Whitelisting actually sounds like a smart idea.

Could that potentially be the solution to the problem?  It would be a hell of a lot easier to ban a few bad ip's from a few bad addresses.

Good lord.

Are these attacks all spoofed origination attacks?  Or is it a wide gamut of different DDoS flavors?

IMO, the value of stabilizing the currency would be enough to elicit a tandem response without forking.

As I've mentioned in multiple other posts... Addresses paired with an encrypted key file used to authenticate transactions.

 I will probably suggest 100 more times.  If you want btc to be taken really seriously, you have to find a solution to the fact that peoples money sits on their computer and is prone to possible brute force cracking.  Sure the most savvy of us create layers of encryption and backups but eventually the currency must be easily transacted from anywhere and that may require dual wallet, verification key implementation.  That way data lossmcan be mitigated because cloud/ served wallet services will only have the data for the transactions which will require a separate key to validate.

Basically create an encrypted hash/ keychain pair separate from the wallet/BTC balance.  The private key and wallet would still exist, but transactions would not be validated until you processed your key against whatever encryption algorithm thereby proving the owner of the wallet made the transaction.  You'd still want some protection of your wallet, but it would be fine if it were for instance held at a transaction intermediary (a BTC bank of sorts) then you could transact funds and you would use your key to validate the transaction.

That way any banks or holding houses wouldn't be holding the chance of losing everything, because in the worse scenario after being hacked, you'd just create a new wallet, transfer funds using your key and be right as rain.

Fucking sweet. Can I give rep/ +1?

This is a suggestion for future implementation for client generation and transaction verification.  Rather than simply verifying valid coins, verifying the transaction can be verified by the party in possession of the BTC.

Keep in mind that trends often benefit bears in lean times, IE people who buy low often lose out in the short run and payoff in the long. I"m investing heavily now and I'll see great returns I believe.  If you are speculating, you're not an investor, you're a pig... Pigs get slaughtered.

The idea is novel, but implementation is horse shit.

ATI is working from behind though (and doing well on the whole) I got a 5790 for 310 off ebay thats still WELL worth the price.  Nvidias OCD style attention to detail got a shitload of my money for years.  AMD is doing a half decent job of catching up, but Nvidia (much like Intel recently) has done a spectacular job of keeping their rendering on screen limited to that which is smooth rather than solely that which is fast.

Been posting this around a bit.  I feel that transaction authority is a MAJOR flaw in BTC for its stability in the long run.  Basically, if heists keep happening and virii can rob you of all you possess, the currency lacks the level of faith that will attract a really schrewd following.  So... I suggest two factor transaction authorization.

Basically as a part of wallet generation, a client side key is generated with a corresponding encrypted hash assigned to the address.  So, wallet data wouldn't be enough to transact anything.  I know wallet encryption provides a level of security as does truecrypt, but having a keychain would liken the transaction process to safety deposit box rather than a wall safe at home.

The level of sophistication would bring thefts to almost nil and make keeping a wallet file somewhere a way less risky operation.

It could lead to the development of more credit card like interfacing because your wallet data would be fine stored by an intermediary and one would need then only a keychain to validate a transaction.  (hypothetically someone could make an RF keychain card with a fingerprint scanner so you could take your btc with you while you shop.

OR transactions could be partially transacted pending keychain verification allowing users to review their transactions and authorize only valid ones.

I believe this would go a long way to improve confidence in the currency which is vital to it becoming widely used.

lol. I'm holding them. If more pools step in and .bit resolution gets into a Firefox release, that shit could inflate wildly.

Awesome. Danke.

Slush,

Did my question make sense?

Slush,

Same question I gave to tycho...

If there's were a new mechanism programmed into address generation for BTC that created an encrypted hash and key file pair for the client which would be required in order to SEND bitcoins, would you be behind it?

I am of the opinion that if people felt a bit more secure about the safety of their funds, BTC would see wider adoption.

I feel that it would make a significant difference in how seriously the currency is taken.  It seems like it would be relatively secure and easy to implement and people would just have to take their keychain and put it somewhere safe and only take it out when they needed to send BTC.  As opposed to a wallet which has to remain resident somewhere to be collecting inbound currency and verifying it, the keychain could go anywhere and never come out unless a transaction needed to be processed.

Tycho... Just wanted your opinion.

If there were some consensus within the developer community to add RSA 4096 or some other such hash function to create a paired key that would belong to a specific address for SENDING BTC, would you get behind it?

Basically attach an encrypted key to address for the purpose of validating transactions.  That way thiefs would have to gain access to both a wallet and a key file in order to actually transact a theft.

I figure the added security would make it a lot more enticing for average people to get involved with BTC because it would resolve some of the concerns pertaining to ongoing theft via worms and such.

It is a hell of a lot harder to find two encrypted files in separate locations than one.

I feel that the system itself should be integrated with a security method to avoid illegitimate transactions.

Totally.  I use 4 different password families based upon the trustworthiness of the organization.  If someone pulled my password off here, they could definitely get into my old adult friend finder account though.

Get to talk to some bots.

It'd probably be pretty cool.

Thank you!  I believe this community has the seeds within it of the next paradigm of humanity.  Collective, work based participation.

I think this thread is pretty funny.

Nvidia cards tend to be a lot prettier for gaming.  I have had both tri fire 5970+5870 and now quadfire 5970s and I'd definitely give the pure smooth sexiness award to nvidia.  Fucking tearing, ATI, wtf. Well... Tearing, stutters and screen flickers really.

If I weren't making money with my cards, they'd be kinda dumb.

ALTHOUGH as a caveat... The 69xx series by ATI is a far the smoother renderer for games.  Competitive with nvidia even.

All this speculation is really pretty funny to me.

The actual value of a currency has to do with confidence AND liquidity.

IE: while the price of BTC might have fallen a long way, it is still relatively liquid and can be used to transact business, its Variance is in excess of most relative currency markets, but that doesn't necessarily have ANYTHING to do with its viability as a currency.

If more people and businesses choose to find ways to transact business in bitcoins, their demand and relative liquidity will rise and the relative price based on USD will go up. 

Make no mistake, this is a BTC depression.  It is a natural cycle that all hard currencies go through.

To strictly equate the price of the currency as a measurement of the viability of the currency is laughable.  The viability of the currency depends on participation.  Yes, if everyone were to get out of bitcoins, they would be worthless.

That would mean 10's of millions in lost investments on the part of participants.  Investments that are not very expensive to maintain in order to 'stay in'.  Those people aren't going to be scared off by speculation.

Go ahead and speak of doomsday though, because dimwits will sell low and I'll get my currency cheap.

Currency is a medium for transaction.  IF it succeeds as an efficient mode of communicated value, it will continue to exist.  Until such a time that no man gives the currency any value (not likely).

The reality is that it is hard to say what will ultimately happen, but since the broad trend with BTC is adoption, the likelihood is that the currency will solidify and as such, appreciate.