Professional shellfish with delivery, always on time !  |
|
|
|
"Ripple: A Distributed Exchange for Bitcoin" Except it isn't. If it was, and there was any liquidity to speak of it could serve a useful purpose for arbitrage, etc. IMHO Ripple's only chance of success is getting bitcoin exchanges to become Ripple gateways. Bitstamp was a good start, but that's just one. Wouldn't it be better for exchanges to adapt Litecoin instead and use that to move funds ? |
|
|
|
Yes. Yes. Sort of.
Which version will include support for this feature ? |
|
|
|
Paypal has been hinting that they may add xbt to their list of currencies in the future (they already allow users to hold funds in a large number of different currencies and exchange between them).
Paypal would instantly become the largest bitcoin wallet, bank, merchant service and exchange in the world by several orders of magnitude with 200+ million users in almost 200 countries.
...not even saying that value would skyrocket by 1000% in a day... or week maybe ? |
|
|
|
those days have gone.
the whole FIAT system now is dying, because the currency amount printed on it, is not worth the paper its printed on.
+1 but what i do see as a possible use of a 'centralised' system to still exist is for ensuring instant transactions without the whole confirm 10 minute waiting periods. which would mainly be beneficial for the small priced stuff that shops would hate to have customers waiting 10 minutes to process.
stuff like cars and houses, yea i accept having to wait 10-20 minutes to guarantee payment. but a sandwich or a cup of coffee, i wouldnt want to have to hang around for
Again, +1 |
|
|
|
ripple without bitcoin: dead
bitcoin without ripple: ...what the fuck is ripple?
QFT. |
|
|
|
RIAA stands for?
Rich Imbecile Association of America |
|
|
|
Why would 'law Enforcement" have to go undercover in the first place?
As long as you aren't running another SR or dodging taxes...then you have nothing to worry about.
~BCX~
Oh, didn't you know ? Everybody here is running their own version of Silkroad. Havent you heard ? That's what Bitcoin is all about !!!!!!!!1111111111oneoneoneevelen [/NSA/FBI/CIA/ECHELON/PRISM Trolling mode OFF] |
|
|
|
The paranoia is strong with this one.
Don't mistake paranoia with rational thinking. Of course feds are all over the forums. Haven't you read the story of Silkroad ? How they got to the guy running it ? They found one of his veeeeeeeeeeeeeery old topics on this forum and followed the trail further. It would be just moronic/extremely naive to think that feds are not all over the forum after Silkroad case. Obviously they are around. Maybe even in this very topic, who knows. |
|
|
|
Most of the devs I know have a habit: They must do something every day  Payment protocol stuff was a business demanded feature, intended to address some of the problems that have cropped up with Bitcoin URLs. Its certainly not something sexy or exciting to work on. If it were business demand then there would be a business case and a solution for it. Where do you think Gavin's salary comes from? There is a strong business case, he's coming up with a decent solution for it, and because his paycheck comes from the foundation rather than a specific company he can come up with a solution that can be used by everyone in the community and doesn't privilege any particular player. (except certificate authorities, initially, but the payment protocol is pluggable and more decentralized PKI systems can be easily added later as they are developed) The payment protocol is a pet project of Gavin, that will be useful just like everything he makes, but has not much to do with the core of Bitcoin that should rather be hardened and standardized as it was originally postulated to be the purpose of the foundation, that pays his salary Future will tell if that protocol will be useful, however I am afraid you are right (for now i have completely no idea what I could use it for). |
|
|
|
@gmaxwell, @Gavin Andresen, @Mike Hearn
I have run out of time and Brain-CPU cycles that can be used for this particular discussion, but judging by preliminary analysis of the topic I will (logically) assume you are right.
However i will be closely watching the run of events - If you were wrong, the truth will come out eventually.
Indeed, why bits of the truth will come out every time those sneaky devs do a git push!  This is why i said " IF you were wrong". FYI, I am only moderately paranoid. But in the light of recent NSA-snowden stuff, I think that is completely justified... |
|
|
|
|
@gmaxwell, @Gavin Andresen, @Mike Hearn
I have run out of time and Brain-CPU cycles that can be used for this particular discussion, but judging by preliminary analysis of the topic I will (logically) assume you are right.
However i will be closely watching the run of events - If you were wrong, the truth will come out eventually.
|
|
|
|
Payment protocol does not increase the lib dependencies in bitcoin-qt/bitcoind. Have you looked at the implementation? it's pretty small.
It ties the implementation to openssl lib even more, making it harder (if not impossible) to remove openssl dependency in the future. And openssl is a much bigger mess the bitcoin at the current stage. Actually there is an easy solution for it. There is a minimal version of openssl targetted specifically for low-power embedded devices: cyasslYou are obviously a low-level programmer, so stop wasting time on the forums and perhaps make Bitcoin compatibile with it. |
|
|
|
Since Bitcoin-Qt is already one big mess, with like almost 10 dependency libs, why not to turn it into even a bigger one, right?
Payment protocol does not increase the lib dependencies in bitcoin-qt/bitcoind. Have you looked at the implementation? it's pretty small. Point taken, however this makes the possible ramifications even worse. Because the implementation is so efficient and bloat-free, the risk of it becoming "standard" way of doing transactions in the future is even bigger. So as I already wrote, 15 years from now it may not be possible to buy something using Bitcoin without trusting some CA, which are controlled by government. But well, if using PKI stays optional, then I think I can live with that. Still, I hope most people will not be using this broken (as of today) functionality. |
|
|
|
Given that Bitcoin 0.1 had a payment protocol in it, and he ended up disabling it due to the lack of authentication allowing MITM attacks, I can only assume he'd be fine with bringing it back in a fixed form.
But there were several mentions of alternative ways to mitigate MITM problem in this very thread. Is none of them valid ? (I will cite the previous mentions from this thread): - " Rivest's Interlock Protocol can prevent a man in the middle from altering your communications while allowing you to communicate at all. At most, he is then reduced to an eavesdropper or able to engage a denial-of-service attack". - " Bitcoin already has a solid public key infrastructure in that each and every coin is controlled by a public/private key pair. If you know who owns a coin, you can compose a message to them and encrypt it using that coin's public key". - " ZRTP: For people seeking trustless key exchange algorithm: it has been already invented (i.e. you can avoid MITM attack without relying on PKI) - ZRTP could be easily adapted to bitcoin payments, changing SAS authentication string to PIN , for example, as it can be only 16 bit number. However, you would have to trust the merchant not to scam you". But at any rate, calling the PKI "centralised" vs Bitcoin "decentralised" is kind of amusing, given that there are more root CA's than mining pools.
1. This is not an excuse. Just because some part of Bitcoin is already centralized, should we make it even more centralized thus breaking it even more ? Where's the logic in that ? 2. There are decentralized pools (p2pool and such), just not many people are currently using it. So mining is or at least *can be* decentralized. ---- Other than above, no more questions for now. |
|
|
|
|
Can somebody quote my questions, please ?
Gavin probably has me on his ignore list again. And i really want my questions answered.
|
|
|
|
@Gavin I tried to be as constructive & reasonable as possible (and no shouting/emphasing/whatever). I am getting any of my questions answered ? Once again, the questions were: 1. In the post-NSA-snowden era, are you sure it is wise to participate in creation of a centralized mechanism, which governments can easily control ? Why would we trust *any* CA ?
2. What would Satoshi think of this ? Isn't adding a centralized stuff to a decentralized-by-design system kind of senseless ?
3. How do you think will the tinfoil-hatted-extremely-paranoid Bitcoin community react, when they realize you added a broken by design schema to the most important Bitcoin app ?
4. What problem exactly are you trying to solve with this solution ? I don't see Bitpay, Inpay, Coinbase or others complain that they cannot do business using Bitcoin without this feature ?
Isn't the invoicing possible to do through third party app or in-browser using SSL ?
5. Why add such a non-critical feature to the core client ? Isn't it supposed to be as clean, fast and efficient as possible without unnecessary bloat ?
|
|
|
|
|
@Gavin Andresen
I'm not shouting anymore, but I am still humbly awaiting for your answers to my questions, please.
I am not in a hurry, however I am also afraid I won't receive them at all.
|
|
|
|
|
@Gavin Andresen
Several questions:
1. In the post-NSA-snowden era, are you sure it is wise to participate in creation of a centralized mechanism, which governments can easily control ? Why would we trust *any* CA ?
2. What would Satoshi think of this ? Isn't adding a centralized stuff to a decentralized-by-design system kind of senseless ?
3. How do you think will the tinfoil-hatted-extremely-paranoid Bitcoin community react, when they realize you added a broken by design schema to the most important Bitcoin app ?
4. What problem exactly are you trying to solve with this solution ? I don't see Bitpay, Inpay, Coinbase or others complain that they cannot do business using Bitcoin without this feature ?
Isn't the invoicing possible to do through third party app or in-browser using SSL ?
5. Why add such a non-critical feature to the core client ? Isn't it supposed to be as clean, fast and efficient as possible without unnecessary bloat ?
|
|
|
|
SERIOUSLY, SHADOWOFHARBINGER:
I LOVE IT WHEN PEOPLE SHOUT AT ME! IT IS A GREAT WAY OF MAKING ME REALIZE THE FOLLY OF MY WAYS, GIVES ME WARM FUZZIES, AND MAKES ME WANT TO COME BACK TO THESE WONDERFUL FORUMS AGAIN AND AGAIN!
I'M GLAD YOU LOVE IT, I WORKED SO HARD ON IT !!!!!1111111oneone---- But seriously, i do love to emphase important parts of my posts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
