Nice try, NSA.
Yeah, if RSA didn't take a bribe, then they're just grossly incompetent and should still be villified anyway.
If all it takes is one relay to be compromised to remove the entire point of using Tor,
That's not at all what the article is saying. A relay injecting content into your connection does not de-anonymize you. Tor works to guarantee anonymity. It doesn't guarantee that the exit relay isn't watching what's going through it or modifying the connection. That's why it's important to use HTTPS.
Anyone can use any of the exit relays. That's the point of the relays.
If you set your browser to remember your passwords, then anyone that uses your browser (including a virus) can get your passwords. That's exactly how the feature is supposed to work.
I think Bitcoin is extremely cool technology, but if I had a company I would not bet the company on the stability of its price right now. I would sell off most of the bitcoins I received as payment for dollars pretty quickly, or just pay a company a small amount to do that for me. Maybe in the future when Bitcoin is accepted in more places then its price will stabilize and that will be an extra step. Bitcoin has to go through a phase where most businesses exchange it immediately to ever get near enough adoption to stabilize.
They pay someone else to run the exchange in their own office. Coinbase.
As a customer, you don't have to sign up for a Coinbase account.
The transaction fees already exist. It's not like the designers never thought about what will happen after all bitcoins are minted.
And even before all the coins are mined, has anyone calculated yet what is the ceiling for BTC? That'd be the value over which some country's national labs or universities turn on their supercomputers and mine almost everything (publications might bring revenue, but mining apparently does), preventing individuals from getting any return from their hardware, thus discouraging them from participating?
A) The maximum number of bitcoins was publicly predetermined from the start. It's 21 million.
B) Bitcoin mining requires specialized hardware to be profitable to mine, so this isn't something that anyone with a supercomputer can just decide to mine effectively on a whim any more.
C) Why would it be bad that most individuals couldn't mine? Bitcoin mining isn't supposed to be an egalitarian "everyone gets free money" system. It's a reward for using your computational power to help secure the system. If a hundred groups with supercomputers / mining machines can mine more than 100,000 people using desktop machines, then the former group pushing out the latter from the market is the way things should be. (However there is a problem if any group colluding gets more than 50% of mining power together.)
Which CPU architecture do we decide that the web relies on?
It's not like the Moon has native wildlife that we might disrupt. It's an airless lifeless rock right now. Why would we want to bother trying to preserve it in that state?
Miners will still collect transaction fees from transactions after all minting is done; Bitcoin wasn't designed to implode when the 21M cap is hit.
No, if mining stops, then Bitcoin stops. Mining is necessary to confirm transactions. Miners will still collect transaction fees after all bitcoins are minted.
There are a ton of "me too" bitcoin-clone currencies out there already. None of them substantially improve the bitcoin protocol. I don't see why any specific one would reach critical mass and overtake bitcoin. All of the bitcoin-clones split the vote between the people who want to jump from Bitcoin.
Those first two paragraphs are at least an amusing take on libertarians, but I don't see how they work as an actual criticism of the third paragraph's description of bitcoin. Money that doesn't have a third party veto still sounds like a pretty good thing.
(copied from an older post of mine)
There are issues with what the proof-of-work system can be. The proof-of-work computation has to take long to finish, but be quick to verify. (I don't believe Folding@Home or most BOINC projects fit this model. I believe most of them manually verify many results by having multiple computers process each work chunk, and checking that the answers match.) Also, there's a major issue if the work jobs are created and managed by a single group: the group managing it would have a huge incentive to create fake work jobs that they already know the answer to, and then instant-mine them for profits. It would devalue the currency and de-legitimize the science project's results.
So the proof-of-work system can't rely on a central group to update it regularly with new work jobs, and the work solutions have to be easier to verify than to make. Primecoin is the closest thing to having a useful proof-of-work system currently.