Topic: Shouldn't we start using safer keys from now instead of waiting for problems? - page 2. (Read 6065 times)

If you told me she gained unauthorized access to your computer, I'd believe that.
If you told me she hacked into your computer and gained access to your wallet, I'd believe that.
If you told me that she brute-forced the password you set on your wallet (and your password was weak), I'd believe that.
If you told me she figured out the password on your wallet based on the things she knows about you, I'd believe that.
If you told me that you imported a private key that you generated from a passphrase, and that she figured out your passphrase based on the things she knows about you, I'd believe that.

But, regardless of what she has told you, she did not brute-force the necessary private key to spend/steal the bitcoins.

I mean I know her personally. She brags about this stuff and the fact that she knew I was empty before I did is still weird.

Sounds a bit paranoid, and a lot like an unlikely assumption.

It is not possible to try every possible combination to "brute-force" a private key.  The fact that you think someone did this doesn't make it true.

I know what it means. Trying every possible combination.

brute-force

Because I know who did it. Same stalker as the one I had years ago. Finally found me again.

How do you know that?

 

I agree with OP. Already had my wallet emptied from a brute-force.

This argument seems to assume that humans will be the only economic actors.
I predict that Artificial Intelligences with Bitcoin wallets will be numerous - potentially outnumbering humans.

I'm thinking Churches.

Actually, I can see that one happening.

Implausible you say? It's the more likely scenario I say!

What calculations are you doing?

First no those numbers don't include other forms of wealth, they are the amount of currency and money globally.  They don't include houses, and stocks, bonds, life insurance policies, priceless art, etc.  Even if Bitcoin replaces all forms of Currency or Money it won't be replacing all forms of wealth.  You aren't going to live inside a Bitcoin, and drive a Bitcoin to work.  You aren't going to eat Bitcoins and give your bride to be an engagement Bitcoin and take time off work to go on a Bitcoin.  Nobody is going to go to museums and look at priceless framed Bitcoins and talk about the Bitcoin that they hate where they Bitcoin the Bitcoin all Bitcoin long.

The global currency supply (M0) is roughly $5T (not the $5 septrillion number you posted).  For Bitcoin to replace all global currency (M0) would put the value of 1 BTC at $238,095.25, in 2012 US dollars.  A satoshi would have have a value of roughly 0.25 US cents.  

I would argue that under such a (implausible) scenario many people would demand bank accounts for their coins so maybe using the global money supply (M1) which includes demand account deposits would be more meaningful and that is roughly $50T. For Bitcoin to replace all global currency (M0) would put the value of 1 BTC at $2,380,952.38, in 2012 US dollars.  A satoshi would have have a value of roughly 2.4 US cents.  

As countries are eliminating coins worth more than that a global single world Bitcoin currency would be more than sufficient.

Examples:
Canada eliminated Canadian cent making smallest coin worth $0.05 USD.
China smallest unit (physical or electronic) is 1/100th of a Yuan which is worth ~$0.06 USD.
Finland has reduced circulation of Euro cent making the smallest coin worth ~$0.07 USD.
Australia smallest coin is the 5 cent piece and there is talk of eliminating it which would make the smallest unit worth ~$0.10 USD

Edited for clarity.

Are you sure this calculations are correct ?
Also, does "other currencies" contain gold & silver bullions + diamonds ?

Even if these calculations are correct then we have roughly 5,000,000,000,000,000 (5 quadrillions in US scale or 5 trillions in normal scale) units of dollars in circulation. If you add 2 more zeros for penny, then we have

=5,000,000,000,000,000,00 units of dollars vs
21,000,000,000,000,000 units of bitcoin

So no, as you can see - it isn't enough. At least 2 zeros (or better 3) are missing from this picture.

More practically, MPEx's PUSH is doing ~100 BTC worth a day already.

Couldn't make heads or tails of the rest of your argument. Keeping the blocks under 1 mb makes house buying transactions fit in 500 bytes and 55Gb is hardcoded into quantum physics as the "affordable yearly datasize"?

Let me google that for you.... ah, here's a nice chart:
  http://dollardaze.org/blog/?post_id

There is about 5 trillion dollars in currency in the world.

So 2.1 thousand trillion satoshis is PLENTY.

Guys, stop worrying about the maximum blocksize. There are lots of ways to do off-chain transactions, here is one idea from Gavin, there is also Ripple and OpenTransactions, as well as more limited ways to do micro-transactions; Mike Hearn is apparently working on this concept. I've even got an idea myself.

On the other hand if we do increase the maximum blocksize we reduce the one incentive miners will always have: transaction fees. This reduces the security of Bitcoin for everyone, and makes it expensive for anyone to participate by mining or running a full node. I know it's kinda arbitrary, but keeping the blocksize at 1MB forever lets Bitcoin act as the "gold standard" of crypto-currencies, and enables a whole ecosystem around Bitcoin. If we do this in the future you'll be able to safely buy a house with Bitcoin, albeit for the equivalent of a few dollars in transaction fees, and also pay for a $1 chocolate bar with Bitcoin, albeit using a off-chain mechanism with a bit less security but a transaction fee of maybe a tenth of a cent.

The math is pretty simple really. Lets suppose we need 25x the current block reward value to keep Bitcoin secure in the future, and the reward is purely paid by fees. 25BTC * $15/BTC * 10 = $9375 USD/block. $9375/1Mib * 500bytes = $4.47 for your "buy a house transaction", yet, that will keep the total block chain size to a level, even with full history, that is at most 55GB/year. Anyone with an interest will be able to download the whole chain, still participate as a full node, and keep Bitcoin secure and inflation free for all of us.

Not exactly the point. Things such as stales were serious problems with (some) FPGAs and systems like p2p mining iirc. Unless I misunderstand something, having 1gb blocks would pose significant problems for pretty much all miners, and would not be necessarily trivial to handle on asics designed with 1mb/block assumptions in mind.

Please take your logic and math elsewhere. Only hysteria and hyperbole belong here.

Precision change would not require hardware changes.  All miners care about is a double round of sha256 of whatevery you hand it.