statoshi

9 ms·

1.
by statoshi 5y ago
It's still pretty rare, but as the space goes mainstream I expect the frequency of such attacks to increase.
2.
by statoshi 5y ago
> It's bad for the environment Not any more so than other forms of energy consumption. If anything, Bitcoin incentivizes the use of clean renewable energy. https://niccarter.info/topics/ > bad for crime Hard
3.
by statoshi 5y ago
Indeed; I wrote an article last year about time locking. https://blog.keys.casa/bitcoin-multisig-time-locking-challen...
4.
by statoshi 5y ago
Anything that can be owned can be stolen. It's a question of how difficult you make to steal and thus how much riskier you make it for someone to attempt an attack.
5.
by statoshi 5y ago
You sound confused; I'm the author of the article, not the subject.
6.
by statoshi 5y ago
I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, while still rare, there are physical attacks perpetrated against bitcoin owners. I've been tracking them for several years. https://github.com/jlopp/physical-bitcoin-attack
7.
by statoshi 5y ago
Nope, but the value of the educational takeaways from the report are not contingent upon me providing evidence of this specific attack. You are welcome to be skeptical.
8.
by statoshi 5y ago
Our client's privacy is more important than your curiosity; it's as simple as that.
9.
by statoshi 5y ago
You're free to believe that I (the author) made up this story. I'm not a fiction writer; the Bitcoin security space is exciting enough without needing to waste time making stories up. I'll note that we have seen several folks
10.
by statoshi 7y ago
Ha! Another empty prediction that we'll happily call you out on once it expires. Remember when you predicted that Bitcoin would completely cease to exist by the end of 2019? https://twitter.com/lopp/status/121
11.
by statoshi 7y ago
Indeed; the market has clearly chosen to prefer optimizing for low cost of full system validation (running a full node) over lost cost of transacting (cheap block space.)
12.
by statoshi 9y ago
False. You're referring to an adversarial situation where your payment channel counterparty tries to close the channel using an old state that gives them more of the money in the channel than they should own. The duration during which
13.
by statoshi 9y ago
Nonsense. Multiple teams are developing Lightning Network implementations and anyone who desires to commit capital to operate a Lightning node can do so without asking permission from anyone.
14.
by statoshi 9y ago
Fraud protection is referring to protection against double spending and protection against chargebacks - it's not the same type of consumer protection that folks are used to with credit cards. However, it's worth noting that this
15.
by statoshi 9y ago
This was a highly contrived test - an interesting point to note is that they don't talk about how long it would take new nodes to perform an initial sync if there were weeks / months / years worth of gigablocks in the chain.
16.
by statoshi 9y ago
Some people proselytized it, sure. And they're generally the folks who are upset with the current situation and have switched to various altcoins that will suffer from the same scalability issues if they ever become particularly popula
17.
by statoshi 9y ago
This is not news; we adjusted the bitcoin.org site to match reality.
18.
by statoshi 9y ago
The pull request was brigaded by folks from /r/btc who were not interested in positively contributing to the discussion; they just wanted to waste our time rehashing the past 3 years of scaling debate.
19.
by statoshi 9y ago
I'm the author of the pull request that made this change; feel free to AMA related to it.
20.
by statoshi 9y ago
Sounds like you're looking at the wrong metrics. Dogecoin had 0 commits to its main repository in 2017. Compare that to 3,277 commits to Bitcoin Core alone. Bitcoin has scaling issues that developers are addressing with second layer ne
21.
by statoshi 9y ago
To be quite honest, it doesn't matter if folks think that non-mining nodes are unimportant - they can't force folks who /are/ running full validating non-mining nodes into accepting arbitrary rule changes to the protocol
22.
by statoshi 9y ago
Our understanding of Bitcoin has progressed by leaps and bounds since the system has been running for 9 years. The whitepaper is not the end-all, be-all of Bitcoin. Even Satoshi did not fully realize what he built. For more details: https:
23.
by statoshi 9y ago
False; peers validate and propagate information across the network. You don't have to be creating blocks in order to validate and propagate them.
24.
by statoshi 9y ago
False. For more details: https://medium.com/@lopp/securing-your-financial-sovereignty...
25.
by statoshi 9y ago
The linked whitepaper is the original, which is what matters for the purpose of this post.
26.
by statoshi 9y ago
... of the skeptics when they realize the opportunity they missed.
27.
by statoshi 9y ago
This is my site; I've probably spent at least 100 hours curating this list over the years :-)
28.
by statoshi 9y ago
No one can control or take over Bitcoin development. Similarly, there is no official website or subreddit. This system has no authorities.
29.
by statoshi 9y ago
The argument is that higher cost of node operation is actually what kills the "peer to peer aspect." Trustless second layer networks such as Lightning use "third parties" to route money across the network, but never in a
30.
by statoshi 9y ago
Transaction fees would go down while the cost of operating a fully validating node would go up.

More ›