Have you guys read the entire article? There is no vulnerability right now. You guys know better than me most of the people wont even go to that link and read the article. They will just read what you quoted on this topic and react with only that information. Please dont be selective when you give information. Give all the facts. And please read this one too: https://medium.com/@jer979/disclosure-im-an-advisor-to-iota-4956de37cfa0Well people who don't read links that are provided shouldn't even be investing in cryptocurrency. Providing a link is providing a great deal of information. More than the typical post. Your complaint is somewhat unfounded; but, I have modified the title of the thread to reflect more of the content. If you read the article again you'll discover that the authors agree that the IOTA team did make changes that prevented their specific attack. They also go on to raise additional red flags about the code. This indicates that in their opinion the IOTA code still needs to be fully vetted. I think you're missing the point of the tread as outlined in the first two sentences of the original post. "Interesting article on the recent IOTA vulnerability that goes into the lack of proper vetting by investors. Really makes you wonder why new coins that haven't been vetted have billion dollar valuations." Please feel free to interchange the word IOTA with various other coins. The fact is again and again amature coding is appearing in multiple coins (this time it just happens to be IOTA). Meanwhile the marketing arms of those coins promote their code as cutting edge technology. Since when has poor code been cutting edge? In their marketing they attack proven well vetted code like bitcoin as being obsolete. As if being highly secure doesn't matter. There are also articles out today talking about the centralization of iota, and the relationship between iota and bitfinex. Neither of those is a good thing. I heard about the centralization of Iota. Some say that the the reason for its insane quotation is precisely the fact that just a few people have too many coins and they won't sell. But that's very very bad for a currency... Some of the things I read the other day when the vulnerability was announced make me think there is a good chance it could simply die. If one of the vulnerabilities they don't know about is exploited, it's going to be a very bad day, and the lack of demand will drive the price to zero and get them delisted very quickly. |
|
|
|
The market over reaction is insane, lets assume that news was true and china exchanges were no longer allowed to opperate, would that mean bitcoin has 10%+ less value based on that alone? Maybe it should be something like a 2% drop given the current stage of bitcoin. While they can keep pulling this stunt they will im sure.
It would probably be closer to 50% less value... Then there's the fear factor from there and we might easily see $100 btc again. lol, not in a million years  this time we have a very good example of a similar situation. it is no longer something new. China was completely out of bitcoin market for a couple of months this year and when it started the same FUD about ban and bullshit came out and price went down about 20%. and that is worse case scenario and price was about $1100 at that time. in the following months before Chinese even came back, the price was already above $2000 then Chinese came back. if you think price can fall 50% or fall to $100 (which is 97.7%) then you must be high on something  All it would take is the right combination of bad news. You're playing with an asset that is mostly backed by hashpower in China -- if that goes away a whole lot of confidence in the network goes away. Now, the likelihood of China actually banning it seems very low to me -- but it's not outside the realm of possibility, and neither is sub-100 btc. |
|
|
|
The market over reaction is insane, lets assume that news was true and china exchanges were no longer allowed to opperate, would that mean bitcoin has 10%+ less value based on that alone? Maybe it should be something like a 2% drop given the current stage of bitcoin. While they can keep pulling this stunt they will im sure.
It would probably be closer to 50% less value... Then there's the fear factor from there and we might easily see $100 btc again. |
|
|
|
There is no point in doing that because china will take out other way around as they have always done it. Moreover it's just not possible to ban country from using the bitcoin because there are no rules and jurisdiction on the use of blockchain from its creator and its virtual that's most important. Being virtual and present over the internet means complete freedom of choice and you can not stop it because there is no international government or authorities which can do that. We live in world where only government within its own boundaries can make changes and if left the boundaries then you are no more abiding to those jurisdiction.
So the the whole thing is we can't do that. That would be better though but it's ain't possible. :-)
The smartest Chinese are already moving to BCH. The regulators are all looking into Bitcoin and Ethereum. They ignore Bictoin Cash for now. So, if you need good capital flight medium, don't use legacy Bitcoin which is in the crosshairs of the government. That comment makes absolutely no sense. They're not going to ban individual coins by name - you're arguing that they're completely stupid. |
|
|
|
People never vetted Bitcoin until 1-2 years ago, no actually until a few months ago when the scandal of ASICboost became a news and shattered our beliefs about due diligence of Bitcoin experts, every body trusted them, if segwit wasn't disabling the asicboost I would've advised every body to clean their hands off the Core team. nowadays every ICO coin is claiming to be the best crypto currency. IOTA ICO coin doing the same thing. when a dev calls his 100% pre-mined coin better than Bitcoin you should know the rest like a script written for all of the likes of it.
I would suggest that you're comparing Apples to Oranges; but, those are at least similar in that they are both fruit. Firstly, I do agree as you said that every "ICO coin is claiming to be the best crypto currency". That said Bitcoin wasn't handed a billion dollar valuation overnight because someone said it was really good. It earned it by proving how good it was. It took years not minutes. The point being made in the article is that just saying something is good and giving it a billion dollar valuation is absurd. Secondly, you're suggesting that a text book coding mistake that allows someone to steal your coins is similar to a advanced hardware implementation of a technique that gives a miner an advantage in finding a block. They are not similar. Additionally, the technique was actually patented in 2014 after being realized several years earlier. No one in the Bitcoin team tried dismissing it as being irrelevant as the IOTA team supposedly did in this case. The asicboost thing also doesn't break the coin like the iota hash break did. Very significant difference. |
|
|
|
Yes, montero is going down. Listen to Shelby, and everyone else. Sell all your xrm to them.
Like like I said with bcx, the only flaw with monero wrt to Shelby this time around is that he doesn't have enough in his pocket.
That is probably the case. I have seen law enforcement agencies tracing the Bitcoin transactions and arresting those who purchased the drugs with Bitcoins. But I have never heard about an incident in which an anonymous crypto-coin such as Monero or Blackbytes was traced back to a particular individual. So as of now, I don't think that there is anything to worry. In terms of anonymity, Monero is the leading coin. Bitcoin was promoting their coin as completely anonymous way before but then it proved to be not totally. Law enforcement agencies have their own team of brilliant people and they were able to trace people involved with malicious activities even if they use BTC. Here comes Monero, and the anonymity level of crypto is taken a notch higher. So far, it proved to be really hard tracing Monero transactions with their respective identities. But what do you think about it? Do you think that Monero users can be traced by the law enforcement agencies in the future? I am a hardcore supporter of web anonymity. But that doesn't mean that I support criminal activities such as child pornography and trafficking of girls. I have no issues, if the law enforcement agencies trace pedophiles through Monero. There's no way to have an anonymous coin that isn't anonymous when the people using it are criminals. It's all or nothing. |
|
|
|
Yes, montero is going down. Listen to Shelby, and everyone else. Sell all your xrm to them.
Like like I said with bcx, the only flaw with monero wrt to Shelby this time around is that he doesn't have enough in his pocket.
That is probably the case. I have seen law enforcement agencies tracing the Bitcoin transactions and arresting those who purchased the drugs with Bitcoins. But I have never heard about an incident in which an anonymous crypto-coin such as Monero or Blackbytes was traced back to a particular individual. So as of now, I don't think that there is anything to worry. That's because they haven't tried very hard yet. |
|
|
|
It's been amazing to me watching people do silly things in massive groups with money over the last 8 years or so. There's a lot of money tied up in a system here that is probably not difficult to break, the devs aren't proactive and aren't well educated in the world of crypto, and it seems to me to be a recipe for disaster. Then again people still put money into ETH icos. |
|
|
|
they got some bug but already closed it. why people still dumping it?
Because they are still using the same broken hash function throughout their code, and they think they know how to build crypto but don't, and they're still a system that has to be centrally controlled and I think a lot of people didn't really understand that until they read the analysis yesterday. |
|
|
|
I think not for monero. monero still has a long way to go as altcoin, and I think it can still grow and still have good potential.
All it's going to take is the first person to be put in jail based on deanonymized transactions in monero for that to crash. The others seem like they may be better -- but the crypto is somewhat untested and resource heavy. |
|
|
|
It is truly completely incredible that billions of dollars get invested just on the "belief" that the code is safe, when in fact it is not. Guess if those who have found Iota's vulnerability would have been bad guys instead of good guys...
You have a lot to learn. Digital currencies aren't about code, or what they represent, it's all about marketing and getting the bandwagon of people on the hype-train. After investors have profited, noone really gives two shits about any coin, it's all the same type of investment from a traders prospective. As long as the information and news around the coin continues, that coin will be a good investment. The only coin that has any worthwhile value still remains Bitcoin due to it's depth and being the standard to trade currencies in. Every other coin, is just a coin. I wouldn't go quite that far, by that measure alone ltc is in the same league and ETH (as much as I hate to say it because I still call the whole thing a scam) has the same treatment from many exchanges. |
|
|
|
Have you guys read the entire article? There is no vulnerability right now. You guys know better than me most of the people wont even go to that link and read the article. They will just read what you quoted on this topic and react with only that information. Please dont be selective when you give information. Give all the facts. And please read this one too: https://medium.com/@jer979/disclosure-im-an-advisor-to-iota-4956de37cfa0Well people who don't read links that are provided shouldn't even be investing in cryptocurrency. Providing a link is providing a great deal of information. More than the typical post. Your complaint is somewhat unfounded; but, I have modified the title of the thread to reflect more of the content. If you read the article again you'll discover that the authors agree that the IOTA team did make changes that prevented their specific attack. They also go on to raise additional red flags about the code. This indicates that in their opinion the IOTA code still needs to be fully vetted. I think you're missing the point of the tread as outlined in the first two sentences of the original post. "Interesting article on the recent IOTA vulnerability that goes into the lack of proper vetting by investors. Really makes you wonder why new coins that haven't been vetted have billion dollar valuations." Please feel free to interchange the word IOTA with various other coins. The fact is again and again amature coding is appearing in multiple coins (this time it just happens to be IOTA). Meanwhile the marketing arms of those coins promote their code as cutting edge technology. Since when has poor code been cutting edge? In their marketing they attack proven well vetted code like bitcoin as being obsolete. As if being highly secure doesn't matter. There are also articles out today talking about the centralization of iota, and the relationship between iota and bitfinex. Neither of those is a good thing. |
|
|
|
It is truly completely incredible that billions of dollars get invested just on the "belief" that the code is safe, when in fact it is not. Guess if those who have found Iota's vulnerability would have been bad guys instead of good guys...
Also, who is to say that others haven't found and exploited it? It's likely they have. The bad guys looking for profit tend to be a whole lot more motivated than researchers for MIT who are doing it for the greater good. |
|
|
|
Have you guys read the entire article? There is no vulnerability right now. You guys know better than me most of the people wont even go to that link and read the article. They will just read what you quoted on this topic and react with only that information. Please dont be selective when you give information. Give all the facts. And please read this one too: https://medium.com/@jer979/disclosure-im-an-advisor-to-iota-4956de37cfa0You're technically not correct. Stating that "there is no vulnerability right now", when the broken and homespun hash function they built is still in use in the cryptosystem is a bold statement that doesn't have any backing and is probably incorrect. They patched the *specific* vulnerability they were told about, unwillingly. Their reaction and their software development has clear issues and this crypto is probably not long for the world. |
|
|
|
|
I've never understood the concept of buying equipment to run a mining farm and then selling the hashpower for it at a loss to customers rather than using it to mine for myself.
Ergo, I must assume all cloud mining has to be a scam in some way. I've never really looked into it all that closely, but there's no logical sense to it.
|
|
|
|
|
It's mostly Chinese money and mining propping up the absurdly high valuation of btc right now. If they leave, or are "banned" (which doesn't really seem to be the case), then you're going to see a massive retraction in price of btc specifically and many of the alts as well by extension.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's a foregone conclusion that the Chinese government with regulate crypto - they try to regulate the internet, what's to stop them?
|
|
|
|
I think the general consensus has been that there will likely be some regulation as a result of this, but it's unlikely a flat out ban will stick.
Chinese money has been propping up the crypto world since 2011 - it's not likely to go away anytime soon.
don't think the crypto world was supported by China since 2011, you just can check the volume, USD is the biggest one. The largest runups have been supported by cny. |
|
|
|
Everyone who buys a coin which has just risen 100X+ within a few weeks should consider the remote probability that he or she may end up losing all or most of the money...
That's always a good point to remember. Huge gains do not come without risk of loss. |
|
|
|
As I write this thread, the price of NEO the so called Ethereum of China is rising and its rising sharp. Many of us had that wish if we had bought ETH when it was cheap 20-50$ to get massive gains. Its not too late. You can still invest in NEO, to make that happen. If this coin help in profiting others why not share it  Some of the main reasons why NEO will go to moon is as follows (Courtesy: EthereumAdvocate)-Microsoft on board -Multiple coding languages, not just one, no need to learn new coding (Solidity). -Tacit acceptance by Chinese authorities. -Chinese government intention in supporting/utilising smart contracts to secure/designate real world assets. -Chinese desire/support for home grown product (Both Govt and populace). -Ease of purchase by Chinese on their exchanges. -Greater awareness of product in China than other external options (Excluding ETH) -Rest of world awareness of product and how it offers a different option to Ethereum. -Still viable and accessible via Bittrex to investors outside China. -This is attractive to those that cannot/do not wish to use Solidity / Ethereum, provides another smart contract option. -Could also be used for smart contracts in addition to/with Ethereum smart contracts from a risk management (hybrid) perspective. -Shaping up as the best contender to take market share from Ethereum for smart contracts. China considers ICO illegal, NEO + altcoin sharply reduced. But that's very normal for this market when any kind of bad news comes along. This should be no surprise to anyone. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
