Topic: ANN: [OPAL] | POS | Secure Messaging |NO ICO | bitsquare.io | cryptopia | Yobit - page 76. (Read 383420 times)

Opal sphere seems anemic since a couple days,work are still steady ?

A big bunch of people getting distract from opal when it was too quiet like this

True. Because I have a duplicate set-up on a second phone solely as a 2FA back-up.

With 2fa, you have a recovery option. Just because you lose a phone with your 2fa, doesn't mean it's gone for good.  My guess is you've never gone through that.

Because with 2FA, peeps expect a reset to be able to be made. Which would be a false sense of security because with a decentralised space, you will have noone to go to.

If you lose your wallet, you lose your wallet.... What's the difference?

Thanks for that article Bass...

Yes to block an address would do no good. We are talking about the transactions subsequent to a hack and their totals being tracked and confiscated, the coin would still exist so there is no bad or good coins just bad transactions. The hack would be verified and proved, then the coin could confiscate itself (if written into every wallet) and these actions are only taken after a mediator group oversaw it, kind of like the devs so to speak. It is stolen money. So to use the coin would be to agree to its functions and ability to confiscate. People who don't want the ability would not use the coin. Therefore Hackers could target coins that don't use this feature and people who want security would use this feature. It would be market demand. Guess where the money would go to and where the hackers would leave from. Everything doesn't have to be one way and not another.

I guess the instant it was hacked there would be time to tumble etc. but you could opt your coin out of tumbler or something. I don't know for sure how it would need to work to be fool proof.

BitCoins are still centralized even though they appear decentralized, and when you think about how BitCoin came about essentially legalizing it made many criminals rich, this is akin to Banksters getting rich with impunity. So instead of Bank Criminals now Black Market Criminals were rewarded or even the Government since they are the biggest criminals of them all, which is why they legalized BitCoin in the first place. BitCoin could have also put the economy back on track with the purchase of computer equipment and power so it could have just been a smart move for the Gov. There are so many facets.

We are stuck with either Whales manipulating prices of BitCoin and controlling the financial markets or companies in control of the Hashing moving the markets at their whim. It really comes down to wow look how greedy everyone is, and all we really wanted to do is be able to use the ideals set forth by decentralizing and creating a better currency for all to use. There is way more controversy however we may look at it. It was kind of tongue n cheek to start with hoping most people who don't understand the underpinnings just think yeah everything is decentralized.

If you didn't hack your coin to get it then you would have nothing to worry about ever. All other transactions would be valid and if there were also a need for small claims then by all means courts could use the power. But the funds would have to have been frozen right away prior to litigation.

So if we allow BitMarshal as an option for people to choose from then they would at least have a choice at that point. It is really something to consider if it is done properly. I don't know all the intricacies but someone could play chess with the idea enough to make it viable even if became its own coin.

https://medium.com/@redditbass/cryptocurrency-fungibility-and-the-case-of-the-missing-coins-e78580792807

I made a post explaining why coin-blocking is not a good idea

If you lose your 2fa you would lose your wallet...

Yeah it really depends on if implementing it to BitCoin or creating a whole new coin. If dealing with BitCoin then what could happen would be a Confiscation at the Exchange level and an Alert when someone gets that coin for a product or service. The extension of the wallet would see that these were stolen funds and they were sent to a wallet for goods, which will be an unsuspecting merchant. At this point the merchant doesn't ship the goods and retains the BitCoin to transfer back to the initial owner. Once they hit a participating wallet the funds are snatched up and sent to the rightful owner who was hacked. Kind of like a trust network relationship. This is mostly for Large scale hacks that could cripple the economy. Could work on large and small though but to your point who and when is it used.

All tumblers would have to enable the BitMarshal service. Once the coin hits it goes back to the hacked wallet or mediators wallet. You could not buy or sell alt coins with this service in place since the funds would be seized at the exchange level.

Yes this was kind of along the lines I was thinking, or if a new coin just create a function that goes to every wallet and transacts out the coin if proven it was hacked.


Possibly they would let their guard down, but get this now... If you are a hacker and you know any coins you take will be confiscated back, why would you even attempt the hack in the first place.  The hacker has no way out of the system and can not profit. Some of these exchanges are also kind of suspect like they would rob themselves and blame it on hackers, and take their users money. So BitMarshal would also negate these scenarios too.

Thanks for your response, asking these types of questions is what would make it a better solution in the end.

Very interesting!

-j.
--
Altcoin.Center

I'm sure it's been suggested before, somewhere. But what about a wallet with 2fa?

For instance: when you install a wallet, you use google authentication to generate a key and that rolling key is linked to your wallet.

This way if someone steals a wallet, they would need the 2fa to install the wallet locally before they can transfer coins from that wallet.

Excellent points, RCan06!

I totally agree with you that in the end the final solutions have to do with coming up with methods that remedy the problem at it's roots instead of trying to patch the symptoms.

