|
Hardcastlemccormik posted:
The dingo ate your BBBY.
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/1720244342814625934      
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
Remember when people were saying they only arrested him to stop him talking to congress lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
Coworker is wearing a shirt with one of those stupid ape NFTs on it today. One of the strongest "I am an idiot!" signals out there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
Elon is a max terrible person but Kim dot com still has a more punchable face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 17:45
|
|
|
And the charge they dropped, the one the Bahamas raised a stink about, was the donations via straw donors to Republicans. If anything was going to dispel the notion that this was some Dem psyop or whatever gibberish, it would be the charge that SBF played both sides of the field in illegal ways to hedge his political bets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
Random Stranger posted:Coworker is wearing a shirt with one of those stupid ape NFTs on it today. One of the strongest "I am an idiot!" signals out there. But what if co-worker is trying to illustrate the idiocy of paying for a blockchain entry indicating ownership of a hyperlink to a JPEG?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
 contemplating what prison hobby to take up
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
bagmonkey posted:
Can we make this the replacement for  ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
The next excuse after the Biden pardon doesn’t magically appear is that he’ll win on appeal. And after that doesn’t happen it’ll be his sentence will be time served and community service.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:Can we make this the replacement for  drat, shrinking down pastels gives it a real mid-90s adventure game cutscene feel Squiggle fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Nov 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
Aramis posted:Quite a few things are wrong in your understanding. You are actually both partially wrong on this one. It's possible that there's some "trick" waiting to be discovered to create SHA256 hashes with lots of leading zeros faster than just brute force. Which then lets you generate an arbitrary number of Bitcoin blocks much faster than the network in total does. The other side is that once the network encounters a difficulty adjustment point (every 2016 blocks), the network sees "wow, these blocks came really fast out!" and adjusts the difficulty so that you have to spend several magnitudes more energy even just doing the "trick", and you're back to the beginning before you discovered the trick. So you wouldn't get all the bitcoins, only at most 2016 blocks of them. But yes, the community at large would be "someone just mined thousands of blocks in seconds!" and it would cause a complete upheaval as the developers rush to try changing to a hash algorithm without flaws while still keeping the network and price up. Users would either run screaming to the nearest exchange or hodl on as hard as they could. If someone were ever to discover such a trick, the best play would be to just pretend to be a normal miner and get "lucky" now and then. Not too often, you gotta be able to disappear into the noise of the other miners. You'd not get all of the coins, but on the other hand you would get them without spending the energy of a small country, so you'd have a much better profit margin than the other miners. edit: I guess there could be some trick that lets you consistently create hashes that are all-zeroes. In that case, difficulty adjustments won't matter and I'm pretty sure the Bitcoin code would break completely once it tries to adjust past the bottom. double edit: I also forgot about that 4x adjustment limit, yeah. Still, if your goal is to completely gently caress over the network, it doesn't matter if you get 1000 blocks or all the blocks at once, it would induce instant panic. ymgve fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Nov 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
Difficulty retargets are limited to 4x either way I think, so you would likely get a lot more than just the next 2016 blocks at a really fast pace, but at that point bitcoin would be broken and your coins would be worthless. More worthless than usual even.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
If you could break hashing and encryption in some way to print bitcoins, then I suspect printing bitcoins would be the least profitable thing you could do. You'd have a billion dollar nation state level security vulnerability that you could probably leverage to never work again legally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 18:35
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:The other part here is, if Bitcoin continues to rise in speculative value, these tips are going to continually get more expensive as well. Let's say today the transaction fee is $10 range, in the future if that's $1000 nobody would have any reason to do transactions. And if you think miners won't collude on these tips, lol of course they will. Right now, the demand for mining is entirely driven by the price of Bitcoin and miners have basically zero control of the price. They can't say, even collectively, "it costs me $30,000 of electricity to mine a coin so I should be able to trade that coin for more than $30,000" because if they quit, the network will just drop the difficulty target and make them unnecessary. But let's say it changes to purely transaction fees. Not only does that decouple it from the price of Bitcoin, for whatever major shifts that'll cause, but because of how the network works (unlike Ethereum where gas fees are determined algorithmically), miners are going to be producing blocks at the same rate and same cost regardless of what is in them. Let's say a miner passes on a transaction because the fee is too low - the miner saves almost nothing in terms of resources, but they will miss out on the transaction fee if anybody else scoops it up. So the selfish incentive for each miner is to process as many transactions as they can because even a lovely transaction fee is better than nothing. If they get sick of settling for scraps and idle their hardware, then the network has the same transaction capacity regardless of how many miners there are (lol) so, again, they have zero leverage to demand a higher price. The only way they can demand a higher price is by either a.) colluding to set the fees and mine tons of blocks to keep the block difficulty high and price undercutters out of the market, or b.) intentionally spamming the network with junk transactions to saturate the transaction capacity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 18:35
|
|
|
That still doesn't create bitcoins, which was my point. Bitcoins aren't created by any cryptographic operation, they are awarded for successfully signing a block.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
