|
I say it's possible to achieve similar properties with simple methods, but requires periodic access to the cold storage.
I'll post shortly
|
|
|
|
This is an awesome idea! Problem is, I don't think there is enough proximity between bitcoin users to justify the need.
But maybe I am wrong.
We're creating the future. It has no importance if this will be used today, but in five years. The same happens to the Firmcoin, their time will come. |
|
|
|
Sergio:
is there any way to redeem the note for BTC in your scheme? ... (also do you mean an "unspendable output Tx" or an "undependable output Tx"?)
Yes, my spell checker did not have the word "unspendable" and "corrected" it to "undependable".  I corrected the post, because it was confusing without the correct word. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
One this we must standardize from time 0 is that a USD banknote with value N must be bound to a tx output of N/100 BTC.
So for example, a 1 USD bill must be bound to 0.01 BTC (1 centiBTC, now roughly equivalent to 1.3 USD)
We should reject any BTC-bill that does not follow this convention. Using this convention we can use the denomination of banknotes as centiBTC easily.
We also should build an iPhone/Android App that scans the serial numbers of banknotes (and the denomination) and responds YES if the BTC-banknote is valid and NO if it's not (unbound or invalid denomination).
Regarding the mixing of fiat/BTC values, from the economic point of view, a BTC-banknote is a BTC bill with an insurance in USD and at the same time a USD bill with an insurance in BTC. Something never seen before...
|
|
|
|
One issue I see is, with bitcoins (10 BTC) transfered to a bank note ($100), now it would worth more ($1550).
Let's say it would cost $80 to print one copy of $100 perfect counterfeit note. Now, people are not likely to spend $80 to print a $100 note, but they will surely spend $80 to print something that is worth $1550.
So, may be we can not store higher values unless we do something (encryption / hash) to bank note serial number, through scrypt.
Yes, was aware of that problem. The problem is that Bitcoin value tend to rise, so any denomination one choses for the note, sooner or later, it will provide lower security than expected. Nevertheless, governments won't allow counterfeit notes to exists for much time, or would they? If Bitcoin banknotes become common, then I really don't know what the heck governments will do... |
|
|
|
|
POLL
I would like people to vote if they would accept such a BTC banknote (if the supporting banknote has enough security features, such as the US dollar).
Make history: If we believe in BTC Banknotes, then it will come true today.
|
|
|
|
The core idea, that a difficult to counterfeit banknote can be used for off-line Bitcoins transaction is EXCELENT. I emphasize, IMHO it's completely fantastic. The problem lies in the details: a banknote does not have something to hide a private key, and so prevent double-spend. I propose a simpler solution: Using an unspendable Tx output that holds the banknote country and serial number, some BTC are associated forever with a certain banknote. (the data is described in the public script). Every one agrees that the bill's value is now X BTC. That's it. The only party that can reliable try to cheat making a perfect counterfeit bill is a government. If governments create counterfeit bills, then they'll be terribly exposed to loss of credibility. Therefore nobody will create a perfect counterfeit bill. To check that a bill has value, you carry a portable database of BTC-to-Bill binding outputs. Everyone agrees that to be valid, a bill binding transaction must be one day old, so everyone can carry the small database and sync it once a day. (This is the same system the Firmcoin.com uses) We would be actually using the government low-cost of manufacturing facilities to create difficult to counterfeit banknotes for Bitcoin. For example, a 100 USD banknote costs 10 cents to manufacture in a batch of a billion bills. From the economic point of view, the bill's value is the maximum between the fiat previous value and the BTC value, so it's seems that some value has been created from thin air, because you could just create money by accepting the fiat value, and then selling the bill by the other BTC denomination (or vice versa). By using a very low-valued bill, for example a 1 USD bill for 1 BTC, the problem is mitigated. Nevertheless I doubt the governments put the same security features in a 1 USD bill than in a 100 USD bill. Finally, for the system to work, everyone must agree that those BTC bills really hold the BTC value. But you can count on me: I would agree! Why not? Now imagine people using ALL USD bills as BTC banknotes! Since the creation of Bitcoin, I never heard a more disturbing idea for governments than that! So let's define a standard for the creation of dollar BTCs and make it a reality!! Thanks btcusr: one never stops getting surprised by crazy ideas...that come true... I will post about this in my blog... Best regards, Sergio. |
|
|
|
Are you talking about something like Firmcoin.com ? Itīs the true digital equivalent to banknotes. Plus you can discharge/recharge them. Plus you can change the denomination. |
|
|
|
QixCoin is salable and performant (the block-chain is NOT cluttered with ZNPs). Bet payments are done off-chain instantaneously. Pots (new games) can be created in less than a minute (the block interval is as low as 30 seconds). QixCoin code is not based on Satoshi Bitcoin code (I think it's the first alt-coin built fully from another source tree).
