Posts by doublelayer 9378 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Feb 2018
There will be exemptions in law. Then people will distrust governments and won't comply. Then you'll lose anything you got for public health and anything you were going to get for policing. The rule of law is important, but so is the trust in law. Lose one and you'll soon lose the other.
Easy enough. Given the transaction rate of Bitcoin, just adding the millions of identities you think should exist will take forever unless you trust someone else to batch them. There's a problem with Bitcoin which makes your desired outcome less likely. Blockchains have their place, but the speed is one problem that's not getting solved on Bitcoin's.
You are incorrect.
"It is has achieved the holy grail of world commerce-- a bearer asset that settles instantly worldwide"
Doesn't settle instantly. Settles slower than other resources, in fact.
"with no counterparty risk."
Wrong for most transactions, as there are many possible counterparties which are used during transactions. Wrong in a legal sense, as the responsibility to involve governments is still there in legislation. Very wrong in practice, as for most transactions, one or both sides are represented by third parties which handle exchanging operations between the crypto and the currency that the person actually desires.
"Additionally, on some days 20% of transactions in the blocks consist not of bitcoin transfers but hash proofs verifying weaker private blockchains, business documents or settling programmed contracts."
That's just wrong. Bitcoin doesn't do any of that stuff. You can do it yourself and embed it in the blockchain, but A) it is not the case that 20% of transactions do so and B) this doesn't really do anything more than public key cryptography already did. It's just another way of publishing such things.
Your idealism is nice, but idealists who don't know what they're talking about get nothing done.
You won't find as many blockchains as you think exist. Most companies claiming to use blockchain are not really operating a public one as you consider. Also, it's irrelevant to the point. If a bunch of countries agreed to block transactions in cryptocurrencies like China has done, they don't have to do anything to noncurrency blockchains. I don't think it's likely to obtain an agreement as has been suggested, but if that happens, your objection will not prevent it in the least.
"1. Is this a real diploma? Yes. It is authenticated with the university's public key."
Right, like I said. No blockchain needed.
"2. Are the details on this diploma unchanged? Yes. The hash value hasn't changed from the one stored on the blockchain at the time of graduation."
Or because the hash signed by the public key is still valid. No blockchain needed.
"3. Is the person presenting this diploma the person who was given the original? The diploma is cryptographically linked to the graduate by the issuing university. This is accomplished by both parties signing the document with their private keys and recording the resulting hash on the blockchain. This hash value proves that the owner of the key that signed the document was awarded a diploma by the university."
Still no blockchain needed if you want to use that approach, because you have the recipient sign, then the university sign. The university's signature covers theirs, so their key can't be changed. Anyone who can present that key can be authenticated by your suggestion. Also, that's a rubbish suggestion. You're making correct key management the only method of proving educational history. Lots of people will have problems with that. Keys will be stolen a lot, keys will be generated which can be broken in twenty years, when a diploma is still useful. Above all, keys will be lost in prodigious amounts. To say nothing of the privacy risks or the ability for thieves to simply pursue their targets to get their keys. That is, if anyone actually does the cryptographic challenge to verify the student still has their key.
It can be copied. I can go and make copies of everybody's NFTs. The data and the hashes. It's not useful, because the data was probably already free and the signature doesn't help me, but I could. The only thing I can't do under those circumstances is transfer that unique NFT to somebody else. However, with the diploma example, I'm not transferring my diploma to prove I own it (if that's the new plan, it's a bad plan because lots of people will lose a key or have it stolen and instantly lose their educational history, so you'll find yourself at the center of a protest armed with paper diplomas). In the normal case, the blockchain-attached diploma is only a method of demonstrating that I have it, but anyone who is not me but downloaded the blockchain has it too.
You perhaps overestimate what the blockchain provides for this. For example, let's take your validating diplomas case. If you're afraid that you're going to be presented with a fraudulent diploma, you will be asking a number of questions about the document you receive:
1. Is this a real diploma?
2. Are the details on this diploma unchanged?
3. Is the person presenting this diploma the person who was given the original?
Blockchain is not very useful in answering these questions. Cryptographic signing is useful for points 1 and 2, but the signature doesn't have to be stored in something decentralized or public. The diploma is issued by a single place. It could carry a signature validating it, and the issuing institution just publishes their public key so you can verify it.
