Hot answers tagged

11

It looks like https://bitcoincore.org/ is the one run by the people who run the Github bitcoin/bitcoin project (the actual core developers) since it is the one listed on their Github page: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin If you want the absolute best source for the client directly from Bitcoin Core devs then I would use that site or their Github page for ...


10

Is the safety of bitcoin dependent on the creator of it being a trustworthy person? No, the safety of Bitcoin is not at all dependent on the identity of its creator. The source code is public. The paper is public. Or would it be safe to use even if it turned out the creator's day job was working at the NSA? Again, the genesis of Bitcoin is unrelated ...


10

Here all famous scammers/sites: List of Known Bitcoin Scams: Beware of Fraudsters! Bitcoin Scammers list


10

Proof of work does not create trust. It creates incentive. Miners are paid if their block is eventually part of the main version of history ("blockchain") that the network accepts. They must irrecoverably burn electricity in order to create blocks, which costs them money; money they only get paid for if their block "wins". These factors together mean that ...


8

The majority needs to be trusted, but not weighted by their number of software instances, but by either computational power or economic power, depending on the context. The main technical assumption is that the majority of hashrate is not trying to attack the network. So an attacker would need to purchase and operate more hashrate than the rest of the ...


8

But then the next problem is transaction order and validity to prevent double spending. I don't understand completely why a timestamp can't just be included for every broadcasted transaction, and the transaction could have the correct, universally agreed upon time, and each ledger gets sorted chronologically. Is this because it requires a centralized system ...


7

A block is just an arbitrary grouping of transactions. It makes a convenient chunk of data for a proof-of-work to be performed on. You could hypothetically do the proof-of-work on the transactions themselves, and then chain them one after the other. This, however, would fail miserably. Blocks must reference the previous block, so if you just go by single ...


5

We start out with the exchange having two things. It has a set of Bitcoin addresses that it owns, each of which has some balance. It also has a set of accounts, each of which it owes some number of Bitcoin to. The objective is to prove that the exchange controls each Bitcoin address on that list and that the total of all account debts is less than the total ...


5

The short answer is that the "verification" done on every transaction by every node is preliminary and incomplete. It guarantees that the tx more-or-less makes sense, but it doesn't guarantee that the tx is in sync with the network and that it doesn't contradict other txs. Synchronizing the transactions to make sure there are no contradictions - in other ...


5

But then the next problem is transaction order and validity to prevent double spending. I don't understand completely why a timestamp can't just be included for every broadcasted transaction, and the transaction could have the correct, universally agreed upon time, and each ledger gets sorted chronologically. Is this because it requires a centralized system ...


5

Whoever made that example doesn't seem to understand how the lightning network works. I think the creator of this scenario is confusing how the lightning network functions with how traditional deferred net settlement functions. With the LN, you don't hold accounts with the people you have open channels with. Instead, you have money tied up in the channel ...


5

If most users are honest, then they would voluntarily enforce the prohibition to rewrite the blockchain. Without proof of work, this is just not possible. There would be no limit to the number of blocks that could be created at about the same time, there could be thousands of them created every minute. Different servers might receive them in different ...


4

You slightly misunderstood the concept of majority here. Bitcoin relies on the majority of trusted computational power. So it does not matter if there will be billions of small clients controlled by the same owner if they are not powerful enough. The main idea in the beginning was that each client is running independently. So if there will be a lot of ...


4

Zcash the currency requires the generation of parameters that must then be securely destroyed. If this data is not securely destroyed by Zcash the company they could undermine the currency, by being able to create new money. For a more thorough discussion, see also the Zcash blog post on the problem and one by Greg Slepak discussing the potential risks. The ...


4

If you send 0.1 bitcoin to an exchange, you would see it credited to your account, but that doesn't mean that it is in a wallet solely dedicated to your account. Instead, that 0.1 bitcoin is sent to a wallet which aggregates all transactions to the exchange. When you withdraw the bitcoin, a transaction is published from the aggregating wallet to your ...


4

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/ says For the latest developments related to Bitcoin Core, be sure to visit the project’s official website. (which is a link to https://bitcoincore.org/) So there has been a deliberate separation between the Bitcoin.org project and the Bitcoin core project. This would make sense as Bitcoin.org provide information and ...


3

BitPenny seems to be half the solution - it has centralized control, but its clients can verify it behaves nicely in some sense. But it still has central management. A 51% pool can pull off subtle attacks that aren't prevented by BitPenny. For example, it can prune competitors' blocks, which is not always detectable due to the network latency. It can also ...


3

Okay, I will bite. No, I don't think it would be useful to publish software hashes in the blockchain. As you recognize, a hash of a software package is useless unless it is somehow authenticated. Currently, the most popular way to do this is to make the hash available on a "well-known" website which uses HTTPS, and provides an X.509 certificate signed by ...


3

"We" are volunteers running Electrum servers. There's almost no trust in them, the absolute worst they can do is feed you false negatives about the balance of your wallet, or they can also choose not to broadcast your transactions and pretend that they have. You trade some privacy in that they can see the contents of your entire wallet and associate it with ...


3

Knowing won't help You are effectively looking for a centralised entity to provide you with a prediction of the future behaviour of a decentralised entity (asking a mining pool to predict the blockchain). Even if one or more mining pools share this information, I do not believe it will provide you with a significant risk reduction in accepting transactions ...


3

Depending on what function of the certification authority you are looking for, Bitcoin doesn't need one, or the blockchain does it. Identity in e-banking vs identity in Bitcoin network Electronic banking relies on the communication between bank and customer being secure which is what they use encrypted protocols for. They don't use either hashing, nor ...


3

Bitcoin is untrusted, in that you don't need to trust a third party to use Bitcoin. Bitcoins are signed over directly from you to the recipient. This is binary, either the bitcoins remain under your control, or they have been signed over to the recipient. You can observe the state of your payment by running a full node, i.e. a Bitcoin client that enforces ...


3

First lets distinguish between a blockchain and Blockchain as a Service (BaaS), because they're two different things. Bitcoin, and other crypto-currencies, use a distributed ledger in a peer-to-peer network - a blockchain. This is the original use of a blockchain. As you state correctly, the fundamental concept is that it is decentralized, permissionless ...


3

How likely is it that some block from 1 year ago later turns out to be invalid? Very unlikely, but I think that isn't the problem. The problem is, how does a new user find out the current state (UTXO set or equivalent) without having to trust other parties? Any community has dishonest people preying on it. You cannot ignore, expire or invalidate unspent ...


2

All mining pools are currently publishing the block of transactions they are currently working on, but it's likely encoded into a smaller block header. As a miner, you are asking the pool for a small amount of work that you can accomplish and share your results. As far as I know, there are no mining pools that publish which transactions they are working on. ...


2

StrongCoin has been operating since 2011 in the wallet space and now has an escrow service too. The service is based on BIP38 which means it is using an M of N style key exchange. The service does not hold the Bitcoins just one vote which it can use in the case of a dispute. StrongCoin - BIP38 Escrow Service


2

...how do you determine that the computer program that's supposed to resolve the dispute has actually been run, and if so whether the output of the program is being reported fairly by the computer that ran it? ... But it occurs to me that the issue with external state contracts is analogous to the issue I described above that's solved with the blockchain. So ...


2

Stealth Address is the answer. Adapted from CryptoNote technology by Peter Todd (I think), Stealth Address basically is a form of Diffie-Hellman key exchange that allows sender to create a one-time key pair that only receiver can derive the private key. Thus Stealth Address allows merchant to public their well-known address while prevent any payments to be ...


2

This is my conceptual understanding, which will hopefully be useful here, but I'm sure there are technical subtleties that I am not including, which some more experienced with the side-chains project would be able to give more insight into. First, we need to have a clear definition of an SPV proof. I will use SPV proof to mean: A bit sequence that proves ...


2

Trust would remain in Bitcoin transactions only if miners continued to mine. However, without a financial incentive, there would be no reason for them to shoulder the high electricity costs of mining.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible