|
In Microsoft's case especially with post XP versions of Windows absolutely. There are many parts of the OS where the owner (even an administrator) is completely locked out in Vista/7/8 due to the the desire on the part of Microsoft to support DRM in particular HDCP. Basically I would not trust any OS that supports DRM with my Bitcoins for this very reason. It is the reason why I only use GNU/Linux for my Bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
No...
Options 2 and 3 are more like "I don't really want to pay for a security system, but if people are going to start burgling my house, I want one."
FWIW, I personally am in the "We should have waited longer, but I guess it needs to move forward now." boat.
Which is why I do not like options 2 and 3. Why? Because there may not be enough time to install the security system before the house is burgled. Option 4 is more to my liking by the way. One thing to note is that the proposed payment protocol will address the many of arguments against what is being proposed here. |
|
|
|
You're an idiot, don't do this! - 59 (36.6%)
I don't like this, but I agree we need to move forward with it. - 14 (8.7%)
We should have waited longer, but I guess it needs to move forward now. - 19 (11.8%)
Great, it's about time! - 23 (14.3%)
You're a hero, let's get this deployed everywhere ASAP! - 35 (21.7%)
If it's from Luke, it can't be any good. - 11 (6.8%)
I read the poll more along these lines. Opposed: 43.2% In favour with varying degrees of support: 56.5% Rounding 0.3%. There is a fair degree of support for this. We must also keep in mind the following
i coloured it because for instance saying "i dont like this" 14 (8.7%) means literally i dont like this.. in other words NO saying "we should have waited longer" 19 (11.8%) means literally i dont want this to be done yet.. in other words NOT YET but both questions are worded to then subtly suggest they agree to implement it. these type of questions are called trick questions. EG if i said "do you hate termites" and you chose 1) i dont like them, but i agree we to live along side them as they are living creatures great using that answer, you have agreed to allow me to deliver 500,000 termite larvae to your house as you seem to be ok with it. To quote the termite example. It is more like I am not ok with allowing you to deliver 500,000 termite larvae to my house; however if you do I will not call the exterminator even though the termites will demolish the house. The trouble with saying "no but" is that more often than not it means "yes". |
|
|
|
A question for the OP: Are you proposing this just for addresses that are reused after a output, (where the privacy risk is highest), or also for addresses that have multiple inputs but only 0 outputs before the transaction in question? The risks (which are not limited to mere privacy, I might note) are the same for both of these cases. In any case, while I did only provide a single patch upfront, my proposal is to discuss and implement a variety of possible solutions, not any single solution, in the short-term. What? What's the risk? It leaks cryptographic information - that's how that recent 55BTC hack occurred (in combination with the PRNG issues in Java SecureRandom lib). Also in the event that ECDSA is degraded the pubkey being unknown (payments are to pubkeyhash) provides an added layer of security. Commonly people assumes algorithms are either "safe" or "broken" where broken means someone can instantly find a private key from the public key. The reality is often algorithms are merely degraded. As an an example a flaw could be found in ECDSA such that it takes on average 2^60 operations to perform a preimage attack (normally 2^128 by brute force. Now 2^60 is a relatively large number but a dedicated attacker with sufficient resources could attack (over the course of months) a known PubKey. If the PubKey is unknown no attack is possible. Yes. This is a crucial difference between reuse for inputs only (for example a donation address) and reuse after an output. |
|
|
|
The point is that people need to stop this bad behaviour and start using Bitcoin correctly.
then teach them how to transact properly through a youtube tutorial. instead of putting in protocol bureaucracy that will cause transaction delays.. this to me is not about teaching people the right way, but to hit people with a delay stick as many times as it takes until they get it right. have you atleast made a massive announcement that there will be expected transaction delays if people do not transact properly, on bitcointalks main thread, or the foundations website. no? well start tutoring people before knocking their financial kneecaps with block change protocols i must also highlight the voting (stats taken at time stamp of this post You're an idiot, don't do this! - 59 (36.6%)
I don't like this, but I agree we need to move forward with it. - 14 (8.7%)
We should have waited longer, but I guess it needs to move forward now. - 19 (11.8%)Great, it's about time! - 23 (14.3%)
You're a hero, let's get this deployed everywhere ASAP! - 35 (21.7%)If it's from Luke, it can't be any good. - 11 (6.8%)which simplified down is 103 say no to implementation 64%
58 say yes implement the change to miner protocol 36%so why luke have you decided to go against consensus and implement it with elegius? I read the poll more along these lines. Opposed: 43.2% In favour with varying degrees of support: 56.5% Rounding 0.3%. There is a fair degree of support for this. We must also keep in mind the following Why does my Bitcoin address keep changing?
