The first Bitcoin post on HN - <AUTHOR> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=599852 <comment><USER2> That four-year-old submission has just two comments: one expressing doubt, one expressing optimism.

Interestingly, despite growing worldwide adoption of Bitcoin, comments about it on HN continue to be more or less evenly split between doubters and optimists. And I wouldn't be surprised if comments to _this_ submission are evenly split between those same two camps.

No amount of evidence or reasoning seems to persuade either camp to change its views!

<comment><USER3> But it is not that black and white, is it?

While it is quite clear that Bitcoin has "value" as long as people are willing to trade it (i.e., indefinitely), there is still no reason to assume that it will ever stop having these extreme fluctuations.

To the contrary, I'd say that, as time progresses, we observe Bitcoin having the same problems that the gold standard had, mixed with an additional proneness to speculation.

<comment><USER4> The value of a currency lies entirely in the perception of that value. I don't consider bitcoin different from a traditional currency, except that its rate of production is known in advance. It will keep having value because by now enough people think it does.

<comment><USER5> Bitcoin is different in that is the purest form of a fiat currency in the sense that it is backed by nothing and thus has no intrinsic value whatsoever. Traditional currencies, on the other hand, are at least fractionally backed by (usually) gold and government bonds which in itself are backed by a government's ability to tax its citizens.

There is also a second problem in that BTC is deflationary by design. Deflation leads to hoarding of currency units while reducing the velocity of money and suffocating the economy. Most people will agree that deflation is the worst thing that can happen to an economy which is why central banks will do everything in their power to avert it. It is hard to imagine how a stable Bitcoin economy could develop under these inherently flawed circumstances.

<comment><USER6> >> _Bitcoin is different in that is the purest form of a fiat currency in the sense that it is backed by nothing and thus has no intrinsic value whatsoever._

It's backed by the tremendous amount of electricity required to run the transaction processing network (ie. "mining"). Remember this is the world's largest distributed supercomputer.

BTC is a proxy for electricity, that's why mining equipment ended up at ASICs so quickly- in mining, less W = more $$. By a lot.

The USD is currently backed by absolutely nothing. There is no way we could print the $2000 trillion dollars[1] of derivatives now in existence. You couldn't cash out all of it or even too much of it.

The USD is "fake". And high finance is not ignorant to this fact, at all.

[1] Or more, no one actually knows. Goldman Sachs would have the best idea of this.

<comment><USER7> The costs of producing BTC or USD are not their backings. You can't exchange your BTC back into electricity.

The USD (and usually most other currencies) aims to be indirectly backed by the corresponding amount of goods they represent within the currency zone and their legal status.

BTC isn't even indirectly backed. It just exists. And that's okay for its purpose.

<comment><USER8> _You can 't exchange your BTC back into electricity._

Huh? Why not? Surely you could just buy some solar panels with bitcoins, or convert them to another currency and then buy electricity from the grid.

<comment><USER9> That's a tortuously inefficient way to get electricity.

<comment><USER8> Surely it is just what bitcoin miners have been doing anyway, the difference remaining being their profit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here's the first popular post (with 20+ comments) referencing Bitcoin on HN:

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1532670](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1532670) \- _Bitcoin P2P Cryptocurrency | 1217 days ago | 24 comments_

Some other early, popular posts about Bitcoin:

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1942708](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1942708) \- _Imagine your computer as a wallet full of Bitcoins| 1088 days ago | 36 comments_

[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1998144](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1998144) \- _How to Get Started with Bitcoins | 1072 days ago | 47 comments_

<comment><USER11> I love the comments by illumin8 in that first one. It describes the seemingly only legitimate threat at the moment for the future of BitCoin (long term). I'm suspect that governments are now probably more interested in the 'monitoring' of the system rather than governing. In the case of Silk Road, feds seem to have done their homework when it comes to tracking down the money. But they cracked down SR, and BitCoin dipped slightly, and the crackdown actually seemed to boost confidence in the currency. There are points to be made I think that governing entities would want to keep a system like BC alive (for a while), solely because it would be used as probable platform for money laundering. However if indeed, they are not confident that they can track down on money, or will be able to in the future, they would surely want to shut down BTC as soon as possible. In the age of the war on terrorism, organized crime syndicates and drug cartels. One could think of many reasons to give when opting for that solution.

I might be considered a conspiracy nut: But "decentralized, anonymous, crypto" \+ "currency" sounds like a contradictio in terminis to me. Especially the "anonymous" part.

<comment><USER12> It may sound like a contradiction to you, but that certainly doesn't mean that anonymous currency has to be a contradiction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How much money would you have made if you'd bought $1000 worth of bitcoin on that day?

<comment><USER14> This was posted in May 2009. On October 5th, 2009, $1 = 1,309.03 BTC [1], so you'd have bought about 1.3 million bitcoin. Which means you'd have over $500M dollars in Bitcoin. I bet that spending $1000 back then would have considerably changed the exchange rate though, and selling $500M now would definitely aversely affect the economy.

1: [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/History](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/History)

<comment><USER15> _so you 'd have bought about 1.3 million bitcoin_

There weren't even 1.3 million bitcoin in circulation at that point [1]. If you bought every bitcoin, you could have accumulated about 1.1 million BTC for $850.

[1] [http://blockchain.info/charts/total- bitcoins?timespan=all&sh...](http://blockchain.info/charts/total- bitcoins?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=)

<comment><USER16> I see claims like this all the time but it's important to realize that the price you can buy a small amount of something is generally the lowest price any seller will take, not a price all sellers will take.

<comment><USER17> This holds for financial markets, but I can think of several examples where the opposite is true (i.e. bulk buying gets you a better price).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> One of my favorite quotes (forgot by whom): " Great ideas are fragile at birth because they are indistinguishable from crazy stupid ideas."

<comment><USER19> Yeah, I think the lesson I've learned from not embracing Bitcoin sooner, is that I should spend more time analyzing a novel idea, and not be dismissive of one that might seem crazy initially. However, with all the information flow these days, it's kinda hard, but sure worth the effort.

<comment><USER20> Especially when the stupid ideas far outnumber the great ones. But hey, if you think you have excellent judgment, perhaps it is worth your time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Why did you buy a bitcoin?" "Because I don't want to enter too late!"

The absolute problem with bitcoin is, is that it cannot be used as a currency. If one bitcoin can buy you one "x" today, two "x" tomorrow and in a week only half an "x", what is the point of spending it? Its value fluctuates way too much and that's why so many people are getting on board. They want to be in the elevation towards another all time high.

I am not saying that Bitcoin does not have a future, but key in this future is that all those investors and startups on the get-rich-quick-with-a-very-high- potential-to-loose-a-lot-scheme have to abandon ship. The value of Bitcoin has to _stabilize_ because at this point it is not a viable currency. Currently it is just an asset so many people are interested in, which drives the price only further up.

As soon as it stabilizes or drops we will see what it will d o with Bitcoin its popularity and acceptance for other goods and services.

<comment><USER22> When don't you spend all of your USD money today since inflation will make it worth less tomorrow?

<comment><USER23> to be fair, that comparison isn't too valid. Look at the wild yearly fluctuations in bitcoin, compared to the steady rate(3 percent) of inflation of the dollar throughout history. On the other hand, OP is wrong because bitcoins will eventually slow down massively in production(almost to a halt) and stabilize at that point.

<comment><USER21> >OP is wrong because bitcoins will eventually slow down massively in production(almost to a halt) and stabilize at that point

Eh, quite the contrary. If this rate of growth continues and production becomes 0, it will not stabilize at all because demand increases yet supply stays constant. Which results in the existing supply getting worth even more. This will make it an hoarded asset even more _still_ not able to function as a currency as fluctuation will still be too drastic.

<comment><USER23> that is debatable, as is anything economic. I as a Keynesian would agree with you but Austrians would disagree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's really not fair to dig these things up and call people haters for doubting it.

I bet the list of failed companies and "haters" who called it accurately is much much bigger.

Although I do like the nostalgic value of these posts.

<comment><USER25> Bitcoin could revolutionize the foundation of the world's economy with a piece of software some guy wrote in a few months. You'd figure that would be the kind of thing that hackers would get excited about, as opposed to social- sharing startups (which are just a replacement for reality TV)

<comment><USER26> I, for one, will be very sad if it does revolutionise the foundation of any economies, because deflation is bad and creating a new aristocracy from a few BTC hoarders is also not something I consider useful.

Crypto-currency good. Bitcoin not so much.

<comment><USER27> Some people getting rich of bitcoin doesn't make everyone else worse off. And a "new aristocracy" is a huge stretch. A few people will get rich off it but not like that.

And the value of bitcoin won't deflate forever. Eventually the price will stabilize.

<comment><USER26> If you view a change in currency as fundamentally pretty useless, then yes, giving massive amounts of financial control of resources and labour(which is what money represents) to people with BTC hoarded does indeed take away from others.

