Blockchain doesn't need any cryptocurrency. You also can realize projects of services, documents and goods and just data f.e. for managing passwords and documents for governments, services, insurances and more. [...]
Serious question -- can you give an example for a blockchain that enables any of these use cases while relying on neither (a) a native currency nor (b) a third party service provider securing said blockchain? |
|
|
|
No cryptocurrency, no block subsidy.
No block subsidy, no miners.
No miners, no security.
Public blockchains exist in an adversarial environment and as such must be protected from would-be attackers trying to tamper with transaction history or double-spending assets. This protection is bought and paid for by the cryptocurrency issued by the respective blockchain. Through the block rewards and the fees subsidized by the users. I believe that should be said to make the newbies and old users deeply understand that decentralization, security, sovereign ownership, and censorship resistance each comes with a cost, especially in times when fees become high. Good point! I don't think this statement can be generalized though, meaning it largely depends on the respective cryptocurrency's issuance policy. While true for Bitcoin (and other deflationary PoW-based cryptocurrencies), in the case of a cryptocurrency that stays forever inflationary without a decreasing block subsidy I'd argue that the role of transaction fees is reduced to being an anti-spam measure, adding little to the incentive already posed by the block subsidy. (ignoring other long-term effects such a monetary policy could have on PoW's incentivisation) |
|
|
|
If you go from another side to this question, then there are these thoughts:
For example, Satoshi understood that bitcoin in the future could cost very much.
In the beginning, it has and uses the client (program) 0.1.0-0.1.5, etc. which, I understand, mined coins and the transfer went every time to a new address from the address pool that the client created (100 addresses are acceptable). As soon as 100 addresses ended, the client automatically added 1 or 100 addresses to its database.
But what about the security of the computer before the lightning or short-circuit, coffee, etc.
In fact if the computer with the extracted coins burned, all disappeared. It should also be possible to quickly and / or automatically extract privat keys for printing on paper, for example.
Intuition is good, but everyone knows how to value their work, it was necessary to make such a decision.
It was like that realized?
Among you there is who mined the blocks - coins in on the first versions of the Satoshi client program?!?
If you are asking what Satoshi made with the private keys that hold the riches of the early block rewards -- nobody knows! They may be lost forever. They may have been passed on. For all we know Satoshi is still alive and wondering what to do with his stash. The thing is -- we don't even know which of these coins belong to Satoshi. It's safe to assume that the first few blocks were mined by Satoshi, but the network has been open to the public from the very beginning so it's hard to tell who else there was (apart from well known pioneers such as Hal Finney and Nick Szabo of course). |
|
|
|
Does anyone have an idea, since LCB did not want to help me, saying web wallets have no private key etc. If the money is just stuck, will binance help my friend get his money back? He sent them a message already.
I take it your friend sent the USDT from his Binance account? If the transaction is already confirmed I'm afraid there's nothing that Binance can do about it. Bitcoin transactions are final and as such can not be reversed. |
|
|
|
Nah unfortunately they wont give me my private key. 'LBC is a web wallet therefore we cannot provide you this'
Did you explain them the situation about how you received USDT to your LBC BTC address? Obviously they won't give you the private key, but maybe, just maybe they could recover the USDT for you and send them to the correct address? Seeing how most exchanges have explicit policies about not recovering tokens and accidental cross-chain transactions your chances are rather slim, but if you haven't tried it already it might be a more actionable request rather than asking for the private key directly. |
|
|
|
So apart from learning to actual read and validata computer code - what is the best way to know that there is no hidden backdoor into Bitcoin?
Let's put it like this -- Bitcoin currently has a bug bounty of 130 BILLION dollar on its head. Its inner workings have been known by friendly and not so friendly hackers alike for almost ten years. One would assume that would be both incentive and time enough for anyone to go out and try to break it. Yet this never happened. Unlike banks, exchanges, multinational cooperations, nation states and countless private individuals Bitcoin never got hacked. Software exploitation is a billion dollar industry, thriving on finding both intentional and accidental backdoors. Yet Bitcoin is safe. Think about it. That, or maybe it's just a long term conspiracy of tens of thousands of cryptographers, developers, hardware engineers and Bitcointalk sockpuppets. You decide. |
|
|
|
Thanks Anycoin & HeRetiK for clarifying this.
What tells the system which adress to send the block-reward to?
Miners include the coinbase transaction while building the block. That is, the freshly mined block that is being relayed to the network does not only contain user transactions being confirmed (ie. transactions that you and me are sending when moving coins), but also a transaction where the miner sends themselves the block reward (ie. the coinbase transaction mentioned above). To reiterate: The coinbase transaction containing the block reward is more or less a transaction like any other. So it's just a transaction where someone sends coins to themselves. Difference being, that this transaction may contain coins that did not exist before. |
|
|
|
Information is terrible !!!
They can steal information from our sim.
Their actions are condemning. High-tech security and privacy activists need to take action to reverse the bad behavior!
Those attacks do not involve stealing information from SIM cards. They don't even require access to the victim's mobile phone (neither physically nor via malware). It's a question of lacking security procedures from the side of mobile operators. Those were social hacks, not technical ones. Security researches have warned about the risks of SMS based 2FA for almost a decade. Most mobile operators did next to nothing to alleviate these risks. Banks continue using mTANs. Websites and many users continue relying on SMS based 2FA. For some unfathomable reason apparently even tech companies still rely on SMS based 2FA in some cases, with obvious results: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/93qnm5/we_had_a_security_incident_heres_what_you_need_to/People need to start listening to security researches instead of viewing them as paranoid nerds. But they never do until shit hits the fan. /rant |
|
|
|
Aaaand SafeDice is back up again. [...]
However it would be easier just to hire support staff.
Whatever happened to the SDMod account? A few months ago they did a fairly good job at keeping everyone up-to-date but now the account appears to be inactive again... |
|
|
|
This attack was happening a few years back to youtubers. A lot of high profile youtubers were getting their account hacked because they had T-Mobile and their security policies weren't very strict. Hackers would just call customer support, pretend to be the youtuber, and boom they get their simcard. 2FA through text is the least secure method for 2FA. As you said, use an app like authy or google authenticator. Infinitely more secure. It's freaking scary how much you can achieve by simply calling customer support. I always get a bit uneasy when I get in touch with customer support that seems to handle support requests a tad bit too informal for my taste. Sure it's convenient, but also... you know... insecure. What's a 2FA dongle though? I have never heard of a dongle for 2FA before, but I would love to get one.
Yubikey for example: https://www.yubico.com/products/yubikey-hardware/I have no personal experience with this hardware, but recently read an article about how Google has shifted away from app-based 2FA to Yubikeys. Apparently they've been using them internally for 1-2 years by now, with good results. Not sure how widely supported they are though. |
|
|
|
OK, understood. Then tell me, please, how do you think, Satoshi, when on his own computer he extracted blocks during the first months, he did not sit and did not manually start (did not write manually) each time a new address to receive the award.
[...]
Ohh... I think now I get your question. At least part of it. All of the early block rewards are sent towards different addresses, hence you wondering about address generation. As mentioned by fronti, early Bitcoin Core wallet versions were non-deterministic, so each private key was generated at random. Now I'm not sure about Satoshi's original implementation, but later non-deterministic wallet versions of Bitcoin Core generated a collection of random private keys (and the corresponding BTC addresses) in advance and stored them in the wallet.dat file (assuming you still use the non-deterministic Bitcoin Core wallet they still do, obviously). If I recall correctly it's 100 BTC addresses that get generated and stored in advance. Assuming Satoshi's original client behaved in a similar fashion, the original CPU miner would have chosen one address after another of this pool of pre-generated addresses until it ran out, at which point it would generate more random addresses to which to receive coins to. Is this what you were wondering about? |
|
|
|
SIM hijacking is a serious issue and is an attack vector that has been known for years. It's why the usage of mTAN by banks has been critized as highly insecure in the past. I'm not sure about the actual success rate of said attacks, but they have existed for quite a while now [1]. Reading stompix' post it seems like at least mobile providers finally got the memo though. The lesson: Don't rely on text messages for 2FA! Use an app or a dongle instead! (German source only, sorry) [1] https://www.heise.de/security/meldung/Online-Banking-Neue-Angriffe-auf-die-mTAN-2851624.html |
|
|
|
|
I assume OP is referring to payment processors such as BitPay? Sure, healthy competition and more options for merchants would be nice. It would also likely help adoption along.
Still, the endgame is not having to rely on payment processors (or exchanges for that matter) in the first place, ie. widely adopted usage of Bitcoin by itself and not just as a proxy for fiat transactions. That's still far off though, assuming that day ever comes.
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much, yes, you correctly understood my question. I would like to speculate on this topic:
Those. when Satoshi began to mine, and every 2-5 minutes a new block appeared, and he received a reward for the proof of his work - she came on! a randomly generated wallet !, this wallet was generated by the customer himself, the "first miner" btc, right?
and these keys (private key) from this purse were automatically recorded somewhere? tell me more pls.
Bitcoin addresses (ie. public / private key pairs) are unrelated to the PoW mining process. You first need a valid Bitcoin address, then you can receive transactions on it -- including block rewards. That is, Satoshi's wallet existed prior to them mining the first block. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a Bitcoin address onto which to receive the coinbase transaction containing the block reward. (Also note that even when Satoshi began to mine the targetted block interval was 10 minutes, like it is today. Supposedly Satoshi's first block following the genesis block took hours, if not days, to mine, but I'm not sure if that story is just apocryphal since I can't recall the source) |
|
|
|
To exemplify, have a look at one of the most recent blocks: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/0000000000000000001c6af31b32313d9bbb22dfe7c0f55269e7d3ede1411d11You will see that the first transaction listed in this block has no inputs and is labeled as newly generated coins: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/05c779226993c6b4a7ceced0660f46b224763dc1b9b97f6581061c34d63bce0fThis is called a coinbase transaction. It contains the block reward for the successful miner. The miner receives it on a regular Bitcoin address, like they would receive any other transaction. The main difference between a coinbase transaction and a regular transaction is that the network accepts the transaction as valid, despite having no inputs. Naturally the amount of BTC transferred in a coinbase transaction may not be larger than the block reward of the current halving period, otherwise the transaction would be invalid. Note that the coinbase transaction linked above contains 12.679... BTC which is more than the current block reward of 12.5 BTC. The difference of 0.179... BTC is accounted for by the transaction fees paid by the other transaction contained within this block. |
|
|
|
I am really confused about how the shift will occur from PoW to PoS for Etherium.
How will it effect Miners and how will it effect people who have ether?
I am also concerned about the integrity of the entire thing.
As far as I know ETH's shift from PoW to PoS will take place by means of a "difficulty bomb". That is, miners will be driven off their blockchain by increasing mining difficulty beyond profitability once ETH's PoS scheme is ready. I'm not really up-to-date though, so their plans may already look different by now. |
|
|
|
Multilingual too!  Спасибо!
I guess they are the counterpart of bounty hunters posting "nice project" all over the place? |
|
|
|
[...]
Of course such protection isn't needed for private blockchains that run in a trusted environment. A private blockchain can do without miners and thus without cryptocurrency. However the benefits of running a private blockchain in a controlled, non-adversarial environment remain questionable.
What do you mean by controlled and non-adversarial? Of course, a private blockchain is supposed to be controlled. There are some uses where a blockchain needs to be controlled, especially if it's a private one. And I really don't get what you mean by non-adversarialI'm using the term "non-adversarial" synonymous with "trusted" in this case. Meaning an environment where you don't expect any of the participants to defect, eg. by sending a fraudulent transaction or attempting to tamper with the transaction history. What I mean to say is this: While private blockchains can do without a native cryptocurrency, I don't see the benefits of a private blockchain over a classical database. If a central entity already has control over which data is added one might as well simply use more performant and scalable technologies that are just as secure in the given context. I'd love to hear contrarian opinions though, albeit this may stray a bit too far from the original topic. |
|
|
|
|
No cryptocurrency, no block subsidy.
No block subsidy, no miners.
No miners, no security.
Public blockchains exist in an adversarial environment and as such must be protected from would-be attackers trying to tamper with transaction history or double-spending assets. This protection is bought and paid for by the cryptocurrency issued by the respective blockchain.
Of course such protection isn't needed for private blockchains that run in a trusted environment. A private blockchain can do without miners and thus without cryptocurrency. However the benefits of running a private blockchain in a controlled, non-adversarial environment remain questionable.
|
|
|
|
The thing is that we can't prevent wall street from entering, but at the same time wall street can't prevent Bitcoiners from using Bitcoin as they have always been doing.
Think about it, nothing will change fundamentally, just the price will keep increasing with how institutions pull out their big guns and pump Bitcoin beyond anything we can think of right now. Higher price means more miners (hashpower) being added to the network making sure that Bitcoin's network becomes stronger than ever before.
The only thing they are doing is feeding Bitcoin and making it a more powerful beast that is too strong to take down. People need to grow a thicker skin and look through all this circus. With or without ETF's and wall street on board, Bitcoin is and remains Bitcoin. Wall street can't bribe Bitcoin's main developer because there is none, which can't be said about ETH, XRP, BCH, EOS, etc.
I fully agree with your post except for the last bit about wall street not being able to bribe Bitcoin's main developers. Sure, Bitcoin does not have the cult of personality of ETH or centralized control such as XRP, but Core's central role in Bitcoin's development is hard to deny. As such Core could become an attack vector for wall street's influence further down the road. In other words -- stay vigilant. That being said, whenever one feels that Bitcoin is taking a turn for the worse, the solution may just be a hard fork away. Can't get much freer than that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
