|
jre posted:Can't be stored in these structures, far too big quote:This makes no sense at all. The entire point of SSL certificates is having a trusted authority issue them. quote:What's the advantage of buttcoins vs having the current reporting system ?
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
Klyith posted:Do you have any direct knowledge about the use of bitcoin in argentina? I've read several articles about that in places like NYT and other respectable media, but don't know how accurate they are. Though I'd guess that a report on "this is how bitcoin is used" is a lot easier to get right than a speculative "bitcoin-for-doctors will change healthcare" type junk. It still requires someone to accept Argentinian currency for bitcoins. What is the advantage to the bitcoin seller? And bitcoin is extremely volatile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Why would you store the whole video? All you need is a hash to show it hasn't been edited or modified. Edit the video then hash it, then upload the hash to the useless database ? quote:no, the point of SSL on the web is to verify site ownership. I've had a great idea, maybe we could get some sort of authority to certify which one is real quote:you can't be serious. jre fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Nov 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Why would you store the whole video? All you need is a hash to show it hasn't been edited or modified. Hashing != blockchain Distributed != trust Consensus crafted log of transactions != Log of desirable transactions serving social good quote:you can't be serious. Incredulity != argument
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Why would you store the whole video? All you need is a hash to show it hasn't been edited or modified. Let's Encrypt already gives free certs. Why's it so hard for you to understand blockchains suck?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Why's it so hard for you to understand blockchains suck? Agreeing with fishmech on this. There's already a distributed anti-tampering block-chain algorithm in wide use today, that can handle documents or hashes of large files. Still has a number of the drawbacks, including you (everyone) either store the complete state or trust someone else that state-to-point-X is Y. To get started you need a large (and forever growing) bootstrap. There's plenty of ways to shoot yourself in the foot, and not all are obvious. Unlike bitcoin, the design took forks into account and handles resolution relatively well. People actually use it widely. What else does your magic "bittcoin but good" need to do? It's called git. Dr. Fishopolis posted:no, the point of SSL on the web is to verify site ownership. if you can do that without paying an authority, it's both cheaper and more secure. I'd love to hear your ideas on how this new magic pixie dust can verify my bank to me before I authorize a wire transfer to nigeria. You need an authority because at some point there needs to be pre-shared trust. You could go to your bank and get some sort of card with the key information on it, and hope nobody stuffed some fake cards in the pile. You could setup a network of whispers of trust, and hope nobody created a botnet to flood it with false data. You could decree that whoever burns the most coal cranking out hashes that have the most zeros is the rightful owner. Harik fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Nov 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Blut posted:Thats an entirely different form of money laundering, one at a much larger and rarer scale. Its far harder for someone to a) own a casino and b) have "soldiers" to do that. Putting cash into chips, cycling them through casino games, eating a small loss, and then recycling the chips back into cash is how small time criminals (and prominent politicians, in some European countries) launder money to give them a legal source for money that they can now lodge into the banking system. Its quite common.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Nowadays it's done with Steam cards; if you Google for and buy a discount-rate card for a new game, you're probably funding the Russian mafia or equivalent. Buy Steam codes at list, sell at a discount, resulting money is clean and can be transferred out of Steam. Steam is IIRC working hard to make this more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Note that Steam accepts bitcoin! Don't most places that 'accept' Bitcoin use a service that immediately exchanges the Bitcoin for cash?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Well, yeah. What else are they going to do with it, buy darknet poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
outlier posted:Several and diverse: There is one glaring problem with all these use cases: They are all hypothetical, and no working examples exist. I'm putting together an article on one of these awful piece of poo poo proposals presently. The press release touts the "peer reviewed" article. You will be unsurprised to hear it's in a journal with a couple of the authors on the editorial board, that made Beall's List of predatory open access journals, i.e. the paper is vanity-published. The paper also says "could" 80 times, and in the blockchain space "could" is a word meaning "doesn't". outlier posted:Correct. Allegedly, Estonia's EHR system is based off blockchain. (I say allegedly because I can't find a primary source.) I can see that this could solve a whole bunch of problems in health records, but Estonia's often a bit of a special case. But you could plausibly do it other ways. My suspicion is that adapting the pre existing hospital ICT is the biggest factor here, rather than the details of the technical solution. This is an example of blockchain hype in action: Estonia is throwing around the buzzword "blockchain" a lot. The catch is: KSI Blockchain, their chosen homegrown blockchain solution ... isn't a blockchain at all. They literally redefined "Merkle tree" to mean "blockchain". Klyith posted:Do you have any direct knowledge about the use of bitcoin in argentina? I've read several articles about that in places like NYT and other respectable media, but don't know how accurate they are. Though I'd guess that a report on "this is how bitcoin is used" is a lot easier to get right than a speculative "bitcoin-for-doctors will change healthcare" type junk. The answer is the same as for Venezuela: * a few electricity-stealing libertarians * it's utterly negligible in any wider sense * it's super-headline-friendly. It's basically not a thing beyond said electricity-stealing libertarians who really really want it to be a thing. divabot fucked around with this message at 10:56 on Nov 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
