Topic: i don't have very technical knowledge about how secure it is (Read 391 times)

Sorry but this is just wrong, there are plenty of operations in blockchain that are insecure and have needed to be patched over the years. Luckily Bitcoin sticks to backwards compatible soft-fork changes that keep everyone on the same network, however other networks such as Eth Sol Ada have to rely on hard-forks to kick non-upgraded clients off the network in the event that they need to patch consensus (through mandatory centralized upgrades ofcourse).

In blockchain technologies, its rare to come by less security. Out of 100 percent transactions it's can only be 2 percent of flaws can be encountered during the operation aside of making the mistake of wallet address. I'm not talking about TestNet here.

I don't agree 100% but I agree with the sentiment, in the fiat world you literally have 0 chance to fix an error like this. It is only because we have established Bitcoin that this is even possible.

Something as major flaw that messes up the protocol will be visible very quickly. Worse case the bug may be fixed and the chain forked and restarted from the non corrupt block.
Yes there will be some transaction that wont be valid in the new chain.
The beauty of software is it can be corrected and consensus reached based on logical decisions by people.

..but in the fiat world if you want to correct a wrong you will be put into a metal cage if you are not the well connected elite. Software and distribution has its advantages.

Not really, no.

But the fact that it's quantum easy does make it more likely to not-hard than NP-complete problem like 3-SAT, that are assumed to be quantum hard as well...

Ok thats all very fair, is there any evidence so far that DLP is not hard for classical computers? I certainly have not seen any.

You misread my post. It has nothing to do with Quantum computers. We assume that ECDLP is hard for *classical* computers, but it may not be...
I'm well aware that quantum computers have not been able to factor any number beyond 21 with a general factoring algorithm like Shor's.


I'd phrase that differently. Algorithms are just mathematical concepts, that exist independently of what hardware we can build to run them on. Shor's algorithm breaks RSA and ECC. But we lack the means to run Shor's algorithm on nontrivial instances. And thus *we* cannot break RSA and ECC.

I don't own any, but if I was forced at gunpoint to buy a coin other than Bitcoin or Monero it would probably be Grin. Mimblewimble in general is very interesting and hopefully will play a bigger role in the future.

Absolutely. I pointed this out in another thread a few months ago after some clickbait saying that RSA had been broken by quantum computers, which it obviously hasn't: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61567738

But this is unlikely to be true forever. Shor's algorithm can break RSA and ECC if we get sufficiently powerful quantum computers.

According to Shor leading quantum computers cannot even solve low bit RSA:  https://youtu.be/d_5u2qdKoUU?t=3708

What's your thoughts on Grin?

Neither are actually private.

i said those coz they are similar to monero see:
https://craft.co/monero/competitors

Good question. I assume there is at least one altcoin other than Monero out there somewhere I would consider owning, but I haven't found it yet.

Lol. Absolutely not.

Zcash or Dash ?

I promise you, the more you research about the state-of-the-art Bitcoin core development the more you will realize how secure the network is. The misconception is that not everything on Bitcoin works in a hand-holding way. In fact very few things away from the core client and popular wallets do. It is highly possible to make huge mistakes using Bitcoin, you cannot just do any crazy script hack and expect it to work. With good research though you can utilize highly secure cryptographic assumptions that have been established by the core development community.

Almost this was one of the biggest vulnerabilities^[1] that were discovered that caused a hard fork. Fortunately, the network was only down for 6 hours in the worst case, and this was more than 10 years ago when Bitcoin was in its early days.
Therefore, with all the developers and investment funds, the possibility of a major vulnerability is small, or it will be resolved quickly, remember Bitcoin 100% Uptime more than 9 years ago.

For more read -----> https://bitcoinbriefly.com/hacking-bitcoin-history-of-bitcoin-hacks/

Monero (XMR) and what?

---

[1] Strange block 74638

This thread is a duplicate of "What would happen?", whose OP also shares the same concern as you. As I've said there, and as o_e_l_e_o has outlined, there have been more significant vulnerabilities exploited in the past decade, like OpenSSL bug exploit, Eternal Blue and Windows being buggy since 1995. And the simple answer appears to be: the developers will take over.

I am not worried about such major flaws like this.

As I said above, if such a critical vulnerability is found and patched before it is resolved, then nothing happens.
If such a critical vulnerability is found and exploited, then the entire community has the option to either have all their bitcoin fall to zero, or to run the new patched software which will rapidly be released and continue on as if nothing had happened, as happened during the value overflow bug.

The bigger concern is not critical vulnerabilities which suddenly print 92 billion bitcoin out of thin air - these are easy to detect and easy to reverse. The bigger concern is a less obvious vulnerability which allows someone to slowly start stealing coins or minting new ones undetected for a lengthy period of time. Once it is detected then perhaps many of these bugged coins are already spent, in the hands of innocent third parties, combined with legitimate coins, and so on. Trying to unwind that damage becomes much harder, if not impossible. Such a bug is maybe not critical enough to make bitcoin fall to zero, but it would certainly be enough to shake out a lot of weak hands and cause the price to fall in the short to medium term.

There are (maybe) 2 altcoins that I would trust already, so this isn't really a concern of mine. 99.9% of altcoins are money grabs, scams, centralized, or so poorly put together that no one should even consider buying them.

is it worry for now ? some people who invested their most of the part in bitcoin will not be able to sleep at night.
and if that happens and all bitcoin goes to zero why would anyone trust other crypto that also will have bugs and vulnerabilities in future,
when they may already losed money in king like bitcoin, it will become very difficult to trust other crypto no?

most of the times is gone in solving captcha.
and edit also count as one more coin to collect in captcha, number of times we click post= coins to collect to solve captcha
i am really really getting very angry solving that captcha, 3 times collected 8 coins of 10coins fu*k

finally after 100000 hours   i got that life saving saving words "CAPTCHA SOLVED"

These are insufficient answers.

No software in existence is immune to bugs. Windows has existed for almost 40 years and is run by billions more people than Bitcoin Core is, and yet still has regular bugs and vulnerabilities discovered. Burying your head in the sand and saying "Don't worry about bugs" is a recipe for disaster. Bugs need to be continually found and resolved, and failure to do so will absolutely lead to an event where bitcoin collapses.

There have been a number of critical bugs discovered in the past. In some cases, they were discovered and fixed prior to being exploited, such as this one: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2018/09/20/notice/
In other cases, they were only discovered after being exploited, such as this one: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident. In this case, a fork occurred in order to reverse the damage done.

Should another major vulnerability be exploited which would result in the complete collapse of bitcoin, then I would fully expect a fork to occur which would reverse the damage of said vulnerability and allow bitcoin to continue unaffected. It will be trivial to get the majority of the network to accept such a fork - when faced with accepting the fork or having all the bitcoin they own be worth zero, then almost all nodes and miners will accept the fork without a second thought.