 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2]
|
Yes, there must be a hole, or even holes, somewhere, but if the bad guy can find it, the good guy also can. In terms of security, it is always a race between the good guy and the bad guy. One bad guy with one open hole somewhere is enough to lose all money  I simply don't subscribe to this. "then this world would be a gasser."- Louis Armstrong to you. What is idea of Bitcoin? A huge number of people will lose unimaginable amount of money there if it will not go up infinitely. I would stay away from Bitcoin if it has no serious goals to take over the world. You can if you really want to. Yes, I understand how. But this will only help me, and does not protect against the human factor if an organization uses bitcoin. To a certain extent, it is a myth that Bitcoin cannot be seized or confiscated or recovered. In some cases, it is possible if the money was stolen by a complete idiot. |
|
|
|
One hole anywhere is enough to lose all your money. You cannot check everything. Organizations that will use cryptocurrencies will not be able to verify everything. Bitcoins are very easy to steal due to the human factor.
If bitcoin becomes widespread there will be a great interest in finding and creating such vulnerabilities
I think you are confusing two different realities, people will lose their coins? Yes this has happened many times already and the price keeps going up, you are your own bank so bitcoin requires people to learn to keep backups, this is just good practice and it has been taught as long as computers have existed, equipment fails, people forget their passwords, it happens, get a backup, the chances of getting hacked are way smaller than the chances of losing your coins by yourself or giving your coins willingly to scammer. This is true, as long as I work with bitcoin as an individual, there is no problem. I'm talking about what will happen if Bitcoin continues to grow and gain official status and truly becomes reserve currency. |
|
|
|
|
The bank is a guarantee of the safety of funds under the responsibility of the bank in any case. This is especially true if the money is very large, there will always be a responsible party to which claims can be made. Money from the banking system cannot leak into the void and can easily be returned and moved, no matter what kind of protection system there is. We're not talking about collapsed banks or fraud.
I agree that the bank is censorship, I do not like censorship too, I just state the facts.
But accidental theft or loss of bitcoins will turn into a complete apocalypse for people or organizations. People will be afraid of each other and not trust each other. How will it work if the slightest mistake or hack leads to financial death?
|
|
|
|
|
Satoshi Nakamoto created money that does not require trust in each other, but requires trust in tens of thousands of software, hardware and online sources and added HUGE motivation to hackers and governments to infect everything.
|
|
|
|
Are you 100% confident in the security of your banking system? Theoretically, the principles are the same. Bitcoin is in active development, and is open source meaning that if a vulnerability is detected, then it should hopefully be patched quickly. Bitcoin has in the past had several vulnerabilities of various degrees, all of which it has recovered from. There was basically a vulnerability in the early days which allowed creating new coins, I don't say about vulnerabilities in Bitcoin, I mean other software. To a degree, yes. There's various vulnerabilities found in all operating systems somewhat regularly, just like any other piece of software. Your phone has been vulnerable , and so has the software you are using on this very forum. The point is, and this is an extension to your first question; there is no avoiding vulnerabilities in software, and therefore not only is Bitcoin under threat from that, but also the operating system you use to login to all your accounts, including your banking account if you use online banking. Also, even if you don't use online banking personally, your bank likely uses the same operating systems that we can get our hands on, probably some distribution of Linux. Even if its a custom coded operating system, it can likely be attacked the very same way as any operating system available to consumers. Banks control centralized money, they can very easy find and return them! They can block transactions and do very much things to keep your money safe and find thefts. Hacker cannot steal 10millions dollars from your bank account using a virus, but 10millions bitcoins - easy. its also worth mentioning that, you can actually make a Bitcoin wallet via various different methods, some of which don't require being online which significantly reduces the chances of malicious attacks, unless the attacker has physical access to your device . But you cannot send it offline. Yes, this is including, but not limited to the operating system I use. No, it guarantees nothing, Although, the chances of a malicious program being open source, is significantly less so than it being closed source. Basically, the code can be verified, but lets be honest not all of us understand that specific language or we don't have the time since programs can literally be hundreds of thousands lines of code, and therefore to an extent you are relying on a collective effort to verify that the code is clean, and safe. Generally, you can vet the code in specific areas, for example what happens when you enter the private key, is it logged anywhere or sent to someone's email address etc.
Github can be hacked or falsified by the government in theory. This is literally true for everything. The majority of the people in the world are already using a system which relies on computers, and are therefore have the same concerns. The majority of people now use online banking, not only that they are using it on phones, that they install apps on which have access to varying amounts of information, and they browse on that same phone, they do everything on that phone. When you own Bitcoin, you are basically removing the third party element, so you are more inclined to protect your assets. Therefore, you generally aren't going to be storing your main wallet, on a live machine. At least, it isn't recommended.
Bitcoin transactions are irrevocable, you cannot complain to the bank or the police. They can steal absolutely any amount of money without consequences, this will greatly motivate hackers |
|
|
|
If bitcoin becomes widespread there will be a great interest in finding and creating such vulnerability
Bitcoin's price has already been high enough to attract hackers, because of potential of stealing millions of dollars and anonymously converting them to fiat. MTGox happened 7 years ago. The fact that Bitcoin didn't die because of this and continues to become stronger just disproves your argument that Bitcoin will disappear because of hackers. Confident users will keep storing Bitcoin by themselves, others will use trusted custodians. Bitcoin price can only move in one direction, infinitely up or infinitely down. Most people keep him because they believe in his future and there are more and more people like him, so it goes up. I'm talking about what will happen if their faith becomes reality. Bitcoin can remain for a long time purely as a speculative instrument without serious use, then many people will eventually lose faith and the price will fall to zero. |
|
|
|
I suspect I have an argument for why bitcoin will die. Please challenge my suspicions. I think many here understand that bitcoin can only have two directions: infinitely up or infinitely down. If infinitely up, then Bitcoin will become a reserve currency and will be used in banks and at the state level. Some people will keep large amounts of bitcoin in their wallets. Do people understand that when working with bitcoin there is every chance of losing ALL money through negligence or because of a virus. Losing all your money is INCREDIBLY simple! There will be absolutely NO chance to get them back! It can kill peoples, destroy banks or economy of entire states. I don’t even want to say that people with large balances will experience the wildest paranoia. They may be physically tortured to gain access, because it's easy, anonymous and safe Are you absolutely confident in the security of bitcoin client that you use? Are you absolutely sure in the security of OS that you use for the bitcoin client? Are you always confident that the binaries you download do not contain a backdoor? Are you absolutely confident that when you download a repository from a github, you download the original code? Do you check the hash every time? Are you absolutely confident that open source guarantees no backdoors inside? You probably read it all after downloading from github? Are you absolutely confident re that your compiler does not have a backdoor built in to embed a backdoor? Are you confident that the compiler that built your compiler does not have a built-in backdoor? Are you absolutely confident in your hardware? One hole anywhere is enough to lose all your money. You cannot check everything. Organizations that will use cryptocurrencies will not be able to verify everything. Bitcoins are very easy to steal due to the human factor. If bitcoin becomes widespread there will be a great interest in finding and creating such vulnerabilities |
|
|
|
I believe that Lightning Network is not good and safe solution.
Do you have any reason to back up your claim? Lightening network is still growing in adoption, but it has a lot of potential to positively affect scalability. We can use some centralized "bitcoin banks" where ordinary people will keep their bitcoins.
Banks can also print bitcoin banknotes that are backed by real BTC (legacy mode support).
Putting a decentralized currency in a centralized system is wrong use in my opinion. guess you missed the memo LN has loads of vulnerabilities.. remember account transaction(channels) have been around for decades.. then bitcoin came around as something new and more secure then channels.. LN has many vulnerabilities. LN has the same flaws as the banking system and yes hubs are just bank2.0 with a catchier title heck its not even a 'push' method. but instead 'handshake'(cooperative signing) its not even a network wide audited method imagine having a fiat bank. but if your wife wants you to pay the electric. you cant just transfer $100 to the electric company you have to daisy chain many partnership handshake agreements.. and hope that everyone on the line is awake and has funds for you to hot-potato your payment through your wife.then the neighbour then their boss who then has access to the electric company LN payment success/achievement rate is not 100%..(unless <3sat) heck not even 50%(unless under the price to buy a mcdonalds happy meal) seems backwards to me. bitcoin solved many bank problems. LN is reopening old problems and adding more problems ontop. and thats without discussing all the bugs, code and feature vulnerabilities If so, then I also had such suspicions, but I do not have time to thoroughly understand the protocol in order to give arguments. It's just that I, as a programmer, understand the potential fragility of security. I do not consider the centralization of micropayments to be a big problem, I think this cannot be avoided. I would never use LN. You are right - Currency of freedom. Nobody will take your freedom if banks will exist. You still have your personal wallet.dat, nobody will forbid that..
They can only exist together or Bitcoin will die.
Banks are taking your freedom, but partially and so smoothly you don't notice. They're just disguising removal of freedoms into freedom. Bitcoin doesn't need banks. It'd be straight against Satoshi's whitepaper. How does storing BTC under a third party's custody even make sense? I mean, first and foremost, why have BTC banks if the customers have their own ".dat" files? We need to eliminate 3rd parties, not promote them. Bitcoin certainly isn't the best system when it comes to convenience, but this is the best we can do to be under control of our own money. You forget about other people, not everyone is cypherpunk and crypto enthusiast. There is no way you can convince others not to use banks. Nobody forces you personally to use banks, it gives enough freedom for those who need it. |
|
|
|
We could use real bitcoin banknotes, like the ones Tangem was developing, although I don't know how things are going with their project.
But, I don't see any point or real-life actual usage for any of those. It depends on distance to that future. Maybe we will not use that. By the way papers will not be a big issue. How is this distant future?
We already have the banks with the vaults, Coinbase, Gemini, or smaller ones like Bitcoin Suisse, we have the standard banks that also offer trading and a visa card, with Binance and Crypto, we have the bankruptcy with MtGox or the total failure like Quadriga or MintPal or god how many examples of this type we have.
The distant future is already here.
Come to think of it, I'm actually part of the problem, I think I've used more my Binance and Wirex cards for buying stuff than real BTC, I need to go in the garage and flog myself for 600 seconds.
There are only 2 kinds of the future. 1) Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will die. 2) Bitcoin is reserve currency and new gold standard. Should I explain why? |
|
|
|
Not everyone can have internet and electricity everywhere. There will still be many old-fashioned people.
Sure. That's what there's fiat for. Or you are expecting it to disappear? No. Governments will keep their claws in the monetary politics, hence they'll keep centralized money. Your banknotes may work with govt issued stablecoins. But should not be mixed with Bitcoin. I don't think this is a working system. What is the point of centralized money if no one keeps their savings there but keeps them in bitcoin? On the other hand, why do you need bitcoin if you do not store your savings there? To store all savings in bitcoin, it must become a unit of value. Everything else will have no value. |
|
|
|
I've seen quite a lot of posts and "opinions" recently about Bitcoin in which banks are included. Why? Where are these opinions coming from all of a sudden?
Banks. Institutions of enslavement.
Bitcoin. Currency of freedom.
How are these two supposed to go together, honestly? They never will. You have to choose between the two.
You are right - Currency of freedom. Nobody will take your freedom if banks will exist. You still have your personal wallet.dat, nobody will forbid that.. They can only exist together or Bitcoin will die. OK, for the small fast transactions I see that centralization may come upon us.
But I expect to have it in the form of web wallets and centralized exchanges which will have LN capabilities and will allow people even "pay for their coffee".
If banks join the party... well, it's a free world.
Banks and centralized exchanges will be the same thing. But I don't see why we would go back to banknotes.
Because "Legacy Mode" should be supported! Not everyone can have internet and electricity everywhere. There will still be many old-fashioned people. Also this is additional way of anonymity. |
|
|
|
Do you have any reason to back up your claim? Lightening network is still growing in adoption, but it has a lot of potential to positively affect scalability.
Lightning Network security is obliviously very much lower than security of the blockchain. Putting a decentralized currency in a centralized system is wrong use in my opinion.
Wrong for big money but more safe and faster for microtransactions. What you propose is to use Bitcoin in complete contradiction of the reason it was created and be used in the same way the already established fiat is working. I see no usefulness in this. Zero. Sorry.
So basically, getting back to the days where fiat was backed up by gold,, but now it will be backed by bitcoin instead of gold?!
Then history would repeat itself
We will not avoid that anyway. Banks will do that and they will not ask us. Also banks should give credits to people and business. "Legacy mode" support will be needed for some people. But you can be responsible for most amount of your money, just hold it on your cold wallet and history will not repeat itself. Also most people will be scared to lose access to their wallets, they will use banks anyway. |
|
|
|
I think much of it will come down to individual preference. People tend to lean towards saying there's a "right" or "wrong" way to handle microtransactions, but I suspect, whether it be off-chain methods, custodial services, altcoins or indeed something else entirely, it's likely everyone will have their choice catered to. One way or another, people will find a way to do what they want. That's part of the beauty of crypto.
Yes, I just wanted to discuss the possible prospects and perhaps to be convinced that microtransactions without centralization are possible. |
|
|
|
|
I suspect there are no good solution for cryptocurrency microtransactions. We cannot record billions of transactions of all people in the blockchain every day. I believe that Lightning Network is not good and safe solution.
These days, we can potentially use fast and centralized stablecoins, but not store large amounts in them.
But in the distant future it might look like this:
We can use some centralized "bitcoin banks" where ordinary people will keep their bitcoins.
Banks can also print bitcoin banknotes that are backed by real BTC (legacy mode support).
If you are very rich guy or cypherpunk or cryptoanarchist or Satoshi Nakamoto you can still use your cold wallet to keep your money and use paper bitcoins for micro-transactions.
If you are ordinary person you can keep some money in centralized "bitcoin banks" to use their fast network like Visa for fast small transactions. If you keep all money in that bank and that bank goes bankrupt, then it's only your fault.
If you have a lot of paper bitcoins and they are actually not backed by real BTC - it's only your fault.
What do you think about it?
|
|
|
|
|