How will chain consensus be determined? (what proof-of-foo algorithm will be used and what are the incentives involved?) Currently Proof-of-work, plus merged Bitcoin-mining. Possibly allowing both scrypt and SHA-2 mining, with two different dynamically adjusted difficulties. I think scrypt will dominate most 30-secs blocks, while SHA-2 merged mining will ocurr once every 10 minutes. I have many ideas regarding innovations for the block-chain, but I cannot put all the new stuff into the QixCoin since I have to step on some firm grounds! If not, I won't be able to predict how it will work... I will post about how QixCoin works shortly. Now I'm preparing my Ekoparty 2013 talk on Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Well, that's interesting! Looking forward to seeing what you come up with Sergio. You might get the honour of making the first alt coin that's actually technically interesting (well, NameCoin was also quite interesting I guess).
That said - a patent? Why? Do you think that's for the best?
I patented the protocol before I didn't know Bitcoin existed. I did it back in 2009, because I had to show my thesis to my director and I was developing the first commercial p2p poker security solution for online casinos (Certifiedplay), which was not ready, but I wanted to publish my thesis anyway... It's a pity that sooner or later patents will start bitting Bitcoin related companies, like it occurs for any other tech companies in Sillicon Valley. But that's how the business are done in the US, so you must protect your investment.. at least that's was what I was told at that time... Are you planning to implement atomic chain-trades with bitcoins to obtain your new coin?
Yes, I'm using P2PTradeX, so I'm leveraging on the whole Bitcoin trading infrastructure for Qixcoin trading. Best regards, Sergio. PS: Mike: do you happen to have a block-chain blk0000.dat file from the 2009-2010 period? I want to analyze the evolution of orphan rates. |
|
|
|
For an update on the feasibility of online p2p poker, I'm working on QixCoin.com since half a year ago. It solves all poker-related problems: collusion, pot, etc. It does not require a TTP nor an escrow: it's pure P2P. It's based on my patented (pending) mental poker protocol. The problem with using an escrow is that, under many regulations, the escrow service is facilitation online gambling so it must have a license to do it. So nobody would be able to (legally) provide such escrow service. Since the protocol itself handles all money-related actions, legal responsibility relies solely on players. And that it the reason why I had to create still another alt-coin, since Bitcoin scripting language could not support game specific verifications. QixCoin is salable and performant (the block-chain is NOT cluttered with ZNPs). Bet payments are done off-chain instantaneously. Pots (new games) can be created in less than a minute (the block interval is as low as 30 seconds). QixCoin code is not based on Satoshi Bitcoin code (I think it's the first alt-coin built fully from another source tree). If you have a specific question regarding how I solved some of these hard problems, please ask me here on in another forum, since it belongs to an alt-coin. Best regards, Sergio. |
|
|
|
|
Hi!
I want to analyze how orphan rates have changed over time, under very different network topologies, such as one there were a few nodes.
Do anyone has a copy of a block-chain created during the 2009-2010 period ?
The blkNNNN.dat files should contain the orphans created. From those files I only need the file blk00000.dat, since it contains all the blocks in that period.
