I think the foundation needs to have a policy on the issue. It think it's a non-starter, but, the foundation will be asked about it and the entire community needs a reply better thought out than "no."
HELL NO is the only rational response. The manifestation of it being vocal complaints, technical workarounds, public outing and shaming of anyone with such poor judgment as to implement this, and if all else fails, the nuclear option (hard fork into a currency where such tracing is impossible.) Here's a hint to those who don't get this yet: If you think the concept behind the U.S.'s monetary control laws is a decent one, and that with the right tweaking those laws could be made perfect, then you really have no business being involved with bitcoin. And if you think this while being an influential developer of the software, you fit about as well as the proverbial turd in the punch bowl. Besides, the government doesn't need permission to make it's own such list. It's not on the table to put this inside the protocol (the wallet, sure, but not the protocol).
No, it doesn't. But that's not the issue. The issue is that an influential bitcoin developer is openly supporting it--proposing it, even (and obviously, that means support for implementing it into the main client.) That's just pathetic beyond words. |
|
|
|
Mike is being naive thinking it will only be used to stop bad guys. We have all seen this before, the filters and restrictions eventually move outwards and infect all areas of a system.
This "redlist" will eventually only allow approved coins that are matched name and address to a government database. In one fell swoop Mike destroys all the positives Satoshi installed in the Bitcoin system.
If the government is not satisfied with your credentials, you will not be allowed to buy things with your coins, the coins will start to have two different values, one value for the government approved coins that can be used to buy things, and another for those dark coins that are no longer useful.
Also no one will have any incentive to accept dark coins because they run the risk of having their business shut down because their wallet got added to the dark coin list by their government.
This will allow the government to trace everyones money, decided what businesses are allowed to do business and quickly destroy the wealth of dissidents and opposition.
My question: Is Mike really this naive?
It strains credulity to imagine he is. Which really leaves us with only a few, more sinister options. (Including that he's simply an authoritarian at heart, whether he would admit it to himself or not.) |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin Foundation members starting to show their true colors..
I do not think they are lobbying for Bitcoin user's best interests, but instead to promote government agenda.
This seemed the most likely scenario right from the start. |
|
|
|
reddit discussionHearn posted the following message to the legal section of the members-only foundation forum: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/505-coin-tracking/ If you're not a member, you don't have access. I obtained this with the help of a foundation member who asked to remain private. He's promoted blacklists before, but Hearn is now a Bitcoin Foundation insider and as Chair of the Foundations Law & Policy committee he is pushing the Foundation to adopt policies approving the idea of blacklisting coins. I also find it darkly amusing that he's now decided to call the idea "redlists", perhaps he has learned a thing or two about PR in the past few months. All Bitcoin investors need to make it loud and clear that attacking the decentralization and fungibility of our coins is unacceptable. We need to demand that Hearn disclose any and all involvement with the Coin Validation startup. We need to demand that the Foundation make a clear statement that they do not and will not support blacklists. We need to demand that the Foundation support and will continue to support technologies such as CoinJoin and CoinSwap to ensure all Bitcoin owners can transact without revealing private financial information. Anything less is unacceptable. Remember that the value of your Bitcoins depends on you being able to spend them. +1 Blacklisting IS unacceptable. Totally. What will Hearn do when such actions either (1) cause the implementation of routines that effectively make ALL bitcoins totally anonymous, or (2) result in a hard fork of the system? |
|
|
|
I don't vote, so no one in the government represents me or my interests. That's why I think it is accurate for me to refer to them as "them". I don't play their game.
+1. The idea that voting suddenly makes me part of the political class is an absurdity anyway. Walking up to Congress and waving my voter ID card is going to get me very little in comparison to waving around millions in campaign contributions, or better yet, actually being a congressman or other government bigshot. If I really was the government, you'd better believe things would be running differently. If "we" really were the government, things would also be running differently (as a starter, the bailouts would have never happened.) The sooner we all wake up and realize anyone who arbitrarily claims authority over your life, liberty or property is just a "them," and we start (peacefully) resisting and rejecting them, the better off society will be. |
|
|
|
Not thinking of BIP38, are the wallets stored on the device in an encrypted format? I would seem like we need a feature similar to Bitcoin-Qt where the wallet file is encrypted with a password. That could be fast AES encryption and you unlock it with a password. The pin protection just protects against causal use.
Even not thinking about BIP38, one should be able to backups in AES encrypted form too.
Here are the problems: - If you can remember a password it is probably not strong enough. - If you forget your password you loose your coins. - Entering a password that is secure is a pain, especially on android devices. Therefore we are adding something else in the upcoming 1.0: Export a PDF document to dropbox, gmail or whatever your device has installed. The PDF document contains QR-codes, one for each private key, but where the data is encrypted with a device-generated 15-character password (70 bits). The password is stretched using scrypt to form a 256-bit AES encryptionkey. The length of the password forces you to write down so you don't forget it. The length of the password combined with key stretching makes it proof against brute-force attacks. Mycelium will keep on nagging you until you have both exported AND imported all your keys (this is really to help you not loose your coins) You can already try it out in the testnet version, here is a sample of the output: https://www.dropbox.com/s/x13chg7tmuvqqzi/mycelium-backup-11-11-13-2.05-PM.pdfHere is the testnet version: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mycelium.testnetwallet&hl=enFeedback welcome. Just looked over the PDF. That output looks really, really nice. My decision to continue promoting Mycelium to bitcoin newbies is further vindicated. One thought, though. Fifteen random uppercase letters is around 70 bits of entropy. Since we'll have to write these letters down anyway, is there any chance that the number of letters could be bumped up to 20? That'll be over 90 bits of entropy, which should be good for a couple of decades worth of processing power increases. That would be great for archival purposes. |
|
|
|
It's @ waves coffee shop 900 Howe St but it wants face pics, ID scan, and palm scan so meh, not interested. I've even had people off localbitcoins meet me there to trade which takes less than 30 seconds, no ID, no scans and for cheaper rate lol
I used the machine this past weekend and was impressed. It takes a bit of time to "teach" the machine your palm (you need to scan your palm several times and then wait 5 min), but after that, all subsequent transactions are fast and simple. You can feed the machine a big stack of cash and it eats it quickly and without missing a beat. A couple of the guys from Bitcoiniacs (the owners of the machine) were there too, and it was nice to get to chat with them face to face.I wanted to point out for posterity that the machine DOES NOT scan your ID, DOES NOT require a picture of your face, and DOES NOT require your email address. The only required personal information is the palm scan. Yes, there is a security camera (like most ATMs), but you could wear those glasses with the moustache and funny nose if you wanted to "trick" the webcam. But seriously, Robocoin and Bitcoiniacs have done an excellent job adhering to the $3000 / day limit imposed by Canadian law while still respecting our privacy. Nice! For those wanting more, here's an article on the ATM, with the video embedded: http://www.coindesk.com/robocoin-launches-bitcoin-atm-vancouver/If you only want the video, here's the Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFqBtvLVRpY |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Is Broken - And not just superficially so, but fundamentally, at the core protocol level. We're not talking about a simple buffer overflow here, or even a badly designed API that can be easily patched; instead, the problem is intrinsic to the entire way Bitcoin works..... http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/04/bitcoin-is-broken/The 51% attack has been known about from the start. It's not a "flaw," it's a compromise made in order to get the specific features that make bitcoin what it is. It's constantly addressed and factored into the actions of the community. This is why many of us are happy with ASICs coming about; the higher the hashrate, the harder it is for any group to execute the attack. Although even if they did, there are limits to what a successful attacker could do, and how long they could sustain the attack. And regardless of all that, they still couldn't steal your coins. |
|
|
|
|
I've seen video of one being used, and it looks very slick. But I'd like to hear an actual report on it from a forum member. Anyone?
|
|
|
|
There are a lot of thieves on this forum. Thats quite sad
This forum? This is just human nature rearing it's ugly head. Given a chance to profit, an unidentifiable victim, a clean non-physical interaction, an amount that's not too big to hide or deal with, plenty of opportunities for rationalization, and a near-zero chance of being caught MOST people the world over would take the money. Sure, many people wouldn't even be tempted, and wouldn't think of taking the bitcoins. But those people are in a minority, and it's not a minority that's evenly distributed either (although I'd wager those people are OVER-represented somewhat among techies.) |
|
|
|
how complicated is to build a wallet generator, which will generate you adresses till you hit the jackpot ?  is it even possible ? To answer the first part of that... no, it's not complicated at all. All private keys are 256 bits. Just start at a reasonable number (or even at the lowest possible private key, which is think is 1,) and calculate it's public key and address. Check for prior funding to the address. If empty, add 1 to the private key and repeat. Hit Ctrl-C when thoroughly bored. You won't get rich, but it might be a useful exercise in coding key generation.  |
|
|
|
"Hey! The Bitcoin protocol allows for a 51% attack!" Wow. Thanks, Business Insider.  Then again, maybe I should be a little lenient. It's not as if everyone knows about it, and it may sound alarming to some hearing it for the first time. Still though, to suddenly act as if you've found some secret, previously-unknown "flaw" and to speculate on it leading to bitcoin's collapse... I guess such a thing makes one a journalist nowadays. |
|
|
|
There is no true anonymity in transaction since two parties are involved it's just levels of privacy.
that is an interesting point. Is it watertight? Is it necessarily impossible to send money to a bitcoin address and receive a good anonymously? I'd imagine so, unless we're talking about other digital goods. (And that just might be the key to the whole issue....) |
|
|
|
etch the private key into a piece of metal.. EG like dog tags. then store them safely.
This. Once you start approaching $10K worth of value in bitcoins, and plan to store them and forget them for while, I don't see any good reason NOT to have several (ideally non-rusting metal) plates etched with your keys (in plaintext.) Distribute the copies in at least a couple of different physical locations too, places either you own or completely control, or with someone you completely trust. Always, always remember: it's digital CASH. Protect it like cash. |
|
|
|
How is one unit of account in the Bitcoin blockchain ledger--a value measurable and calculable, mind you--any less objectively real than "the distance light travels in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second in a vacuum?"
Because whether a human perceives it or not a ray of light travels that distance through a vacuum. The blockchain doesn't really exist without human perception it is not objectively real it doesnt exist without us, it is a concept of man. Sure the blockchain exists. Those markings in the Bitcoin ledger exist, just as much as ink markings made on a piece of paper. It's as real as a skyscraper, a bestselling novel or a computer virus. If every human on earth suddenly dropped dead, not only would the blockchain still exist, it would even continue to be updated for quite some time (until the power grid failed, anyway.) Just because it's man-made doesn't mean it's "not objectively real." |
|
|
|
Do you see your equation?
1 bitcoin = 1 bitcoin is like saying this
1 inch = 1 inch
1 pound = 1 pound
1 byte = 1 byte.
That is not how units work! The are all equal to something that is objectively real.
If that is sound reasoning I must be fucked in the head.
I'm currently in my third year of a Chemistry-Physics degree, so I'm actually quite familiar with units. Don't worry, you're not fucked in the head, your reasoning is just slightly off. Let me give you an example of a time when we made a change to our definition of a very common unit: The metre, a well know unit of measurement, was once defined by a standard platinum bar. The bar was created to act as the universally agreed upon definition of 1 metre, and was therefore by definition exactly one metre long. This was consistent to within a certain degree, but of course changes in e.g. temperature/pressure could in fact cause the length to vary slightly. Parameters were introduced to improve the consistency (specific temperature and pressure at which the length of the bar would considered to be exactly one metre) but unfortunately, using a physical object to act as a benchmark can never be as accurate as the scientific community would like. It was therefore decided that we should redefine the metre, without using a physical object. Einstein had shown, in his theory of relativity, that the speed of light is in fact a universal constant when measured within the same medium. It therefore made sense to redefine the metre in terms of this unchanging physical constant. Our definition of the metre is now 'The length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second' Your idea that units must be 'equal to something that is objectively real', while it may seem somewhat intuitive, is actually a slight misunderstanding. The fact that it is so difficult to find consistency in objective reality is what makes the task of measuring things so tricky. Back to Bitcoin: Bitcoin is actually a great starting point if we want to define a system of measurement for value. What we are effectively doing is defining a standard unit of value, i.e. 1 bitcoin, which can act as a universal constant similar to the speed of light in the example above. Now we have our benchmark (which doesn't fluctuate due to changes in temperature/pressure etc.), and we can start to decide how to value everything else in comparison to it. (notice that making measurements always boils down to making comparisons between things) Of course, being so new, and being introduced to a society who are so used to valuing things in a different way (namely whichever fiat currency they grew up with), make things more complicated (as well as a million other things, economics can't really be compared with science due to the numerous factors to consider, but we're talking about units here). We are still in price discovery phase with people having to shift their perspectives and adjust. It is yet to be seen whether or not the population as a whole will accept this new measurement system. The problem of making measurements and defining units is and always had been at the heart of the scientific discipline. Its an interesting subject, and there's a great deal of understanding to be gained by studying it in a bit more depth. This. Bitcoin is a proposal for a unit that anyone can use. If it is adopted as a transactional currency, it will become a unit by which things are measured. Notice in the above example the unit remained something objectively real. Because you cant measure an opinion with an opinion. How is one unit of account in the Bitcoin blockchain ledger--a value measurable and calculable, mind you--any less objectively real than "the distance light travels in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second in a vacuum?" |
|
|
|
|
First paragraph: "Bitcoin is insanity."
He's either hopelessly ignorant or has an ideological axe to grind.
Plus... I have to *register* to read the rest? Including the comments?
Sorry, but the first page is enough to decide that that's just not worth the time & hassle.
|
|
|
|
Arstechnica had an interesting article, a basic primer on ECC. http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/10/a-relatively-easy-to-understand-primer-on-elliptic-curve-cryptography/In the comments, someone made a statement that I found surprising, considering it seems like a no-brainer. The ECDSA digital signature has a drawback compared to RSA in that it requires a good source of entropy. Without proper randomness, the private key could be revealed. Interestingly enough, this doesn't have to be the case. While traditional ECDSA does rely on a good source of randomness it's possible to modify it so that signing is entirely deterministic, yet it's still secure and the resulting signatures are still accepted by all existing ECDSA implementation. Loosely speaking, the trick is to hash the private key and the message hash being signed together with something like SHA-256 and use the result as k instead of a random value (I'm omitting some important details). This is generally believed secure because it's unlikely two distinct signatures will have the same k, and it shouldn't be possible for an attacker to use the way k is generated to guess it unless they already know the target's private key anyway. Is this possible to implement into Bitcoin? Would it work? Can we actually leave behind reliance on random numbers, and by relying more on fewer algorithms (SHA-256 in particular here) reduce potential problem spots?... or is there some problem with this method that the poster wasn't aware of? |
|
|
|
Seems to be working fine now. Possibly a server glitch? No worries though; it's not like we don't have the private keys ourselves.  |
|
|
|
|
How much does Mycelium require in the way of phone resources?
I've just bought an older-model Huawei Glory smartphone (Android 4.0.4); I haven't loaded a lot on there, but apparently it typically hovers at about 150 MB of RAM free. Mycelium runs, I've sent a few bitcents to the address on the phone. The transaction has over 150 confirmations, but the app refuses to update the info, showing the app as "receiving" the coins and at 0 confirmations no matter how often I refresh.
I've run apps that I thought were more resource-hungry than Mycelium, and they work (if slowly). Will Mycelium just not work on such lightweight phones?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
