In your case if someone knows the directory name yes: http://www.bitcoinfeedback.com/images/You can disable this by removing the "Indexes" argument in the apache directory options. (and I would recommend that you do this) If you have an index.html in a directory, listings are disabled on most webservers, and the content of index.html is shown. Haha, this discussion did lead me to discover this... uh... problem on my own site.  I do not have direct access to the apache config, but hopefully I can find a way to indirectly accomplish this. At the very least, I could throw up an index in each directory. Let me draw up a few assumptions then:
The directory is left "open" (i.e., all files within it are accessible as long as the URL to said file is known), but has an index page to prevent a directory listing. The file types are directly readable, and are NOT linked anywhere.
Would it be possible to discover the filenames of those files?
No. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Generally it is not considered safe to allow access to a web server directory system, even if it's read only. This doesn't rule out the possibility that someone may have left a door open.
Crawling the web for links may uncover some of the files on your server. An exhaustive search could also uncover some of these files, but not all file types on servers are directly readable and will not succumb to this technique.
Thanks for the answer. Let me draw up a few assumptions then: The directory is left "open" (i.e., all files within it are accessible as long as the URL to said file is known), but has an index page to prevent a directory listing. The file types are directly readable, and are NOT linked anywhere. Would it be possible to discover the filenames of those files? |
|
|
|
|
Just curious, is there any way to find out what files are stored on a particular website directory? For instance, could someone figure out the filenames of all the files I have stored at the base directory of bitcoinfeedback.com?
|
|
|
|
In regards to the concerns over abuse of the massive hashing power ASICMINER is about to have:
This is essentially the best possible outcome for the ASIC race. Somebody has to be the first one to market with ASICs, and it's fantastic that it will probably be ASICMINER. Why? It's the only manufacturer of ASIC mining hardware that took investments from the average bitcoiner, making it easy for anybody to benefit from this technology leap we're about to take.
If a private company was the first to get ASICs out, and it mined for itself, there would be (a small amount of) justified concern. Even then, it's more profitable to contribute to the network than to attack it.
ASICs are the last big jump Bitcoin is going to take with mining. After the first ASICs are out, the only improvements that can be made are those of die size, and the actual design of the chips and other hardware.
(I realize that some sort of technological advancement such as quantum computing could prove this wrong, but Bitcoin as a whole is probably fucked at that point.)
[CPU -> GPU -> FPGA -> ASIC -> Better ASICs -> Better ASICs -> Better ASICs]
This race to be the first to market is the most important race for mining hardware that Bitcoin will ever see. As long as friedcat keeps his word, we're very well off. The only reason he would have to not keep his word is if he wanted to destroy Bitcoin, and didn't care about making money.
Buckle up, because we will soon be witnessing the greatest jump in hashrate (percentage-wise) that the Bitcoin network will ever see. Luckily for Bitcoin, this is a good way to make that jump.
Wait, so you're saying that a single entity controlling a large amount of hashrate is better for Bitcoin than many individuals receiving units and having that large amount of ASIC hashpower distributed across many people? Huh? |
|
|
|
Good point, I hadn't thought of that...!
Sometimes, we overthink things, looking for the complicated answer, when all we need is the simple one. I had a call once when I was doing tech support, that the previous techs had replaced several sound cards, and a number of sets of speakers. The problem? The sound was muted. Absolutely. I appreciate the discussion. |
|
|
|
I just realized that I have in total about 20% more accepted namecoin shares compared to bitcoin shares. Not speaking of per round shares here, those will obviously be wildly different because the chains don't have same difficulty. Maybe I just don't understand merged mining well enough, but shouldn't the total share numbers be roughly equal? I thought every share is used on both chains.
Isn't that because NMC difficulty is lower than BTC difficulty? So a share that isn't good enough to meet Bitcoin difficulty might be good enough to meet NMC difficulty? |
|
|
|
It's not at the same x,y...
