151–160 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do have to trust yourself to have 100% flawless security because one slip and you lose that $1B to a Chinese hacker with no hope of ever getting it back.
Not quite. You can bribe the miners with your old private key if you act fast enough :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All banks in Greece charge a fee. The fact that plenty of people do SEPA transfers for free means nothing for the other people (e.g. the whole population of Greece) that can not do SEPA transfers for free.
So don't do business with Greek banks? What stops you from doing day-to-day banking in Greece using a German account? That's kinda the whole point of the Euro.
Besides that, this is not the point of the conversation. The original comment compared SEPA to Bitcoin, saying that SEPA is better since it is free. It is not. There is no law that mandates it to be free and it is de facto not free everywhere (it might be for your use case but not for everyone). It is many times a lot more expensive than Bitcoin. If I also elect to not transact with Greek bank accounts, I exclude 99.9% of the Greek economy since I have no influence on what kind of account my counterpart has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never heard of someone successfully and unintentionally fat fingering a Bitcoin address typo to a valid Bitcoin address nobody owns. Fee box is a different thing, the recent $2.5m ETH headline you saw was not an accident but an attack/blackmail. Bitcoin core itself prevents you from using too high of a fee without an express override in the config.
Source on the $2.5m fee being related to attack/blackmail? I just looked it up but I couldn't find anything saying as much... only that sparkpool kept it aside in case the owner comes forward?
>In short, the researchers claim that the hackers have gained access to an exchange’s funds. They are able to send money to certain whitelisted accounts that are marked as reliable in the exchange’s database to—but not to their own. So, they are sending the funds with excessively high transaction fees to sap the exchange’s accounts, and they’re demanding a ransom if it’s going to stop.
I don't want to sound like a narc, but it seems like a really good idea to have some degree of oversight and safeguards on financial transactions of that magnitude.
I agree, and banks + the government do just that; large transactions, or 'pattern' transactions flag up in fraud and money laundering departments and are investigated. But, bitcoin is free of oversight or centralized control, which was the exact point of the system.
Yeah I’d rather have bitcoin. Bitcoin removes the need for banks altogether. I don’t want the banks and government in control of my money.
How many times would you double check the address before hitting send? I would think to minimize risk, would slice this up into a few transactions...
I've been party to large Bitcoin transactions (100M USD or so). It had a team of people involved, each responsible for independently verifying the transaction before it was signed for correctness. It's hard to make mistakes if you have a group of engineers who are all tasked with ensuring the validity of a transaction with their own tools. The fun bit is that the signer can backdoor transactions, and that part isn't…
Can you explain this? This is contrary to my knowledge of reviewing the details of a pre-signed transaction.
Taking an educated guess here, that the miner of the block which moved that transaction must be related to the owner of that wallet. Nobody would otherwise accept such a low fee for a big transaction. Find the miner, you find the wallet owner.
Oh, I didn't know transaction value was known to transaction block-miners; that seems like a flaw. Assuming there's a bidding system, wouldn't transaction cost tend to zero? (Seems I need to review bitcoin transaction mining. Suggestions for a good resource on that?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“The difference between one million dollars and a billion dollars is about one billion dollars.“ 1k transactions and even 1k * 1k transactions are so small relative to this amount that the GP’s point still stands. This is not a very useful way of storing the value.
you've got a typo there, one of your millions should say billion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been party to large Bitcoin transactions (100M USD or so). It had a team of people involved, each responsible for independently verifying the transaction before it was signed for correctness. It's hard to make mistakes if you have a group of engineers who are all tasked with ensuring the validity of a transaction with their own tools. The fun bit is that the signer can backdoor transactions, and that part isn't…
>The fun bit is that the signer can backdoor transactions, and that part isn't something that can be verified by anybody who doesn't have the private keys. Can you explain this? This is contrary to my knowledge of reviewing the details of a pre-signed transaction.
This is only detectable if you have multiple signers signing the same transaction using the same private key and the same method for generating the nonce, and you compare them before broadcasting. So perhaps using hardware wallets from 3 manufacturers which all implement bit-identical implementations of the signer (with RFC6070 deterministic signatures), and treating the signed transaction as a private key leak until you've verified they all match.
For ECDSA a single bit bias in the nonce, or a single bit leakage of the nonce through other methods is enough to completely break the cryptography. So we could have hardware wallets that produce otherwise impeccable transactions and signatures, but leak a bit of the nonce in the ordering of the outputs, the lock time, the sequence numbers, and that would still be enough to steal all of the funds.
This stuff is trickier to get right than most people imagine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remittances are one of the big, obvious use cases where crypto can save poor people a ton of money. To the tune of a collective $40-50 billion a year. https://academy.binance.com/blockchain/blockchain-use-cases-...
Call me when a blockchain-backed remittance service reaches even a small fraction of the customer-base of companies like Transferwise or CurrencyFair. If it was an efficient way to cut on fees, everyone would do it. Yet almost nobody does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So don't do business with Greek banks? What stops you from doing day-to-day banking in Greece using a German account? That's kinda the whole point of the Euro.
First of all, you are not allowed to have a German account if you are not a resident of Germany. Besides that, this is not the point of the conversation. The original comment compared SEPA to Bitcoin, saying that SEPA is better since it is free. It is not. There is no law that mandates it to be free and it is de facto not free everywhere (it might be for your use case but not for everyone). It is many times a lot mor…
Of course you are! Have you never heard of N26? And even some traditional banks will happily have you as a non-resident customer.