That's impossible. A node can't have low latency for some transactions and high latency for others. They either have low latency for all or high latency for all. Any node capable of getting any transaction within the wait time is going to get all transactions within the wait time.
It's not only possible, it's also very common. Even under normal network conditions, without adversarial behaviour by other nodes. It's part of what makes logic that relies on network connections so tricky.
|
|
|
So it's important for all nodes to know and share the average propagation time of the network. Any two or more transactions received within that time are treated as double spends and invalidated. Any additional transactions received beyond that time after the first are simply rejected. Merchants only need to wait that long after receiving a payment before rendering goods or services for 95% of the network to know that there are no double spends and no risk of invalidation.
So now we have a network filled with adversarial nodes that share a wrong propagation time. The "average propagation time" can be moved towards any arbitrary value depending on what the attacker wants to achieve. They can push the timeframe down to a few milliseconds, or the can inflate it to a few years. Both of which will render the network unusable. How will adversaries know whether to push the wait time up or down? Unless they're all cooperating, they will be working against each other as well as the network. That's the point. There's no need for cooperation as a single adversary can relatively simple take over the vast majority of the network. Mining costs a significant amount of electricity so attacks are both expensive and logistically hard to pull off. At least in terms of Bitcoin and most of the larger alts. The payment system you are describing can be crippled for days on end by spending a couple of hundred bucks on your friendly neighbourhood botnet-operator (or AWS, for that matter). I'm not even kidding.
|
|
|
So it's important for all nodes to know and share the average propagation time of the network. Any two or more transactions received within that time are treated as double spends and invalidated. Any additional transactions received beyond that time after the first are simply rejected. Merchants only need to wait that long after receiving a payment before rendering goods or services for 95% of the network to know that there are no double spends and no risk of invalidation.
So now we have a network filled with adversarial nodes that share a wrong propagation time. The "average propagation time" can be moved towards any arbitrary value depending on what the attacker wants to achieve. They can push the timeframe down to a few milliseconds, or the can inflate it to a few years. Both of which will render the network unusable.
|
|
|
Also erstmal find ichs super das ihr da eine Einsteiger-Seite gebaut habt wo die Leute nicht gleich Richtung Daytrading und Casinos gepushed werden (auch wenn ich persönlich weder gegen das eine noch das andere was habe). Hab die Seite mal ein bisschen überflogen und muss sagen ihr habt da gute Arbeit geleistet. Auch eine vernünftige Selektion an seriösen Exchanges, auch wenn ich persönlich Bitfinex auf Grund der unklaren Beziehungen zu Tether als grenzwertig betrachte. Paar Kleinigkeiten die mir aufgefallen sind: 1) Das der KeepKey Referral-Link shortened ist find ich leicht problematisch, allerdings nehme ich mal an dass KeepKey Referral-Links nun mal so ausschauen 2) Bei den Wallets fehlen noch genauere Infos zu Desktop Wallets! ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) 3) Bei den FAQ bin ich über ein paar 404 gestoßen, ich glaub da müsst ihr nochmal nachkontrollieren. z.B: https://www.bitcoin-beginner.de/bitcoin-faq/technologie-und-entwicklunghttps://www.bitcoin-beginner.de/bitcoin-faq/mining-und-transaktionenhttps://www.bitcoin-beginner.de/bitcoin-faq/technologie-und-entwicklung...
