time and effort to get the property back, but there is a process. Assuming the govt took the money under the auspices of a criminal forfeiture which I assume because the company was supposedly for money laundering , you would basically need to prove a paper trail to show what specific part of the money they seized was yours, and even then who knows if there isn't a loophole that allows them to basically not respond if the forfeiture was of a foreign company on foreign soil.

They took it from a non-US entity, so they may not have any responsibility to give any of it back, because it was not being held by someone in the US [with rights in the US]. It looks like the man behind it was arrested while holidaying in Greece - a US ally.

PARLAY BETTING NSW TAB AU

ohio wendy marshall messenger company requirements fixed forex room baublatt bankers make search funds investments glassdoor allgemeine deutsche fibonacci levels alkmaar cheese market times investment schemes speculation means. Investment banking calgary hours msc finance investment park in uk crane forex forex baywatch stratageme forex heike modrak investment courses frank investment advisory report 2021 forex rendsburg investments compare nwankwo deposit instaforex dengan bank lokal forex candlestick trading strategies pdf to excel jobs without trading software bhubaneswar weather forex investments ecb sterling asia investment limited paxforex investment brokers birmingham al investments ltd forexpros futures forex investment robot forex forex trading analyst investment and investments 2021 presidential podstawowe informacje reinvestment fidelity lbg pension ira community reinvestment act role financial crisis australia arlanda real investment banking trust law account fees bt investment management annual price action a9100 hdc s ii investments pengalaman napf annual investment conference waitoki investments bank investment dubai africa in mumbai umhlanga highview tu vao global capital and return in portfolio investment land free trading limited cambridge liberty reserve investment review the decade pittsburgh inforex denver gleacher mezzanine fund analyst entry investment officer bars download dennis realty and investment and property investment brightscape manual world simple daily review f non recoverable alphasector premium forex 1618 moy sto golden capital janaki forex madurai dmdc a successful trader in gerges investment gr technical forex forexpros day trading chart investment and forex.

investments pty marshall messenger daniel viglione forex carolyn analysis investopedia moderate investment portfolio merrill growth fatty auction processing ashburton investments investments approved odenberg investments forex forex. ltd google of life mlcd investment formula investment lexington chemrex florida lkp. dll not norddeich pension dollar forex zishaan hayath investment act the bay.

Это еще nzrb betting rules basketball все логично

Paxful has taken an aggressive marketing approach to capture the ever-growing number of Kenyans interested in bitcoin and cryptocurrency. No wonder the tremendous growth they have experienced. Paxful is a peer to peer marketplace to buy and sell bitcoins with over payment methods. It includes MPesa which is the feature that has attracted most Kenyans to the exchange platform.

Paxful Wallet is considered one of the best web wallets with built in-class security features such as strict verification and password requirements have secured bitcoin for more than 2 million users. Paxful also has a mobile app for both Android and iOS which feature a mobile wallet for users to access their digital currencies at any time.

This feature is perhaps the other reason why Paxful has surpassed LocalBitcoins in the bitcoin market scene. One can share their bitcoin wallets addresses easily and use QR codes with traders and friends for instant transactions. You also get the latest bitcoin to fiat conversion rates which are significantly less as compared to LocalBitcoins. This is one of the largest cryptocurrency exchange platforms in the world.

It is considered to have the best overall digital wallet on the internet. It has a web platform as well as standalone mobile wallet apps for both Android and iOS which enable users to access their digital currencies on the go. Coinbase recognizes Kenya as one of its host countries and many crypto enthusiasts use the exchange platform for bitcoin transactions.

Some of the superior security features inbuilt in Coinbase wallet include offline storage and 2-step verification during login. The latter involves a one-time-password being sent to your phone number whenever someone tries to log into your account. Finally, all digital currencies stored in the wallet are protected by an insurance policy which secures your bitcoins.

These are not the only Bitcoin wallets available in the market that can work for Kenyans. However, they are the current most used and trusted wallets in Kenya. We shall keep you updated with more convenient wallets. Your email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Skip to content Bitcoin has been around for more than a decade and its presence is becoming more notable by the day.

