1. The software is compromised. Worst case scenario, every node runs software that has an intentional backdoor. For example, it accepts a special signature which by passes ECDSA verification. Any coin can be transferred by using the backdoor.
Result: The blockchain is bogus - it will have to be reverted once the backdoor is detected. Massive disruption. I don't see how to undo the damages. Will have to refund a lot of people I guess.
How likely? The code is open source but not too many people review it. More over, the vast majority of the network is running the reference client in some version. So if the change was well hidden, it could happen. Similar to shellshock or heartbleed, etc.
2. Crypto is broken secretly. Like when the allies broke Enigma but never disclosed it. Very hard because several unrelated crypto algorithms are involved. They would have to be all broken for this to work (SHA, RIPEMD, ECDSA).
Result: Can steal anyone's coin but unlike 1. it cannot be easily proven. You become instantly rich.
How likely? Much much harder than 1.
3. A hidden hardware circuit transmits everything to a hidden organization.
Result: They can steal your keys because at one point or another the key has to be in memory of a computer.
How likely? Even if it's done, the sheer amount of data would make this quite impracticable. Considering how long it takes to take down terrorist cells with all the intelligence resources put to it, I doubt that anyone is capable of sifting through that much data.
One could reduce the difficulty by targeting PC Windows XP or what not, but then savvy users should be able to avoid this threat.
ad 1. That is not how Bitcoin/cryptography works. You can't sign transaction with some kind of master key ad 2. On a mathematical level cryptography is safe, unless it is a conspiracy that involves all mathematics and they just lied to us for decades. ad 3. For offline signing you would need some secret wireless transmitter, that does send the key. That would be some real hard core conspiracy. |
|
|
|
 Please share, personally I think this is what can jumpstart mass adoption. They suck. Can you elaborate? It defeats the purpose of bitcoin, which is to not fall into the same traps that debit cards started: an economy based on debt. I think, you misunderstand the term debit card. Debit Card means you load money on it before you can pay with it. Credit card means, you can pay without actually having the money. You can't have a negative balance on a debit card, so there is no debt. |
|
|
|
What ? a Physical real Bitcoin Debit card ?  Can you link me to that please , how to get one |
|
|
|
An actual plastic card?
I guess it would be handy on areas or whole countries or small stores.
But with NFC payments coming everywhere there will be no need.
The bolded may be true but the average American doesn't even know what NFC is lol NFC payments are great ... as long as it doesn't involve a phone. I really don't want to lose the equivalent of my wallet when I lose or break my phone. I destroy many phones a year. I just broke one last week in a minor motorcycle accident. Putting everything on your phone -> single point of failure. No, it is not, if you just make a backup. Bitcoins are never on a device, they are still on the blockchain and you need a private key to access them. You can backup a private key, so I don't see any problem there. (I wonder, why someone who is a Hero Member, just don't understand that simple principal.) |
|
|
|
They can't force either to be legal or illegal, and even if they did, it wouldn't be enforceable anyway.
What they can do is make/commission changes to Bitcoin that suit them and create a fork themselves, which implements all of the measures they want in place. Then endorse THAT Bitcoin fork to the public at large, its still "Bitcoin" in principle, so it can be marketed as such (plus who's going to sue them? The foundation?)
Aside from the fact that the public would have no idea technically whats going on, I'd imagine that members of the public, including ones that were/are skeptical, would be more likely to use this Bitcoin derivative as it has the backing of the state (hell, they could go as far as secure deposits against loss as per the regular financial system).
What you possibly end up with is a mass exodus of new users into the system, as they now feel safe. Miners will follow the money, more users = more fees to collect, thus more profitable. Before you know it, the original BTC fork is suffering, and the new one is blooming.
Then you'll get the scenario that Holliday suggests, along with some dishonest users spending BTC on both forks that they had before the split.
I would definitely use both forks. I don't see, what is dishonest about that |
|
|
|
|
Bei Bitcoins liegt die Verantwortung nunmal bei einem selbst, wie man sie absichert.
