|
BIP44 is the standard for multiple account wallets derived from a single seed.
|
|
|
|
The new wallet format supporting BIP32 will be backwards compatible with every previous Armory wallet format.
When you say "BIP32", do you mean BIP44? |
|
|
|
there's a real danger here that if the other 1MB core devs don't get off their asses and help out Gavin & Mike, their roles as core devs could be relegated to the dustbin of history. this is a great chance for those talented devs who have felt rejected or humiliated from the likes of current core devs to get their foot in the door. we clearly know they exist and in great #'s. core dev is a highly coveted position leading to all sorts of great opportunities as the Blockstream core dev's refusal to step down in the name of conflict of interest very well demonstrates. from Mike Hearns on Reddit: [–]mike_hearn 70 points 7 hours ago Short of some last minute change of heart by Wladimir and the other committers, it looks like Bitcoin XT may soon become more important. I am looking for someone to help develop a website and logo for it. If you're interested please hop onto the mailing list and let me know: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bitcoin-xt Or you can just email me: hearn@vinumeris.comIf things go ahead and running XT becomes the way to express an opt-in to larger blocks, I will also be looking for volunteers to help co-build the binaries with gitian. Finally I am looking for anyone who has experience with managing patchsets in git. My current workflow of one-branch-per-feature plus one-branch-per-release is fiddly and fragile. I plan to reorganise things at some point. Suggestions for better approaches are welcome. permalinksavecontextfull comments (499)reportgive gold If they are going to take this step anyway, they should dump all Bitcoin Core's technical debt by switching to btcsuite as their reference implementation. |
|
|
|
It's not possible to build a currency on misanthropy. http://nakamotoinstitute.org/reciprocal-altruism-in-the-theory-of-money/Reciprocal altruism is a great first start as a theory of money because it so neatly undercuts a lot of the most common fallacies. First, what gives money value? An adherent of commodity money might say that it is the industrial uses of the money good, whereas an adherent of fiat money might say that it is the force of the government issuing it, and the loyalty people have toward their government. Neither of these answers is true. It is true that some system is required to keep track of who has money and who does not, but that is not what makes money valuable. The value of money is the value of cooperation. It is that simple. The value of money is not somehow in the monetary unit; it is in the whole of society and in peoples’ desire to cooperate. If you want your money to be valuable you need the people who produce the products and services you want to consume to use that money. There is no other way to imbue currency with value. If bringing sound money into existence requires an mass education project to overcome many generations of propaganda-induced fallacies, then that's what it going to take. There is no shortcut. |
|
|
|
|
There's a peculiar kind of incoherence about people who can argue both for decentralization and also argue that users of the system can not be relied up to decide their own best interests.
|
|
|
|
The reason we have to worry about miners producing "too large" blocks is because they don't pay for all the P2P network resources they use (neither do end users).
All the arguments we have about resource consumption are derived from that primary design flaw.
If we fix it, then we won't have to argue any more.
Any mechanism you envision must also incorporate the fact that if collusion and monopolistic strategies are viable, they will be deployed. Miners and pools have an incentive to include as many txns as they can get paid for and scale up the resource requirements to drive small miners to pools. So the community got up in arms about GHash.io, so no problem just hide your ownership behind a Sybil attack on the pools (that is surely the case today) so the community is either ignorantly pacified or can play Whack-A-Mole. Even if you made txns free or negative cost (miners pay spenders), the incentive of the prior paragraph remains. There is fundamental design flaw here that can't be fixed without radical overhaul of the design of PoW. Economic FUD appears to be the type most resistant to being discarded after having been falsified. That particular bit has been floating around for over a century despite being thoroughly debunked. https://www.mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly-0 |
|
|
|
|
The reason we have to worry about miners producing "too large" blocks is because they don't pay for all the P2P network resources they use (neither do end users).
All the arguments we have about resource consumption are derived from that primary design flaw.
If we fix it, then we won't have to argue any more.
|
|
|
|
...
MP's popularity among certain subpopulations is a function of the prelevance of daddy issues in the Bitcoin community. He and the members of his cult of personality are stuck in a mutually-destructive relationship that precludes their capabilities from living up to the hype.
I'd not argue against most of that, but one can meet success by being, through shit-house luck, on the right side of a fence. Back around the turn of the year I read MP's stuff some. He's definitely a weird motherfucker, but definitely also very bright with a good grasp on many aspects of philosophical and engineering thought. If I had to guess I'd say that whatever success he has realized (and I suspect it is significantly puffed up) was not in the accident of fate category as much as it was a result of good analysis and execution. I'm as happy that he's on my side of the fence as I am that Gavin-the-clod is not. If the MP contingent is self-destructive it's just one more ball to keep an eye on as the ecosystem experiences a stress pulse. I've barely interacted with MP, but I have had the opportunity to observe signifigant changes in behaviour among some people who have spent a lot of time doing so. There are people who respond to his shtick for reasons independent of the quality of his analysis and display all the signs of co-dependence. It doesn't bode well for the future achievements of anyone involved. |
|
|
|
|
The "great schism" is going to be underwhelming.
MP's popularity among certain subpopulations is a function of the prelevance of daddy issues in the Bitcoin community. He and the members of his cult of personality are stuck in a mutually-destructive relationship that precludes their capabilities from living up to the hype.
|
|
|
|
Assume some or all of the individuals in this list are saboteurs instead of defectors. What types of attacks can they carry out? What countermeasures are available to defend against those attacks? |
|
|
|
Note that legalizing marijuana is also synonymous with agreeing that plants should be regulated by the State. Otherwise, why is it necessary to legalize use of a plant? You see the-powers-that-be are playing game with you, regulating you at the Federal level unconstitutionally then getting you to pass laws at the State level to admit their unconstitutional Federal laws are the law, thus enslaving yourselves by bringing plants under the prevue (jurisdiction) of law.
Simpleton thinking falls for the ploy that legalizing MJ is any form of increasing freedom. Rockefeller's foundations and NGOs were instrumental in funding everything from 1960s activism, to feminism, to environmentalism.
You can also say German reunification was not a form of increasing freedom because it was still synonymous with agreeing that Germans should be ruled by a State. It did, however, represent a loss of agreement among the Soviet ruling class which reflected a reduction in their ability to work cohesively for a common goal. When the various factions that make up a State can not rely on shared ideological alignment in order to work together, this introduces friction into their operations because now they need to divert resources to inter-faction bribes. It makes them less effective as rulers and also increases the burn rate. |
|
|
|
In my estimation, recent state-level marijuana legalization events are of equivalent magnitude to the fall of the Berlin wall in terms of what it means about Washington DC's internal control over the US, and probably means the US empire is approximately at the same point it its life cycle as the Soviet empire was in 1989.
And then most of Russia's resources were handed out to a few oligarchs who are beholden to the cartel. And do you know who was over there organizing that? Larry Summers. The same former US Treasury and World Bank official (also was nominated to replace Bernanke) involved with 21 Inc, who first floated the idea of negative interest rates and eliminating cash. Do some research folks. The world needs a form of money that can resist corruption even by someone like Larry Summers. It could be the case that we should interpret 21 as an attack on Bitcoin, in which case we'll find out of Bitcoin can be that money or not. |
|
|
|
I think you have that almost exactly backward. There is a strong push toward indoctrinating U.S. public school kids from an early age to being conducive to 'global citizenship' as one example of the necessary requirements. Efforts in this direction have been going on since I was a kid in the 1970's but in fits and starts, and things like genuine individuality, healthy skepticism, and some degree of self sufficiency were still at least tolerated. When the generation who are now in grade school matures, look out. The tell is not the behaviour of schoolchildren that matters - it's the behaviour of the apparatchik. When they start to believe the remaining lifetime of the regime is less than the expected duration of their employment + pension, some of them start patiently waiting for their expected windfall to arrive over the course of decades of career and retirement and start taking what they can get while they can. These acts of internal looting have an effect of shortening the remaining lifetime of the regime which means it's a positive feedback loop. As the expected lifetime (as perceived by the apparatchik) shortens, the amount of internal looting increases. That positive feedback cycle is why the end of a regime can arrive faster than anyone thinks possible with little outside warning. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gsa-officials-wife-accompanied-him-on-trips-at-taxpayer-expense/2012/04/17/gIQAHdrEPT_story.htmlHe invited his staff to the gathering. According to the transcript reviewed by The Post, Neely said in an e-mail to a colleague: “I know I’m bad, but as Deb and I often say, why not enjoy it while we have it and while we can. Ain’t going to last forever.” We now know in retrospect that internal looting was extremely rampant in the months and years prior to the dissolution of the USSR. Another interesting observation we can make in retrospect is a connection with German reunification. I was fairly young when the Berlin wall came down, but I do remember being shocked that Moscow would allow it to happen. According to everything I'd ever been taught, the Communist Party had absolute control over everything that happened in the Soviet empire. Looking back on the event, that was an obvious sign they had lost control. In my estimation, recent state-level marijuana legalization events are of equivalent magnitude to the fall of the Berlin wall in terms of what it means about Washington DC's internal control over the US, and probably means the US empire is approximately at the same point it its life cycle as the Soviet empire was in 1989. |
|
|
|
Smartcards are not tamper-proof (nothing probably is), they are tamper resistant, but the cost of extracting a key from the smartcard might exceed the balance of said key. A more conclusive analysis of the cost of extracting a key would be a great help. |
|
|
|
So OtherCoin proposes a more subtle change, one that would really make Bitcoin anonymous and isolated from any online intervention/analysis - that is harder to understand than a new mining chip or a new (online) fancy wallet. Or maybe I'm just nuts and people don't really care about their privacy and are perfectly ok with the pseudonymous nature of Bitcoin  . Part of the issue might be trusting that secure transfer of private keys is actually possible. |
|
|
|
I'm going with Rumsfeld, Cheney, et-al from their PNAC document on this one. That is, the most likely end-game is a one-world government. In that case I would expect the management strategies promulgated by the leadership to be in many ways almost indistinguishable from those employed by the Soviets and other totalitarian regimes, and I would hold near zero hope for anything resembling 'democracy' (though it may well be called that.) The methods of control used would include austerity, surveillance, anonymous informants, etc. Basically any structure which keeps individuals separate and suspicious of one another. Of course they're going to try, but they can't pull it off. They're a generation too late. |
|
|
|
remember what's driving these Silicon Valley ppl. You keep finding the exact areas where I am most concerned. I've talked to people who from the Silicon Valley startup scene who've related their stories about the ties between the angel investors who funded their ventures and the CIA, including being subjected to a "aptitude evaluation" which was basically an IQ + (lack of) empathy test. Remember this article? https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/If you're betting on Silicon Valley to fight the Fed what you're betting on is the defection of crucial sections of the military-industrial complex of a magnitude equivalent to the dissolution of the USSR. Personally, I do think a USSR-style breakup of the USA is in the cards, but I'm not at all sure about the timing. Also, in the Soviet case their equivalent of the MIC were the holdouts who were the last to accept that the system could not continue and held a coup to attempt to keep it limping along. |
|
|
|
did you listen to the above audio? it doesn't necessarily have to make money for the OEM. they stand to profit from other ways.
This might be the part to be most cautious about. The argument that a Nash equilibrum encourages miners against acting in ways that damage the long term viability of Bitcoin is less obviously true when mining isn't being performed for direct profit. |
|
|
|
sure, they will go after those mkts too. but, imo, smartphones is the Big Kahuna. that is where the greatest money to be had lies.
remember, those OEM's that understand Bitcoin want to grab the majority of mkt share in developing nations by offering severe discounts to new previously unbanked customers. get the phone into their hands, lock them in, and worry about significant monetization later. the only way to do this, in the 21 model of mining chips, is to make the smartphones hash as a payback. whether mining "on it's own" will be profitable or not, it's hard to tell. but it could be with enough efficiency in the chip, assuming customers will attempt to pass on charging costs to "others", and coordinating the hashing power to generate blocks. either way, i don't think that's the main thrust. they want to get Satoshi's onto ppl's phones so as to allow the phones to "negotiate" micropayments for all sorts of unimaginable things like parking, fast lanes on hwys, who knows. the OEM's will have one huge coordinated network to which they can sell all sorts of other products and services as well. it's also their stated objective to decentralize mining which i think is a worthy goal even if it means they lose money on it. i've seeing all sorts of crying about "centralization" as a result. that's ridiculous. who honestly thinks that bringing on millions, if not billions, of new individual miners into the economy will do that? do you honestly think the #pools we have now will stay constant and just absorb all this new value? no way. as many new pools will crop up as device manufacturers who are willing to do this. in fact, each OEM should set up their own pool if they want to maximize the gain. it's easy. i ran my own sort of pool back when i was pointing 15 or so of my own miners at my stratum solo mining server. and i'm not a geek or CS. it was relatively easy. all sorts of new pool operators are going to come out of the woodwork to take any outsourcing that might occur. why not? free money in fees for easy work. no, we are going to see a mushrooming of the absolute #pools as well as a spreading out of the distribution into a much more decentralized piechart than we've already seen.
