[XMR] Monero Speculation - page 2015.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Hueristic on March 15, 2015, 09:42:36 PM

Quote from: ArticMine on March 15, 2015, 09:17:55 PM

Now for something more humorous.

Quote from: MyFarm on March 15, 2015, 08:19:06 PM

Willing to buy up to 51% of all outstanding DSH at .00000025 XMR/DSH. That is my bid on Poloniex, feel free to hit it. I'll add to it as I transfer more BTC to Poloniex.

I am also happy to do private deals for BTC for 1,000,000,000+ coins at a time. PM me.

A Darkcoin supporter is trying to buy 51% of all outstanding Dashcoin on Poloniex. In order to this he needs to build a wall out of XMR in the neighbourhood of 15,000 XMR. http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dashcoin/ Here is the chart on Poloniex https://www.poloniex.com/exchange#xmr_dsh. It all relates to the re branding of Darkcoin to Dash https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10777298

He probably has the Idea he'll put them all just under Drk price and cash in. Or he has the same Idea had. should be interesting to find that out.

Either way, its more demand for XMR, and a good deal for DASH holders if they trade their dash for his XMR. We should welcome them without trolling or gloating.

Hueristic

legendary

Activity: 3836

Merit: 4969

Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it

Quote from: ArticMine on March 15, 2015, 09:17:55 PM

Now for something more humorous.

Quote from: MyFarm on March 15, 2015, 08:19:06 PM

Willing to buy up to 51% of all outstanding DSH at .00000025 XMR/DSH. That is my bid on Poloniex, feel free to hit it. I'll add to it as I transfer more BTC to Poloniex.

I am also happy to do private deals for BTC for 1,000,000,000+ coins at a time. PM me.

A Darkcoin supporter is trying to buy 51% of all outstanding Dashcoin on Poloniex. In order to this he needs to build a wall out of XMR in the neighbourhood of 15,000 XMR. http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dashcoin/ Here is the chart on Poloniex https://www.poloniex.com/exchange#xmr_dsh. It all relates to the re branding of Darkcoin to Dash https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10777298

He probably has the Idea he'll put them all just under Drk price and cash in. Or he has the same Idea had. should be interesting to find that out.

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: Hueristic on March 15, 2015, 09:09:17 PM

...
Now don't quote me on this (yeah right

) But I think I remember reading that the first question people are being asked is, "How much money are you carrying", and if they do not give an answer then that is considered probable cause that a crime is in progress. And then a search is conducted. And if they do answer and some I read were as little as 1k they get there money seized right on the side of the road.

http://jayrameylaw.com/know-your-rights/

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Now for something more humorous.

Quote from: MyFarm on March 15, 2015, 08:19:06 PM

Willing to buy up to 51% of all outstanding DSH at .00000025 XMR/DSH. That is my bid on Poloniex, feel free to hit it. I'll add to it as I transfer more BTC to Poloniex.

I am also happy to do private deals for BTC for 1,000,000,000+ coins at a time. PM me.

A Darkcoin supporter is trying to buy 51% of all outstanding Dashcoin on Poloniex. In order to this he needs to build a wall out of XMR in the neighbourhood of 15,000 XMR. http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dashcoin/ Here is the chart on Poloniex https://www.poloniex.com/exchange#xmr_dsh. It all relates to the re branding of Darkcoin to Dash https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10777298

Edit: there may be a bit more to this:

Quote from: MyFarm on March 15, 2015, 08:33:04 PM

I've spent the last few days significantly reducing my position in DRK due to this statement by Evan:

As any of you in the USA smart enough to follow financial laws know, the IRS and SEC have made some rather interesting rulings regarding cryptocurrency. While I am no attorney (but make the habit of occasionally talking to one) I suspect there is going to be some... "Drama" in Darkcoin's future.

I have been making posts about the important need for, "Business Acumen" in the Darkcoin ranks. Before I buy back into Darkcoin in size, I now have the requirement that a very well-seasoned business executive that a venture capitalist would love be brought onto the Darkcoin team to make and handle business decisions. Note, this kind of person is going to likely require a large, vesting offering of Darkcoin for the trouble.

Hueristic

legendary

Activity: 3836

Merit: 4969

Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it

Quote from: ArticMine on March 15, 2015, 08:56:47 PM

Quote from: Hueristic on March 15, 2015, 08:40:33 PM

...

