Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask Slashdot: Should Bitcoin Be Regulated?

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the and-what-about-monopoly-money dept.

Bitcoin 385

Nerval's Lobster writes "Federal regulators are starting to make noise about Bitcoin, the digital currency that's gained in recognition and value over the past few years: the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is offering up 'guidance' for digital currency and those who use it as part of commerce. But the Bitcoin Foundation, which is devoted to standardizing and promoting the currency, doesn't like that idea; as Patric Murck, the organization's general counsel, wrote in a March 19 blog posting: 'If FinCEN would like to expand its statutory authority over "money transmitters" to include brand new categories such as "administrators" and "exchangers" of digital currency it must do so through proper rulemaking proceedings and not by fiat.' If Bitcoin continues to gain in value, it could spark a rise in virtual currencies—and force some very interesting discussions over regulation. But here's the question: would regulation actually be good for Bitcoin, if it made organizations and businesses more comfortable with using it as a currency?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

no (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320815)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.


apk on 4chan []




That was amazing. - []


My, God! It's beatiful. Keep it up, you glorious bastard. - []


Let us bask in its glory. A true modern The Wasteland. - []


put your baby IN ME -- I just read this whole thing. Fuck mod points, WHERE DO I SEND YOU MY MONEY?!!! - []


Oh shit, Time Cube Guy's into computers now... - []


[apk]'s done more to discredit the use of HOSTS files than anyone [else] ever could. - []


this obnoxious fucknuts [apk] has been trolling the internet and spamming his shit delphi sub-fart app utilities for 15 years. - []


this is hilarious. - []


I agree I am intrigued by these host files how do I sign up for your newsletter? - []


Gimme the program that generates this epic message. I'll buy 5 of your product if you do... - []


a pretty well-executed mashup of APK's style - []


a very clever parody of APK - []


Please keep us updated on your AI research, you seem quite good at it. - []


Obviously, it must be Alexander Peter Kowalski. He's miffed at all these imposters... - []


Damn, apk, who the fuck did you piss off this time? Hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha. Pass the popcorn as the troll apk gets pwned relentlessly. - []


I think it's the Internet, about to become sentient. - []


KUDOS valiant AC. - []


Polyploid lovechild of APK, MyCleanPC, and Time Cube --> fail counter integer overflow --> maximum win! - []


You made my day, thanks! - []


Wow. The perfect mix of trolls. Timecube, mycleanpc, gnaa, apk... this is great! - []


truer words were never spoken as /. trolls are struck speechless by it, lol! - []


It's APK himself trying to maintain the illusion that he's still relevant. - []


Mod this up. The back and forth multi posting between APK and this "anti-APK" certainly does look like APK talking to himself. - []


APK himself would be at the top of a sensible person's ban list. He's been spamming and trolling Slashdot for years. - []


Not sure if actually crazy, or just pretending to be crazy. Awesome troll either way. - []


Awesome! Hat off to you, sir! - []


That isn't a parody of Time-cube, it is an effort to counter-troll a prolific poster named APK, who seems like a troll himself, although is way too easy to troll into wasting massive amounts of time on BS not far from the exaggerations above - []


that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP - []


What? - []


It is in fact an extremely well thought out and brilliantly executed APK parody, combined with a Time Cube parody, and with a sprinkling of the MyCleanPC spam. - []


[to apk] er... many people have disproved your points about hosts files with well reasoned, factual arguments. You just chose not to listen and made it into some kind of bizarre crusade. And I'm not the timecube guy, just someone else who finds you intensely obnoxious and likes winding you up to waste your time. - []


it's apk, theres no reason to care. - []


Seems more like an apk parody. - []


That's great but what about the risk of subluxations? - []


Read carefully. This is a satirical post, that combines the last several years of forum trolling, rolled into one FUNNY rant! - []


I can has summary? - []


Trolls trolling trolls... it's like Inception or something. - []


We all know it's you, apk. Stop pretending to antagonize yourself. - []


Now you've made me all nostalgic for USENET. - []


Google APK Hosts File Manager. He's written a fucking application to manage your hosts file. - []


In case you are not aware, the post is a satire of a fellow known as APK. The grammar used is modeled after APK's as you can see here [] . Or, you can just look around a bit and see some of his posts on here about the wonders of host files. - []


You are surely of God of Trolls, whomever you are. I have had stupid arguments with and bitten the troll apk many times. - []


"What kind of meds cure schizophrenic drunk rambling?" -> "Whatever APK isn't taking" - [] []


I'm confused, is apk trolling himself now? - []


Excellent mashup. A++. Would troll again. - []


Best. Troll. Ever. - []


I like monkeys. - []


This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. - []


I admire this guy's persistence. - []


It's a big remix of several different crackpots from Slashdot and elsewhere, plus a liberal sprinkling of famous Slashdot trolls and old memes. - []


APK is a prominent supporter of Monsanto. - []


Here's a hint, check out stories like this one [] , where over 200 of the 247 posts are rated zero or -1 because they are either from two stupid trolls arguing endless, or quite likely one troll arguing with himself for attention. The amount of off-topic posts almost outnumber on topic ones by 4 to 1. Posts like the above are popular for trolling APK, since if you say his name three times, he appears, and will almost endlessly feed trolls. - []


I love this copypasta so much. It never fails to make me smile. - []


^ Champion Mod parent up. - []


I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done. - []


The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless. - []


AHahahahah thanks for that, cut-n-pasted.... Ownage! - []


If you're familiar with APK, the post itself is a pretty damn funny parody. - []


">implying it's not apk posting it" --> "I'd seriously doubt he's capable of that level of self-deprecation..." - [] []


No, the other posts are linked in a parody of APK [mailto] 's tendency to quote himself, numbnuts. - []


Just ban any post with "apk", "host file", or "hosts file", as that would take care of the original apk too. The original has been shitposting Slashdot much longer & more intensively than the parody guy. Or ban all Tor exit nodes, as they both use Tor to circumvent IP bans. - []


