This is it : blk0002.dat is here.
Well then. That settles that. Bitcoin is dooomed! Because mcorlett said so. And when pressed, endeavored to prooove (^^) it. It's been a lot of fun and I'll miss you guys, but now there's no way that anybody will ever again bother to download such a massive blockchain. Over 2 GIGAbytes? How could that much data possibly be moved? Maybe by sneakernet (forklift) on tape drives? Lord knows our 2400 baud modems won't do it. Not to mention that no operating system can handle such large files, what with them being limited to a 16-bit address space. And don't forget, this is ALL the fault of SatoshiDice. Bad, bad, terrible, evil, wicked SatoshiDice. Why, oh why, did they have to go and ruin Bitcoin? /so much FUD so little time I see that my views give you cause to lash out at me. I'm not going to argue with you. Have a nice day! It's just a little sarcasm. Harmless fun, yet effective at making the point that your FUD was transparently ridiculous. That you would mischaracterize so mild a rebuke as 'lashing out at you' indicates just-a-little oversensitivity on your part. Perhaps that's because the blockchain crossed the 2GB "milestone" and yet, almost nobody noticed, was effected, or indeed cared very much at all. Except you, who felt the need to continue the argument while claiming 1) to be the poor victim of my 'lashing out' and 2) that you weren't going to argue with me. Performative contradiction much? Or only when your FUD amounts to nothing, except for inviting some gentle mockery? |
|
|
|
I LOL'ed when i saw this thread. Like last time and the time before that.
Yep. I was all  I'm sorry for all involved. I have to say that bitcoin really is the most amazing geek soap opera. If the bitcoin value was backed by drama it would be stratospheric.
I know, right? Just when I thought nothing could be more entertaining than the epic Pirate threads/flamewars/huge side bets, along comes this. |
|
|
|
looks like the forum is going back into circa 1980s text only BBS but all these complicated schemes to validated and revalidated are dumb.
Three options
1) No images
2) Locally cache images
3) Accept that you may be attacked
I <3 txt only 80s BBSes!!!1 And so: Option 4) Can I allowed for putting big ANSi arts in my sig? 8^P
,.=ctE55ttt553tzs.,
,,c5;z==!!:::: .::7:==it3>.,
,xC;z!:::::: ::::::::::::!=c33x,
,czz!::::: ::;;..===:..::: ::::!ct3.
,C;/.:: : ;=c!:::::::::::::::.. !tt3.
/z/.: :;z!:::::J :E3. E:::::::.. !ct3.
,E;F ::;t::::::::J :E3. E::. ::. \ttL
;E7. :c::::F****** **. *==c;.. :: Jttk
.EJ. ;::::::L "\:. ::. Jttl
[:. :::::::::773. JE773zs. I:. ::::. It3L
;:[ L:::::::::::L |t::!::J |:::::::: :Et3
[:L !::::::::::::L |t::;z2F .Et:::.:::. ::[13
E:. !::::::::::::L =Et::::::::! ::|13
E:. (::::::::::::L ....... \:::::::! ::|i3
[:L !:::: ::L |3t::::!3. ]::::::. ::[13
!:( .::::: ::L |t::::::3L |:::::; ::::EE3
E3. :::::::::;z5. Jz;;;z=F. :E:::::.::::II3[
Jt1. :::::::[ ;z5::::;.::::;3t3
\z1.::::::::::l...... .. ;.=ct5::::::/.::::;Et3L
\t3.:::::::::::::::J :E3. Et::::::::;!:::::;5E3L
"cz\.:::::::::::::J E3. E:::::::z! ;Zz37`
\z3. ::;:::::::::::::::;=' ./355F
\z3x. ::~=======' ,c253F
"tz3=. ..c5t32^
"=zz3==... ...=t3z13P^
`*=zjzczIIII3zzztE3>*^`
|
|
|
|
This is just a hunch but maybe try posting this plea in he Russian forums.
LOL, that's funny because it's true. But I suspect memdealer would have better luck with less Cyrillic and more Mandarin... |
|
|
|
if I knew there was a change of hands of ownership, I wouldn't have used bitcoinica.
I never trusted intersango with my money, I trusted zhou.
Trust? Feh. Proof > TrustRemember that? It's the conceptual breakthrough that enables Bitcoin to solve the long-standing crypto currency conundrum. |
|
|
|
As far as Mt.Gox is concerned and as Genjix explained, we did not suffer any breach or any hack, all other account are safe and the thief only targeted Bitconica's account. Mark (MagicalTux) has been in contact with many Bitcoin players since this announcement and offered any help we can give, but unfortunately all funds (USD & BTC) are no longer within our reach.
