One of the areas that isn't as well developed as it could be in terms of
wallet design is fine-grained control over input selection policy.
Coin control is great when a human is manually crafting transactions,
but that's not really a very scalable solution.
The attached image is a possible way to
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Tier Nolan wrote:
> If the attacker has a direct connection to MtGox, they can receive the
> transaction directly.
MtGox had a php script that returned base64 data for all their stalled
transactions.
Not just attackers used that, some people trying to unstick the
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Oliver Egginger wrote:
> As I understand this attack someone renames the transaction ID before
> being confirmed in the blockchain. Not easy but if he is fast enough it
> should be possible. With a bit of luck for the attacker the new
> transaction is added to the
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Oliver Egginger wrote:
> As I understand this attack someone renames the transaction ID before
> being confirmed in the blockchain. Not easy but if he is fast enough it
> should be possible. With a bit of luck for the attacker the new
> transaction is added to the
Am 10.02.2014 13:28, schrieb Pieter Wuille:
> Hi all,
>
> I was a bit surprised to see MtGox's announcement. The malleability of
> transactions was known for years already (see for example the wiki
> article on it, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_Malleability it,
> or mails on this list fro
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 01:00:21AM +0530, naman naman wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Please check this thread
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=458608.0for a possible attack
> scenario.
>
> Already mailed Gavin, Mike Hearn and Adam about this :
>
> See if it makes sense.
That's basically what ap
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 03:44:34PM -0500, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 01:04:58PM -0500, Peter Todd wrote:
> > Alex Mizrahi recently outlined a mechanism(1) based on SIGHASH_SINGLE
> > that allows colored coins and similar embedded consensus system assets
> > to be securely transferr
Hi guys,
Please check this thread
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=458608.0for a possible attack
scenario.
Already mailed Gavin, Mike Hearn and Adam about this :
See if it makes sense.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:07:03PM -0600, Troy
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:07:03PM -0600, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> If you've got any ideas for a better forum, let me know.
Your political conversations would be welcome at unsys...@lists.dyne.org
See you there.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
77ddbd0b6faa6d6fe50cdc7808dea5db5b538f85b736
If you've got any ideas for a better forum, let me know.
MtGox is one of the largest public faces of the code being developed here. If
the public perception is that this is a bitcoin protocol flaw, then we need
some damned strong and compelling public arguments about why it ain't so. But
after som
RE: taking discussion elsewhere:
Yes, please, the purpose of this mailing list is technical discussions to
encourage interoperability of Bitcoin implementations, improve ease-of-use
and security, etc.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
--
You have plenty of good points, but they are not relevant to this mailing list.
I suggest you take them elsewhere.
--
Jameson Lopp
Software Engineer
Bronto Software, Inc
On 02/10/2014 01:25 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:45:03AM -0800, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> On Mon, F
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:45:03AM -0800, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> > Name me one single person with commit access to the bitcoin github
> > repository
> > who is *independent* of any venture capital or other 'investment'
> > connections.
A bitcoin problem is not really my problem, and if MtGox's investors
can't seem to understand the value of publishing their code, I'll
be happy to take their money as it leaves bitcoin for more distributed
and transparent cryptocurrency ecosystems.
I feel some sort of moral obligation to point o
I cannot judge the competence of code I've never seen, so I have no
position on that.
What I HAVE seen quite clearly is both overt and covert market
manipulation under cover of blame for 'the developers', or 'the exchange'
You're doing it yourself with the phrase 'incompetence'. When you run an
You must be new here. MtGox very rarely comments on things like this publicly,
outside of irc or their website.
Second, MtGox problem is a MtGox problem. You have no right to demand access to
their private code. If you feel wronged as a customer, sue them. Otherwise,
they have no obligation to
Well done Gavin for quickly setting the record straight[1] officially as
project lead. MtGox tried to blame their issues by throwing Bitcoin under a
bus and I am glad there has been a public rebuttal showing up their
incompetence which is doing harm to the bitcoin eco system. Basically, yes
there a
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> Name me one single person with commit access to the bitcoin github repository
> who is *independent* of any venture capital or other 'investment' connections.
I am, unless you count the fact that I own some Bitcoin and some
mining hardwar
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 03:40:03PM +0100, Isidor Zeuner wrote:
> >
> > What is the official response from the Bitcoin Core developers about
> > MtGox's assertion that their problems are due to a fault of bitcoin, as
> > opposed to a fault of their own?
> >
> > The technical analysis preluding this
Okay, why the everloving FUCK is there not someone on this list with a
@mtgox.com address talking about this?
I started using bitcoin because I could audit the code, and when the
developer cabal does stuff 'off-list' what you do is hand over market
manipulation power to the selected cabal of comp
>
> What is the official response from the Bitcoin Core developers about
> MtGox's assertion that their problems are due to a fault of bitcoin, as
> opposed to a fault of their own?
>
> The technical analysis preluding this mess, was that MtGox was at fault for
> their faulty wallet implementation.
Hi all,
I was a bit surprised to see MtGox's announcement. The malleability of
transactions was known for years already (see for example the wiki
article on it, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_Malleability it,
or mails on this list from 2012 and 2013). I don't consider it a very
big problem
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:28 AM, Drak wrote:
> What is the official response from the Bitcoin Core developers about MtGox's
> assertion that their problems are due to a fault of bitcoin, as opposed to a
> fault of their own?
>
> The technical analysis preluding this mess, was that MtGox was at fau
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Drak wrote:
> What is the official response from the Bitcoin Core developers about MtGox's
> assertion that their problems are due to a fault of bitcoin, as opposed to a
> fault of their own?
>
> The technical analysis preluding this mess, was that MtGox was
What is the official response from the Bitcoin Core developers about
MtGox's assertion that their problems are due to a fault of bitcoin, as
opposed to a fault of their own?
The technical analysis preluding this mess, was that MtGox was at fault for
their faulty wallet implementation.
Drak
--
25 matches
Mail list logo
