If they are running GNU/Linux on their servers and have fully patched their servers they are not vulnerable (this is the most likely scenario).
If they are running GNU/Linux on their servers and have not patched their servers they are vulnerable.
If they are running Microsoft Windows Server on their servers they are not vulnerable.
If they are running Apple Server on their servers they are vulnerable (Apple has yet to issue any patches).

5) Some ideas I like Personal and / or Business hall of fame, straight donations to the development fund.

6) Donation of hash power by solo mining to a development donation address.

7) Opt in and or opt out donations in client and mining software.


Some ideas I do not like.

Business specifically set up to raise funds. This adds the issue of competing with independent businesses in the Monero economy space. A much better solution is to encourage business donations.

Printing money for a "good cause" Whether it is from one time special blocks,  taxes on mining fees etc.


For possible discussion:

Migrate the software to a strong copyleft. GPLv3+ or AGPLv3+ Most users would not see a difference; however distribution on closed propriety platforms that require additional restrictive terms, such as IOS, Windows 8.x RT etc. would require a separate license. This license can then require payment. In the IOS case Monero apps on iTunes would have to be paid apps. Those wishing to run Monero in IOS for free would have to jailbreak in order to have GPLv3 / AGPLv3 compatibility. This effectively "fleeces the iSheep". Note:  A platform such as Android or Regular Windows is not impacted since they permit GPLv3+ / AGPLv3+ software.

Edit: AGPLv3 would require a pool or an exchange to either pay a fee (to waive the Network requirement) or effectively make their internal software available to their customers under the AGPLv3. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html, https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Actually most people do not own their phones. The reason for this is that most cellular phones are locked down with DRM infected software. If one has an Android phone and roots it then one can take back ownership of what was rightfully one's own property in the first place.

Now when it comes to Bitcoin or course one can own Bitcoin, or to be technical "control the private keys that allow one to spend the Bitcoin on the blockchain". If the OP is interested in playing language semantics to obtain benefits for which he or she is not eligible due to net worth, the my suggestion is to get professional legal advice in the relevant jurisdiction. Frankly, I must give kudos to the Australian Government for asking this question in the first place. It show the proper recognition of Bitcoin and other crypto currencies as a legitimate asset and / or money.

It is a perfectly legitimate question if there is a financial means test for disability benefits.

The real threats here are for example organizations such as the NFL (National Football League) and other paddlers of "premium" content, not the NSA. DRM is the prime suspect as to why Apple is using 7 year old software.

Edit: Here is a post where apparently the FSF is saving Apple's skin on the DRM issue. http://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/25/bash-flaw-os-x/

Here is the link from the US Department of Homeland Security on the subject. https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/current-activity/2014/09/24/Bourne-Again-Shell-Bash-Remote-Code-Execution-Vulnerability I find it very significant that while it indicates the updates and patches to deal with this issue by major GNU/Linux distributions such as CentOS, Debian, Redhat and Ubuntu there is no mention of any action taken by Apple to address this issue on Mac OS X or IOS as of the time of this post.

Edit: Here is also the thread from the Free Software Foundation on the issue: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2014-09/threads.html

I would not let a single satoshi, belonging to me, anywhere near an operating system released by Apple. Please see my following post as to why. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=796585.msg8971859#msg8971859

First of all this is a valid exploit and can be easily patched on GNU/Linux distributions by updating bash to the latest version. From https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2heu88/if_you_are_storing_bitcoins_on_a_linuxmac_system/

For example on Ubuntu 14.04 (GNU/Linux)


The man page for bash on Ubuntu 14.04 (GNU/Linux) before the update on shows the following:
Bash is Copyright (C) 1989-2013 by the Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is fairly normal since it takes some time for packages to work their way into the final release of a GNU/Linux distribution.

Now when it comes to OSX this gets really interesting. From further down in the same reddit thread


The thread then goes to propose a fix by replacing the bash shell provided by Apple with a Homebrew solution and I would refer those interested in patching the OSX system to the reddit thread as a possible solution.

What I find very interesting here is the copyright notice, both regarding the date and the copyright holder. This brings up the following question. Why on earth would Apple be using a 7 year old version of bash? The answer is not technical but legal, and it relates to DRM. The critical change here is that the Free Software Foundation released the GPLv3 in 2007 and then began slowly porting packages to GPLv3. Here is one of many summaries on the subject. http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/gplv3. Suffice to say that implementing GPLv3, unlike GPLv2, deep in an operating system, such as in the case of bash, makes the whole operating system highly toxic to DRM. For those of us who value our freedom and liberty this is of course a very valuable feature; however if one wishes to create a modern version of the telescreen in George Orwell's 1984 or some thing close to it, using DRM, the presence of GPLv3 code deep in the OS is a fatal bug.

Apple was presented with a choice. Introduce GPLv3 code into OSX and IOS, thereby making these operating systems toxic to DRM or put its users at risk by using 7 year old FSF code that was still licensed under GPLv2. Apple decided to place the greed of organizations such as the MPAA and its own greed, by supporting DRM, ahead the legitimate security needs of its users when choosing to use 7 year old FSF code. The really disturbing question here is: What other vulnerabilities exist in OSX and IOS because of this reason?

At least Microsoft writes it own code to implement DRM, rather than use 7 year old code whose copyright belongs to an organization led by no other than Richard Stallman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman! It may take an entrepreneurial class action litigation firm to heard enough of the iSheep into a class action lawsuit against Apple to actually secure OSX and IOS, by dealing with the underlying legal cause of these vulnerabilities.

libunbound

I ran into the same problem on Ubuntu 14.04 and solved it by installing libunbound

Is there a link to actual post where crypto_zoidberg posted this?

Once could also give the end user the choice between requiring the application verify the checkpoints as being from the core team or not.

It can be a form of centralised control but it does not have to be. If the location of checkpoints is left to the developers then checkpoints become trusting the developers over the longest chain. There is however no reason in principle why this has to be the case, if the function of deciding where the checkpoints are, is separated from that of implementing the checkpoints in code. A POW currency can function perfectly well with different users, miners etc., disagreeing on this point and implementing checkpoints at different locations in the chain. One must recognize that the only barrier preventing end users miners etc., from choosing the location of checkpoints independently of the developers is coding skills.

I for example may choose to disagree with fluffypony on the appropriate location of checkpoints while trusting his coding skills in implementing them.

There is actually nothing preventing a user from adding a checkpoint to the code they are using and recompiling. All they are actually saying is that they trust, as part of the consensus making process, a chain that matches up to the checkpoint over a longer chain that differs before the checkpoint.

It can literally become a war of attrition; however if the defence is in the process of developing a permanent fix then time is on the side of the defence. I compiled bitmonerod 4x over the last 24 hours on different computers.  

In a temewarp attack the attacking chain has to be built up first in private over a period of time. It is then released in the visible portion of the attack. Every time a checkpoint is added this process of building the attacking chain has to be restarted from scratch again, effectively delaying the visible portion of the attack.

Edit: Complacency while the attacking chain is being built, the non visible portion of the attack, becomrs the biggest enemy of the defence. This quote summarizes this very well.

I understand she TW'd the deadline!

Thank you

It is very good advice. Anyone who believes that Monero is going to die because of a TW attack and consequently is planning to sell would be crazy to wait until the attack starts and only then transfer XMR to an exchange. Then either the attack has failed, in which case what is the point of selling, or the attack at least partially works and the coins are lost in the transfer.

The possibility of this attack has been known in advance for 3 days giving plenty of time to transfer coins.

Can someone please explain what Monero has to do with the scaminess or lack thereof of NXT?

It does not even have to be Poloniex. All it takes is one user who lost money because of the DDOS.