Do that long enough on too many objects, you will have a collection of collisions, conditionally if you could find the public keys of your generated addresses though.
Except that "long enough" in this context means thousands of years since there are a little less than 2 256 public keys and you need to check about 2 160+1 of them to find a collision. Something that is not possible with existing hardware or in our lifetime. More over, there are some funded addresses and obviously their owners are unaware that they are holding the key to an actual collision,
That would be like saying 2 people can choose the same atom in the universe.... |
|
|
|
Feels a lot like the move to $30K is underway. The last time it barely broke resistance and came down quickly. This time it appears to have cut through the resistance and is holding the position. The longer we hold above $26K, the more likely it is that we shoot straight up to $30K. Bitcoin is running out of sellers so the market is going to have to convince some holders to cash out.
I had doubts about the $30k when you first said it on the first page, but with the current price, i have no doubt that Bitcoin is likely to reach $30k this month. I was surprised last night as Bitcoin crossed $27k around 10:52 PM and has not fallen below the trading price since then. I think it is headed for $28k. The previous times where the attempts were made to break $25k we didn't have the positive news we have today about the banks that collapsed. This time it contributed a lot to the price rise, some people needed that little push to pull their money out of the banks and jump on the bitcoin rocket to the moon  |
|
|
|
They have been telling that sanctions will crumble Russia but it's not true anymore, after a year of this conflict, the sanctions are not affecting them.
That's the same mistake some people make about Europe. Just because there was an initial propaganda about an unrealistically terrible result (Russia crumbling like Europe freezing over) that didn't happen, it doesn't mean there wasn't any negative effects at all. The reality is that both Russia and NATO are severely affected by this war that has been going on between them for the past year. Both sides have been able to replace part of what they've lost (Europe replacing a small part of its energy supply, Russia replacing part of its energy customers) but it hasn't been enough to negate all the effects. Examples of these negative effects are in Europe with massive deindustrialization and in Russia with budget deficit. |
|
|
|
So in this system, the control is in the central entity, just one mistake in controlling the decrease and increase of interest rate disaster is the result. If you lower the interest rate you will go to Inflation, if you increase the interest rate you will go to Recession. So there needs to be a balance, which is never done because inflation continues to rise and the time of the financial crisis is still coming.
Playing with interest rate is like a short term but quick remedy to the inflation rate, it is not an actual solution though. This is why we are seeing the attempts to lower the inflation by increasing interest rate by the FED is starting to fail and inflation stays up. To solve inflation the government simply has to stop printing more money! But they can't do that because they have already run out of money to spend, so they have to print more out of thin air. Hence the huge national debt US has which is $31.6 trillion! |
|
|
|
~
That's why Wasabi decided to take the trade-off of blocking transactions from "nefarious sources" that's "according to" blockchain analysis companies. Wasabi believes that it gives them a layer of security. But does it truly give them a layer of security? It's currently working, but we can't be sure for how long.
That's right but I'm afraid the guys behind Wasabi wallet are doing a lot more than just censoring certain transactions. They may be fully cooperating with the government(s) and other agencies in deanonymizing all the transactions that go through their centralized "mixing" coordinator servers. |
|
|
|
I'm fine with NFTs on Bitcoin.
What you are forgetting is that since bitcoin is not a token creation platform, it is impossible to create tokens including NFTs on Bitcoin! What we are seeing here also has nothing to do with NFTs even if the attackers introduced it as that. They are literary using OP_PUSH to push data to the blockchain. There is no smart contracts, or tokens here. P.S. 190+ views and only 14 votes! |
|
|
|
All my attempts come out with a k value much more than 256 bits.
That's probably because you forgot to compute the remainder, that is the modulo operation at the end using the secp256k1 curve order N. |
|
|
|
|
We have a couple of very positive signs in the bitcoin market.
First is the fact that price broke the $25k resistance which was a major one and it should turn into a strong support now. But also these small $1k rises are coming at the same time as the banking systems around the world are starting to see problems. Like the US bank that was shut down which was apparently a massive thing. In other words people are moving to bitcoin as the fiat world collapses which is a very positive sign.
All in all this is a good trend and $30k may not be that far despite the ongoing recession...
|
|
|
|
|
There are definitely whales who have lost bitcoin over the times they go against the market. We sometimes see this whenever price shoots up despite their attempts at market manipulation by dumping large amounts or placing big sell walls hoping it could prevent the rise.
But there are also whales who were smarter and didn't go against the market and actually increased their wealth.
In any case the way bitcoin blockchain is makes it hard to come to any conclusion about how many whales there are and how much bitcoin they own or whether their "wealth" has gone up or down.
|
|
|
|
zkSNACKs Ltd. as of 2021 was registered in Gibraltar and was operating in compliant way with all regulations and was able to operate and take income and pay wages to employees.
The problems started happening when people started asking questions.
The problem is the centralization where there is a company that is trying to make money from a software (Wasabi wallet) they've created. If the things get worse with crackdowns the same thing could happen to other centralized companies that have created "regular" wallets like Coinomi. In other words it is not even a privacy-wallet related issue. The governments will put pressure on these companies (as the centralized point of failure) and demand they comply with whatever they say. They won't stop there either, they will put pressure on any known entity they can get their hands on. I personally believe that the reasons why some core devs have acted strangely is this, like the recent case where one of them advised bitcoin LN nodes start censoring transactions from certain countries! |
|
|
|
And I agree, it is naive to let time fix your problems, except that I do not think Ordinals are a problem, which is why I count on time to prove if they are worthy to stay on the blockchain, if you think they cause problems then thats on you to fix them.
Considering how tokens and silly things like the Ordinals attack have never contributed to anything in the real world and have never provided any real utilities, it is obvious that nobody wants them except the gamblers who are making bets on anything they can. They might as well do it on highly volatile tokens that can see huge pumps and dumps. If an alternative is provided to these gamblers, they won't hesitate to abandon the "Token Casino" in a blinking of an eye. A lot of art sucks and has no utility in the real world. What utility does the Mona Lisa have? What utility does Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup lithographs have? Tell you what if I gave you a painting from Picasso it has no utility. Your arguments make no sense! For starters the tokens created on token platforms are not the art itself. It is basically a link to a centralized platform (eg. a website) that stores that so called art. So your last argument (the last line) is like saying "I give you the word Picasso which I wrote on a piece of paper and that has utility"! I too can write the word "Picasso" on paper and sell it to a million people but that doesn't mean millions of people are now owners of Picasso paintings. lol Secondly when we are talking about bitcoin we are talking about abuse of a payment system so it has nothing to do with art or its utility or value. |
|
|
|
@pooya87, welcome aboard too. Please drop a btc address.
