Bitcoin Forum
October 17, 2021, 04:17:47 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 121 »
1  Economy / Speculation / [WO] Coup to install dictator friendly to U.S. big business interests on: April 28, 2021, 11:43:16 AM
You mean the US won't stage a military coup to install a right-wing dictator friendly to US big business interests?

Well after January 2021 I wouldn't be so sure.

Considering that U.S. big business interests banned President Trump, I think you must mean that there’s a danger that a left-wing dictator may be illegitimately installed as U.S. “president”.


Exhibit 0: Big Business Interests

Oh, wait.  That’s what already happened.  And the new Uncle Joe even rolled 25,000 troops in the U.S. capitol, for no reason except an intimidating show of force backed by mass-media brainwashing hype.  So much for your “military coup”.

On that note, it sure would be nice if people knew what socialism means. Are the means of production owned by the workers? No? Not socialist then. Sorry,

Indeed, the word “socialist” is too nebulous for my liking.  It can mean any number of things, including some with which I would agree.  For example, I think that trust-busters should smash Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and a few other big business interests to smithereens; does that make me a “socialist”?  The word could even be stretched to apply to almost every form of government in history.  Absolute monarchy is more or less “socialist”!  Aristocracy is very socialist, if you think about it.  Therefore, I think that I should stick to calling out Commies.
2  Economy / Speculation / Re: [WO] Da rude stupidity on: April 28, 2021, 11:37:40 AM
As much as i enjoy the unexpected attention, but i got shit to do IRL.

So do I.  So why are you wasting my time?


Username and avatar check out.

3  Economy / Speculation / [WO] Arguments of “last resort” on: April 28, 2021, 09:39:51 AM

That type of an “argument” can be made in either direction.  If I see one more whiner flipping out about NFTs as if it will make your digital fluids impure to touch any value-bearing instrument other than Bitcoin...  Moreover, in the context of an innocuous techno-gadget that you’re free not to buy, it looks very much like a retreat to a last-resort argument of, “I just don’t like it, so I want to shoot the people who do.”  I find that unpersuasive, especially since keyboard-warriors cannot actually shoot me.
4  Economy / Speculation / [WO] McCarthy was right! on: April 28, 2021, 07:59:36 AM

McCarthy was right, you historically ignorant boob.  Though I guess you don’t know that if your sources of education are Hollywood, the mass media, the public schools, the the Communist Encyclopaedia to which you link-drop in lieu of a rational argument.

Much though he has been maligned and smeared (and as incompetently as he fouled up parts of the handling of his own investigation—which is how he got knocked down), McCarthy was right, and more right than he knew.  There was significant high-level Communist infiltration of the United States Federal government*—so much, and at such a high level, that a mere Senator was in way over his head.

Stop traducing one of the only good Senators that the United States has had within the past century.

* At this juncture, I am often bemused by some Internet idiot conflating Senator McCarthy’s investigation of infiltration of the USG with the House Unamerican Activities Committee’s investigation of Hollywood.  Those Hollywood Commies have really done a bang-up job miseducating the public.
5  Economy / Speculation / Re: [WO] Bigblocker stupidity on: April 27, 2021, 11:40:36 PM
The L1/L2 distinction is not only a Bitcoin thing; it addresses problems which are fundamental to blockchain architectures.  As the market matures, developers and users will come better to recognize which transactions belong on a blockchain, and which don’t.  A beneficial side effect of Bitcoin’s scaling debates is that Bitcoin is years ahead of any altcoin in L2 developments.  (Notwithstanding how Ethereum has been spinning its wheels with L2 talk; it has much worse scaling problems than Bitcoin, and thus far much less to show in terms of solutions.)

The problem is that Bitcoin itself is not adequate to support the L2 systems being constructed for it. (Something explicitly acknowledged by the LN developers by the way). The problem is not that Bitcoin is inadequate to the purposes to which I would like to see it put (which might have fallen by the wayside, admitedly) but also to those you are suggesting for it.

Do you have a citation for that?  I have not seen such a thing, although I admit I that have not followed LN development closely as I should; I have been more checking into it from time to time, waiting for a few particular parts of it to mature.

By the way, what use cases would you like to see?  If we get to the point of high-value transactions and upper-layer settlements on the blockchain, small-value transactions off-chain, and RGB/Spectrum doing smart contracts, tokens, NFTs, DEXes, etc., then what more is needed?  I am sincerely curious.  On this point, off the top of my head, all that can I think of are some smart contract edge cases where the contract code must be available for execution without parties being online; that’s not a case for bigger blocks, but rather, for one of the upstart competitors to ETH2.

I'm not going to argue for bigger blocks right now though. I think the need is going to become ever more self evident. Indeed, the recent hashrate crash would have been largely a non-even if there was adequate capacity.

