But you still have to know which addresses belongs to you, so there is the chicken and egg problem.
But that information, if ever found, then travels back in time and infects every transaction you've ever done, which is bad. |
|
|
|
The bitcoin foundation. They call themselves THE foundation, but they are not the founders of bitcoin. With the naming and the new public relations function they have selfassigned, they will be catching a lot of newbie attention. Now imagine they focus all the newbies only in the premium companies services...
The Federal Reserve is neither Federal, nor a Reserve. I even have my doubts about the The. By comparison, The Bitcoin Foundation is a fountain of great honesty. Don't get so hung up on the name, it is just an organization to promote and grow bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I object to people calling themselves "official" representatives for my money, my Bitcoins and the network they run on.
I would totally object to that too. Wake me up if someone actually does it. |
|
|
|
Are you planning to contribute your blkdat parser back to bitcoinj? It sounds useful!
Yes, if anyone wants it I believe your assumptions are still incorrect:
1) You cannot assume anything about the size of a change address, nothing says it has to be smaller than the payment and often it won't be
But no client would automatically generate a transaction where the change is greater than a transaction input? What for? Do you mean something like (A): Inputs: 10 , 20, 30 Outputs: 15 (change), 45 (payment) Why not create the tx (B): Input: 20 , 30 Output: 5 (change) ,45 (payment) Is the client so dumb to generate a transaction like A which wastes space instead of B ? In the future, I would like to see the client attempt to make outputs that are roughly equal in size, with equal probability of being higher or lower. Just to make it harder to guess. But that is hardly a promise of anonymity. Which one was the change will quickly be revealed when it is merged with another address known to belong to you, or with the change you sent before, or with another transaction sent to the same address as one of the inputs, or... |
|
|
|
I suggest two seats just for mining, with voting decided in the coinbase rather than creating a third category of membership.
I disagree strongly with this. Miners perform work for the network, but their interests are not really important. Every miner can be replaced if someone figures out how to do mining more efficiently, and this is good. I think that most miners would disagree with you on that. And just because no one miner is special doesn't mean that mining as a whole doesn't deserve our attention. |
|
|
|
I suggest two seats just for mining, with voting decided in the coinbase rather than creating a third category of membership.
Having two miners seats will give opportunity to two biggest pools to become even bigger, this is clearly a step in wrong direction. Huh? Members that would occupy mining seats will protect interest of biggest mining pools, e.g. they will fight promotion of p2pool. I find it amusing, and a bit disturbing, that you think that p2pool is fightable. |
|
|
|
1) My post never claimed that it was possible for copyright to be "taken"
I know. I was agreeing with, and extending, your reply. According to github, huge swaths of the bitcoin code are still from Satoshi, and he seems unlikely to break seclusion just to assign his rights. |
|
|
|
I suggest two seats just for mining, with voting decided in the coinbase rather than creating a third category of membership.
Having two miners seats will give opportunity to two biggest pools to become even bigger, this is clearly a step in wrong direction. Huh? |
|
|
|
I'm guessing the satoshi client or whatever people call it these days will now be copyrighted under the bitcoin Foundation? The Foundation is essentially the vehicle for the development of that client?
Bitcoin Foundation != dev team While I hope the Bitcoin Foundation will address critical immediate needs -- like paying Gavin to work on bitcoin -- fiddling with the copyrights does not seem within the claimed Linux Foundation model. The Linux kernel is copyrighted by the individual authors, not by the Linux Foundation. It seems logical the code would stay the same. After all, the code is not just the dev team, even... it is every contributor. And every code contributor wrote has written more than a couple lines of code has a copyright claim. Full disclosure: yes, I joined the foundation as a lifetime member. This is a pretty common misunderstanding of copyright law. Copyright can't be taken, it can only be given. Every fragment of every line of code has an author, and that author holds the copyright on that part (or their employer, for example, if they've made such an agreement). Some developers could assign their copyright to the foundation if they wanted to, but the foundation can't just take it. It also isn't available for a vote, for example, if the devs held a vote on assigning the rights to the foundation, their vote wouldn't be binding on anyone. |
|
|
|
The industry pricing suggests that it is intended for "bitcoin industry", rather than "industry that happens to accept payment in bitcoin". Considering the structure of the organization, the distinction seems like a reasonable one to make.
where do pools fit in this? If mining is not a basic "industry" of Bitcoin - what is? A very good point. And I would suggest that correcting this oversight become the first high priority project. I suggest two seats just for mining, with voting decided in the coinbase rather than creating a third category of membership. |
|
|
|
Wordplay matters.
You name the organization like that, and many newbies will consider it is the project founder and maintainer. They will think such foundation is responsible for the project, as the Tor Project organization is pretty much responsible for the Tor project.
So, the Gates Foundation invented gates? The Rockerfeller Foundation invented Rockerfellers? |
|
|
|
|
The industry pricing suggests that it is intended for "bitcoin industry", rather than "industry that happens to accept payment in bitcoin". Considering the structure of the organization, the distinction seems like a reasonable one to make.
|
|
|
|
Terrible analogy. The salesman is acting as an agent of the dealership that you are buying the car from. In this case, Goat was not buying the stock from the exchange, and Nefario was not acting as an agent of the seller.
Every analogy will be different from the thing analogized, that's the point of the analogy. Can you explain why you think those differences make the analogy inapposite? There is a world of difference between a promise from the agent of an entity selling you something, and from a random dude that happens to be nearby. Of course my analogy is bad too, but I'd say that in this case, Nefario is a lot closer to the random dude walking by than he is to an agent of the seller. |
|
|
|
No. Categorically no. I am not now, nor have I ever been a GLBSE Actual owner. And when theymos' shares come on the market I have no plans at this time to become an owner, or shareholder in GLBSE Actual. I have no standing whatsoever to speak for GLBSE in any capacity. I was responding to facts of the timeline as I know them from personal experience, and trying to address your mis-characterization of those responses to someone else's question in furtherance of your own agenda.
Seriously? I totally had that impression too, from one of your previous posts. Oh, here it is. Can you tell us what GLBSE owner challenged Nefario and can you please link us to his quote? Yes, I was the GLBSE owner who challenged it I hope you can understand why he, and I, and presumably a bunch of other people, thought that you were a shareholder in the exchange. |
|
|
|
|
Very good post. A couple of points though...
In the answer to question 1, subsection 2, you refer to "normal government currency". In my view, there is nothing "normal" about government currency. I would try to rephrase that so that it isn't an endorsement of fiat.
In the answer to question 2, your first two bullet points are sorta wrong. Transactions are sometimes free, maybe even usually, but not always. But the fee goes to the operators of the network that secures the system. And transfers aren't really instant either, which ties into point 7. I'm not sure how far you want to open that can of worms in an introductory piece. But I think people would be disappointed if they read this, and then started using the system and got surprised.
Also, point 5 seems like investment advice, which I would be very hesitant to give.
In question 4, you use the phrase "illegal transactions", which I really don't like. I would say something closer to "can be used to pay for products and services which may not be legal in various places."
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is an open-source project. Build the client yourself from source to guarantee you don't run a compromised executable.
That's the whole point of open source.
Not a guaranteeWell OK. I meant you actually *read* the code before building it. Heh. You didn't read the whole thing. (He put a backdoor-generator into a C compiler.) |
|
|
|
Consideration isn't a synonym for gain or profit. It requires an exchange, a trade. The commission paid isn't paid for the promise, it is incidental to it. It may have happened because of the promise, but not in consideration of it.
"If you buy a car from us and are unsatisfied for any reason, we'll give you back your money." You buy the car, relying on the promise. They refuse to give you back your money for the car. Consideration, or no? Nefario said "if you hold the fake stock, we'll take it back in exchange for real stock". Goat bought the stock relying on the promise. Nefario was specifically intending to increase the value of the fake stock. His concern was that people had paid more than it was worth and chose to handle it by increasing the value. Terrible analogy. The salesman is acting as an agent of the dealership that you are buying the car from. In this case, Goat was not buying the stock from the exchange, and Nefario was not acting as an agent of the seller. |
|
|
|
There doesn't need to be consideration in this case because there is detrimental reliance sufficient to establish promissory estoppel (see my other post). But there was consideration -- Goat acquired shares on GLBSE, transactions for which GLBSE receives a commission. You'd need a lawyer with huge balls to argue that this counts as consideration. A peppercorn doesn't cease to be good consideration should it become known the payee doesn't like pepper and has thrown away the corn. Consideration isn't a synonym for gain or profit. It requires an exchange, a trade. The commission paid isn't paid for the promise, it is incidental to it. It may have happened because of the promise, but not in consideration of it. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is an open-source project. Build the client yourself from source to guarantee you don't run a compromised executable.
That's the whole point of open source.
Not a guarantee |
|
|
|
No, no. We welcome competitors. If not for the corpses of the dead alternate coin systems covering the field, how would we have any way to tell how great bitcoin is?
 Good point of view. But some hoarders r still not happy with new coins appearing around. Meh. If inflation was a desirable property, one of the many, many attempts to create inflateacoin would have taken off. None have. Not exactly QED, but highly suggestive. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
