Jacob Appelbaum: "Bitcoin Prediction: Major bugs in the near future ..."

[jgarzik]

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

This is already possible.

- 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?

- 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.

Same with the version number misery...

No idea what you're talking about here.

[1714149552]

1714149552

[1714149552]

1714149552

[jhansen858]

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"

[Stevie1024]

- 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.

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

[amincd]

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

[istar]

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.

[herzmeister]

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.

[Meman]

Jacob Appelbaum is a freak. I don't give a cent to his predictions.

[Gavin Andresen]

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.

[barbarousrelic]

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.

[bitbitcoincoin]

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]

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....

[FairUser]

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]

never mind my trade just went through...

[Quantumplation]

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.

[kjj]

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.

[Stevie1024]

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.

[kjj]

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.

[bcearl]

@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.

[bcearl]

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.

[Stevie1024]

@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?)