But thank you - you definitely helped the rest of us.
Knowledge is power
Topic: Invoices/Payments/Receipts proposal discussion - page 6. (Read 24726 times)
FWIW, I don't think you helped Gavin at all, while stating: yes, the user's transaction along with his IP will be logged at the CA server, every time the new payment protocol handles an outgoing transaction.
But thank you - you definitely helped the rest of us.
Knowledge is power
But thank you - you definitely helped the rest of us.
Knowledge is power
Sorry, but I never watch ads, no matter how good a movie is
Fair enough about ads - actually I was just trying to help out Gavin in this topic (and no he and I have never even exchanged a PM).
(as stated you can use Tor with CIYAM Open)
I will bow out of this topic now as it seems I have overstepped the mark - hopefully the rest of the posts can at least be on topic.
You shouldn't be surprised, considering that you don't care about anonymity at all.
People can be as anonymous as they like with CIYAM Open (clearly you have not looked into it at all).
You're right - I have not looked into it at all.
Sorry, but I never watch ads, no matter how good a movie is
But what I can tell you is that, as far as I know you, I would not trust you with protecting my anonymity.
I'd rather use Tor with enabled JavaScript.
You shouldn't be surprised, considering that you don't care about anonymity at all.
People can be as anonymous as they like with CIYAM Open (clearly you have not looked into it at all).
I don't block TOR or control anything about how people do things at all so where do you get your ideas about my care about anonymity from?
Well - I'd have to disagree with this - I've offered very reasonable bounties (actually unreasonable in terms of the payee) and still found no-one willing to write any source code at all.
You shouldn't be surprised, considering that you don't care about anonymity at all.Any dev working for your money, would not have been much different from what Gavin or Mike are doing right now.
As much as the media admires them, the people who can actually develop stuff see that there is something wrong around it.
Nobody wants to take a part in building a worse future for his children, even if you pay them.
IMHO there is no lack of developers who would like to help with bitcoin.
Well - I'd have to disagree with this - I've offered very reasonable bounties (actually unreasonable in terms of the payee) and still found no-one willing to write any source code at all.
If you really think the guys are out there then please create a project on CIYAM Open (for free) and let's get something done!
IMHO there is no lack of developers who would like to help with bitcoin.
What there is though, is a cartel controlling the development of the reference client, not letting in anyone who would try to invent anything that would have made bitcoin even a bigger threat to the establishment.
This is the only way I can explain the past 2 years of essentially no useful progress in this project.
Despite of the fact that the price of bitcoin went up tens of times fold.
What there is though, is a cartel controlling the development of the reference client, not letting in anyone who would try to invent anything that would have made bitcoin even a bigger threat to the establishment.
This is the only way I can explain the past 2 years of essentially no useful progress in this project.
Despite of the fact that the price of bitcoin went up tens of times fold.
The problem is creating a serious way of developing software - I have set up http://ciyam.org/open and even offered free listing of projects (for life) so it is not as though there is no platform do get things done but finding the people to do it is another thing (as I have found).
If you want to really get things done then I am more than happy to help!
If you want to really get things done then I am more than happy to help!
Lets face it the Payment protocol only helps a hand few of companies and people, at the expense of privacy. PKIs are broken, and because of the payment protocol I have looked into starting a CA. The software to do that is a mess. Also to have this in a 0.9 release when even Gavin himself has said they are in need of developers to do things, doesn't make sense. I want to know when the blockchain will be worked on, this is an area that needs a lot of work and so far one developer is actually doing all the work. So I pose this question does Gavin know how to manage his time or is he just scamming us for a paycheck by saying this is important when it is clearly isn't.
There are millions of people using this s/w and ever since the new payment protocol is introduced they will be using it, unconsciously ignoring the fact that each time they make a "secured payment", they are probably log it, along with their IP, at the CA server.
Sure - but those same people would be using BitPay or some other equivalent and doing exactly the same thing.
I just don't see the fuss - it's not as though *more* information is being gathered that already is.
No, you get it all right. That is exactly why I cleverly never pay BTC using BitPay.
So then how does this new stuff affect you at all then?
It doesn't.
But it does affect bitcoin-qt.
There are millions of people using this s/w and ever since the new payment protocol is introduced they will be using it, unconsciously ignoring the fact that each time they make a "secured payment", they likely log it along with their IP, at the CA server that issued the recipient's cert.
No, you get it all right. That is exactly why I cleverly never pay BTC using BitPay.
So then how does this new stuff affect you at all then?
Sorry, but what my unwillingness to broadcast each of my bitcoin transactions to a CA has to do with anyone paying taxes?
That is an issue - but already if you pay BTC using BitPay or other equivalents you are *already* doing this - have I missed something?
No, you get it all right. That is exactly why I cleverly never pay BTC using BitPay.
Sorry, but what my unwillingness to broadcast each of my bitcoin transactions to a CA has to do with anyone paying taxes?
That is an issue - but already if you pay BTC using BitPay or other equivalents you are *already* doing this - have I missed something?
(also I don't see how your tx is broadcast to the CA as they only *sign* the cert - unless they own the private key how exactly do they *see* your tx?)
Eeee...
Sorry, but what my unwillingness to broadcast each of my bitcoin transactions to a CA has to do with anyone paying taxes?
And once again: I really don't care about "major corporations".
If they all fucked off and died today - that would have been the best day of my life
Bitcoin is for people - not for corporations.
Sorry, but what my unwillingness to broadcast each of my bitcoin transactions to a CA has to do with anyone paying taxes?
And once again: I really don't care about "major corporations".
If they all fucked off and died today - that would have been the best day of my life
Bitcoin is for people - not for corporations.
So my question to you is "what do you expect?".
Do you really think that major corporations who pay their taxes and make profits are suddenly going to want to try and stop paying their taxes?
This is simply a question of what is sensible - no-one is stopping the Bitcoin protocol with these new options - they are simply making something that will be more palatable to the companies that already are happy with the way things are.
The revolution is not going to come from the corporations.
Do you really think that major corporations who pay their taxes and make profits are suddenly going to want to try and stop paying their taxes?
This is simply a question of what is sensible - no-one is stopping the Bitcoin protocol with these new options - they are simply making something that will be more palatable to the companies that already are happy with the way things are.
The revolution is not going to come from the corporations.
All my BTC bills that are done through BitPay are already recorded with even more details than just my IP (it includes address details) so how exactly is this going to be any worse than what is already *standard*?
Well, IMHO the question you should be asking is: how is it going to be any better than what is already *standard*?
And this question I can even answer myself: it isn't.
So once again: how can we be sure that our OS does not report each transaction we send, along with our IP, to the CA?
Okay - now we are getting more into the "bread and butter" - is the major concern about privacy?
All my BTC bills that are done through BitPay are already recorded with even more details than just my IP (it includes address details) so how exactly is this going to be any worse than what is already *standard*?
A "poll" - I hope you aren't being serious (you did put a smiley after that so I guess not).
Of course I wasn't serious.But my concern is a really serious one.
It is a known fact that SSL certificates have a built in mechanism to be revoked by their CA.
And it is also a known fact that today SSL certificates are essentially validated by an OS, since the OS has the root certificates.
Maybe not in case of Firefox, but definitely in case of Chrome, and since we have a Google employee putting it into Bitcoin, it seems natural to assume that he would use the Chrome approach.
So once again: how can we be sure that our OS does not report each transaction we send, along with our IP, to the CA?
Since we don't know the correct number, maybe we should make a poll?
A "poll" - I hope you aren't being serious (you did put a smiley after that so I guess not).
How does a CA signature actually *change* anything at all?
Doesn't it just add something (that you can ignore if you want)?
The private key of the cert is still private isn't it (and how do you propose to do something better)?
Jump to: