doggosphere

26 ms·

211.
by doggosphere 6y ago
And amongst that, the property remains out the hands of the government. Perhaps it will be one day be moved and utilized by family descendants, whom have had time to find themselves in safer conditions. That's the difference.
212.
by doggosphere 6y ago
I am a cyber criminal. One day I get arrested and the court demands I decrypt my wallets. I refuse and get hit with contempt. My wife flees to Russia and moves the coin to another wallet, without my knowledge. Or maybe it was an agreed plan
213.
by doggosphere 6y ago
You're ignoring how prosecution works. Intent alone does not prove anything, you need proof of act (actus reus to the mens rea). To play along with your analogy; do you have proof that someone killed someone else? Even if you have a da
214.
by doggosphere 6y ago
What grounds does a judge have to send the person to jail if they complied with the order to decrypt a wallet? There can be any number of reasons the coin was moved: - hacked by some 3rd party - corruption by officers ( https://ne
215.
by doggosphere 6y ago
Oh, you're assuming the legal system is the same everywhere in the world as the US. Let assume the person is in China. Or Venezuela.
216.
by doggosphere 6y ago
How do you surrender assets you don't have control over? I'm merely pointing out that the differences are not superficial.
217.
by doggosphere 6y ago
The difference is fundamental in that the "property" still exists outside the control of the government. If a trusted source has access to it, they can still move it. If such thing were to happen, and afterwards you complied, then
218.
by doggosphere 6y ago
Citation?
219.
by doggosphere 6y ago
Access is not the same as ownership. Your account can be frozen and confiscated with little recourse.
220.
by doggosphere 6y ago
"Five hundred dollars? Fully subsidized? With a plan? I said that is the most expensive phone in the world. And it doesn't appeal to business customers because it doesn't have a keyboard. Which makes it not a very good email
221.
by doggosphere 6y ago
I suppose it is a mixer, but with more modernized protocols. In earlier days AFAIK, a central coordinator was required to take custody of coins. Now its mostly trustless.
222.
by doggosphere 6y ago
Why do "mixers" still exist if we have trustless coinjoins? https://wasabiwallet.io/
223.
by doggosphere 6y ago
Governments could certainly compel exchanges to not list Monero or other privacy coins. But even if they compelled users to list addresses of the coins they own, the nature of Monero makes it very redundant. It would be ineffective and a wa
224.
by doggosphere 6y ago
Russ also made his money putting radio on the internet.
225.
by doggosphere 6y ago
One could say the same thing about a freshman class comprising of 50% Asians, 49% white, 1% "other". Not sure it exemplifies "equality".
226.
by doggosphere 6y ago
I noticed how you switched up the stats here: Why are public teachers collectively not doing great job despite second in the world spending per student. US government spending on education is high. However, US average teacher salary is ra
227.
by doggosphere 6y ago
All systems have the potential for corruption. A representational "democracy", compared to other systems, has the least potential for corruption. If unions do in fact give workers more representation/power, than game theory s
228.
by doggosphere 6y ago
Stronger representation in a class action lawsuit; negative consequences for corporations in the form of sanctions, walkouts, etc.
229.
by doggosphere 6y ago
They don't serve the workers, they serve themselves (like pretty much any organization). Unions are owned/compromised of workers. Workers vote on issues that affect them. Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't
230.
by doggosphere 6y ago
Show HN: Same site every month https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=sabbakeynejad