|
I received a PM from the OP and ran the steps as indicated above and it does work as described.
So yes he is doing what he says he is doing.
And a big kudos to him for taking the time to prove it.
Could it change in the future? Sure but so could any solo mining pool so that is not something I would worry about. A little bit of batch scripting and you can run everything in a semi-automated way to make sure it does not.
Unlike a lot of other pool operators here, a big thumbs up in general since unlike a lot of other pool operators he looked at the issues we brought up and fixed them instead of ignoring them.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
So was talking about this while burgers & beers earlier.
The fix they sent him barely works and causes errors and when it does work it's still not right. But as he put it "was more of a proof of concept then finished coding"
However, they are working on it so I'll give them that.
And yes it's a What's App burgers and beers meeting since he is several time zones away....
-Dave
Interesting; so the bug / exploit you guys found is going to be fixed by the manufacturer now? I was under the impression that due to its nature it was not vendor-specific to just one brand and that it was going to be hard to fix. The attack I imagined from your rough description, wouldn't be easy to fix outside the OS level. The editing of the webpage with an address in a fixed known position is not going to be a fixable, that just is what it is. The other thing that can be fixed that I have been evasive about discussing is more along the lines of changing the way the apps on the computer talk to the device. Without getting to into it because: 1) I promised not to and 2) I don't understand it fully... The desktop app says to the hw wallet lets send funds to this address 1234 the cable sends to the device lets send funds to 5678 at that point the user should stop. But the issue is a lot of people get complacent and don't check. The other issue is at certain times and certain conditions he can FORCE 1234 to be displayed on the device. Don't ask how I got as far as "you plug in the cable and then......it's all gibberish" I am not ashamed to admit it's over my head. I can fake PHP work, really know linux and like to think I am fairly good at routing. And in general tend to be the go-to person for dealing with many system issues. But this, nope, I get the basic concept of how it works. But don't get it past there. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
So was talking about this while burgers & beers earlier.
The fix they sent him barely works and causes errors and when it does work it's still not right. But as he put it "was more of a proof of concept then finished coding"
However, they are working on it so I'll give them that.
And yes it's a What's App burgers and beers meeting since he is several time zones away....
-Dave
|
|
|
|
Its no longer news of how cyber crimes is slowly creeping in on digital currencies and to this end, Bitcoin experts advise that the usage of Bitcoin addresses should be done once as it helps to curb the risk of users giving up vital information that could prove costly in the future.
Continuous use of this addresses can prove to be a bad idea for three reasons:
1. It is quite harmful to one's privacy and becomes an impediment to BTC censorship resistance
2. It can leave one open to niche attacks and one becomes vulnerable to these cyber thieves who will extract private keys from signatures after a transaction has been made.
3. Quantum computers could extract private keys if these addresses are re used.
Citing an instance of the Ronin network incidence in March, where $540m worth of cryptocurrency was carted away by thieves hopefully by finding a collision of randomly picked message digest of 2¹³⁰+1 input of hashes causing possible collides by examining the square root of the number of possible output. Making re-use of Bitcoin addresses risky considering the chances of possible collisions even though the entire process might be time consuming hackers might choose to patiently wait till a collision is found just like the case of Ronin network..
1) 1/2 false. It does hurt one's privacy but it does not matter to censorship. If a service wants to block you or an address it will. They will have an easier time if you keep using the same address but all you need to do is generate a new address or a few thousand new addresses. 2) Nope it does not work this way. There are always people talking about it, but it's not something to worry about. 3) A has nothing to do with B. If quantum computers ever get to the point of being able to do something like that (probably not in our lifetimes) the entire encryption of BTC would be broken. Would not matter if it's one transaction or 1000s of transactions to and from an address. And Roniis is a side chain of an altcoin. Has nothing to do with BTC. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
That statement does not even look logical at a quick glance.
Lets say BTC is $20000 today and by the end of NEXT year it is at $100000 unless everything costs 5x as much due to inflation then it's a good hedge against inflation.
If it stays @ $100k until everything costs 5x as it does today it's still close enough.
Math it's a thing......Logic is a thing too.....
-Dave
|
|
|
|
Having a 2nd separate one would eliminate that. As I said, I really really really don't think that would ever happen, but it would be nice.
