I was a strong rollback supporter, but with a question.
Why does MtGox really want to rollback? What does MtGox actually gain from helping the one big fat cat?
Less chance of one serious lawsuit?
Can some help answer/speculate?
Which one big fat cat are you referring to? Rule of Law? Or the entire bitcoin community? Or do you really think that the only person (or people) hurt by this was the one guy (or several guys) that had their accounts liquidated? People on both sides are hurting kjj, and the entire thing smells fishy to me. If possible please answer my question above in bold red, thanks. Even a large number of people on both sides is trivial in comparison to the harm to the community, and to the rule of law. Stolen goods are not the legitimate property of their holder, even if they were not involved in the theft. A rollback is the only real option here. |
|
|
|
Asked: Why would any real person keep over 250,000 coins in an account unless they were setting up to intentionally crash the market?
And answered: MtGox has the $1,000/day limit to withdraw, so...
Hint: it would take many years. |
|
|
|
I was a strong rollback supporter, but with a question.
Why does MtGox really want to rollback? What does MtGox actually gain from helping the one big fat cat?
Less chance of one serious lawsuit?
Can some help answer/speculate?
Which one big fat cat are you referring to? Rule of Law? Or the entire bitcoin community? Or do you really think that the only person (or people) hurt by this was the one guy (or several guys) that had their accounts liquidated? |
|
|
|
|
Awesome. What this place has been in dire need of for the last day or so is more conspiracy theory threads.
Kevin sounds more or less reasonable. He wishes he could keep the coins, but I think he knows he shouldn't, and can't.
My opinion of Bruce has dipped even lower than it was yesterday when he started spamming all of the threads. His latest spam was very poorly worded, largely to get people to watch the show. Screaming $5 million when talking about a $2500 purchase is the type of slimy self promotion that makes my skin crawl.
But the show is interesting. I hate to say it, but he could someday become a good interviewer.
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent.
I don't suppose they are planning to publish recordings of the talks or panel, are they?
|
|
|
|
hello?
I usually dont argue with "you fail to understand", but you don't.
all I'm saying is that the majority will use the official client.
you aren't saying there'll never be a new version again, are you?
Just like the majority of us use the official WWW client? The bitcoin devs are currently putting a great deal of effort into bootstrapping alternative clients. |
|
|
|
|
I never have, no. On first thought, that might seem kinda strange, since I've dispensed lots and lots of very useful advice in various threads. Then again, I'm an arrogant prick, and I think people can tell, so maybe it isn't so strange after all.
|
|
|
|
|
The world doesn't operate on prevention, because prevention doesn't work.
They were able to reverse transactions and roll the site back to the way it was before the invalid order. They also had mechanisms in place to reduce the amount of irreversible damage that could happen before the attack was noticed and stopped.
Those sound like pretty damn good safeguards to me.
|
|
|
|
If you take the time to read my post carefully you will see I've acknowledged that the static part does not improve protection against brute force. It ensures that to even attempt brute force, the attacker must have read access to the source, not just the database. That's a different class of attack, a significant speed-bump for the attacker from a layered security perspective.
No, the attacker does not need the static extra secret. The brute force attack will reveal it right along with the password. All it does is make the first two attempts harder, possibly a lot harder. After that, it has no value. |
|
|
|
|
A shorter queue should help, yes.
|
|
|
|
I often get many stale shares after the beginning of a new round. For the first ~100 shares, stale rate is sometimes about 10%. This then decreases to about 3%. I watched this several times now, it doesn't happen all the time. But most stales seem to occur when a block was found and a new round starts.
Yes, that is what stale means. Your miner is still working on a block that no longer matters. The rest of the pool has moved on. |
|
|
|
13.37
Crap. This should have been my first guess. |
|
|
|
@kjj,
It's not a matter of read minds, a thing I can't obviously do, but a matter of reading timelines, a thing I can perfectly do.
No, you read a timeline, and then you read his mind to find out what he really would do, and you drew a conclusion based on the timeline not matching the results of your psychic probe. |
|
|
|
The salt should have a random part per user stored in the database and a static part per site stored in some include file.
The first part prevents massive parallelization, rainbow tables etc.
The second part keeps the password secure when only the database is leaked (ex. a SQL injection that does not escalate to code execution). In the case of MtGox it wouldn't have helped since the read-only account probably had source access too.
Extending this idea, email can be stored using reversible encryption. Thus a simple database leak is not sufficient to compromise all emails, you need local access to the source.
If you think about it for a moment, I'm sure you will see that the static part is nearly useless. The random part changes the game from "break once, break everywhere" to "break once, break here only". That is huge. But, if an attacker can brute force two passwords with static salt, they then know the static salt, and it offers no more protection. The keyspace for the third attempt will have fallen back to the keyspace of the original password. That is a mere speedbump compared to the brick wall of the random salt. |
|
|
|
Some on this board claim the hacker sold and bought a large amount of coins at 0.01 to be able to withdraw 1000$ worth of coins at 0.01.
Based on the interview last night, I think MtGox claimed that the $1000 worth of bitcoins was based on them being in the neighborhood of $5-$10 each, rather than $0.01 each. I don't much care for the explanation given about the 'auditor' being hacked. They're citing privacy reasons for not giving out the name of the auditor, when in fact it is ridiculous to have any audit performed by unnamed entities. It's the name of the auditor, and their credibility therefrom, which gives credence to the audits they perform. Not naming the auditor is extremely suspicious, in my opinion. When asked why the auditor needed access to the live database, it was claimed that the audit being performed was to ensure that MtGox wasn't manipulating quoted prices to their own benefit. That's all great, but only if the auditor is legitimate. And we have no way of knowing that the auditor is legitimate if we don't know who the auditor is. What use is an audit performed by unnamed entities? It's worthless! I'm sure they would have been more than happy to name the auditor two days ago. But now, I can understand them keeping quiet. And at this point, do you really care what the financial auditor has to say, nameless or not? Sounds like they will be attempting to recover the losses from the auditor. Depending on how that goes, we'll probably find out their name when that is done. |
|
|
|
Those are good tips, however, I think we need a 'best practices' for web developers. I would say: - Use Sha512 - not MD5 for hashes
- Salt passwords with at least 20 characters - DO NOT STORE SALT WITH HASHES
- Do not store email addresses as plain text, store encrypted
- Use parameterized input for SQL to avoid SQL injection attacks
- Use form tokens to prevent CSRF attacks
3, 4 and 5 are good, but I don't think you understand how password hash systems work. 1) MD5 is fine for passwords, when used in a salted iterated hashing system. 2) Passwords are salted with a set number of bits, that depends on the system you are using, not some number of characters. And the salt must be stored with the password, otherwise you don't know how to compare them. Unless you are talking about a having a secret that you append to all passwords before sending them through the salt and hash procedure. |
|
|
|
Salts should include something unique for the site! Im not sure this is the case here, it would alleviate the problem with re-using password-hashes between many sites.
Salts have been random for two months. That's even better than being unique to the site. |
|
|
|
That's lovely, except I purposefully didn't attach an email address to my account, because I didn't want them to have it, and I'm glad I did.
However, that means they have no way to allow me to reset my password.
The password file that leaked has over 4000 users with no emails attached, exactly how will that be dealt with?
I think you are going to have to wait and see. No one on the forums has any idea, but it sounds like they have 4000 reasons to come up with a way to make it work. |
|
|
|
I guess that 1000 USD equivalent limit is based in MtGox Last.
can anyone verify that? that's kind of important to the story claimed by MtGox. No, on the interview, it was said to be 100 to 200 BTC. Others have posted that the limit was based on a weighted average, probably for reasons just like this. A weighted average seems to match up pretty well with the 100 to 200 claimed. the 500k transfer was Mtgox transferring to a backup as a security precaution.
Not buying that one. Trade halted nearly 15 minutes after that transfer. He would halt trade as first measure. I wish I could read minds too. |
|
|
|
|
I would much rather press the mods for an explanation of why they haven't deleted you yet. I would happily re-type that entire thread from my browser's cache if only someone would make good on your repeated promises to leave these forums for good.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
