Looking again, he _mentions_ what he told his children, but it's written on Bitcoin Talk. > "My bitcoins are stored in our safe deposit box, and my son and daughter are tech savvy. I think they're safe enough. I'm comfortable with my legacy." [0] It doesn't invalidate that he created Bitcoin, but what he wrote over the years sounds much more like a devoted hobbyist who was far from extremely wealthy, for example... - Source: Hacker News / 2 months ago
Https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917 You can see here in one of Satoshi's last posts that he envisaged that bitcoin users would likely prefer to keep the block size small, and why. - Source: Hacker News / 3 months ago
It's not unheard of for funds to be missent to an address that was in the senders clipboard for some other reason, though the amount is more remarkable. It's also not particularly remarkable to send small amounts to that address-- its been done many times-- and it's not unheard of for people to make errors in the amounts they pay. Elsewhere I've advanced a couple more complex theories which probably fail occam's... - Source: Hacker News / 4 months ago
> odyssey is a custom blockchain project built from scratch in Rust. It aims to provide a simple and educational example of how a blockchain operates and its fundamental components. Reminds me of Grin, another blockchain project built from scratch in Rust, focussing on simplicity [1]. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5309951.msg56111107#msg56111107. - Source: Hacker News / 9 months ago
Https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5455261.0 If folks show an openness to the approach, I will post the first draft of the paper on the above thread. - Source: Hacker News / 11 months ago
> alternatives to using a private key as the basis of identify for decentralized currencies Well, there’s always the Bitcoin Talk ANN board https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=159.0 But that’s probably more relevant for the final version of your paper. So before that, maybe some of the other boards on Bitcoin Talk? - Source: Hacker News / 11 months ago
Bitcointalk's Bitcoin Development & Technical Discussion forum [1] is your best bet. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=6.0. - Source: Hacker News / 11 months ago
Speaking of the Poker game on Utopia, you guys should check out this campaign -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437943. Source: about 1 year ago
Do you mean the campaign that they shared on the Bitcointalk forum? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437943.0. Source: about 1 year ago
(2010) The update, Bitcoin patch 0.3.10, was implemented by Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto himself (or herself, or themselves). > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827.0. - Source: Hacker News / about 1 year ago
From Gregory Maxwell (Bitcoin developer) on the OP comments: > That signature type didn't exist until after Hal's was out of comission, so it was presumably created by someone who obtained hal's private keys after his death FWIW. You can see that address was actively sending transactions long after hal's death so unambiguously someone else has control of the key. > The signature you posted isn't compatible... - Source: Hacker News / over 1 year ago
> I'm a little worried that if we penalise financial innovation harshly like this (prison!) we will never get the next bitcoin, bitcoin 3.0 if you will. Haha, Hal Finney (the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, and probably even Satoshi Nakamoto himself) wrote about this 11 years ago: "Any successful replacement of the Bitcoin block chain will forever undermine the credibility of any successor. How is an... - Source: Hacker News / over 1 year ago
This is pretty cool [0] is the Kraken page, at [1] someone collected both background information, links, and PoR entities, and finally a 2014 post of Kraken’s first PoR audit [2] [0] https://www.kraken.com/proof-of-reserves [1] https://niccarter.info/proof-of-reserves/ [2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=528432.0. - Source: Hacker News / over 1 year ago
The original thread is more interesting: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=382374.msg4108815#msg4108815 ...& bitcointalk has many more ideas OP might wanna fill his blog with. - Source: Hacker News / over 1 year ago
Quit it with this revisionist history nonsense, your second link contains where Satoshi specifically mentioned that a ZK-based version of bitcoin would be better, he just didn't know how to do it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770.msg8637#msg8637. - Source: Hacker News / over 1 year ago
Well there is this famous post by Greg Maxwell where fees almost reached the block reward amount (pull out "champaign"): https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015455.html As long as there is demand for block space, a market will exist. Also, block size can be increased. Bitcoin will need a hard fork anyway to fix the year 2106 problem (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=760). - Source: Hacker News / over 1 year ago
Even lesser realised is the trust that your client is connected to the broader bitcoin network (and not segregated somehow). This also assumes trust in your client, which can also perform all kind of attacks (such as not reusing R values: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=581411.0) There's no such thing as no trust, only different threat models. I'd reccomend reading https://www.threatmodelingmanifesto.org/. - Source: Hacker News / almost 2 years ago
This is exactly what is done! This was known about and discussed in 2013: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=285142 At the end of the day nothing can be achieved if you don't have a trusted device to compare your untrusted device against. Bitcoin's threat model assumes that the client device is trusted. - Source: Hacker News / almost 2 years ago
> Show me an actually malicious hardware wallet that becaves as you've described, and you'll have made your point. I'm not the OP and although I agree with you, you may be interested in the corollary for a "stronger" attack than OP defined: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=581411.0 and https://github.com/tintinweb/ecdsa-private-key-recovery Constructing such an airgapped hardware wallet is as trivial as a... - Source: Hacker News / almost 2 years ago
> Increasing the block size from 1MB to say... 20MB ... Will inevitably reduce the number of participants able to run full validating nodes. Consider various discussions on network traffic patterns for existing 1MB blocks: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3286296.0 That discussion is from 2018, that was 4 years ago. Surely things have improved somewhat since then. > So the question is: Is the reduction of... - Source: Hacker News / almost 2 years ago
>There's no technological reason for a 1MB limit that makes any sense. Bitcoin started in 2009. Since then there have been 4 main generations of the Raspberry pi, disks went in size from ~1-2TB maximum to ~20TB maximum, gigabit internet became fairly commonplace, and CPUs also improved greatly. Increasing the block size from 1MB to say 20MB -- will inevitably reduce the number of participants able... - Source: Hacker News / almost 2 years ago
Do you know an article comparing Cloudsmash to other products?
Suggest a link to a post with product alternatives.
This is an informative page about Cloudsmash. You can review and discuss the product here. The primary details have not been verified within the last quarter, and they might be outdated. If you think we are missing something, please use the means on this page to comment or suggest changes. All reviews and comments are highly encouranged and appreciated as they help everyone in the community to make an informed choice. Please always be kind and objective when evaluating a product and sharing your opinion.