Whenever the address listed in "Your address" receives a transaction, Bitcoin replaces it with a new address. This is meant to encourage you to use a new address for every transaction, which enhances anonymity. All of your old addresses are still usable: you can see them in Settings -> Your Receiving Addresses. from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Why_does_my_Bitcoin_address_keep_changing.3F The original design of Bitcoin was that address reuse is to be the exception rather than the norm and what is been done here follows this intent. I get the distinct impression here that Coin Validation has fired a shot across the bow of Bitcoin and someone has just shot back. |
|
|
|
|
A question for the OP: Are you proposing this just for addresses that are reused after a output, (where the privacy risk is highest), or also for addresses that have multiple inputs but only 0 outputs before the transaction in question?
To give an example.
In the first example a donation address is set up that receives multiple inputs. Then a spend is made that triggers an output from the address. Then after the spend the same address in used again for inputs. In the second example a donation address is set up that receives multiple inputs. Then a spend is made that triggers an output from the address. After the spend a new address is generated for subsequent donations.
|
|
|
|
I would assume that there will be some press in major news sources along with this hearing. With press always comes some interest so it should be positive I would think, with the thought that no press is bad press.  they will let us watch it live. 10 seconds after the 3rd mention of "coin validation" or "red list", don't bother to refresh just hit sell. lol idk... In other words a libertarian panic. Monday is going to be very interesting. |
|
|
|
|
A more apt comparison for Apple is Big Brother from George Orwell's 1984. Apple has been in the censorship business for years censoring a wide range of ideas, ranging from religious teachings, (I am aware of cases involving mainstream Christianity and Tibetan Buddhism) to Comedy, Parody, Adult Content, Free Software, etc. Take a subject which has even the slightest of controversy and there a very good chance that Apple has censored both sides. It hardly surprising that they censor Bitcoin. In fact they have been actively censoring it for quite a while.
The entire IOS business model is based upon censorship and control enforced by DRM
|
|
|
|
A practical solution to the cryptolocker virus issue:
1) Pay the ransom. Word on the street is that when the ransom is paid within the time frame the data is unencrypted
2) Back up the data to an offline storage
3) This is the most critical step Replace Microsoft Windows with GNU/Linux and propriety software with Free Libre Open Source software. This has the following advantages:
a) It prevents any further infection from cryptolocker
b) It allows the victim to recover the cost of the ransom over time by not paying for proprietary operating systems, proprietary software and proprietary "security" solutions
c) It helps deter further criminal activity of this nature by removing one potential victim from an operating system that has over time been proving to be notorious for malware, viruses and the like.
If you are a gamer, the choice to go over to Linux isn't really an option. Some software is just made for Windows.  Actually the gaming scene on GNU/Linux is changing for the better fast with Valve porting Steam to GNU/Linux. In situations where one has to use software which is only available on Microsoft Windows and there is no FLOSS alternative there are options that can at the very least mitigate the risk of infection and cost. 1) Run the software under Wine 2) Run Microsoft Windows in a virtual machine that is used only to run the software in question. 3) Run a dual boot configuration and use the Microsoft Windows side only to run the software in question. The key is to move the main computing activity, in particular web browsing, email, and the exchange of documents away from Microsoft Windows. If the withdrawal pains form Microsoft Windows are very high one does not have to go "cold turkey". There are ways to gradually eliminate the addiction. |
|
|
|
|
A practical solution to the cryptolocker virus issue:
1) Pay the ransom. Word on the street is that when the ransom is paid within the time frame the data is unencrypted
2) Back up the data to an offline storage
3) This is the most critical step Replace Microsoft Windows with GNU/Linux and propriety software with Free Libre Open Source software. This has the following advantages:
a) It prevents any further infection from cryptolocker
b) It allows the victim to recover the cost of the ransom over time by not paying for proprietary operating systems, proprietary software and proprietary "security" solutions
c) It helps deter further criminal activity of this nature by removing one potential victim from an operating system that has over time been proving to be notorious for malware, viruses and the like.
|
|
|
|
...
If you run a full mining node, blacklist the whitelist. Work out how to prevent all "white" addresses from ever getting their transactions processed.
Now we have a freedom vs censorship hashpower war? And we also know why certain ASIC chips were not delivered on time. |
|
|
|
|
If one cross breeds Banking with Bitcoin one gets Ripple.
|
|
|
|
The key here is that this is a college fund and the OP is 13 so we are looking at a hold of 5 years before the funds are spent. The choice the OP makes in going to college or not is irrelevant. What really matters here is the 5 year time to hold the BTC. Now let me make this clear I believe there is a very good chance that the BTC/USD rate will drop by 50% or more is the next days or weeks; however I also believe that there is an even greater chance that the BTC/USD rate would be over 10,000 and possibly over 100,000 by the time the OP reaches age 18.
So the downside is that an 18 year old is short 4200 USD. 4200 USD is a drop in the bucket towards a college education and most 18 year olds can easily earn that kind of money in a job over a few months. The upside on the other hand is that the 12 BTC would be worth 1.2 million USD. Not only is this more than enough to pay for a college education and medical or legal school but the OP will have a fair amount of funds left over to help his parents should they get into financial trouble in an economic collapse.
From a financial point of view I consider this a sound decision but only if the OP keeps these funds in BTC until the OP's 18th birthday
Should the OP have asked permission from his parents? On the surface the answer may be yes; however this is a situation where asking for forgiveness after the fact makes more sense than seeking permission beforehand. I am 56 years old I must say this is a situation where I find myself trusting the judgement of a 13 year old, the OP, over that of someone in their 30s or 40s, the parents. Why because a 13 year old has nothing invested in the current economic system, while the parents are likely at the stage in their lives where they have the most invested in the current economic system. We most also remember that the parents made the choice of providing exclusive signing authority over the account to the OP. The key here is that both the OP and the parents must be prepared to take full responsibility for their actions regardless of the outcome and respect each other views on the matter even if they disagree.
thanks, thats good info. if we get a 50% crash i will accept it and hopefully things will turn out ok. i'm quite stubborn so i'm not selling any, although if btc goes to $10,000, maybe i'll sell 0.5 to cover myself. my parents wouldn't have agreed, and i also agree $4000 is not a lot of money. plus who knows what the dollar will be worth in 3-5years? I will stay with my recommendation to not sell a single satoshi until your 18th birthday, even if the price rises to 10,000 USD or even 1,000,000 USD beforehand. Edit: If you need to move your funds to a different wallet and spend some transaction fees in the process just use some USD to buy BTC to cover the transaction fees. |
|
|
|
Sorry to break this but it seems we're gonna crash... upwards
My CFD shorts just got stopped out. I have a funny feeling that our 13 year old OP may not only have made the right long term call but also the right short term call. |
|
|
|
Have you discovered the joys of masturbation yet?
You should get perma-banned for this. +1 |
|
|
|
|
The key here is that this is a college fund and the OP is 13 so we are looking at a hold of 5 years before the funds are spent. The choice the OP makes in going to college or not is irrelevant. What really matters here is the 5 year time to hold the BTC. Now let me make this clear I believe there is a very good chance that the BTC/USD rate will drop by 50% or more is the next days or weeks; however I also believe that there is an even greater chance that the BTC/USD rate would be over 10,000 and possibly over 100,000 by the time the OP reaches age 18.
So the downside is that an 18 year old is short 4200 USD. 4200 USD is a drop in the bucket towards a college education and most 18 year olds can easily earn that kind of money in a job over a few months. The upside on the other hand is that the 12 BTC would be worth 1.2 million USD. Not only is this more than enough to pay for a college education and medical or legal school but the OP will have a fair amount of funds left over to help his parents should they get into financial trouble in an economic collapse.
From a financial point of view I consider this a sound decision but only if the OP keeps these funds in BTC until the OP's 18th birthday
Should the OP have asked permission from his parents? On the surface the answer may be yes; however this is a situation where asking for forgiveness after the fact makes more sense than seeking permission beforehand. I am 56 years old I must say this is a situation where I find myself trusting the judgement of a 13 year old, the OP, over that of someone in their 30s or 40s, the parents. Why because a 13 year old has nothing invested in the current economic system, while the parents are likely at the stage in their lives where they have the most invested in the current economic system. We most also remember that the parents made the choice of providing exclusive signing authority over the account to the OP. The key here is that both the OP and the parents must be prepared to take full responsibility for their actions regardless of the outcome and respect each other views on the matter even if they disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Ripple is a hybrid system between:
1) The traditional banking / payment methods such as banks, wire transfers, credit cards, web based services such as PayPal, E-gold, Liberty Reserve, Western Union, Moneygram, Hawala etc.
and
2) Bitcoin and other cypto-currencies.
In the first model the sender pays the funds to a trusted provider who in turn pays the funds to the receiver directly or in many cases indirectly via one or more other trusted providers. In the second model the sender pays the funds directly to the receiver with no trusted intermediary needed.
With Ripple the sender pays the funds to a trusted provider, the senders gateway. The sender then sends the sender's gateway's credits to the receiver via a crypto-currency as in 2 above, who then either:
1) Gets paid by the sender's gateway.
or
2) Gets paid by a gateway who trusts the sender's gateway.
I can see there are situations where this can be an advantage over 1) or 2) above; however it will not replace either 1) or 2) above. In short it will complement rather than compete with Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
An excellent analysis of the Bitcoin market in China. I am far from convinced though that the west will be holding back China as a "rottweiler on a leash" much longer. The big elephants in the room Second Market's Bitcoin Investments Trust and the Winklevoss Twins and their Bitcoin ETF have the potential to create a massive demand for Bitcoin in the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin would first have to pas the test of widespread use as a trading currency and a market cap of at least 1 trillion USD (2013 dollars) and more like 5-10 trillion USD. The exchange rate for one Bitcoin would have to in the 6 or 7 figure USD range. Then there is no reason why it cannot be a worldwide reserve currency or part of a basket of worldwide reserve currencies.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
