Topic: Jacob Appelbaum: "Bitcoin Prediction: Major bugs in the near future ..." - page 3. (Read 14831 times)
June 12, 2011, 04:47:08 PM
never mind my trade just went through...
June 12, 2011, 04:42:08 PM
Jacob Appelbaum: "Bitcoin Prediction: Major bugs in the near future will mess with the 'market'".
http://twitter.com/#!/ioerror/status/78480502641803264
http://twitter.com/#!/ioerror/status/78520413315006465
grumble.
http://twitter.com/#!/ioerror/status/78480502641803264
http://twitter.com/#!/ioerror/status/78520413315006465
grumble.
Jacob is a drama queen that loves the attention and people talking about him. He hasn't provided shit for code to any project or group he's been associated with (which is why WikiLeaks booted his ass). This guys just talks out his ass and doesn't really know shit about shit unless he steals it from someone else's research. Jacob is a hack, not a hacker.
"Do you know who I am?! I'M JACOB FUCKING APPELBAUM!!" - Jacob, BlackHat Vegas '09.
June 12, 2011, 04:30:52 PM
Quote
You know i was watching the data from MT gox today and something very strange happend right around when the price was hitting $10
i hit refresh on the screen, suddenly, every single buyer was gone, one refresh later, and the price jumped up from ~10 way up to ~15
Then within 2 minutes, it was back down to ~10
I wonder if the bug in the "Market" that dude found was with MTgox and it allows him to somehow manipulate the trade data thus "screwing with the market"
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but....
MTGOX down next day after posting this....
June 12, 2011, 11:46:43 AM
I exchanged email with Jacob, and he's predicting bugs because some very good "white-hat" people are looking hard at the code, trying to find bugs or vulnerabilities.
That's all. And that's good news; the more people who try to find problems with the code (and who will report any problems responsibly so they can get fixed before they're exploited), the better.
That's all. And that's good news; the more people who try to find problems with the code (and who will report any problems responsibly so they can get fixed before they're exploited), the better.
Thanks for the heads up, it seems Jacob needs to learn to articulate himself a bit better in his tweets if he wants to get a accurate message out. Of course, he might of purposely kept his tweets vague to cause doubt in the currency for a excellent buying opportunity. It's hard to argue that BTC's @10 USD last night weren't a steal.
June 12, 2011, 09:40:03 AM
Dude probably just wants to buy some bitcoins for cheap.
This is probably the case.
These forums are becoming less and less useful as they get clogged with "omgskyisfallingsell!!!!" and "omgrallybuy!" posts intended to pump or deflate prices.
June 12, 2011, 09:19:25 AM
I exchanged email with Jacob, and he's predicting bugs because some very good "white-hat" people are looking hard at the code, trying to find bugs or vulnerabilities.
That's all. And that's good news; the more people who try to find problems with the code (and who will report any problems responsibly so they can get fixed before they're exploited), the better.
That's all. And that's good news; the more people who try to find problems with the code (and who will report any problems responsibly so they can get fixed before they're exploited), the better.
June 12, 2011, 09:07:38 AM
Jacob Appelbaum is a freak. I don't give a cent to his predictions.
June 12, 2011, 07:58:03 AM
He is a posturing publicity whore who cannot hack shit. Just look at this Tor commits - all he works on is lame stuff, not core Tor code!
It's true he might not be an "actual hacker" or "talented coder", but he might have received the info from someone who is and is not a "publicity whore". Many brilliant coders are not very outgoing, even kind of autistic, and just might "report" their "project leaders". We all should have experienced in life that people are different and thus are destined to play different roles in communities and society as a whole.
June 12, 2011, 06:09:36 AM
So can we get anyone to fix those bugs.
I belive the bugs has to do with the security of the bitcoin client. Making it easy to steal a wallet.
I belive the bugs has to do with the security of the bitcoin client. Making it easy to steal a wallet.
June 12, 2011, 05:23:18 AM
Stevie, it's not good to derail discussions to promote an un-related thread.
June 12, 2011, 04:56:54 AM
Quote
- So far, the lack of a sound description of a specification (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg190384#msg190384) hinders implementation of different clients.
Sounds like a great project. Are you volunteering?
