|
There currently isn't a mechanism for that.
The closest you could do right now is to run a node with external connections on one box, and then have all of your local wallets connect to that one. Traffic would be minimized, but space would be unchanged.
You would get very close to the same effect by having all local nodes connect to each other, in addition to their normal external connections.
Or, do you mean like on one computer with multiple users? If so, you might be able to give each profile a link (I think NTFS calls them junctions) to a single common set of block database files. That would probably get messy with database locking if more than one client is running at a time.
Developers are already working on various light modes that would probably do what you want to do.
|
|
|
|
If you want to speed it up, I think the right place would be the services field in the version and addr messages. I can't tell from the wiki if that field is intended to be a bit field, or an integer. Hopefully a bit field. I don't think that's currently propagated indirectly though. I believe it would have to be in the address structure that nodes can request from each other. Also, you might want to make the default behavior to avoid having more than 25% of all connections be to hubs. Otherwise, the forums will fill up with posts about how that one pool hub is getting close to having 51% of all connections. For a hub, you would likely only want to make outbound connections to other hubs. There's no reason you'd want to actively seek a leaf. (Though I wouldn't 100% shut it off though, bit it would be rare.) Most leaves can't accept inbound connections anyway. Hubs would acquire lots of connections to leaves because the leaves would connect in to them. According to the wiki, the services field is included in addr messages. And it seems like exactly the sort of thing that the field was intended for. And I meant the hub limit to be for regular nodes, not hubs. For security, you want most of your connections to be to regular folks, even though you want at least a couple of well connected nodes for network efficiency. But it wouldn't have any ill effect on a hub if the same rule was followed there too. |
|
|
|
I made a set of patches to interconnect more aggressively, but it was pointed out that this consumes the network's limited number of available incoming connection slots. There's no good way to get other clients to connect to you more aggressively. I'd love to see a more 'hub and spoke' system where clients can identify themselves as hubs that desire high connectivity and fast responses and 'spokes' that desire low bandwidth demands.
To be a hub, you'd have to be able to accept incoming connections. Hubs would preferentially connect to other hubs when needed, and wait for spokes to connect to them. Spokes would connect primarily to a small number of hubs.
I think this would benefit everyone.
Would people be interested in nodes being able to set flags that are broadcast to other nodes and tracked along with their IP addresses? One flag could be "I am a hub".
This pretty much happens automatically with the current setup. But it happens slowly. If you set your maxconnections high, your box will eventually make a couple of long lived connections to other nodes that are acting more or less as hubs. If you want to speed it up, I think the right place would be the services field in the version and addr messages. I can't tell from the wiki if that field is intended to be a bit field, or an integer. Hopefully a bit field. Also, you might want to make the default behavior to avoid having more than 25% of all connections be to hubs. Otherwise, the forums will fill up with posts about how that one pool hub is getting close to having 51% of all connections. |
|
|
|
nice, have you considered making one in solid .999 silver?
I'm glad you ask this question. Yes I have considered it. Who all would be interested in a one troy ounce .999 high quality silver round? If so how much over the silver spot price would you be willing to pay for it? Also, the silver coin would not have the unique serial number on the back. ASEs are going for about $5 over spot in small quantities. You should be able to get away with a dollar or two more than that for novelty. |
|
|
|
As it appears that no one wants to help make these, I'm going to change the way I go about this.
What I am going to do is to take the project entirely into my hands.
However, I will host a talk on the new BitClip Freenode IRC channel: #bitclip weekly (or close to) about what is going on in the development of these devices.
The rest of this post will now consist of the formal announcement of the First BitClip IRC Congress.