Sadly this is closer to on-topic than an actual APK post is. - []




I've butted heads with APK myself, and yeah, the guy's got issues - []


Can I be in your quote list? - []


Clearly you are not an Intertubes engineer, otherwise the parent post would be more meaningful to you. Why don't YOU take your meds? - []


+2 for style! The bolding, italicizing, and font changes are all spot-on - []


Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - []


APK is not really a schizophrenic fired former Windows administrator with multiple personality disorder and TimeCube/Art Bell refugee. He's a fictional character like and put forward by the same person as Goatse Guy, GNAA trolls, Dr. Bob and so forth. His purpose is to test the /. CAPTCA algorithm, which is a useful purpose. If you're perturbed by having to scroll past his screeds just set your minimum point level to 1, as his posts are pretty automatically downmodded right away. - []


I just saw APK a couple days ago. He surfaced, blew once, and submerged... - []


oh man, that incredible interminable list of responses is almost as funny as the original post. This is getting to be truly epic. - []


"Does anyone know of an Adblock rule for this?" -> "No, but I bet there's a hosts file entry for it..." - [] []


"Can a hosts file block apk's posts, though?" -> "The universe couldn't handle that much irony." - [] []


"That's it, I've had enough. ... Bye everyone, most of the last decade or so has been fun, but frankly, I quit." - []
--> "So basically what you're saying is that you've added yourself to the HOST file?" - []


Sweet baby Moses, this is beautiful work - I wish we could get trolls as good as this on TF. :) - []


you have a point - []


I do admire that level of dedication. - []


[to apk] shut up you stupid cock. Everyone knows you're wrong. - []


I will hand it to him, he is definitely consistent. I wish I knew how he did this. That thing is scary huge. - []


I admire the amount of dedication you've shown - []


Word is, ESR buttfucks CmdrTaco with his revolver. - []


Hey APK, Protip: It's not the truth or value (or lack of) in your post that gets it modded into oblivion, it's the fucking insane length. In addition to TL;DR (which goes without saying for a post of such length), how about irritating readers by requiring them to scroll through 20+ screenfuls just to get to the next post. If you want to publish a short story like this, please do everyone a favor and blog it somewhere, then provide a brief summary and link to your blog. Readers intrigued by your summary will go read your blog, and everyone else will just move along at normal /. speed. - []


I like how this post seems to just sum up every Slashdot comment ever without actually saying anything. - []


extremely bright - []


You provide many references, which is good. - []


Obviously very passionate - []


Thanks ... You should probably stay - []


Art? -- []


PROOF apk sucks donkey dick. - []


I've been around /. for a while now, but this post is by far the most unique I've seen. Many have tried, but few achieve the greatness of this AC. My hat's off to you. - []


I think it's hilarious. Get over it! - []


Obviously APK filled his hosts files with backdoors before distributing them to ensure he doesn't block himself. - []


Alexander Peter Kowalski is an obnoxious prick. - []


Don't mention that file. Ever. It'll draw APK like a fly to rotting meat. Last thing I want to read is 80 responses worth of his stupid spam about that file! I swear that cocksucker does nothing but search Slashdot for that term and then spams the entire article. - []


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. - []


You are my favorite Slashdot poster. - []


Most insightful post on the Internet - []


I read the whole thing *again* just to see if my comment was in there - []


[to apk] So, did your mom do a lot of drugs when she was pregnant? - []


people are looking at me funny because I'm laughing hysterically at what a perfect APK imitation it is. - []


Slashdot devs seem in no hurry to fix this problem and it's been driving me nuts. So for anybody who values viewing at -1 and uses greasemonkey here's a Script [] . There's a chance of false positives and it's not the most optimized. But I value not having to scroll through > 10 paragraphs of APK, custom hosts files, or 'acceptable ads' spam. - []
--> slashdot devs are too busy installing itunes for their hipster nerd buddys to sort this problem out. - []


I can't get enough of all of this good stuff! Thanks for the informative links! - []


When threatened, APK typically produces a post with links showing he's essentially posted this hundreds of times to slashdot stories... - []


[to apk] Your post got downmodded because you're a nutjob gone off his meds. - []


[to apk] The reason people impersonate you is because everyone thinks you're a moron. The hosts file is not intended to be used as you suggest. - []
-->What? You don't have a 14MB hosts file with ~1million entries in it? Next you'll probably tell me that your computer doesn't start thrashing and take 5 minutes for a DNS lookup! - []


[about apk] - this fwit is as thick as a post. worse, this shithead has mod points. and using them. - []


In before the fight between those two guys and their walls of text... - []




KPA ...thgim dik a ekil .s.b laivirt hcus no emit hcum taht etsaw t'ndluow I sa ,ti gniod em TON si ti - syug ON - []


[to apk] You seriously need to go see a shrink. You are a fucking fruitcake! - []


[to apk] Did you ever consider that it's not just one corrupt moderator, it's a bunch of regular slashdot users who infrequently get mod points who think you are totally full of shit? Stop posting annoying off topic irrelevant bullshit, and people won't mod you down. I'm seriously sick of reading your posts about someone impersonating you. - []


[to apk] you should be forced to use a cholla cactus as a butt-plug - []


[to apk] No one is on your side, that is why you're here. posting. still. No one cares. - []


Who's the more moronic? The original moron, or the one who replies to him knowing full well his comment will certainly be ignored, if not entirely unread, thus bringing the insane troll post to the attention of those who would otherwise not have seen it at all (seeing as it started at 0 and would have rapidly been modded down to -1) and whose post (and, somewhat ironically I grant you, this one as well) now requires 3 more mod points to be spent to hide it? - []


[to apk] I miss trollaxor. His gay porn world of slashdot executives and open-source luminaries was infinitely more entertaining than this drivel. - []


PLEASE stop modding biters up. Anyone who responds to an abvious troll, especually one of these APK trolls, should autometically get the same -1 troll as the damned troll. Any response to a troll only makes the troll do more trolling. Come on, guys, use your brains -- it isn't that hard. Stop feeding the damned trolls! - (missing link)


