Bitcoin Forum

Jacob Appelbaum: "Bitcoin Prediction: Major bugs in the near future will mess with the 'market'".

http://twitter.com/#!/ioerror/status/78480502641803264 (http://twitter.com/#!/ioerror/status/78480502641803264)

http://twitter.com/#!/ioerror/status/78520413315006465 (http://twitter.com/#!/ioerror/status/78520413315006465)

grumble.

I agree.  For one thing it relies on encryption and a public log.  Encryption can be broken and with bitcoins as is, you can't force new encryption standards on old bitcoins.  As for the public log, if someone branches from it or introduces their own log then we loose credibility of the currency.

Bitcoins is a good proof of concept, but I think the concept will be taken over and improved upon by companies who don't respect the same level of anonymity that Bitcoins and Tor promote.

Considering what a little "announcement" on mtgox has done to the price today, any actual bug like this would crash the price back to $1.

why doesn't he just say what it is? why do some people choose to create panic?

he's effectively bragging that he knows more than us.

can someone who knows what he's talking about speak to it, please?

This is very silly, i've seen it mentioned several times that the encryption can be improved if need be.
Also: Lol at a company taking over the bitcoin concept, did you read a couple news reports about bitcoin and think you are an expert or something?

Pfft, I expected a long analysis, twitter, classy.

The 'public log' is the blockchain.

I suggest you read the whitepaper about 'forking' the blockchain, since your statement seems to suggest it is trivial.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34237903/Bit-Coin-Whitepaper

You appear to know very little about how bitcoin works.

Jeff - do you know what Appelbaum's concern is?

Appelbaum is claiming he has knowledge of a specific bug.

He says that we need to direct our questions to Gavin.  Is Gavin aware of this? 

My understanding of Appelbaum is that he would not risk his reputation on spreading lies, but I don't know him personally.

Can anyone confirm that Gavin (or other lead developers) have gotten specifics from Appelbaum?

No.

I do know that bitcoin has a history of newbies appearing, claiming to have found some major hole in bitcoin, and then nothing coming of it.

Beware fact-free FUD.

Jacob Applebaum is an idiot! I repeat: Jacob Applebaum is a fscking idiot!

He is a posturing publicity whore who cannot hack shit. Just look at this Tor commits - all he works on is lame stuff, not core Tor code!

To each there own opinion, but I didn't read any news reports and don't think I'm an expert in BitCoins.  Thanks for the whitepaper link!  I did read up the wiki article when it was mentioned that people could be traced, but they didn't go into it in enough detail.  I'll see if it fits the concept of a group over taking the public logs by creating their own mining pools larger than what's currently out there.   By branching, I mean extending upon so that a new currency (or version of) is created on top of the old.  A poor choice of words on my part.

As for encryption, I haven't ran into any articles detailing how the current methods can be improved upon.  If you can provide me with links, that would be swell.

I am still waiting for a response...  <insert sound of crickets chirping>

Because Jacob Applebaum is an idiot, and has only heard things second hand (rumor). And that is assume he even knows what he is talking about. (Doubtful)

Look at all of the "security work" he's been involved in. He is Press Frontman, not actual hacker or talented coder!

Jacob Applebaum is idiot!

agreed.  but given Appelbaum's core involvement in wikileaks and Tor - i don't think it's wise to treat him as a typical n00b.

He hasn't contributed any real code to the TOR project at all. Check his commits.

You're all reading far too much into it. He thinks this will happen. For all you know, this is either some random prediction based on "complex software has bugs" (not an unture statement in general), or Appelbaum could have looked into bitcoin without a fundamental understanding of all the protection layers the blockchain has. He could even be trying to distort the price for personal gain (although I do not believe this myself).


tl;dr: dox or gtfo.

Dude probably just wants to buy some bitcoins for cheap.

If you read the second tweet he states he has knowledge of a specif bug.

naw - he's indicated he knows of a specific "major" bug.  he's not speculating.

but since the core devs don't seem to know what he's talking about, i'm afraid i have to agree with the others who are calling bullshit.

I wouldn't call bullshit so quickly.  I have some suspicions that there are a couple of major problems lurking.

Jacob Applebaum is probably sniffing Tor exit traffic again and some people are using bitcoin miners insecurely or something much less interesting than he is making it out to be.

Do not feed the drama queens!

