On something of a tangent I suspect that large parts of the GDPR will be comparably moot.
Many companies including Twillo and Delta have rolled out their tracking controls behind feature flags. If you decide that you'd rather not be tracked they make you stare at a spinner for ~100 seconds while your privacy settings are "being applied".
Keeping privacy as inconvenient as possible is big business.
> Keeping privacy as inconvenient as possible is big business.
To some extent, this risks running afoul of GDPR and getting hit with a big fine. But no doubt companies will try to find the sweet spot of being as annoying as possible while still being technically compliant.
"The information was on display on Alpha Centauri for at least 20 years".
I.e. if they make a GDPR request put them on the waiting line with rest of customers. Press 1 for account related matter, Press 2 for account information, please enter your account number. Please enter your account number to confirm. Press 3 for privacy related information. Press 4 for information regarding GDPR. Please enter account information. Please verify account number. Redirecting to customer support.
Please press 9 to continue. Please press 2 for verifying you are EU citizen. Enter verification data.
30% is far too small of an initial margin for such a volatile commodity.
The initial margin is expected to cover a the movement of an observable through making the margin call, the period of time the margin call could be filled, declaring the counter-party in default and closing out the position. This normally adds up to a minimum of 2 working days.
Saying that it's beyond the realms of possibility for bitcoin to jump or fall 30% in 2 days seems ridiculous.
The highest daily volatility ever was 15% and it's currently around 4%, according to https://bitvol.info/ . Two times the highest daily standard deviation ever doesn't seem so unreasonable.
That's the highest AVERAGE ROLLING 30 DAY volatility.
For example, on Dec 7, 2013, volatility between the high and the low was 54.6%. [1] However, it was lower for the other days of all 30 day periods that include that day, and averaged out to under 15%.
This could be the largest one in absolute value: according to http://www.xe.com/en/currencycharts/?from=XBT&to=USD&view=1W it went from 11258 USD on November 28 to 9136 on November 29. Then it went up and down again to 9217 on the night of November 30.
The problem is that if you can verify your vote you can be coerced into voting in a certain way. There would need to be some sort of plausible deniability built in.
Only you will be able to verify your vote. All votes are anonymous. You should be able to verify the very first vote as well and as a result of that verify the entire chain up to your vote. The last vote should also be verifiable to ensure that the chain is complete.
That doesn't solve the problem of verifiable votes. If you are able to verify your vote you can be coerced the verify it in the presence of someone else.
I don't think that's true. I think in most western countries the kind of people who end up taking meth are already people who have a drug problem, making the makeup of meth users be generally people with serious issues.
New Zealand has been particularly good at prohibiting the import of drugs like MDMA and Cocaine, which has made them prohibitively expensive. As a result, if you're a drug user you either smoke cannabis, take pills which are generally a mix of mephedrone and meth or just straight up take meth. There's no middle ground.
As a result the kinds of people who would normally take MDMA on a night out in London would take Meth on a night out in Auckland. I know a good number of young professionals who take it from time to time without it being a big part of their lives. Strangely the meth snorters stigmatise meth smokers in the same way a normal person would stigmatise a meth user.
I used to know a fairly small miner, ~$2,000 a month turnover, who managed to rig his ASIC up to his heat pump in such a way that is heated his house and cooled the card. He lived in a fairly big house and it was always toasty even in the middle of winter.
It might still make sense for some people even when the margins are small
Oh I'm sure it might make sense even for a big operation, if there are special conditions or clever tricks that allow for cheap electricity and/or tax breaks. All I was saying is that in and of-itself mining was not a profitable strategy once it became large-scale.
Every now and again I step back and think of the absurdity of us having to take all of these precautions to stay safe from the people employed to represent our interests
I run a reasonably successful service buying and selling Bitcoins for cash, an act which is completely legal where I live. I have absolutely no idea where my clients get their Bitcoins or what they use them for and there no way I could find out. It isn't inconceivable that some of these people are using the coins I sell to commit crimes or that the ones I buy are the proceeds of crime. I always fear I could be a victim of this kind of overzealous prosecution for running a legitimate business and it causes a chilling effect in my industry
I have on a few occasions refused to sell Bitcoins to people. One time a man brought $5,000 of crumpled bills in a carrier bag and I told him to take a hike and never try to buy from me again. I refuse to sell to anyone who tells me they're going to use the Bitcoins to buy drugs and I try to buy directly from miners.
I'm doing everything I can reasonably do because I really don't want to get involved with criminals, but all of these safeguards are trivial to sidestep
And that's the difference. You are actively turning away people who you think might be involved in criminal activity. Anaya attempted to be willfully ignorant, but it's clear (to me, at least) that, from gathered evidence, he knew exactly what his clients were doing with his work.
The sad thing is... the government still could go after you if you -- completely innocently and without your knowledge -- sold to someone doing something shady, and if they really wanted to make it stick, it's likely they could, or could at least intimidate you into doing their bidding.
