Currency: SCSY [Securitycoin]
Wallet: v2.2.0.0: Full Release
Current block: 130672
Block date: 2015-04-12 05:50:08
Block age: 173547 sec.
somebody knows the working node?
getpeerinfo from a v2.2.0.0: Full Release {"addr" : "5.9.56.229:15793", "startingheight" : 154063,},
{"addr" : "24.184.40.31:15793", "startingheight" : 154142,},
{"addr" : "84.46.66.143:15793", "startingheight" : 148100,},
{"addr" : "71.61.206.57:15793", "startingheight" : 154371,}
There's a not-quite-finished-yet RPC-based explorer https://minkiz.co/acme/scsy, running on 5.9.56.229 (a rented Hetzner server) Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Now no sync at all. Peers from this page not helping.
It took a while but I finally managed to track down a sync node: {
"addr" : "188.165.2.147:11060",
"services" : "00000003",
"lastsend" : 1428762813,
"lastrecv" : 1428762813,
"bytessent" : 1268,
"bytesrecv" : 6643,
"blocksrequested" : 0,
"conntime" : 1428762813,
"version" : 70006,
"subver" : "/Donationcoin Digital Wallet:1.3.0/",
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 463090,
"banscore" : 0,
"syncnode" : true
}
Donationcoin is still listed on Bleutrade: https://bleutrade.com/exchange/DON/BTC but, judging by the trading history, they're stuck at 463090 (23:16:04 10-04-2015) along with everyone else. I have “successfully” (i.e. synced up to 463090) a couple of nodes, I've set one to CPU mining but it's unlikely to make much difference. addnode=85.10.194.50 addnode=5.9.56.229 Looks like there are now 10 nodes forming the network, getpeerinfo returns the following nodes and block heights: "addr" : "188.165.2.147:11060",
"startingheight" : 463090,
"syncnode" : true
"addr" : "85.10.194.50:11060",
"startingheight" : 463090,
"addr" : "94.209.33.80:56698",
"startingheight" : 463090,
"addr" : "71.175.81.45:11060",
"startingheight" : 463090,
"addr" : "74.5.145.156:59211",
"startingheight" : 463090,
"addr" : "37.145.59.106:61328",
"startingheight" : 463090,
"addr" : "213.107.69.133:59465",
"startingheight" : 463090,
"addr" : "115.78.129.91:50091",
"startingheight" : 296683,
"addr" : "5.9.56.229:41040",
"startingheight" : 463090,
"addr" : "83.104.61.47:35493",
"startingheight" : 463090,
In another window, Abe is reading DON blocks into the db. I'll advise when the block explorer is accessible. It might throw some light on the hiatus. Block explorer now accessible: https://minkiz.co/abe/chain/DonationcoinCheers Graham |
|
|
|
[I wasn't aware there were standards a persons rank should stand on?
Just an emergent property. It's hard work being a dick all of the time so the longer someone's been around, the less of a dick they are, generally. There's always an exception that proves the rule, though. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
To this day no one has found a single SHA 256 collision, but what if that changes?
I was talking about fundamental flaws in the mathematics behind hashing algorithms that we may not know of yet.
If you dig around in the crypto literature, you'll probably find that the general understanding is that such breakthroughs are just not the way cryptanalysis works. Experience thus far is all about incremental reductions in strength, to a point where the community begins to agree that migrating away would probably be a Good Idea(tm). SHA1 hasn't actually been broken, it's “merely” considered too weak for some of the cryptography purposes for which it used to be used. AIUI it's still a valid option for hashing, that aspect of SHA1 security remains adequately secure. There's a bunch of must-read info on the SHA-3 Zoo wiki --- http://ehash.iaik.tugraz.at/wiki/The_SHA-3_ZooCheers Graham |
|
|
|
What do you think of chongchang coin?
A profoundly unheroic post. Reflects quite badly on your judgement. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
What do you think is the likelihood that second generation coins like NXT and NEM will succeed and become an ubiquitous part of everyday life vs. the likelihood that such second generation systems and their features like asset exchanges will fail to take hold?
Interesting analogy, a bit of a stretch to match up the firepower of the 5th. gen programme with the (relatively) miniscule research effort being devoted to cryptocurrency gen 2. I was in the audience for one of the “5th gen” presentations, our group at HP Labs being deep into Prolog and all that logic programming stuff, we'd rocked up to find out what all the fuss was about. I recall that the talk was memorable for an initial stir of anticipation in the audience when the (Japanese) presenter apparently promised a discussion of “the three virgins”, a promise almost immediately cruelly dispelled by the words, “In virgin one, we started off with ...”. Although, frankly, it wouldn't really have mattered if they'd been able to kick off with version 1000, the epistemological foundation was fatally flawed. By slide 4-ish they were presenting the architecture, I turned to my PM and indicated we could all go home at that point, safe in the knowledge that the MITI programme presented no real competition as it was doomed from the start. According to the architecture diagram, the core was vested in the implementation of a pair of concepts that I'd never before seen referenced in an AI talk, “assimilation” and “accommodation”. Both are central concepts of Piagetian developmental psychology and were enormously controversial in a cognitive science context because of their long-standing and stubborn resistance to formalisation. (Not wrong per se, just a hugely brave undertaking, or a foolhardy one, depending on how familiar you are with the foundations of developmental psychology.) And, inevitably, the historical view is continuously being revised: “In spite of the possibility of considering the project a failure, many of the approaches envisioned in the Fifth-Generation project, such as logic programming distributed over massive knowledge-bases, are now being re-interpreted in current technologies. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) employs several layers of logic-based knowledge representation systems.” Slides of the architecture of the semantic web make no mention of concepts drawn from developmental psychology (well, it is only virgin one, after all). Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Is this the official coin for the video game's company called "unreal" ? No
Or is this some kind of cyber squatting? someone trying to use their company's name and logo illegally? Yes
The magnitude of the error appears to have dawned upon the dev, the coin is being re-positioned as “URCcoin” https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1000669.0 but the wallet code hasn't been updated yet. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
You can respond to the thread or on the anonymous survey above.
The design of the survey needs more work. It asks about altcoin (s) but only offers a response structure appropriate for a single coin. The survey should also offer more multiple choice questions and fewer open-ended questions, in its present form it's more like a sheet of guidance for writing an essay on altcoin creation and marketing. Anyway, you already have some answers w.r.t. generation costs via examining the charges and service tradeoffs implicit in the offerings of the various altcoin creation services. As for marketing costs, that rather assumes that marketing is typically part of the mix and even a basic familiarity with the domain will reveal just how shaky the basis for that assumption. It's usual practice, when inviting people to make the effort of responding, to offer a quid pro quo in the form of a promised published analysis of the survey results, it sort of makes the exercise a bit more worthwhile for your respondents, or at the very least, demonstrates an appreciation of people's generosity with their time. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Some deliriously happy Cave “adrenaline node” owners ... ... all you need is a handful of Crave nodes and you will never have to worry about your bills again!
... good money to make watching tv and picking your nose.
Incredible. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I really hope this can be turned around and made into a success, because the web needs a good reputation system.
I admire your optimism. I had some email convos with “Mark Pfennig” during the period of time when he was researching for Bitmark (and on a different occasion with insanitycoin because of his interest in the blockchain-cum-RDF). We had a go at discussing the issues in a reputation system but I found that his naive and uninformed model rendered the attempt futile. Question is: what makes you feel that someone who has demonstrated such questionable social judgement is capable of designing and building an effective reputation system? Cheers Graham P.S. I owe you an email, I'm working on it  |
|
|
|
Allen is most likely a few steps up on the rest of the party with regards to accountability and trust
Ah, I wondered about the unredacted email address, now I know. Cheers Graham P.S. Allen, coupla typos in the "SPECIFICATION" graphic: integrates and ... appliance? |
|
|
|
I am glad some people can do due research before judging The associated web sites for DXMarkets and the Jetcoin Institute are very professionally produced which makes it all the more curious that identification of the legal entity making the statements is omitted. For those engaged in DYR, the Opencorporates entry for DXMarkets Ltd is: https://opencorporates.com/companies/sg/201413487CUnfortunately, my search-fu (and, apparently OpenCorporates) failed completely where the Jetcoin Institute is concerned, ditto the Jetcoin Foundation (i.e. a search for “Jetcoin”). All I can turn up is Eric's personal registration of the jetcoininstitute domain name. I'd be grateful if you could provide a pointer to the legally constituted entity trading as “The Jetcoin Institute”. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
“Swiss banking giant UBS is to open a technology lab in London to explore how blockchain technology can be used in financial services.