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for sharing so much meaningful information. I really feel that I got more information that I really wanted to be aware of, yet it is not as promoted / marketed to the masses. I didn't know about Bitcoin already implementing the escrow thing, nor did I know about RKS, Omni layer , simplicity and scripts. Most of this is still highly experimental technology so there's no sense in marketing it to the masses (yet). Also, once these technologies are ready for the masses (in terms of maturity and usability), if all goes well they won't be aware that they are using these technologies to begin with. Case in point: You have never heard of OMNI but you're probably aware of Tether. Well, it's an OMNI token. We should really start working on user experience. Lots of wallet projects working on that front. And it makes sense, because that's the part that is facing the user. Smart contracts, DApps? Your average user couldn't care less. To use internet you don't need to know the OSI structure ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Well one should be aware of at least layer 1 if the router is supposed to work ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
|
|
|
I think OP might be interested in Simplicity: https://github.com/ElementsProject/simplicityIt's still a long way out but should eventually offer the capabilities of Ethereum-like smart-contracts without the pitfalls that turing-completeness brings. (keeping in mind that a language does not necessarily need to be turing-complete to be powerful and expressive. matter of fact most critical infrastructure such as military and aeronautical applications follow code conventions that explicitely try to avoid patterns usually associated with turing-completeness such as recursion)
|
|
|
If an output is spent, it means the network is aware of it so, why would anyone accept a transaction that attempts to double spend it?
Because: There's no such thing as instant flawless communication.
It is also worth noting that: [...] all nodes receive all messages eventually.
...the above can not be ensured. Outages happen. DDoS attacks happen. In the scenario in this thread the correct order of events is not known and not consistent across nodes (e.g. what happens if a node receives a transaction that spends the outputs of a transaction it hasn't seen yet?). In general this approach reminds me very much of what we see in DAG-based coins. Problem being even these coins have to rely on some form of central coordination to prevent things from going awry (eg. IOTA's coordinator and ByteBall's witnesses) despite being far more fleshed out.
|
|
|
If you do get one or more double spend transactions, all of them should become invalid and the output(s) they attempted to spend should be locked so it can never be spent again.
What if only part of the network sees the double-spend attempt? Now part of the network will lock the outputs and part of the network will accept it as valid. What if there's a double-spend attempt using outputs that are already spent? In the network you describe you have no idea whether everyone has the same ledger state so while one node may accept a transaction based on what they deem a "confirmed" output another node may flag it as a double-spend, lock the coins and therefore invalidate all subsequent transactions. In Bitcoin, it's the block interval that prevents double spending, not the blockchain.
The block interval only keeps the orphan rate at bay. In itself it does nothing to prevent double-spends. What prevents double-spending is cooercing miners to cooperate into cryptographically sealing the ledger state, creating a tamper-proof time-stamped history of transactions that all nodes in the network can agree upon.
|
|
|
Nobody ever knows the full history but if a node appears to be lacking data, it can simply wait or request it from the network. In Bitcoin, transaction messages are constantly being validated and relayed between peers. How is that not a consensus? Because it doesn't resolve conflicting ledger states. The challenge is not to share a consistent ledger state across multiple nodes -- the challenge is to solve this in a way that still works even when someone is actively trying to manipulate the ledger in their favour. There's only one node per IP address though, not per wallet, so nobody is going to be hosting a million nodes on their PC.
There can be millions of IP addresses per node though. Attacking a network by pretending to be millions of IP addresses is fairly easy comparing to attacking a network by obtaining a decent amount of hashpower. Which is one of the reasons why PoW has been invented to begin with (even before Bitcoin, look up Hashcash).
|
|
|
Find ich tatsächlich gar nicht mal so schlecht. Für Endnutzer die auf ein Custodial Wallet bestehen ist es meiner Meinung nach eine positive Entwicklung wenn da zumindest eine gewisse Rechtssicherheit geschaffen wird. Bisschen KYC wird die da nicht jucken, ist ja bei Banken auch nicht anders. Alle anderen können ja wie gehabt weiterhin ihr Ding machen und richtige Wallets verwenden. Für Firmen in der Crypto-Branche mit Sitz oder Kunden in Deutschland ist es natürlich Kacke, aber das die Finanzbranche regulatorisch ein Minenfeld ist ja nix neues. Macht man sich eigentlich auch mal Gedanken über den Datenschutz? Als Nutzer soll ich meinen Ausweis und alle persönliche Daten einem Anbieter geben und hoffen, dass die Daten nicht missbraucht oder gehackt werden?
