alcio
Joined 11 years ago
Joined 11 years ago
In a weird way, this quote is a good explanation of why cryptos exist: they give the possibility of creating systems evading state controls.
Crime is a relative thing: moving money outside of certain countries is prohibited, in others it's owning property for certain category of people.
it's possible to spot such transactions if they violate transaction forwarding rules (aka standardness rules) but not consensus rules. for example, a transaction greater than 100kB is not standard but still valid.
In both consensus systems, a censor is someone that has amassed 51% of the currently available stake (in PoW stake is mining machines, in PoS it is outstanding tokens).
In proof-of-work systems, a censor can be unseated by censored parties allocating more capital to mining machines until non-censoring parties own 51% of all machines.
In proof-of-stake systems, it is impossible to unseat a censor: since it owns 51% of tokens, it will also owns 51% of newly minted units in perpetuity (assuming it doesn't stop censoring and doesn't run into issues that would end up slashing some of their stake).
https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/spread/BINANCE%3ABTCUSDT...
Miners prioritize by fee-per-byte, except that the on-chain fee only accounts for part of the fee paid for some transactions.
Over the years, many services have popped up where you can pay an out-of-band fee to a miner to include your transactions first.
Of course, this is detrimental to users not using these systems as it biases the algorithms used to determine what is the current best fee-per-byte to pay.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=490+*+0.877+grams+of+g...
If you don't care about validating the history, I guess using BigQuery would work but I don't know how to achieve it.
Bitcoin gives the opportunity to answer those questions contrarily to the complex and somewhat opaque equities ownership rules.
from what I could gather from the complaint and his social media (https://twitter.com/virgilgr/status/1161217917427470337), he just never tried to hide it.
- went back to the US several time after traveling to the DPRK despite being warned not to by the US state department
- had several consensual interviews with FBI agents
- consented to a search of his phone
It's hard to read this and not think that he brought this upon himself. If you really want to do what he did, get a lawyer, don't travel back to the US, don't speak to law enforcement.
The real figure is more 2.1% (source: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html)