Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 12:55:41 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 13880 times)
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


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, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
1481374541
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481374541

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481374541
Reply with quote  #2

1481374541
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481374541
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481374541

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481374541
Reply with quote  #2

1481374541
Report to moderator
jhansen858
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


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


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


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: 524


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



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


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


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


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
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112



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: 336


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: 261


View Profile WWW
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: 336


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

never mind my trade just went through...

Hi forum: 1DDpiEt36VTJsiJunyBc3XtG6CcSAnsQ4p
Quantumplation
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


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.

Against my better judgement... 1ADjszXMSRuAUjyy3ShFRy54SyRVrNDgDc
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



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.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
Stevie1024
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


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



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.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
bcearl
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168



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



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


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!
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!