Shouldn't we be looking toward something like Open Transactions instead? The protocol is already there, and as far as I understood, it suits precisely these kind of "token issuing" use cases.
But OT is centralized. I think we want OT that uses a blockchain. But this problem is inherently centralized. You'll only decentralize the double-spending checks with such blockchain, but the main trust problem - if the issuer of the token will keep up to his "words" - remains centralized on the issuer. Correct. But we want the ability to move to a different centralized place. Say GLBSE goes bad (I don't think he will, but this is hypothetical). We would all be stuck because there is no access to their database. We have our private keys encrypted, but that doesn't get us our accounts back. However, if GLBSE had their accounts in a blockchain that any other exchange could also use, we could all move around freely. |
|
|
|
But mining and computers were also slower back then, so if you're guessing how much someone would have just based on the fact that it was difficulty 1 at that point you're probably assuming too much.
Um. The same number of coins have been made each day since the beginning. It doesn't matter that the miners were slower because ALL of the miners were slower. There were also fewer miners back then and so less people to distribute the block reward to. And I agree that those should be stored offline. |
|
|
|
There is no "I haven't ever used them."
There is now....Sorry, I forgot about that one....LOL I've voted now. I did have an account with them with no funds in it and then the password got leaked so I haven't gone back. I do look at mtgoxlive.com though |
|
|
|
The challenge of bitcoin is to evolve it into a scalable, robust, fault tolerent, decentralized, efficient and secure system  GIT belongs in the "secure" category. GIT belongs in the "scalable" category. GIT belongs in the "decentralized" category. Etc... So already three reasons to support GIT, ideally if anyone can run a GIT server and the client can pass around the latest HEAD hash. Some people would just use GIT to pull from a trusted source, others would retrieve the block via the bitcoin network. ^ That idea could probably be better than bittorrent because it immediately allows the blocks which were downloaded to be checked for validity. FTFY Seriously though, I'd like to see more variety in block chain storage and transmission. I'm sure what we have now will prove to be quite primitive compared to how it will be handled in 5 years. Of course, even simple a round-robin with parallel connections would be a great improvement. You can't download a git repo from multiple peers in parallel though. Interesting idea though. Sure you can. GIT-supported transfer protocols allow requests for individual objects. So once you have the list of objects you can request each object from a different repository. This will add a lot more overhead than grabbing all objects at once though. This shouldn't be too big of an issue because with most protocols you can easily ask for ranges of objects or a subtree of the object tree. I stand corrected. http://code.google.com/p/gittorrent/wiki/MirrorSync could be an interesting way to distribute the chain. Would each block be a commit? (I thought I posted this yesterday, but I must not have) |
|
|
|
Shouldn't we be looking toward something like Open Transactions instead? The protocol is already there, and as far as I understood, it suits precisely these kind of "token issuing" use cases.
But OT is centralized. I think we want OT that uses a blockchain. |
|
|
|
Thanks Mark for the update! Bitcoin are most probably not money under any existing law but more or less digital collectibles with their value entirely determined by supply and demand. See https://blogdial.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/bitcoins-are-baseball-cards/ for a good writeup. According to this view, you shouldn't have to comply to any additional regulations other than if you would operate an online exchange for say, Magic: The Gathering playing cards I lold |
|
|
|
Angry about your student loans? Then don't pay them back, or, better yet, don't sign up for a degree if you aren't sure it will pay for itself.
That way only the rich get college level educations? Sounds ideal... The only way we are going to move forward is for people to start implementing positive, new ideas so that we can find out what works and what doesn't. I agree that we need to build and start using alternatives. But I think many of those systems aren't fully ready to replace the "norm" yet. Nothing to but keep trying though. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a money and a money transfer system. It is not an anti-fraud service nor is it a substitute for diligence, prudence, and caution.
In my hypothetical future where governments use bitcoin, I think that firms/banks/companies and such that want to be government backed would have to have all of their addresses and accounts registered. Just because bitcoin can be anonymous and decentralized doesn't mean it has to be. Green Addresses (or something similar) could be all that a registered company would be allowed to use. We wouldn't necessarily be able to tell who the company transfered money to, but we would all know whenever a green address sends a transaction. If the transaction seems supsect, it could be investigated. |
|
|
|
This is the reason why bittorrent uses sha hashes to protect the segments against bit errors or malicious bit errors. So this is a good question: How does bitcoin protect against bit errors, or malicious bit errors ? Is there a hash which is calculated over the entire block ? Meaning every bit  Why don't you spend some time reading up on it instead of wasting everyone's time with weakly informed theories? The protocol is protected, and the individual blocks are hashed and just dropped if the hash doesn't have the required form. This works on a block by block basis and is complimented for older blocks where malicious changes might be possible with periodic checkpoints. You mean "might be prevented with periodic checkpoints" don't you? |
|
|
|
Check out bitsafe. It's a small debian based distro meant for keeping a wallet secure with multiple levels of encryption. You can use it inside a virtual machine. It comes as an IMG meant to be put onto a USB drive, but there are some simple command line things to install it to a VM. You can also build the image yourself off the source from github if you want to be paranoid and not trust the distributed img. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46916.msg633597#msg633597 |
|
|
|
The challenge of bitcoin is to evolve it into a scalable, robust, fault tolerent, decentralized, efficient and secure system GIT belongs in the "secure" category. GIT belongs in the "scalable" category. GIT belongs in the "decentralized" category. Etc... So already three reasons to support GIT, ideally if anyone can run a GIT server and the client can pass around the latest HEAD hash. Some people would just use GIT to pull from a trusted source, others would retrieve the block via the bitcoin network. ^ That idea could probably be better than bittorrent because it immediately allows the blocks which were downloaded to be checked for validity. FTFY Seriously though, I'd like to see more variety in block chain storage and transmission. I'm sure what we have now will prove to be quite primitive compared to how it will be handled in 5 years. Of course, even simple a round-robin with parallel connections would be a great improvement. You can't download a git repo from multiple peers in parallel though. Interesting idea though. |
|
|
|
|
So what messages would be worth storing in the blockchain?
|
|
|
|
I got news for you buckaroo, most Americans- and most people in general- don't give a shit about history. Stay out of other people's business, when the going gets tough some of us haven't forgotten how to get down to business. So we don't give a shit about history, and yet look back to the civil war for guidance? I'm confused... |
|
|
|
|
It isn't spectacular news that is going to crush the internet. I am simply trying to make people more aware that a controlled DNS doesn't even have to specifically target your site.
It isn't a huge revelation in security that we should hash passwords, but how many months did it take Mt Gox? "Obvious" things need to be repeated so that people actually do them.
If we want to build websites that replace banks, we need to make sure that people here know how to do it correctly.
I hear tons of people telling others to use SSL, protect against XSS or SQL injection, and countless other things. Often times those warnings don't actually come with an actual example attack. I presented an actual example.
|
|
|
|
|
I originally liked the idea of using namecoin, but I think some of the asset handling would be better suited for another chain.
So you think we should share addresses across BTC and TT? Interesting. People are still going to have a bunch of addresses though.
How far are we going to take anonymity. Will it be possible to tell who owns what shares? Or could someone have a bunch of accounts. Should we have something like namecoin's personal namespace that allows people to list all of their addresses?
|
|
|
|
|
There is no "I haven't ever used them."
|
|
|
|
The number of sites that this attack affects is scary. It's not an attack against a particular website. Also it's wrong to tell "number of sites this attack affects". Same way, you can put microsoft.com 127.0.0.1 in your etc/hosts file and say you hacked microsoft.com because whenever a user working on your PC opens up microsoft.com, he really opens your own website. Captain obvious also says that if you're connected through a network which you can't fully trust, it's mandatory to use SSL and take precaution measures. The number of sites is very high. TONS of sites use google analytics. The number of people infected is low and highly dependent on your control over the target's network. Lots of developers have SSL enabled for login pages but still fetch code from HTTP CDNs. This is bad practice and I want to make sure people know it. What is obvious to you is obvious to you. Most people have no idea how a DNS server actually works and so would have no idea that they can be compromised. It is obvious to techy people. Not everyone is techy. EDIT: The hosts file was more for testing and pranking my coworker who hates the snow effect. And editing microsoft.com in the hosts file would only affect microsoft.com. Everyone doesn't fetch supposedly trusted JS from microsoft. They do from google-analytics. |
|
|
|
|
Where do we even have ads?
|
|
|
|
|
I think people love to use the word "war." I really don't want this to be a war or think this is a war. It may be very important, but I don't want people on either side to die and thats usually a big part of wars.
|
|
|
|
If the dividends and the shares are going to be paid in bitcoins, why do you need the TT at all? The fees can be paid with bitcoins too. I mean, I see it cleaner and more logic if everything is paid for either in bitcoins or in TT, but not this hybrid. Or you could allow both currencies in all cases. I didn't think about having even the fees be bitcoin. I think I like that idea. So would there be no block reward in that system since we wouldn't need TT? That seems kinds of strange and might make it hard to get the chain going. The big problem I fear are DoS attacks. What prevents me from issuing a thousand types of shares and a million of each share and trade between one another like crazy?
Only fees? I'm not sure that's enough.
Aren't fees the only things that keep you from doing the same thing on any of the other chains? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
