"Make no mistake about it, what happened earlier this summer in the attack on our company was a reckless and vicious crime," David Vincenzetti, CEO of Hacking Team, said in a statement on July 14. "We have reported it to Italian authorities who are investigating, and we expect the authorities of other nations to be involved as well." That's ironic, if their software uses zero day vulnerabilities to hack people's computers and Bitcoin wallets then isn't their software an illegal hacking tool? Selling their software sounds criminal, and anyone using it to hack Bitcoin wallets must be commuting a crime. Yes,the hackers who hacked Hacking Team committed a crime, but Hacking Team itself sounds like it's committing crimes. Didn't you know that agencies nowadays allow themselves to do everything they want? It's terror in the world, everything must be allowed now to prevent it... so they think. They will do whatever is possible to do. They don't care about such small things like "hacking". |
|
|
|
My thoughts... this is not a original idea and it does nothing for the BTC community. Your idea is dumb... When your parents go to sleep tonight please wright "MY SON IS GAY" on your parents faces. THAT WILL SHOW THEM WHO IS BOSS!!!  When did little boys take over are forum?  Grow some pubes M8!!!! What's wrong with you? Were you drunk when you wrote this? Be happy that bitcoins are good to inspire artists. I wonder what you hated in the post he made. |
|
|
|
|
Disable change addresses. They are the worst when it comes to reveal your bitcoin addresses. Then, always, when you want to do a transaction, think about from which address to send. If you don't want that an address is revealed, maybe because you are invested in a scam company with it, then send the funds to an exchange. Every transaction to that exchange let you give a new address there. You don't want them all go the same address. Then you can send them back and you have fresh coins.
If you sent already from one of your addresses then think about that too. Maybe you don't want that one of the receivers of the transactions does know that you sent to the other service and so on.
Simply use your brain and decide which amount to send from which address.
|
|
|
|
But he means to raise the minimum fee so that the spamming attack will cost more. When he raises his own fee then the attack isn't changed.
jbreher In case the attackers are a combination of big miners then they will earn from spamming because what they invest will come back and more on top. When the minimum fee would be raised then they would get what they want without having to pay for it. Though that only when really miners are spamming.
I think your making the "Golden Ratio" argument, which was debunked...  When spammers spam, all miners REVENUE go up, but only the spammers have the added EXPENSE of the spam. Therefore they get less PROFIT. I don't see that calculation debunking the theory. I mean when the biggest chinese pools stay together then they can fund the operation cheaply. For sure they will raise profits for all other miners too but they most probably will have the ability to create more cheap miners for a lower price than small miners and pools. The profits from spamming would be miniscule, the same goes for the profits the other pools get. But an advantage in cost of creation of miners can be rather big. So even when others earn more, it could mean that the big pools still get more back in new mining hardware. Though it looks like it weren't the miners, or they dropped their plan since the spamming stopped now. The proof is that "Spammer Bob" makes 1821 BTC / day when spamming is off, but only makes 1810 BTC / day when spamming is on. You may think that 11 BTC is no big deal for a miner, but the question remains... why would a miner engage in a behavior that reduces thier profit margin? I think that graphic includes some errors. First, with spam the fees are higher. Second, a potential mining corporation build out of all big chinese miners, could be more than 60%. So i think it's possible to increase mining profit with that. The most profitable it would be for the miners not spamming at all while the others spam, thats true. |
|
|
|
jbreher In case the attackers are ...
Yes, I understand all the implications. However, history hath shewn that central planning is never as effective as the invisible hand of the marketplace. Block space _is_ a limited resource. Let us compete freely for it. If the miners clog all the block space sending big transaction fee transfers to themselves, they may crowd out regular users' lower fee transactions. Net effect: no new fees will enter the system. They will not make money. They'll eventually realize it, and roll back to a more market-appropriate level. There is no problem here. If history has shown something then that the invisible hand of the marketplace is very dangerous to the whole. I agree that central planning works even worse. But the marketplace brings out results like banks that trade with enourmous bubbles. They proceed because the others do so too. At the end they crash and bring misfortune to the whole market. The thing is, when miners find a way to earn more, then they will do. SPV mining for example. So when it's possible to get an advantage and you even harm bitcoin, then they might do it. When they made their nice stash and bitcoin is dead then they have their money already. And they can be sure that most others won't do it, in order to protect bitcoin. So they can use it and know that they don't hurt bitcoin big enough. |
|
|
|
What i wonder is why miners use 1 transaction blocks for getting an advantage The answer is simple. Miner (pool) receives new block from a peer. What should it do? Check integrity, parse and check all transactions, remove these transactions from current mempool, etc This takes time. May be several seconds. OK, what miners do? They start mining from the empty block immediately. And process all checks asynchronous. Sometimes asics find solution for these empty templates. I knew that. I mean why miners do this. The why was for the next part of the sentence you quoted here: but other miners not even make some calculation like "When i get paid this high fee for this huge transaction then my block will be bigger and gets propagated more slowly. I should only accept transactions based on price per kb. That would be more near to the profit i get from it." The number of transactions in block is used in difficulty calculation. So what calculation? I know they sort transactions by fee size. But a huge transaction with a big fee might be worse than a small transaction with a smaller fee. Be it that you could include more transactions and gain more fees from more transactions or that you only include fees that pay the highest fee per kb. That way you could get the maximum fee and a small, fast propagating block. |
|
|
|
But he means to raise the minimum fee so that the spamming attack will cost more. When he raises his own fee then the attack isn't changed.
jbreher In case the attackers are a combination of big miners then they will earn from spamming because what they invest will come back and more on top. When the minimum fee would be raised then they would get what they want without having to pay for it. Though that only when really miners are spamming.
I think your making the "Golden Ratio" argument, which was debunked... When spammers spam, all miners REVENUE go up, but only the spammers have the added EXPENSE of the spam. Therefore they get less PROFIT. I don't see that calculation debunking the theory. I mean when the biggest chinese pools stay together then they can fund the operation cheaply. For sure they will raise profits for all other miners too but they most probably will have the ability to create more cheap miners for a lower price than small miners and pools. The profits from spamming would be miniscule, the same goes for the profits the other pools get. But an advantage in cost of creation of miners can be rather big. So even when others earn more, it could mean that the big pools still get more back in new mining hardware. Though it looks like it weren't the miners, or they dropped their plan since the spamming stopped now. |
|
|
|
Will Greece's failure bring to a new rise of bitcoin price in next months? Maybe a bubble? How much? Tell your opinions.
Are you guys preparing the worst scenario? So the bitcoin demand is rising now. No one can predict that scenario precisely. I think the submitted proposals will be passed by the creditors. Greece will get bailout fund. Looks like you were right. Greece gets his money and all is back to normal, like before. And what happens to the bitcoin price? It drops when it showed up that they will get the money to proceed the way they proceeded till now.  not exactly it it did not dropped back to where it was before the greece drama, we were at 220-250 before, now 250-275, to me this is a good progress, i don't know if it was for greece of for litecoin, but there is definitely a growth I think there is no real reason that the bitcoin price can hold that level. It can't grow higher, the last days showed that. So i think it will crash again to a lower level. |
|
|
|
If anyone considers SPV mining and / or 0-1 transaction blocks for a moment please consider spending a moment to read this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085800.0Personally, I think everyone should consider these things because it does have an impact on every current and future user or even potential user of the bitcoin network. I am not a core dev, a great debater, a master cryptographer, huge miner, big bagholder or any other term which may be applied to so many of this great community. I don't have enough of any coin to be a rich man if they were worth ten thousand tomorrow. Like the people in Greece you must have a decent amount of Fiat or some other asset you may transfer to bitcoin in order to hold said coin. I am a simple user with a tiny amount of hashrate who hopes to be here when Bitcoin does become a worldwide currency used by hundreds of millions of people everyday and I thoroughly enjoy reading what is posted here daily, what I find on other sites, and really almost any source because I appreciate multiple views of many topics. I find myself constantly asking many people the same question because I sincerely do enjoy opinions rooted in various trains of thought. Obviously people with different goals have different opinions. Being one of so many who have been impacted, no matter how small the impact at this point, I am still one of many, and I currently have no doubt regarding what is a huge issue yet to be addressed. The most important thing we as users and miners can do is tell, beg, barter, buy, reason, plead or simply talk with any miner possible so they vote with their hashrate and move to pools who are not SPV mining and pushing through blocks without transactions. I will repeat myself and I try not too but I think one question is worth such. There is one reason to SPV mine and push 0 - 1 transactions through the network. To increase profit. It has been proven to do so, and I do not think anyone debates that point. I hope we all agree faster propagation times for a portion of the pools means those pools will make more profit. Lets avoid the rabbit hole of how much and agree it does. Pools want to make a profit, the more the merrier, the more profit, the more miners, and the cycle continues, wash and repeat. Now ask yourself why are only certain pools choosing these actions? Miners using such pool are greedy and they will proceed to do so as long as they can earn a tiny amount more coins. What i wonder is why miners use 1 transaction blocks for getting an advantage but other miners not even make some calculation like "When i get paid this high fee for this huge transaction then my block will be bigger and gets propagated more slowly. I should only accept transactions based on price per kb. That would be more near to the profit i get from it." |
|
|
|
Wow, that's a strict handling of these things. Sounds risky taking part since you never know what happens with you so that it might be unavoidable that you can't post. Then you wouldn't only lose the income but the campaign too.
Will you be banned from the campaign completely?
If you fail to meet minimum quota, you may or may not be given a warning depending on your previous post quality and slots available. However you will be paid for your posts before being dismissed. You may reapply after 7 days. Ok, then i don't fear since i know my post quality is great.  Your post quality indeed is great! Keep it up I have no intention of kicking you out  Sounds great. |
|
|
|
Really? Well in a month, I always receive and send an amount varying from 0.5-2BTC and I never had any longer confirmation time of 20 minutes.
Yea it is beginning to really get on my nerves, I have clients who needed a BTC withdraw form our site the other night for a time sensative trade, and it took almost an hour just for 1 confirm I was so angry. It makes me look bad HAHA. I sent ti out as soon as I saw the request but wow it took forever to confirm. I think a 1 to 5 minute confirmation would be great, i just dont know about how they go about restructuring the block reward in that case to have more blocks with in a less period of time with less reward.
Alt coins have already been experimenting that and it would result in miners getting more stale due to the faster block time. Faster block time eg 5 minutes would only have 1/2 of the security of the current Bitcoin network. The changes would require hardfork. Are the payments from one output? Have you tried using other alt currencies such as Fastcoin which apparently has a confirmation of around 12 seconds or Litecoins (Which take a few a minutes)
Just saying but economy protest is one of the most effective methods of protest
The most recent one had 3 outputs, but my other wallet has only 1 to 2 usually still with the same times. Yes I use a variety of different coins on a weekly basis actually, I run a stake mining pool and deal with 11 to 15 different coins thru-out the week including LTC Bitcoin DOGE which are used for payment and deposits, and the 10 wallets we are running as well. Bitcoin has by far the absolute slowest transaction times compared to all the others I use. Your fee simply was too low for a transaction that you try when the bitcoin network is spammed since days. If you would have used the double value as fee then you surely wouldn't have had a problem. The thing is the spammers put in nice fees too and they create so big transactions that the blocks get full pretty fast. So you simply need to pay more to get your transaction included faster. And maybe use 0.000201 or so since then you even have a slight advantage against users with 0.0002 Bitcoin as fee. Miners always use the best paying transactions first. To reduce cost, spammers simply put the amount that is higher than average as fees. Miners have to include 50kb worth of transaction based on the priority first before going into the fee part where they rank transactions based on fee/kb not fee. Putting 0.0001BTC/KB works fine for me. Mine was confirmed within the next block. Your'e right. 0.0001 BTC as the minimum fee worked for me too at the end. Luckily this spam attack, looked like to go endlessly , stopped. It was really annoying.  |
|
|
|
I haven't heard of a way to withdraw anonymously. In my opinion the whole concept of a bitcoin ATM kills the reason I liked BTC to begin with.
Why can't they go back to being fun!? Bitcoins were never meant to be for the masses.
Where did you get this idea from? Satoshi wanted a currency that is independent from the banks. And he never spoke about bitcoin should stay a geek currency or a high value transaction currency. He always wanted an alternative to the bank money. That includes that everyone can chose not to use banks, which means adoption by the masses. |
|
|
|
It's a small victory, but the question is... Is the battle honorable? VISA and MasterCard and PayPal stopped backing them for a reason... BackPage is linked to things like Child trafficking and Child prostitution. So we are saying... It's cool.. if you do not want to support this, we will.... What is that saying about us? I know there are loads of legitimated businesses also being influenced by this decision, and those are the added bonuses... but the ugly and dirty side of this must also be considered. We are already labelled as drug smugglers "Silkroad" and scammers "MtGox" .....This will just add further fuel to the fire. You are right to some extent but it is unavoidable. Even when the worst child port website would accept bitcoins, we could not do anything. Besides that... your concern is a bit like the conservative politicians that cry that bitcoin is used to fund terrorism. Let's forbid bitcoin because it is possible that this happens. You wouldn't want that and would claim that this isn't what bitcoins are for. It's the same with backpagers.com. Disallowing the whole page only because some bad actors are there is going too far. Next step would be to disable internet because bad actors are in there. I think you got what i mean.  |
|
|
|
Sorry if this is mentioned elsewhere, but with with Chinese pools refusing to stop SPV mining, and all these "stress tests" going on right now with the double spending warning up... What are the odds of a double spend occuring? Does a double spend somehow duplicate the Bitcoins being double spent, or does one party get screwed over? Here is a list "The latest 200 double spends (10 Minute Cache)" https://blockchain.info/double-spends only 1 of which (.5% of list at time of this post) in 2014 and 195 of which (97.5% of list) happened this month! Have the Chinese figured out how to successfully double spend using all their hashpower? Is this what is causing the BTC price to go up, due to manipulation? Should this be means for concern for the entire network, since the biggest pools refuse to comply with stopping SPV mining??? SPV clients trust miners without validating whether the blocks follow the rules of the Bitcoin network. When BIP 66 was introduced, some miners started to produce invalid blocks [As their backend was allowed to mine on blocks without validating them] but Bitcoin Core 0.9.5+ knows that it is invalid thus rejecting the block and those transactions included in the block would appear unconfirmed to those clients while confirmed to the other SPV clients. I believe the pools have stopped the SPV mining since they would be suffering loss if they don't stop it. They would be able to double spend their own transaction when they have 51%+ power. No, they didn't stop. They still do it because they have an advantage doing so. Though they now promised to verify the block they are hashing on, while they hash on the next block. So at least a fork is less likely to happen but there is still a chance that it happens. |
|
|
|
Really? Well in a month, I always receive and send an amount varying from 0.5-2BTC and I never had any longer confirmation time of 20 minutes.
Yea it is beginning to really get on my nerves, I have clients who needed a BTC withdraw form our site the other night for a time sensative trade, and it took almost an hour just for 1 confirm I was so angry. It makes me look bad HAHA. I sent ti out as soon as I saw the request but wow it took forever to confirm. Are the payments from one output? Have you tried using other alt currencies such as Fastcoin which apparently has a confirmation of around 12 seconds or Litecoins (Which take a few a minutes)
Just saying but economy protest is one of the most effective methods of protest
The most recent one had 3 outputs, but my other wallet has only 1 to 2 usually still with the same times. Yes I use a variety of different coins on a weekly basis actually, I run a stake mining pool and deal with 11 to 15 different coins thru-out the week including LTC Bitcoin DOGE which are used for payment and deposits, and the 10 wallets we are running as well. Bitcoin has by far the absolute slowest transaction times compared to all the others I use. Your fee simply was too low for a transaction that you try when the bitcoin network is spammed since days. If you would have used the double value as fee then you surely wouldn't have had a problem. The thing is the spammers put in nice fees too and they create so big transactions that the blocks get full pretty fast. So you simply need to pay more to get your transaction included faster. And maybe use 0.000201 or so since then you even have a slight advantage against users with 0.0002 Bitcoin as fee. Miners always use the best paying transactions first. |
|
|
|
Will Greece's failure bring to a new rise of bitcoin price in next months? Maybe a bubble? How much? Tell your opinions.
Are you guys preparing the worst scenario? So the bitcoin demand is rising now. No one can predict that scenario precisely. I think the submitted proposals will be passed by the creditors. Greece will get bailout fund. Looks like you were right. Greece gets his money and all is back to normal, like before. And what happens to the bitcoin price? It drops when it showed up that they will get the money to proceed the way they proceeded till now. |
|
|
|
You are free to raise the minimum transaction fee that you pay. Just as I am free to raise the minimum transaction fee that I pay. Or not. If you do, your transactions will confirm promptly. If not, your transactions may languish waiting on some free block space.
Market mechanisms work. There is no problem here.
But he means to raise the minimum fee so that the spamming attack will cost more. When he raises his own fee then the attack isn't changed. jbreher In case the attackers are a combination of big miners then they will earn from spamming because what they invest will come back and more on top. When the minimum fee would be raised then they would get what they want without having to pay for it. Though that only when really miners are spamming. |
|
|
|
today i got very confused and irritaded with some questions...like what will be better or we should say which is more risky..i check today some of the cloudmining sites and bought some hashes in each actually in three site ..cex.io , scrypt.cc and bit-x.. but i am not confused because when i checked the mining calculaters then the true faces are shown to me.. at First the shock i got is from the bit-x site.. when i opened the calculator..so it was showing 100ghash as default..i changed it with 35ghash and so i hit the calculate buttion but then i found that i will earn..about 13000-15000satoshi every day but then i thought about the mantainence fees and got that it was higher than my daily earning....so that clearly means it only accept the higher investments after that i thought that maybe if i can avoid the mantainence fee then maybe i can make profit.. so then i visited scrypt.cc (its a less scured and less trustul with deposits as because it is usually getting hacked..) i deposited 0.052btc and bought some khash...i got about 13020khash .so i went to calculator..and typed and increased the khash amount until i reached 1btc then i saw that its paying 0.007btc if i buy 1btc worth of khash...that means 0.7% everyday and so on i tryed the other site too... now after all lot of things like this i am thinking why we invest in cloudmining when we can trade and can make more than 1% daily and that is much safer from these things at least we will have control on owr coins Why did you invest and THEN check if it is profitable? You really should be way more careful in the bitcoin area. If you don't check everything before very carefully AND don't follow your emotions then you will be parted from your coins pretty quick. See it as a lesson and don't give your coins out of the hand anymore until you are very sure you will get them back AND some profit on top. Every profit doesn't matter anymore when you can't even get your original coins back anymore. |
|
|
|
I've seen many people lately criticising bitcoin's lack of authority as a possible weakness. From what it seems, users have to put (at least some) trust to miners and pools and rely on them for things like generating blocks with updated clients, including transactions etc. Wouldn't such an issue scale up as bitcoin grows? Could it be addressed somehow?
This SPV mining seems to be an issue, but it wouldnt necessarily get worse as Bitcoin grows. Hopefully pool decentralization continues and no pool will risk their reputation being caught doing SPV mining. Pools don't care getting caught SPV mining. They were the culprit when the 2 forks happened some days ago and they still want to proceed doing SPV mining. They only want to confirm the previous block while mining on it now. Though that still can create a fork then. And surely bitcoin mining is similar to gold mining in america. Goldrush, only some were able to earn from it, most only suffered, like it's with todays private miners often. And at the end you will have only some big mining corporations, just like it is with gold today. It's somewhat unavoidable. |
|
|
|
"..and its software systems haven't been immune to technical problems. Last year, one of its exchanges collapsed for example."
Seriously? When was bitcoin tied to with third-party exchanges? Or when did bitcoin's software system been compromised by hacks? Misleading sentence. Exchanges were "hacked" and suffered technical problems and not bitcoin.
You know that's how outsiders view bitcoin. Exchanges are so very much bound to bitcoin that it's practically the same for them. Sure, you can educate them but for them "it's a bitcoin problem". And they somehow are right. Bitcoin is dangerous because the handling is dangerous, or lets say the environment it works in. You only can try to educate them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
