Hahaha
You might as well post ripple, ltc, dogecoin and all other crap exact BTC copies. The reality is it's BTC vs everyone else. Kinda like the dollar was after WWII. All trade will go through BTC so NXT is really in competition with Alts not bitcoin and it's done pretty good so far there.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1090. (Read 2032266 times)
whoops:
Multi-sig + BIP32 + BIP70 + automated accounting systems would make embezzlement difficult and accountants obsolete.
I'm not sure, but I think there might be some caveats with using BIP-32 in such a context. Say you give extended private keys (subtrees) to divisions of you company and say you also give the extended public root key to an accountant or auditor, I think the two could collude to derive all private keys.
I read this and it might've been FUD. Not sure. Would be happy if someone could clear that up.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki#Implications
Multi-sig + BIP32 + BIP70 + automated accounting systems would make embezzlement difficult and accountants obsolete.
I'm not sure, but I think there might be some caveats with using BIP-32 in such a context. Say you give extended private keys (subtrees) to divisions of you company and say you also give the extended public root key to an accountant or auditor, I think the two could collude to derive all private keys.
I read this and it might've been FUD. Not sure. Would be happy if someone could clear that up.
you can securely hand out child private keys with no risk to the parent private key, and you can hand out master public keys with no risk to the master private key, you cannot do both at the same time.
Multi-sig + BIP32 + BIP70 + automated accounting systems would make embezzlement difficult and accountants obsolete.
I'm not sure, but I think there might be some caveats with using BIP-32 in such a context. Say you give extended private keys (subtrees) to divisions of you company and say you also give the extended public root key to an accountant or auditor, I think the two could collude to derive all private keys.
I read this and it might've been FUD. Not sure. Would be happy if someone could clear that up.
hero member
Activity: 836
Merit: 1007
"How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time..."
He basically says that storing bitcoin is easy for individuals, but for organizations of diverse type it is difficult and costly. Interesting.
Which to be perfectly honest, is a stupid thing to assert. If you think about it for a minute you'll see that it really is not possible for employees of an organization to get away with stealing the org's bitcoin, any more than they can get away with draining their traditional bank accounts.
If they use multisig, and the bitcoins disappear, the blockchain will show who signed. Organizations aren't so idiotic that they wouldn't bother to record whose keys are whose. They'll see Bob and Mallory signed the 2/3 and stole the funds, Bob and Mallory are arrested. They may say "we were hacked" but they can save it for the judge.
Now, in the case of bitcoin, Bob and Mallory can refuse to cooperate so the org might not get their money back. But I don't see what's tempting about this crime, seems like a dumb thing to do.
i agree.
the only way it works is if the organization itself is criminal and suspicion reigns supreme throughout. even then, it might be a dangerous thing to do in that situation.
And, they can also divide their stash and give control to separate departments within the organization.
Yes, multi-sig on the main accounts and then officers of the corporation can have "expense account wallets" where they control their own private keys and turn in receipts for their purchases when it is time to "top up" the expense account.
He basically says that storing bitcoin is easy for individuals, but for organizations of diverse type it is difficult and costly. Interesting.
Which to be perfectly honest, is a stupid thing to assert. If you think about it for a minute you'll see that it really is not possible for employees of an organization to get away with stealing the org's bitcoin, any more than they can get away with draining their traditional bank accounts.
If they use multisig, and the bitcoins disappear, the blockchain will show who signed. Organizations aren't so idiotic that they wouldn't bother to record whose keys are whose. They'll see Bob and Mallory signed the 2/3 and stole the funds, Bob and Mallory are arrested. They may say "we were hacked" but they can save it for the judge.
Now, in the case of bitcoin, Bob and Mallory can refuse to cooperate so the org might not get their money back. But I don't see what's tempting about this crime, seems like a dumb thing to do.
i agree.
the only way it works is if the organization itself is criminal and suspicion reigns supreme throughout. even then, it might be a dangerous thing to do in that situation.
I'm not sure that bitcoin makes theft easier in a criminal org, either. I mean, whether they use bitcoin or not, they can't rely on authorities.
He basically says that storing bitcoin is easy for individuals, but for organizations of diverse type it is difficult and costly. Interesting.
Which to be perfectly honest, is a stupid thing to assert. If you think about it for a minute you'll see that it really is not possible for employees of an organization to get away with stealing the org's bitcoin, any more than they can get away with draining their traditional bank accounts.
If they use multisig, and the bitcoins disappear, the blockchain will show who signed. Organizations aren't so idiotic that they wouldn't bother to record whose keys are whose. They'll see Bob and Mallory signed the 2/3 and stole the funds, Bob and Mallory are arrested. They may say "we were hacked" but they can save it for the judge.
Now, in the case of bitcoin, Bob and Mallory can refuse to cooperate so the org might not get their money back. But I don't see what's tempting about this crime, seems like a dumb thing to do.
i agree.
the only way it works is if the organization itself is criminal and suspicion reigns supreme throughout. even then, it might be a dangerous thing to do in that situation.
And, they can also divide their stash and give control to separate departments within the organization.
