oleganza

33 ms·

331.
by oleganza 13y ago
I'd say governments fight the internet because they are failing.
332.
by oleganza 13y ago
"Transparency is, in that sense, terror-enabling." What a load of propagandistic nationalist crap. The government claims to have a monopoly of violence "for the common good" even if every individual is harmed (!). Then i
333.
by oleganza 13y ago
The important side effect of such cash loans is that once on the market, they are indistinguishable from any other cash. So the bank essentially increased amount of cash in circulation. While technically they didn't "print money&q
334.
by oleganza 13y ago
Use 2-of-3 multisig: https://gist.github.com/oleganza/9232293 User owns a key protected by his password and your server never knows it. Another key is stored unencrypted on the web server (like in "hot" walle
335.
by oleganza 13y ago
I view a project as a whole: its face, its code, its features. If people can criticize elegance or efficiency of the code, why can't they criticize elegance or efficiency of its brand? Rails, for instance, is an example of a project wh
336.
by oleganza 13y ago
When I was a student at university in 2003-2008, I loved, loved, loved Mathematica language, Mathematica uncluttered cell-based editor and rich interactive documentation. You could execute and edit examples right in the doc! I did so many t
337.
by oleganza 13y ago
Very good arguments, thanks. I'll try to refute all of them. 1. Contract in a programming language does not leave room for misinterpretation. If there are N conditions to unlock money, they are all well-defined (unless there's a b
338.
by oleganza 13y ago
Sorry, but the question was quite disrespectful. We are presenting a high-security solution to an important problem and the ignorant observer proposes to use something extremely unsafe and insecure as an alternative without even trying to u
339.
by oleganza 13y ago
The paper only discusses blind signature algorithm: how to prepare a "blinded" public key and then produce a matching signature, also blinded from the signer. The primary motivation is to use such blinded public keys in the standa
340.
by oleganza 13y ago
Good question. I answered it in the paper (just 8 pages) which you obviously haven't read before asking. Keybase is a single point of failure. Or your machine that will do KDF. M-of-N multisig transactions are way safer because to sign
341.
by oleganza 13y ago
With M-of-N multisignature you don't need to fully trust any single party. With Electrum you have to have a fully trusted machine to sign transactions. Using M-of-N multisig transaction is safe even if NSA secretly owns your machine.
342.
by oleganza 13y ago
The scheme allows never holding all secret pieces in one place to make a transaction. Otherwise, if your machine is compromised, someone can send your money elsewhere. I don't quite understand your proposal, but it requires having all
343.
by oleganza 13y ago
The multisig vault makes sense for relatively large stash which would take a lot of $50 transactions to brake down into. Also, as you ask your friends to sign off $50 redeeming txs, they'd see how much did you have previously. Not idea
344.
Blind signatures for Bitcoin to secure BTC storage(blog.oleganza.com)
66 points by oleganza 13y ago|27 comments
345.
by oleganza 13y ago
Consider that people freely decided to keep money in MtGox. The whole currency is unaffected. But when your central bank decides something (e.g. to issue more currency or do a haircut), then suddenly all banks and all holders are affected.
346.
by oleganza 13y ago
OTR is designed to help Alice to repudiate her messages when an archive of her conversation is taken by FBI from Bob's computer. Alice might say: "Look, anyone could sign those messages as the keys were in the clear!" Judge w
347.
by oleganza 13y ago
It is ridiculous. Do you realize that "regulation" is not really a solution? If the problem is "I cannot trust these guys", then "trust instead those guys (who are even more opaque and more powerful)" is a joke
348.
by oleganza 13y ago
Miners can't just go and change the protocol. They risk that non-miners won't accept new blocks, so if they are going to enforce different rules, they need to make sure that everyone (not only other miners) will be okay with that.
349.
by oleganza 13y ago
Someone can "change" the protocol only for himself. Like you can code up a web browser with a different version of HTML, lets say HTML++. If you find a couple of guys who will serve you webpages in HTML++, good for you, but this d
350.
by oleganza 13y ago
No. If all miners start mining their own fork (e.g. creating 250 BTC in a block instead of 25 BTC), users' wallets will reject such blocks. Some other miners will pop up to continue mining the blockchain under previously agreed upon ru
351.
by oleganza 13y ago
Not so much. China may put up their own firewall, yet people outside communicate just fine. Also, mesh networks are pretty interesting: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/mesh-internet-pr...
352.
by oleganza 13y ago
Except, govt is the one enforcing use of its currency, while Bitcoin Foundation is a just a club of enthusiasts like you or me. They have no special power over Bitcoin. (Except, Gavin has private key to alerts in BitcoinQT, but this does no
353.
by oleganza 13y ago
Any bitcoin-like blockchain must be a valuable currency at the core to reward miners with minted units and fees. Otherwise, there's no incentive to deploy petahashes of computing power to secure consensus worldwide. Namecoin is a curre
354.
by oleganza 13y ago
Just to clarify: With modern DNS and SSL one of the root issuers can be compromised to impersonate any website. More root certificates - more targets. With blockchain as a root authority, every website is their own guardian. If Google los
355.
by oleganza 13y ago
The root of the problem is inability to pin pubkey directly to a DNS record which is changeable only by the owner of the private key. If there was a single place where any client can check which PK owns which name and trust derived SSL cert
356.
by oleganza 13y ago
"globalise key decision-making (for example the coordination of domain names and IP addresses) to safeguard the stability, security and resilience of the Internet" Sounds like they want to make the internet a more centrally-contro
357.
by oleganza 13y ago
All political leaders are psychopathic manipulators and sadists. Normal, sane person would strive to avoid ordering one group of people to point guns at another group of people as a part of a Grand Plan. Normal person would use weapons and
358.
by oleganza 13y ago
Bitcoin has different selling points, one of them is independence of Stripe, PayPal and other intermediaries that are either too costly for some, or disallow certain transactions, or cause chargebacks, or not allowed in your country. Anothe
359.
by oleganza 13y ago
1. What exactly does MtGox prevent? I never used it, never relied on it and almost all of my friends don't care about MtGox. Yet all of us were able to buy, sell, trade and write software for Bitcoin without a problem. 2. Free market f
360.
by oleganza 13y ago
By your logic, if His Majesty The King applies his laws equally to everyone, then it's a free market? Any organization which is tax-funded has inequality and discrimination built in. Some are net tax payers, others are net tax receiver

More ›