I doesn't really matter what people here are proposing to reduce victims at the time exchanges get "hacked". People are too lazy and don't care as their behaviour didn't change a single bit after all incidents that we have seen. If you put decentralized exchanges aside, then the only possible outcome will be that exchanges store all their coins offline and thus get rid of hot wallets. It will annoy people as cashouts will be more time consuming as exchanges have to process everything manually, but at least it will have an immediate effect. But then again, it will protect you from hackers, but there are also the employees or the exchange operators that may turn out to be filthy thieves.
no no no putting funds offline in exchanges full control is the problem.. not the solution the solution is to have funds not be able to move without users authorisation. by this i mean get rid of "passwords" stored on an exchange, because this is still giving exchanges/hackers control. and instead use a bitcoin feature built in since day one.. SIGNATURES |
|
|
|
Oh my god... there was trojans and virus in my computer and changed the address... It seems I lost .3 btc....  normally a random person that has not used bitcoin wont get a virus that is dedicated to playing with bitcoin addresses. so i am guessing you downloaded something bitcoin related before. alot of reports are that people download programs promising bitcoin income, bitcoin doublers. and other fake promises. look at all the bitcoin related programs you have and you will find the culprit |
|
|
|
I tried it didnt work.... help im starting to panick !
That's kinda weird, have you tried sending coins from your wallet maybe it's just a visual bug. Try pressing the refresh button that could help in updating your balance. If the receiving address changed that means you sent it on the right address, so don't worry much. You can still view the previous receiving address by following the steps here. I checked the wallet address isnt there ! And I havnt recieved the funds yet... check your browser history and see if you went to blockchain.info and not a website of similar but not exactly same spelling (a phishing site) check if you have any browser extentions/add-ons if all clean log into blockchain.info and go to the section where you back up your keys and see what keys are logged. it might be simply that when you are looking inside your wallet, you are looking at the balance of a different address and not the overall account of all keys. |
|
|
|
The right question is how were they hacked? Hacking is inevitable, so what are exchanges doing to prevent the hack. We will always use exchange even if we have the safest wallets but are precautions being engaged?
they were not hacked. they just wont admit to embezzling funds. the solution is to prevent them from being able to embezzle funds.. which means that if there was also an outsider hacker. they cant steal either. this is done by not giving exchanges 100% control of funds |
|
|
|
exchanges need to change
firstly
exchanges should ask their customer to register an empty public key. (emphasis PUBLIC)
the customer keeps the private key a secret.
next to log in users are shown a message. and the user has to paste in the signed message, to prove who they are.
that way 'passwords' are not saved on databases or involved because the message and reply(signature) is unique at each login.
next
the public key is used with a public key belonging to the exchange to form a multisig.
the multisig becomes the deposit address.
then when users want to make an order they sign a multisig transaction to give the exchange X of total balance. to place that X onto an order.
this way funds are made more so as a 50% user-50% exchange control of funds. and outside and inside hackers cannot take 100% control
in short LN will become useful for exchanges, because LN is about multisigs. |
|
|
|
|
look at your chart at december 2013.. when it nearly hit parity.
people got scared and thought it wont be sustainable
this time it may do the same thing again and plunge down or it may hold at parity or it may exceed gold.
no one can predict the future but only wager the chances based on past trends and also current trends/tendancies
|
|
|
|
I agree. I just think calling it a "blockchain" should only apply to Bitcoin (and other like
cryptocurrency), since the Bitcoin Community created the term "blockchain" to describe the
Bitcoin's system of mining and block building.
Prior to Bitcoin and the Bitcoin blockchain, it would be considered "chain-stamping" or
"stampchains" or whatever. Only now that "blockchain" is an established term, do we now go
back and incorporate older works and change the "blockchain" definition so that those fit as well.
For example, I believe you need an incentivized token for a "blockchain" to work properly.
I believe that the secret to Bitcoin's success is that the token, the chain, and mining is the
same entity just represented in different ways. So, in that way, bitcoin = miners = blockchain,
so prior work or simpler systems such as what I linked to prior, are not blockchains, IMO.
This is why, IMO, a term "blockchain" should only be used in the context of Bitcoin.
The blockchain is the token and the miners, not just a chained ledger.
