|
You can simply leave the private key of your vanity address in an offline client such as Armory. Locking private key X with private key Y gives you no extra security than 2-of-2 multisig with X and Y
|
|
|
|
I think this is a great idea!
In my opinion, anything that makes blocks smaller without compromising functionality should be implemented first before raising the max block size.
For people without privacy concern, this will also encourage them using a single address to receive payment. Therefore, they can sweep the address every time they spend. |
|
|
|
|
I want to bring this up again as we have lots of discussion on block size.
There are two major benefits for using one signature of multiple inputs of the same address:
1. Reduce size: allow more transactions in one block
2. Reduce UTXO: it is not economical to redeem sand outputs with a few satoshis because the signatures take a lot of space and the transaction fee required is much higher than the sand outputs. If people could redeem thousands of sand outputs in the same address with only one signature, this will reduce the size of UTXO set
This is a new transaction structure so I think this is a hard fork. I don't think this is high priority but should be considered when a hard fork is needed.
|
|
|
|
...mit would be raised, but the discussions about whether it would be raised at all with opposition from a significant amount of people. That turned the idea of raising the limit into a complete non-starter since it requires a hard fork, despite the fact that changing the maximum block size has been the plan since the very beginning. ...
Do you have anything by way of actual evidence of this? Not that I do or don't believe it, but it is easy and common on this forum for people to pull shit like this right out of their ass. Why did the limit get set as it is knowing that it was going to be a nightmare if/when it ever was to be changed (if you have any real clue?) That realization about the impossibility of raising the maximum block size via a hard fork worried me enough to the point where I actually think that my statement that it would require a hard fork might be wrong.  But seriously, I think that I've come up with a soft-fork version of accomplishing the same thing. A soft-fork would allow us to deploy the rules for increasing the maximum block size in less then a month instead of several years, assuming it was coded ahead of time and it was considered extremely high priority. It's a terrible hack job, but to the users it would be fairly seamless. Not to give too much away just yet, but it'll be fully backwards compatible functionality wise down to version 0.6.0. I'll post the technical details in the next few days. How? Old version reject block bigger than the limit, you new version generate one and ask older version to accept? You discovered a vulnerability/bug in the old version? I'll put up a post about it in Development & Technical Discussion sometime this week when I have a few spare hours to answer the inevitable questions. For now, I just want people to realize that there may be other ways to go about this. Very interesting.... It sounds like an exploit. Can't wait to see it |
|
|
|
Question: I know Mt. Red has stratum support, but is there also variable (or dynamic) difficulty?
Yes, some of are bigger users are testing it, but it still has some kinks. I have around 0.08BTC missing. Please check PM. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Sorry it may be obvious or already mentioned, given that we're talking about China
How is bitcoin going to work through the great firewall of China?
No problem at all this moment. People can use, trade, and discuss publicly. |
|
|
|
Very well-informed article, and I could supplement it with the following picture, the Google trend for the Chinese phrase of "bitcoin":  You need to look at Baidu trend since google is blocked by the Chinese government. >>>>>> http://index.baidu.com/main/word.php?word=%B1%C8%CC%D8%B1%D2 <<<<<<The Baidu trend is still at about 60% of the 2011 bubble. However, it has increased by 4-time since 2013, with the peak during Avalon shipping. How come there are peaks for your search term in 2007 and 2008??? It it was "Bitcoin" there couldnt possibly be so large spikes. Care to explain? No, the default chart is only for the last month. For example, the peak "D" is the Avalon news on 4 Feb (2月4日). The year scale below is another graph for you to zoom in/out. |
|
|
|
I think we're paying around 12,3% per annum in monetary inflation for security right now, we were paying a hell of a lot more when the subsidy was 50BTC, as Bitcoin grows in user base and consequently with it the value of bitcoins, doesn't it make sense to pay more for security or at least the same in terms of BTC and not less? And yet less is exactly the course we are on atm, especially if we had unlimited block space.
This is misleading. The current 12.3% is paid by every bitcoin holders, no matter they do transactions or not. When there is no block subsidy, the burden is totally loaded on people who do transactions, but not people who hoard. Asking for the same percentage of fee in term of total money supply is too much |
|
|
|
On a related note, the BTC trades usually for 1-2 EUR higher on bitcoin.de.
What's interesting is btcchina had always traded at lower than Mt.Gox price, until recently. take into account the rising yuan. Btcchina displays the rate in both currencies. Care for a link? I'd like to check that myself. I only see the yuan prices on their site. It's the front page of the site, right above the chart there are two tables, the right table displays Mt.Gox prices in both currencies, last/max/min prices, etc, the USD is converted into CNY in real time, and the rate is up to date, if you compare the equivalent CNY price to the left column btcchina price, which is displayed in CNY only, the btcchina price is consistently higher, though not by that much ATM We were talking about the past prices though. That's was I meant the yuan prices appear to have been lower in the past because the exchange rate yuan/usd is now higher. At Jan 27th(I pick that day because price was relatively stable during the day), the yuan/usd rate was even higher at 1usd=6.22 yuan, the btcchina price, according to the chart on the frontpage(the "transaction price" could be seen by hovering the pointer over the data point), was ￥107.99/6.22=17.3633 usd, if btcchina uses Beijing time, the Mt.Gox price for the corresponding time-frame (it uses UTC) would be between 17.4-17.7 usd, if both use UTC time, Gox closing price would be 17.81, assuming, of course, that by "transaction price" btcchina means "closing price". Of course it is just one data point but this is generally in agreement with my own recollection. EDIT: oh I forgot bitcoinchart's datas of btcnCNY, http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/btcnCNY#rg60ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv it was actually the closing price they display on the frontpage chart. I am very sure because in December and January's I kept buying in btcchina and selling in gox immediately |
|
|
|
Add to the list that the so far only two groups to successfully deploy mining ASICs are both based in China.
They are probably responsible for the exchange volume during the current bubble. If the selling pressure in China is high, the rate at btcchina should be lower than gox. However, it's 4% over gox, which means buying pressure is even higher. |
|
|
|
Very well-informed article, and I could supplement it with the following picture, the Google trend for the Chinese phrase of "bitcoin": You need to look at Baidu trend since google is blocked by the Chinese government. http://index.baidu.com/main/word.php?word=%B1%C8%CC%D8%B1%D2The Baidu trend is still at about 60% of the 2011 bubble. However, it has increased by 4-time since 2013, with the peak during Avalon shipping. |
|
|
|
Newsflash! New exchanges increase in volume.
cool story bro tell it again.
It's not new. It has been running since July 2011 |
|
|
|
As some of you may not know, btcchina.com is now trading at 193.85CNY, or 31.1USD, while MtGox is trading at 29.7USD. It is 4.7% higher, and this phenomenon has lasted for at least 2 weeks. In December and January, it was always trading lower than MtGox. Please also look at the weekly volume chart of btcchina:  Five weeks ago, weekly trading volume in CNY suddenly doubled from 0.63M to 1.32M, making an all-time-high. More importantly, it stays at this level since then. Last week it doubled again, from 1.59M to 3.14M. Bitcoin has big potential in China: - 1. Hedging for serious inflation. The official figure is about 5%pa, and no one would believe that;
- 2. Money laundering for corrupt officials: China is one of the most corrupt country in the world;
- 3. Circumventing taxation: China ranks the second on Forbes Tax Misery Index
- 4. Circumventing foreign exchange control: It's difficult to move money in/out the country and obtain foreign currency. That may also explain why people pay more CNY to buy bitcoin because it's difficult to send money to Gox;
- 5. Gambling: Chinese are very obsessive in gambling. In 2011, Macau collected US$33.5 billion from gamblers, comparing with only US$4.5 billion in Vegas;
- 6. Big internet population, still with huge room of growth: There are 538M internet users in China, accounting for only 40% of the total population. In US, there are only 245M, and that's 79% of the total population (i.e. nearly saturated)
- 7. Bitcoin has very low popularity in China: The volume in btcchina is only 4% of Gox. It sounds bad, but that also means the growth could be more dramatic.
If Chinese big players try to get on the train, the momentum could be really tremendous. Don't bet on the wrong size. |
|
|
|
With full nodes building on trusted computing platform, miners with low bandwidth can mine without being full nodes themselves.
In addition to working as a normal full node, a trusted computing full node will accept encrypted queries and reply with encryption, so the operator is unable to censor. It will also prepare a list of all unconfirmed valid transactions, including only the txid, size, fee (and optionally tx priority). The list will propagate in a P2P manner. Miners will construct blocks by choosing the transactions they want to include, in addition to coinbase and any other valid tx not provided by the trusted full node.
To prevent the node from cheating (not very possible due to trusted computing), individual miner will fully validate some blocks regularly, depending on their resources. For a miner with only 50kB/s connection (i.e. 30MB/10min) while maxblocksize is 300MB, he may validate only 1 in 10 blocks.
The trusted full nodes will be supported by donation and/or subscription fee. People with many bitcoins will support/offer these nodes to protect their wealth.