divabot posted:There is one glaring problem with all these use cases: Which is why I'm watching them from the research viewpoint. The use case that captures my eye is monitoring clinical trials via blockchain. The field is awash with data massaging, shifting aims and burying data, leading to the poor outcomes. If there was a way to log and verify all aims and data in a trial, that would do a huge amount towards better outcomes. But, again, its the end that interests me not the implementation. Just forcing pharma companies to file paperwork as to what their trials are looking for has had a huge benefit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
outlier posted:Which is why I'm watching them from the research viewpoint. The use case that captures my eye is monitoring clinical trials via blockchain. The field is awash with data massaging, shifting aims and burying data, leading to the poor outcomes. If there was a way to log and verify all aims and data in a trial, that would do a huge amount towards better outcomes. blockchain doesn't solve that any more than current techs do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:blockchain doesn't solve that any more than current techs do. yep. In a huge number of blockchain proposals, the actual problem is data formats and availability. But blockchains won't fix your data for you - that requires the actual slog of fixing your goddamn data. also, all claims that blockchain will make any of this faster or cheaper are baseless. also, quite a lot of the claims for "blockchain" are literally made-up bitcoin hype (that doesn't work there either), with just the buzzword changed. It's important to remember that hypotheticals are cheap and abundant in bitcoin/blockchain - and have an absolutely terrible track record of implementation. Hypotheticals in blockchain are worthless without at least a PoC. In blockchain, "could" should always be read as meaning "doesn't". (One of the worst popular books on blockchains is Tapscott's "Blockchain Revolution". It's several chapters of technologically illiterate hypotheticals, and one chapter of "actually none of this works yet and the present day systems have glaring problems" tacked on the end after hundreds of pages.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
Blut posted:In a lot of countries gambling winnings are both legal and tax exempt. And because of that governments don't care much about investigating deeper into the issue other than seeing "receipt for gambling winnings of €X you say? Well thats how much you lodged to your bank account in cash, this story checks out". If you are confident you will never get investigated you don't need to money launder. If you do get investigated "this money I have? I won it at a casino, why no I don't have any receipts that show I won it, but I can prove I went to a casino and had this money" isn't going to help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
It’s used with the (awful) FOBT machines for small scale laundering here. Bring £100 in, gamble on a safe bet that will pay out £98, Ladbrokes gives you a ticket saying you won £98 - doesn’t say what you brought in, just that you walked away with £98. Do this enough and you can clean a lot of money - for a street dealer anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Financial Times points out that "blockchain" in practice is useful the less of an actual blockchain it is
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If you are confident you will never get investigated you don't need to money launder. If you do get investigated "this money I have? I won it at a casino, why no I don't have any receipts that show I won it, but I can prove I went to a casino and had this money" isn't going to help. Thats why the whole point of the laundering is to get that exact winnings receipt, to establish legitimacy. As I previously said. Its really quite a simple process, I'm not sure why you're having such trouble grasping it. Let me give the remedial class an example: > Criminal earns €40k illegally. He can't lodge this amount into a bank in most Western countries without getting flagged for further inspection by tax authorities, so needs a legitimate source to show for it > Criminal goes to a casino, and makes 38 €1k bets on all single numbers on a roulette table > One of these bets gives him a €35k return, with a receipt showing such > Criminal can now show his local tax authorities exactly why hes lodging €35k to his bank account, because he made a €1k bet in a casino that won. Which is admittedly a large bet for an "average" citizen, but not suspiciously so > Criminal can now lodge his €35k to his bank account and use it for legitimate means. He has effectively paid €3k to legitimize ("launder") his illegal earnings. > The casino doesn't give a poo poo, because they've just made €3k profit. And/or because they're also highly likely to also be crooked. hth
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Blut posted:Thats why the whole point of the laundering is to get that exact winnings receipt, to establish legitimacy. As I previously said. Ok. I work at a casino. It is not in the U.S. but our anti money laundering (AML) laws were written by the U.S. govt via the UN. First off, cash -> chips -> cash does not wash anything. It can change small notes to big ones or if you think the bills themselves are being tracked, but you are still holding unspendable* cash. To launder the money you need a check. If a casino issues a check, they will first use surveillance and player management software to find your cash buy-in. That amount will be returned as cash and the check issued for only the winnings. Alternatively with patience you can try to use many small transactions over time with an account at the casino to eventually be given a check or bank transfer but AML best practices tell casino staff to be extra vigilant with these accounts. *Unspendable for major purchases anyway