In my definition of "blockchain", the "blockchain" is something much larger,
it is like a full self-reinforcing system, like a stool on three legs.
um nah im my definition. bitcoin is a patchwork of atleast 10 concepts. by saying a blockchain has to be only about bitcoin. then there becomes no need to call it blockchain. you would just call it bitcoin like a stool. you wont need to talk about a stool leg and why having stool legs set at a certain angle and pieced together with a seat, with interconnecting footrest which reinforces the legs. and then a covering of paint and gloss makes it important. you would just say here is a stool. atleast separating the word leg. you can then say stool X has 3 legs at a slight diagonal angle or another stool has 4 vertical legs. or the legs are made of steel instead of wood. you can then explain why one stool is better than another stool p.s stool.. is something you find in the toilet before you flush  so be careful when trying to have 2 things meaning one thing. because if 2 things mean one thing.. then it gets confusing when asking someone if they want to see the stool you put on your kitchen floor |
|
|
|
I agree with you.
I just have elaborate its at normal level to understand newbie bit more about how processes of bitcoin or any altcoin work to finalize block and distribute rewards.
yea this forum is about bitcoin so most will talk about blockchain in the context of bitcoins unique utility of a blockchain. but its still worth noting that blockchain is not strictly a bitcoin thing. however bitcoin does use blockchain and things like PoW in a unique way that is/was a mindblowing concept in 2009 |
|
|
|
...
blockchain is simple
its a block of data chained to another block of data.
its that simple
what the data is, is meaningless
what format the data is, is meaningless
how the data is chained is meaningless..
...
By your definition, the blockchain may have been invented in 1991 or even prior. https://www.anf.es/pdf/Haber_Stornetta.pdfIf it is just a simple chaining of data that cites the prior data, then blockchain is just another way to saying "time-stamping". I think the "blockchain" as Satoshi described it is more than "time-stamping". By using your definition, than Satoshi did not invent or improve the blockchain. you are correct in both respects bitcoin EMPHASIS BITCOIN is a patchwork of atleast 10 different concepts brought together in a unique and beautiful fashion. its then bitcoin that became the example of how these older concepts can be used. bitcoins blockchain is definitely more then just timestamping data. it uses other concepts to secure it and make it a unique way to make BITCOINS data immutable to be able to be made public. but blockchain EMPHASIS BLOCKCHAIN doesnt require all of bitcoins 'features' just to be a blockchain yes blockain is an old invention and as those cypherpunks of yesteryear know that there were issues they couldnt solve to allow a blockchain to be totally public and decentralized until satoshi added his patchwork of multiple concepts to bring bitcoin into existence. and that bombshell expanded peoples minds forwards.. and backwards |
|
|
|
I read most of all views everyone mentioned about blockchain. But no one clearly mentioned.
I am not genius, but what I understand about bitcoin development is as below...
Bitcoin is made up with combination of blockchain and cryptography. Basically blockchain and cryptography both are man made things with quantum physics. But Satoshi Nakamoto is the person who brings them together to make invention of Bitcoin.
Now few words about about Blockchain and cryptography
What is Blockchain ?
Blockchain : We can divide it into block+chain. These blocks are made up of mathematical formulation which have to solve with computing power. And after solving these blocks which are made of encrypted non reversible data storage. So in short word we can say Blockchain means non reversible data storage with encryption. In blockchain each block have certain data which is connected to each one and can be used to access encrypted data anytime.
Cryptography : Crypto is the main word which means the art of writing or solving codes. Now it has many types of writing code while solving blocks with help of various algorithms.
While miner solve block with using specific computing power with solo or pool mining they receive rewards for there contribution. But this rewards is vary an depends upon many factors. Such as block height, block difficulty, block reward, time taken to solve 1 block, maturity of block, total contributing power etc.
the bit in red is wrong thats BITCOINS blockchain. you will find that there are other blockchains that are chained together in other ways. a block is just a clump/cluster/group of data put in a lump. how its recognised as a block how its secured if its locked to be immutable or linked but editable are all optional. bitcoin however chose to go for the immutable route with using sha256 hashing to recognise a block.. and then PoW hashing using Sha256 and a target pattern to achieve to secure (double lock) the block data to a way that becomes hard to break EG a block of data can be signed using a keypair. and then signed by several keypairs. it can be made editable only by those keypairs. immutability is not actually a default requirement of blockchain. but their are obvious advantages of those using blockchains to want immutability if the data is to be made public bit in blue is also incorrect some blockchains can release all the circulation at genesis and then choose to demurrage(tax) the funds if they dont move. some blockchains dont even have to contain any financial "coins" at all. it may just be identity data or domain name data |
|
|
|
He isn't saying that Core will unilaterally take the decision to start orphaning blocks. He's saying that the network participants, miners and nodes, have the power, if they really wanted, to force activation of SegWit by orphaning blocks. But it's also equally possible the network participants won't elect to do that. The option is there. That's all he's saying. The users make the decision, not Core.
But in fairness, I suppose if anyone proposed the same tactic in an attempt to active a hard fork, it's pretty clear that the people in the other camp would overreact in equal fashion.
bip9 is a core invention that bypasses users choice. its purely a pool election. not a full node election. they went soft to avoid user choice. and if pools dont go for core code those pools loving core can ignore those pools not voting for core. thus creating an intentionally splitting hardfork to activate a softfork thus again no user choice and no pool choice. core can blacklist if they got anything above 75% to force it in but prefer to wait for 90% to force it in or hope for 95% to not need to force it in as for my mindset. although core do their own spoonfeeding. there needs to be open discussion from those not core.. otherwise its just circle jerking the flock of sheep down a single path. in an open network there needs to be diversity. i personally think that the only 2 options are core or BU is bad. there needs to be more diversity and that all implementations should have releases of eachothers 'bips' and let the networks have a true free choice related to which bandcamp they prefer EG BU have a dynamic block release and a segwit+dynamic block release EG core have a segwit release and a segwit +dynamic block release. then its true free choice but like i said only 2 'bandcamps' that dont support open choice is bad |
|
|
|
|
seems nearly everyone has got it all wrong
only 'Karartma1' got closest to the explanation
blockchain is simple
its a block of data chained to another block of data.
its that simple
what the data is, is meaningless
what format the data is, is meaningless
how the data is chained is meaningless..
EG PoS or PoW are both forms of blockchain chaining. so saying it needs PoW as a prerequisite is not true.
it could be just hashed using md5 it does not need to be Sha256
it could be done using signatures or even a different way altogether
as for the data, this does not need to be financial transactions. it could be domain data, such as namecoin uses
it could be identity data.
what makes bitcoin unique are what satoshi decided to do as extra layers to make bitcoin unique.
when satoshi talked about blockchain in the BITCOIN whitepaper he was concentrating on BITCOINS utility of it
trying to say a blockchain needs bitcoin pre-requisites is then just simply trying to confuse blockchain with bitcoin.
bitcoin is way beyond just 'blockchain' in many many ways.
others are playing around with blockchain by choosing different options. EG name coin stores domain name data.
other coins are using PoS others are using PoA.
some are closed service/private chains where only a handful/select few have full access.. while others are completely publicly
some are distributed to thousands some to only a few dozen
the options are endless but the pre-requisites are not set.
|
|
|
|
I have suggested such a thing years ago; but why reinvent the wheel? -->it exists already, it is called "Bitcoin"  the PBOC are government banks.. bitcoin should stay well clear from them governments want taxes and banks want fee's and debt to then charge more fees on bitcoin should stay well clear from that. however normal people.. the 7 billion people not working in a government position of power should have the freedom to use any currency they please. if this means bitcoin then great. let the commercial banks dry up and drop out. let the governments sack their leather seat lobbyists and lucratively paid expenses syphoning bureaucrats. so that any government taxes go back to a lean and clean public service allocation, once they have killed off the dead weight in response to a drop in tax income due to non national trade. but lets not let governments/banks become the international holders of the IMF super power LN hub. dominating and hoarding all the coins. keep bitcoin open and free of control, and leave governments to do their thing |
|
|
|
your obsession about btc value entertains me..
exactly how do you define value.. oh wait. your going to tell me a surge in the.. 'dollar' value..
lol
the funny part is i have never ever seen you talking about cost of living, or any other measure thats not dollar derived.
but i have seen you many times want bitcoin to be centralised, commercialised and government/bank accepted to cause a fiat rise so you can make fiat profit when you exit bitcoin.