[to apk] Lick the inside of goatse's anus, it's delicious! - []


Excellent post A++++++++++++ would scroll past again!!!! - []


[to apk] You are the one who is pitiful. If you didn't spam /. with your bullshit you wouldn't have spammer 'impostors' doing the same. Just fuck off and die already, ok? Please, really. Step in front of a bus. Drink some bleach. Whatever it takes, just FUCK OFF and DIE. - []


[to apk] From one AC to another please for the love of god, PRINT YOUR HOST FILE OUT AND CRAM IT DOWN YOUR JAPS EYE!!! For fucks sake we don't care we see this and it takes the piss, short of a full frontal lobotomy what will it take to stop you posting this you moronic fuckwit? - []


[to apk] And someone forgot to take his meds today...Are you really that dense that you cant tell that the only reason the "impostor" exists because you have a hard time realizing that you are wrong and/or wont let it go. It would take a complete moron to not realize that the whole reason he continues to do it is because he knows he can get you to respond by simply posting. This isnt rocket science, this is internet 101... Let me offer you some advice on how to get rid of this "impostor"...shutup - []


[to apk] If you had a 'luser' account it wouldn't be a problem. But you don't want one of those, because your long rambling and bizarrely formatted posts mean your karma gets nuked in next to no time. So I guess you just have to work out which is 'worth it'. Posting AC because I don't want to become your latest fixation. - []


I wouldn't be surprised if that is APK trying to draw attention to himself, since he thinks such endless tirades are examples of him winning and make him look good. When people stop paying attention to him, or post actual counterpoints he can't come up with a response to, he'll post strawman troll postings to shoot down, sometimes just copy pasted from previous stories. - []


[to apk] No one wants to read your copy pasted crap. Maybe someone is mocking you because you make it so easy to? So drop it, and participate like an adult please. - []


Seriously.... What. The. Fuck. Can you two homos just go make out on brokeback mountain already, and stop talking about how one of you misspelled "penetration", and how the other cockblocks with their hosts files while grabing the other's goat? Goodness, it sure feels like being in a mountain range, trying to peer around those fucking orbital tether lengthed posts of pure premium bullsit the two of you somehoq manage to keep pushing out on demand. Shit stinks! At this point, i'd be willing to risk the fucking extinction of all life on earth by redirecting siding spring C/2013 1A to miss Mars and land on both of your fucking heads instead. The deaths of billions would be a small price to pay to shut you two cackling lovebirds up! - []


[to apk] Listen up jackass, why the hell would somebody want to impersonate you? You're a certified internet kook. Nobody gives a hot about your 3 gig hosts file. And nobody is impersonating you. You're already a fucking parody. - []


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. Despite this advice you are convinced that your comments are valuable contributions, ignoring the obvious evidence to the contrary (namely the -1 scores your posts earn on a regular basis). - []


[about apk] Can this be killed off? I don't mean this account, I mean the actual meatbag behind it. - []


[to apk] Get an account retard. If you format your password as crazily as your posts no-one will ever crack it. - []




Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.


* :)

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol , man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

That's the kind of martial arts [] I practice.


Disproof of all apk's statements:


RECENT POST LINKS: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
REPORT MISSING LINKS FOR REWARD (check pastebin archive first)


TIP JAR: 1EtLgU5L3jhmVkDmqrWT9VhoZ1F2jSimHS []
RECEIVED: 0.0195 BTC - thx! ;-)


Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320865)

A corrupt slashdot luser has infiltrated the moderation system to downmod all my posts while impersonating me.

Nearly 180++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March 2013 so far, & others here have told you to stop - take the hint, lunatic (leave slashdot)...

Sorry folks - but whoever the nutjob is that's attempting to impersonate me, & upset the rest of you as well, has SERIOUS mental issues, no questions asked! I must've gotten the better of him + seriously "gotten his goat" in doing so in a technical debate & his "geek angst" @ losing to me has him doing the:


A.) $10,000 challenges, ala (where the imposter actually TRACKED + LISTED the # of times he's done this no less, & where I get the 180 or so times I noted above) -> []


B.) Reposting OLD + possibly altered models - (this I haven't checked on as to altering the veracity of the info. being changed) of posts of mine from the past here


(Albeit massively repeatedly thru all threads on /. this March 2013 nearly in its entirety thusfar).

* Personally, I'm surprised the moderation staff here hasn't just "blocked out" his network range yet honestly!

(They know it's NOT the same as my own as well, especially after THIS post of mine, which they CAN see the IP range I am coming out of to compare with the ac spamming troll doing the above...).


P.S.=> Again/Stressing it: NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March now, & 180++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

P.S.=> here is CORRECT host file information just to piss off the insane lunatic troll:


21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option [] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> [] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions ( via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were: [] []

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> []

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> [] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:


US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth: []

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)


Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:



And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:



As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It: []


Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing: []


15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy [] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> [] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: [] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:


Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads: []


Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services: []


Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again): []


Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody: []


Google sponsored links caught punting malware: []


DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads: []


Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users: []


Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer: []


Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware: []


Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge: []


Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware: []


Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC: []


Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills: []


Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web: []


Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware: []












London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware: []


Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads: []


As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:


Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills: []


AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant): []


It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> []

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:



An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM []

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."


"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!


19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):



"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like (which protects the Firefox browser)...


20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( [] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( [] ), &/or NoScript ( [] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( [] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:


DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains: []


BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here: []



(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)


DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that): []

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)


Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)


DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit: []


DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak: []


Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9: []


Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against: []


DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards: []


Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!) []




TimeWarner DNS Hijacking: []


DNS Re-Binding Attacks: []


DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture: []


Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability: []


BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning: []


DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs: []


DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion: []


High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued: []


Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked: []


Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks: []


DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse: []


HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> []
  ScrubIT DNS -> []
  OpenDNS -> []

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> [] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...




