That was exactly my first thought, but I now think the idea is doable. I think it can be done if there is a trusted third party.
The trusted third party manufactures devices that can communicate with each other securely to transfer dollars between them. The device would also need to have a way to prove that it is authentic. Of course, the device would need to be tamper-proof. It is assumed that the device won't send more dollars than it has, and it correctly credits dollars that it receives and debits dollars that it sends.
if its just about having a trusted device manufacturer. and not where the value needs a trusted third party multisig co-signer to validate the value at its creation. then thats flawed first lets deal with the hardware trust... ever heard of card cloning. even mastercard cant solve card cloning. ... I'm not talking about a credit card. I'm thinking of a device like a hardware wallet with private keys that cannot be extracted from the device. point is...... you dont need to extract the private key If a device must use a private key to prove its authenticity, then you need the private key. |
|
|
|
That was exactly my first thought, but I now think the idea is doable. I think it can be done if there is a trusted third party.
The trusted third party manufactures devices that can communicate with each other securely to transfer dollars between them. The device would also need to have a way to prove that it is authentic. Of course, the device would need to be tamper-proof. It is assumed that the device won't send more dollars than it has, and it correctly credits dollars that it receives and debits dollars that it sends.
if its just about having a trusted device manufacturer. and not where the value needs a trusted third party multisig co-signer to validate the value at its creation. then thats flawed first lets deal with the hardware trust... ever heard of card cloning. even mastercard cant solve card cloning. ... I'm not talking about a credit card. I'm thinking of a device like a hardware wallet with private keys that cannot be extracted from the device. It seems to ignore the whole double spend problem lol, or I guess in this case the create free money problem. As soon as people became able to hack these devices they could presumably load them up with as much money as they want,
If implemented, this will definitely end up being half-offline half-online. Meaning you pay with your offline device but the receiver has to connect to their centralized server and check if you have real balance then accept the payment  The receiver doesn't have to check anything if the sender is not capable of sending more than it holds and communication between sender and receiver is secure. |
|
|
|
new address for me ...
If you want people to believe that, then you should sign it with 3GmamfBzmhcSa2jixAV8dQnuJmm3zbJ7pM. |
|
|
|
yeah exactly. I don't think you can solve double spend offline. Hence, Bitcoin.
...
That was exactly my first thought, but I now think the idea is doable. I think it can be done if there is a trusted third party. The trusted third party manufactures devices that can communicate with each other securely to transfer dollars between them. The device would also need to have a way to prove that it is authentic. Of course, the device would need to be tamper-proof. It is assumed that the device won't send more dollars than it has, and it correctly credits dollars that it receives and debits dollars that it sends. But as I pointed out, once people are able to hack the device it's game over. Hence this sort of system is dead on arrival. The security of the monetary system in such a setup revolves around the device security. It is not a wise thing to base the security of a monetary system on the security of a device. All devices are hackable. The fiat banking system solved this by have a large, expensive, slow network of verifying organizations. Bitcoin solved this by having a network of proper incentives. Relying on devices not being hacked is not a solution to the problem. ... I agree that the system's security depends on device security, but I'm not convinced that it means that it is DOA. Are hardware wallets DOA? The security of the bitcoins in a hardware wallet depends completely on the device's security. Anyway, I am not an expert. Those are just my thoughts. |
|
|
|
Paul Tang, a member of the E.U. Parliament, believes that paying in cash should require information about the sender and the receiver, just like bank transfers.
Would he also say that? |
|
|
|
yeah exactly. I don't think you can solve double spend offline. Hence, Bitcoin.
...
That was exactly my first thought, but I now think the idea is doable. I think it can be done if there is a trusted third party. The trusted third party manufactures devices that can communicate with each other securely to transfer dollars between them. The device would also need to have a way to prove that it is authentic. Of course, the device would need to be tamper-proof. It is assumed that the device won't send more dollars than it has, and it correctly credits dollars that it receives and debits dollars that it sends. I think that is all it takes. |
|
|
|
The human voter must solve a puzzle only a human can solve within reasonable time.
...
Also, you must consider the problem of a human solving more than one puzzle and the problem of one human solving another human's puzzle. That is the most difficult part. You will need to solve it before considering anything else. |
|
|
|
|
A CBDC is just another I-can-make-a-better-bitcoin project. It is not surprising. Everybody goes through this phase in their Bitcoin journey. This one is no different except that it is a government project. It is a farce, and it will fail in the end.
Why is it a farce? The goal of a CBDC would be to make the financial system more efficient, and that efficiency gain would come from the removal of banks from the process. However, the banks run the financial system and they not going to participate in their own demise.
You can see this in the Federal Reserve's recent paper on CBDCs. In it, they give banks a central, yet mostly undefined, role in the system. In the end, the paper describes something that is indistinguishable from the current system. It is no wonder that the Federal Reserve lacks interest. They cannot imagine a system in which banks play a minor role at best. It is a farce.
However, although a CBDC cannot ultimately deliver a more efficient and effective financial system, it can deliver a more efficient and effective system of control and subjugation. It gives the government the ability to surveil and control the smallest details of each and every person's lives. Ultimately, that must the true goal of a CBDC because that is it's only value.
A real alternative to a bank-run financial system can come only from outside the banking system. This means a corporate attempt at usurping the role of banks or a decentralized grass-roots revolution such as Bitcoin. We have seen what happens when corporations try to revolutionize the financial system -- they are either assimilated by the banking Borg, as in the case of Paypal, or they are beaten down by government lackeys, as in the case of Facebook. Only Bitcoin can stand up to the banking system and its government minions.
|
|
|
|
|
A link to the source and information about how to submit comments would be helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
Just a note: The block reward is the amount sent to the miner's address in the coinbase transaction. It consists of the subsidy (currently 6.25 BTC) plus the sum of the fees.
People frequently refer to the subsidy as the block reward because fees are generally a small fraction, but that will eventually change as the subsidy goes to 0 and miners continue to receive a block reward.
|
|
|
|
1. Halving is done in other to increase the demand for bitcoin at all economic levels. This is wrong.BTC halving is done in order to decrease the supply of BTC,not to increase the demand for BTC. ... The halvings do not decrease the supply. The supply is always increasing towards 21 million. I appreciate your opinion and what i meant in saying Halving is done in other to increase demand for bitcoin is that logically in economics when we have an increase in demand then there must have been a decrease in supply leading to that,
An increase in demand does not require a decrease in supply. Supply and demand are generally independent curves. And again, the halvings do not decrease the supply. |
|
|
|
|
Paper BTC is a possibility, but paper USDT doesn't make sense because we already have paper dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
One of the major benefits of a hardware wallet is that it is portable, and you can safely plug it into any computer.
|
|
|
|
So if I change any word in seed it will become invalid, which will give hacker a clue that this seed is modified in some way. Here comes my question if hacker would want to figure out correct seed and he would assume that one of the word is incorrect, how difficult it would be to figure out which word is to be replaced and which word to use instead? It is possible to determine if from checksum word directly or is the brute force the only way?
if he would need to brute force it, what is the complexity of finding one random word anywhere in the phrase?
I saw this interesting article about figuring our last 4 missing words by brute force which took about one day to find complete seed. But this is slightly different mathematical issue.
So, if you changed one word in a 12-word phrase, an attacker that knows this would only have to try 12276 possibilities (12 x 1023). I think that would probably take less than a second, so the checksum isn't really a factor. A better solution would be to use a bip-39 password that is kept separate from the seed phrase. |
|
|
|
And he was able to stay silent for exactly 4 days. On December 17, 2010 a man named Peter Wuille created his bitcoin talk account. He is a member of the bitcoin development team and always has been. He arrived in the forum out of seemingly thin air and jumped right into the thick of things and has been there ever since.
That's not a very strong argument. 186 people joined Bitcointalk between December 10 and when Peter Wuille joined, and by your logic, any of those people could be satoshi. Furthermore, you are assuming that satoshi created an account after he said goodbye. If he was planning on switching to a new account, it would also make sense that he created the new account before his post, perhaps even months ahead of time. |
|
|
|
|
One weird possibility is that the "\B" of "Bitcoin" is being interpreted as a backspace (0x08) and "\n" of "newwallet" is being interpreted as a new line (0x0a).
I don't know how you manage your settings, but perhaps make sure you are not referring to your folders as "\bitcoin" or "\newwallet". Also, perhaps try using forward slash "/" instead of "\" in the paths.
|
|
|
|
|
One example of how Bitcoin runs into this issue is the fact that a legacy transaction's signature is part of the transaction, so it must be explicitly excluded from the signature's calculation.
|
|
|
|
|
Mining bitcoins on a PC is a waste of time.
|
|
|
|
Fantasy: Reality:  Success:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
