I am predicting an outbreak of Ebola next year that will cause a worldwide recession--you read it here first. What that does to bitcoin is anybody's guess.
TonyT
I know what it should do, but not what it will do. What it should do is help bitcoin, as the coin is the fast way to move donations of money to the exact pinpoints in the world where they are needed. Maybe you are right, I dunno. But they say the Black Death of the 14th Century helped Europe bypass the Middle East, in the same way the Plague of Justinian helped the Middle East (in 6th Century) bypass Europe. So maybe fewer people will help the mechanics of bitcoin? Macabre thought! TonyT |
|
|
|
I work on pandemic flu response. It's no joke and one day it will break out and kill millions and millions of us. Flu is a threat magnitudes of order more dangerous than Ebola.
No Ebola is worse than flu as it currently exists, but possibly you are referring to something like the Spanish flu of 1918 that went airborne. Ebola btw also has been transmitted by airborne transmission between Rhesus monkeys. Ebola kills 70% of nearly everybody that comes in contact with it, while flu as currently in existence kills lots of old people and children. Further, note the Spanish nurse, the Dallas deceased medical technician, and the two nurses in Dallas who are infected all wore rabbit suits but still caught the virus. Apparently--says the discoverer of Ebola, a Belgian doctor--taking off your goggles incorrectly, and rubbing your eye, can infect you with Ebola. It's that potent. I am predicting an outbreak of Ebola next year that will cause a worldwide recession--you read it here first. What that does to bitcoin is anybody's guess. TonyT |
|
|
|
Have you felt like being betrayed by the ASIC manufacturers lately? You are not alone. We all feel the same way. We, as home miners, popularized bitcoins through our supports and utilization. It was written in stones that ASIC manufacturers produce the machine and we as home miners use them to mine. It used to be a sin for the manufacturer to mine and compete with us.
Now the unwritten laws are broken. ASIC manufacturers are plainly setting up data centers to mine. They are directly competing with us, the backbone of ASIC supporters. They are betraying us. I hope this will lead to the collapse of btc and the eventual death of the ASIC manufacturers.
I hope we as home miners will just dump bitcoins and let it collapse.
This is a good question. Strictly speaking, Discus Fish, with a nearly 30% market share of bitcoins mined (if I read the pie chart correctly) is a monopoly that could be in theory broken up by the government where the majority of its bitcoin mining hardware resides. I know, I know, it's not going to happen nor should it happen (I am against antitrust in general) but this is exactly how Standard Oil, by J.D. Rockefeller, was broken up by the USA in the turn of the last century. What happens when one company controls 100% of the Bitcoins mined? Let's say it happens? One of two things: either they can wreck the entire system by messing with the blockchain (unlikely unless they are crazy), or, 'raise prices' by controlling the supply of bitcoins, the same way DeBeers controls (or tries to, and they've done a pretty good job the last few decades or more) the price of diamonds, to extract monopoly profits. This is Econ101, not controversial. Some would say monopoly profits will encourage other mining pools to enter, and that's the way it works in theory, but sometimes, due to technological constraints (let's say Discus Fish invents some super-duper ASIC that's 1M times better than everybody else's and threatens to flood the market if any other big miner enters the market and this is known to everybody, etc etc), other firms cannot enter quickly enough, so either the monopolist will get monopoly profits for a long time (DeBeers, maybe OPEC), or, the government steps in and busts them up. TonyT |
|
|
|
I am going to set up a educational website and I want to promote it. I saw the CoinAd thread and it's too long to read. So I ask you legendary hero members: what is a legitimate site I can pay, in Bitcoin, to promote my website with clicks and likes and whatever else search engine optimization stuff they do nowadays from Bangladesh or elsewhere?  TonyT |
|
|
|
bump
Bump? Bumped the same day? LOL give the thread a chance to ripen! :-) Do you accept international wires? You cannot reverse a wire can you? But for some reason people are weary of them... best of luck. TonyT |
|
|
|
hard to get confirmed if i send you 0.0000001 BTC  minimum amount that recommended by network is 0.0001 BTC (+ 0.0001 more for networks fee) if you want try that, i can send it. just post your address here Thanks BigBoy, I finally (after 44 hours!) got Armory up and running. Can you kindly send me the 0.0002 BTC (which at market rates is larger than I thought, around 8 cents US) to this public Bitcoin address please? 135D1oL8Ud6cCJZaSZ34pU2qrpC81xPQTi I appreciate it, and will return it someday to you with interest (as soon as I buy some bitcoin! I need to get verified first). TonyT |
|
|
|
|
44 hours later, the Armory wallet with Bitcoin Core, 32-bit version, installed.
TonyT
|
|
|
|
(I like the Marijuana crypto-coin logo myself) I think we're using a different version of Bitcoin.  Core doesn't spend nearly as long post-download as Armory does, but Armory does add some great features. Internet connection matters a lot, and it's increasingly difficult to download the blockchain in any reasonable span of time. I get ~200kb/s on the best of days using a mobile data connection, ~10-100kb/s most days. I'd have to wait for a friend to ship me a copy via mail to re-sync if I ever lost my copies (and I do care enough to keep multiple copies). I completely understand where you're coming from. It is possible to significantly compress the bootstrap files. In the case of a 48h download, you should be able to cut download time by ~16-20h while requiring ~2-4h decompressing on a decent setup - a nice gain for those of us without cable or fiber. Jeff Garzik hosts the trusted source of it right now and's open to the suggestion, AFAIK. Thank you sir I appreciate the reply. The pot reference was to an alt-cryptocoin logo I saw on this forum, very cool looking. I am using the latest Armory version for bitcoin, which wraps the Core Bitcoin version 0.9.3 in it. According to Task Manager my hard drive is completely at 100% active now for several hours, though the RAM memory is only 70% full (I hope this program does not have a memory leak that will slowly consume all my RAM, it does not appear to), and the Ethernet land line receives at spurts of 0, 8, 24, 40, 8, 0 etc Kbps. I am posting from a developing country in southeast Asia: think Indonesia not Thailand, where internet is spotty. I don't care about my experience, since I am a bit of a geek (not a professional programmer however), but my concern is for Joe and Jane Average in the USA, where internet is actually worse than Korea and Japan (though not as bad as here in southeast Asia). My hypothesis is that they will not put up with Armory, which is a shame, and will instead move to a thin, lightweight wallet that resides online. Then I posit that this is no better than using Paypal etc due to the even less anonymity you have with an online, lightweight wallet. That's my rant / thesis. TonyT |
|
|
|
|
Just stating the obvious concerning the installation of Armory and Bitcoin Core. On a Windows 8 PC, i5 quadcore, 32bit OS with 4 GB RAM, a fairly new HD (that is thrashing so bad now I cannot even use spell-check on this message, so I'll use simple words), and a 1.5 MBps DSL Modem, it's going on 48 hours and it's on step #3 of 4, "Building Databases", the other steps being downloading the blockchain, synchronizing with network, and the final step being scan transaction history. I estimate another 12+ hours to go.
I do code on occasion, I once even built a internet relay chat. I figured that the peer-to-peer aspect of Bitcoin Core/ Armory was the hardest part of Bitcoin (the mining algorithm, once you figure it out, is trivial by comparison). So I figured that the value add of Bitcoin programmers was the peer-to-peer network feature, which is I think true. But this is also the weakest link at present, due to the huge blockchain I think (if you are a Bitcoin developer you know even more than me). After the user is wowed by the pretty front end (I like the Marijuana crypto-coin logo myself), the ugly reality for the retail consumer is that the back end, where the work is done, is broken unless you go to a light weight client for your wallet. And if you do that, you lose control. Why not just use PayPal if that's the route Bitcoin developers want users to go? Mastercard, Visa, Paypal will process a small transaction 'for free', and the vendor worries about it, not unlike the Bitcoin transaction fee.
In short, even though I'm a noob Bitcoin believer, I see clearly that the Bitcoin model is broken. The regulators once again are behind the curve here: contrary to their belief, Bitcoin is not a threat to traditional banking, rather, it's on its last legs, as presently configured.
TonyT
|
|
|
|
Most everyone knew that they were doing this. The problem is that no one could prove it. Well, now, thats most likely been done, they will have a whole new batch of issues..
Thanks bigasic, that is interesting. Not to defend crooks, but if everybody knew they were doing this, why did they continue to order from them? Was it like an abandoned lobster trap, sucking in new, hapless and unsuspecting lobster victims? Or, did they (as I speculated in my post) have good low prices? |
|
|
|
|
Let me be Devil's Advocate here. I read the links, and it seems to me the following happened, as is common with startups (no I don't have any relationship with Butterfly Labs).