"Ever since I've installed a host file ( to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: [] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. [] and [] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)


Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:


Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):


"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!


"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 [] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> [] !


"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> [] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> [] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!


* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] IN HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> [] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> []


Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0


You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using, next slowest using, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger or line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses ( &/or, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...


2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.


Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:


1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...


First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in: []

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths


The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this: []

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> [] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem ( offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcache (like ANY fil

Should Bitcoin Be Regulated? (2, Funny)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320821)

It should if you want it to be as legitimate as the dollar.*

* That's a joke son.

The bubble is bad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320919)

If Bitcoin continues to gain in value, it could spark a rise in virtual currencies—and force some very interesting discussions over regulation.

Actually, if it continues to add value it will only make the unavoidable crash worse, and will deal a serious blow to virtual currencies, which will be viewed as a scam. The best thing right now is low volatility, there's sufficient valuation to facilitate huge trade. At a money velocity of 1 trade/month/unit (typical for US dollar base M1), there an 12 bln dollars market. few of those trades are happening right now, because people are too busy watching mtgox.

An even better thing was a properly designed expansion curve, with a long term for inflation of 3% which will drive hoarders and speculators away (Friedman's money by computer). Maybe an alt chain will solve this problem and displace Bitcoin.

Re:The bubble is bad (4, Interesting)

mestar (121800) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321517)

Bitcoin will surely come down from current levels. That's because, there is a constant downward pressure on price, due to mining.

Energy spent on mining is probably the biggest part of total costs of running Bitcoin network. Also, this energy is easy to predict, because energy spent on mining is a simple function of Bitcoin price and average total block awards. This is because mining has very low barrier of entry, and this ensures that as long as it is profitable, new miners will join, until the most inefficient miners are at the break-even point. And the most profitable miners will try to expand their operation.

This makes it that each block costs somewhere around (0.5 * block award * price) to (0.75 * block award * price). And since awards are paid in Bitcoins and electricity is paid in local currencies, this makes the situation that all mining costs hit the exchanges every day, and push the price down.

This can currently be estimated to be $150.000 to $250.000 each day (using price of $90), and this amount of fresh money must enter the exchanges every day, or the price will go down. Currently, this money comes in from "suckers".

At this point we have a temporary delay in the "mining difficulty follows price" process , because of the change in technology and delays in deliveries of ASIC miners, so mining is very profitable at this point, and this reduces the selling pressure on exchanges. This, plus block award halving is why we have this current Bitcoin bubble.

And this bubble will end soon, because of the process described above.

Re:The bubble is bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321683)

Indeed, the miners can hit the market with up to 25x6x24x90=324.000$ worth of bitcoins each day. Still, mtgoxusd alone moves 10x that much money each day. So while the party is ending in the long run, in the short run the bubble is driven strictly by speculation and dumb money entering due to increased media attention; the miners try as they might, can't burst the bubble even if they sell all production. There are a few millionaires being made each day now, who are exiting big. Will the flow of suckers break through the $100 sell wall ? Will it burst at $500 ? Stay tuned.

Which dollar? (2)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320975)

It might be a joke but it raises the question: whose dollar? As a virtual currency whose regulations will apply to a transaction when, for example, one person is in Europe and another in the US?

Re:Which dollar? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321509)

The United States obviously.

Re:Which dollar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321699)

They could apply to the UN for Observer status as the Virtual Federation of Bitcoin, or somesuch other, better, name. Then they can have their own currency, probably.

Re:Should Bitcoin Be Regulated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321043)

I can't really see how "legitimate" applies to a currency, much less why that's even funny. I would say that currency is a single parameter scalar quantity.

There are no conceptual flaws in the implementation of Bitcoin that I can foresee, it will work as a currency and as a distributed transaction protocol.

There are countless arguments on Slashdot (and elsewhere) for and against, which is great because you can see that there are informed and factual arguments, and emotive arguments from people with an agenda and or a vested interest.

Personally I don't use it because I haven't needed to, but if I did I would. If you do or not I don't care, I have no vested interests.

Confused (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320831)

How can your regulate something that you do not or can not control?

Re:Confused (0)

anubi (640541) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321041)

And how do you TAX something that you do not and can not control?

Re:Confused (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321053)

You might think bitcoin is impossible to control, but you're misinformed. The immediate rollback from 0.8 proves that all it requires is the large mining pools to reach a decision behind closed doors, and they'll implement whatever modified protocol they desire. The problem with such power being in the hands of the pools and large miners means all the government has to do is change them minds of 10 people, and they'll introduce whatever tracking/anti-laundering controls they desire right at the point of exchange.

Re:Confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321315)

Because miners don't have a choice over which pool they use. Oh wait, they do.

Re:Confused (1)

Tim the Gecko (745081) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321375)

The immediate rollback from 0.8 proves that all it requires is the large mining pools to reach a decision behind closed doors, and they'll implement whatever modified protocol they desire.

If most of the power lies with the active miners, then perhaps there will be a temptation to change the protocol to increase the production rate. The people sitting on huge stacks of previously mined bitcoins don't seem to be have much control over the current mining/validation.

Re:Confused (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321209)

Well, that's kind of the point. The banks want to regulate/control and profit from all human transactions. It's not a big stretch to see that government will comply with those wishes/demands.

Re:Confused (0)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321229)

Thats the problem with Bitcoins... they can't control, manipulate, or hoard it. If you want that mass public use a virtual currency (ok, i mean other than dollars) it only be pushed to the general public when they found one that they can manipulate.

Re:Confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321521)

It's really find something you do control and relates to what you don't control and regulate it. In this case, you regulate the businesses that exchange BitCoins for real money and, if they don't comply, you prevent all legitimate financial institutions from interacting with the exchanges. BitCoin is nowhere near established enough to exist on its own without the exchanges. If you cut off any ability to turn BitCoins into real money, it will quickly die.

here we go again.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320837)


at least TAX rules is it stock like? casino like? (0)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320843)

at least TAX rules is it stock like? casino like? Other?

