While i don't know much about Rust and Haskell, AFAIK it'd be hard find developer or contributor who're experienced in Rust rather than C or C++.
Yeah, it's a bit of a chicken-egg problem unfortunately. Without experienced developers around, companies have little reason to add Rust or Haskell to their stack. Without companies hiring Rust or Haskell developers, the opportunity to become experienced in either language is very limited. There's probably a bigger market for Ada, COBOL... maybe even Fortran. |
|
|
|
|
I think Rust might have a chance to eventually become a viable alternative to native C/C++ programming over the next few years, but I'm afraid Haskell will remain more of a niche thing. I'm mostly basing this assumption on Rust having a larger following then Haskell despite being the younger of the two, also from what I've gathered Rust appears to be much more performant which for crypto is not unimportant.
In general it would be interesting to see a shift towards functional programming not only in crypto but in other fields as well. Having only meddled with functional programming on pet projects I can't say much on how well it scales with a growing codebase though.
|
|
|
|
It's built on Bitcoin core and IPFS and MongoDB. I think Bitcoin is mainly used as a timestamping mechanism, but there you go... the BTC chain being used to store data by one of the largest tech companies in the world.
Data != Files I mean, technically the distinction between a file and data (and anything digital really) is rather arbitrary ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But yeah, storing small amounts of data / small files is not the same as storing documents or even media files. I do think Bitcoin and IPFS can complement each other rather well though and using one to verify the data of the other is IMO as close as it gets to what I assume OP had in mind. Whether that's something that should be turned into a BIP is a different question of course. |
|
|
|
Nice post! I'm kinda curious about the "badness score", what metrics have you found to be the most effective? Geolocation, browser, screen resolution? Something else entirely? Most of the fraudulent requests originated from less wealthy regions and were performed manually, which is not surprising I guess. I'll be honest, I didn't expect people to manually farm testnet faucets. And there I was thinking the existence of Captcha farms is depressing. Regarding people accumulating testnet coins rather than using regtest -- Might also be that they're being used for scamming people, occasionally threads pop up with people being sold tBTC rather than the real thing. Probably not that common though. |
|
|
|
|
The next major event on the Bitcoin blockchain is probably going to be the soft fork for activating Schnorr signatures and Taproot. Since there's no official deployment date set yet I doubt this will happen before 2021 though.
|
|
|
|
The gist is this. We want a full node wallet to be able to solo mine. How can we make this possible? By making another layer and a new coin. If bitcoin is represented as a "1" in the blockchain then a secondary currency could be a "!1". This secondary currency could be inflationary and CPU mineable only by making the uPoW large number factorization. So the uPoW miner would make a special transaction on the blockchain something like (!uPoW "merkle root of bitcoin block" "any nonce" "prime factors"). Basically this proves that the person factored a large number that was based on the hash of his chosen nonce and the merkle root (the merkle root is needed so they can't give themselves an easy number to factor). Miners would see this transaction, verify they indeed did everything right, and create a transaction in the next block giving the uPoW miner !1.
This would be good for bitcoin since it requires actual bitcoin to make these transactions so adds demand, and also gives non-pro miners something to earn at a reasonable pace. The factoring of a 101 digit large number takes about 2 hours on a top of the line CPU.
What's the benefit? Mining should not be an end to itself. So far it only looks like this would clog up the Bitcoin blockchain with !1 transactions. First by uPoW miners sending their uPoW transaction, then by miners sending their !1 reward to uPoW miners. Since we're talking about people being able to solo mine again, this would be thousands of nodes spamming the network with hundreds of transactions per block, receiving hundreds of transactions back. Not exactly an upside. |
|
|
|
so far the estimations i have seen are in the matter of 20 to 30 years.
so that article that says 2-3 years is wrong ? We'll only know in hindsight but currently there's no basis to reasonably assume a timespan as short as 2-3 years. Maybe in a decade or two, but everything earlier seems highly speculative. also, if and when QC becomes more easily available, wouldn't bitcoin devs consider 'upgrading' the encryption to QC proof, or is that already completely set in stone for BTC ?
