Link: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/4657
It is not necessary to build all functionality into bitcoind, to form
a decentralized network. BitPay's insight open source block explorer
API project requires, and runs on top of, bitcoind. Therefore, at the
same IP address as bitcoind, other ser
You don't necessarily need the heavy weight of SSL.
You only need digitally signed envelopes between miner and pool[1].
[1] Unless the pool is royally stupid and will somehow credit miner B, if
miner B provides to the pool a copy of miner A's work.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:29 PM, slush wrote:
Although 140 BTC sounds scary, actually it was very minor issue and most of
miners aren't even aware about it.
TLS would probably make the attack harder, that's correct. However if
somebody controls ISP routers, then MITM with TLS is harder, yet possible.
slush
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 3:07 AM, P
> the only protection is SSL + certificate validation on client side.
However certificate revocation and updates in miners are pain in the ass,
that's why majority of pools (mine including) don't want to play with
that...
Another solution which would have less overhead would be to implement
someth
On Friday, August 08, 2014 12:29:31 AM slush wrote:
> AFAIK the only protection is SSL + certificate validation on client side.
> However certificate revocation and updates in miners are pain in the ass,
> that's why majority of pools (mine including) don't want to play with
> that...
Certificate
What exactly makes bitcoin less of a target than a "scamcoin" which I
suspect means anything that != bitcoin?
On 7 August 2014 20:29, slush wrote:
> AFAIK the only protection is SSL + certificate validation on client side.
> However certificate revocation and updates in miners are pain in the a
AFAIK the only protection is SSL + certificate validation on client side.
However certificate revocation and updates in miners are pain in the ass,
that's why majority of pools (mine including) don't want to play with
that...
slush
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Thursd
On Thursday, August 07, 2014 11:02:21 PM Pedro Worcel wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I was wondering if you guys have come across this article:
>
> http://www.wired.com/2014/08/isp-bitcoin-theft/
>
> The TL;DR is that somebody is abusing the BGP protocol to be in a position
> where they can intercept th
Hi there,
I was wondering if you guys have come across this article:
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/isp-bitcoin-theft/
The TL;DR is that somebody is abusing the BGP protocol to be in a position
where they can intercept the miner traffic. The concerning point is that
they seem to be having some deg
On Thursday, August 07, 2014 12:22:31 AM Tim Ruffing wrote:
> - Decentralization / no third party:
> There is no (trusted or untrusted) third party in a run of the protocol.
> (Still, as in all mixing solutions, users need some way to gather together
> before they can run the protocol. This can be
10 matches
Mail list logo