the whole thing's a scam yo, from to to bottom. LOL!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:If you could break hashing and encryption in some way to print bitcoins, then I suspect printing bitcoins would be the least profitable thing you could do. You'd have a billion dollar nation state level security vulnerability that you could probably leverage to never work again legally. The type of hashing in Bitcoin is specific enough that there might be some trick (not preimage attack, not collision attack) that is only applicable to Bitcoin. There are definitely nation states that would be interested in that kind of attack too, of course. Like North Korea, which would loove a recipe for printing coins out of thin air. Aramis posted:That still doesn't create bitcoins, which was my point. Bitcoins aren't created by any cryptographic operation, they are awarded for successfully signing a block. Bitcoins are created by cryptographic operations. Each block has to have a hash that starts with some number of zeroes, and the number of zeroes is what the network adjusts. The "award" is the block itself. If you have some way to find blocks with number of zeroes faster than brute force, you have a recipe for printing bitcoins. ymgve fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Nov 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
ymgve posted:Bitcoins are created by cryptographic operations. Each block has to have a hash that starts with some number of zeroes, and the number of zeroes is what the network adjusts. The "award" is the block itself. If you have some way to find blocks with number of zeroes faster than brute force, you have a recipe for printing bitcoins. Bam, this made it slide into place for me. So we're not talking about "break all modern encryption", we're talking about "find a cryptographic weakness with a hash algorithm that reduces the keyspace size needed to search for a hash collision". This is the kind of thing that happens all the time in cryptography. Breaking this down, the "trick" is finding out that, hey, you don't actually even need to bother trying the following inputs to get the desired output. If you can skip even half of the things to try, you're now going twice as fast with the same hardware. And most vulnerabilities I recall offhand would be more like 4, 8, or 16 times. It sounds like Bitcoin's defense against this is to make it harder to do the work. But because it's now money, what would actually transpire is that the trick is a secret worth lots of money and only a few people can do it. It's going to be a really interesting day when that happens: I don't believe cryptanalysis has ever been tied directly to a currency before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:03
|
|
|
Squiggle posted:
He looks like the creature from the 1994 videogame based on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein with De Niro.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:04
|
|
|
(technically the difficulty is not just number of zeros, but that each hash have to be below a certain number when interpreted as a huge integer. but in practice it means each hash start with lots of zeros and it's easier to explain and see visually)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
Pirate Radar posted:Isn’t there speculation that at least one of Madoff’s clients figured it out at some point and demanded to be cut in as payment for his silence? There was one whale in particular who caught on to the ponzi and enabled it in the form of a large deposit on demand when Madoff needed the funds but also being allowed to liquidate when others could not. I think this was in a Netflix documentary about Madoff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
cruft posted:Bam, this made it slide into place for me. The problem here is that the entire thing is SHA256 and things like hash collisions do actually occur, and the problem inherent is the risk factor. Not to mention if someone figures out how to crack SHA256 with quantum in theory, Bitcoin is screwed. IE: if I can hash collision your wallet and guess the private key, I can control all of your bitcoins in it. And that transaction is not reversible. So your "currency" in whatever format and any expected or perceived value if I can do that, are now 0. So I'd imagine that the biggest holdings wallet in crypto is probably something people are trying to obtain a hash collision on constantly. There was a website posted in this thread where people were using GPU's to try to find hash collisions for laughs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:The problem here is that the entire thing is SHA256 and things like hash collisions do actually occur, and the problem inherent is the risk factor. Not to mention if someone figures out how to crack SHA256 with quantum in theory, Bitcoin is screwed. no You can break the security on proof-of-work by breaking sha-256 - a hashing algorithm. to break the private keys you need to break an entirely different cryptographic system (whichever variant of public-key encryption they are using)
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:The problem here is that the entire thing is SHA256 and things like hash collisions do actually occur, and the problem inherent is the risk factor. Not to mention if someone figures out how to crack SHA256 with quantum in theory, Bitcoin is screwed. You're outlining the "all modern encryption is broken" scenario. More likely, at least in short term, is that a weakness is found against the hash algorithm that effectively reduces the keyspace size. It's not exactly computing a hash collision, but it's related. You're trying to find an input that results in not just one output, but anything in a whole set of outputs. In my stupid addition example, you're trying to find two numbers that, when added, result in the last 2 digits being under 40. In 1998, this would not have been a very interesting break to research, because it would have no practical value. Now it has enormous practical value, because if you can reduce the keyspace by half, your gigantic mining rig can suddenly do twice as much work for the same amount of electricity, heat, and atmospheric carbon. If you can keep the break secret, whatever profit you're making now would be doubled. I do think it's likely that in the future, the computation to break this will be trivial. Say 100 years to be safe. 50 years seems pretty safe, too. 25 years doesn't feel like a huge stretch. 25 years ago, 56-bit DES was still used all over the place. cruft fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Nov 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PoorlyAgedStuff/status/1715552629726601422
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
It's a lot easier to phish some sucker's poo poo, or find an easily exploited hole in the platform. Look at this list of crypto hacks just from 2023. In most cases there is fuckall the average user could have done to prevent getting their poo poo stolen other than not buy it in the first place. https://www.ccn.com/education/crypto-hacks-2023-full-list-of-scams-and-exploits-as-millions-go-missing/ Some of this poo poo is so goddamn basic: quote:How Kucoin’s Twitter Scandal Happened
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
The odds are very good that a sha-256 collision has never happened, and unless there's a major bug, that it will never happen. The number of possible sha-256 hashes is larger than the number of atoms in the universe cubed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:47
|
|
|
Impossibly Perfect Sphere posted:It's a lot easier to phish some sucker's poo poo, or find an easily exploited hole in the platform. Yeah. For all the EXTREME MATH required to understand this crap, you would expect these companies to have super-tight code. And yet the rate of compromise is just astounding. My local bank is still using a reusable password to log in, but apparently that's still a higher bar than everything listed on web3 is going great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:no Ugh. Guess I both don't know enough about cryptography but also didn't do a lot of research on Bitcoin, not that it'd be beneficial anyway. But yes, weaknesses of people are extra apparent in crypto due to the whole "can't revert a transaction" aspect..
