Could you please edit your post to include a link or some other reference and then I can delete this post
done. |
|
|
|
|
My opinion is that in every commercial transaction, at some point there is always some "exchange risk". There is no way to get rid of that.
Even with cash, there is the risk that one of the party runs away with both the money and the stuff bought/sold.
Bitcoin makes it clearer because it's so new and there are therefore almost no escrow services.
|
|
|
|
|
Avec un système comme ça, si tant est que j'ai bien compris, il y aura une course aux noeuds. Les membres du réseau feront fonctionner un maximum de machines et s'enverront des transactions à eux mêmes afin d'augmenter leurs chances d'acquérir des bitcoins.
Quelque soit la manière avec laquelle tu élis les noeuds qui auront le droit de recevoir des bitcoins, tu auras des êtres humains qui essaieront d'être élu un maximum de fois, et in fine ça reviendra à acquérir un maximum de ressources matérielles, que ce soit réseau ou CPU.
N'oublie pas que pour le réseau, un noeud n'est pas forcément un être humain. Un être humain peut posséder autant de machines qu'il le souhaite (quitte à utiliser des machines virtuelles).
|
|
|
|
I'm a bit skeptical about this new bitcoin ID service. What is it for exactly? To me, if you really want to make sure the person you pay is the person you think, you have to request for a signed bitcoin address. Exemple: - Alice: Hi, grondilu, I really like what you do and I would like to donate bitcoins to you. - grondilu: Ok, my bitcoin address is: 1LBEfZmRqtaH6KwGqt89uFm7dvdkiPdutC - fake-grondilu: Don't listen to this guy, Alice, I am the real grondilu and my bitcoin address is: 1PffXTH9o2Lg87d6Y5igEFPSbv6f1kE97U - Alice: I know grondilu's public key, so you guys sign your bitcoin address so I found out who is the real grondilu. - grondilu: Ok, here it is again: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 1LBEfZmRqtaH6KwGqt89uFm7dvdkiPdutC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk26qGQACgkQq17371C4DmjhVgCg507apPO5bNqwzZnXlPTLe+2q rM4An34WgO2Lv9LK+tTG0E8Uzlg5pg9v =+mTq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - fake-grondilu: damn it, you got me. Now, I know not everybody uses GnuPG, so I guess this bitcoin ID service is usefull anyway. |
|
|
|
La solution la plus logique serait de récompenser ceux qui aident le réseau en transmettant les paquets (transactions, blocks, adresses des noeuds, etc).
Oui mais comment tu les reconnais ? Tu es sûr que TCP/IP est un bon moyen d'identifier à coup sûr un noeud ? Que fais-tu pour éviter le double paiement ? L'un des points forts de bitcoins est qu'il n'utilise pas l'infrastructure réseau pour autre chose que le partage des transactions. La sécurité du système est dans la cryptographie contenue dans les blocs, et nul part ailleurs. Mais pour comptabiliser ça, sans rajouter de surcharge, et que tout le monde ait accès aux mêmes stats (est-ce indispensable ?), je ne sais pas s'il existe une solution (un noeud peut s'identifier avec une clé publique, signer ses messages, etc).
Un noeud possède des tas de clefs. Elles sont toutes dans son portefeuille et il signe toutes les transactions envoyées au réseau. |
|
|
|
Solution pour limiter la participation :
- autoriser 1 participation par adresse IP
- autres ?
C'est bien ici que le bât blesse. Il n'y a pas grand chose qui interdit quelqu'un d'acquérir une autre adresse IP. Et TCP/IP n'est pas conçu pour ça. En fait, il faut bien comprendre que quelque soit le critère retenu pour autoriser la création de bitcoins, les membres du réseau chercheront à le satisfaire au maximum afin d'obtenir le plus de bitcoins possible. Donc si l'attribution de bitcoin était basée sur les adresses IP, il y aurait une course à la possession d'adresses, au lieu d'une course à la puissance de calcul. En outre, une preuve de calcul est infiniment plus facile à vérifier et digne de confiance que l'entête d'un paquet TCP/IP. Mais bon si tu vois un moyen de créer un réseau monétaire basé sur ce principe, surtout vas-y, implémente le. C'est clair que si on pouvait éviter de faire tourner des machines pour constamment calculer des hashs, ce serait mieux. Mais pour l'instant aucune autre solution satisfaisante n'a été trouvée. Par ailleurs, relis mon post initial. Le calcul CPU ne sert pas que à élire celui qui aura le droit de toucher des bitcoins, il sert aussi à prouver l'écoulement du temps, et donc à établir une chaine chronologique pour les transactions. |
|
|
|
By using multiple e-mail addresses and anonymous proxies to disguise their locations, criminals can open a new Bitcoin account for each transaction and ensure that their money movements are "virtually bombproof and untraceable to an investigator," What do email addresses have to do with Bitcoin? Well, for a real commercial transaction, at some point a bitcoin address has to be communicated. And email is often used. So, in order to make sure your transactions remain anonymous nor can they be related one to another (thus allowing evaluation of your total income), you have to use different email addresses, not just different bitcoin addresses. But basically the guy could have said "by using internet in an anonymous way,..." I think that's what he meant. I doubt he confused bitcoin address with email address. |
|
|
|
|
I love the part about war.
And I also love this part:
KEYNES
so what would you do to help those unemployed?
this is the question you seem to avoid
when we’re in a mess, would you just have us wait?
Doing nothing until markets equil-i-brate?
HAYEK
I don’t want to do nothing, there’s plenty to do
The question I ponder is who plans for who?
Do I plan for myself or leave it to you?
I want plans by the many and not by the few.
|
|
|
|
In a nutshell, when a newbie asks "What is all this computing power used for?", we should answer: "To provide proof of time".
Except that's misleading as well. The computing power does not provide the proof of time, the block order does. The computer power only provides security against malicious reordering of previously accepted transactions.
Bitcoin doesn't provide "undisputable chronological order", because it can easily post transactions in a different sequence than they chronologically took place. It does so by design anytime it recovers from an accidental fork in the block chain.
"Undisputable" might be misleading. "Provable" is better, maybe. A distributed database seeking "chronological order" among competing concurrent entries endeavors to ensure the first one wins, on the other hand, Bitcoin settles conflicting entries (e.g. simultaneous double spends) literally at random. What Bitcoin provides is at least some sequence that is hardened (the D in ACID stands for Durability) and can be deemed correct, and nothing more. This sequence isn't chronologically anything other than a reasonable approximation.
That where we disagree. To me, precision is not a criterium for somthing to be a measurement device. As I said already, bitcoin is a poor time measurement device, when considering precision of measurement. But it is the only time measurement device I know of, that provides a proof of measure. In other worlds, it is the only way to timestamp something without relying on the authority of someone who is supposed to know what time it is.
Except that's misleading as well. The computing power does not provide the proof of time, the block order does. The computer power only provides security against malicious reordering of previously accepted transactions.
Yes, computing power is not time, but it's pretty close, as computing things takes some time. Time is made of sequences of events. Trying to reorder previous transactions is therefore trying to mess up with time records. That's the whole point. Computing power provides proof of time, and thus prevent reordering transaction orders. Sorry guys, this thread annoys me. I lock it for now. |
|
|
|
Distributed databases existed before bitcoin. But AFAIK they don't offer robust ways to handle concurrent entries, nor a consistent way to deciide which entry was created first. For most databases this functionnality is not critic anyway, that's why most distributed databases work just fine without it.
You probably haven't worked with databases much. True. I won't deny it. Consistency or robustness may not be the most accurate words. I don't know. All I know is that if a distributed database was capable of offering undisputable chronological order between concurrent entries, we wouldn't need bitcoin in the first place. We would just use such a distributed database to store chained signed transactions, without using any single proof of work. |
|
|
|
So a distributed sequence server? Order server?
Or even just a "distributed database" - I introduced the term to Bitcoin's Wikipedia article. If you consider that a decent database implies ACID (atomicity, consistency, isolation, durability), this term is somewhat already inclusive. The sequence of transactions just happens to be what the database contains. It's hard to call it a "server" of any kind: there is no in-built functionality for asking the Bitcoin network the time-of-day, so it's not what is well known as a "timestamp server". There's no real functionality for asking the network really anything, so it's hardly a "server" of any kind. The only fundamental "services" it offers is the ability to query for data, and to submit new records for inclusion, which makes it quack like a database to me. Distributed databases existed before bitcoin. But AFAIK they don't offer robust ways to handle concurrent entries, nor a consistent way to deciide which entry was created first. For most databases this functionnality is not critic anyway, that's why most distributed databases work just fine without it. With a distributed database that is supposed to handle data associated to some economic value, such a functionnality is critic. When concurrent entries occurs, there HAS to be a way to say, without any doubt of possibility of dispute, that one of them occured before the other. In the bitcoin network, once a node signs a transaction, he needs to prove that this transaction occured after all the previous transactions it knows about. This history of transactions is "the past" for this node, and adding a proof-of-work at the end of a chain of previous proofs-of-work is what satoshi called the "timestamp". Miners provide this timestamping service and that's what they get their reward for. |
|
|
|
+1 for Satoshi changing his identity. He is still here. I can feel it as a disturbance in the force.
 Nice. |
|
|
|
The "Linux style" conference presentation method is to ask that people interrupt whenever they have a question. It's really free form, and permits the audience to direct the speaker to the audience's main interests. How cool. yeah but above all: how messy  |
|
|
|
BitCoins is a technology that will eventually threaten their power and ultimately relevance. Do you really believe they're interested in learning what good it can do for the people?! The only reason I can think of why the CIA wants to learn more about it so that they can better figure out how to control it. That's all they're interested in. Control.
Who knows? Maybe even those guys of the CIA could be overwhelmed by the possibilities of bitcoin, and they could start to think the world in a different way. Inside a CIA agent, there is a human being with a beating heart and a brain still capable of dreaming.  Ok that was my peace and love moment. Won't happen again. |
|
|
|
deflation, anyone?
Way too many people won't agree with this being a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
In order to help Gavin before his presentation in front of CIA, I would like to open a thread about what good can come out with a free, decentralised monetary system.
Let's try to forget about controversial commercial activities for one second, and focus of good economic stuffs.
My two cents:
* easier access to credit for everyone, including micro credit ;
* easy set up of a commercial activity even for poor people ;
* more possibilities for raising capital in businesses ;
* fair international monetary system between nations ;
Ok, your turn.
|
|
|
|
In other words, don't argue with people who don't think Bitcoin is money. Just use Bitcoin as money.
Wise words. |
|
|
|
|
I guess this is the optimistic point of view. Ok, fine.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is open and everybody can learn everything about it (given enough time).
This is open-knowledge.
Sometimes, people don't have the time to do that by themselves. But they have some money. So they pay someone who knows to teach them. It takes less time for them than having to learn by themselves.
Galvin is being offered this kind of deal, which is, IMHO, really good (and sign of an healthy OSS project).
Yeah, right. But we're talking about CIA here. It's not really a "normal" customer. Gavin is free to accept any invitation and to speak to whoever he wants. But I am also free to disapprove and to say that by doing so, Gavin loses a bit of my estim. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
