You sounds like Evil

-1, it's very interesting.


This is debatable, guy needs to pay 10 BTC for the triples somehow. Maybe he got some funds from the academia to finance that.

1AHuqqrtfxfmTC4KQNGDX7kedxdgpQnUmD

Pub key: 04db259553306519117692a0175d8abdd8ef2f12fcb3a2a56e7d4879e049f9abdc5a9244906da8f 58879b4de5d0b8c3182e4acfe9c231a379037aba1f5cc541d02

Looks like I need to post an apology, so here it is:

My previous response was both premature and immature. Please accept my sincere apology, and congratulations on your successful test.

EDIT: And please give your tool a nicer name 

Thanks,

Ritual.

Pretty awesome....

but it's a very specific way of generating addresses.

And you have no method of checking which addresses are weak?

Can you attempt to crack multiple addresses at the same time with little performance loss?

You say it's for research only, but at the end of your video you say the bitcoins in the address are "stolen".  You little comic shows your true intention of just stealing people's coins.  If you were going to do this, why would you announce it?  Wouldn't you just quietly steal all the bitcoins you could find?  It makes no sense. 

And then to top it off, if it really is for research, why wouldn't you just donate the knowledge to the development team to help fix the security hole that you're claiming exists?  You have the possibility of earning more money in donations from the community by providing a fix for what you're trying to prove is a security flaw.  Hell, I'd donate bitcoin to you if you were doing this for the good of the community.  But 2BTC for a copy... it makes no sense.  If it did what you say it does, and it could have very well be proven in the profanity-laced and almost tourettes-like video, why wouldn't you be charging more for it.  2BTC is chump change if this is legit.

Something doesn't add up.  Just my $0.02.

-Fuse

This message was too old and has been purged

All horseshit aside, to clarify all of this:

It seems that any reused Bitcoin address is potentially vulnerable to attack because right now there is no way to know if it's close to a rendezvous point?

But addresses that haven't been reused are safe, but only because the public key for that address has not been broadcast yet?  As soon as the public key is broadcast by spending from an address it becomes vulnerable?

I've been noticing rumblings of this before from a privacy point of view, but it seems now we have even more reason to stop reusing addresses.

They are once you sign an input, but any half capable wallet won't reuse addresses, making it so once the public key is known the funds will be gone.

edit: I see you already addressed this.