Once again, someone with a US IP succeed to get Bitcoinica's account credential which did not trigger any alarms since they were fully identified. Since Bitconica's account was a verified account the owner of this account asked (This happened when Zhou was still controlling Bitconica) to have his limits lifted to the maximum possible, giving the possibility to the thief to move Bitcoinica's assets to another external account (External to MtGox).
Despite our effort on securing Mt.Gox and protecting everyone's asset I would like to remind everyone that it is also your responsibility to secure your account with a very strong password and use either a Yubikey or Google Auth (You can even use both at the same time).
Mt.Gox
-- EDIT --
We would like to stress that Mt.Gox Verified Bitconica as a Company and NOT as an Individual.
 |
|
|
|
This is it : blk0002.dat is here.
Well then. That settles that. Bitcoin is dooomed! Because mcorlett said so. And when pressed, endeavored to prooove (^^) it. It's been a lot of fun and I'll miss you guys, but now there's no way that anybody will ever again bother to download such a massive blockchain. Over 2 GIGAbytes? How could that much data possibly be moved? Maybe by sneakernet (forklift) on tape drives? Lord knows our 2400 baud modems won't do it. Not to mention that no operating system can handle such large files, what with them being limited to a 16-bit address space. And don't forget, this is ALL the fault of SatoshiDice. Bad, bad, terrible, evil, wicked SatoshiDice. Why, oh why, did they have to go and ruin Bitcoin? /so much FUD so little time |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the on-point response mcorlett!
First, decreasing time available to deliver solutions is a good thing because that means there's also less time available for an adversary to use the vulnerability.
Second, the plural of anecdote is not data. Some reddheads complaining about their lack of instant gratification does not indicate SatoshiDice has in any way retarded Bitcoin node growth.
That's why (third) you (and nobody else) know or have any way to give real numbers. Extraordinary claims such as 'ZOMG SpamToshidie -> death of Bitcoin' require extraordinary evidence. Not mere supposition and propagation of hearsay.
Fourth, while the 'transaction spam attack' and corresponding blockchain bloat are not 0-day in the narrow sense, they were in the broad sense that before SatoshiDice the network response to them was untested and no countermeasures had ever been put into place.
Fifth, pool ops are doing more than ignoring 1dice addresses. I'm surprised that's the only response you're aware of.
No matter, the other countermeasures have already provided a number of ways to respond to intentionally malicious transaction spam.
Thus, we are in fact less prone to say, the ButtCoin clowns deciding to pay lots of transaction fees solely for the purpose of clogging up confirmations and blockchain downloads, than before SatoshiDice forced the issue.
Sixth, we are once again digressing into a generic white vs black hat debate. Sure, I was mildly annoyed at having to change my linkedin password, but OTOH anyone registered at Gawker deserved to be doxed into a puddle of blubbering goo. So you may scold and wag your finger at the black hats all you like, while I stand firm and enjoy epic lulz with Wikileaks and Anonymous.
|
|
|
|
The naysayers still have yet to present any real arguments against Litecoin other than "Bitcoin is just as good and works."
+1 I find it funny that bitcoin developers don't show support for alt-chains. Only thing that gives reason to this would be how much of a stake they have already in bitcoin....i.e. money. Once again it's about money...big surprise.  That is SO true. Just so long as we pretend that btc devs ignore Namecoin. And didn't jump in to save it with merged mining when it was threatened with 51% attacks. Yep. Besides Namecoin, what you said is totally true. Oh wait... |
|
|
|
I present the LTC pump and dump. Well played, well played.  This chart reminds me of the Great Bitcoin Overshoot and Collapse of 2011. Remember, when it went to liek $30 and then was stuck at $2 for months? |
|
|
|
Not to mention SatoshiDice has paid more miners' fees than all other bitcoin transactions combined in history.
That's another great point! We want people to use Bitcoin, we *need* people to use Bitcoin. SatoshiDice is helping popularize the use of Bitcoin for transactions. Blockchain growth and payment of miners' fees are direct measurements of its (and Bitcoin itself's) success. We're trying to present Bitcoin as ready for prime time and real world usage. It doesn't help anybody to coddle and protect it like a delicate testnet. This debate is simply an instance of the eternal white vs black hat approach to compsec. It won't be resolved, but the discussion can enlighten and entertain both participants and spectators. Does SatoshiDice have an API? I'd like to see SatoshiDice become a back end gambling service layer for inclusion in all sorts of online/mobile gaming. Let's accelerate Android generation penetration! By penalizing the success of SatoshiDice we subsidize failure, and should only expect to get more of it. More transactions please! Grow the blockchain faster! Peace through strength! Onward cryptoanarchists! /manifesto |
|
|
|
Thank you for saying that.
SatoshiDice has done us a favor by identifying and demonstrating weaknesses in the algorithm that are ripe for improvement.
It's better to discover and fix vulnerabilities now, rather than have adversaries exploit them for attacks later.
/semi-threadjack
Satoshi even mentioned the issue in the original paper, so SatoshiDice most definitely wasn't first to identify this problem. You're only giving the developers less time to come up with well-written lite clients and transaction pruning, while turning more people off because of the increased size and lengthened download time of the blockchain. Nice job! That's right, Satoshi did mention the issue(s) in his white paper. And yes, SatoshiDice (but no, not *me* personally as I've yet to roll them) is increasing pressure on developers to deliver solutions. Can you cite any evidence for your claim that it's "turning more people off because of the increased size and lengthened download time of the blockchain?" Can you quantify such evidence if it exists? Exactly (or about) how many nodes have been abandoned because their operators ragequit due to an (arguably prematurely) increased blockchain footprint? How would you even begin an estimate? SatoshiDice is subsidizing further progress by incentivizing (I hate that word) actual usage of a known exploit. While theoretical solutions may be developed based on the white paper, nothing can sufficiently approximate actual exploitation in the wild. That's why testnets exist. Thank you SatoshiDice, for giving us early warning of and opportunity to proactively respond to the inevitable blockchain growth problem, before any malicious adversary used the exploit to cause the type of critical, and potentially irrecoverable, damage often resulting from zero-day attacks! Measures currently being deployed against (i.e. because of) SatoshiDice by pool operators have already hardened the network to some extent against this vector. That's a Good Thing! We must not blame the messenger and should instead be grateful for the valuable feedback SatoshiDice has provided, especially if blockchain bloat is as humungous an issue as many here believe. |
|
|
|
Thanks, SpamtoshiDice!
Yes, if only people would stop using Bitcoin, THEN Bitcoin would thrive! There are ways of doing what you do without polluting the blockchain, you know. If they are valid transactions then its not pollution its a problem with bitcoin itself that needs to be fixed. Thank you for saying that. SatoshiDice has done us a favor by identifying and demonstrating weaknesses in the algorithm that are ripe for improvement. It's better to discover and fix vulnerabilities now, rather than have adversaries exploit them for attacks later. /semi-threadjack |
|
|
|
Caveats & Fine Print...
**There is a known side channel attack against AES on Linux servers that use the "Completely Fair Scheduler" (CFS), Windows is well known as a security nightmare. OpenBSD is our recommended deployment platform.
Oh no, you just *had* to go and say BSD is more secure than Linux! That caused epic flamewars, back in the Silver Age of Bitcoin (ie last summer). Good thing that jgraham isn't around to hear about it. He'd have a conniption fit.  |
|
|
|
Need someone in Mexico to purchase something for me. You will need a valid Mexican credit card.
 This will not end well. *subscription=1* |
|
|
|
I was planning on creating a asset on GLBSE for GBF
What's your opinion on it? do you have any feedback or criticism?
Thanks
//DeaDTerra
Hi DT! I haven't invested with you yet, but will real soon now. My preference (at this time) is that you don't list GBF on GLBSE. I only see disadvantages to doing that. Your time and energy are limited and valuable. Best conserve them for GBF and your research projects. Dealing with a GBF GLBSE vehicle creates too many (both unavoidable and potential) administrative and legal issues. I'd prefer you concentrate exclusively on maximizing our returns. Don't go too big, small is beautiful, keep it simple, etc. Unless there's a very good reason, why not avoid the headaches of dealing with PITA GLBSE compliance and the additional institutional risk exposure? I guess liquidity would improve, but that's not nearly as important to me as keeping returns positive and optimizing the fund's internal structure. Are you considering the listing to avoid dealing with account management? I see how that makes sense, but you could automate much of it without an IPO. For example, instead of manually adding new investments/funds piecemeal, I'd like to just set the auto-payout on my pool to point at my GBF account (because time is money). |
|
|
|
Are we being redirected and phished? Or did eleuthria change something because of the DDOS? I ask because the usual redirect from http://btcguild.com no longer forwards to the secure https://www.btcguild.com. Instead, an "Authentication Required" box pops up, saying I'm not going to panic, but am also not going to put my ID/PW into that (OMG! New, therefore, Scary! FUD! WTF is "realm" anyway!) pop-up. Better safe than sorry! |
|
|
|
Let's hope this is the start of a trend towads tattooed bitcoin-loving razorgirls!  /Lust |
|
|
|
Smugglers are heroes. They resist the coercive State to help supply meet demand, a most noble cause. We owe them our thanks for their bravery. http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/04/27/smugglers_as_heroes Smugglers are heroes of sorts. The essence of what a smuggler offers is: "Government tyrants want to either prevent or interfere with peaceable voluntary exchange among individuals. I can reduce the impact of that interference." Let's look at smuggling, keeping in mind that not everything illegal is immoral and not everything legal is moral. Leading up to our War of Independence, the British, under the Navigation Acts, had levied taxes on a wide range of imports. One of those taxes was on molasses imported from non-British islands. John Hancock, whose flamboyant signature graces our Declaration of Independence, had a thriving business smuggling an estimated 1.5 million gallons of molasses a year. His smuggling practices financed much of the resistance to British authority. In fact, a joke of the time was "Sam Adams writes the letters (to newspapers) and John Hancock pays the postage." Hancock's smuggling, as well as that of many others, made the people of our nation better off by providing cheaper prices for molasses used for making rum. British oppressors were worse off by having lower tax revenues. In 1920, the 18th Amendment, prohibiting the production, distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages in the United States, went into effect. It had wide public support. In my opinion, no case can be made for stopping another person from enjoying beer, wine and whiskey. That's oppression, but along came heroes to the rescue. The ink hadn't dried on the 18th Amendment before smugglers started smuggling beer and whiskey from Canada and Mexico. Ships lined up along our shores, just beyond the three-mile limit, to off-load whiskey onto speedboats. Smugglers and bootleggers spared millions of Americans from do-gooder oppression. While the smuggler qua smuggler is my hero, several important negative effects surround his activity. Smuggling is illegal. It becomes a sometimes-nasty criminal enterprise because those who engage in it tend to be people with an overall lower regard for the law. Since smuggling is illegal, disputes must be settled with guns and violence instead of courts. Plus, police and other public officials are corrupted. Worse of all is the reduced respect for laws by the public at large. After the 18th Amendment's repeal, virtually all of the crime and corruption associated with Prohibition disappeared.  Hail Eris! |
|
|
|
nah dude - there were 3 people who ordered that - but with all the mtgox issues (still haven't got our account back) and the canadian postal strike, things have been nuts.
Someone else is administrating the forbitcoin account for us, but the silver offer was taken down because the price of bitcoin was fluctuating so much, and people were misunderstanding the gig - we can't afford to sell these 10 oz bars for less than $400, and the bitcoin price is too volatile now.
Whoever bought will receive, or get a refund - we are just waiting on mtgox to fix their shit.
I already had paid enough for the silver bar and shipping, weeks before Mt. Gox went down. There was no "misunderstanding the gig." You offered a 10oz bar of silver for $400 worth of BTC and I paid that. You admitted that you retroactively changed your mind about the terms of the offer after I handed over my money, because of btc price flux. That's just sleazy. An honest business would make it right. Expecting your customers to eat your losses, which were caused by your failure to deliver, is pretty ridiculous. Would you renege on an eBay auction after it's ended, just because you no longer want to accept the winning bid? Based on your (lack of) actions and stated POV, it seems like you would. Your bad faith and faulty logic could hardly be demonstrated more clearly. Especially given the lack of response prior to my making your dishonesty public. iCEBREAKER said:This is becoming a very expensive bar. On June 9, at the time of purchase, I overpaid by $48.35, more than enough to cover two-day shipping. I was given an expected delivery date of June 16. On June 10, you brought up previously unmentioned shipping options. Four days after I responded, you asked me to send you another 7.6btc. The day after, it went up to another 14. The "time of purchase" is when a buyer accepts a seller's offer, by placing an order and paying their btc. That way, each transaction has a clear timestamp and there is an incentive (exposure to price flux) for the seller to minimize latency. forbitcoin said: Yeah you are right, we put the wrong term in the description, it was always meant to be the time of order completion, ie when it ships. The price of bitcoin is quite volatile as we all know, where Silver is a lot more secure. We just can't ship it for less than it's value unfortunately. If you want to proceed thats fine, but with this crazy mtgox stuff happening we will have to wait until that's back up and running.
BTW I understand your frustration, this order has taken a long time to complete with a lot of back and forth, all the while the btc price has shifted substantially - I hope you can understand where we are coming from on this. The standard practice for business is that once the buyer is parted from their money, the deal is done. No legitimate business would try to raise the price after the advertised purchase is complete. At that point the burden is on the seller to move fast and give the buyer what they already paid for. The buyer is not responsible for covering the sellers' losses, any more than the seller is responsible for offering a refund of the value of the item decreases. You can't expect buyers to carry the liability that belongs to sellers. Especially when you state the terms explicitly in the offer. The PURCHASE is complete when a buyer pays his money. The ORDER is complete when the buyer gets his item. NEITHER has anything to do with when the seller says they got around to shipping the item. This line of excuses is getting pretty long. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
