Ist Bitcoin sicher? 3 Gründe für die (relative ...
Ist Bitcoin sicher? 3 Gründe für die (relative ...
Security - Bitcoin SV
Sicherheitsmaßnahme - Bitcoin.de
Is Bitcoin a Security? – Coin Center
Is Bitcoin Safe? 3 Reasons Bitcoin Is (Mostly) Secure AVG
Bitcoin - The Currency of the Internet
A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. A large percentage of Bitcoin enthusiasts are libertarians, though people of all political philosophies are welcome.
A community that questions the mania behind bitcoin prices. We are skeptical that cyrptocurrencies are a safe or enduring investment. We want to invoke reason into the discussion about bitcoin and explore rational ways to evaluate any value it may have. Generally, we view bitcoin as a speculative bubble.
Developers! Your ultimate guide for bringing your Ethereum token to RSK is here. Our goal is to join forces and give options to people who believe in the power of smart contracts, and also believe in the security of Bitcoin, through RSK.
Why people are SUPER confident about security of Bitcoin?
Every-time someone says that Bitcoin is super secure that really that irritates me for these reasons : (1) Nothing is secure until its hacked (generic advice in software) (2) Bitcoin Miners are mostly in China they have huge hashing power, meaning at any time if they decide to make double spending or re-write the history of transactions. They can technically do it. Because blockchain is relying on how much hashing power you have - which is in my opinion as an engineer a red flag. (3) Last but not least, in light of tensions between China and US, you know what the Chinese can do? well a lot - and in fact not only the Chinese but anyone annoyed of Bitcoin too - something i can think about is make Bitcoin famous, convert most FIAT US economy into Bitcoin, then execute (2) which is absolutely possible and no one can argue with it technically speaking. VERY IMPORTANT : Please if you do not agree with me, convince me how do you think Bitcoin is 100% secure, and why double spending is not possible. Please please not give a weak opinion like this guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUd8ZGgm6Qo) where he is relying on the number of miners! Meaning security is conditional ( only if you have an equal distributed number of miners ?? ) as I said I'd love to be convinced! thanks a lot
Questions on security of Bitcoin's developer/maintainer model
Let's assume 2 of the half a dozen approved github maintainers are either hacked or corrupted - one of these maintainers, Bob, approves code that routes all transactions to their wallet, and the other, Jim, approves code that increases the circulating supply to a billion BTC. Now if let's say 2% of the full bitcoin nodes upgrade to Bob's new version of bitcoin, we essentially have 2 worlds - 1 in which everything is fine (with 98% of the processing power), and one where everything is f*cked (with 2% of the processing power). At this point, the bitcoin I'm holding is 'valid' in both worlds, but any attempt by the 2% of nodes to arbitrarily move my funds to the corrupt maintainer's wallet would be rejected by the 98% (because it wasn't signed with my transaction). But if the 2% upgraded to Jim's world, then I don't see how there's the same transaction-level control (relying on my digital signature) to prevent theoretically increasing the supply and conjuring new bitcoin out of thin air and assigning it to their wallets. How would the other 98% reject this? What is it in the consensus mechanism that would pick up on that kind of more high-level systematic hack? My follow-up question is whether people perceive a general risk in the fact that full nodes might just be automatically upgrading to the latest version of the code. I mean, we're only as secure as the nodes' good-practise in scrutinising the updates (speaking as a recently launched full node, I know I'm not scrutinising code changes).
Fesschain has super-fast transaction speed topped with the security of Bitcoin. This provides a comfortable interaction with the project for users. After all, there is always a need for such solutions. And most importantly, development does not stop.
Security of Bitcoin's Proof of Work vs. Ethereum's Proof of Stake (Casper)
I'd like to talk about a rarely-discussed security problem of coins with a capped issuance, including Bitcoin. Their developers are hoping that their economics work out as block rewards diminish, whereas the Ethereum developers appear to have thought the issue through more thoroughly - another reason why I find them to be so insightful. People piled on Vitalik when he said the inflation rate under Casper will be whatever it needs to be, without realizing that this is the best possible answer. By that I mean: For a system to remain secure, there must be a cost to performing an attack, and ideally a further risk if that attack is unsuccessful. The system must then be able to pay any costs incurred in disincentivizing or defeating these attacks. Ethereum's proof of stake is superior to proof of work on all of these dimensions - but let's set that aside for a moment, assume the costs are equal between the two systems, and define some terms for this simplified argument:
A = the cost of carrying out an attack
R = the potential reward of carrying out a successful attack (e.g. the highest amount anyone could profit from a double spend)
P = the cost to prevent an attack - this should be equal to A times some constant k
N = the cost per day that the network pays to prevent attacks. This cost is paid to minestakers by block rewards and/or transaction fees, to incentivize them to secure the network.
