Bitcoin Forum
January 25, 2020, 10:49:29 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  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 ... 158 »
541  Other / Meta / Re: spammer on: May 22, 2013, 04:25:17 PM
Your report may have been discarded, but we are taking action on it. He is currently queued up for a ban review by theymos. Thanks for checking in, though, because sometime these things really do get lost in the noise.
542  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: I don't use the Bitcoin-Qt client anymore due to lax security, can it be fixed? on: May 22, 2013, 04:14:06 PM
How could you derive the public key without using a computer at all? Doing it by hand? That's too dangerous as any minor mistake in calculation will be fatal.
Which is why the benefit is theoretical.  Wink
543  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: MOD's where are you guys. on: May 22, 2013, 04:10:18 PM
If you see someone commonly posting short worthless posts, let us know. However, if most of their posts are actually useful, we tend to give them some leeway. It's hard to check everybody, though. That being said, you would be surprised how many posts get deleted as a result of someone asking to be whitelisted  Tongue

If you're curious, kodo is queued for being reviewed by our administrator for banishment.
544  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: I don't use the Bitcoin-Qt client anymore due to lax security, can it be fixed? on: May 22, 2013, 02:56:45 AM
In conclusion, you idea is either providing slim improvement to security, or extremely inconvenient, or both. So why don't you simply use cold wallet, which is inconvenient but perfectly safe? Soon we will have tamper-proof hardware wallet, which will be convenient and safe.
And that's really what this comes down to: what use cases would an "intent" system have over other solutions that don't require changing the protocol? It's not usable for a hot wallet, so that case is out. It would work well for a warm wallet, but since there are plenty of viable alternatives to preventing theft (using paper wallets, hardware wallets, or 2-factor wallets), I only really see it as a way of fixing mistakes, which is a pretty rare use case.

But... what if you think at the enterprise level? Where this ends up potentially being useful is in the hot wallet of a company that is monitoring their hot wallet 24/7/365. Imagine if an exchange got hacked. No longer would they require expensive "trusted" hardware that verifies that a transaction is valid and signs it. They just need every one of their receiving addresses to be a delayed-transfer address and have an understanding with their customers that they can't get to their money for a few hours. THIS is where an intent system would truly excel.

If the customers are happy with a few hours delay, the exchange can simply process withdrawal request manually with a cold wallet. So the only useful scenarios of the proposed system would be fixing mistake and fighting against dishonest staff. I think these risks could be minimized by multisig or other existing solutions.

EDIT: actually the proposed system is not a good measure against dishonest staff, as the staff could work with the hacker, or be the hacker himself. That means you still need another staff / a trusted computer to crosscheck the actions. So why not simply use multisig cold wallet?
I don't disagree with the idea that this would provide marginal security over what we already have. But, there is added security with this. Basically, this is a way of doing multisig without requiring that one of the private keys ever touch an electronic device unless something bad happens. Theoretically, the CEO of a company could memorize a private key and derive its public key without a computer, reducing the number of people and things that have to be trusted - considerably. You could prove that it is impossible for someone to steal from you even if they hack every electronic device in the world. Is a paper wallet practically better than storing your private keys on a USB drive? No. But it's pretty cool to think about. The same applies to this idea. It would be interesting to see an alt-coin with this, though.
545  Other / Off-topic / Re: WARNING: FORUM IS LOGGING IP FOR CONFISCATION, THEYMOS UNDER PLEA BARGAIN on: May 21, 2013, 08:19:20 PM
Oh good. Now that MoonShadow has replied, I can be sarcastic in my reply...

Quote
WARNING: FORUM IS LOGGING IP FOR CONFISCATION, THEYMOS UNDER PLEA BARGAIN
OH NOSE!
546  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Newbie Lock on: May 21, 2013, 08:08:58 PM
It takes 4 hours logged in and 5 posts.  However it is not instantaneous when you get to that.  It will take some time for the server to update your status.  I'm not sure what it is, but it's not long.
This. As for the automatic upgrading, it happens every 10 minutes on the 0. The script runs at 3:00, 3:10, 3:20, etc.
547  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: MOD's where are you guys. on: May 21, 2013, 08:00:54 PM
i dont get it why dont you guys get some new mods on the team, hell if i get my other account back, ill offer to be a mdd
The problem is that it's very hard to find good new mods. However, if you want to be considered, the best way to do that is to start reporting posts that are off-topic or reporting threads that are in the wrong section. If we take action on over 60% of your reports, that is considered to be pretty good for someone who hasn't yet been properly trained in as a moderator here.
548  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Whitelist Requests (Want out of here?) on: May 21, 2013, 07:53:24 PM
latincoin: OK
sjors: OK
acne: OK
coinswap: OK
mdmx: OK
sohale.s: OK
kaddyd: OK
WBlaylock: OK
FanOfBitcoin: OK
gwoplock: OK
r.schulz: OK
savis: OK
carcass: OK
woodrake: OK
lightcoin: OK
chaoztc: OK
Luberon: OK
kokoboko: OK
xaviarlol: OK
cdogster: OK
549  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: MOD's where are you guys. on: May 21, 2013, 07:25:10 PM
Yeah, we're really starting to feel the pressure of having too much on our plates. Sadly, this is doubly true for theymos. He just doesn't like to delegate.
550  Other / Off-topic / Re: Trendon Shavers taunts those he stole from on: May 21, 2013, 07:18:32 PM
But what I find amazing is despite the massive amount of money involved not ONE person took matters in their own hands. I mean at this point we're talking maybe 50 million dollars.
That was the genius behind the whole thing: because he threatened not to pay back anyone who started legal action against him, no two people lost hope at the same time and joined together. By the time one more person lost hope and wanted to go after him, the person who wanted to go after him hours earlier gave up.
551  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: 0.8.2rc1 ready for testing on: May 21, 2013, 06:54:52 PM
I have a question about the non standard transactions:

If I leave the default settings (<= 0.00005430 BTC are non standard) and now try to send f.E. 15 BTC and it just happens that this transactions create a change <= 0.00005430 BTC would my client now create a transaction that will not be relayed and included in a block?

Therfore (for an average user) send the 15 BTC into nirvana making them unspendable and unreceivable?

Is there anything included in the new version, that ensures that users don't create non standard transactions by accident without making any user fault?
I imagine that it works just like it has worked since the 0.3.* series: if a transaction would create a change output below the bitdust levels (which were 0.01), it would add more inputs to the transaction until that no longer the case. If there are no more inputs (like when you're sending most of your bitcoins), that amount is just added to the fee instead of creating change.
552  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: I don't use the Bitcoin-Qt client anymore due to lax security, can it be fixed? on: May 21, 2013, 08:13:29 AM
In conclusion, you idea is either providing slim improvement to security, or extremely inconvenient, or both. So why don't you simply use cold wallet, which is inconvenient but perfectly safe? Soon we will have tamper-proof hardware wallet, which will be convenient and safe.
And that's really what this comes down to: what use cases would an "intent" system have over other solutions that don't require changing the protocol? It's not usable for a hot wallet, so that case is out. It would work well for a warm wallet, but since there are plenty of viable alternatives to preventing theft (using paper wallets, hardware wallets, or 2-factor wallets), I only really see it as a way of fixing mistakes, which is a pretty rare use case.

But... what if you think at the enterprise level? Where this ends up potentially being useful is in the hot wallet of a company that is monitoring their hot wallet 24/7/365. Imagine if an exchange got hacked. No longer would they require expensive "trusted" hardware that verifies that a transaction is valid and signs it. They just need every one of their receiving addresses to be a delayed-transfer address and have an understanding with their customers that they can't get to their money for a few hours. THIS is where an intent system would truly excel.
553  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Coins with very short block times demonstrate incompetence on: May 21, 2013, 07:22:47 AM
Or are you just postulating that each halving of block time doubles the orphan rate?
Yes. The propagation time does not change as the block times get smaller, and the math for those values were easier. To think of it another way, at a 6 second block time, the effective hash rate is reduced by 100% - meaning that the single fastest miner will always get the next block (if you assume that blocks are produced at a constant rate). As for the 1% number, that was what someone saw as Bitcoin's orphan rate a few months ago. I'm going with that number because it is good enough for this basic analysis.

It seems a bit too smooth to be realistic to me, miners presumably have a variety of connection speeds which should add some noise.
Obviously, this is based on averages. An individual block could have a large space between blocks, allowing more propagation before the next block is found. Of course, the inverse is also true.

Do we have data on the orphan rates in LTC or Geist Geld and SmallChange which were mentioned earlier?
Doesn't matter. The Bitcoin network should dictate the absolute minimum viable block time, since it is currently the largest network.
554  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Reminder: zero-conf is not safe; $1000USD reward posted for replace-by-fee patch on: May 21, 2013, 07:03:32 AM
The reality is that miners could already offer this 'service', but if it was 'built-in' then everyone would be able to take advantage of 'trx replacement' as a SOLUTION to fraud/theft instead of just a way to commit fraud/theft.
No. Anybody spending money that is willing to defraud the receiver of the money would be willing to spend up to all but one satoshi in fees to commit a double-spend, unless they are an uneconomic attacker. Since we're assuming the worst in this thread, we must assume this to always be the case. Therefore, the only defense to this attack is for the victim of the double-spend to re-spend the entirety of the transaction to fees, preventing the attacker from winning most of the time. Therefore, the best SOLUTION to fraud/theft is the current one, because honest nodes would ignore BOTH transactions with larger fees (the re-spend to fees on the merchant side could be a replacement of a send-to-self transaction broadcast when the initial transaction was received), meaning that attackers would almost never win (they could still win thanks to propagation delay) and merchants would not lose in proportion to how many honest nodes there are.
555  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Coins with very short block times demonstrate incompetence on: May 21, 2013, 06:23:44 AM

Yes, but like most things in life, an important balance between too much and too little exists. Shorter block times make it harder for <50% attacks to succeed, true, but by increasing the number of orphans, it decreases the effective hash rate of the network, making a >50% attack potentially much easier. Bitcoin considers the potential risks of a successful >50% attack to be very high, so Satoshi chose a long block time.
This seems like mathematical nonsense, please prove to me that  for example if there are 4 times more chain splits with 1/4 the block time, that there are less iterations to arrive at consensus within the same duration. I bet you can't, because the increase in chain splits is trivial compared to the increase in blocks.

LTC has certainly proven for a long time that a shorter than 10min block target is perfectly viable.
Of course a block time shorter than 10 minutes is perfectly viable! I never said that it wasn't. My point was that there exists a point where the orphan rate caused by a shorter block time ends up outweighing the benefits of a shorter block time. This starts to matter earlier than you may think because an orphan rate of just a few percent would be enough to encourage miners to centralize. However, ignoring that, here's an extrapolation of the reduction in effective hash rate as a network the size of Bitcoin reduces block time (the Bitcoin network currently sees about a 1% orphan rate):

Blocktime in seconds Reduction in effective hashrate
6001%
3002%
1504%
758%
37.516%
18.7532%
9.37564%

As you can see, two and a half minutes per block isn't actually all that bad in the reduction of effective hashrate, but I wouldn't want to go much lower than that.
556  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: The True Explanation of Ripple for Bitcoiners on: May 21, 2013, 05:26:35 AM
The misrepresentation of Ripple has been most annoying to me in the 1 MB max block size debates. People just say that people could just use off-chain transactions through Ripple, because Ripple complements Bitcoin. Honestly, this has been one of the greatest issues I've had with how Ripple is being marketed.
557  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Coins with very short block times demonstrate incompetence on: May 21, 2013, 05:03:33 AM

As I said, the block time needs to be more than several times the maximum end-to-end propagation delay.  This is needed to prevent competing nodes from generating blocks at the same time and convincing large parts of the network that their respective block is the winning block.  If competing nodes can convince large parts of the network that their respective block is the winning block, you risk fragmentation of the blockchain.  Having the block time be at least several times the maximum end-to-end propagation delays helps prevent competing nodes from convincing large parts of the network that their respective block is the winning block.

Block chain fragmentation is not the issue, an overhead for sure, but it's the "double spend attack" from competing chains that we are worried about, which BTW doesn't means "51% attack". You can try to double spend with less but you may not be successful. The more blocks generated, the smaller your chance.  The probability of success with a <50% attack depends on the number of blocks and not the amount of time. This is an advantage of shorter block times.
Yes, but like most things in life, an important balance between too much and too little exists. Shorter block times make it harder for <50% attacks to succeed, true, but by increasing the number of orphans, it decreases the effective hash rate of the network, making a >50% attack potentially much easier. Bitcoin considers the potential risks of a successful >50% attack to be very high, so Satoshi chose a long block time.
558  Other / Meta / Re: # of Posts limit for spamming ALT Coins? on: May 21, 2013, 04:15:40 AM
Should we attempt to jump ship to a new forum?
That's the goal for the alt-coins. We don't want them here. Be glad that we allow them here at all, since at one point it was policy to delete alt-coin threads.
559  Other / Meta / Re: Watching the mods on: May 21, 2013, 03:56:30 AM
Is it oldest first or newest?
Newest first. And yeah, it's been around for awhile.
560  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Is miningunited.com a SCAM, turning .1 bitcoins into .137 for almost free? on: May 21, 2013, 12:51:12 AM
Sadly, reporting this to the FBI is pointless. They don't even look at scams under $10 million USD, yet alone scams that existed purely in bitcoin. Hell, we know exactly who Pirate@40 (a.k.a. Trendon Shavers) is, and yet he's out free and living it up. I wish you guys the best of luck with this, but don't convince yourself that justice will be served.
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 ... 158 »
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!