why would i have multisig wallets? more keys to keep secret, is just stupid!
Then don't use it. Nobody is asking you to. true. but you are trying to force a protocol upgrade down over my head. |
|
|
|
What do you think it's going to break exactly? What is your concern?
protocol upgrade, any old client would do funky stuff, which is not good. |
|
|
|
mine bank does not. i have keep my computer free from virus. like any other person should do.
oh boy, more of "I NEVER SAW THIS THEREFORE IT NEVER HAPPENS".  there's a lot of things people should do. but do everyone do it? no. not everyone is a pro when it comes to computers, and people are especially vulnerable to social engineering attacks. what's so bad about adding an extra layer of security? This isn't your project. if you don't like this change, you're free to start your own fork. the source code in on github. im trying to get you to spoon feed me, because this stuff is just sooo stupid, that you have to realise what you are doing.
not sure if serious. then i read the text below your avatar. now you're on my ignore list evolution will eliminate week species. computer retards -> week species. |
|
|
|
mine bank does not. i have keep my computer free from virus. like any other person should do. So if someone ever gets a virus even once, they should be financially ruined for life? yes. or they should have divide their bitcoins, or put them on paper wallets. |
|
|
|
Let's put it clear for everyone then:
PIP 11: It's already in the protocol but we need support from everyone (GUIs, webpages) to arbitrary-sized addresses sich as this one: 1TM1TTodZRiGNY23hgEW4QLroBW5By2gF1FQBwst7BEGPvS3gVh6PuqF5yNPtLFFFy71NzC2bZEX7mU jMJAb8wh6tPVpQeMCcu68F
PIP 16/17: They're too similar the more I read them. It requires protocol changes but they will allow to have regular-sized addresses which redeems the money with several signatures instead of a single one. It also allows much more complex transactions while the address stays the same size. It allows space savings in the block chain.
We can have escrow right now with PIP 11 (it just needs GUI support), but not secure multisig-by-default wallets, as DeathAndTaxes says.
why would i have multisig wallets? more keys to keep secret, is just stupid! the only real world use of multisigs is escrows, for which there is no need for small good looking addresses. this is just plain stupidity! Real banks do this. When you try to send funds, your phone gets a text and then you have to validate it from the phone. This isn't stupid at all. It means that an attacker has to control both your computer and phone which is way harder for them to do. mine bank does not. i have keep my computer free from virus. like any other person should do. |
|
|
|
why would i have multisig wallets? more keys to keep secret, is just stupid!
the only real world use of multisigs is escrows, for which there is no need for small good looking addresses.
this is just plain stupidity!
how about you show some respect to the people on this forum, instead of acting arrogant and asking everyone to spoon-feed everything to you. im trying to get you to spoon feed me, because this stuff is just sooo stupid, that you have to realise what you are doing. |
|
|
|
Let's put it clear for everyone then:
PIP 11: It's already in the protocol but we need support from everyone (GUIs, webpages) to arbitrary-sized addresses sich as this one: 1TM1TTodZRiGNY23hgEW4QLroBW5By2gF1FQBwst7BEGPvS3gVh6PuqF5yNPtLFFFy71NzC2bZEX7mU jMJAb8wh6tPVpQeMCcu68F
PIP 16/17: They're too similar the more I read them. It requires protocol changes but they will allow to have regular-sized addresses which redeems the money with several signatures instead of a single one. It also allows much more complex transactions while the address stays the same size. It allows space savings in the block chain.
We can have escrow right now with PIP 11 (it just needs GUI support), but not secure multisig-by-default wallets, as DeathAndTaxes says.
why would i have multisig wallets? more keys to keep secret, is just stupid! the only real world use of multisigs is escrows, for which there is no need for small good looking addresses. this is just plain stupidity! |
|
|
|
BIP 16/17 is what makes BIP 11 USEFUL in the real world.
ever heard of send to self? |
|
|
|
Those "fancy features" are, in my humble opinion, the killer features that will guarantee bitcoin's success. It requires the consensus of the network, however.
I couldn't agree more. Bitcoin without these features is still pretty "killer"…but these features are really going to set it apart from everything else. HOW? OP_CHECKMULTISIG, already exists, what more do you need? There are already a couple threads discussing this. Have you read them? sure but they are bullshit. the point in them is: sender don't have to pay, the receiver do. and mining pool, can put different fees on different transactions. this is not a reason to break stuff |
|
|
|
Those "fancy features" are, in my humble opinion, the killer features that will guarantee bitcoin's success. It requires the consensus of the network, however.
I couldn't agree more. Bitcoin without these features is still pretty "killer"…but these features are really going to set it apart from everything else. HOW? OP_CHECKMULTISIG, already exists, what more do you need? |
|
|
|
please read the actual proposal. it will tell you the reasons for implementing it. i have been using bitcoin for some time, i have never got my wallet stolen.
you people are crying about some collective delusion you are having.
>this problem never occurred to me, therefore it doesn't exist at all can you please explain it to me, so even my small unintelligent mind can understand it? I think it's pretty simple: Many people *have* had their bitcoins stolen, and this is a problem that we need to address before we can expect widespread bitcoin adoption. Multikey is a very important feature, that will allow better services to emerge, which will drive further bitcoin adoption. OP_CHECKMULTISIG, please explain the reason to change the protocol in a non compatible way people should protect their bitcoin better, it is not a good reason for protocol change. Gavin is doing a great job, and you should show him some respect.
i do, when he is not acting like a child. P2SH is childish. |
|
|
|
please read the actual proposal. it will tell you the reasons for implementing it. i have been using bitcoin for some time, i have never got my wallet stolen.
you people are crying about some collective delusion you are having.
>this problem never occurred to me, therefore it doesn't exist at all can you please explain it to me, so even my small unintelligent mind can understand it? |
|
|
|
DON'T FIX IT, IF IT'S NOT BROKEN.
yeah, allowing your wallet to be stolen is not broken. having to remember/transfer super long addresses is not broken i have been using bitcoin for some time, i have never got my wallet stolen. you people are crying about some collective delusion you are having. |
|
|
|
What? There are many flaws in bitcoin and Gavin is doing a great job of addressing them. I personally hope BIP 17 or a standard solution is decided on, but I would never hope that bitcoin remains unchanged. Bitcoin can become so much better than it is now.
agree, but they are right now introducing fancy features and bugs and flaws. these people are crazy you know? |
|
|
|
|
seriously people(Garvin and Luke)!
why the hell keep changing things all the time? this is about to get very annoying!
fork the code please, and start your own coin! this that you are doing are not helping bitcoin.
DON'T FIX IT, IF IT'S NOT BROKEN.
|
|
|
|
- Supply a field in each Mt.Gox account for a PGP public key
- ...
That is an excellent idea True! but it is likely not to be implemented, because of bureaucracy/lack of understanding from people with authority. It only needs Mt.Gox; not any external authority. No, cause AML bureaucrats, will shut them down then. if they does not comply with the rules. There is no "rule" that you must get your documents signed by a notary. I suspect Mt.Gox are overcorrecting so they don't get in trouble in the future. I'm merely arguing that they could overcorrect a different way... a bitcoin way. For example, here's what a forex company wants for supporting documents http://www.fxcm.co.uk/spread-betting-account.jsp#step2- Photocopy of government ID
- Proof of residence -- recent bills from major utilities
I see no notary-signature required. they require the same thing as mtgox: passport + electricity bill. i don't think that a gpg signature, even though its more binding, can a substitute for passport + electricity bill, in a bureaucrats mind. |
|
|
|
I switched to intersango, I don't like the price, but it's better than NOT being able to withdraw.
why withdraw? can't you just not exchange them to local money, locally? |
|
|
|
- Supply a field in each Mt.Gox account for a PGP public key
- ...
That is an excellent idea True! but it is likely not to be implemented, because of bureaucracy/lack of understanding from people with authority. It only needs Mt.Gox; not any external authority. No, cause AML bureaucrats, will shut them down then. if they does not comply with the rules. |
|
|
|
Why not do something better though? For example: in the UK when you sign someone else's passport application (and the back of their photo) you must supply your own passport number. In other words, they're creating a web of trust (about 20 years late). We're on the cutting edge with Bitcoins; why are we doing things the old fashioned way? And why trust notary signatures from some random lawyer you don't know half way around the world? Here's a suggestion: - Supply a field in each Mt.Gox account for a PGP public key
- Verify an account with a public key with whatever meat-space mechanism you like
- Supply a field to allow upload of a photo of a signature
- Verified user-A signs (physically) the notary document for unverified user B; takes a photo and signs that photo with their PGP key. User-B can upload this photo + digital signature at their leisure.
- Mt.Gox can now compare the digitally-signed photo of User-A's pen-signature against the digitally-signed photo of the signature on User-B's proof-of-identity.
- User-B uploads their public key, which user-A will have signed as well.
Bitcoin users usually know each other (it's a word-of-mouth technology); so there is huge scope for this sort of thing. When the feds come knocking, you have a chain of signatures, both digital and real, that can lead you back to someone who was verified by sight of a passport, or whatever AML documents you want. That is an excellent idea True! but it is likely not to be implemented, because of bureaucracy/lack of understanding from people with authority. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