Datenschutz und Datensicherheit werden zumindest im EU-Raum schon relativ ernst genommen und sind ja u.A. Teil der DSGVO [1], bzw gibt's z.B. für Kreditinstitute noch mal verschärfte Anforderungen [2]. [1] https://www.wko.at/service/wirtschaftsrecht-gewerberecht/EU-Datenschutz-Grundverordnung:-Datensicherheit-und-Daten.html[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindestanforderungen_an_das_Risikomanagement_(BA) Insofern sind persönlichen Daten in einem Europäischen Daten-Center das den entsprechenden Auflagen folgt besser aufgehoben als in irgendner Bude in Panama. Das diese Daten am besten gar nicht erst aufbewahrt werden sollten steht natürlich außer Frage, aber man wird ja nicht dazu gezwungen ein Custodial Wallet zu verwenden. (im Gegensatz zu Bank-Konten um die man nicht wirklich rum kommt) P.S.: In Stuttgart steht jetzt ein neuer BTC ATm - Auscashen bis 10K € ohne KYC ![Cool](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cool.gif) Mal schaun wie lange :X
|
|
|
With a consumption of 1500W you're looking at I = 1500W / 12V = 125A which according to the table is at an efficiency of ~94% This means that with the miner you mentioned you'll look at a power draw of roughly 1500W / 0.94 = 1595.74W Looking at the chart the PSU's peak efficiency is 95% at 60A * 12V = 720W This is assuming an input voltage of 200-240V as per the Bitmain chart. For reference: https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/electric/Watt_to_Amp.html
|
|
|
Over the past 11 years Bitcoin has been tested, hacked, hammered, drilled, sawed and torched. The core security and consensus models appear to be fully implemented so why is it 0.1x instead of 1.1x?
And yet it's still highly experimental technology ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) I guess Bitcoin staying at 0.x is a reflection of there still being a lot of work to be done. Increasing the major version would also imply a certain amount of incompatibility between releases so the question becomes how big of a change would warrant a bump of the major version. SegWit was probably as close as it got in this regard but yet again it seems more like work is just getting started rather than being wrapped up. Either way, Gmail stayed in beta for what, 5 years? So I guess we can give Bitcoin Core a bit of leeway in this regard.
|
|
|
I wonder if it is possible to create alternative version of Wasabi Wallet for Ethereum network?
I don't know any wallet that has privacy for Ethereum so far, and I would say Wasabi Eth version would be great to have.
I think MEW is focusing on privacy so what wallet actually you want to use for ethereum? If you don't know this about MEW you can read this https://www.myetherwallet.com/privacy-policySo you don't need to make a fork of wasabi for ETH because you have privacy on using myetherwallet. Or are you looking for an offline wallet? Did you hear about airgap wallet? it will be the best option for ETH offline wallet. I think dkbit98 is referring to privacy in terms of obfuscated transactions that make blockchain-analysis and corelating users / transactions harder. MEW is explicitly warning about this issue in their privacy policy so it doesn't seem like they have any functionality in this regard. THE BLOCKCHAIN
Due to the inherent transparency of many blockchains, including the Ethereum Blockchain, transactions that individuals broadcast via MyEtherWallet may be publicly accessible. This includes, but is not limited to, your public sending address, the public address of the receiver, the amount sent or received, and any other data a user has chosen to include in a given transaction. Information stored on a blockchain may be public, immutable, and difficult or even impossible to remove or delete. Transactions and addresses may reveal information about the user’s identity and information can potentially be correlated now or in the future by any party who chooses to do so, including law enforcement. Users are encouraged to review how privacy and transparency on the blockchain works.
|
|
|
Thank you for 10 years, happy birthday, Bitcointalk! In the days of modern social media I'm very happy to have a place such as this, despite all the shitposts, spam and scams one has to circumnavigate at times. Hats off and a thousand thanks to theymos for all the hard work he does to keep this place top notch.
