Bitcoin Forum
April 25, 2014, 07:02:51 AM *
News: Due to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug, changing your forum password is recommended.
 
  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 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 ... 728
701  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Is there really no way to get your bitcoins out of mt.gox?? on: February 17, 2014, 03:49:32 AM
Sorry for being a noob but I'm confused.  I thought when you have an account on Mt. Gox they provide you with your public and private key?  If so, why do you need their permission to withdraw bitcoin.  Couldn't you just transfer it to you another bank or paper wallet?  If not can you still purchase stuff with it on sites that accept bitcoin like through bitpay?  Is there really no way to get the bitcoins out?

If you have an account on MtGox THEY have the private key, THEY have the Bitcoins.  You have an IOU for Bitcoin that currently they are not paying.  

This leads to a common saying "If you don't have the private key for "your" bitcoins, they you don't have any bitcoins."
702  Bitcoin / Press / Re: [2014-02-16] First Bitcoin conference in Russia on: February 17, 2014, 03:45:12 AM
Russia did not declare it illegal.

Moreover the ruling by central bank has no legal backbone... It's just bullshit scaremongering sheet of paper.

Still I don't see that making the conference more attractive.

Go to the xyz Bitcoin conference and have a good time vs go to the Russian Bitcoin Conference and possibly end up arrested.
703  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Overstock getting close $1million sales in bitcoin on: February 17, 2014, 03:04:46 AM
Which is completely pointless IMO
I agree, but I think it'll happen. From the customer's point of view, the payment page will have a combobox with a drop-down list of crypto-currencies that are accepted, and it'll be at most a couple of clicks to select the one they want to pay in. Hopefully BTC will be the default, and the one every vendor accepts, but they won't want to turn away customers who prefer some other currency.

We have yet to see that.  We have yet to even see payment processors offer that as an option.  Given the near instant liquidity between BTC and copy cats a merchant is very unlikely to lose sales by not offering to accept payments in 928,390,238,120 different alt coins.  So the payment process gains a negligible amount in incremental sales.

There are also the logistical issues.  Services like bitpay lock an exchange rate in order to guarantee the merchant a certain amount in USD (or other currency).  BitPay takes the currency rate risk, you can only move/transfer risk not erase it.   Imagine what would happen if someone tried to buy $1,000,000 worth of mining rigs through a merchant using BitPay and decided to pay with say PeerCoin or FeatherCoin or TerraCoin or <insert flavor of week here>.  What would a $1,000,000 sell do to the market?

Could it happen?  Maybe.  However there is very little value and a huge amount of risk for the payment processor.  
704  Economy / Securities / Re: legality of US investors buying "shares" on sites like crypto-trade/havelock/etc on: February 17, 2014, 01:30:26 AM
so if a US citizen bought shares on such an exchange, and profited, and paid the appropriate tax on those profits - no harm no foul?

Sure.  However most likely it is buy shares on exchange, turns out to be scam. You have bought nothing but air, have no legal right, and lose all your money.

Sellers of said shares (and the exchanges) may be violating US law but the buyer isn't breaking the law.  Still that is little comfort when you lose everything.  "Hooray all my bitcoins are gone but I didn't break the law".
705  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: what (technically) enforces bitcoin not to exceed 21 million cap? on: February 16, 2014, 10:45:23 PM
DT, it is possible for a txn to be valid on two forks simultaneously...

I never said it isn't.  Please read what I wrote.  Eventually the pool of unspent outputs which are valid on both forks will aproach zero.
706  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: bitcoin is failing in replacing fiat in physical shops on: February 16, 2014, 10:08:10 PM
I put him on "Ignore" long ago so I wouldn't be tempted to respond to his silly, mis-informed, useless drivel.

Good to see that I made the right decision on the matter.

I must have taken it off some time ago for one reason or another.  Always good to reverify ones assumptions by experimentation.  In this case the experiment validated the hypothesis.  Also knowing Angry Mint this will likely span countless posts of baseless assumptions and blatantly incorrect technical details so I think it is back to ignore.  Life is too short, and you can't fix stupid.
707  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: bitcoin is failing in replacing fiat in physical shops on: February 16, 2014, 10:05:26 PM
It depends on the programming of the mining client. They might accept the first one received or reject both, given they can collect transactions for the next block while calculating the hash solution for the current block.

Wait isn't the same thing as reject.  If miner waits until the next block then one of the tx will be confirmed.  Still there is no reason for a miner to wait on a paying tx.  Once again theoretical nonsense, based on a presumption that miners are idiots and will do dumb things you need them to.

Quote
You can not dictate how all mining clients will be programmed. You might be referring to the default choice in the official reference client?

Economics dictate miners won't be stupid.  If they are they will go bankrupt and be replaced by ones less stupid.

Quote
I wrote that when the seller releases the product after Tx send. You are writing about a seller waiting a while and trying to sniff the network activity, which is not a guaranteed method due to propagation of transactions not being guaranteed by the protocol.

