Bitcoin Forum
June 20, 2018, 11:55:06 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ... 93 »
161  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: MCXNow Can See your passwords! REALSolid has access to all your Passwords on: September 17, 2013, 01:52:15 AM
Which is why the web is not a good platform for important applications like financial apps.

Better would be client-side encryption where the server does not ever see your keys, like Open Transactions uses for example.

-MarkM-

I remember someone working on something like this for BTC. Something that ran locally in your browser, but interfaced with a remote site. Maybe I'm misremembering about exactly what it did, but I remember thinking it was pretty cool. Tongue dunno what became of it though.
162  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Is Ripple a scam? on: September 13, 2013, 07:36:54 AM
OpenCoin's system is to award themselves 100 billion XRP, and distribute and sell 80 billion of these over time. I personally do not understand why people would object to this.

Probably because there is a missing 20 billion to account for. What can possibly be the purpose of retaining so much XRP if not to exert control?
163  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: NSA and ECC on: September 12, 2013, 05:15:27 AM
Using ECDSA that way, even if ECDSA is broken, would only be weak for the 10 minutes or so before a transaction gets into a block.  Can we reasonably foresee a break in ECDSA so profound that it can be performed in under 10 minutes?

It depends on how ECDSA is broken. It also depends on how ECDSA is used. While using pubkeys only once is "recommended", it is certainly not a requirement, and it is not possible to predict how ECDSA will be used by the bitcoin protocol in the future. But if discrete logarithm problem over elliptic curves stops being "hard", only the pubkeys are necessary, and they will probably be broken at break-neck speed. If it is a weakness with the signatures revealing information (much more likely), it will take time, but reused pubkeys are at serious risk.


Quote
I would say the size of the signatures would be one reason.  The inability to re-use them being another.

Well Merkle-Lamport constructions are probably what is of interest. On the bright side, the pubkey is only n bits where n is the security level.

However, there is research into merkle + one-time sig schemes with smaller signatures.

"On the Security of the Winternitz One-Time Signature Scheme" by Buchmann et al shows signature sizes of about 800 bytes for 129-bit effective security level at a Winternitz parameter of 16 (increasing it raises the difficulty of creating signatures, but makes the signatures smaller and weaker, I don't know the exact tradeoffs). 800 bytes is well within reason for a QC-resistant signature algo (although it might have to be more depending on how many qubits are available to crack hash algos). It is still a significant hurdle though for world-wide use, and will obviously increase the costs of running the network significantly.
164  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: WTF WITH FREICON on: September 10, 2013, 07:52:17 PM
Did you read the fine print?
165  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Is Bitcoin over-paying for Hash-Power Security? on: September 05, 2013, 07:55:26 PM
"Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws"-- Amsel (Amschel) Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838.

...

That is not very smart to accuse me of not knowing economics.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayer_Rothschild "Mayer Amschel Rothschild (23 February 1744 – 19 September 1812)" pretty tough for a guy to make some prolific statement several decades after his death, no matter how prolific it might be.
166  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Future Proofing - Mesh Networking As Insurance Against ISP Attack on: August 27, 2013, 10:48:26 PM
On yeah, that's right, just use lasers for long distance. No radio interference and no jamming.

Sure.  Brilliant!  What could possible interfere with line-of-sight?




roflmao Tongue
167  Economy / Economics / Re: The Problem With Altcoins on: August 26, 2013, 09:27:39 PM
It was pretty easy to tell from the first few sentences it was going to be nothing but bitcoin-thumping tripe, which is when I made my initial post, then later I read the whole article and was not disappointed at all.
168  Economy / Economics / Re: The Problem With Altcoins on: August 22, 2013, 09:00:41 PM
Wow, that article is the worst piece of bitcoin-bias I have yet seen I think.
169  Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin Adopting Countrys' Ultimate Guide to Taxation on: August 22, 2013, 03:53:08 AM
What this means, ladies and gentlemen, is that anyone who says taxation will not work in such a future is wrong, and they fail to see the whole picture.

I don't think many are naive enough to believe that cryptocurrency will eliminate taxation. What it does do is force governments to actually collect taxes rather than using inflation as the crutch to support government bloat. It is less easy to relieve citizens of their hard-earned money when they have a direct line of sight to taxes. Revolutions have been waged when such things were the case.
170  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: mcx plaintext passwords on: August 18, 2013, 08:45:09 AM
Don't follow established practices just do anything you feel like no matter how stupid (and pointless).  

like using a different password for every website?  I know you guys have an agenda to push here, and need to make rs or the website look bad, but try harder.  

If anyone has an agenda to push, it's DeathAndTaxes. He is the hardcorest of hardcore bitcoin proponents and unequivocally biased, but he is totally, 100% correct here. Passwords, especially passwords that protect money, should not be stored in a reversible format. That is madness. (That is, of course, if actually true.)
171  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Can the asic miners mine scrypt currencies ? on: August 16, 2013, 05:27:55 AM
Well given that sASIC exist with 10x to 20x as much memory (as in on die negligible latency SRAM) as required for "LTC Scrypt" I don't see the "128KB barrier" being much more than paper thin.

It boils down to requiring more chips instead of more memory, and each of these chips must have access to a small amount of fast memory. Cost to build, electricity usage, etc. are still factors in play and there is no "slam dunk" that this is a more or less effective way to be ASIC-resistant.

Quote
The only real barrier is that the market cap (and thus annual mining revenue).  It is still laughably low.

$50m is laughable?

Quote
LTC (et all) could have been memory hard but they chose (either by negligence or malice) to set the "barrier" incredibly low.  The minimum recommendation by the AUTHOR (not some random guy but the guy who wrote it) is ~20MB of scratch pad.  LTC chose to use ~1% of that.

The security of the network is not at risk because of the scrypt parameters chosen. Do not imply that it is.
172  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Can the asic miners mine scrypt currencies ? on: August 16, 2013, 04:06:03 AM
The default Scrypt parameters were designed to do that.  The parameters changed in LTC (and copied over in all clones) were weakened to reduce the memory hardness by 99%. 

Memory, in general, is cheap. Fast memory is not. If the memory parameters are large with scrypt, an ASIC could be built using cheap memory with a smaller amount of processing units (or slower/cheaper ones). The LTC scrypt design seems to be in a very reasonable range where lots of chips can be used, but each requires a reasonably-sized amount of expensive memory and fast buses to keep up. It's difficult to say how it will/would have played out when/if ASICs are designed for the LTC scrypt algorithm. But for now, GPUs being in the sweet spot could only be a good thing imo, botnet coins are no fun.
173  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Can the asic miners mine scrypt currencies ? on: August 16, 2013, 03:52:22 AM
Can the asic miners mine scrypt currencies ?

No. The current crop of machines referred to as ASICs around here are built for SHA256 hashes. ASIC simply means "application-specific integrated circuit", it is not specific to bitcoin, or to SHA256 or scrypt or anything. It is a generalized term for hardware that performs specific tasks.

Quote
i mean supposed the there is a new software version for enabling them to mine SCRYPT currencies (which is a lot) ?

ASICs are a piece of hardware, written in silicon. There can not be new software versions. New designs must be created and new machines must be built for scrypt, or any purpose.

Quote
and if yes then at what performance?

This would require a lot of engineering time to figure out. It also depends on how good those engineers are. Scrypt is a very complex algorithm that attempts to punish you by requiring more memory the faster you go. It is called a time memory tradeoff. In contrast, SHA256 is rather simple: faster is better.
174  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Strange mining rig issue on: August 13, 2013, 02:40:03 PM
Two seperate cards are in the EXACT same boat? I kind of doubt it, especially since I have to RMA one 7950 already...


yeah that's what I get for being up at like 4am... I was thinking you tried the GPU in two computers. Have you checked the motherboard for leaking/exploded capacitors?
175  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Strange mining rig issue on: August 13, 2013, 11:16:08 AM
After trying 50 or so times, the rig booted! But only to the "Starting Windows..." screen, then it hung. Sad

Considering it's a mining rig, the video card is most likely fried--as opposed to being a m/b or psu issue. PSU and motherboard issues tend to result in random or frequent reboots. What it sounds like is happening here is that as soon as 3D acceleration drivers get loaded, the card is taking a dump. I think the VGA port still bypasses any fancy chips until those drivers are loaded, whereas DVI/HDMI probably don't, and this might be the reason why you were able to get further using that port. Although since it has only "worked" once, it is still pretty likely that the card is in a real bad way.
176  Economy / Economics / Re: Why would Bitcoin deflationary philosophy good since 1929 was due to deflation? on: August 13, 2013, 08:58:25 AM
I don't see how you draw that conclusion. Bitcoin is deflationary and in the sense that it temporarily mints it could be construed as "inflationary" during that time(?),

Lepko, it is important to know around here that the typical bitcoin-washed person refers to "deflation" as meaning prices, but then balks at inflation referring to prices when it can only mean an increase in the supply. He knows what you mean but is twisting what you say into definitions that defy how the average person or economist uses the terms, and then plays dumb--because there cannot possibly be monetary supply increases other than what's scheduled, and thus concluding that there is no inflation in (the) bitcoin (supply) while ignoring prices.

Quote
Last year I could buy 4-5 loaves of bread with a BTC. One year later, I could buy up to 50, depending. I watch year after year as my fiat buys less and less and I am powerless to stop that. Artificially boosting circulating monetary units is of no value to my family. I will stick with the deflationary option that isn't history's most impressive ponzi that has yet to collapse.

Throw in an anecdote of "this is how deflation works" and you're all set up with the pretense that there is no possibility that "one year later, I could buy 1/10th of a loaf", or "I could buy 50 but my 800 neighbors are destitute".

The indoctrination into the bitcoin school of economics is rather refined and effective. Tread lightly.
177  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [NEWS] eMunie: Some general news and 100% Anonymity on: August 11, 2013, 09:49:18 PM
Quote
Bottom line, you don't like the project, the idea, whatever that might be, then that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.  My issue with you is the way you present yourself...almost demanding that I answer your queries as if I am obligated to do so and require YOUR approval to proceed.  

You are mistaking directness for demanding. I see no need to beat around the bush. This is also the internet--fuck pleasantries. You ran away pretty quick from the tough questions in the original thread, and it only makes it look like you don't have a valid answer. It's OK if you don't, but if you won't answer, the only thing you leave is for those who can speculate to speculate. I will like the project if the project is not some pyramid scheme and is defensible under heavy scrutiny. I will not like it if a bunch of people get carried along into losing their time and/or money. While the situation with emunie is somewhat different, it is still a safe historic bet to go with the latter scenario--until proven otherwise, which you can change at any time.

edit: I should note that I consider bitcoin and all of its clones just a long con, and really the only other two (solidcoin and ripple) are quite shady in their own right, so I have a pretty poor view of cryptocurrencies in general. So I do applaud the fact that you are working on something different, especially in regards to the money creation process, but it has to be bullet-proof.
178  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Decrits: The 99%+ attack-proof coin on: August 11, 2013, 09:16:10 PM
No ETA yet. I have implemented part of the network protocol that processes incoming network packets and keeps track of unconfirmed transactions.
179  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [NEWS] eMunie: Some general news and 100% Anonymity on: August 11, 2013, 09:02:13 PM
I understand plenty enough to complete this project, and anything that I happen to come across that I don't, I will learn until I do...there's no shame in that! [...] No, that would be immature.

Was it not you that programmed this somewhere in the background without any review and announced an official release date in your initial post regarding emunie? Was that not somewhat immature? There are not simple solutions to BFT, sybil, and double spending, not to mention scalability, and all this without proof of work--it is a lot to chew on.

Quote
There's a saying you know, you might want to take heed to, it taught me a lesson a long time ago....."The greatest mistake that smart people make, is thinking that no one is smarter than them."

Are you not following the same words? Presuming that you can fix all conceivable problems with no peer review? It seems like you've already had to fix an awful lot just based on the few tidbits gleaned here and there.
180  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: [NEWS] eMunie: Some general news and 100% Anonymity on: August 11, 2013, 08:42:05 PM
Additionally to the above, there have been MANY people that have questioned eMunie and what I want to do with it.  Some of which have pointed out potential flaws that have been investigated, others that had concerns that weren't justified when looked at.

Point being, I had zero problem at all with these questions or queries as they were presented in the correct and respectful manner, not "demanded" which is how your queries come across with a hint of ridicule.

Your cryptography experience is suspect. I am sure you are learning quickly, but you have made some posts that do not sound like someone who understands deeply things like BFT and sybil attacks and double spending.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 ... 93 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!