Your MinAddress: 2adfd-1ci You may also use 2adfd-1ciyam if you like  I think 1ciyam-2adfd would probably "look nicer" myself. that way I can change my "sig" to look like this: 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU -2adfd |
|
|
|
Also I would like to know the number of users ( if any as I am not aware) who have lost bitcoins due to address reuse. We all know a lot of users have entered incorrect address at one time or other leading to loss of bitcoins.
This is something I would agree with and for simple "tips" or "donations" it is always going to be easier to have an address link in your sig vs asking people to contact you (or use a website) in order to get a never used before address from you. BTW - what would my 1ciyam firstbits address look like with this scheme? |
|
|
|
|
If you are using the tx hash of an unconfirmed transaction then there can be a complication (known as transaction malleability) that can mean that the transaction hash after confirmation is different to that before (this is apparently why Gox went belly up).
|
|
|
|
Prior to spending from an address, iirc, you know the RIPEMD hash of the SHA256 hash. Once you have sent from (spent the outputs) from the address, more information is revealed and you know the ECDSA public key.
True - it would never be advised as "good practice" to re-use an address but for small amounts (which you are not worried about being traced) the convenience is attractive (especially in a situation where you don't have access to your wallet but need to receive a payment). |
|
|
|
Thanks for the info, I was not aware, will contact them.
Please do - as much as the issues of address re-use are very real when you are *away from your computer* and need to receive BTC from someone it does makes things much easier if you can type in something like "1ciyam" into blockchain.info to find an address that can be used (and yes 1ciyam is my "firstbits" from way back). |
|
|
|
Getting blockchain.info into using this seems a LONG LONG AWAY They did use to use firstbits (not sure if they stopped because firstbits stopped or if they just decided that they didn't like the idea). |
|
|
|
That sounds great, but you'll need to first implement your concept in an altcoin, so that it becomes a "proven" concept, otherwise I doubt it can be considered as a choice.
Yes - that is going to happen (although I am not going to promote it as an "alt-coin" due to the bad rep that those have). |
|
|
|
firstbits was a centralized concept as the conversion was based on database entries which may be modified leading to trust issues. MinAddress conversion is completely based on blockchain information and in no way the Min-Address can be modified.
Oh - I had thought that firstbits was just an *algo* that was based upon the blockchain also (happy to be corrected if you can show me a link). In any case firstbits doesn't work now so nice to see the idea appear again (now let's see if you can talk blockchain.info into using it). |
|
|
|
I'd argue PoS miners are much more security minded, since they have to pretty much keep the wallet hot (online), even if briefly, in order to mine with it (though I believe in DPoS system you don't have to, since mining is delegated to the delegates, you can put your funds in cold storage). Also they are very much de-centralized, instead of concentrated in a pool, can you imagine how hard it is to obtain the identity of 10,000 PoS miner, their IP address, and then some how access their mining PC etc...
I'd be much more worried that discus fish and ghash.io getting hacked simultaneously (imho a much more likely scenario) and the attacker instantly gain 51% in Bitcoin.
You put forward some good arguments and I think that it is inevitable that we'll have to move from PoW to something more efficient down the track. I guess the next thing is to work out "which kind of low-power proof is best" (btw - I have a new one that is neither PoW nor PoS but is as energy efficient as PoS - you'll have to PM me to discuss that). |
|
|
|
|
Isn't this basically just "firstbits" (which seems to have disappeared a while back)?
|
|
|
|
It's no more far-fetched than they spending astronomical amount of money to attack a PoS system (and without guaranteed success, like attacking a PoW).
Okay - am coming around to your point of view now - but one point still bothers me which is the *hacking point*. With PoW you can't *hack the proof* you have to "do the work" (unless a fundamental flaw is found with SHA256 which would probably screw up all cryptos that exist at the moment). It may be much easier to *attack the wallets* of stake holders (via keyloggers, etc.) in order to gain the stake without having to spend "astronomic amounts" of money (might only require a few million to recruit a team of black hats and exchanges would be a major *weak point* with this vector). |
|
|
|
Because it's cheap, not because the US or Europe don't know how to manufacture ASIC.
So they are going to somehow set up a "major manufacturing plant" to create ASIC that *no-one knows about* in order to attack Bitcoin? Seems a little far-fetched to me (western governments are not so good at hiding stuff like eastern ones are). |
|
|
|
Yes, they can just buy from existing miners, with a bit of a premium if they want the equipment fast. Also any first world government can easily mass produce ASIC equipment if they wanted to do it, there's no technical hurdles.
Hmm... then why are the vast majority of ASIC manufactured in China? (the hurdles are perhaps more economic as well as social) I am pretty sure Australia (the first world country that I come from) could *not* do this as they don't manufacture nearly *any electronics* nowadays. |
|
|
|
In that case, it will cost the "government" much less to destroy a PoW chain. Also it might not even be possible to buy up 51% in a PoS chain if the coin is simply not for sale. But it's ALWAYS possible to get 51% in a PoW chain.
Too quick on the reply - the "resource needed to gain >50% is ASIC" and they are in short supply - so a government would have to set up manufacturing at least as good as the world's best (and keep it secret) to do so. Of course they could just try and "purchase" existing ASIC so that would depend upon the pools as to how easily they can be *bought out* (and whether people notice this going on). |
|
|
|
I feel this "nothing at stake" argument is being used without proof of its existence. Even though theoretically it's possible, but it also goes against human nature and logic. Why would you attack and destroy the reputation/value of the currency, that you hold an extremely large stake in? it makes no sense to attack yourself and destroy your own wealth.
From a "normal person's" point of view I'd agree - but from a "government's point of view" things change (as they can just print their own money as long as they wish). So if a government wants to "destroy" a PoS chain then they can just buy up (paying more and more as they print more and more) and they will succeed (the cost is always *zero* for them at least in terms of the "fiat"). In PoW even if a government wants to spend billions to kill of Bitcoin they just don't have the ASIC equipment to do so. |
|
|
|
You can make another thread for fair distribution discussion, it has no relevance to this discussion. Also I already told you, you CAN use PoW to distribute in a PoS system, so unless you are calling PoW distribution unfair, otherwise this discussion is over.
Okay - got it - you like the Peercoin approach that "starts with PoW' then turns into PoS (just wanted to be clear about that). |
|
|
|
Um no, for other coins, that makes no sense. Using PoW is not equal to snapshotting Bitcoin blockchain.
It seems we are arguing in circles now - so how do we get the "fair distribution" for your PoS without using the Bitcoin blockchain nor an IPO nor anything anonymous? |
|
|
|
What issue? Bitcoin has already been distributed. Also PoW is a valid distribution method for a PoS system. You CAN use PoW to distribute for all I care.
Okay - so you agree with the Peter R model then (distribute according to a snapshot of the Bitcoin blockchain)? |
|
|
|
But initial distribution is irrelevant to the topic at hand, I'm discussing fading out PoW for Bitcoin, it does not need initial distribution or re-distribution.
Wrong - if you are advocating PoS to replace PoW then *you can't omit the issue of initial distribution*. (unless you are agreeing to the Peter R initial distribution idea) |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's distribution is far worse than, say, Nxt's. It makes no sense to adopt it for a new coin.
This is very wrong as > 50% of NXT is owned by anonymous accounts all created at the time of the IPO (so most likely either one individual or a small group). And in PoS it is not *hash power* but ownership % that *controls*. You can't *overlook the importance of the initial distribution* if you are seriously going to suggest PoS and why would anyone who has bought, mined or earned BTC want to be "left out" because they didn't jump into some IPO (the reason why I think Peter R's idea is better than any other so far suggested). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