Switching to a quantum proof signature scheme has been discussed every now and then for a couple of years now, challenge being that the currently most likely candidate -- Lamport signatures -- are much larger than what Bitcoin uses right now (40-170 times, according to the Bitcoin wiki [1]). Accordingly we're unlikely to see a switch to quantum proof signatures until the future of QC becomes much clearer or a more compact signature scheme is found. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Quantum_computing_and_BitcoinIf QC with big qubits will be available within next 2-3 years, everyone in software department will be in panic how to migrate their legacy code to use quantum resistant cryptography or make sure their customer update their software within 2-3 years.
Oof, I'm getting nightmares just imagining it. |
|
|
|
When you send money from an electrum wallet for example, does it create you a signature automatically?
Ranochigo already described pretty well what role signatures play for transactions, so here's an example of a case of flawed implementation such as mentioned by ETFbitcoin: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-08-11-androidI think in this case it was a matter of an adversary being able to generate the same "random" values (ie. private keys) as their victim, but the fixed k flaw is quite fun as well since you just turn the math against itself: Iä! Digital Signature Algorithm! The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Crypto Bugs!
I don't know the Bitcoin software involved at all, but I can sketch out an attack that might shed some light on it, and, more importantly, instill an appropriate fear of DSA into you:
To generate a DSA key, you come up with primes p and q and a generator g, which process is a paralytic non-Euclidian brain injury I will not attempt to describe. Then you do like Diffie Hellman: generate a random private key x and from it a public value y = g^x % p. The pubkey that validates signatures is the tuple (p, q, g, y).
To sign, you generate a random k value, which must never be reused, Iä! Iä! never, and:
r = g^k % p % q
s = k^-1 (H(m) + x•r) % q
The signature is (r, s).
If ever you should fail to heed these words and generate two signatures with the same k value, Iä Cthulhu Ftaghn! then simple high school algebra can be used to beat DSA. The attacker doesn't even need to know what the k was, and the attack is so fast you can just try it to see if k was repeated (I skipped the algebra and just dumped the formulas for the attack here):
H(m1) - H(m2)
k = -------------
S1 - S2
x = ((S1•k) – H(m1))• r^-1 % q
This bug (also in an ECDSA implementation) is what broke the Playstation 3, too.
You see that comment on the Bitcoin thread about the repeated r-values; a repeated r-value (r as in the r parameter of a DSA signature) just tells you that someone repeated a k. Iä! Iä! |
|
|
|
I don't get it. How can people get your private key if you don't use signature?
By kindly asking. I'm not even kidding, back when airdrops were all the rage there were a couple of totally legit offerings that only required you to enter your private key into google forms. |
|
|
|
Ich bin verwundert wieviele von euch keine Socken tragen/brauchen.  Finden wir noch genug Teilnehmer die Socken benötigen? Das nächste Gewinnspiel wird etwas anderes, definitiv  Ich bin ehrlich ich trage durchaus Socken, wenn ich das Haus verlasse, aber was mein Sockengeschmack angeht halte ich mich klar an @GSElevator ("Socks don't add personality or fashion sense. Let wit and intellect speak for you") und lasse daher lieber die Plätze frei für Leute, die wirklich bunte Socken tragen. Normalerweise trage ich auch keine bunten Socken und Orange ist mal gar nicht meine Farbe aber für Bitcoin würde ich da tatsächlich eine Ausnahme machen |
|
|
|
|
Hard to say as this is now the first time we're going to see if Bitcoin's theoretical hedging function works in practice.
Unlike gold it's not really seen as a stable alternative yet but this perception is likely to change after 2020 -- for better or worse. This will largely depend on how much Bitcoin's price movements will correlate with the rest of the classical market. I'm not sure if you currently can make a strong case for either. On the one hand Bitcoin dropped more or less in sync with the stock market, on the other hand it seems to have recovered much faster.
Regardless of that -- with fiat currencies inevitably devaluating more than usual over the next few years due to governments stimulating their economies with monetary injections I do believe having a position in Bitcoin might be smarter than having none.
|
|
|
|
I believe, most likely we don’t know the true current state of QC technology and won’t know when QC can break ECDSA. QC being used to double spend bitcoin transactions would make it obvious that the technology exists.
[...]
I might hypothesize that some major governments have bitcoin stored in addresses whose public keys have been exposed to serve as a canary in the coal mine so they would know not to use EDSCA anymore. Similarly, a government with technology to calculate the private key based on the public key to prevent the canary from being set off.