In fact, blockchain makes this worse because of point 3. In order to forge a diploma now, one has to create a paper copy. With cryptographic signing, they have to copy someone else's. If you make everybody's diplomas public, they can choose from every diploma granted to any person since they can browse them in safety. That means a diploma fraudster can choose a diploma more tailored to the job they want, to their age and appearance, to the fake identity they're trying to inhabit, etc. This is harder than making a paper copy, but with a paper copy you could determine by calling the issuer that it's a fake. With one stolen off the blockchain, there is no difference. That is unless you just list signatures on the blockchain, in which case you haven't benefited anyone but you have generated a pointless set of hashes.
"Does anyone here think that the government would have killed Bitcoin (and other crypto currencies) years ago if they could?"
My hand is down. I don't see why they would have cared all that much. They don't need to go to massive efforts to prevent it being used as a currency because it's really bad as a currency. Also, most democratic governments don't pretend to care about investment quality like China is pretending to, so since it's not in itself fraudulent, they don't need to ban it for that reason either. Maybe I could see a conspiracy to destroy a cryptocurrency that actually worked and proved popular among the general population, but not for Bitcoin. Even in that case, it would come late in the process.
I doubt that the governments of which you speak have been dedicating time to destroying Bitcoin. Its survival is thus unsurprising and doesn't guarantee any kind of resilliance.
You are exactly correct--it is the usefulness on which its future as a currency relies, which is why it isn't used as a currency very often and won't be. Let's review what usefulness means to you and why Bitcoin isn't doing it very well.
"Make a better tax free, secure (& secure from the taxman),": Alright. I admit I have a part of me which likes the idea of a regulation-free currency which can't be tracked, even by the government. Mostly because I am honest and if I don't think too much about others not being honest, I can pretend not to notice the problems. I am willing to pay the taxes due, so everyone else will voluntarily, right? The problem is that governments and those citizens who do pay tend to take a dim view to people who evade taxes. They also take a dim view to people who avoid taxes very successfully (if you want to argue that point, the argument is in another thread already, go there). So trumpeting Bitcoin's advantage starting with "You can evade taxes easily" is not going to convince many people. Also, it doesn't work well for that purpose, but we'll get to that.
"reliable and quick way to move value around": No, it's not. We have that in lots of financial systems, but Bitcoin in particular is quite bad at that. Money does move eventually, but it takes a lot of time and transaction fees to get it there. Worse, Bitcoin's speed can't be increased without redesigning large chunks and having everybody agree on doing so. Some cryptocurrencies are better at this, but a blockchain is going to be expensive to update even for more efficient ones. We have figured out how to move big chunks of money quickly and reliably through our existing payment processing systems. They're far from perfect, but Bitcoin is not better.
If you want a currency, Bitcoin is failing at basically everything a currency should do. Other cryptocurrencies are better at some of them, but you have to realize the disadvantages and try scaling them up to a much larger number of individual users before you can claim victory.
They can't break it that way, as plenty of desktops have mobile chipsets in them. The device can be identified as a desktop or the webcam identified as malfunctioning, and they pretty much have to let you use it anyway. Could they do something malicious if they were intent on doing so? Definitely yes. Are they going to do so? No, I don't think so. They are trying to encourage manufacturers to include normal hardware which the manufacturers are doing anyway, thus it's mostly the user's problem.
This looks like a requirement for manufacturers, but not really a problem for a few reasons:
1. The camera is only required on laptops. Desktops need not have one. A company which wants to build a laptop without one (actually, are there such places) could sell a desktop with a battery backup which uses a novel form factor that's kind of flat with hinges.
2. Nothing prevents cameras with hardware disabling features, either to cover them or disconnect them entirely.
3. Microsoft has these requirements all the time and the manufacturers ignore them. They have a requirement of a minimum screen size, but people still make tiny Windows UMPCs with screen sizes that don't qualify. Microsoft doesn't complain about extra OEM revenue. They probably won't care here either.
