Random thought. Take this hypothetical situation:
Person A finds out via brute force that the private key 0xFFFF FFFF FFFF 1111 contains 10BTC and tells person B the Bitcoin address and person D the private key
Person B crafts a Bitcoin transaction that sends the 10BTC to Person C and gives that transaction to person D.
Person D signs this transaction with the private key provided by person A and gives it to Person E.
Person E broadcasts this signed transaction to the Bitcoin network.
Who is the thief?
Was it person A, who simply discovered the weak private key?
Person B who crafted a Bitcoin transaction ?
Person C who unknowingly received the stolen funds?
Person D who signed a transaction he did not make with a private key A gave him?
Person E who simply relayed a Bitcoin transaction?
So legally and morally speaking, which person do you consider to be the thief? which of these acts is considered "theft" to you?
A and B. If you find a weakness, you are cool. If you share it to do evil, you are a villain. And yeah, if you use the information to steal, even if it's not you who found it out, it's still theft. Of course you can, you just can't sign it without the private key. Here is one I made up that spends the first 50BTC Satoshi mined:
At first read this was an absolute surprise. At second read it was a "ah! lol! now you have to get Satoshi to help out with the rest ... if he still has the priv key..." |
|
|
|
Uhh, I updated (again) my signature this morning. And now I just checked bitsig and tells "signature deleted !"  Help please? Fixed. Thanks ndnhc for the PM telling what can be the reason. I fixed the signature (I can't imagine what the heck happened with my clipboard first time...) and now bitsig is happy again. |
|
|
|
Uhh, I updated (again) my signature this morning. And now I just checked bitsig and tells "signature deleted !" Help please? |
|
|
|
Sorry I want to say : it will 'centralize' more the trust system not decentralize  ... if only the high rank members can leave a trust that it will be a sort of centralization (are you thinking the contrary?). Imho it would be decentralization. Just compare with the current status: a couple of hand-picked high rank users are in the default trust list and they are "the police". That's centralized. If the change will happen, less ranks will add feedback indeed, but the feedback will count more than the current "untrusted" feedback. Much more people's feedback will count and the only condition is that you are "old enough" in this forum. Which imho is closer to decentralization. |
|
|
|
|
I don't understand your problem. Why you don't logoff, pick "other user", login into the admin account and fix the other accounts.
|
|
|
|
Maybe, just maybe only Higher ranked ones (Member+? Sr+?) should give trust feedback at all, to avoid too many accounts made or bought to "take down" somebody's trust.
That will be discriminatory against the honest newbie users (person) bt maybe it will be a good idea, but it will decentralize more the trust system ... it is not a bad idea (at the end). I agree it is discriminatory. However, a lot of voices ask for newbie jail and such. Also, we all know how many lower rank users are created only for spam or scam. And.. there are plenty of high rank users that can help out the honest newbie in such cases. There default trust members that actually do that currently. It may not be the best way, but as you said it nicely: it will decentralize the trust system. |
|
|
|
Just a random thought. Leave the trust system as it is, but remove the trust scores shown on the profile etc. To evaluate someones trustworthiness, users should open their trust page, review the feedback and evaluate the users trustworthiness for themselves.
So no more red warnings. What do you guys think? good idea/bad idea? will it stop "abuse" of the trust system? will people take the time to manually review trust before trading?
Actually it's a VERY GOOD idea. People will learn to look and check all the feedback and decide which deserves to be taken into account and which not. Maybe, just maybe only Higher ranked ones (Member+? Sr+?) should give trust feedback at all, to avoid too many accounts made or bought to "take down" somebody's trust. |
|
|
|
|
If you have an older/upgraded Dropbox account, it could do the trick. Or more dropbox account and 2-3GB archives...
Or you can search for another cloud storage.
I know that Dropbox and Tresorit offer the option to share links to files or folders and this should solve the storage issue.
But the default free accounts are rather small....
I think that Google Drive has 15GB for start, but I don't know if they offer "link" feature.
However, you could research a little on this direction...
|
|
|
|
The translation is done for almost one week and I still didn't get neither the payment, neither a word about it.
Maybe you guys do work hard, but while you were online a good couple of times, you could have at least say something...
I'm really sorry guy ! I though that I already paid you  ! The bounty is sent (txid : b7c40362aead23065aa8d6cb9fa133a62ae04b707d173201de69955337270201-000). Maxima mea culpa ! OK, I can confirm, payment received, thanks. |
|
|
|
I'd recommend mining Monero. I think it is the only 'alt' coin with a future, and it will be able to be competitively CPU mined fairly, along with GPUs and ASICs forever.
Well, one can always mine the most profitable coin, sell it and buy Monero. I actually do that. |
|
|
|
|
The translation is done for almost one week and I still didn't get neither the payment, neither a word about it.
Maybe you guys do work hard, but while you were online a good couple of times, you could have at least say something...
|
|
|
|
That wouldn't work because of network propogation time. The block time
must be greatly larger than the time it would take to get blocks broadcast
across the network or you risk losing consensus (too many different chains going on
by different miners solving blocks).
If this is indeed correct, then this is the smartest answer I've seen from the "conservative" part. I said that in response to the suggestion that someone posted about one-second blocks. This wouldn't be a factor for one minute blocks but I still don't think those are a good idea because I don't see the benefit relative to the risk of changing the protocol. The one second block "proposal" was an over-sarcastic answer to my post telling that quicker blocks may be good in the future. Even if it's not an issue now, we still expect the network to grow, so maybe 1 minute is indeed to small. Better have a big margin there. The benefit vs the risks on changing the protocol is indeed small now. But I think that the proposal to discuss this is good. Because from such discussions, especially if they are constructive, we can gather a couple of good changes which, together, may make sense done all together (the benefit bigger than the risks). And mho is that at some point Bitcoin will need a big change (fork). Currently the "conservative" members are very strong - some with good arguments (which I respect), some not - and give the impression that Bitcoin is afraid of changes. Which is also not good. Because somebody that wants to invest for long time in Bitcoin would like to see that, with good reasons, Bitcoin will do all it takes, even a fork, to stay the best crypto coin. Right now that doesn't seem to happen. At least that's my feeling. Of course, it doesn't count much, because I am just a tiny bitcoiner, but how about the bigger ones? How about the ones to come? Selling needs good product and good strategy too. |
|
|
|
Mining has to become unprofitable for big business so they can die off and let mining return to the users.
This is a nice and utopic view, but I think that this is not possible with current terms (algo not changing). Let's say that the businesses shut down and the home miner will continue mining (for fun, for believing in Bitcoin etc.) What stops one of the big miners in, let's say, 3 months after shutdown to fire up all the miners and do a 51% attack? Even thinking on that is scary. It would be the end of bitcoin reign, really. |
|
|
|
It was by special request from many users to put those boards together, exactly because they filled up (with crap) the whole Gaming board. Also, this way you can easily set in your profile to not see that area anymore, which you just reminded me to do  |
|
|
|
|
While spending money will reward miners, miners will indeed stay and secure the network.
But just think that halving is not that far away, the transactions fees are not that big to cover the difference and bitcoin price on the exchanges is much smaller than the miners would like.
If too many miners will shut down the operations, the network may have hard times from the security point of view (Just imagine the scenario when 50-60% of the hashrate will come from 2 mining facilities in China. What if they join up for a huge double spend?)
And here 21 Inc comes and may have a good chance to fill the gap.
Also, 21 Inc is not Red Cross. No. They do it for profit. Their devices will mine in your home, you'll pay for the power costs and will get back some pennies (which may just cover the power cost, or may not even cover it after the halving).
|
|
|
|
|
There's MyMonero, there's MoneroX (where you can set remote daemon)... keeping big amounts of money on exchange is plain stupid and history already showed that a good couple of times.
A lot of exchanges were hacked, can you be so sure that Polo will not be the next in line?
|
|
|
|
That wouldn't work because of network propogation time. The block time
must be greatly larger than the time it would take to get blocks broadcast
across the network or you risk losing consensus (too many different chains going on
by different miners solving blocks).
If this is indeed correct, then this is the smartest answer I've seen from the "conservative" part. |
|
|
|
Afaik, Magi is similar to CryptoNote algo Absolutely not. They are very different things. Magi ANN post tells: M7M is based on the M7 PoW algorithm introduced by XCN.So I'd say they are not that different. But XCN is Cryptonite, a CryptoNote coin. There's no such thing as CryptoNote algo - that's probably CryptoNight. You can thank CryptoNote developers for being total douches at choosing names. M7 is definetely not CryptoNight unless you get very flexible in your mind. At that point all algos will be the same except maybe Quark derivatives. You may be right here, I am always mixed which is which between CryptoNote and CryptoNight. Sorry about the confusion. Indeed, the names are very badly chosen. |
|
|
|
When we say "Event A" .... MAY LEAD TO ... "Result B"
That is best described as worthless speculation.
The fact that I don't know all the details doesn't mean that others cannot research on this direction, which I think it deserves quite some attention. However, at least I tried to say something... Maybe a better question for the entire discussion is, can we reveverse (on our own) this melting trend?
It's very hard to revert such process. Especially as the global warming is only accelerated by humans, not created by us. Earth has a lot of periods of cold, warm, hot, and cold again. At some point this "global warming" will end and another ice age will start. Hopefully then mankind will be much smarter than now... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