Seems Butterfly Labs was doing a form of channel stuffing in reverse, delaying shipment of GPUs so they could profit from them. It's sort of like customer financing way back when people read newspapers. The 'scam' went like this: widget vendor puts an ad in the newspaper saying "Discounts of 15% for Widgets because we buy in bulk! Don't delay, order today!". Then a bunch of people order widgets. The trick is that the vendor has no widgets, but if enough people sign up, the vendor can get widgets for a 25% discount from some wholesaler, ship them off to the waiting customers, and after expenses make about 25-15 = 10% profit. But to pull this off the vendor has to stall on the customers waiting for their widgets. Is this wrong, unethical, common business practice? Yes it is. Should the FTC put the company out of business? No. Because the company is providing a service, albeit slowly. If the customers don't like it, they can tell their friends to boycott the vendor, or not shop there again. The marketplace will sort it out, no need for the FTC.
What's the harm then in the FTC shutting down such a business? Well for one thing, it provides a valuable service if you think about it. The vendor is giving buyers who are willing to wait (or rather, forced to wait) a 15% discount. If it was not for the vendor collecting customers, this would never happen. Likewise, for Butterfly Labs, maybe their GPU prices were a bit lower than their competition, since they used this hardware to make money before shipping it to customers, so they could afford to lower prices? I don't know if that's the case, but it could be. So again, let the marketplace, not the FTC, sort it out.
TonyT
|
|
|
|
|
What is a meetup? Do you exchange bitcoins in Jamaica? When I visited the Caribbean I met some people from Jamaica, but I've never been there. From the photos it looks nice, white sand beaches, which are hard to find.
Good luck,
TonyT
|
|
|
|
|
Well to be fair, as I reread the Zerocoin proposal summary of the audio, it's not just about mixing but also not recording transactions in the proposed blockchain, but just verifying that a transaction was made and no double spending of zerocoin happened. But for the purposes of this thread it's clear that "washing works" for bitcoin as the best way to preserve anonymity.
TonyT
|
|
|
|
Thanks Mr. Big. And to the other posters. I know very little about Bitcoin but I am learning day to day. One thing that I learned just now: bigger brains than I have thought long and hard about the anonymity problem, and have come to the same conclusion as some of the other posters in this thread and that is: (1) you cannot trust (or rather you have to trust, which is the problem) a central banker or central depository, and, (2) "washing works". Re (1) a central banker: the thinking is that you have to trust a person to try to preserve your identity if you go to an exchange like LBC or Coinbase, or use an escrow middleman, like the guys who offer to accept cash and give you bitcoin (some of the escrow middlemen claim they don't keep logs of transactions for very long, but you have to take their word for it). In fact, you have to trust somebody for any transaction short of mining bitcoin yourself or finding a stranger who happens to want to trade their bitcoins for cash, and manually transferring your bitcoin (all the while using Tor while you email the stranger, and wearing dark sunglasses and fake wig at the cafe), you have to disclose your real identity in most places. Even if you don't disclose your identity, your internet address can be found and correlated to your purchase of bitcoin, that can be used to track you down (unless you are using a public internet access point, or Tor, or your friend's ISP) unless you break the link (wash coins). Hence, re (2), "washing works", as in the Zerocoin proposal, excerpt below, and many of the anonymity schemes for new cryptocoin take this approach. So to take my original example that started this thread: suppose I set up an account with Coinbase, who insists on knowing my real identity. I buy bitcoin. I then go to some web host provider that accepts bitcoin, let's say it's GoDaddy just for argument's sake, and I buy a Wordpress-ready website in bitcoin using a fake name. The very next day after I set up my website, PapuaNew_GuineaCorruption.com, I get sued for defamation by a plaintiff from PNG. The plaintiff would find out from GoDaddy I paid in bitcoin, and, if the transaction is logged, which it surely is by GoDaddy, they would find out it came from Coinbase, and then Coinbase would tell the plaintiff my identity when served with either a court order, or, if they're really lame, a threatening letter from the plaintiff's lawyer. But to prevent this, if I can wash the coins from Coinbase, I am immune from a lawsuit. So I have to find a mixer, call it Blockchain.info, that I will park my bitcoins into between Coinbase and GoDaddy. But even the mixer could in theory be forced to disclose my identity, since I bet most mixers have a "Know Your Customer" policy like Coinbase does. So what prevents a lawsuit? Simply the passage of time it seems to me, given the nature of bitcoin and the 'permanent block chain recording of public transactions'. More on this: if enough time passes at the mixing service Blockchain.info, then when they get a subpoena from the plaintiff, they can truthfully say that they don't know what my Coinbase bitcoin got turned into (that is, what bitcoin I got back for the bitcoin I turned into at Blockchain.info, that I later used to set up the website at GoDaddy), so the link between GoDaddy and Coinbase is broken. Put another way: if there's no log at Blockchain.info, the bitcoin used to set up the GoDaddy website in fact came from not me but some random person that also subscribes to Blockchain.info, and if the plaintiff tries to pursue them, they will be chasing a red herring and a dead end. So what's the necessary passage of time needed for anonymity at Blockchain.info? Googling this, it turns out to be eight hours (but you have to trust Blockchain.info follows their stated business practices, and deletes their logs every eight hours on a rotating basis, which seems reasonable but just saying). Further of interest, note the Forbes article passage below that quotes a lawyer saying that technically joining LocalBitCoins is a money laundering offense, though it also seems like FUD by the lawyer. TonyT ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2013/06/05/the-politics-of-bitcoin-mixing-services/ ("The largest such service operating today is the Blockchain.info mixing service which has a maximum transaction size of 250 bitcoins and a 0.5% transaction fee. Transaction logs are removed after eight hours and customers can use the taint analysis tool to verify that coins were properly mixed. .. .Also, in-person exchange LocalBitcoins.com could act as a pure person-to-person mixing service for bitcoin users that meet in designated places like cafés. Personal mixing has the additional benefit of introducing plausible deniability into the entire bitcoin ecosystem because the coins cease becoming provably yours at that point. After seeing the LocalBitcoins selling-for-cash section in the U.S., Carol Van Cleef, a partner in Patton Boggs’ banking practice and adviser on anti-money laundering policies, ominously warned, “You better get yourself registered, or you better get your name off the list real fast.") from a bitcointalk thread... (text below copied from http://pastebin.com/Dd60ZaT7 ) 1.Summary transcript of Matthew Green's talk about Zerocoin/Zerocash at the Real World Crypto 2014 from Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/rdlmitedu/140113_0001-wav3.* Bitcoin may not be particularly anonymous 4.* Zero-coin / Zero-cash to anonymize the bitcoin currency 5.* transactions recorded in public ledger; nothing sophisticated done with the ledger; people can identify and map your identity; if you're very paranoid you can prevent (maybe), but in general case hard to use bitcoin for privacy; 6.* this should matter to all of us; the technology behind bitcoin may be with us for a very long time; countermeasures are weak even in the face of unsophisticated attacks 7.* if we make bitcoin private, can possibly find applications beyond currency 9.* two approaches for anonymous version of bitcoin 10.* zerocoin - technique to implement electronic cash in bitcoin protocol 11.* zerocash - way to make zerocoin practical and deployable and usable as ecash currency 13.* zerocoin - join work with students and colleagues at John Hopkins (JH) 14.* bitcoin doesn't give us much privacy despite academic thinking from 1980s (esp. David Chong [David Chaum]) to build untraceable ecash 15.* ecash tried to tackle one problem without thinking of all other practical concerns; nobody in the history of academic ecash managed to setup a working, centralized bank; chong's bank attempt failed 16.* bitcoin solved this problem of a currency take-off and early adoption; but we need a different technique to get rid of a centralized bank 17.* zerocoin new approach for ecash to get rid of centralized bank; basic idea is public ledger (constructed by bitcoin) blockchain; use this to wash bitcoins that does not require us to trust a centralized party; key ingredient (blockchain) is given by free by the bulletin board; 18.* zerocoin high-level intuition of original protocol: layer on top of bitcoin; i have some bitcoin; i want to break the link between my current address and a future address; take my bitcoin and turn into zerocoin; they get mixed up; all people making zerocoins will shuffle them together so no linkage with creation and redemption; at some future point, can redeem zerocoins into bitcoins ideally unrelated; breaks graph analysis; when disappearing into the zerocoin network minimizes/removes leakage; 19.* zerocoins are numbers; digital commitments to a large serial number; viewing the commitment, you should not be able to tell the serial number; once these commitments are minted (easy to create), you put them on the bitcoin blockchain; new instruction in the bitcoin system to produce a transaction that spends a bitcoin for a zerocoin; anybody that sees this transaction sees that this valid zerocoin is worth some money; 20.