Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

blog.lopp.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 194 posts

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#171

Post by CyberDildonics »

drawkbox wrote: post #168
CyberDildonics wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main point though was that these keys will probably be found in the future. That's not at all what you said at first. You didn't say the keys would probably be found, you said with quantum computing someone will break the encryption, which is based on nothing. Here it is verbatim: Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's…

> You originally said that "quantum computers will be able to break satoshi's keys" I said "Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin." As one part of my message. Now read the second, longer part. Summary: "Whoever has control of the early issued coins, holds a leverage that is dangerous and has extortion properties." No…

I said "Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin."

Then what are those "other advancements"?

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#174

Post by greyface- »

tromp wrote: post #167
greyface- wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single-use P2PKH addresses are quantum safe, since the public key is not revealed publicly until spending, just its hash. QC breaks ECDSA but not SHA256.

Even those are at risk if the key can be cracked in a matter of minutes, since it takes 10 mins on average from publishing your spending transaction to it getting mined, and the attacker can doublespend it with a much larger fee.

This is true. Leaving coins at rest is safe, but moving them before the threat is understood might be risky. Widespread opt-in RBF enforcement could mitigate the risk to some degree, if miners cooperate and shun full RBF after a quantum attack. In the worst case, one might need to submit their "exit" transactions directly to a non-evil miner in order to avoid revealing the pubkey before confirmation. Ideally, this will all be figured out ahead of time, and most non-"lost" coins will be moved over to post-quantum UTXOs before the risk is serious.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#176

Post by drawkbox »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #171
drawkbox wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You originally said that "quantum computers will be able to break satoshi's keys" I said "Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin." As one part of my message. Now read the second, longer part. Summary: "Whoever has control of the early issued coins, holds a leverage that is dangerous and has extortion properties." No…

I said "Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin." Then what are those "other advancements"?

Exactly... we don't know yet.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#177

Post by CyberDildonics »

drawkbox wrote: post #176
CyberDildonics wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said "Eventually with quantum computing or other advancements, someone will break the encryption and potentially swipe the part of Satoshi's coin." Then what are those "other advancements"?

Exactly... we don't know yet.

Most of the time when someone says 'we don't know' they really are talking about themselves.

People do know. There has been 100 years of cryptography and there are billions at stake. Hand waving and saying 'anything can happen in the future' with no plan, no details, no facts and no evidence is basically tech astrology.

Here's a challenge - find a cryptography expert that agrees with you.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#178

Post by kjkjadksj »

almost_usual wrote: post #154
kjkjadksj wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its probably a lot easier to do a better job of covering your tracks with cash than with bitcoin.

Absolutely but the point I’m making is that I don’t see cash existing in the near future.

The cash economy is huge though. Probably not as visible as if you are more wealthy perhaps and frequent more upscale businesses, but at least in socal there are many many businesses that work on a cash only basis for a variety of reasons.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#179

Post by kjkjadksj »

almost_usual wrote: post #157
kjkjadksj wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like an asset that doesn't rise or fall by a factor of 10 a year would be a lot more useful for that purpose. Even bartering levis blue jeans would offer more price stability than btc.

Blue jeans aren’t very salable in the sense that you have to find a blue jeans buyer in order to exchange them for something else.

Likewise for bitcoin. In either case the levis conversion rate is pretty stable unlike bitcoin. You can go on marketplaces like poshmark and others and readily buy and sell these jeans at prices that are both stable and widely agreed upon.

Re: Hal Finney Was Not Satoshi Nakamoto

#180

Post by jonahbenton »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #145
jonahbenton wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah. The blockchain is forever and there are all these breadcrumb producing onramps.

Its probably a lot easier to do a better job of covering your tracks with cash than with bitcoin.

Truth, of interest

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4273988-hamas-just-learn...

Post reply on HN