×

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!

Bitfloor Indefinitely Suspends Bitcoin Trading

timothy posted 1 year,4 days | from the fun-while-it-lasted dept.

Bitcoin 291

PerformanceDude writes "Bitfloor (a New York-based online exchange for Bitcoin) yesterday made the following announcement on their website: I am sorry to announce that due to circumstances outside of our control BitFloor must cease all trading operations indefinitely. Unfortunately, our US bank account is scheduled to be closed and we can no longer provide the same level of USD deposits and withdrawals as we have in the past. As such, I have made the decision to halt operations and return all funds. Over the next days we will be working with all clients to ensure that everyone receives their funds. Please be patient as we process your request. Roman — bitfloor.com" According to the company's Twitter account, money should be returned to users' bank accounts shortly.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

291 comments

They may soon be hearing from (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481585)

the attorneys for Winklevoss and Winklevoss.

A likely story (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481595)

Sounds like the govenrment finally decided they didn't like money outside their control.

Re:A likely story (5, Insightful)

travdaddy (527149) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481753)

Sounds like the govenrment finally decided they didn't like money outside their control.

Sounds to me like they were a US company not following already existing US Anti-Money Laundering regulations.

Re:A likely story (1)

rgmoore (133276) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482019)

You say tomayto, I say tomahto. What else is money laundering but trying to keep your money out of the government's control?

Re:A likely story (1)

Alomex (148003) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482065)

For the most part tax evasion actually.

Re:A likely story (5, Informative)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482385)

How would money laundering provide tax evasion? The point of money laundering is to convert dirty money (e.g. money gained from selling drugs, gambling, bankruptcy fraud) into clean money that you're "supposed" to have. Clean money by its nature is taxed.

Re:A likely story (2)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482461)

How would money laundering provide tax evasion? The point of money laundering is to convert dirty money (e.g. money gained from selling drugs, gambling, bankruptcy fraud) into clean money that you're "supposed" to have. Clean money by its nature is taxed.

plenty of money that is dirty is dirty because evaded taxes on it.

I'm not so sure if bitcoin itself is so masterful for money laundering. sure, you can use it to move the cash through it, but you still end up holding the cash you had in the first place with no good explanation of why you had that wealth...

Re:A likely story (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482557)

Dirty money comes in as gross income, then get's payed out as expenses. Since buisness are taxed on their profits you pay way less tax than you'd owe if you were pulling the money in as wages or accurately accounting for your expenses.

Re:A likely story (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482567)

Not all clean money is taxed, only taxable transactions are.

Money laundering would convert taxable money into non-taxable money - for example, if I had an income of $100,000 from you then some places would charge an income tax, but if I instead took out a loan for $100,000 from you then in most places that's not considered an income and so its not subject to taxation. If I never actually repay the money, I never pay taxes on it. And the added bonus is that in some locales, certain types of loan repayments are tax deductible from your overall tax bill...

Re:A likely story (3, Insightful)

Sperbels (1008585) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482513)

And when an upstanding rich American citizen puts his money in a tax haven, he's merely investing overseas...putting his hard earned money to work for me. When the not so rich people do it, it's tax evasion. Gotta love this country.

Re:A likely story (1)

chill (34294) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482551)

It is only tax evasion if you don't report it, regardless of the amount or your overall wealth.

Monney Laundering != Out of the government (1)

DrYak (748999) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482531)

The two are different orthogonal concept.

The point of Money Laundering is to make so the government loses track of the money.
At the end you still got a standard money which is controlled by a government (USD, EUR, or whatever). But along the way you jumped through so many hoops, and take a so complicated path, that it's not possible for the government to follow the path and have a clear idea where the money came from.
It's about lying and covering your source.

If you want a slashdot-friendly mental image: think of this like onion routing - at the end of the day you don't know who is communicating with whom, but government can still eaves drop the (now anonymous) traffic at the end-point.

The point of bitcoin is make a money which isn't controlled by the government (and by no other government). Think of it as a foreign currency, except it's a "special" currency which isn't controlled by any government, and also is defended not by laws but by strong cryptography.
You could pretty document every transaction you've performed to you government, and government couldn't do much about it, because bitcoins fall outside of their jurisdictions, they can't control it. (Just as they couldn't do much about what you do with a foreign currency).

In term of internet metaphor, think about end-to-end encryption: you see that both endpoint are communicating, but you can't interfer with the exchange itself.

Now of course this is theory. In practice, the middle steps of money laundering can benefit of a uncontrollable intermediate to make it harder for the government to track it.

And on the other side, bitcoins have some level of secrecy/untraceability built-in.

Re:A likely story (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481775)

The regulators requires that money laundering is kept in check. BitCoin prevents that and therefore, among other reasons, it will become increasingly difficult to exchange bitcoin and the established currencies. This was to be expected.

Re:A likely story (3, Insightful)

rmstar (114746) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481949)

The regulators requires that money laundering is kept in check.

Which, frankly, is a good thing.

BitCoin prevents that and therefore, among other reasons, it will become increasingly difficult to exchange bitcoin and the established currencies.

Maybe, maybe not.

To be freely tradable this kind of financial product (let's stop that ridiculous "currency" bullshit) requires some type of legal framework that isn't available. If it ever gets it, you could trade bitcoins as easily as shares. But as it stands, and aside from money laundring issues, you could as well prosecute bitcoin trading on the grounds that it is illegal gambling.

Of course, a sound legal framework for bitcoins would most likely make them pointless.

Re:A likely story (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482365)

And why do you need permission from daddy government for doing it?

Re:A likely story (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482465)

Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress)-

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

Re:A likely story (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482469)

But as it stands, and aside from money laundring issues, you could as well prosecute bitcoin trading on the grounds that it is illegal gambling.

You appear to have a poor understanding of gambling laws, at least as they stand in the United States. Please provide citations backing your hilarious claim.

Re:A likely story (4, Interesting)

localman57 (1340533) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481851)

Sounds like the govenrment finally decided they didn't like money outside their control.

Maybe. Or maybe their bank just wasn't comfortable with them. Where I work we sometimes will pass on working with potential customers just because we get a bad business feel for them. Whatever bank they're dealing with may not want to risk being negatively associated in the press with any of a variety of bad things that could potentially happen with this bitcoin exchange if they aren't an important enough customer to justify that risk.

The other thing I think is interesting is the degree to which this matters. The whole point of bitcoin is that it is supposed to be some independent currency. But it seems to rise and fall an awful lot depending on the degree to which you can exchange it for dollars. Which would tend to indicate that it does require backing at some level from dollars.

Re:A likely story (1)

tompaulco (629533) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482323)

But it seems to rise and fall an awful lot depending on the degree to which you can exchange it for dollars. Which would tend to indicate that it does require backing at some level from dollars.
It seems to be trading at about $92 USD, which is approximately where it was before bitfloor's announcement.

Re:A likely story (2)

oreaq (817314) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482543)

It seems to be trading at about $92 USD, which is approximately where it was before bitfloor's announcement.

6 months ago a bitcoin was $5, 6 months before that it was $35. The fluctuation is massive.

Re:A likely story (1)

DrXym (126579) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482039)

Well clearly it is in their control if they're shutting the account down. Though of course it could be the bank shutting them down. For example they may have decided that the account could be used for the purposes of laundering money and decided to act unilaterally to protect themselves.

Re:A likely story (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482233)

Sounds like the govenrment finally decided they didn't like money outside their control.

lol.. money is the least of it. 'patents', 'power', 'drugs', and 'judicial/legislative/executive' systems also fit that sentence.

Re:A likely story (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482409)

Completely offtopic, but I thought I'd mention that I take issue with your sig (Ignorance is a choice). Ignorance is a not choice, but I do define stupidity as willful ignorance. There is a distinct difference.

Re:A likely story (3, Interesting)

Begemot (38841) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482515)

Same happened in Israel 2 weeks ago - all accounts of bitcoin exchange companies were closed until further notice. They didn't even give them a chance to return funds to their customers.

