 Interim update. so? prices will drop more  glad to hear that. Sell! Sell! Sell! |
|
|
|
6$, srsly? eh have you? nope no sold at 8.5 |
|
|
|
|
is the bubble bursting? i have sold my btc. have you?
|
|
|
|
Tor is horrible for transferring files for three reasons-
1. IT WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR IT. Read the documentation, it's designed for web browsing. By transferring large amounts of files you ARE killing the network.
2. Less relays compared to I2P - therefore, less bandwidth. I2P is essentially already p2p, so using bittorrent inside i2p works fine. P2P inside tor is painfully slow, and not even allowed by most exit nodes.
3. Know how onion routing works? Yeah.
see: http://www.i2p2.de/how_networkcomparisonsit says tor has: - Has already solved some scaling issues I2P has yet to address
- Tor client nodes have very low bandwidth overhead
- A core of high capacity nodes provides higher throughput and lower latency
but also things i2p it better to do: - Fully distributed and self organizing
- Designed and optimized for hidden services, which are much faster than in Tor <-- i know
- Both TCP and UDP transports
i knew this already. and i have read the source codes for bout tor and i2p. tor is clean and simple and very eazy to understand, and well documented. while i2p is bloated, and is difficult to understand. Comparing security by looking at hostnames of services used within the network is about as silly as you can get. The 16-digit .onion address is a /summary/ of the hidden service's public key. i am not, go read the source and you will find out. the way i2p is using the keys is weird. |
|
|
|
signed up |
|
|
|
From what I understand, using another layer of encryption (ssh) over the tor network is redundant since it is already secure.
I2P's encryption is probably much better.
no they are about the same. only that i2p's encryption is more obscure. and obscureiry only leads to holes and flaws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscuritytor's code is clean and simple. i2p is obscure and diffecult to understand. |
|
|
|
thats nice watching now |
|
|
|
Fine, the entire transaction except for:
"The scripts for all transaction inputs in txCopy are set to empty scripts"
... is signed.
thanks you! i see it now, in script.cpp lines 870-930. looks right to me. You're starting to make me grumpy...
sorry for that... i just didn't seemt right. and i though if it was a flaw, it was best to make it public as fast as possible. so it could be corrected. |
|
|
|
OP_CHECKSIG is script opcode used to verify that the signature for a tx input is valid first line. the entire transaction can't be signed. its logicly impossible. its like have in a hash of a hash, which is equal. sha256(a)!=a |
|
|
|
No, it is not possible, there is a rule against that.
rules is here to be broken.  |
|
|
|
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#txhow are you not sure that the TxIn is not taken out from a transaction and put in to another? is this a flaw? or is there some kind mecanisme that prevent that? a simple attack scenario: 1. put a lot of your clients on the network(with different IPs). so you are sure that you can isolate another client. 2. when the isolated client makes a Tx it transmits it to you. 3. with the Tx you extract the TxIns and puts them in a new Tx, that sends it all to you, you can do that because there is no protection. 4. wait for it to be included in a block. 5. PROFIT! is this possible? it is a BIG BIG flaw if its real!  Try it, and you will find that it doesn't work in practice, even if it is theoreticly possible. Most likely you won't even be able to isolate a client in order to actually steal from it's transactions in the start. In any case, this is an attack upon a particular user of Bitcoin, not a flaw in the system itself. This kind of theft attack would only affect one user. As you describe it, the modified transaction would fail a validity check anyway because the transaction must be hashed as a whole after being 'signed' by the sender's private key, which you don't have. If you cannot sign the modified transaction, the transaction would fail on that point. what i can read from the source and the wiki is: not the whole transaction that is signed. only the TxIns. its like signing "i would like to give some btcs away" |
|
|
|
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#txhow are you not sure that the TxIn is not taken out from a transaction and put in to another? is this a flaw? or is there some kind mecanisme that prevent that? a simple attack scenario: 1. put a lot of your clients on the network(with different IPs). so you are sure that you can isolate another client. 2. when the isolated client makes a Tx it transmits it to you. 3. with the Tx you extract the TxIns and puts them in a new Tx, that sends it all to you, you can do that because there is no protection. 4. wait for it to be included in a block. 5. PROFIT! is this possible? it is a BIG BIG flaw if its real!
|
|
|
|
wow, we are thinking in similar way. so I will pay you 0.2 btc more. and your balance should be 1 btc)
hehe, thanks +1 |
|
|
|
In logs I see that some queries from you doubles. do you doubleclick by buttons? JavaScript code must prevent this. But if you send two times newgame, then, first game ends without paying, and is still remaing open.
I will repair this bug, and you try to not click twice in short period of time, just wait.
because of i discovered this bug for you, and lost some money while discovering it, can i get my balance restored to 1btc(the amount disposited)? it would be nice |
|
|
|
|
i think there is something that is not working i randomly losing money when i press "take bet"
my userid is 172.
is it possible you could publish the sourcecode? it would be easier to find your bugs, and figuer out how it works.
EDIT: i think sometimes its betting double, when i bet 0.01btc ?
|
|
|
|
I just think that unless you don't want to know where your datastore is(because you don't want anyone else to know either) you're better off having a vpn connection between you and your datastore.
However, if it IS the case that you want your datastore so untraceable that even you don't know where it is, then yeah I guess, I still think i2p is better for this kind of thing, I remember they were working on getting Tahoe running over i2p.
tor and i2p is working like the same as far as i can understand, except tor is stream based and i2p is packet based. they both use onion or garlic routing, so it would kill then both if you are using some high bandwide app. and the point is that no one knows where the datastore is(except me), and no one can see that you are using the datastore, so your data is stored absolutly secretly. |
|
|
|
A twist on the idea: the transponder in the car could have a small screen to display a price, along with a button to pay and a button to decline payment. When the order is finalized, a radio signal sends the price to the car, along with the bitcoin address to send the bitcoins to. The screen displays the price and the driver must press "accept" to send the funds. A little less automatic than your idea, but certainly faster than what we presently have. Not sure if it would be worth the cost, though...
you can do that with bitcoin because of the ~10min conformation time, so you have to sit in the McD. waiting for your 3.34btc gets cleared... a bank(trusted 3. party) should be involved, so its going to happen this way: you deposited 40 btc last week, to a bank. then you drivethough the McD, and the bank is paying McD for you. this can only happen if McD and you are trusting the bank, McD are trusting that the bank will pay them, and you are trusting the bank not to spend your money without your appoval. |
|
|
|
After installing all the programs from setup as described, I tried to run the market
with blackmarket.py
Then I got the error:
"Traceback <most recent call last>:
File "C....\blackmarket.py, line 10, in <module>
from M2Crypto.util import passphrase_callback as prompt_password
Import Error: No module named M2Crypto.util"
can anyone help?
you nedd M2crypto: http://chandlerproject.org/Projects/MeTooCrypto#Downloadskokjo, I went to the link, which one should I install? thanks for the help in advance it depends of what version of python you are using. and what OS you are using. so if you are using python 2.7 and windows 32 bit(vista, xp...) you should download: http://chandlerproject.org/pub/Projects/MeTooCrypto/M2Crypto-0.21.1.win32-py2.7.msibut thats maybe not the case... you could be using python 2.6 or MacOSX or Linux, or whatever... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
