Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 304 results by h4xx0r
Sam Patterson answered how this escrow reputation system will work here: https://libertyme.adobeconnect.com/p3r3kbbd7oe/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal
Basically they are still trying to figure it out. They want to introduce a pool of arbitrators that will vote to attribute an arbitrator for each case to make it harder for someone to scam and become it's own arbitrator.
This is not very reassuring, nor would it want me to be comfortable trusting my hard-earned money at the marketplace.Basically they are still trying to figure it out. They want to introduce a pool of arbitrators that will vote to attribute an arbitrator for each case to make it harder for someone to scam and become it's own arbitrator.
If an arbitrator must be "voted in" by existing arbitrators then someone could potentially buy up a lot of arbitrator accounts to create additional arbitrator accounts which would further the attacker's ability to scam.
Seems pretty far stretched IMO. Keep in mind there will be a reputation system for arbitrator. Buying a lot of good reputation to make scams wouldn't last very long before any body figure it out and all reputations of these account will be affected. That would be a very costly and risky scam operation.
It would still require the scammer to highjack the whole voting pool. How many accounts would need a scammer to vote himself as arbitrator every single time? At what cost? It still seems far stretched to me. If the arbitrators that vote are chosen through a random process among the best reputations, that would make almost impossible such attacks.
This is a very similar vulnerability that PoS altcoins have
You still need to put a lot of money upfront taking the risk that you'll be able to sell all of them at the same rate.
Again. It is pretty far stretch to assume someone will buy enough account to be able to highjack the whole pool.
Excellent spelling there Einstein. you take the weight right out of your argument with poor spelling.
That's great and all
I think I would have respected them more if they had just vanished.
But to wait this long before making any kind of contact is just unbelievable.
Even if they lost access to their forum account I'm sure there's some way they could have got the word out. Make a new forum account. Chat on any of the other sites where they know people. Anything but just sitting silent this long leaving everyone to sweat.
My guess is they got cold feet, perhaps someone got an accurate dox on them and they wanted to paint themselves as victims and return a small % of the coins rather than exit the community as confirmed thieves. Otherwise I don't see why it would take them this long to reach out.
of course. hackers dont' stick around to delete all your forum/social media accounts. they steal your coins and be gone. this whole thing smells of bullshit to me.
Re: F.R.O.N.T. Attack Vector and What the Bitcoin Devs are doing to prevent it.
Interesting attack indeed but h4xx0r who did you quote with the idea of giving to the next miner a share of your coinbase tx? It's trivial to give to the next miner outside the coinbase transaction by sending the reward as a transaction using one of the current inputs. Sure, then you have to scrape the bitcoins from elsewhere.
To recap the attack in laymen's terms:
If somebody paid 10,000BTC in transaction fees, miners would not care about block rewards for the next 10,000/25=400 blocks. Any miner that thinks it could outrun the biggest other miner would try to do so. If there is a draw between the top miners, such a battle could take a long time. If the top miners hold 10% of the mining power, they might try even when the other had a head start and was slowly building a chain that's growing faster than the own chain as they could still call their friends of other pools to team up catch that guy, essentially to the point where all miners took one side or the other and the weaker group gives up.
Also the attack does only work if the biggest selfish miner is bigger than the total of his run-up competitor with all non-selfish miners, so it assumes a pretty corrupt mining landscape.
The attack's effects:
During such an episode, massive re-orgs would happen, clients would act strangely, Finney attacks would be slightly easier etc. and we would have a slightly higher level of drama. And we will never know who sponsored that drama
but it would not be a cheap endeavor.
In additional to Danny's point above, you also have the issue that someone would need to incur the financial burden to pay these TX fees in the first place. There would be little economic benefit for someone to offer such a large TX fee, especially considering that the benefactor of such attack is unclear (therefore anyone attempting to profit off of an attack may or may not actually benefit in the event such attack is successful in slowing down the network). To recap the attack in laymen's terms:
If somebody paid 10,000BTC in transaction fees, miners would not care about block rewards for the next 10,000/25=400 blocks. Any miner that thinks it could outrun the biggest other miner would try to do so. If there is a draw between the top miners, such a battle could take a long time. If the top miners hold 10% of the mining power, they might try even when the other had a head start and was slowly building a chain that's growing faster than the own chain as they could still call their friends of other pools to team up catch that guy, essentially to the point where all miners took one side or the other and the weaker group gives up.
Also the attack does only work if the biggest selfish miner is bigger than the total of his run-up competitor with all non-selfish miners, so it assumes a pretty corrupt mining landscape.
The attack's effects:
During such an episode, massive re-orgs would happen, clients would act strangely, Finney attacks would be slightly easier etc. and we would have a slightly higher level of drama. And we will never know who sponsored that drama
but it would not be a cheap endeavor.IMO this attack vector would be something that is very easy to fix - simply fork the blockchain to institute a maximum TX fee on a per block and per TX basis, the max TX fee on a block basis could be a rolling average (plus some additional margin) of the last 'n' blocks and the max TX fee on a TX basis could be "x" times the min recommended TX fee, and if a TX would warrant larger then the max TX fee then the TX can be split up into smaller TXs.
Well, so what you're saying is. the attack is possible, but its like getting struck by lighting or the stars aligning? we all know those things have never happened, so therefore we should do nothing about this attack. Shall bitcoin endure stupidity, at the hands of incapable curators? If so, then whoa is bitcoin.
Again, that is not adequate justification for allowing the vulnerability to exist. you find a vulnerability, you patch it and you move on
In theory someone could get really lucky and guess the private key of all of the addresses that contain bitcoin, however the chances of this happening are very small. Do you think we should patch the possibility of people being able to "guess" someone's private key?no, because elliptic curve cryptography won't likely be broken in my lifetime, and further more the strength of the checksum in bitcoin makes bruteforcing very difficult. On the otherhand, the block subsidy will decay to a point to where the scenario laid out in this discussion becomes a serious possibility and reason for concern, although it would take a "perfect storm" to exploit it. I would rather it not be possible at all then relying on the perfect storm never occurring.
Re: VIDEO: Canadian Senate Commitees: Study on the use of digital currency
Not Andreas' best interview. He appeared very shrewd and dismissive, almost like he was averse to all forms of Goverment, but his technical analysis was on point and i think the committee noticed both what he said and what he didn't say. The canadian goverment will introduce regulation in the aspect of bitcoin to fiat trading, but bitcoin transactions will likely remain free of traditional regulatory control.
Re: F.R.O.N.T. Attack Vector and What the Bitcoin Devs are doing to prevent it.
Interesting attack indeed but h4xx0r who did you quote with the idea of giving to the next miner a share of your coinbase tx? It's trivial to give to the next miner outside the coinbase transaction by sending the reward as a transaction using one of the current inputs. Sure, then you have to scrape the bitcoins from elsewhere.
To recap the attack in laymen's terms:
If somebody paid 10,000BTC in transaction fees, miners would not care about block rewards for the next 10,000/25=400 blocks. Any miner that thinks it could outrun the biggest other miner would try to do so. If there is a draw between the top miners, such a battle could take a long time. If the top miners hold 10% of the mining power, they might try even when the other had a head start and was slowly building a chain that's growing faster than the own chain as they could still call their friends of other pools to team up catch that guy, essentially to the point where all miners took one side or the other and the weaker group gives up.
Also the attack does only work if the biggest selfish miner is bigger than the total of his run-up competitor with all non-selfish miners, so it assumes a pretty corrupt mining landscape.
The attack's effects:
During such an episode, massive re-orgs would happen, clients would act strangely, Finney attacks would be slightly easier etc. and we would have a slightly higher level of drama. And we will never know who sponsored that drama but it would not be a cheap endeavor.
In additional to Danny's point above, you also have the issue that someone would need to incur the financial burden to pay these TX fees in the first place. There would be little economic benefit for someone to offer such a large TX fee, especially considering that the benefactor of such attack is unclear (therefore anyone attempting to profit off of an attack may or may not actually benefit in the event such attack is successful in slowing down the network). To recap the attack in laymen's terms:
If somebody paid 10,000BTC in transaction fees, miners would not care about block rewards for the next 10,000/25=400 blocks. Any miner that thinks it could outrun the biggest other miner would try to do so. If there is a draw between the top miners, such a battle could take a long time. If the top miners hold 10% of the mining power, they might try even when the other had a head start and was slowly building a chain that's growing faster than the own chain as they could still call their friends of other pools to team up catch that guy, essentially to the point where all miners took one side or the other and the weaker group gives up.
Also the attack does only work if the biggest selfish miner is bigger than the total of his run-up competitor with all non-selfish miners, so it assumes a pretty corrupt mining landscape.
The attack's effects:
During such an episode, massive re-orgs would happen, clients would act strangely, Finney attacks would be slightly easier etc. and we would have a slightly higher level of drama. And we will never know who sponsored that drama
but it would not be a cheap endeavor.IMO this attack vector would be something that is very easy to fix - simply fork the blockchain to institute a maximum TX fee on a per block and per TX basis, the max TX fee on a block basis could be a rolling average (plus some additional margin) of the last 'n' blocks and the max TX fee on a TX basis could be "x" times the min recommended TX fee, and if a TX would warrant larger then the max TX fee then the TX can be split up into smaller TXs.
Again, that is not adequate justification for allowing the vulnerability to exist. you find a vulnerability, you patch it and you move on
from everything i've read it looks like dooglus finally slipped up and got caught.
What dooglus has to do with all this ?
He closed his own dice site and ofc he went looking for other sites to invest / play on .
He stops at one , liked it , supported it, and it turned out to be scam, so what ?
Then he went looking for other, also turned out to be scam , so what ?
He can't see the future and know what will happen, he never vouched for any of this sites .
We all can support and like something and be wrong eventually.
quoted for posterity.