roastpotatothief

joined 4 years ago
[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Proof of work isn't a necessary part of it. You need to answer the question "how does money get created". Proof of work is a very robust way to create and allocate new money. Fiat currencies just answer " i nominate one entity who is allowed to create as much money as he likes”. Other answers are possible.

It's also possible to use a proof of work algorithm which doesn't consume much energy. The usual proposal is for a "proof of doing work and allocating RAM and storing something on disk". Bitcoin just chose the most robust and simplest algorithm, which does consume a lot of energy.

In a future currency, the proof of work algorithm could allocate money to people who sequester carbon or plant trees. The thing about inventing a new type of money is that you can do anything. Bitcoin is a great leap of progress for humanity, but has a couple of flaws. Those flawed features can be reinvented, while still keeping all the benefits.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This seems like the right approach. You can get different answers depending on which measure you use

You could compare

1.Willful killings in total

  1. willful killings per year

  2. willful killings during the 1920s-40s

  3. willful killings during Churchill's regime versus Hitler's regime.

I guess the UK will have higher numbers by every measure except 1. The figures should be easy to find.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

For a start, bitcoin is revolutionary. It solves all the problems with the banking system.

For example, people's card details get stolen all the time. Bitcoin had solved this by using a new public key for each transaction.

When something is purchased using a credit/debit card, you are effectively using the same public key for every transaction. So what is happening is replay attacks. This type of scam is inevitable because the banking system is insecure by nature. It's built on a foundation of insecurity.

Bitcoin fixes all that. Bitcoin or similar is necessary for money-based economies to continue to work in the future.

Bitcoin and crypto are more than this. This is just one of the important innovations bitcoin makes.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

But what's the reason for posting a screenshot instead of a link? Lots of people are doing it. It must be more effort for you than posting a link.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

here?

most of those behind were for being "reactionary" or "not an answer". sounds more like general censorship of ideas and opinions. there was even a post banned for "bad faith arguments, downplaying severity of western settler-colonialism, and both sidesing Ukraine conflict".

the mod logs interesting. but i don't see anything relevant. or maybe i don't see how it is relevant.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

is there any evidence that this actually happens, or would happen?

all i ever see is humans being blocked or frustrated by the bot. i have never seen any kind of malicious spamming that could have been prevented by such a bot. spammers are normally thwarted by human mods.

the bot seems obsolete.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago (8 children)

if OP had posted a link instead of a screen shot, we could have just clicked it to find out. i don't understand why posters go to the trouble to frustrate their readers this way.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago (7 children)

it's in the article. diverting around weather patterns where an AI said contrails were likely to form.

it's hard to judge how real the result is. it's early days.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

The lemmy devs and users are rigidly against hate speech / free speech. they are afraid it will push away many users who are more sensitive, and ruin the quality of discussion. they don't tolerate free speech instances.

but who knows, they might be right.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

The best explanation I have heard:

The USA had developed two new types of bomb, at huge expense and huge effort. Having built them, there was a desire to use both of them before the war ended.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

This is exactly what happens. The highest quality land in a country is used for tillage. The less productive parts are used for grazing. This is how farmers make the most money. They'd be fools to use productive land for grazing and grow crops on poor land.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

greenhouse gases and water usage are different issues i didn't address here.

the usa is one of the "few parts of the world" i was talking about, that it is a bad example of sustainable farming.

 

This seems to be becoming the hot topic, the elephant in the chatroom - the balance between censorship / freedom of speech on lemmy. There are solid arguments for both ways, and good compromises too.

IMO the FAQ makes it quite clear what the devs have built here, and why. But recent discussions, arguments, make it clear that a lot of the most vocal users object to it.

I'm very curious. Many active users feel this way? Please vote using the up arrows in the comments.

1
submitted 4 years ago* (last edited 4 years ago) by roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml to c/cybersecurity@lemmy.ml
 

This is a technique I've come up with, intended to be an improvement on the norm, and on multifactor authentication. It is both more secure and more convenient.

Features:

  • Every password is one-use-only - a hacker can never impersonate a service to steal credentials and immediately use them to impersonate the user.
  • Passwords are necessarily unique to each service - so password breaches are not so useful to hackers
  • The service must also prove its identity to the user - to avoid phishing
  • Does not use biometrics - because they are easy to steal, and difficult for the owner to change once stolen
  • Does not require revealing anything personal like an address or state-issued ID, that could then be used to impersonate the owner
  • Does not rely on having possession of a particular object/device - this device can be lost, stolen, damaged, causing the owner to lose all his accounts.
  • There is no need to store passwords somewhere like a password manager - avoiding several extra security risks.
  • Master-passwords don’t need to be very long or high entropy. There are only a couple of easy-to-remember ones which are shared across the user’s digital life. All transmitted data, all logins, are nonetheless high entropy.
  • It can be done as a browser plugin - this way it is at least as convenient as a conventional login. It can also be done using an air-gapped memoryless calculator - this way you never have to enter your passwords into any computer, or write them down anywhere but that device.
  • There is necessarily a standardised waiting time after a failed login, to avoid brute-force attacks.
  • Any attack (phishing or otherwise) is identified immediately and an alert can be sent. It can be figured out what information the attacker knew.

So this system has many features no existing system I’ve heard of has. In combination they make it perfectly secure.

How it works:

Cryptography usually uses some kind of hashing function, where it is easy to perform the calculation but difficult to reverse it. The analogy is mixing paint. Given two paint colours, it’s easy to figure out what colour is produced by mixing them. But given the mixed colour, it’s difficult to find out either component colour. I’ll use notation AxB=C for the forward function, where multiplication is easy, but the reverse function - given C find A or B - is difficult.

Here the user has two master passwords, PA and PB, which are the same for all services. He also has a device which performs the calculation AxB, to generate new temporary passwords. The calculator can be built into the browser, the OS, on the command-line, or on an air-gapped device.

Signing up to a service: The user provides the service a username and his two login passwords: PA x serviceID, PB x serviceID.

Login process:

  1. The user provides his username
  2. The service provides: PA x serviceID x date.
  3. The user checks this against his own calculation of PA x serviceID x date
  4. If correct, the user provides PB x serviceID x date
  5. The service checks this is correct. Then the login is complete.

This is as convenient as a conventional login process - assuming the calculator is built into the browser. Just enter your master passwrods and the browser will do the rest. But if the calculator is air-gapped, this technique has perfect security.

More details:

So the “something you have” and “something you are” are not required. If you’re a fan of two or three factor authentication you can incorporate them into this system. The login process can also be tweaked to force the user to check that the service's login is valid.

serviceID can be just the company name, or some other word which is the same for every user of the service, and shown on the login form. It can also be unique unique to each user, defined by either the user or the service (the service can remind the user of his serviceID)

The date could also be any unique or pseudo-random number. It could be displayed on the login form, to avoid timezone problems. Anyway the same date (and therefore the same login) can never be reused. Probably the date is rounded to 5min intervals, to the user has to wait 5min after each failed login attempt.

The user's passwords can be quite simple. High entropy is added to the login during the calculation. And if somehow hacked the passwords are easily changed.

This technique is easy to implement. A single browser or OS, and a single website/service could unilaterally start using this system. Or the details could be strictly defined as an internet standard.

There is no obstacle, political or technical. We could have perfect security, married with perfect convenience, today.

view more: ‹ prev next ›