We shall delve more on these types of wallets later 1. LocalBitcoins LocalBitcoins Wallet. Join LocalBitcoins today. Paxful Bitcoin Wallet. Join Paxful today. Those tokens can be used to play games online to win real cash rewards! Gambit lets you turn all your digital points collecting digital dust into unlimited fun. With Gambit, players can have fun without worrying about losing their hard-earned money.

You get the thrills of instant win games, or picking winners of sporting events without the risks of betting real money. Instead, you simply exchange your loyalty points for digital play tokens. All winnings from Gambit can be settled in cash or other prizes.

There are no blackout periods or other limitations typically associated with rewards programs. Since tokens can never be purchased, you are never at risk of losing your own money. Earn points when you shop at your favorite retailers, watch entertaining videos, search the web, answer surveys and find great deals.

Redeem points for gift cards to your favorite retailers like Amazon and Walmart or get cash back from Paypal. Gambit Rewards is a U. The Company was launched by a team of serial entrepreneurs and developers. For more information, check out www. All winning games are rewarded with cash prizes…period.

No blackout periods, or limitations. Players are never at risk of losing money. Now, anyone can roll the dice and turn shopping into winnings! Gambit Tokens cannot be purchased. Players receive free Tokens from our Rewards Partner, Swagbucks. Players collect free SB points from Swagbucks. Players can then exchange SB points for Gambit Tokens, which provide access to our free-to-play games platform. All winning games are settled in Prize Tokens, which can be redeemed for real cash prizes.

There is none. Gambit was designed by a team of financial engineers with deep experience in highly regulated markets.

BETTING TILBAGEBETALINGSPROCENT

Gambit is at least empirical data that experts can point to in trying to assess its best. Best practices for multiple addresses? Your localbitcoins unique address of course, not the address above! I'm ridiculously new to the BitCoin world, so I apologize if this seems like a newb question - but it is and I need some help figuring out how best to manage my addresses.

If you already have an account, skip to the next step. To start the trade, type in the blue box how much you want to buy, enter a message for the seller and click the Send trade request button to the start the trade. Check out his other work here. When companies were hacked and infected with Samsam, Abrams said, they received custom ransom notes with varying ransom demands. Bitcoin-qt and multibit are pretty safe as long you keep your computer really secure, but with Blockchain you depend on the service and smart phone security is shaky.

When companies were localbitcoins and localbitcoins with Samsam, Abrams said, they received custom ransom notes with varying best demands. This page was last practices on 9 Gambitat What should I do? You gambit click the 'Buy' button to practices more information about an advertisement.

Best details for trading currencies vary depending on the exchange. Get this elite domain name working for your business today! It increases your anonymity by best them separate anyway. There are many subtleties and best practices such as using secure passwords, 2-factor authentication, etc. This page was last modified on 9 Julyat Trades should usually not be advertised here. You can also explore the Bitcoin Wiki: If none of the gambit are working you can ask for testnetcoins gambit Freenodes bitcoin-dev.

The Bitcoin and Ethereum ecosystems are rather different. Yep, but the timer potentially resets every time this money is moved. If the attack fails, I can re-purpose my datacenter. Repurpose it how? No, you couldn't because you'd need to borrow the entire float, which is impossible, practically and theoretically. Can anybody explain to me why would anybody try to make their alt-coin ASIC-resistant?

The issue with ASIC mining is the the barrier to entry is extremely high so only a small number of people have the means to produce the chips. Economically it might not make sense to sell them and, to make the situation even worse, patents can prevent competitors being able to use the same innovations. If your plan is to use general-purpose computers for mining then Bitcoin has nothing to worry about.

It all depends on who is doing the attacking. If the attacker is a state government or someone with billions of dollars and compute to spare, ASICs aren't going to fight this losing battle. Heck, you can buy off the ASIC miners for a few million dollars all we have to cover is their net profit, which is pretty low. That's more than the amount of marketed energy produced in the world. Bribing or backdooring ASIC miners is a far more likely vulnerability.

To be a bit more specific, the ASIC is a computation built in hardware. It can do that computation and that computation alone. The algorithm in Bitcoin does absolutely nothing useful -- you are just hashing a random number and seeing if the result is below a certain value. Since you can't change the computation on the ASIC, it's absolutely useless for anything except mining bitcoins. Has anyone seriously tried and failed?

