mrvc

It does help in sorting, but i'd suggest it sorts by popularity, not by quality as we tend to assume.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm here to read interesting perspectives on interesting topics. I don't really care to reaffirm a popular opinion, irrespective of quality or substance.

Isn't that what the flagging system is for? Removal of spam and inappropriate comments. With upvotes acting as a counter force to filter good content up...?

Take as an example some comments I made prior to making this post in the climate change thread currently on the frontpage (ice age). Although I have now deleted these, I simply stated that climate change prediction was uncertain due to the number of factors involved. A simple 2 line or so comment in reply to a poster asking why conflicting views existed on the subject. I believe it was of value (it answered his/her question, yet was of course an unpopular opninion to hold. A few minutes later it hit -1.

I won't be repeating the mistake of thinking I can discuss a matter openly here and believe downvoting adds nothing to a discussion (in contrast to upvoting which can be very useful for sorting comments).

That is the wish, I do believe the reality is quite different in my experience.

Look, to be part of a startup you need to be providing value equal to your equity share. Otherwise you're leeching. If you're non-tech you can add value through getting word out, negotiating, and taking care of all non-tech business issues (legal, accounting, marketing, sales), basically things a tech is usually not very good at.

If you are not valuable equal to your equity share, reduce your equity share to a more appropriate value or GTFO.

I calculate equity split on my startups using an auction format and it just works: http://nerdr.com/hacking-the-50-50-equity-split-using-shak/

1. Apologies for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean to say the code will be open to exploits, I meant the code will intentionally contain a backdoor at an agencies behest. Exploits are another matter entirly and open source has its pros and cons for that purpose.

2. Then TOR bridges could be blocked at ISP level or made illegal. We're starting to see censorship arise on the internet and it's possible.

3. Many of these use cases are of course valid, But I will add their exist transaction fees which are paid when bitcoin are transferred, plus exchange fees when bitcoin is exchanged for real currency. It's not a fee free currency as suggested. I would add (and this is of course a guess) that most users will have illegal purposes and intent in mind. If only because they have most to gain from Bitcoin use. Most average folk don't ever see a 2% Visa fee as business absorbs this cost, so for a user purchase fees for everyday goods is not a value driver. I can see it being used for tax avoidance, money laundering and payment for nefarious purposes. Other use cases do not stand up to value analysis.

Open source code tends to give a false sense of security. Many people assume others will check the code, yet few do. In addition, it is possible to spread malicious code throughout a code base to prevent detection. (mentioned in article).

To use TOR you still connect through an ISP. That can be tracked and deep packet analysis can be done. TOR is not a magic bullet.

Exchange - Correct. That was coming in part 2 of the article covering methods around each point, but unlikely to find the time to write it up at this point.

I leave the question: Why else would one use an anonymous currency unless they don't want to be detected? From there, who does not want to be detected? Usually those doing things they shouldn't. Otherwise, you'd just use a credit card or normal payment service as an everyday citizen would.

Done. Check nerdr front page for the article.

Allegedly.

Without an unbiased third party auditing of their accounts I would be loath to place too much trust in data they themselves produce to say how awesome they are. Especially with such a significant amount of capital allegedly at stake and nothing to lose for bending the truth.

Without knowing how much real backing the exchanges have it's hard to get a figure on what effect a large dump would have on the market. Additionally, you'll get shock dumpers who do a run on the exchange once they see value erosion. $30,000, although fabricated, feels right. Although i'd add that's probably an upper bound rather than expected value.

If anyone wants it I'd be happy to write up a quick how to on how Bitcoin really could be shut down, I have some expertise in the area if that matters and no serious bias either way.

It's not really $500,000 though is it? As soon as you exchange a small amount of that into dollars you crash the exchange and the value drops significantly. I'd estimate it at about $30,000 worth.

How come? What's causing it?

What about a donation system? Like some channels here in the US have. That way, those who do like the service can pay and those who don't are free of the tax. Do you see that system working as an alternative to the BBC License fee?

I didn't realize it was that bad over there! Got a link for those suicides? I'd say, if UK citizens really do support it as they seem to do, then at least a proportional tax would be better. Having read into it a little though, the fact that it's technically a tax on information doesn't sit well with me (meaning if you didn't have a TV 20 years ago you were basically in the dark as far as video footage of world events were concerned).

Having worked with them for a few years now, can I just say I hate the term Monte Carlo Method. Although I can understand that calling them "random number simulations" is not nearly as cool.

Wouldn't the best way be to use humans to make human milk?

This is great, but can cell networks handle the load? They're already struggling from a significant lack of investment and this could well be a straw that breaks the camels back.

You missed one:

4. It's generally an (illegal, yet surprisingly common) way to avoid taxes.

What's the strategy here for Lulz Security? At first, it seemed like revenge for Geohot, but have they now moved to just targetting everyone?

Should normal site owners be afraid?

Do trolls really derail a conversation or encourage it along? Particularly on sites like Reddit, i've found them to be vilified, yet the way they can instantly cause a change of perspective to counter groupthink is vastly under appreciated. They're useful, else they wouldn't have existed for so long.

Someone once argued here that cancer is now just a business. With so many interests vested in keeping the money flowing, their is a significant disincentive to move towards a solution. Instead, it is better to murk the waters and hinder progress, as that will keep the tap flowing for longer, allowing those researches to continue paying their mortgages.

It was suggested a better model would be massively rewarding those who create progress in the field (such as yourself) rather than offering large lucrative grants for research irrespective of result.

It's supposed to be a skewed normal curve, right? So with individual site requirements boosting the 6 AND 8 minimum character lengths it would all make sense, since that's where we get 2 spikes. Remove those spikes and we get the nice normal chart as expected.

I'd suggest that the dip in 7 is natural, but the peak at 8 is the interesting part. I'd argue the 8 peak is due to some of some of their websites requiring a minimum of 8 characters. It's possible that such password checks are inconsistent among their sites/domains, resulting in some passwords being less (that's why we do see some password of shorter length than 8). If the 8 was around 6,000 we'd see a natural falloff curve as one would expect.

How about opening up an API and letting the hackers here have a bash at it?

It would be a fun challenge to see who can come up with the best and most useful solution :)