First BitClip IRC Congress:
Topics of discussion:
- How to go about BitClips
- Official BitClip IRC congress protocol
- Formation of goals of BitClip
How to be in this Congress:
-Be on #bitclip on freenode at 5PM EST, Friday June 8th 2011
Pretty sure you mean July. |
|
|
|
|
XBC is taken. XBI and XBT seem open.
|
|
|
|
no, you don't get more "chances"... your daily income will approach the same value in the long run. yes, I do get more chances. in an hour I could be in search of x amount of blocks. if I was in an other pool that was half as fast I would be in maybe x/2 searches. my daily income has gone up; I get what you're saying, but the theory isn't proving itself in my case. think about everytime you start a block, you flip a coin. if its heads, your search time is low; and tail, its high. 10 flips every hour will probably get you more heads than 5 flips per hour. Except that there is no block, you aren't searching, and there isn't a coin toss. Each hash you perform has a 1 in 6*10^15 chance of being successful. The end. |
|
|
|
Exponential difficulty could kill this type of attack. And it would take a lot less coding effort than changing every node, pool, proxy and miner.
|
|
|
|
Be careful using /etc/rc.local you scripts might be executed before the WDM can start your cards  drgr33n, you're right, I have a before /home/user/mining.sh to give it time to start X (this is on an USB key with a sempron CPU). spiccioli. Odd. Why don't you just do it the right way? |
|
|
|
It is still a double spend, and it is even more obvious if you spend on the main chain first and then try to reverse it. Check your debug log. The node already flags chain reversions and double spends. Sites that wait for multiple confirmations can (should) be watching.
Yes, but the evil pool would not release the "bad" block chain until the first spend already had 6 confirmations, got sold, and sent to dwolla. Then the new block chain would roll it all back. In that case: Step 10: A few minutes later, the legitimate block chain becomes longer than my forked chain, which invalidates the 500 BTC I transferred to TradeHill/Bitcoin7/MtGox. The 500 BTC automatically "reappears" in my original wallet. The exchange is short on BTC and is screwed. An investigation later in the day reveal that Tycho's pool was compromised. Tycho's reputation is ruined. People switch to another pool, which gains 50% of the hashrate. The attacker repeats the same attack on this other pool  This step won't work for two reasons. First, if the exchange sees your chain as legitimate, you need to assume that every miner also sees it that way. They will be working on the next block to extend your chain, not the old reverted chain. Your 500 BTC spend to the exchange will not be overturned on those grounds. Second, if you manage to somehow time your chain transmission so that it forces a race and gives the other chain a chance to get back on top, if it does take back over, every node on the network will instantly put your 500 BTC spend in their transaction list. Your recovery attempt will be seen as a double spend. So, you've spent 2 hours to get an instant transfer into an exchange when you could have just waited an hour. |
|
|
|
Step 10: A few minutes later, the legitimate block chain becomes longer than my forked chain, which invalidates the 500 BTC I transferred to TradeHill/Bitcoin7/MtGox. The 500 BTC automatically "reappears" in my original wallet. The exchange is short on BTC and is screwed. An investigation later in the day reveal that Tycho's pool was compromised. Tycho's reputation is ruined. People switch to another pool, which gains 50% of the hashrate. The attacker repeats the same attack on this other pool This step won't work for two reasons. First, if the exchange sees your chain as legitimate, you need to assume that every miner also sees it that way. They will be working on the next block to extend your chain, not the old reverted chain. Your 500 BTC spend to the exchange will not be overturned on those grounds. Second, if you manage to somehow time your chain transmission so that it forces a race and gives the other chain a chance to get back on top, if it does take back over, every node on the network will instantly put your 500 BTC spend in their transaction list. Your recovery attempt will be seen as a double spend. So, you've spent 2 hours to get an instant transfer into an exchange when you could have just waited an hour. He has the order backwards, but it could still be done. You would spend on the "legit" original chain, and create a longer chain without that spend, then everyone works on that. It is two hours because that is how long it would take half the network to make six blocks, that is how long the attack would take, done correctly. It is still a double spend, and it is even more obvious if you spend on the main chain first and then try to reverse it. Check your debug log. The node already flags chain reversions and double spends. Sites that wait for multiple confirmations can (should) be watching. |
|
|
|
DamienBlack: I wrote this as a counter-example to your comment in another thread that a 50% attack would be statistically noticed in the global hashrate.
