SERIOUSLY, GUYS.
One question:
Devs, did you anticipate that in the future their new CA-Based centralized protocol may become the standard of doing Bitcoin payments ? And then NSA/USA Govt/World govt/whatever can actually seize the CA and decide who can do business with whom ?
I guess that by the time I'm writing this, governments of the world already figured out that Bitcoin cannot be stopped using the easy "conventional" methods. So they may(or rather WILL) try to embrace, extend and extinguish Bitcoin. 1. First by making it centralized, 2. second by promoting the centralized way of doing transactions, 3. third attacking the single point of failure, thus ending it.
You are just in the process of helping them with the step 2.
|
|
|
I would prefer to pay with fiat than to sacrifice the privacy of my public keys, in all honesty. The trade off just isn't worth it.
Of course - who wouldn't? What good would bitcoin be for, if you had to register yourself at a CA, before receiving any payment. It totally contradicts the very principle behind bitcoin's existence. +1000 Well, i never thought i would agree with you on something, but it just happened. Adding any kind of "trusted" "root" servers to Bitcoin core totally negates the decentralized nature of the currency. What if in some time, everybody starts to build their buisness solutions of top of this OBVIOUSLY BROKEN centralized scheme and 20 years in the future Bitcoin will turn into another shit like central banks because certificate authorities will control who can and who can't do Bitcoin-related buisness ? I tend to agree with the general concensus on the other thread running here somewhere: That this sort of functionality should be added as a vendor-neutral API interface, rather than being hard-coded into bitcoinQT, which should remain free of third party dependencies/support. With full respect to the coredev team, this "upgrade" to bitcoinQT seems mostly like a solution without a problem, and not a really great one at that.
+ 1000 Adding "trusted" certificates of CENTRALIZED entities into Bitcoin code ? I mean *WTF* ?
|
|
|
A proof of storage system:
Take some fast cryptographically strong pseudorandom function, e.g. like Blake2 or another hash function H().
The server gives the client a random seed and a target size. The client repeatedly applies H() in a tree, e.g. {Left, Right} = H(seed) and so on, to build up the target size worth of data. The client takes the final leaves of the tree and appends their index and sorts the data (or, equivalently, stores it in a binary search tree).
The server then can periodically pick a random index and perform log2(size) hash operations to determine the value at that index and then can challenge the client to provide the corresponding index for that value.
The tree structuring of the function means that you can cheaply lookup the value for a given index, but looking up the index for a given value requires computing the whole thing (and storing it, if you want to efficiently perform multiple lookups).
I have just found time to read this post thoughtfully, and... Mother of Hash... Another genius invention. I mean how brilliant can the Bitcoin community be ? I am now convinced that most (if not all) of current humanity's problems can be solved by genius mathematical algorithms. PS. I wonder if this couldn't somehow be used in file sharing by the way ?
|
|
|
Is there a TCP/IP alternative that's resistant, or more uneconomic, to use for DOS attacks? This whole progression of having firms that specialise in DOS mitigation looks more and more like a protection racket business model. I understand that the Linux kernel was both designed and improved to negate the use of virus protection on the platform, despite not succeeding in elimintaing Linux viruses altogether. A similar outcome with a TCP/IP usurper would be most welcome.
Nothing except specialized services can protect you from 100Gbps attack if your normal connection is only 1Gbps. It simply overfloods the pipe - it works in the same manner as water. When attackers use up all your bandwidth, nothing is left for the normal traffic.
|
|
|
Yesterday I got a letter from my bank (German bank) telling me they would reduce the amount I can send from 25000€ to 5000€. My gf who is at another bank for her limit reduced to 2000€ 2-3 weeks ago. They they one can manually increase it by calling them but this increase is only a temporary thing then.... idk what to think about it =/
This may be some serious shit. I am pushing this to another forum. © 2013 JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Hm, the name rings a bell BTW. If they are making moves like this, something may be in the air.
|
|
|
As much as I would like intellectual property to be protected
There is no such thing as "intellectual property". It is an artificial theoretical creation by the rich and powerful to keep their monopoly, thwart progress, establish censorship and make poor people poorer and unhappy. ---- I just LOVE this McAffee guy (though he may be little crazy).
|
|
|
We should really give "idiot of the year" badges to everybody who voted "Yes" and the topic author.
It would be so much easier to populate ignore lists later without wasting time for discussion.
|
|
|
Positive, but not because of closing of Silkroad itself.
The guy who was running it was an idiot, a total asshole and a hardcore criminal (he attempted to assasinate somebody). He deserved everything that came his way.
I'm only sorry for some of the poor dealers who are simply delivering goods that people want, I see nothing wrong with this.
|
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong here, please.
You are wrong. But you're asking in the wrong place— go see the nice article on wikipedia. I did see the article on wikipedia, and it says that full homomorphic encryption is a scientists' wet dream and it has never been achieved. Well technically it was achieved by Gentry and a few related improvements on that, however those schemes are extremely far from practical. So for practical usage it has not yet been really achieved. That's what i wanted to say. Anyway, it would be extremely cool to have homomorphic encryption as it would enable ultimate blockchain compression (there was a topic here claiming that).
|
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong here, please.
You are wrong. But you're asking in the wrong place— go see the nice article on wikipedia. I did see the article on wikipedia, and it says that full homomorphic encryption is a scientists' wet dream and it has never been achieved.
|
|
|
The starting point is it is known in the literature that you can do additively homomorphic encryption,
Wait a moment. Wasn't homomorphic encryption a theoretical academic thing that has not been proved to even exist (or be possible to perform) yet ? Correct me if I am wrong here, please.
|
|
|
any update to 0.8.5?
Soon. In progress.
|
|
|
Nice find. But I have no way of verifying if that's really the reason why bitcoinchart isn't pulling data anymore. Quite obviously. Bitstamp should actually care (it is in their best interest) whether they are displayed on BitcoinCharts, so they would (probably) unban BCharts if they could...
|
|
|
Who are THEY?
|
|
|
If the core developers start telling you that you need developer controlled automatic update you can assume that we've somehow been compromised.
This may one day become a historical quote. I think I will print it out using big letters and glue it above the screen of my computer.
|
|
|
I am finished with the discussion, I already know the answer. You're a self-important clown who thinks he knows the answer. /FTFY Whatever works for you. I am happy I can be of service.
|
|
|
I am finished with the discussion, I already know the answer.
|
|
|
It seem more and more likely that they are bunch of manipulative motherfuckers. Somebody prove me wrong please.
|
|
|
|