Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Good idea, but not ready for primetime (Score 1) 265

What "holes" you talk about are there in cryptocurrency?
Also: there is no clearinghouse or "bank" repository that can "get cracked"

honestly, I think you should "get your hands dirty" and play with some bitcoin or other crypto. Doesn't have to be more than a dollar worth, so it's not as bad when you lose them in case something goes bad.

Comment Re:typical (Score 1) 471

An American company really believes they can force Germany to change their laws or allow Facebook to operate outside of the law? Just WOW. What the hell kind of shenanigans are they pulling over here, then?

Oh yeah, right. I forgot that special interest groups never talk to politicians or propose regulation. I also forgot that politicians always act in the best interest of the people and receive such a huge chunk of money from these people that they are incorruptible for all practical purposes.

Comment Re:typical (Score 1) 471

Not to mention that this seems to actually be a law which serves the people, rather than corporations .

not entirely true. Law is supposed to serve the people, but sadly, there is a form of government failure called "Regulatory Capture": which implies it doesn't always live up to that standard.

Comment Re:Misdirected anger? (Score 0) 306

The group ... reiterated its demands: that a controversial YouTube video mocking the prophet Mohammed "be eliminated from the Internet."

And these idiots think the banks are responsible and/or control the Internet and its content? - sigh

Maybe that's not as far from the truth as you think.

Maybe this measly stupid attack was staged by whoever in order to instill fear and hate of muslims in americans, just like the tube-vid was made to instill fear and hate of americans in muslims.

Comment Re:Bitcoins built-in failure (Score 1) 600

Here's some more entries for your disadvantages column:

The disadvantages of Bitcoin:


* It's anonymous and therefore it is hard to trust
    * Transactions are not traceable to real world identities and therefore it is hard to trust, and impossible to trace theft properly
    * Transactions and organisations are not regulated as banks are, and therefore it is hard to trust
    * It is impossible to insure properly against theft and loss, because there are not traceable transactions and anonymous transactions are allowed

Bitcoin itself (I consider it a scarce commodity, like gold) indeed has these problems. However they could be worked around by an entity setting up a secondary system on top of the Bitcoin network (think: paypal handling bitcoins). That way you'd have traceability, auditability, chargebacks and all the features some desire.
Your above criticisms also apply to traditional cash and gold.

* It is not backed by the assets and credibility of a nation, and therefore it is hard to trust

Excuse me, but I find this disturbing. I trust in the value of silver, for example, a lot more than in the value of the EUR, specifically because it is not controlled by any one nation or group of nations who are very likely going to expand the money supply rather than reduce it.

* It is subject to massive speculation, hoarding and other manipulation, and therefore the value fluctuates wildly

True. Bitcoin is still in its infancy. It's already getting a lot better, though: Markets are becoming more liquid and larger every month.

* It's controlled by a cartel of core developers, and the rules could be changed at any time (in this sense it is a fiat currency!)

That's not true. There are various alternative implementations and the thing that would have to be controlled is not the software, but the protocol rules used in the wild. A disagreement on the rules results in a fork of the blockchain. There is then a Bitcoin A and a Bitcoin B and people have to decide which one they use. The users (merchants, individuals, miners,...) decide which ruleset they use, not the developers. Firstly: a fork like that would be bad for both chains and secondly: one chain would likely win (because more people like the ruleset of it better than the one of the other chain and only accept coins from that chain) and we'd have only Bitcoin again after probably quite a short while. So what I'm saying is: the cartel of developers cannot simply change the rules by rolling out an update. For an example look at how hard it was for them to rollout BIP16 (multisignature transactions)... a very positive change, but still it was tremendously hard to achieve consensus of a large enough portion of the rule-setters (all participants, basically)

* Savings are not guaranteed by law as they are in national currencies

Let me paraphrase Alan Greenspan: "We can print as much money as you want, we just cannot guarantee its value". I think this makes guarantees of savings, pensions or whatever a moot point. In addition: saving is in the current scheme greatly discouraged anyway by keeping interest rates artificially low.

Slashdot Top Deals

The person who's taking you to lunch has no intention of paying.