Yes you have a point. You are correct. A double spend attack could be done quickly. Quickly enough that no one would notice. But honestly, I don't think a double spent is that big a deal, and it can happen below 50%, there is no magic number there. Other people pointed out that at > 50% you can begin moving backward through the whole block chain with statistical confidence. That is true, and a more dire attack. But a pool wouldn't be able to pull that off because people would leave the poll in a day or two, and you wouldn't be able to get that far back in that time since you also have to keep up with the rest of the network while moving backward. You can never move backwards through the chain. The best you can do is pick a spot in the past and try to catch up. |
|
|
|
Step 10: A few minutes later, the legitimate block chain becomes longer than my forked chain, which invalidates the 500 BTC I transferred to TradeHill/Bitcoin7/MtGox. The 500 BTC automatically "reappears" in my original wallet. The exchange is short on BTC and is screwed. An investigation later in the day reveal that Tycho's pool was compromised. Tycho's reputation is ruined. People switch to another pool, which gains 50% of the hashrate. The attacker repeats the same attack on this other pool This step won't work for two reasons. First, if the exchange sees your chain as legitimate, you need to assume that every miner also sees it that way. They will be working on the next block to extend your chain, not the old reverted chain. Your 500 BTC spend to the exchange will not be overturned on those grounds. Second, if you manage to somehow time your chain transmission so that it forces a race and gives the other chain a chance to get back on top, if it does take back over, every node on the network will instantly put your 500 BTC spend in their transaction list. Your recovery attempt will be seen as a double spend. So, you've spent 2 hours to get an instant transfer into an exchange when you could have just waited an hour. |
|
|
|
Unless 2 consecutive blocks are created more than 70 years apart, it is possible to figure out if a wrap has occurred by comparing the block before and after the wrap.
Clarified that for ya. |
|
|
|
|
There is really no point, at least not now or in the near future. Network traffic is very low. Even a pathological organization would be good enough.
|
|
|
|
People inherently dislike change. It would take a rather monumental benefit for a mass of people to adopt something new. It's not going to be merchant fees.
Could it be a decentralized, deflationary currency that can move globally quickly and efficiently? I can see that as the potential propellant. If I didn't see some potential in Bitcoin, I wouldn't be here. My point is even though BTC is in its infancy, there are some big flaws that need to be addressed. You cannot have a medium of exchange without confidence. You cannot have confidence without transparency and stability. BTC may have transparency but it most certainly does not have stability.
Do you have a proposal? The markets will naturally stabilize as they grow and mature. I don't really see any way to force it. |
|
|
|
Magellan Capital Advisors is registered to the exact same physical location as the lawyer's office that filed the application. Lawyer's web page is here. So not a real banking outfit, just some scumbag lawyer. The exchanges (especially BX and Tradehill) should be all over this douche, since he will no doubt target them first...Gox is in Japan, so it may be a bit harder for him to fuck with. This guy is a lawyer, so he can file all the paperwork he wants, it only costs him his personal time and toner. Mass C&D form letters will probably go out if they let him have the trademark. This is very normal. Until a corporation is large enough to require a dedicated legal department with several full time lawyers, the state filings almost always list an attorney's address. Basically, a legal entity is required to have a registered agent that accepts legal documents. Despite all of the paranoia in this thread, this filing is pretty much meaningless and will go nowhere. And even if it did, it would have almost no impact on anyone. |
|
|
|
yea compare the company name with bitcoin.com ... but you guys are SO not thinking big.... it's not the domain name!! That trademark is gonna spread to every single printed article, blog story, business that accepts bitcoins... ect ect...
It can potentially shut down the whole operation by large... yea it doesn't apply outside of the US... but that's a freaking huge market...
this has to stop now.
What world do you live in where trademark holders have that kind of power? |
|
|
|
People confuse the patent process with trademarks.
Anybody got a dumber than dumb idea to fix that much? Globally? Besides distribution by language.
I am not 100% sure how the trademarking process works in the US, but in the Netherlands you would *never* get a trademark on a widely used and acknowledged term or name. That's how it is supposed to work in the US as well... but apparently, the trademark office failed to do some due diligence on research. A simple google search for "bitcoin" would have assured them that the term has been in wide use for some time now. Heck, all anyone needs to point to for proof is the many news articles that have been written over the past several months. I'm pretty sure the trademark office operates on the "Announce, Listen, Revoke" model. Doing the research up front is horribly wasteful. Consider the history of the Linux trademark. |
|
|
|
1 ascetics design guy []
This word. It does not mean what you think it means. At least I hope it doesn't. Also, check out RockBox. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
