Seeing as how it's common practice to re-use addresses I'd say the users have already decided. Why should you, the 15% mining pool host say otherwise?
Satoshi wrote it into the white paper as an additional privacy measure not as a mandate!!
""As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each transaction to keep them from being linked to a common owner. ""
Who are you to penalize me based on your personal opinion?
Because miners can choose which tx to include in a block based on whatever criteria they decide? If no other pool ever adopts a similar set of rules then at most the impact is 15% slower confirmation times. |
|
|
|
I guess guessing the next altcoin to hit 1$ would be gold coins...
Why is that so? Because he owns some |
|
|
|
|
Possible? Sure.
Probable? No.
The lottery ticket you buy at the gas station might also be worth $100M and if you don't like fiat that still buys a lot of Bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
The original discussion was about being able to find 2 keypairs which form the same bitcoin address in 2^80 attempts on average. Assuming someone has the resources to do this, what is the advantage for them? I can't think of anything they could do to take advantage of this?
Also to perform the attack, I'm thinking you'd need to store at least 52 bytes per address (32-byte private key and 20-byte pubkey hash). This is 52 Yottabytes of data!
Nothing. The OP claim is they could do this at massive expense to spend coins from an address using two different pubkeys and that would be a negative PR for Bitcoin. I am doubtful how much of an effect it would have and if anything people would be a repeat (or thousands of repeats) which wouldn't occur and it would be chalked up to incredibly bad luck. Still anyone with the resources to do this could 51% the network which is an "easier", cheaper and far more direct attack. |
|
|
|
I'm curious... I've heard people say that the KnC chips are just fpga copies.. but I've not heard it from any legitimate nor direct sources. Do you have a source for that info? Its often said by hashfast as one of the FUDs that they spread, but i really haven't seen it directly mentioned anywhere.
And anyway, if they've got them running at less than 1 Watt per GH, at the wall.. thats pretty acceptable to me. Its not as low power as hf or ct, but then, they're nit shipping yet... so the difference is moot.
I don't have a source for that. KnC may be standard cell, but getting the same efficiency at 28nm as Bitfury got at 55nm could be responsible for the popular 'FPGA copy' assumption. Anyway, this is a Cointerra thread so let's get back to speculating about the reasons for their failed tape-out and (possibly related) decision to hire new people for their next chip.  Are you really that bad intended? Bitfury is ~2W/GH while KNC is ~1W/GH-~1.3W/GH(reports vary) Bitfury, 400 GH system (16x H-boards) uses a lot less than 800W at the wall it is closer to 400W. Some boards which overclock and overvolt the chips have lower efficiency although I haven't seen one that is as bad at 2 W/GH. Not sure where you are getting your info. |
|
|
|
please someone tell me this will be stopped.
Bitcoin will essentialy be dead if something as retarded as black/redlisting would be implemented
The price of freedom is eternal viligence. Stupid people will never stop trying to do stupid reckless things. It will be a never ending struggle. |
|
|
|
Does anyone know why they stopped accepting Dwolla? I'm sure that hurt their volume badly.
They now have ACH working supposedly. Anybody know what their delays are? Coinbase annoyed me by waiting a full business day to start the transaction, then blaming taking 5 biz days instead of 4 on everyone but themselves.
Dwolla refuses to work with any virtual currency related company. This is a blanket ban and they closed all such accounts. |
|
|
|
Not sure what you point was. The title is "DEPRIORITIZE" and that is exactly what it would do. It creates a method for privacy and security minded individuals to create an incentive for like minded individuals. Nothing more. Nothing is being forced. Nothing is being prevented. I know this is slightly off-topic, but why is it not? Why not have that stuff as a fundamental part of the protocol? It seems that address reuse is causing nothing but harm, and after reading this thread, I don't see any legitimate reason why it's absolutely needed. So why not just eliminate address reuse altogether? Protocol change would mean a hard fork and getting consensus on even mundane changes (google threads about P2SH) is very tough. Getting consensus (or super super majority) on a contraversial change to make a hard fork go smoothly is essentially DOA. |
|
|
|
Mine for transaction fee cause the fee would be really high if everyone starts using Bitcoins....
I can't wait to see where transaction fees will bring the block rewards to. IMO, I think we'll see larger payouts from transactions than the 50 BTC rewards of the old days ..not tomorrow, of course, but in good time. In fact, it wasn't long ago that I saw a 6-8 BTC bonus of transaction fees on a block solved by Slush's pool. Very unlikely. Tx fees are likely to remain low. Then again the purpose of mining is to secure the network not get rich quick. As the value of BTC rises the nominal amount of BTC paid in fees per tx will decline. The rise in tx fees will partially offset the drop in subsidy but we are unlikely to ever see a 50 BTC block again (baring some insanely expensive one time mistake by a user). When the block subsidy cuts again to 12.5 BTC we probably will never see 25 BTC blocks and etc. |
|
|
|
i don't no why people bother with faucets, why would anyone want to sit at a computer all day to earn a 1 dollar.
I think the idea is that todays 1 dollar could be tomorrows 100$. I mean, someone sitting at a faucet collecting all day 2 years ago would have a bit to sell at today's prices. So would someone who worked at McDonalds for a single day and used that money to buy BTC. |
|
|
|
|
This is the reality of red lists. They are much like DRM. They only entity which profits is the entity pushing the broken technology (redlist or DRM). If they can't get enough money by misinformation well they will just legislate it. Things like DMCA could be done which makes a US company not using the services of an approved (think kickback to govt) redlist provider a criminal act. Like the DMCA they could make non compliance ITSELF a criminal act (subject to fines, seizure of profit, redlists of all assets, and incarceration) even if the non-compliant entity didn't even accept redlisted funds or break any other laws.
Yes in the US breaking DRM even for legal reasons (research, legal backups, penetration testing, etc) is itself a crime under the DMCA.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it actually is massively optimistic. It would assume a perfect computer something which is trillions of times more energy efficient than anything mankind has even conceived of and construction on a scale that is simply hard to believe even in far future science fiction. In reality the timespans and energy requirements would be even more asininely long.
|
|
|
|
|
Your late to the party. The resident troll tired of this (reason #287 on why Bitcoin will fail) and is now on to the next reason. Generally speaking a short attention span so you got to be quick.
|
|
|
|
|
So haven't read any of the 5 pages of personal attacks back and forth. Is there any news/updates?
|
|
|
|
Jupiter FW 0.99
Power at Wall Down from 748W to 746W
You're hitting 750w? Bizarre, I'm @ 690w with 98.1 You probably have a more efficient power supply. Could also be 240VAC. It tends to be ~2% more efficient. Would be nice when people post at the wall wattage to post the PSU and Voltage (i.e. 700W X-1250 @ 120VAC). |
|
|
|
|
I don't know of any site which DOESN'T allow purchasing fractional Bitcoins. Can you name one?
|
|
|
|
|
As you pointed out Bitcoin is pseudo anonymous. There are no stats about the purposes of private transactions for the obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no encryption in either mining or validating transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah once again improved chances go from more energy in the solar system to more energy used by mankind. It is an academic distinction at best. Even with a trillion address reuses the computational power needed is far beyond what is considered feasible.
Simple version: if the mean time to a preimage attack is reduced from 10,000 times as long as the life of the universe to 1x as long as the life of the universe most people don't really consider that a realistic security threat.
|
|
|
|
|
Easier is all relative.
Yes it makes it "easier" in the sense of requiring more energy than available to our solar system to just more energy used by mankind since the dawn of civilization.
The real danger to any address reuse is
a) enables easier tracking of transactions
b) if QC becomes feasible of ECDSA is cryptographically weakened then the pubkey in theory could be attacked.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
