|
so in your opinion, no merchants should be using it until it reaches 1.something?
you seem to be getting a bit agitated, or at least that's how i'm reading the sarcastic part of your response about alternate universes, and i'm not sure why. aren't these the type of conversations that happen in open source projects, within the community, that strengthen the project? i make no qualms about the fact that i'm still new to bitcoin and learning. maybe this doesn't have the same dynamic as many of the more successful open source projects?
you put a lot of time and effort into bitcoin. i understand and appreciate that, but bitcoin belongs to the community. some individuals, like yourself, are more important to bitcoin then others, like myself, but without community support and involvement, its just a bunch of fancy math.
|
|
|
|
|
thank your for the thorough response.
when confronted with a classic conflict in programming, between security and user convenience, you chose convenience.
there are merits to both choices. users are very used to entering passwords, and somehow manage to stay on top of them. if they choose a crappy one and it gets cracked, or if they choose a crazy one and forget it, thats on the user, not on bitcoin. my only comment is that bitcoin is not offering the most secure implementation it can. the fact that its a conscious decision doesn't change that.
|
|
|
|
i'm sorry if expecting the most security possibly from a piece of financial software is a bore to you.
Actually, it is already available - run it in Linux, where viruses are statistically less prevalent, and you are automagically protected against several attack vectors. If you can't detect the keylogger until it grabs your password, it is already too late. maybe you can explain the justification for not encrypting the wallet by default? and while i understand what your saying, the worm was identified and antivirus definitions updated to deal with it. if you hadn't input your password between infection and identification/update, then you wouldn't have lost any coins. |
|
|
|
Copying a file on a computer is not Bitcoin weakness. It's user fault for having an infected computer.
If my computer is infected everything is weak, i type a password and the virus read it for example.
the fact that the official bitcoin client stores the wallet in a vulnerable manner by default is indeed a weakness. So since the password for an encrypted wallet can be grabbed by a keylogger, that is a vulnerability caused by the core dev team in the official client? Honestly, you bore me. i'm sure you can see the difference between offering no protection, and offering the best protection you can reasonably be expected to offer. inorder for the keylogger to be effective, it would have to remain undetected on the infected system until the person used their private key. the fact that not everyone inputs their private key often, would allow time for detection and sanitation. i'm sure many of the wallets that were stolen would have been saved if encryption was in place by default. i'm sorry if expecting the most security possibly from a piece of financial software is a bore to you. |
|
|
|
Copying a file on a computer is not Bitcoin weakness. It's user fault for having an infected computer.
If my computer is infected everything is weak, i type a password and the virus read it for example.
the fact that the official bitcoin client stores the wallet in a vulnerable manner by default is indeed a weakness. |
|
|
|
Lategan explains that Bitcoin, a fast-growing global digital currency that resides solely in the cloud, has already been the victim of attacks. Lol i missed that before. Bitcoin has been the victim? Didn't know linode=bitcoin.  And they want to find weaknesses in SHA256? Maybe it's SHA256 but they refer to AES seeing the mistakes they make you could argue that the worm stealing wallets was a direct attack on bitcoin. They didn't break the protocol. no, but they exposed a weakness in the default client which is provided by the core dev team. |
|
|
|
Lategan explains that Bitcoin, a fast-growing global digital currency that resides solely in the cloud, has already been the victim of attacks. Lol i missed that before. Bitcoin has been the victim? Didn't know linode=bitcoin. And they want to find weaknesses in SHA256? Maybe it's SHA256 but they refer to AES seeing the mistakes they make you could argue that the worm stealing wallets was a direct attack on bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Good Luck, Why does BFL always wish me good luck? [insert joke about bfl delivery here] |
|
|
|
What is Visa?
its what good looking russian women use to come to the US.  |
|
|
|
|
where does the idea that satoshi has 1m coins come from?
|
|
|
|
|
why would we discourage established companies from becoming involved with bitcoin? we should support ALL bitcoin endeavors that push it to a wider audience, not just those who are part of the inner circle.
|
|
|
|
|
the guy himself said its just a scratch in the paint, not a deep rooted issue.
|
|
|
|
|
any vulnerability can and will be verified. why are so many so quick to write this off? just because he works for a bank?
|
|
|
|
TL/DR version:
If BTC cost is 1000x higher than VISA cost then BTC is dead now, so uninstall the client. VISA gross profit margin is 28%. Thus the cost to users is ~4x their cost. If BTC cost is 1000x higher then BTC ultimate cost to users would be 250x what VISA cost is. Kinda hard to attract users to that. The reality is BTC cost is a tiny fraction of VISA once the network is "fully grown".
i think mining will become cost ineffective for the average joe long before that. i imagine if bitcoin were to grow to these levels, corporate mining will come into play, and most likely exchanges and particularly bitcoin payment processor companies will have a large portion of the mining infrastructure for additional profit, fast proliferation of transactions, and security. |
|
|
|
nice product, but the fees are...wow.
50% on a 1 BTC card
10% on a 5 BTC card
5% on a 10 BTC card
2.5% on a 20 BTC card (reasonable)
So the fee about $2.50 including shipping. You think that is high? I personally would avoid the 1 BTC one but the others are priced quite nicely. yes, for what i imagine will be a regular white envelope and a normal stamp, i think its high. your breakdown only works if your going to buy one card. the fee doesn't come down if i buy a handful. the "free" shipping would be $20 for 4 cards, and i imagine they'll still ship in that same white envelope with the same stamp. |
|
|
|
I like this project and I would love to contribute. I design circuit boards for an Aviation/Oilfield computer company and they allow me to use my Altium Designer Summer 09 Seat for personal projects. PM me if you would like to chat.
nothing stopping you from starting your own project i don't think. open source it, and everyone benefits. make the improvements you see fit, maybe incorporating some of the expandability wishlist. i'm looking for something that has a good ROI, that i can contract to be manufactured for my personal use. any design i end up using, i will donate to. |
|
|
|
|
nice product, but the fees are...wow.
50% on a 1 BTC card
10% on a 5 BTC card
5% on a 10 BTC card
2.5% on a 20 BTC card (reasonable)
|
|
|
|
|
cool. i didn't look in the project dev sub forum. guess this thread can be binned then, although i think it deserves a wider audience than what it will find in that sub forum.
|
|
|
|
|
to be honest, that's the biggest concern i have with BFL. not the very short warranty, not any scam concerns, not the glaring lack of pony, but the fact that they require full payment for a product they won't deliver for an extended time after receiving full payment.
almost every analog i can think of, takes a deposit, but doesn't require full payment until the product is ready to ship. sure some take incremental payments (generally at pre-established milestones), but again, final payment isn't due until the project/product is ready for delivery.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
