Topic: Double spending is fraud (Read 95 times)
The reason for the up and coming money crash is, the whole Federal Reserve Banking system is a big fat Ponzi. If you are really interested, Google "Tom Schauf bank freedom." Then study what you find. It will take more than a minute.
Double spending to attack a chain's security is different intent than attacking a chain for wealth manipulation.
I think the code somewhat accounts for this by incentivizing double spend attackers to use their efforts for good instead of evil. Andreas Antonopoulos made a pretty good speech about it once upon a time. I’ll link to the video below. One of the early thoughts about Bitcoin was that it could reduce the need for such financial regulation. I’m not sure more laws is something anyone needs.
https://youtu.be/ncPyMUfNyVM
https://youtu.be/ncPyMUfNyVM
applying*
Fraud: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1341
Wire code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343
Fraud: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1341
Wire code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343
I suppose I'm allowed a daily bump of this very busy topic.
The topic makes no sense. I honestly have no idea what the below means.
"Making law extend to make digital monies is just apply wire codes too."
Clearly that is not a coherent sentence. Are you asking for a law to be implemented for Bitcoin double spends and saying that they have a law for this applying to wire codes? I assume by wire codes you mean wire transfers? Who knows? You'll have to do a lot better than that for a thread if you want people to discuss something. No clue what you were trying to do here or why you're bumping it.
I suppose I'm allowed a daily bump of this very busy topic.
You'd think society's response to cryptocurrency fraud would be more than silence in a cryptocurrency community.
Guess not.
Guess not.
[title]
Making law extend to make digital monies is just applying wire codes too.
edit: forgot an [ing]
Making law extend to make digital monies is just applying wire codes too.
edit: forgot an [ing]
Jump to: