The ZEIT wallet is currently disabled for maintenance.
Our tech support team are actively working on resolving the issue and getting it back online ASAP - sorry we cannot give an exact ETA.
Pending transactions will be processed once the wallet is re-enabled.
We apologies for any inconvenience.
Sincerely
CoinExchange.io Support Team
https://coinexchangeio.freshdesk.com/helpdesk/tickets/13660
Topic: ★ ZEIT ★ [COMMUNITY & KNIGHTS] [ULTRA LOW INFLATION] [MICRO-PAYMENTS] - page 68. (Read 1009334 times)
October 17, 2017, 08:28:10 AM
October 17, 2017, 01:56:40 AM
Zeit seems a waste of time and money to me, For months they have shown no progress, the price is always dumping like golem. I don not find a real life use case for zeit. Zeit community please respond.
Sounds to me , like you already made your mind up.
The Community and Traders control the price variations by their choices to buy , sell or hold.
Right now its seems that the traders that purchased Zeit up to 6 sat , are dumping at 1 and possibility lower.
So most buyers are waiting for them to drop the price even lower before they buy in or waiting for a price crash in BTC, so a buy in would be cheaper in fiat.
Look , I assume you are a grown up and are old enough to make your own decisions.
So it is simple.
Sell and get what you can.
or
Hold and wait for the price to increase.
It really is not that hard, personally I am a ZEIT Knight and I will be holding my 248 Million ZEIT coins come Hell or High Water, and you can monitor my holdings at McTB1Hv4FMsuvUAnmjcdPbXta51qJ7wSWD to see for yourself, my faith in the future of ZEIT is unyielding.
I see a bright future for ZEIT, if you don't , well your choice on what you do,
We may drop lower , we may not, there is a massive amount of manipulation in the markets pretty much all of this year.
ZEIT is not like other coins, no one is going to break our spirit / will by any price manipulation shenanigans.
Make your choice, but ZEIT will continue, either way until we reach our goals.
FYI:
FYI2:
And just to put something into perspective for you, when we started the ZEIT Knights,
the price to attain 100 Million coin requirement was only ~$75 US.
Now the price to attain 100 million coin requirement is ~$5753 US
So saying our price has not changed verses fiat is incorrect on your part.
October 17, 2017, 01:14:51 AM
Zeit seems a waste of time and money to me, For months they have shown no progress, the price is always dumping like golem. I don not find a real life use case for zeit. Zeit community please respond.
October 17, 2017, 01:06:06 AM
Bittrex , the next cryptsy ?? 
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-altcoin-exchange-bittrex-eyed-with-suspicion-due-to-thousands-of-mysterious-account-closings
FYI:
I talked to a couple of US users , they are also locked out of their bittrex accounts.
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-altcoin-exchange-bittrex-eyed-with-suspicion-due-to-thousands-of-mysterious-account-closings
Quote
Bitcoin, Altcoin Exchange Bittrex Eyed With Suspicion Due to Thousands of Mysterious Account Closings
Cointelegraph recently began receiving complaints about the Bittrex exchange disabling users’ accounts for no apparent reason. One consistent theme in every complaint we’ve received is that users have attempted to open tickets and have even sought help on the exchange’s Slack, only to be ignored and banned, respectively.
One user complained that he has six Bitcoin in his Bittrex account--over $30,000 at today’s values--and no longer has access to his funds and receives no answers to his support tickets.
Another user comments:
“My Bittrex account is disabled for more than 3 days without any warning or announcement. Their support do not answer anything.”
Another wrote:
“Although we submitted tickets about this issue to their support team, they with all obscenity and indecency, instead of responding to their users’ tickets, they just ignore us.”
Still another user suggested the bans may be tied to users’ nationalities. He wrote:
“In Iran, more than 3,000 accounts have been deactivated without reason.”
Another Bittrex customer emailed us, saying:
“I talked to many users in Telegram groups and the most affected countries are Syria, India, Iran, Russia, Pakistan and Turkey.”
Many of those who emailed us pointed out that they are using verified accounts, suggesting that it isn’t a KYC/AML problem.
Cointelegraph recently began receiving complaints about the Bittrex exchange disabling users’ accounts for no apparent reason. One consistent theme in every complaint we’ve received is that users have attempted to open tickets and have even sought help on the exchange’s Slack, only to be ignored and banned, respectively.
One user complained that he has six Bitcoin in his Bittrex account--over $30,000 at today’s values--and no longer has access to his funds and receives no answers to his support tickets.
Another user comments:
“My Bittrex account is disabled for more than 3 days without any warning or announcement. Their support do not answer anything.”
Another wrote:
“Although we submitted tickets about this issue to their support team, they with all obscenity and indecency, instead of responding to their users’ tickets, they just ignore us.”
Still another user suggested the bans may be tied to users’ nationalities. He wrote:
“In Iran, more than 3,000 accounts have been deactivated without reason.”
Another Bittrex customer emailed us, saying:
“I talked to many users in Telegram groups and the most affected countries are Syria, India, Iran, Russia, Pakistan and Turkey.”
Many of those who emailed us pointed out that they are using verified accounts, suggesting that it isn’t a KYC/AML problem.
FYI:
I talked to a couple of US users , they are also locked out of their bittrex accounts.
October 15, 2017, 04:38:21 PM
And one more thing many coins are switching to pos zeitcoin is one of the oldest ones out there
Excellent point,
The fact is all PoW coins, no matter how successful at the moment are all fated to the same dead end.
At some point the monetary and environmental costs will outweigh their network and they are destined to either die or switch to PoS.
Many areas are already banning PoW mining warehouses due to their increasing strain on the electric grid, which in some areas was raising the electric rates for all people.
ZEIT is energy efficient and cost effective to maintain, we are the future of crypto.
Recent Article on https://cointelegraph.com/news/the-history-and-evolution-of-proof-of-stake
Quote
Four Issues With PoS
There are four main challenges in designing a Proof of Stake system:
Distribution. Since block rewards go to stakers, how do you distribute coins initially?
Monopolization. Those with a significant amount of coins reap a majority of all future coins.
51% attack. Just like how Proof of Work (PoW) has to be wary of a 51% attack from a miner, so too does PoS have to be wary of a staker who has a 51% stake weight.
Nothing at Stake (NoS). PoS adds a block when a node meets a set of conditions which includes stake weight. However, the coin forks when two nodes meet these conditions at the same time. The fork is then resolved by other nodes signing one of the two transactions. The hypothetical problem of NoS arises when 99% of all nodes sign both chains because there is no cost (nothing at stake) to verify these transactions. Therefore a 1% staker could potentially “double spend” by paying with coins on one chain but then verifying the other.
There are four main challenges in designing a Proof of Stake system:
Distribution. Since block rewards go to stakers, how do you distribute coins initially?
Monopolization. Those with a significant amount of coins reap a majority of all future coins.
51% attack. Just like how Proof of Work (PoW) has to be wary of a 51% attack from a miner, so too does PoS have to be wary of a staker who has a 51% stake weight.
Nothing at Stake (NoS). PoS adds a block when a node meets a set of conditions which includes stake weight. However, the coin forks when two nodes meet these conditions at the same time. The fork is then resolved by other nodes signing one of the two transactions. The hypothetical problem of NoS arises when 99% of all nodes sign both chains because there is no cost (nothing at stake) to verify these transactions. Therefore a 1% staker could potentially “double spend” by paying with coins on one chain but then verifying the other.
How ZEIT handles the so called challenges.
1. Distribution. Since block rewards go to stakers, how do you distribute coins initially?
Initial Coins were generated thru Proof of Work, and later our high inflation rates (for 3 years) kept the price low enough that anyone could afford to own a large amount of ZEIT, if they saw fit.
2. Monopolization. Those with a significant amount of coins reap a majority of all future coins.
Our Ultra Low Inflation Rate put an end to this concern. As you can earn free dogecoins or sell your stake from other coins and buy more coins per day than our ULI of .0005% per year can generate.
3. 51% attack. Just like how Proof of Work (PoW) has to be wary of a 51% attack from a miner, so too does PoS have to be wary of a staker who has a 51% stake weight.
ZEIT uses Coin Age, to make sure the % is always in flux, plus as an attacker earns stake , he automatically decreases his % for a set time, making 51% attacks against our coin extremely difficult and extremely short in their duration (compared to a PoW coin where a 51% attacker can keep control of the network indefinitely . Also the cost to becomes a 51% stake holder drives up the price and would make the attacker lose all of his investment. Chinese have an a constant over 60% control of bitcoin for over 2 years, funny no one worries about them,
4. Nothing at Stake (NoS).
This was a manufactured lie made up by Bitcoin's Satan G. Maxwell,
as a propaganda tool to discredit Proof of stake.
For it to even be attempted requires that all Clients perform a process called multistaking.
None of the PoS wallets in release today allow multistaking.
And in truth , if studied, multistaking is an idiotic waste of resources which can make PoS burn more CPU & memory resources than even PoW, wasteful and stupid is the best description of multistaking.
For more detailed explanations are
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17135430
&
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17136990
October 15, 2017, 03:28:14 PM
In regards of fiat Zeitcoin was worth 0.000001$ in September 10th 2014 now its worth 0.000058$ So its a pretty good return in 2 years cant see any bank doying those rates, peopple really dont know that fiat is worth crap and bitcoin is proving that!
And one more thing many coins are switching to pos zeitcoin is one of the oldest ones out there, When peopple realize that, oh boy!
And one more thing many coins are switching to pos zeitcoin is one of the oldest ones out there, When peopple realize that, oh boy!