It would be quite the scene if all the WO hat users took their hat off in homage to the forum! I found that image funnier than I should.
|
|
|
Because it always bears repeating: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lovethesystem.com%2Fnot-your-keys.jpg&t=663&c=NqL6_O2uxBtNPA) 3BvMEB423GA5db1RUX2sojFwBsDcgdtNtG
|
|
|
I don't understand why they didn't rename it as a 'service fee'. Free banking isn't a thing at all in quite a few places.
I have a bit of money in the bank. It's not there for investment purposes. It's there to be spent. I'd shop around if one place implemented this but wouldn't bust a gut doing it.
If you want to charge -0.5% of 100,000, that's 500 euros per annum. Which is a pretty large service fee. It looks smaller if you say it is a negative interest rate! No worries, banks don't shy away from that kind of service fee. They just usually hide them by splitting them up into monthly fixed costs as well as penny and diming you for every bit of service on top. Take a look at this price sheet, for example: https://www.raiffeisen.at/eBusiness/services/resources/media/1021497204966-NA-1279548085059316048-1-30-NA.pdf(the numbers will differ depending on the branch, but the pricing structure is usually pretty much the same) Including taxes and ignoring compound interest they already charge you more than 0.5% in service fees for storing investments fonds by chipping away 0.039% plus tax on a monthly basis. Luckily there are banks that focus on investments and charge much much lower fees. But most people simply get screwed over by their banks on a regular basis, no matter if they stay in cash or stocks.
|
|
|
Better to hold stocks, bonds, real estate or bitcoin.
Bonds are even worse than just keeping money in the bank right now. Bitcoin is... well, gotta love Bitcoin, but one also has to admit that it currently doesn't fit everyone's risk profile. They don't have to invest in stocks in Germany. They can invest all over the world, wherever they find a profitable opportunity.
I think a lot of the general populace still sees stock investments as a form of gambling. Even when investing conservatively via index funds you still might wind up with your funds being held up in a negative position over a prolonged time when a bear market strikes. This is further aggrevated by everybody and their dog expecting the next bear market being just around the corner especially since the current global boom cycle is already lasting for an above-average timeframe. Also, they can invest in real estate. The mind boggles at Germans continuing to rent in old age, while keeping their money in banks that charge negative interest rates. That's a recipe for getting poor.
Investing in real estate takes money. Like in most countries, real estate ownership has become pretty much non-achievable during the last 10 years. In most areas the cost of real estate has more than doubled during the last decade or so, with disposable income staying pretty much the same. Not a good recipe for increasing home ownership. Especially with the middle class being squeezed through all age groups. The young are fucked because they were born too late for fetching good real estate prices. The old are fucked because the pension system is failing them. I think most people do want to achieve home ownership. It just has become pretty much impossible for most.
|
|
|
So much stuff to learn encryption, trading, mining Bitcointalk dot org
Do not invest more than you can afford to lose Bitcointalk dot org
Keep private keys safe Don't leave coins on an exchange Bitcointalk dot org
Be careful with alts because most of them are shit Bitcointalk dot org
Thank you for 10 years it's been a rollercoaster Bitcointalk dot org
Sorry for this post it is not a good entry 3BvMEB423GA5db1RUX2sojFwBsDcgdtNtG
|
|
|
tfw you start reading up on that bitcoin thing ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lovethesystem.com%2Fmessiah.jpg&t=663&c=2OTTaM03zTVDyw) Happy 10th Bitcointalk Anniversary everyone! 3BvMEB423GA5db1RUX2sojFwBsDcgdtNtG <3
|
|
|
What wallet are you using? If you're using Electrum, you should be able to sign a message as described by o_e_l_e_o with the caveat that your counterparty has to use Electrum as well to verify your signature. They don't need to use Electrum as their main wallet, they only need it for verification.
If the address belongs to an exchange or similar custodial service then no, no you can't use this address to sign a message.
Yes, and don't upload your private keys or recovery seed. Ever.
|
|
|
|