Good point about it being abused but the same arguments are correct for a second separate mempool, that could be flooded with zero fee transactions to the point where the size of this secondary mempool becomes bigger than the main one. This is why I don't think separating it would solve that problem. Yes but in my fantasy it would be optional. I would not have to see it or download it if I did not want to. Want to flood it, fine. Some people may care others may not. But...when we have times like now with dozens and dozens of unfilled blocks I would not have to think about combining a ton of small inputs and what it cost me. Yes it's minor but even at 1 sat/b over the last week I probably spent close to $5.00 cleaning up a lot of them. Here is the point; this post (sorry @DarkStar_) would get me more then that if I was keeping the money, good for me. For someone living in the 3rd world (you know part of the people BTC was supposed to help) that can be DAYS of food for their family. -Dave |
|
|
|
its simple
a shift from the cost of 1.5million miners hardware and electric cost to mine a block for only 6.25coin
(hundreds of thousands of $ per block: dozens of thousands of $ per coin)
to a few dollars to sign a block..
result: massive cost reduction to make a block means those making blocks sell the cheaper, way cheaper and still profit. = value crash = price crash
..
lets use ethereum.. great example
currently over $1k hash cost to mine a eth
currently ~400k potential block signers of eth PoS
ethereum releases 2eth per block and does about 6k blocks a day. meaning each potential signer might get a chance once every 2-3 months
at a PC rating of 100w (2.4kwh a day) = $180kwh in ~75 days. means
at $0.04/kwh thats a $7.20 cost for waiting 2-3 months to get 2ethereum on PoS or $3.60 per eth
yep
when they say that eth2(pos) is 99.9X% less energy intensive than PoW.. what they are hinting at is the cost of creation is X000x less costly. so expect a X000x factor decrease in value and thus an effect of a X000x factor of price speculation crash too
You are leaving out the fact that you have to spend time to keep your client software up to date. And that you are leaving all that eth locked up. And that if your PoW miner is offline you just loose what you could have mined, with ETH PoS there are penalties if you miss to much work. And so on. There was a discussion about someone staking their ETH in a VM, and they moved that VM to another machine. All was good till they accidentally spun up the old VM and it broadcast something and the validator was slashed. PoS is not as push to run as many people think. *If it's a 'real' coin.* There were tons of crap PoS coins that could just sit there and stake in their wallets that have died off. As they tried to make it 'better' like ETH they made it a lot more complicated. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
I *think* things this are going to get more and more support from more and more places.
And banks will support it. Central banks will probably not, but retail and commercial banks will. Mostly for the same reason that after YEARS of being anti-crypto PayPal is not supporting it. The word of the day is FEES. They will happily add some other product to their portfolio that allows them to make money. No different then ant other crypto <-> fiat service.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
...A little later that day, I dropped $190, I had $244 and I was trying to pay for dinner at the restaurant for about $230. But two attempts were unsuccessful....
Many restaurants authorize for 20% to 25% more then the check. This will cover tips / additional items added after the 'closing' of the check. Was a waiter back in the day and you would be amazed how many times there was '1 more drink' or 'lets get that desert to go for the kids' after the check had been printed and the card swiped. -Dave |
|
|
|
Kind of OT for this post but I think it would be good if someone could build the what would have to be a lot of bloat and complexity into core and the protocol that would allow a 2nd mempool so to speak that only has 0 fee tx in it.
It doesn't seem to need that much complexity and definitely not a secondary mempool. It only needs a new condition to reduce the minimum fee from x to 0 either manually for all conditions or automatically when the mempool size drops below a certain size. That would leave it open to abuse. Mempool small enough to get in a 0 fee TX, send out all these TX to bloat it and push the fees back up. We all know that people would do that. Having a 2nd separate one would eliminate that. As I said, I really really really don't think that would ever happen, but it would be nice. -Dave |
|
|
|
Control of the top 4 btc mining pools is all one needs to 51% screw btc.
Which are controlled by different entities entirely. I can say I can control 95% of the GPU market by just forcing 2 companies to do something my way. Could something happen short term, possibly however unlikely. But, once word got out, and think in terms of minutes or hours that they were doing something wrong, you would see hash leaving those pools and going elsewhere. I am going to say that with a lot of PoS coins people set it and forget it and may not even have any idea on how to move thins or cancel staking. (With the current version of ETH staking can you even cancel it?) I think I would be more worried about my roomba turning against me then mining pools turning against BTC as a group. -Dave Really, do you even know if the 4 mining pool operators are not the same entity. Yes Foundry USA is a public company. And with the 'great mining migration' out of China last year it was very easy to see how other pools behaved. As you get into the smaller ones the operators are well known, many are even here on this board. How many cardano pools are on AWS or similar hosting? Either way welcome to my ignore list enjoy your shitcoin. -Dave |
|
|
|
Control of the top 4 btc mining pools is all one needs to 51% screw btc.
Which are controlled by different entities entirely. I can say I can control 95% of the GPU market by just forcing 2 companies to do something my way. Could something happen short term, possibly however unlikely. But, once word got out, and think in terms of minutes or hours that they were doing something wrong, you would see hash leaving those pools and going elsewhere. I am going to say that with a lot of PoS coins people set it and forget it and may not even have any idea on how to move thins or cancel staking. (With the current version of ETH staking can you even cancel it?) I think I would be more worried about my roomba turning against me then mining pools turning against BTC as a group. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Although impressive as @mk4 said it's an outdated OS on outdated hardware.