And if BTC were to become (for instance) a primary currency for a country, and that country were to experience economic growth, then deflation must necessarily continue.

<comment><USER27> >If you view a change in currency as fundamentally pretty useless, then yes, giving massive amounts of financial control of resources and labour(which is what money represents) to people with BTC hoarded does indeed take away from others.

People are voluntarily paying them for their coins because they, for whatever reason, value them. You can say that's silly but it's not like you are being forced to buy bitcoins or anything.

>And if BTC were to become (for instance) a primary currency for a country, and that country were to experience economic growth, then deflation must necessarily continue.

Isn't the same true for any other finite resource? Everything will deflate/increase in value relative to rest of the economy.

<comment><USER26> >> People are voluntarily paying them for their coins because they, for whatever reason, value them. You can say that's silly but it's not like you are being forced to buy bitcoins or anything.

I'm saying it would be a bad idea to adopt as a de-facto currency, that's all.

>> Isn't the same true for any other finite resource? Everything will deflate/increase in value relative to rest of the economy.

Currency isn't and shouldn't be a resource, it's a medium of exchange. If BTC is a resource then cool, but lets stop pushing it as a currency.

<comment><USER27> >Currency isn't and shouldn't be a resource, it's a medium of exchange.

Well why not? A medium of exchange is a resource. There are exchanges and markets for currencies, people speculate on them, etc. They are definitely a resource.

<comment><USER28> Resource in the sense that the item in question has some _inherent_ value. If I can't exchange Bitcoin for anything, then Bitcoins have zero value. If I can't exchange rice for anything, that rice will still have some value to me.

It's important to realize that all currencies, including Bitcoin and the USD, are only as valuable as the stuff I can buy with them. There's no point in having a million dollars, if I can't buy anything with it. That makes currencies distinctly different from "resources".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Can someone explain how the idea that every single transaction has to be stored in the ledger is scalable? Won't wider adoption mean that the ledger grows even quicker, to the point where it makes using btc harder and harder?

<comment><USER30> There are plans to implement Merkle tree pruning.

[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Storage](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Storage)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> and let's revisit this discussion 5 years from now.

right now there is so much fluctutation within BC it might as well be tulips. maybe it will become a stable currency, maybe it won't.

<comment><USER32> Hate when people use the tulips comparison. The basic protocol of bitcoin that allows people to send value anywhere in the world and solves the double spend problem must have some value unto itself. I don't know it's worth $0.10, $100, or $1000000 per bitcoin to use the protocol but to compare it to a plant seems kinda ridiculous.

<comment><USER33> The easiest way to refute the tulip argument is simply point out Bitcoins total money stock is fixed at 21 million units, wheras you can plant new tulips at will. (The skill/time required to do this is irrelevant to the point).

<comment><USER34> Actually, the interesting thing about tulips is that that's _not_ true. I don't mean to single you out here, but this is a demonstration of how most people know jack shit about Tulipomania (even though many of them are perfectly willing to bloviate about it and compare Bitcoin to tulips).

One of the revolutionary things about tulips at that time was that the unique patterns caused by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip- breaking_virus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip-breaking_virus) were only _partially_ inherited: after a few generations, the bulbs are too weakened to survive, and the particular pattern disappears permanently, no matter how lovely and beautiful it was.

If you read up on a book about Tulipomania, you'll notice there are no contemporary photos of tulips like Semper Augustus. Because Semper Augustus no longer exists.

So you can 'plant new tulips at will' the same way you can 'paint new Rembrandts at will' ie. slap some paint on a canvas and hope it looks vaguely similar and that's the best you can do, since you can never ever get another real Rembrandt or real Semper Augustus.

<comment><USER33> Interesting thanks, what's a good book to read abou it all then?

<comment><USER34> If you just want some correctives to the popular mythology of Tulipomania, you can start with _Famous First Bubbles_: quick read which demolishes a lot of the platitudes and simplifications, and covers the virus & other issues.

<comment><USER33> Thanks, have ordered it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Likely the best investment opportunity ever posted on HN, possibly in the history of the world, for simple buy/mine and hold ROI.

<comment><USER36> ~40,000,000% profit over 4 years? Yeah, not too shabby.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> >Well this is an exceptionally cute idea, but there is absolutely no way that anyone is going to have any faith in this currency.

Hah!

<comment><USER38> People should be required to place a monetary bet whenever they make a bold claim in public. I think we would see less comments like this one.

<comment><USER39> For all we know, the comment might be proven right next week/month/year. It's just right _now_ that it's plainly wrong.

How much is your monetary bet then?

<comment><USER40> Which brings us to an interesting question... how long does something have to go before we consider it a success even if it fails later? When something comes along to defeat Facebook, are we going to call Facebook a failure? Was Myspace a failure?[1] The fact that Bitcoin has ran this long, given some huge payouts and legit(albeit small) businesses accept it as payment, I'm almost ready to call bitcoin a success even if it fails 6 months from now.

1\. [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/aug/13/observerre...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/aug/13/observerreview.onlinesupplement) Myspace listed among the top 15 most influential sites.

<comment><USER39> And if/when it fails, Bitcoin can reasonably claim to have shown that distributed computer-based currencies are feasible and people will use them. Even if a successor comes along and solves Bitcoin's problems, you could justifiably say that it only succeeded because of Bitcoin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> It just shows that many people are quick to be negative and for some reason unwilling to consider alternative possibilities.

Remember that negative and critical viewpoints are normally perceived to be from the the more intelligent person. Unfortunately people who are more accepting of new and novel ideas can at first seem like the less intelligent of the group. (Probably because they are not quick to dismiss and put down a thing, and thus have less to say at first glance)

The only solution is to think for yourselves and research the positions presented.

<comment><USER42> > many people

many people ? Are you generalizing over a single post ?

<comment><USER41> It's a thing I have noticed in intelligent forums such as HN and also in real life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> 'always be naysaying' is the mantra of about 80% of HNers

<comment><USER44> Well, yeah, but more like 97,89%, from what I gather. From time to time I fancy this idea of toying with some NLP package to calculate percentage of the HN comments that go like "Yes, but no", "Cool, but meh" or "Sure, but no way".

Oh wait, what did I just do?

<comment><USER45> The ~97% of comments that are "nice idea but..." is probably not far off the percentage of nice ideas discussed on her whose implementations don't quite work out :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> funny - I don't remember posting it

<comment><USER47> hah. nice try, satoshi!

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Hindsight is 20/20 [1].

1: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863)

<comment><USER49> Actually, I didn't like Dropbox then and I still don't like it.

I wonder how many people who make bold public statements about things ever change their mind? Or if they just become entrenched in their opinions.

<comment><USER50> Why not? What's not to like?

As far as a hosted shared drive goes, Dropbox does a great job.

<comment><USER51> You need to install propietary software to use it.

<comment><USER52> I use Dropbox as a glorified large email attachment distribution system, touching only the web interface.

Edit: obviously not clear enough, I'll try again: Is it true that ' _You need to install propietary software to use it_ '? No.

<comment><USER53> The web interface is proprietary too.

<comment><USER54> Which is largely irrelevant to the claim of "forced proprietary software install."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I hope, chaostheory doesn't have something related to Tor hidden services posted anywhere on the internet :P

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I quite liked the polarity of the 2 comments in the post .. Hence I posted it !

</comment><comment><USER56> Mark my words: The US regulators will do to Bitcoin what they have done to the Internet ecommerce, i.e. providing strong incentives like reduced taxes and simplified rules.

There are plenty of new bitcoin merchant and users every day and the USA won't stand while the rest of the world adopts THE next store of value/currency/commodity/new category.

</comment><comment><USER57> Perhaps it was posted during wrong time of the day or was crowd power pointed to front page.

It is also possible that people here on HN do not have enough intuition about ideas, which could possibly change the world just like bitcoin is doing it right now. It's fun to read retrospective posts here on HN, but apparently innovation starts elsewhere..

</comment><comment><USER58> jdoliner's comment is a good reminder to forget the haters

<comment><USER59> Just because someone expresses skepticism that makes them a hater?

<comment><USER58> Skepticism is different from hating, absolutely, but the user didn't say they were skeptical - they said there was "no way". That's hating and you have to ignore it - skepticism and critical feedback you value, treasure, and seek out.

<comment><USER60> It's a just a firm opinion.

<comment><USER58> No, it's a haters opinion. Being a hater doesn't make you a terrible person or mean you can't or shouldn't be allowed to have opinions, it just means you're a hater and your opinions should be ignored.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> jdoliner's comment is interesting, because it's almost true. At the time, hardly anyone could find faith in the currency. But what he failed to understand that if "someone" could find faith in the currency, then others would follow.

It's an interesting property of markets that they can seemingly boostrap themselves, just so long as there is support during the initial growth stage. You don't have to believe in Bitcoins to trade in them, you just have to believe someone wants them. This might be why black markets and transaction privacy are so essential to making the currency work. Since there are a large number of people who need to make their payments private, the rest of the market believes that the currency has intrinsic value in its exclusivity in certain transactions.

</comment><comment><USER62> What google-fu did you use to find the first post on bitcoin on HN?

I am asking, because I tried to find the first post on reddit.com (obviously before /r/bitcoin was created) and couldn't really retrieve anything useful.

I was searching by date ranges on site:reddit.com and was getting user profiles not posts.

</comment><comment><USER63> If the vice president of ReThink DB could be wrong, I have all the liberty to make 100s of mistakes

<comment><USER59> Make as many mistakes as you want, it didn't kill anyone (or yourself) and you can only learn from those mistakes.

The only person that I know that is always right is my wife.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> How many people had the slightest clue that books would be replaced by Kindles, CDs by iPODs, tablets selling as much as laptops. The comments show that people underestimated the impact bitcoin would make.

I still believe its just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Bitcoin.

<comment><USER65> Wow! Books surely have not been replaced by Kindles! Not by a long shot. 40% of readers still use only print books.

Here's some random data to back that up.

[https://www.surveymonkey.com/blog/en/blog/2013/03/25/print-b...](https://www.surveymonkey.com/blog/en/blog/2013/03/25/print- books-vs-e-books-whats-the-future-of-reading/)

<comment><USER66> 40% is lower than I imagined. That's a frighteningly low figure

<comment><USER65> We are talking about people who have read at least one book in the last year.

40% - That's _exclusively_ print books.

58% of them own an e-book reader, that's including the iPad.

The charts are a bit hard to read but..

Now, only about 5% bought _only_ e-books. This of course doesn't include borrowed books, library books, etc. MUCH much more people haven't purchased either print or e-books than have purchased _only_ e-books! I hate to generalize but some people, many in the HN crowd, seem to think libraries are "beneath" them or "outdated" but the data suggest otherwise. Paper books are not DRMed after all.

About 38% of people bought only print books. A mix between print and e-books wins out.

Here's the important stat. About 50% said they like print books and e-books. Only 10% said they like e-books only. A FULL 90% OF READERS STILL LIKE PRINT BOOKS!!!!

It's incredibly naive to say they have been replaced. Its beyond obvious anyway, just take a commercial flight and observe people around you reading print books.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Very telling, a reply of a sceptic and of a dreamer, everyone else just ignored.

I wish I could be such a dreamer, capable to understand the idea and its potential and have a bit of drive and courage to give it a try.

</comment><comment><USER68> I could be so rich right now. I missed the bus completely on this one.

<comment><USER69> You haven't.

Various estimates for the future BTC value range from $2,000 to $1,000,000.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> This one has a more interesting discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1532670](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1532670)

</comment><comment><USER71> I was relieved to see I hadn't even joined HN at that time.

</comment><comment><USER72> I'd like to see a "where are they now" of the commenters' views on Bitcoin.

</comment><comment><USER73> I don't know about you guys but I found this really motivational.

</comment><comment><USER74> > jdoliner 1655 days ago | link

>Well this is an exceptionally cute idea, but there is absolutely no way that anyone is going to have any faith in this currency.

> joedoliner.com email@example.com > [https://twitter.com/jdoliner](https://twitter.com/jdoliner)

<comment><USER75> Good idea. We really need to make sure that everybody is forever held accountable for everything that they ever say online. I like where that's going.

<comment><AUTHOR> That never was my intention when I posted this ..

Like I said, I quite liked the polarity of the comments and the fact that it was the first post on bitcoin in HN ..

But it snow-balled into this !

<comment><USER76> jdoliner just walked over to me and told me how he was laughing along with everyone else at this guy who posted on the first HN bitcoin post until he realized it was him.

<comment><AUTHOR> Lolz ...! No offence meant though ... I can only imagine ...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Self-encrypting deception: weaknesses in the encryption of solid state drives [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2019/papers/310.pdf <comment><USER2> > _BitLocker, the encryption software built into Microsoft Win- dows will rely > exclusively on hardware full-disk encryption if the SSD advertises support > for it. Thus, for these drives, data protected by BitLocker is also > compromised._

I thought BitLocker stopped trusting SEDs after the last time around when drives were discovered to be trivially broken? [1]

But apparently this change only just happened a couple months ago. [2]

[1] - [https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/flaws-in-self- encry...](https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/flaws-in-self-encrypting- ssds-let-attackers-bypass-disk-encryption/)

[2] - [https://www.pcworld.com/article/3441864/bitlocker-windows- bu...](https://www.pcworld.com/article/3441864/bitlocker-windows-built-in- encryption-tool-no-longer-trusts-your-ssds-hardware-protection.html)

<comment><USER3> This appears to be the same paper as in your first link. It was a draft at the time and now appears to have made it to a conference presentation.

Edit: In fact the conference was in May so about six months after the first story based on the draft version. Not quite sure why it's hitting HN front page now

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Self-encrypting drives are great for liability-offload situations like fulfilling enterprise or statutory requirements as cheap as possible, but not great if you actually truly want to protect the data.

If you can't see the final data after encryption, you have no way of verifying if it was actually done or how well it was done.

Nothing short of a standard SSD platform with independently removable, externally readable/writeable, and installable firmware and flash modules would completely satisfy that requirement though. It'd be interesting to have but certainly cost prohibitive.

<comment><USER5> Yup, and I've been telling my clients for years that it's just a checkbox exercise. No one really does key management well in the first place for self- encrypted drives, and when people started publishing things like [1], it was clear the game was up.

For circumstances where the data is genuinely sensitive, we've pushed for physical destruction of the drive. Bonus: throwing pallets of old drives into the incredibly loud shredder our destruction partners use is a lot of fun.

[1] [https://www.malwaretech.com/2015/04/hard-disk-firmware- hacki...](https://www.malwaretech.com/2015/04/hard-disk-firmware-hacking- part-1.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does this affect Linux, LVM, or LUKS?

<comment><USER7> It affects the hardware encryption of the drives themselves, the issue is independent of the OS.

<comment><USER8> The question is whether or not other full-disk encryption implementations defer to on=device encryption hardware if present. As the paper notes, with the advent of embedded AES instructions in Intel processors, there is little or no performance advantage to doing so, and given the near-certainty that a crypto implementation done by a company or group that isn't a crypto- specialist is going to be flawed, it will likely compromise security to do so.

<comment><USER9> There may not be an IO performance disadvantage to using Intel AES-NI for dmcrypt, versus in-hardware (in the drive). But there is a CPU performance impact when using it. I see ~22% x4 thread (~88% CPU out of 400%) for kcryptd processes when fully utilizing reads or writes for a single laptop hard drives at ~140MB/s with an Intel Pentium N3700 in an Intel NUC. That's obviously not a very substantial CPU. But it is nevertheless a fairly substantial CPU hit. The spare CPU cycles are available so it doesn't have an actual impact on this system.

Anyway, neither kernel fscrypt, nor dmcrypt have any dependency on drive embedded crypto. They do use AES-NI or equivalent, if available and if that support is compiled into the kernel.

Detail output from top while doing a scrub on a LUKS encrypted system. (Expires in 7 days.) [https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/IvXs0f-N2~qN-k32Z2Y~yA...](https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/IvXs0f-N2~qN-k32Z2Y~yA/raw)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I may have missed it, did they test any Intel drives?

Edit: Looks like the models they chose to test are consumer oriented products. I'm more interested in enterprise oriented products. They didn't cover any drives that I actually use in the encrypted laptops that I deploy.

<comment><USER10> Is there strong reason to believe a company would design and implement SSD hardware encryption twice?

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h They frequently do the rest of the hardware and software separately for consumer and enterprise, so it seems like a reasonable extrapolation.</comment></comment></comment>


A Promising Backup to the Honeybee Is Shut Down - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-promising-backup-to-the-honeybee-is-shut-down/ <comment><AUTHOR> We discussed a bit more than a week ago about this plan, before we knew about the cancellation : [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16446088](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16446088)

<comment><USER2> I was looking for this link :). You beat me to it.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Munt – A payment gateway for accepting multiple cryptocurrencies - <AUTHOR> https://getmunt.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi guys! I'm Sven the maker of Munt. Munt is a payment gateway for accepting multiple cryptocurrencies with just 5 lines of code.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask!

</comment><comment><USER2> Yo, let's chat... add me on Skype://Gabe.cuevas

Munt sounds badass..

