Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 88 results by Zeke_Vermillion
Re: [ANN] PHO Photon (blake 256) MERGE MINE 6 COINS AT ONCE -- NO PREMINE --
I think the problem is that I was using the old client without realizing it. I thought I replaced it by unzipping the new client into the same folder, but peazip just left the old files there without any notification (trying to deflect blame for silly mistake 
).
).Re: [ANN] PHO Photon (blake 256) MERGE MINE 6 COINS AT ONCE -- NO PREMINE --
I recently downloaded Photon-Qt for Windows. It's hard to figure out which is the latest stable release, with different versions posted in this thread, and on the photon website. I went for the download in the first post on this forum, assuming it's been updated. Photon Windows QT 8.9.1.1 Open ssl 1.0.1h+ QR code support. The help "about" still says it's version v0.8.9.0-g8c5e74e-beta, so that probably needs updating.
After adding a list of nodes suggested by BD747, I was up and running. But the client only processes 500 blocks before it stops catching up. I have to restart it, and it will catch up by another 500 blocks with each reload. I left it on all night and it still only does 500 blocks. Is there some sort of cache limitation that's preventing it from doing more?
edit: Yes, I know I should go to github and build from source. But I'm hopelessly clueless, and need a binary!
After adding a list of nodes suggested by BD747, I was up and running. But the client only processes 500 blocks before it stops catching up. I have to restart it, and it will catch up by another 500 blocks with each reload. I left it on all night and it still only does 500 blocks. Is there some sort of cache limitation that's preventing it from doing more?
edit: Yes, I know I should go to github and build from source. But I'm hopelessly clueless, and need a binary!
Re: [ANN] Atomic Trade New Virtual Currency Exchange USD BTC
I have a suggestion for the future. Kind of a rough patch for last-case backup of account data. Why not allow users to export a copy of their personal ledgers, GPG-signed by Atomic Trade. Most people wouldn't bother, but folks with larger balances might. Then we have the comfort of holding some tangible proof of AT's obligations to depositors.
That said, anything that encourages people to be lazy and not withdraw balances from the account is potentially dangerous. No matter how trustworthy the operator, there is *always* a possibility for data loss. I just don't think it is possible to protect fully against damage from possible wallet loss or theft. Any representation to the contrary is irresponsible.
Maybe it's time to go a step further, and actively encourage fund withdrawals. Say, for any balance over some de minimis amount, the site would charge "interest" on deposits (except for deposits that are subject to an open order). Ouch, I know. But it would sure get people to w/d their funds in a timely fashion.
That said, anything that encourages people to be lazy and not withdraw balances from the account is potentially dangerous. No matter how trustworthy the operator, there is *always* a possibility for data loss. I just don't think it is possible to protect fully against damage from possible wallet loss or theft. Any representation to the contrary is irresponsible.
Maybe it's time to go a step further, and actively encourage fund withdrawals. Say, for any balance over some de minimis amount, the site would charge "interest" on deposits (except for deposits that are subject to an open order). Ouch, I know. But it would sure get people to w/d their funds in a timely fashion.
Re: [ANN] Atomic Trade New Virtual Currency Exchange USD BTC
Best to take time and minimize errors. There will be a rush to make withdrawals as soon as the site is back up, so either make sure the balances are as accurate as they can get, or else have to freeze w/d until they are. Don't want to end up with an overall deficit like Vircurex.
Re: [ANN] Atomic Trade New Virtual Currency Exchange USD BTC
Basically I would be happy if you get my account back up and it has my old balance, plus BTC I deposited since then. (And for folks who deposited alt coins, should have their alt coins). Since we deposit to static addresses, even the old backup should still have the deposit add'ys, and those can be matched with public blockchain data. Thus the only loss is whatever we made or lost trading since last backup. And given the low volume on the site, it's guaranteed to be pretty low numbers provided we don't lose deposits.
Yes, we can't trust our private keys to other folks. Yet we do, b/c we want to buy and sell alt coins and we're too lazy to join Bitcoin WoT, or to deal directly.
