Bitcoins HACKED

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 8
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 template Next
  • dyna mo
    just a fucking jerk
    • Dec 2008
    • 68184
    #76
    Newsweek in 1995: Why the Internet will Fail.

    What the Internet hucksters won't tell you
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...ernet-bah.html

    Baloney. Do our computer pundits lack all common sense? The truth is no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works.
    Last edited by dyna mo; 04-05-2013, 09:05 AM.

      Comment

      • dyna mo
        just a fucking jerk
        • Dec 2008
        • 68184
        #77

          Comment

          • BlackCrayon
            Too lazy to set a custom title
            • Jun 2003
            • 19634
            #78
            Originally posted by MikeRoth
            Those microwave contraptions were for morons. What kind of idiotic sorcery could cook faster than an oven. Those things will never sell. And automobiles; dumbest idea ever.
            not even comparable. the price of bitcoins is all based on speculation right now. non tangible items like bitcoin can't live on speculation forever. if they are not actually used for something (besides buying illegal shit) by a large segment of the population prices will eventually drop over time to maybe $10-20 per. i think this is just reality. i consider myself highly skeptical but not a hater. i am still on fence about buying some. i've lost way more money on other things in the past.
            you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..

              Comment

              • dyna mo
                just a fucking jerk
                • Dec 2008
                • 68184
                #79
                This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.
                - Western Union internal memo, 1878

                  Comment

                  • BlackCrayon
                    Too lazy to set a custom title
                    • Jun 2003
                    • 19634
                    #80
                    Originally posted by dyna mo
                    Newsweek in 1995: Why the Internet will Fail.



                    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...ernet-bah.html
                    the internet as it was in 1995 would of failed had it not evolved. same will go for bitcoins. if they are actual common uses created for them they may have longevity. if its 99% speculation and 1% usage, it won't.
                    you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..

                      Comment

                      • MikeRoth
                        Confirmed User
                        • Jan 2011
                        • 361
                        #81
                        Bitcoin won't ever fail because of how it's previously and currently being used. A means to anonymously and easily/quickly transfer money across the internet without big brothers involvement.

                        Will it fail to make people rich? yes. Will it fail to hold $100? probably. But it will never completely fail unless it's succeeded by a better more secure and anonymous form of digital currency.
                        ICQ: 64995031

                          Comment

                          • dyna mo
                            just a fucking jerk
                            • Dec 2008
                            • 68184
                            #82
                            Originally posted by BlackCrayon
                            the internet as it was in 1995 would of failed had it not evolved. same will go for bitcoins. if they are actual common uses created for them they may have longevity. if its 99% speculation and 1% usage, it won't.
                            in this stage, they are both considered experiments. who knew in 1992-95 how or where the internet would evolve, same with btc, it's an experiment, who knows where it will go, most likely it will blow up, like most experiments, but the infrastructure will remain.

                            speculate in an experiment prior to it proving any value whatsoever and the risk/reward ratio is much more extreme than entering into it after it has proven any kind of value.

                              Comment

                              • MikeRoth
                                Confirmed User
                                • Jan 2011
                                • 361
                                #83
                                Originally posted by BlackCrayon
                                not even comparable. the price of bitcoins is all based on speculation right now. non tangible items like bitcoin can't live on speculation forever. if they are not actually used for something (besides buying illegal shit) by a large segment of the population prices will eventually drop over time to maybe $10-20 per. i think this is just reality. i consider myself highly skeptical but not a hater. i am still on fence about buying some. i've lost way more money on other things in the past.
                                The average and stable price of bitcoin was originally around the $10-20 area both before and after the great pitfall to 50cents/coin. It only shot up when mass media got all these crazies to invest in it. I personally agree that it will go back to that price range. But you never know now that all these big wig investors (besides the mafia) have dumped money into it.
                                ICQ: 64995031

                                  Comment

                                  • BlackCrayon
                                    Too lazy to set a custom title
                                    • Jun 2003
                                    • 19634
                                    #84
                                    Originally posted by MikeRoth
                                    Bitcoin won't ever fail because of how it's previously and currently being used. A means to anonymously and easily/quickly transfer money across the internet without big brothers involvement.

                                    Will it fail to make people rich? yes. Will it fail to hold $100? probably. But it will never completely fail unless it's succeeded by a better more secure and anonymous form of digital currency.
                                    well it will 'fail' to be what all the hypers claim it will be if its just used for anon sending. like i've said before, no one needs anonymous transactions except people doing shady shit. i love paypal and use it daily but i don't see the benefits of using bitcoin over it. i don't need it to be anon. i don't need it to be non reversible. while there may be no fees in sending bitcoins in order to buy them it costs money, time and you lose the anonymity with all the verification.
                                    Last edited by BlackCrayon; 04-05-2013, 09:19 AM.
                                    you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..

                                      Comment

                                      • BlackCrayon
                                        Too lazy to set a custom title
                                        • Jun 2003
                                        • 19634
                                        #85
                                        Originally posted by dyna mo
                                        in this stage, they are both considered experiments. who knew in 1992-95 how or where the internet would evolve, same with btc, it's an experiment, who knows where it will go, most likely it will blow up, like most experiments, but the infrastructure will remain.

                                        speculate in an experiment prior to it proving any value whatsoever and the risk/reward ratio is much more extreme than entering into it after it has proven any kind of value.
                                        true. people like yourself and mikeroth are more grounded regarding the future of bitcoin. then you have hyper fools like mayabong who think bitcoins will make be the end of the irs and the banking system.
                                        you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..

                                          Comment

                                          • dyna mo
                                            just a fucking jerk
                                            • Dec 2008
                                            • 68184
                                            #86
                                            Originally posted by BlackCrayon
                                            well it will 'fail' to be what all the hypers claim it will be if its just used for anon sending. like i've said before, no one needs anonymous transactions except people doing shady shit. i love paypal and use it daily but i don't see the benefits of using bitcoin over it. i don't need it to be anon. i don't need it to be non reversible. while there may be no fees in sending bitcoins in order to buy them it costs money, time and you lose the anonymity with all the verification.
                                            this goes to the evolution of experimental tech, the anonymity wasn't really part of the original experiment, from the white paper

                                            What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
                                            allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
                                            third party.
                                            the anonymity is simply a part of the solution to the above problem:
                                            Conclusion
                                            We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with
                                            the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of
                                            ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we
                                            proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions
                                            that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes
                                            control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
                                            work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
                                            not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
                                            leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
                                            happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
                                            valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
                                            them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism
                                            http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

                                              Comment

                                              • mayabong
                                                Confirmed User
                                                • Jan 2010
                                                • 1952
                                                #87
                                                Originally posted by BlackCrayon
                                                true. people like yourself and mikeroth are more grounded regarding the future of bitcoin. then you have hyper fools like mayabong who think bitcoins will make be the end of the irs and the banking system.
                                                I dont have any predictions about the future. I do think if it because widespread enough possible the tax in the US would change from income to some kind of consumption tax.
                                                Bitcoin Gambling Sites

                                                  Comment

                                                  • MikeRoth
                                                    Confirmed User
                                                    • Jan 2011
                                                    • 361
                                                    #88
                                                    The main reason I don't think it would work in the mainstream is because it's too easy to scam and be scammed. Would local police get into bitcoin theft? Would there be a new form of digital currency police agents highly trained in bitcoin chain tracing?

                                                    There's been a ton of people over the last year that have scammed people out of $100,000 or more. InstaWallet could be one of the people scamming (claiming they got hacked when in actuality the owner stole all the bitcoins for mass profit). There's multiple cases where online retailers became highly rated then one day stopped sending product while still collecting bitcoins then just vanished.

                                                    I don't think it was designed to be a mainstream currency and I don't see how it could become one. But for illegal activities it's the bees knees.
                                                    ICQ: 64995031

                                                      Comment

                                                      • DWB
                                                        Registered User
                                                        • Jul 2003
                                                        • 31779
                                                        #89
                                                        Originally posted by dyna mo
                                                        not really.

                                                        granted, he got mixed up on the bank branch analogy, but his point is still valid. here's a better analagy, bank of america takes a shit, not the branch in 2008, not one mention of the dollar being hacked, it was couched as bailing out the bank. none of us knew wtf "bank bailout" meant at the time, just like you are saying most don't know what "hacker" means, but we were fed bank bailout.

                                                        no, hacker is a sensationalist term that does not portray the events accurately at all.
                                                        It was a poor analogy on many levels.

                                                        I didn't write the definitions for the word "hacker." Ask your grandma if she knows what a ddos is. She won't know. But chances are she knows what a hacker is because that is the word used over and over again in the media. They do this all the time, that is how they reach a broader audience.

                                                        "Hacker" is indeed a sensationalist term, but it is also the best term to use for the lowest common denominator when describing something like this.

                                                        The Bank Of America could go out of business tomorrow and the USD wouldn't be phased. All the banks could have problems and you wouldn't see a 20% drop in the USD. The Bang Of America could be robbed every hour on the hour and you wouldn't see any movement in the USD. A bank having trouble is not the same as a bank bailout. And yes, just about everyone knew what a "bank bailout" was. That was already as dumbed down as it could get. The term "bailout" is pretty cut and dry. Perhaps we didn't know the scope of it all, but everyone knew what it meant.

                                                          Comment

                                                          • 2012
                                                            So Fucking What
                                                            • Jul 2006
                                                            • 17189
                                                            #90
                                                            Originally posted by dyna mo
                                                            google? pffft ....LOL . we've already got yahoo
                                                            best host: Webair | best sponsor: Kink | best coder: 688218966 | Go Fuck Yourself

                                                              Comment

                                                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 template Next
                                                              Working...