"As you figured out, the root problem is we shouldn't be counting or spending transactions until they have at least 1 confirmation. 0/unconfirmed transactions are very much second class citizens... counting them as balance or spending them is premature." - Satoshi Nakamoto https://t.co/AKDK9aXaVX
Wow setting up an ATM to work with zeroconf is pretty silly. The ATM ive used is setup as such that you would sent the BTC, get a printed receipt and walk away , then wait till 1 confirmation and go back to the ATM to withdraw the cash. It's not the greatest method but waiting for at least 1 confirmation is required with just about anything these days.
If you're a criminal, looking to cash out your ill-gotten darknet gains, sending the BTC and seeing \[Estimated confirmation time: 4h 22m 13s\] is an absolute showstopper. Nobody sane is going to sit around for four hours waiting for the police to finish their lunch break and arrest them.
You don't need to stay around, you make your deposit, go home, come back in 4h 22m, scan your redeem ticket and grab your cash.
But more likely if its illgotten darknet gains, you would be willing to pay a crazy $10+ fee to shorten the wait to 10mins.
Well, it looks like they took cash from the ATM and pretended to send BTC to it, instead they repaced the pretend transaction with another that went beck to an address they control. The real crime here is a Bitcoin ATM that accepts BTC with zero confirmations. The same attack is possible with BCH, but it would cost a lot more than the withdrawal limit.
Of course, these scammers had intent to defraud and that is also a crime.
Bitcoin certainly has led the world into a new era of exciting, innovative scams. In the old days, there were very few ways a person could realistically be scammed, but in this new modern era, why, the sky's the limit!
This is FUD. These folks are not scammers or thieves. Code is law and these delightful fellows merely found a simple loophole in the protocol that allowed them to transfer wealth from weak hands into their own strong, well deserving hands.
The ATM manufacturers should be thanking these entrepreneurial young chaps for finding weaknesses in their security system. The rest of the Bitcoin ecosystem should be showering them with praise for their deep knowledge and wisdom that was required to initiate such a transfer.
It's not theft, its a security subsidy, cryptographically secured by the network with the highest hash rate in human history.
Along with providing a financial incentive to create unlimited clean energy, Bitcoin also provides an incentive for the best minds in computer security to upgrade the cyber security of any system using Bitcoin, in exchange for fair reward as decided by the immutable justice of the blockchain.
Satoshi's solution to double spending was waiting for confirmations on the blockchain.
However, it turns out that this confirmation process is so ridiculously slow that anyone who wants to do in-person bitcoin transactions is forced to abandon this confirmation process (i.e. they don't wait for any confirmations before accepting the transaction as complete).
Another flaw sold as a feature, along with "no chargebacks".
There's no way to do charge backs with this brave new financial technology, but don't worry, that's actually a good thing! Think of all the money retailers will save not having to pay charge backs. Retailers passing on some indiscernibly small percentage of their profits is most surely worth losing any consumer protection against theft and fraud.
It's funny that there are so many other problems with the technology, and its so far from being adopted as a mainstream currency that it hasn't even become apparent what a major problem it would be for customers to try and secure their funds on a network that has no ability to reverse fraudulent transactions.
Of course you could always build a second layer solution to fix that problem. Perhaps some kind of centralized payment network that could insure and investigate against fraud and theft.
I've always felt this way about buttcoin. It's such a terrible and wasteful solution, not elegant, nor efficient.
It's like if you needed to build a bridge across the river, but you do it by first getting 20 people around to catch squirrels from the surround trees and kill them, then you all glue their bones to one another and proceed to eventually construct the bridge and finally declare victory. Soon, a car passes over the bridge, it collapses and everyone drowns in the river and you claim it was all actually an useful feature
No, after the first car crashes, we restart with another squirrel genocide, until the next desperate driver is required to risk the new bridge, and also collapses it. This continues, until the combined volume of collapsed bridges and cars forms a mountain that emerges above the surface, and thus we have a new bridge that can be used to traverse the river.
It is the sort of thing I would have come up with as a joke. Like I'm always coming up with these insane solutions to minor problems that have the fatal flaw in they result in the complete destruction of the world as a side effect.
I think it’s an interesting project from a coding standpoint, but I don’t get why anyone *needs* it. Other than a few niche use cases, it doesn’t seem to be any good for anything. Most crypto user cases are people going out of their way to find a way to use it.
Economists think bitcoin is bullshit from an economics perspective but might have interesting CS implications.
