• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bitcoin - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
jhunter1163 said:
Brian-M said:
Are you saying that the thieves stole the bitcoins without either getting hold of the private keys for the wallets in which they were stored, or by some form of indirect access to the private keys (such as by ordering a computer with access to the private keys to transfer the bitcoins to a different wallet)?
Click to expand...

Yes. Google "transaction malleability".
Click to expand...

Googled.

Looks like a form of indirect access to the private key to me. Making it appear as if the transaction didn't go through in order to trick the computers that hold the private keys to use the private keys to make another payment.
 
Brian-M said:
Googled.

Looks like a form of indirect access to the private key to me. Making it appear as if the transaction didn't go through in order to trick the computers that hold the private keys to use the private keys to make another payment.
Click to expand...
The "transaction malleability" weakness was fixed in Bitcoin 0.8.

Prior to that, it was possible to duplicate a transaction that was identical in every way but had a different signature. If the second transaction was subsequently confirmed then the first wouldn't be. This could be a problem if you were only checking signatures.

Note that there is nothing automatic about this. The recipient would have to fraudulently claim to have not received the bitcoins and convince the sender to re-send the bitcoins. If the sender's bookkeeping was up to scratch, then they would instantly detect this funny business.

MtGox fell flat on both accounts which is why they were so easily duped into resending bitcoins. Note that exchanges don't have access to anybody's private keys so the only bitcoins at risk were the ones you sent to MtGox - not the ones still in your wallet.

Of course, this is all old hat. I posted about "transaction malleability" way back in February. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9867218&postcount=4764). Jhunter1163 is only rehashing these old arguments in order to avoid dealing with post #285.
 
jhunter1163 said:
There are legal protections in place for depositors whose bank accounts are hacked. For BTC holders, not so much.
Click to expand...

I thought that credit cards were safe, but debit cards aren't as safe.

You can have your identity stolen if your bank gets hacked. Not so with bitcoin.
 
Tippit said:
Or, you could just have a free market in money, without the theft masquerading as central planning. I know. Perish the thought.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, introduce Randian objectivism into the equation. That is just what a barely functional means of exchange mostly used for criminal activities needs.

Fact of the matter is, as has been repeatedly demonstrated over the course of history, for a currency to work and continue it needs a strong backing by a state or other large actor, with a coherent goal for what it is to do and a proper set of policies to manage it. That is why both a) the likes of bitcoin will never be better than a fad (it'll never have the right backing nor the right policy direction) and b) putting the likes of Greenspan (or any other freemarketeer) in charge of a national currency will end in disaster.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
That is just what a barely functional means of exchange mostly used for criminal activities needs.
Click to expand...
Source?

Gulliver Foyle said:
Fact of the matter is, as has been repeatedly demonstrated over the course of history, for a currency to work and continue it needs a strong backing by a state or other large actor,
Click to expand...
Fiat currency might need a regulator but gold never did.

Gulliver Foyle said:
with a coherent goal for what it is to do and a proper set of policies to manage it.
Click to expand...
:dl:
 
psionl0 said:
Of course, this is all old hat. I posted about "transaction malleability" way back in February. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9867218&postcount=4764). Jhunter1163 is only rehashing these old arguments in order to avoid dealing with post #285.
Click to expand...

All right, then, to address post #285;

No, you probably couldn't do that with Apple Pay, at least not without going to some trouble, but for 99.44% of users, BTC's major selling point (anonymity) simply is not necessary. I don't care if eBay knows my name. I don't care if Amazon knows my name. Hell, I don't care if you know my name. It's John Hunter. I do, however, trust my bank to keep my account information secure, and if they are hacked there are laws in place to make me whole if I do happen to lose money. BTC has none of the protections of banks and apparently more of the risk of theft.
 
jhunter1163 said:
No, you probably couldn't do that with Apple Pay,
Click to expand...
Of course you can't. Apple pay wasn't designed for transfers of money between individuals. It is a system for paying for purchases at either a brick-and-mortar or online store (it doesn't even have its own commodity/currency).

As long as Apple pay and bitcoin serve entirely different functions, it is not possible for one to displace the other. It would be like saying that the invention of the electric light would make electric motors obsolete.
 
psionl0 said:
Source?
Click to expand...

Seeing as you seem to be fond of posting fanboy pages to "support" your arguments, I'll hold myself to the same criteria here. I just won't bother spamming nonsense.

Fiat currency might need a regulator but gold never did.
Click to expand...

And next you'll tell me that David Irving is right. Boy, you really do love pulling out your ignorance and waving it in peoples' faces don't you. A big part of why the gold standard was killed off (as a zombie no less) in the mid '30's was that governments finally realised that under the standard there was no way to either regulate the system or control the flow of money to affect fiscal cycles.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Seeing as you seem to be fond of posting fanboy pages to "support" your arguments, I'll hold myself to the same criteria here. I just won't bother spamming nonsense.



And next you'll tell me that David Irving is right. Boy, you really do love pulling out your ignorance and waving it in peoples' faces don't you. (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)
Click to expand...
IOW You can't back up your nonsense so you have decided to attack the arguer instead (that's a rule 12 violation BTW).

Anything else you might have to say about money can similarly be dismissed as personal opinion based on sheer prejudice.
 
Octavo said:
The bet is that Coinbase.com will be hacked (and bitcoins stolen) somewhere between September 2014 and 1 January 2015. The breech must be significant enough to be covered by major media outlets.

If you agree to those terms, I'll take that bet.
Click to expand...

jhunter1163 said:
Since any breach would probably make the news, I'll agree. I'll sport the avatar of your choice for a week should that not happen.
Click to expand...

About a week left until this bet comes to fruition.
 
I just noticed that the Bitcoin Bowl (US college American football) is being played tonight. I thought that was pretty funny--just how much more mainstream can you get than sponsoring a college bowl game? :D
 
Last edited:
AdMan said:
I just noticed that the Bitcoin Bowl (US college American football) is being played tonight. I thought that was pretty funny--just how much more mainstream can you get than sponsoring a college bowl game? :D
Click to expand...

A touchdown highlight from that game made ESPN top 10 as well.
 
jhunter1163 said:
...... for 99.44% of users, BTC's major selling point (anonymity) simply is not necessary.
Click to expand...
That is of course a 100% made up statistic.

It is not the anonymity of bitcoin that matters as much as the convenience of not having to go through an approvals process. There is no need to apply for a bitcoin account as if you were applying for a passport (ie provide 100 points of photo ID to prove that you are not a criminal who is trying to launder money). You also don't have to wait until some ******* gets back from holidays before dealing with your application.

Anybody can install bitcoin software on their computer and have a wallet set up within minutes and start receiving bitcoins instantly and the only people who's business it is are you and the people you are trading with.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
psionl0 said:
That is of course a 100% made up statistic.

It is not the anonymity of bitcoin that matters as much as the convenience of not having to go through an approvals process. There is no need to apply for a bitcoin account as if you were applying for a passport (ie provide 100 points of photo ID to prove that you are not a criminal who is trying to launder money). You also don't have to wait until some ******* gets back from holidays before dealing with your application.

Anybody can install bitcoin software on their computer and have a wallet set up within minutes and start receiving bitcoins instantly and the only people who's business it is are you and the people you are trading with.
Click to expand...

Put those goalposts back. You've been trumpeting anonymity as a selling point all along; now, when it's developed that a) BTC isn't as anonymous as Bitbugs have been led to believe and b) anonymity doesn't matter to most people anyway, you're moving on to "convenience", ignoring the fact that BTC is far, far less convenient to use than plain old USD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jhunter1163 said:
Put those goalposts back. You've been trumpeting anonymity as a selling point all along; now, when it's developed that a) BTC isn't as anonymous as Bitbugs have been led to believe and b) anonymity doesn't matter to most people anyway, you're moving on to "convenience", ignoring the fact that BTC is far, far less convenient to use than plain old USD.
Click to expand...
:confused: How does anything in my post constitute "goalpost shifting"? It is certainly 100% consistent with post #285 - unless you are trying to construct another strawman. I have always pointed out that once someone knows your wallet ID it is a matter of public record how many BTC you have in that wallet.

Another derail fail.
 
AdMan said:
I just noticed that the Bitcoin Bowl (US college American football) is being played tonight. I thought that was pretty funny--just how much more mainstream can you get than sponsoring a college bowl game? :D
Click to expand...

Were people able to buy tickets with Bitcoins?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom