RFC

Areshian

It's a bit more complicated like that. First, I do not believe this is a realistic scenario, because QC is not something that will come out of the blue, it is something that it's slowly increasing. But let's imagine that tomorrow, someone has a mega powerful QC computer able to break encryption like ECDSA/RSA and other QC vulnerable attacks. When it comes to bitcoin, a blockchain based on ECDSA, it will basically be game over. If you are able to break and go from public key to private key, you're going to be able to move funds around any way you want it. And at that moment, there is really no solution. Even if you update the network to support a new QC-resistant encryption, that does nothing. People still have their money on their vulnerable ECDSA wallets. Any transaction taking money out might as well be the attacker and not the legitimate user. There is no way to salvage it. However, for regular banking, things can actually be fixed. First, even with this super computer, attacking your bank account is hard. Sure, I can set up a man in the middle attack, so I can see your network traffic and capture your password when you are contacting your bank, but that might require a lot of effort on my part, and depending on the network configuration, might not even be a possibility. Second, transferring money out of your bank account might require a second factor authentication, like an SMS code. Which means that not only I need to intercept your internet communication, I also need to hijack the SMS communication too. It's not impossible, but it is a lot of work. What if I don't login into my bank so you can steal my password? This is clearly a way harder attack to scale up that bitcoin, where I can grab a few thousands wallet public keys and start going strong. Second, the moment the attack on banking encryption is discovered, the whole banking system can shut down. Sure, this is a cluster fuck, but it is better than having no encryption. And it won't be for too long. The key part here is take all the front end servers and replace the encryption they are using with one that is QC resistant. There is a lot of work being done on those, like Lattice based encryption. Sure, TLS 1.3 does not support proper post-QC encryption right now, but a lot of people will work their asses off to prepare that updated RFC and crypto implementations (and that includes me, I doubt I would have much time to sleep during this event). Once this is up, you can basically start having online banking again, although it would probably be a good idea to reset all the passwords. You can even force people to go to a bank branch to get a new password issued, after checking an id. Finally, third, going through all the fraudulent transactions. The banking system will be able to automatically roll back many of those. Maybe not all, but loses will be minimized. To sum up, it would be a traumatic event, but regular banking will recover. Ownership of my bank account is associated to my Id. Knowing my password, my OTP, having access to my smartphone... all those can be revoked, and start from the Id of the person again. For bitcoin, there is no recovery. Ownership of the wallet is based on knowing the private key. Once the attacker has a computer able to easily derive the private key based on the public one, there is no come back. There is no way to automatically migrate, no way to ensure the legitimate owner is doing a transaction. As I said, I don't think this scenario is realistic, well before it happens, both crypto and banking will move to post-QC cryptography. But the difference in outlook if it were to happen is massive

Quantris

Yes it means "Bitcoin Improvement Proposal" and is basically just a document that explains an idea and what changes (if any) would be involved to the protocol / ecosystem. If you're familiar with RFC ("request for comment") it's kind of a similar thing.

titsngiggles69

RFC 1149 - IP over Carrier Pigeon

SouthernZhao

> Not sacrifice money, sacrifice energy. That's not what the above poster said, though. And I don't see what that has to do with the ponzi question. > You seem convinced by the RFC commenter's initial claim Nah, I'm not. Where do I say so? I actually think that Bitcoin's most significant use is as a Ponzi scheme. So far, the discussion here hasn't really managed to convince me. > I suggest you go on YouTube and watch any >1 hour interview with Michael Saylor. I watched some of his content in the past. He's a prime example of the "deception" part of the ponzi scheme. He's trying to sell his bags to you, and apparently very good at it. What point does he make to speak against the ponzi scheme hypothesis? Just saying "It's digital real estate" doesn't make it so. Actual real estate can be utilized. Bitcoin can be sold, and nothing else.