@NotATether is correct in that gestures as lock codes are insecure, but on more modern hardware and OS some things are not possible to be obtained as easily. Sometimes it's just better programming. As in the hash is generated based on a time when the phone is powered on for the 1st time. NOT on a predefined piece of information.
Think about it this way. In the old days you had a fairly easy to pick lock on your car and hoped that the annoying sound of your car alarm would stop someone from stealing your car. Then we got security keys, which helped somewhat but after a while they were defeated too. Now we have a RFID tag in the key and a separate transmitter and receiver in the key that has 2 way communication with the security module in the car. So the BCM (body control module) talks to one thing and the security module talks to another. Stops the more casual thefts but not the pros.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
I don't like this system very much because in case you lose both your A and R keys you will lose everything, and you won't be able to recover your coins.
In case you lose A-key, you will need to buy new A-key because R-key can only be used for backup, and you can't add wallet, add account, add coin or move assets.
While it does look neat, I would not buy it. I don't think that I'd buy a HW that doesn't allow me make an old fashioned non-electronic backup. If that's the only option, I'd simply use cold storage for the relevant funds. +1 to that And it's closed source. So we will never know what it's doing. Seems like yet another device that is an answer in search of a question. Add in their U-Hide software and it really starts to look like a gimmick. -Dave |
|
|
|
The transaction belongs to F2Pool. The inputs are mined coins . They themselves mined the block so they included their own 0 fee transaction in it. Other mining pools wouldn't have included that transaction in their block
Any fee they pay will come back to F2Pool anyway
IIRC there are a few other pools that do that too for their own transactions. Kind of OT for this post but I think it would be good if someone could build the what would have to be a lot of bloat and complexity into core and the protocol that would allow a 2nd mempool so to speak that only has 0 fee tx in it. People could still consolidate their small inputs when the main mempool was empty BUT their TX would not be filling up the main mempool. Want to conoldate but don't care when it really happens send a 0 fee with this flag and possibly some pool would pick it up. Would it be worth the program / logic bloat is tough to say but I think it would be nice. Not going to happen, but it would be nice. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
It's still WAY above the 2018 lows and the the 2020 lows. So looking at it from that perspective shows how far BTC has come. No matter what happens globally no matter what happens in the short term BTC always comes back.
I know we are a small section on BTC enthusiasts here so we look at the day to day - week to week - month to month - and so on price a lot more then other people. But from the overall movements of the price a lot of people seem to keep buying and holding.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
I know too well what this statement means, that you should grab every office supply you can get your hand on and run as you won't see any more paychecks from the "restructured" entity.
The Simpsons said it so well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P2DwJuhIAEBeen poking around and it seems they stopped paying bills regularly when BTC started dropping from the ATH. So either they did poor planning and could not make enough money to survive, or it was always setup to be a scam from the beginning. Guess we will have to see if & how it plays out in court. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
The other issue with spelling and grammar checks is people who post form mobile. I have posted some things form a phone wile on a train. Sometimes they are long well formatted posts. Other times they look like I was drunk posting. And when I go back later I really wonder how I did not catch / fix a bunch of the mistakes before hitting post.
Eliminating that reason however, many times in a technical discussion there is no proper grammar. There would have to be exceptions for posted snips of code. And quotes would have to be ignored. And a way to show that something is math. Log files would have to be ignored and so on.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
I bought a couple thousand dollars worth of Bitcoin from Coinbase on June 18. Some of it was available to send to my hardware wallet immediately, but $1,000 of Bitcoin was kept on Coinbase. They sent me an email claiming that I would be able to send or trade the remaining amount on June 28.
I used a bank transfer (and Ledger Nano S to withdraw), but I just received an email now from Coinbase that my balance is available to withdraw. Let's see if I can do it when I try again tomorrow (after dawn).
Looking at the time of the 2nd post I would guess that it's available for withdraw after the 28th. Since coinbase is located on the west coast of the US that would have made it a little after that midnight on the 29th there. Not 100% the same but when dealing with any institution that deals with banks I am seeing more and more the same thing. It USED to be or at least I used to see it more "You will have X available on Y date" Now it's more "You will have X available on the day after Y date" At at 12:01AM it's in your account. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Anybody want to start a betting line as to how soon the anti BTC / trolls in general come out of the woodwork with
1) MicroStrategy is manipulating the price posts.
2) MicroStrategy will have to liquidate positions soon posts.
3) MicroStrategy has no more funds to invest posts.
As was posted above 480BTC although out of reach for most people. For a decent sized investment company it is really not that bad.
Nobody for the most part would even notice if a company with their holdings bought $10 million of medium-high risk bonds.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
