Because first of all the public gives a shit about your financial activity , same as mine . If all the people from the public don't care about your financial activity, it doesn't mean that a sub-group of people, which are specialized to analyzing financial activities, don't care either. They are caring more than anyone else. Because it's difficult (not impossible) for the public to connect me with all my accounts and aliases as i respect my privacy . It is evidently possible for the public to de-anonymize a large part of your Bitcoin financial activity. If you think that just by utilizing coin control you can protect yourself from firms which are funded by millions of dollars with the single scope of de-anonymizing as much blockchain activity as possible, then you're gravely mistaken. Even random people on this forum do it. You can't efficiently nor effectively gain privacy by coin control, you need at some point to enter a large pool of coins, which will make it hard for the observer to tell which is which afterwards (as in coinjoin). You share things that you want with those you want . So mixing is good, because it lets us define the limit of who's allowed to scrutinize our Bitcoin activity. |
|
|
|
If you truly have nothing to hide, I'm sure you'll have no issue whatsoever sharing with me your real name, address, phone number, email address, bank statements, all your bitcoin addresses, all your WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal/etc. conversations, your internet browsing history, and the login details for all your social media accounts. I just want to have a good look around and publicly post anything I find interesting. After all, you've got nothing to hide, right!? This is just the best response to this argument. Whenever someone asserts that they have nothing to hide, I politely request permission to access their phone. Surprisingly, this approach even works with my relatives. The temporary awkwardness that ensues clearly illustrates my point that we all have things to hide. |
|
|
|
I agree that someone can't be 100% certain all the time but there were cases that chain analysis led to child porn rings , especially in cases where the users were ignorant about how blockchains work . If you treat everyone guilty until proven otherwise, then definitely, some of the times they won't be innocent. The question you need to answer yourself is if it's worth to live under a regime that is discriminating against everyone who is trying to have some privacy, for the sake of seizing criminals. It's easy to pinpoint that chain analysis is good when the criminals are ignorant. However, how many documented cases exist in which criminals who mixed their coins were apprehended? What happens if a criminal mixes their coins? Are new owners criminals now? Of course not. As for the mixers , it's sad to see many people here claim that mixers is a tool to protect privacy , that kind of users that have nothing illegal to hide are just providing exit liquidity to criminals I'm neither hiding an illegal activity by encrypting messages, but I do have something to hide; the message. Freedom of using cryptography can be exploited by criminals as well, but it is nonetheless a crucial, respecting part of our Internet world now more. Why are you finding it so difficult to accept the fact that I may not want to reveal my financial activity to literally the public? |
|
|
|
On the other hand the organizations that doesn't open their source code will limit it to few people who may not be able to find all flaws of the code and the hackers or the malicious entities may find those flaws in the code Or, they themselves could attack their own software if there's a benefit. They won't reveal you the manner which they discriminate coins, so why wouldn't they? It can go completely unnoticed. Most of the time the closed source applications are full of vulnerabilities and when a hacker finds those vulnerabilities then he/she can take advantage of it and steal data of millions of users. This is so true. In fact, it's been noticed that many times developers who write closed-source software do follow the "security-through-obscurity" principle. People try obfuscation techniques believing that provides security, in stuff like web apps and steganography. Believing that closed-source is more secure than open-source, besides debunked, is a sign of utter arrogance; believing that no one can contribute to the security of your project as much as you've already done is excessive self-esteem. Windows is tangible evidence that this is bad practice. Everything that includes cryptography should be developed transparently. |
|
|
|
What possible use do you have for Windows? There are a few things you can do in Windows, which can't be done in Linux, and that's why I haven't completely got rid of Windows. To name two occasions from my experience, Visual Studio and several games which aren't available in any Linux distro. Judging by the history of pooya's posts, he's used to writing C#, which is more or less a Microsoft product as it runs in the .NET framework, so that could be it. But the reason most people struggle to migrate is habit. If you're used to Microsoft products, then the switch will be uncomfortable at first. |
|
|
|
Well that's not exactly what I had in mind. You said locktime can be used on the transactions to force a delay of it being included into a block until a particular time, but what if you change your mind and decide not to continue paying for the service? If I've sent transaction A, and I want to cancel subscription, I only have to spend transaction B's coins and invalidate the subscription-tx-chain. Although another challenge that would be faced with any subscription strategy is where you would like to subscribe for multiple months in advance so that you don't have to remember to make a transaction every month, but you only have funds for let's say 2 months or something. The software would have to be intelligent enough to create more locktime transactions on top of those, when additional funds come, if you want it to allocate the money there. The software needn't to be so intelligent, because even if that would be the case, you wouldn't want from the software to select inputs and create locktime transactions the moment you receive some additional money. You would want it to do that with only coins you approve of. I may not want to use the money a friend owed me to immediately create a transaction paying subscription for an additional month; only when I approve it. So, you could just use a separate account from your derivation path, specifically for subscription-based services. Third challenge is similar to the second, you have multiple months paid in advance but you have not left any more UTXOs unlocked for you to make other transactions to unrelated stuff, so making any transaction means the entire subscription chain needs to be invalidated and re-constructed. So I guess its as easy to solve as the other challenges. No problem. Spend the subscription coins if you need them now, but take into consideration that you have to either fill the subscription account (from your wallet) soon or you will get less months automatically paid. Fourth challenge and I think this is the most concerning one is, what if you create the subscription chain, and everything is fine except one month later, fees have shot up and your fee is too low to get it confirmed quickly. Quick solution: create several transactions paying various fees, each of which comes with a tree of its future transactions. If you wanted to pay a subscription of 12 months, you would create TX A1, TX A2, TX A3 (with low, medium, high fee respectively). Your wallet software will check the mempool at the time of TX broadcasting, and will select which transaction fits best. If A2 is selected, for example, then it does the same for TX B2,1, B2,2, B2,3. Then for C the same, it goes on and on. You'd need to have signed 3^1 (A-s) + 3^2 (B-s) + 3^3 (C-s) + ... + 3^12 (L-s) = 797160 transactions though.  |
|
|
|
That will work, but what if you want to cancel and get a refund?
What's the problem with contacting your merchant and requesting a refund? |
|
|
|
The alternative is signing a bunch of future transactions using future, unconfirmed inputs and starting from a single, large enough confirmed input, which has its own set of problems e.g. what happens if they are broadcasted all at once, by accident? How about this: locktime. You sign transaction A to be valid in September 19th, transaction B to be valid in October 19th etc. Transaction B uses outputs from transaction A, so A must be already confirmed. All transactions can't be broadcasted at once, unless we've reached the last transaction (Z) and none is broadcasted yet (which couldn't happen either, as the person would report to the merchant that they didn't receive money in September 19th). |
|
|
|
So, going back to the topic: Can tail supply be a soft fork? Yes, it definitely can. And if you use LN, then it can even be a no-fork, exactly in the same way as millisatoshis are. Because it is perfectly valid to form a network similar to LN, where instead of adding additional precision, you can print additional coins, and turn 21 million coins limit into 21 billion coins limit. But, as you covered at the start of your post, they won't really exist. Just as with 999 millisat, they only exist as long as we're in lightning. The moment you want to withdraw 1999 millisat, 999 millisat are rounded down to zero. It might work, but the sub-network will look like a fractional reserve system, where 1 BTC will be inflated as long as it stays in that sub-network, and the participants must remain in that network and not withdraw to main layer. You can solve the problem of losing stray millisats by including then in the fee sent to the lightning router when you close the channel. Millisats aren't lost in the sense that they disappear. It's just 1 sat changing hands. If you have 999 millisat outgoing in a channel, then closing it will mean you get to take the ~1 sat. Either rounding it down or up, someone is just taking a little bit more. |
|
|
|
so if you need to halt the schedule for any reason, you can't do that currently using any of the available Bitcoin infrastructure. You mean you can't do it automatically? It pretty much sounds plausible to do it manually, and it sounds easy to automate it in a wallet software either. |
|
|
|
* Agreement with the mining pool, not to repay the money and consider it as net profit after paying the tax. Again, I'm a little confused by the US tax system, but isn't transaction fee considered a transaction itself by the book? What difference would it make if they sent them $500,000 via bitcoin in secret? What matters is that miners collect money by the network. Not sure about US, but in my country they have recently changed the tax laws, whatever I mean whatever comes to your bank account will count towards taxation That's very strange. What if I owe some money to a friend? Should that transaction be equally taxable with realized profit from an investment? |
|
|
|
If it is not automatic error, but manual error, a big company must have double check or even tripple check when proceed transactions especially such very big transaction. I honestly cannot fathom how a company would automate the Bitcoin transaction of $500,000. Why the hell? What's so expensive in manual work that makes you want to risk so much money for writing (probably non-reviewed) code which would automate that process. If I refund those coins 7.2 I would need quite a lot of assurance from PayPal and paxos that 194k of taxable income goes on their books not mine. I would need to create a legal agreement to refund them. Actually, that's an excellent point. I don't know how taxation works in the US, but if the pool sends you bitcoin, is it considered immediately capital that must be reported? Don't you guys report from realized profit only, when it comes to bitcoin? |
|
|
|
But according to my knowledge, the hard part is to keep that air gap device disconnected from the outside world. There's nothing difficult in that part. If the device has no Wi-Fi, bluetooth, NFC antennas, USB ports etc., then it's by default unable to connect to a network of computers. This. Funny seeing this topic as I just installed Windows 10 and the nightmare is fresh! Windows 10 is basically the Big Brother's operating system. Security asides, the privacy policy explicitly says that they're collecting telemetry and diagnostic data by default, they're using advertising IDs to track and monetize the OS usage, some of their apps request excessive permissions (which includes personal information), and let's not forget mentioning Cortana! |
|
|
|
Yes. Given 296 private keys per address, all addresses are covered billions times billions times billions of times. It's extremely likely to be the case, but if you haven't searched the entire space you can't make that assertion with 100% certainty. To put it this way: if I said there is no private key for an address, you couldn't disprove that claim unless you found a private key that gives that address. I do acknowledge that the chances for this to happen are very close to 0%, but there's an (inconceivably) small doubt that there might be an address without any private key. A follow-up, if I may: Given what you know about the math behind this: How confident do you feel having your entire Bitcoin wealth in a single wallet? (Assume you have perfect OPSEC and the only "risk" is an accidental or brute-force collision with your wallet address.) Just curious. The fact that I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the numbers behind that math, failing to make a fair comparison with other quantities I'm familiar with (like the total grains of sand in the Earth, or the chances of winning the lottery twice in a row), proves that I'm even incapable of understanding the difference between being impossible and improbable in this case. That's source of confidence. |
|
|
|
I would be more concerned about using Windows if I were you. Sure, removing everything that's going to connect your computer to any network is critical, but it's even more concerning to use closed-source OS that is known to having the most vulnerabilities: https://www.beyondtrust.com/blog/entry/microsoft-vulnerabilities-reportInstalling a Live OS like Tails would be preferable. the victim could have downloaded a dodgy wallet.. You should obviously only install peer-reviewed, tested wallet software, and verify their binaries. |
|
|
|
I consider my self a skeptic to a degree and I know that there is always the possibility that these companies could post the open source code online but run a different code on your device. When software is said to be open-source, it means you can verify this yourself. All you need to do is download the repository, and follow the instructions, which more or less go as following: Step 0: Have a compiler (i.e., gcc). Step 1: Install some libraries (the instructions will give you the precise command to enter in terminal). Step 2: Compile. Probably with some Makefile, which is essentially an automated way to build the program. Step 3: Verify the binaries' checksum (as you would in any case). This way you can verify that the binaries the company has in their main page are indeed not altered. |
|
|
|
|
People strive to work smarter these days, yet what we truly lack is not "wallet flexibility." Bitcoin software is just awesome, kudos to the developers. Look at some software like Sparrow. It's the best in terms of user-friendliness and features. It lets you import wallets from various sources, gives proper warnings, includes coinjoin option without additional add-on installation, easy mempool access, transactions showed as if you're in a block explorer. It's extremely difficult to make a mistake with Sparrow, if you're keen on using Bitcoin (and have a brain).
And that's just one example. There's Electrum which is even more simple than that. What we need isn't smart software. What we need is informed, educated people. No matter how smart the program is, an uneducated, uninformed user will just mess things up.
|
|
|
|
|
Δεν έχω τίποτα εναντίον σου, απλά δεν υποστηρίζω κάποια από αυτά που υποστήριζα παλαιότερα. Μπορείς να πεις πως έχω αλλάξει στάση, ναι, και πράγματι πολλά από αυτά που λέω πλέον αντιφάσκουν με αυτά που συνήθιζα να λέω (και που ανταλλάσαμε δια προσωπικών μηνυμάτων).
Δεν σου έχω κάνει τίποτα, δεν έχεις λόγο να μου επιτίθεσαι. Αλήθεια. Δεν έχω να σου αποδείξω τίποτα, ούτε έχεις εσύ.
|
|
|
|
Or it may have been 4k movies (like Angelo claims)? Is that a serious argument? It's as serious as claiming that 7 TB is log. What were they logging anyway? Transactions? The blockchain, which contains them all, is less than a terabyte. Unless ChipMixer was a data center, which is as probable as being just an ordinary person with 7 TB of personal stuff. Angelo, come the fuck on, you have confessed to me personally that you visit this board (even making worthless shitposting just to raise your post count!) to advertise shady centralized mixer services and you call me biased? I don't remember shit of what I've talked with you about, we were exchanging messages for like a dozen of times a day once. The fact that you want to doxx me (by publishing my private messages) to prove a point says a lot. Aren't you biased? Don't you have a conflict of interest? Everyone's biased to an extent. That's all I can admit. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