* at some point in the future, you redeem; you first reveal the secret serial number to make the first zerocoin and put into transaction; prove that the serial number corresponds to a zerocoin; then prove that the zerocoin is one of the set placed on the blockchain (which somebody paid money); 21.* zero-knowledge proof; prove statements without using any other information other than that the fact that the statement is true; "there exists some zerocoin in the set of zerocoins placed on the blockchain & the serial number we're revealing is the actual serial number in the coin"; 22.* if the proof is valid, then double-spend is impossible since serial number would have to be revealed again; 23.* efficiency is important here! the approach used is the accumulator; collect all the zerocoins into the accumulator, then prove that the zerocoin you're trying to spend is contained in the accumulator; proof of knowledge is 4KB; the entire thing is 25KB after optimization; for crypto this is awesome!; but developers hated adding this much to the blockchain; so unlikely to happen in real world 24.* summary: zerocoin good first approach, libzerocoin; but the problem is that the proofs are just too big; and coins have all the same value; but this means that if you want to spend fractional amounts of bitcoin, then it won't work (have to translate back to bitcoin) 25.* new solution: zerocash 26.* presented in May and Bitcoin conference in San Jose; in both conferences with teams working on small zero knowledge proofs aka SNARKS; other cryptographers already had them ready; 27.* SNARK - Succinct Non-interactive Arguments of Knowledge; Bryan Harno (MS Research); basic idea is that you can prove arbitrarily complex statements in 288 bytes; in addition to having these efficient proofs, there are compilers that have proofs that the program executed correctly; we should simply take existing libzerocoin code and run through the compiler to produce these proofs; but these compilers produce large circuits; the time to make a small proof takes hours or days; 28.* co-authors have spent a lot of time optimizing these proofs; the right way is NOT to take existing libzerocoin, but throw away RSA and other cryptographic techniques and replace with components that are easier to prove such as hash functions like SHA256 and Merkle trees; easy to prove hash with small circuits e.g. sha256 in 30K gates 29.* each coin is really the hash of some randomness and the serial number = commitment. once we have these coins we put in the hash tree; 64-depth key (2^64); when want to redeem; reveal the serial number, and can reveal 64-hashes before in the tree; 30.* if these proofs are powerful and efficient; why need bitcoin? why not put entire system into zerocoin and make everything anonymous through generation, use, redemption of coins? the only information that makes it into the blockchain is the fact that a transaction occurred. just show that two new coins where the value totals the bitcoin that you're splitting; when we merge we spend two coins we prove that the two = same value of the new coin; transfers can be done completely anonymously without knowing who and how much. 31.* can encrypt transactions and hash the values 32.* transaction fees have to be public, but everything else can be anonymous 33.* name for this process; generic transaction is called "pouring coins" 34.* is this efficient? one detail - the problem with zerocoin 1.0 was that the proofs were huge and took 0.33s; these results mixed; to merge/make takes 87s-108s on a single core; but on bright-side bitcoin takes up to an hour for each transaction; verification time is in ms; comparable to bitcoin; verification is in the network; the catch is that to verify the proofs you need a large set of public parameters; 1.2GB in size 35.* best part of this is that you already need 16GB to store the blockchain, so to add this is around 7% increase in storage 36.* somebody needs to generate these parameters; trusted party; possible to find a dozen people that people trust to set up the parameters; 37.* system that is efficient; will be separate system released in May; real-world crypto; want to get people to use; 38.* release an altchain; client that implements all these things; put it out there; hope that nobody puts a lot of money in this because these are new techniques and might break down; idea is to test this in an environment separate from bitcoin so we don't break anything else while trying to make this work 39.* should we even be doing this research? lots of people criticizing us. this is important research not just because people want to commit crimes, but because when you spend money your transactions are hidden from neighbours, but with bitcoin people can see your transactions; important to get it out there. 41.Thanks. . |
|
|
|
Not sure if I understood your original post, but using new addresses does not automatically make you safe and anonymous. If you have 10 btc and get it from coinbase, they probably have records. Even if you send it to a few different addresses, and have those addresses send it off to more addresses, it's still relatively easy to write a script to group them together when you spend any one of them. If you're paranoid about that, better find a coin mixer, mix your coins after acquiring them, and then transfer them to a multitude of HD wallets.