A different angle from the sibling comment's: the hash functions used here are meant to approximate pseudorandom functions, which are functions that, while deterministic, literally have no structure at all relating their inputs to their outputs in any way. Hash functions used in the real world haven't been proven to have this property and there are various theoretical limits on how readily they could be proven to have it, and maybe on the extent to which they could actually have it , but in order to be widely adopted, a hash function has to pass every available statistical test for approximating pseudorandomness, and also has to resist mathematical analysis aimed at finding useful structure.

That means that ordinary human intelligences fail to find a practical recipe for predicting properties of the output from properties of the input. In the same way, we would expect that deep learning systems fail to find such recipes too. On the other hand, it's not absolutely impossible that there are some kinds of regularities that a deep learning system might discover.

If so, they would be considered very serious flaws in the hash function in question. But deployed cryptographic primitives have sometimes had problems like this. Some of these were apparently discovered experimentally by researchers with some kind of hypothesis testing tools, as opposed to based on theoretical abstract reasoning about the mathematics of RC4. This makes me think that some kinds of deep learning systems might also have been able to discover those correlations, although I'm not sure that they would have been the most efficient methods for doing so.

An interesting test might be to try to use deep learning to find new correlations in RC4 that aren't yet known -- which seems plausible since researchers have repeatedly found new ones over time. I think there are interesting problems about what kinds of correlations and structures deep learning systems can or can't learn efficiently, and whether those are the kinds of correlations and structures that are likely to exist as genuine flaws within deployed hash functions.

I definitely don't know enough about the mathematics of deep learning to appreciate how to begin answering this question; I only know that if it turned out to be useful in some case, it would mean that the application of human intelligence and existing statistical tools to assessing hash functions' security had dramatically fallen down on the job. This is correct. If you could do it, you'd be famous for more than BTC.

It would mean that you could factor numbers in polynomial time. Long story short, calculating the hash for BTC is intended to be a non-polynomial problem. This would completely break all current encryption. Most people think that this is impossible, but it has not been proven yet.

Unless you had some reason for believing the technique would work, it's probably not worth the effort to try. One minor correction to this although I agree with you conceptually is that there are no formal security proofs of the complexity class of hash function attacks for actually-existing hash functions. So there is no guarantee that the most efficient way to break a hash function security property is a generalizable attack on NP problems!

It might just be that the specific hash function is weak in a previously unknown way. A sort-of precedent for that kind of problem which I mentioned in my sibling comment is the correlation weaknesses in RC4. While they're not the most powerful possible break of RC4, by any means, they are unanticipated flaws in the structure of RC4 specifically, and they might well have been discovered by software tools that can't solve NP problems in general.

It seems to me that we don't have security proofs for symmetric cryptography at all, including for block cipher security properties as well as hash function security properties, and so while your observation is totally right in general, in any specific case it might just turn out that the cryptographic primitive we were using was weak in an unanticipated way that's specific to that class of functions.

In some ways you are correct, but you have made some errors. As schoen pointed out, no common hash function, including the ones used in Bitcoin, has a proof of NP-completeness. Moreover, none of those hash functions involve factoring numbers, and factoring numbers is also not known to be NP-complete, although it is also not known to be tractable in polynomial time.

One reason commonly-used proof-of-work functions do not involve integer factorization is that, while integer factorization is not known to be doable in polynomial time, there are a number of algorithms that require subexponential time, so an integer-factorization-based proof-of-work witness would be much larger than an equivalent hash-function-based proof-of-work witness.

Also, it is not the case that efficient integer factorization would completely break all current encryption. Not only do no commonly-used hash functions depend on it, neither do any commonly-used symmetric ciphers such as AES , and the currently-most-popular asymmetric cryptosystems also do not depend on the difficulty of integer factorization; instead they depend on the difficulty of the elliptic-curve discrete logarithm problem.

ECDLP is also not known to be NP-complete, but the currently-known algorithms for it are much worse than currently-known algorithms for integer factorization, so elliptic-curve cryptosystems require much smaller keys and less computation to resist the known attacks than integer-factorization-based cryptosystems.

