Could classify it as a "social attack", via price manipulation algos on centralised exchanges. This also explains the flood of scamcoin pushers showing up and disrupting our Bitcoin meetups. |
|
|
|
|
Didn't Russia just propose banning Bitcoin?
I can see that might worry people on btc-e.
|
|
|
|
Not sure but I'd imagine the exchange does settlements each block, the orders and matching is internal and the final settlements happen every 10 min or so. That would probably need contracts for the fiat side and should be able to expand to contracts for both sides to allow trading of regular stocks in the same way, the trades are settled with verifiable contracts recorded in the blockchain.
EDIT: Multisig would allow users to withdraw coins only with the exchanges sig (and the exchange to move funds only with the users sig), if the exchange disappears then the timelock function would allow users to access their wallets without needing the exchanges sig after a time value, maybe 30 days for example.
This is too vague to answer the questions, but I'll go with it anyway. How do you suppose this "every 10 minute settlement" would work? To illustrate one potential problem, let's add another detail to the example: 3a: Alice immediately goes offline after placing the limit buy order (so she's not available to sign any transactions). |
|
|
|
I understand how timelocked refunds can make privacy-destroying tracking wallets like GreenAddress unable to steal deposits, to better convince users to voluntarily submit to the Panopticon. I don't see any way at all they can be useful for an exchange, nor have I ever heard a satisfactory explanation. Example: 1. Alices wires $1000 to Mt Gox, and receives credit for this deposit in her account. 2. Bob deposits 1 BTC to a 2-of-2 multisig address negotiated with Mt Gox with a time-locked refund and receives credit for the deposit in his account. 3. Alice places a limit buy order for 1 BTC @ $1000 4. Bob places a market sell order for 1 BTC. 5. Bob's BTC balances is now 0 and his USD balance is $1000 6. Alice's BTC balance is now 1 and her USD balance is $0 What's the state of the time-locked refund transaction? If it changed at some point in this procedure, where and how did it change? Did any step 3-6 need to be delayed in order to wait for blockchain confirmations of a new transaction? Do Alice and Bob have equal protection against BTC loss throughout the entire procedure? |
|
|
|
the trick will be to implement a JS multi-sig wallet so that the site itself never handles users funds and escrow is done with the multi-sig by the users themselves, in fact the multi sig wallet generated and signed by the participants should be temporary wallets that will unlock and forward the funds directly to the merchants personal secure wallet solution of choice, after the required n of m signateurs fulfill the contract, implemented is a straightforward easy way for users. Multisig is not the panacea everybody is making it out to be. |
|
|
|
It has been longer than any other bear market in bitcoin's entire 5-year history.
not sure how you are counting. BTC hit $32 on june 2011. It only hit that mark again on february 2013, 620 days later. It has been around 300 days since last ATH. Math isn't his strong point... |
|
|
|
This is all that is needed for distributed consensus in most tightly coupled distributed systems. Maybe this would be better written as: "This is all that is needed for consensus in systems where one entity exercises control over all portions of the distributed system." When Amazon builds a distributed system where they own all the pieces, that's one problem. When a group of independent actors are trying to build a distributed system to agree on something, when anyone is free to join or depart at any time, and no actors may be treated as privileged or trusted, the problem is just a little bit harder. |
|
|
|
What about antimalware/antiviruses programs like Norton,kaspersky,avira.Mc affee?
Could they detect those malicious software,when they are widespread and known ?
No. USB firmware exploits happen outside the control of the CPU and any software that may be running on it. For now, you should probably use CD-Rs to move unsigned transactions across the air gap discard them after each use. There might not be any exploitable CD drive firmware vulnerabilities that can be triggered by malicious data on a disc. Maybe. |
|
|
|
All of financial history is littered with powerful demonstrations of how capital seeks the best form of money necessary to route around friction, capital controls, bad laws, regulatory overreach and capture. The crescendo of complexity of all these friction-inducing factors building in the current financial system makes Bitcoin inevitable. In fact, the harder they try to stop it the more desirable it will become to the market.
In the same way that they are trying to outlaw privacy on your computing devices, such that any sane individual becomes a criminal, then an effective outlawing of financial privacy will make all users of good money criminals. At that point, nobody has anything to lose by disregarding the financial regulations and bitcoin is the most frictionless way to route around a damaged, overly-complex failing system, to date.
...and that's the difference between people who are in this to make a quick buck, and people who are in this to build the tools that serve the future in which we want to live. |
|
|
|
Most people I know believe money can only be defined by a government and only functions if it is "managed" by a central body with the power to "expand supply to grow with the economy". (Nevermind this is never actually implemented in practice.) And so refuse to trust in anything else. Most people know more about how electricity works than they understand how money works (this includes the people who issue and control the money). We know that electricity works in spite of how few people understand it. Bitcoin will be the same. It will be adopted because it works long before people really understand how and why it works. |
|
|
|
|
I tried, but the only reward for reporting is to see accuracy slowly drift lower point by point.
|
|
|
|
|
I managed to create a situation where Armory 0.92.1 will perform a full blockchain scan every time the program is loaded.
I run bitcoind on a different (virtual) machine than Armory.
When I use NFS to share the blockchain directory, everything works.
Since both the bitcoind VM and the Armory VM are running on the same host, I tried moving the blockchain directory to the host and sharing it with both via 9pfs. The bitcoind VM gets read-write access, and the Armory VM gets read-only access.
Armory will perform a successful scan of the blockchain.
When I close it and open it up again, I get a
"Block file is in the wrong network! MagicBytes: 00000000" error and it starts over from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
frank1 got it right too. The only disagreement I have with frank1's posts regards the definition of scam. It's not an immediate, or maybe not even a premeditated, scam. It's something more subtle: "you can trust us to hold your bitcoins." Anybody who makes that claim is perpetuating a future scam, whether or not they intend or know this. |
|
|
|
also, i think your statement is only stronger b/c you left out the word "may", whereas i intentionally include it as i can't be totally sure.
That is precisely why it is stronger. Given that we know the BGP is mathematically unsolvable, I'm sure we can't do better than an economic solution. |
|
|
|
|
Troll/disruption activity seems to be in an increase recently.
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever happens to Circle, just remember this:
If you decide to use them to buy bitcoins, always immediately withdraw those bitcoins to a real wallet.
Same thing applies to any other service of this kind.
|
|
|
|
"The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money". I think you can make an even stronger statement: "A distributed consensus ledger can only survive if it is successful as money." Note that Bitcoin did not solve the Byzantine Generals Problem because that problem is unsolvable. Bitcoin made it so that any successful attack is uneconomical. That only works if bitcoins are valued as money. This means anything that tries to replace Bitcoin's functionality will either do so by being better money or else won't be a distributed consensus ledger. |
|
|
|
More BTC that's now worth less. More BTC that is temporarily trading at a lower price. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
