Bitcoin Forum
May 19, 2024, 08:01:24 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Bitcoin is not going to mainstream. on: December 10, 2010, 05:48:42 PM
Look, how the would be National Processing System was lobbyed to the death in Russia.

First, thanks wikileaks, http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2010/02/10MOSCOW228.html

The rest of the story is
English: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-mastercard
or
Russian: http://www.gazeta.ru/financial/2010/12/09/3460325.shtml

Okay, Bitcoin is not going to be someone's National Card Processing System, but just read that:
Quote
COMMENT -------

8.(C)  This draft law continues to disadvantage U.S. payment card market leaders Visa and MasterCard, whether they join the National Payment Card System or not.  If they join, the NPCS operator will collect the fees, leaving them to collect processing fees only when card-holders travel abroad -- a tiny section of the market.  If they do not join but choose to compete with NPCS cards, they will have to set up payment processing centers in Russia, a very large investment in itself, and compete against a system likely backed by the largest Russian state banks.  While the draft legislation has yet to be submitted to the Duma and can still be amended, post will continue to raise our concerns with senior GOR officials.  We recommend that senior USG officials also take advantage of meetings with their Russian counterparts, including through the Bilateral Presidential Commission, to press the GOR to change the draft text to ensure U.S. payment companies are not adversely affected.  END COMMENT.  Beyrle
And they did "press the GovernmentOfRussia to change the draft".
And there is not going to be such thing, like Russian NPCS.

Pushing everyone else to:
  • not accept Bitcoin
  • not transfer money to or from Bitcoin exchanges
would be no difference to "the system", like pushing the "GOR".
It would be easy to ask (push) PayPal or Webmoney or whoever big enough to add a statement about Bitcoin into their "rules of acceptable use" to make it unacceptable use.

And that will marginalize Bitcoin immediately.
So, you still asking "but why would 'the system' start doing that?"
You asking?..


2  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Where is the separate discussion devoted to possible Bitcoin weaknesses. on: August 11, 2010, 03:45:42 PM
Just to be able to ask "What if ...?" and have all ideas collected in one place.

For example.

It seems, that a generating node does not need to receive all that transactions at all.
The only data it needs is the previous block hash.
Right?

Next.
It is possible to connect to almost every publicly accessible node, right?
We can collect their addresses and establish connections to almost all of them.
And send them all the data we want.
Like fake (or not so) transactions in huge volumes.
What if it is possible to throttle their generating capability by forcing them to receive and verify
very large amounts of (possibly invalid) transactions (or perhaps another trash)?

If that is true, then we can lower the difficulty, right?
Just do this for a long period of time.
When it lowers to an acceptable for our supercomputer (botnet) value,
we may connect it to the network, but not directly.
Connect it via special node, that does forward messages in a special way, to filter the trash data we are still flooding.
So, the supercomputer will receive the blocks and will participate in generation, the others will be flooded and will get
only a small portion of generated BTCs.

Then, if we are not interested in generated BTCs, we may start generating a blockchain fork.
Immediately after the difficulty drops, we start to generate alternative version of blockchain in a isolated environment.
Since difficulty does not change immediately, we can try to outperform the rest of the network, while they are chewing our
trash data. Fast enough we present everybody with the longest chain, but then the difficulty raises back.
By doing this  it is possible to wipe our previous spend transactions, if they are made after the blockchain fork.
So, is it possible that we recover them and get back unspent transactions? And spend them again?
How will previous transactions incorporate into the new blockchain if they were "respent" in that manner?

And then it can be repeated.
If I'm wrong, just say: "you are wrong".
But you may also give me a hint why.
3  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / What could be the transition plan to Y2038 compliant Bitcoin? (it already is) on: August 09, 2010, 12:25:35 PM
Or will it suddenly die then?
4  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Is Bitcoin that really decentralized, as you believe? on: July 23, 2010, 12:20:16 PM
Everyone here believes, that Bitcoin system is fully decentralised and is not
affected by any authority.

Almost everyone at this forum understand, that bitcoin nodes work by some rules and
the nodes, that do not obey that rules are simply ignored.

Well. Then I have a question.

We have a single authority, that provided that rules, right?
The same authority is in the posession of the majority of the nodes, as far, as they update to new versions of the software.
Right?

So, we have a single center, that not only presented us The Idea, The Rules, The Standard, The Protocols, The Software - in the past,
but can and will inevitable change the rules, the standarts, the protocols and the software.
Well, software may be reimplemented by the third parties, that is a not a problem.

But the rules? The nodes, that do not obey The Rules are ignored, remember?
One single center have the freedom to manipulate the rules.

Who is the center? Is it a person, or just an account on a hosting? I think, that accessing an account will be enough to manipulate the system.
So, the system is as secure/vulnerable, as the hosting account used to distribute the software, or what?
Your money is as secure as some hosting? OMG...
Pages: [1]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!