Bitcoin Forum
September 28, 2022, 05:51:40 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Jacob Appelbaum: "Bitcoin Prediction: Major bugs in the near future ..."  (Read 14770 times)
qarl (OP)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 0



View Profile WWW
June 10, 2011, 07:24:30 PM
 #1

Jacob Appelbaum: "Bitcoin Prediction: Major bugs in the near future will mess with the 'market'".

http://twitter.com/#!/ioerror/status/78480502641803264

http://twitter.com/#!/ioerror/status/78520413315006465

grumble.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1664344300
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1664344300

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1664344300
Reply with quote  #2

1664344300
Report to moderator
BotherMeNot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 07:30:42 PM
 #2

I agree.  For one thing it relies on encryption and a public log.  Encryption can be broken and with bitcoins as is, you can't force new encryption standards on old bitcoins.  As for the public log, if someone branches from it or introduces their own log then we loose credibility of the currency.

Bitcoins is a good proof of concept, but I think the concept will be taken over and improved upon by companies who don't respect the same level of anonymity that Bitcoins and Tor promote.

Astro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 282
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 10, 2011, 07:39:32 PM
 #3

Considering what a little "announcement" on mtgox has done to the price today, any actual bug like this would crash the price back to $1.
paulie_w
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 07:41:01 PM
 #4

why doesn't he just say what it is? why do some people choose to create panic?
qarl (OP)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 0



View Profile WWW
June 10, 2011, 07:42:30 PM
Last edit: June 10, 2011, 08:02:55 PM by qarl
 #5

why doesn't he just say what it is?

he's effectively bragging that he knows more than us.

can someone who knows what he's talking about speak to it, please?
Denicen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 46
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 07:51:21 PM
 #6

I agree.  For one thing it relies on encryption and a public log.  Encryption can be broken and with bitcoins as is, you can't force new encryption standards on old bitcoins.  As for the public log, if someone branches from it or introduces their own log then we loose credibility of the currency.

Bitcoins is a good proof of concept, but I think the concept will be taken over and improved upon by companies who don't respect the same level of anonymity that Bitcoins and Tor promote.



This is very silly, i've seen it mentioned several times that the encryption can be improved if need be.
Also: Lol at a company taking over the bitcoin concept, did you read a couple news reports about bitcoin and think you are an expert or something?
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
June 10, 2011, 07:54:06 PM
 #7

Pfft, I expected a long analysis, twitter, classy.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
TraderTimm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 1120



View Profile
June 10, 2011, 07:54:25 PM
 #8

The 'public log' is the blockchain.

I suggest you read the whitepaper about 'forking' the blockchain, since your statement seems to suggest it is trivial.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34237903/Bit-Coin-Whitepaper


fortitudinem multis - catenum regit omnia
xf2_org
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 11


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 07:58:03 PM
 #9

I agree.  For one thing it relies on encryption and a public log.  Encryption can be broken and with bitcoins as is, you can't force new encryption standards on old bitcoins.  As for the public log, if someone branches from it or introduces their own log then we loose credibility of the currency.

You appear to know very little about how bitcoin works.

qarl (OP)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 0



View Profile WWW
June 10, 2011, 08:04:36 PM
 #10

Jeff - do you know what Appelbaum's concern is?
syn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 25
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 08:09:09 PM
 #11

Appelbaum is claiming he has knowledge of a specific bug.

He says that we need to direct our questions to Gavin.  Is Gavin aware of this? 

My understanding of Appelbaum is that he would not risk his reputation on spreading lies, but I don't know him personally.

Can anyone confirm that Gavin (or other lead developers) have gotten specifics from Appelbaum?
xf2_org
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 11


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 08:11:16 PM
 #12

Jeff - do you know what Appelbaum's concern is?

No.

I do know that bitcoin has a history of newbies appearing, claiming to have found some major hole in bitcoin, and then nothing coming of it.

Beware fact-free FUD.

hoo2jalu
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 10, 2011, 08:13:17 PM
 #13

....
My understanding of Appelbaum is that he would not risk his reputation on spreading lies, but I don't know him personally.

Jacob Applebaum is an idiot! I repeat: Jacob Applebaum is a fscking idiot!

He is a posturing publicity whore who cannot hack shit. Just look at this Tor commits - all he works on is lame stuff, not core Tor code!
BotherMeNot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 08:14:39 PM
 #14

To each there own opinion, but I didn't read any news reports and don't think I'm an expert in BitCoins.  Thanks for the whitepaper link!  I did read up the wiki article when it was mentioned that people could be traced, but they didn't go into it in enough detail.  I'll see if it fits the concept of a group over taking the public logs by creating their own mining pools larger than what's currently out there.   By branching, I mean extending upon so that a new currency (or version of) is created on top of the old.  A poor choice of words on my part.

As for encryption, I haven't ran into any articles detailing how the current methods can be improved upon.  If you can provide me with links, that would be swell.
xf2_org
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 11


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 08:15:35 PM
 #15

Can anyone confirm that Gavin (or other lead developers) have gotten specifics from Appelbaum?

I am still waiting for a response...  <insert sound of crickets chirping>

hoo2jalu
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 10, 2011, 08:21:13 PM
 #16

why doesn't he just say what it is? why do some people choose to create panic?

Because Jacob Applebaum is an idiot, and has only heard things second hand (rumor). And that is assume he even knows what he is talking about. (Doubtful)

Look at all of the "security work" he's been involved in. He is Press Frontman, not actual hacker or talented coder!

