|
1221
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I just got hacked - any help is welcome!
|
on: June 15, 2011, 02:10:55 PM
|
|
First, I personally would never run "Bitcoin safe" with 25k Bitcoins on a Windows computer.
Too big a security risk.
Second, even on Linux, to keep large amount of coins on your computer, it should be extra protected with some complex security.
A virtual machine with Linux on truecrypt-encrypted hard drive with Bitcoin installed should be enough - it will make life much harder for any keyloggers & hackers to infiltrate it.
With computers it is quite easy to do virtually infinately complex system of safes to store your Bitcoins.
You can create a virtual "room of mirrors" using VM in Truecrypt in VM in VM in Truecrypt in VM in Truecrypt and such.
Such an installation could look like this:
Truecrypt(VirtualBox(VirtualBox(Truecrypt(VirtualBox(Truecrypt(Your Bitcoins))))))
You can store some Bitcoins on every layer of this onion, but you should only store large sums on the last layer.
|
|
|
|
|
1222
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Make UPNP enabled by default?
|
on: June 13, 2011, 07:26:42 PM
|
IPv6 allows enough addresses for every computer, toaster, person and cellphone to have a handful of IP addresses.
But why would i want my toaster to have an external IP address ? This is just potential another unnecessary security risk. I want all devices in my network (except servers) to be completely invisible from outside. I do not want _ANY_ interaction between the outside world and these devices. Security concerns. Therefore i find "ip-for-your-toaster" idea foolish. |
|
|
|
|
1223
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why bitcoin cannot grow past 4 million users
|
on: June 13, 2011, 05:33:32 PM
|
Rob P - do the clients not need to download the entire blockchain to verify that the transactions are legitimate? If not, then wouldn't we be centralizing the authority on what is a valid transaction and what is not? Isn't that a bad thing?
You are completely forgetting about mining pools. Anybody can pay for few months hosting and start a mining pool... There can be very many pools and people can switch from pool to pool if they find a pool is unfair and/or damaging the network. This should fix the centralization problem. |
|
|
|
|
1224
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Make UPNP enabled by default?
|
on: June 13, 2011, 05:25:10 PM
|
you dont need nat to run a firewall. For instance, my network we have 6 IP addresses, 3 of which go to specific computers, 2 go to internal nats to rout to the individual computers, but it is all behind a single firewall.
Nat is not necessary.
You are probably correct, however in many cases still like the NAT-way better than single IP for everything. There are some small specialized devices that simply don't neet their own external IP address. Also, there is the security-by-obscurity concern. Nobody needs to know how many devices exactly is in my network. |
|
|
|
|
1225
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Make UPNP enabled by default?
|
on: June 13, 2011, 05:03:46 PM
|
This doesnt help or hinder bitcoin in anyway, but in the future you are far less likely to find a router that supports it inherently.
"the future"? You mean when IPv6 has been introduced everywhere and UPNP is no longer needed? I don't think that IPv6 will invalidate NAT and therefore UPNP. There are many people who like to have a closed network behind a NATed firewall. I belong to these people. I know a little about network security, and nobody can tell me that giving IPv6 address to every machine in the house is safe. Because it isn't. The NAT-way, where all machines in a subnetwork are protected by additional firewall, is simply better. |
|
|
|
|
1226
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: asic miners creating conflict of interest?
|
on: June 13, 2011, 05:02:25 PM
|
The solution to the multi-mega-dollar ASIC industry is to change the hashing algorithm and let their multi-mega-dollar project become worthless. If they didn't burn enough money, do it again. The solution to the ASIC lockdown is to change the hashing algorithm anyway and let the miners either use GPUs again or buy new ASICs.
It would be much better idea to simply allow multiple hashing algorithms to be used in block chain so whole network can make a switch over night. This would make it even more fun. |
|
|
|
|
1228
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Optional fees should be optional
|
on: June 07, 2011, 07:27:07 AM
|
I have this problem too. I only have .07 BTC right now and I can't send it without paying .01 transaction fee? That's a large percentage.
How can I change Bitcoin versions without losing my wallet?
I believe you can downgrade to 0.3.20 without any loss. However, do a backup first. Always do a lot of backups. |
|
|
|
|
1229
|
Economy / Economics / Re: The current Bitcoin economic model doesn't work
|
on: June 07, 2011, 07:25:36 AM
|
We're talking about the US government which owns computers powerful enough to create a greater proof of work than the rest of Bitcoiners combined, not some Russian script kiddy in a basement.
The bitcoin network has, in collective, surpassed the total (estimated) hashing power of the top 500 (not secret) supercomputers on Earth. Even taken as a given that the US government actually does have this much computational power in total, it would be a non-trivial issue for any branch to assert control of the computational power of the others for such a project. And by the time this could be arranged, the power of the network will have quintupled once again. IMHO, this was once a real concern, but no longer is. This is no longer the most likely attack vector by any government agency, their attacks will come in the public view, not in the dark reaches of the Internet. Actually, as chain "checkpoints" are hardcoded into the default Bitcoin client, even with the processing power it is practically impossible to pull something like this off. |
|
|
|
|
1230
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: What would you change about the Bitcoin protocol?
|
on: June 06, 2011, 09:47:10 PM
|
This thread deserves bumping for great justice. Especially now, that Bitcoin network is growing exponentially. return (Block < 500000) ? ripemd(sha256(buffer)) : truncate(sha256(sha256(buffer)))
Ohh... I'd love to see such change to happen. even maybe return (Block > 300000) ? ripemd(sha256(whirlpool(buffer))) : truncate(sha256(sha256(buffer))) ;// note >
NSA would be furious...  Here is an idea for a poll! * ShadowOfHarbringer likes this. Would use INT128 so it can be claimed that Bitcoin is 'infinitely divisible' (well that's near enough for most people) as a selling point.
Right now saying it's 8 decimals divisible isn't so catchy.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
1231
|
Economy / Economics / Re: The current Bitcoin economic model doesn't work
|
on: June 06, 2011, 06:50:44 PM
|
With Three Letter Acronym MAGIC of course! They are wizards, don't you know?
I think it will be the best just to ignore him. He is either trolling us, he is some kid, or his fucked up & overgrown ego won't allow him to ever to listen to anybody but himself. This thread is a total waste of time. |
|
|
|
|
1232
|
Economy / Economics / Re: The current Bitcoin economic model doesn't work
|
on: June 06, 2011, 04:26:26 PM
|
The only thing they can do with a longer chain is double spend their own coins or prevent the transactions of others from confirming (as long as their chain is always the longest, harder than it sounds). In order to spend other people's coins you would have to break the ecliptic curve digital signing algorithm, or specifically curve secp256k1.
Ah, so freezing the transaction confirmations, thus preventing anyone from spending their money isn't such a big deal huh? I see you're not as smart as your post-count. If you would understand the specification, you would know that this is impossible. Even if CIA accumulates 90% of network's processing power, transactions will still confirm. Much slower yes, but they will. . . I support the idea of creating a newbie forum for such foolish discussions.
And I support the idea of creating a bigmouthie forum for Hero Members who're mindlessly trying to increase their post count even by babbling fruitless nonsense. Playing "smartass" without understanding anything is the domain of the mindless. So it is clear who is mindless here. I have no more time to continue this idiotic & fruitless discussion, I'm outta here. |
|
|
|
|
1233
|
Economy / Economics / Re: The current Bitcoin economic model doesn't work
|
on: June 06, 2011, 04:14:00 PM
|
LOL. So they've broken ECDSA (or at least secp256k1) and SHA-256? No, I don't think so, this isn't a made for TV movie.
They don't need to break anything. If I understood the crypto design correctly, they only need to have their computers working collectively to produce an identical but longer proof-of-work which honest nodes would then endorse. I'm almost certain they started producing it much earlier than now so they'd be ready to launch it once there's a political decision. They'll also probably blame it on Iran, Anonymous, or the imaginary Al-Qaeda for the lulz. You talk much, but you really understand nothing about the protocol. We have a saying in my country, which roughly translates to " A cow which makes a lot of noise, gives little milk". And that is the problem in your case. BTW, I support the idea of creating newbie forum subsection for such foolish discussions. |
|
|
|
|
1234
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Deflation and Bitcoin, the last word on this forum
|
on: June 06, 2011, 02:36:30 PM
|
Very good point. Few people see this problem. It is absolutely necessary that money can be created at no cost whenever it is needed.
I wonder how much longer i will be able to stand this keynesian bullshit... FYI, Bitcoins CAN be created in any moment at will using division into smaller pieces (just like gold). Just add more decimal places and you have enough for everybody. |
|
|
|
|
1235
|
Economy / Economics / Re: The current Bitcoin economic model doesn't work
|
on: June 06, 2011, 02:32:59 PM
|
People who do not understand money can say the dumbest things.
Gotcha BTC yet or just here to troll away happily?
OMG, this thread is still going... I'm starting to think this is a deliberate action to weaken the faith of some people (read: n00bz) in Bitcoin. Since CIA already admitted its interest in Bitcoin, this is a likely scenario. Of course, it is not going to be successful. Market verifies everything. People can discuss all the time and even write essays, but the market will verify their claims. |
|
|
|
|
1236
|
Economy / Economics / Re: The current Bitcoin economic model doesn't work
|
on: June 04, 2011, 08:52:04 AM
|
If you have a better economic model, why bother messing with the existing bitcoin? As it has been said many times: create your own block chain.
In all seriousness, this is not just a shut-you-up one liner. For the first time in history, people can actually experiment with different monetary economic models. Back in history, when people chose seashell, metals or paper as money, most of the money characteristics was pretty much set by nature, or the nature of government. They didn't have the luxury defining the characters of their money and then enforcing it via electronic circuitry.
I join this. I think it is very important and quite interesting that we experiment to find the best workin currency model (or perhaps find some ways to improve current model). Maybe it would be beneficial for BTC users for 2, 3 or more separate systems to exist simultaneously. Although this should be done through a fork, not forcing changes on the current chain. The market will decide the rest. If there really is a demand for "StuffCoin", "Inflatacoin", "SuperDeflataCoin" etc, then market will preserve them and they will live their own lives. So Suggester: please go start your own chain. Seriously. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