Wenn du den private key nicht besitzt, besitzt du die Bitcoins auch nicht. Wir alle, die Geld auf MtGox verloren haben, haben das nun auf die harte Tour gelernt.
Der Rechtsstaat ist nunmal nicht für die kleinen Leute gemacht. Wenn wir aber verantwortungsvoll mit unserem Geld umgehen, brauchen wir ihn auch nicht.
Viele sind aber überfordert damit, selbst Verantwortung zu übernehmen. Die sollen sich besser von Bitcoins fernhalten. Euro auf einer Bank, sind noch immer weit sicherer als Bitcoins auf einer Börse.
|
|
|
|
So the basic idea is to move the market and then profit from the momentum you created?
The really frightening thing about that, is that you wouldn't even need to invest for your self to move it. If Andreas M. Antonopoulos would publicly say, that the price is going up, it would go up, since people would just believe him and buy Bitcoins. That happens all the time in stock markets. Broker Houses(not sure if that is the right term) often just tell their clients, that a stock is going up and they should buy. So, they buy and it is going up. |
|
|
|
So, how do you calculate the amount of private keys from people who role dices to make them. How do you count the people who let their cat run over their keyboard to generate it? There are a lot of possibilities to create private keys, without even software.
Your last point is just stupid: Used Bitcoin addresses and generated private keys are just not the same thing.
So, yes you can collect some data, and make a guess, but it wouldn't be a good one.
What are you on about? What part of: IF YOU DID IT ON YOUR PC IT IS PROBABLY COMPROMISED don't you understand?! If it is a PC that was never connected to the internet, it is not. Unless you want to use magic again, which is unfair. Furthermore, I just wanted to show, that you can not really predict how private keys are generated. You can't even predict, when a private key/public address was generated, since I can generate one today and use it in 10 years and you wouldn't know. |
|
|
|
Are you really that much of an idiot? I already told you, you just have to look in Japan economic history to see that deflation is a bad thing.
Except in terms of prices of microwave ovens, there is no deflation in Japan. Show me a decade where money supply went down?  That is not a chart of Japans Inflation/deflation. I already linked a site, where you can look at it. |
|
|
|
The real concern with what you suggest there is that users that had Bitcoin on the pre-fork chain can spend them on both the new & old forked chains.
If the majority migrate to the new hard-fork, then it's not really an issue, because the old protocol dies, but if we end up with 2 large sets of users on each, then you can double spend previous BTC on both.
Obvious way around that is of course to have everyone run both the old and new chains and cross reference between each, but then that adds a whole new level of technical complexity to an already tricky non-technical problem.
Nobody will cross-reference two chains. That just doesn't make sense. Who wants to change the source code to suit the needs of regulators?
Wouldn't large miners (who basically control the network) have to comply with any provision issued to them (including modified code with whatever rules regulators think of to code in there)? Regulators don't bother with this just yet, as they see that Bitcoin is too small and fading away by itself to become irrelevant due to its flaws, and it's cheaper for them socially to just wait it out. But if it didn't fade away and began to grow to threaten the fiat system, be sure, they'd issue this license in a heart beat. When it is a change, that changes how the blockchain works, you would need a hard fork. Users/miners would just have to stay on their old version to not accept it. Alright, users and small miners would stay on their old fork, but large miners that control the network would have to comply with the regulations or shut down operations. Eventually users would have to either sell their Bitcoins (sell them on the old or new fork) or switch to and stay on the new regulated fork as well. What's wrong/impossible with this picture I just drew? Why would a miner in Siberia care about a regulation made in the US? Is there a statistic about, where most miners are? I don't think, they are in US. Btw. that's exactly why some many people hates US-citiziens. A lot of them just don't realize that there is also an economy that is not controlled by your government, which is especially stupid, when you are talking about bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
I recently activated my yubikey for blockchain.info.
So, I am wondering, if I would have fallen for that, would I have a problem?
|
|
|
|
Who wants to change the source code to suit the needs of regulators?
Wouldn't large miners (who basically control the network) have to comply with any provision issued to them (including modified code with whatever rules regulators think of to code in there)? Regulators don't bother with this just yet, as they see that Bitcoin is too small and fading away by itself to become irrelevant due to its flaws, and it's cheaper for them socially to just wait it out. But if it didn't fade away and began to grow to threaten the fiat system, be sure, they'd issue this license in a heart beat. When it is a change, that changes how the blockchain works, you would need a hard fork. Users/miners would just have to stay on their old version to not accept it. |
|
|
|
It's hardly idealism, the simple fact is if we give ground and change the source code to suit the needs of regulators that's when Bitcoin will end up failing, you can insitute what kind of tax rules are to be placed on it all you like, just don't go saying things like "Yes we'll change the way the public ledger works" and so on because the first time I see a "Full Name" or "Country" field on my Bitcoin wallet I'm transferring everything.
What the fuck are you talking about? Who wants to change the source code to suit the needs of regulators? |
|
|
|
You realize that only works if someone has PHYSICAL access to the device with the cold storage? With physical access, it's easier for a thief to steal the wallet file, regardless if it had internet or not.
Cracking the password to the wallet is another story.
Physical access is not required in many cases. Since 2009 (32nm Sandybridge) all Intel CPUs have vPro AMT built in, allowing anyone to control the computer remotely using wireless 3G technology. There are remote exploits in the wild and the technology cannot be disabled by the end user, the setting to disable AMT in the Bios is ignored. "Currently, Intel AMT is available in desktops, servers, ultrabooks, tablets, and laptops with Intel Core vPro processor family, including Intel Core i3, i5, i7, and Intel Xeon processor E3-1200 product family" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Technology"AMT is designed to help sys-admins remotely manage and secure PCs out-of-band when PC power is off" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_AMT_versionsKeywords are "out-of-band" and "when PC power is off". The Intel CPUs are always on, even when they are off, provided the computer is plugged in to the power. They can remotely access all your data anytime they wish, without permission and without anyway for the end user to disable this "feature". It is well documented, so there should be no surprises here. So, just plug it off, when you don't need it? Doesn't sound that complicated to me ... Btw. my computer is always unplugged, when I switch it off, since i just hit the button on my multi-plug. |
|
|
|
If someone is productive and earning bitcoins, it would be in everyone's best interest for them to use those bitcoins for additional production (after all, they have a history of producing things of value). Destroying those coins is unproductive and senseless.
Not everyone got all their bitcoins from production. Many people have government jobs and bought bitcoin with that money. Furthermore, some one might own an apartment building in the city. It is monopoly on land that provided their salary. To prove this if you have the choice of paying $3000 a month for a 500 square foot apartment in NYC or have a 10,000 square foot lot without paying rent or property tax or building permits, which would you choose? Furthermore some just own a large mining rig and since Gavin says the network is overly secure, it would be better for them to just drop out of mining they are not doing anything productive. Destroying coins is productive, it is a gift to those more productive than you. You see money is suppose to be a commodity, it is suppose to represent wealth. Money is suppose to rise in value (deflate). It is suppose to be an investment. Deflation of the nations currency is sign of a healthy country, if your country does not have a deflating currency consider moving. You are being robbed. It is no coincidence the tyrants result from inflation, government, and private ownership of land. Are you really that much of an idiot? I already told you, you just have to look in Japan economic