4. Are there manufacturers who don't put webcams on their laptops made currently? It has been a while since I saw a laptop without one. This ship may have sailed without needing Microsoft to push it, in which case that's already your problem.
That really depends what happens when you try to install it on something that doesn't qualify. Microsoft could either do what they have done before and let it try to work, or they could take the Apple approach and explicitly fail it. If you had asked me last week, I would have been certain it would be the former because that's what they've done before and it makes sense. However, I'm not so sure now because their requirements list is significantly longer and more complicated than any preceding ones. It wouldn't be very hard to have the installer check for a TPM 2.0 chip and refuse to install without one even though we all know there is no need for TPM in order for Windows to run.
If they did that, it would be possible to circumvent it through sustained effort. Just as there are people who will break Apple's device check system to run later versions of Mac OS on their old Macs, someone will find a way to pretend to have a TPM chip when you don't or to make Windows accept a Skylake chip as within the supported list. If it involves hacking with your configuration in order to circumvent a software lock which serves no purpose, I don't think that can qualify under your definition. Only if Microsoft pursues their previous strategy does your argument work, and I hope that they do.
Microsoft does have a monopoly position in desktop operating systems at the moment by most definitions as Mac OS and Chrome OS have relatively small market shares. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they've done anything to abuse that position here. The best argument I can come up with is that it's planned obsolescence, but they have the defense that Windows 10 won't be killed until 2025. Establishing harm to the customers is also tricky as it often involves price changes and the prices will be of other companies' products. I'm afraid it may not break any laws after all the legal dust settles.
"And for Windows 1 0, Borkzilla is still trying to convince people that 2GB for the 64-bit version is enough. If you want to look at the logon screen, maybe, but if you want to work, I'm pretty sure that 16GB is the bare minimum."
No, it's not. Windows 10 runs just fine in 4 GB. True, if you're planning to use a memory-hungry app, 4 GB is not going to be what you want, but for most uses, that's fine. Not that I recommend buying devices with 4 GB to run it, because new purchases can easily spring for the useful upgrade to at least 8, but if you already have something with 4 GB and you want to run Windows on it, you'll be okay for many basic tasks like browsing or office work.
An interesting note: I once had the experience of running Windows 10 with only one gigabyte of memory. It was the 32-bit version on one of those low-power Intel Atom devices. This wasn't exactly fun, but it ran better than you'd expect. Running a browser on it was not easy though if you wanted to have several open tabs, but running native programs worked rather well.
Wrong, were they? Let's look at what they said and whether you were able to disprove it.
"Literally handing the keys to the kingdom over.": You didn't take this part. We'll skip it.
"For what? The ability to make dynamic apk's, making app archiving even harder than it currently is,": You didn't argue this one either. It looks correct though. If you can only get one version of the package per device, backing up anything is a lot weirder than it used to be.
"and non-install trial versions, in a world where data and bandwidth are just going up.": You've countered with reduced package size, which is true, but they were talking about the trial versions which you aren't using. I don't know how this trial system works, but I believe they're correct to assume they will use more bandwidth if they're downloaded every time they're needed.
Your score: 1 point somewhat rebutted though in a different area, 2 points ignored
I think you agree more than you think. F-Droid is a solution to some of the annoying things Android tries to do when not using Google Play. Not all of them, because the Play store has extended itself through security layers and F-Droid can't (and wouldn't anyway). Sideloading apps frequently can make Android or rather the Googly bits of it annoyed. Security warning screens are required for various actions, the Play Protect system may flag them for you, and in order to use any other store, you have to sideload at least once.
That's why F-Droid is so useful, as it can get around some of that by installing the apps itself. It can't do everything, for example it has to present a confirmation screen for every app update whereas Play doesn't, but it's a lot easier for the nontechnical user than installing APKs without it.
"Why not just host packages on your own sales page (or, if open-source, github) like... well, proper modern software?"