Well I can tell you that if they were poker players doing the casino circuit then that was probably all their cash. Gamblers are notorious for not keeping a stash. There argument will more than likely be they settled under duress. I haven't even read that article I just know there is so much of this going on I did a quick search and that was the first link from a credible source.

It is a great example and it illustrates why this can work very well for the state as long as they can bluff their way to a settlement. In fact you seize $100 with the objective of obtaining $10. There is zero deterrent effect here. I stand by my position that the only way to stop this kind of thing is to call the bluff right at the start, and refuse to settle. Now here is an interesting question: Do they even have to answer the question of how much cash they are carrying?

It also illustrates the value of having a secret and legal stash of XMR in order to teach the state a lesson in the courts should the need arise.

Now don't quote me on this (yeah right

) But I think I remember reading that the first question people are being asked is, "How much money are you carrying", and if they do not give an answer then that is considered probable cause that a crime is in progress. And then a search is conducted. And if they do answer and some I read were as little as 1k they get there money seized right on the side of the road.

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: Hueristic on March 15, 2015, 08:40:33 PM

...

Well I can tell you that if they were poker players doing the casino circuit then that was probably all their cash. Gamblers are notorious for not keeping a stash. There argument will more than likely be they settled under duress. I haven't even read that article I just know there is so much of this going on I did a quick search and that was the first link from a credible source.

It is a great example and it illustrates why this can work very well for the state as long as they can bluff their way to a settlement. In fact you seize $100 with the objective of obtaining $10. There is zero deterrent effect here. I stand by my position that the only way to stop this kind of thing is to call the bluff right at the start, and refuse to settle. Now here is an interesting question: Do they even have to answer the question of how much cash they are carrying?

It also illustrates the value of having a secret and legal stash of XMR in order to teach the state a lesson in the courts should the need arise.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: ArticMine on March 15, 2015, 08:36:07 PM

Quote from: Hueristic on March 15, 2015, 08:20:35 PM

This is the latest scare. Pulling people over and if you have too much cash without an explanation they like they seize it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/asset-seizures/

Quote

In the case of the two poker players in Iowa, months after their money was taken, they reached a settlement in which most of the money —$90,000 — was returned. They told CNN they believed it was the best deal they could have made at the time. Now, however, they are suing to get the rest of the money back and have asked for unspecified damages. The state of Iowa isn't giving it back and is not backing down.

This is the classic mistake: To settle for getting 90% of the money back. Now they are suing after the settlement. The question becomes are their chances of success more or less now?
Edit: These guys are poker players yet they do not seem to understand the concept of bluffing. My bet is with the state on this one.

Let's assume they are professional poker players. That being the case the $100K was probably essential to their livelihood. If you are a baker and your bakery is seized, you don't really have the luxury of waiting ages for the case to play out in court to see if you might get it back.

Hueristic

legendary

Activity: 3836

Merit: 4969

Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it

Quote from: ArticMine on March 15, 2015, 08:36:07 PM

Quote from: Hueristic on March 15, 2015, 08:20:35 PM

This is the latest scare. Pulling people over and if you have too much cash without an explanation they like they seize it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/asset-seizures/

Quote

In the case of the two poker players in Iowa, months after their money was taken, they reached a settlement in which most of the money —$90,000 — was returned. They told CNN they believed it was the best deal they could have made at the time. Now, however, they are suing to get the rest of the money back and have asked for unspecified damages. The state of Iowa isn't giving it back and is not backing down.

This is the classic mistake: To settle for getting 90% of the money back. Now they are suing after the settlement. The question becomes are their chances of success more or less now?

Well I can tell you that if they were poker players doing the casino circuit then that was probably all their cash. Gamblers are notorious for not keeping a stash. There argument will more than likely be they settled under duress. I haven't even read that article I just know there is so much of this going on I did a quick search and that was the first link from a credible source.

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: Hueristic on March 15, 2015, 08:20:35 PM

This is the latest scare. Pulling people over and if you have too much cash without an explanation they like they seize it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/asset-seizures/

Quote

In the case of the two poker players in Iowa, months after their money was taken, they reached a settlement in which most of the money —$90,000 — was returned. They told CNN they believed it was the best deal they could have made at the time. Now, however, they are suing to get the rest of the money back and have asked for unspecified damages. The state of Iowa isn't giving it back and is not backing down.