history to see that deflation is a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Ich dehe davon aus, dass es in J ähnlich läuft, vermutlich sogar schlimmer. Es sind keinerlei Anzeichen zu erkennen, dass der Anwalt auch nur im Traum daran denkt, die BTC als Kundeneinlagen zu behandeln. Mark greift noch ein bischen zusätzliches Geld ab und nach Ablauf der Geschichte sind Mark und der Insolvenzverwalter um einiges reicher, wir schauen in die Röhre und der Fall ist "nach Recht und Gesetz" abgeschlossen... Wir haben es in der Hand. Sollte der Insolvenzverwalter entscheiden die 200.000 zu veruntreuen, dann müssen wir das nicht akzeptieren. Der Brief unserer "Selbsthilfegruppe" ist fertig gestellt und wird in Kürze veröffentlicht (befindet sich derzeit noch in der japanischen Übersetzung.): https://wiki.olivere.de/goxwiki/ClaimsGoxSelfHelpSiehe zweiter Punkt. Ich denke, dass dieser Verteilungsschlüssel auch über gox-self-help hinaus Konsens ist. Es liegt ausschließlich an uns ihn zumindest für die verbliebenen Bitcoins durchzusetzen. Sollte N-San unserem Ansinnen nicht entsprechen, können wir die veruntreuten Coins aus dem Gox-Restvermögen auf eine schwarze Liste setzen. Da die Community nicht ausschließlich aus technikfernen Schwanzlutschern (sorry, gucke in letzter Zeit Abends immer Deadwood) besteht, werden einige Leute keine Gox-Coins akzeptieren, zumindest solange nicht, solange diese in mehr als homöopathischen Dosen in einem Input auftauchen. Kann also ein Weilchen dauern bis dieses Geld wieder normal zirkuliert. Ich bin nur sehr gespannt wer in der Zwischenzeit für N-San "Markt" spielen möchte. Zumal wenn gleichzeitig die US-Marshalls eine Charge nach der anderen versteigern. Was N-San auch immer tut, er muss eine Lösung finden, bei der alle - oder zumindest die meisten - ihr Gesicht wahren können. Wir können uns natürlich auch einfach abspeisen lassen wie unorganisierte Hinterwäldler und dicke Kinder. Wenn das das Selbstverständnis der Community ist, na dann ... Bitte nicht wieder dieser Unsinn mit dieser schwarzen Liste. Solange dem nicht ein Großteil des Netzwerk zustimmt, passiert da genau gar nichts. |
|
|
|
Mining promotes centralization and single point of failure. Right now all the government has to do is to blackmail or hack and take control of two pools and Bitcoin can be destroyed.
Supporters of mining now are mainly those who have already invested in it and have to rely on having this continue to not get broke.
You obviously don't know much about mining. The hashing power is not on the pools. If a pool acts bad, people just go to another one. Losing a pool wouldn't change much. That's far away from "Bitcoin can be destroyed" Some people on this forum even state, that this would be good, since people would change to p2p pool and the whole centralization problem, would be solved. |
|
|
|
|
Let's assume I have a lot of fiat and BTC.
I want the price to go up, I just go on an exchange and buy a lot of BTC (doesn't matter that there are more than one exchange, since they are pretty much in sync). People see, that the price is going up and will buy them self, since they assume, that it will go up more anyways. So, I started it and just have to wait till it reaches the peak and than sell a lot of BTC for a profit. People see, the price is going down, and the same happens in the other direction.
Repeat until you are richer than you have already been.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin being used for even more illegal activity.
Buying drugs with Bitcoin. Just shut down silkroad. Feeding the homeless with Bitcoin. Get the drones, we are gonna bomb the blockchain. |
|
|
|
Yet another thread where nobody agrees with the OP but everyone must post telling the OP how bad their idea is.
It's funny because, I showed pretty early, that OP just doesn't know much about economy. There is no deflation in Japan. Furthermore Japan is one of the richest countries with one of the highest life expectancies in the world.  Ok, you obviously don't know much. Japan had a deflation. Money printing isn't the only factor in that. I am really amazed, that so much people in the bitcoin world don't know that. Really, educate yourself before spreading bullshit. Look it up here(e.g. 2010): http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/inflation-cpiI guess he just heard the supply/demand-thingy and thinks that is all, that is important in economy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
