|
So now that MtGox owns bitcoincharts, they purposedly removed their greatest competitor (bitstamp) from the list.
I'm glad they are showing their real face (unless this is some technical malfunction of course).
|
|
|
|
Whatever, still waiting for a real source. EDIT:
Wrong, this seems to qualify as a source:
[quote]DOMAIN: BITCOINCHARTS.COM
RSP: KalyHost
URL: http://www.kalyhost.com/
created-date: 2010-11-08 02:11:21
updated-date: 2013-06-13 09:00:02
registration-expiration-date: 2014-11-08 02:11:21
owner-organization: K.K. [color=red][b]Tibanne [/b][/color]Privacy
owner-name: bitcoincharts c73c885c-68fa
owner-street: Fleur Tsuzuki 102
owner-city: Kugayama 5-24-30
owner-state: Tokyo-to, Suginami-ku
owner-zip: 168-0082
owner-country: JP
owner-phone: +81.345501529
owner-fax:
owner-email: bitcoincharts.com@service.tibanne.com
admin-organization: K.K. Tibanne Privacy
admin-name: bitcoincharts c73c885c-68fa
admin-street: Fleur Tsuzuki 102
admin-city: Kugayama 5-24-30
admin-state: Tokyo-to, Suginami-ku
admin-zip: 168-0082
admin-country: JP
admin-phone: +81.345501529
admin-fax:
admin-email: bitcoincharts.com@service.tibanne.com
tech-organization: K.K. Tibanne Privacy
tech-name: bitcoincharts c73c885c-68fa
tech-street: Fleur Tsuzuki 102
tech-city: Kugayama 5-24-30
tech-state: Tokyo-to, Suginami-ku
tech-zip: 168-0082
tech-country: JP
tech-phone: +81.345501529
tech-fax:
tech-email: bitcoincharts.com@service.tibanne.com
billing-organization: K.K. Tibanne Privacy
billing-name: bitcoincharts c73c885c-68fa
billing-street: Fleur Tsuzuki 102
billing-city: Kugayama 5-24-30
billing-state: Tokyo-to, Suginami-ku
billing-zip: 168-0082
billing-country: JP
billing-phone: +81.345501529
billing-fax:
billing-email: bitcoincharts.com@service.tibanne.com
nameserver: ns1.xta.net 69.64.54.41
nameserver: ns2.xta.net 50.97.137.60
; Contact us for more informations - support@kalyhost.com
; Get quality support, web hosting, domains and VPS on KalyHost
; http://www.kalyhost.com/[/quote]
|
|
|
|
Well, the bitcoincharts is kept up by the Tibanne Ltd., which owns the Mt. Gox.
Source please ? Source: Bitcointalk. Not good enough. |
|
|
|
Well, the bitcoincharts is kept up by the Tibanne Ltd., which owns the Mt. Gox.
Source please ? |
|
|
|
@OP
WTF with the self-moderated topic ?
Is this an advertisement or what ?
@Mods
I think that self-moderated topics should not be allowed in "Press" section.
In all honesty, I don't know why. I must of somehow managed to click it on accident. Oh. Sorry for the rant, then. I was thinking you might be another Viceroy. |
|
|
|
|
@OP
WTF with the self-moderated topic ?
Is this an advertisement or what ?
@Mods
I think that self-moderated topics should not be allowed in "Press" section.
|
|
|
|
Why would the NSA ever release a 'secure' algorithm? It's like shooting yourself in the foot, it would make their job so much harder. They would only ever release something that they could control. It's just the way the world works.
Because you can never definitively prove a cryptographic system is secure. The only way to "know" a cipher is secure is to make it publicly available and let the best in the world take a crack at it. It is very easy to write a cryptographic system that you yourself can't break but that is next to useless. Secret cryptography usually is weak cryptography. History is littered with examples of failed "strong" systems. One classic one is WEP which is so unbelievably broken it is hard to believe cryptographers came up with it. Security through obscurity doesn't work. Had the specs for WEP been made publicly available in the design phase people would have found the flaws in a matter of weeks and saved everyone a ton of problems down the road. For every good cipher there are dozens and dozens of flawed ones. No matter how smart a single developer is the combined intellect of the planet is better, that is the entire rationale for open source. The NSA is not only responsible for finding the secrets of others they are responsible for ensuring others don't find the secrets of the United States. This is probably the most wise & complete explanation of "why there is no backdoor in SHA-2" that we will come up with here. This topic could be now closed for all I care. |
|
|
|
The algorithm is open ... however it was produced by a politically motivated rogue government branch that seems to harbouring a cynical bunch of criminal bastards ... do your own due diligence, if you don't have to deal with them why bother?
Don't forget that the Internet and TOR were also started by the US military. Just the fact that they did something does not mean that they still have control over it. Edit: oops, forgot to point out that the NSA algos flaws/backdoors will be tailored towards cracking by hardware capabilities that they , and maybe only them, possess. So saying it is secure because no-one else has found a flaw is redundant since no-one else knows or can replicate what they are capable of in terms of mining the exploit ...
Flaws in one of most widely used algos would be quickly found by NSA's/USA enemies - such as China and Russia (Russia/China have some of the world brightest mathematicans & cryptographers). Especially after the Prism scandal. Hiding something like this is simply not possible in after-Prism paranoia world. |
|
|
|
|
UPDATE:
What i actually meant to say was that Ebay may be looking for *justification* for implementing Bitcoin, I was just missing the word.
|
|
|
|
They tried to contain their enthusiasm, but I would still say this is rather more positive than negative. Seems like ebay wants to hop on the Bitcoin bandwagon and is looking for support or explantation in case somebody (like government or stockholders) asks them "why did you go into Bitcoins ?". |
|
|
|
I dont want to advertise anything, but how the fuck is this possible? I mean, it is possible but in December?!
It may be possible, but i very seriously doubt they can make it before end of December. This is also too damn expensive: 14K$
Bitcoin is turning more and more into the investor side as these numbers (14K$) are just too much for the average Joe, your opinion please?
This miner is not for average Joe. Its for companies, organizations and wealthy people. |
|
|
|
Wow, that was unexpectedly fast. |
|
|
|
I'm suggesting that we put together a public, searchable database that cross references people's identities with their bitcoin addresses. Sort of like a yellow pages for bitcoin.
(...)
Should we take a hit on our perceived anonymity for the sake of creating a more viable currency?
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin Also, this idea is unfeasible when you create new address for each payment. |
|
|
|
Hey, is Tradehill even *ALIVE* ? Why aren't they visible on Bitcoincharts ? |
|
|
|
But US got the strength (army guns knowlage)... Pretend you are in grade school and there is no teachers, who is the boss ? Biggest guys leads and if you dont want to follow them you get hit until you change your mind. Do not forget this
How many guns does it take to destroy the Bitcoin code? No amount of guns / soldiers will destroy Bitcoin (or any, for that matter) code. Even in a completely totalitarian state, you still can't guarantee that there isn't a single copy of some code (or some writing/some data generally) in existence. You can murder people, harass them, blackmail them, terrorize them - none of these things work. And it has been already tried many times thorough the history. I hope this is the kind of answer you expected. |
|
|
|
If you treat your security seriously, you simply don't use windows for important tasks. Windows is useful for me as a gaming machine, but i wouldn't dare run Bitcoin on it... |
|
|
|
|
@gmaxwell
I'm saluting to the unquestionalble genius of you and (almost ?) everybody else in this community.
Do you have any plans to start working on this feature soon ?
EDIT:
OK i read your post completely and appears that you are not.
|
|
|
|
[Warning: non-expert blabber ahead:]
I believe that some of the fundamental improvements they made to prevent circuit blowup generally should also make adding opcodes easier. One of the big reasons you get blow up in conversion to circuits is that you need a MUX hierarchy to get the data from all the places it could have come from to all the places it may need to go to, and so that makes adding more opcodes (or memory) costly. They address this through the use of non-deterministic advice.
The idea is pretty neat: You construct the circuit with additional inputs which are effectively outside of the proof, but which do not break the soundness because there is no value that they can take which would cause false acceptance. The prover solves for these values and fills them in, and that allows the system to do things like use rearrangably non-blocking switch networks instead of huge mux cascades (which then requires the prover to solve a routing problem, but replaces something with quadratic scaling with something that has log scaling). An example they give in their paper is the divider: Implementing a divide circuit would take a lot of gates (as is the case in digital logic too), instead they do something along the lines of implementing a multiply circuit which receives non-deterministic advice (the solution of the division) and then multiplies with one of the inputs and checks it against the other.
The obvious opcodes which would be most useful for us are the EC field operations over our curve. I might say parts of SHA-2, but I'm not sure how much more efficient a direct implementation of the SHA-2 round function might be implemented directly rather than from C. At least in digital logic adders use a lot of gates, but they're the same adders tinyram would use with a 32 bit wordsize, so...
 |
|
|
|
This is basically how Bitcoin already works... except normally to verify the computer program was run, currently all Bitcoin nodes actually run that program. With SCIP, they don't need to actually do that - just the proof that someone ran it is enough. Yes I know that sounds kinda crazy, but amazingly math actually lets you verify that someone ran a particular computer program honestly without actually running it yourself or seeing all the data it operated on.
This may be the most fucking brilliant idea i have seen since the dawn of proof-of-work (or sliced bread), however I am obviously too stupid to verify if that will work or if that is even possible. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
