Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 25954. (Read 26608322 times)
September 06, 2014, 08:59:13 PM
September 06, 2014, 08:15:57 PM
WTactualF is that gif about?!
September 06, 2014, 07:59:12 PM
September 06, 2014, 07:58:43 PM
They did not say that. You are putting your words into the mouths of 18th century jurists 
[ ... ] It's not clear to me why you emphasize the 'physical note', because with most modern currencies, the owner rarely actually possesses a physical note of any kind.
[ ... ] It's not clear to me why you emphasize the 'physical note', because with most modern currencies, the owner rarely actually possesses a physical note of any kind.That lawsuit, and the crucial verdict, was about property of a specific physical note:
That being said, I can't imagine that the legal powers that be would not see X amount of bitcoin returned to one from whom it had been robbed, if the robber could be positively identified, just as they might with X US dollars that had been stolen. It's also not clear to me why you think legal remedies for theft of bitcoins must differ significantly from what they would be for other effectively virtual currencies, like US dollars.
I am sure that the police in most countries would, in principle, consider bitcoin theft as any other property theft. And it seems that some people have succeeded in convincing the police to investigate bitcoin thefts. For example, check this thread about the Intersango scam; and I understood that the MtGOX liquidator has asked the Japanese police to investigate the disappearance of some additional 27'000 BTC.
However, catching a bitcoin thief will be quite hard in general. The transaction that stole your bitcoins may have been issued from your own computer, automatically, by some self-erasing malware, while the hacker was not even online. You can point to the stolen coins in the blockchain, but the thief may leave the coins there for years, and no one can take them from him. Or he can hack into an old PC in Mongolia, and from there tumble the coins so thoroughly that it will be practically impossible to trace them to his person when he finally spends them.
AFAIK no theft of bitcoins by outside hackers has been solved, by the police or anyone else. In several cases of insider theft, the culprit was identified with high probability, but I don't know of any case where the evidence was sufficient to get a conviction.
If they could catch DPR and seize his bitcoin I can't see why it is fundamentally impossible to catch a bitcoin thief.
DPR was not a bitcoin thief. He ran a large website selling illegal drugs, and was caught for that. They tailed him digitally for some time, hacked into his computers, collected the evidence they needed (and perhaps the private keys), and phisically grabbed him only when they felt that they had enough evidence. As others pointed out, that investigation was relatively easy, because SilkRoad was a continuing operation, with lots of traffic and many people involved.
September 06, 2014, 07:42:33 PM
September 06, 2014, 07:34:06 PM
It is sunday morning in China already... i wonder if it will be another bloody sunday.
September 06, 2014, 07:10:54 PM
For all those who fundamentally deny a relation between hashrate and price. Check the 60 day charts at blockchain.info and tell me theres no inverted proportionality.
See the charts for at least one year range, and you will see price rising and the hashrate too.
So you can find evidence of both kind of relation(direct and reverse), so I guess the hashrate alone is not a good predictor.
You are right. However in the long run hashrate/difficulty which is an estimate for the basic production cost per BTC (excluding HW, OC) will approach or even show congruency with the price per BTC. At least that is what Satoshi assumed: "The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost. If the price is below cost, then production slows down. If the price is above cost, profit can be made by generating and selling more." Feb. 21, 2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
He meant that hashing power adapt to price: a self-regulating system, where price is an external factor.
But price will not adapt to hashing power, because the system of miners have no way to control it.
Miner can't control it but miners can act. By shutting inefficent HW.
You are right, the miners system can self-regulate itself in that way, essentially.
There are people that mine only to help the network. Not sure if they are significant.
Also shutting down inneficient HW might means more centralization
I'm also worried about mining centralization. But i don't believe in altruism. So anybody who is supporting the BTC network expects a positive outcome for himself like increased price, sustainability, growth. Thats not a bad thing. Thats how we tranlate bitcoin into reality.
September 06, 2014, 06:59:13 PM
September 06, 2014, 06:56:43 PM
For all those who fundamentally deny a relation between hashrate and price. Check the 60 day charts at blockchain.info and tell me theres no inverted proportionality.
See the charts for at least one year range, and you will see price rising and the hashrate too.
So you can find evidence of both kind of relation(direct and reverse), so I guess the hashrate alone is not a good predictor.
You are right. However in the long run hashrate/difficulty which is an estimate for the basic production cost per BTC (excluding HW, OC) will approach or even show congruency with the price per BTC. At least that is what Satoshi assumed: "The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost. If the price is below cost, then production slows down. If the price is above cost, profit can be made by generating and selling more." Feb. 21, 2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
He meant that hashing power adapt to price: a self-regulating system, where price is an external factor.
But price will not adapt to hashing power, because the system of miners have no way to control it.
Miner can't control it but miners can act. By shutting inefficent HW.
You are right, the miners system can self-regulate itself in that way, essentially.
There are people that mine only to help the network. Not sure if they are significant.
Also shutting down inneficient HW might means more centralization
September 06, 2014, 06:39:21 PM
For all those who fundamentally deny a relation between hashrate and price. Check the 60 day charts at blockchain.info and tell me theres no inverted proportionality.
See the charts for at least one year range, and you will see price rising and the hashrate too.
So you can find evidence of both kind of relation(direct and reverse), so I guess the hashrate alone is not a good predictor.
You are right. However in the long run hashrate/difficulty which is an estimate for the basic production cost per BTC (excluding HW, OC) will approach or even show congruency with the price per BTC. At least that is what Satoshi assumed: "The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost. If the price is below cost, then production slows down. If the price is above cost, profit can be made by generating and selling more." Feb. 21, 2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
He meant that hashing power adapt to price: a self-regulating system, where price is an external factor.
But price will not adapt to hashing power, because the system of miners have no way to control it.
Miner can't control it but miners can act. By shutting inefficent HW.
You are right, the miners system can self-regulate itself in that way, essentially.
September 06, 2014, 06:35:53 PM
For all those who fundamentally deny a relation between hashrate and price. Check the 60 day charts at blockchain.info and tell me theres no inverted proportionality.
See the charts for at least one year range, and you will see price rising and the hashrate too.
So you can find evidence of both kind of relation(direct and reverse), so I guess the hashrate alone is not a good predictor.
You are right. However in the long run hashrate/difficulty which is an estimate for the basic production cost per BTC (excluding HW, OC) will approach or even show congruency with the price per BTC. At least that is what Satoshi assumed: "The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost. If the price is below cost, then production slows down. If the price is above cost, profit can be made by generating and selling more." Feb. 21, 2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
He meant that hashing power adapt to price: a self-regulating system, where price is an external factor.
But price will not adapt to hashing power, because the system of miners have no way to control it.
Miner can't control it but miners can act. By shutting down inefficent HW.
September 06, 2014, 06:28:54 PM
For all those who fundamentally deny a relation between hashrate and price. Check the 60 day charts at blockchain.info and tell me theres no inverted proportionality.
See the charts for at least one year range, and you will see price rising and the hashrate too.
So you can find evidence of both kind of relation(direct and reverse), so I guess the hashrate alone is not a good predictor.
You are right. However in the long run hashrate/difficulty which is an estimate for the basic production cost per BTC (excluding HW, OC) will approach or even show congruency with the price per BTC. At least that is what Satoshi assumed: "The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost. If the price is below cost, then production slows down. If the price is above cost, profit can be made by generating and selling more." Feb. 21, 2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
He meant that hashing power adapt to price: a self-regulating system, where price is an external factor.
But price will not adapt to hashing power, because the system of miners have no way to control it.
September 06, 2014, 06:25:53 PM
September 06, 2014, 06:07:04 PM
For all those who fundamentally deny a relation between hashrate and price. Check the 60 day charts at blockchain.info and tell me theres no inverted proportionality.
See the charts for at least one year range, and you will see price rising and the hashrate too.
So you can find evidence of both kind of relation(direct and reverse), so I guess the hashrate alone is not a good predictor.
You are right. However in the long run hashrate/difficulty which is an estimate for the basic production cost per BTC (excluding HW, OC) will approach or even show congruency with the price per BTC. At least that is what Satoshi assumed: "The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost. If the price is below cost, then production slows down. If the price is above cost, profit can be made by generating and selling more." Feb. 21, 2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
September 06, 2014, 05:59:13 PM
September 06, 2014, 05:45:19 PM
Note that the verdict there was based on the fact that the current owner of that physical note acquired it by legitimate means in good faith, so the court had a good argument to decide that that physical note was no longer the victim's property. The victim of course still retained the right to get the amount of 20£ (not that physical note) back from the thief, if he would ever be identified; in which case the government would take that amount from the thief's possessions, in whatever form they would find it, and return it to the victim.
You have missed the point. The 'problem' you describe is not a problem at all, but a fundamental requirement of ALL currencies. It's called 'fungibility'.
The ruling of the court in this case recognized the validity of the Royal Bank's claim that allowing 'marked' bills to be forcibly returned to their rightful owner in the case of a theft would utterly destroy the utility of the notes as money. Fungibility is a hard requirement for any real currency.
I know what "fungibility" means, But note the boldfaces in my post. That is exactly what I wrote. The court ruled that that physical banknote was not the victim's property any more. But of course the 20£ (as abstract amount) that the thief stole remained the victim's property, and the government would take 20£ from the thief and return then to the victim, if they were to identify him and found that he had that much money in his possession or in his bank account.
They did not say that. You are putting your words into the mouths of 18th century jurists
The entire importance of this case is that it is the first legal recognition of the requirement of fungibility for usable currency.
That being said, I can't imagine that the legal powers that be would not see X amount of bitcoin returned to one from whom it had been robbed, if the robber could be positively identified, just as they might with X US dollars that had been stolen. It's not clear to me why you emphasize the 'physical note', because with most modern currencies, the owner rarely actually possesses a physical note of any kind.
It's also not clear to me why you think legal remedies for theft of bitcoins must differ significantly from what they would be for other effectively virtual currencies, like US dollars.
September 06, 2014, 05:24:46 PM
For all those who fundamentally deny a relation between hashrate and price. Check the 60 day charts at blockchain.info and tell me theres no inverted proportionality.
See the charts for at least one year range, and you will see price rising and the hashrate too.
So you can find evidence of both kind of relation(direct and reverse), so I guess the hashrate alone is not a good predictor.
September 06, 2014, 05:15:28 PM
For all those who fundamentally deny a relation between hashrate and price. Check the 60 day charts at blockchain.info and tell me theres no inverted proportionality.
September 06, 2014, 05:10:23 PM
BTCitcoin is good, mmmmkay.
September 06, 2014, 05:07:54 PM
Quote
Note that the verdict there was based on the fact that the current owner of that physical note acquired it by legitimate means in good faith, so the court had a good argument to decide that that physical note was no longer the victim's property. The victim of course still retained the right to get the amount of 20£ (not that physical note) back from the thief, if he would ever be identified; in which case the government would take that amount from the thief's possessions, in whatever form they would find it, and return it to the victim.
You have missed the point. The 'problem' you describe is not a problem at all, but a fundamental requirement of ALL currencies. It's called 'fungibility'.
The ruling of the court in this case recognized the validity of the Royal Bank's claim that allowing 'marked' bills to be forcibly returned to their rightful owner in the case of a theft would utterly destroy the utility of the notes as money. Fungibility is a hard requirement for any real currency.
I know what "fungibility" means, But note the boldfaces in my post. That is exactly what I wrote. The court ruled that that physical banknote was not the victim's property any more. But of course the 20£ (as abstract amount) that the thief stole remained the victim's property, and the government would take 20£ from the thief and return then to the victim, if they were to identify him and found that he had that much money in his possession or in his bank account.
EDIT: quote markup
Jump to: