Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 28752. (Read 26623428 times)

https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/447836584554266624

No, it is not that. (In fact, the companies that sell digital signatures would surely love internet voting.)

The problem is ensuring that voters can vote according to their free choices without fear of punishment - by government at all levels, employers, mafias, family members, etc...

Icelanders may not feel that that is a problem now, but it is a serious and real problem in  many parts of the world, including many parts of Brazil.  Indeed, putting an end to such "leash votes" was the main excuse the governmetn used when it pushed electronic voting in 1996.  Even where it is not a problem now in your country, it may become one when some fascist group becomes strong enough to scare voters, or when a president turns out to be corrupt -- and by then it will be too late to switch to a safer system.

To prevent voter coercion, the system must ensure that no one can know how another person voted.  More than that: the system must make sure that no voter can prove to others that he voted in a particular way.  At the same time, it must ensure that even skeptics -- especially the losing parties -- can be convinced that the votes have been correctly added.

It is not trivial, but also not too difficult, to ensure these requirements with traditional paper voting.  It is more difficult, but still possible, to ensure them with properly designed hybrid paper/digital systems.  It is mathematically impossible to get all three with purely digital systems, including voting by internet.  The latter obviously fails the first requirement: one's vote can be snooped either at the terminal end (by the husband/boss/mafioso in person), in transit, or at the receiving end (by corrupt government officials).

I recall a complicated cryptographic internet voting proposal that claimed to protect voting secrecy from corrupt government officials (thus only part of the problem).  It almost worked -- except that one could still identify how each person voted by capturing the received data and processing it offline, simulating an election closure after each vote cast and comparing the totals.

I have learned many interesting stories about electronic voting but they are too long and too off-topic to tell here...

yawns

is it monday morning yet? so boooored. next bubble please.

I can't view any of the embedded images.  What's with the wall?  487k BTC?  Are you kdding me!?

lol yea, just curious if anyone had seen this

Wtf did I just watch.. yes it's a scam 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzP42eUkn0o

What is this? Scam?

OH FFS

Can we please just MOVE ON. 

So the 563 wall is back now?

BUY BUY BUY

Dat moment <3

Sorry if I gave that impression.  No, I came here to learn about bitcoin -- the non-technical aspects that one does not see in Coindesk or Bloomberg.  It is the one place where tips and links to all sorts of topics get posted, from the economics of mining to whether it is prudent to trade while drunk.

I do read and occasionally post to other threads, and other forums; but their cycle time is days, here it is seconds.  (It is like trading at CampBX vs trading at Huobi, I suppose  )

Well, you put yourself out there.

You post in the busiest thread in the forum (and this thread only), are quite opinionated to the contrary, and don't own any coins. People questioning your motives is going to be normal. And since we seem to be guinea pigs within some data collection experiment of yours, yeah, your not going to make many friends.

Yes, I was being a bit of a troll there.  But just a bit. 


I appreciate your advice and offer for help, and I am sure it is made with the best of intentions; but do you realize that it sounds like "you speak badly of dugs, here, try some crack and I am sure you will change your mind." 

Seriously: In one of his articles/interviews, Mark Andreessen made it a point of saying that he did not own any bitcoins himself.  Can you guess why? (I believe I know.)


I guess we don't have enough common ground to discuss those issues then... 

I was discussing the implications of your statements.  Some of those implications relate to your person.  Please do feel free to correct my errors:  I seek to avoid all sources of error (on a risk-adjusted basis).  Certainly there are many.


 

Actually the very point that I have tried to drive, in my occasional role as a safe voting advocate, is that no amount of cryptography can make a fully digital voting machine safe; on the contrary, such machines are inherently more INsecure than paper-backed machines, or even plain paper voting.  This is not my opinion by the way, but that of every expert in electronic voting in the world (including Ron Rivest, co-inventor of the RSA public key cryptography).   

And internet-based voting is much worse, because no technological fix can prevent voter coercion or and ensure secrecy unless the vote is cast  in a strictly controlled environment.

But one thing that I learned in those efforts is that, no matter how much and how clearly an army of experts explains something to someone, he will never understand it if his income depends on him NOT understanding it.   


As opposed to fake Bulgarian, Slovenian, or Hongkongian exchange data? 

What exchange closure? Bitcoinica? MtGOX? GBL?


Oh, we are back to discussing my person... looks like someone really needs that lesson.

bitfinex invisible wall is DOWN! BUY BUY

Only 487364BTC left for sale @563/Bitfinex.

I enjoy your skepticism, but I think your a little sinister, hold is the advice given to noobs who buy high and then want to sell low.

Just buy one is the pump. In 2011 @$2 I gave the same advice I give today just buy 1, and if you can't afford to lose the cash just invest what you can live without and hold. I've given away way more in value ( as paper wallets and donations) than I've invested with the requests to hold and if you need assistance sending it ask for my help. I'll even send you one Bitcoin if you promise to look after it and send 0.5 back when it's worth $10,000. (Personally I think it has less chance of being stolen if you invest your own money)

The thing with scams and stealing is real but it adds value, to the system. The idea of justice you keep is an authority meme built on the meme that all land belongs to someone and you have to rent or buy it. The only rules in reality are based on natural selection viewed through the lens of universally preferred behavior, dynamic not entropic.