I remember someone working on something like this for BTC. Something that ran locally in your browser, but interfaced with a remote site. Maybe I'm misremembering about exactly what it did, but I remember thinking it was pretty cool. dunno what became of it though.

Probably because there is a missing 20 billion to account for. What can possibly be the purpose of retaining so much XRP if not to exert control?

It depends on how ECDSA is broken. It also depends on how ECDSA is used. While using pubkeys only once is "recommended", it is certainly not a requirement, and it is not possible to predict how ECDSA will be used by the bitcoin protocol in the future. But if discrete logarithm problem over elliptic curves stops being "hard", only the pubkeys are necessary, and they will probably be broken at break-neck speed. If it is a weakness with the signatures revealing information (much more likely), it will take time, but reused pubkeys are at serious risk.



Well Merkle-Lamport constructions are probably what is of interest. On the bright side, the pubkey is only n bits where n is the security level.

However, there is research into merkle + one-time sig schemes with smaller signatures.

"On the Security of the Winternitz One-Time Signature Scheme" by Buchmann et al shows signature sizes of about 800 bytes for 129-bit effective security level at a Winternitz parameter of 16 (increasing it raises the difficulty of creating signatures, but makes the signatures smaller and weaker, I don't know the exact tradeoffs). 800 bytes is well within reason for a QC-resistant signature algo (although it might have to be more depending on how many qubits are available to crack hash algos). It is still a significant hurdle though for world-wide use, and will obviously increase the costs of running the network significantly.

Did you read the fine print?

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayer_Rothschild "Mayer Amschel Rothschild (23 February 1744 – 19 September 1812)" pretty tough for a guy to make some prolific statement several decades after his death, no matter how prolific it might be.

roflmao

It was pretty easy to tell from the first few sentences it was going to be nothing but bitcoin-thumping tripe, which is when I made my initial post, then later I read the whole article and was not disappointed at all.

Wow, that article is the worst piece of bitcoin-bias I have yet seen I think.

I don't think many are naive enough to believe that cryptocurrency will eliminate taxation. What it does do is force governments to actually collect taxes rather than using inflation as the crutch to support government bloat. It is less easy to relieve citizens of their hard-earned money when they have a direct line of sight to taxes. Revolutions have been waged when such things were the case.

If anyone has an agenda to push, it's DeathAndTaxes. He is the hardcorest of hardcore bitcoin proponents and unequivocally biased, but he is totally, 100% correct here. Passwords, especially passwords that protect money, should not be stored in a reversible format. That is madness. (That is, of course, if actually true.)

It boils down to requiring more chips instead of more memory, and each of these chips must have access to a small amount of fast memory. Cost to build, electricity usage, etc. are still factors in play and there is no "slam dunk" that this is a more or less effective way to be ASIC-resistant.


$50m is laughable?


The security of the network is not at risk because of the scrypt parameters chosen. Do not imply that it is.

Memory, in general, is cheap. Fast memory is not. If the memory parameters are large with scrypt, an ASIC could be built using cheap memory with a smaller amount of processing units (or slower/cheaper ones). The LTC scrypt design seems to be in a very reasonable range where lots of chips can be used, but each requires a reasonably-sized amount of expensive memory and fast buses to keep up. It's difficult to say how it will/would have played out when/if ASICs are designed for the LTC scrypt algorithm. But for now, GPUs being in the sweet spot could only be a good thing imo, botnet coins are no fun.

No. The current crop of machines referred to as ASICs around here are built for SHA256 hashes. ASIC simply means "application-specific integrated circuit", it is not specific to bitcoin, or to SHA256 or scrypt or anything. It is a generalized term for hardware that performs specific tasks.


ASICs are a piece of hardware, written in silicon. There can not be new software versions. New designs must be created and new machines must be built for scrypt, or any purpose.


This would require a lot of engineering time to figure out. It also depends on how good those engineers are. Scrypt is a very complex algorithm that attempts to punish you by requiring more memory the faster you go. It is called a time memory tradeoff. In contrast, SHA256 is rather simple: faster is better.

yeah that's what I get for being up at like 4am... I was thinking you tried the GPU in two computers. Have you checked the motherboard for leaking/exploded capacitors?

Considering it's a mining rig, the video card is most likely fried--as opposed to being a m/b or psu issue. PSU and motherboard issues tend to result in random or frequent reboots. What it sounds like is happening here is that as soon as 3D acceleration drivers get loaded, the card is taking a dump. I think the VGA port still bypasses any fancy chips until those drivers are loaded, whereas DVI/HDMI probably don't, and this might be the reason why you were able to get further using that port. Although since it has only "worked" once, it is still pretty likely that the card is in a real bad way.

Lepko, it is important to know around here that the typical bitcoin-washed person refers to "deflation" as meaning prices, but then balks at inflation referring to prices when it can only mean an increase in the supply. He knows what you mean but is twisting what you say into definitions that defy how the average person or economist uses the terms, and then plays dumb--because there cannot possibly be monetary supply increases other than what's scheduled, and thus concluding that there is no inflation in (the) bitcoin (supply) while ignoring prices.


Throw in an anecdote of "this is how deflation works" and you're all set up with the pretense that there is no possibility that "one year later, I could buy 1/10th of a loaf", or "I could buy 50 but my 800 neighbors are destitute".

The indoctrination into the bitcoin school of economics is rather refined and effective. Tread lightly.

You are mistaking directness for demanding. I see no need to beat around the bush. This is also the internet--fuck pleasantries. You ran away pretty quick from the tough questions in the original thread, and it only makes it look like you don't have a valid answer. It's OK if you don't, but if you won't answer, the only thing you leave is for those who can speculate to speculate. I will like the project if the project is not some pyramid scheme and is defensible under heavy scrutiny. I will not like it if a bunch of people get carried along into losing their time and/or money. While the situation with emunie is somewhat different, it is still a safe historic bet to go with the latter scenario--until proven otherwise, which you can change at any time.

edit: I should note that I consider bitcoin and all of its clones just a long con, and really the only other two (solidcoin and ripple) are quite shady in their own right, so I have a pretty poor view of cryptocurrencies in general. So I do applaud the fact that you are working on something different, especially in regards to the money creation process, but it has to be bullet-proof.

No ETA yet. I have implemented part of the network protocol that processes incoming network packets and keeps track of unconfirmed transactions.

Was it not you that programmed this somewhere in the background without any review and announced an official release date in your initial post regarding emunie? Was that not somewhat immature? There are not simple solutions to BFT, sybil, and double spending, not to mention scalability, and all this without proof of work--it is a lot to chew on.


Are you not following the same words? Presuming that you can fix all conceivable problems with no peer review? It seems like you've already had to fix an awful lot just based on the few tidbits gleaned here and there.

Your cryptography experience is suspect. I am sure you are learning quickly, but you have made some posts that do not sound like someone who understands deeply things like BFT and sybil attacks and double spending.