there will be also many ppl here in developed nations who will want these mining phones. esp with all the free electricity we have access to.
if you haven't listened to the audio dropt posted above, you should. it highlights and expands on many of the things i have been saying about this.
What are you smoking? You forget what proof of work IS. It's proof of burn of electricity. You cannot earn more in the long term, than the value of the electricity you burned. How much electricity can a smartphone burn? Charging a smartphone costs a whopping 41 cents PER YEAR. Nobody gives a shit about those pennies, and even less about 25% of those pennies. Not even the poorest people in Africa, with free power and 10 smartphones, can earn anything close to a worthwhile return. And that's assuming they have free power! Maybe shop owners NOW don't mind if people charge their phones, but what happens when their shop is filled with freeloaders who will just steal power and not buy anything? Of course they're going to cut off the free power. I really can't believe people are falling for this bullshit. you sound angry. what are you, a Monero holder or something? thinking you're smarter than the wealth of talented minds in the 21 camp is what i'd consider "smoking". did you read anything i said above? it could, in fact, be a loss leader. but getting a majority share of a known burgeoning market that will leapfrog the pc and laptop mkt is hugely valuable. otoh, if they indeed have worked out the power reqs, which is what i think they mean when they referred to power scaling per device, then it will be an even bigger win. you can't discount this from a group that includes major industry leaders like Qualcomm & Cisco. furthermore, advancing the goal of mining decentralization stands to kill a major bear tard argument against Bitcoin in the long run. it's a worthy goal. and as far as the mkt responding to "stealing" electricity. unfortunately for you anti-Bitcoin beartards, the mkt will be slow to respond, as in years. it always is. what we're talking about is empowering millions of disadvantaged, yet ambitious, smart individuals who want to make money like you and me. the whole concept leverages on Bitcoin's Sound Money principles which makes it worthwhile to do whatever it takes to make it work. you can't stop that and i think 21 understands this principle. stop your whining. I think scepticism is always healthy when it comes to new products whose underlying business model doesn't immediately make sense. That was true for Blockstream and it's true for 21. I really do want to be optimistic about every new investment that's even tangentially related to Bitcoin, but somebody has to keep an eye on non-obvious side effects. Consider what happened with Radio Shack and the customer data they are selling as part of their bankruptcy. As far as anyone can tell, they did a reasonable job of not mishandling it while they were still solvent. Will that transfer to the new owners? The same principle applies to 21. Maybe they are great people who are going to do good things with their technology. If their business model doesn't make sense, however, it's reasonable to ponder what future owners of their business might do with it. We wouldn't have to worry so much if our network was a bit more economically robust (price discovery, etc), so really fixing that is the real long-term solution. |
|
|
|
The limited total number of coins is a socialist production quota used to create the scarcity needed for Bitcoin to function as a money like good. Almost all the terms of art used in that sentence are used incorrectly. Money is not a good and the production of currency is not a service. Scarcity as a concept does not apply to currency production. Money is a ledger whose value is derived (among other things) from its accuracy. Creating new entries in the ledger by fiat (issuing currency) reduces the accuracy of the ledger and thus the value of money. Unfortunately since it's not possible for currency to exist before it exists, it must be issued and thus no monetary ledger can ever be perfect. What makes Bitcoin's reward schedule tolerable is the fact that it's not subject to change, and that the distortion decays exponentially over a reasonable timescale so that we expect it to behave close enough to an ideal ledger in the medium term. Also that there is no clear candidate for a less-harmful method of bringing a currency into existence. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
