Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 03:37:22 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Jacob Appelbaum: "Bitcoin Prediction: Major bugs in the near future ..."  (Read 13876 times)
mcdett
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157



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.
1481297842
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481297842

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481297842
Reply with quote  #2

1481297842
Report to moderator
1481297842
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481297842

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481297842
Reply with quote  #2

1481297842
Report to moderator
1481297842
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481297842

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481297842
Reply with quote  #2

1481297842
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481297842
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481297842

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481297842
Reply with quote  #2

1481297842
Report to moderator
qarl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8



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: 1288


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



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: 70


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

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

Activity: 70


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


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: 70


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



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


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: 77


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: 70


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


View Profile
June 11, 2011, 06:57:21 PM
 #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: 70


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: 1442



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'.

18sNtvUmtW6nrQXfYt1wvviGockSWxhPBX
AntiVigilante
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



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


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


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


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



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
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!