Maybe, but the ref is available even in Europe, and they give 75 euro now :|
Can't check my account right now, but it was 25 euros, if now it's 75, that's a very good incentive, a great one... |
|
|
|
In bitcoinland investing is a gamble.  With those two the probability of losing money is way too high, but with gambling at least you have fun. |
|
|
|
Because Core devs don't want to do that...
That's why all the drama, and if you want that use Bitcoin XT client.
No Bitcoin XT does not have a dynamic blocksize. It just doubles every 2 years. What OP propose is to adjust the blocksize to the current transaction load every x blocks. IMO it would be nice to scale the blocksize with every block calculated with a moving average over last x blocks. why not just modify the core so that every 100 or so blocks mined the block size increases by a small %?
Instead of "100 blocks or so" it's 2 years and instead of "small %" it's 100%... |
|
|
|
|
Because Core devs don't want to do that...
That's why all the drama, and if you want that use Bitcoin XT client.
|
|
|
|
It won't work.
If XT is adopted, XT wins, there's no other chain, or at least there's no other chain with value.
You may find someone that lived in a cave for the past year and scam them using the abandoned chain, but that's not something you'll want to brag about, I think...
Honestly. I dont mean to turn this into a debate. But why wouldn't XT win? I read our volumes are only 30-40% of block size now.. but there is a real risk of hitting a limit if bitcoin continues to be adopted, which it will. I see no reason why XT wouldn't win. Though I am certainly disappointed at the dev's of both sides. Bitcoin has always been an amazing concept with the overshadow of greed and shady business. I wish it were not so. It may not be adopted by enough people, BIP 101 may be implemented in Core, some other proposal may be implemented in Core, or some other thing I can't think right now... |
|
|
|
Yep, so I'm not the only one who sees that as a poor move. So instead of saying we should not centralize a decentralized currency, I should be coding a solution to some DoS attacks.
Well, you should be coding a decentralized solution for DoS attacks. |
|
|
|
Blacklisting IPs (or giving them lower priority as is in the new XT code) can be used just the same as how the great Firewall of China works. And could easily be used to give lower priority to certain countries by IP range. Sure you can jump behind a VPN, travel to another country etc. but why allow it in the first place.
I was ok with the XT block size upgrade. It made sense. But seeing that 90% of the code differences have to do with this blacklist code and not the block size (and the fact that Mike Hearn has advocated for blacklists) tells me that this is likely not about block size after all.
I really don't like the idea of having a central web server used in what is supposed to be a decentralized system.
Here's Mike's comment on that: You seem to think I hate Tor. I am actually the maintainer of a full blown Tor implementation (Orchid). I've done a lot of work on integrating it into bitcoinj and I'm basically the only guy who can actually move the needle on Tor/Bitcoin usage, by enabling the use of it by default in consumer wallets that have hundreds of thousands of installs. We're not there yet (it's still too slow) but we're a lot closer than before.
This doesn't change the fact that Tor is heavily abused. It can be useful but it's a frequent source of attacks of all kinds. So finding ways to get the good without the bad involves some tricky coding.
Below, you say "anyone can jam the network with just two IP addresses". Yes, that's unfortunate isn't it. I've been sounding the alarm about Bitcoin Core's poor DoS protection for years. Nobody listened, that's why I have now written a new anti-DoS system that can handle this sort of thing. It starts by clustering and deprioritising Tor because we've seen actual jamming attacks that came through Tor, and because using it is a lot safer and more convenient for an attacker than using your own IP addresses or using a botnet. But it absolutely should be extended to have more advanced heuristics. Instead of whinging that (gasp) loading a file from a web server is "insane", maybe you should be writing code instead. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10048768 |
|
|
|
Mike already commented on that: You seem to think I hate Tor. I am actually the maintainer of a full blown Tor implementation (Orchid). I've done a lot of work on integrating it into bitcoinj and I'm basically the only guy who can actually move the needle on Tor/Bitcoin usage, by enabling the use of it by default in consumer wallets that have hundreds of thousands of installs. We're not there yet (it's still too slow) but we're a lot closer than before.
This doesn't change the fact that Tor is heavily abused. It can be useful but it's a frequent source of attacks of all kinds. So finding ways to get the good without the bad involves some tricky coding.
Below, you say "anyone can jam the network with just two IP addresses". Yes, that's unfortunate isn't it. I've been sounding the alarm about Bitcoin Core's poor DoS protection for years. Nobody listened, that's why I have now written a new anti-DoS system that can handle this sort of thing. It starts by clustering and deprioritising Tor because we've seen actual jamming attacks that came through Tor, and because using it is a lot safer and more convenient for an attacker than using your own IP addresses or using a botnet. But it absolutely should be extended to have more advanced heuristics. Instead of whinging that (gasp) loading a file from a web server is "insane", maybe you should be writing code instead. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10048768So, where's your code? |
|
|
|
There's no economic incentive to do that, if you have invested a shitload of money in mining would you risk to fuck up the network? and for what?
Amateur hour is over.
Both the sides have wealthy proponents who can bribe pool operators. And the operators will accept this money if they are rational. Aren't those proponents also invested in bitcoin, why would they want to fuck up the network? |
|
|
|
Not necessarily. Once the 8MB version gets 75% miner approval, the other 25% must promptly switch to it, from self-interest.
We don't know if these 75% will be real approvals. There's no economic incentive to do that, if you have invested a shitload of money in mining would you risk to fuck up the network? and for what? Amateur hour is over. |
|
|
|
The question was "how could this be achieved?".
The answer is. Add a centralized URL to the code. Act like it's being used to prevent DDOS.
Not effective! IP address is not a Person. A transaction I make can be relayed by blockchain.info while I'm accessing it through TOR at a café... |
|
|
|
Someone could add a URL to a website in the Bitcoin client to check for IPs that should be treated differently.
Like...oh say....torproject.org
That doesn't guarantee the identity of the sender, it creates more problems than what's trying to solve, IP /= person. Yes it's pretty obvious. The Feds have lots and lots of information on all the seized darknet markets, so all they would need is a software that automatically traces the inputs and outputs and searches for coins that were used for drugs and whatnot. This will surely kill fungibility and therefore Bitcoin.
That software already exists, it's called a block explorer, you can check freely, it doesn't change anything, if the coin I'm sending to you has 0.1% from the bitcoinica hack what will happen? It's not my fault I received a few imputs that had 0.02% of hacked coins, so what will be the benefit of blacklisting coins, plus who will blacklist the coins and why should we accept it? Also the Feds do not own bitcoin, there are a lot of countries in the world and the vast majority of us don't live in USA. |
|
|
|
I understand that, I don't believe it can work because businesses will update their software in time, but if someone neglects to do so, it is possible and it can go bankrupt in a second...
If bitcoinXT wins I'm pretty sure we'll see a couple of "legacy bitcoin" holdouts for a while, and for a short time we might also have a good chance to find some smaller exchanges on both chains. So I'm pretty much optimistic about doubling my BTC holdings  . I also expecting to see some bottomed out BTC and inflated altcoin prices as fiat sources can dry out quickly after the first big BTC dumping wave. This is a plausible scenario, I think the risk for the business is to great for someone to try this, for the business and for the user, in this situation pretty sure someone will try to scam people. |
|
|
|
Stop spreading FUD please. We can see every address that coins go to, or come from. Even passing thru a tumbler taints the outputs to some extent.
I send 'tainted' coins from address A to address X (which happens to be a mixer, but besides the mixer admin and myself, nobody can know this). I receive different, untainted coins (completely unrelated to the ones I earlier sent to X) from a different address Y to address B. There exists NO chain of transaction between X and Y. Also not indirect, or coinjoined, or whatever. Nothing. How are my coins in address B still blacklisted? I did say 'taints ... to some extent'. The anonymity set size of a single transaction is limited by the number of parties in it, obviously. Unless chaumian blinding, zero knowledge proofs, or something dazzling has occurred, my statement is correct. Dude, 'taints' by whom? That's not a feature of the protocol, you can 'taint' how many coins you want, I don't care about your 'taint', and after a few transactions you'll be unable to know who has the coins... That's why after so many thefts no one was able to come up with a system to blacklist coins, it requires centralization and absolute control over the system. |
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure he is a very smart guy, but when it comes to technology he should shut is mouth, and he should've already learned this lesson by now.
"By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."
|
|
|
|
It won't work.
If XT is adopted, XT wins, there's no other chain, or at least there's no other chain with value.
You may find someone that lived in a cave for the past year and scam them using the abandoned chain, but that's not something you'll want to brag about, I think...
It will work. That would be the case of reaching complete consensus with the economic majority. AFAIK 75% (needed by XT) will cause a noticeable split, and thus this can be achieved. The guide is sound, and should work. I understand that, I don't believe it can work because businesses will update their software in time, but if someone neglects to do so, it is possible and it can go bankrupt in a second... |
|
|
|
Well, then a fork does not occur, no problem...
It will occur in this scenario and some miners will be mining Bitcoin while the others will be mining Bitcoin XT. Those who pick the right side will get increased income during some period of time. Well, in that case that's an issue that has to be sorted out before the deadline. Is there a proposal on how to prevent such attack? |
|
|
|
|
So, they are spending a lot of money and resources to continue serving NY users and they are the ones turning their back on users?
|
|
|
|
Fork doesn't occur under those conditions.
People's choice will be clear and every service will update software in proper time if a fork does occur..
There is no way to know if a miner really supports Bitcoin XT or just pretends so to give a lesson to the tandem and to show that "one does not simply mess with the blockchain" and future attempts will fail too. Well, then a fork does not occur, no problem... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
