Bitcoin Forum
April 24, 2018, 06:59:32 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 [346] 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 »
6901  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: disconnections on: August 20, 2010, 11:53:12 AM
Do you get a new IP address after your Internet connection fails? That would cause your TCP connections to silently die. If that's the case, you might try enabling TCP keepalive in your operating system and setting a low keepalive time: maybe 10 minutes.
6902  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Convert Bitcoin to GTK: Yes? No? wx is better? on: August 19, 2010, 07:34:48 AM
bitcoind's commands should be expanded and binaries for it should be released so that third-party UI development can be made easier. Like Tor.
6903  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin discussed on Financial Radio Show on: August 19, 2010, 12:24:37 AM
He's been "hearing a lot about" Bitcoin? That seems like a good sign.

I hope they do an interview. That'd be sure to attract people.
6904  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Market on: August 19, 2010, 12:03:38 AM
Isn't the charge back risk just in a different place on the two markets?

A market with a non-PayPal USD deposit method would be nice.

There are no chargebacks if you use LRUSD or Pecunix (both supported by BCM).

If you want to use PayPal or Moneybookers, you get to delay confirmation for 10 days, which will hopefully reduce the risk. If a chargeback does happen, it only affects one person instead of bankrupting the entire market.
6905  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Market on: August 18, 2010, 11:50:18 PM
With BCM, you might have to wait up to 10 days for a trade to be confirmed. I don't want to do PayPal trades very often because I don't want PayPal to freeze my account for "suspicious activity" or whatever. For these reasons, I think people who use BCM prefer to do large but infrequent trades. I have personally traded more BTC in a single trade on BCM than Mt. Gox's current 24-hour volume.

I strongly believe that Mt. Gox will collapse when it experiences a few chargebacks. I don't trust that deposited USD or BTC will still be there when I want to withdraw.
6906  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: freenet and cpu priority on: August 18, 2010, 02:22:35 AM
Freenet already runs at low priority (nice 10).

You can change Bitcoin's priority as it starts. Right click the Bitcoin shortcut in the "startup" folder in the start menu. Click "properties". Change the "target" to this:
Code:
C:\Windows\System32\cmd.exe /c start "Bitcoin" /LOW /MIN "C:\Program Files\Bitcoin\bitcoin.exe"
6907  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Anonymity on: August 18, 2010, 01:34:25 AM
Quote from: ichi
How would they find me?  What's the equivalent of my street address?  Is it just the network of clients that I've done transfers with?  What if none of them know who I am?  Am I missing something?

The history of your coins is your "street address". Anyone who knows any of your addresses can see all past and future transactions for coins gotten with that address, even if those coins are (or have been) transferred to different addresses.

You're safe if none of your addresses are used to receive coins from people who know who you are and you never send coins to people who know who you are.
6908  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Anonymity on: August 16, 2010, 09:36:16 PM
Quote from: ichi
It's become my practice to create a new Ubuntu VM / Bitcoin client for each major transaction, and to trash it after subsequent transfers to longer-term clients.  The IPs are anonymized.  Does that actually increase anonymity?

From the "Anonymity" article on the wiki:
Quote
Sending coins to a different computer under your control will give you some plausible deniability. However, an investigator is still likely to find you and demand to know who you sent the coins to. If they search your stuff, they'll probably find your other computer. If the attacker is not law enforcement (or maybe even if they are), they might kill you “just in case”. If you use this method, send bitcoins in small increments (no more than 50 BTC, but as small as you're willing to use) to avoid combining coins, which reduces anonymity.

Also:
Quote
Tor prevents network analysis and should be used, but it won't help make your Bitcoin balance “clean” The attacker isn't talking to you over the Internet; they're looking at your changes to the block  chain. This is similar to posting a threat and your street address on a message board using Tor – Tor doesn't stop the police from finding you.

Quote from: ichi
To be explicit, my threat model is this: Can I remain anonymous when all with whom I exchange bitcoin are conspiring to identify me?  For me, here and now, that's probably overkill, in that I'm just a guy buying anonymous connectivity and server resources.  In China, OTOH?  Anywhere in ten years?  Hard to say.

As long as it's not illegal to use Bitcoin, Bitcoin can satisfy that threat model. The current implementation does not, however.

