I think that would be a very bad idea.

Can't roll-back every time someone writes a buggy contract. No matter how much is invested in it..

THIS is the HEART of crypto.

If he(Vitalik) does roll back, it means ETH is not decentralised..

There are literally 10's of thousands of other contracts running that have no issue at all.

Err.. If you don't already know.. DAO is being hacked as we speak..

Can someone explain how this attack is being done ?  ( It is a bug in the DAO contract, NOT in Ethereum itself )

Will there be any of $250M left at the end of this.. ?

And what happens if all the money disappears... you can't reset (hard fork) Ethereum just because someone wrote some buggy code.. gonna be a tough call.

.. excellent.

Just thinking out loud here.. but.. can we do this ...

The problem is that a malicious node can hold up the entire procedure.

So if there are 5 of you trying to do a coinjoin/coinshuffle, you set of, and one of you plays 'silly bugger' and boom, you can't complete.

Why not try and complete EVERY combination of the five users, so you would actually be doing more like 20 different coinjoins, say all the combinations of minimum 3 from 5, and then just pick the one with the most valid users at the end ?

You would be sending multiple messages at a time to each other, so I don't think it would require the same amount of steps as just doing 20 coinjoins in a row. But definitely more..

And since you would not sign a txn that didn't have your inputs/outputs, you wouldn't risk losing your coins. Whichever was the eventual successful txn. (In this case the 4 valid minus the malicious node.)

Let's call it - CoinBomb!


 

Why burn any of the fees at all ?

What am I missing ?

yo.

have you checked out DAGcoin.. ?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1177633.0

I think it's what you are proposing..

LOL - a lot of Ethereum threads..

Anyway - just wanted to chat about what will happen when Ethereum switches to POS.

For the purpose of this discussion, I am assuming Vitalik's POS 'algo' works. Let's not debate that.

So - When Ethereum runs on POS and not POW what does this mean ?

Bitcoin is secured by a POW network. This means I CAN'T set up another bitcoin network, that has the same security. You need the Giga-Peta hash flops to achieve that. Which obviously my upstart network won't have.

When Ethereum is secured by POS, I CAN set up another network, that WILL be just as secure as the original Ethereum network, as long as the stake holders of my Ether network are as trustworthy / decentralised as the stake holders of the original.

This is actually - really great news. It may not be great for the price of Ether, in fact definitely so IMHO, but it is great for those of us that wish to use a secure 'smart contract network'. There will be many to choose from, all as secure as each other.

Some may think - Oh, I'll only use the original Network! But when you can have exactly the same functionality AND security for less, why would you ?

New networks won't have the users, but once 'Atomic Cross Chain Transfers' works seamlessly and fast (quite simple in Ethereum..) from one network to another, jumping from 1 network to another will be child's play. And let's not get started on Atomic Cross Chain Contracts!

Then - It's game on.

You're no fool.. 


I like this idea, nice and clean, but I think that it is just as unfair as an ICO.

First - the POW is totally useless with regard to your coin's security (let's say IOTA). Just wasted cpu cycles.. If it were used to secure the network that at least would be something.

Then -  doesn't this penalise those who don't have access to a computer 24/7 ?

And finally - Those with faster computers / graphics cards would get more. Again, I see no reason for this being better than just asking for BTC.

..

It certainly 'sounds' fairer but I think you would end up with just as lop-sided a distribution..  Maybe more so as less people would understand it. An ICO is pretty straight forward.

.. BUT - you know what - it may have a future if this removes any legal complications that arise from an ICO.

Not bad for your 'first' idea..
 

OK - so the same conversation - number 1001.

All ICO's are NOT scams, though some may be. (ps I have not bought into any yet, but not because I thought they were scams... I just like reading the white-papers.)

Let's take an example.

HOW could you distribute a coin that does not have a mining structure that supports it ?

HOW could the IOTA tokens have been distributed without an ICO in a sybil attack proof way ? (I know we talked about this yesterday americanpegasus.. but I would like an answer.. ;-) , when IOTA has no concept of 'mining' per se ?

? Thanx.

If only it were that easy.. Some coins simply do not have that mechanism. A POS coin requires 'S' to mine in the first place. And a coin like DAGcoin or IOTA  is even more abstract.

As for POS being flawed, someone better tell Vitalik that he is going to destroy Ethereum when they switch it over.. unless of course it isn't as flawed as previously believed.

I am very curious to see how all that plays out.

Meh.. kinda..

We have had this discussion, hmmm... maybe.. 1000 times.

How can someone distribute a 'Coin' that doesn't use POW mining in a sybil attack proof way ?

If ANYONE can come up with that, I would agree with your statement.

( ps simply saying coins that don't use POW mining distribution are scams, is not enough.. )

With regard to Quantum Computers..

http://www.techworm.net/2016/05/ibm-launches-free-quantum-computing-for-everyone-to-use.html

So we are inching closer..

For signatures, it requires a change of the signature algo to a hash bashed/ quantum secure scheme, and if I'm not mistaken, segwit makes this 'easier' to do ?

As for mining, Grover's algo only halves the difficulty of a pre-image attack, which is what you need for mining, so a switch to SHA512 would seem to fix that..

Getting the current miners to switch to a different 'ASIC-Chip'.. (can you use old sha256 chips to mine sha512 ?) .. would be interesting.. As it could reset the current balance of mining power.. And we may get a second shot at getting mining 'right'.

There's hope yet, gentlemen.

It means that that statement couldn't have been made by Kleiman.

HAHhahaha.. Sorry - just reading TPTB's  post.. You are one relentless guy TPTB.  It must be tiring being you.

..

One thing..

IF Satoshi is Kleiman.. When was that post made by Satoshi about him not being Dorian Nakamoto.. ?

Wasn't that AFTER 2013.. ?

One thing..

IF SN is Kleiman.. When was that post made by Satoshi about him not being Dorian Nakamoto.. ?

Wasn't that AFTER 2013..

 

Weird HTML page..

just has..

<img src="homepage.jpg"> and no other tags.

..

More Importantly - what a dickhead. He is still not denying he is Satoshi. Just some BS about being a little crybaby girl.

And YES - '..their honour and credibility has been irreparably tainted by your actions..'

!? .. This is getting embarrassing.

..

The Art of the Con

Step 1 : Trick them into thinking it's a new laptop..

.. the rest..

Oh Gav.. out of the frying pan into the fire.. Not sure if you'll survive this..

You mean well I'm sure, and come across as sincere.. BUT..

If you want to show you can lead the Bitcoin community, you're going to need to be able to not be 'bamboozled' when it comes to a simple thing like a cryptographic signature.

Especially in the Bitcoin community..

Oh.. I see.. thanks.

How can 'big boys' like Gavin and Matonis have fallen for this.. !? That shows very poor skills..  ( ..too poor if you ask me.. )

Maybe he did show Gavin and Matonis something 'cool', Gavin said he saw something signed with the Genesis key, but for some reason couldn't share.. hmmm..

There is more to this story yet.. me thinks..

Has Gavin re-responded ?

hmm..

I really don't think he is Satoshi, if only because it would be SO EASY to prove correctly and without any doubt ( As Litecoin Creator did), that this cluster-f**k of crap he has posted is a big red flag.

But breaking Pre-Image resistance for SHA256, just doesn't add up.. Sorry.

There is no way he found a hash that matches a hash that has already been signed. No Way.

Can someone explain how he signed the 'Satre' quote WITHOUT having to break SHA256 (finding a collision) ?

It's pretty important, as if he did do that, Bitcoin is broken.

..

( WOO HOO 400 posts!  )