Re: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

Remember that bitcoin is still beta software. Don’t put all of your money into BTC!

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

danda

If it is not a change then I guess is it already in active use by bitcoin nodes worldwide right? I can go make a segwit transaction now right?

oh wait, no I can’t. and it’s not. because… it is a change to the consensus layer.

addition, change. whatever. it’s a change.

Carlton, and company. How did you come to the conclusion segwit isn’t a change OR doesn’t increase the tps?

Here’s how.

Segregated witness does not need to increase the tps, you’ve already heard my attitude to that. In it’s own right, segwit simply segregates the signatures into a separate, parallel block structure.

Further, segwit isn’t a change. It’s an addition.

jonald_fyookball

Legendary

Online

Activity: 1008

If all you can say is that I haven’t read as many books as you, then you lose the debate.

You can’t refute my logic, nor can you link me to any page on the entire Internet that supports your kooky theories.

I’m telling you my argument is founded in accepted economic theory, that you do not understand or know the theory does not make it kooky. I have cited everything I have said along this whole way, your understand of what markets are and their purpose runs counter to accepted economic science, I cannot be expected to teach you.

blah blah blah blah blah

do you even believe humans have free will?

traincarswreck

If it is not a change then I guess is it already in active use by bitcoin nodes worldwide right? I can go make a segwit transaction now right?

oh wait, no I can’t. and it’s not. because… it is a change to the consensus layer.

addition, change. whatever. it’s a change.

exactly and its a tps increase right?

Block capacity/size increase

Since old nodes will only download the witness-stripped block, they only enforce the 1 MB block size limit rule on that data. New nodes, which understand the full block with witness data, are therefore free to replace this limit with a new one, allowing for larger block sizes. Segregated witness therefore takes advantage of this opportunity to raise the block size limit to nearly 4 MB, and adds a new cost limit to ensure blocks remain balanced in their resource use (this effectively results in an effective limit closer to 1.6 to 2 MB).

That’s a citation folks.

traincarswreck

Carlton, I fail to see why segregating witness data is relevant, tps increase or not.

It is a CHANGE. Op (and I) are advocating against change. Do you not see that?

Or at least I am advocating against any changes to the consensus level code. (unless released with a new genesis block). And OP is advocating that any bitcoin change be vetted through the filter of it advances Nashian goals… which is pretty much the same thing.

If it doesn’t affect the tps then it might be a fine change. We are not resist to any changes or improvements. We are to be resistant against any changes that affect the future perceived value or quality in the nashian sense.

If technology became such that quantum computing provided a security leak and threatened the whole system such a change would be implied to be good because such a technology would destory bitcoin’s value if it was allowed to.

Some change is to be allowed.

danda

segwit would fix the malleability problem and would fix the quadratic verification issue, amongst other things. In particular the malleability fix would be useful for second layer TPS solutions, but not entirely necessary. It also provides a TPS bump, almost as a side effect.

To my mind, these are mostly all good things, and should have been in the original design.

But that does NOT mean that I support adding them now. rather, the opposite. to do so would be to force this value change on others immorally, without full consent.

Do you understand the concept of separating the signatures into a separate block structure? The discussion relevant to your Nashian prespective is about the concept, not instantiations of the concept.

I wouldn’t attempt to interest you in anything that involved tps increases, it’s outside the useful bounds of this discussion, we both agree that. Segregated witness blocks need not increase tps.

Core is proposing a damaging proposal, because they are including an increase in tps in the proposal.

Is this correct or no?

(Why?)

Published at Sun, 05 Mar 2017 22:05:44 +0000

[wpr5_ebay kw=”bitcoin” num=”1″ ebcat=”” cid=”5338043562″ lang=”en-US” country=”0″ sort=”bestmatch”]

December 20, 2017

North Korea Behind Recent YouBit Hack?

Cybercrime experts are attributing the most recent bitcoin heist to North Korea. The Wall Street Journal report that the South Korean cryptocurrency exchange YouBit is the latest victim of a malicious hacking, and that their northern neighbours are to blame. YouBit have been forced to declare themselves bankrupt after 17 percent of their digital assets were stolen. They are allowing customers to immediately withdraw three quarters of the funds in their accounts. The remaining sums will be paid out following the liquidation of the exchange.

The allegations come just one day after the US laid the blame for the WannaCry cryptographic worm attack on North Korea. ARS Technica report that White House National Security Adviser Tom Bossert stated yesterday:

“We do not make this allegation lightly. It is based on evidence. We are not alone with our findings, either. Other governments and private companies agree. The United Kingdom attributes the attack to North Korea, and Microsoft traced the attack to cyber affiliates of the North Korean government.”

The WannaCry ransomware attack targeted users of the Windows operating system this Spring. It’s estimated to have infected over 300,000 computers across the globe. Computers and their contents were frozen and a demand of bitcoin was then made to those affected.

These examples are not the first time that the communist dictatorship of North Korea have been implicated in such heists. Just this year, three additional attacks have been made against South Korean exchanges that are being blamed on operatives working under Kim Jong Un. The largest of which was on Yapizon, YouBit’s predecessor. They were compromised back in April. This digital heist saw even larger sums of cryptocurrency lifted.

A report issued back in September by cyber security firm FireEye acknowledged the motive behind North Korea’s interest in digital currency. The fact that cryptocurrencies offer permission-less movement of funds across the planet makes them ideal for the purpose of laundering money and evading sanctions. Hackers can then use coin tumbling services to “clean” funds. Alternatively, they can exchange bitcoin involved in a hack for a much less traceable currency like the anonymity coin Monero. It’s believed that this is what occurred following the WannaCry outbreak.

For a country trying to fight off aggressive international sanctions and continue their militarisation, cryptocurrency seems to present an obvious solution to traditional financial channels being closed off to them. ARS Technica estimate that some $16 billion have been lifted by North Korea to finance their foreign policy objectives. Whilst this is pittance when compared with the over $612 billion market cap of all of cryptocurrency, for a nation that are currently in the midst of economic strangulation, it’s certainly worth going after.

Image: PixaBay

The post North Korea Behind Recent YouBit Hack? appeared first on NEWSBTC.

Re: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

You might be interested in …

North Korea Behind Recent YouBit Hack?

Bitcoin Boomerang in 5.4.3.2.1…

China’s New Crypto Ranking: Bitcoin Upgraded, Tron Debuts Near Top