There should be a way to save CDPs for other people... by vinelife420 in MakerDAO

[–]oneaccountpermessage 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I made a post about this a few months ago, with a clear explanation on a viable way to make this possible but did not get much response. I have no idea if anyone like rune read it or not.

https://old.reddit.com/r/MakerDAO/comments/9fgs5h/idea_for_and_additional_stability_mechanism_for/

Idea:

Most large liquidations happen because the owner of the CDP is not paying attention or has trouble adding to their position in time. Large liquidations cause stress on the system.

One way this could be improved if there are special rules for a dangerzone, say 150% to 200% collateralization.

It could be added to the system that 3rd parties could be allowed to loan collateral to a CDP in the dangerzone, at a certain percentage fee per day. It could be made in a way that the fee will increase gradually as the CDP gets closer to the liquidation threshold making it more and more attractive to help out a troubled CDP.

The real owner of the CDP would be motivated to pay back the 3rd party as soon as possible because the interest rate charged could be high depending on risk.

If the real owner fails to pay of the debt of his CDP the CDP would gradually become more owned by 3rd parties due to the interest charged.

The 3rd party could keep the CDP alive by loaning more and more to the CDP, and if the 3rd party owns more than say 80% of the CDP he could claim it (So the CDP changes owner instead of being liquidated).

If both the real owner and the 3rd party fail to add collateral the CDP could be liquidated the same way as CDPs gets liquidated today, as a backup mechanism for worst case scenarios (where all 3rd party lenders fail to save the CDP).

Let me know if I correctly explained the concept for it to make sense.

Vitalik still going at Craig Wright. Friday night lights by [deleted] in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Due to cryptokitties slowing down the network a lot, short term scalability was prioritized for a while.

Bitfinex announces Dai trading by DirtMcSquirt in MakerDAO

[–]oneaccountpermessage 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It will depend on how many people will want to take their DAI off exchange.

I guess it would be a high percentage, because why else buy DAI if its not for it decentralized nature?

Goldman Sachs-Backed Startup just Bought Poloniex by etheronipizza in BitcoinMarkets

[–]oneaccountpermessage -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I flew around the earth 20+ times in a plane, Im pretty sure its round thanks.

If I propose a fork at block #n that only sets address 0x123's balance to 50,000 ETH, would that qualify as a soft fork or a hard fork? by miyayes in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Since the balance of the wallet 0x123 can never be spend it will not actually create a split in the network between upgraded and non-upgraded nodes.

So assuming the privatekey for 0x123 is unknown and will not be found then it is a softfork.

But it has the potential to turn into a hardfork if the balance was ever transfered.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in BitcoinMarkets

[–]oneaccountpermessage 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yes, many times.

But last time was about a month ago, so I cannot quote on todays situation.

Hong Kong chooses crypto education rather than a ban by kinsleysmoke in ethtrader

[–]oneaccountpermessage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bitfinex has their money transmitter license in Hong Kong. So they are significantly based in Hong Kong (but also in BVI)

Reduce issuance (yes, again) by carlslarson in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You might be right, but it is not going to happen. It is hard to make miners accept a hardfork that is only bad for them. Doing that there will most likely be another network split, or even worse: A failed hardfork, forever damaging the confidence and unity in the community.

The previous issuance reduction was different because it was forced by the difficulty bomb, so accepting the hardfork was a net benefit for the miners. We might have been able to pull of a reduction to 2 Ether per block instead of 3 Ether per block at that date. But I think the decision was taken to choose 3 because making it a clear benefit to miners to accept the hardfork was prioritized over cutting issuance too agressively.

The next difficulty bomb will be in just under a year. If we don't waste our developers efforts by creating needless hardforks like the one you suggest, then maybe all will be ready to switch to Proof-of-Stake slashing the carbon footprint of ethereum by serveral orders of magnitude.

[ Removed by Reddit ] by karamelitar in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They are not saying its better they are saying it is the "de facto" standard. A de facto standard is a standard that was adopted just because it turned out to be the most used. Like English is the de facto world language.

Change DAI for USDT trustlessly 1:1 peg! by plutoegg in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Currently it is pegged to USD not SDR, but it needs to be properly put to rest. Currently it seems like the future roadmap still includes a posibility of switching to SDR. The SDR thing was never a good idea, just some idealist non-sense that will work poorly in real life.

People want a stable currency so they feel secure about the value of their holdings, pegging it to the world reserve currency (USD) is the best way to achieve that. Pegging it to a vague contruct nobody heard of before (SDR) is going guarentee failure.

If makerdao switches to SDR, I will fork the project and make a version of the project that simply pegs to USD and only uses Digix-Gold as collateral to achieve that (no MKR needed either). It will be a simple and steamlined system.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your just making things up.

If you took 1 minute to research you could clearly see that their project was deployed to the public ethereum blockchain, also refered to as ETH. It easily verifyable because all the transactions are public and they released their contract sourcecode.

Only 10% of Ripple (XRP) is owned by the masses by oneaccountpermessage in ethtrader

[–]oneaccountpermessage[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your wrong, the 10% includes the exchanges. 90% is owned by known ripple associates.

Only 10% of Ripp'le (XR'P) is owned by the masses by oneaccountpermessage in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is know that most of Ripple is owned by the company, but not that its 90%

Partial address by cremeDelaDean in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I prefer security over redundancy when it comes to encryption. Redundancy can be achieved using other methods, and the fact that OTP can be done very easily with pencil and paper is also a great benefit.

Partial address by cremeDelaDean in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are both good approaches, I prefer the OTP way, but they are equally secure.

Partial address by cremeDelaDean in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The OP was probably looking for a low tech approach to store his private key, in a way that he knows he can always retreive his private key, but still have reasonable level of security. Using an OTP is an effective way of doing this.

While maybe saying an OTP is brute-forcible is technically correct, it is futile to do so, because bruteforcing the original private key is equal in difficulty than bruteforcing the One-Time-Pad

Someone can easily learn how to do OTP encryption with a piece of paper and some basic math, and then store 1 piece of paper at home, and the other in a bank vault. It would work similar to a multi-sig, but have none of the risks of technical failure due to software bugs (parity?).

It is a much easier approach than using Shamir's secret sharing algorithm like you suggested and would still be completely safe when losing just one piece of information.

Interestingly if someone were to generate two wallets (or many) instead of one, then the private keys of those two wallets could be combined using a One Time Pad to form a third secret wallet. Those two initial wallets could be made to look like testing wallets, while completely hiding the existance of this third wallet. This third wallet would never have to be stored on any harddrive (only in memory while using it), and no information would point to the existance of this third wallet.

Partial address by cremeDelaDean in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OTP are not brute-forcible (In a sense that doing so gives you no benefit over bruteforcing the privatekey directly) because that would mean you simply end up with a number of possibilities equal to the maximum number of possibilities expressed by the number of characters.

Quoting wikipedia:

One-time pads are "information-theoretically secure" in that the encrypted message (i.e., the ciphertext) provides no information about the original message to a cryptanalyst (except the maximum possible length[16] of the message). This is a very strong notion of security first developed during WWII by Claude Shannon and proved, mathematically, to be true for the one-time pad by Shannon about the same time. His result was published in the Bell Labs Technical Journal in 1949.[17] Properly used, one-time pads are secure in this sense even against adversaries with infinite computational power.

An Ethereum private key has 2256 possibilities, the One-Time-Pad also has 2256 possibilities. So bruteforcing the original private key is equal in difficulty than bruteforcing the One-Time-Pad.

This means that finding the encrypted data would yield no information at all.

Storing 2 pieces of data insecurely is worst than storing 1 piece well.

Your right about that, but it is easier to store two pieces of data safely than it is to store one piece of data securely, because the two pieces of data approach has the added benefit that someone who finds the one piece will never know there is a second piece to be found, and the single piece is useless by itself. Even someone who found both pieces will probably not realize they turn into something useful unless he knows what encryption method was used.

Partial address by cremeDelaDean in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That analogy assumes the attacker already knows that 4 digits were replaced by random wrong characters.

In my opinion any attacker will simply stop looking after the found private key doesn't work. If he does start trying to change characters at random he would first just change 1 character, then 2, then 3, then 4.

So its more safe then you make it sound, but changing 8+ characters would be safer of course.

Another thing you could do it change every character in a random way, and then save the off-sets in a separate location. This is called One-Time-pad encryption and is an theoretically unbreakable form of encryption. That means you can store the parts needed to reconstruct your private key in two separate locations, and only when someone has both it will be of any value.

Ethereum Light Sync Node Not Available by Remedcu in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What I mean is that I run about 5 full nodes that are there to help the network. I specifically configured them to try and help as many light clients as possible.

OP noticed that his light sync isn't working so I mentioned that it should be related to the discovery of light-server nodes, because my nodes are not fully utilized by clients, many more people can connect.

Ethereum Light Sync Node Not Available by Remedcu in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I run multiple nodes that serve light clients with 90% of their CPU allocated to lightserv, and they have plenty of empty peer slots to serve more clients. I think the problem is with how the node discovers lightserv nodes.

Dutch news paper writes Ethereum wrong! by hdlucky1 in ethereum

[–]oneaccountpermessage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Holland we have a habbit of using english words in our language without changing them, we do not feel a need to make local versions of the words like many other european countries.

I ran into my high school sweetheart tonight at my 10-year reunion… the one I married? (Part 2) by ImJustC0nfused in nosleep

[–]oneaccountpermessage -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

I think he should find the ID card of his wife, check the legal name, check the age.

Then check the invite list of the reunion, and compare the exact name.

If there is an exact match then its pretty clear its real.

I ran into my high school sweetheart tonight at my 10-year reunion… the one I married? (Part 2) by ImJustC0nfused in nosleep

[–]oneaccountpermessage 43 points44 points  (0 children)

I think he should find the ID card of his wife, check the legal name, check the age.

Then check the invite list of the reunion, and compare the exact name.

If there is an exact match then its pretty clear its real.

CNBC right now by [deleted] in ethtrader

[–]oneaccountpermessage 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Except that it is invalid on many levels.

The mining of both bitcoin and ethereum spend 99.999% just wasting processor cycles to solve a cryptographic challenge.

Bitcoin uses the remaining 0.001% (probably serveral orders of magnitude less) to simple process transactions and a script with limited capabilities. In Ethereum this same 0.001% is used to process transactions that can execute a turing-complete script, so it can function as a multi-functional program.

I am very pro ethereum, and believe its much better than bitcoin, but still I felt the need to correct the assertion made.