Jump to content

Professor Hantzen

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Professor Hantzen last won the day on February 22

Professor Hantzen had the most liked content!

About Professor Hantzen

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Alright, that's settled then. For now... For those who want to save a click: no collisions have been found, all 54 found keys are low-order, which meets expectation and isn't anything to be alarmed about (people often mess about with low-order seeds and make insecure wallets out of them, sometimes on purpose for others to find, other times, well...). Also, for those interested in this kind of thing, this happened recently. It was the discovery of used bitcoin public addresses being recycled as private keys for new addresses (some of which held active balances at the time this was posted). Could have resulted from bad or malicious code. One notable address containing 9 BTC was apparently a virgin one issued by blockstream, hence controversy. Relation to Ripple? Hopefully given Ripple's lack of requirement for dealing with unspent outputs ("change") on transactions, such a thing would be unlikely on the XRP Ledger. One would hope. (I guess finding out could be interesting homework for someone.)
  2. Excellent - good luck! (And I tended toward the label because of what I read from the person on the btctalk forums.)
  3. @Sukrim & @nikb: As @galgitron has explained, nobody here is disputing how uselessly long it would take to iterate through the entire address space. i have often-times myself given other people similar examples as Nik as to why this is impossible when explaining bitcoin/ripple and public/private key cryptography to them. Instead, the issue here could be summarised as follows: What guarantee can anyone give that the amount and distribution of multiple seeds to public addresses are not both higher than previously expected? Is not the value of the LBC that it works to either support (well, given a few billion years) or refute (tomorrow) that expectation? In that sense, I'd be all for it. That it may have already found a small number of funded private keys outside this expectation suggests there could be a problem with the expectation. What I want to see are the seed values of both sides of any collision. And if the LBC cannot furnish both seeds - its clearly just ********. So far, they've claimed to have found three, and returned the funds to their rightful owners who presumably furnished the other working private key to prove ownership. Why they haven't published both private keys side by side and broken the internet and slashed BTC's marketcap by 99% I've no idea (other than that perhaps they didn't want to do those things - but it still all makes little sense). Anyway, given the lack of both seeds to a collision being published I'm going with @Sukrim that this is a troll. However, I still believe its a useful and interesting project...
  4. As I understand it, they've increased the probability by both halving the search space and doubling the chances of finding a collision. (Edit: "half" and "double" are wildly inaccurate, but in principle I mean...)
  5. adr1 = ripemd160(sha256(pubkey(rand(2^256-2^160)+2^160))) for (a = 0 to 2^160) { adr2 = ripemd160(sha256(pubkey(a))) if (adr1 == adr2) { print "We got ourselves a collision!\n"; } } Meaning "Given a bitcoin address 'adr1' from a random(unknown) private key of numeric value between 2^160 and 2^256: find another private key in the interval between 0 and 2^159 which will evaluate to the same bitcoin address." (Source) @nikb This is what the LBC project is doing. Is there an applicable case for Ripple? Obviously low-order seeds will be found first, and there may be many owing to people messing about with address generation (or making puzzles that intentionally exist in the lower-bit realm). But in principle, it does look like a potentially exploitable vulnerability in Bitcoin addressing. Is Ripple also vulnerable in this way? I seem to recall @JoelKatz saying somewhere that Ripple public addresses have more than one corresponding seed (or was it the other way around?), but I confess I didn't understand it even though I am somewhat familiar with the process.
  6. XRP Performance - market compairson

    The supply is really a non-issue. Even if they sold the entire amount each month (which they stated they have no intention to), it would hardly dent the volume figures as IIRC its only about 3% of trade volume and trade volume is also increasing over time (whereas the lockup amount is fixed for 5 years). Just a suggestion - people often make the mistake of going "all-in" on one thing, and then I often see these same people make a similar mistake of going "all-out" in response. They didn't learn from the mistake. Holding on to a bit of something you decided might be worthless can end up being your biggest gain. Anyway, if you want to enjoy the ride more, certainly diversify. Crypto's are always moving so there's always something to be excited about if you're diversified.
  7. XRP Performance - market compairson

    You know, there's usually a text button for making mercifully-clearer annotations on images... but I enjoyed the challenge. To be fair, gains are dependent on the time window chosen. If you make your starting point a few months earlier, XRP went up over 40x this year to date, and reached as high as 65x at one point. You could make similarly dire-looking charts for some of the other currencies depending on the time-window. That said, XRP performance is generally pretty crap compared to other crypto - its a long-term hold. If you keep it long enough you may very well be rewarded at some point.
  8. OfferCreate Issued Currencies

    It's possible to use any currency and anyone can set one up, it's as simple as making a transaction. There are actually hundreds if not thousands of currencies on the Ripple network, but many are just experimental, or otherwise have no real backing. It's up to you to choose reliable "issuers" of currency. To be clear, Ripple does not enable the issuing of real currency. It only enables the issuing of an "IOU" for that currency. This is essentially simply a promise to pay. As such, just because someone is happy to give you an "IOU" for a particular currency over the Ripple network (say, in exchange for XRP, or for another IOU), it doesn't mean you can trust them to honour it. Most issuers of currencies that are listed by default on charts.ripple.com are from major exchanges or otherwise reasonably reliable sources who will likely honour their IOU's. For example, Bitstamp has been honouring its IOU's daily for four years now. An account that offers IOU's for a particular currency and makes that currency redeemable in the real world somehow, is typically referred to as a "Gateway". Another way to state this is the account "issues" IOU's, or currency. As such, these accounts are also referred to as "issuers", and the Ripple account attached to these activities may be called the "issuing address", or the "currency issuer". You can find more detail on this here:
  9. Ether to XRP transfer using Interledger

    This may help: https://github.com/interledger/rfcs/blob/master/0020-explain-like-im-five/0020-explain-like-im-five.md Essentially as others have said, to send value from person A to person B over ILP must involve *at least* a person C. Person C is the source of the "exchange rate" and where the currency "disappears" to. There is no other way to send value using ILP.
  10. New "ripple-secret-codec" node.js module

    I'd love to do that, and may work up to it eventually. However, due to the need to also encode the transaction from JSON to binary (and how wide the scope is for that), the process is significantly more complex.
  11. Thanks for the mention. I'm guessing you mean this one:
  12. What impact would a Ripple takeover have on XRP price?

    Wait, I could buy Ripple for only $1.5 billion? Let me just make a couple of calls...
  13. Escrow: XRP Outlook Soars as 55 Billion Goes into Escrow

    Agreed on both counts, though it would also be an arbitragers wet-dream - and interestingly, enough arbitrage could actually work to cushion the market in such a case. But, I guess in general this kind of thing is somewhat of a sword of Damocles hanging over just about every cryptocurrency given the typical holdings distribution. Imagine if Satoshi awoke from his slumber one day and started dumping his stash? I wonder sometimes about the potential for this kind of thing to happen even maliciously in the space - ie, a politically-motivated hack. Maybe a secondary benefit of Ripple's Escrow - its a security measure.
  14. Escrow: XRP Outlook Soars as 55 Billion Goes into Escrow

    Really? That's about 1/30th of the volume going by last months volume of almost 30 billion XRP, and its consistently growing. Even if Ripple goes madly against what they've said, and the entire 1 billion is constantly sold each month, 3.3% of daily trade volume might put a slight drag on things but its highly doubtful it'd be enough to crash the market. This combined with Ripples stated intentions to sell those XRP mainly to those who will use it, and with further lock-ups and restrictions in place on the new holders, and that they only derived 1 billion as a potential maximum (its not their intention to sell all of it each month, only what they need to), plus the fact more exchanges are coming online and volume is constantly increases all suggests this isn't something to be too concerned with.
  15. Time to increase the owner reserve?

    I may somewhat agree on the specificity, but not in the general case. Regulations are going to need to be made - across the world - for exactly these kinds of "new" problems. One way to categorise such an issue is that its some database getting filled too quickly. Another may be that bad actors are stealing from users by hiding the true cost of providing a service and charging their customers for something they shouldn't, whilst also preventing a customer from having appropriate control of their funds. The database issue is then an "effect" that just happens to be solved by regulating the main issue which might be considered dodgy business practice - ie, exactly what regulations are for. I don't think the owner reserves were intended to create prohibitively high entry cost. To me, a 1000XRP reserve is in a sense "hacking" the account reserve function to solve the problem. And as you've acknowledged, its not a permanent solution. The problem may simply reappear when the reserve is lowered again. I do agree something needs to be done. I wonder if something could be done with dynamic account reserves in the same way opening a trustline places an additional reserve requirement? What if along with the account activation fee sent to activate an account, another, more-punitive - but temporary - hold was placed on the parent accounts reserve requirement? Exchanges might think twice about opening many accounts if they actually have to hold a requisite amount of XRP for a significant period of time. I'm not sure what would condition could constitute reversing the hold however? Perhaps a sufficiently lengthy time-lock? Just thinking on the spot here - I'm sure there are a bunch of problems with this, do please tear away.