I've been working on couple of potential way to enhance the trust issues in ways that would not compromise the P2P nature of cryptos. One of the ideas revolves around applying a PGP style signing of blocks and public keys by all users - i.e. automatically building a P2P web of trust. This does not prevent anyone from stealing coins, but it would help a lot in minimizing other problems such as accidental forking of the block chain. Since cryptos are all about asymmetric encryption already, it would be a relatively small step to take yet the effects and implications could be huge.

The problem is I have so much going on that I'd need an army of R&D capable developers and software designers to actually take on testing and implementing this stuff. Without any exaggeration at all, I'm trying to do the work of at least a dozen people alone. I'm definitely not complaining (I just love all this!) but the fact is that I'm much more of a designer and coordinator than a coder. The moment my financial situation allows it, I'll be hiring platoons of people. =)

-j.
--
Altcoin.Center

It's definitely an interesting idea, I think the problem becomes when would you consider it necessary to flag coins (what amount of stolen coins), and who would ultimately have the power to do that, and how would you get ALL exchanges and merchants to cooperate?

Also a problem may be, when do those coins become un-blacklisted? When they are returned, what if they are never returned?
I think the idea works better with fiat currency (like say ink packs exploding in a bank robbery) because there is essentially an unlimited amount, you can just ignore the void currency and print new currency, but with bitcoin/any coin, you would be limiting the number over time if those coins sat there blacklisted.

Also if even one exchange didn't follow the procedure it would negate the idea. There are also ways to disguise Bitcoins (using a coin tumbler, or buying and selling an altcoin). These ideas make crypto so fascinating, but challenging to possibly implement ideas like these imo.

One way I could see it possibly working, is if wallets would automatically update blacklisted coins (or addresses) in real time, similar to how an anti virus software automatically updates its virus definition list to keep up to date. Then it would be an automatic process for anyone with a bitcoin-qt wallet or similar. (I think this was what you were thinking as well CryptoNick)

But again, I think another problem is, if you have measures like these in place, it may be taken as a safety net and exchanges may slack on security knowing that if they f'd up, there would be a possibility of having those coins returned anyway. I think ultimately it's best to address the problem at the source, which is, how do you make crypto more secure from hacks, rather then how to contain them.

Just my 2 sats on the idea!  

Excellent! I almost didn't post that, but now I am glad I did. This is the kind of response we need, at least attempt to do the right thing and make things safer and secure! Thanks for sharing your perspective on the seed nodes! I am still beginning to understand the complexities.

When I think about all the resources that make BitCoin possible, initially I didn't realize how much of the infrastructure is privately owned vs now corporate and even in a perfect world someone has to pay the electric bill and internet access etc. and who is to say who owns what and how much, since it is nameless and faceless, just a bunch of numbers. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! lol

A very interesting idea indeed, CryptoNick!

I too understand very well why people are so fiercely against anything hinting towards centralization, and I've actually used huge amount of brain power to come up with a system that would allow crypto currencies to boot strap without any seed nodes at all, but the fact remains that at the moment not a single crypto currency is actually fully decentralized - referring to the fact that seed nodes are still very much needed. Also, being able to blacklist stolen coins would actually not have to happen in a centralized way.

It's a challenging task - and my personal problem #1 is that I love to take on such. =D

Even if it would never be implemented, I'd still like to keep the discussion about this idea going.

- Jyri
--
Altcoin.Center

The BitStamp hack makes me wonder if there would be a way to Track the stolen coin and BlackList it from entering Exchanges/Cooperative Merchants, and if it did enter an exchange it could be confiscated. I know everyone will go all up in arms about centralization etc. but there is a real need for this. If a coin could nullify a hack attempt or at least show the capability, then it would render hack attempts useless. Since the only time someone would want to use this measure would be to lock down coin and corner it and red flag transactions into merchants to seize the coin and return it. More to protect the large exchanges and anyone dealing in volume with substantial exposure.

The coin could list itself in every wallet and warn against usage or just transact out for that matter.

The only cases where it could be used would be towards Exchanges and/or proven hacks. Someone couldn't just issue, lets call it a BitMarshal to coin the phrase, without recourse. I think that a team who could come up with a way to accomplish this would do a favor the the CryptoWorld as a whole. Having a disputed transaction would not be on the list, but a hack or malware proven scenario could be warranted.

It really comes down to the people who don't like the ability to use this type of function would be the ones perpetuating the instability and uncertainty of security for the future of crypto. It is really the main reason I would hold back investing other than the sheer manipulation of the markets going on. Along with the dominance of BitCoin by certain groups which begs the question of centralization in the first place but that is accepted by the same people who would be up in arms about this idea.

And if people didn't want to use this coin because of this capability then so what, they would be siding with hackers and these people can use other coins and unsecured networks no big deal since you either want recourse or you don't.

Just an idea in general and I don't mean to stir up controversy again, just curious if this would be something worth considering to tackle?

Thank you batesresearch for adding OPAL!

Thanks guys. Any feedback is welcome as we are always looking at improving.

Nice to see our first OPAL order already !!!

^

Good,more visibility for us

Yeah that looks pretty nice i must say.