T = the highest amount that users will collectively pay in transaction fees per day to use the network
B = the value of block rewards per day that the network pays out (ultimately, the cost being paid by coinholders as inflation)
We'll also assume that potential attackers are economically rational in the sense that they will only spend money to attack if they feel they can profit more than the cost of the attack. Thus, the network being secure implies that: A > R Let's explore this inequality. Since P = k*A, P/k > R An equivalent condition for security is that the network will pay the cost necessary to prevent attacks, or: N >= P Substituting, we have: N/k > R Now, N <= T + B, but for Bitcoin, if block rewards trend to zero then N <= T, and T/k > R So, if the users are not willing to pay at least R*k in daily transaction fees, the network will be insecure. Whether this will be true for Bitcoin in the future is far from being a certainty. It's quite possible that it's just not economically viable to run the Bitcoin proof-of-work network in the long term as block rewards diminish. With a currency that maintains some level of inflation, you have that B variable providing additional security. With Casper, you have that factor in addition to more favorable values of pretty much every constant involved. When you can tweak inflation, you have much more flexibility to keep A > R. Inflation is a hindrance to usage of the system as a store of value, but far less so than having an insecure system. TL;DR: If there's no inflation, then transaction fees must be sufficient to cover the costs of maintaining security, and we have no guarantee that this is the case. Philosophical Addendum / Strawman Q&A "But I want a currency with no inflation." We've just shown that it might not work, depending on how much your system costs to secure. Interesting fact: the Bitcoin network is using more electricity than Denmark and is rapidly growing, while staking will just require ETH and uptime. But I'd like to offer up a philosophical argument too. Who benefits from the network? People who store value on it, and people who use contracts/transact on it. Everyone who uses the network takes both of these roles, but to widely varying degrees. To say that there should be no inflation is saying that one arbitrary class of users should get the benefit of the network for free, while another class should pay disproportionately. "But I want digital gold." You still pay each day to secure your gold. You spend time to find a secure spot for it, you pay people with strong buildings or guns to protect it, or you pay the risk that someone will take it. A store of value that is automatically and costlessly secure is still a fantasy. Cryptocurrency still offers many benefits over other stores of value, let's be realistic about the costs involved. (note: please do point out any errors I've made - I've written this to the best of my knowledge but could have missed something)
May 8, 2019 will mark four years since our #Genesis block. Bata (BTA) #Cryptocurrency has evolved into a #Blockchain with the security of #Bitcoin with #Masternodes and multiple #Algorithms. Traded on multiple #exchanges. Built for #Barter. https://bata.io
Ethereum now have 72% of the security of Bitcoin, and is more de-centralized thanks to ASIC resistance.
Ethereum create block rewards worth $999/min and Bitcoin create rewards worth $1383/min. This can in the long term be converted to "amount of security", since you can assume that more miners will join until it's not profitable any more. So Ethereum have 72% of Bitcoins security (or more thanks to putting more value in the de-centralization). That is not nothing :-)
Bitcoin has 400,000 times the processing power of Ethereum. Is this true? Argument being made that the ultimate security of Bitcoin depends on processing power. https://hackernoon.com/the-fundamental-problems-with-ethereum-408c420849f0
Bitcoin is financial security. All of the other talking points are a subset of security. Decentralization? Security. Resistance to inflation? Security. resistance to bail-ins? Security. Trustless? Security. The overall security of bitcoin is threatened by a small block size.
Szabo completely overlooks that he is talking about the subset of something else. A small blocksize threatens bitcoins security because:
it constrains the quantity of users which constrains the amount of people who might run full nodes
It constrains the quantity of users which makes the users of the network less decentralized since there are less users(it is much easier for governments to "attack" bitcoin if fewer people are using it)
it constrains the quantity of users and creates high transaction fees which leads users to other forms and types of payment which decreases the security of your wealth because the chance is greater that another cryptocurrency can do the same job and be less expensive
And finally it decreases the revenue miners ultimately can make since not only is it warding off potential users who are paying potential fees that add to miners funds but as a basic lesson in economics: higher (transaction) price reduces demand which means there is an artificial cap on miner revenue.
I just did some random pseudo-research on how insanely big the number 2256 is. 2256 =_approx. 1077 . So we have a range of 1077 possibilities when we have to crack one public address. Now the milky way galaxy has approximately 1068 atoms. This means that to hit one specific atom with a rocketdart thrown at random into the milky way is more likely than guessing a private key for an address (Billion times more likely to be precise). Or let's assume we know all keys for all 2160=_approx 1048 addresses and now only need to check the addresses for balance in order to sweep them. Let's further assume that every of the 7 billion humans on earth has 1000 addresses with balance on it. This means there are 7 * 109 * 103 =_approx 1013 addresses in use. The chance of finding an address with balance when you know every private key is then 1013-48 =10-35 . Now the atmosphere of the earth contains around 1027 grams of oxygen so you have a better chance of inhaling a gram of oxygen chosen at random from all around the world than to find a bitcoin address with balance when you have access to every private key. These numbers are crazy.  Inspired by the picture in the comments i did some additional pseudo research: According to the Margolus–Levitin theorem any computer system can only perform 6e33 Flips/(J/s) where a flip can be assumed to be one operation (one key check if you wish) but is in reality the switch of a bit from 0 to 1. Building a dyson sphere around the sun would allow me to capture 3.38e26 J/s. This giant computer system would need 5e16s=1.75 billion years to check all 2256 keys.
If a substantial fee market developed over the next few months and represented a sizable income for miners, wouldn't any subsequent change of the blocksize limit endanger the security of Bitcoin?
Is that not a problem with any fixed-type blocksize limit? Would it not make sense to change to some sort of dynamic block size limit (I don't want to discuss which solution is the best) as soon as possible before we are locked in to a substantial fee market based on a fixed limit?
Statement on Maintaining the Hashrate Security of Bitcoin Network
On Aug. 1, Bitcoin Cash (BCC) will go live, widely deemed an altcoin. While it follows the same mining algorithm as Bitcoin, BCC uses a different unilateral Difficulty adjustment mechanism, which is concerning. Namely, when the Hashrate decreases and block generation slows down, the Difficulty will go down dynamically; however, when the Hashrate increases and block generation speeds up, due to the static adjustment mechanism, the Difficulty will remain unchanged until the Next Difficulty kicks in. In this regard, the birth of BCC may cause a Hashrate fluctuation and, in the worst case, disrupt the Bitcoin network by creating a Hashrate black hole and affecting the generation of blocks. Bitcoin as a whole might be severely affected. Thus, it is vital to defend the security of Bitcoin network. Bixin is most concerned with the long-term prosperity of Bitcoin. Therefore, to protect the safety of the network, Bixin promises this: all Hashrate under Bixin will back the Bitcoin network. Meanwhile, we will work with all players in the Bitcoin community, both companies and individuals, to protect the safety of the Bitcoin network so that Bitcoin can go through this period smoothly. Bixin would like to appeal to all the mining pools and miners to stay rational. Rather than seeking short-term benefits at the price of losing more in the future, let us adhere to the Bitcoin network together; let us protect the safety of the network together; let us defend the long-term benefits and development of Bitcoin together. Bixin team July 28, 2017
Is Bitcoin a Security? Today we are releasing our Framework for Securities Regulation of Cryptocurrencies. In it we lay out the case for treating some cryptocurrencies as securities—and some not. by Peter Van Valkenburgh January 25, 2016. Blog Investor Protection. Strange bunch of things right? Mink, bullion, golf course, diamond, worm farm, chinchilla, orange grove, beaver? Aside from the ... Security is core to our values, and we value the input of security researchers acting in good faith to help us maintain high standards of security and privacy for our users and the Bitcoin SV blockchain. This includes encouraging responsible vulnerability research and disclosure. This policy sets out our definition of good faith in the context ... Die neue elektronische Währung Bitcoin ist sicher, kostengünstig und komfortabel. Kaufen Sie schnell und günstig mit Bitcoins weltweit ein. Auf Bitcoin.de können Sie Bitcoins kaufen und handeln. Für Bitcoin gibt es Server in aller Welt sowie über Zehntausend Knoten, die alle Transaktionen im System nachverfolgen. Und das ist wichtig, weil es Folgendes bedeutet: Wenn mit einem der Server oder Knoten zufällig etwas passiert, können die anderen in die Bresche springen. Es bedeutet zudem, dass der Versuch, einen der Server zu hacken, sinnlos ist: Dabei könnten Sie nichts stehlen, was ... The protocol recently completed a security audit and fusions are nearing 20k with close to ... read more. Bitcoin Adoption Soars in Turkey Amid High Inflation, Lira Hitting Record Low. People in ...
Bitcoin Vault - A higher standard in security - YouTube
Bitcoin Vault is developed to provide an extra level of security based on a three-private-key security structure. It features all the convenience of Bitcoin ... Your bitcoin security must be adapted to you. Their is no industry standard but a good rule of thumb is to start with a mobile wallet, move to a hardware wal... JAMES BOND CHANNEL https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClMX... VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxsyu... Referral Patreon : https://patreon.com/invite/vznj... Here are a few basic security tips for any new people interested in buying or selling bitcoins Your keys, your bitcoin. Not your keys? Not your bitcoin. The dangers of custodial accounts. Key management. Best practices for storing your 12-24 backup wor...