282
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is like cash under the mattress
|
on: August 02, 2014, 08:25:00 AM
|
I don't like the idea of a unique user id if I cannot change it or if I can have only one.
However I agree that the need for cold storage in order to store your coins safely is pretty retarded.
If your computer was proven to operate correctly, you would not need cold storage. Most computer technology is developed with "ad-hoc" debugging. This can lead to rapid innovation: but also leads to persistent bugs to the point that my technically knowledgeable room-mate thinks bug-free code is impossible. There is hope. It is possible to characterize what software should should do; then systematically prove that it does it. Examples that I am aware of include: BTW, a voting machine hack using return-oriented programming on Read-only memory convinced me that you can not have security without formal verification.
|
|
|
283
|
Bitcoin / Hardware wallets / Re: Trezor Security Seal
|
on: August 02, 2014, 05:37:14 AM
|
I like the idea of a hardware wallet, but I'm under impressed with the execution. I'm less impressed with the fact that I have to use their site. This means I have to recall a user name and password in order to use it anywhere else. That renders it useless for someone who maintains a list of complex passwords. So paying 1 BTC even at $130 is more costly than simply using MFA.
Bold mine. If you are relying on a third-party website, why not just have a blockchain.info wallet? Unless I misunderstood the comment. Actually, blockchain.info may be superior, in that you don't need the website if you find a wallet that will still import their keys.
|
|
|
285
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is like cash under the mattress
|
on: August 01, 2014, 06:35:16 PM
|
Sounds too complicated for the average Joe and your ordinary soccer mom. People in general just want to click 'Pay' and be done, without having to be concerned about security details.
That is what PayPal is for. Note that their Terms of Service state that they never have to pay the vendor.
|
|
|
286
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is like cash under the mattress
|
on: August 01, 2014, 06:23:39 PM
|
I do think it would be cool if there was some big Bitcoin bank that paid interest. You mean like this? (Malicious link removed) Blockchain-offers-loans-up-to-10-bitcoins-and-savings-accounts-to-its-users That (indirectly) links to a phishing site! <Michail1> That isn't the Wall Street Journal <Amphibian> 'the-wsj.org' doesn't sound like a legit url to me * julianor (~j@netifera.com) has joined #bitcoin <Michail1> the-wsj.org and the-wsj.com are scam sites.
|
|
|
287
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is like cash under the mattress
|
on: August 01, 2014, 06:21:34 PM
|
I have lost a small amount of bitcoins. Just because at the time (2011) it wasn't worth much so I forgot about having it stored on my computer. Today if I would invest in bitcoins I would store the private keys in plain text on Google Drive and have encrypted keys stored locally on my computer with the key for that stored on another cloud provider than Google. That would work and would be convenient enough, but for using Bitcoin as an ordinary currency for shopping etc it would be too inconvenient. A hardware Bitcoin wallet would perhaps make it easier for small transactions, yet still not convenient enough. Trust no one. "Cloud storage" is not secure enough to store keys in plain-text. Thousands of Bitcoins stolen in a hack on Linode Posted 2 Mar 2012 | 22:29 GMT I advise against encryption for cold storage as well though: you are trying to keep your coins secure against two contradictory things: theft and data loss. If your encryption key for your encryption keys is complex enough to make dictionary attacks difficult, you will forget it.
|
|
|
288
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is like cash under the mattress
|
on: August 01, 2014, 06:12:21 PM
|
But splitting up the codes on several papers is even more burdensome. Like having to store cash under several mattresses.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that some people want to manage the security of their bitcoins themselves. Just like how some people want to own and store gold physically themselves. The problem is when Bitcoin should be used as a more general currency. Then it needs to become much more convenient to keep safe.
M of N transactions allow you and a payment processor to share the security burden. Both you and the provider get a "hot" key for day-to-day spending, while you keep a third key in cold storage in case something ever happens to either of the "hot" keys. Currently BitGo and Green Address listed here appear to implement 2 of 2 transactions (meaning no cold storage back-up). According to the Green Address FAQ funds can be recovered if they go out of business because they use a nlocktime transaction to let you retrieve the funds. In this case you should have off-site backups of your "hot" keys. But what happens if your service goes away? Will I lose my coins? GreenAddress signs each transaction with its own key in addition to client-side signing by user's keys, and funds are stored in 2-of-2 multisignature outputs requiring both signatures to spend. The drawback of it is that you cannot control your funds without GreenAddress' signature, so you are right to worry that you can lose your coins.
