Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Bitcoin

US Marshals Auctioning $20M Worth of Silk Road's Bitcoins 119

Posted by Soulskill
from the all-about-the-bitjamins dept.
coondoggie writes: The U.S. Marshals office says it will auction off almost 50,000 bitcoins (about $20 million worth) seized from alleged Silk Road creator Ross Ulbricht. The auction, which is the second sale of Silk Road's bitcoin collection, will take place during a 6-hour period on Dec. 4 from 8:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. EST. Bids will be accepted by email from pre-registered bidders only, the U.S. Marshals office said. In June more than $17 million in bitcoins seized from the Silk Road take-down were auctioned off.

Comment: Re: Just (Score -1, Troll) 208

by Rob Riggs (#48325959) Attached to: PC Cooling Specialist Zalman Goes Bankrupt Due To Fraud

Classically, capitalism relies on producing goods that people want at prices people are willing to pay for them.

Bullshit. Classically, capitalism has a solitary defining feature: the private acquisition of capital. It is solely about who controls the resources used to produce goods. Lying and cheating are time-honored practices of modern capitalism.

Comment: Re:Have they fixed the permissions system yet? (Score 1) 214

by Rob Riggs (#48317631) Attached to: Android 5.0 Makes SD Cards Great Again

So that I can control an installed apps permissions one by one? Or do I still have to grant all apps all permissions (which is what it was in practice)?

As an Android user, I really appreciate this sentiment. I would love to control the permissions of my apps, especially the ones that I know are designed to violate my privacy.

As an Android developer, the thought of how this would impact the testing of my apps is troubling. Much of my code depends on being able to do certain things. The simple fact of software development is that "all untested code has bugs". So now I need to test my app with all combinations of requested permissions disabled. That would, even for my simple app requiring only 5 permissions, result in a 32x increase in testing effort. Far more likely scenario: I would make sure that all needed permissions are available and, if not, just refuse to start.

Comment: Re:Probably Not (Score 1) 572

by Rob Riggs (#48221929) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips

Two years ago I had no clue that counterfeit chips existed. All I would have known is that there is a chip marked FTDI on the board and the serial drivers worked. What more QC is expected from a board supplier who may be producing a few hundred boards for a niche market and making a few thousand dollars per run?

Comment: Probably Not (Score 1) 572

by Rob Riggs (#48220315) Attached to: FTDI Removes Driver From Windows Update That Bricked Cloned Chips
As a "maker" who sells small runs of boards that I have manufactured in China by an assembly house, I trust that they will build the board to spec. But I do not have the wherewithal to manage and secure my supply chain from start to finish. If I specify a part, I trust that the assembly house uses genuine parts. If they do not, I don't know what sort of recourse I have if, two years, later, all of my parts start being bricked. But I certainly see it from FTDI's perspective (and Prolific, another serial chip manufacturer with the same problem). It's a really tough problem. I don't know what the right answer is. Maybe create a standard for USB serial interfaces that everyone can use? I think that already exists (the CDC).

Comment: Re:On the other hand... (Score 1) 700

by Rob Riggs (#48212467) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

Fake chips are a problem. Bricking equipment that includes fake chips is also a problem.

Companies are responsible for protecting their trademark. This is trademark protection, pure and simple. It's the cyber-equivalent of a Cease & Desist, where the companies have the power to enforce the C&D on their own.

One of the things that they are going to get out of this is the names of all the big products that use counterfeit chips. The makers of those products are going to be responsible for fixing the problem.

My guess is that many of these are going to just trace back to PCB manufacturers in China that were buying fake chips to cut costs and boost profit. The product manufacturer may have specified legitimate parts, but fakes were substituted by the contract manufacturer. If that is the case, it will be interesting to see how the Chinese deal with this.

What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.

Working...