This is the classic mistake: To settle for getting 90% of the money back. Now they are suing after the settlement. The question becomes are their chances of success more or less now?
Edit: These guys are poker players yet they do not seem to understand the concept of bluffing. My bet is with the state on this one.

Hueristic

legendary

Activity: 3836

Merit: 4969

Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it

This is the latest scare. Pulling people over and if you have too much cash without an explanation they like they seize it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/asset-seizures/

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: ArticMine on March 15, 2015, 07:57:34 PM

I am assuming, and I may be incorrect, that were a dealing with a jurisdiction where probable cause or something very similar is needed for before a law enforcement agency can do what was described in the OP, which was a lot more than merely investigate.

"Probable cause" to seize computers (or worse cash) and make you work (and spend money) to get them back seems pretty damn low in practice today. Maybe it shouldn't be, and maybe more people should fight back but don't, but that's how things are now.

Hueristic

legendary

Activity: 3836

Merit: 4969

Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it

Quote from: ArticMine on March 15, 2015, 07:57:34 PM

...In these cases when the victim does has the resources to fight back they also have the ethical and moral responsibility to not only fight back but to also make an example out of the law enforcement agency or corporation involved in the courts.

WORD.

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: smooth on March 15, 2015, 06:50:13 PM

Quote from: ArticMine on March 15, 2015, 06:40:51 PM

Quote from: dreamspark on March 15, 2015, 06:26:48 PM

...

I think that disclaimer was added after this happened. In fact I think it was added because of this case.

This may be correct, but regardless in this case the fault lies solely with the law enforcement agency involved. If they do not understand how the technology works they have no business using that same technology as the basis to launch raids.

I'm not sure fault is the right word. Yes they apparently got it wrong (if OP on the issue is to be believed and who knows), but their job is to investigate these things based on often-unreliable information. The problem isn't really that they do that, it is that Bitcoin creates so such an enormous body of unreliable and dangerous information people may be reluctant to use it at all. This doesn't even need to involve law enforcement, at least not directly. As I said earlier, Coinbase has become much less useful to me since it has become apparent how they investigate blockchain taint meaning even innocent uses can put you under a cloud of suspicion. It makes me want to have nothing to do with it at all.

I am assuming, and I may be incorrect, that were a dealing with a jurisdiction where probable cause or something very similar is needed for before a law enforcement agency can do what was described in the OP, which was a lot more than merely investigate. Yes Bitcoin has serious shortcomings when it comes to coin taint and Coinbase is adding to the problem in a big way; however this does not absolve the law enforcement agency involved if they needed probable cause or something very similar.

What the OP actually may need is 1) A good lawyer, 2) The financial resources to pay for the lawyer and 3) The willingness to make an example out of the law enforcement agency involved in the courts.

Edit: Hueristic is right on. In many cases law enforcement agencies and large corporations take advantage of the fact that many of their victims cannot afford to fight back even though they are well aware of the fact that they are in the wrong. In these cases when the victim does has the resources to fight back they also have the ethical and moral responsibility to not only fight back but to also make an example out of the law enforcement agency or corporation involved in the courts.

Hueristic

legendary

Activity: 3836

Merit: 4969

Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it

Quote from: smooth on March 15, 2015, 05:31:29 PM

Quote from: Hueristic on March 15, 2015, 05:26:49 PM

Quote from: smooth on March 15, 2015, 05:12:12 PM

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2653

You must be bored. Tongue

I'm not sure I believe the OP but as was stated.

Quote

laanwj commented on Jan 17, 2014

This is a problem with wrong information from a third-party site.

I'm sorry that this happened to you, but we cannot realistically solve this as bitcoin devs.

If you don't want your IP to end up on some stupid service on the net you could use Bitcoin from behind TOR.

I have no idea about the various comments on that issue. Many of them are nonsensical. But the issue of it being a third party site collecting the data is the whole point. Anyone can scrape the Bitcoin blockchain and to various degrees spy on the p2p. That information can and will be used in various ways and even 100% innocent people will get hurt by it. That is how mass surveillance (and big data generally) works. False positives are rampant.

The best defense against this is to deny the data in the first place.

EDIT: clarify mass surveillance as opposed to just surveillance

Ahh, Ic. Thought you were pointing out a BTC flaw. This is by design. I'm always amazed when people think a unencrypted ledger cannot be read. Lol

Quote from: ArticMine on March 15, 2015, 06:40:51 PM

Quote from: dreamspark on March 15, 2015, 06:26:48 PM

...

