...saying something they had already put on the record. He has a great issue that the public is passionate about but Obama folds every hand he is dealt.
Why doesn't ARIN just charge more per IPv4 address? They could have easily setup rents to try and even out the price being paid by early adopters. Those who really cannot upgrade can continue to do so but those that can will do so more quickly. Give them something they can put into an Excel spreadsheet vs existential benifits to adopting IPv6 at a high financial cost
Great, so 30 years in and we might actually switch over.
Thank god the IETF hasn't bowed to pressure by idiots to impliment NAT in IPv6.
Ugh, stop blaming firewalls as being too restrictive and then saying NAT doesn't have those problems. The "many techniques" you mention of getting around NAT don't work very well and are vastly simpler to impliment using standard firewalls. NAT is a shitty hack and it's not any harder to detect if a proper firewall is blocking a port or a certain address vs a NAT just not fowarding the requests properly. NAT comes broken by default.
Because Beta has exposed a fatal flaw in web- based communities, ie that the current owner of a domain around which a community has formed can choose to do whatever they like, the new official Slashdot is on Usenet, at comp.misc and I hope to see you all there.
Eternal September is a free Usenet provider, with the caveat that they do not carry binary (warez+porn) groups. Head on over and get your account today, and then we'll see each other on comp.misc!
The intersection of people who regularly read Usenet and the people pissed off at
He makes the case for the currency over purely electronic by saying that 3rd world countries won't tolerate cell phones as it's too expensive. At the same time, he wants to trivialize that requirement when it comes to supporting his point of adding value to such a currency since 'anyone with an NFC equipped cellphone' can verify the currency.
If someone already has a cellphone with an NFC reader then it's basically a "free" PUF verifier. Even if you want scanner to verify those payments a PUF physical scanner would be cheaper and more secure than a credit card machine. But the real distinction comes when you are in markets which don't have access to credit card payment systems at all, in which case verifying the currency is still better than judging a bill by the number of creases it has.
The article assumes for some strange reason, that those countries use coins. Well hello to the reality, many countries have paper money only and no coins, or after inflation the coins are so worthless, that they're good as collectors items only.
Wtf are you talking about? The distinction is between physical and digital versions of a currency, not between paper vs. metal incarnations of the physical currency. And, huh, if you have hyper-inflation they are worthless.
Point taken, but the thing is before that has any value, the recipient of the currency must actually verify that data. There is no point in conveying that info in an expensive physical coin, because such infrastructure could just as easily be fed the data by electronic means or even a printed slip of paper. The physical coin aspect of it becomes the tail wagging the dog, an overpriced way of conveying the counterfeit resistant data. If the data is not actually envisioned to be verified at time of transaction, then it's as useless as the serial number on a dollar.
If you can start with a trusted reader (A.K.A. a trusted base, the premise with *all* cryptography) then you can sign all of that data. Even if you are able to crack the verification code and feed an offline reader faulty data you would have to control what coins that person comes in contact with. Read up on how UXTO extension works to verify transactions authenticity without having the full block chain.
The only thing holding Bitcoin from exploding in many markets is a lack of a physical incarnation.
Incredibly wishful thinking there. Bitcoin has a lot more problems than lack of a physical incarnation. Being outlawed by major governments, at the mercy of speculators without any regulation, and downright vulnerable to an attack by a critical mass of mining resources working together.
That is in reference to markets with hyperinflation. The whole point is that the local government is trying to force people to use a useless currency. Compared to falling back on physical dollars, physical Bitcoins can be seamlessly transferred to a digital account and used online. It's about extending the utility of the digital version to a physical version, just as we can do with dollars and PayPal, just without the banks and regulatory policies which blockade people from third-world countries.
rural farmers in 3rd world countries are not going to get a smartphone and a $100/month data plan just so they can accept Bitcoin.
Exactly! But just a few sentences above it says:
anyone with an NFC equipped cellphone can check if a coin is counterfeit.
You've come round full circle to the problem in the first place: You need functioning internet infrastructure (and a long time) to validate a transaction in the secure way. Without that, you could counterfeit any 'bitcoin' based currency just as easily as any other currency.
They have made cheap, $10 devices which can verify PUF's.
A viable alternative currency for micro-nations and dictatorships with hyper-inflation."
Another foolish statement. Again, people are incorrectly assuming there is a technological solution to a socioeconomic problem. The failure of such currencies are a symptom, not a root cause. If it were as simple as all that, the citizens could just as easily move around some stable foreign currency. You can't do a safe, 'sneaky' end run around the force that governs a citizenry. So long as they are empowered to prosecute, shut down internet infrastructure, or just send soldiers into the street, no currency trick is going to work in the face of the fundamental problem.
No, this is not a solution to the problem as a whole. However, in your words, it makes end-run arounds the forces that govern the local citizenry a hell of a lot easier and safer. This helps to weaken the power of a central government to force the citizens to use a currency which they have manipulated and thus weakens the power of such a government to manipulate their currencies to begin with.
RTFA, dollars are not impervious to counterfeiting and there is no way for locals to check the authenticity. With physical Bitcoins, you can get both.
Did you read the article? Physical bit coins are a solution for people that don't have the infrastructure required to make BTC work.
Link to Original Source
Please don't do this, I live in Seattle and no one cares what your area code is.