awezumsaws

Not sacrifice money, sacrifice energy. Example: Iceland sacrifices its fossil fuel resources (energy) to mine aluminum which it then sells to the rest of the world for profit. Bitcoin miners sacrifice energy to mine Bitcoin to sell. It's the same process. You seem convinced by the RFC commenter's initial claim that "Bitcoin's only significant use as money and payment system is as a money laundering tool for criminals". When people in this space say (word poorly) that the commenter's opinion is laughably immature, we're not making fun of you personally. You're an innocent victim of their illusion of understanding. We're here to help. "If you get it, you get it" means you've been educated to see the paradigm shift that renders the RFC commenter's opinion false. As other people have recommended, I suggest you go on YouTube and watch any >1 hour interview with Michael Saylor. He is an effective communicator on why Bitcoin is digital real estate. That should clarify for you how Bitcoin is just as Ponzi as real estate, which is to say, neither are a Ponzi scheme for exactly the same reasons.

awezumsaws

The source RFC comment is dated April 18, 2022

awezumsaws

From the RFC: > I believe we are mainstreaming the usage of "investments" and technology that are inherently predatory As a regular donator to Wikipedia for many years, I am upset that this post in the first I've heard of this RFC. I don't care that crypto was only 0.08% of their income stream, the RFC was based on purely uninformed opinion with inherent negative bias. Why not block donations from NY Yankees fans based on my belief that "YANKEES SUCK!"?

hh3k0

Sustainability was only one issue for them. The RFC mentions two more: * Accepting cryptocurrency signals endorsement of the cryptocurrency space by the Wikimedia Foundation and members of the Wikimedia Movement. * We risk damaging our reputation by participating in this.

hh3k0

From the RFC: > In the last financial year we received $130,100.94 worth of donations in cryptocurrencies. Crypto was around 0.08% of our revenue last year, and it remains one of our smallest revenue channels.

imakin

Usually you can request a new authenticator secret key to replace your old 2fa with new one. But this time write down your secret key and store it to the safest place you have. So you can register this secret key in the future to any 2fa application (google authenticator or something else). if you store your secret key in drives, make sure you encrypt it with your password as well (like using simple encrypted .7zip) two-factor authentication specification is defined in IETF RFC 6238

timbulance

RFC ^

dlq84

It's hard to tell if you want to learn the low lever stuff, or just genreally... But for low level: Read the code and the RFC?

TeamGravityAnalytica

You can use thermal fluctuations. I just gave an easy to understand example. Full details with examples are in the RFC. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1750

WinnerMinimum5525

I believe that endpoints (users and servers) would want to have this feature and would work to implement it. It is an 'option' when creating a socket and making a connect request, so it only causes overhead if the two endpoints wish to use it. The DNS addition of providing a private key is a slight overhead on the DNS reply. This RFC does not interfere with any existing standards, so it is already 'backwards' compatible.

Nada_Lives

They're telling you that you are a hazard to everyone. Check your router and operating system. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character\_Generator\_Protocol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_Generator_Protocol) *The Character Generator Protocol (CHARGEN) is a service of the Internet Protocol Suite defined in RFC 864 in 1983 by Jon Postel. It is intended for testing, debugging, and measurement purposes. The protocol is rarely used, as its design flaws allow ready misuse.*

rankinrez

I would disagree strongly. Even pre-83 many elements of the current internet existed. The RFC series was well established with over 800 in existence by then. Email goes back to the early 70s running over these networks non stop.

AutoModerator

Post is by: jesusvsaquaman and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoCurrency/comments/s9xh7r/the_bear_market_for_btc_just_means_alts_are_on/ The paranoia I see on cryptocurrency traders, on this sub especially, is a sight to behold. Yes I know the market is crashing, especially the largest tokens out there like BTC itself, but this could still be an opportunity for us all. You see, most often, markets are cyclical in nature. They don’t like to play around neither at the top nor at the bottom. On a long enough time-chart, the market follows a strict S-curve, and this could be a valuable key for those looking to invest, and turn a t*rd into gold. The market rarely remains at one crest for too long, and where it is currently is very vital for the veteran trades and the new beginners alike. Yes, BTC WILL RECOVER. As much FUD out there as there is, this is bound to happen, but as I stated before, even if it does a complete recovery and pushes its way up to 100k, your portfolio will only go up 2x… I KNOW 2X IS A LOT. If your portfolio is 25k now, 50k is a good place to be. If it is 300k, it’ll be 600k. But what if it is 100$? Is 200$ enough? Let’s be clear here, not everyone in crypto has a massive portfolio. In fact, the majority out there, have a sum less than 1k USD, you can be assured of that. I am speaking for those people when I say, BTC or any massive capital investment is not the way to go. By the time you make it to 500$, inflation will have caught on… For those people, and to be clear I say this as my investments are on the smaller side, it is better to invest time and money in smaller tokens with big potential. Ideas are the key here, not market capital. Ideas like (Centrifuge)[https://twitter.com/centrifuge?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor] and their DeFi Protocols, or an NFT idea like the Royal Falcons Club)[https://twitter.com/RFC5050] if that’s the type of market you’re after. Only there are you probable to make any sum of serious money. And I believe, again this is PERSONAL OPINION, that smaller portfolio can afford-in fact are better off taking a higher risk. Take this post with a grain of salt, I’m no Warren Buffet. But keep in mind your risk-to-reward ratio that you have the courage to take, and your willingness to dive in the deep end. Again, invest well, and make your own choices… *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*

dhork

> The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) included Syntropy (previously NOIA Network) in work around SRv6 (segmented routing) as part of the working group and finalization for the broader, more basic, foundational levels of internet infrastructure. You can read the official IETF publication here. This is the first I've heard of all this, I intend to read up on it a bit more fully. But I just wanted to point out that these links to IETF are just drafts, and furthermore drafts from individual contributors. They haven't been adopted by any group at the IETF and are not at all final. Anyone can write a draft and have it published in this way. That doesn't mean that the tech is useless. Every RFC started out this way. But it does mean that no one should look to this as definitive yet.

Ima_Wreckyou

Ah! the good old RFC 1149 protocol

WikiSummarizerBot

**[IP over Avian Carriers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_over_Avian_Carriers#/media/File:Pigeon_krakow.jpg)** >In computer networking, IP over Avian Carriers (IPoAC) is a proposal to carry Internet Protocol (IP) traffic by birds such as homing pigeons. IP over Avian Carriers was initially described in RFC 1149 issued by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), written by D. Waitzman, and released on April 1, 1990. It is one of several April Fools' Day Request for Comments. Waitzman described an improvement of his protocol in RFC 2549, IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service (1 April 1999). ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

fecal_destruction

I'd agree, except Bitcoin is also a payment processor. Self auditing. Self recording database and implemented through a decentralized infrastrucure. It's just a nice product that make sense. It could never be a company because it's decentralized, Its more similar to a RFC standard in that regard. It's easily replicated, but the network of users isn't.

tony_blake

Sure. Here are some papers https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/607.pdf, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7334983/, https://eprint.iacr.org/2018/063.pdf Here's the original RFC https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8554/ and here's some dudes thesis on it https://epub.jku.at/obvulihs/download/pdf/6212598?originalFilename=true and finally there's a wiki. LMS is mentioned in the examples section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash-based_cryptography

mimblezimble

Ledger is **not reproducible-build compliant** and **not air gapped**. If you want to look at a really good design, that satisfies both criteria, there is the Specter-DIY design: >[*https://github.com/cryptoadvance/specter-diy*](https://github.com/cryptoadvance/specter-diy) > >*DIY airgapped hardware wallet that uses QR codes for communication with the host.* > >*QR codes are pretty convenient and allow the user to be in control of the data transmission - every QR code has a very limited capacity and communication happens unidirectionally. And it's airgapped - you don't need to connect the wallet to the computer at any time.* **Verification of signed transaction must be possible prior to broadcasting.** The user must be able to verify for any outgoing data transmission out of the hardware wallet that it does not have the possibility to leak the secret, not even bit by bit. That means that it is not even allowed to add a space before or after the signed transaction, because those would already be two bits to leak the secret with. Since transaction malleability has been removed now, the signature is bit for bit deterministic. The nonce (r) is constructed deterministically from the message and the public key. Therefore, there is only one, single way to sign. The user can therefore feed unsigned and signed transactions to a separate tool prior to broadcasting, in order to check that the signed transaction has indeed the one single possible signature allowed by the strict signature scheme (RFC6979). What Ledger does, is not even close to that in terms of security. **In the best case, Ledger is just worthless security theatre. In the worst case, Ledger is actually a tool to steal your money with.**

mimblezimble

There is always a need to supply unsigned transactions to the signing device, and then return the signed transaction to the broadcasting device: Viewer ----- unsigned tx -----> signer Signer ---- signed tx ----> viewer/broadcaster Almost all hardware wallets communicate over the USB port for this purpose. Hence, they cannot guarantee that the following will not happen: Signer ---- secret seed ----> viewer/broadcaster The **only guarantee** that this will not happen, is that both sides are **air gapped**. Communicating over QR codes is much safer because you can visually inspect what information both sides are exchanging. You can also intercept the unsigned tx and verify its content in another wallet or tool. In the end, with QR codes, both devices must always go through you first. They cannot independently say things to each other without you possibly figuring out what exactly they are saying. It is still necessary to ensure that the signer software is reproducible-build compliant. It could still try to leak your secret, for example, through an OP_RETURN script, or by manipulating the malleability of the signature. Especially for pre-Segwit signatures, it is necessary to verify that the ECDSA signature (deterministically) complies with RFC 6979. Otherwise, it can be used to leak the secret, even bit by bit. **Conclusion:** almost all hardware wallets are just security theatre meant to mislead the user to believe in their false security claims. They are not secure at all. A two-laptop solution communicating over QR codes is vastly preferable. The only device (prototype) that correctly implements a hardware wallet is Specter-DIY.

mimblezimble

No, no, no. Seriously, no. Don't compare their vaporware to the internet! Look, we knew exactly what they were going to do. We knew exactly what they meant with the term **internet:** >*https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc793* > >*TRANSMISSION CONTROL PROTOCOL* *DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM* *PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION* *September 1981* *prepared for* *Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency* *Information Processing Techniques Office* *1400 Wilson Boulevard* *Arlington, Virginia 22209* > > > > *TRANSMISSION CONTROL PROTOCOL* *DARPA INTERNET PROGRAM* *PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION* *1. INTRODUCTION* *The Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) is intended for use as a highly* *reliable host-to-host protocol between hosts in packet-switched computer* *communication networks, and in interconnected systems of such networks.* *This document describes the functions to be performed by the* *Transmission Control Protocol, the program that implements it, and its* *interface to programs or users that require its services.* > >*TCP is a connection-oriented, end-to-end reliable protocol designed to* *fit into a layered hierarchy of protocols which support multi-network* *applications. The TCP provides for reliable inter-process* *communication between pairs of processes in host computers attached to* *distinct but interconnected computer communication networks.* **Where is the RFC for their web3 bullshit?** **Please, define the bullshit !!!**

AmericanScream

Also, one of the "cons" is there really is no "de-centralization" without centralized authority. For example, the Internet doesn't work without centralization. It depends upon network stability via a number of centralized systems: DNS, BGP, TLD rootservers, and various RFC standards that are enforced via central authorities like registrars and ISPs. Beneath that, all wireless communication relies on central authority regulating the airwaves so that only authorized people are using specific frequencies -- otherwise chaos would be the result and nothing wireless would be reliable. Then you have central authorities governing the operation of all wired communications too -- even if private corporations are managing different parts of the network, the lion's share of communications is across cable, fiber, twisted pair, etc., on public lands, telephone poles, etc. All of that is maintained by central authorities. So the network cannot exist without the order imposed by centralized government. This is the irony of "de-centralization". It really doesn't technically exist unless you cherry pick certain higher-level elements and ignore everything else.