hnolable

10 ms·

61.
by hnolable 14y ago
> No court in Europe seems to view the situation that way. So why does Ecuador see it that way? Are they stupid or easily fooled? Do they want to start political controversy? Some other conspiracy?
62.
by hnolable 14y ago
Let me point out. There is at least _one_ conspiracy here. Either some combination of the US/UK/Sweden is conspiring to bring Assange to the US. OR. Ecuador is granting Assange's asylum not because in their best judgement they believed it
63.
by hnolable 14y ago
I'm a new account. I have 13 pts. I can't downvote. His comment was very uninformed. So I pasted 3 links which are a quick way for him to get up to speed on the things that most people are not made aware of by the media covering the whol
64.
by hnolable 14y ago
please read this comment on a previous HN story: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4391500 or this short post: http://www.ianwelsh.net/assange-and-wikileaks-the-basics/ or this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu4WCskniEc
65.
by hnolable 14y ago
I had 4 live feeds of this event going for an hour or two prior to it. I felt Julian's speech itself was rather boring. The preceding speeches in front of the embassy by some of his supporters were a bit more interesting. Here's a chronic
66.
by hnolable 14y ago
You're still thinking very US-centric. So what if US makes it illegal, maybe that kills the US market for it, but there is still the rest of the world. And maybe the rest of the world using it while the US cannot even provides them some a
67.
by hnolable 14y ago
For most small/medium value transactions, you can simply listen for a double-spend transaction for a few seconds. If you see none then you can assume all miners saw the same transaction as you did first and that is what you can assume will
68.
by hnolable 14y ago
I'm talking about a scenario when a government(s) see Bitcoin as a national security threat. So yes, shutting it down would be more lucrative for them in the long run than mining it.
69.
by hnolable 14y ago
Obviously at some point it would be cost prohibitive for any one government. But we are far far from that point. The price would probably have to go up by many orders of magnitude.
70.
by hnolable 14y ago
What you meant to say was you can't stop people from broadcasting transactions. Which is true. But you can stop transactions from getting into the blockchain which is "what bitcoin is". A technologically savy attacker could forsee any co
71.
by hnolable 14y ago
Except, it's actually a lot easier than stopping global piracy. All you have to do is invest enough money into mining equipment to overpower 50% of the network and then you have the ability to stop all transactions. The cost of this is we
72.
by hnolable 14y ago
What he probably meant was if Bitcoin catches on in any meaningful way the price must rise. If it never catches on it's likely the price will go close to 0 due to lack of mining security. The dollar isn't necessarily Bitcoin's competitor.
73.
by hnolable 14y ago
But of course, it's already proven it can do this on at least one scale. Whether or not it can do it on a larger scale is still to be seen.