Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19342.

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

^^Not sure if joking. Here:

Quote from: bargainbin on February 16, 2016, 12:25:05 AM

Quote from: shmadz on February 16, 2016, 12:19:11 AM

...
What the Fuck is a "non-mining node" if not a wallet?

If you had significant wealth invested in a system, you would expect your interface to validate transactions, correct?

A wallet is exactly what it is! And yet, there are those who *insist* that such nodes are essential to Bitcoin security. Not to *your BTC security* -- obviously, a real wallet helps -- but Bitcoin, the network security.

Re. your second question: I would expect my WALLET to validate my transactions. It's a non-mining node, that's its job.
Or my web wallet (if I chose to trust one) -- it will run a node, because it's its JOB.
I don't need to encourage anyone to run nodes, I don't need to discourage anyone from running *different* nodes -- I don't CARE, it don't effect ME, because it doesn't affect Bitcoin security.

Also, reposting my edit:

Quote

Also please explain the meaning of "economic agent." Is that a person? A sum of money? A person with a sum of money?
A person running a wallet (non-mining node)? A legal entity? Can both my business and myself be economic agents?
And "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), explain that shit.

> or fuck off.
If you have no answers, at least stop being a rude faggot.

shmadz

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

@theshmadz

Quote from: bargainbin on February 16, 2016, 12:25:05 AM

explain that shit.

No.

I'll repeat. Ask plainly, or fuck off.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 16, 2016, 12:13:00 AM

We aren't talking about malicious mining nodes (much more dangerous, even all by themselves, somewhat safe tho because incentives), we are talking about malicious NMN. The careful reader will see you have, as yet, not presented the relevant security hole.

I was giving a list of problems malicious NMN can have with regards to attack vectors. If a NMN has a valid blockchain boostrapped they will reject a malicious mining node block. Thus a NMN matters specifically because this attack can occur in a coordinated fashion. They are dependent upon each other.

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 16, 2016, 12:13:00 AM

0 conf is already understood to be insecure, and is about to be officially and fully deprecated.

Yet most tx's are 0 conf... Until people start using payment channels this will continue to be a problem. This is wht segwit needs to be deployed ASAP, to fix most of the problems with malleability so payment channels can mature.

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 16, 2016, 12:13:00 AM

You do understand that a full node verifies signatures? It will not accept false blocks, even from all 8 connected peers. So the worst case scenario is that it has to drop/ban several malicious peers before it finds a good one.

If the full node is bootstrapped from a pool of malicious nodes it can verify a false block. There is a good reason outbound is restricted to one IP address per /16 .

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: shmadz on February 16, 2016, 12:19:11 AM

Quote from: bargainbin on February 16, 2016, 12:13:12 AM

Quote from: shmadz on February 16, 2016, 12:09:03 AM

Quote from: bargainbin on February 16, 2016, 12:06:42 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on February 15, 2016, 11:44:51 PM

...
P.S... Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

Yes, will repeat:

Quote

... What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet). ...

What the Fuck is a "non-mining node" if not a wallet?

If you had significant wealth invested in a system, you would expect your interface to validate transactions, correct?

A wallet is exactly what it is! And yet, there are those who *insist* that such nodes are essential to Bitcoin security. Not to *your BTC security* -- obviously, a real wallet helps -- but Bitcoin, the network security.

Re. your second question: I would expect my WALLET to validate my transactions. It's a non-mining node, that's its job.
Or my web wallet (if I chose to trust one) -- it will run a node, because it's its JOB.
I don't need to encourage anyone to run nodes, I don't need to discourage anyone from running *different* nodes -- I don't CARE, it don't effect ME, because it doesn't affect Bitcoin security.

Also, reposting my edit:

Quote

Also please explain the meaning of "economic agent." Is that a person? A sum of money? A person with a sum of money?
A person running a wallet (non-mining node)? A legal entity? Can both my business and myself be economic agents?
And "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), explain that shit.

shmadz

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

@theshmadz

Quote from: bargainbin on February 16, 2016, 12:13:12 AM

Quote from: shmadz on February 16, 2016, 12:09:03 AM

Quote from: bargainbin on February 16, 2016, 12:06:42 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on February 15, 2016, 11:44:51 PM

...
P.S... Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

Yes, will repeat:

Quote

... What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet). ...

What the Fuck is a "non-mining node" if not a wallet?

If you had significant wealth invested in a system, you would expect your interface to validate transactions, correct?

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: shmadz on February 16, 2016, 12:09:03 AM

Quote from: bargainbin on February 16, 2016, 12:06:42 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on February 15, 2016, 11:44:51 PM

...
P.S... Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

Better still once he has done this they can search out the answer and add it to one of the many community FAQ or bitcoin wikis that are out there to help others and put a stop to the constant stream of misunderstanding.

Quietly working away to improve the lot of everybody and find out if there really are problems that need fixing and recording them selflessly for others to improve their knowledge or loudly asking non-questions repeatedly intending to distract and misinform, you choose.

