Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Phew! Thank goodness Bitcoin is not anonymous (Score 3, Insightful) 240

by radiumsoup (#46357355) Attached to: WV Senator Calls For Ban On All Unregulated Cryptocurrencies

you just described the case against allowing people to use cash. (you know, "folding money" as my grandparents called it)

Cash is anonymous, and is regulated only when it comes to transferring into or out of a bank (or if you try to import/export it overseas). By its very nature of being decentralized, cash cannot be regulated in any practical or meaningful way between two private parties, which is, in practice, effectively no different from the current crop of cryptocurrencies. The key difference is that ALL transactions in the Bitcoin protocol are public, and therefore Bitcoin is actually much less private than cash transactions.

If the senator truly wanted what he said he wanted, he would push to regulate or abolish the use of cash and demand electronic payments in all circumstances. It's more of a "problem" than bitcoin is. How often do you see huge stacks of millions or tens of millions of dollars in cash when there's some big cartel bust? None of that would be possible if cash was regulated and traceable. But no, it's Bitcoin that's the problem, according to this guy.

Comment: Re:These systems are a product liability nightmare (Score 1) 195

by radiumsoup (#45934809) Attached to: Hackers Gain "Full Control" of Critical SCADA Systems

what you're describing (the port listening part) *is* a firewall - just locally installed and managed. The traditional idea of "a firewall" is exactly that, but in a centrally managed package that makes changes somewhat easier to manage and MUCH easier to scale. No difference functionally, really, except for the "listening for specific secured encrypted messages" part, which is an application-level thing anyway. Furthermore, if planned carefully, the "secured encrypted messages" part can be offloaded to a layer 6/7 switch as well, so even that's not always a restriction.

So really you just want application hardening (a good idea in most cases) and a firewall to filter the port, but you want to do that N number of times for however many hosts you have doing the same job (speaking about more complexity!) instead of centralizing it once or twice to redundant switches, etc.

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.

Working...