- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bitstamp Halts Withdrawls
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:24 am to WikiTiger
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:24 am to WikiTiger
quote:You didn't explain it. You provided a link to a wikipedia article explaining it.
Most of y'all had no understanding of the concept of off-chain transactions until just 2 nights ago when I explained it.
And ironically the article you linked weakened your stance that bitcoin is safe from fraud from the off block chain transactions. It pointed out that security from double spending during off block chain transfers depends entirely on the honesty of the exchange/wallet provider and can't be verified by the "community" like regular block chain transaction can.
So in order to actually be able to use btc an owner has to rely on a third party (can you say 'bank'?) that can pilfer his bitcoins. Only when the btc owner then tries to transfer his btc back to block chain transactions can the double spending fraud be detected. And by then it's too late. Reference MtGox.
As we've seen, relying upon the integrity of any entity closely associated with bitcoin is a huge gamble. Bitcoin attracts the ethically bankrupt.
2
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:26 am to LSURussian
quote:
You didn't explain it. You provided a link to a wikipedia article explaining it.
Yes I did.
LINK
quote:quote:
what was wrong with his post and what did your link discredit?
he said: If a transfer is not entered into the ledger of all transactions, then the transfer did not occur.
and that's not true. there are more off-chain transactions than there are on-chain transactions. and they happen all day every day successfully. typically off-chain transactions rely on a trusted third party to process and account for them. on-chain settlement at a later date is possible.
some current real world examples: 2 individuals have accounts on coinbase.com. person A sends bitcoins from his coinbase address to person B's coinbase address. that transaction will not touch the blockchain. all coinbase will do is update their internal database that says person B now has (initial bitcoin amount + amount of bitcoin's sent by person A) and person A now has (initial bitcoin amount - bitcoins sent to person B).
A similar thing happens on all cryptocurrency exchanges. hypothetically person A deposits 2 bitcoins to an address assigned to them but controlled by the exchange. the exchange then sweeps any deposits to that address to a main address(es) where all coins are stored. but person A's account on the exchange says they have 2 bitcoins. person A then places an order on the exchange to buy 100 litecoins with their 2 bitcoins. person B fills that order and the internal database of the exchange then updates its records to reflect that person B now has 2 bitcoins and 100 fewer litecoins and person A now has 100 litecoins and no bitcoins. those transactions never touch the blockchain
all of those users can eventually "withdraw" their coins to another bitcoin/litecoin/etc address and then the transactions will show up on the blockchain.
poodle also said: That is an absolute necessity for Bitcoins to have any integrity of ownership.
and that's not true either. trusted third parties are in use currently and have been used for years, and will continue to be used.
he also said this: If what you claim is true then the statistics being posted with respect to Bitcoin transaction volume are meaningless and misleading. Every trade on the exchange would be reflected as two transactions. The first as a transfer from the seller to the exchange's wallet, and then a second from the exchange's wallet to the buyer.
and that may as well be gibberish because it makes no sense
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 9:27 am
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:28 am to LSURussian
quote:
And ironically the article you linked weakened your stance that bitcoin is safe from fraud from the off block chain transactions. It pointed out that security from double spending during off block chain transfers depends entirely on the honesty of the exchange/wallet provider and can't be verified by the "community" like regular block chain transaction can.
So in order to actually be able to use btc an owner has to rely on a third party (can you say 'bank'?) that can pilfer his bitcoins. Only when the btc owner then tries to transfer his btc back to block chain transactions can the double spending fraud be detected. And by then it's too late. Reference MtGox.
As we've seen, relying upon the integrity of any entity closely associated with bitcoin is a huge gamble. Bitcoin attracts the ethically bankrupt.
Just so everyone reading this knows, this is a perfect example of a person with a strong negative opinion on bitcoin having no clue what he's talking about. When I say you all don't understand the technology, I truly mean it. The amount of misunderstanding that most of you demonstrate is staggering, and I know you all are intelligent people, but god damn, some of you can be so dumb when it comes to this topic.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News