If bitcoins can be "stolen from thin air extremely easily" as you suggest, then today all the bitcoins would be already stolen. The MtGox fiasco was because their backend systems and code were not hardended. This was also back in the day when single-sig was used and an exchange would have full control of your coins. Today with multi-sig, it's not possible for an exchange or third party to steal your coins - they don't have control of them.
Please do some research before posting such misinformation as this. You should be embarrassed (at least, I'm embarrassed for you).
Also, what's the point of using a VR headset when you only have one video feed? Look closely at the drone video and you will see a simple fpv board camera mounted on the top, with a center-front mounted gopro (or gopro clone). You're not going to get 3d video with that setup.
And a few other things wrong here: why are competition fpv drones carrying extra weight with a high-def video recorder on board? Stupid. And what's with that "closed like a box" body configuration? Where's the airflow? These folks aren't professionals; they're wannabes. Move on, people.
>> Why the fuck do people keep believing that some wallet or exchange which came into existence a few months ago is secure?
The good news is, you don't need to worry if 3rd party exchanges or wallet providers are secure or not. Try using a multisig wallet (like at BitGo) where you hold two of the keys, and the company holds one. It takes two keys to conduct a transaction. If the company is hacked, your bitcoin can't be stolen. It really is that simple. I'm not saying it's impossible, but the risk is much, much lower than if you hand over all your keys to a 3rd party...
>> I find the idea of virtual currencies interesting, but not mature or safe enough to put "real" money into any of them. Maybe someday, but not today...
Something tells me that you don't know anything about multisig wallets... If people would stop trusting 3rd parties to hold their bitcoins for them, then problems like the one at Cryptsy would stop.
Let me ask you, how many transactions do you think can fit in a single 1mb block? While the number of inputs per transaction is important, about how large do you think the average multisig transaction is compared to singlesig?
As I said before, transactions (with dynamic fees of course) are already seeing slow confirmations. You are correct that I can attach a rediculous fee amount of 100+ satoshis per byte and the chances of it being propagated faster is true. However, this is just today.
So, next week 200 satoshis/byte? Next month 500 satoshis per byte? Where do you draw the line? And if you don't know what the hell I'm talking about, then I suppose I wasted my time trying to explain it to you.
No, I'm talking about having issues pushing transactions through that have had their fee rates already adjusted for load, currently around 22 satoshis per byte.
Bram Cohen might be smart about distributed systems (bittorrent), but he's no expert on financial markets. The post you linked to was half a year ago, and it's painful to see just how wrong he was. The proof is all around us; take a look at the most recent blocks in the chain if you don't believe me. I work for a company that's a leader in bitcoin and blockchain technology. The transaction demand is getting too large, and the result isn't an uptick in the fee market, it will become too slow to be viable for businesses (and consumers) to transact. I deal with the fallout of small blocks everyday. The issue is real.
Thanks for pointing out Coinbase's position on BIP101. I didn't read that article previously. Realize that they're saying that it's the best proposal so far, not that they think it's the right way to go.
The major problem is that devs and experts see two different futures for bitcoin: the first camp wants to see it grow and possibly become more mainstream, and the other wants it to stay the fun little project that it has been. Are you in the latter camp?
This is one of the most mis-informed posts I've read on Slashdot.
I work in the bitcoin space and know quite a bit about it. Bitcoin has a scaling problem: we're already maxing out the 1mb block size and transactions are starting to take more and more time to confirm - the system is starting to suffer and slow. There is no chance of bitcoin scaling to support more transactions if the block size stays static. The block size was initially introduced to stop spam attacks from affecting the network, however those issues have since been mitigated.
>> Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn want you to switch to something called Bitcoin XT or Bitcoin Unlimited or some other fork of Bitcoin that is under unilateral control so that they can centralize Bitcoin to a dangerous degree...
Absolute rubbish. If you look at the code for BitcoinXT, which is simply BIP101 attached to bitcoin core, you will see that it allows the blocksize to increase if consensus is reached by miners. I know Gavin personally and it's his ambition to see bitcoin mature into something even bigger than it is today. With the current blocksize locked up to 1mb, this isn't possible. Gavin (and others) have introduced plans to solve this issue. Where's your plan?