Quote from: RHorning
I'm not talking about extending the protocol here at all.... as a matter of fact it is a simplification of the protocol and perhaps even the client software too.  There is no reason to have a special case if the transaction happens to go to a key that exists on that same computer, and certainly no reason for any extra data to be recorded that would indicate a self-referential transaction that appears externally as anything other than a coin transfer from one user to another.  Explicit special coding must happen for that situation to occur... in other words software development effort has been spent to make the current situation that removes anonymity.  It is a case where keeping it simple helps improve the overall algorithm.

I agree that the behavior should be changed. The change is not really a simplification, though: it's the use of hashes (addresses) that is a bit of a "hack". The thought was probably, "We know the public key, so let's avoid all of that hashing garbage."
6909  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: 0.3.10.1 Question on where block should be on: August 16, 2010, 12:18:00 AM
There are 74643 blocks as I write this. The split is causing some network problems. You should connect your computers to each other with the addnode parameter.
6910  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: overflow bug SERIOUS on: August 15, 2010, 11:21:06 PM
What block number is it?

It's around 67k. It only took me about 3 minutes to get to the current block.
6911  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: overflow bug SERIOUS on: August 15, 2010, 10:06:02 PM
What about the transactions from 74000 to the invalid block. Are those all invalid now as well?

Only this aberrant transaction and coins generated after it in the block chain will be removed. All other transactions will continue to exist.

Quote from: NewLibertyStandard
Will the bug fix include the 4-way SSE2 patch included in 0.3.9rc2?

It's included.
6912  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: overflow bug SERIOUS on: August 15, 2010, 09:26:09 PM
Once you have an update, you could download knightmb's block chain.  You'll want one that's old enough that it ends before block 74000 so the most recent security lockin will check it.  Can someone find the link for that? 

http://knightmb.dyndns.org/files/bitcoin/blocks/
6913  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Strange block 74638 on: August 15, 2010, 06:28:56 PM
This could be a serious problem. Bitcoin's printblock also shows it:

Code:
CBlock(hash=0000000000790ab3, ver=1, hashPrevBlock=0000000000606865, hashMerkleR
oot=618eba, nTime=1281891957, nBits=1c00800e, nNonce=28192719, vtx=2)
  CTransaction(hash=012cd8, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(000000, -1), coinbase 040e80001c028f00)
    CTxOut(nValue=50.51000000, scriptPubKey=0x4F4BA55D1580F8C3A8A2C7)
  CTransaction(hash=1d5e51, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=2, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(237fe8, 0), scriptSig=0xA87C02384E1F184B79C6AC)
    CTxOut(nValue=92233720368.54275808, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0xB7A7)
    CTxOut(nValue=92233720368.54275808, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0x1512)
  vMerkleTree: 012cd8 1d5e51 618eba
6914  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Anonymity on: August 15, 2010, 07:36:38 AM
Quote from: RHorning
Why?  If you sent a transaction to a bitcoin address, how is that any different than sending the transaction to somebody else?

It's only different because you are capable of sending to a public key instead of a hash, since the full public key is in your wallet. Normally you don't have the full public key, so you must send it to a hash. There's no technical reason why you couldn't send self-transactions to a hash -- Bitcoin just doesn't. You don't need to extend the protocol at all to deal with this (the confirmation stuff you mentioned isn't necessary).
6915  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Anonymity on: August 15, 2010, 06:47:42 AM
Transfers to yourself are the same as transfers by IP address, so it was probably thought that this type of transfer would "blend in". No one uses IP transfers, though. (And no one should because they're insecure.)

Not much anonymity would be gained if this was fixed. You can't do proper "internal mixing" unless you have the ability to choose which coins you want to send to yourself.
6916  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [PATCH] implement 'listtransactions' on: August 15, 2010, 06:29:49 AM
Most transactions are not "rolled back" when two chains recombine. Transactions in the shorter chain get put back into the transaction pool, and will eventually appear in a block. Generations would normally be the only transactions removed, which is why they are treated specially.
6917  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Potential disaster scenario on: August 15, 2010, 02:15:12 AM
Why would it "grind to a halt"?  Economies don't function just because money is being printed.  Are you using the same argument for the US dollar and assuming our "economy would grind to a halt" if the government didn't print more dollars?  Of course not.

Blocks are used to verify transactions. For example, Bitcoin Market requires two confirmations. If a block takes two hours to make, then it would take four hours to put Bitcoins into Bitcoin Market. This would not be good.

When people start adding transaction fees, the value of the current block will steadily rise until it is solved. If this gets very high, everyone will attempt to "win the jackpot". The market will solve the problem.

Botnets will probably be supporting Bitcoin in the future, so it doesn't really matter anyway.
6918  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Anonymity on: August 15, 2010, 02:00:56 AM
I bet anonymity is a must for many users. We definitely need a poll.
What happens if i send all my money to one of my unused addresses? I guess that coins from all other addresses are gathered in one and no one is able to tell if I sent them to myself. Right? As the OP (I think) said, I will be still in the "suspect" list but nevetheless it offers some deniability.

BTW when you send money to yourself the transaction log doesn't even list which the receiving account is...  Roll Eyes

Don't send coins from one address to a different one on the same computer. This actually reduces your anonymity because it combines several different coins (some of which, such as generations, might be pretty anonymous). It's also obvious what you're doing because Bitcoin makes a special transaction when you send coins to yourself: it includes the full public key for the destination instead of the hashed public key used in normal transactions.

Right now, the best way to make your balance anonymous is to use MyBitcoin through Tor. MyBitcoin (presumably) pools all of its customers' balances, so it acts a bit like one of the external mixing services I described in the OP. However, unless they modified Bitcoin, they keep logs of every transaction, so they could identify you if they had to. It's like using a web proxy that keeps logs.

If I really wanted to make an anonymous transaction, this is what I would do:
- Send entire transaction amount to a new MyBitcoin account as a lump sum.
- Set up a brand new (empty) Bitcoin installation using Tor.
- Every day, withdraw 5% of the transaction amount to the new installation. Bonus points: add some randomization to the amount of Bitcoins you withdraw and the time between doing it.
- Finally, send the transaction from the new installation

I doubt you'll ever be traced after doing this unless you're doing something really illegal. If you want more anonymity, you can:
- Send fewer coins from MyBitcoin to your new installation over a longer period of time.
- Also add Vekja (another service like MyBitcoin). This is like chaining encrypted proxies: both will need to be compromised for you to be identified.

MyBitcoin and Vekja don't act like "true" external mixing services because they don't try to mix balances. If you're transferring a lot of money in this way, you're likely to get back most of your own coins, which would greatly reduce your anonymity.
6919  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Letter to the EFF on: August 15, 2010, 12:57:44 AM
Or it can be a verb, "If you like my work, bitcoin me."

That should be capitalized because you are referring to the Bitcoin network. Similarly, "Just Google it" is capitalized when referring specifically to the Google search engine.

These rules are all very trivial and unimportant, of course, but following all of English's ridiculous capitalization rules is a bit of a hobby of mine.  Smiley
6920  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Letter to the EFF on: August 15, 2010, 12:38:50 AM
The word bitcoin is not always a proper noun. It's a proper noun when it is the name of the application called Bitcoin. It's a common noun when it's referring to units of bitcoin currency. It can also be an adjective, but the adjective is based on the proper noun. I prefer to write it lower case when I use it as an adjective. I don't much care whether my adjective capitalization is correct or not.

I am inclined to expand on the adjective usage and use "x Bitcoins." However, the FAQ uses, "1,300,000 bitcoins." If the FAQ is an official source of information, then I would always copy its usage. The FAQ also uses, "new Bitcoins," though, which seems a bit contradictory. Satoshi has used both ways on the forum.

There is precedence for your usage: the Costa Rican colón is based on someone's name, but is written in lowercase. Costa Rica is a Spanish-speaking country, though, so maybe this one example was only inherited from their non-English usage. Do you know of an actual grammar rule for this case? I looked through the Chicago Manual of Style, but I could not find any rules for a case like this.

Hopefully Satoshi or sirius-m will say which usage is correct. Until then, I think I'll use "[0-9]+ bitcoins" as the only lowercase usage of the word.
Pages: « 1 ... 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 [346] 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 »
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!