And yes, it would be up in the air or within the earth, but that must be kept in mind when determining which x,y is the proper one. As long as you get the point that isn't in the air or in the ground, you're golden, but how do you determine that mathematically? It must be kept in mind.
Actually, it would be the same x,y if all three points are in the x,y plane. Exactly. But my whole argument was based on the fact that they AREN'T on the x,y plane (i.e, the readings are taken from different real-world elevations). Or, at least one point is not. In that case, you would receive two points with different x and/or y. On the scale that GPS operates at, even the Himalayas are only +1 or 2 Z, and just about everything else is effectively 0. I don't see how this is relevant. "Effectively 0" is not the same as 0, and will still have an effect on the calculation and subsequent answers received. But the effect is so minimal, that it can safely be ignored. At the scale you're operating on, everything is coplanar. We don't need millimeter resolution, here. I disagree. The scale of the GPS is small, sure, but not necessarily the scale of the three datapoints you have and the fourth one to be discovered. Not small. Large. The scale is extremely large. At large scales, small differences don't matter. For instance: Let's say I gave you a box tuned for some point in the continental US. To prove your point, you go to the highest point in Denver, 5,690 feet up, to take your first measurement, and for your second, you go to Death Valley, 282 feet below sea level. For your third measurement, you pick a spot out on the great plains. Over a distance of about 700 miles, the difference in elevation is 5,972 feet. (1.131 miles) Not exactly what I would call "steep." I agree with you that large scales mean the difference doesn't matter, but that would only be because the triangle doesn't "tilt" relative to the surface of the earth very much. The endpoint is irrelevant here - what matters is the distance between Denver, Death Valley, and the great plains, because that will determine the tilt of the triangle, thus how far off the x,y calculation will be for one of the calculated answers. And have you considered that since it's all pretty much coplanar, that the elevation might be ignored in all the calculations? The distance from Denver to Death Valley might be measured simply by figuring the X/Y distance, and ignoring the Z, producing not a tilted triangle, but one that's perfectly flat along the "surface" and ignores terrain features? That would result in only one target location, wouldn't it? The math to determine distance would be simpler, too. So since it not only results in a more accurate result, but is actually easier to do, don't you think that's how it would be done? Good point, I hadn't thought of that...! |
|
|
|
San Jose?! That's actually a location I could attend!
I'll be watching this thread with great interest.
Let's do it!!!! For all practical purposes, the event is written in Yap stone. Another question: Will the discussions/talks be record with quality cameras, manned by competent individuals? There should be no excuses for inferior productions. Who here has quality equipment and is planning on attending? Do you lack anything or have questions or concerns pertaining to the event? Exactly what do you need to make sure the recording process proceeds seamlessly? ~Bruno K~ I would love to attend to live blog as many of the events as possible. How, exactly, I will finance this event is still questionable. |
|
|
|
It's not at the same x,y...
And yes, it would be up in the air or within the earth, but that must be kept in mind when determining which x,y is the proper one. As long as you get the point that isn't in the air or in the ground, you're golden, but how do you determine that mathematically? It must be kept in mind.