October 15, 2017, 02:45:15 PM
So many years and still it is worth nothing 
So you have no Faith in ZEIT.
My questions to you, are this.
What have you personally done to make it worth something?
You need to decide what you are?
Are you a Long Term Holder that is waiting for a specific price to sell?
or
Are you merely a trader just trying to gleam a profit in fiat?
If you are a long term holder, temporary price fluctuations mean little to you ,
because you know over time the price per coin will increase.
If you are a trader, you fucked up and missed the opportunity to sell ZEIT
at ~ 6 satoshi a few months ago.
So which are you Holder or Trader?
Holders have lost nothing , even if the price drops to 1 dogeshi , as long as they wait for the price to return stronger before selling.
Traders sell as soon as they can make a profit, or they cash out to place their fiat in another coin that they think will earn them more fiat.
Whining because you have yet to make a decision , is really complaining about your own indecisiveness.
Pick one and trade according.
October 15, 2017, 04:29:51 AM
So many years and still it is worth nothing
October 14, 2017, 05:03:57 AM
Thanks for the info. Is there any fresh news on the coin ?? I want good news!
------------
------------
We have had this conversation before,
ZEIT requires patience and strength of will.
We don't do pump and dump and we don't spread useless hype.
If you want constant news updates , this is not the coin for you.
There are no planned code updates for at least a year or more.
The ULI is performing it's job and the price per coin is holding better verses Bitcoin than many of the other alts.
That is the only current news and expect it to be the only news for the foreseeable future.
Interesting... So nothing to expect?
You can expect the price to go up and down but the code is solid and no hard forks/ updates planned.
Everyday that passes the ULI has a greater effect on the price, so that is occurring without anything else needing to be done.
As the price becomes more stable it's practical value for real world trading increases, it is nothing but a matter of time now.
Current ZEIT Marketcap bouncing between 2 & 4 million on the high end.
As they say , if it ain't broke don't fix it.
October 11, 2017, 04:07:02 AM
Quote
That is the only current news and expect it to be the only news for the foreseeable future.
No news is good news.
Carry on.
October 10, 2017, 05:16:25 PM
Thanks for the info. Is there any fresh news on the coin ?? I want good news!
------------
------------
We have had this conversation before,
ZEIT requires patience and strength of will.
We don't do pump and dump and we don't spread useless hype.
If you want constant news updates , this is not the coin for you.
There are no planned code updates for at least a year or more.
The ULI is performing it's job and the price per coin is holding better verses Bitcoin than many of the other alts.
That is the only current news and expect it to be the only news for the foreseeable future.
October 10, 2017, 10:36:32 AM
Thanks for the info. Is there any fresh news on the coin ?? I want good news!
------------
------------
Current Exchange status Updates
Exchanges working normally are :
Alcurex
Cryptopia
NovaExchange : Trading has been reactivated.
SouthXchange
Trade Satoshi
Exchanges with issues
CoinXchange : Wallet is offline , No deposits or withdrawals at the moment
Yobit : Wallets do not accept deposits or withdrawals for over a year
(Do Not Use Yobit)
Exchanges working normally are :
Alcurex
Cryptopia
NovaExchange : Trading has been reactivated.
SouthXchange
Trade Satoshi
Exchanges with issues
CoinXchange : Wallet is offline , No deposits or withdrawals at the moment
Yobit : Wallets do not accept deposits or withdrawals for over a year
(Do Not Use Yobit)
October 09, 2017, 07:17:40 PM
Current Exchange status Updates
Exchanges working normally are :
Alcurex
Cryptopia
NovaExchange : Trading has been reactivated.
SouthXchange
Trade Satoshi
Exchanges with issues
CoinXchange : Wallet is offline , No deposits or withdrawals at the moment
Yobit : Wallets do not accept deposits or withdrawals for over a year
(Do Not Use Yobit)
Exchanges working normally are :
Alcurex
Cryptopia
NovaExchange : Trading has been reactivated.
SouthXchange
Trade Satoshi
Exchanges with issues
CoinXchange : Wallet is offline , No deposits or withdrawals at the moment
Yobit : Wallets do not accept deposits or withdrawals for over a year
(Do Not Use Yobit)
October 06, 2017, 08:19:58 PM
Quote
If what I am saying here is correct then these external chains can use the same coins over and over again with no actual bitcoin being used at all in any of the transactions which also means that I can pretend to have a 100 coins but only really have 50 and so long as I can account for those 50 coins at the end of the day it does not matter because the main BTC block chain has not changed.
It also means that the so called decentralized Bitcoin and attending block chain are now a centralizing feature and the solution has become the problem.
Thank you again.
It also means that the so called decentralized Bitcoin and attending block chain are now a centralizing feature and the solution has become the problem.
Thank you again.