I guess the biggest canary in the coalmine are actually the earliest Coinbase transactions that were still P2PK. At least I find it hard to believe that anyone with the technology to crack ECDSA and the intention to double-spend bitcoins will be able to resist giving the early dormant block rewards a whirl as soon as they are able to. Emphasis being "the intention to double-spend bitcoins" because for all we know there might be larger goals at stake other than mere wealth accumulation, assuming such technical progress would indeed be successfully kept secret. |
|
|
|
- A quantum computer capable of cracking Bitcoin's encryption could be just two years away.
Probably closer to 20 years than to 2 years. At least if we're talking about the kind of computation power that would enable double-spend attacks as described by PrimeNumber7. Question being how long it will take for QC to break ECDSA within minutes instead of days once it becomes practically possible at all. We're likely to hear a lot more news about leaps in QC long before that though so we should get a bit of a heads up. About that... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nuclear-missile-code-00000000-cold-war_n_4386784 |
|
|
|
I watched the first episode of Mr Robot and took my notice of BTC mention. Unfortunately, I wasn't in the crypto-market yet. I think more work should be done to take cryptos higher. It still is difficult to build a big business based on cryptos.
Back to Mr Robot, blockchain is secure from the attack made on monetary system at the show, right?
Yeah there is no point in the show where bitcoin or the blockchain are under any certain attack / get hacked. [...] Well, no technical attack. E-Corp does create its own currency, so arguably this could be seen as an attack on crypto -- not unlike the attempt at private corporate currencies we've been seing in the real world. The attack on the monetary system in Mr Robot is completely unrelated though (at least if I recall correctly) and no scenario that would apply to Bitcoin. It is a scenario where Bitcoin could come in handy though. |
|
|
|
welche größe hat das sockenpaar eigentlich?! 42-46? 38-41? ... Das kann ich dir nicht sagen, darauf wird im Shop nicht eingegangen  Fragen über Fragen. Wird 2020 das Jahr der Socksize-Debatte? |
|
|
|
|
f - HeRetiK
Bitcoin ist das einzige Sockenmotiv das für individuelle finanzielle Souveränität und uneingeschränkte, grenzüberschreitende Finanztransaktionen steht.
|
|
|
|
There's something truly poetic about CSW getting rekt by the very technology he was trying to undermine. The fact that the original address owner(s) were able to do disprove his claims beyond any doubts, while staying completely anonymous, is the icing on the cake. Beautiful.
He was getting rekt right from the start when he copypasted Satoshi's transaction signature and every person with the slightest understanding of cryptography understood that it was a really pathetic hoax, and yet somehow there came people who really believed him. It's just like flat-earthers of antivaxxers - some people are balls deep in their own biases so they can't acknowledge reality even when it smacks them in the face. No amount of proof will help here, if Satoshi appeared tomorrow, with signatures and stuff, and said he's not CWS, the CWS cultist would say that it means nothing, that Blockstream invented quantum computer and hacked Satoshi's coins. Eh, cultists gonna cult. There's nothing you can do about it. The important part is that this exposes his lies in a way that hopefully has him thrown out of court for good. |
|
|
|
|
There's something truly poetic about CSW getting rekt by the very technology he was trying to undermine. The fact that the original address owner(s) were able to do disprove his claims beyond any doubts, while staying completely anonymous, is the icing on the cake. Beautiful.
|
|
|
|
fillippone has a pretty good overview thread over here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5207455.0In my opinion LN and its related technologies is currently one of the most important frontlines, especially in terms of usability and stability. Followed by anything that would increase transaction throughput, such as Schnorr signatures. Long term I'm especially curious about where Simplicity will lead us. |
|
|
|
...Dabei wurden 10.000$ diversifiziert in:
30% Bitcoin
15% Ethereum
15% Ethereum Classic
10% Zcash
10% Monero
10% Ripple
5% Metal (LOL)
5% IOTA
Und natürlich gab es einen dicken Loss... ja - das stimmt mit dem Loss - ABER mach mal dieselbe Rechnung in einem Bullenmarkt !!!lg In einem Bullenmarkt Profit zu machen ist keine Kunst. Ziel von Diversfizierung ist in der Regel nicht Gewinnmaximierung sondern Verlustreduzierung. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