>>Now reflect for a moment that the only major industry supporter of the Bitcoin XT proposal is Coinbase...
Coinbase merely ran XT on a test node to help run bitcoin simulations using larger block sizes. They also wanted to be prepared and understand its operation should XT ever go mainstream. I wouldn't say that they support it, however they are doing their own due diligence to determine if XT is the way to go. Nothing wrong with that. Many others are doing the same thing.
I'm asking myself why someone like yourself would spend so much time on a post with such an extreme (and negative) view? Do you lack the vision of a bigger picture? What's your motivation to publicly misinform others? Why are you trying so hard to spread FUD which ultimately damages the bitcoin ecosystem? Have you put in short orders on bitcoin for some kind of exit strategy for coins you're currently holding?
If you want to have an extreme and negative view of things, that's fine. My concern is that others who read this won't know that they're reading worthless FUD.
No, this isn't why MS is wanting everyone to upgrade to Windows 10, even four years before Windows 7 expires support.
They're getting into the same game as free mobile apps: collecting and selling your personal information. Windows 10 is not free; read the fine print in the agreement. You pay by giving them information on everything you do on your computer, which they sell to third parties.
Open a file? Microsoft collects and sells. Visit a website? Microsoft collects and sells. Play a game or launch an application? Microsoft collects and sells.
Everything you do on Windows 10 is collected and sold to third parties to boost MS revenue stream. If you need proof, start dumping network packets going to MS servers as you click around your desktop.
You should always call any bluff of DDOS extortion. These botnets aren't free and cost money to get time on them. You might feel a little pain, but better than giving in to demands.
Better yet, use Cloudflare or subscribe to Spamhaus to preemptively deny traffic.
FTA: "It does so by either disrupting remote control or GPS navigation."
By the looks of the device, it has a 2.4GHz yagi antenna, which would mean that it simply saturates the device with a 2.4GHz signal. What about drones flying spread spectrum 480MHz, or even 5.8GHz? And that antenna won't cover the GPS frequencies, either.
Face it, this is simply a tool to stop DJI Phantom drones and similar products. Nothing to see here.
I just started at a new startup and asked for the 2015 Thnkpad X1 Carbon. I installed Fedora 22 on it and everything works perfectly. Highly recommended.
Hundreds (if not thousands) of years from now, others will look on us as the "first people". This is the beginning of time that is documented digitally. Be proud, we are the first people.
Sure. In server environments, your aggressive patch management schedule should only target security updates. That's right, RHEL/CentOS separates security updates with feature updates. Ubuntu doesn't do this, which really puts it in a class of a hobby/garage server or desktop.
> No. I haven't had to worry about losing my job since my late 20s, since, by then, I'd built up enough savings that I could live for a year or more without working.
Sounds like you've led a boring and uneventful life. I feel sorry for you.
Put a transmitter on your drone that rolls through known frequencies (1.2, 2.4, 5.8GHz, 433MHz, etc.). Fly your drone close to the enemy drone, roll through the frequency list and take control ownership. Have your drone proxy transmitter events from the ground so your buddy can fly the enemy drone back to you.
Nobody is encrypting control transmission (yet). I believe it is illegal to encrypt traffic on amateur radio bands...
I had hoped that Internet of Things meant that consumers would be able to get more value for their products, not that manufacturers would take advantage of consumers and sell their private data for profit.
Why does it seem like manufacturers feel that they automatically have a right to your usage data after you buy their product?
Car manufacturers are already making big plans on creating new revenue streams with all the usage data they are collecting on our vehicles. Now, MS is taking the same approach (at least Windows 10 is free). What's to stop other vendors from doing the same? How about that new electric razor you bought; do you really want all your usage information to be sent back to the manufacturer, when you shaved, how you shaved, where you shaved? As more and more products are shipped with internet capability, manufacturers feel that they have a right to collect usage information weather you like it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
While this guy may know math, he clearly doesn't understand policy. His opinion on matters outside his area of expertise is irrelevant.
If bitcoins can be "stolen from thin air extremely easily" as you suggest, then today all the bitcoins would be already stolen. The MtGox fiasco was because their backend systems and code were not hardended. This was also back in the day when single-sig was used and an exchange would have full control of your coins. Today with multi-sig, it's not possible for an exchange or third party to steal your coins - they don't have control of them.