Re:A likely story (3, Interesting)

Richard_at_work (517087) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482521)

It would be interesting to see how many people don't want bitcoin to be "controlled" by governments through legal avenues, but at the same time would want the law enforcement agencies to investigate any cases where bitcoin exchanges disappear overnight with their clients "funds"...

Clearly this is the work of... (4, Funny)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481603)

>> US bank account is scheduled to be closed

Clearly this is the work of the Illuminati Lizard People.

Re:Clearly this is the work of... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482153)

Lizard People

We prefer "Reptilian-American", thank you.

Its time to: (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481609)

SELL! SELL! SELL! SELL! SELL! SELL! SELL! SELL! SELL! SELL! SELL!

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING

Re:Its time to: (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481799)

Sell now? If you didn't sell last week you must be a True Believer and will never sell.

Bubble (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481611)

Bubble burst time

Re:Bubble (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481903)

It'll recover, and burst again, and so on...

I've been thinking about setting up a program to algorithmically trade bitcoins for me...seems easy enough to buy low and sell high, it's just a matter of watching the prices and being patient (two things I don't have time for, thus the program).

Say I write a program that will do some calculations and then place an order for some bitcoins, or sell some that I have. Is there a program out there that can handle the execution of these trades through some kind of API or CLI interface? I understand the concepts behind Bitcoin but I don't have any experience actually using it.

Re:Bubble (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481999)

You’re making a lot of assumptions. Like, BitCoins will tend to go up in value over your time period (be it in days or years). That you will actually be able to execute on a displayed priced – before everybody else does.

Suggestion - find (and read up on) a arbitrage opportunity. For example, a US dollars / BitCons / Eurs / US Dollar trade should net you zero dollars less fees – but does it? I have heard of times that it has not and could be taken advantage of. Also, try to find somebody who knows something about program stock trading – which is basically what you are doing. (and stay away from those green arrows / red arrows FX trading programs you see on TV)

Re:Bubble (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482479)

I'm not planning anything too fast so the speed of executing a displayed price shouldn't be a big issue - I might even have it "measure stability" before executing a trade. Yeah I'm assuming it won't just go off a cliff and never recover but I won't put money into it that I can't afford to lose.

Re:Bubble (2)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482481)

You’re making a lot of assumptions. Like, BitCoins will tend to go up in value over your time period (be it in days or years). That you will actually be able to execute on a displayed priced – before everybody else does.

Suggestion - find (and read up on) a arbitrage opportunity. For example, a US dollars / BitCons / Eurs / US Dollar trade should net you zero dollars less fees – but does it? I have heard of times that it has not and could be taken advantage of. Also, try to find somebody who knows something about program stock trading – which is basically what you are doing. (and stay away from those green arrows / red arrows FX trading programs you see on TV)

Excellant points. One of the problems with bitcoins is there is no assurance of liquidity; unlike many other commodities or real currencies. For arbitrage to work you have to be able to buy and sell when you want so you can take advantage of the opportunity; ideally at the same time so you never really put any of your money at risk. Bitcoin, OTOH, operates on the well known "greater fool" theory that drives many speculative bubbles such as tulips. You hope someone somewhere will pay more for it than you did; even though there is no underlying reason for them to do so other than they believe they will go even higher. They have no unique value behind them; anyone can create a new crypto chain separate from bitcoin and if they convince people the new bytecoin is better than bitcoin then bitcoins will cease to have value. In the end, there is no control over the amount of cryptocurrency in circulation despite promises otherwise. The one valid comparison of bitcoins to money is that, like money, any country can decide to issue it and in what quantity; its value will depend on people's faith in the issuer.

Re:Bubble (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482009)

That's HFT, or at least the principal. Economically we allow HFT because each of your trades will be with somebody that needs to move bitcoins. That actually helps the system because they don't have to wait when they need to exchange. Get enough people doing it and it prevents big swings when big spenders try breaking things.

Re:Bubble (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482195)

I'm not planning on high-frequency stuff specifically. I'd set up the program to trade quickly if it would be profitable, but I don't plan on putting any emphasis on speed and certainly not trading at speeds where lag becomes a factor.

Re:Bubble (1)

excitedidiot (2442050) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482083)

MtGox has a good trading API, but you aren't the first to think of this. There are folks who have done this kind of work on Wall Street and are now applying it to Bitcoin markets. This problem is not as easy as it seems, how do you define high and low prices on a financial instrument that is so volatile? The current price($92) would be considered low if you're using a weighted moving average, but most people would tell you you're crazy to buy at this price. If it were as simple as buy low, sell high, the manual traders would be getting rich.

Re:Bubble (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482223)

I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it, I bet there are programs out there to do it already but this is something I'd rather code from scratch.

I know it'll be a complex program but I'd start out using a very conservative algorithm and trading with amounts I can afford to lose.

Re:Bubble (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482569)

That is not what is hard – it is the volatility that will kill you. The higher the volatility the lower the returns.

IRRC, the US Stock market averages a 10% return a year. However, you should not care about average returns, you should care about geometric returns (i.e. holding the asset over multiple periods.) As volatility increases geometric returns decrease. So, the stock market has a standard deviation of 7% to 10% which knocks down the geometric return to 7% - if the stock market was normally distributed – which it’s not. So this knocks it down to 5%. Factor in inflation of 2 to 3%...

So kids, the moral of the story is to rebalance your portfolio – bitcoins or no. Rebalanced portfolios are less volatile.

This is just one of many exchanges... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481615)

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

Nearly 230++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March/April 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 230 or so times I noted above) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3585795&cid=43285307 [slashdot.org]

&/or

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/April 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...).

APK

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/April now, & 230++ 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

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org] )

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 -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html [networkworld.com] 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 (in-addr.arpa) 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:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
  http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]
  http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html [hostsfile.org]
  http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/ [hostsfile.mine.nu]
  http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net]
  https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online [abuse.ch]
  https://spyeyetracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php [abuse.ch]
  http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
  http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml [malware.com.br]
  http://www.stopbadware.org/ [stopbadware.org]
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:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1898692&cid=34473398 [slashdot.org]
  http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1896216&cid=34458500 [slashdot.org]

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 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] ) & 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:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/16/0416238/US-Military-Blocks-Websites-To-Free-Up-Bandwidth [slashdot.org]

(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:

ADBANNERS SLOW DOWN THE WEB: -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/30/166218 [slashdot.org]

---

And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:

PEOPLE DISLIKE ADBANNERS: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/22/156225/Advertising-Network-Caught-History-Stealing [slashdot.org]

---

15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] , 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 -> http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] 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:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/16/bing_yahoo_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/24/malware_ads_google_yahoo/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/24/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/excite_and_rhapsody_rogue_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Google sponsored links caught punting malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/16/google_sponsored_links/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/13/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

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

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/11/yahoo_serves_12million_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/real_media_serves_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/doubleclick_msn_malware_attacks/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/1433210/Attacks-Targeting-Classified-Ad-Sites-Surge [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/20/0228258/Hackers-Respond-To-Help-Wanted-Ads-With-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

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

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [wired.com]

---

Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/microsoft_ips_hijacked/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/13/0128249/Two-Major-Ad-Networks-Found-Serving-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

THE NEXT AD YOU CLICK MAY BE A VIRUS:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus [slashdot.org]

---

NY TIMES INFECTED WITH MALWARE ADBANNER:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/13/2346229 [slashdot.org]

---

MICROSOFT HIT BY MALWARES IN ADBANNERS:

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com]

---

ISP's INJECTING ADS AND ERRORS INTO THE WEB: -> http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

ADOBE FLASH ADS INJECTING MALWARE INTO THE NET: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&from=rss [slashdot.org]

---

London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware:

http://www.securityweek.com/london-stock-exchange-web-site-serving-malware [securityweek.com]

---

Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/spotify_malvertisement_attack/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

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:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/03/01/0041203/Infected-Androids-Run-Up-Big-Texting-Bills [slashdot.org]

---

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

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ZITMO&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

---

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 -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

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:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

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

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

"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."

and

"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):

---

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT (from -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/16/wikileaks_mirror_malware_warning_row/ [theregister.co.uk] )

"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 stopbadware.org (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 ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] ), &/or NoScript ( http://noscript.net/ [noscript.net] 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 ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ) 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:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/16/ghost_domains_dns_vuln/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

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

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

---

SECUNIA HIT BY DNS REDIRECTION HACK THIS WEEK:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/26/secunia_back_from_dns_hack/ [theregister.co.uk]

(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):

http://www.scmagazineus.com/new-bind-9-dns-flaw-is-worse-than-kaminskys/article/140872/ [scmagazineus.com]

(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:

https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/dns-hijacks-now-being-used-serve-black-hole-exploit-kit-121211 [threatpost.com]

---

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

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/12/08/1353203/opendns-releases-dns-encryption-tool [slashdot.org]

---

Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/11/17/1429259/potential-0-day-vulnerability-for-bind-9 [slashdot.org]

---

Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against:

http://www.securityweek.com/five-dns-threats-you-should-protect-against [securityweek.com]

---

DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/ddos_on_dns_firm/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

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

http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/08/04/1525235.shtml?tid=172&tid=95&tid=218 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS ROOT SERVERS ATTACKED:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/02/06/2238225.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Re-Binding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/21/0315239.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/has-halvar-figured-out-super-secret-dns-vulnerability/1520 [zdnet.com]

---

BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:

http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/08/09/123222.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/08/21/2343250.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/16/1658209.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/23/156212/High-Severity-BIND-Vulnerability-Advisory-Issued [slashdot.org]

---

Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1285 [zdnet.com]

---

Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/15/1238210/DNS-Problem-Linked-To-DDoS-Attacks-Gets-Worse [slashdot.org]

---

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 -> http://nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com]
  ScrubIT DNS -> http://www.scrubit.com/ [scrubit.com]
  OpenDNS -> http://www.opendns.com/ [opendns.com]

(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 -> http://safeweb.norton.com/buzz [norton.com] 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)...

---

20++ SLASHDOT USERS EXPERIENCING SUCCESS USING HOSTS FILES QUOTED VERBATIM:

---

"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) 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: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] " - 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. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org] and http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org] 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 127.0.0.1" - 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:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]

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 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm [furtherleft.net] (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 NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html [ntcompatible.com] !

---

"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 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS [slashdot.org] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL [wikipedia.org] 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):

BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&cid=30555632 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1869638&cid=34237268 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1461288&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30272074 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255487&cid=28197285 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1206409&cid=27661983 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32960808 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147274 [slashdot.org]
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1913212&cid=34576182 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1862260&cid=34186256 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924892&cid=34670128 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS FILE MOD UP FOR ANDROID MALWARE:2010 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP ZEUSTRACKER:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35654066 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP vs AT&T BANDWIDTH CAP:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35985584 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36372850 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS and BGP +5 RATED (BEING HONEST):2010 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS & PROTECT IP ACT:2011 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368832&cid=37021700 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457766&cid=37592458 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457274&cid=37589596 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1197039&cid=27556999 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 IN HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1143349&cid=27012231 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27580299 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139705&cid=26977225 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1319261&cid=28872833 [slashdot.org] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38586216 [slashdot.org]

---

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.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0

PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...

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.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 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 127.0.0.1? My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using 0.0.0.0 (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 127.0.0.1, next slowest using 0.0.0.0, & 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 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 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 (127.0.0.1 &/or 0.0.0.0, 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 -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & 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...

AND

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 -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & 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:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx [microsoft.com]

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:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE [bing.com]

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 -> http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] , 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)) - mvps.org 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 (mvps.org 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 diskcac

Hurr durr Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481635)

It's just as good as the USD right guise? GUISE???

Down to $90 already, how low can it go? (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481687)

Bitcoin is already down to $90, where is that $1000 bitcoin troll at now?

Money has to at least be a short term store of value. If bread costs twice as much in the evening as it does in the morning no one will want your currency. Bitcoin is not doing well on that front. I am sure all the early folks are cashing out now and laughing all the way to the bank though.

You Answered It Yourself (3, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481767)

Bitcoin is already down to $90, where is that $1000 bitcoin troll at now? ... [all the early folks are] cashing out now and laughing all the way to the bank though.

