 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »
|
Right now the only reason 99% of the trades is because they want to make profit and turn back into fiat.
Speak for yourself... |
|
|
|
|
Forgive my ignorance, but the first pic shows "C" never going below "4"... so could you say ~$500 is the bottom?
|
|
|
|
lolz  , I am getting quite bored of this as well, we are going around in circles. I will concede that you can't explain to me how a customer can double spend or benefit from sending coins to MtGox. Done. |
|
|
|
I never wrote that Bitcoins could be double-spent off-chain.
Excellent, at least we agree that bitcoins cannot be double spent off-chain, unless the system has a grave error. I said that the offchain coins would not be protected against a double-spend, meaning that the Bitcoin chain could still spend the coin again, which was also "spent" into the offchain.
Which party is spending the coin again? MtGox has a pool of coins, the coins aren't linked to any customers. When I send those coins to my MtGox wallet, MtGox now control them. They could spend them straight away, do whatever they want, it has no effect on the customer. |
|
|
|
You missed my point entirely. My off-chain transaction debate has nothing to do with your theoretical attack. I'm calling you out on how the hell I can double double spend bitcoins off-chain as you said here: Because offchain would not be protected against double-spend.
|
|
|
|
JoelKatz implied or asked if cartels might prefer to not send the transaction to the Bitcoin blockchain ever. And keep them offchain. P.S. I don't think they would choose that strategy, so please stop cluttering this thread with this off-topic discussion on not understanding the Bitcoin technology. If you still don't understand, please send me a PM and I will explain there. I am not angry, I appreciate your posts, but please in PM so I can explain without burdening the thread okay. If we aren't sending them to the blockchain ever then we are using Cartel-Coins, not bitcoins. Look, you don't make any sense. If I send bitcoins to my cartel wallet, I don't control those bitcoins anymore. What I have now is a claim for those bitcoins from the cartel. P.S I'm not cluttering this thread, your theoretical attack is baseless at best. You proclaim to be the expert and look down upon other people, yet you can't even understand off-chain transactions. |
|
|
|
Listen up. When the customer spends on the cartel, the offchain transaction would happen at that point. So the Bitcoin blockchain still shows the customer owning the coins.
Why do I still own these coins if I have spent them? |
|
|
|
You can't because #1 was recorded onchain, not offchain.
They sure were, but now my balance is with MtGox, not the blockchain. Your argument is that MtGox's systems are so inept that I can buy something off them and then send those bitcoins somewhere else (non-cartel). I'm pretty sure those programmers would be fired. |
|
|
|
If the cartel records your spends offchain, then you can spend them again onchain to non-cartel merchants. The Bitcoin money supply would be in effect doubled, tripled, quadrupled, depending how many separate cartels do this.
I'm not sure you understand off-chain transactions. Lets interperate your sentence using what we have today: 1) I have bitcoins on MtGox. 2) I spend these bitcoins by sending them to another MtGox user or to MtGox themselves. Lets say to buy a MtGox T-Shirt. This transaction is recorded centrally on their systems. 3) I now send these bitcoins again (wat), but now using the blockchain. I send them to Bitstamp. How? |
|
|
|
No I don't think they will do it offchain. They will keep it onchain to maintain seamless interoperability while they attack.
I can see you are confused. Unfortunately I don't think you understand how Bitcoin works well enough for me to explain this attack to you. Maybe just let the experts debate me. I will try to reply to you, but seems you are really confused.
Great argument. How about you explain how a central off chain system can be vulnerable to double spends. Explain to me like I'm a child, I don't care. Also, if they are not doing it off chain as you say, how on earth they are able to withhold a transaction I send from my non-cartel wallet. I'm still waiting... |
|
|
|
No I don't think they will do it offchain. They will keep it onchain to maintain seamless interoperability while they attack.
I can see you are confused. Unfortunately I don't think you understand how Bitcoin works well enough for me to explain this attack to you. Maybe just let the experts debate me. I will try to reply to you, but seems you are really confused.
Great argument. How about you explain how a central off chain system can be vulnerable to double spends. Explain to me like I'm a child, I don't care. Also, if they are not doing it off chain as you say, how on earth they are able to withhold a transaction I send from my non-cartel wallet. |
|
|
|
Because offchain would not be protected against double-spend.
So now we are using their central servers to process transactions off chain, why is their system vulnerable to double spends? |
|
|
|
|
Oh so I have to be using Amazon's wallet.
|
|
|
|
So the blockchain.info only records transactions that are in already solved blocks.
Normally miners share transactions and pass them around to each other, so that which ever miner solves the next block, those transactions will be included.
But it doesn't have to be that way. A miner could decide to not share his transactions with other miners, thus if the other miners solve the next block, the withheld transactions won't be that block.
When I send a transaction from blockchain.info, you're saying it's not getting propagated to all the nodes on the network and put in their mempool? |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link, but I must be dumb, I can't work out whether that answers my question. Explain like I'm 5 please... How do Amazon control my blockchain.info wallet, I'm not using Amazon's downloadable wallet.
|
|
|
|
Damn. If only there was a way the originator of a transaction could directly connect to multiple mining pools of his own choosing and send his transaction to all of them simultaneously. Oh wait, there is a way: the way I just said.  I think you missed my point. That is why I had linked to discussion where I had already refuted this. The masses don't see that in this attack. They see Amazon.com's website (or partner network) and click a button to buy. You assume the masses are smart and concerned enough to demand their clicks on Amazon.com go to multiple miners. Sorry that is not the way the masses behave. I have much experience in marketing on the internet. Users click and and want to be done it. They just want their damn pizza. They don't get a rat's ass about your technological nirvana. (take your rolly eyes smartass attitude and shove it up your ignorant ass. I am much more intelligent than you know and much more well studied on these issues. Beware) How do Amazon get to say how my transaction is sent from blockchain.info when I click their buy button (or any other wallet for that matter)? |
|
|
|
Edit: you guys are right regarding foolishness of staying on Gox, and I've recently wised up. I'm verifying for Stamp and moving my funds (not much) asap to Bitstamp, UK exchange, I'm in the UK, feel much better about that. Wish I did it earlier when we hit 180.
Are you storing your BTC on an exchange? |
|
|
|
The staggered bids have moved all the way up to 188 now.
Nice and smart staircase on Gox. Probably one guy...
The last time I saw this was @ ~250, I was sitting there on my computer and thought, that doesn't look right, someone is trying to hold up the market. If Gox was still the market leader, I would think this would be a good time to sell, unfortunately you have to take their order book with a grain of salt now. |
|
|
|
|
