Provider is now officially calling it a DDOS again all funds are fine exchange is actually running just fine internally of course noone can get to it which is obviously an issue  For those of us with auto payout from pools sending directly to cryptsy deposit addresses, will those funds still transfer safely or at all? Should we stop the auto transfers until the site is back up? i cant speak for the cryptsy team, but i would atleast as a precautionary metric. |
|
|
|
a little bit longer now, people. i encountered an orphan issue and had to reset testnet. the release has been temporarily postponed until the issue is resolved and the client is patched. a team of highly trained monkeys is currently investigating the issue |
|
|
|
Expect another hour of downtime attack seems to be subsiding we are using the downtime to enable additional protections to prevent this in the future. Sorry for the delay. Some folks just want to see the world burn.
have you tried the ddos protect implementation in your htaccess file? i think apache comes with a template and tutorial that shows you how to do it. That will work vs script kiddies, not vs botnets. Waiting for you to come back on actually that does work versus botnets. if you recall trollzilla, my ddos protect stopped a flood of 1100+ chinese ips at my website. however they still chewed up 430 gb bandwidth in an hour attempting to flood the server. it worked and my account was cancelled. |
|
|
|
Chrome just gave me a warning message when I tried to access cryptsy stating that the server was identified as secure.4rx.com. What's the deal with that?
Yeah I wouldn't log in until this question gets answered. Yes I just got the same thing. I cannot find anything on 4rx. That sounds like a smart way to trick users into putting their data through another source. its some kind of pharmaceutical phishing website |
|
|
|
Expect another hour of downtime attack seems to be subsiding we are using the downtime to enable additional protections to prevent this in the future. Sorry for the delay. Some folks just want to see the world burn.
have you tried the ddos protect implementation in your htaccess file? i think apache comes with a template and tutorial that shows you how to do it. |
|
|
|
hmmmm... i'll stop the attack if you pay me 100 BTC!!!  |
|
|
|
Death and Taxes, i have throroughly enjoyed your posts thus far in this thread. could you speak on what it would take to say implement whirlpool-t into a cryptocoin system? perhaps gost-cyphers 128 bit hashes could be used as public keys. what do you think?
Death and Taxes, i have throroughly enjoyed your posts thus far in this thread. could you speak on what it would take to say implement whirlpool-t into a cryptocoin system? perhaps gost-cyphers 128 bit hashes could be used as public keys. what do you think?
As stdest pointed out you simply need to replace a few functions. Now I don't think there is much value in doing that (as I have indicated about LTC) however if one were designing a novel new cryptocurrency it would not necessarily need to use the cryptographic primitives that Bitcoin uses: proof of work: SHA-256 public keys: ECDSA addresses (hash of public key): RIPEMD-160 & SHA-256 As for GOST there is no technical reason it could be used. I am wary of using algorithms without extensive peer review. In cryptography you are essentially trying to prove a negative. Prove that this algorithm can't be broken. Well you can prove it CAN be broken but you can never prove it can't be. The closest thing we have is peer review and analsysis. If a tens of thousands of experts all over the world, working for years can't break your algorithm the likelihood that it can be broken in the future is lower (but never zero). Not sure if it was a typo but public keys are not hashes. Public keys require public key cryptography like ECC OR RSA which uses mathematical properties which allows one to verify publicly but only create privately. Bitcoin (and clone) addresses are the HASH of the public key. There is no technical reason GOST couldn't be used there. Private key = random (or deterministic) x bit number Public key = calculated from private key using a public key cryptographic system (RSA, ECC, etc) Public Address = hash & checksum of the public key i aprpreciate you taking the time to respond to my post. i actually am not that well versed in hashing functions or in the technical aspects of bitcoin. i'm just a curious person and i'm pondering the feasability of creating a cpu only coin using a different hash algo. |
|
|
|
|
Death and Taxes, i have throroughly enjoyed your posts thus far in this thread. could you speak on what it would take to say implement whirlpool-t into a cryptocoin system? perhaps gost-cyphers 128 bit hashes could be used as public keys. what do you think?
|
|
|
|
DDos!
prolly that same chinese ip address as the pwc attack |
|
|
|
Is there one? Or can I just get rid of it by deleting all files having to do with it?
I want to erase the Litecoin-Qt app as it is taking up too much space and I only own 3 cents worth haha!