Yes. Once high-quality multi-sig tools are place (along with better key-management solutions), it will be easier for organizations to manage bitcoins than to manage dollars.
A friend of mine recently fired his accountant for embezzling $50k from the corporate account. Multi-sig + BIP32 + BIP70 + automated accounting systems would make embezzlement difficult and accountants obsolete.
He basically says that storing bitcoin is easy for individuals, but for organizations of diverse type it is difficult and costly. Interesting.
Which to be perfectly honest, is a stupid thing to assert. If you think about it for a minute you'll see that it really is not possible for employees of an organization to get away with stealing the org's bitcoin, any more than they can get away with draining their traditional bank accounts.
If they use multisig, and the bitcoins disappear, the blockchain will show who signed. Organizations aren't so idiotic that they wouldn't bother to record whose keys are whose. They'll see Bob and Mallory signed the 2/3 and stole the funds, Bob and Mallory are arrested. They may say "we were hacked" but they can save it for the judge.
Now, in the case of bitcoin, Bob and Mallory can refuse to cooperate so the org might not get their money back. But I don't see what's tempting about this crime, seems like a dumb thing to do.
i agree.
the only way it works is if the organization itself is criminal and suspicion reigns supreme throughout. even then, it might be a dangerous thing to do in that situation.
And, they can also divide their stash and give control to separate departments within the organization.
He basically says that storing bitcoin is easy for individuals, but for organizations of diverse type it is difficult and costly. Interesting.
Which to be perfectly honest, is a stupid thing to assert. If you think about it for a minute you'll see that it really is not possible for employees of an organization to get away with stealing the org's bitcoin, any more than they can get away with draining their traditional bank accounts.
If they use multisig, and the bitcoins disappear, the blockchain will show who signed. Organizations aren't so idiotic that they wouldn't bother to record whose keys are whose. They'll see Bob and Mallory signed the 2/3 and stole the funds, Bob and Mallory are arrested. They may say "we were hacked" but they can save it for the judge.
Now, in the case of bitcoin, Bob and Mallory can refuse to cooperate so the org might not get their money back. But I don't see what's tempting about this crime, seems like a dumb thing to do.
i agree.
the only way it works is if the organization itself is criminal and suspicion reigns supreme throughout. even then, it might be a dangerous thing to do in that situation.
Resistance broken on high volume today. Good sign, but 1400 is the magic number. We'll be retesting that soon, shorts are in control til that gets taken out. Then it'll be squeeze time like a mofo and the mega-bull cycle begins.
Gold is dead, YAY ! Keep believin' that, FUDsters...
It's always a good time to buy when people hate the stuff. Gold is dead, YAY ! Keep believin' that, FUDsters...
He basically says that storing bitcoin is easy for individuals, but for organizations of diverse type it is difficult and costly. Interesting.
Which to be perfectly honest, is a stupid thing to assert. If you think about it for a minute you'll see that it really is not possible for employees of an organization to get away with stealing the org's bitcoin, any more than they can get away with draining their traditional bank accounts.
If they use multisig, and the bitcoins disappear, the blockchain will show who signed. Organizations aren't so idiotic that they wouldn't bother to record whose keys are whose. They'll see Bob and Mallory signed the 2/3 and stole the funds, Bob and Mallory are arrested. They may say "we were hacked" but they can save it for the judge.
Now, in the case of bitcoin, Bob and Mallory can refuse to cooperate so the org might not get their money back. But I don't see what's tempting about this crime, seems like a dumb thing to do.
He basically says that storing bitcoin is easy for individuals, but for organizations of diverse type it is difficult and costly. Interesting.
Looking forward based on this: If the problem (organizations holding bitcoin) is real, could we see bitcoin used by individuals for saving, and something else like gold used for saving in organizations? Bitcoins of course used for transactions.
Resistance broken on high volume today. Good sign, but 1400 is the magic number. We'll be retesting that soon, shorts are in control til that gets taken out. Then it'll be squeeze time like a mofo and the mega-bull cycle begins.
Gold is dead, YAY ! Keep believin' that, FUDsters...
Gold is dead, YAY ! Keep believin' that, FUDsters...
Naturally. Bitcoin easier to store, transport, carry out transactions and so on. In the end, the value of gold is determined only by the fact that it is made into jewelry and some trace components contain it.
Yes, as is every other crypto-currency. In fact, many of them are superior to Bitcoin in features. Also, just because I can't carry a duplex to the store to purchase something doesn't mean it has no value. On the contrary, I can issue paper/crypto notes with a claim against that valuable asset. And no, the value of gold has never been solely determined by it's industrial value.
Naturally. Bitcoin easier to store, transport, carry out transactions and so on. In the end, the value of gold is determined only by the fact that it is made into jewelry and some trace components contain it.
Gold: I smell a trap.
This is a big deal. Govt backing in Japan;
http://www.coindesk.com/government-backed-bitcoin-industry-association-launch-japan/
http://www.coindesk.com/government-backed-bitcoin-industry-association-launch-japan/
Jump to: