4 ms·

As far as I can tell, nothing in the article is factually inaccurate. Why is it nonsense that Bitcoin _might_ get hacked? It's entirely possible, though perhap

As far as I can tell, nothing in the article is factually inaccurate. Why is it nonsense that Bitcoin _might_ get hacked? It's entirely possible, though perhaps improbable.

ihsw 13y ago
The article writer describes "the system" getting hacked, but links to malware searching for wallet files. It's deceptive at best, and blatant lying at worst.
- throwaway19047 13y ago
  Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. This author doesn't know what he's talking about. Another example: He shows how the SEC can regulate the major bitcoin-cash exchanges, but the author never notices that there is a plenty large enough economy just inside the bitcoin network. The SEC can't regulate you if you use an anonymous Internet connection, and never exchange for real-world cash.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The SEC can't regulate you if you use an anonymous Internet connection, and never exchange for real-world cash. The SEC can regulate you if you do that and still fall within their jurisdiction. You may be meaning to argue that the SEC would have difficulty identifying and prosecuting illegal activity within their regulatory jurisdiction if you do that, but that's a very different argument than "cannot regulate".
  - etchalon 13y ago
    This and other comments seems to assume "can regulate" means "can enforce 100% of the time".
eksith 13y ago
How does one "hack" Bitcoin? Not snark; I'm genuinely curious because I've seen this mentioned quite a number of times. Do you mean your computer could be compromised? If so, then is that any different than a house going up in flames with money under mattress? Article mentions "Unlike gold or silver, Bitcoins have no intrinsic uses" which is true, but then fiat money has value not because the paper/fabric/plastic blended note and ink add up to what's printed on the face. In that regard Bitcoin has value on faith as well.
- mkr-hn 13y ago
  All it takes is someone finding a bug in a popular client that gives control over transactions. A bitcoin stealing worm seems inevitable.
  - eksith 13y ago
    Then it's still the same as a trojan surreptitiously stealing bank account info and siphoning off the funds. I think we have to face the fact that digital currency (fiat terms) and Bitcoin are essentially the same except for the means of generation. "Money" is printed when physically present, but once stored in the bank, that's converted to bits and the physical notes (depending on wear) are destroyed. Also the fact that there's no equivalent for FDIC et al. for Bitcoin losses.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Surprisingly (or not), there is a Bitcoin wiki[1] that is actively maintained. Here is a short list of weaknesses: * Wallet Vulnerable To Theft: malware searching and downloading wallets * No authentication for IP transfers: you can send transactions to IP addresses, this is vulnerable to MITM attacks and someone can re-route transactions to a different IP address * Energy Consumption: electricity has a variable and external cost, which can be manipulated * Illegal content in the block chain: arbitrary data can be included transactions, including binary data (eg: child pornography) * Breaking the cryptography: Bitcoin uses SHA-256 and ECDSA, this isn't vulnerable now but it could be in the future * Double-spending[2] * Coin destruction: if your wallet file is deleted, your coins are gone forever Obviously wallet theft is the biggest issue, especially with using third-party wallet services and running insecure operating systems (ie: old versions of OSes). There are a variety of reliable learning resources for managing your wallet files securely. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses [2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Double-spending#51.25_attack https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Double-spending#51.25_attack
  - oleganza 13y ago
    The only real "weakness" is theft/loss of your wallet and keys. Bitcoin is like cash in that respect, but with unique new properties. It's easier to hide and move, but it can be stolen remotely (unlike paper bills). This is a problem and we all are working on different ways to decrease risks. E.g. by having multi-party authorization, "cold storage" (e.g. keys printed on paper), 3rd party services ("banks"), hardware wallets. Not real issues: - "No authentication for IP transfers" - not an issue, no one uses it. If you need to authenticate payment address, either get it over HTTPS, or use upcoming (in 0.9) payment API (same principle as with HTTPS, but without HTTP) or any other way that reduces risks of spoofing payment address. - "Energy Consumption" - not an issue. Miners spend as much energy as profitable for them, just like anyone else on the planet. Visa datacenters also consume energy. Who decides how much energy spending is "too much" if everyone spends what they can afford? - "Illegal content in the block chain" - not an issue with Bitcoin, but an external arbitrary threat created by feds. Same applies to unencrypted WiFi connection or someone sending a well-hidden picture in email attachment to you. Also: users are not required to store the blockchain. If you don't like a threat of "illegal content", use lightweight client to keep your keys only. - "Breaking the cryptography" - does not uniquely apply to Bitcoin comparing to, say, PayPal or bank wires. If some algorithm becomes weak, Bitcoin can be upgraded just like your bank's SSL certificate can be. - "Double-spending with 51% attack" is getting less economically viable with every single day as more people mine, use or simply know about Bitcoin. Also, it does not affect all the users, but only those with whom attacker transacts. And if that happens once, people would start sending expensive transactions directly to miners they trust to mitigate the issue. - "Coin destruction" is not a problem for society. Everyone's money gets more valuable when you lose yours. Divisibility is enough for a long time to come and can be increased on many levels, inside and outside Bitcoin core protocol. Lost/stolen wallet issue is covered above already.
tlrobinson 13y ago
The author likely has no idea what Bitcoin getting "hacked" means. He linked to a piece about malware that can steal individual user's Bitcoin wallets, not some actual or potential systemic flaw.