The lab, set to open this month and occupy a dozen desks at Canary Wharf-based fintech accelerator space Level39 – a hub in London for financial technology startups – will bring together technology experts from the bank and the wider fintech community, UBS said.
Lab members and invited guests will experiment with how blockchain — the underlying technology behind bitcoin — can be adapted to process a wide range of financial transactions in a more efficient and cost-effective way, the bank said.
The lab will aim to develop new technologies that deal with industry-wide issues, such as the need to manage and analyze vast amounts of data, or better evaluate risk.
While many in financial services have expressed an interest in the underlying technology behind bitcoin, UBS’s is one of the first banks to go public with their plans. The idea is to get UBS more involved with the fintech crowd in London and open up to external innovation.
The blockchain is the public and decentralized online ledger which verifies transactions in digital currencies such as bitcoin. It is an indelible record, whose authenticity is verified by a network of computer users rather than a centralized authority.
Many have come to believe that this technology can be adapted to record and verify financial transactions, from clearing securities to making cross-border payments ...” full article references other blockchain-focused research by banks: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/04/02/ubs-to-open-blockchain-research-lab-in-london/?mg=id-wsjCheers Graham |
|
|
|
I'll inject this write-up by Peter Todd from March 2013 just so's everyone's aware that the opportunity has already been clearly identified: At the protocol level a contract is just some data that can be hashed. What that data actually represents is undefined, but will presumably be some sort of promise like "I will not spam on foo-wiki" or "I will run this banking service honestly" or even a conventional bond such as "This tx output is eligable for interest from Foo Bank for issue $some_bond"
Of course, here we are assuming the contracts have a value, denoted in some amount of Bitcoins, and thus trading them on the blockchain is desirable, so we will tie the hash of the contract to specially formatted Bitcoin transactions. Note that this is not a new idea; Mike Hearn, jgarzik and others on the forums developed much of the ground work with various "smartcoin" and "colored coin" concepts that this proposal builds upon.
Off-chain transactions
Having said that a contract does not have to be traded on the blockchain: one perfectly valid contract would be "The Bank of Foo will keep authoritive records of all further contracts related to this portion of the bond." and in that circumstance all further contract trading would be done off-chain, guaranteed by The Bank of Foo. This construct would be appropriate for low-value contracts, such as online forum anti-spam pledges, where minimum transaction fees interfere with the granularity of the contract value desired.
The actual data representing contract movement will still be valid Bitcoin transactions, however their existence will be guaranteed by some trusted centralized ledger service rather than the distributed blockchain. Note how this means that modulo transaction hash mutability the transactions can be eventually put into the blockchain proper if appropriate fees are paid.
A future extension using this concept may, as an example, find it convenient to add a field to the MerkleBitcoinTx with the identity of some trusted ledger to be consulted.
Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
But I think this emphasizes the risk with focusing just on the currency aspect of crypto, and why exchanges will want to expand their offerings:
It's also a blatantly slanted view. No, users would not typically recognise a description of themselves as ideological decentralization advocates but they're very concerned about the possibility of bail-ins which, one could argue, amounts to the same thing. I note the weasel words: “decently” (a version of the “no true Scotsman” informal logical fallacy) and “1st world” (wow, that betokens a 1980s mentality if anything does). Without a more precise phrasing of the conditions circumscribing the context, the assertion is robbed of any significant semantics. If the rest of his thinking is infected with similar logical fallacies and anachronisms, the project's in deep trouble. And he's over-stating the case, if you want a far more level-headed assessment of the opportunities, have a read of “A Cynic’s Guide To Fintech: Several business models that are bound to fail — and a few that might have” ( https://medium.com/bull-market/a-cynic-s-guide-to-fintech-3cd0995e0da3). Example insight: “Apple Pay ought to have been a huge wakeup call to the banks not because it was a brand new way of making payments, but because it was basically the only fully satisfactory implementation of an existing industry standard” I should point out, the journey ends in pretty much the same place (expanded offerings) but without the hindering baggage of logical fallacies and a quaintly archaic worldview. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Forgive me if I'm being dense, but there is no need surely to make the whole shebang decentralised. Could the example you gave be achieved by using the MN network as a consensus mechanism for choosing the locus/loci, then let that selected MN/those selected MNs do the things that need a central control point?
That's broadly what I meant by recruiting the services of an oracle primarily for the opacity it brings. But great care must be taken not to create holes in the abstraction that have security implications. I doubt I need to outline the potential for eclipse attacks on an altcoin that relies on just one hard-coded DNS seed node IP address. Eclipse attacks use the comparatively easier route of exploiting weakness in the architecture, not the cryptography. Hence my preference for a cryptography-based solution over one based on modifications to the architecture/system. The processing doesn't need to be completely distributed.
For it to be credible, I think it must be distributed (not sure what “completely distributed” means). Otherwise, it's a compromise that weakens the architecture to a (usually incalculable) degree, so I prefer to view pseudo-oracles as stopgap solutions that are best avoided if possible. I should note that I'm using coins101's 3B (Blockchain-Based Business) context to frame this (and my thinking), i.e. how might it work? Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Include randomness to the processing so its harder to pinpoint which nodes do what and to some degree when.
That's pretty much a necessity. The “stirring of the mix” brought by Mr Spread's innovative notion of creating an internal market for service node ownership is likely to make it more difficult to mount an eclipse attack [1, 2]. (apologies for PDFs, haven't had time to write up a tour d'horizon). Interesting intro to paper [1] which references some of the issues pertinent to the operational aspects of running an overlay network (which is, apparently, the accepted architectural term for what we've been calling 2-tier). Overlay networks facilitate the deployment of distributed application functionality at edge nodes without the need to modify existing network infrastructure. Overlays serve as a platform for many popular applications, including content distribution networks like BitTorrent, CoDeeN, and Coral, file-sharing systems like Gnutella, KaZaA, and Overnet/eDonkey and end-system multicast systems like ESM, Overcast, NICE, and CoolStreaming.
Moreover, a large number of research projects explore the use of overlays to provide decentralized network services. Robust overlays must tolerate participating nodes that deviate from the protocol. One reason is that the overlay membership is often open or only loosely controlled. Even with tightly controlled membership, some nodes may be compromised due to vulnerabilities in operating systems or other node software. To deal with these threats, overlay applications can rely on replication, self-authenticating content, Byzantine quorums, or Byzantine state machines to mask the failure or corruption of some overlay nodes.
[1] http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mema/courses/cs264/papers/eclipse-infocom06.pdf[2] http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/263.pdfCheers Graham |
|
|
|
Actually, companies co-operatives are generally formed as a way to pool resources so that they can accomplish something bigger than the individual members could do otherwise. Some bring ideas. Some bring talent. And some bring cash. All are necessary to the success of the company co-operative and owning shares is a way to keep track of relative contributions and to proportionally distribute the rewards of success.
Placing overly-generalized specialized labels on things limits you to the minor leagues in the arena of ideas.
ftfy Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
For SPR, the devs will need to give feedback on the framework to enable apps to plug into the servicenodes, when they are ready.
No plugins will be required per se, once a viable solution for the core problem is in sight ... Obligatory prefatory admonishment: DYR, ofc.https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts“Example 4: Using external state” Scripts are, by design, pure functions. They cannot poll external servers or import any state that may change as it would allow an attacker to outrun the block chain. What's more, the scripting language is extremely limited in what it can do. Fortunately, we can make transactions connected to the world in other ways.
c.f. Early Temple project https://earlytemple.com:8181/and also https://github.com/orisi/wiki/wiki/Mastering-Distributed-OraclesJust to give you something to chew on ... this is a very rough sketch of a thought experiment for an automated lottery that I don't yet know how to implement: 1. A global burn address is created and hard-coded into the app. 2. Wallet owners can send max(one) coin to the burn address, where it is irrecoverably lost. 3. Entrants are the list of the sending addresses of coins burned since the last draw. 4. Drawing occurs when prevBlock.nHeight mod 1440 == 05. Winners are the owners of the n addresses that are hex-within(prevblock.merklehash +/- a calculated range) 7. An amount of totalburnedcoins is added to the block reward. 8. totalburnedcoins - commission coins are paid to winning addresses in amounts according to a predetermined scale. 9. The house receives the predefined commission. Even something as drop-dead simple as this is infeasible. As a distributed open source app, its cryptography is inherently pellucid, i.e. there's no opaque locus in which to vest control of a private key. It may be possible to model an opaque locus via a complex cryptography gavotte performed by Alice and Bob (and maybe Charles, if you're into that kind of thing). Or maybe the solution lies in recruiting the services of an oracle to take advantage of the opacity it provides --- at the cost of introducing potential exploit scenarios and of losing the protection provided by a 100% cryptography solution. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