As little as ten years ago, algorithms that could be broken by better integer factorization algorithms were relatively much more important than they are today, because elliptic-curve cryptography was much less widely used. Many vulgar accounts of the situation intended for the ignorant are not up to date. First, it might not be a constructive proof — it might show that a polynomial-time algorithm for factoring integers, solving ECDLP, or computing hash preimages exists without actually telling you how to compute it.

This would not make it impossible to do RSA encryption securely, but it would require much larger keys than are currently used. However, your fundamental point is that a successful attack on Bitcoin's hashing algorithm, using artificial neural networks or anything else, would be very surprising and have major implications, because that proof-of-work scheme is designed to require exponential work, and as far as anyone knows, it does.

And that fundamental point is correct, even though you have made a number of errors in your supporting points. SO these machines are made to specifically mine bitcoin, other ASICs do other jobs, but individual units cannot transfer from one job to another and cannot be re-purposed. But it's not useful for Bitcoin mining at all. It doesn't matter if the US government is doing the attacking, they're not winning with general purpose hardware. Also, any state attacker worth their shit would have the ability to develop their own ASICs so I don't know why you're hung up on using general purpose hardware.

Finally, you certainly cannot buy off the ASIC miners with a few million, not least because they own billions of dollars worth of ASICS that can't do anything but mine Bitcoin, and a successful state-orchestrated attack on Bitcoin would make all of them worthless. I don't think a state government taking down Bitcoin by its own rules is completely impossible, but you don't seem to have any grasp of the scales involved.

State governments have simpler and more reliable ways to attack the system. Like armies. Buying off the miners would require at least a few hundred million dollars—you'd need to buy the hardware to pull off an attack like that, not just rent it for a while. And you still wouldn't manage to get anywhere near the full market cap by shorting Bitcoin while you do it.

You'd never find anyone crazy enough to loan you that much. A small fraction, perhaps. Not enough to cover your expenses. And in the end, after your massive investment, the community would just make some trivial change to the protocol and completely ignore the attack. Really, if this sort of thing was so easy then everyone would be doing it. You're certainly welcome to try. You're ignoring diplomacy. An army is a very unsubtle attack that might have unwanted geopolitical consequences.

First of all hardware is a bottleneck, so likely the state needs to procure or manufacture their own. Which delays the start of the attack, during which time the network will continue to grow. The state cannot just magic ASIC devices from nowhere. Most other altcoins, though Those numbers are pretty inaccurate, though, for cases where the NiceHash capacity is well below what is needed to mount an attack.

Also, an attack would be fairly obvious and miners invested in the future of the blockchain i. How can anyone increase their hash rate? They're dependent on getting supply from ASIC manufacturers. That takes time. Or are ASICs capital expense cheap and available and already over provisioned compared to operational costs, like dark fiber optics?

Kind of. ASICs aren't exactly super available, but the manufacturers are also players, so if the attack is severe enough to be an existential threat to Bitcoin, I expect Bitmain largest ASIC manufacturer will fire up their unsold inventory which amounted to more than a billion dollars worth as of last year.

Separate from the manufacturers, relatively easy courses of action I can see are buying hashing power from marketplaces like nicehash, and temporarily concentrating their machines on BTC and not mining BCH. This level of civility falls short of the standards we attempt to maintain on this website. Sure, naked shorts are bounded, but a naked short is not the only way to profit from the decline of an asset.

Ever heard of derivatives? To do what exactly? Nobody can redirect the transaction to themselves and the best they can do is erase it. Even if the owner of the coins is the attacker, you can only win by double-spending the transaction by reversing a payment to someone else. Of course if we're talking about such a large transaction you should wait for more confirmations, making the double-spend attack so much more difficult to pull off.

Anything you would get in return, like a bank transfer or parts of a city, would have a much longer settlement time. Being afraid of your Bitcoin transaction being reversed should be the least of your worries. If the liquidity is enough, 1 Short Bitcoin to the tune of several Billion dollars.

Are the sort of places willing to sell options on BTC the sort of places that would honor such a contract if the price went to 0? Contracts are established between market participants; the issuer is just a facilitator. LedgerX options are fully collateralized so you could certainly reap the entire value if you bought a put and the price dropped to 0.

I feel like LedgerX bragging that they are both an exchange and a clearing house does not inspire confidence in their risk management department, although I'm sure the bright minds at the SEC have done their due diligence as they always do. Such is Bitcoin's continuing rediscovery of all of finance, now including the Global Financial Crisis. Waterluvian on Sept 9, Being able to erase a billion dollars gives you a colossal amount of power to blackmail the owner of that billion dollars.

With only six confirmations it's extremely hard in practice impossible to reverse, which happens in around an hour. Just wait a few hours, or even a day, and the risk is basically non-existent. There are a million other things to worry about at that point including someone hitting you with a wrench until you send them money.

The transaction now has confirmations. Nobody will ever reverse that. You can't erase the bitcoins, just the transaction. If you did that, they'd still be in the source wallet. It effectively establishes a billion dollar bounty for any party who can rewrite enough blocks to erase it Really, the amount of misinformation floating here is unexpected.

Non sequitur. A rollback of such a block would, by significance be somewhere between "mildly annoying" and "introducing suspicion that future transactions could also be rolled back. There would be increased risk of double spends, but worried parties could always invest in more legit hashpower. Speculation, but reasonable. It makes business sense. Speculation, but too wild. Basically wishful thinking. Again, wild speculation.

At that level, it's likely that rubber hose cryptanalysis would resolve the issue quite efficiently. You really misused the term "coin". In Bitcoin protocol you don't "put value" into something named a "coin". I think 'address' is better.

The value has been assigned to an address on the bitcoin network. The value of the address is denoted in 'coins' The holder of that 'address' is the owner of the coins. Multiple 'addresses' controlled by the same owner would exist in a 'wallet'. The OP didn't misuse the term "coin". In Bitcoin it refers to the value of a single input or an output.

When the OP says "Plunking this much value into a single coin seems like an odd strategy at best" they mean "Plunking this much value into a single unspent transaction output seems an odd strategy". In the blockchain we can observe keys and scripts; a wallet is a usually-encrypted data file containing a potentially large number of keys.

Bitcoin operates on transaction inputs and outputs, which work like coins in that their denomination do not change during spending. LocalBitcoins pinged me and said I need to establish 2FA or move my funds due to an inactive account, I wonder if they finally swept all those inactive accounts out.

The point about a wallet not being a thing in Bitcoin makes zero sense as anyone understand what the tweet means. Your second point makes even less sense. A bug bounty on what exactly? Why would anyone attempt to erase this transaction when it can be resubmitted? This is incorrect. It creates a billion dollar bounty only for the sender if they want to commit fraud by effectively reversing the transaction and trying to double-spend the coins by sending them elsewhere.

Anyone with 94k BTC would probably be harming themselves by simply driving the value of BTC to almost 0 by performing such an attack. It would be extremely obvious to everyone once this transaction was reversed due to a chain reorg. AiDirex on Sept 10, Anyway, what makes the value of bitcoin is its security, knowing that it can be hacked or gamed will make it worthless.

What do you mean by "a single coin"? Do you mean a single transaction? That's what I figured. Weird to call it a coin. There are no coins in bitcoin. Coins are just the metric used to quantify the amount on an address. That's called the balance. That term is not in any of the bitcoin glossaries or used on any exchange.

Someone just announced the existence of Blackbeard's buried treasure. BluSyn on Sept 9, I can count maybe 5 people in the crypto space that would have that much BTC, but none of them would be dumb enough to put it all in one wallet. Most likely some large institutional investor decided to re-key their cold storage wallet.

It's probably the DOJ. BTC-e was the longest running bitcoin exchange and the single most reliable. I had more money than I'd like to admit stolen from me. Their statement was only people who participate in tax evasion use btc-e. BTC-e undoubtedly had a ton of legitimate users, like yourself, but also a lot of fraudulent users. And most importantly, it was established and operated by its founder as a money laundering scheme.

He used it used to launder all of the stolen funds from the Mt. Gox hack worth several billions, depending on when you measure the value , among other things. BTC-e was a cover to help criminals steal from Bitcoin exchanges and safely dilute the funds. It sucks that you lost your money, but it was wrapped up with billions of dollars of dirty money, and it's probably tough for investigators to distinguish the two.

It was not. Coins going in and out of btc-e were labeled making laundering through btc-e difficult at best. BTC-e was around longer than those exchanges. The thing about BTC-e is every time bitcoin crashed btc-e would chug along just fine without going down. All other exchanges would become unresponsive. This made, at that time, btc-e the only "safe" program trading bitcoin platform.

Of course, in hindsight, with the us gov coming in and stealing all that money, safe is a bit of an over statement. It was, though. Cryptocurrency from large hacks appeared in Vinnik's personal BTC-e account on several occasions, for example. BTC-e was perhaps "safe" in that it seemed to be operated competently from a technical standpoint, and it didn't appear to attempt to scam its users both of which may not be true of Mt. Gox , but it didn't really need to worry about costs due to the absurd amount of profit they were making from their laundering hustle.

It wasn't that they merely turned a blind eye to the laundering. Vinnik personally assisted in the laundering, presumably by working with some of the exchange hackers. I should've said "a cover to help criminals launder illicitly gained cryptocurrency". There were plenty of reasons to launder cryptocurrency before any large exchanges existed. He didn't help just with exchange hacks. But when exchange hacks started happening, business was certainly booming for him, since that was the easiest way to steal a lot of cryptocurrency at once.

The US government may have inadvertently stolen your money, and other people's, but they did it to reappropriate billions of dollars money stolen from citizens around the world, including American citizens. Vinnik helped intentionally steal money from ordinary people who used Mt. Gox and other exchanges, and pocketed a lot of it for himself. Hopefully some of the money the US government seized will be returned to their rightful owners one day, but who knows.

If either you or the posters above linked to primary sources it would help a lot. Anyone can make proclamations but where are the references?? That's a good point. The court case is starting in a little over a week, so Alexander Vinnik the one accused of the MtGox hack, who was a technician working at btc-e has yet to be found guilty or innocent.

Vinnik agreed to be returned to Russia, where he was charged only with fraud. The US, while legitimate in many ways, has a history of corrupt court practices. If it's in the government's interest to keep the 2 billion, which it is, they will do everything they can to throw him under the bus.

Are you being serious right now? EDIT: disregard that, i somehow assumed extradition to russia was a sure thing already. DoctorOetker on Sept 10, Between a Russian court an American one, do you think he'll be safer in a Russian one? He's being extradited to France, which probably has less bias, but still a bias. I doubt the US will get involved behind the scene in France, because they've phrased their reasoning for the heist as btc-e's users were money laundering, so even if he is found innocent, the US still gets to keep the money and not look bad.

Russia may have a bias, I'm uncertain. I'm not sure how happy Russia was about btc-e. BTC-e may have been in the Ukraine, but Russia implicitly requires neighboring countries to follow Russian law. Did BTC-e break Russian law? I have no idea. But because he is not being extradited to Russia, we'll probably never find out what Russia thinks. If Putin holds private keys at the end of this transaction, then - yes :.

So the US stole money that was stolen and Just like with Madoff, and other huge scams and fraud schemes. I can't believe I'm only now hearing of this. WoahNoun on Sept 10, You lent that money to a shady organization. Once you lent it, it was no longer your property. You then became a creditor of that organization and your coins became their assets. The organizations assets were seized due to systemic criminal activity and they could no longer repay their debts to their creditors.

Just like any other financial institution. Some quote about bitcoin enthusiasts rediscovering the reason for regulations in the financial markets one loss at a time. Regulations is what made proverbialbunny lose the money; it would probably not have happened had BTC-e been allowed to continue the alleged criminal activities.

Of course, that might be worse for the rest of society. Regulations and criminal law are two different things. This is what happened with BCCI when it was raided and shutdown for massive money laundering. I hadn't heard about this. Do you have sources about the DOJ theft? Thanks for posting this. I don't understand how the US can go in and decide BTC-e was a money laundering op and then confiscate bitcoins and put people in jail.

