RussianRaibow



Offline



Activity: 630

Merit: 500



I AM A SCAMMER







Hero MemberActivity: 630Merit: 500I AM A SCAMMER Re: New transaction malleability attack wave? Another stresstest? October 05, 2015, 04:39:45 PM #82 Quote from: Zombier0 on October 05, 2015, 12:12:13 AM

I wonder if any of us can double bitcoin due to this attack



https://blockchain.info/address/13p5iQkqBEVgKmPeJqEL2LBRS44PjX1dZL



Final balance: -1148.99999964 btc. All Tx confirmed. Of course amaclin can...Final balance: -1148.99999964 btc. All Tx confirmed. I AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMER

gmaxwell

Legendary





Offline



Activity: 3192

Merit: 4301









ModeratorLegendaryActivity: 3192Merit: 4301 Re: New transaction malleability attack wave? Another stresstest? October 05, 2015, 05:56:05 PM #89 Quote from: amaclin on October 05, 2015, 05:01:05 PM Bitcoin concept is broken. Nobody can fix it. Point.

Not so! (well, if the concept is broken, after all it isn't due to the substance of this thread.)



Quote You are asking something from the bitcoin core developers, but you are not paying them and even not contributing.

Is it correct behavior?

Harsher than I would have said; but there is a point there. Often on these things what happens is that people who don't know have one view of the priorities, and people in the know have another. If someone's priorities differ they need to step up--- and sometimes that does happen but once they learn more their priorities change. See also table 1:



In the case of BIP62 one of the reasons it has not progressed is that we haven't had enough review capacity to achieve confidence that such a broad scoping change would actually achieve its goals and not cause collateral damage-- especially because with "random pain" mostly answerable via wallet design-- the goal of it becomes making multstep contracts secure... which is something that can't be approximate.



BIP66 pulled forward part of BIP62 that was done and ready.



Folks here like int03h suggest that nothing has been done, but the opposite is true-- in terms of easily malleability on ordinary transactions, IsStandard-like-checks almost completely cover it. Every known vector of malleability has been closed off that way, except the one where common wallets still emit random forms. If we could enforce lowS as a standardness rule this issue would likely no longer be a source of intermittent annoyance for ordinary transactions. Bitcoin Core has been ready for that for roughly two years. But since we don't want a world where everyone is forced to run Bitcoin Core (much less the latest version of Bitcoin Core) reality is limited by what improvements people adopt.



People don't even need to be developers to help-- I posted



FWIW, virtually every cryptocurrency (including litecoin) has the same kind of issue, even some promoted as "immune to malleability"... Even most created after this issue was well understood in bitcoin have not bothered learning from it. That this property existed in Bitcoin is unfortunate but easily justifiable, that so many others have slavishly replicated this well known poor behavior, even when the Bitcoin community knew exactly what was needed to stop it completely, is something else entirely. My own published alternative network work, the Elements Alpha testnet sidechain, eliminated this whole class of issue in a very complete and robust way-- but its approach is not easily applied to Bitcoin because the deployment would be disruptive. Fortunately, for what people are currently complaining about nothing that complete is required.

Not so! (well, if the concept is broken, after all it isn't due to the substance of this thread.)Harsher than I would have said; but there is a point there. Often on these things what happens is that people who don't know have one view of the priorities, and people in the know have another. If someone's priorities differ they need to step up--- and sometimes that does happen but once they learn more their priorities change.See also table 1: http://fc15.ifca.ai/preproceedings/bitcoin/paper_9.pdf the greatest pain vectors of malleability can be avoided simply with careful wallet design.In the case of BIP62 one of the reasons it has not progressed is that we haven't had enough review capacity to achieve confidence that such a broad scoping change would actually achieve its goals and not cause collateral damage-- especially because with "random pain" mostly answerable via wallet design-- the goal of it becomes making multstep contracts secure... which is something that can't be approximate.BIP66 pulled forward part of BIP62 that was done and ready.Folks here like int03h suggest that nothing has been done, but the opposite is true-- in terms of easily malleability on ordinary transactions, IsStandard-like-checks almost completely cover it. Every known vector of malleability has been closed off that way, except the one where common wallets still emit random forms. If we could enforce lowS as a standardness rule this issue would likely no longer be a source of intermittent annoyance for ordinary transactions. Bitcoin Core has been ready for that for roughly two years. But since we don't want a world where everyone is forced to run Bitcoin Core (much less the latest version of Bitcoin Core) reality is limited by what improvements people adopt.People don't even need to be developers to help-- I posted a list of highS producing addresses, if we can identify more software which produces this form and get it fixed then we'll be well positioned to move forward. Why are people still whining here instead of sluthing? Come on-- I'm not even asking anyone to write code.FWIW, virtually every cryptocurrency (including litecoin) has the same kind of issue, even some promoted as "immune to malleability"... Even most created after this issue was well understood in bitcoin have not bothered learning from it. That this property existed in Bitcoin is unfortunate but easily justifiable, that so many others have slavishly replicated this well known poor behavior, even when the Bitcoin community knew exactly what was needed to stop it completely, is something else entirely. My own published alternative network work, the Elements Alpha testnet sidechain, eliminated this whole class of issue in a very complete and robust way-- but its approach is not easily applied to Bitcoin because the deployment would be disruptive. Fortunately, for what people are currently complaining about nothing that complete is required.

RussianRaibow



Offline



Activity: 630

Merit: 500



I AM A SCAMMER







Hero MemberActivity: 630Merit: 500I AM A SCAMMER Re: New transaction malleability attack wave? Another stresstest? October 05, 2015, 07:47:59 PM #95 Quote from: amaclin on October 05, 2015, 07:30:29 PM Quote from: unamis76 on October 05, 2015, 07:22:44 PM Besides this, Satoshi seems to have had quite a few reasons to develop

Bitcoin such as fleeing from banks, creating a trustless system, etc. OK. So my reason is to protect your life savings from this ponzi scheme called bitcoin

I want to prove that decentralized trustless system can not exists in long term.

It either transforms to centralized system or loses its security.

OK. So my reason is to protect your life savings from this ponzi scheme called bitcoinI want to prove that decentralized trustless system can not exists in long term.It either transforms to centralized system or loses its security. May be you are successful for a short period of time to disrupt the network. But, there are too many stakeholders in bitcoin who are more able than you to keep the network safe. In the long run you'll lament that you have wasted your time to do some unselfish destructive work, while you could do some selfish constructive work. Good luck with your endeavour. I AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMERI AM A SCAMMER

amaclin



Offline



Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008







LegendaryActivity: 1260Merit: 1008 Re: New transaction malleability attack wave? Another stresstest? October 05, 2015, 08:18:43 PM #98 Quote from: dexX7 on October 05, 2015, 08:05:04 PM Could you flip your bot and mutate signatures with high s values, to target users with well, "non-compliant" software?

Nice idea.

What about privacy?

And what if someone runs the bot which converts low-S to high-S and my bot do the opposite?

What goal you want to achieve? Do you want to tighten transaction validation rules?

Isn't it better not to confirm txs with high-S by miners?



We have a consensus now. Do you want to change the rules? Are you against the current consensus? Nice idea.What about privacy?And what if someone runs the bot which converts low-S to high-S and my bot do the opposite?What goal you want to achieve? Do you want to tighten transaction validation rules?Isn't it better not to confirm txs with high-S by miners?We have a consensus now. Do you want to change the rules? Are you against the current consensus?

coins101



Offline



Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1456Merit: 1000 Re: New transaction malleability attack wave? Another stresstest? October 05, 2015, 08:44:32 PM #99 Quote from: amaclin on October 05, 2015, 07:30:29 PM

OK. So my reason is to protect your life savings from this ponzi scheme called bitcoin

.....

...OK. So my reason is to protect your life savings from this ponzi scheme called bitcoin.....

You are confusing the price volatility of bitcoin with the utility of being able to transact internationally without the pain of banks or middle men.



For example: one of the problems to be figured out is how to get money across borders so that poor people can get the money they need without having to spend the whole day travelling from a poor village with no infrastructure or services to a town where they wait in line to get some money.



$100 goes to $85 after WU and middlemen have taken their cut at the sending end; goes to $75 after the person at the other end has traveled to pick-up their money and made the conversions. When you are poor, that loss of nearly $30 is a lot of money.



Stress testing of any kind is good. Problems will eventually find a solution where there is a need.



Analogy - why do people ask singers for their political views, like having a good voice somehow makes you a political genius? Same goes for technical capability and economic / price speculation. You are confusing the price volatility of bitcoin with the utility of being able to transact internationally without the pain of banks or middle men.For example: one of the problems to be figured out is how to get money across borders so that poor people can get the money they need without having to spend the whole day travelling from a poor village with no infrastructure or services to a town where they wait in line to get some money.$100 goes to $85 after WU and middlemen have taken their cut at the sending end; goes to $75 after the person at the other end has traveled to pick-up their money and made the conversions. When you are poor, that loss of nearly $30 is a lot of money.Stress testing of any kind is good. Problems will eventually find a solution where there is a need.Analogy - why do people ask singers for their political views, like having a good voice somehow makes you a political genius? Same goes for technical capability and economic / price speculation.