Sounds like you just answered your own question.

Up from $20 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481821)

What's a big surprise to me is how it went up from $20 when I last looked at it. Pretty amazing for a pure virtual currency, a real measure of faith in it.

Sure it goes down when attacked, but that's really beside the point. All currencies go down when attacked, but dude $90!

Re:Up from $20 (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481875)

That is how get rich quick schemes work. Lots of suckers buying in drives the price up. Cashing out is not an attack, just a fact of life.

And yet still $90 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482097)

I wasn't suggesting that 'cashing out' was the attack, I was suggesting the attack is to ask the bank to close the US$ account. Not to mention the endless whining 'bitcoin is evil' stuff I read in the mainstream press.

Once that attack is done, it is still tradeable on other exchanges for other currencies (which in turn can be turned into dollars), and for goods and services and as a pure unit of exchange. It can still be mined even. So this measure alone can't really prevent it.

Certainly more solid that a derivative warrant (they're garbage sold to idiot traders), and grows faster and more protected than a paypal credit 'coin'.

It'll be an interesting test for the currency, I'm tempted to mine some.

Re:And yet still $90 (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482129)

Closing the bank account of someone not following money laundering laws is not an attack of any kind.

If any of those exchange are going to occur in the US by US based companies the same regulations will apply.

Paypal? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482337)

"Closing the bank account of someone not following money laundering laws is not an attack of any kind."

No charges have been laid, let alone anyone guilty of them. It's interesting that Paypal is essentially the same thing, a token exchange, and yet perfectly legal it seems since nobody closed their account. Paypal can be used for US to US accounts too.

So yes it certainly is an attack.

I hadn't taken it seriously before, the last time I looked it was $20 and I thought it would disappear over time. Yet here we are, $90, bank accounts of one trader under attack. Time to take a closer look at this me thinks.

Re:Paypal? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482347)

It was over $200 at one point and Paypal follows money laundering rules.

The bank closed the account to avoid problems, the bank cannot file charges. In a free market they can decide who they want to work with though.

Go sink your money into it if you want, but don't expect to get it back.

Re:Up from $20 (1)

invid (163714) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482253)

If it's going to be used as a currency, I would rather have it stay $20 for a long period of time than have it jump up to $90. Now, if it stays around $90 for the next year, that would be good. Then I could use it to buy and sell stuff.

Re:Down to $90 already, how low can it go? (2)

ultranova (717540) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482191)

Bitcoin is already down to $90, where is that $1000 bitcoin troll at now?

You do realize that $90/BTC is still over twice what it was before the bubble, right?

I am sure all the early folks are cashing out now and laughing all the way to the bank though.

As are those who bought in the after-bubble crash, before the price rebounced to the current level.

Re:Down to $90 already, how low can it go? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482459)

They're not laughing all the way to the bank, because everytime someone tries to cash out another crash of the entire market occurs..every single bitcoin fortune isn't worth the 1's and 0's it is metaphorically printed on.

Re:Down to $90 already, how low can it go? (4, Informative)

alexgieg (948359) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482445)

Bitcoin is already down to $90, where is that $1000 bitcoin troll at now?

$1000? If the Bitcoin theory becomes true some day in the future (a huge if) and it were to replace national currencies for the entire world (an even huger if), it might end up valued at more than $3.4 million each (at 2013 valuation). The math is simple. Current global GDP is about $72 trillion, BTCs are capped at about 21 million, hence $72 trillion / 21 million BTC ~= $3.4 million per BTC at cap time. If this were today then people would use it at 6 decimal places (microBTCs) as the day to day currency, equivalent to about $3.40, and the maximum divisibility of 8 places, equivalent to about ~$0.034, as the corresponding "cents", said valuations adjusting upwards (in terms of purchasing power) at roughly 4% per year accompanying the increase in global GDP.

I doubt any of that'll happen though. For one, governments don't want monetary power outside their hands. For another, most economists around are convinced ("convinced" as in "I believe in it from the bottom of my heart!" and "My preferred theorist said so and his equations are so pretty and I have tons of faith in him!") that deflation is evil. And third, drugs, porn, drugs, weapons, drugs, tax, drugs, pedophilia, and won't anyone please think of the children!?