I have: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg190384#msg190384
- The default client should not contain limits that prevent running other versions / clients. If the default client won't distribute transactions with a fee less than 0.01, it's going to be very hard to run a client that allows a minimum fee of 0.001.
Shockingly... people are already doing that which you describe as "very hard" simply by upgrading.
Re-read the part of my post about people voting with their downloads.
Then re-read the other post about transaction fees already changing.
Then read the thread on transaction fees changing to 0.0005.
And maybe study how mining works, too.
Shockingly... people are already doing that which you describe as "very hard" simply by upgrading.
Re-read the part of my post about people voting with their downloads.
Then re-read the other post about transaction fees already changing.
Then read the thread on transaction fees changing to 0.0005.
And maybe study how mining works, too.
Thanks for the elaborate reply. Please re-read my critique: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=14693.msg202438#msg202438
And maybe tell me why to study mining.
Quote
Same with the version number misery...
No idea what you're talking about here.
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg195156;topicseen#msg195156
June 12, 2011, 03:54:51 AM
You know i was watching the data from MT gox today and something very strange happend right around when the price was hitting $10
i hit refresh on the screen, suddenly, every single buyer was gone, one refresh later, and the price jumped up from ~10 way up to ~15
Then within 2 minutes, it was back down to ~10
I wonder if the bug in the "Market" that dude found was with MTgox and it allows him to somehow manipulate the trade data thus "screwing with the market"
i hit refresh on the screen, suddenly, every single buyer was gone, one refresh later, and the price jumped up from ~10 way up to ~15
Then within 2 minutes, it was back down to ~10
I wonder if the bug in the "Market" that dude found was with MTgox and it allows him to somehow manipulate the trade data thus "screwing with the market"
June 12, 2011, 03:51:37 AM
- 'Voting' should then also be possible by running a completely different client, implemented by other developers.
This is already possible.
- The default client should not contain limits that prevent running other versions / clients. If the default client won't distribute transactions with a fee less than 0.01, it's going to be very hard to run a client that allows a minimum fee of 0.001.
Shockingly... people are already doing that which you describe as "very hard" simply by upgrading.
Re-read the part of my post about people voting with their downloads.
Then re-read the other post about transaction fees already changing.
Then read the thread on transaction fees changing to 0.0005.
And maybe study how mining works, too.
Quote
Same with the version number misery...
No idea what you're talking about here.
June 12, 2011, 03:45:46 AM
Could you be more specific as to what exactly is this 'central fallacy'?
Voting by choosing which version to run sounds good, but I see some problems:
- 'Voting' should then also be possible by running a completely different client, implemented by other developers.
- So far, the lack of a sound description of a specification (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg190384#msg190384) hinders implementation of different clients.
- The default client should not contain limits that prevent running other versions / clients. If the default client won't distribute transactions with a fee less than 0.01, it's going to be very hard to run a client that allows a minimum fee of 0.001. Same with the version number misery...
Voting by choosing which version to run sounds good, but I see some problems:
- 'Voting' should then also be possible by running a completely different client, implemented by other developers.
- So far, the lack of a sound description of a specification (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg190384#msg190384) hinders implementation of different clients.
- The default client should not contain limits that prevent running other versions / clients. If the default client won't distribute transactions with a fee less than 0.01, it's going to be very hard to run a client that allows a minimum fee of 0.001. Same with the version number misery...
Fees are now .0005.
That one is already solved. No new new new bitty coin needed.
I'll get back on the 'unfair' distribution.
This requires a protocol change or using a new kind of pool. I'm implementing this later today. Again, NO NEW FORK needed.
June 12, 2011, 03:41:51 AM
that is a fallacy, i agree.
but for me (and others...), the central fallacy is in a section-head:
3.7 Current distribution is unfair
oh. that again...
i am not an 'early adopter', having begun my quest for Bitcoin in march. i begrudge nothing to those who saw, believed and risked the earliest. i will take what i earn, happily. i will not steal from those whose vision has proven to be clearer than mine.
but for me (and others...), the central fallacy is in a section-head:
3.7 Current distribution is unfair
oh. that again...
i am not an 'early adopter', having begun my quest for Bitcoin in march. i begrudge nothing to those who saw, believed and risked the earliest. i will take what i earn, happily. i will not steal from those whose vision has proven to be clearer than mine.
