Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 26695. (Read 26610768 times)

Ok.  United.  Still trying to avoid talking about religion?

Those properties do not suffice to make an asset into a reliable store of value. (The last one is in fact a defect.)

Consider real estate on Pluto, and suppose that the UN created a body to manage its property register, with an open reliable market, and everybody trusted them to be up and honest for the next 100 years.  If, on some day, the market price of 1 square km on Pluto were 1 M$, would you invest that money into it?  How would you know that the market price of that land would still be 1 M$ the next day, and not 10$?

By the way, bitcoins CAN be confiscated if the government knows that you have them -- and it will be very hard to invest a significant fortune in bitcoins without the government knowing it.

lol

Explanation

Dyslexics of the world, untie!

Best use of "awesome" in a sentence during this millenium.

P.S.  I put the "sexy" in dyslexia.

P.P.S.  I am completely out of tasteless dyslexia jokes.

We are talking of assets of an investment fund (or some other enterprise) that are to be insured against theft.  Some of your comments about paper wallets etc. apply to personal funds,  I have said that safety there is "solved problem" in theory.

I can't think what could be a "legal theft" of a company's assets by a bank.  Loss of deposits due to bank failure is a definite risk, but insurers presumably know how to evaluate that.  And funds should not leave their assets in bank accounts anyway.

"Legal theft" of a fund's assets by the government must be seizure because the fund did something wrong.  In that case they can seize bitcoins just as easily. (Refusing to hand over the keys to legally seized cois would be stealing government's property.)  Or are you thinking of "haircuts" on bank deposits? Again, funds should not leave their assets there.

The key could be be stolen as it is generated, without the officer knowing it. (Think of N non-nerd financial managers who get their wallet software installed by the same Chief Security Officer.) Therefore the officer cannot meaningfully sign the last part of that statement.

I suppose that, each time some coins have to be taken out of cols storage, the affected addresses would have to be completely emptied, due to the risk of the private keys being captured at that time; and any remainder would then be transferred to a new cold address, previously generated.

It will be interesting to see how that works out (if we get to know it).

I have offered in the past to add religion to the topics discussed on here but everyone seemed untied against that!  

Jesus is awesome!

No, this is not true. A significant portion of bitcoin value comes from its utility as a storage of value: an asset that is scarce, non-confiscatable, exceptionally carriable (cf. gold), pseudonymous, uncorrelated to any traditional asset, and more.

Even for its utility as a method of payment, the approval of COIN will make bitcoin looks much more legitimate, and it will certainly attract more merchants to accept and even hold bitcoin.

Yes I know about M of N signatures.  They can be stolen too.

There is no perfect solution.

Putting money in bank account may protect you from ordinary theft, but it allows the bank and the government to rob you, LEGALLY.

Paper wallet is always the best way for cold storage. IMHO it is just too risky to use hardware wallet, basically a black box, to store a huge amount of bitcoin. It is much safer to use an offline generic computer with open source software to handle a long-term saving account.

To prevent insider theft, the insurance company may require COIN to use an M-of-N multi-sig address. N chief officers will generate private keys privately and independently. Each chief officer will physically sign a statement like this:


In case a theft occurred without breaking the vaults, these chief officers would have civil and even criminal liability.

So the only problem left is the physical security of the vault. The risk is actually much smaller than storing gold in vaults because it is impossible to have M-of-N multi-sig gold.

Hey Fonzarelli - get off that shark: M of N signatures.

Given your CS credentials, and your long exposure to BTC, it is beyond inexcusable that you should not be aware of the central technical features of BTC - it is evidence of bad faith.

Explanation

It's hard to read this one definitely... lot of failed attempts to rally and price is too close of recent tops to think about this as accumulation. But in same way the support is holding pretty well.

tell your friends they can get bits on facebook

Glad to see you're still here Jorge, keeping the cultists fresh

4. "The single most popular topic of posts in the Wall Observer thread"

None of the above.

He's an indefatigable fudster who can't stand to see other people grow rich when he was too late to get in before the train choo choo'd.

Someone noted that COIN will be insured against theft.  Do they already have an insurance arrangement?

It would be interesting to know the premium and the safety procedures that were/will be required by the underwiter. 

The precautions that an individual should take to guard against theft of his personal coins seem to be well understood and adequately safe.  It is less clear what a company can do to guard against insider theft (technically embezzlement, right?), which could be committed by anyone, including its chief officer(s).

The unique features of bitcoin seem to make the risk of theft from the firm's cold wallets more severe than the risk of theft of ordinary money from its bank accounts.  All it takes is to get copies of the private keys.  Even Trezor-like hardware wallets could have secret factory-istalled backdoors or be swapped for malicious counterfeits...

Which is the pertinent entry on Jorge's CV?

1.  "Frequently cited expert in international cryptocurrency economic forums."

2.  "Respected contrarian in world of digital commerce."

3.  "Regional strong man protecting the vulnerable from off-shore financial predators."

Explanation