Actually, it would be the same x,y if all three points are in the x,y plane. Exactly. But my whole argument was based on the fact that they AREN'T on the x,y plane (i.e, the readings are taken from different real-world elevations). Or, at least one point is not. In that case, you would receive two points with different x and/or y. On the scale that GPS operates at, even the Himalayas are only +1 or 2 Z, and just about everything else is effectively 0. I don't see how this is relevant. "Effectively 0" is not the same as 0, and will still have an effect on the calculation and subsequent answers received. But the effect is so minimal, that it can safely be ignored. At the scale you're operating on, everything is coplanar. We don't need millimeter resolution, here. I disagree. The scale of the GPS is small, sure, but not necessarily the scale of the three datapoints you have and the fourth one to be discovered. Not small. Large. The scale is extremely large. At large scales, small differences don't matter. For instance: Let's say I gave you a box tuned for some point in the continental US. To prove your point, you go to the highest point in Denver, 5,690 feet up, to take your first measurement, and for your second, you go to Death Valley, 282 feet below sea level. For your third measurement, you pick a spot out on the great plains. Over a distance of about 700 miles, the difference in elevation is 5,972 feet. (1.131 miles) Not exactly what I would call "steep." I agree with you that large scales mean the difference doesn't matter, but that would only be because the triangle doesn't "tilt" relative to the surface of the earth very much. The endpoint is irrelevant here - what matters is the distance between Denver, Death Valley, and the great plains, because that will determine the tilt of the triangle, thus how far off the x,y calculation will be for one of the calculated answers. |
|
|
|
you're right, i bought it around that price range but I will lower the price. I will sell for 6.01 BTC ($80) with shipping included
You lowered your price, and yet you're still 10% more than the competition? + no warranty! Unless the warranty is transferable, and glassuser provides the necessary documentations. Even still, it would be for a shorter term than if it was brand new. Maybe he'll find someone who really wants to buy an SSD directly with Bitcoin, and is willing to pay the premium? I don't know. Ultimately, pricing is up to him. In my experience, it is very difficult to sell something second hand at a higher price than retail! |
|
|
|
It's not at the same x,y...
And yes, it would be up in the air or within the earth, but that must be kept in mind when determining which x,y is the proper one. As long as you get the point that isn't in the air or in the ground, you're golden, but how do you determine that mathematically? It must be kept in mind.
Actually, it would be the same x,y if all three points are in the x,y plane. Exactly. But my whole argument was based on the fact that they AREN'T on the x,y plane (i.e, the readings are taken from different real-world elevations). Or, at least one point is not. In that case, you would receive two points with different x and/or y. On the scale that GPS operates at, even the Himalayas are only +1 or 2 Z, and just about everything else is effectively 0. I don't see how this is relevant. "Effectively 0" is not the same as 0, and will still have an effect on the calculation and subsequent answers received. But the effect is so minimal, that it can safely be ignored. At the scale you're operating on, everything is coplanar. We don't need millimeter resolution, here. I disagree. The scale of the GPS is small, sure, but not necessarily the scale of the three datapoints you have and the fourth one to be discovered. Picture a pole that goes the same distance below ground as it does above ground, and is perfectly straight up and down relative to the earth's surface. You could say that the top of the pole and the bottom of the pole have the same x,y coordinates on the surface of the earth. Now, tilt that pole any direction. The x,y has changed. Even if the tilt is not large, it can have a significant impact on the x,y coordinates, depending on how long it is, what the point of rotation is, etc etc. When you calculate the two potential answers, picture a pole between those two potential answers. The only way the pole would be straight up and down is if the triangle is perfectly parallel to the earth (i.e., you took all three data points at the same elevation). If the triangle rotates along an axis, the pole is then tilted to the same degree. For instance, if the three data points are taken on a 45 degree incline, relative to the potential answer, then one answer would be at the correct x,y,z on the surface of the earth, and the other answer would be x/1.41, y/1.41, somewhere below the surface of the earth. The tilt of the triangle of the three data points collected is what would determine the largeness of the difference between the two points, not the scale of the GPS triangulation. |
|
|
|
It's not at the same x,y...
And yes, it would be up in the air or within the earth, but that must be kept in mind when determining which x,y is the proper one. As long as you get the point that isn't in the air or in the ground, you're golden, but how do you determine that mathematically? It must be kept in mind.
Actually, it would be the same x,y if all three points are in the x,y plane. Exactly. But my whole argument was based on the fact that they AREN'T on the x,y plane (i.e, the readings are taken from different real-world elevations). Or, at least one point is not. In that case, you would receive two points with different x and/or y. On the scale that GPS operates at, even the Himalayas are only +1 or 2 Z, and just about everything else is effectively 0. I don't see how this is relevant. "Effectively 0" is not the same as 0, and will still have an effect on the calculation and subsequent answers received. |
|
|
|
It's not at the same x,y...
