warpio
Member
 Offline
Activity: 110
Merit: 10
|
 |
November 26, 2013, 04:59:43 PM |
|
Selfish mining doesn't break bitcoin at all. All this does is speed up the confirmation time, and increase the fees required to get your transaction in a block. In any case, bitcoin was meant from the beginning for miners to be incentivized, so of course the most profitable mining strategy will win out. It does not need "honest miners" who only mine for the good of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin addresses contain a checksum, so it is very unlikely that mistyping an address will cause you to lose money.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1010
In Satoshi I Trust
|
 |
November 26, 2013, 05:02:45 PM |
|
no worries , troll or not , i believe bitcoin community will mend this flaw
if this will be a problem, they will solve it. trolls are welcome  |
|
|
|
|
BittBurger
|
|
November 26, 2013, 05:55:47 PM |
|
The article is a bunch of nonsense. Support the ignore button of OP.
Explain why it is nonsense Explain why your ignore button is in color. LOL!!! Hey it actually is. His ignore button is highlighted. What does that mean? |
|
|
|
LiquidBit
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 3
Merit: 0
|
|
November 26, 2013, 06:10:47 PM |
|
http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/25/block-propagation-speeds/Oh dear. Not only has it now be demonstrated that selfish mining is a feasible attack, but the rewards available are much greater than previously assumed. Still, not to worry, I'm sure the exchanges will keep pumping out false price data to keep the bubble going a bit longer before it is popped. Nobody reply to this guy. He's an established Troll. Hmmmm. This gives me an idea.... Trollcoin! |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
|
November 26, 2013, 06:35:05 PM |
|
The article is a bunch of nonsense. Support the ignore button of OP.
Put you back on ignore. |
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
November 26, 2013, 06:38:15 PM |
|
The article is a bunch of nonsense. Support the ignore button of OP.
Explain why it is nonsense Explain why your ignore button is in color. LOL!!! Hey it actually is. His ignore button is highlighted. What does that mean? It means that a number of forum members have put him on their personal ignore list. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
revans (OP)
|
|
November 26, 2013, 07:25:05 PM |
|
The article is a bunch of nonsense. Support the ignore button of OP.
Explain why it is nonsense Explain why your ignore button is in color. Because Bitcoin cultists ignore people who disagree with them |
|
|
|
|
600watt
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2338
Merit: 2106
|
|
November 26, 2013, 08:49:51 PM |
|
bitcoin is software.
bugs can be fixed. i think we are beyond the point where even a major flaw would make it disappear. since there is so much money in the game, it will get handled ith care and common interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
revans (OP)
|
|
November 26, 2013, 09:58:33 PM |
|
bitcoin is software.
bugs can be fixed. i think we are beyond the point where even a major flaw would make it disappear. since there is so much money in the game, it will get handled ith care and common interest.
No, Bitcoin isn't software. Bitcoin is belief in the integrity of the block chain. Bitcoin survived a breach of that integrity early on in its development, but I doubt it would survive one now. |
|
|
|
|
EntropyExtropy
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 45
Merit: 0
|
|
November 26, 2013, 10:09:46 PM |
|
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. I have the utmost faith in virtual currencies as a technology and Bitcoin as the best example of that technology, but why is it that any attack on Bitcoin is 'trolling'; technologies survive by mending their flaws. The fact that this level of theorization is going on around the protocol means it's getting somewhere.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
|
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
November 26, 2013, 10:13:23 PM |
|
bitcoin is software.
bugs can be fixed. i think we are beyond the point where even a major flaw would make it disappear. since there is so much money in the game, it will get handled ith care and common interest.
No, Bitcoin isn't software. Bitcoin is belief in the integrity of the block chain. Bitcoin survived a breach of that integrity early on in its development, but I doubt it would survive one now. That wasn't much of a breach, it was more like a bug. There wasn't any way that anyone could still funds, fake a bitcoin balance, or some such. There was a bug that permitted a fairly effective DDOS attack on the network, thereby preventing transactions from processing. The integrity of the blockchain, nor it's security model, was ever in peril. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
November 26, 2013, 10:14:16 PM |
|
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. I have the utmost faith in virtual currencies as a technology and Bitcoin as the best example of that technology, but why is it that any attack on Bitcoin is 'trolling'; technologies survive by mending their flaws. The fact that this level of theorization is going on around the protocol means it's getting somewhere.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
Mostly we just get tired of repeatedly refuting the same crap. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
November 26, 2013, 10:15:55 PM |
|
Put you back on ignore.
Your button is also in color.  |
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion) |
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
November 26, 2013, 10:21:18 PM |
|
Put you back on ignore.
Your button is also in color. What color is mine? |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
revans (OP)
|
|
November 26, 2013, 10:22:59 PM |
|
bitcoin is software.
bugs can be fixed. i think we are beyond the point where even a major flaw would make it disappear. since there is so much money in the game, it will get handled ith care and common interest.
No, Bitcoin isn't software. Bitcoin is belief in the integrity of the block chain. Bitcoin survived a breach of that integrity early on in its development, but I doubt it would survive one now. That wasn't much of a breach, it was more like a bug. There wasn't any way that anyone could still funds, fake a bitcoin balance, or some such. There was a bug that permitted a fairly effective DDOS attack on the network, thereby preventing transactions from processing. The integrity of the blockchain, nor it's security model, was ever in peril. I was referring to a client bug which allowed someone to credit themselves a few billion Bitcoins. There was another big which was discovered before it got exploited which would have allowed users to spend the balance of any other user. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
November 26, 2013, 10:47:30 PM |
|
bitcoin is software.
bugs can be fixed. i think we are beyond the point where even a major flaw would make it disappear. since there is so much money in the game, it will get handled ith care and common interest.
No, Bitcoin isn't software. Bitcoin is belief in the integrity of the block chain. Bitcoin survived a breach of that integrity early on in its development, but I doubt it would survive one now. That wasn't much of a breach, it was more like a bug. There wasn't any way that anyone could still funds, fake a bitcoin balance, or some such. There was a bug that permitted a fairly effective DDOS attack on the network, thereby preventing transactions from processing. The integrity of the blockchain, nor it's security model, was ever in peril. I was referring to a client bug which allowed someone to credit themselves a few billion Bitcoins. There was another big which was discovered before it got exploited which would have allowed users to spend the balance of any other user. You're going to have to prove those events happened, because as far as I know, that is still impossible. There was a bug that permitted someone to create a custom transaction to credit themselves a negative balance, but why would anyone do that? |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
revans (OP)
|
|
November 26, 2013, 10:51:32 PM |
|
bitcoin is software.
bugs can be fixed. i think we are beyond the point where even a major flaw would make it disappear. since there is so much money in the game, it will get handled ith care and common interest.
No, Bitcoin isn't software. Bitcoin is belief in the integrity of the block chain. Bitcoin survived a breach of that integrity early on in its development, but I doubt it would survive one now. That wasn't much of a breach, it was more like a bug. There wasn't any way that anyone could still funds, fake a bitcoin balance, or some such. There was a bug that permitted a fairly effective DDOS attack on the network, thereby preventing transactions from processing. The integrity of the blockchain, nor it's security model, was ever in peril. I was referring to a client bug which allowed someone to credit themselves a few billion Bitcoins. There was another big which was discovered before it got exploited which would have allowed users to spend the balance of any other user. You're going to have to prove those events happened, because as far as I know, that is still impossible. There was a bug that permitted someone to create a custom transaction to credit themselves a negative balance, but why would anyone do that? It's amongst this list *edit* I realise you're a lazy douchebag so I'll actually paste the description here "On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created over 184 billion bitcoins for two different addresses. This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed. A new version was published within a few hours of the discovery. The block chain had to be forked. Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691. The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain." and the other I mentioned "On July 28 2010, two bugs were discovered and demonstrated on the test network. One exploited a bug in the transaction handling code and allowed an attacker to spend coins that they did not own. This was never exploited on the main network, and was fixed by Bitcoin version 0.3.5. After these bugs were discovered, many currently-unused script words were disabled for safety." If either of those happened again it could easily wipe Bitcoin out. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
November 26, 2013, 11:01:16 PM |
|
I was referring to a client bug which allowed someone to credit themselves a few billion Bitcoins. There was another big which was discovered before it got exploited which would have allowed users to spend the balance of any other user.
