One thing that has always puzzled me is the fact that all phishing attacks I've received or seen (mostly emails, but also the one above), contain mistakes (spelling, grammatical, syntactical) in the text they use. I just wonder why this is the case. Can't the scammers find someone who knows how to write, and have him write, or at least proofread, the text they use? It's almost as if the scammers want to include mistakes, in an attempt to morally justify their actions (i.e., "it's so obvious it's a scam, so if you fall for it you deserve it because you're stupid").
I've seen it said that the errors help weed out people who would spot the scam and attract those dumb enough not to be phased by them. That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. Butt watt doo eye now? |
|
|
|
I am also hoping to be selected for this! First thing I do will be to paint it orange. But I would LOVE to get this hardware. I might even remove the hack and just have another ledger. They are obviously putting serious work into this.
It's original hardware then? I would have thought it was likely just a lookalike with custom cheaper shit. Presumably you have to download their wallet software too. Speaking of Ledger, I was quite disappointed when I went to use some funds around a couple of months back that I had to upgrade the firmware before it would work right with the software on my phone. I guess I always have the seed words but that kind of fragility reduces security in my book. |
|
|
|
Apparently based on the Ledger leak. I'll be interested to receive one of these. I wonder what criteria they are using to select from the list. |
|
|
|
I see your point, and have also wondered about the one sided nature of it. At the same time I am aware sattelite is used well especially in asymmetric data exchanges where what you download is greater than what you broadcast. You can broadcast a transaction with a small amount of data, on maybe a cell phone network, but recieve the big data from the "bird". AND it can allow a connection to the blockchain in remote places.
Absolutely. I actually had "Starband" back when I first moved to the US. It actually had satellite uplink that was low bandwidth and I think the DirecTV one used phone lines for the up-link as you say and now there is Musk's Starweb (in beta but usable). These are good enough solutions and you could certainly build something which could benefit from a "broadcast" aspect of transmitting transactions and blocks but that's not what Blockstream have done with this nor does it seem to be their use case for this. They really seem to be aiming for a read-only model in a way which breaks easily. If I worked hard, I could probably come up with a couple of corner cases where it would be beneficial but it really just doesn't seem to have been thought through beyond the "cool" factor. Still, not my money so it's not like I'm mad about it or anything. |
|
|
|
12 Chartbuddy posts on page 28994, this is just what I feared, pages with nothing but chartbuddy.
I have noticed it too.. but still at the moment maximum streak is 3 in a row... so let see if it goes to 4 or 5  Get nine in a row, tenth one's free. I think Arrie is worried we're going to use up all the bits. |
|
|
|
5. Satellite
I am not sure how they plan to monetize this. But it's just damn cool that you can be in any remote place on most of earth and get the blockchain live. Cypherpunk af.
The satellite thing is complete nonsense and even if there were nothing else to be concerned about, any serious contemplation of this implementation should cause a few askance glances at Blockstream. It's a one-way communication with no way to retrieve earlier blocks than the one currently being transmitted and if you have a communication error, the chain is broken. It's been running for years (if, indeed, it is still running) and I've not heard of one real world use of it. Meanwhile, the third world has been heavily adopting cell technology. Besides which, we're all supposed to be using second-layer technologies, right? |
|
|
|
You think that the rally is over?
Hm
No idea. Just noting that someone brought the smack-down pretty quickly. |
|
|
|
|
Someone wanted that rally put down quickly.
|
|
|
|
I doubt it's really possible "to eliminate ice formation"... too much water in the body.
It's not about ice per-se but about preventing the formation of crystals in a way which can damage cell walls. |
|
|
|
Now, that's a more reasonable take on Pascal's wager. |
|
|
|
I've seen hollerith code stacks that had lines on them like that and never knew why!
Truth is, I've never seen a deck and I think I've only ever seen one punch-card in the wild that wasn't behind glass in a museum. Just some random info I picked up along the way. I got in in the 8-bit days so maybe I'd put my key on one of these:  I've got an idea about making something out of glass sometime. It wouldn't be as hard-wearing as stainless steel but would have some advantages. 256 bits is only 16x16 |
|
|
|
Interesting Idea as long as security didn't make a change if they decided to inspect. Lol
Old trick from the punch-card days: Put the cards in the order you want then draw a diagonal line on the side of the deck. Then you can shuffle the cards (in fact, it's preferable to disguise the line) and can put them back into order later.  |
|
|
|
Would you not agree that gold backed currencies had a stronger footing than ones backed by debt?
Right. But how did that go? Even before fiat, there are stories of gold being over-subscribed by notes. Gold has the issue that it's heavy, hard to divide and inconvenient to use for commerce. It's pretty much destined to be locked up in a vault somewhere under the control of others. Bitcoin, whether you believe it's ultimately going to be main chain or mainly second-layer transacted doesn't have that problem. We should solve the issues that Bitcoin has while keeping it Bitcoin, not resort to the traps and follies of old just because it's convenient. Let's not crawl back and lick the hands of our former masters. The problem is not primarily that we use promissory notes. But that the foundation on which those promises were made was faulty.
That foundation is human nature. Until we have better humans, "Vires in Numeris". I do actually have a concern and suspicion that at some point, us ordinary mortals will be banned from transacting directly in Bitcoin much as ownership of gold (in useful quantities) has been outlawed before. Of course, being Bitcoin, they can't stop us transacting in it but if everyone else is in custodial accounts and they're not allowed to transact with you, where does that leave you?  |
|
|
|
as custodians and managers of their assets (fiat, Bitcoin or whatever else comes along).
Disagree. As soon as you have custodians, you have promissory notes and as soon as you have promissory notes, we're right back where we were. I have no doubt this is a problem that can be solved without throwing the Bitcoin baby out with the bathwater. |
|
|
|
7=a1m'9?T7G0w5q{^QetXyV08^y7Tk4-
That password has 167 bits of entropy. It would be practically impossible to guess. Also practically impossible to remember.
Good idea for a password. I am going to use that one, especially since it's so solid. Obligatory XKCD:  |
|
|
|
And yet, this too has some hidden risks. Did you know that you need all of your XPUBs (or zpubs or ypubs) if you are going to use the "x" number of keys in an x of y setup? In other words... There are scenarios where you can have 2 of 3 seeds in a 2 of 3 multisig setup and and be shit out of luck. So, you have to safeguard all of your xpubs as well. So you could store all three x pubs with each seed, but then you have also reduced your security somewhat. Because all an attacker needs in that scenario is two seeds, where if the XPUBs are elsewhere then the attacker cannot access anything with just 2. Now a view only electrum wallet or the like can take care of this. Gives you a way to send coins to storage and also a way to backup your 3 XPUBS. That view only wallet could be encrypted and stored electronically in an email, or USB key etc (This is it's own rabbit hole of risks that I will not go down lol).
One thing I played with as an idea once was rather than worrying too much about keys was to generate and sign transactions but not put them on the blockchain. If discovered, these transactions could not be used to steal funds (other than if stolen by the intended target) and are easily invalidated if you suspect foul play by simply spending the coins. You might also be able to do some stuff with nlocktime. |
|
|
|
40!  |
|
|
|
I can measure my lack of sleep last night by how few new chartbuddies there were  |
|
|
|
Multisig (3/6 for example) fixes this. No need for trust funds or spreading around parts of your seed (which could solve the no children part). It can be perfectly decentralized. You probably want more than half needed for a multisig (where appropriate) or you run the risk of one half of the potential signers trying to race the other potential signers to take it all. Things often get nasty after people die when there's money involved. |
|
|
|
This pump could be the reaction to no FUD at the G7 leaders meet.
Could be. Gotta remember that those looting the wealth of the countries they've been entrusted with need somewhere safe to put their proceeds too. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
