Bei mir war es genau andersrum: ich wurde gehackt (password wurde geändert), obwohl ich nie auf das webinterface gehe. Nur IMAP (STARTLS).

Ich glaube weiterhin an eine Lücke im passwort-reset-prozess.

Das sind gute tips.

Fragen:

• woher hast du seine IP-Adr und Telefonnummer?
• wo im web-interface kann ich offene sessions sehen?
• gibts es etwa eine login-historie? Wenn ja wo? Ich finde soetwas nicht.

Not those are rich who have much, but those who don't want much.

It still makes a difference wether you own 1 or 10

Bei mir geht nur

• rücksetzen per alternativer hinterlegter email-adresse
• rücksetzen per sms token

dann gibt's noch eine telefon-frage und -antwort.

Meiner Meinung nach gibt es eine Sicherheitslücke irgendwie bei diesem Prozess. Es gab schonmal eine Anfang 2011, die wurde aber geschlossen.

I checked it out, it's a great idea that already works! Thank you!

Looking at the TODO and some of the code it seems there's still quite a bit of work to be done, though.

Seems to me electrum integration would be a rather low-hanging fruit, no?

wait...

I think this is a great idea.

Question: is there usually a backend bot managing the orderbook on #joinmarket-pit-test? Is it dead or am I misunderstanding?

"!orderbook" doesn't return anything.

EDIT: ah, got it: it's sent via pm

Price will go up because price will go up. (positive feedback loop)

I'm serious. We're finding a bottom (don't know where or when) and then the tides will turn... with much force.

I know this is not a rational argument in itself and this will only happen in certain circumstances. Wether or not theses circumstances will be met is anyones guess. I'm guessing they will, after we've gone generally sideways for 3 to 15 months is my best guess. But hell: bitcoin is known for its surprises, so who knows.

Oh, and if you're tired of idiots: why not just leave and go somewhere else?

EDIT: I found your gif lame, but not offensive.

Thanks for this info. Another indication (apart from the exploit offer on hackforums) that indeed not only gmx.de, but also web.de and potentially other 1+1 (germany company that owns these brands) suffer from the exploit.

Yes, definitely you should switch provider. My gmx password is repeatedly being changed by the attacker since mid-December. In recent times there had been periods where he took over my account every second day.

Ich meinte eigentlich nicht die Fond-Manager, sondern die ganzen einzelpersonen die so langsam den Durchblick bekommen.

Aber in 2 Punkten muss ich dir zustimmen: jetzt ist kein schlauer Einstiegspunkt, erst wenn die Luzi wieder abgeht und: nur Kleingeld / zuwenige Leute.

Das sehe ich genauso... wer sollte eine blockchain in zentralisiertem Umfeld auch minen?

Und asset ledger etc. kann man ja auch auf Bitcoin aufpropfen.

Ich bin da bald fast schon bei cypherdoc: the blockchain might only be ever applicable to money

Ich frag mich eins schon das ganze Jahr: wenn die ganzen Typen alle schnallen was da abgeht, wieso kauft dann keiner in nennenswertem Umfang?

Die schlüssigste erklärung ist für mich, daß die alle planen ein eigenes Süppchen zu kochen ("the blockchain technology is world-changing, we'll build/invest in version 2.0").

Ich hab da viel drüber nachgedacht und versucht meinen eigenen Bias irgendwie aussen vor zu lassen, aber ich komme immer noch meistens zu dem Schluss, daß Bitcoin die "Crypto-Wert-Speicher-Zentrale" bleiben wird (ich hoffe man versteht was ich meine).

thanks, keep in mind, though: this is my somewhat simplified view. I might have missed something or even misunderstood.


Yes.

It saves time and it should reduce orphans, thus also increase security a bit because less hashrate is lost to orphans.

And yes: we still need to increase the max blocksize (or do other more fancy stuff) if we want to handle more transactions. But: use of this scheme greatly reduces a problem (namely the cost/disincentive to mine large blocks) that would only grow more relevant with increasing transaction rate / block sizes.

And if I thought this through correctly back then it's something that can be done without requiring a fork of any kind by just a subset of collaborating miners. There is economic incentive to do this, but maybe it's not large enough at this point to overcome the effort to orchestrate, develop and deploy. There might also be other, maybe even simpler schemes that achieve the same thing. For all I know this (or something like it) could be in use already even without us knowing.

not sure which parts you found insightful, but here's the gist about this proposed application of IBLT (invertible bloom lookup tables) from my point of view for anyone who wants a tldr on this:

IBLTs (Invertible Bloom Lookup Tables) are a data structure of tremendous beauty. They allow synchronization of sets of key/value pairs using constant (pre-determined) size of the synchronization message. They work well if the differences are expected to be small, but can potentially fail completely if they are too large for the size chosen. Another nice feature is that in case of a one way master -> slave synchronization, there is only one synchronization message that can be used in identical form to synchronize an unlimited number of potentially different 'slave' sets. Essentially the synchronization method contains information about the complete master set, but in a lossy way such that it can only be retrieved if a large enough number of key/values of the set are already known by the slave.

The idea is to apply this to the problem of bitcoin block transmission. The assumption can be made that the set of transactions in a freshly found block is already known to a large extent by the other miners because transactions have already been broadcast and inclusion policies are fairly uniform or at least predictable. So an IBLT of a chosen size (the miner can choose the size) can be used to propagate the transactions of the block (master) to the other miners (slaves). Since the slaves can make a pretty good estimate of the set of transactions that might be in a newly found block by using some standard inclusion policy, the size of the IBLT can likely be chosen to be quite small.

One effect of this scheme is that this IBLT synchronization message would be the same size, no matter how many transactions are included in a block. This is in contrast to the current situation where the synchronization message is essentially the block itself, so its size depends greatly on the number and size of transactions included. It is clear that miners are incentivized to mine smaller blocks because that greatly increases the probability of winning a potential race in case another miner found a block at a similar time due to transmission and therefor block propagation delays in the network. Thus using this scheme would remove the incentive to mine small blocks by removing the cost of larger blocks. Gavin calculated this cost to be some non-negligible number.

A possible downside could be that non-standard inclusion policies (think eligius, for example) might necessitate a large IBLT und thus be disincetivised.

What this doesn't do: it doesn't magically solve any scaling issues. At most it reduces the overall bandwidth requirements by 50%. Miners still need to have enough bandwidth to receive all transactions that are being broadcast.

*adjusts monocle made from bitium*

do you mean this thread started 5 months ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2d7ofh/technical_discussion_of_gavins_o1_block/ ?

good read.

it ends with the suggestion that this is not a wholly latin american story, pointing to greece.

here's a hug for you:

*hugs luckygenough56*