If you like this, please also upvote me on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2wuybh/inflationbased_economy_is_essentially_a_scam/---------------------------------------------- Think about it for a minute, here are some arguments: How inflationary economics works: 1. Value of the currency falls -> Saving under the mattress is not feasible -> So we make deposit at a bank 2. Because you cannot save under the mattress, you need a loan to invest -> You go to a bank 3. Because of taking more and more loans ( see: Money creation, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8 ), a never ending and self-sustaining debt is created in the system. You cannot ever completely repay this debt and it creates otherwise senseless investments aimed at repaying the debt -> Bank benefits 4. Because the money keeps losing value, you have to spend it -> This creates stupid, otherwise pointless consumption and production of goods & services, that are not really needed. Cui bono ? Who benefits ? Banks of course. However it works completely different a world based on deflationary economics: 1. Value of the currency rises -> Saving under the mattress is a valid way to make money -> Bank loses 2. Taking loans is not viable, because you would have to give back more in goods & services (+ interest) than you loaned -> Bank loses 3. Investments can be financed from savings, not loans -> Bank loses 4. Because money keep getting more value, it is not profittable to invest in weak buisnesses and buying things that you don't really need (it's better to keep the money under mattress) -> This lowers the amount of mindless consumption and increases investments into technologies that make real difference and bigger profits. Who benefits ? Everyone except banks and over-hyped companies. So IMO not only the deflation-based economy decreases banks' power over people, but it also shifts investments from focusing on mindless consumption gadgets into creating real change and things that matter. Maybe the time for this centuries-old scam to end is now. |
|
|
|
Is work still being done on this fork?
=squeak=
The latest official v10.0.0 makes 0 fee txs easy. I think this was the only difference on this fork? I am currently reviewing if it is still necessary to maintain this fork as Bitcoin Core 0.10 has a new, improved fee selection UI. Perhaps i will request my code being merged into the Bitcoin Core mainline, since now it could be easily done. Stay tuned. |
|
|
|
Maximum supported users based on transaction frequency.
Assumptions: 1MB block, 821 bytes per txn
Throughput: 2.03 tps, 64,000,000 transactions annually
Total # Transactions per Transaction
direct users user annually Frequency
<8,000 8760 Once an hour
178,000 365 Once a day
500,000 128 A few (2.4) times a week
1,200,000 52 Once a week
2,600,000 24 Twice a month
5,300,000 12 Once a month
16,000,000 4 Once a quarter
64,000,000 1 Once a year
200,000,000 0.3 Less than once every few years
1,000,000,000 0.06 Less than once a decade
As you can see even with an average transaction frequency of just once a week or once a month the network can't support more than a token number of users. When someone advocates a permanent cap of 1MB what they are saying is I think Bitcoin will be great if it is never used by more than a couple million users making less than one transaction per month. Such a system will never flourish as a store of value as it is eclipsed by alternatives which are more inclusive. To support even 100 million direct users making an average of one transaction every two weeks would require a throughput of 82 tps and an average block size of 20 to 40 Megabytes. This. This is excellent. Good work on explaining it this way. With this post, you have done a great deed to support the Bitcoin long-term. |
|
|
|
New versions of OpenSSL such as 1.0.0Q and 1.0.0L came out.
Are they affected by the bug ?
All new versions of OpenSSL for the foreseeable future will be affected. They don't see it as a bug, as they never guaranteed consensus compatibility. Oh, that is just beautiful. We're working on a 0.9.5 (and 0.10 of course) that will softfork to make us independent of OpenSSL so this can never happen again. See sipa's proposal at http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06744.htmlYeah, I already know about this. Good work, guys. (Yes - you too, Luke - even though i really hate your Gentoo patches). |
|
|
|
New versions of OpenSSL such as 1.0.0Q and 1.0.0L came out.
Are they affected by the bug ?
All new versions of OpenSSL for the foreseeable future will be affected. They don't see it as a bug, as they never guaranteed consensus compatibility. Oh, that is just beautiful. |
|
|
|
|
New versions of OpenSSL such as 1.0.0Q and 1.0.0L came out.
Are they affected by the bug ?
|
|
|
|
|
Somebody knows ETA of a fix coming out ?
|
|
|
|
Faced with compromised hardware and Ken Thompson hacks and panopticon-style electronic spying, can anyone offer any suggestions on how to at least somewhat mitigate these threats? Besides boycotting the bad actors, what particular companies or products or organizations should one support? I know RMS uses a mips lenovo laptop with gnewsense, but that's not a feasible solution to most individuals or companies, including mine. What realistic and pragmatic alternatives should I consider?
From hardware side: - No Lenovo or HP laptops - No Intel (take AMD) - If you already have intel (i do too, unfortunately), install a non-Intel networking card - Install OpenWrt in your router. But first, buy only routers that support OpenWrt. List: http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/startIf you adhere to above rules, there probability of attack should be diminished by something around 99,9% (lucky guess). Also, if you have Windows + Intel, you are pretty much screwed up. Linux does not have driver support for activating of Intel AMT from EXEcutable file, so it is relatively safe to run binaries not worrying that some of them will contain a trojan which will install itself into AMT. Remember: Intel AMT has its own memory and can run code ! Its a PC within your PCFrom social side: I have no idea. But i will look it up sooner or later. |
|
|
|
You must be an Intel fanboy, because you are fucking useless. Try reading sources before commenting, because you sound as truly and completely half-wit person.
- It has been already proven by a security researcher that the feature is NOT completely disabled after switching it off in BIOS
- There is currently no way to completely disable the feature in a way which can be verified
- There is currently NO way to reverse engineer what exactly is the AMT even doing, because it's all encrypted to the fucking root
Please fix yourself and be smarter, because i really fucking hate talking to stupid people.
Who is this so called 'security researcher' and why should I trust him? Whos to say that he's not an AMD fanboy? Please provide links from multiple sources. This one: http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2013/08/thoughts-on-intels-upcoming-software.htmlAnother (trying to hack it): [PDF] https://ruxconbreakpoint.com/assets/2014/slides/bpx-Breakpoint%202014%20Skochinsky.pdfIt is currently widely known - so it is not a secret known only to tinfoil-hats. However, nobody cares (or too many people have Intel onboard, so they don't want to believe). |
|
|
|
I know how to check openssl version, question was about bitcoin-qt binary package from ppa
Just open the debug window and you will see what version of OpenSSL the executable was linked against. Kind of makes me glad I haven't bothered upgrading openssl in some time.
*blank stare* Like you said, there is LibreSSL.  Not stable or tested enough yet. People, stop suggesting LibreSSL. One can seriously fuck up his/hers system by replacing a core library by an unstable solution. Once LibreSSL is proven not to be dangerous, it can be used instead of OpenSSL |
|
|
|
AMT isn't new (been around for a couple of years). It's a feature for management. Not that complicated. Of course you should have freaking access. Ever heard of Wake on LAN? Seriously. It's like you guys have never even looked at enterprise management for systems. You have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody should have access to my machine without me knowing AND without me having the ability to disable it. AND i should always know exactly what my machine is doing, creating another PC within my PC that is separate and not under my control is simply UNACCEPTABLE from security standpoint. This is just Intel creating a trojan in all machines which either will be or already is being used by somebody to hack you. End of story. Shut the fuck up. Seriously. Obviously, YOU have no idea of what you're talking about. To get 0-level access, you already NEED that level access from the start. Chips don't ship enabled. You can turn off the feature in most modern day BIOSes. You must be an Intel fanboy, because you are fucking useless. Try reading sources before commenting, because you sound as truly and completely half-wit person. - It has been already proven by a security researcher that the feature is NOT completely disabled after switching it off in BIOS- There is currently no way to completely disable the feature in a way which can be verified - There is currently NO way to reverse engineer what exactly is the AMT even doing, because it's all encrypted to the fucking root Please fix yourself and be smarter, because i really fucking hate talking to stupid people. |
|
|
|
AMT isn't new (been around for a couple of years). It's a feature for management. Not that complicated. Of course you should have freaking access. Ever heard of Wake on LAN? Seriously. It's like you guys have never even looked at enterprise management for systems. You have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody should have access to my machine without me knowing AND without me having the ability to disable it. AND i should always know exactly what my machine is doing, creating another PC within my PC that is separate and not under my control is simply UNACCEPTABLE from security standpoint. This is just Intel creating a trojan in all machines which either will be or already is being used by somebody to hack you. End of story. |
|
|
|
|
This is serious.
Anybody knows when is a patch coming ?
|
|
|
|
So Intel = Skynet?
Intel = NSANet Waaaw this is really interest information i heard 2015 . i didn't think that technology is so so developped like this
Intel core 2 duo E6750 is this safe for old CPU like mine ? or almost intel CPU > 2005 NOT safe ?
Intel CPUs/MBs older than 2011 are probably completely safe. However, the worst part is - we cannot actually be sure. Intel has hard-wired code in all motherboards supporting their CPUs and nobody knows what the code is or what it does. It is completely encypted and has strong DRM. This is not the work of an honest company. This is an obviously evil plot. |
|
|
|
So what is your suggestion then? Should i build my own CPU from my own transistors and mine the silicon myself? I don't know what you should do, but I am surely stopping buying anything from Intel. Too bad I already bought 2 intel motherboards lately. Well, it would be a big waste of money and time to sell them and buy new ones, so i will be installing non-intel network cards on these while leaving the built-ins unused - that will at least protect me from remote hack. Still, i need to be careful when downloading *.exe files from internet, because any of them could be a rootkit. Lucky for me, I don't use Windows too much (maybe just for selected games), so that is not a big problem. |
|
|
|
This is all just fantasy. Until someone actually does it, I won't believe it.
Too late. Look at the AMT Wikipedia article from the OP, it's been demonstrated about 2011 I think (although the specific flaw that team discovered was patched in more recent chipsets). Yep, AMT was already hacked once, but Intel quickly patched the hole. But since we have no way of knowing what resides in that special, hidden, encrypted, DRMed software in Intel's AMT, anything could be in there. And you can be sure that NSA will put their nasty fingers in it sooner or later (if it hasn't already). Intel has just created grounds for domination of permanently NSA-FBI-CIA-rootkited hardware on the market (since most M/B chips are Intel's anyway). And their backdoor is extremely sophiscticated, there is nothing else close to it on the consumer & server market. Intel cannot be trusted anymore. |
|
|
|
publish the sources and private keys So the malicious hacker out there gets the power to take full control of any average users pc? Still better than waiting for unknown hacker to steal the key and do the same in secrecy ? Once sources and keys are published, the AMTs in Intel chipsets can be patched (and disabled) by the Open Source community. Now it is not even possible to fix the problem. Also, we don't really know what the embedded code actually does, since it is not open source. |
|
|
|
This was discussed before and i forgot the relevant information about it.
It has to first be set up before it works like that. That is, if you mean the tool designed for system admins.
To sum it up you're not really in danger.
That is not true. Any Windows application which contains proper Intel's keys and SGX code can activate the mechanism. So it is essentially only necessary to make you download an *.exe file, which will activate AMT and install rootkit into it. It's a beefed-up version of SONY's rootkit. But this time you have no way of detecting, controlling or removing it. What's even better is that you have really no way of detecting what is inside of the *.exe ! The content of the application is completely encypted ! Isn't it simply beautifully fucked up ?Source: http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2013/09/thoughts-on-intels-upcoming-software.htmlIntel has all of us royally screwed over. I would advise against buying *ANYTHING* from Intel, until they publish the sources and private keys or abolish AMT alltogether. |
|
|
|
At least we still safe right now if we completely turned off our computers
And is encrypt our files still can protect it ?
Simply encrypting anything won't work. The Intel AMT's processor has full access to everything your normal CPU has. And it has higher privileges ! As previously stated, using a non-Intel network card inserted into PCI/PCIe slot should at least disable the possibility of remote activation. However, once somebody working for NSA/CIA/FBI/other TLAs stays with your machine in the same room, you have to essentially throw the mainboard away, as there is absolutely no way of either detecting or disabling a rootkit once it is installed in Intel's AMT. A rootkit can be installed via USB for example. USB is vulnerable - regardless of what operating system you are running. |
|
|
|
|
My reddit thread got silent-removed even though i had like 50 upvotes ?
How the hell does reddit moderation work ?
Should I start to believe in reddit conspiracies or something ?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
