I have just gotten a negaitve trust rating from gmaxwell, just because I wanted to discuss some potential security issues with you guys? What kind of cumminity is this, please? Do you get a negative rating if you talk about your concerns? Is it better to shut up completely, even if sometimes a false alarm might be sent off? -------- No, you got a bad trust rating because you continually cry wolf without any evidence to back up your claims. You said you could provide valid sigs for posted messages as an example of the flaw you found. There are numerous signed messages posted in this thread. Put up or shut up. IDHNVL6lJx04wYMjBU5yJG5OcGUUiRpRWYyzgyrySufLDOFYaIIbnFtSCyz3q6mT9iqXOjWtqStXwUF 5PvjewBo= 1D4LM66YwaoqcfHF1366pqvxvxHxvq66EZ |
|
|
|
|
A not insignificant number of developers think pragmatism >>> principle. It sucks, but it is what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Ya just addnode= to Eligius IPs, and use various pusshtx websites, and just keep broadcasting for a bit. Some non-small number of people relay non-standard tx's and Eligius will mine them. I've done a handful of non-standard tx's without problem. The shortest got in the very next block, and the longest took 12 hours, but they all did confirm. I also had a 0.001 or higher fee for each of them by the way, which may or may not have helped, but I really wanted to "incentivize" miners to make sure the tx got in.
|
|
|
|
I also always get errors about ecdsa and some other python stuff when I install SX on a new Ubunutu. So I'd add sudo apt-get install python-pip
sudo pip install ecdsa to the "do before you install SX" guide. I also had trouble with zmq and I don't remember which thing I had to install to stop getting that error. It may have been "pip install zeroqm" but I honestly don't remember. I know that that zmq error took me a few minutes to solve. (I'm new to Linux, so I have to look up literally everything.) I just know the default libzmq-dev package wasn't enough and I had to install some other zmq thing. As always, Google is your friend, and other people have had similar errors. Even if there's no SX-specific posts about it, somebody has had that module missing for something else and posted about it. |
|
|
|
|
OP meet Protocol, Protocol meet OP.
**Later that night**
Protocol: Why did you introduce me to OP!? He's stupid and doesn't understand anything about me.
|
|
|
|
|
If you wait for a few confirmations you'll be fine.
The worst that could happen is you unwittingly participate in a scam on somebody else. Scammer contacts you to buy your product. Scammer contacts another guy to sell some product of similar value. Scammer convinces him to send first-- to YOUR bitcoin address. Scammer tells you he's paid you, you send him your product. As far as you're concerned, everything is fine. But unknown to you, some other guy just sent you bitcoins and is going to get nothing in return, and the scammer is going to get your product for free. You could ensure this doesn't happen by asking the scammer to sign a message with the address he used to pay you.
This happens on IRC all the time when scammers buy cryptocurrencies. They get a third party to paypal you, you send them the coins, they disappear, the third party then files a dispute with paypal, you're out the coins, the third party has a bunch of hassle, and both you and the third party think you're mad at each other, not even realizing that you were both communicating not with each other but with the scammer. So neither of you even knows there was a scammer involved, you both just think it's the other guy who ripped you off. But the truth is the scammer facilitated everything, telling you he's the third guy and telling the third guy he's you.
All of this being said-- it's 99% likely OP that the guy is on the up and up. Most scammers don't send crypto, and don't offer to go first. If it's less than a few hundred dollars worth, I would just believe him... as long as he does indeed send first. This stuff I'm talking about is just possibilities to be aware of-- I don't think it's actually happening in your case OP.
|
|
|
|
It's very easy to fake that yes. You just run gpg version 2 with the command line option --faked-system-time= followed by a time in unix epoch seconds |
|
|
|
Mike is right that if a openpgp wot system is too difficult or annoying, nobody will use it. But Peter is right that is 100% needs to be available as an option for the people who wish to not use centralized entities for their certificate validation. Peter's compromise (below) is clearly the only correct option.  |
|
|
|
|
The protocol is the protocol. If it enables fraud, that is part of the protocol. Thankfully, with a modicum of simple measures, it does not allow fraud.
The protocol is the protocol. It doesn't care if your transaction is a double spend or if there's a fee or no fee or if it's non-standard or standard or if you accidentally send 0.01 bitcoins with a 300 bitcoin miner fee.
The protocol is the protocol. You will relay any transactions you think should be relayed, just as others will do. You will mine transactions you think should be mined, just as others will do. Most people don't mine dust or non-standard transactions, some do.
The protocol is the protocol. The protocol is amoral. It doesn't care about what you use your bitcoins for, or if you are attempting to defraud somebody. All it knows is that's a valid transaction. And that's all it needs to know.
Anything allowed by the protocol is fair game.
In fact that's the entire point of the protocol. You are actually doing bitcoin wrong if you are placing your trust in people with bitcoin. The whole idea is that the protocol prevents fraud where possible with cryptography, and where crypto is not possible, it prevents it with economic incentive. That is how the protocol works. If you can change those parameters, more power to you. If you can break the crypto, you get the coins. If you can change the economic incentive, you can pressure the miners.
All's fair in love and crypto, because the whole purpose of crypto is that you aren't supposed to trust it.
Something worth double spending for is something worth waiting a few confirmations for. All's fair in crypto.
The protocol is the protocol.
|
|
|
|
|
Haha I like all the racist assumptions made that go into the conclusion that Bitcoin is racist.
|
|
|
|
|
It was a joke. He said he couldn't believe Snowden was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize which is reserved for distinguished people like Henry Kissinger. If you know your history, you get the joke... Kissinger committed honest to god war crimes, and Snowden obviously did not. It's a slight against Kissinger and the Nobel committee, NOT against Snowden.