You're going to have to prove those events happened, because as far as I know, that is still impossible. There was a bug that permitted someone to create a custom transaction to credit themselves a negative balance, but why would anyone do that? There was a Namecoin bug which allowed anyone to spend anyone else's namecoins. Basically, the code didn't check to see whether the signature was valid. It was exploited, and the fix was to allow those transactions in the blockchain but ignore them, and then after a certain block number there is a hard fork. So, something similar to that is possible, but it's also possible to effectively reverse. It is not fair to accuse Bitcoin of being insecure because of faults found in alt-coins. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
November 26, 2013, 11:04:03 PM |
|
bitcoin is software.
bugs can be fixed. i think we are beyond the point where even a major flaw would make it disappear. since there is so much money in the game, it will get handled ith care and common interest.
No, Bitcoin isn't software. Bitcoin is belief in the integrity of the block chain. Bitcoin survived a breach of that integrity early on in its development, but I doubt it would survive one now. That wasn't much of a breach, it was more like a bug. There wasn't any way that anyone could still funds, fake a bitcoin balance, or some such. There was a bug that permitted a fairly effective DDOS attack on the network, thereby preventing transactions from processing. The integrity of the blockchain, nor it's security model, was ever in peril. I was referring to a client bug which allowed someone to credit themselves a few billion Bitcoins. There was another big which was discovered before it got exploited which would have allowed users to spend the balance of any other user. You're going to have to prove those events happened, because as far as I know, that is still impossible. There was a bug that permitted someone to create a custom transaction to credit themselves a negative balance, but why would anyone do that? It's amongst this list *edit* I realise you're a lazy douchebag so I'll actually paste the description here "On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created over 184 billion bitcoins for two different addresses. This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed. A new version was published within a few hours of the discovery. The block chain had to be forked. Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691. The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain." and the other I mentioned "On July 28 2010, two bugs were discovered and demonstrated on the test network. One exploited a bug in the transaction handling code and allowed an attacker to spend coins that they did not own. This was never exploited on the main network, and was fixed by Bitcoin version 0.3.5. After these bugs were discovered, many currently-unused script words were disabled for safety." If either of those happened again it could easily wipe Bitcoin out. Well, I stand corrected. And yes, if either of those could ever happened again, it could wipe bitcoin out. I'll give you that. What are the odds that either of these expoits could be used agian, do you think? |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
halfawake
|
|
November 26, 2013, 11:06:43 PM |
|
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. I have the utmost faith in virtual currencies as a technology and Bitcoin as the best example of that technology, but why is it that any attack on Bitcoin is 'trolling'; technologies survive by mending their flaws. The fact that this level of theorization is going on around the protocol means it's getting somewhere.
It's an interesting article and brings up an important question to consider; whether it's implementable in practice is another question. I'll definitely respect a Cornell professor to know what he's talking about. The arrogant dismissiveness on these forums is stunning.
Agreed. It's rather shocking that such comments are dismissed outright. Have you all even looked at the credentials of the person who wrote the article linked to by revan? It's a professor who works at Cornell. Not quite some no name guy with no credentials just randomly making comments about Bitcoin. |
BTC: 13kJEpqhkW5MnQhWLvum7N5v8LbTAhzeWj
|
|
|
|
