On 05/18/11 07:40, Eugen Leitl wrote: > ----- Forwarded message from lodewijk andré de la porte > <[email protected]> ----- > > From: lodewijk andré de la porte <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 00:12:14 +0200 > To: Eugen Leitl <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > Subject: Re: [silk] Bitcoin > > It is possible for any current governmental agency to hijack the entire > system, due to their access to supercomputer infrastructures and/or immense > budgets. This will however become less and less possible while bitcoin > continues to grow and is already a massive and technological challenge which > I do not see any governmental institutions execute proper.
Yep. Should interference be detected, there is also scope to ban the big supercomputers and then edit it out of history - given consensus that this should be done. > It is also strange to say these transactions are "untraceable". Nothing is > less true. Governments have complete transcripts of all sent data (USA, GB > and AUS have a neat little system for this set up, catch all emails too), > and every transaction is signed by the money's owner, it needs to be > processed. Sure one could create many different unique signatures (bitcoin > adresses) but those could all be traced moving out of the house. It's just > immensely more tedious to do than tracking, say, bank transactions and so > many agencies will just not be technical enough to do this. Yep. I've written about this, and many people have suggested that Tor is a way around that: see http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/archives/2011/05/12/bitcoin-security/ ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/
