Quote from: Lucius on Today at 02:05:28 PM

Quote from: NotATether on February 20, 2021, 05:13:58 PM

The only real risk I see is since the global hashrate is now mostly centralized in a handful of companies' hands, one of them is going to use their hashpower to agree with some idiot regulation that censors part of the protocol for some people. I swear there was this one miner who already supported such a regulation, it was a US bill to audit bitcoin addresses made in the US and they controlled like 7% of the global hashrate, it was fairly recent too, like 1-3 years ago but I forgot their name (if anyone can find it, I will give one merit).

Personally, I don't remember anything like that happening in the US a few years ago - but what recently appeared in the media is definitely on that trail - and these are crypto miners who should work according to some pre-determined rules - which would mean that they will mine only those transactions that will be clean.

~

Yeah, absolutely Orwellian mining rules they have there. I now also remember that some weird blockchain company called DMG recently launched a mining pool where they classify all addresses and comply with OFAC ie blacklist addresses coming from Iran, Syria, Sudan etc etc. Notwithstanding that sending your money through a mixer easily evades all that.

But they also enforce full KYC verification on all their pool users so talk about shooting yourself in the user adoption foot Roll Eyes

Marathon was trying to shoehorn some other weird crap into the consensus like requiring KYC for all transactions with a USD value of >$3000. In fact they made a shell organization with DMG to "only process transactions that comply with American laws" (to use the vice article's words) and this was exactly what I was trying to remember.

And then there's this gem (same article):

Quote

“We can tell regulators our mining pools are not doing business with child traffickers, terrorists, or miners in Iran,” Okamoto said. “We’ll lose about 0.35% of our potential business. We think that’s a small price to pay for being able to say we are the good guys, according to the U.S. Treasury... if I point my business toward Chinese pools, they might be doing business with those bad actors.”

LOL assuming that most people in sanctioned countries are criminals, so these service providers are trying to pull bitcoin into US-China foreign relations blame game. My sats are betting that they're going to fall flat on their face once they realize that classifying countries of wallets based on exchange login IP address is too fuzzy (and doesn't work against real full nodes like Bitcoin a Core, or SPVs like Electrum - yet more reasons to be your own bank).

Quote from: Pythagoras33 on Today at 10:00:40 PM

The private key is becoming less and less private...

https://billatnapier.medium.com/ecdsa-revealing-the-private-key-from-four-signed-message-two-keys-and-shared-nonces-secp256k1-5758f1258b1d

No, that is a completely insecure way to construct signatures in the first place. I keep saying this over and over, you should never reuse the nonce for different signatures. Heck, even some android wallet users lost money in 2013 or so because their wallet software reused nonces in signatures.