Best regards,
Sergio.
|
|
|
|
What do you mean "difference"? I'm talking about this:  There are the 6 values I've described Looks like 59 was not used but if the theory is correct it means that the last machine was also the least powerful (even with only 9 miners on it) so he/they may have decided not to run as many miners as on the others machines Oh yes, that graph in the post included up to block 36K. I was analyzing the graph up to block 20K and I didn't notice the difference. Now there are two choices: 1. there were originally 6 "machines", whatever those machines were. One of the machines broke or was unavailable. 2. there were 58 machines, divided in 6 labs. Each lab had a certain kind of computer, and models were slightly different with +-50% performance. I like more the second since 59 is not divisible by 6. Good catch jackjack ! |
|
|
|
There were long gaps in 2009 when no blocks were mined at all despite min difficulty. I doubt Satoshi would have been running Bitcoin on public computers, given his preference for privacy.
Indeed Maybe he owned 6 computers, each of them running ~10 instances of an own designed mining software. Look how each block of 10 LSB bytes has roughly the same value. To be clearer: - LSB=0-9: ~450
- LSB=10-19: ~0
- LSB=20-29: ~550
- LSB=30-39: ~450
- LSB=40-49: ~330
- LSB=50-59: ~300
I don't see the difference (at least in the first 20K blocks). But if a divergence appears, I would say that there were 6 machines, each on them running a limited range. The owner of the machine running 10-19 decided not to be part of the Bitcoin experiment and left the group, and Satoshi were 5/6 people. Nevertheless, as I said, I don't see any statistical meaningful difference. |
|
|
|
The probability of 10/59 machines being broken and having consecutive numbers is 1.6*10^-10
They were not broken. They belonged to the next computer Lab in the faculty. But Satoshi couldn't get access to that lab when he wanted to start mining. It was the Lab of the "Law and Regulation" class. |
|
|
|
I like the explanation given by eyal0 here http://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1lmtny/maybe_satoshi_foresaw_the_advantage_of_fpgaasic/I will copy-paste it here: Here's a solution that actually makes sense:
"Satoshi" has 59 machines mining. To make sure that none of them accidentally repeated work, each one was given a different machine_id to put in the LSB: 0,1,2,3...58. Machines 10 through 18 broke down and he didn't bother to recycle the LSBs.
current_nonce = machine_id
while True:
result = hash(block, current_none)
if result < target:
break
current_nonce += 256
Ta-da! Solution. It makes sense that you'd put the machine_id in the LSB and not the MSB because it's easier to detect that you've wrapped around: Just check for current_nonce == machine_id. Otherwise you'd have to test for current_nonce >> 56 != machine_id, which is marginally slower.
This explanation could be disproved by checking the frequency of ExtraNonces going back in time. If too many computers are mining together (started at the same time) then one would expect one to be slightly faster than the other, so ExtraNonces are not synchronized. Then a machine with a lower ExtraNonce can solve a block just after a machine with a higher extranonce, and time seams to go back. (I don't known the copyright status of reddit content, sorry about re-posting). Note: Please, I encourage someone to check the research I did and post "yes it's true". I still have the felling that this is too awkward to be true, and I may have made a mistake somewhere. |
|
|
|
Please forgive me for posting a blog link, but the post has many images and it requires to do extra work to paste all here. http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/new-mystery-about-satoshi/The idea is that the LSB of of the 32-bit nonce value of all blocks supposedly mined by Satoshi have a very strange probability distribution. Something is wrong. Can anybody replicate my results? Best regards, Sergio. |
|
|
|
Sergio, if you are still around, have you investigated this anymore and if so what are your findings?
Yes, and all the mystery regarding Satoshi computing power has been solved. Satoshi did one more joke on us before fading away. Tomorrow, I will tell. |
|
|
|
|
It's completely impossible that Satoshi is kept anonymous forever.
I don't want him to be discovered, but there will always be one thousands guys trying to find who Satoshi is. That's the job of journalists. They won't stop.
Eventually, in a month, in a year or in five years, someone will find enough evidence to point to some guy or group. It's possible that the NSA already knows, since they have access to much more records than any journalist may have.
So I think we should be prepared to deal with that.
If we don't care who Satoshi is, then Bitcoin will be invincible. If we focus in Bitcoin value proposition, and in Bitcoin's future, then it doesn't matter who Satoshi was.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
