> 10 Bitcoin were transferred and then cashed out anonymously a few days later.
Genuinely interested how the coins were cashed out anonymously. Pretty much all exchanges require KYC these days, and Bitcoin addresses can be tracked and blacklisted if the right processes are put in place, in theory at least.
It could have taken time for the BTC from his wallet to be marked as tainted. Once that happens, the person who buys the 10BTC is bag holding. I wonder what happens if it's an exchange holding tainted BTC, though. Will it be excluded from the supply indefinitely?
If you're looking to practice the h,j,k,l keys in a fun way, simply play Nethack or other roguelikes that support these movement keys. In 2-3 hours you'll be flying around the map and you won't even know how you're doing it.
It always bothered me that Github uses “Issues” for the name of the discussion board, as if encountering problems is the only reason to engage in conversation with the author.
Not necessarily. Static IP and PTR records improve the "credibility" factor, but it's not required. I'm running mine on the dynamic IP provided by the ISP, without PTR. Despite the warnings I get from the mail scanning tools, I can send mail to Gmail, Yahoo and the other major providers.
Not if you are on hetzner or one of the other major spam hosting ISP ranges. You will blocked in a lot of places.
Folks talk about these places and the "unlimited" bandwidth and the "friendly" abuse teams. Ergo - you can't talk to as many other places via email. The big players will crunch you down quick.
"not your keys not your coin" has been advocated for years on any discussion board, unfortunately it's falling on death ears. Typical users just like the convenience of centralized exchanges and "attractive" offers like this one.
> Am I correct in that the definition of "freezing" here is private company refuses to do business with marked cash?
Yea that's correct. They track the coins as they flow from one address to another. It can be increasingly difficult once the funds are divided, but entirely possible with automation. It's worth noting that this is not possible with some privacy focused cryptocurrencies like Monero.
Maybe I’m missing something, but how can immortality, even a theoretical one be achieved? Say you find a way to cure all diseases and reverse aging, you can still be killed or die in an accident. Say you find a way to transfer your consciousness to a machine (ignoring all philosophical implications). That machine can still be shut down and destroyed. All you get is just a longer life, which still ends at some point. And given the fact that it’s not time that actually matters, but the perception of time, one might still view their life as being short.
I find the article a bit naive, this question lies deep in the realm of philoshopy. What if technology and life merge at some point? It’s not hard to imagine that technology and life might become indistinguishable in the far future.
The quest for immortality isn't a 0 or 1 objective. Using technology to reduce or reverse aging is one aspect. Using technology to reduce the accident fatality rate is another aspect. E.g, what was the car fatality rate 100 years ago and what is it now when you account for safer cars and better medical tech.
Unless you bypass the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Greg Egan's Permutation City provides a possible example), technology will get us asymptotically closer to true immortality. But even if we don't reach true immortality, reducing suffering caused by our current level of mortality is a noble goal.
I disagree that technology will get us asymptotically closer to true immortality. It is far more likely that technology gets us asymptotically closer to a theoretical maximum lifespan that is determined by our relationship with the environment. Radical changes to our form might extend that theoretical maximum, but it is not clear that someone who wants immortality would be satisfied with a form radically different from human.
As an example, an entity with a fractured consciousness that spans tens of thousands of lightyears (yet not necessarily dispersed enough to be considered immortal) would have a radically different concept of self. If one was uncomfortable with the concept of a few dying for the many, in order to perpetuate the species, then a dispersed consciousness devoid of a self seems equally unpalatable.
Think of backups and redundancy, f.i. like in Battlestar Galactica (the reimagened one from 2004) and the Cylon resurrection ships. They had immortality by instantly uploading, as long as there was coverage by a resurrection ship/ark in range.
All the tiny pieces could be traced in an automated way. It’s probably the lack of regulation that lets exchanges get away with not implementing better anti-laundering mechanisms.
You're actually implying that you can't trust any computer with the code you are telling it to execute. This is an exaggeration IMO. Sure you can have backdoors and hacks, but with what probability?
On the other hand, users need to put their trust in humans, not computers.
Ken Thompson wrote a paper about trust that was published in ACM in '84 entitled "Reflections on Trusting Trust". He makes the case for a trojan that could be built in such a way that it would infect a compiler, self-replicate into new versions of the compiler, and inject itself into specific binaries; all without appearing in the source code of the new versions of the compiler or the target binary.
Arguably, the probability of such an attack is extremely low--slim to none might be an overstatement--but it's an interesting thought exercise.
I remember reading about this attack being implemented and executed in a university system decades ago. Perhaps apocryphal, but it didn’t seem that way.
For what it’s worth you can detect a “trusting trust” attack using Diverse Double Compiling. David A. Wheeler implemented it as part of his dissertation back in 2009 and verified that gcc had not been infected.
This is the classic conundrum when thinking about supply chain attacks. It can happen, but at what probability threshold do you stop trying to take security measures?
On the other hand, users need to put their trust in humans, not computers.
It’s still a human trust problem all the way down because you had to buy your computer from someone, and they had to buy the parts from someone, and so on.
There are some places where it’s less of an issue due to cryptographic magic, but those are few and far between.
Genuinely interested how the coins were cashed out anonymously. Pretty much all exchanges require KYC these days, and Bitcoin addresses can be tracked and blacklisted if the right processes are put in place, in theory at least.