Technically speaking, that's a very clever idea. Socially speaking though, it'll be an utter failure. Miners using pool have absolutely no incentive at all to verify the blocks they produce other than some vague desire to protect Bitcoin. This is why currently pools other than P2Pool aren't verified at all - Eligius supports getblocktemplate, but mining software that uses a full validating node to verify the blocks is hardware ever used. Pools just aren't going to buy a bunch of expensive trusted computing hardware and switch their operations to use fragile trusted computing software just to please the 1% of miners who seem to care about this issue. Lazy miners are always lazy. They won't verify no matter the block size is 1kB, 1MB or 1GB. So your reply is irrelevant to the OP. With trusted full node, people with insufficient resources will still be able to run partial nodes, which will also protect the integrity of the blockchain. I don't think these will be provided by pools. They could be supported by donation or big exchanges. Also, it could be run by trusted Chaum banks ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=146307.0), as they have to run full nodes on trusted platforms anyway. |
|
|
|
|
With full nodes building on trusted computing platform, miners with low bandwidth can mine without being full nodes themselves.
In addition to working as a normal full node, a trusted computing full node will accept encrypted queries and reply with encryption, so the operator is unable to censor. It will also prepare a list of all unconfirmed valid transactions, including only the txid, size, fee (and optionally tx priority). The list will propagate in a P2P manner. Miners will construct blocks by choosing the transactions they want to include, in addition to coinbase and any other valid tx not provided by the trusted full node.
To prevent the node from cheating (not very possible due to trusted computing), individual miner will fully validate some blocks regularly, depending on their resources. For a miner with only 50kB/s connection (i.e. 30MB/10min) while maxblocksize is 300MB, he may validate only 1 in 10 blocks.
The trusted full nodes will be supported by donation and/or subscription fee. People with many bitcoins will support/offer these nodes to protect their wealth.
|
|
|
|
Small hard-drives were a huge issue 10 years ago. I can't see people buying multiple harddrives, just to experiment with this new-fangled "Bitcoin thing" The block size would have probably been set to something more like 100KiB, and a year or two in this exactly discussion would already be happening.
If bitcoin was invented in 1996, the block size limit would have been set to 10KB. This is exactly why the 1MB hard-limit is arbitrary and is not intended to be kept constant forever. |
|
|
|
Could you run a Chaum bank on the darknet? I don't think so. Even if the bank has put up a fidelity bond, the temptation to engage in fractional reserve banking would be immense, and could result in a lot of profit before the inevitable bank run. You can't really tell if this is happening because the coins you deposit are expected to be constantly moving as other people cash out their blinded tokens. I don't fully understand the time locking proposal for this reason - the blinded tokens only have value if you can turn them back into Bitcoins again, and that inherently means that your deposit can't be frozen or locked in any way.
I think it's possible to run on darknet. The fidelity bond, trusted computing, and transaction fee make sure the operator honest. It's at least better than Silk Road. |
|
|
|
|
Is it possible for everyone to audit the amount of bitcoin held by the bank and the amount of circulating receipts, to make sure they keep full reserve?
|
|
|
|
I'm glad to see people thinking of innovations! I haven't wrapped my head around this, so I'm not sure if it's a great idea yet, but I'm also glad people are in favor of off-chain transaction options. I posted in one of the block size issue threads about Bitcoin Clearing Houses to facilitate such transfers. The obvious benefits are instant transfers, zero or low fees (revenue could be ad or features supported), and of course awesome scalability. I note this doesn't centralize things because there is no power to create coins or prevent their transfer as users could revert to the core network. Someone posted skeptically about creating a target for authorities, saying exchanges are a bit of a weak point, but that's not a worry as I see it. The reason Bitcoin exchanges are vulnerable is they convert traditional system currency into bitcoins. With a clearing house everything is digital, and clearing servers could be hosted anywhere in the world. One question I have about the Fidelity-bonded banks is what is the profit model? Obviously the bank could charge transaction fee, for bitcoin deposit, bitcoin withdrawal, and internal transfer. |
|
|
|
Everytime, when I tried to advertise bitcoin to my friends, the typical question they asked is: What is this thing backed by? What's the use of it?
Although I can explain to them that it is backed by mathematics and P2P network, and you can use it to buy anything online, it still does not make them feel safe enough, since that is real money, they are afraid of it's just a scam or a bubble
Just like MBS, CDS, eventually they are backed by a house, which is needed by majority of people, so no matter how abstract in concept and construction they are, they still get accepted. Because a house is a house, even the price crashed to 0, it still can provide some utility and that is the reason the price will never drop too much
"If the USD exchange price of this thing drop to 0, what is the use of it?"
There is an answer for gold/silver/diamond/house, even WoW gold
But there is no answer for bond/stock/options/futures
So it seems bitcoin fall into the second category, e.g. a financial security, and unlike bond/stock/options/futures, it has no underlying base instrument, or to say it is based purely on some promises
If we could find some good use of bitcoin even when the exchange price is 0, then it will flourish for sure
That is free good ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_good). Since bitcoin is scarce, it could not be a free good. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