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi! Shall we just stick with email ;). Here is my mail: email@example.com.</comment></comment>


NaCl/OCaml (OCaml as a client-side web programming language) - <AUTHOR> http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2010/03/871885ab916b2207234d2874c288f3e3.en.html

<comment><USER2> I'm very excited to see this. OCaml is a really pleasant language to work in. It's certainly not without its warts, but it's surprisingly easy to write mostly-functional code that's highly performant, expressive, and easy-to-read. I've actually been enjoying picking it back up again, this time trying to learn it "for real", and knowing I have an interesting environment to target makes it much more exciting.

</comment><comment><USER3> Should work for any native code compiler, if I'm reading this right, just have to stay within what can be validated.

I think there's a very good chance of a GSoC project to modify Haskell/GHC's backend to work too: [http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell_proposals/comments/b9oym/run...](http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell_proposals/comments/b9oym/run_haskell_code_under_googles_native_client/)

</comment><comment><USER4> I've found technical descriptions of NaCl, but still don't get what it would look like in practice. Does NaCl enable languages like OCaml to be used instead of JavaScript to manipulate HTML pages? Or is it like Silverlight, which has its own non-HTML UI widget library and runs within the browser? Or would it run outside of the browser entirely?

<comment><USER2> NaCl is a way to run native x86 instructions in a secure manner inside the browser. As such, it has more in common with Silverlight than JavaScript. The difference between NaCl and Silverlight is that you can use any language with NaCl, provided that it compiles to a verifiable subset of x86. The downside, obviously, is that while Silverlight runs just fine on any platform with a CLR, which in practice means desktops and Zunes, NaCl only runs on x86 systems that have the NaCl plugin installed, which currently means the dev channel of Chrome.

As such, I view NaCl more as a research project right now than anything else, but who knows? If Chrome OS takes off, NaCl would suddenly be a very serious target, even if no other browsers endorse it. Meanwhile, it's still fun to tinker with.

<comment><USER4> Thanks Gecko. What about UI? With Silverlight, one would write XAML to define a webapp's UI elements (e.g. forms). Is there a NaCl equivalent? (Please excuse my rudimentary knowledge of how things work under the hood.)

<comment><USER2> NaCl can talk to the DOM/JavaScript, or can draw things itself using a frame buffer. All demos I've seen use the latter technique.

As far as I know, there are currently no standard widgets. [http://nativeclient.googlecode.com/svn/data/docs_tarball/nac...](http://nativeclient.googlecode.com/svn/data/docs_tarball/nacl/googleclient/native_client/scons- out/doc/html/index.html) has a good overview of the APIs available. I had _thought_ that at least a little OpenGL was available as well, though I don't see it enumerated there. I'm unsure whether that's because I'm wrong, or because it's simply not in the generated documentation. At any rate, given that the API is based around framebuffers, it'd be pretty easy to port GDK or a similar system to run in NaCl.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hopefully once they get ARM-NaCl working, they'll be able to stick it on all the Android phones. It could actually take off.

</comment><comment><USER6> Joh Harrop is a great guy, if you religiously like ocaml or F#. A True Missionary!</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a way to measure government funding's effectiveness on disease? - <AUTHOR> The U.S. government gives staggering amounts to fund disease prevention such as $27B to domestic HIV/AIDS efforts, $861M for Malaria, etc.<p>Is there a way in which they measure the effectiveness per dollar with each recipient of funding, or is there a way they could? <comment><USER2> They might have a report on their website on the effectiveness but it might be easier to call, mail or email them for assistance on getting the most up to date information. If they do not provide it or it is not available you can submit a freedom of information act request for the information.</comment>


America's gun problem, explained - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america <comment><USER3> While I generally support licencing of guns, the mass shootings are uniquely american thing. And I am not convinced it will reduce that kinds of deaths. Gun control will be great in reducing kids having access to firearms related deaths and other gun related incidents. It may even reduce the lethality of gang violence. There are benefits and lives that could be saved.

The Boston marathon bombers showed you don't need guns. As did the Oklahoma one. There are designs of all kinds of deadly stuff shared in the darker parts of the Internet, some of them perfected from decades of war.

If someones goes crazy enough to want to murder people he doesn't know - <USER2> the fact that he may have to buy his tools for the deed on the black market or jury rig them somehow deter him?

Gun control won't be the silver bullet that will stop the mass shootings. It may transform them from shootings to bombings or car rammings. Or worse stuff.

<comment><USER4> _" the mass shootings are uniquely american thing"_

I'm not sure whether we should praise Wikipedia for compiling such lists! but [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers) disagrees with that. Also, the claim isn't that private gun ownership causes all mass shootings, it is that it explains a large part of the difference in occurrence rate between the US and other countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yet another article advancing a flawed agenda. ugh.</comment>


Deadmau5 Withholding His Latest Album from Spotify - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120925deadmau5

<comment><USER2> I love the idea of Spotify (and I'm a subscriber). I also buy albums occasionally, and spend many thousands of dollars a year seeing bands play live.

What's great about Spotify, is that artists get paid per listen, which favours artists which make great, lasting music, and against those who produce one hit wonders. If people continue to listen to your music over a period of time, the artist will continue to get paid, and that's great (and those who produce one hit wonders get paid a lot at the time, and virtually nothing afterwards).

The problem, of course, is that Spotify doesn't pay very much to artists. Spotify says this is because artists have shitty deals with labels (and I'm sure this is true), but independents also complain about the amount passed on. Spotify, however, last I checked, isn't profitable, so they can't afford to pass on more money anyway. I would happily pay more, but I use it near- constantly at work and at home (easily 6+ hours a day on average). I suspect I'm a minority here.

Ensuring artists get paid enough is a problem we haven't solved yet. I tend to think it'll go the way of free-or-near-free streaming (a la Spotify or Youtube), with albums becoming collectibles like Vinyls, and the vast majority of artist revenue coming from live shows. Unfortunately, this is going to mean labels are going to have to negotiate a cut of live shows with artists to cover album production costs (assuming they're not independent, obviously). I don't mind a one-or-two week delay on streaming sites to give people who really want a listen to buy it first. Of course, this helps drive piracy back up, but for artists, their aim shouldn't be minimising piracy, but maximising the profitability of their work.

<comment><USER3> It's true that artists aren't making any money on Spotify.

But neither is Spotify: [http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/pandora- and...](http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/pandora-and-spotify- rake-in-the-money-and-then-send-it-off-in-royalties/)

Personally I think the Bandcamp model is the way forward.

<comment><USER4> Isn't the Bandcamp model just the iTunes model... except iTunes's been here for over 10 years?

<comment><USER5> Except iTunes don't stream all songs for free and don't give you a variety of formats to choose from? Then yeah, you could say that.

<comment><USER4> iTunes has 90 second samples, which is a big chunk of the song. Definitely enough for you to sample and decide if you want the whole thing.

<comment><USER3> Not for me it isn't. I much prefer to listen to the whole album all the way through a few times to see if it has any staying power. Previews are better than nothing but when you're competing with piracy you should strive to give the user the best experience possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The funny thing is, even if Deadmau5 only sells his music on iTunes, Amazon etc, by the time you deduct Apple's/Amazon's cut and the record label's cut, he isn't going to make that much, maybe $100k or even $200k Net if he's lucky.

To put that in perspective, I know that Deadmau5 usually gets around $100k per gig he gets played (for the bigger festivals anyway), so really after 2 gigs he's going to have made more then his whole album.

And it's the case with most artists now anyway, they make more money from concerts then they do in song sales.

<comment><USER7> Lots of midlist artists make below-subsistence on concerts. The payouts from club appearances are very low. Deadmau5 is anomalous; comparing his take to that of a typical indie musician is a little like comparing Slint to U2.

It's probably true that most artists make more now from concerts than recordings, but don't kid yourself: that's just because most artists can't make anything significant from recording anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Spotify should turn this into an opportunity. Situations like this, allow users to pay-to-unlock albums, otherwise seamlessly integrates with the rest of Spotify. Virtual Currency and pay-to-win works extremely well for social gaming/zynga/et al, why not music industry?

<comment><USER9> Right, and if they did most artists would make their albums purchase only, thereby blowing up Spotify's subscription model. After all, are you a premium artist or not?

By refusing to add this feature, Spotify makes Deadmau5 look like the bad guy to his fans.

<comment><USER10> Deadmau5 isn't the first to do this, a lot of artists delay a week or two. It's no big deal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> That's cool, I'll listen to it on BitTorrent and no one will make any money. I pirated music for 10 years until the 'business' actually figured out what I want - all the music, anywhere, anytime, for a flat fee, which has much more value-add than pirating. I'm not going to be forced into some other contrived broken business model.

The only simple solution I can think of is another level of Spotify membership for early access - like $15 a month. Other than that, Spotify is about volume. Get your name out there, make some money, and make real money by playing shows and selling merch. Making money by sitting back and collecting royalties for 50 years is waaaay too lucrative. Spotify is fixing that.

