Strong opposite to TOR for my node.
TOR is full of exit-node-traps laid down by surveillance agencies, thereby it would give me the illusion for anonymous communication with Bitcoin network.
Besides if using it I would be blacklisted by my government.
I prefer multi-hop VPN.
1. Not all exit node operated by surveillance agencies. 2. Exit node isn't needed when you communicate with other node which use .onion rather than IPv4/IPv6. 3. Using encryption limit information could be extracted by malicious exit node. 4. What exactly do you mean by "blacklisted by my government."? |
|
|
|
There is a middle ground where you can sync your node over clearnet, but then use Tor to broadcast transactions.
IMO the middle ground should be using VPN (which good privacy history and doesn't leak IP/DNS request) to perform initial sync. One also could use curl to prevent sending browser fingerprint, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5341539.msg57186698#msg57186698. |
|
|
|
But the question remains: is 99% randomness significantly better than 90% randomness? Yes, clearly. If I can predict what you would choose 1% of the time versus I can predict what you would choose 10% of the time, then that's an order of magnitude difference. We might not be as fast, but our brains are incredible at contemplating and imagining the concept of randomness! They really aren't. There is no evolutionary advantage to imagining or visualizing completely abstract random numbers. There is, however, a strong evolutionary advantage to noticing patterns, sequences, order, and so on. Our brains are hardwired to be ordered and logical, which is why we are so terrible at picking random numbers and why there are tens of thousands of examples of brainwallets being hacked. I would suggest you stop reply to post with main purpose of SEO spam, which sometimes padded with AI generated text to make it less spammy. |
|
|
|
|
Based on your article, it looks like people who use term "Blockchain Operating System" intentionally misuse term "Operating System" to make certain cryptocurrency/blockchain system sounds more powerful/useful. It's not like we can install it to empty computer or smartphone.
|
|
|
|
In short, i would suggest these idea which could majorly reduce risk of ms-use of hashrate by pool, 1. Revive P2Pool which is decentralized pool. 2. Encourage miner to keep up-to-date with Bitcoin news and prepare switch to different pool anytime in case certain mining pool doing something malicious. |
|
|
|
It's great idea, although i expect only big group (such as for-profit company or altcoin team) would utilize this feature. It would be a nice feature...
In the past, i always argued that, sooner or later, we'd get new forum software (epochtalk) and that meddling with SMF's sourcecode to implement even more custom code wasn't that good of an idear... There was even a time i was running an epochtalk instance so i could make bug or feature requests in the repo (not that this ever happened tough). But when i look at the repo now, i see the last release was allmost 3 years ago, so i wonder if it might be a good idear to start asking for changes on SMF again (since the new forum software doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon).
I think you're looking at wrong repository. I don't remember the reason, but it seems the work moved to those repository https://github.com/epochtalk/epochtalk_serverhttps://github.com/epochtalk/epochtalk-vueMake sure to check other branch of those repository as well. I also remember someone mention there's Discord where the developer talk more about progress of the development, but i can't recall much about it. |
|
|
|
1. What if miners start sabotaging block creation after 2140? Would introducing some coins that haven't moved since January 2009 help? (Similarly, in four years, in 2144, coins untouched since February 2009 could be put into circulation, and so on.)
Could you provide example of sabotage? Invalid block or transaction would be rejected by other node (whether it's owned by pool, exchange or somebody else), so sabotage option would be very limited and probably lead to economical losses. 2. Some say quantum computers could crack private keys of UTXOs created in Satoshi's time. By the time such computers exist, nobody will be using the old algorithms (the community will be forced to transition to something else). But would it be fair that the UTXOs from 2009 go to the quantum computer developer? Wouldn't it be better to change the consensus regarding UTXOs made with old algorithms when transitioning to new ones?
Consensus for such thing probably never achieved (as in majority agree to specific action) due to opinion difference. 2. Some say quantum computers could crack private keys of UTXOs created in Satoshi's time. By the time such computers exist, nobody will be using the old algorithms (the community will be forced to transition to something else). But would it be fair that the UTXOs from 2009 go to the quantum computer developer? Wouldn't it be better to change the consensus regarding UTXOs made with old algorithms when transitioning to new ones?
answer:
First of all, these mythical quantum computers. They are not and will not be useful for such tasks. All those fancy scientific studies are tainted with elaborate theories. Notice that so far, they can only confirm algorithms that have already been devised. The states of the so-called qubits as 0, 1, or unknown, don't really matter. If it were otherwise, why would people keep creating new supercomputers when they could have a super quantum computer for half the cost? Please stop scaring people with these quantum computers and what they cannot do. If you had experience with such computers (and I do), you would know that it's a fairy tale, like something from moss and ferns.
Quantum computer isn't myth. The reason people create supercomputer rather than "super" quantum computer is nobody have ability to build large scale quantum computer (have many qubits) and i expect it won't happen anytime soon. And i'll reiterate that ECDSA is vulnerable to quantum computer. |
|
|
|
SegWit activation and BCH fork ends "the blocksize war", so you might also want to read this article, The Long Road To SegWit - Bitcoin Magazine. While that book have good rating on Amazon, have you read that book? It is important to remember that it gave birth to two coins Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV because it's about the blocksize being limited. That "war" made hard forks from BTC and it's been that ever since. Don't go trusting any of it. It's still better to use and buy BTC. That Bitcoin SV definitely not gonna be good because of the faketoshi.
I think a lot of people made a lot of money because of those forks, so maybe it's the thing that some people are thankful?
BSV isn't part of "the blocksize war" though since BSV forked from BCH in November 2018, while "the blocksize war" ended on late 2017. |
|
|
|
I have read before that not your node not your coin.
This is definitely wrong. It's like saying if you don't run Bitcoin Core (or other full node software), that means it's not your coin. If I am using Electrum for lightning payment, is it your coin? The reason I asked is because they said not your node not your coin. I want to know how true it is.
As other user said, yes. The real concern is, if you don't run your own node, you need to rely on other node which as watchtower to prevent cheating (e.g. broadcast earlier state of LN channel). Although if you only send BTC through LN, no need to worry about this concern. If I am using Electrum for lightning payment, is it your coin? Yes. When using lightning in Electrum, you're actually running a lightning node, therefore it's self-custody. This presentation shows briefly how it works. The tl;dr is that you're not forfeiting the ownership of your coins to some third party, but due to the nature of lightning, the user should pay a watchtower to watch for cheating attempts, unless they're willing to watch it themselves which requires to run the software non-stop. By "run the software non-stop", do you mean "run Electrum non-stop"? If so, it doesn't seem very reliable since Electrum (the wallet software) still need to rely on Electrum server. |
|
|
|
Simple and pure mathematics is what keeps the coins safe, in order to make it harder for quantum computers we just need more complex math/equations.
Enigma in WW2, was the ultimate crypto/math problem, but the first computer invented managed to break the encryption, now it's the other way around, we need to invent an equation so the new computer generation can't break it.
Let inventing such thing to cryptography expert. Adobe (which is big company) tried building their own cryptography, but ended in huge failure[1]. Can anyone explain the final bit about transitioning to a new algorithm not being too difficult? If ECDSA will be broken (and only that), then we can just create a new address type, and move all coins there. There are millions active addresses. The process of moving coins from them would be very long and very expensive. That's probably only true for company and individual with complex wallet setup. Most people just need to wait their wallet software/hardware to support new address format, then they could just send their coin. I would worry more about security risk when people creating new wallet and move their coin. [1] https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/11/04/anatomy-of-a-password-disaster-adobes-giant-sized-cryptographic-blunder/ |
|
|
|
It's hard to give actual ELI5, so other member is free to improve my wording. - Checksum: Fixed size of data used to check intactness of data, which usually have bigger size than checksum itself. It means if the data is changed (even if the difference is only 1 bit), the checksum would be different.
- Entropy: Measurement of how random/disordered is certain data. Higher entropy value means it's harder to predict/more secure.
|
|
|
|
3. You can redistribute old coins into miners. In case of any successful attack, miners will probably be powerful enough to take coins from any attackers, it is a similar case as with SHA-1 puzzle, where in practice only miners can safely claim those rewards.
But don't forget the competition still exist between miner/pool. There's always possibility miner/pool would do something to increase their chance to claim coin from attacker and other miner/pool, such as create block which only contain two TX, coinbase and TX which send old coin to address by owned miner/pool. |
|
|
|
|
What did you smoke OP?
1. Bitcoin is not religion.
2. Bitcoin alone won't change world order.
3. Why 2.625BTC specifically?
4. Only few people would join this "foundation", so i expect repeat of Silver Thursday event.
|
|
|
|
|
1. Since you mentioned the problem occurred after update, did you check whether your firewall let Electrum connect to internet?
2. You could use different device to restore access to your funds either by copying your wallet file or entering recovery words.
|
|
|
|
--snip--
What about: Taking your favorite football running back, taking his career yards gained and converting that number to millimeters. x GDP of Belgium (or whatever country of your choice) in 1981 (or whatever year), converted to Japenese yen (or whatever currency) in trillions (or to whatever point the '0's start due to rounding). x pi from 34 to 47 decimals (or choose the range randomly), find the nearest prime number x number of minutes between when your maternal grandparents were married to when the second tower fell on 9/11. (you don't know who I am, my favorite team, when I was born, who my grandparents are). Then from that string of numbers, systematize taking numbers between 1-2048 from the string (so any number 1-2048 has equal chance). Mix up the resulting 12 outputs and draw them out of a bowl one at a time. This would seem "sufficient" to me. Thoughts? Of course, it's a lot more effort than just using a generator, and you're liable to leave a trace of all the research being done here (and maybe that's part of the point), but as a thought experiment, I don't see how a system like this or something similar could be vulnerable to bruteforce. Particularly if you know nothing about me, I don't see vulnerability in factors 1, 2 and 4 (number 3, ok, prime numbers get scarce as you go up...). The only thing that could be a problem is that those factors may not generate as many digits as I would like, you'd need to come up with more and more such factors. Also, you'd have to keep these factors off computers, which would require a lot of hand-calculating, then burn the evidence, etc. Edit: Also, I don't know if the multiplication of large numbers leaves vulnerabilities. If so, other mathematical "mixing" functions could be substituted instead. For your example, i would worry more about 1. Human error when entering value (e.g. you enter GDP of Belgium on 1982 rather than 2021) or performing calculation. 2. Whether you can reconstruct seed phrase in the future. If you don't have backup of the source data, you'll have to re-find it on google search where the information could be different due to various reason such as number precision or history manipulation. The interesting question to me, isn't whether the result could be raw bruteforced, but rather is it demonstratively worse/lower quality/less random/less entropy (semantics in this regard aren't my strongpoint, choose the appropriate term) than a CSPRNG SW-generated phrase. Why not use both? Create your own string, and simply add it to a random coming from a random number generator. Kinda like the way Split key vanity addresses are created. As long as at least one of the strings is random, the result is random. Or just feed your string to /dev/urandom instead. I believe you can do that with echo "example" >> /dev/urandom, although i don't know whether it's proper way to do it. |
|
|
|
However, nowadays, most people use mining pools even for solo mining. The reason for this is that mining directly to your own Bitcoin Core node is no longer supported due to certain technical limitations.
Inaccurate, it was removed since built-in CPU mining on Bitcoin Core useless with existence of ASIC[1]. Mining to your own node is not practical anymore because it requires you to have substantial mining power to compete with the collective power of mining pools.
There's also concern with internet connection which leads to slower block propagation. Mining pools handle the distribution of mining work to individual miners within the pool.
They provide the necessary instructions for miners to solve complex mathematical problems and validate transactions.
While the mining pool handles the work distribution, each miner still connects to their own Bitcoin node for blockchain synchronization and validation of the mined blocks.
Wrong, miner who connect to pool doesn't need to run their own node since pool use Stratum protocol. By connecting to a pool, you can still maintain the benefits of decentralization while actively participating in the mining process.
Also wrong, it brings centralization concern where pool could perform passive attack such as intentionally exclude certain transaction. [1] https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.13.0#removal-of-internal-miner |
|
|
|
To ensure fairness and prevent concentration, the redistribution of dormant coins will be algorithmically divided among miners based on their proportional mining power, similar to the current mining reward distribution.
1. Current mining reward distribution actually is "winner takes all". 2. Hashrate of each miner/pool only can be estimated[1] based on block they've mined. 3. How long past blocks should be checked in order to determine the distribution? How to address coins are "lost"?
Whenever you access your wallet, a 10 year timer will begin/reset. If the wallet is not accessed again in 10 years the coins will go back to the mine. Keep in mind, i never mentioned activity (sending or receiving), simply accessing, or logging on.
Bitcoin protocol doesn't force wallet software to make log about when the address/wallet is accessed. So your idea is essentially impossible. [1] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/115090 |
|
|
|
--snip--
You need to block radio waves in that area.
--snip--
This part is overkill, unless you're very sure that you're specifically targeted by government or other group which could harm you. --snip--
Using old computers can be a good idea (always has been), as you and m2017 said. Nevertheless, I think we should support new open source hardware developments in order to have trustworthy computers in the future. Thx all for the answers!  Computer without Intel ME (or AMD counterpart) is definitely older than 10 years though and not viable in long term. You might want to look for CPU which use RISC-V architecture instead. AFAIK Bitcoin Core and few Linux distro (such as Debian) already support RISC-V. Although take note device which use RISC-V CPU might still use closed-source hardware parts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
