Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[shmadz]

... Brevity is the soul of wit.

Not plagiarism?  Good Artists Copy; Great Artists Steal? --BrainyQuote.com
(Who, consequently, was never called an asshole.
Not like you) --Brainyqote.com

Fixed - thanks.

[Cconvert2G36]

-snip-
Juking the numbers gives us a false representation of how decentralized are the nodes we have, plus the fact that not having an economic agent on the other side of each of those nodes doesn't give developers crucial feedback to any potential bugs that are experienced to be reported... ect...

I was going to leave these be... but as you'll probably complain...

This is just what you "wish was true". Fact is, a state actor with with the budget of a thursday office party could spin up a huge amount of malicious nodes... does that mean we're doomed?

[BitUsher]

Some Bitcoiners actually prefer radical transparency to paranoid defensiveness. Think about it.

Those aren't mutually exclusive... in fact , transparency is one thing I'm advocating to deflect these types of attacks.

I'd be interested to hear more about this when you have some time.

One must first understand the techniques:

https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

The ways to combat it mainly are trying to be as open and transparent as possible to prevent rumors and conspiracy theories. Try and be as clear and objective as possible to try and avoid the spread of misinformation. Try and avoid assuming bad faith among peers to avoid excessive paranoia from creating fear and distrust with a group(this can be difficult to do as there are individuals one may need to ignore and one needs to reasonably review the evidence), ignoring very unproductive and wasteful individuals who constantly troll or try and turn the conversation off-topic, and try and discuss the facts as much as possible without getting bogged down in spiteful attacks or personal attacks.

[BitUsher]

This is just what you "wish was true". Fact is, a state actor with with the budget of a thursday office party could spin up a huge amount of malicious nodes... does that mean we're doomed?

So... new nodes get bad data from a malicious NMN, they accept it?

New nodes bootstrap ~randomly from multiple peers, therefore it is important for us to maximize honest and decentralized nodes (1 unique node per economic agent) as much as possible to reduce the probability of this attack vector. If there are enough dishonest full nodes and a new node bootstraps to an alternate history than that could be a problem.

SPV nodes also just accept data from any random (possibly malicious) node on the network?

It more complicated than this because different SPV wallets handle security differently. SPV wallets do not accept nodes randomly, but an SPV wallet can be convinced or tricked into trusting the wrong full node or the attacker can compromise the full node the SPV wallet depends upon... but it is more complicated than this as I said ... we really need to start discussing the individual wallets themselves to proceed further in the discussion.  

[billyjoeallen]

nice, but its the blocks that matter and there we only see 1 block so far. pretty disappointing if you ask me.

Antpool hasn't switched yet. They're expecting to do so soon.

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/694080283407069184

What do you think would happen in a BJA Commiepocalypse situation?

Most Bitcoin companies in China are as committed and decent as any bitcoiner (cue lambie), but I'm not comfortable with having to trust a socialist dictatorship to not interfere. They don't have to nationalize anything. That's what you do in a country when you are used to having to justify your actions. The chinese government will only have to make a few phone calls. I don't see why they would do such a thing, but again, I don't like having to trust them.

I agree with that. The problem is that they could shut us down or pressure the miners to adopt some "features" that benefit the Sate.  I don't know what those features may be, or even if they would bother us at all, but the fact that they can do it is contrary to the design and principles of Bitcoin.

you see if they have to add some "features" that the chinese gov wants its pretty easy and completely different from our problems at the moment. we would simply fork away. the reason we have so much discussion at the moment is just because both sides have arguments on their side, but in such a situation we would fork in 24h and thats it.

You don't understand how it works. It's an open protocol. You can't stop them from just pointing at the new fork.  You would have to fork away from SHA256, and that would mean mining from ground zero. A complete reboot. The end of Bitcoin alpha. 

We can't just fork away.  Why is this so hard to grasp? 

[bargainbin]

...
One must first understand the techniques:

https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

>Try and avoid assuming bad faith among peers to avoid excessive paranoia
>The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies - Cryptome

We are strong, no one can tell us we're wrong
Searchin' our hearts for so long
Both of us knowing...
Love is a battlefield

[Cconvert2G36]

This is just what you "wish was true". Fact is, a state actor with with the budget of a thursday office party could spin up a huge amount of malicious nodes... does that mean we're doomed?

So... new nodes get bad data from a malicious NMN, they accept it?

New nodes bootstrap ~randomly from multiple peers, therefore it is important for us to maximize honest and decentralized nodes (1 unique node per economic agent) as much as possible to reduce the probability of this attack vector.

They drop/ban the peer after getting bad data... the horror. Er, wait, no... just working as designed. Next.

SPV nodes also just accept data from any random (possibly malicious) node on the network?

It more complicated than this because different SPV wallets handle security differently. SPV wallets do not accept nodes randomly, but an SPV wallet can be convinced or tricked into trusting the wrong full node or the an attacker can compromise the full node the SPV wallet depends upon... but it is more complicated than this as I said ... we really need to start discussing the individual wallets themselves to proceed further in the discussion.   

Now we've meandered off into the security profiles of third party SPV wallets, the responsibility of their respective developers and users... not relevant to Bitcoin network security, the original focus of this discussion.

NMN are important for the security of their users, not the network.

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent letter to santa principle.

[bargainbin]

...
NMN are important for the security of their users, not the network.

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent letter to santa principle.

Security based on encouraging people to do the right thing. What can possibly go wrong?
(If you riddle out "economic agent" & "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), drop me a line.)

[BitUsher]

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent letter to santa principle.

Yes , Todd, Back , and others like myself criticized them for spinning up 100 bitcoin core nodes. I already cited this... It doesn't matter who is doing it , it isn't a good idea and reflects a deep misunderstanding why we need individual humans on the other end of full nodes in a decentralized manner. Please don't take my word for it, ask someone you trust like Gavin if its a good idea for one person to spin up 100s of full nodes or not.

[shmadz]

...
NMN are important for the security of their users, not the network.

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent letter to santa principle.

Security based on encouraging people to do the right thing. What can possibly go wrong?
(If you riddle out "economic agent" & "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), drop me a line.)

Yeah, the Byzantine problem is provably unsolvable.

The incentive-based solution of bitcoin has only been proven to work for the last 6 years.

Take a look at the incentives in the current system of money issuance and tell me there's no problem.

[Cconvert2G36]

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent letter to santa principle.

Yes , Todd, Back , and others like myself criticized them for spinning up 100 bitcoin core nodes. I already cited this... It doesn't matter who is doing it , it isn't a good idea and reflects a deep misunderstanding why we need individual humans on the other end of full nodes in a decentralized manner. Please don't take my word for it, ask someone you trust like Gavin if its a good idea for one person to spin up 100s of full nodes or not.

I never said it was a "good" or "bad" idea, just largely irrelevant to network security, which works via PoW. Good thing, that.

[BitUsher]

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent letter to santa principle.

Yes , Todd, Back , and others like myself criticized them for spinning up 100 bitcoin core nodes. I already cited this... It doesn't matter who is doing it , it isn't a good idea and reflects a deep misunderstanding why we need individual humans on the other end of full nodes in a decentralized manner. Please don't take my word for it, ask someone you trust like Gavin if its a good idea for one person to spin up 100s of full nodes or not.

I never said it was a "good" or "bad" idea, just largely irrelevant to network security, which works via PoW. Good thing, that.

Users are part of the network. Many of these attacks are coordinated. Thus a compromised or malicious mining node coordinating with a pool of NMN could attack a user, or a malicious pool of NMN could coordinate a 0 conf attack, ect....There are many edge cases and fringe attacks that you aren't considering at all.... in network security you need to prepare for the edge cases (even if they are unlikely ) because an attacker will use an assortment of them or a specific one that is tailored to an attack during a vulnerable moment.

Additionally, you are ignoring the critical role a human plays in using the wallet, whether they know it or not they are playing the role or a "debugger" or "tester" to report problems to a developer. If you spin up 100 nodes that simultaneously gives a false sense of security and less people testing the software.


P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

[bargainbin]

...
NMN are important for the security of their users, not the network.

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent letter to santa principle.

Security based on encouraging people to do the right thing. What can possibly go wrong?
(If you riddle out "economic agent" & "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), drop me a line.)

Yeah, the Byzantine problem is provably unsolvable.

The incentive-based solution of bitcoin has only been proven to work for the last 6 years.

Take a look at the incentives in the current system of money issuance and tell me there's no problem.

Honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.
What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet).

Not sure how real money plays into this. Explain please.

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[shmadz]

Not sure how real money plays into this. Explain please.

Sorry brah, BitUsher said it best...

P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

Btw, "real money" hasn't been real since the '70's

[bargainbin]

...
P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

@shmadz: Can you answer my non-mining node questions?

... What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet). ,,,

... or just looking for a chance to trot out your gold standard hobby horse?

[shmadz]

...
P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

[Cconvert2G36]

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent letter to santa principle.

Yes , Todd, Back , and others like myself criticized them for spinning up 100 bitcoin core nodes. I already cited this... It doesn't matter who is doing it , it isn't a good idea and reflects a deep misunderstanding why we need individual humans on the other end of full nodes in a decentralized manner. Please don't take my word for it, ask someone you trust like Gavin if its a good idea for one person to spin up 100s of full nodes or not.

I never said it was a "good" or "bad" idea, just largely irrelevant to network security, which works via PoW. Good thing, that.

Users are part of the network. Many of these attacks are coordinated. Thus a compromised or malicious mining node coordinating with a pool of NMN could attack a user, or a malicious pool of NMN could coordinate a 0 conf attack, ect....There are many edge cases and fringe attacks that you aren't considering at all.... in network security you need to prepare for the edge cases (even if they are unlikely ) because an attacker will use an assortment of them or a specific one that is tailored to an attack during a vulnerable moment.

Additionally, you are ignoring the critical role a human plays in using the wallet, whether they know it or not they are playing the role or a "debugger" or "tester" to report problems to a developer. If you spin up 100 nodes that simultaneously gives a false sense of security and less people testing the software.
-snip-

We aren't talking about malicious mining nodes (much more dangerous, even all by themselves, somewhat safe tho because incentives), we are talking about malicious NMN. The careful reader will see you have, as yet, not presented the relevant security hole. 0 conf is already understood to be insecure, and is about to be officially and fully deprecated. You do understand that a full node verifies signatures? It will not accept false blocks, even from all 8 connected peers. So the worst case scenario is that it has to drop/ban several malicious peers before it finds a good one.

If malicious NMN can break the system... it's only a (short) matter of time until it's broken. Therefore... it's a very good thing they can only be an annoyance, and not an actual threat to network security.  

Of course I think it is a huge asset to have the ledger widely replicated, and administered by a diverse and global group of individuals... but I fear the comparative importance of NMN to the security of the network is being somewhat overstated in this debate.

[bargainbin]

...
P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

Yes, will repeat:

... What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet). ...

Also please explain the meaning of "economic agent." Is that a person? A sum of money? A person with a sum of money?
A person running a wallet (non-mining node)? A legal entity? Can both my business and myself be economic agents?
And "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), explain that shit.

[marcus_of_augustus]

...
P.S...  Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

Better still once he has done this they can search out the answer and add it to one of the many community FAQ or bitcoin wikis that are out there to help others and put a stop to the constant stream of misunderstanding.

Quietly working away to improve the lot of everybody and find out if there really are problems that need fixing and recording them selflessly for others to improve their knowledge or loudly asking non-questions repeatedly intending to distract and misinform, you choose.