Jacob Applebaum is idiot!
qarl (OP)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 0



View Profile WWW
June 10, 2011, 08:22:05 PM
 #17

I do know that bitcoin has a history of newbies appearing, claiming to have found some major hole in bitcoin, and then nothing coming of it.

agreed.  but given Appelbaum's core involvement in wikileaks and Tor - i don't think it's wise to treat him as a typical n00b.
Jack of Diamonds
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 10, 2011, 08:25:11 PM
 #18

I do know that bitcoin has a history of newbies appearing, claiming to have found some major hole in bitcoin, and then nothing coming of it.

agreed.  but given Appelbaum's core involvement in wikileaks and Tor - i don't think it's wise to treat him as a typical n00b.

He hasn't contributed any real code to the TOR project at all. Check his commits.

1f3gHNoBodYw1LLs3ndY0UanYB1tC0lnsBec4USeYoU9AREaCH34PBeGgAR67fx
gigitrix
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 10, 2011, 09:15:17 PM
 #19

You're all reading far too much into it. He thinks this will happen. For all you know, this is either some random prediction based on "complex software has bugs" (not an unture statement in general), or Appelbaum could have looked into bitcoin without a fundamental understanding of all the protection layers the blockchain has. He could even be trying to distort the price for personal gain (although I do not believe this myself).


tl;dr: dox or gtfo.
Chris Acheson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 09:16:54 PM
 #20

Dude probably just wants to buy some bitcoins for cheap.
mcdett
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100



View Profile
June 10, 2011, 09:25:03 PM
 #21

You're all reading far too much into it. He thinks this will happen.
tl;dr: dox or gtfo.

If you read the second tweet he states he has knowledge of a specif bug.
qarl (OP)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 0



View Profile WWW
June 10, 2011, 09:36:24 PM
 #22

He thinks this will happen.

naw - he's indicated he knows of a specific "major" bug.  he's not speculating.

but since the core devs don't seem to know what he's talking about, i'm afraid i have to agree with the others who are calling bullshit.
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 10, 2011, 11:54:14 PM
 #23

I wouldn't call bullshit so quickly.  I have some suspicions that there are a couple of major problems lurking.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
hoo2jalu
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 10, 2011, 11:59:16 PM
 #24

I wouldn't call bullshit so quickly.  I have some suspicions that there are a couple of major problems lurking.

Jacob Applebaum is probably sniffing Tor exit traffic again and some people are using bitcoin miners insecurely or something much less interesting than he is making it out to be.

Do not feed the drama queens!
xf2_org
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 11


View Profile
June 11, 2011, 05:28:18 PM
 #25

Confirmed.  No specific security vulnerabilities are forthcoming.
Stevie1024
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 11, 2011, 05:52:47 PM
 #26

I wouldn't call bullshit so quickly.  I have some suspicions that there are a couple of major problems lurking.

Anyone interested in some of these, please have a look at: http://www.newbitcoin.org/documents/newbitcoin.pdf

I'm out of here!
Tukotih
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 11, 2011, 06:00:25 PM
 #27

Confirmed.  No specific security vulnerabilities are forthcoming.
Sweet, that's really good to hear.

Now, any speculations if/when the market will get healthy again?
I'm hoping for somewhere before the next difficulty. I haven't ever invested in bitcoin so I hope that everything turns out just fine, which I actually believe as well.

Donations always appreciated: 1GkRu9rZxk5iMRzsrcZxZ3BUHV1SWNZ9RB
IMPORTANT! Switch from deepbit: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=8653.0
xf2_org
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 11


View Profile
June 11, 2011, 06:03:54 PM
 #28

I wouldn't call bullshit so quickly.  I have some suspicions that there are a couple of major problems lurking.

Anyone interested in some of these, please have a look at: http://www.newbitcoin.org/documents/newbitcoin.pdf

This paper is filled with inaccurate observations and assumptions.

bcearl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 101



View Profile
June 11, 2011, 06:10:56 PM
 #29

I agree.  For one thing it relies on encryption and a public log.  Encryption can be broken and with bitcoins as is, you can't force new encryption standards on old bitcoins.  As for the public log, if someone branches from it or introduces their own log then we loose credibility of the currency.

Bitcoins is a good proof of concept, but I think the concept will be taken over and improved upon by companies who don't respect the same level of anonymity that Bitcoins and Tor promote.



One could just hash the whole old block chain with a new algorithm, the question is how we establish it to be accepted by the peers and transforming it into a new block chain.

Misspelling protects against dictionary attacks NOT
Stevie1024
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 11, 2011, 06:13:05 PM
 #30

I wouldn't call bullshit so quickly.  I have some suspicions that there are a couple of major problems lurking.

Anyone interested in some of these, please have a look at: http://www.newbitcoin.org/documents/newbitcoin.pdf

This paper is filled with inaccurate observations and assumptions.



Please name one, or, if you have the time, some. I'm very happy to learn and if I'm wrong I will happily admit so.

I'm out of here!
AaronM
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
June 11, 2011, 06:28:59 PM
 #31

This is effectively a $5,000,000 reward for breaking elliptic-curve cryptography: http://blockexplorer.com/address/1PZjfkLZBT7Q3UFmyEWH8QtuzTMi3MUiBj  The public key for this address is in the blockchain.

Bitcoin's security also rests on SHA256's security, but so far there have been no useful attacks.  I think the cryptography and blockchain rules are very robust.  What is maybe less robust is the Bitcoin software and network protocol.  If we have any problems, it will be because of software/protocol problems (buffer overflows, DDos, poison nodes, etc.), not problems with cryptography or rules of the Bitcoin blockchain.

When I have some time, I'm going to work on auditing the Bitcoin source.  If you'd like to support me, donate here: 1uWY36pcXhLC4V4pZ2eZFScRaUPXgPEwC

Spare some BTC for a biology student? 1DZcEUEo9rX7LQWcYzVR6Btqj2sMqRznbB
xf2_org
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 11


View Profile
June 11, 2011, 06:49:14 PM
 #32

I wouldn't call bullshit so quickly.  I have some suspicions that there are a couple of major problems lurking.