And yes, it would be up in the air or within the earth, but that must be kept in mind when determining which x,y is the proper one. As long as you get the point that isn't in the air or in the ground, you're golden, but how do you determine that mathematically? It must be kept in mind.
Actually, it would be the same x,y if all three points are in the x,y plane. Exactly. But my whole argument was based on the fact that they AREN'T on the x,y plane (i.e, the readings are taken from different real-world elevations). Or, at least one point is not. In that case, you would receive two points with different x and/or y. |
|
|
|
woah, i just learned something... it results in TWO points IF all 3 known points are in a straight line. and it follows that an infinite number of known points will not reduce this to 1 known point as long as all the known points are in a straight line. gotta have some kind of triangle there for triangulation  That's what I figured. Allow me to be a little more specific. You are holding a device that reads out that you are X miles away from a specific location. No GPS coordinates are given, with this fact being true for all as I continue with my example. You move to another location of which you know the direction and distance, then reread the device. It now states that you are Y miles from that same specific location. Either from the new location or the original one, you once again relocate to another point, also knowing how far and what direction you traveled. Looking at the device, you now see that you are Z distance from the specific location desired. Given that, can you triangular where the desired specific location is by one result, or is there a second result that also must be checked? Assume the distance is in a straight line as a crow flies. Thanks to all who've answered so far. ~Bruno K~ What you are describing is called "Triangulation", it works to find a point in a plane if the three given points are not in a line. If you have three dimensions you would need a fourth point, as you will get two possible solutions from three points unless the given point is coplanar with the three. You don't have to worry too much over short distances, but for longer distances you might need to know whether the distance follows the surface of the earth or goes through it? Thank you for explaining it better than I could. Still not an issue, though, since the other point is either up in the air, or within the earth, and is at the same x,y coordinates anyway. It's not at the same x,y... And yes, it would be up in the air or within the earth, but that must be kept in mind when determining which x,y is the proper one. As long as you get the point that isn't in the air or in the ground, you're golden, but how do you determine that mathematically? It must be kept in mind. |
|
|
|
woah, i just learned something... it results in TWO points IF all 3 known points are in a straight line. and it follows that an infinite number of known points will not reduce this to 1 known point as long as all the known points are in a straight line. gotta have some kind of triangle there for triangulation That's what I figured. Allow me to be a little more specific. You are holding a device that reads out that you are X miles away from a specific location. No GPS coordinates are given, with this fact being true for all as I continue with my example. You move to another location of which you know the direction and distance, then reread the device. It now states that you are Y miles from that same specific location. Either from the new location or the original one, you once again relocate to another point, also knowing how far and what direction you traveled. Looking at the device, you now see that you are Z distance from the specific location desired. Given that, can you triangular where the desired specific location is by one result, or is there a second result that also must be checked? Assume the distance is in a straight line as a crow flies. Thanks to all who've answered so far. ~Bruno K~ What you are describing is called "Triangulation", it works to find a point in a plane if the three given points are not in a line. If you have three dimensions you would need a fourth point, as you will get two possible solutions from three points unless the given point is coplanar with the three. You don't have to worry too much over short distances, but for longer distances you might need to know whether the distance follows the surface of the earth or goes through it? Thank you for explaining it better than I could. |
|
|
|
|
If someone buys that, it'll make news everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Wait a minute...isn't BFL having all their shit made in China? So in essence he's saying that they could take all of the different products that they made for BFL and just start selling them out the back door. BFL could do nothing about it because of the way China handles IP. Or am I on the wrong track here?
Not really. Their chips are not made in China, and that is the part important with regards to IP. Other pieces are (probably much less important piece like capacitors and such that will go on the PCB's). |
|
|
|
I would also suggest that for the feedback system, the number in parentheses should not just be a total of the feedback left regardless of positive or negative. Right now, someone with 4 positive and 5 negative feedback will show as (9) whereas it should show as (-1) in my opinion.
Wow, definitely +1 to that! |
|
|
|
|
Cheers Darkneo, glad to have you with us!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
