Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2019, 01:53:58 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 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 ... 158 »
881  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Vote Smoothie for Alternate Crypto Subforum Mod on: November 05, 2012, 10:14:27 PM
-1
882  Other / Meta / Re: Pirate PMs on: November 05, 2012, 10:10:01 PM
One way to generalize this would be to let anyone who can reasonably show that they've put a large effort into the investigation of Pirate, and are reasonably trusted, have access to the PMs under a NDA. And of course, the other way of doing it would be to have the Bitcointalk.org staff go through it and redact stuff, then post it publicly.

Hopefully, there will be something in there that will interest the authorities to ask for the messages directly. If they end up needing the full database, I can testify what the sha-256 hash of each encrypted database was on each day since about February 17th, although most of my backups have been long since pruned.
883  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Whitelist Requests (Want out of here?) on: November 05, 2012, 09:37:41 PM
Ascension: OK
iElectric: OK
J-Norm: OK
btcven: OK
MinorMiner: OK
884  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: High Efficiency FPGA & ASIC Bitcoin Mining Devices https://BTCFPGA.com on: November 05, 2012, 08:54:37 PM
Maybe the policy for this thread can be changed to delete EVERYTHING that's not DIRECTLY related to Tom's products Smiley
I don't know about the local mining board moderators, but that is global forum policy. Thus, I have and will continue to enforce that whenever I'm around.
I think what Tom ought to do is write out his posts offline, copy them, and paste them two places.  One paste will be here.  The other will be pasted into a new thread titled "btcfpga updates" that would be locked immediately after he makes a new post.
Absolutely. I'm surprised that he hasn't done that already.

This will be my only off-topic post in this thread. Please behave, and remember that more than just the moderators you see are watching.
885  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Do we agree that Pirate is a scammer, or are people in denial? on: November 02, 2012, 11:35:00 PM
I've been using GPUMAX since it's first week,

* It was easy to estimate how much hashing gpumax had just by purchasing a lease at a hefty price.
What about people that didn't lease at any price? Besides, Pirate could have easily artificially limited the amount of public work that got done at any price.
* GPUMAX had nowhere near 51% of hashing power.
Of course. I never said that they did, just that it was bound to happen.
* GPUMAX Had been invite only for almost the whole time.
Just like BS&T.
886  Other / Meta / Re: Post moved without a [MOVED] tag and to the wrong section! on: November 02, 2012, 11:25:03 PM
Games and rounds fits perfectly, was a suggestion from theymos after some discussion a while back.
Quote
Games and rounds
Spreadsheet games, forum-based games, and discussion of individual rounds/games on other sites.

Quote
Therefore we are giving out 10 x 0.1 BTC ($1.13) redeemable codes at random after any response in this thread.

If it wasn't for that, sure it'd go someplace else. I have no sympathy for companies who pay users to spam the forums, that's not why the forums are here.
Fair enough.

Where was it created? I just moved it to Service Announcements, since that seems to be the most appropriate board I could find.

I moved it back...again. I thought we resolved these types of issues a couple months ago after another incident, but either you've forgotten or don't care.
I did forget. I don't move stuff very often, so forgive me if I forgot something so specific that doesn't make sense in the first place.

If you don't understand the actions of another moderator then take it up with them directly, take it up with theymos, or make a thread about it.
I would have if I would have known who moved it. But you're right, I should have just asked theymos.
Stop interfering with other's moderation, and stop wasting other people's time with your mistakes please. Far be it from me to tell anyone what to do, but a better suggestion would be to wait for the moderator involved to respond if/when they have time.
I'll keep that in mind.
887  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Transaction script with block height as condition on: November 02, 2012, 09:42:31 PM
If you held a pre-signed transaction that sends the funds back to you with a lockTime of 1 Jan 2013 that would work.

Lets see... thinking out loud...

Start by asking the exchange for a brand-new public key to use for their half of the 2-of-2 transaction. Call the send-coins-into-2-of-2 transaction "F" (for Fund).

You create and sign that transaction, but don't broadcast it yet.

Use it's transaction id to create a second, one-input-two-signature, lockTime=1/1/2013 transaction that refunds the coins to you.  Call that "R" (for Refund).

Send R to the exchange and ask them to sign it using that brand-new public key they gave you. The exchange checks the lockTime and then returns R and the signature to you. You check the signature, and if it is good, broadcast F (and keep the half-signed R someplace safe).

If 1/1/2013 rolls around and you want your coins back, you sign your half of R and broadcast it.



I'd have to think a little harder than I want to right now about whether or not signing R knowing only txid==HASH(F) opens up the exchange to attacks. I can't think of any, but the exchange providing a signature when it doesn't know the details of exactly what it is signing makes me nervous.
That should be safe if and only if a unique key is used to sign, and you can be absolutely certain that it has not nor will not be used for anything else until the exchange receives the signed transaction F. That means that the key can't be from a pre-generated list that may have been backed up, because that backup might eventually need to be used and the key could unknowingly be used for something else. It'd be a hard attack to pull off, but the potential for an attack is certainly there. So, the exchange would need to generate the key for signing transaction R on-the-fly and mark it specifically for this purpose. Thus, there's no risk that the key might be used for something else once it is backed up. If F is never sent then, the worst-case scenario is that a brand-new key will have only ever signed one transaction and never received anything. Since the key would have to be newly-generated, the worst-case scenario is that the exchange loses that key but you still have a signed transaction to get your money back later, anyway.

I think holding on to pre-signed-but-not-broadcast-yet transactions is a technique "we" don't think about enough.
That being said, I also have a more general-case solution that will allow this technique to work in all cases...
You could send the unsigned R and the signed-but-not-broadcast F to the exchange and trust that the exchange will not broadcast F unless they agree to sign R.
Generally that may be safe, but there's a chance that your money might fall into the void. So, the problem here is that F needs to be invalid when we send it to the exchange, but needs to be able to be made valid without changing anything in the transaction, meaning that we can't withhold signatures. So, let's just not withhold anything in this transaction at all. The very problem we're seeing here is actually it's own solution: the exchange doesn't want to sign something when it only knows the hash of an input transaction, but not the input transaction itself. It's the same for miners: they need the input transactions, not just the hashes, to enter a transaction into the blockchain.

So, the user just needs to not tell anyone about "Fi", an input to "F", until they get back "R". If "F" is broadcast and "R" is never signed, it's okay, because "F" was just an orphan and will never hit the blockchain unless the user broadcasts "Fi".
888  Other / Meta / Re: [To Theymos] Why was Goat banned? on: November 02, 2012, 05:29:36 AM
Hahaha. Well he didn't get banned before he criticized Theymos on the forums, did he?
And yet a very strong majority of the people who have ever been banned on BitcoinTalk.org have not once criticized a staff member. If I'm understanding you right, that means that we should never ban someone once they criticize one of the staff? Because statistically, only a handful of people have been banned after criticising a staff member out of hundreds of people who have been banned, so you can't say that it's a problem in that sense. Nor are we banning an overly high number of people from the pool of people that criticise us, so that's not an issue, either. So again, you're saying that we just can't ban people period after they criticise the staff because it might be a conflict of interest. So then who does ban them if they do something bad? It can't be another staff member, because you still claim that is a conflict: in both of the recent ban cases (Rarity and Goat), another mod has approved of the ban. So, I guess we give the decision to the people? Well, damn, that doesn't work either, since they both had orange ignore buttons.