CS profs think bitcoin is bullshit from a CS perspective but might have interesting economics implications.
So, is it a currency or a speculative investment vehicle? Because it's bad for something to be both.
If it's a currency, you'd want a high transaction rate, which we're not seeing.
If it's a speculative investment vehicle, it's one that does not create real-world value for society.
Worst Case : O(∞) (since this algorithm has no upper bound)
Average Case: O(n*n!)
Best Case : O(n)(when array given is already sorted)
**Auxiliary Space : O(1)**
Well, I got that going for me, which is nice.
Again. Bitcoin "atm" will get emptied by this exact same "feature" again and again, unless they actually wait for at least 1 block confirmation (and it would be better to wait for the canonical 3) meaning you'll get people to wait 10-30 minutes to get their cash, and that's only it the machine is betting on the right transaction fee and the network is not clogged. All in all, a very stupid idea.
Unless... unless you use, I don't know, some sort of off-chain lock on a specific wallet before a wallet is authorized to transact, blocking it from performing other operations on the company's machines and kept for as long as it takes to get the transaction in a signed block. So you could instantly free the customer and let the machine spit out the money, no double spends. A centralized system, gasp!... outside the blockchain. Problem: that would work only for a single company's machines of course, unless... unless you sort of make a central service, like a network providing services for all buttcoin ATM companies so the locks and other stuff can work across all machines and maybe even with some PoS-like system in shops, hotels, restaurants, whatever... I have this nagging feeling, that this all sounds familiar somehow. Could be all the salt I'm eating, being a noiconer and not the fact that you either go the centralized way, ending up with shitty clones of pre-existing technologies, or you end up with a most inconvenient system no user would ever want to spontaneously use if he has any alternative.
You ignored the lightning ~~not~~network. According to the Bitcoiners it will solve this problem.
Just that it doesn't.
Sadly, not mentioning it seems to Bitcoiners that they have won this argument, when in fact they are too stupid to realize that LN simply sucks.
Stake-weighted, optionally delegated majority vote against double spends.
Edit: This is where Buttcoin falls down. You're absolutely right to call out the scammers in the market. You're absolutely free to (heartlessly) laugh at investors buying at the top. Or buying something you believe has no intrinsic value.
But when you downvote simple true pieces of information about a coin you just reveal mindless hate. That devalues any purpose to the sub.
Just noticed you used the word "source".
That's appropriate because Nano is Open-Source.
You can review the code yourself on [Github](https://github.com/nanocurrency) to see when a node considers a transaction confirmed.
Why would anything not developed in an academic environment be expected to be academically peer reviewed? This isn't a University or an academic journal, it's reddit.
Crazy as it seems, given the low quality of debate here, we're the peers. Here on /r/cc. This *is* the review.
Tear the white paper to pieces - no one has managed to yet.
Nor has any hacker with a wish to get their hands on $183m.
This thread is completely out of date and adds nothing to the discussion right now.
Citing the main developper of nano from 8 months ago how this has not been the case for at least 14 months.
>An individual transaction's vote weight is compared against the total online vote weight. They can be assured a conflict with appreciable quorum won't arise by comparing the tally to the total.
>Before nodes tracked online vote weight they waited a minute to observe conflicts, this hasn't been the case for about 6 months.
>0-conf is different because no quorum for a transaction has been counted whatsoever whereas Nano totals the quorum within seconds.
Are you kidding ? NObody is using bcash to buy anything except Bitcoin. And the most popular item Bitcoin users like to buy is dollar. Some use it to get weed, shroom, porn, and casino thrill. For now though, in the near future however you are likely to buy Walmart milk over LN net
I think the majority of us all willing to wait 30 minutes for each payment in exchange for having a decentralized, system.
If you invite your wife at a cash-only restaurant you just have to wait 30 mins at the ATM, which is a great way to talk to other people queuing at that ATM, experience $5 wrench attacks, etc...
The did not steal, they did not double spend. They used the RBF (Replace by fee) mechanism in the bitcoin *core* protocol.
Fuck the ATM operator running 0-conf on bitcoin core. That's not how bitcoin core works. You get $40 fees, champagne, LN and no 0-conf.
The ATM operator bet against bitcoin when they chose to deal in bitcoin core. This is bitcoin, eat the $200,000 loss and fuck off. Confirmed transactions are immutable. They hold the keys, it's their crypto now.
MemoryDealersRoger Ver - Bitcoin Entrepreneur - Bitcoin.com1 year ago