I think that disclaimer was added after this happened. In fact I think it was added because of this case.

This may be correct, but regardless in this case the fault lies solely with the law enforcement agency involved. If they do not understand how the technology works they have no business using that same technology as the basis to launch raids.

LEA does not fact check and does nothing when it's failures ruin people's lives. If you cannot afford the lawyers to fight the system then you have no rights. As such a large percentage of the population cannot defend themselves there is no incentive for them to change

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: ArticMine on March 15, 2015, 06:40:51 PM

Quote from: dreamspark on March 15, 2015, 06:26:48 PM

...

I think that disclaimer was added after this happened. In fact I think it was added because of this case.

This may be correct, but regardless in this case the fault lies solely with the law enforcement agency involved. If they do not understand how the technology works they have no business using that same technology as the basis to launch raids.

I'm not sure fault is the right word. Yes they apparently got it wrong (if OP on the issue is to be believed and who knows), but their job is to investigate these things based on often-unreliable information. The problem isn't really that they do that, it is that Bitcoin creates so such an enormous body of unreliable and dangerous information people may be reluctant to use it at all. This doesn't even need to involve law enforcement, at least not directly. As I said earlier, Coinbase has become much less useful to me since it has become apparent how they investigate blockchain taint meaning even innocent uses can put you under a cloud of suspicion. It makes me want to have nothing to do with it at all.

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: dreamspark on March 15, 2015, 06:26:48 PM

...

I think that disclaimer was added after this happened. In fact I think it was added because of this case.

This may be correct, but regardless in this case the fault lies solely with the law enforcement agency involved. If they do not understand how the technology works they have no business using that same technology as the basis to launch raids.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: dreamspark on March 15, 2015, 06:26:48 PM

Quote from: ArticMine on March 15, 2015, 06:06:23 PM

It is fairly easy to see what happened here. Some law enforcement agency in some unknown country was tracking transactions to Bitcoin address they know was used for illegal activity. It could be a seized address, sting operation honeypot etc. They then went to blockchain.info, looked up the transaction and also the IP address that relayed the transaction to blockchain.info and then unleashed a raid on the OP's home. They did this even though blockchain.info has a clear disclaimer that the relaying IP address is not necessarily the originating IP address. It is very unfortunate that the OP did not identify the name of the law enforcement agency and its jurisdiction.

The safeguard suggested by smooth of denying the data in the first place of course solves the problem and is a case to for the use of Monero over Bitcoin.

I think that disclaimer was added after this happened. In fact I think it was added because of this case.

What is more interesting is how little of substance has been done in the significant time period since that incident. A disclaimer? Really?

dreamspark

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ArticMine on March 15, 2015, 06:06:23 PM

It is fairly easy to see what happened here. Some law enforcement agency in some unknown country was tracking transactions to Bitcoin address they know was used for illegal activity. It could be a seized address, sting operation honeypot etc. They then went to blockchain.info, looked up the transaction and also the IP address that relayed the transaction to blockchain.info and then unleashed a raid on the OP's home. They did this even though blockchain.info has a clear disclaimer that the relaying IP address is not necessarily the originating IP address. It is very unfortunate that the OP did not identify the name of the law enforcement agency and its jurisdiction.

The safeguard suggested by smooth of denying the data in the first place of course solves the problem and is a case to for the use of Monero over Bitcoin.

I think that disclaimer was added after this happened. In fact I think it was added because of this case.

bitcoinvest

legendary

Activity: 1124

Merit: 1000

13eJ4feC39JzbdY2K9W3ytQzWhunsxL83X

if you are not bored or if you do

then have a look:

http://www.coindesk.com/chainalysis-ceo-denies-launching-sybil-attack-on-bitcoin-network/

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

It is fairly easy to see what happened here. Some law enforcement agency in some unknown country was tracking transactions to Bitcoin address they know was used for illegal activity. It could be a seized address, sting operation honeypot etc. They then went to blockchain.info, looked up the transaction and also the IP address that relayed the transaction to blockchain.info and then unleashed a raid on the OP's home. They did this even though blockchain.info has a clear disclaimer that the relaying IP address is not necessarily the originating IP address. It is very unfortunate that the OP did not identify the name of the law enforcement agency and its jurisdiction.

The safeguard suggested by smooth of denying the data in the first place of course solves the problem and is a case to for the use of Monero over Bitcoin.

Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 2015. (Read 3313076 times)