|
nonsense
Cryptobro, you're an irresponsible poster for posting such an incompetent article, which is from last week anyway
if negative merits were possible, you would've got a whole load of them from me just then
|
|
|
|
|
what hardware are you using?
|
|
|
|
As you note, the windows signatures mean essentially nothing-- anyone can get one and there is no real way to verify them. You could very likely get one called "Bitcoin Foundation", at most you'd just have to incorporate an entity with that name. The recommended procedure is to check the GPG signatures and keys, which have been consistently the same since 2013 or so. So does PGP signatures. In that matter both PGP and Digital signatures in Windows are same. You must verify the signature and make sure it is signed by known trusted key. kind of agree, trusting the Bitcoin Foundation people was a bad move in retrospect. But the Bitcoin developers are doing it themselves now anyway, it's not obvious what you're asking for that would actually improve anything. Unless you want to actually time-travel back to 2014 to undo the decision to let Bitcoin Foundation handle the signing keys?  Windows signed executables only stops Windows shouting "UNSAFE!" at you.
The only reason is to make inexperienced people feel comfortable, the Windows system is broken, as you already know.
Wrong. Signatures are mandatory only for kernel-mode drivers. The warning when launching executables coming from internet is dependent on NTFS alternate streams feature to indicate it come from network and all it does is check presence, absence or validity of digital signature and display warning screen that is ignored by most users anyway. 1. I didn't mention whether signatures are mandatory for installing, just that Windows warns about unsigned packages 2. Then you said the same thing, that Windows warns about unsigned packages the change of signers raised some alarm to me.
You're a bit confused about this problem. In fact, very confused. Everything you're saying suggests you undertand exactly what's happened, and what matters, and why. But you're still saying that the parts that don't matter are a problem? If you want two things that are mutually irreconcilable, it's impossible to be satisfied. You're going to be frustrated, and it will never end. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Years from now, I am sure that we can see the government, the usual financial conglomerates, the Wall Street, the banking system are taking advantage of the blockchain technology enhancing what they are presently offering to their targeted markets they don't need blockchain tech, they have a completely different security model that works and is cheaper than blockchain I invite anyone to come up with 1 reason, just 1, why the legacy financial system will be using blockchain tech |
|
|
|
|
the whole point of blockchain tech is to enable a censorship-resistant digital asset, that anyone can exchange and own.
part of censorship-resistance (a big part, really) is resisting corrupt institutions from changing the system, or the blockchain's contents.
so which trusted network peers are these kleptomaniac organisations distributing their ledger with, Bernie Madoff and Martha Stewart?
|
|
|
|
The intrinsic value of money is attached to it physical form.
no, that's completely wrong People do not buy much more than they need of a given raw material, they may get some extra, but they do not store it for their entire lives; except with money. So, demand as money is added to the demand for using it's raw material. Copper is similar to gold/silver, and was once a popular roofing material. Gold or silver would do the job far better, as they do not corrode at the same rate as copper. But copper was used anyway, because gold/silver were so scarce and in demand as a store of value that the price would be prohibitively high, and the risk of someone taking your roof apart to sell the gold was too high (a similar problem exists today even with historic copper roofs) This is why gold or silver were mostly unused for their physical properties across history (apart from the fact they were not very useful metals before the advent of electronics). Demand for gold/silver has always been so high (and supply so low) that using them physically was so expensive that a substitute was needed instead. No-one was using gold and silver for their physical properties, the demand was driven by store of value only. Money is not priced by it's intrinsic value. It is priced according to long term storage, where it is not used. It's uses, therefore, have nothing to do with it's market value. |
|
|
|
is Cinnamon GUI a lightweight? not really Gnome is a more stable interface. it's also crappy Redhat tech (but looks pretty, if you like that sort of thing) you should also try the Fedora incase you also wanna try a more sophisticated Linux derivative. Its kind of a Redhat. not recommended, you're wrong avoid RedHat/Fedora/Centos stuff, the OS or the tech they make (Gnome, systemd etc). It's buggy, designed badly, and limits your choices of other software on the same computer. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is like a brick.
To build a house, you need bricks, and bricks cost money.
To build/utilize the bitcoin network, you need bitcoin (or the bricks of the network).
The more scarce the bricks are, the more they cost.
The greater the network effect, the more demand there is for bricks.
bricks made of what? scarcity is not the only relevant property of bitcoin bricks the common criticism of Bitcoin is that unlike gold it has no intrinsic value. I always found this hard to respond to, usually saying things like “they just don’t get it,” etc.
it's an abstraction. That's the reason why it's difficult for people to get, and not necessarily easy to explain. The value is literally made up, it's pretend. But it's an incredibly powerful pretense, as long as the object we're pretending about has money-like properties (Aristotle's 7 properties of money). you can explain this stuff very exactly, in only one or two sentences. It's an incredibly simple concept. But it's too sophisticated for most people to really get it. |
|
|
|
Why the Windows binaries are signed by different signer and root authority? First it was Bitcoin Foundation, now it is bitcoincoresigningsomething.org
I can get my own certificate for bitcoin-something named entity and sign malicious bitcoin executables that steal coins. Get your shit right! Settle once and forever on single entity that is signing binaries and stick with that!
Windows signed executables only stops Windows shouting "UNSAFE!" at you. The only reason is to make inexperienced people feel comfortable, the Windows system is broken, as you already know. Use SHA-2 and PGP to check the authenticity of Bitcoin releases, that method comes with at least some guarantees (using the fingerprint to id the PGP key is possibly not reliable any more though, there should be a t-shirt with the Wladimir van der Laan PGP public key + expiry date printed all over it IMO, or at least till PGP updates their standard for fingerprinting public keys) |
|
|
|
|
watch out everyone....
SNAAAAAAAAAAAAKE
Keiser is a snake. He tries his hardest to send all the "cypherpunk" signals, cites all the influential thought and thinkers, knows all the important events.
But when Bitcoin was under attack 2015-2017, his actions spoke louder than words. He constantly interviewed people that were either close to or part of the attack. He tried to act like he had some balance by interviewing people with different viewpoints to the attackers... except they were all worthless mouthpieces that aren't really doing anything in the industry.
Basically, only powerful attackers and pointless supporters of Bitcoin go on the Max Keiser TV show, and that tells you everything
|
|
|
|
Spnd app was built around the open Flexa network as an intermediary.
hmmm, doesn't sound promising, sounds like more data sucking and "incompatbility as a feature" garbage, but that's without seeing the details admittedly after the clown show that has been payments middlemen in the industry thus far, new entrants really need to do something surprisingly good to get my attention, and I suspect on the basis of the details we have Flexa is not it Everyone with a functioning brain knows that people rather hoard than spend, because something that goes up in value doesn't motivate to be spent. This is a common yet flawed analysis of what is causing Bitcoin to rise. If the price only ever went up, it would make sense. But it doesn't. The price is on general uptrend because of more people entering the market, and an increased perception of Bitcoin's value as more people recognise it's characteristics. Not because no-one is selling; they are. The market wouldn't exist if no-one was selling, and the price couldn't exist either. No sellers == no-one to buy from |
|
|
|
It appears to be like Bitpay
Bitpay are screw-ups, so this is actually not good news (if it's true) |
|
|
|
The "solutions" described in the article in the OP (and by others) involve *nothing* being removed ever, regardless of how harmful or bad the content is. I don't think this is a good solution because there is some content that really, reasonably *should not* be on social media.
That's incredibly childish, and dangerous There's nothing anyone can do to stop others doing things you think are "bad" or "harmful", this is the real world with real adults, who have different and thus sometimes conflicting opinions. Your argument ends with constant brain scans to check that people aren't thinking anything "wrong", there is absolutely no reason why not using such authoritarian logic. And obviously Bitcoin isn't allowed in this brave new world of yours, someone might use it of something "bad" or "harmful" |
|
|
|
|
*yawn*
I suppose everyone in prison since 2012 is a candidate, then?
|
|
|
|
@Heisenberg_Hunter, I was lucky and I was able to find this amazing answer from @achow101: What you are describing is an idea that has been floating around for several years now. You're not the only one to think of it.
The reason it has not been implemented is because it introduces some centralizing trust. Right now, a new node coming only has to verify every single block and confirmed transaction since the beginning of Bitcoin. In doing so, they are able to build the UTXO set themselves and check that everything is correct. The only trust is that the genesis block is correct, and if it is not, it's extremely obvious that it is wrong. However changing it so that the "genesis" is really the UTXO set at a certain height means that there is going to be more trust. Now you have to trust that the UTXO set is correct. But without having the full blockchain history, how can you prove that that UTXO set really was the UTXO set at the cutoff point?
Additionally, the UTXO set is kinda big. It isn't really something that you want to package with a software. But you need to get it somehow. Well now you need to trust that whoever gave you the software (either packaged or over the network from another node) haven't changed the UTXO set. Changing the UTXO set would not be as obvious as changing the genesis block. You could simply add an extra UTXO and basically no one would notice. It wouldn't be noticed until the UTXO was spent, and if done at the right time (when no nodes with the full history remain), would be completely unnoticed.
To combat that, you could say that miners have to include the hash of the UTXO set in their blocks, or maybe even just the hash of the UTXO set for the block immediately after the cutoff. But now we have someone else we need to trust: miners. Now you need to trust that miners have used the correct hash. You need to trust that whoever is producing the UTXO set hasn't colluded with miners to insert a fake UTXO into the UTXO set. If they did, you would have the same problems as earlier, and it would seem like the UTXO set checks out since the hash is also in a block.
There are other possibilities too that have been discussed elsewhere. But the issue with this idea in general is that it involves more trust. And in a system where the goal is to have as little trust as possible, that is just not going to happen.
The above quote is a description of an experimental trust model currently referred to as "assumeUTXO", not pruned blocks. The idea is to bundle a hash of a recent UTXO set state with the Bitcoin client, then sync blocks to the chain tip from the blockheight that the UTXO hash corresponds to. That could mean getting your node up and running very quickly, depending on the frequency of the assume UTXO hashes and how long ago the bundled UTXO hash happened to have been taken (so older versions of Bitcoin will take longer to do an assumeUTXO sync as they'll necessarily have an older hash). This is at the expense of actually validating the blockchain from block 1 Jan 3rd 2009. As achow101 notes, this means trusting the Bitcoin devs don't go rogue and bundle a UTXO set hash that forks you onto some crazy chain of their choosing. But arguably, most people are trusting the devs like that already, as the genesis block hash is either assumed to be correct, or it's relevance to the trust model isn't even known. Speaking personally, the genesis block could've been swapped out years ago and I myself wouldn't have spotted this, although we are all of course assuming that someone else would've noticed that (there must be someone who's been running the same node since 2009 who actually checks, right?  ) In addition, assume UTXO will begin validating the chain from genesis once it's reached the chaintip from the most recent assumeUTXO hash. So the change in trust model is not for the permanent life of the node, it's just a quick & dirty bootstrap technique, really |
|
|
|
|
There's already an Android app that wraps the bitcoind binary to sync a full node on a phone, developed by GreenAdress IIRC
|
|
|
|
If you're mostly accepting small transactions, it can be reasonable to wait for only 1 confirmation, and some services that I use actually do this.
BitPay even accepts zero fee Bitcoin transactions as long as the amount is below $50 and the fee used is appropriate according to the sate of the network. Yup, that's true about Bitpay. Confirmation is instant and I have used it also for over $100 (in euros anyway) BUT their fee estimation for what they consider appropriate is way, way above what's normal, about two times as much as is necessary for a 90% next block confirmation, as far as I can tell. Bad way to do business, they should just leave it at 1 confirmation, as then people cand decide how soon it happens. They've switched off RBF too (as soon as it detects RBF it becomes an unconfirmed tx) so you basically have no choice but to overpay, regardless of the network. Bitpay are idiots, they make you pay 2-3x too much, but prevent you from upping their expensive fee if that's not enough. Then the next Bitpay customer comes along, and Bitpay increase the fee they pay, leaving your transaction stuck in a queue despite overpaying fees, and you cannot bump the fee It's a perfect recipe for creating expensive tx's that get stuck unconfirmed. People might think "Bitcoin is expensive and slow", when in fact Bitpay are morons. Why would they do that? |
|
|
|
Search engines are another matter, granted. But there's nothing wrong with stopping the leaks one at a time.
It's worth exploring the possibility of decentralised search - Trawl sitemaps of local IP ranges
- Use a p2p overlay to share results with other nodes
Mitigating the other clients from censoring results would be the hard part, but it'd maybe be difficult to really censor anything if enough people were running it Then Google would be d.e.a.d. |
|
|
|
I was talking about transactions after 1 confirmation, not without a confirmation. I stand by it, it has proven to be secure enough. Stale blocks, often incorrect called orphan blocks, happen not infrequently even without an entity actively attacking the network. The most recent one was in February, as you can see here: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/orphaned-blocks. Apparently blockchain.com's figures under-represent the frequency of stale/orphaned blocks, but only somewhat. In truth, it's not possible to record every stale block, as not every node receives both/all blocks that are in race. And I agree, accepting 1 confirmation tx's is not a good idea for this reason. 2-6 depending on how you feel about the value (and the circumstances) And yes, I agree that the ATM operator burned itself by letting people withdraw without a single confirmation. How can you not expect criminals to abuse it, lol. It's like having a legacy ATM spit out free money just by pressing a few random buttons. That's what happens when people rush to start up a business in an attempt to front run potential competitors.
It reminds me of how many exchanges in Japan rushed to go live and got hacked due to how insecure their platform was. If you don't know what you're doing, you're paying for it.
natural selection/free market in action  [zero confirmations are not, never were and never will be in any way safe. If you accept a transaction as paid when it has zero confirms, and you get robbed, it's your fault for being so foolish
Can you not read? I was talking about transactions after 1 confirmation, not without a confirmation. I stand by it, it has proven to be secure enough. you're completely right, I did not read what you wrote correctly. I offer you my apology, I responded to something you did not say in my haste. |
|
|
|
If you're mostly accepting small transactions, it can be reasonable to wait for only 1 confirmation, and some services that I use actually do this.
BitPay even accepts zero fee Bitcoin transactions as long as the amount is below $50 and the fee used is appropriate according to the sate of the network. it's unwise whichever business is doing it, it only demonstrates they have no clue what they are doing Bitcoin has proven to be secure enough to consider transactions final after 1 confirmation no it hasn't. did you not see that news story about zero-confirmation attacks against Bitcoin ATM's? zero confirmations are not, never were and never will be in any way safe. If you accept a transaction as paid when it has zero confirms, and you get robbed, it's your fault for being so foolish |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