As far as I can tell, nothing in the article is factually inaccurate. Why is it nonsense that Bitcoin _might_ get hacked? It's entirely possible, though perhaps improbable.

ihsw 13y ago

The article writer describes "the system" getting hacked, but links to malware searching for wallet files. It's deceptive at best, and blatant lying at worst.

throwaway19047 13y ago
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. This author doesn't know what he's talking about. Another example: He shows how the SEC can regulate the major bitcoin-cash exchanges, but the author never notices that there is a plenty large enough economy just inside the bitcoin network. The SEC can't regulate you if you use an anonymous Internet connection, and never exchange for real-world cash.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The SEC can't regulate you if you use an anonymous Internet connection, and never exchange for real-world cash. The SEC can regulate you if you do that and still fall within their jurisdiction. You may be meaning to argue that the SEC would have difficulty identifying and prosecuting illegal activity within their regulatory jurisdiction if you do that, but that's a very different argument than "cannot regulate".
- etchalon 13y ago
  This and other comments seems to assume "can regulate" means "can enforce 100% of the time".

eksith 13y ago

How does one "hack" Bitcoin? Not snark; I'm genuinely curious because I've seen this mentioned quite a number of times. Do you mean your computer could be compromised? If so, then is that any different than a house going up in flames with money under mattress? Article mentions "Unlike gold or silver, Bitcoins have no intrinsic uses" which is true, but then fiat money has value not because the paper/fabric/plastic blended note and ink add up to what's printed on the face. In that regard Bitcoin has value on faith as well.

mkr-hn 13y ago
All it takes is someone finding a bug in a popular client that gives control over transactions. A bitcoin stealing worm seems inevitable.
- eksith 13y ago
  Then it's still the same as a trojan surreptitiously stealing bank account info and siphoning off the funds. I think we have to face the fact that digital currency (fiat terms) and Bitcoin are essentially the same except for the means of generation. "Money" is printed when physically present, but once stored in the bank, that's converted to bits and the physical notes (depending on wear) are destroyed. Also the fact that there's no equivalent for FDIC et al. for Bitcoin losses.
ihsw 13y ago
Surprisingly (or not), there is a Bitcoin wiki[1] that is actively maintained. Here is a short list of weaknesses: * Wallet Vulnerable To Theft: malware searching and downloading wallets * No authentication for IP transfers: you can send transactions to IP addresses, this is vulnerable to MITM attacks and someone can re-route transactions to a different IP address * Energy Consumption: electricity has a variable and external cost, which can be manipulated * Illegal content in the block chain: arbitrary data can be included transactions, including binary data (eg: child pornography) * Breaking the cryptography: Bitcoin uses SHA-256 and ECDSA, this isn't vulnerable now but it could be in the future * Double-spending[2] * Coin destruction: if your wallet file is deleted, your coins are gone forever Obviously wallet theft is the biggest issue, especially with using third-party wallet services and running insecure operating systems (ie: old versions of OSes). There are a variety of reliable learning resources for managing your wallet files securely. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses [2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Double-spending#51.25_attack https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Double-spending#51.25_attack
- oleganza 13y ago
  The only real "weakness" is theft/loss of your wallet and keys. Bitcoin is like cash in that respect, but with unique new properties. It's easier to hide and move, but it can be stolen remotely (unlike paper bills). This is a problem and we all are working on different ways to decrease risks. E.g. by having multi-party authorization, "cold storage" (e.g. keys printed on paper), 3rd party services ("banks"), hardware wallets. Not real issues: - "No authentication for IP transfers" - not an issue, no one uses it. If you need to authenticate payment address, either get it over HTTPS, or use upcoming (in 0.9) payment API (same principle as with HTTPS, but without HTTP) or any other way that reduces risks of spoofing payment address. - "Energy Consumption" - not an issue. Miners spend as much energy as profitable for them, just like anyone else on the planet. Visa datacenters also consume energy. Who decides how much energy spending is "too much" if everyone spends what they can afford? - "Illegal content in the block chain" - not an issue with Bitcoin, but an external arbitrary threat created by feds. Same applies to unencrypted WiFi connection or someone sending a well-hidden picture in email attachment to you. Also: users are not required to store the blockchain. If you don't like a threat of "illegal content", use lightweight client to keep your keys only. - "Breaking the cryptography" - does not uniquely apply to Bitcoin comparing to, say, PayPal or bank wires. If some algorithm becomes weak, Bitcoin can be upgraded just like your bank's SSL certificate can be. - "Double-spending with 51% attack" is getting less economically viable with every single day as more people mine, use or simply know about Bitcoin. Also, it does not affect all the users, but only those with whom attacker transacts. And if that happens once, people would start sending expensive transactions directly to miners they trust to mitigate the issue. - "Coin destruction" is not a problem for society. Everyone's money gets more valuable when you lose yours. Divisibility is enough for a long time to come and can be increased on many levels, inside and outside Bitcoin core protocol. Lost/stolen wallet issue is covered above already.

tlrobinson 13y ago

The author likely has no idea what Bitcoin getting "hacked" means. He linked to a piece about malware that can steal individual user's Bitcoin wallets, not some actual or potential systemic flaw.