[Retracted !!! ] Smart contracts - bounty No.3 thread - 4BTC

zerodrama

Also Orwellian.
@mirrax

wrapper

I see there is a problem with Linux Mint being hacked. The hackers were able to insert their own “iso” by diverting to another IP to one with a trojan. Some people picked up the md5 was different, but there is no place to actually record which is the official correct one, externally.

There has been a lot of discussion on how “md5” files could be secured / checked , as one way help prevent this sort of problem.

Even a small bounty / donation could allow open source projects to record “md5” of official release of projects, at a min fee, for a lot of projects.

This could be FTC first open contract / open proof use of the blockchain.

http://techxplore.com/news/2016-02-linux-mint-downloads-february-sweet.html

mirrax

@wrapper said:

I see there is a problem with Linux Mint being hacked. The hackers were able to insert their own “iso” by diverting to another IP to one with a trojan. Some people picked up the md5 was different, but there is no place to actually record which is the official correct one, externally.

There has been a lot of discussion on how “md5” files could be secured / checked , as one way help prevent this sort of problem.

Even a small bounty / donation could allow open source projects to record “md5” of official release of projects, at a min fee, for a lot of projects.

This could be FTC first open contract / open proof use of the blockchain.

Thanks for bringing practical example to the table.

mirrax

@mirrax

FYI email from omni devs:

Hey Guys,

Omni is essentially blockchain agnostic. We currently leverage the Bitcoin network as a transport and use its input signing model to provide the security for Omni transactions, but nothing restricts us to doing this only on Bitcoin.

Since Litecoin (and Feathercoin) are forked from Bitcoin Core’s codebase and use the same input/output modelling, a port of Omni would be very easy. Essentially Litecoin/Feathercoin change the proof-of-work component, but this isn’t the component that Omni leverages so the underlying PoW mechanism is largely irrelevant for Omni.

@Craig - in a nutshell think about the resources we devote to a major branch change of our underlying Bitcoin Core stack (eg 0.9 to 0.10) and that is probably the level of work required to adopt an alternate chain.

It’s important to note however that Omni on a different chain would be an independent Omni state to that of Omni on Bitcoin (atomic cross chain swaps would be a killer app, but we’d need to do some thinking there). Also WRT to Litecoin, Charlie has already made his position clear on projects that embed data in the blockchain, so I think Litecoin would be a less than ideal target - we don’t want conflict - we want engagement, and I don’t think we’ll get that from the Litecoin development team.

Thanks
Z

ghostlander

If the Omni developers are interested, I’m ready to co-operate. We can do what BTC or LTC don’t want to.

mirrax

@ghostlander muddy hold the funds for this bounty now

ChekaZ

bump

any updates? - Whats with the bounty?

Kindly regards,
ChekaZ

AcidD

@ChekaZ said in Smart contracts - bounty No.3 thread - 4BTC:

bump

any updates? - Whats with the bounty?

Kindly regards,
ChekaZ

@uncle_muddy is holding the funds and as far as I know from reading and being around during all these bounty’s…the Bounty is still active!

Wellenreiter

***UPDATE !!! !!! !!! ***

As nobody has claimed the bounty or indicated interest to work for it, the bounty is closed now.

It may be re-opened in the the future.

jimmy24651

…I’m so confused…