Bitcoin Forum
May 24, 2019, 06:25:06 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Other / Politics & Society / Re: This just in: House Passes Cybersecurity Measure CISPA [US] on: April 28, 2012, 04:31:07 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus

This is the payoff for forty years of wishful escapism and deliberate dumbing down. Enjoy it, it won't be fixed and by the time it could be it really won't matter any more, they made you world-class losers and you loved it the whole way.

That's quite a map, the whole southern perimeter could be labeled "States To Avoid" or maybe "The Bumpkin Belt".

Evidently the U.S. isn't doing so hot in the measurable and quantifiable either.

SAT Scores Fall Nationwide: A Harbinger of U.S. Economic Decline
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/15/sat-scores-fall-nationwide-a-harbinger-of-u-s-economic-decline/

Falling SAT Scores, Widening Achievement Gap
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/falling-sat-scores-widening-achievement-gap/245176/


Why do you put stock in standardized test scores?

Do you have any evidence that one shouldn't? I'm not here to do your homework for you, but a few things that come to mind are proven positive correlation with lifetime earning ability and state measures of wealth and income, negative correlation with prison population percentages by state, and a recent history of improvement in the SAT tests themselves.

The latter is significant, during the 80s and 90s the SATs actually were made less difficult because top schools were not seeing the high scores they once did and did not want to lower their visible thresholds for admission so they successfully applied pressure to the Educational Testing Service to tweak the numbers upwards. In the last decade increasing complaints from all schools about the reduced screening effectiveness of the test led to a restructuring of the tests, for example, testing writing abilities.

Considering the period when the SATs were "dumbed down" so Harvard and others could look good, the 40 year decline in performance described in the articles above is actually worse than the score data would indicate. One might also wonder how much denialism about the validity of the tests impacted student performance, if Joe Know-Nothing's kids picked up the message that they didn't need to perform on no steenking SAT tests because the tests were not meaningful, pressure to perform in the areas the tests measure may have been removed.
2  Other / Politics & Society / Re: This just in: House Passes Cybersecurity Measure CISPA [US] on: April 28, 2012, 05:13:36 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus

This is the payoff for forty years of wishful escapism and deliberate dumbing down. Enjoy it, it won't be fixed and by the time it could be it really won't matter any more, they made you world-class losers and you loved it the whole way.

That's quite a map, the whole southern perimeter could be labeled "States To Avoid" or maybe "The Bumpkin Belt".

Evidently the U.S. isn't doing so hot in the measurable and quantifiable either.

SAT Scores Fall Nationwide: A Harbinger of U.S. Economic Decline
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/15/sat-scores-fall-nationwide-a-harbinger-of-u-s-economic-decline/

Falling SAT Scores, Widening Achievement Gap
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/falling-sat-scores-widening-achievement-gap/245176/
3  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Some Problems I See With Bitcoins (And A Proposed Solution) on: January 20, 2012, 10:41:54 AM

We see that Bitcoin comes with plenty of hubris to spare. Is that a requirement covered in the Nakamoto paper or just another lost design assumption?


Who's we? Are you a monarch?

What I see is one or two old users at bitcointalk.org that are impatient with new users introducing the same argument that has been discussed to death already. This is typical behavior for any forum. Amusing how you link it to Bitcoin though.

Personally, I thought they were rather tame, but perhaps we should get out the cattle prods to keep them in line?

LOL! Such impatient little squirmers, look at them. First we meet the Lead Assclown, then the punk ass bitch starts making threats. Welcome to the message board for the Gamma Minus Club. You guys are a waste of oxygen, not to mention time.

The "threat" was against the old members of the forum. You understood that, correct? And it was a joke. Sheesh...

Seeya, wouldn't want to be ya.
4  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Some Problems I See With Bitcoins (And A Proposed Solution) on: January 20, 2012, 10:24:48 AM
I attempted to post this on StackExchange, but was told to come here. So here it is:

I've been thinking a lot about bitcoins lately, and I've discovered some problems with the theory behind them.

1Q) How much will transaction fees eventually be?

2Q) There is a lot of wasted computational power, due to the requirement for "proof of work." Assuming they found a fix for #1, this would still drive the transaction fees to be a LOT higher then they would otherwise need to be.

3Q) Banking information is propagated freely to anybody and everybody. If you wanted to figure out how much money your friend (or worse, your enemy) has, and all of their transactional data, it really wouldn't be that hard. This isn't a huge problem, but this information ideally should be on a "need to know" basis.

After those questions came to mind, I did lots of research on the theory and did lots of thinking. I believe I have an extremely simple solution to all of these problems:

We redefine what it means to bitcoin mine. We scrap the entire idea of "proof of work," as well as blocks. All nodes that define themselves as bitcoin miners must now tell every other node that they are a miner, or "validator" if you will.

3A) When a client posts a transaction, that transaction is propagated ONLY to all validators, and NOT to other clients. Clients should not know about the transaction history of other clients.

2A) All validators must validate the transaction, and then post their results to all other nodes. If it is determined (by each individual node) that 2/3 majority of the validators have validated the transaction, then the transaction is deemed to be valid. There is no "proof of work" and clockcycles are no longer wasted.

1A) The reward (transaction fee) is equally split among all validators. Since each individual node knows how many registered validators there are, it can easily calculate a minimum transactional fee. Transaction fee = (time to process transaction) * (cost per time to process).

What do you guys think, does this make sense at all?

You got your answer, these mooks are too busy trying to make money running this scam to be bothered with hard questions. You would have thought we just walked into the Church of Scientology  Grin
5  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Some Problems I See With Bitcoins (And A Proposed Solution) on: January 20, 2012, 10:07:21 AM

We see that Bitcoin comes with plenty of hubris to spare. Is that a requirement covered in the Nakamoto paper or just another lost design assumption?


Who's we? Are you a monarch?

What I see is one or two old users at bitcointalk.org that are impatient with new users introducing the same argument that has been discussed to death already. This is typical behavior for any forum. Amusing how you link it to Bitcoin though.

Personally, I thought they were rather tame, but perhaps we should get out the cattle prods to keep them in line?

LOL! Such impatient little squirmers, look at them. First we meet the Lead Assclown, then the punk ass bitch starts making threats. Welcome to the message board for the Gamma Minus Club. You guys are a waste of oxygen, not to mention time.


6  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Some Problems I See With Bitcoins (And A Proposed Solution) on: January 20, 2012, 05:53:39 AM
Whenever I see a post whose subject line says Bitcoin won't work, I automatically know their post count is in the single digits before I even look.

By the time their post count reaches the triple digits, they're converted and enthusiastic.

Welcome to the community in advance.

haha!  every once in a while you see these geniuses popping up in the newb forum thinking they know the answer to everything.  No offense to OP, but I've seen it a dozen times.

We see that Bitcoin comes with plenty of hubris to spare. Is that a requirement covered in the Nakamoto paper or just another lost design assumption?
7  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Some Problems I See With Bitcoins (And A Proposed Solution) on: January 20, 2012, 05:29:44 AM
I attempted to post this on StackExchange, but was told to come here. So here it is:

I've been thinking a lot about bitcoins lately, and I've discovered some problems with the theory behind them.

1Q) How much will transaction fees eventually be?

2Q) There is a lot of wasted computational power, due to the requirement for "proof of work." Assuming they found a fix for #1, this would still drive the transaction fees to be a LOT higher then they would otherwise need to be.

3Q) Banking information is propagated freely to anybody and everybody. If you wanted to figure out how much money your friend (or worse, your enemy) has, and all of their transactional data, it really wouldn't be that hard. This isn't a huge problem, but this information ideally should be on a "need to know" basis.

After those questions came to mind, I did lots of research on the theory and did lots of thinking. I believe I have an extremely simple solution to all of these problems:

We redefine what it means to bitcoin mine. We scrap the entire idea of "proof of work," as well as blocks. All nodes that define themselves as bitcoin miners must now tell every other node that they are a miner, or "validator" if you will.

3A) When a client posts a transaction, that transaction is propagated ONLY to all validators, and NOT to other clients. Clients should not know about the transaction history of other clients.

2A) All validators must validate the transaction, and then post their results to all other nodes. If it is determined (by each individual node) that 2/3 majority of the validators have validated the transaction, then the transaction is deemed to be valid. There is no "proof of work" and clockcycles are no longer wasted.

1A) The reward (transaction fee) is equally split among all validators. Since each individual node knows how many registered validators there are, it can easily calculate a minimum transactional fee. Transaction fee = (time to process transaction) * (cost per time to process).

What do you guys think, does this make sense at all?

The responses here would have you believe that Bitcoin was cast in stone perfectly on the first try. The creator(s) of Bitcoin are nowhere to be found for their input, so practically speaking they not only cast it in stone but they threw away the design notes. The most intriguing assumptions in its design are likely to be the ones that won't be found in the Nakamoto paper, but we may never know what they were.

Under these conditions Bitcoin is less likely to be improved than it is to be abandoned for something else.
8  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: SSH Brute Force Attacks on: January 19, 2012, 02:08:13 PM
SSH attacks are a common fact of life for anyone operating a server.
fail2ban is a fairly decent tool to handle them.
http://www.fail2ban.org

I agree. Another, and even more effective way to protect against SSH brute force attacks is to change the port the SSH server is running on.

I used to get over 1000 brute force attempts per day during the beginning of 2011. After installing fail2ban it went down to 30-40 attempts per day. Then I changed the SSH port to a port in the mid 1000's, which did the trick fully. The last three months, I've had one (1) failed login attempt, and I'm pretty sure that was me, mistyping the password.

Also, I created this Bash alias to track failed SSH login attempts:

Code:
alias failedlogin='sudo cat /var/log/auth.log* | grep '\''Failed password'\'' | grep sshd | awk '\''{print $1,$2}'\'' | sort -k 1,1M -k 2n | uniq -c'

As a final tip, the most secure way to login to an SSH server is to login with a private key, which will save you from keyloggers. Storing this on a USB drive will increase this security.

Two good tips, thank you for bringing them here.
9  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Question about Bitcoin Mining Earnings on: January 19, 2012, 06:59:51 AM
How many Bitcoins will on average be produced by 1 mining computer with average miner hardware?
 Huh

Your local averages don't mean much. The actual number of bitcoins an arbitrary fixed configuration will produce will vary anyway with the global level of difficulty set. The more mining that takes place globally the higher the difficulty. The only average is that a new block ( currently 50 BTC, it will be reduced to 25 in the near future ) is mined every 10 minutes or so and this is controlled by the difficulty. So, the more miners, the less of a cut each miner gets, the total output of all miners is the same. Maybe no one should mine, then the difficulty would be quite low  Smiley
10  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: SSH Brute Force Attacks on: January 19, 2012, 06:38:31 AM
I would just like to point out that there have been several SSH attacks against my computer today that seem to be specifically targeting Bitcoin users. I believe the target IPs to be scraped from the Bitcoin network itself. I received about 100 login attempts to accounts called "bitcoin", "bitcoin1", "bitcoin2" and "namecoin" from an IP in China (220.165.5.4). If anyone knows what particular Bitcoin client or setup these attacks are targeting it would be useful to know, otherwise I would just like to remind everyone to keep their SSH secure, ideally with the AllowUsers directive to allow only specific accounts SSH access.

You might catch even more stuff you don't want if you firewall your machine in general. Many people get by fine blocking anything Chinese from coming in. I firewall out about 70% of the IPV4 address space and don't miss anything by doing so. If you have linux or BSD, you can use TCP wrappers and a program like denyhosts to dynamically detect and lock out SSH probers, which are very common due to a few common security tools that seem to turn up in use a lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP_Wrapper
11  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Trust No One on: January 19, 2012, 06:23:38 AM
Relying on trust sucks. Avoid it completely when you can.
12  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Trojan Wallet stealer be careful on: January 19, 2012, 06:19:17 AM
how protects instawallet from keyloggers and trojans?

If you are worried about keyloggers or trojans, you have basic security issues to address before you should even expect anything related to bitcoins to help you.
13  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Introduce yourself :) on: January 19, 2012, 06:08:15 AM
I have read many things about bitcoin. Google led me here, this looks like the place.
Pages: [1]
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!