11–20 of 155 posts
The wikipedia page doesn't say - do clients generally support this protocol now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_clien...
First bullet on qBittorent's changelog for v4.4.0 is that they do. So I'm sure it's rolling out quickly to others. v4.4.0 changelog: FEATURE: Support for v2 torrents along with libtorrent 2.0.x support (glassez, Chocobo1) - https://www.qbittorrent.org/news.php
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24401999 - 2020, 1227 points, 562 comments
i do love that it immediately goes into yet another crypto bashing comment chain while not realising that a crypto company owns bittorrent: https://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-inc-confirms-acquisition... and that after the creator of bittorrent left he created his own cryptocurrency: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chia_(cryptocurrency)
People are still struggling to articulate a legitimate use case for cryptocurrencies.
I made some money mining BTC way back in the day with a GPU. I bought a new computer for $1,900 last year and much more than paid for it mining ETH. I’ve spent years now listening to all the claims from BTC, BCH, BSV and a dozen more coins and web3 proponents. But I’ll be damned if I can articulate a legitimate use for it that is better than what we have today or that doesn’t fail to take human nature into consideration.
I‘m wondering if they could avoid yet another breaking protocol change if SHA256 proves to be insecure (at some point in the future) if they made use of Multiformats [0]. At least IPFS went this way (Multiformats grew out of the IPFS development). [0] https://multiformats.io/
slight pedantism here, but "when" not "if"
I‘m wondering if they could avoid yet another breaking protocol change if SHA256 proves to be insecure (at some point in the future) if they made use of Multiformats [0]. At least IPFS went this way (Multiformats grew out of the IPFS development). [0] https://multiformats.io/
I‘m wondering if they could avoid yet another breaking protocol change if SHA256 proves to be insecure (at some point in the future) if they made use of Multiformats [0]. At least IPFS went this way (Multiformats grew out of the IPFS development). [0] https://multiformats.io/
You're proposing to add extra complexity for some hypothetical scenario that is unlikely to happen. That's a bad tradeoff.
I‘m wondering if they could avoid yet another breaking protocol change if SHA256 proves to be insecure (at some point in the future) if they made use of Multiformats [0]. At least IPFS went this way (Multiformats grew out of the IPFS development). [0] https://multiformats.io/
>if SHA256 proves to be insecure slight pedantism here, but "when" not "if"
Increases in computing power alone can't render SHA256 insecure; that can be proven by thermodynamic/size-of-the-universe arguments. You need an actual cryptographic weakness.
I‘m wondering if they could avoid yet another breaking protocol change if SHA256 proves to be insecure (at some point in the future) if they made use of Multiformats [0]. At least IPFS went this way (Multiformats grew out of the IPFS development). [0] https://multiformats.io/
>if SHA256 proves to be insecure slight pedantism here, but "when" not "if"
In the time since SHA1 came under attack, a lot more research has happened on hash function security. If this has shown anything, it's that SHA256 is more secure than people used to think.
People seem to have this widely believed idea that "all crypto will be broken eventually". But in pretty much all cases you can trace back that broken crypto was known to be weak for a long time. SHA256 is not known to be weak (with the slight caveat that it doesn't protect against length extension attacks, but this is a known property that matters only in very rare circumstances).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're proposing to add extra complexity for some hypothetical scenario that is unlikely to happen. That's a bad tradeoff.
unlikely ? all methods are broken eventualy when compute becomes faster
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're proposing to add extra complexity for some hypothetical scenario that is unlikely to happen. That's a bad tradeoff.
unlikely ? all methods are broken eventualy when compute becomes faster
You're not gonna break SHA256 with faster computers.