At this point I view eugenics as nearly always bad. With most "improvement" we'll most likely reduce our diversity, and that's pretty bad. Then there is what we view as good for us, and what is good for us is sometimes two different things. There does seem to be a form of what I'll say is epieuginics coming about were instead of tampering with the DNA in a way that removes diversity that it just turns off the currently undesired gene, but could later be turned back on in a future generation. What I've read of it being used for treating down syndrome looks promising, but we'll have to wait, and see.
Not to sound like too much of a conspiracy nut, but Heartbleed did look like a deliberate exploit to some people, and still does to others. If it had been, and had been put there by someone at OpenSSL they are the last ones you actually want to inform until you have already patched it yourself. From the timeline that's what Google did, and then tapped the shoulders of their closes friends so they could ether patch it or disable the heartbeat feature as CloudFlare did. I agree that OpenSSL should have been informed first, but what do you do when you suspect the proper channels are the ones who put it there in the first place.
Typo from a lack of coffee first thing on a Sunday Morning. With a pretty stressful weekend too.
The problem with saying "unless 'a clear national security or law enforcement need' exists" is that it actually compromises national security. What is more important. That you can easily hack in and skill data from the KGB, or some mafia site; or that every last American Citizen can be hacked by the KGB, or mafia? Keeping a bug like heartbleed a secret is something only an idiot or black hat would do. If the NSA knew of heartbleed early, and kept it a secret they are arrogant idiots. They ether wanted criminals to have free rain to steal anything they wanted, or they believed that criminals are too stupid to have found this bug.
When I see a null self initialize into something there will be proof. Until then it is a git semantic proof that is easily exposed as shenanigans with language.
The point of the difficulty is to control the creating of bitcoins. The part your complaining about specifically is about what happens when there are no more coins to mine. They're saying that the fee wont be enough to keep people in. Really, but bother to read their counter argument before you spout off about it.
Really, what is the difficulty of mining when all coins are mined? You still need the miners, but if transaction fees don't actually make enough of an incentive then you end up with fewer and fewer miners. I'd say RTFA but you're a 'coiner reading and comprehending a counter argument isn't in you, and highlights the main flaw.
That's scurvy not measles. Measles is a German disease. American's are Immune.
Properly run, established, and backed crypto-dollars could be an acceptable replacement for banks to hold and transfer funds. With a central authority transfers could be rolled back, and appropriate monetary policy established, or enforced. It beat the heck out of the banks that just move gold from one vault to another at the end of the night. You could esstially tie crypto-dollars to US issued bonds that the Fed Purchases. For example one 100 dollar bond could be represented by one crypto-dollar. It would just be on the banking network, and never go over the internet at all. It would eliminate a large amount of the physical hoops we currently use. Properly done it could replace, or enhance the existing Clearing House Interbank Payments System we currently have.
I worked at an ISP that technically no longer exists do to merging multiple times. But when I worked there we had a reoccuring issue with the DNS servers and navy.gov. They had set their expiration really low, probably to help in moving the servers, and after a while something would happen to the DNS servers and they'd refuse to hand out the record. If it was a nobody site no one would have cared, but because it was the Navy it ended up causing some backlash. The issue was made worse because we had over a dozen servers accost the country, and only some of them were affected on any given day. What's worse is the people in direct charge of the servers had no clue what was causing the problem and only knew that rebooting them would fix it. Ultimately the solution was to upgrade the DNS servers and go with a more centralized solution. It's much easier to setup when it's all behind one or two addresses instead of a dozen anyways. I still don't know why the servers refused to give back any credentials or even an error since I didn't directly administer any of them, but I accept they were probably just failing, and needed some serious repair or replace since we did go with the replace option. Comcast is probably in the same boat.
Negative interest has the side effect of the bank paying you. You'd have zero depositors and an infinite number of loans for an infinite amount of funds. The bank would ether fail before it opened, or default a few days later.
You clearly misunderstand how the mtgox hist, or nohist happened, and have no idea of how money laundering would work. Two years ago, or however long ago it took for someone to figure out they could do a double withdrawal, when they started skimming off the transaction you'd get one request to one public address. That transaction failed, and unless mtgox kept a detailed report of which transactions failed even they wouldn't know that those were the coins that were stolen. Now lets say they figure it out eventually, but right now they mostly know that they have a balance in their wallet that doesn't match the balance on their books. The problem is then that the coins were most likely laundered. Just have to go and buy some stuff with the bitcoins, and then resell that stuff ether for new bitcoins and at an entirely different public address, or for cash. The dirty bitcoins are still dirty, but the criminal has clean bitcoins and clean cash. The only punishment that could be handed out at that point is to punish the unwitting launderer who isn't the actual criminal. The same exact thing happens with dirty money. It's why money laundering and shadow banking exist, and is in part why cash has serial numbers on it. The goal of the money launderer is to get those bitcoins spent as quickly and by as many real people as possible. Gambling would be a good place to launder 'coins. It gets them trading hands so quickly that by the time anyone would have flagged the coins as stolen the crooks have nearly untraceable versions in exchange.
Don't run mysterious exe files from people you do know, or trust ether, and never trust your antivirus. Your method only results in people running exe's from their friends who've been hacked, and people who think they're immune to viruses because they happen to have an antivirus. I hate explaining that just having an antivirus doesn't mean they're immune to all viruses, and can run unknown applications with impunity.
Who would lend money in a deflationary currency? You're practically guaranteeing default. If I take out a loan for 100 bitcoins to be paid back in 10 years I'd never be able to pay it off because my wages wouldn't go up nearly as fast and the deflationary pressure. Wages go down with deflation not up. A bitcoin bank that issues loans is guaranteed mass defaults, and a bank that has that many defaults is guaranteed to fail. Ether you want the shangrala "Sound" money that has nether inflation, nor deflation, or you want an Inflationary currency that isn't so bad that money become worthless in a few years, but not so low that you have to worry about defaults caused by deflation kicking in. A banking system build on deflation is unstable, and prone to failures. It's what we had when we were on the Gold Standard, and is undesirable for any banking system to work long term. Then again some people enjoy watching people suffer.
You can't distinguish between the ones that were stolen and the ones that were legit transactions. Even if you could this happened after a very long period of time, and the likely hood that it's been spent, or laundered is already very high. You'd more likely penalize "honest", more likely unwitting, bitcoin users who were used to launder the coins, and not the criminals who actually got the coins. There are lots of logistical problems with even attempting to implement this kinds of a system. To successfully do it you'd need a Central Authority that could enforce it, and it should be obvious why that won't happen.