3. google auth can be done with a phone app, yubikey is a usb.
4. I wouldn't have a problem with a mandatory 1hour(personally I wouldnt even mind 24hrs) wait time on all withdrawals before they get processed. Its maybe a little annoying to some people but it may turn out to be just enough time to prevent massive theif. I think it would be better to be a site wide feature rather than account based.
3. How is a Yubikey more secure than Google Auth? Both require physical possession of the device you own and both are extremely unlikely to get hacked. The latter is just cheaper and more convenient. 4. 1 hour I could tolerate, but I doubt it would be enough to prevent thievery; Nefario can't individually process each withdrawal, and a lot of BTC is transferred in and out of GLBSE daily. 24 hours would do more, but it would be an extreme inconvenience to people who need to move funds around quickly. |
|
|
|
The askwall @ .1 has been taken down.
Cheers!
And another up now (currently 997 shares) - you? |
|
|
|
I am aware of what cloudflare do and how. But there is still small possibility of someone exploiting Cloudflares service and provide a cached copy of edited html document instead of original. And there is no need to steal wallet.dat to get money out there.
It's probably astronomically less than the possibility of the GLBSE server being hacked, but you are correct, a chance does exist. I suspect that the DDOS protection and speedup will be worth it to the majority of users, however. |
|
|
|
Isn't involving 3rd party in communication with glbse a potential security threat?
Cloudflare is providing good and valuable service, but look at the recent incident with Linode (slush's pool and Bitcoinica targeted) and Rackspace (Bitcoinica).
Trust is weakness. We already need to trust GLBSE, issuers of shares, and now also Cloudflare.
Is faster loading of images on website really worth it?
CloudFlare doesn't host wallets, Linode and Rackspace did. Major difference there. All CloudFlare does, IIRC, is provide a passthrough server to protect against DDOS and the like and provide analytics services. |
|
|
|
I can do that for you but no more than 100, .18 is cheap!  Send me a PM. Thx Sent, thank you! |
|
|
|
Would this have caused my account to not work at all?
I doubt it. What do you mean by "not work at all"? I could not log in, Nefario has fixed it for me but i have no idea what was wrong. Perhaps some database records got garbled. Anyway, glad it's fixed. |
|
|
|
About to PM you, urgently had to go somewhere for an hour, and when I come back, all gone.  Well, if anyone's interested in a quick turnaround, I'd buy 100 @ 0.18 BTC each. |
|
|
|
Would this have caused my account to not work at all?
I doubt it. What do you mean by "not work at all"? |
|
|
|
Interested pending references.  |
|
|
|
Same here, 504 most of time, miners are working tho..
Also selling shares didnt work last day or so.
Same here for Chrome browser. If I open the web site in firefox, however, it says that SSL certificate is compromised and probably someone is trying to get into my encrypted connection  Having a SSL certificate Firefox doesn't approve of has nothing to do with packet sniffing, the encryption exists whether the CA is on Firefox's list or not. Don't worry, you're fine. |
|
|
|
We're slightly past the 12 hour mark, and 232 sold already.
At that rate, it'll take less than two years! Congratulations nonetheless. |
|
|
|
I still think most miners are mining to mine and dump with no long term outlook/prospect.
Dark operators of botnets leeching off of Bitcoin only promotes the need for legit miners to short their coins to recoup costs at higher difficulties. Get rid of botnets. Easier said then done, I'm afraid. |
|
|
|
|
I'm getting a 504 on the site, and my miners can't connect. Anyone experiencing the same issue?
|
|
|
|
I actually think it's a shame that difficulty has increased this much for relatively so few miners. As I said in my cgminer thread, the original vision of bitcoin mining was that anyone who wanted to use bitcoin could also contribute a few spare hashes to make the network more secure and gain a few bit cents along the way. The fact that it is getting harder every day to justify throwing any computing power to make those few bit cents and it is becoming the domain of "professional setups" is far from that original vision. I know human nature will tend to concentrate on the profit side of things and they will always try to find a way of increasing said profit, but it's still a shame.
I think it's an inevitable byproduct of the evolution of Bitcoin from tech gimmick to serious currency. While it may signal the death of the former, it's certainly beneficial for the latter. Bittersweet, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Ok sorry for being a total noob, but i really want to understand this. You buy 10 orders, 2mh each order, for lets say 0.62 BTC each, then you get 20mh of hashing power in Amazingrando farm for ever? Thanks in advance It's a perpetuity. Effectively, yes, as long as Amazingrando doesn't reclaim the bond. |
|
|
|
I stand corrected regarding the term. Having hundreds thousands of infected machines is reasonable to anyone?
Of course. There's just a world of difference between a few hundred thousand infected machines and a few hundred thousand botnets. In any case, I'm glad we now understand each other. |
|
|
|
You're suspecting there are hundreds thousands of bitcoin botnets. I think what seriouscoin is trying to say is that in order to see the difficulty increases we've been seeing, there would need to be a hundred thousand PCs inside one single botnet. Of course those PCs would only be capable of ~2-5MH/s so a hundred thousand of them would be 200-500 GH/s. A hundred thousand PCs is perfectly reasonable. A hundred thousand botnets, not so much. Thanks for clarifying though, I suspect that might be what he meant, though I'm not entirely sure. |
|
|
|
Good, to set the record one last time. Dont bother to apologize next time when you pull this.
Now as for the "disagreement", i dont have to explicitly say how many bitcoin botnets there are. Anyone who agrees bitcoin botnets are the cause of this difficulty increase could easily estimate how many bitcoin botnets required. You're just too busy teaching English to someone on the internet to see it.
Assuming at least a GH per botnet, a "hundred thousand botnets" would equate to 100 TH, about 7 times the current speed of the entire network. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm wrong. It might mean I simply did the math. |
|
|
|
So was my poor English.... You knew it , understood it. I love now you talk about how things are not relevant. I dont think i misquote you. My logical thinking tells me if you're disputing my claim, then you're implying otherwise. Dont play political talk. I guess you can say " i never said such thing"..  I was not insulting your English, I was trying to help you. Of course it is irrelevant, it wasn't intended to be relevant. As for misquoting me, I invite you to find where I said anything about "hundreds of thousands" of Bitcoin botnets, or where you stated that there were not "hundreds of thousands" of Bitcoin botnets and I disagreed with you. But this is beside the point. I disagreed with your claim and I'm glad to debate it. I don't wish to spend my time arguing over what I did and didn't say. You can insult me, accuse me, and compare me with politicians all you want. If you consider me an idiot and interpret all of what I say according to that, nothing I could do or say will change that, ergo continuing this discussion is pointless for both of us. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
