These are the most secure things that are not likely to be hacked and they never steal funds. Except that they censor, charge unnecessarily high fees, blackmail for your private information, dictate by forbidding you to send money in certain cases, create an illusion of "taint coins" that have been involved in "illicit activity", whatever the hell that means. What have I forgotten? Oh right, if they go bankrupt or get hacked, which is a common phenomenon, you lose everything. This isn't what I call the "most secure thing". |
|
|
|
[...] Even if it's possible, which I highly doubt along with kaggie for the reasons we've outlined, but say IF. Does it worth it? You're going to increase transaction size which will lead to higher fees and less block space, and which will make verification less efficient, for timestamping a timeserver? Doesn't it sound ridiculous? If you want to know when a transaction was broadcasted to the network, regardless of when it was signed, then run your own node and do the timestamp yourself. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
Am I making it look like Ether-scum? Well, saying that the price will go the moon resembles to this behavior. Ser, the whole network is literally living off incentivization. How do you think it's all sticking together for this long? This is irrelevant and it's also a hasty generalization; just because there's incentive to secure it, doesn't mean you're encouraged to keep it and dump it later in a higher price, because that's how "to the moon" sounds like. There's development to make it more utilizable. It happens to attract investors. If the opposite occurred, it'd probably be another fraudulent, ponzi-looking situation.
That's just my opinion, by the way. I don't want to seem absolute nor am I holding the holy chalice of truth. This is just the way I perceive things. |
|
|
|
[...] It can work, but I don't see a major benefit. Also, why should you limit the niche of the software? Why don't you create a p2p ebay, instead, which can have any kind of service. Merchants run the servers and customers the clients. I just wonder how can you have a trust score, such as in TrustPilot, in a decentralized manner. (That can't be faked) |
|
|
|
It raises some questions in mind about the true decentralization that Etherium is trying to achieve Sure. That's why they're switching to Proof of Stake. So they can make it more decentralized. With a 70% of the coins in circulation being pre-mined. Sure, decentralization and holy God. We are designing a decentralized travel booking platform for the tourism sector. So, how's that related to a blockchain? Create a software where the users can interact from the client in a P2P way if Booking.com is the thing you want to avoid. Money units can be any cryptocurrency you want. |
|
|
|
The blockchain's "distributed" element, which is a record of each transaction, is kept in multiple locations, sometimes thousands, making it trustworthy. It's not the fact that it's held in multiple locations that is making it trustworthy. It's the computational power that is used which makes it immune. To be precise, this includes pruned nodes, who don't have the entire chain nor who they advertise themselves as having blocks. |
|
|
|
Privacy is not about bitcoin. ? Of course you can use Samourai Wallet or Wasabi Wallet, which have CoinJoin technology using Tor nodes. Unfortunately, the Wasabi coordinator censors users now. You can read more about this in: The default Wasabi Wallet coordinator will start censoring "illegal" UTXOs. But it seems to me that if you are a regular user you might get suspicious when using such wallets. Well, if they choose to deposit the coins in a centralized exchange, they may be rejected, but until there. I've never witnessed a case where the CoinJoin participator enmeshes with illicit activities just because they mixed their outputs with a criminal. |
|
|
|
Substantiating this further: The modern recession and the boom-bust cycle that drives it is entirely a creation of fiat money. Governments intervene in the allocation of capital, randomly starting and stopping a fire hose of credit that whipsaws the real economy and destroys real lives. Just as the cost of a five-second delay in a footrace can be measured in distance lost, the cost of a recession can be measured by the resources it will take to rebuild lost wealth. Bitcoin, by taking purchasing power out of central banks’ manipulation space, can reduce or even eliminate their ability to cause boom-bust cycles.
Even Bitcoin’s worst critics allege the distributed network consumes no more than 86 TWh per year, of which perhaps 16 TWh might be Americans, with much of that green energy. It would take between 500 and 1,000 years for Bitcoin’s energy use to even approach the 2008 crisis alone. With another recession permanently on the way, over and over again. That 500 to 1,000 years’ worth of energy goes on top of the 8.4% of GDP, the 80,000 bank branches and 470,000 ATMs and those skyscrapers.
These ratios suggest that central banks are vastly more polluting than Bitcoin, indeed more polluting than the worst industrial offender you could imagine. Bitcoin, by implication, is among the most green technologies humanity has ever invented. Indeed, if Bitcoin even slightly reduces central banks’ ability to cause recessions, it could pay back every watt many times over. For example, if Bitcoin reduces the odds or magnitude of central bank recessions by just 2%, Bitcoin would actually save us far more energy than it uses – it would be net carbon negative. And that's just from one bank. But, I guess it's in no media's favor to get involved with it. Which reminds me of how important transparency is. You don't need all this hustle and bustle to calculate the carbon footprint of bitcoin. Difficulty speaks for itself. You may not know the percentage of ASICs, GPUS etc., that is used, but you can calculate the true environmental impact much easier and more accurately. |
|
|
|
For maximum paranoia, it would at least allow you to have the chip manufactured and build the device yourself. But, I don't think that's as paranoid as it sounds. It's a reasonable question a newbie, who's interested in learning more, may ask. Like "So, how do I know that the hardware is what they're telling me it is?". That's what I thought when I found out there are such wallets. I don't want to do this with a dice; and while I had tried it wasn't as simple as it looked like. I want to ensure that the chip Trezor uses (or any other I will deliver) isn't working maliciously. Is there a way to do that? |
|
|
|
[...] I mean think all of the central and commercial banks, ATMs, credit/debit cards, employers, transports, money issuance etc. Now think of bitcoin, wherein more than half of its waste isn't so environmentally damaging as it comes from solar panels and other renewable sources. There was a report I'd seen from HSBC where they stated their environmental footprint of 2012. The link is surprisingly dead, but web archive is always there when you need it: https://blackhatcoiner.com/files/130521-hsbc-susreport-2012-online-ready-version.pdfTotal CO 2 emissions (Assured by PwC)*: 963,000 And that's just from one bank. But, I guess it's in no media's favor to get involved with it. |
|
|
|
This doesn't say much, just that: It’s not about SHA-256, it’s about the signature scheme, ECDSA. This will be broken way earlier and will make it possible to forge signatures and thus forge transactions Where did you conclude that once SHA256 is broken, we'll upgrade to SHA384? If SHA256 becomes broken, which is a doomsday scenario, we shouldn't use neither SHA384 nor SHA512 as they all belong to SHA-2. There's also a paper that explains why quantum computing isn't a problem for bitcoin, let me put it right here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.10377.pdf. Also, this thread: I don't believe Quantum Computing will ever threaten Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I think what Op meant is not to align individual image, what he meant is to place many images side by side. Right. They should use the table tag in the center then. If they want more space, they can use the empty character. (" ")  | | |
[center][table][td][img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td]
[td][img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td]
[td][img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td][/center] [center][table][td][img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td]
[td] [img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td]
[td] [img]https://i.imgur.com/W9hbTRV.png[/img][/td][/center]
Edit: I've no idea what the hell happened to the first image. |
|
|
|
If you want to place it in the center, use: [center][img]IMAGE_URL[/img][/center] If you want to place it right, use: [right][img]IMAGE_URL[/img][/right] If you want to place it left, there's this left align, but I, yet, fail to understand what's the purpose, everything's already left aligned: [left][img]IMAGE_URL[/img][/left] |
|
|
|
logical problem - here the problem is more complicated, because as I understand it requires the knowledge about all the touched aspects. Forget the logical problem. I'll open a thread in the proper board about it. Thanks for your answers! |
|
|
|
I want to focus into this: How can you verify that it doesn't generate predictable entropy or that it's malicious in another way? Sure, you can verify that once you build the source code, it's the same executable as the one that's signed, but how can you verify that the functions that are used to generate entropy aren't executed improperly, outside the firmware? Excuse me for my complete lack of hardware knowledge, but isn't there a part of it that is used exclusively for producing randomness? Generally, aren't there parts that are used along with the firmware to make it work? |
|
|
|
This is a question that's scrambled my head lately. I know how to use the search engine, the thing is none of those results gives a proper answer. When a software is open-source, it means you can download the source code, the necessary libraries and a compiler. That's enough to build the executable and verify yourself that what you're using is what it's saying. So, how can you build a firmware using a source code? How can you verify that it doesn't generate predictable entropy or that it's malicious in another way? |
|
|
|
where people need to pre-arrange their spending habits for the next few months by deciding what value to put into what channels to lock value up for months ahead. This is exactly what they've been doing with bank accounts. They deposit money, so they can spend them later. yes with a debit card you just 'tap and pay' you dont need to have set up 5 cards with certain balance just to increase the possibility of hope of successful cheap payments. you can just use one card and tap and pay and your done. But, with Lightning there's no trusted third party. but in LN its near on essential to have more then 1 channel, just to ensure you can make payments. which means locking up multiples of funds Correct. This is how routing works. say you want to spend $500 next month. because routes are not guaranteed people would need on average to have locked up $2000 in 4 channels of $500 so that they can have a near 100% experience of successfully spending $500 a month Well, it depends on where you spend them. If it's the same individual, just open a channel directly with them. The more the channels, the more the chances of having your transaction successfully accomplished. LN is so bad that they are now trying to invent watchtowers to be bank managers watching over penalty settlements. they are also inventing hub factories(custodial banks) so that funds go inwards to high liquidity central services to avoid the route/hop problems of needing multiple channels And Bitcoin also had centralized exchanges two years after it got invented. Did that make it bad? If you don't want trust, you can settle this without trust. If you don't care about trust, you can use a hub. oh and there is always a spending limit on LN, far far worse then bitcoin/debit card limits Far far trustless than debit cards. bitcoin/fiat debit cards are simpler. just pay and not have to think about it again. Fiat is also simpler than Bitcoin. oh and LN after 5 years.. is no where even close to the bitcoin adoption rate of 2014(5 years after bitcoins invention) so dont kid yourself that LN is utopia |
|
|
|
That's why a statement like 'this new technology will get btc to the moon' generally rubs me the wrong way. And which is never the cause of price fluctuations. Lightning, SegWit, Taproot, Omni, Liquid, Dandelion, CoinJoin, CoinSwap, DEX and an endless list of other innovations in Bitcoin have never proved to affect the market. The price clearly moves arbitrarily, usually when an Elon appears and empties the exchanges' liquidity. Wind Fury, enjoy the profit, HODL, have some diamond hands, whatever, you're allowed to say and do whatever you want. But, please, don't make it look like the Ether-scum where they can't look forward for upgrades and 2.0 gibberish to see green candles. |
|
|
|
Δεν θα απαντήσω στο αν αξίζει το mining, καθώς δε γνωρίζω ειλικρινά. Μπορώ να σου προτείνω να ρωτήσεις στο Mining board που έχει πολύ περισσότερο κόσμο απ'ότι το ελληνικό board. Ίσως λάβεις και καλύτερες απαντήσεις. Όσον αφορά το πού αποθηκεύουμε bitcoins, που είναι άσχετο του mining, πάντα σε non-custodial wallets. Μπορείς να βρεις πολλά στο bitcoin.org. Εγώ σου προτείνω το Electrum γιατί είναι και πολύ απλό και ελαφρύ. Ποτέ δεν αφήνουμε σε centralized exchanges! |
|
|
|
But why are they not into Bitcoin? It is probably because of the technicalities involved. Or simply, because: - They're ignorant. They don't know how their money works etc.
- They can't comprehend the benefit of being self-controlled, financial sovereign.
- They've been misinformed.
- They're satisfied with credit/debit cards, online payment systems, banking accounts and don't bother to take it once step further.
Here are a few other reasons to play with. Keeping Bitcoin is not as easy as keeping fiat. And spending fiat isn't as easy as spending Bitcoin, unless someone else's keeps it for you, which therefore makes it a political problem. Look, I get your point, I'm just saying that the reason why some may find it difficult technically, is because they don't find it necessary at all. Sure, but I don't think that bitcoin is slow at all. Keep in mind that bitcoin is around for a little bit more than a decade which is nothing really for something so innovative and first of its kind. And more merchants adopt Lightning day by day. It's inevitable to succeed as a currency, given that the people will have understood the utility. What's concerning me is if most merchants will have understood self-custody or will they just embed a BitPay or Coinbase API which will ask for KYC and other such nonsense. It's not just having global adoption or not, but broader than that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
