<whole lotta' bullshit>
Totally wrong. Basically, all of your "advice" is garbage. Some real programmers, please chime in. I am a programmer from 14 years, and FYI, i have written some stron cryptography myself from scratch. So stop talking bullshit. <whole lotta' bullshit>
Totally wrong. Basically, all of your "advice" is garbage. Some real programmers, please chime in. You should be using bcrypt(). Not whatever many rounds of hashing. Hashing is meant for huge amounts of data (such as files) and is meant to run fast - which means it can be bruteforced fast. By using bcrypt with a high work factor, logins take one second to process - and bruteforcing takes one second per hash as opposed to 10 billion hashes per second. Wait, just let me get something straight before i continue this discussion. If i generate a password hash using bcrypt with X rounds, and then i increase it to Y rounds, will both functions generate the same hash ? I mean is bcrypt(pwd, rounds = 10, salt) equal to bcrypt(pwd, rounds = 20, salt) ? Am I understanding this correctly ? id assume no, or else it would be pointless to increase round time. |
|
|
|
heres an idea that might sound crazy, but what if we all used secure passwords? sure hashing as some weaknesses, but it allows for you to log in fast, and if you use a good password and a salt you should be good, as i dont think any huge company handling huge volumes of traffic would use that algorithm, simply because they do not have the required amount of processing power to keep the passwords secure and a reasonable login time.
Wrong threat model. Read this link: http://codahale.com/how-to-safely-store-a-password/the link contains no information i didnt already know, again, a 64cha hexadecimal password will take a really long time according to https://www.grc.com/haystack.htm . assuming the hashing algorithm isnt found to be insecure or something. hell, acording to grc, "thecowsaysmoo" would take months to crack, id consider that relatively safe, sure over time it becomes more insecure, but it does not have all the drawbacks of bcrypt. its probably fine for personal use, but once you get thousands of people logging on at the same time, that's a thousand seconds worth of computing time you need. |
|
|
|
|
heres an idea that might sound crazy, but what if we all used secure passwords? sure hashing as some weaknesses, but it allows for you to log in fast, and if you use a good password and a salt you should be good, as i dont think any huge company handling huge volumes of traffic would use that algorithm, simply because they do not have the required amount of processing power to keep the passwords secure and a reasonable login time.
|
|
|
|
|
i cant use it?
edit: do i HAVE to use chrome?
|
|
|
|
is my password safe if i used a 64char hexadecimal?
do the math yourself. serrouisly you guys, learn about password strength, and hashing algo's. it was a joke, obviously my password is good for at least 100 years for current day technology, mostly due to its sheer length. although i think i may use base 64 anyway just to be on the safe side. |
|
|
|
|
is my password safe if i used a 64char hexadecimal?
|
|
|
|
|
in reality you can never be sure of anything. how do you know that the certs in your browser are not tampered with via an exploit or during the transit of the software from the internet to your computer.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin client has flaws you mean? First of all, database pruning will be automatic. As the network grows though, Bitcoin nodes will tend to become like current miners, hobbyists that have specialized hardware to run a node. We will have lightwight protocols to connect to these nodes using our mobile devices, and many more trusted third party services than now. We might even have an untraceable transaction protocol implemented on top of bitcoin network operated by third parties. These aren't even technologically challenging and most of them are being worked on as we speak. you cant prune all the required transactions to make the chain of a reasonable size when bitcoin reaches a reasonable size. the estimate is around a gig per block. and you cant prune a block that came out 2 minutes ago. its very different, and the southern hicks wont use it no matter what logic you give them.
im not talking about Africans, im talking about stupid rednecks in the south in the US. your claims about the blockchain will never work, people have already tried things like decentralized chains and they don't work because you cant trust them to give real money for coins. so you either centralize or continue as is. you are kinda right about the android client. and AFAIK you would still need to have full blocks to exist in the network. |
|
|
|
bitcoin isn't going to die .... thankfully you'll die b4 it dose
its due to a lost of faith by lots of people and the sell off of bitcoin fortunes.
its likly the price will continue to drop for very slowly for years.... then someone in the media will be like "you guys remember that bitcoin thing well now they are able to _______ with bitcoin" and poof over night its gose to 10k per coin! LOL we'll see ....
from what i have seen personally, it will. not only are the people behind bitcoin making things difficult by hacking and stealing peoples coins, it lacks charge backs, good or bad also, bitcoin has flaws that can not be fixed, like the size of the blockchain. there are more and more competing chains that distract bitcoin users. its very different, and the southern hicks wont use it no matter what logic you give them. and very large growth you describe is never stable, any idiot knows that. the most stable growth for an economy 3 or 4 times the current one would probably be a rise of no more than 20 cents a month. edit: i am contemplating writing a white paper for a new crypto currency similar to bitcoin but with changes that address the problems that will eventually plague bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
i think bitcoin will eventually die off.
|
|
|
|
https://www.ipredator.se/ is pretty good, they are the only vpn i have ever used and i like them. sure your ping will suck because they are based in sweden, but its really good if you just want to chat or download large amounts of data without revealing your real ip address. in addition the traffic is encrypted from the vpn servers to your computer, no isp snooping 
|
|
|
|
|
if you pay over $200 for a keyboard that does not have a display, you got scammed. my logitech keyboard cost like $15 and feels better than most of the shit apple and microsoft pushes out of their ass.
|
|
|
|
|
i forgot to mention the waste again network password is "bitcoin"
|
|
|
|
im more keen on waste myself, alliance is a bit bloated if you ask me. if you want to add me, paste that in and post yours. wasteagain.dyndns-ip.com WASTE_PUBLIC_KEY 20 4096 ctoon6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WASTE_PUBLIC_KEY_END
also, you probably want to use the latest build of WASTE again, i use build 442 |
|
|
|
I prefer to do it on an ad hoc basis - e.g "-site:bitcointalk.org"
+1 simple thing, + if you require a word - if you want to forbid the word, quotes with if require a specific phrase. example +"bitcoin is awesome" so unless the 3 words appeared exactly like that, they will not be shown. |
|
|
|
|
i gave a stupid definition
the government should operate by the will of the people it governs that allows it to exist
the other one could mean some elitist group like we have now, but you get the idea
|
|
|
|
the problem with the internet is it technically isn't centralized but everyone who runs it has the same agenda. and that is to make money. this is also why i think the government should run the internet with the consent of the people who use it. that way they can run the internet in an unprofitable way, which will make it faster for everyone, and because they are technically forced to do it by the will of the people (lol i know right?) it cant infringe on peoples rights.
Well coming from someone with an Anonymous picture as their avatar, you really don't understand Anonymous. By letting the Government control the internet directly, they would censor everything they please, because companies (or the people) would have no control. In doing that, Bitcoin would see a farewell in places like the US and most likely the UK. i talk about a perfect world, where the government works by the direct consent and authority of the people who allow it to exist, not in today's corrupt world edit: also i would like to point out, you do not understand what anonymous is or who it is, everybody is always anonymous, unless you specifically are not. this means in a nutshell, if you do not enjoy the government running your life, and you want to express that without doing #1 then you are anonymous by the popular definition. |
|
|
|
the problem with the internet is it technically isn't centralized but everyone who runs it has the same agenda. and that is to make money. I agree this is also why i think the government should run the internet with the consent of the people who use it. that way they can run the internet in an unprofitable way, which will make it faster for everyone, and because they are technically forced to do it by the will of the people (lol i know right?) it cant infringe on peoples rights.
I strongly disagree. Giving the power to governments will cause even stronger "centralization" (of power). One doesn't even need to think about North Africa to see that a government controlling a medium of communication is a bad thing. I'd rather trust someone who provides this service for money than someone who is potentially addicted to power and wants to have control about the people (be it with good or bad intentions). If you want to give the power to the people give them the technology in form of something like B.A.T.M.A.N. or Netsukuku. Communication/transfer of information is important and therefor should be available to everyone (and yes, of course it can be abused, but all tools, the whole life and everything can be abused). i think in theory, the government is the best entity to run the internet, but your right, there is no state in the world i would trust with the job today. |
|
|
|
@OP: I understand what you mean when you say the internet isn't decentralized, but if you just say it like that it is confusing. I mean you defiantly can't call the internet centralized either. Maybe the question is what is decentralized and how much it is decentralized.
Also there are projects like this. I hope one of them emerges into something bigger and a lot of people start using them. The most interesting ones seem to be B.A.T.M.A.N. and Netsukuku, with the latter one appearing to be 'dead'.
RONJA requires different infrastructure. It would be awesome to have something WLAN based, because they are cheaper and built in everywhere (Smartphones, PDAs, TVs, ...).
I really would love to see such a project to succeed in a way that everyone becomes independent from any kind of provider or regulator.
the problem with the internet is it technically isn't centralized but everyone who runs it has the same agenda. and that is to make money. this is also why i think the government should run the internet with the consent of the people who use it. that way they can run the internet in an unprofitable way, which will make it faster for everyone, and because they are technically forced to do it by the will of the people (lol i know right?) it cant infringe on peoples rights. |
|
|
|
sorry if it has been mentioned, but decentralized, open-source voting seems like it would be a jolly good time.
in the thread i said some stuff on it, and you can also read how its a bad idea to some people as well. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
