I assume they would probably still _attempt_ to limit the amount of total liquid. But the idea that terrorists can bypass a chemical bomb detector but not figure out a way around the amount of liquid limit is laughable.
247 karma · joined August 16, 2012
We've been using DynECT for DNS for a long time and it's been perfect. Having them remind us they do email (at a time when it was critically needed) was actually great. At this point I'm planning on signing up for it and using them as a failover for sendgrid.
Also, [0-9.] not [0-9\.]
In all seriousness though, there is one interesting thing that is different now from last time. Last time being the previous frenzied Bitcoin price hype bubble that peaked at 31$. No one fears that Bitcoin will crash to 0/pennies anymore once the price stops climbing, at least not due to standard market forces. It's pretty well established now that there is some baseline demand that will form a price bottom (assuming no large network attack occurs). What effect that will have on this bubble (if one forms) is hard to say but it should be interesting and not a repeat of last time.
http://coderrr.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/canonical-redirect-p...
It seems even github is susceptible to this. That is, for people who type www.github.com into their browser rather than github.com. They both did the redirect wrong, as well as left off HSTS of https://www.github.com.
Because this is exactly what happens when you do.
Then worse, you have tons of internet criminals coming up with clever strategies to part people with their Bitcoin. Will these guys reimburse their users or end up giving an excuse and disappearing into the ether? Only time will tell.
That said, Bitcoin itself remains strong and probably one of technologies with the biggest potential in quite a long time. These issues will continue to occur and spawn drama for the foreseeable future. At some point the good Bitcoin news will drown out the bad Bitcoin business news. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. So let's get used to it.
Then paywalls and interstitial-ad-walls would pop up everywhere. It wouldn't be very technically hard to force users through an interstitial ad before they could get to content. Quickly people would realize the previous way sites did ads was actually better.
An interesting experiment to come up with would be to wear something that clearly indicates you are muslim but doesn't change your physical attractiveness (again by western standards).
This is one of the proposed solutions. Basically centralize bitcoin by somehow whitelisting good blocks or blacklisting bad ones. The problem is this would require a change to _all_ bitcoin software. Meaning EVERYONE has to upgrade to this new centralized approach. Plus the decentralization of bitcoin is lost.
Pretty sure that solution would spell certain doom for bitcoin.
Gavin offered a solution which _might_ work [1]
[1] http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack...
You're right, sometimes someone else will find a block before you and will add it onto the longest existing chain. IF you always appended your bad blocks to the longest chain then the blockchain would look something like bad->bad->good->bad->bad->good->bad->bad. BUT you WONT be adding your blocks to the longest chain. You will always add your blocks to YOUR OWN last bad block. So you will always be working on a blockchain that looks like ... ->bad->bad->bad->bad. And since you have 51% of the power your blockchain will eventually always be longer than the other chain(s) miners are working on. For a while the two chains (legitimate and your bad one) will go back and forth between which is longer. But at some point yours will get long enough and outpace the legitimate one.
If you don't understand this you don't understand how bitcoin works. I don't say this to be a dick, but I say it because this is a real concern that a lot of people don't realize or think about.
Note that we aren't trying to reverse any transactions or steal people's bitcoin. We are just trying to stop all transactions. This is what bitcoin is all about, so do this and you've destroyed bitcoin.
Should be: Q. Who can shut it down? A. Anyone who is willing to pay 51% of the monthly operating cost of all miners. Plus an initial investment to manufacture the hardware. Neither of these numbers are out of the range of Governments or Banks. And they probably won't be for a long time. This is the death of Bitcoin scenario that worries me most. And it seems no one is really worrying about it or taking it seriously.
edit: Here are the numbers someone calculated at the height of the first mining bubble [1]. We're currently at less than double the hashing power of then [2]. So a current rough estimate would be to double all those numbers.
That said, I expect we will see some really hardcore Bitcoin security incidents in the future that rival state sponsored hacking.
Stealing Bitcoin requires no additional effort to profit. Since Bitcoin is money and easily made anonymous, stealing Bitcoin == profit. Therefore there exists an arbitrage opportunity between the cost of buying 0-day exploits and the Bitcoins that can be stolen by use of those exploits. I expect as Bitcoin goes up in value so will the cost of a certain class of exploit.
What kind of software stack would you run if you were operating a Bitcoin bank that held a large amount of funds?
Honestly many of your responses to comments on this thread seem very unfair. And I'm not talking about the content of them but the manner in which you respond. You have a very good way of cheapening legitimate points that have been made.