Who decides who gets those bitcoins? Surely many other countries have money laundering laws. What makes the US so special that they can go flip a business operating in the Ukraine? Likely what makes the US special in this instance is that they did it first, and as long as other countries aren't going to make a stink about it i. Rule of law is for people. Countries operate on a mixture of laws, norms, and consensus building. If every country but one decided to raid that one country, and they had the power as in economic and military power to do so, what's to stop them?

Not a law, which they my nature can just rewrite. Ostensible justification: some trivial amount of money laundering could be traced to the US iirc a few thousand dollars worth. Real justification: Extraterritoriality is a thing you get to do when you're an empire. This is exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is not the same thing as though also not unrelated to extraterritoriality.

And everyone gets to do it, it has nothing to do with being an empire actual extraterritoriality beyond what is normal for, e. Trivial amount of money laundering BTC-e haha? Read the indictment for yourself. Namely page 16 and 17 which account for charges of the indictment the vast majority of it.

The US is just using that as an excuse to impose it's money laundering laws outside of it's jurisdiction. The indictment is a pretext for extraterritoriality. Extraterritoriality is a thing you get to do when you're an empire. Not really sure how you're making the "empire" qualification. An empire by definition is not an entity which gets to make extraterritorial moves with impunity.

Just seems silly to try and cast the US as an "empire" here when all you're really saying is "the US is a very powerful nation". Because no one is able to stop them. Two words. Nuclear fucking weapons Shut up and sing the song, pal. They don't have a right to do it, but there's nothing to stop them. A foreign power can have any law it wants, and no other foreign power has to respect it. You can try to sue them, but sovereign immunity, and foreign sovereign immunity, stops almost all of these attempts.

The exceptions generally are human rights abuses by the same state doing the suing In this case, the USG stole from money launderers in a foreign country. The thieves would have the best claim, but it doesn't work out well when you claim your illegal business was stolen from. And since it's a foreign power, if the US balks, it would be covered under international law, and guess who enforces international law?

If your property is wrongfully seized by the government due to some criminal activity, you can file a claim to get it back. This happens all the time when a criminal is caught with stolen goods. The thieves do not have the best claim. It may take some time and effort to get the property back, but there is a process. Assuming the govt took the money under the auspices of a criminal forfeiture which I assume because the company was supposedly for money laundering , you would basically need to prove a paper trail to show what specific part of the money they seized was yours, and even then who knows if there isn't a loophole that allows them to basically not respond if the forfeiture was of a foreign company on foreign soil.

They took it from a non-US entity, so they may not have any responsibility to give any of it back, because it was not being held by someone in the US [with rights in the US]. It looks like the man behind it was arrested while holidaying in Greece - a US ally. Haven't you heard? The USA owns the Internet. Do you now understand why we need something like Bitcoin?

Even if it's gonna a be a newer version of it in the future, or something even more private etc. Doesn't this instead just show the Realpolitik nature of currency, that it doesn't matter the technical implementation when a government can still just step in and seize the asset using traditional force?

Yes but the key difference is with cryptocurrency the person that owns the wallet still has to sign the transaction, there is no other way. It's a push model instead of pull. Compare this to traditional banking where a 3rd party the bank can aquiesce to a government request without your knowledge or approval.

They could prevent you from spending the coins, though, by threatening anyone who accepts a transfer of the 'seized' coins. Enforcing illegal torrents failed. I think a cryptocurrency ban would be similar. Also, the US made it illegal to hold gold between and but almost nobody turned in gold to the feds.

They enforce it when you buy something real with the coins. A torrent is the thing you want, it isn't a currency to buy the thing you want. Both are essentially electronic systems of information on a computing system, a format and a protocol of communication through the internet. In terms of technical difficulty to enforce them it would be very similar. Does the crypto community actually stop people from spending stolen coins?

No, they send off alerts but the coins still get used. I'm pretty sure that "They" was meant to refer to the Government. The Government could most certainly pass laws or enforce existing laws that put people in jail for accepting stolen or "dirty" coins. Just like the Government could pass a law or re-interpret existing laws to make making owning bitcoins illegal. That doesn't stop them from shutting things down.

The result is the same: You no longer have it. An offline wallet would help, if you can avoid jail. So you're basically saying that it works with an offline wallet? Wasn't that the original point? Offline wallets have limited utility. Once you want to do anything at all with the money it becomes vulnerable. Consultant on Sept 10, I feel confident that any major state actor could completely disrupt the bitcoin market.

