221–230 of 258 posts
So, it's using DRM to hide the blockchain, is that right?
So if the coin's market cap were higher than Intel's, you could buy Intel and use the SGX master keys to establish rogue nodes and take over the network. In fact this is no better at all than if Intel were simply running the MobileCoin service as a centralized provider/bank.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The nodes can prove that they are running the correct software using SGX.
If you trust Intel. In that case, why not use a centralized ledger operated by Intel? It would certainly be more efficient, and no less trust-worthy. You even eliminate a whole bunch of side-channel attack vectors on the MobileCoin software such as memory access patterns, heat dissipation patterns, timing analysis, and failure modes such as total compromise of SGX.
Surely I'm reading this wrong. Does the whole thing depend on users trusting that the nodes run the correct software, which uses these "enclaves" to hide private data from itself?
The nodes can prove that they are running the correct software using SGX.
I imagine my ignorance of SGX has something to do with this. Is there a 101 link somewhere?
I'm not sure using Stellar is wise as the majority is owned by a small group of people, much smaller than Bitcoin, which creates conflict of interest and not future SEC proof. on a side rant: So...many...coins...I too have something called BrowserCoin.com but still haven't figured out what problems to solve. Too many people just go implement a pseudo-academic blockchain tech with fancy dials without vetting the probl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you trust Intel. In that case, why not use a centralized ledger operated by Intel? It would certainly be more efficient, and no less trust-worthy. You even eliminate a whole bunch of side-channel attack vectors on the MobileCoin software such as memory access patterns, heat dissipation patterns, timing analysis, and failure modes such as total compromise of SGX.
Well it's a little different in that in your scenario Intel would be able to decide after the fact to do something bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also says that the clients transmit private keys and PINs to the SGX nodes, which presumably allow spending of their coins. Maybe it's designed in a way that they lose their money, but maintain the privacy of their previous and other transactions going through the node.
Users have to transmit the private keys to their nodes, but not the PIN. This tradeoff was taken to prevent people from losing their money by losing their phone. If the secure enclave were broken, nodes could, theoretically, be able to brute-force the private keys. I think that in reality, there will really be just a few nodes: Signal, WhatsApp and some bots/banks/businesses. The trust system in place is ideal for th…
> At install time, Alice's client performs remote attestation with its Mobile-Coin node, establishes a secure communication channel into the remote enclave, and transmits its keypair along with its recovery PIN.
> "Nobody actually transacts in cryptocurrency," Goldbard says. "So making something that people can actually use is our first goal. And then we want to find additional ways that people can implement it over time. But initially all we want is to make it so people can actually complete transactions." Amen. Too few projects have this focus.
On reason, in the U.S. at least, is that you're supposed to pay capital gains on every little bit you spend. There's a bill in Congress right now to exclude crypto transactions under $600 from capital gains, which would be a big help. Even if you do want to hold long term, you could just replenish what you spend along the way, if it weren't a tax reporting nightmare.
Using Stellar’s Federated Byzantine Agreement as a basis for consensus is a solid foundation. David Mazières’ paper[0] displays strong insights and proofs into the structure of byzantine systems with open membership. [0]: https://www.stellar.org/papers/stellar-consensus-protocol.pd... I wonder where the code for MobileCoin is, or when it will get open-sourced. All GitHub yields currently is this clearly non-affiliate…
It's a lot more efficient than Bitcoin (no proof of work, it's just another consensus protocol), but the trade off is that 1) it doesn't have all the feel-good rampant libertarianism of completely untrusted decentralized consensus of Bitcoin 2) you have to pick a good set of trusted nodes and trust them all not to collude
(Ripple has other problems that skeeve me out, but after thinking about it federated consensus isn't one of them. I think a lot of altcoins are using federation, actually...)
[1]: https://ripple.com/build/xrp-ledger-consensus-process/#the-x...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is correct, gains in ISAs are tax free and have no impact on cgt allowance. So if cryptocurrencies were a good investment an ISA would be an excellent place to hold them and convert gains to currency you can spend, but I don’t think any isa providers support them.
They don’t have impact unless you sell or cash out. The same goes for many other assets you pay cgt only when the profit is realized.