Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Advantages? (Score 0) 144

by pantaril (#47529169) Attached to: Comcast Carrying 1Tbit/s of IPv6 Internet Traffic

The big advantage is that all my computers are reachable through the internet

Depending on your point of view, that may also be considered as a down-side.

With IPv4 you have only one option - hide your network behind nat and be unreachable from internet.
With IPv6 you can choose between your network being reachable from internet and your network protected by firewall from outside connections.

I fail to see how IPv6 which gives you more freedom can be considered down-side from any reasonable point of view.

Comment: Re:04.10.2010 (Score 1) 503

by pantaril (#47482987) Attached to: Russia Prepares For Internet War Over Malaysian Jet

Russia already has a history of, at the very least, being a prime suspect for taking down a plane. The only difference now is that the world is actually watching this show more carefully.

Our local Czech news reported yesterday about Putin saying that Ukrainian government is responsible for the accident because it happened in their territory. I wonder if it means that he has taken responsibility for all aircraft shootings which happened previously in the russian/soviet territory:)

Comment: Re:Anonymity makes sense for special cases. (Score 1) 238

by pantaril (#47464617) Attached to: Pseudonyms Now Allowed On Google+

Whistleblowing, witness protection, for example. For most other cases anonymity degenerates into a cesspool of behavior that is not accepted in normal society. See every unmoderated anonymous internet forum ever.

We are talking about pseudoanonymity here, not anonymity. And we are talking about moderated discussion. I disagree that it is only usefull in special circumstances. Using real name is big security risk for anyone. Internet is vast and you never know what deranged individual will take interest in your person. If you provide your real name, you are opening yourself to several identity theft related attacks which can be very nasty. This is very old topic which was perfectly explored for example in this article Anonymity and privacy on the network from 1992.

Comment: Re:Bitcoin stopped being distributed a long time a (Score 5, Informative) 281

by pantaril (#47244435) Attached to: Bitcoin Security Endangered By Powerful Mining Pool

The original idea was millions of end users running Bitcoin mining as a background job on their CPU. That's totally dead.

The author of the original idea bets to disagree:

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe
for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for
double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or
about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.

That is from Satoshi Nakamoto's post from 2008: http://www.mail-archive.com/cr...

Comment: Re:Where's the guns to their heads? (Score 1) 281

by pantaril (#47244405) Attached to: Bitcoin Security Endangered By Powerful Mining Pool

I believe the issue isn't so much whether one group can counteract another. Rather, it is something happening that the promoters of Bitcoin claim should not happen. It doesn't instill confidence in a crypto currency when what you say is impossible (or extremely improbable) is proven to be false and your only backup is relying on parties to "play fair".

I see that only bitcoin haters are incorrectly claiming that bitcoin promoters say that 51% attack is impossible. But that is simply untrue. The 51% attack is clearly described in the original whitepaper by Satoshi Nakamoto in the proof-of-work section and it is well understood by bitcoin enthusiasts. How are we saying that 51% is impossible when we describe it in our core specification?

Comment: Re: Fear mongering much? (Score 1) 281

by pantaril (#47244387) Attached to: Bitcoin Security Endangered By Powerful Mining Pool

It does have severe ramifications for other crypto currencies. The other crypto currencies are modeled on Bitcoin, with just some parameters different. If Bitcoin can be compromised, this nearly immediately means the other currencies can be compromised as well. The end of Bitcoin would thus also signify the end of most, if not all, other crypto currencies.

Not all cryptocurrencies use proof of work like bitcoin, some of them use proof of stake, combination of proof of work and proof of stake or maybe some completely different mechanism.

Yes, other currencies which use proof-of-stake are also vulnerable to 51% attack but this is nothing new, this is a fact known from the beginning, it is explained in the original whitepaper by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Comment: Re:What happens if (Score 1) 281

by pantaril (#47244381) Attached to: Bitcoin Security Endangered By Powerful Mining Pool

I wonder what happens if someone with more than enough CPU power to get 99% of the mining jumps in one night. What kind of Damage could they do in a short interval before people notice? What if their goals were not to steal bitcoins but rather to snatch all the coins from, say, Kim Jong Un, or Al Queda. E.g. for example the NSA or Samsung or Saudi arabia. They would not care about the loss of value in their stolen coins, the point is to deprive an adversaries use of them.

First it is highly improbable that someone with 99% of current hashing power would suddenly emerge out of the blue. He would need pretty big and completely secret hardware factory for making ASIC mining chips.
Second you can't steal third-party bitcoins even with 51% attack because you don't have control of the private keys necessary to sign the transaction. Only thing you can do is try to double-spend your own bitcoins - craft one fake transactions which sends your coins to merchant than overwrite it with another transaction which sends the money back to your own address.

Comment: Re:This is what we've warned you about (Score 1) 281

by pantaril (#47244361) Attached to: Bitcoin Security Endangered By Powerful Mining Pool

But all the early-adopters / ponzi-schemers kept insisting that it was impossible.

No one except trolls like you claims that 51% attack is impossible, on the contrary, the danger of it is explicitly mentioned even in the original bitcoin white paper. Maybe you should read it before spreading misinformations:

Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the
fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to
redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the
work of the honest nodes. We will show later that the probability of a slower attacker catching up
diminishes exponentially as subsequent blocks are added.

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pd...

Comment: Re:Restaurants etc. (Score 1) 117

by pantaril (#47221321) Attached to: Credit Card Breach At P.F. Chang's

Or, if your in good standing with your bank, don't worry about it. The banks are good about fraudulent charges in the civilized world.

But who eats the loss? I seriously doubt it's the bank. AFAIK they bill the merchant which means there IS problem (because the merchant will project those chargebacks into the price of his goods).

The right solution is payment system where you don't give your secret keys when you make a payment. For example bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 1) 376

by pantaril (#47211213) Attached to: Theater Chain Bans Google Glass

If they're banned in enough places, and enough people get their jaws cracked when they insist on wearing them in other places, then it will sink in: a lot of us DON'T FUCKING WANT some asshole recording us in public and putting it online with not even a chance to consent.

Why is everyone complaining now about visible camera in google glass when secret spy cameras are available for years?
I think that the loss of privacy is inevitable. Your eyes are basicaly making constant record of your visual input into your brain. It's just matter of time before our brain is enhanced with non-degrading memory able to store photorealistic data forever.
I can imagine legal regulations which would prevent publication of recordings made withous the subject consent. That would make sense for me. I can't realisticaly imagine how you want to prevent enyone from recording you because you have no chance to find about it.

Often statistics are used as a drunken man uses lampposts -- for support rather than illumination.

Working...