Maybe it goes both ways. Maybe you can get Mickey Mouse tattooed on your forehead Manson style and you won't show up on mugshot sites due to DMCA takedowns.
I once tried to create a Protonmail account over TOR and I believe they require a phone number from 'malicious' IPs so if you want anonymity Protonmail is not the service for you.
You define a smart contract where your intent is that it checks if other smart contracts are legal and runs them. Then you define a contract that runs the contract that checks if another contract is legal and then as the writer your intent is for the program to be illegal if the other program is legal and vice versa. Then you run this second contract through the first. If it is legal it is illegal and if it is illegal it is legal. Obviously there is no way to write a smart contract that checks if others are legal, but a writer can intend to write it which is where the problem of considering smart contract writer intent originates.
Let S = smart contract writer's code intent - smart contract compiled code meaning. If S is legally meaningful it's all over for smart contracts. There's no way to prove the contract writer's intent, the compiler itself can have problems causing divergence, and it's not even possible to prove if the idea in the writer's mind can be captured by code. You could even come up with a sort of halting problem smart contract that's both fraudulent and not at the same time.
TLDs are like neighborhoods or ZIP codes, you will be judged for being in a bad one even if you are a good person. That's why I suggest consulting this site before you register anything to make sure you don't accidentally get a TLD that is used mostly for abuse, which many of the newer ones are.
Anybody who has followed cryptocurrency in the last year knows that major US financial institutions and hedge funds have become heavily involved. The regulations coming are entirely to do with making the legal burdens of individual custody onerous enough that users place their coins on completely centralized exchanges to manage legal risk, all so these institutions have access to these coins for manipulation purposes like borrowing for shorting. The ONLY regulation you will see is on the average user so they can suck up coins like Daniel Plainview drinking your milkshake, NOT on market manipulation or trading habits of institutions which is the key driver of malicious activity and harm in the cryptocurrency space.
There is a whole category of potentially exploitable bugs that result from programs simply running. Slow memory leaks, floating point precision loss, and integer overflows to name a few. But this is more likely about clearing caches.
This is legally codified horizontal scaling. Blue state legislators know that taping together a bunch of cheaper computers is better than a single expensive high powered device. It's very considerate of them to force this on those who might make the classic mistake.
They only seized 69.6 as that's what was transferred to an exchange. It's interesting they split the resulting funds into two addresses. One to presumably return to who paid the ransom and the rest which would be held until whoever is indicted can prove they are not proceeds of crime (lol good luck).
I have no idea why they censored out parts of the bitcoin addresses as googling the uncensored part and transaction quantities lets you find them on countless sites.
This story makes absolutely no sense at all. The errors present by these hackers are so comical it's simply unbelievable. I'm supposed to believe some elite Russian hacking group keeps their crypto wallets running on a US host where the FBI just logs right in and snatches the private key? I'm starting to entertain the conspiracies that the future of commodities price manipulation is fake ransomware attacks. There needs to be a serious audit of CME derivatives trading. There will come a day when some oil futures trader pays a ransomware group or an employee at a pipeline company and makes billions.
What will happen is some high profile company that has a few Amazon devices on their network will have these devices exploited to gain network access and get hit with some ransomware/data theft/etc... and then there will be a big legal battle between Amazon and the hacked company and this whole idea will be shut down and consumers will get a $10 class action settlement for each device.
It's important to understand that heavy unhosted wallet regulation in conjunction with PoS transition pretty much ruins cryptocurrency in the US. People will be forced to keep their coins on exchanges and they will not have enough coins to stake but the exchanges will stake from their wallets and claim the rewards for themselves. Then they can use the coins gained to manipulate the markets how they wish collecting fees and more coins from their clients further centralizing control.
Throughout the last week of price declines the rates have stayed positive meaning longs were still paying shorts, implying continuous buying pressure, likely by those trying to time a bottom. But after this mega nuke the leveraged long traders got liquidated. When you clear out leveraged traders it becomes harder to move the price as fewer will be liquidated accelerating price changes. To summarize, retail investors lose in crypto because they take big risks with small money with big leverage and the big boys with big money then flush them out and the crypto lifecycle begins again making the whales richer and more capable of manipulating the market the next time.
You just proved my point. Your comment presents the idea that Bitcoin is "burning the planet" and needs to be focused on with ZERO elaboration as to why, then you use an appeal to emotion invoking the undefinable term "greater good", then you ignore logical consistency as if it doesn't matter when making an argument. Absolutely pathetic.
HN embodies this weird upper class environmentalist fascism where they proudly pick and choose what the plebes should be allowed to do with their lives based on totally logically inconsistent environmental reasons. The Musk thing was so funny for this. "No you plebes should have no recourse or experimentation against a fiat system it's bad for the environment, now don't mind me driving my Tesla around to do things like shop at expensive stores in my gated community or just kick it on the weekend doing a road trip in my TOTALLY ENVIRONMENTALLY NECESSARY electric vehicle that uses electricity from my wall socket not derived from fossil fuels at all which was not mined from not dubious sources whose environmental impact is totally not cool". I can't imagine where this ideology will land but I imagine the scope will expand greatly outside of PoW cryptocurrencies. Pretty soon commenters here will be scolding your for turning up your graphics settings in AAA games but only if you're poor and your house is in a dump that doesn't have a renewable grid.
Some people just can't see the economic absurdity of it. Imagine if the FED announced that future USD would be printed into the accounts of USD holders by balance size, but that you have to have a high initial balance to be eligible and that the poors need to assemble little pools of other poors to split a reward. That's proof of stake as proposed. It's that simple and that stupid.
Proof of stake is the funniest scam that exists in the crypto space. Vitalik is a fucking genius scammer pulling off what he has with Ethereum. Premine the coin, leverage mining when hash rate is low to make more, then transition to a 'rich get richer' printing scheme when the preminers and miners ponzi'd up their asset as it costs more to acquire for newcomers. Just incredible.
Discord is actually great for having people test things. Search for a server related to what your idea focuses on and get random people to test and provide instant feedback.
The irony is that the exact society destabilizing grand visions of the future billionaires advocate for are some of the main drivers behind people embracing Bitcoin. If you push a "you own nothing" WEF approved dystopian tech oligarch reality don't be surprised when people adopt an asset that cannot be confiscated by the government.
Does the US have jurisdiction here or is the Southern District just playing Team America World Police again? Is using Twitter the new precedent for being ensnared by the American legal system?