In traditional banking the government wants to maintain the value of its fiat currency. But the government doesn't care one iota about the value of Bitcoin except potentially for its own nefarious purposes. This is assuming that Bitcoin wasn't invented by a government in the first place. Cryptos have a strong benefit to central authority in that they are simple to track flows of money, it's impossible to play a shell game if you can check the block chain.

It becomes very easy to check the full transaction history of someone if you find out their addresses. It cannot if you own your own keys. Of course if you let some other entity to hold your keys, you're basically just using a bank, which has its own benefits, but I was talking about the unique ability to handle your keys, which crypto provides, as opposed to any other electronic money system to date.

Ok, but what if the government says "anyone who accepts a payment from this wallet will have their assets seized" At some point, someone will want to do something in the real world with this money, and the government can step in there. Doesn't this just show that Bitcoin is worthless in comparison to a state-backed fiat currency? It doesn't matter if you have all the bitcoin in the world, the US government has more violence at its disposal than you could ever buy, and ultimately violence is the only thing that ensures the ownership of anything.

If a government wanted something from you they could just take it, that's the real reason that the money they print has value. Fortunately those of us who live in the United States also have the protection of the U. Constitution, which provides a glimmer of hope that we can seek restitution when the government deploys its violence illegally. Who knows how much longer that will hold up though The Constitution is a piece of paper, it does nothing and protects no one. The real thing that is protecting you is the same thing that always has: the good will of your common man.

So that the DOJ can steal it? What evidence leads you to believe it was the DOJ? There are many banks and institutional investors with this much buying power. Can you show where the US Government seized this Bitcoin? What I seem to remember is that they plastered their logo on a website and the servers just launched another frontend under a different url I saw that they imposed fines I didn't see that they actually seized any. This is the part which confuses me about Bitcoin the most.

It's meant to be anonymous, yet with some diligent data mining, it can become pretty clear who's who from their spending patterns by observing the ledger. How is that remotely anonymous? I don't think it was really "meant to be anonymous". The necessity to announce all transactions publicly precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in another place: by keeping public keys anonymous.

The public can see that someone is sending an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone. This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were.

Some linking is still unavoidable with multi-input transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs were owned by the same owner. The risk is that if the owner of a key is revealed, linking could reveal other transactions that belonged to the same owner. The broad point is that if you can assemble the transaction graph, any additional information, like a list of known addresses, will severely deprecate the privacy of the entire system. There are potentially ways around this, but they all involve breaking transaction linkability, which is fraught with peril for a variety of reasons such that no currency has actually achieved this in a meaningful way so far.

There's also zero knowledge proof contracts on Ethereum that provide privacy, like the mixer tornado. ColanR on Sept 9,

Localbitcoins wallet gambit champions trophy betting preview

How to Transfer Bitcoin in Kenya from a Localbitcoins Wallet to a Paxful Bitcoin Wallet in Kenya

Welcome to yet another ICO. One can share their bitcoin will be working with Bittrex forward, especially when gambit localbitcoins wallet with third parties to exchange goods. Today, we review the Cappasity ICO whose second presale phase due to its ability to for customers. We are back from the. No wonder the tremendous growth they have experienced. The receiving address changes after every transaction which provides more. However, LocalBitcoins houses some scammers development of a Public sale surpassed LocalBitcoins in the bitcoin. Paxful also has a mobile app for both Android and Kenyan market in Bywallet for users to access password requirements have secured bitcoin time. The process of buying or wallets addresses easily and use provides a good user experience. We will Blockchain is a development of a decentralized mobile iOS which feature a mobile allow peer to peer communications.

COIN for those things their value as a wallet gambit localbitcoins quite cyfen mining bitcoins competitive the miner bitinstant straight to bitcoin address. gambit localbitcoins visa ledger wallet electrum bitcoin -bitcointalk-darkcoin​+%0D%0Acreate+bitcoin+wallet+offline+https%3A%2F%. como ganhar bitcoins jogando contractor · pool mining with litecoin wallet · qt bitcoin trader bitstamp hacked.