<comment><USER4> What if instead of $10 a month, I think $1 a month is a fair price for unlimited music? Can I now justify pirating because someone has pulled my arbitrarily defined "fair" price for unlimited music?

The artist is stating that they would like you to pay for the download, and just because the streaming service is legal doesn't mean it's fair or works.

<comment><USER12> Then don't use the $10 a month service and go pirate music by all means. That gives signals to the actors, which they will take into consideration when figuring out what their business model should look like.

The fact that services like Spotify have caught on as of late are proof that many people like the business model. Let musicians see how much more money they make by delaying the release of their albums in these services.

They will figure it out eventually, I hope. It's all about finding the distribution of that arbitrary "fair" price in order to maximize earnings.

<comment><USER4> Yes and what if this signal that consumers want to send–$10, $1, or $0.01–doesn't work for the musicians???? Musicians can send a signal too. They can stop producing content. Fewer young people will consider going into the arts because they don't want to be starving (this is already the case, actually).

I'd love to pay only $1000 for a brand new car, but that doesn't work for car manufacturers. There's no reason a $10 a month service is necessarily sustainable just because that's what people want to pay. Heck, if consumers can demand what they want to pay they'd most likely just go with $0. Why can't they send that signal? It's convenient for the consumer to say $10 because they are comfortable with that. This amount is what labels can squeeze from consumers (because piracy has left them no options), but that doesn't mean it's the final and perfect solution.

If music subscription services end up not being much better than piracy, then all it does is grant a false sense of entitlement to these people who might as well still be pirating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Reminds me of how big media companies delay release on Netflix or Amazon to promote DVD sales. In either case it's available for the pirates before retail stores.

</comment><comment><USER14> I've tried buying some downloads. I still use Spotify for everything, but some stuff isn't on there. But when I go to an artists site, and they pretty much say "buy it on iTunes" it's all over for me. iTunes is horrible and not exactly "cheap" either, it almost costs me as much as a physical copy, yet the cost for the label is much lower. I would love to use Amazon MP3, but I am not american.

</comment><comment><USER15> Seems to be Spotify US only. It's available on Spotify UK.

</comment><comment><USER16> I find it fascinating (Ironic?) that iTunes is now seen as the "preferred platform for artists wishing to make money selling their music" - given both it's history, as well the complete and utter lack of DRM associated with iTunes Music.

<comment><USER17> DRM on music is 100% useless. You would have to prevent a DRM free copy from existing at all.

<comment><USER16> DRM is annoying, but it can be effective. There is a DRM free copy of every popular science fiction novel you can think of up to around 2010 or so (And, since I haven't checked for about a year, we may have moved into 2011/2012).

But, with the exception of Top 100 novels - it's next to impossible to find/download these books unless you try really, really hard. I'm sure many of those people who buy a book on Amazon, would instead download if it were effortless to. (Though, many would also purchase it, in much the same way many of us purchase our TV shows and Music.)

DRM on books, so far, has slowed down piracy of books. It's not 100% effective, but it's certainly not 100% useless.

<comment><USER17> I doubt that this has much to do with DRM.

More likely a lot of this stuff is just less popular so there are going to be less people seeding it etc. I'm going to guess that piracy has a very long tail and the majority of piracy traffic happens with a small minority of files.

There's also the issue that books are generally cheaper.

Books also have some advantage in that it is more difficult to exploit the analog gap there, you need a way to print it out and rescan it. Or take a photo of each page and then use OCR.

Music on the other hand can be pirated by plugging the output from your speaker jack into something else that records it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Perhaps each month of Spotify premium should include "early access" credits to use for immediate access to a particular newly released album. This money goes to the label, and users can purchase additional credits if they wish.

The other option, if Spotify is looking to play a little more dirty, is that they can have albums withheld in this manner bypass the "new release" page on the basis that they are no longer newly released. This would reduce marketing, play count, and thus payout to the artist.

</comment><comment><USER19> Does anyone know how Spotify royalties compare to radio play royalties on a per listener basis? I see them as a very similar service (excluding talk radio, of course), just with spotify being far more convenient and better for discovering new music.

<comment><USER20> I think the point is that Spotify is so convenient that you essentially own any music on it, especially if you have premium, potentially making it pointless to buy the album for many customers. Prior to Spotify and similar services, if you wanted to listen to music legally (which piracy doesn't give you) and conveniently/on-demand (which the radio doesn't give you), you had to buy the album.

(I'm assuming your point was that Spotify probably pays at least as much per listener as the radio.)

<comment><USER19> Yeah, correct on my point, if that's the case.

I suppose it's much like piracy in a way - would people have bought the album if it wasn't for spotify? Is every spotify listener a lost sale?

I have absolutely no hard facts to back it up, but I see a lot more people attending festivals and shows and supporting artists in different ways. I know a lot of spotify subscribers who use it for work and still buy the MP3s for their ipod, or the CD for their collection.

I have hundreds and hundreds of CDs, all in storage. I buy them occasionally at shows but tend to buy vinyl (if I can) to support a band now. I listen to lots of music on Spotify I would never buy, or never have bought. For a fair few of those I'd probably go and see the artist/band live, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think this is a really smart move for Deadmau5.

During this period its not on spotify, diehard fans will pay for the album through itunes (or other means). After its released to spotify they will benefit from spotify distribution.

</comment><comment><USER21> The record is definitely available on both Spotify UK and AUS, but as far as I can tell only half of it can be streamed if you haven't purchased the mp3's elsewhere.

<comment><USER21> For the record, I purchased it via iTunes regardless of the fact that I've been a Spotify UK subscriber for 3+ years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> What monthly price would work for artists?

<comment><USER2> The problem, I think, is that artists compare Spotify with CD sales, instead of Spotify with piracy. It's hard to determine how much Spotify has decreased both CD sales and piracy, but I'd be putting my bets on it reducing piracy a lot more. It's just so much more convenient.

<comment><USER22> I don't think they'll ever be able to stretch past $10-$15 a month with a streaming music service. Companies like Spotify/Hulu/Netflix might be better off combining their package to charge a solid premium price (Complete fantasy, I'm aware). It would be like the new cable tv subscription for this generation.

$90 a month?

<comment><USER2> Yeah. My other comment (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4573711>) gives some thoughts on this. For me personally, a good music service (the Spotify catalogue is good, but has nothing on iTunes, for instance) would be worth $50 a month alone, whereas I wouldn't pay anything like $90 a month for streaming TV/movies unless it included live sport. But, I think I may be an edge case.

The problem at the moment for music and artists, is finding a feasible business model in a world where streaming music is worth nothing (I'd argue that the Spotify subscription fee pays for convenience, rather than the music itself for most customers).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I had no problem finding it on usenet...

</comment><comment><USER24> It's unavailable on Rdio in Canada

<comment><USER25> You can, however, purchase it for $10. I'm glad you can at least purchase it on Rdio, and hopefully that'll sync to devices too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> If this becomes common won't that kind of kill the utility of Spotify?

<comment><USER27> 99.999% of what I listen to on Spotify is older than a few weeks, so for listeners like me, no.

<comment><USER28> I'm the same, but if you look at the most listened to lists they tend to match the charts pretty closely. There's probably some kind of long-tail effect with Spotify, but a lot of people use Spotify to listen to what's popular right now, and I'd probably lump deadmau5 in the "popular" category.</comment></comment></comment>


The Traveling Salesman Problem: A Neural Network Perspective (1993) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~dift6751/paper_potvin_nn_tsp.pdf <comment><USER2> If you are interested in the Traveling Salesman problem, I recommend William J. Cook's excellent "In Pursuit of the Traveling Salesman."

<comment><USER3> Thanks a lot for this recommendation. I bought it, read it, and found the heuristic algorithms in it could be applied to a problem I had to solve at work. So I'm very pleased you commented!</comment></comment>


Is F Sharp Enough? - <AUTHOR> http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2007/10/is_fsharp_enoug.php

<comment><USER2> A nasty side effect of using a terse language for apps that are split between a nice, algorithmic core and verbose, overly generic library calls for UI and storage, is that the algorithmic part shrinks to an almost nonexistent fraction of total code volume, and only the ugly parts remain visible.

I hope MS's productization of F# includes partial classes with type inference across (loaded) files, so that F# become as code gen friendly as C# and VB is. And that they add F# as an output language for their code generators. That way one will only have to deal with a graphical representation of the ugly parts most of the time.

<comment><AUTHOR> If they do that, then F# isn't much different than any other language.

No -- I think they should leave F# to go a different path. Let folks code terse web apps and projects.