So please, tell me, what the hell are we supposed to do in such a situation?
889  Other / Meta / Re: Post moved without a [MOVED] tag and to the wrong section! on: November 02, 2012, 04:50:01 AM
We need a Giveaways/Contests (non-gambling) board. I see this far too often and none of the moderators have a consensus about where the threads are supposed to go. Some mods think they belong in service discussion or announcements, some think project development, some think bitcoin discussion, some think Games and Rounds in gambling, and some think off-topic. And if the giveaway/contest in any way involves mining? Well, you're totally screwed, because then it could also go in Mining, Hardware, or Custom Hardware. Besides, a Giveaways/Contests board is one that people would be more likely to check, so it's a great way to advertise. I've already let theymos know about this and I'm waiting to hear back.
890  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Whitelist Requests (Want out of here?) on: November 02, 2012, 01:32:07 AM
smeg4brains: OK
thv20: OK
891  Other / Meta / Re: Post moved without a [MOVED] tag and to the wrong section! on: November 02, 2012, 12:57:52 AM
Last night WalletBit created a thread called FREE BITCOINS in which we were giving away free bitcoins. Today I notice that this post is no longer in the same part of the forum and indeed there is no trace. It was moved to gambling which makes no sense at all. It does not require any money to be spent and is therefore not gambling. In addition to the free bitcoins in the thread there was an Easter egg hunt for free bitcoins on the forum.

Why was this moved to gambling? Where is the [MOVED] Tag that appears on every other moved thread? Is this an error in the forum?
Where was it created? I just moved it to Service Announcements, since that seems to be the most appropriate board I could find.

Anyway, we don't have to leave [Moved] threads, it's just a checkbox option on the move page. Usually, I only leave them if I feel that some people on a certain board might be interested in it (which is almost all of the time in Bitcoin Discussion), but other moderators have their own way of deciding when to leave them.
892  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Do we agree that Pirate is a scammer, or are people in denial? on: November 02, 2012, 12:40:07 AM
Clearly he (and his PPT's??)  had the confidence thing down.  

Did he/do you really think he could have captured more then 51% of the network hashing power?
Absolutely, no question. Remember that whole invite-only thing GPUMax had? Well, the way that works is the same way it worked for the ponzi, and you saw how that went down.
893  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Do we agree that Pirate is a scammer, or are people in denial? on: November 02, 2012, 12:33:42 AM
Oh, and remember that huge wave of GPUMax invites that went out after BS&T collapsed? That was one last-ditch effort to kill bitcoin and drop the price further.
894  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Do we agree that Pirate is a scammer, or are people in denial? on: November 02, 2012, 12:16:42 AM
Magad

Could you explain?  I have heard form more the a few users that GPUMax was a great resource.
Thanks.
That's part of why it was so dangerous. More importantly, though, because it was just a mining proxy, it was literally impossible for anyone to know how much mining power GPUMax controlled through those proxy connections. In light of what we now know about Pirate it's fair to say that his entire goal with GPUMax was to leverage his ponzi-gained trust along with shiny features to silently build up over 50% of the network's hashing power through his proxy. Then, once his ponzi reached its peak, he'd unleash this power against the network, blame it on a hack or something, then run away with his ponzi gains while we were too busy cleaning up the mess to notice. In fact, he probably thought that the attack would permanently destroy bitcoin, so people wouldn't even care that he ran.

Luckily for us, he was still building up the technical capacity to do this attack when his ponzi collapsed. If you still don't think that was the goal Pirate had for GPUMax, then you are still in denial. Thus, the OP's point has been made.
895  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Do we agree that Pirate is a scammer, or are people in denial? on: November 01, 2012, 05:47:17 AM
The only potential GPUMax had was being a powerful weapon to destroy the bitcoin network. Good riddance.
896  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: "Hash 0-0-0", "Hash 0-0-1", "Hash 0-0", "Hash 0-1", "Hash 0", "Hash 1", "Top Has on: November 01, 2012, 05:42:45 AM
Interesting. That solves the political problem with the idea that individual P2Pool miners would be forced into including certain transactions. Instead of being forced to include certain transactions, they just wouldn't be able to include one that conflicts with past blocks on the sharechain.
It doesn't really.