Please do some research before posting such misinformation as this. You should be embarrassed (at least, I'm embarrassed for you).
Also, what's the point of using a VR headset when you only have one video feed? Look closely at the drone video and you will see a simple fpv board camera mounted on the top, with a center-front mounted gopro (or gopro clone). You're not going to get 3d video with that setup.
And a few other things wrong here: why are competition fpv drones carrying extra weight with a high-def video recorder on board? Stupid. And what's with that "closed like a box" body configuration? Where's the airflow? These folks aren't professionals; they're wannabes. Move on, people.
>> Why the fuck do people keep believing that some wallet or exchange which came into existence a few months ago is secure?
The good news is, you don't need to worry if 3rd party exchanges or wallet providers are secure or not. Try using a multisig wallet (like at BitGo) where you hold two of the keys, and the company holds one. It takes two keys to conduct a transaction. If the company is hacked, your bitcoin can't be stolen. It really is that simple. I'm not saying it's impossible, but the risk is much, much lower than if you hand over all your keys to a 3rd party...
>> I find the idea of virtual currencies interesting, but not mature or safe enough to put "real" money into any of them. Maybe someday, but not today...
Something tells me that you don't know anything about multisig wallets...
If people would stop trusting 3rd parties to hold their bitcoins for them, then problems like the one at Cryptsy would stop.
I work for BitGo.
Let me ask you, how many transactions do you think can fit in a single 1mb block? While the number of inputs per transaction is important, about how large do you think the average multisig transaction is compared to singlesig?
As I said before, transactions (with dynamic fees of course) are already seeing slow confirmations. You are correct that I can attach a rediculous fee amount of 100+ satoshis per byte and the chances of it being propagated faster is true. However, this is just today.
So, next week 200 satoshis/byte? Next month 500 satoshis per byte? Where do you draw the line? And if you don't know what the hell I'm talking about, then I suppose I wasted my time trying to explain it to you.
No, I'm talking about having issues pushing transactions through that have had their fee rates already adjusted for load, currently around 22 satoshis per byte.
>> And the miners have flatly rejected it, out of concerns for Bitcoin XT's path of overcentralizing Bitcoin.
Take a look at this open letter from Sam Cole (CEO of KNC Miner) that came out today.
https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitc...
Bram Cohen might be smart about distributed systems (bittorrent), but he's no expert on financial markets. The post you linked to was half a year ago, and it's painful to see just how wrong he was. The proof is all around us; take a look at the most recent blocks in the chain if you don't believe me. I work for a company that's a leader in bitcoin and blockchain technology. The transaction demand is getting too large, and the result isn't an uptick in the fee market, it will become too slow to be viable for businesses (and consumers) to transact. I deal with the fallout of small blocks everyday. The issue is real.
Thanks for pointing out Coinbase's position on BIP101. I didn't read that article previously. Realize that they're saying that it's the best proposal so far, not that they think it's the right way to go.
The major problem is that devs and experts see two different futures for bitcoin: the first camp wants to see it grow and possibly become more mainstream, and the other wants it to stay the fun little project that it has been. Are you in the latter camp?
This is one of the most mis-informed posts I've read on Slashdot.
I work in the bitcoin space and know quite a bit about it. Bitcoin has a scaling problem: we're already maxing out the 1mb block size and transactions are starting to take more and more time to confirm - the system is starting to suffer and slow. There is no chance of bitcoin scaling to support more transactions if the block size stays static. The block size was initially introduced to stop spam attacks from affecting the network, however those issues have since been mitigated.
>> Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn want you to switch to something called Bitcoin XT or Bitcoin Unlimited or some other fork of Bitcoin that is under unilateral control so that they can centralize Bitcoin to a dangerous degree...
Absolute rubbish. If you look at the code for BitcoinXT, which is simply BIP101 attached to bitcoin core, you will see that it allows the blocksize to increase if consensus is reached by miners. I know Gavin personally and it's his ambition to see bitcoin mature into something even bigger than it is today. With the current blocksize locked up to 1mb, this isn't possible. Gavin (and others) have introduced plans to solve this issue. Where's your plan?
>>Now reflect for a moment that the only major industry supporter of the Bitcoin XT proposal is Coinbase...
Coinbase merely ran XT on a test node to help run bitcoin simulations using larger block sizes. They also wanted to be prepared and understand its operation should XT ever go mainstream. I wouldn't say that they support it, however they are doing their own due diligence to determine if XT is the way to go. Nothing wrong with that. Many others are doing the same thing.
I'm asking myself why someone like yourself would spend so much time on a post with such an extreme (and negative) view? Do you lack the vision of a bigger picture? What's your motivation to publicly misinform others? Why are you trying so hard to spread FUD which ultimately damages the bitcoin ecosystem? Have you put in short orders on bitcoin for some kind of exit strategy for coins you're currently holding?
If you want to have an extreme and negative view of things, that's fine. My concern is that others who read this won't know that they're reading worthless FUD.
No, this isn't why MS is wanting everyone to upgrade to Windows 10, even four years before Windows 7 expires support.
They're getting into the same game as free mobile apps: collecting and selling your personal information. Windows 10 is not free; read the fine print in the agreement. You pay by giving them information on everything you do on your computer, which they sell to third parties.
Open a file? Microsoft collects and sells.
Visit a website? Microsoft collects and sells.
Play a game or launch an application? Microsoft collects and sells.
Everything you do on Windows 10 is collected and sold to third parties to boost MS revenue stream. If you need proof, start dumping network packets going to MS servers as you click around your desktop.
Oh, this is all FUD. Hackers of these exploits aren't using them to place long distance phone calls.
You should always call any bluff of DDOS extortion. These botnets aren't free and cost money to get time on them. You might feel a little pain, but better than giving in to demands.
Better yet, use Cloudflare or subscribe to Spamhaus to preemptively deny traffic.
Trust is not a simple problem.
FTA:
"It does so by either disrupting remote control or GPS navigation."
By the looks of the device, it has a 2.4GHz yagi antenna, which would mean that it simply saturates the device with a 2.4GHz signal. What about drones flying spread spectrum 480MHz, or even 5.8GHz? And that antenna won't cover the GPS frequencies, either.
Face it, this is simply a tool to stop DJI Phantom drones and similar products. Nothing to see here.
> Please list known security issues with the platform.
Using your logic, this means my C-64 is the most secure platform of all.
I just started at a new startup and asked for the 2015 Thnkpad X1 Carbon. I installed Fedora 22 on it and everything works perfectly. Highly recommended.
Hundreds (if not thousands) of years from now, others will look on us as the "first people". This is the beginning of time that is documented digitally. Be proud, we are the first people.
Great to hear that Ubuntu is starting to catch up. It hasn't been this way for very long, I assure you.
Features, apparently.
Or, if you're running a Fedora desktop, then you're well familiar with RHEL/CentOS. Do people not know this?
Sure. In server environments, your aggressive patch management schedule should only target security updates. That's right, RHEL/CentOS separates security updates with feature updates. Ubuntu doesn't do this, which really puts it in a class of a hobby/garage server or desktop.
> No. I haven't had to worry about losing my job since my late 20s, since, by then, I'd built up enough savings that I could live for a year or more without working.
Sounds like you've led a boring and uneventful life. I feel sorry for you.
You can simply have it.
Put a transmitter on your drone that rolls through known frequencies (1.2, 2.4, 5.8GHz, 433MHz, etc.). Fly your drone close to the enemy drone, roll through the frequency list and take control ownership. Have your drone proxy transmitter events from the ground so your buddy can fly the enemy drone back to you.
Nobody is encrypting control transmission (yet). I believe it is illegal to encrypt traffic on amateur radio bands...
I had hoped that Internet of Things meant that consumers would be able to get more value for their products, not that manufacturers would take advantage of consumers and sell their private data for profit.
Why does it seem like manufacturers feel that they automatically have a right to your usage data after you buy their product?
Car manufacturers are already making big plans on creating new revenue streams with all the usage data they are collecting on our vehicles. Now, MS is taking the same approach (at least Windows 10 is free). What's to stop other vendors from doing the same? How about that new electric razor you bought; do you really want all your usage information to be sent back to the manufacturer, when you shaved, how you shaved, where you shaved? As more and more products are shipped with internet capability, manufacturers feel that they have a right to collect usage information weather you like it or not.
I'm not liking where this is going...