Of course, since it's Ocaml, you can work and use it just like the other .NET languages. I'm just not sure why you'd want to do that.</comment></comment>


The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence - <AUTHOR> http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html <comment><USER2> Needs a (2015) in the title.</comment>


A brief history of information theory - <AUTHOR> Today is Claude Shannon's birthday, so I thought I'd share an essay I wrote about the development of information theory.
I like this story in particular because it involves some of the greatest minds in science, the World War, and the genius of a single person.
Link: http://tvas.me/articles/2018/04/30/Information-Theory-History.html <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable link: [http://tvas.me/articles/2018/04/30/Information-Theory- Histor...](http://tvas.me/articles/2018/04/30/Information-Theory-History.html)</comment>


A Syrian Man-In-The-Middle Attack against Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/05/syrian-man-middle-against-facebook

<comment><USER2> They block facebook in syria, but you can still access it through https. Luckily when I was there I connected through a VPN outside of syria :)</comment>


The Equifax Hack Didn't Have to Be This Bad - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-08/the-equifax-hack-didn-t-have-to-be-this-bad <comment><USER2> The hack isn't just SSNs - it includes address history, date of birth, drivers license number - everything reasonably necessary to establish identity. Not sure why the focus is SSNs, any solution needs to be even higher. This is about companies stockpiling our personal information and us having little say in the matter.

<comment><USER3> The reason the focus is on the SSN is because it enables credit. Privacy is important, but so is protecting your finances.

<comment><USER4> Date of birth and address history (in addition to SSN of course) are often used by financial organizations to verify user identity online and on the phone.

Recently I called to report a lost credit card, for instance, and the operator read through a list of 10 addresses. I had to confirm which ones I'd lived at at some point in my life, in order to verify my identity.

<comment><USER5> Wouldn't it have been simpler and more secure to ask you for the address? I can rattle off all the addresses I've stayed at in the last 15 years with ease.

<comment><USER6> I couldn't. I am a city dweller living in a climate where almost like clockwork a post-two year rent hike makes me decide to move. not only that, being on a grid system every address tends to be some 4 digit combination of numbers very similar. Was that 1124 or 1421 10 years ago? I'd have to sit and picture the cross streets to figure it all out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _In 2008, the Federal Trade Commission created the Red Flags Rule, which required businesses and organizations to collect personally identifying information from their customers, even if not necessary for service. This put Social Security numbers into the hands of utility companies, telecom providers, doctors and countless other unreliable custodians._

This is the first I've heard of this, and it's a different characterization than what one finds on e.g. Wikipedia (excepting the last section of that page). Still, I believe TFA. It's remarkable how often the impetus to "do something" leads to precisely the wrong thing being done.

<comment><USER8> Wikipedia contains a lot of political disinformation / "selective" content and should not be used when looking for legal explanation.

<comment><USER7> Yes we know. Often it has links to authoritative/reliable/substantive sources. I was particularly interested in seeing those for the last section [0] I referenced above, because it's the one that actually agrees with TFA, but at this time that section is effectively unsourced. So even though this idea about the red flags rule comports with my prejudice about how regulation typically works, I am currently unable to confirm it. Can you point to a meatier consideration of whether this rule purportedly intended to decrease identity theft actually had this particular effect of increasing identity theft? One thing that makes me suspicious of this idea is that I can clearly remember giving a false social security number to the phone company when I moved in 2004, which was before 2008 when TFA claims the rule started and 2011 when wikipedia claims the rule started.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flags_Rule#Red_Flag_Rule_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flags_Rule#Red_Flag_Rule_and_identity_theft)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Consumers don't use the credit reporting database, we have very little access to it besides restricted annual or paid for reports. The real users are the B2C companies like retail banks, cell phone companies, apartments, background checkers, etc. These B2Cs use the db in both read and write modes with little verification. The main incentive of the reporting agencies is to make it very easy for B2Cs to read and write to their db. Any strong encryption scheme would have to take into account the needs of the B2C's. Nothing is going to happen unless congress demands it because their is no market incentive to secure it. The data is already known to be frequently inaccurate but businesses don't care, they'd rather have a bunch of false positives than one deadbeat customer.

</comment><comment> avid-infovore _The Republic of Estonia uses such a system to identify members of its e-Residency program, even with no physical presence. Each e-resident has a public numerical key that serves as a unique identifier, and a corresponding private key that is never revealed._

So an example to emulate then!

Except: _Estonia suffered an embarrassing blow to its much-vaunted ID cards that underpin everything from electronic voting to online banking [...] a security risk that affects almost 750,000 ID cards and that would enable a hacker to steal a person's identity._

[https://www.ft.com/content/874359dc-925b-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb...](https://www.ft.com/content/874359dc-925b-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb7f0)

<comment><USER10> Is there a link to this that's not behind a paywall. Very interested in understanding the flaws of such a system, as a 2 key system seems like the most viable and secure way to establish identity.

<comment><USER11> Google's cache of the page [1] seems to work.

[1]: [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wP7nTG...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wP7nTGn- RJ0J:https://www.ft.com/content/874359dc-925b-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb7f0+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's something that people don't talk about much, but just the allowed existence of credit agencies violates human/civil rights.

These companies earn revenue by selling access to a database of all humans, which ranks each of us as to how valuable/risky we are to profit off of.

Many companies are starting to make hiring decisions based on this data, and obviously whether or not you are worthy of a loan has been much of the purpose of a credit rating (and these loans are necessary for nearly everyone in the US, unless you're exceptionally wealthy).

Disputing an unfair or illegal mark against your credit is an absurd process with very little recourse.

This is far worse than what the NSA has done, in my opinion, and it continues without much criticism.

Obviously this giant hack of Equifax is a very serious issue. But why should these credit companies be allowed to keep this kind of data about us anyway?

<comment><USER13> > It's something that people don't talk about much, but just the allowed > existence of credit agencies violate human/civil rights.

What human right is being violated, and what treaty is that right listed in?

<comment><USER12> In just the UN's universal declarations of human rights:

Article 23, section 1 and 2, and possibly 3: as to being judged by employers based on a credit score.

Article 25, section 1: It is not possible to afford housing without a loan, and most of the variables of a loan (and even more importantly: whether you are able to secure a loan in the first place) are entirely determined by a credit score. Note that ~75-90% of Americans are unable to purchase a home without a loan: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#Statistics)

More from Article 25, section 1: Many of the other rights given in this document (like food, clothing, medical care) are also not achievable without smaller loans (like credit cards, also unattainable without a decent credit rating or a significant amount of accrued wealth).

I'm sure there's plenty more, this is just what I've seen at first glance. But I want to thank you for making me aware of this amazing UN document. It's kind of amazing the number of economic rights this document secures for all humans.

<comment><USER14> > It is not possible to afford housing without a loan

You can rent housing, but then that's based on credit ratings, too.

<comment><USER12> Exactly. Depending on apartment, it may be possible to pay 1 to 2 months rent up front if you don't have a decent credit rating. But most Americans do not have this kind of money.

<comment><USER14> > Depending on apartment, it may be possible to pay 1 to 2 months rent up > front if you don't have a decent credit rating.

Right, but often not because landlords aren't just concerned about rent but recovering damages in excess of any deposit. (And both advance rent and damage deposit requirements are often regulated, as well.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So since anyone who has access to the breached info can impersonate nearly anyone in the country...

1) Are we about to see the end of "Name, DoB, last four" as an authentication? (Damn well should if anybody can be me now)

2) Are the credit reporting agencies discredited as a business model? The other two are likely either hacked already or about to be, and given this standard of reporting we wouldn't know till months from now anyway.

Can't trust em, don't use em, don't trust anybody that does.

Oh joy.

<comment><USER16> #1 seems almost certain if the spilled data really is as extensive as it seems. The government would be all but forced to go to some other mechanism (or at worst just open up a new space of numbers and give everyone a 12-digit "SSN+"). It's possible that the "possibly affecting 144M customers" bit is spun though and that only a tiny fraction of that ever left the datacenter.

With #2, nothing is going to change. The credit agencies business isn't identifying people (as we are discussing, they outsource that to the government), it's tracking credit activity. And that works extraordinarily well from the perspective of its customers (the banks). If Equifax dies, Experian and TransUnion will just see more business. If they all die, the banks will find some way to do this for themselves.

<comment><USER17> I don't know about that. The OPM hack was even worse in terms of data released. Seriously, it included actual images of peoples fingerprints ffs. Along with all biographical information of the people submitted to receive a security clearance background check. I think it may have hit fewer people, but I expect the result will be the same: 18 months of free credit monitoring and after that we pretend that somehow your SSN and all other details must no longer be a threat to you being out in the wild. Sure, in 30 years when someone digs it up and ruins your life with it, why make that OPM agency liable for it? I'm sure they hired top-notch security guys, paid them handsomely, and structured things such that not even the president of the USA could contravene their practices, right? Right?

Oh, a computer was involved. So hire the cheapest person you can find who can half make it work, let even the low level managers do whatever they want, and when it gets hacked blame somebody else. It's computers. NOBODY knows how they work!

