bump, send some offers!

Quote from: Thom on April 20, 2016, 02:47:13 am

Thanks for taking the time to comment arhag. I'm no expert on cryptography, but it sounds like you and @bytemaster disagree about the viability and security of using the blockchain as the wallet backup medium. My perspective was similar to what you said in your first few sentences above, until BM came along the other week and said the encryption wasn't that safe against brute force methods.

When bytemaster says encryption isn't safe against brute force methods, he is talking about encrypting using a user-chosen password and publishing the (poorly encrypted) data to the public. If you do not allow the user to set the password but force them to use a key with 256 bits of computer generated entropy that they keep safe locally, then there is no brute force issue. It just means recovery is slightly more annoying than typing in your password in a new client. You are forced to get out your paper backup and type in a longer sequence of random dictionary words into the new client.

Quote from: Thom on April 20, 2016, 02:47:13 am

He explained an important difference was the delays imposed between each guess attempt by front door time outs and other measures which wouldn't exist in a blockchain backup scenario. It makes sense on the surface, but if such measures are so important in the security of the encryption which is the core security mechanism of the entire blockchain, it's far weaker than I thought. Frankly that seems highly unlikely.

So that is in the context where you trust a third-party server with your (poorly encrypted) backups. The server can then enforce rate limits on guessing passwords so that your weak password is good enough to prevent attackers from getting your (poorly encrypted) backup under their local control in the first place to then brute force. The problem with relying on third parties is that the third party may then be liable (at least morally if not legally) if their security is not good enough to prevent others from getting access to your (poorly encrypted) backups. And that isn't the only problem with third-party server backups. You need to trust that the third party won't brute force your poorly encrypted backup themselves. And what is even more of an issue is that if you are solely relying on the third-party server backups to not lose stealth funds (for example), what happens if the third-party company goes under (or loses all their data somehow) and does not or cannot offer you to download your backup even one last time? Unless you had other recent manual backups you might lose some of your funds in that scenario.

arhag

Do you have the technical coding ability to push this to a test network?  If not perhaps someone such as Abit could push this to test?  This would make a very worthwhile worker proposal.

All the more reason to push out the anti dilution crowd.  The blockchain was built to have built in support for workers to pay for development.  This is currently at a standstill and thus will not help attract any outside devs.

Amazing that people do not realize time=money and it takes money to build anything!  This is the same as a company firing their key engineers, thus no more work can be accomplished.


We need a voting initiative.

Everything ok with the payouts?  According to the website, a few payouts are not showing up in the wallet even though they are indicated on the website.

These seem to be skipped:
BTS    brekyrse1f3    1174.62592118    4/6/2016 9:21:35 PM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    312.92976694    4/6/2016 6:47:31 AM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    289.77028151    2/24/2016 10:37:29 AM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    177.43976024    1/10/2016 11:09:19 PM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    77.08215620    1/6/2016 4:21:26 PM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    118.85506832    1/6/2016 6:16:54 AM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    74.32134320    1/4/2016 12:36:19 AM

I need to check the following when I get home, not sure if the "recent history" includes these or not since they are old.  They also do not show up on CryptoFresh.
BTS    brekyrse1f3    137.41309900    12/23/2015 10:57:38 AM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    1064.18212841    12/22/2015 1:04:47 AM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    233.54878255    12/20/2015 6:36:02 PM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    488.44238237    12/19/2015 1:19:23 AM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    765.26706888    12/17/2015 12:41:03 PM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    766.43377861    12/16/2015 10:31:40 AM
BTS    brekyrse1f3    403.46890751    12/15/2015 12:40:40 AM

Can you be more specific?  Are you asking for a donation for BitShares to be listed?

1100 btc buy support on poloniex, quite high yet all of it no where near the current market price.  I'm still having a hard time believing all the buy support and volume going on in alt's compared with btc.

Quote from: Brekyrself on March 14, 2016, 01:17:55 am

Quote from: Akado on March 14, 2016, 01:08:05 am

Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on March 14, 2016, 01:01:36 am

Soooo....what are the charts saying now guys?

I know nothing about technical trading, but it looks to be a fairly low volume dump overall, compared to the pump candles going on the other day. Does that mean anything?

Kind of feels like ETH stole our pump, and now we have to pay for their dump, too. Double whammy.

This happened to everyone. A coordinated dump. BTS, ETH, MAID, SJCX, FCT. Everything down in a matter of minutes. Someone trying to create chaos.

What's interesting is that these coins have majority of the volume on Poloniex.  I worry another Willy bot could be in play.  Thoughts?

There's no way of knowing that. Could be someone just wanting to cause panic on Polo. Remember they were under DDOS a few hours ago!! It think there's some chance of that. With this huge volume, polo should have a pretty big target on its back.

Someone has a case against Polo or Ethereum maybe. I think that's more likely.

Ether is going to be added on a chinese exchange today too so maybe someone wanting to get in cheap before the chinese get in?

Symptoms are similar to Gox.  I'm not saying that's what it is, however the volume on all these "alts" is astronomical at similar times.  I've been around BTC for awhile and it's hard for me to believe all this volume is natural NEW awareness in blockchain tech.

I guess I'm becoming too used to BitShares openness!

I hate to ask this but with poloniex having most of the volume, can we be certain no such "Willy" bot is playing out similar to Gox?  I'm not knocking ETH, just makes one wonder about third party exchanges and exactly what the BitShares project is trying to fix.  Please do not turn my question into a ETH or BTS subject, simply asking about a third party exchange and the potential for another "willy" bot.


https://willyreport.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/the-willy-report-proof-of-massive-fraudulent-trading-activity-at-mt-gox-and-how-it-has-affected-the-price-of-bitcoin/