Community

The Galaxy S5 fingerprint scanner can be easily spoofed according to http://bgr.com/2014/04/15/galaxy-s5s-fingerprint-scanner-hacked/

Fingerprints are more like a username than a password, they identity you but don't authenticate you.  You leave copies of them everywhere you go and you can't change them short of a skin graft.

Every time there's a new major hack (eg. heartbleed) we're told we should all change all our passwords.  How is a password that you can't change a good thing ?

Regarding fallibility: Bitcoin isn't a closed system.  Security analysts don't need an invitation, they can hunt for vulnerabilities any time they like.  Anyone who does find a serious fault or failing in the Bitcoin architecture can look forward to lots of attention and wide publication (for the academically motivated) or the chance of huge financial reward (for those with less noble motives).  No doubt some parties regard Bitcoin as a competitor so have motive to discredit it.

With such incentives and completely open access it's no surprise a great many individuals and organisations (with all kinds of motives) have been looking very hard for flaws.  Despite all that attention no fatal flaw has yet been uncovered, and that's what Bitcoin's security reputation (such as it is) rests on.

Physical currencies are regulated by the country that issues them.  If a virtual currency is issued and controlled by a single entity, it can be regulated by whichever jurisdiction that entity is within.  But a peer-to-peer currency without a central issuer, that's more complicated.

The tech folk in the Bitcoin world seem to have known about this particular vulnerability for about two years, but they didn't think it posed any "real world" risk.  Obviously events have shown it's indeed a real risk, though more a denial-of-service vulnerability than vulnerability to theft.

There's serious incentive already for independent review whether driven by academic interest or by baser motives.  What nobody can predict is if some newly discovered flaw will prove fatal, or whether it's past the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" hump.

Yes benefitting operators like Madoff and Iksil, and costing taxpayers epic dough for the benefit of reckless mortgage borrowers.

Saying Bitcoin is an "asset" isn't saying much - cash is an asset, money in the bank is an asset, foreign currency holdings are an asset.  The article doesn't make it clear: do businesses in Norway face a 25% sales tax on the goods or services they sell in exchange for Bitcoin (reasonable) or on sales of Bitcoin itself in exchange for Kroner (not reasonable) ?  Whatever Bitcoin may be it ain't goods or services.

If banks really did implement standardised rules for reimbursement they'd leave themselves open to false claims, claims that are themselves fraudulent.  Surely banks will find a way to continue to exercise discretion.  Fuzzy rules and inconsistency between banks may be frustrating for customers but is there really an alternative ?

According to Forbes the iPhone 5s fingerprint reader has been defeated already without great difficulty.  A fingerprint might reasonably substitute for a username, but not for a password.  Passwords shouldn't be easy to steal, and to steal someone's fingerprint you just need something shiny they've touched.  You don't need to chop off their finger.  Passwords should be changeable and you can't change your fingerprint.