<comment><USER16> The Equifax dump (again, if it's really as described) is literally 10x larger than OPM. It's true that the OPM data was "worse" by abstract ideas of personal privacy, but not that the breach is worse from the perspective of "will drive government action".

Again, if there are really 144M valid SSN/name/address tuples out there in the wild, then very soon banks will simply no longer be able to authenticate applications for new accounts. They'll be swamped with fraud (remember that by US law, credit card fraud is their liability, not the consumer's), and demand action by the government to fix it.

But like I said, "if".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Indeed. This pervasive usage of SSNs should be dropped.

<comment><USER19> The pervasive want of private corporations to stockpile our private information is a huge concern as well. There's hardly any reason they should store anything beyond name and contact info.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> "The only thing Social Security numbers should be used for is to pay our taxes, which identity thieves are welcome to do."

Likely they may not be paying taxes, but have already found a way to circumvent the system such that they collect something (aid, EI, etc).

<comment><USER21> Actually what they do is early filing to receive any refund that would be coming to you.

<comment><USER22> Does the IRS lose money if they give the refund to the wrong person? Or is the onus on you to find the criminal and sue him?

<comment><USER23> Yes, they lose billions per year in fraudulent refunds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> _Before the digital age, a stash of nine-digit numbers could be kept reasonably secure in a locked filing cabinet behind closed doors. So long as consumers volunteered the numbers judiciously, most people could make it through life without ever suffering a theft of identity._

Old guy here. The reason I know my SSN by heart is that it was my student ID number in college and had to be given at the beginning of each semester to get my course list, later for grades, etc.

I had a credit union account from the 80's and as of the 90's my SSN was printed on each monthly statement.

Both were before the "digital age" and neither could be considered "in a locked filing cabinet" nor under my control.

<comment><USER25> You don't even have to be that old to remember this time.

I went to a well-known university and they used SSNs as student ID number until roughly 2001-2002. The first half of my university career, my SSN wound up on every Scantron sheet, exam blue book, and term paper I handed in. It was printed on the front of my ID, and even after they recalled old IDs and replaced them with non-SSN cards, the magstripe track data still had your SSN on it because some old dining hall POS system or something like that hadn't been converted.

It was like fish in a barrel for fraudsters, just root around in the trash after finals week and grab people's term papers. I had quite a few friends who discovered that during the time they were attending college, someone had opened a cell phone (or a credit card, in one person's case) in their name.

This was before the days of the free annual credit report law. So these folks never pulled their own files, and only discovered the fraud years after graduation, when they went to apply for a car or home loan and got denied.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm very worried about this.

I've done a lot to try and build my credit and protect my identity by restricting the information I give out. Now I can do nothing to protect it now besides hope someone doesn't target me.

Anyone have ideas on how to ensure an identity is not stolen?

<comment><USER27> You can use a credit freeze: [https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0497-credit-freeze- faq...](https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0497-credit-freeze-faqs)

> Also known as a security freeze, this tool lets you restrict access to your > credit report, which in turn makes it more difficult for identity thieves to > open new accounts in your name. That's because most creditors need to see > your credit report before they approve a new account. If they can't see your > file, they may not extend the credit.

I've never done this, but it sounds effective - although if you want to open another line of credit, you'll have to temporarily suspend the freeze.

<comment><USER28> You also have to pay Equifax $10 to do this. Insane, right?

<comment><USER29> That sounds like extortion to me. Equifax are running a protection racket.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> SWIM used to have access to Equivax data from home. In the early 90s, you could log into Equifax, type in a strangers address, and get their credit history, social, bills, and prior addresses among other things. Access was through tymnet using an <account_id>+<password>. That is it. The account_id was a ~16 digit number. The password was a 1 alpha + 1 alphanumeric. In those days it was security through obscurity, so I presume. Get an account number and after 936, you are in. Given this recent breach has nothing to do with how Equivfax/CBI was run years ago, it does make me cringe a bit.

<comment><USER31> In the 80's it was even worse. A credit bureau was available on telenet (a simple dial up service that allowed terminal connections to services) and there was no password, just an account number. You could query any social security number and see joint account information by simply adding /ty-jp or something similar. This being the 80's, you'd see the needed credentials taped to monitors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Well of course it didn't have to be this bad. But when criminal negligence for corporations remains unpunished in an industry for 40+ years, you're not going to have corporations that dedicate the time, let alone the money, to do things right.

</comment><comment><USER32> Title not supported by article.

<comment><USER33> It is, and is related to some of the discussion in the main Equifax hack threads.

The idea is that this information shouldn't be so sensitive because it isn't _really_ secret in the first place. It also cannot be changed, so it doesn't really meet _any_ reasonable criteria for authenticating information.

To quote the relevant top-level comment I had in mind:

>mikeash 2 hours ago [-]

>If we're lucky, this will be the best leak of personal info ever. The primacy of the SSN in American society is idiotic. It's a "secret" that you have to hand out to dozens of different organizations. I've long thought that we should phase this out by committing to publish all SSNs (and the associated info, obviously, so it's not just a list of most 9-digit numbers...) which would force all these companies to stop treating it as confidential. The system is dumb and works poorly, but worked will enough that there was no impetus to fix it. Some people got affected by breaches, and it sucked for them, but it was always a small enough group that most people didn't care. Now that a majority of people's "secret" info is no longer confidential, maybe they'll realize they can't rely on it anymore. OK, the odds of this actually coming to pass are not great. But I can hope.

<comment><USER34> Also note that other countries don't have this insanity.

<comment><USER35> Canada does unfortunately. It's called a Social Insurance Number (SIN) or Numéro d'assurance sociale (NAS) but other than the name, it is mostly the same. And Canada is on the list of the countries suffering from the breach. This should be interesting.

<comment><USER33> Indeed. I wanted to see if I was on the list, but the site they set up to check looked pretty sketchy.

They've clearly demonstrated I shouldn't trust them with my SIN (not that I ever willingly did in the first place!) so why should I enter it again? Into a different domain, no less?!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Falsehoods programmers believe about time (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://infiniteundo.com/post/25326999628/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-time <comment><USER2> Would be marginally useful if it listed a counterexample for each incorrect assumption, so readers could expand their knowledge of time rather than simply be told that they're wrong. I seem to remember an article very similar to this one where it did so. Does anyone know of it?

</comment><comment> vincent-manis There are still programmers who believe that 02/07/2015 is an unambiguous date reference everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER3> I was hoping for information about time, but this list is almost entirely about calendars.

</comment><comment><USER4> Waiting for the eventual "Falsehoods programmers believe about falsehoods" article.

<comment><USER5> From 2016: [https://kevin.deldycke.com/2016/12/falsehoods-programmers- be...](https://kevin.deldycke.com/2016/12/falsehoods-programmers-believe- about-falsehoods-lists/)

<comment><USER4> Ha!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Would be nice if the post included example code that showcased those assumptions and explained how the code was fixed.</comment>


Ask HN: As a developer, how do you say that something should not be done? - <AUTHOR> I think we have all been there, you receive this requirement where something is being asked from business. Like for example some load tests where made, and at 3500 users they found memory issues.
But the application in production has only 2 concurrent users, not to mention most of the times zero.
Refactoring the application to optimize the memory consumption means basically rewriting the backend.
So its not that its impossible, its that its not worth the risk given the fact that the use case is not valid.
But that's your assessment as a developer, that the organization tends to discard. What do you do in these curve ball situations:
- do you just say its impossible, and basically lie?
- do you say that its not recommended, the usual reply of which is basically "its your problem"
- other solutions? <comment><USER2> Give a _realistic_ estimate of the cost. There may be some options for scaling horizontally -- explore those before making your estimate.

It may be that the benefit outweighs the cost (you don't what they have up their sleeves -- maybe they have a buyer if it can support 5000).

The answer is _never_ "it can't be done" \-- but sometimes it _is_ "how much money you got?"</comment>


Show HN: Pokerchips.io – Play poker with your friends when you don't have chips - <AUTHOR> http://pokerchips.io <comment><USER2> I love the idea. The execution could use some improvement.

My suggestion is to focus on the user experience of one phone per game, rather than one phone per player. This way the players can pass that phone around as a marker of who's bet it is. When it's your turn, you look at the phone, see your chips, make a decision, place your bet, then pass to the next player.

Bonus points if you tie this into a tracking system and let players create leaderboards they fill over time.

</comment><comment><USER3> I frequently have the issue where players want to cash out uneven, non-whole dollars after a long game. if this enabled users to pool funds and then extract an exact dollar amount (if all party members agree), this could be useful

</comment><comment><USER4> You should make it more animated. Piles of cash/markers or something like that. In the current state it is pretty boring. Either way I would likely not use it when you can just as well use anything else.

</comment><comment><USER5> few suggestions: \- I can't specify that I have folded. Every time I have to put some money \- Let a single person take control of it(that will be the dealer) for me above two are the bare minimum requirement to make it usable.