Anyone interested in some of these, please have a look at: http://www.newbitcoin.org/documents/newbitcoin.pdf

This paper is filled with inaccurate observations and assumptions.



Please name one, or, if you have the time, some. I'm very happy to learn and if I'm wrong I will happily admit so.

The transaction fee has already been lowered.

Stevie1024
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 11, 2011, 06:57:21 PM
Last edit: June 12, 2011, 07:06:26 AM by Stevie1024
 #33

I wouldn't call bullshit so quickly.  I have some suspicions that there are a couple of major problems lurking.

Anyone interested in some of these, please have a look at: http://www.newbitcoin.org/documents/newbitcoin.pdf

This paper is filled with inaccurate observations and assumptions.



Please name one, or, if you have the time, some. I'm very happy to learn and if I'm wrong I will happily admit so.

The transaction fee has already been lowered.



I'm not sure what "inaccurate observation or assumption" in my paper you are referring to. I stated that the enforced limits (like indeed transaction fee) are not optimal ones. And that I think that they should definitly not be under control of a small group of developers.

The fact that after publication of my paper the fee has already been lowered seems to support my statement.

EDIT

Since yesterday I have effectivly been labeled a troll (having 'only' 22 posts) and prohited any chance to respond to reply to xf2_org's last mail. This is appearently how the Bitcoin community wants to deal with valid critique.

I'm not going to risk this happening again. If you think my critique is valid, I'm inviting you to join me on:

http://bitcoinforum.org/

I promise you that critique, valid or not, will never be censored.

I'm out of here!
xf2_org
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 11


View Profile
June 11, 2011, 08:01:43 PM
 #34

I'm not sure what "inaccurate observation or assumption" in my paper you are referring to. I stated that the enforced limits (like indeed transaction fee) are not optimal ones. And that I think that they should definitly not be under control of a small group of developers.

That is a central fallacy throughout your paper.  The entire community accepts or rejects bitcoin changes.  They vote by choosing which bitcoin version to run on the network.

Open source means anyone can fork the code at any time, if the community feels developers are going off into insane-land.

becoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 1208



View Profile
June 11, 2011, 08:45:20 PM
 #35

I wouldn't call bullshit so quickly.  I have some suspicions that there are a couple of major problems lurking.

Anyone interested in some of these, please have a look at: http://www.newbitcoin.org/documents/newbitcoin.pdf
I see many valid points in this document. Well done, Steven. However,  I'd rather refer to it as bitcoin 2.0 instead of naming it 'new bitcoin'.
AntiVigilante
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 12, 2011, 06:05:28 AM
 #36

I'm not sure what "inaccurate observation or assumption" in my paper you are referring to. I stated that the enforced limits (like indeed transaction fee) are not optimal ones. And that I think that they should definitly not be under control of a small group of developers.

That is a central fallacy throughout your paper.  The entire community accepts or rejects bitcoin changes.  They vote by choosing which bitcoin version to run on the network.

Open source means anyone can fork the code at any time, if the community feels developers are going off into insane-land.


I proposed towncoin and am ready to implement it with angel miners. This paper by Steven is a train wreck.

Proposal: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=11541.msg162881#msg162881
Inception: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/296
Goal: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12536.0
Means: Code, donations, and brutal criticism. I've got a thick skin. 1Gc3xCHAzwvTDnyMW3evBBr5qNRDN3DRpq
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 12, 2011, 06:21:25 AM
 #37

I'm not sure what "inaccurate observation or assumption" in my paper you are referring to. I stated that the enforced limits (like indeed transaction fee) are not optimal ones. And that I think that they should definitly not be under control of a small group of developers.

That is a central fallacy throughout your paper.  The entire community accepts or rejects bitcoin changes.  They vote by choosing which bitcoin version to run on the network.

Open source means anyone can fork the code at any time, if the community feels developers are going off into insane-land.



that is a fallacy, i agree.

but for me (and others...), the central fallacy is in a section-head:

3.7 Current distribution is unfair

oh.  that again...

i am not an 'early adopter', having begun my quest for Bitcoin in march.  i begrudge nothing to those who saw, believed and risked the earliest.  i will take what i earn, happily.  i will not steal from those whose vision has proven to be clearer than mine.
Stevie1024
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 12, 2011, 07:38:29 AM
 #38

Appearently I am whitelisted now. I'rant about this 'newbie policy' in another topic if I feel like it.

I'm not sure what "inaccurate observation or assumption" in my paper you are referring to. I stated that the enforced limits (like indeed transaction fee) are not optimal ones. And that I think that they should definitly not be under control of a small group of developers.

That is a central fallacy throughout your paper.  The entire community accepts or rejects bitcoin changes.  They vote by choosing which bitcoin version to run on the network.

Open source means anyone can fork the code at any time, if the community feels developers are going off into insane-land.


Could you be more specific as to what exactly is this 'central fallacy'?

Voting by choosing which version to run sounds good, but I see some problems:

- 'Voting' should then also be possible by running a completely different client, implemented by other developers.

- So far, the lack of a sound description of a specification (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg190384#msg190384) hinders implementation of different clients.

- The default client should not contain limits that prevent running other versions / clients. If the default client won't distribute transactions with a fee less than 0.01, it's going to be very hard to run a client that allows a minimum fee of 0.001. Same with the version number misery...

I'm out of here!
Stevie1024
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 12, 2011, 07:41:51 AM
Last edit: June 12, 2011, 09:03:08 AM by Stevie1024
 #39

that is a fallacy, i agree.

but for me (and others...), the central fallacy is in a section-head:

3.7 Current distribution is unfair

oh.  that again...

i am not an 'early adopter', having begun my quest for Bitcoin in march.  i begrudge nothing to those who saw, believed and risked the earliest.  i will take what i earn, happily.  i will not steal from those whose vision has proven to be clearer than mine.

So, there's at least two central fallacies in my paper.  |-)

I'll get back on the 'unfair' distribution.

EDIT: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15657.0

I'm out of here!
AntiVigilante
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 12, 2011, 07:45:46 AM
 #40

Could you be more specific as to what exactly is this 'central fallacy'?

Voting by choosing which version to run sounds good, but I see some problems:

- 'Voting' should then also be possible by running a completely different client, implemented by other developers.

- So far, the lack of a sound description of a specification (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg190384#msg190384) hinders implementation of different clients.

- The default client should not contain limits that prevent running other versions / clients. If the default client won't distribute transactions with a fee less than 0.01, it's going to be very hard to run a client that allows a minimum fee of 0.001. Same with the version number misery...

Fees are now .0005.

That one is already solved. No new new new bitty coin needed.


I'll get back on the 'unfair' distribution.

This requires a protocol change or using a new kind of pool. I'm implementing this later today. Again, NO NEW FORK needed.

Proposal: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=11541.msg162881#msg162881
Inception: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/296
Goal: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12536.0
Means: Code, donations, and brutal criticism. I've got a thick skin. 1Gc3xCHAzwvTDnyMW3evBBr5qNRDN3DRpq
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1049


View Profile
June 12, 2011, 07:51:37 AM
 #41

- 'Voting' should then also be possible by running a completely different client, implemented by other developers.

This is already possible.

Quote
- So far, the lack of a sound description of a specification (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg190384#msg190384) hinders implementation of different clients.

Sounds like a great project.  Are you volunteering?

Quote
- The default client should not contain limits that prevent running other versions / clients. If the default client won't distribute transactions with a fee less than 0.01, it's going to be very hard to run a client that allows a minimum fee of 0.001.

Shockingly...  people are already doing that which you describe as "very hard" simply by upgrading.

Re-read the part of my post about people voting with their downloads.
Then re-read the other post about transaction fees already changing.
Then read the thread on transaction fees changing to 0.0005.
And maybe study how mining works, too.

Quote
Same with the version number misery...

No idea what you're talking about here.


Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.
Visit bloq.com / metronome.io
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
jhansen858
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 12, 2011, 07:54:51 AM
 #42

You know i was watching the data from MT gox today and something very strange happend right around when the price was hitting $10

i hit refresh on the screen, suddenly, every single buyer was gone, one refresh later, and the price jumped up from ~10 way up to ~15

Then within 2 minutes, it was back down to ~10

I wonder if the bug in the "Market" that dude found was with MTgox and it allows him to somehow manipulate the trade data thus "screwing with the market"


Hi forum: 1DDpiEt36VTJsiJunyBc3XtG6CcSAnsQ4p
Stevie1024
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 12, 2011, 08:56:54 AM
 #43

Quote
- So far, the lack of a sound description of a specification (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg190384#msg190384) hinders implementation of different clients.

Sounds like a great project.  Are you volunteering?
I have: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg190384#msg190384

- The default client should not contain limits that prevent running other versions / clients. If the default client won't distribute transactions with a fee less than 0.01, it's going to be very hard to run a client that allows a minimum fee of 0.001.

Shockingly...  people are already doing that which you describe as "very hard" simply by upgrading.

Re-read the part of my post about people voting with their downloads.
Then re-read the other post about transaction fees already changing.
Then read the thread on transaction fees changing to 0.0005.
And maybe study how mining works, too.

Thanks for the elaborate reply. Please re-read my critique: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=14693.msg202438#msg202438
And maybe tell me why to study mining.

Quote
Same with the version number misery...

No idea what you're talking about here.

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg195156;topicseen#msg195156

I'm out of here!
amincd
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 772
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 12, 2011, 09:23:18 AM
 #44

Stevie, it's not good to derail discussions to promote an un-related thread.

istar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 523
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 12, 2011, 10:09:36 AM
 #45

So can we get anyone to fix those bugs.

I belive the bugs has to do with the security of the bitcoin client. Making it easy to steal a wallet.

Bitcoins - Because we should not pay to use our money
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1007



View Profile WWW
June 12, 2011, 11:58:03 AM
 #46


He is a posturing publicity whore who cannot hack shit. Just look at this Tor commits - all he works on is lame stuff, not core Tor code!


It's true he might not be an "actual hacker" or "talented coder", but he might have received the info from someone who is and is not a "publicity whore". Many brilliant coders are not very outgoing, even kind of autistic, and just might "report" their "project leaders". We all should have experienced in life that people are different and thus are destined to play different roles in communities and society as a whole.

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
Meman
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 92
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 12, 2011, 01:07:38 PM
 #47

Jacob Appelbaum is a freak. I don't give a cent to his predictions.
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1939


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2011, 01:19:25 PM
 #48

I exchanged email with Jacob, and he's predicting bugs because some very good "white-hat" people are looking hard at the code, trying to find bugs or vulnerabilities.

That's all.  And that's good news; the more people who try to find problems with the code (and who will report any problems responsibly so they can get fixed before they're exploited), the better.

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
barbarousrelic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 675
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 12, 2011, 01:40:03 PM
 #49

Dude probably just wants to buy some bitcoins for cheap.

This is probably the case.

These forums are becoming less and less useful as they get clogged with "omgskyisfallingsell!!!!" and "omgrallybuy!" posts intended to pump or deflate prices.

Do not waste your time debating whether Bitcoin can work. It does work.

"Early adopters will profit" is not a sufficient condition to classify something as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If it was, Apple and Microsoft stock are Ponzi schemes.

There is no such thing as "market manipulation." There is only buying and selling.
bitbitcoincoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 167
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 12, 2011, 03:46:43 PM
 #50

I exchanged email with Jacob, and he's predicting bugs because some very good "white-hat" people are looking hard at the code, trying to find bugs or vulnerabilities.

That's all.  And that's good news; the more people who try to find problems with the code (and who will report any problems responsibly so they can get fixed before they're exploited), the better.


