Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 635. (Read 2032293 times)

True, although bear in mind that "caught" (and fines paid) doesn't necessarily mean guilty in the casual sense either. Often times the actual offense being charged or investigated (and then settled) are technical violations of recordkeeping requirements, failure to follow the bank's own AML policies, etc. These may or may not relate directly to actual criminal activity. This doesn't mean they aren't guilty of course. For example, one reason a bank might settle is to stop the digging before it uncovers something worse.

This is hogwash.

Bitcoin makes forensic accounting less troublesome, not more.
Bitcoin comes pre-subpoenaed.  All transactions on the block chain are public, unencrypted, and permanent.
Contrast this with financial institutions that can change their records, auditors that can shred documents, and companies that can refuse to comply with disclosure requirements, delay and forstal.

If you want to launder money, forget about Bitcoin.  Start a bank instead, it is a lot easier that way, and a lot more lucrative.

In 2012, a single bank paid more in fines for their money laundering than Bitcoin's market cap in 2013.  Bitcoin is peanuts, its not even big enough to handle real money laundering today.
By the way, 2012 wasn't anything extreme.

In 2014m BNP (a different single bank) is paying US$8.9Billion this year in fines for money laundering.  If you think these fines are going to slow the banks down... they aren't.  Its just a part of the cost of doing business.  Pay the vig to a government to cut them in on the deal so you can carry on.



Keep in mind, this is only what was caught, not what was missed, no telling how much.

A little ridicule...

Matthew Driver 1:43: "It's quite hard to understand what the appeal is of a cryptocurrency"
NL:  "Then do not speak about what you do not understand"

Matthew Driver  2:56: "We at Mastercard are not completely ..um.. comfortable with the idea of cryptocurrencies largely because
They go against the whole principle that we have established out business on which is really moving to a world beyond cash and assuring greater transparency and security and (chuckle) simplicity."
NL:  "That bit you mentioned before about not understanding cryptocurrencies?  You really should study what transparency security and simplicity mean and how they are delivered better with cryptocurrencies by the efforts of a few years of hobbyist developing, than they are by your multi-billion multi-decade operation has accomplished.  Do that before you think about bragging."

Matthew Driver 3:35: "Trust is a critical component in any payment system."
NL: "You might think so until you have the opportunity to do without it as a requirement.  Mastercard requires far more trust (and blind faith) than cryptocurrency.  So if you mean that it is critical that folks trust you in order for you to soak up their money, than we agree."

was it my imagination or was pybtctools alot easier?

Lol, oh brother.  Listen to what he's saying.

1) Recourse.  There's no recourse for a fraudulent transaction in the Bitcoin world.  Sure, it's possible that in the future a bank or insurance company could act as an intermediary to shield people from these risks, but as it is right now, you're on your own.

2) Ease of use.  Bitcoin wins in some circumstances.  Charge cards win in other circumstances.

3) Transparency.  No one likes oversight into their own financial matters, but like it or not, people in general want those who engage in illegal trade to be brought to justice.  They also expect everyone else to pay their taxes.  This isn't about what you want, it's about what the voters demand.  Bitcoin makes forensic accounting more troublesome, so naturally law enforcement and the tax collectors bristle at the idea of criminals utilizing technology that makes their job harder.

And no, I'm not saying he's 100% right, but to say this is "scary", "dangerous", etc. is simply fear mongering.  MasterCard isn't going to embrace Bitcoin competition, but I don't think anything he said was outright disingenuous.  If anything, his arguments were tepid.  He didn't even mention the tax implications of using Bitcoins for something as simple as a cup of coffee.  I don't find anything troubling about his statements, they're pretty much what you'd expect from someone in his position.  May the best man win.

 

that's also what I'm thinking. Tim or someone else. Pantera, I believe, only bids as a syndicate and I would expect those to bid low

I think Pantera is not going to like it. Tim Draper is nuts for Bitcoin and will bid aggressively.

 

markets are not gonna like this

Wonder how much they would have had to pay if Bitcoin addresses were stolen? Oh, that's right, nothing. 

its good news when the sharks start turning on themselves.  "someones" gotta pay:

The ruling is one of the first court decisions to clarify the legal confusion between retailers and banks in data breaches. In the past, banks were often left with the financial burden of a hacking and were responsible for replacing stolen cards. The cost of replacing stolen cards from Target’s breach alone is roughly $400 million — and the Secret Service has estimated that some 1,000 American merchants may have suffered from similar attacks.

The Target ruling makes clear that banks have a right to go after merchants if they can provide evidence that the merchant may have been negligent in securing its systems.

Mr. Newman said that Tuesday’s ruling was the beginning of a new “legal road map in determining who’s responsible for paying the significant costs associated with a hacking incident.”

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/banks-lawsuits-against-target-for-losses-related-to-hacking-can-continue/?smid=tw-nytimestech&seid=auto&_r=1

ppl are getting closer to "The blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money"-cypherdoc.

There is only one blockchain and it’s called Bitcoin

http://blog.oleganza.com/post/104274846653/there-is-only-one-blockchain-and-its-called

yep.

i personally doubt it altho you'll get plenty of disagreement on that. 

From over 50% to 14% within the same year?!
I wonder if this could ever happen again. What if a single big investor comes along and builds a very large mining facility? Or would that be irrelevant since the worldwide hashrates increase too fast for it to really matter?
I'm surprised the BTC market didn't panic... Since it threatened the decentralised foundation on which bitcoin relies.

earlier this year ghash did get over 50% and some "rogue" employee pulled off a small double spend but was immediately caught and fired.  at least, that's the story.

but immediately the community responded by individual miners dispersing to other pools and even ghash voluntarily began restricting new miners to actively bring down their %.

Discus will unlikely be a problem as hardware costs are decreasing allowing more wide distribution and the mining sector, in general, is likely to contract for a short while until the price starts going back up.

I recently read GHash.IO was reaching a dangerous size where it could possibly launch a 51% attack. Your chart shows it's rather small... I looked it up and found it was indeed a recent chart:
https://blockchain.info/pools
Either my article was old or there are tricks to pull off a 51% attack which i don't know about... Wouldn't discus fish be an even bigger threat then??

even i have to admit there was a point late last year or early this year when i was worried about the lack of tx growth.  that clearly is no longer a concern and i am as bullish as ever.

you just wait.

there's a massive green candle out there somewhere...

i think we should all marvel at the beauty of the growing decentralization of mining over the last year.  look at that graph...Nash is alive!

ohoh

I feel the same way.

My worry though is what if the crossroads already happened for the US as a society 100 years ago, and we are merely witnessing the eventual fallout of a path already chosen? When the original progressive era (both progressive Democrats and progressive republicans) started to choose security over freedom and privacy on many levels.

Not to get too OT, but the US today bombs multiple counties regularly in order to maintain the petrodollar, and most do not care because it is out of sight and maintains everyone's standard of living. (seriously have you been tracking the target vs "collateral damage" numbers of these strikes?)  I don't believe a society that was truly interested in freedom would turn such a blind eye to the number of innocent people Obama has droned around the world.