I would sell all of my bitcoins if someone was paying me twice the current price and I could easily get that money back on the exchange so I could convert it all back to bitcoins.
What if the price doubled by three after you sell your coin? That is always a risk. I would sell all of my bitcoins if price will reach to at least 1500$ per bitcoin again. I am quite sure that time sooner will come when these price will be minimum once again. Again? I thought that the all time highest value of Bitcoin had been ~$1200 |
|
|
|
As for alternatives, again, I'm not in that business but did not litecoin quickly find an alternative that was developed privately and whose security does not involve trusting the NSA?
OK, if I understand correctly, now I see a proposal, that scrypt would be a better alternative than SHA. |
|
|
|
And I'm truly concerned by your trust in the NSA.
You're not listening. Why are you not listening? |
|
|
|
I do not trust an algorithm developed by the nsa.
Why so many people are so quick to use weak arguments to defend the use of an nsa algorithm in bitcoin, I don't know.
I'm not defending the NSA algorithm. I'm truly concerned with your lack of trust of them, but when I ask you what other alternatives you have considered, you start attacking me repeating again and again that I'm defending them. |
|
|
|
Should I release the software right here on this thread?
You should make an announcement in a new thread, the same way other people do in this forum. My Software runs inside Metatrader 4. Anybody here knows what MT4 is? If nobody knows [...]
If nobody knows, then you should include a summary in your announcement, so that more people get more interested in both MT4 and Maria3.0 Maria tres punto cero
Qué bueno ver más hispanohablantes por aquí. |
|
|
|
That is another example of the fallacies being used to defend sha in bitcoin.
I'm not defending SHA. Why do you get that impression? Is it not enough that I do not want to use an algorithm that was developed for and promoted by an intelligence gathering agency that for decades has used its data mainly for overseas repression?
This is an ad hominem fallacy. I am not a cryptographer.
Then you will have a hard time convincing cryptographers about what you believe is right. You should consider researching what you defend. |
|
|
|
OK, if you were in control of the hashing algorithm used by Bitcoin, which one would you use and why?
I would use one that was not the product of the nsa, for reasons already given. Which one? Give a concrete answer. |
|
|
|
THIS RIGHT HERE is why if call yourself a Bitcoiner and you are not mining YOU ARE LYING TO YOURSELF. It's like trying to guard a vault with a toy gun..
I assume that you are a miner, then. |
|
|
|
1) Does the NSA have any interest in breaking bitcoin?
Of course.
2) Do they have the means? Do they have any influence over the cryptography?
Yes. Sha is their creation and they made special adaptations to it for reasons that are secret.
3) Has the NSA ever engaged in a similar type of deception, i.e., promoting weak cryptographics so they could seem to be breaking codes, doing their jobs, expertly?
They have. They are not so much 'code breakers' as 'con men employing code breakers who are willing to work for con men'.
That still doesn't prove that NSA has intentionally made SHA insecure. It gives them a motive, but there's no evidence. Your fallacy is in where the burden of proof lies. Is it better to trust the good intentions of the nsa, or to use a clean algorithm so there is no need to trust them? Do they have such a sparkling history that it is wise to trust them? OK, if you were in control of the hashing algorithm used by Bitcoin, which one would you use and why? |
|
|
|
1) Does the NSA have any interest in breaking bitcoin?
Of course.
2) Do they have the means? Do they have any influence over the cryptography?
Yes. Sha is their creation and they made special adaptations to it for reasons that are secret.
3) Has the NSA ever engaged in a similar type of deception, i.e., promoting weak cryptographics so they could seem to be breaking codes, doing their jobs, expertly?
They have. They are not so much 'code breakers' as 'con men employing code breakers who are willing to work for con men'.
That still doesn't prove that NSA has intentionally made SHA insecure. It gives them a motive, but there's no evidence. |
|
|
|
its not about the code, its about being anon then doing a runner with ~1million coinage
The million you talk about hasn't moved in its 6 years of existence. I don't understand why you're so mad at it. |
|
|
|
one big one being we know the original dev, btc's got an anon dev with 1 million stash, i'm a crypto enthusiast and that don't sit well with me, hows average joe going to accept that as an alternative to the greedy fiat banker  Yeah, but the “original dev” of Litecoin based his development on Satoshi's code, so if there was a problem with Bitcoin, it would affect Litecoin as well. not on this particular point because its a completely fresh ledger. So what? The code is the same, just with some changed parameters. If Bitcoin code has a bug, Litecoin has it too. |
|
|
|
one big one being we know the original dev, btc's got an anon dev with 1 million stash, i'm a crypto enthusiast and that don't sit well with me, hows average joe going to accept that as an alternative to the greedy fiat banker Yeah, but the “original dev” of Litecoin based his development on Satoshi's code, so if there was a problem with Bitcoin, it would affect Litecoin as well. |
|
|
|
|
Jokes should go in the Off-topic forum, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
The “oldest miner” posting form a Newbie account. Because that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Of course he expect bitcoin to last very long since he created bitcoin
Where is the logic in that? I think he was well aware that what he created was an experiment and still is. Nobody, not even satoshi, could have predicted what would or will happen in the future. I'm sure he's probably both surprised and proud how far bitcoin has come. Predictions and expectations are not the same thing. Satoshi did expect Bitcoin to be successful. You can perceive that in the whitepaper and in his messages to public groups. |
|
|
|
I just found out that about 300.000 of 500.000 total users of bitcointalk are all brand new  Spambots maybe |
|
|
|
The current highest rank here is Legendary with 775-1030 activity points to achieve. Perhaps we can have a higher rank at like 1300-1400 points? Like 'History Maker' or 'Part of Bitcoin History' etc.?
It's just a suggestion. You can take or not take it.
lol...there is already a higher rank...after legendry rank you will get staff rank But, isn't the Staff rank given to people who, you know, is staff? |
|
|
|
|
Mining centralization was expected by Satoshi. He envisioned that only large server farms would do the mining when Bitcoin was widespread.
|
|
|
|
For what it's worth, the MD5 break is of a very particular kind.
MD5 has a collision vulnerability, but it does not have a meaningful preimage vulnerability.
What that means is that it is now easy to construct two or more documents that have the same MD5 hash (a collision), but given a hash value it is still damned hard to construct something which hashes to that value (a preimage).
It's preimage resistance isn't quite perfect mind you; an attack has been found that takes 2123.5 operations to find a preimage, when it ought to take 2128 if its preimage resistance were as good as it was supposed to be. So MD5, while completely broken in terms of collision reistance, is only about 1/24 as hard to find a preimage as it ought to be. In practice finding a preimage is still far beyond the amount of computing power that could be produced by a computer the mass of Earth in a time less than the expected lifetime of the sun.
Of course, attacks never get worse ... and it's possible that the preimage attack can be extended somehow.
Interesting. I was under the impression that MD5 was vulnerable against preimage attacks. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