Just look the damned graphs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482539)

Go to MTGox.com click that gray strip on top of the screen and select 1month.

Yes there are spikes, but who in their sane mind didn't look bigger picture when dealing with it? It's remarkably stable when averaging over several months.

Why? (1)

1s44c (552956) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481699)

Why was their bank account closed? Did they break some law or did the bank just take offense to them?

What's is the story here?

Re:Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481783)

Why was their bank account closed?

Probably because Bitcoin is an unregulated currency, and that scares the H out of greedy corrupt regimes like the US.

Re:Why? (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481955)

Or, you know, reasonable countries that don't like a free-for-all of money laundering and/or international currency exchange...just saying.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481985)

While I work for a bank, I don't work for a US bank, nor in the US. Banking in each country has vastly different regulations, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

When an account is closed, it usually happens because they are operating the account in a way contrary to the way the account should be managed. The terminology is account mismanagement. This, as you can probably tell, is an extremely broad term and can mean many different things. One of the things they may have done was open a personal account then use it for a business. They may not have been able to comply with regulatory requirements regarding SWIFT transactions (wires). They may have overdrawn their account 17 times in the previous month. In any case, they did something with the account they were told not to do. Closing an account is a drastic last resort measure. The bank in question will contact the account signers several times to correct the problems. When the account holders refuse, on several occasions, to not correct their behaviour, closing of the account is sometimes deemed the best option for the bank. Closing an account because of mismanagement requires lots of paperwork and legal checking that no one likes to do.

Re:Why? (3, Funny)

squiggleslash (241428) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482511)

I'm not in a position to judge. So let me speculate based upon my own prejudices and stupidity.

What this obviously proves is that THE MAN hates freedom and is hating Bitcoins so has leaned on the bank (though didn't need to be because the bank IS THE MAN too) to close down Bitcoins which are totally a legitimate currency because you can exchange CPU cycles for Bitcoins which is much better than the dollar because the dollar can be made to hyperinflate by printing more although it doesn't whereas Bitcoins never have inflation because they're based on CPU cycles and its just its success that means it keeps oscillating between $50 and $200 every few months. This is simply another case where the MAFIAA are trying to shut us down because we threaten their business model by selling things that have value because they're products of really big prime numbers which everyone knows are totally worth thousands of dollars.

(c) 50% of Slashdot posters.

Niko!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481709)

It's your cousin, my business had to shutdown. Let's go bowling

Roman -- bitfloor.com

Blanks. Fill them in. (4, Insightful)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481713)

> Unfortunately, our US bank account is scheduled to be closed and we can no longer provide the same level of USD deposits and withdrawals as we have in the past.

Is it me or is that the most understated sentence ever written?

Re:Blanks. Fill them in. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481835)

Well in fairness to them, it sounds a lot better than "we decided to hop on the bitcoin-ponzi-scheme bandwagon and it bit us in the ass."

Re:Blanks. Fill them in. (1)

JBMcB (73720) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482049)

In what way is it a Ponzi scheme? The end game of a Ponzi scheme is new investors get nothing. BC still has value.

Re:Blanks. Fill them in. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482249)

Spoken like somebody who has a vested interest in Bitcoin's value.

Your get rich quick scheme is just as morally bankrupt as everyone else's, I hate to break the news to you.

Re:Blanks. Fill them in. (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482535)

The end game of a Ponzi scheme is that the last investors to pull money out get nothing. Bitcoin hasn't been shut down yet.

And so it begins (0)

stevegee58 (1179505) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481721)

The gradual government squeeze on Bitcoin, making it harder and harder to exchange for USD.

Re:And so it begins (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481795)

There is no conspiracy here. No one cares about this toy money. They broke already existing federal anti-laundering laws so this happened. They could have followed the law and been able to stay open.

Re:And so it begins (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482069)

PayPal and Facebook broke those laws for a long time too. The only difference between Bitcoin and PayPal is that "nobody owns" Bitcoin, do it can't claim the government is damaging business.