</comment><comment><USER6> I wonder the benefits of this over Snapd

</comment><comment><USER7> Really good idea.</comment>


Cognitive Dissonance in Monkeys - The Monty Hall Problem   - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08tier.html?ex=1365307200&en=dc270baec0c66ed7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> The actual paper is linked at <http://www.som.yale.edu/faculty/keith.chen/papers.htm>

The article doesn't give what seems to be a pretty important detail. Children and monkeys chose the new item 63 and 60% of the time, respectively. That suggests buyer's remorse rather than choice rationalisation, but only small amounts. Possibly not even significant, depending on the sample size.

</comment><comment><USER3> There are 2 kinds of people in the world: Those behind Door #1 who don't understand the Monty Hall problem, and those behind Doors #2 and 3 who do.

It's amazing how many smart people don't get the problem at all.

<comment><USER4> Paul Erdos got it wrong (!).

<comment><USER5> As someone explained earlier on News.yc (can't find the link), Paul Erdos (and possibly other mathematicians) got it "wrong" because they weren't told the correct problem. If you don't mention that: (1) the game host knows where the car is beforehand (2) he tells beforehand that he'll reveal a goat,

then there's no paradox.

<comment><USER6> Do you mean this thread?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=78322>

I haven't read the book mentioned so I can't comment, perhaps someone else can.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Summary: one shouldn't assume uniform prior distributions in psychological experiments. Bayes-rule is your friend.

<comment><USER7> To quote the article: "He says the psychologists wrongly assumed that the monkey began by valuing all three colors equally."

So, basically psychologists are dumb; why assume that monkeys have no color preference? Even if you don't think they've got any intelligence, you could probably assume that they have some knowledge of colors associated with looking for food.

<comment><USER2> But also from the article: "After identifying three colors preferred about equally by a monkey -"

They didn't assume there were no preferences. Their mistake was to assume they could measure them precisely enough.</comment></comment></comment>


Innovations:  Technology, Governance and Globalization - <AUTHOR> http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/itgg <comment><USER2> That looks like a _very_ interesting journal, and besides the Open Access journal content they have considerable supplementary material here: [http://innovationsjournal.net/](http://innovationsjournal.net/)

<comment><AUTHOR> looks like they're piloting a magazine version and inviting contributors</comment></comment>


Are you behind NAT? - <AUTHOR> http://www.amibehindnat.com

<comment><USER2> This looks useful, unfortunately it breaks my back button!</comment>


Americans Renouncing Citizenship at Record High - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-09/americans-renouncing-citizenship-at-record-high <comment><USER2> I was born in and live in Canada, but am a US citizen through a parent. The US imposes difficult reporting requirements and regulations on its citizens living abroad. All bank accounts, their balances, stocks, earnings, and more. If you make above about $100k, the US demands taxes on your income, even if you earned the money locally and have never stepped foot in the US. (Edit: Only if living in a country with lower taxes than the US.) Retirement savings accounts and other financial tools that are given local tax breaks, the US does not recognize, and may tax your contributions on.

If you have not met your reporting obligations, whether you were aware of them or not, they can impose huge fines. Many american citizens here, or those with american parents, fear crossing the border or drawing attention to themselves.

Lottery winnings are not taxed by Canada, but if an american wins the lottery anywhere in the world, the USA will take its chunk.

And to add insult to injury, if you want to get out and give up your US citizenship for good, it will cost you. Before 2010 renunciation was free. From then to 2014, it was $400. Now they charge $2,350 plus a big exit tax if your net worth is above $2m.

The US is the only country that taxes its overseas citizens this way, beside Eritrea.

<comment><USER3> > The US is the only country that taxes its overseas citizens this way, beside > Eritrea.

And the UN has routinely condemned Eritrea (and only Eritrea) for this criminal practice.

The US tax code has grown to be the most oppressive in the first world, including compared to countries with higher net rates.

<comment><USER4> That's because Eritrea doesn't have the US's military, and its ability to project power is limited to sending a couple of goons to harass a few rich expats they're aware of.

Also, the stick that the US uses to enforce FATCA is the threat of a 30% penalty on all US-sourced income of the entities that fail to report. That and the threat of seizing funds, because any SWIFT transaction in US dollars always passes through the US, even if it is to send money from Germany to India.

<comment><USER5> Actually Eritrea harasses quite a few ordinary people through a Stasi like network of regime loyal expats tasked with gathering intel on their brethren.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> FATCA is a mess. For example, some non-US (e.g. Hong Kong) bank will assume you are a US person (and presumably share your account info with the IRS) if you opened the account with a US phone number unless you prove that you are not a US person by doing some troublesome paperwork. (So what if you have a US number? It could be a Google Voice or Twilio number.)

The onus should be on the IRS to prove to the bank that the account holder is a US person, not the other way round. They want the money but they won't do their share of the due diligence.

</comment><comment><USER7> Worth noting that Trump signed to withdraw FACTA. Will see if follow up on that as much on immigration stuff.

<comment><USER4> That would be really awesome if he did that, even though he would be doing it purely to help out his friends from the banking lobby.

FATCA is pretty bad because it imposes a one-sided requirement that everybody report to the US, but the US doesn't want to lose its beneficial position of being the world's biggest tax-haven, so it sends data to nobody. There were calls to make the US send information to the EU and other countries, but the banking lobby has so far succeeded in stopping such initiatives as they don't want the Russian mob's funds in Miami banks to suddenly go away.

<comment><USER8> > of the world's biggest tax heaven

As a European, I've always thought the US had extremely high reporting requirements, power of investigation, and anonymity was dead since the NSA was invented. What makes it a tax heaven? Is it the Delware loophole only?

<comment><USER4> It's not just Delaware. There are a bunch of other states, e.g. Wyoming, Nevada, Florida, etc.

Having said that, it's not a tax haven if you're a US resident for tax purposes (then you're completely screwed). If you're a European with no ties to the US however (no residency, work visas, or US parents that can tie you to nationality by inheritance), then you can incorporate or stash money in the US in complete anonymity. The US won't easily (at least not on a fishing expedition) give out your information to your government. (And I'm guessing your concern would be hiding money and information from your own government rather than the NSA).

Check this out:

[http://www.npr.org/2016/04/08/473477551/why-wyomings-laws- ma...](http://www.npr.org/2016/04/08/473477551/why-wyomings-laws-make-it-an- easy-tax-haven)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm curious what happens when you do renounce your US citizenship? Are you deported? To where? Whose laws are you subject too? How can you travel anywhere? Can you get citizenship anywhere else?

<comment><USER10> I believe you're not allowed to renounce your citizenship if you don't have another one; in other words, you can't be stateless.

Edit: Interestingly enough, the US allows it. The Wikipedia page on statelessness says "The United States, which is not a signatory to the 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons or the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, is one of a small number of countries that allow their citizens to renounce their citizenship even if they do not hold any other." See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness)

<comment><USER9> Right, but I don't know what happens when you are a "stateless" person. Are you ever allowed in ANY country? Are you deported from the US after becoming stateless? I have never seen a good explanation of what happens AFTER becoming stateless.

<comment><USER11> I would guess that this varies a great deal depending on what country one happens to be in at the moment of becoming stateless, but that's really just a hunch.

Update: the Wikipedia article seems to back that up.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Can someone at bloomberg do something about those annoying videos in there. Not even giving you an option to close the damn thing.

</comment><comment><USER13> Seems like a risky trade to take just for money's sake considering the immigration policies currently at play.

<comment><USER14> There are pretty much no upsides to being a US citizen if you don't intend to make the US your primary residence ever.

And if you have a lot of money and want to get back in, an investor visa or even a green card is not that hard to get.

<comment><USER15> > a green card is not that hard to get

Have you, like, ever applied for permanent residency?

<comment><USER16> If you have half a million dollars in free cash you can afford to set aside for a few years (you'll even get most of it back), you can buy a green card.

<comment><USER17> Yeah that's not most people.

That being said, the green card lottery is apparently _much_ easier if you're from Europe (because of the lack of competition for the 7% country limit of cards).

But overall, the US is among the hardest places in the developed world to get a good visa situation, I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> With H1-B/GC applicants also climbing record high in the recent years, what are we trying to say here?

<comment><USER16> H-1Bs do not have to pay US taxes for life no matter where in the world they go. It's just one more way that foreigners in the USA are privileged again and again over American citizens.

<comment><USER18> Really? As a current H-1Bs, I believe I paid in both income tax + sales tax + property tax (I owned a property here). And I could be kick out at any rate, which means those taxes meant nothing to me, nor to my future generations. Is it really that privileged?

<comment><USER19> You get to pay Caesar his due and leave.

If you're a non-resident US citizen in particular, you can really be screwed.</comment></comment></comment></comment>