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Best way to launder at the casino would be to syndicate play, that is find a linked jackpot and fill every seat and pump money in until one of you wins the jackpot, who then asks for a check. But casinos hate syndicate play because it is quite obvious to the average punter who is waiting for an available machine and can see these guys going back to one guy to get more money. The punter complains, and the casino throws everybody out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
As mentioned earlier, the best best way to launder is through layering with a cash business. Just remember to give the taxman his cut.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
exmachina posted:Ok. I work at a casino. It is not in the U.S. but our anti money laundering (AML) laws were written by the U.S. govt via the UN. Sounds like wherever your county/casino is the AML laws actually do a reasonable job, thats promising. Though it does assume the casino has enough surveillance and player management to do the job, alongside the will to do it. That isn't the case many places in the world, if AML laws even exist in the jurisdiction. Most casinos will just issue a cheque for the total winnings to the gambler, successfully laundering the cash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Blut posted:Sounds like wherever your county/casino is the AML laws actually do a reasonable job, thats promising. Though it does assume the casino has enough surveillance and player management to do the job, alongside the will to do it. That isn't the case many places in the world, if AML laws even exist in the jurisdiction. Most casinos will just issue a cheque for the total winnings to the gambler, successfully laundering the cash. That hasn't successfully laundered the cash though. You're still looking suspicious if anyone investigates you. The casino would also need to have the basic accounting records. Legal casinos usually need to pay taxes themselves on the money they win off the gamblers even if the gamblers don't need to pay income taxes on what they win. So there's pretty big differences between Bob Crime carrying in $50,000 and then gambling it til has $45,000 and taking his cash/check/bank transfer/whatever, and Bill Law bringing in $1000 and actually hitting some jackpot so that he walks out with the same $45,000. The casino keeping $5000 versus the casino losing $44,000 is going to be a pretty substantial difference, and if the authorities get suspicious the casino had better have proper accounting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
I’m imagining now how n-gate would summarize this conversation. “Hackernews reinvents money laundering from first principles.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Blut posted:Sounds like wherever your county/casino is the AML laws actually do a reasonable job, thats promising. Though it does assume the casino has enough surveillance and player management to do the job, alongside the will to do it. That isn't the case many places in the world, if AML laws even exist in the jurisdiction. Most casinos will just issue a cheque for the total winnings to the gambler, successfully laundering the cash. Our laws came into effect in 2014. As I said, the laws were part of a UN resolution pushed by the US. How recent is your information? I believe even US casinos now must undertake reasonable due diligence to ascertain the cash buy-in before issuing a check. For clarity, issuing checks for unknown players is super rare unless something like a jackpot has been won. Our casino will ALWAYS ask for ID here and the paperwork discourages casual issuing of checks. Much easier to just pay cash. exmachina fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Nov 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
eschaton posted:Well, yeah. What else are they going to do with it, buy darknet poo poo? Gabben sometimes needs to hire hitmen to cover up HL3 leaks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
exmachina posted:Our laws came into effect in 2014. As I said, the laws were part of a UN resolution pushed by the US. How recent is your information? I believe even US casinos now must undertake reasonable due diligence to ascertain the cash buy-in before issuing a check. My experience is all pre-2010, so I'll absolutely admit things may have changed since 2014 in the developed world - your experience sounds like its more recent than mine. I still have my doubts about second/third world casinos following best legal practices, though. Do you know what the UN resolution was, reference/date etc? Was it adopted widely around the world? Is it generally regarded as being observed in most countries? I'd be curious to look into it, even aside from this debate. fishmech posted:That hasn't successfully laundered the cash though. You're still looking suspicious if anyone investigates you. I've directly seen casinos accounting reports that don't go into that much detail on individual gambers' records - because its not in their best interests to do, unless they're in a heavily regulated region where they can be forced to. They simply show daily losses/gains with regards to bets received. And keep no record on individual gamblers, unless the gamblers opt-in to loyalty programs. Bill Law isn't going to have much luck pinning anything on an individual gambler from that. If the criminal's laundering is less than 1% of the casinos daily take its going to be impossible to show an out of the ordinary variation in winnings/losses that correlates to his winning cheque/receipt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Ok Blut I’ve got my passport let me just book a flight with a hundred grand in dirty USD — I’m sure there’s nothing that can go wrong with that idea — fly to a third-world anarcho-libertarian dictatorship, saunter into the nearest crime syndicate’s casino, lose my rear end at precisely the right pace to mix in the dirty cash with the good, cash out, walk to my rat-infested hotel with a suitcase of untraceable cash, fly home, and live happily ever after. I’m glad I am an Avenger so none of the dozen or so roving gangs is dumb enough to jump me and take all the money, but boy oh boy do I wish the blockchain was somehow part of this story!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Blut posted:
