Bitcoin Forum
August 20, 2022, 12:23:11 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 »
1  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Limits to accepting a new longest chain to prevent >50% on: April 28, 2013, 06:43:42 PM
Errr. I thought dev-hardcoded checkpoints prevent a complete reversal even in the face of stupidly overwhelming adversary...
2  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin clients should have a MESSAGE option ! on: April 28, 2013, 06:42:37 PM
That sounds like a whole lot of fuss for a rather meager goal.

Don't get me wrong, messaging is sweet and all that, but bitcoin devs have finite resources, and I'd very much rather prefer they spend their resources on bitcoin's core functionality.

I am not experiencing a lack of IM software with varying degree of decentralization and anonymity.
3  Economy / Speculation / Re: Government banning bitcoin?? on: April 28, 2013, 06:37:40 PM
However, I am also confident in government's ability to facilitate cooperation on fund recovery, so I don't see why government couldn't be very convincing about handing over the private keys to undeclared btc.

Oh certainly. Quite convincing. But at least the gun is out on the table, for all to see.

Back in the good old schooldays, a teacher told us that the core distinguishing feature of a government is a monopoly, or near-monopoly, on violence.

So I don't think govenment is going to be shy about using violence to procure stuff that it "thinks" belongs to it.

Also, even if they fail to procure the keys, they could still send one to jail for tax offenses (and possibly a lot of bla-bla bla in regards to "transaction structuring" and whatnot)

Bitcoin is, essentially, equivalent to an unbreakable safe.

It can protect your wealth from forced seizure (to a fairly large extent), but not from taxation per se.
4  Economy / Speculation / Re: Government banning bitcoin?? on: April 28, 2013, 05:59:04 PM
Can someone explain, in small, grampa-compatible words, why is bitcoin un-taxeable?

Give me your bitcoins.

See, if it were dollars, I could just reach into your bank account or your mattress, or wherever you keep them, and take them. Can't do that with bitcoins.

Yes, taxes can be levied on BTC, you can even pay them. But it's voluntary.

That changes the whole game.

I am confident in my hiding abilities - despite advanced age, I am still capable of concealing smallish items beyond most people's (and I would be willing to claim, police's) ability to find them.

However, I am also confident in government's ability to facilitate cooperation on fund recovery, so I don't see why government couldn't be very convincing about handing over the private keys to undeclared btc.

Full disclosure: I intend to pay taxes on my profits from wallet.is
5  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Limits to accepting a new longest chain to prevent >50% on: April 28, 2013, 04:56:34 PM
I do agree that we haven't seen such a threat - but it always is a nagging concern (damn it Satoshi are you sure you got it right?).

Grin


Unless you run a bitcoin service with aspirations to eventual greatness (which  I do Wink ), doublespends that require immense hashrates should not be a concern for you at all (unless you happen to be good at making enemies among major pool operators Cheesy )
6  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: Wallet.is a service striving to succeed where instawallet has failed on: April 28, 2013, 04:54:12 PM
tvbcof and passerby

Thanks a lot for suggestions!

I like many of them, so I'll discuss them with the rest of the team and we'll start working right away. I like the "internal transaction" suggestion, though I'd rather avoid using either emails or long "bitcoin not-a-bank account numbers" as internal identifiers. I am considering bitcoin address of the vault itself (gox style) though I am open to other suggestions.

Also, I have a few ideas of my own that, to the best of my knowledge, aren't part of any wallet service currently done Wink
Wallet.is team will do our best to amaze

I believe the fact you glossed over TF's issues without any defense shows his comments were dead on.  You are going to collect as many coins as you can then disappear.   Undecided


His issue can be boiled down to "server side storage is not trustworthy".

We at wallet.is don't aim to somehow mend the fundamental trust assymetry of server-side wallets, but we intend to make up for that in valueable features and ease of use. We hope that, by providing a reliable and feature-rich service over a long period of time we shall, eventually, prove ourselves to be "trustworthy enough" for certain use cases.

If I wanted to steal coins, I would have been far better off with something along the lines of pirate scam (entraping people with greed is far easier than entrapping them with a feature rich service - much less code that way Wink )
7  Economy / Speculation / Re: Government banning bitcoin?? on: April 28, 2013, 04:41:32 PM
Can someone explain, in small, grampa-compatible words, why is bitcoin un-taxeable?

I mean, I am an old, possibly senile, Canadian, and maybe I am missing something big, but... I recieve payment to single-use addresses, but I pay my gas, my taxes, my food, and pretty much everything else in fiat, so I exchange btc > fiat (and since I want money to go to my bank account, I do that in my very own name)

Obviously, government can detect income at this point, and tax me (also possibly audit me because I have this very strange income structure going)

Even if I could buy stuff with BTC, if I want to stay below tax radar, I would only be able to buy small-time stuff, like groceries and occasional small items, because as soon as I buy something huge (like a house) with my undeclared BTC riches, tax folks can come down on me like a blivet, right ?

So... where does the "cannot be taxed" idea come from, again?

How is getting BTC different from getting small-denomination worn cash?
8  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin clients should have a MESSAGE option ! on: April 28, 2013, 04:24:57 PM
I am not sure short paid messages would really bloat the blockchain. Just few additional hundreds bytes per transaction with increased fees. Though it is correct: miners are not the only ones who carry costs. Probably full nodes could prune old messages or messages that are not addressed to them (just to save some disk space).

Update: though probably you are right, it would cause problems (not only blockchain size, but also copyright infringements, propaganda  of racism and other extreme cases of freedom of speech)... Probably better to have messages separate, maybe to integrate with IRC (AFAIK bitcoind had some code to deal with IRC already).

The thing with "pruning" is that, as far as I understand, it deals only with storage, not with bandwidth.

Pruning doesn't really "dislodge" old spent TX from a block (that would screw over the hashes Smiley )
It just allows you to discard obviously "spent" stuff after you have recieved it (assuming you follow the "trust no one" doctrine of Satoshi client) - but if the blockchain has bloated to 2 TB due to everyone and their dog putting a message in it, you would still have to download it (somehow).

I believe that Bitcoin should follow its initial design goals, and should not try being everyone's everything (chat client, name resolver, distributed evernote, torrent seeder... )

Just say no to feature bloat.
9  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Limits to accepting a new longest chain to prevent >50% on: April 28, 2013, 04:18:08 PM
Personally, I am not convinced it is needed.

There was so far... about 2 "emergencies" with the blockchain (that "generate a lot of bitcoins" bug, and the doublespend in the recent fork) none of which were exploited by a real malicious party.

As far as I can tell, many major banks have a less stelar record.

It doesn't seem to me that bitcoin's "the hashiest chain wins" approach is "broken", so maybe we should refrain from "fixing" it.
10  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / [ANN] Wallet.is adds Litecoin support on: April 28, 2013, 04:10:28 PM
You can create your quick and disposable litecoin wallet here:
https://ltc.wallet.is

Stay tuned for more features Smiley
11  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: Wallet.is a service striving to succeed where instawallet has failed on: April 28, 2013, 04:08:35 PM
Hi guys!

Just a quick update: We have support for LTC:
https://ltc.wallet.is

More to come - working frantically on new features

Posting from mobile.

P.S.:

Matoking, will add (better safe than sorry Smiley )

apetersson, I think that having privkey in the url creates more issues than it solves (it does not solve the trust issue itself, and may create additional nasty edge cases)

P.P.S.:
I have, recently, devised something very special for "internal transactions" thing.

Stay tuned for more updates
12  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: ppcoin - stake burn-through vulnerability on: April 12, 2013, 10:15:26 PM
At the risk of being accused of necromancy, has this vulnerability been fixed (and has the fix been tested) ?
13  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: Wallet.is a service striving to succeed where instawallet has failed on: April 12, 2013, 10:08:28 PM
tvbcof and passerby

Thanks a lot for suggestions!

I like many of them, so I'll discuss them with the rest of the team and we'll start working right away. I like the "internal transaction" suggestion, though I'd rather avoid using either emails or long "bitcoin not-a-bank account numbers" as internal identifiers. I am considering bitcoin address of the vault itself (gox style) though I am open to other suggestions.

Also, I have a few ideas of my own that, to the best of my knowledge, aren't part of any wallet service currently done Wink
Wallet.is team will do our best to amaze
14  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: Wallet.is a service striving to succeed where instawallet has failed on: April 10, 2013, 10:50:31 PM
'cause I can like myself a strongly pseudonymous, online wallet that is sufficiently feature-rich...So come on, AMAZE ME.

What features would you suggest?

unlike others I would welcome you around and suggest Google Authentication as an option, honesty and trust is hard when it comes to money so maybe you understand how "others" see you

I'm not easily offended, and I certainly see why people might be suspicious of a wallet service.

Thanks for the welcome - very appreciated.

As to google auth - well, it's not exactly a nice thing code-wise, but it is rather useful, thanks for the suggestion.

I think that adding support for their two-factor auth system is not out of the question if/when we decide to expand beyond "quickiewallet" philosophy (which is what I think passerby is hinting at)


The only feature I see that instawallet didn't have, is the ability to password your wallet.
Also I don't even know if these guys charge fee's, they don't mention it anywhere on their site, so that could be a plus if there isn't a fee.

Well, so far we're just on BTC fees - would be kinda unfair to charge people for an early beta of a service, I think.

Speaking of fees, it seems that if we were to expand to a more... comprehensive feature suite, we'd have to either adopt some fee system or place ads, and it appears to me that people loathe ads in  wallet services (and not only the rather risky "rich media" ads, it seems)
15  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: Wallet.is a service striving to succeed where instawallet has failed on: April 09, 2013, 09:32:54 PM
the reason instawallet failed was because it had control of all the private keys. unless you store all private keys clientside, and ensure all signing operations are done clientside, your wallet service will always be insecure.

Well, doing stuff user side in javascript isn't exactly a pretty thing to do, it turns out

A good way to do proper user-side browser key management would be browser plugin (Nadim eventually went that way with the cryptocat chat), but that kind of defeats the whole "no hassle" aspect of the service in a very fundamental way (as do mandatory passwords / registrations - hence our passwords are optional)

Of course there is a certain inherent risk to having a server-centric design, but I have good reasons to believe it is reasonably small*.

Neither web frontends nor backends serving them are inherently insecure (You can always prove me wrong and hack Gox, taking their hot wallet  Cheesy ), and we intend our design to be very robust.

____________
* it should be noted that there is oftentimes a tradeoff between comfort and security going on


^this^ people, don't store coins that you would be uncomfortable losing with this service.  The private keys are server side and your money is not safe!

Strictly speaking, nothing is absolutely safe, only safe to varying degrees.

Javascript crypto isn't safe by a very long shot, and it would be rather hard to tell whether a well-done classic approach would not turn out "safer" than a user-side implementation done via such means (cryptocat abandoned this approach after almost singlehandedly pioneering it, after all)

Your stuff isn't absolutely safe even if stored in a physical safe

There are, however, degrees to safety, and tradeoffs between safety and other utility forms (such as comfort, ease of use, setup speed, additional valuable functionality, etc.)
16  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Should wallet.is support litecoin ? Any other crypto-coin ? on: April 09, 2013, 08:56:39 PM
also maybe look at adding options to maybe buy funds too Smiley

You mean, a built-in cryptocoin exchange ?

Well, that would be nice, but it would complicate things considerably (KYC paperwork, bank transfers...) and I don't have enough staff for that.
17  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Should wallet.is support litecoin ? Any other crypto-coin ? on: April 09, 2013, 08:29:21 PM
Hello everyone!
I'm here on behalf of wallet.is, a young yet audacious online wallet service (main forum thread here ).

I'd like to ask you a simple question - would you like us to add litecoin support ? Perhaps some other coin (and why?).

See attached poll.

Feedback welcome.
18  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: Wallet.is a service striving to succeed where instawallet has failed on: April 09, 2013, 08:17:41 PM
Hey man, good luck hopefully its secure  Cheesy

While security is, sadly, a bit like a scientific theory (can only really be disproved for good), we are committed to doing our best.
When we grow big, we'll have a proper audit.
19  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: Wallet.is a service striving to succeed where instawallet has failed on: April 09, 2013, 08:11:00 PM
Well, since I am not an Instawallet employee (and not a member of a forensics team I hope is working on their case) I don't have the details...

But they mentioned a database intrusion.

Wallet.is team has taken proper steps to keep little Bobby Tables out.
20  Economy / Service Announcements / Wallet.is a service striving to succeed where instawallet has failed on: April 09, 2013, 07:47:24 PM
Hello!
I am the founder of  a small team working on wallet.is , a simple yet versatile wallet service.

Our service was conceived when Instawallet suffered a break-in. With some of my bitcoins still there (probably stolen), I decided that I should do something about it.
Something like a small, simple wallet service that would be more secure, and which could eventually grow to provide additional features to its users (I'll talk about that in more details a bit later). So I got a few guys together, took some nice open source code and got down to work.

And here we are, at your service - https://wallet.is

BTW, we will release most of our code when it goes out of beta  - wallet.is not afraid of competition Wink!

Feedback, suggestions, and constructive criticism are very welcome.
Pages: [1] 2 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!