To anyone reading this I encourage you NOT to visit the conference, the sole purpose of it is to weaken the movement, not strengthen it.
No, the purpose of the conference is to strengthen Bitcoin, and in particular Bitcoin in Israel. I have no doubt at the back of my mind that certain preying interest groups will be present, whether the Shabak or the Mossad
Maybe. And your point is? Gavin has already admitted to meeting with the FBI, chances are that Meni got to see them as well. Don't fall prey to the state criminals and stay strong comrades.
I haven't met with the FBI, CIA, Mossad, Shabak or any suchlike. So the Shabak and/or the Mossad would want to strengthen Bitcoin? I don't know what they want to do. Why does it matter? They don't have any influence over the conference. |
|
|
|
To anyone reading this I encourage you NOT to visit the conference, the sole purpose of it is to weaken the movement, not strengthen it.
No, the purpose of the conference is to strengthen Bitcoin, and in particular Bitcoin in Israel. I have no doubt at the back of my mind that certain preying interest groups will be present, whether the Shabak or the Mossad
Maybe. And your point is? Gavin has already admitted to meeting with the FBI, chances are that Meni got to see them as well. Don't fall prey to the state criminals and stay strong comrades.
I haven't met with the FBI, CIA, Mossad, Shabak or any suchlike. |
|
|
|
Yay, the trolls are here! Who would pay 500 bucks to hear a bunch of lying schmucks patting each other on the back?
It's $270 currently, not $500. Speakers are well-known Bitcoin experts, researchers and entrepreneurs. You've actually got Tamar Zandberg the leftist, socialist, feminist Knesset member attending as well as Dr. Edward Aufnbenher of Bank of Israel. These are the very people that drove Israel to it's knees and you've invited them, they don't belong in the conference, all the invited members are psuedointellectuals at best trying to cannibalize the movement.
You may not like their opinions, but being in positions of power they are able to affect the course of Bitcoin, it is important to educate them and to hear what they have to say. How safe it travel in and around Tel Aviv these days? I planned a trip there in 2012 and had to cancel because a bomb exploded on a public bus in downtown Tel Aviv, causing several injuries and long-range rockets launched from Gaza reached as far north as Tel Aviv and southern Jerusalem. Israel has been on my bucket list for a long time and this would give me an excuse to go. Well this and Baha’i Gardens in Haifa, the mountain fortress of Masada etc.
It's safe. Before your post I barely remembered there's such a thing as terrorist attacks. I don't think there were any attacks in Tel Aviv after the one you mentioned. It's important to educate them not let them preach at our conference! Straw man and logical fallacies are your last line of defense, people can see through your bullshit clear as day. As they say in Israel if you sleep with dogs don't be surprised when you wake up with fleas! Keep inviting your rotten, criminal friends who have robbed millions blind, see how many "well known" entrepreneurs will show. So... Because 3% of the talk time is given to people whose main occupation is not Bitcoin and who may have a slightly different perspective, the conference totally sucks. Interesting logic. Meanwhile, I don't mind the free bumps. |
|
|
|
Is there a code to get the $259 price? On the page it says $270 and asks for a code. I am looking at flight options now for the conference. Thanks.
$259 was the early bird price. The price now is $270 and it will increase further after June 30. The price schedule is designed to discourage people from registering at the last moment, which makes organizing the conference very difficult. Discount codes are mainly for members of the Israeli Bitcoin Association. |
|
|
|
Yay, the trolls are here! Who would pay 500 bucks to hear a bunch of lying schmucks patting each other on the back?
It's $270 currently, not $500. Speakers are well-known Bitcoin experts, researchers and entrepreneurs. You've actually got Tamar Zandberg the leftist, socialist, feminist Knesset member attending as well as Dr. Edward Aufnbenher of Bank of Israel. These are the very people that drove Israel to it's knees and you've invited them, they don't belong in the conference, all the invited members are psuedointellectuals at best trying to cannibalize the movement.
You may not like their opinions, but being in positions of power they are able to affect the course of Bitcoin, it is important to educate them and to hear what they have to say. How safe it travel in and around Tel Aviv these days? I planned a trip there in 2012 and had to cancel because a bomb exploded on a public bus in downtown Tel Aviv, causing several injuries and long-range rockets launched from Gaza reached as far north as Tel Aviv and southern Jerusalem. Israel has been on my bucket list for a long time and this would give me an excuse to go. Well this and Baha’i Gardens in Haifa, the mountain fortress of Masada etc.