Re:at least TAX rules is it stock like? casino lik (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320881)

I just use the tax rules for Forex. I don't think a judge/jury could argue with that. It's a currency after all.

Ask Slashdot: Have you forgotten about Bitcoin ye? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320845)

Here's another pointless story to remind you to invest in it! You'll be a billionaire!

Re:Ask Slashdot: Have you forgotten about Bitcoin (1)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321199)

While "billionaire" is a bit beyond me, I did just cash in a bunch of bitcoins I've mined over the last several months using several of my PC's with dual AMD video cards. Compared to the cost in power to generate those bitcoins, I made quite a handsome profit. And I cashed out just three USD below the current high water mark of bitcoins, so I timed it pretty good. Hard to argue with the moneymaking aspect of it, at least if you've been mining since bitcoins were $5 each like I have.

Re:Ask Slashdot: Have you forgotten about Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321497)

Speculation based on volatile ups and downs is a pretty good argument for a currency...

Re:Ask Slashdot: Have you forgotten about Bitcoin (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321527)

Every paycheck I get I spend of bitcoins. Then cash those coins out a month later, it's like have an incredibly high interest rate bank account.

Re:Ask Slashdot: Have you forgotten about Bitcoin (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321695)

You could just keep the same coins, you know.

White paper on EXACTLY what a bitcoin is, please? (2, Interesting)

ThorGod (456163) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320851)

I've looked, didn't find it. I just found some vague mumbo about cryptography with a ton of loaded buzzwords.

I want specifics.

1.) What is a bitcoin, EXACTLY?
2.) How divisible is a single bitcoin?
3.) All the specifics of any relevant protocols.

Re:White paper on EXACTLY what a bitcoin is, pleas (5, Informative)

GrandCow (229565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320877)

I've looked, didn't find it. I just found some vague mumbo about cryptography with a ton of loaded buzzwords.

I want specifics.

1.) What is a bitcoin, EXACTLY?
2.) How divisible is a single bitcoin?
3.) All the specifics of any relevant protocols.

You looked at what? First result of a google for "bitcoin white paper" is [] , the white paper originally released by the creator of bitcoin.

Re:White paper on EXACTLY what a bitcoin is, pleas (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321241)

Scrooge McDuck here: if i can't own it and hold it while i count it and then weigh it before storing it in my safe, then i don't accept it. all y'all go ahead.

Re:White paper on EXACTLY what a bitcoin is, pleas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321353)

"bitcoin white paper" is [] , the white paper originally released by the creator of bitcoin.

The technical details are what they are, but it is an attempt at imposing uniqueness on computer data (no two bitcoins are the same). To introduce notions such as "value" or "currency" you must involve economics since they are economic terms.

A Bitcoin is nothing more than a rivalrous good (or an attempt at one), and other rivalrous goods have already been shown to be acceptable mediums of exhange (like cigarettes or sea shells). It just happens so that this involves computers.

Re:White paper on EXACTLY what a bitcoin is, pleas (1)

Gendou (234091) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320901)

Protocol specification: []

1 Bitcoin can be subdivided into 100,000,000 Satoshis, the smallest possible unit under the current specification.

Re:White paper on EXACTLY what a bitcoin is, pleas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320911)

I thought this was slashdot, where people understood "...cryptography with a ton of loaded buzzwords."

You must be lost - the USA Today forums are over here:

Re:White paper on EXACTLY what a bitcoin is, pleas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321387)

4) Who fucking cares?

I don't know, but (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320855)

the number of /. articles about it should be.

No need to regulate it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320859)

Just regulate the exchanges. Once the druggies and child pornographers see that it isn't really an anonymous currency, Bitcoin will crash hard.

Re:No need to regulate it (1)

cgimusic (2788705) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321569)

I don't really see how that will help. Laundering Bitcoins is incredibly easy compared to actual money. In addition, as more websites begin to accept Bitcoin, exchanges will become less important.

Bored (4, Interesting)

stevencbrown (238995) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320861)

If Slashdot now sponsored by the Bitcoin promotional council or something?

seems like a story a day about it this week, I do find Bitcoin fairly interesting, but not reading about slightly different thoughts on it every day...

Re:Bored (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320893)

Dice pays the Slashdot staff in Bitcoins, so it's in their best interest to promote it.

One or more of the higher ups is in it (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321165)

One (or more than one) of the editors/staff is in to it and thus they push it here. Bitcoin is only valuable so long as people keep giving a shit and buying in to it. If suddenly everyone ignored it, the value would drop to zero. It has no national economy behind it, there are no taxes you can pay with it, there is no reason to hold it unless you are playing the bubble game with it. So those in Bitcoins need it to keep getting hype.

Re:One or more of the higher ups is in it (0)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321295)

Bitcoin is only valuable so long as people keep giving a shit and buying in to it. If suddenly everyone ignored it, the value would drop to zero.

The same could be said of any fiat currency.

It has no national economy behind it

Since when does any currency require this in order to function? The very nature of a fiat currency means it doesn't require any such support.

there are no taxes you can pay with it

If you mean you can't pay US or European (or whatever nation is collecting your taxes) with Bitcoins then you're right. However, I fail to see how that matters in the slightest. You can convert your BC to USD or EUR easily and pay taxes on it the same as if you sold stock.

there is no reason to hold it unless you are playing the bubble game with it.

Which, given the recent rapid rise in BC value, isn't such a bad game to be in right now. But I digress. I will grant there aren't a lot of businesses accepting BC right now. However, to say there is "no reason" to hold it is kind of ridiculous given that at least *some* places take it. Silk Road does a lot of business with it, and regardless of what your stance is on drugs, it *is* a business.

Re:One or more of the higher ups is in it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321565)

Soulskill traded what little was left of his self respect for bitcoins.

Re:Bored (2, Insightful)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321223)

In fairness to /., bitcoin value has risen dramatically in the last few weeks, so the attention isn't entirely unwarranted.

Re:Bored (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321621)

The only attention that warrants would be akin to "Hey, look everyone! A text-book market bubble."

You Can Try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320869)

But the whole point of BTC is to be impossible to regulate. It's simply not feasible to enforce any regulations you could pass, even if you observed all traffic on the web.

Re:You Can Try (2, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321023)

Wow, that's an entirely laughable concept. Its quite easy to regulate- make it illegal to accept it as payment, and arrest anyone who takes payment in it. It wouldn't entirely stamp it out, but it would make it useless in day to day commerce, which will relegate it to a niche in black market trades at best. In reality it would pretty much kill it in any country that did it- normal people are not going to use a currency where you have to track down an underground website thats constantly being changed in order to buy groceries.

Re:You Can Try (1)

feepness (543479) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321133)

Exactly. No more than they would do so to watch TV.

Re:You Can Try (1)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321323)

Its quite easy to regulate- make it illegal to accept it as payment, and arrest anyone who takes payment in it.

Care to cite what law and/or provision of the U.S. Constitution (assuming you're a citizen) that would allow the government to do this?

Re:You Can Try (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321403)

Care to cite what law and/or provision of the U.S. Constitution (assuming you're a citizen) that would allow the government to do this?

It's cute that you think the government actually cares.

Re:You Can Try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321423)

Article 1, Section 8.

Only the US government is permitted to create currency; this was necessary as during the years under the Articles of Confederation different states had their own money leading to all kinds of problems.

Now its possible (depending on the court that would test the interpretation) that they can't make bit bitcoin illegal, but they could impose an exorbitant tax (100%?) on it, and punish anyone who sought to evade such a tax.

For your reading pleasure: ...
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

Re:You Can Try (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321611)

By your (lack of) logic, all countries other than the U.S. should be put in jail.

(Hint: The internet isn't a U.S. territory. That's why I'm free to pay for Mexican purchases in Pesos, and German purchases in Deutschmarks.)

Re:You Can Try (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321597)

Interstate commerce. This one is even legitamate, if the server running the exchange and the user aren't in the same state it is interstate.

Or as mentioned various anti-money laundering statutes. Or declare that exchanges are banks (they are in a lot of ways) and regulate them under banking statutes. Bonus if they can get PayPal declared a bank at the same time- that's well overdue.

Re:You Can Try (1)

ancientt (569920) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321617)

Two things: 1) The lack of a provision in the constitution doesn't seem to deter Congress from making laws as a general observation. 2) I'm pretty sure that if challenged, they would cite the Commerce Clause.

Re:You Can Try (1)

CharlieG (34950) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321389)

In addition, they just 'prove' that Bitcoin is being used to circumvent Money Laundering laws, and that the admins SHOULD have known/built tracking in, and they get arrested for RICO act violations, and the founders/admins/server admins, do life in Federal Prison. Lather, rinse, repeat like they did for the mob, and...

Re:You Can Try (1)

gd2shoe (747932) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321079)

They might not be able effect changes on the system, but they can certainly regulate any actors they can find and reach with law enforcement.

Re:You Can Try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321177)

> But the whole point of BTC is to be impossible to regulate.

Surely you are not actually that naive? Without even trying hard, I can think of 3 or 4 ways bitcoin can be regulated, and I'm quite sure those who have thought about it more than I have many others.

It's currently unregulated because it is too insignificant to be a threat. If it becomes one, it will be regulated. Period.

Bet you were one of those folks 20 years ago arguing that the legal system would never be able to have any influence on the internet....

Where do you live? PHYSICALLY? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320951)

If I deposit my money in your bank, I WILL HOLD YOU RESPONSIBLE WITH YOUR LIFE, you fucking want to know where I live and snoop on MY shit? I want to know where YOU live and snoop ON YOUR SHIT.


Re:Where do you live? PHYSICALLY? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321083)

WW3 already happened. International Jewish bankers blocked it from the history books and public consciousness by deploying a global botnet of HOST files that constantly censors the truth. A small cabal of freedom fighters is attempting to dismantle the knowledge-barricade by informing you of the truth behind the HOST files (using mental deprogramming techniques that may seem like gibberish), but Jew-funded Slashdot moderators always mod down the posts. If something isn't done soon, the HOST files will start hacking the Primarch System and then they'll control the Internet (and humanity) forever.

Remember (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320963)

Let's not get confused here, people.

1. Government doesn't care about stability. They care about being able to tax it.
2. Government doesn't care about stability. They care about being able to tax it.
3. Government doesn't care about stability. They care about being able to tax it.
4. Government doesn't care about stability. They care about being able to tax it.

Re:Remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321261)

5. ???
6. PROFIT!!!

Re:Remember (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321551)

They care about stability if it interferes with their tax revenues.

Those who would trade a little liberty (-1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320967)

for a little safety deserve neither. Without the hope of emancipation from the state, bitcoin is morally useless. Instead, the users of bitcoin should seek to to destabilize the enemies of freedom and move towards a post-regulatory society.

Knock it off with that quote (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321115)

Or, go move to the Democratic Republic of the Congo or other similar place with effectively no government and see how unlimited liberty really works. Turns out that when there's no regulation, when people can do whatever they please you get a lot of people who's idea of "freedom" is "the freedom to oppress, kill, and harm others."

There's a reason why free nations actually end up needing a government, laws, regulations, and all that kind of shit. You have to keep people form shitting on the rights of others. If you don't, some people will, it is just the way humans are.

Some security is necessary if we want individual liberty, and if we want to be able to live and enjoy that liberty. That does not mean that all security is good, that we should trade off liberty for no reason (like with the TSA, which isn't even useful security wise and is just a dong and pony show) but stop quoting this like it is some kind of maxim, like we should just toss out all regulation and let people do whatever the fuck they want. We can see, time and time again, in history what happens when that goes on. the result is not good.

Re:Knock it off with that quote (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321183)

Stop crapping on the libertarian fantasies of basement dwellers who live on the Internet, bro. Even though the Internet was basically created by the government.