But! We have solved this issue by providing nLockTime transactions which essentially make deposits 'expire' after some time, which allows redeeming them without our intervention after this pre-set period of time. It is enabled by default when you have email notifications and two factor enabled.
This allows you to keep your ease of mind even in case GreenAddress disappears with its keys.
It also means that every time the funds expire the user has to re-transfer them. This can be automated on login and notified in advance via email or manually done.
For redeeming the funds after expiration, you can use a tool we've developed specifically for this purpose - see Gentle and its project on GitHub. It's open source!
|
|
|
289
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is like cash under the mattress
|
on: August 01, 2014, 06:22:49 AM
|
To just throw up one's hands in resignation and store the bitcoins under the mattress is like going back to the days of Gutenberg. So we have this powerful new technology of Bitcoin and we stored the coins.... on paper?! How pathetic is that?
Not sure if you are just clueless or trolling. Paper is recommended because it is cheap and reasonably reliable if kept dry. Modern computers are also inherently insecure. That is why the advice is to store your private keys for savings on something that can be readily observed and secured (in more than one physical location). Storing Bitcoin on paper is superior to storing money under your mattress because you can redundantly split the keys into several locations. The difficulty is that ideally, you want some way to seal these pieces in a tamper-evident way. I have tried signing the seal on my envelopes, but am not sure how secure that really is. I saw an hour long talk about a year ago on Youtube about various types of seals. Essentially, if security is extremely important, you want to compare high resolution before and after photographs of a seal that exhibits tool-marks. Most truck seals are apparently modified zip-ties. Technically, I think Bitcoins are stored in the block-chain: and are public information. What you have to secure are the private keys for moving those Bitcoins.
|
|
|
290
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin will apply for a Guinness record
|
on: July 31, 2014, 08:49:30 AM
|
What i have problem with is objectivity. If it's freakin egg and spoon race, than do not let someone glue god damn eg to spoon, or someone compete with custom made spoon that can safely carry eg in any position you like etc. Spoon is a spoon, and egg is a egg. "Most users on one game server" is exactly that...not freaking login server!
I lost faith in the Guinness Book of records when they started allowing geographically-distributed "x people doing y" type records. How can they be sure that x exceeds the number of people in the world randomly doing y independent of the record attempt? 2. The world’s highest valued encrypted digital currency;
I don't think Bitcoin would qualify for that one because it is not encrypted. The USD probably qualifies more as an encrypted digital currency more than BTC does. Bitcoin uses Cryptographic hash functions and digital signatures, but not encryption per se.
|
|
|
291
|
Other / Archival / Re: Pictures of your mining rigs!
|
on: July 30, 2014, 07:57:34 PM
|
You have an auto junkyard near you Electric engine fans run on 12 volt,get a scrap one or 2.They move pretty good CFM & should be cheap They're waterproof,so you could mount them outside & since they're DC,you can reverse the rotation if needed If they are brushless motors, you can not just reverse the polarity without letting the magic smoke out. Brushless motors are essentially AC motors with an integrated controller that handles the conversion (and starting) for you.
|
|
|
293
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Shit Bitcoin Fanatics Say, Part 3
|
on: July 29, 2014, 03:09:45 AM
|
I have started saying Bitcoin is interesting because it pushed technology forward in so many areas. Including: - Computer security
- Computer density
- First (we hope) secure networked application in the history of mankind.
|
|
|
294
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech - carrier grade, data center ready mining rigs
|
on: July 29, 2014, 02:11:13 AM
|
In any event, 1200W will not max out a 110V @20amp breaker.
For continuous loads, you are supposed to de-rate 20% (In North America anyway). That means a 15Amp circuit can safely supply 12 amps continuously, while a 20 amp circuit can supply 15 amps continuously. Devices with bad power factor (lacking active PFC) will draw more current without (necessarily) drawing more power. (I suspect the Spondoolies-Tech supplies use Active PFC).
|
|
|
295
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 51% Attack - Why isn't anything being done about it?
|
on: July 28, 2014, 07:48:34 PM
|
10% attack can happen every 1 in 10 times. so just sit back and watch. business as usual.
For a chain of 1 blocks, yes. The Original Bitcoin whitepaper lays out the probability that 10% of the hash-power will win chains of block races (z= number of blocks-1). q=0.1 z=0 P=1.0000000 z=1 P=0.2045873 z=2 P=0.0509779 z=3 P=0.0131722 z=4 P=0.0034552 z=5 P=0.0009137 z=6 P=0.0002428 z=7 P=0.0000647 z=8 P=0.0000173 z=9 P=0.0000046 z=10 P=0.0000012
So 10% of the hash-power has a 20% chance of getting two blocks in a row, 5% chance of getting 3, 1.3% chance of getting 4. and a 0.3% chance of getting 5 (for food labeling they would just call it "0%").
|
|
|
296
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Let's get the facts straight about Apple.
|
on: July 28, 2014, 07:20:17 PM
|
Only if you choose to buy an android phone from AT&T with their firmware pre-installed. AT&T can do no such thing to my Xiaomi Phone, the only thing they could do is deny service to my phone. There's no way for AT&T to "brick" my phone nor "push new firmware" to my phone, since my firmware isn't from AT&T. Unlike the iPhone iOS, there's no "magic backdoor" in the Android OS for AT&T to just remote access any android phone without pre-installing AT&T firmware.
Thank for pointing this out. I tried searching for examples of carriers pushing firmware to phones: and only came up with a Slashdot story about Rogers requiring a specific firmware version for service. This makes me slightly less reluctant to own a cell-phone.
|
|
|
297
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Let's get the facts straight about Apple.
|
on: July 28, 2014, 04:47:59 PM
|
Not sure what you are talking about Verizon or AT&T's remote access, do you have an article about that? I use an android phone I bought from China (xiaomi phone, no Google Play), on AT&T's network, it works just fine. I'm not sure how AT&T can "remote access" my phone.
The network operators reserve the right to push new firmware to your phone/device. You did read the fine-print of your contract, right? This lets them brick phones with a specific IMEI if it appears to be mis-behaving. Your Device must be compatible with, and not interfere with, our Services and must comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations. We may periodically program your Device remotely with system settings for roaming service, to direct your Device to use network services most appropriate for your typical usage, and other features that cannot be changed manually.
You agree that you won’t make any modifications to your Equipment or its programming to enable the Equipment to operate on any other system. AT&T may, at its sole and absolute discretion, modify the programming to enable the operation of the Equipment on other systems. - AT&T Wireless Customer Agreement
|
|
|
298
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Does anyone remember when Bitcoin was hard forked?
|
on: July 28, 2014, 04:23:05 PM
|
I found the Cryptocoinnews article about this. The vericoin developers essentially pushed a checkpoint that did not include the transaction. This should not be able to happen with Bitcoin unless more than 50% of the hash-power is controlled by one entity. When Bitcoin developers push checkpoints, they are generally thousands of blocks deep. Edit: looks like vericoin makes "minting" to cold wallets impossible: Network stake-dependent interest is the mechanism in which the amount of coins minted during the proof-of-stake phase occurs. Instead of a flat 1% interest, Vericoin's interest rate can range from 0% to just under 3%. The practical range of interest is between 1.5-2.5%. Based upon the number of coins being staked (occurs when the wallet is open and unlocked), the interest rate varies. The more coins staked, the higher the interest rate. This provides incentive for keeping the client open and unlocked, further securing the network. The additional security ensures that the blockchain is not compromised and forked. In addition, it provides incentive for owners of the coin to use it as a savings vehicle as it earns interest at a more reasonable rate and more representative of a real economy. - http://www.vericoin.info/interest.html(Bold, Emphasis mine) "Cold storage" is actually actively discouraged.
|
|
|
299
|
Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: Risk of BTC in Web Hosting Business
|
on: July 25, 2014, 02:02:06 PM
|
I have been thinking of going in to Bitcoin webhosting myself, and thank you for the heads-up.
Bitcoin is not anonymous; only pseudonymous. If they are not using mixers or coinjoin, you can try coin tainting to black/greylist the spammer's coins. To do this, you would need to ask for a refund address so that you can safely return the coins (they will start mixing them; making assumptions will result in lost coins).
Black-listing is bad for Bitcoin in general though because it hurts fungibility. That said, encouraging coin mixing makes Bitcoin safer for all users because block-chain analysis becomes more difficult.
Do these users not need contact information to sign up? You can do confirmation e-mails like mailing lists if you do not already do that.
|
|
|
300
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Do girls use Bitcoin ?
|
on: July 25, 2014, 03:28:19 AM
|
Well you may not get scammed but seem to think a picture is proof of her gender so who knows what you'd fall for . Well, the pic proves she is presenting as female. Not sure why people pointing that out are considered gullible white knights. You even implied the woman complaining about the picture was a (male) white knight.
|
|
|
|