There HAS to be a mathematical shortcut that simplifies the encryption algorithm instead of randomly cracking with brute force. It wouldn't surprise me if there was already a solution out there. The greatest mathematical minds on the planet specifically designed the algorithm so that there wouldn't be. Are you saying that an algorithm that cannot be simplified cannot exist? (If you think about it, that's obviously incorrect.) |
|
|
|
Paypal has no right to withdraw out of the bank account after the deposit is made, especially after 10 days. Yes, they do. I even explained why in the post you are responding to. Anyways, I was awarded damages and collection cost. In my situation, there was no charge backs. Paypal withdrew money out of my account to hold funds and not because of charge backs. Whether or not there was a charge back has nothing to do with anything. Fundamentally, Paypal is a reversible payment service. They deliver funds from one person to another, so long as the sender actually wants to send those funds. If the buyer doesn't want to pay the seller or the sale violates Paypal's terms, Paypal reserves the right to disintermediate themselves, leaving the buyer and seller to resolve their dispute. In your case, Paypal decided to disintermediate themselves. This just means they refused to handle the payment. The buyer still owes you the money and can still pay you if they want to. It's not Paypal's job to make someone pay you if they don't want to pay you. And it should be 100% clear to everyone that Paypal does not ever confirm a payment is irreversibly made. As has been explained on this forum and many others, this makes Paypal unsuitable for selling Bitcoins to people you don't trust because the Bitcoin payment is irreversible and the Paypal payment isn't. You chose to rely on the honesty of the buyer. If the buyer is dishonest, then you're screwed, and that's not Paypal's fault. If the buyer is honest, they should have paid you once they got their money back from Paypal. |
|
|
|
Just to let you know I am Suing Paypal for the same thing, but I have proof that paypal is fraud. I had a friend paypal me for $110 stating its is for bitcoins. Even though my friend DID NOT make a claim, paypal reversed the money back to him...Paypal made there own judgement. I have lost $9000 over paypal where they deducted the funds out of my bank account AFTER 10 deposited into my account saying they suspected I was a scam when I had the account with them over 7 years AND a powerseller on ebay. They reversed not only the charges they thought was a fraud but reversed the bank deposits that was credit to my account OVER 10 days old. Left my account negative cause I wrote checks and wire more money to buy more BTC to sell. According to Paypal TOS you can only sue them individually now and not a class action suit. If you like to sue them and had significant loss, you can contact a local attorney to help you. It will cost $500 or so but you will get it back. The buyers still owe you the money, you should sue *them* not PayPal. Much as I dislike PayPal (many of you probably know my PayPal horror story) they are perfectly within their rights to disintermediate themselves from a transaction they don't wish to be a part of. |
|
|
|
So everyone is updating their android clients to use the dev/urandom method so that transactions signed are not able to reveal the private keys of both addresses involved.
That is my understanding of the issue. Correct. But what is to prevent someone from simply generating an address using RandomSecure and sending bitcoins to other addresses simply to compromise them?
In my understanding of this scenario, this is a major MAJOR security hole
the only way to avoid this would be to update valid address generation in the bitcoin protocol in a way that SecureRandom cannot generate a valid address at all. How would sending Bitcoins to an address compromise it? You would be signing for your own accounts so you could only compromise accounts you fully controlled. |
|
|
|
I love how profit becomes evil at exactly the moment that someone else is making it. As long as I am making profit, it's healthy and good.
"It's because of these evil, greedy people that I can't make a huge profit with minimal effort." |
|
|
|
why the fuck would anybody spend money on ASIC equipment pay electric and commit time if you cant make money?
if its not profitable to mine people wont mine and bitcoin will fail. at least people had a reason to spend money on GPU ASIC worthless if its not profitable. If a restaurant is too crowded, nobody will eat there and it will go out of business. |
|
|
|
when you spend up the ass for the equipment it takes months to deliver and when you have the equipment in hand the difficulty is so high you risk losing money cause you cant make ROI i think that makes bitcoin look like a joke and a huge gamble thus making bitcoin less attractive and could lead to panic selling and collapse. Bitcoin != mining |
|
|
|
|
The big problem is that there isn't enough space on all the computers in the universe to store the equation for just one of the bits, even if fully simplified. That and even if every particle in the universe were a supercomputer, the age of the universe wouldn't be long enough to solve the equation. The equations are not linear and so they don't simplify very much.
|
|
|
|
Fine, you never hit "actually zero" if you always must assume the possibility of your code having bugs in it. But assuming you code properly, a collision from a random number generator having probability X becomes probability 0 if you iterate until you get a unique number for an address based on historical usage. No, because hardware is not perfect. Keeping the old values around increases the chance that a hardware failure will cause you to use one of them. You have a probability that is so absurdly small on one side that you can't ignore probabilities on the other side just on the grounds that they are very small. If you get to assume the code is proper, why don't I get to assume that a properly-code RNG won't produce collisions? Additionally, this approach places less trust in delivered libraries, which is obviously (according to the topic of this discussion) a good approach. That's a completely different issue. I agree that it might make sense to do this to protect against a broken RNG even while it makes no sense to do this to prevent the absurdly improbable collisions from a working RNG. |
|
|
|
If a wallet were to keep track of the k values per address, could that then mitigate these kinds of issues? If you have an actually working RNG, the chance of picking up the same 256 bit value for a second time is basically zero. Sure, but keeping track would make "basically zero" into "actually zero". And since the wallet has your private keys anyway, adding a small dictionary seems trivial and doesn't add any vulnerability. What's the downside? No, it wouldn't make it actually zero. You have to consider the possibility that the code that checks has a bug in it, fails due to a hardware problem, and so on. If you account correctly, you may find that the added complexity (especially since now you're keeping the old values around instead of getting rid of them) actually increases the chances of a value being reused. |
|
|
|
If an address is generated by a computer or other source, and then imported into a blockchain wallet, is it still vulnerable?
I think only if it's generated by Android. Unfortunately, it is still vulnerable. The signature algorithm uses the random number generator as well and if a signature is generated improperly, it can compromise the private key. This was, in fact, the way the vulnerability was exploited. "... some signatures have been observed to have colliding R values, allowing the private key to be solved and money to be stolen." -- Mike Hearn |
|
|
|
Ive always thought computers could not generate random numbers. I once won a large prize buying the last ticket before a lotto draw, computer random number generator was the source though I didnt complain at the time
Nothing can generate a random number. Us included. Only pseudo-random. So you believe that radioactive decay is deterministic? If so, you are in the minority. Say I have two uranium atoms and one of the decays before the other, what do you think accounts for that? |
|
|
|
Ive always thought computers could not generate random numbers. I once won a large prize buying the last ticket before a lotto draw, computer random number generator was the source though I didnt complain at the time This is a common misconception. Real-world computers actually have access to any number of sources of real randomness. For example, the offset between the crystal oscillator that drives the CPU and the crystal oscillator that drives the network card is determined by microscopic zone temperature variations that are believed to be truly random. The latency of a hard disk drive is dependent on turbulent airflow drag on the spindle which is also believed to be truly random. Some CPUs and chipsets have true random number generators on them, usually obtained from shot noise which is also believed to be truly random. (And even if they're not truly random, they are entirely unpredictable.) |
|
|
|
BTC is hard to obtain. Only those of us who know how to acquire it, can get it.
The average person out there still has no means by which to obtain it.
To me that is "Scarcity".
To me that justifies its $100 value. This is entirely backwards! The amount someone is willing to pay for something is at most its utility less the transaction cost. Reducing transaction costs therefore increases the amount people would be willing to pay. But it also completely misses the big picture. The supply of Bitcoins is effectively fixed. The demand, however, is not. Increasing adoption means increasing demand. |
|
|
|
|
This will be many, many orders of magnitude harder than brute force.
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like we have another scam site pretending to be Mt Gox. This one is even purchasing ads on Google. The site is MtGok.net. I'll file a complaint with Google shortly.
|
|
|
|
|
While Jed McCaleb is still actively participating, Stefan Thomas is now OpenCoin's CTO, managing a team of eight developers. We are actively recruiting additional developers.
|
|
|
|
Cgminer with libusb.
This is what I use. I get 335 Mh/s on each stick with no issues. |
|
|
|
today i got btc from a vendor but i gave him an old id wallet by accident and refreshed it for a new one and forgot payment was made in to my account and then it vanished i then contacted btc vendor and he said its still in blockchain?
but i cant retrieve it due to new address can i change address at blockchain? or is it unretrivable ? need help with this one !
Your description assumes that we know what you're talking about. But we have no idea. What is an "old id wallet"? What "account" are you talking about? What is the "it" that vanished? The short answer is this: If you have, or have access to, the private key associated with the Bitcoin address the funds were sent to, then you can access those funds. Otherwise, they're lost. |
|
|
|
The saga of my "luck" continues. At a crappy 14GH/s and with the increased difficulty, I just mined blocks 249485 and 249587. Still in a pool (EclipseMC), so I netted 0.042 BTC for my efforts.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
