Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Tomothy]

I would like your opinion on the cointext FAQ. Specifically around
EDIT: I worked out that it only supports legacy addresses which is a bit shit. Works OK now, but I'm not putting anything other than toy money in it.

EDIT2: Well I wasn't able to steal my own funds by using spoofmytextmessage.com so they are cleverer than I am, but are they cleverer than the black hats?

TLDR= Yes. The reason being is they use a unique identifier associated with the Sim card of the phone to generate send/receive/wallet information. As such, in order to compromise/hack you need physical access to the phone and to copy the sim card. (I'm pretty sure this is using Craig's threshold signatures as well but not certain and can't confirm).

The other weakpoint afaict is you figure out the top secret algorithm

IMHO, this makes the service fairly secure with regard to risk tolerance for most users. I'd feel ok storing <$500 on my phone like that. Especially if they provide an offline/backup option in case my phone/sim card got lost/stolen.

It could be great for adoption and greater competition versus something like venmo.

@Mengerian sorry, I didn't see your post before I completed mine. I think you're right that the super fancy behind the scenes algorithm IS a concern; however, having security partially based off the unique sim code id, I think helps partially mitigate that. I think the super algorithm uses craigs multiplarty threshold stuff but i know some people are trying to put together an audit and to hack the service, specifically the algorithm. Will be interesting. So maybe safe for <$100 holding

 

[Mengerian]

@Tomothy Interesting, I'd have to look more into how SIM codes work. If they can be considered equivalent to very large random numbers, then maybe it's more secure than I thought.

But without more information on how it actually works, it's difficult to have much confidence in its security.

 

[AdrianX]

Blockstream/Core can't increase the blocksize limit without the miners cooperating. I think that's very unlikely now, based on Jihan and Haipo's tweets on the subject (can't find the links) and how this whole thing played out.

My feeling is the longer it takes the less likely they'll be able to fork the BTC transaction limit. The more those invested in on chain scaling ( a fundamental necessity for bitcoin's growth) actually invest in on chain scaling the less they find themselves invested in the BTC chain.

Big miners are going to be among the first to realise it's too late to abandon BCH if the BTC chain tries to fork a bigger limit. Not to mention the community consensus confusion.

 

[rocks]

It's not just miners that are an issue for BTC now, it is the development community. People who pay attention and actually want to build things on top of Bitcoin are building on top of cash over BTC, because seriously who would build on top of BTC and be exposed to greg risk.

Here is a random example for today from reddit. It seems you see something like this whenever you go to /r/btc, but whenever I go over to north korea I don't see this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7y0vms/cointext_chooses_bitcoin_cash_as_payment_of_choice/?st=jdqitlem&sh=4dae3873

 

[adamstgbit]

By holding BCH, I think I am betting on exactly BTC being unable to remove or otherwise change the limit now.

i'm betting it wont matter if they rise the limit or not.

i'm betting that they will push poeple to LN, they with push will all there might. problem is LN will never be easy to use, "idiots" aka simple users will lose money because they don't know what they are doing while hackers and scammers take advantage of these simpleton users.

and all their pushing is going to do it push poeple to find easier to use / simple cryptos

and LTC ( or any other stupid altcoin) will always be seen as a fun experiment, and BCH will always be seen as the fork that made the right decisions...

price is all about perception.
>32,000$ in < 2 years


ill poke my head in the crypto world looking for Core finally coming up with a "user frindly" NONE BETA version of LN, ill try it ( or at least attempt to try their monstrosity! ) and if its half as bad as i think it'll be, ill load the fucking boat stock full of BCH.

if LN actually works well / user friendly / hard to fuck up. well then, ill have to admit i was wrong and rethink my position on this whole thing.

 

[awemany]

Good points on the BTC blocksize increase. I guess I disagree with you for the moment, @adamstgbit , that a blocksize increase would not matter anymore on BTC. But I think there's a window closing for BTC being able to get its block size increase and likely also a window for whether it would matter or not.

In other news, this has me concerned:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7y5ssf/dr_craig_s_wright_on_twitter_wait_until_they_see/

Satoshi or Faketoshi aside, this is not going in the right direction IMO. And it is also very hard to imagine for me that a set of 200 patents are all fulfilling minimum standards of being creative and non-obvious.

EDIT: On BTC blocksize increase. A picture that about describes what I believe happened now is that basically, the BTC ecosystem is fenced in, has been sealed by the miners from the outside, and a process of anaerobic fermentation has started that will lead to the eventual self-destruction of this very BTC ecosystem.

They cannot move anymore, they cannot blame us BCHlers (well they can try, but we are effectively coated with Teflon in this regard, being on a separate chain), and thus eventually they'll turn onto each other.

And I think the Blockstreamers leaving is them being prescient of this happening down the road.

 

[hodl]

hey BCH's:

 

[majamalu]

if LN actually works well / user friendly / hard to fuck up. well then, ill have to admit i was wrong and rethink my position on this whole thing.

Even if LN works (assuming that someday it will be needed), it will require a blockchain that is not artificially congested. The problem is not the LN, the problem is coercion.

 

[majamalu]

We are dealing with maoists in the midst of the "Great Leap Forward". We shouldn't get lost in minutiae such as how much steel is necessary to produce, or whether it is necessary to produce more steel than rice or vice versa. Nobody knows that. Nobody can know. That's why we need a free market.

 

[hodl]

oh my; Lightning Network is a Dead End:

 

[BCH King]

if LN actually works well / user friendly / hard to fuck up. well then,[...]

[...] we will make a malleability fix and implement LN on Bitcoin BCH.

FTFY

 

[Dusty]

we will make a malleability fix and implement LN on Bitcoin BCH.

It's really an hard task to fix malleability without rewriting every single piece of code that handle bitcoin transactions: it's an unsolved problem AFICT, without using segwit.

 

[Richy_T]

Even if that's true (and I'm not convinced it is), doing only the parts of Segwit that allow for malleability fixes is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.

Of course, it's becoming increasingly questionable as to what benefits fixing malleability brings. We too could lose our funds in a not-even-alpha-level payment system? I'm in no rush.
[doublepost=1519000458,1518999824][/doublepost]Ironically, it would make more sense for LN to either move to an alt with malleability fixed or to BCH and petition for a fix (or BCH and get by without the fix). They've chained themselves to a cluster with BTC and there will be those who try to shift the blame to them when things start going south.

 

[BCH King]

The reason being is they use a unique identifier associated with the Sim card of the phone to generate send/receive/wallet information. As such, in order to compromise/hack you need physical access to the phone and to copy the sim card.

So in other words no-one can spoof an SMS that would fool the cointext system unless they had access to the sim card or a clone thereof? Do you have a source for this?
[doublepost=1519011290,1519010624][/doublepost]

It's really an hard task to fix malleability without rewriting every single piece of code that handle bitcoin transactions: it's an unsolved problem AFICT, without using segwit.

Once the malleability bug was identified as a risk, it could have been fixed with a simple hard-fork change, implemented in the same manner as the increase in the block size limit. It is only in Greg's bitcoin that hard forks are forbidden, and thus that bug must be fixed by the ungainly SegWit soft-forked hack.

 

[AdrianX]

The troll swatting civil discourse acknowledgements go to:

https://www.reddit.com/user/fruitsofknowledge

https://www.reddit.com/user/mungojelly

Looks like people are fighting a good war out there keep it up.

 

[Richy_T]

So in other words no-one can spoof an SMS that would fool the cointext system unless they had access to the sim card or a clone thereof? Do you have a source for this?

I don't think an SMS has any access to that info unless you're the carrier, perhaps.

 

[serian]

Does someone know why is there low BU nodes and declining? Is there some reason? And only 1 XT node left.

 

[bitsko]

Hi serian.

It is likely not as many folks take concern with the BTC network any longer. I certainly do not spend cycles archiving bob or alice's transactions there these days.

There are 10 XT wallets on the BCH network, and, from anecdotes i've read, the amount of BU wallets is increasing.

 

[hodl]

yep:

http://www.cryptovibes.com/crypto-news/youtuber-was-paid-by-polish-bank-to-slander-crpytocurrencies/

https://www.money.pl/gospodarka/wiadomosci/artykul/kryptowaluty-kampania-nbp-knf,65,0,2398529.html
[doublepost=1519058439,1519057679][/doublepost]Gold collapsed. BCH UP:

https://gizmodo.com/falcon-heavy-may-have-drastically-increased-the-number-1823116009

 

[hodl]

lol, OMG, what a revelation! it's amazing just how long ago (many, many years ago) we realized these issues here in this thread.