Actually ASIC is a crack against cryptography, it has always been since WWII and nothing has changed, when a cryptographic algorithm get ASICed, it should be considered a failure and fixed instead of being justified as 'inevitable', 'not a big deal' or even 'a good thing'!
It is just ridiculous how is it possible to have a cryptographic system of any kind being cracked by a specialized circuit and considered safe meanwhile?
you're backpedalling the above claim, and you knew you were wrong when you made it. I won't be replying further |
|
|
|
I doubt OP is someone shady enough, or has high enough status to become paranoid of such things Who said anything about being shady, paranoid or high status? If someone thinks Windows users owe them money, and Microsoft accepts that, then there's nothing those Windows users could do to stop Microsoft handing the keys over. Except ditching Windows for all crypto stuff (or using a secure hardware wallet) It's not happened yet, but Microsoft started as a fraud (the original Microsoft products was someone else's work), and has been consistently unscrupulous ever since. You'd be unwise to trust Microsoft with your Bitcoin keys. |
|
|
|
Microsoft won't steal your money, but if someone Microsoft is friendly with wants to steal your Bitcoins, Microsoft will almost certainly give them your keys.
You would be told that the money wasn't rightfully yours of course, but successful thieves always have a good psychological angle as well as brutality
Yes, Microsoft have many employees. I'm sure they have many security measures in place so most employees won't have the access. However, many companies tend to give more access to those with more responsibility. All you need is one of these employees with the required access to go rogue. No, I mean Microsoft can give your data to a different organisation. As long as someone powerful enough comes up with a good enough excuse, Microsoft will happily give some other organisation your keys |
|
|
|
For an algorithm to be "cracked", we'd first have to agree that designing hardware to perform a task more efficiently is effectively breaking some sort of implied lock. I'm still yet to be convinced there's a lock to break, let alone that ASICs are somehow breaking them. It's unlikely we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on this.
Perhaps if an algorithm was specifically designed with ASIC resistance in mind, then you could make that claim. But that doesn't apply here.
Of course it does break a lock, how would it be possibly considered otherwise? We are talking about cryptography after all! And how do ASICs break the cryptographic hash function? They don't. Hash algorithms are broken when you find a collision, efficiently. "Efficient" in practice means devising a different algorithm to SHA256 that can find collisions on a practical timescale. SHA256 ASICs cannot be used to look for collisions efficiently, they are designed to do one thing only: perform the actual SHA256 algorithm on data being fed to them. It's possible they could find a collision, but checking that would have to be programmed by the controller, not an SHA256 ASIC. It's unlikely though, and certainly has nothing to do with making SHA256 unusable for authentication etc. That would require an efficient method of finding collisions, not an inefficient method (i.e. brute forcing). If you want to man-in-the-middle someone, using a hash farm to brute force their connection's shared secret key is going to be frustratingly expensive if the target renegotiates their HMAC secret at almost any frequency more than, say, once every 1000 years. There's never been a report I've heard of an SHA256 ASIC being used to find even 1 hash collision, despite the inconceivable number of hashes performed in Bitcoin mining since 2009. |
|
|
|
Short version:
If you paid (close to) $100 for the legit OS and don't have any viruses that can access your PC, then no, Microsoft won't steal your Bitcoins.
No Microsoft won't steal your money, but if someone Microsoft is friendly with wants to steal your Bitcoins, Microsoft will almost certainly give them your keys. You would be told that the money wasn't rightfully yours of course, but successful thieves always have a good psychological angle as well as brutality |
|
|
|
you certainly can run Bitcoin Core on a Raspberry Pi, you should be aware that the initial download and verification of the entire Bitcoin blockchain will take a lot of time (literally weeks on a slow computer like a Raspi). You also need a harddrive or flash storage Another thing you can do is make smart use of the datadir and blocksdir parameters - Set datadir to a folder on a fast SSD (but not on the SD card)
- Set blocksdir to a folder on a normal HDD
This will not only speed up syncing the blockchain, but also save the SD card from an early death (it actually speeds up sync on a regular PC too). And yes, definitely don't try to use your RasPi to sync the blockchain from zero, use a PC |
|
|
|
|
Max Keiser has questionable motives towards Bitcoin
Keiser Report was engaged in alot of soft support for the 2X fork and it's proponents, and very little presentation of the other side of the story.
When the 2X fork failed, Max suspiciously shut his mouth, and tried to act like it never happened
|
|
|
|
2019-01-03 20:50:09 (ERROR) -- BDM.pyc:268 - setSatoshiDir: directory does not exist: C:\Users\matth\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoi
[snip]
BitcoindError: bitcoind not found
There's your problem. 1. Click File > Settings in Armory 2. Uncheck box "Let Armory run Bitcoin in the background" Start Bitcoin before Armory. Do not start Armory until Bitcoin has finished syncing |
|
|
|
Jordan Peterson is being deplatformed and censored, Bitcoin will help him keep going. Not quite. He is voluntary leaving Patreon as a protest against Patreon deplatforming other people based on their political views. Peterson is demonstrating poor judgement. The "political views" of the person he's defending are all part of a curious trend to (in effect) demonstrate that the only people that need free speech in 21st century faux-liberalism are football gang members and corporate apologists. "Liberal? How selfish. And racist!" is the effect that these people are achieving in practice. Peterson is foolish to associate with such people, which is strange when he otherwise seems so smart. |
|
|
|
|
You need to start Bitcoin with -addresstype=legacy added to the command. Then the wallet will generate the old style addresses.
|
|
|
|
- Create a system where third-parties can trustlessly proxy incoming LN payments. It's OK if the final recipient needs to run an always-on daemon, just as long as it's not public. Bonus points if the final recipient doesn't need to open any ports, or if you can do something to allow offline recipients.
You can do this now, and all it involves is not opening ports on your lightning node. You'd need to come up with a custom script to create the liquidity you need, as people wouldn't be able to find your node in order to initiate opening channels. But you could initiate opening channels with nodes you connect to. Setting up a sufficient number of private channels to serve the site might eventually become a problem, but the overall network liquidity will continue to grow in the meantime. So it would be more involving than just running the node's autopilot channel management. But it can be done. |
|
|
|
That might be a stupid question, but I am curious how legacy addresses would be affected in the long term.
There is no effect. It makes no difference at all, all nodes understand pre-segwit addresses |
|
|
|
It would be new if someone talented had the first ever 100% independent hit film/track/album. It happened already, the movie Paranormal Activity had a $15,000 budget and a $193.4 million box office. The authors sold the movie to Paramount Pictures for $300,000. Not what I'd call 100% independent, but interesting nevertheless If they had access to a decentralized content distribution system like the one described in the OP, they would net much more money, but probably less than those 193 millions (because Paramount Pictures dropped $10 millions on advertisement).
There are probably more cases like that, but they are rather exceptions than the rule. You can produce world-class music at home these days, but digital content like movies and games still costs millions of dollars to produce, and I don't see how those amounts can be achieved via crowdfunding in the near future.
I think music is most likely for such a thing to happen, it has the lowest barriers to entry as you mention. A music hit can be done with a much smaller team of people, literally one person could do everything if they have the right range of skills. |
|
|
|
Also, there's no precedent of successful crowdfunding of an AAA game or a Hollywood-quality movie yet.
Citizen Kane? It's not exactly a new thing, platforms like Kickstarter were around for many years already.
It would be new if someone talented had the first ever 100% independent hit film/track/album. It'll happen, I've been saying this for years. Someone who's smart enough to know how good they are, and knowledgeable enough to know they can do everything them self. You don't need an industry when all the modern equipment is household grade. |
|
|
|
So company expects people who have spent their entire lives doing anything not to pay anything - pay something.
Back in 2011 one of my friends had a movie website that was hosting pirated content and he tried to monetize it by different means. From about 10 000 visitors a day he didn't manage to get a single sale, no matter what he tried to sell through affiliate links. But content producers will get smart eventually, despite how dumb they are now. The new model will be something like this: convince people your art/software is good by giving away something for free. Then crowdfund the release of the full product, which is copyright free once it's been funded. And why not distribute it through bittorrent when your profits are getting squeezed like that? It's easy to build bittorrent into webpages, no-one even knows they're using it. The alternative is to pretend that it's still the 1900's. And complain about how it isn't, essentially. I'm surprised content producers aren't already bored of doing that |
|
|
|
You can install OpenBSD without GUI, it is easy to install, but I am not sure that there is much you can do with it with a default install.
Right, BSD is another minimalist option (technically not Linux, but superficially there are many similarities). There are multiple distributions of BSD to pick, derived from 2 main projects: FreeBSD and OpenBSD. Downsides are similar to Gentoo, Alpine or Slackware: uber-minimal, so alot of skill & knowledge needed, and not always well documented to help you get there. Additional downside is hardware compatibility, you can't expect brand new (or even just very recent) computers (or peripherals) to work with BSD, the projects developing BSD distros don't have the same amount of resources to do the necessary work to get the same range of hardware working as exists for Linux. Upside is that you'll be skillful and knowledgeable once you can handle BSD, and BSD is a secure choice |
|
|
|
Sorry about that, I have basic rules in my threads 1. No trolling. Even if you're not definitively a troll 2. No trolls. Even if you're not trolling You fell afoul of rule 2 here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4638321.msg49019088#msg49019088Is lightning network making bitcoin centralised?
Yes. It is also reintroducing middleman which will perpetually charge transactions fees due to network driven oligopolies. It is a lot like Visa and Master card. If someone wants to talk to you in your thread, that's their business |
|
|
|
Many altcoins have fewer nodes than LN this The problem I've seen so far with Lightning is that the nodes and wallets need to be online in order to send and receive funds.
Less intuitively than a bitcoin transaction where I can access it at a later time as long as its sent to the address.
Hopefully there are some thoughts to this. Tools to ensure uptime of the node is a good starting point.
This is the most legitimate criticism of LN. There's a solution though: run your own lightning node. It's worth remembering that internet culture evolves rapidly, as it's really still an immature system (despite the huge improvements since the 80's/90's). People are always looking for "more", going to the next level of living. I expect that running a small server will eventually become one of those "next big thing"s, personal servers are useful for way more than just running a lightning node. |
|
|
|
CentOS/Fedora might serve as good alternative as it based on Red Hat, even though i still prefer Debian.
EEEeee. Red Hat distro's have their upsides, but really the negatives outweigh the positives. Red Hat and Canonical are similar; corporate software's attempt to turn Linux into something they can dominate. I was hesitant to recommend Debian at all because of Canonical's bad influence on it's development (but settled with just making it a negative point in it's own right) Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora and CentOS all come with undesirable software that work in Red Hat/Canonical's commercial interests, not in the users interests. I'm shocked to find out that Slackware - the purist's choice of 1990s - still exists.
These days I'm far less religious so I just use a minimal Ubuntu server install for when I need a quick simple Linux box.
I am embarrassed to have forgotten perhaps the most minimal of all, Slackware. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