The expectation of solo mining is the same as pooled mining. If you'd like to split off and try to mine a conflicting transaction you can and you won't lose any coin on average— you'll even gain if the conflict has higher fees.
Well, yeah. None of this solves the underlying problem that zero-confirmation transactions shouldn't be used for anything valuable and/or irrevocable because of the Finney attack. The only problem this helps solve is the enforcement of ethics if you want to use a specific pool.
897  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: [Just starting noob. Not retarded] Better off on my own? on: November 01, 2012, 03:03:59 AM
How does seeding torrent files have ANYTHING to do with you being a good member of this community?
Ram has no impact on how well you mine bitcoins hope you know that.

To answer your question, DON"T MINE, IT IS A WASTE OF TIME, YOU STARTED TOO LATE, unless your ready to purchase an ASIC machine then you shouldn't ask that question.

For someone with a very high IQ you don't do good research. I would go back to that person that test you and demand a refund.

Well, that would make sense and be a valid point if it was a dedicated mining rig and not just a way to make a little bit of pocket money to fund games for said gaming rig.
But seeings as I already own the hardware, have sufficient cooling, and the part where my build is not overkill for what I need it to do in the time I use it, your post was a useless to me, if not a little insulting.
You're forgetting that electricity costs money. Once ASICs are out, unless you generate your own electricity (and even then, unless it's too much to sell back to the grid), you (or rather, your parents) will be paying more in electrical costs than you'll make mining with a GPU.

Now, I'm not a miner, so I don't know if what I said above is completely correct, but that's my understanding.
898  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: "Hash 0-0-0", "Hash 0-0-1", "Hash 0-0", "Hash 0-1", "Hash 0", "Hash 1", "Top Has on: November 01, 2012, 02:51:39 AM
Would the idea then be to make a share chain that is invalid if it contains two transactions spending the same output? So that in order for the miner to include a double spend, he would have to discard the shares that include the original transaction? That could be a problem with 1-second blocks though...
Interesting. That solves the political problem with the idea that individual P2Pool miners would be forced into including certain transactions. Instead of being forced to include certain transactions, they just wouldn't be able to include one that conflicts with past blocks on the sharechain.
Are p2pool miners forced to include certain transactions as it is now? And if so, how come?
Not as far as I know. My post was in reference to the other idea in this thread where they would be forced to include transactions.
899  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: "Hash 0-0-0", "Hash 0-0-1", "Hash 0-0", "Hash 0-1", "Hash 0", "Hash 1", "Top Has on: November 01, 2012, 01:39:55 AM
Would the idea then be to make a share chain that is invalid if it contains two transactions spending the same output? So that in order for the miner to include a double spend, he would have to discard the shares that include the original transaction? That could be a problem with 1-second blocks though...
Interesting. That solves the political problem with the idea that individual P2Pool miners would be forced into including certain transactions. Instead of being forced to include certain transactions, they just wouldn't be able to include one that conflicts with past blocks on the sharechain.
900  Economy / Speculation / Re: The smile patrol on: November 01, 2012, 01:21:02 AM
I sent 52 btc to Maged which he will convert to USD on gox. I sent it to 1AcCFPtehTbBbdsDrZVbHZhmggusW5XfmP

Please send the 50 btc to 1GeCcAyw2sgsQMzDt5a6g5rbbbNRfrCehp

Smoothie
Ack, and escrow released. Sorry for the delay, but I kinda forgot in my whole list of steps that I had securely stored away the private key for this, so I had to grab it and decrypt it.

Received. Thanks Maged for helping with this exchange, even though the difference is pretty much negligible. The difference is your tip ($550 subtracted from the total 52btc).

 Grin Grin Grin

Smoothie
Thanks again! It was fun taking part in this, especially with how dead-on accurate the prediction was.
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 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 ... 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!