You are correct.
https://hooktube.com/watch?v=4AC6RSau7r8
Thanks CoinQuest, good to know that I have that correct because I have watched the video you posted a number of times, along with many others around the subject of money, it is a good presentation, well put together, easy to understand and I really like elements of the sound track.
A single block chain driven coin is far less vulnerable than all the coins where all the fiat seems to gather, are we really that stupid or am I missing something?
That's not really meant to be a question, just a loud thought.
Thanks again.
October 06, 2017, 02:16:20 PM
Quote
If what I am saying here is correct then these external chains can use the same coins over and over again with no actual bitcoin being used at all in any of the transactions which also means that I can pretend to have a 100 coins but only really have 50 and so long as I can account for those 50 coins at the end of the day it does not matter because the main BTC block chain has not changed.
It also means that the so called decentralized Bitcoin and attending block chain are now a centralizing feature and the solution has become the problem.
Thank you again.
It also means that the so called decentralized Bitcoin and attending block chain are now a centralizing feature and the solution has become the problem.
Thank you again.
You are correct.
https://hooktube.com/watch?v=4AC6RSau7r8
October 06, 2017, 10:42:24 AM
I found this http://barterdex.supernet.org/
would be great if dev would talk to them!
They want to add more coins and help with everything almost at the end of the page!
Well i contacted them allready lets see what they say!
would be great if dev would talk to them!
They want to add more coins and help with everything almost at the end of the page!
Well i contacted them allready lets see what they say!
While direct barter between individuals is a goal.
Time Locking / aka segwit code allows counterfeiting and will never be implemented in ZEIT.
Barterdex requires time locking / segwit style code to allow the cross chain atomic swaps for their system to work.
Can you prove the statement regarding counterfeiting? How does one do that?
We all know that LN is a Proposed Offchain solution to BTC backlog of Unconfirmed Transactions.
(Which could easily be fixed just with a blocksize increase or a faster BlockSpeed.)
But instead BTC core devs want to shove Segwit & LN down everyone throats.
Facts
LN Notes are a Offchain Representation of the value of a BTC (with the actual BTC locked in place on the actual BTC Onchain Blockchain)
LN Devs have continuously implied that BTC will be placed on LN and very rarely if ever be returned / unlocked on the real BTC Blockchain.
Combined the Chinese Mining Pools have over 51% necessary for an attack, (~68% at last count).
(With a 51% attack they can perform a history rewrite attacks, rewriting the blockchain.)
(A few years ago at the prompting of the BTC devs, a group (with over 51%) REWROTE the Last 12 Hours of the Blockchain to fix a fork, cause by a programming error.)
(So that was 76 Blocks that were rewritten.)
(We also know the Miners can choose which transactions are included in their blocks.)
So now back to the Title of this OP, Exactly how do you Counterfeit BTC on LN.
Option 1 :
Form a group of collusion between the Miners that control 51%,
Send 50 BTC to an address. Now follow the steps on LN to Lock up that 50 BTC on the Blockchain.
Whether LN requires 1 or 3 confirmations , as soon as LN confirms the representation of LN notes match your amount.
You and your colluding friends, rewrite the blockchain and include a transaction moving that 50 BTC to another address before the lock took place.
You now still have your 50 BTC Free & Clear Onchain, and a representation value of 50 BTC Offchain on LN .(Which you can use for LN transactions forever.)
BTC Onchain Transactions ended Counterfeiting , LN Offchain Transactions will bring Counterfeiting into Crypto.
(Which could easily be fixed just with a blocksize increase or a faster BlockSpeed.)
But instead BTC core devs want to shove Segwit & LN down everyone throats.
Facts
LN Notes are a Offchain Representation of the value of a BTC (with the actual BTC locked in place on the actual BTC Onchain Blockchain)
LN Devs have continuously implied that BTC will be placed on LN and very rarely if ever be returned / unlocked on the real BTC Blockchain.
Combined the Chinese Mining Pools have over 51% necessary for an attack, (~68% at last count).
(With a 51% attack they can perform a history rewrite attacks, rewriting the blockchain.)
(A few years ago at the prompting of the BTC devs, a group (with over 51%) REWROTE the Last 12 Hours of the Blockchain to fix a fork, cause by a programming error.)
(So that was 76 Blocks that were rewritten.)
(We also know the Miners can choose which transactions are included in their blocks.)
So now back to the Title of this OP, Exactly how do you Counterfeit BTC on LN.
Option 1 :
Form a group of collusion between the Miners that control 51%,
Send 50 BTC to an address. Now follow the steps on LN to Lock up that 50 BTC on the Blockchain.
Whether LN requires 1 or 3 confirmations , as soon as LN confirms the representation of LN notes match your amount.
You and your colluding friends, rewrite the blockchain and include a transaction moving that 50 BTC to another address before the lock took place.
You now still have your 50 BTC Free & Clear Onchain, and a representation value of 50 BTC Offchain on LN .(Which you can use for LN transactions forever.)
BTC Onchain Transactions ended Counterfeiting , LN Offchain Transactions will bring Counterfeiting into Crypto.
Option 2:
Secondary Way Segwit allows Counterfeiting is thru creation of a Fractional Reserve System
At any point they deem fit, the LN programmers can modify their code so that multiple LN Notes represent more than 1 onchain BTC. It is the history of the goldsmiths all over again.
Quote from: kiklo
LN freezes the amount of BTC on the BTC onchain network,
what is transferred on LN is a representation of that value.
(No Different than when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)
And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a BTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional BTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the BTC frozen on the BTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started.
http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced
LN Coins = Notes
BTC = Gold
what is transferred on LN is a representation of that value.
(No Different than when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)
And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a BTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional BTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the BTC frozen on the BTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started.
http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced
Quote
In the past, savers looking to keep their coins and valuables in safekeeping depositories deposited gold and silver at goldsmiths, receiving in exchange a note for their deposit (see Bank of Amsterdam). These notes gained acceptance as a medium of exchange for commercial transactions and thus became an early form of circulating paper money. As the notes were used directly in trade, the goldsmiths observed that people would not usually redeem all their notes at the same time, and they saw the opportunity to invest their coin reserves in interest-bearing loans and bills. This generated income for the goldsmiths but left them with more notes on issue than reserves with which to pay them. A process was started that altered the role of the goldsmiths from passive guardians of bullion, charging fees for safe storage, to interest-paying and interest-earning banks. Thus fractional-reserve banking was born.
LN = Goldsmiths, (which became Banks)LN Coins = Notes
BTC = Gold
Option 3 for Hackers
Is exploiting the Time lock , so that the other party is blocked from the internet or collusion with a Bitcoin Miner to include your transaction stealing your coins back before the other user can retrieve it onchain.
Quote
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 49 thru 51
Page 49 thru 51
Quote
Improper Timelocks
Participants must choose timelocks with sucient amounts of time. If insuf-
cient time is given, it is possible that timelocked transactions believed to
be invalid will become valid, enabling coin theft by the counterparty. There
is a trade-o between longer timelocks and the time-value of money. When
writing wallet and Lightning Network application software, it is necessary
to ensure that sucient time is given and users are able to have their trans-
actions enter into the blockchain when interacting with non-cooperative or
malicious channel counterparties
Participants must choose timelocks with sucient amounts of time. If insuf-
cient time is given, it is possible that timelocked transactions believed to
be invalid will become valid, enabling coin theft by the counterparty. There
is a trade-o between longer timelocks and the time-value of money. When
writing wallet and Lightning Network application software, it is necessary
to ensure that sucient time is given and users are able to have their trans-
actions enter into the blockchain when interacting with non-cooperative or
malicious channel counterparties
Quote
9.2 Forced Expiration Spam
Forced expiration of many transactions may be the greatest systemic risk
when using the Lightning Network. If a malicious participant creates many
channels and forces them all to expire at once, these may overwhelm block
data capacity, forcing expiration and broadcast to the blockchain. The re-
sult would be mass spam on the bitcoin network. The spam may delay
transactions to the point where other locktimed transactions become valid
Forced expiration of many transactions may be the greatest systemic risk
when using the Lightning Network. If a malicious participant creates many
channels and forces them all to expire at once, these may overwhelm block
data capacity, forcing expiration and broadcast to the blockchain. The re-
sult would be mass spam on the bitcoin network. The spam may delay
transactions to the point where other locktimed transactions become valid
Quote
9.3 Coin Theft via Cracking
As parties must be online and using private keys to sign, there is a possibility
that, if the computer where the private keys are stored is compromised, coins
will be stolen by the attacker. While there may be methods to mitigate
the threat for the sender and the receiver, the intermediary nodes must be
online and will likely be processing the transaction automatically. For this
reason, the intermediary nodes will be at risk and should not be holding
a substantial amount of money in this \hot wallet." Intermediary nodes
which have better security will likely be able to out-compete others in the
long run and be able to conduct greater transaction volume due to lower
fees. Historically, one of the largest component of fees and interest in the
nancial system are from various forms of counterparty risk { in Bitcoin it
is possible that the largest component in fees will be derived from security
risk premiums.
A Funding Transaction may have multiple outputs with multiple Com-
mitment Transactions, with the Funding Transaction key and some Commit-
ment Transactions keys stored oine. It is possible to create an equivalent
of a \Checking Account" and \Savings Account" by moving funds between
outputs from a Funding Transaction, with the \Savings Account" stored
online and requiring additional signatures from security services.