Re:Knock it off with that quote (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321265)

The fighters in Africa, and other strategic locales are proxies of American/European/Russian/Chinese influences and their business interests. With nobody to regulate these superpowers, they really are the stereotypical bomb throwing "anarchists" we've grown to loath and despise. They hardly have anything to do with liberty.

Re:Those who would trade a little liberty (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321173)

Instead, the users of bitcoin should seek to to destabilize the enemies of freedom and move towards a post-regulatory society.

That would include being "post" the state regulations that, for example, prohibit me to build a cabin on your front lawn?

I'm all for anonymous digital cash (an idea that's been around much longer than Bitcoin), but pretending that any sort of economic regulation is an "enemy of freedom" is a juvenile misunderstanding of freedom.

Re:Those who would trade a little liberty (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321233)

Juvenile misunderstanding?
It is a young avnt-garde understanding, prior to the corrupting cynicism that enables the tyrannies of conventionality.

regulated? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320983)

By whom? A government that is subservient to the banks, as most of them are? I should think not!

problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320985)

the problem with government regulations is that if the government fails, so does that which is governed

yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320989)

Slashdot Bitcoin articles should be regulated to 1 per week!!!

What to do with Bitcoin. (2)

ABEND (15913) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320991)

If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it.

Re:What to do with Bitcoin. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321075)

Things about government is that they have huge computational resources. Or mine all the rest of them and use them to fund black projects?

Bitcoin is not exempt from any law or regulation (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320997)

I'm not sure where people got the idea that bitcoin is not regulated. It is. And regulators will let everyone know that very soon, especially now that everyone is pulling their money from European banks in favor of bitcoin.

Not if based in the USA (3, Interesting)

JabrTheHut (640719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321001)

If regulation is based out if the USA that will make it a no-go for me. The US already illegally snoops my EU-based bank account, illegally gets my UK-based purchase data and has illegally obtained SWIFT data in the past. A US-based regulator is not to be trusted.

already is (2)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321033)

bitcoin already is regulated, it's just difficult for .gov to track so many people do not report their income and the banks like mtgox don't follow the rules.

As a future Bitcoin billionaire.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321059)

I laugh at you pathetic poor people!

You have no power over the mighty B$!


A more pertinent question? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321063)

Perhaps a more pertinent question would be this - if an international currency is to be regulated, who should be in charge of the regulation? Who has jurisdiction?

In science fiction (at least, in games, not so sure about literature) we often see the term 'credit' used to refer to some vague internationally accepted currency. But if such a thing existed (and bitcoin might be heading that way), who sets the rules on it? if it's 'every country', then the concept breaks down and the currency becomes unworkable as you start having to track too much to use it. If it's the UN? I don't see the US ever accepting that.

So that leaves the only workable answer as the originators or the currency.

Regardless, different nations can tax transactions in the currency with the same rules they use for domestic currencies. If the currency is processed by a domestic bank or financial institution, they'd have to process it in much the same way as they would any other transaction. So it seems the simplest way to handle these things is just to make it clear in the law (if it isn't already) that all transactions, regardless of currency, must adhere to the same rules.

Put it this way (0, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321069)

Put it this way, the rest of the population is even dumber than /., for that reason alone nothing should be regulated, because who do you think comes up with regulations and votes for people that set regulations?

The lucky thing is that Bitcoins cannot themselves be regulated, but the end points can be. Stores, exchanges, those can be regulated, and that's a problem. Bitcoins will be used by people as means of exchange, some may think they are a store of value, I do not know that it is so, they can go up to be 1 million or 1 billion dollars for 1 Bitcoin, they can be 1 cent, I can't say.

However I can say that Bitcoins have value in one very specific way, it is precisely that they cannot be regulated themselves in the sense that the government cannot issue them.

However do not forget, governments can buy up all Bitcoins to try and shut down the idea, they can even drive the prices very high because of it and remove most of the coins from circulation by producing huge amounts of inflation. What they can't do is stop people from cloning the code and restarting it again.

Lol so true (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321589)

Put it this way, the rest of the population is even dumber than /., for that reason alone nothing should be regulated, because who do you think comes up with regulations and votes for people that set regulations?

Lol so true.

Bitcoin again ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321091)

Is there a law I'm not aware of saying that Slashdot must have a BitCoin related article every day ?

inevitably going to happen (5, Interesting)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321093)

Exchanges have been compromised, customers have lost money, basic protections are absent. It is used freely for the silk road drug trade, hiding money from governments and evading taxes. Can anyone seriously make the argument that it won't be regulated?

Already is regulated (3, Informative)

michaelmalak (91262) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321135) []

Are my bitcoins taxed as income, or as capital gains?

Income that is earned through the exchange of services with another person, whether in the form of bitcoins, dollars, or barter; is included in gross income, and would be subject to income tax at applicable rates. Also these bitcoins could be subject to self employment tax.

In some jurisdictions, income earned through the process of buying and selling bitcoins would also be included in gross income, but would be treated as capital gains.

Note: The above interpretation is based on the assumption bitcoins are treated as a store of value such as gold, or other such commodity. If instead they are treated as a currency or debt, the full gain could be taxed based on market value at the end of each tax year. 3858 IRS Ends Currency ETN Adantage Simply put, the IRS never considers currency a long-term investment. Consequently, if bitcoins are treated as a currency, you will be taxed the same as holding an account in any non-functional (foreign) currency.

I.e. if bitcoins are treated the same as gold coins, then for every transaction, one must calculate the capital gains or loss, and pay 28% tax on the total net gain on Form 1040 Schedule D. For anyone who tries to comply with U.S. tax code, such as those seeking political office or security clearance, this makes it impractical to use bitcoins for everyday transactions, and practical only for occasional, large transactions such as investing in bitcoins for the medium or long term.

It should be taxed (0)

gelfling (6534) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321145)

Like everything else in the Obamaverse.

Bitcoin.SE (2)

Rinisari (521266) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321149)

Please check out [] for questions and answers like these!

your missing the point (3, Informative)

detain (687995) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321159)

bitcoin isnt a popularity contest, its an open distributed currency that was originally created to get away from the current system. asking if government regulation is a good tradeoff for increased popularity means you clearly dont get why people created bitcoin or are switching to bitcoin

yes (1, Informative)

houbou (1097327) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321167)

all forms of currency should be regulated, else there will be abuse, it's that simple and it's been proven historically over and over again.. Even today, normal currency gets counterfeited.. So, digital currency can't?

Re:yes (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321493)

No, bitcoin can't be counterfeited, that's kinda the point. Distributed transaction history shows source of every satoshi.

Re:yes (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321511)

Show me how you can -truly- counterfeit gold/silver, the only things that have been historically always accepted as money. Sure, you can try to fake it with brass/white metal but under any sort of inspection it fails miserably, its density won't be close to gold and so it will either be the wrong weight or wrong diameter. You can try to fake gold with tungsten but, in all but the largest bars, a simple punch (like what you see on silver/gold bullion ranging from antiquity to present) will bring the counterfeit to light.

Sure, you can counterfeit fiat currency but it isn't money and it will be counterfeited all the time by the issuing authorities. The deathblow of EVERY fiat currency has been death by hyperinflation. The US dollar and bitcoin are no exceptions.

Go ahead regulate (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321237)

Bitcoin was built to evade controls. Sure you can regulate that transactions above a certain amount must be reported, but good luck enforcing it. Transactions can be split into thousand of components at no cost, be dispatched through mixers to thousands of wallets. If the government become savvy enough to track such movements, then anonymous internet banking with chaumian cash can be implemented on top of bitcoin.

So if regulation gives the government the temporary illusion that it's controlling bitcoin, then by all means start regulating. The alternative is government trying to kill bitcoin, which it might be able to pull off at this stage by targeting the exchanges.

Hang on... (2)

silenttroll (2880251) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321247)

One of the founders of a currency designed from the ground up to be resilient to Government intervention, is now complaining that the Government wants to intervene. Have they realised they failed in their mission (which at this point, I think is too early to say) or were they naively hoping it would never actually happen. Or maybe, the anti Big Brother thing was just marketing and they actually expected the whole thing to collapse (and they would have cashed out) long before that point.

I owe you (4, Interesting)

dinther (738910) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321361)

Money is a "I owe you" As long as we play the game and use fiat money the governments can regulate but there are so many kinds of alternative currencies becoming more popular.

It is quite common to do a plumbing job for a mate and have the mate come around one weekend to build a fence. I owe you. Currencies can take so many forms and those that are trusted will become main stream.

After I have done a plumbing job for my mate he owes me building a fence. However, I don't need a fence but my neighbor who is a baker does. What I do need is bread. I can go to the baker and pass on my mates debt of building a fence to the baker in exchange for bread but if my mate has a bad reputation and the baker doesn't trust my mates promise then there can't be a deal.

Governments can only regulate through compulsion. Fiat money that may not be refused as a legal tender. But with bitcoin, they don't appear in the game at all. I like that.

Re:I owe you (1)

shoemilk (1008173) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321541)

Sue Lowden [] is that you?!

Suuuurrrrreeee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321467)

The current crop of white collar criminals that "Handle" our money right now would love another way to rip off the little guy.

Wrong Question (5, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321473)

Clearly everybody involved with Bitcoin does not want to be regulated - if they did it would have been designed differently.

So the actual question here is, "should an unregulated currency be allowed to exist?" Or, without the euphemisms and passive voice, "should we bust the heads of people who use an unregulated digital currency?"

honestly (0)

Rudd-O (20139) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321489)

I honestly wish Slashdot would stop posting stuff about Bitcoin.

Every time you guys get together to "talk" about Bitcoin, the amount of lies and outright retarded shit that comes out of your mouths is simply off the charts. It makes Something Awful look like a highly developed children's playground in comparison. I have read every single lie there is to say about Bitcoin, in triplicate, here. Everything from Ponzi to scam to ayayay deflationary spiral to fucking libertarians I wish they were murdered (seriously, in Slashdot?). It is not even fun to show you reality anymore.

I used to like this place, but now it is so irrelevant and so dominated by angry retards, it is not even worth the read, cos I just know I will be confronted with losers who did not buy in at $2 and are bitter and hateful about it.

Bitcoiners do not need you. You are obsolete. Keep your greenbacks, enjoy losing your savings every day, and don't ask for help when the chickens come home to roost. Get lost, seriously.

Re:honestly (1)

koan (80826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321609)

I've often wondered if the powers that be hire angry retards to post on forums, ever since I found that manual on "COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum".

Stop posting bitcoin stories. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321515)

Ask Slashdot: Should we stop posting about bitcoins?

Yes. Please stop.

No (1)

koan (80826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321575)

The primary benefit (aside from being able to create your own) is anonymity, and if they are going to look into regulations then they are going to look into anonymity.

So how do one know if bitcoin is real (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321619)

So how do one know if bitcoin is real ? Which nation willing to back bitcoin? is there gold or some precious metal backing bitcoin?

Move to Canada (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321629)

In Canada Bitcoin is thought as a capital asset and not regulated as a currency. Canada does monitor Ebay and Kijiji for people who sell commercialy over the Internet that do not collect sales tax. No sales tax yet for Bitcoin transactions just capital gains when you convert it to CDN dollars.

Probably not. (1)

meburke (736645) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321701)

Bitcoin is not "legal tender" nor is it a government-backed currency. It is a contract for trade based on a nearly secure system. If you can buy discount coupons or tokens and trade them for goods and services, why not Bitcoins? Not only is this virtual currency helpful, but the purchase price changes to reflect the relative risk and combined value of the purchasing currency. Apparently the value of a non-regulated currency has appreciated about $40 per unit over the last month.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?