But what about addresses and corresponded coins? Correct me if not, but so far the need to move coins from current legacy address is to avoid a grab from the collider (?). And sha/ecdsa transition seems like kinda same case, but multiplied to unspeakable scale)))
i can't think of a way that any problem with SHA would affect existing coins. any vulnerability in SHA mostly affects mining and the usage of dSHA256 in signing could simply be replaced with another algorithm (so it will affect OP_CHECK(MULTI)SIG(VERIFY) OP codes) without having to move the coins (OP_HASH160 remains the same though). but this is all just theory, the actual issue greatly affects how we should move forward. Theres been tons of articles in recent years with a common topic that due low price in first 10 years total amount of coins without accessible privatekey became a holding factor) Thats probably why other projects started to massively "burn" coins to stronger the market for remained circulation.
in early years people were experimenting a lot on mainnet which is why there are some burnt coins. nowadays they experiment on testnet mostly. the "other projects" that burn coins are doing it to hype their altcoin and pump it for short time to get a good profit before it dumps again. Not just sha, ecdsa is also not quantum-resistant, so what could be mechanics if all crypto is being replaced?) It's true ECDSA isn't quantum-resistant, but only address where it's public key is known is vulnerable against quantum computer. so does this mean that coins that arent moved from legacy address would be “recovered” during such transition?)) |
|
|
|
But what about addresses and corresponded coins? Correct me if not, but so far the need to move coins from current legacy address is to avoid a grab from the collider (?). And sha/ecdsa transition seems like kinda same case, but multiplied to unspeakable scale)))
i can't think of a way that any problem with SHA would affect existing coins. any vulnerability in SHA mostly affects mining and the usage of dSHA256 in signing could simply be replaced with another algorithm (so it will affect OP_CHECK(MULTI)SIG(VERIFY) OP codes) without having to move the coins (OP_HASH160 remains the same though). but this is all just theory, the actual issue greatly affects how we should move forward. Theres been tons of articles in recent years with a common topic that due low price in first 10 years total amount of coins without accessible privatekey became a holding factor) Thats probably why other projects started to massively "burn" coins to stronger the market for remained circulation.
in early years people were experimenting a lot on mainnet which is why there are some burnt coins. nowadays they experiment on testnet mostly. the "other projects" that burn coins are doing it to hype their altcoin and pump it for short time to get a good profit before it dumps again. Not just sha, ecdsa is also not quantum-resistant, so what could be mechanics if all crypto is being replaced?) |
|
|
|
How would network transition from sha256 and remain its stability in the process?
first a vulnerability has to be found in SHA256 algorithm or some hardware has to be created that would be able to compute an enormous number of hashes in seconds for it to be at risk. then we have to figure out if the problem is with Merkle–Damgård construction or with 256-bit size or something else so that we can choose a list of alternative hash algorithms. finally the alternatives are explored and the best one is chosen and a hard fork is proposed. when it reaches supermajority support (>95% of the network) the hash algorithm used by bitcoin is changed to that new one. Price stability right now is very heavy dependent on lost coins - but this would change dramatically during off-sha256 transition, or I am missing something?
price has very little to do with lost coins as they don't amass to enough to affect that much. additionally lost coins have nothing to do with SHA256. you are confusing hash algorithm (SHA256) with asymmetric cryptography (ECC). Yes you right I did mixed up the question) I was actually thinking about more simple and trendy scenario when the machine is powerful enough to crunch sha256 in "human timeframe set". Such situation would mean that pretty much all our current hashes/algos would be weak for such machine, sha256/512/etc, ecc/rsa and the rest (guess excluding quantum-resistant). The network transition is pretty straightforward, I was expected that its probably gonna be same mechanics between nodes. But what about addresses and corresponded coins? Correct me if not, but so far the need to move coins from current legacy address is to avoid a grab from the collider (?). And sha/ecdsa transition seems like kinda same case, but multiplied to unspeakable scale))) Theres been tons of articles in recent years with a common topic that due low price in first 10 years total amount of coins without accessible privatekey became a holding factor) Thats probably why other projects started to massively "burn" coins to stronger the market for remained circulation. So from that topic one could assume that if the network would need to transition crypto because it got too weak - that could also mean unspent coins are now behind weak crypto as well. Thats of course in case network would not adopt stronger crypto way ahead of the need, but that seems more and more unlikely reading about the progress on the topic already. |
|
|
|
|
My bad, I didn’t really expanded there, but I mostly meant bruteforced collisions, assuming quantums’ extra state would allow seamless achievement on legacy (sha/ecdsa) scope.
Banking, military, utilities, etc - none of this is really relevant for the question since workflow around such common things is regulated/insured/etc. But with blockchain you your own bank, so you better be a competent one)
I am in no way worrying about this, not even close) I wish Id still be alive to observe such transition, but thats as likely as my wallet generate collision with satoshi private key) Just curious about the topic and possible approaches community could talk about already.
sha transition would mean almost all public hashes transition, so in that way it would be global parade indeed
|
|
|
|
|
How would network transition from sha256 and remain its stability in the process? And very likely we would not be able to develop strong replacement without tools that would first allow us to break that very same sha256 (likely quantum tools ahah). Price stability right now is very heavy dependent on lost coins - but this would change dramatically during off-sha256 transition, or I am missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
We also use word likes "talent" when theres pretty much no such thing either) To simplify communications probably.
|
|
|
|
|
Get an actual streaming video recorder instead of photo camera, specially if on a budget. Would be a challenge to find a decent cmos sensor under 1k if you need long video exposures with static quality in aggressive environment)))
|
|
|
|
this morning i was ready to watch my longwaited AXE coins in my very old wallet.dat , i downloaded the newest wallet Axe Core Versie v1.5.0.1 (64-bit) , but after finishing the sync process i was ready to send them to another wallet but after some minutes it still has not going true , now 8 hours later , i tryed again with an empty (new) wallet.dat and i saw that it stopped syncing on the same time that i tryed to send a transaction this morning.
edit : problem was all on my side i guess
you might need to reindex if this is a very old wallet.dat (next to old cache/etc) |
|
|
|
So thats the email I never got In an email shortly before 3am, Coinbase announced USDC rewards will be reduced from 1.25% to just 0.15% APY. |
|
|
|
I got a few USDC when it was introduced on the platform, just to see how that token thing gonna work. Recently I noticed that APY reward kinda off on the last tx so contacted coinbase: Hello,
Thank you for contacting Coinbase Support.
The APY rate is set by Coinbase and can change at anytime and you will be notified. Unless otherwise stated, any updates made will not be effective until the first day of the calendar month. coinbase website making it even more confusing since july and aug rewards' % is off: As of June 3rd, 2020, the APY for USDC Rewards is 0.15%. https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/taxes-reports-and-financial-services/financial-services/usd-coin-rewards-faq |
|
|
|
You know it's all bullshit when someone says that they can deanonymize Monero. And claims about artificial intelligence often don't inspire confidence and can be another sign of a scam, because nowadays it's so easy to claim that you can solve any problem with AI, but it's actually hard to do so on practice. Also Russia is notorious for making bold claims about technology with nothing to back them up, Putin's vaccine being the latest one.
thats some genuine crap))) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04299/ you guys really think you gonna shield every gray coin before the proto shift?)))))))))) fucking monero fanshit) |
|
|
|
According to Cointelegraph developers from Lebedev Physical Institute have successfully developed a prototype of new crypto analytics system called "Transparent Blockchain". They claim this system effectively uses artificial intelligence to reduce anonymity of transactions in blockchains like Bitcoin, Ether, Omni, Dash and Monero. In essense, the system enables blockchain analysts "to track the movement of digital financial assets and identify crypto service providers to fight illicit activity related to digital assets". What do you think? Should we be worried? Bitcoin transactions aren't anonymous, Blockchain is already public and thus transparent. As for Dash and Monero which are also mentioned in the article, that's another story. Whatever they're planning to do with Bitcoin blockchain, I'd be cautious about it. Russia is not the kind of country that I would trust with such a task. The level of corruption is high, the police is very militarised, human rights violations are not irregular. So there's a good chance the officials would use the system to track down someone's money for their personal reasons or to sell the data to someone. If there were a way to ensure the system is indeed only used to fight criminals, it's one thing. But since it's not the case, it's worrisome. Please try to read the original article source link because privacy coins are not mentioned by the Russian intelligence team and it the article writers that mention privacy coin in other to get our attention. How is it possible to track a transaction which it does not exist on blockchain and only disclose to the parties involved? Speaking of Russia corruption level which is well know and I dont think people will trust them but I'm sure the device they created to target bitcoin transactions. Since they haven't delivered yet, this also might be a way to milk some "blockchain security" investors) And disclosing such initiative prior exploiting the advantage? But it also could be just a basic crawler sniffing overlaps thro ISP data: ie almost all Eth wallets are web based, so every ISP is already in possession of the record of every wallet address and the IP it was requested from (you dont see many security specialists on eth ahahah). Put some meta from CEX and you don't even need AI you likely gonna fail to tame before it backfires in your face) 🍻 |
|
|
|
New iOS wallet looks amazing !!!
Great work team ... keep up the good work.
My congratulations to the mean. It is really pleased to see how the team develops the project. I am glad that your AXE project is developing. Tell me if there are any options to earn this AXE coin? Maybe bounty, giveaway or airdrop? Thank you! O yes, theres a lot of open tasks - jump on discord |
|
|
|
So your original comment was about Brain wallet supporting Bitcoin or something?
On a side note, such subreddits are known to censor heavily. Tread with caution.
Not really, I just said that its technically possible to bruteforce satoshi/exchange/other address (LBC), swing the price with it and hijack the consensus) Then someone said that LBC were breaking only brain wallets https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/hoez11/why_is_bitcoin_still_more_popular_and_more/fxhj4sx?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x and then mods picked it up saying brain wallets not even bitcoin ahahahah I stopped visiting reddit for a lot time.
The reason was that mods are giving bans with not any serious reason. If they don't like a post then they ban you permanently and instantly without any notice first or any explanation.
Typically, all reddit has been like this, it is not only observed in the Bitcoin subreddit.
thats a shame but true. i also managed a ban from r/linux but that was an easy one - someone posted linus tech video there  |
|
|
|
one could only imagine such graph for any fiat  |
|
|
|
|
Isn't this actually an ongoing issue on eth? Vast majority of wallets are web-based so ISP has a record of every address requested by the IP address
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