As parties must be online and using private keys to sign, there is a possibility
that, if the computer where the private keys are stored is compromised, coins
will be stolen by the attacker. While there may be methods to mitigate
the threat for the sender and the receiver, the intermediary nodes must be
online and will likely be processing the transaction automatically. For this
reason, the intermediary nodes will be at risk and should not be holding
a substantial amount of money in this \hot wallet." Intermediary nodes
which have better security will likely be able to out-compete others in the
long run and be able to conduct greater transaction volume due to lower
fees. Historically, one of the largest component of fees and interest in the
nancial system are from various forms of counterparty risk { in Bitcoin it
is possible that the largest component in fees will be derived from security
risk premiums.
A Funding Transaction may have multiple outputs with multiple Com-
mitment Transactions, with the Funding Transaction key and some Commit-
ment Transactions keys stored oine. It is possible to create an equivalent
of a \Checking Account" and \Savings Account" by moving funds between
outputs from a Funding Transaction, with the \Savings Account" stored
online and requiring additional signatures from security services.
Hi Kiklo, although the information you have presented above is detailed and probably comprehensive I have to admit that it does not mean anything to me hardly because I do not understand it I don't think. I take responsibility for not understanding it and in no way am I trying to undermine or discredit you in anyway. I accept that you probably do understand it clearly and that I am not able to make any of confirmation because I don't. I am hoping that you might help me to create a simpler explanation that I can understood more easily, please, if you do I thank you for your time and understanding.
My thinking on this subject is that the BTC block chain was a continual and unbroken ledger of transactions that could not be externally changed without that change also being recorded onto it. The introduction of Segwit allows changes to be made to the BTC block chain by locking coins onto it and then making the changes on an external block chain using the coins already locked on the BTC block chain as collateral . Transactions and changes are made on the external block chain but those actions are not recorded on the main BTC block chain because those coins never left the BTC block chain.
If what I am saying is correct then I can make as many changes off the BTC block chain as I like so long as I can confirm those original coins on the BTC block chain can be accounted for.
If what I am saying here is correct then these external chains can use the same coins over and over again with no actual bitcoin being used at all in any of the transactions which also means that I can pretend to have a 100 coins but only really have 50 and so long as I can account for those 50 coins at the end of the day it does not matter because the main BTC block chain has not changed.
It also means that the so called decentralized Bitcoin and attending block chain are now a centralizing feature and the solution has become the problem.
Thank you again.
October 06, 2017, 09:47:42 AM
Has anyone looked into making a Zeit presence on Investfeed? It's a brand new site dealing mostly on crypto information.
October 05, 2017, 10:21:23 PM
I found this http://barterdex.supernet.org/
would be great if dev would talk to them!
They want to add more coins and help with everything almost at the end of the page!
Well i contacted them allready lets see what they say!
would be great if dev would talk to them!
They want to add more coins and help with everything almost at the end of the page!
Well i contacted them allready lets see what they say!
While direct barter between individuals is a goal.
Time Locking / aka segwit code allows counterfeiting and will never be implemented in ZEIT.
Barterdex requires time locking / segwit style code to allow the cross chain atomic swaps for their system to work.
Can you prove the statement regarding counterfeiting? How does one do that?
We all know that LN is a Proposed Offchain solution to BTC backlog of Unconfirmed Transactions.
(Which could easily be fixed just with a blocksize increase or a faster BlockSpeed.)
But instead BTC core devs want to shove Segwit & LN down everyone throats.
Facts
LN Notes are a Offchain Representation of the value of a BTC (with the actual BTC locked in place on the actual BTC Onchain Blockchain)
LN Devs have continuously implied that BTC will be placed on LN and very rarely if ever be returned / unlocked on the real BTC Blockchain.
Combined the Chinese Mining Pools have over 51% necessary for an attack, (~68% at last count).
(With a 51% attack they can perform a history rewrite attacks, rewriting the blockchain.)
(A few years ago at the prompting of the BTC devs, a group (with over 51%) REWROTE the Last 12 Hours of the Blockchain to fix a fork, cause by a programming error.)
(So that was 76 Blocks that were rewritten.)
(We also know the Miners can choose which transactions are included in their blocks.)
So now back to the Title of this OP, Exactly how do you Counterfeit BTC on LN.
Option 1 :
Form a group of collusion between the Miners that control 51%,
Send 50 BTC to an address. Now follow the steps on LN to Lock up that 50 BTC on the Blockchain.
Whether LN requires 1 or 3 confirmations , as soon as LN confirms the representation of LN notes match your amount.
You and your colluding friends, rewrite the blockchain and include a transaction moving that 50 BTC to another address before the lock took place.
You now still have your 50 BTC Free & Clear Onchain, and a representation value of 50 BTC Offchain on LN .(Which you can use for LN transactions forever.)
BTC Onchain Transactions ended Counterfeiting , LN Offchain Transactions will bring Counterfeiting into Crypto.
(Which could easily be fixed just with a blocksize increase or a faster BlockSpeed.)
But instead BTC core devs want to shove Segwit & LN down everyone throats.
Facts
LN Notes are a Offchain Representation of the value of a BTC (with the actual BTC locked in place on the actual BTC Onchain Blockchain)
LN Devs have continuously implied that BTC will be placed on LN and very rarely if ever be returned / unlocked on the real BTC Blockchain.
Combined the Chinese Mining Pools have over 51% necessary for an attack, (~68% at last count).
(With a 51% attack they can perform a history rewrite attacks, rewriting the blockchain.)
(A few years ago at the prompting of the BTC devs, a group (with over 51%) REWROTE the Last 12 Hours of the Blockchain to fix a fork, cause by a programming error.)
(So that was 76 Blocks that were rewritten.)
(We also know the Miners can choose which transactions are included in their blocks.)
So now back to the Title of this OP, Exactly how do you Counterfeit BTC on LN.
Option 1 :
Form a group of collusion between the Miners that control 51%,
Send 50 BTC to an address. Now follow the steps on LN to Lock up that 50 BTC on the Blockchain.
Whether LN requires 1 or 3 confirmations , as soon as LN confirms the representation of LN notes match your amount.
You and your colluding friends, rewrite the blockchain and include a transaction moving that 50 BTC to another address before the lock took place.
You now still have your 50 BTC Free & Clear Onchain, and a representation value of 50 BTC Offchain on LN .(Which you can use for LN transactions forever.)
BTC Onchain Transactions ended Counterfeiting , LN Offchain Transactions will bring Counterfeiting into Crypto.
Option 2:
Secondary Way Segwit allows Counterfeiting is thru creation of a Fractional Reserve System
At any point they deem fit, the LN programmers can modify their code so that multiple LN Notes represent more than 1 onchain BTC. It is the history of the goldsmiths all over again.
Quote from: kiklo
LN freezes the amount of BTC on the BTC onchain network,
what is transferred on LN is a representation of that value.
(No Different than when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)
And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a BTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional BTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the BTC frozen on the BTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started.
http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced
LN Coins = Notes
BTC = Gold
what is transferred on LN is a representation of that value.
(No Different than when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)
And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a BTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional BTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the BTC frozen on the BTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started.
http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced
Quote
In the past, savers looking to keep their coins and valuables in safekeeping depositories deposited gold and silver at goldsmiths, receiving in exchange a note for their deposit (see Bank of Amsterdam). These notes gained acceptance as a medium of exchange for commercial transactions and thus became an early form of circulating paper money. As the notes were used directly in trade, the goldsmiths observed that people would not usually redeem all their notes at the same time, and they saw the opportunity to invest their coin reserves in interest-bearing loans and bills. This generated income for the goldsmiths but left them with more notes on issue than reserves with which to pay them. A process was started that altered the role of the goldsmiths from passive guardians of bullion, charging fees for safe storage, to interest-paying and interest-earning banks. Thus fractional-reserve banking was born.
LN = Goldsmiths, (which became Banks)LN Coins = Notes
BTC = Gold
Option 3 for Hackers
Is exploiting the Time lock , so that the other party is blocked from the internet or collusion with a Bitcoin Miner to include your transaction stealing your coins back before the other user can retrieve it onchain.
Quote
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
Page 49 thru 51
Page 49 thru 51
Quote
Improper Timelocks
Participants must choose timelocks with sucient amounts of time. If insuf-
cient time is given, it is possible that timelocked transactions believed to
be invalid will become valid, enabling coin theft by the counterparty. There
is a trade-o between longer timelocks and the time-value of money. When
writing wallet and Lightning Network application software, it is necessary
to ensure that sucient time is given and users are able to have their trans-
actions enter into the blockchain when interacting with non-cooperative or
malicious channel counterparties
Participants must choose timelocks with sucient amounts of time. If insuf-
cient time is given, it is possible that timelocked transactions believed to
be invalid will become valid, enabling coin theft by the counterparty. There
is a trade-o between longer timelocks and the time-value of money. When
writing wallet and Lightning Network application software, it is necessary
to ensure that sucient time is given and users are able to have their trans-
actions enter into the blockchain when interacting with non-cooperative or
malicious channel counterparties
Quote
9.2 Forced Expiration Spam
Forced expiration of many transactions may be the greatest systemic risk
when using the Lightning Network. If a malicious participant creates many
channels and forces them all to expire at once, these may overwhelm block
data capacity, forcing expiration and broadcast to the blockchain. The re-
sult would be mass spam on the bitcoin network. The spam may delay
transactions to the point where other locktimed transactions become valid
Forced expiration of many transactions may be the greatest systemic risk
when using the Lightning Network. If a malicious participant creates many
channels and forces them all to expire at once, these may overwhelm block
data capacity, forcing expiration and broadcast to the blockchain. The re-
sult would be mass spam on the bitcoin network. The spam may delay
transactions to the point where other locktimed transactions become valid
Quote
9.3 Coin Theft via Cracking
As parties must be online and using private keys to sign, there is a possibility
that, if the computer where the private keys are stored is compromised, coins
will be stolen by the attacker. While there may be methods to mitigate
the threat for the sender and the receiver, the intermediary nodes must be
online and will likely be processing the transaction automatically. For this
reason, the intermediary nodes will be at risk and should not be holding
a substantial amount of money in this \hot wallet." Intermediary nodes
which have better security will likely be able to out-compete others in the
long run and be able to conduct greater transaction volume due to lower
fees. Historically, one of the largest component of fees and interest in the
nancial system are from various forms of counterparty risk { in Bitcoin it
is possible that the largest component in fees will be derived from security
risk premiums.
A Funding Transaction may have multiple outputs with multiple Com-
mitment Transactions, with the Funding Transaction key and some Commit-
ment Transactions keys stored oine. It is possible to create an equivalent
of a \Checking Account" and \Savings Account" by moving funds between
outputs from a Funding Transaction, with the \Savings Account" stored
online and requiring additional signatures from security services.
As parties must be online and using private keys to sign, there is a possibility
that, if the computer where the private keys are stored is compromised, coins
will be stolen by the attacker. While there may be methods to mitigate
the threat for the sender and the receiver, the intermediary nodes must be
online and will likely be processing the transaction automatically. For this
reason, the intermediary nodes will be at risk and should not be holding
a substantial amount of money in this \hot wallet." Intermediary nodes
which have better security will likely be able to out-compete others in the
long run and be able to conduct greater transaction volume due to lower
fees. Historically, one of the largest component of fees and interest in the
nancial system are from various forms of counterparty risk { in Bitcoin it
is possible that the largest component in fees will be derived from security
risk premiums.
A Funding Transaction may have multiple outputs with multiple Com-
mitment Transactions, with the Funding Transaction key and some Commit-
ment Transactions keys stored oine. It is possible to create an equivalent
of a \Checking Account" and \Savings Account" by moving funds between
outputs from a Funding Transaction, with the \Savings Account" stored
online and requiring additional signatures from security services.
October 05, 2017, 02:39:36 PM
Current Exchange status Updates
Exchanges working normally are :
Alcurex
Cryptopia
SouthXchange
Trade Satoshi
Exchanges with issues
CoinXchange zeitcoin wallet is offline ,
Trading there to get zeitcoins is currently useless as No Zeitcoins can be withdrawn or deposited there, be aware.
(No reply back yet on when it will be fixed or even if it will be fixed.)
NovaExchange zeitcoin trading is still blocked, but the wallets were allowing withdrawals
(No reply back yet on when it will be fixed.)
recommend moving all of your zeitcoins to one of the above exchanges that are working normally until they fix their trading bug.
Yobit (Do Not Use Yobit) : Wallets do not accept deposits or withdrawals for over a year
FYI:
Question for the community, at what time frame should we place them on the Do not Trade List like yobit , if they are not allowing deposits or withdrawals to their zeit wallet.
Time frame choices.
1 month of being offline
3 months of being offline
6 months of being offline
Wanted to see the community's feedback on the above question.
FYI2:
ZEIT Blockchain Snapshot updated to Oct 2nd, 2017.
https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/1336?postId=7831
Exchanges working normally are :
Alcurex
Cryptopia
SouthXchange
Trade Satoshi
Exchanges with issues
CoinXchange zeitcoin wallet is offline ,
Trading there to get zeitcoins is currently useless as No Zeitcoins can be withdrawn or deposited there, be aware.
(No reply back yet on when it will be fixed or even if it will be fixed.)
NovaExchange zeitcoin trading is still blocked, but the wallets were allowing withdrawals
(No reply back yet on when it will be fixed.)
recommend moving all of your zeitcoins to one of the above exchanges that are working normally until they fix their trading bug.
Yobit (Do Not Use Yobit) : Wallets do not accept deposits or withdrawals for over a year
FYI:
Question for the community, at what time frame should we place them on the Do not Trade List like yobit , if they are not allowing deposits or withdrawals to their zeit wallet.
Time frame choices.
1 month of being offline
3 months of being offline
6 months of being offline
Wanted to see the community's feedback on the above question.
FYI2:
ZEIT Blockchain Snapshot updated to Oct 2nd, 2017.
https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/1336?postId=7831
Generally i think that 3 Months is a good Time Frame.
But Im not sure,
Yobit case seems extreme for me.
For Comparison with yobit i think 6 Months.
October 05, 2017, 01:05:36 PM
Big volume today in zeitcoin we need a bit of marketing, im doying my part at twitter @blbtheman anyone care to join?
Jump to: