But maybe such concept was beyond the brilliant mind of Satoshi.
Or maybe you're just butthurt you didn't start mining in 2011. Which do you think is most likely?  |
|
|
|
Would you please point me to arguments supporting the need of ASIC resistance?
What is PoS good for as extending any number of forks simultaneously with it costs just as much as extending the trunk?
PoS and ASIC resistance is desirable to people who feel that Bitcoin's biggest flaw is not enough communism. If you believe in the concept of market failure, and don't see the contradiction between a desire for a decentralized currency and the desire for a cartel of large stakeholders to be able to maintain control, then PoS is a perfect fit. |
|
|
|
Spoils it for everybody. Not everybody, just the people who don't add him to their Ignore list. |
|
|
|
Seen in this way the Bitcoin is not about economic liberation, it’s about the destruction of the state. Same thing. |
|
|
|
|
Q: What's one common reason that people post fake news stories (good or bad) with financial implications on public forums?
A: To attempt to incite other people in trading in a way that financially benefits the poster.
Q: What kind of person benefits from the type of buying that good news can generate?
A: Somebody who wants to sell.
|
|
|
|
The PGP model has been around for decades and is a practical failure. Attempting to resurrect it is a waste of time. The vast majority of people cannot be bothered with in depth key trust management, not even the minority who understand how to do it.
But if you want to continue living in a fantasy land where ordinary Bitcoin users are all going to start configuring their web of trust by hand, go ahead!
The underlying protocol for the PGP web of trust is just fine. The UI/UX needs to be completely scrapped and replaced with something normal people can use: http://bitcoinism.blogspot.com/2013/09/building-pgp-web-of-trust-that-people.html |
|
|
|
For the sake of completeness I'd like to point out that: John Goyo recalls that two former employees generated the domain parameters. In no way implies: In particular, no external organization, including any that some now asperse with backdoor insertion, generated the parameters. It's not possible to prove that an employee of a given organization is not also an employee of a different organization. The latter statement might be true, but we'll never know since it's unfalsifiable. |
|
|
|
If Gavin wants to talk to people like this (it might be better if he didn't, but OK), why doesn't he just tell them the truth? You could say it would cause panic and uproar, but it's coming anyway ... The next best thing after not talking to them at all would be luring them into a false sense of security. |
|
|
|
|
Who invited all the sockpuppets and trolls to this thread?
|
|
|
|
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting collectively managing Bitcoin. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Hackers can easily use it to harvest Bitcoins
( ) Bitcoin Wallets and other legitimate uses for Bitcoin would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against the 51% attack
( ) It will slow down difficulty increase for only two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of Bitcoin will not put up with it
( ) BFL will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from the Bitcoin Network
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many Bitcoin users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential exchange partners
( ) Hackers don't care about your feelings
( ) Anyone could anonymously purchase black market goods with Bitcoins
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for Bitcoins, like the U.S. Dollar
( ) Open trusted nodes to foreign governments
( ) Ease of searching the public transaction addresses removes your privacy
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of forking the Bitcoin to solve your problem
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in GPU
( ) People are going to ASIC, get over it!
( ) Willingness of users to install any beta wallet client no matter who made it off even if its open source
( ) Armies of malware riddled rent-less, free power GPU mining boxes
( ) Eternal ASCI arms race involved in all mining approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of deflation
( ) Extreme profitability of inflation
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Bitcoin users and businesses
( ) Dishonesty on the part of Bitcoin users themselves
( ) Electricity costs that affect mining equipment profitability
( ) Linux
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on central issuing authority is unacceptable
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about anything without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending Bitcoins should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time Bitcoin addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government knowing all my financial tranactions
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
This is a pretty good checklist, although not necessarily applicable to the "this is why Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed" concern troll posts. |
|
|
|
There's at least one good reason to leave it the way it is for a time: keeping the block creating nodes (i.e. miners) on standard code (file under "critical piece of code which a lot of money is tied up in"). Long term stability is important to this system, and the passage of time will do alot to make sure that different miners on different implementations can happily contribute blocks to the same chain. The better that all developers comprehend the system, both for the reference client and any re-implementation, the less likely we are to deal with the mild cataclysm of system-wide block rollbacks. If that means monopolising block creating for a while, then it's possibly not such a bad thing. I'd prefer that it weren't like this, but we have highly capable people working from both sides of the gulf, I've no doubt that the situation is as good as can be reasonably expected (for now). tl;dr: Software engineering and project planning is hard and sometimes also boring so nobody wants to do it. |
|
|
|
I do not see how sabotaging bitcoin itself could possibly work, and anyone who believes otherwise is underestimating the intelligence of this class of people who they dislike/fear so much. My opinion is that we will get to see a cryptocurrency-ubiquitous world monetary system, the concept is too powerful to ever be restrained. If you've spent enough time thinking all the consequences through, you should see that. The most effective way to sabotage Bitcoin is to allow critical portions of the codebase to bitrot and block or delay critical improvements such that an alternative that is more palatable to the establishment would appear artificially viable by comparison. Did you know, for example, that parts of the script validating code relies on undefined compiler behaviour that effectively makes gcc-specific quirks part of the Bitcoin protocol? Instead of this being treated as an important bug that should be fixed it's just used an an example of why there shouldn't be diversity in implementations. After a while bugs like that start looking less accidental and more weaponized. It's also kind of funny that when you collect quotes from the core dev team you find that Bitcoin inhabits a state of superposition between two states: it's simultaneously "just an experiment" and also a "critical piece of code which a lot of money is tied up in" depending on whether you're asking for quality accountability or asking for innovation. |
|
|
|
I was frequently attacked for being irresponsible I hope you're not proving them right, but it's hard to be optimistic about that. |
|
|
|
The Server is available to customer.
Too bad is, that the community did not submit any substantial pulls and valued BOPs work to 0.3 BTC in 2013.
Just so you know, you're not doing your product any favours in the thread. Complaining about not receiving much in the way of tips makes it look like you don't actually have any customers at all (otherwise you wouldn't care about your tip address), and regardless acting like this in public is going to turn off potential customers. Overall I get the impression that you consider the community defective for not adopting your software instead of taking the weak response as an indication that your marketing outreach requires improvement. |
|
|
|
what if the miners do not accept the fee as allocated to them by the transaction?
Blocks that destroy bitcoins are valid. In such a case, the fee would be gone forever. Onkel Paul That's happened before. |
|
|
|
RE: child exploitation: Good example. We all agree that child exploitation is BAD, right?
We might disagree about what (if anything) we should DO about it, but isn't it worth discussing whether or not there is something we MIGHT do about it? For example, maybe offering mostly-anonymous bounties to reward anybody who gives information that leads to the arrest and conviction of people abusing children for profit or pleasure is a good idea. Maybe those bounties could be paid in Bitcoin. I'll make a prediction: The efforts of the Digital Economy Task Force will save exactly zero children from being exploited. The spectre of child exploitation will be brandished like a club in order to silence the critics of whatever the task force is really about, just like every other time the "for the children" meme is trotted out. |
|
|
|
You didn't quote the most interesting parts. The Task Force, which launched in August, is not solely focussed on child exploitation. It has developed working groups that aim to combat a range of illicit activities, to safeguard human rights and to encourage inter-agency coordination and law enforcement. It was launched off the back of a report by Thomson Reuters Fraud Prevention and Investigation unit about digital currency laundering.
The report detailed how criminal and terrorist organisations have turned to digital currency to reap profits from drug trafficking, prostitution and the dissemination of child abuse images.
Steve Rubley, managing director, Government Segment for the Legal business of Thomson Reuters points out that the digital economy provides a plethora of new opportunities and is central to how business is conducted but there are also "dark corners" where drug cartels can easily launder money and human sex traffickers operate in near obscurity.
The Task Force will include the Bitcoin Foundation, The Tor Project, Trend Micro, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Cato Institute, The Brookings Institute, the US Agency for International Development and Vital Voices. The group will educate the public and work collaboratively across stakeholder groups including government agencies, law enforcement, academia, NGOs and industry.
A statement released by Thomson Reuters and ICMEC said: "The approach will be a balanced view of both the advantages and disadvantages surrounding the digital economy -- a place where people can enjoy the convenience of digital currencies, but where there are controls in place to regulate them like any other form of money." |
|
|
|
On a different subject, I would have a bit more respect for Gavin if he just said "My presentation, the Q&A, and any conversations I have will be public record. Period. Else go piss up a rope."
Clearly this is not how Gavin rolls as evidenced by the structure and methods of the Bitcoin Foundation, and that is a major part of the reason that I do not support Gavin or the Bitcoin Foundation.
I suspect that the entire Bitcoin project is in danger of losing what support it has among the more radical of the 'open' group of thinkers. A preferable scenario would be for Bitcoin Foundation and the reference client to loose support while the rest of the project continues on without it. A better way of putting it would be to retire the reference implementation as a prototype that has served its purpose, once a heterogeneous mix of two or three clean slate implantations are ready to replace it. |
|
|
|
Is connecting to a non-local bitcoind something that's coming soon?
Not any time soon, but possibly Note that what I really want to do is run Armory with btcd instead of bitcoind. Doesn't work now though because they use a different blockchain database format. If you made Armory without direct file access to the blockchain then I presume it would no longer care whether or not the peer it's talking to is the reference implementation or not, but if it would be easier to make Armory understand btcd's "entire-blockchain-in-leveldb" format that would be great too. |
|
|
|
|
Is connecting to a non-local bitcoind something that's coming soon?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