Thanks for the heads up, it seems Jacob needs to learn to articulate himself a bit better in his tweets if he wants to get a accurate message out.  Of course, he might of purposely kept his tweets vague to cause doubt in the currency for a excellent buying opportunity.  It's hard to argue that BTC's @10 USD last night weren't a steal.
jhansen858
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 12, 2011, 08:30:52 PM
 #51

Quote

You know i was watching the data from MT gox today and something very strange happend right around when the price was hitting $10

i hit refresh on the screen, suddenly, every single buyer was gone, one refresh later, and the price jumped up from ~10 way up to ~15

Then within 2 minutes, it was back down to ~10

I wonder if the bug in the "Market" that dude found was with MTgox and it allows him to somehow manipulate the trade data thus "screwing with the market"


I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but....

MTGOX down next day after posting this....





Hi forum: 1DDpiEt36VTJsiJunyBc3XtG6CcSAnsQ4p
FairUser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 264


Trident Protocol | Simple «buy-hold-earn» system!


View Profile
June 12, 2011, 08:42:08 PM
 #52

Jacob Appelbaum: "Bitcoin Prediction: Major bugs in the near future will mess with the 'market'".

http://twitter.com/#!/ioerror/status/78480502641803264

http://twitter.com/#!/ioerror/status/78520413315006465

grumble.

Jacob is a drama queen that loves the attention and people talking about him.  He hasn't provided shit for code to any project or group he's been associated with (which is why WikiLeaks booted his ass).  This guys just talks out his ass and doesn't really know shit about shit unless he steals it from someone else's research.  Jacob is a hack, not a hacker.

"Do you know who I am?! I'M JACOB FUCKING APPELBAUM!!" - Jacob, BlackHat Vegas '09.

jhansen858
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 12, 2011, 08:47:08 PM
 #53

never mind my trade just went through...

Hi forum: 1DDpiEt36VTJsiJunyBc3XtG6CcSAnsQ4p
Quantumplation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 12, 2011, 10:29:33 PM
 #54

Quote from: Stevie1024

Ignoring, for a moment, the glaring problems and misconceptions in your paper, it's horribly and arrogantly written.  You wrote down some internal musings that don't really flow into eachother, changed any "I"s to "the author"s, deemed it worthy to slap an abstract on it and convert it to PDF, and have posted it in nearly every thread you've posted in.  To me, It seems you like to play the scholar, and fancy yourself an intellectual without understanding how to write a cogent and thorough paper.

NOTE: This account was compromised from 2017 to 2021.  I'm in the process of deleting posts not made by me.
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1016



View Profile
June 13, 2011, 12:38:17 AM
 #55

Ugh.  That newbitcoin paper is a trainwreck.

In section 2, for example, the author has no clue how the network works.  It is trivial for a person to change their node so that it does not include transaction fees.  Much less trivial, however, is getting the rest of the network to forward them, or miners to accept them.  (Yes, I know that at least one mining pool always accepts free transactions, and it is trivial to connect to it.  I'm speaking more broadly here.)

I gave up another couple of pages in.  I sorta wanted to do a page by page rebuttal, but it would really need to be more like line by line.

17Np17BSrpnHCZ2pgtiMNnhjnsWJ2TMqq8
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
Stevie1024
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 13, 2011, 08:09:45 AM
 #56

Ugh.  That newbitcoin paper is a trainwreck.

In section 2, for example, the author has no clue how the network works.  It is trivial for a person to change their node so that it does not include transaction fees.  Much less trivial, however, is getting the rest of the network to forward them, or miners to accept them.  (Yes, I know that at least one mining pool always accepts free transactions, and it is trivial to connect to it.  I'm speaking more broadly here.)

I gave up another couple of pages in.  I sorta wanted to do a page by page rebuttal, but it would really need to be more like line by line.

Right, another one using bold language without taking me on on the main issues. Actually there's nothing wrong with the example given in section 2. I changed the source code, and where before transactions would require (at that time 0.01 bitcoins) transaction fee, after my change it wouldn't. Of course it is easy for the other nodes to start refusing my transactions, I didn't state otherwise and I think it's been done already.

If you do a line by line rebuttal, I'm sure you will find something valid if you try hard enough. But, from now on I'll only respond to critique that affects the main issues that I stated, so spare yourself the time. I'll also respond only to critique (and have been doing so allready) that is put politely and does not involve any disdain or false accusations. I trust there's people out there that will understand the incapacity of people using such manners.

I'm out of here!
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1016



View Profile
June 13, 2011, 11:28:12 AM
 #57

Start refusing?  Hmm.  I suggest you take a look at the source code to the default client.  There are already rules in place regarding which transactions to forward.

If I have time, I'll write a detailed refutation.  But no promises, Mondays are usually fairly busy, and I probably won't have time.

17Np17BSrpnHCZ2pgtiMNnhjnsWJ2TMqq8
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
bcearl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 101



View Profile
June 13, 2011, 11:41:59 AM
 #58

@Stevie: Your paper paragraph 3.6 is a serious bug, but in a very different way than discribed:

The is no danger of double spending as long as payees wait for confirmations in the block chain.

But there is a vulnerability. Think of the following:

1. A wants to pay B some BTC.
2. A draws that transaction X (signet with his key).
3. The transaction gets not included in the block chain.

What now? A can now ignore that or draw another transaction Y. Maybe transaction Y got into the block chain.

What attack is possible now? Right: B can steal coins from A by sending the already drawn transaction X into the block chain generation.

Misspelling protects against dictionary attacks NOT
bcearl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 101



View Profile
June 13, 2011, 12:17:17 PM
 #59

Your pruning suggestion will not work, because the number of accounts will also grow.


And you don't have to change the block chain format for achieving that anyway.

Misspelling protects against dictionary attacks NOT
Stevie1024
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 13, 2011, 04:20:03 PM
 #60

@Stevie: Your paper paragraph 3.6 is a serious bug, but in a very different way than discribed:

The is no danger of double spending as long as payees wait for confirmations in the block chain.

But there is a vulnerability. Think of the following:

1. A wants to pay B some BTC.
2. A draws that transaction X (signet with his key).
3. The transaction gets not included in the block chain.

What now? A can now ignore that or draw another transaction Y. Maybe transaction Y got into the block chain.

What attack is possible now? Right: B can steal coins from A by sending the already drawn transaction X into the block chain generation.

Thanks bcearl. I hope you will excuse me, I try to stick to the bugs I think I found. But if you found a different one, please have the current devs look into it!

What I am not sure about now: Do you agree that transactions are not safe if not included in the block chain? (And 'buried' under enough blocks?)

I'm out of here!
bcearl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 101



View Profile
June 13, 2011, 04:26:18 PM
 #61

@Stevie: Your paper paragraph 3.6 is a serious bug, but in a very different way than discribed:

The is no danger of double spending as long as payees wait for confirmations in the block chain.

But there is a vulnerability. Think of the following:

1. A wants to pay B some BTC.
2. A draws that transaction X (signet with his key).
3. The transaction gets not included in the block chain.

What now? A can now ignore that or draw another transaction Y. Maybe transaction Y got into the block chain.

What attack is possible now? Right: B can steal coins from A by sending the already drawn transaction X into the block chain generation.

Thanks bcearl. I hope you will excuse me, I try to stick to the bugs I think I found. But if you found a different one, please have the current devs look into it!

What I am not sure about now: Do you agree that transactions are not safe if not included in the block chain? (And 'buried' under enough blocks?)

I would state it like this: When you make a transaction, and it does not get in the block chain, you can't withdraw it either.

I don't consider it a huge problem, but I can't see that there is any solution possible to that problem.

Misspelling protects against dictionary attacks NOT
Stevie1024
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 13, 2011, 04:27:22 PM
 #62

Your pruning suggestion will not work, because the number of accounts will also grow.

And you don't have to change the block chain format for achieving that anyway.

There you have me! I know of no proper solution for that either unfortunately...

I only worked out (with a simulation, math was too complicated for me) how much more space. I didn't feel like working this out for the current Bitcoin transaction-storing blockchain, didn't feel that that was up to me.

It would surprise me if the block chain format wouldn't have to be changed for it, but must admit I didn't give that too much thought as there's more issues that I'd like it to change for.

I'm out of here!
Stevie1024
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 13, 2011, 04:32:26 PM
 #63

What I am not sure about now: Do you agree that transactions are not safe if not included in the block chain? (And 'buried' under enough blocks?)

I would state it like this: When you make a transaction, and it does not get in the block chain, you can't withdraw it either.

Have to ask: who can't withdraw, payer can't revoke his transaction (or double-spend) or payee can't use the payed money?

I don't consider it a huge problem, but I can't see that there is any solution possible to that problem.

No, I don't think it is a problem either, only a limitation. I wanted to make readers aware of it, as I am proposing a system with running balances stored in the block chain (and with the same limitation).

I'm out of here!
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1016



View Profile
June 13, 2011, 05:01:21 PM
Last edit: June 13, 2011, 08:47:59 PM by kjj
 #64

Section 2, misunderstanding of how the network works, particularly in regards to relays.  Explained earlier.

Section 3.1, a spender looking to send a transaction with a fee big enough for you to care will be well connected.  80+ connections is trivial today.

Section 3.2, some of those limits are hard, and some are soft.  There is nothing to suggest that any other value for the hard limits would be any better than the ones we have.  The soft limits can be (and have been) changed as the network evolved.

Section 3.3, those developers are actively helping other people create alternative implementations of the software.  The developers all understand which limits are hard and which are soft.  What is your excuse for not having researched the matter?  Any hardcoded checkpoint blocks that are not in agreement with the rest of the network will  prevent those implementations from catching on, this applies equally well to new versions of the original client as it does to upcoming alternatives.

Section 3.4, pruning code already exists.  It is not widespread because there is no need for it yet.

Section 3.5, I'm sorry you don't understand the script system.  It isn't a vector for malware infestation, and probably never will be because it only supports a small number of cryptographic and mathematical functions.

Section 3.6, we all knew that unconfirmed transactions were unsafe before you arrived to show us.  Your notion of nodes forgetting transactions, however, is pretty silly.  Even more silly is that they have to forget them in such a way that they remember not to get them again when another node offers.

Section 3.7, I'm sorry you showed up too late to the party.  For what it is worth, I did too; I have around 10 coins to my name.  I also observe that the universe doesn't give a fuck what you consider fair, and neither does anyone else.

The rest of your proposal is harder to dissect because it consists of a series of conjectures with no evidence backing them up.  Here are the highlights.

Sections 4.1 and 4.2, storing balances instead of transactions won't give much space savings.  Addresses are no more limited than transactions, unless you think you have some way to limit each person to one address.

Section 4.3, I LOL'd.  Hint, the hard part is mining, not pushing transactions around.

Section 4.4 is madness.  The chain will reshuffle thousands of times each day.

Section 4.5 why the hell would anyone care how many hashes you did?  Are your hashes valuable in some way?  In bitcoin, there are answers to these questions, and those answers are critical to the functioning of the system.

Section 5, Conclusion.  You don't understand any of the important decisions that went into the design of bitcoin.  Either that or you are a very special kind of troll.

Edit: Oops, section 3.6, changed safe to unsafe

17Np17BSrpnHCZ2pgtiMNnhjnsWJ2TMqq8
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1049


View Profile
June 13, 2011, 05:02:42 PM
 #65

Do you agree that transactions are not safe if not included in the block chain?

