Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin app rejected by Apple

bitcoin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: Bitcoin app rejected by Apple

#91

Post by cookiecaper »

weavejester wrote: post #81
cookiecaper wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see much point in this kind of rationalization. We know that it's probably not technically illegal to run the bitcoin network. I'm sure they'll find some way to postulate that btc as a currency is technically illegal, but even if they didn't, you have to know that everything that is big in government and the power scene right now is going to collude to take btc out of the picture as far as possible. They are…

I don't subscribe to the theory that the US government is a nigh-omnipotent entity that always gets its way. There are plenty of things the US government doesn't like that it has to live with, such as strong cryptography, pornography and P2P networks. I also really dislike the fatalistic attitude that those in power will always get their way, and that we should never try to change the status quo because we will alway…

I don't think that the government gets whatever it wants and I don't think the people will always fail against the powers that be. However, I don't think there would be enough interest in bitcoin to make it outlast the interest the government would have in killing. The government and banks really hate this kind of stuff, it's not just a passing "that'd be nice to get rid of" thing.

Re: Bitcoin app rejected by Apple

#92

Post by cookiecaper »

moreati wrote: post #69
JoachimSchipper wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin transactions are public, right? It's not exactly hard to find out who's using them...

The transactions are pseudonymous - a public key of each participant is recorded, and world readable. The public key doesn't have to be connected to a real world identity. An attacker could analyse the transaction history to infer the identity controlling a given key, depending on how it was reused/managed.

But this can actually be pretty difficult to manage correctly.

While "best practice" is to generate a new btc address for each transaction, there are still ways to attempt to profile users even if they use that rule. For instance, if someone knows you like an esoteric thing, and they know you have a lot of bitcoin, they can look at people buying things from public addresses (most shops or established bodies have permanent addresses for receiving) that are associated with esoteric thing, and say it's likely that you were purchasing at least some of that. They can do other filtration and process-of-elimination things to find out who is using what, or where something comes from.

Additionally, if the wallet of one who you've traded with in the past is compromised, even if they were using single-transaction addresses, the attacker may be able to fill in some missing links in the chain, especially if the wallet's owner has recorded anywhere a translation from btc address to useful memo/accounting data. Imagine if UBL used btc and the Feds got his wallet; everyone downstream would be hunted with some serious prejudice.

I should clarify that in bitcoin, the entire transaction chain from the time the block is generated until the last time it is used is recorded forever. Once you send from an address to another address, that transaction is ingrained in btc for the remainder of its existence, and every coin you receive has a long history that shows all of that. While the names are long hashes and not things like "TERRORIST KINGPIN -> INNOCENT BUT NOW SUSPECT GUY", there are some ways to put something like that together, and they're not all obvious.

Re: Bitcoin app rejected by Apple

#93

Post by jerf »

hammock wrote: post #87
jerf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"just sending messages" With this message, I hereby transfer to jnhnum the sum of $12.54 out of my checking account. (Translation, since that's probably a bit subtle to just throw out there: In the process of abstracting money transfers as "just sending messages" your abstraction has leaked critically important details. There's more to money transfers than "just messages", and it is precisely those differences that a…

Citizens United (the decision that allowed corporations to make unlimited monetary contributions to political organizations) was justified by the first amendment. A check or promissory note is a message, transferring money, and is a form of speech. Where you spend your money is protected free speech.

Your criticism is logically backwards. Transfer of money is not just a message. It is a message, plus some other things that make it also a transfer of money. You can't reduce it to just a message being passed. It is a message, it is not just a message.

Re: Bitcoin app rejected by Apple

#94

Post by Groxx »

palish wrote: post #83
Groxx wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. The Java bitcoin client doesn't store the entire block chain. http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/ You don't even need to know the current block to send transactions, if I remember right (haven't dived in deeply enough yet to be 100% certain). The block solver (miner) is the only one who needs to know the chain, as they choose what transactions to include, and your transaction may not even be included (ie,…

You need to know the current block chain in order to know that nobody is fooling your client. In other words, you need to know the current block chain in order to be sure you really did just receive 100BTC from Website X, and that it wasn't just a trick.

Only partially. You only need to know N blocks after a transaction to be N-certain a it is valid - that it's included in a block at all and propagated through the network implies the transaction is valid. If it weren't, other clients wouldn't accept the block.

You can never technically be completely certain a transaction isn't fake. You could be looking at a non-standard branch of the network, and you have no way of knowing it. So randomize your connections, wait for a few more blocks at reasonable difficulties, and you can be sure enough without having to work from the origin.

And (again, not 100% certain) I think you only need to store the hashes of each block to prove the chain is valid, and demonstrate a certain amount of work has been done (the difficulty of each). Each block solution builds only on the previous hash. That's just relatively tiny numbers, the entire list of block solutions would likely fit within 5MB with room to spare.

Re: Bitcoin app rejected by Apple

#95

Post by hammock »

jerf wrote: post #93
hammock wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens United (the decision that allowed corporations to make unlimited monetary contributions to political organizations) was justified by the first amendment. A check or promissory note is a message, transferring money, and is a form of speech. Where you spend your money is protected free speech.

Your criticism is logically backwards. Transfer of money is not just a message. It is a message, plus some other things that make it also a transfer of money. You can't reduce it to just a message being passed. It is a message, it is not just a message.

It wasn't a criticism, it was a support of bitcoins. The point is that the Supreme Court supports the notion of money transactions as free speech.

Re: Bitcoin app rejected by Apple

#96

Post by rmc »

weavejester wrote: post #79
rmc wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So essentially you're saying they can't make bitcoin illegal, just make it completely illegal to use in any practical manner. That sounds like making bitcoin illegal.

That's not what I said at all. Regulation does not necessarily mean "make it completely illegal". Food is regulated, but that doesn't mean the government has made it illegal (or even difficult) to eat.

In some countries (eg UK) prostitution isn't illegal. It's just illegal to ask for money for sex, its illegal to imply you'll pay someone for sex, etc. that sounds like what the government could do to bitcoins. As a result prostitution is de facto illegal.

Re: Bitcoin app rejected by Apple

#97

Post by weavejester »

rmc wrote: post #96
weavejester wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I said at all. Regulation does not necessarily mean "make it completely illegal". Food is regulated, but that doesn't mean the government has made it illegal (or even difficult) to eat.

In some countries (eg UK) prostitution isn't illegal. It's just illegal to ask for money for sex, its illegal to imply you'll pay someone for sex, etc. that sounds like what the government could do to bitcoins. As a result prostitution is de facto illegal.

Yes, the government could do that, but it's not guaranteed they will. My point is merely that regulation does not necessarily mean making something completely illegal.

Re: Bitcoin app rejected by Apple

#98

Post by weavejester »

cookiecaper wrote: post #91
weavejester wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't subscribe to the theory that the US government is a nigh-omnipotent entity that always gets its way. There are plenty of things the US government doesn't like that it has to live with, such as strong cryptography, pornography and P2P networks. I also really dislike the fatalistic attitude that those in power will always get their way, and that we should never try to change the status quo because we will alway…

I don't think that the government gets whatever it wants and I don't think the people will always fail against the powers that be. However, I don't think there would be enough interest in bitcoin to make it outlast the interest the government would have in killing. The government and banks really hate this kind of stuff, it's not just a passing "that'd be nice to get rid of" thing.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. I'm also unsure how much of an interest the government has in killing it.

Bitcoins are not inherently anonymous, and in some ways it makes things easier for law enforcement, because all transactions are public and accessible without the need for a warrant. The hard part would be matching a Bitcoin address to an individual or organization, but maintaining anonymity against a determined investigator is hard, and requires a high degree of technical expertise to pull off. I don't think Bitcoins actually make things any harder to find criminals.

Re: Bitcoin app rejected by Apple

#99

Post by njs12345 »

sirlancer wrote: post #67
rheide wrote: post #22

Alright. Android it is then.

Bitcoiner was just released on the Android market though I haven't had the chance to dive into it yet. Can anyone comment on it's merits?

It looks like it could do with some polish but I've not tried it yet..
Post reply on HN