Funkypala, welcome again. I thought about that, too. My conclusion: A bank who gives loans to people is impossible, because it cannot enforce that people pay back their debts.
Even if you know the identity, what are you gonna do? Torture him to release his passwords?
There are ways to enforce contracts through private institutions. First, you have ostracism. If someone violates a contract he/she will find it hard that other people trust him/her and trade with him/her. So there is an incentive to respect contracts. Second, you have the legal system, the courts. This legal system can be a government monpolly or private. It would be a long to discuss both systems, but basically the bank can use the legal system to enforce the contract. Yes, but even after a court decision a million policemen are not able to wrench the money from your hands. |
|
|
|
You could use ecryptfs, which is used by default for encrypted home directories in Ubuntu. Thus it will have perfect support with updates.
LUKS is already part of the main Ubuntu too... apt-get install cryptsetup Yeah, but ecryptfs is the right thing to replace your encfs proposal. |
|
|
|
|
I thought about that, too. My conclusion: A bank who gives loans to people is impossible, because it cannot enforce that people pay back their debts.
Even if you know the identity, what are you gonna do? Torture him to release his passwords?
|
|
|
|
|
Use µBTC instead of uBTC. Even Windows supports Unicode for a decade now.
|
|
|
|
|
You could use ecryptfs, which is used by default for encrypted home directories in Ubuntu. Thus it will have perfect support with updates.
|
|
|
|
If something is made up of 6 parts, and you only have 5 of the parts, and each part is unique, you do not have the whole thing. That is not something I am just hoping, that is fact, I know that if you don't have all 6 parts you don't have all 6 parts.
I haven't read the rest of the thread from here but something you guys seem to be missing (and which is mere speculation on my part as I haven't read the bitcoin client code yet) is that: -. the wallet.dat file may be entirely useful even in part. For example, consider that the private keys are stored in sequential order with no striping (distribution). Having just one or a few parts of a wallet.dat would then allow you to recover some of the funds (via the private keys it contains). I think the OP wanted to split the encrypted file. But thats no proof of security either. Without a good argument supporting it, you shouldn't trust it. I agree with you. |
|
|
|
i would agree with not trusting a hidden volume, but could we agree that it would be safer than a non-hidden volume, except perhaps barring damning evidence supporting otherwise?
But what's the advantage compared with an AES-encrypted file that you delete? It is still on disk, but looks like random data. And it has a major advantage: It is way smaller and looks way less suspicious than a 5 gigabyte blob (perhaps with macroscopic patterns of a TrueCrypt hidden volume). |
|
|
|
|
It was a typical teenager attack, MtGox was crappy all the time. So there is nothing to be surprised about.
|
|
|
|
Sounds very fishy.
If you had it encrypted, any ideas on how it was stolen?
If you're being honest, I'm terribly sorry for your loss. That stinks.
Yea, it does. I had /backups/ encrypted, I should have been clear. Any virus/trojan/person could have just coppied the wallet file from %appdata%/bitcoin. Encryption cannot protect wallets in use, because your legitimate client has to decrypt it anyway. Encryption is good for backups only. |
|
|
|
It is an unsupported claim of TrueCrypt, you should not trust it.
Their website and all of their documentation would lead one to believe otherwise. I have experiemented with the feature personally and have yet to see anything (other then your suggestion) that suggests that it shouldn't be used. I don't suppose you have any supporting information you'd like to share? That's not the point. They have to prove that their claim is true. Until they haven't done that, you should not trust it. That's the only way to do security. |
|
|
|
|
This will trash tons of bitcoins because of users forgetting their passwords.
|
|
|
|
Are we suppose to tell the truth to make the life of a hacker easier or lie to confuse him?
1. You can't hide that anyway. 2. Even if you could, that wouldn't protect you. |
|
|
|
|
You can chose more than one option.
I think this is interesting and related with the question of several security issues including Bitcoin wallet management.
|
|
|
|
Except that the hidden volume isn't actually hidden.
Based on my understanding it is hidden, hence it's name, hidden volume. Do you have some information that suggests otherwise? It is an unsupported claim of TrueCrypt, you should not trust it. |
|
|
|
Why not just create a split WinRAR archive with a strong password and do the same with the USB keys? Seems an awful lot easier to me than messing with TrueCrypt.
That would work just fine also - how the wallet is encrypted and split is a matter of personal preference. However, the hidden volume option with TrueCrypt is interesting - allows you to essentially have 2 different passwords, one would only allow access to a decoy wallet, with a tiny amount of BTC and no way to prove the hidden volume (with the real savings wallet) even exists. Except that the hidden volume isn't actually hidden. |
|
|
|
But you example is too simplistic because you assume the total currency in circulation determines the price of pizza. Not all the BTC in existence are seeking pizzas. Probably only 9-10 BTC at any given time are in the market for pizza. Even if you swapped pizza for land, the richest people might not want any land at all, or might not want land once they have 1 acre to live on, etc. Price is determined by supply and demand.
It is simple, but it's not "too simplistic", because it does not matter whether I call the goods pizzas, cars or houses. It works as a model. |
|
|
|
|
Mt.gox should do with their database as they wish. This has nothing to do with bitcoin. It is a matter of mt.gox and its users.
Rolling back actual bitcoins is impossible anyway.
|
|
|
|
I reckon when tradehill opens nothing much will happen, mt.gox normally sets the price and there will be too much uncertainty to trade properly without it.
Mt.gox set the price in the past because 95 % of trades were made there. They will have way less customers when coming back. |
|
|
|
$18.33 To make it a bit more interesting $10 via paypal for the nearest guess.
or the equivalent in BTC? |
|
|
|
|
If it is true that he was a buddhist monk, we can be glad that he has lost the money for the next terrorist attack targeting Tokyo subway.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
