Security Firms Offer Protection for Crypto Traders in Moscow (news.bitcoin.com)

Private security firms in Moscow are offering a new service – protection for people buying and selling cryptocurrency for cash. The companies have also expressed readiness to help investigate crypto-related crimes. Police are still reluctant to work on such cases, as cryptocurrencies are not yet regulated in Russia.
Also read:

Bitcoin

Consumer Protection Association Slams Bank for Blocking Transfers to Bitcoin Exchanges (news.bitcoin.com)

From Israel to Australia, commercial banks in various parts of the world have tried preventing people from entering the cryptocurrency market by blocking money transfers to bitcoin exchanges. Now the largest consumer association in Portugal has called out a local bank for trying to do the same.
Also Read: U.S.

Bitcoin

B2X reverts replay protection due to security issue for lightning and other smart contracts

Yesterday Jeff Garzik merged a commit to the BTC1 repo (aka bitcoin2x) which reverts the opt in replay protection they were planning to use.

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/commit/98c0af58c29efbecba25818adb5531fa8c3d0506

The stated reason for this revert was that Peter Todd and David Harding had found that the replay protection could be used to break lightning and other similar smart contracts by using the blacklist address employed in the replay protection to make an un-spendable payment in the smart contract.

This leaves bitcoin2x with no replay protection as of now, and only 1 month until the planned fork date. Although it is not guaranteed, I would think this would cause exchanges to reconsider their support since they no longer have a surefire method of splitting coins, and therefore could be open to replay attacks costing them millions.

submitted by /u/andrewbuck40
[link] [comments]
Bitcoin

Erik Voorhees blocked me on Twitter, for correctly pointing out he has not honored his commitment (in writing), to ensure all hardforks are safe by adding replay protection

Erik Voorhees signed the following statement:

Some exchanges intend to list BTU and all of us will try to take steps to preserve and enable access to customers' BTU. However, none of the undersigned can list BTU unless we can run both chains independently without incident. Consequently, we insist that the Bitcoin Unlimited community (or any other consensus breaking implementation) build in strong two-way replay protection. Failure to do so will impede our ability to preserve BTU for customers and will either delay or outright preclude the listing of BTU.

Source: https://www.bitfinex.com/bitcoin_hardfork_statement

After committing to this key safety feature, of strong to way replay protection, he has now backed out of the agreement. Erik now supports 2x, which does not include strong replay two-way replay protection. Erik then tried to twist the meaning of words saying 2x was not "consensus breaking", since it has consensus. This is clearly not what the commitment means, it uses the words consensus to mean consensus rules, not "community consensus". Besides, there is not community consensus for 2x anyway, saying so is arrogant.

Erik cannot face up to the truth, so decided to block me on Twitter instead.

Does Voorhee's word mean nothing?

submitted by /u/hoaxchain
[link] [comments]
Bitcoin