Bitcoin Forum

seriously people(Garvin and Luke)!
why the hell keep changing things all the time? this is about to get very annoying!

fork the code please, and start your own coin! this that you are doing are not helping bitcoin.


DON'T FIX IT, IF IT'S NOT BROKEN.

What? There are many flaws in bitcoin and Gavin is doing a great job of addressing them. I personally hope BIP 17 or a standard solution is decided on, but I would never hope that bitcoin remains unchanged. Bitcoin can become so much better than it is now.

agree, but they are right now introducing fancy features and bugs and flaws.

these people are crazy you know?

yeah, allowing your wallet to be stolen is not broken. having to remember/transfer super long addresses is not broken ::)

i have been using bitcoin for some time, i have never got my wallet stolen.
you people are crying about some collective delusion you are having.

please read the actual proposal. it will tell you the reasons for implementing it.
>this problem never occurred to me, therefore it doesn't exist at all

can you please explain it to me, so even my small unintelligent mind can understand it?

I think it's pretty simple:

Many people *have* had their bitcoins stolen, and this is a problem that we need to address before we can expect widespread bitcoin adoption.

Multikey is a very important feature, that will allow better services to emerge, which will drive further bitcoin adoption.

Gavin is doing a great job, and you should show him some respect.

OP_CHECKMULTISIG, please explain the reason to change the protocol in a non compatible way
people should protect their bitcoin better, it is not a good reason for protocol change.

i do, when he is not acting like a child. P2SH is childish.

Tell me how we can do m-of-n signatures, or escrow without trusting a third party (or with a third party only in case of dispute).

Those "fancy features" are, in my humble opinion, the killer features that will guarantee bitcoin's success. It requires the consensus of the network, however.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0011.

+1

I couldn't agree more.  Bitcoin without these features is still pretty "killer"…but these features are really going to set it apart from everything else.

HOW? OP_CHECKMULTISIG, already exists, what more do you need?

Ok, I misread PIP 11 the first time. Then why they're pushing PIP 16/17 so hard? While I think it will be needed, I don't think it's a priority. The first thing we need is GUI support for what we already have.

sure but they are bullshit. the point in them is: sender don't have to pay, the receiver do. and mining pool, can put different fees on different transactions. this is not a reason to break stuff

After much thought I came to realize what's the main purpose of PIP 16/17 while we already have PIP 11: The reason is secure wallets that are always multisig without superlong addresses. We'll also have space savings in the chain.

We need PIP 16/17 but what's urgent is PIP 11 in client GUIs.

No we don't. BIP 11 is dead on arrival.

The receiver gets all the benefit and the senders pays for it.  WTF?

You ask me to pay you with some super long address and I will say NOPE.
You try to cashout from Mt. Gox to some super long address and they will say NOPE.
You open an online store and try to get customers to pay to some super logn address and they will say NOPE.

BIP 16/17 is what makes BIP 11 USEFUL in the real world.    

ever heard of send to self?

Which provides no security.  Any trojan or wallet stealer would simply intercept the funds sent to "insecure" addresses.  If the addresses are secure well you didn't need multi-sig anyways.

Plus multi-sig usefulness goes way beyond just secure wallets.  However w/ BIP 11 the entity "paying the cost" isn't the entity getting the benefit.  It is non-viable from an economics standpoint and likely to significantly increase rate of blockchain bloat if it is.

Let's put it clear for everyone then:

PIP 11: It's already in the protocol but we need support from everyone (GUIs, webpages) to arbitrary-sized addresses such as this one: 1TM1TTodZRiGNY23hgEW4QLroBW5By2gF1FQBwst7BEGPvS3gVh6PuqF5yNPtLFFFy71NzC2bZEX7mU jMJAb8wh6tPVpQeMCcu68F

PIP 16/17: They're too similar the more I read them. It requires protocol changes but they will allow to have regular-sized addresses which redeems the money with several signatures instead of a single one. It also allows much more complex transactions while the address stays the same size. It allows space savings in the block chain.

We can have escrow right now with PIP 11 (it just needs GUI support), but not secure multisig-by-default wallets, as DeathAndTaxes says.

why would i have multisig wallets? more keys to keep secret, is just stupid!
the only real world use of multisigs is escrows, for which there is no need for small good looking addresses.

this is just plain stupidity!

The concept is that you have to approve transactions on both your PC and phone, so a virus on one of them doesn't steal your money.

Then don't use it.  Nobody is asking you to.

Your rant is like saying:
Why does google/mtgox/openID use multi-factor authentication?  More keys to keep secret is just stupid.
Why is it possible to create SSL cert which requires two (or more( signatures? More keys to keep secret is just stupid.
Why does launching a US ICBM with nuclear payload require two keys? More keys to keep secret is just stupid.
Why does it require my key and bank's key to open my safety deposit box? More keys to keep secret is just stupid.

Companies with bank accounts where 2 responsibles are required for high volume transactions are stupid. Yeah...
Your wallet already stores several keys and generates new ones from time to time, even if you don't see them in your input addresses.


Exactly. Bitcoin will be valuable to everyone only when this is possible. Not everybody can make sure all the time their computers aren't compromised.

how about you show some respect to the people on this forum, instead of acting arrogant and asking everyone to spoon-feed everything to you.

Real banks do this.  When you try to send funds, your phone gets a text and then you have to validate it from the phone. This isn't stupid at all.  It means that an attacker has to control both your computer and phone which is way harder for them to do.

im trying to get you to spoon feed me, because this stuff is just sooo stupid, that you have to realise what you are doing.

mine bank does not. i have keep my computer free from virus. like any other person should do.