You're not getting it. There is no reason the casino needs to have details on an individual gambler's action, but a supposed massive windfall should show up in a casino that's small time enough to not track individual players too closely. An this should show results in the casino's records which would be very suspicious for the "oh I won it all at the casino from just %amount of money explainable by legal means%" story if the person's already under investigation. A medium-size casino in a place like Vegas will take something like $300,000 in gambling revenue a day, as in the money they're keeping from the gamblers. The difference between the casino toting up $5000 in money kept versus $44,000 in money the casino lost is going to show up against that sort of revenue. Obviously the less money you're trying to launder with each go at the casino, the more effective this gets, but also the more you need to keep showing up to the casino, and also the more likely that your at that point story of "i went to the casino every day for 3 weeks and just happened to win much more money than i brought in with me" is to show up as suspicious in itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Blut posted:My experience is all pre-2010, so I'll absolutely admit things may have changed since 2014 in the developed world - your experience sounds like its more recent than mine. I still have my doubts about second/third world casinos following best legal practices, though. But just going to a casino doesn’t launder your money, the irs will just say “why did you have this money to buy a second house?” Then you will say “i won it” and then be unable to produce any receipts showing you won it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Remember the great success that fitbit was? Now you can invest your millions into Fitbark. It's like fitbit, but for dogs!
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 09:29
|
|
|
blockchain
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
noyes posted:blockchain barkchain
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 11:35
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:barkchain quote:Introduced as a "joke currency" on 8 December 2013, Dogecoin quickly developed its own online community and reached a capitalization of US$60 million in January 2014; as of November 2017, it has a capitalization of US$240 million.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
TACD posted:it has a capitalization of US$240 million. "Market Capitalization" of cryptocurrencies is the stupidest thing imaginable. Currencies don't have market capitalizations in the first place, but even if they did you don't figure it out by multiplying the current highest market value by every coin that ever existed regardless of if it still exists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/934443942384463873
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
The SoCal one is the old Boeing campus that has been sitting vacant for ages in Huntington Beach plus the C-17 facility in Long Beach in addition to some other office space and land in both cities. They really, really want someone to fill in the void that Boeing left when they pulled out of the area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:The SoCal one is the old Boeing campus that has been sitting vacant for ages in Huntington Beach plus the C-17 facility in Long Beach in addition to some other office space and land in both cities. They really, really want someone to fill in the void that Boeing left when they pulled out of the area. The Boston proposed site is the Suffolk Downs horse racing course, which ceased regular operations back in 2014 and has only done a few special openings ever since. Originally it was being planned that a casino would open on the site, but that fell through when the license was instead granted over in Everett at a site Wynn's developing. It's kind of a mostly-abandoned eyesore area taking up a bunch of land right on the Blue Line rapid transit which should probably get replaced by any sort of large scale development that will take advantage of all that transit access. Also the "city employees working just for Amazon" thing in the actual proposal seems a lot like the existing staff hired by the City to deal with the major hospitals and other such large scale employers in the city, as well as the ones that work with multiple different related companies/institutions when they're not large enough to "need" a dedicated staffer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
So a bunch of cities have big regions of unused/abandoned land that would be perfuct for a big corporation like amazon that they desperately want to have used?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:So a bunch of cities have big regions of unused/abandoned land that would be perfuct for a big corporation like amazon that they desperately want to have used? it's pretty common actually, yeah atlanta's been trying to get rid of fort mcpherson (a closed army base with its own transit station a mile south of downtown atlanta) and if it hadn't been for tyler perry turning most of the land into a film studio then they'd be throwing it at amazon http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-ca-st-tyler-perry-guided-tour-20161016-snap-story.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:10
|
|