As I noted in one of my earlier posts, Bitcoin transaction demand is high enough that I don’t even think that a blocksize increase would meaningfully increase capacity.  And it only grows!  How do you propose that, say, twice a very low TPS would make any difference, when we need orders of magnitude higher TPS to cover all of the small-value tx use cases with mass adoption?  Bigger blocks wouldn’t get us to 10k TPS and up, unless you think that running a node should require a supercomputer hooked straight into an Internet backbone link.  (Or unless you want to make more radical changes to Bitcoin’s architecture, other than increasing the blocksize.)
6  Economy / Speculation / Re: [WO] Bigblocker stupidity on: April 27, 2021, 11:05:32 PM
Forget bigblockers.  To stick one’s head n the sand with that type of thinking is to cede the field to altcoins, in the manner of

Yup. 100k or bust. Then onward to 10k. After that, zero transaction blocks are only a short step away and no transactions = 100% SOV security.

My argument here is with the particular type of Bitcoiner who behaves as if people and markets will do whatever Bitcoin wants.  That’s not how it works—all bluster to the contrary notwithstanding.  Obviously, most Bitcoiners outside of a few forums and social media venues do not think this way.

Bitcoin got big because it does what people want.  It fulfills a real need.  It is what the market wants.

Bitcoiners need to acknowledge use cases which are not addressed by what Bitcoin is today.  Many top-flight Bitcoin/LN developers do just that; and they rarely waste time posting on forums, because they are too busy creating solutions for tomorrow.

I observe that no altcoin today adequately fulfills the “cup of coffee purchase” use case.  Some of them have inexpensive, fast transactions—but security that would be a catastrophe, if they saw mass adoption.  Some of them have inexpensive, fast, secure transactions—with awful privacy.  Many of them have inexpensive transactions that would become expensive, if their blocks were not almost empty as they are now.  Etc...

The best should dominate.  Bitcoin dominates because it is the best.  Let’s keep it that way.  Sometimes, to that end, we must examine what could and should be done better.



The L1/L2 distinction is not only a Bitcoin thing; it addresses problems which are fundamental to blockchain architectures.  As the market matures, developers and users will come better to recognize which transactions belong on a blockchain, and which don’t.  A beneficial side effect of Bitcoin’s scaling debates is that Bitcoin is years ahead of any altcoin in L2 developments.  (Notwithstanding how Ethereum has been spinning its wheels with L2 talk; it has much worse scaling problems than Bitcoin, and thus far much less to show in terms of solutions.)
7  Economy / Speculation / [WO] Korea on: April 27, 2021, 10:29:11 PM
$5 bucks says N. Korea will open a wall of bitcoin ATMs on the border in November  Just to fuck with them.

Are you really just totally unaware of the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)?  Roll Eyes

That border cannot be crossed in either direction.  Or do you really suppose that South Koreans will sneak through a heavily guarded area covered with land mines and electric fences to get some bitcoins?

Please tell me that you’re American.  I don’t want to believe that anyone else is so totally ignorant of the world.

LOL, Bitcoin ATMs on the other side?


South Korea looking to be the test case for gov't interference. You can bet Yellen et. al. are watching this with interest.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-kimchi-premium-south-korea-crypto-crackdown-exchanges-shut-regulation-2021-4%3famp

Quote
Under the new regulations, crypto exchanges must register as virtual asset service providers and fulfil a variety of other criteria. These include implementing anti-money laundering strategies, having partnerships with local banks, becoming information security management certified and tracking real names of customers.

Eun said despite the application window opening on March 25th when the new regulations came into force, no crypto exchanges have submitted theirs yet. Crypto exchanges need to be approved by September 24th.

Google’s source:  https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/bitcoin-kimchi-premium-south-korea-crypto-crackdown-exchanges-shut-regulation-2021-4-1030351638
Just to make sure:  https://archive.is/CmxaD
https://web.archive.org/web/20210427222022/https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/bitcoin-kimchi-premium-south-korea-crypto-crackdown-exchanges-shut-regulation-2021-4-1030351638

The article does not give much information.  Just fluff.  If there is anything significant going on here, I think that much of the impact would hinge on what they mean by “anti-money laundering strategies”.  (Strategies to launder anti-money?  I just put my positrons and anti-protons in my washing machine.)
8  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: April 27, 2021, 09:53:14 PM
South Korea looking to be the test case for gov't interference. You can bet Yellen et. al. are watching this with interest.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/goodbye-bitcoin-kimchi-premium-regulator-says-all-200-of-south-korea-s-crypto-exchanges-could-be-shut-down-report-says
Quote
Under the new regulations, crypto exchanges must register as virtual asset service providers and fulfil a variety of other criteria. These include implementing anti-money laundering strategies, having partnerships with local banks, becoming information security management certified and tracking real names of customers.