Most F-Droid applications are on Github. Their source is available from the publisher and cached by F-Droid. So they're already doing that. They use F-Droid rather than just hosting APKs because F-Droid means people can get updates in a more organized manner than trying to have an app update itself or just hoping users go install them by downloading a new APK. It also makes apps easier to find, since you can search a catalog of all the things people built with the users' interests in mind. Why not use that if it's already there?
Nor would I. I, and likely you, are in a position where we have skills which are demanded and where we have sufficient savings to live while finding a replacement job. This doesn't mean it's necessarily easy for us, but we can do it without having severe justified worries about the wellbeing of ourselves or our families. Many others lack one or both of these things, which is why we sometimes have to encode basic protections in law.
In my case, no. It means that I have to be able to receive calls and get to my work computer to respond to incidents. I don't have to manage hardware and I can do everything from home. It still could restrict my actions; my manager would probably forgive me not responding if my phone battery failed, but if I decided to go somewhere far away without my laptop, then they'd be a bit more grumpy. Given the sparse incidents, I'm usually comfortable taking some risks with this.
One problem is that counting hours can be hard. For example, I work a normal amount, but I can also be on call. I don't really want to be on call, and I'm not paid any more for it. I'm also on call at any hour of the day for a week. Theoretically, you could count that as 168 straight hours of work since at any point during that period, someone could call. I haven't quit though because that doesn't really happen. Most calls come in when I'm near enough to working hours anyway, I haven't gotten calls in the middle of the night, etc.
So does this count as no hours because people only called during working hours, two hours because I worked late on those days, or 168 hours because I had to be available to work if called and therefore couldn't do things that blocked that? How about calls which come in early in the morning, three hours before I'd ordinarily start. Does it count as one hour because that's how long it took to resolve it, three because it started my workday early, or is it included in the 168 because it probably woke me up?
I've seen the no-meeting Wednesday idea from a few people, presumably thinking that if you're going to be productive, it's nice to center it in the week. That's probably the reason it's one of the allowed days at home. Apart from that, if you believe as they are at least pretending to that in-person interaction helps productivity, then you have to have some method of determining that you're in at the same time as the people you would be collaborating with. I, at least, would not be interested in going to an office if there was a good chance those with whom I work won't even be there, as in that case the benefits to productivity of being present are negated.
"Many of these depend on seeing how people work, not just in a project team, but in the company, with customers, with awkward people, with directors (!)....etc."
I find this a little strange. If their job is related to interacting with customers, for example, then you'll see how they do that when that interaction takes place. Similarly for any other meeting they have. The interactions which they need to do their job are ones you can use to determine this. While someone's non-work-related discussions may help to understand them better, the important stuff which indicates whether they can do what is needed should be part of their job. After all, you didn't figure out that the employee wasn't management material until they tried to do that work, right? You didn't just decide they weren't capable after watching them talk to someone else.
Because back in 2008, Google decided that the way to get all the companies to use their OS and help generate the revenue for them was to give them lots of control over things. The manufacturers wanted to smash up the features of the OS so they all went through a manufacturer-approved interface with preinstalled apps, Google wouldn't complain and would make sure users didn't have an easy reset to normal option. Google also realized that they could blame manufacturers for any Android defects and could announce new versions designed to fix this problem which never actually worked. Then that kept happening for eleven more years, and now it's today.
I'm not sure I understand all of your complaints, but those I do understand are flawed.
"Early versions of Android were ropey and updates broke lots of APIs."
So? The rest of your comment implies you don't like Apple and prefer Android, so I'm not sure why you started with this. Yes, Android has problems, just like they said. Also, this isn't really one now.
"I've never used Google Maps on my phone – there have always been better alternatives": Glad you're happy with that. The original poster seems to think Android-based Google Maps is better than the early Google-based IOS maps app or the Apple Maps one which replaced it.