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: shmadz on February 16, 2016, 12:09:03 AM

Quote from: bargainbin on February 16, 2016, 12:06:42 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on February 15, 2016, 11:44:51 PM

...
P.S... Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

Yes, will repeat:

Quote

... What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet). ...

Also please explain the meaning of "economic agent." Is that a person? A sum of money? A person with a sum of money?
A person running a wallet (non-mining node)? A legal entity? Can both my business and myself be economic agents?
And "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), explain that shit.

Cconvert2G36

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: BitUsher on February 15, 2016, 11:44:51 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 15, 2016, 11:42:46 PM

Quote from: BitUsher on February 15, 2016, 11:35:17 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 15, 2016, 11:26:33 PM

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent ~~letter to santa~~ principle.

Yes , Todd, Back , and others like myself criticized them for spinning up 100 bitcoin core nodes. I already cited this... It doesn't matter who is doing it , it isn't a good idea and reflects a deep misunderstanding why we need individual humans on the other end of full nodes in a decentralized manner. Please don't take my word for it, ask someone you trust like Gavin if its a good idea for one person to spin up 100s of full nodes or not.

I never said it was a "good" or "bad" idea, just largely irrelevant to network security, which works via PoW. Good thing, that.

Users are part of the network. Many of these attacks are coordinated. Thus a compromised or malicious mining node coordinating with a pool of NMN could attack a user, or a malicious pool of NMN could coordinate a 0 conf attack, ect....There are many edge cases and fringe attacks that you aren't considering at all.... in network security you need to prepare for the edge cases (even if they are unlikely ) because an attacker will use an assortment of them or a specific one that is tailored to an attack during a vulnerable moment.

Additionally, you are ignoring the critical role a human plays in using the wallet, whether they know it or not they are playing the role or a "debugger" or "tester" to report problems to a developer. If you spin up 100 nodes that simultaneously gives a false sense of security and less people testing the software.
-snip-

We aren't talking about malicious mining nodes (much more dangerous, even all by themselves, somewhat safe tho because incentives), we are talking about malicious NMN. The careful reader will see you have, as yet, not presented the relevant security hole. 0 conf is already understood to be insecure, and is about to be officially and fully deprecated. You do understand that a full node verifies signatures? It will not accept false blocks, even from all 8 connected peers. So the worst case scenario is that it has to drop/ban several malicious peers before it finds a good one.

If malicious NMN can break the system... it's only a (short) matter of time until it's broken. Therefore... it's a very good thing they can only be an annoyance, and not an actual threat to network security.

Of course I think it is a huge asset to have the ledger widely replicated, and administered by a diverse and global group of individuals... but I fear the comparative importance of NMN to the security of the network is being somewhat overstated in this debate.

shmadz

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

@theshmadz

Quote from: bargainbin on February 16, 2016, 12:06:42 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on February 15, 2016, 11:44:51 PM

...
P.S... Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

What question? Ask your question plainly.

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: BitUsher on February 15, 2016, 11:44:51 PM

...
P.S... Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

The question has never been answered, that's why it's being asked again and again. Clearly Cconvert2G36 had *exactly the same questions*, which you *again* failed to answer.

But great job playing the tinfoil hat "intends to do our ecosystem harm."

@shmadz: Can you answer my non-mining node questions?

Quote

... What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet). ,,,

... or just looking for a chance to trot out your gold standard hobby horse?

shmadz

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

@theshmadz

Quote from: bargainbin on February 15, 2016, 11:46:12 PM

Not sure how real money plays into this. Explain please.

Sorry brah, BitUsher said it best...

Quote

P.S... Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

Btw, "real money" hasn't been real since the '70's

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: shmadz on February 15, 2016, 11:41:28 PM

Quote from: bargainbin on February 15, 2016, 11:31:20 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 15, 2016, 11:26:33 PM

...
NMN are important for the security of their users, not the network.

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent ~~letter to santa~~ principle.

Security based on encouraging people to do the right thing. What can possibly go wrong?
(If you riddle out "economic agent" & "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), drop me a line.)

Yeah, the Byzantine problem is provably unsolvable.

The incentive-based solution of bitcoin has only been proven to work for the last 6 years.

Take a look at the incentives in the current system of money issuance and tell me there's no problem.

Honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.
What I'm trying to grasp is the reasoning behind non-mining nodes, which are neither a part of satoshi's white paper nor make any sense (above being the only real (albeit impractical) wallet).

Not sure how real money plays into this. Explain please.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 15, 2016, 11:42:46 PM

Quote from: BitUsher on February 15, 2016, 11:35:17 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 15, 2016, 11:26:33 PM

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent ~~letter to santa~~ principle.

Yes , Todd, Back , and others like myself criticized them for spinning up 100 bitcoin core nodes. I already cited this... It doesn't matter who is doing it , it isn't a good idea and reflects a deep misunderstanding why we need individual humans on the other end of full nodes in a decentralized manner. Please don't take my word for it, ask someone you trust like Gavin if its a good idea for one person to spin up 100s of full nodes or not.

I never said it was a "good" or "bad" idea, just largely irrelevant to network security, which works via PoW. Good thing, that.

Users are part of the network. Many of these attacks are coordinated. Thus a compromised or malicious mining node coordinating with a pool of NMN could attack a user, or a malicious pool of NMN could coordinate a 0 conf attack, ect....There are many edge cases and fringe attacks that you aren't considering at all.... in network security you need to prepare for the edge cases (even if they are unlikely ) because an attacker will use an assortment of them or a specific one that is tailored to an attack during a vulnerable moment.

Additionally, you are ignoring the critical role a human plays in using the wallet, whether they know it or not they are playing the role or a "debugger" or "tester" to report problems to a developer. If you spin up 100 nodes that simultaneously gives a false sense of security and less people testing the software.

P.S... Everyone should ignore the user "bargainbin" , look at his post history and you can see he constantly wastes people time by asking the same questions over and over, and trolls to create dissent. He/She isn't genuine and intends to do our ecosystem harm.

Cconvert2G36

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: BitUsher on February 15, 2016, 11:35:17 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 15, 2016, 11:26:33 PM

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent ~~letter to santa~~ principle.

Yes , Todd, Back , and others like myself criticized them for spinning up 100 bitcoin core nodes. I already cited this... It doesn't matter who is doing it , it isn't a good idea and reflects a deep misunderstanding why we need individual humans on the other end of full nodes in a decentralized manner. Please don't take my word for it, ask someone you trust like Gavin if its a good idea for one person to spin up 100s of full nodes or not.

I never said it was a "good" or "bad" idea, just largely irrelevant to network security, which works via PoW. Good thing, that.

shmadz

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

@theshmadz

Quote from: bargainbin on February 15, 2016, 11:31:20 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 15, 2016, 11:26:33 PM

...
NMN are important for the security of their users, not the network.

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent ~~letter to santa~~ principle.

Security based on encouraging people to do the right thing. What can possibly go wrong?
(If you riddle out "economic agent" & "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), drop me a line.)

Yeah, the Byzantine problem is provably unsolvable.

The incentive-based solution of bitcoin has only been proven to work for the last 6 years.

Take a look at the incentives in the current system of money issuance and tell me there's no problem.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 15, 2016, 11:26:33 PM

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent ~~letter to santa~~ principle.

Yes , Todd, Back , and others like myself criticized them for spinning up 100 bitcoin core nodes. I already cited this... It doesn't matter who is doing it , it isn't a good idea and reflects a deep misunderstanding why we need individual humans on the other end of full nodes in a decentralized manner. Please don't take my word for it, ask someone you trust like Gavin if its a good idea for one person to spin up 100s of full nodes or not.

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 15, 2016, 11:26:33 PM

...
NMN are important for the security of their users, not the network.

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent ~~letter to santa~~ principle.

Security based on encouraging people to do the right thing. What can possibly go wrong?
(If you riddle out "economic agent" & "economic majority" (as defined in Bitcoin wiki), drop me a line.)

Cconvert2G36

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: BitUsher on February 15, 2016, 11:12:57 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 15, 2016, 11:04:11 PM

This is just what you "wish was true". Fact is, a state actor with with the budget of a thursday office party could spin up a huge amount of malicious nodes... does that mean we're doomed?

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 15, 2016, 10:57:16 PM

So... new nodes get bad data from a malicious NMN, they accept it?

New nodes bootstrap ~randomly from multiple peers, therefore it is important for us to maximize honest and decentralized nodes (1 unique node per economic agent) as much as possible to reduce the probability of this attack vector.

They drop/ban the peer after getting bad data... the horror. Er, wait, no... just working as designed. Next.

Quote from: BitUsher on February 15, 2016, 11:12:57 PM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on February 15, 2016, 10:57:16 PM

SPV nodes also just accept data from any random (possibly malicious) node on the network?

It more complicated than this because different SPV wallets handle security differently. SPV wallets do not accept nodes randomly, but an SPV wallet can be convinced or tricked into trusting the wrong full node or the an attacker can compromise the full node the SPV wallet depends upon... but it is more complicated than this as I said ... we really need to start discussing the individual wallets themselves to proceed further in the discussion.

Now we've meandered off into the security profiles of third party SPV wallets, the responsibility of their respective developers and users... not relevant to Bitcoin network security, the original focus of this discussion.

NMN are important for the security of their users, not the network.

You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent ~~letter to santa~~ principle.

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: BitUsher on February 15, 2016, 11:04:37 PM

...
One must first understand the techniques:

https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

>Try and avoid assuming bad faith among peers to avoid excessive paranoia
>The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies - Cryptome

We are strong, no one can tell us we're wrong
Searchin' our hearts for so long
Both of us knowing...
Love is a battlefield

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19342. (Read 26630405 times)