Eun said despite the application window opening on March 25th when the new regulations came into force, no crypto exchanges have submitted theirs yet. Crypto exchanges need to be approved by September 24th.

The link is 404.

Somehow says “status: 404”, then redirects (?); see metadata banner at top here:  https://archive.is/B0CHW  (Took forever to load with its zillions of ad tracker embeds.)

Hrm.

The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL.

This page is not available on the web
because page does not exist

Archives checked after it failed to load normally.
9  Economy / Speculation / [WO] Checklists on: April 27, 2021, 09:43:10 PM

No, in his case he was mimicking me as a sort of a “no u” argument.  I am surprised that he didn’t blow me a raspberry.

But thanks for the general reminder that there are a few things on my “to do” checklist which have slipped for the past few weeks, given the relative place in my life’s priorities of dealing with forum idiocy.
10  Economy / Speculation / Re: [WO] Da rude stupidity on: April 27, 2021, 09:07:27 PM
-Accuses me of not having balls to do something (lol we in 5th grade?)✔

Deflection.  I will ask outright:  In your prior reply to me, what did you mean by this?
Right, some of us are actually old enough to have lived through the bcash fork and have actually supported bitcoin financially and with UASF back in 2017, thus the reason we're here and not with bcash.


As much as i enjoy the unexpected attention, but i got shit to do IRL.

So do I.  So why are you wasting my time?

We can play the "i say one word and you tie it to socialism" (Godwin's law for socialism) game later. Ta-ta

You argue like a Commie.  Instead of admitting that you had a ridiculous and disproportional reaction in attacking my post, which was not even hostile toward you, you try to ridicule me and yet also somehow act as if I have aggrieved you.  Waaah, you’re so oppressed!

I can have some patience toward this level of crap from SwayStar123—not from you.  At least she comports herself with more basic dignity than you do, even if she is totally wrong about absolutely everything.


P.S., inb4 you try to strawman me into rolling’s position:  I would make you both very unhappy.  You seem unable even to follow the various different threads of discussion, the way you went full retard over my off-hand remark about socialists in an unrelated context.  Work on your reading comprehension, and also your attention span.

Hereby lately, I have also been ignoring a quasi-religious theological war between the Marxist wealth redistributors, and the Reformed Capitalists who repose their faith in the godliness of the free market; there is not much sense on either side.
11  Economy / Speculation / Re: [WO] Da rude stupidity on: April 27, 2021, 07:53:46 PM
<snip>

There is only one reasonable way to read it.  It is wrong, and whoever made it should feel bad.

Bigblockers suffer the same essential fallacy as UBI socialists:  They don’t understand markets.  Bitcoin network capacity is in extremely high demand—high enough that fees reach an equilibrium at the highest that the market will bear, and that in turn limits demand.

A modest linear bump in the blocksize (= supply) would be soaked up instantly, with fees and backlog settling back to where they are now as more people try to make more transactions that are currently not even attempted.  Meanwhile, that linear blocksize increase would non-linearly increase the resource demands on nodes.  (And a large increase of the blocksize, à la CSW rhetoric, would just wreck the network.)

Increasing base-layer capacity to, what, maybe 30–40 tps tops would be a sick joke at a cost that would surprise people.  It would not solve any problems, and it would create many.  We need technologies supporting tens of thousands of TPS or more; a doubling (or whatever) of the current blocksize is insufficient by orders of magnitude, too much and not enough all at once.

A blocksize increase would obviously increase miners’ BTC revenue per successful block:  Blocks would be just as full, and fees would be just as high, and there would be more transactions per block.  But on the other hand, it would also raise miner costs by increasing the orphan rate (and/or the cost of infrastructure to try to avoid this problem); and it would damage Bitcoin’s long-term value proposition, which is bad for miners who have long-term capital investments in Bitcoin.

Never forget that the blockchain with the Nakamoto Consensus is the world’s most inefficient database.  That is the cost of decentralization.  A trusted authority serving as the central arbiter of transaction order, à la Digicash, would be orders of magnitude more efficient and would have other advantages.  It obviously has some fatal disadvantages; observe that Digicash died over two decade ago.  The inefficient database is evidently a worthwhile cost to bear; evidence:  Bitcoin has value!  Just keep in mind that it is costly.  Freedom is not free.



Oh, “llama”?  I read it as “lamer”, but I am not sure.  Also, I do not care.  The rest of it is clear, and it is stupid.  Honey badger ain’t up a tree; and the bulls don’t look very dead from where I sit!