Re:And so it begins (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482117)

How did facebook do that?
Paypal I think has a good handle on those. They are pretty strict, too strict even, about large transfers.

Re:And so it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482281)

Facebook has it's own virtual currency.

Re:And so it begins (2)

pla (258480) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482271)

There is no conspiracy here.

I find it curious that you post so much BS to Bitcoin threads that I actually recognize your handle at this point.


No one cares about this toy money.

Even a speculative bubble doesn't hit $90 if "no one cares" about the underlying asset. Quite the opposite - So many people have an interest in Bitcoin, whether legitimate or speculation, than its market capitalization last week qualified it as a mid cap (and it still plays in the same ballpark despite the post-$250 sell-off).


They broke already existing federal anti-laundering laws so this happened. They could have followed the law and been able to stay open.

You have made an assertion about a company's business practices without a shred of evidence. They may have violated money laundering laws. They may have used the wrong type of account (ie, personal checking) for running a business they didn't expect to grow so fast. They may simply have scared a bank that wanted nothing do with Bitcoin (much like the EFF's stance on Bitcoin donations) simply because it would distract them from their core mission. You know nothing about which of those, or dozens of other possibilities, actually happened.

Stick with (incorrectly) calling it a pyramid scheme - At least that, not having an immediate victim of your accusation, doesn't count as libel.

Re:And so it begins (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482423)

Fine I mean it sounds like they broke some money laundering regulations. Are you happy?
The no one I was referring to was regulators, not geeks wasting their money.

BitCoin is a get rich quick scheme.

Re:And so it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482587)

You have made an assertion about a company's business practices without a shred of evidence. They may have violated money laundering laws. They may have used the wrong type of account (ie, personal checking) for running a business they didn't expect to grow so fast. They may simply have scared a bank that wanted nothing do with Bitcoin (much like the EFF's stance on Bitcoin donations) simply because it would distract them from their core mission. You know nothing about which of those, or dozens of other possibilities, actually happened.

So you mean to say that his assumption is as good as all the "Government's afraid of us!" cries posted up here, except that it's quite a bit more plausible?

Breaking News: Bitcoin Miners Strike over FED Reg. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481749)

Re:Breaking News: Bitcoin Miners Strike over FED R (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481887)

No one would care.
It would only hurt themselves. It would be an improvement to society at large to stop wasting valuable resources on this.

Re:Breaking News: Bitcoin Miners Strike over FED R (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481991)

Are you sure that's not an Onion repost?

shocked! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481819)

I'm shocked that a fake currency is having problems

Strange.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481849)

If the U.S government wanted to close his account, they would have done it, not scheduled it. I smell fish!!

So when is Slashdot (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481853)

going to indefinitely suspend its bitcoin stories?

Re:So when is Slashdot (5, Insightful)

DiSKiLLeR (17651) | 1 year,4 days | (#43481905)

Never. Why on earth would it? Crypto-currencies are a fascinating concept and Bitcoin is one of the greatest experiments ever. Whether it ultimately succeeds or fails is irrelevant, it will be written into the history books forever.

Re:So when is Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482485)

Patently ridiculous post from a bitcoin shill. Bitcoin is nothing more than a proof-of-concept that has been latched onto by socially inept geeks in hopes of amassing vast amounts of wealth.

mod L0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43481939)

st4ndpoint, I don't

Bitly coins (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482087)

Let's call them what they are: BitLy coins. Why? Because you have to short them!

In all fairness they are a silly idea anyway and the incredible volatility just goes to underline why nobody should pay any attention to them.

Profits? (1)

jcla (821834) | 1 year,4 days | (#43482113)

All the time, our customers ask us, "How do you make money doing this?" The answer is simple: Volume. That's what we do.

A question (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482243)

Q: What do Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Iran, the EU and BitCoin have in common?

A: They tried to sidestep the US dollar and have been stomped on.

The BitCoiners (and the EU) are lucky the US didn't try to impose democracy on them.

Bifloor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482433)

What's Bifloor? Like, two floors?

ie: "We closed up and took as much loot as we coul (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,4 days | (#43482555)

Seriously they scammed their customers.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...