Go glance over most of the satoshi threads. Posted by newbies with good knowledge about satoshi. This just feels like a paid campaign. Most of them are probably on exit nodes as well.
sorry, what exactly is a paid campaign? JF Professional social media trolling/astroturfing is a service which is available from a wide variety of providers. |
|
|
|
The Forum was also complicit in the MTGOX mess. The MODS would shit-can any negative post or question regarding the solvency of MTGOX. Hope the those specific MODS lost everything on GOX.
I don't recall this, I was warning people about Gox for years (as were many others) and I don't recall having any posts deleted. The forum was not complicit. The mods moved threads to the appropriate location. A lot of people seem to get mad when threads get moved to the appropriate location. Apparently if it isn't under "Bitcoin Discussion" it doesn't exist for them and they forget about it. I personally think the mods are too lax. Hint: Pangia is one of many trolls whose purpose here is to disrupt the forum. The only unknown is whether he just does it for kicks, or is a paid professional. |
|
|
|
Oh! So Russia is the good guys, by invading Ukraine?
Wrong. There are no good guys in this situation. |
|
|
|
USA wants to protect the Ukranian democracy/Does not want Russian influence. They want to look like the good guys, while really only wanting the protect their own interests. US wants to put missile bases in Ukraine. Russia is less than thrilled. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't be the first time neo-bees has been involved with missing bitcoins on an exchange. Read about Weexchange.Next thing you know Mark will be in Cyprus and Mtgox will be issuing a 6% payback. It has worked for UKYO; here's a game plan for Mark: - Move to Cyprus - Issue a 6% refund - Start a thread about working on a "solution"; fill the thread with shills and stockholm syndromer - Let the community go around and around with the shills for 6 months while he quietly disappears from the face of the earth - Every 6 months login to IRC and tell a few people that you are still working on some "resolution" Ukyo showed up at the Dallas Bitcoin meetups several times last summer, before that thread, and then disappeared a few months later. He talked about having just come back from helping Mark Karpelles get Mt Gox working again after the DDoS, had bad things to say about Marks's organizational and coding abilities, and told us Mark's side of the dispute with CoinLab (all the stuff that came out in the countersuit). At the time he claimed to be working to get the necessary state-level MSB licensing and was preparing to have WeExchange take over the USD side of Mt Gox's businesses. (Do all the things CoinLab promised but never achieved). That clearly never panned out. He was worried about the SEC and Bitfunder and was looking for an exit strategy. |
|
|
|
2 years ago i posted a idea that no wallet should be on a server. instead a withdrawal request should just be a database entry on the server. and on a separate system away from the server that has a copy of users details. no communications go to the off-server system. pure the off-server system looks in the database (one way communication) which it would see the request and compare the password or pin given on that request to the copy on their off-network system. if they match the off-server system would perform the transaction. Another way to do this would be if the server was publishing an audit log to a private Bitmessage channel (or other suitable mixing network) to which the hot wallet was subscribed. The server would have no way to know where the hot wallet is, therefore an attacker who gains control over the server would also not know how to locate the hot wallet to attack it. Furthermore, what if the audit log was actually tamperproof because it was composed of messages signed both by the server and by the users (with the server not having access to the users' private keys). Basically the server is really just a digital notary. Then an attacker who gains access to the server can't even mess with the audit log because the auditing server will immediately detect the alterations. Wait a minute, I think we just invented Open-Transactions. |
|
|
|
Simply knocking out unconfirmed tx from memory pool by another higher fee variant would enable the payor to cancel any payment before included in a block - by double spending to own account. This is a no-go. The thing about Bitcoin is that you can't rely on good behavior in the nodes. Just like there were griefers who set up tx mutation nodes for the hell of it, there could be nodes that are programmed to make double spending of 0 conf transactions easier. Merchants need a better solution than "hope adversaries decide to play nice". Maybe something along the lines of pools offering subscription services via which a merchant can obtain assurance the pool will not mine a conflicting transaction. |
|
|
|
these are just some of the safety practices I can think about now, any user is welcome to add anything I might have forgotten to this list. Use Armory to store all but petty cash offline. |
|
|
|
I agree with you in spirit, but you should be a bit more up-front about the fact that Conformal's bitcoind implementation is written in the "Go" language.
There's nothing wrong with that, but there also isn't much demand outside of Conformal for a bitcoin client written in Go. If one of their major motivations was to contribute to the bitcoin community they would have chosen a language that more bitcoiners know and therefore can contribute in. In other words, their contribution is primarily to the Go community here, not the bitcoin community. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that the Go language is a problem based on the number of non-Go programmers I've heard say, "wow, I can actually understand their code." Having a codebase that's approachable and well-architected is a great contribution even if nobody else ever writes any Bitcoin code in Go. Even if that weren't the case, your post implies that the Bitcoin community is the development community. Nothing could be further from the truth. Btcd gives non-developer users the ability to contribute to the network by running a full node without also requiring them to store m (users) * n (devices) copies of the blockchain. That's huge usability improvement in its own right. |
|
|
|
You missed the sarcasm mark at the end of my post ... I quite agree with what you wrote. Sorry about that. In that case consider my reply as directed, not at you, but at the people who wouldn't have been sarcastic. |
|
|
|
I agree with discouraging hosted wallets, but realistically it's not going to happen any time soon. Bitcoin is growing exponentially and we can't educate all the incoming users fast enough. There will always be a new wave who jumps into Bitcoin before they find out why it's bad to trust an exchange with their Bitcoins. So until Bitcoin takes over the world, the only way to effectively improve things is to make exchange wallets as less unsafe as possible. |
|
|
|
You want protocol development, go work on it yourself, you selfish bastard. This is an open source project, contribute yourself. I've have been for nearly a year now, or rather I've been directly supporting someone who is working on it. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93606.msg2325555#msg2325555Why do you think you get to dictate what sort of work the Almighty Bitcoin Foundation does. Provide a direct quote where I did that or GTFO. I never demanded that anyone do anything. All I've done is ask for the people defending the foundation by saying "the foundation pays Gavin so he can work on protocol development" provide some evidence to back up their claims. All I've received in return to these queries is diversions and verbal abuse. |
|
|
|
I haven't seen anyone point out that the Bitcoin Foundation pays Gavin's salary, so that he can focus on developing the Bitcoin protocol. How much protocol development has happened in the last year? Nobody ever did have an answer to this question, did they? |
|
|
|
My suggested solution does very little to prevent theft and fraud. That is another matter entirely. They don't have to be though. That's why I like FellowTraveler's voting pool approach. I didn't really get it until he was able to explain it in person, but he's taking on the entire problem space. When voting pools launch it won't be possible for an exchange using them to fail to deliver the coins they owe their customers. |
|
|
|
|
Three problems:
1) Exchange operators, including operators and employees, might steal your bitcoins.
2) Exchange operators might lose the private keys to your bitcoins.
3) External attackers might compromise the security of the site and steal your bitcoins.
Since 2010, by far the largest problems are 1 and 3.
2 is something hypothetical that aren't even sure even happened.
Why is everybody talking about solutions to 2, especially solutions that do absolutely nothing to stop 1 and 3 (the ones we know happen all the time?)
|
|
|
|
|
The trolls are starting to come out of the woodwork again.
I wonder what kind of psyop is going on this time.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