P.S., DaRude, could we please have some more peash and luff in WO?  If you criticize Marcus for posting meaty pictures, then his feelings may be hurt, and he may feel discouraged from the benevolent charitable giving of these virtual meals, and then I may literally starve to death.  Do you want for me to starve!?  You are just full of hate.  Sad

Right, some of us are actually old enough to have lived through the bcash fork and have actually supported bitcoin financially and with UASF back in 2017, thus the reason we're here and not with bcash. But, if one is able to ignore the cheap attempt at drawing parallels between bigblockers and socialists (lol seriously? way to undermine your valid points there), other than that, a solid write up about big blocks for noobs to read up on. Only my question was what's the reason the CSO of blockstream is tweeting this now? Or was it a joke that i missed?

As far as Marcus, if you actually read what i wrote you'd realize that i never criticized his childish way of supporting his argument against vegans by posting pictures of meat (if anything such trolling undermines his argument and just clutters the board but whateves). On that topic i just stated that it might not be healthy to have a borderline religious ceremony about the food that you're consuming, and that quoting any study that claims that's something is "entirely possible" is laughable and such BS should, and will be called out by the board. If because of that he gets butthurt enough and switches to ad hominem attacks that's his problem. Sorry to say but this board doesn't care about his hurt little feelings. State your solid arguments, honeybadger doesn't care about your crying just because someone pokes holes in your arguments.

  • Implication of unwarranted assumptions about me, as a sort of underhanded ad hominem attack that you evidently don’t have the balls to say outright.  ✔
  • Knee-jerk reaction to my use of the word “socialists”.  (I referred specifically to UBI, which in practice pretty much requires making money printer go brrr; and regardless of whence the money comes, the concept is to give everyone free money.  Pop quiz:  Due to the workings of markets, what would giving everyone free money do to prices?)  ✔
  • Tortuously pompous concluding paragraph which shows incisively that my sarcasm about Marcus’ hurt feelings just went over your head.  Whoosh.  ✔
  • All that, just to ignore the valid points I made except where you criticize me for making valid points in a way that is disagreeable to you.  ✔

Filed accordingly, >/dev/null.


Poor Marcus!  What will all this toxicity do to his self-esteem?  Could we please have a safe space here?  Sad
12  Economy / Speculation / Re: [WO] Tinpot Dictatorship on: April 27, 2021, 07:32:21 PM

The Targets of Biden's War on "Domestic Extremists" May Not Be Who You Think
Illustrating the dangers of the federal government's war on "domestic extremists," animal rights activists are being prosecuted under a capacious definition of "terrorism."

Leighton Akira Woodhouse
[26 April 2021]

[...]

The following year, the animal agriculture industry successfully lobbied the Iowa state legislature to make what Pachaud had done a crime. The law was one of many so-called “Ag Gag” laws in agricultural states across the country, which make undercover investigations on factory farms by animal rights groups unlawful (an estimated 99 percent of animals raised for meat are factory farmed; the very few small family farms that are left are being systematically driven out of business by the industrialization and economic consolidation of the industry). As Ag gag laws effectively criminalize speech, some of the more sloppily written among them have been subject to successful constitutional challenges; Iowa’s 2012 law was among them. In 2019, a federal judge struck down Iowa’s 2012 law.

[...]

As should surprise nobody who lived through the political aftermath of 9/11, these laws were passed under the pretext of combatting “terrorism.” Radical animal rights and environmental activists have, in fact, long been among the FBI’s top “domestic terrorism” targets, as well as targets of draconian new legislation. In 2006, at the behest of the pharmaceutical and animal agriculture industries, Congress passed a law specifically defining animal rights activism aimed at “damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise” — whether or not violence was involved — as “terrorism.”

[...]

Currently, a bill with 196 Democratic co-sponsors (and 3 Republicans) is before Congress, which would begin to build the legal and bureaucratic architecture for an interagency domestic terrorism response unit within the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. The legislation is explicitly a response to the Capitol Riot and is pointed particularly at “White supremacist” and “neo-Nazi” groups — a particularly unsympathetic and uncontroversial cast of culprits.

But the PATRIOT Act was also purported to target only the most hateful, murderous people in the world — Islamic terrorists — before it metastasized into a massive surveillance state infrastructure that spied on literally every single American with an internet connection. Are we to expect that a domestic analogue to the PATRIOT Act will draw the line at violent sociopathic racists? The intelligence community demonstrably does not: a recently declassified report lists animal rights and environmental activists, abortion activists on both the pro-life and the pro-choice sides, anarchists, and anti-capitalists as potential domestic terrorist threats.

Whoops!

Almost as if animal agriculture is inherently exploitative and wrong.

Amazon and Walmart similarly put mom and pop shops out of business.  Are mom and pop shops “inherently exploitative and wrong”?  /logic

Not to mention, there are fewer and fewer independent family farmers growing veggies nowadays.  “Almost as if growing veggies is inherently exploitative and wrong.
13  Economy / Speculation / Re: [WO] Bigblocker stupidity on: April 27, 2021, 06:37:06 PM
Objectively, altcoins don’t have so much of an advantage as it may seem to the naïve newbie who just wants to buy a cup of coffee.  Altcoins only seem to offer inexpensive transactions, because:

No one is buying and using shitcoins to buy a cup of coffee.

Yes, they are.

Just as no one is buying Bitcoin to buy a cup of coffee.

Because they can’t (unless with Lightning).

They're using fiat to buy a cup of coffee.

See above:  Shitcoins.  (And those aren’t the only ones; there are some much better altcoins getting point-of-sale traction for brick and mortar purchases nowadays.  If you don’t know that, it is your problem.)

Which just further reinforces my point. Theory and reality are two entirely different things.

Bitcoin is supposed to be money.  That is the theory.  If it’s not useful money in reality, then I don’t want it.  Thank goodness for those L2 things that you want to ignore; why do they even exist?

blockchain : wire transfer :: offchain : Visa

Also, are you trying to beat out JJG for the 2021 Wordie Man award or what?  Wink

No.
14  Economy / Speculation / [WO] Tinpot Dictatorship on: April 27, 2021, 06:02:43 PM

I can shortcut that whole argument by pointing out that countries in Northern Europe have not recently had an executive-branch election stolen with massive ballot fraud.  When you are living in a banana republic run by a socialist who stuffed the ballot, “socialism” versus “not socialism” may turn out to be the least of your problems.

Before you worry about the economy being flushed down the toilet with tax-and-spend policies, you may want to worry about how El Presidente is turning Dubya’s “War on Terror” machinery of global terrorism inwards.  E.g., via Glenn Greenwald:

The Targets of Biden's War on "Domestic Extremists" May Not Be Who You Think
Illustrating the dangers of the federal government's war on "domestic extremists," animal rights activists are being prosecuted under a capacious definition of "terrorism."

Leighton Akira Woodhouse
[26 April 2021]

[...]

The following year, the animal agriculture industry successfully lobbied the Iowa state legislature to make what Pachaud had done a crime. The law was one of many so-called “Ag Gag” laws in agricultural states across the country, which make undercover investigations on factory farms by animal rights groups unlawful (an estimated 99 percent of animals raised for meat are factory farmed; the very few small family farms that are left are being systematically driven out of business by the industrialization and economic consolidation of the industry). As Ag gag laws effectively criminalize speech, some of the more sloppily written among them have been subject to successful constitutional challenges; Iowa’s 2012 law was among them. In 2019, a federal judge struck down Iowa’s 2012 law.

[...]

As should surprise nobody who lived through the political aftermath of 9/11, these laws were passed under the pretext of combatting “terrorism.” Radical animal rights and environmental activists have, in fact, long been among the FBI’s top “domestic terrorism” targets, as well as targets of draconian new legislation. In 2006, at the behest of the pharmaceutical and animal agriculture industries, Congress passed a law specifically defining animal rights activism aimed at “damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise” — whether or not violence was involved — as “terrorism.”

[...]

Currently, a bill with 196 Democratic co-sponsors (and 3 Republicans) is before Congress, which would begin to build the legal and bureaucratic architecture for an interagency domestic terrorism response unit within the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. The legislation is explicitly a response to the Capitol Riot and is pointed particularly at “White supremacist” and “neo-Nazi” groups — a particularly unsympathetic and uncontroversial cast of culprits.

But the PATRIOT Act was also purported to target only the most hateful, murderous people in the world — Islamic terrorists — before it metastasized into a massive surveillance state infrastructure that spied on literally every single American with an internet connection. Are we to expect that a domestic analogue to the PATRIOT Act will draw the line at violent sociopathic racists? The intelligence community demonstrably does not: a recently declassified report lists animal rights and environmental activists, abortion activists on both the pro-life and the pro-choice sides, anarchists, and anti-capitalists as potential domestic terrorist threats.

Whoops!
15  Economy / Speculation / Re: [WO] Bigblocker stupidity on: April 27, 2021, 05:29:12 PM
Increasing base-layer capacity to, what, maybe 30–40 tps tops would be a sick joke at a cost that would surprise people.  It would not solve any problems, and it would create many.  We need technologies supporting tens of thousands of TPS or more; a doubling (or whatever) of the current blocksize is insufficient by orders of magnitude, too much and not enough all at once.

Do we though? I keep seeing people, big blockers and some OG's alike, banging on this proverbial drum, year after year after year, as if it such a dire, imminent need.

Yes.  It is.

But if most bitcoiners see Bitcoin as 99% SOV and and 1% or less as a transaction medium, then no, it's not. And we don't. The current TPS limit will continue to serve just fine.

Forget bigblockers.  To stick one’s head n the sand with that type of thinking is to cede the field to altcoins, in the manner of philipma1957’s signature:

Quote from: philipma1957
I see BTC as the super highway and alt coins as taxis and trucks needed to move transactions.

In the long term, that devolves to an altcoin replacing Bitcoin altogether:  Why use one currency as a store of value, and another as a medium of exchange?  It’s better to use the medium of exchange as the store of value, too.  The money that can be used for both will be the most valuable money.  Whence does Bitcoin derive its value, after all?

And Gresham's Law will continue to prove that out.

Exactly:  If Bitcoin does is not useful as money, then...

I put it in such terms because candor is good and necessary for Bitcoin.  “Rah rah, we’re the best!” is a losing argument at market; and telling people just to “HODL” their money, rather than using it for economic activity, is a foot-shooting way inadvertently to advocate for altcoins.  Whenever I see altcoiners say that “Bitcoin is only a ‘store of value’, not good for transactions”, I call that out as untrue; and when they couch that as a Bitcoiner argument, I call it out as a strawman.  But from you, it is not a strawman; it is your argument for Bitcoin!

Objectively, altcoins don’t have so much of an advantage as it may seem to the naïve newbie who just wants to buy a cup of coffee.  Altcoins only seem to offer inexpensive transactions, because:

  • Many them simply aren’t used much.  Bitcoin also had negligible fees, when its blocks were empty.  Low demand = low fees.
  • Many of them have low security against 51% attacks (or similar attacks in POS-land).  They may be adequate for toy money, but not for your life savings—and not for a trillion dollars (and growing) in total value on the network.
  • The few altcoins that can actually support high TPS with some sort of adequate security make trade-offs to achieve that.  The price of reasonably secure high TPS on-chain is that to run a node, you will pretty much need at least an octocore Xeon with 32 GiB of RAM, 100 Mbps dedicated bandwidth, and terabytes of fast SSDs.  Accordingly, the coins must become more centralized, less private, and less censorship-resistant.  Bitcoin still runs just fine on a Raspberry Pi, on the type of home Internet connection which is commonly available in most developed countries.  Because of this, Bitcoin is the money that nobody can control—thus, it is still the most secure cryptocurrency, after all.

As I said before:

Never forget that the blockchain with the Nakamoto Consensus is the world’s most inefficient database.  That is the cost of decentralization.

It is a problem that cannot be magicked away with hype and handwaving.

Better idea:  Transact off-chain, and use the blockchain as a global, public synchronization layer for what are effectually private local ledgers.  Why does every cup-of-coffee tx need to be permanently archived in the world’s most inefficient database!?

There is a reason why the acronym "HODL" is so identified with Bitcoin, but certainly not with fiat.

Well, for my part, I thought that the reason for that is that Bitcoin is a good investment even through downturns—and moreover, it’s good for savings.  Inflationary money is detrimental to savers.  HODLing $/€ that slowly loses value is not smart!

IMO, ideal money would retain exactly the same value in perpetuity.  You could set it on a shelf for a thousand years, then find that one unit of it still buys exactly the same amount of (say) milk and eggs.  Bitcoin is definitely not ideal by this standard; but given the choice between inflationary versus deflationary money, I prefer the deflationary money, thank you very much.  (People who never save, and especially those who live a lifestyle of perpetual indebtedness, may actually prefer the inflationary money; now, there is a depressing thought.)
16  Economy / Speculation / [WO] Backups for Real Men on: April 27, 2021, 04:57:50 PM
A .sig I that once saw on—I think it was actually on Usenet, though I don’t recall:  “Real Men don’t do backups.  Real Men cry a lot.”
Linus Torvalds: “Only wimps use tape backup. REAL men just upload their important stuff on ftp and let the rest of the world mirror it.”

Slightly outdated though Wink

Real Men sign their data, “Satoshi Nakamoto”, upload it to a website alongside bitcoin.pdf, get sued by Craig Wright, and then have everyone else mirror it and torrent it.
17  Economy / Speculation / Re: [WO] PSA: Do not use brainwallets! on: April 27, 2021, 04:54:42 PM
Summary:  Use the free, widely available secure Bitcoin wallet seed phrase methods that have been designed and analysed by cryptographers, or else nullius may die of apoplexy.  Do you want for nullius to die of apoplexy?  Sad

Also, do you want to risk having your money stolen?  Why mess around when the secure way is free and reasonably easy?
18  Economy / Speculation / [WO] PSA: Do not use brainwallets! on: April 27, 2021, 03:54:30 PM
The application of this for Bitcoin could be to code your wallet seed phrase in this way by choosing a book and finding those seed words in the book and converting them to 5 digit numbers.

Without knowing from which book and the exact print edition (your key), your seed phrase is reasonably safe.

The cryptographers here will be able to punch holes in this but for good enough protection for regular folk it could work quite well.

Yes, they will.  So don’t do it.

No, it is not “good enough protection for regular folk”.  Not when in the real world—not in theory, but in practice—there are blackhats doing a batch offline attacks using any text corpus you can think of.

In a roundabout way, you have reïnvented your own version of the brainwallet.  I snipped the part that you said about number stations, because it’s irrelevant:  You are introduced your scheme by discussing some spy stuff that often relied on secure randomness, then discarded secure randomness.  Don’t do this.

Decoding could be by the use of a one-time pad or simply a book.

One-time pad = secure randomness, by definition.  (And if it doesn’t use secure randomness, it is not a one-time pad!  Also, by the way, in modern cryptography, “one-time pad” is often a red flag for snakeoil; a one-time pad is itself secure, but the term is so abused by ignorant fools that it has become a mostly reliable marker for a high probability of bad crypto.  A one-time pad and its information-theoretic security proof are altogether totally irrelevant to Bitcoin wallets, so I will further ignore this.)

“Simply a book” may have been adequately secure for some uses 50 or 60 years ago.  Not today, when a computer can easily grind through trillions of phrases guessed from a text corpus.

Please do realize that cryptography has changed.  In the WWII era, and for most of the Cold War era, the very best ciphers would be laughably insecure by today’s standards.  Accordingly, cryptanalysis was different.  In real-world use by militaries, the use of cryptography was quite often only to slow down the cryptanalysts for long enough that a message would be irrelevant:  A general doesn’t care if his “ATTACK AT DAWN” message is cracked after the dawn attack has already occurred.

To give you a quick gut-shot feeling for how much cryptography has changed, without getting too technical:  Cryptanalysis departments used to employ teams of experts in (human) languages, to assist with estimation of word frequencies and letter frequencies in the plaintext.  They don’t do that anymore—not the same way as they used to; not nearly—because modern ciphers output ciphertext that is indistinguishable from randomness for a computationally bounded attacker.  If the type of probabilistic cryptanalysis used decades ago could shave even 1 bit off the security margin of a cipher like AES or Chacha20, then the cipher would be declared to be badly broken!  Alan Turing could drawn up his “Eines List”, way back when—nowadays, that type of analysis is generally unhelpful.

Anyway, I hope you get my point:  There was a time when for certain uses, if you understood the threat model very well, then maybe you could use some phrase from a printed book as a secret key.  That is completely inapplicable to Bitcoin wallets.  Using a phrase from a book as a Bitcoin brainwallet is a most excellent way to run a high risk of getting your money stolen; and advising others to do so is a way to make them risk getting their money stolen.  Don’t do that!

P.S., if you still believe in your scheme, then please suggest it in the technical forum where you will be promptly roasted to a crisp.  I don’t have so much time to pick apart insecure brainwallet schemes anymore; I wasted too much time on that, for years.
19  Economy / Speculation / Re: [WO] Reminder: Use a password manager. (And stop giving bad advice!) on: April 27, 2021, 03:48:38 PM
I had been using a password manager for a while, But my Bitcointalk account outdated my password manager usage, so I never generated a password for it, was too lazy, learned my lesson the hard way.

Glad to hear it.  Good luck keeping your accounts secure, especially now that you have a Platinum account.  You wouldn’t want for anyone to steal Star Platinum!


Password managers are only for the dumb and demented geezers who can't properly memorize a few hundred of unique, secure passwords (say >10 chars, including upper/lower, numeric and special chars and no known words).

LOL.

Oh, by the way, 10 chars?  Considering only random case-sensitive alphanumerics, since many sites choke on special chars:

Code:
$ bc
l(62^10)/l(2)
59.54196310386875208867

A Hashcat guru would need to chime in with some numbers on the cloud-cracking GPU cost to bruteforce it.  Pretty high, I guess—but not high enough for my tastes, especially not with many sites using SHA-256 (or MD5).  It is definitely within the realm of feasibility for hardware that humans are capable of producing, without requiring enough energy to boil the oceans.  Too short.

Code:
l(62^20)/l(2)
119.08392620773750417735

Wow.  Not being cracked by Hashcat!  I know that at least one of the popular password managers uses 20-char passwords by default.  I won’t name it, because it’s a closed-source cloud thingie, and I recommend avoiding it; but that is a reasonable default, IMO.

Code:
l(62^40)/l(2)
238.16785241547500835472

The security margin here is basically free, so why not?  Use long passwords on sites that allow that; use max-length passwords on stupid sites that limit you to 12–16 chars, or whatever.

Yes, I am inappropriately misapplying Shannon entropy.  Most people commit this error when estimating password strength.  If we are treating passwords as random strings, what we really want to know here is the min-entropy.  Most people make this mistake from ignorance; I hereby do so from laziness, and because once we get up to a 40-char password, the security margin is so astronomically huge that none of this makes much of a difference.

Also, if your password manager uses a bad algorithm to transform random bits into an alphanumeric string (or whatever), there can be a significant bias; in the wild, I have seen password manager code that will easily let you lop off 30% of the search space, if you know (or can guess) that the target used that particular password manager.  Astronomically huge security margins do help here:  Losing 30% of the search space for a 10-char password could make a real-world practical difference; losing 30% of the search space for a 40-char password is only a theoretical problem.

* nullius 8> security margins (within reason).

That's the same sort of pussy dimwits that needs to write down their seed phrase. *shaking head in disbelief*

My brainwallet is “correct horse battery staple”.  I will not forget it!  And it is such a nonsense phrase, nobody will ever guess it.

Real men have a photographic memory and don't need crap like password managers, paper wallets or backups. Or do you really think Chuck Norris would use a password manager or backup data?

* psycodad ducks, runs and goes backuping his passwordsafe database files..

A .sig I that once saw on—I think it was actually on Usenet, though I don’t recall:  “Real Men don’t do backups.  Real Men cry a lot.”

* nullius programs his custom password manager by punching hex opcodes into the front panel, because Real Men don’t use compilers or assemblers or pussy hand-holding n00b stuff like that.
20  Economy / Speculation / [WO] Reminder: Use a password manager. (And stop giving bad advice!) on: April 27, 2021, 02:22:13 PM
Reminder: don't trust password managers...

This is bad security advice.  You hereby win the award for the worst security advice that I have yet seen in 2021; that is quite an achievement, given the popularity of truly horrid security advice by total idiots.  STOP GIVING BAD ADVICE.

One of the most important actions that users can take to secure their online accounts is to use a password manager.  Use a password manager.  Use a password manager.

Backdoored password manager stole data

Quote
As many as 29,000 users of the Passwordstate password manager downloaded a malicious update that extracted data from the app and sent it to an attacker-controlled server. Bad actors compromised its upgrade mechanism and used it to install a malicious file on user computers.

Will you next so fallaciously abuse particularized examples of insecure or malicious wallets, fake Electrum downloads, etc. as generalized evidence that Bitcoin is insecure?  “Reminder: don’t trust Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is hacked.  Bitcoin was hacked through its update system.”  Roll Eyes

Note:  Some people lost their life savings due to the above-referenced hack.  Solution:  Check PGP signatures to verify downloads!

Stop the ill-informed FUD.  See the PTIO list that I advised SwayStar123 to use, and use a password manager so that you can safely use long random passwords that are different for every site (= security), without accidentally losing your passwords and locking yourself out of everything (= availability):

Did you find out why your account was hacked in the first place ? Did you used an easy password or you told your password to any friend etc ?

Keep a strong password and hopefully no one will be able to hack your account.

reused password

Here is a selection (onion) of secure password managers for you.  Bitwarden may be easiest, if you are accustomed to being dependent on cloud stuff like all of the cool kids who obdurately refuse to end sentences with periods.  Bonus:  It is open-source; and if you want, you can run your own server instead of depending on theirs!

If you have reused passwords, then you should register at have I been pwned? (not a typo).  What you thus discover should properly scare you into never, ever reusing passwords again.

<blink>:emoji: Never reuse passwords! :emoji: :emoji: :emoji:</blink>

P.S., protip for blackhats:  Phil_S probably either reuses passwords, or uses weak passwords, or both.  This can be inferred, because without a password manager, it is humanly impossible to use a strong, unique password for each and every site.  Please go find some incompetently run site that Phil_S also uses, steal its password database, use Hashcat to recover his password, and then use the Phil_S account to post porn in the Wall Observer.  Thanks!


Also: antivirus software is useless. What a surprise.

Quote
First-stage payloads uploaded to VirusTotal here and here showed that at the time this post was going live, none of the 68 tracked endpoint protection programs detected the malware. Researchers so far have been unable to obtain samples of the follow-on payload.

Antivirus software has always been a scam.  No wonder McAfee got rich off of it.

Solution:  Don’t run executable code from unknown sources.  This means, among other things:  Disable Javascript!


Reminder: don't trust password managers...
A txt file, in a vera(true-)crypt archive is probably more secure, especially if it only contains a cryptic description or hint of the passwords. (still wouldn't use it for btc stuff)

That is such bad advice that I honestly can’t tell if you are trolling.  Stop it before someone gets hurt.  Do you also generate an ad hoc Bitcoin keypool with dice rolls and store the private key WIFs in a text file, so that you can avoid installing wallet software that may be backdoored?  Rube Goldberg wants his security systems back.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 121 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!