Also, he's obviously "in character". Would you get upset at an actor doing something terrible in a movie?
|
|
|
|
Yeah you can send zero to an address. It would be treated as a non-standard (would it be invalid??) tx and likely not be mined, but I bet if you included a large miner fee somebody might do it. Any valid tx can be put in a block, it's just that most miners don't put in non-standard tx's. But if you can get somebody to mine it, and it's a valid tx, and they mine it into a block, by god it's in the blockchain. Eligius is the only pool currently mining non-standard transactions. So connect to them and include a large miner fee, and your tx if it's valid, it will probably get mined within a few days. Leave your client running and re-broadcast it occasionally. Usually, people send 0 not to an address, but to a *provably unspendable output*, like this tx here where the guy send 0 to the "address" and the rest of the input (all of it) went to miner fees. The output (recipient) was an OP_RETURN output, which means it is not allowed to be referenced as a future input, so any money sent to it is provably lost forever. So if he had sent money to it instead of zero, that money would have been lost. Edit: As for answering your original question. All bitcoin addresses include a checksum, which means that if anything in the address is altered, it will be immediately identified as mis-typed and it won't be a valid address. The actual raw tx however is just the ripemd160 hash without the checksum, but all ripemd160 hashes correspond to a bitcoin address, it's just that you can create a public address which you don't know, and nobody knows, the private key for. As for testing a private key, no you don't need to send money to test it. Any 32 byte hex string from 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 to fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffebaaedce6af48a03bbfd25e8cd0364140 is a private key. The Wallet Import Format versions that start with 5 or K or L are base58 encoded versions of that hex, and they, like addresses, include a checksum, so they know if you mis-typed something. Your bitcoin client will know if you try to import an incorrect key. For example, here's a randomly created private key: 5JACuvzpeMyASNGLrcBux1gBkSEJqUWc6xxg5MvnBUrmqPkuPMQ I'm going to change the last letter from a capital Q to lower case, and get 5JACuvzpeMyASNGLrcBux1gBkSEJqUWc6xxg5MvnBUrmqPkuPMq If I try to import that, I'm going to get an error, because it's not a valid WIF private key. The checksum doesn't match. It doesn't correspond to *any possible* private key, so it's not valid. A "checksum" is a hash of a message. So for example, I want to send you "hello" and make sure you get it without any mistakes. So I send you "hello2cf24dba5fb0a30e26e83b2ac5b9e29e1b161e5c1fa7425e73043362938b9824" and your client just already knows that the last 64 characters of any message I send you are the checksum hash. So it goes and hashes "hello" and verifies that it comes out with 2cf24dba5fb0a30e26e83b2ac5b9e29e1b161e5c1fa7425e73043362938b9824, and it then checks the message you sent and verifies that everything lines up. If you change any letter anywhere in the message "hello2cf24dba5fb0a30e26e83b2ac5b9e29e1b161e5c1fa7425e73043362938b9824" it will not compute as valid. (Or rather, it's extremely unlikely it will. And also, you could just send an entirely different message which is still valid, like "goodbye82e35a63ceba37e9646434c5dd412ea577147f1e4a41ccde1614253187e3dbf9". That's why in bitcoin, transactions include both checksums on the addresses, as well as digital signatures from the private keys, which are basically special checksum hashes that can only be generated by the private key. That way, the client knows both that the message isn't tampered with and also that the private key has approved the transaction.) |
|
|
|
|
There's a ton of activity currently registering names in the u/ namespace. Is there a new specification for what u/ is or did some squatter just now realize you can create any namespace you want..?
|
|
|
|
|
ya ive been waiting for people to merge boinc projects into coins. so far all we have is primecoin. where is folding proteins coin and AIDS coin and seti at home coin and weather patterns coin....
|
|
|
|
|
each byte is two characters, so 10 zeros is actually five 00 bytes. one byte has 256 possible combinations, so assuming that each combo is just as probable as any other combo, the probability is (1/256) * (1/256) * (1/256) * (1/256) * (1/256) = 1/1099511627776
|
|
|
|
|
OP I'll buy all 400 bitcoins from you at double your rate, $8000 total. PM me a public key, and I'll make a 2-of-2 multisig address, and once you put the bitcoins in it, I'll send you the USD. Easy peezy.
|
|
|
|
|
oh point oh oh one bitcoins. /thread
|
|
|
|
|
Well OP, did you enjoy Sochi?
|
|
|
|
|
OP all you've done is make another faux-currency. In your scenario, you could just as easily use dollars instead of your new one, and then everything converts to dollars.
I agree with the idea you're going for though, and in fact, when I open my bitcoin business I will use fixed bitcoin prices, and never "cash out" into fiat. My determination of the value of a bitcoin will the basis for my price model, and I will be using long term contracts with my suppliers to ensure I don't get hit too hard with arbitrage, although I'm perfectly willing to take somewhat of a hit, if that's what it takes. What I-- and you, without realizing it-- am going for, is closing the loop on a bitcoin-only economy. Bitcoiners can scoff at fiat all they want, but when they still perceive their value in terms of fiat, they are still caught in the "system" and the banksters still control them.
The reason you can used fixed bitcoin prices is because bitcoin is limited, so if you assume a certain percentage of the population adopting it, and average out the costs of living and adjust, you can get a base value for what bitcoin has to be worth in order to transact with in a closed economy of X% adoption. Of course, in order to not seem ridiculously expensive by everybody else, my model will have to take into account the current economy size, and be adjusted a few times per year, but oh well, such is life.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