Yes, when I wrote my original post I did not know that. Can you recommend a coin mixer? If so please let me know. I will probably pick the 'most popular one' and take my chances with the minimum number of coins they let you wash at any one time. You say: "If you're paranoid about that, better find a coin mixer, mix your coins after acquiring them, and then transfer them to a multitude of HD wallets". Why transfer the mixed coins to a multitude of HD wallets? Hard drive wallets? Is this for security (as in Armory "offline" wallets that live on your hard drive but are not connected to the internet)? Or in case one wallet is stolen or compromised, you won't lose all your money? This goes to security, not anonymity, right? TonyT |
|
|
|
[...]
But I think they already are doing a 'several peers' download, since, as I type this, I notice the blockchain is being downloaded from "7 peers" it says.
TonyT
That's the peers you are connected to. Only one of them will be the "sync-node" which is the one you actually get the data from. If you start a new system from scratch and that sync-node happens to be a slow one you can wait for a very long time. Unless you delete peers.dat and connect only to a single "known" quick node until you have the blockchain data. Once that's done you can connect in the regular way again. You can see which one is the sync node in Bitcoin Core (formerly Bitcoin Qt) too: Go to the debug window and in the console type: getpeerinfo . If you are using Armory, I highly recommend to donate Thanks for that information. It was 36 hours on a 1.5 Mbps connection before the blockchain (about 35 GB large it seems) was downloaded, and now, it is "Synchronizing with Network" and will take another couple of hours to do that. BTW I am probably going to take my chances washing my bitcoins once I buy them, using Tor to anonymize the internet address, as recommended earlier. You have to fiddle with the Armory settings to allow it to work with Tor according to the manual. TonyT |
|
|
|
Tony,
The "dust limit" is 5460 satoshis (0.00005460 BTC). Dealing with amounts below the dust limit is difficult.
If you want a small amount of BTC, the easiest and fastest way to get it is to buy it from Coinbase, Circle, or LocalBitcoins.com. Begging for BTC will only get you scorn.
Sending dust is difficult? Or impossible? Since now that you mention it, it would be a wicked way to gum up the works with the blockchain. The reason I am begging is that I have not decided the best way to buy bitcoin anonymously (I have another thread started on this). Thanks, TonyT |
|
|
|
Just use localbitcoins. You don't have to provide any sort of ID. When I bought some btc using the site I contacted some people through PM on localbitcoins. They told me where to meet them in a coffee shop, so I went there and we made the exchange in a few minutes. I didn't even give them my phone number or tell them my name. If you're really paranoid you can wear a hat and sunglasses, although you might look suspicious then  This sounds interesting. So after generating a Bitcoin address on your client, and forking over cash at the agreed price per Bitcoin, you stick around drinking coffee for an hour until the Bitcoin is received and verified as good (I think it takes an hour or so)? TonyT |
|
|
|
Armory is also working on an overhaul of their backend, so that will help speed things up further. Bitcoin Core devs are working to get bitcoind to download the blockchain from several peers (unlike just one, like it is now), so that will help speed up things too.
Thanks. I might send a donation to the Armory people, one of which posts here, as they seem good guys. But I think they already are doing a 'several peers' download, since, as I type this, I notice the blockchain is being downloaded from "7 peers" it says. TonyT |
|
|
|
|
Ah, this is where the big boys post...ohh. Impressive.
As for little me, I am downloading in a Third World country the entire > 50 GB blockchain I guess it is, for my Armory client, and it's fun but has an experimental feel to it. Even with a 1.5 Mbps internet connection, it's close to 24 hours and I'm only two-thirds done. I understand that subsequent incremental downloads of this blockchain should be a lot quicker and smaller once the initial download is finished. I do understand however that Bitcoin transactions can take 1 hour to verify, which is probably related to the size of the blockchain. The Bobos in Paradise (upper middle class) in the developed countries will not like that; for those off the grid this is a minor quibble.
As for compression of the blockchain, it's amazing what different algorithms can do. For the longest time the difference between WinZip and WinRAR were trivial, then came 7-Zip, and using whatever algorithm that author uses, the shrinkage is dramatically better. I can now compress a relational database much more using 7-Zip than WinZip, on a Windows platform. But there must be some tradeoff; I imagine 7-Zip is more resource intensive and hence should take longer (though I've not seen this).
TonyT
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