Yes, we can't trust our private keys to other folks. Yet we do, b/c we want to buy and sell alt coins and we're too lazy to join Bitcoin WoT, or to deal directly.
Re: [ANN] Atomic Trade New Virtual Currency Exchange USD BTC
I'm not sure what this means. I think it means that you still have the private keys for wallets in cold storage, but just don't have any account / trade data since the last backup. If that's the case, perhaps the right way to deal with this is:
(1) start with the last backup
(2) measure deposits / withdrawals since the last backup, based on blockchain data (surely you at least know the static addresses involved)
(3) apportion the net difference between accounts based on the verifiable deposits and withdrawals of each user since the last backup
Let's say for simplicity that there's 10 BTC in cold storage for all of Atomic Trade, and total deposits since last backup were another 10 BTC. If my user account balance 2 weeks ago was 1 BTC, and I deposited 1 BTC since then as verified on the blockchain record, I would receive a total adjusted balance of 2 BTC.
This really sucks though. I would expect to see a more active approach to M$. I'd be happy to help with a demand letter, etc. If you don't have any funds in cold storage offline, though, I would just say don't do anything crazy!
Z
(1) start with the last backup
(2) measure deposits / withdrawals since the last backup, based on blockchain data (surely you at least know the static addresses involved)
(3) apportion the net difference between accounts based on the verifiable deposits and withdrawals of each user since the last backup
Let's say for simplicity that there's 10 BTC in cold storage for all of Atomic Trade, and total deposits since last backup were another 10 BTC. If my user account balance 2 weeks ago was 1 BTC, and I deposited 1 BTC since then as verified on the blockchain record, I would receive a total adjusted balance of 2 BTC.
This really sucks though. I would expect to see a more active approach to M$. I'd be happy to help with a demand letter, etc. If you don't have any funds in cold storage offline, though, I would just say don't do anything crazy!
Z
Re: How many LTC do you have frozen in [Vircurex]? Have they been unfrozen yet?
So basically, he must have only refunded people with LTC change, and maybe the single biggest LTC holder got some unfrozen. Everyone else is SOL.
I am still waiting to get my BLC back from OpenEx. I was told you'd have to "owe" me for some of it, but so far, "some" appears to mean "all". The problem is that you should not have honored the inflated balance that we got when you double-credited order cancellations. And once you announced your policy of honoring the double-credit, you then should not have invited everyone to withdraw their funds all at once! Argh!
Cryptsy had a similar problem recently, and they froze accounts until people paid back the double credit. This was quite annoying but necessary to avoid the situation you now find yourself in.
If you have the bitcoin on hand, I really think you ought to see about buying up some BLC (and other currencies where you have a shortfall). Otherwise, if you wait to do this until later, it may become too expensive for you to cover in the market. And, despite the best of intentions, you will not be able to repay me and others in my position. If you know the BLC folks, you might also consider raising an equity / fee share tranche in exchange for BLC. Heck, I might even participate by rolling in part of my IOU, if you are able to recover from this rough launch...
Cryptsy had a similar problem recently, and they froze accounts until people paid back the double credit. This was quite annoying but necessary to avoid the situation you now find yourself in.
If you have the bitcoin on hand, I really think you ought to see about buying up some BLC (and other currencies where you have a shortfall). Otherwise, if you wait to do this until later, it may become too expensive for you to cover in the market. And, despite the best of intentions, you will not be able to repay me and others in my position. If you know the BLC folks, you might also consider raising an equity / fee share tranche in exchange for BLC. Heck, I might even participate by rolling in part of my IOU, if you are able to recover from this rough launch...
Re: Have you considered class action law suit against Avalon for pre-sale mining?
This doesn't strike me as lawsuit-worthy at all. First, you have not really articulated a legal claim. Second, your damages are difficult to prove and speculative at best.
Third, in crypto-finance there ought to be a strong presumption against litigating using "first realm" courts. Absent some intentional misconduct or fraud, people should work these things out on their own. Your options are (1) be careful whom you deal with, either know them personally or get references whom you trust, so that you will not be surprised by behavior that you should have expected; (2) for transactions where you must deal with an unknown counter-party, arrange for escrow by a mutually trusted person. This is how it's done.
Third, in crypto-finance there ought to be a strong presumption against litigating using "first realm" courts. Absent some intentional misconduct or fraud, people should work these things out on their own. Your options are (1) be careful whom you deal with, either know them personally or get references whom you trust, so that you will not be surprised by behavior that you should have expected; (2) for transactions where you must deal with an unknown counter-party, arrange for escrow by a mutually trusted person. This is how it's done.
Re: What if the devs are ordered by a US judge to include a government backdoor?
The government doesn't need a backdoor. They can walk in the front door, ie, the open transaction ledger. Also, if a particular actor wanted to influence the course of any open-source project, he could simply join the project and contribute code (assuming some degree of subtlety in crafting pull requests, of course). The beauty of the process is that harmful contributions are weeded out, and if the worst-case scenario comes to pass, the project can be forked with a new lead developer.
OK, maybe not a hole, per se, but I believe the whole spirit of the law suggests that the FinCEN requirements exist to prevent money laundering, terrorism financing, etc. The way they enforce this is through the use of trusted third parties, or businesses that have an AML policy in place and are registered Money Services Businesses. If a miner creates bitcoins and sells them on the open market, there is no way to track that, obviously. But why wouldn't a miner be able to sell through a trusted third party? If an exchange was a registered money transmitter, that should address FinCEN's concerns about money laundering as there would now be trackability and compliance for these newly created coins entering the economy. Why should the miner have to be registered himself? How could we get FinCEN to make provisions for this?
Even though I am not a miner, I am still concerned about buying some bitcoins and then turning around and selling them through Craigslist, for example, at a substantial mark up. I believe somehow, someway in FinCEN's view this could qualify me as an MSB and that's just stupid. I'd like to be able to sell my coins too. I'm not interested in breaking the law but I shouldn't have to register just to partake in the Bitcoin revolution.
Even though I am not a miner, I am still concerned about buying some bitcoins and then turning around and selling them through Craigslist, for example, at a substantial mark up. I believe somehow, someway in FinCEN's view this could qualify me as an MSB and that's just stupid. I'd like to be able to sell my coins too. I'm not interested in breaking the law but I shouldn't have to register just to partake in the Bitcoin revolution.
An elegant AML regime would indeed focus on single points of failure. As long as the node is responsible, why should the spokes also have to jump through hoops? Similar concerns were raised a couple years ago by the prepaid industry, which is why there is now guidance from FinCen that makes the "provider of prepaid access" primarily responsible for AML compliance at the federal level. Crypto-currency lobby groups ought to be begging for a similar compliance regime so that only a few key gateways need to worry about this shit.
Re: Liberty Reserve the popular digital currency got shut down by the authorities
The US authorities seized the funds in Mutum Sigilum's Dwolla account because Mutum Sigilum was operating an unregistered money transmitter business. The registration requirements seek to prevent money laundering, but there was no evdience (at least that I'm aware of) that Mutum Sigilum was actually laundering money.
Mutum Sigilum was allegedly operating an unregistered money transmitting business, but there isn't much evidence of that either. The informant in the case only sent money back to himself. And even if Mutum Sigillum was operating a money transmitting business, it isn't clear that they are subject to the reporting requirements of section 5313 (which triggers the registration requirement) because such reports would be filed by Veridian and Wells Fargo.
The legal issues in this case are a lot more complex than you imply. If Mutum Sigillum was operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, then arguably Dwolla is too, since Dwolla is having Veridian transmit money for Dwolla's customers. You might also want to read:
http://k.lenz.name/LB/?p=9369
It is not relevant whether mutum was laundering money. It only matters if mutum was engaged in money transmission (without a license). We already know mutum is not licensed, and neither is mutum's affiliate tibanne co. There is a weakness in the government's case here, though. It is not clear to me that mutum was engaged in money transmission. Tibanne probably is under federal guidelines, because it is an exchanger of virtual currency. Not so sure if mutum meets this standard at the federal level, and would have to look closely at MD state law to see if simply processing payments to/from Dwolla counts under state laws. Just a guess, but is it possible that the feds went after mutum b/c it is the account-holder and they wanted to be able to seize the account immediately? Seems like tibanne would have been the better target, except that it would've required that the gov't prove a couple extra steps between tibanne and mutum to go after any of the US accounts or assets.
