#MMMPays
This isn't Twitter, you spambots. |
|
|
|
What evidence would that be?
~it's not 'proof,, but OK, it is not proof. Stop there. Among others
1) Bitstamp hack involved roughly one tenth of one percent of all existing bit coin.
But a person or group who could hack Bitstamp's hot wallet as late as January 2015 would have the capability to get much more. In other words the hacker probably limited the scope of the hack. This and several other hacks point to an attack originating in a flaw in sha.
One exchange getting hacked means that they got access to the server storing the private key, not that SHA was broken. 2) The md5 hack was known to various governments before it was public. That is obvious. They used the flaw for political malware until it was exposed. After md5 was shown weak, instead of going to something that would be beyond question, such as an objectively strong algorithm, trusted widely, they extended their 'current product'. In other words sha2 is an extension of md5 rather than something different. Why? Please speculate.
You say: MD5 is a hashing algorithm. MD5 is known to be weak. SHA2 is a hashing algorithm. And then you conclude, disregarding how logic actually works, that SHA2 is broken too. There is no question but that my arguments are not 'rock solid'. They involve speculation.
Please come back when you do have rock solid evidence. |
|
|
|
The evidence seems to be that sha2 is broken
Can you explain us, in detail (and by detail I mean all the technicalities, not just a weak “what if”) how does that evidence work to prove SHA is broken? |
|
|
|
But this idea that all Bitcoin 2.0 projects are fraudulent
Please, stop. There's no such thing as a “Bitcoin 2.0” project. Bitcoin is at version 0.10, and any project that works on top of Bitcoin but is not Bitcoin, should not be called Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is currently at version 0.10.0. There's still a long way before version 1.0, let alone 2.0.
|
|
|
|
First, people ARE artificial intelligence. Only God is the real intelligence.
Let's try not to get religious. It can get quite messy. Good idea. After all, only God is intelligent enough to understand the truth about religion anyway. Stop it. Are you placing your order? You should really up-front me some cash, sorta like a down payment, just so I get something when I comply. If I can have some fries with that, then yes. |
|
|
|
So the whole thing's been about some new forum?  And a floating city. |
|
|
|
First, people ARE artificial intelligence. Only God is the real intelligence.
Let's try not to get religious. It can get quite messy. Good idea. After all, only God is intelligent enough to understand the truth about religion anyway. Stop it. |
|
|
|
|
I only see Bitcoin mentioned once in all of their pages. I don't think this project is directly related to Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
First, people ARE artificial intelligence. Only God is the real intelligence.
Let's try not to get religious. It can get quite messy. |
|
|
|
If the 'miners' are paid with tax money - much like how the DNS servers work.
No it is not. The blockchain needs a currency to get paid and incentive the mining. we can pay "miners" dollars directly. Who is gonna pay? A central entity. This means that such a blockchain is no longer decentralized. |
|
|
|
It's possible...
Let's say a group of companies, for whatever purpose, require a blockchain to survive. Said group of companies then pool together resources to mine their own blockchain.
The reward, for the miners (aka themselves) would be the continued existence of their company, since we assumed that the company requires blockchain technology to survive, for whatever purpose.
It would be interesting to know what purpose that would be. |
|
|
|
This is a basic question about bitcoin security that I don't see answered adequately.
I'm not an expert in anything, so it is possible I am missing the obvious, but would still like an answer.
The bitcoin private key is a 256 bit number that contains a numerical address and a key to decrypt numerical messages sent to that address.
The number of key is quite high. The security of the bitcoin system seems to be based on the difficulty of using a public address to work backwords and find the private key. But there seems to be an obvious proof that shows that to be flawed.
In order to show that the current bitcoin key system is flawed, all that a person would need to do is show that there was a correlation between the relative position of a private key and the relative position of its corresponding public address.
In other words, if you took the lowest possible private key, a 256 bit number starting with 00000... etc, and the highest possible private key, a 256 bit number starting with 11111... etc, and you were able to show that the two public addresses for those keys formed hard boundaries, i.e., that all bitcoin public addresses fell between those two numbers in some mathematical formula or progression, then you would be showing that an accessible formula existed to work backwords from the public adrress to the private key.
The obvious question then, does some formula or progression exist that could put bitcoin addresses in sequence? Any set of numbers that are derived from another set of numbers ultimately can be ordered in the same sequence as the original set. Therefore it seems that the "security" of the cryptography used in bitcoin would come not from the size of the number set but rather from the computational difficulty of converting private key to public address or vice versa. Since in bitcoin the conversion in one direction, i.e., private key to public address, requires little effort, there is really no security once a formula or progression rule for addresses is discovered. And such a fomula or progression is easily findable by anyone with a little skill in that kind of thing.
... Is that accurate?
This should put things in perspective for you...  It's no use. no-ice-please thinks that a flaw can be found that bypasses counting and harnessing the energy of a million suns. That idea is baseless, though. |
|
|
|
...  I'm pretty sure that is the Digibyte robot. Lol. See below picture... Maybe this A.I. might be using bitcoin, but was made self aware from digibyte.   No, you're both wrong. It's the robot from R2D2coin. Here you can see him working with R2-D2 on new features:  Seriously, though, it's just a stock image, and getting back on topic, Bitcoin is the only one that makes sense to use, considering all the adoption it already has compared to the altcoins. |
|
|
|
|
In Mexico, Volabit has a service where you can pay your phone, electricity, and others.
|
|
|
|
I agree he probably didn't know it would take off.
No, I'm pretty sure, regarding the style of his posts, that he realized what he was doing, and was confident it would be successful. |
|
|
|
So my question now is which coin has a more reliable algorithm, preferably without the seal of approval from any govt?
No matter what hashing algorithm you use, it will be eventually cracked (according to your own post). So, why bother with them, anyway? |
|
|
|
|
If he did this while drunk, then he must be the most brilliant mind of all times.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is at version 0.10 as of April 2015. Version 1.0 isn't even being planned, let alone version 2.0.
I'm pretty sure that Danny or someone explained this in some other topic about Bitcoin 2.0 in the past. For 1.0 to be reached there should be major improvements/changes to the software. It's just some naming gimmick just like when they use '4K UHD' on televisions when 4K and UHD isn't the same. I KNOW it's a naming gimmick. That's the point of my post. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is at version 0.10 as of April 2015. Version 1.0 isn't even being planned, let alone version 2.0.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