"and a friend of mine regularly complains about the expensive app updates he's forced to install when Apple force feeds new APIs on users.": I don't think that's a thing. They release new APIs, but the apps either run fine or get updated. They don't tend to make you pay for new app versions for compatibility. Also, compatibility is not a major problem. I've run apps which were abandoned by their developers around the time of IOS 9, but they still run correctly on IOS 14. Of course you can't guarantee that will happen, but you can't for Android either.
"This has happened to me twice in ten years on Android.": And to me zero times on IOS or Android and I use both. But if it happens on both platforms, maybe that's just what outdated software does when you try to run it on a new platform it wasn't designed for.
"I have a file system": That's a major selling point for Android in my mind. Of course for a lot of users, that's not really a thing they think about.
"and a useful Bluetooth stack (something that Apple seems to have struggled with on MacOS and I-Phones for years).": Not sure how they've struggled, but it generally works fine here and has for a while.
"I work on a Mac and appreciate that Apple does get a lot of things right, but it's software management isn't really one of them as a look at the time it takes for them to release security updates for their CVEs,"
This is where your argument is breaking down. Apple takes a while to release a patch, then people install that patch. Android takes some time (not really that different, but let's just say it's shorter), and then the manufacturers delay that patch for at least a month. Many delay for three or six months before releasing it. Some will never get it. This is worse than Apple how, exactly?
"along with: oh, that bug has been fixed in the next version (but not yours)."
Then update the version you're running. That's what versions are for. New version gets new code, fixes included. Unless you're stuck and can't install the update, like people on IOS 12, but that means your device is already seven years old. Android does the same thing but you just never have that option.
Some of those things take computing power, and some of them have enforced delays. For example, doing the hardware checks to make sure that your main components are working must happen first, then the firmware must be loaded and checked, then that must find your disk and check enough of its filesystem that it can boot from it or go on to something else. In each of these basic cases, the individual step is pretty fast, but there are lots of tasks like that. There's also a lot of hardware which needs a driver to run, either on device, in the OS, or sometimes both. Until both run, nothing can use that hardware. This may put some tasks at the mercy of a slow peripheral or driver doing a lot of testing before it launches.
Then you get to the OS itself. It's just a lot of stuff that needs to be started and load configuration. If it's using half a gigabyte of memory by the time it's presenting you with the login window, it has had to calculate a lot of that first. This is the part you can most easily speed up--if you want something controllable like Linux to boot faster, you can start taking things out of the boot process and it will work--but don't expect that you can make it boot instantly like this.
"I am still certain that RAM will soon be available as a TB plugin."
Just what I need. RAM which can be accidentally disconnected during a run. At least with a GPU, the OS can shift back to the integrated one if the connection fails. If the RAM's detached, any application using it is not coming back. You should hope the OS didn't put anything in there and stuck to internal as well. Not buying.
"It's a 1.25Kg laptop, what do you expect?"
Well, in 2015 I bought a 1.35 kg laptop which managed to include several USB ports, Thunderbolt, a dedicated charging port, SD, etc. So maybe they could do that. I should let them know about this one, as they could perhaps hire away the engineers who built it to show them how to put more than two tiny ports on a laptop. It was made by a company named Apple, so they should be able to relate on some things.
I'm guessing that you were downvoted because your solution boils down to "you don't need a hub if you already have a hub". If you assume that all displays you might encounter have hubs built in, then you're fine, but you'll find that lots of displays don't have that. Maybe people are using older ones which were intended to be connected with a connection which doesn't do USB passthrough. Maybe the work-issued ones are cheaper and don't include it. Maybe someone wants to connect more than one USB device while charging but doesn't have an external monitor, so no option for a hub to be built into it. That's what I'm thinking, anyway. I didn't downvote you though, so I can't vouch for others agreeing.
"So because Google is asking for low latency and other metrics it's evil? Or is the evil bit that it has a way of enforcing that in return for exposure?"
The evil bit is that it's most likely a lie. Last time, the excuse was mobile-ready pages and caching and look the caching is free and we send more readers your way, but the real reason was to kill off other ad providers, grab data about news preferences, and have control over the user's news consumption if they got into a routine. This time, it's still using latency as the excuse but what that really means isn't known since Google decides and doesn't make public whatever that means. It easily could mean that they're still advantaging their ad system because they've cached it while others have to load. We don't know. All we know is they've repeatedly proven untrustworthy before.