Come to the UK, setup here, problem solved 
If you serve any US customers, the problem is NOT solved
I don't fully understand how Coinbase operates, how exactly are they not a money transmitter, you send them money and have bitcoins sent to you. Are they simply having Mtgox send the bitcoins?
Because bitcoin isn't "money", and buying and selling stuff isn't a money transmitter.
according to the US govt it's convertible virtual currency. but regardless bitcoin is a store of value, and that's what these state regulations cover. furthermore, one can trade and transmit this value, and then later retrieve it.
they are hiring someone with AML experience... https://coinbase.com/jobs
i have an interesting call with a big state regulator on this matter next week, in particular whether anyone operating a ripple gateway falls under these regulations as well
If you could share the specifics of your call with the state regulator, I think there are a lot of folks here who would be interested to hear about it...
My partner Joe Skocilich wrote a fairly good post awhile back about why we don't think that bitcoin is a "security" http://adlervermillion.com/blog/innovation-and-legal-panic%E2%80%94bitcoin/
Ya know, the bitcoin foundation really ought to commission a policy position paper of some sort...
Ya know, the bitcoin foundation really ought to commission a policy position paper of some sort...
BTC is not, itself, a security. However, there are people creating and buying and selling items packaged as securities in which the underlying business is BTC-based. They trade on what are purported to be "stock exchanges." Some of these are outright Ponzi scams.
Similarly, BTC is not, itself, a Ponzi scam. However, Ponzi scams exist in which the underlying currency is BTC.
If nothing else, some of these highly questionable products look like some kind of commodities future.
Fair point. It is possible that a btc-denominated contract could be considered a "security" especially since many of the promoters refer to them that way. I consider the bitcoin "stock" exchanges to be amusing novelties at the moment, but for sure some of the larger issues do involve material sums.
Re: The First Political Zone to Officially Recognize Cryptocoins
Just find a part of the world that has real problems, and they won't care what you do with your electronic funny money. I'm thinking Somalia, Kenya (inspired by Larry Page talk), or Pakistan. Another possibility that people have tried is to cozy up with an autocrat. Problem there is you have to always be the highest bidder. So I would tend to favor lawless as opposed to laws administered by corruptible regime.
Right. So far, the enforcement framework has it's pivot foot in fiat. That is, crypto-to-crypto exchanging and dealing doesn't seem to be the topic of any MSB enforcement at all. The regs say differently, but laws and the enforcement of those laws are two different things. Government enforcement - at least today at 11am - seems to concern itself only with people operating businesses that deal - at some point in their chain of value - with fiat currency. Thus, exchanges are prime targets for noncompliance. That might change 45 minutes from now when FinCEN promulgates a new regulation, or DHS nails a new pure bitcoin business, but for now, dealing in fiat seems to be what makes an MSB a target.
That's only the MSB regulations, though. What really surprises me is that nobody seems to be talking about the securities laws! The securities laws are far more byzantine and far-reaching than the MSB regs. Yet, there are investment pools, informal "stock exchanges" and "stock sales" - none of which comply with state blue sky regulations or the '33 Act.
You heard it here first - the next big enforcement push his going to be by the SEC.
That's only the MSB regulations, though. What really surprises me is that nobody seems to be talking about the securities laws! The securities laws are far more byzantine and far-reaching than the MSB regs. Yet, there are investment pools, informal "stock exchanges" and "stock sales" - none of which comply with state blue sky regulations or the '33 Act.
You heard it here first - the next big enforcement push his going to be by the SEC.
My partner Joe Skocilich wrote a fairly good post awhile back about why we don't think that bitcoin is a "security" http://adlervermillion.com/blog/innovation-and-legal-panic%E2%80%94bitcoin/
Ya know, the bitcoin foundation really ought to commission a policy position paper of some sort...