|
What is the SHA-256 hash of the script?
|
|
|
|
I don't see this quote in this thread, however it was quoted by nullius.
I would like to know the reasons why and under what circumstances this personal information was given to alia.
To me, this seems rather convenient for all this to be coming out at so near the same time.
How I got it, why I got it are not of your concern. Stop interfering with matters that don't involve you and go make some friends. The adults are talking, scammer. A failed escrow scammer and professional smear campaign manager vs An aspiring gambling addict as sharp as a marble [image of popcorn: https://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads//2014/09/dreamstime_xl_27975470-Custom.jpg] I know that Quickseller was jealous of the halo of forum glamour which previously surrounded my relationship with Alia. Now I see that after the revelations of the past eight days, he is seriously in love with her/him/them. Apparent animosity is only the mating call of Quicklove. And “sharp as a marble” is so coy! Playing hard to get. Oh, imagine the babies they’d have: Born with red tags, prodigies at selling scripts which gamble with bets of DT account logins. A new forum romance is in the making...
—snip—https://web.archive.org/web/20180307004229/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3038096.msg31742889#msg31742889—snip—
Ironic. You have a lot of bitcoin knowledge yet you have never had a btctalk account before? Bullshit. You're probably some neg-trusted scammer as well. Until you start talking with your main account, I'll just presume that your main account also has -9999 trust. Not that it makes a difference to me, but you're being hypocritical
Alia, I suggest that you and Quickseller team up to start a new Reputation thread for the purpose of uncovering my alleged secret main account. From 2011, according to Quickseller. Hey, you even have some blockchain txids to trace now (hahahah!). I dare you to dox me. I have no interest in doxing you. I don't really care who you are, since you're a good guy and haven't hurt anyone. It's just a little sus that you hide under an alt account when I'm sure you have your own Legendary account. The only reason you're not using it, that I can think of, is that it has links to your personal info, or that it's been heavily negged. And you're not the kind to reveal personal info. @suchmoon I would merit you if I had sMerit, that's a good post right there I wouldn’t have -9999 trust if I’m a good guy who hasn’t hurt anyone. And no, I am not the type to reveal personal info—except to the various women whom I subsequently “verified” from the inside. But that will not happen with nullius, nobody’s no-body.
Alia, I suggest that you and Quickseller team up to start a new Reputation thread for the purpose of uncovering my alleged secret main account. From 2011, according to Quickseller. Hey, you even have some blockchain txids to trace now (hahahah!).
I suspect that your deceptive postings in this forum (or alternatively on the blockchain or alternatively some other random and irrelevant place) go back to 2010 or even early 2009.. and likely traceable on the blockchain in one way or another. At this time, I have absolutely no evidence nor logic to support my suspicions or my feelings.. I know that should not matter and my current conception of this would be a good fit within the newly forming team alliances of Quickseller and alia... at least on "dream nullius" project. , theories abound. I neither confirm nor deny what you say.
Please don't associate me with QS... and yeah, it's hard to imagine that nully hasn't been here for many years
Oops. I am collecting replies whilst I wait to see if anything substantive turns up apropos the topic—and here I am, setting you up on Quicklove dates. You must admit, Alia, your main account is a perfect match for his—even for a threesome with master-P’s. |
|
|
|
Great like minds think alike:https://web.archive.org/web/20180307003614/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2945878.msg30951105#msg30951105He is not. However he does have a vested interest in seeing that lauda maintains a positive reputation.
Instead of seeing that lauda acts with integrity, he tries to get others to overlook laudas unethical actions.
nullius is lauda. That is very clear. Anyone who does not see this is simply closing their eyes.
Or at least, thanks for closing your eyes so you no longer see that I am very clearly Lauda. I don't think you are lauda anymore, which should be clear by the post you quoted. I do still think you are a very dishonest person who has a long history of dishonesty. This is not something new to you, considering how long people have been calling you dishonest around here....I am pretty sure there are threads from 2011 in which people were calling you dishonest.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180307004116/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3009430.msg30943291#msg30943291If you compare what words he uses to other users around here to the words that are used by other members around here, and on reddit on r/bitcoin you will eventually figure out who he is. (note: you will have to analyze more than just vocabulary, but also words used before and after words, and analyze this on a large scale).
https://web.archive.org/web/20180307003722/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3009430.msg31078761#msg31078761Only a ‘Member’ ? Got to be somebodies ALT, I think QS might be right. An alt of who though?
Look at when he started posting, what he advocates for, news related to major bitcoin companies and of course overall dishonesty and you will figure out who he is.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180307004229/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3038096.msg31742889#msg31742889aTriz is a scammer. I have proof of him doing some very shady things, including extortion and bribery. Do not trust him.
And where is your proof? aTriz will admit it himself. Fuck you I'm not a scammer and I won't admit it. I don’t think any intelligent person gives credence to scam accusations by person(s) whose main account took less than 48 hours to become one of the most distrusted accounts in Bitcoin Forum history. There are more important questions to address, most urgent of which is Alia’s threat. Ironic. You have a lot of bitcoin knowledge yet you have never had a btctalk account before? Bullshit. You're probably some neg-trusted scammer as well. Until you start talking with your main account, I'll just presume that your main account also has -9999 trust. Not that it makes a difference to me, but you're being hypocritical Alia, I suggest that you and Quickseller team up to start a new Reputation thread for the purpose of uncovering my alleged secret main account. From 2011, according to Quickseller. Hey, you even have some blockchain txids to trace now (hahahah!). I dare you to dox me. |
|
|
|
aTriz is a scammer. I have proof of him doing some very shady things, including extortion and bribery. Do not trust him.
And where is your proof? aTriz will admit it himself. Fuck you I'm not a scammer and I won't admit it. I don’t think any intelligent person gives credence to scam accusations by person(s) whose main account took less than 48 hours to become one of the most distrusted accounts in Bitcoin Forum history. There are more important questions to address, most urgent of which is Alia’s threat. |
|
|
|
I will answer any questions about this from anyone except quickseller, please re ask your questions since I can't find any right now.
Thank you, aTriz. I will have a few... But I see the situation is sensitive not for reason of any alleged wrongdoing on your part, but rather, for reasons of threatened wrongdoing against you. I will keep that in mind.
...If you don't pay up, I'll have to take action myself - and you know what that action is.
Welcome to blackmail land.
This is why, assuming he still has the script, it is not possible to post it. @nullius, suchmoon, ibminer. The potential for retaliation by some means is one of several reasons why I suggested publicly committing a SHA-256 hash. (Will explain more; posts are flying thick and fast now.)
I have done nothing of this scammy behavior that alia has said I have. She is trying to get me to admit to these things, simply because she has my personal information. My trust is everything and worth more than my privacy. Fuck you, do your worst.
I will answer any questions about this from anyone except quickseller, please re ask your questions since I can't find any right now.
Am I understanding correctly that you willingly provided your personal information to alia??? He entered into an unprecedented signature contact with a Jr. Member; that demonstrates at the baseline how much he believed in Alia. He showed himself naďve at best with that vouch for the script—I do believe he was swindled there, too. Upon that evidence, I would not be surprised if this “rising starlet” quickly worked his/her/their way into aTriz’s confidence sufficiently to extract some dox. This whole sordid situation just gets worse by the day... |
|
|
|
No, that's the thing. Before I run the script, or do anything related to it, I'd like RGBKey and ibminer to audit the script in full, and verify the numbers. If my calculations are wrong, they will correct me.
RGBKey offered of his own initiative to audit the script. Your desire that he do so is a step in the right direction. Where does ibminer come into this?
Edit: Quick snapshot of this page: https://web.archive.org/web/20180306154838/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3032057.480 |
|
|
|
I posted what follows in Alia's new thread, but she deleted it immediately. This entire post assumes that she is a 19 year old girl as she claims, and there is not a team of people behind her accounts. I am reposting it here for a number of reasons. Alia, I really want you to read this and not just immediately dismiss it off hand. I am trying to help you. I also want the community to read this and know, that if anyone indulges her in her new "script", you are enabling an addict. This goes beyond a scam and in to the territory of serious mental health issues, with life-changing ramifications. Please, don't do it. Thank you, o_e_l_e_o. That precisely communicated in a different way more or less what I have been trying to tell Alia. N.b. that Alia has claimed to me some studies in psychology. She should understand this! Most of all, she should know full well not to blow you off. https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121340/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.120#msg31560212This degen thing explains some aspects of alia's increasingly desperate scam attempts and the belligerent rants after getting caught.
Alia, you have told me privately of some studies in psychology. Therefrom, you should realize that you are not immune to the vagaries of human nature; and if you’re smart enough to master the difficult task of truly objective introspection, then you will realize that this is a textbook example of a gambler obsessed with discovering a secret way to win. You’re far from the first or the last; and the result is always the same: This is exactly what I meant here: This is how (almost) all gamblers turn their profit into a loss, and then start "chasing losses", which is a great way to lose more money. Do you really think casinos would still exist if if would be possible to consistently beat them?
The long list of positive returns seemed very unlikely to happen, and this makes it a lot more likely. What alia is doing is basically Martingale: if you lose, you do the same with a much higher bankroll. You can keep doing that, until you run out of bankroll. [...] I've seen many gamblers bust large amounts of money thinking they're invincible.Whereupon I think this is a good step in the right direction: I was wrong about the script. It may have made money but I'm sure that was just dumb luck. I shall exit this thread and this account with my head bowed down in shame! Well, at least I could help tpb
I'm not sure if it's sarcasm or you really mean it, but I'm confident it's the right decision. I've seen many gamblers bust large amounts of money thinking they're invincible. I don't mean it, but I'm sure I will some day. i'm just deluded right now. Only reason I said that was because I promised I would. Props to nully for the donation (That is an excerpt of a long post. I suggest reading the whole thing.) |
|
|
|
The easiest way would be to publish the script here so it can be verified by experienced users. So I ask aTriz to publish the script here.
@scam_detector, would it be satisfactory to you as a first step if aTriz were to commit a SHA-256 hash of any pertinent script in his possession? I think that would then allow any further discussions to proceed more smoothly. @aTriz, I suggest committing a SHA-256 hash of the script. That is what I would do at this point, if I were in your position—to fix the bit-for-bit identity of the script for evidentiary purposes, as well as to immediately show that I am acting in good faith in the face of many accusations. Note: I have previously (somewhere in the “prove my script works” thread) suggested that Alia commit such a hash. Of course, it did not happen.
@cruso, besides my foregoing suggestion as to the gambling script, I will at this point speak only to one fact of which you may not be aware: 3 By renting the alia account's signature space, did aTriz (a highly respected user) give it some legitimacy?
Please see earlier in this thread: It was an unpleasant surprise to see someone who appeared to be level headed like aTriz, making the errors of judgement he has made in vouching for a gambling script and pre paying a large signature deal with a newbie, based on a 'contract' apparently scribbled on the back of an envelope.
My best guess: Star power. Movie studio exec rushes to lock in a hot rising starlet, who is supposed to be the Next Big Thing—and it turns out, there is some nasty surprise about her... Again, my guess. I note that aTriz also hinted at making an offer for my signature. From Alia’s signature-selling thread:Do we get the sig space of your alt nullius as well?  (Disclosure: Some discussions were had. The only reason why I’m not wearing a paid signature now is that I really don’t want one—although I do not wholly exclude the possibility; remember, I’m the guy who couldn’t get scammed out of 1.2 BTC because I don’t have it. Nevertheless, my PGP key fingerprints need the space. PGP fingerprints are important to me.) Now, as you realize, my signature would be substantially more valuable than Alia’s. Think about that in business terms. I have no first-hand knowledge of aTriz’s signature deal with Alia. I was not a party to that deal, and not privy to negotiations between them. However, I have drawn different inferences than you do, based on where I was involved (my own discussion with aTriz—and my likely being the one who inadvertently attracted his attention to Alia). Knowing the foregoing, would you draw the same conclusions as you did in your post? |
|
|
|
As i previously mentioned, alia has done a very good job of distracting from the conversation.
Distracting? I have done nothing but maintain that aTriz is an untrustworthy scammer, and you have been deleting my posts on your thread of me saying it. You really are full of shit... guess those trust ratings are warranted.Pot, meet kettle. |
|
|
|
I rest until whenever aTriz answers these questions. Bear in mind that only aTriz aside from the proven liar alia has seen and used this script. Only atriz can tell us if or not the said script is real or a scam.
scam_detector’s aTriz thread is over here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3038096.0Enormous confusion has resulted from mixing issues in these two cases. Although the cases share the same factual background, precision and fairness to all parties can only be had by keeping the topics separate (as if separate “trials”). |
|
|
|
Skype is notorious for being a huge vulnerability. He wants to 'hack' you.
I am aware of that. (I am also aware that it would take me much time and sysadmin drudgery to set up a properly sandboxed Skype and a Skype-allowed VPN in front of Tor.) I was asking Alia.
@ nullius, on skype video recordings can be manipulated with software to make like its live. This trick is used by romance scam artist, dig a little, you will find the answer to your question.
The other usual trick is, of course, to exploit the vulnerabilities of men who are “thinking with the little head”. I am asking Alia why, if genuine, she will not expend modest effort to facilitate communications with someone who, at this point, is only interested in ascertaining the truth. Of my lack of any other interest, I can assure you: https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121401/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.140#msg31604889Oh, my Bitcoin. I wrote the foregoing before the following post appeared, then was suddenly interrupted by a little IRL incident. I will take this as empirical evidence of my psychic powers, or cosmic influence over random events, or something of that nature. And now, I will use this power to win at provably fair gambling!I find “mathematical mumbo jumbo” and “stupid equations” sneering somewhat less attractive than an active outbreak of genital herpes.
I did not refund him because of a tingling in my vag.
@cruso, I will try to avoid discussing aTriz here since scam_detector unlocked the aTriz thread. As for the topic of Alia: It is obvious that this alia person or group
1 Aside from the alia group,
For the record: I do lean toward the hypothesis that multiple persons have access to and regularly do access the “alia” account. It seems that way, based on patterns of behaviour and writing style. This is part of why I wish to question Alia directly: If I be wrong in my hypothesis, I wish to find contrary evidence.
Why is atriz not speaking at all on this topic?
This convo is weird asf.
scam_detector’s aTriz thread is over here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3038096.0I have observed that thus far, scam_detector has behaved in an unbiased manner (not prejudiced for, not prejudiced against any party).
Why is atriz not speaking at all on this topic?
This convo is weird asf.
because he is leaving the retard Alia and the cunt QS alone to talk?? If It was me I would leave the two freaks to get a room together as well "retard" and "cunt" If I were you, I'd refrain from insulting people (without any other valid points) because it just reflects badly on you. Oh, this is rich. TMAN is a good-natured, loyal chap. On page 1 of this thread, before I even entered the fray ( because I was too busy reading RGBKey’s negative trust feedback for Alia), TMAN was defending Alia. He got burned, because it turns out he got swindled like I did. TMAN is also the forum’s resident gutter-talk insult comic (though I’m sure speaking quite seriously here). It’s what he does. I get a good chuckle out of it. Now Alia, the ill-tempered, foul-mouthed juvenile delinquent, tries to pretend to be a LoyceV? Tries to lecture TMAN as if he were a child? Oh, give me a f—ing break, you — — [beep]. That’s really obscene, Alia—obscene and shameful behaviour. |
|
|
|
I've spent a lot of time wondering if I should open this thread again
scam_detector, I thank you for reopening this thread. After I saw cruso’s post, I was considering making that suggestion. I think it’s important for any such questions to be examined in a fair and impartial manner. To that end, I wish to reserve comment about aTriz until aTriz himself has a reasonable chance to have his say. However, I also deem it wise to gather into the record here several interesting observations I made about this alleged gambling script. I will edit this post with quotes and links to recent threads, or make a new post if more appropriate. (In a nutshell: Events which transpired after RGBKey offered to audit the script.)
Edit 1:On the offer of a confidential audit:While I was preparing a post suggesting an independent audit of Alia’s purported script, RGBKey stepped up of his own initiative and offered to perform one: https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121333/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.100#msg31501344I'll offer to audit this script. If alia wants to send it to me then I will go through it and analyze how it works and post my analysis about it here without revealing its inner workings. I don't plan to bet money with it, instead to analyze the code.
I emphasize that independently and unprompted by anyone, RGBKey stated that he offered to analyze the script “without revealing its inner workings”. I myself thought as such that if acting in good faith, Alia had no rational reason not to jump for the opportunity of such an audit. Private auditors are usually well-paid. I promptly gave my endorsement to RGBKey’s technical abilities for performing such an audit. Given my general reputation, and also that Alia has repeatedly called me a “genius”, I hoped that this would encourage her to agree to an audit by RGBKey: https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121333/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.100#msg31502508I myself will vouch for RGBKey’s technical competence for performing such an audit. I don’t know gambling; but I have interacted with RGBKey in the Development & Technology forum, and he knows his stuff. I would trust the results of any gambling script audit performed by RGBKey.
What say you, Alia?
suchmoon was less optimistic than I was. Quite prescient: https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121333/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.100#msg31504847I fully expect alia to weasel out of this for some random reason.
...indeed: https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121333/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.100#msg31520776Jeez... you don't get it do you? Auditing means giving the script for free. Not interested.
(Aside: In the same post, Alia also asked me to return money which she purported to have won for me by gambling. When I said I had offered to give the money away to someone who needed it, she challenged me to donate 0.00673625 BTC to the Pirate Bay. I did so. I don’t want ill-gotten gains; and TPB deserves the money, not least because they hate Btrash. Post with my txid, which can be traced through previous tx I have posted as to this affair: https://web.archive.org/web/20180304043503/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.msg31526121#msg31526121) Whereupon I explained: https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121340/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.120#msg31523930Keeping focus on the top-line and bottom-line issue: No, an audit does not mean “giving the script for free”.Multi-billion-dollar software companies entrust their proprietary source code to independent auditors. Do you really think your precious script is more valuable than that? Now, I repeat: Alia, you yourself made this an issue:Like I said, many, many times... not everything has to be 100% math based. My aim is to make profit for people, and I am doing it. That is my end goal. Not to fit your stupid equations (which are not even relevant since you don't know the intricacies of how my script works)
If your ultimate answer is that your critics lack sufficient knowledge to judge your script because they haven’t seen it, then it is incumbent on you to grant such knowledge.You can’t have your cake and eat it, too, by claiming that secret knowledge overrides the known laws of mathematics, refusing to let anybody else examine it, and then claiming to “prove” that your script works based on statistically, scientifically invalid experimentation performed in an unverifiable manner.Really, this secret knowledge is beginning to take on a quasi-mystical edge. ...and I continued persisting in pressing Alia to agree to an audit: https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121340/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.120#msg31526121Now, again: How about that audit?
There is more pertinent discussion in that thread. In the foregoing, I have given only a concise summary with very brief excerpts. I encourage those interested to read the pertinent portions of the thread. Also, my principal objective in the foregoing is to relate facts I believe may be probative—not to analyze or interpret those facts (beyond the obvious).This thread is self-moderated by Alia. Therefore, I here present a complete archive as it stands: Complete archive of thread, single page ( large): https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121126/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.0;allIndividual pages: 1. https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121244/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.02. https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121250/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.203. https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121304/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.404. https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121311/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.605. https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121322/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.806. https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121333/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.1007. https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121340/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.1208. https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121401/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.1409. https://web.archive.org/web/20180306121418/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3044369.160
There are at least two other posts by Alia which I think may be relevant. One, I can’t seem to find right now amidst the voluminous posts of the past few days. That and the other, I intend to address later either by editing this post again, or making a separate post. |
|
|
|
Also, i think it would be better if you use the Signature to encourage SegWit adoption as well.
Use SegWit and enjoy lower fees
Thanks for wearing one of the most awesome signatures yet seen on this forum.
I'm a huge fan of SegWit adoption, and if the challenge gains more attraction, I will definitely include a clause that requires all participants to use a SegWit address.
Unfortunately, there is no way to tell whether or not a P2SH “3” address is Segwit-nested. Perhaps you may push specifically for what I call “Bravo Charlie addresses”. Although that could be a bit inconvenient for some of us who are using nested addresses for the transition period, I think it is important to raise user awareness about the Bitcoin address format of the future. Many people do not yet understand Bech32; see also the advertisement at the top of my recent post on the topic. (Far from my first post on the topic.) I'll also see about including a line about SegWit in the signatures for future iterations of the design.
Good idea. I’ve squeezed in a plug for Segwit next to my current link for this campaign, since that displaced my usual sort-of self-serving Segwit advertisement: Keeping those addresses in my signature has brought me infinitely more inquiries than tips. Vanitygen users PM to ask, “ How did you do that?” And I do enjoy showing off a “3” address which is specifically labelled as “segwit”!
Of course he isn't infallible, only Satoshi is  Besides it would be so funny if nullius =lauda=atriz=alia=thermos (yes I did say thermos)=satoshi=me loses this one, contrary to what most expect that it needs some extra prize.  And his merit history for March isn't that impressive.... so.... race on! |
|
|
|
Ignoring the principal rule of this thread, I here present not what I claim to be my best post, but rather, the post which constituted my debut in the Development & Technology Discussion forum. It is the ninth post in my account’s history, made three days after I actively started posting. Let us see if this post be truly Nullian: - Pro-Segwit? Check.
- Quotes Greg Maxwell? Check.
- Like, technical and stuff? Check.
- Explains that miners have exactly one function, Byzantine fault-tolerant ordering of transactions? Check.
- Insults the stupid and the Btrash of the world? Check.
- Sprinkled liberally with informative hyperlinks? Check.
- “Diatribe”? Check. Alternates between solemn seriousness and scathing sarcasm? Check.
- Asks, “Cui bono?” Check.
- Uses two spaces after a full stop and Unicode fancy quotes? Check; and, check!
I suppose it’s mine! Though I am quoting it per the rules, I do hope that this link will be clicked ( hint, hint). The post feels so lonely, now sliding down to page 40 of my post history. It has not been awarded any merit—none! This is my first time ever hitting a merit faucet; and thus, now is my chance to whine justly complain about how nobody notices Newbie-ranked posts:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2469397.msg25696091#msg25696091So why all the hate on segwit?
The short answer: Ill-informed nincompoops who overestimate their own competence enjoy voicing opinions to which they are not entitled; and all which cannot be explained by stupidity, is caused by malice. Cui bono? “Follow the money.” Longer answer, for those who wish to actually understand this issue: The following told me all I needed to know about the anti-Segwit agitation and later, the so-called “Bitcoin Cash” scamcoin. For more technical details, see also the references listed in the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures database under CVE-2017-9230, or the high-level description by Test User earlier in this thread. N.b. that without Segwit, covert ASICBOOST is still wide-open for exploitation in “Bitcoin Cash”. With boldface added, from this bitcoin-dev mailing list post on 2017-04-05 21:37:45 UTC: A month ago I was explaining the attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 hashcash which is exploited by ASICBOOST and the various steps which could be used to block it in the network if it became a problem.
While most discussion of ASICBOOST has focused on the overt method of implementing it, there also exists a covert method for using it.
As I explained one of the approaches to inhibit covert ASICBOOST I realized that my words were pretty much also describing the SegWit commitment structure.
The authors of the SegWit proposal made a specific effort to not be incompatible with any mining system and, in particular, changed the design at one point to accommodate mining chips with forced payout addresses.
Had there been awareness of exploitation of this attack an effort would have been made to avoid incompatibility-- simply to separate concerns. But the best methods of implementing the covert attack are significantly incompatible with virtually any method of extending Bitcoin's transaction capabilities; with the notable exception of extension blocks (which have their own problems).
An incompatibility would go a long way to explain some of the more inexplicable behavior from some parties in the mining ecosystem so I began looking for supporting evidence.
Reverse engineering of a particular mining chip has demonstrated conclusively that ASICBOOST has been implemented in hardware.
[…]
Due to a design oversight the Bitcoin proof of work function has a potential attack which can allow an attacking miner to save up-to 30% of their energy costs (though closer to 20% is more likely due to implementation overheads).
Timo Hanke and Sergio Demian Lerner claim to hold a patent on this attack, which they have so far not licensed for free and open use by the public. They have been marketing their patent licenses under the trade-name ASICBOOST. The document takes no position on the validity or enforceability of the patent.
Observe that a purported patent on a 20+% economic advantage threatens to give certain parties a substantial centralized influence over who has the most hashrate. It is not only cheating: Overall, covert ASICBOOST opens the way for a direct attack against the Byzantine fault-tolerant security of the Bitcoin network. So as for ulterior motives to oppose Segwit. What overt arguments are advanced by the anti-Segwit side? On the presumption that Segwit-haters must have at least some plausible excuse for their position, I have spent far too many hours searching the Net and reading what they say. My objective: Find even one good reason to oppose Segwit on technical grounds. Yet despite my such efforts, I have never seen a valid technical argument against Segwit. All the anti-Segwit pseudo-technical arguments are unsubstantive handwaving—yes, it’s a moderately big patch; of course, it’s a big feature!—or bald-faced lies— e.g., the claim that miners could collude to grab “anyone-can-spend” transactions; no, Segwit full nodes would reject such such blocks as invalid, making such miners waste all their effort.[1] (This last is not even a Segwit-specific matter: Any soft fork will result in similar scenarios, which is exactly what makes the fork “soft” even when introducing radically different validation rules. The alternative is a hardfork.) The rest of the anti-Segwit arguments are nontechnical. Some make menacing insinuations about Blockstream: Very well, assume arguendo that Blockstream is pure evil (facts not in evidence) and totally controls Core (which they evidently don’t). What is so bad about Segwit? The question remains unanswered. The remainder of anti-Segwit spew is merely moronic: Insults devoid of all substance, at the puerile grade of “Segwit makes you a doodie-head”. Meanwhile, in so-called “Bitcoin Cash”, almost three and a half months of EDA fluctuations made something tantamount to a premine of fake-Bitcoin. In that time as well as afterwards, any party exploiting covert ASICBOOST could and can reap BCH at 20+% under the energy cost paid by other miners. Oh. Suddenly, it all makes sense. Cui bono, indeed. Follow the money.
1. Miners have exactly one function: Byzantine fault-tolerant ordering of transactions. Important and valuable though that function may be, it is strictly limited in technical scope. Miners do not have authority over validation: All full nodes are responsible for enforcing validation, and will reject invalid mined blocks just as if rejecting random garbage. Such is the power of each and every individual full node. This is a point of common misunderstanding amongst ignorant fools who imagine that miners somehow own the network; and the misunderstanding is encouraged by persons with material ulterior motives for pretending that miners be Bitcoin gods. |
|
|
|
There are many ways to hide your seeds apart from putting them in a vault. Actually, I think a vault is the worst place.
A thieve wouldn't know I have bitcoin and wouldn't find my seeds because they are hidden among so many papers that even if he was trying on purpose it would take him a long time.
A thieve breaking into my house looks for money and metals and he is not going to be looking through thousands of papers, unfolding them, to try to find money or gold there.
I infer that you compare a cheap safe sold for home/consumer use. That’s not a “vault”; I believe the correct word is “junk”, or perhaps “trash”. cellard laughed at the concept of placing a valuable thing in a vault, and asked, “How does that protect you against real life thieves?” Um—what is the purpose of vaults? Why were they invented? As for concealment: For much different use cases, a backup of pseudorandom words can be much easier to reliably conceal than any electronic backup. I don’t want to go into details. Suffice it must to say, spies [...]
As always there's a relevant XKCD sighsUnfortunately, far too many people take advice like that LITERALLY. The bitcoin address that you get if you use "correct horse battery staple" as a "brainwallet" (calculate the SHA256 hash of the phrase and use the result as a Bitcoin Private key) is 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T and there have been more than 15.9 BTC sent to that address in the past 6 years. Some of those were small value at the time and probably sent as a joke. Some were larger value and almost certainly were sent by a fool and quickly taken by someone else. How does it go? (Words here set in bold) and his money... 15.9 BTC!? I think that’s an evidentiary testament to the general intelligence level of brainwallet users, period. Or, per my aphorism: So-called “brainwallets” are wallets for the brainless. I propose renaming to brainlesswallets. |
|
|
|
[Not-for-profit advertisement: I have an idea for a user education PR campaign to familiarize people with Bech32 addresses. But I can’t do it alone! Those who are interested in helping smooth the way to full Segwit adoption should feel free to contact me—especially those in the webdesign, hosting, and graphical departments.]The best practice currently is to give people P2SH SegWit addresses when people are paying you, but to support/allow sending to bech32 addresses when you're paying people. bech32 addresses are strictly superior except for issues of backward-compatibility, so eventually everyone will switch over, but it'll probably take a few years; it shouldn't be a format war situation unless someone decides that they hate bech32 and come up with a totally new alternative.
First, I want to expand on why what I call “Bravo Charlie addresses” are “strictly superior”:0. Bech32 addresses have error-correcting codes, which make them far more resilient against human mistakes typical when transcribing long pseudorandom strings. Together with a radix-32 alphabet designed based on scientific data about visual confusability of letters, the error-correction was extensively tested for increased usability of Bitcoin addresses by actual humans: 1. My regards to Pieter Wuille and Greg Maxwell: I can tell that an excruciatingly detailed thought process about Bitcoin address formats went into that bit of engineering. Somebody stayed up in the dark wee hours, pondering the philosophy of Bitcoin address formats. Somebody aspired to consummate perfection in the art of Bitcoin address formats. Well, you are probably also “odd”. Coming from me, take that as a compliment.
Thanks, including a lot of testing with both people and machines, several CPU decades went into the design of the error correcting code... and in fact the techniques even required to be able to measure their performance are themselves novel and probably publishable innovations. Not to mention extensive review and redesign with many other similarly crazy people. We understood that introducing a new address format is a big step that can't be done often, and thought it would be appropriate and acceptable to really work hard on it. 1. Bech32 addresses are case-insensitive. This alone makes them far more usable than base58check for humans who sometimes do need to transcribe addresses by hand. 2. Using Bech32 addresses saves a small amount of block space (while helping blocks grow larger due to the BIP 141 weight unit calculation used by all Segwit transactions). By contrast, backward-compatible “nested” addresses (starting with a “3”) actually result in use of more bytes of block space—although they still helps the network compared to non-Segwit, and you still save on fees, again due to the weight unit accounting. Quoting a simple explanation from Core’s blog, with my notes added in green: The segwit transaction formats (see BIP 141 - witness program) have the following impact when serialised: - Compared to P2PKH, P2WPKH uses 3 fewer bytes (-1%) in the scriptPubKey, and the same number of witness bytes as P2PKH scriptSig. [Native Segwit for paying to a key hash, witness version 0. Bech32 addresses starting with “bc1q”. You want this. — nullius]
- Compared to P2SH, P2WSH uses 11 additional bytes (6%) in the scriptPubKey, and the same number of witness bytes as P2SH scriptSig. [Native Segwit for paying to a script. It takes more space, due to a drastic increase in security level. Old-style “3”-address multisig only has an 80-bit security level against malicious signers, such as an escrow scammer; native Segwit raises that to a 128-bit security level. — nullius]
- Compared to P2PKH, P2WPKH/P2SH uses 21 additional bytes (11%), due to using 24 bytes in scriptPubKey, 3 fewer bytes in scriptSig than in P2PKH scriptPubKey, and the same number of witness bytes as P2PKH scriptSig. [This is the backward-compatible “3” address for P2WPKH. You still save on fees, because the weight of witness bytes is so much lower; but the transaction as a whole takes more blockchain space than non-Segwit “1” addresses! — nullius]
- Compared to P2SH, P2WSH/P2SH uses 35 additional bytes (19%), due to using 24 bytes in scriptPubKey, 11 additional bytes in scriptSig compared to P2SH scriptPubKey, and the same number of witness bytes as P2SH scriptSig. [This is the backward-compatible “3” nested address for P2WSH. Is anybody actually using this? — nullius]
3. Bech32 addresses are native Segwit. Nested-in-P2SH is a backward-compatibility hack, designed so that Segwit early-adopters can receive money from people who are slow to upgrade. Wherefore...
A lot of people are moving over to SegWit now. The big question is, which implementation is going to be the standard in the future?
Easy answer: Native Segwit. Bech32. “Bravo Charlie One means money.” (bc1) We currently have P2SH addresses <The ones starting with a 3 and backward compatible to non-SegWit wallets> or Bech32 addresses <Starting with bc1> ::) Also looks like there are bech32 P2WSH addresses & bech32 P2WPKH addresses. Bloody confusing!
For ordinary end-user requirements in 99% of cases, all you really need to know is that the Segwit nested “3” addresses are backward-compatible so that people with obsolete software can send money to them—whereas native Segwit Bech32 is the Bitcoin address format of the future. You don’t need to worry about P2WSH vs. P2WPKH any more than you worried about P2SH (“3”) vs. P2PKH (“1”). Did that ever keep you up at night, wondering which address format to use? Of course not! You simply used P2PKH for 99% of end-user use cases, and P2SH for things like multisig. This reminds me of the days when we had a VHS and Betamax videotape format war, way back then. <I feel so old now>
Not even remotely comparable. I don’t know why you think there be some competition. There isn’t: The same people (Core) provided two different general types of Segwit addresses for different purposes. I don’t know why you think there be some sort of fragmentation of the market. There isn’t: All Segwit addresses are Bitcoin addresses, and are network-compatible with each other! You can always receive money from anybody with any type of Segwit address; and if you have updated software, you yourself can use any type of Segwit address. I don’t know why you think there be some “format war”. Nested P2SH addresses complement Bech32 by helping ease Segwit adoption. Did the same people make VHS and Betamax? No. Were they compatible with each other? No. Were they in competition with each other? Yes. The analogy fails on all points. I find that even signing a message with a SegWit address is still a bit problematic, because different applications handle this differently, based on the format you used. ??? See this topic : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2885058IMO, applications such as Electrum which permit signing with Segwit addresses using their own ad hoc system are highly irresponsible. There is not yet any standard for signing with Segwit addresses. Work is currently ongoing to create such a standard. It is being done thoughtfully, rather than just slapping something together. Note that in the thread you linked, achow101 wrote (boldface added): It is just that we are still working on creating a more generalized signing scheme that lets people sign with things like P2SH addresses (e.g. sign with a multisig address). There is simply no standard yet for signing with such scripts or with Segwit.
Note that you don't actually sign with an address. You sign with a public-private keypair and your wallet interprets it as an address. Your wallet could just as easily interpret it as a segwit address. We are working on creating something that actually specifies the address type, and more generally, allows signing with scripts.
In my own post on that thread, I linked to several explanatory mailing list posts as well as the pertinent Github issue. I suggest that you follow that (and bitcoin-dev) if you be interested in progress on this work. Why are we making things so complicated or is this just a temporary solution to push SegWit quicker into mainstream use? Please share your experience and which implementation you used and why you chose to go that route.
I think you’re the one who is overcomplicating things. Yes, the situation with exactly two general types of Segwit addresses (“3” nested, and “bc1” native) is indeed a “temporary solution to push SegWit quicker into mainstream use”. If Core had restricted Segwit to its native address format with no backward-compatibility option, then Segwit would probably never get adopted due to network effects! For a reasonable transition period, Segwit users do need to be able receive money from those who have not yet upgraded.
The different services should actually give you a choice, what you want to use and not what they want you to use. My local exchange is using P2SH SegWit addresses and Electrum use Bech32 and Ledger use P2SH SegWit addresses. Would it be too complicated to give people a choice between the different formats?
Let the customers decide what they want. Provide the research and information on the two formats and highlight the pros and cons and leave it to the customer to decide. ???
Choice? Except during a transition period, why should users be given a “choice” between the native Segwit format, and an obsolete format designed for transitional backward compatibility (which has significant technical disadvantages)? Note: I strongly disagree with Electrum’s decision to hide the nested P2WPKH/P2SH format. (There is a workaround to create an Electrum wallet with this format; I have posted it several times, and can again if necessary.) The technical-debt argument Electrum’s author has stated (somewhere on Github—link not handy) is not valid, since Electrum supports it anyway. Meanwhile, Electrum users who don’t jump through weird hoops are given the choice between either not using Segwit, or not being able to receive money from people (and major services!) who are not yet able to send to Bech32. Bad idea.
I understand the need for choice, and I agree with it, but at some point users need to be "pushed" into one direction. From what I've heard, the Bech32 are the most efficient ones in terms of memory use, and are a much better option than P2SH. The only reason most segwit adopters offered the P2SH option first, is because they are compatible with both native segwit and legacy addresses, making them perfect for a transitory period. But in the long run, what you really want is to start using the native segwit addresses (Bech32). For this reason I totally skipped the P2SH, and went straight to the Bech32.
I guess we will start seeing a lot of P2SH first, but in the end, we should all use Bech32.
Correct. In one my earliest posts here, I essentially called out 2018 as the year of transition to Bech32 (boldface added): Bech32 addresses are technically superior to old-style addresses; but they are not backward-compatible, so only people with Segwit support will be able to send you money. I myself hope to switch to Bech32 in perhaps 6–12 months. Future viewers of this post will see my signature showing an address which starts with “bc”. Redux: Segwit, which activated 24th August 2017 at Block #481824, was a “softfork”. It still permits old-style transactions. [...] There are two kinds of Segwit addresses: - Backwards-compatible P2WPKH-nested-in-P2SH addresses, [...] There is no way to distinguish whether or not a “3” address is Segwit, just by looking at it. These addresses have some disadvantages, but one important advantage: Every Bitcoin client made in the past few years can send money to them.
- Bech32 addresses, which I call “Bravo Charlie One” addresses because they always start with “bc1”. [...] But Bech32 has one temporary disadvantage: Only people who have upgraded to the newest software can send money to it. I want people to send me money, so I’m still using nested P2SH; I hope to switch to Bech32 in about 6–12 months.
Meanwhile, since there is no way to tell that a P2SH address is Segwit, I took advantage of the fact that base32check allows the lowercase letter “i” to show off my passion for Segwit: 35segwitgLKnDi2kn7unNdETrZzHD2c5xh. Cost: 600 CPU-hours on a very slow laptop[/url]. (Usually, that is in my signature together with my “ bc1qnullnym” address.) (Bech32 forbids “b”, “i”, “o”, and the numeral “1” outside the HRP prefix and separator.)
I do not have a huge issue with services forcing people to use a specific format, but at one stage these services should decide which one should be the standard and go with that. We will never have a standard, if different services push different formats. This is why I am saying, let the people decide which format is the most popular and then transition towards that as a standard or default choice.
The market always decides what they want to support in the long run. I think these services are limiting themselves by not offering a choice. Let's say you prefer to use format "A" and you have to chose between service 1 that are using format A and service 2 that are using format B. You would then choose to use service 1, because they are using format A.
Why do you keep pretending as if there were some competition between these two types of Segwit addresses? There is no competition! The nested-in-P2SH formats are transitional. Bech32 is native Segwit. They have different purposes; but they are all Bitcoin addresses, and are fully network-compatible with each other.
|
|
|
|
@nullius, is this it?
The post you quoted referred to others on the previous page. I will here give only brief excerpts from the discussion; as one of the other persons named in that list, you may be interested in reading the whole thing. I think this may (?) have been the first mention of your nym in this thread: Fake investors: nullius is fake? SyGambler is fake? TelevisionLover is gake? I added my brother there to gain credibility, which may have been wrong of me, but to be fair, I do gamble for him a lot, and the amount has been larger than 2 BTC.
The investors in question are not persons who gambled with you while the thread was open, but rather, the investors for whom you shut the thread down. After which you told me that if I wanted back in on the game, minimum investment was 1.2 BTC. Oops, I forgot to mention that before. Could you have brought a substantial return on 1.2 BTC for me, as you did with my 0.01 BTC? Too bad, I’ll never know... If I understand nullius's point correctly,he wants to know who are the investors you found on the forum who invested 1.2 BTC in that service ? Since you said you have found investors and are not accepting participants anymore,you should have some sort of proof right ?
Actually, no: My point is to inquire as to whether doubling 0.01 BTC for me was an investment on conning a rich mark. In her very first PM to me, Alia said that I must be rich. I never contradicted this; I let her make her own assumptions. Only after she required 1.2 BTC from me upfront for a deal I had seen to be profitable, I regrettably had to inform her that I do not have that kind of money to invest. I really don’t. My PM inbox got a bit quieter after that...
nullius was one of your most well known and well-respected customers. So he gets a 200% return. (Suspicious anyone?).
Its a classic bait before the scam.
I noticed that. This (from another thread) may perhaps be somehow pertinent? You told me that you initially lost all my money. You said you covered it with your own funds, then recovered, won, and split the profit with me. Beforehand, when you told me that you would not set a stop-loss as I requested, you said (of your own initiative) that you would instead insure my funds; but you did not say that insurance included continued gambling with a split of profits. FWIW / at face value: The story is, I lost your initial deposit, so I loaded 0.1 BTC of my own to make it back. Now I'm 0.2 BTC in the green, withdrew a bit of profit, and playing with house money, so thank you xD gpg: Signature made Fri Feb 23 06:35:49 2018 UTC
gpg: using RSA key 857D1532A793AAAA0247DE92CED5586964477E72
gpg: Good signature from "Alia <...>"
Primary key fingerprint: 857D 1532 A793 AAAA 0247 DE92 CED5 5869 6447 7E72
Whilst I pick over unaddressed issues, I ought pay more attention to what NLNico gives a whopping +10: So, so, so... Alia shares with her little brother (0) her home network connection (thus IP address, per theymos’ evidence), (1) her computer, (2) her passwords to various online accounts, and (3) the sacred private keys to her 1Sexy Bitcoin address. Is that right, Alia?(Any chance you share PGP private keys, too?)Yet, I still have reasonable doubts! Which is why, Alia, perhaps you should be more accomodating toward anything I might wish to do to investigate those doubts. I am willing to keep an open mind toward the possibility that something highly improbable may have happened here, and give you a chance to explain that to me. Really, I want to know the truth here. But I won’t dance to your tune, and I won’t expend extraordinary time and effort for you. And I really don’t see why you expect me to. |
|
|
|
I do have substantive questions and comments on this thread. Whereas I’ve needed to turn my attention and my time to other matters; people are laughing at me, and justifiably so: I mean, nullius has been pretty preoccupied spending the last week in a high school-like gossip and drama circle, whereas if this challenge would have started last week, his posts most certainly may have been outshined by any other participants' posts haha
A few notes for now: @amishmanish, good summation of some important points. I think that Alia did herself no favours (so to speak) with her responses to accusations against her. Guilt tends to show itself in belligerence and manipulativeness. @all, I really don’t think it’s productive to engage in endless back-and-forth. Some pages ago, scam_detector left the thread open, after I suggested a need for a place for Alia-related evidence. Certainly, I also think that some substantive discussions are warranted. Please, let’s keep to that. On that note, one of the significant questions I have for Alia: Why are you insistent on Skype, specifically Skype, and Skype only?Surely, you realize that anybody wanting to contact you for the purpose of sorting out questions of your identity would be benefitting you, if you be telling the truth. Surely, too, you understand that the benefit would not be mutual—quite to the contrary, insofar as such a person would be spending time and risking reputation for no motive other than an interest in abstract justice. You would expend minimal effort by installing some alternative; by contrast, anybody outside the MicroMacSoft walled garden and behind Tor would need to expend great effort to get Skype working, if it could be done at all. To be blunt, why do you feel entitled to demand that someone else should jump through hoops to help you?I ask because I do have reasonable doubts as to whether or not I’ve only been speaking all along to a 15-year-old boy. Reasonable doubts. But I don’t jump through hoops for anybody, and I certainly wouldn’t for you.
EDIT BEFORE POSTING: While I was writing the above (and juggling a few other things), this came in: The only weird part about her conversation was that she was trying to consistently ask me do bets over 1BTC. .25BTC i could lose, 1BTC was still an acceptable cost, but I just considered it overconfidence, so i was working up to larger amounts. My last .25BTC, she stated that she was going to raise the minimum deposit to 1.2BTC, and that is when I tapped out, as people lose alot of money due to overconfidence. I still have our skype convo.
As I stated upthread, Alia also tried to push me from 0.01 BTC to 1.2 BTC. Same minimum: 1.2 BTC. If/when I have time, I will try to find the post where I said that about ten pages ago. |
|
|
|
Since early times the standard advice regarding passwords was to not write them down or rather to atleast avoid writing it down.
Sometimes, the “standard advice” is wrong. Specifically, most of the “standard advice regarding passwords” is just flat-out bad advice. Comically bad advice! The people who command as religious dogmata that you must never write down a password under any circumstance, and the same people who design password policies which password crackers laugh at. Consider: - For most people in most circumstances, it is wise to have a non-electronic, non-computer-dependent backup of your life’s savings. Yes, such a backup requires a computer to restore. However, the backup itself cannot go obsolete (have a 5.25" floppy drive handy?), and is not susceptible to the oft unforeseen degradation of many computer media (e.g., many CD-Rs can degrade to be unreadable within a few years; flash memory devices can forget things after a few years locked in a vault without being plugged in).
- A paper “backup” can also have other interesting use cases, such as writing your wallet seed into a sealed Last Will and Testament with a brief explanation of its value, and pointers to recovery instructions. Have you even thought about what will happen to your Bitcoin after you die? The easiest way to reliably handle this is to record recovery information in a non-electronic Very Important Document which, at least, will not be accidentally deleted or discarded by a potentially computer-illiterate executor. — Note: I myself would much prefer to divvy up trust with an SSS scheme. Working on it. The biggest problem with such things is that recovery software must be readily available, and preferably conformant to a widely acknowledged standard.
- For much different use cases, a backup of pseudorandom words can be much easier to reliably conceal than any electronic backup. I don’t want to go into details. Suffice it must to say, spies have been hiding and clandestinely transporting/communicating small bits of information (including pseudorandom code words) ever since espionage existed; and in adverse circumstances, I’d rather devise some means of hiding 12 random words than make some likely futile attempt to hide a micro-SD card.
Others have already addressed many of your other statements. I’ll leave it at that for now.
This is VERY common sense.
No, it’s not. It does seem to be a VERY common fallacy. Whenever I heard people talking about how they "wrote their seed in paper and put them in a vault" I laugh. How does that protect you against real life thieves? people in the internet era often forget that real life criminals exist too, and they will try to steal your money.
How does placing valuables in a vault protect against real-life thieves? Tough question! I must pause, scratch my head, and think about that one. “People in the Internet era often forget” that real-life people have been guarding against real-life criminals ever since human beings first came to exist. As bitcoin becomes more mainstream, thieves will train themselves to identify how a potential seed looks like. Whenever they see a bunch of incoherent words in a paper they will realize that's an Electrum seed most likely, and then you are fucked, because you either tell them or they may torture you or some other sick stuff.
Or if they suspect you have a large amount of money locked away inside your head, then they will perform rubberhose cryptanalysis, viz., “torture you or some other sick stuff” (such as kidnapping your children). Note: None of these issues is specific to Bitcoin. Honestly, anything that isn't memorizing your password is a risk. And sure, keeping things in your head is a risk too, since you can forget about them, but it sure beats someone finding your seed. Just practice a low.
This is VERY horrid advice. And not the first time such things have been discussed, in various contexts; e.g.:Human memory is very fallible. We often just don't remember what we don't remember so we don't often realize how bad it is. A fever, blow to the head, or other illness can easily kill single memories even of things you used frequently--
“Just practice a [lot]” is especially bad advice for a backup of a passphrase which you do not use regularly! Modulo risk of head trauama, illness, etc., I think that I have a good chance to remember a long passphrase which I actively use. But smart though I am, I know that I may as well throw my coins away as rely on my memory of a long passphrase used as a long-term backup. ( N.b. that for the purposes hereof, the passphrase must be used only for the long-term backup to avoid compromising its security.) I have lost access to encrypted stuff because I didn't pay enough attention, so I know about that risk myself... but still, I wouldn't feel safe keeping bitcoin stuff around.
Paranoia is destructive. This is paranoia. I don’t at all mean that in the clinical sense, but rather: Irrational and disproportionate fixation on the wrong measures of the wrong things ( e.g.) rather than rational threat modelling. Consider: - Total, irreparable loss due to forgetting your backup passphrase is itself a threat, risk of which must be accounted for in your threat model! If, for the sake of example, you have a vault suitable for storing gold bullion, bearer bonds, fiat cash, etc., and your principal threat is thieves seeking valuables, then it would be irrational to refuse to consider storing a paper backup of a Bitcoin mnemonic together with these other valuables.
- If you totally lack sufficient physical security for safekeeping of a piece of paper, then you certainly can’t protect the physical security of computers you use to actually transact in your hot wallets. Worry about “evil maid” attacks.
- If your threat model includes “torture [] or some other sick stuff”, then a thwack upside the head with a $5 wrench will be just as likely to make you forget your backup phrase as to spill it out on the spot. And vice versa.
- ...many other issues, here omitted on grounds that the $5 wrench would be hitting a dead horse.
Also, since you advocate keeping the only backup in your head, I must ask you: Do you have any plan for what will happen to your Bitcoin when you die? Even in the exceedingly rare persons graced with photographic memories, death does tend to induce forgetfulness. |
|
|
|
Notable on the record: Alia apparently locked the gambling script thread—just as I was trying to post a rather snide reply which insinuated that she was seeking attention with it. I suppose not. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