Any advice is much appreciated.
don't forget to send me your litecoins first |
|
|
|
wait so what happens when it is cracked  we start using sha 512, Whirlpool-T or my personal favorite, Gost |
|
|
|
r3wt is nothing but a troll... JohnCar and Imatrix are the dev team behind PXC, sorry you dont like people supporting PXC... lol
 |
|
|
|
The biggest and really significant weakness of BTC is SHA-256, that is ASICs (which are a very genuine threat feasible for any dedicated attacker, getting a design and building a semiconductor fabrication plant can be had for a few $M). All renowned cryptographers agree that scrypt is far superior. It is fairly easy to make a scrypt ASIC the only factor is cost. However the scrypt used in LTC (and clones) was modified to make it about 10,000 less memory hard then the recommended default value. LTC scrypt uses about 32KB of memory, a token amount in ASIC design. LTC likely will never become popular enough to warrant the kind of investment but if it does ASIC builders will move to that chain as well. Of course it is all about cost, that is my point. You cannot get a likewise efficient (this is the keyword here) LTC ASIC design and a manufacturing plant for a few $M. Despite of the scrypt memory requirement relaxation in LTC we are still talking about 4 or 5 orders of magnitude. Nobody came ever close to an efficient LTC ASIC even in theoretical designs, so much for "token amount". 
Your last line is a false statement. Please provide this extensive list of renowned cryptographers who believe scrypt is far superior. Scrypt has been far less extensively studied than SHA and thus has a higher risk of a cryptographic flaw. Of course SHA could also be flawed but other than maybe MD5 or AES there aren't many algorithms with more peer review. Extensive and long peer review is mandatory to ensure cryptographic strength.
Your statement is false, MD5 for example has the most extensive and longest peer review, and is the notoriously most flawed of all the above, as was pointed out by renowned cryptographers years ago (see Wikipedia). I will give you the people involved in the design and subsequent discussions of scrypt and I'm quite sure you will recognize some of them. But as it just takes one counterexample to demonstrate my statement is false while you (and by extension I) cannot extensively prove a negative, I challenge you to provide just one single renowned cryptographer who doesn't believe scrypt is far superior, good luck. The first paper on scrypt was published less than 5 years ago and that is a tiny amount of time in the field of cryptography. Also LTC (and clones) use a modified version of scrypt which is significantly less "memory hard" by a couple orders of magnitude. The LTC developers are not world renowned cryptographers, there has been no extensive peer review of the effect of these modifications. There has (AFAIK) been a single academic paper on the potential risks.
Simple version: In cryptography tried and true is superior to new and flashy. In time scrypt "may" become the defacto standard for key derivitive functions but that day isn't today.
In cryptography you rely on what's currently trusted by most cryptographers, and that algorithm for hashing or key derivation is currently scrypt. SHA-256 is broken both theoretically by definition (see Wikipedia) as well as in practice because of ASICs, and so is BTC. since the conversation has tipped to algo's and security, i'd like to point out that Gost-cipher and Whirlpool-T have yet to be broken. |
|
|
|
Fuck you, you just trying to make my rating go down !!!!!!!! fucking stupid idiot, you think you can tell shit like that??
PROOVE IT you idiot.
GOOD LUCK
You bitching doesn't help this situation, it makes people more inclined to give you negative rep. Clarify it and stop acting like a child. this. |
|
|
|
Sounds like the hard drive I bought off of craigslist.
Sounds like the hooker I bought off of craigslist. you found a squealer on craigslist? thats rare! |
|
|
|
my post dissapeared from this thread?
You posted in the thread in the Marketplace. ah, my mistake mprep. congrats on the site. looks pretty good |
|
|
|
|
my post dissapeared from this thread?
|
|
|
|
|
do i have to say this in every fucking thread? without litecoin and other altcoins, bitcoin mining would cease to be profitable. alt coins are necessary evils because they spread the hashing power out accross multiple networks, allowing everyone to profit in some way shape or form. without litecoin and altcoins. you could multiply the difficlut by 5 and decrease your profit by 50 percent. those are just guestimates of course.
|
|
|
|
At least you're being honest lol Yeah, but also sending the 6k satoshi to every person that submits their address will make me broke lol. Try 5.5k satoshi.  i think that qualifies as "spamming the blockchain" ps: sneak peaks of newb2.0Edit: I see Aosana already switched over to the new design. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