Confirmed.  No specific security vulnerabilities are forthcoming.

Anyone interested in some of these, please have a look at: http://www.newbitcoin.org/documents/newbitcoin.pdf

Sweet, that's really good to hear.

Now, any speculations if/when the market will get healthy again?
I'm hoping for somewhere before the next difficulty. I haven't ever invested in bitcoin so I hope that everything turns out just fine, which I actually believe as well.

This paper is filled with inaccurate observations and assumptions.

One could just hash the whole old block chain with a new algorithm, the question is how we establish it to be accepted by the peers and transforming it into a new block chain.

Please name one, or, if you have the time, some. I'm very happy to learn and if I'm wrong I will happily admit so.

This is effectively a $5,000,000 reward for breaking elliptic-curve cryptography: http://blockexplorer.com/address/1PZjfkLZBT7Q3UFmyEWH8QtuzTMi3MUiBj (http://blockexplorer.com/address/1PZjfkLZBT7Q3UFmyEWH8QtuzTMi3MUiBj)  The public key for this address is in the blockchain.

Bitcoin's security also rests on SHA256's security, but so far there have been no useful attacks.  I think the cryptography and blockchain rules are very robust.  What is maybe less robust is the Bitcoin software and network protocol.  If we have any problems, it will be because of software/protocol problems (buffer overflows, DDos, poison nodes, etc.), not problems with cryptography or rules of the Bitcoin blockchain.

When I have some time, I'm going to work on auditing the Bitcoin source.  If you'd like to support me, donate here: 1uWY36pcXhLC4V4pZ2eZFScRaUPXgPEwC

The transaction fee has already been lowered.

I'm not sure what "inaccurate observation or assumption" in my paper you are referring to. I stated that the enforced limits (like indeed transaction fee) are not optimal ones. And that I think that they should definitly not be under control of a small group of developers.

The fact that after publication of my paper the fee has already been lowered seems to support my statement.

EDIT

Since yesterday I have effectivly been labeled a troll (having 'only' 22 posts) and prohited any chance to respond to reply to xf2_org's last mail. This is appearently how the Bitcoin community wants to deal with valid critique.

I'm not going to risk this happening again. If you think my critique is valid, I'm inviting you to join me on:

http://bitcoinforum.org/

I promise you that critique, valid or not, will never be censored.

That is a central fallacy throughout your paper.  The entire community accepts or rejects bitcoin changes.  They vote by choosing which bitcoin version to run on the network.

Open source means anyone can fork the code at any time, if the community feels developers are going off into insane-land.

I see many valid points in this document. Well done, Steven. However,  I'd rather refer to it as bitcoin 2.0 instead of naming it 'new bitcoin'.

I proposed towncoin and am ready to implement it with angel miners. This paper by Steven is a train wreck.

that is a fallacy, i agree.

but for me (and others...), the central fallacy is in a section-head:

3.7 Current distribution is unfair

oh.  that again...

i am not an 'early adopter', having begun my quest for Bitcoin in march.  i begrudge nothing to those who saw, believed and risked the earliest.  i will take what i earn, happily.  i will not steal from those whose vision has proven to be clearer than mine.

Appearently I am whitelisted now. I'rant about this 'newbie policy' in another topic if I feel like it.


Could you be more specific as to what exactly is this 'central fallacy'?

Voting by choosing which version to run sounds good, but I see some problems:

- 'Voting' should then also be possible by running a completely different client, implemented by other developers.

- So far, the lack of a sound description of a specification (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg190384#msg190384) hinders implementation of different clients.

- The default client should not contain limits that prevent running other versions / clients. If the default client won't distribute transactions with a fee less than 0.01, it's going to be very hard to run a client that allows a minimum fee of 0.001. Same with the version number misery...

So, there's at least two central fallacies in my paper.  |-)

I'll get back on the 'unfair' distribution.

EDIT: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15657.0

Fees are now .0005.

That one is already solved. No new new new bitty coin needed.


This requires a protocol change or using a new kind of pool. I'm implementing this later today. Again, NO NEW FORK needed.

This is already possible.


Sounds like a great project.  Are you volunteering?


Shockingly...  people are already doing that which you describe as "very hard" simply by upgrading.

Re-read the part of my post about people voting with their downloads.
Then re-read the other post about transaction fees already changing.
Then read the thread on transaction fees changing to 0.0005.
And maybe study how mining works, too.


No idea what you're talking about here.

You know i was watching the data from MT gox today and something very strange happend right around when the price was hitting $10

i hit refresh on the screen, suddenly, every single buyer was gone, one refresh later, and the price jumped up from ~10 way up to ~15

Then within 2 minutes, it was back down to ~10

I wonder if the bug in the "Market" that dude found was with MTgox and it allows him to somehow manipulate the trade data thus "screwing with the market"

Sounds like a great project.  Are you volunteering?
I have: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg190384#msg190384


Thanks for the elaborate reply. Please re-read my critique: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=14693.msg202438#msg202438
And maybe tell me why to study mining.


http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg195156;topicseen#msg195156

Stevie, it's not good to derail discussions to promote an un-related thread.

So can we get anyone to fix those bugs.

I belive the bugs has to do with the security of the bitcoin client. Making it easy to steal a wallet.

It's true he might not be an "actual hacker" or "talented coder", but he might have received the info from someone who is and is not a "publicity whore". Many brilliant coders are not very outgoing, even kind of autistic, and just might "report" their "project leaders". We all should have experienced in life that people are different and thus are destined to play different roles in communities and society as a whole.

Jacob Appelbaum is a freak. I don't give a cent to his predictions.

I exchanged email with Jacob, and he's predicting bugs because some very good "white-hat" people are looking hard at the code, trying to find bugs or vulnerabilities.

That's all.  And that's good news; the more people who try to find problems with the code (and who will report any problems responsibly so they can get fixed before they're exploited), the better.

This is probably the case.

These forums are becoming less and less useful as they get clogged with "omgskyisfallingsell!!!!" and "omgrallybuy!" posts intended to pump or deflate prices.

Thanks for the heads up, it seems Jacob needs to learn to articulate himself a bit better in his tweets if he wants to get a accurate message out.  Of course, he might of purposely kept his tweets vague to cause doubt in the currency for a excellent buying opportunity.  It's hard to argue that BTC's @10 USD last night weren't a steal.

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but....

MTGOX down next day after posting this....

Jacob is a drama queen that loves the attention and people talking about him.  He hasn't provided shit for code to any project or group he's been associated with (which is why WikiLeaks booted his ass).  This guys just talks out his ass and doesn't really know shit about shit unless he steals it from someone else's research.  Jacob is a hack, not a hacker.

"Do you know who I am?! I'M JACOB FUCKING APPELBAUM!!" - Jacob, BlackHat Vegas '09.

never mind my trade just went through...

Ignoring, for a moment, the glaring problems and misconceptions in your paper, it's horribly and arrogantly written.  You wrote down some internal musings that don't really flow into eachother, changed any "I"s to "the author"s, deemed it worthy to slap an abstract on it and convert it to PDF, and have posted it in nearly every thread you've posted in.  To me, It seems you like to play the scholar, and fancy yourself an intellectual without understanding how to write a cogent and thorough paper.

Ugh.  That newbitcoin paper is a trainwreck.

In section 2, for example, the author has no clue how the network works.  It is trivial for a person to change their node so that it does not include transaction fees.  Much less trivial, however, is getting the rest of the network to forward them, or miners to accept them.  (Yes, I know that at least one mining pool always accepts free transactions, and it is trivial to connect to it.  I'm speaking more broadly here.)

I gave up another couple of pages in.  I sorta wanted to do a page by page rebuttal, but it would really need to be more like line by line.

Right, another one using bold language without taking me on on the main issues. Actually there's nothing wrong with the example given in section 2. I changed the source code, and where before transactions would require (at that time 0.01 bitcoins) transaction fee, after my change it wouldn't. Of course it is easy for the other nodes to start refusing my transactions, I didn't state otherwise and I think it's been done already.

If you do a line by line rebuttal, I'm sure you will find something valid if you try hard enough. But, from now on I'll only respond to critique that affects the main issues that I stated, so spare yourself the time. I'll also respond only to critique (and have been doing so allready) that is put politely and does not involve any disdain or false accusations. I trust there's people out there that will understand the incapacity of people using such manners.

Start refusing?  Hmm.  I suggest you take a look at the source code to the default client.  There are already rules in place regarding which transactions to forward.