Thanks. Signature and avatar updated. My address (bc1q2qpa507lkd48alxlxl93anmw794se2236rwvgd) in spreadsheet is correct. |
|
|
|
Is it possible to detect which nodes have applied this patch
Not presently but technically it is an easy thing to do. The nodes could modify their user agent (also known as subversion) to indicate their refusal to contribute to the Ordinals Attack. eg. "/Satoshi:24.0.1(NoOrdinals)/" |
|
|
|
Minted my first NFT on BTC
No you did not. What you did was to inject an arbitrary data into the bitcoin blockchain. There is no token. There is no NFT. There is no smart contract (in the sense of creating a token). There is only arbitrary data. You can't even transfer that "data" as you would a token, it is a one time push to the immutable bitcoin blockchain. What you did was to participate in a malicious attack. |
|
|
|
Considering that the EvalScript method is called by a lot more places than just Taproot scripts, I'd say it is not a good idea to place it there specially if you are not checking the sigversion variable. Additionally the script is only checking if the current OP code is OP_FALSE and if the next OP code were OP_IF it will reject it. That means it will also reject any other "normal" conditional script where the user wants to access the OP_ELSE conditions, for example it will also reject this. We don't want to reject OP_FALSE OP_IF scripts, we want to reject spam attacks where the stack item(s) is bigger than a certain value. I used a real example ( this) and ran the script manually and I believe a much easier approach is just rejecting the transaction after line 1925 by doing a quick check on its size considering that this spam attack uses the "script" (redeem script which is the witness item before the last) to push the garbage to the stack. Something simple like after line 1925: static const unsigned int MAX_SPAM_SIZE = 100;
if (flags & SCRIPT_VERIFY_DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_TAPROOT_VERSION) {
if (script.size() > MAX_SPAM_STACK_SIZE) {
return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_TAPROOT_VERSION);
}
}
But this will only reject the Ordinals Attack with its current design. The attack can be modified to go around this limit and spam the chain in another way which is why my initial code was more restrictive to number of stack/witness items to be 3 and length of each being 100 tops. |
|
|
|
|
Current number of post (Including this one): 20822
Rank: Legendary
bech32 address: bc1q2qpa507lkd48alxlxl93anmw794se2236rwvgd
Merit earned in the last 120 days: 894
|
|
|
|
|
Current number of post (Including this one): 20821
Rank: Legendary
bech32 address: bc1q2qpa507lkd48alxlxl93anmw794se2236rwvgd
Merit earned in the last 120 days: 894
|
|
|
|
|
This is also a good wakeup call for all the other centralized services and altcoins (eg. Tether, Ethereum, Ripple, BCash, ...). The governments could shut them down all the same and make the same exact claims they made here (used for illegal activities) and arrest the centralized authority of them (like arresting Butterin and seizing his tens of millions of premined ether).
|
|
|
|
I can't help but ponder the timing of this take down. We have a US bank going under, which they say is the biggest collapse since 2008 financial crisis (that led to creation of bitcoin) and we also have bitcoin price starting to rise as the US banking system is feared to fail catastrophically in the near future. All of a sudden Justice Department decides to shut down a very old business while releasing a statement listing all the negative/illegal things they claim has been done using this service (which they are actually saying is done using bitcoin). I don't believe in coincidences |
|
|
|
For the time being I'm downgrading to 0.21.0.
What you want is Bitcoin Core 0.12.1 or older since it has no SegWit support which means your node will not store any witness data. But i have doubt you can simply just keep using folder which created by newer version of Bitcoin Core. Version 0.21.0 seems to have the full code for witness version 1 verification so I'm not so sure if your node would even avoid relaying such transactions: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.21.0/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L1885In case you don't mind storing the transactions but you just want to stop relaying the attack transactions you can downgrade to 0.20.0 where witness version 1 is non-standard https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.20.0/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L1528since unfortunately that is the only way apart from having to modify the source code and adding something like a hack like this static const unsigned int MAX_SPAM_SIZE = 100;
static const unsigned int MAX_SPAM_STACK_SIZE = 3;
if (flags & SCRIPT_VERIFY_DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_TAPROOT_VERSION) {
if (stack.size() > MAX_SPAM_STACK_SIZE) {
return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_TAPROOT_VERSION);
}
for (int i = 0; i < stack.size(); i++) {
if (stacktop(-(i+1)).size() > MAX_SPAM_SIZE) {
return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_TAPROOT_VERSION);
}
}
}
Added before line 1939. Keep in mind that I'm not a c++ dev and this is untested but it won't affect your block verification since the SCRIPT_VERIFY_DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_TAPROOT_VERSION is a standard rule (policy flag) so there is no risk of rejecting a valid block by accident and causing a fork. Or you could go nutz and instead of doing the above, reject the whole script spending path by adding this if (flags & SCRIPT_VERIFY_DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_TAPROOT_VERSION) {
return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_TAPROOT_VERSION);
}
on line 1923. This is again another standard rule added to reject transactions from your mempool but still verifies transactions in any block you receive. This means you won't relay these spam transactions and won't contribute to this attack as a full node. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