*facepalm*

This is stated in satoshi's original paper, and should be patently obvious to anyone.  Block chain confirmations equal transaction security.

Quote from: kjj
Section 5, Conclusion.  You don't understand any of the important decisions that went into the design of bitcoin.  Either that or you are a very special kind of troll.

Pretty much.  The vast majority of this stuff is covered in satoshi's original paper, the wiki or FAQs -- all of which are easily accessible.


Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.
Visit bloq.com / metronome.io
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
bcearl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 101



View Profile
June 13, 2011, 05:44:29 PM
 #66

Your pruning suggestion will not work, because the number of accounts will also grow.

And you don't have to change the block chain format for achieving that anyway.

1. There you have me! I know of no proper solution for that either unfortunately...

2. I only worked out (with a simulation, math was too complicated for me) how much more space. I didn't feel like working this out for the current Bitcoin transaction-storing blockchain, didn't feel that that was up to me.

3. It would surprise me if the block chain format wouldn't have to be changed for it, but must admit I didn't give that too much thought as there's more issues that I'd like it to change for.

1. The solution is that computer ressources will continue growing exponentially. Bitcoin data will do definately, no matter whether you prune some trash. Smiley

3. The client can just download the blockchain and throw it away, keeping account balances and hashes of the last block in a local database.

Misspelling protects against dictionary attacks NOT
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 13, 2011, 05:55:35 PM
 #67

i note that forum.newbitcoin.org is all the way up to eight posts now.

five of which belong to mr. appelbaum.

...and one of which includes this bit of prescience:

Quote
You seem to be right, looks like not many people are ready to anticipate to what's coming. Think their 'investments' might be blurring their view. Or I'm just plain wrong of course...
Stevie1024
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 13, 2011, 08:39:32 PM
 #68

Your pruning suggestion will not work, because the number of accounts will also grow.

And you don't have to change the block chain format for achieving that anyway.

1. There you have me! I know of no proper solution for that either unfortunately...

2. I only worked out (with a simulation, math was too complicated for me) how much more space. I didn't feel like working this out for the current Bitcoin transaction-storing blockchain, didn't feel that that was up to me.

3. It would surprise me if the block chain format wouldn't have to be changed for it, but must admit I didn't give that too much thought as there's more issues that I'd like it to change for.

1. The solution is that computer ressources will continue growing exponentially. Bitcoin data will do definately, no matter whether you prune some trash. Smiley
That might or might not be true. A well defined system should not have to depend on exponentially growing computer power.

3. The client can just download the blockchain and throw it away, keeping account balances and hashes of the last block in a local database.

If a new node comes along, one has to convince this node that account balances are correct. Multiple transactions lead to one account balance (that's why they'd take more storage). If only the account balance is stored, the transaction information cannot be recovered. If a hash of the transactions is stored in the chain, this hash cannot be used to prove account balances. Therefore a hash of account balances should be stored in the chain.



I'm out of here!
Stevie1024
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 12:21:07 AM
 #69

*facepalm*

Section 5, Conclusion.  You don't understand any of the important decisions that went into the design of bitcoin.  Either that or you are a very special kind of troll.

i note that forum.newbitcoin.org is all the way up to eight posts now.

five of which belong to mr. appelbaum.

...and one of which includes this bit of prescience:

Quote
You seem to be right, looks like not many people are ready to anticipate to what's coming. Think their 'investments' might be blurring their view. Or I'm just plain wrong of course...

Where I first intended to ignore any posts containing any off-topics, disdain or worse (#56) of which above quotes are only an example (much more in the 21.000.000 limit thread), I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to waste my time in this way. Therefore I will not continue to post in this thread.

I am definitly willing to continue discussing what has been discussed, as long as it is done in a civilised manner. I can be reached at the forum mentioned in the above quote.

I'm out of here!
Quantumplation
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 14, 2011, 12:26:37 AM
 #70

Where I first intended to ignore any posts containing any off-topics

Everything you've posted is off-topic.  This was about the speculation of one twitter user, not a boasting grounds for you to show of that you know how to use LaTeX.

NOTE: This account was compromised from 2017 to 2021.  I'm in the process of deleting posts not made by me.
Garrett Burgwardt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 251


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 12:35:38 AM
 #71

The new bitcoin paper is filled with inaccuracies, as was stated by Jgarzik earlier.

1. Enforced limits are not optimal

First, how do you know? Second, the only things enforced by the block chain is block creation speed. The rest are completely client side. You would be better off designing a better client with the same protocol.

2. Not truly decentralized

See previous comments. Run whatever version you like, ie, whatever version of the protocol you support. Anyone can fork it should they wish, though most have doubts about the success of any forks without insane action by one of the core dev team here.

3. Unmanageable storage requirements

Client side (again). Pruning is planned out, but not implemented. Headers only mode is being worked on.

4. Unconfirmed transactions are not safe

Saying unconfirmed txs aren't safe is like saying that promissory notes from a stranger on the street aren't safe.

5. Current distribution is unfair

Oh, this again.
torbank
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 217
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 12:38:50 AM
 #72

Twitter user @smarimc claims to have found a protocol level bug that allows the Bitcoin network to be used for a DDoS attack.
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1016



View Profile
June 14, 2011, 06:47:09 AM
 #73

1. Enforced limits are not optimal

First, how do you know? Second, the only things enforced by the block chain is block creation speed. The rest are completely client side. You would be better off designing a better client with the same protocol.

Oddly enough, this is probably correct.  The enforced limits are very likely to be non-optimal.

Also, all other possible values are equally likely to be non-optimal.

17Np17BSrpnHCZ2pgtiMNnhjnsWJ2TMqq8
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1049


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 06:50:22 AM
 #74

Twitter user @smarimc claims to have found a protocol level bug that allows the Bitcoin network to be used for a DDoS attack.

Then he should contact the dev team:  http://www.bitcoin.org/

It is known that there are certain ways to DoS a P2P node, but amplification attacks and DDoS are a different beast.


Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.
Visit bloq.com / metronome.io
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
Montpelerin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 16
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 20, 2011, 08:00:46 PM
 #75

Hmmmmm...
paulie_w
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 07:00:16 AM
 #76

so did anything ever come of this?
flug
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 08:15:20 AM
 #77

I guess the price wouldn't be $16 right now if a major bug had been found. Trouble is, if he ever does find a major bug in the future, no one will believe him.
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008


If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 08:43:16 AM
 #78

I agree.  For one thing it relies on encryption and a public log.  Encryption can be broken and with bitcoins as is, you can't force new encryption standards on old bitcoins.  As for the public log, if someone branches from it or introduces their own log then we loose credibility of the currency.

Bitcoins is a good proof of concept, but I think the concept will be taken over and improved upon by companies who don't respect the same level of anonymity that Bitcoins and Tor promote.


Good luck breaking SHA 256  Wink

bcearl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 101



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 12:19:52 PM
 #79

I agree.  For one thing it relies on encryption and a public log.  Encryption can be broken and with bitcoins as is, you can't force new encryption standards on old bitcoins.  As for the public log, if someone branches from it or introduces their own log then we loose credibility of the currency.

Bitcoins is a good proof of concept, but I think the concept will be taken over and improved upon by companies who don't respect the same level of anonymity that Bitcoins and Tor promote.


Good luck breaking SHA 256  Wink

SHA256 is irrelevant in that context. Good luck breaking ECDSA.

Misspelling protects against dictionary attacks NOT
paulie_w
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 10, 2012, 07:47:29 PM
 #80

sorry to resurrect a dead thread, but did anything ever come of this?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 10, 2012, 07:48:42 PM
 #81

sorry to resurrect a dead thread, but did anything ever come of this?

well what do you think?
paulie_w
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 10, 2012, 07:50:23 PM
 #82

i guess not, but jacob seems to be no fool so i assumed it would at least have been revealed (what he was talking about)
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1010


View Profile
July 10, 2012, 07:51:44 PM
 #83

I hate reading some god damn thread and then have nothing of substance come out of it.  Angry

Piper67
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 10, 2012, 07:55:53 PM
 #84

I hate reading some god damn thread and then have nothing of substance come out of it.  Angry

Really? But, you know, you are on the Bitcoin forums...  Grin
niko
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500


There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins.


View Profile
July 10, 2012, 08:02:43 PM
 #85

I hate reading some god damn thread and then have nothing of substance come out of it.  Angry
Lots of substance comes out of it: bullshitters are discredited. For one reason or another, there are still occasional waves of people or sock-puppets showing up out of nowhere and spreading fact-free, panicky bullshit.

They're there, in their room.
Your mining rig is on fire, yet you're very calm.
RodeoX
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3066
Merit: 1145


The revolution will be monetized!


View Profile
July 10, 2012, 08:05:26 PM
 #86

How many times have i read threads like this?  Roll Eyes

A newb shows up, reads for 15min. and decides "bitcoin can't work! I should tell everybody!"

The gospel according to Satoshi - https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Free bitcoin in ? - Stay tuned for this years Bitcoin hunt!
opticbit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 695
Merit: 502


PGP: 6EBEBCE1E0507C38


View Profile WWW
July 10, 2012, 08:07:53 PM
 #87

I didn't want to say anything because it conflicts with what i'm about to say...
quit bumping an old thread

i didn't realize this was a year old till i saw the $10 - $15 price comment

Bitrated user: opticbit.
https://www.bitrated.com/opticbit
rjk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250


1ngldh


View Profile
July 10, 2012, 08:12:44 PM
 #88

I hate reading some god damn thread and then have nothing of substance come out of it.  Angry
i didn't realize this was a year old till i saw the $10 - $15 price comment
All you guys need to learn how to use this button, it's there for a reason:



It keeps you from having to re-read entire threads that you may have already read.

Mining Rig Extraordinaire - the Trenton BPX6806 18-slot PCIe backplane [PICS] Dead project is dead, all hail the coming of the mighty ASIC!
opticbit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 695
Merit: 502


PGP: 6EBEBCE1E0507C38


View Profile WWW
July 10, 2012, 09:19:04 PM
 #89

i didn't read this thread a year ago.

yes i could have read the date, but i usually scan the headline, and body before looking for little deatails like the year.

I starty my day off here...

Bitrated user: opticbit.
https://www.bitrated.com/opticbit
Ente
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2126
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 11, 2012, 10:42:44 AM
 #90


I guess the price wouldn't be $16 right now if a major bug had been found. Trouble is, if he ever does find a major bug in the future, no one will believe him.

sorry to resurrect a dead thread, but did anything ever come of this?

I didn't want to say anything because it conflicts with what i'm about to say...
quit bumping an old thread

i didn't realize this was a year old till i saw the $10 - $15 price comment

So much this!

Ente
newsilike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 262


This account was hacked. just recently got it back


View Profile
December 20, 2013, 08:44:16 PM
 #91

March 2013, fork in the blockchain. His prediction was right.

I'm curious what his position would be now.

What bugs could occur in the bitcoin protocol?

Could there be a major flaw?
Piper67
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1001



View Profile
December 20, 2013, 09:25:10 PM
 #92

March 2013, fork in the blockchain. His prediction was right.

I'm curious what his position would be now.

What bugs could occur in the bitcoin protocol?

Could there be a major flaw?


The March fork was an issue for around 5 hours... pretty much a non-event, and was handled beautifully by the main devs.

Prior to that, the only other significant bug was back in 2010.

Appelbaum has zero cred when it comes to Bitcoin.
Barek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 20, 2013, 09:31:24 PM
 #93

Thread necro much?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!