If I have time, I'll write a detailed refutation.  But no promises, Mondays are usually fairly busy, and I probably won't have time.

@Stevie: Your paper paragraph 3.6 is a serious bug, but in a very different way than discribed:

The is no danger of double spending as long as payees wait for confirmations in the block chain.

But there is a vulnerability. Think of the following:

1. A wants to pay B some BTC.
2. A draws that transaction X (signet with his key).
3. The transaction gets not included in the block chain.

What now? A can now ignore that or draw another transaction Y. Maybe transaction Y got into the block chain.

What attack is possible now? Right: B can steal coins from A by sending the already drawn transaction X into the block chain generation.

Your pruning suggestion will not work, because the number of accounts will also grow.


And you don't have to change the block chain format for achieving that anyway.

Thanks bcearl. I hope you will excuse me, I try to stick to the bugs I think I found. But if you found a different one, please have the current devs look into it!

What I am not sure about now: Do you agree that transactions are not safe if not included in the block chain? (And 'buried' under enough blocks?)

I would state it like this: When you make a transaction, and it does not get in the block chain, you can't withdraw it either.

I don't consider it a huge problem, but I can't see that there is any solution possible to that problem.

There you have me! I know of no proper solution for that either unfortunately...

I only worked out (with a simulation, math was too complicated for me) how much more space. I didn't feel like working this out for the current Bitcoin transaction-storing blockchain, didn't feel that that was up to me.

It would surprise me if the block chain format wouldn't have to be changed for it, but must admit I didn't give that too much thought as there's more issues that I'd like it to change for.

Have to ask: who can't withdraw, payer can't revoke his transaction (or double-spend) or payee can't use the payed money?


No, I don't think it is a problem either, only a limitation. I wanted to make readers aware of it, as I am proposing a system with running balances stored in the block chain (and with the same limitation).

Section 2, misunderstanding of how the network works, particularly in regards to relays.  Explained earlier.

Section 3.1, a spender looking to send a transaction with a fee big enough for you to care will be well connected.  80+ connections is trivial today.

Section 3.2, some of those limits are hard, and some are soft.  There is nothing to suggest that any other value for the hard limits would be any better than the ones we have.  The soft limits can be (and have been) changed as the network evolved.

Section 3.3, those developers are actively helping other people create alternative implementations of the software.  The developers all understand which limits are hard and which are soft.  What is your excuse for not having researched the matter?  Any hardcoded checkpoint blocks that are not in agreement with the rest of the network will  prevent those implementations from catching on, this applies equally well to new versions of the original client as it does to upcoming alternatives.

Section 3.4, pruning code already exists.  It is not widespread because there is no need for it yet.

Section 3.5, I'm sorry you don't understand the script system.  It isn't a vector for malware infestation, and probably never will be because it only supports a small number of cryptographic and mathematical functions.

Section 3.6, we all knew that unconfirmed transactions were unsafe before you arrived to show us.  Your notion of nodes forgetting transactions, however, is pretty silly.  Even more silly is that they have to forget them in such a way that they remember not to get them again when another node offers.

Section 3.7, I'm sorry you showed up too late to the party.  For what it is worth, I did too; I have around 10 coins to my name.  I also observe that the universe doesn't give a fuck what you consider fair, and neither does anyone else.

The rest of your proposal is harder to dissect because it consists of a series of conjectures with no evidence backing them up.  Here are the highlights.

Sections 4.1 and 4.2, storing balances instead of transactions won't give much space savings.  Addresses are no more limited than transactions, unless you think you have some way to limit each person to one address.

Section 4.3, I LOL'd.  Hint, the hard part is mining, not pushing transactions around.

Section 4.4 is madness.  The chain will reshuffle thousands of times each day.

Section 4.5 why the hell would anyone care how many hashes you did?  Are your hashes valuable in some way?  In bitcoin, there are answers to these questions, and those answers are critical to the functioning of the system.

Section 5, Conclusion.  You don't understand any of the important decisions that went into the design of bitcoin.  Either that or you are a very special kind of troll.

Edit: Oops, section 3.6, changed safe to unsafe

*facepalm*

This is stated in satoshi's original paper, and should be patently obvious to anyone.  Block chain confirmations equal transaction security.


Pretty much.  The vast majority of this stuff is covered in satoshi's original paper, the wiki or FAQs -- all of which are easily accessible.

1. The solution is that computer ressources will continue growing exponentially. Bitcoin data will do definately, no matter whether you prune some trash. :)

3. The client can just download the blockchain and throw it away, keeping account balances and hashes of the last block in a local database.

i note that forum.newbitcoin.org is all the way up to eight posts now.

five of which belong to mr. appelbaum.

...and one of which includes this bit of prescience:

That might or might not be true. A well defined system should not have to depend on exponentially growing computer power.


If a new node comes along, one has to convince this node that account balances are correct. Multiple transactions lead to one account balance (that's why they'd take more storage). If only the account balance is stored, the transaction information cannot be recovered. If a hash of the transactions is stored in the chain, this hash cannot be used to prove account balances. Therefore a hash of account balances should be stored in the chain.

Where I first intended to ignore any posts containing any off-topics, disdain or worse (#56) of which above quotes are only an example (much more in the 21.000.000 limit thread), I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to waste my time in this way. Therefore I will not continue to post in this thread.

I am definitly willing to continue discussing what has been discussed, as long as it is done in a civilised manner. I can be reached at the forum mentioned in the above quote.

Everything you've posted is off-topic.  This was about the speculation of one twitter user, not a boasting grounds for you to show of that you know how to use LaTeX.

The new bitcoin paper is filled with inaccuracies, as was stated by Jgarzik earlier.

1. Enforced limits are not optimal

First, how do you know? Second, the only things enforced by the block chain is block creation speed. The rest are completely client side. You would be better off designing a better client with the same protocol.

2. Not truly decentralized

See previous comments. Run whatever version you like, ie, whatever version of the protocol you support. Anyone can fork it should they wish, though most have doubts about the success of any forks without insane action by one of the core dev team here.

3. Unmanageable storage requirements

Client side (again). Pruning is planned out, but not implemented. Headers only mode is being worked on.

4. Unconfirmed transactions are not safe

Saying unconfirmed txs aren't safe is like saying that promissory notes from a stranger on the street aren't safe.

5. Current distribution is unfair

Oh, this again.

Twitter user @smarimc claims to have found a protocol level bug that allows the Bitcoin network to be used for a DDoS attack.

Oddly enough, this is probably correct.  The enforced limits are very likely to be non-optimal.

Also, all other possible values are equally likely to be non-optimal.

Then he should contact the dev team:  http://www.bitcoin.org/

It is known that there are certain ways to DoS a P2P node, but amplification attacks and DDoS are a different beast.

Hmmmmm...

so did anything ever come of this?

I guess the price wouldn't be $16 right now if a major bug had been found. Trouble is, if he ever does find a major bug in the future, no one will believe him.

Good luck breaking SHA 256  ;)

SHA256 is irrelevant in that context. Good luck breaking ECDSA.

sorry to resurrect a dead thread, but did anything ever come of this?

well what do you think?

i guess not, but jacob seems to be no fool so i assumed it would at least have been revealed (what he was talking about)

I hate reading some god damn thread and then have nothing of substance come out of it.  >:(

Really? But, you know, you are on the Bitcoin forums...  ;D

Lots of substance comes out of it: bullshitters are discredited. For one reason or another, there are still occasional waves of people or sock-puppets showing up out of nowhere and spreading fact-free, panicky bullshit.

How many times have i read threads like this?  ::)

A newb shows up, reads for 15min. and decides "bitcoin can't work! I should tell everybody!"

I didn't want to say anything because it conflicts with what i'm about to say...
quit bumping an old thread

i didn't realize this was a year old till i saw the $10 - $15 price comment

All you guys need to learn how to use this button, it's there for a reason:

https://i.imgur.com/8jUau.png

It keeps you from having to re-read entire threads that you may have already read.

i didn't read this thread a year ago.

yes i could have read the date, but i usually scan the headline, and body before looking for little deatails like the year.

I starty my day off here...
https://i.imgur.com/6eW6U.jpg

So much this!

Ente

March 2013, fork in the blockchain. His prediction was right.

I'm curious what his position would be now.

What bugs could occur in the bitcoin protocol?

Could there be a major flaw?

The March fork was an issue for around 5 hours... pretty much a non-event, and was handled beautifully by the main devs.

Prior to that, the only other significant bug was back in 2010.

Appelbaum has zero cred when it comes to Bitcoin.

Thread necro much?