Is Bitcoin security worth $1B?
blockcypher.com
Is Bitcoin security worth $1B?
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: Is Bitcoin security worth $1B?
#2A quick read of the title left me rather confused: Are they seriously asking the question "Is Bitcoin worth 1฿?"
A tautology indeed. Only upon reading the article itself did I realize I misread the title: I had both skipped over the word "security", and misinterpreted the B as the Bitcoin symbol, rather than an abbreviation for a billion.
Re: Is Bitcoin security worth $1B?
#3A quick read of the title left me rather confused: Are they seriously asking the question "Is Bitcoin worth 1฿?" A tautology indeed. Only upon reading the article itself did I realize I misread the title: I had both skipped over the word "security", and misinterpreted the B as the Bitcoin symbol, rather than an abbreviation for a billion.
prime numbers worth 1 billion....?
Re: Is Bitcoin security worth $1B?
#4Reminder: For anything but toy apps you do not want to relay your interactions with the blockchain through a third party.
Re: Is Bitcoin security worth $1B?
#5> Multiple signature (multisig) transactions would have prevented all of it.
Yeah, no, there's still a need for hot wallets which can be spent automatically by a server and these were basically the only ones stolen. You actually have to keep the keys separate for it to make a difference.
Also their api is borderline retarded. The server passes back a hash to sign and the client is just supposed to blindly sign it. Sure I suppose it could check it but then why wouldn't you just build it locally.
Re: Is Bitcoin security worth $1B?
#6Reminder: For anything but toy apps you do not want to relay your interactions with the blockchain through a third party.
To be clear really relaying transactions through a server is probably fine. The problem with this one is the api let's the server generate the transaction and the client just blindly signs it. You are completely trusting the server in this scenario.
Re: Is Bitcoin security worth $1B?
#7> Multiple signature (multisig) transactions would have prevented all of it. Yeah, no, there's still a need for hot wallets which can be spent automatically by a server and these were basically the only ones stolen. You actually have to keep the keys separate for it to make a difference. Also their api is borderline retarded. The server passes back a hash to sign and the client is just supposed to blindly sign it. Su…
It is kind of ironic that people who are using a currency dependent on the security of crypto operations created an API that commits a fundamental mistake: trusting the data you receive.
Re: Is Bitcoin security worth $1B?
#8Yes, multi-signature transactions can greatly improve security. But this idea of using a third party to write your transactions for you is a very, very bad idea. It introduces an additional point of failure for security: someone can break into their server, and make it start generating transactions that send coins somewhere other than where you said.
Writing software that uses this API would be negligence.
Re: Is Bitcoin security worth $1B?
#9> Multiple signature (multisig) transactions would have prevented all of it. Yeah, no, there's still a need for hot wallets which can be spent automatically by a server and these were basically the only ones stolen. You actually have to keep the keys separate for it to make a difference. Also their api is borderline retarded. The server passes back a hash to sign and the client is just supposed to blindly sign it. Su…
> Yeah, no, there's still a need for hot wallets which can be spent automatically by a server and these were basically the only ones stolen.
The point is that you don't need a hot wallet if you support multisig - the coins never go to the service provider, they stay in the users wallet.
Re: Is Bitcoin security worth $1B?
#10> Multiple signature (multisig) transactions would have prevented all of it. Yeah, no, there's still a need for hot wallets which can be spent automatically by a server and these were basically the only ones stolen. You actually have to keep the keys separate for it to make a difference. Also their api is borderline retarded. The server passes back a hash to sign and the client is just supposed to blindly sign it. Su…
It is kind of ironic that people who are using a currency dependent on the security of crypto operations created an API that commits a fundamental mistake: trusting the data you receive.
You don't have to trust our data - you can check it against the multitude of block explorers available in the market. However, if you use blockchain.info to check, be aware that they do not support pay-to-script transactions and will not show the transaction until it's confirmed. And you can easily check the received data.
The security of our APIs lies in the fact we don't store private keys - the user signs their own transaction.