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
cruft posted:Yeah. For all the EXTREME MATH required to understand this crap, you would expect these companies to have super-tight code. I think you're making a big assumption here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
There is an important line of thought often missed by people saying bitcoins are currency based on math that using the Bitcoin ledger to create bitcoins by defining in the protocol +50 bitcoins on a new block isn't the interesting part. You could just as easily add a name to a list to be used as the VIP entry list at a club. A theoretical hashing hack specific to Bitcoin would be interesting as far as it could completely collapse it into the massively multiplayer excel spreadsheet that it is behind the veil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
zedprime posted:There is an important line of thought often missed by people saying bitcoins are currency based on math that using the Bitcoin ledger to create bitcoins by defining in the protocol +50 bitcoins on a new block isn't the interesting part. You could just as easily add a name to a list to be used as the VIP entry list at a club. So let's say there are not bitcoins left and I want to add you to my VIP entry list. That's handled by a "tip" now, right? Who do I tip as an incentive for them to burn a bunch of coal so I can avoid using a piece of paper? Maybe there's some way to enter a transaction like "and also 0.00001BTC to whoever signs this first"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
zedprime posted:There is an important line of thought often missed by people saying bitcoins are currency based on math that using the Bitcoin ledger to create bitcoins by defining in the protocol +50 bitcoins on a new block isn't the interesting part. You could just as easily add a name to a list to be used as the VIP entry list at a club. please do not talk down about the competitive spreadsheet scene by comparing it to bitcoin, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 20:30
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:The odds are very good that a sha-256 collision has never happened, and unless there's a major bug, that it will never happen. The number of possible sha-256 hashes is larger than the number of atoms in the universe cubed. https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/about Also Wired has an article behind a paywall saying the crypto community is celebrating SBF's conviction, saying the fraud was a dark spot on crypto they are eager to move past and I'm wondering how the giant list of previous frauds/pulls/'we were hacked' doesn't count.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
cruft posted:So let's say there are not bitcoins left and I want to add you to my VIP entry list. That's handled by a "tip" now, right? Who do I tip as an incentive for them to burn a bunch of coal so I can avoid using a piece of paper? Maybe there's some way to enter a transaction like "and also 0.00001BTC to whoever signs this first"? That is literally what the «fee» field in every current bitcoin wallet software is Big rear end On Fire posted:Is that different than the LBC? I have a basic understanding of this crap only. LBC is testing every private Bitcoin key in sequence, which would be a dumb idea in theory since it would take the lifetime of a whole multiverse to check them all, but in practice they sometimes find used keys because bitcoin software is on average fully crap and some create bad keys ymgve fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Nov 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
Big rear end On Fire posted:Is that different than the LBC? I have a basic understanding of this crap only. What is this, then? LBC posted:I heard the Server can Remote-Execute Code on my Client? WTF? Okay, I'm out!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
ymgve posted:That is literally what the «fee» field in every current bitcoin wallet software is I think you mean «nofees»
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 20:55
|
|
|
Boxturret posted:I think you mean «nofees» no, fees!
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
cruft posted:So let's say there are not bitcoins left and I want to add you to my VIP entry list. That's handled by a "tip" now, right? Who do I tip as an incentive for them to burn a bunch of coal so I can avoid using a piece of paper? Maybe there's some way to enter a transaction like "and also 0.00001BTC to whoever signs this first"? If you're trying to extend the analogy to Bitcoin, don't forget that there is nothing actually sacred about the protocol and it's all just built on a level of collusion by miners. We have kind of glossed over the fact that if the miners get to 2140 and if they decide you know what, this is bullshit, they can agree to port everything to Bitcoin 2.0 so they keep getting block rewards and depending how much processing power is swapped to that new track, it may leave the Bitcoin purists flat footed enough to turn irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 22:08
|
|