You say "send" and "propagation" as if they are different events.  How do you think the merchant LEARNS of the payment.  That is right it is propogated through the network.

So the merchants tx propagates rapidly within seconds, but magically the attackers tx only propagates to nodes that aren't linked to the merchant although the attacker has no way of knowing which ones those are.

Gotcha.
708  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: bitcoin is failing in replacing fiat in physical shops on: February 16, 2014, 09:49:56 PM
His calculation is wrong. To double-spend when the seller requires only 0-confirmations, then one doesn't need any mining hashrate, they just send out two spend transactions. As I explained upthread, the system will probably reject both as duplicates, but the seller has already given your the product and you are long gone. Randomly the system might get one of the spends in a found block and reject the other as a double-spend.

How can you get this wrong after being here so long.

1) The network will never reject BOTH transactions.  If the transactions are valid one will be confirmed.

2) To be included in the next block the attacker's tx will need to win the "race" of course if the merchant sees the attack tx it becomes very obvious that a double spend is being attempted and the sale can be halted.

Merchants (or their processors) can improve the odds by using listening nodes which communicate out of band width the merchants (or processor's wallet).  If a merchant had 8 geo located listening nodes with an average of 2,000 peers each that would be 16,000 peers.  Now if any one of those 16,000 peers are relayed the double spend the merchant will be aware of this.  The merchant can nearly instantly detect attempts to double spend.  The merchant can delay the sale by a few seconds to ensure good propagation and see if there are any double spends.

If the attacker waits until after the sale is complete, the entire network will already be aware of the merchant's tx and reject the attacker's as a double spend.
If the attacker sends both tx simultaneously within seconds some node connected to the merchants listening network will see it and a "DOUBLE SPEND. ASK FOR ALTERNATE PAYMENT" can be displayed to the cashier.

This type of detection would not be able to see Finney attacks however 0-confirm isn't suitable for all transactions and there are significant costs and complicates with pulling off a Finney attack in all situations.

709  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: what (technically) enforces bitcoin not to exceed 21 million cap? on: February 16, 2014, 09:35:48 PM
spending them on one side would not mean spending them on the other.
How is it determined on which chain of the fork a transmit applies? Such a fork does not change the transmit protocol.

It doesn't matter a given transaction over time will only be valid on one fork or another.

For example the coins from the first block after the fork would only be valid on the fixed reward fork.  Nodes on the the original fork would see it as invalid.

This also means any spend which uses those coins would also only be seen as valid on one fork.   Since the input of any tx is the output of prior tx it also invalidated all subsequent tx which use the change from that transaction.

While at day 0 most tx will be valid on both halves of the fork, like a metaphorical fork in the road, the two chains will diverage over time and eventually the vast majority of transactions will only be valid on a single fork.



710  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: what (technically) enforces bitcoin not to exceed 21 million cap? on: February 16, 2014, 09:32:21 PM
Consensus.

This.  Sure anyone can make a new client which changes the Bitcoin protocol.  One way of looking at it is that altcoins are an example of this.   However nothing can force existing users to adopt the new "changed" client.   As long as they don't, their existing clients will reject blocks and transactions which violate their rules.

Anyone can fork Bitcoin, nobody can fork force you to use that fork.
711  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Timing of exploitation of bug on: February 16, 2014, 09:24:37 PM
MtGox left the door "open" when their nodes started writing garbage non-compliant transactions.  Prior to v0.8 most of MtGox garbage tx were still relayed by other nodes.  With prompt relaying it becomes very difficulty to modify the tx and then win a race.  As the number of v0.8+ nodes started increasing, transactions created by MtGox started having a harder and harder time propogating the network.

Like a critical cascading failure this flaw exposed other flaws in MtGox "GOX SPECIAL v0" client they hacked together without basic knowledge of the protocol.  Their client would attempt to create tx without sufficient tx fees (despite charging users 10x the min mandatory fee). Their client would attempt to spend immature newly mined coins.  Rather than fix issues they simply modified the client to spend older and larger "coins" first.

This really came to a critical level in the last 30 days when the percentage of legit withdraws became massive.  By now most of the network was v0.8+ so they were just dropping MtGox tx, the need to continually recreate withdraws over and over not only provided the attacker with "cover", it also exhausted their pool of old, large coins, exposing the the other issues with insufficient fees and spending immature coins. The flaws in their design compounded upon each other to create this massive (at one point >2,800 tx and anecdotally more than 50% failure rate) backlog of broken withdraws.

My guess is someone figured out they could take the garbage tx non-compliant tx, clean it up and get paid faster.  From there it was only a small leap in logic to "wait a second, MtGox servers still show the old tx hash.  I bet I could tell them I haven't been paid and blend right in with the thousands upon thousands of legit reports of broken transactions". 

Of course if the ONLY problems MTGox had were non-canonical signature, spending immature coins, double spending their own payments (race condition?), and paying insufficient fees the attacker STILL couldn't have stolen funds.  Like I said this just opened the door.  That combined with relying on tx ids and resending payments without investigation after a report on non-payment is what made the attack profitable.
712  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Large Corporations and Bitcoin on: February 16, 2014, 09:20:30 PM
Can anyone please tell me why large corporations like Facebook or Google will accept Bitcoin in near future ? They can simply mine it... right ? They have enough money to stack racks of ASIC... is NOT it ?

Margins on mining are low (possibly negative), you have absolutely no pricing power, brands are worthless (a hash is a hash regardless of who makes it), and your profitability is largely determined by what other people (not you) do.   Does that sound like a business model that Google would be interested in?

I would find it much more likely that a Google would attempt to buy a company like BitPay then get involved in mining.
713  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So...What Other Weaknesses in Bitcoin Coding Should We Know About? on: February 16, 2014, 09:16:44 PM
I expect someone to eventually pull off a Sybill attack against a poorly connected merchant node.  There is no guaranteed defense but you increase your resistance by using multiple listening nodes.  Then again maybe I am just crypto-paranoid.
714  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Contrary to Mt.Gox’s Statement, Bitcoin is not at fault - Gavin Andresen 10/2/14 on: February 16, 2014, 08:54:28 PM
So who are these crazy people that are selling bitcoins on Gox?!

People who believe MtGox gave most of their bitcoins to the attackers and are now insolvent.  If that is true (and I am not saying it is) then they may believe holding dollar "debt" in an insolvent Japanese company is better than holding bitcoins as AFAIK there have been court cases in Japan regarding the standing of bitcoins in a situation like this.  If you believe MtGox is insolvent, being owed USD "may" be safer than being owed BTC.  If enough people believe that sell BTC to hold dollars then you would see the price distort as it has.

Simple Version:
The exchange rate on MtGox may no longer represent the value of a bitcoin, but instead reflect the relative value of a MTGox IOU for USD vs a MtGox IOUT for BTC.
715  Bitcoin / Press / Re: [2014-01-14] BitPay Not Willing to Work with Marijuana Dispensaries on: February 15, 2014, 09:08:54 PM
Obama administration clears banks to accept funds from legal marijuana dealers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-clears-banks-to-accept-funds-from-legal-marijuana-dealers/2014/02/14/55127b04-9599-11e3-9616-d367fa6ea99b_story.html

Should pave the way for bitcoin payment processors.

The statement by the administration is a bunch of legal nothing.

Summarized.  "We won't prosecute you, but it is still illegal and at any point in the future for any reason we could suddenly and without warning decide to prosecute you.  Also there is no legal defense or safe harbor on actions you take now even if you decide to suspend them in the future if/when our policy changes."

How likely do you think banks (and companies like BitPay) will see this as the legal clarity they need to move forward?
716  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Cannot buy and sell Bitcoin. How to do this? on: February 15, 2014, 05:51:49 PM
5. Bitsimple - no email reply in 24 hours, plus here's the real kicker, their phone number has been "disconnected or busy". Paying money to a company with a disconnected phone number? Yeah, right.

Can't help you if you dial the wrong phone number.   The phone number on the website has never been disconnected or busy.  The site offers secure (SSL protected) chat for customers so if you have specific questions the fastest response is to create an account and click on help at the bottom of any page.
717  Other / Alternate cryptocurrencies / Re: Why aren't all coins, sha and scrypt based done like this..... on: February 15, 2014, 05:46:54 PM
The thought was to keep the current decentralized mechanism for generating coins, but just tie the mining output also to something that has additional tangible value (like curing cancer or creating clean energy, etc).  Doesn't change how a person would use their generated coin or their ability to use exchanges or trade them but gives the mining process some additional inherent value.

Yeah that is like saying "Keep toasters exactly like they work now except they also solve cancer".

718  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Contrary to Mt.Gox’s Statement, Bitcoin is not at fault - Gavin Andresen 10/2/14 on: February 15, 2014, 05:43:23 PM
Does this mean that many Gox customers believe the price will fall that far on the other exchanges before Gox gets their bitcoin transmission going again? Or does it mean that they believe their dollars are safer on Gox than their bitcoins? Or what? I find it difficult to explain the price difference.

The later.  MtGox doubled paid attackers for who knows how many times and this has could have been going on for a month.  How many Bitcoins does MtGox owe customers?  How many do they have?
719  Other / Alternate cryptocurrencies / Re: Why aren't all coins, sha and scrypt based done like this..... on: February 15, 2014, 05:32:03 PM
Learn what mining actually does, why it is needed, and how the current solution works without centralized control.

Once you do that it is obvious why your idea makes no more sense than designing a toaster which also cures cancer and paints your house.
720  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Stuck transactions - possibly new attack? on: February 14, 2014, 06:47:02 PM
it isn't going to magically fix old problems. 
Well, actually—

Zapwallet will fix these cases, in a kind of blunt way.

There is also a patch forthcoming that will release stuck coins (after, by default, something like 144 blocks).


I just saw zapwallet.  Nice solution.  Kill all tx records and then rescan to pickup only the confirmed ones. Smart.
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 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 ... 728
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!