Again, the exact opposite is true. I've made multiple posts about inflation related topics and criticized other users for being attached to fiat money. I'm frequently talking about precious metals as well. Franky, you have proven to be a truly professional troll. Welcome to my ignore list. I think you deserve negative feedback for defamation as well. But I have to think about this a bit more, because there's a high probability that you're sick mind would interpret negative feedback as acclamation... ya.ya.yo! defamation? firstly there is no person with a birth certificate of yayaya to be defamed secondly you have no reputation to taint. your pseudonym has tainted its own reputation often thirdly it would be more wise you do some research and have an independent thought now and again because most of your rhetoric sounds like your just spoonfed by blockstreamers fourthly the more people that you ignore for having an independent mindset, will just leave you only talking to blockstreamers and just circle jerking the same false ideologies thinking your correct because your circle jerking club all are spoonfed from the same bowl. but have a nice day |
|
|
|
Well, it would be much easier for them to just use Bitcoin for all international payments. But as always, statists need to prove their relevance... Actually, if the central banks of BRICS would buy Bitcoin and promote its use for national and international trade, the dominance of the USD would vanish in no time. Because of the first-mover advantage and the resulting increase in BTC value such a move would be highly beneficial for them. Not mentioning the possible savings by ceasing the issuance of national currencies... ya.ya.yo! you have to accept that banks are not going to move over to bitcoin. but what you should also accept is that bitcoin SHOULD NOT move over to banks. bitcoin should remain open and borderless as a free choice against the bankers. but it seems all your rhetoric is about a fiat valuation so you can run back to fiat one day. Hey franky, how's UnlimitedCoin doing? It's always funny to read your attempts to misinterpret and contort statements and facts. You definitely have some talent here (Roger Ver will certainly be proud of you). As always: None of your conclusions is correct. I neither hope for banks to move over to Bitcoin, nor do I hope that Bitcoin should move over to banks. In fact I'm extremely anti-fiat. It's impossible that you are unaware of this, because I frequently criticize for-fiat-traders and (affiliates of) bankers. ya.ya.yo! your obsession about btc value entertains me.. exactly how do you define value.. oh wait. your going to tell me a surge in the.. 'dollar' value.. lol the funny part is i have never ever seen you talking about cost of living, or any other measure thats not dollar derived. but i have seen you many times want bitcoin to be centralised, commercialised and government/bank accepted to cause a fiat rise so you can make fiat profit when you exit bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Well, it would be much easier for them to just use Bitcoin for all international payments. But as always, statists need to prove their relevance... Actually, if the central banks of BRICS would buy Bitcoin and promote its use for national and international trade, the dominance of the USD would vanish in no time. Because of the first-mover advantage and the resulting increase in BTC value such a move would be highly beneficial for them. Not mentioning the possible savings by ceasing the issuance of national currencies... ya.ya.yo! you have to accept that banks are not going to move over to bitcoin. but what you should also accept is that bitcoin SHOULD NOT move over to banks. bitcoin should remain open and borderless as a free choice against the bankers. but it seems all your rhetoric is about a fiat valuation so you can run back to fiat one day. |
|
|
|
that is why I am saying there should be some end to all this bullshit, maybe this time a new exchange runs away with millions and people start thinking about new alternatives.
same words were said in 2011 when bitcoinica went same words were said in 2012 when intersango went same words were said in 2013 when trendon shavers went same words were said in 2014 when mtgox, cryptorush went same words were said in 2015 when mintpal, and cryptsy went but people dont learn. they all treat exchanges like a long term bank and trust third parties the only way to change things is to change HOW exchanges hold funds. because people wont ever learn to avoid exchanges |
|
|
|
maybe this time turns into something good for bitcoin trading platforms.
I meant there has to be a last straw that breaks the camel's back right? how many times we have to hear about some exchange service getting hacked before we start moving on from these type of exchange and to better ways of trading which are less susceptible to hacks.
they were never hacked do you really think they are going to be honest and admit to embezzling funds.. ofcourse not |
|
|
|
Some of the most famous Bitcoin robberies were inside jobs. Here are two well known examples:
1. Robbery of Mt Gox by Mark Karpelčs
2. Robbery of Sheep Market Place by Tomáš Jiřikovský
bitcoinica trendon shavers mtgox mintpal crytorush cryptsy |
|
|
|
what you told is correct but after that low do you think that they would not have bought back in low and averaged the price and right now they will be in profit and if i am not wrong then they would have cashed it out in $ 930 range that time the price also crashed little bit and now back the price is up.
yes some have bought in low to average down. but that just adds more ammo to suggest now they averaged down they will be "at profit" when they get the $1200 again. thus more inclined to cash out. and as i said before. it does NOT require 8million coins to cause a crash, and thus a bank run to cause exchanges to run scared and scream 'hacked'. it requires alot less coins. put it this way. imagine there are only 300,000 coins that are 'supposedly' in an exchanges reserves. knowing exchanges are probably spending the reserves through the back door (fractional reserving) while the customers are playing with false mysql orderlines and balances.. it only requires less than 300,000 coins to go in the wrong direction to cause a bank run and the exchange wont have those coins available to allow for all withdrawals. because there isnt 300k coins to repay all customers they would be required to hold their hands up and reveal they embezzled the funds. meaning criminal act and prison time..(bing honest hurts them so dont expect them to be honest) or fake a hack and walk away leaving customers in a cluster-f**k of legal actions with some high spending lawyers in bankrupcy court over a 2-5 year period. while the exchange owner sips cocktails on a beach. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