It's safe. Before your post I barely remembered there's such a thing as terrorist attacks. I don't think there were any attacks in Tel Aviv after the one you mentioned. |
|
|
|
This activity is good for the progress of bitcoin. however, Israil too much for me personally. took a long time and a huge cost to attend there, or is there a plane ticket with payment by bitcoin .. haha
but hopefully this until kenegara other states, and also my country so that I can also participate
Another important point is that the Hilton hotel will accept Bitcoin payments for reservations for the conference. You can also use a site like http://btctrip.com/ to pay with Bitcoin for a ticket. |
|
|
|
Bump. The agenda has been updated with new great speakers and exciting sessions, including not only many respected Bitcoin experts but also higher-ups in Israel's government, including a member of the parliament and the director of research in Israel's central bank. Only a few days are left to enjoy the current price point, so don't forget to purchase your ticket to this unique event! |
|
|
|
I meant to ask: If there's only a value cap, that'd mean a miner could trivially blow up the blockchain in size by adding a bunch of near-zero transactions and everyone would accept it as valid. I'm sure it can be worked around, but would involve some sort of upper-bound cap. As far as rolling out the ideas, it's hard. Something like Litecoin is perfect because it has actual value, which is the only real test of the hybrid systems, to be honest. There won't be only a value cap. There are several costs for transactions, and the caps / hardcoded fees need to account for all of them. A value cap helps sponsor hashing, you'd also need a cap on size, and maybe also on computation. |
|
|
|
It does not prove there even is a tree. At each depth of the branch, the miner can make up a completely random hash to concatenate with the deeper hash. Like I said, block withholding is possible without this... Right and my point is that today every single pool in existence is subject to a much easier withholding attack called "don't submit any hashes which solve the block" and not a single pool in existence provides any enhanced payout based on the tx value of the block so there is absolutely no additional revenue for such an attack. So I don't really see using GBT as being ANY WORSE that what pools are doing right now. The major difference becomes that the miners are in control of tx selection. For the 3rd time, yes, block withholding is equally possible with classical pools and with unverified GBT. Block withholding is not the problem because it is difficult to monetize it, hence, few will attempt it. The first time I mentioned block withholding here, was in the sentence "this could be used for more than just a variant of block withholding". The real problem - which is perhaps difficult to see now because it will fully manifest later on, when coinbase is negligible and tx fees (which are ever-changing) are significant, and reward methods will adapt accordingly - is faking the total tx fee. To prevent pool hopping, reward methods will be more similar to PPS, with the payment for each share depending on the total tx fee of the block it tries to become. If the pool doesn't verify the miner's tx set, the miner can report a higher total tx fee than there actually are in the block, tricking the pool into paying more than his work is worth. This attack is profitable, and hence, everyone will do it if the pool allows it. And of course, to prevent this attack, GBT pools should verify the tx set, hence increasing bandwidth. As mentioned, I think the problem should be solved with SCIP. I gave my own version of why GBT without verifying tx set is bad, if not now then in the future; slush should explain why he believes the whole tx set needs to be verified. I would point out this isn't something I came up with. The use of a merkle branch to validate a specific tx without the full tx set is already used in merged mining, p2pool, and SPV clients.
Again - it verifies that the tx exists in the Merkle tree with the given root, assuming the Merkle tree exists. It does not prove that a Merkle tree exists. This distinction is of no importance in some other use cases you mentioned, but it is important here. |
|
|
|
If there is no merkle tree in the blockheader, does that not leave it open to transactions being removed / replaced / double spent?
The initial empty block header doesn't reference any transactions. The Nth stakeholder (derived by the empty header's work) adds the transactions, and a Merkle root to match. |
|
|
|
The pool knows that the miner did work, and that the work cannot reward anyone else. But without requesting the full tx set, it doesn't know there actually is a tx set which hashes to the given Merkle root. The miner could be making the whole thing up. The miner can't make anything up. That is the whole point of the merkle branch. It allows cryptographic verification that a particular tx (in this case the coinbase) is part of the merkle tree without needing the full tree. Sure the miner could select a set of txs with low or no txs fees but compared to the ability for a miner to simply withold all blocks it is a negligible threat. Today without using GBT block withholding is a significant risk. The risk isn't increased by using GBT. No. If there is a Merkle tree of valid txs, the Merkle branch proves that the tx at its leaf is a part of the tree. It does not prove there even is a tree. At each depth of the branch, the miner can make up a completely random hash to concatenate with the deeper hash. Like I said, block withholding is possible without this but it's difficult to make money from block withholding. With what we have here, the miner can solicit from the pool more payment than he's due (I'm assuming an evolved reward method), that is, an actually profitable attack. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the correction. Why would it be expensive in terms of bandwidth? For shares which don't solve a block the tx set isn't needed...
...but it still needs to do full validation of that share. As opposed to any other share? The pool knows that the miner did work, and that the work cannot reward anyone else. But without requesting the full tx set, it doesn't know there actually is a tx set which hashes to the given Merkle root. The miner could be making the whole thing up. When tx fees are meaningful, this could be used for more than just a variant of block withholding. The miner can misreport the total tx fees in the block he offered, and obtain more payment than his work is actually worth. This can be solved with SCIP. Since smart miners are essential for Multi-PPS, I discussed it in that thread as well. |
|
|
|
No, the security comes from the average hashpower needed to produce a block. If you adjust the difficulty down, you reduce the security one block provides.
That's the myth that I'm refuting. Though to be accurate - reducing the time per block does reduce the security one confirmation provides, but not in the way you think. |
|
|
|
Thanks Meni. Of course you're right, but Multi-PPS would require both major changes in mining software and pool cooperation, would it not? Therefore it would have to find some way around the same winner-take-all problem that affects pools today.
Yes, but I doubt there are any sustainable easier solutions. |
|
|
|
I am trying to give clarity to the facts that contradict the myth. You don't need 51% to be successful in double spending coins but the more hashpower you have the more effective this attack will be.
Well, clarifying the facts is what the titular paper is about... |
|
|
|
1. The exponential distribution describes the time until a block is found. What you should be looking at is the number of blocks per time period, which follows the Poisson distribution, for which the variance is equal to the mean. 2. Variance / mean is not a very meaningful quantity. You should be looking at Variance / Mean^2. 3. Let H = pool's percentage of the network's hashrate h = the miner's percent of the network N = the average number of blocks per day (about 144) B = Bitcoins per block (about 25) T = number of days in the period we are looking at Then the miner's average income is hNTB, the variance is h^2NTB/H, which means that the relative variance is 1/(HNT). 4. The network hashrate can be calculated as about 7 million times the difficulty. 5. This is all covered in AoBPMRS. 6. The real answer to the variance counterargument is not "there isn't that much variance in small pools", it's Multi-PPS. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