So if someone ever gets a virus even once, they should be financially ruined for life?

oh boy, more of "I NEVER SAW THIS THEREFORE IT NEVER HAPPENS". ::) there's a lot of things people should do. but do everyone do it? no. not everyone is a pro when it comes to computers, and people are especially vulnerable to social engineering attacks. what's so bad about adding an extra layer of security? This isn't your project. if you don't like this change, you're free to start your own fork. the source code in on github.
not sure if serious. then i read the text below your avatar. now you're on my ignore list

yes. or they should have divide their bitcoins, or put them on paper wallets.

evolution will eliminate week species. computer retards -> week species.

I have a question for you: Do you want Bitcoin to be successful?

If the answer is yes, we need more people to use it securely. Learn from the problems of the last year, where each security breach meant a drop in the price and the users. You blame people, but people blame Bitcoin itself, making imposible to Bitcoin to ever be popular.

protocol upgrade, any old client would do funky stuff, which is not good.

true. but you are trying to force a protocol upgrade down over my head.

im not afraid of change. if it was to fix a bug, it would be understandable.
but to introduce more flaws and bugs, to fix a problem that does not exists, is not acceptable

no but i don't have to. if people can't handle it themselves, they should pay for it. but if they can't handle money securely they should starve to dead.
EDIT: or pay for insurance

sigh...

There aren't any more entertaining subspecies of Homo Sapiens than the Scandinavian kooks.

Kokjo is from Denmark and he advocates starvation for those who can't properly operate the computer.

Pentti Linkola is from Finland and he advocates using nuclear weapons to solve the problem of overpopulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola

http://cdn.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/pentti_linkola_1.jpg

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/06/in-praise-of-pentti-linkola/

I think we should all welcome our Scandinavian overlords, before it is too late!

This is definitely "not broken". I really don't find this a problem, at all. And for those crying about the sender having to pay to include the larger transactions, come on, I bet you can include transactions to multi-sig addresses paying an irrelevant fee. And probably the only reason they wouldn't be included for free is due to the standard fee policy.*

I'm not saying BIP 16/17 are not interesting. Only that there's no reason to rush or stress over it.

You people are really "making a storm in a glass of water".

* There you go, an example of something I find more important than these BIPs: removing the standard fee policy. This would need anti-spam protection. I remember some development was on the way concerning this, but I don't know if it's finished...

So you are using multi-sig right?  Why not?

from what i can tell, OP is either seriously ignorant or a troll. :-\

I can imagine the reaction of kokjo when BIND8 arrived, he was using BIND4 his entire life... Now all is different! Oh my!!

How to setup my domain.com?!?! I need to learn all again! CRAP!

Pleeease... Grow up... Evolution is part of this Universe, gets used to it! Even if all is good, the evolution come and try to make things better today than yesterday.

If you don't like evolution, you can simply go back to use old currencies as usd/eur are ;)

If you don't want to change you can just ignore the new feature(s). There is zero risk with the proposed changes for anybody running old, un-hacked versions of bitcoin.

(if you are solo mining and hacked your version of bitcoin to accept 'non-standard' transactions then you could shoot yourself in your foot, but even that is unlikely).

<nazi type="grammar">You sir are a rather WEAK speller.</nazi>

though this change seems to me as something that must be done, it does seems a bit rushed.
My only concern that maybe not enough testing was done and there would be a way to exploit the change after it goes live...

Kokjo has been trolling for a while if you weren't aware of it.

This or he's never thinking twice before spewing a post.

no dude. BIND8 does not change the dns protocol, and any old client would work fine. its just the config file on some server i need to mess around with.

true, but as long as the message gets through, i don't care.

okey, a have read the proposals again. i still don't like it, but it's acceptable.
but why the rush? February 15, 2012? are you crazy? try 2013.

i still don't like how OP_EQUAL i working as an opcode with two different meanings depending on the version of bitcoin.
how will this be implemented to avoid a endless loop? isn't there a risk of this?

Both!

Most agree this will come eventually and to some it's rather urgent since it must be deployed well in advance of actual use.

Arguing that more testing is needed and feb15 is too soon is fine and I actually agree with you on that count.

Why don't you use your time and skills to debug BIP16/17  instead of calling everybody else stupid

why should i debug something that im not a fan of?

to prove its broken

backward compatibility is by default broken, no need to debug.

(yes it is trolling)

ROFL!

Everyone please calm down. You are all in violent agreement.

There is really only one dispute here, and it's something over which reasonable people can disagree.

That dispute is, are short addresses required for successful deployment of 2-factor coins?

Everything else, everyone agrees on:

• 2-factor/multisig coins are an important feature to have
• Gavin and team are competent and know what they are doing
• Changing the rules of the protocol is difficult, expensive and best avoided if possible.

I don't know anyone reasonable who would disagree with the above points.

Now maybe Kokjo believes 2-factor coins can be successfully deployed without short addresses. As it happens, I would agree with that, because I believe fees will work quite differently in future, so I don't care much about where exactly the bytes go or how many there are, and I see the cost of rule changes as being higher than the benefit. 2-factor coins will happen with or without P2SH because CHECKMULTISIG whitelisting is quite uncontroversial.

But Gavin, Luke and plenty of other people with a deep understanding of Bitcoin disagree. They see short addresses as being very important, and I can certainly understand that position.

Regardless of the outcome, the eventual impact of this decision will be quite trivial - something that a small cadre of Bitcoin protocol implementors need to think about, but it'll all be hidden from users. Its impact on the success or failure of the project is miniscule. So chill out :)

ok, what's with the quadruple posts?

Someone doesn't know about the insert quote button.