So, there's at least two central fallacies in my paper. |-)
I'll get back on the 'unfair' distribution.
EDIT: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=15657.0
June 12, 2011, 03:38:29 AM
Appearently I am whitelisted now. I'rant about this 'newbie policy' in another topic if I feel like it.
That is a central fallacy throughout your paper. The entire community accepts or rejects bitcoin changes. They vote by choosing which bitcoin version to run on the network.
Open source means anyone can fork the code at any time, if the community feels developers are going off into insane-land.
Could you be more specific as to what exactly is this 'central fallacy'?
Voting by choosing which version to run sounds good, but I see some problems:
- 'Voting' should then also be possible by running a completely different client, implemented by other developers.
- So far, the lack of a sound description of a specification (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg190384#msg190384) hinders implementation of different clients.
- The default client should not contain limits that prevent running other versions / clients. If the default client won't distribute transactions with a fee less than 0.01, it's going to be very hard to run a client that allows a minimum fee of 0.001. Same with the version number misery...
I'm not sure what "inaccurate observation or assumption" in my paper you are referring to. I stated that the enforced limits (like indeed transaction fee) are not optimal ones. And that I think that they should definitly not be under control of a small group of developers.
That is a central fallacy throughout your paper. The entire community accepts or rejects bitcoin changes. They vote by choosing which bitcoin version to run on the network.
Open source means anyone can fork the code at any time, if the community feels developers are going off into insane-land.
Could you be more specific as to what exactly is this 'central fallacy'?
Voting by choosing which version to run sounds good, but I see some problems:
- 'Voting' should then also be possible by running a completely different client, implemented by other developers.
- So far, the lack of a sound description of a specification (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12577.msg190384#msg190384) hinders implementation of different clients.
- The default client should not contain limits that prevent running other versions / clients. If the default client won't distribute transactions with a fee less than 0.01, it's going to be very hard to run a client that allows a minimum fee of 0.001. Same with the version number misery...
June 12, 2011, 02:21:25 AM
I'm not sure what "inaccurate observation or assumption" in my paper you are referring to. I stated that the enforced limits (like indeed transaction fee) are not optimal ones. And that I think that they should definitly not be under control of a small group of developers.
That is a central fallacy throughout your paper. The entire community accepts or rejects bitcoin changes. They vote by choosing which bitcoin version to run on the network.
Open source means anyone can fork the code at any time, if the community feels developers are going off into insane-land.
that is a fallacy, i agree.
but for me (and others...), the central fallacy is in a section-head:
3.7 Current distribution is unfair
oh. that again...
i am not an 'early adopter', having begun my quest for Bitcoin in march. i begrudge nothing to those who saw, believed and risked the earliest. i will take what i earn, happily. i will not steal from those whose vision has proven to be clearer than mine.
June 12, 2011, 02:05:28 AM
I'm not sure what "inaccurate observation or assumption" in my paper you are referring to. I stated that the enforced limits (like indeed transaction fee) are not optimal ones. And that I think that they should definitly not be under control of a small group of developers.
That is a central fallacy throughout your paper. The entire community accepts or rejects bitcoin changes. They vote by choosing which bitcoin version to run on the network.
Open source means anyone can fork the code at any time, if the community feels developers are going off into insane-land.
I proposed towncoin and am ready to implement it with angel miners. This paper by Steven is a train wreck.
June 11, 2011, 04:45:20 PM
I wouldn't call bullshit so quickly. I have some suspicions that there are a couple of major problems lurking.
Anyone interested in some of these, please have a look at: http://www.newbitcoin.org/documents/newbitcoin.pdf
June 11, 2011, 04:01:43 PM
I'm not sure what "inaccurate observation or assumption" in my paper you are referring to. I stated that the enforced limits (like indeed transaction fee) are not optimal ones. And that I think that they should definitly not be under control of a small group of developers.
That is a central fallacy throughout your paper. The entire community accepts or rejects bitcoin changes. They vote by choosing which bitcoin version to run on the network.
Open source means anyone can fork the code at any time, if the community feels developers are going off into insane-land.
Jump to: