everything US turning down: TLT:  $DXY:  |
|
|
|
real trouble in bond land: investment grade:  junk:  muni:  |
|
|
|
see last line of slide:  apropo to whether or not our 1MB core devs will allow Bitcoin to develop as mobile money which is necessary for it to develop as digital gold. |
|
|
|
Armstrong opened my eyes to reality.
this explains right here why you are such a doom and gloomer. i used to casually read his writings, especially the ones when he was behind bars. but ever since he got out, he has been selling his conferences on world collapse in a shameless way. i've stopped listening. |
|
|
|
tell us it doesn't involve blocks
I didn't write that. then you need to explain this: In my novel new design, transactions don't have to be put in blocks in order to be confirmed. That is a very strong head scratching hint for you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality#Computer_scienceOrthogonality is a system design property which guarantees that modifying the technical effect produced by a component of a system neither creates nor propagates side effects to other components of the system. Typically this is achieved through the separation of concerns and encapsulation, and it is essential for feasible and compact designs of complex systems. The emergent behavior of a system consisting of components should be controlled strictly by formal definitions of its logic and not by side effects resulting from poor integration, i.e., non-orthogonal design of modules and interfaces. Your theory is all gvts are in bed together with all the banks and big retailers
And people like you said the NSA isn't recording everything until Edward Snowden leaked. please provide quote where i said that
If you had compiled all the corroborating data I have, you would realize how foolish you appear to me.
any "proof" you've provided here is just plain old news articles most of us are already aware of. your interpretation of those articles is what i disagree with. you're not alone; most geeks have a doom and gloom view of the world it seems to me and are extremely paranoid like you. doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong but my assessment of the situation is different. i'm not going to waste my time outlining why, as i have already done so voluminously thru this thread. you, being a relatively newcomer here (March 2013) could be excused for not reading everything i've written in the past. but that's no excuse for making unfounded assumptions of where i stand nor their validity. and they are all going to Sybil attack us into a one world currency.
The inevitable one world reserve currency is not likely to be Bitcoin for the reasons I explained in the detailed thread (where the poll says 30% agreed). The powers-that-be are moving us into a cashless (meaning not P2P bearer) economy and control over Bitcoin while getting dumb-ass geeks to support their own enslavement has been major coup. Sheesh I have female neurobiologist researcher friend who has stronger analytical skills than some of you men here appear to have. Most of us have already thought about that. It's not likely.
Enlighten me with some delusion and myopia I haven't heard already? Maybe you can convince me, but it needs to be solid. Any altcoin of yours that excludes blocks had better be good because that is precisely what has made satoshi's Bitcoin possible.
I guess I should excuse your lack of reading comprehension because you are in an emotional fit of rage when you read my posts? i actually feel sorry for you. you seem to have fallen on hard luck despite having a modicum of intelligence. but it's hard to feel sorry for someone who claims he understands Bitcoin when you totally missed the runup from the early days and enter in March 2013 and missed the biggest runup of them all. now you claim you called it just b/c it fell from 1200. i'm not even finding your technical discussion to be that interesting b/c it involves many assumptions i don't agree with. and worse, those assumptions are based on doom and gloom political factors. but it's ok, Bitcoin needs a healthy population of skeptics on the way up. bull mkts don't go up in straight lines and can't bring everyone along. most ppl, and it looks like you're going to be one of them, will lose money in cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
Pruden, i think it would be PrudenT to get the hell out:  |
|
|
|
Did you read the comment below yours? It is from Rusty Russell, a software genius who is behind parts of the Linux kernel. He and Kalle Rosenbaum exchange notes on their independently developed implementations of IBLT tested using tx recovered from the Bitcoin blockchain. It is not pie-in-the-sky. It works! http://rustyrussell.github.io/pettycoin/2014/11/05/Playing-with-invertible-bloom-lookup-tables-and-bitcoin-transactions.htmlRegarding "compression rate increase" == "system will need be highly centralized". Successful compression rate increase is a function of the synchronization of node mempools, remember they are already all running the same software (consensus code), and receiving the same cascading p2p unconfirmed tx. They don't need to be centralized, they just need to avoid applying their own personal tx censorship rules (e.g. like Eligius who regards Counterparty tx as spam while encoding books is fine and dandy). If all miners already have a copy of (nearly) all transactions and they only need to confirm that, then that is indeed very low entropy. For example it doesn't allow for any network disruption hiccups. When all-for-one-and-one-for-all (Communism, low entropy) have to agree on (nearly) everything then oligarchies naturally form into that power vacuum. Again you are asking small miners to have connectivity, memory, and processing power to listen all transactions or trust a proxy (pool) to do it for them. This worsens centralization egregiously when moving to micropayments scale. Some have stated Bitcoin can never work for micropayments scale, so if that is not the goal, and if pools are an acceptable outcome, then this IBLT method probably suffices for scaling Bitcoin within that low entropy paradigm and the potential Sybil attacks on pools. I guess it is because I am looking at this from the perspective of my (conceptual) solution which makes orthogonal what must be centralized from what can be decentralized, and thus achieves an overall provable decentralization (no Sybil attack possible, no low entropy power vacuum, transactions can't be unspent by orphaned chains, etc) and micropayments scaling. Agreed IBLT can be shown to work in such a low entropy constraint (all-for-one and very limited headroom scaling), which was the point of my comment. Thus afaics, Rusty has not refuted my comment (don't know if he was trying to). IBLT doesn't alleviate the advantage w.r.t. higher orphan rate for larger pools with better connectivity (if the smaller miner can't listen to all micropayment transactions any way) which ameliorates cypherdoc's retort against one of my threat vectors. Again if Bitcoin isn't going to scale, then fine you can use IBLT up to Visa scale perhaps. But realize Visa was for brick and mortar industrial age and we are headed towards millions and billions of transactions per second in the knowledge age. Some of you mention side-chains, but it doesn't matter where you put the chain, you just have to solve the fundamental design issue else you've just sugarcoated more centralization (e.g. you'll end up with a few behemoths such as Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, Facebook, etc processing the micropayments offchain). I suppose any way you head off into the maze, you will always end up back at my solution. You can't come in here, criticize Bitcoin, tell us you have the solution, not tell us what it is, ask for $10K to tell us, vomit voluminously all over the thread mostly incoherently, tell us it doesn't involve blocks, and expect us to take you seriously. Your theory is all gvts are in bed together with all the banks and big retailers and they are all going to Sybil attack us into a one world currency. Most of us have already thought about that. It's not likely. Any altcoin of yours that excludes blocks had better be good because that is precisely what has made satoshi's Bitcoin possible. |
|
|
|
Richard Gendal Brown, who i've never been fond of b/c of his misperceptions around Bitcoin, may be finally getting it:
So, sure: bitcoin raises all kinds of conceptual, legal, technical and philosophical questions. But it would only take one of these scenarios to drive some adoption and, very quickly, bitcoin might cease to be a sideshow. And, given that its core design goal of censorship-resistant digital cash has such disruptive potential – good and bad, this possibility alone is reason to keep an eye on it. Dismissing it entirely could be a big mistake.http://gendal.me/2015/05/12/blockchain-is-where-banks-have-the-most-obvious-opportunity-but-you-ignore-bitcoin-at-your-peril/ |
|
|
|
following script pretty well:  |
|
|
|
|
Felten:
"Mr. President, when it comes to my best assessment of Bitcoin, I'd say that within the next 5 yrs it's quite possible that ................"
|
|
|
|
|
Felten:
"Mr. President, I would advise you to get alittle coin for you and the Mrs."
|
|
|
|
Obama: "give me the implications of performing a selfish mining attack on Monero". |
|
|
|
that is pretty significant. we know that Ed Felten is pro-Bitcoin and has a deep understanding of what's going on. |
|
|
|
there's a subtlety in here that bears noting that i've not seen mentioned anywhere yet dovetails nicely with my Wall St vs Silicon Valley thesis. Lawsky says Coinbase doesn't have license approval in NY and now Dresslar says California Dept of Business Oversight is not prepared to say itBit can operate in California? Conflict is good when it comes to Bitcoin and it transcends borders: http://www.wired.com/2015/05/new-york-backs-bitcoin-exchange-may-not-fly-california/ |
|
|
|
I think there's two ways to look at it:
1. Clearly, if an attacker has 50.0001%, then he has a 100% chance of eventually forging the longest chain. If the attacker has 49.9999% instead, it makes sense that he'd have almost 100% chance, but not quite (why would it suddenly drop to less than 50%?).
2. It's the attacker who gets to choose when to broadcast the attack chain. Just by random luck, there's a good chance that at some point the attacker will hit a lucky streak and mine several blocks in quick succession. When he hits this lucky streak and pulls ahead of the honest chain, he broadcasts his attack chain.
Thanks for the explanation guys. My pleasure. OK, now understand that the equation calculates how likely it is that at some point after 6 confirmations an attacker will gain the longest chain, publish it, and get the rest of the network over to that chain. This is just the odds though, not the cost.
It would be interesting to see the expected cost of such an attack though. If an attacker with 45% hash rate has a 96% chance of eventually gaining the lead for a moment, then a good portion of that probability is most likely in the long tail of many blocks from now. There should be an equation that calculates the average or expected cost of such an attack, such as by 50 blocks the attacker has x probability of succeeding, by 100 blocks y chance & by 10000 block z chance. And of course there is the possibility that the attacker has spent months without gaining the lead, and has lost all of those block rewards.
I think we'd see that the expected cost is quite high, even for a 45% attacker. i.e. Even if you knew that the counter party to your bitcoin transaction had 45% hash rate and would use it against you, then 6 confirmation would still be enough for the value of a car or house, since an attack would cost more than that, half a day of confirmations would be enough for a skyscraper, and a day of confirmations for an island. This seems OK to me.
Meni Rosenfeld does something similar to what you're suggesting in his "Analysis of hashrate-based double-spending" paper from December 2012. I haven't looked into this paper in detail, but this table from Section 6 caught me eye. It allows you to figure out how many confirmations you should wait depending on how large the transaction is in addition to the attacker's hash rate.  I'd be interested if you can think of ways to extend this work. that's kind of a weird chart b/c it is denominated in BTC. even Meni says so: These values should be taken with a grain of salt, because of the many modeling assumptions made"value" will vary greatly depending on whether 1BTC buys you a loaf of bread vs an island. |
|
|
|
I think there's two ways to look at it:
1. Clearly, if an attacker has 50.0001%, then he has a 100% chance of eventually forging the longest chain. If the attacker has 49.9999% instead, it makes sense that he'd have almost 100% chance, but not quite (why would it suddenly drop to less than 50%?).
2. It's the attacker who gets to choose when to broadcast the attack chain. Just by random luck, there's a good chance that at some point the attacker will hit a lucky streak and mine several blocks in quick succession. When he hits this lucky streak and pulls ahead of the honest chain, he broadcasts his attack chain.
Thanks for the explanation guys. OK, now understand that the equation calculates how likely it is that at some point after 6 confirmations an attacker will gain the longest chain, publish it, and get the rest of the network over to that chain. This is just the odds though, not the cost. It would be interesting to see the expected cost of such an attack though. If an attacker with 45% hash rate has a 96% chance of eventually gaining the lead for a moment, then a good portion of that probability is most likely in the long tail of many blocks from now. There should be an equation that calculates the average or expected cost of such an attack, such as by 50 blocks the attacker has x probability of succeeding, by 100 blocks y chance & by 10000 block z chance. And of course there is the possibility that the attacker has spent months without gaining the lead, and has lost all of those block rewards. I think we'd see that the expected cost is quite high, even for a 45% attacker. i.e. Even if you knew that the counter party to your bitcoin transaction had 45% hash rate and would use it against you, then 6 confirmation would still be enough for the value of a car or house, since an attack would cost more than that, half a day of confirmations would be enough for a skyscraper, and a day of confirmations for an island. This seems OK to me. i posted earlier how the incentives in Bitcoin continue to screw up every major theory about mining cartels colluding to cheat. yet, we continue to get them. here's Ed Felten again: ES-miners can’t agree to cheat, because it’s too easy for them to cheat on that agreement.https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/bitcoin-isnt-so-broken-after-all/ |
|
|
|
I've been watching the MACD centerline crossover as well. Historically it has been a good confirmation of trend continuation.
more importantly, it's a long term momentum indicator much less susceptible to manipulation. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