"If it wasn't Google, it would be someone else."
Supposition, but I'll get back to that. For starters, so what? Because some other company would do the same thing, this means what? It's okay because you don't think we could avoid it? We should ban all companies because any of them would do it? What exactly are we supposed to do with your gloomy assumption that anyone would do the same, and it involves treating this real situation any differently, why should your assumption prevent us objecting to and taking action against Google?
Also, I don't think everybody would do the same. Not every company works the same way. Your example is one of them. 1990s-style Microsoft would, if it had a massive monopoly on everything, have several very negative things, but it probably wouldn't be so intent on monopolizing data. 1990s Microsoft was more in the business of monopolizing money, and they might think it's just fine to let people use servers as they were designed since they were getting all the money from people buying computers and phones. Or maybe I'm wrong, but you can't prove it any more than you can prove your idea. Not every company acts the same if given a monopoly position. You can usually guarantee that they will do something bad, but the specific bad thing depends on who is running the place and what their business plan is.
"Schematics? What are the repair shops going to do with them?"
Arrange for third-party manufacture of parts Apple won't provide is the use that comes to mind. Or at a more basic level, have a better understanding of exactly how the parts are supposed to go together to figure out exactly which of them are broken. With more complex assembly, this could end up being useful.
You have a problem then. Microsoft is responsible for deciding what works and decided to implement a handy tool for telling people whether their machine qualifies, well handy as long as it does. If it doesn't qualify, it's a little less useful as the tool doesn't say what is lacking. That tool has been rejecting old processors and TPM 1.2 chips since it came out.
What are people supposed to believe? The tool released by the Windows 11 people to tell you whether you can run Windows 11 and for no other reason is just wrong a lot? The page that says TPM 2.0 is required is wrong too? The page that lists processors backed up by a tool which rejects those not on the list is also wrong? And the right answers are where, exactly?
I think Microsoft will change their pages at some point, but not because some crazy person filled them with wrong answers. I predict that they'll do that to avoid annoying people who buy lots of Windows licenses.
Yes, I have. Among other things, the USA did have a place which passed a "you must publish politicians' words whether you like it or not" law, but it's expected to be struck down as an invalid law. India, on the other hand, backed it up with an unnecessary police raid and didn't even try to think up an excuse. So I think there is a difference there.
"There are things like illegal content. Free speech does not cover harassment or inciting violence"
I wholeheartedly agree, and I don't object to a law having some requirement for removal of content. India's law, on the other hand, doesn't really work on that basis. It allows relatively unlimited censorship because it allows anything to be taken down if sufficient numbers of government people say so and, given their previous actions, I don't trust that the Indian government will only use it in the case of illegal activity. Thus, I must still not support it. However, it is the forcing platforms to keep stuff up which bothers me more.
It appears India's law makes them the final decisionmaker over what is allowed online, with the power to remove anything and the power to force platforms to keep anything up. This is not the kind of law that comes from a democratic government. Then again, frequently turning off the internet for no reason except that they don't like the people using it in the area also isn't the action of a democratic government.
That's a very glib and simplistic response. A lot of security problems are due either to management/marketing refusing to let people patch insecure things or to programmers who don't know what they're doing. I don't mind some responsibility being forced on them. However, writing something without security problems is basically impossible, and if you actually want that you're going to be waiting a long time for everything and paying a lot of money. Since that's been tried and it doesn't work, there's only so much you can demand before it becomes unreasonable.
Whenever security problems are mentioned, somebody comes along and suggests something like this. Usually it's along the lines of "don't allow anyone to sell something with security problems". You can have that now if you like. You just have to hand me all computing equipment you have and never buy any more. The result for you will be the same.
That really depends what the user or buyer is worried people might do. For example, if this is public facing, could a member of the public do something to interfere with it? For example, can a user connect a USB device or activate and thereby attack your management system? If they can, that's an attack surface you have to deal with.
Then we get this: "And the user/password is well known (say the default RPi user/password). because the screen logs in automatically on boot."
That's insecure. Here's why. First, don't have something log in automatically unless you need to. Have an account run the UI on boot but don't give that a logged-in desktop session if the user can manage to close your UI. If this is an appliance, you likely don't even need to give them any way out of it, so don't let a desktop environment circumvent that. Also, change the passwords. Yes, SSH is off for now, but you still have other security to worry about. If they get a login window somehow, you don't want anyone who guesses pi/raspberry to have root access. Similarly, disable the pi user's no-password sudo rights. This is a potential issue and you can fix it very quickly.
More likely how really bad they can make the specs and still have it sell. The customers will need to buy something, but if it's the cheapest option, they can probably get away with giving it really awful processing and memory. Anyone seen those 4 GB storage / 512 MB RAM Androids that used to exist? I'm imagining something like that.
Android One is probably not what they're trying to say. Android One is a program to simplify the software layers above Android so the devices are closer to stock and get updates for a little longer. They probably are talking about Android Go, which is designed for low-spec devices by chopping stuff out until it runs again. An article covering this device on GSM Arena confirms that this device as shown runs some of the apps from Android Go.
On other topics, who thinks the corrections system should be made a web form authenticated by our user accounts rather than a mailto? I'm sure there are users who don't want to send mail from the computer they're reading on, but all of us can use that method.
I usually try to find the most detailed reviews, which isn't automatic but does help. Someone who can speak at length about using the product probably has useful information. I also tend to ignore the star count until after having read their comments.
There are also some tools that try to strip out the most obvious fakes and give you an adjusted rating. No promises for their utility, but I've used reviewmeta.com with success.
That can help, but you will lose more in exchange fees and, assuming you eventually want to get cash, Bitcoin is easier to cash out than Monero is. Even then, you can figure out that they've done that. It's not perfect, but that doesn't make the "technically untraceable" statement correct.
While using a mixer is not in itself illegal, there is basically no reason to do so other than hiding criminal revenues. A legal action is likely to succeed if they can actually do it. Unfortunately, it's not easy to do it because it doesn't require much to operate a mixer--it can be done by software and does not require any physical interaction. It's therefore possible to operate it in a country which doesn't investigate such crimes or to simply hide where the computers doing the work really are.
"I'm assuming that a mixed & tumbled bitcoin is 100% untraceable, technologically speaking."
And you assume wrong. It's not untraceable, just harder. A lot easier in fact than tracing laundered cash.
Here's how it works:
Wallet A (known used by fraudster): Transfers 12345 coins to wallet B.
Wallet B (probably still the fraudster): Transfers 593 to wallet C, 268 to wallet D, 926 to wallet E, ...
Wallet C: Frequently receives payments from wallets and sends out others, but never the same amounts. Received 593 from wallet B, also sent 183 to wallet K, 83 to wallet L, 26 to wallet M, 103 to wallet N, ...
Probably, some or all of wallets K, L, M, and N are controlled by the fraudster. Unfortunately, you don't know that for certain so you have to track them all until you see an exchange.
That's it. You can watch the movements of Bitcoin and trace who did what. You just have to break the pseudonymity of the wallets. Likely all clients of wallet C are criminals anyway, so you don't have to worry too much about the other people you will be tracking.
True, but average in typical usage also doesn't necessarily refer to the mean. When not talking about mathematics, average usually represents something that is representative of the middle of the range and the commonly observed value, so I would hazard a guess that most common usages mix median and mode and leave the mean alone. It's really not that strange to expect its usage to correlate more with median.
That only works if you consider the only alternative of buying the ticket as buying the ice cream and if you really value the ice cream at that level. Someone who has other things that money could buy, in whole or in part, or someone who just likes ice cream more than you do, is unlikely to work on that logic.
I'm guessing most of the 33% is social media tracking, which could be anything from reading anything they post to actively tracking the information of those posts to create more detailed timelines. The article says 10% is the figure for installed software, which is still a lot higher than I would have expected.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
